questions may be decided, the general argument, illustrating the A.m. 2553. intention of the magistrate to secure the interests of religion, is by B.C. 1451. no means affected; but apparently corroborated, by his extending toleration to those who conscientiously differed from the public faith. There is one remarkable circumstance which the progress of discovery has disclosed, tending to show the unremitting zeal with which the rulers of nations have cultivated the belief of the doctrine of a future state. Amidst the various transmigrations which have arisen out of the contentions of rival states and empires, and the confusions incident to society, many people have probably fallen from a civilized to a savage condition, who have been found to have little or no knowledge of God, or observance of religion: notwithstanding which, they have still retained the belief of a future state. This could only have occurred in consequence of the legislator's assiduity in the propagation of this sentiment, and of the powerful hold which it naturally and easily obtains of the human mind. So that, as it has been well observed, no religion ever existed without the doctrine of a future state; yet the doctrine of a future state has sometimes existed without a religion. writers. Secondly. Having examined the conduct of legislators, and the Heathen founders of civil polity, in proof of the concurrent opinion of mankind, with regard to the utility of the general doctrine in question; it remained to specify the views of the wisest and most learned of the ancient sages: and however at variance upon other topics, on this point they appear to have been unanimous. Without multiplying quotations, one from Polybius, and another from Pliny, will suffice. The first of these writers says, "The superior excellence of this Polybius. (the Roman) policy, above others, manifests itself, in my opinion, chiefly in the religious notions the Romans hold concerning the gods: that which, in other places, is turned to abuse, being the very support of the Roman affairs. I mean the fear of the gods, or what the Greeks call superstition; which is come to such a height, both in its influence on individuals, and on the public, as cannot be exceeded. This, which many may think unaccountable, seems plainly to have been contrived for the sake of the community. If, indeed, one were to frame a civil policy only for wise men, it is possible this kind of institution might not be necessary: but since the multitude is ever fickle and capricious, full of lawless passions and irrational and violent resentments, there is no way left to keep them in order, but by the terrors of future punishment, and all the pompous circumstance that attends such kind of fictions. On which account, the ancients acted, in my opinion, with great judgment and penetration, when they contrived to bring these notions of the gods, and of a future state, into the popular belief; and the present age as inconsiderately and absurdly, in removing them and encouraging the multitude to despise their terrors."2 Pliny the elder speaks in a similar strain: "It is Pliny. 2 Polyb. Hist. Lib. 6, C. 54. A.M. 2553. expedient for society that men should believe that the gods concerned B C. 1451. themselves in human affairs; and that the punishments they inflict The Academics, Pyrrhonians & c. Third on offenders, though sometimes late indeed, as from governors busied in the administration of so vast an universe, yet are never to be evaded.' 198 It is observable, that none of the ancient theistical philosophers believed the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, though they all taught it to the people, obviously because they were deeply impressed with the conviction of its being essential to the support of religion. The contrary of this statement has been usually supposed; but this mistake has originated in not observing the distinction between the philosophic ideas of immortality, or the eternity of the soul, and the doctrine of rewards and punishments in another life; that is, where the happiness and misery consequent on virtue and vice, are the positive and free appointment of the divine will, not merely the necessary consequences of things. It is indeed a grave charge to affirm, that the sages of antiquity taught one thing, when they really believed another; but it is substantiated by an appeal to the general practice in the Greek philosophy of a twofold doctrine: the external and the internal; a vulgar and a secret. The former communicated to all indiscriminately; the latter to a select number: and this occurs, not only with regard to different subjects, but to the very same; which is treated popularly or scientifically, according to opinion, and according to truth. This representation is not applicable only to individuals. The Academics and Pyrrhonians agreed in this, that nothing could be known; and that without interfering in any sentiments of their own, every thing was to be disputed. Neither the Pythagoreans, the Platonics, the Peripatetics, nor the Stoics, believed in the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. Nor is this all: the fundamental