Atonement; since to the Jews, certainly, the efficacious sufferings of the Messiah were not revealed; at least, not so as to be understood by the mass of the People; to whom therefore eternal life must have been held out (if at all, as you contend it was) as the direct reward of obedience. The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that unless what Moses taught was false, your account of the Gospel must be false."

§ 8. Although, however, it has not been deemed necessary here to examine all the passages in the Books of Moses which have been interpreted as relating to a future state, it will be needful to say a few words respecting that one which is cited by our Lord himself against the Sadducees, in proof of the doctrine: "Now that the dead are raised," says He, "even Moses sheweth at, the bush, when he saith, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is not the God of the dead, but

b"At the bush:" this seems to have been the usual mode of reference to any particular passage of Scripture, before the division into chapters and verses was introduced.

of the living, for all live unto Him;" and, for not having drawn this inference, He charges them with "not knowing the Scriptures:" whence it has very rashly been concluded, that the Scriptures He alluded to were intended to reveal this doctrine. But can any man of common sense seriously believe, that such a passage as the one before us (which we may suppose was selected by our Lord as at least one of those most to the purpose) could be sufficient to make known to a rude and unthinking people, such as the Israelites when Moses addressed them, the strange and momentous truth, that the "dead are raised?"— that one of the most important parts of the revelation given them (which it must have been, if it were any part of it) could have been left to rest on an oblique and incidental implication, while the far simpler and more obvious doctrine of temporal rewards and punishments, was so plainly and so laboriously inculcated? But, in fact, our Lord's declaration by no means amounts to this: the Sadducees of his time had heard

It should be observed that the argument deduced from this passage, seems to have struck our Lord's hearers by its novelty.

d

of the doctrine; no matter from what quarter; and their part evidently was, to examine patiently and candidly whether it were true or not; and this, especially, by a careful study of the sacred books which they acknowledged, in order to judge whether it were conformable to these,

or not.

But a passage, which may be decisive of a certain question, when consulted with a view to that question, may be utterly insufficient for the far different purpose of making known, in the first instance, the truth which it thus confirms. The error of confounding together these two things, gives rise to numberless mistakes in other points besides the one now before us. In fact, it is this very fallacy which has principally misled men throughout, with respect to the general question we are considering, as well as in many other doctrines of our religion. Human reason is considered as sufficiently strong to

d See Hawkins on Tradition, p. 66.

e "Nam neque tam est acris acies in naturis hominum et ingeniis, ut res tantas quisquam, nisi monstratas, possit videre; neque tanta tamen in rebus obscuritas, ut eas non penitus, acri vir ingenio, cernat, si modo adspexerit." Cic. de Orat. lib. iii. c. 31.

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. And then, this Natural Religion is made by some the standard by which they interpret the declarations of Scripture; which is, in fact, correcting an original from an incorrect and imperfect transcript.

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

f See Isaiah xxxviii. 18, 19, &c.

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 completely 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

8 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.