·

manner (and who, to obferve it by the way, faw nothing in the LAW but temporal fanctions) was fo ftruck with the fplendor of divinity, which this light reflected back upon the law, that in the entry on his fubject he breaks out into this triumphant boast, EA TIBI EXPLICABO UT PLANE NON

AMPLIUS DUBITARE QUE AS ET DIFFERENTIAM HABEAS QUA DISCERNERE POSSIS INTER ORDI NATIONES LEGUM CONDITARUM AB HOMINIBUS ET INTER ORDINATIONES LEGIS DIVINÆ.

Thus the Reader fees what may be gained by fairly and boldly fubmitting to the force of evidence. Such a manifestation of the divinity of the Law, arifing out of the Deift's own principles, as is fufficient to cover him with confufion!

cr

66

nem non levem apoftafiæ hujufmodi ea quæ videtur multorum mandatorum abfurditas vel inutilitas; dum enim apparet in eis abfurditas & inutilitas, nulla autem præceptionis aut inhibitionis earum ratio, nulla obfervantiarum utilitas, non eft mirum fi ab eis receditur: fed tanquam onera fupervacanea projiciuntur." fol. 18. In thefe times, and under this Empire, our Author wrote. So that nothing could be more useful than to fhew his apoftatizing brethren that the SCRIPTURES might be defended, nay, even explained on the principles of ARISTOTLE, and that the precepts of the CEREMONIAL LAW were founded in the highest reasonableness and convenience.Maimonides, where, in his preface, he gives his reafons for writing this difcourfe, plainly hints at that apoftafy Vertiginofos vero quod attinet, quorum cerebrum eft pollutum & vanis futilibufque ac falfis opinionibus repletum, quique fibi imaginantur fe magnos efe PHILOSOPHOS, ac theoloos, illos fcio fugituros a multis, contra multa etiam objectiones moturos.-Deus vero benedictus novit, quantoperè timuerim confcribere ea, quæ explicare & confignare volui in hoc libro. Nam quia talia funt de quibus nullus ex gente noftra in hac captivitare quicquam fcripfit hactenus, qua ratione primus ego prodire in hac palefira audeo: verum fuffultus fum duobus principiis; primo, quod de iftius modi negotio dictum fit, tempus eft faciendi Domino: IRRITAM FECERUNT LEGEM TUAM, . fecundo, eo quod fapientes nofiri dicunt, Omnia opera tua fiant ad gloriam Dei.

And

And what is it, we lofe? Nothing fure very great or excellent. The imaginary honour of being original in certain Rites (confidered in themselves) indifferent; and becoming good or bad by comparifon, or by the authority which enjoins them, and by the object to which they are directed.

The Deift indeed pretends that, in the things borrowed from Egypt, the first principles of Law and Morality, and the very triteft customs of civil life, are to be included. The extravagance of this fancy hath been exposed elsewhere. But as it s a fpecies of folly all parties are apt to give into, it may not be amiss to confider this matter of TRADUCTIVE CUSTOMS a little more particularly.

There is nothing obftructs our discoveries in Antiquity (as far as concerns the nobleft end of this ftudy, the knowledge of mankind) fo much as that falfe, though undisputed Principle, that the general customs of men, whether civil or religious, (in which a common likeness connects, as in a chain, the Manners of its inhabitants, throughout the whole globe) are traductive from one another. When, in truth, the origin of this general fimilitude, is from the fameness of one common Nature, improved by reason, or debased by superstition. But when a cuftom, whofe meaning lies not upon the surface, but requires a profounder fearch, is the fubject of inquiry, it is much easier to tell us that the ufers borrowed it from fuch or fuch a people, than rightly to inform us, what common principle of REASON OF SUPERSTITION gave birth to it in both.

Vol. I. part 2d. p. 133

How

How many able writers have employed their time and learning to prove that Chriftian Rome borrowed their fuperftitions from the Pagan city? They have indeed fhewn an exact and furprising likeness in a great variety of inftances. But the conclufion from thence, that, therefore, the Catholic borrowed from the Heathen, as plaufible as it may seem, is, I think, a very great mistake; which the followers of this hypothefis might have understood without the affiftance of the principle here laid down: fince the rife of the fuperftitious customs in question were many ages later than the converfion of that imperial city to the Christian Faith: confequently, at the time of their introduc tion, there were no PAGAN prejudices which required fuch a compliance from the ruling Clergy. For this, but principally for the general reafon here advanced, I am rather induced to believe, that the very fame Spirit of fuperftition, operating in equal circumstances, made both Papifts and Pagans truly originals.

