turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" and Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,' ch. v. 1.

And whereas in the passage now cited, Gal. iv. 3, the apostle calls the Mosaic rites the elements of the world,' and 'weak and beggarly elements,' and elsewhere calls its ordinances carnal ordinances,' Heb. ix. 10, it is evident that his desigh is not to signify that the ceremonial law was not originally a divine institution, but a mere piece of carnal worldly policy," which is the interpretation this writer puts upon those expressions: but as he compares their being under the law to an heir's being under the discipline of tutors and governors whilst he is a child, so carrying on the same metaphor he calls the Mosaic rites, the elements or rudiments of the world. As an heir is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father; even so when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.' It is an allusion to the way of instructing children; he calls them the elements oroixia;' so the grammarians call the first principles or letters, out of which the syllables are compounded that are afterwards formed into words. So that he compares the being under the legal rites, to children's beginning first to learn their letters, or being entered into their first rudiments. And he calls them 'the elements' or 'rudiments of the world,' to signify that with respect to the matter of them they were taken from the things of this world, and were of an inferior earthly nature compared with the more sublime and spiritual dispensation of the Gospel. Under the law the people were instructed in a manner suitable to their state of childish weakness; for they were as yet imperfect and rude in the knowledge of religion, nor fitted for the simplicity of a pure and spiritual institution, in which there were but few external rites. It pleased God, therefore, to deal with them as children, and to exercise their obedience by employing them in many inferior ritual services in condescension to their infirmity, till the proper season came for their being raised to a more pure and noble and spiritual worship. Maimonides gives pretty much the same account, and yet, I believe, nobody will pretend to say that he denied the law of Moses to be of divine original, or looked upon it to be a mere piece of carnal worldly policy. He supposes that as God did not bring the Israelites directly, and all at once into Canaan, but after a long circuit through the wilderness, so he did not give the people the best and most exalted scheme of religion at first, but such as they were capable of. He condescended to their weakness, and brought them on gradually as they could bear it, that they might arrive at last to the thing he principally aimed at, right apprehensions of him, and the effectual forsaking of idolatry. is the substance of a remarkable passage in Maimonides, More Nevoch. p. iii. cap. 32. And in the same chapter he also observes, that as because animals, when they are born are tender and not fit to be nourished with dry or strong meat, therefore God

This

hath provided milk for them, that by such a kind of moist diet suited to the temperament of their bodies they might be nourished, till by degrees they obtain strength and firmness; so there is something like this in the manner of government of the great and good God with regard to several things in the law. And he applies this observation particularly to some of the rites there prescribed, and to the pompous external way of worship by priests, temple, and sacrifices, which he supposes to be instituted in condescension to their weakness, because the people could not then bear a more spiritual and exalted way of worship.

It appears then that in the judgment of the wisest among the Jews themselves, who are most zealous for the divine authority of the law of Moses, the representation the apostle Paul makes of the comparative imperfection of the law of Moses as a dispensation suited to the weakness and to the imperfect state of the Church and people at that time, was not inconsistent with the belief of its having been originally appointed by God himself. But especially the consistency of this appears if it be farther considered that the apostle represents the legal rites not only as instituted in condescension to their weakness, but at the same time as designed and contrived by divine wisdom to be shadows and types of good things to come,' and preparatory to a more excellent and perfect state of things that was to be introduced under the Messiah.

