doubt whether it were not the popular belief amongst the Greeks. The good cautious man ! Had it been but ONCE EXPRESSLY mentioned in the Old Testament, I should no more have doubted of its being of popular belief amongst the Jews, than he does. Why then do we doubt so little, in the case of the Greeks, but for the same reason why we ought to doubt so much in the case of the Jews! HOMER (who gives a detailed account of a future state), this writer allows, has mentioned it about siæ times as a motive. The SCRIPTURES (which, together with the history, deliver the law and religion of the Jews, in which a future state is omitted) mention it not once as a motive. But this answerer would make the reader believe, I made my inference from the paucity, and not from the want, of the mention. The same may be observed of another expression of this candid gentleman's-express motive. Now much less would have satisfied me; and I should readily have allowed that the Jews had the popular belief amongst them, had the motive been once fairly implied.

But let us take him at the best, and suppose Homer did not afford one single instance. What, I pray you, has HOMER in common with MOSES? Suppose, I should affirm from the Greek history, that the ancient WORTHIES always proportioned their work to their strength and bulk; and that my answerer was not in a humour to let this pass; but, to confute me, would press me with the high achievements of TOM THUMB, as they are recorded in his. authentic story; who was as famed for his turbulence in king Arthur's court, as Achilles was in Agamemnon's: would not this be just as much to the purpose, as to put the Niad and the Odyssey in parallel with the law and the prophets ?

But Homer's poems have been so long called the bible of the pagans, that this answerer appears, in good earnest, to have taken them for religious history; otherwise how could it have ever entered into his head, to make so ridiculous a comparison? my reasoning with regard to SCRIPTURE stood thus:-As all good history deals with the motives of men's actions, so the peculiar business (as it seems to me) of religious history is to scrutinize their religious motives: of these, the principal is the consideration of a future state. And this not being so much as once mentioned in the ancient Jewish history, it is natural to conclude that the Jews of those times had it not. But now, what have Homer's poems to do in this matter? I apprehend they are no religious history; but compositions as far removed from it as possible, namely, a military and civil romance, brimful of fabulous trumpery. Now in such a work, the writer surely would be principally solicitous about the civil motives of his actors. And Homer, who is confessed to understand what belonged to every kind of composition, would take care to keep within his subject; and, to preserve decorum, would content himself with supplying his warriors and politicians with such motives as might best set off their wisdom and their heroism: such as the love of power, in which I comprise, revenge on their enemies; the love of plunder, in which is included their passion for fair captives; and the love of glory, in which, if you please, you may reckon their regard for their friends and their country. But in Homer's military and political romances there are hardly siæ instances in which a future state is mentioned as the express motive; therefore the perpetual silence on this point, in the religious history of the Jews, and the perpetual mention of it in the religious histories of the SUEVI and the SARACENS, conclude nothing in favour of the argument of the Divine Legation.

P. 334, PP. To this Dr Stebbing objects, that "it means no more than that man was not to be restored to his earthly human state." - Exam. p. 60. And, to confirm this, he appeals to the tenth verse of this chapter, which runs thus, He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more. But the learned Doctor should have reflected, that if Job says the dead man returns no more to his house, he gives a reason for his so saying, very inconsistent with the Doctor's interpretation of the 9th verse of the viith chapter. It was, because the dead man was got into the land of darkness and the shadow of death [chap. x. 21.] it was because he was not awake nor could be raised out of his sleep [chap. xiv. 12.] But the very subject which Job is here treating, confutes the Doctor's interpretation: He is complaining that life is short, and that after death he shall no more see good, for that he who goeth down to the grave shall come up no more; he shall return no more to his house [ver. 7, 8, 9, 10.]; which at least implies that there was no good to be expected any where, but in this world: and this expectation is cut off in express terms.

P. 335, Q Q. To this sense of the text Dr Stebbing objects, and says, that by no reward is meant none in this world.--Exam. pp. 63, 64. And in support of his interpretation, quotes the words of the verse immediately following-neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. Now I agree with the learned Doctor, that these words are an explanation of the foregoing, of the dead's not having any more a reward: and from thence draw just the contrary inference, that the sacred writer, from the consideration of the dead's not returning to life to enjoy their reward, concluded that, when once death had seized them, they could have no reward at all; not even that imaginary one, the living in the memory of men, for the memory of them, says he, is forgotten. So again from the consideration in ver. 6. that the dead had neither love, hatred, nor envy, he had concluded, ver. 5, that THEY KNEW NOT ANY THING. -But the premises

and the conclusion not being in their usual order, our learned Doctor's logic did not reach to take the force of the preacher's.

