Enter once more the history of the _trance_. Note here the sudden termination of Defendant's first Jerusalem visit, alias his _Reconciliation Visit_, and turn back to Chapter IV. §. 7, Cause of it,--historian speaking in his own person--"Grecians," Acts 9:29, "went about to slay him," for disputing with them:--historian, speaking, to wit, here, in defendant's person, Christianized Jews' disbelief of his conversion, and of that vision story of his, that he produced in evidence of it. It is on the occasion of the just-mentioned Temple trial, that Defendant is made to come out with it. On that occasion, as hath been seen, it was of no use: but, in this second trial, it will be seen to be of prime use. That it was told over again at this trial is not indeed expressly said: but, that it was so is sufficiently manifest. This and no other is the handle which his supporters in the council lay hold of: and this they could not have done, had he not, as will be seen presently, put it into their hands. "The Scribes," says ver. 9, "that were of the Pharisees' part, arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God." Well then--this spirit, or this angel, who was he? Who but that spirit, whom defendant had so manifestly told them of, and who was no other than that "_Lord_" of his, whom he had seen in the trance: in the trance, which, while the multitude were beating him, invention had furnished him with for the purpose. Mark now, how apposite a weapon the Pharisees found, in this same trance, in their war against the Sadducees. As to Jesus,--though from first to last, so far from being recognized by their sect, he had been the object of that enmity of theirs under which he sunk,--yet, so far as, in general terms, he preached the _general_ resurrection,--his doctrine not only agreed with theirs, but was of no small use to them: it was of use to them, against those political rivals, whose opposition to their sect was the sole cause of everything that was troublesome to it. As to Paul,--had he confined himself, to the speaking of Jesus's _particular_ resurrection,--this indeed was what no Pharisee could be disposed to admit: but if, by Paul or anyone else, Jesus, or any other person, was at any time seen in an incorporeal state,--here was a piece of evidence on their side. With relation to any interview of the _Apostles_ with Jesus after his resurrection, nothing that Paul had to say--to say with truth or colour of truth--was anything more than _hearsay_ evidence: but, as to that, which on this occasion, he had been relating about the Lord, whom he had seen in his trance,--this, how false soever, was not only _direct_, but _immediate_ evidence: evidence, in the delivery of which, the _relating_ witness stated himself to have been, with relation to the alleged fact in question, a _percipient_ witness.