bounds of truth upon the same grounds, and retain the character of an honest upright man also? and consequently, if an honest upright man in the church of Rome may give a falfe teftimony, may become a voucher for a pretended miracle, knowing it to be an impofition, to serve the cause of God; then why may not an honest upright Protestant, yea an honest upright apostle, do the fame, when the same purpose is to be ferved thereby? To say, were a Proteftant thus to deviate from truth he would act against his principles, and therefore would not be an honest man; this is begging the question. One Proteftant cannot form a judgment, with any certainty, what are another Proteftant's principles, in this respect; that is, he cannot certainly know whether such Proteftant does, or does not admit, that truth, in some instances and cafes, may and ought to be difpenfed with, may be made to give place to falfhood and diffimulation, seeing fuch admiffion is not incompatible with proteftantism; and if a Protestant admits this, then fuch Proteftant, in such instance or cafe, may exceed the bounds of truth, and yet retain the character of an honest upright man. And if a Protestant admits that truth,

truth, in some instances and cafes, may and ought to be dispensed with; then, surely, the cause of God and religion may well be supposed to be fuch instance or cafe; and confequently, a Protestant may exceed the bounds of truth, may give a false testimony, when the cause of God and religion can be served thereby; and yet have a just title to the character of an honest upright man. And, indeed, St. Paul must have acted upon this principle, viz. that truth in some instances and cafes may and ought to be dispensed with, and made to give place to falfhood and dissimulation; else, furely, his honesty and integrity in feveral instances must stand impeached. Thus he faith of himself, 1 Cor. ix. 20, 21. And unto the Jews I became as 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; to them that are without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Chrift) that I might gain them that are without law. Now, if St. Paul might, with a good confcience, act fuch a deceivable part as this,

could so far perfonate a Jew, or occafionally conform to Judaism, as to lead the people

to

to think that he approved it, in order to gain over the Jews to chriftianity, could circumcife Timothy to answer the fame purpose, when at the fame time he was the greatest enemy Judaism ever had, and declared Galatians v. 2. Behold I Paul fay unto you, that if ye be circumcised Chrift fhall profit you nothing; I say if St. Paul could thus dissemble, and act such a dif guised part as above, to serve the cause of chriftianity; then why may he not have given a falfe teftimony to answer the fame purpose? and why may he not have retained the character of an honest upright man in the latter, as well as in the former cafe? seeing the end may as well fanctify the means in one cafe as in the other; and seeing he might have acted according to his confcience in both. Yea, St. Paul carried the matter of difpenfing with truth much farther, by coining a falshood thereby to save himself; in which cafe God's cause was not immediately, but remotely interested. Thus Ats xxiii. 6. But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharifees, be cried out in the council, men and brethren, I am a Pharifee, the fon of a Pharifee, of the hope and refurrection of the dead

dead I am called in question. The last article in this speech was forged, as his hope 'in the refurrection was no part of the charge brought against him by the Jews, which the history sheweth. And, indeed, this he afterward acknowledged before Felix, and seems to have condemned himself for it, chap. xxiv. 20, 21. Or elfe, (faid he) let these fame bere fay, if they have found any evil-doing in me, whilst I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice that I cried ftanding among them, touching the refurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. But then, tho St. Paul represented to Felix the vending this falfhood to be evil doing, when he was in danger of having it brought as a fresh charge against him by the Jews; yet he, to appearance at least, reaffumed it again when he was before the chief captain and king Agrippa, in order for them to know what to write to Rome concerning him, and when he had liberty, and was called upon to state his own cafe. Thus chap. xxvi. 5, 6, 7, faith he, after the most strait fect of our religion I lived a Pharifee; and now (in consequence of my steady adherence to the principles of that fect)

:

ect) I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise of God unto our fathers, unto which promise our twelves tribes instantly ferving God day and night hope to come ; for which hope's fake, king Agrippa, I am accufed of the Jews. Here it's plain, that the bope St. Paul mentions was that of a refurrection from the dead; and this appears, not only from his connecting it with his former profeffion as a Pharifee, but also more fully from the question he subjoins to it, viz. Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead? St. Paul probably invented this pretended charge against、 himself, not only to draw over a party of the unbelieving Jews to him; but also thereby to conceal the true ground of all the troubles that he had then brought upon himself; namely, a most notorious piece of dissimu

lation that he went through, therewith to deceive and impose upon the believing Jews that were at Jerusalem, as in chap. xxi. Now, if the Apostle Paul might deceive, might exceed the bounds of truth to serve the cause of Christianity; then why may not any other Apostle or any other apoftolick man? If St. Paul might deceive in one way to ferve the cause of God; then why may he

not