unreasonable partiality in God; or the leaft ground of the monftrous doctrine of predeftination. A divine revelation muft abhor the doctrine, as manifeftly incompatible with the idea of perfection. And if it could be proved that the Bible taught this doctrine, a rejection of it would be fully juftified: becaufe of its teaching a doctrine hateful in the eye of a benevolent and juft being! It is therefore a mean and bafe fubterfuge in the oppofers of revelation, to infinuate, that fuch blafphemy can be found in the facred writings.

St. Paul, in the ix, x, and xith chapters to the Romans, has nothing to do with thofe difpenfations of providence, that had their reafon in men's moral character, or affixed the final ftates of men. This he affures us of, by inftancing in Jacob and Efau, where no refpect was had to their moral character in the election and rejection fpoken of: but the determination had place before they had done good or evil. And he tells us, that a man might as well find fault with the fkill of a potter, because he knew how to make different veffels for different uses; as he might with God for making one man for toil and labour, another for ftudy and contemplation, another for more public and elevated ftations: i. e. one for more, another for lefs honourable fervice. Or, will any complain, because in a great house, they find there are veffels of gold, others of filver, fome of brafs, others of glass or stone? In God's human family there is as great diversity; but all are defigned for ufe. Indeed there are fome, prejudiced by fchemes, who have imagined that God's glory is to be inferred from fuch an act of abfolute fovereignty, as that of abfolute election. Not confidering, that it is not confiftent with truth, with his equity or goodness; who is S

no

Sect. XL.

fhewn to

for the

their an

no refpecter of perfons. Befides, neither fin, nor the demerit of it can glorify God: for to fin, is to come fhort of his glory: and he delights not in the death of him that dies! yet God delights in his own glory. Nothing short of the virtue and happiness of God's moral creation, can reflect his glory.

But my author fays, that a partial regard was Partiality fhewn to them for the fake of their ancestors. the Jews, Indeed, there is a reafon affigned for God's fhewing fuch a partial regard to the Jewish nation; not fake of because they were better and more worthy of his favour than other people: but on account of the refpect God had for their ancestors, viz. Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and particularly for their father Abraham's fake; though, I think, this is fuch a reafon as will not well bear reasoning upon: but this is exploded, Ezek. xviii. Vol. II.

cestors.

P. 21, 22.

It is true, St. Paul speaks of the Jews as beloved for the fathers fake, or through the fathers, (dia Tos TaTegas) and the reason is obvious, for God had promised to Abraham that he would multiply his feed, and in his family the Meffiab fhould arife. So the angel tells Ifaac, Gen. xxvi. 24. that he would multiply, i. e. Jehovah whom he reprefented, would multiply his feed for his fervant Abraham's fake. So when the Pfalmift is recounting the benefits of God's providence to Ifrael; he fays, God has remembered bis covenant which he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Ifaac, Pf. cv. 8, 9. The people. were to remember the piety of Abraham as the reafon of the promise, or covenant. And when

they faid, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land, by promife, but we are many, the land is given us for an inheritance, Ezek. xxxiii. 24. God bids Ezekiel tell them, that becaufe of their

immoralities, they should be expofed to the fword, and he would lay their land defolate, and the pomp of her ftrength fhould ceafe; and the mountains of Ifrael fhall be defolate that none fhall pass through

them.

Where is the partiality? what is there unworthy of God in performing the mercy promifed to their fathers, and in remembering his holy covenant, the oath which he fware to their father Abraham? this is a part of Zacharias's fong, Luke i. 72, 73. And the reafon will bear reafoning upon.

