moft excellent Revelation which Chrift has brought to Light by the

Gospel.

I

London, Feb. 11. 1735.

I am, Sir, Yours,

Upon PRESCIENCE.

ANTIFOSTER.

Mr. Urban, June 16. 1738. Think the very Ingenious Philalethes perfectly in the right, when he fays, in the Magazine for April last, p. 188. with regard to the Dif pute about Prefcience, "That the Quellion which ought to be debated is, "whether there is fuch a thing in Nature as abfolute Uncertainty;" But, on the other hand, I must be of Opinion, that he has chofen the wrong fide of it, and therefore was in hopes of finding, in your laft Magazine, the other fide defended by fome of your Ingenious Correfpondents; but fince it was not, I have ventured, for once, to undertake that Task, if it be not taken off my hands by fome abler Perfon, to whom I am very ready to refign it.

It must be acknowledged that this Gentleman has made the most of his Argument; but yet I think it inconclufive, because tho' fome things are uncertain to us, it does not follow they are fo to God; which I think is all that can be concluded from the two well-chofen Inftances which he has produc'd: Two Tickets are thrown into a Bag, the Person who draws, 'tis true, knows not which to chufe, but he who made and difpofes of the Tickets does; he knows likewife which he would have him to chufe, and privately directs his Choice accordingly; which does not therefore ceafe to be Choice ftill, he infenfibly guides his Hand to the Ticket, or brings the Ticket to his Hand. So for the other Inftance: The Gamefter knows not which Side of the Piece of Money is uppermoft, because his Sight is intercepted by the Candlestick; but does the Gentleman conceive fo grofly of God, as to think his Sight cannot pierce thro* fuch an Obftacle? As it furely does, He may influence him to call which Side he pleafes. Nothing in Nature can be uncertain to the Author of Nature; Chance is, in fome measure, the Object of human Science. Rules have been form'd concerning it, and it has been reduc'd to certain Laws: And can we fuppofe that the Creator has no Laws to govern it by, as well as the reft of Nature? If we can, we may as well go a Step farther, and imagine that the World was made by Chance, that it fubfifts by Chance, and that by Chance it may, we know not how foon, be overturn'd.

Is this Gentleman willing to fubmit to the Decifion of Scripture? If he be, this Difpute will be brought to a fhort Ifflue. Solomon tells us, Prov. xvi. 33. that The Lot is caft into the Lap, but that the whole difpofing thereof is of the Lord. And this Doctrine is confirm'd by several Initances in Scripture, particularly thofe of Jonah and Matthias.

But if he will not abide by the Determination of Scripture, if Ingenious Gentlemen will not come to that reasonable Refolution which Mr. RY. recommends to them in the laft Magazine, p. 263. if they will induige themselves in an unbounded liberty of difputing upon Subjects beyond their Fathom, there is no knowing where they will flop, nor to

what

la

what Extravagancies their fo much boafted Reafon will carry them. In order therefore to check this Pride and licentiousness of our Reasonings, and to induce us to conduct ourselves with Modefty, Humility, and a due deference to Scripture, in all Religious Difputes, and in Things above our Comprehenfion to captivate our Understandings to the Word of God, I shall conclude with a fine and pious Reflection of Mr. Bayle, whofe Authority, I fuppofe, will be of weight with the Gentlemen of the other fide of the Queftion. Under the Article Arminius, n. E. he recommends St. Paul's Rule, with regard to the Dispute about Predeftination, which is equally applicable to, and concludes more ftrongly for Divine Prescience. This great Apoftle, fays he, infpir'd by God, and immediately directed "by the Holy Ghoft, in all his Writings, raifed to himself the Objection, "which the Light of Nature forms against the Doctrine of abfolute Prede"Atination; he apprehended the whole force of the Objection; he propofes "it without weakening it in the leaft. God hath Mercy on whom he will bave Mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth, Rom. ix. 18. This is St. Paul's "Doctrine, and the Difficulty which he starts upon it is this: Thou wilt "fay then unto me, why doth be yet find fault? for who bath refifted his Will? ver. 19. This Objection cannot be pufh'd farther, twenty Pages of the fubtilleft Molinist could add nothing to it: What more could they inferr, than that, upon Calvin's Hypothefis, God wills Men "to commit Sin? Now this is what St. Paul knew might be objected "against him. But what does he reply? Does he feck for Diftinétions ❝and Qualifications? Does he deny the Fact? Does he grant it in Part only? Does he enter into Particulars? Does he remove any Ambiguity in the Words? Nothing of all this. He only alledges the fovereign Power of God, and the fupreme Right which the Creator has to dif"pofe of his Creatures as it feems good to him: Nay, but, O Man, who "art thou that repliest against God? Shall the Thing formed fay unto him He acknowthat formed it, why haft thou made me thus? ver. 20.

