Slike strani
PDF
ePub

when in the same words (as in the Doctor's translation of the text in question) it is a tautology, which being without reason, has neither grace nor elegance. Nay the very pretence it has to common sense arises from our being able to understand the equivocal phrase, to see, in my meaning, of, that he might see. Confine it to the Doctor's, of-Abraham rejoiced when he had seen my day; and he saw it and was glad, and the absurdity becomes apparent. For the latter part of the sentence beginning with the conjunction copulative zai, it implies a further predication. Yet in his translation there is none; though he makes an effort towards it, in dropping the sense of xaì in the sound of BOTH.

P. 484, CCC. Dr Stebbing tells me, "There is not one word, in the history of the Old Testament, to justify this threefold distinction:" and that I myself CONFESS as much. It is true, I confess that what is not in the Old Testament is not to be found there. And had he been as modest, he would have been content to find a future state in the New Testament only. But where is it, I would ask, that "I confess there is not one word, in the history of the Old Testament, to justify this threefold distinction?" I was so far from any such thought, that I gave a large epitome* of Abraham's whole history, to show that it justified this threefold distinction, in every part of it. His manner of proving my confession will clearly detect the fraud and falsehood of his charge. For, instead of doing it from my own words, he would argue me into it, from his own inferences. "You confess it," says he, "FOR you say, that Moses's history begins with the second period, and that the first was wisely omitted by the historian." Let us apply this reasoning to a parallel case. I will suppose him to tell me, for, after this, he may tell me any thing, "that I myself confess there is not one word in the Iliad of Homer, to justify me in saying that there were three periods in the destruction of Troy-the first, the robbery of Helen; the second, the combats before the walls; and the third, the storming of the town by the Greeks: FOR that I say, that Homer's poem begins at the second period; wisely omitting the first and the last." Now, will any one conclude, from this reasoning, that I had made any such confession?

P. 485, D D D. This shows why God might say to Hosea, Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, &c. ch. i. ver. 2. Though all actions which have no moral import are indifferent; yet some of this kind, which would even be indifferent, had they a moral import, may, on the very account of their having no moral import, be the object of pleasure or displeasure. Thus, in the adventure between Elisha and Joash, we are told, that the prophet said unto the king, "Take bow and arrows; and he took unto him bow and arrows. And he said to the king of Israel, Put thine hand upon the bow; and he put his hand upon it; and Elisha put his hands upon the king's hands. And he said; Open the window eastward; and he opened it. Then Elisha said; Shoot; and he shot. And he said, The arrow of the Lord's deliverance from Syria: for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them. And he said, Take the arrows: and he took them. And he said unto the king of Israel; Smite upon the ground; and he smote thrice, and stayed. And the man of God was wroth with him, and said; Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times, then hadst thou smitten Syria, till thou hadst consumed it: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice." -2 Kings xiii. 15-19. Here it is not difficult to apprehend, that the prophet, by God's command, directed the king to perform a significative action, whose meaning God had beforehand explained to his messenger: and, amongst the particulars of it, had told him this, that the Syrians should be smitten as often as the king smote upon the ground, when the prophet should order him, only in general words, to smite it. Hence the prophet's anger, occasioned by his love to his country, on the king's stopping when he had

smote thrice.

P. 485, EEE. To this Dr Stebbing answers, "I can easily understand, Sir, how the matter stood with Abraham; and that He was in no danger of being misled, as to the nature of human sacrifices, who knew the secret of the whole affair: and that it was nothing else but scenery. But how this answer will serve for his family, who are to be presumed to have known nothing of this scenical representation, is utterly past my comprehensionbecause you have told us from the very first, that the information to be conveyed by it was intended for Abraham's SOLE USE; and I do not see how Abraham could open to his family the scenery of the transaction, without explaining the mystery. But is not your putting the family of Abraham in possession of this consequence, a very plain declaration, that they knew the mystery of Christ's sacrifice? Now, therefore, Sir, take your choice, and give up one part of your hypothesis, or the other, as best pleases you; for to hold both is impossible. If you say that the family of Abraham were acquainted with the mystery of Christ's sacrifice; it will overturn all you have said concerning their ignorance of a future state: it likewise overturns the single reason you have given why the explanation, usual in all such cases, to show the import of the transaction was not added, viz. that it was a point not fit for common knowledge. But if you shall choose to say, that the revelation of this mystery

* From pp. 471 to 474 of this volume.

was for the SOLE information of Abraham, and that his family knew nothing of it, the objection will lie full against you, unanswered." - Consid. p. 166.

I had said, that the command was for Abraham's sole use; and "therefore," says the Doctor, "the family of Abraham must be presumed to know nothing of this scenical representation:" Notwithstanding this, I presume, he says, that they did know it. Here he takes me in a flagrant contradiction. But did he indeed not apprehend that where I spoke of its being given for Abraham's sole use, I was opposing it, as the course of my argument required, not to the single family which THEN lived under his tents, but to the Jewish people, WHEN the history of the transaction was recorded? - And now having shown his wrong conclusion from MY words, let us consider next the wrong conclusion he draws from HIS OWN. "I do not see," says he, "how Abraham could open to his family the scenery of the transaction, without explaining the mystery." What does he mean by, opening the scenery of the transaction? There are two senses of this ambiguous expression; it may signify, either, explaining the moral of the scenery; or simply, telling his family that the transaction was a scenical representation. He could not use the phrase in the former sense, because he makes explaining the mystery a thing different from opening the scenery. He must mean it then in the latter. But could not Abraham tell his family, that this was a scenical representation, without explaining the mystery? I do not know what should hinder him, unless it was the sudden loss of speech. If he had the free use of his tongue, I think, he might, in the transports of his joy, on his return home, tell his wife, "That God had ordered him to sacrifice his son, and that he had carried this son to mount Moriah, in obedience to the divine command, where a ram was accepted in his stead; but that the whole was a mere scenical representation, to figure a mysterious transaction which God had ordained to come to pass in the latter ages of the world." And I suppose when he had once told his wife, the family would soon hear of it. Now, could they not understand, what was meant by a scenical representation, as well when he told them it was to prefigure a mystery, as if he had told them it was to prefigure the crucifixion of Jesus? Had I no other way of avoiding his dilemma, (for if I escape his contradiction, he has set his dilemma-trap, which he says it is impossible I should escape,) had I nothing else, I say, it is very likely I should have insisted upon this explanation: but there are more safe ways than one of taking him by his horns. "Now, therefore," says he, "take your choice, and give up one part of your hypothesis or the other, as best pleases you: FOR TO HOLD BOTH IS IMPOSSIBLE. you say that the family of Abraham were acquainted with the mystery, it will overturn all you said concerning their ignorance of a future state-But if you shall choose to say that the revelation of the mystery was for the sole information of Abraham, and that his family knew nothing of it, then the construction in favour of human sacrifices must have been the very same as if no such representation, as you speak of, had been intended." I desire to know where it is that I have spoken ANY THING of the ignorance of Abraham's family concerning a future state. But I am afraid something is wrong here again: and that, by Abraham's family, he means the Israelites under Moses's policy: for, with regard to them, I did indeed say that the gross body of the people were ignorant of a future state. then I supposed them equally ignorant of the true import of the command to Abraham. But if by Abraham's family he means, as every man does, who means honestly, those few of his household, I suppose them indeed acquainted with the true import of the command: but then, at the same time, not ignorant of a future state. Thus it appears that what our examiner had pronounced IMPOSSIBLE, was all the while very possible. And in spite of this terrible dilemma, both parts of the hypothesis are at peace. I can hardly think him so immoral as to have put a designed trick upon his reader: I rather suppose it to be some confused notion concerning the popish virtue of TRADITION, that trusty guardian of truth, which led him into all this absurdity: and made him conclude, that what Abraham's household once knew, the posterity of Abraham could never forget. Though the WRITTEN WORD tells us, that when Moses was sent to redeem this posterity from bondage, they remembered so little of God's revelations to their forefathers, that they knew nothing even of his NATURE, and therefore did, as men commonly do in the like case, enquire after his NAME.

If

But

P. 487, F F F. "To me," says the noble writer, "it plainly appears, that in the early times of all religions, when nations were yet barbarous and savage, there was ever an aptness or tendency towards the dark part of superstition, which, amongst many other horrors, produced that of human sacrifice. Something of this nature might possibly be deduced even from holy writ."-To this a note refers in the following words" Gen. xxii. 1. and Judg. xi. 30. These places relating to Abraham and Jephthah are cited only with respect to the notion which these primitive warriors may be said to have entertained concerning this horrid enormity, so common amongst the inhabitants of Palestine and the other neighbouring nations. It appears that even the elder of these Hebrew princes was under no extreme surprise on this trying revelation. Nor did he think of expostulating, in the least, on this occasion: when at another time he could be so importunate for the pardon of an inhospitable, murderous, impious, and incestuous city, Gen. xviii. 23, &c." Charact. vol. iii. p. 124.

