afferted the fame expofition of this text in his Difcourfes on prophecy; where he tells us, "that God, after the flood, faid nothing to the

remnant of mankind of the punishments and "rewards of another life, because they were referved to be revealed by him, whose pro"vince it was to bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel "."

f"

His Lordship does not here fay, that the refurrection, but even that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, was reserved to be revealed by Jefus Chrift, who brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.

It is not faid, that Jefus was merely to illuftrate, enlighten, and clear up the doctrine of a future life, but that he was to give the first notice of it. For he affirms, that the punishments and rewards of another state could not have been taught and inculcated before, without anticipating the office and intrenching upon the province of our bleffed Saviour.

The paffages here quoted both from his Sermons and his Difcourfes, plainly declare that the work of redemption itself, and not that the time when, or the perfon by whom it was to be effected, was all along a mystery, or a thing kept fecret in the counfels of God.

f P. 100.

C 4

Thus

Thus his Lordship fuppofes that the Redeemer and his work were coeval, and went hand-in-hand; for he tells us, that the redemption and restoration of mankind were to continue a fecret and a mystery till the appearing of our Saviour.

When his Lordship confiders the paffages of the New Testament, which mention the mystery of the Gospel, he finds himself obliged to acknowledge that the great points of Christianity were kept fecret till the coming of Christ. But when he afterwards addreffes himself to defend the common fyftem, or to attack that of the D. L. he then finds himself obliged to abandon the fcripture doctrine, even as it had been interpreted by himself.

Thus he directly oppofes Dr. Warburton's interpretation in his fixth fermon, tho' he as directly afferts it in his third, and in his Dif courfes on Prophecy. I fhall leave it to others to balance and determine the moment of his arguments alledged on either fide, and proceed to offer fome obfervations on this mystery of the Gospel.

Some of the writers against the D. L. would limit and restrain it to the calling of the Gentiles to be partakers of God's promifes in Chrift &. But I have the pleasure to find, that this diRutherforth's effay on virtue, p. 383.

ftinction

h

ftinction is rejected by his Lordship, who concurs with the author of the Divine Legation, Dr. Clarke ", and Dr. Middleton', in extending it to the whole scheme and system of the Gofpel. Many confiderations might be alledged in support of this expofition, which I fhall omit at prefent, as I have no occafion to enter into the controverfy. For if St. Paul ftyles the whole Gospel, or the scheme of our falvation by Jefus Chrift, a mystery, what will it fignify or avail to prove, that he styles the calling of the Gentiles a mystery too? Must not the part neceffarily come under the fame predicament with the whole? If the whole was a mystery, must not the feveral parts be so likewife?

The calling of the Gentiles must either have been styled a mystery, as being an eminent and confiderable branch of the grand myftery of the Gospel, or it must be styled so, in oppofition and contra-distinction to the calling of the Jews, which was no mystery. The firft fenfe confirms the argument of the D. L. And of the second, we need only observe, that it makes St. Paul inconfiftent with himfelf, fince he declares in other places, accord

Sermons, and Paraphrafe on the Gospels.

i Answer to Dr. Dodwell and Dr. Church, p. 46. Letter from Rome, Preface, p. 85, 86. Examination of the Bishop of London's difcourfes on Prophecy, p. 93, 94.

ing to my Lord Bishop's own interpretation, that the falvation of mankind in general, (of the Jews as well as Gentiles) "was the bidden wifdom of God, or the wifdom of God in a mystery "

In a word, it will be to no purpose to pretend, that that part of the Gospel relating to the Gentiles is ftyled a mystery, unless you can prove that it is ftyled fo, in opposition and contra-distinction to the other part of the Gofpel relating to the Jews. And this you never can prove, while St. Paul is allowed to be confiftent with himself, or indeed to fay what he has faid, and which my Lord Bishop has ventured to fay after him, where he obferves, that "the Gospel itself is styled a mystery, and "the feveral parts of it likewise "."

If therefore the writers against the D. L. could prove, that the calling of the Gentiles is fometimes styled a mystery, they would still have the mortification to find that their pains and labour have been employed to no purpose. But the disappointment would be still greater, if it should appear that this very circumftance, which they fo feduloufly labour to prove, is deftructive of their own fyftem. It may therefore be proper to add, that they are involved in a train of the moft glaring and bareiv. 1. Vol. i. p. 133.

k 1 Cor. ii. 7. iv. 1.

I

faced contradictions, and all along argue at the expence of their own hypothefis, while they endeavour to limit and confine the mystery of the Gospel to the calling of the Gentiles only. For, according to their interpretation of the ancient prophecies, the calling of the Gentiles could be no more a mystery than the calling of the Jews. In their expofition of the first and orignal prophecy, which declares, that the feed of the woman should bruise the ferpent's head; they tell us that the promife of redemption, or a restoration to life and immortality, was revealed to Adam and Eve, and was extended to all their pofterity without any distinction or reserve. They tell us, too, that the same promise was afterwards repeated to Noah; and to Abraham, when he was told, "that all the na"tions of the earth were to be bleffed in one "of his feed." They pretend likewise, that the famous text in the xixth chapter of the book of Job, was a plain prophetical description of the grand article of the Gospel; or a clear and inconteftable proof that Job, who as an Alien from the commonwealth of Ifrael, and no defcendant of Abraham by the feed of Ifaac, had the promife of being admitted to all the benefits of the chriftian covenant. And how can they pretend, after this, that the calling of the Gentiles to be partakers of this

covenant,