66

ledges an Incomprehenfibility in the thing, which ought to put a stop "to all Difputes, and impofe a profound Silence on our Reafon. He "cries out, O the depth and the riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge "of God! how unfearchable are bis Judgments, and his Ways paft finding "out! ch. xi. ver. 33. Chriftians ought to find here a definitive Sentence, "a Judgment final and without appeal in this difpute about Grace; or, "rather, they fhou'd learn from this Conduct of St. Paul, never to dif"pute about Predeftination, and immediately to oppofe this Bar against all the fubtilties of human Wit, whether they arife of themfelves in "meditating on this great Subject, or whether others fuggeft them. The beft and the fhorteft Way is, early to oppofe this ftrong Bank againft the "Inundations of Reasoning, and to confider this definitive Sentence of "St. Paul, as thofe Rocks immovable in the midst of the Waves, against "which the proudest Billows beat in vain; they may foam and dafh, but And if ever we think proper to exercise are only broken against them. "our Wit on Points of this nature, we ought at leaft to found a Retreat betimes, and retire behind the Bank I have juft mentioned." The length of this Quotation will, I hope, be justified by the Applicableness of it to the prefent Difpute, in order to put an end to it, which was the only Yours, &c. Motive of my engaging in it. I am, A Curate of Salop.

T

Concerning the Peopling of the EARTH,

HE following Obfervations, which I promis'd to fend you fome Months ago, on R. Y's Account of the first Peopling of the Earth after the Deluge (See Vol. VI. p. 601, 665,731. and Vol. VII. p. 23,75, 141, and 196.) have been delay'd thro' a hurry of other Affairs, and are now fet down juft as they occurr'd to me, and wherein they seem'd principally to recede from the Chronology of Sir Ifaac Newton, without fufficient Warrant for fo doing, becaufe one Hypothefis is as good as another, where no prevailing Reasons can be affign'd to determine the Judgment either way.

66

R. Y. thinks Afa King of Judah to be Ofarfiphus, I think chiefly from the fimilitude of the two firit Syllables of the last to the first. This will hardly be allow'd of any weight at all, for he fhou'd have clear'd up the Paflage first of Manetho apud Jofep.contra App. where he says, that “Ofar"fiphus was a Prieft of Egypt, that he was call'd Uforthon, or Hercules Egyptius, that he oblig'd the Ethiopians to retire to Memphis; but that "Memnon King of Egypt, and his Son Ramefes, after 13 Years, having augmented their Forces from Ethiopia, compell'd Ofarfiphus, tho' ftrengthen'd by the Jews and Phoenicians, to fly from Egypt." (This Ofarfiphus the Egyptian Writers falfly take for Mofes.) Now Asa was not a Priest of Egypt, he only purfu'd the Ethiopians to Gerar, a City in the South Confines of Judea, and fmote fome Cities thereabouts, and return'd to Jerufalem, 2 Chron. xiv. 14, 15. neither of which agree with the Character of Ofarfiphus, who to me feems only fome Native,who took the Advantage of the Distractions in Egypt, on the Defeat of Zerah, to establifh the Liberty of that Kingdom in oppofition to the Ethiopians, who had ufurp'd the Government of it; and might probably call in to his Aid fome of Afa's Army, and other neighbouring Nations.

