tions respecting a future state? What effect would thus have been produced on the religious sentiments of those who should in after-ages embrace the Gospel? Would it not have led them to contemplate a legal obedience as the ground of justification? When it was discovered, that a promise of everlasting happiness had been conveyed by the divine law to those ages and generations to whom the manner of our redemption was a mystery, would it not have been difficult to persuade men, that the merits and sacrifice of Christ are the only just foundation of their hopes respecting a future state? Would not they have been prone to overlook the connexion which subsists between the cross of Christ and their own salvation? There are those who deny the necessity and the efficacy of an atonement as the means of reconciliation between God and man. Would not such opinions have enjoyed, on our present supposition, a show of countenance and support from Scripture, of which they are now destitute? If the Law had revealed in a declaratory manner the doctrine of a future life, this doctrine must have either been a sanction to the Law, or not. If it had been a sanction, then the peculiar promise of the Gospel, springing from the precious sacrifice of Christ, would have been anticipated in a covenant of works. it had not been a sanction, then it could have been no longer a doctrine of future reward and punishment, but an antinomian doctrine of future happiness and misery, from which all moral designation would have been excluded, and which must have operated in a manner totally destructive of piety and virtue.

If

If we admit the correctness of the foregoing view, it must appear, that the annexing to the Levitical Law a promise of everlasting life, would have had a tendency to excite, in the minds of both Israelites and Christians, sentiments, inconsistent with that humility which forms a necessary qualification for the divine favour, and repugnant to that faith which is the evangelical condition of salvation. We cannot, therefore, fail to recognize, in the omission of such promise, an instance of consistency and agreement with the general scheme of Christian redemption, and a measure of subserviency to the ultimate design of revealed religion.

Indeed, when we contemplate, on the one hand, the awful and mysterious reserve of the Law, and on the other, the plain, direct, and frequent assurances of the Gospel; we can hardly fail to recognize in the contrast, an appointment wisely adapted to produce in the minds of the Jews, a conviction of the inadequacy of the former dispensation, and of the sufficiency of the latter, as a guide to happiness in a future state. No means of greater efficacy could have been employed to enhance, in their estimation, the excellence of a religion, which was thus able to satisfy the ardent wishes and anxieties of men respecting their eternal condition. Nothing could have been more conducive to a just conception on their parts of the design of their national code, as being merely preparatory to a fuller manifestation of the divine glory and a more ample provision for the wants of mankind. Had the case been different; had the words of Moses been similar to those of Christ and his apostles; there would have been little

reason to wonder at the neglect and disregard which were shewn to the ministry of the latter. From men who possess distinct assurances of immortal happiness, together with clear instructions as to the mode of attaining it, and these sanctioned by the authority of God himself; from such men, I say, what reason have we to expect any favourable, or even patient, regard to the pretensions of a new revelation? What can such a revelation bestow upon them, beyond what they already have? So full a measure of hope and consolation attached to their ancient faith, must have satisfied their utmost desires, and have destroyed that powerful inducement to embrace the Gospel which arose from its bright prospects and cheering encouragements.

CHAPTER III.

THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE WAS ALWAYS ENTERTAINED BY THE ISRAELITES FROM THE VERY EARLIEST PERIOD OF THEIR HISTORY.

ΕΙ δε τις, επερεισας την διάνοιαν τῳ του νομοθετου βουλήματι, και τη κατ' αυτον πολιτεια εξετάζων τα κατα τους Ιουδαίους, συγκρίνοι τη νυν αγωγή των λοιπων εθνων ΟΥΔΕΝΑΣ ΜΑΛΛΟΝ ΑΝ ΘΑΥΜΑΣΑΙ· ώς εν αντ θρώποις παντα μεν τα μη χρησιμα τῷ γένει των ανθρωπων περιῃρημένους, μονα δε τα ευχρηστα παραδεξαμένους.—Όποιον δ' ην παρ' αυτοις το εξ ετι άπαλων ονύχων διδασκεσθαι ὑπεραναβαίνειν μεν πασαν την αισθητην φυσιν, και μηδαμου αυτης νομίζειν ίδρυσθαι τον Θεον, ανω δε και ύπερ τα σώματα ζητειν αυτον ; ΠΗΛΙΚΟΝ ΔΕ ΤΟ, ΣΧΕΔΟΝ ΑΜΑ ΓΕΝΕΣΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΥΜΠΛΗΡΩΣΕΙ ΤΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΕΣΘΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΥΣ ΤΗΝ ΤΗΣ ΨΥΧΗΣ ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙΑΝ, ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΥΠΟ ΓΗΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΤΗΡΙΑ, ΚΑΙ ΤΑΣ ΤΙΜΑΣ ΤΩΝ ΚΑΛΩΣ ΒΕΒΙΩΚΟΤΩΝ; Origenes contra Celsum, V. 42.

BUT what are we then to conclude? Because the Mosaic Law contains no explicit declarations relating to a future state, shall we therefore say that no belief of that doctrine was entertained by the ancient people of Israel? This is no consequence of our admission respecting the silence of that code". It is, on the contrary, a point which claims a suspended judgment and a careful examination. It is greatly important in itself, by reason of its connexion with the general economy of revelation: and it brings

a Warburton, however, contends, that it is a necessary consequence of that admission : “ One might fairly conclude,” says he, "that the people's not having this doctrine, was a necessary consequence of Moses's not teaching it, in a Law which forbids the "least addition [Deut. iv. 2. and xii. 32.] to the written insti"tute." Div. Leg. b. v. §. 5. vol. v. p. 174. Ed. 1811. This is a bold flight of logic. See the Supplementary Remarks at the end of this work.

with it an additional claim to our attention on two accounts. First, because the interests of revelation, as to this particular, have been assailed by the misrepresentation and sophistry of its enemies. Secondly, because those same interests have experienced some degree of injustice from the mistaken views of its incorrect and injudicious advocates: the question we are about to discuss having been the subject of a controversy, in which various contending disputants have, with the usual vehemence of polemical contradiction, pushed their respective conclusions to extremes, which are not only widely distant from each other, but, as we conceive, equally remote from the truth.

On the one hand it is maintained, that "the doc"trine of a future state of reward and punishment "did make the most essential part of the Mosaic dispensation." Among the supporters of this opinion are reckoned the unbelieving Jews of the present day, and several of the ancient Christian writersc.

66

With regard to the unbelieving Jews, in whom conviction is obstructed by inveterate prejudice, it is natural enough that they should avail themselves to the utmost of a principle, which may serve to countenance their obstinacy in resisting the evidence of the Gospel. Scarcely any thing, in their estimation, can tend more effectually to the disparagement of the Christian scheme, than a notion, that the blessings connected with it are in no degree superior to

b Bolingbroke, Voltaire, and Gibbon.

:

This is stated on the authority of Warburton from whom also the foregoing citation is extracted. Divine Legation of Moses, book vi. sect. 1. See the Supplementary Remarks.