With refpect to the second objection, the author obferves, that the reasoning contained in it plainly fuppofes the reality and truth both of the Jewish and the Chriftian difpenfations. How therefore does it fuit the Deift, against whom the argument of the Divine Legation of Mofes is addreffed? To say that Mofes was appointed minister of the temporal covenant, is plainly affigning him a commiffion from God. We afk the Deifts, how they will account for the abfence and omiffion of a future ftate in the Jewish inftitutes, upon the fuppofition that Mofes was, as they represent him, a mere human leader? The prefent objection informs us, that this queftion may be answered upon the supposition that he really had a divine milion. But is not this in effect owning, that we cannot account for the conduct of Mofes, unless we fuppofe his divine legation? and is not this the very thing for which Dr. W. contends

To the third objection the author replies, that Mofes muft propofe to reft his religious fyftem on the authority of fome fanction or other. The firongeft, as well as readieft, would be that which was raised on fome doctrine already authorized by the popular belief. As therefore he found the people poffeffed of the doctrine of a future ftate, it was natural for him to make it the fanction of his religion; the deeper it was imprinted and infixed in the minds of the people, the more proper would it be for his purpose, and the better calculated to ferve for the fanction of his religious fyftem.

It is the conftant cuftom of impoftors to take advantage of the popular belief, and to establish themselves on the prejudices and previous opinions of the people. The firm and general belief therefore of this doctrine is fo far from being a reason why Mofes fhould not have made it the fanction of his religion, that it seems to be a plain and unanswerable reason why he Should.

The late Dr. Middleton propofed the following objection. Your scheme, fays he to the author, as I take it, is to fhew, that fo able a man as Mofes could not poflibly have omitted the doctrine of a future ftate, thought fo neceffary to government by all other legiflators, had he not done it by the exprefs direction of the Deity; and that under the miraculous difpenfations of the theocracy, he could neither want it himself for the enforcing a refpect to his laws, nor yet the people for the encouragement of their obedience. But what was the confequence? Why, the people were perpetually apoftatizing either to the fuperftitions of Egypt or the idolatries of Canaan; and, tired with the load of their ceremonies, wholly dropped them at last, and funk into all kinds of vice and profanenefs; till the prophets, in order to revive and preferve a fense of religion VOL. XXI. February, 1766.

H

amongst

amongst them, began to preach up the rational duties of morality, and infinuate the doctrine of a future ftate.

In this cafe, fome may be apt to fay, that Mofes had overlooked what could not be omitted without ruin to religion.

Our author allows the objection to be learned and acute, but thinks he has obviated this conclufion, by the inforcement of many inftances, which fhew Mofes's great kill in legislation, and make it very improbable that fo great a master in his art fhould blunder fo ftrangely in the very first principle of it; a principle that chiefly diftinguished the fchool from which he came. Upon the whole, he fays, this objection feems to be founded in that paralogifm of non caufa, pro caufâ.

Such has been the fate of the moft promifing objection that has been hitherto alleged againft the argument of the Divine Legation. It would not, after this, be worth while to enquire what fome inferior writers have faid on this fübject. We will, however, take the liberty to offer a thought, which this moment occurs, without being folicitous about its importance, as we do not undertake to anfwer, but to give an account of this performance.

We will fuppofe then the Deift to argue in the following

manner:

The peculiar circumftances and difpofition of the Ifraelites, when Mofes promulged his law, will afford a fufficient reafon for his omiffion of the doctrine of a future ftate. The people were just rescued from a fevere bondage, and the most imminent danger of a total extirpation; they were flattered with the hopes of revifiting the country from which their forefathers defcended, of fubduing all their oppofers, and establishing themfelves in a land of freedom and plenty. Mofes, at this crisis, enacts his laws, and adapts every particular to the genius, the fituation, and the views of his people. Whatever principles and notions he might have imbibed, in his youth, in the schools and colleges of Egypt, yet the body of the people, as Dr. W. and his advocates acknowledge, had no idea of a future state. We never find them acting on any motives of that kind; nor indeed expreffing the leaft hopes, or fears, or even common curiofity, concerning their future deftination. "They were a race of grofs, carnal, and worldly-minded men, tied down to earthly expectations, and to fenfible objects; and no ways difposed to raise their thoughts, and turn their meditations to the things of another life." Is it then to be fuppofed, that a profpect beyond the grave would have operated on fuch a people fo effectually as the hopes of an establishment in a land flowing with milk and honey? Would fanctions, of which they had no idea, have controuled their rebellious inclinations ? or would the hopes

of

of a future retribution have prevented their murmuring in the wilderness or, indeed, what views of immortality, of heaven, and hell, was Mofes by all the wisdom of Egypt enabled to exhi bit? None furely that would have added to his influence at that time, or his reputation in future ages! He therefore endeavoured to regulate the civil and religious polity of his people by motives more fuitable to their humours and capacities, and, in this case, more efficacious than all the fanctions of a future ftate, which Egyptian philofophers might have taught him to believe; that is, he endeavoured to enforce obedience to his laws, by animat→ ing the people with the hopes of a lasting poffeffion in the land of Canaan; by judiciary penalties; and, above all, by a fanction which includes every thing that could operate on their minds, the pleasure or displeasure of the God of their fathers, who was supposed to have brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the boufe of bondage. If then the author of the Divine Legation should say, that the conduct of Mofes was different from that of any other ancient legiflator, the Deift may reply, that the circumftances and difpofitions of the Ifraelites were equally different from thofe of any other people in the world; and confequently required a different scheme of policy; which Mofes very judiciously purfued, upon the common principles of human wisdom.

