future ftate, is inconfiftent with the biftory of the old teftament; and with the doctrine of the new.

To give our readers a more adequate idea of the subject-, matter in difpute, it may not be amifs previously, to acquaint them with the nature of the common fyftem here mentioned, and the arguments us'd in favour of it, that they may be the better enabled to determine the force of our author's objections to it. - The common system espoused by the bishop and fome other eminent writers, is, that the great and leading principles of the gospel were revealed by Mofes and the prophets to the antient Jewish people; and that the doctrine of life and immortality was as much the foundation and fupport of the one as of the other in defence of which opinion it is urged, that, no difpenfation of which the doctrine of a future state was not a part wou'd have been able to subsist in any age of the world; that, the antient revelations afforded a good proof of a future ftate; that Jefus did not give the firft and only notice of this doctrine; that Chrift did indeed bring life and immortality to light, but that the word like means only an acceffion or increase of light, to afford a more exact view of objects which had been obferved, though not diftinctly; that Jefus therefore only cured fome defects in that fight which was very good though not eagle-eyed before; that the figurative language of the old teftament was intended for a veil or cover, which veil might notwithstanding be feen through; and that the Jews had frequent and early notice that the law was to cease and be repeal'd after the introduction of the new covenant; that the general belief of a future ftate appears from feveral paffages in the Pfalms and Prophets; and laftly, that what St. Paul fays concerning the original publication of immortality by Chrift, wou'd exclude the arguments for it drawn from the light of nature and reason.

In answer to these arguments (most of them drawn from the bishop of London's difcourfes) our author bath thought fit to produce the following, which we have with fome care endeavour'd to collect and abbreviate for the entertainment of our readers.

This fenfible writer, who seems to have been extremely converfant with the holy fcriptures, obferves, that the common fystem supposes the Jews better inftructed in the principles of

the

the gospel than is confiftent with the account they give of themfelves in the old teftament, or which is given of them by the apostles in the new. That (as it is faid in the latter) the great falvation of the gospel (i. e. eternal life) first began to be spoken by the Lord. But how cou'd Jefus be the first who taught it, if Mofes and the prophets had taught it long before? That, life and immortality were brought to light by the gospel of Chrift; that the word cala muft mean to render an object diftinguishable, which was before unperceived; that the doctrine of a future ftate therefore muft till then have been abfolutely unknown; that the Jews are faid to fit in darkness and the shadow of death; the Jews therefore cou'd never be faid to ft in darkness, if according to the bishop's interpretation of this word, they had a good general view of the object. In regard to the types and figures intended for a veil or cover, he defires to know whether the Jews cou'd fee through them or not? If, (fays he) they faw into the fpiritual fenfe, they cou'd have no doubts; if they did not, they cou'd have no proof. Let the pa❝trons of the common system therefore tell us, whether the ty•pical fenfe of the law was opened to, or concealed from, the Jewish church. If it was concealed, the doctrine of life and immortality muft have been a fecret, while this fenfe remained under a veil or cover. If it was opened, the tem porary and preparatory nature of the law must have been opened too; and confequently its ceffation, and the exemption of the gentiles from its rites and ceremonies, could not have been a mystery. We must therefore either fuppofe with the author of the D. L. that the doctrine of life and immortali→ ty was a mystery, or fuppofe that the calling of the gentiles was no mystery, in direct contradiction to St. Paul.'

Our author farther obferves, that the infpired writer wou'd not have faid the way to heaven was not made manifeft, (Hcb. ii. 3) if the Jews had been taught to expect eternal life. It is faid alfo, that the law had a fhadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things; and confequently, that the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews did not believe with the bishop of London, that the law afforded a good proof of a future ftate; for a fhadow is a good proof of nothing, but of a fubflance kept out of fight, and of which they cou'd know

only

only this, that it was fomething. St. Paul fays moreover, that Chrift abolished death by bringing life and immortality to light: if fo, the empire of death muft have arifen from the with-holding the knowledge of a future ftate.

Now if this was the circumftance (fays our author) which C abolished death, and yet, at the fame time, we will hold that a good proof of a future life had been afforded by the law; it will ◄ follow that death must have been, if not totally, yet in a good meafure, abolished by Mofes. And thus nothing confiderable • would have been referved for Jefus Chrift, who was only to ' give the last blow to an enemy already expiring, who had been deprived of his main power and ftrength by another < hand.

.

• His lordship's principle therefore seems to prefent us with a very low and disparaging idea of our bleffed faviour's at*chievements, the principal part of whofe office had been * discharged before he came : at beft it is dividing the honour • of the victory between Mofes and Jesus Christ ?'

The paffages in the pfalms urg'd in favour of the common fyftem are oppos'd by other paffages implying the disbelief of it, (fuch are the 30th, 88th, and 115th) from whence our author concludes, that if David was acquainted with the doctrine contended for, he feems induftrious to hide it in one pfalm, and yet studious to publish and divulge it in another. Laftly, the learned prelate's affertion that the natural arguments in support of a future ftate are excluded by aligning the first publication of immortality to Jefus Christ, is thus answer'd:

The natural and revealed doctrines of a future ftate are very different. The beft of men by the light of reafon can expect only fome flight and inconfiderable reward, of a fhert and tranfient duration; as this might be a fufficient compen ⚫ fation for all their fervices and fufferings in the prefent life. • On the other hand, revelation promises a recovery of our last inheritance, or a state of immortal happiness and glory. And this is juftly 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 nature and reafon. Now as the natural ⚫ and revealed doctrines were fo very different, why might not VOL. II. I

• the

the late publication of the one be very confiftent with the < carly notice of the other; or why might not the one be originally revealed by Jefus, notwithstanding the other had been previously discovered without his affistance?'

In this chapter our author alfo attacks Dr. Stebbing and Dr. Fortin with fome feverity, and concludes with this very just obtervation, that it is not for beings of our narrow and limited capacities to reafon a priori, or to dictate to God in what meafure and proportion he fhould have revealed his will to the ancient fews. 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.'

Chap. II. Our author having endeavour'd to prove that the common fyftem is confuted by the authority of the new teftament, proceeds to fhew that it will likewife difable us from defending the old, or fatisfying the objections against the ancient prophecies: this leads him to a confideration of what the bishop of London has advanc'd concerning them. The bifhop (he obferves) has labour'd to prove, from the nature and reafon of the thing, that types, wherever they are found, muft needs have been firft delivered with their proper explanation; which, this writer remarks, is no better than inferring from the propriety and ufe of a veil or cover, that there was nothing to be veiled or covered. His lordship, (fays he) affures us, that the ancient prophecies, relative to the fpiritual covenant, were ♦ given to epablish and confirm the hopes of futurity, or the doctrine of redemption and eternal life. But if they were given to explain, and to imprefs this doctrine on the minds of the people, why were they conveyed under types? or why was the doctrine wrapped up in clouds and darkness, if it was to be established, difpenfed, and propagated among the faithful ⚫ of thofe times? If it was to be thus propagated and dispensed, * not only fo thick a cover as that of types, but any cover whatever must have been unneceflary.'

Our author then takes to tafk the great polemic-writer Dr. Stebbing, who in this writer's opinion has fucceeded no better

than

than his learned patron. The Dr. afferts, that types and fecondary prophecies were intended for a veil or cover of the doctrines conveyed under them; one of which doctrines was a future ftate : according to him, this was the whole fiftance of the religion of thofe times, and yet this very doctrine was buried under the veil of types. Thus (fays our author) the 'Law was given, and God interpofed in a very fingular and • extraordinary manner, not to relume and restore the princi• pal and important doctrines of religion, but to cover and hide them from his favourite and chosen people.'

He then returns to the bishop of London, and having feparately confider'd his lordship's defence of three particular forts of prophecy; I. Typical prophecies, and fuch as have a double meaning; II. Those which represent the gospel bleffings under temporal and carnal images; II. Thofe which relate to the temporal affairs of the jewish people; he concludes with obferving, that the bishop's description and account of these three forts of prophecy will oblige him either to defend the jewish religion on Dr. Warburton's fuppofition that it had not the doctrine of a future ftate, or to give it up to the fcorn of infidelity.

Our author having thus boldly and fuccefsfully led on his forces against the general, we shall not be furpriz'd to find him attacking the inferior officers, Dr. Sykes and Dr. Middleton, those well known writers against types and prophecies. As the nature of this work will not permit us to infert every particular objection which our author has made to thefe gentlemen, we fhall only present our readers with his general charge against them, which, in our opinion, is in the fubfequent pages extremely well fupported.

These learned perfons (fays he) both own that there is a • ftrict connexion between the Old and New Teftament, or, 'that the last was to be predicted and prefigured by the first. The question is, in what manner this prediction and prefiguration was to be made. The nature and reafon of the thing tells us, it could not be plainly and openly, because this would ⚫ have prejudiced the Jews against the law. The learned perfons themselves tell us, it could not be plainly and openly, because the peculiar nature and genius of the new religion, was