this temporal life only, because the best men were often cut off in the midst of their days, and frequently suffered greater adversities than the most profligate sinners. The Jews therefore have constantly believed that it had a respect to the life to come. When the lawyer in the gospel 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 making a sound and judicious answer, approves of it; and for satisfaction to his question, tells him, This do, and thou

shalt live."

The objector would have the promise of life in Leviticus to signify eternal life. But St Paul himself had long ago decided this question, and declared for the negative. A dispute arose between him, and the judaizing Christians, concerning what it was which justified before God, or entitled to that eternal life brought to light by the gospel. They held it to be the works of the law (believing perhaps, as the objector assures us they did, that this text, in Leviticus, had a respect to the life to come): St Paul, on the contrary, affirms that it was faith in Jesus the Messiah. And thus he argues-" But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live in them."† As much as to say "That no man can obtain eternal life by virtue of the law is evident from one of your own prophets [Hab.], who expressly holds, that the just shall LIVE by FAITH.‡ Now, by the law, no rewards are promised to faith, but to works only. The man that DOETH them," says the law in Leviticus, § "shall live in them." Here then we see that this very text, which the objector brings to prove that eternal life was by the law, St Paul urges, to prove that it was not by the law. Let us attend to the apostle's argument. He is to show that justification, or eternal life, is by faith. This he does even on the concession of a Jew, the prophet Habakkuk; who expressly owns it to be by faith. But the law, says the apostle, attributes nothing to faith; but, to DEEDS only, which if a man Do he shall live in them. Now, if, by life, be here meant, as the objector supposes, eternal life, then St Paul's argument does not come out as he intended it; namely, that faith, and not the works of the law, justifies; but thus, that both faith and the works of the law justify, which would have satisfied these Judaizers, as reconciling on their own prejudices Moses and Habakkuk; but would, by no means, have satisfied our apostle; whose conclusion, on this question, where discussed at large, in his epistle to the Romans, is, "that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT the deeds of the law." || The very drift of his argument therefore shows us, that he must necessarily understand the life, promised in this text of Leviticus, to be TEMPORAL life only. But charitably studious, as it were, to prevent all possible chance of our mistaking him on so important a point, he immediately subjoins, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law."* Now we know that our redemption by Christ was from that death which the first man brought into the world; the curse which he entailed upon his posterity. Therefore the transferring this term from Adam to the law, shows plainly that in the apostle's sentiments, the law had no more a share in the redemption of fallen man than Adam himself had. Yet it is certain, that if the law, when it is said, He who keeps these statutes and judgments shall live in them, meant, for ever, it proposed the redemption of mankind as completely as the blessed Jesus himself did, when he said, he that believeth in me shall have everlasting life. This becomes demonstrable, if St Paul's reasoning will hold, who surely had heard nothing of this prerogative of the law, when he said, If there had been a LAW given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Where observe, I pray you, the force of the word ζωοποιῆσαι, which signifies to quicken, or to make alive; plainly intimating the same he had said in the place quoted before, that those in subjection to the law were under a curse, or in the state of death. Let me add only this further observation, that if (as this objector pretends) by life in the text of Leviticus be meant eternal life; and if (as the apostle pretends) by life, in the text of Habakkuk, be meant eternal life; then will Moses and Habakkuk be made directly to contradict one another; the first giving that eternal life to WORKS, which the latter gives to FAITH. But Dr Stebbing would insinuate, that Jesus himself seems to have affixed this sense to the text in Leviticus; however, that the plain inference is that eternal life was taught at least, if not obtained by the law. "When the lawyer in the gospel," says he, "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 making a sound and judicious answer, approves of it; and for satisfaction to his question, tells him, This do and thou shalt live." - Would not any one now conclude, from the sense here put upon the words of Jesus, that the sound and judicious answer of the lawyer must have been a quotation of the text in Leviticus, - Ye shall keep my statutes, which if a man do he shall live in them; or at least some general promise made to the observers of the whole law of Moses? No such matter. On the contrary, the lawyer's answer was a quotation of only one precept of the law, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. and thy neighbour as thyself. Now how much soever we may differ about a future state's being held out by the law, through a Messiah to come, I suppose we are both agreed that faith in the Messiah, either actual or imputed, is necessary to obtain this future state. There are but two ways then of understanding this text of St Luke, neither of which is to his purpose. The first is the supposing that Jesus included faith in himself in this precept of loving God with all the heart, &c., which will appear no forced interpretation to him who holds Jesus to be really and truly God;

