he did, we Chriftians are obliged to believe it. And if we be affured, upon this proper and fufficient authority, that God really acted thus, all objections to the juftice and wif dom of fuch a dispensation must fall to the ground.

The writers, therefore, against the author of the D. L. fhould be very cautious how they leave him in poffeffion of these several texts. For it is leaving us in poffeffion of the fulleft evidence, that the Jewish religion, notwithstanding it was given by God, was not established on the fanction of a future ftate. And all objections to the rectitude, juftice, and wisdom of this proceeding, are precluded, if in reality the proceeding was of God,

To place things in their true light, we muft suppose these objections addressed to the writers of the New Teftament. For they are equally concerned in this question with the author of the D. L. fince it is on their authority that he denies the Jews the knowledge of a future ftate.

When he is infulted, therefore, on this account, we should recollect that he denies it on the authority of the infpired writers; and recollect likewife that my Lord Bishop has fometimes denied them this knowledge, on the

very fame authority m. The only difference is, that the Doctor is all along uniform and confiftent with himself, by fteddily adhering to one principle, while the learned Prelate alternately lends his authority to each fide of the question, just as the purpose of his present argument requires.

The Doctor has indeed been charged with a kind of facrilege, an attempt to rob and deprive the Jewish religion of its great ornament and fupport, the doctrine of a future state. But let his accufers firft prove that this ornament was amongst the facred utenfils of the temple. And when they have done this, they may, in order to perfect and complete their victory, involve the writers of the New Teftament in the fame charge ".

m Sermons, Vol. i. p. 135.

The principal defign of this chapter was to fhew, that the ancient Jews had not the revealed doctrine of a future ftate. And fo far the learned Dr. Sykes entirely agrees * with the author of the D. L. However, he differs from him in affigning them the natural doctrine of a futurity. We shall confider his particular opinion, when we come to examine in what manner he would account for the abfence and omiffion of a future ftate in the Mofaic Law. He, my Lord Bishop, and Dr. Stebbing, have undertaken this queftion, as well as Lord Bolingbroke. And I am forry to fay, that they have not

*Paraphrafe on the epiftle to the Hebrews, p. 203, 4, 5, 6.

:

In a word, it is not for Beings of our narrow and limited capacities to reason a priori, or to dictate to God in what measure and proportion he should have revealed his will to the ancient Jews. If we would know what was fit to be done at this time, our only way is to fit down, and enquire what he actually did do. And if we will allow the Writers of the New Teftament to be competent judges of this matter, we must own, that the doctrine of life and immortality was not revealed at this time; and therefore not fit to be revealed.

As thofe glorious minifters of truth have attefted this fact, it will be equally the bufinefs of all believers to fatisfy and difcharge the feveral objections which are brought against a Religion thus circumftanced; that is, deftitute of the principle of a future ftate. For they are not levelled at any one fect or party in particular, but bear with equal force against all who undertake the defence of revealed Religion. The writers, therefore, who have been fo long afferting

fucceeded better in their experiments than the noble Lord; for that the conduct of Mofes feems to be as capricious, irrational, and abfurd, on their principles, as on those of the noble Founder of the first philofophy.

the

the force, validity, and importance of these objections, have all the time been putting arms into the hands of Unbelievers, which they may turn against us at their pleasure.

Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atrida.

CHAP.

CHAP. II.

Remarks on the Bishop of London's defence of the ancient prophecies; with fome obfervations on what has been lately advanced by Dr. Middleton, and Dr. Sykes, on the fubject of types and fecondary prophecies.

T

HE purpose of these sheets is to fhew, that the common fyftem, which makes redemption and a future ftate, a popular doctrine amongst the ancient Jews, abounds with abfurdities and inconfiftencies. In the foregoing chapter I have proved, that this notion is confuted by the plain and exprefs authority of the New Teftament. In this I fhall endeavour to shew, that it will disable us from defending the Old, or giving a fatisfactory answer to the objections which Unbelievers bring against the ancient prophecies. And perhaps the futulity of this fyftem, cannot be better or more effectually expofed, than by

* See his Examination of the Bishop of London's difcourfes, &c.

See his Notes and paraphrafe on the epifle to the Hebrews.

shewing