creatures to fo many miferies; or could one that had in his mind the leaft ray of reafon, expofe himself to fhare them with those he deceived, in order to advance a religion. which he knew to be falfe, merely for the fake of its moral doctrines? Such an extravagance is too abfurd to be fuppofed; and I dwell too long on a notion, that, upon a little reflection, confutes itself.

I would only add to the other proofs I have given, that St. Paul could have no rational motive to become a disciple of Chrift unless he fincerely believed in him, this obfervation; That whereas it may be objected to the other apoftles, by thofe who are refolved not to credit their teftimony, that having been deeply engaged with Jefus during his life, they were obliged to continue the fame profeffions after his death, for the fupport of their own credit, and from having gone too far to go back; this can by no means be faid of St. Paul. On the contrary, whatever force there may be in that way of reasoning, it all tends to convince us that St. Paul must have naturally continued a Jew, and an enemy of Chrift Jefus. If they were engaged on one fide, he was as ftrongly engaged on the

other; if fhame withheld them from changing fides, much more ought it to have stopt him, who, being of a higher education and rank in life a great deal than they, had more credit to lofe, and must be supposed to have been vaftly more fenfible to that fort of fhame. The only difference was, that they, by quitting their mafter 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 deftruction.

As therefore no rational motive appears for St. Paul's embracing the faith of Chrift, 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 truthit; and that, by confequence,. he was not an impoftor, who faid what he knew to be falfe with an intent to deceive.

But that no fhadow of doubt may remain upon the impoffibility of his having been fuch an impoftor; that it may not be faid, "The minds of men are fometimes fo capricious, that they will act without any

rational motives, they know not why, and fo perhaps might St. Paul;" I fhall next endeavour to prove, that if he had been fo unaccountably wild and absurd, as to undertake an imposture fo unprofitable and dangerous both to himself and thofe he deceived by it, he could not poffibly have carried it on with any fuccefs, by the means that we know he employed.

First then, let me obferve, that if his converfion, and the part that he acted in confequence of it, was an impofture, it was fuch an imposture as could not be carried on by one man alone. The faith he profeffed, and which he became an apoftle 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 Jefus, who was the author and head of it, he had never had any communication before his death, nor with his apoftles after his death, except as their perfecutor. As he took on himself the office and character of an apoftle, it was abfolutely neceffary for him to have a precife and perfect knowledge of all the facts contained in the gospel, feveral of which had only paffed between

Jefus himself and his twelve apostles, and others more privately ftill, fo that they could be known but to very few, being not yet made public by any writings; otherwife he would have exposed himself to ridicule among those who preached that gofpel with more knowledge than he; and as the teftimony they bore would have been different in point of fact, and many of their doctrines and interpretations of fcripture repugnant to his, from their entire difagreement 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 Chriftians he perfecuted, but not exact or extenfive enough to qualify him for an apoftle, whom the leaft error, in these points, would have difgraced, and who must have been ruined by it in all pretenfions to that infpiration, from whence the apoftolical authority was chiefly derived.

It was therefore, impoffible for him to act this part but in confederacy at least with the apostles. Such a confederacy was

D

ftill more neceffary for him, as the under taking 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 fuch a power all the apostles appealed in proof of their miffion, and of the doctrines they preached. He was therefore to learn of them by what fecret arts they fo imposed on the fenfes of men, if this power was a cheat. But how could he gain thefe men to become his confederates? Was it by furiously perfe cuting them and their brethren, as we find that he did, to the very moment of his converfion? Would they venture to truft their capital enemy with all the fecrets 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 fect, which they preferred to their lives, by fo ill-placed a confidence? Would men, fo fecret as not to be drawn by the most fevere perfecutions to fay one word which could convict them of being impostors, conconfefs themselves fuch to their perfecutor, in hopes of his being their accomplice ? This is ftill more impoffible than that he