תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

And certainly, the inconclufiveness of such a method of arguing needs no illuftration.

But to give a fpecimen or two of the amazing abfurdities, which this long and laboured attack on Peter contains." The conduct of Peter, fays "the Author, was fo inconfiftent with divine in

fluence, that fome have wondered why CHRIST "made choice of him to be the foundation of

his Church, and invested him with the keys of "the kingdom of Heaven, as it appears he pro"mifed to do. This was indeed a glorious com"miffion, a very important truft.-Yet Peter, "the unsteady, irrefolute, and fearful Peter, gave up this commiffion, betrayed this important trust; and in a fhort time fhamefully denied "his Mafter, &c. +"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

That is, in reality, Peter by denying his Mafter gave up the commiffion in queftion fome time before JESUS (who faid only I WILL give thee, &c.') had actually conferred it upon him; and betrayed this important truft fome time before he had it to betray. What excufe can poffibly be alleged for fuch extravagance of mifreprefentation as this? And for the particular, which he fays fome have wondered at, it may not be useless just to fubmit it to his thoughts; without prefuming to dive too far into the counfels of the Almighty; that the more unfteady, irrefolute, and fearful the conduct of Peter was, while Jesus was yet on earth; the more manifeftly did his fteadinefs and fortitude prove the certainty of his being infpired, when at length he became employed in preaching the Gospel.

"What could do greater difcredit to the Gofpel Syftem, fays the writer, than the denying its

* Matth. xvi. 19. Matth. xvi. 19.

Γ

+ P. 323.

† See the place,

"Author?

"Author? What could injure the Character of "CHRIST more than the manner in which Peter "denied him $?-Again, if ever the gift of in"fpiration was neceffary, if ever the Divine Spirit "exerted its influence, to correct the errors, and "reftrain the vices of the Apostles;" (with what amiable candour the Author mentions the Apoftles!)"we may imagine it would have been done "in this extraordinary inftance of St. Peter; when "the whole credit of the GOSPEL SYSTEM appeared "to be at stake \\." And again, "How mean an "opinion muft thofe have of CHRIST, and his

[ocr errors]

religion, who heard one of his Apoftles fay of "him,-I know not the man? How could they fuppofe JEsUs to be any thing more than a mere "Man, when one of his Difciples fpoke of him in fo contemptuous a manner +?”

To go one step further, the Author adds "This conduct of Peter muft at that time have a "natural tendency to prevent the fpreading of "CHRIST's religion; and to make it appear to the fers a tumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness*"

[ocr errors]

In the name of common fenfe, what could the Author here mean by-the Gospel System; and the whole credit of the Gospel Syftem's lying at ftake; and the religion of CHRIST'S appearing a tumbling block to the Jews, and to the Greeks foolishness? At the time when Peter denied JESUs, neither Peter, nor any of the Apostles, nor any perfon upon earth, except Jesus himself, had any diftinct or just idea or apprehenfion of the Gospel System; fo that inftead of its credit's lying at ftake on Peter's anfwer, it had, at that time, no credit, nor could well be faid to have any existence in the world.

$. P. 326.

P. 329.

+ P. 331.

Ibid.

And

And as to any effect, which Peter's Denial could have on the Character of Jesus; evident it is, that this fuppofition is equally abfurd; fince, in the firft place, Peter was only fufpected, not certainly known to be his Difciple: and in the next, the perfons before whom Peter denied him, that is, the foldiers and fervants in the High Priest's hall, could draw no other conclufion from this Denial, even if they had difbelieved him, than that he denied his Master for fear of being brought to punishment on his account.

To imagine that the foldiers and fervants in the High Prieft's hall, when JESUS was brought there as a malefactor, fhould go about to form their opinions of the real Character of JESUS; and especially to determine whether he was a mere Man, or not and above all, to determine this from the fingle circumftance, That one whom they fufpected of having been his Difciple was afraid to own it, if he really had been fo, at fo dangerous a time; to fuppofe this, is so very extravagant an imagination, that it muft give a benevolent man pain, to find any one capable of advancing it.

Whatever notion the foldiers and fervants at the High Prieft's had of JESUS, it must have been formed, either on what they had heard and feen of his blameless life and doctrines, and his miraculous and benevolent works; or from those prejudices they might naturally entertain against him, on account of his having been apprehended by the authority of the Sanhedrim, and brought there as a malefactor. And to no one but Them was the question they put to Peter, or his answer, moft probably known; till the Apoftles themselves, after they began to preach the Gofpel, related what had happened to Peter, and the manner in which JESUS had foretold it. And then, unquestionably fo

remark

remarkable an inftance of Jesus's prophetic knowledge could not but greatly contribute to the establishment of his Divine Character, and the spreading of that Gospel, which he came purpofely to preach *.

SECT. XII.

The Author's Attempt to invalidate the Infpiration of St. Paul, founded on the 1ft Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. vii.-Acts xvii. 22, &c.—2 Tim. iii. 16, &c. confidered..

FR

ROM the attempt juft confidered to fet aside. the Divine Authority of Peter, the Author proceeds, as might naturally be expected, to make a fimilar attack upon Paul; and through him upon all the Apoftles concerned in the Books of the New Teftament.

"To make it appear, fays he, that the Apostles દ "were not always under the influence of Divine * Infpiration, even in what they preached, and

what they wrote, let us produce the incontef "table evidence of St. Paul himfelf.-In 1 Cor. "vii. 6. he candidly owns, that he was fometimes

permitted to peak his own fentiments, and "that what he delivered was not always by the "command of God. The verse runs thus:-But

As the Author has been pleased to affert, « That Priefts "to this day claim a fhare in the promise made to Peter, of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and endeavour to prove "an uninterrupted fucceffion of authority and power, "from "this highly favoured Apoftle;" (p. 323.) It feems neceffary to remind him, of what he cannot but know, though he has chofen to appear ignorant of it; That Proteftant Priests claim no authority or power from St. Peter, more than from any other Apostle; and that for the truth of what they teach as the Religion of CHRIST, they appeal to the revealed word of God, and to That alone.

5

"I speak

re

I speak this by permiffion, and not of commandment. "And ver. 10, he fays, And unto the married "I command, yet not I, but the Lord; Let not the "wife depart from her husband-In ver. 12, he fays, -But to the reft fpeak I, not the Lord, &r. And "ver. 25. Now concerning Virgins I have no com"mandment from the Lord; yet I give my judgment as one that bath obtained mercy of the Lord to be "faithful."..

[ocr errors]

Upon thefe paffages the Author immediately obferves; "Whether any other of the Apostles "were permitted to write their own fentiments "in matters relative to their miniftry, and were "not candid enough to own it, I cannot determine: "but this inftance of St. Paul's is alone fufficient

to prove, beyond contradiction, that God did "not effectually reftrain all the writers of the New "Teftament from fometimes blending their own opinions, and doctrines, with thofe of Divine Authority *"

[ocr errors]

66

Of the Author's doubt whether the other Apostles were candid enough to own when they wrote their own fentiments, I fhall only fay, that it is doubting whether God took care, that thofe whom he fent forth with an extraordinary commiffion to teach mankind, (for fo commiffioned, however inconfiftently with other parts of his work, he here fuppofes the Apostles to have been ;) fhould not execute their commiffion in fuch a manner as to defeat the defign of it.

Whether he is fincerely of opinion, that the paffages in question will justify the conclufion he draws from them, is more than I can determine: but fure I am, that he entirely misrepresents the fenfe and meaning of St. Paul, and that the con

*P. 333, 334.

clufion

« הקודםהמשך »