and to lead them to repentance, lest they too should come into that place of torment: To which Abraham replies: If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead*. Hence it is inferred, that both Moses and the Prophets taught a future state of Rewards and Punishments. But, here again, the Objectors are quite beside the matter. As, in the former case, they would not see, the argument, was directed against the SADDUCEES; So here, by as perverse a connivance, they will not reflect, that this Parable is addressed to the PHARISEES. It is certain we must judge of the drift and design of every rational discourse from the Character of those to whom it is addressed. Now had, this Parable been told to the Sadducees, whose grand error it was, to deny a future state of rewards and punishments; and had the rich man been represented as a Sadducee, who was too late convinced of his mistake, and wanted to undeceive his father's house, which his evil DOCTRINES had perverted; had this, I say, been the case, there might have been some ground for the Objector's inference, which I suppose to be this, That "it appears as plainly from Moses "and the Prophets, that there is a future state of "rewards and punishments, as if one came back from

that state to tell us so." On the contrary, the Parable was particularly addressed to the Pharisees, the great patrons of a future state, and who sedulously taught it in opposition to the Sadducees. It is introduced in this manner: And the PHARISEES also, who were COVETOUS [pagyugo], heard all these things: and they derided him. For which they are thus. reproved: Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts. And then

Luke xvi. 31.

+ Ver. 14. EE3

+ Ver. 15.

presently

presently follows the parable. Their capital errors therefore were errors of PRACTICE, Avarice and Luxury. And it was to reform these, that a rich Pharisee is represented as without any compassion for the poor, living in all kind of delicacy, and dying impenitent. This man, when he comes in the other world, finds so ill a reception there, wants one to be sent to his brethren (who believed, doubtless, as he did, the Doctrine of a future state) to warn them of their evil ways, and to assure them, that luxury and inhumanity, unrepented of, would assuredly damn them. Which information, he thought, would be best inforced by a Miracle: If one went unto them from the dead, they will REPENT*. (Where observe, it is not-they will BELIEVE.) To this common mistake, Abraham's reply is extremely pertinent: If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead: i.e." If they will not hear Moses, and the Prophets, whose authority they acknowledge †, and whose missions were confirmed by so many and well-attested Miracles, neither will they regard a new one, of the resurrection of a dead man. (Nor, in fact, were the Pharisees at all softened into repentance by the return of that Lazarus, the namesake of this in the parable, whom Jesus raised from the dead.) Now Moses and the Prophets have denounced the most severe threatenings, on the part of God, against vice and impenitence.". This is the force of the argument; in which we see the question of a future state is no more concerned, than thus far only, that God will punish, either here or hereafter. Moses and the Prophets threatened the punishment here; and, while here it was executed, the Jews looked no farther: But when the extraor+ See note [KK] at the end of this volume.

* Ver. 30.

dinary

dinary Providence, by which that punishment was administered, had ceased, the Jews began, from those very promises and denunciations, to entertain some hopes of an hereafter, where all inequalities should be set even, and God's threats and promises executed to the full: though still, with less confidence, if they reasoned rightly, than the Pagans had to draw the same conclusion from the same principles; since their Law had informed them of a truth unknown to the rest of mankind; namely, that the whole Race was condemned to a state of death and mortality, a return to dust from whence Man was taken, for the transgression of Adam. So that all which good logic or criticism will authorize the believers of a future state to draw from this parable, is this, "that God is a severe punisher of unrepentant luxury and inhu"manity."

66

But now admit the mistaken interpretation of the Objectors; and what will follow! That Moses taught a future state, the Proposition, I oppose? No; But that from Moses and the Prophets together a future state might be collected. A Proposition, I have no occasion to oppose. For when the Prophets are joined to Moses, and have explained the spiritual meaning of his Law, and developed the hidden sense of it, I may well allow that from both together a learned Pharisee might collect the truth of the doctrine, without receding one tittle from my Argument.

III. "When the Lawyer in the Gospel (say these Objectors) had made that most important Demand*, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life, our "blessed Lord refers him to what was written in the "Law: and upon his giving a sound and judicious answer, approves of it, and for satisfaction to his

question, tells him, This do and thou shalt live." This is the objection. And to this, Saint Paul shall give an answer-Is the LAW then AGAINST the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin; that the promise by FAITH of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe*. We must therefore think that this Lawyer was better at distinctions than the Objector who brings him into his Cause, and inquired, (in this most important demand) of the AGENDA, not of the CREDENDA, in order to salvation. And so his words bear witness-What shall I Do to be saved?

IV. In what follows, I hardly think the Objectors can be serious. Search the Scriptures (says JESUS to the Jews) for in them YE THINK YE HAVE eternal life, —ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν--and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye MIGHT HAVE LIFE t. The homicide + Jews, to whom these words are addressed, THOUGHT they had eternal life in their Scriptures;-THEREFORE (say the Objectors) they had eternal Life. If I allow this therefore, they must allow me, anotherTHEREFORE the Mission of JESUS was vain, being anticipated by that of Moses, who brought life and immortality to light by the Law.And if righteousness came by the Law (says the Apostle) then is Christ dead in vain. This is a necessary consequence from the Objectors' interpretation, and gives us, to be sure, a very high idea of the reasoning of the ever blessed JESUS. By the same Art of inferring, I suppose too they will conclude, that, when St. Paul says to the unbelieving Jew-And thou art confident that

* Gal. iii. 21,

22.

John v. 39, 40.

✰ Ver. 16. thou

thou thyself art a guide to the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and a teacher of babes*; they will conclude, I say, that THEREFORE it was the Jew, and not St. Paul, who was indeed, the guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and a teacher of babes. In earnest, if JESUS, in these words, taught, that the Jewish Scriptures gave eternal life, (and the Jews could not have what their Scriptures did not give) he certainly taught a very different doctrine from St. PAUL, who expressly tells us, That IF THERE HAD BEEN a LAW GIVEN WHICH COULD HAVE GIVEN LIFE, VERILY RIGHTEOUSNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY THE LAW †. All therefore that these words of Jesus teach us is, that the Jews THOUGHT they had eternal life by the Mosaic Dispensation. For the truth of what is thus charged upon them, we have the concurrent testimony of the Apostles; Who wrote large portions of their EPISTLES to prove, not only that they thought so, but that they were greatly mistaken in so thinking. For the Author of the epistle to the Hebrews says, that unto the Angels [who delivered the Law to Moses] hath he [God] not put in subjection the WORLD TO COME, whereof WE speak t

But though we should suppose, the words-ye think ye have eternal life, considered separately, did not necessarily imply that these were only their thoughts, yet being opposed to the following words, Ye will not come to me that ye MIGHT HAVE LIFE, (Καὶ ἐ θέλετε ἐλθεῖν πρός με, ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε,) they shew, that whoever thought so besides, it was not JESUS, whose argument stands thus" The Scriptures, I affirm, and am ready to prove, do testify of me. What reason then have † Gal. iii. 21. Chap. ii. ver. 5.

Rom. ii. 19.

yo.