« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
given only as a specimen of them, and not for a complete list, as in the record of the trying plagues of Egypt. So that we are not to conclude, that the destructive Animals, sent amongst those miscreants, were only wasps and hornets; or that, amongst the awakening punishments, DISEASE was not one. When God was pleased, in after-times, to punish their Descendants, the Philistines, for their profanation of the ARK; (which, for the sins of his people, he suffered to fall into their hands) the sacred writers tell us, that they, who so profaned it, were smitten with emerods in their secret parts *. This is the only punishment there mentioned. Yet, by the account of the atonement, or trespass-offering, it appears that there was another.-The Philistines sent back with the Ark, which they restored, the images of five emerods, and FIVE MICE IN GOLDt. Who can doubt, but that, in this addition to the atonement, another punishment was intimated, viz. the devastation of their Lands by mice? But the sacred Writer does not leave us to mere conjecture. In speaking of these mice, he thus qualifies them,-Mice that MAR THE LAND. But this is not all. The text here acquaints us, though occasionally, with two punishments, inflicted on the Canaanites; which the history of their expulsion does not particularly mention. We understand how fit Instruments of general devastation MicE must needs be: and we may guess how well suited the other punishment was for their unnatural Crimes ; nor would either one, or the other, cease to remind them of the vices or punishments of their Ancestors, the Canaanites, so that, avoiding the manners of their ancestors, they might (if possible) escape their total destruction.
I shall conclude this point with an observation which naturally leads to the next, that is to say, to the SECOND Part of this infidel objection, viz. “the EFFECT which the destruction of the Canaanites must be supposed to have on the minds of the MORAL INSTRUMENTS of their punishment." A matter most deserving our attention.
It cannot be doubted but that the Almighty displayed his mercy and long suffering on Sodom and Gomorrah, Sam. v. 6, 1 Chap. vi. 4, 5.
in some way analogous to what he practised in the Land of Canaan, (and how gracious he was in the extent of that mercy, we learn from Abraham's intercession for: those Cities * ) though the particulars of it be not recorded by the sacred historian : Whose silence in the one case, and not in the other, may be clearly understood. Those execrable Cities were destroyed immediately by God's own hand, in letting loose the Etements (the treasurers of his wrath) upon them.-- In the deletion of the Canaanites, he was pleased to employ HUMAN INSTRUMENTS. These were to be used according to their nature; not as Entitites merely Physical, but as moral agents likewise: Beings notonly endowed with Sense, but Sentiment. Now it seemed but fit that such agents should be instructed in the reason and occasion of their Commission; especially as it was a matter of high importance; no less than to preserve them from judging perversely of the divine attributes. Accordingly Moses obviated this mischief by a detail of the abominable manners of this devoted People: together with a memorial of the ineffectual issue of their many chastisements in mercy to bring them to repentance, and to save them from utter deletion.
As the mischief was thus effectually abviated, the Israelites were, at the same tiine, secured from that other, (which is the second point objected to their Coinmission) its tendency to vitiate the inost amiable passion of our nature, by destroying or weakening the benign and social feelings for the miseries of our fellony creatures. For what could God's gracious dealing with these incorrigible Miscreants teach all, who like the Israelites) were intimately informed of their crimes, and long delayed punishment, but, in imitation of God's dong forbearance, to shew mercy and compassion to their offending Brethren in distress. Nor, in fact, do we fud that the Jews were more steeled to, or insensible of, the calamities of humavity (bating those of this devoted People) than other men, in the early Ages of society, were wont to be. And if they were not much more humanized, by being better taught, as well as fed, than the rest of mankind, it must be ascribed, not to this · * Gen, xviii.
Commission, but to a certain native perversity, which (as strange as it may at first sight appear) might be one, amongst the very many reasons of God's choice of them, for his PECULIAR, as it made them the properest subjects to work upon, for a fuller manifestation, of his infinite mercy towards the Sons of Men.
Where it might be seen, in the deviaiions from right of two People thus, connected and related, that the one was destroyed, after all means had been employed, without cffect, to bring them to REPENTANCE; and the other pardoned and highly favoured, when the same merciful forbearance had produced its fruit of a timely REPENTANCE, and return to God, after every transgression; and, at length, a determined perseverance in this their capital duty (adherence to the true God) for many ages, even to the present time.
