1« ^%|t^^ YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ¦<^*^ '* Dr. PJRRr's b E F E N S OF The Bishop of L OND 0 N, |Price, ONESini,I.ING.] Advertifement. THE greateft part of the follow^ ing Sheets being printed off before Dr. Warburton was honored with a MITRE, he is fpoken of thiioughoiJ: ifelccepVin the Title-page) as Dea>i of BriJioL This, the Author hopef^ will be deemed a fufficient apology for any expreffiolis, which may be though : unfuitable to the episcopal dignity ^ efpecially as the moft exceptionable an borrowed from the Divine Legation. Hak.borouoh, Jao, 1,1^^0. A , DEFENSE O F The Lord Bifliop of LONDON'S INTERPRETATION 6 F The famous T E X T in the Book of JOB, I know that my Redeemer livetby &c. against the EXCEPTIONS O F The Bifliop oi GLOCESTER, AND The Examiner ofthe Bifliop oi LONDONs Principles. With occafional Remarks on the Argument of the Divine Legation, fo far as this Point i$ concerned with it. By RICHARD PARRT, D.D. ractor of witchampton, im dorsetshire; And Preacher at Harqorouqh, in Leicestershir?. Est genus hominum, qui esse primos se omnium re?. ' m volunt— — nec svnt. NORTHAMPTON: Printed and fold by C. Dicey; and by Lockyer Davis and Charles Rexmehs, in iO iV 0 0 A^ 1760. Mhc9 B3^ TO The Right Reverend JOHN By Divine Permission Lord Bisflop of LINCOLN This Vindication Of His Illustrious Friend IS With all Respect INSCRIBED. DEFENSE of The Bifliop o? LONDO N's Interpretation of the famous TEXT intheBookof yOJS, / know that my Redeemer liveth^ &c. TH E Dean of Brifiol, and his obfe quious admirer, the Free Examiner of the principles advanced in the Bifliop of London'^ difcourfes, having treated his lordfliip with much rudenefs, it vi^as ex pefted, that a:ffedtion or intereft would have prompted fome of his friends or dependents to appear in his vindication. This, I think, has not been done. I, who have no perfonal connexion with the Bifhop, nor prejudice againfl the Dean, have therdfore undertaken a defenfe of the old interpretation, as an attempt, at leaft, to do juftice to his lordfhip, and to his fubjed. A3 The The apparent defign of the book of Job is to account for and explain that great rtiyftery of providence the inequality of God's dealings with the children of men. This is a difficulty, that has much emba- raffed fpeculative men in all ages of the world. And nothing but a future day • of recompenfc can afford a rational and well- grounded folution of it. To make way for this inquiry, we are told in the prologue, (for the work is evidently of the dramatic kind) that Satan, an adverfary of God and goodnefs, is permitted, by the fovereign dif pofer of all events, to exercife one of the beft of men, for a trial of his integrity, with a various train of affliftions. Some old friends, hearing of his fufferings, make an appoint ment to go to mourn with, and to comfort him. But, miferable comforters as they were ! inftead of pouring oil into the wounds of one who was ready to perifh, they even inflame them by the fharpnefs of their reproaches. They infift, notwithftanding the repeated rcmonftrances of the fufferer, that he muft needs be as wicked as he was miferable. If not this thy fear, fays one of them, with an infolent taunt, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightnefs of thy ways f Remember, I pray thee, who ever perijhed, being innocent f or inhere were the righteous cut off'^ Even, as I have feen, they that plow iniquity, and fow 'wickednefs^ reap the fame. By the blafi of God 7 God they perijh^ and hy the breath of his noflrils are they confumed. iv. 6—9. And the others addrefs him in the fame ftrain. Job infifts, on the contrary, that fufferings are no fure indications of guilt j that good and evil are dealed out promifcuoufly 5 and that the righteous are, at leaft, as liable to misfortunes as the unrighteous. This is tbe one thing, (the great point in controverfy) therefore I fay it; he dejiroyeth the perfeSl and the wicked, ix. 22. The debate being carried on to a confi derable length, and both parties, as ufual, flicking to their firft fentiments, Job, quite wearied with his own fufferings, and the reproaches of his friends, breaketh out — Oh that my words were now written ! Ob that they were printed in a book ! that they were graven witb an iron pen and lead in tbe rock for ever — Namely — 1 know that my Redeemer is the life, and that he will raife up the duft at tbe laft day j and though together witb my fkin (worms) defiroy this (body) yet after my fiefh Ifhall fee God ; whom I Jhall fee for me ; even fo mine eyes Jhall behold (him) and not an adverfary^ (for) my reins are confumed within me, xix. 23 — 7- It is apparent, fays the Bifliop, that Job founds his hopes, whatever they were, on the power of his Redeemer 3 and therefore we may expeft to find in what is faid of him plain marks of power. / know that my A 4 Redeemer 8 Redeemer liveth. [Rather, is tbe life j which implies, not only that he lives, but alfo that he is the author and fountain of life to others, 1 am the refurredlion and the life. John xi. 25.] This is a juft refleftion, and proper to the cafe. And if you confider thefe words as fpoken by a man, in his own opinion, ready to expire under grief of mind and pain of body, they neceflfarily imply a hope extending itfelf beyond the grave. His thought is this ; I am dying, but I know my Redeemer is the life, and therefoire I will truft in him for deliverance. But where is the fenfe or com fort of this, upon fuppofition that nothing can be done to help us after death ? life and intent of prophecy 232. Andthat he will raife up the duft at the laft day. Our public tranflation fays, he fhall fiand at the latter day upon the earth. The Bifhop juftly finding fault with this verfion, as attributing to the Redeemer no marks of power, renders the paflage thus ; he fhall at the latter day arife with power over the duft. I have taken the liberty of propofing a new tranflation, which is more direft and literal. The original word HAPHAR is frequently ufed to exprefs that dufi, out of which the firft man was made, and to which all men muft return, Elihu ufes the word in this fenfe; All fiejh fhall perijh together, and man Jhall turn again unto duft. xxxiv. 15. And the verb KUM often fignifies to raife. Thus BoJ. vi. 2. in the third day he will raife us up, 9 up. And the particle HAL, as may be feen in Noldius, is , fometimes redundant, though there is no neceffity for fap^ofing it to be fo in the place before us. The spafTage then may be tranflated literally in the following man ner : / know that my Redeemer is the life, and that at the laft- day he will raife up the dufi. But take his lordfhip's tranflation, or mine, the fenfe is the fame. Job puts the cafe of his being utterly deftroyed, and his body reduced to duft and afhes ; and yet his confi dence is, that after he had put dff his flefh he fliould fee God, And if you take the reafbn he gives for his hope, as it will come out upon this fenfe of the expreffion, you will fee a propriety and juftnefs in the whole paflage. " As for myfelf, fays he, I am wafting away, and this body fhall foon return to dufi again ; but my Redeemer is the life, and I know that hewillr^zj/^ up the duft at the laft day, and after my fiefh I fhall fee God my judge, not (as he now feems to be) againft me, but for me." You fee how the parts agree. Job, though fenfible that he fliould foon return to duft, yet trufted in God, knowing that he could as foon reftore him from duft, as he at firft made him arid all men out of the duft of the ground. In fhort, fuppofe Job to expeft a future time of judgment, the whole paffage is exceeding beautiful and proper. " I find, fays he, that my complaint is difregarded here; that man has no compaflion for me, and that God IO God fui?ers the innocent, as well as the guilty, to be unfortunate in this life. But the time will come when my plea fhall be beared ; and fo fatisfied am I in the righteoufnefs of it, that I would have it remain as my monu ment for ever, graven in the rock ; for though I myfelf fhall foon be gone, yet my Redeemer is the life, and will at the laft day call me from the grave, and I fliall fee God my faviour." But if you fuppofe Job to expeft only a temporal xe.9iiia.i\on, within the compafs of his own life, to what end or purpofe does he fo paffionatcly wifh to have his confidence rendered immortal ? What fenfe is there in faying, " Oh that my confi dence which you now defpife may never be forgotten ! for I know that within a little while I fliall be reftored to all my glory and former felicity, and fliall have no caufe to complain any more.'