{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37233/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37233","id":"gutenberg_37233","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37233","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Miracles","Supernatural"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSUPERNATURAL RELIGION:\n\nAN INQUIRY INTO THE REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION.\n\nIN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. III.\n\nCOMPLETE EDITION. CAREFULLY REVISED.\n\nLONDON:\n\nLONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.,\n\n1879.\n\n[The Right of Translation is Reserved.]\n\n\n\n\"Credulity is as real, if not so great, a sin as unbelief.\"\n\nArchbishop Trench.\n\n\n\"The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the\nconfession of despair.\"\n\nCanon Lightfoot.\n\n\n\nPG EDITOR'S NOTE: This file has been provided with an image of the\noriginal scan for each page which is linked to the page number in the\nhtml file. Nearly every page in the text has many Greek passages which\nhave been indicated where they occur by [------] as have many complex\ntables; these passages may be viewed in the page images. Some of the\npages have only a few lines of text and then the rest of the page is\ntaken up with complex footnotes in English, Greek and Hebrew. The reader\nmay click on the page numbers in the html file to see the entire page\nwith the footnotes. --DW\n\n\n\n\nSUPERNATURAL RELIGION: AN INQUIRY INTO THE REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION\n\n\n\n\nPART IV. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE\n\nBefore we proceed to examine the evidence for miracles and the reality\nof Divine Revelation which is furnished by the last historical book of\nthe New Testament, entitled the \"Acts of the Apostles,\" it is well that\nwe should briefly recall to mind some characteristics of the document,\nwhich most materially affect the value of any testimony emanating from\nit. Whilst generally asserting the resurrection of Jesus, and his bodily\nascension, regarding which indeed it adds fresh details, this work\npresents to us a new cycle of miracles, and so profusely introduces\nsupernatural agency into the history of the early church that, in\ncomparison with it, the Gospels seem almost sober narratives. The\nApostles are instructed and comforted by visions and revelations, and\nthey, and all who believe, are filled with the Holy Spirit and speak\nwith other tongues. The Apostles are delivered from\n\n{2}\n\nprison and from bonds by angels or by an earthquake. Men fall dead or\nare smitten with blindness at their rebuke. They heal the sick, raise\nthe dead, and handkerchiefs brought from their bodies cure diseases and\nexpel evil spirits.\n\nAs a general rule, any document so full of miraculous episodes and\nsupernatural occurrences would, without hesitation, be characterized as\nfabulous and incredible, and would not, by any sober-minded reader, be\nfor a moment accepted as historical. There is no other testimony for\nthese miracles. Let the reader endeavour to form some conception of\nthe nature and amount of evidence necessary to establish the truth of\nstatements antecedently so incredible, and compare it with the testimony\nof this solitary and anonymous document, the character and value of\nwhich we shall now proceed more closely to examine.\n\nIt is generally admitted, and indeed it is undeniable, that no distinct\nand unequivocal reference to the Acts of the Apostles, and to Luke as\ntheir author, occurs in the writings of Fathers before one by Irenaeus(1)\nabout the end of the second century. Passages are, however, pointed out\nin earlier writings as indicating the use and consequent existence of\nour document, all of which we shall now examine.\n\n{3}\n\nSeveral of these occur in the \"Epistle to the Corinthian s,\" ascribed\nto Clement of Rome. The first, immediately compared with the passage to\nwhich it is supposed to be a reference,(1) is as follows:--\n\n[------]\n\nThe words of the Epistle are not a quotation, but merely occur in the\ncourse of an address. They do not take the form of an axiom, but are a\ncomment on the conduct of the Corinthians, which may have been suggested\neither by written or oral tradition, or by moral maxims long before\ncurrent in heathen philosophy.2 It is unnecessary to enter minutely into\nthis, however, or to indicate the linguistic differences between the\ntwo passages, for one point alone settles the question. In the Acts:\nthe saying, \"It is more blessed to give than to receive,\" is distinctly\nintroduced as a quotation of\n\n{4}\n\n\"words of the Lord Jesus,\" and the exhortation \"to remember\" them,\nconveys the inference that they were well known. They must either have\nformed part of Gospels now no longer extant, as they are not found in\nours, or have been familiar as the unwritten tradition of sayings of the\nMaster. In either case, if the passage in the Epistle be a reference\nto these words at all, it cannot reasonably be maintained that it must\nnecessarily have been derived from a work which itself distinctly quotes\nthe words from another source. It would be against every principle\nof evidence, under such circumstances, to affirm the passage to be an\nallusion to this special work, of whose previous existence we have\nno independent evidence.(1) The slight coincidence in the expression,\nwithout indication that any particular passage is in the mind of the\nauthor, and without any mention of the Acts, therefore, is no evidence\nof the existence of that work.\n\nA few critics point to some parts of the following passage as showing\nacquaintance with Acts:--\"Through jealousy Paul also pointed out the way\nto the prize of patience, having borne chains seven times, having been\nput to flight, having been stoned; having become a preacher both in\nthe East and in the West, he gained the noble renown due to his faith;\nhaving taught the whole world righteousness, and come to the extremity\nof the West, and having suffered martyrdom by command of the rulers,\nhe was thus removed from the world and went to the holy place, having\nbecome a most eminent\n\n{5}\n\nexample of patience.\"(1) The slightest impartial consideration, however,\nmust convince any one that this passage does not indicate the use of the\n\"Acts of the Apostles.\" The Epistle speaks of seven imprisonments, of\nsome of which the Acts make no mention, and this must, therefore, have\nbeen derived from another source.(2) The reference to his \"coming to the\nextremity of the West\" [------], whatever interpretation be put upon it,\nand to his death, obviously carries the history further than the Acts,\nand cannot have been derived from that document.\n\nThe last passage, which, it is affirmed,(3) shows acquaintance with the\nActs of the Apostles is the following: \"But what shall we say regarding\nDavid who hath obtained a good report [------]? unto whom [------] God\nsaid: 'I found a man after mine own heart, David, the son of Jesse: in\neverlasting mercy I anointed him.'\"(4) This is said to be derived from\nActs xiii. 22: \"And when he removed him he raised up to them David for\nking; to whom also he\n\n{6}\n\ngave testimony [------]: I found David the son of Jesse, a man after\nmine own heart, who will do all my will.\"(1) The passage, however, is\ncompounded of two quotations loosely made from the Septuagint version\nof the Old Testament, from which all the quotations in the Epistle are\ntaken. Ps. lxxxviii. 20: \"I found David my servant; in holy mercy I\nanointed him.\"(2) And 1 Sam. xiii. 14: \"A man after his own heart.\"(3)\nClement of Alexandria quotes this passage from the Epistle, and for \"in\neverlasting mercy\" reads \"with holy oil\" [------]\n\nas in the Psalm.(4) Although, therefore, our Alexandrian MS. of the\nEpistle has the reading which we have given above, even if we suppose\nthat the Alexandrian Clement may have found a more correct version in\nhis MS., the argument would not be affected. The whole similarity lies\nin the insertion of \"the son of Jesse,\" but this was a most common\naddition to any mention of David, and by the completion of the passage\nfrom the Psalm, the omission of \"who will do all my will,\" the\npeculiar phrase of the Acts, as well as the difference of introductory\nexpressions, any connection between the two is severed, and it is\napparent that the quotation of the Epistle may legitimately be referred\nto the Septuagint,(5) with which it agrees much more closely\n\n{7}\n\nthan with the Acts. In no case could such slight coincidences prove\nacquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles.(1)\n\nOnly one passage of the \"Epistle of Barnabas\" is referred to by any\none(2) as indicating acquaintance with the Acts. It is as follows, c. 7:\n\"If therefore the son of God, being Lord, and about to judge quick and\ndead [------] suffered,\" &c. This is compared with Acts x. 42... \"and to\ntestify that it is he who has been appointed by God judge of quick and\ndead\" [------]. Lardner, who compares the expression of the Epistle\nwith Acts, equally compares it with that in 2 Tim. iv. 1... \"and Christ\nJesus who is about to judge the quick and dead\" [------], to which it is\nmore commonly referred,(3) and 1 Pet. iv. 5... \"to him who is ready to\njudge quick and dead\" [------]. He adds, however: \"It is not possible to\nsay, what text he refers to, though that in Timothy has (he same words.\nBut perhaps there is no proof that he refers to any. This was an article\nknown to every common Christian; whereas this writer (whoever he be) was\nable to teach the Christian religion, and that without respect to any\nwritten gospels or epistles.\"(4) It is scarcely\n\n{8}\n\nnecessary to add anything to this. There is of course no trace of the\nuse of Acts in the Epistle.(1)\n\nIt is asserted that there is a \"clear allusion\"(2) to Acts in the Pastor\nof Hermas. The passages may be compared as follows:-- [------]\n\nThe slightest comparison of these passages suffices to show that the one\nis not dependent on the other. The Old Testament is full of passages in\nwhich the name of the Lord is magnified as the only source of safety and\nsalvation. In the Pauline Epistles likewise there are numerous passages\nof a similar tenour. For instance, the passage from Joel ii. 32, is\nquoted Rom. x. 13: \"For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord\nshall be saved\" [------](3) There was in fact no formula more current\neither amongst the Jews or in the early Church; and there is no\nlegitimate ground for tracing such an expression to the Acts of the\nApostles.(4)\n\n{9}\n\nThe only other passage which is quoted(1) as indicating acquaintance\nwith Acts is the following, which we at once contrast with the supposed\nparallel:-- [------]\n\nHere again a formula is employed which is common throughout the\nNew Testament, and which, applied as it is here to those who were\npersecuted, we have reason to believe was in general use in the early\nChurch. It is almost unnecessary to point out any examples. Everywhere\n\"the name\" of God or of Jesus is the symbol used to represent the\nconcrete idea, and in the heavenly Jerusalem of the Apocalypse the\nservants of God and of the Lamb are to have \"his name\" on their\nforeheads. The one expression, however, which is peculiar in the\npassage: \"counted worthy,\"--in the Acts [------], and in the Pastor\n[------],--is a perfectly natural and simple one, the use of which\ncannot be exclusively conceded to the Acts of the Apostles. It is found\nfrequently in the Pauline Epistles, as for instance in 2 Thes. i. 5,\nwhere, after saying that they give thanks to God for them and glory\nin the churches of God for the patience and faith with which the\nThessalonians endure\n\n{10}\n\npersecutions, the writer continues: \"which is a token of the righteous\njudgment of God, that ye may he counted worthy [------] of the kingdom\nof God, for which ye also suffer [------];\" and again, in the same\nchapter, v. 11, 12, \"Wherefore we also pray always for you that our\nGod may count you worthy [------] of the calling, and fulfil all good\npleasure of goodness and work of faith with power; _that the name of\nour Lord Jesus may he glorified in you_ [------]\" &c. The passage we are\nexamining cannot be traced to the \"Acts of the Apostles.\"(1) It must be\nobvious to all that the Pastor of Hennas does not present any evidence\neven of the existence of the Acts at the time it was written.(2)\n\nOnly two passages in the Epistles of pseudo-Ignatius are pointed out as\nindicating acquaintance with the Acts, and even these are not advanced\nby many critics. We have already so fully discussed these Epistles that\nno more need now be said. We must pronounce them spurious in all their\nrecensions and incapable of affording evidence upon any point earlier\nthan towards the end of the second century. Those, however, who would\nstill receive as genuine the testimony of the three Syriac Epistles must\ndeclare that they do not present any trace of the existence of the Acts,\ninasmuch as the two passages adduced to show the use of that work do not\noccur in those letters. They are found in the shorter recension of\nthe Epistles to the Smyrnaeans and Philadelphians. We might, therefore,\naltogether refuse to examine the\n\n{11}\n\npassages, but in order to show the exact nature of the case made out by\napologists, we shall briefly refer to them. We at once compare the first\nwith its supposed parallel.(1)\n\n[------]\n\nThere is nothing in this passage which bears any peculiar analogy to the\nActs, for the statement is a simple reference to a tradition which is\nalso embodied both in the third Synoptic(2) and in the fourth Gospel;(3)\nand the mere use of the common words [------] and [------] could not\nprove anything. The passage occurs in the Epistle immediately after a\nquotation, said by Jerome to be taken from the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, relating an appearance of Jesus to \"those who were with Peter,\"\nin which Jesus is represented as making them handle him in order to\nconvince them that he is not an incorporeal spirit.(4) The quotation\nbears considerable affinity to the narrative in the third Synoptic\n(xxiv. 39), at the close of which Jesus is represented as eating with\nthe disciples. It is highly probable that the Gospel from which the\nwriter of the Epistle quoted contained the same detail, to which this\nwould naturally be a direct\n\n{12}\n\ndescriptive reference. In any case it affords no evidence of the\nexistence of the Acts of the Apostles.(1)\n\nThe second passage, which is still more rarely advanced,(2) is as\nfollows:-- [------]\n\nThe only point of coincidence between these two passages is the use of\nthe word \"wolves.\" In the Epistle the expression is [------], whilst in\nActs it is [------]. Now the image is substantially found in the Sermon\non the Mount, one form of which is given in the first Synoptic, vii.\n15,16, and which undeniably must have formed part of many of the Gospels\nwhich are mentioned by the writer of the third Synoptic. We find Justin\nMartyr twice quoting another form of the saying: \"For many [------]\nshall arrive in my name, outwardly indeed clothed in sheep's skins,\nbut inwardly being ravening wolves [------].\"(3) The use of the term\nas applied to men was certainly common in the early Church. The idea\nexpressed in the Epistle is more closely found in 2 Timothy iii. 1 ff.,\nin the description of those who are to come in the last days, and who\nwill (v. 6) \"creep into the houses and make captive [------] silly women\nladen with sins, led away with divers lusts.\"\n\n{13}\n\nThe passage cannot be traced to the Acts,(1) and the Ignatian Epistles,\nspurious though they be, do not present any evidence of the existence of\nthat work.(2)\n\nOnly two sentences are pointed out in the \"Epistle of Polycarp\" as\ndenoting acquaintance with the Acts. The first and only one of these on\nwhich much stress is laid is the following:(3) [------]\n\nIt will be obvious to all that, along with much similarity, there is\nlikewise divergence between these sentences. In the first phrase the use\nof [------] in the Epistle separates it from the supposed parallel,\nin which the word is [------]. The number of passages in the Pauline\nEpistles corresponding with it are legion (e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 14, Ephes.\ni. 20). The second member of the sentence, which is of course the more\nimportant, is in reality, we contend, a reference to the very Psalm\nquoted in Acts immediately after the verse before us, couched in not\nunusual phraseology. Psalm xvi. 10 (Sept. xv.), reads:\n\n{14}\n\n\"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell\" [------].(1) In Ps. xviii.\n5 (Sept. xvii. 5) we have, \"The pains of hell [------] compassed me\nabout.\"(2) The difference between the [------] of the Epistle and the\n[------] of the Acts is so distinct that, finding a closer parallel in\nthe Psalms to which reference is obviously made in both works, it is\nquite impossible to trace the phrase necessarily to the Acts. Such a\npassage cannot prove the use of that work,(3) but, if it could, we might\ninquire what evidence for the authorship and trustworthiness of the Acts\ncould be deduced from the circumstance?(4)\n\nThe second passage, referred to by a few writers,(5) is as follows:--\n[------]\n\nIt is not necessary to do more than contrast these passages to show\nhow little the \"Epistle of Polycarp\" can witness for the \"Acts of the\nApostles.\" We have already examined another supposed reference to\nthis very passage, and the expressions in the Epistle, whilst scarcely\npresenting a single point of linguistic analogy to\n\n{15}\n\nthe sentence in the Acts, only tend to show how common and natural such\nlanguage was in the early Church in connection with persecution. Whilst\nwe constantly meet with the thought expressed by the writer of the\nEpistle throughout the writings of the New Testament, we may more\nparticularly point to the first Petrine epistle for further instances of\nthis tone of exhortation to those suffering persecution for the cause.\nFor instance, 1 Pet. ii. 19 ff, and again iii. 14,(1) \"But if ye even\nsuffer [------] for righteousness' sake, blessed are ye.\" In the\nnext chapter the tone is still more closely analogous. Speaking of\npersecutions, the writer says, iv. 13, \".... but according as ye are\npartakers of Christ's sufferings rejoice,\" &c. &c. 14. \"If ye are\nreproached in Christ's name [------] blessed are ye, for the spirit\nof glory and of God resteth upon you.\" 15. \"For let none of you suffer\n[------] as a murderer,\" &c. &c. 16. \"But if as a Christian, let him\nnot be ashamed, but let him praise God in this name [------]\" &c. &c.\nNothing but evidential destitution could rely upon the expression in the\n\"Epistle of Polycarp\" to show acquaintance with Acts.\n\nFew apologists point out with confidence any passages from the\nvoluminous writings of Justin Martyr, as indicating the use of the Acts\nof the Apostles. We may, however, quote such expressions as the more\nundaunted amongst them venture to advance. The first of these is the\nfollowing:(2) \"For the Jews having the prophecies and ever expecting\nthe Christ to come knew him not [------], and not only so, but they also\nmaltreated him. But\n\n{16}\n\nthe Gentiles, who had never heard any thing regarding the Christ until\nhis Apostles, having gone forth from Jerusalem, declared the things\nconcerning him, and delivered the prophecies, having been filled with\njoy and faith, renounced their idols and dedicated themselves to the\nunbegotten God through the Christ\"(1) This is compared with Acts xiii.\n27, \"For they that dwell at Jerusalem and their rulers not knowing this\n(man) [------] nor\n\nyet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day,\nfulfilled them by their judgment of him,\" &c. 48. \"But the Gentiles,\nhearing, rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord,\" &c.(2) We may\nat once proceed to give the next passage. In the Dialogue with Trypho,\nJustin has by quotations from the prophets endeavoured to show that the\nsufferings of Christ, and also the glory of his second advent had been\nforetold, and Trypho replies: \"Supposing these things to be even as thou\nsayest, and that it was foretold that Christ was to suffer [------],\nand has been called a Stone, and after his first coming, in which it had\nbeen announced that he was to suffer, should come in glory, and become\njudge of all, and eternal king and priest;\" &c.,(3) and in another\nplace, \"For\n\n{17}\n\nif it had been obscurely declared by the prophets that the Christ should\nsuffer [------] and after these things be lord of all,\" &c.(1) This is\ncompared with Acts xxvi. 22, \".... saying nothing except those things\nwhich the prophets and Moses said were to come to pass, (23) whether\nthe Christ should suffer [------], whether, the first out of the\nresurrection from the dead, he is about to proclaim light unto the\npeople and to the Gentiles.\"(2) It is only necessary to quote these\npassages to show how unreasonable it is to maintain that they show\nthe use of the Acts by Justin. He simply sets forth from the prophets,\ndirect, the doctrines which formed the great text of the early Church.\nSome of the warmest supporters of the canon admit the \"uncertainty\"\nof such coincidences, and do not think it worth while to advance them.\nThere are one or two still more distant analogies sometimes pointed out\nwhich do not require more particular notice.(3) There is no evidence\nwhatever that Justin was acquainted with the Acts of the Apostles.(4)\n\n{18}\n\nSome apologists(1) claim Hegesippus as evidence for the existence of the\nActs, on the strength of the following passages in the fragment of his\nbook preserved by Eusebius. He puts into the mouth of James the Just,\nwhilst being martyred, the expression: \"I beseech (thee) Lord God,\nFather, forgive them, for they know not what they do.\" This is compared\nwith the words said to have been uttered by the martyr Stephen, Acts\nvii. 60, \"Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.,, The passage is more\ncommonly advanced as showing acquaintance with Luke xxiii. 34, and we\nhave already discussed it.(2) Lardner apparently desires it to do double\nduty, but it is scarcely worth while seriously to refer to the claim\nhere. The passage more generally relied upon, though that also is only\nadvanced by a few,(3) is the following, \"This man was a faithful witness\nboth to Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ,\"(4) [------]. This\nis compared with Acts xx. 21, where Paul is represented as saying of\nhimself, \".... testifying fully both to Jews and Greeks repentance\ntoward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ\" [------]. The two\npassages are totally different both in sense and language, and that the\nuse of Acts is deduced from so distant an analogy only serves to show\nthe slightness of the evidence with which apologists have to be content.\n\n{19}\n\nPapias need not long detain us, for it is freely admitted by most\ndivines that he does not afford evidence of any value that he was\nacquainted with the Acts. For the sake of completeness we may however\nrefer to the points which are sometimes mentioned. A fragment of the\nwork of Papias is preserved giving an account of the death of Judas,\nwhich differs materially both from the account in the first Synoptic and\nin Acts i. 18 f.(1) Judas is represented as having gone about the world\na great example of impiety, for his body having swollen so much that\nhe could not pass where a waggon easily passed, he was crushed by\nthe waggon so that his entrails emptied out [------]. Apollinaris of\nLaodicaea quotes this passage to show that Judas did not die when he hung\nhimself, but subsequently met with another fate, in this way reconciling\nthe statements in the Gospel and Acts.(2) He does not say that Papias\nused the story for this purpose, and it is fundamentally contradictory\nto the account in Acts i. 18, 19. \"Now this man purchased a field with\nthe reward of the unrighteousness, and falling headlong burst asunder\nin the midst, and all his bowels gushed out\" [------]. It is scarcely\nnecessary to argue that the passage does not indicate any acquaintance\nwith Acts(3) as some few critics are inclined to assert.(4) The\n\n{20}\n\nnext analogy pointed out is derived from the statement of Eusebius that\nPapias mentions a wonderful story which he had heard from the daughters\nof Philip (whom Eusebius calls \"the Apostle,\") regarding a dead man\nraised to life.(1) In Acts xxi. 8, 9, it is stated that Philip the\nevangelist had four daughters. It is hardly conceivable that this should\nbe advanced as an indication that Papias knew the Acts. The last point\nis that Eusebius says: \"And again (he narrates) another marvel regarding\nJustus who was surnamed Barsabas; how he drank a baneful poison and by\nthe grace of the Lord sustained no harm. But that this Justus, after the\nAscension of the Saviour, the holy apostles appointed with Matthias, and\nthat they prayed (on the occasion) of the filling up of their number\nby lot instead of the traitor Judas, the scripture of the Acts thus\nrelates: 'And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was\nsurnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said,' &c.\"(2)\nWhatever argument can be deduced from this, obviously rests entirely\nupon the fact that Papias is said to have referred to Justus who was\nnamed Barsabas, for of course the last sentence is added by Eusebius\nhimself, and has nothing to do with Papias. This is fairly admitted by\nLardner and others. Lardner says: \"Papias does undoubtedly give some\nconfirmation to the history of the Acts of the Apostles, in what he says\nof Philip; and especially in what he says of Justus, called\n\n{21}\n\nBarsabas. But I think it cannot be affirmed, that he did particularly\nmention, or refer to, the book of the Acts. For I reckon, it is Eusebius\nhimself who adds that quotation out of the Acts, upon occasion of what\nPapias had written of the before-mentioned Barsabas.\"(1) There is\nno evidence worthy of attention that Papias was acquainted with the\nActs.(3)\n\nNo one seriously pretends that the Clementine Homilies afford any\nevidence of the use or existence of the Acts; and few, if any, claim the\nEpistle to Diognetus as testimony for it.(3) We may, however, quote the\nonly passage which is pointed out. \".... these who hold the view that\nthey present them (offerings) to God as needing them might more rightly\nesteem it foolishness and not worship of God. For he who made the\nheaven and the earth, and all things in them, and who supplies to us all\nwhatever we need, can himself be in need of none of those things which\nhe himself presents to those who imagine that they give (to him).\"(4)\nThis is\n\n{22}\n\ncompared with Acts xvii. 24: \"The God that made the world and all things\nin it, he being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made\nwith hands; (25) neither is served by men's hand as though he needed\nanything, seeing he himself giveth to all life and breath and all\nthings.\"(1) There is nothing here but a coincidence of sense, though\nwith much variation between the two passages, but the Epistle argues\nfrom a different context, and this illustration is obvious enough to be\ncommon to any moralist. There is not a single reason which points to the\nActs as the source of the writer's argument.\n\nBasilides and Valentinus are not claimed at all by apologists as\nwitnesses for the existence of the Acts of the Apostles, nor is Marcion,\nwhose Canon, however, of which it formed no part, is rather adverse to\nthe work than merely negative. Tertullian taunts Marcion for receiving\nPaul as an apostle, although his name is not mentioned in the Gospel,\nand yet not receiving the Acts of the Apostles in which alone his\nhistory is narrated;(2) but it does not in the least degree follow from\nthis that Marcion knew the work and deliberately rejected it.\n\nA passage of Tatian's oration to the Greeks is pointed out by some(3)\nas showing his acquaintance with the Acts. It is as follows: \"I am not\nwilling to worship the creation\n\n{23}\n\nmade by him for us. Sun and moon are made for us: how, therefore, shall\nI worship my own servants? How can I declare stocks and stones to be\ngods?... But neither should the unnameable [------] God be presented\nwith bribes; for he who is without need of anything [------] must not\nbe calumniated by us as needy [------].\"(l) This is compared with Acts\nxvii. 24, 25, quoted above, and it only serves to show how common such\nlanguage was. Lardner himself says of the passage: \"This is much the\nsame thought, and applied to the same purpose, with Paul's, Acts xvii.\n25, _as though he needeth anything_. But it is a character of the Deity\nso obvious, that I think it cannot determine us to suppose he had an\neye to those words of the Apostle.\"(2) The language, indeed, is quite\ndifferent and shows no acquaintance with the Acts.(3) Eusebius states\nthat the Severians who more fully established Tatian's heresy rejected\nboth the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles.(4)\n\nDionysius of Corinth is rarely adduced by any one as testimony for the\nActs. The only ground upon which he is at all referred to is a statement\nof Eusebius in mentioning his Epistles. Speaking of his Epistle to the\nAthenians, Eusebius says: \"He relates, moreover, that Dionysius the\nAreopagite who was converted to the faith by Paul the Apostle, according\nto the account given in the\n\n{24}\n\nActs, was appointed the first bishop of the church of the Athenians.\"(1)\nEven apologists admit that it is doubtful how far Dionysius referred to\nthe Acts,(2) the mention of the book here being most obviously made by\nEusebius himself.\n\nMelito of Sardis is not appealed to by any writer in connection with\nour work, nor can Claudius Apollinaris be pressed into this service.\nAthenagoras is supposed by some to refer to the very same passage in\nActs xvii. 24, 25, which we have discussed when dealing with the work of\nTatian. Athenagoras says: \"The Creator and Father of the universe is\nnot in need of blood, nor of the steam of burnt sacrifices, nor of\nthe fragrance of flowers and of incense, he himself being the perfect\nfragrance, inwardly and outwardly without need.\"(3) And further on: \"And\nyou kings indeed build palaces for yourselves; but the world is not\nmade as being needed by God.\"(4) These passages occur in the course of a\ndefence of Christians for not offering sacrifices, and both in language\nand context they are quite independent of the Acts of the Apostles.\n\nIn the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, giving an account of\nthe persecution against them, it is said that the victims were praying\nfor those from whom they suffered cruelties: \"like Stephen the perfect\nmartyr:\n\n{25}\n\n'Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' But if he was supplicating\nfor those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren?\"(l) The prayer\nhere quoted agrees with that ascribed to Stephen in Acts vii. 60. There\nis no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the Epistle, and the source\nfrom which the writers obtained their information about Stephen is of\ncourse not stated. If there really was a martyr of the name of Stephen,\nand if these words were actually spoken by him, the tradition of the\nfact, and the memory of his noble saying, may well have remained in\nthe Church, or have been recorded in writings then current, from one\nof which, indeed, eminent critics conjecture that the author of Acts\nderived his materials,2 and in this case the passage obviously does not\nprove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never was such\na martyr by whom these words were spoken, and the whole story must be\nconsidered an original invention by the author of Acts, then, in that\ncase, and in that case only, the passage does show the use of the\nActs.(3) Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus indicated,\nwhat does this prove? Merely that the Acts of the Apostles were in\nexistence in the year 177-178, when the Epistle of\n\n{26}\n\nVienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown\nupon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor its\nsufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be in the\nslightest degree established.\n\nPtolemaeus and Heracleon ueed not detain us, as it is not alleged that\nthey show acquaintance with the Acts, nor is Celsus claimed as testimony\nfor the book.\n\nThe Canon of Muratori contains a very corrupt paragraph regarding the\nActs of the Apostles. We have already discussed the date and character\nof this fragment,(1) and need not further speak of it here. The sentence\nin which we are now interested reads in the original as follows:\n\n\"Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scribta sunt lucas obtime\ntheofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicute et\nsemote pas-sionem petri euidenter declarat sed et profectionem pauli ab\nurbes ad spania proficescentis.\"\n\nIt is probable that in addition to its corruption some words may have\nbeen lost from the concluding phrase of this passage, but the following\nmay perhaps sufficiently represent its general sense: \"But the Acts of\nall the Apostles were written in one book. Luke included (in his work)\nto the excellent Theophilus only the things which occurred in his own\npresence, as he evidently shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter and\nalso the setting forth of Paul from the city to Spain.\"\n\nWhilst this passage may prove the existence of the Acts about the end of\nthe second century, and that the authorship of the work was ascribed\nto Luke, it has no further value. No weight can be attached to the\nstatement of\n\n{27}\n\nthe unknown writer beyond that of merely testifying to the currency of\nsuch a tradition, and even the few words quoted show how uncritical he\nwas. Nothing could be less appropriate to the work before us than the\nassertion that it contains the Acts of _all_ the Apostles, for it must\nbe apparent to all, and we shall hereafter have to refer to the point,\nthat it very singularly omits all record of the acts of most of the\napostles, occupies itself chiefly with those of Peter and Paul, and\ndevotes considerable attention to Stephen and to others who were not\napostles at all. We shall further have occasion to show that the writer\ndoes anything but confine himself to the events of which he was an\neye-witness, and we may merely remark, in passing, as a matter. which\nscarcely concerns us here, that the instances given by the unknown\nwriter of the fragment to support his assertion are not only irrelevant,\nbut singularly devoid themselves of historical attestation.\n\nIrenaeus(1) assigns the Acts of the Apostles to Luke, as do Clement\nof Alexandria,(2) Tertullian,(3) and Origen,(4) although without any\nstatements giving special weight to their mention of him as the author\nin any way counterbalancing the late date of their testimony. Beyond\nshowing that tradition, at the end of the second century and beginning\nof the third, associated the name of Luke with this writing and the\nthird Gospel, the evidence of these Fathers is of no value to us. We\nhave already incidentally mentioned that some heretics either ignored or\nrejected the book, and to the Marcionites and Severians\n\n{28}\n\nwe may now add the Ebionites(1) and Manichaeans.(2) Chrysostom complains\nthat in his day the Acts of the Apostles were so neglected that many\nwere ignorant of the existence of the book and of its authors.(3) Doubts\nas to its authorship were expressed in the ninth century, for Photius\nstates that some ascribed the work to Clement of Rome, others to\nBarnabas, and others to Luke the evangelist.(4)\n\nIf we turn to the document itself, we find that it professes to be\nthe second portion of a work written for the information of an unknown\nperson named Theophilus, the first part being the Gospel, which, in our\ncanonical New Testament, bears the name of \"Gospel according to Luke.\"\nThe narrative is a continuation of the third Synoptic, but the actual\ntitle of \"Acts of the Apostles,\" or \"Acts of Apostles\" [------],(5)\nattached to this [------] is a later addition, and formed no part of the\noriginal document. The author's name is not given in any of the earlier\nMSS., and the work is entirely anonymous. That in the prologue to the\nActs the writer clearly assumes to be the author of the Gospel does\nnot in any way identify him, inasmuch as the third Synoptic itself\nis equally anonymous. The tradition assigning both works to Luke the\nfollower of Paul, as we have seen, is first met with\n\n{29}\n\ntowards the end of the second century, and very little weight can be\nattached to it. There are too many instances of early writings,\nseveral of which indeed have secured a place in our canon, to which\ndistinguished names have been erroneously ascribed. Such tradition is\nnotoriously liable to error.\n\nWe shall presently return to the question of the authorship of the\nthird Synoptic and Acts of the Apostles, but at present we may so far\nanticipate as to say that there are good reasons for affirming that they\ncould not have been written by Luke.(1)\n\nConfining ourselves here to the actual evidence before us, we arrive at\na clear and unavoidable conclusion regarding the Acts of the Apostles.\nAfter examining all the early Christian literature, and taking every\npassage which is referred to as indicating the use of the book, we see\nthat there is no certain trace even of its existence till towards the\nend of the second century; and, whilst the writing itself is anonymous,\nwe find no authority but late tradition assigning it to Luke or to any\nother author. We are absolutely without evidence of any value as to\nits accuracy or trustworthiness, and, as we shall presently see, the\nepistles of Paul, so far from accrediting it, tend to cast the most\nserious doubt upon its whole character. This evidence we have yet to\nexamine, when considering the contents of the Acts, and we base our\npresent remarks solely on the external testimony for the date and\nauthorship of the book. The position, therefore, is simply this: We\nare asked to believe in the reality of a great number of miraculous and\nsupernatural\n\n     1 The reader is referred to an article by the author in the\n     Fortnightly Rev., 1877, p. 496 ff., in which some\n     indications of date, and particularly those connected with\n     the use of writings of Josephus, are discussed.\n\n{30}\n\noccurrences which, obviously, are antecedently incredible, upon the\nassurance of an anonymous work of whose existence there is no distinct\nevidence till more than a century after the events narrated, and to\nwhich an author's name--against which there are strong objections--is\nfirst ascribed by tradition towards the end of the second century. Of\nthe writer to whom the work is thus attributed we know nothing beyond\nthe casual mention of his name in some Pauline Epistles. If it were\nadmitted that this Luke did actually write the book, we should not be\njustified in believing the reality of such stupendous miracles upon his\nbare statement As the case stands, however, even taking it in its most\nfavourable aspect, the question scarcely demands serious attention, and\nour discussion might at once be ended by the unhesitating rejection of\nthe Acts of the Apostles as sufficient, or even plausible, evidence for\nthe miracles which it narrates.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP\n\nIf we proceed further to discuss the document before us, it is from\nno doubt as to the certainty of the conclusion at which we have now\narrived, but from the belief that closer examination of the contents of\nthe Acts may enable us to test this result, and more fully to understand\nthe nature of the work and the character of its evidence. Not only will\nit be instructive to consider a little closely the contents of the Acts,\nand to endeavour from the details of the narrative itself to form\na judgment regarding its historical value, but we have in addition\nexternal testimony of very material importance which we may bring to\nbear upon it. We happily possess some undoubted Epistles which afford us\nno little information concerning the history, character, and teaching of\nthe Apostle Paul, and we are thus enabled to compare the statements\nin the work before us with contemporary evidence of great value. It is\nunnecessary to say that, wherever the statements of the unknown author\nof the Acts are at variance with these Epistles, we must prefer the\nstatements of the Apostle. The importance to our inquiry of such further\nexamination as we now propose to undertake consists chiefly in the light\nwhich it may throw on the credibility of the work. If it be found that\nsuch\n\n{32}\n\nportions as we are able to investigate are inaccurate and untrustworthy,\nit will become still more apparent that the evidence of such a document\nfor miracles, which are antecedently incredible, cannot even be\nentertained. It may be well also to discuss more fully the authorship of\nthe Acts, and to this we shall first address ourselves.\n\nIt must, however, be borne in mind that it is quite foreign to our\npurpose to enter into any exhaustive discussion of the literary problem\npresented by the Acts of the Apostles. We shall confine ourselves to\nsuch points as seem sufficient or best fitted to test the character of\nthe composition, and we shall not hesitate to pass without attention\nquestions of mere literary interest, and strictly limit our examination\nto such prominent features as present themselves for our purpose.\n\nIt is generally admitted, although not altogether without exception,(1)\nthat the author of our third synoptic Gospel likewise composed the\nActs of the Apostles. The linguistic and other peculiarities which\ndistinguish the Gospel are equally prominent in the Acts. This fact,\nwhilst apparently offering greatly increased facilities for identifying\nthe author, and actually affording valuable material for estimating\nhis work, does not, as we have already remarked, really do much towards\nsolving the problem of the authorship, inasmuch as the Gospel, like its\ncontinuation, is anonymous, and we possess no more precise or direct\nevidence in connection with the one than in the case of the other. We\nhave already so fully examined the testimony for the third Gospel that\nit is unnecessary for us to recur to it. From about the end of the\nsecond century we find the Gospel and Acts of the\n\n{33}\n\nApostles ascribed by ecclesiastical writers to Luke, the companion of\nthe Apostle Paul. The fallibility of tradition, and the singular phase\nof literary morality exhibited during the early ages of Christianity,\nrender such testimony of little or no value, and in the almost total\nabsence of the critical faculty a rank crop of pseudonymic writings\nsprang up and flourished during that period.(1) Some of the earlier\nchapters of this work have given abundant illustrations of this fact. It\nis absolutely certain, with regard to the works we are considering, that\nIrenaeus is the earliest writer known who ascribes them to Luke, and that\neven tradition, therefore, cannot be traced beyond the last quarter of\nthe second century. The question is--does internal evidence confirm or\ncontradict this tradition?\n\nLuke, the traditional author, is not mentioned by name in the Acts of\nthe Apostles.(2) In the Epistle to Philemon his name occurs, with those\nof others, who send greeting, verse 23, \"There salute thee Epaphras, my\nfellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus; 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke,\nmy fellow-labourers.\" In the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, mention\nis also made of him:--\"Luke, the beloved physician,(3) salutes you, and\nDemas.\" And again, in the 2 Epistle to Timothy, iv. 10:--\"For\n\n{34}\n\nDemas forsook me, having loved this present world, and departed into\nThessalouica, Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia: 11. Only Luke is\nwith me.\"\n\nHe is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament;(1) and his name is\nnot again met with till Irenaeus ascribes to him the authorship of the\nGospel and Acts. There is nothing in these Pauline Epistles confirming\nthe statement of the Fathers, but it is highly probable that these\nreferences to him largely contributed to suggest his name as the\nauthor of the Acts, the very omission of his name from the work itself\nprotecting him from objections connected with the passages in the\nfirst person to which other followers of Paul were exposed, upon the\ntraditional view of the composition. Irenaeus evidently knew nothing\nabout him, except what he learnt from these Epistles, and derives from\nhis theory that Luke wrote the Acts, and speaks as an eye-witness in the\npassages where the first person is used. From these he argues that Luke\nwas inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-worker in the Gospel, and\nhe refers, in proof of this, to Acts xvi. 8 ff.,(2) 13 ff., xx. 5 ff.,\nand the later chapters, all the details of which he supposes Luke to\nhave carefully written down. He then continues: \"But that he was not\nonly a follower, but likewise a fellow-worker of the Apostles, but\nparticularly of Paul, Paul himself has also clearly shown in the\nEpistles, saying:...\" and he quotes 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11, ending: \"Only\nLuke is with me,\" and then adds, \"whence he shows that he was\n\n{35}\n\nalways with him and inseparable from him, &c, Ac.\"(1) The reasoning of\nthe zealous Father deduces a great deal from very little, it will be\nobserved, and in this elastic way tradition \"enlarged its borders\" and\nassumed unsubstantial dimensions. Later writers have no more intimate\nknowledge of Luke, although Eusebius states that he was born at\nAntioch,(2) a tradition likewise reproduced by Jerome.(3) Jerome\nfurther identifies Luke with \"the brother, whose praise in the Gospel\nis throughout all the churches\" mentioned in 2 Cor. viii. 18, as\naccompanying Titus to Corinth.(4) At a later period, when the Church\nrequired an early artist for its service, Luke the physician was\nhonoured with the additional title of painter.(5) Epiphanius,(6)\nfollowed later by some other\n\n{36}\n\nwriters, represented him to have been one of the seventy-two disciples,\nwhose mission he alone of all New Testament writers mentions. The view\nof the Fathers, arising out of the application of their tradition to the\nfeatures presented by the Gospel and Acts, was that Luke composed\nhis Gospel, of the events of which he was not an eye-witness, from\ninformation derived from others, and his Acts of the Apostles from what\nhe himself, at least in the parts in which the first person is employed,\nhad witnessed.1 It is generally supposed that Luke was not born a Jew,\nbut was a Gentile Christian.\n\nSome writers endeavour to find a confirmation of the tradition, that\nthe Gospel and Acts were written by Luke \"the beloved physician,\" by the\nsupposed use of peculiarly technical medical terms,(2) but very\nlittle weight is attached by any one to this feeble evidence which is\nrepudiated by most serious critics, and it need not detain us.\n\nAs there is no indication, either in the Gospel or the Acts, of the\nauthor's identity proceeding from himself, and tradition does not offer\nany alternative security, what testimony can be produced in support of\nthe ascription of\n\n{37}\n\nthese writings to \"Luke\"? To this question Ewald shall reply: \"In\nfact,\" he says, \"we possess only one ground for it, but this is fully\nsufficient. It lies in the designation of the third Gospel as that\n'according to Luke' which is found in all MSS. of the four Gospels.\nFor the quotations of this particular Gospel under the distinct name\nof Luke, in the extant writings of the Fathers, begin so late that they\ncannot be compared in antiquity with that superscription; and those\nknown to us may probably themselves only go back to this superscription.\nWe thus depend almost alone on this superscription.\"(1) Ewald generally\ndoes consider his own arbitrary conjectures \"fully sufficient,\" but it\nis doubtful, whether in this case, any one who examines this evidence\nwill agree with him. He himself goes on to admit, with all other\ncritics, that the superscriptions to our Gospels do not proceed from the\nauthors themselves, but were added by those who collected them, or\nby later readers to distinguish them.(2) There was no author's name\nattached to Marcion's Gospel, as we learn from Tertullian.(3) Chrysostom\n\nvery distinctly asserts that the Evangelists did not inscribe their\nnames at the head of their works,(4) and he recognizes that, but for\nthe authority of the primitive Church which added those names, the\nsuperscriptions could not have proved the authorship of the Gospels. He\nconjectures that the sole superscription which may\n\n{38}\n\nhave been placed by the author of the first Synoptic was simply\n[------].(1) It might be argued, and indeed has been, that the\ninscription [------], \"according to Luke,\" instead of [------] \"Gospel\nof Luke,\" does not actually indicate that \"Luke\" wrote the work any\nmore than the superscription to the Gospels \"according to the Hebrews\"\n[------] \"according to the Egyptians\" [------] has reference to\nauthorship. The Epistles, on the contrary, are directly connected\nwith their writers, in the genitive, [------], and so on. This\npoint, however, we merely mention _en passant_. By his own admission,\ntherefore, the superscription is simply tradition in another form, but\ninstead of carrying us further back, the superscription on the most\nancient extant MSS., as for instance the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices of\nthe Gospels, does not on the most sanguine estimate of their age, date\nearlier than the fourth century.(2) As for the Acts of the Apostles, the\nbook is not ascribed to Luke in a single uncial MS., and it only begins\nto appear in various forms in later codices. The variation in the titles\nof the Gospels and Acts in different MSS. alone shows the uncertainty of\nthe superscription. It is clear that the \"one ground,\" upon which Ewald\nadmits that the evidence for Luke's authorship is based, is nothing but\nsand, and cannot support his tower. He is on the slightest consideration\nthrown back upon the quotations of the Fathers, which begin too late for\nthe\n\n{39}\n\npurpose, and it must be acknowledged that the ascription of the\nthird Gospel and Acts to Luke rests solely upon late and unsupported\ntradition.\n\nLet it be remembered that, with the exception of the three passages\nin the Pauline Epistles quoted above, we know absolutely nothing\nabout Luke. As we have mentioned, it has even been doubted whether the\ndesignation \"the beloved physician\" in the Epistle to the Colossians,\niv. 14, does not distinguish a different Luke from the person of that\nname in the Epistles to Philemon and Timothy. If this were the case, our\ninformation would be further reduced; but supposing that the same Luke\nis referred to, what does our information amount to? Absolutely nothing\nbut the fact that a person named Luke was represented by the writer of\nthese letters,(1) whoever he was, to have been with Paul in Rome,\nand that he was known to the church of Colossae. There is no evidence\nwhatever that this Luke had been a travelling companion of Paul, or that\nhe ever wrote a line concerning him or had composed a Gospel. He is\nnot mentioned in Epistles written during this journey and, indeed,\nthe rarity and meagreness of the references to him would much\nrather indicate that he had not taken any distinguished part in the\nproclamation of the Gospel. If Luke be [------] and be numbered amongst\nthe Apostle's [------], Tychicus is equally \"the beloved brother and\nfaithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord.\"(2) Onesimus the\n\"faithful and beloved brother,\"(3)\n\n     1 We cannot discuss the authenticity of these Epistles in\n     this place, nor is it very important that we should do so.\n     Nor can we pause to consider whether they were written in\n     Rome, as a majority of critics think, or elsewhere.\n\n{40}\n\nand Aristarchus, Mark the cousin of Barnabas, Justus and others are\nlikewise his [------].(1) There is no evidence, in fact, that Paul was\nacquainted with Luke earlier than during his imprisonment in Rome, and\nhe seems markedly excluded from the Apostle's work and company by such\npassages as 2 Cor. i. 19.(2) The simple theory that Luke wrote the Acts\nsupplies all the rest of the tradition of the Fathers, as we have seen\nin the case of Irenaeus, and to this mere tradition we are confined in\nthe total absence of more ancient testimony.\n\nThe traditional view, which long continued to prevail undisturbed, and\nhas been widely held up to our own day,(3) represents Luke as the author\nof the Acts, and, in\n\n{41}\n\nthe passages where the first person is employed, considers that he\nindicates himself as an actor and eye-witness. These passages, where\n[------] is introduced, present a curious problem which has largely\noccupied the attention of critics, and it has been the point most firmly\ndisputed in the long controversy regarding, the authorship of the Acts.\nInto this literary labyrinth we must not be tempted to enter beyond a\nvery short way; for, however interesting the question may be in itself,\nwe are left so completely to conjecture that no result is possible\nwhich can materially affect our inquiry, and we shall only refer to it\nsufficiently to illustrate the uncertainty which prevails regarding the\nauthorship. We shall, however, supply abundant references for those who\ncare more minutely to pursue the subject.\n\nAfter the narrative of the Acts has, through fifteen chapters, proceeded\nuninterruptedly in the third person, an abrupt change to the first\nperson plural occurs in the sixteenth chapter.(1) Paul, and at least\nTimothy, are represented as going through Phrygia and Galatia, and\nat length \"they came down to Troas,\" where a vision appears to Paul\nbeseeching him to come over into Macedonia. Then, xvi. 10, proceeds:\n\"And after he saw the vision, immediately we endeavoured [------] to\ngo forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us [------]\nto preach the Gospel unto them.\" After verse 17, the direct form of\nnarrative is as suddenly dropped as it was taken up, and does not\nreappear until xx. 5, when, without explanation, it is resumed and\ncontinued for ten verses. It is then again abandoned, and recommenced in\nxxi. 1-18, and xxvii. 1, xxviii. 16.\n\n     1 It is unnecessary to discuss whether xiv. 22 belongs to\n     the [------] sections or not.\n\n{42}\n\nIt is argued by those who adopt the traditional view,(1) that it would\nbe an instance of unparalleled negligence, in so careful a writer as the\nauthor of the third Synoptic and Acts, to have composed these sections\nfrom documents lying before him, written by others, leaving them in the\nform of a narrative in the first person, whilst the rest of his work was\nwritten in the third, and that, without doubt, he would have assimilated\nsuch portions to the form of the rest. On the other hand, that he\nhimself makes distinct use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts\ni. 1, and consequently prepares the reader to expect that, where it\nis desirable, he will resume the direct mode of communication; and\nin support of this supposition, it is asserted that the very same\npeculiarities of style and language exist in the [------] passages as\nin the rest of the work. The adoption of the direct form of narrative\nin short merely indicates that the author himself was present and an\neye-witness of what he relates,(3) and that writing as he did for\nthe information of Theophilus, who was well aware of his personal\nparticipation in the journeys he records, it was not necessary for him\nto give any explanation of his occasional use of the first person.\n\nIs the abrupt and singular introduction of the first person in these\nparticular sections of his work, without a word of explanation, more\nintelligible and reasonable upon the traditional theory of their\nbeing by the author himself as an eye-witness? On the contrary, it is\nmaintained, the phenomenon on that hypothesis becomes much more\n\n     2  Some writers also consider as one of the reasons why\n     Luke, the supposed author, uses the first person, that where\n     he begins to do so he himself becomes associated with Paul\n     in his work, and first begins to preach the Gospel.\n     Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 137; Baumgarfen, Die\n     Apostelgeschichte, i. p. 496.\n\n{43}\n\ninexplicable. On examining the [------] sections it will be observed\nthat they consist almost entirely of an itinerary of journeys, and that\nwhile the chronology of the rest of the Acts is notably uncertain and\nindefinite, these passages enter into the minutest details of daily\nmovements (xvi. 11, 12; xx. 6, 7,11,15; xxi. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,18;\nxxvii. 2; xxviii. 7, 12, 14); of the route pursued, and places through\nwhich often they merely pass (xvi. 11,12; xx. 5, 6,13,15; xxi. 1-3, 7;\nxxvii. 2 ff.; xxviii. 11-15), and record the most trifling circumstances\n(xvi. 12; xx. 13; xxi. 2, 3, 15; xxviii. 2, 11). The distinguishing\nfeature of these sections in fact is generally asserted to be the stamp\nwhich they bear, above all other parts of the Acts, of intimate personal\nknowledge of the circumstances related.\n\nIs it not, however, exceedingly remarkable that the author of the Acts\nshould intrude his own personality merely to record these minute details\nof voyages and journeys? That his appearance as an eye-witness should\nbe almost wholly limited to the itinerary of Paul's journeys and to\nportions of his history which are of very subordinate interest? The\nvoyage and shipwreck are thus narrated with singular minuteness of\ndetail, but if any one who reads it only consider the matter for a\nmoment, it will become apparent that this elaboration of the narrative\nis altogether disproportionate to the importance of the voyage in the\nhistory of the early Church. The traditional view indeed is fatal to\nthe claims of the Acts as testimony for the great mass of miracles it\ncontains, for the author is only an eye-witness of what is comparatively\nunimportant and commonplace. The writer's intimate acquaintance with the\nhistory of Paul, and his claim to participation in his work, begin and\nend with his actual\n\n{44}\n\njourneys. With very few exceptions, as soon as the Apostle stops\nanywhere, he ceases to speak as an eyewitness and relapses into\nvagueness and the third person. At the very time when minuteness of\ndetail would have been most interesting, he ceases to be minute. A very\nlong and important period of Paul's life is covered by the narrative\nbetween xvi. 10, where the[------] sections begin, and xxviii. 16, where\nthey end; but, although the author goes with such extraordinary\ndetail into the journeys to which they are confined, how bare and\nunsatisfactory is the account of the rest of Paul's career during that\ntime!(l) How eventful that career must have been we learn from 2 Cor.\nxi. 23-26. In any case, the author who could be so minute in his record\nof an itinerary, apparently could not, or would not, be minute in his\naccount of more important matters in his history. In the few verses, ix.\n1-30, chiefly occupied by an account of Paul's conversion, is comprised\nall that the author has to tell of three years of the Apostle's life,\nand into xi. 19--xiv. are compressed the events of fourteen years of his\nhistory (cf. Gal. ii. l).(2) If the author of those portions be the same\nwriter who is so minute in his daily itinerary in the [------] sections,\nhis sins of omission and commission are of a very startling character.\nTo say nothing more severe here, upon the traditional theory he is an\nelaborate trifler.\n\nDoes the use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts i. 1 in any way\njustify or prepare(3) the way for the\n\n{45}\n\nsudden and unexplained introduction of the first person in the sixteenth\nchapter? Certainly not. The [------] in these passages is used solely in\nthe personal address to Theophilus, is limited to the brief explanation\ncontained in what may be called the dedication or preface, and is at\nonce dropped when the history begins. If the prologue of the Gospel be\napplied to the Acts, moreover, the use of earlier documents is at once\nimplied, which would rather justify the supposition that these passages\nare part of some diary, from which the general editor made extracts.(1)\nBesides, there is no explanation in the Acts which in the slightest\ndegree connects the [------] with the [------].(2) To argue that\nexplanation was unnecessary, as Theophilus and early readers were well\nacquainted with the fact that the author was a fellow-traveller with the\nApostle, and therefore at once understood the meaning of \"We,\"(3) would\ndestroy the utility of the direct form of communication altogether; for\nif Theophilus knew this, there was obviously no need to introduce the\nfirst person at all, in so abrupt and singular a way, more especially to\nchronicle minute details of journeys which possess comparatively little\ninterest. Moreover, writing for Theophilus, we might reasonably expect\nthat he should have stated where and when he became associated with\nPaul, and explained the reasons why he again left and rejoined him.(4)\nEwald suggests that possibly the author intended to have indicated his\nname more distinctly at the end of his work;(5) but this merely shows\nthat, argue as he will,\n\n{46}\n\nhe feels the necessity for such an explanation. The conjecture is\nnegatived, however, by the fact that no name is subsequently added. As\nin the case of the fourth Gospel, of course the \"incomparable modesty\"\ntheory is suggested as the reason why the author does not mention his\nown name, and explain the adoption of the first person in the [------]\npassages;(1) but to base theories such as this upon the modesty or\nelevated views of a perfectly unknown writer is obviously too arbitrary\na proceeding to be permissible.(2) There is, besides, exceedingly little\nmodesty in a writer forcing himself so unnecessarily into notice, for\nhe does not represent himself as taking any active part in the events\nnarrated; and, as the mere chronicler of days of sailing and arriving,\nhe might well have remained impersonal to the end.\n\nOn the other hand, supposing the general editor of the Acts to have made\nuse of written sources of information, and amongst others of the diary\nof a companion of the Apostle Paul, it is not so strange that, for one\nreason or another, he should have allowed the original direct form of\ncommunication to stand whilst incorporating parts of it with his work.\nInstances have been pointed out in which a similar retention of the\nfirst or third person, in a narrative generally written otherwise,\nis accepted as the indication of a different written source, as for\ninstance in Ezra vii. 27--ix; Nehemiah viii.--x.; in the Book of Tobit\ni. 1-3, iii. 7 ff., and other places;s and Schwanbeck has\n\n{47}\n\npointed out many instances of a similar kind amongst the chroniclers of\nthe middle ages.(1) There are various ways in which the retention of the\nfirst person in these sections, supposing them to have been derived from\nsome other written source, might be explained. The simple supposition\nthat the author, either through carelessness or oversight, allowed the\n[------] to stand(2) is not excluded, and indeed some critics, although\nwe think without reason, maintain both the third Gospel and the Acts to\nbe composed of materials derived from various sources and put together\nwith little care or adjustment.(3) The author might also have inserted\nthese fragments of the diary of a fellow-traveller of Paul, and retained\nthe original form of the document to strengthen the apparent credibility\nof his own narrative; or, as many critics believe, he may have allowed\nthe first person of the original document to remain, in order himself to\nassume the character of eyewitness, and of companion of the Apostle.(4)\nAs we shall see in the course of our examination of the Acts, the\ngeneral procedure of the author is by no means of a character to\ndiscredit such an explanation.\n\nWe shall not enter into any discussion of the sources from which critics\nmaintain that the author compiled his\n\n{48}\n\nwork. It is sufficient to say that, whilst some profess to find definite\ntraces of many documents, few if any writers deny that the writer\nmade more or less use of earlier materials. It is quite true that the\ncharacteristics of the general author's style are found throughout the\nwhole work.1 The Acts are no mere aggregate of scraps collected and\nrudely joined together, but the work of one author in the sense that\nwhatever materials he may have used for its composition were carefully\nassimilated, and subjected to thorough and systematic revision to adapt\nthem to his purpose.(2) But however completely this process was carried\nout, and his materials interpenetrated by his own peculiarities of style\nand language, he did not succeed in entirely obliterating the traces of\nindependent written sources. Some writers maintain that there is a very\napparent difference between the first twelve\n\n{49}\n\nchapters and the remainder of the work, and profess to detect a much\nmore Hebraistic character in the language of the earlier portion,(1)\nalthough this is not received without demur.(2) As regards the [------]\nsections, whilst it is admitted that these fragments have in any case\nbeen much manipulated by the general editor, and largely contain his\ngeneral characteristics of language, it is at the same time affirmed\nthat they present distinct foreign peculiarities, which betray a\nborrowed document.(3) Even critics who maintain the [------] sections\nto be by the same writer who composed the rest of the book point out\nthe peculiarly natural character and minute knowledge displayed in these\npassages, as distinguishing them from the rest of the Acts.(4) This\nof course they attribute to the fact that the author there relates his\npersonal experiences; but even with this explanation it is apparent\nthat all who maintain the traditional view do recognize peculiarities\nin these sections, by which they justify the ascription of them to an\neye-witness. For the reasons which have been very briefly indicated,\ntherefore, and upon other\n\n{50}\n\nstrong grounds, some of which will be presently stated, a very large\nmass of the ablest critics have concluded that the [------] sections\nwere not composed by the author of the rest of the Acts, but that they\nare part of the diary of some companion of the Apostle Paul, of which\nthe Author of Acts made use for his work,(1) and that the general writer\nof the work, and consequently of the third Synoptic, was not Luke at\nall.(2)\n\n{51}\n\nA careful study of the contents of the Acts cannot, we think, leave\nany doubt that the work could not have been written by any companion or\nintimate friend of the Apostle Paul.(1) In here briefly indicating some\nof the reasons for this statement, we shall be under the necessity of\nanticipating, without much explanation or argument, points which will\nbe more fully discussed farther on, and which now, stated without\npreparation, may not be sufficiently clear to some readers. They may\nhereafter seem more conclusive. It is unreasonable to suppose that a\nfriend or companion could have written so unhistorical and defective\na history of the Apostle's life and teaching. The Pauline Epistles are\nnowhere directly referred to, but where we can compare the narrative\nand representations of Acts with the statements of the Apostle, they are\nstrikingly contradictory.(2)\n\n{52}\n\nHis teaching in the one scarcely presents a trace of the strong and\nclearly defined doctrines of the other, and the character and conduct\nof the Paul of Acts are altogether different from those of Paul of\nthe Epistles. According to Paul himself (Gal. i. 16--18), after his\nconversion, he communicated not with flesh and blood, neither went up\nto Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, but immediately went\naway into Arabia, and returned to Damascus, and only after three years\nhe went up to Jerusalem to visit Kephas, and abode with him fifteen\ndays, during which visit none other of the Apostles did he see \"save\nJames, the brother of the Lord.\" If assurance of the correctness of\nthese details were required, Paul gives it by adding (v. 20): \"Now\nthe things which I am writing to you, behold before God I lie not.\"\nAccording to Acts (ix. 19--30), however, the facts are quite different.\nPaul immediately begins to preach in Damascus, does not visit Arabia\nat all, but, on the contrary, goes to Jerusalem, where, under the\nprotection of Barnabas (v. 26, 27), he is introduced to the Apostles,\nand \"was with them going in and out.\" According to Paul (Gal. i. 22),\nhis face was after that unknown unto the churches of Judaea, whereas,\naccording to Acts, not only was he \"going in and out\" at Jerusalem with\nthe Apostles, but (ix. 29) preached boldly in the name of the Lord, and\n(Acts xxvi. 20) \"in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judaea,\"\nhe urged to repentance. According to Paul (Gal. ii. 1 ff.), after\nfourteen years he went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus,\n\n{53}\n\n\"according to a revelation,\" and \"privately\" communicated his Gospel\n\"to those who seemed to be something,\" as, with some irony, he calls\nthe Apostles. In words still breathing irritation and determined\nindependence, Paul relates to the Galatians the particulars of that\nvisit--how great pressure had been exerted to compel Titus, though a\nGreek, to be circumcised, \"that they might bring us into bondage,\" to\nwhom, \"not even for an hour did we yield the required subjection.\" He\nprotests, with proud independence, that the Gospel which he preaches\nwas not received from man (Gal. i. 11, 12), but revealed to him by God\n(verses 15, 16); and during this visit (ii. 6, 7) \"from those seeming\nto be something [------], whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to\nme--God accepteth not man's person--for to me those who seemed\n[------] communicated nothing additional.\" According to Acts, after his\nconversion, Paul is taught by a man named Ananias what he must do (ix.\n6, xxii. 10); he makes visits to Jerusalem (xi. 30, xii. 25, &c), which\nare excluded by Paul's own explicit statements; and a widely different\nreport is given (xv. 1 ff.) of the second visit. Paul does not go,\n\"according to a revelation,\" but is deputed by the Church of Antioch,\nwith Barnabas, in consequence of disputes regarding the circumcision of\nGentiles, to lay the case before the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem.\nIt is almost impossible in the account here given of proceedings\ncharacterised throughout by perfect harmony, forbearance, and unanimity\nof views, to recognize the visit described by Paul. Instead of being\nprivate, the scene is a general council of the Church. The fiery\nindependence of Paul is transformed into meekness and submission. There\nis not a word of the\n\n{54}\n\nendeavour to compel him to have Titus circumcised--all is peace and\nundisturbed good-will. Peter pleads the cause of Paul, and is more\nPauline in his sentiments than Paul himself, and, in the very presence\nof Paul, claims to have been selected by God to be Apostle of the\nGentiles (xv. 7--11). Not a syllable is said of the scene at Antioch\nshortly after (Gal. ii. 11 ff.), so singularly at variance with the\nproceedings of the council, when Paul withstood Cephas to the face.\nThen, who would recognize the Paul of the Epistles in the Paul of Acts,\nwho makes such repeated journeys to Jerusalem to attend Jewish feasts\n(xviii. 21,1 xix. 21, xx. 16, xxiv. 11, 17, 18); who, in his journeys,\nhalts on the days when a Jew may not travel (xx. 5, 6); who shaves\nhis head at Cenchrea because of a vow (xviii. 18); who, at the\nrecommendation of the Apostles, performs that astonishing act of\nNazariteship in the Temple (xxi. 23), and afterwards follows it up by\na defence of such \"excellent dissembling\" [------]; who circumcises\nTimothy, the son of a Greek and of a Jewess, with his own hands\n(xvi. 1--3, cf. Gal. v. 2); and who is so little the apostle of the\nuncircumcision that he only tardily goes to the Gentiles when rejected\nby the Jews (cf. xviii. (J). Paul is not only robbed of the honour of\nbeing the first Apostle of the Gentiles, which is conferred upon Peter,\nbut the writer seems to avoid even calling him an apostle at all,(2) the\nonly occasions upon which he does so being indirect (xiv. 4, 14); and\nthe title equally applied to Barnabas, whose claim to it is more than\ndoubted. The\n\n{55}\n\npassages in which this occurs, moreover, are not above suspicion, \"the\nApostles\" being omitted in Cod. D. (Bezae) from xiv. 14. The former\nverse in that codex has important variations from other MSS.\n\nIf we cannot believe that the representation actually given of Paul in\nthe Acts could proceed from a friend or companion of the Apostle, it\nis equally impossible that such a person could have written his history\nwith so many extraordinary imperfections and omissions. We have already\npointed out that between chs. ix.--xiv. are compressed the events of\nseventeen of the most active years of the Apostle's life, and also that\na long period is comprised within the [------] sections, during which\nsuch minute details of the daily itinerary are given. The incidents\nreported, however, are quite disproportionate to those which are\nomitted. We have no record, for instance, of his visit to Arabia at\nso interesting a portion of his career (Gal. i. 17), although the\nparticulars of his conversion are repeated with singular variations no\nless than three times (ix. xxii. xxvi.); nor of his preaching in Illyria\n(Rom. xv. 19); nor of the incident referred to in Rom. xvi. 3, 4. The\nmomentous adventures in the cause of the Gospel spoken of in 2 Cor.\nxi. 23 ff. receive scarcely any illustration in Acts, nor is any notice\ntaken of his fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus (1 Cor. xv. 32), which\nwould have formed an episode full of serious interest. What, again, was\n\"the affliction which happened in Asia,\" which so overburdened even so\nenergetic a nature as that of the Apostle that \"he despaired even of\nlife?\" (2 Cor. ii. 8 f.) Some light upon these points might reasonably\nhave been expected from a companion of Paul. Then, xvii. 14--16, xviii.\n5 contradict 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, in a way scarcely possible in such a\n\n{56}\n\ncompanion, present with the Apostle at Athens; and in like manner the\nrepresentation in xxviii. 17-22 is inconsistent with such a person,\nignoring as it does the fact that there already was a Christian Church\nin Rome (Ep. to Romans). We do not refer to the miraculous elements so\nthickly spread over the narrative of the Acts, and especially in the\nepisode xvi. 25 ff., which is inserted in the first [------] section,\nas irreconcilable with the character of an eye-witness, because it is\nprecisely the miraculous portion of the book which is on its trial;\nbut we may ask whether it would have been possible for such a friend,\nacquainted with the Apostle's representations in 1 Cor. xiv. 2 ff., cf.\nxii.--xiv., and the phenomena there described, to speak of the gift of\n\"tongues\" at Pentecost as the power of speaking different languages (ii.\n4--11, cf. x. 46, xix. 6)\n\nIt will readily be understood that we have here merely rapidly and\nby way of illustration referred to a few of the points which seem to\npreclude the admission that the general author of the Acts could be an\neyewitness,(1) or companion of the Apostle Paul, and this will become\nmore apparent as we proceed, and more closely examine the contents of\nthe book. Who that author was, there are now no means of ascertaining.\nThe majority of critics who have most profoundly examined the problem\npresented by the Acts, however, and who do not admit Luke to be the\ngeneral author, are agreed that the author compiled the [------]\nsections from a diary kept by some companion of the Apostle Paul during\nthe journeys and voyages to which they relate, but opinion is very\ndivided as to the person\n\n{57}\n\nto whom that diary must be ascribed. It is of course recognized that\nthe various theories regarding his identity are merely based upon\nconjecture, but they have long severely exercised critical ingenuity.\nA considerable party adopt the conclusion that the diary was probably\nwritten by Luke.(1) This theory has certainly the advantage of whatever\nsupport may be derived from tradition; and it has been conjectured,\nnot without probability, that this diary, being either written by, or\noriginally attributed to, Luke, may possibly have been the source from\nwhich, in course of time, the whole of the Acts, and consequently the\nGospel, came to be ascribed to Luke.(2) The selection of a comparatively\nless known name than that of Timothy, Titus or Silas,(3) for instance,\nmay thus be explained; but, besides, it has the great advantage that,\nthe name of Luke never being mentioned in the Acts, he is not exposed\nto criticism, which has found serious objections to the claims of other\nbetter known followers of Paul.\n\nThere are, however, many critics who find difficulties in the way of\naccepting Luke as the author of the \"we\" sections, and who adopt the\ntheory that they were pro-\n\n{58}\n\nprobably composed by Timothy.(1) It is argued that, if Luke had been the\nwriter of this diary, he must have been in very close relations to Paul,\nhaving been his companion during the Apostle's second mission journey,\nas well as during the later European journey, and finally during the\neventful journey of Paul as a prisoner from Caesarea to Rome. Under\nthese circumstances, it is natural to expect that Paul should mention\nhim in his earlier epistles, written before the Roman imprisonment, but\nthis he nowhere does. For instance, no mention whatever is made of\nLuke in either of the letters to the Corinthians nor in those to the\nThessalonians; but on the other hand, Timothy's name, together with that\nof Silvanus (or Silas), is joined to Paul's in the two letters to the\nThessalonians, besides being mentioned in the body of the first Epistle\n(iii. 2, 6); and he is repeatedly and affectionately spoken of in the\nearlier letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10), and his name\nis likewise combined with the Apostle's in the second Epistle (2 Cor. i.\n1), as well as mentioned in the body of the letter, along with that\nof Silvanus, as a fellow-preacher with Paul. In the Epistle to the\nPhilippians, later, the name of Luke does not appear, although, had he\nbeen the companion of the Apostle from Troas, he must have been known to\nthe Philippians, but on the other hand, Timothy is again associated in\nthe opening greeting of that Epistle. Timothy is known to have\n\n{59}\n\nbeen a fellow-worker with the Apostle, and to have accompanied him in\nhis missionary journeys, and he is repeatedly mentioned in the Acts as\nthe companion of Paul, and the first occasion is precisely where the\n[------] sections commence.(1) In connection with Acts xv. 40, xvi.\n3,10, it is considered that Luke is quite excluded from the possibility\nof being the companion who wrote the diary we are discussing, by the\nApostle's own words in 2 Cor. i. 19:(2) \"For the Son of God, Christ\nJesus, who was preached among you by us, by me and Silvanus and\nTimothy,\" &c, &c. The eye-witness who wrote the journal from which the\n[------] sections are taken must have been with the Apostle in Corinth,\nand, it is of course always asserted, must have been one of his\n[------], and preached the Gospel.(3) Is it possible, on the supposition\nthat this fellow-labourer was Luke, that the Apostle could in so marked\na manner have excluded his name by clearly defining that \"us\" only meant\nhimself and Silvanus and Timothy? Mayerhoff(4) has gone even further\nthan the critics we have referred to, and maintains Timothy to be the\nauthor of the third Synoptic and of Acts.\n\nWe may briefly add that some writers have conjectured Silas to be the\nauthor of the [------] sections,(5) and others\n\n{60}\n\nhave referred them to Titus.(1) It is evident that whether the [------]\nsections be by the unknown author of the rest of the Acts, or be part of\na diary by some unknown companion of Paul, introduced into the work by\nthe general editor, they do not solve the problem as to the identity\nof the author, who remains absolutely unknown. We have said enough to\nenable the reader to understand the nature of the problem regarding the\nauthor of the third Synoptic and of the Acts of the Apostles, and whilst\nfor our purpose much less would have sufficed, it is evident that the\nmaterials do not exist for identifying him. The stupendous miracles\nrelated in these two works, therefore, rest upon the evidence of an\nunknown writer, who from internal evidence must have composed them very\nlong after the events recorded. Externally, there is no proof even of\nthe existence of the Acts until towards the end of the second century,\nwhen also for the first time we hear of a vague theory as to the name\nand identity of the supposed author, a theory which declares Luke not\nto have himself been an eye-witness of the occurrences related in the\nGospel, and which reduces his participation even in the events narrated\nin the Acts to a very small and modest compass, leaving the great\nmass of the miracles described in the work without even his personal\nattestation. The theory, however, we have seen to be not only\nunsupported by evidence, but to be contradicted by many potent\ncircumstances. We propose now, without exhaustively examining the\ncontents of the Acts, which would itself require a separate treatise, at\nleast to\n\n{61}\n\nconsider some of its main points sufficiently to form a fair judgment\nof the historical value of the work, although the facts which we have\nalready ascertained are clearly fatal to the document as adequate\ntestimony for miracles, and the reality of Divine Revelation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. DESIGN AND COMPOSITION\n\nThe historical value of the Acts of the Apostles has very long been the\nsubject of vehement discussion, and the course of the controversy\nhas certainly not been favourable to the position of the work. For a\nconsiderable time the traditional view continued to prevail, and little\nor no doubt of the absolute credibility of the narrative was ever\nexpressed. When the spirit of independent and enlightened criticism\nwas finally aroused, it had to contend with opinions which habit had\nrendered stereotype, and prejudices which took the form of hereditary\nbelief. A large body of eminent critics, after an exhaustive\ninvestigation of the Acts, have now declared that the work is not\nhistorically accurate, and cannot be accepted as a true account of the\nActs and teaching of the Apostles.(1)\n\n{63}\n\nThe Author of the Acts has been charged with having written the work\nwith a distinct design to which he subordinated historical truth, and\nin this view many critics have joined, who ultimately do not accuse\nhim absolutely of falsifying history, but merely of making a deliberate\nselection of his materials with the view of placing events in the light\nmost suitable for his purpose. Most of those, however, who make this\ncharge maintain that, in carrying out the original purpose of the Acts,\nthe writer so freely manipulated whatever materials he had before\nhim, and so dealt with facts whether by omission, transformation or\ninvention, that the historical value of his narrative has been\ndestroyed or at least seriously affected by it.1 On the other hand, many\napologetic writers altogether deny the existence of any design on the\npart of the\n\n{64}\n\nauthor such as is here indicated, which could have led him to suppress\nor distort facts,(1) and whilst some of them advance very varied and\nfanciful theories as to the historical plan upon which the writer\nproceeds, and in accordance with which the peculiarities of his\nnarrative are explained, they generally accept the work as the genuine\nhistory of the Acts of the Apostles so far as the author possessed\ncertain information. The design most generally ascribed to the writer of\nthe Acts may, with many minor variations, be said to be apologetic\nand conciliatory: an attempt to reconcile the two parties in the early\nchurch by representing the difference between the views of Peter and\nPaul as slight and unimportant, Pauline sentiments being freely placed\nin the mouth of Peter, and the Apostle of the Gentiles being represented\nas an orthodox adherent of the church of Jerusalem, with scarcely such\nadvanced views of christian universality as Peter; or else, an effort\nof Gentile Christianity to bring itself into closer union with the\nprimitive church, surrendering, in so doing, all its distinctive\nfeatures and its Pauline origin, and representing the universalism by\nwhich it exists, as a principle adopted and promulgated from the very\nfirst by Peter and the Twelve. It is not necessary, however, for us to\nenter upon any minute discussion of this point, nor is it requisite, for\nthe purposes of our inquiry, to determine whether the peculiar character\n\n{65}\n\nof the writing which we are examining is the result of a perfectly\ndefinite purpose controlling the whole narrative and modifying every\ndetail, or naturally arises from the fact that it is the work of a pious\nmember of the Church writing long after the events related, and imbuing\nhis materials, whether of legend or ecclesiastical tradition, with his\nown thoroughly orthodox views: history freely composed for Christian\nedification. We shall not endeavour to construct any theory to account\nfor the phenomena before us, nor to discover the secret motives or\nintentions of the writer, but taking them as they are, we shall simply\nexamine some of the more important portions of the narrative, with a\nview to determine whether the work can in any serious sense be regarded\nas credible history.\n\nNo one can examine the contents of the Acts without perceiving that some\nsecret motive or influence did certainly govern the writer's mind,\nand guide him in the selection of topics, and this is betrayed by many\npeculiarities in his narrative. Quite apart from any attempt to discover\nprecisely what that motive was, it is desirable that we should briefly\npoint out some of these peculiarities. It is evident that every man who\nwrites a history must commence with a distinct plan, and that the choice\nof subjects to be introduced or omitted must proceed upon a certain\nprinciple. This is of course an invariable rule wherever there is order\nand arrangement. No one has ever questioned that in the Acts of the\nApostles both order and arrangement have been deliberately adopted and\nthe question naturally arises: What was the plan ol the Author? and upon\nwhat principle did he select, from the mass of facts which might have\nbeen related regarding the Church in the Apostolic ages, precisely those\n\n{66}\n\nwhich he has inserted, to the exclusion of the rest?(1) What title will\nadequately represent the contents of the book? for it is admitted by\nalmost all critics that the actual name which the book bears neither\nwas given to it by its author nor properly describes its intention and\nsubject.(2) The extreme difficulty which has been felt in answering\nthese questions, and in constructing any hypothesis which may fairly\ncorrespond with the actual contents of the Acts, constitutes one of\nthe most striking commentaries on the work, and although we cannot here\ndetail the extremely varied views of critics upon the subject, they\nare well worthy of study.(3) No one now advances the theory which was\nanciently current that the Author simply narrated that of which he was\nan eye-witness.(4) Its present title [------] would lead us to expect\nan account of the doings of the Apostles in general, but we have nothing\nlike this in the book. Peter and Paul occupy the principal parts of the\nnarrative, and the other Apostles are scarcely mentioned.