elty is faid

fion,

As to the inftances of cruelty which the Sect. XLI. Jews pleaded a divine commiffion for: Vol. II. Few crup. 29. we may be as well affured, as Mr. to plead a Chubb ever was, that if they were not re- divine concileable with the perfections of God, they commifhad not his authority. He can warrant no inftances of cruelty; for cruelty has the idea of unnatural fiercenefs and fury in it. But, if the inftances of deftruction are capable of being proved to have been juft and equal punishments; it is vile to reprefent them in the fhape of cruelties. Nor can the conduct of the Ifraelites, in thefe refpects, warrant any imitation; because their writings fay, in defence of them, that they had orders from God for fuch executions: which, if true, he faw the reafon of his own orders, and no doubt con vinced them alfo of the reafonablenefs of them. But if he did not give them fuch orders; then they, moft wickedly pretended fuch orders. The judgment we should pafs on fuch pieces of hiftory, ought to be conformable to the eternal rule of right: and if they are not capable of a conformity to our natural notions of things, i. e. fuch which the light of nature or reafon fuggefts; they are not what will require our affent. Yet, I doubt not but critical, laborious enquirers into

the Hebrew language and idiom, will be able to remove many more of thofe difficulties that appear in our tranflation of the Jew writings, in refpect to fome hiftorical events. That is an excellent one, a gentleman favoured me with, of the learned Dunlop's, upon Gen. vi. 6. who fays, that the Hebrew text fhould be read interrogatory; fhall it repent the Lord that he hath made man? hall it grieve him at his heart? The hiftory confirms the reading, as one family was fpared, and the world re-peopled from it. But fuppofing that there are feveral mistakes in the tranflation of thofe moft ancient writings; they are harmonious as to the grand schemes which they open. The great and important parts are fuited to convey an adorable idea of God's government, through the ages of their hiftory; though there may poffibly be fome defect, in fome things of leffer moment to men in after ages: e. g. It was of great importance to the Jews, to be well affured, that they were under God's direction, in their great public tranfactions, and in fuch efpecially, which they pretended to have his direction in. But then, if at this distance, or in any age, men, who read their hiftory, do find fome few difficult places, not reconcileable with the moral character of God, they muft with-hold their belief of them; and conclude, that they have an imperfect reprefentation of the facts. But when this is done, no wife man, who finds that fo ancient an hiftory, has the moft perfect, rational, and useful difcoveries in it, of the firft ages of the world; and which has enabled the beft critics to diftinguifh the truth or fpurioufnefs of other hiftorical narrations by it: no wife man, I fay, would, because he finds fome obfcurities, throw contempt on the whole. None but fools and mad

men

men would conduct in this manner; for upon fuch a rule, no history could ever have had any continued existence.

If a teftimony delivered in writings, hath been tranfmitted only by one feries of copies; it lofeth not half its probability in feventy fucceffions, or in fourteen thousand years: but if it has been handed down by a fucceffion of various copies; the probability must increase through that interval by their confent or agreement. vide Philof. Tranf. N°. 256. upon which Dr. Rotherham of Kendal fays, that for this reason we converse, not only with the utmost confidence, but also with the greatest profit, in the beautiful monuments of antiquity. Thofe ancient writings are read by us, we examine and weigh the facts they relate, as if they were delivering their teftimonies first to us. Who dreams of the velocity or moment of uncertainty, whilft he reads the genuine copies of Thucydides or Polybius, Tacitus or Livy? who disturbs himfelf with tormenting fcruples, when he turns his band, by day or by night, to Greek or Latin copies? who doubts more, that Julius Cæfar was killed in the fenate, or Chrift crucified at Jerufalem, than that Charles the First, King of Great Britain was beheaded. Vide Differtatio Theologica, &c. Sect. xxiii.

It is very trifling in any man, to call in queftion the validity of a written teftimony, because the history was drawn up ages agon, and but by a fingle perfon; whereas in fuch a one, e. g. as the Pentateuch, it adds much to its credibility, to suppose the history drawn up by one, and that no other than the pen of Moses, so far as the end of his miniftration. Hence it is, that the names of places and people mentioned, by anticipation, are easily accounted for, which are found in the earlier parts of his hiftory: and which must have

con