are founded in the reafon of things; that is, we are to rebuke an offender, not only because we are commanded, but also because, by his offence, he has rendered himself the proper object of fuch rebuke and we are to forgive the penitent, not only because we are commanded, but also because, by his repentance, he becomes the proper object of mercy, when he is uncapable of repairing the injury done. And as repentance is a proper ground or reafon for us to forgive an offender; fo it is equally the fame to God, to whom no reparation can be made in any cafe. What ends were intended to be ferved by facrifices, I fhall not here enquire into; but this I fay, that as facrifices, (let the thing facrificed be of what kind of value foever,) cannot poffibly make any alteration, with regard to fin, fo as to make it more or lefs blameable; nor yet with regard to the finner, fo as to make him more or less the proper object of the divine mercy and complacency; therefore they cannot poffibly be, to God, the ground or reafon of either. I fay, that facrifices cannot poffibly be, to God, the ground or reafon of either of these, except God is pleased, arbitrărily, to make them to be fuch to himself; and even then, they would be no reafon at all, becaufe then fovereign pleafure would be the reafon, as well as the rule, of action to the Deity. God would have mercy on whom he would have mercy, and he would be pleased with whom he would be pleafed, without any reafon or rule for fo doing. If, indeed, fovereign C pleasure 1 ! 2 pleafure is the reafon and the rule of the divine As to the two facraments, viz. baptism and the Lord's fupper, thefe, as I have fhewn, (in my book, intitled, The true Gospel of Jefus Chrift afferted) were inftituted for the furtherance of the gospel; that is, that they might be fubfervient to render the gofpel of Chrift effectual, in answering the purposes for which it was intended; but then, I think, strictly fpeaking, they are not parts of that gospel. However, if my opponent will have them called by that name, let it be fo. I fhall follow my examiner no farther, but only obferve (to him, and to another (namelefs) * See my Collection of Tracts, + If religion be founded only on fovereign pleasure, or the arbitrary will of God, then, I think the moft abfolute fcepticism must follow upon it; that is, we cannot come to any certainty, in any point, with regard to it. lefs) writer, who has appeared * against me) with regard to the fixth fection of my book, which fection has furnished out materials for complaint, that as to those facts, which, at moft, were only evidences of the divinity of Chrift's miffion, and alfo those facts that were confequent to the execution of that miffion, it is very prepofterous to confider thefe, or the hiftory of them, as parts of that good news, which Chrift was, in a particular and fpecial manner, fent of God to acquaint the world with; and therefore, I think, I have juftly excluded them from being parts of Chrift's gospel. Nevertheless, my opponents are at liberty to call them by what name they pleafe. And, As to what I call the private opinions of the writers of the hiftory of Chrift's life and miniftry, and likewise of those whom Chrift appointed to publish his gofpel to the world, thefe do not appear to be any other, nor any more, than the particular or private fentiments of those writers; and therefore, I call them their pri vate opinions, because I know not what elfe to call them, that would be more proper. The Apoftles, in the course of their miniftry, thought proper to fend feveral letters or epiftles to fome of the perfons and churches, with whom they had concern. And their advices and counfels, their arguments and reafonings, were fuch as the occafions of their writings, *The Authors referred to, are the Rev. Mr. Hallet, and the Author of the Tract, intitled, An Anfwer to Mr. Chubb's Short Differtation on Providence. 1 and the circumstances of things, required. And in this they acted an honeft part, as men who had obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. I Cor. vii. 25. that is, as men whom the Lord had thought worthy of fuch a truft. And accordingly, St. Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, acted the part, not only of a spiritual father, by giving him ghoftly counsel; but alfo, of a bodily physician to him, advising him to drink no longer water, but to use a little wine, for his ftomach's fake, and for his often infirmity, Tim. v. 23. Here, it is plain, St. Paul thought it was proper for Timothy, on account of his health, to change that regimen of diet he had before been under, and that he fhould live more freely than before he had done; and confonant to this appearance of things to the Apoftle, he advifed Timothy as aforefaid. And this I call the private opinion of St. Paul, becaufe I know not what to call it, that would be more proper. The cafe is the fame, in many other parts of the writings or letters of the Apoftles, which are no parts of Chrift's miffion, nor is the falvation of mankind at all interested in them; and therefore, I think, I very justly exclude them from being parts of Chrift's gofpel. And, As there were many perfons (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, amongst others) who took upon them voluntarily to write and publish the history of Chrift's life and ministry, they See the introduction to St. Luke's hiftory, or gofpel. they not having any special call to that work; fo they, like other hiftorians, blended their own fentiments with that hiftory, and gave their judgments on feveral facts, which, as hiftorians, they were not concerned to do. Thus St. Matthew remarks, upon Chrift's healing all that were fick, that this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was fpoken by Efaias the Prophet, faying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our ficknesses, Matt. viii. 17. Here we fee, that St. Matthew brings down that famous prophecy in the liiid of Ifaiah, and reprefents it as a prediction of Chrift's healing bodily difeafes; whereas great multitudes of chriftians have understood this prophecy in a very different, and much higher fenfe. But then, this I call the private opinion of St. Matthew, becaufe, I know not what to call it, that would be more proper. For as it does not appear, that St. Matthew was divinely canftituted a judge of the fenfe of fcripture prophecy, and therefore, we can have no ground to prefume that he was divinely qualified for fuch a work; fo he might, for any thing we know, or can fhew, to the contrary, be liable to err, with respect to it. However, whether St. Matthew did err, or not, with refpect to the point in hand, is of no confequence to us, feeing that point is no part of that good news, which Christ was, in a particular and special manner, fent * See my Enquiry concerning the Bocks of the New Teftament, whether they were written by divine Inspiration, &c. |