\n\n{67}\n\nJames is introduced as an actor in the famous Council, and represented\nas head of the Church in Jerusalem, but it is much disputed that he was\neither an Apostle, or one of the Twelve. The death of James the brother\nof John is just mentioned. John is represented on several occasions\nduring the earlier part of the narrative as the companion of Peter,\nwithout, however, being prominently brought forward; and the rest of\nthe Twelve are left in complete obscurity. It is not a history of the\nlabours of Peter and Paul, for not only is considerable importance given\nto the episodes of Stephen and Philip the Evangelist, but the account\nof the two great Apostles is singularly fragmentary. After a brief\nchronicle of the labours of Peter, he suddenly disappears from the\nscene, and we hear of him no more. Paul then becomes the prominent\nfigure in the drama; but we have already pointed out how defective is\nthe information given regarding him, and he is also abandoned as soon as\nhe is brought to Rome: of his subsequent career and martyrdom, nothing\nwhatever is said. The work is not, as Luther suggested, a gloss on the\nEpistles of Paul and the inculcation of his doctrine of righteousness\nthrough faith, for the narrative of the Acts, so far as we can compare\nit with the Epistles, which are nowhere named in it, is generally in\ncontradiction to them, and the doctrine of justification by faith is\nconspicuous by its absence. It is not a history of the first Christian\nmissions, for it ignores entirely the labours of most of the Apostles,\nomits all mention of some of the most interesting missionary journeys,\nand does not even give a report of the introduction of Christianity into\nRome. It is not in any sense a Paulinian history of the Church, for if,\non the one side, it describes the Apostles of the Circumcision as\n\n{68}\n\npromulgating the universalism which Paul preached, it robs him of his\noriginality, dwarfs his influence upon the development of Christianity,\nand is, on the other hand, too defective to represent Church history,\nwhether from a Paulinian or any other standpoint. The favourite\ntheory: that the writer designed to relate the story of the spread\nof Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome, can scarcely be maintained,\nalthough it certainly has the advantage of a vagueness of proportions\nequally suitable to the largest and most limited treatment of history.\nBut, in such a case, we have a drama with the main incident omitted; for\nthe introduction of the Gospel into Rome is not described at all, and\nwhilst the author could not consider the personal arrival at Rome of the\nApostle Paul the climax of his history, he at once closes his account\nwhere the final episode ought to have commenced.\n\nFrom all points of view, and upon any hypothesis, the Acts of the\nApostles is so obviously incomplete as a history, so fragmentary and\ndefective as biography, that critics have to the present day failed in\nframing any theory which could satisfactorily account for its anomalies,\nand have almost been forced to explain them by supposing a partial,\napologetic or conciliatory, design, which removes the work from the\nregion of veritable history. The whole interest of the narrative, of\ncourse, centres in the two representative Apostles, Peter and Paul, who\nalternately fill the scene. It is difficult to say, however, whether\nthe account of the Apostle of the Circumcision or of Paul is the more\ncapriciously partial and incomplete. After his miraculous liberation\nfrom the prison into which he had been cast by Herod, the doings of\nPeter are left unchronicled, and although he is reintroduced for a\nmoment to plead the cause of the\n\n{69}\n\nGentiles at the Council in Jerusalem, he then finally retires from the\nscene, to give place to Paul. The omissions from the history of Paul are\nvery remarkable, and all the more so from the extreme and unnecessary\ndetail of the itinerary of some of his journeys, and neither the blanks,\non the one hand, nor the excessive minuteness, on the other, are to be\nexplained by any theory connected with personal knowledge on the part of\nTheophilus. Of the general history of the primitive Church and the life\nand labours of the Twelve, we are told little or nothing. According to\nthe Author the propagation of the Gospel was carried on more by angelic\nagency than apostolic enthusiasm. There is a liberal infusion of\nmiraculous episodes in the history, but a surprising scarcity of facts.\nEven where the Author is best informed, as in the second part of the\nActs, the narrative of Paul's labours and missionary journeys, while\npresenting striking omissions, is really minute and detailed only in\nregard to points of no practical interest, leaving both the distinctive\nteaching of the Apostle, and the internal economy of the Church almost\nentirely unrepresented. Does this defective narrative of the Acts of\nthe Apostles proceed from poverty of information, or from the arbitrary\nselection of materials for a special purpose? As we proceed, it\nwill become increasingly evident that, limited although the writer's\nmaterials are, the form into which they have been moulded has\nundoubtedly been determined either by a dominant theory, or a deliberate\ndesign, neither of which is consistent with the composition of sober\nhistory.\n\nThis is particularly apparent in the representation which is given of\nthe two principal personages of the narrative. Critics have long clearly\nrecognised that the\n\n{70}\n\nAuthor of the Acts has carefully arranged his materials so as to present\nas close a parallelism as possible between the Apostles Peter and\nPaul.(1) We shall presently see how closely he assimilates their\nteaching, ascribing the views of Paul to Peter, and putting Petrine\nsentiments in the mouth of Paul, but here we shall merely refer to\npoints of general history. If Peter has a certain pre-eminence as a\ndistinguished member of the original Apostolic body, the equal claim of\nPaul to the honours of the Apostolate, whilst never directly advanced,\nis prominently suggested by the narration, no less than three times, of\nthe circumstances of his conversion and direct call to the office by the\nglorified Jesus. The first miracle ascribed to Peter is the healing of\n\"a certain man lame from his mother's womb\" [------] at the beautiful\ngate of the Temple,(2) and the first wonder performed by Paul is also\nthe healing of \"a certain man lame from his mother's womb\" [------] at\nLystra;(3)\n\nAnanias and Sapphira are punished through the instrumentality of\nPeter,(4) and Elymas is smitten with blindness at the word of Paul;(5)\nthe sick are laid in the streets that the shadow of Peter may fall upon\nthem, and they are healed, as are also those\n\n{71}\n\nvexed with unclean spirits;(l) handkerchiefs or aprons are taken to the\nsick from the body of Paul, and they are healed, and the evil spirits go\nout of them;(2) Peter withstands Simon the sorcerer,(3) as Paul does\nthe sorcerer Elymas and the exorcists at Ephesus;(4) if Peter heals the\nparalytic AEneas at Lydda,(5) Paul restores to health the fever-stricken\nfather of Publius at Melita;(6) Peter raises from the dead Tabitha, a\ndisciple at Joppa,(7) and Paul restores to life the disciple Eutychus at\nTroas;(8) Cornelius falls at the feet of Peter, and worships him, Peter\npreventing him, and saying: \"Rise up! I myself also am a man,\"(9) and in\nlike manner the people of Lystra would have done sacrifice to Paul, and\nhe prevents them, crying out: \"We also are men of like passions with\nyou;\"(10) Peter lays his hands on the people of Samaria, and they\nreceive, the Holy Ghost and the gift of tongues,(11) and Paul does\nthe same for believers at Ephesus;(12) Peter is brought before the\ncouncil,(13) and so is Paul;(14) the one is imprisoned and twice\nreleased by an angel,(15) and the other is delivered from his bonds by a\ngreat earthquake;(16) if Peter be scourged by order of the council,(17)\nPaul is beaten with many stripes at the command of the magistrates\nof Philippi.(18) It is maintained that the desire to equalise the\nsufferings of the two Apostles in the cause of the Gospel, as he has\nequalised their miraculous displays, probably led the Author to omit all\nmention of those\n\n{72}\n\nperils and persecutions to which the Apostle Paul refers in support\nof his protest, that he had laboured and suffered more than all\nthe rest.(1) If Paul was called by a vision to the ministry of the\nGentiles,(2) so Peter is represented as having been equally directed by\na vision to baptize the Gentile Cornelius;(3) the double vision of Peter\nand Cornelius has its parallel in the double vision of Paul and Ananias.\nIt is impossible to deny the measured equality thus preserved between\nthe two Apostles, or to ignore the fact that parallelism like this is\nthe result of premeditation, and cannot claim the character of impartial\nhistory.\n\nThe speeches form an important element in the Acts of the Apostles,\nand we shall now briefly examine them, reserving, however, for future\nconsideration their dogmatic aspect. Few, if any writers, however\napologetic, maintain that these discourses can possibly have been spoken\nexactly as they are recorded in the Acts. The utmost that is asserted\nis that they are substantially historical, and fairly represent the\noriginal speeches.(4) They were derived, it is alleged, either from\nwritten sources, or oral\n\n{73}\n\ntradition, and many, especially in the second part, are supposed to have\nbeen delivered in the presence of the Author of the work. This view is\nheld, of course, with a greater or less degree of assurance as to\nthe closeness of the relation which our record bears to the original\naddresses; but, without here very closely scrutinizing hesitation or\nreticence, our statement fairly renders the apologetic position. A large\nbody of able critics, however, deny the historical character of these\nspeeches,(1) and consider them mere free compositions by the Author\nof the Acts, at the best being on a par with the speeches which many\nancient writers place in the mouths of their historical personages, and\ngiving only what the writer supposed that the speaker would say under\nthe circumstances. That the writer may have made use of such materials\nas were within his reach, or endeavoured to embody the ideas which\ntradition may broadly have preserved, may possibly be admitted, but that\nthese discourses can seriously be accepted as conveying a correct report\nof anything actually spoken by the persons in whose mouths they are put\nis, of course, denied. It is,\n\n{74}\n\nobviously, extremely improbable that any of these speeches could have\nbeen written down at the time.(1) Taking even the supposed case that the\nAuthor of the Acts was Luke, and was present when some of the speeches\nof Paul were delivered, it is difficult to imagine that he immediately\nrecorded his recollection of them, and more than this he could not\nhave done. He must continually have been in the habit of hearing the\npreaching of Paul, and therefore could not have had the inducement of\nnovelty to make him write down what he heard. The idea of recording them\nfor posterity could not have occurred to such a person, with the belief\nin the approaching end of all things then prevalent. The Author of the\nActs was not the companion of Paul, however, and the contents of the\nspeeches, as we shall presently see, are not of a character to make it\nin the least degree likely that they could have been written down for\nseparate circulation. Many of the speeches in the Acts, moreover, were\ndelivered under circumstances which render it specially unlikely that\nthey could have\n\n{75}\n\nbeen reported with any accuracy. At no time an easy task correctly to\nrecord a discourse of any length, it is doubly difficult when those\nspeeches, like many in Acts, were spoken under circumstances of great\ndanger or excitement. The experience of modern times, before the\napplication of systems of short-hand, may show how imperfectly speeches\nwere taken down, even where there was deliberate preparation and set\npurpose to do so, and if it be suggested that some celebrated orations\nof the last century have so been preserved, it is undeniable that what\nhas been handed down to us not only does not represent the original, but\nis really almost a subsequent composition, preserving little more than\nsome faint echoes of the true utterance. The probability that a correct\nrecord of speeches made, under such circumstances, in the middle of the\nfirst century could have been kept, seems exceedingly small. Even, if\nit could be shown that the Author of the Acts took these speeches\nsubstantially from earlier documents, it would not materially tend\nto establish their authenticity; for the question would still remain\nperfectly open as to the closeness of those documents to the original\ndiscourses; but in the absence of all evidence, whether as to the\nexistence or origin of any such sources, the conjecture of their\npossible existence can have no weight. We have nothing but internal\ntestimony to examine, and that, we shall see, is totally opposed to the\nclaim to historical value made for those discourses.\n\nApologists scarcely maintain that we have in the Acts a record of the\noriginal discourses in their completeness, but in claiming\nsubstantial accuracy most of them include the supposition at least of\ncondensation.(1) The longest\n\n{76}\n\ndiscourse in the Acts would not have taken more than six or seven\nminutes to deliver,(1) and it is impossible to suppose that what is\nthere given can have been the whole speech delivered on many of the\noccasions described. For instance, is it probable that King Agrippa who\ndesires to hear Paul, and who comes \"with great pomp\" with Berenice to\ndo so, should only have heard a speech lasting some five minutes.\nThe Author himself tells us that Paul was not always so brief in his\naddresses as any one might suppose from the specimens here presented.(2)\nIt is remarkable, however, that not the slightest intimation is given\nthat the speeches are either merely substantially reported or are\nabridged, and their form and character are evidently designed to convey\nthe impression of complete discourses. If the reader examine any of\nthese discourses, it will be clear that they are concise compositions,\nbetraying no marks of abridgment, and having no fragmentary looseness,\nbut, on the contrary, that they are highly artificial and finished\nproductions, with a continuous argument. They certainly are singularly\ninadequate, many of them, to produce the impressions described; but at\nleast it is not possible to discover that material omissions have been\nmade, or that their periods were originally expanded by large, or even\nany, amplification. If these speeches be regarded as complete, and\nwith little or no condensation, another strong element is added to\nthe suspicion as to their authenticity, for such extreme baldness and\nbrevity in the declaration of a new religion,\n\n{77}\n\nrequiring both explanation and argument, cannot be conceived, and in\nthe case of Paul, with whose system of teaching and doctrine we are well\nacquainted through his Epistles, it is impossible to accept such meagre\nand onesided addresses, as representations of his manner. The statement\nthat the discourses are abridged, and a mere _resume_ of those\noriginally delivered, however, rests upon no authority, is a\nmere conjecture to account for an existing difficulty, and is in\ncontradiction to the actual form of the speeches in Acts. Regarded as\ncomplete, their incongruity is intensified, but considered as abridged,\nthey have lost in the process all representative character and\nhistorical fitness.\n\nIt has been argued, indeed, that the different speeches bear evidence\nto their genuineness from their suitability to the speakers, and to the\ncircumstances under which they are said to have been spoken; but\nthe existence of anything but the most superficial semblance of\nidiosyncratic character must be denied. The similarity of form, manner,\nand matter in all the speeches is most remarkable, as will presently be\nmade more apparent, and the whole of the doctrine enunciated amounts to\nlittle more than the repetition, in slightly varying words, of the\nbrief exhortation to repentance and belief in Jesus, the Christ. that\nsalvation may be obtained,(1) with references to the ancient history of\nthe Jews, singularly alike in all discourses. Very little artistic skill\nis necessary to secure a certain suitability of the word to the action,\nand the action to the word; and certainly evidence is reduced to a\nvery low ebb when such agreement as is presented in the Acts is made an\nargument for authenticity. Not only is the consistency of the sentiments\nuttered by\n\n{78}\n\nthe principal speakers, as compared with what is known of their opinions\nand character, utterly disputed, but it must be evident that the\nliterary skill of the Author of the Acts was quite equal to so simple\na task as preserving\" at least such superficial fitness as he displays,\nand a very much greater amount of verisimilitude might have been\nattained, as in many works of fiction, without necessarily involving the\ninference of genuineness.\n\nIt has been freely admitted by critics of all schools that the author's\npeculiarities of style and language are apparent in all the speeches of\nthe Acts,(1) and this has been so often elaborately demonstrated that\nit is unnecessary minutely to enter upon it again. It may not be out of\nplace to quote a few lines from the work of one of the ablest and most\neminent advocates of the general authority of the Acts. Speaking of the\nspeeches of Paul, Lekebusch says:--\"The speeches of our Book, in fact,\nare calculated, perhaps more than anything, to excite doubt regarding\nits purely historical character. But here everything depends upon an\nunbiassed judgment. We are sufficiently free from prejudice to make the\nadmission to recent criticism that the speeches are not verbally given\nas they were originally delivered, but are composed by the author of the\nActs of the\n\n{79}\n\nApostles. Schleiermacher, certainly, has confidently asserted their\noriginality. He thinks: 'If the speeches were separately reported they\ncould not but appear just as we find them in the Acts of the Apostles.'\nBut his remarks, however ingenious and acute they may be, do not stand\nthe test of a thorough examination of the individual speeches. No one\nwho impartially compares these, one with another, and particularly their\nstyle with the mode of expression of the Author in the other sections,\ncan help agreeing with Eichhorn, when, in consonance with his view\nregarding the uniform character of the Acts, on the grounds quoted, page\n14, he ascribes the composition of the speeches to the writer from\nwhom the whole book in all its parts proceeds.\"(1) To this impartial\nexpression of opinion, Lekebusch adds a note:--\"In saying this, it is\nnaturally not suggested that our author simply _invented_ the speeches,\nindependently, without any historical intimation whatever as to the\nsubstance of the original; the_ form_ only, which certainly is here very\nclosely connected with the substance, is hereby ascribed to him.\"(2)\nLekebusch then merely goes on to discuss the nature of the author's\ndesign in composing these speeches. The reasons given by Eichhorn, which\nLekebusch quotes at \"page 14,\" referred to above, had better be added\nto complete this testimony. After referring to the result of Eichhorn's\n\"very careful examination\" of the internal character of the Acts,\nLekebusch says:--\"He finds, however, that, 'throughout the whole Acts\nof the Apostles there prevails the same style, the same manner, the same\nmethod and mode of expression' (ii. 35). Not\n\n{80}\n\neven the speeches, which one at first might take for inserted documents,\nseem to him 'from a strange hand, but elaborated by the same from which\nthe whole book, with its three parts, proceeds.' 'Various peculiarities\nexisting in the speeches' prove this to him, independent of the\nsimilarity of the style, and that, 'although they are put into the\nmouths of different persons, they nevertheless follow one and the same\ntype, make use of one and the same mode of argument, and have so much\nthat is common to them that they thereby prove themselves to be\nspeeches of one and the same writer' (ii. 38). From these circumstances,\ntherefore, it seems to Eichhorn 'in the highest degree probable,\nthat Luke, throughout the whole Acts of the Apostles, writes as an\nindependent author, and apart from all extraneous works.' And in this\nview he is 'strengthened by the resemblance of the style which runs\nthrough the whole Acts of the Apostles, through speeches, letters, and\nhistorical sections,' as well as by the fact that, 'through the whole\nbook, in the quotations from the Old Testament, a similar relation\nprevails between the Greek text of the Septuagint and that of Luke' (ii.\n43).\"(1) We have thought it well to quote these independent opinions\nfrom writers who range themselves amongst the defenders of the\nhistorical character of the Acts, rather than to burden our pages with\na mass of dry detail in proof of the assertion that the peculiarities\nof the author pervade all the speeches indifferently, to a degree which\nrenders it obvious that. they proceed from his pen.\n\nWithout entering into mere linguistic evidence of this, which will be\nfound in the works to which we have\n\n{81}\n\nreferred,(1) we may point out a few general peculiarities of this nature\nwhich are worthy of attention. The author introduces the speeches of\ndifferent persons with the same expression:--\"he opened his mouth,\" or\nsomething similar. Philip \"opened his mouth\" [------](1) and addressed\nthe Ethiopian (viii. 35). Peter \"opened his mouth (and) said\" [------],\nwhen he delivered his discourse before the baptism of Cornelius (x. 34).\nAgain, he uses it of Paul:--\"And when Paul was about to open his mouth\n[------], Gallio said,\" &c. (xviii. 14). The words with which the speech\nof Peter at Pentecost is introduced deserve more attention:--\"Peter\nlifted up his voice and said unto them\" [------] (ii. 14). The verb\n[------] occurs again (ii. 4) in the account of the descent of the Holy\nSpirit and the gift of tongues, and it is put into the mouth of Paul\n(xxvi. 25) in his reply to Festus, but it occurs nowhere else in the\nNew Testament. The favourite formula(3) with which all speeches open is,\n\"Men (and) Brethren\" [------], or [------] coupled with some other term,\nas \"Men (and) Israelites\" [------], or simply[------] without addition.\n[------], occurs no less than thirteen times. It is used thrice by\nPeter,(4) six times by Paul,(5) as well as by\n\n{82}\n\nStephen,(1) James,(2) the believers at Pentecost,(3) and the rulers of\nthe Synagogue.(4) The angels at the Ascension address the disciples as\n\"Men (and) Galileans\" [------].(5)\n\nPeter makes use of [------] twice,(6) and it is likewise employed by\nPaul,(7) by Gamaliel,(8) and by the Jews of Asia.(9) Peter addresses\nthose assembled at Pentecost as [------].(10) Paul opens his Athenian\nspeech with [------],(11) and the town-clerk begins his short appeal to\nthe craftsmen of Ephesus: [------].(12) Stephen begins his speech to the\nCouncil with Men, Brethren and Fathers, hear [------], and Paul uses\nthe very same words in addressing the multitude from the stairs of the\nTemple.(13)\n\nIn the speech which Peter is represented as making at Pentecost, he\nemploys in an altogether peculiar way (ii. 25--27) Psalm xvi., quoting\nit in order to prove that the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah was\na necessary occurrence, which had been foretold by David. This is\nprincipally based upon the tenth verse of the Psalm: \"Because thou wilt\nnot leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One [------]\nto see corruption [------].\"(14) Peter argues that David both died and\nwas buried, and that his sepulchre is with them to that day, but that,\nbeing a prophet, he foresaw and spake here of the Resurrection of\nChrist, \"that neither was he left in Hades nor did his flesh see\n\n{83}\n\ncorruption {------}.\"(1) Is it not an extremely singular circumstance\nthat Peter, addressing an audience of Jews in Jerusalem, where he might\nnaturally be expected to make use of the vernacular language, actually\nquotes the Sep-tuagint version of the Old Testament, and bases his\nargument upon a mistranslation of the Psalm, which, we may add, was in\nall probability not composed by David at all?(2) The word translated\n\"Holy One,\" should be in the plural: \"holy ones,\"{3} that is to say:\n\"thy saints,\" and the word rendered [------]corruption, really signifies\n\"grave\" or \"pit.\" 4 The poet, in fact, merely expresses his confidence\nthat he will be preserved alive. The best critics recognize that Ps.\nxvi. is not properly a Messianic Psalm\n\n{84}\n\nat all,(1) and many of those who, from the use which is made of it in\nActs, are led to assert that it is so, recognize in the main that it can\nonly be applied to the Messiah indirectly, by arguing that the prophecy\nwas not fulfilled in the case of the poet who speaks of himself, but was\nfulfilled in the Resurrection of Jesus. This reasoning, however, totally\nignores the sense of the original, and is opposed to all legitimate\nhistorical interpretation of the Psalm. Not dwelling upon this point\nat present, we must go on to point out that, a little further on (xiii.\n35--37), the Apostle Paul is represented as making use of the very same\nargument which Peter here employs, and quoting the same passage from Ps.\nxvi. to support it This repetition of very peculiar reasoning, coupled\nwith other similarities which we shall presently point out, leads to the\ninference that it is merely the author himself who puts this argument\ninto their mouths,(2) and this conclusion is strengthened by the\ncircumstance that, throughout both Gospel and Acts, he always quotes\nfrom the Septuagint,(3) and even when that version departs from\n\n{85}\n\nthe sense of the original It may be well to give both passages in\njuxta-position, in order that the closeness of the analogy may be more\neasily realized. For this purpose we somewhat alter the order of the\nverses:--\n\n[------]\n\nNot only is this argument the same in both discourses, but the whole of\nPaul's speech, xiii. 16 ff., is a mere reproduction of the two speeches\nof Peter, ii. 14 ff. and iii. 12 ff., with such alterations as the\nwriter could introduce to vary the fundamental sameness of ideas and\nexpressions. It is worth while to show this in a similar way:--\n\n[------]\n\n{86}\n\n[------]\n\n{87}\n\n[------]\n\n{88}\n\nPaul's address likewise hears close analogy with the speech of\nStephen, vii. 2 ff., commencing with a historical survey of the\nearlier traditions of the people of Israel, and leading up to the same\naccusation that, as their fathers disregarded the prophets, so they\nhad persecuted and slain the Christ. The whole treatment of the subject\nbetrays the work of the same mind in both discourses. Bleek, who admits\nthe similarity between these and other speeches in Acts, argues that:\n\"it does not absolutely follow from this that these speeches are\ncomposed by one and the same person, and are altogether unhistorical;\"\nfor it is natural, he thinks, that in the apostolical circle, and in the\nfirst Christian Church, there should have existed a certain uniform type\nin the application of messianic passages of the Old Testament, and in\nquotations generally, to which different teachers might conform without\nbeing dependent on each other.1 He thinks also that, along with the\nclose analogy, there is also much which is characteristic in the\ndifferent speeches. Not only is this typical system of quotation,\nhowever, a mere conjecture to explain an actual difficulty, but it is\ntotally inadequate to account for the phenomena. If we suppose, for\ninstance, that Paul had adopted the totally unhistorical application of\nthe sixteenth Psalm to the Messiah, is it not a very extraordinary thing\nthat in all the arguments in his\n\n{89}\n\nEpistles, he does not once refer to it? Even if this be waived, and it\nbe assumed that he had adopted this interpretation of the Psalm, it will\nscarcely be asserted that Paul, whose independence and originality\nof mind are so undeniable, and whose intercourse with the apostolical\ncircle at any time, and most certainly up to the period when this speech\nwas delivered, was very limited,(1) could so completely have caught the\nstyle and copied the manner of Peter that, on an important occasion like\nthis, his address should be a mere reproduction of Peter's two speeches\ndelivered so long before, and when Paul certainly was not present. The\nsimilarity of these discourses does not consist in the mere application\nof the same Psalm, but the whole argument, on each occasion, is repeated\nwith merely sufficient transposition of its various parts to give\na superficial appearance of variety. Words and expressions, rare or\nunknown elsewhere, are found in both, and the characteristic differences\nwhich Bleek finds exist only in his own apologetic imagination. Let\nit be remembered that the form of the speeches and the language are\ngenerally ascribed to the Author of the Acts. Can any unprejudiced\ncritic deny that the ideas in the speeches we are considering are\nalso substantially the same? Is there any appreciable trace of the\noriginality of Paul in his discourses? There is no ground whatever,\napart from the antecedent belief that the various speeches were actually\ndelivered by the men to whom they are ascribed, for asserting that we\nhave here the independent utterances of Peter and Paul. It is internal\nevidence alone, and no avowal on the part of the author, which leads to\nthe conclusion that the form of the speeches is the author's, and there\nis no internal evidence\n\n{90}\n\nwhich requires us to stop at the mere form, and not equally ascribe the\nsubstance to the same source. The speeches in the Acts, generally,\nhave altogether the character of being the composition of one mind\nendeavouring to impart variety of thought and expression to various\nspeakers, but failing signally either from poverty of invention or\nfrom the purpose of instituting a close parallel in views, as well as\nactions, between the two representative Apostles.\n\nFurther to illustrate this, let us take another speech of Peter which he\ndelivers on the occasion of the conversion of Cornelius, and it will be\napparent that it also contains all the elements, so far as it goes, of\nPaul's discourse. [------]\n\n{91}\n\n[------]\n\nAgain, to take an example from another speaker, we find James\nrepresented as using an expression which had just before been put into\nthe mouth of Paul, and it is not one in the least degree likely to occur\nindependently to each. The two passages are as follows:-- [------]\n\nThe fundamental similarity between these different speeches cannot\npossibly be denied;(2) and it cannot be\n\n{92}\n\nreasonably explained in any other way than by the fact that they were\ncomposed by the author himself, who had the earlier speeches ascribed\nto Peter still in his memory when he wrote those of Paul,(1) and who, in\nshort, had not sufficient dramatic power to create altogether distinct\ncharacters, but simply made his different personages use his own\nvocabulary to express his own somewhat limited range of ideas. Setting\nhis special design aside, his inventive faculty only permitted him to\nrepresent Peter speaking like Paul, and Paul like Peter.\n\nIt is argued by some, however, that in the speeches of Peter, for\ninstance, there are peculiarities of language and expression which show\nanalogy with the first Epistle bearing his name in the New Testament\nCanon,(2) and, on the other hand, traces of translation in some of them\nwhich indicate that these speeches were delivered originally in Aramaic,\nand that we have only a version of them by the Author of the Acts, or\nby some one from whom he derived them.(3) As regards the first of these\nsuppositions, a few phrases only have been pointed out, but they are\nof no force under any circumstances, and the whole theory is quite\ngroundless.(4) We do not con-\n\n{93}\n\nconsider it worth while to enter upon the discussion, and those who\ndesire to do so are referred to the works just indicated. There are two\npotent reasons which render such an argument of no force, even if the\nsupposed analogies were in themselves both numerous and striking, which\nactually they are not The authenticity of the Epistles bearing the\nname of Peter is not only not established, but is by very many eminent\ncritics absolutely denied; and there is no certainty whatever that any\nof the speeches of Peter were delivered in Greek, and the probability\nis that most, if not all, of that Apostle's genuine discourses must have\nbeen spoken in Aramaic. It is in fact asserted by apologists that\npart or all of the speeches ascribed to him in the Acts must have been\noriginally Aramaic, although opinion may differ as to the language in\nwhich some of them were spoken. Whether they were delivered in Aramaic,\nor whether there be uncertainty on the point, any conclusion from\nlinguistic analogies with the Epistles is obviously excluded. One\nthing is quite undeniable: the supposed analogies are few, and the\npeculiarities distinguishing the Author of Acts in these speeches are\nextremely numerous and general. Even so thorough an apologist as Tholuck\ncandidly acknowledges that the attempt to prove the authenticity of the\nspeeches from linguistic analogies is hopeless. He says: \"Nevertheless,\na comparison of the language of the Apostles in their Epistles and in\nthese speeches must in many respects be less admissible than that of the\ncharacter and historical circumstances, for indeed if the language and\ntheir peculiarities be compared, it must first be established that all\nthe reported speeches were delivered in the Greek language, which is\nimprobable, and of one of which (xxii. 1, 2) the contrary is expressly\n\n{94}\n\nstated willingly admitting that upon this point difference of opinion is\nallowable, we express as the view which we have hitherto held that, from\nch. xx. onwards, the speeches delivered by Paul are reported more in\nthe language of Luke than in that of Paul.\"(1) This applies with double\nforce to Peter,(2) whose speeches there is still greater reason to\nbelieve were delivered in Aramaic, and there is difference of opinion\namongst the critics we have referred to even as to whether these\nspeeches were translated by the Author of the Acts, or were already\nbefore him in a translated form, and were subsequently re-edited by him.\nWe have already shown cause for believing that the whole discussion is\ngroundless, from the fact that the speeches in Acts were simply composed\nby the author himself, and are not in any sense historical, and this we\nshall hereafter further illustrate.\n\nIt may be worth while to consider briefly the arguments advanced for\nthe theory that some of the speeches show marks of translation. It\nis asserted that the speech of Peter at Pentecost, ii. 14 ff., was\ndelivered in Aramaic.(3) Of course it will be understood that we might\n\n{95}\n\nbe quite prepared to agree to this statement as applied to a speech\nactually delivered by Peter; but the assertion, so far as the speeches\nin Acts are concerned, is based upon what we believe to be the erroneous\nsupposition that they are genuine reports of discourses. On the\ncontrary, we maintain that these speeches are mere compositions by\nthe author of the work. The contention is, however, that the speech\nattributed to Peter is the translation of a speech originally delivered\nin Aramaic. In ii. 24, Peter is represented as saying: \"Whom God raised\nup having loosed the pains of death [------], because it is not possible\nthat he should be held [------] by it.\" It is argued by Bleek and\nothers(1) that, as the context proves, the image intended here was\nevidently the \"snares\" or \"cords\" of death, a meaning which is not\nrendered by the Greek word [------]. The confusion is explained, they\ncontend, when it is supposed that, in his Aramaic speech, Peter made use\nof a Hebrew expression, equally found in Aramaic, which means as well\n\"snares\" or \"cords\" as \"pains\" of death. The Greek translator, probably\nmisled by the Septuagint,(2) adopted the latter signification of the\nHebrew word in question, and rendered it [------] \"pains,\" which is\nabsolutely inappropriate, for, they argue, it is very unnatural to say\nof one who had already suffered death, like Christ, that he had been\nheld prisoner by the \"pains\" of death, and loosed from them by the\nresurrection. There is, however, very little unanimity\n\n{96}\n\namongst apologists about this passage. Ebrard(1) asserts that [------]\n\"pains\" is the correct translation of the Hebrew expression, as in Ps.\nxviii. 5, and that the Hebrew word used always expresses pains of birth,\nthe plural of the similar word for \"cord\" or \"snare\" being different.\nEbrard, therefore, contends that the Psalm (xviii. 5) does not mean bonds\nor snares of death but literally \"birth-pains of death,\" by which the\nsoul is freed from the natural earthly existence as by a second birth\nto a glorified spiritual life. We need not enter further into the\ndiscussion of the passage, but it is obvious that it is mere assumption\nto assert, on the one hand, that Peter made use of any specific\nexpression, and, on the other, that there was any error of translation\non the part of the author of Acts. But agreeing that the Hebrew is\nerroneously rendered,(2) the only pertinent question is: by whom was the\nerror in question committed? and the reply beyond any doubt is: by\nthe lxx. who translate the Hebrew expression in this very way. It is\ntherefore inadmissible to assert from this phrase the existence of an\nAramaic original of the speech, for the phrase itself is nothing but a\nquotation from the Sep-tuagint.(3)\n\nThe expression [------] occurs no less than three times in that version:\nPs. xvii. 5 (A. V. xviii.), cxiv. 3 (A. V. cxvi.) and 2 Sam. xxii. 6;\nand in Job\n\n{97}\n\nxxxix. 2, we have [------]. When it is remembered that the author of\nActs always quotes the Septuagint version, even when it departs from the\nsense of the Hebrew original, and in all probability was only acquainted\nwith the Old Testament through it, nothing is more natural than the use\nof this expression taken from that version; but with the error already\nexisting there, to ascribe it afresh and independently to the Author\nof Acts, upon no other grounds than the assumption that Peter may have\nspoken in Aramaic, and used an expression which the author misunderstood\nor wrongly rendered, is not permissible. Indeed, we have already pointed\nout that, in this very speech, there are quotations of the Old Testament\naccording to the lxx. put into the mouth of Peter, in which that version\ndoes not accurately render the original.(1)\n\nThe next trace of translation advanced by Bleek(2) is found in ii.\n33,(3) where Peter speaks of Christ as exalted: \"[------].\" There can be\nno doubt, Bleek argues, that there is here a reference to Psalm ex. 1,\nand that the apostle intends to speak of Christ's elevation \"_to_ the\nright (hand) of God;\" whereas the Greek expression rather conveys\nthe interpretation: \"_by_ the right (hand) of God.\" This expression\ncertainly comes, he asserts, from a not altogether suitable translation\nof the Hebrew. To this on the other hand, much may be objected.\nWiner,(4) followed by others, defends the construction, and affirms that\nthe passage may without\n\n{98}\n\nhesitation, be translated \"_to_ the right (hand) of God.\"(1) In which\ncase there is no error at all, and the argument falls to the ground.\nIf it be taken, however, either that the rendering should be or was\nintended to be \"by the right (hand) of God\"(2) i.e., by the power\nof God, that would not involve the necessity of admitting an Aramaic\noriginal,(3) because there is no error at all, and the argument simply\nis, that being exalted by the right hand of God, Jesus had poured forth\nthe Holy Spirit; and in the next verse the passage in Ps. ex. 1 (Sept.\ncix.) is accurately quoted from the Septuagint version: \"Sit thou on\nmy right (hand)\" [------]. In fact, after giving an account of the\ncrucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the speaker ascribes his\nsubsequent exaltation to the power of God.(4)\n\nWe have seen that at least the form of the speeches in Acts is\nundoubtedly due to the author of the book, and that he has not been able\nto make the speeches of the different personages in his drama differ\nmaterially from each other. We shall hereafter have occasion to examine\nfurther the contents of some of these speeches, and the circumstances\nunder which it is alleged that they were spoken, and to inquire whether\nthese do not confirm\n\n{99}\n\nthe conclusion hitherto arrived at, that they are not historical, but\nmerely the free composition of the Author of Acts, and never delivered\nat all. Before passing on, however, it may be well to glance for a\nmoment at one of these speeches, to which we may not have another\nopportunity of referring, in order that we may see whether it presents\nany traces of inauthenticity and of merely ideal composition.\n\nIn the first chapter an account is given of a meeting of the brethren\nin order to elect a successor to the traitor Judas. Peter addresses the\nassembly, i. 16 if., and it may be well to quote the opening portion of\nhis speech: 16. \"Men (and) brethren, this scripture must needs have\nbeen fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake before\nconcerning Judas, who became guide to them that took Jesus, 17. because\nhe was numbered with us and obtained the lot of this ministry. 18.\nNow [------] this man purchased a field with the wages of the iniquity\n[------], and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all\nhis bowels gushed out; 19. and [------] it became known(1) unto all the\ndwellers at Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own tongue\n[------] Acheldamach, that is: field of blood. 20. For [------] it is\nwritten in the book of Psalms: 'Let his habitation be desolate, and let\nno man dwell therein,' and 'his office let another take,'\" &c, &c. Now\nlet it be remembered that Peter is supposed to be addressing an audience\nof Jews in Jerusalem, in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, a few\n\n{100}\n\nweeks after the crucifixion. Is it possible, therefore, that he should\ngive such an account as that in vs. 18, 19, of the end of Judas, which\nhe himself, indeed, says was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem?\nIs it possible that, speaking in Aramaic to Jews, probably in most part\nliving at and near Jerusalem, he could have spoken of the field being so\ncalled by the people of Jerusalem \"in their own tongue?\" Is it\npossible that he should, to such an audience, have translated the word\nAcheldamach?\n\nThe answer of most unprejudiced critics is that Peter could not have\ndone so.(1) As de Wette remarks: \"In the composition of this speech the\nauthor has not considered historical decorum.\"(2) This is felt by most\napologists, and many ingenious theories are advanced to explain away\nthe difficulty. Some affirm that verses 18 and 19 are inserted as a\nparenthesis by the Author of the Acts,(3) whilst a larger number contend\nthat only v. 19 is parenthetic.(4) A very cursory examination of the\npassage, however, is sufficient to show that the verses cannot be\nseparated. Verse 18 is connected with the preceding by the [------], 19\nwith 18 by [------], and verse 20 refers to 10, as indeed it also does\nto 17 and 18, without which the passage from the Psalm, as applied to\nJudas, would be unintelligible. Most critics, therefore,\n\n{101}\n\nare agreed that none of the verses can be considered parenthetic.(1)\nSome apologists, however, who feel that neither of the obnoxious verses\ncan be thus explained, endeavour to overcome the difficulty by asserting\nthat the words: \"in their own tongue\" [------] and: \"that is: the field\nof blood\" [------] in verse 19, are merely explanatory and inserted by\nthe Author of Acts.(2) It is unnecessary to say that this explanation\nis purely arbitrary, and that there is no ground, except the difficulty\nitself, upon which their exclusion from the speech can be based.\n\nIn the cases to which we have hitherto referred, the impossibility of\nsupposing that Peter could have spoken in this way has led writers to\nlay the responsibility of unacknowledged interpolations in the speech\nupon the Author of Acts, thus at once relieving the Apostle. There are\nsome apologists, however, who do not adopt this expedient, but attempt\nto meet the difficulty in other ways, while accepting the whole as a\nspeech of Peter. According to one theory, those who object that Peter\ncould not have thus related the death of Judas to people who must\nalready have been well acquainted with the circumstances have totally\noverlooked the fact, that a peculiar view of what has occurred is taken\nin the narrative, and that this peculiar view is the principal point of\nit According to the statement made, Judas met his miserable end in the\nvery field which he had bought with\n\n{102}\n\nthe price of blood. It is this circumstance, it appears, which Peter\nbrings prominently forward and represents as a manifest and tangible\ndispensation of Divine justice.(1) Unfortunately, however, this is\nclearly an imaginary moral attached to the narrative by the apologist,\nand is not the object of the supposed speaker, who rather desires to\njustify the forced application to Judas of the quotations in verse 20,\nwhich are directly connected with the preceding by [------]. Moreover,\nno explanation is here offered of the extraordinary expressions in verse\n19 addressed to citizens of Jerusalem by a Jew in their own tongue.\nAnother explanation, which includes these points, is still more\nstriking. With regard to the improbability of Peter's relating, in\nsuch a way, the death of Judas, it is argued that, according to the\nEvangelists, the disciples went from Jerusalem back to Galilee some\neight days after the resurrection, and only returned, earlier than\nusual, before Pentecost to await the fulfilment of the promise of Jesus.\nPeter and his companions, it is supposed, only after their return became\nacquainted with the fate of Judas, which had taken place during their\nabsence, and the matter was, therefore, quite new to them; besides, it\nis added, a speaker is often obliged on account of some connection with\nhis subject to relate facts already known.(2) It is true that some of\nthe Evangelists represent this return to Galilee(3) as having taken\nplace, but the author of the third Gospel and the Acts not only\n\n     3 Mt. xxviii. 10, 10; Mk. xvi. 7; John xxi. 1. I)r. Farrar,\n     somewhat pertinently, asks: \"Why did they (the disciples)\n     not go to Galilee immediately on receiving our Lord's\n     message? The circumstance is unexplained... Perhaps the\n     entire message of Jesus to them is not recorded; perhaps\n     they awaited the end of the feast.\" Life of Christ, ii. p.\n     441, note 1.\n\n{103}\n\ndoes not do so but excludes it.(1) In the third Gospel (xxiv. 49), Jesus\ncommands the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they are endued with\npower from on high, and then, after blessing them, he is parted from\nthem, and they return from Bethany to Jerusalem.(2) In Acts, the author\nagain takes up the theme, and whilst evidently giving later traditions\nregarding the appearances after the resurrection, he adheres to his\nversion of the story regarding the command to stay in Jerusalem. In i.\n4, he says: \"And being assembled together with them he commanded\nthem not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the\nFather,\" etc.; and here again, verse 12, the disciples are represented,\njust before Peter's speech is supposed to have been delivered, as\nreturning from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem. The Author of Acts and\nof the third Synoptic, therefore, gives no countenance to this theory.\nBesides, setting all this aside, the apologetic hypothesis we are\ndiscussing is quite excluded upon other grounds. If we suppose that\nthe disciples did go into Galilee for a time, we find them again in\nJerusalem at the election of the successor to Judas, and there is no\nreason to believe that they had only just returned. The Acts not only\nallow of no interval at all for the journey to Galilee between i. 12-14\nand 15 ff., but by the simple statement\n\n     2 We shall hereafter have to go more fully into this, and\n     shall not discuss it here. The third Gospel really\n     represents the Ascension as taking place on the day of the\n     Resurrection; and Acts, whilst giving later tradition, and\n     making the Ascension occur forty days after, does not amend,\n     but confirms the previously enunciated view that the\n     disciples had been ordered to stay in Jerusalem.\n\n{104}\n\nwith which our episode commences, v. 15: \"And in these days\" [------],\nPeter conveys anything but the impression of any very recent return\nto Jerusalem. If the Apostles had been even a few days there, the\nincongruity of the speech would remain undiminished; for the 120\nbrethren who are said to have been present must chiefly have been\nresidents in Jerusalem, and cannot be. supposed also to have been\nabsent, and, in any case, events which are represented as so well known\nto all the dwellers in Jerusalem, must certainly have been familiar\nto the small Christian community, whose interest in the matter was so\nspecially great. Moreover, according to the first Synoptic, as soon\nas Judas sees that Jesus is condemned, he brings the money back to the\nchief priests, casts it down and goes and hangs himself, xxvii. 3 ff.\nThis is related even before the final condemnation of Jesus and before\nhis crucifixion, and the reader is led to believe that Judas at once put\nan end to himself, so that the disciples, who are represented as being\nstill in Jerusalem for at least eight days after the resurrection, must\nhave been there at the time. With regard to the singular expressions in\nverse 19, this theory goes on to suppose that, out of consideration for\nGreek fellow-believers, Peter had probably already begun to speak in\nthe Greek tongue; and when he designates the language of the dwellers\nin Jerusalem as \"their own dialect,\" he does not thereby mean Hebrew\nin itself, but their own expression, the peculiar confession of the\nopposite party, which admitted the cruel treachery towards Jesus, in\nthat they named the piece of ground Hakel Damah.(1) Here, again, what\nassumptions! It is generally recognized that Peter must have spoken in\n\n{105}\n\nAramaic, and even if he did not, [------](1) cannot mean anything but\nthe language of \"all the-dwellers at Jerusalem.\" In a speech delivered\nat Jerusalem, in any language, to an audience consisting at least in\nconsiderable part of inhabitants of the place, and certainly almost\nentirely of persons whose native tongue was Aramaic, to tell them\nthat the inhabitants called a certain field \"in their own tongue\"\nAcheldamach, giving them at the same time a translation of the word, is\ninconceivable to most critics, even including apologists.\n\nThere is another point which indicates not only that this theory is\ninadequate to solve the difficulty, but that the speech could not have\nbeen delivered by Peter a few weeks after the occurrences related. It\nis stated that the circumstances narrated were so well known to the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, that the field was called in their own tongue\nAcheldamach. The origin of this name is not ascribed to the priests or\nrulers, but to the people, and it is not to be supposed that a popular\nname could have become attached to this field, and so generally adopted\nas the text represents, within the very short time which could have\nelapsed between the death of Judas and the delivery of this speech. Be\nit remembered that from the time of the crucifixion to Pentecost the\ninterval was in all only about seven weeks, and that this speech was\nmade some time before Pentecost, how long we cannot tell, but in any\ncase, the interval was much too brief to permit of the popular adoption\nof the name.(2) The whole passage has much more the character of a\nnarrative of\n\n{106}\n\nevents which had occurred at a time long past, than of circumstances\nwhich had taken place a few days before.\n\nThe obvious conclusion is that this speech was never spoken by Peter,\nbut is a much later composition put into his mouth,1 and written for\nGreek readers, who required to be told about Judas, and for whose\nbenefit the Hebrew name of the field, inserted for local colouring, had\nto be translated. This is confirmed by several circumstances, to which\nwe may refer. We shall not dwell much upon the fact that Peter is\nrepresented as applying to Judas two passages quoted from the Septuagint\nversion of Ps. lxix. 25 (Sept lxviii.) and Ps. cix. (Sept cviii.) which,\nhistorically, cannot for a moment be sustained as referring to\nhim.(2) The first of these Psalms is quoted freely, and moreover the\ndenunciations in the original being against a plurality of enemies,\nit can only be made applicable to Judas by altering the plural \"their\"\n[------] to \"his habitation\" [------], a considerable liberty to take\nwith prophecy. The Holy Spirit is said to have\n\n{107}\n\nspoken this prophecy \"concerning Judas\" \"by the mouth of David,\" but\nmodern research has led critics to hold it as most probable that neither\nPs. lxix.(1) nor Ps. cix.(2) was composed by David at all. As we know\nnothing of Peter's usual system of exegesis, however, very little weight\nas evidence can be attached to this. On the other hand, it is clear that\na considerable time must have elapsed before these two passages from the\nPsalms could have become applied to the death of Judas.(3)\n\nThe account which is given of the fate of Judas is contradictory to\nthat given in the first Synoptic and cannot be reconciled with it,\nbut follows a different tradition.(4) According to the first Synoptic\n(xxvii. 3 ff.), Judas brings back the thirty pieces of silver, casts\nthem down in the Temple, and then goes and hangs himself. The chief\npriests take the money and buy with it the Potter's field, which is not\nsaid to have had any other connection with Judas, as a place for the\nburial of strangers. In the Acts, Judas himself buys a field as a\nprivate possession, and instead\n\n{108}\n\nof committing suicide by hanging, he is represented as dying from a fall\nin this field, which is evidently regarded as a special judgment upon\nhim for his crime. The apologetic attempts to reconcile these two\nnarratives,(1) are truly lamentable. Beyond calling attention to this\namongst other phenomena presented in this speech, however, we have not\nfurther to do with the point at present We have already devoted too much\nspace to Peter's first address, and we now pass on to more important\ntopics.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.\n\nWe now enter upon a portion of our examination of the Acts which is\nso full of interest in itself that peculiar care will be requisite to\nrestrain ourselves within necessary limits. Hitherto our attention has\nbeen mainly confined to the internal phenomena presented by the document\nbefore us, with comparatively little aid from external testimony,\nand although the results of such criticism have been of no equivocal\ncharacter, the historical veracity of the Acts has not yet been tested\nby direct comparison with other sources of information. We now propose\nto examine, as briefly as may be, some of the historical statements in\nthemselves, and by the light of information derived from contemporary\nwitnesses of unimpeachable authority, and to confront them with\nwell-established facts in the annals of the first two centuries. This\nleads us to the borders not only of one of the greatest controversies\nwhich has for half a century occupied theological criticism, but also\nof still more important questions regarding the original character and\nsystematic development of Christianity itself. The latter we must here\nresolutely pass almost unnoticed, and into the former we shall only\nenter so far as is absolutely necessary to the special object of our\ninquiry. The document before us professes to give a narrative of the\nprogress of the\n\n{110}\n\nprimitive Church from its first formation in the midst of Mosaism, with\nstrong Judaistic rules and prejudices, up to that liberal universalism\nwhich freely admitted the christian Gentile, upon equal terms, into\ncommunion with the christian Jew. The question with which we are\nconcerned is strictly this: Is the account in the Acts of the Apostles\nof the successive steps by which Christianity emerged from Judaism, and,\nshaking off the restrictions and obligations of the Mosaic law, admitted\nthe Gentiles to a full participation of its privileges historically\ntrue? Is the representation which is made of the conduct and teaching\nof the older Apostles on the one hand, and of Paul on the other, and of\ntheir mutual relations an accurate one? Can the Acts of the Apostles, in\nshort, be considered a sober and veracious history of so important and\ninteresting an epoch of the christian Church? This has been vehemently\ndisputed or denied, and the discussion, extending on every side into\nimportant collateral issues, forms in itself a literature of voluminous\nextent and profound interest. Our path now lies through this debatable\nland; but although the controversy as to the connection of Paul with\nthe development of Christianity and his relation to the Apostles of the\nCircumcision cannot be altogether avoided, it only partially concerns\nus. We are freed from the necessity of advancing any particular theory,\nand have here no further interest in it than to inquire whether the\nnarrative of the Acts is historical or not. If, therefore, avoiding\nmany important but unnecessary questions, and restricting ourselves to\na straight course across the great controversy, we seem to deal\ninsufficiently with the general subject, it must be remembered that the\nargument is merely incidental to our inquiry, and that we not only do\nnot\n\n{111}\n\npretend to exhaust it, but distinctly endeavour to reduce our share in\nit to the smallest limits compatible with our immediate object.\n\nAccording to the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles, the apostolic\nage presents a most edifying example of concord and moderation. The\nemancipation of the Church from Mosaic restrictions was effected without\nstrife or heart-burning, and the freedom of the Gospel, if not attained\nwithout hesitation, was finally proclaimed with singular largeness\nof mind and philosophic liberality. The teaching of Paul differed in\nnothing from that of the elder apostles. The christian universalism,\nwhich so many suppose to have specially characterized the great Apostle\nof the Gentiles, was not only shared, but even anticipated, by the elder\nApostles. So far from opposing the free admission of the Gentiles to the\nchristian community, Peter declares himself to have been chosen of God\nthat by his voice they should hear the gospel,(1) proclaims that\nthere is no distinction between Jew and Gentile,(2) and advocates\nthe abrogation, in their case at least, of the Mosaic law.(3) James,\nwhatever his private predilections may be, exhibits almost equal\nforbearance and desire of conciliation. In fact, whatever anomalies and\ncontradictions may be discoverable, upon close examination, beneath this\nsmooth and brilliant surface, the picture superficially presented is\none of singular harmony and peace. On the other hand, instead of that\nsensitive independence and self-reliance of character which has been\nascribed to the Apostle Paul, we find him represented in the Acts as\nsubmissive to the authority of the \"Pillars\" of the church, ready to\nconform to their\n\n{112}\n\ncounsels and bow to their decrees, and as seizing every opportunity\nof visiting Jerusalem, and coming in contact with that stronghold\nof Judaism. Instead of the Apostle of the Gentiles, preaching the\nabrogation of the law, and more than suspected of leading the Jews\nto apostatize from Moses,(1) we find a man even scrupulous in his\nobservance of Mosaic customs, taking vows upon him, circumcising Timothy\nwith his own hand, and declaring at the close of his career, when a\nprisoner at Rome, that he \"did nothing against the people or the customs\nof the fathers.\"(2) There is no trace of angry controversy, of jealous\nsusceptibility, of dogmatic difference in the circle of the apostles.\nThe intercourse of Paul with the leaders of the Judaistic party is of\nthe most unbroken pleasantness and amity. Of opposition to his ministry,\nor doubt of his apostleship, whether on the part of the Three, or of\nthose who identified themselves with their teaching, we have no hint. We\nmust endeavour to ascertain whether this is a true representation of\nthe early development of the Church, and of the momentous history of the\napostolic age.\n\nIn the epistles of Paul we have, at least to some extent, the means of\ntesting the accuracy of the statements of the Acts with regard to him\nand the early history of the Church. The Epistles to the Galatians,\nto the Corinthians (2), and to the Romans are generally admitted to be\ngenuine,(3) and can be freely used for this purpose. To these we shall\nlimit our attention, excluding other epistles, whose authenticity is\neither questioned or denied, but in doing so no material capable of\nreally affecting the result is set aside. For the same reason, we\n\n{113}\n\nmust reject any evidence to be derived from the so-called Epistles of\nPeter and James, at least so far as they are supposed to represent the\nopinions of Peter and James, but here again it will be found that they\ndo not materially affect the points immediately before us. The veracity\nof the Acts of the Apostles being the very point which is in question,\nit is unnecessary to say that we have to subject the narrative to\nexamination, and by no means to assume the correctness of any statements\nwe find in it. At the same time it must be our endeavour to collect from\nthis document such indications--and they will frequently be valuable--of\nthe true history of the occurrences related, as may be presented between\nthe lines of the text.\n\nIn the absence of fuller information, it must not be forgotten that\nhuman nature in the first century of our era was very much what it is in\nthe nineteenth, and certain facts being clearly established, it will\nnot be difficult to infer many details which cannot now be positively\ndemonstrated. The Epistle to the Galatians, however, will be our most\ninvaluable guide. Dealing, as it does, with some of the principal\nepisodes of the Acts, we are enabled by the words of the apostle Paul\nhimself, which have all the accent of truth and vehement earnestness, to\ncontrol the narrative of the unknown writer of that work. And where this\nsource fails, we have the unsuspected testimony of his other epistles,\nand of later ecclesiastical history to assist our inquiry.\n\nThe problem then which we have to consider is the manner in which the\nprimitive Church emerged from its earliest form, as a Jewish institution\nwith Mosaic restrictions and Israelitish exclusiveness, and finally\nopened wide its doors to the uncircumcised Gentile, and assumed\n\n{114}\n\nthe character of a universal religion. In order to understand the\nnature of the case, and be able to estimate aright the solution which is\npresented by the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, it is necessary\nthat we should obtain a clear view of the actual characteristics of\nChristianity at the period when that history begins. We must endeavour\nto understand precisely what view the Apostles had formed of their\nposition in regard to Judaism, and of the duty which devolved upon\nthem of propagating the Gospel. It is obvious that we cannot rightly\nappreciate the amount of persuasion requisite to transform the primitive\nChurch from Jewish exclusive-ness to Christian universality, without\nascertaining the probable amount of long rooted conviction and religious\nprejudice or principle which had to be overcome before that great change\ncould be effected.\n\nWe shall not here enter upon any argument as to the precise views which\nthe Founder of Christianity may have held as to his own person and work,\nnor shall we attempt to sift the traditions of his life and teaching\nwhich have been handed down to us, and to separate the genuine spiritual\nnucleus from the grosser matter by which it has been enveloped and\nobscured. We have much more to do with the view which others took of the\nmatter, and, looking at the Gospels as representations of that which was\naccepted as the orthodox view regarding the teaching of Jesus, they\nare almost as useful for our present purpose as if they had been more\nspiritual and less popular expositions of his views. What the Master\nwas understood to teach is more important for the history of the first\ncentury than what he actually taught without being understood. Nothing\nis more certain than the fact that Christianity, originally, was\n\n{115}\n\ndeveloped out of Judaism, and that its advent was historically\nprepared by the course of the Mosaic system, to which it was so closely\nrelated.(1) In its first stages during the apostolic age, it had no\nhigher ambition than to be, and to be considered, the continuation\nand the fulfilment of Judaism, its final and triumphant phase. The\nsubstantial identity of primitive Christianity with true Judaism was\nat first never called in question; it was considered a mere internal\nmovement of Judaism, its development and completion, but by no means its\nmutilation. The idea of Christianity as a new religion never entered\nthe minds of the Twelve or of the first believers, nor, as we shall\npresently see, was it so regarded by the Jews themselves. It was\nin fact, originally, nothing more than a sect of Judaism, holding a\nparticular view of one point in the creed and, for a very long period,\nit was considered so by others, and was in no way distinguished from\nthe rest of Mosaism.(2) Even in the Acts there are traces of this, Paul\nbeing called \"a ringleader of the sect [------] of the Nazarenes,\"(3)\nand the Jews of Rome being represented as referring to Christianity by\nthis term.(4) Paul before the Council not\n\n{116}\n\nonly does not scruple to call himself \"a Pharisee, the son of a\nPharisee,\" but the Pharisees take part with him against the more\nunorthodox and hated sect of the Sadducees.(1) For eighteen centuries\ndisputes have fiercely raged over the creed of Christendom, and the\ningenuity of countless divines has been exhausted in deducing mystic\ndogmas from the primitive teaching, but if there be one thing more\nremarkable than another in that teaching, according to the Synoptics,\nit is its perfect simplicity. Jesus did not appear with a ready-made\ntheology, and imposed no elaborate system of doctrine upon his\ndisciples. Throughout the prophetic period of Mosaism, one hope had\nsustained the people of Israel in all their sufferings and reverses:\nthat the fortunes of the nation should finally be retrieved by a scion\nof the race of David, under whose rule it should be restored to a future\nof unexampled splendour and prosperity. The expectation of the Messiah,\nunder frequently modified aspects, had formed a living part in the\nnational faith of Israel. Primitive Christianity, sharing but recasting\nthis ancient hope, was only distinguished from Judaism, with whose\nworship it continued in all points united, by a single doctrine, which\nwas in itself merely a modification of the national idea: the belief\nthat Jesus of Nazareth was actually the Christ, the promised Messiah.\nThis was substantially the whole of its creed.(2)\n\n{117}\n\nThe synoptic Gospels, and more especially the first,(1) are clearly a\nhistory of Jesus as the Messiah of the house of David, so long announced\nand expected, and whose life and even his death and resurrection are\nshown to be the fulfilment of a series of Old Testament prophecies.(2)\nWhen his birth is announced to Mary, he is described as the great one,\nwho is to sit on the throne of David his father, and reign over the\nhouse of Jacob for ever,(3) and the good tidings of great joy to all the\npeople [------], that the Messiah is born that day in the city of David,\nare proclaimed by the angel to the shepherds of the plain.(4) Synieon\ntakes the child in his arms and blesses God that the words of the Holy\nSpirit are accomplished, that he should not die before he had seen the\nLord's anointed, the Messiah, the consolation of Israel.(5) The Magi\ncome to his cradle in Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Messiah indicated\nby the prophet,(6) to do homage to him who is born King of the Jews,(7)\nand there Herod seeks to destroy him,(8) fulfilling another\n\n{118}\n\nprophecy.(1) His flight into Egypt and return to Nazareth are equally\nin fulfilment of prophecies.(2) John the Baptist, whose own birth as\nthe forerunner of the Messiah had been foretold,(3) goes before him\npreparing the way of the Lord, and announcing that the Messianic kingdom\nis at hand. According to the fourth Gospel, some of the twelve had been\ndisciples of the Baptist, and follow Jesus on their master's assurance\nthat he is the Messiah. One of these, Andrew, induces his brother Simon\nPeter also to go after him by the announcement:--\"We have found the\nMessiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ\" (i. 35ff. 41). And\nPhilip tells Nathaniel:--\"We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and\nthe Prophets did write: Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth\"\n(i. 45). When he has commenced his own public ministry, Jesus is\nrepresented as asking his disciples:--\"Who do men say that I am?\" and\nsetting aside the popular conjectures that he is John the Baptist,\nElijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, by the still more direct\nquestion:--\"And whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered\nand said:--Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.\" And in\nconsequence of this recognition of his Messiahship, Jesus rejoins:--\"And\nI say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my\nChurch.\"(4)\n\n{119}\n\nIt is quite apart from our present object to point out the singular\nfeats of exegesis and perversions of historical S3nse by which passages\nof the Old Testament are forced to show that every event in the history,\nand even the startling novelty of a suffering and crucified Messiah,\nwhich to Jews was a stumbling-block and to Gentiles folly,(1) had been\nforetold by the prophets. From first to last the Gospels strive to prove\nthat Jesus was the Messiah, and connect him indissolubly with the\nOld Testament. The Messianic key-note, which is struck at the outset,\nregulates the strain to the close. The disciples on the way to Emmaus,\nappalled by the ignominious death of their Master, sadly confide to\nthe stranger their vanished hope that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they now\nmerely call \"a prophet mighty in word and deed before God and all the\npeople,\" was the Christ \"who was about to redeem Israel,\" and Jesus\nhimself replies:--\"O foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the\nprophets spake! Was it not needful that the Christ (Messiah) should\nsuffer these things and enter into his glory? And, beginning at Moses\nand all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures\nthe things concerning himself.\"(2) Then, again, when he appears to the\neleven, immediately after, at Jerusalem, he says:--\"'These are the words\nthat I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be\nfulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and the prophets and\nthe Psalms concerning me.' Then opened he their understanding that\nthey might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them:--'Thus it is\nwritten, that the Christ should suffer and rise from the dead the third\nday.'\"(3)\n\n{120}\n\nThe crucifixion and death of Jesus introduced the first elements of\nrupture with Judaism, to which they formed the great stumbling-block.(1)\nThe conception of a suffering and despised Messiah could naturally never\nhave occurred to a Jewish mind.(2) The first effort of Christianity,\ntherefore, was to repair the apparent breach by proving that the\nsuffering Messiah had actually been foretold by the prophets; and to\nre-establish the Messianic character of Jesus, by the evidence of his\nresurrection.(3) But, above all, the momentary deviation from orthodox\nJewish ideas regarding the Messiah was retraced by the representation\nof a speedy second advent, in glory, of the once rejected Messiah to\nrestore the kingdom of Israel, by which the ancient hopes of the people\nbecame reconciled with the new expectation of Christians. Even before\nthe Ascension, the disciples are represented in the Acts as asking\nthe risen Jesus:--\"Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to\nIsrael?\"(4) There can be no doubt of the reality and\n\n{121}\n\nuniversality of the belief, in the Apostolic Church, in the immediate\nreturn of the glorified Messiah and speedy \"end of all things.\"(1)\n\nThe substance of the preaching of the Apostles in Acts, simply is that\nJesus is the Christ,(2) the expected Messiah.(3) Their chief aim is\nto prove that his sufferings and death had been foretold by the\nprophets,(4) and that his resurrection establishes his claim to the\ntitle.(5) The simplicity of the creed is illustrated by the rapidity\nwith which converts are made. After a few words, on one occasion, three\nthousand(6) and, on another, five thousand(7) are at once converted. No\nlengthened instruction or preparation was requisite for admission into\nthe Church.(8) As soon as a Jew acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah he\nthereby became a Christian.(9) As soon as the\n\n{122}\n\nthree thousand converts at Pentecost made this confession of faith\nthey were baptized.(1) The Ethiopian is converted whilst passing in his\nchariot, and is immediately baptized,(2) as are likewise Cornelius\nand his household after a short address from Peter.(3) The new faith\ninvolved no abandonment of the old. On the contrary, the advent of the\nMessiah was so essential a part of Judaic belief, and the Messianic\nclaim of Jesus was so completely based by the Apostles on the fulfilment\nof prophecy--\"showing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ,\"--that\nrecognition of the fact rather constituted firmer adhesion to Mosaism,\nand deeper faith in the inviolable truth of the Covenant with Israel. If\nthere had been no Mosaism, so to say, there could have been no Messiah.\nSo far from being opposed either to the form or spirit of the religion\nof Israel, the proclamation of the Messiah was its necessary complement,\nand could only be intelligible by confirmation of its truth and\nmaintenance of its validity. Christianity--belief in the Messiah--in its\nearlier phases, drew its whole nourishment from roots that sank deeply\ninto Mosaism. It was indeed nothing more than Mosaism in a developed\nform. The only difference between the Jew and the Christian was that the\nlatter believed the Messiah to have already appeared in Jesus, whilst\nthe former still expected him in the future;(4) though even this\ndifference\n\n{123}\n\nwas singularly diminished, in appearance at least, by the Christian\nexpectation of the second advent.\n\nIt is exceedingly important to ascertain, under these circumstances,\nwhat was the impression of the Apostles as to the relation of believers\nto Judaism and to Mosaic observances, although it must be clear to any\none who impartially considers the origin and historical antecedents of\nthe Christian faith, that very little doubt can have existed in their\nminds on the subject. The teaching of Jesus, as recorded in the synoptic\nGospels, is by no means of a doubtful character, more especially when\nthe sanctity of the Mosaic system in the eyes of a Jew is borne in mind.\nIt must be apparent that, in order to remove the obligation of a Law\nand form of worship believed to have been, in the most direct sense,\ninstituted by God himself, the most clear, strong, and reiterated order\nwould have been requisite. No one can reasonably maintain that a few\nspiritual expressions directed against the bare letter and abuse of\nthe law, which were scarcely understood by the hearers, could have been\nintended to abolish a system so firmly planted, or to overthrow Jewish\ninstitutions of such antiquity and national importance, much less that\nthey could be taken in this sense by the disciples. A few passages in\nthe Gospels, therefore, which may bear the interpretation of having\nforeseen the eventual supersession of Mosaism by his own more spiritual\nprinciples, must not be strained to support the idea that Jesus taught\ndisregard of the Law. His very distinct and positive lessons, conveyed\nboth by precept and practice, show, on the contrary, that not only he\ndid not intend to attack pure Mosaism, but that he was understood both\ndirectly and by inference to recognise and confirm it. In the Sermon on\nthe Mount, Jesus\n\n{124}\n\nstates to the disciples in the most positive manner:--\"Think not that\nI came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy but to\nfulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot\nor one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be accomplished.\"(1)\nWhether the last phrase be interpreted: till all the law be\naccomplished, or till all things appointed to occur be accomplished, the\neffect is the same. One clear explicit declaration like this, under the\ncircumstances, would outweigh a host of doubtful expressions. Not only\ndoes Jesus in this passage directly repudiate any idea of attacking\nthe law and the prophets, but, in representing his mission as their\nfulfilment, he affirms them, and associates his own work in the closest\nway with theirs. If there were any uncertainty, however, as to\nthe meaning of his words it would be removed by the\ncontinuation:--\"Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these\ncommandments, even the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called\nleast in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them,\nhe shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.\"(2) It would be\ndifficult for teaching to be more decisive in favour of the maintenance\nof the law, and this instruction, according to the first Synoptic, was\nspecially directed to the disciples.(3) When Jesus goes on to show that\ntheir righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, and\nto add to the letter of the law, as interpreted by those of old, his own\nprofound interpretation of its\n\n{125}\n\nspirit, he only intensifies, without limiting, the operation of the law;\nhe merely spiritualises it. He does no more than this in his lessons\nregarding the observance of the Sabbath. He did not in point of fact\nattack the genuine Mosaic institution of the day of rest at all, but\nmerely the intolerable literalism by which its observance had been made\na burden instead of \"a delight.\" He justified his variation from the\ntraditional teaching and practice of his time, however, by appeals to\nScriptural precedent.(1)\n\nAs a recent writer has said: \"....the observance of the Sabbath, which\nhad been intended to secure for weary men a rest full of love and peace\nand mercy, had become a mere national Fetish--a barren custom fenced in\nwith the most frivolous and senseless restrictions.\"(2) Jesus restored\nits original significance. In restricting some of the permissive clauses\nof the Law, on the other hand, he acted precisely in the same spirit.\nHe dealt with the Law not with the temper of a revolutionist, but of a\nreformer, and his reforms, so far from affecting its permanence, are a\nvirtual confirmation of the rest of the code.(3) Ritschl, whose views on\nthis point will have some weight with apologists, combats the idea\nthat Jesus merely confirmed the Mosaic moral law, and abolished the\nceremonial law. Referring to one particular point of importance, he\nsays:--\"He certainly contests the duty of the Sabbath rest, the value of\npurifications and sacrifices, and the validity of divorce; on the other\nhand, he leaves unattacked the value of circumcision, whose regulation\nis generally reckoned as part of the\n\n{126}\n\nceremonial law; and nothing justifies the conclusion that Jesus\nestimated it in the same way as Justin Martyr, and the other Gentile\nChristian Church teachers, who place it on the same line as the\nceremonies. The only passage in which Jesus touches upon circumcision\n(John vii. 22) rather proves that, as an institution of the patriarchs,\nhe attributes to it peculiar sanctity. Moreover, when Jesus, with\nunmistakable intention, confines his own personal ministry to the\nIsraelitish people (Mk. vii. 27, Mt. x. 5, 6), he thereby recognises\ntheir prior right of participation in the Kingdom of God, and also,\nindirectly, circumcision as the sign of the preference of this people.\nThe distinction of circumcision from ceremonies, besides, is perfectly\nintelligible from the Old Testament. Through circumcision, to wit, is\nthe Israelite, sprung from the people of the Covenant, indicated as\nsanctified by God; through purification, sacrifice, Sabbath-rest must\nhe continually sanctify himself for God. So long, therefore, as the\nconception of the people of the Covenant is maintained, circumcision\ncannot be abandoned, whilst even the prophets have pointed to the merely\nrelative importance of the Mosaic worship.\"(1)\n\nJesus everywhere in the Gospels recognises the divine origin of the\nlaw,(2) and he quotes the predictions of the prophets as absolute\nevidence of his own pretensions. To those who ask him the way to\neternal life he indicates its commandments,(3) and he even enjoins the\nobservance of its ceremonial rites.(4) Jesus did not abrogate the\n\n{127}\n\nMosaic law; but, on the contrary, by his example as well as his\nprecepts, he practically confirmed it.(1)\n\nAccording to the statements of the Gospels, Jesus himself observed the\nprescriptions of the Mosaic law.(2) From his birth he had been brought\nup in its worship.(3) He was circumcised on the eighth day.(4) \"And when\nthe days of their purification were accomplished, according to the law\nof Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,\neven as it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male, &c, &c, and\nto give a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the\nLord,\" &c, &c.(5) Every year his parents went to Jerusalem at the feast\nof the Passover,(6) and this practice he continued till the close of his\nlife. \"As his custom was, he went into the Synagogue (at Nazareth) and\nstood up to read.\"(7) According to the fourth Gospel, Jesus goes up to\nJerusalem for the various festivals of the Jews,(8) and the feast of\nthe Passover, according to the Synoptics, was the last memorable supper\neaten\n\n{128}\n\nwith his disciples,(1) the third Synoptic representing him as saying:\n\"With desire I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;\nfor I say unto you that I shall not any more eat it until it be\nfulfilled hi the kingdom of God.\"(2) However exceptional the character\nof Jesus, and however elevated his views, it is undeniable that he lived\nand died a Jew, conforming to the ordinances of the Mosaic law in all\nessential points, and not holding himself aloof from the worship of the\nTemple which he purified. The influence which his adherence to the\nforms of Judaism must have exerted over his followers(3) can scarcely\nbe exaggerated, and the fact must ever be carefully borne in mind in\nestimating the conduct of the Apostles and of the primitive Christian\ncommunity after his death.\n\nAs befitted the character of the Jewish Messiah, the sphere of the\nministry of Jesus and the arrangements for the proclamation of the\nGospel were strictly and even intensely, Judaic. Jesus attached to his\nperson twelve disciples, a number clearly typical of the twelve tribes\nof the people of Israel;(4) and this reference is distinctly adopted\nwhen Jesus is represented, in the Synoptics, as promising that, in the\nMessianic kingdom, \"when the Son\n\n{129}\n\nof Man shall sit on the throne of his glory,\" the Twelve also \"shall sit\nupon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel;\"(1) a promise\nwhich, according to the third Synoptist, is actually made during the\nlast supper.(2) In the Apocalypse, which, \"of all the writings of the\nNew Testament is most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery,\"(3)\nthe names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb are written upon the twelve\nfoundations of the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem, upon the twelve gates\nof which, through which alone access to the city can be obtained, are\nthe names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.(4) Jesus\nhimself limited his teaching to the Jews, and was strictly \"a minister\nof the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made\nunto the fathers.\"(5) To the prayer of the Canaanitish woman: \"Have\nmercy on me, O Lord, Son of David,\" unlike his gracious demeanour to her\nof the bloody issue,(6) Jesus, at first, it is said, \"answered her not\na word;\" and even when besought by the disciples--not to heal her\ndaughter, but--to \"send her away,\" he makes the emphatic declaration: \"I\nwas not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\"(7) To her\ncontinued appeals he lays\n\n{130}\n\ndown the principle: \"It is not lawful to take the children's bread and\ncast it to the dogs.\" If after these exclusive sentences the boon is\nfinally granted, it is as of the crumbs(1) which fall from the master's\ntable.(2) The modified expression(3) in the second Gospel: \"Let the\nchildren first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's\nbread and cast it to the dogs;\" does not affect the case, for it equally\nrepresents exclusion from the privileges of Israel, and the Messianic\nidea fully contemplated a certain grace to the heathen when the children\nwere filled. The expression regarding casting, the children's bread \"to\nthe dogs\" is clearly in reference to the Gentiles, who were so called by\nthe Jews.(4) A similar, though still stronger use of such expressions,\nmight be pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount in the first\n\n{131}\n\nGospel (vii. 6): \"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither\ncast your pearls before swine.\" It is certain that the Jews were in\nthe habit of speaking of the heathen both as dogs and swine--unclean\nanimals,--and Hilgenfeld,(1) and some other critics, see in this verse\na reference to the Gentiles. We do not, however, press this application\nwhich is, and may be, disputed, but merely mention it and pass on. There\ncan be no doubt, however, of the exclusive references to the Gentiles in\nthe same sermon, and other passages, where the disciples are enjoined\nto practise a higher righteousness than the Gentiles. \"Do not even the\npublicans... do not even the Gentiles or sinners the same things.\"(2)\n\"Take no thought, &c, for after all these things do the Gentiles seek;\nbut seek ye, &c, &c.\"(3) The contrast is precisely that put with some\nirony by Paul, making use of the common Jewish expression \"sinner\" as\nalmost equivalent for \"Gentile;\"(4) In another place the first Synoptic\nrepresents Jesus as teaching his disciples how to deal with a brother\nwho sins against them, and as the final resource, when every effort at\nreconciliation and justice has failed, he says: \"Let him be unto thee\nas the Gentile [------] and the publican.\" (Mt. xviii. 17.) He could\nnot express in a stronger way to a Jewish mind the idea of social and\nreligious excommunication.\n\nThe instructions which Jesus gives in sending out the Twelve, however,\nexpress the exclusiveness of the\n\n{132}\n\nMessianic mission, in the first instance at least, to the Jews, in a\nvery marked manner. Jesus commands his disciples: \"Go not into a way of\nthe Gentiles [------] and into a city of the Samaritans enter ye not;\nbut go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye\ngo, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.\"(1) As if more\nemphatically to mark the limitation of the mission, the assurance is\nseriously added: \"For verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over\nthe cities of Israel, till the Son of Man come.\"(2) It will be observed\nthat Jesus here charges the Twelve to go rather \"to the lost sheep\nof the house of Israel\" in the same words that he employs to the\nCanaanitish woman to describe the exclusive destination of his own\nministry.(3) In coupling the Samaritans with the Gentiles there is\nmerely an expression of the intense antipathy of the Jews against them,\nas a mixed and, we may say, renegade race, excluded from the Jewish\nworship although circumcised, intercourse with whom is to this day\nalmost regarded as pollution.(4) The third Gospel, which omits the\nrestrictive instructions of Jesus to the Twelve given by the first\nSynoptist, introduces another episode of the same description: the\nappointment and mission of Seventy disciples,(6) to which we must very\nbriefly refer. No mention whatever is made of this incident in the other\nGospels, and these disciples are not referred to in any other part of\nthe New Testament.