* — In one view, the images are lively and paffionate, the fenti ments juft and proper ; in the other, there is neither force, nor vigor, nor propriety, nor indeed, hardly, any fenfe. Thus far, with fome little alteration, in the words of the illuftrious author of the ufe and intent of prophecy. And though together with * my fkin worms deftroy this body, yet after my ftefh I fhall fee God. Whatever Jo e's hopes and expeftations were. * See NolAf. II were, he plainly puts his cafe at the very worft. His _/^/« was at this time totally corrupted ; and the whole mafs of his ma terials was fo ftrangely altered, that he could not find a name to exprefs it by. Though together with my fkin worms deftroy this — -he knew not what to call it. This, added to the accounts he gives of himfelf elfewhere, looks as if he thought himfelf too far gone to expeft a change for the better in this life. If fuch indeed were his expeftations, for which he could not poffibly have any rational grounds, the violence of the diftemper feems to have feized his brain. But, allowing him •to fpeak here of a temporal reftoration, the text fo interpreted can be of no ufe to the author of the Divine Legation. Even then, the words are fo far from excluding a future ftate, that they neceflTarily fuppofe it. / know, fays he, that in my fiefh . I Jhall fee God. Why does he fay, in his fieJh ? If there is no future ftate, or if he knew nothing of any, he could not but fee God in his fiefh^ that is, before he died, if he faw him at all. When therefore this good man faid, in my flefti I fhall fee God, (and furely he did not fay fo for nothing) he doubtlefs intended to exprefs an affurance of feeing him here, as well as hereafter. But as this fenfe of the words is inconfiftent with the hypothefis of the D. L. I may difmifs it, and offer another tranflation, which is more confiftent with the d?figii of the paffage, if it relates to Job's hopes 12 hopes of a refurreftion. We may therefore render the words thus ; (tfter my flefh, that iSj after I have put off my flefli, I ihall fee God. And thus they muft be rendered, if Job is indeed fpeaking of another life ; ior fiefh and blood, as St. P«»/ obferves, fhall not inherit the kingdom of God. To this may be added, that if Job fpeaks here of a temporal' deliverance, he contra- difts the whole tenor of his argument and of his hopes. O remember that my life is windi mine eye (hall no more fee good. vii. 7. If the words are to be underftood of a temporal reftitution, they are nothing to the purpofe. The queftion debated is, Whether God adminifters his government over men herie with an equal providence, fo as that the good are always profperous, and the bad unhappy > or whether, on the contrary, there be not fuch apparent inequalities, as that profperity and adverfity often happen indifferently to good and bad. Job maintains the latter part, and his three friends the former, D. L. V. 2. P. 2. 233—40. 3d Ed. Job therefore, if he in tended to fpeak to the purpofe, could not fpeak of a temporal deliverance. The thing to be accounted for is his prefent diftrefs. But v,?bat has \mj'uture profperity to do with that .? It might be fome alleviation of his trouble, but it could not poffibly be any proof of his inno- cence. His futnre profperity would no more prove, that his paft life was innocent, than his prefent 13 prefent fufferings would prove, that his paft Ufe was guilty. . But the words, immediately following the paflage in queftion, are of themfelves fuffi cient to fettle the true and genuine fenfe of it. Job had appealed to a future judgment, in the laft day, when God would appear in his defenfe. This, fays he, is my hope, and my confidence. But yefijallfay. Why have we per- fecuted him t feeing the root of the matter fhall be found in me. Bte ye afraid of tbe fword, for wrathy that is, by an eafy figure, he that executeth wrath (will bring), the punifhments ^f ^e fword, fo thatye fhall know there is a judgment. So that ye jhall know, ox acknow ledge, there is a judgment. Where ? not in this world, for Job all along denies it, ftre nuoufly arguing againft it from the inequali ties of providence ; and the three friends all along contend for it, maintaining, as ftrenu oufly, the equality of its difpenfations. Jo b muft therefore mean a judgment hereafter, which he believed and hoped fbr ; and which they themfelves fhould one day both acknow ledge and tremble at. I fhall only obferve farther, that the Greek tranflators, the heads and doftors of the Jewifli law, as the Dean of Brifiol calls them, who muft needs know what was the current ioterpretataon of this paflTage, confirm our account of it. The book in the original ends thug. So Job died, being old and full of days. To which they have added. But if is 14 is written, that he Jhall rife again, ^oc'kn avccin ztti ymi ANASTHgAI IS behaviour towards Job, he is certainly the very worft adverfary he had. The Devil brought him down from the palace to the dunghill. His friends infult him there. The Dean indeed, under a fhew of friendfhip, reftores him to Ms palace; but then, he cruelly perfueth him beyond the grave, and robs him of his better hope of immortality. At firft fetting out, he feemed well enough difpofed to indulge the patriarch in his hopes of a refurreftion. For, having brought down the date of the book fo low (as the return from the captivity) he fays, it is of fittle im portance to his fubjeft, whether this famous paffage be underftood of a refurredlion from the dead, or only of temporal deliverance from aJliStions. 295. Now, for all thefe big words, the fuccefs of his hypothefis depends, in a great meafure, on the fate of this text. If it refpefts a future ftate, the fine-fpun fcheme of the D. L. is effeftually ruined. For it Is the great bufinefs of the work to prove, that, excepting fome few favorites of heaven, who had the diftinguifhed happinefs of being initiated into the myfteries of the gofpel, the fiiture ftate was kept as an impene trable fecret from the reft of mankind. And this was in order to fhew, that the antient Jews, in the time of Mofes, knew nothing of it. But if it fhall appear that Job, an Ara^ bian, and not of the chofen feed, was ac quainted with the revealed doftrine of life and iranlortality, what fhould have hindered the i6 the Ifraelites from being acquainted with It too ? Now in proof of Job's knowledge of a refurreftion, we produce his own decla- . ration in the paffage before us, whether the book was written by the patriarch himfelf, by Mofes, or even by Ezra. And if the Gentle man will lay his hand upon his head, he may chance to recolleft this rule of good writing : Nihil enim ex perfona poetce, jed omnia fub eorum qui illo tempore vixerunt, dixerunt. He feems to have been aware of this ; for, upon fecond thoughts, he changes his mind, and, as bis interpretation of the book * af fords new affiftance for determining the long debated queftion, it will not be Improper, he fays, to found it to the bottom. 296. He fets out thus. I. The underftanding the words of a refurredlion is repugnant to the whole tenor of the argument, ibid. This is at firft fight furprizing, becaufe Job main tains the inequalities of providence; and furely nothing can be better calculated to account for thofe inequalities, than the prin ciple of a refurreftion. But the Dean argues againft this fenfe from the following confide rations. Firft-, The difputants are all equally emba- raffed in adjufting the ways of providence. Job affirms that the good man is fometimes unhappy. The three friends contend that the good man can never be unhappy, becaufe fuch See page 23. '7 fuch a fituation would refleft diflionor on God's attributes. 297. All this ernbarafs is of the Dean's own making. The feveral difputants deliver their opinions with the greateft confidence, and with a clearnefs not to be met with in modern controverfies. One party maintains, that God's ways are equal; the other, that they are unequal. Where now Is the embarafment ? but in our critic, who will make what he cannot find. But the doftrine of a refurredlion, fuppofed to be here urged by Job, cleared up all this embaras. If therefore his friends thought it true, it ended the difpute ; * if falfe, it lay upon them to confute It. Yet they do nei ther. But without the leaft notice that any fuch thing had been urged, they go on, as they began, to inforce their former arguments, and to confute that which, they feem to un derftand, was the only one Job had urged againft them, viz. The confcioufnefs of his own innocence, ibid. This difpute was not to be ended by the difputants ; the decifion was not to be made but by God himfelf, the great determiner of the controverfy. This, as my author fomewhere fpeaks, the ordonance B of • Dr. Grty has fallen into a ftrange paralogifni : Jam 'vera fi cardo contro'verfia fuijfet, utrum, /aha Deijuftitia, fanai in hae vita adfiigi pofent, hac ipfa diclaratio Utemfinire debuerat. Preface to the book of Job. xv. Job's declaration ought to have fimjhedxht difpute. As if all difputes were ended when they ought to be ! And as if this controverfy ought to have been ended by the difputants, in fpite of the poet's intentions, which were to introduce Qav o-tto (JM^^Avm, God himfelf to determine it ! j8 of the poem required. And though the Dean has confidently and peremptorily afferted, that the friends take not the leafi notice of a refur reftion, fuppofed to be urged by Job, yet it will appear that, in their way, they endea vour to confute it. The principle they pro ceed upon Is this. — All things are regulated with the ftrifteft juftice here. Virtue always meets with her own reward, and vice with its proper punifliment — If this was true, it effeftually demolifhed Job's phantom of a refurreftion, which he attempted proving from fome fuppofed inequalities of provi dence. Accordingly Zophar prefifes this ar gument, and defcribes the punifliment of the wicked to be juft fuch a ftate as Job then labored under. But fuppofe Job fpoke of a refurreftion, Zophar's anfwer is wide of the purpofe. 