CHAP. III.-SECT. I.

On the Probability that some Account of the

Creation would be revealed and preserved.

Statement of the Reasons for that Probability.

Mosaic History.

Collateral Testimony to its Truth.

Page 58

Its internal Evidence unobjectionable; and therefore in-
sisted on in the following Argument.

Preliminary Inquiries as to the Nature of the History,
and its Origin from Revelation and Tradition.

Collateral Evidence in favour of original Revelation,

from the Nature of Language: from the slow Progress

of the Arts: from the agricultural State described by

Moses.

Nothing improbable in the Idea of original Revelation.

CHAP. III. SECT. II.

.....

The Object of the Hebrew Polity Page 82

Its avowed Intention to maintain the Worship of the

Creator.

Proof from the Decalogue; and from the Institution of

the Sabbath.

Argument from the Establishment of such a civil Polity.

CHAP. III.-SECT. III.

Peculiarity of the Design of the Hebrew Po-

Page 94

lity

...

Plan of other Legislators.

Lycurgus and Solon: Romulus and Numa, compared

with Moses: their religious Rites the Effect of Policy.

Zaleucus: inferior to Moses in Tone of Authority.

Miraculous Interpositions appealed to throughout the

Law.

Antiquity of the Law. Absurdity of the contrary Opi
nion, from the Impossibility of assigning any Period
to its Introduction, on other Grounds; and from the
Nature of its Enactments.
Recapitulation.

CHAP. III.-SECT. IV.

Peculiar Sanctions of the Mosaic Law. Page 124

Moses relies on divine Interposition.

Duration of the civil Polity dependent on the Allegiance
of the People to the Worship of the Creator.

Punishment of Slavery threatened to Disobedience: Mode
of averting that Punishment.

Contrary to the Course of human Affairs.

Rewards promised.

Comparison of Mahomet.

Extraordinary Providence necessary, under the Mosaic
Institutions: as the Sabbath, sabbatical Year, &c.
Proved by subsequent Events of the History.

This Necessity foreseen by Moses.

Peculiar Provisions of the Jewish Law confirmed by co l
lateral Testimony.

Conclusion from the Peculiarity of its Design and Sar -

tions.

CHAP. III. SECT. V.

On the religious Opinions of the Hebrews.

Page 1,58

Inquiry as to their Superiority over those of other Na-

tions.

Universal Belief among the Hebrews of the Existence of
one omnipotent Creator. Different Case of other an-
cient People.

Hebrew Literature: confined to sacred Subjects; and con-
taining sublime Descriptions of the Attributes, &c.
Comparison of these with heathen Hymns. Orpheus.
Isaiah. Fragment of Euripides. 102d Psalm. Hymn
of Cleanthes. Extract from Book of Wisdom. My-
thological Hymns. Carmina Sæcularia.
Concluding Remarks.

CHAP. III.-SECT. VI.

On the national Worship of the Hebrews.

National Worship an important Test.

Page 184

General Errors of the ancient Philosophers, and Multi-

tude.

Idolatry. Forbidden to the Jews.

National Worship of Greece. Chorus from the dipus
of Sophocles. Roman Superstition. Serpent brought
from Epidaurus. Erection of the Statue of Jupiter
during the Catilinarian Conspiracy. Contrast of the
Jewish Worship. Solomon's Dedication of Temple.
Hezekiah's Prayer. Belief retained throughout the
whole Jewish History.

CHAP. III.-SECT. VII.

On the Principles of Hebrew Morality. Page 206
I. Authority assumed by Moses as to Virtues of imperfect
Obligation. The Welfare of the State was the sole
Object of heathen Legislation. Consequent Purity.
of the Jewish Morality.

II. Infanticide at Sparta, and generally in Grecce, &c.

Forbidden to the Jews, in Consistency with their Views
of the Creator.

III. Motives of Jewish Morality, the divine Favour or
Displeasure.

IV. Humanity prescribed by the Jewish Law, in Con-
formity with the same Principles. Treatment of Slaves
and Strangers, compared with other Nations.
Argument arising from this Difference.

CHAP. III.-SECT. VIII, and IX.
On the Causes to which the Superiority of the
Mosaic Theology may be referred.

SECT. VIII.

Whether Moses could have invented the Doctrine
he taught concerning the Creation. Page 238
Belief of a Creator agreeable to Reason, but not disco-
vered by it. Polytheism of the Ancients. Not dis-
pelled by the Philosophers. None of them taught a
rational System.
Sublime Passages from Plato and others. Difference be-
tween the Philosophers and Moses examined. I. Their
Ignorance of the Personality of the Deity. This De-
fect inherent in the System of Pythagoras and the
Stoics and of Aristotle. Practical Consequences of
such an Error. II. Socrates. His Superiority. But
his Doctrine not applicable to an Account of the Crea-
tion. Plato's Belief of the independent Existence of
Matter. The Clearness of the Views of Moses com.
pared.

No Arguments unknown to the Philosophers, which could
have convinced Moses of the Unity. Argument from
final Causes clearly understood by Socrates and his

Disciples. Argument from the Necessity of a First
Cause used by Aristotle. Positive Conviction of Moses.
Difference between the Doctrine of the Philosophers and

of Moses acknowledged by the Converts to Christianity.
Improvement in the Doctrines of Philosophy as the Scrip-
tures became known.

Concluding Remarks.

SECT. IX.

Moses neither received his Doctrine of the Crea-
tion from the Egyptians, nor from the popular
Belief of Israelites

I. Egyptian Doctrines.

*

Page 283

Grossness of their Idolatry.
Esoteric Belief of their Priests. Its Inconsistency.
Mistaken Ideas of Egyptian Superiority,

Reserve of the Egyptian Priests, as to their Doctrine.
Immortality of the Soul.

II. Difficulty of accounting for the Existence of a pure
Belief among the Israelites, except from original Reve-
lation.

Their State pastoral: that State unfavourable to Litera-
ture. Proofs. Unhesitating Declaration of Moses.
Conclusive Argument arising from it.

Recapitulation of the whole Evidence. Absurd Conse-

quences of rejecting it, deduced from the Peculiarities

of the Hebrew History and Law. The Evidence
amounts to moral Certainty.

CHAP. IV.

Conclusions from the foregoing Argument.

Page 316

Recapitulation of the demonstrative, analogical, and his-
torical Argument. Question considered, whether th