to conceive. Befides, the Mofaic bondage arofe from the law or covenant itself, and not from the place where that law was firft promulged. St. Paul adds, that this Sinai in Arabia anfwereth to Jerufalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. The bondage referred to, and complained of, was what lay upon the Jews, from the giving the first covenant, and all the time that covenant lafted; and, therefore, Sinai could not more anfwer, nor be more relative to Jerufalem, than to any other city or place in Judea; nor does the bondage of that law at all appear to be pointed out thereby. The other covenant is said to come from Jerufalem that is above, which is free, and is the mother of us all; but then, what St. Paul meant by Jerufalem that is above, what by her being free, and what by her being the mother of us all, is fcarce conceivable. If, by the last covenant's coming from Jerufalem that is above, be meant it's coming from God; then, that fuppofes the first covenant did not come from God, but was only the produce of human weakness; and, indeed, this is the only fenfe in which any part of St. Paul's reasoning feems at all to his purpose. For, if the first covenant covenant was from mount Sinai in Arabia, that is, was from below, or of men; then, it may well be expected to have those weaknesses and imperfections which the Apoftle charges it with, and which all buman compositions are liable to: and, if the other covenant was from Jerufalem that is above, that is from God; then, it may fairly be supposed to have thofe excellencies and perfections, as are fuitable to that most perfect intelligence it came from. St. Paul having thus raised an argument, in favour of the second covenant, from the place it came from; he, then, as at verse 27, seems to take wing, and fly as far from his fubject, as the East is from the Weft. For it is written, rejoyce thou barren that beareft not; break forth and cry, thou that travaileft not for the defolate hath many more children than fhe which hath an husband. Good God! what connection, or relation, hath this quotation to the aforefaid allegory? furely, none at all. Or what ground of joy can it be, to a barren woman, that harlots have many more children than those women that have bushands? feeing she has neither lefs nor more; nor is it yet, perhaps, very clear, from fact, that whores have many more children, than honest women, but rather the contrary; tho', hereby, the apostle, indeed, has given learned and artful commentators a fair opportunity of fhewing their dexterity, in discovering connections and relations where there are none in nature. St. Paul having taken a flight, as aforesaid, he returned to his allegory; and this he seems to do by way of application, verfes 28, 29. Now we, brethren, as Ifaac was, are the children of promife. But as then he that was born after the flesh perfecuted him who was born after the spirit, even so it is now. The bebrew hiftorian faith, (as at Genefis xxi. 9.) and Sarah faw the Son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking; but gives no account what that mocking was, nor who it was directed to; fo that, for any thing that appears, Ifaac may have been out of the question: And fuppofing that h mael mocked Ifaac; yet, it must needs have been but a very trifling injury to him, as he was but a child that had then been weaned; whereas Ishmael fuffered a much more grievous and beavy perfecution, on account thereof; inafmuch, as he, who was but a lad, was, with his mother, turned adrift 3 adrift in the world, to shift for themselves, with no other provision than fome bread and a bottle of water; fo that he who was born after the flesh (as St. Paul calls it) feems to have been the much greater sufferer. These are some of the wanderings of this great man. may WHETHER there are any Sacraments, or pofitive inftitutions, of this fort, that may properly be deemed acts of piety, which are of a divine original, is a point that, perhaps, admit of fome doubt or difpute. As to the inftitutions of Mofes, they seem to have been treated difrefpectfully by two of the apoftles of Chrift, viz. St.. Peter, and St. Paul; by whom they seem to be confidered, as below, and unworthy of the fupreme Deity. Thus, St. Peter, fpeaking of the Mosaick inftitutions, Acts xv. 10. calls them a Yoke, which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear; and if the cafe was as St. Peter hath averred, then, furely, this infupportable burthen ought not to have boen lain upon them; and, confequently, the galling the necks of that people with this grievous yoke, or the laying such an unreasonable taxation upon them, could not poffibly have been the act of the fupreme Deity; T 2 Deity; because, it is not to be fuppofed, or admitted, that God would act fo unkindly, fo unworthily, by any of his creatures, much lefs would he deal thus with his peculiar and favourite people, as the fews were confidered, or, at leaft, as they confidered themselves to be; nor, furely, would it have been an act of kindness to the Jews, for the Deity to have given them fuch a burthenfome law, which, yet, I apprehend, it is judged to have been. St. Paul, likewife, not only fixed the fame brand of infamy upon those inftitutions, in Galatians v. 1. but he also called them carnal ordinances, as in Hebrews ix. to. and weak and beggarly elements, as in Galatians iv. 9. which contemptuous characters, furely, would not have been fixed upon thefe inftitutions by St. Paul, had he confidered them to have been of a divine original. And, as to the institutions of Christ they do not appear to be relative to the fupreme God, but only to the difciples of Chrift and their mafter; and if that be the cafe, then, they are not to be confidered as acts of worship or external piety, and, confequently, are out of the prefent queftion. Thus, baptifm feems to be inftituted, and intended, only as a mark, or vi |