The Apostles understood Jesus to mean as we have asserted. For it is evident from the Acts, that the Christians at Jerusalem were zealous in attachment to the law of Moses; this is evident from their surprise at Peter's conduct with regard to Cornelius; and in the dispute about imposing circumcision upon the Gentiles; observe there was no dispute about its being obligatory upon Jews. Paul was indeed vehemently accused of teaching a contrary doctrine, as we find in the history of the transactions respecting him in his last journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 21," They (i. e. the Christians) are informed of thee (says James to Paul) that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumscise their children, neither to walk after the custom." Here James gives Paul to understand that he considered the report as a calumny, and accordingly, to convince the Jewish Christians that it was a false report, he advises Paul to be at charges with some Jewish Christians, who were under a vow of Nazaritism, (which is an instance in point to prove that the first Christians kept the law,) and thus publicly manifest that he himself "walked orderly, and kept the law." Paul complies with this advice, and purified himself in the temple, and did what was done in like cases by the strictest Jews. He also circumcised Timothy, who was a convert to Christianity, because he was the son of a Jewish Mother. And he solemnly declared in open court. Acts xxv. 8, "Against the law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, have I offended any thing at all," and again, to the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii., 7, he assures them that "he had done nothing against the people, or the customs of the fathers." But some men will say," did not Paul expressly teach the abrogation of the law, in his Epistles, especially in that to the Galatians?" I answer, he undoubtedly did; and in so doing he contradicted the Old Testament, his master Jesus, the twelve Apostles, and himself too. But how can this be? I answer, it is none of my concern to reconcile the conduct of Paul; or to defend his equivocations. It is pretty clear, that he did not dare to preach this doctrine at Jerusalem. He confined this "hidden wisdom," to the Gentiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew; and to the uncircumcised as one uncircumcised, he was "all things to all men!" and for this conduct he gives you his reason, viz. "that he was determined at any rate to gain some." If this be double dealing, dissimulation, and equivocation, I cannot help it; it is none of my concern, I leave it to the Commentators, and the reconciliators, the disciples of Surenhusius; let them look to it; perhaps they can hunt up some "traditionary rules of interpretation among the Jews," that will help them to explain the matter.