A supernatural conversion, and the receipt of a supernatural commission for the delivery of a fresh body of doctrine; such are the two events, which, though in their nature so perfectly distinguishable, were according to this narrative combined in one:--the conversion from an unbelieving, cruel, and destructive persecutor of the new fellowship, into a most zealous supporter and coadjutor: the body of doctrine such as if it amounted to anything, could not but have been--what the person in question declared it to be--a supplement to the religion taught by Jesus while in the flesh;--a supplement, containing matter never revealed to, and consequently never taught by, his Apostles. Now then, of all these supernatural occurrences, which, by the nameless historiographer, are related to have happened to Paul, if anything had really happened to him--on this supposition, (so many as were the different sets of disciples of his, inhabitants of so many mutually distant provinces, no fewer than eight in number); is it in the nature of the case, that in no one instance, in any of his numerous Epistles, he should have felt the necessity of stating and accordingly have stated, to any of these his disciples, the circumstances attending the event of his conversion--an event on which alone all his professions were founded? circumstances to which, as stated in his historian's narrative, could not from their nature have been known to any human being other than himself? Yet, in no one of all his Epistles, to any one of these his disciples, of any such particular, either in the way of direct assertion, or in the way of allusion, is any trace to be found. Of _revelation_, yes: of _revelation_--this one most momentous indeed, but at the same time most mysterious and uninstructive word, repetitions we have in abundance. But of the time and manner of the alleged communication, or of the matter communicated, nothing is anywhere said. In these considerations may be seen a part, though but a part, of those, on which, in due season, will be seen grounded the inference,--that at no time, in all the personal conferences he had with the Apostles, was any such story told by Paul, as is related by the author of the Acts. On the supposition that the narrative, such as it is, is genuine,--taking it as a whole, a very important source of division, from which it will require to be divided in idea into two parts or periods, here presents itself. Period the first, containing the portion of time _anterior_ to the historian's admission into the train of the supposed Apostle: Period the second, containing the portion of time _posterior_ to that event: this latter portion continuing, as far as appears, to the time at which the history closes. In this latest and last-mentioned period are comprised all the several facts, or supposed facts, in relation to which any grounds appear for the supposition that the historian was, in his own person, a percipient witness.