CHAP. V.

Containing an Inquiry, How far the Doctrine advanced in my Lord Bishop's Sixth Sermon, affects the argument of the DIVINE LEGATION; How far it tends to establish the credit of MOSES, and the PROPHETS: And how far it is confiftent with the other parts of his Lordship's theological System.

HE Doctrine advanced in this Ser

ΤΗ

mon, is, "That all the former Re"velations had left the principle of a fu"ture ftate involved in doubts and obfcuri"ties, or embarraffed with difficulties and

uncertainties, which were to be illustrated "and made plain by Jefus Chrift." (a) Now all these doubts and obfcurities, these difficulties and uncertainties, are fuppofed to arife from the want of the knowledge of the RESURRECTION, which his Lordship suppofes neceffary, to fix and establish men in the full

(a) This is afferted in the five firft pages, 187-191.

full perfuafion and belief of a future life. (b) Confiftently with this doctrine he can affign to no prior Syftem of Religion whatfoever, any clear and evident revelation of a future ftate. The neceffary confequence of this, is, that it was not intended for the SANCTION of any prior Syftem of Religion. For had it been intended for the Sanction of the Patriarchal and Jewish Difpenfations, it ought to have been revealed before and under the Law, with the utmost clearness and precision, or such a degree of light and evidence, as would have been fufficient to dispel all doubts and uncertainties concerning it. It ought at least to have been delivered with fo much clearnefs and precifion, as to leave no room to doubt, whether it was revealed in the Patriarchal and Jewish Religions.

"The great advantage the World has over Religion (fays his Lordship) lies in "the Certainty and Reality of its objects, "which flow in upon us at every sense. To

supply this defect on the part of Reli"gion, Revelation was given to affure us "of the certainty and reality of THINGS FU<< TURE; without which affurance they could

(b) 205-209.

❝ have

" have no effect or influence on our affee

❝tions." (a)

Here his Lordship supposes that nothing but a full perfuafion and affurance of a future ftate, unimpaired by any mixture of fufpicion and doubt, could be fufficient to establish and support the Interefts of Religion. Now as he afferts, that no fuch affurance and perfuafion could be derived from the Revelations which were vouchfafed to the Patriarchal and Jewish Churches; I would beg leave to ask how this deficiency was fupplied, or what particular difpenfation of Providence was made ufe of, to preferve Religion, without affording any perfect affurance, or full perfuafion of a future Life?

If any fuch adminiftration of Providence, was really exercifed; what have his Lordfhip, or his Followers, to object to the Arguments of the D. L.? If no fuch adminiftration of Providence was exercised, why did not the ancient Revelations give evident proof and demonstration of the certainty of a future Life, inftead of leaving it clouded and enveloped with the doubts and obfcurities complained of?

As his Lordship contends, that nothing lefs than a perfect affurance of the certainty

(a) Serm. Vol. I. P. 395,

tainty and reality of another life, can have any effect and influence on our affections, or be fufficient to move the fprings of action; He must own, that, with regard to their practical influence, there was no material difference between a dark and uncertain Revelation which did not afford fuch afsurance; and no Revelation of a future flate, at all.

To elude the Argument of the D. L. we must suppose that the Jewish Revelation afforded a clear and perfect afsurance of the certainty and reality of another Life. Now as the doctrine of his Lordship's Sermon will not permit us to make such a suppofition, it will not permit us to oppose this argument. (a) Whatever therefore his Followers may fuggeft, we fhall find it a little difficult to perfuade ourselves, that the subverfion of the argument of the D. L. was the

(a) It has been observed in another place, that the Conceffions of most other Writers, as well as those of my Lord Bishop and Dr Stebbing, are fufficient to establish the Argument of the divine Legation. For that they affign the Jewish Revelations only fuch faint and obfcure notices of a future ftate, as would not be fufficient to fupport Religion without the Adminiftration of an extraordinary Providence. See The Argument of the D. L. P. 91, 2, 3.

note,

P. 15. 4, 5,

principal

principal thing aimed at, either in the writing, or the publication of this Sermon.

We fhall be the lefs difpofed to entertain any fufpicion of this kind, if we confider that the doctrine advanced in this Difcourse, tends rather to embarrass and perplex, than to relieve and affift, the Writers against the divine Legation.

His Lordship fuppofes that the Principle of a future ftate was neceffary to fupport Religion; and he fuppofes alfo, that the knowledge of the Refurrection, was neceffary to fupport the principle of a future State. Thus he ingrafts the new principles of the Refurrection upon the old Syftem. For, according to his Lordship, the doctrine of a future State, without this Addition, would have been perfectly useless and infignificant, having no firm and independent bottom of its own, to ftand upon.

Had he condefcended to examine the arguments offered in the D. L. or had he but reflected how poorly and contemptibly his Followers have fupported their oppofition, he would have found no great encouragement to affirm, even that a future ftate had been revealed to the Jewish Church. But to pretend that the article of the Resurrection

Should