farther burden upon the Gentile converts than a few things which were thought necessary by the Holy Ghost, and them, to avoid the appearance of idolatry, and that the Gentile proselytes might not seem to countenance the temple-worship of the heathens, p. 59. And if this was the necessity intended, it was perfectly agreeable to the sentiments of the apostle Paul. This writer indeed pretends that St. Paul, not submitting to that decree, raised fresh troubles and disturbances in the church. But there is not the least hint of this kind either in the Acts or the Epistles, nor was there ever any accusation brought against him on this account. On the contrary we are expressly told that Paul and Silas, in their progress to visit the churches, as they passed through the cities delivered them the decrees to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem, Acts xvi. 4. And at his last coming to Jerusalem, when he returned from his great progress in preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles, though St. James and the elders that were with him mention the apostolical decree, they do not say one word of St. Paul's having acted against it, but glorified God for what he had done amongst the Gentiles, Acts xxi. 19–25. And whereas he talks of a very material difference between St. Peter and St. Paul about the law of proselytism, there is not the least account of any difference they ever had on this head. For the difference referred to Gal. ii. doth not properly relate to that matter, nor indeed to any difference of sentiment between those two great apostles. On the contrary, St. Paul blames Peter for having acted in a manner not very agreeable to that doctrine in which they were both agreed, and not very consistent with the design of the apostolical decree, which manifestly was to engage Jews and Gentiles to cultivate a brotherly communion with one another.

Thus after all the stir this author makes about the mighty differences between St. Paul and the other apostles, it appears there was a harmony between them in their doctrines: and that therefore there is no need of considering the pretended difficulty of deciding the controversies between them by miracles. The miracles they wrought all concurred to give an illustrious attestation to the same gospel which was uniformly preached by them all. And whereas he tells us that Timothy was the only teacher in that age that heartily joined with St. Paul, and that St. Peter, John Mark, and Barnabas, and all the other apostles and apostolical teachers, thought themselves obliged at last to separate from St. Paul, because they could not agree to absolve the Jewish converts from their obligation to the Mosaical Law, and left him to preach his own gospel his own way: this is asserted without any foundation in the inspired writings to support it. What was the cause of John Mark's leaving Paul, of which we have an account, Acts xiii. 13, we are not told. But there is not the least hint that it was for any such reason as this writer pretends. And if Barnabas was, as he insinuates, as much offended as Mark, and for the same reason, why did he not then leave him too? instead of which we find him after this joining with Paul in preaching the Gospel throughout the lesser Asia, and suffering persecutions on the

account of it as well as he. And he was ready to have gone with him another progress, and would have taken Mark with him too, which Paul would not suffer, because he had left them abruptly in their former progress. And this, and not any difference between them in doctrine, was the cause of the contention that then arose between Paul and Barnabas. But it is plain from St. Paul's own epistles, that this Mark, whom our author supposes to have entirely separated from him upon the difference between them in doctrines, was, after that separation mentioned Acts xiii. 13, signally helpful to him; and especially in the latter part of St. Paul's life, when his opposition to the law must have been much better known than it could have been at the time that Mark first left him, which was in the beginning of his first progress. In some of his last epistles he calls him one of his fellow-labourers, and fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God; and saith that he had been a comfort to him, and was profitable to him for the ministry, Philem. 24. Col. iv. 10, 11. 2 Tim. iv. 11. And the same Mark is also mentioned by St. Peter with great regard, 1 Pet. v. 13, where he calls him his son. Silas or Silvanus was also a person of eminent note among the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, as appears from Acts xv. 22, 32. And he went along with St. Paul in his second progress, who joins him and Timothy with himself in the inscriptions of his two Epistles to the Thessalonians; and assures the Corinthians that the gospel preached by all three was entirely the same, and that they perfectly harmonised in it, 2 Cor. i. 19. This is that Silvanus whom St. Peter calls a faithful brother, and whom he sent to confirm the churches, 1 Pet. v. 12. And this is another proof of the great harmony there was between those two great apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. The same persons were assistant to them both, sometimes to one, sometimes to the other, in preaching the same gospel. To which may be added what commendation I mentioned before the great St. Peter gives of St. Paul, and of his writings a little before his own death, 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. It is evident therefore that when St. Paul sometimes calls the gospel he preached his gospel, it could not be his intention to insinuate that it was a gospel different from what the other apostles preached and taught. For he represents Christians as built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Eph. ii. 20; and speaking of the mystery of calling the Gentiles to be fellow-heirs and of the same body with the Jews, which he represents as made known to him by special immediate revelation, he expressly declares that this mystery was then also revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, Eph. iii. 2, 3, 5.

