you to disown my character? it cannot surely be, because I preach up a new Doctrine of life and immortality. For you yourselves teach that doctrine: and what is more, you understand several passages in your own Scriptures, to signify eternal life; which I own, in their spiritual meaning do so. Now that life which you think you HAVE by your Scriptures, but HAVE NOT, do I here offer unto you, THAT YE MIGHT indeed HAVE LIFE." But if men had duly considered this discourse of Jesus to the unbelieving Jews, they would have seen the main drift and purpose of it was to rectify this fatal mistake of theirs, in thinking they had eternal life in their Scriptures. In one place he tells them, that those who heard his word had passed from DEATH to life*. And again, the hour is coming, and now is, when the DEAD shall hear the voice of the Son of Godt. Where, by Death and the Dead, is meant the condition of those under the Law, subject to the condemnation of mortality.

V. The Objectors have produced St. Paul likewise to confute the Principle here laid down. This Apostle, in his epistle to the Romans, says-" For as many as "have sinned without Law, shall also perish without "law; and as many as have sinned in the Law, shall "be

be judged by the Law." Now, say the Objectors, "had the Law concealed a future state from the Jews, it is plain they were not equitably dealt with, since they were to be judged in a future state." This brings to mind an objection of Lord Bolingbroke's against the divinity of Moses's Law; and the answer which this text enabled me to give to Him, will shew, that in these words of St. Paul, the Objectors have chosen the most unlucky text for their purpose in the whole New Testament. His Lordship's objection is in these words, + Ver. 25. † Chap. ii. ver. 12.

John v. 24.

"If Moses knew that crimes were to be punished in "another life, he deceived the people [in not acquainting them with the doctrine of a future state]. "If he did not know it, I say it with horror, that "God deceived both him and thein.-The Israelites "had better things to hope, and worse to fear," &c. Now not to repeat what has been replied to this impious charge, elsewhere, I will only observe, that the words of St. Paul above are à full confutation of it, where he says, that as many as have sinned in the Law, shall be judged by the Law: that is, shall be judged on the principles of a Law which denounced punishment to vice, and reward to virtue. Those who had already received the punishment which that Law denounced should be judged to have done so; those, who in the times of the gradual decay of the extraordinary providence had escaped or evaded punishment, should have it hereafter. Nothing is clearer than this interpretation. For observe, I pray you, the difference of the predication between wicked men without the Law, and the wicked men under the Law. The first shall perish, amoxilas: the second shall be judged, xinola, or brought to trial. For though xgivw be often used in the New Testament for xalaxgivw, yet it is plain, that it is not so used here, both from the sense of the place, and the Apostle's change of terms, for which I think no good reason can be assigned but this, that κριθήσονται is opposed to ἀπολυαι. From all this, I think, it appears, that my Objectors were as much mistaken in their urging this text against my principles, as the noble Lord in supposing that the reality of a future state was a condemnation of the equity of the Law.. But both took it for granted, and

*Sce A View of Lord Bolingbroke's Philosophy, vol. xii. pp. 260, &c. of this Edition.

foolishly

foolishly enough, that those who did not live under the sanction of a future state could never, consistently with justice, be summoned before the Tribunal there erected.

II.

We are now got to the very Palladium of the cause, the famous eleventh chapter to the Hebrews: where it is said, that by FAITH, Abel, Encch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, &c. performed all their acceptable works-That they looked for an heavenly city-That they saw the Promises afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and desired an heavenly country-That they all died in faith -That Moses est cemed the reproach of CHRIST greater riches than the treasures of Egypt-That by faith the Jewish leaders did all their great and marvellous works-That their very women despised death, in hopes to obtain a part in the resurrection of the just-And that all these obtained a good report THROUGH FAITH.

This, say the Objectors, plainly shews, that a future state of Rewards and Punishments, or more properly, the Christian Doctrine of Life and Immortality, was taught by the LAW.-To which I answer,

1. That if this be true, the eleventh chapter directly contradicts all the rest of the Epistle: In which, as we have shown, there are more express declarations, that life and immortality was not known or taught by the Law, than in all the other books of the New Testament besides. And for which, indeed, a very good reason may be assigned, as it was solely addressed to the Jews, amongst whom this fatal prejudice, that a future state was taught by the Law, was then, and has continued ever since to be, the strongest impediment to their Conversion. For is it possible, that a Writer, who had said, that the Law made nothing

4

perfect,

perfect, but the BRINGING IN OF A BETTER HOPE DID; That CHRIST hath obtained a more excellent ministry than MOSES, by how much also he is the MEDIATOR OF A BETTER COVENANT, which is established upon BETTER PROMISES;-That the Law WAS ONLY A SHADOW OF GOOD THINGS TO COME, and not the very image; is it possible, I say, that such a Writer should forget himself before he came to the end of his Epistle, and, in contradiction to all this, affirm that Life and Immortality was known and taught under the Law? We may venture to say then, that this eleventh chapter must have a very different meaning. Let us see if we can find it out: and sure it requires no great search.

2. The whole argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews is directed against Jews and judaizing Christians. The point in difference was this: The Gospel taught JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH: The Judaizers thought it must needs be by woRKS. One consequence of which, in their opinion, was, that the Law of Moses was still in force. They had no more conception than our modern Socinians and Freethinkers, that there could be any merit in FAITH or Belief, where the understanding was unavoidably determined by evidence. The Reader sees then, that the dispute was not whether faith in Moses or faith in JESUS made men acceptable to Gop; but whether works or the act of believing; consequently, where the Apostle shews it was faith, or the act of believing, he must mean faith in the generic sense, not in the specific, i.e. he did not mean faith in Jesus: for the Jews, even that part of them which embraced JESUS as the Messiah, denied it to be any kind of faith whatsoever. On the contrary, had they held justification to be by faith in Moses, and not in JESUS, then it had been

the

the Apostle's business to prove, that it was the specific faith in JESUS. But as the dispute stood, all he had to do was to prove that it was the act of beliecing, and not works, which justified. And this we find he does with infinite address; by shewing, that that thing which made all the Patriarchs before the Law, and all the Rulers and Prophets under the Law, acceptable to GOD, was not works, but faith. But then what kind of faith? Doubtless faith in God's promises: for he is arguing on their own concessions. They admitted their ancestors to have had that faith*: they did not admit that they had faith in CHRIST. For the Apostle therefore to assert this, had been a kind of begging the question. Thus we see that not only the pertinency, but the whole force of the reasoning turns upon our understanding faith, in this chapter, to mean faith in the God of their fathers.

But the Apostle's own definition of the word puts the matter out of question. We have said, the dispute between him and the Jewish Converts necessarily required him to speak of the efficacy of faith in the generic sense. Accordingly his definition of FAITH is, that it is THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN t. Not of faith in the Messiah, but of belief in general, and on good grounds. Indeed very general, according to this Writer; not only belief of the future, but the past. It is, says he, the substance of things hoped for; and this he illustrates by Noah's reliance on God's promise to save him in the approaching deluge ‡. It is, again, the evidence of things not seen; and this he illustrates by our belief that the worlds were framed

Thus their Prophet Habakkuk had said, The just shall live by his faith, chap. ii. ver: 4.

+ Heb. xi. 1.

1 Ver. 7.

by