it were maintained to be as full and explicit under the Law, as it is in the Gospel.The common

System however, at least his Lordship of London maintains only, that as no Religion can fubfift without a general Belief in, and Expectation of a future State, so fufficient Proofs, or Intimations of fuch a State were given to the Jews in the divine Declarations to Adam, and the Patriarchs, &c.-That there are certain Paffages in which this Doctrine is implied, and from which it may fairly be deduced, the Examiner does himself admit, when he tells us, that 'tis to no purpose " to "produce implicit Revelations, when the Argu"ment requires fuch as are most explicit, and express." (p. 76.) "For it seems to be agreed on all hands, fays he in another Place, that the Sanc"tions of a Religion fhould be delivered in as open

and explicit a manner, as the Precepts of it." (p. 75.)-But notwithstanding all this, I would fain know whether even this Revelation was not

Q

1

the Jews the frongest Motive to Obedience, &c. though God had still stronger in referve? Or, whether the Belief of a future State, grounded on the divine Promises, muft not have been the most rational and comfortable Sanction of Religion to every Individual under many fuppofable Circumstances, though it was not (nor, as we fhall fee, could be) the explicit, or declared Sanction of the Religion of the antient Jews in their political, or national Capacity?

Capacity? That the Jews are to be confidered in these two Lights I shall hereafter have Occafion to fhew; when I hope to make it appear, notwithstanding the Affertions of the new System, and Dr. Warburton himself to the contrary, that with refpect to Individuals the Sanctions of mere temporal Rewards and Punishments could not, in Multitudes of Cafes, be any Sanctions at all. Farther, "Unbelievers may fay indeed, that the " Doctrine of a future State ought to have been as plainly and clearly revealed by Mofes, as by Jefus Chrift and his Apoftles;" but the Believer will fay, that God might reveal this Doctrine in what Manner, or in what Degree his Wisdom thought proper. To fay, that the Belief of a future State is the only "Foundation of a reasonable Worship," is one Thing; but it is another to affert the Neceffity of this Doctrine's being equally ascertained, and promulgated at all Times, and to all People.— However, we will undertake to refolve Unbelievers why the Doctrine of a future State, or Restoration to Life and Immortality, "was not as explicitly "revealed by Mofes and the Prophets in the Old "Teftament, as by Jefus Chrift and his Apostles " in the New," or why thefe real, and ultimate, though not open and immediate Sanctions of the Jewish Religion, were not as explicit as the Precepts of it; (which the Examiner is at least modest enough to say only it seems to be agreed on all hands

they

they should be) I fay, we will undertake to do this, as foon as the Advocates of the new System have fatisfied Unbelievers why the Doctrine of a future State was communicated only to fome felect Perfons, as a fingular Favour, fince it was a Doctrine equally interesting, and neceffary to be known at all Times, and by all Perfons. And yet this, I find, is the Expedient the Author of the D. L. has Recourse to, in order to obviate the Objections of the Deifts to the fuppofed Contradictions between certain Paffages in the New Testament, which declare "this Doctrine was not revealed in these "(viz. the Jewish) Ages," and others which declare it was to fome particular Perfons.

Now, I conceive, all Difficulties of this Nature will be effectually cleared up, to the Satisfaction of reasonable Inquirers, by attending to the Distinction we have before made between the Hope and Expectation of a future State in general, or Restoration to Life and Immortality, established upon certain Promises and Declarations, and the whole Syftem of Salvation, or Redemption of Mankind by the Son of God. This latter was indeed communicated only to a felect few, and probably but partially even to them; while the other we suppose to have been "a popular and common Doctrine "both before and under the Law." Many Things, no doubt, relative to this great Scheme, Mofes delivered "under the Cover and Veil of Types," i. e. defignedly

defignedly concealed it from his People;" but he did not therefore difannul the Promises on which the Hope of Immortality was built.-I own, I cannot fee now why" my Lord Bishop and Dr.

Stebbing will be obliged to follow the Author of "the D. L. in this Diftinction," viz. of a fingular Favour, &c. as the due Adherence to this other Distinction, will, I dare affirm, folve all the feeming Inconfiftencies which the learned Prelate is frequently charged with by the Examiner, who represents him "as alternately lending his Authority to each Side of the Question, just as the Purpose of his prefent Argument requires." (p. 89.) It will at the fame time acquit the Advocates of the common System in general of the Charge of "Folly, and Prevarication in setting "afide the Authority of one Half of the Bible, in "order to establish the other."-"The only

Queftion (in the present Controverfy) is, fays. "our Author, whether the Paffages above quoted "do, or do not imply, that God did leave the

Jews without the Promise of Life and Immor"tality ?"- This indeed is the Queftion, which must be left to the Decifion of the Candid, and Impartial; though the Examiner in another Place directly afferts, that there is no room for any Question at all in the prefent Cafe. For "it is "abfurd, fays he, to inculcate the Neceffity of fuppofing, that the Jewish Religion had a future

"State,

"State, as neceffary to the Defence of it. The "Believer will not think himself at liberty to af"fume a Principle which is flatly contradicted by "the New Testament, or to affign the Jewish Religion fuch a Degree and Measure of Perfection,

as neither did, nor poffibly could belong to it, if "the Chriftian be true." (p. 86.). However, with his Leave, we will let it remain a Question still, whether the common System ascribes fuch a Measure of Perfection to the Jewish Religion as is flatly contradicted by the New Teftament? Or, whether the Honour and Confistency of both Teftaments will not be better maintained, and the Objections of Unbelievers folved, by fuppofing the Jews to have confidered God's original Promise,

c. as relative to a Restoration to Life and Immortality, though they knew not precisely how, or by whom fuch Restoration was to be effected; than by the Principles of the new System, which supposes the Jews in general to have been abfolutely ignorant of all spiritual Matters, and utterly destitute of all Proofs of a future State?

This will be the final Question; and in the mean time let us see how the Examiner gets rid of a natural Objection to the "Principles defended in his Papers." "The learned Prelate, fays he, infifts, that the natural Arguments in Support of a future State must be excluded and fet afide, if

« we