kind, though vastly different in degree, with what we call human policy. But indeed, he seems reconciled to the thing: it is the name only which he dislikes. If his followers say otherwise, I desire they would explain, in some intelligible manner, their idea of that wisdom, in GoD's civil government of a people, which is not founded in the exercise of almighty power, and is yet different in kind from what we call Policy. 2. His second argument is, "That, as GOD erected a new Republic, it was his will that it should appear new to the Israelites. Its structure was not to be patched up out of the rubbish of the Canaanitish or Egyptian Rites, but was formed according to the model brought down from heaven, and shewn to Moses in the Mount. Nor was it left to the people to do the least thing in religious matters, on their own head. All was determinately ordered, even to the most minute circumstance; which was so bound upon them, that they could not do, or omit, any the least thing contrary to the Law, without becoming liable to immediate punishment."*-If, by this NEWNESS of the Jewish Republic, be meant, that it was different in many fundamental circumstances from all other civil policies, so as to vindicate itself to its divine Author; I not only agree with him, but, which is more than he and his recommender could do, have proved it. But this sense makes nothing to the point in question. If by NEWNESS be meant, that it had nothing in common with any of the neighbouring Institutions; To make this credible, he should have proved that God gave them new hearts, new natures, and a new world, along with their new Government. There is the same ambiguity in what he says of the appearance of newness to the Israelites. For it may signify either that the Institution appeared so new as to be seen to come from GOD; or that it appeared so new as not to resemble, in any of its parts, the Institutions of men. The first is true, but not to the purpose the latter is to the purpose, but not true. From the fact, of the Law's coming down entire from heaven, he concludes that the genius and prejudices of the Israelites were not at all consulted: From the same fact, I conclude, that they were consulted: which of us has concluded right is left to the judgment of the public. Let me only observe, That ignorant men may compose, and have composed Laws in all things opposite to the bent and genius of a people; and they have been obeyed accordingly. But, when divine wisdom frames • "Uti revera novam moliebatur rempublicam, ita et novam, qualis erat, videri eam Israëlitis voluit. Quippe cujus forma sive species, non ex rituum ruderibus Canaaniticorum aut Ægyptiacorum efficta, sed cœlitus delapsa, Mosi primum in sacro monstrata monte erat, ut ad illud instar cuncta in Israële componerentur. Neque permissum esse populo voluit, ut in religionis negotio vel tantillum suo ageret arbitratu. Omnia determinavit ipse, ad minutissimas usque circumstantias; quibus ita eos alligavit, ut non sine præsentaneo vitæ discrimine quicquam vel omittere, vel aliter agere potuerint.”— Pp. 282, 283. an Institution, we may be sure that no such solecism as that of putting new wine into old bottles will ever be committed.-But the people were not consulted even in the least thing that concerned religious matters. How is this to be reconciled with their free choice of GOD for their King; and with his indulgence of their impious clamours afterwards for a Vicegerent or another king? This surely concerned religious matters, and very capitally too, in a Policy where both the Societies were perfectly incorporated.-But every thing was determined even to the most minute circumstances, and to be observed under the severest penalties. What this makes for his point, I see not. But this I see, that, if indeed there were that indulgence in the Law which I contend for, these two circumstances of minute prescription, and severe penalties, must needs attend 'it and for this plain reason; Men, when indulged in their prejudices, are very apt to transgress the bounds of that indulgence; it is therefore necessary that those bounds should be minutely marked out, and the transgression of them severely punished. : 3. His third argument is-"That no religious Rites, formerly used by the Israelites, on their own head, were, after the giving of the law, PERMITTED, out of regard to habitude; but all things PRESCRIBED and COMMANDED: and this so precisely, that it was unlawful to deviate a finger's breadth either to the right hand or to the left."* -This indeed is an observation which I cannot reconcile to the learned writer's usual candour and ingenuity. He is writing against Spencer's system: and here he brings an argument against it, which he saw in Spencer's book had been brought against Grotius (who was in that system), and which Spencer answers in defence of Grotius. Therefore, as this answer will serve in defence of Spencer himself against Witsius, I shall give it at the bottom of the page. For the rest, I apprehend all the force of this third argument to lie only in "Nec ulli in religione ritus fuerunt, ab Israëlitis olim sine numine usurpati, quibus propter assuetudinem ut in posterum quoque uterentur lege lata permisit: sed præscripta jussaque sunt omnia. Et quidem ita distincte, ut nec transversum digitum +"Testium dextrorsum aut sinistrorsum declinare fas fuerit. Deut. v."