cause they pretend to no fuch gifts. If indeed they were only told by him that they were infpired by the Spirit of God in a certain ineffable manner, which they alone could understand, but which did not difcover itself by any outward, diftinct operations, or figns, they might mistake the impulfe of enthusiasm for the inspiration of the Holy Ghoft; but they could not believe, against the conviction of their own minds, that they spoke tongues they did not speak, or healed diftempers they did not heal, or worked other miracles, when they worked none. If it be faid, the Corinthians might pretend to these powers, though the Quakers do not; I ask, whether in that pretenfion they were impoftors, or only enthusiasts? If they were impoftors, and St. Paul was alfo fuch, how ridiculous was it for him to advise them, in an Epiftle writ only to them, and for their own ufe, not to value themfelves too highly upon those gifts; to pray for one rather than another, and prefer charity to them all! Do affociates in fraud talk fuch a language to one another? But if we

fuppofe

fuppofe their pretenfion to all those gifts was an effect of enthusiasm, let us confider how it was poffible that he and they could be fo cheated by that enthufiafm, as to imagine they had fuch powers when they had not.

Suppose that enthufiafm could make a man think, that he was able by a word or a touch to give fight to the blind, motion to the lame, or life to the dead: would that conceit of his make the blind fee, the lame walk, or the dead revive? And if it did not, how could he perfift in fuch an opinion; or, upon his perfifting, escape being fhut up for a madman? But fuch a madness could not infect fo many at once, as St. Paul fuppofes at Corinth to have been endowed with the gift of healing, or any other miraculous powers. One of the miracles which they pretended to was the speaking of languages they never had learned. And St. Paul fays, he poffeffed this gift more than them all. If this had been a delufion of

1 Cor. xiv. 18.

fancy,

fancy, if they had fpoke only gibberish, or unmeaning founds, it would foon have appeared when they came to make use of it where it was neceffary, viz. in converting those who understood not any language they naturally spoke. St. Paul particularly, who travelled fo far upon that defign, and had fuch occafion to use it, must soon have difcovered that this imaginary gift of the Spirit was no gift at all, but a ridiculous inftance of frenzy, which had poffeffed both him and them. But if those he spoke to in diverse tongues understood what he said, and were converted to Chrift by that means, how could it be a delufion? Of all the miracles recorded in Scripture, none are more clear from any poffible imputation of being the effect of an enthufiaftick imagination than this. For how could any man think that he had it, who had it not? or if he did think fo, not be undeceived when he came to put his gift to the proof? Accordingly, I do not find fuch a power to have been ever pretended to by any enthufiaft, ancient or modern.

If then St. Paul and the church of Corinth were not deceived in afcribing to themfelves this miraculous power, but really had it, there is the strongest reason to think, that neither were they deceived in the other powers to which they pretended; as the fame spirit which gave them that, equally could, and probably would, give them the others, to serve the fame holy ends for which that was given. And, by confequence, St. Paul was no enthufiaft in what he wrote upon that head to the Corinthians, nor in other fimilar inftances where he afcribes to himself, or to the churches he founded, any fupernatural graces and gifts. Indeed they who would impute to imagination effects fuch as those which St. Paul imputes to the power of God attending his mission, must ascribe to imagination the fame omnipotence which he afscribes to God.

Having thus, I flatter myself, fatisfactorily fhewn that St. Paul could not be an enthufiaft, who by the force of an over-heated imagination imposed on himself, I am next to enquire, whether he was deceived by the fraud

2

fraud of others, and whether all that he faid of himself can be imputed to the power of that deceit? But I need fay little to fhew the abfurdity of this fuppofition. It was morally impoffible for the difciples of Christ, to conceive fuch a thought as that of turning his profecutor into his Apostle, and to do this by a fraud, in the very instant of his greatest fury against them and their Lord.. But could they have been fo extravagant as to conceive fuch a thought, it was physically impoffible for them to execute it in a manner we find his converfion to have been effected. Could they produce a light in the air which at mid-day was brighter than. that of the fun? Could they make Saul hear words from out of that light which were not heard by the reft of the company*? Could they make him blind for three days after that vifion, and then make fcales fall off from his eyes, and restore him to his. fight by a word? Beyond difpute, no fraud could do these things, but much less still:

Acts xxii. 9.

could!