not only paid obedience to Mofes's law in his own perfon; but likewife required his difciples to yield obedience to the most infignificant branches of it, fuch as paying tithes of mint, annis and cummin. From all which it may feem to follow, that he did not defign to deftroy Judaism, nor break down that fence by which the Jews were feparated from the reft of the world; and therefore, how far the fin of unbelief may be aggravated in thofe Jews, who were under Chrift's miniftry, I do not take upon me to say. But then, fince the time that Judaism was abolished, or, at least, was attempted to be abolished by Chrift's Apostles, the cafe of the Jews feems greatly to be altered, as the reason to them for rejecting Jefus Chrift as their Meffiah feems to become fo much

the

have expreffed himself in both these ways, fo his difciples understanding him agreeably to the former, makes the former to be moft probable. And tho' the apoftles, after fome time, changed their fentiments and conduct, and admitted the Gentiles into the Chriftian Church; yet, it is plain, they had no direct nor express order for this, but only collected it from the vision of a sheet let down from heaven, wherein were all manner of unclean beafts, of which Peter was required to kill and eat: fo that the admitting the Gentiles into the Chriftian Church, does not appear to have been at first intended; but feems rather the produce of after-thought and confideration; the ground of which, according to St. Paul, was the Jews rejecting the gospel,

the ftronger thereby. The covenant God is fuppofed to have made with the Jewish nation, is declared to be everlasting; by which the Jews were very naturally led to apprehend that it would be perpetual, or as long as the world should continue; seeing not the least intimation had been given of the contrary; and whereas the Apostles of Christ, as far as it was in their power, have made that covenant null and void; therefore, the Jews ever fince must have been naturally led, confonant to the principles of their religion, to reject Jefus Chrift, as their promifed Meffiah, upon that account, and their unbelief feems to be rendered more excufable thereby; the acknowledging of which, I think, is a piece of justice due to the Jews. It has been a prevailing opinion among Chriftians, (whether well grounded, or not, I fhall not enquire) that the Christian difpenfation is the laft difpenfation of grace that God will vouchfafe to the world; and this they look upon as a reafon which will fufficiently justify their conduct in rejecting Mahomet, and all other pretenders, who shall attempt to sap it, by bringing another and a newer difpenfation in it's ftead. Now, if

the

appear

the above reason is fufficient to justify Chris tians as aforefaid; then, why should it not be fo to the Jews, so far as the cafes are parallel? or, at leaft, why should it not be an alleviation of their offence? To say that the difpenfation of Mofes was merely typical, that it was only a shadow of things to come, and was to be done away in Chrift, this is what the Jews do not admit; nor does it to have any other foundation than on the bare declaration of St. Paul, whose fruitful imagination feems to have qualified him for turning any thing, and every thing, into type and allegory, whether biftorical or inftitutional; but then, Chrift was fo far from countenancing any thing of this kind, that, on the contrary, he seems to have declared against it; by faying, Think not that I am come to deftroy the law and the prophets, I am not come to deftroy but to fulfil; and by fulfilling the law, Chrift muft mean paying a ftrict obedience to it, if we judge of the fenfe and meaning of his words, by his conduct and behaviour with regard to that law; and which, I think, is all the rule we have to judge by in the prefent cafe; whereas, according to St. Paul, Chrift came to fulfil the law, by abolishing or putting an end to it.

The

The Apostles, when they went out to preach the gofpel, tho' they received their commiffion from Chrift himself, and had been inftructed by him in the things that pertained to the kingdom of God; and tho' the Holy Ghost had been given them, to lead them into all necessary truth; yet, notwithstanding they knew nothing of the laws being typical, and that it was to be done away in Chrift or that Chrift had nailed it to his cross ; this seems to have been a fecret till after the converfion of St. Paul, who when he became a Chriftian, he feems to have made it his business to discharge the Jews from all obligation to Mofes's law. As to St. Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven had been committed, and also the whole body of believers, they, as well after Christ's death and refurrection as before, confidered the ceremonial law to be of perpetual obligation, there not being one diffenter that appears; and therefore, when the sheet was let down from heaven, in which were all manner of creatures that, according to the law, were unclean, and Peter was required to kill and eat them, he excufed it, by declaring that he had never eat any thing that was common or unclean; which fhews plainly

that he, at that time, thought the obligation to pay obedience to the law was still remaining, tho', according to St. Paul, Chrift had before nailed to his crofs, or put an end to it. Befides, the great contempt with which St. Paul treated the ceremonial law of Mofes, calling those institutions carnal and beggarly, than which, furely, nothing can be more debafing, this is a plain indication that St. Paul did not confider thofe ceremonies to be of divine inftitution, or that the Jews were ever obliged to pay any regard to them, tho' they thought themfelves to be fo; because if that had been the cafe, then St. Paul could not have treated those ordinances with fuch contempt, without being guilty of great impiety and prophaneness; and therefore, he took this method of turning the law into type and allegory, that thereby he might decently, and with a good grace, discharge the Jews from a grievous burden, which, otherwise, confidering how strongly they were prejudiced in favour of that yoke, he could not easily have freed them from. Nevertheless, whatever fentiments St. Paul might have of the aforefaid law, it is evident, that the Jews judged it to be of a divine original,

and