Slike strani
PDF
ePub

on the contrary, it was a designed omission; and of a thing well known by him to be of high importance to society.

I. That the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments was studiously omitted, may appear from several circumstances in the book of Genesis. For the history of Moses may be divided into two periods; from the creation to his mission; and from his mission to the delivering up his command to Joshua: the first was written by him in quality of HISTORIAN; the second, of LEGISLATOR; in both of which he preserves an equal silence concerning the doctrine of a future state.

I. In the history of the fall of man, it is to be observed, that he mentions only the instrument of the agent, the SERPENT; not the agent himself, the DEVIL: and the reason is plain; there was a close connexion between that agency, -the spiritual effects of the fall, the work of redemption, and the doctrine of a future state. If you say, the connexion was not so 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 prevailed throughout the pagan world. What but these important considerations could be the cause of the omission ?* when it is so evident that the knowledge of this grand enemy of our welfare would have been the likeliest cure of pagan superstitions, as teaching men to esteem of idolatry no otherwise than as a mere diabolical illusion. And in fact we find, that when the Israelites were taught, by the later prophets, to consider it in this light, we hear no more of their idolatries. Hence we see, that the folly of those, who, with Collins, would have a mere serpent only to be understood, is just equal to theirs, who, with the cabalists, would have that serpent a mere allegory.

2. In the history of Enoch's translation to heaven, ‡ there is so studied an obscurity, that several of the rabbins, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi, fond as they are of finding a future state in the Pentateuch, interpret this translation as only signifying an immature death. And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. How different from the other history of the translation of Elijah! "And it came to pass 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 horses of fire, and parted them both asunder, and Elijah went up with a whirlwind into heaven."§ But the reason of this difference is evident: when the latter history was written, it was thought expedient to make a preparation for the dawning of a future state of reward and punishment, which in the time of Moses had been highly improper. The reflections of an eminent critic on this occasion, will show how little he penetrated into the true design of this economy. "Mirum est Mosem rem tantam, si modo immortalem Henochum factum CREDIDIT, tam obiter, ‡ Heb. xi. 5.

See note Z, at the end of this book. § 2 Kings ii. 1, 11.

† Gen. v. 24.

tamque obscure, quasi EAM LATERE VELLET, perstrinxisse. Fortè cum hæc ex antiquissimis monumentis exscriberet, nihil præter ea quæ nobis tradidit invenit, quibus aliquid adjicere religio fuit."* For Moses both knew and believed the immortality of Enoch, and purposely obscured the fact, from whence it might have been collected. But what is most singular in this reflection is, that the learned commentator, to aggravate the obscurity, says it is as obscure, as if he purposely designed to hide it, supposing such a design to be the highest improbability; which was indeed the fact, and is the true solution of the difficulty.

3. In his history of the patriarchs, he entirely omits, or throws into shade, the accounts of those revelations, with which, as we learn from the writers of the New Testament, some of them were actually favoured, concerning the redemption of mankind. Of these favours we shall give ere long a great and noble instance, in the case of ABRAHAM, who, as we are assured by JESUS himself, rejoiced to see CHRIST's day, and save it, and was glad.

From whence therefore could all this studied caution arise, but to keep out of sight that doctrine, which, for ends truly worthy of the divine wisdom, he had omitted in his institutes of law and religion? This shows the weakness of that evasion, which would reconcile the OMISSION, to the people's KNOWLEDGE of the doctrine, by supposing they had been so well instructed by the patriarchs, that Moses had no occasion to say any thing farther on that subject.

Let me observe by the way, that these considerations are more than a thousand topical arguments, to prove that Moses was the real author of the book of Genesis. 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 Moses, may appear from a particular provision in his institutes (besides that general one of an extraordinary providence,) evidently made to oppose to the inconvenient consequences of the OMISSION.

We have shown at large, in the first three books, that under a common or unequal providence, civil government could not be supported without a religion teaching a future state of reward and punishment. And it is the great purpose of this work to prove, that the Mosaic religion wanting that doctrine, the Jews must REALLY have enjoyed that equal providence, under which holy scripture represents them to have lived: and then, no transgressor escaping punishment, nor any observer of the law missing his reward,† human affairs might be kept in good order, without the doctrine of a future state.

Yet still the violence of irregular passions would make some men of stronger complexions superior to all the fear of personal temporal evil. To lay hold therefore on these, and to gain a due ascendant over the most determined, the punishments, in this institution, are extended to the POSTERITY of wicked men; which the instinctive fondness of parents † Sce note A A, at the end of this book.

Vid. Clericum in Gen. v. 21.

to their offspring would make terrible even to those who had hardened themselves into an insensibility of personal punishment: "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."*

Now that this punishment was only to supply the want of a future state, is evident from hence:† towards the conclusion of this extraordinary economy, when God, by the later prophets, reveals his purpose of giving them a new dispensation, in which a future state of reward and punishment was to be brought to light, it is then declared in the most express manner, that he will abrogate the law of punishing children for the crimes of their parents. JEREMIAH, speaking of this new dispensation, says: "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge: but every one shall die for his own iniquity, every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, - Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt,"§ &c. And EZEKIEL, speaking of the same times, says: "I will give them one heart, and will put a NEW spirit within you, &c.-But as for them, whose heart walketh after the heart of their abominable things I will recompense their way UPON THEIR OWN HEADS, saith the Lord God." || And again: "What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God; Ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die."**

And yet (to show more plainly that the abrogation of the law was solely owing to this new dispensation) the same prophets, when their subject is the present Jewish economy, speak of this very law as still in force. Thus JEREMIAH: "Thou showest loving-kindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them."†† And HOSEA: "Seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."‡‡

From all this I conclude, that, whoever was the real author of what goes under the name of the law of Moses, was at least well acquainted with the importance of the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment; and provided well for the want of it.

