ページの画像
PDF
ePub

bounds of truth upon the fame grounds, and retain the character of an honest upright man alfo ? and confequently, if an honest upright man in the church of Rome may give a falfe teflimony, may become a voucher for a pretended miracle, knowing it to be an impofition, to ferve the cause of God; then why may not an honeft upright Proteftant, yea an honeft upright apoftle, do the fame, when the fame purpose is to be served thereby To fay, were a Proteftant thus to deviate from truth he would act against his principles, and therefore would not be an honeft man; this is begging the question. One Proteftant cannot form a judgment, with any certainty, what are another Proteftant's principles, in this refpect; that is, he cannot certainly know whether fuch Proteftant does, or does not admit, that truth, in fome inftances and cafes, may and ought to be difpenfed with, may be made to give place to falfhood and diffimulation, feeing fuch admiffion is not incompatible with proteftantifm; and if a Proteftant admits this, then fuch Proteftant, in fuch inftance or cafe, may exceed the bounds of truth, and yet retain the character of an honest upright man. And if a Proteftant admits that

truth,

truth, in fome inftances and cafes, may and ought to be difpenfed with; then, furely, the cause of God and religion may well be fuppofed to be fuch inftance or cafe; and confequently, a Proteftant may exceed the bounds of truth, may give a false testimony, when the cause of God and religion can be served thereby; and yet have a just title to the character of an honest upright

man.

And, indeed, St. Paul must have

acted upon this principle, viz. that truth in fome inftances and cafes may and ought to be dispensed with, and made to give place to falfhood and diffimulation; elfe, furely, his honesty and integrity in several inftances mùft ftand impeached. Thus he faith of himself, I Cor. ix. 20, 21. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Chrift) that I might gain them that are without law. Now, if St. Paul might, with a good confcience, act fuch a deceivable part as this, could fo far perfonate a Jew, or occafionally conform to Judaism, as to lead the people

to

to think that he approved it, in order to gain over the Jews to christianity, could circumcife Timothy to answer the fame purpofe, when at the fame time he was the greatest enemy Judaifm ever had, and declared Galatians v. 2. Behold I Paul fay unto you, that if ye be circumcifed Chrift fball profit you nothing; I fay if St. Paul could thus diffemble, and act fuch a dif guifed part as above, to ferve the cause of christianity; then why may he not have given a falfe teftimony to answer the fame purpofe? and why may he not have retained the character of an honeft upright man in the latter, as well as in the former case? feeing the end may as well fanctify the means in one cafe as in the other; and feeing he might have acted according to his confcience in both. Yea, St. Paul carried the matter of difpenfing with truth much farther, by coining a falfhood thereby to fave himself; in which cafe God's cause was not immediately, but remotely interested. Thus As xxiii. 6. But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharifees, he cried out in the council, men and brethren, I am a Pharifee, the fon of a Pharifee, of the hope and refurrection of the dead

dead I am called in question.

The last

article in this speech was forged, as his hope ́in the refurrection was no part of the charge brought against him by the Jews, which the history fheweth. And, indeed, this he afterward acknowledged before Felix, and feems to have condemned himself for it, chap. xxiv. 20, 21. Or elfe, (faid he) let thefe fame here fay, if they have found any evil-doing in me, whilst I ftood before the council, except it be for this one voice that I cried ftanding among them, touching the refurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. But then, tho' St. Paul reprefented to Felix the vending this falfhood to be evil doing, when he was in danger of having it brought as a fresh charge against him by the Jews; yet he, to appearance at leaft, reaffumed it again when he was before the chief captain and king Agrippa, in order for them to know what to write to Rome concerning him, and when he had liberty, and was called upon to ftate his own cafe. Thus chap. xxvi. 5, 6, 7, faith he, after the moft ftrait feet of our religion I lived a Pharifee; and now (in confequence of my fteady adherence to the principles of that

fect)

ect) I ftand and am judged for the hope of the promife of God unto our fathers, unto which promise our twelves tribes inftantly ferving God day and night hope to come; for which hope's fake, king Agrippa, I am accufed of the Jews. Here it's plain, that the bope St. Paul mentions was that of a resurrection from the dead; and this appears, not only from his connecting it with his former profeffion as a Pharifee, but also more fully from the question he fubjoins to it, viz. Why Should it be thought a thing incredible that God fhould raise the dead? St. Paul probably invented this pretended charge against himself, not only to draw over a party of the unbelieving Jews to him; but also thereby to conceal the true ground of all the troubles that he had then brought upon himself; namely, a moft notorious piece of dissimulation that he went through, therewith to deceive and impofe upon the believing Jews, that were at Jerufalem, as in chap. xxi. Now, if the Apostle Paul might deceive, might exceed the bounds of truth to ferve the cause of Chriftianity; then why may not any other Apoftle or any other apoftolick man? If St. Paul might deceive in one way to ferve the caufe of God; then why may he

not

« 前へ次へ »