principle, viz. than that of the Gospel being vouchfafed the Gentiles, from a pique and refentment, which God had taken up against the Jews for rejecting it.

With Mr. Chubb's leave, the observation is ftupid. Forafmuch as Paul's commiffion was to make known to the Jews first, wherever he found them, the Gofpel fcheme: this done, upon their rejecting of it, he turned to the Gentiles, as was his duty. But then, upon any of the Jews embracing the Gofpel, he was not hindered from addreffing the Gentiles; forafmuch as they both, by faith, became one body, under one head. And upon this ftating of the cafe, runs the argument of the xith to the Romans. Some Jews did at first embrace the Gospel; others St. Paul was in hopes, would embrace it; tho' a great part of that nation would be cut off for their impenitency and obftinacy. The Gentiles were actually in great numbers, converting to Christianity.In thefe circumftances, this Apoftle fays, have they stumbled, that is, the Jews, that they should fall? that is, the whole of them should fall! God forbid: but rather that thro' their fall, who would be destroyed by the Roman armies, Salvation to the Gentiles: that is, the evidence of the truth of the Gospel would be fo confpicuous in the accomplishment of our Lord's prediction, for to provoke them, that is, the Jews, who fhould escape that destruction, unto jealoufy. Now if the fall of them, that is, the Few nation, be the riches of the world, even the decay and diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? that is, the remaining Jews, in great numbers embracing the Gofpel, and fo adding to, and enlarging the Christian Church. And this apoftle farther fays, he ufeth this fort of addrefs, that if by any

Stat.XVI.

means, he might provoke his conntrymen to emulation, and might fave fome of them. The very quinteffence of good nature, or a divine generofity!

This, I prefume, is an unforced, eafy, natural paraphrafe and removes all fufpicion of pique and refentment. And fince it is fairly capable of being thus understood, a little more care and candour fhould have been expreffed, before sentence had been paffed upon these apoftolic obfervations.

The licence taken with St. Paul's Allegory, St. Paul's Gal. iv. 21-26. Vol. I, pag. Vol. I, pag. 267-275. Allegory. which in a note be chargeth with anfwering the purpose of the crafty and defigning he might have spared much of his raillery upon, only by turning his eye to a reafoner, with whose writings, I doubt not, he had fome acquaintance; I mean Mr. Locke's fhort and eafy paraphrafe.

In this allegory, formed upon Abraham's two fons, Ishmael and Ifaac, which he had by a bondmaid, and by his wife Sarab: the defign is to be attended to, and the fignification of the allegoric terms must be underfood, in order to find out St. Paul's meaning.

Mr. Chubb gives no attention to the fignification, and evident deftinction of the terms, but rallies the allegory with great levity. He will have it, that both Ishmael and Ifaac were alike born after the flesh, or begotten. And yet, St. Paul has made an evident diftinction in his terms, built upon facts; one was the fon of an harlot, and therefore might in that fenfe, in the pure and chafte language of Scripture, be faid to be born after the flesh; not being born within the limits of the divine inftitution of marriage; and the other after the fpirit, as being born, or begotten lawfully, i, e. within the limits of the di-.

ine inftitution. The distinction would also be fupported, from one being begotten in the ordinary courfe of nature; and the other in confequence of a preternatural energy given to the parents and this too pre-fignified by a revelation. The one offspring was emblematical of that vaffalage which is the certain effect of human lufts and appetites indulged. The other was emblematical of that liberty, which is the certain effect of regulating the appetites, and keeping them within the bounds of the divine laws and inftitutions. Moreover,