as, I imagine, the Doctor does; and may be supported by a circumstance in the story as told by St Matthew,* though omitted by St Luke, which is, Jesus's saying, that on these two commandments hang all the law and the PROPHETS. The second and exacter interpretation is, that Jesus spoke to a professing follower, who pretended to acknowledge his mission, and wanted only a RULE OF LIFE. For Jesus was here preaching the gospel to his disciples, and a lawyer stood up and TEMPTED him, that is, on the false footing of a disciple, required a rule of life. Now in either case, this reference of Jesus to the law must imply this, and this only, that without righteousness and holiness no man shall see the Lord. A point in which, I suppose, we are agreed. But still the Doctor will say that these words of Jesus allude to the words of Moses. Admit they do. It will not follow, as he seems to think, that they were given to explain them. How many allusions are there in the New Testament to passages in the Old, accommodated to a spiritual sense, where the texts alluded to are seen, by all but fanatics, to have only a carnal? And even in this very allusion, if it be one, we find that the promise made to the observers of the whole law is transferred to the observance of one single precept, in the moral part of it. But let us grant him all he would have; and admit that these words of Jesus were given to explain the words of Moses. What would follow from thence, but that the promise in Leviticus had a secondary sense of a spiritual and sublimer import? Will this give any advantage to the Doctor and his party? Surely none at all. And yet the abuse of this concession is all they have to support themselves in their determined opposition to common

sense.

6. A law in Leviticus is delivered in these terms, "Whoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Moloch, he shall surely be put to death." † Let me first explain the text, before I show how it is perverted. There were two cases in which the offender here described might escape punishment: either the crime could not be legally proved, or the magistrate might be remiss in punishing. The divine lawgiver obviates both: and declares that the infanticide, in such case, shall suffer death by God's own hand in an extraordinary manner. The supplial of the first defect, is in these words, - " And I will set my face against the man, and will CUT HIM OFF FROM AMONGST HIS PEOPLE." The supplial of the second is in these: -" And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Moloch, and kill him not, then I will set my face against that man and against his family, and will CUT HIM OFF."§ So much for the sense of the text. And now for the nonsense of our interpreter, a professor of law and divinity, the egregious Dr RUTHERFORTH. This sage provision for the execution of the law our professor being totally unconscious of, he insists "that cutting off from amongst his people can only mean Ver. 4, 5.

eternal damnation, the being consigned to a state of punishment in another life." P. 33. He is, as I say, a dealer both in law and divinity: but not having yet learned the use of his tools, he confounds law by theology, and depraves theology by law: and of this the reader has already seen some delectable instances. But at present, to regulate a little his law ideas, let him turn to Exodus xii. 15, and Leviticus vii. 25, and he will find that the cutting off from Israel, and the cutting off from the people, are phrases which signify only capital punishment of a civil kind. Unless he will suppose that what is there threatened for eating leavened bread and prohibited fat, is ETERNAL LIFE IN TORMENTS.

7. The PSALMIST, in a holy confidence of God's mercies, says, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fulness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."* -The scope of the whole psalm is to implore the protection of God, from this consideration, that the psalmist himself not only stedfastly adheres to the law of God, but is ready to give his aid and support to all those who do-That the vengeance of God pursues idolatry, which he carefully avoids-That the God of Israel is his portion, and the land of Canaan a fair inheritance - That this stedfast adherence to the Lord, is his confidence and peace-Then follow the words in question, That he is sure, God will not leave his soul in hell, &c., &c. that is, suffer him to fall immaturely, as was the lot of the transgressors of the law :-And concludes, that walking in the law of God is both the highest pleasure, and strongest security. All which is expressed in terms so magnificent, as to show, indeed, that this psalm hath a spiritual as well as literal meaning. And that spiritual meaning St Peter hath explained to us:† Indeed, if Dr Stebbing's word were to be taken, the apostle hath explained it in a manner which overthrows all our reasoning. St Peter, says the Doctor, claims this passage [Ps. xvi. 10, 11.] as relating to Christ's resurrection."‡ But how does he claim it? No otherwise than by giving it a secondary sense. Now the learned Doctor himself contends that the secondary sense of the prophecies was purposely concealed and secreted from the Jewish church: consequently, the resurrection, the very doctrine which the secondary sense of this text conveys, was secreted from it. But then, the Doctor says, that "in the primary sense David declares his expectation of a future state, not in consequence of any promise of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." The result then of the Doctor's exposition is this, that the same text may serve to prove that the spiritual sense of the law was and was not revealed at this time. The verse has a primary sense which reveals a future state and a secondary sense which hides and secretes it. But he insists much upon the following words of the text-In thy presence is fulness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures evermore. "Expressions," says the Doctor, "much too great to describe any WORLDLY HAPPINESS."§-I readily * Ps. xvi, 10, 11. † Acts ii. 25-29. ‡ Exam. p. 49. § Id. ib.

confess it was no worldly happiness which is here described: for to be in the presence of God signified the same as to appear before the ark, Ps. xvii. 15, and to enjoy pleasures there for evermore, the same as dwelling in the house of the Lord for ever, i. e. all his days, Ps. xxiii. 6. a spiritual happiness, sure, though enjoyed in this world.

But the texts of texts, the precious ones indeed, are those where a HELL is mentioned; as here thou shalt not leave my soul in hell.* And of this orthodox consolation there is no scarcity in the Old Testament. Mr Whiston assures us, it is almost five times as often mentioned as in the New. It may be so. However, instead of examining into the justness of this nice calculation, I shall choose rather to consider what is to be understood by the word, than how often it is repeated. Now, I suppose neither I nor my answerers can have any reasonable objection to St John's authority in this matter; who speaking, in the book of revelation, of the useless old furniture of the LAW, says and DEATH and HELL were cast into the LAKE OF FIRE: this is the second death. From hence it appears that the HELL of the Old Testament was a very different thing from the HELL of the New, called, the lake of fire; since the one is made the punishment, or at least the extinction of the other. And to remove all doubt, the apostle, we see, calls this casting into the lake, a second death. Must not then the lake itself be a second hell? And if so, could the first or the Old Testament HELL be any other than the GRAVE? The next words tell us, that "whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire."‡ So that the sense of the whole seems to be this, that at the consummation of things (the subject here treated of) all physical and moral evil shall be abolished.

8. Again, the psalmist says; "Deliver my soul from the wickedfrom the men of the world-which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure. - As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness." Many moral and mystical commentators (and perhaps our English translators themselves, as one would think from the turn of their language) understood these words as literally pointing, in one verse, to a future state, and in the other to a resurrection. And in this, the dissenter, Leland, as I remember, in some of his things, seems much to triumph. But I shall show that it means nothing less.

They have their portion in THIS life, say our translators, who, with great piety, had their heads full of ANOTHER. Whereas the original word literally signifies in vitis, the Hebrew being a plural word and having no singular: which, by the way, let me observe, is a convincing proof that the ideas of the common users of this language were only employed about this life; had they been conversant, like us, with another, they would soon have found a singular to their plural. This will be thought a strange paradox by those I have to do with, who do not know that plural nouns are often words of amplification, not of number. Ps. xvii. 14, 15.

Ps. xvi. 10.

† Chap. xx. 14.

‡ Ver. 15.