(6) Even Eusebius remarks that no\n\n{133}\n\ncatalogue of them is anywhere given,(1) and, after naming a few persons,\nwho were said by tradition to have been of their number, he points out\nthat more than seventy disciples appear, for instance, according to\nthe testimony of Paul.(2) It will be observed that the instructions, at\nleast in considerable part, supposed to be given to the Seventy in the\nthird. Synoptic are, in the first, the very instructions given to the\nTwelve. There has been much discussion regarding the whole episode,\nwhich need not here be minutely referred to. For various reasons the\nmajority of critics impugn its historical character.(3) A large number\nof these, as well as other writers, consider that the narrative of this\nappointment of seventy disciples, the number of the nations of the earth\naccording to Jewish ideas, was introduced in Pauline universalistic\ninterest,(4) or, at least, that the number is\n\n{134}\n\ntypical of Gentile conversion, in contrast with that of the Twelve who\nrepresent the more strictly Judaic limitation of the Messianic mission;\nand they seem to hold that the preaching of the seventy is represented\nas not confined to Judaea, but as extending to Samaria, and that it thus\ndenoted the destination of the Gospel also to the Gentiles. On the\nother hand, other critics, many, though by no means all, of whom do\nnot question the authenticity of the passage, are disposed to deny\nthe Pauline tendency, and any special connection with a mission to\nthe Gentiles, and rather to see in the number seventy a reference to\nwell-known Judaistic institutions.(1) It is true that the number of\nthe nations was set down at seventy by Jewish tradition,(2) but, on the\nother hand, it was the number of the elders chosen by Moses from amongst\nthe children of Israel by God's command to help him, and to whom God\ngave of his spirit(3)s and also of the national\n\n{135}\n\nSanhedrin, which, according to the Mischna,(1) still represented the\nMosaic council. This view receives confirmation from the Clementine\nRecognitions in the following passage: \"He therefore chose us twelve who\nfirst believed in him, whom he named Apostles; afterwards seventy-two\nother disciples of most approved goodness, that even in this way\nrecognising the similitude of Moses the multitude might believe that\nthis is the prophet to come whom Moses foretold.\"(2) The passage here\nreferred to is twice quoted in the Acts: \"Moses indeed said: A prophet\nwill the Lord our God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like\nunto me,\" &c.(3) On examination, we do not find that there is any ground\nfor the assertion that the seventy disciples were sent to the Samaritans\nor Gentiles, or were in any way connected with universalistic ideas.\nJesus had \"stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,\" and sent\nmessengers before him who \"went and entered into a village of the\nSamaritans to make ready for him,\" but they repulsed him, \"because his\nface was as though he would go to Jerusalem.\"(4) There is a decided\nbreak, however, before the appointment of the seventy. \"After these\nthings [------] the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them\ntwo and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself\nwas about to come.\"(5) There is not a single word in the instructions\n\n(136}\n\ngiven to them which justifies the conclusion that they were sent to\nSamaria, and only the inference from the number seventy, taken as\ntypical of the nations, suggests it. That inference is not sufficiently\nattested, and the slightness of the use made of the seventy disciples\nin the third Gospel--this occasion being the only one on which they are\nmentioned, and no specific intimation of any mission to all people being\nhere given--does not favour the theory of Pauline tendency. So far as we\nare concerned, however, the point is unimportant. Those who assert the\nuniversalistic character of the episode generally deny its authenticity;\nmost of those who accept it as historical deny its universalism.\n\nThe order to go and teach all nations, however, by no means carries us\nbeyond strictly Messianic limits. Whilst the Jews expected the Messiah\nto restore the people of Israel to their own Holy Land and crown them\nwith unexampled prosperity and peace, revenging their past sorrows upon\ntheir enemies, and granting them supremacy over all the earth, they\nlikewise held that one of the Messianic glories was to be the conversion\nof the Gentiles to the worship of Jahveh. This is the burden of the\nprophets, and it requires no proof. The Jews, as the people with whom\nGod had entered into Covenant, were first to be received into the\nkingdom. \"Let the children first be filled,\"(1) and then the heathen\nmight partake of the bread. Regarding the ultimate conversion of the\nGentiles, therefore, there was no doubt; the only questions were as to\nthe time and the conditions of admission into the national fellowship.\nAs to the time, there never had been any expectation that the heathen\ncould be turned to Jahveh in numbers before the appearance of the\n\n{137}\n\nMessiah, but converts to Judaism had been made in all ages, and\nafter the dispersion, especially, the influence of the Jews upon the\nprofessors of the effete and expiring religions of Rome, of Greece, and\nof Egypt was very great, and numerous proselytes adopted the faith of\nIsrael,(1) and were eagerly sought for(2) in spite of the abusive terms\nin which the Talmudists spoke of them.(3) The conditions on the other\nhand were perfectly definite. The case of converts had been early\nforeseen and provided for in the Mosaic code. Without referring to\nminor points, we may at once say that circumcision was indispensable to\nadmission into the number of the children of Israel.(4) Participation\nin the privileges of the Covenant could only be secured by accepting\nthe mark of that Covenant. Very many, however, had adopted Judaism to a\ngreat extent, who were not willing to undergo the rite requisite to full\nadmission into the nation, and a certain modification had gradually\nbeen introduced by which, without it, strangers might be admitted into\npartial communion with Israel. There were, therefore, two classes\nof proselytes,(5) the first called Proselytes of the Covenant or of\nRighteousness, who were circumcised, obeyed the whole Mosaic law, and\n\n{138}\n\nwere fully incorporated with Israel, and the other called Proselytes\nof the Gate,(1) or worshippers of Jahveh, who in the New Testament are\ncommonly called [------].\n\nThese had not undergone the rite of circumcision, and therefore were\nnot participators in the Covenant, but merely worshipped the God\nof Israel,(4) and were only compelled to observe the seven Noachian\nprescriptions. These Proselytes of the Gate, however, were little more\nthan on sufferance. They were excluded from the Temple, and even the\nActs of the Apostles represent it to be pollution for a Jew to have\nintercourse with them: it requires direct Divine intervention to induce\nPeter to go to Cornelius, and to excuse his doing so in the eyes of the\nprimitive Church.(3) Nothing short of circumcision and full observance\nof the Mosaic law could secure the privileges of the Covenant with\nIsrael to a stranger, and in illustration of this we may again point to\nthe Acts, where certain who came from Judaea, members of the primitive\nchurch, teach the Christians of Antioch: \"Except ye have been\ncircumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved.\"(4)\n\n     1 We need not discuss the chronology of this class.\n\n     2  It is scarcely necessary to speak of the well-known case\n     of Lzates, King of Adiabene, related by Josephus. The Jewish\n     merchant Ananias, who teaches him to worship God according\n     to the religion of the Jews, is willing, evidently from the\n     special emergency of the case and the danger of forcing\n     Izates fully to embrace Judaism in the face of his people,\n     to let him remain a mere Jahveh worshipper, only partially\n     conforming to the Law, and remaining uncircumcised'; but\n     another Jew from Galilee, Eleazer, versed in Jewish\n     learning, points out to him that, in neglecting\n     circumcision, he breaks the principal point of the Law.\n     Izates then has himself circumcised.    Josephus, Antiq. xx.\n     2, Sec. 3 f.\n\n     3  Acts x. 2 ff, xi. 2 ft. Dr. Lightfoot says: \"The Apostles\n     of the circumcision, even St. Peter himself, had failed\n     hitherto to comprehend the wide purpose of God. With their\n     fellow-countrymen they still held it unlawful for a Jew to\n     keep company with an alien' (Acts x. 28).\" Galatians, p.\n     290.\n\n{139}\n\nThis will be more fully shown as we proceed. The conversion of the\nGentiles was not, therefore, in the least degree an idea foreign to\nJudaism, but, on the contrary, formed an intimate part of the Messianic\nexpectation of the later prophets. The conditions of admission to the\nprivileges and promises of the Covenant, however, were full acceptance\nof the Mosaic law, and submission to the initiatory rite.(1) That small\nand comparatively insignificant people, with an arrogance that would\nhave been ridiculous if, in the influence which they have actually\nexerted over the world, it had not been almost sublime, not only\nsupposed themselves the sole and privileged recipients of the oracles\nof God, as his chosen and peculiar people, but they contemplated nothing\nshort of universal submission to the Mosaic code, and the supremacy of\nIsrael over all the earth.\n\nWe are now better able to estimate the position of the Twelve when the\ndeath of their Master threw them on their own resources, and left them\nto propagate his Gospel as they themselves understood it. Born a Jew\nof the race of David, accepting during his life the character of the\npromised Messiah, and dying with the mocking title \"King of the Jews\"\nwritten upon his cross, Jesus had left his disciples in close communion\nwith the Mosaism which he had spiritualized and ennobled, but had not\nabolished. He himself had taught them that \"it becomes us to fulfill all\nrighteousness,\" and, from his youth upwards, had set them the example of\n\n{140}\n\nenlightened observance of the Mosaic law. His precept had not belied\nhis example, and whilst in strong terms we find him inculcating the\npermanence of the Law, it is certain that he left no order to disregard\nit. He confined his own preaching to the Jews; the first ministers of\nthe Messiah represented the twelve tribes of the people of Israel;.and\nthe first Christians were of that nation, with no distinctive worship,\nbut practising as before the whole Mosaic ritual. What Neander savs\nof \"many,\" may, we think, be referred to all: \"That Jesus faithfully\nobserved the form of the Jewish law served to them as evidence that this\nform should ever preserve its value.\"(1) As a fact, the Apostles and\nthe early Christians continued as before assiduously to practise all the\nobservances of the Mosaic law, to frequent the Temple(2) and adhere to\nthe usual strict forms of Judaism.(3) In addition to the influence of\nthe example of Jesus and the powerful effect of national habit, there\nwere many strong reasons which obviously must to Jews have rendered\nabandonment of the law as difficult as submission to its full\nrequirements must have been to Gentiles. Holding as they did the Divine\norigin of the Old Testament, in which the observance of the Law was\ninculcated on almost every page,\n\n{141}\n\nit would have been impossible, without counter-teaching of the most\nperemptory and convincing character, to have shaken its supremacy;\nbut beyond this, in that theocratic community Mosaism was not only the\ncondition of the Covenant, and the key of the Temple, but it was also\nthe diploma of citizenship, and the bond of social and political\nlife. To abandon the observance of the Law was not only to resign the\nprivilege and the distinctive characteristic of Israel, to relinquish\nthe faith of the Patriarchs who were the glory of the nation, and to\nforsake a divinely appointed form of worship, without any recognized\nor even indicated substitute, but it severed the only link between the\nindividual and the people of Israel, and left him in despised isolation,\nan outcast from the community. They had no idea, however, that any such\nsacrifice was required of them. They were simply Jews believing in the\nJewish Messiah, and they held that all things else were to proceed as\nbefore, until the glorious second coining of the Christ.(1)\n\nThe Apostles and primitive Christians continued to hold the national\nbelief that the way to Christianity lay through Judaism, and that the\nobservance of the law was obligatory and circumcision necessary to\ncomplete communion.(2) Paul describes with unappeased\n\n{142}\n\nirritation the efforts made by the community of Jerusalem, whose\n\"pillars\" were Peter, James, and John, to force Titus, a Gentile\nChristian, to be circumcised,(1) and even the Acts represent James\nand all the elders of the Church of Jerusalem as requesting Paul, long\nafter, to take part with four Jewish Christians, who had a vow and\nwere about to purify themselves and shave their heads and, after the\naccomplishment of the days of purification, make the usual offering in\nthe Temple, in order to convince the \"many thousands there of those who\nhave believed and are all zealous for the law,\" that it is untrue that\nhe teaches: \"all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostacy [------]\nfrom Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,\nneither to walk after the customs,\" and to show, on the contrary, that\nhe himself walks orderly and keeps the Law.(2) As true Israelites, with\nopinions fundamentally unchanged by belief that Jesus was the Messiah,\nthey held that the Gospel was specially intended for the people of the\nCovenant, and they confined their teaching to the Jews.(3) A Gentile\nwhilst still uncircumcised, even although converted, could not, they\nthought, be received on an\n\n     1 Gal ii. 3 ff. As we shall more fully discuss this episode\n     hereafter, it is not necessary to do so here.\n\n     2 Acts xxi. 18--26; cf. xv. i. Paul is also represented as\n     saying to the Jews of Rome that he has done nothing\"\n     against the customs of their Fathers.\"\n\n     3 Dr. Lightfoot says: \"Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years\n     past away before the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The\n     Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still\n     confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by\n     adoption, the proselytes of the Covenant,\" &c. Paul's Ep. to\n     Gal. p. 287. Paley says: \"It was not yet known to the\n     Apostles, that they were at liberty to propose the religion\n     to mankind at large. That 'mystery,' as St. Paul calls it\n     (Eph. iii. 3-6), and as it then was, was revealed to Peter\n     by an especial miracle.\" A view of the Evidence, &c, ed.\n     Potts, 1850, p. 228.\n\n{143}\n\nequality with the Jew, but defiled him by contact.(1) The attitude of\nthe Christian Jew to the merely Christian Gentile, who had not entered\nthe community by the portal of Judaism, was, as before, simply that of\nthe Jew to the proselyte of the Gate. The Apostles could not upon any\nother terms have then even contemplated the conversion of the Gentiles.\nJesus had limited his own teaching to the Jews, and, according to the\nfirst Gospel, had positively prohibited, at one time at least, their\ngoing to the Gentiles, or even to the Samaritans, and if there had been\nan order given to preach to all nations it certainly was not accompanied\nby any removal of the conditions specified in the Law.(2) It has been\nremarked that neither party, in the great discussion in the Church\nregarding the terms upon which Gentiles might be admitted to the\nprivileges of Christianity, ever appealed in support of their views\nto specific instructions of Jesus on the subject.(3) The reason is\nintelligible enough. The Petrine party, supported as they were by the\nwhole weight of the Law and of Holy Scripture, as well as by the example\nand tacit approval of the Master, could not have felt even that degree\nof doubt which precedes an appeal to authority.\n\n     2 Dr. Lightfoot says: \"The Master himself had left no\n     express instructions. He had charged them, it is true, to\n     preach the Gospel to all nations, but how this injunction\n     was to be carried out, by what changes a national Church\n     must expand into an universal Church, they had not been\n     told. He had indeed asserted the sovereignty of the spirit\n     over the letter; he had enunciated the great principle--as\n     wide in its application as the law itself--that' man was not\n     made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.' He had\n     pointed to the fulfilment of the law in the Gospel. So fer\n     he had discredited the law, but he had not deposed it or\n     abolished it. It was left to the Apostles themselves under\n     the guidance of the Spirit, moulded by circumstances and\n     moulding them in turn, to work out the great change.\"   St.\n     Paul's Ep. to Gal. 286.\n\n{144}\n\nThe party of Paul, on the other hand, had nothing in their favour\nto which a specific appeal could have been made; but in his constant\nprotest that he had not received his doctrine from man, but had been\ntaught it by direct revelation, the Apostle of the Gentiles, who was\nthe first to proclaim a substantial difference between Christianity and\nJudaism,(1) in reality endeavoured to set aside the authority of the\nJudaistic party by an appeal from the earthly to the spiritualized\nMessiah. Even after the visit of Paul to Jerusalem about the year 50,\nthe elder Apostles still retained the views which we have shown to have\nbeen inevitable under the circumstances, and, as we learn from Paul\nhimself, they still continued mere \"Apostles of the Circumcision,\"\nlimiting their mission to the Jews.(2)\n\nThe Apostles and the primitive Christians, therefore, after the death of\ntheir Master, whom they believed to be the Messiah of the Jews, having\nreceived his last instructions, and formed their final impressions\nof his views, remained Jews, believing in the continued obligation to\nobserve the Law and, consequently, holding the initiatory rite essential\nto participation in the privileges of the Covenant. They held this not\nonly as Jews believing in the Divine origin of the Old Testament and of\nthe Law, but as Christians confirmed by the example and the teaching of\ntheir Christ, whose very coming was a substantial ratification of the\nancient faith of Israel. In this position they stood when the\n\n{145}\n\nGospel, without their intervention, and mainly by the exertions of the\nApostle Paul, began to spread amongst the Gentiles, and the terms of\ntheir admission came into question. It is impossible to deny that the\ntotal removal of conditions, advocated by the Apostle Paul with all the\nvehemence and warmth of his energetic character, and involving nothing\nshort of the abrogation of the Law and surrender of all the privileges\nof Israel, must have been shocking not only to the prejudices but also\nto the deepest religious convictions of men who, although Christians,\nhad not ceased to be Jews, and, unlike the Apostle of the Gentiles,\nhad been directly and daily in contact with Jesus, without having been\ntaught such revolutionary principles. From this point we have to proceed\nwith our examination of the account in the Acts of the relation of the\nelder Apostles to Paul, and the solution of the difficult problem before\nthem.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. STEPHEN THE MARTYR\n\nBefore the Apostle of the Gentiles himself comes on the scene, and\nis directly brought in contact with the Twelve, we have to study\nthe earlier incidents narrated in the Acts, wherein, it is said, the\nemancipation of the Church from Jewish exclusiveness had already either\ncommenced or been clearly anticipated. The first of these which demands\nour attention is the narrative of the martyrdom of Stephen. This\nepisode, although highly interesting and important in itself, might, we\nconsider, have been left unnoticed in connection with the special point\nnow engaging our attention, but such significance has been imparted to\nit by the views which critics have discovered in the speech of Stephen,\nthat we cannot pass it without attention. If this detention be, on the\none hand, to be regretted, it will on the other be compensated by the\nlight which may be thrown on the composition of the Acts.\n\nWe read(l) that in consequence of murmurs amongst the Hellenists against\nthe Hebrews, that their widows were neglected in the daily distribution\nof alms, seven deacons were appointed specially to attend to such\nministrations. Amongst these, it is said, was Stephen,(2)\n\n{147}\n\n\"a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.\" Stephen, it appears, by no\nmeans limited his attention to the material interests of the members of\nthe Church, but being \"full of grace and power, did great wonders and\nsigns [------] amongst the people.\" \"But there arose certain of those of\nthe synagogue which is called (the synagogue) of the Libertines(1) and\nCyrenians and Alexandrians and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing\nwith Stephen; and they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit\nby which he spake. Then they suborned men who said: We have heard him\nspeak blasphemous words against Moses and God. And they stirred up the\npeople and the elders and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized\nhim, and brought him to the Council, and set up false witnesses who\nsaid: This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and\nthe law; for we have heard him say, that Jesus, this Naza-rene, shall\ndestroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered\nto us.\" The high-priest asks him: Are these things so? And Stephen\ndelivers an address, which has since been the subject of much discussion\namongst critics and divines. The contents of the speech taken by\nthemselves do not present any difficulty, so far as the sense is\nconcerned, but regarded as a reply to the accusations brought against\nhim by the false witnesses, the defence of Stephen has perhaps been\ninterpreted in a greater variety of ways than any other part of the\nNew Testament. Its shadowy outlines have been used as a setting for the\npious thoughts of subsequent\n\n{148}\n\ngenerations, and every imaginable intention has been ascribed to the\nproto-martyr, every possible or impossible reference detected in the\nphrases of his oration. This has mainly arisen from the imperfect nature\nof the account in the Acts, and the absence of many important details\nwhich has left criticism to adopt that \"divinatorisch-combinatorische\"\nprocedure which is so apt to evolve any favourite theory from the inner\nconsciousness. The prevailing view, however, amongst the great majority\nof critics of all schools is, that Stephen is represented in the Acts\nas the forerunner of the Apostle Paul, anticipating his universalistic\nprinciples, and proclaiming with more or less of directness the\nabrogation of Mosaic ordinances and the freedom of the Christian\nChurch.(1) This view was certainly advanced by Augustine, and lies at\nthe base of his famous saying: \"Si sanctus Stephanus sic non oras-set,\necclesia Paulum non haberet,\"(2) but it was first clearly enunciated by\nBaur, who subjected the speech of Stephen to detailed analysis,(3)\nand his interpretation has to a large extent been adopted even by\napologists. It must be clearly understood that adherence to this reading\nof the aim and meaning of the speech, as it is given in the Acts, by no\nmeans involves an admission of its authenticity, which, on the contrary,\nis impugned by Baur himself, and by a large number of independent\ncritics. We have the misfortune of differing most materially from the\nprevalent view regarding the contents of the speech, and we maintain\nthat, as it stands in the Acts, there is not a\n\n{149}\n\nword in it which can be legitimately construed into an attack upon the\nMosaic law, or which anticipates the Christian universalism of Paul.\nSpace, however, forbids our entering here upon a discussion of this\nsubject, but the course which we must adopt with regard to it renders it\nunnecessary to deal with the interpretation of the speech. We consider\nthat there is no reason for believing that the discourse put into the\nmouth of Stephen was ever actually delivered, but on the contraiy\nthat there is every ground for holding that it is nothing more than a\ncomposition by the Author of the Acts. We shall endeavour clearly to\nstate the reasons for this conclusion.\n\nWith the exception of the narrative in the Acts, there is no evidence\nwhatever that such a person as Stephen ever existed. The statements of\nthe Apostle Paul leave no doubt that persecution against the Christians\nof Jerusalem must have broken out previous to his conversion, but no\ndetails are given, and it can scarcely be considered otherwise than\nextraordinary, that Paul should not in any of his own writings have\nreferred to the proto-martyr of the Christian Church, if the account\nwhich is given of him be historical. It may be argued that his own share\nin the martyrdom of Stephen made the episode an unpleasant memory, which\nthe Apostle would not readily recall. Considering the generosity of\nPaul's character on the one hand, however, and the important position\nassigned to Stephen on the other, this cannot be admitted as an\nexplanation, and it is perfectly unaccountable that, if Stephen really\nbe a historical personage, no mention of him occurs elsewhere in the New\nTestament.\n\nMoreover, if Stephen was, as asserted, the direct forerunner of Paul,\nand in his hearing enunciated\n\n{150}\n\nsentiments like those ascribed to him, already expressing much more than\nthe germ--indeed the full spirit--of Pauline universality, it would be\npassing strange that Paul not only tacitly ignores all that he owes to\nthe proto-martyr, but vehemently protests: \"But I make known unto you,\nbrethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For\nneither did I receive it from man, nor was taught it, but by revelation\nof Jesus Christ.\"(1) There is no evidence whatever that such a person\nexercised any such influence on Paul.(2) One thing only is certain, that\nthe speech and martyrdom of Stephen made so little impression on\nPaul that, according to Acts, he continued a bitter persecutor of\nChristianity, \"making havoc of the Church.\"\n\nThe statement, vi. 8, that \"Stephen, full of grace and power, did\ngreat wonders and signs among the people\" is not calculated to increase\nconfidence in the narrative as sober history; and as little is the\nassertion, vi. 15, that \"all who sat in the Council, looking stedfastly\non him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.\" This, we\nthink, is evidently an instance of Christian subjective opinion made\nobjective.(3) How, we might ask, could it be known to the writer that\nall who sat at the Council saw this? Neander replies that probably it is\nthe evidence of members of the Sanhedrin of the impression made on\nthem by the aspect of Stephen.(4) The intention of the writer, however,\nobviously is to describe a supernatural\n\n     3 It is further very remarkable, if it be assumed that the\n     vision, Acts vii. 55, actually was seen, that, in giving a\n     list of those who have seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 5--\n     8), which he evidently intends to be complete, he does not\n     include Stephen.\n\n{151}\n\nphenomenon,(1) and this is in his usual manner in this book, where\nmiraculous agency is more freely employed than in any other in the\nCanon. The session of the Council commences in a regular manner,(2) but\nthe previous arrest of Stephen,(3) and the subsequent interruption of\nhis defence, are described as a tumultuous proceeding, his death being.\nunsanctioned by any sentence of the Council.(4) The Sanhed-rin, indeed,\ncould not execute any sentence of death without the ratification of the\nRoman authorities,(5) and nothing is said in the narrative which implies\nthat any regular verdict was pronounced; but, on the contrary, the\ntumult described in v. 57 f. excludes such a supposition. Olshausen(6)\nconsiders that, in order to avoid any collision with the Roman power,\nthe Sanhedrin did not pronounce any formal judgment, but connived at the\nexecution which some fanatics carried out. This explanation, however,\nis inadmissible, because it is clear that the members of the Council\nthemselves, if also the audience,\n\n{152}\n\nattacked and stoned Stephen.(1) The actual stoning(2) is carried out\nwith all regard to legal forms;(3) the victim being taken out of the\ncity,(4) and the witnesses casting the first stone,(5) and for this\npurpose taking off their outer garments. The whole account, with its\nsingular mixture of utter lawlessness and formality, is extremely\nimprobable,(6) and more especially when the speech itself is considered.\nThe proceedings commence in an orderly manner, and the high priest calls\nupon Stephen for his defence. The council and audience listen patiently\nand quietly to his speech, and no interruption takes place until he\nhas said all that he had to sav, for it must be apparent that when\nthe speaker abandons narrative and argument and breaks into direct\ninvective, there could not have been any intention to prolong the\naddress, as no expectation of calm attention after such denunciations\ncould have been natural. The tumult cuts short the oration precisely\nwhere the author had exhausted his\n\n{163}\n\nsubject, and by temporary lawlessness overcomes the legal difficulty of\na sentence which the Sanhedrin, without the ratification of the Roman\nauthority, could not have carried out. As soon as the tumult has\neffected these objects, all becomes orderly and legal again; and,\nconsequently, the witnesses can lay their garments \"at a young man's\nfeet whose name was Saul.\" The principal actor in the work is thus\ndramatically introduced. As the trial commences with a supernatural\nillumination of the face of Stephen, it ends with a supernatural vision,\nin which Stephen sees heaven opened, and the Son of Man standing at the\nright hand of God. Such a trial and such an execution present features\nwhich are undoubtedly not historical.\n\nThis impression is certainly not lessened when we find how many details\nof the trial and death of Stephen are based on the accounts in the\nGospels of the trial and death of Jesus.(1) The irritated adversaries of\nStephen stir up the people and the elders and scribes, and come upon him\nand lead him to the Council.(2) They seek false witness against him;(3)\nand these false witnesses accuse him of speaking against the temple\nand the law.(4) The false witnesses who are set up against Jesus with\nsimilar testimony, according to the first two Synoptics, are strangely\nomitted by the third. The reproduction of this trait here has much that\nis suggestive. The high priest asks: \"Are these things so?\"(5) Stephen,\nat\n\n{154}\n\nthe close of his speech, exclaims: \"I see the heavens opened, and the\nSon of Man standing on the right hand of God.\" Jesus says: \"Henceforth\nshall the Son of Man be seated on the right hand of the power of\nGod.\"(1) Whilst he is being stoned, Stephen prays, saying: \"Lord Jesus,\nreceive my Spirit;\" and, similarly, Jesus on the cross cries, with a\nloud voice: \"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and, having\nsaid this, he expired.\"(2) Stephen, as he is about to die, cries, with\na loud voice: \"Lord, lay not this sin to their charge; and when he said\nthis he fell asleep;\" and Jesus says: \"Father, forgive them, for they\nknow not what they do.\"(3) These two sayings of Jesus are not given\nanywhere but in the third Synoptic,(4) and their imitation by Stephen,\nin another work of the same Evangelist, is a peculiarity which deserves\nattention. It is argued by apologists(5) that nothing is more natural\nthan that the first martyrs should have the example of the suffering\nJesus in their minds, and die with his expressions of love and\nresignation on their lips. On the other hand, taken along with other\nmost suspicious circumstances which we have already pointed out, and\nwith the fact, which we shall presently demonstrate, that the speech of\nStephen is nothing more\n\n{155}\n\nthan a composition by the Author of Acts, the singular analogies\npresented by this narrative with the trial and last words of Jesus in\nthe Gospels seem to us an additional indication of its inauthenticity.\nAs Baur(1) and Zeller(2) have well argued, the use of two expressions\nof Jesus only found in the third Synoptic is a phenomenon which is\nmuch more naturally explained by attributing them to the Author, who\nof course knew that Gospel well, than to Stephen who did not know it\nat all.(3) The prominence which is given to this episode of the first\nChristian martyrdom is intelligible in itself, and it acquires fresh\nsignificance when it is considered as the introduction of the Apostle\nPaul, whose perfect silence regarding the proto-martyr, however,\nconfirms the belief which we otherwise acquire, that the whole narrative\nand speech, whatever unknown tradition may have suggested them, are, as\nwe have them, to be ascribed to the Author of the Acts.\n\nOn closer examination, one of the first questions which arises is: how\ncould such a speech have been reported? Although Neander(4) contends\nthat we are not justified in asserting that all that is narrated\nregarding Stephen in the Acts occurred in a single day, we think it\ncannot be doubted that the intention is to describe the arrest, trial,\nand execution as rapidly following each other on the same day. \"They\ncame upon him, and seized him, and\n\n{156}\n\nbrought him to the Council, and set up false witnesses, who said,\"\n&c.(1) There is no ground here for interpolating any imprisonment, and\nif not, then it follows clearly that Stephen, being immediately called\nupon to answer for himself, is, at the end of his discourse, violently\ncarried away without the city to be stoned. No preparations could have\nbeen made even to take notes of his speech, if upon any ground it were\nreasonable to assume the possibility of an intention to do so; and\nindeed it could not, under the circumstances, have been foreseen that he\nshould either have been placed in such a position, or have been able to\nmake a speech at all. The rapid progress of all the events described,\nand the excitement consequent on such tumultuous proceedings, render\nan ordinary explanation of the manner in which such a speech could have\nbeen preserved improbable, and it is difficult to suppose that it could\nhave been accurately remembered, with all its curious details, by\none who was present. Improbable as it is, however, this is the only\nsuggestion which can possibly be advanced. The majority of apologists\nsuppose that the speech was heard and reported by the Apostle Paul\nhimself,(2) or at least that it was communicated or written down either\nby a member of the Sanhedrin, or by some one who was present.(3)\nAs there is no information on the point, there is ample scope for\nimagination, but when we come to consider its linguistic and other\npeculiarities, it must be borne in\n\n{157}\n\nmind that the extreme difficulty of explaining the preservation of\nsuch a speech must be an element in judging whether it is not rather\na composition by the Author of Acts. The language in which it was\ndelivered, again, is the subject of much difference of opinion, many\nmaintaining that it must have originally been spoken in Aramaic,(1)\nwhilst others hold that it was delivered in Greek.(2) Still, a\nlarge number of critics and divines of course assert that the speech\nattributed to Stephen is at least substantially authentic. As might\nnaturally be expected in a case where negative criticism is arrayed\nagainst a canonical work upheld by the time-honoured authority of the\nchurch, those who dispute its authenticity(3) are in the minority. It is\nmaintained by the latter that the language is more or less that of the\nwriter of the rest of the work, and that the speech in fact as it\nlies before us is a later composition by the Author of the Acts of the\nApostles.\n\nBefore examining the linguistic peculiarities of the speech, we may very\nbriefly point out that, in the course of the historical survey, many\nglaring contradictions of the statements of the Old Testament occur.(4)\nStephen says\n\n{155}\n\n(vs. 2, 3) that the order to Abraham to leave his country was given to\nhim in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Haran; but, according to Genesis\n(xii. 1 ff) the call is given whilst he was living in Haran. The speech\n(v. 4) represents Abraham leaving Haran after the death of his father,\nbut this is in contradiction to Genesis, according to which(1) Abraham\nwas 75 when he left Haran. Now, as he was born when his father Terah was\n70,(2) and Terah lived 205 years,(3) his father was only 145 at the\ntime indicated, and afterwards lived 60 years. In v. 5 it is stated that\nAbraham had no possession in the promised land, not even so much as to\nset his foot on; but, according to Genesis,(4) he bought the field of\nEphron in Machpelah. It is said (v. 14) that Jacob went down into Egypt\nwith 75 souls, whereas, in the Old Testament, it is repeatedly said that\nthe number was 70.(5) In v. 16, it is stated that Jacob was buried\nin Schechem in a sepulchre bought by Abraham of the sons of Emmor in\nSchechem, whereas in Genesis(6) Jacob is said to have been buried in\nMachpelah; the sepulchre in Schechem, in which\n\n{159}\n\nthe bones of Joseph were buried, was not bought by Abraham, but\nby Jacob.(1) Moses is described (v. 22) as mighty in words, but in\nExodus(2) he is said to be the very reverse, and Aaron in fact is\nsent with him to speak words for him. These are some of the principal\nvariations. It used to be argued that such mistakes were mere errors\nof memory, natural in a speech delivered under such circumstances and\nwithout preparation,(3) and that they are additional evidence of\nits authenticity, inasmuch as it is very improbable that a writer\ndeliberately composing such a speech could have committed them. It is\nvery clear, however, that the majority of these are not errors of memory\nat all, but either the exegesis prevailing at the time amongst learned\nJews, or traditions deliberately adopted, of which many traces are\nelsewhere found.(4)\n\nThe form of the speech is closely similar to other speeches found in the\nsame work. We have already in passing pointed out the analogy of parts\nof it to the address of Peter in Solomon's porch, but the speech of Paul\nat Antioch bears a still closer resemblance to it, and has been called\n\"a mere echo of the speeches of Peter and Stephen.\"(5) We must refer the\nreader to our general comparison of the two speeches of Peter and Paul\nin question,(6) which sufficiently showed, we think,\n\n{160}\n\nthat they were not delivered by independent speakers, but on the\ncontrary that they are nothing more than compositions by the author of\nthe Acts. These addresses which are such close copies of each other, are\nso markedly cast in the same mould as the speech of Stephen, that they\nnot only confirm our conclusions as to their own origin, but intensify\nsuspicions of its authenticity. It is impossible, without reference to\nthe speeches themselves, to shew how closely that of Paul at Antioch is\ntraced on the lines of the speech of Stephen, and this resemblance\nis much greater than can be shown by mere linguistic examination.\nThe thoughts correspond where the words differ. There is a constant\nrecurrence of words, however, even where the sense of the passages is\nnot the same, and the ideas in both bear the stamp of a single mind. We\nshall not attempt fully to contrast these discourses here, for it would\noccupy too much space, and we therefore content ourselves with giving\na few illustrations, begging the reader to examine the speeches\nthemselves. [------]\n\n{161}\n\n[------]\n\n{162}\n\n[------]\n\nIt is argued that the speech of Stephen bears upon it\n\n{163}\n\nthe stamp of an address which was actually delivered.(1) We are not able\nto discover any special indication of this. Such an argument, at the\nbest, is merely the assertion of personal opinion, and cannot have any\nweight. It is quite conceivable that an oration actually spoken might\nlose its spontaneous character in a report, and on the other hand that\na written composition might acquire oratorical reality from the skill of\nthe writer. It would indeed exhibit great want of literary ability if\na writer, composing a speech which he desires to represent as having\nactually been spoken, altogether failed to convey some impression of\nthis. To have any application to the present case, however, it must not\nonly be affirmed that the speech of Stephen has the stamp of an address\nreally spoken, but that it has the character of one delivered under such\nextraordinary circumstances, without premeditation and in the midst of\ntumultuous proceedings. It cannot, we think, be reasonably asserted\nthat a speech like this is peculiarly characteristic of a man suddenly\narrested by angry and excited opponents, and hurried before a council\nwhich, at its close, rushes upon him and joins in stoning him. Unless\nthe defence attributed to Stephen be particularly characteristic of\nthis, the argument in question falls to the ground. On the contrary, if\nthe speech has one feature more strongly marked than another, it is\nthe deliberate care with which the points referred to in the historical\nsurvey are selected and bear upon each other, and the art with which the\nclimax is attained. In showing, as we have already done, that the speech\nbetrays the handy work of the Author of the Acts, we have to a large\nextent disposed of any claim\n\n{164}\n\nto peculiar individuality in the defence, and the linguistic analysis\nwhich we shall now make will conclusively settle the source of the\ncomposition. We must point out here in continuation that, as in the rest\nof the work, all the quotations in the speech are from the Septuagint,\nand that the author follows that version even when it does not fairly\nrepresent the original.(1)\n\nWe may now proceed to analyse the language of the whole episode from\nvi. 9 to the end of the seventh chapter, in order to discover what\nlinguistic analogy it bears to the rest of the Acts and to the third\nSynoptic, which for the sake of brevity we shall simply designate\n\"Luke.\" With the exception of a very few words in general use, every\nword employed in the section will be found in the following analysis,\nbased upon Bruder's 'Concordance,'(2) and which is arranged in the order\nof the verses, although for greater clearness the whole is divided into\ncategories.\n\nWe shall commence with a list of the words in this section which are not\nelsewhere used in the New Testament. They are as follows:--[------],\nvi. 11; [------]t vi. 12; [------], vii. 16;(3) [------], vii. 19, but\n[------], occurs several times in Acts, see below, vii. 21; [------],\nvii. 24; [------], vii. 26; [------], vii. 45, this word, which is\ncommon amongst\n\n{165}\n\nGreek writers,(1) is used in lxx. 2 Chron. xxxi. 12; [------], vii. 52.\nThese nine words are all that can strictly be admitted as [------], but\nthere are others, which, although not found in any other part of the\nActs or of the Gospel, occur in other writings of the New Testament, and\nwhich must here be noted. [------], vi. 11, occurring 1 Tim. i. 13, 2\nTim. iii. 2, 2 Pet. iL 11, Rev. xiii. 5; [------], however, is used four\ntimes in Acts, thrice in Luke, and frequently elsewhere, and [------] in\nLuke v. 21. [------] vi. 13, used Rev. ii. 2, xxi. 8; [------], vi. 14,\nRom. i. 23, ' 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, Gal. iv. 20, Heb. i. 12, almost purely\na Pauline word; [------], vii. 5, elsewhere fourteen times; [------],\nvii. 16, also Gal. i. 6, Heb. vii. 12, xi. 5 twice (lxx. Gen. v. 24),\nJude 4; [------], vii. 24, also 2 Pet. ii. 7; [------], vii. 26, also\nJohn vi. 52, 2 Tim. ii. 24, James iv. 2; [------], vii. 38, also Rom.\niii. 2, Heb. v. 12, 1 Pet. iv. 11; [------], vii. 39, also 2 Cor. ii. 9,\nPhil. ii. 8; [------], vii. 53, also Rom. xiii. 2, cf. Gal. iii. 19, but\nthe writer makes use of [------], see vii. 44, below; [------], vii. 58,\nalso Rom. xiii. 12, Eph. iv. 22, 25, Col. iii. 8, Heb. xii. 1, James\ni. 21, 1 Pet, ii. 1. If we add these ten words to the preceding, the\nproportion of [------] is by no means excessive for the 67 verses,\nespecially when the peculiarity of the subject is considered, and it is\nremembered that the number of words employed in the third Gospel, for\ninstance, which are not elsewhere found, greatly exceeds that of the\nother Gospels, and that this linguistic richness is characteristic of\nthe author.\n\nThere is another class of words which may now be\n\n{166}\n\ndealt with: those which, although not elsewhere found either in the\nActs or Gospel, are derived from the Sep-tuagint version of the Old\nTestament. The author makes exclusive use of that version, and in\nthe historical survey, of which so large a portion of the speech is\ncomposed, his mind very naturally recalls its expressions even where he\ndoes not make direct quotations, but merely gives a brief summary of its\nnarratives. In the following list where words are not clearly taken from\nthe Septuagint version(1) of the various episodes referred to, the reasons\nshall be stated:--\n\n{167}\n\nWe shall now, by way of disposing of them, take the words which require\nlittle special remark, but are used as well in the rest of the Acts and\nin the Gospel as in other writings of the New Testament:-- [------]\n\n{168}\n\n[------]\n\n{169}\n\n[------]\n\nWe shall now give the words which may either be regarded as\ncharacteristic of the author of the Acts and Gospel, or the use of which\nis peculiar or limited to him:-- [------]\n\n{170}\n\n[------]\n\n{171}\n\n[------]\n\n{172}\n\n[------]\n\nTo this very remarkable list of words we have still to add a number of\nexpressions which further betray the author of the Acts and Gospel:--\n\n{173}\n\n[------]\n\n{174}\n\n[------]\n\n{175}\n\n[------]\n\nIt is impossible, we think, to examine this analysis, in which we might\nfairly have included other points which we have passed over, without\nfeeling the certain conviction that the speech of Stephen was composed\nby the author of the rest of the Acts of the Apostles. It may not be\nout of place to quote some remarks of Lekebusch at the close of an\nexamination of the language of the Acts in general, undertaken for the\npurpose of ascertaining the literary characteristics of the book,\nwhich, although originally having no direct reference to this episode\nin particular, may well serve to illustrate our own results:--\"An\nunprejudiced critic must have acquired the conviction from the foregoing\nlinguistic examination that, throughout the whole of the Acts of the\nApostles, and partly also the\n\n{176}\n\nGospel, the same style of language and expression generally prevails,\nand therefore that our book is an original work, independent of written\nsources on the whole, and proceeding from a single pen. For when the\nsame expressions are everywhere found, when a long row of words which\nonly recur in the Gospel and Acts, or comparatively only very seldom\nin other works of the New Testament, appear equally in all parts, when\ncertain forme of words, peculiarities of word-order, construction\nand phraseology, indeed even whole sentences, recur in the different\nsections, a compilation out of documents by different earlier writers\ncan no longer be thought of, and it is 'beyond doubt, that we have to\nconsider our writing as the work of a single author, who has impressed\nupon it the stamp of a distinct literary style' (Zeller, Theol.\nJahrb..1851, p. 107). The use of written sources is certainly not\ndirectly excluded by this, and probably the linguistic peculiarities,\nof which some of course exist in isolated sections of our work, may\nbe referred to this. But as these peculiarities consist chiefly of\n[------], which may rather be ascribed to the richness of the author's\nvocabulary than to his talent for compilation, and in comparison with\nthe great majority of points of agreement almost disappear, we must from\nthe first be prepossessed against the theory that our author made use\nof written sources, and only allow ourselves to be moved to such a\nconclusion by further distinct phenomena in the various parts of our\nbook, especially as the prologue of the Gospel, so often quoted for the\npurpose, does not at all support it. But in any case, as has already\nbeen remarked, _the_ opinion that, in the Acts of the Apostles, the\nseveral parts are strung together almost without\n\n{177}\n\nalteration, is quite irreconcilable with the result of our linguistic\nexamination. Zeller rightly says:--'Were the author so dependent a\ncompiler, the traces of such a proceeding must necessarily become\napparent in a thorough dissimilarity of language and expression. And\nthis dissimilarity would be all the greater if his sources, as in that\ncase we could scarcely help admitting, belonged to widely separated\nspheres as regards language and mode of thought. On the other hand, it\nwould be altogether inexplicable that, in all parts of the work, the\nsame favourite expressions, the same turns, the same peculiarities\nof vocabulary and syntax should meet us. This phenomenon only becomes\nconceivable when we suppose that the contents of our work were brought\ninto their present form by one and the same person, and that the work\nas it lies before us was not merely _compiled_ by some one, but was also\n_composed_ by him.'\"(1)\n\nShould an attempt be made to argue that, even if it be conceded that\nthe language is that of the Author of Acts, the sentiments may be those\nactually expressed by Stephen, it would at once be obvious that such\nan explanation is not only purely arbitrary and incapable of proof, but\nopposed to the facts of the case. It is not the language only which can\nbe traced to the Author of the rest of the Acts but, as we have shown,\nthe whole plan of the speech is the same as that of others in different\nparts of the work. Stephen speaks exactly as Peter does before him and\nPaul at a later period. There is just that amount of variety which a\nwriter of not unlimited resources can introduce to express the views of\n\n{178}\n\ndifferent men under different circumstances, but there is so much which\nis nevertheless common to them all, that community of authorship cannot\nbe denied. On the other hand, the improbabilities of the narrative, the\nsingular fact that Stephen is not mentioned by the Apostle Paul, and the\npeculiarities which may be detected in the speech itself receive their\nvery simple explanation when linguistic analysis so clearly demonstrates\nthat, whatever small nucleus of fact may lie at the basis of the\nepisode, the speech actually ascribed to the martyr Stephen is nothing\nmore than a later composition put into his mouth by the Author of the\nActs.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH. PETER AND CORNELIUS.\n\nWe have been forced to enter at such length into the discussion of the\nspeech and martyrdom of Stephen, that we cannot afford space to do more\nthan merely glance at the proceedings of his colleague Philip, as we\npass on to more important points in the work before us. The author\nstates that a great persecution broke out at the time of Stephen's\ndeath, and that all [------] the community of Jerusalem were scattered\nabroad \"except the Apostles\" [------]. That the heads of the Church, who\nwere well known, should remain unmolested in Jerusalem, whilst the whole\nof the less known members of the community were persecuted and driven to\nflight, is certainly an extraordinary and suspicious statement.(1) Even\napologists are obliged to admit that the account of the dispersion of\nthe whole Church is hyperbolic;(2) but exaggeration and myth enter\nso largely and persistently into the composition of the Acts of the\nApostles, that it is difficult, after any attentive scrutiny, seriously\nto treat the work as in any strict sense historical at all. It has been\n\n{180}\n\nconjectured by some critics, as well in explanation of this statement\nas in connection with theories regarding the views of Stephen, that\nthe persecution in question was limited to the Hellenistic community to\nwhich Stephen belonged, whilst the Apostles and others, who were known\nas faithful observers of the law and of the temple worship,(1) were not\nregarded as heretics by the orthodox Jews.(2) The narrative in the Acts\ndoes not seem to support the view that the persecution was limited to\nthe Hellenists;(3) but beyond the fact vouched for by Paul that about\nthis time there was a persecution, we have no data whatever regarding\nthat event. Philip, it is said, went down to the city of Samaria,\nand \"was preaching the Christ\"(4) to them. As the statement that \"the\nmultitudes with one accord gave heed to the things spoken\" to them by\nPhilip is ascribed to the miracles which he performed there, we are\nunable to regard the narrative as historical, and still less so when we\nconsider the supernatural agency by which his further proceedings are\ndirected and aided. We need only remark that the Samaritans, although\nonly partly of Jewish origin, and rejecting the Jewish Scriptures with\nthe exception of the Pentateuch, worshipped the same God as the Jews,\nwere circumcised, and were equally prepared as a nation to accept the\nMessiah. The statement that the Apostles Peter and John went to Samaria,\nin order, by the imposition of hands, to bestow the gift of the Holy\nSpirit to the\n\n{181}\n\nconverts baptized by Philip, does not add to the general credibility of\nthe history.(1) As Bleek(2) has well remarked, nothing is known or said\nas to whether the conversion of the Samaritans effected any change in\ntheir relations towards the Jewish people and the temple in Jerusalem;\nand the mission of Philip to the Samaritans, as related in the Acts,\ncannot in any case be considered as having any important bearing on the\nquestion before us. We shall not discuss the episode of Simon at all,\nalthough, in the opinion of eminent critics, it contains much that is\nsuggestive of the true character of the Acts of the Apostles. An \"Angel\nof the Lord\" [------] speaks to Philip, and desires him to go to the\ndesert way from Jerusalem to Gaza,(3) where the Spirit tells him(4) to\ndraw near and join himself to the chariot of a man of Ethiopia who had\ncome to worship at Jerusalem, and was then returning home. Philip runs\nthither, and hearing him read Isaiah, expounds the passage to him, and\nat his own request the Eunuch is at once baptized. \"And when they came\nup out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away [------] Philip,\nand the eunuch saw him no more; for he went on his way rejoicing; but\nPhilip was found at Azotus.\"(5) Attempts have of course been made to\nexplain naturally the supernatural features of this narrative.(6) Ewald,\nwho is master of the art of rationalistic explanation, says, with regard\nto the order given by the angel: \"he felt impelled as by the power and\nthe clear voice of an angel\" to go in that\n\n{182}\n\ndirection; and the final miracle is disposed of by a contrast of the\ndisinterestedness of Philip with the conduct of Gehazi, the servant of\nElisha: it was the desire to avoid reward, \"which led him all the more\nhurriedly to leave his new convert\"; \"and it was as though the Spirit of\nthe Lord himself snatched him from him another way,\" &c, &c. \"From Gaza\nPhilip repaired rapidly northward to Ashdod, &c.\"(l) The great mass\nof critics reject such evasions, and recognise that the Author relates\nmiraculous occurrences. The introduction of supernatural agency in\nthis way, however, removes the story from the region of history. Such\nstatements are antecedently, and, indeed, coming from an unknown writer\nand without corroboration, are absolutely incredible, and no means exist\nof ascertaining what original tradition may have assumed this mythical\ncharacter. Zeller supposes that only the personality and nationality\nof the Eunuch are really historical.(2) All that need here be added is,\nthat the great majority of critics agree that the Ethiopian was probably\nat least a Proselyte of the Gate,(3) as his going to Jerusalem to\nworship seems clearly to indicate.(4) In any\n\n{183}\n\ncase, the mythical elements of this story, as well as the insufficiency\nof the details, deprive the narrative of historical value.(1) The\nepisodes of Stephen's speech and martyrdom and the mission of Philip\nare, in one respect especially, unimportant for the inquiry on which we\nare now more immediately engaged. They are almost completely isolated\nfrom the rest of the Acts: that is to say, no reference whatever is\nsubsequently made to them as forming any precedent for the guidance of\nthe Church in the burning question which soon arose within it. Peter, as\nwe shall see, when called upon to visit and baptize Cornelius, exhibits\nno recollection of his own mission to the Samaritans, and no knowledge\nof the conversion of the Ethiopian. Moreover, as Stephen plays so small\na part in the history, and Philip does not reappear upon the scene after\nthis short episode, no opportunity is afforded of comparing one part of\ntheir history with the rest. In passing on to the account of the baptism\nof Cornelius, we have at least the advantage of contrasting the action\nattributed to Peter with his conduct on earlier and later occasions, and\na test is thus supplied which is of no small value for ascertaining the\ntruth of the whole representation. To this narrative we must now address\nourselves.\n\nAs an introduction to the important events at Caesarea, the Author of the\nActs relates the particulars of a visit which Peter pays to Lydda\nand Joppa, during the course of which he performs two very remarkable\nmiracles. At the former town he finds a certain man named AEneas,\n\n{184}\n\nparalysed, who had lain on a bed for eight years. Peter said to him:\n\"AEneas, Jesus the Christ healeth thee; arise and make thy bed.\" And he\narose immediately.(1) As the consequence of this miracle, the writer\nstates that: \"All who dwelt at Lydda and the Sharon saw him, who turned\nto the Lord.\"(2) The exaggeration of such a statement(3) is too palpable\nto require argument The effect produced by the supposed miracle is\nalmost as incredible as the miracle itself, and the account altogether\nhas little claim to the character of sober history.\n\nThis mighty work, however, is altogether eclipsed by a miracle which\nPeter performs about the same time at Joppa. A certain woman, a\ndisciple, named Tabitha, who was \"full of good works,\" fell sick in\nthose days and died, and when they washed her, they laid her in an upper\nchamber, and sent to Peter at Lydda, beseeching him to come to them\nwithout delay. When Peter arrived they took him into the upper chamber,\nwhere all the widows stood weeping, and showed coats and garments which\nDorcas used to make while she was with them. \"But Peter put them all\nout, and kneeled down and prayed; and, turning to the body, said:\nTabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat\nup. And he gave her his hand, and raised her up, and when he called the\nsaints and the widows, he presented her alive.\" Apparently, the raising\nof the dead did not produce as much effect as the cure of the paralytic,\nfor the writer only adds here: \"And it was known throughout all Joppa;\nand many believed in the Lord.\"(4) We shall hereafter have to speak\nof the perfect calmness and absence of surprise with which these early\nwriters relate\n\n{185}\n\nthe most astonishing miracles. It is evident from the manner in which\nthis story is narrated that the miracle was anticipated.(1) The [------]\nin which the body is laid cannot have been the room generally used for\nthat purpose, but is probably the single upper chamber of such a house\nwhich the author represents as specially adopted in anticipation of\nPeter's arrival.(2) The widows who stand by weeping and showing the\ngarments made by the deceased complete the preparation. As Peter is sent\nfor after Dorcas had died, it would seem as though the writer\nintimated that her friends expected him to raise her from the dead. The\nexplanation of this singular phenomenon, however, becomes clear when\nit is remarked that the account of this great miracle is closely traced\nfrom that of the raising of Jairus' daughter in the Synoptics,(3) and\nmore especially in the second Gospel.(4) In that instance Jesus is sent\nfor; and, on coming to the house, he finds people \"weeping and wailing\ngreatly.\" He puts them all forth, like Peter; and, taking the child\nby the hand, says to her: \"'Talitha koum,' which is being interpreted:\nMaiden, I say unto thee, arise. And immediately the maiden arose and\nwalked.\"(5) Baur and others(6) conjecture that even the name \"Tabitha,\nwhich by\n\n{186}\n\ninterpretation is called Dorcas,\" was suggested by the words [------],\nabove quoted. The Hebrew original of [------] signifies \"Gazelle,\" and\nthey contend that it was used, like [------], in the sense generally\nof: Maiden.(l) These two astonishing miracles, reported by an unknown\nwriter, and without any corroboration, are absolutely incredible, and\ncannot prepossess any reasonable mind with confidence in the narrative\nto which they form an introduction, and the natural distrust which they\nawaken is folly confirmed when we find supernatural agency employed at\nevery stage of the following history.\n\nWe are told(2) that a certain devout centurion, named Cornelius, \"saw\nin a vision plainly\" [------] an angel of God, who said to him: \"Thy\nprayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. And now\nsend men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, who is surnamed Peter, whose\nhouse is by the sea side.\" After giving these minute directions, the\nangel departed,\n\n[------]\n\n{187}\n\nand Cornelius sent three messengers to Joppa. Just as they approached\nthe end of their journey on the morrow, Peter went up to the housetop to\npray about the sixth hour, the usual time of prayer among the Jews.(1)\nHe became very hungry, and while his meal was being prepared he fell\ninto a trance and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending as\nit had been a great sheet let down by four corners, in which were all\nfour-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the\nair. \"And there came a voice to him: Rise, Peter; kill and eat. But\nPeter said: Not so Lord; for I never ate anything common or unclean. And\nthe voice came unto him again a second time: What God cleansed call not\nthou common. This was done thrice; and straightway the vessel was taken\nup into heaven.\" While Peter \"was doubting in himself\" what the vision\nwhich he had seen meant, the men sent by Cornelius arrived, and \"the\nSpirit said unto him: Behold men are seeking thee; but arise and get\nthee down and go with them doubting nothing, for I have sent them.\"\nPeter went with them on the morrow, accompanied by some of the brethren,\nand Cornelius was waiting for them with his kinsmen and near friends\nwhom he had called together for the purpose. \"And as Peter was coming\nin, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshipped. But Peter\ntook him up, saying: Arise; I myself also am a man.\"(2) Going in, he\nfinds many persons assembled, to whom he said: \"Ye know how it is an\nunlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company with, or come\nunto one of another nation; and yet God showed me that I should not call\n\n{188}\n\nany man common or unclean. Therefore also I came without gainsaying when\nsent for. I ask, therefore, for what reason ye sent for me?\" Cornelius\nnarrates the particulars of his vision and continues: \"Now, therefore,\nwe are all present before God to hear all the things that have been\ncommanded thee of the Lord. Then Peter opened his mouth and said: Of\na truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every\nnation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to\nhim,\" and soon. While Peter is speaking, \"the Holy Spirit fell on all\nthose who heard the word. And they of the circumcision who believed were\nastonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles\nalso has been poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit; for they heard\nthem speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter: Can any\none forbid the water that these should not be baptized, which have\nreceived the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be\nbaptized in the name of the Lord.\"\n\nWe shall not waste time discussing the endeavours of Kuinoel, Neander,\nLange, Ewald, and others, to explain away as much as possible the\nsupernatural elements of this narrative, for their attempts are\nrepudiated by most apologists, and the miraculous phenomena are too\nclearly described and too closely connected with the course of the story\nto be either ignored or eliminated. Can such a narrative, heralded by\nsuch miracles as the instantaneous cure of the paralytic AEneas, and\nthe raising from the dead of the maiden Dorcas, be regarded as sober\nhistory? Of course many maintain that it can, and comparatively few have\ndeclared themselves against this.(1) We have, however, merely the\n\n{189}\n\nnarrative of an unknown author to set against unvarying experience, and\nthat cannot much avail. We must now endeavour to discover how far this\nepisode is consistent with the rest of the facts narrated in this book\nitself, and with such trustworthy evidence as we can elsewhere bring to\nbear upon it. We have already in an earlier part of our inquiry pointed\nout that in the process of exhibiting a general parallelism between the\nApostles Peter and Paul, a very close _pendant_ to this narrative has\nbeen introduced by the author into the history of Paul. In the story\nof the conversion of Paul, the Apostle has his vision on the way to\nDamascus,(1) and about the same time the Lord in a vision desires\nAnanias (\"a devout man, according to the law, having a good report of\nall the Jews that dwell\" in Damascus),(2) \"arise, and go to the street\nwhich is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one\nnamed Saul of Tarsus; for behold he prayeth, and saw in a vision a\nman named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him that he might\nreceive sight.\" On this occasion also the gift of the Holy Spirit is\nconferred and Saul is baptized.(3) Whilst such miraculous agency is so\nrare elsewhere, it is so common in the Acts of the Apostles that the\nemployment of visions and of angels, under every circumstance, is one of\nthe characteristics of the author, and may therefore be set down to his\nown imagination.\n\nNo one who examines this episode attentively, we\n\n{190}\n\nthink, can doubt that the narrative before us is composed in apologetic\ninterest,(1) and is designed to have a special bearing upon the problem\nas to the relation of the Pauline Gospel to the preaching of the Twelve,\nBaur(2) has acutely pointed out the significance of the very place\nassigned to it in the general history, and its insertion immediately\nafter the conversion of Paul, and before the commencement of his\nministry, as a legitimation of his apostleship of the Gentiles. One\npoint stands clearly out of the strange medley of Jewish prejudice,\nChristian liberalism, and supernatural interference which constitute\nthe elements of the story: the actual conviction of Peter regarding the\nrelation of the Jew to the Gentile, that the Gospel is addressed to the\nformer and that the Gentile is excluded,(3) which has to be removed by\na direct supernatural revelation from heaven. The author recognises that\nthis was the general view of the primitive church, and this is the only\nparticular in which we can perceive historical truth in the narrative.\nThe complicated machinery of visions and angelic messengers is used to\njustify the abandonment of Jewish restrictions, which was preached by\nPaul amidst so much virulent opposition. Peter anticipates and justifies\nPaul in his ministry of the uncircumcision, and the overthrow of Mosaic\nbarriers has the sanction and seal of a divine command. We have to see\nwhether the history itself\n\n{191}\n\ndoes not betray its mythical character, not only in its supernatural\nelements, but in its inconsistency with other known or narrated\nincidents in the apostolical narrative. There has been much difference\nof opinion as to whether the centurion Cornelius had joined himself in\nany recognised degree to the Jewish religion before this incident, and\na majority of critics maintain that he is represented as a Proselyte\nof the Gate.(1) The terms in which he is described, [------], certainly\nseem to indicate this, and probably the point would not have been\nquestioned but for the fact that the writer evidently intends to deal\nwith the subject of Gentile conversion, with which the representation\nthat Cornelius was already a proselyte would somewhat clash.(2) Whether\na proselyte or not, the Roman centurion is said to be \"devout and\nfearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and\npraying to God always;\"(3) and probably the ambiguity as to whether he\nhad actually become affiliated in any way to Mosaism is intentional.\nWhen Peter, however, with his scruples removed by the supernatural\ncommunication with which he had just been favoured, indicates their\nprevious strength by the statement: \"Ye know how it is an unlawful thing\nfor a man that is a Jew to keep company with or come unto\n\n{192}\n\none of another nation,\"(1) the author evidently oversteps the mark,\nand betrays the unhistorical nature of the narrative; for such an\naffirmation not only could not have been made by Peter, but could only\nhave been advanced by a writer who was himself a Gentile, and writing\nat a distance from the events described. There is no injunction of the\nMosaic law declaring such intercourse unlawful,(2) nor indeed is such a\nrule elsewhere heard of, and even apologists who refer to the point have\nno show of authority by which to support such a statement(3) Not only\nwas there no legal prohibition, but it is impossible to conceive that\nthere was any such exclusiveness practised by traditional injunction.(4)\nAs de Wette appropriately remarks, moreover, even if such a prohibition\nexisted as regards idolaters, it would still be inconceivable how it\ncould apply to Cornelius: \"a righteous man and fearing God, and of good\nreport among all the nation of the Jews.\"(5) It is also inconsistent\nwith the zeal for proselytism displayed by the Pharisees,(6) the\nstrictest sect of the Jews; and the account given by Josephus of the\n\n{193}\n\nconversion of Izates of Adiabene is totally against it.(1) There is a\nslight trait which, added to others, tends to complete the demonstration\nof the unhistorical character of this representation. Peter is said to\nhave lived many days in Joppa with one Simon, a tanner, and it is in\nhis house that the messengers of Cornelius find him.(2) Now the tanner's\ntrade was considered impure amongst the Jews,(3) and it was almost\npollution to live in Simon's house. It is argued by some commentators\nthat the fact that Peter lodged there is mentioned to show that he had\nalready emancipated himself from Jewish prejudices.(4) However this may\nbe, it is strangely inconsistent that a Jew who has no objection to live\nwith a tanner should, at the same time, consider it unlawful to hold\nintercourse of any kind with a pious Gentile, who, if not actually a\nProselyte of the Gate, had every qualification for becoming one. This\nindifference to the unclean and polluting trade of the tanner, moreover,\nis inconsistent with the reply which Peter gives to the voice which bids\nhim slay and eat:--\"Not so, Lord, for I never ate anything common or\nunclean.\" No doubt the intercourse to which Peter refers indicates, or\nat least includes, eating and drinking with one of another country,\nand this alone could present any intelligible difficulty, for the mere\ntransaction of business or conversation with strangers must have been\ndaily necessary to the Jews. It must be remarked, however, that, when\nPeter makes the statement which we are discussing, nothing whatever is\nsaid of eating with the Centurion or sitting with him\n\n{194}\n\nat table. This leads to a striking train of reflection upon the whole\nepisode. It is a curious thing that the supernatural vision, which is\ndesigned to inform Peter and the Apostles that the Gentiles might be\nreceived into the Church, should take the form of a mere intimation that\nthe distinction of clean and unclean animals was no longer binding, and\nthat he might indifferently kill and eat One might have thought that,\non the supposition that Heaven desired to give Peter and the Church a\ncommand to admit the Gentiles unconditionally to the benefits of the\nGospel, this would be simply and clearly stated. This was not done at\nall, and the intimation by which Peter supposes himself justified in\nconsidering it lawful to go to Cornelius is, in the first place, merely\non the subject of animals defined as clean and unclean. Doubtless the\nprohibition as to certain meats might tend to continue the separation\nbetween Jew and Gentile, and the disregard of such distinctions of\ncourse promoted general intercourse with strangers; but this by no means\nexplains why the abrogation of this distinction is made the intimation\nto receive Gentiles into the Church. When Peter returns to Jerusalem\nwe are told that \"they of the circumcision\"--that is to say, the whole\nChurch there, since at that period all were \"of the circumcision,\"\nand this phrase further indicates that the writer has no historical\nstand-point--contended with him. The subject of the contention we might\nsuppose was the baptism of Gentiles; but not so: the charge brought\nagainst him was:--\"Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst\neat with them.\"(1) The subject of Paul's dispute with Peter at Antioch\nsimply was that, \"before that certain came from James, he did eat with\n\n{195}\n\nthe Gentiles; but when they came he withdrew, fearing them of the\ncircumcision.\"(1) That the whole of these passages should turn merely on\nthe fact of eating with men who were uncircumcised, is very suggestive,\nand as the Church at Jerusalem make no allusion to the baptism of\nuncircumcised Gentiles, it would lead to the inference that nothing was\nknown of such an event, and that the circumstance was simply added to\nsome other narrative; and this is rendered all the more probable by the\nfact that, in the affair at Antioch as well as throughout the Epistle\nto the Galatians, Peter is very far from acting as one who had been the\nfirst to receive uncircumcised Gentiles freely into the Church.\n\nIt is usually asserted that the vision of Peter abrogated the\ndistinction of clean and unclean animals so long existing in the Mosaic\nlaw,(2) but there is no evidence that any subsequent gradual abandonment\nof the rule was ascribed to such a command; and it is remarkable that\nPeter himself not only does not, as we shall presently see, refer to\nthis vision as authority for disregarding the distinction of clean and\nunclean meats, and for otherwise considering nothing common or unclean,\nbut acts as if such a vision had never taken place. The famous decree\nof the Council of Jerusalem, moreover, makes no allusion to any\nmodification of the Mosaic law in the case of Jewish Christians,\nwhatever relaxation it may seem to grant to Gentile converts, and there\nis no external evidence of any kind whatever that so important an\n\n{196}\n\nabolition of ancient legal prescriptions was thus introduced into\nChristendom.\n\nWe have, however, fortunately one test of the historical value of this\nwhole episode, to which we have already briefly referred, but which\nwe must now more closely apply. Paul himself, in his Epistle to the\nGalatians, narrates the particulars of a scene between himself and Peter\nat Antioch, of which no mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles,\nand we think that no one can fairly consider that episode without being\nconvinced that it is utterly irreconcilable with the supposition that\nthe vision which we are now examining can ever have appeared to Peter,\nor that he can have played the part attributed to him in the conversion\nand baptism of uncircumcised Gentiles. Paul writes: \"But when Cephas\ncame to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was condemned.\nFor before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles,\nbut when they came he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of\nthe circumcision, and the other Jews also joined in his hypocrisy.\"(1)\nIt will be remembered that, in the case of Cornelius, \"they of the\ncircumcision\" in Jerusalem, at the head of whom was James, from whom\ncame those \"of the circumcision\" of whom Peter was afraid at Antioch,\ncontended with Peter for going in \"to men uncircumcised and eating with\nthem,\"(2) the very thing which was in question at Antioch. In the Acts,\nPeter is represented as defending his conduct by relating the divine\nvision under the guidance of which he acted, and the author states as\nthe result that, \"When they heard these things they held their peace and\nglorified God, saying: Then to the Gentiles also God gave repentance\n\n{197}\n\nunto life.\"(1) This is the representation of the author of the vision\nand of the conversion of Cornelius, but very different is Peter's\nconduct as described by the Apostle Paul, very dissimilar the phenomena\npresented by a narrative upon which we can rely. The \"certain who came\nfrom James\" can never have heard of the direct communication from Heaven\nwhich justified Peter's conduct, and can never have glorified God in the\nmanner described, or Peter could not have had any reason to fear them;\nfor a mere reference to his vision, and to the sanction of the Church of\nJerusalem, must have been sufficient to reconcile them to his freedom.\nThen, is it conceivable that after such a vision, and after being taught\nby God himself not to call any man or thing common or unclean, Peter\ncould have acted as he did for fear of them of the circumcision? His\nconduct is convincing evidence that he knew as little of any such vision\nas those who came from James. On the other hand, if we require further\nproof it is furnished by the Apostle Paul himself. Is it conceivable\nthat, if such an episode had ever really occurred, the Apostle Paul\nwould not have referred to it upon this occasion? What more appropriate\nargument could he have used, what more legitimate rebuke could he have\nadministered, than merely to have reminded Peter of his own vision? He\nboth rebukes him and argues, but his rebuke and his argument have quite\na different complexion; and we confidently affirm that no one can read\nthat portion of the Epistle to the Galatians without feeling certain\nthat, had the writer been aware of such a divine communication--and we\nthink it must be conceded without question that, if it had taken place,\nhe\n\n{198}\n\nmust have been aware of it(1)--he would have referred to bo direct and\nimportant an authority. Neither here nor in the numerous places where\nsuch an argument would have been so useful to the Apostle does Paul\nbetray the slightest knowledge of the episode of Cornelius. The historic\noccurrence at Antioch, so completely ignored by the author of the Acts,\ntotally excludes the mythical story of Cornelius.(2)\n\nThere are merely one or two other points in connection with the episode\nto which we must call attention. In his address to Cornelius, Peter\nsays: \"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons\"\n[------]. Now this is not only a thoroughly Pauline sentiment, but Paul\nhas more than once made use of precisely the same expression. Rom. ii.\n11. \"For there is no respect of persons with God \"[------], and, again,\nGal. ii. 6,\"\n\nGod respecteth no man's person,\" [------].(3) The author of the Acts was\ncertainly acquainted with the epistles of Paul, and the very manner\nin which he represents Peter as employing this expression betrays\nthe application of a sentiment previously in his mind, \"Of a truth I\nperceive,\" &c. The circumstance confirms what Paul had already said.(4)\nThen, in the defence of his conduct at Jerusalem, Peter is represented\nas saying: \"And I remembered the word of the Lord,\n\n     1 Indeed the reference to this case, supposed to be made by\n     Peter himself, in Paul's presence, excludes the idea of\n     ignorance, if the Acts be treated as historical.\n\n     4 Compare further x. 35 ff. with Rom. ii. iii., &o. The\n     sentiments and even the words are Pauline.\n\n{199}\n\nhow he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized\nwith the Holy Spirit.\"(l) Now these words are by all the Gospels put\ninto the mouth of John the Baptist, and not of Jesus,(2) but the author\nof the Acts seems to put them into the mouth of Jesus at the beginning\nof the work,(3) and their repetition here is only an additional proof of\nthe fact that the episode of Cornelius, as it stands before us, is not\nhistorical, but is merely his own composition.\n\nThe whole of this narrative, with its complicated series of miracles, is\nevidently composed to legitimate the free reception into the Christian\nChurch of Gentile converts and, to emphasize the importance of the\ndivine ratification of their admission, Peter is made to repeat to\nthe Church of Jerusalem the main incidents which had just been fully\nnarrated. On the one hand, the previous Jewish exclusiveness both of\nPeter and of the Church is displayed, first, in the resistance of the\nApostle, which can only be overcome by the vision and the direct order\nof the Holy Spirit, and by the manifest outpouring of the Spirit upon\nthe Centurion and his household; and second, in the contention of\nthem of the circumcision, which is only overcome by an account of the\nrepeated signs of divine purpose and approval. The universality of the\nGospel could not be more broadly proclaimed than in the address of Peter\nto Cornelius. Not the Jews alone, \"but in every nation, he that feareth\nhim and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him.\" Pauline principles\nare thus anticipated and, as we have pointed out, are expressed almost\nin the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(4) The Jews who go with\n\n{200}\n\nPeter were astonished because that on the Gentiles also had been poured\nout the gift of the Holy Spirit,(1) and the Church of Jerusalem, on\nhearing of these things, glorified God that repentance unto life had\nbeen given to the Gentiles. It is impossible that the admission of\nthe Gentiles to the privileges of the Church could be more prominently\nsignified than by this episode, introduced by prodigious miracles and\neffected by supernatural machinery. Where, however, are the consequences\nof this marvellous recognition of the Gentiles? It does not in the\nslightest degree preclude the necessity for the Council, which we shall\npresently consider; it does not apparently exercise any influence on\nJames and the Church of Jerusalem; Peter, indeed, refers vaguely to\nit, but as a matter out of date and almost forgotten; Paul, in all his\ndisputes with the emissaries of the Church of Jerusalem, in all his\npleas for the freedom of his Gentile converts, never makes the slightest\nallusion to it; it remains elsewhere unknown and, so far as any evidence\ngoes, utterly without influence upon the primitive church.(2) This will\npresently become more apparent; but already it is clear enough to those\nwho will exercise calm reason that it is impossible to consider this\nnarrative with its tissue of fruitless miracles as a historical account\nof the development of the Church.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES\n\nWe have now arrived at the point in our examination of the Acts in which\nwe have the inestimable advantage of being able to compare the narrative\nof the unknown author with the distinct statements of the Apostle Paul.\nIn doing so, we must remember that the author must have been acquainted\nwith the Epistles which are now before us, and supposing it to be his\npurpose to present a certain view of the transactions in question,\nwhether for apologetic or conciliatory reasons or for any other cause,\nit is obvious that it would not be reasonable to expect divergencies\nof so palpable a nature that any reader of the letters must at once too\nclearly perceive such contradictions. When the Acts were written, it is\ntrue, the author could not have known that the Epistles of Paul were\nto attain the high canonical position which they now occupy, and might,\ntherefore, use his materials more freely; still a certain superficial\nconsistency it would be natural to expect. Unfortunately, our means of\ntesting the statements of the author are not so minute as is desirable,\nalthough they are often of much value, and seeing the great facility\nwith which, by apparently slight alterations and omissions, a different\ncomplexion can be given to circumstances regarding which no very\n\n{202}\n\nfull details exist elsewhere, we must be prepared to seize every\nindication which may enable us to form a just estimate of the nature of\nthe writing which we are examining.\n\nIn the first two chapters of his Epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle\nPaul relates particulars regarding some important epochs of his life,\nwhich likewise enter into the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. The\nApostle gives an account of his own proceedings immediately after his\nconversion, and of the visit which about that time he paid to Jerusalem;\nand, further, of a second visit to Jerusalem fourteen years later, and\nto these we must now direct our attention. We defer consideration of the\nnarrative of the actual conversion of Paul for the present, and\nmerely intend here to discuss the movements and conduct of the Apostle\nimmediately subsequent to that event. The Acts of the Apostles represent\nPaul as making five journeys to Jerusalem subsequent to his joining the\nChristian body. The first, ix. 26 ff., takes place immediately after his\nconversion; the second, xi. 30, xii. 25, is upon an occasion when the\nChurch at Antioch are represented as sending relief to the brethren of\nJudaea by the hands of Barnabas and Saul, during a time of famine; the\nthird visit to Jerusalem, xv. 1 ff., Paul likewise pays in company with\nBarnabas, both being sent by the Church of Antioch to confer with\nthe Apostles and Elders as to the necessity of circumcision, and the\nobligation to observe the Mosaic law in the case of Gentile converts;\nthe fourth, xviii. 21 ff, when he goes to Ephesus with Priscilla and\nAquila, \"having shaved his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow;\" and\nthe fifth and last, xxi. 15 ff, when the disturbance took place in the\ntemple which led to his arrest and journey to Rome.\n\n{203}\n\nThe circumstances and general character of these visits to Jerusalem,\nand more especially of that on which the momentous conference is\ndescribed as having taken place, are stated with so much precision, and\nthey present features of such marked difference, that it might have been\nsupposed there could not have been any difficulty in identifying,\nwith certainty, at least the visits to which the Apostle refers in his\nletter, more especially as upon both occasions he mentions important\nparticulars which characterised those visits. It is a remarkable fact,\nhowever, that, such are the divergences between the statements of the\nunknown author and of the Apostle, upon no point has there been more\ndiscussion amongst critics and divines from the very earliest times,\nor more decided difference of opinion. Upon general grounds, we have\nalready seen, there has been good reason to doubt the historical\ncharacter of the Acts. Is it not a singularly suggestive circumstance\nthat, when it is possible to compare the authentic representations of\nPaul with the narrative of the Acts, even apologists perceive so much\nopening for doubt and controversy?\n\nThe visit described in the ninth chapter of the Acts is generally(1)\nidentified with that which is mentioned in the first chapter of the\nEpistle. This unanimity, however, arises mainly from the circumstance\nthat both writers clearly represent that visit as the first which Paul\npaid to Jerusalem after his conversion, for the details of the two\nnarratives are anything but in agreement with each other. Although,\ntherefore, critics are forced to agree as to the bare identity of\nthe visit, this harmony is immediately disturbed on examining the two\naccounts, and whilst the one party find the statements in the Acts\n\n     1 There have, however, been differences of opinion also\n     regarding this.\n\n{204}\n\nreconcilable with those of Paul, a large body more or less distinctly\ndeclare them to be contradictory, and unhistorical.