298. How fo ? Can the ways of providence be at once, in the fame in ftance, and at the fame time, both equal and unequal? If not — and if the principle Zo phar proceeded on was right. That Job, ac cording to the eftablifhed laws of providence, fuffered the juft punifhment of his fins, then his anfwer was extremely pertinent and co gent. For remove the foundation, the Ine qualities of providence, and the refurreftion, the fuperftrufture raifed upon it, muft fall too. 2. But what is ftill more unacconntable. Job, when he refumes the difpute, fticks to the argument he firft fet out with ; aud, though he 19 he found It gave his friends little fatisfaftion, he -repeats It again and again. But this other argument of a refurredlion, fo full of piety and conviftion, which they had never ventured to reply to, he never once refumes. 298. The Dean is one of thofe obliging writers, who furnifh anfwers to their own objeftlons. He wonders that Job, when he refumed the difijute, did not at the fame time refume his former argument of a future ftate j and yet he confeffes in the fame breath, that the friends had not replied to it. Job always fpeaks to the purpofe, direfting his arguments to what is faid, not to what is not faid. But he neither upbraids his adverfaries for their filence ; nor triumphs, as he well might, in their inability to anfwer It. ibid. This is Dr. Warburton to the life. If he had had the management of Job, he would have taught him to upbraid his adverfaries "without mercy, and to triumph over them — without viftory. But in the prefent cafe, there feems to have been no room for either. They deny the neceffity of a future ftate, (and has not the Dean himfelf done the fame ?) becaufe good and evil are fo equally difpenfed, that no obfer- ver of the law of God mifl*es his reward, nor any tranfgreffor efcapes punifhment. Hence they conclude Job to be a finner from his fufferings. Now what convidlion could the argument of a refurreftion work in fuch rea« foners as thefe .? They want it not ; they have a convincing principle of their own, with B 2 which 20 which they are perfeftly well fatisfied; and! which In their opinion, and in the Dean's opinion too, fuperfedes the neceffity of a re furreftion. It would therefore have been ab furd and ridiculous to attempt their conviftion by arguing from a future ftate, unlefs he previoufly convinced them of the want of it. Accordingly Job addreffes himfelf to fecure this point, Zophar had defcribed the ftate of the wicked, as if he had been drawing Job's pifture. Job therefore, in his anfwer, pre fents him with another view of wicked men, becoming old and mighty in power — tbeir feed eftablifhed in their fight with them their houfes fafe from fear, nor tbe rod of God upon them — but fpending their days in wealth, and in a moment going down to the grave. And he concludes with this fpirited farcafm. How then comfort ye me in vain, feeing in your anfwers there remaineth falfhood. xxi. Their anfwers were Indeed nothing but chicane and prevarica tion. For allowing that, in general, the difpens- ations of providence were equal, might not the cafe of Job be an exception ? Might there not be other excepted cafes, produced by Job, of profperous iniquity, and of diftreffed virtue ? If there were fuch Inftances, then the argu ment of a refurreftion would come in feafona- bly. And we may obferve, that Job's rea foning, throughout the whole difpute, is of a piece ; the feveral parts are clofely connefted with each other, and tend to one point. Sometimes he preffes his adverfaries with one part 21 part, fometimes with another, as occafions offer, but always with the fame view. For where, let me afk, is the difference, whether he urged the inequalities of providence, in proof of a future ftate, or a future ftate to account for the inequalities of providence ? To this let me add, fays the Dean, that If Job fpoke of a refurredion, he contradifts what he fays in many places concerning the irrecoverable diffolution of the body. 299. Whetiier this is true, or not, will be feen hereafter. But allowing It to be true, why may not the defenders of the common fyftem claim the benefit of the Dean's folution ? for even in the fenfe of a temporal deliverance Job, it is confefled, contradifts what he faid in his defpair, — There Is a manifeft difference between a contradiftion of opinion and belief, and of paffion and affedlion. And for this he apologifes, when he Is come to himfelf, by defiring that this confidence in his deliverer might be engraved on a rock as the opinion he would ftand to. ibid. 3. But, what is the ftrangeft of all, nei ther Elihu, nor God himfelf, gives us the leaft hint of this principle of a refurreftion. Thofe, who contend for this interpretation, fuppofe the notion to be here delivered in order to fupport its truth. What reafon then can they give, why neither the modei-ator nor decider fliould employ it to clear up difficulties, when Job himfelf had touched upon it before? Elihu juftifies God's conduft j God bears B -2 witnefs 22 witnefs to Job's innocence ; yet both concur in refolving all into power omnipotent. This tends more to cloud than to clear up the ob- fcurlties of the debate. In a word, no folu tion is given, though a decifion be made. All this, on the common fyftem, is quite unac countable to our faculties of underftanding. 300. What reafon can be given, why the decider of the controverfy fhould not employ the principle of a refurredlion, when Job had touched upn it before ? In what a gentle m^n- ner Job had /oafijfi upon this principle, we have feen already. To the queftion, I reply, he hath employed it. For God, fays the Dean, bears witnefs to Job's innocence. What inno cence ? Not the innocent part of his life before he fuffered, (for there is not a fingle word faid of that) but the innocent— the noble — part he fuftained in the debate concerning the ways of providence. Ythavenot fpoken of mv., fays God, the thing that is right, as my fervant Job hath. xiii. 7. And this eafily accounts for that fevere fentence paffed upon the three friends for the crime oi impiety. [For what can be a greater inftance of impiety, than denying a future ftate ?] A thing, as the Dean is pleafed to obferve, utterly inexplicable on the common interpretation. For let them be as guilty as you pleafe to Job, they are all the way advo cates for God ; and hold nothing concerning his government that did not become his nature and charadler. 291. We have feen what Jqb held, 23 held, and what they held, concerning God's government. We have feen alfo that God, the great determiner of the controverfy, has decided in favor of Job. TE have not fpoken of me the thing that is right Uke my fervant Job. And whom are we to believe ? God himfelf, or the prefumptuous author of the D. L. But he affigns two reafons, why the three friends are condemned by God. i, Becaufe ufing the argument of an equal providence only to condemn Job with the heart of an enemy, they made the honor of God a ftale to their malignant purpofes. 275, A mere fineffe 1 to fay no vvorfe of it. For God, it is plain, does not cenfure their thoughts, but their words. Ye have not spoken of me the •thing that is right. 2. The fecond reafon of the condemnation of thefe friends was, be caufe they had fupported their condemnation of Job by a pretended revelation. Now a thing was fecretly brought to me, fays Eliphaz — 276. And fo becaufe Eliphaz, one oi the friends, had pretended a revelation, the refi were equally involved in the fame judgment ! , — To fuch wretched fhifts muft the beft writers be reduced, when they are once pof feffed, as the Dean happily expreffes it, by the unclean fpirit of refinement. But why, may it be afked, Is the power of God fo much infifted on both by Elih.u and by God himfelf ? For the fame reafon that it is fo much infifted on by Job in other parts B 4 of 24- of the book. It was the theme and bufinefs of the author, fays the Bifliop, to maintain the fupremacy of God, and to guard it againft every falfe notion. In oppofition to the Ido latrous praftice of worfhipping the fun, moon, and ftars, he afiferts God to be the maker of all the hoft of heaven, Ry his fpirit hath be garnijhed the heavens. In oppofition to the falfe notion of two independent principles, he afierts God to be the maker of him who was the author of evil. His hand hath formed ihe crooked ferpent. 215, 6. To which let me add a third reafon. In oppofition to the impious opinion of the impoffibility of a re- fi^rreftion, the conftant topic of unbelievers in every age, it is afferted, that with God all things are poflible. The Dean proceeds to confider next, whe ther his fenfe of the words agrees better with the tenor of the difpute. Job's meaning is, that God will at length bring the good man out of trouble. 