knowledge of this great mystery, than "God thought fit to reveal to the Jewish "church f."

The confequence of these two affertions is, that his Lordihip muft fuppofe this grand article was more plainly and distinctly revealed to the faithful before the Law, than to those who lived under it; or that the Prophecies concerning the redemption of mankind, which had been given before this period, were far more plain, open, and explicit than those which fucceeded them. And yet fuch a fuppofition is directly repugnant to his main fyftem, and will oblige him even to invert the order which he has affigned to the ancient Prophecies. For he holds that the scheme of our redemption was a myftery opened and unfolded gradually in a long order and chain of Prophecies, fo circumstanced, that the fucceffive ones are fuppofed to' throw additional light and evidence on those which went before, or to contain more full, exact, and perfect descriptions of the grand article, which was the common fubject of them all.

Here then, I fay, it unluckily happens, that this notion of the gradual order and progreffion of prophecy is entirely overthrown by his Lordship's own account of this text, which P. 227, 228.

age

mystery was gradually

fuppofes that the Prophecies, given in the of fob, describe this mystery more plainly and exactly, than thofe of Mofes and the Prophets under the Law. He must therefore no longer fay, that this opened and difplayed, but rather that it was gradually darkened and obfcured by the prophecies of this later period. For it was plainly revealed in the age of Job, and wrapped up under dark, myftical, and ænigmatical representations in the time of Mofes and the Prophets. Thus the Law would have been given to cloud and eclipfe the preceding Revelations, or to ftifle and extinguish the radiance of that light which fhone forth fo brightly under the patriarchal Difpenfation.

We have often urged the typical and fecondary prophecies, relating to redemption and a future ftate, as fubverfive of thecommon fyftem: For that the very mode of information implies, that the doctrines conveyed under them were not openly revealed at this time. The fame prophecies, if confidered as part or links of a gradual and progreffive chain, will enable us to make the fame conclufion: For typical and fecondary prophecies, in the natural order and courfe of things, could not be preceeded by primary, literal, and direct ones. Therefore no primary, literal, and

direct revelations (I mean fuch as were communicated to the body of the faithful) of a future ftate were made before the Law.

There are other prophecies, which represent the fpiritual nature and promises of the Gospel under temporal and carnal images. These too I have urged as deftructive of the common system, fince they imply that the fpiritual nature and promises of the Gospel were not clearly revealed at that time, Thefe alfo, if confidered as parts and links of a gradual and progreffive chain, will equally tend to the ruin and fubverfion of his Lordship's fyftem. For the natural order and progreffion of the chain will not permit us to fuppofe, that fuch obfcure and highly figurative prophecies could be posterior to, or even coeval with, any plain, literal, and direct ones.

His Lordship thinks it no improbable fuppofition, "that the few faithful in the time "of Job might have the doctrine contained in this paffage as a traditionary expofition of the promises of God, grounded upon more express revelations, made either before, "or foon after the flood, than have come "down to our times "."

Difcourfes on Prophecy, p. 238.

It is ftrange his Lordship should not perceive, that the fuppofition of fuch plain and early revelations breaks in upon the order, and destroys the uniformity of his fyftem. For this is affigning more clear, perfect, and diftinct revelations of this myftery, to the first ages of the world, than to the Jewish church under the Law. And what can be more inconfiftent, than to fuppofe, that the first and higher links of the chain conveyed greater degrees of light and knowledge than many of the later and lower; while, at the fame time, it is fuppofed that the general fubject of them all was opened and unfolded gradually?

If this Myftery had been clearly revealed about the time of the Flood, there could have been no occafion for a long chain of prophecies afterwards, to difcover and open it gradually and by parts. In the nature and reafon of the thing, we never can imagine, that an order of partial, inadequate, and defective revelations could be feasonable and proper, if the common fubject of them all had been completely revealed before. Whenever this was done,the chain must of course fall in pieces. Job must have had his hand on the last link, as we can look for nothing farther in the natural order and progreffion of things, than

a plain

a plain prophetical description of the grand article of the Gospel.

His Lordship contends for a long chain of prophecies, given almoft from the beginning of the world, and ending with the later Jewish prophets. Dr. Middleton treats this as a fanciful and romantic fcheme; and pretends that no prophecies, relating to the Meffiah, were given before the time of Mofes, But it seems he has mistaken one end of this famous CHAIN for the other end. He fhould not have said it did not begin fo foon, but that it ended much fooner than the period affigned by his learned adverfary. For if the whole matter of the chain was compofed at the time of the flood, there it must have ended, and not a link more could be added to it.

The extent of the chain therefore is shortened as well by my Lord Bishop as by his antagonist. The only difference is, that they begin their work at the two oppofite ends. The hypothefis of the learned Prelate takes away many of the lower, and the criticism of the learned Doctor cuts off moft of the upper links of the chain.

His Lordship informs us, that the great purpose of his treatise, "was to fhew the use

↳ Examination of the Bishop of London's Discourses.

"and