agreeing in every particular, without any one of them attributing more to himself than he did to the others, or establishing any thing even in point of order or discipline different from the rest, or more advantageous to his own interest, credit, or power, is a most strong and convincing proof of their not being impostors, but acting entirely by divine inspiration.

If, then, it appears that Saint Paul had nothing to gain by taking this part, let us consider, on the other hand, what he gave up, and what he had reason to fear. He gave up a fortune which he was in a fair way of advancing. He gave up that reputation which he had acquired by the labours and studies of his whole life, and by a behaviour which had been blameless, "touching the righteousness which is in the law," (Phil. iii. 6.) He gave up his friends, his relations, and family, from whom he estranged and banished himself for life. He gave up that religion "which he had profited in above many his equals in his own nation, and those traditions of his fathers, which he had been more exceedingly zealous of," (Gal. i. 14.) How hard this sacrifice was to a man of his warm temper, and above all men to a Jew, is worth consideration. That nation is known to have been more tenacious of their religious opinions, than any other upon the face of the earth. The strictest and proudest sect among them was that of the Pharisees, under whose discipline Saint Paul was bred. The departing, therefore, so suddenly from their favourite tenets, renouncing their pride, and from their disciple becoming their adversary, was a most difficult effort for one to make so nursed up in the esteem of them, and whose early prejudices were so strongly confirmed, by all the power of habit, all the authority of example, and all the allurements of honour and interest. These were the sacrifices he had to make in becoming a Christian. Let us now see what inconveniences he had to fear: The implacable vengeance of those he deserted; that sort of contempt which is hardest to bear, the contempt of those whose good opinion he had most eagerly sought; and all those other complicated evils which he describes in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xi.; evils, the least of which were enough to have frighted any impostor, even from the most hopeful and profitable cheat. But where the advantage proposed bears no proportion to the dangers incurred, or the mischiefs endured, he must be absolutely out of his senses who will either engage in an imposture, or, being engaged, persevere.

Upon the whole, then, I think I have proved, that the desire of wealth, of fame,

of the mouth of Saint Paul himself, to all the mistakes that have been made of his meaning in some obscure expressions concerning grace, election, and justification.

or of power, could be no motive to make Saint Paul a convert to Christ; but that, on the contrary, he must have been checked by that desire, as well as by the just apprehension of many inevitable and insupportable evils, from taking a part so contradictory to his past life, to all the principles he had imbibed, and all the habits he had contracted. It only remains to be inquired, whether the gratification of any other passion, under the authority of that religion, or by the means it afforded, could be his inducement.

2

Now, that there have been some impostors who have pretended to revelations from God, merely to give a loose to irregular passions, and set themselves free from all restraints of government, law, or morality, both ancient and modern history shows. But the doctrine preached by Saint Paul is absolutely contrary to all such designs. His writings breathe nothing but the strictest morality, obedience to magistrates, order, and government, with the utmost abhorrence of all licentiousness, idleness, or loose behaviour, under the cloak of religion. We nowhere read in his works that saints are above moral ordinances; that dominion, or property, is founded in grace; that there is no difference in moral actions; that any impulses of the mind are to direct us against the light of our reason and the laws of nature: or any of those wicked tenets from which the peace of society has been disturbed, and the rules of morality have been broken, by men pretending to act under the sanction of a divine revelation. Nor does any part of his life, either before or after his conversion to Christianity, bear any mark of a libertine disposition. As among the Jews, so among the Christians, his conversation and manners were blameless. Hear the appeal that he makes to the Thessalonians upon his doctrine and behaviour among them :" Our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile : ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and justly, and unblamably, we behaved ourselves among you that believe," (1 Thess. ii. 3, 10.3) And to the Corinthians he says, "We have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man," (2 Cor. vii. 2.)