But the blindness of infidelity is here most deplorable. The deists are not content with condemning this law of injustice, but will accuse the dispensation itself of inconsistence; pretending that the prophets have directly contradicted Moses in their manner of denouncing punishment. See note BB, at the end of this book. + Note CC, at the end of this book. ‡ Note D D, at the end of this book. § Chap. xxxi. 29-33. || Chap. xi. ver. 19–21. See note EE, at the end of this book. **Chap. xviii, ver. 2-4. # Chap. iv. ver. 6.

†† Chap. xxxii. ver. 18.

It is indeed the standing triumph of infidelity. But let us return, says SPINOZA, to the prophets, whose discordant opinions we have undertaken to lay open-The xviiith chap. of EZEKIEL does not seem to agree with the 7th ver. of the xxxivth chap. of EXODUS, nor with the 18th ver. of the xxxiid chap. of JEREMIAH, &c. * - " There are several mistakes," says TINDAL, "crept into the Old Testament, where there is scarce a chapter which gives any historical account of matters, but there are some things in it which could not be there originally. It must be owned, that the same spirit (I dare not call it a spirit of cruelty) does not alike prevail throughout the Old Testament; the nearer we come to the times of the gospel, the milder it appears; for though God declares in the decalogue, that he is a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and fourth generation, and accordingly Achan, with all his family, was destroyed for his single crime; yet the Lord afterwards says; The soul that sinneth it shall die; the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,"† &c.‡

I. Let us see then what these men have to say on the first point, the injustice of the law. They set out on a false supposition, that this method of punishment was part of an universal religion given by God as the Creator and Governor of mankind: whereas it is only part of a civil institute, given by him to one people, as their tutelary God and civil Governor. Now we know it to be the practice of all states to punish the crime of lese majesty in this manner. And to render it just, no more is required than that it was in the compact (as it certainly was here) on men's free entrance into society.

When a guilty posterity suffered for the crimes of their parents, they were deprived of their natural unconditional rights; when an innocent, they only forfeited their conditional and civil: but as this method of punishment was administered with more lenity in the Jewish republic, so it was with infinitely more rectitude, than in any other. For although God allowed capital punishment to be inflicted for the crime of lese majesty on the person of the offender, by the delegated administration of the law; yet concerning his family or posterity he reserved the inquisition of the crime to himself, and expressly forbade the magistrate to meddle with it, in the common course of justice. "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."§ And we find the magistrate careful not to trench on this part of God's jurisdiction. We are told, that as soon as Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah became firmly established in the throne, "He slew his servants which had slain the king his father. But the CHILDREN of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law

* - Sed ad prophetas revertamur, quorum discrepantes opiniones etiam notare suscepimus, Cap. saltem xviii. Ezech, non videtur convenire cum versu 7, cap. xxxiv. Exod. nec cum ver. 18, cap. xxxii. Jer. &c.-Tract. Theological-Pol., pp. 27, 28.

+ Christianity as Old as the Creation, pp. 210, 241. See note FF, at the end of this book.

Deut. xxiv. 16.

of Moses [Deut. xxiv. 16,] wherein the Lord commanded saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children,"* &c. Yet such hath been the perversity or stupidity of freethinking, that this very text itself hath been charged with contradicting the xxth chapter of EXODUS. Now God's appropriating to himself the execution of the law in question would abundantly justify the equity of it, even supposing it had been given by him as part of an universal religion. For why was the magistrate forbidden to imitate God's method of punishing, but because no power less than omniscient could, in all cases, keep clear of injustice in such an inquisition?

But God not only reserved this method of punishment to himself, but has graciously condescended to inform us, by his prophets, after what manner he was pleased to administer it. YOUR INIQUITIES, says he, AND THE INIQUITIES OF YOUR FATHERS TOGETHER, which have burnt incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills : therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.† And again: "But ye say, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity-shall he live?"‡

So much for that case in which the posterity were iniquitous, and suffered punishment, in the strict and proper sense of the word. But doubtless, an innocent posterity were sometimes punished, according to the denunciation of this law, for the crimes of their wicked fathers;§ as is done by modern states, in attaint of blood and confiscation: and this, with the highest equity in both cases.

In our Gothic constitutions, the throne being the fountain of honour and source of property, lands and titles, descend from it, and were held as FIEFS of it, under perpetual obligation of military and civil services. Hence the LAWS OF FORFEITURE for high treason, the most violent breach of the condition on which those fiefs were granted. Nor was there any injustice in the forfeiture of what was acquired by no natural right, but by civil compact, how much soever the confiscation might affect an innocent posterity.

The same principles operated under a theocracy. God supported the Israelites in Judea, by an extraordinary administration of his providence. The consequence of which were great temporal blessings to which they had no natural claim; given them on condition of obedience. Nothing therefore could be more equitable than, on the violation of that condition, to withdraw those extraordinary blessings from the children of a father thus offending. How then can the deist charge this law with * 2 Kings xiv. 5, 6. Isaiah lxv. 7. ‡ Ezek. xviii. 19 and 24. See note G G, at

the end of this book.

This appears from the rise of that proverb in Israel, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

|| See note H H, at the end of this book.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »