Had

together; he who is blind to the one, can found no rational hope on the other; since "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," and "he that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life." This passage indeed, as well as the others to the same purpose in the New Testament, though they imply the prevalence of this tenet among the Jews, and the general sincerity and strength of their conviction, do not by any means imply either that this their confident expectation was well founded on Scriptural evidence, or that their notions respecting a future life were correct. these last two circumstances been superadded (which is evidently impossible) to the general sincere reception of the doctrine, it could not have been said with any propriety that "Christ abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel." The truth probably is, that as the indications of a future state which are to be found in the prophets are mostly such as will admit of an interpretation referring them to a promise of temporal deliverance, those persons would most naturally so understand them, in the first instance at least,

who were so "slow of heart

"slow of heart" as to the prophecies respecting the Messiah, as to expect in him a glorious temporal prince only; while those who were more intelligent, and took in the spiritual sense of the prophecies relating to him, would be led to put the spiritual interpretation on the other also. I say, in the first instance, because when the belief of a future state had been introduced, from whatever quarter, and did prevail, all who held it, would naturally interpret in that sense whatever passages in their Scriptures seemed to confirm it. But it does not follow that such a belief was correct, even when supported by an appeal to passages of Scripture which really do relate to the doctrine in question; for if one part of a scheme be understood literally and carnally, and another part spiritually, the result will be a most erroneous compound; 'if eternal life be understood to be promised, but the character and kingdom of Christ who was to bring it to light and procure it, be misunderstood, the faith thus formed will be essentially incorrect. In fact, all the temporal promises of the Mosaic law have a spiritual signification; the land of

Canaan, and the victory and prosperity, to which the Israelites were invited, are types of the future glories prepared by Christ for his followers; but then the Law which they were to observe as their part of the covenant, with all its sacrifices and purifications, had a corresponding spiritual signification also; being types of the redeeming sacrifice of Christ, and of the faith and holiness of heart required of his followers. Those who understood both parts literally, were right as far as they went; for the observance of the Law did literally bring these promised temporal blessings as a reward; and those also are right, and are further enlightened, who perceive the spiritual signification of both parts: but it is an error to couple the spiritual interpretation of one part with the literal interpretation of the other; as those of the Jews did, who imagined that eternal life was the promised reward of obedience to the Law of Moses, and who looked for immortal happiness as the sanction of a religion to be propagated and upheld by a temporal Messiah. This incongruous mixture of part of the shadow with part of the substance, appears to have been an error of the

Jews of our Lord's time, which not only prevented most of them from believing in him, but in great degree clung to those even who admitted his pretensions. The efficacy of the observance of the Law in procuring the blessings of the life to come, blessings which were never promised as any part of the sanction of that Law, was so inveterate a persuasion among them, that they were for superadding these extinct legal observances to their faith in Christ; and even persuaded many of the Gentile converts (among the Galatians especially) that their profession of Christianity required them to "be circumcised and keep the Law" as a condition of salvation. So far then as any of the Jews disjoined the prophetic annunciations of immortality from those relating to the spiritual kingdom of Christ, and looked for eternal rewards as earned by obedience to the Mosaic Law, so far their expectations were groundless, their faith erroneous; even though resting on the authority of such parts of Scripture as, in a different sense, do relate to the doctrine in question.

It is highly probable, however, that the belief

of a future state, as it prevailed among the Jews in our Lord's time, and for a considerable period before, was not, properly speaking, drawn from their Scriptures in the first instance-was not founded on the few faint hints to be met with in their prophets; though these were evidently called in to support it; but was the gradual result of a combination of other causes with these imperfect revelations. For otherwise there would surely have been some notice in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (written after all the most important prophecies had been delivered) of so mighty a revolution having taken place in the minds of the Jews of their time, as a change from ignorance to a full conviction on so momentous a point, by a supposed decisive revelation.

Respecting the details of the rise and prevalence of the doctrine of a future state among the majority of the Jews, the scantiness of historical authority leaves us chiefly to our own conjectures. Without entering at large into a disquisition which must after all be obscured by much uncertainty, it may be allowable to suggest, that the Jews were likely to be much