very extraordinary if the right hand of God was a place of filence and forgetfulness; or the fullness of joy to be had in the divine presence, the extinction of all remembrance of the mercies of God.

pro

David himself informs us, that he found it painful and difficult to account for the fperity of the wicked: and informs us likewife, that he searched the fanctuary of God, or the divine Law, for this purpose. And yet

he tells us, that the best solution he could find, even in examining these holy oracles, was that this profperity was short and tranfient, and would be foon fucceeded by a terrible reverse. "When I thought to know

this, it was too painful for me. Until I "went into the fanctuary of God; then un"derstood I their end. Surely thou didst set "them in flippery places: thou castedst them "down into deftruction. How are they "brought into defolation as in a moment! "they are utterly confumed with terrors."

Pfalm Ixxiii. 16, 17, 18, 19. "David (fays Dr. "Jortin) feems to speak concerning himself when he fays "Thou shalt not leave my foul in hell, nor fuffer thy holy one to see corruption. He intended, perhaps, no more than this, Thou shalt not fuffer me to come to an untimely end, to be killed by mine enemies, and caft

66

How highly foever we may think of the piety of David, we must have but a very

low

"into the grave: but then the divine impulse which was upon him, made him use words which should fuit ex"actly to Chrift, and to himself only in a loose and "figurative fenfe. Of this the prophet himself might be fenfible, and might know that his words had another import, and that they should be fulfilled twice, both in the fenfe which he intended, and in the fublimer fenfe of the Holy Spirit. By these means a shade was caft over the prophecy, and the sense of the spirit was concealed, till the event unfolded it and made it confpicuous." Remarks on Ecclef. Hift. vol. i. p. 195, 6.

66

'

The learned Writer muft fuppofe, that the redemption of mankind by the Son of God was not revealed to the ancient Jews, as he holds that the ancient prophefies delivered it in the fecondary fenfe, which fecondary fenfe was intended for a veil or cover of the doctrines conveyed under it. And likewife as he fuppofes that David fecreted this doctrine under dark and obfcure figures, he must conclude it was revealed as an uncommon favour to fome particulars and not to be communicated to the body of the ancient Jews.

However, Dr. Jortin afferts, in oppofition to the author of the D. L. that David might have the knowledge of redemption and a future ftate. Let him then reconcile this fuppofition to the paffages, in which he declares that the dead go down into the place of filence, retain no more remembrance of the divine favours, and praife or magnify this goodness of God no longer. Is this the language of a man who believed a state of future happiness? or do fuch defcriptions of another life ever occur in the New Testament? But it may be faid, he spoke the language of those who were lefs inftructed. Suppofe this to be the cafe, we shall still want to be informed why, in his account of the profperity of the wicked, he does not add the confiderations of future punishment to thofe drawn from the fhort and fleeting duration of their prefent happiness.

idea of his reafon, if we fuppofe him ready to fink under the prefent difficulty notwithstanding the true folution in the doctrine of a future ftate.

This seems to be a ftrong prefumption, that the Law did not offer any good proof of a future life. For we never can imagine that one fo well versed in that Law, who made it his study day and night, could have remained ignorant of the most important and interesting doctrine revealed by it. And yet ignorant he was, or he never could have been fo embarraffed and diftreffed with this difficulty.

My Lord Bishop's own fyftem will not permit him to understand the words of the Pfalmift thou shalt not leave my foul in bell in a spiritual sense. For thus understood, they afford a good proof of the refurrection of the body, as well as of a future ftate. And yet one main point afferted in his fixth fermon is, that the doctrine of the refurrection

If indeed he was fo well acquainted with the whole mystery of redemption. The Deifts will fay, the knowledge of a future ftate had been bestowed upon him to very little purpose, if he failed to apply fo appofite a topi● to the folution of his own difficulties.

had not been revealed in any part of the Old Teftaments.

It would be inconfiftent in his Lordfhip to give these a words fpiritual fenfe, while he maintains in this fame fermon, that the doctrine of a future ftate, as revealed in the Old Teftament, was left involved in doubts and uncertainties: for, according to the fpiritual fenfe, here is as plain a 'declaration of a future state, as any that occurs in the New Testament.

His Lordfhip will not contend for this fpiritual sense, since he so strenuously maintains,

• Three of the principal texts, alledged by Dr. Stebbing against the argument of the D. L. are fetched from Ifaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. -Examination, p. 113

"Thy dead men fhall live, together with my dead "body fhall they arife, &c.

"Can thefe dry bones live, &c.

"Many that fleep in the duft fhall awake, &c."

If these paffages prove any thing with respect to a future ftate, they will prove that the refurrection, was revealed at this time. As the Bishop therefore deles the knowledge of this doctrine to the Jewish Church; he muft tell the Dr. that thefe paffages were understood in a temporal fenfe, and confequently make nothing against the author of the D. L.

If we are not to believe that the refurrection was revealed, why are we urged with these, and other paffages of the fame fort, which, if they relate to a future ftate, extend to the refurrection alfo? And if we are to believe that it was revealed, how was a future ftate brought to light, or even illuftrated and enlightened, by Jefus Chrift?

in

in his third fermon, that the doctrine of life and immortality was a mystery at the time when this Pfalm was compofed.

The book of Pfalms abounds with typical defcriptions and reprefentations of a future ftate. His Lordship contends that these were employed for a veil or cover. And can he fuppofe that David was induftrious to hide this doctrine in one Pfalm, and yet ftudious to publish and divulge it in another? However this would be the neceffary confequence of fuppofing that any of the Pfalms afforded a plain and obvious proof of a future ftate.

I now proceed to examine fome objections which have been urged against the principles defended in thefe papers.

The learned Prelate infifts, that the natural arguments in fupport of a future state must be excluded and fet afide, if we affign the firft and original publication of life and immortality to Jefus Chrift.

I did not expect to find his Lordship fo folicitous about the fate of these natural arguments, as he affirmed in his first fermon, "that to them who rely on nature only, it is "not evident, nor can it be, whether any "future reward fhall attend their religious Vol. i. p. 187, 188. F 2

" fervice."