od of explaining the sacred oracles. And may the God of all grace lead you into all truth! By the knowledge of his me ul and sovereign pleasure in his various dispensations, may you effectually learn wherein consists the true kingdom of God!

With respect to the Exposition of this epistle, by the learned and pious Dr. Owen, together with the Exercitations, they contain, in my opinion, a full reply to every thing of moment contained in your late publications in favor of Judaism. Without reflecting on what others have done, I am inclined to think, that this work enters more into the merits of the cause, than any thing you seem to be acquainted with, as far as I can judge from your writings. Will you excuse me if I here add, that I am satisfied, from the idea I have of the general tendency of this work, and a truly religious character, that were your progenitor Abraham on the land of the living, to peruse it, he would subjoin his hearty amen.

When I consider your notion of the Messiah's kingdom, and of the unanimity of his subjects, I am aware of your being ready to object to every proposal from a Christian, be it what it may, as in your first letters: "To convert a nation, such as the Jews to "Christianity, the professors thereof ought to be unan"imous, in what the work of salvation consists; other"wise, they might be deterred therefrom, by reason of "the difficulty attending the making a proper choice "of that which is right." 39* That is, if there be any force in the objection, you will be right in rejecting Christianity, because Christians differ in their judg ment about the particulars of their religion. But how unreasonable, how preposterous the requisition! Do any Christians differ about Jesus being the Messiah? No: give us then the meeting thus far before you object to less general differences. If you expect such unanimity among uninspired men in the present state, before you grant them leave to recommend their religion to their fellow-men, as of Divine original, you

*Letters to Dr. Priestley, p. 72.

must suppose them to be mere machines, that do not act by free choice. On this principle it is impossible that there ever should be unanimity among men. For just with the same reason may every individual object, of whatever religion, Christian, Jewish, Mahometan, or Heathen. It is the same as to say, I will never embrace truth until all who profess it act a worthy part; I will never aim at being truly religious until all others are so first; I will have nothing to do with any truth but what acts mechanically on all who profess it, producing in them an uniform good effect whether they will or no! But, dear sir, you seem to expect among the subjects of King Messiah, what will never be in this world, and which God has never promised. That those of the same general denomination are not "agreed among themselves" in some particulars, is so far from being a characteristic mark of a false religion, that it is in reality, no more than the natural, and in the present imperfect state, the unavoidable result of human freedom. It is acknowledged by yourself, that "conscience ought to be free;" that is, I presume, in every state, under the reign of the Messiah not excepted. Men, in the present state, are fallible and accountable; consequently no mere profession of the sublimest truths conceivable can insure unanimity. Modern Judaism is either right or wrong, notwithstanding the petty jars among its professors; and the same is true of Christianity.

Reflecting farther on your views of religion, liberty of conscience, and charity, I can easily conceive how uninteresting must appear to you, any attempt at conversion, whether by Jews or Christians. "We do not, "say you, think ourselves bound, as the Christians, to "propagate our religion," not even "by arguments." Singular and frigid sentiment! and not less singular the ground on which it stands; for concerning mankind, who are not Jews, you observe: "If they do but "keep the law of nature; that is, the seven precepts of "the sons of Noah, or Noachides, we maintain, that "they thereby perform all that God requires of them, "and will certainly by this service, render themselves

"acceptable to him."* These you call the pious of the nations of the world, who will be partakers of eternal life! The seven precepts are these: "First, Not to "commit idolatry. Second, Not to blaspheme. Third, "To appoint and constitute just and upright judges; "that justice may be maintained, and impartially ad"ministered to all. Fourth, Not to commit incest. "Fifth, Not to commit murder. Sixth, Not to rob or "steal, &c. Seventh, Not to eat a member of a living "creature." Alas! alas! if Noah and his sons had no better ground of hope of eternal life, than arose from their performance of this service, they could no more have quieted the accusations of conscience, or abated the horrors of an eternal existence with a holy and just God, than they could avert the stroke of death, or suspend the laws of nature! Is this your view of religion, and the Divine dispensations? The absurdity is almost unparalleled, and wants a name. Blessed be God for the gospel!