I agree with R. Y according to Sir Ifaac's Scheme, that Sefac is Sefoftris; and the Oppofers of this Opinion had better confider the following Arguments: Either that Conqueror's Expedition, fo remarkable in Heathen Hiftory, happen'd foon before the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, or after it; if before, how came it to pafs that thofe Nations thro' which Sejoftris muft neceffarily march, and confequently reduce (such as Ammon, Paleftine, Canaan, &c.) were fo powerful and opulent at the arrival of Jobua? The Account of them in facred Hiftory will by no means quadrate with the Circumstances of a conquer'd People, being in a Capacity, not only to oppofe, but even overcome the whole Hoft of Ifrael for fome Centuries after. But if this Expedition happen'd after the Exodus, Sefofris must disturb the Hebrew Republick in his March, there being no other Way to pafs from Egypt in the courfe of his Conquefts. The Sacred History admits of no fuch Conqueror from Egypt but Sefac, confequently Sefac and Sefftris are one and the fame Hero; which makes Jofephus rightly affirm, that the Greek Hiftories defcrib'd the Expedition of Sefac under that of Sefeftris, crring, fays he, only in the Name of the Perfon.

R. Y. endeavours to folve the Account of the vaft Army which the Philistines brought into the Field against Saul, by making the Amalekites Auxiliaries, and probably the Phenicians; and adds, that the Army of Midianites was as great. Herein I think he errs, for tho' the fame

Hyper

Hyperbole is made ufe of, viz. as Grafhoppers, or the Sand on the Sen Jhore for multitude, yet 'tis plainly, in the Cafe of the Midianites, only an oriental form of Expreffion, and that their whole Army did not exceed 135000, tho' compos'd of at least four very powerful and warlike Nations, viz. the Amalekites, the Midianites, the Children of the East (probably as far as Euphrates, or beyond,) and the Ifmaelites; Vide Judges vi. 3. viii. 24. and for their Number, ver. 10. Now it feems not probable that Amalek could compofe one half of the Philistines vaft Army, as R. Y. alledges, yet with the other three warlike Nations (no doubt exerting their utmost) he might bring in 135000. and the Philistines themselves 65000, (which however I think too many for fuch a small compafs of Ground as Palestine) yet the whole will not exceed 200000; and that Army feems difproportion'd to the number of their Chariots, which we are inform'dwere 30000, befides People like the Sand, &c. The Army of Amalek and Canaanites together, under Sifera, did not exceed 900 Chariots; all the Chariots of Ifrael, in the profperous Reign of Solomon, did not exceed 1400, and these mention'd as a confiderable Part of his Grandeur: So that R. Y. feems not to have accounted fo well for the Philistine Army, as Sir Ifaac did, by the acceffion of the Shepherds from Egypt. Amalek's fighting with Ifrael for a whole Day in the Wilderness will do nothing to prove the Number of their Forces, unless we knew what Strength was deputed under Joshua to cope with him, which might not be a tenth Part of Ifrael.

R. Y. finds Fault with Sir Ifaac's attributing the Overthrow of the Affyrian Army to a Defeat from the united Forces of Sethon and Tirhakah. Kings of Egypt and Ethiopia, by a Nocturnal Surprise. The Scripture itfelf is not filent of Tirhakab's Expedition, and it is evident he was in full March against Sennacherib, 2 Kings xix. 8.and probably either Tirhakah fought him, or hearing of the difafter of his Army had no occafion. I think, from the whole, that Sir Ifaac has given us a very consistent Account of it: He fays, in the fourteenth Year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib invaded Phenicia, took feveral Cities in Judah, and attempted Egypt; but Sethon King of Egypt, with Tirbakah King of Ethiopia, coming against him, he loft in one Night 185000 Men, as fome fay by a Plague, or perhaps by Lightning, or a fiery Wind, which blows fometimes in the neighbouring Defarts, or rather by being furpris'd by Sethon and Tirhakah. The two firft of thefe R. Y. will allow to be Miraculous, and the other two at least highly Providential; for I fee no reason, without invalidating Scripture Evidence, why these two united Kings might not be deftroying Angels in the hand of God.

