glory of God: * So that no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the Law, which requires a perfect obedience. Works then being unprofitable, we must have recourse to Faith: But the Law is not of Faith: Therefore the Law is unprofitable for the attainment of salvation, and consequently no longer obligatory."-Never was an important argument more artfully conducted, where the erroneous are brought into the right way on their own principles, and yet the truth not given up or betrayed. This would have been admired in a Greek or Roman Orator.

But though the principle he went upon was common both to him and his adversaries, and consequently true, that the Law was spiritnal, or had a spiritual meaning, whereby, under the species of those temporal promises of the Law, the promises of the Gospel were shadowed out; yet the inference from thence, that the LAW offered immortality to its followers, was solely Jewish, and urged by St. Paul as an argument ad hominem only; which appears certain from these considerations:

1. This spiritual sense, which St. Paul owns to be in the Law, was not a sense which was conveyed down with the literal, by Moses, to the followers of the Law; but was a sense invented or discovered long after;-the spurious, by the later Jewish Doctors; and the genuine and real, by the Apostles; as appears from these words of St. Paul: -But now we are delivered from the Law, that being DEAD wherein we were held, that we should serve in NEWNESS OF SPIRIT, and not in the OLDNESS OF THE LETTER.§ We see here, the Apostle gives the letter to the Jewish Economy, and the spirit to the Christian. Let me observe how exactly this quadrates with, and how well it explains, what he says in another place; where having told the Corinthians that he and his Fellow-Apostles were ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter but of the spirit, he adds, the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The Jews had only the letter delivered to them by the Law, but the Letter killeth; the consequence is, that the Law (in which was only the letter) had no future state.

2. Secondly, Supposing St. Paul really to hold that the Law offered immortality to its followers, and that that immortality was attached (as his argument supposes it) to Works, it would contradict the other reasoning which both he himself and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews urged so cordially against the second error of the Jewish Converts; namely, of immortality's being attached to works, or that justification was by works under the Gospel: for to confute this error, they prove, as we have shewn, that it was faith which justified, not only under the Gospel, but under the Law also.

3. Thirdly, If immortality were indeed offered through works, by

• Rom. iii. 23.

† Gal. ii. 16; iii. 11.

Gal. iii, 12.

Rom. vii. 6.

the Law, then justification by faith, one of the great fundamental doctrines of Christianity,* would be infringed. For then faith could, at best, be only supposed to make up the defect of works, in such a sense as to enable works to justify.

4. Fourthly, It would directly contradict what St. Paul in other places says of the Law; as that it is a shadow of things to come, but that the body is of CHRIST.† But the offer of immortality on one condition, could never be called the shadow of the offer of it on another. That it is the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ.‡ Now, by the unhappy dexterity of these men, who, in defiance of the Apostle, will needs give the doctrines of grace and truth, as well as the doctrines of the Law, to Moses, His appointed SCHOOLMASTER, the Law, is made to act a part that would utterly discredit every other schoolmaster, namely to teach his children, yet in their Elements, § the sublime doctrines of manly science.

5. Fifthly and lastly, if St. Paul intended this for any more than an argument ad hominem, he contradicted himself, and misled his disciple Timothy, whom he expressly assured, that our Saviour Jesus Christ hath ABOLISHED DEATH, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel. And lest, by this bringing to light, any one should mistake him to mean only that Jesus Christ had made life and immortality more clear and manifest, than Moses had done, he adds, that our Saviour had abolished or destroyed Death, or that state of mortality and extinction into which mankind had fallen by the transgression of Adam; and in which, they continued under the Law of Moses, as appears from that Law's having no other sanction than temporal rewards and punishments. Now this state must needs be abolished, before another could be introduced: consequently by bringing life and immortality to light, must needs be meant, the introduction of a new system.

I will only observe, that the excellent Mr. Locke was not aware of the nature of the argument in question; and so, on its mistaken authority, hath seemed to suppose that the Law did indeed offer immortality to its followers: This hath run him into great perplexities throughout his explanation of St. Paul's epistles.

Thus we have at length proved our THIRD PROPOSITION, That the Doctrine of a future state of Rewards and Punishments is not to be found in, nor did muke part of, the Mosaic Dispensation; and, as we presume, to the satisfaction of every capable and impartial reader.

