(who as Apoftle to the Gentiles would naturally be moft obfervant of whatever concerned Them) thought it neceffary to fpeak to him. Or it is poffible, however improbable, that, through a weakness in his character, the apparent influence of his example might be too flattering to his dif pofition, and prevent him from attending properly to the ill confequences it might in the end have been the occafion of producing. And fhould the Author upon this be difpofed to reply, That it is not to be fuppofed a perfon employed by the fpecial providence of God, could ever be left expofed to the influence of any fuch human weakness, as might lead him to do, what might at all retard the fpreading of a true knowledge of that Gofpel he was employed to preach; (which is the Author's objection;) I must take leave to ask, in return, by what means he is enabled to point out exactly, what the wifdom of God may permit in fuch a cafe, and what it may not? I must ask, upon what principles he can prove, that if God of his pure goodness employs any one to deliver a fpecial meffage to mankind; he is obliged at the fame time fo wholly to over-rule his natural freedom, as to prevent the accidental influence of any human weakness, which may at all remotely affect the spreading of his Gofpel? If he can prove this, let him inform us, how God can, as he most notoriously does, grant eminently fuperiour natural and acquired endowments, to many, who by making an ill use of those peculiar advantages, have greatly contributed to leffen the influence, and retard the progrefs, of Natural Religion, and Moral Virtue ? Can God be lefs concerned for the progress of Moral Virtue, than for that of particular Revelation, which he may graciously make to mankind, principally for the fake of promoting Natural Religion, and Moral Virtue? If M 4 any the the goodness of God is, as it manifeftly is, confiftent with one of thefe difpenfations, much more muft it be with the other likewife. But befides, I must afk yet again, whether all the inconveniencies which could poffibly have arifen from Peter's conduct in this inftance, had not Paul interpofed, were not as effectually prevented by the interpofition of Paul, as they could have been by the due obfervation of Peter himself? And why therefore might not the wisdom of God permit the weakness of Peter; if it was weakness to appear as it did, and be corrected in time by the vigilance and prudence of Paul; as well as prevent Peter's weakness from appearing by a previous fecret influence from above? Nay, was not the comprehenfive nature of the Gospel Scheme, as oppofed to the confined peculiarity of the Jews, rendered even much more confpicuous at that time, by this public interpofition of Paul, thus watching over it; than it would have been, if this occafion for Paul's public interfering with Peter had not been permitted to arife? To all which it fhould be added, in the last place, that permitting this public diffenfion, as far as it may be properly. ftiled a diffenfion, to take place between the Two leading Apoftles; to One of whom was committed in a more diftinguished manner, the Converfion of the Jews, and to the Other that of the Gentiles; muft have afforded at that time, when the real circumftances of the cafe were notorious, a strong circumftantial proof, that the Apostles were not Deceivers, jointly carrying on a concerted imposture; but fincere and honeft Revealers, in their feveral provinces, of that Gospel they were both divinely commiffioned to preach. As to the Author's affertion, "That this inci"dent made a confiderable breach between Bar nabas "nabas and Paul*;" all that need be faid to it is, that the affertion is abfolutely falfe. Paul and Barnabas, we are exprefsly informed, continued ftill together, preaching the Gospel at Antioch †; and were ftill fo good friends, that Paul proposed to Barnabas, after this had happened, that they fhould fet out together to vifit all the places where they had planted the Gospel. Nay, we are explicitly informed, that the dif fenfion which arose between Them, was wholly owing to a quite different cause; to Barnabas's choofing to take Mark with them, when Paul thought him improper to be taken; on account of his having left them in a manner Paul disapproved upon a former occafion ]]. And what now muft we be forced to think of our Author, as a Rational Inquirer, but more efpecially as a Rational Chriftian; who in order merely to vilify the Apostles, has boldly afferted as true, what the paffage referred to explicitly tells him is utterly falfe. Happy would it