All this while, now for little less than 1800 years, from Paul's own pen we have an account of this his conversion: and, of any such story as that of its being effected through the instrumentality of visions,--in this account of his, not any the slightest trace is to be found;--not any the slightest allusion to it. At the time of his giving this account--supposing this story of the mode of his conversion true--supposing even that, though false, it had been got up and propagated--at the time of his giving the account which bears such unquestionable marks of being his, was the occasion such as to render it probable, that he could thus have omitted all allusion, to an occurrence at once so extraordinary and so important? If not, then so it is--that, by the silence of Paul himself, the story related by his historian is virtually contradicted. The occasion here in view is--that of his writing the so often mentioned, and so often about to be mentioned, Epistle to his Galatian disciples. At the time of his writing this letter, so we shall have occasion to see over and over again in the tenor of it, he was acting in opposition--declared and violent opposition--to the Apostles: struggling with them for the mastery; declaring that to them he was not beholden for anything;--that the Gospel he preached was not their Gospel, but a Gospel of his own, received by him directly from Jesus;--declaring, that in Jerusalem itself, the seat of their authority, he had preached this Gospel of his, which was not theirs; but confessing, at the same time, that when he did so, it was in a secret manner, for fear of the opposition, which he well knew, had they known of it, they could not but have made to it. In this state of contention--supposing any such miracle as that in question wrought in his favour--was it in the nature of the case that he should have failed to avail himself of it?--to avail himself of the account which the truth--the important truth--would have so well warranted him in giving of it? Supposing it true, had there at that time been witnesses to it--any percipient witnesses--the supposed Ananias--the supposed companions on the road,--would he have failed making his appeal to their testimony? Supposing even that there were none such left, the truth of the occurrence--of an occurrence of such momentous importance, would it not have inspired him with boldness, sufficient for the assertion of it, with all that intensity for which the case itself furnished so sufficient a warrant, and which the vehemence of his character would have rendered it so impossible for him to avoid? Supposing even the story an utter falsehood, yet, had it been at this time got up and promulgated, could he, if he saw any tolerable prospect of its obtaining credence, have failed to endeavour to avail himself of it?