ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

when Moses wrote, the greatest part of mankind had corrupted themselves, had withdrawn their allegiance from the true God, and set up the work of his hands in opposition to him. Most of those ancient idolaters (as it might easily be proved from numerous* authorities both of sacred and profane history,) worshipped the heavens, to which they attributed very great and extraordinary powers. It is very obvious to every one who is but superficially read in the eastern histories, or the scriptures, that the host of heaven, the queen of heaven, the sun, the light, the moon, and stars, are every where represented to be the objects of their worship. In consequence of this we find they asserted, that the heavens were the givers of all temporal happiness, the causes of motion, of light, of heat, of the earth's motions, of the seasons, of vegetation, the flux and reflux of the sea, the supporters of the animal economy, and of every operation in matter. But they did not stop here, they supposed them also to be independent, thought that they, whom they saw the chief rulers in this system, had this power originally in themselves. They who set up false gods, set up at the same time false redeemers, and therefore can have no benefit from the true. If then God was at all times concerned to prevent this false worship from becoming universal, lest the grand scheme of redemption should be defeated (for universal corruption must have brought on an universal destruction), then he must have been particularly concerned to keep the Jews from this crime, not only because they were the sole people upon earth to whom he at that time chose to reveal his will;

the

* J. Boulduc, de Ecclesiâ ante Legem, 281, 282, &c. The Chevalier Ramsay's Discourse on the Theology and Mytho. of the Pagans, p. 2. parag. 2, T. Goodwin's Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites of the Hebrews, p. 142, 143, 144, 145, 160, 161, 162, 163. An Essay to a Natural History of the Bible, by John Hutchinson. Acts vii. 42, 43. Diogenes Laert de Vitis. Phil. Ed. H. Stephens, 1593, p. 7. Stillingfleet's Origines Sacræ, 42, 43, 44. 1. 21. The worship of the sun as far as we can learn was the great and most early idolatry of the eastern countries, &c. p. 219, 220. J. Bossuet, Discourse, sur l'Histoire, Universelle, p. 195.

but also because it was determined that the Messiah should descend from a branch of this nation. And what was the most likely method to keep the Jews from this idolatry? If God had indeed given to the objects that were worshipped a delegated power, he could not take it from them without destroying the system. But if he could prove himself superior to those his rivals, and demonstrate that they were absolutely dependent on him; if he could support his followers without their assistance, and destroy those who expected protection from them, this method will certainly preserve them from the false worship, and attach them to the true God: and there would be no fear of success, if God would grant the Jews all the temporal blessings which his rivals were supposed to give, and defend them in the possession of those blessings, which though the false worshippers expected, yet could they not receive from their gods. And this indulgent method the Deity was pleased to take. Did his rivals pour down all temporal blessings on their worshippers? So did he on his. Were they the known causes that a land flowed with milk and honey? The God of Israel was infinitely liberal to the Jews of those favours. Were they the givers of wine and oil, and bread? Jehovah was to give these even by a miracle rather than the Jews should want. Were they imagined to be able to avert distempers from their followers? Every obedient Jew had an assurance that he should never experience sickness or pain. Did they make their followers prosperous, give them fruitful seasons, great increase of flocks and herds, rain to refresh and enrich the thirsty ground, and whatever filleth the heart of man with joy and gladness? The worshippers of the true God of heaven were indulged even to luxury in those blessings. Were they the givers of long life, of a numerous issue, of victory over enemies, of success in every undertaking, or whatever advantages the false worshippers expected? Those Jehovah was pleased to engage his omnipotence to secure to the Jews. And to prove his superiority

in every respect, he by many unquestionable miracles (suited to this end) delivered his servants from the slavery of one land, and put them in possession of another, where his rivals being worshipped and over come, made it almost impossible for any thinking Jew to doubt whether they had any power in themselves independent of Jehovah the God (Elohim) of Israel. So that this truth was fully demonstrated that there were no other gods to whom the worship and service of man was due, but the Lord alone. This was one reason (among many others) why the good things of this life are so often promised in the law. The Deity could not have made a more glorious display of infinite wisdom, mercy, and power, than by such a condescension to the circumstances of mankind, unless by the scheme of redemption, to which this also related and was preparatory: he could not otherwise have des monstrated his superiority, or brought about his gracious designs. If this then be one undeniable reason why God insisted so much on temporal blessings, it is manifest that a future state must have been taken for * granted both by the Jews and idolaters, otherwise the end of being so very much concerned about them is lost, and the scripture must be false which asserts that God chiefly granted them with an higher view, with respect to eternal blessings.

