no Promife of Salvation by Faith under the Law, because there was no Promife of Salvation by Faith in Chrift, the only Son of God, who was conceived by the Holy Ghoft &c. or because the Chriftian Syftem &c. was unknown before the Coming of the Saviour, i. e. was not revealed before the Revelation of it; I fay, unlefs this will follow, the Hypothefis we are defending is immoveable, and this great Champion of St. Paul will be found to handle his Weapons in a manner which is the Reverfe to that of his Mafter, and to be fighting as one that beateth the Air.

But lastly, the common Hypothefis is inconfistent likewise, the Examiner tells us, with the Bifhop of London's Sermons and Discourses on Prophecy.-His Lordship, fays our Author, "ranks "the Principle of the Refurrection among the Doc"trines of the patriarchal Religion," which were to be difpenfed and administered by the Law. "And yet the avowed Purpose of his fixth Sermon "is to prove that the Doctrine of the Resurrection was reserved for the preaching of Jefus." (p. 254.) Now I am not to anfwer for any Inconveniencies that may attend his Lordship's Hypothefis, either by his ante-dating the Book of Job, or denying the Jews the Doctrine of the Refurrection. What were the precife Tenets of the antient Jews with regard to a future State, or to the Principle of the Refurrection,

Refurrection, it may not be eafy to determine; but I fee not how the common Syftem is affected thereby; because let fuch Tenets have been as strong, and full, as you please, they imply nothing, as we have observed, in the least derogatory to the Office of Jefus Chrift, or independent on God's Covenant" by him, and him alone conveyed to "us." A bare Perfuafion, a doctrinal Tenet, or the Hope and Expectation of a Bleffing, or Deliverance, implies neither Merit, nor Claim, nor adequate Knowledge of the Deliverer; and confequently we may fuppofe that the Doctrine even of the Refurrection was a popular one among the antient Jews, without impairing the Dignity, or encroaching upon the Province of the Gospel.

Farther, fays the Examiner, "as his Lordship « contends that the Promise of Redemption was "revealed in the patriarchal Ages; his Hypothefis

supposes that this Doctrine was to be taught " and dispensed by the Law;"which we will allow to be found Reasoning as soon as it shall be proved that a Promife and a Doctrine are one and the fame Thing. But if they are not, "the learned "Prelate does by no means fay, that the Law was

given to propagate a Doctrine, which was to "remain a Myftery, &c. but that it preferved a Hope, or conveyed a Promife which virtually contained one. (p. 255.) Well then might his Lord

1

ship affert, "that the Publication of the Gospel

"has made an Alteration in the Scheme of Reli

cr

gion, by revealing to us the Son of God:" and that "the Knowledge of the Son of God, of his "Power and Dominion, &c. became neceffary, as "the Foundation of the Faith required to be placed in him as our dear Redeemer, &c. and "that therefore the New Teftament Doctrines, relating to the Dignity and Office of Jefus Chrift, "are relative to his Office of Redeemer; and that "therefore there was no explicit Declaration of "them either before or under the Law of Moses." The Examiner, in fhort, by confounding Promifes with Doctrines, Expectations with Certainties, national Sanctions with fpiritual Hopes, and Judaifm with Chriftianity, has perplexed and embarraffed a System perfectly clear and confiftent in "his itself. (p. 256. &c. &c.) To conclude,

6.

Lordship, we are informed, is but little content "with the Opinion of those Writers, who are " content with what the Law represents of itself; namely, that it was given to preferve the Knowledge of the one true God amongst the Ifraelites, "whilft it was loft every where elfe. He rejects "this, as too low and narrow a Defign; and maintains, that it was intended for higher Purposes, " and given to administer the like Hopes with the Chriftian Covenant." Now what Method the great Prelate has taken to reject a Design by

enlarging

enlarging it, the Examiner should have been kind enough to acquaint us; in the mean time, be that as it will, if the Law was not given "to administer << the Hopes of the Chriftian Covenant, i.e. to preferve the Promife of Redemption, or Restoration to Life and Immortality; or, in other Words, if the Jews, among whom the Knowledge and Worship of the one true God was undeniably maintained, had not the least glimmering Notion, the least Conception of a future State, I believe it to be demonftrable, that this Knowledge was not fo utterly and univerfally loft, but that a System of Theology may be extracted from the Sentiments of Pagan Philofophy, upon the whole, more rational, confiftent, and comfortable, than that of Mofes himself.-But I may have Occafion to refume this Argument, and fhall only observe at prefent, that if this should appear to be the Cafe, the Examiner was over hafty when he infolently challenged the learned Dr. Leland to " clap bis "Book into the Number, in his next VIEW OF "DEISTICAL WRITINGS." (p. 262. 263.)

CHAP.

W

CHAP. V.

E are arrived at length at the Examiner's Inquiry, how far the Doctrine advanced in my Lord Bishop's fixth Sermon, affects the Argument of the DIVINE LEGATION; how far it tends to eftablish the Credit of Moses and the PROPHETS; and how far it is confiftent with the other Parts of bis Lordship's theological Syftem. The Doctrine, it seems, advanced by his Lordship, is, "That all "the former Revelations had left the Principle of

a future State involved in Doubts and Obfcurities, "or embarraffed with Difficulties and Uncertain"ties, which were to be illuftrated and made plain

by Jefus Chrift." Now the Examiner argues, that as "the Want of the Knowledge of the Refurrection was, according to the Bishop's own Hypothefis, the Ground of all these Doubts and Uncertainties, &c. fo it is impoffible to affign any Syftem of Religion prior to the Christian, any "clear and evident Revelation of a future State.” And as "Revelation, agreeably likewife to his Lordship's Doctrine, was given to affure us of "the Certainty and Reality of THINGS FUTURE, " without which Affurance they could have no "Effect or Influence on our Affections," fo the Patriarchal and Jewish Religion did confequently, by fome Means or other, fubfift without "

any per

"fect