frontery to lay it in equally strong colours on himself. Thus, in the case of Paul, from putting in the foreground where he did, the name of Jesus, there was this great advantage to gain: and, the pretended principal being never present to disavow him, the consequence was that, so long as no accredited and credited agents, of that same principal, were at hand to contradict his pretensions, the mere name of this principal would be no obstacle, to the preaching of doctrines, ever so decidedly at variance with his.

If, on the other hand,—in a company, in which he was preaching doctrines of his own, which were not Jesus's, men should happen to be present, to whom, by reason of their personal acquaintance with Jesus, or with any immediate disciples of Jesus, these same doctrines of Paul's should be perceived and declared not to be Jesus's, here would be an inconvenience : and, on this account,-wherever, without using the name of Jesus, or any other name than his own, he could be sufficiently assured, of obtaining a degree of confidence sufficient for his purpose,-this course, supposing it successful, would, on several accounts, be more advantageous.

Here then, on each occasion, or at any rate on some occasions, would be an option for him to make: namely, either to preach in the name of Jesus, or else to set up for himself:-to set up for himself, and, on the strength of a pretended revelation from the Almighty, without the intervention of Jesus, preach in no other human name than his own.

From a passage, in the first of his two Epistles to his Corinthian disciples, it looks as if an experiment of this kind—an experiment for adding nominal independence to real-had actually been tried: but that the success of it was not such as to be followed by continuance. For this suspicion-for it is but a sus

2 B

picion, any reader who thinks it worth his while, may see the grounds in the subjoined note*.

"Were ye baptized" (says he, speaking to his Corinthians, 2 Cor. ii. 13.) "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"14. I thank God (continues he) that I baptized none of you but "Crispus and Gaius,-15. Lest any man should say that I had "baptized in mine own name.-16. And I baptized also the "household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized "any other." For an experiment of this kind, it should seem from that Epistle, that motives were by no means wanting. For, among these same disciples, in the preaching of his doctrines, he had found himself annoyed by divers names more or less formidable: there was the name, though probably never the person-of Cephas, the real Hebrew name, of which, in the four Gospels, written as they are in Greek, Peter is the translation: there was the name, and not improbably the person-of Apollos, whom, about three years before, (Acts xviii. 18-26) two female disciples of Paul's, Aquila and Priscilla, had at Ephesus enlisted under his banners: there was, according to him, the name of Christ, though assuredly, never the person of Jesus.

"For it hath been declared unto me of you, brethren," (says "that there are contentions among you.he, 1 Cor. i. 11) "12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." Thereupon follows immediately a short flourish of Paulian eloquence: "13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye "baptized in the name of Paul?" and so forth, as above.

66

'Division" (says he) "among you :" in this phrase may be seen the style of modern royalty. Towards a will so intimately connected with the divine as the royal, no such temper of mind, so intolerable as opposition, is ever to be supposed: were it on all occasions equally known-known to all, and alike interpreted by all, no division could have place: but, some put one interpretation upon it, some another: in some eyes, this course is regarded as best adapted to the giving effect to it; in others, that: hence that division, to which, on every occasion, it is the duty of all to put the speediest end. Now then as to Paul. This same assumed fatherly affection, under the name of elder-brotherly-this desire of seeing concord among brethren-what was it in plain truth? Answer, love of power. Would you have proof? Take in hand this same Epistle of his to his Corinthians (or, if at verse the tenth, it will be to this purpose early enough), and read on, till you come

SECTION 3.

PAUL, WAS HE NOT ANTICHRIST?

A CHILD, of Paul's ready and fruitful brain-a bugbear, which the officious hands of the English official

to chapter iv. verses 15, 16. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by "the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same "thing, and that there be no divisions among you but that ye "be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same "judgment.- -11. For it hath been declared unto me," and so forth, as above. Read on, and at length you will come to the essence of all this good advice, 1 Cor. iv. 15. "For, though ye "have ten thousand instructors in Christ," (says he)" yet have ye not many fathers; for, in Christ Jesus, I have begotten you, "through the Gospel.-16. Wherefore, I beseech you, be ye "followers of me."

"

At this time, it should seem that, on the occasion of this his courtship of the Jews of Corinth, not only was the name of Peter an object of his declared rivalry, but the name and person of his own sub-disciple Apollos, an object of his jealousy. "For, while one saith (1 Cor. iii. 4.) I am of Paul; and another, I am of "Apollos; are ye not" (says he) " carnal ?- -5. Who then," (continues he) "is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by "whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man ?"6. I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. "-7. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one; "and every man shall receive his own reward according to his "own labour." Fifteen verses after comes a flourish, in which Apollos is spoken of for the last time. "Whether Paul, or "Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things pre"sent, or things to come, all are yours;--23. And ye are "Christ's, and Christ is God's." At the word Cephas ends (it may have been observed) common sense: what follows being dust for the eyes: dust, composed of the flowers of Saulo-Paulian eloquence.

As to Apollos, if so it was, that, at one time, in the mind of our spiritual monarch, any such sentiment as jealousy, in regard to this sub-minister had place, it seems to have been afterwards, in some way or other, removed: for, in his Epistle to Titus, bearing date about seven years after, namely A° 64, the devotion of the subject seems to have been entire. Speaking to Titus (Tit. iii. 13.) Bring with you" (says Paul) "Zenas the lawyer, and Apollos, "on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting to them."

translators of his Epistles, have in their way christened, so to speak, by the name of Antichrist,-has been already brought to view. (See Chap. XII. §. 4.) If there be any persons, to whose religion,-in addition to a devil, with or without horns and tail,—with or without other spirits, in no less carnal howsoever unrepulsive forms,-an Antichrist is necessary for the completion of the polytheistical official establishment; and if, in place of an ideal, they can put up with a real Antichrist,-an Antichrist of flesh and blood, -they need not go far to look for one. Of Saul, aliàs Paul, the existence is not fabulous. If, in his time, a being there was, in whom, with the exception of some two or three attendants of his own, every person, that bore the name of Christian, beheld and felt an opponent, and that opponent an indefatigable adversary, it was this same Paul: Yes, such he was, if, in this particular, one may venture to give credence, to what has been seen so continually testified,-testified, not by any enemy of his, but by his own dependent, -his own historiographer,-his own panegyrist,-his own steady friend. Here then, for any body that wants an Antichrist, here is an Antichrist, and he an undeniable one.

Antichrist, as every body sees, Antichrist means neither more nor less than that which is opposed to Christ. To Christ himself, the bugbear, christened by the English bishops Antichrist, was not, by its creator, spoken of as opposing itself. To Christ himself, Paul himself could not, at that time, be an opponent: the Jesus, whom he called Christ, was no longer in the flesh. But of all that, in the customary figurative sense of all that, in any intelligible sense, could on this occasion be called Christ-namely, the real Apostles of Jesus, and their disciples and followers,— Paul, if he himself is to be believed, was an opponent, if ever there was one.

Paul preached the resurrection of the dead. Agreed. But did not all Pharisees do so too? And was not Paul a Pharisee? And Jesus-had he not in all Pharisees so many opponents? And the real Christians, had they any where in his life-time, any other opponent so acrid or so persevering as this same Paul?

Paul preached the resurrection of the dead. Agreed. But that resurrection of the dead which he preached, was it not a resurrection, that was to take place in the life-time of himself and other persons then living? And-any such resurrection, did it accordingly take place?