"the third and fourth Generation of them that bate "bim, EXOD. xx. 5. he may learn from Ezekiel "that those words are a PARABLE; for the Pro phet reproves fuch as fay, The Fathers have "eaten four Grapes, and the Childrens teeth are set "on edge; and then it follows: As I live, faith "the Lord, every one fball die for his own fins only, "But this is not the place to explain what is "meant by the PARABLE of visiting iniquity unto "the third and fourth generation." There could hardly be more miftakes in fo few words. The two texts in Deuteronomy and Exodus, which Origen reprefents as treating of the fame fubject, treat of fubjects very different: the firft, as we have fhewn above, concerns the Magiftrate's execution of the Law; the other, that which God referves to himfelf. Again, because the text of Exodus apparently occafioned the Proverb mentioned by Ezekiel and Jeremiah, therefore by a ftrange blunder or prevarication, the Father brings the Proverb in proof that the Law which gave birth to it, was but a Proverb or parable itself. II. 8 Ὅρα δὲ ὅσῳ τέτε βέλτιον τὸ, Οὐκ ἀποθανᾶναι, &c. ἐὰν δέ τις ὅμοιον είναι λίγη τῷ Ἐς παίδων παῖδας οἳ καὶ ὄπισθεν γένωνται, τι, ̓Αποδιδὺς ἁμαρτίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα, ἐπὶ τρίτην καὶ τάξης γενεὰν τοῖς μισᾶσι [μεν] μαθέτω, ὅτι ἐν τῷ Ἰεζεκιήλ παραβολὴ τὸ τοιῦτον εἶναι λέλεκται, αἰτιωμένῳ τὸς λέγοντας, Οι πατέρες ἔφαίον ἔμφα καὶ καὶ οἱ ὀδόλες τῶν τέκνων ἡμωδίασαν ᾧ ἐπιφέρεθαι, Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει Κύριοι, ἀλλ' ἡ ἕκαςΘ. τῇ ἑαυτῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀποθανεῖται. Οὐ κατὰ τὸν σαρόλα δὲ καιρόν ἐσι, διηγήσασθαι τί σημαίνει ἡ περὶ τὰ τρίτην και τέλαςτην γενεὰν ἀποδιδόασθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας παραβολή. Cont. Cely. P. 403. h Having thus reconciled the two Prophets, Mofes and Ezekiel, on this point, one may be allowed to wonder a little at the want of good faith even in M. Voltaire, when it comes to a certain extreme, II. We have now fhewn that MOSES did not teach a future ftate of reward and punishment; and that he This celebrated Poet has, like an honest man, written in defence of RELIGIOUS TOLERATION; and to inforce his argument has endeavoured, (not indeed like a wife one, who should weigh his fubject before he undertakes it) to prove, that all Religions in the world, but the Chriftian, have tolerated diverfities of opinion. This common weakness of rounding one's System, for the fupport of a plain Right which requires no fuch finishing, hath led him into two of the ftrangeft paradoxes that ever difgraced common sense. The one, that the Pagan Emperors did not perfecute the Chriftian Faith: The other, that the Jewish Magiftrate did not punish for Idolatry. In fupport of the first, his bad faith is moft confpicuous; in fupport of the latter, his bad logic. If there be one truth in Antiquity better established than another, it is this, That the Pagan Emperors did perfecute the Christians for their faith only; established, I fay, both by the complaints of the Perfecuted, and the acknowlegment of their Perfecutors. But this being proved at large in the preface to this very Volume, it is enough to refer the Reader thither. The other Paradox is much more pleasantly supported. He proves that the Mosaic Law did not denounce punishment on religious errors, (tho' in direct words, it does fo) nor did the Jewish Magiftrate execute it, (tho' we have several instances of the infliction recorded in their history.) — And what is the convincing argument he employs? It is this, The frequent defections of the Jewish People into Idolatry, in the early times of their apoftacies? An argument hardly fo good as this,-The Church of Rome did not perfecute, as appears from that general defection from it, in the fixteenth Century. I fay, Mr. Voltaire's argument is hardly so good as my illustration of it, fince the defection from the Church of Rome ftill continues, and the Jewish defections into Idolatries were foon at an end. But we are not to think, this Paradox was advanced for nothing, that is, for the fake of its own fingular boldness, (a 23 motive BOOK V. he omitted it with defign; that he understood its great importance to fociety; and that he provided for motive generally fufficient to fet reafon at defiance) nor even for the fupport of his general queftion. It was apparently advanced to get the eafier at his darling fubject, THE ABUSE OF THE MOSAIC RELIGION, that Marotie of our party-coloured Philofopher. Take this inftance, which is all that a curfory note will be able to afford. Mr. Voltaire, fpeaking of the rewards and punishments of the Jewish Difpenfation, expreffes himself in this manner, "Tout etait temporel; et c'est la preuve que le favant Evêque Warburton apporte pour démontrer que la Loi des Juifs, était divine; parce que Dieu même étant leur Roi, rendant justice immédiatement apris la tranfgreffion ou l'obéiffance, n' avoit pas befoin de leur révéler une Doctrine qu'il réservait au tems ou' il ne governerait