(who as Apoftle to the Gentiles would naturally be most observant of whatever concerned Them) thought it neceffary to speak to him. Or it is possible, however improbable, that, through a weakness in his character, the apparent influence of his example might be too flattering to his difposition, and prevent him from attending properly to the ill consequences it might in the end have been the occasion of producing. And should the Author upon this be disposed to reply, That it is not to be supposed a person employed by the special 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 spreading 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 wisdom 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 special message to mankind; he is obliged at the same time so 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 Gospel? If he can prove this, let him inform us, how God can, as he most notoriously does, grant eminently superiour 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 progress, of Natural Religion, and Moral Virtue? Can God be less concerned for the progress of Moral Virtue, than for that of any particular Revelation, which he may gracioufly make to mankind, principally for the fake of promoting Natural Religion, and Moral Virtue? If M 4

the

the goodness of God is, as it manifeftly is, consistent with one of these dispensations, much more must it be with the other likewife.

But befides, I must ask yet again, whether all the inconveniencies which could possibly have arisen from Peter's conduct in this instance, had not Paul interposed, were not as effectually prevented by the interposition of Paul, as they could have been by the due observation 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 secret influence from above? Nay, was not the comprehenfive nature of the Gospel Scheme, as opposed to the confined peculiarity of the Jews, rendered even much more confpicuous at that time, by this public interposition of Paul, thus watching over it; than it would have been, if this occasion for Paul's public interfering with Peter had not been permitted to arife? To all which it should be added, in the last place, that permitting this public diffenfion, as far as it may be properly. stiled a dissension, to take place between the Two leading Apostles; to One of whom was committed in a more diftinguished manner, the Converfion of the Jews, and to the Other that of the Gentiles; must have afforded at that time, when the real circumstances of the cafe were notorious, a strong circumstantial proof, that the Apostles were not Deceivers, jointly carrying on a concerted imposture; but fincere and honest Revealers, in their several provinces, of that Gofpel they were both divinely commiffioned to preach.

As to the Author's assertion, "That this inci"dent made a confiderable breach between Bar" nabas

1

" nabas and Paul*;" all that need be said to it is, that the affertion is abfolutely false. Paul and Barnabas, we are expressly informed, continued still together, preaching the Gospel at Antioch+; and were still fo good friends, that Paul proposed to Barnabas, after this had happened, that they should fet out together to visit all the places where they had planted the Gospel ‡.

Nay, we are explicitly informed, that the difsension 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 must we be forced to think of our Author, as a Rational Inquirer, but more especially as a Rational Christian; who in order merely to vilify the Apostles, has boldly afferted as true, what the passage referred to explicitly tells him is utterly false. Happy would it be for him, if, in this instance, either bis Chriftianity, or even his Morality was secure from just fufpicion, or reproach.

SECT. ΧΙ.

The Author's Argument drawn from Peter's DENIAL of JESUS, confidered.

P

ETER and Paul being so eminent among the Apostles, it is no wonder the Author, as a professed disclaimer of all Divine Revelation properly fo called, should use his utmost endeavours to destroy Their Pretensions in particular,

* P. 322.
|| Acts xv. 37-41.

† Acts xv. 35. † Acts xv. 36.

ta

to Divine Inspiration. Accordingly he has tried his utmost, in framing a tedious invective against Peter, for several 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 falsehood of all that the Author has impotently urged upon this point, must appear at once from this single confideration; That neither Peter, nor any of the Apostles, were inspired, or had any occafion to be inspired *, till the very time, when they were actually to enter upon the discharge of their commission to preach the Gofpel;

i

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 Apostles, Judas alone excepted, were chosen out by JESUS for his constant companions, in order to make them competent witnesses of his life and actions; that so when, after his death, they should be inspired with a complete knowledge of that will of God, which he came to reveal to mankind, their teftimony to the Divine Character which he affumed, and to the miracles which he wrought in its support, 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 lessen his authority as an inspired 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 inspired, when the time came for executing his commiffion to preach the Gofpel; because he was not inspired, 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.

Ghost. 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 Ghost; (John xx. 22.) accompanied with the action of Breathing on them, were meant only of the more ordinary assistances of the Holy Spirit; of which, probably, he at that time imparted to them a larger share, than they had before enjoyed.

+ Compare Matth. xxviii, 19, 20, with Luke xxiv. 49; and Acts i. 3, 5.

And