it seems, been stipulated, that the fettlement fhould fupply those warrior-tribes with a certain number of good and ferviceable mufkets. Which engagement was fo ill performed, that at their next general meeting, the chiefs of the barbarians complained, that, though indeed the colony had fent them the number of mufkets agreed upon, yet, on examination, they were all found to be without locks. This mischance (occafioned by the mufkets, and the locks being put into two. different cargoes), the governor promifed fhould be redreffed. It was redreffed accordingly; and the locks fought out, and fent. He now flattered himself that all cause of umbrage was effectually removed; when, at their next meeting, he was entertained with a fresh complaint, that the colony had, fraudulently fent them locks without muskets. The truth was, this brave people, of unimpeached morals, were only defective in their military logic; they had not the dexterity,, till they were firft fhewn the way, to put the major of the mufket and the minor of the mufket-lock together; and from thence to draw the concluding trigger. But then it will be faid, "If, as is here pretended, the premiles have been indeed proved, in these two volumes, with all the detail which their importance required, and with all the evidence which a moral fubject can fupply; and the conclufion, therefore, eftablished with all the conviction which the laws of logic are able to enforce; Why was another volume promised?. For no other end, as would feem, than to mislead a well-meaning reader, in the vain pursuit of an Argument already ended." It was promifed for a better purpofe-To remove all conceiv able objections against the conclufion, and to throw in every collateral light upon the premifles. For it is one thing to fatisfy truth, and another, to filence her pretended friends. He who defends Revelation has many prejudices to encounter; but he who defends it by reafon only, has many more. The third and laft volume, therefore, is deftined to fupport what hath been already proved: not, as has been abfurdly fuggefted, to continue and conclude an unfinished Argument. It confifts of three books, like each of the preceding vo lumes. 1. The feventh book therefore is employed in fupporting the major and the minor propofitions of the firft fyllogifm: in a continued hiftory of the religious opinions of the Jews, from the time of the earlier prophets, who firft gave fome dark intimations of a different difpenfation, to the time of the Maccabees, when the doctrine of a future ftate of rewards and punishments was become national. 2. The eighth book is employed in fupporting the major and minor propofitions of the fecond fyllogifm, in which is conLidered the perfonal character of Mofes and the genius of the law, AS as far as it concerns or has a relation to the character of the' Lawgiver. Under this latter head, is contained a full and fatisfactory answer to thofe who may object "That a revealed religion with a future ftate of rewards and punishments is unworthy the divine Author to whom it is afcribed." 3. The ninth and laft book, explains at large the nature and genius of the Chriftian difpenfation: For having towards the end of the eighth book, examined the pretended reafons (offered both by believers and unbelievers to evade my conclufion) for omitting the doctrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments in the Mofaic difpenfation, I was naturally and neceffarily led to inquire into the true. For now, it might be finally objected, “That tho', under an extraordinary providence there might be no occafion for the doctrine of a future ftate, in fupport of religion, or for the ends of government; yet as that doctrine is a truth, and confequently, under every regimen of Providence, feful, it feems hard to conceive, that the religious feader of the Jews, because as a Lawgiver he could do without it, that therefore, as a divine, he would omit it." The objection is of weight in itself, and receives additional moment from what hath been obferved in the fifth book, concerning the reafon of the law of punishing children for the crimes of their parents. I held it therefore infufficient barely to reply, "Mofes omitted it, that bis law might thereby fland, throughout all ages, an invincible monument of the truth of his pretences :" but proceeded to explain the great and principal reason of the omiffion. And now,-ventum ad verum eft. The whole concludes with one general but diftinct view of the entire courfe of Gods univerfal Economy from Adam to Chrift. In which it is fhewn, that if Mofes were, in truth, fent from God, he could not teach a future