• Greeks boaft Minos to have been, and after him

other lawgivers; for fome of them faid their laws

6

' were of divine original, Minos at leaft referred his laws to Apollo and his Delphic oracle, they either thinking it was fo in reality, or fuppofing they would easily perfuade the people of it:' which is no more an argument that Jofephus thought Minos received his laws from a god, than it would be an evidence that a Chriftian judged Mahomet to be a divine meffenger and inftructor, if he should fay that Jefus was fuch a perfon as the Turks believed Mahomet to have been.

6

So much for Voltaire's reflection. But the recital of the paffage furnishes a natural occafion to obferve, that Dr. Middleton hath from it imputed fuch fentiments to Jofephus concerning Mofes, as are too derogatory to his honour to pafs uncenfured; for he maintains, †‘That Jofephus here does not insist on $ any fupernatural or divine authority of Mofes; but ascribes all the great things done by him to his own personal skill and management, putting him on the ' fame footing with Minos, and the other old lawgivers of Greece, and giving him the preference only on the comparison, for the fuperior excellency ' of his laws.' With what injuftice he does fo, is evident in part already; but to obviate further any bad impreffions which his affertion may make, I add, that as Jofephus often speaks of the divine infpiration and miffion of Mofes, fo he does in that very place, ac

"

6

.

* Contra Appion lib 2 fect. 16. page. 1376. Axx' `olov

τοις Ελλησιν αυτον τον Μίνω γεγονέναι, &c.

οιον παρα

+ See Middleton's works vol. 3. 8vo. Defence of Letter to Dr. Waterland, page 95.

*

6

cording to all MSS. declare his conviction of it; while Middleton, in preference to their authority, follows the reading of the old Latin translation, which the learned Joseph Scaliger hath cenfured as the work of a moft unfkilful and ignorant interpreter; nor can the accufation be denied to be well founded. The hiftorian's words are, There being in Mofes a 'virtuous intention and great atchievements, we reasonably concluded, that he + had a divine leader ' and counsellor, and being perfuaded himself that he acted and meditated all things according to his will, he judged it behoved him especially to inspire this opinion into the multitude, for they who be'lieve that God infpects their lives, do not allow ⚫ themselves to neglect any duty.'‡ If he say, after the

* See the preface to Hudfon's edit. Jofephus Scaliger, recentiorum doctiffimus, veterem Flavii interpretem imperitiffimum appellat,' + Edit. Hudf 1376 Εικότως ενομίζομεν ἡγεμονα τε και συμβατ λον θείον εχειν. Middleton with the old tranflator reads ενομιζεν, which makes Jofephus declare only Mofes's own conceit in the matter.

·

"

Thefe the Doctor hath reprefented thus, Such an one,' fays he, whofe intentions were to just and noble, might reasonably prefume that he had God for his guide and counsellor; and having once ⚫ perfuaded himself of this, he judged it neceffary above all things, to inftill the fame notion into the people, that every thing he did. was directed by the will of heaven, not acting herein the part of a 'magician or impoftor as some have unjustly accused him, but like the ' famed lawgivers of Greece, who, to make their good defigns the more effectual, used to ascribe the invention of their own laws to the gods, and more efpecially like Minos, who imputed all his inftitutions to Apollo and the Delphic oracle' Letter to Dr. Waterland, containing fome remarks on his Vindication of Scripture ibid. p. 29.

But every one who is able to read the original, will fee he hath taken unjustifiable liberties in this translation which he hath here gi ven. For besides making Jofephus only tell Mofes's own belief, that he

paffage a little ago produced from him, and introduced by the words just now recited,' Who of them ⚫ conftituted the beft laws, and entertained the just• eft fentiments concerning the deity, all may learn from the laws themfelves, comparing them with one another.' This is no proof that he imagined Mofes had no claim to fuperior honour and respect, as alone of the two vefted with a commiffion from the Creator of heaven and earth; it is only an appeal to the world about the equity of his pretenfions, that he had a divine teacher.