principles of the ancient Greek philosophy were altogether inconsistent with the doctrine in question, so that it was impossible they should believe it. They universally embraced two metaphysical principles: the one relating to the nature of God, that he could neither be angry nor hurt any one; and that, having no affections, he could neither reward nor punish: the other to the nature of the human soul; some conceiving of it as a quality, and therefore totally annihilated at death; others, and the far greater number, believing it to be a substance, and as such a separated part of a mighty whole; which whole was God, into whom it was again to be resolved. Imagining God to be the soul of the universe, and the body the matter; they concluded, that as the human body was resolved into its parent matter, so the soul was resolved into its parent spirit. We now proceed to the THIRD PROPOSITION before mentioned, which Proposition. concentrates the previous arguments in the final and principal demonstration. In the Mosaic institutes, there is no mention of the 3 Plin. Hist. Nat. L. 2. C. 7. rewards and punishments of a future life; the promises by which they A.M. 2553. were incited to obedience, including only health, peace, plenty, B.C. 1451. dominion, exemption from disease, war, famine, captivity, and whatever else belongs to the class of temporal blessings. Nor is any thing further intimated in the language of the prophets, during their long succession, to the times of Malachi. It is observable, also, that Solomon, at the dedication of the temple, when addressing an ardent supplication to heaven, for the continuance of the ancient covenant, distinctly appeals to the sanction of the Jewish law and religion; which, as he explains it, comprised nothing more than temporal rewards and punishments. state That this omission was not accidental, but designed, appears from Omission of several considerations. It is obvious, from the history of the book a future of Genesis. In detailing the account of the fall of man, the serpent considered. only is mentioned, not the diabolical agent; because there was an intimate connection between that agency and the future redemption of the world, which developed the doctrine of a future state, with all its destined arrangements. There is a singular obscurity thrown. over the brief notice of the death of Enoch; but how much more circumstantial is the narration of the translation of Elijah: because, in the latter instance, the period was arrived, when it was deemed proper to prepare the human mind for the revelation of a future state, by unquestionable intimations of its reality. In the history of the patriarchs, those discoveries which, as we learn from the New Testament, were made of the redemption of mankind, to certain favoured individuals, are either wholly omitted, or veiled by cursory statements, which evince the intentional nature of this concealment. That Moses really understood the importance of this doctrine to society, is evident, from a provision made in his institutes to obviate the evil consequences likely to result from so extraordiary an omission; for as the irregular passions of men would render some of them superior to all apprehension of personal and temporal evil, the due ascendency was maintained by the punishments inflicted on their posterity, which the strength of natural affection must render truly distressing; and that this was devised as substitutionary for the doctrine of a future state appears hence, that as soon as the new dispensation, in which such a state with its rewards and punishments were revealed, the law of punishing children for the crimes of their parents was annulled. (Comp. Jerem. xxxi. 20-33; Ezek. xi. 19 —21, xviii. 2—4.) And further, as Moses did not teach this doctrine, That Moses but studiously concealed it from view; so, as might indeed be inferred, the Israelites were ignorant of it during that entire dispensation to the period of their captivity. The Bible contains a very circumstantial account of this people, not only with regard to their public transactions, but private and individual histories, and their compositions of every kind; yet in none of these is any knowledge of future rewards and punishments displayed, or any curiosity upon the subject did not teach it. A.M. 2553. expressed. This life, and this life exclusively, circumscribes the B.C. 1451. good and the evil, which excites their pursuit or kindles their aversion. Nor does the mere silence of the inspired writers support this conclusion: the non-existence of any popular belief of a resurrection or future state, is demonstrable from their positive declarations. To this purpose, the following may be cited as a remarkable evidence: Job vii. 9: xiv. 7-12; Ps. vi. 5. The question, therefore, is here triumphantly put, "Could this language have been used by people instructed in the doctrine of life and immortality? or do we find one word of it on any occasion whatever in the writers of the New Testament, but where it is brought in to be confuted and condemned?" New Testament. Conclusion. But the argument presses with resistless weight, when it is recollected, that