to lose, and must be supposed to have been vastly more sensible to that sort of shame. The only difference was, that they, by quitting their Master after his death, might have preserved themselves; whereas he, by quitting the Jews, and taking up the cross of Christ, certainly brought on his own de

struction.

As, therefore, no rational motive appears for St. Paul's embracing the faith of Christ, without having been really convinced of the truth of it; but, on the contrary, every thing concurred to deter him from acting that part; one might very justly conclude, that when a man of his understanding embraced that faith, he was in reality convinced of the truth of it, and that, by consequence, he was not an impostor, who said what he knew to be false, with an intent to deceive.

But, that no shadow of doubt may remain upon the impossibility of his having been such an impostor; that it may not be said, The minds of men are sometimes so capricious, that they will act without any rational motives, they know not why, and so perhaps might St. Paul;-I shall next endeavour to prove, that if he had been so unaccountably wild and absurd as to undertake an imposture so unprofitable and dangerous, both to himself and those he deceived by it, he could not possibly have carried it on with any success, by the means that we know he employed.

First, then, let me observe, that if his conversion, and the part that he acted in consequence of it, was an imposture, it was such an imposture, as could not be carried on by one man alone. The faith he professed, and which he became an apostle of, was not

his invention. He was not the author or beginner of it, and therefore it was not in his power to draw the doctrines of it out of his own imagination.With Jesus, who was the Author and Head of it, he had never had any communication before his death, nor with his apostles after his death, except as their persecutor.

As he took on himself the office and character of an Apostle, it was absolutely necessary for him to have a precise and perfect knowledge of all the facts contained in the gospel, several of which had only passed between Jesus and his twelve apostles, and others more privately still, so that they could be known but to very few, being not yet made public by any writings otherwise he would have exposed himself to ridicule among those who preached that gospel with more knowledge than he; and as the testimony they bore would have been different in point of fact, and many of their doctrines and interpretations of Scripture repugnant to his, from their entire disagreement with those Jewish opinions in which he was bred up; either they must have been forced to ruin his credit, or he would have ruined theirs. Some general notices he might have gained of these matters from the Christians he persecuted, but not exact nor extensive enough to qualify him for an apostle, whom the least error in these points would have disgraced, and who must have been ruined by it in all his pretensions to that inspiration, from whence the apostolical authority was chiefly

derived.

It was therefore impossible for him to act this part but in confederacy at least with the apostles.

Such a confederacy was still more necessary for him, as the undertaking to preach the gospel did not only require an exact and particular knowledge of all it contained, but an apparent power of working miracles; for to such a power all the apostles appealed in proof of their mission, and of the doctrines they preached. He was therefore to learn of them by what secret arts they so imposed on the senses of men, if this power was a cheat. But how could he gain these men to become his confederates?

Was it by furiously persecuting them and their brethren, as we find that he did, to the very moment of his conversion? Would they venture to trust their capital enemy with all the secrets of their imposture, with those upon which all their hopes and credit depended? Would they put it in his power to take away not only their lives, but the honor of their sect, which they preferred to their lives, by so illplaced a confidence? Would men so secret as not to be drawn by the most severe persecutions, to say one word which could convict them of being impostors, confess themselves such to their persecutor, in hopes of their being his accomplice? This is still more impossible than that he should attempt to engage in their fraud without their consent and assis

tance.

We must suppose, then, that till he came to Damascus, he had no communication with the apostles, acted in no concert with them, and learned nothing from them except the doctrines which they had publicly taught to all the world. When he came there, he told the Jews, to whom he brought letters from the high-priest and the synagogue against the Chris

tians, of his having seen in the way a great light from heaven, and heard Christ Jesus reproaching him with his persecution, and commanding him to go into the city, where it should be told him what he was to do. But to account for his choosing this method of declaring himself a convert to Christ, we must suppose that all those who were with him, when he pretended he had his vision, were his accomplices. Otherwise the story he told could have gained no belief, being contradicted by them whose testimony was necessary to vouch for the truth of it. And yet, how can we suppose that all these men should be willing to join in this imposture? They were probably officers of justice, or soldiers, who had been employed often before in executing the orders of the high-priest and the rulers against the Christians. Or if they were chosen particularly for this expedition, they must have been chosen by them. as men they could trust for their zeal in that cause. What should induce them to the betraying that business they were employed in? Does it even appear that they had any connection with the man. they so lied for, before or after this time, or any reward from him for it? This is therefore a difficulty in the first outset of this imposture, not to be over

come.

But further, he was to be instructed by one at Damascus. That instructor, therefore, must have been his accomplice, though they appear to be absolute strangers to one another, and though he was a man of an excellent character, who had a good report of all the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, and so was very unlikely to have engaged in such an imposture.

Notwithstanding these improbabilities, this man, I say, must have been his confident and accomplice in carrying on this wicked fraud, and the whole matter must have been previously agreed on between them. But here again the same objection occurs: How

could this man venture to act such a dangerous part without the consent of the other disciples, especially of the apostles, or by what means could he obtain their consent? And how absurdly did they contrive their business, to make the conversion of Saul the effect of a miracle, which all those who were with him must certify did never happen? How much easier would it have been to have made him be present at some pretended miracle wrought by the disciples, or by Ananias himself, when none were able to discover the fraud, and have imputed his conversion to that, or to the arguments used by some of his prisoners whom he might have discoursed with, and questioned about their faith, and the grounds of it, in order to colour his intended conversion.

As this was the safest, so it was the most natural method of bringing about such a change; instead of ascribing it to an event which lay so open to detection. "For," to use the words of St. Paul to Agrippa, "this thing was not done in a corner, " but in the eye of the world, and subject immediately to the examination of those who would be most strict in searching into the truth of it, the Jews at Damascus. Had they been able to bring any shadow of proof to convict him of fraud in this affair, his whole scheme of imposture must have been nipt in the bud. were they at Jerusalem, whose commission he bore, less concerned to discover so provoking a cheat. But

Nor