being, however exalted and wise, is not incredible. The whole mass of the nation might have been infected by his example, had he remained unpunished. But yet his very punishment was such, as to subserve God's purposes. The revolt of ten of the twelve tribes was permitted, and even forwarded, by Divine interference'; and the Israelities, henceforward, were to be divided under two separate kings: not only as a punishment of Solomon's crime, but also to prevent a universal apostasy in future; which might take place had the nation remained under one monarch. This very division had a tendency to promote a spirit of emulation in their obedience to the Divine law; it gave occasion for more frequent and signal displays of Divine power in both the nations; and it subsequently formed a broad line of distinction between those who conscientiously adhered in their allegiance to God, and those who lapsed into idolatry. But yet this revolution was not brought about by any resistless operation of Divine power; human passions and human agency were, apparently, the only effective cause; whilst God permitted, or over-ruled all, to accomplish His own objects.

When, at last, this distinctive line of separation was broken through, and the two tribes of Judah asso

1 See 1 Kings chap. xi. ver. 11 to 14, and ver. 30 to 34.

ciated in alliance with those of Israel, then idolatrous corruption began to pervade the former. And it required the severe chastisement of seventy years' captivity, completely to subdue and eradicate this idolatrous propensity, and to secure their faithful allegiance to Jehovah. Ever since that time, they have paid Him exclusive worship; and, notwithstanding unexampled persecutions, have adhered faithfully to the Mosaic law, as of Divine original'.

Hence the idolatries and transgressions of the Jewish nation seem to have arisen from causes by no means inconsistent with the Divine promulgation of the Mosaic law; or with that superintending and controlling providence which, without violating the analogy of Nature, or infringing on the moral freedom of man, directs all events to the ultimate accomplishment of its own purposes.

Lastly, it is to be remembered, that the Jewish

1 Most of the objections against the Jewish revelation are derived from the misconduct of the nation in general, or the errors of some of God's distinguished individual instruments,—such as Samson or Solomon. Now, when God selected any persons to be his instruments for accomplishing any particular object, He furnished them with all the aids and powers necessary for that specific object; but beyond that, He did not interfere with their natural character, nor make either those individuals or the nation at large infallible or impeccable. Hence the lapses of such persons into sin, are no valid argument against their having been divinely empowered to effect the special object for which God employed them. This is well shown by Bishop Butler. (See Part I. "BUTLER'S ANALOGY," Book II. Chap. III. page 107.)

economy had not for its only object, the separation and preservation of the Jews; but that the ulterior and main design was, to exhibit to the world a standing monument of the Unity, Supremacy, and Providence of Jehovah. This was equally conspicuous, as well in their apostasies and captivities, as also in their repentance and restorations; and thus was that whole dispensation successfully conducted, so as to prepare for and introduce the GOSPEL OF CHRIST.

CHAPTER III.

ON THE SANCTIONS OF THE JEWISH LAW.

Objections against the Jewish Law, from its employing Temporal Sanctions; and from its Visiting the Sins of the Fathers upon the Children.

Two objections have been raised against the religion and policy of the Jewish lawgiver. First, "That the rewards and punishments of a future life were not inculcated by him as sanctions of His law; which has been considered as an omission of necessary truth." Second, "That the visitation of the sins of fathers upon their children, was a violation of natural justice, incompatible with the character of God1."

1 Graves here goes into a long examination of the celebrated Bishop Warburton's argument in his "Divine Legation of Moses," which is this: "That the very omission of the doctrine of a future state by Moses, when coupled with-(what the Bishop considers to be a legitimate inference from it)—the fact of an extraordinary Providence, was

With respect to the first objection, the reality of an extraordinary Providence being once fairly established, not only satisfactorily accounts for the omission of such a sanction, but is the only way in which the omission can be accounted for. The Jewish form of government was strictly a THEOCRACY; the polity and magistracy thereof being merely mediums, employed by the Divinity, to facilitate the regular administration of the extraordinary providence by which the Deity chose to govern His people: and whenever the circumstances either of the State or of individuals required

an invincible medium for the proof of the Divine Legation of Moses." For (to use his own words), "The doctrine of a future state is necessary to the well-being of society under the ordinary government of Providence all mankind have ever conceived so of the matter. The Mosaic institution was without this support, and yet it did not want it. What follows, but that the Jewish affairs were administered by an extraordinary Providence, distributing reward and punishment with an equal hand ?—and that, consequently, the mission of Moses was divine." Graves does not admit this conclusion of Warburton,—" that the omission of itself proves that an extraordinary Providence existed,”to be so clear and indisputable; but he coincides thus far with him : "That nothing but the reality of an extraordinary Providence can account for the establishment of the Mosaic institution, notwithstanding such omission. And that such extraordinary Providence being established (not by inference from the omission, but) from unquestioned testimony, makes the whole clear and intelligible." The one considers the omission itself as a medium from which (independent of all other proofs) an extraordinary Providence may be proved: the other considers it only as a fact, for which an extraordinary Providence—(the reality whereof ought to be proved from other sources)—will satisfactorily account.