Now where, let me ask, in all his writings, except in the Command to Abraham, is there the least trace of any such circumstance, as that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead? Or in that command either, if not understood according to our interpretation? But further, as the apostles did not convey several illustrious truths taught them by their Master to the churches which they founded: so neither (and doubtless for the same wise ends of Providence) did the churches convey down to posterity several truths revealed to them by the apostles. An instance of which we have in St. Paul's second Epistle to the Thessalonians, where, speaking of Antichrist, or the Man of Sin, he reminds the church of what it was he told them yet let or hindered his coming-Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know, what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. But the knowledge of this let or hindrance the Church of God hath long lost. And yet it is a matter of very high concernment. I have ever thought, the prophecies relating to Antichrist, interspersed up and down the New and Old Testament, the most convincing proof of the truth of the Christian religion that any moral matter is capable of receiving. That a Roman power is meant, is so exceeding evident, that it is that point in which all parties are agreed. But to fix it to the individual power (a determination highly interesting both the truth and purity of religion) it must first be known whether the power spoken of be civil or ecclesiastical. Protestants, in general, think they see all the marks of the latter. The Catholics, as they are called, contend of necessity for the former: and they have many great names even among us on their side (by what odd concurrence of circumstances, may be considered in another place). This has long embarrasssed a question, on the right determination of which alone, I am fully persuaded, one might rest the whole truth of the Christian cause. Now the knowledge of what it was that let or hindered the appearance of Antichrist, which St. Paul communicated to the church of Thessalonica, would at once determine the question. But this is the state in which it hath pleased pleased Providence to place the Church of Christ: with abundant evidence to support itself against infidelity,; yet so much left to be discovered as may rightly exercise the faith and industry of all humble and sober adorers of the Cross. Which however shews it was not the intent of Providence that one of these virtues should thrive at the expence of the other. Therefore when my learned Adversary*, in order, I will believe, to advance Chriştian faith, would discourage Christian industry, by calumiating, and rendering suspected, what he is pleased to call EXPERIMENTS in religion, it is, I am afraid, at best, but a seal without knowledge. Indeed, if men will come to this study with unwashed hands, that is, without a due reverence of the dignity of those sacred volumes; or, what is as ill in the other extreme, with unpurged heads, that is, stuffed full of systems, or made giddy by enthu<giasm, it is not unreasonable to expect the success which Dr. Stebbing pretends to have observed. But then, let him keep his advice for those whom it concerns. II. The other subject debated in this pamphlet is of the THEOCRACY of the Jews. Having undertaken to prove the divinity of the Mosaic religion from the actual administration of an extraordinary providence over that state in general, and over private men in particular, by the medium of the omission of a future state of rewards and punishments in their economy; what I had to do was to shew from Scripture, that such a dispensation of Providence was there represented to have been administered. This I did two ways, from the nature of the thing; and from the express words of Scripture. Under the first head, I shewed that, from the nature of a theocracy, it necessarily followed, by as plain an induction as that protection follows obedience to the civil magistrate, that there must be an extraordinary providence over the state in general, and over all the members of it in particular. And that though a theocracy wwere only pretended, yet, if the institutor of it knew the meaning of his own contrivance, he must, of course, pretend this extraordinary providence likewise. In support of which last observation I have shewnt, in the Dr. Stebbing. + Both in The Divine Legation and in this. Pamphlet. second second place, that such a dispensation of Providence is actually, and it express words of Scripture, said to be administered. After this, what has an unbeliever to do (for it is hard to think how any other should have any thing to do in it) who would invalidate this representation, but either to deny that the Jewish form of government was theocratical, and, by that means, endeavour to deprive me of the first of my proofs, from the nature of the thing: or to allow this pretended theocracy, yet shew from fact, by Seripture history, that such a dispensation of Providence was not administered; which would subvert both my proofs. And this sure none but an unbeliever could deliberately do, because it argues Moses of imposture. For if an extraordinary providence to the state and to particulars necessarily follows a theocracy, and yet such a providence was not actually administered, then this theocracy was not real, but pretended only. Now Dr. Sykes has undertaken to prove that the extraordinary dispensation of Providence did not extend to particulars. In this I blame him not. Every man must think for himself; and the objection is fairly urged. But what creates my wonder is, that when, contrary to common sense and common Scripture, he pretends to adınit an extraordinary providence to the state in consequence of a theocracy, while he opposes that to particulars, he should yet think to pass upon his reader for an advocate of the Bible. If he sees the thing in the light here stated, what an opinion must he have of the Public! If he sees it not, what an opinion must the Public have of him! But let him debate this point with himself at leisure. All the advantage I have taken of his bad reasoning, is not to discover, nor consequently to discredit, his opinions; but merely to support my own. III. In the last place, it may be permitted me to observe, that these two learned Doctors, who imagine, that all the time they have been writing against me, they were opposing the conclusion of The Divine Legation, have, indeed, allowed all I wanted to make my argument demonstrative: Dr. Stebbing, by owning that Moses did not teach, nor had it in commission to teach, a future state of rewards and punishments; and Dr. Sykes, by owning that an extraordinary providence was administered administered over the Jewish state and people in general. If it be asked, then, why I would clog my argument, by insisting on the Jewish people's ignorance in general of a future state, and the administration of an extraordinary providence to particulars; I reply, it was on the same principle that Moses clogged his institution with a theocracy. He did it in obedience to the Divine command; and I, out of my observance to truth. But had he been of that species of lawgivers in which Dr. Sykes seems to rank him, I conclude he would not have unnecessarily instituted a form of government that must, at every step, have detected his imposture. And had I wrote to advance my own notions, the equitable reader will conclude I should never have given so many needless provocations to this testy race of ANSWerers. April 14, 1745. THE HE curious reader of the many and various Answerers of the Divine Legation (if any such there be) cannot chuse but smile to see them so unanimously concur in representing me as desperately enamoured of controversy, and resolute and determined for the last word; especially, when it is observed, that, of ten or twelve very sizable books, written against it, I have taken notice of a small part only of two or three. What their motives were, in this representation, is neither worth mine, nor the reader's while, to conjecture. The plain fact is, I would willingly avoid all controversy, so far as is consistent with a regard to the Public; to which I have thought fit to appeal; and, to which, consequently, I have given a kind of right to expect, either an answer to all material objections, or a confession of their force. For such as these I have still waited; and now find I am likely to wait. In the mean time, I must either be silent, or take up with what fortune sends. And who could be long undetermined? For he must be very fond of controversy indeed, who would think of entering into a serious dispute, either with him, who holds That natural religion has not, and yet the law of Moses has, the sanction of a future state of rewards and punishments*: or with that other, who cannot see, and therefore, with a modest boldness peculiar to the blind, affirms "there "is not the least connexion between the two propositions, "an extraordinary providence and the omission of a * An Essay on the Nature and Obligations of Virtue, by T. Rutherforth, B. D. Fellow of St. John's College in Cambridge, and of the Royal Society. Cambridge. "future |