For, what Cicero fays of Poetry in Rome, may be more truly applied to the Doctrine of a Future ftate

Jewish Faith: it is omitted in the first, where there is no account of any fuch thing.

Yet these are brought as parallel cafes: Let us therefore do

them all honour.

1. Several Volumes of the facred Canon contain a history of doctrines.

The two books of Maccabees contain only a hiftory of civil transactions.

2. None of the inspired Writers of the Canon before the Captivity ever once mention the Doctrines of a resurrection or a future ftate.

Of the two books of Maccabees, one of them mentions the Doctrines fully and at large.

3. The facred Canon comprises a vaft period of time, and treats of an infinite variety of matters.

The two books of Maccabees are fmall tracts of an uniform fubject, and contain only the story of one revolution in the Jewish State.

Unconscious, as should seem, of all this difference, the learned Doctor concludes · So unsafe a thing it is to rely on the MERE SILENCE of Hiftorians, when they undertake to write a hiftory NOT OF DOCTRINES, but of the transactions of Men. In which, thefe THREE FALSEHOODS are very gravely and magifterially infinuated: That the Writers of the two books of Maccabees are equally filent with the Writers of the Canon: 2. That all the Writers of the Canon are writers of a Hiftory, not of the Doctrines, but merely of the civil tranfactions of men, equally with the writers of the two Books of Maccabees: And 3. That the thing relied on by me, is the MERE SILENCE of Historians. Which falfehood if the Reader does not fee from what has been faid above, he may be pleased to confider, that mere filence is when a Writer omits to fay a thing which it was indifferent to his purpose whether he said or not. But when he omits to

fay

state amongst thefe Barbarians: " Ceteræ neque temporum funt, neque ætatum omnium, neque ❝ locorum.

66

T

fay a thing, which it was much to his purpose to say, this is not a mere filence. It is a filence attended with a circumftance, which makes the evidence drawn from that filence fomething more than negative, and, confequently, fomething more than mere filence. So much for Dr. Stebbing.

*

A Cornish Writer purfues the fame argument against the Divine Legation; but takes his parallel much higher." There "is no one (fays he) who reads HOMER that can doubt whether

66

a Future ftate were the popular belief amongst the Greeks in "the times he writes of. And yet, by what I remember of "him, I believe it would be difficult to produce Six inftances "in all his poems of any actions either entered upon or avoided "from the EXPRESS motive of the rewards or punishments to "be expected in the other world."

I inferred from a Future ftate's NEVER being mentioned in the Jewish History, amongst the motives of men's actions, (after it had been omitted in the Jewish Law and Religion) that it was not of popular belief amongst that people. Now here comes an Answerer, and fays, that it is not mentioned above SIX TIMES EXPRESSLY in Homer, and yet that no body can doubt whether it were not the popular belief among ft the Greeks. The good cautious man! Had it been but ONCE EXPRESSLY mentioned in the Old Teftament, I should no more have doubted of its being of popular belief amongst the Jews, than he does. Why then do we doubt fo little, in the cafe of the Greeks, but for the fame reason why we ought to doubt so much in the cafe of the Jews! HOMER, (who gives a detailed account of a future state) this writer allows, has mentioned it about fix times as a motive. The SCRIPTURES (which, together with the hiftory, deliver the Law and Religion of the Jews, in which a future ftate is omitted) mention it not once, as a motive. But this Anfwerer would make the reader believe, I made my inference from the paucity, and not from the want, of the mention. The fame may be obferved of another expreffion of this candid Gentleman's exprefs motive. Now much lefs would have satisfied me; and I should readily have allowed that the Jews had the popular belief amongst them had the motive been but once fairly implied.

Mr. Peters.

But

BOOK V. locorum. Hæc ftudia adolefcentiam alunt, fe"nectutem oblectant, fecundas res ornant, AD"VERSIS PERFUGIUM AC SOLATIUM PRÆBENT P ̧” But

But let us take him at the best, and fuppofe Homer did not afford one fingle inftance. What, I pray you, has HOMER in common with MOSES Suppofe, I should affirm from the Greek Hiftory, That the ancient WORTHIES always proportioned their work to their ftrength and bulk; and that my Answerer was not in an humour to let this pass; but, to confute me, would prefs me with the high atchievements of Tom THUMB, as they are recorded in his authentic flory; who was as famed for his turbulence in king Arthur's Court, as Achilles was in Agamemnon's: Would not this be just as much to the purpofe, as to put the Iliad and the Odyssey in parallel with the Law and the Prophets?

