arise but from the persuasion of an equal Providence: And for this it is that he charges me with a fondness for reconciling contradictions. Here I shall take my leave of this Discourser on the book of Job, with declaring, that a more contemptuous, disingenuous, and ignorant Writer never assumed the honourable name of ANSWERER; yet I would not deny him his station amongst the Learned. I think the same apology may be made for him, that a namesake of his, in his history of the Carthusians, made for their general Bruno,-"that doubtless he could have wrote well if he would, for he printed a Missal in an exceeding fair letter, and delicate fine writing paper." PETREI Bib. Carth. fol. 35.

P. 134. FF. This wicked fancy some early Christian Writers seem to have gone far into; particularly ORIGEN; who, because Celsus had supposed, absurdly enough, that the propagators of the Gospel had borrowed the Doctrine of a future state from the Pagan Philosophers, was resolved not to be out-done, and therefore tells his adversary, "that where God says in the book of Moses, which was older than all the Pagan writings, I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land, unto a good land and a large; unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites [Exod. iii. 8.] he did not mean, as ignorant men imagine, the country of Judea, but the kingdom of heaven; for that how good a land soever Judea might be, it was yet part of that earth which had been put under the curse, and therefore, &c.”οὐχ ὁρῶν ὅτι Μωϋσῆς, ὁ πολλῷ καὶ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν γραμμάτων ἀρχαιότερος, εἰσήγαγε τὸν Θεὸν ἐπαγγελλόμενον τὴν ἁγίαν γῆν, καὶ ἀγαθὴν καὶ πολλὴν, ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μελι, τοῖς κατὰ τὸν νόμον ἑαυτοῦ βιώσασιν· οὐδ ̓ ὡς οἴονταί τινες τὴν ἀγαθὴν, τὴν κάτω νομιζομένην Ἰουδαίαν, κειμένην καὶ αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ἀρχῆθεν κατηραμένῃ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ ̓Αδάμ γῆ. Cont. Cels. p. 350. He that can rave at this strange rate must needs consider the whole sanction of temporal reward and punishment as a mere figurative representation of future. But is not the hearkening to such Interpreters exposing divine Revelation to the contempt and scorn of Infidels and Free-thinkers? And yet perhaps we must be obliged to hearken to them, if the endeavours of these Answerers become successful in proving the NON-EXISTENCE of the extraor dinary Providence (as promised by Moses) against the reasoning of the D. L. that it was ACTUALLY administered, in pursuance of that promise. For, by Origen's Commentaries (published by Huetius) it appears, that he was led into this strange opinion by taking it for granted, as Sykes, Rutherforth, Stebbing, and such like writers have since done, that under the Law, the best and most pious men were frequently miserable, and the wicked prosperous and happy.

P. 149. GG. One of these Answerers of this Work employs much pains to prove that these words could not mean, That it was to be well with them that fear God IN THE PRESENT LIFE. Rutherforth, p. 363. i. e. he will prove, the words could not bear a sense to which they are limited and tied down by the words immediately following,-But it shall not be well with the wicked, NEITHER SHALL HE PROLONG HIS DAYS.-What is to be done with such a man?

P. 152. HH. Which (to observe it by the way) unanswerably confutes that Semipagan Dream of the soul's sleeping till the resurrection of the body. And yet, what is strange to tell, this very text, in the course of disputation, which, like the course of time, brings things, as the Poet says,

