Paul's companions;--and that it reserved what followed, to wit, the above-mentioned order with the promise, for Paul's single ear; true it is, this may be _imagined_ as well as anything else: but at any rate it is not _said_.
If Paul 2d--the studied oratorical account--is to be believed, all the information for the communication of which this miracle was performed was, as will be seen, communicated here upon the road: viz. immediately after the voice had been called by him _Lord_. But, if this was the case, and, as above, Paul's companions heard all that he heard,--then so it is, that the revelation was made as well to them as to him;--this revelation, upon the strength of which we shall see him setting himself up above all the Apostles; himself and that Gospel of his own, which he says was his own, and none of theirs. Now then--these companions--was it upon the same errand as his that they went, to wit, the bringing in bonds to Jerusalem all the Damascus Christians? If so, or if on any other account they were any of them in a condition to need conversion,--they were converted as well as he; or else, so far as concerned them, the miracle was thrown away. Companions as they were of his, were they or were they not respectively attendants of his?
attendants going under his orders, and on the same errand? Unless, by the Jerusalem rulers, on the part of the Damascus rulers, both will and power were depended upon, as adequate to the task of apprehending the followers of Jesus and sending them bound to Jerusalem, such these companions ought to have been, every one of them--supposing always on the part of this about-to-be Apostle an ordinary prudence: that sort and degree of prudence with which no ordinary police-officer is unprovided.
Some persons under his orders he must have had, or he could never have been sent on so extensively and strongly coercive an errand.
These companions, if, on this occasion, any such or any other companions he had, had each of them a name. To this vision, such as it was, they being each of them respectively, as well as himself, whether in the way of sight and hearing both, or in the way of sight alone, percipient witnesses, their names, in the character of so many percipient witnesses, ready upon every proper occasion to answer in the character of _reporting_ witnesses, would have been of no small use: of use, were it only for the giving to this story a little more substance than it has in the form we see it in.
As to Ananias--the supposed principal actor in the scene next to Paul--for him, indeed, supposing any such person to have existed, a name, it is seen, was found. But, with a view to any purpose of evidence, how little that name amounted to, will be seen likewise.
In this vision of Paul's, as it is called,--was any person seen, or anything but light--light at midday? No; positively not any person, nor as far as appears, the light excepted, anything whatsoever. Per Acts, chap. ix:8, when "his eyes were opened,"--so it is expressly said,--"he saw no man." This was after he had fallen to the earth; for it was after he arose from the earth. But, it was before he fell to the earth, and thereupon heard the voice, that, according to this same account, he saw the extra light--the light created for the purpose: and, forasmuch as at the conclusion of the dialogue with the five speeches in it--forasmuch as at the conclusion of it, such was the effect produced upon him by the light, as to render him at that time stone-blind, requiring to be led by the hand, it could not from the first have been anything less effective.
Per Acts, in this state he continues all the way as far as Damascus, and for three days after his arrival there. So likewise in the supposed unstudied speech, Paul 1st. But in the studied speech, Paul 2d, there is no blindness; the blindness is either forgotten or discarded.
But the curious circumstance is, his being led by the hand--all the way to Damascus led by the hand:--led by the hand by these same companions.
Now these same companions, how was it that they were able to lead him 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 blinded likewise by it? Was it a privilege--a privilege reserved for a chosen favourite--a privilege which it cost a miracle to produce--the being blinded when nobody else was blinded?
Blinded then as they were, how came he to be led by them, any more than they by him? Can the blind lead the blind? Let Jesus answer. Shall they not both fall into the ditch?
Oh! but (says somebody) it is only in Paul 1st,--in Paul's supposed unstudied speech, that the historian makes them see the light that Paul saw. Answer. True: but neither in his own person does he say the contrary. As to their seeing, all he says is, that _they_ saw no man, "hearing a voice but seeing no man." (ver. 7.) But by the same account, (ver. 8.) "When _his_ eyes were opened, he saw no man;" so that, though in what he says in his own person the historian does not mention this which he mentions, speaking in Paul's person,--yet he does not contradict it.
10. _Paul's companions. What part, if any, took they in the conversation?_ Per Acts, they stood speechless: and it is after the dialogue has been reported, that this is stated. In the unstudied speech, nothing is said about their speech. In the studied speech, with reference to them, no mention is made of speech; any more than of sight or hearing.
But, forasmuch as, according to Acts, whatever Paul saw and heard, they saw and heard likewise; how happened it, that by no one of them, so much as a word, on an occasion so interesting to all, was said--or a question put? To be sure it was to Paul alone, that by the voice, whosever it was, any address was made. It was his concern:--his alone, and none of theirs.
