following! We appeal to certain undeniable principles of interpretation, which relate partly to the sacred language of Scripture, and partly, in a more extensive way, to the nature of human language in general in the legitimate application of these principles, combined with a regard, partly to the general tenor of Scripture, and partly to distinct portions of it, we contend, respecting such evidence taken in the gross, cannot in justice be applied to the point in relation to which it is adduced. In order to the proof of this proposition we will divide into two classes the passages referred to.

That

I. Of these citations, some are adduced as speak! ing the direct and authoritative language of Scripture to the effect of declaring, that there is no future state. It might be thought needless to protest against such reasoning: we cannot suppress our astonishment and regret, that any Christian divine can be so far carried away by an intemperate zeal for his opinions as to venture on the employment of it. we are not at liberty" so to expound one place of "Scripture that it be repugnant to another," is the language of our churcht. We may add, that by all who receive the body of Scripture in the form in which we now receive it, as the word of God, and the revelation of God, it must be esteemed the language of common sense. If therefore such be the character of this sacred book, and if the doctrine of a future state be unquestionably contained in it; and that, not in the way of indirect allusion and historical narrative, but in that of direct and authori

Art. XX.

tative declaration: if this be the case, then it must necessarily follow, that no passage in that book which is so construed, as to convey, on the authority of Scripture, a contradiction of that doctrine, can be construed according to its true meaning.

What then can we think of that system of reasoning and interpretation, which gravely alleges the names of David and Solomon, as of persons directly asserting, that death is the final extinction of consciousness in man? What shall we think of construing the words of the latter into a statement, and a sanction, of that pestilent dogma of the Greek philosophy, the refusion of the soul and consequent extinction of its personality? On the strength of the principle to which we thus appeal, of which neither the general truth nor the present application can be disputed by any believer in revelation, we say, that whatever be the right construction of the passages thus adduced, that which has been proposed by Warburton is wrong: and if it be, the passages themselves must at once, without the necessity of ascertaining their right signification, be pronounced wholly unavailing in evidence of the point in proof of which they are quoted.

To one of these passages I will, for the sake of example, more particularly advert. Solomon says, "The living know that they shall die: but the dead "know not any thing, neither have they any more a "reward; for the memory of them is forgotten"." This is the strongest of all the various citations which have been brought forward by Warburton for

u Eccles. ix. 5.

the purpose we are considering. We have already said, that his construction of the words must be wrong, because it is contradictory to the general tenor of scripture. We say again that it is wrong, because it is contradictory to the general tenor of the doctrine delivered by the same writer, and contained in the same book. "Let us hear," says the preacher, "the conclusion of the whole matter: "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this "is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring "every work into judgment, with every secret thing, "whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Can it be disputed, that the motive of our obedience to the Divine law is here laid in the prospect of a Divine judgment and retribution? Is not this the doctrine of Solomon? And is it not most plainly declared by the same writer, that this judgment and this retribution do not take effect in the present life? Does he not, with regard to this present life, declare, that "there are just men, to whom it hap"peneth according to the work of the wicked, and "wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to "the work of the righteous y?" that "no man "knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before "them? that all things come alike to all, and that "there is one event to the righteous and to the "wicked?" Is it not plain then, that the judgment which Solomon contemplated must have been the judgment of a future state, since he himself declares that no such judgment is to be seen or expected in this life?

x Eccles. xii. 13, 14.

y Ibid. viii. 14.

* Ibid. ix. 1, 2.

On the strength of the foregoing considerations, we have a right to insist, that the words which we are now considering do not, as they are construed by Warburton, convey the meaning of Solomon. If this be admitted, nothing more can be required towards the disproof of the reasoning which has been constructed upon them: but it may be more satisfactory, if we state what we ourselves, in concurrence with various respectable commentators, conceive to be the proper design and purport of them..

66

We consider then the words, grammatically construed, to convey the very meaning which Warburton has ascribed to them: but we contend, that such meaning is not that of the royal preacher, but of a class of persons whom he strongly reprobates and condemns. We are to remember the characters of whom he had been speaking. He had described them after the following manner: "Their heart is "full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live." It seems moreover, that according to his view, the folly and wickedness thus imputed to them was occasioned by the fact, that there “is one event to all, to the righteous and the wicked, "to the good and the sinner." Having thus stated the fact of a promiscuous dispensation, and the perverse construction which bad men are accustomed to put on such an aspect of things; he may be considered as expressing, in the words which immediately follow, the sentiments and the reasonings of such men. These following words are those

66

a Eccl. ix. 3.

b Ver. 2, 3.

which Warburton has cited: and they may be regarded as expressing, not what he terms "the cool “ philosophy c” of Solomon, but the madness of the epicurean voluptuary.

66

Whether a just account has now been given of the words in question, may be better determined after we have viewed them in their proper connexion with the foregoing and following context. I will therefore extract so much of the sacred writer's discourse, as is necessary to illustrate the scope of what we conceive to be the argument which he is here pursuing introducing at the same time a few brief remarks, for the purpose of illustrating the exposition which has been given of it.

"For all this I considered in my heart even to “ declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, “ and their works, are in the hand of God :d no man "knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before “ them.”

Here Solomon may be understood to teach, that the appointed recompense of the righteous is, during the present state of things, a secret withholden from the observation of man; and that the promiscuous dispensations of Providence are the cause of its concealment from our view the phrase, "in the hand of God," being fitly taken, according to the idiom of scripture, to denote both the present secrecy, and the future accomplishment, of that recompense, and to intimate that, though now hidden

c Div. Leg. b. v. . . p. 183.

“d In manu; i. e. sub tutela et custodia. In manu Dei sunt, i. e. "occulta, nobis ignota. Cum vero cum homine aliquid commu"nicet [Deus], tum dicitur aperire manum suum." Poli Synopsis.