*' were at firft onely general and obfcure, but
" were gradually opened and unfolded in every
" age, till better days came, when God thought
" good to call us into the marvellous light of
" his Gofpel [ey\
To this fummary account of his fcheme, he
adds the following fliort paragraph, with which
he concludes this notable difcourfe ;
" This piece of hiftory is all the account we
" have of the religion of the Antediluvian"
'* world: it was proper to be confidered, for
" the relation there is between prophecy and
" the ftate of religion in the world -, and for
" this reafon alfo, becaufe facrifice way perhaps'
" be found to be one kind of prophecy^ or rep re -
** fentation of the one great facrifice, once
*' offered for the lins of the world.'*
Such
Bijhop of London's D I scovKsts. 289
Such are the curious refinements, which we
muft receive upon the authority of this Pre-
late, as the fundamental principles of that faith,
on which our religion fubfifts. Principles which
utterly excluded an throw afide the natural law,
or reafon of man, as of no ufe or fervice to him,
from the beginning of the world to this day, in
difcerning what is right and wrong, or marking
out the chief good and happinefs of his nature:
and no wonder, that they wage a perpetual war
with reafon, fince they muft either fupprefs rea-
fon, or reafon will finally deftroy them^ For
inftead of recommending a calm and natural
way of thinking on fubjedts, the moll impor-
tant, they tend to fill our heads with fanatical
conceits, and enthufiaftic fancies ; drawing our
attention away from the nature of things, and
the teftimony of plain fa6ls, and applying it to
the inveftigation of myfteries, prophecies, types,
Ihadows, or every thing, which God has thought
proper to hide, inftead of revealing to us. In
fhort, when men's fearches into the fcriptures are
dirccfled by thefe principles, the moft favorable
treatment which can be given to them, is to
rank them in the fame clafs with the vain
amufements of thofe fimple people, who pleafe
themfelves with looking up to the heavens, not
to contemplate the real beauty, order, and mo-
tions of the heavenly bodies, but to fpy mon-
fters in the clouds, or the typical figures of
mountains, caftlcs, bcafts, and men ; the crea-
VoL. V. T tures
290 An Examination of the
tures not of God, but of tlieir own imagina-
tion.
I have now faid enough, to give the reader a
jufl notion of theBifhop's celebrated Difcourfes,
concerning the ufe and intent of the Scripture pro-
phecieSy confidered either fingly, and indepen-
dently on. each other, or in that comprehenfive
fcheme and chain, of them, which he deduces
from Adam. But before I difmifs the fubjedV,
I muft beg the reader to recolleft what I have
before obferved, concerning the ufe of prophecy,
as it was aftually taught and pradiifed by the
Apofties and Evangelifts :
I ft. That, in preaching the Gofpel to the Jeivs^,.
they conftantly applied the prophecies of the
Old Teflament, ftngly and independently on
each other, to all the remarkable circumftances
of the life of Jefus, as fo many decifive proofs
of his divine miflion.
2dly. That in their fearch and allegation of thofc
prophecies, they began always with Mofes, as
the firft Prophet, who had fpoken of Chrift,
in the delivery of his law to the people.
From thefe two Obfervations, it follows, that,
whatever difficulties may be charged to the par-
ticular applications of prophecies, which are
found in the New Teftament, yet on the whote,
that way of applying them muft be efteemed
by
Sijhcp of ho N DON* s Discourses. 291
by Chrlftians, as the beil, which the cafe afibrds;
and that the authority of the Gofpcl, as far as
it is groimded on prophecy, refls on thofe fingle
and independent predicftions, which are deUver-
ed occafionally here and tiicre, /« ihe Law of the
Prophets. It muft be confefled however, tliat
the Author, againft whom the Bifhop's Dif-
courfes are levelled, has alledged feveral flrong
and even unanfwerable objedlions to fome of
them, which are cited by the Evangelifts in
proof of the miflion of Jefus, as being of too
loofe and precarious a nature, to build any folid
argument upon. This his Lordiliip feems to
allow in his Preface, and intimates, that it was
this difficulty, which induced him to quit
that field to the Adverfary, and to take ihelter
in his Antediluvian fcheme.
