The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old

by George Bethune English

Towards the end of the same chapter we read an account of the dedication of this new Temple by sacrifices; and particular directions are given in the succeeding chapters for the Priests, and for the Prince. If, therefore, there be any truth in these prophecies, the Jews are not only to return to their own country, and to be distinguished among the nations, but are to rebuild the Temple, and to restore the ancient worship.

Having proved that the Old Testament declares the perpetuity of the Mosaic Law, I proceed, 2dly, to prove that it is declared to be perpetual by Jesus himself.

But before I adduce my proofs, I beg leave to premise, that when any Law is solemnly enacted, we expect that the abrogation of it should be equally solemn, and express, in order that no room for dispute may remain upon the subject. Accordingly, it is the custom, I believe, in all countries, not to make any new Law, contradictory to another before subsisting, without a previous express abrogation of the old one. And certainly it appears to me a strange notion to suppose, that the elaborate and noble Law given from mount Sinai amidst circumstances unexampled, awful, and tremendously magnificent, and believed to have been declared by the voice of God to be a perpetual and everlasting Code, should vanish, perish, and be annihilated by the mere dictum of twelve fishermen!!

But the fact is otherwise, for Jesus was so far from teaching the abrogation of that law, that he expressly says— Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. This is a most explicit declaration that not the smallest punctilio in the law of Moses was intended to be set aside by the Gospel. Nay more, he expressly commanded his disciples to the same purpose—The Scribes and Pharisees (says he,) sit in Moses seat; all therefore whatsoever they command you, that observe, and do.

It is said in answer to this by Christian Divines, that his discourse relates to things of a moral nature, and that he only meant, that no part of the Moral Law was to be abolished. But besides that the expression is general, there could be no occasion to make so solemn a declaration against what he could not have been suspected of intending, viz. of abolishing the moral law. He seems in his discourse to have had in view the additions that had been made to the law. These he sets aside, but no part of the original law itself.

It has also been urged that by fulfilling, may be meant such an accomplishment of it as would imply the superseding of it when the purposes for which it was instituted should be answered. To silence this explication it will be sufficient to produce a few out of many passages of the New Testament where the term fulfil occurs in connexion with the term law. Thus Paul says, Gal. v. 14, All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and again. Rom. xiii. 8, He that loveth another, hath fulfilled the law. But certainly, notwithstanding this fulfilment of the moral law, it remains in as full force as ever.

The Apostles understood Jesus to mean as we have asserted. For it is evident from the Acts, that the Christians at Jerusalem were zealous in attachment to the law of Moses; this is evident from their surprise at Peter's conduct with regard to Cornelius; and in the dispute about imposing circumcision upon the Gentiles; observe there was no dispute about its being obligatory upon Jews.

Paul was indeed vehemently accused of teaching a contrary doctrine, as we find in the history of the transactions respecting him in his last journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 21, They (i. e. the Christians) are informed of thee (says James to Paul) that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumscise their children, neither to walk after the custom. Here James gives Paul to understand that he considered the report as a calumny, and accordingly, to convince the Jewish Christians that it was a false report, he advises Paul to be at charges with some Jewish Christians, who were under a vow of Nazaritism, (which is an instance in point to prove that the first Christians kept the law,) and thus publicly manifest that he himself walked orderly, and kept the law. Paul complies with this advice, and purified himself in the temple, and did what was done in like cases by the strictest Jews. He also circumcised Timothy, who was a convert to Christianity, because he was the son of a Jewish Mother. And he solemnly declared in open court. Acts xxv. 8, Against the law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, have I offended any thing 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.