Hence it arose, that with regard to a future state, a great difference is observable between the language of the ancient prophets, and the popular opinions of the Jews at the Christian æra. It may seem surprising now to us, when we read their Scriptures with eyes enlightened by subsequent discoveries, that there should have been any dissentients from the doctrine of the future existence and responsibility of mankind. But their example shows us the difference between prophetic hints or allusions to a truth, and positive declarations: between analogical conclusions, and the explicit assertions of a law, of which future rewards and punishments are the sanction.

The Jew, then, speaking of the nation generally, was no more in a state, than his heathen neighbour, from his previous habits of thinking, to invent or receive a religion like the Christian. His views of futurity had nothing clear or positive about them.. His usual train of thought seldom carried him beyond this world; and when it did, he was under no apprehension;

therefore he was not prepared, without further conviction, to believe any thing, or to resign any thing, for the sake of an uncertain future. He was no more ready to embrace, than he was likely to conceive, the precept, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth." It would be new to him to hear the positive assurance, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal."

II. If there was no acknowledgment of sinfulness, if there was no feeling of consequent danger, no" fearful expectation of judgment:"

there could be, of course, no preparation for the great and leading article of the Gospel, the doctrine of redemption. That in pity for the condition of mankind, God had sent his Son into the world to make an atonement for their sins, and to ransom from eternal condemnation as many as should believe in his name, and receive him as their Saviour: this was a declaration, which nothing in the previous opinion or expectations of either Jews or heathen tended to make credible or popular.

The heathen, indeed, had been accustomed to propitiate their deities by sacrifice; and such offerings made an important part of their national worship. We find, too, from history, that among nations as widely separated from each other, as the Druids in Gaul, and the Persians and Indians in the East, the remarkable custom of offering human sacrifices prevailed. And although we are not acquainted, from any clear authority, with the notions upon which this custom was originally founded, we cannot easily account for its existence, except from a dread of divine anger, and a vague hope of averting this from the head of one victim to that of another. The explanation is most probable, if I do not assume too much in saying so, which represents it as a fragment of early revelation, broken off from the system, of which it

31 The position maintained by Dr. Priestley, that "in no nation, ancient or modern, Jew or heathen, has any idea of a doctrine of atonement, or of any requisite for forgiveness, save repentance and reformation, ever existed," is so inconsistent with fact, that it is surprising he should have ventured the assertion. Magee, i. 292. Yet the ideas which did exist on that subject were far too vague and indefinite to become a foundation for the doctrines of the Gospel.

formed a part, and carried down along the stream of time after its object and purpose had been forgotten. For, whatever may have been the origin of the practice, we know enough of the heathen sacrifices, and the prayers which accompanied them, to be assured that this mode, of worship was rather a compliance with ancient custom, than a solemn offering of which any reasonable account could be given. It did not convey, generally, any idea of substitution, or arise from any sense of personal danger. It had been the practice of their ancestors, the practice of the country; and as such it was maintained. And the idea which attended it was rather that of expensive purchase, than of vicarious suffering32. When Jesus declared, that he came " to give his life a ransom for many;" and when Peter affirms, "that Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree; that he once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God 33, we are presented with a clear and definite idea; nothing like which was conveyed by the hea

32 Δωρα θεες πείθει, και αιδοιες βασιληάς.
Placatur donis Jupiter ipse datis.

66

33 Matt. xx. 28. 1 Pet. ii. 24. iii. 18.

then sacrifices, or the petitions offered together with them, which expressed the anxiety of the worshippers for some temporal good, and, at the same time, betrayed their ignorance and indifference concerning a future state.

Among the Jews, vicarious sacrifices formed a very remarkable part of their worship; and, by the law which enacted them, were declared to convey an acknowledgment of demerit, and to be intended as a propitiation for sin, in language too clear to be mistaken. But the Jews did not look to any thing beyond the actual sacrifice ordained by their law. They considered it as being perfect and sufficient in itself, and did not expect any ulterior fulfilment, much less such a fulfilment as the Gospel declared. They had never been accustomed to interpret their Scriptures in this way. It was there predicted in a prophecy, confessedly relating to the Messiah, that he should "be cut off, but not for himself 34." But they had never applied this and other passages of similar import to the ac

34 Dan. ix. 26.