❝ failed to Antioch; and there they conti"nued a long time with the difciples." Chap. xiv. ver. 26.

Now what fays the epiftle?" When "Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood "him to the face, because he was to be

blamed; and the other Jews diffembled "likewife with him; infomuch that Bar"nabas alfo was carried away with their "diffimulation." Chap. ii. ver. 11. 13.

66

6. The stated refidence of the apostles was at Jerufalem." At that time there was a great perfecution against the church which "was at Jerufalem; and they were all fcat❝tered abroad throughout the regions of 66 Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (Acts, chap. viii. ver. 1). "They (the Chrif "tians at Antioch) determined that Paul "and Barnabas should go up to Jerufalem, "unto the apoftles and elders, about this question" (Acts, chap. xv. ver. 2). With thefe accounts agrees the declaration in the epistle : "Neither went I up to Jerufalem

to them which were apoftles before me" (chap. i. ver. 17): for this declaration implies, or rather affumes it to be known, that Jerufalem

Jerufalem was the place where the apostles were to be met with.

7. There were at Jerufalem two apostles, or at the leaft two eminent members of the church, of the name of James. This is directly inferred from the Acts of the Apoftles, which in the fecond verfe of the twelfth chapter relates the death of James, the brother of John; and yet in the fifteenth chapter, and in a fubfequent part of the hiftory, records a speech delivered by James in the affembly of the apoftles and elders. It is alfo ftrongly implied by the form of expreffion used in the epiftle: "Other apof"tles faw I none, fave James, the Lord's "brother;" i. e. to distinguish him from James the brother of John.

To us who have been long converfant in the Christian history, as contained in the Acts of the Apostles, these points are obvious and familiar; nor do we readily apprehend any greater difficulty in making them appear in a letter purporting to have been written by St. Paul, than there is in introducing them into a modern fermon. But, to judge correctly of the argument before us, we must

1

discharge this knowledge from our thoughts. We must propose to ourselves the fituation of an author who fat down to the writing of the epistle without having feen the hiftory; and then the concurrences we have deduced will be deemed of importance. They will at least be taken for separate confirmations of the feveral facts: and not only of these particular facts, but of the general truth of the history.

For what is the rule with refpect to corroborative teftimony which prevails in courts of justice, and which prevails only because experience has proved that it is an useful guide to truth? A principal witness in a caufe delivers his account: his narrative, in certain parts of it, is confirmed by witneffes who are called afterwards. The credit derived from their teftimony belongs not only to the particular circumftances in which the auxiliary witneffes agree with the principal witnefs, but in fome measure to the whole. of his evidence; because it is improbable that acccident or fiction fhould draw a line which touched upon truth in fo many points.

In like manner, if two records be produced manifeftly independent, that is, manifeftly written without any participation of intelligence, an agreement between them, even in few and flight circumstances (especially if, from the different nature and design of the writings, few points only of agreement, and thofe incidental, could be expected to occur) would add a fenfible weight to the authority of both, in every part of their contents.

The fame rule is applicable to history, with at least as much reafon as any other fpecies of evidence.

No. III.

But although the references to various particulars in the epiftle, compared with the direct account of the fame particulars in the hiftory, afford a confiderable proof of the truth not only of these particulars, but of the narrative which contains them; yet they do not fhew, it will be faid, that the epistle was written by St. Paul: for admitting (what seems to have been proved) that the writer, whoever he was, had no recourse to the Acts of the Apostles, yet many of the facts referred

to,

to, fuch as St. Paul's miraculous converfion, his change from a virulent perfecutor to an indefatigable preacher, his labours amongst the Gentiles, and his zeal for the liberties of the Gentile church, were fo notorious as to occur readily to the mind of any Christian, who should choose to perfonate his character, and counterfeit his name: it was only to write what every body knew. Now I think that this fuppofition-viz. that the epiftle was compofed upon general information, and the general publicity of the facts alluded to, and that the author did no more than weave into his work what the common fame of the Christian church had reported to his earsis repelled by the particularity of the recitals and references. This particularity is obfervable in the following inftances; in perufing which, I defire the reader to reflect, whether they exhibit the language of a man who had nothing but general reputation to proceed upon, or of a man actually speaking of himfelf and of his own history, and confequently of things concerning which he poffeffed a clear, intimate, and circumftantial knowledge.