Dr Stébbing will needs try his strength with the noble author of the Characteristics. For, whether I quote for approbation or condemnation, it is all one; this active watchman of the church militant will let nothing escape him, that he finds in my service; nor leave any thing unpurified that has once passed through my hands. To this passage of the noble Lord he replies, "The cases widely differ. God did not open precisely what he intended to do with these wicked cities; he only said, judgment was passed. But what has this to do with Isaac, who did not stand as a sinner before God; but as a sacrifice, acknowledging God's sovereign dominion. For Abraham to intercede here would have inferred a reluctancy to do homage, which would have destroyed the perfection of his resignation."-Hist. of Abr. pp. 41, 42. So, Isaac's innocence, and his not standing a sinner before God when he was doomed to death, makes him a less proper object of Abraham's intercession and compassion, than a devoted city, inhospitable, murderous, impious, and incestuous. This is our Doctor's HUMANITY; and a modest petition of the father of the faithful, like that of the Saviour of the world, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt," would have destroyed all the perfection of his resignation. And this is our Doctor's DIVINITY! Strange! that this father of orthodoxy could not see, that what might be done by the divine antitype himself, without destroying his perfection of resignation, might likewise be done, without that loss, in behalf of the type. After so fine a specimen of what great things he is able to do against this formidable enemy of revelation; what pity is it, he was never set on work by his superiors, in a more avowed and open manner!

P. 491, GGG. This man, not long since, wrote against the Divine Legation under the name of a society of freethinkers: by the same kind of figure, I suppose, that he in the gospel called himself legion, who was only the forwardest devil of the crew.

Ρ. 491, Η Η H. But I mistake. Unbelievers, I think, are not yet quite so shameless. The objection, in form, comes from another quarter. It is Dr Stebbing, who, for the honour of the church, makes it for them. He will not allow that the words of Jesus are of any validity to support my interpretation of the command to Abraham, because unbelievers will not admit the inspiration of the New Testament. But what then? they have not yet disputed with me my interpretation of the command. Nobody hath done this but Dr Stebbing. And I hope the authority of Jesus will stand good against him. He was in haste to do their business for them: and, it must be confessed, by an argument that does equal credit to his logic and his piety.

Fair reasoners of all parties will see, though Dr Stebbing will not, that the question is not particular, concerning the inspiration of the Old and New Testament; but general, of the connexion between them; and those will not be so unreasonable to expect I should prove this connexion, of which they ask a proof, any otherwise than by applying each reciprocally to explain and to support the other. If the two Testaments be shown to do this; while on the other hand, when singly considered, and without each other's mutual assistance, they are inexplicable, the connexion between them is fairly made out. The objection of unbelievers stands thus, "You pretend," say they, "that these two dispensations are two constituent parts of God's great moral economy: if this be true, they must needs have a strong connexion and real relation to one another. Show us this connexion and relation: and amuse us no longer with proving the divinity of this or that dispensation separately, as if each were independent on the other." I comply with their demand: and now Dr Stebbing tells me, I take this or that revelation for granted which I should have proved. Whereas in truth I take nothing for granted but what unbelievers are ready to prove against me, if I did not: namely, that between two dispensations, the one pretended to be preparatory to the other, there must needs be a strong and near connexion and relation. And if, in the course of evincing this connexion, I urge some circumstances in the Jewish to support the Christian, and others in the Christian to support the Jewish; this, I suppose, is not taking for granted the truth either of one or the other, but proving the divinity of

both.

P. 495, III. Hence we see the vanity of Mr Whiston's distinction, who is for retaining types (necessitated thereunto by the express declarations of holy writ), and for rejecting double senses. "Mr Whiston," says the author of the Grounds, &c., "justifies typical arguing from the ritual laws of Moses, and from passages of history in the Old Testament. -Indeed he pretends this last to be quite another thing from the odd (typical) application of prophecies. For, says he, the ancient ceremonial institutions were, as to their principal branches, at least in their own nature, types and shadows of future good things. But the case of the ancient prophecies to be alleged from the old scriptures for the confirmation of Christianity is quite of another nature, and of a more nice and exact consideration." Pp. 227, 228. It appears, indeed, they are of a more nice and exact consideration, even from Mr Whiston's so much mistaking them, as to suppose they are of a nature quite different from types. But instead of telling us honestly that he knew not what to make of them, he plays the courtier, and dismisses them, for a more nice and exact consideration.