ftate; that doctrine being out of his commiffion, and referved for him who was at the head of another difpenfation, by which life and immortality was to be brought to light. This difcourfe, befides the immediate purpofe of fupporting and illuftrating the argument here compleated, ferves another end, which I had in view, as to the general difpofition of the whole work: which was to explain and difcriminate the diftinct and various natures of the Pagan, the Jewish and the Chriftian religions: the Pagan having been confidered in the firft volume, and the Jewish in the fecond; the Chriftian is reserved for the third and Taft. Let me conclude therefore, in an addrefs to my reverend brethren, with the words of an ancient apologift. Quid nobis invidemus, fi veritas divinitatis, noftri temporis ætate maturuit? Fruamur bono noftro, et recti fententiam temperemus: cohibeatur fuperftitio, impietas expietur, vera religio refervetur.' To the fixth book is added an appendix concerning the book of Job, wherein his Lordship steps out of his way, in order to fall upon one of the best writers, and one of the best men this country has to boast of. But our Readers fhall judge for themselves, The author of A Free and Candid Examination of Bishop Sherlock's Principles, &c. having asked this question, Where was idolatry ever punished by the magiftrate, but under the Jewish oeconomy? Dr. Lowth, in the fecond edition of his Prælections, concerning the facred Poetry of the Hebrews, answers thus: Ad quæftionem refpondetur: fub economia Patriarcharum; in familiis, et fub dominatu Abrahami, Melchizedechi, Jobi, cæterorumque. Ingruente idololatria divinitus evocabatur ex Chaldæa Abrahamus; eum in finem, ut fieret pater gentis, quæ ab aliis omnibus divifa, verum Deum coleret, publicum proponeret exemplum puræ regionis, contraque cultum vanorum numinum teftimonium perhiberet. Nonne erat igitur Abrahami in fua familia principa tum exercentis proprium officium et munus in idololatriam animadvertere? Nonne Melchizedechi, Jobi, omniumque tunc temporis in fuis tribubus principum, qui veri Dei cognitionem et cultum in communi fere gentium circumvicinarum defectione adhuc retinebant, cavere, ne fui deficerent; coercere delinquentes; obftinatos et rebelles, et fceleris contagionem propagantes, fupplicio afficere?-Supplementum ad primam prælectionum editionem: Addit. Editionis fecundæ, p. 312.' This is fo pleasant an answer, fays his Lordship, and s little needing the mafterly hand of the Examiner to correct, that a few ftrictures, in a curfory note, will be more than fufficient to do the bufiness. 1. The examiner, to prove, I fuppofe, that the book of Job was a dramatic work, written long after the time of the Patriarch, afks, Where was idolatry ever punished by the magiftrate, but under the Jewish economy? The profeffor anfwers, It was punished under the Jobean economy. And he advances nothing without proof. Does not Job himself fay, that Idolatry was an iniquity to be punished by the Judge? The Examiner replies, that the Job who fays this, is an airy fantom, raised for other purposes than to lay down the law for the Patriarchal times. The Profeffor maintains that they are all affes, with ears as long as Father Harduin's, who cannot fee that this is the true and genuine old Job.-In good time. Sub judice lis eft: And while it is fo, I am afraid the learned Profeffor begs the queftion; when, to prove that idolatry was punished by the magiftrate, out of the land of Judea, he affirms that king Job punished it. If he fay, he does not reft his affertion on this paffage of the book of Job alone, but on the facred records, from whence he concludes that thofe civil magiftrates, Abraham and Melchifedec, punished idoJatry; I fhall own he acts fairly, in putting them all upon the fame fame footing; and on what ground, that ftands, we shall now fee. 2. The Examiner fays, Where was idolatry ever punished by the magiftrate, but under the Jewish economy? A queftion equivalent to this," Where was idolatry punished by the civil magiftrate on the established laws of the ftate, but in Judea?" To which, the Profeffor replies, " It was punished by all the Patriarchal monarchs, by king Job, king Abraham, and king Melchifedec," Of a noble race was Shenkin. But here not one, fave the laft, had fo much as a nominal title to civil magistracy; And this laft drops as it were, from the clouds, without lineage or parentage; fo that, tho' of divine, yet certainly not a monarch of the true ftamp, by hereditary right. The cri tic therefore fails in his first point, which is, finding out civil magiftrates to do his hierarchical drudgery. 3. But let us admit our Profeffor's right of inveftiture, to confer this high office, and then fee how he proves, that these his lieges punished the crime of idolatry by civil punishment. Abraham, and the Patriarchs his defcendants, come first under confideration. What! (fays he) was not Abraham, exercifing the fovereignty in his own family, to punish idolatry? Hobbes, is I believe, the only one (fave our Profeffor) who holds that Abraham had a right to prefcribe to his family what religion they should be of, to tell them what was the word of God, and to punish those who countenanced any doctrine which he had forbidden." Leviath. chap. 40.-But God fpeaking of Abraham, fays, I know that he will command his children and his houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. xviii. 19. And Hobbes and our Profeffor, I fuppofe, regard this declaration as a clear proof of the divine doctrine of restraint in matters of religion; efpecially when interpreted by their darling text of -force them to enter in. On the contrary, thofe who have been bred up in the principles of toleration, hold it to be a mere testimony (a glorious one indeed) of Abraham's pious and parental care to inftrue his family in the law of God. And it is well, it can go for no more, or I should fear the learned Profeffor would have brought in Ifaac as a backflider to idolatry; and his Father's laying him on the facrifical pile, as a kind of Auto de fe.' We cannot help obferving here, that his Lordship joins Hobbes and Dr. Lowth together, with much the fame propriety as Lord Bolingbroke does atheists and divines. This is not the only inftance, however, wherein he expofes himself by introducing Hobbes, who feems to be a favourite author with him. Mr. Pope, in his epologue to the Satires, fays, Let modeft Fefler, if he will, excell This confirms an obfervation, fays the annotator, which Mr. Hobbes made long ago, that there be very few bishops that att a fermont fo well, as divers prefbyterians and fanatic preachers can do. Hift. of Civ. Wars." - Now, in the name of candor and common fenfe, how could the amiable Fofter's excelling ten Metropolitans in preaching well, confirm this obfervation of Hobbes? Is acting a fermon the fame thing with preaching well? What would Mr. Pope have faid to fuch a note; the abfurdity of which is nearly equal to its malignity? Had Fofter, though a poor diffenting teacher, written in defence of the Divine Legation, and paid his court to the Author in the fame strains of adulation that Dr. Brown, and fome other worshippers have done, his many virtues would then have been not only allowed, but most amply difplayed. But having no fuch claim to favour, and having befides the misfortune of being a diffenter, the Annotator could not bear to fee fuch a compliment paid him by fo celebrated a poet; and has therefore meanly endeavoured, without any manner of provocation, to reprefent him as a fanatic, who had no other merit but that of acting a fermon well. The only effect, however, which this feeble, this malevolent attempt has produced, is to expofe the annotator to the cenfure of every candid reader: Fofter's reputation refts on too folid a foundation to be fhaken by the foul blafts of fuch envious, narrow-minded critics, and Pope's compliment to him remains in full force. We now return to what our Author fays of Dr. Lowth. • Melchifedec's story is a fhort one; he is juft brought into the scene to blejs Abraham in his return from conqueft. This promifes but ill. Had this King and Priest of Salem been brought in curfing, it had had a better appearance: for, I think, punishment for opinions, which generally ends in a fagot, always begins with a curfe. But we may be mifled by a wrong tranflation. The Hebrew word to blefs, fignifies likewife to curfe, and, under the management of an intolerant prieft, good things cafily run into their contráries. What follows, is his taking tythes from Abraham. Nor will this ferve our purpose, unless we interpret these tythes into fines for non-conformity; and then, by the bleffing, we can eafily understand abfolution. We have feen much stranger things done with the Hebrew verity. If this be not allowed, I do not fee how we can elicite fire and fagot from this adventure; for I think there is no infeparable connection between tythes and perfecution, but in the ideas of a Quaker. -And fo much for king Melchifedec, 'But the learned Profeffor, who has been hardily brought up in the keen atmosphere of wholefome feverities, and early taught to diftinguish between de facto and de jure, thought it needlefs to enquire into fads, when he was fecure of the right. And, therefore, |