But now,

in the ancient Jewish History, it is natural to conclude that the Jews of those ties had it not. what has Homer's poems to do in this matter? I apprehend they are no religious History; but compositions as far removed from it as possible, namely, a military and civil Romance, briin-full of fabulous trumpery. Now in such a work, the writer surely would be principally solicitous about the civil motives of his Actors. And Homer', who is confessed to understand what belonged to every kind of Composition, would take care to keep within his subject; and, to preserve decorum, would content himself with supplymg his Warriors and Politicians with such motives as might best set off their Wisdom and their Heroism: such as the love of power, in which I comprise, itvenge on their Enemies; the love of plunder, in which is included their passion for fair Captives; and the love of glory, in whichi, if you please, you may reckout their regard for their Friends and their Country.But in Homer's military and political Romances there are hardly si.x instances in which a future state is mentioned as the express motire; therefore the perpe-tual silence on this point, in the religious History of the Fews, and the perpetual niention of it in the religious Histories of the Suevi and the SARACENS, conclude nothing in favour of the argument of the Divine Legation.

[ocr errors]

P. 178. [PP] To this Dr. Stebbing objects, that

it means no more than tliat man was not to be re“ stored to his earthly human state.”

Exam. p. 6o. And, to confirm this, he appeals to the tenth verse of this chapter, which runs thus, He shall return 10 TĦOre to his house, neither shall his place know him any more. But the learned Doctor should have reflected, that if Job says the dead man returns no more to his house, he gives a reason for his so saying, very inconsistent with the Doctor's interpretation of the oth verse of the viith chapter. It was, because the dead man was got. into the land of darkness and - the shadow of death [chap. X. 21.] it was because he was not awake nor could be raised out of his sleep [chap. xiv. 12.] But the very subject which Job is here treating, confutes the Doctor's interpretation : He is complaining that life is short, and that after death he shall no more see good, for that he who goeth down to the grave shall come up no more; he shall return no more to his house [ver. 7, 8, 9, 10.]; which at least implies that there was no good to be expected any where, but in this world: And this expectation is cut off in express terms.


P: 180. [QQ] To this sense of the text, Dr. Stebbing objects, and says, that by no reward is meant none in this world. Exam. pp. 63, 4. And in support of his interpretation, quotes the words of the verse immediately following---neither hace they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. Now I agree with the learned Doctor, that these words are an explanation of the foregoing, of the dead's not having any more a reward: and from thence draw just the contrary inference, That the sacred writer, from the consideration of the dead's not returning to life to enjoy their reward, concluded that, when once death had seized them, they could have no reward at all; not even that imaginary one, the living in the memory of men, for the memory of them (says he) is forgotten. So again from the consideration in ver. 6. that the dead had neither love, hatred, nor enoy, he had concluded, ver. 5. that THEY KNEW NOT ANY THING.-But the premisses and the conclusion not being in their usual order, our learned Doctor's Logic did not reach to take the force of the Preacher's.

P. 188. ERR]: To all this, it hath been said, “. Christians have the promise of the Įife that now, is, " excepting the case of persecution, Mark x. 30. The words of Jesus in the Evangelist are,--there is no


one that hath LEFT house, or brethren, &c. for my sake and the Gospel's, but he shall-receive an hundred fold now, in this time, houses and lands, &c. with persecutions, and in the, world to come, eternal life. But these words evidently allude to the first Followers of Jesus, while the Church was under an extraordinary Providence, that is, during the Age of Miracles : and as that sort of Dispensation is always aided by the course of patural and civil events, we easily see how it would be promoted by LEAVING a country doomed to the most horrid and exterminating destruction. But St. Paul, where he assigns only the life which is to come to the followers of the Gospel, is speaking of a different thing, namely, of the genius of the Christian Dispensation in general, as it is opposed to Judaism.


P. 190. [SS] The serious reader, who considers all this, will not be a little surprised to hear that eminent Scholar and Divine, Dr. S. Clarke, talk in the following manner, where, after having spoken of the doubts and uncertainties of the ancient Philosophers concerning a future state, he concludes in these words, "? From all which it appears, that, ņotwithstanding all " the bright arguments and acute conclusions and " brave sayings of the best Philosophers, yet life, and

immortality were not FULLY and SATISFACTORILY brought to light by BARE NATURAL REASON. [Ev. of Nat. and Rev. Relig. p. 146.]—It would be very strange if they had ; since Scripture is so far from allowing any part of this discovery to natural reason, that it will not admit even the Mosaic Revelation to a share, but reserves it all for the Gospel of Christ: so that had natural Religion brought life and immortality to light, though not fully and satisfactorily, the learned Apostle would be found to have spoken much too highly of the prerogatives of the Gospel.


The truth is, the very learned Writer had two points to make out, in this famous work; the one was the evidence of Natural Religion; and, under that head, he is to shew, that it taught life and immortality. His other point was, the evidence of Revealed Religion, and there, (to shew its use and necessity) he is to demonstrate that bare natural reason could not discover life and immortality. Thus the very method of his demonstration obliged him, in the former part, to give to natural Religion an honour which, in the latter part, he was forced to take away: and to reconcile them with one another, was the purpose of the conciliating words above-yet life and immortality were not FULLY and SATISFACTORILY brought to light by bare natural reason which indeed does the business; but it is at the expence of the learned Apostle, who says it was not brought to light at all, till the preaching of the Gospel.

P. 191. [TT] To this it has been said, “that the mystery of the Gospel here mentioned, is rather that which is meant by the word, ch. iii. ver. 3-9, namely, the calling in of the Gentiles to be fellow-heirs with the Jews.”—For a confutation of this absurd fancy, readThe free and candid Examination of the Principles advanced by the Lord Bishop of London, chap. i. p. 24. & seq. where the learned and most judicious Author has sufficiently exploded it.

[ocr errors]







FTER such convincing evidence that a FUTURE

STATE did not make part of the Religion of Moses, the reader would not have suspected, he must once more be stopped to hear a long Answer to a set of texts brought from the Old and New Testament to prove, That the Doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment DID make the most essential part of the Mosaic Dispensation: and this, not by a few fanciful Allegorists, or outrageous Bigots only, who will say, or do any thing; but by many suber men of all Sects and Parties, of all Times, and of all Religions.

1. Several of the ancient CHRISTIAN Writers were so persuaded of this point, that, not content to say, the doctrine of a Future state made part of the Mosaic Dispensation, they would be confident that the very Pagans learnt it all from thence. Some modern Christians have not been behind them in their Faith, but have far outstripped them in their Charity, while they treated the denial of this extravagant Opinion as VOL. V.


a new

« ForrigeFortsett »