Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

"favoured with." p. 318. This is a coup de la Maître, indeed as wittily urged as it was wisely meditated.-If Moses bring a conclusive argument for a doctrine, it is plain he could not be studious to conceal that doctrine, says our ingenious Professor.-If Roger Bacon, say I, have given, in his writings, a true receipt to make Gunpowder, he could not be studious to conceal the composition. And yet we know he was studious to conceal it. What reasons he had for so doing, and how consistent it was with his giving the receipt, I leave to this profound Philosopher; and shall content myself with shewing how consistent Moses was in the conduct I have ascribed to him.-If both Moses's pretensions and those of Jesus likewise were true, the former must needs observe this conduct, in his Institute; that is to say, he would omit the doctrine of another life, and, at the same time, interweave into the Law such a secret mark of its truth, that, when the other Institution came, it might be clear to all, that he both knew and believed the Doctrine. If Moses had not omitted it, he had intruded on the province of Jesus: If he had not laid the grounds on which it rises, he had neglected to provide for the proof of that connexion between the two Dispensations, necessary to shew the harmony between their respective Authors. Moses had done both: And from both I gather that he was studious to conceal the doctrine. The omission will be allowed to be one proof of it; and I should think, this use of a term, The God of Abraham, &c. is another proof. For, the Jews, who, from the ceasing of the extraor dinary Providence, continued for many ages with incessant labour to ransack their Bibles for a proof of a future state, could never draw the inference from this text till Jesus had taught them the way. No, says the Doctor, How should an argument used by Moses, for a future state, be a proof that Moses was studious to conceal it? This Argument going, as we now see, upon our Professor's utter ignorance of the VOL. V. I i

nature

[ocr errors]

nature and genius of the Mosaic Dispensation, (which required as much that the grounds of a future state should be laid, as that the Structure itself should be kept out of sight) I shall leave it in possession of that adiniration which it so well deserves.

P. 422. [KK] Here, the groundless conceit of the learned Mosheim [de reb. Christ. ante Const. p. 49.] is sufficiently refuted. He supposes a Sadducee to be represented under the person of the rich Man. But the authority of the PROPHETS, to which Abraham refers his houshold, was not acknowledged by the Sadducees, as of weight to decide, in this point. And yet the very words of Abraham suppose that their not hearing the Prophets did not proceed from their not believing, but from their not regarding.

P. 444. [LL] But all are not Arnaulds, in the Gallican Church. Mr. Freret, speaking of the history of Saul and a passage in Isaiah, concerning the invocation of the dead, says-Ce qui augmente ma surprise, c'est de voir, que la plus part de ces Commentateurs se plaignent, de ne trouver dans l'Ecriture aucune prcuve claire que les Juifs, au temps de Moyse, crussent l'immortalité de l'ame.-La pratique, interdite aux Juifs, suppose que l'existence des ames, separées du corps, par la mort, etoit alors un opinion générale & populaire. Memoires de l'Acad. Royale des Inscript, &c. v. 23. p. 185.-The Gentleman's surprise arises from his being unable to distinguish between the separate existence of the Soul considered physically, and its immortality considered in a religious sense: It is under this latter consideration that a future state of reward and punishment is included, Had he not conicunded these two things so different in themselves, he had never ventured to condemn the Commentators; who do indeed say, they cannot find this latter doctrine in the Pentateuch. But then, they do not lament or complain of this want; because they

saw, though this Academician does not, that the absence of the doctrine of a future State of reward and punishment in the MOSAIC LAW evinces its imperfection, and verifies the enunciation of the Gospel, that LIFE AND IMMORTALITY were brought to light by JESUS CHRIST.

END OF THE FIFTH VOLIME,

London; Printed by Luke Hansard & Sou
near Lincoln's-Inn Fields.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »