It would seem an idle waste of time if I were to set about proving systematically, that this is not a skilful adaptation of the regular laws of Providence, deduced from an attentive observation of the general course of divine government, and applied to the sanction of a code pretending to divine authority. No one, indeed, admitting the agency of a Creator, can doubt that a general providence ordains the series of events, and that a particular providence superintends the inferior agents by whose instrumentality they are brought about: but no one can follow the path, or trace the steps of its operation. Look through a body of individuals; who will venture to assign their success to their moral virtues, or their misfortunes to their guilt? Still more, survey the nations of the world: is it possible to estimate the degree of their idolatry by their comparative barrenness, or to find any proportion preserved between the natural fertility of the land. and the moral merits of the people? The result of observation and experience is, that the good and the bad, the wheat and the tares,

VOL. I

I

grow up together till the harvest, and that the sun shines and the rain falls on the just and unjust without discrimination: this inequality being in fact essential to a probationary state, which supposes all exactness of retributive justice to be reserved for another.

If then such is the actual and undeniable course of things, no rational impostor, intending to devise a constitution for an infant people, would have rested its stability on a violation of that course, or sanctioned his laws upon a presumption of supernatural interference, unauthorized by the order of nature, and contradicted by every day's experience. It is indeed possible that he might, in general terms, have instructed his people to depend upon the divine blessing, whilst they obeyed the laws proposed to them, and to dread divine vengeance, as the certain consequence of disobedience. He might have gone as far as Zaleucus, in saying that "every one ought to labour all he can to become good, both in practice and principle, whereby he will render himself acceptable to

the Deity."* posed this invisible arm as the primary instrument of success, or minister of punishment; or have rested such entire dependance on the divine agency, as to expect it to supersede the usual means of victory, or national defence. Let us refer to the example of Mahomet: no one with more confidence, or apparent enthusiasm, assured his followers of the assistance of Heaven and without hesitation, in the moment of danger, "he demanded the succour of Gabriel and three thousand angels." But however he might endeavour to inflame by religious feelings the national valour of his Arabian followers, we do not find that he neglected any of the known means of success: he first inured his troops to perfect discipline; and then, with consummate address, he brought in enthusiasm, not as a substitute for the common instruments of victory, but as an additional incitement to their courage, by assigning the highest rewards of a future state to the most

But he never could have pro

* Τὸν μέλλοντα ειναι θεοφιλή.

+ Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 299.

heroic warrior.

"The sword," says the Ko

a

ran, "is the key of heaven and of hell: a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven: at the day of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent as vermillion and odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubims."* This is not the language of Moses: who calmly says, “ye shall "walk in all the ways which the Lord your God "hath commanded you, that ye may live, and "that it may be well with you."† Mahomet argues, Pursue the most decisive measures to secure success, and then trust that the divine aid will accompany the defenders of the faith; while Moses, in a tone directly opposite, dissuades his people from trusting to themselves, or to any other security than their obedience to the commandments, and abstinence from idolatry. +

* Gibbon, chap. I.

+ Deut. v. 32.

Deut. vi. 24; viii. 11, to the end of the chapter, &c.

As yet, however, we have touched upon only half the argument. The Hebrew leader not only overlooks human means, and substitutes heavenly protection for the usual and experienced instruments of national success and stability; but he superadds enactments which must actually render the Israelites, in every human view, an easy prey to their enemies.

The first institution trenching upon the strength and security of the state is that of the Sabbath: an institution which, when observed in its original strictness and austerity, was not merely calculated to produce the effect which we now derive from its more limited obligation, of increasing the powers of a people, by sparing their exertion: but afforded an easy opening for the destruction of the whole nation by any enemies who should become acquainted with the Hebrew law. So severe was the appointment, that no work could be undertaken, either abroad or at home, on the Sabbath; not only the active operations of war were forbid