punishment?" But Saul, each day advancing in the knowledge and faith of the Christian doctrine, soon grew too strong in argument for the most skilful of the defenders of the Jewish faith; and utterly confounded them with his proofs that Jesus was the very Messiah. This triumphant course he followed for a long time; until, at last, the stubborn Jews, provoked to the highest degree by the defeats which they had suffered from this powerful disputant, lately their most zealous defender, took counsel to put him to death, as a renegade from the faith, of which he had been the trusted professor, as well as the commissioned minister of its vengeance on the heretics whose cause he had now espoused, and was defending, to the great injury and discredit of the Judaical order. In contriving the means of executing this scheme, they received the support and assistance of the government of the city,—Damascus being then held, not by the Romans, but by Aretas, a petty king of northern Arabia. The governor appointed by Aretas did not scruple to aid the Jews in their murderous project; but even himself, with a detachment of the city garrison, kept watch at the gates, to kill Saul at his first outgoing. But all their wicked plots were set at nought by a very simple contrivance. The Christian friends of Saul, hearing of the danger, determined to remove him from it at once; and accordingly, one night, put the destined apostle of the Gentiles in a basket; and through the window of some one of their houses, which adjoined the barriers of the city, they let him down outside of the wall, while the spiteful Jews, with the complaisant governor and his detachment of the city guard, were to no purpose watching the gates with unceasing resolution, to wreak their vengeance on this dangerous convert.
Michaelis alludes to the difficulties which have arisen about the possession of Damascus
by Aretas, and concludes as follows:
"The force of these objections has been considerably weakened, in a dissertation published in 1755, 'De ethnarcha Aretae Arabum regis Paulo insidiante,' by J. G. Heyne, who has shown it to be highly probable, first, that Aretas, against whom the Romans, not long before the death of Tiberius, made a declaration of war, which they neglected to put in execution, took the opportunity of seizing Damascus, which had once belonged to his ancestors; an event omitted in Josephus, as forming no part of the Jewish history, and by the Roman historians as being a matter not flattering in itself, and belonging only to a distant province. Secondly, that Aretas was by religion a Jew,—a circumstance the more credible, when we reflect that Judaism had been widely propagated in that country, and that even kings in Arabia Felix had recognized the law of Moses. * * * * * * And hence we may explain the reason why the Jews were permitted to exercise, in Damascus, persecutions still severer than those in Jerusalem, where the violence of their zeal was awed by the moderation of the Roman policy. Of this we find an example in the ninth chapter of the Acts, where Paul is sent by the high priest to Damascus, to exercise against the Christians, cruelties which the return of the Roman governor had check-
