fhould or ought to have been revealed too, will heighten and increase the difficulties which before were great enough in confcience.

The more fober writers against the D. L. attempt no more than to fhew, that a future state had been revealed to the Jews. But his Lordship now tells them, that they have mistaken the point in Question, and misemployed their time and pains. For that the argument requires them to prove, that the Article of the Resurrection was revealed together with the doctrine of a future ftate; fince the laft could have no folid establishment or fupport, and confequently no influence, without the firft. However (what is moft to be lamented) he affures them, at the fame time, that this neither has, nor ever can be proved (a),

as

(a) Here we may obferve, that my Lord Bishop will afford the Deifts great advantages, if he fhall argue with them on the fuppofition that a future ftate was neceffary to support the Religion of the ancient Jews. For on this fuppofition, they will tell him, that it should have been plainly and exprefly delivered; and if the Resurrection was neceffary, to ascertain the doctrine of futurity, the Resurrection alfo ought to have been as clearly and diftinctly revealed in the old Teftament as in the new. Since his Lordship therefore confeffes, that the Jewish System had no fuch Revelation, he gives up its Title to a divine Original.

We

as the Refurrection, was referved to be revealed in the Gofpel. And is not this telling them, that the Argument of the D. L. is actually impregnable, and fuperior to all their Efforts?

In this Sermon his Lordship maintains, that the Knowledge of the Refurrection was neceffary to establish the doctrine of a future

ftate,

We have obferved (p. 60.) that Dr. Law's notion concerning the SLEEP OF THE SOUL, will oblige him to fuppofe that no doctrine of a future ftate, but that of the Refurrection, could poffibly be revealed to the ancient Jews. His Embarrassment therefore will be very great if he should engage to fupport their Religion against Unbelievers, on the Suppofition that a future ftate was, or ought to have been revealed to them.

For ift. In order to prove that there are no rewards and punishments between Death and the Refurrection, he has given up many paffages commonly alledged to fhew, that the Jews had the knowledge of a future state (Appendix, p. 367.)

2dly. As he has deprived himself of these Texts, he is confined to fuch only as speak of the Resurrection; and it will be incumbent on him to prove that this doctrine was revealed, and intended for the Sanction of the Jewish Religion. If it was intended for this purpose, it ought to have been as plainly and explicitly revealed in the books of Mofes, as in thofe of the new Teftament. The Doctor therefore muft either point out fuch plain and explicit Revelations of a refurrection in the Pentateuch, or leave Unbelievers in poffeffion of the Argument.

state, which could have had no competent Foundation, or proper influence and force, without it. In this very Sermon he declares, likewise, that the principle of the resurrection was not discover'd before the coming of our Saviour. Either therefore, there had been no Religion before this; or a Religion which fubfifted exclufively of the doctrine of a future ftate.

As to the Text, which declares that Jefus Chrift brought life and immortality to light, it is of no importance, whether his Lordship, acquiefces in Dr. Warburton's Interpretation, or whether he produces another; fince that other implies every thing that need be afked to establish the argument of the D. L. For if his Lordship's Interpretation does not afcribe to Jefus Chrift the original difcovery of a future ftate, yet it afcribes to him the original difcovery of that circumftance, without which a future ftate could have had no folid establishment, and confequently, no proper influence and effect on men's moral practice.

It is far from a wonder, that the Writers against the D. L. fhould have failed in their attempts to discredit and invalidate the great argument of the Book: But it may seem a little

a little ftrange, that their very Oppofition fhould drive and force them upon fuch principles, as tend to establish and confirm it. This is evidently the cafe of Dr. Stebbing, who contends that the Doctrine of a. future ftate was delivered under Types in the Law; and contends alfo, that the doctrines thus delivered were purpofely secreted and concealed. This too I predict, will be the cafe of all who fhall adopt the principle advanced in his Lordship's Sermon, in order to carry on the fame wife and candid project.

But, to keep to our attendance on his Lordship, we are next to enquire whether the Doctrine advanced in this Sixth Sermon, tends to ftrengthen the Jewish Revelation, or to establish the Credit and Authority of Mofes and the Prophets.

His Lordship infifts upon the natural argument for a future ftate, deduced from the unequal Diftribution of things; and then adds, "But fomething farther feems necef

fary to give cafe to Nature in this painful "fearch after life and happiness. The “ numberless instances of mortality which we "hear and fee; the remains of those who "left the world ages before we came into "it, and are ftill mouldering in their tombs,

"is undeniable evidence that Death destroys "this compound Being which we call man. "How to revive this union Nature knows cc not, and as for those who make the Spi"rits of men in the divided state to be per"fect men, they seem to have got a conclu"fion without confulting the premises." (a) Alluding to this Obfervation in another place, he fays, "In this point then Nature feems to be lame, and not able to support the hopes of immortality which " she gives to all her children." (b) Now if this Ignorance of the re-union of Soul and Body would "occafion mifgivings of "mind, would tempt men to mistrust this "future Judgment, and would disable na"ture from supporting the Hopes of Im"mortality, which the gives to all her chil" drèn."

If this, I fay, be true, then the doctrine of the Re-union of these two Substances, muft have made part of the original Revelation of a future ftate. For wherever a future ftate was revealed, it must have been revealed with a defign to clear up the doubts and obscurities, which the feeble light of Na(a) P. 85, 86. Serm. Vol. I. (2) P. 205. Serm.

Vol. I.

T

ture