So, indeed, some might think; but, others in their situation, quite as naturally might think otherwise. Sooner or later, at any rate, they would recover whatever it was they lost: sight, if sight; speech, if speech. Whenever recovered, speech would thereupon range with but the greater freedom, for the restraint which, for a time, had been put upon it:--range over the whole business, including whatever secrets Paul had been put in possession of:--the commission, the sweeping and incarcerating commission he had been intrusted with by the rulers, and the unperformed promise that had been made to him by the voice, which being at midday, accompanied by an extraordinary light, was of course the Lord's voice. These things would naturally, by these his companions, have been converted from secrets into town-talk.
Nay but (says somebody) though it _is_ said he saw no _man_, it is _not_ said, he saw not the Lord: and elsewhere he may be seen saying--saying in the most positive terms, that he did see the Lord[7]. And if he did see the Lord anywhere, why not here as well as anywhere else?
"_Saw no man._" Yes: so says the English version. But the original is more comprehensive:--Saw no person, says the original: that is, to speak literally, saw no one of the masculine gender. No one what? No one person of this gender: this is what the word means, if it means anything. No person; and therefore no Lord: no God; if so it be that, when applied to denote God, the word person means God, or as some say, a part of God.
Note, likewise,--that, when the companions are spoken of,--both in the translation and in the original, the object to which the negative is applied is expressed by the same word as when he, Paul, is spoken of.
SECTION 3.
VISION II.--ANANIAS'S.
Of the vision itself there being but one account, by this singleness discordancy is saved.
But, of the description belonging to Ananias there are two accounts.
One the historical, as before: the other, the unpremeditated oratorical account supposed to be given by Paul in the first of his two supposed speeches, as above; and, room being thus given for discordancy,--discordancy, as of course, enters--or at any rate a strong suspicion of it.
Per Acts, Ananias is a disciple: a disciple, to wit, a Christian; a disciple immediately of Jesus or his Apostles: for, such is the signification attached to the word _disciple_ in the Acts: such he would on this occasion be of course understood to be; for, otherwise the word would be uncharacteristic and insignificant.
Materially different is the description supposed to have been given of this same Ananias by Paul in that same supposed unpremeditated speech; so different as to be not without effort, if by any effort, reconcilable with it.
He is now a disciple of Jesus and the Apostles; of that Jesus, by whom the law, _i.e._ the Mosaic law, was after such repeated exposure of its inaptitude, pronounced obsolete. He is now not only spoken of as being, notwithstanding this conversion, a devout man according to that same law; but, moreover, as having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, to wit, at Damascus. Of the Jews? Yes; of "_all_" the Jews.
If, notwithstanding his conversion to a religion by which that of the Jews was slighted and declared to be superseded, he was still so happy as to be the subject of this good _report_, which is as much as to say--of a correspondently unanimous good opinion; this, it would seem, would have been the man to preach to them that religion: especially if that part of the story were true, according to which he was distinguished by the same supernatural sort of communication; this man, who was already a Christian, this man, and not Paul, who of all opposers of Christianity had been the most fierce and the most mischievous, would naturally have been the man to receive the supernatural commission.
Supposing his vision real, and the reports of it true, no difficulty, rationally speaking, could he have found in obtaining credence for it at the hands of the Apostles: those Apostles, at whose hands, from first to last it will be seen, never was it the lot of Paul, with _his_ vision or visions, to obtain credence.
The audience, before which this speech was supposed to be delivered, of whom was it composed? With the exception of a few Romans, to whom it was probably unintelligible unless by accident, altogether of Jews; and these--no one can say in what proportion, probably in by much the largest, Jews not christianized. Hence then the sort of character, which the occasion and the purpose required should be given, to this supposed miraculously formed acquaintance of the person who, upon the strength of this acquaintance, was to be numbered among the Apostles.
TOPIC 2.--_Mode of Conversation._ By this vision is produced a dialogue. Interlocutors, the Lord and Ananias. In the course of the dialogue, speeches five: whereof, by the Lord, three; the other two by Ananias.
