66 66 ❝ion over them in any sense, or over any thing that belonged to them, either their bodies, or minds, or estates, or liberties, or any other thing. The "reason then I take to be partly this; it was their "faith that gave St. Paul any relation to them, it 66 66 66 66 was through him they had believed;"—his meaning then seems to be this; "Be not mistaken; we "do not, because you have been brought to the faith "by us, therefore pretend to a dominion over you, "or require you to transfer your faith from Christ "to us, as their false teachers did, who preached "not Christ, but themselves, and persuaded their "admirers to call themselves by their names. See " 1 Cor. i. 12."-" But the chief reason why the apo"stle made that addition, and did not stop at vur, "that I take to be for the sake of what follows. Having said many severe things in his former Epi"stle, he thought fit in this to change his style, they being now much reformed, and in better "temper; and therefore, being obliged to touch again upon their late disorders, he does it with great lenity, expresses the most affectionate concern for "them, and takes every opportunity to mix com"mendations with reproofs. To this end he adds "the word faith, that he might take occasion from "thence to commend them for their steadfastness in "it; which he does in the end of the verse, T yap "TÍOTEL EOTÝKATE, for by faith ye stand." It must certainly now appear to every unprejudiced reader, that this text, or phrase, is (as Dr. Waterland says) of" obscure meaning." But as to the latter part of our author's report, that "he," Dr. Waterland, " pre 66 66 f Bishop Hare's Scripture Vindicated, p. 61, 62. "tends as if he knew not what to make of it;" he must give me leave to tell him, that Dr. Waterland pretends no such thing; and that it is not the doctor's way to pretend or intimate any thing, that might look like disrespect for a text of scripture. So far is the doctor from "pretending, as if he knew "not what to make of it," that he has really made more of it in one period, than this gentleman has done in a page; and " refers moreover to the learned author, some of whose words I have taken the liberty to transcribe above. The doctor claims nothing in opposition to St. Paul: he imposes nothing, pro libitu; he contends for no arbitrary power of punishing others for private ends and advantage; but only that pious Christians should have "do"minion over their own consciences," and not be forced to join in the communion, and partake in the sins, of heretics. This is no more than exercising their right of private judgment, while joined in society, and acting as a society. Every fraternity claims the like right; and this writer claims as much, or more, to himself. As to church-censures, and the like, they cannot be disclaimed by the apostle in this passage; because it is certain he exercised them himself in excommunicating heretics. Such excommunication, therefore, cannot be that dominion, &c. which St. Paul disclaims; unless we can suppose the apostle, instead of the heretic, to be self-condemned. But of this, see bishop Hare, in the piece above referred to, particularly page 63. Importance, p. 505. THE END. |
