of giving life, then would righteousness (or justification) have been by law." But law, though essential for the regulation of manners, is, of its own nature, incapable of giving eternal salvation; for he who obeys its ordinances can, at most, but deserve to escape from its penalties. And this is still more emphatically true of men polluted by sin and compassed by infirmity. For law provides no propitiation, and offers no spiritual aid. There must therefore have been something more than law to save men from eternal ruin; and the Jew, by imagining that the Law could do this, failed altogether of the righteousness of faith.

2

Even the sacrifices under the Law had but a temporary efficacy. They served for a carnal purifying' (pòs TÙY TÑç σaρKÙS κaðapóτnτa, Heb. ix. 13). They satisfied for offences against the temporal Majesty of the Great King, and screened from the temporal punishment due to all transgressions of the Law, which He had enacted. But there was no profession, no promise whatever, that they should satisfy for the sin of the soul. Indeed, for the heavier offences there was no propitiation set forth at all; whether these offences were against the King, or against His subjects. For murder and adultery, for idolatry and blasphemy, there was nothing left but a certain fearful looking for of judgment.' 'The blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sin ;' 'could never make the worshipper perfect as pertaining to the conscience.' But beyond all this, there was still another purpose, for which the Mosaic economy was designed. "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ' (Gal. iii. 24). It was a dispensation professedly preparatory, and imperfect. It was, therefore, so constructed by Infinite Wisdom, that there should be an inward spirit vastly dissimilar from the outward letter of the Law. Accordingly, the whole dispensation, as it was preparatory, so it was typical. The kingdom of Christ was the great antitype of the old Theocracy. The Church is a theocracy now, as much as Israel was then. And so all the ordinances of the temporal kingdom were types and images of the blessings of the spiritual kingdom. To this end, as well as to their immediate object, served the priests and the temple, the altar and the sacrifices, the tribute and the incense, and all the service of the sanctuary. The letter then of the Law could never offer salvation: but the spirit did. Nay, the letter of the Law was necessarily condemnatory, as it gave more

1 Gal. iii. 21. Εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἂν ἐκ νόμου ἦν δικαιοσύνη.

light and brought more obligations; but neither satisfied for transgressions, nor gave inward sanctification. And so it is written, 'The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life' (2 Cor. iii. 6). The letter brought no promise of immortality, but left men under condemnation; but the spiritual meaning of the Law led men to Christ, and so gave them life.

It will not be necessary to go through the promises of the old Testament and the types of the Law, to show, that there was a promise of a Mediator, and of redemption from the curse which Adam had brought upon us. The promise to Adam of the seed of the woman-the promise to Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed-the promise to David concerning his Son, who should sit upon his throne-the types of the passover, the scapegoat, the sacrifices on the day of atonement, the consecration of the high priest, the prophecies of David, of Isaiah, of Daniel, of Zechariah, of Malachi,-all readily occur to us as containing predictions, or exhibiting figures, which set forth to the enlightened understanding the hope of future deliverance, and of a Redeemer, who should turn away iniquity.'

It is said most truly, that all this was involved in much obscurity; and it can never be denied, that the Jew had a much less clear understanding, a much more partial revelation of the truth as it is in Jesus,' than the least instructed member of the Christian Church. Nay, the least in the kingdom of Heaven,' i.e. in the Gospel dispensation, is greater' in knowledge than he who was greatest' before the coming of Christ. But it should not be forgotten, that during the patriarchal ages God had revealed Himself to Adam and Enoch, to Noah and Abraham, and perhaps to many besides. We are not to suppose, that the light of such primeval revelation, which guided men for more than twenty centuries, was of a sudden quenched in utter darkness. The traditionary knowledge concerning a promised Mediator, was no doubt carefully cherished, and served to enlighten much, which in the Law, and even in the Prophets, might have been otherwise unintelligible. And hence, the Mediator, though but faintly shadowed out, was yet firmly believed in. We have our Lord's assurance, that Abraham rejoiced to see His day; he saw it and was glad' (John viii. 56). We have St. Paul's assurance that the same Abraham, having received the promise of the Redeemer, believed in it, and was justified by faith. And we may well suppose, that

6

1 See the author's Messiah as foretold and expected. London: Bell and Daldy. 2 Rom. iv. 1—20. Gal. iii. 6--9, 14—19.

the faith, which guided Abraham, guided others, both before and after him.

At first, indeed, and whilst patriarchal tradition yet survived, the intimations of a Mediator in the ancient Scriptures are less distinct and less intelligible. But among the later prophets, when that early tradition may have had less weight, and when the day of Christ was more nearly approaching, the promises may be read more plainly, and the Gospel-history be almost deciphered in the sacred emblems of prophecy.

