In regard to many particulars in the character of Paul, anterior to his conversion, there can be no dispute; that he was of Jewish extraction; of the sect of the pharisees; a man of superior powers of mind; and well acquainted with the writings of Moses and the prophets. But I am far from believing with you, that "his own declarations warrant us in considering him, antecedent to his conversion, as a blind, bigoted, self-righteous pharisee, well acquainted with the letter of the divine law, but totally ignorant of its real requirements and spiritual extent, consequently that he was unacquainted with the state of his own heart, and the real character of his life." In confirmation of this belief, you quote Romans vii. 9. "I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." From this passage you draw this sweeping inference, "we have the plain, explicit, and solemn confession of Paul himself, that, before his conversion, he was a blind, impenitent, selfrighteous, and self-confident sinner."

It would be taking up too much time to answer separately the numerous questions you have proposed, relative to the abovementioned passage. I think you must find them all satisfactorily answered by the pious and learned Dr. Doddridge's exposition of that passage, and his note upon it, where he says, "the apostle here, by a very dexterous turn, changes the persons and speaks as of himself. This he elsewhere does, when he is only personating another character. But to suppose he speaks all these things of himself, as the confirmed christian that he really was when he wrote this Epistle, is not only foreign, but contrary to the whole scope of his discourse." With the light thrown upon the words, "I was alive without the law once," &c. by the learned Doctor, I presume you must be satisfied of the impropriety of drawing an inference so unfavourable to the character of Paul, when he only personated another.

The next passage, which you quote to prove that Paul was a great sinner, previous to his vision on his way to Damascus, is found in his first Epistle to Timothy, i. 15, 16. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief," &c. This passage, I think, is as little to your purpose, as the former. If you turn to the Greck of this passage, you will find the part on which lay the greatest stress, to read an which may very well be translated, "of whom I am chief," if we refer the word chief. not to sinners, but to the exercise of mercy; and to this the present time of the verb "am" seems necessarily to restrain it, unless we suppose Paul to be the chief of sinners after his conversion. as the passage would necessarily imply according

πρώτος

to your construction. If you review the passage, you will find, that the word, now translated "chief," might very properly be rendered "first," as it is in that part of the next verse, which you omitted, "that in me first," werov, (the same original word which is translated "chief" in the verse above) "that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering," &c. And how was it that in him "first" Jesus Christ shewed this pattern of longsuffering, but as he was one of the "first" instances of a zealous opposer of the christian faith, becoming a professor of it, and a champion for it ?*

Your next quotation is from the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xv. 8, 9. "And last of all he (meaning Christ) was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time," &c. After the most careful examination, I cannot learn how this passage proves St. Paul to have been a scandalous sinner previous to his conversion, any more than the other passages which relate to the resurrection of our Saviour.

In the context you will find that the apostle reminds the Corinthians of what he had before preached to them; "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" and then, in confirmation of his resurrection, he asserts, "that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; after that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles; and last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time, for I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

What is the general, or particular scope of this passage, but to confirm the Corinthians in the belief that Jesus Christ was indeed risen from the dead, a doctrine very intimately connected with their hope of salvation? If you urge, that the latter part of it alludes to the time of St. Paul's conversion, I would observe that it alludes only to the time, not to the nature of it; whether it was from sin to holiness, or only from Judaism to Christianity.

But that the latter of these was really the case, I think may be fairly deduced from what is said in the ninth chapter of the Acts of the apostles by the historian, and in the twenty-second and twenty-sixth chapters by St. Paul himself, where we find circumstantial accounts of the manner of his conversion: and the manner I think to be the only criterion by which we can form a correct idea of its true nature. From these several chapters you have quoted passages which relate to his persecution, and which exhibit only the dark side of the apostle's character while he was

* See Henry Grove's Discourse on St. Paul's Conversion.

in unbelief. That he persecuted the church of God, he frankly confesses; but at the same time, he mentions the cause of this conduct towards the Christians; that "he verily thought he OUGHT to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth;" that it was out of zeal towards God; and that in the whole course of his life he had maintained "a conscience void of offence towards God and man ;" which, though it does not clear him from the charge of having done wrong, yet, I think, fairly acquits him of being "a most malicious persecutor." His being a persecutor proves the force of prejudice, and the dangerous tendency of false zeal; but not malice of thought, nor corruption of heart. It proves how liable men, even of talents and integrity, are to fall into error, both in faith and practice. Nor is St. Paul a solitary instance of the kind. How many, educated under the milder dispensation of the gospel, have been guilty of those cruelties, which would receive some palliation under the Mosaic dispensation? John Calvin might be mentioned as a striking instance. The prevalence of opinion, and especially the opinions of those who are esteemed superiors, will always have a powerful influence upon the minds of men. Calvin, though educated in the Christian religion, which strictly prohibits every species of persecution, yet lived in an age when persecution was prevalent; and the prevalence of the practice in his age, of destroying, in the most awful manner, the lives of heretics, is, I think, the only palliation of his cruelties towards Servetus.--And may not something more be said in extenuation of Paul's guilt in persecuting the Christian church? Persecution is the only crime of which we find him guilty; in all other things he "had maintained a conscience void of offence," and even in this, his conscience did not reproach him with the commission of sin through malice and design; for he says he obtained mercy, because he did it "ignorantly and in unbelief," and "verily thought he ought to do" these things. He might be induced by his prejudices in favour of the Jewish religion, in which he had been educated, and of which he was a strict observer; by the prevalence of opinion, (he being young) and by the example of those whom he esteemed his superiors; I say, he might be betrayed by these into some great errors both in belief and practice; but these errors might still be consistent with piety and integrity in him as well as in Calvin. In confirmation of this, let us consider that, by the law of Moses, persons guilty of blasphemy against God, were to be put to death; and that the great council of the Jewish nation (composed of older, and, as he thought, of wiser persons than himself) had publicly condemned Christ as a blasphemer, and procured his crucifixion by the Romans. These facts will easily account for

