Indeed, the same is otherwise plain.

Paul's reasonings are those of a Gamaliel, and often are indefensible by our logical notions.

John, also (as I had been recently learning,) has a wonderful similarity to Philo.

This being the case, it becomes of deep interest to us to know,--if we are to accept results _at second hand_ from Paul and John,--_what was the sort of evidence which convinced them ?_ The moment this question is put, we see the essential defect to which we are exposed, in not being able to cross-examine them.

Paul says that "Christ appeared to him:" elsewhere, that he has "received of the Lord" certain facts, concerning the Holy Supper: and that his Gospel was "given to him by revelation." If any modern made such statements to us, and on this ground demanded our credence, it would be allowable, and indeed obligatory, to ask many questions of him.