When, therefore, he calls the legal rites weak and beggarly elements or rudiments,' he speaks in opposition to those who extravagantly extolled these rites as in themselves so perfect and excellent, that they were never to be abolished, or to give way to a more perfect dispensation. And it is in the same view that he declares concerning the law, that it was weak and unprofitable,' Heb. vii. 18, 19. There was a disannulling of the commandment. going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.' He doth not intend by this to intimate as if it was in its original design absolutely unprofitable and good for nothing; for we find that elsewhere in answer to that question, 'What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision?' he answers, 'much every way! chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God,' Rom. iii. 1, 2; and by the oracles of God we are there in a special manner to understand the law of Moses, who, as St. Stephen speaks, ' received the lively oracles to give unto us,' Acts vii. 38. But what the apostle means by there calling the law especially relating to the priesthood weak and unprofitable,' he himself explains in the words immediately following: for he adds, that the law made nothing perfect,' and a little before he had showed that 'perfection was not by the Levitical priesthood,' ver. 2. His design is to signify that the Mosaical economy was never intended to be the last and most perfect dispensation, and therefore it was wrong to set it up as of absolute necessity, and of universal and perpetual obligation; but it was designed to prepare and make way for a more glorious and perfect dispensation which was to succeed it.

In like manner, when he calls the ordinances under the law

'carnal ordinances, dikaiμara σaрkòç, ordinances of the flesh,' or relating to the flesh, Heb. ix. 10: his meaning is not as this writer seems willing to understand it, as if they were in themselves of an evil corrupt nature and tendency, which is sometimes the import of the word carnal in Scripture, but merely as he himself explains it, ver. 13, that they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh,' and could not of themselves, and by any virtue of their own, purge the soul or conscience from sin, but were the types and shadows of greater and better things; and therefore in that very passage he supposes them to be imposed till the times of reformation," that is, till the bringing in of a more perfect scheme of religion, for which the other was designed to be preparatory.

The same observation may be applied to that passage where he calls the law establishing the Levitical priesthood the law of a carnal commandment,' he is far from intending to signify by that expression that it was a mere political engine and human invention; for he evidently supposes that commandment to be from God in the very passage where he calls it a carnal commandment;' but he calls it so because it related to a priesthood managed by frail mortal men, and was a commandment of a temporary nature. That this is his meaning there is evident from the opposition he puts between the law of a carnal commandment and the power of an endless life,' Heb. vii. 16, where he saith, 'That Christ was made a priest, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.' And again, ver. 28, the law maketh men high-priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who was consecrated for evermore.

Upon the whole, if we will allow the apostle Paul to explain himself, it manifestly appears, that when he speaks of the law of Moses in seemingly disparaging terms, it never was his intention by any of those expressions, to insinuate that the law of Moses was not of divine original, for he every where supposes that it was ordained and appointed by God himself; but in opposition to those who set it up for a complete and perfect dispensation, he shows the comparative imperfection of it when set in competition with that more perfect dispensation which our Saviour introduced by the Gospel, and to which it was designed to be preparatory. Thus he saith speaking of the Mosaical economy, that that which was glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth,' 2 Cor. iii. 10, where he represents it as having no glory,' not absolutely, for he there expressly saith that it' glorious; but it had no glory when compared to the more perfect excelling glory of the Gospel dispensation. In like manner the other expressions he makes use of with regard to the law are not to be understood in a strict and absolute, but in a comparative

sense.

was

But this writer further argues, that the apostle Paul could not look upon the law of Moses to be of divine institution, because he teaches things directly contrary to that law. He says, He says, the plain

truth of the matter was, that St. Paul preached a new doctrine contrary to Moses and the prophets,' p. 41. But it is certain that if the apostle Paul himself may be depended on for giving a right account of his own sentiments, He believed all things which are written in the law and the prophets,' Acts xxiv. 14; and he said, none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come, Acts xxvi. 22. He preached a new doctrine indeed, and published a new dispensation, but not contrary unto, but perfectly consistent with Moses and the prophets, to which they were designed to be preparatory and subservient.

