To justify, therefore, the fuperior dignity and pre-eminence of the Gospel ministry, we must suppose, that the commiffion to Mofes and the Prophets was limited to the bare letter, or temporal fanctions of the Law. Nor let it be faid, that the Minifters of the Law dealing in types and figures, and the Minifters of the Gospel in plain and open fpeech, was fufficient to establish the difference St. Paul here puts between them: Since if the types and figures were explained to those to whom they were delivered, or were otherwife understood by them, these various modes of information would have made no more difference between the Prophets and Evangelifts, than the fpeaking Hebrew and Greek would make between St. Matthew and St. Paul. Had the types and figures been explained, or otherwise understood, how could the Apostle have faid that the letter killeth, or have called it the ministration of death and condemnation? For in this cafe the temporal bleffings promised by the letter of the Law, would have been confidered as fo many earnests and pledges of fuch as were fpiritual and future; and the old Covenant would have been effentially the fame with the new, as it was appointed to inculcate and convey the main substance, and the most important articles of the Gospel. On the whole, if my Lord Bishop be right in afferting," that the Law affords a good proof. "of a future life," St. Paul must have been wrong in declaring that it's public ministers were not commiflioned to teach it. For is it not abfolutely incredible, that their inftructions fhould have limited them to the lower and inferior fanctions of the Law, without allowing them to inforce fuch as were of most importance? especially as they had to do with. a perverfe, licentious, and ungovernable people, whofe conftant apoftacies and rebellions made it neceffary to urge EVERY motive, that tended to reftrain, and keep them in order. -35 The Apoftle proceeds, "And not as Mofes, which put a veil over his face, that "the children of Ifrael could not stedfaftly "look to the end of that which is abolished ",' i. e. the Law. Here we are told that Mofes caft a veil over his face, and endeavoured to hide the end of the Law, (i. e. the fpiritual or new covenant) from his people. A very prepofterous and abfurd conduct, if this covenant was intended for the religion of those times. For if he did not put out the eyes of his people, as his enemies objected to him, yet he endeavoured to render them of no use, by casting 2 Cor. iii. 13. ́ a veil or shade over the object, which ought to have been openly expofed and held up to their full view, Again: "Now I fay that the heir as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a fervant, though he be lord of all, "But is under tutors and governors, until "the time appointed of his father. "Even fo we, when we were children, "were in bondage under the elements of the "world; but when the fulness of the time was come, God fent forth his fon made of a woman, made under the law; "To redeem them that were under the "Law, that we might receive the adoption of fons. "And because ye are fons, God hath fent "forth the fpirit of his Son into your hearts, "crying Abba father." Wherefore thou art no more a fervant, "but a fon; and if a fon, then an heir of “God through Chrifti." According to this representation, the Jews while under the Mosaic dispensation, had their relation of children of God fufpended, and were in the capacity of flaves or fervants only. But the right to the inheritance of eternal life depends entirely upon the relai Gal. iv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. tion we stand in to God of fons and children. "If a fon, then an heir of God *.”—“ If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint" heirs with Chrift." The Jews, therefore, while under the fufpenfion of this relation, and confined to the bondage of the Law, could have no expectation of this inheritance. And yet the defenders of the common system contend, "that the Jews, before the coming of Chrift, had a covenanted right << to all those benefits of his mediation which "Christians are now intitled to, i. e. to grace "and pardon of fin here, and eternal glory "hereafter "" That is, tho' St. Paul confiders the Jews as under the relation of flaves or fervants only, yet these men will confider them as under the relation of fons and children. Unless, to avoid shocking our Piety, they take ftill greater liberties with our Understanding, and fay, the Jews were under a ftate of bondage and fonship at the fame time: no matter for St. Paul's oppofing these two states to one another, as inconfiftent. It may be faid, that Paul speaks of the Jews as fons, when he declares that to them " per"tained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and 1 Rom. viii. 7. k Gal. iv. "the "the fervice of God, and the promises "." But we may obferve, that this is when he puts them in contradiftinction to the Gentiles. He then indeed affirms, that the adoption belonged to them. When he speaks of the Jews in contradiftinction to the Chriftians, he then declares that they had not attained the adoption, or were not children, fons and heirs of God. The adoption, therefore, allowed unto them, must needs be fomething very different from the adoption denied them, that adoption which implied a right to the inheritance of eternal life. For if the adoption, the covenants, and the promises mentioned in the epistle to the Romans (and fo often produced by the defenders of the common fyftem, to prove the Jews had a covenanted right to all the benefits of Chrift's mediation) fignified the being beirs of God through Christ, mentioned in the epistle to the Galatians, how could they be at the fame time faid to be under the bondage of flaves or fervants°? n Rom. ix. 4. • A late writer obferves, that the GENTILES are never faid in the New Teftament to be born again, upon their admiffion into the Chriftian church. And this he attempts to account for in the following manner. "But where do 66 we find fuch phrases used concerning fuch as were con"verted from among the idolatrous Gentiles? And the reafon is evident, the Jews and Profelytes were already Let |