Page images
PDF
EPUB

from the water-baptifm of John; And, in that of Peter, it appears, that water-baptifm was neceffary for admittance into the church of Chrift, even after the ministration of baptifm by fire, or the communicated power of the Holy Ghoft. It is further. obfervable, that these two Heads of the Miffsion to the two great divifions of Mankind, the Jews and GENTILES, here acted in one another's province; Peter the Apostle of the Jews adminiftering baptifm to the gentile houfhold of Cornelius; and Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, adminifters ing the fame rite to the Jewish Converts. And why was this croffing of hands but to obviate that filly evasion, that water-baptifm was only partial or temporary.

But what is reason, evidence, or truth, when opposed to religious Prejudice! The Quakers do not hold it to be clearer, that repentance from dead works is neceffary for obtaining the fpiritual benefits of the Gofpel-Covenant, than that WATER-BAPTISM is abolished, and of no ufe to initiate into the Church of Chrift.

II. But to proceed. The error in question is, as we faid, not confined to the Chriftian Church. The Jews too maintain it with equal obftinacy, but not with equal indifcretion; the Children of this world are, in their generation, wiser than the Children of light; their fatal adherence to their long abolished Rites depending altogether upon this fingle prejudice, that Mofes taught a future ftate of rewards and punishments: for if he taught it not, the confequence is inevitable, his Religion could be only preparatory to one that did teach it.

[blocks in formation]

This therefore is their great fupport; and wifely have they inforced it by all the authority and power of the Synagogue. But what Chriftians gain by fo doing, I confefs I know not. What they lofe hath been seen in part, and will be more fully fhewn hereafter: not one demonstration only, of the truth of the Mofaic Miffion, but all true conception of that divine harmony which infpires every part, and runs through the whole of GOD's great Difpenfation to Mankind..

III. The error is ftill more extenfive; and hath fpread from true Religion to the false; a fitter foil for its reception. For the MAHOMETANS, whọ hold the divine original of the Jewish Law, are as obftinate as the beft, in giving it this mistaken advantage: but, it must be owned, under a modefter pretext. Their expedient for faving the honour of the Law is this: They confefs the Doctrine of a future ftate is not at prefent to be found there: BUT THOUGH IT BE NOT THERE, IT OUGHT TO BE;

for that the Jews, in pure spite to them, have interpolated their Bible, and taken away all mention of it.

Matters being in this odd fituation, the reader will excufe me, if I turn a little to confider those

See the Dedication to the Third Volume.

₫ Taourat Les Mufulmans difent, que c'eft l'ancien Teftament que Dieu revela à Moyfe écrit en langue Hebraïque, livre qui a été alteré & corrumpu par les Juifs. C'eft la le fentiment des Mufulmans qui a été recueilli de plufieurs auteurs Arabes par Hagi Khalfah. Le même auteur dit que l'on n'y trouve pas auffi aucun endroit où il foit parlé de l'autre vie, ni de la Refurrection, ni du Paradis, ni de l'Enfer, & que cela vient peut être de ce que les Juifs ont corrompu leurs exemplairs. Voyez la Bibliatheque Orientale de M. D'Herbelot, Mot. TAOUART.

texts

texts of Scripture which CHRISTIAN writers have produced to prove, That a future ftate of rewards and punishments does indeed make part of the Mofaic Religion.

II.

But here let me obferve, that the thing of moft confequence in this part of my difcourfe will be to ftate the queftion clearly and plainly. When that is done, every common reader will be able, without my help, to remove the objections to my Syftem; or rather, the question being thus truly ftated, they will fall of themfelves.

I. My declared purpose, in this Work, is to demonftrate the Divine Legation of Moses, in order to use it for the foundation of a projected defence of Revelation in general, as the Difpenfation is compleated in Chriftanity. The medium I employ for this purpose is, that there was no future ftate of reward and punishment in the Mofaic Religion. I muft needs therefore go upon these two principles: 1. That Mofes did not difbelieve a future ftate of reward and punishment. 2. That his Religion was preparatory to the Religion of JESUS which taught fuch future ftate. Hence proceed thefe confequences:

1. From my holding that Mofes did not disbelieve a future ftate, it follows, that all thofe texts of Scripture which are bought to prove that the ancient Jews believed the foul furvived the body, are nothing to the purpose: but do, on the contrary, greatly confirm my Thefis; for which reafon I have myself

See the Appendix to the firft edit. of the Alliance between Church and State.

[blocks in formation]

fhewn that the early Jews did indeed suppose this truth.

2. From my holding that the Religion of Mofes was only preparatory to the Religion of JESUS, it follows, that all fuch texts, as imply a Future ftate of rewards and punishments in their TYPICAL fignification only, are just as little to the purpose. For if Mofes's Religion was preparatory to oné Future, it is, as I fhave fhewn', highly reasonable to fuppofe, that the effential doctrine of that New Religion was fhadowed out under the Rites, or by the inspired penmen, of the Old. But fuch texts are not only inconclufive, but highly corroborative of the opinion they are brought to oppofe. For if future rewards and punishments were taught to the People under the Law, what occafion was there for any typical representation of them, which neceffarily implies the throwing things, into fhade, and fecreting them from vulgar knowledge? What ground was there for that diftinction between a carnal and a fpiritual meaning (both of which it is agreed the Mofaic Law had, in order to fit it for the use of two Difpenfations) if it did not imply an ignorance of the fpiritual fenfe during the continuance of the first? Yet as clear as this is, the contrary is the doctrine of my Adverfaries; who feem to think that the Spiritual and the carnal fense must needs always go together, like the jewel and the foil in Aaron's breaft-plate.

Both these forts of texts, therefore, conclude only against SADDUCEES and INFIDELS. Yet hath this matter been fo little attended to, in the judgments paft upon my argument, that both forts have been

f See the laft fect. of this vol.

2.

urged

urged as confutations of it. I fpeak not here of the dirty calumnies of one or two forgotten fcriblers, but of the unequitable cenfures of fome who better deserve to be fet right.

II. But farther, As my pofition is, that a Future ftate of reward and punishment was not taught in the Mofaic Difpenfation, all texts brought to prove the knowledge of it after the time of David are as impertinent as the reft. For what was known from this time, could not fupply the want of what was unknown for fo many ages before. This therefore puts all the prophetic Writings out of the question.

And now, when all these Texts are taken from my Adverfaries, what is there left, to keep up the quarrel? Should I be fo fevere to infift on the common rights of Authors, of not being obliged to anfwer to convict impertinencies, this part of my task would be foon over. But I fhall, in charity, confider these Texts, fuch as they are. However that I may not appear altogether fo abfurd as the Inforcers of them, I fhall give the reader my reasons for this condefcenfion.

1. As to the FUTURE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL, we should diftinguish between the mention of it by Mofes, and by the following Writers. These might, and, as we have fhewn, did conclude for its exiftence from the nature of the thing. But Mofes, who, we suppose, intentionally omitted the mention of Future rewards and punishments, would not, we must needs fuppofe likewife, proclaim the preparatory doctrine of the Existence. Nor could he, on the other hand, deny what he knew to be

the

« PreviousContinue »