discover the doctrine of a future state, because when the doctrine has been proposed to our belief by revelation, it perceives probabilities in favour of it; and the same, with many other doctrines also. And thus it is, that a system of what is called natural religion is dressed up, as it were, with the spoils of revelation; and is made such, as men, when fairly left to themselves, and actually guided by the light of nature alone, never did attain to.

It would be tedious, and, after what has been said, I trust, unnecessary, to cite, as might easily be done, a multitude of passages from the Old Testament, in which a reference to the expectations of a future state would have been apposite and almost inevitable, had the belief of such a doctrine prevailed; or to examine those few texts in the New as well as the Old Testament which have been brought forward to prove that a future state was revealed to the Jews. The sixth book of Warburton's Divine Legation contains a copious and learned discussion of this part of the subject but no one can enter into such an examination, with any thing like a full and

fair view of the question, who does not clearly embrace, and steadily keep in mind, the argument already adduced, and on which the conclusion mainly rests; viz. that an unthinking and uncultivated people, such as the Israelites whom Moses addressed, must have needed, if it had been designed to reveal to them a future state, (or even to confirm and establish such a doctrine already received,) that it should be perpetually repeated, and inculcated in the most copious and the clearest manner; that, consequently, since this is not done, it must be considered as, at least, highly improbable that such a revelation to them should have been

All admit that Moses does hold out, and dwell upon, temporal promises and threatenings: but the frequency and earnestness with which he enforces this sanction (and on that it is that the present argument turns) is often under-rated; few being accustomed to read the books of the law straight through; and those who do so, being of course inclined to pass over slightly, any passage which plainly appears to be merely a repetition of what had been before said; whereas it is this very repetition that is the most important for the present purpose. I have accordingly subjoined (note (E) at the end of this Essay) all these passages; that the reader may be enabled to estimate the more easily their extraordinary number and copiousness.

intended; and that therefore, in the case of any doubtful passages, which will admit of, but do not absolutely require, an interpretation favourable to the affirmative side, a different interpretation must be allowed to be, antecedently, more probable.

Why Moses was not commissioned to reveal this momentous truth, is a question that cannot fail to occur to one who is pursuing such an enquiry as the present; and it is a question which we are not competent completely to answer, because we cannot presume to explain why the Gospel, which "brought life and immortality to light," was reserved for that precise period at which it was proclaimed; but, that enquiry-why a different and more imperfect dispensation was needful to prepare the way for the Gospel,-being waived, as one surpassing man's knowledge and powers, it is easy to perceive, that the revelation of the doctrine in the Mosaic law, would have been neither necessary nor proper. It was not necessary, for the purpose of affording a sanction to the law of Moses, because the Israelites alone, of all the nations of the world, were under an

extraordinary providence, distributing temporal rewards and judgments according to their conduct. The necessary foundation therefore of all religion," that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him," did not require, as it must in all other nations, the belief in a future retribution, to remedy all the irregularities of God's ordinary providence, which, among this peculiar people, did not exist. Nor again would it have been proper for Moses, commissioned as he was, to promulgate, not the Gospel, but the Law, to proclaim that life and Immortality which the Gospel (as had been, no doubt, revealed to him) was destined to "bring to light;" much less, to represent eternal happiness as attainable otherwise than through the redemption by Christ, which the Gospel holds out as the only efficacious means of procuring it. On this last point, a few observations will

4 See note (F) at the end of this Essay. Had eternal life been offered as the reward of obedience to the Law, so that the mission of Christ served only to relax the terms of the covenant, in favour of those who transgressed the Law, surely St. Paul's expression would have been, (the very reverse of what he uses,)" For what then serveth the GOSPEL? it was added because of transgressions."

be offered presently; but in the mean time it may be remarked, that the slight hints of this doctrine which the books of the prophets contain, the faint dawnings, as it were, of a scheme, which was to bring "life and immortality to light," and which appear more and more bright as they approached the period of that more perfect revelation, are in perfect consistency with the rule I have supposed Moses to have observed; since it is in proportion as they gave more and more clear notices of the Redeemer to come, and in almost constant conjunction with their descriptions of his mission, that the immortal life, to which he was to open the road and lead the way, is alluded to by the prophets; and also, in proportion as the extraordinary and regular administration of divine government in this world, by which the Law had been originally sanctioned, and under which the Jews had hitherto lived, was gradually withdrawn. That it was in these writings, and not in those of Moses, that the Jews must have sought for indications of a future state, is strongly confirmed by the opinion of that excellent and learned divine, Joseph Mede, who