dark about these important points, as if nothing had been revealed; and yet it should seem, at first fight, as if revelation was given to fet us right in each of them. That Mofes, the legiflator of the Hebrews, and a prophet of God, fhould introduce his laws with a false account of the creation and formation of things; and that the God of truth fhould allow, much less inspire, his fervant to hand down to pofterity a formal untruth, is repugnant to common fenfe, and founds harsh to a Christian ear: yet what lefs does every one say in his heart, who denies the Mofaic philofophy to be true!

If Mofes accommodated his account of natural things ad captum vulgi, and if the Jews were fo carnal a people as fuppofed, might he not do the fame with regard to fpirituals? So that this fuppofition, of writing ad captum vulgi, in quitting him of one objection, lays him open to another, viz. That if he conformed or adapted his account to their conception of nature, he might do the like in refpect to God. And if so, it is to no purpose to look for either

found

found philofophy or divinity in his writings. But I fhall be told, That God, by his revelation, did not intend to inftruct men in philofophy, but in faith and obedience. To which I anfwer, in the first place, That this is gratis dictum. 2dly, That if this had really been the cafe, revelation would have been confined to these points folely, or at leaft chiefly, and not have so largely and frequently intermixed philofophy with them; fo that if all the places of the scripture which treat of, or relate to philosophical fubjects, were collected together, they would make one half or near two thirds of the Bible. Befides, when God was rectifying the errors of their conceits with regard to his nature and worship, and giving them a compleat ritual to preserve them in the true faith and worship, would he let them remain in all their errors and falfe opi-nions with regard to Nature and her operations? nay, ftamp them with his authority, by treating of them in the same idle manner men were at that time wont to conceive of them? This is to make the Holy Ghoft lye unto man. And if the inspired writers

B 2

writers of the books of the Old Teftament understood the real nature of things, and their true causes, as it is exprefsly afferted of Solomon; then, by this fuppofition, did the Holy Ghoft over-rule these penmen to suppress their own real knowledge of nature, and to transmit down to pofterity under their hands what they knew to be false. To fuch ftrange abfurdities does this opinion drive its fautors. Nay, fome have fuppofed the fame of the divinity of Mofes as of his philofophy; and tell us, that God condescended to the level of the capacities of the carnal Jews in the Mofaic ritual, and having picked up all the abfurdities of worship to which they had been used in their converfation with the idolatrous nations, omitting only the doctrine of a future state, collected them into a body of laws, and made his holy and tremendous name, I am Jehovah. your Aleim, their fanction. So that what I observed just above, must be the direct confequence of what Maimonides among the Jewish writers, and Dr Spencer, and others, the Chriftian, have laid down, namely, That neither true philofophy nor true di

among

vinity is to be found in, or doth make a part of the Mofaic difpenfation. If the knowledge of philofophy or nature be attainable by human reafon and application, there was no need of a revelation; yet a revelation is given. Why muft it be ad captum vulgi? A revelation being made, and that from God, implies it to be, in the nature of things, both neceffary, full, perfect, and true. Otherwife why was it made? that after ages fhould find it to be falfe? This cannot be fuppofed, without highly derogating from the wisdom and goodness of the Supreme Being; and yet it is fuppofed by all our learned men. They fay, That philofophy not being neceffary to falvation, and being what man could by his natural abilities difcover, the infpired writers did not meddle with it; and what we meet with in the fcriptures, being only incidentally fpoken, they conformed to the received opinions of the perfons they wrote to; and that as to the Deity, the New Testament has fully opened his nature, effence, and perfonality, which were either wholly unknown, or but faintly revealed to the Jews. WHETHER

WHETHER philofophy is neceffary to fal vation, I shall not now enquire: but when we know what philosophy is, it may, in its proper place, be fhewn to be more neceffary to theology than is generally thought; and that human reason, with all its boasted discoveries, has not yet been able to find out the true system of the world. Indeed, when matters are fairly stated, and rightly understood, it will appear, that the Jews were not fo ignorant either of God or Nature as our learned men would perfuade us, and have conftantly afferted, without any foundation, fave their own want of knowing the fcriptures and the power of God. Judaism and Christianity are but different names for one and the fame belief; and it was not to the Jews, but to the Gentiles, that the gospel brought life and immortality to light.

THAT philofophy is incidental only, is an affertion falfe in fact. The books of Mofes begin with an account of the creation, and the steps the Divine Being took in eftablishing this mundane fyftem.

There