P. 496, Κ.Κ.Κ. The bishop of London, in his Discourses on the Use and Intent of Prophecy, seemed to have but a slender idea of this use when he wrote as follows:-" There was no occasion," says he, "to lay in so long beforehand the evidence of prophecy, to convince men of things that were to happen in their own times: and it gives us a low idea of the administration of providence in sending prophets one after another in every age from Adam to Christ, to imagine that all this apparatus was for their sakes who lived In or AFTER the times of Christ." P. 37. But such is the way of these writers who have a favourite doctrine to enforce. The truth of that doctrine (if it happen to be a truth) is supported at the expense of all others. Thus his Lordship, setting himself to prove that prophecy was given principally to support the faith and religion of the world, thought he could not sufficiently secure his point without weakening and discrediting another of, at least, equal importance, -That it was given to afford testimony to the mission of Jesus.

P. 499, LL L. This account of types and secondary senses, which supposes they were intended to conceal the doctrines delivered under them, is so very natural, and, as would seem, reasonable, that Dr Stebbing himself subscribes to it. And hence occasion has been taken by a most acute and able writer to expose his prevarication, in maintaining that the Jews had the revealed doctrine of a future state: for the Doctor not only confesses that the doctrine was revealed under types, but that doctrines, thus conveyed, were purposely secreted from the knowlegde of the ancient Jews. See the "Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated," p. 125. And the "Free and candid Examination of Bishop Sherlock's Sermons," &c., chap. ii., where the controversy on this point is fairly determined, as far as truth and reason can determine any thing.

P. 508, M M M. Hear what a very judicious critic observes of the line in question "The comment of SERVIUS on this line is remarkable. Hunc versum notant critici, quasi superfluè et inutiliter additum, nec convenientem gravitati ejus, namque est magis neotericus." Mr ADDISON Cconceived of it in the same manner when he said, this was the only witty line in the Æneis; meaning such a line as Ovid would have written. We see they esteemed it a wanton play of fancy, unbecoming the dignity of the writer's work, and the gravity of his character. They took it, in short, for a more modern flourish, totally different from the pure unaffected manner of genuine antiquity. And thus far they unquestionably judged right. Their defect was in not seeing that the use of it, as here employed by the poet, was an exception to the general rule. But to have seen this was not, perhaps, to be expected even from these critics. However, from this want of penetration arose a difficulty in determining whether to read, facta or fata nepotum. And as we now understand that Servius and his eritics were utter strangers to Virgil's noble idea, it is no wonder they could not resolve it. But the latter is the poet's own word. He considered this shield of celestial make as a kind of palladium, like the ANCILE which fell from heaven, and used to be carried in procession on the shoulders of the SALII, Quid de scutis,' says Lactantius, 'jam vetustate putridis dicam? Quæ cum portant, Deos ipsos se gestare humeris suis arbitrantur.'-Div. Inst. lib. i. c. 21. Virgil, in a fine flight of imagination, alludes to this venerable ceremony, comparing, as it were, the shield of his hero to the sacred ANCILE; and, in conformity to the practice in that sacred procession, represents his hero in the priestly office of religion.

Attollens HUMERO famamque et FATA nepotum.

This idea then, of the sacred shield, the guard and glory of Rome, and on which, in this advanced situation, depended the fame and fortune of his country, the poet with extreme elegance and sublimity transfers to the shield which guarded their great progenitor, while he was laying the first foundations of the Roman empire." - Mr HURD-notes on the epistle to Augustus, pp. 68, 69. 3d ed.

P. 512, NNN. The reader sees, however, by this, that he at length takes ALLEGORIES and SECONDARY SENSES not to be the same: in which, I must crave leave to tell him, he is mistaken; religious allegories (the only allegories in question) being no other than a species of secondary senses. This may be news to our critic, though he has written and printed so much about ALLEGORIES, that is, about secondary senses; as Monsieur Jordan was surprised to find he had talked prose all his lifetime, without knowing it.

Ρ. 512, Ο Ο Ο. Dr Stebbing, of this SOME (by one of his arts of controversy) has made ALL. And charges me* with giving this as the character of double prophecies in general, that "without miracles in their confirmation they could hardly have the sense contended for well ascertained." On the contrary, he assures his reader that no prophecy can have its sense supported by miracles. - That part which relates to the morality of the Doctor's conduct in this matter, I shall leave to himself: with his logic I have something more to say. The miracles, which the reader plainly sees I meant, were those worked by Jesus; and the prophecies, some of those which Jesus quoted, as relating to himself. But the

* See Hist. of Abraham, pp. 61, 62, 63, &c.