plus fon peuple. Ceux qui par ignorance prétendent que Moyfe enfeignait l'immortalité de l'ame, ôtent au nouveau Teftament un de fes plus grands avantages fur l'ancien *." Would not any one now believe (who did not know Mr. Voltaire) that he quoted this argument, as what he thought a good one, for the divinity of the Mofaic Religion? Nothing like it. It was only to find occafion to accuse the Old Tefiament of contradiction. For thus he goes on, Cependant malgré l'énoncé précis de cette Loi, malgré cette declaration expreffe de Dieu, qu'il punirait jufqu'à la quatriéme génération; Ezechiel annonce TOUT LE CONTRAIRE aux Juifs, et leur dit, que le Fils ne portera point l' iniquité de fon pere: il va même jufqu' à faire dire a Dieu, qu'il leur avait donné des preceptes qui n' etaient pas bons †.” As for the precepts which were not good, the Reader will fee that matter explained at large, as we go along. What I have to do with Mr. Voltaire at prefent, is to expoftulate with him for his ill faith; that when he had borrowed my argument for the divinity of the Mofaic Miffion from that mode of punishment, he would venture to invalidate it from an apparent contradiction between Moses and EZEKIEL; when, in that very place of the Divine Legation which he refers to, he faw the two Prophets reconciled by an argument drawn from the true • Page 132. + Page. 133. natures 343 for the want of it. And if we may believe a great Statesman and Philofopher," Mofes had need of every SANCTION that his knowledge or his ima gination could fuggeft to govern the unruly "people, to whom he gave a Law, in the nanie "of God. But as the proof of this point is only for the fake of its Confequence, that therefore the people had not the knowledge of that doctrine, our next step will be to establish this Confequence: Which (if we take in those circumstances attending the Omiffion, just explained above) will, at the fame time, fhew my argument in fupport of this Omiffion to be more than negative. Now though one might fairly conclude, that the Peoples' not having this Doctrine, was a neceffary confequence of Mofes's not teaching it, in a Law natures of two approximating Difpenfations; an argument which not only removes the pretended contradiction, (first infifted on by Spinofa, and, through many a dirty channel, derived, at length, to Mr. Voltaire) but likewife fupports that very mark of divinity which I contend for. But it is too late in the day to call in queftion the Religion or the good faith of this truly ingenious man. What I want, in this Difcourfe fur la Tolérance, is his CIVIL PRUDENCE. As an ANNALIST, he might, in his General Hiftory, calumniate the Jewish People juft as his paffions or his caprice inclined him: But when he had affumed the character of a DIVINE, to recommend Toleration to a Chriftian State, could he think to fucceed by abufing Revelation? He feems indeed, to have fet out under a fenfe of the neceffity of a different conduct: But coming to his darling fubject an abuse of the Jews, he could not, for his life, fuftain the perfonage he had affumed, but breaks out again into all the virulence and injuftice with which he perfecuted this unhappy Reople in his General Hiftory; and of which the Reader will fee a fair account, in this volume, b. v. fect. 1. i Balingbroke's Works, vol. v. p. 513. 24 which which forbids the least addition to the written Inftitute, yet I fhall fhew, from a circumstance, the clearest and most incontestable, that the Ifraelites, from the time of Mofes to the time of their Captivity, had not the doctrine of a future ftate of reward and punishment. ; The BIBLE contains a very circumftantial History of this People throughout the aforefaid period. It contains not only the hiftory of public occurrences, but the lives of private perfons of both fexes, and of all ages, conditions, characters and complexions; in the adventures of Virgins, Matrons, Kings, Soldiers, Scholars, Merchants and Husbandmen. All thefe, in their turns, make their appearance before us. They are given too in every circumftance of life; captive, victorious in fickness, and in health; in full fecurity, and amidst impending dangers; plunged in Civil bufinefs, or retired and fequeftered in the service of Religion. Together with their Story, we have their Compofitions likewife. Here they fing their triumphs; there, their palinodia. Here, they offer up to the Deity their hymns of praife; and there, petitions for their wants: here, they urge their moral precepts to their Contemporaries; and there, they treasure up their Prophecies and Predictions for pofterity; and to both, denounce the promises and threatenings of Heaven. Yet in none of these different circumftances of life, in none of these various cafts of compofition, do we ever find them acting on the motives, or influenced by the prospect of future rewards and punishments; or indeed expreffing the leaft hope or fear, or even common curiofity concerning them. But every thing they do or fay DEUT. iv. 2. Chap. xii. ver. 32. respects H |