from it, to make a few Remarks on the Name of SERM. our Apoftle, with the Reason of its being changed, X. by the Alteration of a Letter from Saul, which was the Name by which he went among the Jews, to Paul, which is the Name written in my Text.

It is fuppofed by fome, but without fufficient Grounds, that this Change was made by God's own Appointment, that he might not, says St. Chryfoftom on the firft Chapter to the Romans, be in this respect inferior to any other of the Apoftles, but enjoy the fame Honour, by which the chief of them, St. Peter, had before been diftinguifhed by his Mafter. That St. Paul did enjoy as many great Advantages, in Point of Honour and Authority in the Church of Chrift, as St. Peter, or any other of the Apoftles, is a certain Truth, which those who have had an Interest in raifing St. Peter's Character in Diminution to the reft, have not been able by any Argument to difprove. But that the Changing of his Name could be done with this View, or that any fuch Purpose could be answered by it, it is not, I think, eafy to understand.

For, Firft, had the Name of Peter, which Chrift gave to Simon, been defigned to convey to him any fuch Precedence, as this Opinion fuppofes him to have had, it is highly improbable, that the Authority which did this, would have taken any Method to defeat itself, by raifing another to the fame Level with him.

Secondly, It is not true, that the new Name bestowed on him was defigned to give Peter any fuch Precedence; which is a thing that, to fupport the Church of Rome's Supremacy, has fince, for worldly Reasons, been ascribed to him. How then could the changing our Apoftle's Name be defigned to place him on the fame Level with St. Peter, when even St. Peter had,

by

SERM. by Virtue of that Name, obtained no fuch PreX, eminence himself?

Thirdly, In these Cases there is no true Resemblance. The Person who was distinguished by the Name of Peter, did not lose thereby the first Name he bore; but retained it with a new Name annext to it: and with such a Name, as was fignificant of the Reason for which it was conferred upon him. Thou art Peter, fays his bleffed Master, and on this Rock will I build my Church, alluding to the Word, which imports a Rock in that Language from which the Name was taken. What is there like this in the Cafe now before us? The Name of Saul, which our Apostle had before, was not kept or retained, as that of Simon was, but loft and swallowed up in Paul: nor is the Name of Paul, which was fubftituted in its Room, expreffive of any fingular Advantage or Preeminence, which this Opinion in the other Cafe fuppofes, but a Name in common Ufe, and well known among the Romans, so far from afferting any Dignity to its Owner, that fome, deriving it from a Word fignifying in that Language little, fuppofe the Apostle took it in the Humility of his Soul, to teftify the Senfe he had of his own Meanness and Unworthinefs, agreeable to that Profeffion which he makes elsewhere of himself, that he was in his own Account the very leaft of the Apoftles, not fo much as meet to be called an Apofile, because he had perfecuted the Church of God.

Laftly, For this Opinion there is no Warrant in holy Writ: Yet the thing is in itself of fo remarkable a Nature, that if true, it could not well have been omitted. The very Reason, for which it is supposed to have been done, is a Reafon alfo, why it ought to have been recorded: as it would effectually have deftroyed the very Ground and Foundation of those

falfe

falfe Pretenfions to univerfal Monarchy, by which SERM. the Church of Rome has eftablished its Dominion over X. the Confciences and Souls of Men. Not that we want Arguments to confute that Claim, which has nothing but a Train of Falfhoods for its Support. But had God been pleased to declare in Scripture, that this Apoftle's Name had been fo changed by him, on purpose to fhew, that in no Respect at all St. Peter was fuperior to him, this would have been an Argument fo demonftrative and convincing, as to have cut off the very Claim itself. If no Evidence appears, that fuch a thing was done, there is no arguing that it was done from its Usefulness and Expedience for the Conviction of those by whom the Claim was made: But if it had been done, he who did it with this View, and muft needs foresee that fuch a Claim there would be, could not fail, for the fame Reafon, to have preferved its Memory for the Benefit of fucceeding Ages. St. Paul had Caufe enough, in Vindication of himself against thofe who would have funk his Character, to magnify his Office, by infifting on his Equality with the reft of his Fellow-labourers in the Gospel. He tells the Corinthians, that, as little as he was, in nothing he was behind the very chiefeft Apoftles; yet never does he infift on this Evidence in fupport of it, which, if true, was the best Argument he could have used.

This Opinion therefore having no Foundation, Others, to account for this Matter, have fuppofed, that the Apostle had been accustomed to both Names from his Childhood: That one of them might be given him, at the Time of his Circumcifion, to intimate his Defcent from the fame honourable Tribe with Saul the firft King of Ifrael; and that the other, which was a Name in common Ufe among the Ro

mans,

SERM.mans, might be given him, to fhew that he was en

X.

titled by his Birth to the Privileges of á Roman Citizen. One of these Privileges we find him pleading for himself, in the Twenty fecond Chapter of the Acts, where he asks the Centurion, who was about to fcourge him, whether it was lawful to Scourge a man that was a Roman; a Roman by Birth, as he tells the Tribune afterwards, probably because his Parents, tho' Jews themselves, had, in recompence for fome Services which they had done the State, been admitted to that honourable Title. Others have thought, because the Name of Paul is never mentioned in Scripture, till that memorable Account of his ftriking Elymas the famous Sorcerer with Blindness, thereby converting the Governor of the Place, whofe Name was Sergius Paulus, to Chriflianity, that St. Paul took upon him, in Memory of that Action, the Name of the Roman Governor he had converted. Others understand, that the Name of Saul, being a Jewish Name, and very little heard of among the Gentiles he was fent to preach to, they changed it into Paul, which was better known to them, in like manner as he, who was Jefus among the Jews, was called among the Grecians Jafon. Many other Inftances of like Nature are produced, by which it appears, that Names in one Language have been often thus changed to a Word of like Sound, to render them more agreeable to another; and from hence it is inferred, that this may be the Cafe with respect to the Name now before us.

It is not material among these Opinions, which of them is most likely to be true. But this may be obferved, that whatever be the Cafe, whether the Name of Paul was taken up by himself, or whether it was first given him by others, it is the Name by

X.

which he chofe to be known as an Apoftle, having SERM. generally prefixt it to thofe Epiftles, which were written by him both to Churches and to private Perfons. And for this, I think, three Reasons may be affigned.

One is, because by God's own Appointment he was fet apart to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, among whom there is no doubt, but a Gentile Name must needs be more agreeable than a Jewish. He therefore, who would lofe no Advantage that was offered to recommend and enforce his Doctrine, might naturally be led to make use of that Name, which he found would be most acceptable among them.

If this may be allowed, it will help to folve the difficulty, which lies against the Notion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was the Work of this great Apostle. To this it is objected, that if he had been its Author, he would moft probably have prefixed his Name to it, which was his constant Custom in the reft of his Epiftles; and therefore fince it is not fo prefixed to this, it is not likely to have been written by him. But now if it be supposed, that one Reason, among others, which induced this Apostle to wear a Gentile Name, was to render himself more acceptable to the Gentile World, and to gain his Doctrine a more favourable Reception; this might be a thing fo difobliging to the Jews, that he might purpofely omit it in his Address to them, to prevent the Prejudice that it might have raised against him. That this was his Principle, and his Practice in like Cafes, he himself informs us in this Epiftle to the Corinthians. For tho', fays he, I be free from all men, yet have I made myself a fervant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, VOL. I.

G

as