partly in oppofition to Egyptian fuperftitions; the Propofition we undertake to prove. Witfius thinks, or is rather willing to think, that the Egyptian Ritual was invented in imitation of the Jewish. For the reader fees, that both fides are agreed in this, That either the Jews borrowed from the Egyptians, or the Egyptians from the Jews; fo ftrong is the refemblance which forces this confeffion from them.

Now, the only plaufible fupport of Witfius's party being a thing taken for granted, viz. that the rites and cuftoms of the Egyptians as delivered by the Greeks, were of much later original than these writers affign to them; and my discourse on the ANTIQUITIES OF EGYPT, in the preceding fection, proving it to be entirely groundlefs, the latter part of the propofition, viz, That many of the laws given to the Jews, by the miniftry of Mofes, were inftituted partly in compliance to their prejudices, and partly in oppofition to Egyptian fuperftitions, is fufficiently proved.

But to let nothing that hath the appearance of an argument remain unanswered, I fhall, in as few words as may be, examine this opinion, That the Egyptians borrowed from the Ifraelites; regarding both Nations in that very light in which holy Scripture hath placed them. The periods then in which this must needs be fuppofed to have happened, are one or other of these. 1. The time of Abraham's refidence in Egypt. 2.-of Jofeph's government. 3.-of the flavery of his, and his brethren's defcendants: or 4. Any indefinite time after their egreffion from Egypt.

Now not to infift on the utter improbability of a potent nation's borrowing its religious Rites

from

from a private Family, or from a People they held in flavery, I answer, that of these four periods, the three first are befide the question. For the characteristic refemblance infifted on, is that which we find between the Egyptian ritual, and what is properly called MOSEICAL. And let it not be faid, that we are unable to diftinguish the Rites which were purely LEGAL from fuch as were PATRIARCHAL: for Mofes, to add the greater force

and

* Yet this evafive reafoning a fyftematic writer, who has therefore often fallen in our way, would feem to infinuate in an argument defigned to make fhort work with Spencer's learned volumes. His words are thefe -"It is remarkable that fome "learned writers, and Dr. Spencer in particular, have imagined, "that the refemblance between the ancient heathen Religions, "and the ancient Religion which was inftituted by GoD, was in "many respects fo great, that they thought that GoD was "pleafed to inflitute the one in imitation of the other. This con"clufion is indeed a very wrong one, and it is the grand mistake "which runs through all the works of the very learned author "laft mentioned." "The ancient heathen Religions do indeed "in many particulars agree with the inftitutions and appoint"ments of that Religion, which was appointed to Abraham and "to his family, and which was afterwards revived by Moses; "not that these were derived from those of the heathen nations, "but much more evidently the heathen religions were copied "from them; for there is, I think, ONE OBSERVATION, which, "as far as I have had opportunity to apply it, will fully anfwer every particular that Dr. Spencer has offered, and that is this; "He is able to produce no one ceremony or ufage, practifed "both in the religion of Abraham or Mofes, and in that of the "heathen nations, but that it may be proved, that it was used

66

by Abraham or Mofes, or by fome other of the true worshipers "of GoD earlier than by any of the heathen nations." Sacred and Prof. Hift. Connected, vol. i. 2d ed. p. 316, 317. This writer, we fee, feems here to fuppofe a palpable falfhood; which is, that there is an impalpable difference between the mofaic and patriarchal Religions. But this was not the principal reason of my quoting fo long a paffage. It was to confider his ONE OBSERVATION, which is to do fuch wonders. Now I cannot find that it amounts to any more than this: That the Bible, in which is contained the account of the Jewish Reli