(1) In order that the\nquestion at issue may be fairly laid before the reader, we shall give\nthe two accounts in parallel columns. [------]\n\n{205}\n\n[------]\n\nNow, it is obvious that the representation in the Acts of what Paul\ndid after his conversion differs very widely from the account which the\nApostle himself gives of the matter. In the first place, not a word is\nsaid in the former of the journey into Arabia; but, on the contrary, it\nis excluded, and the statement which replaces it directly\ncontradicts that of Paul. The Apostle says that after his conversion:\n\"Immediately(l) [------] I conferred not with flesh and blood,\" but\n\"went away into Arabia,\" The author of the Acts says that he spent\n\"some days\" [------] with the disciples in Damascus, and \"immediately\"\n[------] began to preach in the synagogues. Paul's feelings are so\ncompletely misrepresented that, instead of that desire for retirement\nand solitude which his\n\n{206}\n\nwords express,(1) he is described as straightway plunging into the\nvortex of public life in Damascus. The general apologetic explanation\nis, that the author of the Acts either was not aware of the journey\ninto Arabia, or that, his absence there having been short, he did not\nconsider it necessary to mention it There are no data for estimating the\nlength of time which Paul spent in Arabia, but the fact that the Apostle\nmentions it with so much emphasis proves not only that he attached\nconsiderable weight to the episode, but that the duration of his visit\ncould not have been unimportant. In any case, the author of the Acts,\nwhether ignorantly or not, boldly describes the Apostle as doing\nprecisely what he did not. To any ordinary reader, moreover, his whole\naccount of Paul's preaching at Damascus certainly excludes altogether\nthe idea of such a journey, and the argument that it can be. inserted\nanywhere is purely arbitrary. There are many theories amongst\napologists, however, as to the part of the narrative in Acts, in which\nthe Arabian journey can be placed. By some it is assigned to a period\nbefore he commenced his active labours, and therefore before ix. 20,(2)\nfrom which the.words of the author repulse it with singular clearness;\nothers intercalate it with even less reason between ix. 20 and 21;(3)\na few discover some indication of it in the [------] of ver. 22,(4) an\nexpression, however, which refuses to be forced into such service;\na greater number place it in the[------] of ver. 23,(5) making that\nelastic phrase embrace this as well\n\n{207}\n\nas other difficulties till it snaps under the strain. It seems evident\nto an unprejudiced reader that the [------] are represented as passed in\nDamascus.(1) And, lastly, some critics place it after ix. 25, regardless\nof Paul's statement that from Arabia he returned again to Damascus,\nwhich, under the circumstances mentioned in Acts, he was not likely to\ndo, and indeed it is obvious that he is there supposed to have at once\ngone from Damascus to Jerusalem. These attempts at reconciliation are\nuseless. It is of no avail to find time into which a journey to Arabia\nand the stay there might be forcibly thrust. There still remains the\nfact that so far from the Arabian visit being indicated in the Acts, the\n[------] of ix. 20, compared with the [------] of Gal. i. 16, positively\nexcludes it, and proves that the narrative of the former is not\nhistorical.(2)\n\nThere is another point in the account in Acts which further demands\nattention. The impression conveyed by the narrative is that Paul went\nup to Jerusalem not very long after his conversion. The omission of\nthe visit to Arabia shortens the interval before he did so, by removing\ncauses of delay, and whilst no expressions are used which imply a\nprotracted stay in Damascus, incidents are introduced which indicate\nthat the purpose of the writer was to represent the Apostle as losing no\ntime after his conversion before associating himself with the elder\n\n     3 We shall not discuss the indication given in 2 Cor. xi. 32\n     of the cause of his leaving Damascus, although several\n     contradictory statements seem to be made in it.\n\n{208}\n\nApostles and obtaining their recognition of his ministry; and this view,\nwe shall see, is confirmed by the peculiar account which is given of\nwhat took place at Jerusalem. The Apostle distinctly states, i. 18, that\nthree years after his conversion he went up to visit Peter.(1) In\nthe Acts he is represented as spending \"some days\" [------] with the\ndisciples, and the only other chronological indication given is that,\nafter \"many days\" [------], the plot occurred which forced him to leave\nDamascus. It is argued that [------] is an indefinite period, which may,\naccording to the usage of the author(2) indicate a considerable space\nof time, and certainly rather express a long than a short period.(3) The\nfact is, however, that the instances cited are evidence, in themselves,\nagainst the supposition that the author can have had any intention of\nexpressing a period of three years by the words [------]. We suppose\nthat no one has ever suggested that Peter staid three years in the house\nof Simon the tanner at Joppa (ix. 43); or, that when it is said that\nPaul remained \"many days\" at Corinth after the insurrection of the Jews,\nthe author intends to speak of some years, when in fact the [------]\ncontrasted with the expression (xviii. 11): \"he continued there a year\nand six months,\" used regarding his stay previous to that disturbance,\nevidently reduces the \"yet many days\" subsequently spent there to a very\nsmall compass. Again, has any one ever suggested that in the\n\n     1 \"The 'straightway' of ver. 16 leads to this conclusion:\n     'At first I conferred not with flesh and blood, it was only\n     after the lapse of three years that I went to Jerusalem.'\"\n     Lightfoot, Oalatians, p. 83.\n\n     3  \"The difference between the vague 'many days' of the Acts\n     and the definite 'three years' of the Epistle is such as\n     might be expected from the circumstances of the two\n     writers.\"    Lightfoot, lb., p. 89, note 3.\n\n{209}\n\naccount of Paul's voyage to Rome, where it is said (xxvii. 7) that,\nafter leaving Myrra \"and sailing slowly many days\" [------], they had\nscarcely got so far as Cnidus, an interval of months, not to say years,\nis indicated? It is impossible to suppose that, by such an expression,\nthe writer intended to indicate a period of three years.(1) That the\nnarrative of the Acts actually represents Paul as going up to Jerusalem\nsoon after his conversion, and certainly not merely at the end of three\nyears, is obvious from the statement in ver. 26, that when Paul arrived\nat Jerusalem, and was assaying to join himself to the disciples, all\nwere afraid of him, and would not believe in his conversion. The author\ncould certainly not have stated this, if he had desired to imply that\nPaul had already been a Christian, and publicly preached with so much\nsuccess at Damascus, for three years.(3) Indeed, the statements in ix.\n26 are irreconcilable with the declaration of the Apostle, whatever view\nbe taken of the previous narrative of the Acts. If it be assumed that\nthe author wishes to describe the visit to Jerusalem as taking place\nthree years after his conversion, then the ignorance of that event\namongst the brethren there and their distrust of Paul are utterly\ninconsistent and incredible; whilst if, on the other hand, he represents\nthe Apostle as going to Jerusalem with but little delay in Damascus, as\nwe contend he does, then there is no escape from the conclusion that the\nActs, whilst thus giving a narrative consistent with itself,\n\n{210}\n\ndistinctly contradicts the deliberate assertions of the Apostle. It is\nabsolutely incredible that the conversion of a well-known persecutor of\nthe Church (viii. 3 ff.), effected in a way which is represented as so\nsudden and supernatural, and accompanied by a supposed vision of the\nLord, could for three years have remained unknown to the community of\nJerusalem. So striking a triumph for Christianity must have been rapidly\ncirculated throughout the Church, and the fact that he who formerly\npersecuted was now zealously preaching the faith which once he destroyed\nmust long have been generally known in Jerusalem, which was in such\nconstant communication with Damascus.\n\nThe author of the Acts continues in the same strain, stating that\nBarnabas, under the circumstances just described, took Paul and brought\nhim to the Apostles [------], and declared to them the particulars\nof his vision and conversion, and how he had preached boldly at\nDamascus.(1) No doubt is left that this is the first intimation the\nApostles had received of such extraordinary events. After this, we\nare told that Paul was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem,\npreaching boldly in the name of the Lord. Here again the declaration\nof Paul is explicit, and distinctly contradicts this story both in the\nletter and the spirit. He makes no mention of Barnabas. He states that\nhe went to Jerusalem specially with the view of making the acquaintance\nof Peter, with whom he remained fifteen days; but he emphatically\nsays:--\"But other of the Apostles saw I not, save [------] James, the\nLord's brother;\" and then he adds the solemn declaration\n\n{211}\n\nregarding his account of this visit:--\"Now the things which I write unto\nyou, behold, before God, I lie not.\" An asseveration made in this tone\nexcludes the supposition of inaccuracy or careless vagueness, and the\nspecific statements have all the force of sworn evidence. Instead of\nbeing presented \"to the Apostles,\" therefore, and going in and out with\nthem at Jerusalem, we have here the emphatic assurance that, in addition\nto Peter, Paul saw no one except \"James, the Lord's brother.\" There has\nbeen much discussion as to the identity of this James, and whether he\nwas an apostle or not, but into this it is unnecessary for us to enter.\nMost writers agree at least that he is the same James, the head of the\nChurch at Jerusalem, whom we again frequently meet with in the Pauline\nEpistles and in the Acts, and notably in the account of the Apostolic\ncouncil. The exact interpretation to be put upon the expression [------]\nhas also been the subject of great controversy, the question being\nwhether James is here really called an apostle or not; whether [------]\nis to be understood as applying solely to the verb, in which case the\nstatement would mean that he saw no other of the Apostles, but only\nJames;(1) or to the whole phrase, which would express that he had seen\nno other of the Apostles save James.(2) It is admitted by many of those\nwho think that in this case the latter signification must be adopted\nthat grammatically either interpretation is permissible. Even supposing\nthat\n\n{212}\n\nrightly or wrongly James is here referred to as an Apostle, the\nstatement of the Acts is, in spirit, quite opposed to that of the\nEpistle; for when we are told that Paul is brought \"to the Apostles\"\n[------], the linguistic usage of the writer implies that he means much\nmore than merely Peter and James. It seems impossible to reconcile\nthe statement, ix. 27, with the solemn assurance of Paul,(1) and if we\naccept what the Apostle says as truth, and we cannot doubt it, it must\nbe admitted that the account in the Acts is unhistorical.\n\nWe arrive at the very same conclusion on examining the rest of the\nnarrative. In the Acts, Paul is represented as being with the Apostles\ngoing in and out, preaching openly in Jerusalem, and disputing with the\nGrecian Jews.(2) No limit is here put to his visit, and it is difficult\nto conceive that what is narrated is intended to describe a visit\nof merely fifteen days. A subsequent statement in the Acts, however,\nexplains and settles the point Paul is represented as declaring to King\nAgrippa, xxvi. 19 f.: \"Wherefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient\nunto the heavenly vision, but first unto those in Damascus, and\nthroughout all the region of Judaea, and to the Gentiles, I was\ndeclaring that they should repent\n\n{213}\n\nand turn to God,\" &c. However this may be, the statement of Paul does\nnot admit the interpretation of such public ministry. His express\npurpose in going to Jerusalem was, not to preach, but to make the\nacquaintance of Peter; and it was a marked characteristic of Paul to\navoid preaching in ground already occupied by the other Apostles before\nhim.(1) Not only is the account in Acts apparently excluded by such\nconsiderations and by the general tenor of the epistle, but it is\nequally so by the direct words of the Apostle (i. 22):--\"I was unknown\nby face unto the churches of Judaea.\" It is argued that the term:\n\"churches of Judaea\" excludes Jerusalem.(2) It might possibly be asserted\nwith reason that such an expression as \"the churches of Jerusalem\" might\nexclude the churches of Judaea, but to say that the Apostle, writing\nelsewhere to the Galatians of a visit to Jerusalem, and of his conduct\nat that time, intends, when speaking of the \"churches of Judaea,\" to\nexclude the principal city, seems to us arbitrary and unwarrantable. The\nwhole object of the Apostle is to show the privacy of his visit and his\nindependence of the elder Apostles. He does not use the expression as a\ncontrast to Jerusalem. Nothing in his account leads one to think of any\nenergetic preaching during the visit, and the necessity of finding\nsome way of excluding Jerusalem from the Apostle's expression is simply\nthrust upon apologists by the account in Acts. Two passages are referred\nto as supporting the exclusion of Jerusalem from \"the churches of\nJudaea.\" In John iii. 22, we read: \"After\n\n{214}\n\nthese things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea.\" In\nthe preceding chapter he is described as being at Jerusalem. We have\nalready said enough about the geographical notices of the author of the\nfourth Gospel.(1) Even those who do not admit that he was not a native\nof Palestine are agreed that he wrote in another country and for\nforeigners. \"The land of Judaea,\" was therefore a natural expression\nsuperseding the necessity of giving a more minute local indication which\nwould have been of little use. The second instance appealed to, though\nmore doubtfully,(2) is Heb. xiii. 24: \"They from Italy salute you.\"\nWe are at a loss to understand how this is supposed to support the\ninterpretation adopted. It is impossible that if Paul went in and out\nwith the Apostles, preached boldly in Jerusalem, and disputed with the\nHellenistic Jews, not to speak of what is added, Acts xxvi. 19 f., he\ncould say that he was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea. There is\nnothing, we may remark, which limits his preaching to the Grecian Jews.\nWhilst apologists maintain that the two accounts are reconcilable, many\nof them frankly admit that the account in Acts requires correction from\nthat in the Epistle;(3) but, on the other hand, a still greater number\nof critics prouounce the narrative in the Acts contradictory to the\nstatements of Paul.(4)\n\n{215}\n\nThere remains another point upon which a few remarks must be made. In\nActs ix. 29 f. the cause of Paul's hurriedly leaving Jerusalem is a plot\nof the Grecian Jews to kill him. Paul does not in the Epistle refer to\nany such matter, but, in another part of the Acts, Paul is represented\nas relating, xxii. 17 f.: \"And it came to pass, that, when I returned to\nJerusalem and was praying in the temple, I was in a trance and saw him\nsaying unto me: Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for\nthey will not receive thy witness concerning me,\" &c, &c. This account\ndiffers, therefore, even from the previous narrative in the same book,\nyet critics are agreed that the visit during which the Apostle is said\nto have seen this vision was that which we are discussing.(1) The writer\nis so little a historian working from substantial facts that he forgets\nthe details of his own previous statements; and in the account of the\nconversion of Paul, for instance, he thrice repeats the story with\nemphatic and irreconcilable contradictions. We have already observed his\npartiality for visions, and such supernatural agency is so ordinary a\nmatter with him that, in the first account of this visit, he altogether\nomits the vision, although he must have known of it then quite as much\nas on the second occasion. The Apostle, in his authentic and solemn\naccount of this visit, gives no hint of any vision, and leaves no\nsuggestion even of that public preaching which is described in the\nearlier, and referred to in the later, narrative in the Acts.(2) If we\n\n{216}\n\nhad no other grounds for rejecting the account as unhistorical this\nmiraculous vision, added as an after-thought, would have warranted our\ndoing so.\n\nPassing on now to the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, we\nfind that Paul writes:--\"Then, after fourteen years, again I went up\nto Jerusalem...\" [------]. He states the particulars of what took place\nupon the occasion of this second visit with a degree of minuteness which\nought, one might have supposed, to have left no doubt of its identity,\nwhen compared with the same visit historically described elsewhere; but\nsuch are the discrepancies between the two accounts that, as we have\nalready mentioned, the controversy upon the point has been long and\nactive.(1) The Acts, it will be remembered, relate a second visit\nof Paul to Jerusalem, after that which we have discussed, upon which\noccasion it is stated (xi. 30) that he was sent with Barnabas to convey\nto the community, during a time of famine, the contributions of the\nChurch of Antioch. The third visit of the Acts is that (xv.) when Paul\nand Barnabas are said to have been deputed to confer with the Apostles\nregarding the\n\n{217}\n\nconditions upon which Gentile converts should be admitted into the\nChristian brotherhood. The circumstances of this visit, more nearly than\nany other, correspond with those described by the Apostle himself in\nthe Epistle (ii. 1 ff.), but there are grave difficulties in the way of\nidentifying them. If this visit be identical with that described Acts\nxv., and if Paul, as he states, paid no intermediate visit to Jerusalem,\nwhat becomes of the visit interpolated in Acts xi. 30? The first point\nwhich we must endeavour to ascertain is exactly what the Apostle intends\nto say regarding the second visit which he mentions. The purpose of Paul\nis to declare his complete independence from those who were Apostles\nbefore him, and to maintain that his Gospel was not of man, but directly\nrevealed to him by Jesus Christ. In order to prove his independence,\ntherefore, he categorically states exactly what had been the extent of\nhis intercourse with the elder Apostles. He protests that, after his\nconversion, he had neither conferred with flesh and blood nor sought\nthose who had been Apostles before him, but, on the contrary, that he\nhad immediately gone away to Arabia. It was not until three years had\nelapsed that he had gone up to Jerusalem, and then only to make the\nacquaintance of Peter, with whom he had remained only fifteen days,\nduring which he had not seen other of the Apostles save James, the\nLord's brother. Only after the lapse of fourteen years did he again\ngo up to Jerusalem. It is argued(1) that when Paul says, \"he went up\nagain,\" [------], the word [------] has not the force of [------],\nand that, so far from excluding any intermediate journey, it merely\nsignifies a\n\n{218}\n\nrepetition of what had been done before, and might have been used of any\nsubsequent journey. Even if this were so, it is impossible to deny that,\nread with its context, [------] is used in immediate connection with the\nformer visit which we have just discussed. The sequence is distinctly\nmarked by the [------] \"then,\" and the adoption of the preposition\n[------]--which may properly be read \"after the lapse of,\"(1)--instead\nof [------], seems clearly to indicate that no other journey to\nJerusalem had been made in the interval. This can be maintained\nlinguistically; but the point is still more decidedly settled when the\nApostle's intention is considered. It is obvious that his purpose would\nhave been totally defeated had he passed over in silence an intermediate\nvisit. Even if, as is argued, the. visit referred to in Acts xi. 30 had\nbeen of very brief duration, or if he had not upon that occasion had\nany intercourse with the Apostles, it is impossible that he could have\nignored it under the circumstances, for by so doing he would have left\nthe retort in the power of his enemies that he had, on other occasions\nthan those which he had enumerated, been in Jerusalem and in contact\nwith the Apostles. The mere fact that a visit had been unmentioned would\nhave exposed him to the charge of having suppressed it, and suspicion is\nalways ready to assign unworthy motives. If Paul had paid such a hasty\nvisit as is suggested, he would naturally have mentioned the fact and\nstated the circumstances, whatever they were. These and other reasons\nconvince the majority of critics that the Apostle here enumerates all\nthe visits which he had paid to Jerusalem since his conversion.(2) The\nvisit referred to in Gal. ii. 1 ff.\n\n{219}\n\nmust be considered the second occasion on which the Apostle Paul went to\nJerusalem.\n\nThis being the case, can the visit be identified as the second visit\ndescribed in Acts xi. 30? The object of that journey to Jerusalem, it\nis expressly stated, was to carry to the brethren in Jerusalem the\ncontributions of the Church of Antioch during a time of famine; whereas\nPaul explicitly says that he went up to Jerusalem, on the occasion\nwe are discussing, in consequence of a revelation, to communicate the\nGospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles. There is not a word\nabout contributions. On the other hand, chronologically it is impossible\nthat the second visit of the Epistle can be the second of the Acts.\nThere is some difference of opinion as to whether the fourteen years\nare to be calculated from the date of his conversion,(1) or from\nthe previous journey.(2) The latter seems to be the more reasonable\nsupposition, but in either case it is obvious that the identity is\nexcluded. From various data,--the famine under Claudius, and the time of\nHerod Agrippa's\n\n{220}\n\ndeath,--the date of the journey referred to in Acts xi. 30 is assigned\nto about a.d. 45. If, therefore, we count back fourteen or seventeen\nyears, we have as the date of the conversion, on the first hypothesis,\na.d. 31, and on the second, a.d. 28, neither of which of course is\ntenable. In order to overcome this difficulty, critics(1) at one time\nproposed, against the unanimous evidence of MSS., to read instead of\n[------] in Gal. ii. 1, [------] \"after four years;\" but this violent\nremedy is not only generally rejected, but, even if admitted for the\nsake of argument, it could not establish the identity, inasmuch as the\nstatements in Gal. ii. 1 ff. imply a much longer period of missionary\nactivity amongst the Gentiles than Paul could possibly have had at that\ntime, about which epoch, indeed, Barnabas is said to have sought him in\nTarsus, apparently for the purpose of first commencing such a career;a\ncertainly the account of his active ministry begins in the Acts only in\nCh. xiii. Then, it is not possible to suppose that, if such a dispute\nregarding circumcision and the Gospel of the uncircumcision as is\nsketched in Gal. ii. had taken place on a previous occasion, it could\nso soon be repeated, Acts xv., and without any reference to the former\ntransaction. Comparatively few critics, therefore, have ventured to\nmaintain that the second visit recorded in the Epistle is the same\nas the second mentioned in the Acts (xi. 30), and in modern times the\ntheory is almost entirely abandoned. If, therefore, it be admitted that\nPaul mentions all the journeys which he had made to Jerusalem up to the\ntime at which he wrote, and that his second visit was not the second\nvisit\n\n{221}\n\nof the Acts, but must be placed later, it follows clearly upon the\nApostle's own assurance that the visit mentioned in Acts xi. 30,\nxii. 25, cannot have taken place and is unhistorical, and this is the\nconclusion of the majority of critics,(1) including many apologists,\nwho, whilst suggesting that, for some reason, Barnabas may alone have\ngone to Jerusalem without Paul, or otherwise deprecating any imputation\nof conscious inaccuracy to the author, still substantially confirm\nthe result that Paul did not on that occasion go to Jerusalem, and\nconsequently that the statement is not historical. On the other hand, it\nis suggested that the additional visit to Jerusalem is inserted by the\nauthor with a view to conciliation, by representing that Paul was in\nconstant communication with the Apostles and community of Jerusalem, and\nthat he acted with their approval and sympathy. It is scarcely possible\nto observe the peculiar variations between the narratives of the Acts\nand of Paul without feeling that the author of the former deliberately\nsacrifices the independence and individuality of the great Apostle of\nthe Gentiles.\n\nThe great mass of critics agree in declaring that the\n\n{222}\n\nsecond visit described in the Epistle is identical with the third\nrecorded in the Acts (xv.), although a wide difference of opinion exists\namongst them as to the historical value of the account contained in the\nlatter. This general agreement renders it unnecessary for us to enter at\nany length into the arguments which establish the identity, and we shall\ncontent ourselves with very concisely stating some of the chief reasons\nfor this conclusion. The date in both cases corresponds, whilst there\nare insuperable chronological objections to identifying the second\njourney of the Epistle with any earlier or later visit mentioned in\nActs. We have referred to other reasons against its being placed earlier\nthan the third visit of Acts, and there are still stronger objections\nto its being dated after the third. It is impossible, considering the\nobject of the Apostle, that he could have passed over in silence such a\nvisit as that described Acts xv., and the only alternative would be\nto date it later than the composition of the Epistle, to which the\nnarrative of the Acts as well as all other known facts would be\nirreconcilably opposed. On the other hand, the date, the actors, the\ncause of dispute, and probably the place (Antioch) in which that dispute\noriginated, so closely correspond, that it is incredible that such a\ncoincidence of circumstances should again have occurred.\n\n\"Without anticipating our comparison of the two accounts of this visit,\nwe must here at least remark that the discrepancies are so great that\nnot only have apologetic critics, as we have indicated, adopted the\ntheory that the second visit of the Epistle is not the same as the third\nof the Acts, but is identical with the second (xi. 30), of which so few\nparticulars are given, but\n\n{223}\n\nsome, and notably Wieseler,(1) have maintained it to have been the same\nas that described in Acts xviii. 21 ff., whilst Paley and others(2)\nhave been led to the hypothesis that the visit in question does not\ncorrespond with any of the visits actually recorded in the Acts, but is\none which is not referred to at all in that work. These\n\n{224}\n\ntheories have found very little favour, however, and we mention them\nsolely to complete our statement of the general controversy. Considering\nthe fulness of the report of the visit in Acts xv. and the peculiar\nnature of the facts stated by the Apostle himself in his letter to the\nGalatians, the difficulty of identifying the particular visit referred\nto is a phenomenon which cannot be too much considered. Is it possible,\nif the narrative in the Acts were really historically accurate, that any\nreasonable doubt could ever have existed as to its correspondence with\nthe Apostle's statements? We may here at once say that, although many of\nthe critics who finally decide that the visit described in Acts xv. is\nthe same as that referred to in the second chapter of the Epistle\nargue that the obvious discrepancies and contradictions between the two\naccounts may be sufficiently explained and reconciled, this is for very\nstrong reasons disputed,1 and the narrative in the Acts, when tested\nby the authentic statements of the Apostle, pronounced inaccurate and\nunhistorical.\n\nIt is only necessary to read the two accounts in order to understand\nthe grounds upon which even apologists like Paley and Wieseler feel\nthemselves compelled\n\n{225}\n\nto suppose that the Apostle is describing transactions which occurred\nduring some visit either unmentioned or not fully related in the\nActs, rather than identify it with the visit reported in the fifteenth\nchapter, from which it so essentially differs. A material difference is\nnot denied by any one, and explanations with a view to reconciliation\nhave never been dispensed with. Thiersch, who has nothing better than\nthe usual apologetic explanations to offer, does not hesitate to avow\nthe apparent incongruities of the two narratives. \"The journey,\" he\nsays, \"is the same, but no human ingenuity can make out that also the\nconference and the decree resulting from it are the same.\"(1) Of course\nhe supposes that the problem is to be solved by asserting that\nthe Apostle speaks of the private, the historian of the public,\ncircumstances of the visit. All who maintain the historical character of\nthe Acts must of course more or less thoroughly adopt this argument, but\nit is obvious that, in doing so, they admit on the one hand the general\ndiscrepancy, and on the other, if successful in establishing their\nposition, they could do no more than show that the Epistle does not\nabsolutely exclude the account in the Acts. Both writers profess to\ndescribe events which occurred during the same visit; both record\nmatters of the highest interest closely bearing on the same subject; yet\nthe two accounts are so different from each other that they can only be\nrescued from complete antagonism by complete separation. Supposing the\nauthor of the Acts to be really acquainted with the occurrences of this\nvisit, and to have intended to give a plain unvarnished account of them,\nthe unconscious ingenuity with which he has omitted the important facts\nmentioned by Paul and\n\n{226}\n\neliminated the whole of the Apostle's individuality would indeed be as\nremarkable as it is unfortunate. But supposing the Apostle Paul to have\nbeen aware of the formal proceedings narrated in the Acts, characterized\nby such unanimity and liberal Christian feeling, it would be still more\nastonishing and unfortunate that he has not only silently passed them\nover, but has conveyed so singularly different an impression of his\nvisit.(1) As the Apostle certainly could not have been acquainted with\nthe Acts, his silence regarding the council and its momentous decree,\nas well as his ignorance of the unbroken harmony which prevailed are\nperfectly intelligible. He of course only knew and described what\nactually occurred. The author of the Acts, however, might and must have\nknown the Epistle to the Galatians, and the ingenuity with which the\ntone and details of the authentic report are avoided or transfigured\ncannot be ascribed to mere accident, but must largely be attributed to\ndesign, although also partly, it may be, to the ignorance and the pious\nimagination of a later age. Is it possible, for instance, that the\ncontroversy regarding the circumcision of Titus, and the dispute with\nPeter at Antioch, which are so prominently related in the Epistle, but\npresent a view so different from the narrative of Acts, can have been\nundesignedly omitted? The violent apologetic reconciliation which is\neffected between the two accounts is based upon the foregone conclusion\nthat the author of the canonical Acts, however he may seem to deviate\nfrom the Apostle, cannot possibly contradict him or be\n\n     1 \"Our difficulty in reading this page of history arises not\n     so much from the absence of light as from the perplexity of\n     cross lights. The narratives of St. Luke and St. Paul only\n     then cease to conflict, when we take into account the\n     different positions of the writers and the different objects\n     they had in view.\"   Lightfoot, St Paul's Ep. to the Gal.,\n     p. 294.\n\n{227}\n\nin error; but the preceding examination has rendered such a position\nuntenable, and here we have not to do with a canonized \"St. Luke,\" but\nwith an unknown writer whose work must be judged by the ordinary rules\nof criticism.\n\nAccording to the Acts, a most serious question is raised at Antioch.\nCertain men from Judaea came thither teaching: \"Except ye have been\ncircumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved.\" After much\ndissension and disputation the Church of Antioch appoint that Paul and\nBarnabas, \"and certain others of them\" shall go up to Jerusalem unto the\nApostles and elders about this question. The motive of the journey is\nhere most distinctly and definitely described. Paul is solemnly deputed\nby the church to lay before the mother Church of Jerusalem a\ndifficult question, upon the answer to which turns the whole future of\nChristianity. Paul's account, however, gives a very different complexion\nto the visit:--\"Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem\nwith Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. But I went up according to\nrevelation [------] and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach\namong the Gentiles,\" &c. Paley might well say:--\"This is not very\nreconcilable.\"(1) It is argued,(2) that the two\n\n{228}\n\nstatements may supplement each other; that the revelation may have been\nmade to the Church of Antioch and have led to the mission; or that,\nbeing made to Paul, it may have decided him to undertake it. If however,\nwe admit that the essence of truth consists not in the mere letter but\nin the spirit of what is stated, it seems impossible to reconcile these\naccounts. It might be granted that a historian, giving a report of\nevents which had occurred, might omit some secret motive actuating the\nconduct even of one of the principal persons with whom he has to do; but\nthat the Apostle, under the actual circumstances, and while protesting:\n\"Now the things which I am writing unto you, behold, before God, I lie\nnot!\" should altogether suppress the important official character of\nhis journey to Jerusalem, and give it the distinct colour of a visit\nvoluntarily and independently made [------], is inconceivable. As we\nproceed, it will become apparent that the divergence between the\ntwo accounts is systematic and fundamental; but we may here so far\nanticipate as to point out that the Apostle explicitly excludes an\nofficial visit not only by stating an \"inward motive,\" and omitting all\nmention of a public object, but by the expression:--\"and communicated\nto them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to\nthose who,\" &c. To quote Paley's words: \"If by 'that Gospel,' he meant\nthe immunity of the Gentile Christians from the Jewish law (and I know\nnot what else it can mean), it is not easy to conceive how he should\ncommunicate that privately, which was the subject of his public\nmessage;\"(1) and\n\n{229}\n\nwe may add, how he should so absolutely alter the whole character of his\nvisit. In the Acts, he is an ambassador charged with a most important\nmission; in the Epistle, he is Paul the Apostle, moved solely by his own\nreasons again to visit Jerusalem. The author of the Acts, however, who\nis supposed to record only the external circumstances, when tested is\nfound to do so very imperfectly, for he omits all mention of Titus, who\nis conjectured to be tacitly included in the \"certain others of them,\"\nwho were appointed by the Church to accompany Paul, and he is\naltogether silent regarding the strenuous effort to enforce the rite of\ncircumcision in his case, upon which the Apostle lays so much stress.\nThe Apostle, who throughout maintains his simply independent attitude,\nmentions his taking Titus with him as a purely voluntary act, and\ncertainly conveys no impression that he also was delegated by the\nChurch. We shall presently see how significant the suppression of Titus\nis in connection with the author's transformation of the circumstances\nof the visit. In affirming that he went up \"according to revelation,\"\nPaul proceeds in the very spirit in which he began to write this\nepistle. He continues simply to assert his independence, and equality\nwith the elder Apostles. In speaking of his first journey he has this\nobject in view, and he states precisely the duration of his visit and\nwhom he saw. If he had suppressed the official character of this second\nvisit and the fact that he submitted for the decision of the Apostles\nand elders the question of the immunity of the Gentile converts from\ncircumcision, and thus curtly ascribed his going to a revelation, he\nwould have compromised himself in a very serious manner, and exposed\nhimself to a charge of disingenuousness of which his enemies would not\nhave\n\n{230}\n\nfailed to take advantage. But, whether we consider the evidence of the\nApostle himself in speaking of this visit, the absence of all external\nallusion to the supposed proceedings when reference to them would have\nbeen not only most appropriate but was almost necessary, the practical\ncontradiction of the whole narrative implied in the subsequent conduct\nof Peter at Antioch, or the inconsistency of the conduct attributed in\nit to Paul himself, we are forced back to the natural conclusion that\nthe Apostle does not suppress anything, and does not give so absurdly\npartial an account of his visit as would be the case if the narrative\nin the Acts be historical, but that, in a few rapid powerful lines, he\ncompletes a suggestive sketch of its chief characteristics. This\nbecomes more apparent at every step we take in our comparison of the two\nnarratives.\n\nIf we pass on to the next stage of the proceedings, we find an equally\nstriking divergence between the two writers, and it must not escape\nattention that the variations are not merely incidental but are thorough\nand consecutive. According to the Acts, there was a solemn congress held\nin Jerusalem, on which occasion the Apostles and elders and the Church\nbeing assembled, the question whether it was necessary that the Gentiles\nshould be circumcised and bound to keep the law of Moses was fully\ndiscussed, and a formal resolution finally adopted by the meeting. The\nproceedings in fact constitute what has always been regarded as the\nfirst Council of the Christian Church. The account in the Epistle does\nnot seem to betray any knowledge of such a congress.(1) The Apostle\nhimself says merely:--\"But I\n\n{231}\n\nwent according to revelation and communicated to them [------] the\nGospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which\nseemed (to be something) [------].\"(1) The usual apologetic explanation,\nas we have already mentioned, is that whilst more or less distinctly\nthe author of Acts indicates private conferences, and Paul a public\nassembly, the former chiefly confines his attention to the general\ncongress and the latter to the more private incidents of his visit.(2)\nThe opinion that the author of Acts \"alludes in a general way to\nconferences and discussions preceding the congress,\"(3) is based upon\nthe statement xv. 4, 5: \"And when they came to Jerusalem they were\nreceived by the Church and by the Apostles and the elders, and declared\nall that God did with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the\nPharisees, who believed, saying: That it is necessary to circumcise them\nand to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the Apostles and the\nelders came together to see regarding this matter. And when there had\nbeen much disputation, Peter rose up and said,\" &c. If it were admitted\nthat more than one meeting is here indicated, it is clear that the words\ncannot be legitimately strained into a reference to more\n\n{232}\n\nthan two conferences. The first of these is a general meeting of the\nApostles and elders and of the Church to receive the delegates from\nAntioch, and the second is an equally general and public conference\n(verse 6): not only are the Apostles and elders present but also the\ngeneral body of Christians, as clearly appears from the statement (ver.\n12) that, after the speech of Peter, \"all the multitude [------]\nkept silence.\"(l) The \"much disputation\" evidently takes place on the\noccasion when the Apostles and elders are gathered together to consider\nthe matter. If, therefore, two meetings can be maintained from the\nnarrative in Acts, both are emphatically public and general, and\nneither, therefore, the private conference of the Epistle. The main fact\nthat the author of the Acts describes a general congress of the Church\nas taking place is never called in question.\n\nOn the other hand, few who appreciate the nature of the discrepancy\nwhich we are discussing will feel that the difficulty is solved by\nsuggesting that there is space for the insertion of other incidents in\nthe Apostle's narrative. It is rather late now to interpolate a general\nCouncil of the Church into the pauses of the Galatian letter. To suppose\nthat the communications of Paul to the \"Pillar\" Apostles, and the\ndistressing debate regarding the circumcision of Titus, may be inferred\nbetween the lines of the account in the Acts, is a bold effort of\nimagination; but it is far from being as hopeless as an attempt to\nreconcile the discrepancy by thrusting the important public congress\ninto some corner of the\n\n{233}\n\nApostle's statement. In so far as any argument is advanced in support\nof the assertion that Paul's expression implies something more than the\nprivate conference, it is based upon the reference intended in the words\n[------]. When Paul says he went up to Jerusalem and communicated \"to\nthem\" his Gospel, but privately [------], whom does he mean to indicate\nby the [------]? Does he refer to the Christian community of Jerusalem,\nor to the Apostles themselves? It is pretty generally admitted that\neither application is permissible; but whilst a majority of apologetic,\ntogether with some independent, critics adopt the former,(1) not a few\nconsider, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Calvin did before them, that\nPaul more probably referred to the Apostles.(2) In favour of the former\nthere is the fact, it is argued, that the [------] is used immediately\nafter the statement that the Apostle went up \"to Jerusalem,\" and that it\nmay be more natural to conclude that he speaks of the Christians there,\nmore especially as he seems to distinguish between the communication\nmade [------] and [------];(3) and, in support of this, \"they\"\n\n{234}\n\nin Gal. i. 23, 24, is, though we think without propriety, referred\nto. It is, on the other hand, urged that it is very unlikely that\nthe Apostle would in such a way communicate his Gospel to the whole\ncommunity, and that in the expressions used he indicates no special\ntransaction, but that the [------] is merely an indefinite statement\nfor which he immediately substitutes the more precise [------](1) It\nis quite certain that there is no mention of the Christian community of\nJerusalem to which the [------] can with any real grammatical necessity be\nreferred; but when the whole purport of the first part of the Apostle's\nletter is considered the reference to the Apostles in the [------]\nbecomes clearer. Paul is protesting the independence of his Gospel, and\nthat he did not receive it from man but from Jesus Christ. He wishes to\nshow that he was not taught by the Apostles nor dependent upon them.\nHe states that after his conversion he did not go to those who were\nApostles before him, but, on the contrary, went away to Arabia, and only\nthree years after he went up to Jerusalem, and then only for the purpose\nof making the acquaintance of Peter, and on that occasion other of\nthe Apostles saw he none save James the Lord's brother. After fourteen\nyears, he continues to recount, he again went up to Jerusalem, but\naccording to revelation, and communicated to them, i.e. to the Apostles,\nthe Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. The Apostles\n\n{235}\n\nhave been in the writer's mind throughout, but in the impetuous flow of\nhis ideas, which in the first two chapters of this epistle outrun the\npen, the sentences become involved. It must be admitted, finally,\nthat the reference intended is a matter of opinion and cannot be\nauthoritatively settled. If we suppose it to refer to the community of\nJerusalem, taking thus the more favourable construction, how would\nthis affect the question? Can it be maintained that in this casual and\nindefinite \"to them\" we have any confirmation of the general congress\nof the Acts, with its debates, its solemn settlement of that momentous\nproposition regarding the Gentile Christians, and its important decree?\nIt is impossible to credit that, in saying that he \"communicated to\nthem\" the Gospel which he preached amongst the Gentiles, the Apostle\nreferred to a Council like that described in the Acts, to which, as a\ndelegate from the Church of Antioch, he submitted the question of the\nconditions upon which the Gentiles were to be admitted into the Church,\nand tacitly accepted their decision.(1) Even if it be assumed that the\nApostle makes this slight passing allusion to some meeting different\nfrom his conference with the pillar Apostles, it could not have been\na general congress assembled for the purpose stated in the Acts and\ncharacterised by such proceedings. The discrepancy between the two\nnarratives is not lessened by any supposed indication either in the\nEpistle or in the Acts of other incidents than those actually described.\nThe suggestion that the dispute about Titus involved some\n\n{236}\n\npublicity does not avail, for the greater the publicity and importance\nof the episode the greater the difficulty of explaining the total\nsilence regarding it of the author of Acts. The more closely the two\nstatements are compared the more apparent does it become that the author\ndescribes proceedings which are totally different in general character,\nin details, and in spirit, from those so vividly sketched by the Apostle\nPaul.\n\nWe shall have more to say presently regarding the irreconcilable\ncontradiction in spirit between the whole account which is given in\nthe Acts of this Council and the writings of Paul; but it may be more\nconvenient, if less effective, if we for the present take the chief\npoints in the narrative as they arise and consider how far they are\nsupported or discredited by other data. We shall refer later to the\nmanner in which the question which leads to the Council is represented\nas arising and at once proceed to the speech of Peter. After there\nhad been much disputation as to whether the Gentile Christians must\nnecessarily be circumcised and required to observe the Mosaic law, it is\nstated that Peter rose up and said: xv. 7. \"Men (and) brethren, ye know\nthat a good while ago God made choice among you that the Gentiles by my\nmouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. 8. And God which\nknoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit\neven as unto us; 9. and put no distinction between us and them, having\npurified their hearts by the faith. 10. Now, therefore, why tempt ye\nGod, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our\nfathers nor we were able to bear? 11. But by the grace of our Lord Jesus\nwe believe we are saved even as also they.\"(1)\n\n{237}\n\nThe liberality of the sentiments thus put into the mouth of Peter\nrequires no demonstration, and there is here an explicit expression\nof convictions, which we must, from his own words, consider to be the\npermanent and mature views of the Apostle, dating as they do \"from\nancient days\" [------] and originating in so striking and supernatural\na manner. We may, therefore, expect that whenever we meet with an\nauthentic record of Peter's opinions and conduct elsewhere, they should\nexhibit the impress of such advanced and divinely imparted views. The\nstatement which Peter makes: that God had a good while before selected\nhim that the Gentiles by his voice should hear the Gospel, is of course\na reference to the case of Cornelius, and this unites the fortunes of\nthe speech and proceedings of the Council with that episode. We have\nseen how little ground there is for considering that narrative, with its\nelaborate tissue of miracles, historical. The speech which adopts it\nis thus discredited, and all other circumstances confirm the conclusion\nthat the speech is not authentic.(1) If the name of Peter were erased\nand that of Paul substituted, the sentiments expressed would be\nsingularly appropriate. We should have the\n\n{238}\n\ndivinely appointed Apostle of the Gentiles advocating complete immunity\nfrom the Mosaic law, and enunciating Pauline principles in peculiarly\nPauline terms. When Peter declares that \"God put no distinction between\nus (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith,(1) but\nby the grace [------] of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe we are saved\neven as also they,\" do we not hear Paul's sentiments, so elaborately\nexpressed in the Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere? \"For there is no\ndifference between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord of all is rich unto\nall that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the\nLord shall be saved\"(2).... \"justified freely by his grace [------]\nthrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.\"(3) And when Peter\nexclaims: \"Why tempt ye God to put a yoke [------] upon the neck of the\ndisciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?\" have we\nnot rather a paraphrase of the words in the Epistle to the Galatians?\n\"With liberty Christ made us free; stand fast, therefore, and be not\nentangled again in a yoke [------] of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto\nyou that if ye be circumcised Christ will profit you nothing. But I\ntestify again to every man who is circumcised that he is a debtor to\ndo the whole law.(4)... For as many as are of works of law are under a\ncurse,\" &c(5) These are only a few sentences of which the speech in\nActs is an echo, but no attentive reader can fail to perceive that it\ncontains in germ the whole of Pauline universalism.\n\n{239}\n\nFrom the Pauline author of the Acts this might fairly be expected, and\nif we linguistically examine the speech, we have additional evidence\nthat it is simply, like others which we have considered, a composition\nfrom his own pen. We shall, as briefly as possible, refer to every word\nwhich is not of too common occurrence to require notice, and point out\nwhere they are elsewhere used. The opening [------] occurs elsewhere in\nthe Acts 13 times, as we have already pointed out, being the favourite\nphrase placed in the mouth of all speakers; [------], x. 28, xviii. 25,\nxix. 15, 25, xx. 18, xxii. 19, xxiv. 10, xxvi. 3, 26, and elsewhere only\n5 times. The phrase [------] at the beginning of a sentence has been\npointed out, in connection with a similar way of expressing the personal\npronoun in x. 28, [------], and [------], as consequently characteristic\nof Peter, and considered \"important as showing that these reports\nare not only according to the _sense_ of what was said, but the words\nspoken, _verbatim_.\"(1) This is to overlook the fact that the very same\nwords are put into the mouth of Paul. Peter commences his speech, xv.\n7: [------] Paul begins his speech at Miletus, xx. 18: [------]; and\nat Ephesus, Demetrius the silversmith commences his address, xix. 25:\n[------] Cf. xxiii. 15. [------], xv. 21, xxi. 16; Luke ix. 8, 19;\nelsewhere 6 times; the expression [------] does not elsewhere occur in\nthe New Testament, but [------] is common in the Septuagint. Cf. Ps.\nxliii. 1, lxxvi. 5, cxlii. 5, Isaiah xxxvii. 26, Lament, i. 7, ii. 17,\n&c, &c. [------], i. 2, 24, vi. 5, xiii. 17, xv. 22, 25; Luke\n\n{240}\n\n4 times, elsewhere 11 times, and of these the following with inf., Act*\ni. 24 f., xv. 22, 25, Ephes. L 4. With the phrase [------](1) may be\ncompared that of Paul, xiii. 17,[------], and 1 Cor. i. 27, in which\n[------] occurs twice, as well as again in the next verse, 28. [------]\ni. 16, in. 18, 21; iv. 25; Luke i. 70; and the whole phrase [------],\nmay be compared with the words put into Paul's mouth, xxii. 14: [------]\nxx. 24, in Paul's Epistles (4) 33 times, and elsewhere 42 times. Verse\n8. [------] only occurs here and in i. 24, [------] where it forms part\nof the prayer at the election of the successor to Judas. We have fully\nexamined the speech of Peter, i. 16 ffi, and shown its unhistorical\ncharacter, and that it is a free composition by the author of the Acts;\nthe prayer of the assembly is not ascribed to Peter in the work itself,\nthough apologists, grasping at the [------], assert that it must have\nbeen delivered by that Apostle; but, with the preceding speech, the\nprayer also must be attributed to the pen of the author; and if it be\nmaintained that Peter spoke in the Aramaic tongue(2) it is useless to\ndiscuss the word at all, which of course in that case must be allowed to\nbelong to the author. [------], Acts 12- times, Luke 2, rest frequently;\nwith the phrase [------] may be compared Paul's words in xiii. 22,\n[------]. Verse 9, [------], x. 20, xi. 2, 12, Paul 7 times, &c\n\n{241}\n\n[------], xii. 6, xiii. 42; Luke xi. 51, xvi. 26; rest 4 times.\n[------], Acts 27 times, Luke 3, Paul 9, rest 15 times; re...\n[------]Acts 33 times, Luke 5, Paul 4, rest 10 times--[------] is\nclearly characteristic of the author, [------], Acts 15, Luke 11 times,\nrest very frequently. [------], x. 15, xi. 9; Luke 7, and elsewhere\n20 times, [------], x. 33, xvi. 36, xxiii. 15; an expression not found\nelsewhere in the New Testament, and which is also indicative of the\nAuthor's composition. Verse 10, [------], v. 9, xvi. 7, xxiv. 6; Luke\niv. 2, xi. 16, xx. 23, rest frequently; the question of Jesus in Luke\nand the parallel passages, [------]; will occur to every one. [------],\nActs 12, Luke 6 times, the rest frequently. [------] does not occur\nelsewhere, either in the Acts or third Gospel, but it is used precisely\nin the same sense by Paul, Gal. v. 1, in a passage to which we have\ncalled attention a few pages back(1) in connection with this speech.\n[------], xx. 37, Luke xv. 20, xvii. 2; Romans xvi. 4, Matth. xviii.\n6, Mark ix. 42; [------] occurs 4 times, [------], vi. 10, xix. 16, 20,\nxxv. 7, xxvii. 16; Luke 8 times and elsewhere 15 times. [------], iii.\n2, ix. 15, xxi. 35; Luke 5, Paul 6, rest 12 times. Verse 11, [------]\nActs 1? times, Luke 8, Paul 61 times, rest frequently. [------], Acts\n38, Luke 9 times, rest frequently. [------], Acts 12, Luke 18 times,\nrest frequently, [------], is also put into the mouth of Paul, xxvii.\n25, and is not elsewhere found in the New Testament; [------], i. 11,\nvii. 28; Luke xiii. 34; Matth. xxiii. 37, 2 Tim. iii. 8. [------], v.\n37, xviii. 19; Luke xi. 7, 2, xx. 11, xxii. 12 and elsewhere in the\nNew Testament 17 times. It cannot be doubted that the language of this\nspeech is that of the author of the Acts, and no serious attempt has\never\n\n{242}\n\nbeen made to show that it is the language of Peter. If it be asserted\nthat, in the form before us, it is a translation, there is not the\nslightest evidence to support the assertion; and it has to contend with\nthe unfortunate circumstance that, in the supposed process, the words of\nPeter have not only become the words of the author, but his thoughts the\nthoughts of Paul.\n\nWe may now inquire whether we find in authentic records of the Apostle\nPeter's conduct and views any confirmation of the liberality which is\nattributed to him in the Acts. He is here represented as proposing the\nemancipation of Gentile Converts from the Mosaic law: does this accord\nwith the statements of the Apostle Paul and with such information as we\ncan elsewhere gather regarding Peter? Very much the contrary.\n\nPeter in this speech claims that, long before, God had selected him\nto make known the Gospel to the Gentiles, but Paul emphatically\ndistinguishes him as the Apostle of the Circumcision; and although,\naccepting facts which had actually taken place and could not be\nprevented, Peter with James and John gave Paul right hands of\nfellowship, he remained, as he had been before, Apostle of the\nCircumcision(1) and, as we shall see. did not practise the liberality\nwhich he is said to have preached. Very shortly after the Council\ndescribed in the Acts, there occurred the celebrated dispute between\nhim and Paul which the latter proceeds to describe immediately after\nthe visit to Jerusalem: \"But when Cephas came to Antioch,\" he writes, \"I\nwithstood him to the face, for he was condemned. For before certain\ncame from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he\nwithdrew and separated himself,\n\n{243}\n\nfearing those of the Circumcision. And the other Jews also joined in\nhis hypocrisy, insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their\nhypocrisy. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to\nthe truth of the Gospel, I said unto Cephas before all: If thou being\na Jew livest [------] after the manner of Gentiles and not after the\nmanner of Jews, how compellest [------] thou the Gentiles to adopt the\ncustoms of the Jews? [------]\"(1)\n\nIt is necessary to say a few words as to the significance of Peter's\nconduct and of Paul's rebuke, regarding which there is some difference\nof opinion.(2) Are we to understand from this that Peter, as a general\nrule, at Antioch and elsewhere, with enlightened emancipation from\nJewish prejudices, lived as a Gentile and in full communion with Gentile\nChristians?(3) Meyer(4) and others argue that by the use of the present\n[------], the Apostle indicates a continuous practice based upon\nprinciple, and that the [------] is not the mere moral life, but\nincludes the external social observances of Christian community: the\nobject, in fact, being to show that upon principle Peter held the\nadvanced liberal views of Paul, and that the fault which he committed\nin withdrawing from free intercourse with the Gentile Christians was\nmomentary, and merely the result of \"occasional timidity and weakness.\"\nThis theory cannot bear the test of examination. The account of Paul is\nclearly this: _when Cephas came to Antioch_, the\n\n{244}\n\nstronghold of Gentile Christianity, _before certain men came from\nJames_, he ate with the Gentiles, but as soon as these emissaries\narrived he withdrew, \"fearing those of the circumcision.\" Had his normal\ncustom been to live like the Gentiles, how is it possible that he\ncould, on this occasion only, have feared those of the circumcision?\nHis practice must have been notorious; and had he, moreover, actually\nexpressed such opinions in the congress of Jerusalem, his confession of\nfaith having been so publicly made, and so unanimously approved by\nthe Church, there could not have been any conceivable cause for such\ntimidity. The fact evidently is, on the contrary, that Peter, under the\ninfluence of Paul, was induced for the time to hold free communion with\nthe Gentile Christians; but as soon as the emissaries of James appeared\non the scene, he became alarmed at this departure from his principles,\nand fell back again into his normal practice. If the present [------]\nbe taken to indicate continuous habit of life, the present [------]\nvery much more than neutralizes it. Paul with his usual uncompromising\nfrankness rebukes the vacillation of Peter: by adopting even for a\ntime fellowship with the Gentiles, Peter has practically recognised\nits validity, has been guilty of hypocrisy in withdrawing from his\nconcession on the arrival of the followers of James, and is condemned;\nbut after such a concession he cannot legitimately demand that Gentile\nConverts should \"judaize.\" It is obvious that whilst Peter lived as\na Gentile, he could not have been compelling the Gentiles to adopt\nJudaism. Paul, therefore, in saying: \"Why compellest thou [------] the\nGentiles to adopt the customs of the Jews? [------],\" very distinctly\nintimates that the normal practice of Peter was to compel\n\n{245}\n\nGentile Christians to adopt Judaism. There is no escaping this\nconclusion for, after all specious reasoning to the contrary is\nexhausted, there remains the simple fact that Peter, when placed in a\ndilemma on the arrival of the emissaries of James, and forced to decide\nwhether he will continue to live as a Gentile or as a Jew, adopts the\nlatter alternative, and as Paul tells us \"compels\" (in the present) the\nGentiles to judaize. A stronger indication of his views could scarcely\nhave been given. Not a word is said which implies that Peter yielded to\nthe vehement protests of Paul, but on the contrary we must undoubtedly\nconclude that he did not; for it is impossible to suppose that Paul\nwould not have stated a fact so pertinent to his argument, had the elder\nApostle been induced by his remonstrance to walk uprightly according\nto the truth of the Gospel which Paul preached, and both to teach and\npractice Christian universalism. We shall have abundant reason, apart\nfrom this, to conclude that Peter did not yield, and it is no false\nindication of this, that, a century after, we find the Clementine\nHomilies expressing the bitterness of the Petrine party against the\nApostle of the Gentiles for this very rebuke, and representing Peter\nas following his course from city to city for the purpose of refuting\nPaul's unorthodox teaching.\n\nIt is contended that Peter's conduct at Antioch is in harmony with his\ndenial of his master related in the Gospels, and, therefore, that such\nmomentary and characteristic weakness might well have been displayed\neven after his adoption of liberal principles. Those who argue in this\nway, however, forget that the denial of Jesus, as described in the\nGospels, proceeded from the fear of death, and that such a reply to a\nmerely compromising question\n\n{246}\n\nwhich did not directly involve principles, is a very different thing\nfrom conduct like that at Antioch where, under one influence, a line\nof action was temporarily adopted which ratified views upon which the\nopinion of the Church was divided, and then abandoned merely from fear\nof the disapproval of those of the Circumcision. The author of the Acts\npasses over this altercation in complete silence. No one has ever called\nin question the authenticity of the account which Paul gives of it. If\nPeter had the courage to make such a speech at the Council in the very\ncapital of Judaic Christianity, and in the presence of James and\nthe whole Church, how could he possibly, from fear of a few men from\nJerusalem, have shown such pusillanimity in Antioch, where Paul and\nthe mass of Christians supported him? If the unanimous decision of the\nCouncil had really been a fact, how easily he might have silenced any\nobjections by an appeal to that which had \"seemed good to the Holy\nSpirit\" and to the Church! But there is not the slightest knowledge of\nthe Council and its decree betrayed either by those who came from James,\nor by Peter, or Paul. The episode at Antioch is inconsistent with the\nconduct and words ascribed to Peter in the Acts, and contradicts the\nnarrative in the fifteenth chapter which we are examining.(1)\n\nThe author of the Acts states that after Peter had spoken, \"all the\nmultitude kept silence and were hearing\n\n{247}\n\nBarnabas and Paul declaring what signs and wonders God had wrought among\nthe Gentiles by them.\"(1) We shall not at present pause to consider\nthis statement, nor the _role_ which Paul is made to play in the whole\ntransaction, beyond pointing out that, on an occasion when such a\nsubject as the circumcision of the Gentiles and their subjection to the\nMosaic law was being discussed, nothing could be more opposed to\nnature than to suppose that a man like the author of the Epistle to the\nGalatians could have assumed so passive, and subordinate an attitude.(2)\nAfter Barnabas and Paul had spoken, James is represented as saying: \"Men\n(and) brethren, hear me. Simeon declared how God at first did visit the\nGentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this agree\nthe words of the prophets; as it is written: 'After this I will return,\nand will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen down;\nand I will build again the ruins thereof, and will set it up: that the\nresidue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom\nmy name has been called, saith the Lord who doeth these things, known\nfrom the beginning.' Wherefore, I judge that we trouble not those from\namong the Gentiles who are turning to God; but that we write unto them\nthat they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication,\nand from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations\nof old hath in every city those who preach him, being read in the\nsynagogues every Sabbath.\"(3) There are many reasons for which this\n\n{248}\n\nspeech also must be pronounced inauthentic.(1) It may be observed, in\npassing, that James completely disregards the statement which Barnabas\nand Paul are supposed to make as to what God had wrought by them among\nthe Gentiles; and, ignoring their intervention, he directly refers to\nthe preceding speech of Peter claiming to have first been selected to\nconvert the Gentiles. We shall reserve discussion of the conditions\nwhich James proposes to impose upon Gentile Christians till we come to\nthe apostolic decree which embodies them.\n\nThe precise signification of the sentence with which (ver. 21) he\nconcludes has been much debated, but need not detain us long. Whatever\nmay be said of the liberal part of the speech it is obvious that the\nauthor has been more true to the spirit of the time in conceiving this\nand other portions of it, than in composing the speech of Peter. The\ncontinued observance of the Mosaic ritual, and the identity of the\nsynagogue with the Christian Church are correctly indicated; and when\nJames is again represented (xxi. 20 ff.) as advising Paul to join those\nwho had avow, in order to prove that he himself walked orderly and was\nan observer of the law, and did not teach the Jews to apostatize from\nMoses and abandon the rite of circumcision, he is consistent in\nhis portrait It is nevertheless clear that, however we may read the\nrestrictions which\n\n{249}\n\nJames proposes to impose upon Gentile Christians, the author of Acts\nintends them to be considered as a most liberal and almost complete\nconcession of immunity. \"I judge,\" he makes James say, \"that we trouble\nnot those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God;\" and again, on\nthe second occasion of which we have just been speaking, in referring\nto the decree, a contrast is drawn between the Christian Jews, from\nwhom observance of the law is demanded, and the Gentiles, who are only\nexpected to follow the prescriptions of the decree.\n\nJames is represented as supporting the statement of Peter how God\nvisited the Gentiles by \"the words of the Prophets,\" quoting a passage\nfrom Amos. ix. 11, 12. It is difficult to see how the words, even\nas quoted, apply to the case at all, but this is immaterial. Loose\nreasoning can certainly not be taken as a mark of inauthenticity. It is\nmuch more to the point that James, addressing an assembly of Apostles\nand elders in Jerusalem, quotes the prophet Amos freely from the\nSeptuagint version,(1) which differs widely in the latter and more\nimportant part from the Hebrew text.(3) The passage in the Hebrew reads:\nix. 11. \"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is\nfallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his\nruins, and I will build it as in the days of old, 12. that they may\npossess the remnant of\n\n{250}\n\nEdom, and of all the heathen upon whom my name is called, saith the\nLord that doeth this.\" The authors of the Septuagint version altered the\ntwelfth verse into: \"That the residue of men may seek after the Lord and\nall the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord who doeth\nthese things.\"(1) It is perfectly clear that the prophet does not, in\nthe original, say what James is here represented as stating, and that\nhis own words refer to the national triumph of Israel, and not to the\nconversion of the Gentiles. Amos in fact prophesies that the Lord will\nrestore the former power and glory of Israel, and that the remnant of\nEdom and the other nations of the theocracy shall be re-united, as they\nwere under David. No one questions the fact that the original prophecy\nis altered, and those who desire to see the singular explanations of\napologists may refer to some of the works indicated.(2) The question\nas to whether James or the author of the Acts is responsible for the\nadoption of the Septuagint version is felt to be a serious problem.\nSome critics affirm that in all probability James must have spoken in\nAramaic;(3) whilst others maintain that he delivered this\n\n{251}\n\naddress in Greek.(1) In the one case, it is supposed that he quoted the\noriginal Hebrew and that the author of the Acts or the document from\nwhich he derived his report may have used the Septuagint; and in the\nother, it is suggested that the lxx. may have had another and more\ncorrect reading before them, for it is supposed impossible that James\nhimself could have quoted a version which was actually different from\nthe original Hebrew. These and many other similar explanations, into\nwhich we need not go, do little to remove the difficulty presented by\nthe fact itself. To suppose that our Hebrew texts are erroneous in order\nto justify the speech is a proceeding which does not require remark. It\nwill be remembered that, in the Acts, the Septuagint is always employed\nin quotations from the Old Testament, and that this is by no means\nthe only place in which that version is used when it departs from the\noriginal. It is difficult to conceive that any intelligent Jew could\nhave quoted the Hebrew of this passage to support a proposal to free\nGentile Christians from the necessity of circumcision and the observance\nof the Mosaic Law. It is equally difficult to suppose that James, a\nbigoted leader of the Judaistic party and the head of the Church\nof Jerusalem, could have quoted the Septuagint version of the Holy\nScriptures, differing from the Hebrew, to such an assembly. It is\nuseless to examine here the attempts to make the passage quoted a\ncorrect interpretation of the prophet's meaning, or seriously to\nconsider the proposition that this alteration of a prophetic utterance\nis adopted as better\n\n{252}\n\nexpressing \"the mind of the Spirit.\" If the original prophecy did not\nexpress that mind, it is rather late to amend the utterances of the\nprophets in the Acts of the Apostles.\n\nWe may now briefly examine the speech linguistically. Verse 13: The\nopening as usual is [------], but the whole phrase [------] is put into\nthe mouth of Paul in xxii. 1, [------], and with but little variation\nagain in xiii. 16. Cf. ii. 22. The use of the Hebrew form [------] in\nspeaking of Peter, has been pointed out by Bleek(1) and others, after\nLightfoot,(2) as a characteristic peculiarity showing the authenticity\nof the speech. The same form occurs in 2 Pet. i. 1, but its use in that\nspurious epistle is scarcely calculated to give weight to its use here.\nIf it be characteristic of anyone, however, its use is characteristic\nof the author of the third Gospel and the Acts, and in no case is it\npeculiarly associated with James. In addition to the instance referred\nto above, and Apoc. vii. 7, where the tribe of Simeon is thus named, the\nJewish form [------] of the name Simon occurs four times only in the New\nTestament, and they are conflned to our author: Acts xiii. 1; Luke ii.\n25, 34, iii. 30. Being acquainted with the Jewish form of the name,\nhe made use of it in this speech probably for the effect of local\ncolouring. [------], xv. 12, xxi. 19; Luke xxiv. 35, and nowhere else\nexcept John i. 18--it is peculiar to the author, [------], Acts 11, Luke\n16 times, and elsewhere frequently, [------], iii. 26, vii. 12, xi. 26,\nxiii. 46, xxvi. 20; Luke 10 times; Jam. iii. 17; Paul 10 times, rest\nfrequently. [------], vi. 3, vii. 23, xv. 36; Luke i. 68,\n\n{253}\n\n78, vii. 16; Matth. xxv. 36, 43, Hebr. ii. 6, Jam. i. 27, that is to\nsay 7 times used by the author and only 4 times in the rest of the New\nTestament; compare especially Luke i. 68, and vii. 16. [------] opposed\nto [------], xxvi. 17, 23. The expression [------] occurs ii. 38, iv.\n17, 18, v. 28, 40; Luke ix. 48, 49, xxi. 8, xxiv. 47, and only 5 times\nin the rest of the New Testament. Verse 15: [------], v. 9; Luke v. 36,\nand Matth. xviii. 19, xx. 2, 13 only. Verse 16: In this quotation\nfrom Amos, for the i[------] of the Septuagint, the Author substitutes\n[------], which phrase occurs elsewhere in Acts vii. 7, xiii. 20, xviii.\n1; Luke v. 27, x. 1, xii. 4, xvii. 8, xviii. 4. [------], v. 22 and 9\ntimes elsewhere. Verse 18: [------], i. 19, ii. 14, iv. 10, 16, ix. 42,\nxiii. 38, xix. 17, xxviii. 22, 28 = 10 times in Acts; Luke i. 44, xxiii.\n49; elsewhere only in Rom. i. 19, John xviii. 15, 16,--a characteristic\nword. So likewise is the expression [------], iii. 21, Luke i. 70;\n[------] occurs in Ephes. iii. 9, Col. i. 26. These words are added to\nthe passage quoted from the Septuagint. Verse 19: [------] is used 11\ntimes in Acts; Luke i. 35, vii. 7; by Paul 18 times, Ep. Jam. twice, and\nelsewhere 25 times. [------], 22 times in Acts; Luke 6 times, Paul\n37 times, Ep. Jam. 6, and elsewhere 44 times, [------] is not found\nelsewhere in the New Testament. [------], Acts 11, Luke 7, Jam. v. 19,\n20, rest 19 times; the phrase [------] is a favourite and characteristic\nexpression of the Author, who uses it ix. 35, xi. 21, xiv. 15, xxvi.\n20, and Luke i. 16, and it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament\nexcept in 1 Pet. ii. 25. Verse 20: [------], xxi. 25, and Hebr. xiii. 22\nonly. [------] xv. 29, Luke vi. 24, vii. 6, xv. 20, xxiv. 13, 1 Thess.\niv. 3, v. 22, 1 Tim. iv. 3, 1 Pet. ii. 11, and\n\n{254}\n\nelsewhere 7 times; in both passages of the Ep. to the Thess. it is used\nwith [------] as here. [------] is not elsewhere found. [------], vii.\n41; 6 times by Paul, and elsewhere 3: it occurs very frequently in\nthe Septuagint. [------], xv. 29, xxi. 25; Paul 8, elsewhere 15 times.\n[------], xv. 29, xxi. 25, a technical word. [------], Acts 12, Luke 11\ntimes, rest frequently, [------], ii. 40, viii. 33, xiii. 36, xiv. 16;\nLuke 13 times, Matth. 13, Mk. 5, rest 5 times. [------], xv. 7, xxi. 16;\nLuke ix. 8, 19, elsewhere 7 times. [------], xv. 36, xx. 23, xxiv. 12;\nLuke viii. 1, 4, xiii. 22, and elsewhere only in Tit. i. 5. [------],\nviii. 5, ix. 20, x. 37, 42, xix. 13, xx. 25, xxviii. 31; Luke 9, Paul\n14, elsewhere 30 times. [------], Acts 9, Luke 20, rest 35 times, the\nwhole phrase [------] occurs again in the Acts, being put into the mouth\nof Paul xiii. 27, and [------] being used by the writer in xviii. 4.\n[------], Acts 20; Luke 15, rest 22 times, [------], viii. 28, 30 twice,\n32, xiii. 27, xv. 31, xxiii. 34; Luke 3, and elsewhere 22 times. This\nanalysis confirms the conclusion that the speech of James at the\nCouncil proceeds likewise from the pen of the general author, and the\nincomprehensible liberality of the sentiments expressed, as well as the\npeculiarity of the quotation from Amos according to the Septuagint, thus\nreceive at once their simple explanation.\n\nIf we now compare the account of James's share in granting liberal\nconditions to Gentile Christians with the statements of Paul, we arrive\nat the same result. It is in consequence of the arrival of \"certain\nmen from James\" [------] that Peter through fear of them withdrew from\ncommunion with the\n\n{255}\n\nGentiles. It will be remembered that the whole discussion is said to\nhave arisen in Antioch originally from the judaistic teaching of certain\nmen who came \"from Judaea,\" who are disowned in the apostolic letter.(1)\nIt is unfortunate, however, to say the least of it, that so many of\nthose who systematically opposed the work of the Apostle Paul claimed to\nrepresent the views of James and the mother Church.(2) The contradiction\nof the author of the Acts, with his object of conciliation, has but\nsmall weight before the statements of Paul and the whole voice of\ntradition. At any rate, almost immediately after the so-called Apostolic\nCouncil, with its decree adopted mainly at the instigation of James, his\nemissaries caused the defection of Peter in Antioch and the rupture with\nPaul. It is generally admitted, in the face of the clear affirmation\nof Paul, that the men in question must in all probability have been\nactually sent by James.3 It is obvious that, to justify the fear of so\nleading an apostle as Peter, not only must they have been thus deputed,\nbut must have been influential men,\n\n     2 \"Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St. Paul's Epistles\n     this much is certain, that they exalted the authority of the\n     Apostles of the Circumcision; and that, in some instances at\n     least, as members of the mother Church, they had direct\n     relations with James, the Lord's brother. But when we\n     attempt to define those relations, we are lost in a maze of\n     conjecture.\"   Lightfoot, Ep. to the Gal., p. 353.\n\n{256}\n\nrepresenting authoritative and prevalent judaistic opinions. We shall\nnot attempt to divine the object of their mission, but we may say that\nit is impossible to separate them from the judaistic teachers who urged\ncircumcision upon the Galatian Christians and opposed the authority of\nthe Apostle Paul. Not pursuing this further at present, however, it\nis obvious that the effect produced by these emissaries is quite\nincompatible with the narrative that, so short a time before, James and\nthe Church of Jerusalem had unanimously promulgated conditions, under\nwhich the Gentile Christians were freely admitted into communion,\nand which fully justified Peter in eating with them. The incident at\nAntioch, as connected with James as well as with Peter, excludes the\nsupposition that the account of the Council contained in the Acts can be\nconsidered historical. The Apostolic letter embodying the decree of the\nCouncil now demands our attention. It seemed good to the Apostles and\nthe elders with the whole Church to choose two leading men among the\nbrethren, and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and they\nwrote by them (xv. 23):--\"The Apostles and brethren which are elders\nunto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and\nCilicia, greeting. 24. Forasmuch as we heard that certain which went out\nfrom us troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave\nno commandment, 25. it seemed good unto us, having become of one mind,\nto choose out and send men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,\n26. men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus\nChrist. 27. We have, therefore, sent Judas and Silas, who shall also\ntell you the same things by word of mouth. 28. For it seemed good to\nthe Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these\nnecessary\n\n{257}\n\nthings: 29. that ye abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood,\nand from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep\nyourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well.\" l It is argued that\nthe simplicity of this composition, its brevity and the absence of\nhierarchical tendency, prove the authenticity and originality of the\nepistle. Nothing, however, could be more arbitrary than to assert that\nthe author of the Acts, composing a letter supposed to be written under\nthe circumstances, would have written one different from this. We shall,\non the contrary, see good reason for affirming that he actually did\ncompose it, and that it bears the obvious impress of his style. Besides,\nZeller(2) has pointed out that, in a document affirmed to be so removed\nfrom all calculation or object, verse 26 could hardly have found a\nplace. The reference to \"our beloved\" Barnabas and Paul, as \"men that\nhave given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,\" is\nscarcely consistent with the primitive brevity and simplicity which are\nmade the basis of such an argument.\n\nIn the absence of better evidence, apologists grasp at extremely slight\nindications of authenticity, and of this nature seems to us the mark\nof genuineness which Bleek and others(3) consider that they find in the\nfact,\n\n{258}\n\nthat the name of Barnabas is placed before that of Paul in this\ndocument. It is maintained that, from the 13th chapter, the author\ncommences to give the precedence to Paul, but that, in reverting to the\nformer order, the synodal letter gives evidence both of its antiquity\nand genuineness. If any weight could be attached to such an indication,\nit is unfortunate for this argument that the facts are not as stated,\nfor the order \"Barnabas and Paul\" occurs at xiv. 12 and 14, and even in\nthe very account of the Council at xv. 12. The two names are mentioned\ntogether in the Acts sixteen times, Barnabas being named first eight\ntimes (xi. 30, xii. 25, xiii. 1, 2, 7, xiv. 12, 14, xv. 12), and Paul as\nfrequently (xiii. 43, 46, 50, xv. 2 twice, 22, 25, 35). Apologists\nlike Lekebusch(1) and Oertel(2) reject Bleek's argument. The greeting\n[------] with which the letter opens, and which, amongst the Epistles of\nthe New Testament, is only found in that bearing the name of James\n(i. 1), is said to be an indication that the letter of the Council was\nwritten by James himself.(3) Before such an argument could avail, it\nwould be necessary, though difficult, to prove the authenticity of the\nEpistle of James, but we need not enter upon such a question. [------]\nis the ordinary Greek form of greeting in all epistles,(4) and the\nauthor of Acts, who writes purer Greek than any\n\n{259}\n\nother writer in our Canon, naturally adopts it. Not only does he do so\nhere, however, but he makes use of the same [------] in the letter of\nthe chief captain Lysias (xxiii. 26),(1) which also evidently proceeds\nfrom his hand. Moreover, the word is used as a greeting in Luke i. 28,\nand not unfrequently elsewhere in the New Testament, as Mattli. xxvi.\n49, xxvii. 29, xxviii. 9, Mark xv. 18, John xix. 3,2 John 10, 11.\nLekebusch,(2) Meyer,(3) and Oertel(4) reject the argument, and we may\nadd that if [------] prove anything, it proves that the author of\nActs, who uses the word in the letter of Lysias, also wrote the synodal\nletter. In what language must we suppose that the Epistle was originally\nwritten? Oertel maintains an Aramaic original,(5) but the greater number\nof writers consider that the original language was Greek.(6) It cannot\nbe denied that the composition, as it stands, contains many of the\npeculiarities of style of the author of Acts;(7) and these are, indeed,\nso marked that even apologists like Lekebusch and Oertel, whilst\nmaintaining the substantial authenticity of the Epistle, admit that\nat least its actual form must be ascribed to the general author. The\noriginality of the form being abandoned, it is difficult to perceive any\nground for asserting the originality and genuineness of\n\n{260}\n\nthe substance. That assertion rests solely upon a vague traditional\nconfidence in the Author of Acts, which is shown to be without any solid\nfoundation. The form of this Epistle clearly professes to be as genuine\nas the substance, and if the original language was Greek, there is\nabsolutely no reason why the original letter should have been altered.\nThe similarity of the construction to that of the prologue to the third\nGospel, in which the personal style of the writer may be supposed to\nhave beeu most unreservedly shown, has long been admitted:--\n\n[------]\n\nA more detailed linguistic examination of the Epistle, however, confirms\nthe conclusion already stated. Verse 23: [------], ii. 23, v. 12, vii.\n25, xi. 30, xiv. 3, xix. 11, 26, and elsewhere the expression is only\nmet with in Mark vi. 2; the phrase [------] finds a parallel in xi. 30,\n[------], k. t. X. The characteristic expression [------], is repeated,\nxi. 1, xvi. 7, xxvii. 2, 5, 7. Verse 24: [------], xiii. 46, xiv. 12,\nLuke vii. 1, xi. 6, cf. i. 1; Paul 5, rest only 2 times. [------], xvii.\n8,13, Luke i. 12, xxiv. 38, elsewhere thirteen times. [------] is not\nfound elsewhere, but the preference of our writer for compounds\nof [------], and [------] is marked, and of these consists a large\nproportion of his [------], Acts 15, Luke 14 times, and frequently\nelsewhere; the phrase [------], may be compared with xiv. 22, [------],\ncf. xiv. 2. [------]\n\n{261}\n\nnot elsewhere found in Acts, but it occurs Matth. xvi. 20, Mark v. 43,\nvii. 36 twice, viii. 15, ix. 9, and Heb. xii. 20. Verse 25: [------],\nActs 8, Luke 11, Paul 17 times, elsewhere frequently. [------], i. 14,\nii. 1, 46, iv. 24, v. 12, xii. 57, viii. 6, xii. 20, xviii. 12, xix.\n29; so that this word, not in very common use even in general Greek\nliterature, occurs 10 times elsewhere in the Acts, but, except in Rom.\nxv. 6, is not employed by any other New Testament writer. [------],\ni. 2, 24, vi. 5, xiii. 17, xv. 7, 22, Luke vi. 13, x. 42, xiv. 7, and\nelsewhere 11 times, [------], Acts 11, Luke 10 times, elsewhere common,\n[------] is not elsewhere used in Acts, but is found in Luke iii.\n22, ix. 35, xx. 13, Paul 13 times, and is common elsewhere. Verse 26:\n[------], Acts 13, Luke 17 times, and common elsewhere, [------], xxi.\n13, v. 41, ix. 16, Rom. i. 5, 3 John 7. Verse 27: [------], Acts 25,\nLuke 26 times, elsewhere very frequently. [------], xv. 32. [------],\nActs 14, Luke 11, rest 21 times, [------], Luke vi. 23, 26; [------],\nActs i. 15, ii. 1, 44, iii. 1, iv. 26, xiv. 1; Luke vi. 33, xvii. 35.\nVerse 28: [------], Acts 12, Luke 4, Paul 6, elsewhere 13 times; the\nsame expression, [------]... is also found in Luke iii. 13. [------],\nActs 13, Luke 6, elsewhere 21 times. [------] is not elsewhere met with\nin Acts, but occurs Matt. xx. 12, 2 Cor. iv. 17, Gal. vi. 2, 1 Thes.\nil 6, Apoc. ii. 24. [------], viii. 1, xx. 23, xxvii. 22, Luke\n15, elsewhere 13 times. [------] is not elsewhere found in the New\nTestament. Verse 29: [------], xv. 20, Luke vi. 24, vii. 6, xv. 20,\nxxiv. 13, elsewhere 12 times. [------], xxi. 25, 1 Cor. viii. 1, 4, 7,\n10, x. 19, 28, Apoc. ii. 14, 20. [------] occurs only in Luke ii. 51.\n[------], Acts 12, Luke 6, Paul 15, elsewhere 5 times only, [------],\nthis\n\n{262}\n\nusual Greek formula for the ending of a letter, [------], is nowhere\nelse used in the New Testament, except at the close of the letter of\nLysias, xxiii. 30.\n\nTurning now from the letter to the spirit of this decree, we must\nendeavour to form some idea of its purport and bearing. The first point\nwhich should be made clear is, that the question raised before the\nCouncil solely affected the Gentile converts, and that the conditions\ncontained in the decree were imposed upon that branch of the Church\nalone. No change whatever in the position of Jewish Christians was\ncontemplated; they were left as before, subject to the Mosaic law.(1)\nThis is very apparent in the reference which is made long after to the\ndecree, Ch. xxi. 20 ff., 25, when the desire is expressed to Paul by\nJames, who proposed the decree, and the elders of Jerusalem, that he\nshould prove to the many thousands of believing Jews all zealous of the\nlaw, that he did not teach the Jews who were among the Gentiles apostasy\nfrom Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,\nneither to walk after the customs. Paul, who is likewise represented, in\nthe Acts, as circumcising with his own hand, after the decision of the\nCouncil had been adopted, Timothy the son of a Greek, whose mother was\na Jewess, consents to give the Jews of Jerusalem the required proof. We\nhave already shown at the commencement of this section, that\n\n{263}\n\nnothing was further from the minds of the Jewish Christians than the\nsupposition that the obligation to observe the Mosaic law was weakened\nby the adoption of Christianity; and the representation in the Acts\nis certainly so far correct, that it does not pretend that Jewish\nChristians either desired or sanctioned any relaxation of Mosaic\nobservances on the part of believing Jews. This cannot be too distinctly\nremembered in considering the history of primitive Christianity. The\ninitiatory rite was essential to full participation in the Covenant.