There needs nothing more to be said concerning the pretended difference between St. Paul and the other apostles.

But I cannot pass it by without some notice that, notwithstanding the veneration he professes for that great apostle, the representation he makes of his conduct at his trial is such as under pretence of vindicating him insinuates several reflections upon his character. He observes, that the apostle does not own that which was the chief

matter of complaint against him, and the ground of all his persecutions by the Jews, namely that in all their synagogues in Greece and Asia Minor he had maintained that the law was abrogated by Christ's death and resurrection, and that in Christ there was no difference between Jew and Gentile, pp. 67, 68. To which it is sufficient to answer, that it was not the apostle's business to accuse himself. He puts his adversaries upon the proof, and it is evident they were not able to prove the charge they brought against him. Nor was it true in fact, as I have shown, that he had preached in all the synagogues that the Jews were absolved from the obligation of the Mosaic Law.

The Asiatic Jews were not capable of making good their accusation against him; and thought therefore to have run him down by general clamours, concerning his raising tumults, and profaning the temple. The defence Paul makes for himself is just and noble, and hath a becoming freedom and boldness in it as well as caution. He denies the charge of sedition and tumult, of profaning the temple, or of having offended against the law, but at the same time never in the least disguised his being a Christian: he freely owns that after the way which they called heresy so worshipped he the God of his fathers, and at the same time declares, what was literally true, that he believed all things which were written in the law and the prophets. He with a noble zeal bore an illustrious testimony to our Lord that he was the Christ, and that he had risen from the dead, and had sent him to preach to the Gentiles; which was the principal thing that provoked the Jews in the first apology he made for himself before then, Acts xxii. 21, 22. And whereas this writer insinuates that till his last defence before Agrippa and Festus, Paul had not owned the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, which was the main point that had raised the malice of the Jews against him, but only asserted the resurrection of the dead, in general; which they believed as well as he, p. 67. This is far from being a true representation for it appears, from the account Festus himself gives Agrippa, that before the apology Paul made in the presence of that prince he had affirmed, not merely the resurrection in general, but the resurrection of Jesus, and that this was the great question between

The Asian Jews mentioned Acts xxi. 27 were not, as this writer pretends, Christian Jews that believed in Jesus, but they were unbelieving Jews who were enraged at him for preaching up Jesus as the Messiah, and for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, which they interpreted as an endeavour to draw the people from Moses. And on the same account they also persecuted the other apostles and Christians, as is plain in the case of Stephen, and the apostles James and Peter. It was the unbelieving Jews that were the authors of all the tumults and persecutions that were raised against St. Paul, and not, as this writer asserts, the Jews that professed to believe in Christ. Nor can any thing be more false than that which he concludes his whole account of this matter with, pp. 80, 81, that it is evident from all the memoirs of this great apostle's life in the history of the Acts, and his own genuine epistles, that all his sufferings and persecutions all along arose from his struggling against the superstition of the Christian Jews, and their pretended religious obligations to the law of Moses, which they thought themselves still as much obliged by as before. Whereas not one of the persecutions there mentioned were raised against him by the Christian Jews that denied that Jesus was the Christ.

