"efpecially by Mofes the greatest of them. He

quotes for this purpose, Deut. iv. 2. and xiii. 1. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command

you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, &c. "Whereas Chriftians hold that Jefus had power "to abolish the Mofaical difpenfation, and which, " they fay, he actually did." You then proceed to obferve," But has Mr. Levi proved from "the New Teftament, that Chrift did annul the "law of Mofes? What fome' Chriftians have

r

thought on this fubject, is no more to the purpose, than their believing the doctrine of "the Trinity. I have fhewn in my former Letters, that Chrift and the apoftles, afferted the << perpetual obligation of the law of Mofes. You may fee my thoughts on this fubject at large, "in the Theological Repofitory, under the signature "HERMAS, Vol. V. page 403." Agreeable to your intimation, I attentively perused that part of the Theological Repofitory, and must freely acknowledge, that in the proofs brought from the Old Testament, I heartily agree with you, as I am confident, that no passage in the law, or prophets, will bear any fuch conftruction, as Chriftians in general make use of on that fubject. But, I must tell you plainly, that I am not fo well fatisfied with what you have advanced of the apoftles, with refpect to the Jewish ritual; because, you have not confidered the most material paffages in the New Teftament, and which feem as fully to inculcate the abrogation of the law of Mofes, as

others

i

others that I have adduced to the doctrine of the Trinity. Whether you will allow them to be genuine, or only interpolations, is not my business at prefent to inquire. I have only to produce them, to fhew that they are in the New Testament. What your reafon was for not taking notice of them, is best known to yourfelf: I hope it was not ignorance of them, for if so, the Jew whom you are pleafed to charge with ignorance of the New Teftament, will be found to be better acquainted with it, than yourself.

But to the point, Paul in his epiftle to the Ephefians, chap. ii. 15. fpeaking of what Chrift had done, fays, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even "the law of commandments, contained in ordi"nances, for to make in himself of twain, one "new man, fo making peace." And, in his epiftle to the Romans, chap. vii. 4. he says, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye alfo are become "dead to the law by the body of Chrift, &c." And verfe 6. "But now we are delivered from "the law, that being dead, wherein we were "held; that we fhould ferve in the newness of

cr

fpirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." In the acts of the apostles, chap. xiii. 38, 39. Paul, after expatiating on the exalted character of 'Jefus, who he fays, faw no corruption, obferves, "Be it known unto you therefore, men and "brethren, that through this man is preached "unto you forgiveness of fins. And by him all "that believe are justified from all things, which

" ye

"ye could not be justified by the law of Mofes." In his epistle to the Galatians, chap, iii. 24, 25, he fays, "Wherefore, the law was our school"mafter to bring us unto Chrift, that we might "be juftified by faith. But after that faith is "come, we are no longer under a fchool-mafter." In his epistle to the Coloffians, in fpeaking of Chrift's having forgiven their fins, he says, "Blot"ting out the hand writing of ordinances, that "was against us, which was contrary to us, and "took it out of the way, nailing it to his crofs.” And verfe 16. "Let no man therefore judge or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the fab.. "bath days." In his epiftle to the Hebrews, fpeaking of the change of the priesthood, he says, chap. vii. 12. "For the priesthood being changed, "there is made of neceffity a change alfo of the "law."

you in meat,

From these paffages contained in the New Teftament, we may draw the following conclufions. First, that the apostles inculcated the abolishment of the Mofaical difpenfation. Second, that the law of Mofes was held by them, not to be capable of effecting the juftification of mankind, but that faith, or the newness of spirit, was capable of effecting it. Third, that the law was therefore, but as a fchool-mafter to bring them to Chrift, confequently, when he was come, there was no farther occafion for it, as the apostle obferves. Fourth, that as the priesthood was changed (ac

cording

cording to Paul) there confequently was a neceffity for a change of the law alfo, as he obferves*. Fifth, from the exalted character given of Chrift, his power to forgive fins, and abolish the law, &c. it is manifeft, that Paul did not look upon Jefus as a mere man, but that under cover of thefe expreffions, he endeavoured to inculcate his divinity. From thefe inferences, it will appear clear to every impartial mind, that Chriftians are juftified in maintaining the abrogation of the law of Mofes; for the apoftle's words are fo decifive, as not to admit of the leaft doubt. Whether Christ had power to annul the law is not now before us, as you do not admit of it. My business was only to fhew that, the New Teftament taught us that, Chrift did annul the law of Mofes; and if fo, we could not receive him as a prophet, according to my quotation from Deut. iv. 2. and xiii. 1. Be

* Since writing the above, I chanced to look into the second Volume of the Theological Repofitory, where I met with the Obfervations of PAULINUS, concerning Melchizedec, and who does not seem to approve of Paul's inferences drawn from the account given of him in the Old Teftament; neither does he seem to allow of the abrogation of the law of Mofes, as I apprehend. Yet, was I agreeably surprised to find that, he draws the fame conclufion from these inferences, as I have. His words are fo much to the purpose, that I cannot forbear transcribing them. Speaking of the change of the priesthood which Paul mentions, he obferves, (page 287,) "And what is this, but to make an intire change in the con"stitution of the law itself, which is the fame thing as its "being formally abrogated, and argues its imperfection? For "had it been a perfect institution, it would always have been "kept in force."

caufe

caufe, he contradicted what Mofes had faid, as I obferved in my firft Letters. And therefore, when you obferve, (page 26,) But this (the abrogation of the law of Mofes) is no part of the ar

gument between you and me; but, like that concerning the doctrine of Trinity, between me and "other Chriftians." I muft tell you plainly, that you labour under a very great mistake, or what is worfe, attempting to evade the force of my argument by fuch an evafion. For give me leave to tell you, Sir, both that, and the doctrine of the Trinity, are a part of the argument between you and me, as well as between me and other Chriftians. For if the New Teftament teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, Chrift's divinity, &c. (and which I prefume I have fufficiently proved in the first of these letters) why then, it is manifest that, we could not receive him, without being hostile to the law of Mofes, confiftent with our idea of the ftrict unity of God.

And, if it also inculcates the abrogation of the law of Mofes, as by this time I fuppofe you are convinced it does, from the aforecited texts, we could neither receive him as a true prophet; because, we hold the perpetuality of the law of Mofes, and to which nothing is to be added or diminished by any fucceeding prophet whatever. This, naturally leads me to take notice of what you farther obferve, page 26. You fay, "I am fatisfied, "however, that Mr. Levi has mistaken the sense " of Mofes in the paffage he quotes. It is not

"there