If this reafoning is of any weight, the omiffion of the doctrine of a future ftate, in the Jewish law, is by no means an invincible medium for the proof of the Divine Legation of Moses.'

It is an argument, which is certainly exposed to many objec→ tions, notwithstanding the learned author has endeavoured to guard and support it by a great collection of materials, fought out from every quarter of antiquity.'

The reader however will find many valuable obfervations and learned difquifitions in the course of this work. He will be delighted with it, as he would with the view of a landskip adorned with many beautiful profpects and magnificent ftructures, which he is ready to prefer to the ordinary scenes his own village affords, till he finds that these specious profpects are illufive, the structures unsubstantial, and the country itself the land of chivalry and romance.

III. The Sermons of Mr. Yorick. Vol. IV. 8vo. Pr. 2s. 6d. Becket.

R. Yorick, as we have feen in our laft Review, is no drowzy preacher, no gloomy religionist. He treats every topic with a peculiar air of good-humour; and endeavours not only to improve, but to entertain his readers.

In the feventh difcourfe, which is the firft in this volume, he confiders the history of the patriarch Jacob, and from thence deduces the following obfervations:

To begin with the bad bias which gave the whole turn to the patriarch's life,-parental partiality,—or parental injuftice, it matters not by what title it stands distinguished; 'tis that, by which Rebekah planted a dagger in Efau's breaft; and an eternal terror with it, in her own, left she should live to be deprived of them both in one day-and trust me, dear Chriftians, wherever that equal balance of kindness and love, which children look up to you for as their natural right, is no longer maintained-there will daggers ever be planted; the fon fhall literally be fet at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in law; and "a man's foes fhall be they of his own boufbold.

'We are unavoidably led here into a reflection upon Jacob's conduct, in regard to his son Joseph, which no way corresponded with the leffon of wisdom, which the miseries of his own family might have taught him: furely his eyes had feen forrows fufficient on that fcore, to have taken warning: and yet we find, that he fell into the fame fnare of partiality to that child in his old-age, which his mother Rebekah had fhewn to him, in her's -for Ifrael loved Joseph more than all his children; because he was the fon of his old-age, and he made him a coat of many colours.—O Ifrael! where was that prophetic spirit which darted itself into future times, and told each tribe what was to be its fate? where was it fled, that it could not aid thee to look fo little a way forwards, as to behold this coat of many colours stained with blood? Why were the tender emotions of a parent's anguish hid from thine eyes?—and, why is every thing?-but that it pleases heaven to give us no more light in our way, than will leave virtue in poffeflion of its recompence.

'Let us proceed to the fecond great occurrence in the patriarch's life. The impofition of a wife upon him, which he neither bargained for or loved.And it came to pafs in the morning, behold it was Leah! And he said unto Laban, What is this that thou haft done unto me? Did I not ferve thee for Rachael? Where·fore then haft thou beguiled me?

This indeed is out of the fyftem of all conjugal impofitions now,- -but the moral of it is ftill good; and the abuse with the fame complaint of Jacob's upon it, will ever be repeated, fo long as art and artifice are fo bufy as they are in these affairs.

Liften, I pray you, to the ftories of the difappointed in marriage collect all their complaints:hear their mutual reproaches; upon what fatal hinge do the greatest part of

them

-Some

thein turn?" They were mistaken in the perfon."difguife either of body or mind is feen through in the first do meftic fcuffle; -fome fair ornament-perhaps the very one which won the heart,-the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, falls off; It is not the Rachael for whom I have ferved,—Why.

baft thou then beguiled me?

Be open-be honeft: give yourself for what you are; conceal nothing-varnish nothing,-and if these fair weapons will not do,-better not conquer at all, than conquer for a day when the night is paffed, 'twill ever be the fame ftory, it came to pass, bebold it was Leah!

-And

If the heart beguiles itfelf in its choice, and imagination will give excellencies which are not the portion of flesh and blood:-when the dream is over, and we awake in the morning, it matters little whether 'tis Rachael or Leah,-be the object what it will, as it must be on the earthly fide, at leaft, of perfection,-it will fall fhort of the work of fancy, whofe exiftence is in the clouds.

In fuch cases of deception, let not man exclaim as Jacob does in his,-What is it thou haft done unto me?—for 'tis his own doings, and he has nothing to lay his fault on, but the heat and poetic indifcretion of his own paflions.

I know not whether 'tis of any use, to take notice of this fingularity in the patriarch's life, in regard to the wrong he re*ceived from Laban, which was the very wrong he had done be fore to his father Ifaac, when the infirmities of old-age had disabled him from diftinguishing one child from another: Art thou my very fon Efau? And he faid, I am. "Tis doubtful whether Leah's veracity was put to the fame teft,- -but both fuffered from a fimilitude of ftratagem; and 'tis hard to fay, whether the anguish, from crofs'd love, in the breast of one brother, might not be as fore a punishment, as the difquietudes of cross'd ambition and revenge in the breait of the other.'

The eighth is a charity-fermon, preached at St. Andrew's, Holborn, on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The text is the expoftulation of Abraham with the Rich Man, on the inutility of fending a meffenger from the dead, in order to reform his brethren.

What, fays the author, could fuch a meffenger propose or urge, which had not been propofed and urged already? The ' novelty or furprize of fuch a vifit might awaken the attention of a curious unthinking people, who spent their time in nothing else, but to hear and tell fome new thing; but ere the wonder was well over, fome new wonder would start up in its room, and then the man might return to the dead from whence he came, and not a foul make one enquiry about him.'