blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that tkey fhould not fee with their eyes, nor understand with their beart, and be converted, and I should heal them". Not that John meant by this turn of expreffion, that Efaias's having faid this was the efficient cause of their not believing, or that God himself had hardened their hearts; but only, that it was at that time no wonder they did not in fact believe, fince the Spirit of God had foretold by the prophet Efaias, in the customary prophetical manner and turn of expreffion, that they themselves would harden their hearts, and refufe to believe. Exactly fimilar to which is that paffage, where God faith to Jeremiah -See, I have this day fet thee over the Nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to deftroy, and to throw down, and to build, and to plant: That is; when divefted of the common prophetical turn of expreffion; to declare or foretell, which nations will in fact rife, and which will in fact fall. And that thefe kind of prophetical expreffions were thus understood by the Jews, is ftill further evident from St. Paul: who, when speaking of the blindnefs of the Ifraelites, in his Epistle to the Romans, fays; It happened, as it was written; God hath given them; (that is, permitted them to fall into, through their own fault,) the fpirit of flumber; eyes that they should not fee, and ears, that they should not bear: but when fpeaking, on the very fame subject, to the Jews themselves at Rome, quotes the paffage of Ifaiah, juft as Matthew defcribes JESUS to have done; attributing their shutting of their eyes, &c. not to God, but wholly to themselves, and their own perverse disposition . Agreeably to what we find both in Ezekiel and Jeremiah,

a

John xii. 40. b Jerem. i. 10. Rom. chap. xi. 8.

Act. xxviii. 26-28.

where

where the house of Ifrael is exprefsly declared to be a rebellious, and a foolish house; for this very reason, because they had eyes to fee and saw not, and ears to bear and beard not.

From this comparison of the two Evangelifts with each other, with St. Paul, and with the Prophets, it plainly appears, that Mark intended nothing more than to exprefs concisely the substance of what Matthew has related at large; and which relation very probably Mark had feen; that the prophetical style which Mark has made ufe of was familiar to the Other Apoftles likewise, as well as to the people for whom they wrote; and that the meaning of JESUS's anfwer, as recorded by Mark, as well as Matthew, was not, as the Author contends, that Jesus defignedly guarded against the converfion of the Jews; but only, that the perverseness of their difpofition at that time rendering plainer revelations ufelefs, he taught them in Parables because they neither deferved, nor would make a proper ufe of more explicit declarations. And accordingly Mark himself, after relating two other parables, which JESUS delivered at the fame time with the paffage in queftion; immediately adds, And with many fuch parables fpake be the word unto them, AS THEY WERE ABLE TO HEAR IT: clearly fignifying, that their own unfitness and indifpofition to be inftructed at all, was the real reason why JESUS made ufe of parables of this nature; not a defire in him to keep from them any information to which they would have paid regard.

After all, it was in the nature of the thing itfelf utterly impoffible, that JESUS could make ufe of the parables he did deliver, in order to prevent the converfion of the Jews to the Gofpel;

* Ezek. xii. 2. ii. 5. Jerem, v. 21. T

f Mark iv. 34.

for

for this plain reason, that those particulars which he delivered in these parables could not poffibly have converted them, had he explained them as clearly to the people in general, as he did in private to the Apoftles themfelves. Could any of the Jews have been converted to the faith in CHRIST, if JESUS had explained to the multitude the Parable of the Sower; that very Parable which is the fubject of the paffage in queftion; instead of giving them only the parable itfelf? Or could they have been converted by an explanation of the Parables of The good Seed and the Tares; -The Seed that fprung up filently; -The grain of Mustard Seed; and The Leaven; All which he delivered at the fame time with that of the Sower; or, in a word, by an explanation of any, or all the Parables he ever delivered? If the Jews could have been converted at all, it must have been by the Miracles he worked, not by the Declarations he delivered: His Miracles were the only fatiffactory proof he could give them of his divine. authority; and therefore, the only proof they afked for, though at the fame time they fo perverfely refifted it; and That proof to which he himself conftantly appealed. This was, in fact, the very proof which did convert all the Jews, who were converted; and that fuperabundance of inconteftable miracles which he wrought among them, is such a proof of the defign of GoD, and the difpofition of JESUS, to do far more than was neceffary, for their converfion, as admits of no reply. But as their prejudices were fo inveterate, that even all this abundance of Miracles could not overcome them; he taught them the mysteries of the kingdom of God; that is, he revealed many particulars relating to the complete establishment of the Gofpel Difpenfation, and the fubverfion of the Polity of the Jews; fo covered in parables as

to

to prevent them from giving offence at the time; and yet made fo clearly applicable to the facts themselves, when they thould come to pafs, as to ferve greatly to illuftrate his Divine Knowledge and Character, when the Revelation of CHRIST should have spread itself in the world.

Thus we fee the falfehood of that interpretation, which the Author would give to the Two Paffages he has alleged; as well as of the general Principle itself he has alleged them to fupport; "That it feems from the mysterious parts of the New Teftament, that God purposely with-held evidence from the Jews, left they fhould have been converted by JESUS." And yet I may venture to add, That if, after he had given them abundantly fufficient evidence, he purpofely refolved to give them no more; with this view, that in cafe they rejected what they had before them already, they fhould be punished on that account; this would not fhew, as the Author contends, that God would not have been well pleased with their yielding to it; nor would it be inconfiftent with his Attributes, or unsuitable to the ordinary course of his Providence; in which He often takes away further means of inftruction from those who make an evil ufe of what they are indulged with; and removes them by death from all poffibility of actual repentance.

SECT. XVII.

The Author's Objections founded on fome mistaken Notions of the DIVINE DISPENSATIONS, confidered.

TH

HE Author takes it for granted, as a point that ftands in need of no Proof, that all Mankind are reprefented in Scripture, as PUNISHED for the Sin of their Firft Parents ". And upon this fuppofition he objects, "That the punish

"ment of the whole race of mankind for the crime' "of one man appears contrary to all our ideas "of infinite perfection; - Unnatural, unreafon"able, and oppofite to all the principles of comσε mon juftice, if confidered with regard to God*.

And yet "That this is the foundation upon "which all the myfterious and unintelligible "Doctrines of the New Teftament are erected; "the reft being pure Morality, that is, the Reέσ ligion of Nature." And from hence he would infer, that nothing but the Moral Doctrines of the New Teftament can have been revealed.

Now the very foundation of this objection, which the Author takes for granted, is an utter falfehood; covered only by the ambiguous and improper use of the word, Punished; as applied to the particular cafe in question. Scripture does not represent all mankind, or even any single individual of the human race, as being, in a proper sense of the word (upon which the whole point turns) Punished, for the Sin of Adam. Scripture does indeed inform us, that Adam himself was,

8 See Sect I. fupra. ! P. 278.

P. 277.

* P. 277.

i P. 278.

properly