and their converts, when it should be seasonable. But, by his own account, this seasonableness did not come, before the destruction of Jerusalem; and then it would have come too late. The apostles were then gone off the stage, except John, who has said nothing on the subject; and there was then no method left to ascertain what revelations had been made to any of them.

That such a revelation was at any time made to Paul, is what neither Paul himself nor his historian has any where said; and the evidence that did not satisfy the Jews of that age, can hardly satisfy those of the present. All the hints that Paul is supposed to have dropped on the subject occur only in the course of his reasoning, in which he necessarily appeals to the reason of those to whom he writes. He no where says, that he had his doctrine on this subject from the Lord.

2. It has been inferred from the reproof that Paul gave to Peter, that at least the Mosaic distinction of meats is abolished by the gospel; but it does not appear to me that the account which Paul gives of this transaction will authorize this conclusion. What he says is as follows: Gal. ii. 11-14," But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; for before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter, before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

From this it only appears that Peter had eat with Gentiles, but it is not said that he had eaten of every thing that it was lawful for them to eat, or that he had done any thing that was forbidden by the law of Moses. He had only associated with Gentiles more than the Jewish Christians in general had thought right. Or by eating may perhaps be understood partaking of the Lord's Supper, which even in after ages many of the zealous Jewish Christians refused to do in company with Gentiles.

If the passage be interpreted rigorously, it will authorize us to infer a great deal too much for if Peter would have compelled the Gentile Christians to live as did the Jews, he

would have compelled them to be circumcised, and to observe the whole law, which would have been directly contrary to the decree of Jerusalem. Consequently, the other corresponding phrase, to live after the manner of the Gentiles, must be restricted in its meaning. As day (to judaize), in the former case, cannot be understood in its whole extent, so neither can the term eixos (heathenishly) in the latter. This was probably the very term which the more zealous Jews applied upon the occasion. Seeing Peter and his companions eating in company with Heathens, they would say he lived (vxws) as a Heathen. But it is not from such casual phraseology as this, that we can be authorized to infer the abrogation of a law solemnly promulgated, observed for ages, and expressly declared to be perpetual.

3. The same conclusion has been drawn from the vision of Peter, previous to his going to Cornelius. In this vision Peter saw the representation of a vessel (Acts x. 12—1.5, &c.) containing "all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things, and fowls of the air," and heard a voice saying, Rise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so Lord, for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God has cleansed, that call not thou common.'

But the object of this vision was not to inform Peter of any thing concerning eating, but only in an emblematical way to teach him that God did not consider the Gentiles (whom the Jews held in the same abhorrence with unclean meat) as unfit subjects of the Christian church; and we are not authorized to infer from any passage of Scripture more than was clearly intended by it. Peter did not, even in vision, actually eat of any of those unclean beasts that were presented to him, nor do we know that he ever did eat any thing of that kind when he was awake.

It may be said that if any kinds of meat were to remain unclean, Peter could not infer, even from the vision, that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered as unclean, or unfit subjects of the kingdom of Christ. But then it should seem that Peter ought to have known before the vision, that the distinction of meats was abolished, which he evidently did not. It is not natural to suppose that both the emblem itself, and the thing signified by it, should be equally new to him. This would be to illustrate a thing unknown, by another equally unknown. However, the most that can be made of this vision is, that the Mosaical distinction of meats

only, not the whole of the Jewish ritual, or circumcision, was abolished.

4. It has been said that there was no occasion for our Saviour, or the apostles, to be very explicit with respect to the abolition of the laws of Moses, since the Temple would soon be destroyed, when the Jewish worship would cease of course.

To this I answer, that circumcision, the distinction of meats, and numberless other observances, did not depend upon the existence of either temple or altar; and that unless the Jewish Christians had been expressly told that the peculiar rites of their religion were abolished by the gospel, they would always look towards the erection of a new temple, whenever they should have an opportunity of building one. The destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar did not put an end to the Jewish religion, but rather increased the attachment of the Jews to it; and the first opportunity that was given them they rebuilt their Temple, and restored the worship of it. In the same state would have been the whole body of Jewish Christians, unless they had been informed that the Jewish dispensation was intended to be superseded by the Christian.