Book IV. Thus, tho' Mofes enjoined CIRCUMCISION, he hath been careful to record the patriarchal inftitution of it with all its circumstances - Mofes gave unto you circumcifion (not because it is of Mofes, but of the fathers) fays JESUS!. So again, where he infti

tutes

but I fuppofe not defignedly, becaufe it feems a mere inaccuracy. The words are thefe: They thought [i. e. Dr. Spencer and others] that GOD was pleafed to inflitute the one in imitation of the others. Now this neither Dr. Spencer nor any believer ever thought. They might indeed fuppofe that he inflituted one in reference to the other, i. e. that part of its Rites were in direct oppofition to the cuftoms of the idolaters; and part, out of regard to the people's prejudices, in conformity to fuch of their cuftoms as could not be abused to surperftition. But this is a very different thing from inftituting one religion in imitation of another. As no believer could fuppofe GOD did this; fo neither, I will add, could any unbeliever. For this opinion, That the jewish religion was inflituted in imitation of the beatben, is what induces the unbeliever to conclude, that God was not its author.

JOHN vii. 22. The parenthefis feems odd enough. It may not therefore be unfeafonable to explain the admirable rea foning of our divine Mafter on this occafion. JESUS, being charged by the Jews as a tranfgreffor of the law of Mofes, for having cured a man on the fabbath-day, thus expoftulates with his accufers. "Mofes therefore gave unto you circumcifion, not because it is of Mofes, but of the Fathers, [¿x öti in tỡ σε Μωσέως, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ τῶν πατέρων] and ye on the fabbath-day cir* cumcife a man. If a man on the fabbath-day receive circumcifion, that the law of Mofes fhould not be broken, are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the fabbath-day?" That is, "Mofes enjoined you to obferve the Rite of Circumcifion, and to perform it on the eighth day but if this day happen to be on the fabbath, you interrupt its holy reft by performing the Rite upon this day, becaufe you will not break the law of Mofes, which marked out a. day certain for this work of charity. Are you therefore angry at me for performing a work of equal charity on the fabbathday? But you will afk, why was it fo ordered by the Law, that either the precept for Circumcifion, or that for the fabbaticalreft, muft needs be frequently tranfgreffed. I answer, that tho' Mofes, as I faid, gave you Circumcifion, yet the Rite was not originally

:

4

tutes the Jewish fabbath of reft, he records the patriarchal obfervance of it, in these words:-In fix days the Lord made heaven and earth, &c. and refted the Seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the fabbath day and ballowed it":

The

originally of Mofes, but of the Fathers. Now the Fathers enjoined it to be performed on the eighth day; Mofes enjoined the feventh day fhould be a day of reft; confequently the day of reft and the day of Circumcifion muft needs frequently fall together. Mofes found Circumcifion inftituted by a previous covenant which his law could not difannul*. But had he originally inftituted both, 'tis probable he would have contrived that the two Laws fhould not have interfered.". - This I take to be the fenfe of that very important parenthefis, not because it is of Mofes, but of the Fathers.

EXOD. chap. xx. ver. 11. - No one ever yet mistook Circumcifion for a nutural duty; while it has been efteemed a kind of impiety to deny the Sabbath to be in that number. There are two circumstances attending this latter inftitution, which have misled the Sabbatarians in judging of its nature.

1. The firft is, that which this pofitive inftitution and a natural duty hold in common, namely, the fetting apart a certain portion of our time for the service of Religion. Natural rea

fon tells us, that that Being, who gave us all, requires a conftant expreffion of our gratitude for the bleffings he has bestowed, which cannot be paid without fome expence of time: and this time must first be fet apart before it can be used. But things different natures, may hold fome things in common.

of very

2. The fecond circumftance is this, that Mofes, the better to impress upon the minds of his People the obfervance of the fabbath, acquaints them with the early inftitution of it; that it was enjoined by God himself, on his finishing the work of creation. But these Sabbatarians do not confider, that it is not the time when a command was given, nor even the author who gave it, that difcover the clafs to which it belongs, but its nature as difcoverable by human reafon. And the fabbath is as much a pofitive inftitution when given by God to Adam and his pofterity, as when given by Moses, the meffenger of God,

See GAL. iii, 17.