"to have had any share in this people's thoughts, it never did "indeed make any part of their religious opinions." And again, "Their subterfuge is quite cut off, who pretend, that Moses did "not indeed propagate the doctrine of a future state of rewards “ and punishments, in writing, but, that he delivered it to tra"dition. For we see he was so far from teaching it, that he studiously contrived to keep it out of sight, nay, provided for "the want of it; and that the people were so far from being "influenced by it, that they had not even the idea of it."*

66

The authority of this learned writer would have raised considerable doubts in my mind, but that his own subsequent concessions, on the very same points, appear so different from the opinions I have now stated, as either entirely to overturn them, or at least limit them in such a manner as is perfectly consistent with the second position I have laid down. For, in the Sixth Book, sect. v. he thus explains his opinion: "But though it appears that a future state of rewards and punishments made "no part of the Mosaic dispensation, yet the law had certainly "a spiritual meaning, to be understood when the fulness of "time should come: And hence it received the nature, and "afforded the efficacy, of prophecy. In the interim, the mys "tery of the Gospel" (including by this learned writer's own definition, the doctrine of a future retribution" was occasionally "revealed by God to his chosen servants, the fathers and leaders of “the Jewish nation; and the dawning of it was gradually opened by the Prophets, to the people. And which is exactly agreeable "to what our excellent church, in its Seventh Article of Religion teacheth, concerning this matter:

66

66

"ARTICLE VII. -The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; "for both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered "to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and "man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the "old fathers did look only for transitory promises." +

66

It seems difficult to reconcile this tenet of the church with this learned writer's opinion, "that through the whole Old Testament, we never find any of the authors of the various "compositions it contains, acting on the motives or influenced by the prospect of future rewards and punishments."

66

* Warburton, Book V. sect. v. Vol. iv. p. 359.

Ibid. Book VI. sect. v. at the beginning, Vol. v. p. 194.

66

In truth, the mischief of rashly adopting a system, and forcing Scripture to bend to that system, is most conspicuous in this celebrated writer, on this subject. When he first states the idea, and adopts it as the basis of his reasoning, he advances in the most unqualified manner, "that throughout the whole “Old Testament, from Moses to the Captivity, the Israelites had "not the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments; "and that so much as an intelligible hint of it is not found in "the Mosaic law." In the passage immediately before us, he admits, “that it was occasionally revealed by God to his chosen "servants, the fathers and leaders of the Jewish nation; and "that it was gradually opened by the Prophets to the People." And in another passage he limits his assertion thus: "As my position is, that a future state of rewards and punishments was not taught in the Mosaic dispensation, all texts brought "to prove the knowledge of it, after the time of David, are as impertinent as the rest (for what was known from his time, “could not supply the want of what was unknown for so many ages before): this therefore puts all the prophetic writings out "of the question."* The direct opposition between the assertion, that it was unknown until the Captivity, and yet gradually opened by the Prophets after the time of David, is obviously the consequence of that excessive rapidity of reasoning, and obstinate adherence to a preconceived system, which are too plainly discernible in this celebrated writer. But the opinion I have above stated will, I trust, be found to combine the various truths which his system has exhibited, while it avoids the inconsistencies in which it is involved. I shall therefore endeavour to establish it by direct evidence, somewhat at large; as it is a point of considerable importance in contemplating the progress of the divine economy, and the connexion between the Jewish and the Christian schemes.

66

In the Mosaic account of the creation, the manner in which the formation of man is recorded, seems important in the view of this subject. God is represented as entering on this part of his work, as it were, with peculiar deliberation and solemnity: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our "likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, "and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all "the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the * Warburton, Book VI. sect. i. Vol. v. p. 9.

"earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of "God created he him: male and female created he them." "* The account is afterwards resumed. Of man alone, amidst all the tribes of animated nature, it is said, " And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils "the breath of life; and man became a living soul."+

66

66

The history having thus described the formation of this favoured creature, proceeds to relate the manner in which the divine goodness provided for his accommodation and support. "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and "there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant "to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the "midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and “evil. And the Lord God took the man and put him into the "garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it. And the Lord "God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden "thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that "thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."‡

66

When, after the fatal transgression of this easy command, God pronounced the sentence of judgment on the transgressors, he declares to the serpent, "Because thou hast done this thou "art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the 66 woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy "head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."§ To man he declares, "Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of

66

་་

it all the days of thy life. Thorns also and thistles shall it "bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return "unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou "art, and unto dust shalt thou return."||

But, notwithstanding this melancholy doom, God is represented as still prolonging the existence of our first parents, providing for their immediate comfort, and assuring them of a numerous posterity. "Adam called his wife's name Eve, "because she was the mother of all living. Unto Adam also

*Gen. i. 26, 27.

Ib. iii. 14, 15.

Ib. ii. 7.

|| Ib. ver. 17, 19.

Ib. 8, 9, 15-17.