301. The cafe of Job is that of afflifted virtue. The words mufi therefore be fo interpreted as to fuit the cafe of good men in general, (I mean Jews) reprefented hy Job, under affliftion. It is incumbent then on this author to prove that, in the age when this book was vsjfitten, God delivered the good man, that is, every good Jew, out of trouble. A hopeful undertaking truly ! And yet, if jt he was able to prove It, he would ftill have the mortification to find, that his pains and labor have been employed lo no purpofe. For, after 25 after all, the point in controverfy between Job and his friends is not, Whether God will bring the good man out of trouble, but, whether he brings him into any. He fays indeed, Job's general thefis Is, that though providence is not equally adminiftered, yet at laft God will bring the good man out of trouble, and punifli the wicked. 303. Then Job knew nothing of his own thefis. With regard to the wicked, he fays in his very next fpeeeh. Wherefore do the wicked live f ' &c. They fpend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave ; that is^ as the Dean rightly explains It, without fick nefs, or the terrors of flow-approaching death ; the lot which profperous libertines of all times, who believe no future reckoning, moft ardently wifh for. 217. And is not this now perfeftly agreeable with Job's thefis? that God will punifh the wicked m this life. And as to God's bringing the good man out of trouble. Job feems to have had fo little notion of it, that he thinks of nothing, and wifhes for nothing, fo much as death. I know, fays he, that thou wilt bring me to death, and to tbe houfe appointed for all living, xxx. 23. Here the reader will do well to recolleft the peculiar circumftances of this diftreffed patriarch. For when the author of the D. L, makes him to hold, that God will at length bring the good man out of trouble, the meaning is, that he himfelf fhall be refiored to his former felicity, 302. a, His former happinefs 26 happinefs confifted in ample revenues, friends, refpedl, extenfive infiuence, a fiorijhing fa mily, and, one of heaven's beft gifts to man, health to enjoy all thofe bleffings. In his prefent fituation, he was, in all refpefts, the reverfe of this ; without eftate, without friends, without rejpedl, without infiuence, his children dead, and be himfelf— dying daily. This is the man ! who expefted a reftoration to his former felicity : And yet we no where read of any Bedlam provided for his reception. May we not, however, beg leave to afk. What were this good man's expeftations, when he declared, upon the lofs of his fortunes, and of his children. Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return THITHER? But I hope, we fhall not be told, that this too proceeded from the difiem- perature of pajfion, and the extravagance of expreffion. II. In the fecond place, if we have given a right interpretation of the book, a temporal deliverance, and not the rejurredlion of the body, muft needs be meant. 303. And elfe where, the end and defign of the compofltion, as explained above, abfolutely difclaims this latter fenfe, and requires the former. 296. The Dean's pompous account of his Inter pretation is worth tranfcribing. — It may not be improper to remind the anfwerers of this difiTertation, the mifcellaneous writers on the book of Job, that they would have done their duty better, and have given the learned and impartial 27 impartial public more fatisfaftion. If, inftead of laboring to evade two or three independent ar guments, though corroborative of my interpre tation, they had, in any reafonable manner, accounted. How this interpretation, which they affeft to reprefent as vifionary and groundlefs, fhould be able to lay open and unfold the whole conduft of the poem upon one entire, perjedl, elegant, and noble plan, which does more than vulgar honor to the writer who compofed it. And that it fhould, at the fame time, be as ufeful in defining the parts, as in diveloping the whole ; fo that par ticular texts, which, for want of fufficient light, had hitherto been an eafy prey to critics from every quarter, are now no longer affefted by the common opprobrium affixed to this book, of its being a nofe of wax, made to fuit every religious fyftem. Of which, amongft many others, may be reckoned the famous text juft now explained. All this, our hypothefis (as it is called) has been able to per form, in a poem become, through time and negligence, fo defperately perplexed, that commentators have chofen, as the eafier tafk, rather to find their own notions in it than ta feek out thofe of the author. 309. ^cefitam meritis fume fuperbiam I But what will the learned and impartial pub lic fay, when they fhall find that, if the boafted interpretation of the book is right, the RESURRECTION OF THE BODY, and uoi 2^ temporal deliverance, must ?jeeds be MEANT. 28 MEANT. For he tells us, the Jews learned the dodlrine oi z future fiate at a time when their extraordinary providence was departing from them. 281. The moral of this dra matic piece therefore was to afTure the pebple, reprefented under the perfon of this venerable patriarch, *' of a refurredlion and 2, future " fiate,^' in order to allay that tumult of mind which arofe in every one, on feeing the extraordinary providence, which protefted their forefathers, now juft about to be with drawn from them. 303, And the finding Satan in the fcene is a certain proof , 279. that a rejurredlion of the body is the fubjeft of the text. For the hiftory of this perfonage, it is evident, the fews were brought acquainted with in their captivity. 281. And his hi ftory having an infeparable conneftion with the redemption oi mankind, the knowledge of them was to be conveyed together, ibid. We Conclude then, with faying of Job, what the Dean has faid of the later prophets. He has given a very lively defcription of the Re deemer, and the other attendant truths ; TWO of the principal of which are the HISTORY OF Satan and the doctrine OF A FUTURE STATE, ibid. Dixin" ego in hoc effe vobis Atticam elegantiam! He adds, that the knowledge of a future ftate was at this time, when the extraordinary providence was departing, of the higheft ad vantage and fupport to the Jews as a nation and a people. 281. Some- 29 Sometimes the extraordinary providence is a fupply for the want of a future ftate. Then again, to bring matters round, a future ftate is made to fupply the want of the extraordi nary providence. But may we not fairly afk this dealer In paradoxes. How the knowledge of a future ftate could, at this time, yield any high advantage and fupport to the Jews? And what will he anfwer ? Were the later prophets lawgivers ? If not, to what purpofe was it to acquaint their people with the doc trine of future r-ewards and punifhments, un lefs they could, at the fame time, make them the fandlions of their religion ? It is the Dean's great bufinefs to fhew, that temporal rewards and punlfliments only were the fandlions of the Jewifh religion and law. And, he very well knows, the prophets had no authority to annex any other. We may alfo afk him farther. Where have thefe prophets taught a future ftate? for though he talks of this fo frequently, yet, it Is remarkable, he never once attempts to prove it. He has Indeed, on a different oc cafion, produced a paffage from Zechariah. Itjhall be that whojo will not come up of all the families of the earth u7ito Jerufalem, to worfhip the king the Lord of hofis, even upon them fhall be no rain. xiv. 17. Now here, as the Dean confeflTes, the prophet Is foretel ling that NEW difpenfation, by which life and immortahty were brought to light. 140. But of what ufe were the fandlions oi this new difpenfation 30 difpenfation to a people who were to live and die under the old one ? It is no lefs obfervable, that even thefe future rewards and punlfli ments of the gofpel are defcribed , under the ideas of the Jewifti oeconomy. I would have thofe men (fays he, with his ufual infolence) well confider this, who perfift in thinking, that the early Jews had the doftrine of a fu ture ftate of rewards and punifhments, though Mofes taught It not exprefsly to them ; and then tell me why Zechariah, when prophe- fying of the gofpel-times, fliould chufe to exprefs i\\tie future rewards and punifhments under the image of iht prefent f 141. Surely that man fhould well confider this, who can perfift in faying, (for he cannot poffibly perfift in thinking) that the prophets have developed the hidden fenfe of the law ; and then tell us, why Zechariah fliould chufe to foretell the fpiritual things of the new difpenfation under the carnal images of the old one ? III. The underftanding the words of a refurredlion of the body, exprefsly contradifts Job's plain declarations againft any fuch hope, in the following paffages. 303. Vii. 9. As the cloud is confumed and va- nijheth away, fo he that goeth down to the- grave fhall come up no more — Where ? It follows immediately in the next verfe, which the Dean, for certain good reafons, has fup- preffed. He jhall return no more to his houfe, neither ftoall his place know him any more. Agreeably with vvhat he fays elfewhere. Bejore 31- Before I go whence I fhall not return, even to tbe land of darknefs, and thejhadow of death ; a land of darknefs as darknefs itfelf without any order, and where the light is as darknefs. X. 21, 2. And again, xvi. 27. When a few years are come, then I Jhall go the ivay whence I jhall not return. Xiv. 12. So man lyeth down, andrifeth not till the heavens be no more ; they Jhall not awake, nor be raifed out of their fleep. Cla- rius and Drufius on the words till the heave?is be no more, fay, Intellige in aternum—— eft fenfus, nullo unquam tempore, nam cce lum femper erit. It is not in human language to exprefs a denial of the refurredlion of the hody in ftronger or plainer terms. 304. Doftors differ. Vatablus, a very learned and judicious commentator, fays the Bifhop, makes no doubt of refering this paffage to the refurreftion In the day of God's vifitation. For it was a very old opinion, * that the prefent frame of nature fhould be one day diflTolved, and be fucceeded by new heavens and a new earth. 225. Indeed it was hardly poffible for this good patriarch to have expreffed his hopes of a refurreftion In plainer or * His lordfliip, fays the Examiner, alTerts that the opinion was very old. But this is not enough. He fliould prove that it was as old as the age of Job. Now as he has not attempted to do this, he feems to beg the queftion, which he ftiould have proved. 375. This is the pleafanteft of all Examiners. He jhould prove, that the opinion 'was as old as the age o/" Job. As if the very text itfelf was not a prgcjf of it ! when vve know it was both old and true. 32 of ftronger language. The diffolution of the heavens and the day of judgment are infepa rable. And the Dean himfelf has acknow ledged fo much. 471. Job therefore had good reafon to fay, that when he lay down, he ftiould not rife again till the general refurrec- tion, when the heavens fhall be no more. The Dean concludes with the following text, which he leaves to fhlft for Itfelf. If a man die, jhall he live again? 14. 'This queftion is equivocal, and may fignify, either that man fhall live, or fhall not live. But the context determines its meaning. In the pre ceding verfe he fays, Ob that thou wouldft hide me in ihe grave, that thou wouldft keep me fecret, that thou wouldfl appoint me a fet time, and remember me. What time was it, do you imagine, that Job defired to be appointed for him ? Was it the time of this life ? If fo, how could it fucceed his being hid in the grave ? No, fays the learned prelate, he had other hopes, and expefted to be called from the grave, and feems affured that God would not defert his creatures even there. Thou fhalt call, and I will anfwer thee ; thcuwilthavea defire to the work of thine hands. 241. But the words thus interpreted, direftly contradift many other declarations of Job, particularly one juft before, For new I pjall fleep in the dufi, and thou Jhalt jeek me in the morning, but I jhall not be ; The moft exprefs declaration to the contrary. 513. zAEd. Gently, good Mr. Dean I for, in your hafte, you have got 33 a conclufion without any premifTes to fupport it. This declaration y'i^^f/or^ is juft feven chapters off. But be it where It will. It is tiothlng to the purpofe. Betvveen the time of death, and the time of the refurreftion, man, we confefs, is not. But does it therefore fol low, that he never will be .? Here let me obferve, once for all, that the proper point in debate Is, whether Job, and the early Jews knew any thing of a refurfec- tion. All thofe texts therefore, that may be brought to prove their ignorance of an inter mediate fiate, are befide the queftion. Hence appears the impertinence of the paffage in Hezekiah'^ thankfgiving, urged to evince. That the body of the early Jews had no ex peftations of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments. D. L. 173. The grave cannot praife. thee, death cannot celebrate thee-, they that go into tbe pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he jhall praife thee, as I do this day ; the jather to the children jhall make known tby truth. If. xxxviii. 1 8, 9. The dead are here plainly oppofed to the living. This paflTage therefore can have no relation to a future ftate of rewards and punifh ments, becaufe that, according to the fcripture- notion of it, commences not till the general refurreftion. And that Hezekiah had fome expeftation of fuch a ftate, may, I think, be certainly collefted from another paffage in this very thankfgiving. I faid in the cutting off of my days— I Jhall not fee the Lord, even the Lord C in 34 in the land ofthe living ; I jhall Mm man no more with the inhabitants oj' the world, ii. Why does he confine hl§ defpair of feeing God $nd man to this life, if he had no hope nor expeftation of feeing theqi in another ? But fince, of atU the facred writer?,, the Pfalmifi, fays the Dean, Is he who is fuppofed by the adverfaries of the D. L. to have moft ef^ftually confuted the fyftem, I fliall quofee a paffage from his hymns whkh, I think, fairly •enough decides the eentfoverfy, Iam counted Wtbthem thai go dowi into the pit— Free amongfi the dead, like th flain that lie in the gram, iwhom thou rmmberefl no more; md they ARE CUT OFF FROM THY HAND. LxXXvili. . 4, 5. Let the ferious reader take notice of tke laft wards- — they, the dead, are cut off from ihy hanSi that is, they are no longer the objeft of thy providence or moral government. 172, The ferious reader muft have very littie underftanding, if he can poflibly be impofed Upon in fo grofs a manner. Our pfalmift, (whoever he wag, for it Is not certain that David was the author of the hymn, though the Dean has ventured to afcribe it to him) was at this time under the wrath of God for his fins, and feems, by his own defcription of his cafe, to have been fmitten with the leprofy. He firft compares himfelf to the dead in ge^ neral. I am counted with them that go dewn into the pit ; I am as a man that hath na ftrength. He then compares himfelf to thofe in particular, who are taken away for their wickednefs wickedaefs by the immediate haftd bf God, and whom God would no more remember with mercy. Free amongft tbe dead, like tbe slain that lie in the grave, wh6m thou re* membereft no more ; and, ox for, they are eut ef BY thy hand. The pfalmift is not fpeaking here, as the Dean would perfwade us, of the dead in geaeral, but only of the witkedy Nor does he fay, as is faid for him, that God fot^ gets them. 172. that is, abftlutely forgets them, but tliat he fo far forgets tbem, as not to fheW himfelf favorably unto them. In this fenfe we are told, that the butkr did xiot remember yofepb, but forgat him. Gen. xl. 23. A«d now let the ferious reader take notice of th« laft words — tlxy, the wicked, are cut off by thy handi The author of the D. L. cannot; objeft to the propriety of this trMiflafion. What then bceomes cA his arbitrary com ment ? The- dead are no longer tbe objedls ^f God's providence or moral government, '¦-^Th^ fentlfiient of the pfalmift is plainly this. My conditbn is like that of the wicked ^hofti God has cut off in his wrath. And I ha«e no more hope of being remembefe4 by him in this worW, than they have of beiog re membered by him in the next. But if the author of the D L. Is Indeed willing, to" have ihz conixav£xiy fettled by the authority of D«vid, J wiU produce ^ paifage from one of his pfalms, which will very faifljsr and effeftually decide it. Thou wilt not leave my foul in hdCnei ther wilt thoufafftr thine hofy one to fee corruption, xvi. 10. St. 36 St. P^/fr, fays Dr. 5^^^^/«^, claitns this paffage as relating to Chrift's refurreftion. But how does he claim it? replies the Dean> No otherwife than by giving it ^ fecbndary fenfe. -- Agreed. The queftion then is. Was David acquainted with the fecondary fenfe? Or^ m other words, did he underftand the meaning of his own prophecy ? It is of no great ufe to know the Dean's anfwer, or mine, to this queftion. I fliall therefore tranfcribe the anfwer, which was given long ago by the apoftle of the circumcifion. — Men and bre thren, let me freely fpeak unto you of the patriarch David, that be is both dead and bUried, -and his fepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being ^prophet, and know ing that God bad Jworn with an oath to hiw, that of tbe fruit of his loins, according to the fiejh, he would raije up the, Messiah to fit on bis throne, he seeing it before spake of the resurrection OF -,the Messiah, * that ms foul was not left in hell, or tbe grave, neither his fiejh did fee corrup tion. Adls-KU 29 — 31. To return from thisdigreflion,~For the reft, for any fuller fatisfaftion, the intelligent rea der is referred to the Free and candid ex ami-; nation * St. Peter is here reafoning with the Jews on principles drawn from their own fcriptures. His argument ftandsthus : The Meffiah, David's lord,' was to rife from the dead, and be placed at the right hand of God. Jefus was raifed from the dead, and placed at the right hand of God. Therefore Jefus ii the Mefftab tb( hrd.- 37 nation of the Bijhop of London's principles, &c. where he vvill fee in a fuller light than perhaps he has been accuftomed to, , the grdat fuperiority of acute and folid reafoning over ^shicaneandfpphiftry, 310. i, '¦ Ad populum phaleras. This mighty hero, who is to do fuch won ders, iSi In truth,, no yery formidable adver fary. The Examination, as we fhall quickly find, is a complication of the author's fliufHes and miftakes. And indeed what elfe could .be expefted from a writer, who had under taken the defenfe of fuch a defpicable argu ment, as that of ^Divine Legation. , The prli^cjpal objeftion is drawn from fome paflTages in the New Teftament, in .vvhich, according to their Interpretation, life and immof tality is called the myftery of the gofpel, which was^fr/? publifhed and brought to light hy Jefus Chrifi. In anfwer to this, let it be obferved, thatj as the gofpel contains many myfterious points, it may itfelf be very well ftyled, in general, a myftery, or the myftery, though the doftrine of life and immortality was revealed before. The Examiner indeed has denied thi^. The gofpel, fays be, muft neceflfarlly include every important and effential article of the Chriftian faith. Since therefore 2i future life was one of thefe effential articles, IT muft have been a myftery, if the Wi&o/ean feems to glance at his lordihip*s interpretation. It may he faid by thofe who hold the book of Jo-b to be the earlieft fcripture, that the Jewifh- people muft not only have had the knowledge of 2.. future ftate of rewards and punifhments, but, what is more,' of the refitrredPion of the body, and, ftill more, of the redemption of mankind by the fon of Gbd. 20 1 . Now whei'e has ther Biffiop given this interpretation of the text ? Irdeed how could he give it ? Job's faith in his Redecnrer is expreffed, in very general terms. I know that my Redeemer is the life, and that he. will raife up the daft at fhe laft' day. Who' this Redeemei* is, whether God hiai:felf, or the fon o^ God ; and by what means the red'emptlon was to be made,, whe ther', ftriftly, by the payment of a ranfom,. or, in a loofcr fenfe, without any ranfom paid, is H is not exprefifed. It cannot therefore be proved a priori, that Job's Redeemer ia the fan of God. And yet, when his lordfliip found ia the New Tcftfiment, that the work of re deeming tlie world and of railing the dead is every where appropriated to the fon of God, as his, peculiar province, be had the greatefl reafon for faying, Thefe words of Job are a ftrong prophecy oi the oftice and charafter of Chrift Jefus, and a plain prophetical d^icxi^ tion of the grand article of the? gofpel. 228. ' As his lordfhip fuppofes, that this lext con tains a more plaUi and diftinft revelation of the gre^t myflcry of the gofpel, than is to be found in the law and the prophets, it will fol low, that the Arabians, and not the Ifraelites, were the depofitaries of the ^i^ine oracles, contrary to the affertion of St.Paul, as it is ex plained by his lordfliip ; This was the Jews chief advantage above others, that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 174, for reafoning you cannot find this writer's fellow. It will follow, fays this profound logician, that the Arabians, and not the If- rqelites, were the depofitarifs of the divine oracles. But, in the name of Ariftotle 1 how can it poffibly follow ? Does it appear that the book of JoB was ever in the hands of the Arabians ? Is it not fuppofed, as he him felf (to ferve a turn) confeffes, * to have been written * Job was furely a prophet, though not under the law, ^nd tis prophecies were by divine providence recorded, pre ferved 64 written for the Ufe of the Jews ? And was it not preferved in the Jewifh canon as part of the oracles of God ? With what face then could this modeft gentleman fay, that the Bifhop's fuppofition Was contrary to the af fertion of the apoftfe ? The Jews were furely as much the depofitaries of this impor&nt doftrine when found in the book of Job, as if it had been found in the law and tbe prophets. But if the Jews were ripe for fuch a clear and diftinft revelation of the great article^ of the final and ultimate religion, what occafion could there be to keep them under the beg garly elements and rudiments of the law ? 173. My author feems to think there was fome occafion for this difcipline. For he imme diately adds — If there was occafion to keep them tied down to thefe elements, would not fuch a previous information have been prema ture, as it would have difpofed them to look down upon the law with contempt and dif guft? 174. 33. 239. This objeftion, like the reft, is retailed out of the D. L. If inftead of a fladow, or faint outline of a defign, the image itfelf, in full relief, had glaringly held forth the objeft intended, this objeft, fo diftinftly defined, would have drawn the Jews from that cecommy to ferved, and publifhed for the ufe of thofe who were. I fpeak on his lordjhifs cvm fyftem, and on the fyftem of thofe who fuppofe the book prior to any other part of the canon, and written by the hero of the piece. 204. 65 to which it was God's ple*fti«e th^y fliould continue in ful^jB^kion, 184. Bigotry to a fyftem (fbr newi fyflepis have their, bigots as welj as oldone&l e^fity difpofes m&n to affert any thing, even in fpite of, and in contradiftion to, |helr own principles. He^e we are told, that a diftinft revelation pf the doftrines of redemption and a future ftate would have been premature in the days of Mofes ', not only as it would have difpofed the Jews to look down upon the law with con tempt and difguft, but as it would have aftu ally drawn them from it. And yet thefe very objeftors, when they have another point to puzzle, can tell us roundly, that, foon after the captivity, the prophets gave very lively defcriptions of the Redeemer, and, the at-^ tendant truth, a future fiate. But if fuch a revelation would . have been premature In the days of the former prophets,, would it not have been equally premature in thofe of the later ? ,[Turn to Page 104. Had his lordfhip condefcended to examine the arguments offered In the D. L.- or had he but reflefted how poorly and contemptibly his followers have fupported their oppofition, he would have found no great encouragement to affirm, even that a future ftate had been re vealed to the Jewifi church. But to pretend that the article of the refurredlion fhould or 'ought to have been revealed too, will heighten and increafe the difficulties which before were ^reat enough In confcience. E The 66 The more fober writers againft the D. L.' attempt no more than to fhew, that a future ftate had been revealed to the Jews, But his lordfliip now tells them, they have miftaken the point in queftion, alnd mifemployed their time and pains. For that the argument re quires them to prove, that the article of the r'efurrediion was revealed together with the doftrine of a future ftate ; fince the laft could have no folid eftablifliment or fupport, and confequently no Influence^' without the firft. However (what is moft to be lamented) he affures them, at the .fame'time^ that this nei ther has, nor ever can be proved, {a) as the refurredlion was referved to be revealed in the gofpel. And Is not this telling them, that the argument of. the D. L: is adlually impreg nable, and fuperior to all their efforts ? It is far from a wonder, that the writers againft the D. L. fhould have failed in their attempts to difcredit and invalidate the great argument of the book : But it may feiem a little ftrange, that their very oppofition fhould drive and force them xy^nfuch principles, as tend to ejlablifl and confirm it. This is evi dently the cafe of Dr. Stebbing. This too, I predift, will be the cafe of all who fliall adopt the principle advanced in his lordflifs '"^ ; fermon. {d) Since his lordlhip therefore confeffis, that the Jiwi/b {ySiem had no fuch revelation, he gives up its tifle to a divine original.'" — — If this be true, what ftiall we think of the Bifhop ? If it is falfe, what fhall we think of the£wa««r / fermon, in order to carry on the fame wife and candid projedl. 268, 9. 271. Now, for all this huffing, the argument of the D. L, fo far from being inipregnable to the principle in the Biftiop's fermon, is effeftually overthrown by it. And where, let me aflc, is the want of vvifddm, or the want of candor. In applying this principle to the ruin of a fyftemf whiijh the moft candid Divine, If he has an^ wifdom, canttot approve f ¦ It is really a very hard cafe, that gentlemen* may not differ in their fentiments from the author of the D. L. (whether they profefs to diffent from him, or not) without * being fallen upon, in a moft outrageous manrier, either by the author himfelf, or by his feflows. A mexe fufpicion that the argument of the D. L. was aimed at by the Bifhop of London, has brought down upon that illuftrious prelate a torrent of the fouleft and moft abufive lan guage. And the worthy Chancellor of Lin coln has felt the effeft^s of happening to differ from him, for he never read the book. The Warburttmian infolence rifes, on this oCcaflon, if poffible, above its ufual heighth. If it be afked, fays he, How a doftor of laws, a mi nifter of the gofpel, and a judge ecdefiaftical, would venture to amufe trs with fo ftrange a fancy, all I can fay for it is, foe had the plea fure, in common with many other witty men; of writing againfi the D. L. and he had the pleafure too, in common wkh many w//^ men, E 2 of 68 of thinking he might indulge himfelf in any li berties againft a writer whom he had the precau tion not to name .----But be fays, he never read the D. L. I can eafily believe him ; and will do him this further jufUce, that, when many have written againfi it without reading It, he is ^e firft who has had the ingenuity to own it. Pref. ii. Vol. 2— Such a Drawcanfir in theology fhould be treated acccordingly.^ For who is this uncircumcifed Philifiine, that he fhould thus defy the armies of the living God? The boafted demonstration rifes thus. The doftrine of a future ftate of re wards and punifhments is neceffary to the well-being of civil fociety. This doftrinfe is not to be found in, nor did make part of, the Mofaic difpenfation. Therefore the law of Mofes is of divine original. The difputable propofition is very inaccu rately expreffed. For where is the mighty wonder if a doftrine, which is not to be found in the Mofaic inftitution, fliould make no part ofit! The author ought to have faid. This dodlrine made no part of tlie Mofaic difpenfation, nor is to be found in it. Now if it fhall appear, that a future flate of rewards and punifhments, though really no conftitucnt part of the legal difpenfation, is yet to be found in it, then this phantom of a demonftration fiiikg into its original nothing. The 6g The demonftrator would indeed perfwade us, that the queftion is concerning a future flate 's being the fandlion of the Jewifh law. 1 86. And, as if he really thought fo, he fays, where he puts the fum of his proofs together, The Mofaic inftitution -was without this fupport ;" and he teUs us, that a very moderate fhare of refleftion might have led the candid reader to underftand, that he had here effedlually ^^exioxmed what he promifed, 523. He promifed to make good a propofi tion confifting of two difllnft parts. He has performed his promife as to one part, by prov ing (what no body denied) that a future ftate was not the fanftion of the Jewifh law. The other part, that a future ftate is no where to be found in the Mofaic difpenfation, remains to be proved. And, I prefume, the attentive reader will agree with me, that, without a proof of this part of the propofition, the demonftration Is Imperfeft. The Dean him felf feems to have been confcious of this im perfeft ion. For he fays elfewhere, in order to cover It, if poffible, from the reader's view. Thus it is now proved beyond all rea fonable queflion, that the dodlrine of a future flate is not to be found in, nor did make part of the Mofaic difpenfation. 187. But there are more ways than one of tak ing this great reafoner by * his horns. Infi dels had objefted, that the Jewifh religion, E 3 wanting * D, L. 437. 7P wanting the doftrine of a future ftate of re wards afld punlfliments, could not come from God, The Dean replies, to the confufion of infidelity ! that the omiffion of this doftrine in the law is a demonftrative internal proof oi its divinity. How fo ? Why, the extraordinary providence, exadlly rewarding and puniftiing^ made the doftrine of a future ftate needlefs to all the ends of civil fociety. For the doftrine being propagated by ftatefmen, only as afuc- cedaneum to an unequal providence, when that inequality was redlified, there was no farther occafion for it. Appendix to the Alliance. 171. This, I think, will not fatisfy the deift, whofe objeftion reaches farther than the Dean was willing to fee, He will fay. Without inquiring in what manner the Jewifh lawgi ver may have provided for the ends of civil fociety, it will be fufficient to obferve, that his religion had each individual, as well as the fociety, for iis fubjedl. Thefe individuals Would be often expofed to the inconveniences of an unequal providence. The doftrine of future rewards and punifhments therefore was abfolutely nmffary to fupport God's moral go vernment. Confequently, the Jewifh reli gion being without this fupport could «kfftng of Abraham, the benefit of being juftified by faith, might come on the Gentiles, as well as on the Jews, through Jefus the Meffiah, The apoftle now goes on to prove, more particularly, from the Abrahamic covenant, that the faith, which juftifies, is faith in Jefus, Brethren, I fpeak after the manner, oj men ; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no 'man difannulleth or addeth thereto. If a covenant between one man and another be unalterable, much more muft a covenant be fo between God and man. Now to Abraham and to bis seed were the promifes made. Jt (the fcripture V. 8.) faith mt, and to feeds, as of many ; but as oj one, and to thy seep, who, according to your own confeflSon, is the Messiah. St, Paul can not mean, as the tranflators fuppofed him to mean, our bleffed faviour, for that would have been begging the queftion, and. coming to 95 to a conclufion before he had eftabliflied his premlflles. He Is arguing with his adyerfaries on their own principles. Whatever the modern Jews may pretend, their fathers always allowed, that the texm feed denoted in this place, as well as in Genefis iii. 1 5. the Mefftab. This is afferted by St. Paul a§ a common principle agreed upon between them, that to Abraham's Seed, * who is confeffedly xhe Meffiab, were the promifes made. He then proceeds. And ibis Ifay, that the covenant which was before confirmed with or concerning the Meffiah, the law which was Jour hundred and thirty years after cannot difannul, that it flould make the promife of none effedl. This is a demonftrative proof, that theAbrahamic cove nant muft be ftill in force ; It being impof fible that the law could fet afide an aft which was eftablifhed four hundred and thirty years before it. For, as the apoftle goes x)n, if tbe inheritance, [oi the bleffing of Abraham V..14I be of the law, it is no more of promife ; but God freely gave it to Abraham by promife. Wherejore then jerveth the law .? may an objeftor fay. If the law contributes nothing towards conveying the promifed bleffing, what was * The fyntax is remarkable. T» SnERMATI av, OS sn Xf/rof .' And it is no lefs remarkable, that the Seventy have traDll^ced the firft promife of redemption in the fame nianner. I vjill put enmity betv/een thy/eed and her seed, tk SnERMATOS a-JTHs. ArTOS.&c HE fhall bryife thy head. Did not thefe Jews underfiand jhe pa,0'9ge of it fingle p^ffon, ? And who could he be but the Meftiah ? 96 _ was its ufe? The apoftle replies. It was ADDED becaufe of \ido\atxo\xs'\ tranfgreffions, till THE seed fhould come, to whom the promife was made ; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. To what was it added ? To the covenant or promife mentioned before. Surely, fays the Dean, to the religion of the patriarchs." Be it fo ; the religion of the patriarchs therefore muft furely be different from that of the law ; unlefs this great rea foner will take upon him to prove, that the fame thing can be added to itfelf. Well then, for once the Dean agrees with the apoflle, and allows that the religion of the law was added to that of the patriarchs ; that . is, the religion of works to the religion of faith in a promifed Seed. And, in con fequence of this conceffion, he muft alfo allow farther, that this religion of faith fubfifted under the Mofaic difpenfation ; the^ law, as St. Paul contends, and as the Dean confeffes, being added to it. He will there fore be obliged to adopt the Bifhop's prin ciples; unlefs, for the fake of oppofing his lordfhip, he will be hardy enough contradift the apoflle. That the Mofaic religion was not the fame with, but an addition to, the patriarchal, ap pears farther from what follows. For hav ing faid, that the law was ordained in the hand ot a mediator, ^m\t>s, the apoftle im mediately fubjoins O St jheo-jtu? fw? w fjin. Now the mediator (Mofes) is not a mediator of one 0 one (and the yZ^*?^ thing' Of covenaht) but God, the covenanter, is one and the fame. St. Paul always confiders the promife to Abraham as confifting of two diftinft parts, or as Including two diftinft covenants ; (fo he exprefsly calls them, Gal.iv. 24,) the one, relating tothe temporal ftate of his pofterity in the land of Canaan ; the other, to a blefling which was to be conveyed, through him and his Seed, (the Mefftab) to all nations of the earth* Now if the law was built upon one part (the temporal part) only, Mofes, It Is plain, could not be the mediator of one and the fame cove nant made with Abraham j which included the fpiritual blefling of all men. The promife therefore of this bleffing, and confequently faith in it, fubfifted in its full force and vi gor during the continuance of the law of Mofes J for as that promife was not compleate4 by the giving of the law, it remained to be fulfilled at the coming of the promifed Seed, even Jefus the Meffiah, the mediator of the better covenant eftablifhed on better promifes. We learn from this paffage, I. That the religion of the patriarchs was founded on faith in a promifed Seed, whom the Jews acknowledged to be the Meffiah. 