\nIt was left for Paul to preach the abrogation of the law and the\nabandonment of circumcision. If the speech of Peter seems to suggest\nthe abrogation of the law even for Jews, it is only in a way which\nshows that the author had no clear historical fact to relate, and merely\ndesired to ascribe, vaguely and indefinitely, Pauline sentiments to\nthe Apostle of the circumcision. No remark whatever is made upon these\nstrangely liberal expressions of Peter, and neither the proposition of\nJames nor the speech in which he makes it takes the slightest notice\nof them. The conduct of Peter at Antioch and the influence exercised by\nJames through his emissaries restore us to historical ground. Whether\nthe author intended to represent that the object of the conditions of\nthe decree was to admit the Gentile Christians to full communion with\nthe Jewish, or merely to the subordinate position of Proselytes of the\nGate, is uncertain, but it is not necessary to discuss the point. There\nis not the slightest external evidence that such a decree ever existed,\nand the more closely the details are examined the more evident does\nit become that it has no historical consistency. How, and upon what\nprinciple, were these singular conditions selected? Their heterogeneous\ncharacter is at once apparent, but not so the\n\n{264}\n\nreason for a combination which is neither limited to Jewish customs nor\nsufficiently representative of moral duties. It has been argued, on\nthe one hand, that the prohibitions of the apostolic decree are simply\nthose, reduced to a necessary minimum, which were enforced in the case\nof heathen converts to Judaism who did not join themselves fully to the\npeople of the Covenant by submitting to circumcision, but were admitted\nto imperfect communion as Proselytes of the Gate.(1) The conditions\nnamed, however, do not fully represent the rules framed for such cases,\nand many critics consider that the conditions imposed, although they may\nhave been influenced by the Noachiaii prescriptions, were rather moral\nduties which it was, from special circumstances, thought expedient to\nspecify.(2) \"We shall presently refer to some of these conditions,\nbut bearing in mind the views which were dominant amongst primitive\nChristians, and more especially, as is obvious, amongst the Christians\nof Jerusalem where this decree is supposed to have been unanimously\nadopted, bearing in mind the teaching which is said to have led to the\nCouncil, the episode at Antioch, and the systematic judaistic\nopposition which retarded the work of Paul and subsequently affected his\nreputation, it may be instructive\n\n{265}\n\nto point out not only the vagueness which exists as to the position\nwhich it was intended that the Gentiles should acquire, as the effect of\nthis decree, but also its singular and total inefficiency. An apologetic\nwriter, having of course in his mind the fact that there is no trace of\nthe operation of the decree, speaks of its conditions as follows: \"The\nmiscellaneous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as\na whole, they had no binding force independently of the circumstances\nwhich dictated them. They were a temporary expedient framed to meet a\ntemporary emergency. Their object was the avoidance of offence in mixed\ncommunities of Jew and Gentile converts. Beyond this recognised aim and\ngeneral understanding implied therein, the limits of their application\nwere not defined.\"1 In fact the immunity granted to the Gentiles was\nthus practically almost unconditional.\n\nIt is obvious, however, that every consideration which represents the\ndecree as more completely emancipating Gentile Christians from Mosaic\nobligations, and admitting them into free communion with believers\namongst the Jews, places it in more emphatic contradiction to historical\nfacts and the statements of the Apostle Paul. The unanimous adoption\nof such a measure in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and, on the other,\nthe episode at Antioch, the fear of Peter, the silence of Paul, and the\nattitude of James become perfectly inconceivable. If on the contrary the\nconditions were seriously imposed and really meant anything, a number\nof difficulties spring up of which we shall presently speak. That the\nprohibitions, in the opinion of the author of the Acts, constituted a\npositive and binding obligation can scarcely be doubted by anyone who\nconsiders the terms in which they are laid down. If\n\n{266}\n\nthey are represented as a concession they are nevertheless recognised as\na \"burden,\" and they are distinctly stated to be the obligations which\n\"it seemed good to the Holy Spirit\" as well as to the Council to impose.\nThe qualification, that the restrictive clauses had no binding force\n\"independently of the circumstances which dictated them,\" in so far as\nit has any meaning beyond the unnecessary declaration that the decree\nwas only applicable to the class for whom it was framed, seems to\nbe inadmissible. The circumstance which dictated the decree was the\ncounter-teaching of Jewish Christians, that it was necessary that the\nGentile converts should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. The\nrestrictive clauses are simply represented as those which it was deemed\nright to impose; and, as they are stated without qualification, it is\nholding the decision of the \"Holy Spirit\" and of the Church somewhat\ncheap to treat them as mere local and temporary expedients. This is\nevidently not the view of the author of the Acts. Would it have been the\nview of anyone else if it were not that, so far as any external trace\nof the decree is concerned, it is an absolute myth? The prevalence of\npractices to which the four prohibitions point is quite sufficiently\nattested to show that, little as there is any ground for considering\nthat such a decree was framed in such a manner, the restrictive clauses\nare put forth as necessary and permanently binding. The very doubt which\nexists as to whether the prohibitions were not intended to represent the\nconditions imposed on Proselytes of the Gate shows their close analogy\nto them, and it cannot be reasonably asserted that the early Christians\nregarded those conditions either as obsolete or indifferent. The decree\nis clearly intended to set forth the terms upon which Gentile Christians\nwere\n\n{267}\n\nto be admitted into communion, and undoubtedly is to be taken as\napplicable not merely to a few districts, but to the Gentiles in\ngeneral.\n\nThe account which Paul gives of his visit not only ignores any such\ndecree, but excludes it. In the first place, taking into account the\nApostle's character and the spirit of his Epistle, it is impossible\nto suppose that Paul had any intention of submitting, as to higher\nauthority, the Gospel which he preached, for the judgment of the elder\nApostles and of the Church of Jerusalem.(1) Nothing short of this is\ninvolved in the account in the Acts, and in the form of the decree\nwhich promulgates, in an authoritative manner, restrictive clauses which\n\"seemed good to the Holy Spirit\" and to the Council. The temper of\nthe man is well shown in Paul's indignant letter to the Galatians. He\nreceives his Gospel, not from men, but by direct revelation from Jesus\nChrist and, so far is he from submission of the kind implied, that he\nsays: \"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto\nyou any Gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be\naccursed. As we have said before, so say I now again: If any man preach\nany Gospel to you other than that ye received, let him be accursed.\"(2)\nThat the Apostle here refers to his own peculiar teaching, and does so\nin contradistinction to the Gospel preached by the Judaizers, is evident\nfrom the preceding words: \"I marvel that ye are so soon removing from\nhim that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different Gospel;\nwhich is not another, only there are\n\n{268}\n\nsome that trouble you, and desire to pervert the Gospel of Christ.\"(1)\nPassing from this, however, to the restrictive clauses in general, how\nis it possible that Paul could state, as the result of his visit, that\nthe \"pillar\" Apostles \"communicated nothing\" after hearing his Gospel,\nif the four conditions of this decree had thus been authoritatively\n\"communicated\"? On the contrary, Paul distinctly adds that, in\nacknowledging his mission, but one condition had been attached: \"Only\nthat we should remember the poor; which very thing I also was forward to\ndo.\"(2) As one condition is here mentioned, why not the others, had any\nbeen actually imposed? It is argued that the remembrance of the poor of\nJerusalem which is thus inculcated was a recommendation personally made\nto Paul and Barnabas, but it is clear that the Apostle's words refer to\nthe result of his communication of his Gospel, and to the understanding\nunder which his mission to the Gentiles was tolerated.\n\nWe have already pointed out how extraordinary it is that such a decision\nof the Council should not have been referred to in describing his visit,\nand the more we go into details the more striking and inexplicable,\nexcept in one way, is such silence. In relating the struggle regarding\nthe circumcision of Titus, for instance, and stating that he did not\nyield, no, not for an hour, to the demands made on the subject, is it\nconceivable that, if the exemption of all Gentile Christians from the\ninitiatory rite had\n\n{269}\n\nbeen unanimously conceded, Paul would not have added to his statement\nabout Titus, that not only he himself had not been compelled to give way\nin this instance, but that his representations had even convinced those\nwho had been Apostles before him, and secured the unanimous adoption of\nhis own views on the point? The whole of this Epistle is a vehement and\nintensely earnest denunciation of those Judaizers who were pressing the\nnecessity of the initiatory rite upon the Galatian converts.(1) Is it\npossible that the Apostle could have left totally unmentioned the fact\nthat the Apostles and the very Church of Jerusalem had actually declared\ncircumcision to be unnecessary? It would not have accorded with Paul's\ncharacter, it is said, to have appealed to the authority of the elder\nApostles or of the Church in a matter in which his own apostolic\nauthority and teaching were in question. In that case, bow can it be\nsupposed that he ever went at all up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and\nelders about this question? If he was not too proud to lay aside his\napostolic dignity and, representing the Christians of Antioch, to submit\nthe case to the Council at Jerusalem, and subsequently to deliver its\ndecree to various communities, is it consistent with reason or common\nsense to assert that he was too proud to recall the decision of that\nCouncil to the Christians of Galatia? It must, we think, be obvious\nthat, if such an explanation of Paul's total silence as to the decree be\nat all valid, it is absolutely fatal to the account of Paul's visit in\nthe Acts. This reasoning is not confined to the Epistle to the Galatians\nbut, as Paley\n\n     1 \"Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic\n     teachers who urged circumcision on the Gentile converts,\n     and, as the best means of weakening the authority of St.\n     Paul, asserted for the Apostles of the Circumcision the\n     exclusive right of dictating to the Church.\" Lightfoot, Ep.\n     to the Gal. p. 353.\n\n{270}\n\npoints out, applies to the other Epistles of Paul, in all of which the\nsame silence is preserved.\n\nMoreover, the apologetic explanation altogether fails upon other\ngrounds. Without appealing to the decree as an authority, we must feel\nsure that the Apostle would at least have made use of it as a logical\nrefutation of his adversaries. The man who did not hesitate to attack\nPeter openly for inconsistency, and charge him with hypocrisy, would not\nhave hesitated to cite the decree as evidence, and still less to fling\nit in the faces of those Judaizers who, so short a time after that\ndecree is supposed to have been promulgated, preached the necessity of\ncircumcision and Mosaic observances in direct opposition to its terms,\nwhilst claiming to represent the views of the very Apostles and Church\nwhich had framed it. Paul, who never denies the validity of their claim,\nwould most certainly have taunted them with gross inconsistency and\nretorted that the Church of Jerusalem, the Apostles, and the Judaizers\nwho now troubled him and preached circumcision and the Mosaic law had,\nfour or five years previously, declared as the deliberate decision of\nthe Holy Spirit and the Council, that they were no longer binding on the\nGentile converts. By such a reference \"the discussion would have been\nforeclosed.\" None of the reasons which are suggested to explain the\nundeniable fact that there is no mention of the decree can really bear\nexamination, and that fact remains supported by a great many powerful\nconsiderations, leading to the very simple explanation which reconciles\nall difficulties, that the narrative of the Acts is not authentic.\n\nWe arrive at the very same results when we examine the Apostle's\nreferences to the practices which the conditions of the decree were\nintended to control. Instead of recognising the authority of the decree,\nor enforcing its\n\n{271}\n\nprescriptions, he does not even allow us to infer its existence, and\nhe teaches disregard at least of some of its restrictions. The decree\nenjoins the Gentile Christians to abstain from meats offered to idols.\nPaul tells the Corinthians to eat whatever meat is sold in the shambles\nwithout asking questions for conscience sake, for an idol is nothing in\nthe world, \"neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not\nare we the worse.\"(1) It is not conceivable that the Apostle could so\ncompletely have ignored the prohibition of the decree if he had actually\nsubmitted the question to the Apostles, and himself so distinctly\nacquiesced in their decision as to distribute the document amongst the\nvarious communities whom he subsequently visited. To argue that the\ndecree was only intended to have force in Antioch, and Syria, and\nCilicia, to which, as the locality in which the difficulty had arisen\nwhich had originally led to the Council, the decree was, in the first\ninstance, addressed, is highly arbitrary; but, when proceeding further,\napologists(2) draw a distinction between those churches \"which had\nalready been founded, and which had felt the pressure of Jewish\nprejudice (Acts xvi. 4),\" and \"brotherhoods afterwards formed and lying\nbeyond the reach of such influences,\" as a reason why no notice of the\ndecree is taken in the case of the Corinthians and Romans, the\nspecial pleading ignores very palpable facts. \"Jewish prejudices\" are\nrepresented in the Acts of the Apostles themselves as being more than\nusually strong in Corinth. There was a Jewish synagogue there, augmented\nprobably by the Jews expelled from Rome under Claudius,(3) and their\nviolence against\n\n{272}\n\nPaul finally obliged him to leave the place.(1) Living in the midst of\nan idolatrous city, and much exposed to the temptations of\nsacrificial feasts, we might naturally expect excessive rigour against\nparticipation, on the one hand, and perhaps too great indifference, on\nthe other; and this we actually find to have been the case. It is in\nconsequence of questions respecting meats offered to idols that Paul\nwrites to the Corinthians, and whilst treating the matter in itself as\none of perfect indifference, merely inculcates consideration for weak\nconsciences.(2) It is clear that there was a decided feeling against\nthe practice; it is clear that strong Jewish prejudices existed in the\nJewish colony at Corinth, and wherever there were Jews the eating\nof meats offered to idols was an abomination. The sin of Israel at\nBaalpeor(3) lived in the memory of the people, and abstinence from such\npollution(4) was considered a duty. If the existence of such \"Jewish\nprejudices\" was a reason for publishing the decree, we have, in fact,\nmore definite evidence of them in Corinth than we have in Antioch, for,\napart from this specific mention of the subject of eating sacrificial\nmeats, the two apostolic letters abundantly show the existence and\nactivity of Judaistic parties there, which opposed the work of Paul, and\ndesired to force Mosaic observances upon his converts. It is impossible\nto admit that, supposing such a decree to have been promulgated as the\nmind of the Holy Spirit, there could be any reason why it should have\nbeen unknown at Corinth so short a time after it was adopted. When,\ntherefore, we find the Apostle not only ignoring it, but actually\ndeclaring that to be a matter of indifference, abstinence from which it\nhad just seemed\n\n{273}\n\ngood to the Holy Spirit to enjoin, the only reasonable conclusion is\nthat Paul himself was totally ignorant of the existence of any decree\ncontaining such a prohibition. There is much difference of opinion as\nto the nature of the [------] referred to in the decree, and we need not\ndiscuss it; but in all the Apostle's homilies upon the subject there is\nthe same total absence of all allusion to the decision of the Council.\n\nNowhere can any practical result from the operation of the decree be\npointed out, nor any trace even of its existence.1 The assertions\nand conjectures, by which those who maintain the authenticity of the\nnarrative in the Acts seek to explain the extraordinary absence of all\nexternal evidence of the decree, labour under the disadvantage of all\nattempts to account for the total failure of effects from a supposed\ncause, the existence of which is in reality only assumed. It is\ncustomary to reply to the objection that there is no mention of the\ndecree in the Epistles of Paul or in any other contemporary writing,\nthat this is a mere argument _a silentio_. Is it not, however, difficult\nto imagine any other argument, from contemporary sources, regarding\nwhat is affirmed to have had no existence, than that from silence 1 Do\napologists absolutely demand that, with prophetic anticipation of future\ncontroversies, the Apostle Paul should obligingly have left on record\nthat there actually was no Council such as a writer would subsequently\ndescribe, and that the decree which he\n\n{274}\n\nwould put forward as the result of that Council must not he accepted as\ngenuine? It is natural to expect that, when writing of the very visit in\nquestion, and dealing with subjects and discussions in which, whether\nin the shape of historical allusion, appeal to authority, taunt for\ninconsistency, or assertion of his own influence, some allusion to the\ndecree would have been highly appropriate, if not necessary, the Apostle\nPaul should at least have given some hint of its existence. His\nnot doing so constitutes strong presumptive evidence against the\nauthenticity of the decree, and all the more so as no more positive\nevidence than silence could possibly be forthcoming of the non-existence\nof that which never existed. The supposed decree of the Council of\nJerusalem cannot on any ground be accepted as a historical fact.(1)\n\nWe may now return to such further consideration of the statements of the\nEpistle as may seem necessary for the object of our inquiry. No mention\nis made by the Apostle of any official mission on the subject of\ncircumcision, and the discussion of that question arises in a merely\nincidental manner from the presence of Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile\nChristian. There has been much discussion as to whether Titus actually\nwas circumcised or not, and there\n\n{275}\n\ncan be little doubt that the omission of the negative [------] from\nGal. ii. 5, has been in some cases influenced by the desire to bring the\nApostle's conduct upon this occasion into harmony with the account, in\nActs xvi. 3, of his circumcising Timothy.(1) We shall not require to\nenter into any controversy on the point, for the great majority of\ncritics are agreed that the Apostle intended to say that Titus was not\ncircumcised, although the contrary is affirmed by a few writers.(2) It\nis obvious from the whole of the Apostle's narrative that great pressure\nwas exerted to induce Titus to submit, and that Paul, if he did not\nyield even for an hour the required subjection, had a long and severe\nstruggle to maintain his position. Even when relating the circumstances\nin his letter to the Galatians, the recollection of his contest\nprofoundly stirs the Apostle's indignation; his utterance becomes\nvehement, but cannot keep pace with his impetuous thoughts, and\nthe result is a narrative in broken and abrupt sentences whose very\nincompleteness is eloquent, and betrays the irritation which has not\neven yet entirely subsided. How does this accord with the whole tone of\nthe account in the Acts? It is customary with apologists to insert so\nmuch between the lines of that narrative, partly from imagination and\npartly from the statements of the Epistle, that they almost convince\nthemselves and others that such additions are actually suggested by the\nauthor of the Acts himself. If we take the account of the Acts, however,\nwithout such transmutations, it is certain that not only is there not\nthe slightest indication of any struggle regarding the\n\n{276}\n\ncircumcision of Titus, \"in which St. Paul maintained at one time almost\nsingle-handed the cause of Gentile freedom,\"(1) but no suggestion that\nthere had ever been any hesitation on the part of the leading Apostles\nand the mass of the Church regarding the point at issue. The impression\ngiven by the author of the Acts is undeniably one of unbroken and\nundisturbed harmony: of a council in which the elder Apostles were of\none mind with Paul, and warmly agreed with him that the Gentiles should\nbe delivered from the yoke of the Mosaic law and from the necessity\nof undergoing the initiatory rite. What is there in such an account\nto justify in any degree the irritation displayed by Paul at the mere\nrecollection of this visit, or to merit the ironical terms with which he\nspeaks of the \"pillar\" Apostles?\n\nWe may, however, now consider the part which the Apostles must have\ntaken in the dispute regarding the circumcision of Titus. Is it possible\nto suppose that, if the circumcision of Paul's follower had only\nbeen demanded by certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed,\nunsupported by the rest, there could ever have been any considerable\nstruggle on the point? Is it possible, further, to suppose that, if Paul\nhad received the cordial support of James and the leading Apostles in\nhis refusal to concede the circumcision of Titus, such a contest could\nhave been more than momentary and trifling? Is it possible that the\nApostle Paul could have spoken of \"certain of the sect of the Pharisees\nwho believed\" in such terms as: \"to whom we yielded by the submission\n[------] no not for an hour?\"(2) or that he could have used this\nexpression if those who pressed the demand upon him had not been in a\nposition\n\n{277}\n\nof authority, which naturally suggested a subjection which Paul upon\nthis occasion persistently refused? It is not possible. Of course many\nwriters who seek to reconcile the two narratives, and some of whom\nsubstitute for the plain statements of the Acts and of the Apostle, an\naccount which is not consistent with either, suppose that the demand for\nthe circumcision of Titus proceeded solely from the \"false brethren,\"(1)\nalthough some of them suppose that at least these false brethren may\nhave thought they had reason to hope for the support of the elder\nApostles.(2) It is almost too clear for dispute, however, that the\ndesire that Titus should be circumcised was shared or pressed by the\nelder Apostles.(3) According to the showing of the Acts, nothing could\nbe more natural than the fact that James and the elders of Jerusalem\nwho, so long after (xxi. 20 if.), advised Paul to prove his continued\nobservance of the law and that he did not teach the Jews to abandon\ncircumcision, should on this occasion have pressed him to circumcise\nTitus. The conduct of Peter at Antioch, and the constant opposition\nwhich Paul met with from emissaries\n\n{278}\n\nof James and of the Apostles of the Circumcision upon the very point of\nGentile circumcision, all support the inevitable conclusion, that the\npressure upon Paul in the matter of Titus was not only not resisted by\nthe Apostles, but proceeded in no small degree from them.\n\nThis is further shown by the remainder of Paul's account of his visit\nand by the tone of his remarks regarding the principal Apostles, as well\nas by the historical data which we possess of his subsequent career. We\nneed not repeat that the representation in the Acts both of the Council\nand of the whole intercourse between Paul and the Apostles is one of\n\"unbroken unity.\"(1) The struggle about Titus and the quarrel with\nPeter at Antioch are altogether omitted, and the Apostolic letter speaks\nmerely of \"our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have given up their\nlives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ\"(2) The language of Paul is\nnot so pacific and complimentary. Immediately after his statement that\nhe had \"yielded by the submission, no, not for an hour,\" Paul continues:\n\"But from those who seem to be something [------]--whatsoever they were\nit maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person;--for to me\nthose who seem [------] (to be something) communicated nothing, but, on\nthe contrary, &c. &c., and when they knew the grace that was given to\nme, James and Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars [------], gave to\n\nme and Barnabas right hands of fellowship that we (should go) unto\nthe Gentiles,\" &c. &c.(3) The tone and language of this passage are\ncertainly\n\n{279}\n\ndepreciatory of the elder Apostles,(1) and, indeed, it is difficult to\nunderstand how any one could fail to perceive and admit the fact. It is\nargued by some who recognise the irony of the term [------] applied to\nthe Apostles, that the disparagement which is so transparent in the form\n[------], \"those who seem to be something,\" is softened again in the\nnew turn which is given to it in ver. 9, [------], \"those who seem to\nbe pillars,\" in which, it is said, \"the Apostle expresses the real\ngreatness and high authority of the twelve in their separate field of\nlabour.\"(2) It seems to us that this interpretation cannot be sustained.\nPaul is ringing the changes on [------], and contrasting with the\nposition they assumed and the estimation in which they were held, his\nown experience of them, and their inability to add anything to him.\n\"Those who seem to be something,\" he commences, but immediately\ninterrupts himself, after having thus indicated the persons\nwhom he meant, with the more direct protest of irritated\nindependence:--\"whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: God\naccepteth not man's person.\" These [------] communicated nothing to him,\nbut, on the contrary, when they knew the grace given to him, \"those who\nseem to be pillars\" gave him hands of fellowship, but nothing more,\nand they went their different ways, he to the Gentiles and they to the\ncircumcision. If the\n\n{280}\n\nexpression: [------] be true, as well as ironically used, it cannot be\nconstrued into a declaration of respect, but forms part of a passage\nwhose tone throughout is proudly depreciatory. This is followed by such\nwords as \"hypocrisy\" [------] and \"condemned\" [------] applied to the\nconduct of Peter at Antioch, as well as the mention of the emissaries of\nJames as the cause of that dispute, which add meaning to the irony.\nThis is not, however, the only occasion on which Paul betrays a certain\nbitterness against the elder Apostles. In his second letter to the\nCorinthians, xi. 5, he says, \"For I reckon that I am not a whit behind\nthe over much Apostles\" [------], and again, xii. 11, \"For in nothing\nwas I behind the over much Apostles\" [------]; and the whole of the\nvehement passage in which these references are set shows the intensity\nof the feeling which called them forth. To say that the expressions\nin the Galatian Epistle and here are \"depreciatory, not indeed of the\ntwelve themselves, but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up\nfor them by the Judaizers,\"(1) is an extremely arbitrary distinction.\nThey are directly applied to the Apostles, and [------] cannot be taken\nas irony against those who over-estimated them, but against the [------]\nthemselves. Paul's blows generally go straight to their mark. Meyer\nargues that the designation of the Apostles as [------] is purely\nhistorical, and cannot be taken as ironical, inasmuch as it would be\ninconsistent to suppose that Paul could adopt a depreciatory tone when\nhe is relating his recognition as a colleague by the elder Apostles;(2)\nand others consider that\n\n{281}\n\nver. 8, 9, 10 contain evidence of mutual respect and recognition between\nPaul and the twelve. Even if this were so, it could not do away with\nthe actual irony of the expressions; but do the facts support such a\nstatement? We have seen that, in spite of the picture of unbroken unity\ndrawn by the author of the Acts, and the liberal sentiments regarding\nthe Gentiles which he puts into the mouth of Peter and of James, Paul\nhad a severe and protracted struggle to undergo in order to avoid\ncircumcising Titus. We have already stated the grounds upon which it\nseems certain that the pressure upon that occasion came as well from the\nelder Apostles as the \"false brethren,\" and critics who do not go so far\nas to make this positive affirmation, at least recognise the passive,\nand therefore to a large extent compliant, attitude which the Apostles\nmust have held. It is after narrating some of the particulars of this\nstruggle that Paul uses the terms of depreciation which we have\nbeen discussing; and having added, \"for to me those who seem (to be\nsomething) communicated nothing,\" he says, \"_but, on the contrary_,\nwhen they saw that I have been entrusted with the Gospel of the\nuncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the circumcision (for he that\nwrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also\nfor me unto the Gentiles); and when they knew the grace that was given\nunto me, James and Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars, gave to me\nand Barnabas right hands of fellowship, that we (should go) unto the\nGentiles, and they unto the circumcision: only that we should remember\nthe poor; which very thing I also was forward to do.\" It will be\nobserved that, after saying they \"communicated nothing\" to him, the\nApostle adds, in opposition, \"but, on the\n\n{282}\n\ncontrary\" [------]. In what does this opposition consist? Apparently in\nthis, that, instead of strengthening the hands of Paul, they left him to\nlabour alone. They said: \"Take your own course; preach the Gospel of\nthe uncircumcision to Gentiles, and we will preach the Gospel of the\ncircumcision to Jews.\"(1) In fact, when Paul returned to Jerusalem for\nthe second time after fourteen years, he found the elder Apostles not\none whit advanced towards his own uni-versalism; they retained their\nformer Jewish prejudices, and remained as before Apostles of the\ncircumcision.(2) Notwithstanding the strong Pauline sentiments put into\nPeter's mouth by the author of the Acts, and his claim to have been so\nlong before selected by God that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear\nthe word of the Gospel and believe, Paul singles out Peter as specially\nentrusted with the Gospel of the circumcision; and, in the end, after\nPaul has exerted all his influence, Peter and the rest remain unmoved,\nand allow Paul to go to the Gentiles, while they confine their ministry\nas before to the Jews. The success of Paul's work amongst the heathen\nwas too palpable a fact to be ignored, but there is no reason to believe\nthat the conversion of the Gentiles, upon his terms, was more than\ntolerated at that time, or the Gentile Christians admitted to more\nthan such imperfect communion with the Jewish Christians as that of\nProselytes of the Gate in relation to Judaism. This is shown by the\nconduct of Peter at Antioch after the supposed Council, and of the Jews\nwith him, and even of Barnabas,\n\n{283}\n\nthrough fear of the emissaries of James, whose arrival certainly could\nnot have produced a separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians had\nthe latter been recognised as in full communion.\n\nThe \"hands of fellowship\" clearly was a mere passive permission of\nPaul's mission to the Gentiles, but no positive and hearty approval of\nit testified by active support.(1) It must, we think, be evident to any one\nwho attentively considers the passage we are examining, that there is no\nquestion whatever in it of a recognition of the Apostolate of Paul.(2)\nThe elder Apostles consent to his mission to the Gentiles, whilst they\nthemselves go to the circumcision; but there is not a syllable which\nindicates that Paul's claim to the title of Apostle was ever either\nacknowledged or discussed. It is not probable that Paul would have\nsubmitted such a point to their consideration. It is difficult to see\nhow the elder Apostles could well have done less than they did, and the\nextent of their fellowship seems to have simply amounted to toleration\nof what they could not prevent. The pressure for the circumcision of the\nGentile converts was an attempt to coerce, and to suppress the peculiar\nprinciple of the Gospel of uncircumcision; and though that effort failed\nthrough the determined resistance of Paul,\n\n{284}\n\nit is clear, from the final resolve to limit their preaching to the\ncircumcision, that the elder Apostles in no way abandoned their view\nof the necessity of the initiatory rite. The episode at Antioch is\na practical illustration of this statement. Hilgenfeld ably\nremarks:--\"When we consider that Peter was afraid of the circumcised\nChristians, there can be no doubt _that James, at the head of the\nprimitive community, made the attempt to force heathen Christians\nto adopt the substance of Jewish legitimacy, by breaking off\necclesiastical community with them_.\"(1) The Gentile Christians were\nvirtually excommunicated on the arrival of the emissaries of James, or\nat least treated as mere Proselytes of the Gate; and the pressure\nupon the Galatian converts of the necessity of circumcision by similar\nJudaizing emissaries, which called forth the vehement and invaluable\nEpistle before us, is quite in accordance with the circumstances of this\nvisit. The separation agreed upon between Paul and the elder Apostles\nwas not in any sense geographical, but purely ethnological.(2) It was no\nmere division of labour,(3) no suitable apportionment of work. The elder\nApostles determined, like their Master before them, to confine their\nministry to Jews, whilst Paul, if he pleased, might go to the Gentiles;\nand the mere fact that Peter subsequently goes to Antioch, as well as\nmany other\n\n{285}\n\ncircumstances, shows that no mere separation of localities, but a\nselection of race was intended. If there had not been this absolute\ndifference of purpose, any separation would have been unnecessary, and\nall the Apostles would have preached one Gospel indifferently to all\nwho had ears to hear it; such strange inequality in the partition of\nthe work could never have existed: that Paul should go unaided to the\ngigantic task of converting the heathen, while the Twelve reserved\nthemselves for the small but privileged people. All that we have said at\nthe beginning of this section of the nature of primitive Christianity,\nand of the views prevalent amongst the disciples at the death of their\nMaster, is verified by this attitude of the Three during the famous\nvisit of the Apostle of the Gentiles to Jerusalem, and Paul's account is\nprecisely in accordance with all that historical probability and reason,\nunwarped by the ideal representations of the Acts, prepare us to expect.\nThe more deeply we go into the statements of Paul the more is this\napparent, and the more palpable does the inauthenticity of the narrative\nof the Council appear.\n\nThe words of Paul in describing the final understanding are very\nremarkable and require further consideration. The decision that they\nshould go to the circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles is based upon the\nrecognition of a different Gospel entrusted to him, the Gospel of the\nuncircumcision, as the Gospel of the circumcision is entrusted to Peter.\nIt will be remembered that Paul states that, on going up to Jerusalem\nupon this occasion, he communicated to them the Gospel which he preached\namong the Gentiles, and it is probable that he made the journey more\nespecially for this purpose. It appears from the account that this\nGospel was not only new to them, but was\n\n{286}\n\ndistinctly diflferent from that of the elder Apostles. If Paul preached\nthe same Gospel as the rest, what necessity could there have been\nfor communicating it at all? What doubt that by any means he might be\nrunning, or had run, in vain? He knew perfectly well that he preached a\ndiflferent Gospel from the Apostles of the circumcision, and his anxiety\nprobably was to secure an amicable recognition of the Gentile converts\nwhom he had taught to consider circumcision unnecessary and the\nobligation of the law removed. Of course there was much that was\nfundamentally the same in the two Gospels, starting as they both did\nwith the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; but their points of\ndivergence were very marked and striking, and more especially in\ndirections where the prejudices of the Apostles of the circumcision were\nthe strongest Avoiding all debatable ground, it is clear that the Gospel\nof the uncircumcision, which proclaimed the abrogation of the law\nand the inutility of the initiatory rite, must have been profoundly\nrepugnant to Jews, who still preached the obligation of circumcision\nand the observance of the law. \"Christ redeemed us from the curse of\nthe law\"(1) said the Gospel of the uncircumcision. \"Behold, I, Paul, say\nunto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing....\nFor in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor\nuncircumcision, but faith working through love.\"(2) \"For neither\ncircumcision is anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.\"(3)\nThe teaching which was specially designated the Gospel of the\ncircumcision, in contradistinction to this Gospel of the uncircumcision,\nheld very diflferent language. There is no gainsaying the\n\n{287}\n\nmain fact--and that fact, certified by Paul himself and substantiated\nby a host of collateral circumstances, is more conclusive than all\nconciliatory apologetic reasoning--that, at the date of this visit to\nJerusalem (c. a.d. 50-52), the Three, after hearing all that Paul had to\nsay, allowed him to go alone to the Gentiles, but themselves would have\nno part in the mission, and turned as before to the circumcision.\n\nThere is another point to which we must very briefly refer. The\nstatements of Paul show that, antecedent to this visit to Jerusalem,\nPaul had been the active Apostle of the Gentiles, preaching his Gospel\nof the uncircumcision, and that subsequently he returned to the same\nfield of labour. If we examine the narrative of the Acts, we do not find\nhim represented in any special manner as the Apostle of the Gentiles,\nbut, on the contrary, whilst Peter claims the honour of having been\nselected that by his voice the Gentiles should hear the word of the\nGospel and believe, Paul is everywhere described as going to the Jews,\nand only when his teaching is rejected by them does he turn to the\nGentiles. It is true that Ananias is represented as being told by the\nLord that Paul is a chosen vessel \"to bear my name both before Gentiles\nand kings, and the sons of Israel;\"(1) and Paul subsequently recounts\nhow the Lord had said to himself, \"Go, for I will send thee far hence\nunto Gentiles.\"(2) The author of the Acts, however, everywhere conveys\nthe impression that Paul very reluctantly fulfils this mission, and that\nif he had but been successful amongst the Jews he never would have gone\nto the Gentiles at all. Immediately after his conversion, he preaches in\nthe synagogues at Damascus and confounds the Jews,(3) as he\n\n{288}\n\nagain does during his visit to Jerusalem.(1) When the Holy Spirit\ndesires the Church at Antioch to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work\nwhereunto he has called them, they continue to announce the word of God\n\"in the synagogues of the Jews,\"(2) and in narrating the conversion\nof the Roman proconsul at Paphos, it is said that it is Sergius Paulus\nhimself who calls for Barnabas and Saul, and seeks to hear the word of\nGod.(3) When they came to Antioch in Pisidia, they go into the synagogue\nof the Jews(4) as usual, and it is only after the Jews reject them that\nPaul and Barnabas are described as saying:--\"It was necessary that the\nword of God should first be spoken to you: seeing that ye thrust it from\nyou, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to\nthe Gentiles.\"(5) In Iconium, to which they next proceed, however, they\ngo into the synagogue of the Jews,(6) and later, it is stated that\nPaul, on arriving at Thessalonica, \"as his custom was,\" went into the\nsynagogue of the Jews, and for three Sabbaths discoursed to them.(7) At\nCorinth, it was only when the Jews opposed him and blasphemed, that\nPaul is represented as saying: \"Your blood be upon your own head; I\nwill henceforth, with a pure conscience, go unto the Gentiles.\" It is\nimpossible to distinguish from this narrative any difference between\nthe ministry of Paul and that of the other Apostles. They all address\nthemselves mainly and primarily to the Jews, although if Gentiles desire\nto eat of \"the crumbs which fall from the children's bread\" they are\nnot rejected. Even the Pharisees stirred heaven and earth to make\nproselytes. In no sense can\n\n{289}\n\nthe Paul of the Acts be considered specially an Apostle of the\nGentiles, and the statement of the Epistle to the Galatians(1) has no\nsignificance, if interpreted by the historical work.\n\nApologists usually reply to this objection, that the practice of Paul\nin the Acts is in accordance with his own words in the Epistle to the\nRomans, i. 16, in which, it is asserted, he recognizes the right of the\nJews to precedence. In the Authorised Version this passage is rendered\nas follows:--\"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is\nthe power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew\nfirst and also to the Greek.\"(2) [------] As a matter of\n\nfact we may here at once state that the word [------] \"first,\" is\nnot found in Codices B and G, and that it is omitted from the Latin\nrendering of the verse quoted by Tertullian.(3) That the word upon which\nthe controversy turns should not be found in so important a MS. as\nthe Vatican Codex or in so ancient a version as Tertullian's is very\nsignificant, but proceeding at once to the sense of the sentence, we\nmust briefly state the reasons which seem to us conclusively to\nshow that the usual reading is erroneous. The passage is an emphatic\nstatement of the principles of Paul. He declares that he is not ashamed\nof the Gospel, and he immediately states the reason: \"for it is a power\nof God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.\"(4) He is not ashamed\nof the Gospel because he recognizes its universality; for, in\n\n{290}\n\nopposition to the exclusiveness of Judaism, he maintains that all are\n\"sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus... There is neither Jew nor\nGreek... for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's\nthen are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.\"(1) \"For in\nChrist Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision,\nbut faith working through love.\"(2) The reason which he gives is that\nwhich lies at the basis of the whole of his special teaching; but we are\nasked to believe that, after so clear and comprehensive a declaration,\nhe at once adds the extraordinary qualification: [------], rendered\n\"to the Jew first and also to the Greek.\" What is the meaning of such a\nlimitation? If the Gospel be a power of God unto salvation \"to every one\nthat believeth\" [------], in what manner can it possibly be so \"to the\nJew first\"? Can it be maintained that there are comparative degrees in\nsalvation? \"Salvation\" is obviously an absolute term. If saved at all,\nthe Jew cannot be more saved than the Greek. If, on the other hand, the\nexpression be interpreted as an assertion that the Jew has a right of\nprecedence either in the offer or the attainment of salvation before the\nGreek, the manner of its realization is almost equally inconceivable,\nand a host of difficulties, especially in view of the specific Pauline\nteaching, immediately present themselves. There can be no doubt that the\njudaistic view distinctly was that Israel must first be saved, before\nthe heathen could obtain any part in the Messianic kingdom, and we have\nshown that this idea dominated primitive Christianity; and inseparable\nfrom this was the belief that the only way to a participation in its\nbenefits lay through Judaism. The\n\n{291}\n\nheathen could only obtain admission into the family of Israel, and\nbecome partakers in the covenant, by submitting to the initiatory rite.\nIt was palpably under the influence of this view, and with a conviction\nthat the Messianic kingdom was primarily destined for the children of\nIsrael, that the elder Apostles, even after the date of Paul's second\nvisit to Jerusalem, continued to confine their ministry \"to the\ncircumcision.\" Paul's view was very different. He recognized and\nmaintained the universality of the Gospel and, in resolving to go to the\nheathen, he practically repudiated the very theory of Jewish preference\nwhich he is here supposed to advance. If the Gospel, instead of being\na power of God to salvation to every man who believed, was for the Jew\nfirst, the Apostolate of the Gentiles was a mere delusion and a snare.\nWhat could be the advantage of so urgently offering salvation to the\nGreek, if the gift, instead of being \"for every one that believeth,\"\nwas a mere prospective benefit, inoperative until the Jew had first been\nsaved? \"Salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek,\" if it have\nany significance whatever of the kind argued,--involving either a prior\nclaim to the offer of salvation, or precedence in its distribution,--so\ncompletely destroys all the present interest in it of the Gentile, that\nthe Gospel must to him have lost all power. To suppose that such an\nexpression simply means, that the Gospel must first be preached to\nthe Jews in any town to which the Apostle might come before it could\nlegitimately be proclaimed to the Gentiles of that town, is childish. We\nhave no reason to suppose that Paul held the deputy Sergius Paulus, who\ndesired to hear the word of God and believed, in suspense until the Jews\nof Paphos had\n\n{292}\n\nrejected it. The cases of the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius throw no\nlight upon any claim of the Jew to priority in salvation. Indeed, not\nto waste time in showing the utter incongruity of the ordinary\ninterpretation, we venture to affirm that there is not a single\nexplanation, which maintains a priority assigned to the Jew in any way\njustifying the reference to this text, which is capable of supporting\nthe slightest investigation. If we linguistically examine the expression\n[------], we arrive at the same conclusion, that [------] is an\ninterpolation, for we must maintain that [------] with [------] and\n[------] must be applied equally both to \"Jew\" and \"Greek,\" and cannot\nrightly be appropriated to the Jew only, as implying a preference\nover the Greek.(1) The sense, therefore, can only be properly and\nintelligibly given by disregarding [------] and simply translating the\nwords: \"both to Jew and Greek.\"(2) This was the rendering of the ancient\nLatin version quoted by Tertullian in his work against Marcion: \"Itaque\net hie, cum dicit: Non enim me pudet evangelii, virtus enim dei est in\nsalutem omni credenti, Judaeo et Graeco, quia justitia dei in eo revelatur\nex fide in fidem.,,(3) We are not left without further examples of\nthe very same expression, and an examination of the context will amply\ndemonstrate that Paul used it in no other sense. In the\n\n{293}\n\nvery next chapter the Apostle twice uses the same words. After\ncondemning the hasty and unrighteous judgment of man, he says: \"For we\nknow that the judgment of God is according to truth.... who will\nrender to every one according to his works; to them who by patience in\nwell-doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: but\nunto them that act out of factious spirit and do not obey the truth but\nobey unrighteousness, anger, and wrath: affliction and distress upon\nevery soul of man that worketh evil, both of Jew and of Greek [------],\nA. V. \"of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile\"; but glory and honour\nand peace to every one that worketh good, both to Jew and to Greek\n[------], A. V. \"to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile\"). For there\nis no respect of persons with God.\"(1) How is it possible that, if the\nApostle had intended to assert a priority of any kind accorded to the\nJew before the Gentile, he could at the same time have added: \"For there\nis no respect of persons with God \"? If salvation be \"to the Jew first,\"\nthere is very distinctly respect of persons with God. The very opposite,\nhowever, is repeatedly and emphatically asserted by Paul in this very\nepistle. \"For there is no difference between Jew and Greek\" [------],\nhe says, \"for the same Lord of all is rich unto all them that call\nupon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be\nsaved.\"(2) Here, we have the phrase without [------]. Nothing could be\nmore clear and explicit. The precedence of the Jew is directly excluded.\nAt the end of the second chapter, moreover, he explains his idea of a\nJew:\n\n{294}\n\n\"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision\nwhich is outwardly in flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and\ncircumcision is of the heart, in spirit not letter.\"(1) If anything\nfurther were required to prove that the Apostle does not by the\nexpression: [------], intend to indicate any priority accorded to the\nJew, it is supplied by the commencement of the third chapter. \"What then\nis the advantage of the Jew? or what the profit of circumcision?\" It is\nobvious that if the Apostle had just said that the Gospel was the power\nof God unto salvation, \"to Jew first and also to Greek,\" he had stated a\nvery marked advantage to the Jew, and that such an inquiry as the above\nwould have been wholly unnecessary. The answer which he gives to his\nown question, however, completes our certainty. \"Much every way,\" he\nreplies; but in explaining what the \"much\" advantage was, we hear no\nmore of \"to Jew first:\" \"Much every way: for first indeed they were\nentrusted with the oracles of God.\"(1) And, after a few words, he\nproceeds: \"What then? are we better? Not at all; for we before brought\nthe charge that both Jews and Greeks [------] are all under sin.\"(3)\nHere, again, there is no [------]. There can be no doubt in the mind of\nany one who understands what Paul's teaching was, and what he means by\nclaiming the special title of \"Apostle to the Gentiles,\" that in going\n\"to the Heathen\" after his visit to Jerusalem, as before it, there was\nno purpose in his mind to preach to the Jews first and only on being\nrejected by them to turn to the Gentiles, as the Acts would have us\nsuppose; but that the principle which regulated his proclamation of the\nGospel was that which we have\n\n{295}\n\nalready quoted: \"For there is no difference between Jew and Greek;\nfor the same Lord of all is rich unto all them that call upon him. For\nwhosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.\"(1)\n\nStill more incongruous is the statement of the Acts that Paul took\nTimothy and circumcised him because of the Jews. According to this\nnarrative, shortly after the supposed Council of Jerusalem at which\nit was decided that circumcision of Gentile Converts was unnecessary;\nimmediately after Paul had in spite of great pressure refused to allow\nTitus to be circumcised; and after it had been agreed between the\nApostle of the Gentiles and James and Cephas and John that while they\nshould go to the circumcision, he, on the contrary, should go to the\nheathen, Paul actually took and circumcised Timothy. Apologists, whilst\ngenerally admitting the apparent contradiction, do not consider that\nthis act involves any real inconsistency, and find reasons which,\nthey affirm, sufficiently justify it. Some of these we shall presently\nexamine, but we may at once say that no apologetic arguments seem to\nus capable of resisting the conclusion arrived at by many independent\ncritics, that the statement of the Acts with regard to Timothy is\nopposed to all that we know of Paul's views, and that for unassailable\nreasons it must be pronounced unhistorical.(2) The author of the Acts\nsays: \"And he (Paul) came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold a certain\ndisciple was there, named Timothy, son of a\n\n{296}\n\nbelieving Jewish woman, but of a Greek father; who was well reported of\nby the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth\nwith him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were\nin those places [------]; for they all knew that his father was a Greek\n[------].\"(1) The principal arguments of those who maintain the truth\nand consistency of this narrative briefly are: Paul resisted the\ncircumcision of Titus because he was a Greek, and because the subject\nthen actually under consideration was the immunity from the Jewish rite\nof Gentile Christians, which would have been prejudiced had he yielded\nthe point. On the other hand, Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother,\nand whilst there was no principle here in question, Paul circumcised the\ncompanion whom he had chosen to accompany him in his missionary journey,\nboth as a recognition of his Jewish origin and to avoid offence to the\nJews whom they should encounter in the course of their ministry, as well\nas to secure for him access to the synagogues which they must visit:\nPaul in this instance, according to all apologists putting in practice\nhis own declaration (1 Cor. ix. 19-20): \"For being free from all men,\nI made myself servant unto all that I might gain the more; and unto the\nJews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews.\"\n\nIt must be borne in mind that the author who chronicles the supposed\ncircumcision of Timothy makes no allusion to the refusal of Paul to\npermit Titus to be circumcised; an omission which is not only singular\nin itself, but significant when we find him, immediately after,\nnarrating so singular a concession of which the\n\n{297}\n\nApostle makes no mention. Of course it is clear that Paul could not have\nconsented to the circumcision of Titus, and we have only to consider in\nwhat manner the case of Timothy differed so as to support the views of\nthose who hold that Paul, who would not yield to the pressure brought to\nbear upon him in the case of Titus, might, quite consistently, so short\na time after, circumcise Timothy with his own hand. It is true that the\nnecessity of circumcision for Gentile Christians came prominently into\nquestion, during Paul's visit to Jerusalem, from the presence of his\nuncircumcised follower Titus, and no doubt the abrogation of the rite\nmust have formed a striking part of the exposition of his Gospel, which\nPaul tells us he made upon this occasion; but it is equally certain\nthat the necessity of circumcision long continued to be pressed by the\njudaistic party in the Church. It cannot fairly be argued that, at any\ntime, Paul could afford to relax his determined and consistent attitude\nas the advocate for the universality of Christianity and the abrogation\nof a rite, insistence upon which, he had been the first to recognise,\nwould have been fatal to the spread of Christianity. To maintain that\nhe could safely make such a concession of his principles and himself\ncircumcise Timothy, simply because at that precise moment there was\nno active debate upon the point, is inadmissible; for his Epistles\nabundantly prove that the topic, if it ever momentarily subsided into\nstubborn silence, was continually being revived with renewed bitterness.\nPauline views could never have prevailed if he had been willing to\nsacrifice them for the sake of conciliation, whenever they were not\nactively attacked.\n\nThe difference of the occasion cannot be admitted\n\n{298}\n\nas a valid reason; let us, therefore, see whether any difference in the\npersons and circumstances removes the contradiction. It is argued that\nsuch a difference exists in the fact that, whilst Titus was altogether\na Gentile, Timothy, on the side of his mother at least, was a Jew; and\nThiersch, following a passage quoted by Wetstein, states that, according\nto Talmudic prescriptions, the validity of mixed marriages between a\nJewess and a Gentile was only recognized upon the condition that the\nchildren should be brought up in the religion of the mother. In this\ncase, he argues, Paul merely carried out the requirement of the Jewish\nlaw by circumcising Timothy, which others had omitted to do, and thus\nsecured his admission to the Jewish synagogues to which much of his\nministry was directed, but from which he would have been excluded had\nthe rite not been performed.(1) Even Meyer, however, in reference\nto this point, replies that Paul could scarcely be influenced by the\nTalmudic canon, because Timothy was already a Christian and beyond\nJudaism.(2) Besides, in point of fact, by such a marriage the Jewess had\nforfeited Jewish privileges. Timothy, in the eyes of the Mosaic law,\nwas not a Jew, and held, in reality, no better position than the Greek\nTitus. He had evidently been brought up as a heathen, and the only\nquestion which could arise in regard to him was whether he must first\nbecome a Jew before he could be fully recognized as a Christian. The\nsupposition that the circumcision of Timothy, the son of a Greek,\nafter he had actually become a Christian without having passed through\nJudaism,\n\n{299}\n\ncould secure for him free access to the synagogues of the Jews, may show\nhow exceedingly slight at that time was the difference between the Jew\nand the Christian, but it also suggests the serious doubt whether the\nobject of the concession, in the mind of the author of the Acts, was not\nrather to conciliate the Judaic Christians, than to represent the act as\none of policy towards the unbelieving Jews. The statement of the Acts is\nthat Paul circumcised Timothy \"because of the Jews which were in those\nplaces; for they knew all that his father was a Greek.\" If the reason\nwhich we are discussing were correct, the expression would more probably\nhave been: \"for they knew that his mother was a Jewess.\" The Greek\nfather might, and probably did, object to the circumcision of his son,\nbut that was no special reason why Paul should circumcise him. On the\nother hand, the fact that the Jews knew that his father was a Greek made\nthe action attributed to Paul a concession which the author of the Acts\nthus represented in its most conciliatory light. The circumcision of\nTimothy was clearly declared unnecessary by the apostolic decree, for\nthe attempt to show that he was legitimately regarded as a Jew utterly\nfails. It is obvious that, according to Pauline doctrine, there could\nbe no obligation for anyone who adopted Christianity to undergo this\ninitiatory rite. It is impossible reasonably to maintain that any case\nhas been made out to explain why Timothy, who had grown into\nmanhood without being circumcised, and had become a Christian whilst\nuncircumcised, should at that late period be circumcised. Beyond the\nreference to a Talmudic prescription, in fact, with which there is not\nthe slightest evidence that Paul was acquainted, and which, even if he\ndid know of it, could not possibly have been recognised by him as\n\n{300}\n\nauthoritative, there has not been a serious attempt made to show that\nthe case of Timothy presents exceptional features which reconcile the\ncontradiction otherwise admitted as apparent.\n\nThe whole apologetic argument in fact sinks into one of mere expediency:\nTimothy, the son of a Jewess and of a Greek, and thus having a certain\naffinity both to Jews and Gentiles, would become a much more efficient\nassistant to Paul if he were circumcised and thus had access to the\nJewish synagogues; therefore Paul, who himself became as a Jew that he\nmight win the Jews, demanded the same sacrifice from his follower. But\ncan this argument bear any scrutiny by the light of Paul's own writings?\nIt cannot. Paul openly claims to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and\njust before the period at which he is supposed to circumcise Timothy, he\nparts from the elder Apostles with the understanding that he is to go\nto the Gentiles who are freed from circumcision. It is a singular\ncommencement of his mission, to circumcise the son of a Greek father\nafter he had become a Christian. Such supposed considerations about\naccess to synagogues and conciliation of the Jews would seem more\nsuitable to a missionary to the circumcision, than to the Apostle of the\nGentiles. It must be apparent to all that in going more specially to\nthe Gentiles, as he avowedly was, the alleged expediency of circumcising\nTimothy falls to the ground, and on the contrary that such an act would\nhave compromised his whole Gospel. Paul's characteristic teaching was\nthe inutility of circumcision, and upon this point he sustained the\nincessant attacks of the emissaries of James and the Judaistic party\nwithout yielding or compromise. What could have been more ill-advised\nunder\n\n{301}\n\nsuch circumstances than the circumcision with his own hands of a convert\nwho, if the son of a Jewess, was likewise the son of a Greek, and had\nremained uncircumcised until he had actually embraced that faith which,\nPaul taught, superseded circumcision? The Apostle who declared: \"Behold,\nI Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you\nnothing,\"(1) could not have circumcised the Christian Timothy; and if\nany utterance of Paul more distinctly and explicitly applicable to the\npresent case be required, it is aptly supplied by the following: \"Was\nany man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Hath\nany man been called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised....\nLet each abide in the same calling wherein he was called.\"(2)\n\nApologists quote very glibly the saying of Paul: \"Unto the Jews I became\nas a Jew, that I might gain Jews,\" as sufficiently justifying the act\nwhich we are considering; but it is neither applicable to the case, nor\nis the passage susceptible of such interpretation. The special object of\nPaul at that time, according to his own showing,(3) was not to gain Jews\nbut to gain Gentiles; and the circumcision of Timothy would certainly\nnot have tended to gain Gentiles. If we quote the whole passage from\nwhich the above is extracted, the sense at once becomes clear and\ndifferent from that assigned to it: \"For being free from all men, I made\nmyself servant unto all, that I might gain the more; and unto the Jews I\nbecame as a Jew that I might gain Jews; to them under law, as under law,\nnot being myself under law, that I might gain them under law; to them\nwithout law, as without law,--not being without law to God, but under\nlaw to Christ,--\n\n{302}\n\nthat I might gain them without law; to the weak I became weak that I\nmight gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by\nall means save some. And all things I do for the Gospel's sake, that I\nmay become a partaker thereof with them.\"(l) It is clear that a man who\ncould become \"all things to all men,\" in the sense of yielding any point\nof principle, must be considered without principle at all, and no one\ncould maintain that Paul was apt to concede principles. Judged by his\nown statements, indeed, his character was the very reverse of this.\nThere is no shade of conciliation when he declares: \"But though we, or\nan angel from heaven, should preach any Gospel unto you other than that\nwe preached unto you, let him be accursed.... For am I now making men my\nfriends, or God? or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing\nmen, I should not be a servant of Christ.\"(2) The Gospel of which he\nspeaks, and which he protests \"is not after men,\" but received \"through\na revelation of Jesus Christ,\"(3) is that Gospel which Paul preached\namong the Gentiles, and which proclaimed the abrogation of the law\nand of circumcision. Paul might in one sense say that \"circumcision is\nnothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of\nGod;\"(4) but such a statement, simply intended to express that there was\nneither merit in the one nor in the other, clearly does not apply to the\ncase before us, and no way lessens the force of the words we have quoted\nabove: \"If ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.\" In Paul\nsuch a concession would have been in the highest degree a sacrifice\nof principle, and one which he not only refused to make in the case of\nTitus, \"that the truth of the\n\n{303}\n\nGospel might abide,\" but equally maintained in the face of the pillar\nApostles, when he left them and returned to the Gentiles whilst they\nwent back to the circumcision. Paul's idea of being \"all things to all\nmen\" is illustrated by his rebuke to Peter,--once more to refer to\nthe scene at Antioch. Peter apparently practised a little of that\nconciliation, which apologists, defending the unknown author of the Acts\nat the expense of Paul, consider to be the sense of the Apostle's words.\nPaul repudiated such an inference, by withstanding Peter to the face as\ncondemned, and guilty of hypocrisy. Paul became all things to all men by\nconsidering their feelings, and exhibiting charity and forbearance, in\nmatters indifferent He was careful not to make his liberty a stumbling\nblock to the weak. \"If food maketh my brother to offend, I will eat no\nflesh for ever lest I make my brother to offend.\"(1) Self-abnegation in\nthe use of enlightened liberty, however, is a very different thing from\nthe concession of a rite, which it was the purpose of his whole Gospel\nto discredit, and the labour of his life to resist. Once more we repeat\nthat the narrative of the Acts regarding the circumcision of Timothy is\ncontradictory to the character and teaching of Paul as ascertained from\nhis Epistles, and like so many other portions of that work which we have\nalready examined must, as it stands, be rejected as unhistorical.\n\nWe have already tested the narrative of the author of the Acts by the\nstatements of Paul in the first two chapters of the Galatians at such\nlength that, although the subject is far from exhausted, we must not\nproceed further. We think that there can be no doubt that the role\nassigned to the Apostle Paul in Acts xv. is unhistorical,(2)\n\n{304}\n\nand it is unnecessary for us to point out the reasons which led the\nwriter to present him in such subdued colours. We must, however, before\nfinally leaving the subject, very briefly point out a few circumstances\nwhich throw a singular light upon the relations which actually existed\nbetween Paul and the elder Apostles, and tend to show their real, if\ncovert, antagonism to the Gospel of the uncircumcision. We may at the\noutset remark, in reference to an objection frequently made that Paul\ndoes not distinctly refer to the Apostles as opposing his teaching and\ndoes not personally attack them, that such a course would have been\nsuicidal in the Apostle of the Gentiles, whilst on the other hand it\ncould not but have hindered the acceptance of his Gospel, for which he\nwas ever ready to endure so much. The man who wrote: \"If it be possible,\nas much as dependeth on you, be at peace with all men,\"(1) could well be\nsilent in such a cause. Paul, in venturing to preach the Gospel of the\nuncircumcision, laboured under the singular disadvantage of not having,\nlike the Twelve, been an immediate disciple of the Master. He had been\n\"as the one born out of due time,\"(2) and although he claimed that his\nGospel had not been taught to him by man but had been received by direct\nrevelation from Jesus, there can be no doubt that his apostolic position\nwas constantly assailed. The countenance of the elder Apostles, even if\nmerely tacit, was of great\n\n{305}\n\nimportance to the success of his work; and he felt this so much that,\nas he himself states, he went up to Jerusalem to communicate to them the\nGospel which he preached among the Gentiles: \"lest by any means I might\nbe running or did run in vain.\"(1) Any open breach between them would\nhave frustrated his labours. Had Paul been in recognized enmity with the\nTwelve who had been selected as his special disciples by the Master, and\nbeen repudiated and denounced by them, it is obvious that his position\nwould have been a precarious one. He had no desire for schism. His\nGospel, besides, was merely a development of that of the elder Apostles;\nand, however much they might resent his doctrine of the abrogation of\nthe law and of the inutility of circumcision, they could still regard\nhis Gentile converts as at least in some sort Proselytes of the Gate.\nWith every inducement to preserve peace if by any means possible, and\nto suppress every expression of disagreement with the Twelve, it is not\nsurprising that we find so little direct reference to the elder Apostles\nin his epistles. During his visit to Jerusalem he did not succeed in\nconverting them to his views. They still limited their ministry to the\ncircumcision, and he had to be content with a tacit consent to his\nwork amongst the heathen. But although we have no open utterance of\nhis irritation, the suppressed impatience of his spirit, even at the\nrecollection of the incidents of his visit, betrays itself in abrupt\nsentences, unfinished expressions, and grammar which breaks down in the\nstruggle of repressed emotion. We have already said enough regarding\nhis ironical references to those \"who seem to be something,\" to the\n\"overmuch Apostles,\" and we need not again point\n\n{306}\n\nto the altercation between Paul and Cephas at Antioch, and the strong\nlanguage used by the former.\n\nNothing is more certain than the fact that, during his whole career, the\nApostle Paul had to contend with systematic opposition from the Judaic\nChristian party;(1) and the only point regarding which there is any\ndifference of opinion is the share in this taken by the Twelve. As we\ncannot reasonably expect to find any plain statement of this in the\nwritings of the Apostle, we are forced to take advantage of such\nindications as can be discovered. Upon one point we are not left in\ndoubt. The withdrawal of Peter and the others at Antioch from communion\nwith the Gentile Christians, and consequently from the side of Paul,\nwas owing to the arrival of certain men from James, for the Apostle\nexpressly states so. No surprise is expressed, however, at the effect\nproduced by these [------], and the clear inference is that they\nrepresented the views of a naturally antagonistic party, an inference\nwhich is in accordance with all that we elsewhere read of James. It is\ndifficult to separate the [------] from the [------] of the preceding\nchapter (i.7) who \"trouble\" the Galatians, and \"desire to pervert the\nGospel of Christ,\" asserting the necessity of circumcision, against whom\nthe epistle is directed. Again we meet with the same vague and cautious\ndesignation of judaistic opponents in his second Epistle to the\nCorinthians (iii. 1), where\n\n{307}\n\n\"some\" [------] bearers of \"letters of commendation\" [------] from\npersons unnamed, were attacking the Apostle and endeavouring to\ndiscredit his teaching. By whom were these letters written? We cannot\nof course give an authoritative reply, but we may ask: by whom could\nletters of commendation possessing an authority which could have weight\nagainst that of Paul be written, except by the elder Apostles?' We have\ncertain evidence in the first Epistle to the Corinthians that parties\nhad arisen in the Church of Corinth in opposition to Paul. These parties\nwere distinguished, as the Apostle himself states, by the cries: \"I\nam of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.\"(2)\n[------]. Whatever differences of opinion there may be as to the precise\nnature of these parties, there can be no doubt that both the party\n\"of Cephas\" and the party \"of Christ\" held strong Judaistic views and\nassailed the teaching of Paul, and his apostolic authority. It is very\nevident that the persons to whom the Apostle refers in connection with\n\"letters of commendation\" were of these parties.\n\nApologists argue that: \"in claiming Cephas as the head of their party\nthey had probably neither more nor\n\n{308}\n\nless ground than their rivals who sheltered themselves under the names\nof Apollos and of Paul.\"(1) It is obvious, however, that, in a Church\nfounded by Paul, there could have been no party created with the\nnecessity to take his name as their watchword, except as a reply to\nanother party which, having intruded itself, attacked him, and forced\nthose who maintained the views of their own Apostle to raise such a\ncounter-cry. The parties \"of Cephas\" and \"of Christ\" were manifestly\naggressive, intruding themselves, as the Apostle complains, into \"other\nmen's labours,\"(2) and this in some manner seems to point to that\nconvention between the Apostle and the Three, that he should go to the\nGentiles and they to the circumcision which, barely more than passive\nneutrality at the beginning, soon became covertly antagonistic. The fact\nthat the party \"of Paul\" was not an organized body, so to say, directed\nby the Apostle as a party leader, in no way renders it probable that the\nparty of Cephas, which carried on active and offensive measures, had\nnot much more ground in claiming Cephas as their head. One point is\nindisputable, that no party ever claims any man as its leader who is not\nclearly associated with the views it maintains. The party \"of Cephas,\"\nrepresenting judaistic views, opposing the teaching of Paul, and joining\nin denying his apostolic claims, certainly would not have taken Peter's\nname as their watch-cry if he had been known to hold and express such\nPauline sentiments as are put into his mouth in the Acts, or had not, on\nthe contrary, been intimately identified with judaistic principles.\nTo illustrate the case by a modern instance: Is it possible to suppose\nthat, in any considerable city in this country,\n\n{309}\n\na party holding ritualistic opinions could possibly claim the present\nArchbishop of Canterbury as its leader, or one professing \"broad-church\"\nviews could think of sheltering itself under the name of the Archbishop\nof York? Religious parties may very probably mistake the delicate\ndetails of a leader's teaching, but they can scarcely be wrong in regard\nto his general principles. If Peter had been so unfortunate as to\nbe flagrantly misunderstood by his followers and, whilst this party\npreached in his name judaistic doctrines and anti-Pauline opinions, the\nApostle himself advocated the abrogation of the law, as a burden which\nthe Jews themselves were not able to bear, and actively shared Pauline\nconvictions, is it possible to suppose that Paul would not have pointed\nout the absurdity of such a party claiming such a leader?\n\nThe fact is, however, that Paul never denies the claim of those who\nshelter themselves under the names of Peter and James, never questions\ntheir veracity, and never adopts the simple and natural course of\nstating that, in advancing these names, they are imposters or mistaken.\nOn the contrary, upon all occasions he evidently admits, by his silence,\nthe validity of the claim.(1) We are not left to mere inference that the\nadopted head of the party actually shared the views of the party. Paul\nhimself distinguishes Peter as the head of the party of the circumcision\nin a passage in his letter to the Galatians already frequently referred\nto,(2) and the episode at Antioch confirms the description, and leaves\nno doubt that Peter's permanent practice was to force the Gentiles to\njudaize. For reasons which we have already stated, Paul could not but\nhave desired to preserve peace, or even the\n\n{310}\n\nsemblance of it, with the elder Apostles, for the Gospel's sake; and he,\ntherefore, wisely leaves them as much as possible out of the question\nand deals with their disciples. It is obvious that policy must have\ndictated such a course. By ignoring the leaders and attacking their\nfollowers, he suppressed the chief strength of his opponents and\nkept out of sight the most formidable argument against himself: the\nconcurrence with them of the elder Apostles. On the one hand,\nthe epistles of Paul bear no evidence to any active sympathy and\nco-operation with his views and work on the part of the elder Apostles.\nOn the other, Paul is everywhere assailed by judaistic adversaries who\noppose his Gospel and deny his apostle-ship, and who claim as their\nleaders the elder Apostles.\n\nIf, even without pressing expressions to their extreme and probable\npoint, we take the contrast drawn between his own Gospel and that of the\ncircumcision, the reality of the antagonism must be apparent. \"For we\nare not as the many [------](1) which adulterate the word of God; but as\nof sincerity, but as of God, before God, speak we in Christ.\"(2) Later\non in the letter, after referring to the intrusion of the opposite party\ninto the circle of his labours, Paul declares that his impatience\nand anxiety proceed from godly jealousy at the possible effect of the\njudaistic intruders upon the Corinthians. \"But I fear, lest by any\nmeans, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, your thoughts\nshould\n\n{311}\n\nbe corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is in Christ. For\nif he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we did not preach, or if\nye receive another spirit which ye received not, or another Gospel which\nye did not accept, ye bear well with him. For I think I am not a whit\nbehind the overmuch Apostles [------].\"(1)\n\nThis reference to the elder Apostles gives point to much of the epistle\nwhich is ambiguous, and more especially when the judaistic nature of the\nopposition is so clearly indicated a few verses further on: \"Are they\nHebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they Abraham's seed?\nso am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool), I am more;\nin labours more abundantly, in prisons exceedingly, in deaths often,\"\n&c, &c.(2)\n\nIt is argued that the Twelve had not sufficient authority over their\nfollowers to prevent such interference with Paul, and that the\nrelation of the Apostle to the Twelve was: \"separation, not opposition,\nantagonism of the followers rather than of the leaders, personal\nantipathy of the Judaizers to St. Paul, rather than of St. Paul to the\nTwelve.\"(3) It is not difficult to believe that the antipathy of Paul\nto the Judaizers was less than that felt by them towards him. The\nsuperiority of the man must have rendered him somewhat callous to such\ndislike.(4) But the mitigated form of difference between Paul and\nthe Twelve here assumed, although still very different from the\nrepresentations of the Acts,\n\n{312}\n\ncannot be established, but on the contrary must be much widened before\nit can justly be taken as that existing between Paul and the elder\nApostles. We do not go so far as to say that there was open enmity\nbetween them, or active antagonism of any distinct character on the part\nof the Twelve to the Apostle of the Gentiles, but there is every reason\nto believe that they not only disliked his teaching, but endeavoured to\ncounteract it by their own ministry of the circumcision. They not only\ndid not restrain the opposition of their followers, but they abetted\nthem in their counter-assertion of judaistic views. Had the Twelve felt\nany cordial friendship for Paul, and exhibited any active desire for the\nsuccess of his ministry of the uncircumcision, it is quite impossible\nthat his work could have been so continuously and vexatiously impeded by\nthe persecution of the Jewish Christian party. The Apostles may not\nhave possessed sufficient influence or authority entirely to control the\naction of adherents, but it would be folly to suppose that, if unanimity\nof views had prevailed between them and Paul, and a firm and consistent\nsupport had been extended to him, such systematic resistance as he\neverywhere encountered from the party professing to be led by the\n\"pillar\" Apostles could have been seriously maintained, or that he\ncould have been left alone and unaided to struggle against it. If the\nrelations between Paul and the Twelve had been such as are intimated\nin the Acts of the Apostles, his epistles must have presented undoubted\nevidence of the fact Both negatively and positively they testify the\nabsence of all support, and the existence of antagonistic influence on\nthe part of the elder Apostles, and external evidence fully confirms the\nimpression which the epistles produce.(1)\n\n{313}\n\nFrom any point of view which may be taken, the Apocalypse is an\nimportant document in connection with this point. If it be accepted as\na work of the Apostle John--the preponderance of evidence and critical\nopinion assigns it to him--this book, of course, possesses the greatest\nvalue as an indication of his views. If it be merely regarded as a\ncontemporary writing, it still is most interesting as an illustration\nof the religious feeling of the period. The question is: Does the\nApocalypse contain any reference to the Apostle Paul, or throw light\nupon the relations between him and the elder Apostles? If it does so,\nand be the work of one of the [------], nothing obviously could be more\n\n{314}\n\ninstructive. In the messages to the seven churches, there are references\nand denunciations which, in the opinion of many able critics, are\ndirected against the Apostle of the Gentiles and his characteristic\nteaching.(1) Who but Paul and his followers can be referred to in the\nEpistle to the Church of Ephesus: \"I know thy works, and thy labour, and\nthy patience, and that thou canst not bear wicked persons: and didst\ntry them which say they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them\nliars\"?(2) Paul himself informs us not only of his sojourn in Ephesus,\nwhere he believed that \"a great and effectual door\" was opened to him,\nbut adds, \"there are many adversaries\" [------].(3) The foremost charge\nbrought against the churches is that they have those that hold the\nteaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before\nthe sons of Israel, \"to eat things offered unto idols.\"(4) The teaching\nof Paul upon this point is\n\n{315}\n\nwell known, 1 Cor. viii. 1 ff., x. 25 ff., Rom. xiv. 2 ff., and the\nreference here cannot be mistaken; and when in the Epistle to the church\nof Thyatira, after denouncing the teaching \"to eat things offered unto\nidols,\" the Apocalyptist goes on to encourage those who have not this\nteaching, \"who knew not the depths of Satan, [------],(1) as they say\"\nthe expression of Paul himself is taken to denounce his doctrine; for\nthe Apostle, defending himself against the attacks of those parties \"of\nCephas\" and \"of Christ\" in Corinth, writes: \"But God revealed (them)\nto us through his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even\nthe depths of God\" [------]--\"the depths of Satan\" rather, retorts the\njudaistic author of the Apocalypse. [------] does not occur elsewhere\nin the New Testament Again, in the address to the churches of Smyrna\nand Philadelphia, when the writer denounces those \"who say that they are\nJews, and are not, but a synagogue of Satan,\"(2) whom has he in view\nbut those Christians whom Paul had taught to consider circumcision\nunnecessary and the law abrogated? We find Paul in the Epistle to the\nCorinthians, so often quoted, obliged to defend himself against these\njudaising parties upon this very point: \"Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are\nthey Israelites? so am I. Are they Abraham's seed? so am I.\"(3) It is\nmanifest that his adversaries had vaunted their own Jewish origin as a\ntitle of superiority over the Apostle of the Gentiles. We\n\n{316}\n\nhave, however, further evidence of the same attack upon Paul regarding\nthis point. Epiphanius points out that the Ebionites denied that Paul\nwas a Jew, and asserted that he was born of a Gentile father and\nmother, but that, having gone up to Jerusalem, he became a proselyte and\nsubmitted to circumcision in the hope of marrying a daughter of the high\npriest. But afterwards, according to them, enraged at not securing the\nmaiden for his wife, Paul wrote against circumcision and the Sabbath and\nthe law.(1) The Apostle Paul, whose constant labour it was to destroy\nthe particularism of the Jew, and raise the Gentile to full, free, and\nequal participation with him in the benefits of the New Covenant, could\nnot but incur the bitter displeasure of the Apocalyptist, for whom the\nGentiles were, as such, the type of all that was common and unclean. In\nthe utterances of the seer of Patmos we seem to hear the expression of\nall that judaistic hatred and opposition which pursued the Apostle\nwho laid the axe to the root of Mosaism and, in his efforts to free\nChristianity from trammels which, more than any other, retarded its\ntriumphant development, aroused against himself all the virulence of\nJewish illiberality and prejudice. The results at which we have arrived\nmight be singularly confirmed by an examination of the writings of the\nfirst two centuries, and by observing the attitude\n\n{317}\n\nassumed towards the Apostle of the Gentiles by such men as Justin\nMartyr, Papias, Hegesippus, and the author of the Clementines; but we\nhave already devoted too much space to this subject, and here we must\nreluctantly leave it.\n\nThe steps by which Christianity was gradually freed from the trammels of\nJudaism and became a religion of unlimited range and universal\nfitness were clearly not those stated in the Acts of the Apostles. Its\nemancipation from Mosaism was not effected by any liberal action or\nenlightened guidance on the part of the elder Apostles. At the death\nof their Master, the Twelve remained closely united to Judaism, and\nevidently were left without any understanding that Christianity was a\nnew religion which must displace Mosaic institutions, and replace the\nunbearable yoke of the law by the divine liberty of the Gospel. To the\nlast moment regarding which we have any trustworthy information, the\nTwelve, as might have been expected, retained all their early religious\ncustoms and all their Jewish prejudices. They were simply Jews believing\nthat Jesus was the Messiah; and if the influence of Paul enlarged their\nviews upon some minor points, we have no reason to believe that they\never abandoned their belief in the continued obligation of the law, and\nthe necessity of circumcision for full participation in the benefits\nof the Covenant. The author of the Acts would have us believe that\nthey required no persuasion, but anticipated Paul in the Gospel of\nuncircumcision. It is not within the scope of this work to inquire how\nPaul originally formed his views of Christian universalism. Once formed,\nit is easy to understand how rapidly they must have been developed and\nconfirmed by experience amongst\n\n{318}\n\nthe Gentiles. Whilst the Twelve still remained in the narrow circle of\nJudaism and could not be moved beyond the ministry of the circumcision,\nPaul, in the larger and freer field of the world, must daily have felt\nmore convinced that the abrogation of the Law and the abandonment of\ncircumcision were essential to the extension of Christianity amongst the\nGentiles. He had no easy task, however, to convince others of this, and\nhe never succeeded in bringing his elder colleagues over to his\nviews. To the end of his life, Paul had to contend with bigoted and\nnarrow-minded opposition within the Christian body, and if his views\nultimately triumphed, and the seed which he sowed eventually yielded a\nrich harvest, he himself did not live to see the day, and the end was\nattained only by slow and natural changes. The new religion gradually\nextended beyond the limits of Judaism. Gentile Christians soon\noutnumbered Jewish believers. The Twelve whose names were the strength\nof the judaistic opposition one by one passed away; but, above all, the\nfall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Christian community secured\nthe success of Pauline principles and the universalism of Christianity.\nThe Church of Jerusalem could not bear transplanting. In the uncongenial\nsoil of Pella it gradually dwindled away, losing first its influence\nand soon after its nationality. The divided members of the Jewish\nparty, scattered amongst the Gentiles, and deprived of their influential\nleaders, could not long retard the progress of the liberalism which\nthey still continued to oppose and to misrepresent. In a word, the\nemancipation of Christianity was not effected by the Twelve, was no work\nof councils, and no result of dreams; but, receiving its first great\nimpulse from the genius and the energy of Paul, its ultimate\n\n{319}\n\nachievement was the result of time and natural development.