In and by the first pair of speeches the Lord calls the man by his name: the man answers, Behold, says he, I am here, Lord. In the English translation, to atone for the too great conciseness of the Greek original, the words "_am here_" are not improperly interpolated. Giving to this supposed supernatural intercourse what seemed to him a natural cast--a cast suited to the occasion--seems to have been the object of the historian in the composition of this dialogue. But, upon so supernatural a body, a natural colouring, at any rate a colouring such as this, does not seem to fit quite so completely as might have been wished. On the road, when the voice,--which turned out to be that of the Lord, that is, being interpreted, Jesus's,--addressed itself to Paul, this being the first intercourse, there was a necessity for its declaring itself, for its declaring whose it was; and the declaration was made accordingly. Here, on the other hand, no sooner does Ananias hear himself called by his name, than he knows who the person is by whom he is thus addressed. Taken as it stands, an answer thus prompt includes the supposition of an already established intercourse. Such intercourse supposed--in what way on former occasions had it been carried on? Laying such former occasion out of the question--in what way is it supposed to be carried on on the occasion here in question? On the occasion of his visit to Paul,--the Lord, to whomsoever he may have been audible, had never, from first to last, as we have seen, been visible. On the occasion of this visit of his to Ananias--was the Lord audible only, or visible only, or both audible and visible? If both audible and visible, or even if only visible,--the mode of revelation was more favourable to this secondary and virtually unknown personage, than to the principal one.
Between mortal and mortal, when it is the desire of one man to have personal communication with another whom he supposes to be within hearing, but who is either not in his sight or not looking towards him,--he calls to him by his name; and in token of his having heard, the other answers. From man to man, such information is really necessary; for--that the requisite attention has place where it is his desire that it should have place, the human interlocutor has no other means of knowing. Not considering, that the person to whom the information is supposed to be conveyed is a sort of person to whom no such information could be necessary, the historian represents his Ananias as giving to the Lord, as if to a mere mortal, information of his presence. Behold, Lord! I am here.
TOPIC 3.--_Lord's Commands and Information: Want of particularization a disprobative Circumstance._ The conversation being thus begun, the interlocutors proceed to business. In speech the 3d, Lord delivers to Ananias, the devout Jew, a command, and thereupon a piece of information. The command is--to repair to a place therein described, and find out Paul: the information is--that at the time then present Paul is praying; and that, at an anterior point of time not designated, he had seen a vision.
In the command, the designation of the place wears, upon the face of it, the appearance of that sort and degree of particularity, the exaction of which is, in these days, in which genuine visions are never exemplified, matter of course, on every occasion on which it is the real intention, of those on whom it depends, that through the medium of personal testimony the truth should be extracted. On every such occasion, the object in question, whether it be an event or a quiescent state of things, is endeavoured to be individualized: and, for the production of this effect, the individual portion of space, and the individual portion of time, are endeavoured to be brought to view together.
On the occasion here in question, towards the individualization of the portion of space some approach is made: the town being foreknown, to wit, Damascus, the _street_ is particularized; it is the street called _Straight_: as in Westminster we have _Long-ditch_, and in London _Crooked-lane_. Moreover, the _house_ is particularized; it is the house of Judas. To this Judas had any one of those marks of distinction been added, which in that age and nation we find to have been common,--as in the instance of the too notorious Judas the Iscariot, _i.e._, the inhabitant of Iscara, and in that of Judas Barsabas, _i.e._, the son of Sabas, or, as we should say, Sabasson, not long after mentioned, Acts 25:22,--it would have been something. But, destitute of such limitative adjunct, _Judas_ of itself was nothing. In that age and country, even without reckoning notorious traitors, there was never any want of Judases. Not inferior in plenty were Ananiases: in the Acts we have three of them;--this private inhabitant of Damascus: the High Priest, whose seat was at Jerusalem; and the husband of Sapphira: and in Josephus they vie in abundance with the Johns and Jesuses.
But, on the occasion in question, and to the purpose in question, though a distinctive adjunct as above would have done something, it would have done very little. In the field of time,--seven-and-twenty years at least, and we know not how much more, according to the received chronology, was the distance between the event in question, and the report given of it in this history. Neither in Damascus nor yet in Jerusalem was any such thing as a newspaper,--not even an enslaved newspaper, in existence; no, nor yet so much as a printing-press,--not even an enslaved printing-press. For writing, the materials were expensive; and handwriting was the only mode of copying. Publication was not, as under the printing-press, promiscuous: unless by accident, for an indefinite length of time, into no other hand did any copy find its way, other than those of the author's confidential friends, or friends separated from the author by a greater or less number of removes, as it might happen; but all of them linked to one another by the bonds of amity, and unity of principle and practice.
In such a capital as Damascus, Straight Street might have been as long as Oxford Street; and, unless the style of building in those earlier days had much more of convenience and luxury in it than in these latter days, was much more crowded. Conceive a man at this time of day, going to Oxford Street with the intention of finding the house, in which, thirty years ago, a man of the name of Brown or Smith had his residence,--to wit, on some indeterminate day, of the number of those included within the space of an indeterminate number of years; and this, for the purpose of ascertaining whether, on this indeterminate day, and by this Smith or this Brown, a vision, not seen by anybody else, had been seen. Suppose a man in Rome set out on such an errand--and then say what would be the probable result of it.
TOPIC 4.--_Vision reported to Ananias by the Lord as having been seen by Paul._ Of the report then given of this anterior vision, the character is too remarkable to be given, as it were, in a parenthesis: it is therefore referred to a separate head. Acts ix. 12. "And Paul hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him that he might receive his sight."
TOPIC 5.--_Ananias's Objection to the Lord's Commands to visit Paul--He informs the Lord what he had heard about Paul._ By the two first speeches of this dialogue, we are given to understand that Ananias had already held intercourse with the Lord; an intercourse which, the nature of the two parties considered, could not have been other than a supernatural intercourse: yes, and on this very subject: for, if not on this particular subject, the subject of it, whatever it was, could not but have called for notice and communication. But, no sooner does this next speech commence, than we are given to understand that there had not--could not have been any such intercourse: for if there had been, what follows would have been rendered useless and needless. Upon receiving the command, Ananias's first thought is--to endeavour to excuse himself from paying obedience to it; for in this endeavour it is, that he gives the Lord a piece of information; to wit--of what, in relation to Paul's character, he (Ananias) had heard.
Acts ix. 13: "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the Chief Priests to bind all that call on thy name." Thus then, commands known to have been the Lord's, having that instant been received,--the man by whom they have been received--so small is the confidence, reposed in the Lord by this his favoured disciple--instead of paying obedience to them, answers them by an objection. This objection, prepared for it or not prepared for it, the Lord, as might well be expected, immediately overrules.
A question that here presents itself is--Since it was from _many_, i.e.
_many men_, that Ananias had heard, not only what everybody had been hearing for weeks, or months, or years,--viz. of the evil that Paul had been doing to the Jerusalem saints, but of the authority that he had so lately received, to bind at Damascus all the Damascus saints he could find--since it was from so many, who then were these many? How was it, that in the compass of the three days (ver. 9), during which Paul had remained without sight or nourishment, a commission,--to the execution of which secrecy was so obviously necessary,--had to such a degree transpired? Suppose the secret to have thus transpired,--two results would, in any natural and credible state of things, have been among the consequences. The persons thus devoted to destruction would have made their escape; the commission by which alone the supposed proceedings against them could have found a justification or a cause, not having been delivered. On the other hand, hearing that Paul was there, and that he either was, or pretended to be, in the house in question, or in some other, in the extraordinary condition above described,--the persons spoken of in the Acts under the name of _the Synagogue_, would not have left him there, but would have convened him before them, and, if he really had any such commission, have caused it to be produced, and read it: convened before them, not only Paul with his supposed commission, but those companions of his that we have already heard of, if any such he had[8].
But of these there will be occasion to speak in another place.
TOPIC 6.--_The Lord's Answer, obviating the objection, and giving intimation of his designs in favour of Paul._ This objection, no sooner has the Lord overruled it, than he undertakes to answer it, and to explain to this his so singularly favoured old disciple the intentions he had formed in favour of his intended new convert, whose conversion is, however, as yet but in progress (ver. 14): "But the Lord said to him, Go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel:--For (continues the Lord) I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." Being, and therefore at the time of Paul's vision purposing to be, in relation to his designs for Paul, thus communicative to this same Ananias, who is a perfect stranger to this same Paul,--to what purpose, on the occasion of his supposed visionary intercourse with Paul, should _the Lord_ have stopped short; reserving the communication, for the intention of giving it him at second-hand by the mouth of that same stranger? This is one of the swarms of questions which an account of this sort could scarcely fail to present to any inquiring mind.
Meantime, as to the Lord's having thus stopped short, this we shall see is in full contradiction with the account which the historian makes him give in his supposed second reported speech, to wit, the supposed premeditated one, spoken before Agrippa, who, under the proconsul Festus, was king of the Jews, and who, on that occasion, is spoken of as being assessor to the said proconsul Festus. On that occasion the Lord is represented as explaining himself more fully to Paul himself, than here, for the benefit of Paul, through Ananias.
SECTION 4.
