ficacy to each System, if it had belonged to

them in common.

My Lord Bishop holds that the Law was given to propagate and dispense the doctrines revealed in the patriarchal Religion, which he supposes to have been the fame with the Chrif tian. It must therefore have been effentially the fame with the Gospel, fince it was appointed to propagate and dispense the fame doctrines. And if the Jewish and Christian Religions were composed of the fame effential principles; a continued series of miracles and divine interpofitions had no more connexion with the one than the other.

According to his Lordship, the doctrine of life and immortality was revealed to the Patriarchs, and afterwards publickly taught and cultivated under the Law, as well as the Gofpel.. The confequence of this is, that revealed Religion, as to its Effentials, has been one and the fame, in the feveral ages of the world. The Question therefore will be, why Miracles were neceffary to fupport it at one period, and not at another?

As his Lordship affirms that the Law was given to propagate and difpenfe the doctrines of the patriarchal Religion (a), he must suppofe it given to propagate and difpense the doctrine of life and immortality. It was ap(a) See Chapter IV. point

pointed therefore to propagate and difpenfe a doctrine which, on his own conceffions, would have rendered this feries of Miracles of no use.

It is indeed aftonishing that this truly learned and great Man should adopt fuch principles, as will oblige him to fuppofe that the Law was given to propagate the doctrine of life and immortality, and to fuppofe likewife that a fuccedaneum was neceffary to fupply the abfence and omiffion of this doctrine (a).

very

He obferved that the principle of a future ftate is able to fupport Religion at present by its own natural influence and power, without the addition of Miracles, or any fuch foreign and adventitious helps. Hence he infers, that there could be no occafion for Mi

(a) His Lordship obferves, "That the true Religion "inftituted by God has been one and the fame from the "Fall of Adam, fubfifting ever upon the fame principles " of Faith." (b)

If the principle of Faith in the Redeemer of the world, or the belief of a restoration to life and immortality, was fufficient to support Religion at all times, or if Religion has been enabled to fubfift at all times by virtue of this principle; how could Miracles have been neceffary to preserve and maintain it in the age of the Law?

[b] Difcourfes on prophecy, p. 75

Y 3

racles,

racles, or divine interpofitions, to fupport a Religion thus circumftanced. To make room therefore for these Miracles and divine interpofitions in the Jewish Religion, he finds himself obliged to ftrip and diveft it of the doctrine of a future ftate.

"I do not think, fays Dr, Stebbing, that temporal Advantages, merely as fuch, are "an improper foundation for Religion. For "the Jews were under a covenant with « God, established upon the foot of tempo"ral promises; and the obedience which

they paid in view of thefe promises, was "undoubtedly a reasonable service, as it was "Obedience paid upon motives propofed by "the Legislator himself” (ă).

He owns that the Jewish RELIGION WAS establish'd on the fanction of temporal good and evil. He will own that this good and evil could not be difpenfed without Miracles. Thus Miracles were neceffary in order to execute and discharge the fanctions of the Jewish Religion (b).

The

[a] Boyle's Lectures, p. 202, p. 203. (b) When the D. L. was firft publifhed, Dr. Sykes made no fcruple to affirm that the temporal Rewards and Punishments of the Law did not extend to particulars and individuals. On this a large train of teftimonies was

col

The Question therefore is, how the temporal rewards and punishments became neY 4

ceffary

collected to evince the contrary (a). And they seem not to have been ill calculated for this purpose, as they have drove and forced him into the Opinion he at first oppofed (b). This I mention to his honour, and as a proof of that openness to conviction, that Ingenuity and Candour, which he profeffed in the beginning of the Controverfy.

The Dispute between him and Dr. Warburton, with respect to the extraordinary Providence, is now reduced to a narrow Compafs. They both allow that the temporal Rewards and Punishments of the Law extend to Particulars and Individuals. The only Question therefore, is, whether they were executed or no, i. e. whether the Law was given by God. For if it was given by him, there can be no question but its Promises and Threatnings would be discharged and executed.

He confeffes that the temporal Sanctions were exactly executed at first, and not intirely dropt and laid afide, but lefs constantly and frequently administer'd afterwards. "Whilft the Children of Ifrael (fays he) were in the "Wilderness, the Law was fixed, and rigidly exe*cuted: But afterwards there feems to have been a "great Relaxation under their Judges and their Kings (c).”

Without

(a) See Argument of the D. L. P. 57-74. (b) Comment on the Epiftle to the Hebrews, Pag. 20,

21, 92, 120.

(c) Comment on the Hebrews, P. 21.

ceffary for this purpose? The learned Doctor with great candour and ingenuity acknowledges that they were neceffary, because the

Doctrine

Without declaring any fentiment of my own, I will here propofe a Query, and ask, how this great relaxation, in the time of the Judges, could be consistent with the original tenour and conftitution of the Law?

"Curfed is every one that continueth not in all things, "which are written in the Book of the Law to do "them."

"Ye fhall keep my Statutes and my Judgments, which "if a Man do, he fhall live in them (d).".

Unbelievers will fay, the Law promised a. temporal reward, and threatned a temporal punishment to every obferver and tranfgreffor of it. In this the learned Doctor intirely agrees with them, when he declares, "The Law had promised temporal bleffings to its ob

༦ fervers, and had denounced as severe curses on fuch " as difobey'd it (e)." Now as he agrees with them in this common Principle, they will naturally afk, why thefe bleffings and curfes were not conftantly and regularly difpenfed, in the fame measure and extent in which they were promifed and threatned? And what anfwer will the Doctor make to this Question, when it is limited and confined to the time of the Judges?

Dr. Law and Dr. Fortin contend that the Mofaic Covenant had no Sanction, but what was temporal. Now fince the written Word affures us, that this Sançtion was addreffed to every obferver and infringer of the Law,

(d) Leviticus xviij. 5.

(e) Comment on the Hebrews, P. .29.