They passed that sentence against the blind man whofe fight Chrift had reftored (a), and doubtless against many, if not all others in like circumftances. For Chrift warns his difciples to expect this fentence (b), and the fear of it prevented many from profeffing their faith in him (c). Yet all this notwithstanding, the apoftles of Chrift, and thousands of believing Jews zealous of the law (d), had as free access to the temple for public exercises of devotion, as the infidel Jews had (e). Nor did their bittereft enemies ever accuse them, or contend with them on that account, which they would undoubtedly have done, if excommunication had deprived them of all title to the public folemnities of the Jewish worship.

§ 5. But, if this reasoning proves any thing, will it not prove, that a God of spotless purity, can enter into a friendly treaty with men, whom yet, on account of their fins, he utterly abhors? And what if it does? Perhaps, the affertion, however fhocking at first view, may, on a narrower fcrutiny, be found innocent. We affert not any inward eternal friendship between God and the unconverted Jews. We only affert an external temporal covenant, which, though it fecured their outward profperity, gave them no claim to God's fpecial favour. Where then is the alledged abfurdity? Will you fay it is unworthy of God to maintain external communion with finners, or to impart to them any bleffings? What then would become of the bulk of mankind? Nay, what would become of the patience

42.

(a) John ix. 34. (4) Jo. xvi. 2. (d) Acts xxi. 20.

(c) Jo. xii. (e) Acts ii. 46. xxi. 26. and

and long-fuffering of God? Or is it abfurd, that God fhould reward actions that flow from bad motives: when we have an undoubted inftance of his doing this in the cafe of Jehu? Or is it abfurd, that God fhould entail favours on bad men, in the way of promife or covenant ? Have you forgot God's promife to Jehu, that his children of the fourth generation should fit on the throne of Ifrael? Or, have you forgot, what concerns you more, God's covenant with mankind in general, no more to destroy the earth by a flood (a)? I would only add, that the spiritual promise made to Abraham, was not made void by the Sinai covenant (b). If the greater part did not fecure an intereft in that promife, the fault was their own. God, notwithstanding, for his love to their fathers, and for other wife and good reasons, allowed them the benefit of the external covenant If you plead, that God can have no intercourse with finners without facrifices and without a Mediator: I reply, the Sinai covenant was founded on facrifices (c), and had a Mediator, even Mofes (d). And in an outward and typical covenant fecuring temporal profperity, fo great a difplay of the divine holinefs was not neceffary, as in a covenant fecuring an intereft in God's special loving-kindness. Therefore a Mediator and facrifices of lefs value fufficed for the former. A typical Mediator and typical facrifices, were most suitable to a typical

covenant.

§ 6. But why were thofe, with whom God entered into covenant at mount Sinai, fo often

37.

(a) 2 Kings x. 30. Gen. ix, 12. (c) Heb. ix. 18,-20.

(b) Gal. iii. (d) Gal. iii. 19.

termed

termed a holy people to the Lord, if the greater part of them were in heart difaffected to God and his fervice? The queftion is not without it's difficulty, and the answering it will require fome time and pains. Let it then be ob ferved, that men are faid to be fanctified or made holy in very different fenfes. Sanctification, for the diftinction, though an old is not a bad one, is either real or relative. Real fanctification is either inward, confifting of holiness of heart and life, or outward, confifting in external washings and purifications, and a behaviour free from groffer fins. Relative fanctification confifts, in feparation from common ufe, and a special relation to God, and fpiritual things: to God, when any thing is used as an external fymbol of his prefence, or is employed in his immediate fervice, or in fome ufe to which God has devoted it; to fpiritual things, when fomething not fpiritual is a type and figure of them. On this account, that alfo is termed unclean, which is a type or emblem of moral impurities (a).

Though then the unconverted Jews, had not that holiness, which refults from moral excellency, or from the graces of the fpirit: yet they had a holinefs, confifting in feparation from other nations (b); in legal wafhings and purifications, and abftinence from whatever ceremonially defiled (c); in freedom from idolatry, and other grofs vices, abfolutely deftructive to a fociety, of which God was king (d); in external dedication to God and his fervice, and the outward fymbols of God's presence among them (e); and in their typifying the (a) Mede Diff. 1. c. 5. (b) Ezra ix. 2. (c) Exod. Lev. xi. 43, 44. xx. 25, 26. Deut. xiv. 1, -3. (d) Lev. xx. 6, 7. (e) Exod. xxix. 43, 44.

xxii.

31.

Meffias

Meffias and his kingdom, and preparing things for his birth and appearance.

The holiness of the priests was barely external and relative. Inward impurities did not unfit them for their office (a). The fame might be obferved as to the holiness of the Levites, of the firft-born, and of the Nazarites. Therefore, the holiness of the Jewish nation, which was inferior in degree to the holiness of thefe, is external and relative alfo. To intimate this, the Ifraelites are termed a kingdom of priests, as well as a holy nation (b). And indeed, in killing the pafchal lamb, every head of a family acted as a priest.

That feparation from other nations, in which the holiness of the Jews chiefly confifted (c), was not fpiritual, refulting from rectitude of heart and a correfpondent behaviour; but barely external, refulting from certain facred rites and ceremonies different from or oppofite to those of other nations, and confined to certain places and perfons (d). The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, was the ceremonial law (e), which was neither neceffary nor fit to make a fpiritual feparation. In fact, it did not feparate between good and bad men among the Jews: but between the houfe of Ifrael, and the fearers of God or devout perfons in the heathen nations (ƒ). For which reafon, though Cornelius was one that feared God, gave much alms, and prayed to God always, Peter was afraid of being polluted by intercourfe with him.

(a) Lev. xxi.

(b) Exod. xix. 6.

(c) Exod. xix. 19. (d) Lev. (e) Eph. ii. 14, 15.

5, 6. Num. xxiii. 9. Deut. xxvi. 18, XX. 24,-26. Deut. xiv. 21.

(f) Pfal. cxviii. 4. Acts xiii. 16, 26. xvii. 4, 17.

A par

A particular detail of the reafons, of these ceremonial obfervances, whereby Ifrael was feparated from other nations, would lead me too far from my fubject. Some of them were intended, as has been obferved § 2, to preferve the refpect due to God as King of the Jews. Others, to prepare things for the coming of the Meffias, and. to keep that nation and family from which he was to defcend diftinct from all others, that fo it might be evident, he was born of the tribe andfamily, and in the place, which the Old Tefta-` ment prophecies had foretold. For this purpose the Jews were forbid to intermarry with the heathen (a): the jubilee was instituted, at which time every family had its old inheritance restored to it, genealogies were kept with great exactness to preferve the diftinction of tribes and families adultery, and other vices, that tended to confound that diftinction, were feverely punished: and because the genealogies of the royal family used to be most accurately obferved, the royalty was annexed to the particular tribe and family, from which the Meffias was to arise.-Other ritual laws were intended to promote the real ex-' ternal fanctification of the Ifraelites; to train them up to decency of behaviour; to preserve them from idolatry and other grofs vices of the heathen, destructive of fociety in general, or inconfiftent with their owning God as their Prince, and to inure them to humanity and other focial virtues. This is exprefsly mentioned as the cause of fome laws (b), and, in other laws, it is evi-. dent from the reafon of the thing. Thus the prohibitions of fowing a field with mingled feed, (b) Lev. xviii. 3, 24. Numb. xv. 39. Deut. xii. 2. xiv. 1, 2.

(a) Ezra ix. 10. Neh. xiii. 25.

and