at
all," and again, to the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii., 7, he assures
them that "he had done nothing against the people, or the customs
of the fathers."

But some men will say," did not Paul expressly teach the
abrogation of the law, in his Epistles, especially in that to the
Galatians?" I answer, he undoubtedly did; and in so doing he
contradicted the Old Testament, his master Jesus, the twelve
Apostles, and himself too. But how can this be? I answer, it is
none of my concern to reconcile the conduct of Paul; or to defend
his equivocations. It is pretty clear, that he did not dare to preach
this doctrine at Jerusalem. He confined this "hidden wisdom," to
the Gentiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew; and to the
uncircumcised as one uncircumcised, he was "all things to all
men!" and for this conduct he gives you his reason, viz. "that he
was determined at any rate to gain some." If this be double
dealing, dissimulation, and equivocation, I cannot help it; it is none
of my concern, I leave it to the Commentators, and the
reconciliators, the disciples of Surenhusius; let them look to it;
perhaps they can hunt up some "traditionary rules of interpretation
among the Jews," that will help them to explain the matter.

Lastly, it has been said that there was no occasion for Jesus, or his
Apostles to be very explicit with respect to the abolition of the
laws of Moses, since the Temple was to be soon destroyed, when
the Jewish worship would cease of course.

This argument, flimsy as it is, is nevertheless the instar omnium of
the Christian Divines to prove the abolishment of this Law: (for the
other arguments adduced by them as prophecies of it from the 1
ch. of Isaiah, and some of the Psalms, are nothing, to the purpose;
they being merely declarations of God, that he preferred obedience
in the weightier matters of the Law; Justice, Mercy, and Holiness,
to ceremonial observances; and that repentance was of more avail
with him than offering thousands of rams, and fed beasts,) and this
argument like so many others, when weighed in the balance, will
be "found wanting."

For, as the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar certainly
did not abolish the Law, so neither did the destruction by Titus, do
it. And as it would be notoriously absurd to maintain the first, so it
is equally so to maintain the last, position. Besides, a very
considerable part of that Law can be, and for these seventeen
hundred years, has been kept with