66

It was not, then, the desire of gratifying any irregular passion, that could induce Saint Paul to turn Christian, any more than the hope of advancing himself either in wealth, or reputation, or power. But still it is possible, some

2 See particularly Rom. xi. and xiii.; Col. iii.; and also 2 Cor. i. 12. and iv. 2.

3 If Saint Paul had held any secret doctrines, or esoterick, (as the philosophers called them,) we should have probably found them in the letters he wrote to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, his bosom friends and disciples. But both the theological and moral doctrines are exactly the same in them as those he wrote to the churches. A very strong presumptive proof of his being no impostor! Surely, had he been one, he would have given some hints in these private letters of the cheat they were carrying on, and some secret directions to turn it to some worldly purposes of one kind or another. But no such thing is to be found in any one of them. The same disinterested, holy, and divine spirit, breathes in all these as in the other more public epistles.

men may say, (and I would leave no imaginable objection unanswered,) that though Saint Paul could have no selfish or interested view in undertaking such an imposture, yet, for the sake of its moral doctrines, he might be inclined to support the Christian faith, and make use of some pious frauds, to advance a religion which, though erroneous and false in its theological tenets, and in the facts upon which it was grounded, was in its precepts and influence beneficial to mankind.

Now it is true, that some good men in the Heathen world have both pretended to divine revelations, and introduced or supported religions they knew to be false, under a notion of public utility: but besides that this practice was built upon maxims disclaimed by the Jews, (who, looking upon truth, not utility, to be the basis of their religion, abhorred all such frauds, and thought them injurious to the honour of God,) the circumstances they acted in were very different from those of Saint Paul.

The first reformers of savage, uncivilized nations, had no other way to tame those barbarous people, and bring them to submit to order and government, but by the reverence which they acquired from this pretence. The fraud was therefore alike beneficial both to the deceiver and the deceived. And in all other instances which can be given of good men acting this part, they not only did it to serve good ends, but were secure of its doing no harm. Thus, when Lycurgus persuaded the Spartans, or Numa the Romans, that the laws of the one were inspired by Apollo, or those of the other by Egeria; when they taught their people to put great faith in oracles, or in augury, no temporal mischief, either to them or their people, could attend the reception of that belief. It drew on no persecutions, no enmity with the world. But at the time when Saint Paul undertook the preaching of the gospel, to persuade any man to be a Christian, was to persuade him to expose himself to all the calamities human nature could suffer. This Saint Paul knew; this he not only expected, but warned those he taught to look for it too, (1 Thess. iii. 4; 2 Cor. vi. 4, 5; Eph. vi. 10-16; Phil. i. 28-30; Col. i. 9-11; Rom. viii. 35, 36.) The only support that he had himself, or gave to them, was, "That if they suffered with Christ, they should be also glorified together." And that he "reckoned that the sufferings of the present time were not worthy to be compared with that glory," (Rom. viii. 17, 18.) So likewise he writes to the Thessalonians, "We ourselves glory in you, in the churches of God, for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure; which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which also ye suffer.

Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to re compense [or pay] tribulation to them that trouble you; and, to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels," &c. (2 Thess. i. 4, 5, 6, 7.) And to the Corinthians he says, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most miserable." How much reason he had to say this, the hatred, the contempt, the torments, the deaths endured by the Christians in that age, and long afterwards, abundantly prove. Whoever professed the gospel under these circumstances, without an entire conviction of its being a divine revelation, must have been mad; and if he made others profess it by fraud or deceit, he must have been worse than mad

he must have been the most hardened wretch that ever breathed. Could any man who had in his nature the least spark of humanity, subject his fellow-creatures to so many miseries; or could one that had in his mind the least ray of reason, expose himself to share them with those he deceived, in order to advance a religion which he knew to be false, merely for the sake of its moral doctrines? Such an extravagance is too absurd to be supposed; and I dwell too long on a notion that, upon a little reflection, confutes itself.

To the other proofs I have given, that Saint Paul could have no rational motive to become a disciple of Christ, unless he sincerely believed in him, I would only add this observation, That whereas it may be objected to the other apostles, by those who are resolved not to credit their testimony, that having been deeply engaged with Jesus during his life, they were obliged to continue the same professions after his death, for the support of their own credit, and from having gone too far to go back, this can by no means be said of Saint Paul. On the contrary, whatever force there may be in that way of reasoning, it all tends to convince us, that Saint Paul must naturally have continued a Jew, and an enemy of Christ Jesus. If they were engaged on one side, he was as strongly engaged on the other. If shame withheld them from changing sides, much more ought it to have stopt him, who being of a much higher education and rank in life than they, had more credit to lose, and must be supposed to have been vastly more sensible to that sort of shame. The only difference was, that they, by quiting 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 destruction.

As therefore no rational motive appears for Saint 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 Saint 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 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 and 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 himself 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 notions he might have gained of these matters from the Christians he persecuted, but not exact or 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 honour of their sect, which they preferred to their lives, by so illplaced a confidence? Would men be 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 his being their accomplice? This is still more impossible than that he should attempt to engage in their fraud without their consent and assistance.

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 Christians, 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 highpriest 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

4 The disciples of Christ were not called Christians till after this time; but I use the name as most familiar to us, and to avoid circumlocution.

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

overcome.

But farther, 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 confidant 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 that 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 Saint Paul to Agrippa) "this thing was not done in a corner," (Acts, xxvi. 26,) 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. Nor were they at Jerusalem, whose commission he bore, less concerned to discover so provoking a cheat. But we find, that many years afterwards, when they had all the time and means they could desire to make the strictest inquiry, he was bold enough to appeal to Agrippa in the presence of Festus, upon his own knowledge of the truth of his story, who did not contradict him, though he had certainly heard all that the Jews could allege against the credit of it in any particular, (Acts, xxvi. 26;) a very remarkable proof both of the notoriety of the fact, and the integrity of the man, who with so fearless a

confidence could call upon a king to give testimony for him, even while he was sitting in judgment upon him.

But to return to Ananias.-Is it not strange, if this story had been an imposture, and he had been joined with Paul in carrying it on, that after their meeting at Damascus we never should hear of their consorting together, or acting in concert; or that the former drew any benefit from the friendship of the latter, when he became so considerable among the Christians? Did Ananias engage and continue in such a dangerous fraud without any hope or desire of private advantage? Or was it safe for Paul to shake him off, and risk his resentment? There is, I think, no other way to get over this difficulty, but by supposing that Ananias happened to die soon after the other's conversion. Let us then take that for granted, without any authority either of history or tradition, and let us see in what manner this wondrous imposture was carried on by Paul himself.-His first care ought to have been to get himself owned and received as an apostle by the apostles. Till this was done, the bottom he stood upon was very narrow, nor could he have any probable means of supporting himself in any esteem or credit among the disciples. Intruders into impostures run double risks; they are in danger of being detected, not only by those upon whom they intend to practise their cheats, but also by those whose society they force themselves into, who must always be jealous of such an intrusion, and much more from one who had always before behaved as their enemy. Therefore, to gain the apostles, and bring them to admit him into a participation of all their mysteries, all their designs, and all their authority, was absolutely necessary at this time to Paul. The least delay was of dangerous consequence, and might expose him to such inconveniences as he never afterwards could overcome. But instead of attending to this necessity, he went into Arabia, and then returned again to Damascus ; nor did he go to Jerusalem till three years were past, (Gal. i. 17, 18.)

Now this conduct may be accounted for, if it be true that (as he declares in his Epistle to the Galatians) "he neither received the gospel of any man, neither was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," (Gal. i. 12.) Under such a Master, and with the assistance of his divine power, he might go on boldly without any human associates; but an impostor, so left to himself, so deprived of all help, all support, all recommendation, could not have succeeded.

Farther; we find that at Antioch he was not afraid to "withstand Peter to his face, and even to reprove him before all the disciples, because he was to be blamed," (Gal. ii. 11-14.) If he was an impostor, how could

e venture to offend that apostle whom it so highly concerned him to agree with and please? Accomplices in a fraud are obliged to show greater regards to each other: such freedom belongs to truth alone.

But let us consider what difficulties he had to encounter among the Gentiles themselves, in the enterprise he undertook of going to them, making himself their apostle, and converting them to the religion of Christ. As this undertaking was the distinguishing part of his apostolical functions, that which, in the language of his epistles, he was particularly called to, or which, to speak like an unbeliever, he chose and assigned to himself, it deserves a particular consideration: but I shall only touch the principal points of it as concisely 'as I can, because you have in a great measure exhausted the subject in your late excellent book on the Resurrection, where you discourse with such strength of reason and eloquence upon the difficulties that opposed the propagation of the Christian religion in all parts of the world.

Now in this enterprise Saint Paul was to contend, 1st, With the policy and power of the magistrates; 2dly, With the interest, credit, and craft of the priests; 3dly, With the prejudices and passions of the people; 4thly, With the wisdom and pride of the philosophers. That in all heathen countries the established religion was interwoven with their civil constitution, and supported by the magistrates as an essential part of the government, whoever has any acquaintance with antiquity cannot but know. They tolerated indeed many different worships, (though not with so entire a latitude as some people suppose,) and they suffered men to discourse very freely concerning religion, provided they would submit to an exterior conformity with the established rites: nay, according to the genius of Paganism, which allowed an intercommunity of worship, they in most places admitted, without any great difficulty, new gods and new rites; but they no where endured any attempt to overturn the established religion, or any direct opposition made to it, esteeming that an unpardonable offence, not to the gods alone, but to the state. This was so universal a notion, and so constant a maxim of heathen policy, that when the Christian religion set itself up in opposition to all other religions, admitted no intercommunity with them, but declared that the gods of the Gentiles were not to be worshipped, nor any society suffered between them and the only true God; when this new doctrine began to be propagated, and made such a progress as to fall under the notice of the magistrate, the civil power was everywhere armed with all its terrors against it. When, therefore, Saint Paul undertook the conversion of the Gentiles, he knew very well that the most severe persecutions must

be the consequence of any success in his design.

Secondly, This danger was rendered more certain by the opposition he was to expect from the interest, credit, and craft of the priests. How gainful a trade they, with all their inferior dependents, made of those superstitions which he proposed to destroy; how much credit they had with the people, as well as the state, by the means of them; and how much craft they employed in carrying on their impostures, all history shows. Saint Paul could not doubt that all these men would exert their utmost abilities to stop the spreading of the doctrines he preached, doctrines which struck at the root of their power and gain, and were much more terrible to them than those of the most atheistical sect of philosophers, because the latter contented themselves with denying their principles, but at the same time declared for supporting their practices, as useful cheats, or at least acquiesced in them as establishments authorized by the sanction of law. Whatever therefore their cunning could do to support their own worship, whatever aid they could draw from the magistrate, whatever zeal they could raise in the people, Saint Paul was to contend with, unsupported by any human assistance.

And, Thirdly, This he was to do in direct opposition to all the prejudices and passions of the people. Now, had he confined his preaching to Judea alone, this difficulty would not have occurred in near so great a degree. The people there were so moved by the miracles the apostles had wrought, as well as by the memory of those done by Jesus, that, in spite of their rulers, they began to be favourably disposed towards them, (Acts, iv. 21; v. 26;) and we even find that the high-priest and the council had more than once been withheld from treating the apostles with so much severity as they desired to do, for fear of the people. But in the people among the Gentiles no such dispositions could be expected: Their prejudices were violent, not only in favour of their own superstitions, but in a particular manner against any doctrines taught by a Jew. As, from their aversion to all idolatry, and irreconcilable separation from all other religions, the Jews were accused of hating mankind, so were they hated by all other nations; nor were they hated alone, but despised. To what a degree that contempt was carried, appears as well by the mention made of them in heathen authors, as by the complaints Josephus makes of the unreasonableness and injustice of it in his Apology. What authority then could Saint Paul flatter himself that his preaching would carry along with it, among people to whom he was at once both the object of national hatred and national scorn? But besides this popular prejudice against a Jew, the doctrines he