But if this foundation, laid by the Apoftles
and Evangelifts, muft be dcferted, and their
applications of prophecy given up as defence-
lefs, it is certain, that there is no other fcheme
of it, which can add any real fupport to the
authority of the Gofpel. It is our bufinefs
therefore to take things, as we find them, and
treat them agreeably to their nature, neither
afcribing a divine character to what is common
and natural , nor denying a due reverence to
what is facred and divine. This is what I en-
deavoured to do many years ago, with regard
to this very qu^eftion ; at a time when it waa
warmly controverted, and many fubtil objec-
T 2 tioas
292 An Examination of the
tions raifed upon this article of prophecy, to
the difadvantage of the Chriftian caufe -, on
which occafion, inftead of contriving any evafive
expedients, or fancifull fyllems, to elude the
force of fuch objeftions, I thought it my duty,
to examine ferioufly and impartially, what fo-
lution of them the fubjeft itfelf, when fairly
ftated, would fupply j and to embrace that
opinion, which the evidence of allowed facfls
would naturally fuggeft to me. The fumm of
this inquiry, as it was originally drawn up by
me, will probably be the fubjed of fome future
treatife, which I fhall referve however, toge-
ther with the examination of the reft of his Lord-
fhip's Difcourfes and learned Diflertations, to
fome occafion hereafter of more leifure.
SOME
[ 293 ]
SOME CURSORY
ANIMADVERSIONS
ON THE
APPENDIX,
O R,
Additional Dissertation.
AFTER I had drawn up the foregoing
Examination, and was preparing it for
the Prefs, the Bifhop thought proper
to pubhfh an Appendix, or Additional Dijferta-
tion^ as he calls it, containing a farther inquiry
into the Mofaic account of the Fall. This is the
fifth piece of the fame kind, with which he has
fucceflively enlarged and enriched thefe favorite
Difcourfes •, bringing forth to us, out of his trea-
fure, like the good houjholder in the Gofpel, thijigs
new and old. To this Appendix he has prefixed
a fhort Advertifement, in which he acquaints
us, " that it y/as drawn up fome years ago, and
*' intended, as an Examination of the objec-
'* tions of a particular Author, who is fince
T 3 " deadj
i^^ An Examination of the
** dead j for which reafon, he has now conr
" fidered the objedions, not as His, but a§
** common to all, who call in quseflion, or are
" offended with the HiHory of the Fall, as it
" ftands recorded by Mofes.^^
Thus he artfully engages Mofes in a quarrel,
which is purely his own ; and prepoffeffes peo-
ple with a notion, that he is defending his cha-
radler and authority againfl adverfaries, who
are laboring to deprefs them ; whereas the ob-
jeclions generally propofed on this fubjeft, and
thefe efpecially, now offered by myfelf, are not
levelled againft the writings or teftimony of
Mofes^ but againft the abfurd conceits and in-
terpretations, which fuperftition, falfe zeal, or
the arts of political Churchmen have in all ages
been ingrafting upon them, and impofmg upon
all Chriftians as the fundamental principles of
their religion,
I have already declared my opinion Very free-
ly on the Mofaic account of the Fall^ and ob-
ferved, that, by confidering it as a moral Fable,
we get rid of every difficulty, render it clear
and confiftent, as well as adequate to every ufe,
which Chriftianity can require from it : and,
on the contrary, that the hiftorical fenfe cannot
be defended, but by a feries of fuppofitions,
wholly arbitrary and percarious, void of all fup-
port from the text, and evidently condemned by
our reafon.