-to their confounding contraries,

hath been urged to prove that sleep, or no separate life; and this, by no less considerable a man than Mr. HALES of Eaton. Christ (saith he) proveth the future resurrection of the dead from thence, that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Whence he concludeth, that they live to God, that is, SHALL BE recalled to life by God, that he may manifest himself to be their God or Benefactor. This argument would be altogether fallacious, if before the Resurrection they felt heavenly joy: For then God would be their God or Benefactor, namely according to their souls, although their bodies should never rise again.* All which is a mere complication of mistakes: as is, indeed, his whole reasoning from Scripture, throughout that chapter.-But they who hold the soul to be only a quality, and yet talk of its sleep between death and the resurrection, use a jargon which confounds all languages as well as all reason. For such a sleep is an annihilation; and the waking again, a new creation. P. 153. II. "Though this argument was a new one," (says Dr. Rutherforth) "though the Pharisees had never made this inference, and that therefore it does not appear from hence, that Moses inculcated the doctrine of a future state; yet as it was a conclusive argument, as it was an inference which might have been made, it will prove to us that Moses was not studious to conceal this doctrine, nor purposely omitted every thing that might bring his Reader acquainted with those notices of Redemption and of another life, which the Patriarchs were favoured with." p. 318. This is a coup de Maître, indeed: as wittily urged as it was wisely meditated. -If Moses bring a conclusive argument for a doctrine, it is plain he could not be studious to conceal that doctrine, says our ingenious Professor.-If Roger Bacon, say I, have given, in his writings, a true receipt to make Gunpowder, he could not be studious to conceal the composition. And yet we know he was studious to conceal it. What reasons he had for so doing, and how consistent it was with his giving the receipt, I leave to this profound Philosopher; and shall content myself with shewing how consistent Moses was in the conduct I have ascribed to him.-If both Moses's pretensions and those of Jesus likewise were true, the former must needs observe this conduct, in his Institute; that is to say, he would omit the doctrine of another life, and, at the same time, interweave into the Law such a secret mark of its truth, that, when the other Institution came, it might be clear to all, that he both knew and believed the Doctrine.-If Moses had not omitted it, he had intruded on the province of Jesus: If he had not laid the grounds on which it rises, he had neglected to provide for the proof of that connexion between the two Dispensations, necessary to shew the harmony between their respective Authors. Moses had done both: And from both I gather that he was studious to conceal the doctrine. The omission will be allowed to be one proof of it; and I should think, this use of a term, The God of Abraham, &c. is another proof. For, the Jews, who, from the ceasing of the extraordinary Providence, continued for many ages with incessant labour to ransack their Bibles for a proof of a future state, could never draw the inference from this text till Jesus had taught them the way. No, says the Doctor, How should an argument used by Moses, for a future state, be a proof that Moses was studious to conceal it? This Argument going, as we now see, upon our Professor's utter ignorance of the nature and genius of the Mosaic Dispensation, (which required as much that the grounds of a future state should be laid, as that the Structure itself should be kept out of sight) I shall leave it in possession of that admiration which it so well deserves. P. 155. KK. Here, the groundless conceit of the learned Mosheim "A brief Inquiry," chap. viii.

[de reb. Christ. ante Const. p. 49,] is sufficiently refuted. He supposes a Sadducee to be represented under the person of the rich Man. But the authority of the PROPHETS, to which Abraham refers his houshold, was not acknowledged by the Sadducees, as of weight to decide, in this point. And yet the very words of Abraham suppose that their not hearing the Prophets did not proceed from their not believing, but from their not regarding.

P. 168. LL. But all are not Arnaulds, in the Gallican Church. Mr. Freret, speaking of the history of Saul and a passage in Isaiah, concerning the invocation of the dead, says" Ce qui augmente ma surprise, c'est de voir, que la plus part de ces Commentateurs se plaignent, de ne trouver dans l'Ecriture aucune preuve claire que les Juifs, au temps de Moyse, crussent l'immortalité de l'ame.-La pratique, interdite aux Juifs, suppose que l'existence des ames, separées du corps, par la mort, etoit alors une opinion générale et populaire." Memoires de l'Acad. Royale des Inscript. &c. v. 23. p. 185.-The Gentleman's surprise arises from his being unable to distinguish between the separate existence of the Soul considered physically, and its immortality considered in a religious sense: It is under this latter consideration that a future state of reward and punishment is included. Had he not confounded these two things so different in themselves, he had never ventured to condemn the Commentators; who do indeed say, they cannot find this latter doctrine in the Pentateuch. But then, they do not lament or complain of this want; because they saw, though this Academician does not, that the absence of the doctrine of a future State of reward and punishment in the MOSAIC LAW evinces its imperfection, and verifies the enunciation of the Gospel, that LIFE AND IMMORTALITY were brought to light by JESUS CHRIST.

