of the feventy; and therefore the fitteft person of of about 100, in Yet, we are told, that the hiftorian, in wri- Sec. XI. A mistake ting the acts of the apoftles, has mistaken one bundred, or thereabouts, in an hundred and twenty, Acts i. The number one hundred, may, the numI think, be justly fufpected to be an interpolation; ber 120. not only, because one hundred and twenty, feems to be a number much too large for the body of the difciples before mentioned, nor can it be supported by any other part of the biftory; but also, because it feems, at least, to be contrary to the account which immediately precedes it, that was given by this very historian, with respect to which, about twenty feems to be a much more probable_computation; and therefore, one hundred, probably, bas been added. Vol. I. page 379. I am apprehenfive that this will appear to be an inftance of the most shameful treatment of an hiftory, and of an hiftorian, that can be, imagined. The Evangelifts, to whom we must refer for the accounts of our Lord's fuccefs in his miniftry, and which are to furnish us with a rule of judging what numbers there might be, either fufficient, or not fufficient to credit this account; they affure us, that fuch were their numbers, that the Sanhedrim were jealous about Jefus, and published edicts, that whofoever did openly confess him to be the Chrift, fhould be put out of the fynagogue. St. John reports, that the Pharifees faid amongI 2 them Sec. XII, themselves, perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him, ch. xii. 19. If their reports may be regarded, there muft have been disciples enough to fupport the credit of this hiftorian; who begins his history after the time of the facts had had place. And it is idle and trifling to say, it cannot be fupported by any other part of this history: for fuppofe the hiftorian had mentioned no number of difciples previous to this account, it would not at all have affected the credit of this account of the number. Neither is there any thing in what he has aforementioned, that can do it the leaft injury. Our Lord's chief business, after his refurrection, was with the twelve apoftles: these therefore are more emphatically mentioned, as affembled together, verfes 4 and the 13th. But at verse 11, the two angels, in the form of men, addrefs the people thus, Ye men of Galilee.-There might be, according to this account, a multitude convened at the place, as well as the twelve apostles; tho' they only are exprefsly mentioned. And Mr. Chubb has fuppofed, from this hiftory, that there might be about twenty. But if he can allow nine more than the number of apostles, why not nine hundred more? And truly St. Paul has affured us, that our Lord was feen of above five hundred brethren at once; and that the greater part were living at the time he wrote the account, tho' fome others were dead, 1 Cor. xv. 6. It is infinitely more probable, that our Lord had five hundred or a thoufand difciples, than that he had but twenty. This account of five hundred, is faid, was carThe num-rying the matter too far, and is like ftraining the condem- String 'till it breaks. ber 500, ned. Vol. I. Vol. I. p. 380. A man difpofed, may fay any thing, that his prejudices fhall fuggeft: but where is the argu ment? ment? Would fo good a writer as St. Paul have unneceffarily expofed himself and his writings to contempt, by giving a number far beyond the truth? and at a time too, when he might with the utmost ease have been detected? This is not credible. Nay, Mr. Chubb fays, that he intends not to lead his readers into a neglect of the writings of the apostles,-much lefs to lay them afide. Yet, has he not, in these things, exposed his own writings, and made his farewel a very unaccountable one? faid to He has been pleased to fay further, that the Sec. XIII. apostles became Jews to Jews, by affimulating Chri- St. Paul ftianity to Judaifm, that thereby they might ren- conduct der Chriftianity agreeable to them. Vol. II. p. 304. on falfe But furely, this could not intend, that they hood. took any methods, or made any conceffions, that were repugnant to moral truth, or to the genius. and spirit of Chriftianity. If they did, I know not how to defend fuch conduct. I am perfuaded, it is not the meaning of St. Paul, when he faid, I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means gain fome, 1 Cor. ix. 22. for he thus explains himself, unto the Jews, I became as a Few, that I might gain the Jews: to them that are under the law, i. e. as I understand, profelytes, that he might gain them. To thofe that are without law, as without law, viz. to Gentiles. But that none might mistake him, he says, fuch was his conduct, that he discovered no immorality-being not without law to God, but under the law to Chrift-that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak, became I as weak, that I might gain the weak. In these several articles the apoftle must be understood as doing nothing immoral. He went not into any conformities, that the purity of the Chriftian doctrine would condemn; yet making all fuch fuch conceffions, and forbearances, that he faw were most likely to win upon the different people with whom he converfed. The apostle abhorred lying, as an unworthy, bafe method of promoting the truth of God, fee Rom. iii. 5, 6, 7. And he fays, ver. 8. that their damnation is juft, who affirm of him, he taught that men might do evil, that good may come. He forbids Chriftians lying one to another, Col. iii. 9. and describes the Speaking lyes in hypocrify, i. e. under a religious cover, as the mark of a feared confcience, 1 Tim. iv. 2. The faulty behaviour of Peter, reversed the conduct of St. Paul, Gal. ii. 14. fince Peter, tho' he lived after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, respecting diftinction of meats; yet, he would compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews. Mr. Chubb muft have feen, had he been careful, that he has only indulged an imagination full of fiction, and deceit, in the falfe playings of it: for no man has written with a more uniform regard to moral truth, and its importance, than St. Paul; nor with a nobler fpirit for liberty, and the general good of mankind. He has never once thought of difpenfing with truth, in any cafe: fo that the falfe miracles pretended to, in the Church of Rome, will admit of no comparifon with those wrought by this apostle. And in what way one may reconcile Mr. Chubb's asking, how it will be proved that the miracles, wrought by Christ and his apoftles, were any other than impofitions? with what he has elfewhere faid of Chrift's fuperior power, and the probability of God's working miracles by him; and that they doubtlefs were for the benefit of mankind; I fay, how to make these things confiftent, I understand not. Another Another obfervation will be proper in this Sec. XIV. place, viz. this writer has faid, That St. Paul's St. Paul's honefty bonefty is gone, A&t. xxiii. 6. that be condemns farther himself for it, ch. xxiv. 20, 21. and yet, that he imreaffumes the thing he bad condemned himself for, peached. ch. xxvi. 5, 6, 7. Vol. II. p. 235, 237. There is not the leaft difficulty, in my opini on, lies before us. For notwithstanding Paul used the method he did, A. xxiii. 6. in order to divert the fury of his adverfaries, and divide them; yet, it was ftrictly true, that the whole of the prejudice which the Jews had against him, was owing to his preaching, that Chrift was rifen from the dead, whom they had vilely murdered. This it was, that pointed their rage against him, fo that he with the ftricteft truth faid, of the bope and refurrection of the dead, I am judged, or cenfured, for fo the word (goua) properly fignifies. This was the bafis of their refentment, and no charge of falfehood, or prevarication can poffibly fix against Paul; because he with fo much addrefs, and with fuch honeft skill, diverts the paffions of his accufers from himself, and occafions the fire of them to be played off against one another. This would have been applauded, as a piece of masterly oratory in any one of the most celebrated of antient Greece or Rome, under like circumftances. And with respect to Acts xxiv. 20, 21. where he defends himself before Felix, any unprejudiced perfon, who has common fenfe, and reads with a small degree of care, will plainly fee, that St. Paul defigns no fuch thing as a cenfure upon his own conduct, but a juftification of it; tho' an ironical treatment of the Jew-prejudices is intended. Nor does it appear, that Felix, or any other, understood it as an exception to Paul's moral character. If they have found any evil do |