But to give these arguments credit with those who determine only by AUTHORITY, I shall, in the last place, support them with the

• This I shall shew hereafter; and endeavour to rescue it from the madness of enthusiasm on the one hand, and the absurdity of the common system on the other, and yet not betray it, in explaining it away under the fashionable pretence of delivering the Scripture Doctrine of it. † Col. ii. 17. Gal. iii. 24. § Gal. iv. 3-9.

opinions of three Protestant Writers; but these Three worth a million. The first is the illustrious GROTIUS-"Moses in Religionis Judaicæ Institutione, si diserta Legis respicimus, nihil promisit supra hujus vitæ bona, terram uberem, penum copiosum, victoriam de hostibus, longam et valentem senectutem, posteros cum bona spe superstites. Nam, SI QUID EST ULTRA, in umbris obtegitur, aut sapienti ac DIFFICILI ratiocinatione colligendum est."

The second is the excellent EPISCOPIUS.- "In tota Lege Mosaica nullum vitæ æternæ præmium, ac ne æterni quidem præmii INDICIUM VEL VESTIGIUM extat: quicquid nunc Judæi multum de futuro seculo, de resurrectione mortuorum, de vita æterna loquantur, et ex Legis verbis ea extorquere potius quam ostendere conentur, NE LEGEM MOSIS IMPERFECTAM ESSE COGANTUR AGNOSCERE cum Sadducæis; quos olim (et, uti observo ex scriptis Rabbinorum, hodieque) vitam futuri sæculi Lege Mosis nec promitti nec contineri adfirmasse, quum tamen Judæi essent, certissimum est. Nempe non nisi per Cabalam sive Traditionem, quam illi in universum rejiciebant, opinionem sive fidem illam irrepsisse asserebant. Et sane opinionum, quæ inter Judæos erat, circa vitam futuri sæculi discrepantia, arguit promissiones Lege factas tales esse ut ex iis certi quid de vita futuri sæculi non possit colligi. Quod et Servator noster non obscure innuit, cum resurrectionem mortuorum colligit Mat. XXII. non ex promisso aliquo Legi addito, sed ex generali tantum illo promisso Dei, quo se Deum Abrahami, Isaaci, et Jacobi futurum spoponderat : quæ tamen illa collectio magis nititur cognitione intentionis divinæ sub generalibus istis verbis occultatæ aut comprehensæ, de qua Christo certo constabat, quàm necessaria consequentia, sive verborum vi ac virtute manifestâ, qualis nunc et in verbis Novi Testamenti, ubi vita æterna et resurrectio mortuorum proram et puppim faciunt totius Religionis Christianæ, et tam clarè ac disertè promittuntur ut ne hiscere quidem contra quis possit."*

And the third is our learned Bishop BULL:- "Primo quæritur an in V. Testamento nullum omnino extet vitæ æternæ promissum? de eo enim à nonnullis dubitatur. Resp. Huic quæstioni optimè mihi videtur respondere Augustinus, distinguens nomen Veteris Testamenti: nam eo intelligi ait aut pactum illud, quod in Monte Sinai factum est, aut omnia, quæ in Mose, Hagiographis, ac Prophetis continentur. Si Vetus Testamentum posteriori sensu accipiatur, concedi FORSITAN possit, esse in eo nonnulla futuræ vitæ non obscura indicia; præsertim in Libro Psalmorum, Daniele, et Ezekiele: quanquam vel in his libris clarum ac disertum æternæ vitæ promissum VIX AC NE VIX quidem reperias. Sed hæc QUALIACUNQUE erant, non erant nisi

• Institut. Theolog. lib. iii. sect. i. cap. 2.

præludia et anticipationes gratiæ Evangelicæ, Ad legem non pERTINEBANT.-Lex enim promissa habuit terrena, et terrena TANTUM.— Si quis contra sentiat, ejus est locum dare, ubi æternæ vitæ promissio extat; QUOD CERTE IMPOSSIBILE EST.-Sub his autem verbis [legis ipsius] Dei intentione comprehensam fuisse vitam æternam, ex interpretatione ipsius Christi ejusque Apostolorum manifestum est. Verùm hæc non sufficiunt ut dicamus vitam æternam in Fœdere Mosaico promissam fuisse. Nam primò promissa, præsertim Foederi annexa, debent esse clara ac diserta, et ejusmodi, ut ab utraque parte stipulante intelligi possint. Promissa autem hæc TYPICA et generalia, non additâ aliunde interpretatione, PENE IMPOSSIBILE ERAT, UT QUIS ISTO SENSU INTELLIGERET."