-P. 283. meorum agmen claudit Grotius-Authoris verba sunt hæc: Sicut fines sacrificiorum diversi sunt,―ita et ritus, qui aut ab Hebræis ad alias gentes venere, aut, quod credibilius est, a Syris et Ægyptiis usurpati, correcti sunt ab Hebræis, et ab aliis gentibus sine ea emendatione usurpati. Hic in Grotium paulo animosius insurgit auctor nuperus: nam hoc, ait ille, cum impietate et absurditate conjunctum est. Quid ita? Num enim, respondet ille, Deum sanctissima sua instituta, quæ ipse prolixe sancivit, et conscribi in religiosam observationem, per inspirationem numinis sui, voluit, credemus ab idololatria Syrorum et Ægyptiorum mutuo sumpsisse? Neque ea pro libitu Ebræi assumpserunt, aut assumpta emendarunt, sed omnia et singula divinitus in lege præscripta sunt, et juxta ejus normam exactissime observari debuerunt. At opinio Grotii multo solidior est, quam ut mucrone tam obtuso confodi possit. Non enim asserit ille, vel sanus quispiam, Hebræos ritum ullum a gentibus, pro libitu suo, sumpsisse, vel sumptum pro ingenio suo correxisse. Id unum sub locutione figurata, contendit Grotius, Deum nempe ritus aliquos, usu veteri confirmatos (emendatos tamen, et ignem quasi purgatorium passos) a gentibus accepisse, et Hebræis usurpandos tradidisse; ne populus ille, rituum ethnicorum amore præceps, ad cultum et superstitionem Gentilium rueret, ni more plurimum veteri cultum præstare concederetur.”— De Legibus Heb. rit. vol. ii. pp. 748, 749. a quibble on the equivocal use of the word PERMISSION, which signifies either a tacit connivance, or legal allowance. Now Spencer used the word in this latter sense. * But permission, in this sense, is very consistent with every thing's being expressly prescribed and commanded in the law. 4. His fourth argument proceeds thus,-" But farther, God neither permitted, nor commanded, that the Israelites should worship him after the Pagan mode of worship. For it had been the same thing to God not to be worshipped at all, as to be worshipped by Rites used in the service of Demons. And Moses teaches us that the Laws of God were very different from what Spencer imagined; as appears from Deut. xii. 30, 31, 32. and from Lev. xviii. 2, 3, 4. Here the reason given of forbidding the vanities of Egypt, is, that Jehovah, who brought them out from amongst that people, will, from henceforth, allow no farther communication with Egypt. Small appearance of any indulgence. And hence indeed it is, that most of the ritual Laws are directly levelled against the Egyptian, Zabian, and Canaanitish superstitions, as Maimonides confesseth."+-As to what this learned man says, that we may as well not worship GoD at all as worship him by Rites which have been employed in Paganism, we have already overturned the foundation of that fanatical assertion. It is true, the argument labours a little in the hands of SPENCER and MAIMONIDES; while they suppose the Devil himself to be the principal Architect of Pagan Superstition: for to believe that GOD would employ any Rites introduced by this evil Spirit is of somewhat hard digestion. But that writer, who conceives them to be the inventions of superstitious and designing men only, hath none of this difficulty to encounter. As for the observation, that most of the ritual Laws were levelled against idolatrous superstition, we are so far from seeing any inconsistency between this truth and that other, "that some of those ritual Laws did indulge the people in such habituated practices, as could not be abused to superstition," that, on the contrary, we see a necessary connexion between them. For if severe Laws were given to a people against superstitions, to which they "Porro nec permisit, nec jussit • See note ZZZZ, at the end of this book. Deus, ut eo se modo Israëlitæ colerent, quo modo Deos suos colebant Gentiles; veritus scilicet ne per veteres istas vanitates Dæmoni cultum deferrent, si minus Deo licuisset. Nam et inanis ille metus erat: quum Deo propemodum perinde sit, sive quis Dæmoni cultum deferat, sive per vanitates aliquas veteres Deo cultum deferre præsumat. Et longe aliter Deum instituisse Moses docet, Deut. xiii. 30, 31, 32: adde Levit. xviii. 2, 3, 4. Audin', Spencere, qua ratione ab Ægyptiacis vanitatibus ad suorum observantiam præceptorum Israëlitas Deus avocet? Eo id facit nomine, quod ipse Jehova et Deus ipsorum sit, qui ex Ægypto eos eripiens nihil posthac cum Ægyptiorum vanitatibus commune habere voluit. Hoc profecto non est, id quod tu 'dicis, allicere eos per umbratiles veterum Ægypti rituum reliquias. Atque hinc factum est ut plurima Deus legibus suis ritualibus inseruerit, Ægyptiorum, Zabiorum, Canaanæorum institutis ék wapaλλhλov opposita-Cujus rei varia a nobis exempla alibi allata sunt.”—Pp. 283, 284. were violently bent, it would be very proper to indulge them in some of their favourite habits, so far forth as safely they could be indulged, in order to break the violence of the rest, and to give the body of opposed Laws a fuller liberty of working their effect. And if they had Laws likewise given them in indulgence, it would be necessary to accompany such Laws with the most severe prohibitions of idolatrous practice, and of the least deviation from a tittle of the Institute. In a word, Laws in direct opposition, and Laws in conformity or compliance, had equally, as we say, the same tendency, and jointly concurred to promote the same end; namely, the preservation of the Israelites from idolatry.