Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

ment, that the doctrine of a future state is delivered in the Old, without destroying its own authority, if it be not in it, and if notwithstanding this, it is directly asserted in the New Testament that it is in the Old, and yet is not, as some men think, in fact to be found there; is it not a plain consequence that they who maintain this are inconsistent with themselves, if they do not deny and give up the authority of one of the Testaments? There cannot be a more effectual method taken to overthrow revelation than this, and I wish it may not be the cause that the author of the divine legation, and his followers would support: they cannot be ignorant that they are labouring to set one Testament against the other, thereby to overthrow the authority of both. We grant them indeed, that if either of the Testaments contradict each other, they cannot both be the word of God: but then we insist that they no where contradict themselves, and that in the present case the doctrine of a future state (as will hereafter appear) is as plainly delivered by Moses in the Old Testament, as it is asserted to be there by Christ and his apostles in the New.

From these promises it may be justly concluded, that it is an infallible proof to us, who hold the divine authority of both Testaments, that Moses hath treated of a future state in the law, if it be affirmed in the gospel that he hath treated of it there: for these are obvious and certain truths, that God cannot contradict himself that infinite wisdom cannot be deceived, that infinite power need not, and goodness will not deceive, and that therefore there must be a perfect harmony and agreement of all the revelations from God.

The passages in the New Testament, in which it is asserted that Moses hath treated of a future state, are so many and plain that their meaning cannot be disputed. The parable of the rich man and the beggar is a remarkable instance of this truth. (Luke xvi.) Dives, being in hell entreats Abraham to send Lazarus

66

to his father's house, to testify to his brethren lest they also should come into that place of torments. This certainly was to let his brethren know that there was a future state of rewards and punishments. The answer is "That if they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded though 66 one rose from the dead." Then there is greater evidence for this truth in the writings of Moses and the prophets than even a message from the other world would be. * This inference is so direct that whilst the words have any meaning, it will be impossible to elude the force of them, or to explain them away.

66

Agreeably to this place we find St. Paul preached a future state and resurrection of the body upon Moses' authority, (Acts xxvi. 22. 23.) "I continue unto this day witnessing both to small and great, saying none "other things than those which the prophets and Moses "did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and "that he should be the first (which necessarily implies "that others after him were also) to arise from the dead. Doth Moses then say that Christ was to suffer and to arise from the dead? And doth St. Paul affirm that he doth say so? And can any Christian after this doubt whether such doctrines are really taught by Moses? It is almost a demonstration, that if St. Paul was inspired, of course infallible, and therefore could not possibly be ignorant of what was contained in Moses' writings, and that if he hath said a future state was mentioned there, that therefore it must be there.

* Whitby on the New Test. Vol. 1. p. 398. D. Stellæ in Lucam Comm. Tom. 2. p. 502. Martinus Bucerus in 4 Evang. p. 216. "Si Mosen & prophetas non audiunt," &c. His enim significavit (Christus) nos scripturam habere de his satis testantem, ad quam mortuorum testimonium nihil possit adjicere. J. Lindsay on the New Test. Lon. 1756, p. 216. Marlorati Biblioth. Expositionum in Nov. Test. 333. J. Tirinus in Nov. Test. p. 999. " Neque si quis ex mortuis 66 resurrexerit, credent." Quàm facilè enim erit explodere ejusmodi apparitionem, & vel phantasiæ vel dæmoni ascribere? Nonne Lazarus alter, nonne Christus a mortuis ridivivi? An illes ideò crediderunt Judei? Unde meritò omni mortuorum apparitioni præfertur S. Scriptura, tanquam certior testis tormentorum inferui.

[blocks in formation]

But let us hear Christ himself preaching the same doctrines from Moses that St. Paul did. All his disciples after his death doubted of his resurrection, and yet before they could preach this fundamental article to others, they were to be convinced of it themselves. To this end in his conversation with two of them, who were going to Emmaus, he reproves their slowness in believing, that he ought to have suffered, died, and rose from the dead, as Moses and the prophets had foretold. The words are these (Luke xxiv. 25, &c.) "Then he "said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe "all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ "to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself," viz. what Moses and the prophets had wrote about his sufferings and resurrection. * In the following part of the chapter this truth is more fully expressed, "These, says Christ to his dis"ciples, are the words which I spake unto you while I "was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled "which were written in the law of Moses, and in the "Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me. Then

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"opened he their understanding that they might un"derstand the scriptures, and said unto them, thus it is "written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to "rise from the dead the third day." Doth Christ then affirm that it was written in the law of Moses, that he was to suffer, and to arise from the dead? And shall there be a Christian priest suffered in a Christian country with equal impudence and blasphemy to contradict Christ, and to maintain that such doctrines are not written in the law of Moses? Hath Christ said that those persons "do greatly err, and do not know the "scriptures," who affirm that Moses hath not mentioned a future state, and is it possible that man can believe

* Grotij Op. Theol. Vol. 2. p. 465. F. Gaspari á Melo Comm. in Lucam. p. 1145, 1146, &c. D. Stellæ in Lucam Comment. Ludg. 1592. Tom. 2. p. 516, 517. Acts xvii. 2, 3.