P. 340, R R. To all this, it hath been said, -" Christians have the promise of the life that now is, excepting the case of persecution," Mark x. 30. The words of Jesus in the evangelist are, there is no one that hath LEFT house or brethren, &c., for my sake and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundred fold now in this time, houses and lands, &c., with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life. But these words evidently allude to the first followers of Jesus, while the church was under an extraordinary providence, that is, during the age of miracles: and as that sort of dispensation is always aided by the course of natural and civil events, we easily see how it would be promoted by LEAVING a country doomed to the most horrid and exterminating destruction. But St Paul, where he assigns only the life which is to come to the followers of the gospel, is speaking of a different thing, namely, of the genius of the Christian dispensation in general, as it is opposed to Judaism.

P. 341, S S. The serious reader, who considers all this, will not be a little surprised to hear that eminent scholar and divine, Dr Samuel Clarke, talk in the following manner, where, after having spoken of the doubts and uncertainties of the ancient philosophers concerning a • future state, he concludes in these words. -" From all which it appears, that, notwithstanding all the bright arguments and acute conclusions and brave sayings of the best philosophers, yet life and immortality were not FULLY and SATISFACTORILY brought to light by BARENATURAL REASON." - Evid. of Nat. and Rev. Relig. p. 146. - It would be very strange if they had; since scripture is so far from allowing any part of this discovery to natural reason, that it will not admit even the Mosaic revelation to a share, but reserves it all for the gospel of CHRIST: so that had natural religion brought life and immortality to light, though not fully and satisfactorily, the learned apostle would be found to have spoken much too highly of the prerogatives of the gospel.

The truth is, the very learned writer had two points to make out, in this famous work; the one was the evidence of natural religion; and, under that head, he is to show, that it taught life and immortality. His other point was, the evidence of revealed religion, and there, to show its use and necessity, he is to demonstrate that bare natural reason could not discover life and immortality. Thus the very method of his demonstration obliged him, in the former part, to give to natural religion an honour which, in the latter part, he was forced to take away: and to reconcile them with one another, was the purpose of the conciliating words above-yet life and immortality were not FULLY and SATISFACTORILY brought to light by bare natural reason: which indeed does the business; but it is at the expence of the learned apostle, who says it was not brought to light at all, till the preaching of the gospel.

P. 341, TT. To this it has been said, "that the mystery of the gospel here mentioned, is rather that which is meant by the word, chap. iii. ver. 3-9, namely, the calling in of the gentiles to be fellow-heirs with the Jews." - For a confutation of this absurd fancy, read -The Free and Candid Examination of the Principles advanced by the Lord Bishop of London, chap. i. p. 24. et seq., where the learned and most judicious author has sufficiently exploded it.

[I.] AFTER such convincing evidence that a FUTURE STATE did not make part of the religion of MOSES, the reader would not have suspected, he must once more be stopped to hear a long answer to a set of texts brought from the Old and New Testament to prove, that the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment DID make the most essential part of the Mosaic dispensation: and this, not by a few fanciful allegorists, or outrageous bigots only, who will say or do any thing; but by many sober men of all sects and parties, of all times, and of all religions.

I. Several of the ancient CHRISTIAN writers were so persuaded of this point, that, not content to say, the doctrine of a future state made part of the Mosaic dispensation, they would be confident that the very pagans learned it all from thence. Some modern Christians have not been behind them in their faith, but have far outstripped them in their charity, while they treated the denial of this extravagant opinion as a new species of infidelity. It is true, they are all extremely confused and obscure about the way they represent it to have been taught: and there have not been wanting, at all times, men of the greatest eminence for parts and piety, who have not only doubted, but plainly denied this future state to be in the Mosaic religion; though, to be just to all, with the same inconsistency and embarrassment that the others have maintained it.* However, the more current doctrine hath always been, that a future state of rewards and punishments was taught by the law of Moses.

As surprising as this may seem to those who have weighed the foregoing evidence, yet indeed no less could be expected from such a number of concurrent and oddly combined prejudices, which have served, till now, to discredit one of the clearest and most important truths of revelation.

1. The first was, that several patriarchs and prophets, both before and under the Mosaic dispensation, were certainly favoured with the * See note A, at the end of this book.

revelation of man's redemption; in which the doctrine of a future state is eminently contained: and they think it utterly incredible that these should not have conveyed it to their people and posterity.