This,
5/>Z/i?p.o/ London's Discourses. 295
This, I fay, I have clearly fliewn in the
courfe of the preceding examination, and there
cannot be a ftronger confirmation of it, than
what his Lordfhip has given us in this very Ap*
pendix, by letting us fee, that a perfon of his
great parts and learning, after twenty-five years
fpent, in confidering, revifing, and explaining
his hiftorical fcheme, has nothing after all to
produce, as his lad thoughts upon it, but a per-
plexed, hypothetical, inconfiftent piece of fo-
phiftry i whith v/ill be intelligible oncly to a
few, incapable of convincing any, and fure to
difguft any rational inquirer. The truth of
which I Ihall exemplify, by a fpecimen or two
of his manner of treating fome of the capital
points, which he profefles to explane and con-
firm in this additional performance.
His Lordfliip begins by obferving, that the
main difficulty of the quaeftion confifts in de-
termining, what we are to underftand by the Ser-
pent, who is reprefented by Mcfes, as the Temptor
of Eve. Yet before he has advanced one page
farther, he concludes, that a real and natural
Serpent had part in this tranfa£fion, for thefe two
reafons •, firft, becaufe he is faid to be more fub-
til than any beaft of the field, which implies him
to have been of the fame clafs with thofe beajis j
2dly, becaufe the curfe denounced againft him, is
adapted to the condition of a natural Serpent, and
cf no other being [a^.
[.] Append, p. .^. ^ Thus .
2^6 Jn E X A M I rs A T 1 o }J of ihe
Thus far he adheres to the letter of the text ;
which, as all will allow, fuggefts to us no other
notion, than that of a real Serpent. But though
the fame text afcribes the ufe of reafon and
fpeech to the Serpent, as faculties belonging to
his nature, and though Mofes, as the Bilhop
affirms, relates this fa5i as an hijlorian [^], yet
in the very next ftept, he utterly deferts the
text, and in flat contradidion to his Hiftorian,
declares it mpoffible, that a natural Serpent could
reafon and talk in that manner which Mofes has
related [c],
But fince the curfe pronounced againft the
Serpent is grounded on the reality of the dia-
logue, which he is faid to have held with Eve^
and is adapted, as he fays, to the condition of
a natural Serpent^ and of no other being : This
refledion alone might have beeci fufficient, one
would think, to have ftaggered his Lordlhip,
and checked his zeal for an hypothefis, which
alTigns the whole punilhment to one being, yet
charges the whole crime to another. But not-
withiftanding this manifefl: abfurdity, he pro-
ceeds to confirm it, by many grave and weighty
arguments, which he introduces thus ;
'' This Serpent, fays he, talks and reafons,
*^ not upon fuph trivial things, of which we
' «* jnay
Bipop c/ London's Discourses. 297
** may fuppofe the beads of the field (if they
" have any reafon) to have fome notion: but
" he reafons upon the nature of God and of
*' man ; upon the knowledge of good and
** evil i upon the nature and tendency of the
*' law given to man. He looks back and re-
" fledls upon the policy, in which that law
*' was founded, and the art of the Governor,
•' in keeping his fubjcdls in ignorance and blind
" obedience. He looks forward and foretells
*' the happy conf:;quences of throwing off this
♦* yoke, and pcrfuadcs the woman, that flic
** and her hufband Ihould be as Gods, if they
** could have the courage to break throuo-h
** the reftraint of this iniquitous law." — After
which pompous difplay of the great and impor-
tant fubjeds, which are treated of in this dia-
logue, he comes upon us again with his old
infulting quseftions.
" What think you now ^ are thefe the pro-
*' perties of a mere brute creatute ?' Or is
** there any inflance of an author, who ever
*' ferioufly introduced the beafls of the field,
** thus reafoning and thus difcourfing [JJ .?'*
To the firfl of thefe quxftions, every one will
readily anfwer, that fpeech and reafon, are not
the properties of a brute creature. Yet this
very anfwer, which his Lordfhip expefts from
us, and in which he feems to triumph, inftead
[<1 P. 3.
