" fervice t." In another place he afferts that the claims of natural religion amount to just nothing, as being " the claims of unprofitable "fervants, or the claims of those to whom

nothing is due." He obferves next, "that nature fees all her children go down to <<the grave: all beyond the grave is to her "one wide wafte, a land of doubt and uncertainty: when the looks into it she has her hopes, and she has her fears; and, agitated by the viciffitude of these paffions, fhe "finds no ground whereon to reft her foot". Having thus overthrown the claims of natural religion to any future reward, towards the conclufion of his fifth fermon; he begins his fixth with observing that the natural arguments for a future state would be impeached, if we suppose that Jefus Chrift gave the first and only notice of life and immortality. But why is his Lordship fo extremely anxious for these natural arguments in favour of a future ftate and immortality, if they be in reality fuch flender things as he has described them, but a very few pages before? Or why so much concern in his fixth fermon to provide for arguments, to which he had just be

t

Vol. i. p. 16. ' p. 182. p. 185.

fore

fore given fuch a precarious existence in his firft and fifth?

In order to remove this objection I must premise, that the natural and revealed doctrines of a future state are very different. The best of men by the light of reafon can expect only fome flight and inconfiderable reward of a Short and tranfient duration; as this might be a fufficient compenfation for all their services and sufferings, in the prefent life. On the other hand, revelation promises a recovery of our loft inheritance, or a state of immortal happiness and glory. And this is justly reprefented as the pure gift or gratuitous favour of God, fince it flows intirely from his pleasure and good will, and is not to be deduced from any of the divine attributes by the light of

* I have here borrowed the diftinction of that great and illuftrious writer from whom only we are to expect a full and final folution of the several difficulties relating to this question. A future ftate, taught by revelation, " is not immediately founded on the fame principle with "that taught by natural religion. The latter stands "immediately on this principle, that God is juft, and will "give to every man according to his works; therefore if the "diftribution of good and evil be not made here, it will "be hereafter. But the future ftate of revelation ftands "only mediately on this, and immediately on its being a "reftoration to a loft inheritance, purchased by a Redeemer." - Dr. Warburton's Letter to Dr. Middleton, annexed to the argument of the D. L.

F 3

nature

nature and reafon. Now as the NATURAL and REVEALED doctrines were fo very different, why might not the late publication of the one be very confiftent with the early notice of the other; or why might not the one be originally revealed by Jefus, notwithstanding the other had been previously discovered without his affiftance?

His Lordship obferves, that fome perfons think this text of St. Paul," is exclufive of "all arguments for a future immortality "drawn from the light of nature and rea"fon". To To prove that they think wrong, he should produce the natural arguments by which a future immortality may be deduced from the divine attributes, independently on the evidence of revelation. Till he has done this, his objection will amount to just nothing.

Το prove that there is any real repugnancy and contradiction between Dr. Warburton's interpretation of this text, and the natural argument for a future ftate, his Lordship must fhew that the natural and revealed doctrines

Who hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.

2 Vol. i. p. 187.

of

of another life, are one and the fame a. And to establish this identity, he must fuppofe that the fcripture promife of immortal happiness and glory, or a restoration to our loft inheritance, is nothing more than what may be inferred from the moral attributes of God: one confequence of which is, that Christianity is only a republication of the Religion of

nature,

According to his Lordship's objection, a future immortality might be deduced from the moral attributes of God; and confequently would have followed in the natural order and course of things, whether Chrift had fuffered or not. His death and facrifice, therefore, would have been unneceffary, unless

a" Dr. Stebbing, too, afks, "If the ancient heathen "legiflators taught it (the doctrine of a future ftate ;) or if the main body of the Jewish nation believed it, be"fore the coming of Chrift, how was it brought to light "by the Gospel?" Examination, p. 72.

But where did he learn that the Scripture or Chriftian doctrine of a futurity was taught by the Heathen legiflators ? Or by what new experiments will he prove that "the "rabbinical notion of another life, picked up by the

Jews from among their Pagan neighbours, and evi"dently founded on the pythagoric metempsychefis," was the fame with that taught by Jefus Chrift in the Gofpel? For his question has neither pertinence, or force, if the Pagan and Jewish doctrines differed from the Chriftian.

*Vid. Dr. Warburton's letter to Dr. Middleton,

we can suppose they were appointed for the attainment of an end, which had no dependence upon them, and must naturally have followed tho' they had never been.

His Lordship will very much ennoble the natural system, if he can annex to it the promise of a future immortality; but then he must at the fame time paganize the Gospel institution, divest it of the essential doctrine of Redemption, and fo, fink and degrade it into a mere republication of the Religion of nature.

Again: We learn from the New Teftament, that the whole scheme of the redemption of mankind by the Son of God, was discovered to Abraham and to fome others : Hence it is inferred, that it must have been revealed for the general use and information of the faithful, and confequently was intended for a popular and common doctrine both before and under the Law.

We find in the New Teftament many paffages which declare this doctrine was not revealed in these ages, and meet with fome few which declare it was revealed to certain particular perfons. The Deifts afk, how we can folve theeming contradiction, or reconcile the New Teftament with itself, fince it affirms that the doctrine was a mystery,