Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

not teach the doctrine of a future state. On this singular omission, Warburton has built an argument for the divine appointment of Moses, and the existence of an extraordinary Providence, with the Jewish people. For, argues he, no other people in the world ever were kept under government, without this doctrine; Moses therefore, who must have been aware of this great instrument of state-policy, especially from his education in Egypt, the parent of early lawgivers, could only have neglected to make use of it, through positive divine prohibition, and from his assurance of the exercise of an extraordinary Providence the only substitute1.

At the same time, even in the books of Moses are contained intimations, which, like the obscure types of the ceremonial law, were unintelligible indeed at the time when they were delivered, and purposely so; but yet contained a reference to the doctrine, which became obvious as soon as that doctrine had been revealed by Christ. For Moses to have taught a future state of reward and punishment, would have been an anticipation of the peculiar feature of Christianity" the

f Divine Legation of Moses.

bringing life and immortality to light;" still, this does not forbid that the doctrine should have been so implied in the communications made by God to His people under the Law, as that certain passages, when explained by an after revelation, should bear undoubted reference to it. These hints became gradually enlarged and made clearer and clearer, through the prophets; and thus, although there was no authority for the doctrine in the Jewish creed, yet, by the time of our Saviour's birth, the more learned, and indeed the greater portion of the nation, thought a future state most consistent with God's revealed word, and therefore maintained the doctrine. The Sadducees objected, and in their arguments confined themselves to the books of Moses, as the source of the original Mosaic institution-the test of that conformity and orthodoxy, which was binding on all members of the Jewish communion. Hence our Lord's reply is taken, not only from this portion of the Scriptures, but from the very scene in which God is described as first appointing Moses to be his messenger, and his lawgiver.

To understand the force of the quotation, we

must refer to the third chapter of Exodus, from which it is taken; bearing in mind one religious view which prevailed in the world at the period of the Jewish lawgiver's call-the locality attributed to all the objects of worship. All nations were then worshipping, each his own gods or tutelary genii, attached to a people, a district, a mountain, or a grove. The Egyptian, the Moabite, and every heathen, had each his god in this sense; and it was no strange notion which the Syrians entertained, when they said of the Israelites, "Their gods are gods of the hills ; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than theyf." In accommodation to this, among other rooted prejudices to which incipient revelation accommodated itself, it was first as a tutelary deity, as their god, by contradistinction, that Jehovah made himself known to the Jews and to Moses. When they received God's first call, their notion of the locality of a

f 1 Kings xx. 23. Balak's endeavour to obtain a curse on Ísrael from Balaam, by making him shift his place, was probably part of the same superstition. See Numbers xxiii. xxiv.

deity-his attachment to places and personswas so predominant, as possibly to make another view of Him unintelligible. The declaration, accordingly, that Jehovah was their God, because Abraham's God, supposes this prejudice as yet strong, and becomes equivalent to language such as this. "The Egyptians have their gods, the Canaanites are protected by theirs, but I am He attached to your fathers-to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." What then-our Lord's words imply-what then must the Israelites have understood from this, respecting the condition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Surely, that they were at that time in existence, for them to be called God's peculiar subjects-and for Jehovah, in contradistinction to the god of Egypt and Canaan, and of other places and people then existing, to be called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Nor let any of us, from a conscious superiority of religious knowledge, think meanly of a revelation, which invested the God of all the earth with so narrow and unworthy a character. God's ways are not our ways; and this particular instance, at least, was, after all, in strict con

formity with his usual dispensations. He gives his light gradually, and as men can bear it. The incompleteness of the believer's view arises not from any defect in the revelation, but from his own condition and nature. Our present notions of God may be far more narrow with respect to the knowledge for which we are destined in a future state, than compared with ours, this incipient revelation of the Israelites. "We see," was the fatal boast of the scribes and Pharisees. Let us not say, "Lord, we thank thee that we are not blind, as others have been, or even as thy once favoured people;" but let us pray, that we may receive our sight.

Gradually the Israelites themselves were led to a more perfect knowledge of God. The first express declaration, that their God was the God of all the earth, was made on the solemn occasion of his manifestation on Mount Sinai, three months after their departure from Egypt. "Now therefore if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a king

« ПредишнаНапред »