Doctrine of a future State was not clearly revealed at this time (a).

Thus Miracles were neceffary to execute the temporal promises and threatnings of the Law. And these temporal Promises and

Law, the Deift will afk these learned Writers, whence it comes, that these temporal rewards and punishments were not adminifter'd and dispensed to every Jew without exception, in proportion to his observance or neglect of the Law?

It would be very obliging in the learned Doctors to favour us with the Solution of a difficulty, in which the honour of Revelation is fo nearly concerned. I mention it in this place, because the fate of some of their principal and leading arguments will be entirely determined by it.

(a)" The end, both of the Law and the Gospel, "was the fame, to wit, the leading men to the worship "of the true God. As a motive to this, the one pro"poses a TEMPORAL, the other an eternal Inheritance. "Now, from this Diverfity of the motive under each "Dispensation, this difference indeed must neceffarily "arife, that there is no FARTHER need of the Promise "of an EARTHLY CANAAN, the heavenly being fo fully and clearly revealed." Effay on Civil Government, P. 46.

It is of no importance to the present argument, whether the doctrine of a future ftate was not revealed at all, or was not so clearly and fully revealed, as to be able to support Religion, without the promise of a temporal Inheritance, or the poffeffion of an earthly Canaan. See the Argument of the D. L. P. 91, 92.

threat

threatnings were neceffary, because the doctrine of a future state was not fully and clearly revealed.

We have obferved; that the Miracles, recorded in the Jewish history, are of two forts. Some were wrought to prove the divine authority and original of the Law: Others were wrought long after its full eftablishment, as it was for many ages under a miraculous adminiftration, or conducted by a continued series of divine and extraor→ dinary interpofitions. The present Question relates only to this laft order of Miracles.

The more rational Advocates for Revelation allow, that no human teftimony will be fufficient to prove the reality of Miracles, unless they be properly circumftanced, i. e. unless there appear fome competent reafon for working them, or fome occafion worthy a divine interpofition. Accordingly they obferve that giving Credentials to a Person, fent to reveal a new scheme or fyftem of Religion, is fuch an occafion, and that we may reasonably look for and expect Miracles in these circumftances (a).

It is evident, that this argument does not extend to the Miracles in queftion, as (a) Adams against Hume, 2d Edit. p. 26, 27.

they

they were not intended to be fubfervient to the introduction and establishment of a new after Religion, but were wrought long before it had been introduced and established in the moft perfect and complete manner.

Dr. Leland indeed, maintains that the primary and immediate intent of these Miracles was to confirm the divine authority of the Law (a). The supposition seems unreasonable, as the Miracles originally wrought to evince its divinity, were fufficient for this purpose; and confequently the Jewish Religion, in fucceeding ages, had no more occafion for the evidence of additional and new Miracles, than the Christian. If Unbelievers afk, why Miracles are not worked now to confirm the Gofpel: Dr. Le land replies that thofe originally wrought with this view fupercede the use of others' at prefent. And does not this reafoning equally prove, that the Miracles originally. wrought to evince the divinity of the Law, would fupercede the use of thofe in queftion?

It will be readily allowed, that the divine origin of the Law, may be proved from

(a) View of Deiftical Writers, Vol. II. P. 391.

thefe

thefe extraordinary interpofitions. But if we would know their primary and immediate intent, we muft confider the occafion on which they were wrought. And if we confult the hiftory of the Jews, we shall find, that they were made ufe of to dif pense rewards and punishments, in proportion to their neglect of, and obedience to, the Law. Now as they were appointed to be the inftruments of these rewards and punishments, their primary and immediate defign must have been to maintain the Law in reverence and obfervation, and to fix the Ifraelites in their adherence to. it (a).

The

(a) The common wants of Nature, says an able "Writer," are provided for by the "common course of Nature. Extraordinary occafions only can call for "extraordinary interpofitions." Mr. Adam's Effay on Miracles. Pag. 26. Ed. 2.

He supposes, that the establishment of a new Religion, or the giving character and authority to a special Meffenger of God, was one of these extraordinary accafions. On this principle, he may defend the Miracles, which were originally wrought to confirm the truth and divine authority of the Jewish Religion. But Mr. Hume, with whom he is here arguing, not only denies the reality of thefe Miracles, but also of the fucceeding ones, which were performed to fupport the obfervance of the Law, or to attach the Jews to

4

the

• The Doctor observes, that these Miracles were the neceffary confequence of a Theocracy. And did not a Theocracy require God to interpofe, in order to reward and punifh the observers and tranfgreffors of the Law. Thefe Miracles therefore were properly Acts of Government, in execution and difcharge of the denounced punishments and rewards annexed to the Law.

In fhort, they were founded on the fanction of temporal rewards and punishments, which God had engaged to administer and difpenfe by his own hand. Miracles, or divine interpofitions, were requifite for this purpose. They were therefore interwoven

"

into

the worship and fervice of the one true G It is much to be lamented that the learned Writer, who has fo well defended the former, did not proceed to the confideration of thefe latter Miracles, "If common experience, fays he, does not atteft or acknowledge "fuch interpofitions, the answer is given "mon occafions do not call for them. The common "wants of Nature are provided for by the common "courfe of Nature. Extraordinary occafions only can "call for extraordinary interpofitions." P. 26.

com

The learned Perfon will allow, that the common interefts of Religion are fufficiently provided for in the common courfe of Nature by the doctrine of a future ftate. I would ask then, what those extraordinary occafions were, which so often called for extraordinary interpofitions after the establishment of the Law.