"confounded in their understanding): but the prophets "have wished for, and excellent men have eagerly expected, those days, on account of that society of good men, that virtuous conversation and knowledge, which "will then prevail, and on account of the righteousness of "the king [Messiah], and his distinguished knowledge, "and the near degree in which he is related to his Creator, as God hath said to him, 'Thou art my Sone): and be"cause the whole Law of Moses will then be fulfilled with"out reluctance, perturbation, or constraint; as he hath "promised, They shall not teach every man his neighbour, for they shall all know me, from the great of them "unto the little of them f:' and 'I will put my law in "their hearts:' and 'I will take the stony heart out of your flesh b.' 66 The above description may be considered as a just re presentation of prevailing and popular notions entertained among the modern Jews respecting the person and dispensation of their expected Messiah. The high reputation of Maimonides as an expositor of Jewish doctrines will justify this estimate of it. We ought not at the same time to deny the existence among the doctors of the synagogue of various and contradictory opinions in relation to this subject. The detail of such opinions is given at considerable length in Basnage's History of the Jews i. To enumerate and describe them further would be useless to our present purposek. It will suffice to remark one general quality pervading the whole of them: namely, their inconsistency with those views, which, as we have said, essentially cha f Jer. xxxi. g Ibid. Psalm ii. 7. Ezek. xi. 19. Some particulars, however, relating to these opinions seem too important to be omitted. With regard to the qualifications of a prophet, the Jews entertain the following doctrine: "The spirit of prophecy," say the rabbins, "does not dwell except in a man who is wise, powerful, and rich." Maim. Mor. Nev. p. 285. Porta Mosis, pp. 14, 83. In the latter of the places referred to, powerful is interpreted to signify him who subdues his lusts, and rich to have the same meaning with contented. If we acquiesce in such interpretations, there is at least reason to complain of the employment of language which, without a farfetched exposition, necessarily leads to dangerous misconception on a subject so important as the discrimination of true and false prophets. Again: It is declared by Maimonides to be a fundamental principle of the Law, "That temporal dispensations of happiness and misery "are wholly, even to the minutest particulars, determined by God according "to the merit or the sin of those whom they befall." More Nev. p. iii. c. 17. p. 380. See also cc. 18. and 24. p. 385, 406. It is obvious that these rabbinical doctrines, when applied to the person of our Redeemer, must necessarily contribute to lead the Jews far away from all correct notions of the Messiah. racterize the evangelical scheme relating to the person and the office of our Redeemer. It is only important to us to observe, that such opinions are entertained by those who believe the doctrine of a future state to be the doctrine of the Mosaic law: since the opinions themselves discover that contradiction and hostility to the Gospel, which we have said that it would be the tendency of that belief to generate, and thus would naturally alienate the minds of the Jews from that dispensation, of which the subsequent introduction was contemplated and provided for in the promulgation of the Law. Lastly, It is important to observe, that although the doctrine of a future life is maintained by the Jews to be a part of the Law of Moses, it is nevertheless admitted by many of the Jews to have been therein delivered only in an obscure and indirect manner. It will not be uninteresting to inquire into the reasons they assign for its not being taught more explicitly. Our own reason for the omission of this doctrine is derived from a comparative regard to the genius of the two dispensations, the Law and the Gospel: the latter affording, by the atonement of a Redeemer, that means of human justification which the former does not provide. By the Jews, it is plain, that such a reason cannot be admitted; as it is also certain that the fact of omission, which it proposes to explain, is denied by them. They admit however, that the important doctrine is taught in the Pentateuch only in an obscure manner. We now therefore proceed to examine the explanations they offer relating to the obscurity of its deliverance. A review of these explanations will make us sensible of the difficulty, of providing any real solution at variance with that which we have proposed. It will also enable us more fully to perceive the weakness of those considerations with which they are ready to satisfy themselves, rather than admit the imperfect character and temporary design of their Law. It is contended by Manasseh ben Israel," that though "the fundamental and essential article concerning the "resurrection of the dead cannot be demonstratively 66 proved from the books of Moses, it may however be "deduced from them in the way of probable inferencek." But as it is contended by the Sadducees and others that * Ex his omnibus liquet, loca nonnulla in libris Mosaicis reperiri, ex "quibus licet apodicticis demonstrationibus fundamentalis et essentialis arti"culus de resurrectione mortuorum probari non possit: verisimiliter tamen "ex iis evincitur." Lib. i. c. 1. the sanction of the Law is only temporal; and that the doctrine of a future life is in the highest degree improbable, because the Law makes no mention of it: he feels himself called upon to explain the reasons why this doctrine is not clearly and openly propounded in the Law. In order to this, he presents to his reader an account of the several opinions which have been given upon the subject by the eminent doctors of the synagogue who had treated the matter before him. Of the most remarkable of these opinions we proceed to give an abstract 1. The first is that of Maimonides, who says, that the rewards and punishments of a future life are not certainly and specifically declared