Christ to be God, who positively declares, that he "neither doth err, nor is ignorant of the scriptures," whilst he directly writes against the true literal meaning of Christ's words? And how doth it alleviate his crime to tell us, that he intends to strengthen the evidence of revelation by his system? Doth it not require too much credulity and ignorance for any man in his senses to believe, that those persons are supporting the superstructure, who are removing and taking away the foundation? Christianity hath no support if Christ should fall, and either he or Moses must fall, if he affirms, that Moses hath wrote about certain subjects, and it could not be made appear that he hath once mentioned them.

But there is a passage in St. John, (v. 39, &c.) where, if words have any meaning, it is asserted, not only that Moses wrote about a future state, but that the Jews also knew he had. "Search the scriptures, says Christ, "for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they "are they which testify of me." All the scriptures testify of Christ, and Moses in a particular manner; for as he adds, "had ye believed Moses, ye would "have believed me, for he wrote of me. "So the Jews had, or however thought they had eternal life in Moses' writings. + Moses then did write about eternal life, if Christ knew what he wrote about, and if the Jews all along believed that he had. And this sense, and this only the argument will bear. There is evidence,

* Poli Synopsis Cr. Vol. 4. p. 1217, 1218. Critici Sacri. Vol. 6. p. 1626. Notæ Cameron. in v. 39. Hammond on the N. Test. p. 280. J. Piscator in N. Test. Vol. 3. p. 323. J. Lindsay on the N. Test. p. 276. Assemblies Annot. on the Old and New Test. Vol. 2. and Notes on 39, 40, &c. ver. of the fifth chap. of John.

J. le Clerc, sur le N. Test. p. 281. Moise auquel vous esperez; par la doctrine duquel vous esperez d'obtenir la vie eternelle.

Erasmi Paraph. in N. Test. p. 539. M. Bucerus in 4 Evang. 257. J. Toletus in Evang. Johannis Comm. Cologne, 1611. p. 503. “Scrutami Scripturas," &c. Vos, inquit, scrutamini & inquiritis Scripturas, quia putatis in observantiâ earum vitam positam æternam, & illæ sunt quæ testimonium perhibent de me, & tamen non vultis venire ad me, ut hanc vitam habeatis. Malitiam eorum arguit significans eos proprio

says Christ, in Moses, that the Messiah was to entitle you to eternal life, you think that you have this evidence in Moses, and yet you act inconsistently with yourselves by not believing in me the Messiah and life eternal. I will not therefore accuse you hereafter, because you did not believe my words or miracles. Moses shall accuse you, because you have not made the right use of that evidence which he gave you, and which ought to have determined you to accept me as the Messiah; and thereby that life eternal, which you think you have, and which you cannot otherwise have in his writings.

66

That the Jews had such a belief and hope founded upon Moses' writings, St. Paul will abundantly convince us: in his vindication of himself to the Governor Felix, he makes this confession, "After the way which "they (the Jews) call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in "the law and the prophets, and have hope towards "God, which they themselves also allow, that there "shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just "and unjust ?" (Acts xxiv. 14, 15.) Then St. Paul was induced from his belief of what was written in the law of Moses and the prophets to have hope, which hope from the same belief the Jews also had, and allowed they had, that there was to be a resurrection of the dead both of the just and unjust. And therefore both St. Paul and the Jews must have thought that there was in Moses sufficient evidence to determine them to believe, that there was to be a future state of rewards and punishments. Some part of this evidence St. Paul himself hath explained to us, (Heb. ix. 7, 8, &c.) "But into the second (tabernacle) went the high priest "alone once every year not without blood, the Holy "Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of "all was not yet made manifest while as the first ta

Scripturarum studio convictos esse de veritate Christi, præ malitiaâ tamen nolle cum recipere, nec in ipsum credere, quamvis per Christum vita hæc æterna consequenda esset.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »