Here the object which Jesus had in effecting the conversion of Saul, is stated first to Ananias, to be imparted by him to the new convert on receiving his sight and being baptized, with a further intimation, that every instruction necessary for the execution of his high office should soon after be given him by Jesus himself. Yet in the face of this obvious statement, Gamaliel was free enough to pen the following paragraph: "Now it is that Paul is represented as commencing his preaching, or sallying forth upon his mission: preaching from instructions received in a supernatural way-received by revelation. Yet after all no such instructions has he received. Thrice has the historian-once in his own person, twice in that of his hero- undertaken to produce those instructions, but by no one from first to last have they been produced.” p. 49.

:

On the words addressed by Ananias to Saul, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," Gamaliel observes, "This is no light matter if so it really were, that according to the religion of Jesus, by such a cause such an effect was on that occasion produced--that such effect could in a word on any occasion, in any case, be produced—that murders, (or not to embarrass the question with conceits of local jurisprudence) killings of men-killings of men by persecutions carried on on a religious account; slaughters of Christians by non-Christians-could thus as in Paul's case be divested of all guilt, at any rate of all punishment at the hands of Almighty justice; if impunity indeed could be thus conferred by the sprinkling of a man with water or dipping him in it, there would be matter of serious consideration-not only what is the verity of that religion, but what the usefulness of it; what the usefulness, with reference to the present state at any rate, not to speak of a life to come; what the usefulness of it; and on what ground stands its claim to support by all the power of factitious punishment and

factitious reward, at the hands of the temporal magis. trate." p. 39.

If this were a true statement of the nature and object of the Christian religion, it would indeed have few marks of verity, and still less of usefulness; on the contrary, it would most obviously be founded on imposture and falsehood; and it would be immoral, and therefore pernicious in the extreme. But the above statement is the representation of an enemy. The fundamental principle of this divine religion is, that Christ died for our sinsthat he died to furnish mankind with adequate motives to dismiss their sins for the future, on the express promise that God will forgive the sins that are past. Its object is to produce repentance and reformation in the degenerate race of man, to promote virtue and knowledge in us, not only as members of human society, but to qualify us for becoming members of a still higher and nobler society beyond the grave. On its first propagation, the Gospel produced the most salutary effects not only on individuals, but on society at large. Philo represents it a system sent from the author of divine virtue to restore man to the image of his Creator-calcu lated to wash away the impurities of this life, and make us fit for a better inheritance. This same noble author says, that "the children of wisdom became in number uncircumscribed as the sand; and as the sand which lines the shore repels the incursions of the sea, so the divine word of instruction does the sins of man." Hear, further, the words of a man, whose honeyed flow of eloquence procured him the appellation of the Christian Cicero. "The mighty energy of the divine precepts on the minds of men, is demonstrated by daily experience. Give to Christ a man that is irascible, reproachful or impetuous, and by a few words of God, he will restore him mild as a lamb: Give to Christ a man that is covetous and tenacious of his property; and he will give him back to you liberal, and distributing his money with both hands: Give to Christ a man that is fearful of pain

and of death; and he will presently despise crucifixion, and flames and torments: Give to Christ a man that is lustful, an adulterer or a gambler; and you will soon see him sober, chaste and honest: Give to Christ a man that is cruel and thirsty for blood; and his fury will be immediately changed into unfeigned clemency: Give to Christ a man that is unjust, foolish or an offender; and he becomes equitable, prudent and inoffensive. For by a single baptism all his wickedness will be washed." Lactantius, lib. iii. c. 26.

Such are the genuine effects of Christianity; and if in later times it did not, and in our own days it does not, produce the same happy effect in the lives and tempers of its professors, it is because it has lost its novelty; because it has lost its purity, and with its purity its di vine influence; a corrupt system, retaining little more than the name, being substituted in the room of that which Christ once delivered to the Saints. The Apostle Paul asserts that Jesus Christ came into the world to deliver men from their sins; and his own example was a striking proof of the verity and usefulness of that doctrine. Before his conversion he was violent and a persecutor; but after he surrendered himself to Christ, he became, as Lactantius says of others, gentle and inoffensive as a lamb. The last sentence of this writer illustrates what the early Christians meant by baptism. It was practised by them, not as an atonement for guilt, but as a symbol of moral purity: it was, on the part of those who submitted to it, an open avowal of their faith in Christ, a public declaration that, as his followers, they were determined to forsake their sins, to correct their most favourite passions, to eradicate the most deeply rooted vices, to imitate the example and obey the precepts of their divine master. This rite no doubt in the course of time became much mistaken and abused. Paul was apprehensive of this consequence; and he declined the practice of it, as forming no part of that Gospel which he was commissioned to preach.

:

Gamaliel represents Paul here and elsewhere as a murderer. The representation is not true it is false and libellous. The Apostle, indeed, was once a persecutor, he even consented to the death of Stephen. But there is no evidence that he himself shed a drop of human blood; much less is there evidence for saying, that he shed blood for robbery or revenge, which make killing men, murder. His object was to extirpate what at the time he deemed a heresy; and when he became convinced of his error, he says in apology that he did it through ignorance in unbelief. But whatever might have been his guilt, he repented; he abandoned the criminal course he was pursuing, and atoned for it by the most generous devotion, having from the hour of his conversion dedicated his property, his comforts, his great and unclouded faculties, and finally his own life, to the support of the glorious cause which he had sought to destroy.

But Gamaliel maintains, that repentance, which in the sight of men and of God is a virtue, in Paul was a crime; because he added perfidy to murder, having betrayed the trust reposed in him by the authorities at Jerusalem. Nothing can more clearly display the real temper of Gamaliel than this accusation. His object is not to inquire dispassionately and candidly into the claims of Paul, as an Apostle of Christ, but at all hazard to get materials for vilifying and calumniating him. Previously to all inquiry he sets out with the presumption that his conversion was the effect of craft and ambition; and he will not have his readers listen to any evidence to the contrary: for if the story as related by Luke be supposed to be true, it would be folly, it would be impious, to accuse him of treachery towards men for submitting to the will of God, miraculously revealed to him. But as his objection here is levelled more against the historian than the Apostle, I will reserve his own words to the next chapter.

CHAPTER II.

Paul's testimony to the Gospel of Luke-Luke proved to be the Author of the Acts-Gamaliel's representations refuted-the success of the Gospel at Damascus, in consequence of the conversion of Paul, attested by Josephus -The narrative of Luke and the epistle of Paul confirm and illustrate one another.

THE Author of the "New Trial of the Witnesses" says, that Luke was not an eye witness of the transactions which he has recorded, and that therefore little credit is due to his narrative. In the second part he adds, p. 45., "Read all his epistles (namely, those of Paul) from beginning to end, and you will not discover the least trace that any document then existed bearing the name of any of the four evangelists," &c. This writer is very unfortunate in his assertions; his ignorance is only equalled by his presumption and folly, in attempting to decide upon facts far beyond his knowledge. He tells us that he has examined Philo and Josephus, and was unable to discover the least trace throughout the whole of their writings, that they had any knowledge of these gospels, p. 64. I have examined them too, but have ventured to draw a different conclusion from this great critic, having found them apologists of the gospel, and historians of facts respecting it that will prove its truth to the end of time. It is well known that Luke was the companion and fellow-labourer of Paul; and in 2 Cor. viii. 18., we meet with these words: "We have sent with him our brother, whose praise by means of his gospel is throughout all the churches." Here we see a person, whom Paul calls a brother, and in the