impoftor, he was not mad enough, to have encumbered his body of laws with a conftitution, obedience to which muft have infallibly bewrayed the deceit.

But the argument acquires full force, when we view the event of this ftrange conftitution. The judges of Ifrael, who had neither horfes nor chariots, nor numerous armies, by faith in God fubdued kingdoms, out of weakness were made ftrong, waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of the Aliens (j). Deborah, who was fent on foot into the valley, delivers Ifrael from Sifera, who had nine hundred chariots of iron (). Gideon, with three hundred men, deftroys the numerous hofts of Midian (1). When David had taken from Hadadezar a thousand chariots and feven hundred horfemen, he houghed all the chariot horfes, except a hundred (m): doubtlefs, referving these, not for ftrength in war, for then he would not have deftroyed nine out of ten, but for state in peace. Hence Abfalom, affecting the pomp of a King, prepared chariots and horfes, and fifty men to run before him (n); and yet, in the day of battle, we find him mounted on a mule. A ftrong proof, that the Jews had not yet begun to violate the divine precept; by ufing horfes and chariots in war. David, in whofe reign the kingdom of Ifrael was advanced to its utmoft glory, could fay, "Some truft in chariots and fome in "horfes, but we will remember the name of "the Lord our God (0)." Solomon was the first who violated this precept (p). But troubles (j) Heb. xi. 34. (k) Judg. iv. 10, 13. V. 15. (1) Judg. vii. (m) 2 Sam. viii. 4. (n) 2 Sam. (0) Pfal. xx. 7. (p) 1 Kings iv. 26.

XV. 1.

foon

foon overtook him. The Edomite on the one fide, and the King of Damafcus on the other infulted him. And this new military force, inftead of enabling him and his fucceffors to quell their enemies, enfeebled and greatly deftroyed Ifrael, by depriving them of the divine protection.

God indeed, in that period, granted his people fome very signal deliverances: but it was, when having no ftrength of their own on which to rely, they had recourfe to God alone for protection. See the cafe of Afa, 2 Chron. xiv. 9,—11: of Jehofaphat, 2 Chron. xx. 12, 17: and of Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 23. and xix. 35. It is evident from many paffages in the prophets, that alliance with idolatrous princes, and the warlike ufe of chariots and horses, was accounted a renunciation of God's protection, and an infallible forerunner of ruin. See Ifa. ii. 7,-9. xxxi. 1, -3. Hof. xiv. 3. I am indebted for thefe remarks to Bishop Sherlock's fourth Differtation at the end of his Difcourfes on Prophecy. And as many who read and admire his elegant Sermons, are unacquainted with that performance, I make no apology for tranfcribing them. The fame author has juftly obferved, in his fifth Discourse on Prophecy, that whenever it was neceffary to chaften the Jews for their iniquities, their calamities were prophetically described to them, that they might not be tempted by their adverfity to think, that the gods of the nations had prevailed against them, but might know that the hand of their own God was upon them. See Ifa. xlviii. 3, 4, 5. Indeed, without fuch fpecial predictions, every interpofition of providence, to execute the fanctions of the Mofaic law, was a new proof, that God himself was the author of that

law,

law, and had annexed to it these fanctions. But the argument for the divine legation of Mofes, both from the original fanctions of his law, and the execution of thefe fanctions, will probably be placed in a fuller and ftronger light, when the BiThop of Gloucefter fhall favour the public with his third Volume.

$3. Though I write to Chriftians, and therefore have often appealed to the New Teftament : yet I think the paffages I have cited from Mofes and the Prophets, abundantly juftify the foregoing accout of the Sinai covenant. And, if they do, it greatly concerns the Jews, to confider the confequence: even this, that the promised Meffias is now come, vefted with authority to abrogate the Sinai covenant, and to introduce a new and better difpenfation.

Old Testament prophecy plainly afferts, that the dominion of the Meffias was not to be confined to the land of Judea, but to extend to the heathen that all the ends of the earth fhould be invited to fubject themselves to his government: and that nations the most distant should share in the bleffings of his kingdom. It was impoffible for remote nations to keep the law of Mofes, a great part of the worship prefcribed by it, being confined to the temple at Jerufalem, and all the males being obliged by that law to appear there. thrice every year. The promise therefore, that the Lord fhould be King over all the earth, is equivalent to a prediction, that the ceremonial law fhould be abolished.

A profperous poffeffion of the land of Canaan was a chief bleffing of the Sinai covenant, and a bleffing infured by promife to all God's antient people. But it was impoffible, that the fubjects

of

of the Meffias, who were to be scattered through the whole habitable earth, fhould fhare in this bleffing. "The land would have been too nar"row by reason of the inhabitants, the place too "ftrait for them to dwell in." The extent of the Meffia's kingdom rendered it impoffible, that Canaan fhould contain all his fubjects. And therefore, under his government, the covenant in which that land was entailed on God's people, as a reward of their obedience, must be abrogated.

Let me appeal to the candid Jew, is not the Christian difpenfation, in its own nature more excellent than the Mofaic? Is freedom from grofs fins, and the performance of external rites and ceremonies, an obedience equally worthy of reward, with the perfect obedience of him, who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and continually went about doing good? Or does a quiet poffeffion of the land of Canaan, deferve to be compared, with all fpiritual and heavenly bleffings in Chrift Jefus ? Surely neither of thefe can, with the leaft modefty, be pretended. Is then impofture more excellent than truth? Did a false pretender to the character of Meffias, contrive a fcheme, which exceeds in glory that difpenfation, for whofe divine original Jews, as well as Chriftians, warmly contend? Say not, it is abfurd, that men should be entitled to reward through the righteousness of another. Of all men in the world, Jews must plead this, with the worst grace. Their confidence in God is chiefly built on their defcent from pious ancestors. And Mofes, their divinely infpired lawgiver, exprefsly afferts, that the peculiar favours conferred on them, were not owing to their fuperior worth and excellency, but

were

were a teftimony of God's affection to their worthy forefathers (q). If God faw meet, in teftimony of his love to Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and as a reward of their obedience, defective and imperfect as it was, to bestow upon their natural feed a variety of outward bleffings: wherefore fhould it be thought a thing incredible, that the God and Father of our Lord Jefus, in teftimony of his love to his own, his only begotten Son, and as a reward of his merit and fufferings, should admit the fpiritual feed of this glorious and divine perfon, to be with him where he is to behold his glory? Do you believe, that the blood of bulls and goats, faved from temporal punishment, men guilty of crimes, which, by the tenor of the Sinai covenant, would otherwise have subjected them to it; and yet can you deem it abfurd, that the blood of the equal and fellow of the Almighty, fhould fcreen from future vengeance, these who humbly rely upon it?

It was obferved Section i. § 6. that the ceremonial law was intended for a middle-wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. But when the earth fhould become the Lord's and the fulnefs thereof, there could remain no occafion for fuch a feparation, and therefore Paul juftly argues upon this principle, that the diftinction of meats is now abolished, 1 Cor. x. 25, 26.

Experience fhews, that the Jews do not now enjoy the bleflings of the Sinai covenant. What account can they give of this? To charge God with breach of promife would be blafphemy. Do then the Jews fail of performing the condition

(9) Deut. ix. 4,—6. x. 15.

annexed