Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

SECT. I.-Objections against the Mosaic Law, from its employing temporal sanctions — and visiting the iniquities of the fathers on the children-Warburton's opinion on this subject—his Work incomplete—his reasoning not perfectly conclusive—how far I agree with, and how far I differ from, his opinion-Two conclusions seem true: first, that Moses employed temporal sanctions in his Law: second, the history of the Old Testament shews he believed a future state, and contains a gradual development of it-Moses employs temporal sanctions, both nationally and individually— This accounted for—from the nature of the Jewish theocracy—Reality of the extraordinary providence exercised over the Jews proved in this Work, without resorting to Warburton's medium-Temporal sanctions sufficient— necessary to confute idolatry-adapted to the intellectual and moral character of the Jews-best mode of introducing the doctrine of a future state with effect—a necessary part of the theocracy—exemplified to man the principles of God's moral government.

DEUTERONOMY, XXX. 15, 16.

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I command thee this "day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his sta"tutes, and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply; and the Lord thy God shall bless "thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it."

IN reviewing the system of religion and policy established by the Jewish Lawgiver, two circumstances claim particular attention: one, that the rewards and punish.nents of a future life were not inculcated by Moses as sanctions of his laws; and the other, that he has employed as a sanction the declaration, that "God would visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, "to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him; "and shew mercy unto the thousandth generation of them who "should love him, and keep his commandments."

Both these circumstances have been the subject of long and warm discussion. The former has been objected to as an omission of necessary truth, which no genuine revelation could

* Exod. xx. 5, 6.

overlook; and the latter has been represented as a violation of natural justice, which God cannot be supposed to perpetrate or authorise.* While, on the other side, the defenders of revelation contend, that both these circumstances naturally arise from the peculiar character and views of the Jewish law, and are closely connected with the reality of that extraordinary providence by which the Jewish scheme was introduced and supported; and therefore, far from being inconsistent with the divine original of that system, they, on the contrary, illustrate and confirm it.

[ocr errors]

On this subject the celebrated Warburton has peculiarly distinguished himself: to do him justice, I shall state his argument in his own words.+ "In reading the law and history of "the Jews, with all the attention I could give to them, amongst "the many circumstances peculiar to that amazing dispensation, (from several of which, as I conceive, the divinity of its "original may be fairly proved) these two particulars most for"cibly struck my observation; the omission of the doctrine of a "future state, and the administration of an extraordinary provi"dence. As unaccountable as the first circumstance appeared, "when considered separately and alone, yet when set against "the other, and their mutual relations examined and compared, "the omission was not only well explained, but was found to "be an invincible medium for the proof of the divine legation "of Moses: which, as unbelievers had been long accustomed "to decry from this very circumstance, I chose it preferably to "any other. The argument appeared to me in a supreme degree strong and simple, and not needing many words to en"force it, or, when enforced, to make it well understood.

"Religion hath always been held necessary to the support of "civil society, because human laws alone are ineffectual to "restrain men from evil with a force sufficient to carry on the "affairs of public regimen; and (under the common dispensa"tion of Providence) a future state of rewards and punishments

*These objections have been brought forward by a number of infidel writers. Vide their arguments, collected and answered by Warburton, Div. Leg. Vol. IV. In the Appendix to his Fifth Book, he refutes those of Bolingbroke. Vide also Leland's View of the Deistical Writers, Vol. II. Letters xxv. xxvii. xxx, and xxxiii. Vide also Leland's Answer to Morgan, ch. xi. Vide also Calmet's Dissertation sur la Nature de l'Ame, Tom. xxvi. p. 196.

Warburton's Divine Legation, B. VI. sect. vi. the Recapitulation,

p. 362.

66

"is confessed to be as necessary to the support of religion, because nothing else can remove the objections to God's moral "government under a providence so apparently unequal, whose “phenomena are apt to disturb the serious professors of religion "with doubts and suspicions concerning it, as it is of the "essence of religious profession to believe, that God is a "rewarder of them that seek him.

66

govern

"Moses, who instituted a religion and a republic, and incor"porated them into one another, stands single amongst ancient ❝and modern lawgivers, in teaching a religion without the "sanction, or even so much as the mention of a future state of "rewards and punishments. The same Moses, with a singu"larity as great, by uniting the religion and civil community of "the Jews into one incorporated body, made God, by natural "consequence, their supreme civil magistrate, whereby the form "of government arising from thence became truly and essentially a THEOCRACY. But as the administration of "ment necessarily follows its form, that before us could be "no other than an extraordinary or equal providence. And "such indeed not only the Jewish Lawgiver himself, but all "the succeeding rulers and prophets of this republic, have in66 variably represented it to be. In the mean time, no lawgiver or founder of religion amongst any other people ever promised so singular a distinction; no historian ever dared to record so "remarkable a prerogative. This being the true and acknow"ledged state of the case, whenever the unbeliever attempts "to disprove, and the advocate of religion to support, the divinity of the Mosaic dispensation, the obvious question (if each be willing to bring it to a speedy decision) will "be, whether the extraordinary providence thus prophetically promised, and afterwards historically recorded to be perform"ed, was real, or pretended only. We believers hold that it "was real: and I, as an advocate for Revelation, undertake to prove it was so: employing for this purpose as my medium, "the omission of a future state of rewards and punishments. "The argument stands thus:

