the Apostles, acted in no concert with them, and learnt nothing from them except the doctrines which they had publickly taught to all the world. When he came there, he told the Jews, to whom he brought letters from the high priest and the fynagogue against the Chriftians, and his having feen in the way a great light from heaven, and heard Christ Jesus reproaching him with his perfecution, and commanding him to go into the city, where it fhould be told him what he was to do. But to account for his chufing this method of declaring himself a convert to Chrift, we must suppose that all those who were with him, when he pretended he had this vifion, were his accomplices. Otherwise, the story he told could have gained no belief, being contradicted by them whose testimony was necffary to vouch for the truth of it. And yet, how can we suppose, that all these men fhould be willing to join in this impofture? They were pro * The Disciples of Chrift were not called Christians till after this time; but I use the name as moft familiar to us, and to avoid circumlocutions. bably bably officers of justice, or foldiers, who had been employed often before in executing the orders of the high priest and the rulers against the Chriftians. Or if they were chofen particularly for this expedition, they must have been chofen by them as men they could truft for their zeal in that caufe. What fhould induce them to the betraying that business they were employed in? Does it even appear that they had any connection. with the man they fo lyed for, before or after this time, or any reward from him for it? This is therefore a difficulty in the first outfet of this impofture not to be overcome. But further, he was to be inftructed by one at Damafcus. That inftructor therefore must have been his accomplice, though they appear to be abfolute ftrangers to one another, and though he was a man of an excellent character, who had a good report of all the Jews that dwell at Damascus, and fo was very unlikely to have engaged in fuch impofture. Notwithstanding these improbabilities, this man, I fay, must have been his confident and accomplice in carry ing on this wicked fraud, and the whole matter must have been previously agreed on between them. But here again the fame objection occurs: How could this man venture to act fuch a dangerous part without the consent of the other Difciples, efpecially of the Apoftles, or by what means. could he obtain their confent? And how abfurdly did they contrive their business, to make the converfion of Saul the effect of a miracle, which all those who were with him muft certify did never happen! How much eafier would it have been to have made him be prefent at fome pretended miracle wrought by the difciples, or by Ananias himself, when none were able to discover the fraud, and have imputed his converfion to that, or to the arguments used by some of his prifoners whom he might have dif courfed with, and queftioned about their faith, and the grounds of it, in order to colour his intended conversion? As this was the fafeft, fo it was the most natural method of bringing about fuch a change; instead of afcribing it to an event which lay fo 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 fubject immediately to the examination of thofe who would be most ftrict in searching into the truth of it, the Jews at Damafcus. 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. Nor were they at Jerufalem, whofe commiffion he bore, lefs concerned to discover fo provoking a cheat. But we find that many years afterwards, when they had had all the time and means they could defire to make the ftricteft enquiry, he was bold enough to appeal to Agrippa † in the prefence of Feftus, upon his own knowledge of the truth of his ftory; who did not con tradict him, though he had certainly heard all that the Jews could alledge against the credit of it in any particular. A very remarkable proof both of the notoriety of the fact, * Acts xxvi. 26. + Ibidem. and and the integrity of the man, who with fo fearless a confidence could call upon a king to give teftimony for him, even while he was fitting in judgment upon him. But to return to Ananias. Is it not ftrange, if this story had been an impofture, and he had been joined with Paul in carrying it on, that after their meeting at Damafcus we never fhould hear of their conforting together, or acting in concert, or that the former drew any benefit from the friendship of the latter, when he became fo confiderable among the Christians? Did Ananias engage and continue in fuch a dangerous fraud, without any hope or defire of private advantage? Or was it fafe for Paul to fhake him off, and risk his refentment? There is, I think, no other way to get over this difficulty, but by fuppofing that Ananias happened to die foon after the other's converfion. Let us then take that for granted, without any authority either of history or tradition, and let us fee in what manner this wondrous impofture was carried on by Paul himself. His first care ought to have been, |