tament. under the Law. In which it is difficult to determine what most to admire; his modesty or his wit. For if it does honour to his wit to maintain conclusions destitute of their premisses, it as strongly recommends his modesty to contradict the whole tenour of the New TesBut there is neither end nor measure to party-bigotry. Faustus, the Manichean, contended that the Jews and Christians got the doctrine of the one only God from the Gentiles. Is this a wilder fancy than what many modern Divines have asserted, that the Gentiles got the doctrine of future rewards and punishment from the Law of Moses? Or are either of these more extravagant than the folly I am going to expose, namely, That the temporal sanctions of the Law are transferred into the GOSPEL? Now, if you should ask whether the Gospel claimed to be a Theocracy; I suppose at first, they would say no; till they found the advantage you get over them by this answer. And then I make no doubt, they would as readily say yes. For what should hinder them? Does the Gospel disclaim, in stronger terms, its being a TEMPORAL KINGDOM, when Christ.says, his kingdom was not of this world, than it disclaims TEMPORAL SANCTIONS, when it says, Yea, and all that will live godly in Jesus Christ shall suffer persecution *, or thau it disclaims an extraordinary providence where it 'declares that the Jews had the promise of the life that now is, and the Christians of that which is to come t? But not to stretch our conjectures to the lengths these men are disposed to go; let us consider how far they have already gone. They say the temporal sanctions of the Law are transferred into the Gospel: and they prove it by these two notable texts : Tim. iii. 12. + 1 Tim. iv. 8. The first is of St. PAUL, "Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is right. Honour thy "Father and thy Mother (which is the first com"mandment with promise) that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth *." All that I here find transferred, from the Law to the Gospel, are the words of the fifth Commandinent. For the Apostle having said, Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right; he supports his exhortation by a quotation from the Decalogue; just as any modern preacher, but This, would do, without ever dreaming of temporal sanctions in the Gospel; the observation the Apostle makes upon it being in these words-which is the first commandment with promise; as much as to say, "You may see from this circumstance, how very acceptable the performance of this duty is, to God:" The only inference which common sense authorizes us to draw from it being what, in another place, he thus expresses,-Godliness [or the observance of God's commands] is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is [under the LAW] and of that which is to come [under the GOSPEL The other colour for this clandestine transfer of temporal sanctions, is from St. PETER: "Who is he that will harm you, if you be followers of that which is good " So says the Apostle; and so too said his Master; to whose words Peter alludes, Fear not them which kill the body: but rather fear him which is able to destroy body and soul in hell ‡. But as if the Apostle had it in his thoughts to guard against this absurd vision of temporal sanctions, he immediately subjoins -"But, and if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy Our Doctor having so well made out this point, we need not wonder at his confidence, when he assures us, that there is full as good evidence of an extraordinary providence under the Christian Dispensation as under the Jewish. This though the language of Foland; Tindal, Collins, and the whole tribe of Free-thinkers, yet comes so unexpected from a Regius Professor of Divinity, that we should be very careful not to mistake his meaning. If, by full as good, he would insinuate that an extraordinary providence was administered under both Dispensations, I shall be in pain for his intellects: if he would insinuate, that an extraordinary providence was administered in neither, I shall be in pain for his Professorship. But he is in pain for nothing; as the reader anay perceive by his manner of supporting this impertinent paradox. His proofs follow with equal ease and force.-I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Heaven*.-And every one that hath for saken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.—Take therefore no thought saying; What shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or wherewithal shall we be clothed? for your heavenly Father knoweth that you have need of all these things. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you .-And again, If ye ask any thing in my name, I will give it §. "No more, my most wise Friend? Thou hast my wonder; that's enough. My understanding shall * Matt. xviii. 19. + Matt. xix. 29. §*John xiv. 14. come after; said, once on a time, a plain good man to a profound philosopher like this. , Now not to repeat again the illogical brayado of taking and supporting a conclusion divorced from its premisses; such as is the contending for temporal sanctions and an extraordinary providence where there was DO Theocracy, from whence they could be derived; we have here a Professor of Divinity who has his elements of Scripture-interpretation yet to learn. The first rule of which is, 1. "That all, does not signify all simply, but all of one kind; and, of what kind, the context must direct us to determine." When, therefore, the members of Christ's spiritual Kingdom are, promised they shall obtain all they ask, this all must needs be confined to things spiritual. Now when bere we find those, who are bid to leave their temporal posses sions and propagate the Gospel, have the promise of a hundredfold, are we to seek for the performance, in Palestine, or in a better Country* ? Again, Where, under the Law, we read of temporal promises, we read likewise that they were fulfilled. Where, under the GOSPEL, we read that those who, for the sake of Christ, forsake houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or children, or lands, shall receive an hundredfold; What are we there to look for? For the good things of this world, which this sharp-sighted Doctor is so eager and intent to find Now admit there might be no great inconvenience in receiving a hundred houses for one; would not a hundred wives a little embarrass his Professorship? And as to the house and lana--Where did he learn that this was literally fulfilled, even to those who had the best title to them if they were literally promised, I mean the APOSTLES, yet these we always meet on foot; *Heb. xi. 16. strangers strangers upon earth; and without either house or home. He, who, then passed for a learned Apostle, once at Rome, indeed, got a warm house over his head ; yet let us not forget that it was but a hired one, Here, in this Capital of the World, he received, all who came to him. But though a good Divine, as times then went, he never rose to a Regius Professor ship. * The second elementary rule of interpretation is, "That all the promises of extraordinary blessings, made to the first propagators of the Gospel, are not to be understood as extending to their successors of all Ages, or to the Church in general." To apply this likewise to the thing in question, If it should be admitted that great temporal blessings were promised to the first disciples of Christ, it will not follow that their successors had a claim to them, any more than they had to their spiritual gifts and graces, such as the power of working miracles, prophesying, speaking with tongues, &c. Because as divine Wisdom saw these latter to be necessary for the discharge of their peculiar function; so divine Goodness night be graciously pleased to bestow the Other on them,, as the reward of their abundant Faith, and superior Courage in the day of trial, when the Powers of this world were bent on their destruction. But this (blessed be God) is neither the learned Professor's case, nor mine. The worst that has befallen me, in the defence of Religion, is only the railings of the Vile and Impotent: and the worst that is likely to befal him, is only the ridicule of all the rest. Happy had it been for himself, and much happier for his hearers, had our Professor's modesty disposed him rather to seek instruction from those who have gone before, than to impart it to those who are to come after. HOOKER has so admirably exposed 1 |