Thus these three capital supports of the Protestant Church. But let the man be of what Church he will, so he have a superiority of understanding and be not defective in integrity, you shall always hear him speak the same Language. The great ARNAULD, that shining ornament of the Gallican Church, urges this important truth with still more frankness.-"C'est LE COMBLE DE L'IGNORANCE" (says this accomplished Divine) "de mettre en doute cette vérité, qui est une des plus communes de la Religion Chretienne, et qui est attestEE PAR TOUS LES PERES, que les promesses de l'ancien Testament n'etoient que temporelles et terrestres, et que les Juifs n'adoroient Dieu que pour les biens charnels." And what more hath been said or done by the Author of the DIVINE LEGATION? Indeed, a great deal more. He hath shewn, "That the absence or omission of a future state of rewards and punishments in the Mosaic Religion is a certain proof that its original was from God." Forgive him this wrong, my reverend Brethren!

SECTION V.

BUT though it appear that a future state of Rewards and Punishments made no part of the Mosaic Dispensation, yet the Law had certainly a SPIRITUAL meaning, to be understood when the fulness of time should come: And hence it received the nature, and afforded the efficacy, of PROPHECY. In the interim, the MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL was occasionally revealed by GOD to his chosen Servants, the Fathers and Leaders of the Jewish Nation; and the dawning of it was gradually opened by the Prophets, to the People.

And which is exactly agreeable to what our excellent Church in its SEVENTH ARTICLE of Religion teacheth concerning this matter.

Harmonia Apostolica, dissertat. posterior, cap. x. sect. 8, p. 474, inter Opera omnia, ed. 1721. † Apologie de Port-Royal. And see note LL, at the end of this book.

ARTICLE VII.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign, that the Old Fathers did look only for transitory Promises.

-The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, is a proposition directed against the Manichean error, to which the opinions of some Sectaries of these later times seemed to approach. The Manicheans fancied there was a Good and an Evil Principle; that the Old Dispensation was under the Evil, and that the New was the work of the Good. Now it hath been proved that the Old Testament is so far from being contrary to the New, that it was the Foundation, Rudiments, and Preparation for it.

-For both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by CHRIST, who is the only Mediator between God and Man. That the Church could not mean by these words, that everlasting life was offered to mankind by CHRIST in the Old Testament in the SAME MANNER in which it is offered by the New, is evident from these considerations:

1. The Church, in the preceding words, only says, the Old Testament is NOT CONTRARY to the New; but did she mean that everlasting life was offered by both, in the same manner, she would certainly have said, The Old Testament is THE SAME with the New. This farther appears from the inference drawn from the proposition concerning everlasting life-WHEREFORE they are not to be heard, which feign, that the old FATHERS did look only for transitory promises. But was this pretended sense the true, then the inference had been, That ALL THE ISRAELITES were instructed to look for more than transitory promises.

*

2. The Church could not mean that everlasting life is offered in the Old and New Testament in the same manner, because we learn from St. Austin, that this was one of the old Pelagian heresies, condemned by the Catholics in the Synod of Diospolis,-QUOD LEX SIC MITTAT AD REGNUM [COELORUM] QUEMADMODUM ET EVANGELIUM.* What was meant therefore by the words—both in the Old and New Testament everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by CHRIST, was plainly this; "That the offer of everlasting Life to Mankind by CHRIST in the New Testament was SHADOWED OUT in the Old; the SPIRITUAL meaning of the Law and the Prophets referring to that life and immortality, which was brought to light by JESUS CHRIST.”

3. But lastly, Whatever meaning the Church had in these words, it cannot at all affect our Proposition, that a future state was not • De Gestis Pelagii, cap. xi. § 24.