the following confideration might well have fome influence in the establishment of a temporal Difpenfation for the Ifraelites. No queftion can be made, but that one principal immediate defign of the difpenfation under which the Jews were placed, was; that it might be a ftanding evidence of the error and falfehood of those Systems of Idolatry, into which all the nations of the earth were at that time funk. And in all thofe Idolatrous Religions, the fictitious Gods they worshiped were believed to be the difpenfers of all National evils and bleffings; as well as in fpecial cafes, even of those which happened to particular perfons. To keep the Ifraelites therefore from running into any of thefe National Systems of idolatry, in which their falle Gods were fuppofed the immediate difpenfers. of all prefent punishments and rewards; as well as to be a direct proof to the idolatrous Nations themselves, of the folly and falfehood of their Syftems of Religion; it might be exremely useful, perhaps neceffary, to oppofe the Pagan Systems, by a Difpenfation to the Ifraelites; in which, at the Fame time that God clearly declared himself the One Only True God, the Creator and Sole Moral Governour of the whole World; He likewife engaged to be a National and peculiar God to Them in the fame light in which the Nations confidered their fictitious Gods; and declared, that he would difpenfe to them immediate National, as well as particular, bleffings and evils, to reward their obedience or difobedience to his laws; as the Heathens vainly fuppofed their falfe gods to do by them. It might furely be worthy of God, thus to fhew, by a conftant series of prefent facts, his unfpeakable fuperiority over all the fictitious objects of the Heathen worship. Perhaps no other than fuch a Temporal and National Difpenfation; which at the fame time instructed them, in the fulleft man 5 ner, ner, in the real Nature of the One True God; and was likewife exactly oppofed to the Systems of Idolatry then every where embraced; would have been received, or in any degree adhered to by the Ifraelites themselves; or have been capable of producing any effects upon the idolatrous Nations round them. A Syftem, in which, as in the Christian, a Future State was pofitively and clearly revealed; and the rewards and punishments attending obedience and difobedience to its commands referred, in a manner, wholly to That State; might perhaps, through the remotenefs of its fanctions, have been unable at that time to work fufficiently upon the hopes and fears of the Ifraelites; habituated by their long refidence in Egypt, to the notion of National Gods, and immediate punishments and rewards; to induce them to receive, or at least adhere to it. On this Account perhaps; among others, which the Chriftian world longs earneftly to fee more fully explained by the very learned Bishop Warburton; and perhaps for many reafons befides, which we in our prefent state at least shall never know; a Temporal Difpenfation, fuch as that of Mofes, might be the most useful and proper, till the improvement of Moral Philofophy among the Gentiles, and the oppofitions of Sects among the Jews, had contributed to wean mankind from their temporal Systems, and made them capable of attending to a more perfect Dispensation, founded on future punishments and rewards. Upon the whole, fo far is it from being true, "That the Law of Mofes does not appear calcu"lated to give mankind just notions of God, and "of his Attributes; or to encourage pure and "rational worship ;-Or, that the notions in"culcated in the Law of Mofes, either with re '; r P. 396. " spect spect to the Nature of God, or the duties of "Morality, were wrong in themselves, and fuch "as led the Jews into the moft egregious error "and folly," which the Author with his usual ease has not hesitated to pronounce; that it is evident upon examining all the precepts of the Mofaic Law, that the effential notions of God there exprefsly inculcated, and repeatedly infifted on, are fo extremely worthy of the All-perfect Being; and its Moral Doctrines fo excellent and pure; that had the Jews adhered to its Moral Commands, as they did in general to its Ceremonial injunctions, they would have been a race of men almost as much diftinguished from every Heathen Nation by the Purity of their Moral Conduct, as by their fingular worship of the One True God.. z P. 346. "That the wrong The Author not only fays (p. 346) "notions of God, which the Old Tefiament fhews were incul"cated into the Jews by Mofes, led them into egregious "error and folly," but that "this was improved upon, till men funk into fuch ignorance, that they worshipped God "under any form, which the maddeft enthusiasm could de"vife."-As if, forfooth, there had been no idolatry till after Mofes; and that, in fact, He and the Jezus were the real Authors of all the idolatry in the world. Yet (p. 402) he agrees, that the world was funk into grofs idolatry before the time of Mofes." And in other places he accufes Priests of being the Authors of all idolatry. Let him prove by Authorities earlier than Moses, that Priests introduced the idolatry which fubfifted before his time. SECT. SECT. XV. The Author's further Objections against the Old Teftament, and particularly his Mifreprefentations of the Setting up of the Golden-Calf, confidered. A FTER the view we have just taken of the real Nature and Tendency of the Jewish Dispenfation, we fhall the more readily discern the falfehood of several afperfions, which the Author has endeavoured to fix upon various particulars of the Old Testament. He attempts to vilify the representations of God contained in the Old Teftament, by oppofing them to those of the New. He fays, "God is con"ftantly reprefented in the New Testament, as a "God of patience, long-fuffering, flow to anger, " and abundant in goodness and truth; though "the Jews, who were a four gloomy people, often "reprefent him in the Old Teftament, as a jealous, "peevish, paffionate, revengeful Being."-Now if it was the four and gloomy temper of the Jews, which was the cause of thus reprefenting God in the Old Testament; who was it represented him in fo much more amiable a light in the New? Was not the New wrote by Jews as well as the Old? And if the temper of the Jews was the caufe of God's being reprefented as he is in the Old, how comes he not to be reprefented in the fame light in the New? The truth is, that the temper of the Jews had nothing to do with the representations of God either in the One, or the Other; nor has the Author any grounds for afcribing a four and glooming temper to the Jews, in the time of Mofes efpecially, if it had. But befides, the fact itfelf which he has afferted is falfe. We have seen that the felf-fame amiable perfections are afcribed to God, as the effential perfections of his nature, both in the Old Teftament, and in the New: and these very expreffions, that he is long-suffering, how to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth; that he is good to all, and that his tender mercies are over all his works; are common to the Old with the New, though they do not fo often occur in it, as in the New. Nor is it lefs true that jealoufy; avenging, and wrath, are attributed to God in the New, though not fo often made mention of, as well as in the Old. Thus it is there faid, he may be provoked to jealousy, and by the very fame means, idolatry: That God will avenge his elect and his Apoftles, and Prophets, bis ferbants-That he is the avenger of the fraudulent; a text which the Author himself approves: and that the wicked fhall drink of the wine of the wrath of Ged, which is poured out without mixture into the up of his indignations. And wrath is attributed to God in a great variety of paffages throughout the New Testament. The Author's affertions therefore on this point are as falfe, as they are invidious. с a See Exod. xxxiv. 6. Numb. xiv. 28. If Deut. v. 10. Pfalm lxxxvi. 5, 15. · ciii. 8, 11, 17. cxlv. 8, 9. Jerem xxxii. 18. b I Cor. x. 22. f P. 131. 8 Rev. xiv. 10. C 1 Theff. iv. 6. See Matth. iii. 7. Luke xxi. 23. John iii. 36. Rom. i. 13. ii. 5, 8. v. 9. ix. 22. xiii. 4. Ephef. ii. 3. v. 6. Coloff. i. 6. 1 Theff. i. 10. . 16. Rev. vi. 16, 17. xiv. 10, 19. xv. 1, 7. xvi, 19. xix. 15. The Author inveighs with great warmth (p. 136, 137.) gainft infincerity and lying; and divides lies in general into e diftinct forts of church-lies, larv-lies, phyfic-lies, army-lies, trade-lies, |