תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

punishments made no part of the Mofaic Difpenfation, would appear as abfurd to every intelligent reader, as his would be who fhould employ many formal arguments to prove that Sir Ifaac Newton's Theory of Light and Colours is not to be found in Ariftotle's books de Calo, & de Coloribus. I will therefore for once prefume fo much on the privilege of Common Senfe, as to suppose, the impartial reader may be now willing to confefs, that the 'doctrine of Life and Immortality was not yet known to a people while they were fitting in darknefs, and in the region and shadow of death"; and go on to other matters that have more need to be explained.

[ocr errors]

I shall shew then, in the next place, that this OMISSION was not accidental; or of a thing which Mofes did not well understand: but that, on the contrary, it was a defigned omiffion; and of a thing well known by him to be of high importance to Society.

I. That the doctrine of a future ftate of Rewards and Punishments was ftudiously omitted, may appear from several circumstances in the book of Genefis. For the hiftory of Mofes may be divided into two periods; from the Creation to his Miffion; and from his Miffion to the delivering up his Command to Joshua: The first was written by him in quality of HISTORIAN; the fecond, of LEGISLATOR; in both of which he preferves an equal filence concerning the doctrine of a future ftate.

MATTH. iv. 16.

1. In the history of the Fall of Man it is to be observed, that he mentions only the inftrument of the agent, the SERPENT; not the agent himfelf, the DEVIL: and the reafon is plain; there was a close connection between that agency,-The fpiritual effects of the Fall,-the work of Redemp tion, and the doctrine of a future State. If you fay, the connection was not fo close but that the Agent might have been mentioned without any more of his history than the temptation to the Fall; I reply it is true it might; but not without danger of giving countenance to the impious doctrine of Two Principles, which at this time pre vailed throughout the Pagan world. What but these important confiderations could be the cause of the omiffion? when it is fo evident that the knowledge of this grand enemy of our welfare would have been the likelieft cure of Pagan fuperftitions, as teaching men to esteem of Idolatry

66

[ocr errors]

The miferable efforts of these men to evade the force of a little plain fenfe is deplorable. "Mofes (fays one of them) "could not omit the mention of the Devil for the reason given by the author of the D. L. because he mentions him ex"prefsly and reprefents him as the patron, if not as the author, "of idolatry." Deut. xxxii. ver. 17. Rutherforth's Elay, p. 294. - The words of Moses are these, They facrificed to DEVILS, not to God; to Gods whom they knew not, to new Gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. The Hebrew word here tranflated Devils, is Schedim, which the best interpreters tell us, has another fignification. The true God being Schaddei, the omnipotent and all fufficient; the gentile Gods by a beautiful oppofition, are called Schedim, counterfeit Gods And the context, where they are called new Gods, fhews this interpretation to be the true. But admit that, by Schedim is to be understood evil Spirits': by thefe fpirits are not meant fallen Angels, but the fouls of wicked men. These were the Demons of Paganism; but the Devils difcovered by Revelation have a different nature and original: Accordingly, the Septuagint, which took Schedim in the fenfe of the fouls of wicked men, tranfates it by δαιμόνια.

VOL. IV.

Y

no

no otherwife than as a mere diabolical illufion. And in fact we find, that when the Ifraelites were taught, by the later Prophets, to confider it in this light, we hear no more of their Idolatries. Hence we fee, that the folly of those who, with Collins, would have a mere ferpent only to be understood, is juft equal to theirs who, with the Cabbalifts, would have that ferpent a mere Allegory.

[ocr errors]

2. In the history of Enoch's tranflation to Heaven, there is fo ftudied an obfcurity that feveral of the Rabbins, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi, fond as they are of finding a future ftate in the Pentateuch, interpret this tranflation as only fignifying an immature death. And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. How different from the other hiftory of the translation of Elijah?" And it came to pafs when the Lord would "take up Elijah into Heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal, &c.—And it came to pass as they still went on and talked, that behold there appeared a chariot of fire, and "horíes of fire, and parted them both asunder, "and Elijah went up with a whirlwind into Hea

66

ven" But the reafon of this difference is evident: When the latter hiftory was written, it was thought expedient to make a preparation for the dawning of a future ftate of reward and punishment, which in the time of Mofes had been highly improper. The reflections of an eminent Critic on this occafion, will fhew how little he penetrated into the true defign of this Economy. "Mirum eft "Mofem rem tantam, fi modo immortalem He"nochum factum CREDIDIT, tam obiter, tamque

[blocks in formation]

"obfcure, quafi EAM LATERE VELLET, perftrinx"iffe. Forte cum hæc ex antiquiffimis monumentis "exfcriberet, nihil præter ea quæ nobis tradidit "invenit, quibus aliquid adjicere religio fuit "." For Mofes both knew and believed the Immortality of Enoch, and purpofely obfcured the fact, from whence it might have been collected. But what is moft fingular in this reflection is, that the learned Commentator, to aggravate the obfcurity, fays it is as obfcure, as if he purposely defigned to hide it, fuppofing fuch a defign to be the higheft improbability; which was indeed the fact, and is the true folution of the difficulty.

3. In his history of the Patriarchs, he entirely omits, or throws into fhade, the accounts of thofe Revelations, with which, as we learn from the writers of the New Teftament, fome of them were actually favoured, concerning the Redemption of mankind. Of these favours we fhall give ere long a great and noble inftance, in the cafe of ABRAHAM, who, as we are affured by Jesus himself, rejoiced to see CHRIST's day, and faw it, and was glad.

From whence therefore could all this ftudied caution arife, but to keep out of fight that doctrine, which, for ends truly worthy of the divine Wifdom, he had omitted in his Inftitutes of Law and Religion. This fhews the weakness of that evafion, which would reconcile the OMISSION, to the People's KNOWLEDGE of the doctrine, by fuppofing they had been fo well inftructed by the Patriarchs, that Mofes had no occafion to fay any thing farther on that fubject.

b Vid. Clericum in GEN. v. 24.
Y 2

Let

[ocr errors]

Let me obferve by the way, that these confiderations are more than a thousand topical arguments to prove, that Mofes was the real author of the book of Genefis. But the proof deduced therefrom will be drawn out and explained at large hereafter.

II. That the importance of this Doctrine to Society was well understood by Mofes, may appear from a particular provifion in his Inftitutes, (befides that general one of an extraordinary providence) evidently made to oppofe to the inconvenient confequences of the OMISSION.

We have fhewn at large, in the first volume, that under a common or unequal providence, civil Government could not be fupported without a Religion teaching a future state of reward and punishment. And it is the great purpose of this work to prove, that the Mofaic Religion wanting that doctrine, the Jews muft REALLY have enjoyed that equal providence, under which holy Scripture represents them to have lived: and then, no tranfgreffor efcaping punishment, nor any obferver of the law miffing his reward, human affairs might be

66

e Dr. Sykes in difputing with me, as we have seen above, on this question, Whether the extraordinary Providence was only over the State in general, or whether it extended to Particulars, having fufficiently puzzled himself and his reader; To recover the ground he had loft, on a fudden changes the question, and now tells us, that it is," Whether an extraordinary Providence was adminiftered to Particulars IN SUCH A MANNER that no tranfgreffer of the Law escaped punishment, nor any obferver of the Law missed his reward," " which Mr. Warbur ton reprefents (fays he) to be the ftate of the Jews under an equal Providence." [Exam. p. 187-8] Now what his drift was in this piece of management, is eafily understood. It was to introduce a commodious Fallacy under an ambiguous ex

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

preflion;

« הקודםהמשך »