looked beyond the bounds of this life. But it may be faid, that he affected at least: an absolute spiritual power over the churches he formed. I anfwer, he preached Chrift Jefus and not himself. Chrift was the bead, he only the minifter, and for such only he gave himself to them. He called those: who affifted him in preaching the Gospel, his fellow-labourers and fellow-fervants.

So far was he from taking any advantage of a higher education, fuperior learning, and more use of the world, to claim to himself any fupremacy above the other Apoftles, that he made light of all thofe attainments, and declared, that he came not with excellency of fpeech, or of wisdom, but determined to nothing among thofe he converted fave Jefus Chrift, and him crucified. And the reason' he gave for it was, That their faith should not ftand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Now this conduct put him quite on a level with the other Apostles, who knew Jefus Chrift, as well as he, and

1 Cor. ii. 1, 2, 5•~

had

had the power of God going along with their preaching in an equal degree of virtue and grace, But an impoftor, whofe aim had been power, would have acted a contrary part; he would have availed himself of all thofe advantages, he would have extolled them as highly as poflible, he would have fet up himself, by virtue of them, as head of that fect to which he acceded, or at leaft of the profelytes made by himself. This is no more than was done by every philofopher who formed a fchool; much more was it natural in one who propagated a new religion.

We fee that the bishops of Rome have claimed to themselves a primacy, or rather a monarchy over the whole Chriftian church. If St. Paul had been actuated by the fame luft of dominion, it was much easier for him to have fucceeded in fuch an attempt. It was much easier for him to make himfelf head of a few poor mechanicks and fishermen, whofe fuperior he had always been in the eyes of the world, than for the bishops of Rome to reduce thofe of Ravenna

or

or Milan, and other great Metropolitans, to their obedience. Befides the oppofition they met with from fuch potent antagonists, they were obliged to fupport their pretenfions in direct contradiction to thofe very Scriptures which they were forced to ground them upon, and to the indifputable practice of the whole Christian church for many centuries. Thefe were fuch difficulties as required the utmost abilities and skill to furmount. But the firft preachers of the Gospel had easier means to corrupt a faith not yet fully known, and which in many places could only be known by what they feverally published themfelves. It was neceffary indeed while they continued together, and taught the fame people, that they fhould agree, otherwife the credit of their fect would have been overthrown; but when they separated, and formed different churches in diftant countries, the fame neceffity no longer remained.

It was in the power of St. Paul to model most of the churches he formed, fo as to favour his own ambition: for he preached C

the

the Gospel in parts of the world where no other Apostles had been, where Chrift was not named till he brought the knowledge of him, avoiding to build upon another man's foundation *. Now had he been an impoftor, would he have confined himself to just the fame Gospel as was delivered by the other Apoftles, where he had fuch a latitude to preach what he pleased without contradiction? Would he not have twisted and warped the doctrines of Christ to his own ends, to the particular ufe and expediency of his own followers, and to the peculiar support and increase of his own power? That this was not done by St. Paul, or by any other of the Apoftles, in fo many various parts of the world as they travelled into, and in churches abfolutely under their own direction; that the Gofpel preached by them all should be one and the fame +, the

* Rom. xv. 20.

If any one imagines that he fees any difference be tween the doctrines of St. James and St. Paul, concerning juftification by faith or by works, let him read Mr.

Locke's

the doctrines agreeing in every particular, without any one of them attributing more to himself than he did to the others, or

establishing

Locke's excellent Comment upon the Epiftles of the latter; or let him only confider these words in the First Epifle to the Corinthians, c. ix. v. 27. But I keep under my body, and bring it into fubjection, left that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a caft

away.

If St. Paul had believed or taught, that faith without works was fufficient to fave a disciple of Chrift, to what purpose did he keep under his body, fince his Salvation was not to depend upon that, being fubject to the power of his reason, but merely upon the faith he professed? His faith was firm, and fo ftrongly founded upon the most certain conviction, that he had no reason to doubt its continuance; how could he then think it poffible, that while he retained that faving faith, he might nevertheless be a caft-arway? Or if he had fuppofed that his cleatim and calling was of such a nature, as that it irresistibly im-. pelled him to good, and restrained him from evil, how could he exprefs any fear, left the luft of his body fhould prevent his Salvation? Can such an apprehenfion be made to agree with the notions of abfolute predeftination afcribed by fome to St. Paul? He could have no doubt that the Grace of God had been given to him in the most extraordinary manner; yet we fee, that he thought his

C 2

election