ficult to fhew there is any reason to grant he was at prefent criminal. Was it not agreeable to his own avowed conduct on other occafions, even when there was no recommendation and importunity of any to obferve the Mofaic ceremonies, that he might obviate offence, and promote the fuccefs of his miniftry? So he declares, 1 Cor. ix. 21, 22. Unto the Jews I became a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.' And particular examples may be seen of this condefcenfion, for the furtherance of the gofpel, Acts xvi. 3, 4. xviii. 18-21.-Was it not alfo according to his own most excellent rules of brotherly love and charity, that they who were strong, or understood their liberty from the obligation of the Mofaic appointments, fhould forbear the ufe of that liberty when it might offend, and be a stumbling block to weaker brethren, that is, cause them fall into fin, and into disquietude of mind and punishment, and fo create evils to them far fuperior to any inconveniences, which restraint and self-denial would bring upon them who had no fcruple or hesitation about the lawfulness of departing from thefe abrogated rules? Thus he writes, Rom. xiv. 13-15. Let us therefore, judge this rather, that no man put a ftumbling block, or an occafion to fall, in his bro'ther's way. I know and am perfuaded, by the Lord

Jefus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to ' him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with 'thy meat, now walkeft thou not charitably. Destroy 'not him with thy meat, for whom Chrift died.'

347 and verfes 19, 20. Let us therefore follow after "the things which make for peace, and things where• with one may edify another. For meats destroy 'not the work of God.' And he exhorts, 1 Cor. x. 32, 33. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, 6 nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking ⚫ mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be faved.'

Of his remark, under the fame article, upon Paul's exclamation before the council, Of the hope and • refurrection of the dead I am called in queftion.'

MR. VOLTAIRE proceeds, 'Now Paul perceiving that some of the croud were Sadducees, and • others Pharifees, he cried out in the council," Bre"thren, I am a Pharifee, the fon of a Pharifee; it "is for the hope of another life, and the refurrection "of the dead, that I am in danger of being con"demned." Acts xxiii. 6. In all this affair not a word had been faid about the refurrection of the dead; but Paul's drift in mentioning it, was to raise a quarrel between the Pharifees and Sadducees.'

Here Mr. Voltaire plainly supposes that the Pharifees believed a refurrection of the dead. For, if they had not maintained it, how could Paul's faying he was in danger of being condemned for that tenet, have created a quarrel between them and the Sadducees who denied it? Accordingly, he goes on to quote Luke's account of the ftrife which arose upon Paul's declaration, Because the Sadducees fay

Why, however, does he make this obfervation, unless to infinuate, as Orobio the Jew is faid to have maintained, in Limborch's conference with him, that Paul here behaved in a manner unworthy the cha

there is no refurrection, neither angel, nor fpirit, but the Pharifees confefs both.' Acts xxiii. 7, 8. He next obferves, It has been affirmed that Job, who, doubtless, is of great antiquity, was acquainted " with the doctrine of the refurrection;' and in proof of it, the following words are quoted, 'I know that my redeemer liveth,' &c. but he explains them to mean no more than his recovery from his distemper, page 324. Finally, after a fhort paragraph about the date of the fect of the Pharifees, he fubjoins, Many of thefe Pharifees believed

that it was only the Jews who were to rife again; and that as to the ⚫reft of mankind, they were not worth while. Others affirmed that the • refurrection would be only in Palestine, and that bodies buried in other parts would be fecretly conveyed to the neighbourhood of Jerufalem, there to be united to their foul.' Nothing then can be more evident, than that, according to our author in this paffage, the Pharifees held a refurrection of the dead, at least a national one. Nevertheless, in his Philofophy of History, he is pofitive that they rejected this principle, chap. 37. page 176. As for the Pharifees, they a⚫dopted the metempfychofis, and not the refurrection.' And the fame thing indeed hath been afferted by others, that they embraced the opinion of a prefent tranfmigration of fouls into different bodies at death, like the Pythagoreans and Platonists, and not the notion of a refurrection; while it hath been also thought, that traces of that fentiment are to be seen in the accounts, which fome of Jesus's contemporaries are reported to have given of him, 'That he was John the Baptift, or Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the prophets,' Matth. xvi. 14. and in the inquiry which his own difciples made concerning the man that was born blind, John ix. 2. Who did fin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind.' Yea, that veftiges of it appear in the book of Wisdom, which is a more ancient Jewish compofition, the author whereof fays, viii. 20. Being good, I came into a body undefiled.' But though this may have been faid by others, in confistence with themselves, certainly he does not appear confiftent with himself here.

racter of an upright and generous perfon, in order to avoid perfecution? But is there indeed any ground for fuch a charge upon the apostle? I think not. To evince this, it deferves attention, that Paul himself had pleaded in defence of his own conduct, on the preceding day, before the Jews, at the bar of whofe fanhedrim or council he now ftood, Jefus's appearance to him in the road to Damafcus, and rebuke of him for persecuting his disciples, and his direction to him at another time to depart from Jerufalem, because the Jews would not receive his testimony, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, Acts xxii. 1-2 1. Now all this fuppofed the refurrection of Jefus from the dead, after he had been crucified at the follicitation of their rulers; while again it was an article of the gospel which Paul every where taught, that because Jefus was rifen, the dead also would, at a future period, be restored unto life. Further, there is reafon to think he was in part brought into judgment, and fubjected to the prefent prosecution for. publishing the doctrine of a future refurrection. It is true, there were other things which raised the indignation and fury of the Jews against him, viz. his perfuading the world that Jefus, whom they had flain and hanged on a tree, was the Meffiah foretold by their prophets, and his inviting the heathens unto the favour of God, and the bleffedness of heaven, by faith in him, without conformity to their ritual law. Nevertheless, it is probable his zeal in propagating that principle, that the dead would rise, had alfo its fhare here. For how natural was it for the Sadducean party, many of whom were in places of dignity and power, to become, on this account,

his violent and unrelenting enemies, as the tendency of his labour was to overthrow entirely their favourite tenets of no future exiftence and retribution. Accordingly, the fame hiftorian, who records this attack upon Paul, in an earlier period difcovers that the chief perfons at Jerufalem were exasperated against all the apostles, and threw them into prifon, because they were averfe to their spreading the belief of a refurrection of the dead, as exemplified and confirmed by the refurrection of Jefus. The priests, says he, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, (the apostles) being grieved that they taught the people, and preached, through Je'fus, the refurrection from the dead, and they laid ' hands on them, and put them in hold,' &c. Acts iv. 1, 2, 3. And fhortly after, when they were treated with like rage and severity by the high priest, and all them that were with him, he takes particular notice that they were the fect of the Sadducees, Acts v. 17. thereby leading us to conclude, that their notions gave them a greater prejudice against the gospel, and made them to be provoked in an eminent degree, by the industry and fuccefs of its minifters. But this being the cafe, where was Paul to blame for infincerity and deceit? He had not denied he was a Chriftian by faying he was a Pharifee, as indeed his being such, was a fact too notorious and public to be denied with any expectation of credit. He had only declared he agreed in opinion with the perfons denominated Pharifees, which was true, it being a chief dogma of Jewish Pharifees, as it is of Chriftians, that good men will be raised to a life of happiness. And when he subjoined, Of the hope and refurrection