his being betrayed into an error concerning christianity; and by those natural prejudices in favour of the religion of his fathers, and by some plausible objections against christianity from the chief men of the nation, he might be prevailed upon to conclude it was an imposture, and to treat it as such. I do not offer this to justify his conduct towards the christians, but only to shew, that he might possibly fall into this error both in belief and practice, as other good men have fallen into great sins, and yet be a good man. And if this be possible, we have reason to think from other considerations, that it was actually the case. Take what he says of himself in the full acceptation of the words (and you will observe they are his words after his conversion, when he would surely tell the truth) "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." (Acts xxiii. 1.) How could this be said of any but a truly upright man? Or where is the man on earth, even the best christian, that can say more of himself? His meaning doubtless is, that in his general conversation he had been a man of veracity and integrity, who was conscientious in what he said and did. This construction would give a peculiar force to his apology before the Jewish council, and without this, his apology will hardly wear the appearance of truth. He mentions his life, and the manner in which he had always lived, as a very fit introduction to his apology; he reminds his accusers, who were acquainted with his life before his conversion, that he had never forfeited the character of an upright, conscientious man; he does not tell them to believe him, because he had been a great sinner, which in our days is frequently made a kind of passport to favour; but because his general character entitled him to belief. He appeals to them, whether he had not always maintained a regard to conscience and the obligations of the religion of his fathers. If he had been such a gross and scandalous sinner as some represent him before his conversion, how could this be reconciled with his own declaration after it, when he says, "that he had been blameless, as touching the righteousness of the law, and that he had lived in all good conscience before God."

In regard to the next passage which you quote, 1 Timothy i. 12, 13, where he acknowledges that he was "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious," I would only observe, that these were sins for which, he says, he "obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly and in unbelief." He was a blasphemer, not of the name of God; this would contradict his assertion that "he had been blameless as touching the righteousness of the law;" for the law prohibited this sin under the penalty of death. But owing

to mistaken notions of Christ as the promised Messiah, he spake reproachfully of him and his followers. This, according to the original meaning of the term, is blasphemy. It is true, according to the present general acceptation of the term, blasphemy is an indignity offered to God, but the word is used in a different sense in scripture. And when applied to men, others as well as Paul may commit this sin, when they think they are doing God service. To reproach or revile another, or to impute guilt without any justifiable grounds, either by positive declarations, or base comparisons, is a species of blasphemy. And I think, that to compare such a character as Paul declares himself to have been before his conversion, with a Nero, a Judas Iscariot, a Voltaire, and a Thomas Paine, would fall but little short of the kind of blasphemy, of which Paul acknowledges himself guilty.

Leaving then these passages of scripture, I have always regarded it as a circumstance in favour of Paul's character before his conversion, that he was a Pharisee; and I still think that this, in connexion with what he says of himself, is sufficient proof of his piety and integrity.

It is true, our Saviour speaks of the Pharisees in very strong terms of disapprobation; but perhaps it may be well to inquire, whether his language was not levelled particularly against the leaders of that sect, who were proud, covetous, and hypocritical, and did what they did to be seen of men; and not against those who lived in all good conscience before God. At the time when our Saviour was on earth, the body of the Jewish people were divided into two great sects, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The former were very strict in their observance of the Jewish ritual, and excepting some of the leaders, who were grossly hypocritical, they were pious; and under a belief of a future. state of retribution they performed the great duties required by that dispensation under which providence had placed them. The latter were more loose in their principles and practice, and disbelieving a future existence, they gave themselves up to a dissolute and impious life. Now if God had a church among the Jews, to which if these sects did it belong? And if he had any true children in his church, where shall we find them, if not among the number of those, who, "as touching the righteousness of the law were blameless, and who lived in all good conscience before God?" Notwithstanding all aspersions, such Paul declares himself to have been before his conversion.

Persecution was the only crime that tarnished his character, and even this, under the influence of that charity and candour which christianity inspires, has a great palliation. His guilt loses its blackness when we recollect the goodness of design; and who