All the authority he exercised over them was purely of a spiritual nature, tending to their instruction and edification, without any mixture of that civil dominion in which alone an impostor can find his account. Such was the dominion acquired and exercised, through the pretence of divine inspiration, by many ancient legislators, by Minos, Radamanthus, Triptolemus, Lycurgus, Numa, Zaleucus, Zoroaster, Xamolxis, nay, even by Pythagoras, who joined legislation to his philosophy, and, like the others, pretended to miracles and revelations from God, to give a more venerable sanction to the laws he prescribed. Such, in later times, was attained by Odin among the Goths, by Mahomet among the Arabians, by Mango Capac among the Peruvians, by the Sofi family among the Persians, and that of the Zeriffs among the Moors. To such a dominion did also aspire the many false Messiahs among the Jews.-In short, a spiritual authority was only desired as a foundation for temporal power, or as the support of it, by all these pretenders to Divine inspirations, and others, whom history mentions in different ages and countries, to have used the same arts. But St. Paul innovated nothing in government or civil affairs, he meddled not with legislation, he formed no commonwealths, he raised no seditions, he affected no temporal power.

Obedience to their rulers was the doctrine he taught to the churches he planted, and what he taught he practised himself; nor did he use any of those soothing arts by which ambitious and cunning men recommend themselves to the favour of those whom they endeavour to subject to their power.

Whatever was wrong in the disciples under his care he freely reproved, as it became a teacher from God, of which numberless instances are to be found in all his epistles. And he was as careful of them when he had left them, as while he resided among them, which an impostor would hardly have been, whose ends were centred all in himself.

This is the manner in which he writes to the Philippians: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." And a little after he adds the cause why he interested himself so much in their conduct, "that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain. Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all." Are these the words of an impostor, desiring nothing but temporal power? No: they are evidently written by one who looked beyond the bounds of this life. But it may be said, that he affected at least an absolute spiritual power over the churches he formed. I answer, "he preached Christ Jesus, and not himself." Christ was the Head, he only the minister, and for such only he gave himself to them. He called those who assisted him in preaching the Gospel, his fellow-labourers and fellow-servants.

So far was he from taking any advantage of a higher education, superior learning, and more use of

the world, to claim to himself any supremacy above the other apostles, that he made light of all those attainments, and declared, "that he came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, but determined to know nothing among" those he converted, "save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." And the reason

he for it was, 66 gave that their faith should not stand 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 Jesus Christ as well as he, and had the power of God going along with their preaching, in an equal degree of virtue and grace. But an impostor, whose aim had been power, would have acted a contrary part: he would have availed himself of all those advantages, he would have extolled them as highly as possible, he would have set up himself, by virtue of them, as head of that sect to which he acceded, or, at least, of the proselytes made by himself. This is no more than was done by every philosopher who formed a school; much more was it natural in one who propagated a new religion.

We see that the Bishops of Rome have claimed to themselves a primacy, or rather a monarchy, over the whole Christian church. If St. Paul had been actuated by the same lust of dominion, it was much easier for him to have succeeded in such an attempt. It was much easier for him to make himself head of a few poor mechanics and fishermen, whose superior he had always been in the eyes of the world, than for the Bishops of Rome to reduce those of Ravenna or Milan, and other great metropolitans, to their obedience.

Besides the opposition they met with from such potent antagonists, they were obliged to support their pretensions in direct contradiction to those very Scriptures which they were forced to ground them upon, and to the indisputable practice of the whole Christian church for many centuries. These were such difficulties, as required the utmost abilities and skill to surmount. But the first 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 severally published themselves. It was necessary, indeed, while they continued together, and taught the same people, that they should agree, otherwise the credit of their sect would have been overthrown; but when they separated, and formed different churches in distant countries, the same necessity no longer remained.

It was in the power of St. Paul to model most of the churches he formed, so as to favour his own ambition: for he preached the Gospel in parts of the world where no other apostles had been, where Christ was not named till he brought the knowledge of him, avoiding "to build upon another man's foundation." Now, had he been an impostor, would he have confined himself to just the same Gospel as was delivered by the other apostles, where he had such 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 use 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 apostles, in so many various parts of the

world as they travelled into, and in churches absolutely under their own direction; that the Gospel preached by them all should be one and the same, the doctrines agreeing in every particular, without any one of them attributing more to himself than he did to the others, or establishing ány thing, even in point of order or discipline, different from the rest, or more advantageous to his own interest, credit, or power, is a most strong and convincing proof of their not being impostors, but acting entirely by divine inspiration.

If, then, it appears that St. Paul had nothing to gain by taking this part, let us consider, on the other hand, what he gave up, and what he had reason to fear. He gave up a fortune, which he was in a fair way of advancing. He gave up that reputation which he had acquired by the labours and studies of his whole life, and by a behaviour which had been blameless, touching the righteousness which is in the law. He gave up his friends, his relations, and family, from whom he estranged and banished himself for life. He gave up that religion, which he had profited in above many of his equals in his own nation, and those traditions of his fathers, of which he had been more exceedingly zealous. How hard this sacrifice was to a man of his warm temper, and, above all men, to a Jew, is worth consideration. That nation is known to have been more tenacious of their religious opinions than any other upon the face of the earth. The strictest and proudest sect among them was that of the Pharisees, under whose discipline St. Paul was bred. The departing, therefore, so suddenly from their favourite tenets, renouncing their pride, and, from their disciple be