the inspired writers of the New Testament, expressly assure us that the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments did not make any part of the Mosaic dispensation. The evidence is in two parts: 1. They show that temporal rewards and punishments were the sanction of the Mosaic dispensation: thus it is explained in 1 Tim. iv. 8, that though numerous ritual observances were enjoined by the law, and some there must be under the gospel; yet they are of little advantage in comparison with real piety; the reward of the life that now is referring to temporal rewards, and the life which is to come to those of the christian economy. In the epistle to the Hebrews, vii. 15, 16, the Jewish religion, called a carnal commandment, is opposed to the christian, called the power of an endless life. 2. The Mosaic dispensation had only the sanction of temporal rewards and punishments, which is proved by an appeal to the express language of the inspired writers, in the following passages:-Rom. v. 12, and seq.; 2 Cor. iii. 7, and seq.; Gal. iii. 23; 2 Tim. i. 10; Heb. vii. 19, viii. 6, 7, cum mult. aliis. From the preceding premises, then, the conclusion is short and obvious: if the doctrine of a future state be necessary to the wellbeing of civil society, under the ordinary government of Providence; if all mankind have uniformly so considered it; and if the Mosaic dispensation were destitute of this support, and yet did not need it, then the affairs of the Jewish nation must have been administered by an extraordinary Providence, distributing with impartial propriety both rewards and punishments: consequently the mission of Moses was DIVINE. Such is the celebrated argument of Bishop Warburton, upon the merits of which the learned world is still divided. Excessive admiration of this mighty disputant has been generated on one side; and, perhaps, excessive fears of some consequences of his argument on the other. We simply state it: observing, however, that were this argument resigned, the great truth of the divine authority of the Jewish legislator appears to us (as it might with perfect consistency have appeared to the ingenious author of the Divine Legation) to rest on still higher and firmer ground. III. THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THOSE LAWS WHICH MOSES A.M. 2553 B.C. 1451. Moses. In the wrecks of time, the most ancient specimens of legislative Laws of wisdom have perished; so that we have no knowledge, by direct communication, of the laws of Minos, Zaleucus, or Charondas: but a singular providence has preserved entire to the present day, in the hands of the Jews, and fully authenticated by their acknowledgment and religious observance of them, those regulations which were prescribed to ancient Israel in the wilderness, and which are worthy of investigation; not merely on account of their theological application, but as tending both to gratify a legitimate curiosity respecting remote ages, and to furnish a guidance to enlightened and pious speculation. The first object we have in view, in the present inquiry, is to Their basis. point out the basis on which the Mosaic laws were founded: a distinct idea of which, is essential to a just estimate of this very extraordinary system of legislation. The whole depended upon one great fundamental principle, which stamped it with a characteristic simplicity and grandeur. In opposition to the polytheistic inventions of surrounding nations, Moses at once asserted the worship of ONE GOD as the central truth, and which, in intimate association with it, every other doctrine, every service, and every enactment should be arranged. Idolatry was, at that period, prevalent among all the people with whom the Israelites had any intercourse; and absurd as all its observances appear at this day, and to every enlightened understanding, that very nation were not fully purified from its infectious influence by the wisdom of that policy which was introduced by their great legislator; nor even by the miraculous attestations which sanctioned his original proceedings. It was not even peculiar to the multitude to relapse continually into these strange superstitions; for their wisest men, in subsequent periods of their history, nay, Solomon himself became addicted to them: nor did this impious and foolish habit suffer much, if any, diminution of its prevalency till a considerable portion of Asia was subjected to the power of Cyrus. Considering the degradation which the human mind suffers wherever idolatrous worship prevails; the strong propensity which has ever been manifested towards the adoption of its absurdities; the consequent difficulty with which the introduction of a new principle of thinking and acting must be attended; and the favourable effects which resulted with regard to the peace, purity, and dignity of mankind, Moses conferred a benefit of the highest order upon the world, by establishing the simple but sublime doctrine of God the only object of worship, as the fudamental article of his legislative policy. The method adopted by the Hebrew lawgiver, was precisely calculated to give stability and permanence to the principle he had |