ANANIAS: HIS VISIT TO PAUL AT DAMASCUS.
We now come to the visit, which, we are to understand, was, in reality, paid to Paul by Ananias, in consequence of this vision, in obedience to the command imagined to be given in it.
Note that, though, in the original--in _the including vision_, as it may be called--the command is given to inquire in the house in question for the person (Saul) in question,--this is _all_ the command which, in that least visionary of the two visions, is delivered. In the first instance to make the inquiry, and in conclusion to go his way--this is all to which the commands given to him in the direct way extend themselves. To accomplish the object of this intercourse--to do anything towards it beyond the making of this inquiry--he has to take hints and to draw inferences:--inferences from the Lord's speech, which is thus continued, Acts ix. 12: "And (Paul) _hath seen in a vision_ a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him that he might receive his sight."
From having been told what--in a vision, to wit, this _contained or included vision_--this same Paul had been _fancying_ he _had_ seen him (Ananias) do--from this he was to conclude that it was the Lord's will that he (Ananias) _should_ do _in reality_ that which Paul had been fancying him to have done; though the only effect, for the doing of which it had so been fancied to have been performed, had never been produced. This was what he was to conclude was the Lord's will; although the Lord himself, who (if any person) should have known how to speak plainly and beyond danger of misconception, had forborne to tell him as much.
On the occasion of this important visit--this visit of Ananias to Paul,--the double light--the light cast by the first of the two oratorical accounts--to wit, the supposed unpremeditated one, upon the historical one--recommences.
Follows now--and from both sources--the account of the interview, and of the cure performed in the course of it.
ACTS' ACCOUNT.--Ch. ix. ver. 17-22.
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him, said: Brother Saul, the Lord, _even_ Jesus, that _appeared_ unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, _and be filled with the Holy Ghost_.--And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been _scales_: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and _was baptized_.--And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul _certain days_ with the disciples which were _at Damascus_.--And straightway he _preached_ Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.--But all that heard _him_ were amazed, and said: Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the Chief Priests?--But Saul _increased the more_ in strength, and _confounded the Jews_ which dwelt at _Damascus_, proving that this is very Christ.
PAUL'S ACCOUNT.--ACTS, Ch. xxii. ver. 12-16.
12. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt _there_,--Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me: Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.--And he said: The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and _see_ that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.--For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast _seen_ and heard.--And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and _be baptized_, and wash away thy sins; calling on the name of the Lord.
TOPIC 1.--_On visiting Paul, Ananias's Introductory Speech--Preliminary Recital._ I. In the historical account, the speech has in it several distinguishable parts.
I. "Brother Saul."
First comes the address, in which Saul, the future Paul, is addressed by disciple Ananias by the name of _brother_. If, as between Jew and Jew, this was a common form of salutation,--so far everything is in order.
But, if it was only in consideration of his having been denominated a disciple, to wit, of Jesus,--the salutation is rather premature: the conversion, supposing it effected, is, at any rate, not yet declared.
Not only in the historical account is this appellation employed, but likewise in the oratorical one.
The attention of Paul being thus bespoken by his visitor, mention is thereupon made of the purpose of the visit.
I. In the first place comes a recital. "The Lord (says he), even Jesus, that _appeared_ unto thee on the way as thou camest, hath sent me"...Unfortunately, according to the historian himself, this assertion, as we have seen already, is not true. In no manner or shape did the Lord Jesus, or any other person, make his appearance;--all that _did_ appear was the light--the light at midday: so he has just been writing, and before the ink, if ink it was that he used, was dry, already had he forgotten it.
This, however, is but a collateral averment:--a recital, an episode, matter of _inducement_, as an English lawyer would phrase it.
TOPIC 2.--_Declared Purposes or Objects of the Visit._ Purpose the first. "That thou mightest," says Ananias, "receive thy sight." Thus says Ananias in the historical account: in the supposed oratorical one he is more concise. No supposed past occurrence referred to:--no purpose declared. "Receive thy sight" are the words.
Purpose the second. That thou mightest "be filled with the Holy Ghost," says the historical account. But in a succeeding passage what is the purpose, which, in the supposed oratorical account Ananias is made to speak of, in the design that it should be taken for the purpose which the Lord by his commandment meant to be accomplished? Not the being filled by the Holy Ghost; only the being baptized. "And now, why tarriest thou? (Acts xxii. ver. 16) Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Well but (says somebody) receiving the Holy Ghost, and being baptized,--by these two expressions, is not one, and no more than one effect--one and the same effect--to be understood? No, in truth, if the historian himself is to be believed. Turn to another chapter--the very next chapter before this, Acts 12 to 17, and there you will see, that the being baptized was one thing, the receiving the Holy Ghost another thing, and much more. For administering the ceremony of baptism, a single Apostle, Philip, was sufficient: whereas, for the causing the Holy Ghost to be received, nothing less was requisite than the cooperation of two Apostles, and those two commissioned by the rest.
