If the Prophets were sent to establish the Chriftian hopes of immortality, they were fent to establish, and not to prepare the way for, the Kingdom of God.

If the people had received these hopes, they had already received the Kingdom of God. And what occafion for an introductory system, to prepare and make ready the people for the Reception of a Bleffing which they had already received.

(a) The learned Prelate fpeaks of the Re

ligion

(a) A late writer, much in the same sentiments, fays, "The Law of the Jews was a School-mafter "to teach them the Rudiments of Religion." (Dr. Law's Confideration, p. 97.) And what is this but faying, that the Rudiments of Religion were defigned for one age, and the doctrines of perfection for an other? To fuppofe that the Jews were inftructed in both, would be as abfurd as to imagine, that the learned Dr. would teach his Children their Alphabet, and the most abftruse and profound parts of Metaphyfics at the fame time.

However, he contends that the Types were declared to be fignificative of good things to come. I must then take the liberty to afk, whether they were declared to be figurative of good things in general, or of the particular bleffings which were delineated by them. On the laft fuppofition, the Law would have been fomething more than a School-mafter, fince it would have taught the doctrine of perfection as well as the Rudiments of Religion; and confequently have deferved a better character than he has given it in the passage juft quoted. If

he

"that new dispensation, which was in due "time to be revealed (a)". There seems to be

he fays that the Types were only declared to be predictive of good things in general, and not of the particular good things delineated by them, he must affert, with the Author of the D. L. that the doctrines exhibited under Types, were fecreted from the ancient Jews.

And here, again, what fays he to the Types that were figurative of a future ftate? If they were declared to be expreffive of bliss and happiness to be enjoy'd in a future life; the Law must have been something more than a School-mafter, and have taught something more than the Rudiments of Religion, contrary to the Doctor's declaration above. If he fays these Types were only declared to be fignificative of fome bleffing in general, without specifying whether it belonged to this life or another; he muft maintain, with the Author of the D. L. that the doctrine of a future ftate was purpofely concealed from the Jewish Church.

However the learned Doctor has himself given a very curious inftance of a Type, which was hardly underftood in its full extent by the ancient Jews. 'Tis where he obferves, that the place and circumstances of our Saviour's Birth may be urged to prove that he was the fon of David. "For that David was called to "the Throne from a Sheepfold and a Stable-and had "perhaps lived in the fame Stable in which Jefus was born". p. 65.

Now if I fhould allow the reality of the Type, it would be very perverfe in the learned Writer to deny me the liberty of fuppofing that it was not known under the Law.

(a) p. 144.

be something extremely just and pertinent in fuppofing, that the new difpenfation was referved to be revealed in due time. For the giving a preparatory system neceffarily implies an incapacity and inability in the Jews to bear the final and ultimate Religion. But fuch an incapacity or inability is more than a demonstration that they were not appointed to live under that Dispensation; or, in other words, were not to have the doctrines of it revealed unto them.

The very notion of a preparatory and final Religion, implies that they were defigned for two different and diftinct ages of the world. For the preparatory system, if the words have any meaning, must be intended to open the way to one more perfect, which was to fucceed, and come after it. (a)

When

(a) Some writers feem to imagine, that the Law was given to inftruct the more early Jews in the nature and promises of the new covenant, and that this previous inftruction was the very circumstance which made it a preparatory Syftem. But we have fhewn that in this fense it was not a preparatory fyftem at all. For it was fo far from giving the more early Jews any previous information of these particulars, that it aimed to hide and conceal them under the cover of Types and Figures.

And,

Whenever the final and ultimate Religion was introduced, the preparatory must cease of course. If therefore Mofes revealed the

great

And, indeed, what would fuch previous information have done? Why, it would have been so far from being fubfervient to the preparatory system, that it must have put a fudden ftop to it, by inducing the Jews to shake off all obedience and fubjection to the Law of Mofes.

St. Paul indeed fays, "The Law was a Schoolmaster", appointed to lead the Ifraelites to Christ. This Representation has been urged as a proof, that it must have taught the effential articles of the Gofpel.

In this difpute, things which seem plain to some, have been fo plainly denied by others, that one would think men had different understandings, as well as different taftes, and that the proverb wanted to be extended, that we might no longer difpute about either. To me, this language of the Apoftle seems rather to infer, that the Law did not teach these fundamental articles. For what is the acknowledged province of a Schoolmaster, but to learn his pupils the rudiments and elements of things; while the knowledge of the sublime doctrines, erected on these, is reserved for another seafon, and another Instructor.

It has been asked, How the Law could be preparatory to the Gospel, unless the first taught the main and principal doctrines pertaining to the laft? Let me afk in my turn, How the Hornbook could be a preparation to the Essay on Human Understanding? And, I prefume, he who can answer one queftion may eafily answer the other. Again. Is not marking out the ground, preparatory to the building?

And

great truths and principles of the Gospel, he at the fame time put an end and period to the Law.

Ac

And yet the ground is not part of the building. But this Relation between the Law and the Gospel is ftill clofer. For the Unity and the moral attributes of the Deity, which the Law taught and inculcated, were fundamental parts of the Religion of the Gofpel: and furely, if any thing could have done it, would have prepared and difpofed the Jews for the fublime doctrines of redemption and a future state.

It is ftrange that a Difpenfation, which reveals the nature and attributes of the one true God, fhould not be allowed to be preparatory to another, which contained these very doctrines, with some additions peculiar to itself.

The Law prepared the way for the Gospel, not only by keeping up the knowledge and worship of the true God, but also by foretelling a future Kingdom, which was to be erected, in due time, by his Son. And furely it might teach the Ifraelites to expect a new Kingdom, without teaching them the precife nature and properties of that Kingdom.

To fay that the Law cannot lead to Chrift, or to the Expectation of a new Kingdom, unless the peculiar Articles of the Chriftian Religion, and the peculiar nature of this Kingdom are explained by it; would be faying you will never have any appetite for a great benefit promised, till you know the whole extent of the Benefit. This indeed is hardly common fenfe, but it is Theology, Artificial Theology indeed, as Lord Bolingbroke calls it: And if he confined the nick-name to this kind of Theology, few, I fuppofe, will think he mifcalled it.