"If the Law (fays his Lordship) was a given in Execution of the Promife, made "to all Nations, then have the Nations

nothing further to expect; God has ful«filled his Word: The Jews are right in

adhering to their Law, and we in the

wrong in rejecting it (a)." His Lordfhip will own that the Promife, made to all Nations, was included in the Declaration that God would be the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, which is fuppofed to be the whole Subftance and Epitome of the Abrahamic or Chriftian Covenant. The Law therefore being given in Execution of this Promife, or to make good this Declation, there remains nothing farther to expect; God has fulfilled his Word: The Jews are right in adhering to the Law, and we in the wrong for rejecting it.

His Lordship obferves well, that the Jews would be glad to find in their own Law," whatever appears to them to be "excellent in the Gofpel, that they may

fhew the little Need there was for the "Gospel Revelation (b)." But then has not his Lordship himself enabled them to prove that the Law contains what is most excellent (a) P. 141. (b) P. 228.

in the Gospel, when he affures them that the Sanction and Foundation of the Law, namely, God's Promise to be the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, affords a good Proof of a future Life?

He has in Truth enabled them to prove that the Legal Covenant was the very fame with the Chriftian: For he holds, that the Abrahamic Covenant was the very fame with the Chriftian; and we have shewn, that the Legal was, as to Effentials, the very fame with the Abrahamic Covenant, as it was established on the very SAME PRO

MISE.

His Lordship, in vain upbraids the Jews for their Perverfenefs in adhering to their Law, while his argument is fo evidently, calculated to confirm them in their preju dices. For the Law, they will tell him, on his own Principles, contains what is most excellent in the Gospel.

But to proceed. If this Paffage (I am the God of Abraham, &c.) extends to another life; it will follow, that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was as much the Sanction of the Law, as of the Gofpel. And if the Sanction, it should, of X necef

neceffity, have been as clearly and explicitly revealed by Mofes, as by Jefus. For it would greatly difcredit any Legation from Heaven, to fuppofe a Law given to men in which the Sanction was involved in doubts and obfcurities. There being no Truth more evident than this, that the Sanction of a Law fhould be as precife and clear, as the Law itself. To fuppofe otherwife, as in the cafe before us, is making the divine Law of Mofes more imperfect, infufficient, and even unjuft, than any human Laws whatsoever.

It would then, we fee, make nothing for the honour of the Law, to affign it any Revelation of this doctrine, fhort of one full and clear. And to give it fuch a one, would flatly contradict the Scriptures of the New Teftament, and deprive Jefus Chrift of the glory of bringing Life and Immortality to Light, even in the low fense in which his Lordship chufes to underftand the phrafe.

According to his expofition, Mofes told the Jews, that Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, notwithstanding the Diffolution of their Bodies, were then enjoying the reward of their labours, or the future happiness which

God

God promised when he engaged to be their God. So that good men were taught to expect, that the reward of their labours, or the future happiness appointed for them, was to be enjoy'd in a state of separate existence. But to what purpose was this instruction, if (as his Lordship affures us in this very Sermon) (a) the People were not able to comprehend his meaning, or were not able to conceive that the foul, during its state of separation from the body, could be capable of either happiness or mifery (b)?

If the notion of rewards and punishments in this feperate and distinct state, was abfolutely unintelligible, or the very poffi bility of the thing was above the comprehen

(a) P. 204, 205.

(b) Since his Lordfhip affirms, that the common People are not capable of understanding, that they can either be punished or rewarded in a State of feperate Existence; I would beg leave to afk in what manner chriftian Preachers are to speak of the ftaté between death and the refurrection. It will be to no purpose to talk of rewards and punishments to be dif pensed during this period, if the language be utterly unintelligible.

prehenfion of his People; the mention of it could have made no impreffion, and confequently would have had no effect. Mofes therefore must have been more grofly ignorant and ftupid, than the dulleft of his People, when he made it the Sanction of his Religion.

In a word, we magnify the Law above the Gospel, if we allow it to afford a good proof of a future life, as his Lordship here fuppofes. For in this cafe, it would have the fanction both of the life which now is, and of that which is to come, while the Gospel would have only the last.

His Lordship maintains that this Doctrine was delivered under the cover of types and figures, in the Law. On the one hand, a good proof would have excluded the use of types and figures: And, on the other, the propriety of types and figures, will not permit us to expect any plain or clear, that is, good proof of this Doctrine, at. that time.

The point in difpute is, whether the Law afforded fuch a proof of a future life, as would be fufficiently obvious and intelligible to the

ancient

1