So serious always, according to this historian, was the difference, that it was after he had been already baptized, and baptized gratis in a crowd, that for the power of conferring this benefit, whatever it was that it was composed of, Sorcerer Simon made to the two Apostles, those offers--those pecuniary offers--which are said to have been no sooner made than rejected. Acts 13 to 24.
TOPIC 3.--_Actual Effects of the Visit, and the Application in consequence made in the course of it._ Effect 1. _Scales fall from Eyes, and Sight is received in consequence._ In the historical narrative, the effect is as complete as it is remarkable. Fall from his eyes a portion of matter of the nature or resemblance of scales: whereupon he receives sight forthwith.
In the supposed oratorical account, whatsoever had been meant by scales, nothing is said of them. Neither is the declaration made of the completeness of the case quite so explicit. One look he gave--gave to his wonder-working surgeon--and instead of its being given forthwith--to give this one look required, it should seem, if not a whole hour, at any rate so little less, that any time less than an hour could not--such, in this supposed unpremeditated speech, was the anxiety felt for correctness--could not be ventured to be particularized.
The more closely these scales, or things resembling scales, are looked at, the more difficult will it be to find them amount to anything. In no cure, performed upon eyes in any natural way, in these our days--upon eyes that have lost their sight--do any scales fall off, or anything in any degree resembling scales;--in no disorder of the eyes, known to have place in these our days, do scales, or anything like scales, come over the eyes. By the taking of matter from the eyes, sight, it is true, is every now and then restored: but this matter is not matter, foreign in relation to the eye and exterior to it; but one of the component parts called _humours_ of the eye, which, by losing its transparency having suspended the faculty of vision, is let out by a lancet; whereupon not only is the faculty of sight restored, but the part which had been extirpated restored likewise; and without any expense in the article of miracles.
On the supposition of falsity,--quere the use of this circumstance?
_Answer._ To afford support to the conception, that memory and not imagination was the source from which the story was derived. True it is, that, instead of support, a circumstance exposed to contradiction would be an instrument of weakness: if, for example, on the supposition that Paul had no companions on the road, names indicative of really existing and well-known persons had been added, to the intimation given in the _Acts_, of the existence of such companions. But to no such hazard was the story of the scales exposed: not to any great danger, on the supposition of the existence of Paul's Ananias: not to any danger at all, upon the supposition of his non-existence.
But, upon this occasion, now again once more present themselves--present themselves to the mind's eye--Paul's companions. That they were blinded at all can scarcely, it has been seen, be believed, if on this matter the historian himself is believed. For, per Acts ix. 8, "they led him by the hand:" so, per Paul 1st, Acts xxii. 11, "When I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those that were with me, I came unto Damascus." But if, notwithstanding so it was that _they_ too were blinded,--how was it with _their_ eyes? Had _their_ eyes scales upon them? did these scales ever fall off?--if so, by what means were they made to fall off? _their_ evidence would have been not much, if anything, less impressive,--and it would have been much less open to suspicion,--than Paul's evidence, supposing him to have spoken of these scales--which the historian, to whom, if he is to be believed, their existence is so well known, did not take upon him to represent Paul as saying that he did. But if so it was, that, though rendered blind as Paul's, no scales were superinduced upon, nor consequently made to fall off, the eyes of those nameless and unknown persons,--how came they to be superinduced upon and made to fall off from the eyes of their singularly favoured principal? If, for a length of time more or less considerable, they really were made blind,--it was, if the historian is to be believed, by the same cause by which, in the instance of Paul's eyes, this same effect was produced:--the same cause, to wit an extraordinary light at noonday. If, whatsoever was the matter with them, the eyes of these ordinary persons could be set to rights without a miracle, what need could there be of a miracle for the producing the same desirable effect in the person of this their leader or master, extraordinary as this same leader or master was?
TOPIC 4.--_Baptism--was it performed? when, where, by whom, &c.?_ The baptism thus spoken of--was it performed? Yes: if you will believe the historian, speaking in his own person, speaking in his own historical account: "And forthwith," in the first place, "Paul recovered his sight;"--then, when, his sight having been recovered, he