could have for such an embellishment (had it been one) Gamaliel Smith does not attempt to shew. The very description given by the Apostle sufficiently proves that the light was supernatural", and in reply to Gamaliel Smith's flippant enquiries as to the necessity of it, and his idle speculations respecting it, I may observe that the occasion of such a miraculous exertion of power was in every respect worthy of its divine Author. St. Paul possessed the requisite qualifications for becoming an instrument in the hands of Providence for the propagation of the Gospel, but through a blind and mistaken zeal he had bitterly persecuted the disciples of Christ thinking that thereby he was doing God service; and we may reasonably conclude that nothing less than an immediate revelation from God himself could have converted him to the truth, since he had shewn himself deaf to the eloquent and forcible reasoning of St. Stephen. The interposition of God in behalf of St. Paul was, therefore, an act not less of wisdom than of mercy.

2. Dialogue. Under this head I shall content myself with observing that Gamaliel Smith has

a

Mr. Robinson in his note on Acts ix. 3. thinks that thunder and lightning were the symbols of the divine presence on this occasion, as we are told they were upon Mount Sinai, at the delivery of the Law. See his note.

been guilty of great carelessness, or a wilful disregard of truth, by saying, that Paul "knew the voice to be the Lord's" (that is, Jesus's.) The direct contrary may be inferred from the question, "Who art thou, Lord?" and as to the conversation or dialogue, it will be found to be in each account to the same effect.

3. Falling to the ground. In this instance Gamaliel Smith is wrong again. He says, "By Paul alone was this prostration experienced." In none of the accounts is it said, that the prostration was experienced by Paul only, and we are assured in Paul's second account, that the contrary was the case.

4. Language of the voice. Gamaliel Smith says, in Acts' account, and Paul's first account, "of the language nothing is said."

In reply to this, I may observe, that, as it was in the Hebrew language, in which the Apostle spoke in his first account, it was unnecessary for him to say, that the vision addressed him in that language; but as it is most probable, that Paul, when pleading before king Agrippa and the Roman governor at Cæsarea, spoke in the Greek language, with which St. Paul was perfectly conversant, it was extremely natural for him, then, to remark, that the voice

a Acts xxi. 40.

which he heard, "spake unto him in the Hebrew tongue."

5. "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks"." This proverbial expression is left out in Paul's second account, but the omission is by no means a proof, that it was not uttered by the Vision.

We come now to what Gamaliel Smith calls contradictions.

6. The Lord's commands. Under this head, there is neither a "sad contradiction, or disastrous difference," as Gamaliel Smith would have us believe. If we look at the first, or historical account, we shall find, that the companions of Paul led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus,-a circumstance perfectly consistent with the declaration in Paul's first account, that the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into Damascus, as well as with the account in Paul's second speech, of the Lord's intention to make St. Paul "a minister, and a witness of those things which he had seen, and of those things in the which the Lord would appear unto him."

This was a proverbial method of expressing impotent rage, (like the ox kicking against the goad) which hurts only itself, not those against whom it is levelled.-Dr. Hales. See also Mr. Robinson's note on Acts ix. 5. This proverb here mentioned is omitted in Griesbach's edition.

7. Paul's companions—their posture. “Per Acts (says Gamaliel Smith,) though he fell, they stood it out.-Per Paul's second, they fell." In the original Greek, which Mr. Gamaliel Smith professes to understand, the word rendered in our English translation stood, signifies also, to remain, to continue, to stop; and it need not surprize any one, that the companions of St. Paul, terrified as they are reported to have been, should have remained, or stopped for some time, before they attempted to rise, move, or speak.

8. Paul's companions, their hearing, or not hearing. "Per Acts, they not only saw the light, but heard the voice. Per Paul's first, they did not hear the voice"." This at first looks like a formidable contradiction, but when the English reader is told, that in the Greek language there is a word, which signifies 1, to hear; 2, to understand; and when I inform him, that this is the very word used by St. Paul, in the passage in question, the difficulty, and apparent

2 εἱστήκεισαν, Acts ix. 7. See Mr. Robinson's note, where the apparent difficulty with respect to this word is entirely. removed. See also Mr. Hughes's Defence, p. 64.

b Tηv de pwvnv oйk йкovσav. Acts xxii. 9. Mr. Robinson, in his note on Acts ix. 7. confirms what I have said on the different significations of akow. He adds, on comparing the two accounts, "Nullam certè in his repugnantiam inveniet, qui ad talium investigationem sobrius accedit." See also Mr. Hughes, p. 65.

contradiction, will vanish, and we shall find, per Acts, that the men which journeyed with Paul, heard indeed the voice, but by Paul's first account, they understood it not.

9. Paul's companions, if they heard, what it was they heard. The contradiction attempted to be established under the preceding head, being already refuted, the superstructure which Gamaliel Smith has raised upon it, falls to the ground: but I shall make one or two remarks in reply to the following passage: "How was it, says Gamaliel Smith, that Paul's companions were able to lead Paul by the hand. All that he saw was the light, and by that light he was blinded. But all that he saw, they saw; this same light they saw as well as he. This same light, then, by which he was blinded, were they not likewise blinded by it? Was it a privilege-a privilege reserved for a chosen favourite?" I have already shewn, that there existed a powerful reason for the interposition of Providence in the case of St. Paul; the temporary blindness to which he was subjected, formed a part of that interposition, and the restoration of his sight afterwards at Damascus, would add confirmation to the truth of his reported supernatural conversion; but the case was different in regard to his companions: they

B