Accordingly, we find, in ecclesiastical history, that the destruction of the Temple by Titus made no change in the attachment of the Jewish Christians to the peculiar rites of their own religion. It is in vain that we look for any Jewish Christians who disregarded the law of Moses. Till the time of Adrian, it is acknowledged, on all hands, that the church at Jerusalem consisted wholly of Jews, who observed the customs of their ancestors. Origen expressly asserts this with respect to all the Jewish Christians in his time, and we read of no change with respect to them in any later period. Could this have been the case, if our Saviour, or any apostle authorized by him, had ever declared the abolition of the whole Jewish ritual?

The apostle John wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet he makes no mention of this supposed necessary consequence of it. He must have known that the Jewish Christians were as much attached to the rites of their religion after that event as before it. Then, therefore, was the time for him to have taught them better, if he had thought himself authorized so to do. As he says nothing on the subject, we must conclude that John himself, as well as all the other Jewish Christians, continued to observe all the

rites of the law which did not require a temple and an altar.

Since, then, every thing in the conduct of the apostles shews them to have been as strict observers of the laws of Moses as other Jews were, and it does not appear that any of them ever asserted, in express terms, that any of these laws were abolished, we should not hastily infer from any casual expressions in their writings, that they had taught this doctrine. What the Divine Being repeatedly declared to be perpetual, what was re-asserted by our Saviour, and the apostle Paul himself, is not lightly to be set aside; but we should, if possible, reconcile seeming inconsistencies in their language some other way.

There are no writings from which it could have been inferred that the law of Moses was abolished by the gospel, besides those of Paul, who says that Christianity establishes that law. I am confident that he never meant, by the expressions which I shall proceed to examine, to contradict that principle, but only to assert that the laws of Moses were not obligatory on the Gentile converts; that with respect to them they were as if they had never been enacted, or were abrogated. Some of his expressions, I acknowledge, if rigorously interpreted, do imply more. But it is evident, from the general strain of his writings, that they ought not to be interpreted with so much rigour. It is no great reflection upon this apostle to say, that all his expressions were not sufficiently guarded, and that even his reasoning is sometimes hasty and inconclusive.

SECTION VI.

Of what may be inferred from the Writings of the Apostle Paul concerning the Abolition of the Laws of Moses.

I Now proceed to the particular consideration of the writings of the apostle Paul; but before I examine any passages in them, I would make two general observations.

1. We should not, à priori, expect to find any doctrines of peculiar magnitude, such as this concerning the abrogation of the laws of Moses, in the Epistles of this apostle, when there was no mention of any such thing in the book of Acts, or any other books of the New Testament. The alarm which a thing of this nature must have given to the Jewish converts, who were zealous for the law, would have been so great, that there must have been perpetual occasion to speak

of it, in order to answer the objections of the unbelieving Jews, and to reconcile the minds of the believing ones to it.

But (excepting the case of Paul) we perceive no trace of any alarm being given, or of any objections being made, or answered, in the book of Acts, or any of the Epistles of Peter, James, Jude, or John, most of which appear to have been written for the particular use of the Jewish converts.

2. It is never asserted, in clear and express terms, by Paul himself, that any of the laws of Moses were abrogated. Indeed this would have been in direct contradiction to his saying that the law was not made void, but established, by the gospel. His object in all that he says on this subject was evidently to prevent the Gentile converts from being drawn into the observance of circumcision, and other rites of the Jewish religion. We should not, therefore, suppose that he meant any thing more than this, unless he was particular in saying that he did mean more; and if he had meant any thing more, he had frequent occasions for declaring it. Would it not, for instance, have been exceedingly natural for him, when treating so largely and so frequently on this subject, to say, that not only are the Gentiles under no obligation to observe the laws of Moses, but the Jews themselves are no longer bound by them? We are all at liberty to discontinue the former observances, in consequence of the law being fulfilled in the gospel. But it is in vain that we look for any sentiment or expression of this kind in all the apostle's writings.

The object of the apostle, in his Epistle to the Galatians, was to dissuade them who were Gentiles from conforming to the Jewish ritual; and, in the course of his argument on this subject, he advances many things unfavourable to the Jewish religion, when compared with the gospel; but still he gives no intimation that the former was abolished with respect to the Jews, who had been formerly bound by it. I shall, however, recite those passages in this epistle which are most liable to bear such a construction.

Gal. iii. 23-29: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster, to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster; for ye are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male