fin in this instance, and Aaron in particular for his, as to engage to send bis Angel to go before them; and that his own presence should go with them; and after God had renewed with them his Covenant, and his former engagement to give them the Promised Land; Mofes proceeded to put into execution all the Commands which the LORD had given him"; and among the rest, in the last place, That to anolht Aaron, and his Sons, Priests. But does any thing here related imply, that Aaron was rewarded with the High Priesthood for his faulty conduct on this occafion? Or is it conceivable, that any thing less than designed perverfion can put this interpretation upon it? Nothing can be drawn from this whole relation, but what appears manifeftly upon the very face of it; that notwithstanding the people had very grievously finned, and Aaron very highly offended; though upon a very different, and much more excusable principle; the Wisdom of God nevertheless determined to accomplish his providential purposes in selecting the Ifraelites from the rest of the Nations; by proceeding to put them into That State, and under That peculiar Constitution, for which he designed them: and therefore, notwithstanding this fin, and that degree of punishment which Mofes, by his Command, had inflicted on them for it; That God proceeded to cause those Ordinances to be enforced, and that Constitution to be actually fettled, by which he intended they should be governed. Such is manifestly the true account of this whole proceeding in general, and of the appointment of Aaron and his Sons to the High Priesthood in particular. But unhappily, so it is, that the clearest points are not too evident

Exod. xxxii. 34.
Ibid. chap. xxxiv.

b Ibid. xxxiii. 14.
d Ibid. chap. xxxx - xl.

to

to be perverted, or denied, by some Writers, when the perverting or denying them, may serve to call in question the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures.

SECT. XVI.

The Author's Objections to the Conduct of JESUS towards the Jews in general, in preaching the Gospel; founded especially on 1 Cor. ii. 7, 8, and Mark iv. 11, 12; confidered.

A

FTER fuch misrepresentations of the Old Testament, and the Nature and Tendency of the Jewish Law, as we have just been considering; we cannot wonder at whatever objections the Author may please to make to any part of the New, or any thing connected with it.

He asserts, That Christians charge the Jews with " obstinately sinning against the conviction " of their own minds, and with crucifying the "Son of God, knowing and believing him to be "fuch :" - Whereas nothing can be more notoriously false.

e

Christians do not charge the Jews with this, because they know this would be charging them with what Jesus himself acquitted them of, while he hung on the Cross; and Peter foon after he began to preach in his Name; and Paul when he preached at Antioch; and in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. They do indeed charge the Jews of that time " with finning against the con"viction of their own minds;" and so the Au

• Introd. p. 18. Ibid. xiii. 27.

f Luke xxiii. 34, &c.
1 1 Cor. ii. 8.

& Acts iii. 17.

$ 4

thor

1

1

66

ES

thor will find, upon turning to the passages here referred to, that Jesus himself most explicitly did. But their sin consisted not, in crucifying JESUS, when they knew and believed him to " be the MESSIAH;" but in fuffering their pride, their sensuality, and every other vicious disposition by which they were then principally governed; together with their preconceived false notions of the Prophecies relating to the MESSIAH; to prevent them from paying that religious regard, which their consciences could not but teach them they ought to have paid, to those pure Doctrines Jesus taught, that Divine Character he assumed, and those Miracles he performed to confirm it; and thus, in effect, from perceiving him to be the MESSIAH, which they must otherwise have perceived. - But it is no wonder, that he who has been forced to advance, that Belief not only necessarily arifes out of evidence, but cannot arife without it, and is not therefore in any sense, or degree, a proper object of command; should mistake, perplex, and mifrepresent, the real fin of the Jews, in this particular, more than any other.

Again the Author says, - "It appears to me, " that God never yet intended the converfion of "the Jews in general to Chriftianity, for this

plain reason; viz. if he had, they would have "been converted: for who can defeat the intenti

ons of the Almighty? Or what heart is so ob"stinate and perverse, that God cannot turn it if " he pleases1?" And this is an argument he is so satisfied with, as even to appeal to it again" as absolutely decisive. But, for the same reason, if he will be confiftent, he must say, - "God never

* Matth. xi. 20-24. John xv. 22, 24. Matth. x. 15. 1 Introd. p. 19.

m P. 22.

A

" intended

" intended that any wicked man, that ever ex" existed, should have been less wicked than he

66

was; for if God had so intended, he would " have been less wicked." In fact, this Argument of our Author, is only asserting in other words, that because God did not think fit to overrule their natural liberty of action, by irresistible influence; therefore it would not have been well pleasing to him, that they should have made a right use of their own understanding, in confidering the abundant evidence he laid before them. A conclusion, the propriety of which common sense alone must enable every one to determine.

Again the Author says, - "That CHRIST'S " death and all its circumstances, seem from the " mysterious parts of the New Testament, to have " been parts of God's original plan" : -That if the "Jews had believed, CHRIST had not died, and " so our Redemption would not have been accomplished." From whence he argues, that God purposely with-held from the Jews fuch evidence as would have converted them; because to have given them such evidence, "Would have been contradicting his own prescience, and acting in" consistently with himself."

८८

But the truth of the cafe is, that the Jews had evidence abundantly more than sufficient to have converted them; as Jesus himself expressly declared, and the whole Gospel history shews; but were at that time, of such a disposition, that perhaps no evidence could have induced them to receive any one, appearing in the character JESUS appeared in, as the MESSIAH: to have been converted, perhaps they must have been so influenced immediately by God himself as to have had their freedom of action fufpended. And will the Author prefume to say, that God was any way obliged to do this? Or supposing we should allow; what however we cannot know, and what there is very little room even for supposing; that fome greater degree of evidence might have converted the Jews in general to the faith in CHRIST; will he be bold enough to contend, that fuch evidence ought to have been granted; and that it's not having been granted is any objection to the revelation of CHRIST? When the giving mankind any Revelation at all, is a mere gratuitous act of undeserved favour; will he contend that God is bound to accompany any fuch Revelation with evidence irresistible; and that it is inconsistent with God's nature to accompany it with any degree of evidence less than this, though abundantly more than is neceffary to the nature of the thing itself? Or will he argue from God's having done so, that He would not have been well pleased, if the Jews, for instance, had paid a rational and virtuous regard to that abundant evidence which was actually laid before them? If so, he must for the fame reasons, whatever they may be, contend, that God's having not laid the Law of Reason, or Nature before all mankind, with fuch irrefiftible force, as to oblige them actually to attend to it, and to prevent them from running into vice and Idolatry as they have done; is a proof, that God would not have been well pleased, if mankind had made fo good and proper a use of their Natural Reason as to have avoided these errors and fins: and thus he muft neceffarily object as much against Natural Religion as Revealed.

To talk, as the Author does, of God's contradicting his own prescience, is arrant nonfenfe. God foreknew, that those events which did take place, would take place, in confequence of his fending