ing in me, while I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, touching the refurrection of the dead, I am judged, or cenfured by you this day. Now, had Felix enquired into the ufe which they had made of that declaration of Paul's; what would have been the confequence? why only this: it would have appeared, that the Pharifees, without carrying their ideas farther than the doctrine of the refurrection in general, had acquitted Paul, Acts xxiii. 9. So that his mentioning this, under the form of an exception, was a delicacy, that overthrew all the force of their charge, and at once confounded the whole of their laboured schemes to fix blame upon him.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chubb obferves, that as there is nothing in the accufation brought against Paul, of his preaching the doctrine of the refurrection, neither does it appear, that there was, or could be any place for it; feeing the preaching that doctrine, could not be deemed criminal by the Jews; but it feems to have been a forced cafe -yet be food to it, and reprefented it to be the ground of thofe troubles that befel him; probably the better. to conceal the true caufe of his misfortunes, and which poffibly he might be ashamed of. Vol. I. P. 331.

The fallacy of this reprefentation is manifeft: because the great employment of Paul, as an apostle, was to declare and prove the certainty of Chrift's refurrection, which is the principal fact in the Gospel hiftory. Neither can it be made appear that any part of Tertullus's charge was capable of the leaft proof. St. Paul denies every tittle; and from the conduct of his very judges, his innocency was perfectly clear, and his merit illuftrious! Neither does Paul deny, but he owns, Alts xxiv. 15. that many of his accu

fers

fers did themselves alfo allow, that there fhall be a refurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. Notwithstanding this, the reafon of their malicious profecution, was, what refpected a doctrine he taught of the refurrection of the dead, viz. Chrift's own refurrection, and his being, by God's defignation, his inftrument that fhall raife all the dead. Had he not been an apostle, or teacher of this doctrine, he would not have been called a peftilent fellow, or a mover of sedition: but this galled his accufers, viz. his being a ringleader of the feet of the Nazarenes.

What ufe has Mr. Chubb made of his penetration and ability, in the above cafe, let any impartial reader judge. Has he not diffolved, connections and relations at pleasure, merely to exhibit an ill-natured reflection? I fear he has.

However, it seems, that Ats xxi. 20—28. iš called a deception, viz. Paul's purifying himself with four Jew-converts that were under a vow: The hiftorian tells us, that the Elders at Jerufalem, perceiving that myriads of Jews, who had embraced Chriftianity, were yet zealous of the law; thefe had conceived great prejudices againft this apoftle, because he had every where taught among the Gentiles, that they were under no obligation to circumcifion, nor to walk after Jewcuftoms. They therefore advife that he, a Jew by family and nation, fhould, in order to abate the popular prejudices against him, go into the Temple, and conform to fome Mofaic-rituals: He did fo, but by the falfe reports of fome bigots, he has a commotion raised against him, as if he had contradicted his own practice and doctrine with the Gentiles, and had taken fome of them into the Temple along with him. Whereas there was no foundation for the report, more than that of his having been feen before with Trophimus,

K

an Ephefian, in the city; whom they fuppofed he had taken with him into the Temple, though he had not. This inftance, is perfectly confiftent with truth, and with the practice and doctrine of this apostle, who thus to the few, became as a few, obferving fuch rituals as yet belonged to the temple-worship: tho' he knew that the time was coming when the temple worfhip should ceafe for ever. I doubt not, but Paul performed this ritual with a fuitable temper; and the defign of it was evidently fuch, as he faw would juftify him. It was no acknowledgment of the obligation that Gentile chriftians were under, nor that he himself had any obligation to obferve, as a chriftian-apoftle; but only as a brother-Jew, who thereby owned, that that conftitution had been of God: and which few-chriftians might be indulged in their obfervance of, till that polity was deftroyed. It was a conceffion which he made to the prejudices of weaker chriftians; and what he faw, his brethren, the apoftles of the circumcifion, could not avoid a connivance of. The thing was done in compliance with the defire of the elders, and not at all as binding, farther than a mean of allaying the popular prejudices. To the weak, became be as weak, that he might gain the weak.

་

To have acted otherwife would have been ca-` pable of no defence, but muft have expofed him' to juft cenfure: either as a ftiff, furly bigot, or as one that would, by his own authority, pull down all the Jew-ritual, whilft providence did continue the standing of their temple, and the face of their polity. But St. Paul knew better, and behaved like a man of confummate prudence,' and good-nature. An affability, and courteoufnefs, an exemplary modefty adorns his whole hiftory, and shine throughout his writings.

They

They moft wickedly treat St. Paul's character, who pretend to vindicate, upon his example, their diffimulations, their equivocations, double doctrines, and all other juggling tricks, in order to fecure their popularity! He never violated any one truth, contradicted himself, or put a veil upon his doctrine; either from a love of applaufe, or from a fear of lofing the esteem of men.

A fimilar article of conduct, with that above, we have in this apoftle, when he circumcifed Timothy, whofe Mother was a Chriftian Jewels; which he did, because of the Jews that were in thofe quarters, viz. of Derbe and Lyftra, Acts xvi. beg. The Jews were prejudiced against him, because of his Father being a Greek: and Paul knew, that by having him circumcifed, (which his mother, tho' a Jewefs, had neglected) the Jew prejudices thereby would be removed. Neither did this conduct militate with Paul's doctrine, delivered to the Gentiles, of the impropriety of circumcifion to them. For the Christian doctrine laid them under no obligation to obferve the laws of Mofes and moreover, to have done it, would have been quite out of character. From thefe confiderations it is evident, that Chriftianity was not defigned to be a fupplement to Judaism: but on the other hand, the whole of that conftitution would be abolished, with their temple and polity. An event well fuited to cure them of their prejudices. The objection thus appears to be groundless.

His calling Ananias, a whited wall; is faid to be a piece of reviling. Even the learned Le Clerc, thought it a fign of paffion. See his Five Letters on. Infpiration, pag 45. But did the Baptift revile, when he called the Pharifees and Saducees, a ge

neration of vipers? Did our Lord revile, when he called them both ferpents and a generation of vipers? or when he fo often called them hypocrites? or did he revile, when he bid the Pharifees, go, tell that fox, (meaning Herod) that tho' he had threaten'd to put him to death, it was not in his power. Did this indicate paffion? St. Paul intended by whited wall, an hypocrite; and Ananias was a man of an infamous character. He had, before this, been fent prifoner to Rome, for his misbehaviour. And during his office he had fo cruelly defrauded the inferior priests, that fome of them perifhed for want.

And as to Paul's faying, that God would fmite him, this was a prediction of the unhappy death he should die; for five years after this, he had his house reduced to afhes, by a tumult begun by his own fon, and having in vain attempted to hide himself in an aqueduct, he was dragged out and flain. See Dr. Doddridge's notes (b) and (c).

So when Paul fays, I wift not that he was high priest: he muft mean, that he had not acted at all like an high priest, or as one who knew any thing of his office: for he had ordered him to be finitten illegally. So that he had given him no reason to treat him as a perfon of that facred character.

This behaviour of St. Paul's does not appear, to me, inconfiftent either with truth, or the hųmility of a Chriftian apoftle, who was to bear the name, or authority of Jefus, even before Kings. It difcovers his fortitude, inafmuch as he could thus undauntedly reprove Ananias's ilSet. XV. legal proceedings.

Pique and

relent

Comparing As xiii. 47. with Rom. xi. 11. our author fays, with St. Paul's leave, this is a ment in spring of action much too low, and altogether unagain the worthy of the fupreme Deity, whofe kindness to bis creatures always springs from a much better

God