-of
^p8 y^» E X A M I N A T 1 O N tf/ //&tf
of confirming his hypothefis, will ever be fatal
to it with ail men of fenfe, and convince them
at once, that the ftory of a talking Serpent, can
be nothing elfe but a fable. Nor will the an-
fwer to the fecond quasftion be of any more fer-
vice to him i fmce it is certain, that there never
was a writer of fables, either ancient or modern,
who introduced the beafts of the field, as the
fpeakers, but he introduced them in the fame
manner, and made them fpeak indifierently on
all fubjedis, ferious or jocofe^ high or low, tri-
vial or important, which he himfeif was ac-
quainted with, or had occafion to inculcate.
But it is curious to obferve, that while Mofes,
relating this fa5i as an Hijiorian, affigns the na-
tural fubtility of the Serpent y as the fole ground
and reafon of his fuccefs in tempting Eve; the
Biihop, on the contrary, alledges that very
fubtility, with which Ihe was tempted, as a
proof that the Serpent could not be the temptor.
And thus he goes on, fometimes flicking clofe
to the text, and fometimes contradiding it, till
he brings us to what he calls it^s true import and
meanings which he fumms up in two or three
jfhort conclufions •, firft that the 'Temptor muji be a
rational Being, becaufe he reafons with Eve; fecond-
ly a -wicked Being, becaufe he a5is in oppofition to
the Creator. And from thefe two he draws the
capitol conclufioh of his elaborate work ; that
a natural Serpent, managed by the art of the Devi/,
was the vifible agent 6r injlriiment in beguiling
Eve [^].
[.] P. 9.
In
^//5bo^ */ London's Discourses. 299
In the dedu6lion of this argument, he has
given us the pattern of a proper fable, from
another part of Scripture, in which the trees are
feigned to have held a general ajfemblyfor the choice
of a King [/] : for what purpofe he introduced it,
is difficult to fay ; unlefs it was to fhew the dif-
ference between the fabulous llile, in which this
ftory of the trees, and the hiftorical, in which
the ftory of the Fall is related. Yet upon com-
paring the two (lories, we fhall find that the
fame characters, by which his Lordfhip attempts
to mark out the difference between them, are
commmon to them both-, and that there is
nothing in the ftile or matter of the one, but
what will prove it equally fabulous, or equally
hiftorical with the other. For inftance, the
Serpent and the trees were both of them equally
deilitute of fpeech, yet are both of them affirm-
ed to have difcouried and debated. But the
Serpent, it feems, talked and reafoned on fublime
points of theology, morality, and civil policy -,
looked back into the caufes, and forward into
the confequences of things : and fo did the
Trees •, they reafoned on matters of the higheft
importance to human fociety •, on the chief good
of life •, the fweetnefs of a private condition,
preferable to the fplcndor of adminiftering
public affairs ; and on the mifcries of living
under
200 ^;/ E X A M I N A T I N of i^e
under the tyranny of an unworthy and ill-chofen
Prince [g].
But Serpents, he tells us, under the fame man-
agement of the Devil, had often been known to
talk on other occaf.ons, as well as at the Fall, and
to give out oracles to the Heathens, in fever al dif-
ferent nations. And fo the Trees again were
known as certainly, to fpeak and give out ora-
cles to the ancients, as the Serpents : witnefs
the Oak of Dodona, fo celebrated for it*s oracle,
by all the writers of antiquity, with feveral
other fpeaking Oaks, to which religious honours,
vows, and offerings have been paid on the fame
account, both in Pagan and Chriftian coun-
tries [h]. Wherefore, as in the flory of fpeak-
ing Trees, the incredibility of the thing obliges
us to take it for a Fable, fo the fame Incredi-
bility muft furely have the fame effed, in the
ftories of ipeaking Serpents.
The Bilhop however goes on to confirm
his opinion, by fhewing, " that wicked fpi-
*' rits and wicked men are fometimes called
'* in Scripture, Serpents, Scorpions, bidders,
" and the Tempt or himfelf, the Great Dra-
'* gon and old Serpent ♦, and he affirms it to be
" well known, as an undoubted fad, that fmce
" this firfl deceit upon Eve, the Devil has
*' played the fame trick over again a thoufand
[g] J'^'g" ix. 8. [^] See my Letter from Rome^
p. 133. .