Many authorities will be produced from Moses to prove this point, but let the argument in the text suffice at present. Thus (Exod. xx. 2.) "I am the Lord "thy God, thou shalt have none other," implies they were to worship the Lord alone, because he was their God; then the sanction of this commandment which forbids idolatry, is not present happiness but future, or as Christ hath inferred, the resurrection of the body. So that the blessings of heaven itself, as well as of this world were promised to be the rewards of those who kept themselves free from idolatry. And that the

See Stillingfleet's Reasons of Moses insisting so little on this Doctrine, Book 3. Ch. 1. page 363, &c. sect. 2.

idolaters also expected a future state is certain, because they all did something for their dead, * sacrificed to make their gods propitious to their departed friends, anointed their bodies with what was consecrated to, and descriptive of what was to entitle them to the favour of the gods, and afterwards carefully laid up their bodies in monuments representative of those powers which they thought their gods had to raise them from the dead. Thus much we find they did even in the time of Moses. A future state then seems to have been known both by the Jews and idolaters, and therefore if the general object of the Heathens' worship were the heavens; if God was concerned to prevent this false worship from becoming universal to effect the greatest and most merciful design, the redemption of man; and if the method he took was the best and wisest, viz. to grant the Jews all those blessings which the idolaters expected, and to secure the enjoyment of them which he alone could do, what can be more plain than that a future state ought to make a great part of the law: because we can give a rational account why God insisted so much on temporal blessings; and because it hath appeared that even these were founded upon a supposition that it was known there were also eternal; so that the objection, that temporal promises and threatenings every where occur in the law, need not now be a stumbling block to any of Moses' friends. It is a sufficient answer (even if we could give no better) that the Deity was with no other view so much concerned about the temporal happiness of the Jews, but as it was founded upon and tended to promote their eternal; † that he was indulgent of the good things of this life, to

* Deut. xxvi. 14. Psalm cvi. 28. Deut. xiv. 1. T. Goodwin's Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites of the Hebrews, p. 243. paragraph 3.

+ Wollebij Compend. Theol. Christianæ, p. 60. Promissiones terrenæ cœlestium rerum sunt symbola: falsò igitur servetadi & Anabaptista somniant, promissiones illas tantum terrenas esse. Terrenæ cœlestes includunt. Stillingfleet's Orig. Sacræ, p. 221, &c. sect. 2. Calvin. Instit. Christ. Relig. Gen. Fol. from p. 82, to 87. And all the writers against the Anabaptists and Antinomians.

engage their affections to him, and the good things of another; and that if he had not been pleased to proceed in this merciful manner, neither they nor we (if the vices of mankind can defeat the gracious intentions of the Deity towards them) could have had any happiness here or hereafter.

Let it be sufficient to have observed thus much from reason, or the nature of the thing, that the doctrine of a future state ought to have made part of the law by Moses. We are now to enquire what proofs there are in the New Testament that Moses hath wrote about a future state, but before we proceed to this enquiry, it will be proper to shew what weight such proofs ought to have with us.

1. Then the Old and the New Testaments contain two dependent parts of one grand dispensation, viz. Christianity. This will not be disputed by any one who allows that they both came from God after the fall, and that "Christ was the end of the law," Rom. x. 4.

2. As they came from God, and proposed the same end, they must therefore be true and infallible: for God cannot deceive or be deceived, and the same end cannot be attained by contrary means.

3. Having the same end in view, and being both of them infallible, they must therefore confirm and strengthen each other's evidence: for they are both means to attain one and the same end, and one truth cannot overthrow or destroy another truth.

4. And therefore if they should contradict one another, this is a sufficient proof that they could not be two dependent parts of one grand dispensation, nor come from God, and that therefore one of them, if not both, are false and forged: because if they be false in any one point, it cannot be proved that they are infallible in all, and because the same proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time.

5. If then it cannot be asserted in the New Testa

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »