Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

refpects the prefent life only; the good and ill of which are the fole objects of all their purfuits and averfions'.

Hear then the fum of all. The facred Writings are extremely various both in their fubject, ftyle, and compofition. They contain an account of the Creation, and Origine of the human race; the hiftory of a private Family, of a chofen People, and of exemplary men and women. They confift of hymns and petitions to the Deity, precepts of civil life, and religious Prophecies and Predictions. Hence I infer that as, amidft all this variety of writing, the Doctrine of a future ftate never once appears to have had any share in this People's thoughts; it never did indeed make part of their

This is the precife character of the writings of the Old Teftament. And this ftate of them (to obferve it only by the way) is more than a thousand anfwers to the wild fufpicions of thofe writers, who fancy that the Jews, fince Chrift, have corrupted their facred Scriptures, to fupport their fuperftitions against the Gofpel; and amongst other erafements have ftruck out the Doctrine of life and immortality; which, say these Visionaries, was, till then, as plainly taught in the Old as in the New Teftament: For had thefe fuppofed Imposters ever ventured on fo bold a fraud as the adulterating their facred Writings, we may be well affured their first attempt would have been to add the doctrine of a future ftate, had they not found it there, rather than to take it away if they had: fince the omiffion of the doctrine is the ftrongest and most glaring evidence of the imperfection of the Law; and the infertion of it would have beft fupported what they now hold to be one of the most fundamental points of their Religion. But this is not a folly of yesterday. Irenæus tells us that certain ancient Here tics fupported their wild fancies againft Scripture, which was against them, by the fame extravagant fufpicion, that it had been interpolated and corrupted. Notwithstanding, I am far from thinking these Moderns borrowed it from them. They found it in our common Nature, which always goes the nearest way to work, to relieve itself.

Religious

Religious opinions". And when, to all this, we find, their occafional reasoning only conclusive on the

We shall now underftand the importance of a remark, which the late Tranflator of Jofephus employs to prove the genuineness of a fragment or homily, given by him to that Hiftorian: "There is one particular obfervation (fays he) belong"ing to the contents of this fragment or homily, that seems "to me to be DECRETORY, and to determine the question that fome of this Jewish church, that used the Hebrew copy of the Old Teftament, nay rather, that Jofephus himself in "particular was the author of it. The obfervation is this, "that in the prefent addrefs to the Greeks or Gentiles there

are near forty references or allufions to texts of the New "Teftament; AND NOT ONE, TO ANY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT either in Hebrew or Greek; and this in a discourse "concerning HADES; which yet is almost five times as often

mentioned in the Old Teftament as in the New. What can "be the reafon of this? But that the Jewish Church at Jerufa"lem ufed the Hebrew Bible alone, which those Greeks or "Gentiles, to whom the addrefs is here made, could not un-. "derstand; and that our Jofephus always and only used the

fame Hebrew Bible?" Mr. Whifton's Differt. prefixed to his Transl. of Jofephus, p. 105.- What can be the reafon (fays he) of this mystery? He unfolds it thus: The Jewish Church of Jerufalem ufed the Hebrew Bible alone, which thofe Greeks or Gentiles, to whom the addrefs is here made, could not understand. So that because the Audience did not understand Hebrew, the Preacher could not quote the texts, he had occafion for, in Greek. But he fuppofes the Author could not quote the Greek, because it must needs have been that of the Septuagint; which the Jewish Church at Jerufalem would not ufe. Now admit there were no other Greek to be had, or allowed of, Can any man believe that if this Jewish Preacher would turn himself to the Gentiles, he could be fuch a bigot as to be afraid of quoting the Old Teftament in a language they understood, because his Church used only the Original which they understood not? Or if he had been fuch a bigot, Would he have dared to preach to the Gentiles at all? What then but the fondness for an hypothefis could make men ramble after fuch reasons, when 'fo obvious an one lies juft before them? Why did he this, do you afk? For this plain reafon : His fubject was a future ftate of reward and punishment, and he had more fenfe than to feek for it where it was not to be found. Oh but HADES is almost five times as often mentioned in the Old Teftament as in the New. Indeed! But the fragment is not about the word, but the thing.

