ly, it must have been St. Paul's duty to have ftood his ground, and to have maintained his principles against all the oppofition those Judaifers either had, or did, or could make against them; and not to have given them up, or deserted them, by temporizing as aforefaid. Not, but, I think, St. Paul carried the matter too far; for tho' thofe fudaifers zeal for obedience to, and reliance upon Mofes's law, might not have been wellgrounded; and though that law was a moft grievous burthen, which introduced great inconvenience to those who fubmitted to it ; yet, furely, fuch zeal, fuch obedience, fuch reliance, did not bar men the favour of God, provided they were honeft, worthy, good men, in other refpects. If the Galatians, whether they had been originally Jews or Gentiles, fell from their virtue, and became bad men, then indeed they were fallen from the grace or favour of God; but if they only fell into the error St. Paul refer

say, notwithstanding these things, St. Paul temporized much more, not only at Jerufalem, by going into the temple and performing according to the law; but alfo at Lyftra, Acts xvi. where he ftrained the point exceedingly by circumcifing Timothy, because of or for fear of the Jews that were in thofe quarters; fo fluctuating was that great man, either in his opinion or practice, or both, with respect to the ceremonial law of Mofes.

referred to, viz. a zeal for a fubmiffion to, and a groundless reliance on Mofes's law, and at the fame time continued to be upright, virtuous, good men, which might be the cafe; then, furely, they did not forfeit God's favour by falling into fuch error, notwithstanding St. Paul in the height of his zeal * might think that they did; and there

fore,

* When St. Paul found that the Judaifing Chriftians, who every where opposed him, had carried their point against him among the Galatians, he feems to have been greatly provoked; and to have been led thereby to exprefs himself hastily and injudiciously, in his epiftle to those Galatians. Thus, chap. iii. 1. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whofe eyes Jefus Chrift hath been evidently fet forth, (and) crucified among you. It may be thought, from this loofe and unguarded declaration of St. Paul, that he maintained the doctrine of tranfubftantiation; according to which, as the bread, in the eucharift, by confecration, becomes the very body of Chrift, fo the breaking that bread may, with equal propriety and truth, be conceived to be the real and very crucifixion of Chrift, which crucifixion, according to St. Paul, had been transacted before the eyes of the Galatians. But then, whether St. Paul confidered the breaking the bread, in the eucharift, to be only a memorial, or the very crucifixion of Jefus Chrift; neither of these had any argument in it, wherewith to convince the Galatians of the truth of what St. Paul contended for; and therefore, could not be a just ground to him for charging them with folly in diffenting from it. The truth St. Paul principally contended for was this, that obedience to Mofes's law was a contemptible fervice, and altogether inefficacious for obtaining God's favour; and therefore, the Galatians could not be obliged to pay obedience to it. St. Paul, indeed, in the height

of

fore, in this, St. Paul muft furely have greatly erred: for, were it to be admitted that the Jewish law is as beggarly and contemptible as St. Paul has reprefented it to be, and also admitting that it's first promulger was an impoftor; yet, furely, the following an impoftor, through weakness, whilft a man's honour and honesty, his virtue and goodness are kept fecure, will not bar him the divine favour. The Roman Catholics, through an intemperate zeal, have been led to maintain, that a virtuous good man cannot be faved out of their church; and fome Proteftants, through a like zeal, have been

of his zeal, carried this matter farther, and feems to reprefent obedience to Mofes's law as incompatible with falvation; but then, this is what he does not feem always to abide by. Now, admitting what St. Paul contended for was true, yet the breaking the bread in the eucharift did not fhew or prove it to be fuch to the Galatians; and therefore, they could not be justly chargeable with folly for not affenting on thofe grounds. Suppofe thofe Galatians had been prefent at, and had feen the body of Christ, nailed to the crofs, and pierced with a fpear, without the gates of Jerufalem; that fight could not poffibly have proved to them that obedience to Mofes's law is altogether inefficacious for obtaining God's favour, because no fuch thing can poffibly be collected from it. To fay, that Chrift nailed the Jewish law to his crofs, is of no weight, because that point muft itself be proved from other principles as it is not proved by the fact itself; and therefore, the feeing that fact could be no argument to the Galatians, fuppofing that had been the cafe. H

VOL. II.

led

led, to think that such a man can scarcely be faved in it; as if God's favour was so tacked and confined to party and faction in religion, as that it cannot be obtained abstractedly from these Whereas, I truft, my Readers have not so learned a Deity. Thirdly, St. Paul, in the cafe under confideration, made external religion the veil of his hypocrify; he went into the temple with the fhew and appearance of worshipping God,intending thereby to deceive his neighbours; which, furely, was a prostitution of external religion. For, were it to be admitted, that occafional conformity to the established religion of a country, to anfwer a good end, when no bad confequence is likely to attend it, may not be blameable ; yet, farely, St. Paul's occafional conformity to the established religion of the Jews, in the cafe referred to, muft needs be fo; seeing he not only put on an affectation of piety with a view to deceive others thereby, but alfo his deceit obviously tended to confirm thofe people in an error which they ought not to have been indulged in, because, according to St. Paul, it terminated in their burt, as being incompatible with God's favour; and therefore, it ought rather to have. been exploded and confuted, as we find St.

Paul endeavoured to do at other times. And, in this view of the cafe, St. Paul's diffimulation, in which St. James and the Elders of the church of Jerufalem were parties, I think, cannot be justified. And, by these reflections, I would lead my readers to obferve, how dangerous it is, blindly to follow the judgment or practice of any man, without carefully attending whether, and what it is, it may lead us to. And, from what I have obferved, I think, it appears of how little fervice the history of the miniftry of the apoftles is, towards the clearing up and ascertaining the grand queftion before-mentioned; viz. what is that meffage which Chrift was fent of God to publish to the world? In which history (if the Chriftian hiftorian may be relied upon) the Apostles are represented to have builded, and then to have deftroyed their own works; to have avowed principles, and then to have given them up. And, though the apoftles are reprefented, by the Chriftian hiftorian, to have preached the gofpel, and thereby to have gained many converts to Christianity; yet, they have not particularly fpecified and afcertained what that gofpel is, except it be limited and confined to the doctrine of reH 2 pentance