Whether the Mosaic Code be the best possible, or really divine, is of no consequence in this inquiry, and is with me another question from that of its inferiority to that of the New Testament.  I do by no means assert the former; but have no hesitation to give my opinion, after a pretty thorough examination of the subject, that the reflections of Paul, and those usually thrown out against the Mosaic Code by Theologians, when comparing it with that of the New Testament, in order to deprecate the former, appear to me extremely partial and unjust; and so far from true, that I think, that the ancient law has the advantage over the precepts of the New Testament, in being, at least, practicable and consistent.*

Another unfounded reproach which Theologians, in order to magnify the importance of the New Testament, cast upon the Old, is this:  They say, that the Old Testament represents God only as the tutelary Deity of the Israelites, and as not so much concerned for the rest of mankind.  To show that this is a very mistaken notion, and to manifest that the Eternal of the Old Testament is represented therein, not as the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, I refer to these words:—­“The Lord thy God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible; who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.  He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless, and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.  Love ye, therefore, the stranger.  Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.  Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.  One law shall be to him that is home born, and to the stranger that sojourneth among you.  The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.  I am the Lord your God.”

Indeed, so little truth is there in the notion, that the law and religion of the Old Testament were established with the intention of confining them to one people, exclusive of all others, that the Old Testament certainly represents them in such manner, as shows, that they were intended to be as unconfined as the Christian, or Mahometan; its religion, in fact, admitted every one who would receive it.  And what is more, it can be proved that the Old Testament dispensation claims, as appears from itself, to have been given for the common advantage of all mankind.  And it is asserted in it, (whether truly or not, is not the question; it is sufficient for my purpose, that it asserts it), that the religion contained in it, will one day be the religion of all mankind.  For it declares that Jerusalem will be the centre of worship for all nations, and the temple there, be “the house of prayer for all nations;” that the Eternal will be the only God worshipped; and his laws the only laws obeyed.  It represents Abraham and his