But does this take off from the juft reproach which the Reformed have caft upon the Church of Rome, for the practice of such Rites, and encouragement of fuch Superftitions? Surely not; but rather strongly fixes it. In the former case, the rulers of that Church had been guilty of a base compliance with the infirmities of their new converts in the latter, the poifon of fuperftition is seen to have infected the very vitals of its Hierarchy".

But

h The learned author of the elegant and ufeful Letter from Rome has here taken to himfelf what was meant in general of the numerous writers on the fame fubject; and fo has done it the honour of a confutation, in a poftfcript to the last edition

3

of

Book IV. But then, truth will fare almost as ill when a right, as when a wrong principle, is pushed to an extravagance.

of that Letter. But the fame friendly confiderations, which induced him to end the poftfcript with declaring his unwillingnefs to enter further into controverfy with me, disposed me not to enter into it at all. This, and neither any neglect of him, nor any force I apprehended in his arguments, kept me filent. However, I owe fo much both to myself and the public, as to take notice of a mifreprefentation of my argument; and a change of the question in difpute between us: without which notice, the controverfy (as I agree to leave it where it is) can scarce be fairly estimated.. "A paragraph in Mr. "Warburton's Divine Legation of Mofes obliges me (fays Dr. Middleton) to detain the reader a little longer, in order to ob"viate the prejudices which the authority of fo celebrated a writer may probably inject, to the disadvantage of my argument. "I am a lofs to conceive what could move my learned friend to "pafs fo fevere a confure upon an argument which is hitherto "been efpoufed by all proteftants; admitted by many papifts;

66

and evaded rather than contradicted by any. But whatever "was his motive, which, I perfuade myself, was no unfriendly "one, he will certainly pardon me, if purfuing the full convic "tion of my mind, I attempt to defend an established principle, "confirmed by ftrong and numerous facts, against an opinion "wholly new and ftrange to me; and which, if it can be fupposed to have any force, overthrows the whole credit and use -He allows that the writers, who have "of my present work."undertaken to deduce the rites of popery from paganism, have "Shewn an exact and furprifing likeness between them in a great "variety of inftances. This (fays he) one would think, is

st

allowing every thing that the caufe demands: it is every thing, I dare fay, that those writers defire *." That it is every thing those writers defire, I can eafily believe, fince I fee, my learned friend himself hath confidered the fe two affertions, 1. The religion of the prefent Romans derived from that of their heathen ancestors; and, 2. An exact conformity, or unifor mity rather of worship between popery and paganifm, he hath confidered them, I fay, as convertible propofitions: to prove for, undertaking, as his title page informs us, the religion of the prefent Romans derived from that of their heathen anceflors; and having gone through his argu"But it is high ments, he concludes them in thefe words,

extravagance. Thus, as it would be ridiculous to deny, that the Roman laws of the Twelve Tables

were

time for me to conclude, being purfuaded, if I do not flatter myself too much, that I have fufficiently made good 66 WHAT I FIRST UNDERTOOK TO PROVE, an exact con"formity, or uniformity rather, of worship between popery

and paganifm*." But what he undertook to prove, we fee was, The religion of the prefent Romans derived from their hear then ancestors: That I have therefore, as my learned friend obferves, allowed every thing those writers defire, is very likely, But then, whether I have allowed every thing that the caufe demands, is another question: which I think can never be determined in the affirmative, till it be fhewn that no other probable cause can be affigned of this exact conformity between Papifts and Pagans, but a borrowing or derivation from one to the other. And I guess, that now this is never likely to be done, fince I myself have actually affigned another probable cause, namely the fame fpirit of fuperftition operating in the like circumftances,

But this justly celebrated writer goes on" This question according to his [the author of the D. L.] notion is not to "be decided by facts, but by a principle of a different kind, a fuperior knowledge of human nature." Here I am forced to complain of a want of candour, a want not natural to my learned friend. For, whence is it, I would afk, that he collects, that, according to my notion, this queflim is not to be decided by facts, but a fuperior knowledge of human nature? From any thing I have faid? Or from any thing I have omitted to fay Surely, not from any thing I have faid, (tho' he feems to in finuate fo much by putting the words, a fuperior knowledge of human nature in Italic characters, as they are called) because I leave him in poffeffion of his' fails, and give them all the vali dity he defires; which he himself obferves; and, from thence, as we fee, endeavours to draw fome advantage to his hypothe fis: Nor from any thing I have omitted to fay; for, in this fhort paragraph where I deliver my opinion, and, by reason of its evidence, offer but one fingle argument in its fupport, that argument arifes from a FACT, viz. that the fuperftitious cufioms in queflion were many ages later than the converfion of the impes rial city to the Chriftian faith: whence I conclude, that the ruling Churchmen could have no motive in borrowing from Par + Poftfcript, p. 228.

-

* Letter, P. 224. VOL, IV,

K