C

I am aware the fame great man, though he owns t Jofephus fpeaks of the infpiration of Mofes where the Scripture does it, from which he professes to copy, hath contended also that he had no inward conviction of it, because he varies remarkably from the Mofaic account in his narration of many facts, against his own folemn declarations of ftrict and rigorous adherence thereto. But does not Fabricius himself, to

·

was under a divine conduct, where, by all MSS. he expresses this to have been the fenfe of his nation, of which above, he omits what he hath about his great actions, and about his thinking it a duty incumbent on him from his knowledge of God's attention to his behaviour, to imprefs the people with a perfwafion of his divine miflion. And he disguises his plain meaning, that Mofes was fuch in truth and reality, as the Greeks falfly boafted or bragged Minos to be. With the fame view further he reftrains the term rendered impoftor, to fignify one who used the pretence of miracles, to cheat and deceive for his own advantage, Defence of his Letter. ibid. p. 102. when yet it denotes a perfon, who puts a trick or fallacy upon another, from any principle, and with any defign whatever.

+ See Remarks on the Reply to the Defence of his Letter. Ibid. p.

200.

See Fabricius's Bib!. Graeca, lib. 4. cap. 6. or Hudfon's editi•

C

6

whom he fends us for proof of these deviations from it, guard us against drawing this conclufion in his anfwer to Bayle, who from the fame topic, had argued Jofephus's opinion of the fallibility, and by confequence, of the non-infpiration of Mofes? His reflection here feems to me very fenfible, and removes, or at least greatly leffens the difficulty; on which account, as I do not recollect to have met with it in English, I shall here transcribe it. This notion, that Jofephus did not believe Mofes's divine authority, ' is not probable, fays he, and is confuted by his own moft exprefs affurances. I would rather hold, that being a Pharifee, he did not think he contradicted ⚫ the facred writers, when he most interpolated their ⚫ accounts according to the traditions of his nation, or even wrote things repugnant to their true and natural meaning. How many are there among Chriftians, who, while they have expounded the facred books according to their own preconceived ' opinions, have done the fame thing, and still do it? Yet there neither was, nor is any doubt in their minds, concerning the divine inspiration of their authors. I will not believe that either Peter Co'meftor, author of the Scholaftic History*; or that Xavier the Jefuit, author of the Evangelical Hiftory ⚫ for the use of the Perfians, had any hesitation about the truth of the divine oracles, or that they can be

op of Jofephus, who hath copied the whole chapter of that work into his preface.

* This contained an abridgement of the Scripture facts from the beginning of Genefis to the end of the Acts of the Apostles, and was in great esteem and use from the twelfth century when it was published. till the Reformation.

6

• convicted from their own writings of entertaining any fufpicion concerning this point, though they ' are not more accurate and exact than Josephus, in ' representing the facred hiftory.

6

6

C

He moreover appears to found his opinion of Jofephus's infidelity upon these many paffages in his Antiquities, where, having given a relation of fome fact agreeable to Scripture, he fubjoins, But about 'this let every one think as he pleases.+' Or, But 6 if any one will think otherwise about these things, 'let him poffefs his diversity of fentiment without 'blame.' But will these paffages bear all that stress which he lays upon them? It is evident Jofephus ufes this form of expreffion where he cannot be fuppofed either to have difbelieved or doubted the truth of the matter he writes of. To give an example or two, after refuting || their story, who affirmed that Mofes and the Ifraelites were expelled from Egypt on account of the leprofy, by this argument, That then he would neither have fubjected thofe who might labour under this difeafe to fuch incapacities, nor have impofed upon them fuch burdenfome ceremonies as he has done in his law for their recovery from them; especially, as in fome countries, perfons infected with this malady, were crowned with honours both civil and religious: he adds,' But about these things let every one think as he pleafes.' Again, having mentioned fome more recent inftances of the great reverence of the Jews for the law of Mo

<

See his Defence, p. 103, 109; and Remarks in reply to his Defence, p 201.

† see his Antiq. 2. 18. 5. and 10. 11. Fin. Ibid. 3.11.4.

ibid. 3. 15. 3.