very

Indeed the patrons of the common system fuppofe, that the Jewish religion had the fame doctrine of a future ftate with ours. For they pretend that the Christian covenant, or God's covenant of life and immortality, was revealed in the books of Mofes for the ufe of the ancient Jews, in order to acquaint them with God's purpose of reftoring mankind to their loft inheritance. They fay this covenant was to be opened and unfolded gradually. But if life and immortality was one of the parts which was intended for the immediate notice and information of the people of that age; why was it not plainly and explicitely revealed? For it is agreed on all hands, that the promises, ftipulated by a covenant, ought to be delivered in the most precife, determinate, and exprefs terms. They should have been delivered in this manner, as they were unknown before; and the covenant was revealed on purpose to make them manifeft to the faithful of those times.

d Promiffa, præfertim fæderi annexa, debent effe clara ac diferta, et ejufmodi, ut ab utraque parte ftipulante intelligi poffint. Bp. Bull's Harmonia Apoftolica, Differ. poft. c. x. fect. 8. And might not this principle have fhewn him, that the Chriftian covenant of life and immortality was not revealed for the ufe of the Jewish Church in any part of the books of Mefes?

Unbelievers

Unbelievers will fay, on the authority of the New Testament, that this life and immortality remained a mystery, and was intended to remain a mystery under the Law. And they will add, that there must have been fomething very fingular and incomprehenfible in the difpenfations of Providence, if this doctrine was to continue a mystery at the very time when it was appointed for the fanction of a revealed religion. Unbelievers object, that no religion, coming from God, can contain any myfteries; and we fhall hardly remove their prejudices, by adding the fanctions of religions to the catalogue. My Lord Bishop obferves, that the Gospel-myfteries are things which God referved to himself, without communicating the knowledge of them to the world, before the coming of the Saviour. And he obferves alfo, that life and immortality was one of these myfteries. Now, after this, will he fay, it was intended for the fanction of the Jewish religion?

It is aftonishing his Lordship should affert that the covenant, by which God engaged to restore mankind to life and immortality, was revealed almoft at the beginning of the world, and was often revived and re-published • Vol. i. Sermon iii. P, 133, 4, 5.

both

both before and under the Law; and yet fhould contend, that the doctrine of life and immortality was all the time a mystery, which he referved within his own breaft. For how is it poffible that a doctrine could remain a mystery, after the covenant in which that doctrine is contained, was revealed?

The advocates of the common system pretend, that the Jewish religion would have been unworthy of God, unless it were established on the fanction of a future state. The Deifts, therefore, to convict it of impofture, need only produce those paffages of the New Teftament, which fo plainly and strongly declare that the Mofaic Religion had it not. Thus they will find themselves enabled to turn the Chriftian religion against the Jewish, and to dispute the miffion of Mofes and the prophets upon the authority of Jesus Chrift and his apostles.

f As I have been here examining Whether the writers, who fuppofe a future ftate was a fundamental and effential part of religion at all times, and under all difpenfations, be able to remove the infidel objection abovementioned; it may not be improper to confider the opinion of the reverend Dr. Fortin, who has touched this argument, tho' very flightly, in his late Differtations. He tells us, that the Pagan "notions of the soul seem not to be the "refult of reasonings upon the nature of God or of man; "but the remains of an old tradition, delivered down, in The

The conftant cry is, and it has been founded very tragically, that we give the unbeliever

"all probability, from the beginning of the world, and "fpread through all nations." p. 233.

Thus he fuppofes the doctrine of a future ftate was originally revealed at the beginning of the world, and handed down by tradition to the Jews and Gentiles. The que ftion therefore is, whether thefe principles will furnish any folid and fatisfactory answer to the infidel objection, which supposes the Jewish religion to be unworthy of God, because it does not contain this doctrine?

Now I think they will not: for the Deifts fay that nothing but a plain and explicit revelation of this doctrine will justify the conduct of providence, if it was intended for the fanction of the Religions of the ancient world. And they may venture to affirm, without the least fear of being confuted, that the learned Writer will never be able to prove his tradition to be such plain and explicite

revelation.

They will add, that the fuppofition of such a tradition is the defending the Old Teftament at the expence of the New, as it is evidently inconfiftent with the feveral paffages of the New, explained in this chapter.

It will not mend the matter to say, that as the doctrine had been revealed near the beginning of the world, a subsequent revelation was not necessary in the times of Moses. For this would be afcribing that virtue and authority to tradition in our disputes with Infidels, which Papifts contend for, and which is not granted, in their disputes with us.

It will be more inconfiftent ftill to affert againft unbelievers the neceffity of a written word, becaufe doctrines, conveyed by tradition, are foon loft and forgotten, or adul terated with fabulous and impure mixtures; and yet to affert against them, on another occafion, that the most effential and important of all religious principles (i. e. the doctrine of a future ftate) might be fafely entrusted to tradition.

great advantage by supposing that a future ftate was not intended for the fanction of the Jewish religion. But fure we give him much greater, by fuppofing that it was infor the dea for then he will afk, why it was not as explicitly revealed by Mofes and the Prophets in the Old Testament, as by Jefus Christ and his apostles in the New ?

g

And what answer fhall we make, when he confronts us with the paffages of the New Teftament, which declare that the doctrine of life and immortality was a mystery kept fecret and bid in the age of the Jewish covenant? Will he not upbraid us with our folly

It is not ftrange that the Abbé du Prades fhould afcribe this virtue to tradition, fince he may do it confiftently with the principles of the Romish Church. But that Dr. Fortin, who often speaks as flightly, and feems to think as meanly of that Church as any other proteftant, should yet fo highly honour and exalt this Popish tradition as to suppose that the principal point of the Jewish religion was conveyed by it, is not so easy to comprehend.

The emptiness and futility of this reasoning, fo far as the prefent question is concerned, has been fufficiently expofed in the Argument of the D. L. p. 117, 118.

How unable Dr. Stebbing was to remove the Infidel objection, on the fuppofition that the doctrine of a future ftate was a neceffary and effential part of the Jewish religion, may be seen likewise in the Argument of the D. L. p. 118-125.

* See his Thefis and Apology.

and