Doctor tells us, "that miracles are not be taken for granted in our disputes with unbelievers." In some of our disputes with unbelievers, they are not to be taken for granted; in some they are. When the dispute is, whether the truth of Jesus' mission appear from miracles, it would be absurd to take miracles for granted: but when the dispute is, whether the truth of his Messiah-character appear from prophecies, there is no absurdity in taking his miracles for granted; because an unbeliever may deny his Messiah-character, which arises from prophecies, and yet acknowledge this mission which is proved by miracles; but he cannot deny the truth of his mission, which is proved by miracles, and yet acknowledge his miracles. But more than this-An unbeliever not only may allow us to suppose the truth of miracles when the question is about the proof of the Messiah-character from prophecies; but the unbeliever, with whom I had here to do, Mr Collins, does actually allow us, in our dispute with him, to suppose the truth of miracles: for thus he argues, "Jesus, you say, has proved his mission by miracles. In good time. But he had another character to support, that of a promised Messiah, for which he appeals to the prophecies: now, Ist, these prophecies relate not to him, but to another. And 2dly, miracles never can make that relate to him which relate to another." In answer to this, I proposed to show, that the first proposition was absolutely false, and that the second very much wanted to be qualified. In the course of this dispute, I had occasion to urge the evidence of miracles; and Mr Collins, while denying the Messiah-character, had permitted me to suppose their truth. Unluckily, the Doctor, who saw nothing of all this, takes what logicians call the point assumed, and the point to be proved, for one and the same thing. That Jesus was a divine messenger, and worked miracles, is the point assumed by me; and Mr Collins, over confident of his cause, permitted me to assume it. That Jesus was the Messiah foretold, is the point to be proved; and I did not expect that any other than a follower of Mr Collins would deny I had proved it. But I will be fair even with so unfair an adversary as Dr Stebbing, and urge his cause with an advantage with which I will suppose he would have urged it himself had he known how. It may be questioned whether it be strictly logical to employ this topic (which Mr Collins allows us to assume) of Jesus' divine mission, in order to prove his Messiahship? Now all that can be here objected is, that we assume one character, in order to prove another, in the same divine person. And what is there illogical in this? Who ever objected to the force of that reasoning against Lord Bolingbroke, which from the attributes of God's power and wisdom which his Lordship allowed the author of the View of his Philosophy to assume, inferred and proved God's justice and goodness, which his Lordship denied?

But to satisfy, not the Doctor, but any more reasonable man, I will suppose, it may be asked, "Of what use are prophecies thus circumstanced, that is to say, such as require the evidence of miracles to ascertain their sense?" I reply, of very important use; as they open and reveal more clearly the mutual dependency and connexion of the two dispensations on one another, in many particulars which would otherwise have escaped our notice: and, by this means, strengthen several additional proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus, on which the gospel doctrine of redemption depends. But was there no more in it than this, the rescuing some prophecies quoted in the New Testament, as relating to Jesus, out of the hands of unbelievers, who have taken an occasion from their generality or obscurity, to persuade the people that they relate entirely to another matter; this, I say, would be no less than clearing the truth of the Messiahship from inextricable difficulties. I will now take a final leave of this answerer by profession; an answerer of such eminence, that he may indeed be called,

"Knight of the shire, who represents them all."

But as he displays at parting all the effrontery of his miserable trade, I will just stop to new-burnish his complexion.

I had called my argument a demonstration, which one would think no one who could distinguish morals from physics could mistake, or would venture to misrepresent. Yet hear Dr Stebbing's last words, "That Moses was the legislator of the Jews, and that the Jews were ignorant of a future state: these facts must be known by history, which spoils you for a demonstrator at once: for historical evidence goes no further than probability; and if this must concur to make up the evidence, it cannot be a demonstration: for demonstration cannot stand upon probability. The evidence may be good and sufficient, but demonstration it cannot be; which is always founded upon self-evident truths, and is carried on by a chain or series of the most simple ideas hanging upon each other by a necessary connerion."-Letter to the Dean of Bristol, pp. 9, 10. And was it for this, that this wonderful man hath written half a score pamphlets against the Divine Legation, that he could not find in it the same sort of demonstration which he hath been told may be seen in Euclid?

P. 519, PPP. Nothing can be more simple than the principle here enforced, or more agreeable to the rules of just interpretation, than to suppose, that the language of the law,

« PrejšnjaNaprej »