other nations, were abrogated by Christ. Many of their civil laws and religious rites and ceremonies were intended and calculated to form a wall of separation between them and all the heathen nations. But when Christ came and introduced his new dispensation, he entirely removed all the barriers which the laws of Moses had set up, to separate the Jews from the Gentiles; and required them to lay aside their mutual prejudices, and to maintain a cordial union and communion in all the doctrines, ordinances and duties of the gospel. Accordingly, Christ commanded his apostles, and through them all their successors in the ministry, to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, without the least regard to the former distinction between Jews and Gentiles. And after this com

mand, no believer of the gospel had a right to observe any Jewish law, rite, or ceremony, which had a tendency to obstruct a free and universal intercourse among all nations, in respect to the liberties and privileges of the christian religion. No Jewish or Gentile believers could observe any of the Mosaic laws which were designed to separate the seed of Abraham from any other nations, without being guilty of disobedience to Christ, and counteracting his design of sending the gospel to all the world. I may add,

5. That the gospel abrogated every precept of a positive nature, which was peculiar to the Mosaic dispensation. There were some moral precepts under the law which were of perpetual obligation. All laws founded in the nature of things, have a moral obligation, which cannot be dissolved. The moral precepts, which were given under the patriarchal dispensation, were binding under the Mosaic dispensation, and are still binding under the Christian dispensation. Some precepts of Moses were founded in the nature of things; and all such commands still retain their full force and moral obligation, in respect to both Jews and Gentiles. The divine law against murder, for instance, was of a moral nature, and equally binding in the days of Noah, in the days of Moses, and in these days. But all the laws of Moses which were of a positive nature, and were peculiar to his dispensation, are abolished and done away, by the gospel. Christians are not bound by any law peculiar to the Jews. For Christ hath taken away the first, and established the second dispensation.

IMPROVEMENT.

1. If the Mosaic dispensation ceased when the gospel dispensation commenced, then the apostles had a right to disregard, and to teach others to disregard, all the Mosaic rites and

ceremonies. They sometimes regarded, and sometimes totally disregarded, the peculiarities of the legal dispensation. Paul, in one instance, purified himself according to the ceremonial law; and, in another instance, he circumcised a Gentile convert. But in his public instructions, he taught "the Jews, which were among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." He severely reproved the Galatians for observing the law and holding themselves bound by it. And he says, he blamed Peter for conforming to the customs and manners of the Jews. "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 the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Now, if what has been said be true, that the gospel has superseded the law, it is easy to see that the rites and ceremonies of the law were perfectly indifferent things, after the gospel dispensation commenced; and viewed in that light, might be regarded, or disregarded, by less informed believers. But if any regarded them as still binding with divine authority, they disobeyed Christ, and set him aside as lawgiver in his own kingdom. Though the apostles knew that all the rites, ceremonies and institutions of the law were entirely superseded and abolished by the gospel, yet they found it difficult to bring many of their Jewish, and some of their Gentile converts, to renounce rites and ceremonies which had long been considered as sacred and important. They therefore treated this subject with peculiar tenderness. Paul says to christians, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him." "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." It is here

supposed, that weak christians might conscientiously observe a holy day, or neglect to observe it; and observe, or neglect to observe, any other Mosaic precept or prohibition. The apostles taught their converts that the Mosaic dispensation was abrogated by the gospel, and ceased to bind them, whether they were Jews or Gentiles; but at the same time left them to act according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience, and according to the particular circumstances in which they were placed. For they knew that when their converts became fully acquainted with the gospel, they would clearly see that it had superseded the law, and that they were no longer bound by it.

2. In the view of this subject, we may clearly discover the absurdity of Dr. Tindal's reasonings, who maintains that Christianity is as old as the creation. This deistical writer opposes all divine revelation, on the principle that men are capable of knowing what is right and wrong in the nature of things, and consequently that all divine laws are unnecessary to teach them their duty. He says all moral laws are needless, because these are founded in the nature of things; and, therefore, the mere light of nature is sufficient to discover them. As to positive laws, he says they are either useless or absurd. For if they require what the moral laws require, they are useless; or if they require any thing different from what the moral laws require, they are unjust, unreasonable and absurd. On this ground, he attempts to show the absurdity of both the Old and New Testament, which, he says, are not only repugnant to the laws of nature, but contradictory to each other. It is granted that right and wrong are founded in the nature of things, and that mankind are capable of discovering, in some cases, what they ought, and what they ought not to do, by the bare light of nature. But were they ever so well disposed to discover their duty by the light of nature, yet this dim light would, in a thousand cases, leave them in total darkness. The light of nature, therefore, does by no means supersede the necessity of a divine revelation, which is designed not only to point out duty to men, but to increase and impress upon their minds their moral obligation to do it. Though the light of nature teaches men that they ought not to murder one another, yet it was not unnecessary for God to say to Noah, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man." Or to say to every man in the sixth command, "Thou shalt not kill." Though this precept is founded in the nature of things, and binds all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, to obey it; yet it is much more criminal for a Jew or Christian to commit murder, than for a heathen, who does not know that

God has forbidden it, by his infinite authority. And this holds true, in respect to all moral commands, in both the Old and New Testaments, which God has sanctioned by his own supreme authority. The moral law, in all cases, is more binding than the law of nature, because it has the sanction of divine authority, which the simple law of nature has not. Tindal's objection, therefore, against the moral laws in the Bible, is entirely groundless. They do not contradict, but confirm all the laws of nature, which need a divine sanction. And as God has a supreme right to make moral laws, which are founded in the nature of things, so he has the same right to make positive laws, which are founded in the relation of things. The nature of things is immutable; but the relation of things is mutable. And as the moral laws of God are founded in the nature of things, so they are immutable; but as the positive laws of God are founded in the relation of things, so they are mutable, and may be abrogated, or set aside, when the relation of things requires it. This was the case in respect to the positive, ceremonial laws under the Mosaic dispensation. These were all positive precepts, which God had the same right to abolish, abrogate, or set aside, as to make. As he made them in consistency with the moral law, so he has abrogated, or set them aside, in consistency with the moral law.

The laws of the Old Testament do not contradict any law of nature, and the laws of the New Testament do not contradict any of the laws of the Old Testament, nor any of the laws of nature. Tindal and all other deistical writers have employed much learning and no less art, to make it appear that the Old and New Testament contradict each other, and prove each other to be groundless, absurd and inconsistent. But they have always labored in vain, and have often been fairly refuted. Though the Christian dispensation does supersede the Mosaic, yet it does not contradict that dispensation, but completely fulfils and confirms it. Hence,

3. If the Christian dispensation has superseded the Mosaic, in the manner that has been represented, then there appears an entire harmony between the Old Testament and the New. "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." The law of Moses was designed to prepare the way for the gospel. All the rites, ceremonies and institutions under the Mosaic dispensation, were appointed for the particular purpose of preparing the way for the Christian dispensation; and they completely answered their original design. There is the same connection between the law and the gospel, or between the Mosaic and Christian dispensation, as there is between means and ends, which is not only a necessary, but

visible connection. We can see how the Mosaic law prefigured Christ, and how he completely fulfilled it, by his birth, life, sufferings and death. The connection between the Old and New Testament is as plain and visible as the connection between any other cause and effect. None but God was capable of forming such a system of means, which should continue to operate through the long period of two thousand years, before they brought about the great and glorious event of the crucifixion of Christ and the gospel dispensation. The connection between the types of Christ and his character and conduct, cannot, with the least probability, be ascribed to mere chance and accident. There is not a stronger argument in favor of the truth and divinity of both the Old and New Testament, than their visible connection with each other, as cause and effect.

4. It appears from what has been said, that the evidence of the truth and divinity of the Christian dispensation is constantly increasing, by means of the Mosaic dispensation. The more critically and impartially that dispensation is examined, the more clearly it will appear to have been typical of Christ and the gospel. The Jews acknowledge that God spake unto Moses, and inspired him to write the five books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These books they have always regarded and read, as clothed with divine authority. And these books contain all the moral, civil and ceremonial laws, which were types of Christ, and which they have always applied to their expected Messiah. Though they now deny that the person, character, conduct and sufferings of Christ answered to those types, yet the types, and character, and conduct of Christ still remain recorded in the Old and New Testament; and we have as good a right and opportunity to compare the types with the great anti-type, as the Jews have had, and still have. And what if some of them did not believe, and do not yet believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? It is only for us to look into the Old Testament, and read it without the veil of prejudice, and we may clearly discern the exact correspondence between the types and the glorious persons typified. The Old Testament, at this day, is too little read and studied by christians. It is full of instruction, and contains the most infallible evidence of the truth and divine inspiration of the New Testament. Who can read the various sacrifices, oblations, purifications and ceremonies under the law, and not perceive them to be types and shadows of good things to come? Or who can read the fiftythird chapter of Isaiah, and not perceive a plain prediction of the sufferings and death of Christ? It is very difficult to prove