• to remain a mystery, and to be kept secret, at the time of giving the prophecies. Now if it was to be predicted for 'the use of future times, and yet to be kept out of fight of the prefent, the fecondary fenfe of prophecy muft have been a proper mode of conveyance, as it was excellently well adapted for the performance of both thefe fervices at the ' fame time.

Now Dr. Middleton and Dr. Sykes both fuppofe, that the things to be prefigured were to be put under a veil, or cover ; and yet both deny the propriety of a fecondary fenfe in prophecy. On the other hand, the lord bishop of London, and Dr. Stebbing, both affert the propriety of a fecondary sense, • and yet both take away the use of a veil or cover, as they sup'pofe the prediction and prefiguration were intended for the use of the times in which they were delivered.

The two firft oppofe the fecondary sense on such principles, as neceflarily tend to establish it: and the two other defend ⚫ it on fuch principles, as neceffarily tend to overthrow it. Dr. • Middleton and Dr. Sykes hold, that there was something to be veiled and covered; yet deny there was any veil or cover: My lord bishop and Dr. Stebbing hold that there was a veil or cover; yet deny there was any thing to be veiled or • covered.'

Chap. III. In this chapter our author examines the bishop of London's explanation and account of the book of Job, in which his lordfhip had maintained, I. That the argu•ment between Job and his friends turns upon this point, whe•ther the afflictions of this world are certain marks of God's dif• pleasure, and an indication of the wickedness of those who suffer? 2. That the book is of very high antiquity, and was writ⚫ten long before the time of Moses.

· 3. That the celebrated paflage (I know that my Redeemer liveth, &c.) in the xixth chapter, relates to the refurrection.' Our author here remarks, that there seems to be no natu⚫ral connection between the three points here maintained. On the contrary, the first is a direct contradiction to the third; • and even to the fecond, upon the principles of the common fyftem. And, fo circumftanced, the fecond is plainly incon• fiftent

.

fiftent with the third, as well as the firft. Confequently, we cannot admit the third, without rejecting the first and second.' If the first were true the dispute wou'd be at an end, and the difficulty perfectly clear'd up by the third. The first point is alfo inconfiftent with the fecond, becaufe the common fyftem holds a future ftate to have been a popular doctrine among the worshippers of the true Gods at all times and in all places. But Job's friends were abfolute strangers to any notion of a future

retribution.

The fecond is likewife inconfiftent with the third, because if this book was older than the law, we may be certain it did not contain any clear and diftinct revelation of this doctrine, for why need it have been hid under types in the pentateuch, if it had been openly expofed in other infpired writings, then in the hands of the jewish people? Add to this, that there cou'd be no occafion for Mojes and the prophets to throw a veil over a doctrine which was plainly revealed in the book of Job. The hopes of futurity, (fays the bishop) were reserved to be revealed by him whofe province it was to bring life and immortality to light through the gospel. But how (replies our author) was this referved for Jefus Chrift, if, as his lordship tells us, a plain prophetical description of this very article was given in the book of Job?

Chap. IV. Treats on the particular end and defign of the jewish law. It is agreed on all hands, that the law was instituted to preserve the doctrines which had been the foundation of the patriarchal religion; the bishop of London contends that the principle of redemption and a future ftate was one of these. This our author denies, and undertakes to prove, that fuch a fuppofitionis inconfiftent with the nature of the law, confidered as a preparatory oṛ introductory dispensation. 2. That there is nothing to countenance and fupport it in the Old Teftament. 3. That it directly contradicts many texts of the New, and alfo feveral paffages in his lordship's fermons • and discourses on prophecy.'

The arguments which our author brings in confirmation of this charge againft his lordfhip, are for the most part very forcible and fatisfactory, he concludes with obferving, that his lordship is but little content with the opinion of those wri13

ters

'ters, who are content with what the law represents of itself; 6 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 adminifter the like hopes with the chriftian covenant. But inflead of enobling the law by loading it with thefe new honours, he has only intangled it with fresh difficulties, and enabled prophane men to attack it with more vigour and fuccefs; by fhewing that the nature of the two difpenfations, the authority of the two Teftaments, and my lord bishop's own conceffions, are all directly inconsistent with this honourable hypothesis.'

་

.

Chap. V. Contains an enquiry, how far the doctrine advanced in my lord bishop's fixth fermon affects the argument of the divine legation; how far it tends to establish the credit of Mofes and the Prophets: and how far it is confiftent with the other parts of his lordship's theological fyftem. As the bishop in this fermon fuppofes that nothing but a full proof of the refurrection cou'd at any time be fufficient to fupport religion, and as no fuch knowledge of a refurrection was granted to the patriarchal and jewish Churches, our author begs leave to afk how this deficiency was fupplied, or what particular difpenfation of providence was made ufe of, to preferve religion, without affording any perfect affurance or full perfuafion of a future life? Secondly, it appears evident to our author, that the bishop's doctrine cannot poffibly tend to establish the credit of Mofes and the Prophets, because if (according to his lordship) the doctrine of the refurrection was the fingle point wanting, to compleat the natural argument for a future life, and the only circumftance which made a revelation on this subject neceffary; to fuppofe a revelation of a future ftate which faid nothing of this refurrection, wou'd be fuppofing a revelation which faid nothing of the great point which ought principally to have been revealed.

Is it not therefore (fays he) more for the credit of the jewish revelation, to fuppofe, that it faid nothing of a fu⚫ture ftate, when it did not want it, than that it faid nothing to the purpofe, when it did?'

Thirdly, his lordship's fyftem is inconfiftent with itself, beause it afferts that the law afforded a good proof of a future life, and yet contends that life and immortality were brought to light by the gofpel. If this paffage, I am the God of Abraham, &c. extends, according to the bishop, to another life, that doctrine was the fanction of the law as well as the gospel, and of neceffity, must have been as clearly revealed by Mofes as by Chrift; which wou'd flatly contradict the fcriptures of the New Testament. It is inconfiftent likewife, because it afcribes to the law, a good proof of a future life, and yet leaves the doctrine under doubts and uncertainties, by fuppofing it to have been convey'd by types, and figures: the bifhop therefore seems to be taking with one hand and giving with the other. In a word (fays our author) we magnify the law above the gospel, if we allow it to afford a good proof of a future life, as his lordship here supposes. For in this cafe, it would have the ❝ fanction both of the life which now is, and of that which is to come, while the gofpel would have only the laft.'

Though the bishop of London has afferted in one place, that the law afforded a good proof of a future ftate, he notwithstanding acknowledges in another, that the better hopes of a future life wou'd have vacated the temporal promises of the law. Thus, on different occafions, he makes no fcruple to af fert, both that the law had, and that it had not the doctrine of a future state; that is, he finds himself obliged to affert and deny the very fame propofition in the very fame fenfe. Our author having then treated at large this important question, ⚫ whether the extraordinary providence, as recorded in the Old Teftament, by a long feries of miracles, can be supported against the objections of unbelievers, on the principles of the common fyftem,' is naturally led to a few observations on Dr. Warburton's Divine Legation, which our readers may observe, it seems our author's chief aim to defend and fupport. He informs us notwithstanding (p. 355) that his defign in these papers was not to confider the feveral objections, which have, or may be, alledged against the argument of the D. L. but only to < fhew the impoffibility of defending revealed religion, on the * fuppofition that the knowledge of a future ftate was always • neceflary

I 4

14

• necessary and effential to the fupport of it.' And concludes the book in the following words:

Many more confiderations may be deduced from the foregoing fheets, to fhew the impoffibility of defending revealed rcligion, on the supposition that a future ftate was always neceflary and effential to the fupport of it. Whenever these <objections are discharged to the fatisfaction of the public, I fhall readily acquiefce in his lordship's fyftem. All my view is, to get the queftion fairly and, impartially examined; and therefore I have often addreffed myfelf to two ingenious and learned writers, who seem to be well qualified for this • task. I have no objection to suppose a future state has always been neceffary and effential to religion; if fo be they are able to prove that it was always as plainly and explicitly delivered, as the fanction of a revealed fyftem ought to be. If they can produce no proof that it was thus plainly and explicity revealed, it may be dangerous to affert its neceffity; as this would be pointing out to the Deifts an eafy and effectual way of impeaching the divinity and truth both of the • patriarchal and Jewish Difpenfations.

To conclude, in the words of a very excellent perfon, "If I have argued amifs, I fhall furely hear of it. Every "man of common fenfe is judge of these arguments; and I "only wish they may be impartially examined."

Though our author's attacks throughout the book are principally levell'd against the bishop of London, we meet alfo with fome fevere ftrictures on feveral other eminent writers, not only the laborious Stebbing and the candid Leland; but the ingenious Middleton and the learned Fortin have fallen under his cenfure; Law, Rutherford, Brown, Peters, and fome others are likewife called upon to defend their tenets; fo that if the feveral challenges are accepted, we may expect warm work in the field of religious controverfy the enfuing winter. Our hero, however, (if we may judge by the performance before us) seems poffefs'd of courage and talents fufficient to enter the lift with any of them he thinks clearly, and deliver his thoughts with perfpicuity: there is befides a fpirit and freedom in his manner, which, efpecially in the prefent dearth of good writers, cannot fail to diflinguifh him from the common herd, and to point