By an allegory, a known figure in Rhetoric, which is compofed of a ftring of Metaphors, and which meaneth fomething else, than what the terms are brought to denote: or in which figure, we fay one thing, when we defign to be understood another: by this fame figure, St. Paul Lays, these are two covenants. A very common figure, used by the Jews, and by all other civilized nations, both antient and modern ;—and yet this is faid, by Mr. Chubb, to answer the purpose of the trafty and defigning. But, when the apoftle calls the two Covenants, an allegory; he is only ufing the terms to fupport his figure, and not to condemn, or cenfure the one from mount Sinai: on the contrary, he defigns to fhew, that that covenant from mount Sinai, did gender unto bondage, not in it's own nature, and during it's period; but by the bigotry of the Jews, who would yet retain that difpenfation, tho' it had it's utmost completion in the Chriftian, to which it was to give way. He hence, in the prosecution of his allegory, fays, that Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and ranketh with Jerufalem, which is now, and is in bondage with her children: but fhould anon be abandoned, or caft out as Agar was! because Jerufalem which is above, the

Chrif

tion and

Chriftian difpenfation is free, which is the mother of us all! This free difpenfation adopts both Jew and Gentile into the family of God. And he eites very pertinently a prophecy of Isaiah, full to his purpose; rejoyce thou barren that beareft not, break forth and cry, thou that travaileft not: for the defolate, thofe countries that had been as tho' they had had no hufband; bath many more children, than fhe which hath an husband

I will venture to refer my readers to a comparifon of this fenfe of the allegory, with the fportings of Mr. Chubb's imagination upon it and am perfwaded, that St. Paul has acquitted himfelf a master of language in this piece of Rhetotical address; he is in no danger of having his character, as a writer, fullied by it.-It grieves one to think, that men fhould take no more pains to examine into the nobleft, the most divine compofitions in the world! For tho', as St. Peter has obferved, of the things written by his beloved brother Paul, according to the wifdom given him, that there are fome things difficult to be understood; yet, it is only the unlearned and unftable who wreft them, as they alfo do the other. Scriptures, unto their own deftruction, 2 Ep. iii. 15, 16.

Seat. But fome particulars are fet before us, to lay XVII. an emphatical charge of imperfection and blame Imperfec- on the revelation: fuch as Eph. iv. 32. and many other texts of like import. Upon which men phatically have raifed doctrines repugnant to our natural nocharged tions of things, to the eternal rules of right and on the wrong, and reprefent the Deity as alting contrary

blame em

revelation.

*Note, The Defign of the Allegory, was, to confute thể Judaizers boastings in their being the natural defcendants of Abraham; and in haying had the law from Sinai, as a perpetual Covenant.

to the moral rectitude of his nature, fo they cannot poffibly be true; and therefore, furely, may fairly be prefumed to be no parts of the Chriftian revelation.

If Mr. Chubb may be understood to exclude these texts from being a part of the New Tefta ment revelation, as I think he would intimate, his reafoning is not juft. For what if learned men have taught a falfe doctrine from them, this will not prove that the texts themselves do not contain a true one: and there is no room for a question he afterwards puts, viz. how are we illiterate perfons to act, fo as to behave properly, and as we ought with regard to them? for he has himself feen how they are to act; forasmuch as he fays, if justice was done to the text, it would be read thus, forgiving one another, even as God declared, by Jefus Chrift, he bath, or will forgive you; hence, tho' learned men differ, he is a judge which fide of the queftion is most reasonable. And inafmuch as he has produced one fense, that is not repugnant to our natural notions of things, &c. the texts may be confidered as parts of the Chriftian revelation. There is nothing but what is worthy an apoftle of Jefus, nothing but what is confiftent with his doctrine in any of the exhortations given to Chriftians, to love one another, and forgive one another, as God thro' Chrift forgave us. We may be faid to be forgiven of God, thro' Chrift, as we by conforming to the terms of pardon, which he has explained, are qualified for forgiveness: for he has taught, that if men forgive not one another their trefpaffes, neither will their heavenly father forgive their trefpaffes. And when we add, that God will raife the dead by the miniftration of Jefus, we have the laft act of forgiveness fignifed in that event, or God will forgive men thro'

L

Jefus.