"and to his wife, did the Lord God make coats of skins, and "clothed them."* Then follows a very remarkable passage, which is peculiarly worthy of attention, on this subject: "And "the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to "know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand, " and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever; "therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of "Eden, to till the ground, from whence he was taken. So he "drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden "of Eden, cherubins, and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."+

From the entire of this account it seems clearly deducible, that man, by his original constitution, was destined for immortality. When God is said to have created man after his own image, surely it is no straining of this expression to interpret it as denoting not only reason and freedom of will, moral rectitude, and the power of dominion over inferior animals, but also a nature capable of and designed for immortality, without which, all the preceding endowments, however exalted and splendid, would have been so transient and ineffectual, so vainly and unworthily bestowed. When of all animated beings, it is asserted of man alone, that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and that man became a living soul; we cannot

*Gen. iii. 20, 21.

Ib. iii. 22, &c. "living soul," w

I am aware that the words which are translated are the same which are employed in Gen. i. 30, to denote all inferior animals in which "is life," or as it is more accurately rendered in the margin of our Bibles, "a living "soul." But my argument is, that man alone being made after the image of God, man alone being described, as having received from God immediately the breath of life; and man alone being represented capable of living for ever, by partaking of the tree of life; the whole tenor of the history marks him out as in his original nature, destined for immortality; and that the divine promise of a future deliverer, inspiring a strong assurance of mercy, must have produced an humble but confident hope in every pious, reflecting and believing mind, of being ultimately restored to this privilege of immortality. This interpretation of the Sacred History is justified by the most respectable authorities, ancient and modern. The Targum of Onkelos, though it retains in Gen. i. 30, the original expression, common to men and inferior animals, of a living soul; yet in Gen. ii. 7, substitutes the expression, of a spirit enjoying the capacity of speech, and the Arabic version renders the same verse, "And Adam was made a rational soul;" thus showing how strongly these translators felt the reasonableness of distinguishing the principle of life in man and inferior animals. And in this distinction, the Targum of Jonathan B. Uziel concurs with the Targum of Onkelos, in adopting the same expression in Gen. ii. 7. Vide Biblia Polyglotta Waltoni.

much dissent from those commentators, who conceive the breath of life, thus immediately derived from God, partook of the immortality of its divine Author, and that the living soul which man thus acquired, deserved that title much more eminently than the animating principle of any of the brute creation, all of which are described as formed with such different views, and sharing so inferior a degree of their Creator's favour. And, finally, to prove clearly that man was originally intended for immortality, we are told that the tree of life was placed in the midst of the garden, whose efficacy was such, that if man was permitted to take of it, he would live for ever. Can it be denied that these passages suggest some intelligible hint of immortal

"It is not to be doubted," (says Perrerius) "that from these few words, in which "Moses has related the creation of a rational spirit, it may be proved that the soul is "immortal; which Moses has frequently intimated both in this and his other books." "And Rivetus on this passage, disputes at large on the immortality of the soul. "S. Method. Conviv. Virg. p. 75, asserts, "It is false doctrine, that the immortal "substance of the mind, which God himself breathed into us, was generated along with "the mortal and frail substance of the body." Cyrill Alex. de Adorat. lib. x. Vol. I. p. 356, and Comment. in Joan, lib. v. p. 471, resolves the immortality of the soul into "the virtue and support of the divine breath breathed into man." "Man," says Theodoret and several of the ancient Fathers, "must be certainly admitted to a noble "share of divine intelligence and ideas, since these were a privilege breathed into him "by his Maker at his creation, a dignity and eminence of nature superior to that of all "other animals."

The expression of the image of GOD also plainly implies the idea of the soul's immortality, according to the best commentators. Abarbinel explains it to mean, "' an 66 approach to the divine likeness in understanding, freedom of choice, spirituality and "immortality." And Tertullian contra Marcion, cap. ix. "Habent illas ubique "lineas DEI, qua immortalis anima, qua libera, et sui arbitrii, qua prescia plerumque, 66 qua rationalis, capax intellectus et scientiæ." Vatablus and Paulus Fagius make this image to consist "in immortality, innocency, holiness, and the other perfections of the "soul, as well as in man's dominion over inferior animals." The learned and judicious Edwards, in his Survey of the various Methods of Religion, Vol. I. p. 13, and 17. observes, "Besides the dominion over the creatures, and something in the outward man, "the image of God consists chiefly in the soul: first, as this part of us is of an im"material and spiritual nature, and such is God, he is a spirit,' John iv. 24. Again "the soul of man is immortal, and therein is God's image and representation. This "indeed follows upon the former quality; it being immaterial and incorporeal, it must "needs be in its own nature incorruptible; herein we signally resemble the Deity. "And therefore it is rightly asserted by St Augustin, that because of the immor"tality of the soul, though not only for that, man is said to be made after God's image." Vide also Taylor's Scheme of Scripture Divinity, ch. v. the three last paragraphs, which express the same sentiments. Vide also Poli Synopsis, Patrick, and Bibliotheca Biblica

on Genesis. i. 26, and ii. 7.