454 POSTSCRIh3`.. whom God had chosen for this purpose, broke their pitchers, discovered their lamps, and sounded their trumpets, Judg. vii. 16. whereby the host of Milianwere led to believe that there were three hundred troops or companies rather than three hundred men,; was Gideon guilty of such a falsehood in fact, as should turn this stratagem into iniquity ? When our blessedSaviour, Luke xxiv. 28. walking with some Of his disciples toward a village, made as though he would have gone further, didhe exert any action by this simulation, which was inconsistent with truth or righteousness ? And yet I know not bow it can be defended by Mr. Woollaston's principles. When St. Paul became as a Jew among the Jews, and as a gentile among the gentiles, 1 Car. ix. 20, 21. When he took a vow upon him, and purified himself; Acts xxi. 23-26. When he circumcised Timothy ; Acts xvi. 3. Did he falsify truth so as to become criminal? But to come nearer to the present controversy : When the prophet Èlisha pronounceda leprosy upon Gehazi and his seed, for the gross crime of his lying and covetousness ; 2 Kings v. 27. and when this curse was inflicted upon any of his posterity ; did this event say to the world, that these children of- Gehazi were guilty of such covetousness and lying too? Or was it not consistent with divine veracity to inflict sucha curse? When Pli{nehas had executed judgment by slaying two idolaters, and God gave him and his reed the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, Numb. xxv, 11, 13, and his child - dren were successively made priests, was here any criminal falsehood in fact, as though each of these children had performedthat glorious execution against idolatry ? When the seed of Abraham and Jacob met with many succes- sive blessingsfrom God, upon the account of the special acts of their faith and obedience, which were promised to bethus rewarded ; did these numerous blessings on the Israelites declare to the world, that each of these private persons so blessed were actual performers ofthose acts offaithand obedience? Or wasthere any criminal falsehood that belonged to these providences? In short, a number of such instances might be cited, wherein it issufficiently evident, that thedoctrine of imputed sin and imputed righteousness is by no means to becharged with those consequences, which learned men who follow thisscheme would cast upon them. It may bequeried also, whether this learned author doth not,allow, that we are pardoned and made happy on the account of what Christ bath done and suffered, no that thebenefit is transferred to us who have never done the meritoriousactions ? Is this perfectly consistent with the truth of things ? He will say indeed, That all over blessings ,are properly a reward to Christ: But since thereward terminates upon us, may it pot justlyoccasion a doubt whether this be entirely agreeable to the sentiment of truthand false- hood in actions as the test of all morality andjustice ? It must be acknowledged to the honour of this reverend author, who has espoused this notion of Mr. Woollaston's, that be bath argued with just reason and unanswerable force against the deists of the age, and in vindication of the divine rectitude in creation and providence ; and he bath very ingeniously and happily proved in this same treatise, that mere repentance and new obedience are not sufficient ground for sinners to claim pardon and acceptantce with God, the universal Governor of the world : But if any such writers should proceed upon these sentiments of Mr. Woollaston, to demolish the divine doctrines 'of the " translation of guilt, andof vicarious punishment; of our suffering misery and death on the account of the sin of Adam; and Of ,Christ's being a proper sacrifice for the sins of men in his death, and bearing their sins so as to make atonement for them ;" Iask leave, with all therespect I bear to their character, to yield up neither my faith, ncr my reason to heir; assertions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=