ancient Jews. Now these words (I am the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob) seem not to have convey'd any fuch notice; feeing our Saviour's interpretation "has all the "marks of a new argument, unknown to "the Pharifees; and indeed both the dig<< nity of our Lord's character, and the impreffion he would make on his Oppofers, "feemed to require it. Accordingly we "find them ftruck dumb, and the Multi«tude that beard this, aftonished at his doc"trine. But would either have been fo * affected with an old argument, long

hacknied in the Schools or Synagogues "of the Pharifees (a)?" Now if the more learned Pharifees who lived juft before, or in the age of the Gofpel, zealous in the propagation of the doctrine of a future state, and eager and inquifitive to find it in the Law, had not, with all their refinements, joined to their acuteness, been able to make this text fay any thing for their purpofe; we may fafely conclude the doctrine was not fo plainly revealed here, as to have been obvious and visible to the X 3

(a) D、 L. V. 2. P. 573

grofs

grofs body of the Jews in the Time of Mo Les (a).

It was hardly poffible for the ancient Jews to understand this phrase in a spiritual sense. They were told in the Book of Genefis, that God had engaged to be the God of Abraham and his feed. They were told in the Law, that God brought them out of Egypt, and put them in poffeffion of the land of Canaan, in order to be their God, or to discharge the promife of being the God of Abraham and his feed. The manner in which he promised to be their God is defcribed very fully." I will fet my "I «Tabernacle amongst you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye fhall be my People. (b)

Again, one is entirely at a lofs to underderstand, why his Lordship should suppose, that God would reveal the doctrine of a

future

(a) Quis credat Chriftum Dominum argumento ifto, Ego fum Deus Abrahami, Ifaaci, et Jacobi, pro refurrectione mortuorum pugnaturum fuiffe contra fadducæos, fi clare atq; in terminis promiffio vitæ æternæ, aut Refurrectionis mortuorum in V. Teftamento facta fuiffet? Nemo Chriftianus jam tali argumento uteretur, cum clara ad manum habeat loca. Epifcopius Vol. 2,

304 P.

(b) Leviticus, xxvi. 11, 12.

future ftate in the old teftament, and reserve that of the refurrection for the New. If the Jews were ripe for the knowledge and reception of the first, they could not be indifpofed and unprepared for the knowledge and reception of the laft.

My Lord Bishop has often obferved, that the feveral ancient revelations correfponded to the particular state and neceffity of the times in which they were given. But can he point out any particular age in which the doctrine of the refurrection was not as néceffary to be known, as that of a future ftate? If he could do this, he must needs be wrong, on the other hand, in fuppofing that the doctrine of a future ftate could not be established without the knowledge of the refurrection.

Dr. Stebbing is fo far from holding that the Refurrection, was reserved to be revealed by Jefus, that he contends "it was "the ancient, traditional, interpretation of "the Abrahamic covenant (a)." It is remarkable, the Doctor affirms the refurrection had been long known, and yet was not neceffary to the ends and purposes of religion

X 4

(a) Examination, p. 114.

Religion (a.) On the contrary, the learned Prelate affirms, that it was absolutely neceffary for these ends and purposes, and yet was not known before the age of the Gospel.

After all, it is not eafy to afcertain what his Lordship means by the good proof of a future life, which he discovers in the Law. One would naturally fuppofe him to mean, fuch a Proof as was well calculated to convince men of the truth and certainty of a future life; especially as he holds that the clearest conviction of this truth and certainty was neceffary to fupport the interefts of Religion. He feems therefore to be taking with one hand, and giving with the other: He afcribes to the Law a good proof of a future life; and, then in the following pages contends, that it left this doctrine under doubts and uncertainties, i. e. left men doubtful and uncertain, whether there was a future ftate or no. How could that be a good proof, which left men uncertain of the Reality of the thing to be proved? Of what, or to whom could it be a good proof?

(a) Boyle's Lectures, P. 33, 1. 4, 5.

His Lordship affirms in his Sermon that the Law afforded a good proof of a fu ture life, without revealing the doctrine of the refurrection. And yet he affirms in the fame Sermon, that no fatisfactory proof of a future ftate could be given without revealing this doctrine. Nay, he even contends that the hopes of futurity would have been very abfurd, without the knowledge of the refurrection. It is not eafy to conceive how this doctrine could be supported by a good proof, and yet be very abfurd at the fame time. However, if the abfurdity was fo glaring and appa rent, men's doubts and uncertainties with regard to a futurity would naturally preponderate, and the good proof have just the fame effect as no proof at all.

In the beginning of the Sermon he observes that the Law afforded a good proof of a future life; and yet towards the conclufion he affures us that Religion at this time had hardly one found foot to ftand on; and " that Faith and "Reafon were at too great a distance to be "united." Now the proof must have been good for very little, if it left Religion in fo lame and helpless a state, or did not afford fuch evidence,