him and the Jews. Festus tells Agrippa that the Jews had certain questions against Paul of their own superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive, Acts xxv. 19. And the connexion there was between the resurrection of Jesus and the general resurrection, both in the truth of the thing, and in St. Paul's own scheme, was such, that the apostle might justly represent himself as called in question about the resurrection of the dead, when he was called in question about the resurrection of Jesus, the best proof and pledge of it. And in fact that was the great reason why the Sadducees, the professed enemies of the resurrection, were so zealous against the Christian scheme. Though we do not hear much of their opposition to Christ before, yet no sooner did the apostles begin to preach Christ's resurrection, but they appeared to be the most zealous adversaries of the gospel. For they saw, that if Christ's resurrection from the dead was believed to be true, it would be a sensible proof of the resurrection and a future state. Thus we are told, Acts iv. 1, 2, that the Sadducees came upon the apostles, being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And again, v. 17, that the sect of the Sadducees being filled with indignation laid hands on the apostles, and put them in prison. It was not therefore without reason that the apostle Paul declared, that he was called in question concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead; since this was really one chief thing, though not the only one, that stirred up the malice and spite of his enemies, especially of the Sadducees, several of whom he saw in the council, and who were his chiefest and most implacable adversaries, Acts xxiii. 6, 7, 8.

CHAPTER XV.

The author's pretence that the apocalypse is most properly the Christian revelation, and that it is there that we are principally to look for the doctrines of Christianity, considered. There is nothing in that book to countenance the worship of angels, invocation of saints, or prayers for the dead. Salvation is not there confined to the Jews only. His account of the fifth monarchy which he pretends is foretold in that book, shown to be false and absurd. The attempt he makes against the whole canon of the New Testament, under pretence that it was corrupted and interpolated by the Jews, and that Christ's own disciples reported doctrines and facts according to their own false notions and prejudices, examined and disproved.

NOTHING can be more evident than that our author makes use of the term, Christian Jew, with a design to expose our Saviour and his apostles, and the whole New Testament. And the more effectually to answer that design he is pleased to ascribe several senti

ments to the Christian Jews, and as making up part of what he calls the Jewish Gospel, which he thinks he can prove to be absurd and false, and some of which really are so. And for a proof that these were their doctrines, he refers us, not to the gospels or to the epistles written by the apostles ofour Lord, but to the Apocalypse, which he represents as a system of Jewish Christianity, in hopes, I suppose, to take advantage from the obscure and figurative style of that book. He thinks Sir Isaac Newton has proved it to be a genuine work of St. John, and that it was written in Nero's time, two or three years before the destruction of Jerusalem,' p. 364. And he tells us, that this book is most 'properly the Christian revelation, or the revelation of Jesus Christ, which is the very title of that book: whereas no other book of the New Testament assumes or claims any such character.' p. 369. But it is evident from the express declaration of the book itself, that it was not so properly and immediately designed to be a revelation of doctrines, as to be a revelation of future events. It is called the 'revelation of Jesus Christ to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass,' chap. i. 1. And again it is called this prophecy,' chap. xxii. 19. It is therefore a poor trifling observation, that no other book of the New Testament has the word revelation of Jesus Christ in the title of it. If he could prove that no other book of the New Testament was given by inspiration of God (as the apostle Paul tells us all Scripture is) or was designed to instruct us in the doctrine of Jesus Christ, this would be something to the purpose. And he shows his good will this way, by observing, that the epistles and gospels contain nothing but historical accounts of facts, or practical rules and exhortations,' &c. But nothing can be more manifest to any one that ever read those writings, than that they abound with instructions in point of doctrine. And from these writings we should have a full account of the doctrines of Christianity, though no such book as the Apocalypse had ever been written at all. I am satisfied that it is a truly inspired book, and of considerable use. But the authority of the Christian revelation, and the discovery of its doctrines, doth not at all peculiarly depend upon that book; though all that is there said occasionally concerning any of the Christian doctrines, is agreeable to what is delivered in the other books of the New Testament.

But let us examine the account he pretends to give of the doctrines of that book. First he tells us, that 'the Christian Jews soon fell into gross idolatry, and set up a great number of mediators and intercessors with God instead of one.' And this he pretends to prove from the Apocalypse, pp. 364, 365, and again p. 372. That the 'mediatorial worship of saints and angels, and prayers for the dead, are all plainly founded in this book.' To show that the angels are there represented as mediators between God and us, he observes, that the twenty-four elders, or principal angels which stood before the throne, are represented as having golden censers in their hands full of incense, which is the prayers of the saints.' But what if the four and twenty elders be only the representatives of the Christian church, and the harps and vials full of odours, be only designed to