he deceived the people in the covenant they made, by his intervention with God. If he did not know it, he was himself deceived. In either case, a covenant was made, wherein the conditions of obedience and disobedience, were not fully, nor by consequence, fairly stated.The Israelites had better things to hope, and worse to fear than those which were expressed in it and their whole history seems to shew, how much need they had of these additional motives to restrain them from Polytheism and Idolatry, and to answer the assumed purposes of Divine Providence 1." He contends further, that if Moses had known the doctrine in question, he must necessarily have taught it2: but it will appear in the course of this discussion, that whether he knew it or not, he was not authorized to teach it, which will fully account for his silence respecting it. "When I say (he observes) that Moses did not believe the immortality of the soul, nor future rewards and punishments, my reason is this-that he taught neither, when he had to do with a 'Lord Bolingbroke, as quoted in the Divine Legation, vol. v. p. 222. 2 Ibid. p. 215. 2 ; people, whom a theocracy could not restrain and on whom, therefore, terrors of punishment, future as well as present, eternal as well as temporary, could never be too much multiplied, or too strongly inculcated'." I do not imagine that the argument on this side of the question, can be stated with more force and clearness, than is here exhibited. Divines in general, until Bishop Warburton wrote, have contended, on the other hand, and some I know still contend, that the Jews had the doctrine, either by tradition, or by universal consent as a principle of natural religion, or by inference from certain passages in the Pentateuch, as the covenant with Abraham and some others. Dr. Sherlock (for instance) writes thus. "Now it is confessed by all, that the law of Moses contains no express promise of another life. But yet the whole Mosaical dispensation is one continued proof of it; if we will allow that God had any wise designs 1 Divine Legation, vol. v. p. 203. 2 See Lancaster's Harmony of the Law and the Gospel-passim. 3 Bishop Warburton thinks that natural religion teaches us to expect ample but not eternal rewards.Vol. vi. p. 254. in that dispensation, or the Jews any common sense to understand it'." He then produces many arguments to shew that the doctrine was implied in or to be inferred from various parts of the Mosaic law. But he fully admits, that it is not positively laid down, either by Moses, or by any other writer in the Old Testament. "And though (he says) I have shewn, there are very strong presumptions in the Jewish law of another and a better life after this, and such as gave good men a very firm belief of it, yet it is certain there are no express promises of life and immortality in the Old Testament; for they might easily be shewn, if there were any there"." Such was the general state of the controversy, when the great Author of the Divine Legation of Moses engaged in it. Infidels contending from the absence of the doctrine of a future state, that the Old Testament (and by consequence the New, for the latter recognizes and is built upon the former) was not true. And their opponents insisting, that the doctrine was 1 W. Sherlock's Future State, 299. 2 Ibid. 331. not as they supposed omitted, and that therefore, their conclusion was without foundation. But Bishop Warburton took a quite different view of the matter. He agreed with neither of the parties. Relying upon the resources of a powerful intellect, which seemed to delight in surmounting difficulties; and aided by the most profound and various learning, he undertook to concede their premises to the Deists, but to disprove their conclusion: and to establish the conclusion of their adversaries, but upon different premises. In short, he engaged to prove the Divine authority of the Mosaic institutions, upon the very ground of their omission of a future state. And these were the main propositions upon which he relied That the doctrine of a for that purpose. future state of rewards and punishments is necessary, and has always been so considered, to civil society. That it nevertheless made no part of the Mosaic law. That its absence can only be supplied by an extraordinary Providence, which should punish the wicked, and reward the good, in this life. That such a Providence was actually administered, under a Theocracy, to the Jews. That consequently Moses, through whose medium it was administered, had a Divine commission'. Notwithstanding the great learning and ingenuity with which these propositions are supported throughout the work, and the great mass of valuable information, which it contains upon many collateral points, it may still be doubted whether the first position, that the doctrine of a future state has always been considered necessary to civil society, be sufficiently proved. And even (if it has) whether it is an answer to those who enquire, why, if the doctrine be true, it was excluded from the Mosaic code ? This the learned author admits to be a weighty objection. He says-" though under an extraordinary Providence, there might be no occasion for the doctrine of a future state, in support of religion, or for the ends of government; yet as that doctrine is a truth, and consequently under every regimen of Providence useful, it seems hard to conceive, that the religious leader of the Jews, because as a lawgiver he could do without it, that therefore as a Divine he would omit it." The 'Divine Legation, vol. i. p. 200. |