\n\nWe have now patiently considered the \"Acts of the Apostles,\" and\nalthough it has in no way been our design exhaustively to examine its\ncontents, we have more than sufficiently done so to enable the reader\nto understand the true character of the document. The author is unknown,\nand it is no longer possible to identify him. If he were actually the\nLuke whom the Church indicates, our results would not be materially\naffected; but the mere fact that the writer is unknown is obviously\nfatal to the Acts as a guarantee of miracles. A cycle of supernatural\noccurrences could scarcely, in the estimation of any rational mind, be\nestablished by the statement of an anonymous author, and more especially\none who not only does not pretend to have been an eye-witness of most\nof the miracles, but whose narrative is either uncorroborated by other\ntestimony or inconsistent with itself, and contradicted on many points\nby contemporary documents. The phenomena presented by the Acts of the\nApostles become perfectly intelligible when we recognize that it is the\nwork of a writer living long after the occurrences related, whose pious\nimagination furnished the apostolic age with an elaborate system\nof supernatural agency, far beyond the conception of any other New\nTestament writer, by which, according to his view, the proceedings\nof the Apostles were furthered and directed, and the infant Church\nmiraculously fostered. On examining other portions of his narrative,\nwe find that they present the features which the miraculous elements\nrendered antecedently probable. The speeches attributed to\n\n{320}\n\ndifferent speakers are all cast in the same mould, and betray the\ncomposition of one and the same writer. The sentiments expressed are\ninconsistent with what we know of the various speakers. And when we test\nthe circumstances related by previous or subsequent incidents and by\ntrustworthy documents, it becomes apparent that the narrative is not\nan impartial statement of facts, but a reproduction of legends or a\ndevelopment of tradition, shaped and coloured according to the purpose\nor the pious views of the writer. The Acts of the Apostles, therefore,\nis not only an anonymous work, but upon due examination its claims to be\nconsidered sober and veracious history must be emphatically rejected. It\ncannot strengthen the foundations of supernatural Religion, but, on the\ncontrary, by its profuse and indiscriminate use of the miraculous it\ndiscredits miracles, and affords a clearer insight into their origin and\nfictitious character.\n\n\n\n\nPART V. THE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE\n\nTurning from the Acts of the Apostles to the other works of the New\nTestament, we shall be able very briefly to dispose of the Catholic\nEpistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse. The so-called\nEpistles of James, Jude, and John, do not contain any evidence which,\neven supposing them to be authentic, really bears upon our inquiry into\nthe reality of Miracles and Divine Revelation; and the testimony of the\nApocalypse affects it quite as little. We have already, in examining\nthe fourth Gospel, had occasion to say a good deal regarding both the\nso-called Epistles of John and the Apocalypse. It is unnecessary to\nenter upon a more minute discussion of them here. \"Seven books of\nthe New Testament,\" writes Dr. Westcott, \"as is well known, have been\nreceived into the Canon on evidence less complete than that by which\nthe others are supported.\"(1) These are \"the Epistles of James, Jude,\n2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse.\" We have\nalready furnished the means of judging of the nature of the\n\n{322}\n\nevidence upon which some of the other books have been received into\nthe Canon, and the evidence for most of these being avowedly \"less\ncomplete,\" its nature may be conceived. Works which for a long period\nwere classed amongst the Antilegomena, or disputed books, and which\nonly slowly acquired authority as, in the lapse of time, it became more\ndifficult to examine their claims, could not do much to establish the\nreality of miracles. With regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, we may\nremark that we are freed from any need to deal at length with it, not\nonly by the absence of any specific evidence in its contents, but by the\nfollowing consideration. If the Epistle be not by Paul,--and it not only\nis not his, but does not even pretend to be so,--the author is unknown,\nand therefore the document has no weight as testimony. On the other\nhand, if assigned to Paul, we shall have sufficient ground in his\ngenuine epistles for considering the evidence of the Apostle, and it\ncould not add anything even if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included\nin the number.\n\nThe first Epistle of Peter might have required more detailed treatment,\nbut we think that little could be gained by demonstrating that the\ndocument is not authentic, or showing that, in any case, the evidence\nwhich it could furnish is not of any value. On the other hand, we are\naverse to protract the argument by any elaboration of mere details which\ncan be avoided. If it could be absolutely proved that the Apostle Peter\nwrote the epistle circulating under his name, the evidence for miracles\nwould only be strengthened by the fact that, incidentally, the doctrine\nof the Resurrection of Jesus is maintained. No historical details are\ngiven, and no explanation of the reasons for which the writer believed\nin it.\n\n{323}\n\nNothing more would be proved than the point that Peter himself believed\nin the Resurrection. It would certainly be a matter of very deep\ninterest if we possessed a narrative written by the apostle himself,\ngiving minute and accurate details of the phenomena in consequence of\nwhich he believed in so miraculous an event; but since this epistle does\nnothing more than allow us to infer the personal belief of the writer,\nunaccompanied by corroborative evidence, we should not gain anything by\naccepting it as genuine. We are quite willing to assume, without\nfurther examination, that the Apostle Peter in some way believed in the\nResurrection of his Master. For the argument regarding the reality\nof that stupendous miracle, upon which we are about to enter, this is\ntantamount to assuming the authenticity of the epistle.\n\nComing to the Epistles of Paul, it will not be necessary to go into the\nevidence for the various letters in our New Testament which are ascribed\nto him, nor shall we require to state the grounds upon which the\nauthenticity of many of them is denied. Accepting the Epistles to the\nGalatians, Corinthians and Romans in the main as genuine compositions\nof the Apostle, the question as to the origin of the rest, so far as our\ninquiry is concerned, has little or no interest. From these four letters\nwe obtain the whole evidence of Paul regarding miracles, and this we\nnow propose carefully to examine. One point in particular demands our\nfullest attention. It is undeniable that Paul preached the doctrine of\nthe Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, and believed in those events.\nWhilst, therefore, we shall not pass over his supposed testimony for the\npossession of miraculous powers, we shall chiefly devote our attention\nto his evidence for the central dogmas of Supernatural Religion, the\nResurection and Ascension of\n\n{324}\n\nJesus. We shall not, however, limit our examination to the testimony\nof Paul, but, as the climax of the historical argument for miracles,\nendeavour to ascertain the exact nature of the evidence upon which\nbelief is claimed for the actual occurrence of those stupendous events.\nFor this, our inquiry into the authorship and credibility of the\nhistorical books of the New Testament has at length prepared us, and it\nwill be admitted that, in subjecting these asserted miracles to calm and\nfearless scrutiny--untinged by irreverence or disrespect, if personal\nearnestness and sincere sympathy with those who believe are any\nsafeguards,--the whole theory of Christian miracles will be put to its\nfinal test.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL\n\nIt is better, before proceeding to examine the testimony of Paul for the\nResurrection, to clear the way by considering his evidence for miracles\nin general, apart from that specific instance. In an earlier portion\nof this work(1) the following remark was made: \"Throughout the New\nTestament, patristic literature, and the records of ecclesiastical\nmiracles, although we have narratives of countless wonderful works\nperformed by others than the writer, and abundant assertion of the\npossession of miraculous power by the Church, there is no instance\nwhatever, that we can remember, in which a writer claims to have\nhimself performed a miracle.\"(2) It is asserted that this statement is\nerroneous, and that Paul does advance this claim.(3) It may be well to\nquote the moderate\n\n{326}\n\nwords in which a recent able writer states the case, although not with\nimmediate reference to the particular passage which we have quoted.\n\"... In these undoubted writings St. Paul certainly shows by incidental\nallusions, the good faith of which cannot be questioned, that he\nbelieved himself to be endowed with the power of working miracles, and\nthat miracles, or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought\nboth by him and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians\nthat 'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them... in signs, and\nwonders, and mighty deeds' [------]--the usual words for the higher\nforms of miracle--2 Cor. xii. 12). He tells the Romans that 'he will not\ndare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by(1)\nhim to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty\nsigns and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God' [------]. He asks\nthe\n\n{327}\n\nGalatians whether 'he that ministereth to them the Spirit, and worketh\nmiracles [------] among them, doeth it by the works of the law, or\nby the hearing of faith?' (Gal. iii. 5.) In the first Epistle to the\nCorinthians, he goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the\nChristian economy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and\ngifts of healing (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29).\"(1)\n\nWe shall presently examine these passages, but we must first briefly\ndeal with the question whether, taken in any sense, they furnish\nan instance \"in which a writer claims to have himself performed _a\nmiracle_.\" It must be obvious to any impartial reader, that the remark\nmade in the course of our earlier argument precisely distinguished the\ngeneral \"assertion of the possession of miraculous power by the Church,\"\nfrom the explicit claim to have personally performed \"a miracle\" in the\nsingular. If, therefore, it were even admitted \"that St. Paul treats the\nfact of his working miracles as a matter of course, _to which a passing\nreference is sufficient_,\" such \"incidental allusions\" would not in\nthe least degree contradict the statement made, but, being the only\ninstances producible, would in fact completely justify it. General and\nvague references of this kind have by no means the force of a definite\nclaim to have performed some particular miracle. They partake too much\nof that indiscriminate impression of the possession and common exercise\nof miraculous powers which characterized the \"age of miracles\" to have\nany force. The desired instance, which is not forthcoming, and to\nwhich alone reference was made, was a case in which, instead of vague\nexpressions, a writer, stating with precision the particulars, related\nthat he himself had,\n\n{328}\n\nfor instance, actually raised some person from the dead. As we then\nadded, even if Apostles had chronicled their miracles, the argument for\ntheir reality would not have been much advanced; but it is a curious\nphenomenon not undeserving of a moment's attention that apologists can\nonly refer to such general passages, and cannot quote an instance in\nwhich a specific miracle is related in detail by the person who is\nsupposed to have performed it. Passing references on a large scale\nto the exercise of miraculous power, whilst betraying a suspicious\nfamiliarity with phenomena of an exceptional nature, offer too much\nlatitude for inaccuracy and imagination to have the weight of an\naffirmation in which the mind has been sobered by concentration to\ndetails. \"Signs and wonders,\" indefinitely alluded to, may seem much\nmore imposing and astonishing than they really are, and it may probably\nbe admitted by everyone that, if we knew the particulars of the\noccurrences which are thus vaguely indicated and which may have been\nconsidered miraculous in a superstitious age, they might to us possibly\nappear no miracles at all. General expressions are liable to an\nexaggeration from which specific allegations arc more frequently free.\nIf it be conceded that the Apostle Paul fully believed in the possession\nby himself and the Church of divine Charismata, the indefinite\nexpression of that belief, in any form, must not be made equivalent to\nan explicit claim to have performed a certain miracle, the particulars\nof which are categorically stated.\n\nPassing from this, however, to the more general question, the force of\nsome of these objections will be better understood when we consider the\npassages in the Epistles which are quoted as expressing Paul's belief in\nmiracles, and endeavour to ascertain his real views: what it is he\n\n{329}\n\nactually says regarding miracles; and what are the phenomena which\nare by him considered to be miraculous. We shall not waste time in\nconsidering how, partly through the influence of the Septuagint, the\nwords [------], and [------] came to be used in a peculiar manner by New\nTestament writers to indicate miracles. It may, however, be worth while\nto pause for a moment to ascertain the sense in which Paul, who wrote\nbefore there was a \"New Testament\" at all, usually employed these words.\nIn the four Epistles of Paul the word [------] occurs six times. In\nRom. iv. 11 Abraham is said to have received the \"sign [------] of\ncircumcision,\" in which there is nothing miraculous. In 1 Cor. i. 22\nit is said: \"Since both Jews require signs [------](1) and Greeks seek\nafter wisdom;\" and again, 1 Cor. xiv. 22: \"Wherefore the tongues are\nfor a sign [------] not to the believing but to the unbelieving,\" &c. We\nshall have more to say regarding these passages presently, but just now\nwe merely quote them to show the use of the word. The only other places\nin which it occurs(2) are those pointed out, and which are the subject\nof our discussion. In Rom. xv. 19 the word is used in the plural and\ncombined with [------]: \"in the power of signs and wonders\" [------];\nand in the second passage, 2 Cor. xii. 12, it is employed twice, \"the\nsigns [------] of the apostle \"and the second time again in combination\nwith [------] and [------], \"both in signs\" [------], &c. The word\n[------] is only twice met with in Paul's writings; that is to say, in\nRom. xv. 19 and 2 Cor. xii. 12; and on both occasions, as we\n\n{330}\n\nhave just mentioned, it is combined with [------].(1) On the other hand,\nPaul uses [------] no less than 34 times(2) and, leaving for the present\nout of the question the passages cited, upon every occasion, except\none, perhaps, the word has the simple signification of \"power.\" The\none exception is Rom. viii. 38, where it occurs in the plural: [------]\n\"powers,\" the Apostle expressing his persuasion that nothing will be\nable to separate us from the love of God, \"nor life, nor angels, nor\nprincipalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers\n[------], nor height, nor depth,\" &c., &c. In 1 Cor. xiv. 11, where the\nauthorized version renders the original: \"Therefore, if I know not the\nmeaning [------] of the voice,\" it has still the same sense.\n\nBefore discussing the passages before us we must point out that there\nis so much doubt, at least, regarding the authenticity of the last two\nchapters of the Epistle to the Romans that the passage, Rom. xv. 18, 19,\ncan scarcely be presented as evidence on such a point as the reality\nof miracles. We do not intend to debate the matter closely, but shall\nmerely state a few of the facts of the case and pass on, for it would\nnot materially affect our argument if the passage were altogether beyond\nsuspicion. The Epistle, in our authorized text, ends with a long and\nsomewhat involved doxology, xvi. 25-27; and we may point out here that\nit had already seemed to be brought to a close not only at the end of\nchapter xv. (33) but also at xvi. 20. The doxology, xvi. 25-27, which\n\n{331}\n\nmore particularly demands our attention, is stated by Origen(1) to be\nplaced in some MSS at the end of ch. xiv.; and a similar statement is\nmade by Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact and others. We find\nthese verses actually so placed in L, and in upwards of 220 out of 250\ncursive MSS. of Byzantine origin, in an account of ancient MSS. in Cod.\n66, in most of the Greek Lection-aries, in the Slavonic and later Syriac\nversions as also in the Gothic, Arabic, (in the polyglot and triglot\ntext) and some MSS. of the Armenian. They are inserted both at the end\nof xiv. and at the end of the Epistle by the Alexandrian Codex,(2) one\nof the most ancient manuscripts extant, and by some other MSS.(3) Now,\nhow came this doxology to be placed at all at the end of chapter xiv.?\nThe natural inference is that it was so placed because that was the end\nof the Epistle. Subsequently, chapters xv. and xvi. being added, it is\nsupposed that the closing doxology was removed from the former position\nand placed at the end of the appended matter. This inference is\nsupported by the important fact that, as we learn from Origen,(4) the\nlast two\n\n{332}\n\nchapters of the Epistle to the Romans, including the doxology (xvi.\n25-27) did not exist in Marcion's text, the most ancient form of it of\nwhich we have any knowledge. Tertullian, who makes no reference to these\ntwo chapters, speaks of the passage, Rom. xiv. 10, as at the close (in\nclausula) of the epistle,(1) and he does not call any attention to their\nabsence from Marcion's Epistle. Is it not reasonable to suppose that\nthey did not form part of his copy? In like manner Irenaeus, who\nvery frequently quotes from the rest of the Epistle, nowhere shows\nacquaintance with these chapters. The first writer who distinctly makes\nuse of any part of them is Clement of Alexandria. It has been argued\nboth that Marcion omitted the two chapters because they contain what was\nopposed to his views, and because they had no dogmatic matter to induce\nhim to retain them; but, whilst the two explanations destroy each other,\nneither of them is more than a supposition to account for the absence of\nwhat, it may with equal propriety be conjectured, never formed part of\nhis text.\n\nThe external testimony, however, does not stand alone, but is supported\nby very strong internal evidence. We shall only indicate one or two\npoints, leaving those who desire to go more deeply into the discussion\nto refer to works more particularly concerned with it, which we shall\nsufficiently indicate. It is a very singular thing that all, who, when\nhe wrote this epistle had never been in Rome, should be intimately\nacquainted with so many persons there. The fact that there was much\nintercourse\n\n{333}\n\nbetween Rome and other countries by no means accounts for the\nsimultaneous presence there of so many of the Apostle's personal\nfriends. Aquila and Priscilla, who are saluted (xvi. 3), were a short\ntime before (1 Cor. xvi. 19) in Ephesus.(1) It may, moreover, be\nremarked as a suggestive fact that when, according to the Acts (xxviii.\n14 ff.), Paul very soon afterwards arrived in Rome, most of these\nfriends seem to have disappeared,(2) and the chief men of the Jews\ncalled together by Paul do not seem to be aware of the existence of\na christian body at Rome.(3) Another point is connected with the very\npassage which has led to this discussion, xv. 18, 19 read: 18. \"For\nI will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not\nwrought by me, in order to [------] the obedience of the Gentiles, by\nword and deed, 19. in the power of signs and wonders [------] in the\npower of the Spirit [------]; so that from Jerusalem and round about\nunto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ;\" &c. The\nstatement that \"from Jerusalem\" he had \"fully preached\" the Gospel is\nscarcely in agreement with the statement in the Epistle to the Galatians\ni. 17-23, ii. 1 ff Moreover, there is no confirmation anywhere of the\nApostle's having preached as far as Illyricum, which was then almost\nbeyond the limits of civilization. Baur suggests that in making his\nministry commence at Jerusalem, there is too evident a concession made\nto the Jewish Christians, according to whom every preacher of the Gospel\nmust naturally commence his career at the holy city. It would detain us\nmuch too long to enter upon an analysis of these two\n\n{331}\n\nchapters, and to show the repetition in them of what has already\nbeen said in the earlier part of the Epistle; the singular analogies\npresented with the Epistles to the Corinthians, not of the nature of\nuniformity of style, but of imitation; the peculiarity of the mention of\na journey to Spain as the justification of a passing visit to Rome, and\nperhaps a further apology for even writing a letter to the Church there\nwhich another had founded; the suspicious character of the names which\nare mentioned in the various clauses of salutation; and to state\nmany other still more important objections which various critics have\nadvanced, but which would require more elaborate explanation than can\npossibly be given here. It will suffice for us to mention that the\nphenomena presented by the two chapters are so marked and curious that\nfor a century they have largely occupied the attention of writers of all\nshades of opinion, and called forth very elaborate theories to account\nfor them; the apparent necessity for which in itself shows the insecure\nposition of the passage. Semler,(1) without denying the Pauline\nauthorship of the two chapters, considered they did not properly belong\nto the Epistle to the Romans. He supposed xvi. 3-16 to have been merely\nfor the messenger who carried the Epistle, as a list of the persons\nto whom salutations were to be given, and to these, ch. xv. was to be\nspecially delivered and considered ch. xv. to be a separate letter,\naddressed to the leaders of the Roman Church, as an Epistle to the\ncommunity in general, being sealed up and ready for any opportunity of\ntransmission, but none presenting itself before\n\n{335}\n\nhis arrival in Corinth, the apostle there, upon an additional sheet,\nwrote xvi. and entrusted it with the letter to Phoebe. Eichhorn(1)\nsupposed that the parchment upon which the Epistle was written was\nfinished at xiv. 23; and, as Paul and his scribe had only a small sheet\nat hand, the doxology only, xvi. 25-27, was written upon the one side of\nit, and on the other the greetings and the apostolic benediction,\nxvi. 21-24, and thus the letter was completed; but, as it could not\nimmediately be forwarded, the apostle added a fly-leaf with ch. xv.\nBertholdt(2) Guericke(3) and others adopted similar views more or less\nmodified, representing the close of the Epistle to have been formed by\nsuccessive postscripts. More recently, Renan(4) has affirmed the epistle\nto be a circular letter addressed to churches in Rome, Ephesus, and\nother places, to each of which only certain portions were transmitted\nwith appropriate salutations and endings, which have all been collected\ninto the one Epistle in the form in which we have it. David Schulz\nconjectured that xvi. 1-20 was an epistle written from Rome to the\nchurch at Ephesus; and this theory was substantially adopted by\nEwald,--who held that xvi. 3-20 was part of a lost epistle to\nEphesus,--and by many other critics.(5) Of course the virtual\nauthenticity of the xv.-xvi. chapters, nearly or exactly as they are,\nis affirmed by many writers. Baur, however, after careful investigation,\npronounced the two chapters inauthentic, and in this he is followed by\nable critics.(6) Under all these circumstances it is obvious\n\n{336}\n\nthat we need not occupy ourselves much with the passage in Rom. xv. 18,\n19, but our argument will equally apply to it. In order to complete this\nview of the materials we may simply mention, as we pass on, that the\nauthenticity of 2 Cor. xii. 12 has likewise been impugned by a few\ncritics, and the verse, or at least the words [------], as well as Rom.\nxv. 19, declared an interpolation.(1) This cannot, however, so far as\nexisting evidence goes, be demonstrated; and, beyond the mere record of\nthe fact, this conjecture does not here require further notice.\n\nIt may be well, before proceeding to the Epistles to the Corinthians,\nwhich furnish the real matter for discussion, first to deal with the\npassage cited from Gal iii. 5, which is as follows:--\"He then that\nsupplieth to you the Spirit and worketh powers [------] within you\n[------], (doeth he it) from works of law or from hearing of faith?\"(2)\nThe authorised version reads: \"and worketh miracles among you;\" but this\ncannot be maintained, and [------] must be rendered \"within you,\" the\n[------] certainly retaining its natural signification when used with\n[------], the primary meaning of which is itself to in-work. The vast\nmajority of critics of all schools agree in this view.(3) There is an\nevident reference to iii 2,\n\n{337}\n\nand to the reception of the Spirit, here further characterised as\nproducing such effects within the minds of those who receive it,(1) the\nworker who gives the Spirit being God. The opinion most commonly held is\nthat reference is here made to the \"gifts\" [------], regarding which the\nApostle elsewhere speaks,(2) and which we shall presently discuss, but\nthis is by no means certain and cannot be determined. It is equally\nprobable that he may refer to the spiritual effect produced upon the\nsouls of the Galatians by the Gospel which he so frequently represents\nas a \"power\" of God. In any case, it is clear that there is no external\nmiracle referred to here, and even if allusion to Charismata be\nunderstood we have yet to ascertain precisely what these were. We shall\nendeavour to discover whether there was anything in the least degree\nmiraculous in these \"gifts,\" but there is no affirmation in this passage\nwhich demands special attention, and whatever general significance it\n\n{338}\n\nmay have will be met when considering the others which are indicated.\n\nthe first passage in the Epistles to the Corinthians, which is pointed\nout as containing the testimony of Paul both to the reality of miracles\nin general and to the fact that he himself performed them, is the\nfollowing, 2 Cor. xii. 12: \"Truly the signs [------] of the Apostle were\nwrought in you [------] in all patience, both in signs and wonders and\npowers [------]\"(1) We have to justify two departures in this rendering\nfrom that generally received. The first of these is the adoption of\n\"wrought in you,\" instead of \"wrought among you\" and the second the\nsimple use of \"powers\" for [------], instead of \"mighty works.\" We shall\ntake the second first We have referred to every passage except 1 Cor.\nxii. 10, 28, 29, in which Paul makes use of the word [------], and\nfortunately they are sufficiently numerous to afford us a good insight\ninto his practice. It need not be said that the natural sense of\n[------] is in no case \"mighty works\" or miracles, and that such an\napplication of the Greek word is peculiar to the New Testament and,\nsubsequently, to Patristic literature. There is, however, no ground\nfor attributing this use of the word to Paul. It is not so used in the\nSeptuagint, and it is quite evident that the Apostle does not employ\nit to express external effects or works, but spiritual phenomena or\npotentiality. In the passage, Gal. iii. 5, which we have just discussed,\nwhere the word occurs in the plural, as here, it is understood to\nexpress \"powers.\" We may quote the rendering of that passage by the\nBishop of Gloucester:\n\n{339}\n\n\"He then, _I say_, that ministereth to you the Spirit and worketh\n_mighty_ powers within you, _doeth he it_ by the works of the law or by\nthe report of faith?\"(1) Why \"mighty\" should be inserted it is difficult\nto understand, but the word is rightly printed in italics to show that\nit is not actually expressed in the Greek. \"What was the exact nature\nof these 'powers'... it is impossible to determine,\" observes another\nscholar quoted above,(2) on the same passage.3 In 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28,\n29, where the plural [------] again occurs, the intention to express\n\"powers\"(4) and not external results--miracles--is perfectly clear, the\nword being in the last two verses used alone to represent the \"gifts.\"\nIn all of these passages the word is the representative of the \"powers\"\nand not of the \"effects.\"(5) This interpretation is rendered more clear\nby, and at the same time confirms, the preceding phrase, \"were wrought\nin you \"[------]. 'Powers' [------], as in Gal. iii. 5, are worked\n\"within you,\" and the rendering of that passage being so settled, it\nbecomes authoritative for this. If, however, direct confirmation of\nPaul's meaning be required we have it in Rom. vii. 8, where we find the\nsame verb used with [------] in this sense: \"But sin.... wrought in\nme [------] all manner of coveting,\" &c.; and with this may also\nbe compared 2 Cor. vii. 11.... \"what earnestness it wrought in you\"\n[------](6)\n\n{340}\n\n[------]. It was thus Paul's habit to speak of spiritual effects wrought\n\"within,\" and as he referred to the \"powers\" [------] worked \"within\"\nthe souls of the Galatians, so he speaks of them here as \"wrought in\"\nthe Corinthians. It will become clear as we proceed that the addition\nto [------] of \"signs and wonders\" does not in the least affect this\ninterpretation. In 1 Cor. xiv. 22, the Apostle speaks of the gift of\n\"tongues\" as \"a sign\" [------].\n\nUpon the supposition that Paul was affirming the actual performance of\nmiracles by himself, how extraordinary becomes the statement that\nthey \"were wrought in all patience,\" for it is manifest that \"in all\npatience\" [------] does not form part of the signs, as some have argued,\nbut must be joined to the verb [------].(1) It may be instructive to\nquote a few words of Olshausen upon the point:--\"The [------] is not\naltogether easy. It certainly cannot be doubtful that it is to be joined\nto [------] and not to what follows; but for what reason does Paul here\nmake it directly prominent that he wrought his signs in all patience?\nIt seems to me probable that in this there may be a reproof to the\nCorinthians, who, in spite of such signs, still showed themselves\nwavering regarding the authority of the Apostle. In such a position,\nPaul would say, he had, patiently waiting, allowed his light to shine\namongst them, certain of ultimate triumph.\"(3) This will hardly be\naccepted by any one as a satisfactory solution of the difficulty, which\nis a real one if it be assumed that Paul, claiming to have performed\n\n{341}\n\nmiracles, wrought them \"in all patience.\" Besides the matter is\ncomplicated, and the claim to have himself performed a miracle still\nmore completely vanishes, when we consider the fact that the passive\nconstruction of the sentence does not actually represent Paul as the\nactive agent by whom the signs were wrought. \"Truly the signs of the\napostle were wrought,\" but how wrought? Clearly he means by the Spirit,\nas he distinctly states to the Gala- tians. To them \"Jesus Christ (the\nMessiah) was fully set forth crucified,\" and he asks them: Was it from\nworks of the Law or from hearing in faith the Gospel thus preached\nto them that they \"received the Spirit\"? and that he who supplies the\nSpirit \"and worketh powers\" in them does so? From faith, of course.(1)\nThe meaning of Paul, therefore, was this: His Gospel was preached among\nthem \"in all patience,\" which being received by the hearing of faith,\nthe Spirit was given to them, and the signs of the apostle were thus\nwrought among them. The representation is made throughout the Acts that\nthe apostles lay their hands on those who believe, and they receive the\nHoly Spirit and speak with tongues. If any special \"sign of the apostle\"\ncan be indicated at all, it is this; and in illustration we may point to\none statement made in the Acts. Philip, the evangelist, who was not an\napostle, is represented as going into Samaria and preaching the Messiah\nto the Samaritans, who give heed to the things spoken by him, and\nmultitudes are baptized (viii. 5, 6, 12), but there was not the\noutpouring of the Holy Spirit which usually accompanied the apostolic\nbaptism. \"And the Apostles in Jerusalem, having heard that Samaria had\nreceived the word of God, sent unto them Peter and John; who\n\n{342}\n\nwhen they came down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy\nSpirit--for as yet he had fallen upon none of them, but they had only\nbeen baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they (the\nApostles) their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.\"(1) We\nmay further refer to the episode at Ephesus (Acts xix. Iff.) where\nPaul finds certain disciples who, having only been baptized into John's\nbaptism, had not received the Holy Spirit, nor even heard whether there\nwas a Holy Spirit, (xix. 6.) \"And Paul having laid his hands upon them,\nthe Holy Spirit came on them, and they were speaking with tongues and\nprophesying.\"\n\nWhen we examine Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians we find ample\nassurance that the interpretation here given of this passage is correct,\nand that he does not refer, as apologists have maintained, to miracles\nwrought by himself, but to the Charismata, which were supposed to have\nbeen bestowed upon the Corinthians who believed, and which thus were the\nsigns of his apostleship. The very next verse to that which is before us\nshows this: \"Truly the signs of the Apostle were wrought in you in all\npatience.... 13. For [------] what is there wherein ye were inferior\nto the other Churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to\nyou?\" The mere performance of signs and wonders did not constitute their\nequality; but in the possession of the Charismata,--regarding which\nso much is said in the first epistle, and which were the result of\nhis preaching,--they were not inferior to the other Churches, and only\ninferior, Paul says with his fine irony, in not having, like the other\nChurches with their apostles, been called upon to acquire the merit of\n\n{343}\n\nbearing his charges. What could be more distinct than the Apostle's\nopening address in the first Epistle: \"I thank my God always, on your\nbehalf, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus;\nthat in everything ye were enriched by him (at the time of their\nconversion(1), in all utterance and in all knowledge: even as the\ntestimony of Christ was confirmed in you: _so that ye come behind in no\ngift_ [------],\" &c. For this reason they were not inferior to the other\nChurches, and those were the signs of the Apostle which were wrought in\nthem. Paul very distinctly declares the nature of his ministry amongst\nthe Corinthians and the absence of other \"signs\": 1 Cor. i. 22 f. \"Since\nboth Jews demand signs [------] and Greeks seek after wisdom, but we\n[------] preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto\nGentiles foolishness, but unto those who are called, both Jews and\nGreeks, Christ the power [------] of God and the wisdom of God.\" The\ncontrast is here clearly drawn between the requirement of Jews (signs)\nand of Greeks (wisdom) and Paul's actual ministry: no signs, but a\nscandal [------] to the Jew, and no wisdom, but foolishness to the\nGreek, but this word of the cross [------] \"to us who are being saved\nis the power [------] of God\" (i. 18).(2) The Apostle tells us what\nhe considers the \"sign of the Apostle,\" when, more directly defending\nhimself against the opponents who evidently denied his apostolic claims,\nhe says vehemently: 1 Cor. ix. 1 flf. \"Am I not free? Am I not an\nApostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? _are not ye my work in the\nLord?_ If I be not an Apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you:\n_for the seal\n\n{344}\n\n[------] of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord_.\"(1) It cannot, we think,\nbe doubted, when the passage 2 Cor. xii. 12 is attentively considered,\nthat Paul does not refer to external miracles performed by him, but to\nthe Charismata which he supposed to be conferred upon the Corinthian\nChristians on their acceptance of the Gospel which the Apostle preached.\nThese Charismata, however, are advanced as miraculous, and the passages\n1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29 are quoted in support of the statement we are\ndiscussing, and these now demand our attention.\n\nIt may be well at once to give the verses which are referred to, and\nin which it is said that Paul \"goes somewhat elaborately into the exact\nplace in the Christian economy that is to be assigned to the working of\nmiracles and gifts of healing\" (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29). It is necessary\nfor the full comprehension of the case that we should quote the context:\nxii. 4. \"Now there are diversities of gifts [------], but the same\nSpirit; 5. and there are diversities of ministries [------], and the\nsame Lord; 6. and there are diversities of workings [------], but it\nis the same God who worketh the all in all [------]: 7. But to each is\ngiven the manifestation of the Spirit [------] for profit; 8. For to one\nis given by the Spirit a word of wisdom [------]; to another a word of\nknowledge [------] according to the same Spirit; 9. to another faith\n[------] in the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings [------] in\nthe one Spirit; 10. to another (inward) workings of powers [------]\n\n{345}\n\n[------]; to another prophecy [------]; to another discerning of\nspirits [------]; to another kinds of tongues [------]; to another\ninterpretation of tongues [------]; 11. but all these worketh [------]\nthe one and the same Spirit, dividing to each severally as he wills.\"\nAfter illustrating this by showing the mutual dependence of the\ndifferent members and senses of the body, the Apostle proceeds: v. 28.\n\"And God set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets,\nthirdly teachers, after that powers [------], after that gifts of\nhealings [------], helpings [------], governings [------], kinds of\ntongues [------]. 29. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all\nteachers? are all powers [------]? 30. have all gifts of healings\n[------]? do all speak with tongues [------]? do all interpret\n[------]?\"\n\nBefore we commence an examination of this interesting and important\npassage, it is essential that we should endeavour to disabuse our\nminds of preconceived ideas. Commentators are too prone to apply to the\nApostle's remarks a system of interpretation based upon statements made\nby later and less informed writers, and warped by belief in the reality\nof a miraculous element pervading all apostolic times, which have been\nderived mainly from post-apostolic narratives. What do we really know\nof the phenomena supposed to have characterized the Apostolic age,\nand which were later, and are now, described as miraculous? With the\nexception of what we glean from the writings of Paul, we know absolutely\nnothing from any contemporary writer and eye-witness. In the Gospels and\nin the Acts of the Apostles, we have detailed accounts of many miracles\nsaid\n\n{346}\n\nto have been performed by the Apostles and others; but these narratives\nwere all written at a much later period, and by persons who are unknown,\nand most of whom are not even affirmed to have been eye-witnesses.(1)\nIn the Acts of the Apostles, we have an account of some of the very\nCharismata referred to by Paul in the passage above quoted, and we shall\nthus have the advantage of presently comparing the two accounts. We\nmust, however, altogether resist any attempt to insert between the lines\nof the apostle's writing ideas and explanations derived from the Author\nof the Acts and from patristic literature, and endeavour to understand\nwhat it is he himself says and intends to say. It must not be supposed\nthat we in the slightest degree question the fact that the Apostle Paul\nbelieved in the reality of supernatural intervention in mundane affairs,\nor that he asserted the actual occurrence of certain miracles. Our\ndesire is as far as possible to ascertain what Paul himself has to say\nupon specific phenomena, now generally explained as miraculous, and\nthus, descending from vague generalities to more distinct statements,\nto ascertain the value of his opinion regarding the character of such\nphenomena. It cannot fail to be instructive to determine something of\nthe nature of Charismata from an eye-witness who believed them to have\nbeen supernatural. His account, as we have seen, is the most precious\nevidence of the Church to the reality of the miraculous.\n\nThe first point which must be observed in connection with the Charismata\nreferred to by Paul in the passage before us is that, whilst there are\ndiversities amongst them, all the phenomena described are ascribed to\n\n     1 It is suggestive that the curious passage Mk. xvi. 17--18\n     is not even by the author of the second Gospel, but a later\n     addition.\n\n{347}\n\n\"one and the same Spirit dividing to each severally as he wills;\" and,\nconsequently, that, although there may be differences in their form\nand value, a supernatural origin is equally assigned to all the \"gifts\"\nenumerated. What then are these Charismata? \"A word of wisdom,\" \"a\nword of knowledge,\" and \"faith\" are the first three mentioned. What\nthe precise difference was, in Paul's meaning, between the utterance\nof wisdom [------] and of knowledge [------] it is impossible now with\ncertainty to say, nor is it very essential for us to inquire. The two\nwords are combined in Rom. xi. 33: \"O the depths of the riches and\nwisdom [------] and knowledge [------] of God!\" and in this very epistle\nsome varying use is made of both words. Paul tells the Corinthians (1,\ni. 17) that Christ did not send him \"in wisdom of word \"[------] or\nutterance: and (ii. 1) \"not with excellency of word or wisdom\" [------],\ncf. ii. 4); and further on he says (i. 30) that Christ Jesus \"was made\nunto us wisdom [------] from God.\" The most suggestive expressions,(1)\nhowever, are the following, we think: 1 Cor. ii. 6. \"But we speak wisdom\n[------] among the perfect, yet not the wisdom [------] of this age, nor\nof the rulers of this age, that come to nought, 7. but we speak God's\nwisdom [------] in mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before\nthe ages unto our glory, 8. which none of the rulers of this age has\nknown, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of\nGlory. 9. But as it is written, 'What eye saw not/ &c. &c. 10. But unto\nus God revealed them through the Spirit....... 11....\n\n{348}\n\neven so also the things of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God. 12.\nBut we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is\nfrom God, that we might know the things that are freely given us by God;\n13. which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom,\nbut in words taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to\nthe spiritual\"(1) [------]. It is quite clear from all the antecedent\ncontext that Paul's preaching was specially the Messiah crucified,\n\"Christ the power of God and the wisdom [------] of God,\" and we may\nconclude reasonably that the [------] of our passage was simply the\neloquent utterance of this doctrine. In like manner, we may get some\ninsight into the meaning which Paul attached to the word \"knowledge\"\n[------]. It will be remembered that at the very opening of the first\nEpistle to the Corinthians Paul expresses his thankfulness that in\neverything they were enriched in Christ Jesus: i. 5. \"in all utterance\n[------] and in all knowledge [------], 6. even as the testimony of the\nChrist was confirmed in you;\" that is to say, according to commentators,\nby these very Charismata. Later, speaking of \"tongues,\" he says (1\nCor. xiv. 6): \"... What shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you\neither in revelation or in knowledge [------], or in prophecy, or in\nteaching?\" We obtain a clearer insight into his meaning in the second\nEpistle, in the passage 2 Cor. ii. 14-16, and still more in iv. 3-6 and\nx. 5, where he describes metaphorically his weapons as not carnal, but\nstrong through God, \"casting down reasonings and every high thing that\nexalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into\n\n{349}\n\n_captivity_ every thought to the obedience of the Christ;\" and if we ventured\nto offer an opinion, it would be that Paul means by [------] simply\nChristian theology. We merely offer this as a passing suggestion.\nLittle need be said with regard to the gift of \"faith\" (marts), which is\nperfectly intelligible.\n\nApologists argue that by these three gifts\" some supernatural form of\nwisdom, knowledge, and faith is expressed, and we shall have something\nmore to say on the point presently; but here we merely point out that\nthere is no ground whatever for such an assertion except the fact\nthat the Apostle ascribes to them a supernatural origin, or, in\nfact, believes in the inspiration of such qualities. All that can be\nmaintained is that Paul accounts for the possession of characteristics\nwhich we now know to be natural, by asserting that they are the direct\ngift of the Holy Spirit. There is not the faintest evidence to show\nthat these natural capabilities did not antecedently exist in the\nCorinthians, and were not merely stimulated into action in Christian\nchannels by the religious enthusiasm and zeal accompanying their\nconversion; but, on the contrary, every reason to believe this to\nbe the case, as we shall further see.(1) In fact, according to the\nApostolic Church, every quality was a supernatural gift, and all ability\nor excellence in practical life directly emanated from the action of the\nHoly Spirit. We may now proceed to \"gifts of healings\" [------](2) which\nit will be noted are doubly in the plural,\n\n{350}\n\nindicating, as is supposed, a variety of special gifts, each having\nreference probably to special diseases. What is there to show that\nthere was anything more miraculous in \"gifts of healings\" than in the\npossession of an utterance of wisdom, an utterance of knowledge, or\nfaith? Nothing whatever. On the contrary, everything, from the unvarying\nexperience of the world, to the inferences which we shall be able to\ndraw from the whole of this information regarding the Charismata,\nshows that there was no miraculous power of healing either possessed or\nexercised. Reference is frequently made to the passage in the so-called\nEpistle of James as an illustration of this, v. 14: \"Is any sick among\nyou? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over\nhim, having anointed him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15. And the\nprayer of faith shall save the afflicted, and the Lord shall raise\nhim up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him.\" The\ncontext, however, not only shows that in this there is no allusion\nto any gift of healing or miraculous power, but seems to ignore the\nexistence of any such gift. The epistle continues: v. 16. \"Confess\ntherefore your sins one to another, and pray for one another that ye may\nbe healed. The supplication of a righteous man availeth much when it is\nworking.\" And then the successful instance of the prayer of Elijah that\nit might not rain and again that it might rain is given. The passage\nis merely an assertion of the efficacy of prayer, and if, as is not\nunfrequently done, it be argued that the gifts of healings were probably\napplied by means of earnest prayer for the sick, it may be said that\nthis is the only \"gift\" which is supposed to have descended to our\ntimes. It does not require much argument, however, to show that the\nreality of a miraculous gift cannot be demonstrated\n\n{351}\n\nby appealing to the objective efficacy of prayer. We may, in passing,\nrefer apologists who hold the authenticity of the Epistles to the\nPhilippians and to Timothy to indications which do not quite confirm the\nsupposition that a power of miraculous healing actually existed in the\napostolic Church. In the Epistle to the Philippians, ii. 25 ff., Paul\nis represented as sending Epaphroditus to them (v. 26) \"Since he was\nlonging after you all and was distressed because ye heard that he was\nsick. 27. For, indeed, he was sick nigh unto death; but God had mercy on\nhim; and not on him only, but on me also, that I might not have sorrow\nupon sorrow. I sent him, therefore, the more anxiously, that, when ye\nsee him, ye may rejoice again, and that I may be the less sorrowful.\"\nThe anxiety felt by the Philippians, and the whole language of the\nwriter, in this passage, are rather inconsistent with the knowledge that\nmiraculous power of healing was possessed by the Church, and of course\nby Paul, which would naturally have been exerted for one in whom so\nmany were keenly interested. Then, in 2 Tim. iv. 20, the writer says:\n\"Trophimus I left at Miletus sick.\" If miraculous powers of healing\nexisted, why were they not exerted in this case? If they were exerted\nand failed for special reasons, why are these not mentioned? It is\nunfortunate that there is so little evidence of the application of\nthese gifts. On the other hand, we may suggest that medical art scarcely\nexisted at that period in such communities, and that the remedies\npractised admirably lent themselves to the theory of \"gifts\" of\nhealings, rather than to any recognition of the fact that the accurate\ndiagnosis of disease and successful treatment of it can only be the\nresult of special study and experience. The next gift mentioned is (v.\n10) \"workings of powers\"\n\n{352}\n\n[------] very unwarrantably rendered in our \"authorized\" version \"the\nworking of miracles.\" We have already said enough regarding Paul's use\nof [------]. The phrase before us would be even better rendered in-or\ninward-workings of powers(1) and the use made of [------] by Paul\nthroughout his epistles would confirm this. It may be pointed out that\nas the gifts just referred to are for \"healings\" it is difficult to\nimagine any class of \"miracles\" which could well be classed under a\nseparate head as the special \"working of miracles\" contemplated by\napologists. Infinitely the greater number of miracles related in the\nGospels and Acts are \"healings\" of disease. Is it possible to suppose\nthat Paul really indicated by this expression a distinct order\nof \"miracles\" properly so called? Certainly not Neither the words\nthemselves used by Paul, properly understood, nor the context permit us\nto suppose that he referred to the working of miracles at all. We have\nno intention of conjecturing what these \"powers\" were supposed to be;\nit is sufficient that we show they cannot rightly be exaggerated into\nan assertion of the power of working miracles. It is much more probable\nthat, in the expression, no external working by the gifted person is\nimplied at all, and that the gift referred to \"in-workings of powers\"\nwithin his own mind, producing the ecstatic state, with its usual\nmanifestations, or those visions and supposed revelations to which Paul\nhimself was subject. Demonaics, or persons supposed to be possessed of\nevil spirits, were called [------] and it is easy to conceive how anyone\nunder strong religious\n\n{353}\n\nimpressions, at that epoch of most intense religious emotion, might,\nwhen convulsed by nervous or mental excitement, be supposed the subject\nof inward workings of powers supernaturally imparted. Every period of\nreligious zeal has been marked by such phenomena.(1) These conclusions\nare further corroborated by the next gifts enumerated. The first\nof these is \"prophecy\" [------], by which is not intended the\nmere foretelling of events, but speaking \"unto men edification and\nexhortation and comfort,\" as the Apostle himself says (xiv. 3); and an\nillustration of this may be pointed out in Acts iv. 36 where the name\nBarnabas = \"Son of prophecy,\" being interpreted is said to be \"Son of\nExhortation\" [------].\n\nTo this follows the \"discerning (or judging) of spirits\" [------], a\ngift which, if we are to judge by Paul's expressions elsewhere, was\nsimply the exercise of natural intelligence and discernment. In an\nearlier part of the first Epistle, rebuking the Corinthians for carrying\ntheir disputes before legal tribunals, he says, vi. 5: \"Is it so that\nthere is not even one wise man among you who shall be able to discern\n[------] between his brethren?\" Again, in xi. 31, \"But if we discerned\n[------] we should not be judged [------]\" (cf vv. 28, 29), and in\nxiv. 29, \"Let Prophets speak two or three, and let the others discern\"\n[------].\n\nWe reserve the \"kinds of tongues\" and \"interpretation of tongues\"\nfor separate treatment, and proceed to vv. 28ff. in which, after\nillustrating his meaning by the analogy of the body, the Apostle resumes\nhis\n\n{354}\n\nobservations upon the Charismata, and it is instructive to consider\nthe rank he ascribes to the various gifts. He classes them: \"First,\napostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that powers, after\nthat gifts of healings, helpings, governings, kinds of tongues.\" These\nso-called miraculous gifts are here placed in a lower class than those\nof exhortation and teaching, which is suggestive; for it is difficult to\nsuppose that even a man like Paul could have regarded the possession of\nsuch palpable and stupendous power as the instantaneous and miraculous\nhealing of disease, or the performance of other miracles, below the\ngift of teaching or exhortation. It is perfectly intelligible that the\npractice of medicine as it was then understood, and the skill\nwhich might have been attained in particular branches of disease by\nindividuals, not to speak of those who may have been supposed to be\nperforming miracles when they dealt with cases of hysteria or mental\nexcitement, might appear to the apostle much inferior to a gift\nfor imparting spiritual instruction and admonition; but the actual\npossession of supernatural power, the actual exercise of what was\nbelieved to be the personal attribute of God, must have been considered\na distinction more awful and elevated than any gift of teaching. It\nwill be noticed also that other Charismata are here introduced, whilst\n\"discerning of spirits\" is omitted. The new gifts, \"helpings\" and\n\"governings,\" have as little a miraculous character about them as any\nthat have preceded them. Is it not obvious that all special ability, all\nofficial capacity, is simply represented as a divine gift, and regarded\nas a \"manifestation of the Spirit?\"\n\nIt is important in the highest degree to remember that the supposed\nmiraculous Charismata are not merely conferred upon a few persons, but\nare bestowed upon all\n\n{355}\n\nthe members of the Apostolic Church.(1) \"The extraordinary Charismata\nwhich the Apostles conferred through their imposition of hands,\" writes\nDr. von Dollinger, \"were so diffused and distributed, that nearly every\none, or at any rate many, temporarily at least, had a share in one gift\nor another. This was a solitary case in history, which has never since\nrepeated itself, and which, in default of experience, we can only\napproximately picture to ourselves. One might say: the metal of the\nChurch was still glowing, molten, formless, and presented altogether\nanother aspect than, since then, in the condition of the cold and\nhardened casting.\"(2) The apologetic representation of the case is\ncertainly unique in history and, therefore, in its departure from\nall experience might, one might have thought, have excited suspicion.\nDifficult as it is to picture such a state, it is worth while to\nendeavour to do so to a small extent. Let us imagine communities of\nChristians, often of considerable importance, in all the larger cities\nas well as in smaller towns, all or most of the members of which were\nendowed with supernatural\n\n{356}\n\ngifts, and, amongst others, with power to heal diseases and to perform\nmiracles; all the intellectual and religious qualities requisite for\nthe guidance, edification, and government of the communities supplied\nabundantly and specially by the Holy Spirit; the ordinary dependence of\nsociety on the natural capacity and power of its leaders dispensed with,\nand every possible branch of moral culture and physical comfort provided\nwith inspired and miraculously-gifted ministries; the utterance of\nwisdom and knowledge, exhortation and teaching, workings of healings,\ndiscernment of spirits, helpings, governings, kinds of tongues\nsupernaturally diffused throughout the community by God himself. As a\ngeneral rule, communities have to do as well as they can without such\nhelp, and eloquent instructors and able administrators do not generally\nfail them. The question, therefore, intrudes itself: Why were ordinary\nand natural means so completely set aside, and the qualifications which\nare generally found adequate for the conduct and regulation of\nlife supplanted by divine Charismata? At least, we may suppose that\ncommunities endowed with such supernatural advantages, and guided by the\ndirect inspiration of the Holy Spirit, must have been distinguished in\nevery way from the rest of humanity, and must have presented a spectacle\nof the noblest life, free from the weakness and inconsistency of the\nworld, and betraying none of the moral and intellectual frailties\nof ordinary society. At the very least, and without exaggeration,\ncommunities in every member of which there existed some supernatural\nmanifestation of the Holy Spirit might be expected to show very marked\nsuperiority and nobility of character. When we examine the Epistles of\nPaul and other ancient documents, we find anything but supernatural\n\n{357}\n\nqualities in the Churches supposed to be endowed with such miraculous\ngifts. On the contrary, it is scarcely possible to exaggerate the\nintensely human character of the conduct of such communities, their\nfickleness, the weakness of their fidelity to the Gospel of Paul,\ntheir wavering faith, and the ease and rapidity with which they are\nled astray, their petty strifes and discords; their party spirit,\ntheir almost indecent abuse of some of their supposed gifts, such as\n\"tongues,\" for which Paul rebukes them so severely. The very\nEpistles, in fact, in which we read of the supernatural endowments and\norganization of the Church are full of evidence that there was nothing\nsupernatural in them. The primary cause, apparently, for which the first\nletter was written to the Corinthians was the occurrence of divisions\nand contentions amongst them (i. 10 ff.), parties of Paul, of Apollos,\nof Cephas, of Christ, which make the Apostle give thanks (i. 14) that\nhe had baptized but few of them, that no one might say that they were\nbaptized into his name. Paul had not been able to speak to them as\nspiritual but as carnal, mere babes in Christ (iii. 1 f.); he fed them\nwith milk, not meat, for they were not yet able, \"nor even now are ye\nable,\" he says, \"for ye are yet carnal. For whereas there is among you\nenvying and strife; are ye not carnal?\" He continues in the same strain\nthroughout the letter, admonishing them in no flattering terms. Speaking\nof his sending Timothy to them, he says (iv. 18 f.): \"But some of you\nwere puffed up, as though I were not coming to you; but I will come to\nyou shortly, if it be the Lord's will, and will know, not the speech\nof them who are puffed up, but the power.\" There is serious sin amongst\nthem, which they show no readiness to purge\n\n{368}\n\naway. Moreover these Corinthians have lawsuits with each other (vi. 1\nff.), and, instead of taking advantage of those supernatural Charismata,\nthey actually take their causes for decision before the uninspired\ntribunals of the heathen rather than submit them to the judgment of the\nsaints. Their own members, who have gifts of wisdom and of knowledge,\ndiscerning of spirits and governings, have apparently so little light to\nthrow upon the regulation of social life, that the Apostle has to enter\ninto minute details for their admonition and guidance. He has even to\nlay down rules regarding the head-dresses of women in the Churches (xi.\n3 ff.). Even in their very Church assemblies there are divisions of a\nserious character amongst them (xi. 18 ff.). They misconduct themselves\nin the celebration of the Lord's supper, for they make it, as it were,\ntheir own supper, \"and one is hungry and another is drunken.\" \"What!\"\nhe indignantly exclaims, \"have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or\ndespise ye the Church of God?\" To the Galatians Paul writes, marvelling\nthat they are so soon removing from him that called them in the grace\nof Christ unto a different Gospel (i. 6). \"O foolish Galatians,\" he says\n(iii. 1), \"who bewitched you?\" In that community also, opposition to\nPaul and denial of his authority had become powerful.\n\nIf we turn to other ancient documents, the Epistles to the seven\nChurches do not present us with a picture of supernatural perfection in\nthose communities, though doubtless, like the rest, they had received\nthese gifts. The other Epistles of the New Testament depict a state of\nthings which by no means denotes any extraordinary or abnormal condition\nof the members. We may quote a short passage to show that we do not\nstrain\n\n{359}\n\nthis representation unduly. \"But certainly,\" says Dr. von Dollinger,\n\"in spite of a rich outpouring of spiritual gifts vouchsafed to it,\na community could fall into wanton error. Paul had in Corinth,\ncontemporaneously with his description of the charismatic state of\nthe church there, to denounce sad abuses. In the Galatian community,\nJudaistic seduction, and the darkening of Christian doctrine through the\ndelusion as to the necessity of the observance of the law, had so much\nincreased that the Apostle called them fools and senseless, but at the\nsame time he appealed to the proof which was presented by the spiritual\ngifts and miraculous powers, in which they had participated not through\nthe observance of the law, but through faith in Christ (Gal. iii. 2, 5).\nNow at that time the Charismata of teaching and knowledge must already\nhave been weakened or extinguished in these communities, otherwise so\nstrong an aberration would not be explicable. Nowhere, however, in this\nEpistle is there any trace of an established ministry; on the contrary,\nat the close, the 'spiritual' among them are instructed to administer\nthe office of commination.\n\nBut, generally, from that time forward, the charismatic state in\nthe Church more and more disappeared, though single Charismata, and\nindividuals endowed with the same, remained. In the first Epistle to the\nbelievers in Thessalonica, Paul had made it specially prominent that his\nGospel had worked there, not as mere word, but with demonstration of the\npower of the Holy Spirit (i. 5). In the Epistles to the Philippians and\nColossians, there is no longer the slightest intimation of, or reference\nto, the Charismata, although in both communities the occasion for\nsuch an allusion was very appropriate--in Philippi through the Jewish\nopponents,\n\n{360}\n\nand in Colossae on account of the heretical dangers and the threatening\nGnostic asceticism. On the other hand, in the Epistle to the\nPhilippians, bishops and deacons are already mentioned as ministers\nof the community. Then, in the Pastoral Epistles, not only is there no\nmention of the Charismata, but a state of the community is set forth\nwhich is wholly different from the charismatic. The communities in\nAsia Minor, the Ephesian first of all, are partly threatened, partly\nunsettled by Gnostic heresies, strifes of words, foolish controversies,\nempty babbling about matters of faith, of doctrines of demons, of an\nadvancing godlessness corroding like a gangrene (1 Tim. iv. 1-3, vi.\n3 ff. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 14 ff.). All the counsels which are here given to\nTimothy, the conduct in regard to these evils which is recommended to\nhim, all is of a nature as though Charismata no longer existed to any\nextent, as though, in lieu of the first spiritual soaring and of the\nfulness of extraordinary powers manifesting itself in the community, the\nbare prose of the life of the Church had already set in.\"(1) Regarding\nthis it is not necessary for us to say more than that the representation\nwhich is everywhere made, in the Acts and elsewhere, and which seems\nto be confirmed by Paul, is that all the members of these Christian\ncommunities received the Holy Spirit, and the divine Charismata, but\nthat nowhere have we evidence of any supernatural results produced by\nthem. If, however, the view above expressed be accepted, the difficulty\nis increased; for, except in the allusions of the Apostle to Charismata,\nit is impossible to discover any difference between communities which\nhad received miraculous spiritual \"gifts\" and those which had not done\nso. On the contrary, it\n\n{361}\n\nmight possibly be shown that a church which had not been so endowed,\nperhaps on the whole exhibited higher spiritual qualities than another\nwhich was supposed to possess the Charismata. In none are we able\nto perceive any supernatural characteristics, or more than the very\nordinary marks of a new religious life. It seems scarcely necessary to\ndepart from the natural order of nature, and introduce the supernatural\nworking of a Holy Spirit to produce such common-place results. We\nventure to say that there is nothing whatever to justify the assertion\nof supernatural agency here, and that the special divine Charismata\nexisted only in the pious imagination of the Apostle, who referred every\ngood quality in man to divine grace.\n\nWe have reserved the gift of \"Tongues\" for special discussion, because\nPaul enters into it with a fulness with which he does not treat any of\nthe other Charismata, and a valuable opportunity is thus afforded us of\nascertaining something definite with regard to the nature of the gift;\nand also because we have a narrative in the Acts of the Apostles of the\nfirst descent of the Holy Spirit, manifesting itself in \"Tongues,\" with\nwhich it may be instructive to compare the Apostle's remarks. We may\nmention that, in the opinion of many, the cause which induced the\nApostle to say so much regarding Charismata in his first letter to\nthe Corinthians was the circumstance, that many maintained the gift of\ntongues to be the only form of \"the manifestation of the Spirit.\" This\nview is certainly favoured by the narrative in the Acts, in which not\nonly at the first famous day of Pentecost, but on almost every occasion\nof the imposition of the Apostle's hands, this is the only gift\nmentioned as accompanying the reception of the Holy\n\n{362}\n\nSpirit. In any case, it is apparent from the whole of the Apostle's\nhomily on the subject, that the gift of tongues was especially valued\nin the Church of Corinth.(1) It is difficult to conceive, on the\nsupposition that amongst the Charismata there were comprised miraculous\ngifts of healings, and further power of working miracles, that these\ncould have been held so cheap in comparison with the gift of Tongues;\nbut in any case, a better comprehension of what this \"gift\" really was\ncannot fail to assist us in understanding the true nature of the whole\nof the Charismata. It is evident that the Apostle Paul himself does not\nrank the gift of tongues very highly, and indeed, that he seems to value\nprophecy more than all the other Charismata (xiv. 1 ff.); but the simple\nyet truly noble eloquence with which (xiii. 1 ff.) he elevates above all\nthese gifts the possession of spiritual love is a subtle indication of\ntheir real character. Probably Paul would have termed christian Charity\na gift of the Spirit as much as\n\n{363}\n\nhe does \"gifts of healings\" or \"workings of powers;\" but, however rare\nmay be the virtue, it is not now recognized as miraculous, although it\nis here shown to be more desirable and precious than all the miraculous\ngifts. Even Apostolic conceptions of the Supernatural cannot soar above\nthe range of natural morality.\n\nThe real nature of the \"gift of Tongues\" has given rise to an almost\ninterminable controversy, and innumerable treatises have been written\nupon the subject. It would have been impossible for us to have\nexhaustively entered upon such a discussion in this work, for which it\nonly possesses an incidental and passing interest; but fortunately such\na course is rendered unnecessary by the fact that, so far as we\nare concerned, the miraculous nature of the \"gift\" alone comes into\nquestion, and may be disposed of without any elaborate analysis of past\ncontroversy or minute reference to disputed points. Those who desire to\nfollow the course of the voluminous discussion will find ample materials\nin the treatises which we shall at least indicate in the course of our\nremarks, and we shall adhere as closely as possible to our own point of\nview.\n\nIn 1 Cor. xii. 10, the Apostle mentions, amongst the other Charismata,\n\"kinds of tongues\" [------] and \"interpretation of tongues\" [------], as\ntwo distinct gifts. In v. 28 he again uses the expression [------],\nand in a following verse he inquires: \"do all speak with tongues\"\n[------](1) \"do all interpret\" [------]? He says shortly after, xiii. 1:\n\"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels [------] and have not\nlove,\" &c. In the following chapter the expressions used in discussing\nthe gift vary.\n\n{364}\n\nIn xiv. 2 he says: \"he that speaketh with a tongue\"(1) [------](2) using\nthe singular; and again (v. 22), of \"the tongues\" [------], being a\nsign; and in v. 26, each \"hath a tongue\" [------]. The word [------]\nor [------] has several significations in Greek. The first and primary\nmeaning \"the tongue\": as a mere member of the body, the organ of speech;\nnext, a tongue, or language; and further, an obsolete or foreign word\nnot in ordinary use. If we inquire into the use of [------] in the New\nTestament, we find that, setting aside the passages in Acts, Mark, and\n1 Cor. xii.-xiv., in which the phenomenon we are discussing is referred\nto, the word is invariably used in the first sense, \"the tongue,\"(3)\nexcept in the Apocalypse, where the word as \"language\" typifies\ndifferent nations.(4) Any one who attentively considers all the\npassages in which the Charisma is discussed will observe that no uniform\napplication of any one signification throughout is possible. We may\nbriefly say that all the attempts which have been made philologically to\ndetermine the true nature of the phenomenon which the Apostle discusses\nhave failed to produce any really satisfactory result, or to secure the\ngeneral adhesion of critics. It is we think obvious that Paul does not\napply the word, either in the plural or in the singular, in its ordinary\nsenses, but makes use of [------] to describe phenomena connected with\nspeech, without intending strictly to apply it either to the tongue or\nto a definite language. We\n\n{365}\n\nmerely refer to this in passing, for it is certain that no philological\ndiscussion of the word can materially affect the case; and the argument\nis of no interest for our inquiry. Each meaning has been adopted by\ncritics and been made the basis for a different explanation of the\nphenomenon. Philology is incapable of finally solving such a problem.\n\nFrom the time of Irenaeus,(1) or at least of Origen, the favourite theory\nof the Fathers, based chiefly upon the narrative in Acts of the descent\nof the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, was that the disciples\nsuddenly became super-naturally endowed with power to speak other\nlanguages which they had not previously learned, and that this gift was\nmore especially conferred to facilitate the promulgation of the Gospel\nthroughout the world. Augustine went so far as to believe that each of\nthe Apostles was thus enabled to speak all languages.(2) The opinion\nthat the \"gift of tongues\" consisted of the power, miraculously\nconferred by the Holy Ghost, to speak in a language or languages\npreviously unknown to the speaker long continued to prevail, and it is\nstill the popular, as well as the orthodox, view of the subject.(3) As\nsoon as\n\n{366}\n\nthe attention of critics was seriously directed to the question,\nhowever, this interpretation became rapidly modified, or was altogether\nabandoned. It is unnecessary for us to refer in detail to the numerous\nexplanations which have been given of the phenomenon, or to enumerate\nthe extraordinary views which have been expressed regarding it; it will\nbe sufficient if, without reference to minor differences of opinion\nrespecting the exact form in which it exhibited itself, we broadly state\nthat a great majority of critics, rejecting the theory that [------]\nmeans to speak languages previously unknown to the speakers, pronounce\nit to be the speech of persons in a state of ecstatic excitement,\nchiefly of the nature of prayer or praise, and unintelligible to\nordinary hearers.(1) Whether\n\n{367}\n\nthis speech consisted of mere inarticulate tones, of excited\nejaculations, of obsolete or uncommon expressions and provincialisms, of\nhighly poetical rhapsodies, of prayer in slow scarcely audible accents,\nor of chaunted mysterious phrases, fragmentary and full of rapturous\nintensity, as these critics variously suppose, we shall not pause\nto inquire. It is clear that, whatever may have been the form of the\nspeech, if instead of being speech in unlearnt languages supernaturally\ncommunicated, [------] was only the expression of religious excitement,\nhowever that may be supposed to have originated, the pretentions of the\ngift to a miraculous character shrink at once into exceedingly small\nproportions.\n\nEvery unprejudiced mind must admit that the representation that the\ngift of \"tongues,\" of which the Apostle speaks in his Epistle to the\nCorinthians, conferred upon the recipient the power to speak foreign\nlanguages before unknown to him, may in great part be traced to the\nnarrative in Acts of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of\nPentecost. Although a few apologists advance the plea that there may\nhave been differences in the manifestation, it is generally recognized\non both sides that, however differently described by the two writers,\nthe [------] of Paul and of the Acts is, in reality, one and the same\nphenomenon. The impression conveyed by the narrative has been applied to\nthe didactic remarks of Paul, and a meaning forced upon them which\nthey cannot possibly bear. It is not too much to say that, but for the\nmythical account in the Acts, no one would ever have supposed that the\n[------] of Paul was the gift of speaking foreign languages without\nprevious study or practice. In the interminable controversy regarding\nthe phenomenon, moreover, it seems to us to have been a\n\n{368}\n\nfundamental error, on both sides too often, to have considered it\nnecessary to the acceptance of any explanation that it should equally\nsuit both the remarks of Paul and the account in Acts.(1) The only\nright course is to test the narrative by the distinct and authoritative\nstatements of the Apostle; but to adopt the contrary course is much the\nsame procedure as altering the natural interpretation of an original\nhistorical document in order to make it agree with the romance of some\nunknown writer of a later day. The Apostle Paul writes as a contemporary\nand eye-witness of phenomena which affected himself, and regarding which\nhe gives the most valuable direct and indirect information. The\nunknown author of the Acts was not an eye-witness of the scene which he\ndescribes, and his narrative bears upon its very surface the clearest\nmarks of traditional and legendary treatment. The ablest apologists\nfreely declare that the evidence of Paul is of infinitely greater value\nthan that of the unknown and later writer, and must be preferred\nbefore it. The majority of those who profess to regard the narrative\nas historical explain away its clearest statements with startling\ningenuity, or conceal them beneath a cloud of words. The references to\nthe phenomenon in later portions of the Acts are in themselves quite\ninconsistent with the earlier narrative in ch. ii. The detailed\ncriticism of Paul is the only contemporary, and it is certainly the only\ntrustworthy, account we possess regarding the gift of \"tongues.\"(2) We\nmust, therefore, dismiss from our minds, if possible, the bias which the\nnarrative in the Acts has unfortunately\n\n{369}\n\ncreated, and attend solely to the words of the Apostle. If his report of\nthe phenomenon discredit that of the unknown and later writer, so much\nthe worse for the latter. In any case it is the testimony of Paul which\nis referred to and which we are called upon to consider, and later\nwriters must not be allowed to invest it with impossible meanings. Even\nif we had not such undeniable reasons for preferring the statements of\nPaul to the later and untrustworthy narrative of an unknown writer, the\nvery contents of the latter, contrasted with the more sober remarks of\nthe Apostle, would consign it to a very subordinate place.\n\nDiscussing the miracle of Pentecost in Acts, which he, of course,\nregards as the instantaneous communication of ability to speak in\nforeign languages, Zeller makes the following remarks: \"The supposition\nof such a miracle is opposed to a right view of divine agency, and of\nthe relation of God to the world, and, in this case in particular, to\na right view of the constitution of the human mind. The composition and\nthe properties of a body may be altered through external influence, but\nmental acquirements are attained only through personal activity, through\npractice; and it is just in this that spirit distinguishes itself from\nmatter: that it is free, that there is nothing in it which it has\nnot itself spontaneously introduced. The external and instantaneous\nin-pouring of a mental acquirement is a representation which refutes\nitself.\" In reply to those who object to this reasoning he retorts: \"The\nassertion that such a miracle actually occurred contradicts the analogy\nof all attested experience, that it is invented by an individual or by\ntradition corresponds with it; when, therefore, the historical writer\nhas only the choice between these two\n\n{370}\n\nalternatives, he must according to the laws of historical probability,\nunder all the circumstances, unconditionally decide for the second. He\nmust do this even if an eyewitness of the pretended miracle stood before\nhim; he must all the more do so if he has to do with a statement which,\nbeyond doubt not proceeding from an eye-witness, is more possibly\nseparated by some generations from the event in question.\"(1)\n\nThese objections are not confined to rationalistic critics and do not\nmerely represent the arguments of scepticism. Neander expresses similar\nsentiments,(2) and after careful examination pronounces the narrative\nin Acts untrustworthy, and, adhering to the representations of Paul,\nrejects the theory that [------] was speech in foreign languages\nsupernaturally imparted. Meyer, who arrives at much the same result as\nNeander, speaks still more emphatically. He says: \"_This_ supposed gift\nof tongues (all languages), however, was in the apostolic age, partly\n_unnecessary_ for the preaching of the Gospel, as the preachers\nthereof only required to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek; partly _too\ngeneral_, as amongst the assembly there were certainly many who were not\ncalled to be teachers. And, on the other hand, again, it would also have\nbeen _premature_, as, before all, Paul the apostle of the Gentiles would\nhave required it, in whom nevertheless there is as little trace of\nany _subsequent_ reception of it as that he preached otherwise than in\nHebrew and Greek. _But now, how is the event to be historically judged?_\nRegarding this the following is to be observed: As the instantaneous\nbestowal of facility in a foreign language is neither logically possible\nnor psychologically\n\n{371}\n\nand morally conceivable, and as not the slightest intimation of such a\nthing in the Apostles is perceptible in their Epistles and elsewhere (on\nthe contrary, comp. xiv. 11); as, further, if it was only momentary,\nthe impossibility increases, and as Peter himself in his speech does\nnot once make the slightest reference to the foreign languages:\ntherefore,--whether, without any intimation in the text, one consider\nthat Pentecost assembly as a representation of all future Christianity,\nor not--the occurrence, as Luke relates it, cannot be transmitted in its\nactual historical circumstance.\"(1)\n\nLet us a little examine the particulars of the narrative in Acts ii.\nAll the brethren were assembled in one place, a house [------], on the\nmorning of the day of Pentecost. In the preceding chapter (i. 15) we\nlearn that the number of disciples was then about 120, and the crowd\nwhich came together when the miraculous occurrence took place must have\nbeen great, seeing that it is stated that 3,000 souls were baptized\nand added to the Church upon the occasion (ii. 41). Passing over the\nstatement as to the numbers of the disciples, which might well surprise\nus after the information given by the Gospels,2 we may ask in what house\nin Jerusalem could such a multitude have assembled? Apologists have\nexhausted their ingenuity in replying to the question, but whether\nplacing the scene in one of the halls or courts of the Temple, or in\nan imaginary house in one of the streets leading to the Temple, the\nexplanation is equally vague and unsatisfactory. How did the multitude\nso rapidly know of what was passing in a private house? We shall say\nnothing at present of the sound of the\n\n{372}\n\n\"rushing mighty wind\" which filled all the house, nor of the descent of\nthe \"tongues as of fire,\" nor of the various interpretations of these\nphenomena by apologetic writers. These incidents do not add to the\nhistorical character of the narrative, nor can it be pronounced either\nclear or consistent. The brethren assembled \"were all filled with the\nHoly Spirit and began to speak with other tongues [------], as the\nSpirit gave them utterance.\"(1) Apologists, in order somewhat to\nsave the historical credit of the account and reconcile it with the\nstatements of Paul, have variously argued that there is no affirmation\nmade in the narrative that speech in foreign languages previously\nunknown was imparted. The members of the fifteen nations who hear the\nGalilaeans speaking \"in our own language wherein we were born\" [------]\nare disposed of with painful ingenuity; but, passing over all this, it\nis recognized by unprejudiced critics on both sides that at least the\nauthor of Acts, in writing this account, intended to represent the\nbrethren as instantaneously speaking those previously unknown foreign\nlanguages. A few writers represent the miracle to have been one of\nhearing rather than of speaking, the brethren merely praising God in\ntheir own tongue, the Aramaic, but the spectators understanding in their\nvarious languages.(2) This only shifts the difficulty from the speakers\nto the hearers, and the explanation is generally repudiated. It is,\nhowever, freely granted by all that history does not exhibit a single\ninstance of such a gift of tongues having ever been made useful for the\npurpose of\n\n{373}\n\npreaching the gospel.(1) Paul, who claimed the possession of the gift\nof tongues in a superlative degree (1 Cor. xiv. 18), does not appear\nto have spoken more languages than Aramaic and Greek. He writes to the\nRomans in the latter tongue and not in Latin, and to the Galatians\nin the same language instead of their own. Peter, who appears to have\naddressed the assembled nations in Greek on this very occasion, does\nnot in his speech either refer to foreign languages or claim the gift\nhimself, for in v. 15 he speaks only of others: \"For _these_ [------]\nare not drunken.\" Every one remembers the ancient tradition recorded\nby Papias, and generally believed by the Fathers, that Mark accompanied\nPeter as his \"interpreter\" [------].(2) The first Epistle bearing the\nname of Peter, and addressed to some of the very nations mentioned\nin Acts, to sojourners \"in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and\nBithynia,\" is written in Greek; and so is the \"Epistle to the Hebrews\"\nand the other works of the New Testament. Few will be inclined to deny\nthat, to take only one language for instance, the Greek of the writings\nof the New Testament leaves something to be desired, and that, if the\nwriters possessed such a supernatural gift, they evidently did not speak\neven so important and current a language with absolute purity. \"Le style\ndes ecrivains sacred,\" writes a modern\n\n{374}\n\napologist, \"montre clairement qu'ils ont appris la langue grecque et\nqu'ils ne la possedent pas de droit divin et par inspiration, car\nils l'ecrivent sans correction, en la surchargeant de locutions\nhebraiques.\"(1) In fact, as most critics point out, there never was\na period at which a gift of foreign tongues was less necessary for\nintercourse with the civilized world, Greek being almost everywhere\ncurrent. As regards the fifteen nations who are supposed to have been\nrepresented on this great occasion, Neander says: \"It is certain that\namongst the inhabitants of towns in Cappadocia, in Pontus, in Asia\nMinor, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Cyrene, and in the parts of Libya and Egypt\npeopled by Greek and Jewish colonies, the Greek language was in great\npart more current than the old national tongue. There remain, out of\nthe whole catalogue of languages, at most the Persian, Syriac, Arabic,\nGreek, and Latin. The more rhetorical than historical stamp of the\nnarrative is evident.\"(2)\n\nThis rhetorical character, as contradistinguished from sober history, is\nindeed painfully apparent throughout. The presence in Jerusalem of Jews,\ndevout men \"from every nation under heaven\" is dramatically opportune,\nand thus representatives of the fifteen nations are prepared to appear\nin the house and hear their own languages in which they were born spoken\nin so supernatural, though useless, a manner by the brethren. They are\nall said to have been \"confounded\" at the phenomenon, and the writer\nadds, ii. 7f: \"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying, Behold,\nare not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in\nour own\n\n{375}\n\nlanguage wherein we were born?\" &c. Did all the multitude say this?\nOr is not this the writer ascribing, according to his view, probable\nsentiments to them? How again did they know that the hundred and twenty\nor more brethren were Galilaean? Further on, the writer adds more of\nthe same kind, v. 12, 13: \"And they were all amazed and were in doubt,\nsaying one to another: What may this mean? But others mocking said, They\nare full of sweet wine.\" Is it not a strange manner of accounting\nfor such a phenomenon as (v. 11) hearing people speaking in their own\ntongues the great works of God to suppose that they are drunken? People\nspeaking with tongues, in Paul's sense (1 Cor. xiv. 23, 24, 33), and\ncreating an unintelligible tumult, might well lead strangers to say\nthat they were either mad or drunken, but the praise of God in foreign\nlanguage, understood by so many, could not convey such an impression.\nPeter does not, in explanation, simply state that they are speaking\nforeign languages which have just been supernaturally imparted to them,\nbut argues (v. 15) that \"these are not drunken, as ye suppose, for it is\nthe third hour of the day,\"--too early to be \"full of sweet wine,\" and\nproceeds to assert that the phenomenon is, on the contrary, a fulfilment\nof a prophecy of Joel in which, although the pouring out of God's Spirit\nupon all flesh is promised \"in the last days,\" and as a result that:\n\"your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall\nsee visions and your old men shall dream dreams,\" not a single word\nis said of any gift of \"tongues,\" foreign or otherwise. The miraculous\nphenomenon in question is not mentioned in the prophecy of which it\nis supposed to be the accomplishment. It does not much help matters to\nargue that the miracle, although not for future use, was intended as a\n\n{376}\n\nsign. We shall see what Paul says regarding [------] as a sign, but we\nmay here merely point out that the effect produced in the Corinthian\nChurch is rather an impression of madness, whilst here it leads to a\nmocking accusation of drunkenness. The conversion of the 3,000 is by no\nmeans referred to the speaking with tongues, but simply to the speech\nof Peter (ii. 37L 41). From every point of view, there is no cohesion\nbetween the different parts of the narrative; it is devoid of\nverisimilitude. It is not surprising that so many critics of all shades\nof opinion recognize unhistorical elements in the narrative in Acts,(1)\nnot to use a stronger term. To allow such an account to influence our\ninterpretation of Paul's statements regarding the gift of tongues is\nquite out of the question; and no one who appreciates the nature of the\ncase and who carefully examines the narrative of the unknown writer can,\nwe think, hesitate to reject his theory of a supernatural bestowal of\npower to speak foreign languages, before unknown.\n\nIt is not difficult to trace the origin of the account in Acts and,\nalthough we cannot here pause to do so with any minuteness, we may at\nleast indicate the lines upon which the narrative is based. There is no\ndoubt that then, as now, the Jews commemorated at the feast of Pentecost\nthe giving of the law on Sinai.(2) It seemed\n\n{377}\n\ngood to the author of Acts that the prophet like unto Moses,(1) who was\nto abrogate that law and replace it by a dispensation of grace, should\ninaugurate the new law of love and liberty(2) with signs equally\nsignificant and miraculous. It is related in Exodus xix. 18 that the\nLord descended upon Sinai \"in fire,\" and that the whole mount quaked\ngreatly. The voice of God pronounced the decalogue and, as the\nSeptuagint version renders our Ex. xx. 18: \"All the people saw the\nvoice, and the lightnings and the voice of the trumpet and the mountain\nsmoking.\"(3) According to Rabbinical tradition, however, when God came\ndown to give the law to the Israelites, he appeared not to Israel alone,\nbut to all the other nations, and the voice in which the law was given\nwent to the ends of the earth and was heard of ail peoples.(4) It will\nbe remembered that the number of the nations was supposed to be seventy,\neach speaking a different language, and the law was given in the one\nsacred Hebrew tongue. The Rabbins explained, however: \"The voice from\nSinai was divided into 70 voices and 70 languages, so that all nations\nof the earth heard (the law), and each heard it actually in its own\nlanguage.\"(5) And again: \"Although the ten commandments were promulgated\nwith one single tone, yet it is said (Exod. xx. 15), 'All people heard\nthe voices' (in the plural and not the voice in the singular); \"the\nreason is: As the voice went forth it was divided into seven voices,\n\n{378}\n\nand then into seventy tongues, and every people heard the Law in its own\nmother-tongue.\"(1) The same explanation is given of Ps. lxviii. 11, and\nthe separation of the voice into seven voices and seventy tongues\nis likened to the sparks beaten by a hammer from molten metal on the\nanvil.(2) Philo expresses the same ideas in several places. We can\nonly extract one passage in which, speaking of the giving of the law on\nSinai, and discussing the manner in which God proclaimed the decalogue,\nhe says: \"For God is not like a man in need of a voice and of a\ntongue... but it seems to me that at that time he performed a most holy\nand beseeming wonder, commanding an invisible voice to be created in\nair, more wonderful than all instruments,.... not lifeless, but neither\na form of living creature composed of body and soul, but a reasonable\nsoul full of clearness and distinctness, which formed and excited the\nair and transformed it into flaming fire, and sounded forth such an\narticulated voice, like breath through a trumpet, that it seemed to\nbe equally heard by those who were near and those furthest off.\"(3) A\nlittle further on he says: \"But from the midst of the fire streaming\nfrom heaven, a most awful voice sounded forth, the flame being\narticulated to language familiar to the hearers, which made that which\nwas said so vividly clear, as to seem rather seeing than\n\n{379}\n\nhearing it.\"(1) It requires no elaborate explanation to show how this\ngrew into the miracle at Pentecost at the inauguration of the Christian\ndispensation, when suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a\nrushing mighty wind which filled all the house where the disciples were,\nand there appeared to them tongues as of fire parting asunder which sat\nupon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit\nand began to speak with other tongues, even as the Spirit gave them\nutterance, so that devout men from every nation under heaven heard them\nspeaking, everyone in his own language wherein he was born, the great\nworks of God.(2)\n\nWhen we turn to the other passages in the Acts where the gift of tongues\nis mentioned, we find that the interpretation of foreign languages\nsupernaturally imparted is quite out of place. When Peter is sent to\nCornelius, as he is addressing the centurion and his household, and even\nbefore they are baptized (x. 44), \"the Holy Spirit fell on all them\nwho hear the word;\" and the sign of it is (v. 46) that they are heard\n\"speaking with tongues and magnifying God\" [------], precisely like the\ndisciples at Pentecost (cf ii. 11, xi. 15f.). Now as this gift fell on\nall who heard the word (x. 44), it could not be a sign to unbelievers;\nand the idea that Cornelius and his house immediately began to speak in\nforeign languages, which, as in the case\n\n{380}\n\nof the Corinthians, probably no one understood, instead of simply\n\"magnifying God\" in their own tongue, which everyone understood, is\nalmost ludicrous, if without offence we may venture to say so. The same\nremarks apply to xix. 6. We must again allow an eminent apologist,\nwho will not be accused of irreverence, to characterise such a\nrepresentation. \"Now in such positions and such company, speech in\nforeign tongues would be something altogether without object and without\nmeaning. Where the consciousness of the grace of salvation, and of a\nheavenly life springing from it, is first aroused in man, his own mother\ntongue verily, not a foreign language, will be the natural expression\nof his feelings. Or we must imagine a magical power which, taking\npossession of men, like instruments without volition, forces them to\nutter strange tones--a thing contradicting all analogy in the operations\nof Christianity.\"(1) The good sense of the critic revolts against the\nnatural submission of the apologist.\n\nWe have diverged so far in order prominently to bring before the reader\nthe nature and source of the hypothesis that the gift of \"tongues\"\nsignifies instantaneous power to speak unlearnt foreign languages. Such\nan interpretation is derived almost entirely from the mythical narrative\nin the Acts of the Apostles. We shall now proceed to consider the\nstatements of the Apostle Paul, and endeavour to ascertain what the\nsupposed miraculous Charisma really is. That it is something very\ndifferent from what the unknown writer represents it in the episode\nof Pentecost cannot be doubted. \"Whoever has, even once, read with\nattention what Paul writes of the speaking with tongues in the\nCorinthian community,\" writes Thiersch, \"knows that the difference\nbetween that gift of tongues\n\n{381}\n\nand this (of Acts ii.) could scarcely be greater. There, a speech\nwhich no mortal can understand without interpretation, and also no\nphilologist, but the Holy Spirit alone can interpret; here, a speech\nwhich requires no interpretation. That gift serves only for the\nedification of the speaker, this clearly also for that of the hearer.\nThe one is of no avail for the instruction of the ignorant; the other,\nclearly, is imparted wholly for that purpose.\"(1)\n\nIt may be well that we should state a few reasons which show that Paul,\nin his first letter to the Corinthians, does not intend, in speaking of\n[------], to represent speech in foreign languages. In the very outset\nof his dissertation on the subject (xiv. 2), Paul very distinctly\ndeclares as the principal reason for preferring prophecy to the gift of\ntongues: \"For he that speaketh with a tongue [------] speaketh not unto\nmen but unto God: for no one understandeth(2) [------].\" How could\nthis be said if [------] meant merely speaking a foreign language? The\npresence of a single person versed in the language spoken would in\nsuch a case vitiate the whole of Paul's argument. The statement made\nis general, it will be observed, and not limited, to one community, but\napplied to a place like Corinth, one of the greatest commercial cities,\nin which merchants, seamen, and visitors of all countries were to be\nfound, it would have been unreasonable to have characterized a foreign\ntongue as absolutely unintelligible. In xiv. 9, Paul says: \"So likewise\nye, unless ye utter by the tongue [------] words\n\n{382}\n\neasy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will\nbe speaking into air.\" How could Paul use the expression \"by the tongue\"\nif he meant a foreign language in v. 2 and elsewhere? He is comparing\n[------] in the preceding verses with the sounds of musical instruments,\nand the point reached in v. 9 clearly brings home the application of\nhis argument: the [------] is unintelligible, like the pipe or harp, and\nunless the tongue utter words which have an understood meaning, it is\nmere speaking into air. Is it possible that Paul would call speech in a\nlanguage, foreign to him, perhaps, but which nevertheless was the mother\ntongue of some nation, \"speaking into air\"? In such a case, he must have\nqualified his statement by obvious explanations, of which not a word\nappears throughout his remarks. That he does not speak of foreign\nlanguages is made still more clear by the next two verses, v. 10:\nin which, continuing his argument from analogy, he actually compares\n[------] with speech in foreign languages, and ends, v. 11: \"If,\ntherefore, I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him\nthat speaketh a barbarian (foreigner) and he that speaketh a barbarian\n(foreigner) in my judgment.\"' Paul's logic is certainly not always\nbeyond reproach, but he cannot be accused of perpetrating such an\nantithesis as contrasting a thing with itself. He, therefore, explicitly\ndistinguishes (v. 10) [------] \"kinds of languages\"(2) from (xii. 10,\n28, &c.) [------] \"kinds of tongues.\" In xiv. 6, Paul says: \"If I come\nunto you speaking with tongues [------] what shall I profit you, unless\nI shall\n\n{383}\n\nspeak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy,\nor in teaching?\" [------]; and then he goes on to compare such\nunintelligible speech with musical instruments. Now it is obvious that\nrevelation, knowledge, prophecy and teaching might equally be expressed\nin foreign languages, and, therefore, in \"speaking with tongues\" it is\nno mere difficulty of expression which makes it unprofitable, but that\ngeneral unintelligibility which is the ground of the whole of Paul's\nobjections. Paul exclaims (v. 18): \"I thank God I speak with a tongue\n[------](1) more than ye all, (19) but in a church I would rather speak\nfive words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than\nten thousand words in a tongue [------].\"(2) We have already pointed out\nthat there is no evidence whatever that Paul could speak many languages.\nSo far as we have any information, he only made use of Greek and\nAramaic, and never even preached where those languages were not current.\nHe always employed the former in his Epistles, whether addressed to\nCorinth, Galatia, or Rome, and his knowledge even of that language was\ncertainly not perfect. Speaking \"with a tongue\" cannot, for reasons\npreviously given, mean a foreign language; and this is still\nmore obvious from what he says in v. 19, just quoted, in which\nhe distinguishes speaking with a tongue from speaking with his\nunderstanding. Five words so spoken are better than ten thousand in a\ntongue, because he speaks\n\n{384}\n\nwith the understanding in the one case and without it in the second.\nIt is clear that a man speaks with his understanding as much in one\nlanguage as another, but it is the main characteristic of the speech we\nare discussing that it is throughout opposed to understanding: cf. vv.\n14, 15. It would be inconceivable that, if this gift really signified\npower to speak foreign languages, Paul could on the one hand use the\nexpressions in this letter with regard to it, and on the other that he\ncould have failed to add remarks consistent with such an interpretation.\nFor instance is it possible that the Apostle in repressing the exercise\nof the Charisma, as he does, could have neglected to point out some\nother use for it than mere personal edification? Could he have omitted\nto tell some of these speakers with tongues that, instead of wasting\ntheir languages in a church where no one understood them, it would be\nwell for them to employ them in the instruction of the nations whose\ntongues had been supernaturally imparted to them? As it is, Paul checks\nthe use of a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit, and reduces its operation\nto the smallest limits, without once indicating so obvious a sphere of\nusefulness for the miraculous power. We need not, however, proceed to\nfurther arguments upon this branch of the subject; although, in treating\nother points, additional evidence will constantly present itself. For\nthe reasons we have stated, and many others, the great majority of\ncritics are agreed that the gift of tongues, according to Paul, was not\nthe power of speaking foreign languages previously unknown.(1) But for\nthe narrative in Acts ii. no one would ever have thought of such an\ninterpretation.\n\n{385}\n\nComing now to consider the two Charismata, \"kinds of tongues\" and \"the\ninterpretation of tongues,\" more immediately in connection with our\ninquiry, as so-called miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, we shall\nfirst endeavour to ascertain some of their principal characteristics.\nThe theory of foreign languages supernaturally imparted without previous\nstudy may be definitively laid aside. The interpretation of tongues may\ngo with it, but requires a few observations. It is clear from Paul's\nwords throughout this dissertation that the interpretation of tongues\nnot only was not invariably attached to the gift of tongues(1) (1 Cor.\nxiv. 13, 27, 28), but was at least often a separate gift possessed\nwithout the kinds of tongues (cf. xii. 10, 28, xiv. 26, 28). Nothing can\nbe more specific than xii. 10\"... to another kinds of tongues; and to\nanother interpretation of tongues;\" and again, v. 30: \"do all speak with\ntongues? do all interpret?\" This is indeed presaged by the \"diversities\nof gifts,\" &c, of xii. 4 ff. Upon the hypothesis of foreign languages,\nthis would presuppose that some spoke languages which they could not\ninterpret, and consequently could not understand, and that others\nunderstood languages which they could not speak. The latter point is\ncommon enough in ordinary life; but, in this instance, the miracle of\nsupernaturally receiving a perfect knowledge of\n\n{386}\n\nlanguages, instantaneously and without previous study, is as great as to\nreceive the power to speak them. The anomaly in the miracle, merely to\npoint out a suggestive discrepancy where all is anomalous, is that\nthe gift of tongues should ever have been separated from the gift of\ninterpretation. If a man understand the foreign language he speaks he\ncan interpret it; if he cannot interpret it, he cannot understand it;\nand if he cannot understand it, can he possibly speak it? Certainly not,\nwithout his having been made a perfectly mechanical instrument\nthrough which, apart from the understanding and the will, sounds are\ninvoluntarily produced, which is not to be entertained. Still pursuing\nthe same hypothesis,--the one gift is to speak languages which no one\nunderstands, the other to understand languages which no one speaks.\nPaul never even assumes the probability that the \"tongue\" spoken is\nunderstood by any one except the interpreter. The interpretation of such\nobscure tongues must have been a gift very little used,--never, indeed,\nexcept as the complement to the gift of tongues. The natural and useful\nfacility in languages is apparently divided into two supernatural and\nuseless halves. The idea is irresistibly suggested, as apparently it was\nto the Apostle himself, whether it would not have been more for the good\nof mankind and for the honour of Christianity, if, instead of these two\nmiraculously incomplete gifts, a little natural good sense, five\nwords even, to be spoken in the vernacular tongue and requiring no\ninterpretation had been imparted. If, instead of foreign languages, we\nsubstitute the utterance of ecstatic religious excitement, the anomaly\nof speaking a language without understanding it or being understood\nbecomes intelligible; and equally so the interpretation,\n\n{387}\n\nunaccompanied by the power of speaking. It is obvious in both cases\nthat, as no one understands the tongue, no one can determine whether the\ninterpretation of it be accurate or not. But it is easily conceivable\nthat a sympathetic nervous listener might suppose that he understood the\nbroken and incoherent speech of ecstasy and might interpret it according\nto his own stimulated imagination. The mysterious and unknown are\nsuggestive texts, and there is nothing more infectious than religious\nexcitement. In all this, however, is there anything miraculous?\n\nWe need not further demonstrate that the chief and general\ncharacteristic of \"kinds of tongues\" was that they were unintelligible\n(cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 2, 6-11, 13-19). Speaking with the spirit [------] is\nopposed to speaking with the understanding [------] (cf. vv. 14-16, &c).\nThey were not only unintelligible to others, but the speaker himself\ndid not understand what he uttered: v. 14. \"For if I pray with a tongue\n[------] my spirit [------] prayeth, but my understanding [------] is\nunfruitful\" (cf. 15 f. 19). We have already pointed out that Paul speaks\nof these Charismata in general, and not as affecting the Corinthians\nonly; and we must now add that he obviously does not even insinuate\nthat the \"kinds of tongues\" possessed by that community was a spurious\nCharisma, or that any attempt had been made to simulate the gift; for\nnothing could have been more simple than for the Apostle to denounce\nsuch phenomena as false, and to distinguish the genuine from the\nimitated speech with tongues. The most convincing proof that his remarks\nrefer to the genuine Charisma is that the Apostle applies to himself the\nvery same restrictions in the use of \"tongues\" as he enforces upon the\nCorinthians\n\n{388}\n\n(vv. 18-19, 6, &c), and characterises his own gift precisely as he does\ntheirs (vv. 6, 11, 14, 15, 19).\n\nNow what was the actual operation of this singular miraculous gift, and\nits utility whether as regards the community or the gifted individual?\nPaul restricts the speaking of \"tongues\" in church because, being\nunintelligible, it is not for edification (xiv. 2 ff. 18 f. 23, 27, 28).\nHe himself does not make use of his gift for the assemblies of believers\n(vv. 6, 18). Another ground upon which he objects to the use of \"kinds\nof tongues\" in public is that all the gifted apparently speak at once\n(vv. 23, 27 f. 33). It will be remembered that all the Charismata and\ntheir operations are described as due to the direct agency of the Holy\nSpirit (xii. 4 ff.); and immediately following their enumeration, ending\nwith \"kinds of tongues\" and \"interpretation of tongues,\" the Apostle\nresumes: v. 11. \"but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit,\ndividing to each severally as he wills;\" and in Acts ii. 4 the brethren\nare represented as speaking with tongues \"as the Spirit gave them\nutterance.\" Now the first thought which presents itself is: How can a\ngift which is due to the direct working of the Holy Spirit possibly be\nabused? We must remember clearly that the speech is not expressive\nof the understanding of the speaker. The [------] spoke under the\ninspiration of the supernatural Agent, what neither they nor others\nunderstood. Is it permissible to suppose that the Holy Spirit could\ninspire speech with tongues at an unfitting time? Can we imagine that\nthis Spirit can actually have prompted many people to speak at one and\nthe same time to the utter disturbance of order? Is not such a gift of\ntongues more like the confusion of tongues in Babel(1)\n\n{389}\n\nthan a christian Charisma? \"And the Lord said:...Go to, let us go down\nand there confound their language, that they may not understand one\nanother's speech.\"(1) In spite of his abstract belief in the divine\norigin of the Charisma, Paul's language unconsciously betrays practical\ndoubt as to its character. Does not such sarcasm as the following seem\nextremely indecorous when criticising a result produced directly by the\nHoly Spirit? (xiv. 23) \"If, therefore, the whole church be come into\none place and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned and\nunbelieving persons will they not say that ye are mad?\" At Pentecost\nsuch an assembly was supposed to be drunken.(2) The whole of the counsel\nof the Apostle upon this occasion really amounts to an injunction to\nquench the Spirit. It is quite what might be expected in the case of\nthe excitement of ecstatic religion, that the strong emotion should\nprincipally find vent in the form of prayer and praise (vv. 15 ff.),\nequally so that it should be unintelligible and that no one should know\nwhen to say \"Amen\" (v. 16), and that all should speak at once, and still\nmore so that the practical result should be tumult (vv. 23, 33). All\nthis, it might appear, could be produced without the intervention of the\nHoly Spirit. So far, is there and utility in the miracle?\n\nBut we are told that it is \"for a sign.\" Paul argues upon this point in\na highly eccentric manner. He quotes (v. 21) Isaiah xxviii. 11, 12, in a\nform neither agreeing with the Septuagint nor with the Hebrew, a passage\nwhich has merely a superficial and verbal analogy with the gift of\ntongues, but whose real\n\n{390}\n\nhistorical meaning has no reference to it whatever: \"In the Law it is\nwritten, that with men of other tongues and with the lips of others will\nI speak unto this people; and yet for all that they will not hear me,\nsaith the Lord.\" The Apostle continues with singular logic: \"So that\n[------] the tongues are for a sign [------] not to those who believe\nbut to the unbelieving; but prophecy is not for the unbelieving but\nfor those who believe. If, therefore, the whole church be come into\none place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned\nor unbelieving persons, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all\nprophesy and there come in an unbeliever... he is convicted by all...\nand so falling on his face he will worship God, reporting that God is\nindeed in you.\" The Apostle himself shows that the tongues cannot be\nconsidered a sign by unbelievers, upon whom, apparently, they produce\nno other impression than that the speakers are mad or drunken. Under\nany circumstances, the \"kinds of tongues\" described by the Apostle are\na very sorry specimen of the \"signs and wonders and powers\" of which\nwe have heard so much. It is not surprising that the Apostle prefers\nexhortation in a familiar tongue. In an ecstatic state, men are\nincapable of edifying others: we shall presently see how far they can\nedify themselves. Paul utters the pith of the whole matter at the very\noutset of his homily, when he prefers exhortation to kinds of tongues:\nv. 2. \"For he that speaketh with a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto\nGod: for no one under-standeth, but in Spirit he speaketh mysteries\"\n[------]. It is not possible to read his words without the impression\nthat the Apostle treats the whole subject with suppressed impatience.\nHis mind was too prone to believe in spiritual mysteries, and his\nnervous\n\n{391}\n\nnature too susceptible to religious emotion and enthusiasm to permit him\nclearly to recognize the true character of the gift of \"tongues;\" but\nhis good sense asserted itself and, after protesting that he would\nrather speak five words with his understanding than ten thousand words\nin a tongue, he breaks off with the characteristic exclamation (v. 20):\n\"Brethren, become not children in your minds\" [------]. The advice is\nnot yet out of place.\n\nWhat was the private utility or advantage of the supernatural gift?\nHow did he who spoke with a tongue edify himself? (v. 4.) Paul clearly\nstates that he does not edify the church (vv. 2 ff.). In the passage\njust quoted the Apostle, however, says that the speaker \"with a tongue\"\n\"speaketh to God\"; and further on (vv. 18, 19) he implies that, although\nhe himself does not use the gift in public, he does so in private.\nHe admonishes (v. 28) any one gifted with tongues, if there be no\ninterpreter present, to \"keep silence in a church, but let him speak to\nhimself and to God.\" But in what does the personal edification of the\nindividual consist? In employing language, which he does not comprehend,\nin private prayer and praise? In addressing God in some unintelligible\njargon, in the utterance of which his understanding has no part? Many\nstrange purposes and proceedings have been attributed to the Supreme\nBeing, but probably none has been imagined more incongruous than a\ngift of tongues unsuitable for the edification of others, and not\nintelligible to the recipient, but considered an edifying substitute in\nprivate devotion for his own language. This was certainly not the form\nof prayer which Jesus taught his disciples.(1) And this gift was valued\n\n{392}\n\nmore highly in the Corinthian Church than all the rest! Do we not get\nan instructive insight into the nature of the other Charismata from\nthis suggestive fact? The reality of miracles does not seem to be\ndemonstrated by these chapters.(1)\n\nWe have already stated that the vast majority of critics explain\n[------] as speech in an ecstatic condition;(2) and all the phenomena\ndescribed by Paul closely correspond with the utterance of persons in\na state of extreme religious enthusiasm, and excitement, of which many\nillustrations might be given from other religions before and since the\ncommencement of our era, as well as in the history of Christianity\nin early and recent times. Every one knows of the proceedings of the\nheathen oracles, the wild writhings and cries of the Pythoness and the\nmystic utterances of the Sibyl. In the Old Testament there is allusion\nto the ecstatic emotion of the prophets in the account of Saul, 1 Sara.\nxix. 24; cf. Isaiah viii. 19, xxix. 4. The Montanists exhibited similar\nphenomena, and Tertullian has recorded several instances of such\nreligious excitement, to which we have elsewhere referred. Chrysostora\nhad to repress paroxysms of pious excitement closely resembling these\nin the fourth century;(3) and even down to our own times instances have\nnever been wanting of this form of hysterical religion. Into none of\nthis can we enter here. Enough, we trust, has been said to show the true\ncharacter of the supposed supernatural Charismata of Paul from his own\naccount of them, and the information contained in his epistles.\n\n{393}\n\nAlthough we have been forced to examine in considerable detail the\npassages in the writings of Paul cited by apologists in support of\nmiracles, the study is one of great value to our inquiry. These are the\nonly passages which we possess in which a contemporary and eye-witness\ndescribes what he considers supernatural phenomena, and conveys to us\nhis impression of miraculous agency. Instead of traditional reports of\nmiracles narrated by writers who are unknown, and who did not witness\nthe occurrences in question, we have here a trustworthy witness dealing\nwith matters in which he was personally interested, and writing a\ndidactic homily upon the nature and operation of Charismata, which he\nbelieved to be miraculous and conferred upon the Church by the immediate\nagency of the Holy Spirit. The nineteenth century here comes into direct\ncontact with the age of miracles, but at the touch the miracles vanish,\nand that which, seen through the golden mist of pious tradition, seems\nto possess unearthly power and beauty, on closer examination dwindles\ninto the prose of every day life. The more minutely reported miracles\nare scanned, the more unreal they are recognized to be. The point to\nwhich we now desire to call attention, however, is the belief and the\nmental constitution of Paul. We have seen something of the nature and\noperation of the gift of tongues. That the phenomena described proceeded\nfrom an ecstatic state, into which persons of highly excitable nervous\norganization are very liable to fall under the operation of strong\nreligious impressions, can scarcely be doubted. Eminent apologists(1)\nhave gravely illustrated the phenomena by the analogy of mesmerism,\n\n{394}\n\nsomnambulism and the effects of magnetism. Paul asserts that he was\nsubject to the influence, whatever it was, more than anyone, and\nthere is nothing which is more credible than the statement, or more\ncharacteristic of the Apostle. We desire to speak of him with the\nprofoundest respect and admiration. We know more, from his epistles, of\nthe intimate life and feelings of the great Apostle of the Gentiles than\nof any other man of the apostolic age, and it is impossible not to feel\nwarm sympathy with his noble and generous character. The history of\nChristianity, after the death of its Founder, would sink almost into\ncommon-place if the grand figure of Paul were blotted from its pages.\nBut it is no detraction to recognize that his nervous temperament\nrendered him peculiarly susceptible of those religious impressions which\nresult in conditions of ecstatic trance, to which, as we actually\nlearn from himself, he was exceptionally subject. The effects of this\ntemperament probably first made him a Christian; and to his enthusiastic\nimagination we owe most of the supernatural dogmas of the religion which\nhe adopted and transformed.\n\nOne of these trances the Apostle himself recounts,(1) always with the\ncautious reserve: \"whether in the body or out of the body I know not,\nGod knoweth,\" how he was caught up to the third heaven, and in Paradise\nheard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak; in\nimmediate connection with which he continues: \"And lest I should be\nexalted above measure by the excess of the revelations, there was given\nto me a stake [------] in the flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me\"(2)\nThis was one of\n\n{305}\n\nthe \"visions [------] and revelations [------] of the Lord\" of which he\nspeaks, and of which he had such an excess to boast. Can any one doubt\nthat this was nearly akin to the state of ecstatic trance in which he\nspoke with tongues more than all the Corinthians? Does any one suppose\nthat Paul, \"whether in the body or out of the body,\" was ever actually\ncaught up into \"the third heaven,\" wherever that may be? or doubt that\nthis was simply one of the pious hallucinations which visit those who\nare in such a state? If we are seriously to discuss the point,--it is\nclear that evidence of such a thing is out of the question; that Paul\nhimself admits that he cannot definitely describe what happened; that we\nhave no other ground for considering the matter than the Apostle's own\nmysterious utterance; that it is impossible for a person subject to such\nvisions and hallucinations to distinguish between reality and seeming;\nthat this narrative has not only all the character of hallucination, but\nno feature of sober fact; and finally that, whilst it accords with all\nexperiences of visionary hallucination, it contradicts all experience of\npractical life. We have seen that Paul believes in the genuineness and\nsupernatural origin of the divine Charismata, and he in like manner\nbelieves in the reality of his visions and revelations. He has equal\nreason, or want of reason, in both cases.\n\nWhat, however, was the nature of the \"stake in the flesh\" which, upon\nthe theory of the diabolical origin of disease, he calls \"an angel of\nSatan to buffet me\"? There have been many conjectures offered, but one\nexplanation which has been advanced by able critics has special force\nand probability. It is suggested that this \"stake in the flesh,\" which\nalmost all now at\n\n{396}\n\nleast recognise to have been some physical malady, and very many suppose\nto have been headache or some other similar periodical and painful\naffection, was in reality a form of epilepsy.(1) It has been ably argued\nthat the representation of the malady as \"an angel of Satan\" to buffet\nhim, directly connects it with nervous disorders like epilepsy, which\nthe Jews especially ascribed to diabolical influence; and the mention of\nthis [------] in immediate continuation of his remarks on \"visions\" and\n\"revelations,\" which a tendency to this very malady would so materially\nassist in producing, further confirms the conjecture.(2) No one can\ndeny, and medical and psychological annals prove, that many men have\nbeen subject to visions and hallucinations which have never been\nseriously attributed to supernatural causes. There is not one single\nvalid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of the Apostle\nPaul from this class.\n\nWe do not yet discuss the supposed vision in which he saw the risen\nJesus, though it is no exception to the rest, but reserve it for the\nnext chapter. At present, it suffices that we point out the bearing of\nour examination of Paul's general testimony to miracles upon our future\nconsideration of his evidence for the Resurrection. If it be admitted\nthat his judgment as to the miraculous character of the Charismata is\nfallacious, and that what he considered miraculous were simply natural\nphenomena, the theory of the reality of miracles\n\n{397}\n\nbecomes less tenable than ever. And if, further, it be recognized, as we\nthink it necessarily must be, that Paul was subject to natural ecstatic\ntrances, with all their accompanying forms of nervous excitement: \"kinds\nof tongues,\" visions, and religious hallucinations, a strong and clear\nlight will fall upon his further testimony for miraculous occurrences\nwhich we shall shortly have before us.\n\n\n\n\nPART VI. THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE RELATION OF EVIDENCE TO SUBJECT\n\nWhen the evidence of the Gospels regarding the great central dogmas\nof ecclesiastical Christianity is shown to be untrustworthy and\ninsufficient, apologists appeal with confidence to the testimony of the\nApostle Paul. We presume that it is not necessary to show that, in\nfact, the main weight of the case rests upon his epistles, as undoubted\ndocuments of the apostolic age, written some thirty or forty years after\nthe death of the Master. The retort has frequently been made to the\nearlier portion of this work that, so long as the evidence of Paul\nremains unshaken, the apologetic position is secure. We may quote a few\nlines from an able work, part of a passage discussed in the preceding\nchapter, as a statement of the case: \"In the first place, merely as\na matter of historical attestation, the Gospels are not the strongest\nevidence for the Christian miracles. Only one of the four, in its\npresent shape, is claimed as the work of an Apostle, and of that the\ngenuineness is disputed. The Acts of the Apostles stand upon very much\nthe\n\n{399}\n\nsame footing with the Synoptic Gospels, and of this book, we are\npromised a further examination. But we possess at least some undoubted\nwritings of one who was himself a chief actor in the events which\nfollowed immediately upon those recorded in the Gospels; and in these\nundoubted writings St. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the\ngood faith of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be\nendowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, or\nwhat were thought to be such, were actually wrought by him and by his\ncontemporaries..... Besides these allusions, St. Paul repeatedly refers\nto the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and Ascension; he refers\nto them as notorious and unquestionable facts at a time when such an\nassertion might have been easily refuted. On one occasion he gives a\nvery circumstantial account of the testimony on which the belief in the\nResurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4-8). And not only does he assert\nthe Resurrection as a fact, but he builds upon it a whole scheme of\ndoctrine: 'If Christ be not risen,' he says, 'then is our preaching\nvain, and your faith is also vain.' We do not stay now to consider the\nexact philosophical weight of this evidence. It will be time enough\nto do this when it has received the critical discussion that may be\npresumed to be in store for it But as external evidence, in the legal\nsense, it is probably the best that can be produced, and it has\nbeen entirely untouched so far.\"(1) We have already disposed of the\n\"allusions\" above referred to. We shall in due time deal with the rest\nof the statements in this passage, but at present it is sufficient to\nagree at\n\n{400}\n\nleast with the remark that, \"as external evidence,\" the testimony of\nPaul \"is probably the best that can be produced.\" We know at least who\nthe witness really is, which is an advantage denied us in the case of\nthe Gospels. It would be premature to express surprise, however, that\nwe find the case of miracles, and more especially of such stupendous\nmiracles as the Resurrection and Ascension, practically resting upon\nthe testimony of a single witness. This thought will intrude itself, but\ncannot at present be pursued.\n\nThe allegation which we have to examine is that the Founder of\nChristianity, after being dead and buried, rose from the dead and did\nnot again die, but after remaining sometime with his disciples ascended\nwith his body into heaven.(1) It is unnecessary to complicate the\nquestion by adding the other doctrines regarding the miraculous birth\nand divine origin and personality of Jesus. In the problem before us,\ncertain objective facts are asserted which admit of being judicially\ntested. We have nothing to do here with the vague modern representation\nof these events, by means of which the objective facts vanish, and\nare replaced by subjective impressions and tricks of consciousness or\nsymbols of spiritual life. Those who adopt such views have, of course,\nabandoned all that is real and supernatural in the supposed events.\nThe Resurrection and Ascension which we have to deal with are events\nprecisely as objective and real as the\n\n     1 In the Articles of the Church of England this is expressed\n     as follows: Art. ii. \".....who truly suffered, was\n     crucified, dead, and buried, &c., &c.\" Art. iii. \"As Christ\n     died for us, and was buried; so also it is to be believed\n     that He went down into Hell.\" Art iv. \"Christ did truly rise\n     again from death, and took again Hie Body, with flesh,\n     bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of\n     man's nature, wherewith He ascended into Heaven, and there\n     sitteth, until He return to judge all men at the last day.\"\n\n{401}\n\ndeath and burial,--no ideal process figured by the imagination or\nembodiments of christian hope, but tangible realities, historical\noccurrences in the sense of ordinary life. If Jesus, after being\ncrucified, dead and buried, did not physically rise again from the dead,\nand in the flesh,(1) without again dying, \"ascend into Heaven,\" the\nwhole case falls to the ground. These incidents, although stupendous\nmiracles, must have been actual occurrences. If they did not really take\nplace, our task is at an end. If it be asserted that they really did\ntake place their occurrence must be attested by adequate evidence.\nApologists, whilst protesting that the occurrences in question are\nbelieved upon ordinary historical evidence, and that Christianity\nrequires no indulgence, but submits itself to the same tests as any\nother affirmation, do not practically act upon this principle; but, as\nsoon as it is enunciated, introduce a variety of special pleas which\nremove the case from the domain of history into that of theology, and\nproceed upon one assumption after another until the fundamental facts\nbecome enveloped and, so to say, protected from judicial criticism by a\ncloud of religious dogmas and hypotheses.(2) By confining our attention\nto the simple facts which form the basis of the whole superstructure of\necclesiastical Christianity, we may avoid much confusion of ideas, and\n\n     1 The disappearance of the body from the sepulchre, a point\n     much insisted upon, could have had no significance or\n     reality if the body did not rise and afterwards ascend.\n\n     2 A work of this kind may be mentioned in illustration: Dr.\n     West-cott's \"Gospel of the Resurrection.\" The argument of\n     this work is of unquestionable ability, but it is chiefly\n     remarkable, we think, for the manner in which the direct\n     evidence is hurried over, and a mass of assertions and\n     assumptions, the greater part of which is utterly untenable\n     and inadmissible, is woven into specious and eloquent\n     pleading, and does duty for substantial testimony.\n\n{402}\n\nrestrict the field of inquiry to reasonable limits. We propose,\ntherefore, to limit our investigation to the evidence for the reality of\nthe Resurrection and Ascension.\n\nWhat evidence could be regarded as sufficient to establish the reality\nof such supposed occurrences? The question is one which demands the\nserious attention and consideration of every thoughtful man. It is\nobvious that the amount of evidence requisite to satisfy our minds as\nto the truth of any statement should be measured by the nature of the\nstatement made and, we may as well add, by its practical importance to\nourselves. The news that a man was married or a child born last week is\nreceived without doubt, because men are married and children are born\nevery day; and although such pieces of gossip are frequently untrue,\nnothing appears more natural or in accordance with our experience. If\nwe take more distant and less familiar events we have no doubt that\na certain monarch was crowned, and that he subsequently died some\ncenturies ago. If we ask for the evidence for the statement, nothing\nmay be forthcoming of a very minute or indubitable nature. No absolute\neye-witness of the coronation may have left a clear and detailed\nnarrative of the ceremony; and possibly there may no longer be extant a\nsufficiently attested document proving with certainty the death of\nthe monarch. There are several considerations, however, which make us\nperfectly satisfied with the evidence, incomplete as it may be. Monarchs\nare generally crowned and invariably die; and the statement that any one\nparticular monarch was crowned and died is so completely in conformity\nwith experience, that we have no hesitation in believing it in the\nspecific case. We are satisfied to believe such\n\n{403}\n\nordinary statements upon very slight evidence, both because our\nexperience prepares us to believe that they are true, and because we do\nnot much care whether they are true or not. If life, or even succession\nto an estate, depended upon either event, the demand for evidence, even\nin such simple matters, would be immensely intensified. The converse of\nthe statement, however, would not meet with the same reception. Would\nanyone believe the affirmation that Alfred the Great, for instance, did\nnot die at all? What amount of evidence would be required before such\na statement could be pronounced sufficiently attested? Universal\nexperience would be so uniformly opposed to the assertion that such\na phenomenon had taken place, that probably no evidence which could\nreadily be conceived could ensure the belief of more than a credulous\nfew. The assertion that a man actually died and was buried, and yet\nafterwards rose from the dead, is still more at variance with human\nexperience. The prolongation of life to long periods is comparatively\nconsistent with experience; and if a life extending to several centuries\nbe incredible it is only so in degree, and is not absolutely contrary to\nthe order of nature, which certainly under present conditions does not\nfavour the supposition of such lengthened existence, but still does not\nfix hard and fast limits to the life of man. The resurrection of a man\nwho has once been absolutely dead, however, is contrary to all human\nexperience, and to all that we know of the order of nature. If to this\nwe add the assertion that the person so raised from the dead never again\ndied, but after continuing some time longer on earth, ascended bodily to\nsome invisible and inconceivable place called Heaven, there to \"sit at\nthe right hand of God,\" the shock to reason and common\n\n{404}\n\nsense becomes so extreme, that it is difficult even to realize the\nnature of the affirmation. It would be hopeless to endeavour to\ndefine the evidence which could establish the reality of the alleged\noccurrences.\n\nAs the central doctrines of a religion upon which the salvation of\nthe human race is said to depend, we are too deeply interested to\nbe satisfied with slight evidence or no evidence at all. It has not\nunfrequently been made a reproach that forensic evidence is required of\nthe reality of Divine Revelation. Such a course is regarded as perfectly\npreposterous, whether the test be applied to the primary assertion that\na revelation has been made at all, or to its contents. What kind of\nevidence then are we permitted decorously to require upon so momentous\na subject? Apparently, just so much as apologists can conveniently set\nbefore us, and no more. The evidence deemed necessary for the settlement\nof a Scotch Peerage case, or a disputed will, is, we do not hesitate to\nsay, infinitely more complete than that which it is thought either pious\nor right to expect in the case of Religion. The actual occurrence of the\nResurrection and Ascension, however, is certainly a matter of evidence\nand, to retort, it is scarcely decent that any man should be required\nto believe what is so opposed to human experience, upon more imperfect\nevidence than is required for the transfer of land or the right to a\ntitle, simply because ecclesiastical dogmas are founded upon them,\nand it is represented that unless they be true \"our hope is vain.\" The\ntestimony requisite to establish the reality of such stupendous miracles\ncan scarcely be realized. Proportionately, it should be as unparalleled\nin its force as those events are in fact. One point, moreover, must\nnever be forgotten. Human testimony is exceedingly fallible at its\n\n{405}\n\nbest It is liable to error from innumerable causes, and most of all,\nprobably, when religious excitement is present, and disturbing elements\nof sorrow, fear, doubt, or enthusiasm interfere with the calmness\nof judgment. When any assertion is made which contradicts unvarying\nexperience, upon evidence which experience knows to be universally\nliable to error, there cannot be much hesitation in disbelieving\nthe assertion and preferring belief in the order of nature. And when\nevidence proceeds from an age not only highly exposed to error, from\nignorance of natural laws, superstition, and religious excitement,\nbut prolific in fabulous reports and untenable theories, it cannot be\nreceived without the gravest suspicion. We make these brief remarks, in\nanticipation, as nothing is more essential in the discussion upon which\nwe are about to enter than a proper appreciation of the allegations\nwhich are to be tested, and of the nature of the testimony required for\ntheir belief.\n\nWe shall not limit our inquiry to the testimony of Paul, but shall\nreview the whole of the evidence adduced for the Resurrection and\nAscension. Hitherto, our examination of the historical books of the\nNew Testament has been mainly for the purpose of ascertaining their\ncharacter, and the value of their evidence for miracles and the\nreality of Divine Revelation. It is unnecessary for us here minutely\nto recapitulate the results. The Acts of the Apostles, we have shown,\ncannot be received as testimony of the slightest weight upon any of\nthe points before us. Written by an unknown author, who was not an\neye-witness of the miracles related; who describes events not as they\noccurred, but as his pious imagination supposed they ought to have\noccurred; who seldom touches history without transforming it by legend\nuntil the\n\n{406}\n\noriginal elements can scarcely be distinguished; who puts his own words\nand sentiments into the mouths of the Apostles and other persons of his\nnarrative; and who represents almost every phase of the Church in\nthe Apostolic age as influenced, or directly produced, by means\nof supernatural agency; such a work is of no value as evidence for\noccurrences which are in contradiction to all human experience. Briefly\nto state the case of the Gospels in other words than our own, we repeat\nthe honest statement of the able writer quoted at the beginning of\nthis chapter: \"In the first place, merely as a matter of historical\nattestation, the Gospels are not the strongest evidence for the\nChristian miracles. Only one of the four, in its present shape, is\nclaimed as the work of an Apostle, and of that the genuineness is\ndisputed.\"(l) We may add that the third Synoptic does not, in the\nestimation of any one who has examined the Acts of the Apostles, gain\nadditional credibility by being composed by the same author as the\nlatter work. The writers of the four Gospels are absolutely unknown to\nus, and in the case of three of them, it is not even affirmed that they\nwere eyewitnesses of the Resurrection and Ascension and other miracles\nnarrated. The undeniably doubtful authorship of the fourth Gospel, not\nto make a more positive statement here, renders this work, which was not\nwritten until upwards of half a century, at the very least, after\nthe death of Jesus, incapable of proving anything in regard to the\nResurrection and Ascension. A much stronger statement might be made,\nbut we refer readers to our former volumes, and we shall learn something\nmore of the character of the Gospel narratives as we proceed.\n\nAlthough we cannot attach any value to the Gospels\n\n{407}\n\nas evidence, we propose, before taking the testimony of Paul, to survey\nthe various statements made by them regarding the astounding miracles we\nare discussing. Enough has been said to show that we cannot accept any\nstatement as true simply because it is made by a Gospel or Gospels.\nWhen it is related in the first Synoptic, for instance, that Pilate took\nwater and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, \"I am innocent\nof this man's blood: see ye to it,\"(1)--an incident to which no\nreference, be it said in passing, is made by the other evangelists,\nalthough it is sufficiently remarkable to have deserved notice,--we\ncannot of course assume that Pilate actually said or did anything of\nthe kind. A comparison of the various accounts of the Resurrection and\nAscension, however, and careful examination of their details, will be\nof very great use, by enabling us to appreciate the position of the case\napart from the evidence of Paul. The indefinite impression fostered by\napologists, that the evidence of the Gospels supplements and completes\nthe evidence of the Apostle, and forms an aggregate body of testimony\nof remarkable force and volume, must be examined, and a clear conception\nformed of the whole case.\n\nOne point may at once be mentioned before we enter upon our examination\nof the Gospels. The Evangelists narrate such astonishing occurrences\nas the Resurrection and Ascension with perfect composure and absence of\nsurprise. This characteristic is even made an argument for the truth\nof their narrative. The impression made upon our minds, however, is the\nvery reverse of that which apologists desire us to receive. The writers\ndo not in the least degree seem to have realised the\n\n{408}\n\nexceptional character of the occurrences they relate, and betray the\nassurance of persons writing in an ignorant and superstitious age,\nwhose minds have become too familiar with the supernatural to be at all\nsurprised either by a resurrection from the dead or a bodily ascension.\nMiracles in their eyes have lost their strangeness and seem quite\ncommon-place. It will be seen as we examine the narratives that a\nstupendous miracle, or a convulsion of nature, is thrown in by one or\nomitted by another as a mere matter of detail. An earthquake and the\nresurrection of many bodies of saints are mere trifles which can\nbe inserted without wonder or omitted without regret The casual and\nmomentary expression of hesitation to believe, which is introduced, is\nevidently nothing more than a rhetorical device to heighten the reality\nof the scene. It would have been infinitely more satisfactory had we\nbeen able to perceive that these witnesses, instead of being genuine\ndenizens of the age of miracles, had really understood the astounding\nnature of the occurrences they report, and did not consider a miracle\nthe most natural thing in the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS\n\nIn order more fully to appreciate the nature of the narratives which\nthe four evangelists give of the last hours of the life of Jesus, we\nmay take them up at the point where, mocked and buffeted by the Roman\nsoldiers, he is finally led away to be crucified. Let no one suppose\nthat, in freely criticising the Gospels, we regard without emotion the\nactual incidents which lie at the bottom of these narratives. No one can\nform to himself any adequate conception of the terrible sufferings of\nthe Master, maltreated and insulted by a base and brutal multitude,\ntoo degraded to understand his noble character, and too ignorant to\nappreciate his elevated teaching, without pain; and to follow his course\nfrom the tribunal which sacrificed him to Jewish popular clamour to the\nspot where he ended a brief but self-sacrificing life by the shameful\ndeath of a slave may well make sympathy take the place of criticism.\nProfound veneration for the great Teacher, however, and earnest interest\nin all that concerns his history rather command serious and unhesitating\nexamination of the statements made with regard to him, than discourage\nan attempt to ascertain the truth; and it would be anything but respect\nfor his memory to accept without question the Gospel accounts of his\nlife\n\n{410}\n\nsimply because they were composed with the desire to glorify him.\n\nAccording to the Synoptics, when Jesus is led away to be crucified, the\nRoman guard entrusted with the duty of executing the cruel sentence find\na man of Cyrene, Simon by name, and compel him to carry the cross.(1) It\nwas customary for those condemned to crucifixion to carry the cross, or\nat least the main portion of it, themselves to the place of execution,\nand no explanation is given by the Synoptists for the deviation from\nthis practice which they relate. The fourth Gospel, however, does not\nappear to know anything of this incident or of Simon of Cyrene, but\ndistinctly states that Jesus bore his own cross.(2) On the way to\nGolgotha, according to the third Gospel, Jesus is followed by a great\nmultitude of the people, and of women who were bewailing and lamenting\nhim, and he addresses to them a few prophetic sentences.(3) We might\nbe surprised at the singular fact that there is no reference to this\nincident in any other Gospel, and that words of Jesus, so weighty in\nthemselves and spoken at so supreme a moment, should not elsewhere\nhave been recorded, but for the fact that, from internal evidence, the\naddress must be assigned to a period subsequent to the destruction of\nJerusalem. The other evangelists may, therefore, well ignore it.\n\n{411}\n\nIt was the custom to give those about to be crucified a draught of\nwine containing some strong opiate, which in some degree alleviated the\nintense suffering of that mode of death. Mark(1) probably refers to this\n(xv. 23) when he states that, on reaching the place of execution,\n\"they gave him wine [------] mingled with myrrh.\" The fourth Gospel\nhas nothing of this. Matthew says (xxvii. 34): \"They gave him vinegar\n[------] to drink mingled with gall\"(2) [------]. Even if, instead of\n[------] with the Alexandrian and a majority of MSS., we read [------],\n\"wine,\" with the Sinaitic, Vatican, and some other ancient codices,\nthis is a curious statement, and is well worthy of a moment's notice\nas suggestive of the way in which these narratives were written.\nThe conception of a suffering Messiah, it is well known, was more\nparticularly supported, by New Testament writers, by attributing\na Messianic character to Ps. xxii., lxix., and Isaiah liii., and\nthroughout the narrative of the Passion we are perpetually referred to\nthese and other Scriptures as finding their fulfilment in the sufferings\nof Jesus. The first Synoptist found in Ps. lxix. 21 (Sept. lxviii. 21):\n\"They gave me also gall [------] for my food, and in my thirst they\ngave me vinegar [------] to drink;\" and apparently in order to make the\nsupposed fulfilment correspond as closely as possible, he combined\nthe \"gall\" of the food with the vinegar or wine in strangely literal\nfashion,(3) very characteristic, however, of\n\n     1 We shall, for the sake of brevity, call the Gospels by the\n     names assigned to them in the Canon.\n\n     2 There have been many attempts to explain away [------],\n     and to make it mean either a species of Vermuth or any\n     bitter substance (Olahausen, Leidensgeech., 168); but the\n     great mass of critics rightly retain its meaning, \"Gall.\"\n     So Ewald, Meyer, Bleek, Strauss, Weisse, Schenkel, Yolk-mar,\n     Alford, Wordsworth, &c, &c.\n\n{412}\n\nthe whole of the evangelists. Luke, who seems not to have understood\nthe custom known perhaps to Mark, represents (xxiii. 36) the soldiers as\nmocking Jesus by \"offering him vinegar \"(l) [------]; he omits the gall,\nbut probably refers to the same Psalm without being so falsely literal\nas Matthew.\n\nWe need not enter into the discussion as to the chronology of the\nPassion week, regarding which there is so much discrepancy in the\naccounts of the fourth Gospel and of the Synoptics, nor shall we\npause minutely to deal with the irreconcilable difference which, it is\nadmitted,(2) exists in their statement of the hours at which the events\nof the last fatal day occurred. The fourth Gospel (xix. 4) represents\nPilate as bringing Jesus forth to the Jews \"about the sixth hour\"\n(noon). Mark (xv. 25), in obvious agreement with the other Synoptics as\nfurther statements prove, distinctly says: \"And it was the third hour\n(9 o'clock a.m.), and they crucified him.\" At the sixth hour (noon),\naccording to the three Synoptists, there was darkness over the earth\ntill about the ninth hour (3 o'clock p.m.), shortly after which time\n\n     1 Luke omits the subsequent offer of \"vinegar\" (probably the\n     Pasco of the Roman soldiers) mentioned by the other\n     Evangelists. We presume the reference in xxiii. 36 to be the\n     same as the act described in Mt xxvii. 34 and Mk. xv. 23.\n\n{413}\n\nJesus expired.(1) As, according to the fourth Gospel, the sentence\nwas not even passed before midday, and some time must be allowed for\npreparation and going to the place of execution, it is clear that\nthere is a very wide discrepancy between the hours at which Jesus\nwas crucified and died, unless, as regards the latter point, we take\nagreement in all as to the hour of death. In this case, commencing at\nthe hour of the fourth Gospel and ending with that of the Synoptics,\nJesus must have expired after being less than three hours on the cross.\nAccording to the Synoptics, and also, if we assign a later hour for the\ndeath, according to the fourth Gospel, he cannot have been more than six\nhours on the cross. We shall presently see that this remarkably rapid\ndeath has an important bearing upon the history and the views formed\nregarding it. It is known that crucifixion, besides being the most\nshameful mode of death, and indeed chiefly reserved for slaves and the\nlowest criminals, was one of the most lingering and atrociously cruel\npunishments ever invented by the malignity of man. Persons crucified,\nit is stated and admitted,(2) generally lived for at least twelve hours,\nand sometimes even survived the excruciating tortures of the cross for\nthree days. We shall not further anticipate remarks which must hereafter\nbe made regarding this.\n\nWe need not do more than again point out that no two of the Gospels\nagree upon so simple, yet important, a point as the inscription on the\ncross.(3) It is argued that \"a close\n\n{414}\n\nexamination of the narratives furnishes no sufficient reason for\nsupposing that all proposed to give the same or the entire inscription,\"\nand, after some curious reasoning, it is concluded that \"there is\nat least no possibility of showing any inconsistency on the strictly\nliteral interpretation of the words of the evangelist.\"(1) On the\ncontrary, we had ventured to suppose that, in giving a form of words\nsaid to have been affixed to the cross, the evangelists intended to\ngive the form actually used, and consequently \"the same\" and \"entire\ninscription,\" which must have been short; and we consider it quite\ninconceivable that such was not their deliberate intention, however\nimperfectly fulfilled.\n\nWe pass on merely to notice a curious point in connection with an\nincident related by all the Gospels. It is stated that the Roman\nsoldiers who crucified Jesus divided his garments amongst them, casting\nlots to determine what part each should take. The clothing of criminals\nexecuted was the perquisite of the soldiers who performed the duty, and\nthere is nothing improbable in the story that the four soldiers decided\nby lot the partition of the garments--indeed there is every reason to\nsuppose that such was the practice. The incident is mentioned as the\ndirect fulfilment of the. Ps. xxii. 18, which is quoted literally from\nthe Septuagint version (xxi. 18) by the author of the fourth Gospel.\nHe did not, however, understand the passage, or disregarded its true\nmeaning,(2) and in order to make the incident accord\n\n{415}\n\nbetter, as he supposed, with the prophetic Psalm, he represents that the\nsoldiers amicably parted the rest of his garments amongst them without\nlot, but cast lots for the coat, which was without seam: xix. 24. \"They\nsaid, therefore, among themselves: Let us not rend it, but cast lots\nfor it, whose it shall be; that the Scripture might be fulfilled: They\nparted my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots. These\nthings, therefore, the soldiers did.\" The evangelist does not perceive\nthat the two parts of the sentence in the Psalm really refer to the same\naction, but exhibits the partition of the garments and the lots for the\nvesture as separately fulfilled. The Synoptists apparently divide the\nwhole by lot.(1) They do not expressly refer to the Psalm, however,\nexcept in the received text of Matth. xxvii. 35, into which and some\nother MSS. the quotation has been interpolated.(2) That the narrative\nof the Gospels, instead of being independent and genuine history, is\nconstructed upon the lines of supposed Messianic Psalms and passages of\nthe Old Testament will become increasingly evident as we proceed.\n\nIt is stated by all the Gospels that two malefactors--the first and\nsecond calling them \"robbers\"--were crucified with Jesus, the one on the\nright hand and the other on the left. The statement in Mark xv. 28, that\nthis fulfilled Isaiah liii. 12, which is found in our received text, is\nomitted by all the oldest codices, and is an interpolation,(2) but we\nshall hereafter have to speak of this point in connection with another\nmatter, and we now\n\n     2  \"Certainly an interpolation.\"     Wettcott, Int. to Study\n     of Gospels, p. 325, n. 2.\n\n     3 \"Certainly an interpolation.\"  Westcott, lb. p. 326, n. 5.\n\n{410}\n\nmerely point out that, though the verse was thus inserted here, it is\nplaced in the mouth of Jesus himself by the third Synoptist (xxii. 37),\nand the whole passage from which it was taken has evidently largely\ninfluenced the composition of the narrative before us. According to the\nfirst and second Gospels,(1) the robbers joined with the chief priests\nand the scribes and elders and those who passed by in mocking and\nreviling Jesus. This is directly contradicted by the third Synoptist,\nwho states that only one of the malefactors did so (xxiii. 39 flf.):\n\"But the other answering rebuked him and said: Dost thou not even fear\nGod seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for\nwe are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man did nothing\namiss. And he said: Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.\nAnd he said unto him: Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with\nme in paradise.\" It requires very little examination to detect that this\nstory is legendary,(2) and cannot be maintained as historical. Those\nwho dwell upon its symbolical character(3) do nothing to establish its\nveracity. This exemplary robber speaks like an Apostle, and in praying\nJesus as the Messiah to remember him when he came into his kingdom, he\nshows much more than apostolic appreciation of the claims and character\nof Jesus. The\n\n{417}\n\nreply of Jesus, moreover, contains a statement not only wholly\ncontradictory of Jewish belief as to the place of departed spirits, but\nof all Christian doctrine at the time as to the descent of Jesus into\nHades. Into this, however, it is needless for us to go.(1) Not only do\nthe other Gospels show no knowledge of so interesting an episode,\nbut, as we have pointed out, the first and second Synoptics positively\nexclude it. We shall see, moreover, that there is a serious difficulty\nin understanding how this conversation on the cross, which is so\nexclusively the property of the third Synoptist, could have been\nreported to him.\n\nThe Synoptics represent the passers by and the chief priests, scribes,\nand elders, as mocking Jesus as he hung on the cross. The fourth Gospel\npreserves total silence as to all this. It is curious, also, that the\nmocking is based upon that described in the Psalm xxii., to which we\nhave already several times had to refer. In v. 7 f. we have: \"All they\nthat see me laughed me to scorn: they shot out the lip; they shook the\nhead (saying), 8. He trusted on the Lord, let him deliver him, let him\nsave him (seeing) that he delighteth in him.\"(2) Compare with this Mt.\nxxvii. 39 ff., Mk. xv. 29 ff., Luke xxiii 35. Is it possible to suppose\nthat the chief priests and elders and scribes could actually have quoted\nthe words of this Psalm, there put into the mouth of the Psalmist's\nenemies, as the first Synoptist represents (xxvii 43)?(3) It is obvious\nthat the speeches ascribed\n\n{418}\n\nto the chief priests and elders can be nothing more than the expressions\nwhich the writers considered suitable to them, and the fact that they\nseek their inspiration in a Psalm which they suppose to be Messianic is\nsuggestive.\n\nWe have already mentioned that the fourth Gospel says nothing of any\nmocking speeches. The author, however, narrates an episode (xix. 25-27)\nin which the dying Jesus is represented as confiding his mother to\nthe care of \"the disciple whom he loved,\" of which in their turn the\nSynoptists seem to be perfectly ignorant. We have already elsewhere\nremarked that there is no evidence whatever that there was any disciple\nwhom Jesus specially loved, except the repeated statement in this\nGospel. No other work of the New Testament contains a hint of such an\nindividual, and much less that he was the Apostle John. Nor is there any\nevidence that any one of the disciples took the mother of Jesus to his\nown home. There is, therefore, no external confirmation of this episode;\nbut there is, on the contrary, much which leads to the conclusion that\nit is not historical.(1) There has been much discussion as to whether\nfour women are mentioned (xix. 25), or whether \"his mother's sister\" is\nrepresented as \"Mary, the wife of Clopas,\" or was a different person.\nThere are, we think, reasons for concluding that there were four, but in\nthe doubt we shall not base any argument on the point. The Synoptics(2)\ndistinctly state that \"the women that followed him from Galilee,\" among\nwhich were \"Mary Magdalene and Mary\n\n{419}\n\nthe mother of James and Joseph and the mother of Zebedee's sons,\"(l)\nand, as the third Synoptic says, \"all his acquaintance\"(2) were standing\n\"afar off\" [------]. They are unanimous in saying this, and there\nis every reason for supposing that they are correct.(3) This is\nconsequently a contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel that\nJohn and the women were standing \"by the cross of Jesus.\" Olshausen,\nLucke and others suggest that they subsequently came from a distance up\nto the cross, but the statement of the Synoptists is made at the close,\nand after this scene is supposed to have taken place. The opposite\nconjecture, that from standing close to the cross they removed to a\ndistance has little to recommend it. Both explanations are equally\narbitrary and unsupported by evidence.\n\nIt may be well, in connection with this, to refer to the various sayings\nand cries ascribed by the different evangelists to Jesus on the cross.\nWe have already mentioned the conversation with the \"penitent thief,\"\nwhich is peculiar to the third Gospel, and now that with the \"beloved\ndisciple,\" which is only in the fourth. The third Synoptic(4) states\nthat, on being crucified, Jesus said, \"Father, forgive them, for they\nknow not what they do,\" a saying which is in the spirit of Jesus and\nworthy of him, but of which the other Gospels do not take any notice.(5)\nThe fourth Gospel again has a cry (xix. 28): \"After this, Jesus\nknowing that all things are now fulfilled, that the Scripture might be\naccomplished, saith:\n\n{420}\n\nI thirst.\"(1) The majority of critics(2) understand by this that \"I\nthirst\" is said in order \"that the Scripture might be fulfilled\" by\nthe offer of the vinegar, related in the following verse. The Scripture\nreferred to is of course Ps. lxix. 21: \"They gave me also gall for my\nfood, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar [------] to drink;\" which\nwe have already quoted in connection with Matth. xxvii. 34. The third\nSynoptic (xxiii. 36) represents the vinegar as being offered in mockery\nat a much earlier period, and Matthew and Mark(3) connect the offer of\nthe vinegar with quite a different cry from that in the fourth Gospel.\nNothing could be more natural than that, after protracted agony, the\npatient sufferer should cry: \"I thirst,\" but the dogmatic purpose, which\ndictates the whole narrative in the fourth Gospel, is rendered obvious\nby the reference of such a cry to a supposed Messianic prophecy. This is\nfurther displayed by the statement (v. 29) that the sponge with vinegar\nwas put \"upon hyssop\" [------],--the two Synoptics have \"on a reed\"\n[------],--which the Author probably uses in association with the\npaschal lamb,(4) an idea present to his mind throughout the\n\n{421}\n\npassion. The first and second Synoptics(1) represent the last cry of\nJesus to have been a quotation from Ps. xxii. 1: \"Eli (or Mk., Eloi),\nEli, lema sabacthani? that is to say: My God, my God, why didst thou\nforsake me?\" This, according to them, evidently, was the last articulate\nutterance of the expiring Master, for they merely add that \"when he\ncried again with a loud voice,\" Jesus yielded up his spirit.(2) Neither\nof the other Gospels has any mention of this cry. The third Gospel\nsubstitutes: \"And when Jesus cried with a loud voice, he said: Father,\ninto thy hands I commend my spirit, and having said this he expired.\"(3)\nThis is an almost literal quotation from the Septuagint version of Ps.\nxxxi. 5. The fourth Gospel has a totally different cry (xix. 30),\nfor, on receiving the vinegar, which accomplished the Scripture, he\nrepresents Jesus as saying: \"It is finished\" [------], and immediately\nexpiring. It will be observed that seven sayings are attributed to Jesus\non the cross, of which the first two Gospels have only one, the third\nSynoptic three, and the fourth Gospel three. We do not intend to express\nany opinion here in favour of any of these, but we merely point out the\nremarkable fact that, with the exception of the one cry in the first\ntwo Synoptics, each Gospel has ascribed different sayings to the\ndying Master, and not only no two of them agree, but in some important\ninstances the statement of the one evangelist seems absolutely to\nexclude the accounts of the others. Every one knows the hackneyed\nexplanation of apologists, but in works which repeat each other so much\nelsewhere, it certainly is a curious phenomenon that there is so little\n\n{422}\n\nagreement here. If all the Master's disciples \"forsook him and fled,\"(1)\nand his few friends and acquaintances stood \"afar off\" regarding his\nsufferings, it is readily conceivable that pious tradition had unlimited\nplay. We must, however, return to the cry recorded in Matthew and\nMark,(2) the only one about which two witnesses agree. Both of them give\nthis quotation from Ps. xxii. 1 in Aramaic: Eli (Mark: Eloi), Eli,(3)\nlema sabacthani. The purpose is clearly to enable the reader to\nunderstand what follows, which we quote from the first Gospel: \"And some\nof them that stood there, when they heard it said: This man calleth for\nElijah.... The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elijah cometh\nto save him.\"(4) It is impossible to confuse \"Eli\" or \"Eloi\" with\n\"Elijahu\"(5) and the explanations suggested by apologists are not\nsufficient to remove a difficulty which seems to betray the legendary\ncharacter of the statement. The mistake of supposing that Jesus called\nfor Elijah could not possibly have been made by those who spoke Aramaic;\nthat strangers not perfectly understanding Aramaic should be here\nintended cannot be maintained, for the suggestion is represented as\nadopted by \"the rest.\" The Roman soldiers had probably never heard\nof Elijah; and there is nothing whatever to support the allegation of\nmockery(6) as accounting for the singular\n\n{423}\n\nepisode. The verse of the Psalm was too well known to the Jews to admit\nof any suggested play upon words.\n\nThe three Synoptics state that, from the sixth hour (mid-day) to the\nninth (3 o'clock), \"there was darkness over all the earth\" [------].(1)\nThe third Gospel adds: \"the sun having failed\" [------](2)\n\nBy the term \"all the earth\" some critics(3) maintain that the evangelist\nmerely meant the Holy Land,(4) whilst others hold that he uses the\nexpression in its literal sense.(5) The fourth Gospel takes no notice\nof this darkness. Such a phenomenon is not a trifle to be ignored in any\naccount of the crucifixion, if it actually occurred. The omission of all\nmention of it either amounts to a denial of its occurrence or betrays\nmost suspicious familiarity with supernatural interference. There have\nbeen many efforts made to explain this darkness naturally, or at least\nto find some allusion to it in contemporary history, all of which have\nsignally failed. As the moon was at the full, it is admitted that the\ndarkness could not have been an eclipse.(6) The Fathers\n\n{424}\n\nappealed to Phlegon the Chronicler, who mentions(1) an eclipse of\nthe sun about this period accompanied by an earthquake, and also to a\nsimilar occurrence referred to by Eusebius,(2) probably quoted from the\nhistorian Thallus, but, of course, modern knowledge has dispelled the\nillusion that these phenomena have any connection with the darkness we\nare discussing, and the theory that the evangelists are confirmed in\ntheir account by this evidence is now generally abandoned.(3) It is\napart from our object to show how common it was amongst classical and\nother writers to represent nature as sympathising with national or\nsocial disasters;(4) and as a poetical touch this remarkable darkness\nof the Synoptists, of which no one else knows anything, is quite\nintelligible. The statement, however, is as seriously and deliberately\nmade as any other in their narrative, and does not add to its\ncredibility. It is palpable that the account is mythical,(5) and it\nbears a strange likeness to passages in the Old Testament, from the\nimagery of which the representation in all probability was derived.(6)\nThe first and second Gospels state that when Jesus\n\n{425}\n\ncried with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit, \"the veil of the\ntemple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.\"(1) The third\nSynoptic associates this occurrence with the eclipse of the sun, and\nnarrates it before the final cry and death of the Master.(2) The fourth\nGospel takes no notice of so extraordinary a phenomenon. The question\nmight be asked: How could the chief priests, who do not appear to have\nbeen at all convinced by such a miracle, but still continued their\ninvincible animosity against the Christian sect, reveal the occurrence\nof such a wonder, of which there is no mention elsewhere? Here again the\naccount is legendary and symbolical,(3) and in the spirit of the age of\nmiracles.(4)\n\nThe first Synoptist, however, has further marvels to relate. He states\nin continuation of the passage quoted above: \"and the earth was shaken\n[------] and the rocks were rent and the sepulchres were opened, and\nmany bodies of the saints who slept were raised; and they came out of\nthe sepulchres after his resurrection, and entered into the holy city\nand appeared unto many.\"(5) How great must be the amazement of anyone\nwho may have been inclined to suppose the Gospels soberly historical\nworks, on finding that the other three evangelists do not even mention\nthese\n\n{426}\n\nastounding occurrences related by the first Synoptist! An earthquake\n[------](1) and the still more astounding resurrection of many saints\nwho appeared unto \"many,\" and, therefore, an event by no means secret\nand unknown to all but the writer, and yet three other writers, who give\naccounts of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and who enter throughout\ninto very minute details, do not even condescend to mention them! Nor\ndoes any other New Testament writer chronicle them. It is unnecessary to\nsay that the passage has been a very serious difficulty for apologists;\nand one of the latest writers of this school, reproducing the theories\nof earlier critics, deals with it in a Life of Christ, which \"is\navowedly and unconditionally the work of a believer,\"(2) as follows: \"An\nearthquake shook the earth and split the rocks, and as it rolled away\nfrom their places the great stones which closed and covered the cavern\nsepulchres of the Jews, so it seemed to the imaginations of many to have\ndisimprisoned the spirits of the dead, and to have filled the air with\nghostly visitants, who after Christ had risen appeared to linger in\nthe Holy City.\" In a note he adds \"Only in some such way as this can I\naccount for the singular and wholly isolated allusion of Matt. xxvii. 52,\n53.\"(3) It is worthy of note, and we may hereafter\n\n{427}\n\nrefer to the point, that learned divines thus do not scruple to adopt\nthe \"vision hypothesis\" of the resurrection. Even if the resurrection of\nthe saints so seriously related by the evangelist be thus disposed of,\nand it be assumed that the other Gospels, likewise adopting the \"vision\"\nexplanation, consequently declined to give an objective place in their\nnarrative to what they believed to be a purely subjective and unreal\nphenomenon, there still remains the earthquake, to which supernatural\nincident of the crucifixion none of the other evangelists think it worth\nwhile to refer. Need we argue that the earthquake(1) is as mythical as\nthe resurrection of the saints?(2) In some apocryphal writings even the\nnames of some of these risen saints are given.(3) As the case actually\nstands, with these marvellous incidents related solely by the\nfirst Synoptist and ignored by the other evangelists, it would seem\nsuperfluous to enter upon more detailed criticism of the passage, and to\npoint out the incongruity of the\n\n{428}\n\nfact that these saints are said to be raised from the dead just as\nthe Messiah expires, or the strange circumstance that, although\nthe sepulchres are said to have been opened at that moment and the\nresurrection to have then taken place, it is stated that they only came\nout of their graves after the resurrection of Jesus. The allegation,\nmoreover, that they were raised from the dead at that time, and before\nthe resurrection of Jesus, virtually contradicts the saying of the\nApocalypse (i. 5) that Jesus was the \"first begotten of the dead,\" and\nof Paul (1 Cor. xv. 20) that he was \"the first fruits of them who have\nfallen asleep.\"(1) Paul's whole argument is opposed to such a story; for\nhe does not base the resurrection of the dead upon the death of Jesus,\nbut, in contradistinction, upon his resurrection only. The Synoptist\nevidently desires to associate the resurrection of the saints with the\ndeath of Jesus to render that event more impressive, but delays\nthe completion of it in order to give a kind of precedence to the\nresurrection of the Master. The attempt leads to nothing but confusion.\nWhat could be the object of such a resurrection? It could not be\nrepresented as any effect produced by the death of Jesus, nor even by\nhis alleged resurrection, for what dogmatic connection could there be\nbetween that event and the fact that a few saints only were raised\nfrom their graves, whilst it was not pretended that the dead \"saints\"\ngenerally participated in this resurrection? No intimation is given that\ntheir appearance to many was for any special purpose, and certainly no\npractical result has ever been traced to it. Finally we might ask: What\nbecame of these saints raised from the dead? Did they die again? Or did\nthey also \"ascend into Heaven?\"(2)\n\n     1 Can the author of the Apocalypse, or Paul, ever have heard\n     of the raising of Lazarus?\n\n{429}\n\nA little reflection will show that these questions are pertinent. It\nis almost inconceivable that any serious mind could maintain the actual\ntruth of such a story, upon such evidence. Its objective truth not being\nmaintainable, however, the character of the work which advances such\nan unhesitating statement is determined, and at least the value of its\ntestimony can without difficulty be settled.\n\nThe continuation of this episode in the first Synoptic is quite in\nkeeping with its commencement. It is stated: \"But when the centurion and\nthey that were with him watching Jesus saw the earthquake [------] and\nthe things that were done [------] they feared greatly, saying, Truly\nthis was a son of God\" [------].(1) In Mark the statement is very\ncuriously varied: \"And when the centurion who stood over against him saw\nthat he so expired, he said: Truly this man was a son of God.\"(2) It is\nargued on the one hand that the centurion's wonder here was caused\nby Jesus dying with so loud a cry, and the reading of many MSS.\nwould clearly support this;(3) and on the other that the cause of his\nexclamation was the unexpectedly rapid death of Jesus. Whichever view be\ntaken, the centurion's deduction, it must be admitted, rests upon\n\n{430}\n\nsingularly inconclusive reasoning. We venture to think that it is\nimpossible that a Roman soldier could either have been led to form such\nan opinion upon such grounds, or to express it in such terms. In Luke,\nwe have a third reading: \"But when the centurion saw what was done, he\nglorified God, saying: Certainly this man was righteous\"(1) [------].\nThere is nothing here about the \"Son of God;\" but when the writer\nrepresents the Roman soldier as glorifying God, the narrative does not\nseem much more probable than that of the other Synoptists.\n\nThe fourth Evangelist of course does not refer to any such episode, but,\nas usual, he introduces a very remarkable incident of his own, of which\nthe Synoptists, who record such peculiar details of what passed, seem\nvery strangely to know nothing. The fourth evangelist states: \"The Jews,\ntherefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies might not\nremain upon the cross on the sabbath, (for that sabbath-day was a high\nday), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and they might be\ntaken away. So the soldiers came and brake the legs of the first, and\nof the other who was crucified with him, but when they came to Jesus, as\nthey saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs; but one of\nthe soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith there came\nout blood and water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his\nwitness is true: and that man knoweth that he saith what is true, that\nye also may believe. For these things came to pass that the Scripture\nmight be fulfilled: A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another\nScripture saith: They shall look on him whom they pierced.\"(2) It is\ninconceivable that, if this\n\n{431}\n\nactually occurred, and occurred more especially that the \"Scripture\nmight be fulfilled,\" the other three Evangelists could thus totally\nignore it all.(1) The second Synoptist does more: he not only ignores\nbut excludes it, for (xv. 43 f.) he represents Joseph as begging the\nbody of Jesus from Pilate \"when evening was now come.\" \"And Pilate\nmarvelled if he were already dead; and calling unto him the centurion,\nhe asked him whether he had been long dead. And when he knew it of the\ncenturion he gave the corpse to Joseph.\"(2) Now, although there could\nbe no doubt on the point, the fourth Gospel clearly states (xix. 38,\n[------] that Joseph made his request for the body after the order had\nbeen given by Pilate to break the legs of the crucified, and after it\nhad been executed as above described. If Pilate had already given the\norder to break the legs, how is it possible he could have marvelled, or\nacted as he is described in Mark to have done?\n\nIt is well known that the Crurifragium, which is here applied, was\nnot usually an accompaniment of crucifixion, though it may have\nbeen sometimes employed along with it,(3) but that it was a distinct\npunishment. It consisted in breaking, with hammers or clubs, the bones\nof the condemned from the hips to the feet. We shall not discuss\nwhether in the present case this measure really was adopted or not. The\nrepresentation is that the Jews requested Pilate to break the legs of\nthe crucified that the bodies might be removed before the Sabbath, and\n\n{432}\n\nthat the order was given and executed. The first point to be noted is\nthe very singular manner in which the leg-breaking was performed. The\nsoldiers are said to have broken the legs of the first and then of the\nother who was crucified with Jesus, thus passing over Jesus in the first\ninstance; and then the Evangelist says: \"_but when they came to Jesus_,\nas they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs, but one\nof the soldiers with a spear pierced his side.\" This order of procedure\nis singular; but the whole conduct of the guard is so extraordinary that\nsuch details become comparatively insignificant. An order having been\ngiven to the Roman soldiers, in accordance with the request of the Jews,\nto break the legs of the crucified, we are asked to believe that\nthey did not execute it in the case of Jesus! It is not reasonable\nto suppose, however, that Roman soldiers either were in the habit of\ndisregarding their orders, or could have any motive for doing so in\nthis case, and subjecting themselves to the severe punishment for\ndisobedience inflicted by Roman military law. It is argued that they saw\nthat Jesus was already dead, and therefore that it was not necessary to\nbreak his legs; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking in this\nway: they are disciplined to obey. The fact is, however, that the\ncertainty that Jesus was dead already did not actually exist in their\nminds, and could scarcely have existed seeing that the death was so\nsingularly rapid, for in that case why should the soldier have pierced\nhis side with a spear? The only conceivable motive for doing so was to\nmake sure that Jesus really was dead;(1) but is it possible to suppose\nthat a Roman soldier, being in the slightest doubt, actually chose to\nassure himself in\n\n{433}\n\nthis way when he might still more effectually have done so by simply\nobeying the order of his superior and breaking the legs? The whole\nepisode is manifestly un-historical.