P. 172. MM. Dr. Stebbing, in what he calls Considerations on the command to offer up Isaac, hath attempted to discredit the account here given of the Command: And previously assures his reader, that if any thing can hinder the ill effects which my interpretation must have upon Religion, it must be his exposing the absurdity of the conceit. This is confidently said. But what then? He can prove it. So it is to be hoped. If notHowever let us give him a fair hearing.-He criticises this observation on the word DAY, in the following manner. Really, Sir, I see no manner of consequence in this reasoning. That Christ's day had reference to his office, as Redeemer, I grant: The day of Christ denotes the time when Christ should come, i. e. when He should come, who was to be such by office and employment. But why it must import also that when Christ came he should be offered up a Sacrifice, I do not in the least apprehend: Because I can very easily understand that Abraham might have been informed that Christ was to come, without being informed that he was to lay down his life as a Sacrifice. If Abraham saw that a time would come when one of his sons should take away the curse, he saw Christ's day." [Consid. p. 139.] At first setting out, (for I reckon for nothing this blundering, before he knew where he was, into a Socinian comment, the thing he most abhors) the Reader sees he grants the point I contend for-That Christ's DAY (says he) has reference to his office as Redeemer, I grant. Yet the very next words, employed to explain his meaning, contradict it;— The day of Christ denotes the TIME when Christ should come. All the sense therefore, I can make of his concession, when joined to his explanation of it, amounts to this-Christ's Day has reference to his OFFICE :-No, not to his Office, but to his TIME. He sets off well but he improves as he goes along-But why it must import ALSO that when Christ came he should be

offered up as a Sacrifice, I do not in the least apprehend. Nor I, neither, I assure him. Had I said, that the word Day, in the text, imported the time, I could as little apprehend as he does, how that which imports time, imports ALSO the thing done in time. Let him take this nonsense therefore to himself. I argued in a plain manner thus,-When the word Day is used to express, in general, the period of any one's existence, then it denotes time; when, to express his peculiar office and employment, then it denotes, not the time, but that circumstance of life characteristic of such office and employment; or the things done in time. DAY, in the text, is used to express Christ's peculiar office and employment. Therefore-But what follows is still better. His want of apprehension, it seems, is founded in this, that he can easily understand, that Abraham might have been informed that Christ was to come; without being informed that he was to lay down his life as a Sacrifice. Yes, and so could I likewise; or I had never been at the pains of making the criticism on the word Day: which takes its force from this very truth, that Abraham might have been informed of one without the other. And, therefore, to prove he was informed of that other, I produced the text in question, which afforded the occasion of the criticism. He goes on,-If Abraham saw, that a time would come when one of his seed should take away the curse, he saw Christ's DAY. Without doubt he did. Because it is agreed, that Day may signify either time, or circumstance of action. But what is this to the purpose? The question is not whether the word may not, when used indefinitely, signify time; but whether it signifies time in this text. I have shewn it does not. And what has been said to prove it does? Why that it may do so in another place. In a word, all he here says, proceeds on a total inapprehension of the drift and purpose of the argument.

