A

TRE A TISE

ON THE

GENIUS AND OBJECT

OF

THE PATRIARCHAL, THE LEVITICAL,

AND

THE CHRISTIAN,

DISPENSATIONS.

BY GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D.

RECTOR OF LONG-NEWTON.

Ταυτην μονην ευρισκον φιλοσοφιαν ασφαλη τε και συμφορον. .

JUSTIN MARTYR.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. II.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR C. & J. RIVINGTON,

ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD;

AND WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL.

FABER
ria

CONTENTS

OF

VOLUME II.

BOOK II.

RESPECTING THE OBJECT OF THE LEVITICAL DISPENSATION. p. I.

CHAPTER I.

The object of the Levitical Dispensation was to preserve the know-

ledge of the true God in the midst of surrounding idolatry

and to perpetuate and confirm the aboriginal doctrine of Re-

demption. p. 3.

I. The true rationale of the deluge was an universal apostasy

from the doctrine of the atonement. p. 4.

II. The postdiluvian apostasy, on the contrary, was

built

upon

an express recognition of the doctrine of atonement :

hence utter excision was unnecessary. p. 5.

III. Yet the erring Pagans had need to be brought back to the

knowledge of the truth. The Levitical Dispensation

therefore was employed, as an instrument to preserve

the knowledge of God and to perpetuate and confirm

the patriarchal doctrine of Redemption. p. 6.

IV. The second of these points involves the discussion of a

much litigated topic, whether the doctrine of a future

state was known under the Patriarchal and Levitical

Dispensations. p. 8. .

CHAPTER II.

On the degree of knowledge respecting a future state of retribu-

bution possessed by those who lived under the Patriarchal

Dispensation. p. 11.

I. The system of Bishop Warburton, that the Israelites were

ignorant of a future state, required him to maintain,

that their predecessors during the patriarchal ages

were also ignorant of it: and this, to preserve the

compactness of his system, further required him to

maintain, that those of the patriarchal ages were con-

signed to the guidance of natural religion and were

placed under the rule of an equal Providence. p. 12.

1. We have no proof from Scripture, that the early in-

habitants of the world lived under an equal or

miraculous Providence. p. 14.

2. We have no reason to believe from Scripture, that

man after the fall was placed under the tuition of

natural religion. p. 16.

II. It may be established, on the direct authority of Scripture,

that those of the patriarchal ages must have known

and believed the doctrine of a future retributory state.

p. 19.

1. The translation of Enoch. p. 19.

2. The preaching of Enoch. p. 25.

3. The testimony of the Epistle to the Hebrews. p. 28.

III. Bishop Warburton, in order to escape from these difficul-

ties, maintains, that the doctrine of a future state was

known indeed to the chief patriarchs, but that it was

unknown to the bulk of the people. But such a con-

cession gives birth to a new host of difficulties. p. 29.

1. If the old fathers knew the doctrine of a future state,

how came they not to make it generally known ?

Insufficient answer of the bishop to this question.

p. 30.

(1.) If the early patriarchs knew the doctrine, it must

inevitably have been known also to the rest of

mankind. p. 31.

(2.) An inquiry into the nature of that faith, which

the Epistle to the Hebrews ascribes to the

early fathers. p. 35.

2. The bishop's concessions are wholly irreconcileable

with his explanation of the text, which speaks of

Christ bringing life and immortality to light through

the Gospel. p. 41.

(1.) Yet the whole weight of his argument from that

text rests upon his own interpretation of it,

which interpretation may itself be reasonably

objected to. p. 44.

(2.) The true meaning of the text in question. p. 47.

3. Further inconsistencies in the system advocated by

the bislop. p. 50.

CHAPTER III.

On the degree of knowledge respecting a future state of retribu-