It was in the power of St. Paul to model most of the churches he formed, fo as to favour his own ambition: For he preached the gospel in parts of the world where no other apostle had been, where Chrift was not named till he brought the knowledge of him, avoiding to build upon another man's foundation. Rom. xv. 20. Now bad he been. an impoftor, would he have confined himfelf to just the fame gospel as was delivered by the other apoftles, where he had fuch a latitude to preach what he pleased without contradiction? Would he not have twifted and warped the doctrines of Christ to his own ends, to the particular ufe and expediency of his own followers, and to the peculiar fupport and encreafe of his own power? That this was not done by St. Paul, or by any other of the apoftles, in fo many various parts of the world as they travelled into, and in churches abfolutely under their own direction; that the gospel preached by them all fhould be one and the fame, the doctrines agreeing in every

*If any one imagines that he fees any difference between the doctrines of St. James and St. Paul concerning juftification by faith or by works, let him read Mr. Locke's excellent comment upon the epiles of

particular, without any one of them attri» buting more to himself than he did to the

the latter; or let him only confider these words in the first epifle to the Corinthians, ch. ix. ver. 27. But I keep under my body, and bring it into fubjection, left that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself fhould be a caftaway,

ed

If St. Paul had believed or taught, that faith without works was fufficient to fave difciple of Chrift, to what purpofe did he keep under his body, fince his falvation was not to depend upon that being fubjected to the power of his reason, but merely upon the faith he profeft? His faith was firm, and fo ftrongly foundupon the most certain conviction, that he had no reason to doubt its continuance; how could he then think it poffible, that while he retained that faving faith, he might nevertheless be a caftaway? Or if he had fuppofed that his election and calling was of fuch a nature, as that it irresistibly impelled him to good, and restrained from evil, how could be exprefs any fear, left the lufts of his body fhould prevent his falvation? Can fuch an apprehenfion be made to agree with the notions of abfolute predeftination afcribed by fome to St. Paul? He could have no doubt that the grace of God had been given to him in the most extraordinary manner; yet we fee, that he thought his election was not fo certain, but that he might fall from it again through the natural prevalence of bodily appetites, if not duly restrained hy his own voluntary care. This fingle paffage is a full anfwer out of the mouth of St. Paul himfelf to all the mistakes that have been made of his meaning in fome cbfcure expreffions concerning grace, election, and juftification.

C.

others, or establishing any thing even in point of order, or difcipline different from the rest, or more advantageous to his own intereft, credit or power, is a moft ftrong and convincing proof of their not being impoftors, but acting entirely by divine infpiration.

If then, it appears, that St. Paul had nothing to gain by taking this part, let us confider, on the other hand, what he gave up, and what he had reafon to fear. He gave up a fortune, which he was then in a fair way of advancing; he gave up that reputation, which he had acquired by the labours and studies of his whole life, and ́ by a behaviour which had been blameless, touching the righteoufnefs which is in the law. Phil. iii. 6. he gave up his friends, his relations, and family, from whom he estranged and banished himself for life: he gave up that religion, which he had profited in above many his equals in his own nation, and thofe traditions of his fathers, which he had been more exceedingly zealous of. Gal. i. 14..... How hard this facrifice was to a man of his warm temper, and, above all men, to a Jew, is worth confideration. That nation is known to have been more tenacious of their religious opinions than other any

upon the

face of the earth. The ftricteft and proudeft fect among them was that of the Pharifees, under whose discipline St. Paul was bred. The departing therefore fo fuddenly from their favourite tenets, renouncing their pride, and from their difciple becoming their adverfary, was a moft difficult effort for one to make fo nurfed up in the esteem of them, and whofe early prejudices were fo ftrongly confirmed by all the power of habit, all the authority of example, and all the allurements of honour and intereft. These were the facrifices he had to make in becoming a chriftian; let us now see what inconveniencies he had to fear. The implacable vengeance of thofe he deferted; that fort of contempt which is hardest to hear, the contempt of those whofe good opinion he had moft eagerly fought, and all those other complicated evils, which he describes in his fecond epiftle to the Corinthians, chap. xi. Evils, the least of which were enough to have frighted any impoftor even from the most hopeful and profitable cheat. But where the advantage propofed bears no proportion to the dangers incurred, or the mischiefs endured, he must be absolutely out of his fenfes, who will either en

gage in an imposture, or, being engaged, persevere.

Upon the whole, then, I think I have proved that the defire of wealth, of fame, or of power, could be no motive to make St. Paul a convert to Chrift; but that, on the contrary, he must have been checked by that defire, as well as by the just apprehenfion of many inevitable and infupportable evils, from taking a part fo contradictory to his past life, to all the principles he had imbibed, and all the habits he had contracted. It only remains to be inquired, whether the gratification of any other paffion under the authority of that religion, or by the means it afforded, could be his induce

ment.

Now that there have been fome impoftors who have pretended to revelations from God, merely to give a loofe to irregular paffions, and fet themfelves free from all restraints of government, law, or morality, both ancient and modern hiftory fhews, But the doctrine preached by St. Paul is abfolutely contrary to all fuch defigns. His writings breathe nothing but the strictest

See particularly Rom. xi. and xiii. and Col. iii.