But let us see how he proves the charge. He goes on to say, 'that there is not one end, use, or purpose of the ritual law as declared by Moses, but what is directly contradicted and denied by this apostle.' This he proves, first, because Moses delivered the whole law to the Israelites as a perpetual standing ordinance or everlasting covenant between God and them throughout all their generations to the end of the world; St. Paul, on the contrary, declares it to be only an occasional temporary thing, never intended for perpetuity, but to last only for a few ages,' p. 241. But it does not appear from Moses that the law was designed for perpetuity, so as never to give way to another dispensation, as if God himself would never change or abrogate any of these laws; nor does he any where say, as this writer represents it, that the law was to continue to be observed by them to the end of the world.' That the Hebrew phrase which we translate for ever' and 'everlasting,' does not always signify a perpetual duration, or a duration to the end of the world, is so well known, that it is unworthy of any man that pretends to learning to draw an argument merely from those expressions. If Moses had expressly called the whole law an everlasting covenant,' which he nowhere does, no argument could be drawn from it to show that it was intended to continue to the end of the world. To Abraham's seed the land of Canaan is promised for an everlasting possession,' Gen. xxvii. 8; and yet Moses expressly foretels that they should be expelled that land and scattered among all nations.' Nor does that other phrase, throughout all their generations, prove that it was designed to be of perpetual and unalterable obligation; though Moses never uses that word 'throughout all their generations,' speaking of the observation of the law or any of its ordinances, but only that it should be observed 'throughout their generations,' or as it is often expressed, in their generations.' And that this phrase is not necessarily to be understood of a perpetual duration, or a duration to the end of the world, is evident from many passages. Thus the psalmist observes, speaking of rich worldlings, their inward thought is that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations,' Psalm xlix. 11. Not as if they thought their houses would continue in strictness to the end of the world, which no man in his senses could once suppose, but that they should continue for a long time to them and to their posterity after them. See also Lev. xxv. 29, 30. It was not proper that it should be expressly

declared in the law itself that it was an occasional temporary dispensation only to continue for a time. This might have diminished their regard for the law, and they might, upon this pretence, have thrown off the observance of it before the proper season came. The plain design of those phrases, that they were to observe the legal ordinances for ever,' and throughout their generations,' was to signify to them that they were to observe them always in their successive generations, till God should signify his will to the contrary; that it was to last for ever, so as never to be abrogated by any human authority; nor were the people themselves to cast off the obligation of it merely by an act of their own upon any pretence whatsoever. But that they might expect a new law and new injunctions from God, Moses himself signifies to them as plainly as was proper for him in that remarkable passage, Deut. xviii. 17-19, where he tells the people that the Lord their God would raise up from the midst of them a prophet like unto him,' and that unto him should they hearken; and that God would put his words into his mouth,' and he should speak unto them all that God should command him; and that it should come to pass, that whosoever would not hearken unto his words, God would require it of him.' It is expressly said concerning the ordinary subsequent prophets which arose in Israel, that none of them was like unto Moses,' Deut. xxxiv. 13; and God himself declares how much Moses was superior to the other prophets, Numb. xii. 5-8; but here Moses tells the people that God would raise up from among them a prophet like unto him,' that is, not an ordinary prophet, but one of peculiar eminence, that should, like Moses, give them laws in the name of God himself, and to whom they were indispensably obliged to hearken, and to pay an entire obedience. This was sufficient to have directed them to look for another law-giver, and might naturally lead their thoughts to the promised Messiah, of whom they had an expectation derived to them from their fathers. And afterwards, as the time drew nearer, the abolition of the law of Moses was more plainly signified. The prophets indeed intimated clearly enough that a new dispensation was to be introduced, and a new covenant, different from that which God made with their fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt,' Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. The ceasing of the Aaronical priesthood, and consequently of the law of Moses, is signified, when it is foretold with the greatest solemnity that God would raise up a glorious person to be a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek,' Ps. cx. 4, Heb. vii. 12; and that God's name should be great among the Gentiles, from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same,' and that in every place incense should be offered to his name and a pure offering,' Mal. i. 2, which supposes the law of Moses abrogated, which confined the offering up of incense to the sanctuary and temple. And indeed the very nature of the law itself, according to which a considerable part of the ordinances and rites there prescribed were to be entirely confined to the land of Canaan, and not to be observed any where out of that land, sufficiently shows that