ledge of a future ftate was neceffary to fupply the defects of this extraordinary provi dence. For then they must suppose that this providence could not have been brought into the Jewish System, without excluding the doctrine of a future state; and must suppose alfo that it could anfwer no end after it was brought in, without the additional aid and affiftance of the excluded doctrine.

The Followers of the firft Philofophy will fay, that these Miracles make the history of the old Teftament incredible. His Lordship tells them, that they were neceffaty to fupply the want of the better bopes, which are revealed in the Gospel. These Gentlemen reply, that they were not fufficient for this pofe. And what will his Lordship fay to this? What becomes of his vindication of these miracles, if they were not sufficient for this purpofe? And if they were, what neceffity was there for the doctrine of a future ftate (a)?.

pur

If

adhere to thefe, he muft fhew, why an extraordinary providence was not as able to fupport Religion in the age of the Law, as it had been before.

(a) Dr. Fortin fpeaks much of the temporal Bleffings promifed by the Law, and likewife of the extraordinary

If my Lord Bishop and the Doctor fhould fay, that God interpofed for the purpose

above

interpofitions, which were the neceffary confequence of them. "Though the Law promised temporal bleffings. "to the good, yet the Jews (living in the time of our ર Saviour) knew by long experience that those promises "had not been fulfilled at all times, and to all perfons.

Extraordinary interpofitions in behalf of the righteous "were grown lefs frequent, which was an intimation of ❝ a future state, and an argument by which it might be proved." Difcourfes concerning the Chriftian Religion. P. 12.

As he affirms, that the Declension and Abatement of these extraordinary interpofitions, was an intimation of a future state; he must needs suppose they had once been so regular and frequent, as to afford no intimation of this doctrine. I would ask therefore, how he will prove, that fuch a difpenfation was needful, on the fuppofition that the Jews had the doctrine of a future ftate? Would God both reveal the doctrine, and interpofe in an extraordinary manner to supply the want of it?

He owns that the extraordinary interpofitions during the first ages of the Law, were fo very frequent and numerous, as to fuperfede the ufe of the doctrine of a future ftate. He muft own therefore that the argument of the D. L. may, in its full extent, be applied to the more early ages of the Jewish Hiftory, and that the miffion of Mofes may be inferred by the medium, which Dr. Warburton has employed for this purpose.

As for the fubfequent Relaxations and Abatements in the vigour of this extraordinary providence; I shal!

only

bovementioned, they muft fay his interpofitions were as frequent and numerous as

the

only concern myfelf fo far with them as to obferve that Dr. Fortin's Syftem will be greatly diftreffed and embroiled by them.

He contends, that the extraordinary interpofitions were fufficient to maintain Religion in the first and more Barly ages of the Law; but that the knowledge of a future ftate became necessary, after these declined and relaxed, or grew lefs numerous and frequent. If fo, this Knowledge became neceffary, as an additional Sanction of the Law. The Followers therefore of the First philofophy will afk, why it was only INTIMATED, inftead of being plainly and expressly revealed? for that it greatly difcredits any revealed Syftem to fuppofe its fanctions were only intimated, or left to be collected by Deduction and Inference.

"The express promises (fays he) made in the Law to "the righteous were of temporal good things, and these "promises began to be less and less fulfilled, to the disap"pointment of many pious perfons, who fcarcely knew "how to reconcile thefe ways of providence with the "holy Scriptures" (a). If they fcarcely knew how to account for thefe ways of providence, they would be much more embarraffed to deduce a future ftate from the promifes of temporal good things, And why, ay the Followers of Lord Bolingbroke, were they left under all

this

(4) Difcourfes on the Chriftian Religion. (P. 181.)

the interests of Religion required. They therefore preclude and debar themselves the

liberty

this perplexity and embarras, if the doctrine was neceffary to be known, or Religion was unable to fubfift without it?

As the learned Doctor holds this laft pofition, he Jays himself under a neceffity of proving that this notion was delivered to the ancient Jews in a full, clear, and fatisfactory manner, as the SANCTION of a re vealed Syftem ought to be. And how will he fet about doing this, while he holds that the notion of a future ftate, was fecreted under the cover and veil of Types; and contends also that prophecies, relating to temporal affairs, were given on purpose to supply the Abfence and Omiffion of it?

If he fhould fay, the Jews had a clear and fatisfactory knowledge of a future ftate; either by Tradition, or immediate Revelation; then let him reconcile this fuppofition to the paffages produced out of the new tefta ment in the firft Chapter of this examination.

He muft explain too, why Mofes and the Prophets were, in their preaching, limited and confined to the temporal Sanctions of the Law (a), if the doctrine of a future ftate was neceffary to enforce the obedience of the people, and was intended for an additional Sanction of their Religion,

There's the lefs need to produce other teftimonies, fince the learned Writer himself owns, that the doc

(a) See above, P. 42, and 5,

trine

liberty of offering any objections on this head, or of fuppofing that the facts and

circum

trine of a future ftate had not been delivered in a "clear, full, and fatisfactory manner in the Law or in "the Prophets" (b). And what more clear, full, and fatisfactory argument can be defired to prove that it neither was originally appointed for the fanction of the fewifh Religion, nor afterwards revealed for this purpose ?

He owns, that no clear and full Revelation was given by Mofes or the Prophets; and he may probably perceive by this time, that nothing but fuch a clear and full Revelation will do his argument any fervice.

My defign in this note was only to remind the learn ed Dr. that he must encounter great and unfurmountable difficulties, if he fhall undertake the defence of the Jewish Religion, on the fuppofition that a future ftate was neceffary and effential to it, However, if he be able to discharge thefe feveral objections, or to ftrike out any new Lights in fupport of the old fyftem, he has now a fair opportunity of reftoring it to its old

honours.

This learned Perfon and Dr. Law fhould both reflect, that they allow the Mofaic Covenant no SANCTIONS but what are Temporal. Now this acknowledgment will eternally embarrass them, and put them under inextricable difficulties, if they should fuppofe the Jews had this doctrine of a future ftate, either by Tradition, or immediate Revelation. It is furprizing they should not fee, that the

argu

(b) Difcourfes on the Chriftian Religion, P. 181.