ledge, inasmuch as the doctrine formed a part of "the universal religion of mankind." But surely, even on the supposition (which I do not maintain) that the whole nation of Israel utterly disbelieved a future state, the Gentiles cannot be said to have had much advantage over them in point of religious knowledge, from believing, if they really had believed, what they seem to have but very faintly suspected, the current fables (for they were no better) respecting another world; viz. that admission into a place of happiness after death was to be procured by piety towards the gods; including under that term, acts of the foulest impurity, and the most infernal cruelty by due obedience, for instance, to the divine institutions of Cotytto, the Babylonish Venus, who sentenced every female without exception to become a prostitute for hire; and by human sacrifices at the tomb of the defunct. Let no one forget, that such notions of piety were not confined to barbarian nations: even Aristotle, in his projected republic, in which he wisely prohibits the exhibition of indecent objects to youth, is forced to limit himself to the exclusion of young persons from the temples of

those gods, of whose worship such exhibitions formed a necessary part. And the anecdote of Cato is well known, who withdrew from the theatre, that his presence might not interrupt the sacred impurities of a religious festival. Truly "every abomination of the Lord which He hateth, have those nations done unto their gods;" and the expectation of future happiness from such gods and such services could hardly have been reckoned either as religious knowledge, or as an advantage in point of faith.

On the actual belief, however, of the great mass of the Israelites, we have no means of deciding positively; but if any one should suppose most of them to have thought little or nothing, one way or the other, about what should become of them after death, nor consequently to have either believed or disbelieved, properly speaking, the doctrine in question, his conjecture certainly would not be at variance with the representations Moses gives of the grossness of ideas, and puerile short-sightedness of the nation; who, while fed by a daily miracle, and promised the especial favour of the Maker of the universe, had their minds set on "the

flesh-pots of Egypt, and the fish, and the cucumbers, and the leeks." Christians of these days are not surely more gross-minded and unthinking than those Israelites; but every one, at least every Minister who is sedulous in his duties, must know, that a large proportion of them require to be incessantly reminded, that this life is not the whole of their existence; though the doctrine be one which is "expressly declared" in their religion; and that silence on that subject is quite sufficient, if not to eradicate from their minds all belief, at least to put an end to all thought, about the matter.

There is no doubt, however, that some considerable time before our Lord's advent, the belief in a future state did become prevalent (though, as the case of the Sadducees proves, not universal) among the Jews. In the second book of Maccabees, a work of small authority indeed as a history, but affording sufficient evidence of the opinions of the writer and his contemporaries, we find not only unequivocal mention of the doctrine, (though, by the way, not as an undisputed point,) but persons represented as actuated by the motives which such a doctrine

naturally suggests; which doubtless we should, sometimes at least, have met with also in the historical books of the Old Testament, had the same belief prevailed all along. And our Lord himself alludes to the prevailing opinion of the generality of those whom he addresses: "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me:" as much as to say, the very prophets who allude to the doctrine of eternal life, do likewise foretell the coming and describe the character of me, the Bestower of it; these two parts of their inspired word hang together; he who is blind to the one, can found no rational hope on the other; since "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," and "he that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life." This passage, indeed, as well as the others to the same purpose in the New Testament, though they imply the prevalence of this tenet among the Jews, and the general sincerity and strength of their conviction, do not by any means imply either that this their confident expectation was well-founded on Scriptural evidence, or that their notions respecting a future life were correct. Had these last two

circumstances been superadded (which is evidently impossible) to the general sincere reception of the doctrine, it could not have been said, with any propriety, that "Christ abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel."

The truth probably is, that, as the indications of a future state, which are to be found in the prophets, are mostly such as will admit of an interpretation referring them to a promise of temporal deliverance, those persons would most naturally so understand them, in the first instance at least, who were so "slow of heart" as to the prophecies respecting the Messiah, as to expect in him a glorious temporal prince only ; while those who were more intelligent, and took in the spiritual sense of the prophecies relating to Him, would be led to put the spiritual interpretation on the other also. I say, in the first instance, because when the belief of a future state had been introduced, from whatever quarter, and did prevail, all who held it, would naturally interpret in that sense whatever passages in their Scriptures seemed to confirm it. But it does not follow, that such a belief was correct, even when