3 Are we then to suppose, notwithstanding this, that the fathers looked only for transitory promises?

It is a truth, which, I think, cannot be denied, that Moses does not bring prominently forward the doctrine of a future state. That was a subject, which did not fall in with his purpose. His mission was to organize the Jewish Commonwealth and embody in writing the statute-law of the Theocracy. That Theocracy, as has been said, was a temporal kingdom, though God was its King. Hence naturally he does not bring forward the doctrine of a future life.' In addition to the writing of the laws of Israel, Moses gives also a brief, a very brief, sketch of the history of the nation, and of its more illustrious ancestors. It is probable enough, that no very frequent allusion to a future existence might occur in this history; and it is only in the historical, not at all in the legislative writings, that we could expect to meet with it. It has been already explained, that even the prophets, who succeeded Moses, acted much as messengers from the Sovereign of Israel to His rebellious subjects, and hence naturally spoke much concerning obedience to His Law and the sanctions of that Law, which we know were temporal. Yet in many of the prophets, clear notices not only of a Mediator and a hereafter, but perhaps also of a Resurrection, are to be met with. Even Bishop Warburton, though strongly maintaining that the earlier Jews had no knowledge of a life to come, yet admits, that in later times they became fully acquainted with the truth of it.

The principal passages in the books of Moses, which seem to prove that the patriarchs believed in an eternity, and that a knowledge of it was general in the days of Moses himself, are as follows:

(1) The account of the translation of Enoch, Gen. v. 24. This account indeed, is brief and obscure. We know, however, from other sources what it means, and its obscurity rather seems to argue, that it was, as is most likely, a fact generally known and well understood, and so not needing to be longer dwelt upon. But its obscurity is a little magnified; for we clearly enough learn from the passage, that, whereas in general long life was a promised blessing, yet in the case of Enoch a still greater blessing was couferred. For, whereas all other persons in the same chapter are spoken of as living long and then dying; Enoch's is said to have been comparatively a short life; and then it is said, that, because of his piety, 'God took him.' 'Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.' It is hard to know what other sense could be attached to the passage, except that given it by St. Paul: 'Enoch was translated that he should not see death' (Heb. xi. 5). Now people, who knew of the translation of Enoch, must have known something of that state of bliss, to which he was removed.

(2) Accordingly, Jacob on his death-bed utters an ejaculation utterly unconnected with the immediate context: 'I have waited for Thy Salvation, O Lord' (Gen. xlix. 18). What salvation Jacob could have waited for, who in this very chapter looks forward to far future fortunes for his children, before the Shiloh should come, and to Him should be the gathering of the people,' except it were the salvation of his own soul, which he was just about to breathe forth, has never been clearly explained.

(3) Balaam was so well acquainted with the truth (though so little obedient to it), as 'to wish to die the death of the righteous, and that his last end should be like his' (Num. xxiii. 10). Now, the promise of the Law was to the life of the righteous; the promises of temporal blessing must all affect life, rather than death. It is natural for a believer in a blessed immortality to wish for such a death and such a last end as awaits the just. But from a person, who believes all God's promises to be made to this life, and looks forward to no life beyond, such an exclamation seems hardly intelligible.

(4) There is a saying of Moses himself, which seems probably to imply the same thing. Just before his death he says of Israel, 'Oh that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end.' It is undoubtedly not certain that, latter end,' here, means death. Perhaps it should be said, it probably does not mean death; but it means either futurity or final condition. And, though we may allow, that the

force of the passage is not unquestionable; its most natural interpretation would be, that it was a wish that the people of Israel were thoughtful of that time when worldly objects of interest should pass away, and their end draw nigh, when wisdom and piety only should profit them.

We come next to the famous passage in the Book of Job.' As the words stand in our Authorized Version, they prove Job's belief, not only in a future life, but in a resurrection of the body: 'Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever! For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.' (Job xix. 23-27.)

There are, without doubt, difficulties in this translation. The passage is in many points obscure, though not more so than the book of Job in general. The more literal rendering of the last three verses is, perhaps, as follows:

'For I, even I, know that my Redeemer liveth, and hereafter shall stand above the dust. And though, after my skin, this (body) be destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and no stranger; my reins are consumed within me.'

On the whole, whatever rendering is given to it, it is hardly possible, that the passage should not appear to prove a belief in a future existence. The words 'from my flesh' indeed may be interpreted differently according to the different senses attached to

1 The date and authorship of the Book of Job is a question in some degree affecting the question in the text. Most scholars consider the book as one of the earliest in the Bible; and many have believed, that it was written by Moses. Bp. Warburton argues that it was not written till the captivity, or the return from captivity; and that it is a dramatic composition rather than a real history (Divine Legation, Bk. VI. Sect. II.). The question is not to be settled with a few words. I can only say that it appears to me to bear the marks of great antiquity. It is true, that it is not such pure Hebrew as some parts of the old Testament; or rather that it contains a great many Hebrew words and phrases which are not common in the

other books of the Bible, and for the explanation of which we must look to the Syriac and Arabic languages. But the style is very little like the style of the later books, which contain a certain num. ber of Chaldaisms, and even some Chaldee, such as Daniel, Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and some of the Psalms. The Aramaisms of Job are very unlike these; and so is the whole style and character of the Hebrew. It is indeed exactly what might be expected from a very ancient writer, who wrote in Hebrew an account of dialogues originally held in an ancient dialect of Arabic. Whether or not Moses was the writer is another question. It seems very doubtful, if Lot highly improbable.