But Homer's poems have been fo long called the Bible of the Pagans, that this Answerer appears, in good earneft, to have taken them for religious Hiflory; otherwife how could it have ever entered into his head to make fo ridiculous a comparison ? My reafoning with regard to SCRIPTURE ftood thus. As all good History deals with the motives of men's actions, fo the peculiar bufinefs (as it feems to me) of religious History is to fcrutinize their religious Motives: Of thefe, the principal is the confideration of a Future ftate. And this not being fo much as once mentioned in the ancient Jewish Hiftory, it is natural to But now, conclude that the Jews of thofe times had it not. what has Homer's poems to do in this matter? I apprehend they are no religious Hiftory; but compofitions as far removed from it as poffible, namely a military and civil Romance, brimfull of fabulous trumpery. Now in fuch a work, the writer furely would be principally folicitous about the civil motives of his Actors. And Homer, who is confeffed to understand what belonged to every kind of Compofition, would take care to keep within his fubject; and, to preferve decorum, would content himself with fupplying his Warriors and Politicians with fuch motives as might beft fet off their Wisdom and their Heroifm: fuch as the love of power, in which I comprife, revenge on their Enemies; the love of plunder, in which is included their paffion for fair Captives; and the love of glory, in which, if you pleafe, you may reckon their regard for their Friends and their Country. -But in Homer's military and political Romances there are hardly

Pro Archia Poeta, Sect. 7.

fixe

But this is not all. For we find, that when a future ftate became a popular doctrine amongst the Jewish People (the time and occafion of which will be explained hereafter) that then it made as confiderable a figure in their Annals, by influencing their determinations, as it did in the history of any other people.

Nor is it only on the filence of the facred Writers, or of the speakers they introduce, that I fupport this conclufion; but from their pofitive declarations; in which they plainly discover that there was no popular expectation of a future ftate, or Refurrection. Thus the woman of Tekoah to David: For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again". Thus Job: As the cloud is confumed, and vanifheth away: fo be that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. And again: And again: "There is hope of a 66 " tree,

fix inftances in which a future ftate is mentioned as the express motive; therefore the perpetual filence on this point, in the religious Hiftory of the Jews, and the perpetual mention of it in the religious Hiftories of the SUEVI and the SARACENS, conclude nothing in favour of the argument of the Divine Legation.

See the second book of Maccabees. xiv. 14.

66

* 2 SAM.

• Chap. vii. ver. 9. To this Dr. Stebbing objects, that "it means no more than that man was not to be restored to his "earthly human ftate." Exam. p. 60, and to confirm this, he appeals to the tenth verfe of this chapter, which runs thus, He fball return no more to his boufe, neither shall his place know him any more. But the learned Doctor thould have reflected, that if Job fays the dead man returns no more to his house, he gives a reafon for his fo faying, very inconfiftent with the Doctor's interpretation of the 9th verfe of the viith chapter. It was, because the dead man was got into the land of darkness and the Shadow of death [chap. x. 21.] it was because he was not awake VOL. IV,

A a

66 tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again "-though the root thereof wax old in the earth, "and the ftock thereof die in the ground, yet "through the fcent of water, it will bud and "bring forth boughs like a plant. But man "dieth and wafteth away: yea, man giveth up the "ghoft, and where is he? As the waters fall from "the fea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: "fo man lieth down and rifeth not till the Hea"vens be no more, they fhall not awake nor be "raised out of their fleep." Here the Jewish Writer, for fuch he was, as fhall be fhewn hereafter (and might, indeed, be understood to be fuch from this declaration alone) opposes the revival of a vegetable to the irrecoverable death of a rational animal. Had he known as much as St. Paul, he had doubtless used that circumftance in the vegetable world (as St. Paul did) to prove analogically, the revival of the rational animal.

The Pfalmift fays, In death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks"? And again: What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praife thee, fhall it declare thy truth? And again,

Wilt thou fhew wonders to the dead? Shall "the dead ARISE and praise thee? Shall thy lov

nor could be raifed out of his fleep [Chap. xiv. 1z.] But the very fubject which Job is here treating confutes the Doctor's interpretation: He is complaining that life is short, and that after death he fhall no more fee good, for that he who goeth down to the grave fball come up no more; he shall return no more to his houfe [ver. 7, .8, 9, 10.] which at least implies that there was no good to be expected any where, but in this world: And this expectation is cut off in express terms.

↑ Chap. xiv. ver.

7-12.

u Ps. vi. 5.

x Ps.

XXX. 9.