in the Law, because it is the will of God, that love, and not the hope of a reward, should be the motive of our service: and that the blessings annexed by the Law to obedience are designed only as helps to the attainment of eternal life, in the way of liberating the mind from that distraction by which men would otherwise be drawn aside in their progress to it. The same doctor gives a different explanation of the matter as follows. All the prophets have clearly foretold the blessings of the Messiah's reign, because they clearly understood the nature of them but respecting the glorified state of the soul they have been silent, because they could not mentally apprehend them, and it would have been wrong to extenuate the felicity of that state by faint and inadequate descriptions. Our next explainer is Aben Ezra. He says, that the reward of a future life cannot without much difficulty be comprehended; that the Law was given, not for the wise only, but also for the vulgar and ignorant; in adapting its provisions to the capacities of the latter, those rewards were therefore chosen for a sanction, which all could understand; but that the nature of immortal happiness was a recondite doctrine, which the wise and learned were to gather from various passages of it. The rabbis Bahye the Elder and Moses Gerundensis have treated the matter with a ridiculous ingenuity. They teach, that the immortal happiness of the soul is an effect of nature and necessity, insomuch that many who were strangers to the Law, have attained a conviction of it by the mere exercise of their natural reason; that the Law They are taken from his treatise De Res. Mort. I. c. 13. has therefore made no mention of it, because it promises those things which exceed the order of nature, and take effect only by the interposition of a special providence: for of this latter character were the rewards and punishments dispensed under the theocracy of Israel, 1. The last mentioned rabbi proposes another solution of the question, in which he has the concurrence of Joseph Albo. It is as follows. Eternal rewards belong not to the Law, because they are to be awarded on a personal regard to the actions of individuals; whereas the sanctions of the Law applied universally to the nation at large, or at least collectively to distinct portions or bodies of it. Thus, if the majority of the people were obedient to the Law, the whole would enjoy the reward which the Law promises, and the wicked would participate with the good: if the majority were transgressors, the whole would be punished, and the good would be involved in the suffering of the wicked. The next explanation seems to be that of Menasseh himself. He supposes that temporal rewards and punishments were chosen as the sanction of the Law in order to secure a more extensive obedience, because they have commonly more influence on the conduct of mankind than future; temporal and sensible enjoyments being for the most part more inviting than those which are distant and spiritual. There are two remaining explanations, which are certainly more respectable than those which we have already seen. Their value consists however rather in explaining why the temporal sanction was employed, than why the future was omitted. The first is that of the rabbis Nissim, Joseph Albo, and Judah the Levite. The purport of it is, that temporal sanctions were employed for the purpose of reclaiming or preserving men from idolatry: since the reality and supremacy of the true God were thus discovered by special and regular manifestations of his power; a purpose for which the rewards of a future and invisible world would have been in no degree available. The evidence of a providence being thus supplied, the expectation of future rewards for the righteous would, it is contended, be the natural consequence resulting from the belief of it. The other explanation is that of the rabbi Saadias, and is similar to the last, as well as concurrent in purport with a quotation from Maimonides, which we shall afterwards have occasion to adducem. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that ye "may keep the commandments of the Lord your God "which I command you." Deut. iv. 2. The purport of these words appears to be nothing else than a prohibition of interpolating or mutilating the text of the written law, or of making any additions to it after the manner of those cabalistical traditions, to which, though they sometimes plainly contradict the written law, the Jews have ascribed an authority equal to it. Warburton, however, seems disposed to deduce from it the unlawfulness of believing a future state, because that doctrine is not expressly taught in the Law. The absurdity of this interpretation can only be equalled by that of another writer, who was the subject of great and undue admiration with that distinguished prelate; I mean Maimonides, who so alleges the same words in proof of the eternal and unchangeable nature of the Law, as must at once, if his construction of them be admitted, be decisive against the pretensions of Christianity". 24. 20. and 25. 10. With regard to the two classes of persons here mentioned by Warburton as supporters of the doctrine opposed to his own, I think it important to offer a few remarks. The first are the ancient Christian writers. Whether they can justly be said to have held the doctrine of a future state to be the most essential part of the Mosaic Law, is I think more than doubtful. The true state of the case will, if 1 mistake not, after due examination, prove to be as follows: namely, that they held this doctrine to be both recognised and countenanced, but not explicitly and directly taught, in the Pentateuch: and this I hold to have been also the constant opinion of all moderate and impartial persons. Considerable allowance must of course be made, in a statement of this kind, for that great diversity of character which occurs in the writers thus referred to: but I think it would be difficult to produce a single passage from the catholic writers of the early centuries of the Christian n Por. Mos. p. 66. Suppl. Rem. on page 153. 1. 25. |