I know not whether it be material to take notice that this last objection I have been answering comes from the mouth of interlocutor B, the book being written in the way of dialogue between A and B, of which A is the principal man. I make no difference in respect to the speakers, because they are plainly both of one side; though the author in his preface calls it "debating a sub"ject," and has the vanity to compare it with Tully's way of writing in the books De Natura Deorum, and De Divinatione. But Tully's disputants always made it properly a debate, and represented the sense of the several contending parties to such advantage, that they could none of them complain they had not justice done them in the argument. The case is quite different in our author's lean performance. Here is scarce any debating the point at all; but interlocutor B is all the way made obsequious to the other: either first, to grant something which none but a thoughtless man would grant, that A might have some ground to go upon; as in page the third, one instance out of many. Or secondly, to produce some silly objection, ill stated, or ill managed, that A might have the advantage of an easy and a pompous triumph, as in pages 35, 48, 275, &c. Or thirdly, to strike in with his pretended antagonist, debating on the same side, and carrying on the same impertinence; as in pages 113, 266, 329, 348, &c. Or lastly, to flatter and compliment A for his great performances, which no one else could find out: see pages 421, 432. Such is the use and service of interlocutor B to governor A, through the mock debate: and I have thought proper, once for all, to give the reader some idea of the turn and composition of this dialogue, to justify my charging the author indifferently with what either A or B speaks, since B's part is little else but to attend as a servitor or waiting-man to A. Cicero's manner it is called by a very strong figure, resembling it as much as an empty farce does the finest drama. But I

pass on.

EXOD. XII. 35, 36.

AND THEY BORROWED OF THE EGYPTIANS JEWELS OF SILVER, AND JEWELS OF GOLD, AND RAIMENT: AND the Lord gave the PEOPLE FAVOUR IN THE SIGHT OF THE EGYPTIANS, SO THAT THEY

LENT UNTO THEM SUCH THINGS AS THEY REQUIR

ED. AND THEY SPOILED THE EGYPTIANS.

The Objector hereupon observes as follows: h" If men "flatter themselves, that they are true Israelites, and "those of a different religion mere Egyptians; will they "not be apt to imagine, when they see how the Israelites spoiled the Egyptians by the command of God him"self, who made them borrow what they were not to re

66

pay, that this might be a good precedent for them?" B answers, very facetiously: "I must own, that a com"mand to lend, hoping for nothing again, and a com"mand to borrow, without returning any thing again, "seem to be very different commands." This is tolerably modest and decent, in comparison of what the infidel throws out afterwards1, upon the same subject, of a more direful and blasphemous strain. "They borrowed of the "Egyptians as the Lord ordered them, jewels of gold “and silver, and raiment, even to the spoiling of them m: "and when Pharaoh (who all along seemed jealous of "their design, and bids them not go far away) found that "this solemn sacrifice was a mere pretence, and that they "really fled with all that they had borrowed of his peo

ple, he pursued the fugitives: the consequence was, "that the Egyptians, instead of obtaining restitution, were "miraculously destroyed, and Pharaoh lost his life, as "well as his subjects; and those who had dealt thus trea"cherously with them were as miraculously preserved." Thus far this wretched man, who hath taken upon him, like Pharaoh, to exalt himself against the living God.

h Christianity as Old, &c. p. 263. k Exod. iii. 21, 22.

in Exod. xii. 35.

i Luke vi. 35.

1 Christianity as Old, &c. p.

349.

But to answer his chicane and buffoonery, as distinctly as possible; let it be observed,

1. That he builds too much upon the English translation. Instead of " they borrowed," in verse 35, it may as literally and more properly be translated, they asked; as the Seventy, and Vulgate, and Chaldee render: and instead of "they lent unto them," the rendering may as well be, they let them have, or they, granted them such things as they asked for. The like may be observed of Exod. iii. 22. where, instead of "shall borrow," should be read, shall ask ".

upon

:

The Egyptians had been thoroughly terrified with what had passed, and especially with the last dreadful plague all their firstborn. They were now willing to give the Hebrews any thing, or every thing, only to be quit of them for in their dismal fright THEY SAID, WE BE ALL DEAD MENo. They were willing enough now, even to bribe the Hebrews to be gone, and to court them with any presents they should desire, so that they might but obtain their favour, perceiving how much depended upon their being kind and civil to them, and how dearly they had already paid for their unkindness towards them; and what might yet follow worse than all before, they knew not. In a word, they were glad at any rate to compound for their future safety, and so were ready to give the Hebrews any thing they should either ask or want.

2. But however that be, let it next be observed, that God had an undoubted right to transfer the property to the Hebrews, since the whole world is his, and no one can put in any bar to his title. The Hebrews therefore took nothing but what was strictly their own. They had God's express order P for taking it; and so God, by trans

n See Mr. Shuckford, who is beforehand with me in the observation, and proves it more at large. Connection of Sacred and Profane History, vol. ii. p. 495.

• Exod. xii. 33.

P Exod. iii. 22. xi. 2.

ferring the property to them, made it theirs. This was not dispensing with the law of nature, but it was altering the case; for no law of nature forbids any man's taking what God gives him. It was not encouraging fraud or theft; but it was making so essential a change in the very nature and quality of the act, by that single circumstance of a Divine commission, that now there could be neither fraud nor theft in so taking what the Egyptians were ready to part with, and what God commanded the Israelites both to take and keep as their own 9.

3. Let it farther be observed, that the Lord God Almighty had the same indisputable right to remove the Hebrews finally out of Pharaoh's hands; and he gave Pharaoh very full and ample demonstrations of his will, by repeated miracles. After that, it was most insolent defiance against Heaven, either to detain the people, or to claim their service, or to demand restitution of what they had taken. It was wild and frantic to dispute whether the king of Egypt or the King of Heaven ought to be obeyed, and to bear rule in the world. It is ridiculous in the Objector to talk of restitution in the case, as if God could borrow any thing of his creatures, which owe their substance and their very being to him: and it is horribly profane, as well as thoughtless, to say, that the Hebrews dealt treacherously, either in their departure, or in taking what they did, since both were pursuant to Divine order; and they had been treacherous to God and to one another, in those circumstances, had they refused to do either. The Objector himself at other times can tell us, that " by "the circumstances men are under1," we are to judge of the nature, and quality, and tendency of their actions: now that single circumstance of a Divine command so alters the case with respect to what the Hebrews did,

a Compare Tertullian adv. Marc. lib. ii. c. 20. p. 392. Austin contr. Faust. lib. xxii. c. 71, 72. p. 402, 403. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. c. 23. p. 415, 416. Philo in Vit. Mos.

that it can be nothing akin to men's ordinarily going out of a realm without leave, or taking money or jewels with them, so as never to return them.

4. Let it further be observed, that no ill use at all can be made of this precedent by men that have any share of common sense and common honesty. If any one has such commission and warrant as the Hebrews had, then let him do as the Hebrews did, and not otherwise. It is ludicrous to call this a precedent for what is nothing like it, nor any thing akin to it. But if any can be weak enough, or wild enough, to make this a cover for iniquity, they reason wrong and so the fault might better be thrown upon human reason, which the Objector so magnifies, than upon sacred Scripture, which he loves to vilify. But in truth, neither Scripture nor reason ought to bear the blame of what would be a wilful abuse of both: but the blame would lie solely upon human corruption and culpable depravity. To that are owing men's evil practices and their evil reasonings too: and for both they must one day answer at the high tribunal of God.

EXOD. XX. 5.

I THE LORD THY GOD AM A JEALOUS GOD, VISITING THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN UNTO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION OF THEM THAT HATE ME'.

The Objector is pleased to observes, that "the same spirit does not alike prevail throughout the Old Testa"ment. The nearer we come to the times of the Gospel, "the milder it appeared: for though God declares in the "Decalogue, that he is a jealous God, &c. and accord"ingly Achan, with all his family, was destroyed for his "single crime, yet the Lord afterwards says, THE SOUL "THAT SINNETH, IT SHALL DIE; THE SON SHALL NOT BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER'," &c.