"If you are really in earnest," say you to Dr. PRIESTLEY, "and wish to convert the Jews, to what you call Christianity, I think you must produce more substantial proofs in support of your hypothesis, than what you have yet done. And, if I might presume to offer my opinion in so weighty a cause, I think that the fairest method, and that which is the likeliest to lead to conviction on either side is, to take a review of all the prophecies concerning the Messiah, from Moses to Malachi, and compare them with the acts of Jesus, recorded in the New Testament, to see whether or no they have been fulfilled in his person." I must confess, that this method, as far as it goes, (for it includes only the prophetic part of the ancient oracles) appears to me, under the limitations before observed, a good one; and doubt not but that it meets with the approbation of all liberal Christians. Nay, Jesus himself recommends it: "Search the Scriptures, for they are "they that testify of me." And as you announce such a design, it may be of service to you, to weigh very caretIbid. p. 90.

*Ut supra, p. 12.

fully what Dr. OWEN has done this way in the Exercitations; and if you should think him not sufficiently minute in the abridgment, you would do well to consult the original edition. But excuse me, dear sir, if on this occasion I drop a monitory hint, viz. that you deal fairly, and draw no conclusions which are not justified by a thorough knowledge of the subject, and a comprehensive view of it. Without this we cannot be said to investigate the meaning of scripture, but to trifle with it to our own ruin. Happy were it for us all, if nothing but the clear evidence of truth, arising from an acquaintance sufficiently extensive with any controverted subject, determined our choice. happy effects would be, more humility (that valuable though old-fashioned virtue) more moderation, and less premature triumph in disputants, more industry in seeking, and peace in enjoying truth.

The

But to what end is it to examine prophecies, while you examine them by the following standard? “We "hold the perpetuity of the law of Moses, and to which "nothing is to be added or diminished by any succeed"ing prophet whatever."* If this were granted you as an axiom (but which I call a fundamental error) you would make quick work with all the prophecies as well as the gospel. But while you hold this opinion, you hold what I think can never be proved, what the law neither requires nor intends, what is highly affronting to God himself, and destructive to the souls of men. Were Moses upon earth, he would, perhaps, be the first to contradict your interpretation of his words. We maintain with Paul, what is, I think, demonstrated in the following Epistle and Exposition, that it is not by a different authority from that which enacted the law, that it is repealed: and surely it must be absurd to contend (while his own declarations do not oblige) that a local, ceremonial institution cannot be abrogated by the Supreme Lawgiver. That the "apos"tles inculcated the abolishment of the Mosaical dis"pensation," is very true; and it is equally true, that it was at first given with that design. And has not Prov

*Second letters, p. 56.

idence incontestably confirmed their doctrine? Has it not rendered the observance of the Mosaic law absolutely impossible? If we hold with the apostles, "that "the law of Moses cannot effect the justification of "mankind," it is, because we believe and prove that it was never given for that end, never effected for that purpose, and is in its own nature, incapable of it. We do not reject the law, nor did the apostles, as if it were not holy, just, and good in its proper place; it is good as a schoolmaster, but not as a Savior; as a mirror of the Divine will, and the rule of human obedience, for the time, and to the end of its appointment. And we confidently add, that the Mosaic law is more truly and effectually honored by every true Christian, than by any Jew in the world: for if the grand end of it, in its covenant form, be answered in the life and death of Christ, and if the ceremonial part of it be repealed by the united voice of the gospel, and of Providence (both which we maintain to be facts) our conduct must be more honorable to the law and the Lawgiver, than your's can be. And obstinately to adhere to a repealed law, is but a slender proof of respect to the legislative authority. Besides, the apostles were taught this very doctrine from the words of Jeremiah, chap. xxxi, 31-34, and other prophetic testimonies, as well as from the nature of the Jewish economy and Divine direction. That "God never contradicts "himself," we readily believe, which is a strong reason, among others, obliging us to receive Jesus as the Christ of God; for we think that if he is not the Messiah, we have nothing left us but a heap of contradictions, as the venerable author here recommended to you abundantly shews. On your supposition, we think, neither promises, prophecies, sacrifices, characteristic notes of the Messiah, or his principal offices, to save from sin and misery, have any meaning; and we apprehend that your interpretation must be at every step subversive of itself.

You, indeed, frankly acknowledge, that "if Christ's divinity is false, and he did not come to suffer for the redemption of mankind, as Christians hold, he came