be for him, if, in this inftance, either his Christianity, or even his Morality was fecure from juft fufpicion, or reproach. SECT. XI. The Author's Argument drawn from Peter's DENIAL of JESUS, confidered. P ETER and Paul being fo eminent among the Apostles, it is no wonder the Author, as a profeffed difclaimer of all Divine Revelation properly fo called, fhould use his utmost endeayours to deftroy Their Pretenfions in particular, + Acts xv. 35. * P. Acts xv. 36. tą to Divine Inspiration. Accordingly he has tried his utmoft, in framing a tedious invective against Peter, for feveral pages together §, on account of his Denial of JESUS on the night before his Crucifixion; from which particular the conclufion he would perfuade us to draw is, That the fame Peter who thus denied JESUS, could not be under the fuperintending influence of the Spirit, when he afterwards preached the Gospel. But the falfehood of all that the Author has impotently urged upon this point, must appear at once from this fingle confideration; That neither Peter, nor any of the Apostles, were infpired, or had any occafion to be infpired*, till the very time, when they were actually to enter upon the discharge of their commiffion to preach the Gofpel; From p. 323, to p. 331. *It is true indeed that the Apoftles were fent out long be fore Jesus's death: but all they were then fent to preach was, That the kingdom of heaven was at hand; (Matth. x. 7.) and that men fhould repent; (Mark vi. 12.) and fo likewife the Seventy were sent out with exactly the fame Commiffion; (Luke x. 9, 11.) in order to excite the attention of the people, and prepare the way for CHRIST's perfonal teaching. (Luke x. 1.) For this reafon they were all empowered to work Miracles, in confirmation of the fingle truth they were to preach, That the kingdom of heaven was at hand; but as they were not fent at that time to explain to the Jews, what the nature of that Kingdom was, fo neither were They Themselves then inspired with any just conceptions of it; nor till they were intended to preach it to the Jews after JESUS's Afcenfion. And though while they were out executing this Commiffion, they were endued with Miraculous Powers to answer the intent of it; we muft believe them to have returned, when it was ended, to the state in which they were, before they were fent out upon it; fince we do not find that they performed any Miracles after they were come back to JESUS; Nay, on the contrary, we find JESUS telling them, fo late as even just before he left them, that they fhould receive powers, meaning Miraculous Powers, after the Holy Ghoft was come upon them; (Acts i. 8.) from which it is manifeft, that even at the time of his faying this, they were neither poffeffed of any fuch powers, nor infpired by the Holy Ghost. pel; which was not till ten days after Jesus's afcenfion. It is evident, both from the nature of the thing itself, and every page of the Gospels, that the Apoftles, Judas alone excepted, were chofen out by JESUS for his conftant companions, in order to make them competent witneffes of his life and actions; that fo when, after his death, they should be infpired with a complete knowledge of that will of God, which he came to reveal to mankind, their teftimony to the Divine Character which he af fumed, and to the miracles which he wrought in its fupport, might be a proper and ample foundation for the faith of mankind. To allege Peter's DENIAL of JESUS therefore, while JESUS was yet alive; in order to leffen his authority as an infpired Apostle of CHRIST, after JESUS'S Afcenfion, and when the time was at length come, at which his Gospel was actually to be preached; is in other words to argue, That Peter could not be infpired, when the time came for executing his commiffion to preach the Gofpel; because he was not infpired, before the period arrived, at which it was intended he should preach the Gofpel: that is, That God must have inspired him, before he fent him upon any employment which required inspiration; if he really did inspire him, when at length he employed him upon a business that did require it. Ghoft. And from hence; as well as from the question they asked at his Afcenfion, (Acts`i. 6.) it should feem, that his words, Receive ye the Holy Ghoft; (John xx. 22.) accompanied with the action of Breathing on them, were meant only of the more ordinary affiftances of the Holy Spirit; of which, probably, he at that time imparted to them a larger fhare, than they had before enjoyed. + Compare Matth. xxviii. 19, 20, with Luke xxiv. 49; and Acts i. 3, 5. And |