But it may still be asked, though no mischief was derived towards the Instruments of this extraordinary
Commission, yet what good could such a commission produce? I answer, much, and constant; for besides a political benefit to an abject unwarlike people, in teaching them the use of arms; who were to make their destined way to Empire, as well by their own power, as by the extraordinary aid of the Almighty; in order to avoid a lavish waste of miracles; besides this, (I say) there were moral advantages, great and lasting, derived to this Instrumentality. Horror and aversion in the Israelites to those unnatural Crimes which had occasioned the deletion of the Canaanites; whose punishment must be intiinately impressed on the minds of the chosen People, by their being appointed the executioners of God's vengeance. To confirm this, we may observe, that both Moses and Joshua, by incessantly reminding them of the horrid depravity of that devoted People, had their eyes always intent upon this good effect.
P. 294. [H.] The eloquent Bossuet saith rightly, that Protestants have but lamely supported the FIGURE, of THIS IS JY BODY, &c. by those-- I am the vinc-I am the door.--And the reason he gives has its weightJesus (says he) in the institution of the Lord's Supper, Vou. VĮ. Сс.
was neither propounding a parable, nor erplaining an allegory* --But when the learned Writer would have . us inför from this, that there could be no other occasion for the use of a FIGURE, he imposes his usual artifice: upon us; which was always to keep out of sig?at what would have detected his slight of hand." He knew there were other occasions, of einploying figurative expressions, such as fixing and declaring the NATURE OF A Rite.-And this was the occasion here.--But then, says he, the words 'are detached and separated from all other discourse—there is no leading preparation 1.-So say the Socinians likewise ; in order to infer a contrary conclusion. But we have already shewn, that they are both mistaken,
There was a leading preparation; and that, a plain one, namely, the celebration of the paschal Supper, And we have shewn, it was the custom of our Lord to be led by wliat passed before him, to regulate his language on ideas thus prepared.--Nor was the consecration of the Elements in the SUPPER OF OUR LORD SEPARATE from all other discourse. It was preceded by, and connected with, a most affecting discourse on the death and sufferings of our Redeemer. Therefore the words of the Consecration do not, as M. Bossuet pretends, carry their whole meaning within theinselves; but refer to things preceding and exterior. So that the Bishop's triumphant conclusion loses much of its lustre, when he says, what I pretend to evince is, the embarras into which these words--THIS IS MY BODY, throws all the Protestant party-there was no reason for using these STRONG TERMS for the Institution of the Eucharist rather than for Baptism. This place I foretell shall be the eternal and inevitable confusion of the defenders of the FIGURATIVE SENSEI.-There was no more reason, on the Pro
quand les uns opposoient, ceci est mon corps, les autres repondoient, Te sụis le vigne Je suis la porte-le pierre etuit Christ Il est vrai que ces examples n'etoient pas semblables. Ce n'etoit ni en proposant une parabole, ni en expliquant une allegorie. i + Ces paroles (ceci est mon Corps, &c.] detachées de tout autre discours, portent tout leur sens en elles-mêmes.
Cet endroit sera l'eternelle et inevitable confusion des Defenseurs du SENS FIGURE, Hist. des Var. Tom. i. p. 477. 8vo.
testant principles, (says be) for chusing these. STRONG TERMS here, than in the rite of Baptisi. Surely, there was a very good one. l'or if it was the purpose of divine Wisdom to explain the nature of the Rite, only by the words of the Consecration, which it is agreed it was, as well by him who holds it to be a real Sacrifice, as by us who hold it is only a feast upon Sacrifice, there was a necessity for the use of these terms. This was not the case in instituting the Rite of Baptism, whose nature is expressly defined. Besides, here the matter, administered, was WATER, an element always at hand, and therefore fitly called by its proper name.
But the FLESH and BLOOD of the Sacrifice, of which the Lord's supper was a festive commemoration, not being then at hand, as Christ was not yet offered on the Cross, the Elements. of Bread and IVine, substituted in their place, were, by an elegant and necessary conversion, called the body and blood, as these elements only were declarative of the nature of the Rite, viz. a Jeast ujjon Sacrifice. To support this reasoning still further. Another sacred Rite, that of the imposition of hands, in procuring the descent of the HOLY SPIRIT, is called the BAPTISM BY FIRE; in which, both the terms are jigurative, as, in the Baptism by Water, both are literal. And why this difference? Because the Agent or Instrument of this Baptism by l'ire being spiritual, there was need of figurative terins, taken from material things, to aid the grossness of our conceptions, concerning the manner of the operation. So that all the mystery in this affair, (I mean, so far forth as concerns the terms of the institution) is no more than this; when the things comanunicated are of a spiritual nature, as the giits of the holy Spirit; or of a material nature not yet in essi, as the tesh of a Sacrifice, not yet oilered up, and therefore needing another body to be substituted in its place, there, the employing figurative terms becomes necessary. But when the thing communicated is a material Substance, at hand, and actually capable of being employed, as Water in Baptisin, it would ratlier confound, than aid our conceptions, to use improper, that is, figurative terms,