evidence, as to make the belief of a future life confiftent with Reafon.

On the whole then we find, that the Advocates of the common fyftem, fince the publication of the D. L. have been neceffitated to innovate a little; to adopt new maxims, to invent new refinements, and (not to quarrel with them for a word) to introduce their improve→ ments for the fupport of the common system.

We are now told, ift. That the feveral Revelations both before, and under the Law, had left the doctrine of a future ftate involved in doubts and uncertainties; whereas the affertors of this System had maintained, till now, that the Faithful in every age had plain and clear evidence of the certainty and reality of another life. We are now told, 2dly. That the principle of the refurrection was reserved to be revealed by Jefus Chrift; whereas the affertors of this Syftem had maintained, till now, that it was revealed both before and under the Law.

When the D. L. was first publish'd, it was objected that not only the doctrine of a future life, but even that of the refurrection, had been brought to light in the ages preceding the Gofpel. But it is now faid the first was but faintly and obfcurely discover'd, and the

fe

fecond not discover'd at all, before the coming of our Saviour.

Who then is it that has thrown the common Syftem INTO CONFUSION? He who thought it not worth mending; or they who have innovated, altered, and refined in the manner here mentioned, in order to hide its difhonours, and to fecure it against the attacks of its adverfaries. How far, giving to the Law, the doctrine of a future. ftate without knowledge of the refurrection (efpecially if the first would have been not only intenable, but even unintelligible, without the last) may tend to foften its difgraces, and to re-establish its credit, muft be fubmitted to the Judgment of the public (a).

I fhall

(a) As we are fetting farth the feveral inconfiftencies which deform the Syftem of the learned Prelate, it may be proper to remark, that his Lordship fometimes affigns the knowledge of the refurrection, as well as of a future ftate, to the ancient Jews, long before the publication of the Gospel.

"Women received their dead raifed to life again; and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better Refurrection: (Hebrews xi. 35.) Upon this his Lordship obferves, "That the refurrection was a ftate they had never feen, it "was what they could only hope for; but the promise of God was to them more than the evidence of fight.' (Sermons, V. I. p. 376,)

I fhall conclude all with a difcuffion of this Question; "Whether the extraordinary pro

This paffage no way interferes with the argument of the D. L. because it speaks of the belief of the Jews in the time of the Maccabees, which is pofterior to the time in question. However it plainly interferes with his Lordfhip's fixth Sermon, if it gives the Jews the knowledge of the refurrection, in virtue of a divine promise, or revelation, long before the publication of the Gospel. If the doctrine of a futstate was thus perfectly cleared up and enlightened in all its parts during this period; the word pariw, even in the low fenfe which his Lordfhip contends for, would not have been applicable to it at this time.

All the use then he makes of this eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, is only to confute his own hypothefis, which limits the doctrine of the refurrection to the new Teftament.

If any one should imagine, that the feveral Acts of Faith, magnified and extolled in this chapter, mean Faith in Jefus Christ, confidered as the Author of eternal life; I shall refer him to the D. L. (a) for a full confutation of this despicable and idle Whim.

The paffages, quoted in the first part of these papers (b), may fhew, that such an interpretation is inconfiftent with other parts of that epiftle. The Author never would fay the promife of life and immortality was revealed fo long before, and under the Law; after he had declared that it BEGAN FIRST to be spoken by Jefus Chrift. It would have been very extraordinary

(a) V. II. p. 578, &c.

(b) P. 5,48,49, &c.

in

providence, as recorded in the old teftament to be adminifter'd by a long series of Miracles, can be fupported against the objections of Unbelievers, on the principles of the common System."

The Law and the Gofpel, when first given, were both establish'd by MIRACLES. But by

the in him to affure us, that the Jews were all their Lifetime fubject to Bondage through Fear of Death That the Way to Heaven was not made manifest under the Law That the better Hope of eternal Life) was introduced AFTERWARDS: And then to add, that the Way to Heaven had been made manifeft, and this better Hope revealed, before and under the Law; and that the Jews had the fame Faith in Jefus, which Chriftians now have, whereby they cry Abba, Father, and are received into the Adoption of Sons. Are we to charge an infpired Author with such glaring and obvious Contradictions, as would difgrace a Writer of modern Fragments and Effays?

I fhall readily allow, that the doctrine of a future State was communicated to Abraham, and to fome others, mentioned in this chapter. But unless it had been imparted to them as a fingular favour, and they were restrained from making it popular and common, How could the Author of the epiftle have said, that it BEGUN FIRST to be spoken by Jefus Chrift?

If it were revealed under the Law, it must have been revealed under this limitation; otherwife how could the Author of the epiftle fay, that the way to Heaven was not made manifest under the Law, or that the better Hope (of eternal life) was brought in AFTER WARDS?

the hiftories of thefe Religions we find that the two Difpenfations of Providence were very different. The Law, after it had been originally eftablifh'd by Miracles, continued for many ages to be fupported by them, or was administer'd and conducted by a conftant fcene of divine and extraordinary interpofitions. We find that God was almost always interfering, and manifefting himself in a continued series of figns and wonders, in order to preserve and maintain the Law, or to incourage and promote the Obfervance of it, after it had been introduced, and fufficiently establish'd by the evidence of Miracles. On the other hand, the Gofpel, tho' originally eftablifh'd by the fame evidence, was, in fucceeding times, left to fubfift by common and ordinary means, without fuch a Miraculous and fupernatural interpofition, as fupported the Law for many ages, after it was first erected.

Here then it will be obvious to afk, How a conftant scene of miracles, or a continued feries of divine interpofitions, became neceffary to fupport Religion, and to attach men to their duty under the Law, and unneceffary to this purpose, under the Gofpel. Now, as Miracles are never wrought

for