66

66

66

66

66

66

"If religion be necessary to civil government, and if religion "cannot subsist under the common dispensation of Providence, "without a future state of rewards and punishments; so con"summate a lawgiver would never have neglected to inculcate "the belief of such a state, had he not been well assured that

66

"an extraordinary providence was indeed to be administered over his people. Or were it possible he had been so infatu"ated, the impotency of a religion wanting a future state, "must very soon have concluded in the destruction of his "republic: yet nevertheless it flourished and continued sovereign "for many ages.

"These two proofs of the proposition, that an extraordinary "providence was really administered, drawn from the thing "omitted, and the person omitting, may be reduced to the fol"lowing syllogisms:

"First, Whatsoever religion and society have no future state "for their support, must be supported by an extraordinary "providence. The Jewish religion and society had no future "state for their support; therefore the Jewish religion and "society were supported by an extraordinary providence.

"And again, secondly, The ancient lawgivers universally "believed, that a religion without a future state could be sup"ported only by an extraordinary providence. Moses, an an"cient lawgiver, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, "(the principal branch of which wisdom was inculcating "the doctrine of a future state,) instituted such a religion: "therefore Moses believed that his religion was supported by an extraordinary providence.

66

"This," says the learned writer, "is the argument of the "Divine Legation; plain, simple, and convincing, in the opinion "of its author; a paradox in the representation of his adver"saries."

This argument he afterwards sums up in the following words: "The doctrine of a future state is necessary to the well-being "of civil society, under the ordinary government of providence: "all mankind have ever so conceived of the matter. The Mo"saic institution was without this support, and yet it did not "want it. What follows, but that the Jewish affairs were ad"ministered by an extraordinary providence, distributing re"ward and punishment with an equal hand, and consequently "that the mission of Moses was divine."*

The learned writer, in another passage, † explains why he judged it necessary to prosecute his argument in the very extended manner in which he has pursued it; "including a severe * Warburton, B. VI. sect. vi. vol. v. p. 404.

† Warburton, B. VI. sect. vi. the Recapitulation, particularly 366.

"search into the religion, the politics, and the philosophy of "ancient times, as well as a minute examination into the nature "and genius of the Hebrew constitution." It is indeed to be "lamented that he was induced to take so wide a range, as, in his researches into heathen antiquity, and sometimes in his theological criticisms, he has been led into discussions altogether unnecessary for the defence of revelation; and in some of which, it can scarcely be denied, that his proofs are deficient, and his conclusions precipitate: and this is still more to be lamented, as the bulk into which these discussions swelled, and the controversies arising from them, occupied his attention so long, that they appear to have made him finally weary of his subject, and prevented him from giving that minute attention to the nature and genius of the Hebrew constitution, which he originally designed, as he never completed the last volume of his work, intended to support what had been already proved,† “in 66 a seventh book, which was intended to contain a continued "history of the religious opinions of the Jews, from the time "of the earlier prophets to the time of the Maccabees; an "eighth book, which was destined to consider the personal

* I believe few impartial reasoners will be found to admit the full truth of this learned writer's opinions, as to the origin and use of the Pagan mysteries, in Book II. sect. iv. Compare Leland on the Advantage of Revelation, Vol. I. Part I. ch. viii. ix. and Vol. II. Part III.; the entire of which appears to prove, that much of the Second Book of Warburton is overstated. In truth, the supposition that "none of the ancient philosophers "believed a future state, nay, that they held such principles that they could "not possibly believe it, though they universally taught it," appears as illfounded as it is paradoxical. The views of these ancient sages on this subject were indeed obscure, and their arguments neither clear nor certain; their opinions therefore were unsteady and fluctuating. But that they all steadily agreed in firmly disbelieving, and yet hypocritically affirming, the doctrine of a future state, nobody, I think, can believe, who will read with an unprejudiced mind Plato's Phædon, or the first book of Cicero's Tusculan Questions. I have always been impressed with the fullest conviction of the sincerity of these writers; while I could not but pity and lament the darkness and uncertainty which concealed from these great luminaries of the heathen world this most important truth. Consult, on this subject, Leland's Advantage of Revelation, Vol. II. part iii. Warburton's opinion as to the recent date of the book of Job, is, I believe, very generally questioned by the best critics; vide Peters on Job, and Dr. Magee's Dissertation on that subject, in his work On Atonement and Sacrifice, from p. 321 to 347. And surely much of what Warburton has advanced, on the sixth book of the Eneid, the Rise of the Art of Medicine, the Interpretation of Dreams, &c. however ingenious and entertaining, can scarcely be considered as necessarily connected with the defence of Revelation. Vide Warburton, Book I. sect. iv.; Book I. sect. i. iii. iv.; and Book IV. sect. iii. iv.

+ Vide Warburton, the two last pages of the Divine Legation.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »