cheat of this kind. I will not mention the many debaucheries, and wicked enormities committed by this falfe prophet under the mask of religion, which is another characteriftical difference between him and St. Paul; nor the ambiguous anfwers, cunning evasions, and juggling artifices which he made use of; in all which it is eafy to fee the evident marks of an impofture, as well as in the objects he plainly appears to have had in view. That which I chiefly infift upon, is the strong confederacy with which he took care to fupport his pretenfion to miraculous powers, and the apt difpofition in thofe he impofed upon to concur and affift in deceiving themselves; advantages entirely wanting to the Apostles of Chrift.

From all this I think it may be concluded, that no human means employed by St. Paul, in his defign of converting the Gentiles, were or could be adequate to the great difficulties he had to contend with, or to the fuccefs that we know attended his work; and we can in reafon ascribe that fuccefs to no other cause, but the power of God going along with and aiding his ministry, because no other was equal to the effect.

Having then fhewn that St. Paul had no rational motives to become an Apoftle of Chrift, without being himself convinced of the truth of that Gofpel he preached; and that, had he engaged in such an imposture without any rational motives, he would have had no poffible means to carry it on with any fuccefs; having alfo brought reafons of a very ftrong nature, to make it appear, that the fuccefs he undoubtedly had in preaching the Gospel was an effect of the Divine power attending his ministry, I might rest all my proof of the Christian religion being a Divine Revelation, upon the arguments drawn from this head alone. But, to confider this fubject in all poffible lights, I fhall pursue the propofition which I fet out with through each of its several parts; and having proved, as I hope, to the conviction of any impartial man, that St. Paul was not an impoftor, who. faid what he knew to be falfe with an intent to deceive; I come next to confider whether he was an enthufiaft, who by the force of an overheated imagination impofed upon himfelf.

Now these are the ingredients of which entbufiafm is generally compofed: great heat

of temper, melancholy, ignorance, credulity, and vanity or felf-conceit. That the first of thefe qualities was in St. Paul, may be con'cluded from that fervour of zeal with which he acted both as a few and Chriftian, in maintaining that which he thought to be right; and hence, I fuppofe, as well as from the impoffibility of his having been an impoftor, fome unbelievers have chose to confider him as an enthufiaft. But this quality alone will not be fufficient to prove him to have been fo, in the opinion of any reasonable man. The fame temper has been common to others, who undoubtedly were not enthufiafts, to the Gracchi, to Cato, to Brutus, to many more among the best and wisest of men. Nor does it appear that this difpofition had such a mastery over the mind of St. Paul, that he was not able at all times to rule and controul it by the dictates of reason. On the contrary, he was fo much the mafter of it, as, in matters of an indifferent nature, to become all things to all men*, bending his notions and manners to theirs, fo far as his duty to God would permit, with the most

pliant condefcenfion; a conduct neither compatible with the stiffness of a bigot, nor the violent impulfes of fanatic delufions. His zeal was eager and warm, but tempered with prudence, and even with the civilities. and decorums of life, as appears by his behaviour to Agrippa, Feftus, and Felix ; not the blind, inconfiderate, indecent zeal of an enthufiaft.

Let us now see if any one of those other qualities which I have laid down, as difpofing the mind to enthufiafm, and as being characteristical of it, belong to St. Paul. First, as to melancholy, which of all difpofitions of body or mind is most prone to enthusiasm *, it neither appears by his writings, nor by any thing told of him in the Acts of the Apostles, nor by any other evidence, that St. Paul was inclined to it more than other men. Though he was full of remorfe for his former ignorant perfecution of the Church of Christ, we read of no gloomy penances, no extravagant mortifications, fuch as the Bramins, the Jaugues, the monks of La Trape, and other melancholy enthusiasts, inflict on themselves. His

* Jofephus cont. Apion, 1. ii. c. 37.

D 3

holiness

holinefs only confifted in the fimplicity of a good life, and the unwearied performance of those apostolical duties to which he was called. The fufferings he met with on that account he chearfully bore, and even rejoiced in them for the love of Jefus Chrift, but he brought none on himfelf; we find, on the contrary, that he pleaded the privilege of a Roman Citizen to avoid being whipped. I could mention more inftances of his having ufed the best methods that prudence could fuggeft, to escape danger and fhun perfecution, whenever it could be done without betraying the duty of his office, or the honour of God*.

Compare

* A remarkable inftance of this appears in his conduct among the Athenians*. There was at Athens a law, which made it capital to introduce or teach any new gods in their state. Therefore when Paul was preaching Jefus and the refurrection to the Athenians, fome of them carried him before the court of Areopagus, the ordinary judges of criminal matters, and in a particular manner entrusted with the care of religion, as having broken this law, and being a fetter forth of Strange gods. Now in this cafe an impoftor would have

*Acts xvii. and Jofephus cont, Apion, 1. ii. c. 37.

retracted