Om den här boken
Mitt bibliotek
Böcker på Google Play
SECTION I.
The knowledge of a future state of retribution, which Abraham
and his family are allowed to have possessed, involves, by a
moral necessity, the same knowledge on the part of the
Israelites at the time of the Exodus. p. 55.
I. The object of God's call to Abraham was to inculcate the
unity of the God and the connected doctrines of re-
demption and of a future state of retribution. p. 57.
1. The doctrine of redemption was known to Abraham
and his family. p. 57.
2. But the doctrine of a future state is inseparable from
the doctrine of redemption. p. 58.
II. The connected doctrines of redemption and a future state
traced down to the Exodus. p. 59.
SECTION II.
An examination of the arguments adduced by Bishop Warburton.
p. 65.
As a full reply to this argument, Bishop Warburton asserts,
that in point of simple fact the Israelites did not believe in
The proof of his assertion is partly nega-
a future state.
tive and partly positive. p. 65.
I. Bishop Warburton's negative argument: the alleged total
silence of the ancient Israelites. p. 68.
1. A discussion of this argument under a free concession
of its premises. p. 68.
(1.) The silence of the Israelites respecting a future
state is insufficient to prove their disbelief of
it. p. 68.
(2.) The pretended silence of the Israelites however •
is not in reality their silence, but merely the
alleged silence of their historians. p. 72.
2. An inquiry into the premises of the bishop's negative argument, how far those premises are themselves true. p. 75.
(1.) Throughout the bishop's entire statement there
runs a vein of decided exaggeration. p. 75.
(2.) There is likewise a certain degree of inconsist-
ency in it. p. 77.
(3.) The true field of inquiry is limited to the period
between the death of Moses and the death of
David. p. 83.
II. Bishop Warburton's positive argument: this is built, partly
on the language of the Old Testament, and partly on
that of the New. p. 95.
1. Respecting the alleged declarations to be found in
the Old Testament, that the Israelites had no po-
pular expectation of a future state. In adducing
some of these texts, the bishop is inconsistent; be-
cause, on his own principles, they are irrelevant :
and, in adducing others of them, he makes, accord-
ing to his interpretation of them, an inspired writer
set forth an absolute falsehood. An examination of
the texts adduced by the bishop. p. 95.
(1.) An examination of 2 Sam. xiv. 14. p. 100.
(2.) An examination of Job xiv. 7—12. p. 102.
(3.) An examination of Psalm vi. 6, xxx. 9, and
lxxxviii. 10-12. p. 105.
(4.) An examination of Eccles. ix. 5. p. 107.
(5.) An examination of Isaiah xxxviii. 18, 19. p. 110.
(6.) An examination of Psalm lxxxviii. 4, 5. p.110.
2. Respecting the alleged declarations to be found in the
New Testament, that the Israelites were ignorant
of a future state. p. 114.
(1.) The bishop himself destroys his own fabric.
p. 116.
(2.) The inspired writer to the Hebrews completes
its demolition. p. 118.
CHAPTER IV.
Respecting the sanctions of the Law of Moses. p. 122.
1. The sole openly proposed sanction of the Law of Moses,
and therefore its only proper sanction, was the distri-
bution of temporal rewards and punishments. p. 124.
1. This inevitably follows from the very nature of a
theocracy. p. 124.
(1.) Respecting the genius of a theocracy. p. 125.
(2.) The necessary consequences which flow from it.
p. 126.
2. The Law positively testifies of itself, that temporal
rewards and punishments were its avowed sanction.
p. 130.
II. Yet a second sanction attended upon the Law, though it
did not absolutely belong to it: and this was a future
state of rewards and punishments. p. 135.
1. The Law received this sanction from ancient Patri-
archism, in consequence (as the apostle speaks) of
its being ADDED to it: but the sanction itself was
properly the never abrogated sanction of a prior
Dispensation. p. 135.
2. Such a view of the subject perfectly harmonizes
with, and may serve to explain, the apparently
contradictory language of Scripture. p. 139.
(1.) It accords with the apostle's declaration in the
context. p. 139.
(2.) It also accords with certain other declarations in
the New Testament respecting the sanctions
of the Law, which might seem at first to con-
tradict the express language of the Law itself.
p. 140.
CHAPTER V.
Respecting the notices of a future state discoverable in the Pen-
tateuch. p. 151.
We cannot reasonably expect from the very nature of the com-
position, that the doctrine of a future state should be
largely and systematically set forth in the Pentateuch.
Yet it may be established in the way of inference, both
from peculiar expressions and from peculiar ceremonies.
p. 151.
I. Respecting those peculiar expressions in the Pentateuch,
which set forth the doctrine of a future state. p. 156.
1. The expression, he died and was gathered to his
people. p. 156.
2. The expression, I have waited for thy salvation, O
Jehovah. p. 161.
II. Respecting those peculiar ceremonies under Patriarchism
and the Law, which set forth the doctrine of a future
state. p. 163.
1. The promise of Christ's resurrection made to the
fathers in the sacrifice of Isaac. p. 164.
2. The tabernacle with the ceremonial attached to it.
p. 165.
(1.) Symbolical import of the tabernacle and the
yearly entrance of the high-priest into the
holy of holies. p. 166.
(2.) The Jews themselves were not ignorant of their
symbolical import. p. 169.
(3.) Insufficiency of Bishop Warburton's objection.
p. 174.
(4.) Final conclusion. p. 183.
III. The general principle of the ceremonial Law was the same
as that, upon which the hieroglyphics of the Pagans
were constructed. p. 187.
1. The Jews were no more ignorant of the drift of their
ceremonial hieroglyphics, than the Egyptians were
of their own peculiar hieroglyphics. p. 187.
2. The principle of hieroglyphical interpretation is
avowed in the Law itself. p. 189.
3. This principle was maintained by the ancient Jews.
p. 190.
4. Specimen of the hieroglyphical sayings of Pytha-
goras. p. 192.
CHAPTER VI.
Respecting the attestations of Moses to the doctrine of a future
state as discoverable in the book of Job. p. 194.
That doctrine of a future state, which Moses only hinted at in
the Pentateuch, he has set forth more explicitly in the doc-
trinal book of Job. p. 194.
I. Different opinions respecting the age of Job. p. 194.
II. Different opinions respecting the author of the book of Job.
p. 195.
III. Different opinions respecting the object of the book of
Job. p. 196.
Respecting the age and family and country of Job. p. 197.
I. The grounds, on which the country and family and age of
Job may be ascertained. p. 197.
1. His country was Idumèa. p. 197.
2. His family was of the stock of Esau. p. 198.
3. His age was that of the great-grandsons of Esau.
p. 199.
8