According to this, it was a prophet and a dreamer who inspired the early disciples with the idea that he was the Jewish Messiah--those same disciples who saw in him a teacher of ethics only, yet corrupted the Gospels in the attempt to prove that he was something more--those same disciples who were not in the least responsible for the belief in Christ as divine that afterward crept into the Church through the door of epilepsy. And this ethical teacher is the same Being who believed with all His soul in the Promised One and permitted Himself to be greeted as the Promised One! This amazing series of contradictions does not come from confronting Browne with other authorities, but merely from confronting Browne with Browne and without going outside of one chapter of one single book. Strange indeed is the behavior of those who seek to eat their cake and at the same time to throw it away. For Browne would have it that Jesus, the prophet, dreamer and inspirer of belief in His Messiahship, was made a foundling in his own spiritual house by His antithesis, Paul--who accomplished this feat of dispossession by winning general acceptance for the very belief in question. Or does Browne think that when the Jewish Messiah came to be understood as the Savior of the World, the idea was less dreamlike and prophetic? Paul is evidently now drunk with the heady liquor of mystery-salvation. He has had a seizure. But Browne has been telling us how Paul’s other self, Saul, the studious young Pharisee, has been listening all his life to tales of mystery-cults and savior-gods from the lips of household slaves and Gentile playmates; how he has acquired more than a passing acquaintance with the Logos philosophy of a Jew residing in Alexandria. All this is heady liquor. Jew and Gentile, high and low, slaves and playmates--none of them are exactly Puritans or ethical rationalists. And the new religion, most heady of all, appeals--not to the youthful Saul, who might supposedly be the dreamer of the pair, but to the more mature Paul, the Roman citizen, organizer and man of affairs. Of course it is historically correct to say that the new religion did appeal to Paul rather than to Saul. But what happened on the road to Damascus was not, even on Browne’s own showing, a change from a disbelief to belief in miracle religion, but a change from disbelief to belief in Jesus as the Son of God. An epileptic fit, we are about to be told, makes a common man over into a moral and intellectual giant. It transforms a listener to tales and mystical philosophies into a cold thinker. And this cold thinking leads to the acceptance of Christianity in its original form. I am not questioning that cold thinking might not lead to such a result; am not trying to intimate that there is anything antagonistic between a cold brain and a warm heart. Browne’s fallacy here is historical--the attempt to prove that Paul was a cold thinker and pretended to be nothing else.