r

a DISGRACE to Revelation; as by the very act "of God himself, it shuts out his own chosen

People, for many ages, from that single point of Knowledge, which could be the foundation of a "reasonable Worship; while, by the directions "of his Providence, all the world besides were "permitted to have the benefit of it *."

Here we see the Doctor proposes to confute my representation of the omission of a future State in the Mosaic Religion: But, for mine, he gives us his own, and very notably confutes that. My idea of the omission I declared to be this, that, as the Jews, to whom the Mosaic Religion was given, were, at the time of giving, under an extraordinary Providence, they had no absolute need of the doctrine. The Doctor's idea of the omission is, that when the Mosaic Religion was given to the Jews, they were under an ordinary Providence, and therefore the I doctrine was necessary. That I do him no wrong in charging him with this sophistical chicanery, appears from his own words, where he gives his reason, for saying that my (meaning his own) representation of the omission is a disgrace to Revelation; namely, because this single point of Knowledge [i.e. a future state] is the only FOUNDATION of a reasonable Worship. Now, it is obvious to common sense, that this can be only predicated of a future state

An Examination of Mr. Warburton's Second Proposition, &c. in an Epistolary Dissertation addressed to the Author; pp. 131, 2.

under

under an ordinary Providence: And that under an extraordinary it is no necessary FOUNDATION at all.

If it should be pretended (for it will hardly be owned that the Doctor, with all his zeal, was an Unbeliever) that by the many ages in which the people of God were shut up (as he expresses it) from this knowledge, he meant, those ages in which the Jews lived under a common providence, this subterfuge will not serve his turn, for I have shewn, that when the extraordinary dispensation ceased, the Jews, like all the world besides, and by the same means of information, had all the benefit which the knowledge of this FUTURE STATE, such as it was, could afford them.

But let us take the Doctor as we find him.

2

He tells us why he looks upon my representation of the Mosaic Religion as a disgrace to Revelation. Because (says he) by the very act of God himself it shuts out his own chosen people from that single point of Knowledge which could be the foundation of a reasonable Worship.

Let us examine this curious period on all sides.

By the act of God himself he must mean, (for nothing else can be meant; and it is only when his meaning is thus circumstanced, that I can be certain, I do not mistake it) he must mean, I say, God's act, by the ministry of Moses. Now this very Doctor, in his several Pieces against The Divine Legation, has, over and over again, told his Reader, that Moses did not teach, NOR HAD IT IN HIS COMMISSION I JY TO

TO TEACH a future state to the Israelites. For, at every step, he brings himself into these distresses (if such a trifle as a contradiction can be supposed to distress him) by a false modesty. He was ashamed of the absurdity of his Brethren, who all along maintained, that Moses taught, or OUGHT to have taught, a future state: and therefore, at this turn, leaves them in the lurch; and slily steals in the better principle of his Adversary, that Moses had no Commission to teach it: for he must have been duller than any Doctor can be supposed to be, not to discover that this was his Adversary's principle, after having seen him write a large book to prove that, Moses did not teach it. I call this desertion of his Friends, a false modesty; For what is it else, to be shocked at one of their absurdities, while he is defending all the rest? whose only support, too, happens to be in that ONE which he rejects. Indeed, good Doctor,

PUDOR TE MALUS urget

Insanos qui inter vereare Insanus haberi.

But "God (says he) by this very act, shut out his ~own chosen people from the knowledge of a future state." It is very true, God's own chosen people were shut out. But not, as our Doctor dreams, by the very act of God himself: but (if he will have the Truth, who never seeks it, for itself) by the very act of their Forefather, ADAM. It was the First Man who shut them out; and the door of VOL. III. Paradise

Y

Paradise was never opened again, till the coming of the Second Man, the Lord from Heaven. But this is the Language of Scripture: and this language his Sums and Systems do not teach him. But more of this secret hereafter.

A future state (says our Doctor absolutely and without exception) is that single point of knowledge. which could be the foundation of a reasonable wor ship. Here Doctors differ. St. Paul places the foundation of a reasonable worship in another thing. He saith, that, HE THAT COMETH TO GOD MUST

*

BELIEVE THAT HE IS; AND THAT HE IS A REWARDER OF THEM THAT DILIGENTLY SEEK

HIM*What is Man's purpose in coming to God? Without doubt, to worship him. And what doth the great Doctor of the Gentiles tell us is the true, the reasonable foundation of this worship? Why,

TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS A REWARDER OF THEM

gene

THAT DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM. He places this foundation (we see) in a REWARD simply, and rically; not in that particular species of it, a FUTURE STATE. He places it in the nature; not (as our modern Doctor) in the inessential circumstances, of REWARD. The consequence is, that a reward given HERE was as solid a foundation of a reasonable Worship to the early Jews, living under an ExTRAORDINARY Providence, as a reward given HEREAFTER, is to us Christians, living under the Another consequence (though it

ORDINARY one.

Heb. xi. 6. -

be

be but a trifle) is, that our learned Doctor is mistaken. But to come a little closer to this formidable man, now I have got the Apostle on my side, I will undertake to DEMONSTRATE (how much soever he and his Fellows take offence at the word) that a FUTURE STATE is so far from being the only foundation of a reasonable Worship, that, as a MODE of existence, it is no foundation at all. The true foundation of a reasonable Worship, being this and this only, that God is a rewarder of them who seek him. He may reward here, or he may reward hereafter. But, which he chuses is indifferent, as to the solidity of the foundation; because PIETY and MORALITY, which constitute a REASONABLE WORSHIP, spring only from the belief that God is, and that he is a Rewarder. The Mosaic Religion, teaching this, enjoins that men should love God with all their hearts, with all their soul, &c. for the excellence of his nature; and that they should love their neighbours as themselves, for the equality of their common nature, which requires an equal measure for ourselves and others. Now Jesus says, that, on the Love of God and of our Neighbour hang all the Law and the Prophets, i. e. in the most confined sense, it is the foundation of a reasonable Worship. Our Doctor says, No; a future state is the only foundation. In a word, then, since PIETY, which constitutes a reasonable worship, and since VIRTUE, which constitutes a reasonable service, are both raised and supported by the belief, that God