[ocr errors]

the fuppofition that a future ftate was not amongst the Religious doctrines of the People, the above confiderations, if they needed any, would receive the strongest support and confirmation. To give one example out of many. The Pfalmift fays, For the rod of the Wicked fhall not rest upon the lot of the Righteous: left the Righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity". That is, "God will vigorously adminifter that extraordinary Providence which the nature of the Difpenfation required to be administered, left the Righteous, not feeing themfelves exempt from the evils due to wickedness, fhould conclude that there was no moral Governor of the world; and fo, by making their own private intereft the rule of their actions, fall into the practice of all kind of iniquity." But this could never be the confequence where an unequal difpenfation of Providence was attended with the knowledge and belief of a future ftate. And here I will appeal to those who are most prejudiced against this reafoning. Let them fpeak, and tell me, if they were now firft fhewn fome history of an old Greek Republic, delivered in the form and manner of the Jewish, and no more notice in it of a future ftate, Whether they could poffibly believe that that Doctrine was National, or generally known in it. If they have the least ingenuity, they will anfwer, They could

In the Old Testament it fignified the receptacle of dead bodies; in the New, the receptacle of living fouls. But though this learned writer can, without doubt, laugh at those who seek the Trinity in the Old Teftament, yet he can in good earnest go thither in fearch of a Future ftate. Yet this latter is not in any comparison fo clearly hinted at as the other and no wonder; a Future ftate is circumfcribed to the New Teftament, as brought to light by the Gofpel; but the doctrine of the Trinity is no where faid to be fo circumfcribed.

# Ps, cxxv. 3.

not.

not. On what then do they support their opinion here, but on religious Prejudices? Prejudices of no higher an original than fome Dutch or German System: for, as to the BIBLE, one half of it is filent concerning life and immortality; and the other half declares that the doctrine was brought to light through the Gospel.

But to fet this argument in its fulleft light. Let us confider the History of the reft of mankind, whether recorded by Bards, or Statesmen; by Philofophers, or Priefts: in which we fhall find the doctrine of a future state still bearing, throughout all the various circumstances of human life, a conftant and principal share in the determinations of the Will. And no wonder. We see how ftrong the Grecian world thought the fanction of it to be, by a paffage in Pindar, quoted by Plutarch in his tract of Superftition, where he makes it one circumftance of the fuperior happiness of the Gods, over men, that they stood not in fear of Acheron.

But not to be distracted by too large a view, let us felect from the rest of the Nations, one of two most resembling the Jewish. Those which came nearest to them, (and, if the Jews were only under human guidance, indeed extremely near) were the SUEVI of the north, and the ARABS of the fouth. Both thefe People were led out in fearch of new Poffeffions, which they were to win by the fword. And both, it is confeffed, had the doctrine of a Future ftate inculcated unto them by their leaders, ODIN and MAHOMET. Of the Arabs we have a large and circumstantial history: Of the Suevi we have only fome few fragments of the fongs and ballads of their Bards; yet they

equally

349 equally ferve to fupport our Conclufion. In the large hiftory of the Saracen Empire we can scarce find a page, and in the Runic rhymes of the Suevi fcarce a line, where the doctrine of a future ftate was not pushing on its influence. It was their conftant Viaticum through life; it ftimulated them to war and flaughter, and fpirited their fongs of triumph; it made them infenfible of pain, immoveable in danger, and fuperior to the approach of death. For,

To all this, Dr. Stebbing has an Answer ready, "The "Hiftory of the perfecution under Antiochus (fays he) is writ 66 ten by two Hiftorians, namely, the Author of the first book "of Maccabees, and the Author of the fecond. This laft "writer has recorded the profeffion of the Martyrs concerning "their belief of the doctrine of the Refurrection; but the "first has entirely omitted it: nor is there one word about a "refurrection or future ftate to be found throughout his whole "Hiftory, though it is certain it was now the national be "lief. So UNSAFE a thing is it to rely upon the MERE filence "of hiftorians, when they undertake to write a hiftory not of "doctrines but of the tranfactions of men." Exam. P. 116.

[ocr errors]

I will tell him of an unfafer thing: which is, venturing to draw parallel cafes; as he has done here; for they may happen, (as hath happened here) to be cafes moft unlike.

In a large and miscellaneous Volume, compofed by various Writers of different times and states, and containing the Law, the Religion, and the Hiftory of the Jews, from Mofes to the Captivity, neither the Doctrines of the refurrection nor a future ftate are ever once mentioned.

This is the Fact. And to obviate my inference from it, "That the Jews, during that period, were unacquainted with "the Doctrines," this able Divine oppofes the two books of Maccabees, containing the ftory of one fhort period, when, it is confessed, thefe Doctrines were of national belief; in the first of which Books, there is no mention of the Doctrine, and in the fecond, a great deal: the reafon both of the mention and of the filence being felf evident. It is recorded in the second book, where there is a detailed account of the Martyrs for the

« PoprzedniaDalej »