" times
5{/^5/> c/ London's Discourses. 301
" times under the form of a Serpent, in the
'â– ' eaftern country, and Egypt, Greece and Rome :
*' and that, in America alfo, the image of a
** Great Dragon, as Garcilafco del Vigo relates,
" was found in one of their Temples, as the
•' Deity of the country, and the objedt of their
" religious worfhip [/]." And this fort of proof,
grounded on a variety of fancifull conjeftures,
forced conftru(5tions, and incredible fafts, is the
fumm, of what he has been able to collect, for
the fupport of his fundamental point, that the
Devil was the Tempter of Eve.
I Ihall now add a fhort fketcli of his manner
of repelling the objeflions, which reafon is apt
to fugged, in contradiflion to his hypothefis.
Some writers have imagined the ftory of the
Fall to be of the fabulous kind, becaufe the .
curfe denounced againfl: the Serpent, of creeping
upon his belly, licking the dujl, and being hofiile
and odious to man, would otherwife feem imper-
tinent, fmce it infii(5ted nothing but what flow-
ed from the original nature and formation of
the animal. This his Lordfhip treats with much
contempt, and fays •, " How do you know this ?
*' who could inform you of it ? If you argue
" from a fa6t, of which you have neither
" knowledge, nor information, what fupport
" have you ? Will you fay, that God cannot
" alter the (late or condition of any Being, in
** any refpeft from what it was originally ?—
[«■] P. 25, 26, &c.
" And
^02 An Examination of the
<* And if we confider rightly, nature is no-
*.' thing but the law and appointment of God,
« who is mafter of his own laws, and can
*« change them whenever he pleafes, and nature
*' will follow and obey his commands [^].'*
He fuppofes the nature both of the Serpent
and of the woman to have been changed by the
Fall, from what it was before : but how that
change was effefled, / neither know, jfays iie,
norjloall inquire [/] : in which indeed ;he is in the
right, for to inquire into it, would be trouble-
fome and fruitlefs ; whereas to fuppofe it is eafy
and applicable to his purpofe on all occafions.
And to fay the truth, in the prefent fuppofition,
he does but follow the example of feveral other
Bifhops and Commentators, who, to evade the
fame diiHculty, have recurred to the fame ex-
pedient, of fuppofing the Serpent to have been
originally of an ereSi and beautiful fhape, which
appeared fo glorious to Eve, that fhe took him to
he an Angel, or Minijier of heaven [m] : from
which upright and amiable form he was doomed
for his offence to creep upon his belly.
[i] P. 19, 20. [/] P. 20.
[//z] The woman, fays Dr. Lightfoot, thinking it had
been a good Angel» entreth into communication with the
Devil. Obfervation on Genef. c. iii. Vol. I. p. 692.
Nor doth it feem at all credible to me, that Hie could
have been otherwife deceived, but by fome creature, which
appeared fo glorioufly, that Ihe took it for an heavenly
minifter. See Bilhop Patrick, Comment, on Gen. iii. i .
I
Bijhop of London's Discourses. ^oj
I fhall not trouble myfelf, to cxpofe the va-
nity of this hypothetical way of reafoning,
which, if allowed to have any force, would con-
found all reafoning whatfoever : my view, in
the recital of it, is to fhew onely, how incon-
fiftent His Lordfhip is with himielf, in the ap-
plication of it : the common fate of all, who
undertake the defence of the iyftems, in oppo-
fition to nature and reafon. For inflance -, when
it was his bufmefs to prove, that the Devil was
the real Tempter of Eve, he declares it impoiTible
and contrary to nature, that a mere Serpent
fhould talk and reafon : yet when the nature of
the fame Serpent is alledgcd in contradidion to
his fcheme, then nature is nothing with him
but an empty name, from which no certain in-
ference can be drawn ; as being not onely va-
riable, but often a<5lually varied at the pleafure
of it's author : which very reafoning, as it is
applied by him to refute an objeclion, invali-
dates every thing, which he had been urging
for the confirmation of his main argument.
For let us afk him in his own words ; how
can you know that the Serpent could not fpeak ?
who could inform you of it ? If you argue from
nature, nature is nothing but the appointment
of God, who may change it at pleafure, and
lias often done fo in many cafes. It is as eafy
to fuppofe, that the Serpent might talk before
the Fall, as that he might walk erect before the
Fall 1
;o4 y/;z E X A M I N A T r o N of the
Fall J frnce the fame reafoning has certainly the
fame force in the one cafe, as in the other.
And in truth, if any alteration was really made
at that time in it's nature, it is more reafonable
to believe, that it was made by depriving it of
fpeech, than by any change of it's external
form ; becaufe the text exprefsly afcribes to it
the ufe of fpeech, yet gives not the lead hint
of it's having any different form or bodily lliape,
than what it now enjoys.
But though his Lord (hip, when it ferved his
turn, declared it impofTible, for ferpents to
fpeak, yet it feems to be his private opinion,
that they were indued originally with that fa~
culty, but loft it again at the Fall. This we
may colled from the example produced by him
to fhew, how fuch a change might be made in
the nature of men or other animals, yet no body
be able to tell in what manner it was wrought.
" When Zacharias, fays he. Father of John the
*' Bapttfi^-yN2& ftricken dumb inftantaneoufly, can
*' you tell what change was made in his Organs
" of fpeech, or how this alteration was affeded \
** But fuppofe, that the fame change had been
*' made univerfally, would not the world have
«' been fpeechlefs ? And can you doubt, whe-
" ther the fame power could do this in every
*' man's cafe, which was done in the cafe of
** Zacharias ? and would not this have been a
*' curfe upon man, as fatal and extenfive as the
•* curfe of the Fall was to the woman, or to the
" ferpent
\
Bijhop ^/ L o N D o N*s D I s c o u R s E s. "30 J
" ferpent^ and as contrary to what we call the
" courfe of Nature, and as Iwrd to be ac-
" counted for [«] ?
Now if nothing more be meant by this feries
of quasflions, than what the obvious fenfe of
them feems to import j that God^ ijoho jlruck one
man dumby might have Jlruck all tnen dumb, if he
had pleafed, at the fame time ; and if he had
done foy that all the world would then have been
fpeechlefs ; it is wholly trifling and of no fer-
vice to his avowed argument: wherefore his
view probably in thefe quseftions was, to fug-
geft a tacit inference, which can hardly efcape
an attentive reader, that as Zacharias was ftruck
dumb, fo likewife was the Serpent j but with
this difi^erence -, that the pufiifliment of Zacha-
rias was reftrained to one individual, whereas
that of the Serpent was made univcrfal ; and
the curfe, though pronounced fmgly upon one
animal, was extended, as in the cafe alfo of
Eve^ to the whole fpeciesj which from that
moment became fpeechlefs.
He makes an attempt on his way, to confirm
his expofition of this ftory, by the authority of
our Lord : and if he could do this, to the faris-
fadion of men of fenfe, it would filence at once
the fcruples of all Chriflian inquirers. But his
way of proving it is no other, than what we
Vol. V. (J - jiave
:>
Jo6' An Examination of the
have already ken on many occafions ; not by
any direft or explicit tcftimonies of fcripture,
but by fubtil refinements, or forced intetpreta-
tions of the texts referred to. — - For inftance ;
*' it appears plainly, fays he, that our Saviour
*' underllood the Devil to be the Temptor,
" from the parable of the tares and his expo-
*' fition of it [
emptory would lead us to conclude, that fome
reference or allufion was certainly made by this
Parable to the temptation of Eve and the man-
ner in which it was effefted : yet any other per-
fon, who had not the fame hypothefis in his
head, might read it over a thoufand times,
without ever thinking once of the ftory of the