As to what R. Y fays concerning the Babylonians fending Meffengers to enquire of the Wonder wrought in the Land, I think this Circumtance relates to the Retroceffion of the Shade on the Dial of Abaz, which being effected from a like in the Sun, excited the Curiofity of that Learned Nation to look farther into the Matter, and fend to Judah to give them a fatisfactory Answer. The Subject was fit for Aftronomers, who wou'd look on the Overthrow of an Army only as cafual.

The Amount of thefe few Obfervations on the Ingenious R. Y's Account of the first Peopling of the Earth, is far from being done out of difrefpect to his Writings in general: He feems to deferve well of

the

the Learned World in moft Things; and the only Fault that I found (as I mention'd before) was his departing from Sir Isaac's Syltem, without feeming to have a Superiority of Realons on his Side, the only Method of determining the Judgment in fo remote Antiquity.

Mr. Urban,

W

On the fame Subject.

'Hen I first read the Reply of Philo-Hiftoricus to my Account of the Number of the Inhabitants which might be upon the Earth at the Time of the Flood, (See Gent. Mag. Vol. VI. p. 601, 665, 731. and Vol. VII. p. 23, 75, 144, 196.) I fully intended to let it pass without an Answer, as not feeing any thing in it that deferved one; but afterwards, when I confidered that many of your Readers might not fee the Weakness of this Attempt, fo plain as myself, and that perhaps your Correfpondents might imagine that I was not able to reply, I determin'd to fend you this as the First and the Laft which I fhall make to fuch a Writer.

First he argues against my Opinion from the Wisdom and Providence of GOD, according to the Reafon and Nature of Things. When GOD, fays he, first made and formed the Universe, he replenished the Earth with all Things neceffary for the Life and Pleasure of Mankind, whom he intend– ed fhould be the rational Inhabitants thereof. Now it is natural to think, that GOD would, when be bad fo replenished the Earth, appoint [take, fuppofe he means] the propereft Methods for the Speedy Peopling and Planting it with fuch a Number of Perfons, as was abfolutely necessary for the keeping and preferving it, in fome measure, in the State and Condition be at firft made it: And therefore we find, that as foon as he had made and formed the first Man Adam, he put him in the Garden of Eden, to drefs it and keep it in Order: And may we not reasonably fuppofe, that he would have the fame regard for the rest of the Earth, as well as that [as he had for that, I fuppofe he means ] Spot of Ground? I think there is no room to doubt of it. The Longevity of Men, no doubt, was defigned by the Wifdom and Providence of GOD [was defigned by the Allwife GOD, and brought about by his Providence, I fuppofe he means,] as the propereft, Method for the Jpeedy Peopling and Planting of the Earth. Give me leave to tell this Critick, that Argument that proves too much, proves nothing at all; but his Reafon taken from the Earth's being created with Neceffaries and Conveniencies for Millions of Men, proves as plainly, That there must be Millions of People created along with it, as it does, That therefore it must be quickly fupplied with Millions: But the firit of thefe Conclufions he knows to be falfe in Fact, and therefore the fecond does not rightly follow from the Premifes. What! has he never heard of uninhabited Islands discovered, abounding with all Things neceffary for the Life and Pleajure of Man? Did not the Hiroynian Wood, in the Time of Fulius Cefar, take up the greatest Part of the North of Europe, where Millions of People now inhabit? And is it any Reflection upon the Wif dom of Goo in his Works of Providence, that he did not fend Men into the World fooner, to cut down the one, and inhabit the other? Who