« PreviousContinue »
from the water-baptism of John; And, in that of Peter, it appears, that water-baptism was necessary for admittance into the church of Christ, even af ter the ministration of baptism by fire, or the communicated power of the Holy Ghoft. It is further, observable, that these two Heads of the Mission to the two great divisions of Mankind, the Jews and GENTILES, here acted in one another's province ; Peter the Apostle of the Jews administering baptism to the gentile houshold of Cornelius; and Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, adminifters ing the same rite to the Jewish Converts. And why was this croffing of hands but to obviate that filly evasion, that water-baptism 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 necessary for obtaining the spiritual benefits of the Gospel-Covenant, than that WATER-BAPTISM is abolished, and of no use to initiate into the Church of Chrift.
II. But to proceed. The error in question is, as we faid, not confined to the Christian Church. The Jews too maintain it with equal obstinacy, but not with equal indiscretion; the Children of this world are, in tbeir generation, wiser than the Children of light"; their fatal adherence to their long abolished Rites depending altogether upon this single prejudice, that Mofes taught a future state of rewards and punishments : for if he taught it not, the consequence is inevitable, his Religion could be only preparatory to one that did teach it.
This therefore is their great support ; and wisely have they inforced it by all the authority and power of the Synagogue. But what Christians gain by so doing, I confess I know not. What they lose hath been seen in part, and will be more fully shewn hereafter: not one demonstration only, of the truth of the Mosaic Mission, but all true conception of that divine harmony which inspires every part, and runs through the whole of God's great Dispensation to Mankind.
III. The error is still more extensive; and hath spread from true Religion to the false ; a fitter foil for its reception. For the MAHOMETANS, who hold the divine original of the Jewish Law, are as obstinate as the best, in giving it this mistaken advantage: but, it must be owned, under a modefter pretext. Their expedient for saving the honour of the Law is this : They confess the Doctrine of
a future state is not at present 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 situation, the reader will excuse me, if I turn a little to consider those
See the Dedication to the Third Volume. & Taourat - Les Musulmans disent, que c'est l'ancien Testament que Dieu revela à Moyse écrit en langue Hebraïque, livre qui a été alteré & corrumpu par les Juifs. C'est la le fentiment d'es Musulmans qui a été recueilli de plusieurs auteurs Arabes par Hagị Khalfah. Le même auteur dit — que l'on p'y trouve pas aussi aucun endroit où il soit parlé de l'autre vie, ni de la Resurrection, ni du Paradis, ni de l'Enfer, & que cela yient peut être de ce que les Juifs ont corrompu leurs exemplairs. — Voyez la Bibliatbeque Orientale de M. D'Herbelot, Mot. TADUART
texts of Scripture which CHRISTIAN writers have produced to prove, That a future state of rewards and punishments does indeed make part of the Mosaic Religion.
But here let nie observe, that the thing of most consequence in this part of my discourse will be to state the question clearly and plainly. When that is done, every common reader will be able, without my help, to remove the objections to my System; or rather, the question being thus truly ftated, they will fall of themselves.
1. My declared purpose, in this Work“, is to demonstrate the Divine Legation of Moses, in order to use it for the foundation of a projected defence of Revelation in general, as the Dispensation is compleated in Chriltanity. The medium I employ for this purpose is, that there was no future state of reward and punishment in the Mofaic Religion. I must needs therefore go upon these two principles : 1. That Mofes did not disbelieve a future state of reward and punisipment. 2. That his Religion was preparatory to the Religion of JESUS which taught such future state. Hence proceed these confequences;
1. From my holding that Moses did not disbelieve a future state, it follows, that all those texts of Scripture which are bought to prove that the ancient Jews believed the foul survived the body, are nothing to the purpose: but do, on the contrary, greatly confirm my Thesis; for which reason I have myself
· See the Appendix to the first edit. of the Alliance between Church and State.
shewn that the early Jews did indeed suppose this truth.
2. From my holding that the Religion of Moses was only preparatory to the Religion of Jesus, it follows, that all such texts, as imply a Future state of rewards and punishments in their TYPICAL fignification only, are just as little to the purpose. For if Moses's Religion was preparatory to one Future, it is, as I shave shewn', highly reasonable to suppose, that the effential doctrine of that New Religion was shadowed out under the Rites, or by the inspired penmen, of the Old. But such texts are not only inconclusive, but highly corroborative of the opinion they are brought to oppose. For if future rewards and punishments were taught to the People under the Law, what occasion was there for any typical representation of them, which necessarily implies the throwing things, into shade, and secreting them from vulgar knowledge? What ground was there for that distinction between a carnal and a fpiritual meaning (both of which it is agreed the Mosaic Law had, in order to fit it for the use of two Dispensations) if it did not imply an ignorance of the spiritual sense during the continuance of the first? Yet as clear as this is, the contrary is the doctrine of my Adversaries; who seem to think that the Spiritual and the carnal sense must needs always go together, like the jewel and the foil in Aaron's breast-plate.
Both these sorts of texts, therefore, conclude only against SADDUCEES and INFIDELS. Yer hath this matter been so little attended to, in the judgments pait upon my argument, that both forts have been
f See the last fect. of this vol.
urged as confutations of it. I speak not here of the dirty calumnies of one or two forgotten fcriblers, but of the unequitable censures of some who better deserve to be fet right.
II. But farther, As my position is, that a Future state of reward and punishment was not taught in the Mosaic Dispensation, all texts brought to prove the knowledge of it after the time of David are as impertinent as the rest. For what was known from this time, could not supply the want of what was unknown for so many ages before. This therefore puts all the prophetic Writings out of the question.
And now, when all these Texts are taken from my Adversaries, what is there left, to keep up the quarrel ? Should I be so severe to insist on the com mon rights of Authors, of not being obliged to answer to convict impertinencies, this part of my talk would be foon over. But I shall, in charity, consider these Texts, such as they are. However that I may not appear altogether fo absurd as the Inforcers of them, I shall give the reader my reasons for this condescension.
1. As to the FUTURE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL, we should distinguish between the mention of it by Moses, and by the following Writers. These might, and, as we have shewn, did conclude for its existence 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 suppose likewise, proclaim the preparatory doctrine of the Existence. Nor could he, on the other hand, deny what he knew to be