2. That this faith, though no conftituent part of the law of Mofes^ fubfifted with it. 3. That the law was added to this religion of faith becaufe of tranfgreffions, " the idola-- trous deviations from that religion , into which G idolatry 98 idolatry the reft were already gone, and the Jews then haftening apace ; and from which they could be reftrained no otherwife than by this addition. D. L. 361. The author of the D. L. confeffes, that Abraham and his family were acquainted with the doftrines of redemption and a future ftate. 437. n. It fhould feem then, that tne If raelites, in the days^of Mofes, could notbe quite fo Ignorant of this laft doftrine, as the Dean, to ferve his own purpofes, has been pleafed to reprefent them. A doftrine ! which, he fays, and he fays truly, is moft pleafing to the mln^l, gets the guickeft poffeffion of it, and moft difficultly fuffers a divorce. AUiance 170. Nor can it reafonably and truly be faid, though it has been confidently afferted, that, becaufe future rewards and punifhments were not the fandlions of the law, the Jewifh people, from the time of Mofes to the captivity, had not the dodlrine. D. L. 462. ided. It is allow ed, they had a prepoffeffion in favor ofit. Alii. 171. And would not that prepoffeffion, added to their natural hopes of immortality, fpur them on to fearch their fcriptures, if perhaps they might find the life they wanted ? And furely if they did but feek, they could not fail of finding. The book of Genefis was not written for nothing. Read the hiftory ofthe fall, and you will fee the Seed of the woman triumphing,, in his turn, over the ferpent. He flaU bruije thee in the head, jor thou wilt bruife 99 bruife bim in the heel. Take the words literally, (and the Jews muft have had the credulity of infidels to underftand them lite rally) the prophecy Is foundly ridiculous. Strip off the figure, and you Immediately difcover the divinity of the prediftlon. Some evil being had brought death into the world. What was the Seed of the woman to do, but to reftore life and immortality ? The faU of our firft parents was the viftory of the evil one. In what then could their viftory confift, but in rifing again f Who the evil being was, and who the Seed of the woman, are points that do not enter into the prefent queftion. But the Jews, if they made any ufe of their underftanding, could not but fee that the promife, in the proper fenfe of the words, contained a ftrong affurance of a re furredlion, and, as the Bifliop expreffes It, was the grand charter of God's mercy after thefaU. Ufe, &c. 72. In what fenfe the Dean may chufe to un derftand this prophecy, I will not prefume to fay. There are but two ways, however. In which he can poffibly underftand it ; ekher In the fenfe of believers, or in the no-fenfe of unbelievers. Let him take his choice. But, I hope, he will not reply on this occa fion', as he did on another — If this be rny alternative. Sit anima mea cum philofopbisl they are much better company. G2 If IOO If we would know the fenfe of the faithful in the old World on this promife, we may learn it frOm Lamecb's prophecy on the birth of his fon, whom he ctilled Noah, or Comfort ; faying. This fame flail comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, becaufe of the ground which the Lord hath curfed. Gtn, v. 29. Now, whatever views the patriarch may be fuppofed to have 'had towards any temporal bleffings, fome j^/>/V«^/ blefling muft neceffarily have been the grand objeft of his thoughts, and of his prophecy. In the days of Noah the wickednefs of man was fo great, that God once faid, / wiU dejifoy man whom I have created, for it repenteth me that I have made himt If this had been indeed the cafe, if the fatal fentence had been execiited, what would have become of the covenant of re- demptiouj the charter of God's mercy 1 What comfort could the few faithful have had in all their work and toil of their hands! But Noah fdnndk grace .in the eyes of the Lord. With thee, fays God, will I eflablifl my cove nant, vi. 18. Accordingly he was wonder fully preferved to continue the Seed, and to convey dovs^n this common bleffing of all men. And Lamech, forefeeing this, declared, by the fpirit of prophecy. This fame fhall comfort US— fpeakihg to fuch of his cotem- boraties, as had the fame common hope with himfelf of a deliverance from the bondage of corruption. The exprefs words of the prophecy lOI prophecy demand this fenfe of it, Lamecb died before the flood. And therefore he could not poffiibly receive comfort or confolation from any temporal blefHng afier It. Thus, I prefume, it is proved to the fatis faftion of every capable and candid reader, that, thpugh future rewards and punifhments were no conftituent part of the law of Mofes, the great legiflator did not leave his people, as unbelievers, and fome believers too, have been pleafed to hold themi forth, deftitute of the knowledge of eternal life. What good end it can anfwer, to confirm the infidel in a ^fwafion fo injurious to the honor of the Deity, (for what can ht more injurious to his. honor, than to reprefent him as conftning his peculiar people to the literal fenfe of the tem-^ poral fanftions of their law, and flopping them from looking any farther?) let every impartial inquirer judge. It is indeed very eafy for a fanciful writer to talk of a divine harmony in^ fpirrng each part, and reigning through the whole of God's grand difpenfation, which would have been deftroyed by the opening of a future ftate in the patriarchal and kg4 ceconomies. And it is as eafy for a confident writer to fay, that the omiffion is one of the moft momentous truths that revelation bas to boaft of. But wife and modeft men will bg rather apt to think, that it was more agree able 102 able whh the goodnefs of God to reveal to the firft man the exiftenoe of that future And eternal flate, which is of the greateft im portance to every man ; with a charge to in ftruft his houfhold after him, and to fhew them the way of falvation. If we would know, fays the Examiner, what was fit to be done at this time, our only way is to fit down, and inquire what he aftually did do. 90, And whoever will fearch the holy fcriptures with freedom and impartiality, unbiaffed by Legation^ principles, and not corrupted by the unclean fpirit of refinement, will fee and confefs, that unto Adam was the gofpel preached as well as unto us — not fo clearly, openly, and explicitly, in all its feveral parts, as It is now revealed ; but with a fufficient degree of light and evidence to make it the ground of a rea,fonable fervice, and to con firm bis natural hopes of immortality. And he will alfo find, that the -fame covenant of redemption was afterwards, occafionaUy, re newed with A'o^^, Abraham, Ifaac, and J a- cob, ' On this covenant the hopes of the faith ful were founded in all ages. On this cove nant oi everlafting life were exprefsly ground ed thefaith and hope of thofe martyrs in fhe hiftory of the Maccabees, who would not ac cept deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection. 2 Mac. vii, 2^.=Heb. xi. 35. And And I cannot help thinking, that the deifl: rould give the gofpei' a fairer and mbfe attent- v/e hearing, if its advocates would uniformly j In In recommending It as an univerfal fyftem, reaching through aU ages, extending to all fiitlons, and gracioufly defigned to bring all the fons of God unto glory ; and in fhewing that the bleffed author and finlfher of the faith, Jesus the Messiah, is, in his AfEDiATORiAL capacity, the same yes terday, TO-DAY, AND FOR-EVER, ADDITIONS. Page 47. line 25. And with this agrees St. Paul's declaration elfewhere ;— faying none other things than thofe which the prophets and Mofes did fay fhould come j That the Messiah flould suffer, and that heflouH be the first that flould rise from the ioEAD, and fhew light unto the people (of Ifrael) and to the Gentiles. Adls xxn. 22, 3. Page 52. line 9. If we wanted any au thority to juftify fo reafonable a fuppofitionj V e might appeal to that of the Dean himfelf, V. ho affures us. In his Sermons, that The la-'w uas delivered under acarnal cover, which, fox the fake of what was to come, the Fio phets, from time to time, were ever LIFTING up, and pointing to the spiritual fubftance beneath. Vol. i. 317. Page 104 P^e J65, Or if the people might I &fdy trailed with thefe doftrines in the tlit't pf Malachi, why not alfo in that of Mqfef Or what reafon can thefe writers poffibl afiign, why the Jews fhould adhere fo fteadil to the kgal ceconomy in any particular peric of.it,notwithftahdiiigtheir knowledge of tH Redeemer and the ftiture ftate, which wi! not equaUy prove, that they would ha> adhered as fteadily to it in any other ? I >" » . « E R RO R S. ^g« t6 dele • and its relative. 56 for 87 read 93 — 7. .^»iHP,WV,«W««*««**^«— ^•MW^W* YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 05403 7891