circumstances, which have been produced from the Jewish history for this purpose, will prove that the interpofitions were not frequent and numerous enough to preferve the Religion of this people (a).

We have shewn that Dr. Stebbing's principles will difable him from defending the miracles in question. It may now be proper to examine how far he has invalidated, (as he has ftrenuously laboured the point in two large pamphlets,) the proof, which the author of the D. L. has brought to establish the Reality of these Miracles.

We are told, it will be dangerous to argue with Unbelievers, on the fuppofition that the Jewish Religion had not the fanction of a future ftate for that this fuppofition will

arguments, alledged to prove that this doctrine was delivered as the Sanction of the patriarchal Religion, will equally prove that it was delivered alfo as the Sanction of the Law.

(a) Dr. Leland maintains, that these interpofitions were not frequent enough to fupply the abfence and omiffion of a future ftate, and therefore very consistently affirms that they were not wrought for this purpose. On the other hand, Dr. Stebbing contends that they were wrought for this very purpose, and yet were not frequent and numerous enough to anfwer it.

enable

enable them to convict it of falfhood and im posture.

This is fometimes objected by Dr. Steb→ bing. However he owns, in the fame breath, that there is a strict connexion between an extraordinary providence, and the omission of a future ftate (a). This Omiffion therefore, if allowed, will enable the author of the D. L. to prove the reality of that long feries of Mi racles, or divine interpofitions, recorded in the old Teftament.

It will then enable him to prove, that the Jewish Religion was all along adminifter'd and conducted, either by the immediate hand, or the immediate direction of God. And if he extorts this confeffion from Unbelievers, is not the long controverfy at an end? For what did be undertake, or what do they demand, further, or more than this?

They are at liberty to difpute, whether this religion was adminifter'd and conducted by God. But if the omiffion of this doctrine, which omiffion they allow, will prove that it was really adminifter'd and conducted by

(a) Sce the Argument of the D. L. &c. P. 84-5.

bim; what excufe have they for continuing in their unbelief? There can be no room to queftion the equity and justice of the thing done, where God is allowed to be the Doer. After this is once fuppofed, all their other objections muft of course fall to the ground, as God cannot act inconfiftently with his nature and attributes.

Dr. Stebbing would diffuade the author of the D. L. from infifting on this topic, as it will only "furnish out more handles to un"believers (a)." But is it poffible this topic fhould furnish more handles to unbelievers, while it cuts away the very ground of all, by establishing the reality of the extraordina ry interpofitions above-mentioned, or which is the fame thing, the divine administration of the Law?

The Deifts were wont to object the omif fion of a future ftate, as a circumftance which was fufficient to impeach the pretended truth and divinity of the Jewish Religion. The Doctor advifes them to renew their attack, and still to infift on this circumftance. They do this. He then tells them, that the divine admi

(a) Examination, p. 132.

administration of the Law, may be inferred from this very topic (b). It is evident he plays booty. But, is it for, or is it against, Religion?

(b) Dr. Stebbing pretends that the author of the D. L. has furnished" Unbelievers with fresh handles," by venturing to argue with them on the supposition that the Jewish Religion was not eftablished on the fanc tion of a future ftate. We have already obferved the general force of this argument; let us now confider its particular force as addreffed to one certain writer, who fpeaks of the miraculous Hiftory of the old teftament with great infolence afid fcorn.

We are to judge of past facts, says Mr. Hume, only by experience and our prefent obfervation. Now experience and our present observation do not inform us of any Religion which fubfifted without the doctrine of 2 future ftate. And as the appetites and paffions of men have been the fame at all times and in all places, we muft conclude (if we take experience and present obfervation for our guide) that no Religion would ever have been able to fubfift without it, under a common and ordinary providence.

What then are we to infer from experience and obfervation, but that the Jewish Religion was adminifter'd and fupported by Miracles?

Experience and obfervation therefore are fo far from making us reject, that they oblige us to admit, the Exiftence of Miracles. And this is left with Mr. Hume, to confider at his leifure,

By

By advifing them to infift on this circumflance, he obliges them to admit the miraculous and fupernatural interpofitions, recorded in the Old Teftament. And will he after this advise them to deny the divinity of the Religion, which was administered and supported by them? This would be telling them they must suppose it true, in order to prove it falle.

So far on the Dr's own conceffions it is fhewn, that there can be no danger in arguing with unbelievers on the supposition that the Jewish Religion had not the doctrine of a future ftate. For how can it be hurt by a circumstance, which proves that it was really administered and dispensed by God?

There must be fomething ftrangely perplexed and confufed in his ideas, to pretend that the omiffion of a future ftate would both furnish the Deift with fresh objections, and at the fame time enable the author of the D. L. to prove that the Jewish Religion was fupported by an extraordinary providence. For this is nothing less than affirming, that the very fame circumftance, in the hands of one, will disprove, and in the hands of another, will establish, the reality of the miracles recorded in the Old Teftament.