* 5. His fifth argument runs thus." Indulgence was so far from being the end of the Law, that the Ritual was given as a most heavy yoke, to subdue and conquer the ferocity of that stiff-necked people, Gal. iv. 1, 2, 3. Col. ii. 21."+-By this one would imagine, his adversaries had contended for such a kind of indulgence as arose out of GOD's fondness for a chosen People; when indeed, they suppose it to be only such an indulgence as tended the more effectually and expeditiously to subdue and conquer the ferocity of their savage tempers: Quos optimus Fallere et effugere est triumphus. If, therefore, that were the END of the Law which Witsius himself contends for, we may be assured that this indulgence was one of the MEANS. But the principal and more general means being Laws in direct opposition, this justified the character the Apostle gives of the Jewish Ritual, in the two places urged against us. 6. His sixth argument is," That the intent of the Law was to separate the Israelites, by a partition-wall, as it were, from all other people; which, by its diversity, might set them at a distance from idolaters, and create an aversion to idolatry." -As to the first effect of the diversity of the Jewish Law, the keeping the people distinct; if the learned writer would thereby insinuate (which is indeed to his point) that this distinction could be kept up only while the Jews and other nations had no similar Rites; it could never, even by the means he himself prescribes, be long kept up at all. For if the Jews were not indulged in the imitation of any Pagan Rites, the Pagans might indulge themselves in the imitation of the Jewish as indeed they are supposed to have done in the practice of CIRCUMCISION: and so this : See note AAAAA, at the end of this book. Id sibi primum in rituum jussione propositum habuit Deus, ut laboriosis istis exercitiis ferociam populi indomitam, veluti difficillimo jugo, subigeret, Gal. iv. 1, 2, 3; Col. ii. 21."-P. 286. "Deinde hæc quoque Dei in rituum jussione intentio fuit, ut eorum observantia, veluti pariete intergerino, eos à gentium communione longe semoveret, Eph. ii. 14, 15. -Quum autem legem præceptorum in ritibus inimicitias Apostolus vocat, hoc inter cætera innuit, fuisse eam symbolum atque instrumentum divisionis atque odii inter Israëlem et gentes."- Pp. 287, 288. partition-wall, if only built of this untempered mortar of Witsius's providing, would soon tumble of itself. But the very case here given shews no necessity for ALL the laws to be in opposition, in order to secure a separation; the Jews being as effectually separated from all their neighbours when most of them used the rite of circumcision, as when these Jews practised it without a rival. And the reason is this, CIRCUMCISION was not given to Abraham and to his race as a mark of distinction and separation from all other people, but, what its constant use made it only fit for, a standing memorial of the covenant between GOD and Abraham. And ye shall circumcise (says God) the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a TOKEN OF THE COVENANT between me and you, Gen. xvii. 11. But though it was not given as a mark of separation, yet it effectually answered that purpose: for it preserved the memory, or was the token, of a covenant, which necessarily kept them separate and distinct from the rest of mankind. As to the other effect of this diversity of the Jewish Law, namely the creating an aversion to the Rites of all other nations; in this, the learned writer hath betrayed his ignorance of human nature. For we always find a more inveterate hatred and aversion, between people of different Religions where several things are alike, than where every thing is diametrically opposite of which a plain cause might be found in the nature of man, whose heart is so much corrupted by his passions. So that the retaining some innocent Egyptian practices, all accompanied with their provisional opposites, would naturally make the Jews more averse to Egypt, than if they had differed in every individual circumstance. 7. His last argument concludes thus," The ceremonies of the Jewish Ritual were types and shadows of heavenly things: It is therefore highly improbable that GOD should chuse the impious and diabolic Sacra of Egypt, and the mummery of Magic practices, for the shadows of such holy and spiritual matters." * Thus he ends, as he began, with hard words and soft arguments. No one ever pretended to say that such kinds of practices were suffered or imitated in the Jewish Ritual. All the indulgence supposed, is of some harmless Rite or innocent Ornament, such as the lighting up of Lamps, or wearing a Linen garment. And let me ask, whether these things, though done, as we suppose, in conformity to an Egyptian practice, were more unfit to be made a type or shadow of heavenly things, than the erection of an altar without steps; done, as they will allow, in direct opposition to Pagan practice. But it will be shewn under the • "Denique et hic cærimoniarum scopus fuit, ut rerum spiritualium figuræ atque umbræ essent, et exstaret in iis artificiosa pictura Christi, ac gratiæ per ipsum impetrandæ- Non est autem probabile, Deum ex impiis Ægyptiorum ac diabolicis sacris, ex veteribus vanitatibus, ex magicæ artis imitamentis, picturas fecisse rerum spiritualium atque cœlestium."-P. 289. |