ral, because no other were fuitable to that age and feafon. And in the paffage referred to here below, he affirms, that prophecies, relating to the temporal affairs of the Jewish people, were neceffary under the Law, because the better hopes of futurity were not yet brought in (a). Now both these paffages evidently imply, that the Law was not given to administer spiritual hopes and promises revealed to the Patriarchs.

It is ftrange his Lordship should suppose, that prophecies, relating to temporal affairs, were neceffary to fupply the absence and omiffion of these very hopes, which were to be administered by the Law. For this is fuppofing that the Law did not answer the End of its inftitution, or did not adminifter and difS 2

penfe

(a)" You fee now upon what foot all the prophecies "inthe old Teftament ftand, which relate to the tempo"ral Concerns of the Jewish Nation; you fee like"wife the reason why this kind of prophecy has ceased " in the Christian Church. The Gospel is not founded "on temporal promises. The bringing in of better

hopes has vacated the promises of the Mofaic Cove→ "nant, and 'tis expected of us, after so much light * given, that our Faith should be proof against the ad"verfities of the world, without the help of a prophet "to foretel, or to reveal to us, in every Inftance, the "Counsel of God". Fifth Difcourfe.

penfe the doctrines which were to be administered and difpenfed by it.

of the Captivity,

His Lordship obferves, that, about the time "God thought fit to give more and plainer intimations of his purpose, « to establish the Kingdom of Righteousness, "than ever had been given before from the days of Adam. Now it was that God

taught his people plainly to expect a new "Covenant, a better than that made with "their Fathers (a)."

According to his Lordship's fyftem, this Christian Covenant had been revealed to the Patriarchs; and the Law was afterwards added in order to establish and preserve the hopes of it. And yet he here affures us, that God did not teach his people plainly to expect it, till about the Time of the Captivity. But furely they ought to have been plainly taught to expect it from the very firft, and the plain Revelation of it fhould have been coeval with the Law, if indeed it was inftituted for this use. Mofes and the Prophets muft have been fent to very little purpofe, if it was fo late before the People were plainly taught to expect what the Law had been originally inftituted to teach, namely, this better Covenant.

(a) P. 151.

But

But his Lordship's Hypothefis, which fupposes the Law given to preferve the fpiritual hopes and promises of the christian covenant, a covenant which had been previously revealed to the patriarchs, is inconfiftent with other paffages in his difcourfes on prophecy, already quoted. One of these informs us, that a plain and open expofition of these fpiritual hopes and promifes would have carried the Jews beyond the bounds of knowledge prescribed by God to that age of the World. (a) And will the learned Prelate fay, that the Law was given to adminifter doctrines utterly difproportionate to the times in which they were delivered?

He obferves too, that thefe fpiritual Bleffings were reprefented under the image of temporal profperity, or put under a carnal veil and cover (b). But can we suppose the Law would put a Veil or Cover over doctrines, which were to be promulged and published by it?

His Lordship is but little content with the opinion of those Writers, who are content with what the Law reprefents of itself; namely that it was given to preferve the knowledge

of the one true God amongst the Ifraelites, whilst it was loft every where else (a). He rejects this, as too low and narrow a defign; and maintains that it was intended for higher purposes, and given to adminifter the like hopes with the christian Covenant, But instead of enobling the Law

by

(a) The learned Dr Law after other learned Doctors, and with a like purpose, namely to prove that the one God was publicly worshiped by the Pagans, obferves that they had no less than three hundred Jupiters, or fupreme Gods." Confiderations, p. 113.

many

The feveral Appellations of Jupiter Ammon, Olympicus, Capitolinus, &c. might have fhewn him that the and different Jupiters were confidered only as fo many local and tutelar Deities. Had the Heathens therefore had three thousand Jupiters instead of three hundred, this would be no proof that they had one fupreme God.

But, after all, who was it that fpoke of these many and different Jupiters? Only the Philofophers, who, fearching into the origin of the Pagan Theology, found that their good Kings and Benefactors had been worshipped under the name of Jupiter, and therefore regarded them as fo many different Ju piters, i, e. as fo many Kings, who had affumed his name. Thus the philofophic Hiftory had indeed many Jupiters; but the popular Theology had only one.

Now will the learned Doctor fay, that the Philafophers had three hundred fupreme Gods, because they had discovered, that the name of Jupiter was given to fo many dead men ?

For

by loading it with thefe new honours, he has only intangled it with fresh difficulties, and enabled prophane men to attack it with more vigour and fuccefs; by fhewing that the nature of the two Difpenfations, the authority of the two Teftaments, and my Lord Bishop's own Conceffions, are all directly inconfiftent with this honourable Hypothefis (a).

For a full explanation of this point, I refer the Reader to the D. L. Vol. I. Part II. p. 37. Fourth Edition.

(a) Nor will the learned Dr Leland find his account of the Jewish Law less fubject to the embaraffments, which perplex the Syftem of the learned Prelate. For he holds, that it was given to revive the doctrines of the patriarchal Religion, which had been obfcured and depraved, and even almoft extinguished and defaced at that time. (b) And he contends also, that Redemption and a future State, were the principal of thefe doctrines. He may then in his next View of Deiftical Writings, if he so pleases, clap this book into the Number; and try, if he be fo difpofed, to remove the feveral Arguments advanced in this Chapter of it.

(b) View of the Deistical Writers.

CHAP.

S4