THE

DIVINE LEGATION

O F

MOSES

DEMONSTRATE D.

BOOK IX.

CHAP. I.

BEGAN this Work by an ARGUMENT

I long, this to

(long fince compleated) to prove that

A FUTURE STATE OF REWARDS AND PU

NISHMENTS was not taught by Mofes ; but that, in its stead, an equal or extraordinary Providence was the Sanction of the Law. And I now conclude it, with a corroboration of that ARGUMENT, by fhewing, that life and immortality was brought to light by the GOSPEL alone.

From

From whence refults this further Truth, That were MOSES and the PROPHETS the commiffioned Servants of God, THEY COULD NOT, by their office, TEACH A FUTURE STATE; fince it was ordained, and referved for, the Ministry of JESUS.

Befides, What the LAW promised was to be obtained by WORKS. What the GosPEL brought to light, under the name of Salvation, is to be procured by FAITH in a crucified Saviour and Redeemer. From these TRUTHS will arise another proof of the Divinity both of the LAW and the Gos

PEL.

But as all this can be fhewn no otherwife, than by a diftinct and collective view of the whole of God's moral Difpenfation to Man, commencing with ADAM and compleated in JESUS CHRIST, I have made the NATURE AND GENIUS OF THE GOSPEL the fubject of the Ninth and last Book of the DIVINE LEGATION.

Of the two immediately foregoing, namely the Seventh and Eighth Books, the first of them is employed in fupporting the MAJOR and the MINOR propofitions of the

first Syllogifm: by a continued history of the Religious Opinions of the Jewish People, on this matter, from the time of their earliest Prophets (who gave fome dark intimations of a different difpenfation), to the time of the Maccabees, when the Doc trine of a FUTURE STATE of rewards and punishments was become National.

The other, namely the Eighth Book, is employed in fupporting the MAJOR and the MINOR propofitions of the fecond Syllogifm; in which is confidered the PERSONAL CHARACTER OF MOSES, and the GENIUS OF HIS LAW, fo far forth as it concerns, or has a relation to the Character of the LAW

GIVER.

As the main Argument of all the foregoing Books, of THE NATURE AND GENIUS OF THE LAW, has been hitherto esteemed too Paradoxical; the Argument of this last, concerning THE NATURE AND GENIUS OF THE GOSPEL, it is more than probable, may be condemned, and by the fame men, as being too Orthodoxical: For I have, long fince, obferved, that a religious Notion is apt to change its nature in the estimation

of certain Divines, when it changes its Advocate.

Were I concerned with none but UNBELIEVERS, in this prefent Difcourfe, my only task, and a fhort one too, would be to prove the reafonableness of thefe which I hold to be the effential Doctrines of Chriftianity; for Unbelievers confefs they are to be found in the Gospel, but deny them to be of divine Original, on account of the supposed absurdities which attend them; in the fame manner that they have allowed the Doctrine of a future ftate not to be found in the LAW; and therefore denied that Difpenfation to be given by God, because fuch an omiffion, they pretend, makes it unworthy of him. This, I fay, had been a labour both short and easy, had I not to do, likewife, with a fort of BELIEVERS, who, as they held that the doctrine of a future ftate made part of the MOSAIC RELIGION, because they think the honour of the Law requires that it fhould be found there; fo, with the fame fpirit, they deny that the Doctrine of Salvation in a Redeemer, by Faith alone, makes a part of the CHRIS

TIAN RELIGION, because, they think, the honour of the GOSPEL requires that it should not be found there.

Enough hath been urged, in the course of the main Argument, against the first of these perversities: the fecond will detain us longer than fuch plain truths feem to require because the attempt to shew the reafonableness of these which we call the effential Doctrines of Christianity, will be deemed immature, till we have established very clear and circumftantial evidence of their real exiftence in the SYSTEM: for laboured Difcourfes have been written to prove that FAITH ALONE includes WORKS; and that REDEMPTION, according to the Scripture doctrine of it, excludes a REDEEMER.

I am therefore, firft of all, to prove the EXISTENCE of these Doctrines; and then, the REASONABLENESS of them. In doing which, I cannot but esteem it a favourable circumftance, if not a happy omen, that the very arguments employed to evince the exiftence of the Doctrines, do, at the fame time, ferve equally to fhew the reasonableness of them.