in substance fully and generally admitted, in almost all ages and countries. And there have been others, who, though not going the length. of making this knowledge a part of natural religion, and ascribing it to the Pagan nations of antiquity, have yet insisted that it is a part of the revelation given through Moses to the Israelites.

In favour of the first of these opinions, it is often pleaded, in addition to the direct arguments drawn from the Pagan writers, that to deny the power of reason to establish this truth, is to weaken the foundation of natural religion, and to diminish the support it affords to Christianity: it is even contended by one writer of no small repute, that "the natural revolutions and resurrections of other creatures render the resurrection of the body highly probable. The day dies into a night, and is buried in silence and in darkness; in the next morning it appeareth again and reviveth, opening the grave of darkness, rising from the dead of night; this is a diurnal resurrection. As the day dies into night, so doth the summer into winter;" &c. &c. &c. In favour of the latter

also of the above-mentioned opinions it has been urged, that to acknowledge no revelation of a future state in the law of Moses is "derogatory to God's honour, injurious to the Mosaic dispensation, a very erroneous and dangerous doctrine," &c. &c. and this in a discourse on the very text which asserts that "Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel!" To reconcile this passage with such opinions, (which a Christian who entertains them is evidently bound to do,) has been attempted in a manner which may fairly be designated explaining away those words of the Apostle; and indeed not those words only, but the general tenor of the whole of the preaching of the Apostles, as far as relates to the point in question; so as to lay them open to the censure of giving an overcharged representation of the Gospel scheme, when they characterize it as bringing life and immortality to light."

66

I shall not, however, at present dwell on this inconsistency, because as long as the notion remains unrefuted, that the doctrine of a future immortality could be known, and was known, independently of the Gospel, to prove that the

first preachers of Christianity professed to exhibit the first revelation of that truth, would be only to expose them to the imputation of groundless pretensions, and thus to give a colour to the cavils of the infidel, who is ready enough to charge them with falsely laying claim to the original announcement of a doctrine already well established.

It will be advisable therefore to enquire first into the notions entertained on this subject by the ancient Pagans and by the Jews, and the grounds on which those notions rested; in order that the questions may be, as far as possible, decided, how far natural reason, and how far the Mosaic revelation, are calculated, in this respect, to supersede the Gospel, in affording a rational and a well-established assurance of a future state. I say, "well-established," because if the doctrine were made to rest on the most decisive evidence, but on such evidence as could not be comprehended by any but profound philosophers, the mass of mankind would still need a revelation to assure them of it. On the other hand, I say 66 'rational" as well as "established," because how

ever general and confident the belief of it might be, if that belief rested on no "rational" grounds, it would still need to be made known (since conjecture is not knowledge) on sufficient authority. It is important therefore to remember, that there are two points, neither of which should be lost sight of in the present enquiry: in what degree the belief of a future state prevailed among the ancients; and how far those who did entertain such belief were correct in their notions of it, and warranted in maintaining them since it is plain, that no opinion deserves to be called knowledge, except so far as it is not only agreeable to truth, but also supported by adequate evidence.

The popular mythology of the Greeks and Romans (to direct our attention in the first place to the Pagan nations) did certainly contain ample descriptions of a life after this, and of the places prepared for the reward and punishment, respectively, of the virtuous and the wicked. And though it might be urged, with truth, that this mythology, resting as it did on no other evidence than that of vague, and incoherent, and contradictory tradition,

could not afford any rational assurance of a future state, and also that it did not inculcate the doctrine of a resurrection, and was in many other points greatly at variance with what Christians receive as the authentic and true account; still it must be admitted, that a system so far correct in its outline as to contain the notion of a just judgment, and a state of retribution hereafter, to be influenced by our conduct during the present life, would, in some degree, supply the want of the Gospel revelation on these points; provided it were (on whatever evidence) fully and firmly and generally established among the mass of the com

a

Such, of course, must be the case with the notions of Pagans of the present day on the subject, as well as with those of the barbarous nations of antiquity, of whose mythology we have no distinct and authentic accounts. How far the doctrine of a future state did or does prevail, and prevail as a matter of serious belief, in those nations, it is by no means easy to determine on sufficient evidence. In those of modern times it is also difficult, if not impossible, to decide, whether, and to what degree, some parts of their religion may have been derived, through a remote and corrupt tradition, from the Gospel. The fairest mode of trying the question therefore seems to be, by examining the opinions that prevailed before the promulgation of the Gospel.