difciples, which Chrift fent forth to preach, &c. but then, this, in point of number, is exprefsly contradicted by St. Matthew, chap. x. and by St. Mark, chap. vi. both of which say, that it was the twelve disciples which Christ fent forth to preach, as aforesaid; and that these three hiftorians refer to the fame thing, is most obvious from the relations themselves. Befides, there is nothing throughout the hiftories of Christ's life, from the beginning of his miniftry to his af cenfion, (the above relation by St. Luke, only excepted) that does, in the leaft, countenance the supposition of two fetts of disciples, a greater and a less, one confifting of feventy men, and the other of twelve. And had that been the cafe, is it not then exceeding ftrange, that the lesser of these bodies of disciples fhould be taken notice of not only by every hiftorian, but alfo in almost every chapter of their refpective hiftories; and that the larger, and thereby much more confiderable of thefe bodies, fhould be taken notice of but once, and that by one hiftorian only? this, furely, is very strange, and more than strange, if such a thing can be; especially, if it be confidered, that, according to St. Luke, the greater body of difciples

disciples were equally commiffioned, and were invested with equal powers as the lefs. Moreover, two of the gofpel-historians are supposed to have been Chrift's conftant attendants, through the whole courfe of his ministry, viz. St. Matthew and St. John; and that they should know nothing of these Seventy men, or, at least, should give no account in their hiftories of this large body of disciples, and that St. Luke, who knew nothing of the matter himself, but took every thing upon truft from others, (upon what authority we know not) that he should be furnished out with more and better materials for Christ's hiftory, than Chrift's difciples themselves, this renders it still more ftrange. This relation, therefore, of St. Luke, that Christ had a large body of seventy difciples, befide the twelve, is past all belief; and as it has nothing to support it, but the bare relation itself, and as it has not Only the greatest probability against it, but is also contradicted by two other historians; fo, furely, it ought to be given up, and not to be admitted even as apocryphal, because it is rather a disadvantage than a benefit to any cause it is brought to support. I am alfo fenfible, that the author of the

history of the acts of the Apostles, when he had given an account of Christ's disciples having met together, to chufe a person to fill up the place of the traitor Judas, he computed their number to be about one hundred and twenty, (as the relation now ftands in the history ;) but then, the number one hundred may, I think, be justly suspected to be an interpolation; not only, because one hundred and twenty, feems to be a number much too large for the body of disciples before mentioned, nor can it be fupported by any other part of the hiftory; but also, because it seems, at leaft, to be contrary to the account which immediately precedes it, that was given by this very hiftorian, with respect to which, about twenty feems to be a much more probable computation; and therefore, one hundred, probably, has been added. However, admitting the number one hundred and twenty, which cannot be admitted without extending the relation greatly beyond the bounds of probability; yet still the queftion will remain, how fhall we make up the account with St. Paul? who, as has been obferved, informed the Corinthians, that Chrift was feen by above frve hundred brethren at one time, which is

more

more than four times that number. This, furely, was carrying the matter much too far, and is like ftraining the ftring till it breaks. This account, therefore, of St. Paul's, may very justly be doubted of. Besides, such a body of people, as five hundred, met together, must have drawn upon them the obfervation of the people, and from thence the cenfure of the civil magiftrate, which was what the difciples themselves, at that time, very carefully avoided, John xx. 19. Then the fame day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were fhut, where the difciples were affembled for fear of the Jews, came Jefus and food in the midft, &c. Here we fee what caution was ufed by the difciples, to prevent their being publickly taken notice of; and therefore, it is altogether unlikely, that fo great a body as five hundred and upwards fhould have affembled together at that time, fuppofing their number to have been fo large; but that is incredible, as I have already obferved. And St. Paul, when his hand was in, might as well have faid above five thousand; one number being as credible, and as likely to have been the cafe, as the other. Upon the whole, I think, it appears, that St. Paul's Supernu

fupernumerary witneffes feem rather to weaken, than ftrengthen the credit of the fact referred to.

I WILL conclude this fubject, with obferving that man is an intelligent free-being, who, from his make and conftitution, is qualified to difcern the good and evil, the propriety and impropriety of his actions; and who has it in his power, and it is left to his option, whether he will rightly use, or flothfully neglect, or wickedly abufe the parts and powers of which his conftitution is compounded, and thereby of promoting or fruftrating the great end of creation, by his being a friend, or an enemy to the common good: and likewife, thereby, of rendering himself the proper object of divine favour or difpleasure. And from hence arifes a probability that there will be a future ftate of existence to men, in which state that favour and displeasure will be properly and amply fhewn forth; the farther confideration of which point will more properly take place in the next Section.

シ

SEC