P. 173. NN. Daubuz on the Revelations, p. 251; printed in the year 1720. To this reasoning, Dr. Stebbing replies as follows: You are not more successful in your next point, Abraham rejoiced to see my Day, and he saw it, and was glad, ἵνα ΙΔΗι τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμὴν, καὶ ΕΙΔΕ—This (say you) evidently shews it [the revelation] to have been made not by relation in words, but by representation in actions. How so? The reason follows. The verb elow is frequently used in the New Testament in its proper signification to see sensibly.-In the New Testament, do you say? Yes, Sir, and in every Greek book you ever read in your life. What you SHOULD have said is, that it is so used here; and I suppose you would have said so, if you had known how to have proved it." [Consid. p. 139, 140.] The reason follows (says he.) Where? In my book indeed, but not in his imperfect quotation from it; which breaks off before he comes to my reason. One who knew him not so well as I do, would suspect this was done to serve a purpose. No such matter; 'twas pure hap-hazard. He mistook the introduction of my argument for the argument itself. The argument itself, which he omits in the quotation, (and which was all I wanted, for the proof of my point,) was, That the verb eidw, whether used literally or figuratively, always denotes a full intuition. And this argument, I introduced in the following manner, The verb eïdw is frequently used in the New Testament in its proper signification, to see sensibly. Unluckily, as I say, he took this for the Argument itself, and thus corrects me for it : "What you SHOULD have said, is, that it is so used here; and I suppose you would have said so, if you had known how to have proved it:" See, here, the true origin both of dogmatizing and divining! His ignorance of what I did say, leads him to tell me what I should have said, and to divine ́ what I would have said. But, what I have said, I think I may stand to,

That the verb eidw always denotes a full intuition. This was all I wanted from the text; and on this foundation, I proceeded in the sequel of the discourse, to prove that Abraham saw sensibly. Therefore, when my Examiner takes it (as he does) for granted, that because, in this place, I had not proved that the Word implied to see sensibly, I had not proved it at all; he is a second time mistaken.

"But, he owns, that, if this was all, perhaps I should tell him, that it was a very strange answer of the Jews, thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" [Consid. p. 140.] He is very right. He might be sure I would. In answer therefore to this difficulty, he goes on and says, "No doubt, Sir, the Jews answer our Saviour, as if he had said, that Abraham and he were cotemporaries; in which, they answered very foolishly, as they did on many other occasions; and the answer will as little agree with your interpretation as it does with mine. For does your interpretation suppose that Abraham saw Christ in person? No; you say it was by representation only." [Consid. p. 140, 141.]

The Jews answered our Saviour as if he had said that Abraham and he were cotemporaries.-Do they so? Why then, 'tis plain, the expression was as strong in the Syrian language, used by Jesus, as in the Greek of his Historian, which was all I aimed to prove by it. But in this (says he) they answered very foolishly. What then? Did I quote them for their wisdom? A little common sense is all I want of those with whom I have to deal and rarely as my fortune hath been to meet with it, yet it is plain these Jews did not want it. For the folly of their answer arises therefrom, They heard Jesus use a word in their vulgar idiom, which signified to see corporeally; and common sense led them to conclude that he used it in the vulgar meaning in this they were not mistaken. But, from thence, they inferred, that he meant it in the sense of seeing personally; and in this, they were. And now let the Reader judge whether the folly of their answer shews the folly of my Argument, or of my Examiner's.-Nay further, he tells us, they answered as foolishly on many other occasions. They did so; and I will remind him of one. Jesus says to Nicodemus, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, &c.* Suppose now, from these words, I should attempt to prove that Regeneration and divine Grace were realities, and not mere metaphors: for that Jesus, in declaring the necessity of them, used such strong expressions that Nicodemus understood him to mean the being physically born again, and entering the second time into the womb: would it be sufficient, let me ask my Examiner, to reply in this manner: "No doubt, Sir, Nicodemus answered our Saviour as if he had said, that a follower of the Gospel must enter a second time inta his mother's womb and be born: in which he answered very foolishly; and the answer will as little agree with your interpretation as it does with mine, For does your interpretation suppose he should so enter? No; but that he should be born of water and of the spirit."-Would this, I say, be deemed, even by our Examiner himself, a sufficient answer? When he has resolved me this, I shall, perhaps, have something farther to say to him. In the mean time I go on. And, in returning him his last words restored to their subject, help him forward in the solution of what I expect from him. The answer (says he) will as little agree with your interpretation as it does with mine. For does your interpretation suppose that Abraham saw Christ in person? No; you say, it was by representation only. Very well. Let me ask then, in the first place, Whether he supposes that what I said on this occasion was to prove that Abraham saw • St. John iii, 3.