2. They could not conceive how a religion could be worthy of God, which did not propose to its followers a future state of rewards and punishments; but confined their views to the carnal things of this life only.

3. The truth, here attempted to be established, had been received and abused by the enemies of all true religion and godliness; such as the Sadducees of the old Jewish church, the Gnostics of the old Christian, and unbelievers in all churches.

4. Lastly, men were kept fast within the error into which these prejudices had drawn them, by never rightly distinguishing between a future state of reward and punishment, as taught by what men call natural religion, and a future state as taught by Christian revelation; which is the CLEW, as we shall see hereafter, to conduct us through all the errors and perplexities of this region of darkness, till we come into the full and glorious light of the gospel.

But in religious matters, combinations much less strange are sufficient to defeat the credit of the plainest fact. A noted instance of what OBSTINACY alone can do against the self-evidence of truth, will abate our wonder at the perversity in question; at least it may be put to use, in the history of the human mind, towards which, will be found materials, neither vulgar nor few, in the course of this work. There is a sect, and that no inconsiderable one, which, being essentially founded in enthusiasm, hath, amongst other of its strange freaks, thrown out the institution of WATER BAPTISM from its scheme of Christianity. It is very likely that the illiterate founder, while rapt in his fanatic visions, did not reflect that, of all the institutions of our holy religion, this of water baptism was least proper to be called in question; being most invincibly established by the practice both of PAUL and PETER. This latter finding that the household of Cornelius the GENTILE had received the Holy Ghost, regarded it as a certain direction for him to admit them into the church of Christ, which he did by the initiatory rite of water baptism. -Acts x. 47. Paul, in his travels through the Lesser Asia, finding some of the JEWISH converts, who had never heard of the Holy Ghost, and, on inquiry, understanding they had been only baptized by water unto John's baptism, thought fit to baptize them with water in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is, to admit them into the church; and then laying his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. - Acts xix. 4, 5, 6.

In spite of these two memorable transactions, the Quakers have not"Water

withstanding rejected water baptism. What is the pretence? baptism," it seems, "is John's baptism, and only a type of baptism by the Holy Ghost or by fire; so that when this last came in use, the former ceased and was abolished." Yet in the two histories given above, both

these fancies are reproved; and in such a manner as if the stories had been recorded for no other purpose: for in the adventure of Paul, the water baptism of Jesus is expressly distinguished from the water baptism of John; and, in that of Peter, it appears, that water baptism was necessary for admittance into the church of Christ, even after the ministration of baptism by fire, or the communicated power of the Holy Ghost. It is further observable, that these two heads of the mission to the two great divisions of mankind, the Jews and GENTILES, here acted in one another's province; Peter the apostle of the Jews administering baptism to the gentile household of Cornelius; and Paul the apostle of the gentiles administering the same rite to the Jewish converts. And why was this crossing of hands, but to obviate that silly evasion, that water baptism was only partial or temporary?

But what is reason, evidence, or truth, when opposed to religious prejudice! The Quakers do not hold it to be clearer, that repentance from dead works is necessary for obtaining the spiritual benefits of the gospel covenant, than that WATER BAPTISM is abolished, and of no use to initiate into the church of Christ.

II. But to proceed. The error in question is, as we said, not confined to the Christian church. The Jews too maintain it with equal obstinacy, but not with equal indiscretion; the children of this world are, in their generation, wiser than the children of light;* their fatal adherence to their long abolished rites depending altogether upon this single prejudice, that Moses taught a future state of rewards and punishments: for if he taught it not, the consequence is inevitable, his religion could only be preparatory to one that did teach it. This therefore is their great support; and wisely have they enforced it by all the authority and power of the synagogue.† But what Christians gain by so doing, I confess I know not. What they lose hath been seen in part, and will be more fully shown hereafter: not one demonstration only, of the truth of the Mosaic mission, but all true conception of that divine harmony which inspires every part, and runs through the whole of God's great dispensation to mankind.

III. The error is still more extensive; and hath spread from true religion to the false; a fitter soil for its reception. For the MAHOMETANS, who hold the divine original of the Jewish law, are as obstinate as the best, in giving it this mistaken advantage: but, it must be owned under a modester pretext. Their expedient for saving the honour of the law is this: they confess the doctrine of a future state is not at present to be found there: BUT THOUGH IT BE NOT THERE, IT OUGHT TO BE; for that the Jews, in pure spite to them, have interpolated their Bible, and taken away all mention of it.‡