conftitution required the delivering up all the furplus of a man's fortune to the apostles and clergy, for the church's use, or, at least, this was the general practice, and therefore must have been expected; and diffenting from fuch general practice must have been greatly difreputable, elfe how came so strict a fcrutiny to be made in Ananias's cafe? And how came he and his wife to join in a lye, to fave a part for themselves, if the case was otherwife? but this, I think, is a case too plain to be disputed. Whether the apostles, or Mr. Whitfield, had any worldly advantage in view, when they carried on the work of their respective ministries, I am by no means a judge, and therefore will not presume to determine any thing about it; but this I fay, that they may have had fuch views; that their cafes did not exclude fuch views; but rather naturally led to them ; and confequently, it was a very poffible cafe, with refpect to either of them.

BUT to return. As we gain but little affiftance from the biftory of the ministry of the apoftles, towards the difcovering and fettling the grand point in queftion, viz. what is strictly and properly the chriftian revelation? fo, if we call in to our aid the

epiftolary difcourfes of the apostles, I fear the cafe will not be much mended; because thofe epistles furnish out materials for wrangling and endless difputations, so that not any thing with certainty can be concluded from them, when all the parts are taken into the cafe. Befides, the fubject matter of those discourses, for the most part, will not admit of being confidered as parts of Christ's meffage; because a great deal of them is altogether irrelative to that meffage, or else, upon some account or other, plainly appears not to have been contained in it. Thus, a great part of St. Paul's epiftles confift in fhewing the weakness and unprofitableness of the Jewish law, and in perfuading the people not to submit to it; which, furely, cannot be conceived to be any part of that gospel which Chrift preached to the Jews, in his own perfon; because, according to the history, he was so far from discharging men from paying obedience to that law, that, on the contrary, he feems rather to have pressed their obedience to it. Nor can what St. Paul has faid upon this point any part of that gospel which Chrift in charge to his apostles to publish to the world; because, if that had been the cafe,

be

gave

then,

then, furely, the apoftles and firft Chriftians would not have maintained the contrary, as we find they did, for fome time, viz. 'till after the converfion of St. Paul. Were I particularly to examine the fubject matter of these epiftolary difcourfes, I could fhew that a great part of what is contained in them can be no part of Chrift's message; and confequently, that thofe epiftles, in the grofs, cannot with any propriety, be confidered as the Chriftian revelation; but as this would be tedious, so it would also be useless, as the case is exceeding plain without it: Moreover, there are doctrines grounded, or pretended to be grounded upon these epiftolary difcourfes of the apostles, such as that men are rendered acceptable to God, and that finners are recommended to his mercy, either through the perfect obedience, or the meritorious fufferings, or the prevailing interceffion of Chrift, or through one or another, or all of these; which doctrines are, by men of letters, faid to be plainly and fully contained in, and founded upon the express declarations of the apoftles; as in Ephefians iv. 32. forgiving one another, even as God for Chrift's fake hath forgiven you ; and in many other texts of like import.

But

But then, as thofe doctrines are plainly repugnant to our natural notions of things, to the eternal rules of right and wrong, and represent the Deity as acting contrary to the moral rectitude of his nature; fo they cannot poffibly be true; and therefore, surely, may fairly be prefumed to be no parts of the Chriftian revelation, whatsoever book they may be contained in, or whomfoever they may have been taught by. I am fenfible, it is maintained by fome learned men, that the above doctrines were not taught by the apoftles, nor any of like kind; and that their writings have not been justly rendered into our language; and that Ephef. iv. 32. if justice was done to the text, it would be read thus [forgiving one another, even as God declared, by Chrift Jefus, he hath or will forgive you ;] this, I fay, is averred by fome learned men, tho' others aver the contrary; but then, this is what I am not a judge of, nor am I follicitous about it, being fatisfied that I cannot in reafon be obliged to receive thofe difcourfes as a guide to my judgment and behaviour, but under the forementioned limitations; and under those restrictions I can receive them all without running any rifque; that is, without exVOL. II. pofing

I

pofing myself to any dangerous and hurtful errors thereby. The epiftolary discourses I have now under confideration, are faid to have been wrote by feveral of the apostles ; but whether those apoftles were their real authors, or whether those books have been truly tranfmitted down to us, or whether they have been justly rendered into our language; these muft of neceffity be points of uncertainty to me, and to all others, who, in point of learning and reading, are upon a foot with me; and feeing the reputed authors of those books, and all thofe through whofe bands they have paffed, were fallible peccable men, who were liable to err, and to impofe and be impofed upon; at least, they were fuch for any proof that can be given to the contrary, and therefore they are to be confidered as fuch 'till the contrary is proved; this being the state of the case, with refpect to the forementioned books, the question is, how are we illiterate perfons to act, fo as to behave properly, and as we ought, with regard to them? Are we blindly to admit them all in the gross, as guides to our judgments and actions, without taking any farther thought about them? this, furely, cannot be right in any view, because