(1)\n\nIt is clear that to fulfil in a marked way the prophecies which the\nwriter had in his mind, and wished specially to apply to Jesus, it was\nnecessary that, in the first place, there should have been a distinct\ndanger of the bones being broken, and at the same time of the side not\nbeing pierced. The order to break the legs of the crucified is therefore\ngiven, but an extraordinary exception is made in favour of Jesus, and\na thrust with the lance substituted, so that both passages of the\nScripture are supposed to be fulfilled.(3) What Scriptures, however, are\nfulfilled? The first: \"A bone of him shall not be broken,\" is merely the\nprescription with regard to the Paschal lamb, Ex. xii. 46,(3) and the\ndogmatic view of the fourth Evangelist leads him throughout to represent\nJesus as the true Paschal lamb. The second is Zech. xii. 10,(4) and\nany one who reads the passage, even without the assistance of learned\nexegesis, may perceive that it has no such application as our Evangelist\ngives it. We shall pass over, as not absolutely necessary for our\nimmediate purpose, very many important details of the episode; but\nregarding this part of the subject we may say that we consider it\nevident that, if an order was given to break the legs of the crucified\nupon this occasion, that\n\n{434}\n\norder must have been executed upon Jesus equally with any others who may\nhave been crucified with him.\n\nThere has been much discussion as to the intention of the author in\nstating that, from the wound made by the lance, there forthwith came\nout \"blood and water\" [------]; and likewise as to whether the special\ntestimony here referred to in the third person is to attest more\nimmediately the flow of blood and water, or the whole episode.(1)\nIn regard to the latter point, we need not pause to discuss the\nquestion.(2) As to the \"blood and water,\" some see in the statement made\nan intention to show the reality of the death of Jesus,(3) whilst others\nmore rightly regard the phenomenon described as a representation of\na supernatural and symbolical incident,(4) closely connected with the\nwhole dogmatic view of the Gospel. It is impossible not to see in this\nthe same idea as that expressed in 1 John v. 6: \"This is he that came by\nwater and blood, Jesus Christ; not in the water only, but in the water\nand the blood.\"(5) As a natural incident it cannot be entertained, for\nin no sense but mere quibbling could it be said that \"blood and water\"\ncould flow from such a wound, and as a supernatural\n\n{435}\n\nphenomenon it must be rejected. As a proof of the reality of the death\nof Jesus, it could only have been thought of at a time when gross\nignorance prevailed upon all medical subjects. We shall not here discuss\nthe reality of the death of Jesus, but we may merely point out that the\nalmost unprecedentedly rapid decease of Jesus was explained by Origen(1)\nand some of the Fathers as miraculous. It has been argued that the\nthrust of the lance may have been intended to silence those objectors\nwho might have denied the actual death on the ground that the legs\nof Jesus were not broken like those of the two malefactors,(2) and it\ncertainly is generally quoted as having assured the fact of death.\nThe statement that blood flowed from the wound, however, by no means\nsupports the allegation and, although we may make little use of the\nargument, it is right to say that there is no evidence of any serious\nkind advanced of the reality of the death of Jesus, here or in the other\nGospels.(3)\n\nThe author of the fourth Gospel himself seems to betray that this\nepisode is a mere interpolation of his own into a narrative to which it\ndoes not properly belong.(4) According to his own account (xix. 31), the\nJews besought Pilate that the legs might be broken and that the bodies\n\"might be taken away\" [------], The order to do this was obviously\ngiven,\n\n     3  It has likewise been thought that the representation in\n     Mark xv. 44, that Pilate marvelled at the rapid death of\n     Jesus, and sent for the centurion to ascertain the fact, was\n     made to meet similar doubts, or at least to give assurance\n     of the reality of the death.\n\n{436}\n\nfor the legs are forthwith broken and of coarse, immediately after, the\nbodies in pursuance of the same order would have been taken away.\nAs soon as the Evangelist has secured his purpose of showing how the\nScriptures were fulfilled by means of this episode, he takes up the\nstory as though it had not been interrupted, and proceeds v. 38: \"After\nthese things\" [------], that is to say after the legs of the malefactors\nhad been broken and the side of Jesus pierced, Joseph besought Pilate\nthat he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave leave. But,\nif v. 31f. be historical, the body must already have been taken away.\nAll the Synoptics agree with the fourth Gospel in stating that Joseph of\nArimathaea begged for and obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate.(1) The\nsecond and third Synoptics describe him as belonging to the Council, but\nthe first Gospel merely calls him \"a rich man,\" whilst the fourth\nomits both of these descriptions. They all call him a disciple\nof Jesus--secretly for fear of the Jews, the fourth Gospel\ncharacteristically adds--although the term that he was \"waiting for\nthe Kingdom of God,\" used by the second and third Gospels, is somewhat\nvague. The fourth Gospel, however, introduces a second personage in the\nshape of Nicodemus, \"who at the first came to him by night,\"(2) and who,\nit will be remembered, had previously been described as \"a ruler of the\nJews.\"(3) The Synoptics do not once mention such a person, either in the\nnarrative of the Passion or in the earlier chapters, and there are\nmore than doubts as to his historical character.(4) The accounts of the\nEntombment given by the three\n\n     1 According to Luke xxiii. 53, Joseph actually \"took down\"\n     the body.\n\n{437}\n\nSynoptists, or at least by the second and third, distinctly exclude the\nnarrative of the fourth Gospel, both as regards Nicodemus and the part\nhe is represented as taking. The contradictions which commence here\nbetween the account of the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, in fact, are\nof the most glaring and important nature, and demand marked attention.\nThe fourth Gospel states that, having obtained permission from Pilate,\nJoseph came and took the body of Jesus away. \"And there came also\nNicodemus,... bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred\npound weight. They took, therefore, the body of Jesus, and wound it in\nlinen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.\nNow in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the\ngarden a new sepulchre wherein was never man yet laid. There, therefore,\non account of the preparation of the Jews [------], they laid Jesus, for\nthe sepulchre was at hand\" [------].(1)\n\nAccording to the first Synoptic, when Joseph took the body, he simply\nwrapped it \"in clean linen\" [------] and \"laid it in his own new\nsepulchre, which he hewed in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to\nthe door of the sepulchre, and departed.\"(2) There is no mention of\nspices or any anointing of the body,(3) and the statement that the women\nprovide for this is not made in this Gospel. According to the writer,\nthe burial is complete, and the sepulchre finally closed. Mary Magdalene\nand the other Mary come merely \"to behold the sepulchre\" at the end of\nthe\n\n{438}\n\nSabbath.(1) The fourth Evangelist apparently does not know anything of\nthe sepulchre being Joseph's own tomb, and the body is, according to\nhim, although folly embalmed, only laid in the sepulchre in the garden\non account of the Sabbath and because it was at hand. We shall refer to\nthis point, which must be noted, further on.\n\nThere are very striking differences between these two accounts, but\nthe narratives of the second and third Synoptists are still more\nemphatically contradictory of both. In Mark,(2) we are told that Joseph\n\"bought linen, and took him down and wrapped him in the linen, and laid\nhim in a sepulchre which had been hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone\nagainst the door of the sepulchre.\" There is no mention here of any\nembalming performed by Joseph or Nicodemus, nor are any particulars\ngiven as to the ownership of the sepulchre, or the reasons for its\nselection. We are, however, told:(3) \"And when the Sabbath was past,\nMary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices\nthat they might come and anoint him.\" It is distinctly stated in\nconnection with the entombment, moreover, in agreement with the first\nSynoptic:(4) \"And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld\nwhere he was laid.\"(5) According to this account and that of the\nfirst Gospel, the women, having remained to the last and seen the body\ndeposited in the sepulchre, knew so little of its having been embalmed\nby Joseph and Nicodemus, that they actually purchase the spices and come\nto perform that office themselves.\n\nIn Luke, the statement is still more specific, in\n\n{439}\n\nagreement with Mark, and in contradiction to the fourth Gospel. Joseph\ntook down the body \"and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre\nthat was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.... And women\nwho had come with him out of Galilee followed after, and beheld the\nsepulchre _and how his body was laid_. And they returned and prepared\nspices and ointments.\" Upon the first day of the week, the author\nadds: \"they came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices which they had\nprepared.\"(1)\n\nWhich of these accounts are we to believe? According to the first\nGospel, there is no embalmment at all; according to the second and third\nGospels, the embalmment is undertaken by the women, and not by Joseph\nand Nicodemus, but is never carried out; according to the fourth Gospel,\nthe embalmment is completed on Friday evening by Joseph and Nicodemus,\nand not by the women. According to the first Gospel, the burial is\ncompleted on Friday evening; according to the second and third, it is\nonly provisional; and according to the fourth, the embalmment is final,\nbut it is doubtful whether the entombment is final or temporary; several\ncritics consider it to have been only provisional.(2) In Mark, the women\nbuy the spices \"when the Sabbath was past\" [------];(3) in Luke before\nit has begun;(4) and in Matthew and John they do not buy them at all. In\nthe first and fourth Gospels, the women come after the Sabbath merely\nto behold the sepulchre,(5) and in the second and third, they bring the\nspices to complete the burial.\n\n{440}\n\nAmid these conflicting statements we may suggest one consideration. It\nis not probable, in a hot climate, that a wounded body, hastily laid\nin a sepulchre on Friday evening before six o'clock, would be disturbed\nagain on Sunday morning for the purpose of being anointed and embalmed.\nCorruption would, under the circumstances, already have commenced.\nBesides, as Keim(l) has pointed out, the last duties to the dead were\nnot forbidden amongst the Jews on the Sabbath, and there is really\nno reason why any care for the body of the Master which reverence or\naffection might have dictated should not at once have been bestowed.\n\nThe enormous amount of myrrh and aloes--\"about a hundred pound weight\"\n[------]--brought by Nicodemus has excited much discussion, and adds\nto the extreme improbability of the story related by the fourth\nEvangelist.(3) To whatever weight the [------] may be reduced, the quantity\nspecified is very great; and it is a question whether the body thus\nenveloped \"as the manner of the Jews is to bury\" could have entered\nthe sepulchre. The practice of embalming the dead, although well known\namongst the Jews, and invariable in the case of Kings and noble or very\nwealthy persons, was by no means generally prevalent In the burial of\nGamaliel the elder, chief of the party of the Pharisees, it is stated\nthat over 80 pounds of balsam were burnt in his honour by the proselyte\nOnkelos;(3) but this quantity, which was considered very\n\n{441}\n\nremarkable, is totally eclipsed by the provision of Nicodemus.\n\nThe key to the whole of this history of the burial of Jesus, however, is\nto be found in the celebrated chapt. liii. of \"Isaiah.\" We have already,\nin passing, pointed out that, in the third Gospel (xxii. 37), Jesus is\nrepresented as saying: \"For I say unto you, that this which is written\nmust be accomplished in me: And he was reckoned among transgressors.\"\nThe same quotation from Is. liii. 12 is likewise interpolated in Mk. xv.\n28. Now the whole representation of the burial and embalmment of Jesus\nis evidently based upon the same chapter, and more especially upon v.\n9, which is wrongly rendered both in the Authorized Version and in the\nSeptuagint, in the latter of which the passage reads: \"I will give the\nwicked for his grave and the rich for his death.\"(1) The Evangelists\ntaking this to be the sense of the passage, which they suppose to be a\nMessianic prophecy, have represented the death of Jesus as being with\nthe wicked, crucified as he is between two robbers; and through Joseph\nof Arimathaea, significantly called \"a rich man\" [------] by the first\nSynoptist, especially according to the fourth Evangelist by his addition\nof the counsellor Nicodemus and his hundred pounds weight of mingled\nmyrrh and aloes, as being \"with the rich in his death.\" Unfortunately,\nthe passage in the \"prophecy\" does not mean what the Evangelists have\nbeen led to understand, and the ablest Hebrew scholars and critics are\nnow agreed that both phrases quoted refer, in true Hebrew manner, to one\nrepresentation, and that the word above\n\n{442}\n\ntranslated \"rich\" is not used in a favourable sense, but that the\npassage must be rendered: \"And they made his grave with the wicked and\nhis sepulchre with the evil-doers,\" or words to that effect.(1) Without\ngoing minutely into the details of opinion on the subject of the\n\"servant of Jehovah\" in this writing of the Old Testament, we may add\nthat upon one point at least the great majority of critics are of one\naccord: that Is. liii. and other passages of \"Isaiah\" describing\nthe sufferings of the \"Servant of Jehovah\" have no reference to the\nMessiah.(3) As we have\n\n{443}\n\ntouched upon this subject it may not be out of place to add that Psalms\nxxii.(1) and lxix.,(2) which are so frequently quoted in connection with\nthe passion, and represented by New Testament and other early writers as\nMessianic, are determined by sounder principles of criticism applied\nto them in modern times not to refer to the Messiah at all. We have\nelsewhere spoken of other supposed Messianic Psalms quoted in the New\nTestament.(3)\n\n\"We now come to a remarkable episode which is peculiar to the first\nSynoptic and strangely ignored by all the other Gospels. It is stated\nthat the next day--that is to say, on the Sabbath--the chief priests and\nthe Pharisees came together to Pilate, saying: \"Sir, we remember that\nthat deceiver said while he was yet alive: After three\n\n{444}\n\ndays I am raised [------]. Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be\nmade sure until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him\naway and say unto the people: He is risen from the dead: so the last\nerror shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them: Ye have a\nguard [------]: go, make it as sure as ye can. So they went and made the\nsepulchre sure, sealing the stone, with the guard.\"(l) Not only do the\nother Evangelists pass over this strange proceeding in total silence,\nbut their narratives exclude it, at least those of the second and third\nSynoptists do so. The women came with their spices to embalm the body,\nin total ignorance of there being any guard to interfere with their\nperformance of that last sad office for the Master. We are asked to\nbelieve that the chief priests and the Pharisees actually desecrated\nthe Sabbath by sealing the stone, and visited the house of the heathen\nPilate on so holy a day, for the purpose of asking for the guard.(2)\nThese priests are said to have remembered and understood a prophecy of\nJesus regarding his resurrection, of which his disciples are represented\nto be in ignorance.(3) The remark about \"the last error,\" moreover,\nis very suspicious. The ready acquiescence of Pilate is quite\nincredible.(4) That he should employ Roman soldiers to watch the\nsepulchre of a man who had been crucified cannot be entertained; and his\nfriendly: \"Go, make it as sure as ye\n\n{445}\n\ncan,\" is not in the spirit of Pilate. It is conceivable that to satisfy\ntheir clamour he may, without much difficulty, have consented to\ncrucify a Jew, more especially as his crime was of a political character\nrepresented as in some degree affecting the Roman power; but, once\ncrucified, it is not in the slightest degree likely that Pilate would\ncare what became of his body, and still less that he would employ Roman\nsoldiers to mount guard over it.\n\nIt may be as well to dispose finally of this episode, so we at once\nproceed to its conclusion. When the resurrection takes place, it is\nstated that some of the guard went into the city, and, instead of making\ntheir report to Pilate, as might have been expected, told the chief\npriests all that had occurred. A council is held, and the soldiers are\nlargely bribed, and instructed: \"Say that his disciples came by night\nand stole him while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears\nwe will persuade him and make you free from care. So they took the money\nand did as they were taught.\"(1) Nothing could be more simple than\nthe construction of the story, which follows the usual broad lines of\nlegend. The idea of Roman soldiers confessing that they slept whilst on\nwatch, and allowed that to occur which they were there to prevent! and\nthis to oblige the chief priests and elders, at the risk of their lives!\nThen are we to suppose that the chief priests and council believed this\nstory of the earthquake and angel, and yet acted in this way? and if\nthey did not believe it, would not the very story itself have led to\nthe punishment of the men, and to the confirmation of the report they\ndesired to spread, that the disciples had stolen the body? The large\nbribe seems to have been very ineffectual, however, since the Christian\nhistorian is able to report precisely what the\n\n{446}\n\nchief priests and elders instruct them to say.(1) Is it not palpable\nthat the whole story is legendary?(2) If it be so, and we think it\ncannot be doubted, a conclusion which the total silence of the other\nGospels seems to confirm, very suggestive consequences may be deduced\nfrom it. The first Synoptist, referring to the false report which the\nSanhedrin instruct the soldiers to make, says: \"And this saying was\nspread among the Jews unto this day.\"(3) The probable origin of\nthe legend, therefore, may have been an objection to the Christian\naffirmation of the resurrection to the above effect; but it is\ninstructive to find that Christian tradition was equal to the occasion,\nand invented a story to refute it. It is the tendency to this very\nsystem of defence and confirmation, everywhere apparent, which renders\nearly Christian tradition so mythical and untrustworthy.\n\nWe now enter upon the narrative of the Resurrection itself. The first\nSynoptist relates that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to behold\nthe sepulchre \"at the close of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn into the\nfirst day of the week\" [------],(4) that is to say, shortly after six\no'clock on the evening of Saturday, the end of the Sabbath, the dawn of\nthe next day being marked by the\n\n{447}\n\nglimmer of more than one star in the heavens.(1) The second Synoptic\nrepresents that, \"when the Sabbath was past,\" Mary Magdalene, and Mary\nthe mother of James, and Salome bought spices, and that they came to the\nsepulchre \"very early on the first day of the week after the rising of\nthe sun\" [------].(2) The third Synoptist states that the women who came\nwith Jesus from Galilee came to the sepulchre, but he subsequently more\ndefinitely names them: \"Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the\nmother of James, and the other women with them,\"(3)--a larger number\nof women,--and they came \"upon the first day of the week at early dawn\"\n[------]. The fourth Evangelist represents that Mary Magdalene only(4)\ncame to the sepulchre, on the first day of the week, \"early, while it\nwas yet dark\" [------].(5)\n\nThe first Evangelist indubitably makes the hour at which the women come\nto the sepulchre different and much earlier than the others, and at the\nsame time he represents them as witnessing the actual removal of the\nstone, which, in the other three Gospels, the women already find\nrolled away from the mouth of the sepulchre.(6) It will, therefore, be\ninteresting to follow the first Synoptic. It is here stated: 2. \"And\nbehold there was a great earthquake [------]: for an angel of the Lord\ndescended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon\nit. 3. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as\n\n{448}\n\nsnow. 4. And for fear of him the keepers did shake and became as dead\nmen. 5. And the angel answered and said unto the women: Fear ye not, for\nI know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. 6. He is not here:\nfor he was raised [------] as he said: Come, see the place where he lay.\n7. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he was raised [------]\nfrom the dead, and behold he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall\nye see him: behold, I have told you. 8. And they departed quickly\nfrom the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and ran to tell his\ndisciples.\"(1) We have here in the first place another earthquake and\napparently, on the theory of the course of cosmical phenomena held\nduring the \"Age of Miracles,\" produced by the angel who descended to\nroll away the stone from the sepulchre. This earthquake, like the others\nrecorded in the first Synoptic, appears to be quite unknown to the other\nEvangelists, and no trace of it has been pointed out in other writings.\nWith the appearance of the angel we obviously arrive upon thoroughly\nunhistorical ground. Can we believe, because this unknown writer tells\nus so, that \"an angel,\"(2) causing an earthquake, actually descended and\ntook such a part in this transaction? Upon the very commonest\n\n     2 Compare his description with Dan. x. 6. It is worthy of\n     consideration also that when Daniel is cast into the den of\n     lions a stone is rolled upon the mouth of the den, and\n     sealed with the signet of the king and his lords, vi. 17.\n\n{449}\n\nprinciples of evidence, the reply must be an emphatic negative. Every\nfact of science, every lesson of experience excludes such an assumption,\nand we may add that the character of the author, with which we are\nnow better acquainted, as well as the course of the narrative itself,\nconfirms the justice of such a conclusion.(1) If the introduction of the\nangel be legendary, must not also his words be so? Proceeding, however,\nto examine the narrative as it stands, we must point out a circumstance\nwhich may appropriately be mentioned here, and which is well worthy of\nattention. The women and the guard are present when the stone is\nrolled away from the sepulchre, but they do not witness the actual\nResurrection. It is natural to suppose that, when the stone was removed,\nJesus, who, it is asserted, rises with his body from the dead, would\nhave come forth from the sepulchre: but not so; the angel only says, v.\n6: \"He is not here: for he was raised [------];\" and he merely invites\nthe women to see the place where he lay. The actual resurrection is\nspoken of as a thing which had taken place before, and in any case it\nwas not witnessed by any one. In the other Gospels, the resurrection\nhas already occurred before any one arrives at the sepulchre; and the\nremarkable fact is, therefore, absolutely undeniable, that there\nwas not, and that it is not even pretended that there was, a single\neye-witness of the actual Resurrection. The empty grave, coupled with\nthe supposed subsequent appearances of Jesus, is the only evidence of\nthe Resurrection. We shall not, however, pursue this further at present.\nThe removal of the stone is not followed by any visible result. The\ninmate of the sepulchre is not\n\n{450}\n\nobserved to issue from it, and yet he is not there. May we not ask what\nwas the use, in this narrative, of the removal of the stone at all? As\nno one apparently came forth, the only purpose seems to have been to\npermit those from without to enter and see that the sepulchre was empty.\n\nAnother remarkable point is that the angel desires the women to go\nquickly and inform the disciples: \"he goeth before you into Galilee:\nthere shall ye see him.\" One is tempted to inquire why, as he rose\nfrom the dead in Jerusalem and, in spite of previous statements, the\ndisciples are represented as being there also,(1) Jesus did not appear\nto them in the Holy City, instead of sending them some three days'\njourney off to Galilee. At the same time, Jesus is represented by the\nfirst two Synoptics as saying at the last Supper, when warning the\ndisciples that they will all be offended at him that night and be\nscattered: \"But after I shall have been raised, I will go before you\ninto Galilee.\"(2) At present we have only to call attention to the fact\nthat the angel gives the order. With how much surprise, therefore, do we\nnot immediately after read that, as the women departed quickly to tell\nthe disciples in obedience to the angel's message, v. 9: \"Behold Jesus\nmet them, saying, Hail. And they came up to him and laid hold of his\nfeet, and worshipped him. 10. Then saith Jesus unto them: Be not afraid:\ngo, tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there they shall\nsee me.\"(3) What was the use of the angel's message since Jesus himself\nimmediately after appears and delivers the very same instructions in\nperson? This sudden and apparently unnecessary appearance has all the\ncharacter of an afterthought. One point,\n\n{451}\n\nhowever, is very clear: that the order to go into Galilee and the\nstatement that there first Jesus is to appear to the disciples are\nunmistakable, repeated and peremptory.\n\nWe must now turn to the second Gospel. The women going to the sepulchre\nwith spices that they might anoint the body of Jesus--which, according\nto the fourth Gospel, had already been fully embalmed and, in any case,\nhad lain in the sepulchre since the Friday evening--are represented as\nsaying amongst themselves: \"Who will roll us away the stone from the\ndoor of the sepulchre?\"(1) This is a curious dramatic speculation, but\nvery suspicious. These women are apparently not sufficiently acquainted\nwith Joseph of Arimathaea to be aware that, as the fourth Gospel\nasserts, the body had already been embalmed, and yet they actually\ncontemplate rolling the stone away from the mouth of a sepulchre which\nwas his property.(2) Keim has pointed out that it was a general rule(3)\nthat, after a sepulchre had been closed in the way described, it should\nnot again be opened. Generally, the stone was not placed against the\nopening of the sepulchre till the third day, when corruption had already\ncommenced; but here the sepulchre is stated by all the Gospels to have\nbeen closed on the first day, and the unhesitating intention of the\nwomen to remove the stone is not a happy touch on the part of the second\nSynoptist. They find the stone already rolled away.(4) Ver. 5: \"And\nentering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right\nside, clothed in a long white garment; and they were\n\n     4 Mk. xvi. 4. The continuation: \"for it was very great\" [--\n     ----], is peculiar, but of course intended to represent the\n     difficulty of its removal.\n\n{452}\n\naffrighted. 6. And he saith unto them: Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus\nof Nazareth, the crucified: he was raised [------]; he is not here;\nbehold the place where they laid him. 7. But go, tell his disciples and\nPeter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as\nhe said unto you. 8. And they went out and fled from the sepulchre: for\ntrembling and astonishment seized them, and they said nothing to any\none; for they were afraid.\"(1) In Matthew, the angel rolls away the\nstone from the sepulchre and sits upon it, and the women only enter to\nsee where Jesus lay, upon his invitation. Here, they go in at once,\nand see the angel (\"a young man\") sitting at the right side, and are\naffrighted. He re assures them and, as in the other narrative, says:\n\"he was raised.\" He gives them the same message to his disciples and\nto Peter, who is specially named, and the second Synoptic thus fully\nconfirms the first in representing Galilee as the place where Jesus is\nto be seen by them. It is curious that the women should say nothing to\nanyone about this wonderful event, and in this the statements of the\nother Gospels are certainly not borne out. There is one remarkable point\nto be noticed, however, that, according to the second Synoptist also,\nnot only is there no eye-witness of the Resurrection, but the only\nevidence of that marvellous occurrence which it contains is the\ninformation of the \"young man,\" which is clearly no evidence at all.\nThere is no appearance of Jesus to any one narrated, and it would seem\nas though the appearance described in\n\n{453}\n\nMatt, xxviii. 9 f. is excluded. It is well known that Mark xvi. 9-20\ndid not form part of the original Gospel and is inauthentic. It is\nunnecessary to argue a point so generally admitted. The verses now\nappended to the Gospel are by a different author and are of no value as\nevidence. We, therefore, exclude them from consideration. In Luke, as\nin the second Synoptic, the women find the stone removed, and here it\nis distinctly stated that \"on entering in they found not the body of the\nLord Jesus. 4. And it came to pass as they were perplexed thereabout,\nbehold two men stood by them in shining garments; 5. And as they were\nafraid, and bowed their faces to the earth, they said unto them: Why\nseek ye the living among the dead? 6. He is not here, but was raised\n[------]; remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,\n7. saying, that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of\nsinful men, and be crucified and the third day rise again. 8. And they\nremembered his words, 9. and returned from the sepulchre, and told all\nthese things unto the eleven and to all the rest.... 11. And these words\nappeared to them as an idle tale, and they believed them not.\"(1) The\nauthor of the third Gospel is not content with one angel, like the first\ntwo Synoptists, but introduces \"two men in shining garments,\" who seem\nsuddenly to stand beside the women, and instead of re-assuring them, as\nin the former narratives, rather adopt a tone of reproof (v. 5). They\ninform the women that \"Jesus was raised;\" and here again not only has no\none been an eye-witness of the resurrection, but the women only hear of\nit from the angels. There is one striking peculiarity in the above\n\n{454}\n\naccount. There is no mention whatever of Jesus going before his\ndisciples into Galilee to be seen of them, nor indeed of his being seen\nat all; but \"Galilee\" is introduced by way of a reminiscence. Instead\nof the future, the third Synoptist substitutes the past and, as might be\nexpected, he gives no hint of any appearances of Jesus to the disciples\nbeyond the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. When the women tell the disciples\nwhat they have seen and heard, they do not believe them. The thief on\nthe cross, according to the writer, was more advanced in his faith and\nknowledge than the Apostles. Setting aside Mat. xxviii. 9,10, we have\nhitherto no other affirmation of the Resurrection than the statement\nthat the sepulchre was found empty, and the angels announced that Jesus\nwas raised from the dead.\n\nThe account of the fourth Evangelist, however, differs completely from\nthe narratives of all the Synoptists. According to him, Mary Magdalene\nalone comes to the sepulchre and sees the stone taken away. She\ntherefore runs and comes to Simon Peter and to \"the other disciple whom\nJesus loved,\" saying: \"They took [------] the Lord out of the sepulchre\nand we know not [------](1) where they laid [------] him. 3. Peter,\ntherefore, went forth and the other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.\n4. And the two ran together; and the other disciple outran Peter and\ncame first to the sepulchre; 5. and stooping down, looking in, he seeth\nthe linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. C. Then cometh Simon Peter\nfollowing him and went into the\n\n     1 From the use of this plural, as we have already pointed\n     out, it is argued that there were others with Mary who are\n     not named. This by no means follows, but if it were the case\n     the peculiarity of the narrative becomes all the more\n     apparent.\n\n{455}\n\nsepulchre and beholdeth the linen clothes lying, 7. and the napkin that\nwas on his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped in one\nplace by itself. 8. Then went in, therefore, the other disciple also,\nwho came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed. 9. For as yet\nthey knew not the scriptures, that he must rise again from the dead. 10.\nSo the disciples went away to their own homes.\"(1) Critics have long\nago pointed out the careful way in which the actions of \"the beloved\ndisciple\" and Peter are balanced in this narrative. If the \"other\ndisciple\" outstrips Peter, and first looks into the sepulchre, Peter\nfirst actually enters; and if Peter first sees the careful arrangement\nof the linen clothes, the other sees and believes. The evident care with\nwhich the writer metes out a share to each disciple in this visit to\nthe sepulchre, of which the Synoptics seem totally ignorant, is very\nsuggestive of artistic arrangement, and the careful details regarding\nthe folding and position of the linen clothes, which has furnished so\nmuch matter for apologetic reasoning, seems to us to savour more of\nstudied composition than natural observation. So very much is passed\nover in complete silence which is of the very highest importance, that\nminute details like these, which might well be composed in the study, do\nnot produce so much effect as some critics think they should do. There\nis some ambiguity as to what the disciple \"believed,\" according to v.\n8, when he went into the sepulchre; and some understand that he simply\nbelieved what Mary Magdalene had told them (v. 2), whilst others hold\nthat he believed in the resurrection, which, taken in connection with\nthe following verse, seems undoubtedly to be the author's meaning. If\nthe former were the reading it would be too trifling a point to be so\n\n{456}\n\nprominently mentioned, and it would not accord with the contented return\nhome of the disciples. Accepting the latter sense, it is instructive\nto observe the very small amount of evidence with which \"the beloved\ndisciple\" is content. He simply finds the sepulchre empty and the linen\nclothes lying, and although no one even speaks of the resurrection, no\none professes to have been an eye-witness of it, and \"as yet they\nknow not the scriptures, that he must rise again from the dead,\" he is\nnevertheless said to see and believe.\n\nIt will have been observed that as yet, although the two disciples\nhave both entered the sepulchre, there has been no mention whatever of\nangels: they certainly did not see any. In immediate continuation of\nthe narrative, however, we learn that when they have gone home, Mary\nMagdalene, who was standing without at the tomb weeping, stooped down\nand, looking into the sepulchre,--where just before the disciples had\nseen no one,--she beheld \"two angels in white sitting, one at the head\nand one at the feet, where the body of Jesus lay. 13. They say unto her:\nWoman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them: Because they took away\n[------] my Lord, and I know not where they laid him.\"(1) This again is\na very different representation and conversation from that reported\nin the other Gospels. Do we acquire any additional assurance as to the\nreality of the angels and the historical truth of their intervention\nfrom this narrative? We think not. Mary Magdalene repeats to the angels\nalmost the very words she had said to the disciples, v. 2. Are we to\nsuppose that \"the beloved disciple,\" who saw and believed, did not\ncommunicate his conviction to the others, and that Mary was left\n\n{457}\n\nprecisely in the same doubt and perplexity as before, without an idea\nthat anything had happened except that the body had been taken away and\nshe knew not where it had been laid? She appears to have seen and spoken\nto the angels with singular composure. Their sudden appearance does not\neven seem to have surprised her.\n\nWe must, however, continue the narrative, and it is well to remark the\nmaintenance, at first, of the tone of affected ignorance, as well as the\ndramatic construction of the whole scene: v. 14. \"Having said this, she\nturned herself back and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that\nit was Jesus. 15. Jesus saith unto her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom\nseekest thou? She, supposing that it was the gardener, saith unto him:\nSir, if thou didst bear him hence, tell me where thou didst lay him,\nand I will take him away. 16. Jesus saith unto her: Mary. She turned\nherself, and saith unto him in Hebrew:(1) Rabboni, which is to say,\nMaster. 17. Jesus saith unto her: Touch me not [------]; for I have not\nyet ascended to the Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them: I\nascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. 18. Mary\nMagdalene cometh announcing to the disciples that she has seen the Lord,\nand he spake these things unto her.\"(2) To those who attach weight\nto these narratives and consider them historical, it must appear\nastonishing that Mary, who up to the very last had been closely\nassociated with Jesus, does not recognise him when he thus appears\nto her, but supposes him at first to be the gardener. As part of the\nevidence of the Gospel, however,\n\n     1 This is the reading of the Vatican and Sinaitic codices,\n     besides D and many other important MSS.\n\n{458}\n\nsuch a trait is of much importance, and must hereafter be alluded to.\nAfter a couple of days not know Jesus whom she had daily seen for so\nlong! The interpretation of the reply of Jesus, v. 17: \"Touch me not,\"\n&c, has long been a bone of contention among critics, but it does not\nsufficiently affect the inquiry upon which we are engaged to require\ndiscussion here.(1) Only one point may be mentioned in passing, that\nif, as has been supposed in connection with Mt. xxviii. 9, Jesus be\nunderstood to repel, as premature, the worship of Mary, that\nvery passage of the first Gospel, in which there is certainly no\ndiscouragement of worship, refutes the theory. We shall not say more\nabout the construction of this dialogue, but we may point out that, as\nso many unimportant details are given throughout the narrative, it is\nsomewhat remarkable that the scene terminates so abruptly, and leaves so\nmuch untold that it would have been of the utmost consequence for us to\nknow. What became of Jesus, for instance? Did he vanish suddenly? or did\nhe bid Mary farewell, and leave her like one in the flesh? Did she not\ninquire why he did not join the brethren? whither he was going? It is\nscarcely possible to tell us less than the writer has done; and as it\ncannot be denied that such minor points as where the linen clothes\n\n{459}\n\nlay, or whether Mary \"turned herself back\" (v. 14) or \"turned herself\"\n(v. 16) merely, cannot be compared in interest and importance to the\nsupposed movements and conduct of Jesus under such circumstances, the\nomission to relate the end of the interview, or more particular\ndetails of it, whilst those graphic touches are inserted, is singularly\ninstructive. It is much more important to notice that here again there\nis no mention of Galilee, nor, indeed, of any intention to show himself\nto the disciples anywhere, but simply the intimation sent to them: \"I\nascend unto my Father and your Father,\" &c, a declaration which seems\nemphatically to exclude further \"appearances,\" and to limit the vision\nof the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene. Certainly this message implies in\nthe clearest way that the Ascension was then to take place, and the only\nexplanation of the abrupt termination of the scene immediately after\nthis is said is, that, as he spoke, Jesus then ascended. The subsequent\nappearances related in this Gospel must, consequently, either be\nregarded as an after-thought, or as visions of Jesus after he had\nascended. This demands serious attention. We shall see that after\nsending this message to his disciples he is represented as appearing to\nthem on the evening of the very same day.\n\nAccording to the third Synoptic, the first appearance of Jesus to\nany one after the Resurrection was not to the women, and not to Mary\nMagdalene, but to two brethren,(1) who were not apostles at all, the\nname of one of whom, we are told, was Cleopas.(2) The story of the\nwalk to Emmaus is very dramatic and interesting, but it is clearly\nlegendary.(3) None of the other Evangelists\n\n{460}\n\nseem to know anything of it. It is difficult to suppose that Jesus\nshould after his resurrection appear first of all to two unknown\nChristians in such a manner, and accompany them in such a journey. The\nparticulars of the story are to the last degree improbable, and in its\nmain features incredible, and it is indeed impossible to consider\nthem carefully without perceiving the transparent inauthenticity of\nthe narrative. The two disciples were going to a village called\nEmmaus threescore furlongs distant from Jerusalem, and while they are\nconversing Jesus joins them, \"but their eyes were holden that they\nshould not know him.\" He asks the subject of their discourse, and\npretends ignorance, which surprises them. Hearing the expression of\ntheir perplexity and depression, he says to them: 25. \"O foolish and\nslow of heart to believe all that the prophets spake. 26. Was it not\nnecessary that the Christ should suffer these things, and enter into his\nglory? 27. And beginning at Moses and at all the prophets, he expounded\nunto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.\" When\nthey reach the village, he pretends to be going further (v. 28), but\nthey constrain him to stay. 30. \"And it came to pass, as he sat at meat\nwith them he took the bread and blessed and brake, and gave to them; 31.\nand their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of\ntheir sight.\" Now why all this mystery? why were their eyes holden that\nthey should not know him? why pretend ignorance? why make \"as though\nhe would go further?\" Considering the nature and number of the alleged\nappearances of Jesus, this episode seems most disproportionate and\n\n{461}\n\ninexplicable. The final incident completes our conviction of the\nunreality of the whole episode: after the sacramental blessing and\nbreaking of bread, Jesus vanishes in a manner which removes the story\nfrom the domain of history. On their return to Jerusalem, the Synoptist\nadds that they find the Eleven, and are informed that \"the Lord was\nraised and was seen by Simon.\" Of this appearance we are not told\nanything more.\n\nWhilst the two disciples from Emmaus were relating these things to the\neleven, the third Synoptist states that Jesus himself stood in the midst\nof them: v. 37. \"But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed\nthat they saw a spirit.\" The apparent intention is to represent a\nmiraculous sudden entry of Jesus into the midst of them, just as he\nhad vanished at Emmaus; but, in order to re-assure them, Jesus is\nrepresented as saying: v. 39. \"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is\nI myself; handle me and behold, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones\nas ye see me having. 41. And while they yet believed not for joy, and\nwondered, he said unto them: Have ye here any food? 42. And they gave\nhim a piece of a broiled fish.(1) 43. And he took it and did eat before\nthem,\" The care with which the writer demonstrates that Jesus rose again\nwith his own body is remarkable, for not only does he show his hands and\nfeet, we may suppose for the purpose of exhibiting the wounds made by\nthe nails by which he was affixed to the cross, but he eats, and thereby\nproves himself to be still possessed of his human organism. It is\napparent, however, that there is direct contradiction between this and\nthe representation of his vanishing at Emmaus,\n\n{462}\n\nand standing in the midst of them now. The Synoptist who is so lavish in\nhis use of miraculous agency naturally sees no incongruity here. One\nor other alternative must be adopted:--If Jesus possessed his own\nbody after his resurrection and could eat and be handled, he could not\nvanish; if he vanished, he could not have been thus corporeal. The\naid of a miracle has to be invoked in order to reconcile the\nrepresentations. We need not here criticise the address which he is\nsupposed to make to the disciples,(1) but we must call attention to\nthe one point that Jesus (v. 49) commands the disciples to tarry\nin Jerusalem until they be \"clothed with power from on high.\" This\ncompletes the exclusion of all appearances in Galilee, for the narrative\nproceeds to say, that Jesus led them out towards Bethany and lifted up\nhis hands and blessed them: v. 51. \"And it came to pass, while blessing\nthem, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven;\" whilst\nthey returned to Jerusalem, where they \"were continually in the temple\"\npraising God. We shall return to the Ascension presently, but, in the\nmeantime, it is well that we should refer to the accounts of the other\ntwo Gospels.\n\nAccording to the fourth Gospel, on the first day of the week, after\nsending to his disciples the message regarding his Ascension, which we\nhave discussed, when it was evening: xx. 19. \"And the doors having been\nshut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and\nstood in the midst, and saith unto them: Peace be unto you. 20. And\nhaving said this, he\n\n     1 The statement in xxiv. 44, however, is suggestive as\n     showing how the fulfilment of the Prophets and Psalms is in\n     the mind of the writer. We have seen how much this idea\n     influenced the account of the Passion in the Gospels.\n\n{463}\n\nshowed unto them both his hands and his side. The disciples, therefore,\nrejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21. So then he said to them again:\nPeace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22. And\nwhen he said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye\nthe Holy Spirit: 23. Whosesoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto\nthem; whosesoever ye retain they are retained.\" This appearance of Jesus\nto the eleven bears so far analogy to that in the third Gospel, which\nwe have just examined, that it occurs upon the same day and to the same\npersons. Is it probable that Jesus appeared twice upon the same evening\nto the eleven disciples? The account in the fourth Gospel itself\nconfirms the only reasonable reply: that he did not do so; but the\nnarrative in the third Synoptic renders the matter certain. That\nappearance was the first to the eleven (xxiv. 36 f.), and he then\nconducted them towards Bethany, and ascended into heaven (v. 50 f.).\nHow then, we may inquire, could two accounts of the same event differ so\nfundamentally? It is absolutely certain that both cannot be true. Is it\npossible to suppose that the third Synoptist could forget to record the\nextraordinary powers supposed to have been on this occasion bestowed\nupon the ten Apostles to forgive sins and to retain them? Is it\nconceivable that he would not relate the circumstance that Jesus\nbreathed upon them, and endowed them with the Holy Ghost? Indeed, as\nregards the latter point, he seems to exclude it, v. 49, and in the\nActs (ii.) certainly represents the descent of the Holy Spirit as taking\nplace at Pentecost. On the other hand, can we suppose that the fourth\nEvangelist would have ignored the walk to Bethany and the solemn parting\nthere? or the injunction to remain in Jerusalem?\n\n{464}\n\nnot to mention other topics. The two episodes cannot be reconciled.\n\nIn the fourth Gospel, instead of showing his hands and feet, Jesus is\nrepresented as exhibiting \"his hands and his side,\" and that this is not\naccidental is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that Thomas, who is\nnot present, refuses to believe (v. 25) unless he see and put his finger\ninto the print of the nails in his hands and put his hand into his side;\nand Jesus, when he appears again, allows him (v. 27) to put his finger\ninto his hands and his hand into his side. In the Synoptic, the wound\nmade by that mythical lance is ignored and, in the fourth Gospel,\nthe wounds in the feet. The omission of the whole episode of the\nleg-breaking and lance-thrust by the three Synoptics thus gains fresh\nsignificance. On the other hand, it may be a question whether, in the\nopinion of the fourth Evangelist, the feet of Jesus were nailed to the\ncross at all, or whether, indeed, they were so in fact. It was at least\nas common, not to say more, that the hands alone of those who were\ncrucified were nailed to the cross, the legs being simply bound to it\nby cords. Opinion is divided as to whether Jesus was so bound or whether\nthe feet were likewise nailed, but the point is not important to our\nexamination and need not be discussed, although it has considerable\ninterest in connection with the theory that death did not actually ensue\non the cross, but that, having fainted through weakness, Jesus, being\ntaken down after so unusually short a time on the cross, subsequently\nrecovered. There is no final evidence upon the point.\n\nNone of the explanations offered by apologists remove the contradiction\nbetween the statement that Jesus bestowed the Holy Spirit upon this\noccasion and that of the\n\n{465}\n\nthird Synoptic and Acts. There is, however, a curious point to notice\nin connection with this: Thomas is said to have been absent upon this\noccasion, and the representation, therefore, is that the Holy Spirit was\nonly bestowed upon ten of the Apostles. Was Thomas excluded? Was he\nthus punished for his unbelief? Are we to suppose that an opportunity\nto bestow the Holy Spirit was selected when one of the Apostles was not\npresent?(l) We have, however, somewhat anticipated the narrative (xx. 24\nif.), which relates that upon the occasion above discussed Thomas, one\nof the Twelve, was not present, and hearing from the rest that they have\nseen the Lord, he declares that he will not believe without palpable\nproof by touching his wounds. The Evangelist continues: v. 26. \"And\nafter eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas was with\nthem. Jesus cometh, the doors having been shut [------], and stood in\nthe midst and said: Peace be unto you. 27. Then saith he to Thomas:\nReach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand\nand put it into my side, and be not unbelieving but believing. 28.\nThomas answered and said unto him: My Lord and my God. 29. Jesus saith\nunto him: Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are\nthey who have not seen, and yet have believed.\"\n\nThe third Synoptic gives evidence that the risen Jesus is not\nincorporeal by stating that he not only permitted himself to be handled,\nbut actually ate food in their presence. The fourth Evangelist attains\nthe same result in a more artistic manner through the doubts of Thomas,\nbut in allowing him actually to put his finger into the prints of the\nnails in his hands, and his hand into the\n\n{466}\n\nwound in his side, he asserts that Jesus rose with the same body as\nthat which had hung on the cross. He, too, however, whilst doing this,\nactually endows him with the attribute of incorporeality; for, upon both\nof the occasions which we are discussing, the statement is markedly made\nthat, when Jesus came and stood in the midst, the doors were shut where\nthe disciples were. It can scarcely be doubted that the intention of the\nwriter is to represent a miraculous entry.(1)\n\nWe are asked, however, to believe that when Thomas had convinced himself\nthat it was indeed Jesus in the flesh who stood before him, he went to\nthe opposite extreme of belief and said to Jesus: [------] \"My Lord\nand my God!\" In representing that Jesus, even before the Ascension, was\naddressed as \"God\" by one of the Twelve, the Evangelist commits one of\nthose anachronisms with which we are familiar, in another shape, in the\nworks of great painters, who depict pious bishops of their own time as\nactors in the scenes of the Passion. These touches, however, betray\nthe hand of the artist, and remove the account from the domain of sober\nhistory. In the message sent by Jesus to his disciples he spoke of\nascending \"to your God and my God,\" but the Evangelist at the close of\nhis Gospel strikes the same note as that upon which he commenced his\nphilosophical prelude.\n\nWe shall only add one further remark regarding this episode, and it is\nthe repetition of one already made. It is much to be regretted that\nthe writer does not inform us how these interviews of Jesus with his\ndisciples terminated. We are told of his entry, but not\n\n{467}\n\nof his mode of departure. Did he vanish suddenly? Did he depart like\nother men? Then, it would be important to know where Jesus abode\nduring the interval of eight days. Did he ascend to heaven after each\nappearance? or did he remain on earth? Why did he not consort as\nbefore with his disciples? These are not jeering questions, but\nserious indications of the scantiness of the information given by the\nEvangelists, which is not compensated by some trifling detail of no\nvalue occasionally inserted to heighten the reality of a narrative. This\nis the last appearance of Jesus related in the fourth Gospel; for the\ncharacter of Ch. xxi. is too doubtful to permit it to rank with the\nGospel. The appearance of Jesus therein related is in fact more palpably\nlegendary than the others. It will be observed that in this Gospel,\nas in the third Synoptic, the appearances of Jesus are confined to\nJerusalem and exclude Galilee. These two Gospels are, therefore, clearly\nin contradiction with the statement of the first two Synoptics.(2)\n\nIt only remains for us to refer to one more appearance of Jesus: that\nrelated in the first Synoptic, xxviii. 16 ff. In obedience to the\ncommand of Jesus, the disciples are represented as having gone away into\nGalilee, \"unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.\" We have not\npreviously heard anything of this specific appointment. The Synoptist\ncontinues: v. 17. \"And when they saw him they worshipped him, but some\ndoubted. 18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying: All authority\nwas given to me [------] in heaven and on earth. 19. Go ye and make\ndisciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; 20. teaching them to\nobserve all things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with\n\n{468}\n\nyou all the days, unto the end of the world.\" This appearance not only\nis not mentioned in the other Gospels, but it excludes the appearances\nin Judaea, of which the writer seems to be altogether ignorant. If he\nknew of them, he practically denies them.\n\nThere has been some discussion as to what the doubt mentioned in v. 17\nrefers, some critics maintaining that \"some doubted\" as to the propriety\nof worshipping Jesus, whilst others more correctly consider that they\ndoubted as to his identity,(1) but we need not mention the curious\napologetic explanations offered.(2) Are we to regard the mention\nof these doubts as an \"inestimable proof of the candour of the\nEvangelists\"? If so, then we may find fault with the omission to tell\nus whether, and how, those doubts were set at rest. As the narrative\nstands, the doubts were not resolved. Was it possible to doubt\nwithout good reason of the identity of one with whom, until a few days\npreviously, the disciples had been in daily and hourly contact at least\nfor a year, if not longer? Doubt in such a case is infinitely more\ndecisive than belief. We can regard the expression, however, in no other\nlight than as a mere rhetorical device in a legendary narrative. The\nrest of the account ueed have little further discussion here. The\nextraordinary statement in v. 18(3) seems as clearly the expression of\nlater theology as the baptismal formula\n\n{469}\n\nin v. 19, where the doctrine of the Trinity is so definitely expressed.\nSome critics suppose that the Eleven were not alone upon this occasion,\nbut that either all the disciples of Jesus were present, or at least the\n500 brethren l to whom Paul refers, 1 Cor. xv. G. This mainly rests on\nthe statement that \"some doubted,\" for it is argued that, after the\ntwo previous appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem mentioned by\nthe other Evangelists, it is impossible that the Eleven could have felt\ndoubt, and consequently that others must have been present who had not\npreviously been convinced. It is scarcely necessary to point out the\nutter weakness of such an argument. It is not permissible, however, to\npatch on to this Gospel scraps cut out of the others.\n\nIt must be clear to every unprejudiced student that the appearances\nof Jesus narrated by the four Gospels in Galilee and Judaea cannot\nbe harmonised,(2) and we have shown that they actually exclude each\nother.(3) The first Synoptist records (v. 10) the order for the\ndisciples to go into Galilee, and with no further interruption than the\n\n{470}\n\nmention of the return of the discomfited guard from the sepulchre to the\nchief priest, he (v. 16) states that they went into Galilee, where\nthey saw Jesus in the manner just described. No amount of ingenuity can\ninsert the appearances in Jerusalem here without the grossest violation\nof all common sense. This is the only appearance to the Eleven recorded\nin Matthew.\n\nWe must here again point out the singular omission to relate the manner\nin which this interview was ended. The episode and the Gospel, indeed,\nare brought to a very artistic close by the expression, \"lo, I am with\nyou all the days unto the end of the world,\" but we must insist that\nit is a very suggestive fact that it does not occur to these writers\nto state what became of Jesus. No point could have been more full\nof interest than the manner in which Jesus here finally leaves the\ndisciples, and is dismissed from the history. That such an important\npart of the narrative is omitted is in the highest degree remarkable and\nsignificant. Had a formal termination to the interview been recounted,\nit would have been subject to criticism, and by no means necessarily\nevidence of truth; but it seems to us that the circumstance that it\nnever occurred to these writers to relate the departure of Jesus is a\nvery strong indication of the unreality and shadowy nature of the whole\ntradition.\n\nWe are thus brought to consider the account of the Ascension, which is\nat least given by one Evangelist. In the appendix to the second Gospel,\nas if the later writer felt the omission and desired to complete the\nnarrative, it is vaguely stated: xvi. 19. \"So then after the Lord spake\nunto them he was taken up into heaven and sat on the right hand of\nGod.\"(1) The\n\n{471}\n\nwriter, however, omits to state how he was taken up into heaven; and\nsitting \"at the right hand of God\" is an act and position which those\nwho assert the \"Personality of God\" may possibly understand, but which\nwe venture to think betrays that the account is a mere theological\nfigment. The third Synoptist, however, as we have incidentally shown,\ngives an account of the Ascension. Jesus having, according to the\nnarrative in xxiv. 50 ff., led the disciples out to Bethany, lifted up\nhis hands and blessed them: v. 51. \"And it came to pass while blessing\nthem he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.\"(1) The whole\nof the appearances narrated in the third Synoptic, therefore, and the\nAscension are thus said to occur on the same day as the Resurrection.(2)\nIn Matthew, there is a different representation made, for the time\nconsumed in the journey of the disciples to Galilee obviously throws\nback the Ascension to a later date. In Mark, there is no appearance\nat all recorded, but the command to the disciples to go into Galilee\nconfirms the first Synoptic. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus revisits the\neleven a second time after eight days; and, therefore, the Ascension is\nhere\n\n{472}\n\nnecessarily later still. In neither of these Gospels, however, is there\nany account of an ascension at all.\n\nWe may here point out that there is no mention of the Ascension in any\nof the genuine writings of Paul, and it would appear that the theory\nof a bodily ascension, in any shape, did not form part of the oldest\nChristian tradition.(1) The growth of the legend of the Ascension is\napparent in the circumstance that the author of the third Gospel follows\na second tradition regarding that event, when composing Acts.(2) Whether\nhe thought a fuller and more detailed account desirable, or it seemed\nnecessary to prolong the period during which Jesus remained on earth\nafter his Resurrection and to multiply his appearances, it is impossible\nto say, but the fact is that he does so. He states in his second work:\nthat to the Apostles Jesus \"presented himself alive after he suffered by\nmany proofs, being seen [------] by them during forty days, and speaking\nof the things concerning the Kingdom of God.\" It is scarcely possible to\ndoubt that the period of forty days is suggested by the Old Testament(3)\nand the Hebrew use of that number, of which indeed we already find\nexamples in the New Testament in the forty days temptation of Jesus in\nthe wilderness,(4) and his fasting forty days and forty nights.(5) Why\n\n{473}\n\nJesus remained on earth this typical period we are not told,(1) but\nthe representation evidently is of much more prolonged and continuous\nintercourse with his disciples than any statements in the Gospels have\nled us to suppose, or than the declaration of Paul renders in the least\ndegree probable.\n\nIf indeed the account in Acts were true, the numbered appearances\nrecited by Paul show singular ignorance of the phenomena of the\nResurrection. We need not discuss the particulars of the last interview\nwith the Apostles, (i. 4 if.) although they are singular enough, and\nare indeed elsewhere referred to, but at once proceed to the final\noccurrences: v. 9. \"And when he had spoken these things, while they are\nlooking he was lifted up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.\n10. And as they were gazing stedfastly into the heaven as he went,\nbehold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11. which also said: Men\nof Galilee [------], why stand ye looking into the heaven? This Jesus,\nwho was taken up from you into the heaven, shall come in like manner\nas ye saw him going into the heaven. 12. Then returned they into\nJerusalem,\" &c. A definite statement is here made of the mode in\nwhich Jesus finally ascended into heaven, and it presents some of the\nincongruities which might have beeu expected. The bodily Ascension\nup the sky in a cloud, apart from the miraculous nature of such an\noccurrence, seems singularly to localise \"Heaven,\" and to present views\nof cosmical and celestial phenomena suitable certainly to the age of the\nwriter, but which are not endorsed by modern science.\n\n     1 The testimony of the Epistle of Barnabas (c. xv.) does not\n     agree with this.\n\n{474}\n\nThe sudden appearance of the \"two men in white apparel,\" the usual\ndescription of angels, is altogether in the style of the author of Acts,\nbut does it increase the credibility of the story? It is curious that\nthe angels open their address to the Apostles in the same form as almost\nevery other speaker in this book. One might ask, indeed, why such an\nangelic interposition should have taken place? for its utility is not\napparent, and in the short sentence recorded nothing which is new is\nembodied. No surprise is expressed at the appearance of the angels, and\nnothing is said of their disappearance. They are introduced, like\nthe chorus of a Greek play, and are left unceremoniously, with an\nindifference which betrays complete familiarity with supernatural\nagency. Can there be any doubt that the whole episode is legendary?(1)\n\nIt may not seem inappropriate to mention here that the idea of a bodily\nAscension does not originate with the author of the third Synoptic and\nActs, nor is it peculiar to Christianity. The translation of Enoch(2)\nhad long been chronicled in the sacred books; and the ascent of\nElijah(3) in his whirlwind and chariot of fire before the eyes of Elisha\nwas another well-known instance. The vision of Daniel (vii. 13), of one\nlike the \"Son of man\" coming with the clouds of heaven, might well\nhave suggested the manner of his departure, but another mode has been\nsuggested.(4) The author of Acts was, we maintain, well acquainted with\nthe works of Josephus.(5)\n\n{475}\n\nWe know that the prophet like unto Moses was a favourite representation\nin Acts of the Christ. Now, in the account which Josephus gives of the\nend of Moses, he states that, although he wrote in the holy books that\nhe died lest they should say that he went to God, this was not really\nhis end. After reaching the mountain Abarim he dismissed the senate;\nand as he was about to embrace Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua,\n\"a cloud suddenly having stood over him he disappeared in a certain\nvalley.\"(1) This, however, we merely mention in passing.\n\nOur earlier examination of the evidence for the origin and authorship of\nthe historical books of the New Testament very clearly demonstrated\nthat the testimony of these works for miracles and the reality of Divine\nRevelation, whatever that testimony might seem to be, could not be\nconsidered of any real value. We have now examined the accounts which\nthe four Evangelists actually give of the Passion, Resurrection, and\nAscension, and there can be no hesitation in stating as the result that,\nas might have been expected from works of such uncertain character,\nthese narratives must be pronounced mere legends, embodying vague and\nwholly unattested tradition. As\n\n{476}\n\nevidence for such stupendous miracles, they are absolutely of no value.\nNo reliance can be placed on a single detail of their story. The aim of\nthe writers has obviously been to make their narrative of the various\nappearances of Jesus as convincing as possible,(1) and they have freely\ninserted any details which seemed to them calculated to give them\nimpressiveness, force, and verisimilitude.\n\nA recent apologetic writer has said: \"Any one who will attentively read\nside by side the narratives of these appearances on the first day of\nthe resurrection, will see that they have only been preserved for us in\ngeneral, interblended and scattered notices (see Matt, xxviii. 16; Luke\nxxiv. 34; Acts i. 3), which, in strict exactness, render it impossible,\nwithout many arbitrary suppositions, to produce from them a _certain_\nnarrative of the order of events. The lacuna, the compressions, the\nvariations, the actual differences, _the subjectivity of the narrators\nas affected by spiritual revelations_, render all harmonies at the best\nuncertain.\"(2) Passing over without comment, the strange phrase in\nthis passage which we have italicised, and which seems to claim divine\ninspiration for the writers, it must be obvious to any one who has\ncarefully read the preceding pages that this is an exceedingly moderate\ndescription of the wild statements and irreconcilable contradictions of\nthe different narratives we have examined. But such as it is, with all\nthe glaring inconsistencies and impossibilities of the accounts even\nthus subdued, is it possible for any one who has formed even a faint\nidea of the extraordinary nature of the allegations which have to be\nattested, to\n\n{477}\n\nconsider such documents really evidence for the Resurrection and bodily\nAscension?\n\nThe usual pleas which are advanced in mitigation of judgment against\nthe Gospels for these characteristics are of no avail. It may be easy\nto excuse the writers for their mutual contradictions, but the pleas\nthemselves are an admission of the shortcomings which render their\nevidence valueless. \"The differences of purpose in the narrative of\nthe four Evangelists,\"(1) may be fancifully set forth, or ingeniously\nimagined, but no \"purpose\" can transform discordant and untrustworthy\nnarratives into evidence for miracles. Unless the prologue to the third\nGospel be considered a condemnation of any of the other Synoptics which\nmay have existed before it, none of the Evangelists makes the smallest\nreference to any of his brethren or their works. Each Gospel tacitly\nprofesses to be a perfectly independent work, giving the history of\nJesus, or at\n\n{478}\n\nleast of the active part of his life, and of his death and Resurrection.\nThe apologetic theory, derived from the Fathers, that the Evangelists\ndesigned to complete and supplement each other, is totally untenable.\nEach work was evidently intended to be complete in itself; but when\nwe consider that much the greater part of the contents of each of\nthe Synoptics is common to the three, frequently with almost literal\nagreement, and generally without sufficient alteration to conceal\ncommunity of source or use of each other, the poverty of Christian\ntradition becomes painfully evident. We have already pointed out the\nfundamental difference between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics.\nIn no part of the history does greater contradiction and disagreement\nbetween the three Synoptics themselves and likewise between them and the\nfourth Gospel exist, than in the account of the Passion, Resurrection\nand Ascension. It is impossible to examine the four narratives carefully\nwithout feeling that here tradition, for natural reasons, has been more\nthan usually wavering and insecure. Each writer differs essentially from\nthe rest, and the various narratives not only disagree but exclude\neach other. The third Synoptist, in the course of some years, even\ncontradicts himself. The phenomena which are related, in fact, were too\nsubjective and unsubstantial for sober and consistent narrative, and\nfree play was allowed for pious imagination to frame details by the\naid of supposed Messianic utterances of the Prophets and Psalmists of\nIsrael.\n\nSuch a miracle as the Resurrection, startling as it is in our\nestimation, was common-place enough in the view of these writers. We\nneed not go hack to discuss the story of the widow's son restored to\n\n{479}\n\nlife by Elijah,(1) nor that of the dead man who revived on touching the\nbones of Elisha.(2) The raising from the dead of the son of the widow of\nNain(3) did not apparently produce much effect at the time, and only one\nof the Evangelists seems to have thought it worth while to preserve the\nnarrative. The case of Jairus' daughter,(4) whatever it was, is regarded\nas a resurrection of the dead and is related by two of the Synoptists;\nbut the raising of Lazarus is only recorded by the fourth Evangelist.\nThe familiarity of the age with the idea of the resurrection of the\ndead, however, according to the Synoptists, is illustrated by the\nrepresentation which they give of the effect produced by the fame of\nJesus upon Herod and others. We are told by the first Synoptist that\nHerod said unto his servants: \"This is John the Baptist; he was raised\nfrom the dead; and therefore the powers work in him.\"(5) The second\nSynoptist repeats the same statement, but adds: \"But others said that\nit is Elijah; and others said that it is a prophet like one of\nthe prophets.\"(6) The statement of the third Synoptist is somewhat\ndifferent. He says: \"Now Herod the tetrarch heard all that was\noccurring: and he was perplexed because it was said by some that John\nwas raised from the dead, and by some that Elijah appeared, and by\nothers that one of the old prophets rose up. And Herod\n\n{480}\n\nsaid: John I beheaded, but who is this of whom I hear such things, and\nhe sought to see him.\"()1 The three Synoptists substantially report the\nsame thing; the close verbal agreement of the first two being an example\nof the community of matter of which we have just spoken. The variations\nare instructive as showing the process by which each writer made the\noriginal form his own. Are we to assume that these things were really\nsaid? Or must we conclude that the sayings are simply the creation of\nlater tradition? In the latter case, we see how unreal and legendary are\nthe Gospels. In the former case, we learn how common was the belief in\na bodily resurrection. How could it seem so strange to the Apostles that\nJesus should rise again, when the idea that John the Baptist or one\nof the old prophets had risen from the dead was so readily accepted by\nHerod and others? How could they so totally misunderstand all that the\nchief priests, according to the first Synoptic, so well understood of\nthe teaching of Jesus on the subject of his Resurrection, since the\nworld had already become so familiar with the idea and the fact?\n\nThen, the episode of the Transfiguration must have occurred to every\none, when Jesus took with him Peter and James and John into a high\nmountain apart, \"and he was transfigured before them; and his face did\nshine as the sun, and his raiment became white as the light. And behold,\nthere was seen [------] by them Moses and Elijah\n\n{481}\n\ntalking with him;\" and then \"a bright cloud overshadowed them\" and \"a\nvoice came out of the cloud: This is my beloved son,\" &c. \"And when the\ndisciples heard they fell on their face and were sore afraid.\"(1) The\nthird Synoptist even knows the subject of their conversation: \"They were\nspeaking of his decease which he was about to fulfil in Jerusalem.\"(2)\nThis is related by all as an objective occurrence.(3) Are we to accept\nit as such? Then how is it possible that the disciples could be so\nobtuse and incredulous as they subsequently showed themselves to be\nregarding the person of Jesus, and his resurrection? How could the\nannouncement of that event by the angels to the women seem to them as\nan idle tale, which they did not believe?(4) Here were Moses and Elijah\nbefore them, and in Jesus, we are told, they recognized one greater\nthan Moses and Elijah. The miracle of the Resurrection was here\nagain anticipated and made palpable to them. Are we to regard the\nTransfiguration as a subjective vision? Then why not equally so\nthe appearances of Jesus after his passion? We can regard the\nTransfiguration, however, as nothing more than an allegory without\neither objective or subjective reality. Into this at present we cannot\nfurther go. It is sufficient to repeat that our examination has shown\nthe Gospels to possess no value as evidence for the Resurrection and\nAscension.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL\n\nWe may now proceed to examine the evidence of Paul. \"On one occasion,\"\nit is affirmed in a passage already quoted, \"he gives a very\ncircumstantial account of the testimony upon which the belief in the\nResurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4--8).\"(1) This account is as follows:\n1 Cor. xv. 3. \"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also\nreceived, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4.\nand that he was buried, and that he has been raised [------] the third\nday according to the Scriptures, 5. and that he was seen by Cephas, then\nby the Twelve. 6. After that, he was seen by above five hundred brethren\nat once [------], of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but\nsome are fallen asleep. 7. After that, he was seen by James; then by all\nthe Apostles. 8. And last of all he was seen by me also as the one\nborn out of due time.\"(2) Can this be considered a \"very circumstantial\naccount\"? It may be exceedingly unreasonable, but we must at once\nacknowledge that we are not satisfied. The testimony\n\n{483}\n\nupon which the belief in the Resurrection rests comprised in a dozen\nlines! for we may so far anticipate as to say that this can scarcely be\nregarded as a _resume_ of evidence which we can find elsewhere. We shall\npresently point out a few circumstances which it might be useful to\nknow.\n\nThe Apostle states, in this passage, that the doctrines which he had\ndelivered to the Corinthians he had himself \"received.\" He does not\npretend to teach them from his own knowledge, and the question naturally\narises: From whom did he \"receive\" them? Formerly, divines generally\ntaught that Paul received these doctrines by revelation, and up to\nrecent times apologists have continued to hold this view, even when\nadmitting the subsidiary use of tradition.(1) If this claim were\nseriously made, the statements of the Apostle, so far as our inquiry\nis concerned, would certainly not gain in value, for it is obvious that\nRevelation could not be admitted to prove Revelation. It is quite true\nthat Paul himself professed to have received his Gospel not from men,\nbut from God by direct revelation, and we shall hereafter have\nto consider this point and the inferences to be drawn from such\npretensions. At present, the argument need not be complicated by any\nsuch supposition, for certainly Paul does not here advance any such\nclaim himself, and apologetic and other critics agree in declaring the\nsource of his statements to be natural historical tradition.(2) The\npoints which he\n\n{484}\n\ndelivered and which he had also received are three in number: (1) that\nChrist died for our sins; (2) that he was buried; and (3) that he has\nbeen raised the third day. In strictness the [------] might oblige us\nto include, \"and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve,\" after\nwhich the construction of the sentence is changed. It is not necessary\nto press this, however, and it is better for the present to separate the\ndogmatic statements from those which are more properly evidential.\n\nIt will be observed that, although the death, burial, and resurrection\nare here taught as \"received,\" evidence only of one point is offered:\nthat Jesus \"was seen by\" certain persons. We have already pointed out\nthat the Gospels do not pretend that any one was an eye-witness of\nthe Resurrection itself, and it is important to notice that Paul, the\nearliest and most trustworthy witness produced, entirely passes over the\nevent itself, and relies solely on the fact that Jesus was supposed to\nhave been seen by certain persons to prove that he died, was buried, and\nhad actually risen the third day. The only inference which we here wish\nto draw from this is, that the alleged appearances are thus obviously\nseparated from the death and burial by a distinct gulf. A dead body, it\nis stated, or one believed to be dead, is laid in a sepulchre: after a\ncertain time, it is alleged that the dead person has been seen alive.\nSupposing the first statement to be correct, the second, being in\nitself, according to all our experience, utterly incredible, leaves\nfurther a serious gap in the continuity of evidence. What occurred in\nthe interval between the burial and the supposed apparition? If it be\nasserted--as in the Gospels it is--that, before the\n\n{485}\n\napparition, the sepulchre was found empty and the body gone, not only\nmay it be replied that this very circumstance may have assisted in\nproducing a subjective vision, but that, in so far as the disappearance\nof the body is connected with the appearance of the person apparently\nalive, the fact has no evidential value. The person supposed to be dead,\nfor instance, may actually not have been so, but have revived; for,\nalthough we have no intention ourselves of adopting this explanation\nof the Resurrection, it is, as an alternative, certainly preferable\nto belief in the miracle. Or, in the interval, the body may have been\nremoved from a temporary to a permanent resting place unknown to\nthose who are surprised to find the body gone;--and in the Gospels the\nconflicting accounts of the embalming and hasty burial, as we have seen,\nwould fully permit of such an argument if we relied at all on those\nnarratives. Many other means of accounting for the absence of the body\nmight be advanced, any one of which, in the actual default of testimony\nto the contrary, would be irrefutable. The mere surprise of finding a\ngrave empty which was supposed to contain a body betrays a blank in the\nknowledge of the persons, which can only be naturally filled up. This\ngap, at least, would not have existed had the supposed resurrection\noccurred in the presence of those by whom it is asserted Jesus \"was\nseen.\" As it is, no evidence whatever is offered that Jesus really died;\nno evidence that the sepulchre was even found empty; no evidence that\nthe dead body actually arose and became alive again; but skipping over\nthe intermediate steps, the only evidence produced is the statement\nthat, being supposed to be dead, he is said to have been seen by certain\npersons.(1)\n\n{486}\n\nThere is a peculiarity in the statement to which we must now refer. The\nwords, \"according to the Scriptures\" [------] are twice introduced into\nthe brief recapitulation of the teaching which Paul had received\nand delivered: (1) \"That Christ died for our sins according to the\nScriptures,\" and (3) \"that he has been raised the third day according to\nthe Scriptures.\" It is evident that mere historical tradition has only\nto do with the fact \"that Christ died,\" and that the object: \"for our\nsins,\" is a dogmatic addition. The Scriptures supply the dogma. In the\nsecond point, the appeal to Scripture is curious, and so far important\nas indicating that the resurrection on the third day was supposed to\nbe a fulfilment of prophecy; and we have thus an indication, regarding\nwhich we must hereafter speak, of the manner in which the belief\nprobably originated. The double reference to the Scriptures is\npeculiarly marked, and we have already more than once had occasion to\npoint out that the narratives of the Gospels betray the very strong and\nconstant influence of parts of the Old Testament supposed to relate to\nthe Messiah. It cannot, we think, be doubted by any independent critic,\nthat the details of these narratives were to a large extent traced from\nthose prophecies. It is in the highest degree natural to suppose that\nthe early Christians, once accepting the idea of a suffering Messiah,\nshould, in the absence of positive or minute knowledge, assume that\nprophecies which they believed to have reference to him should actually\nhave been fulfilled, and that in fact the occurrences corresponded\nminutely with the prophecies. Too little is known of what really took\nplace, and it is\n\n{487}\n\nprobable that Christian tradition generally was moulded from foregone\nconclusions.\n\nWhat were the \"Scriptures,\" according to which \"Christ died for our\nsins,\" and \"has been raised the third day?\" The passages which are\ngenerally referred to, and which Paul most probably had in view, are\nwell known: as regards the death for our sins,--Isaiah liii., Ps. xxii.\nand lxix,; and for the resurrection,--Ps. xvi. 10, and Hosea vi. 2. We\nhave already pointed out that historical criticism has shown that the\nfirst four passages just indicated are not Messianic prophecies at\nall,(1) and we may repeat that the idea of a suffering Messiah\nwas wholly foreign to the Jewish prophets and people. The Messiah\n\"crucified,\" as Paul himself bears witness, was \"to Jews a stumbling\nblock,\"(2) and modern criticism has clearly established that the parts\nof Scripture by which the early Christians endeavoured to show that such\na Messiah had been foretold can only be applied by a perversion of the\noriginal signification. In the case of the passages supposed to foretell\nthe Resurrection, the misapplication is particularly flagrant. We have\nalready discussed the use of Ps. xvi. 10, which in Acts(3) is put into\nthe mouth of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and shown that the\nproof passage rests upon a mistranslation of the original in the\nSeptuagint.(4) Any reader who will refer to Hosea vi. 2 will see that\nthe passage in no way applies to the Messiah,(5) although undoubtedly it\nhas influenced the formation of the doctrine\n\n{488}\n\nof the Resurrection. The \"sign of the prophet Jonah,\" which in Mt. xii.\n40 is put into the mouth of Jesus is another passage used with equal\nincorrectness, and a glimpse of the manner in which Christian tradition\ntook shape, and the Gospels were composed, may be obtained by comparing\nwith the passage in the first Synoptic the parallel in the third\n(xi. 29--31).(1) We shall have more to say presently regarding the\nresurrection\" on the third day.\"\n\nWe may now proceed to examine the so-called \"very circumstantial account\nof the testimony on which the belief in the Resurrection rested.\" \"And\nthat he was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. After that he was seen\nby above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain\nunto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen\nby James, then by all the Apostles, and last of all he was seen by me\nalso.\"(2) There can be no doubt, we think, from the terms in which\nthis statement is made, that Paul intended to give the appearances in\nchronological order.(3) It would likewise be a fair inference that he\nintended to mention all the appearances of which he was aware. So far,\nthe account may possibly merit the epithet \"circumstantial,\" but in all\nother respects it is scarcely possible to conceive any statement less\ncircumstantial. As to where the risen Jesus was seen by these persons,\nin what manner, and under what circumstances, and at what time, we are\nnot vouchsafed a single particular. Moreover, the Apostle was not\n\n{489}\n\npresent on any of these occasions, excepting of course his own vision,\nand consequently merely reports appearances of which he has been\ninformed by others, but he omits to mention the authority upon which\nhe makes these statements, or what steps he took to ascertain their\naccuracy and reality. For instance, when Jesus is said to have been\nseen by five hundred brethren at once, it would have been of the highest\nimportance for us to know the exact details of the scene, the proportion\nof inference to fact, the character of the Apostle's informant, the\nextent of the investigation into the various impressions made upon the\nindividuals composing the five hundred, as opposed to the collective\naffirmation. We confess that we do not attach much value to such appeals\nto the experience of 500 persons at once. It is difficult to find out\nwhat the actual experience of the individuals was, and each individual\nis so apt to catch the infection of his neighbour, and join in\nexcitement, believing that, though he does not himself see or feel\nanything, his neighbour does, that probably, when inquiry is pressed\nhome, the aggregate affirmation of a large number may resolve itself\ninto the actual experience of very few. The fact is, however, that in\nthis \"very circumstantial account\" we have nothing whatever except a\nmere catalogue by Paul of certain appearances which he did not himself\nsee--always excepting his own vision, which we reserve--but merely had\n\"received\" from others, without a detail or information of any kind.\n\nIf we compare these appearances with the instances recorded in the\nGospels, the result is by no means satisfactory. The first appearance is\nsaid to be to Cephas. It is argued that Paul passes in silence over the\nappearances to women, both because the testimony of women was\n\n{490}\n\nnot received in Jewish courts, and because his own opinions regarding\nthe active participation of women in matters connected with the Church\nwere of a somewhat exclusive character.(1) The appearance to Cephas\nis generally identified with that mentioned, Luke xxiv. 34.(2) Nothing\ncould be more cursory than the manner in which this appearance is\nrelated in the Synoptic. The disciples from Emmaus, returning at once\nto Jerusalem, found the Eleven and those who were with them saying: \"The\nLord was raised indeed, and was seen by Simon.\" Not another syllable\nis said regarding an appearance which, according to Paul, was the first\nwhich had occurred. The other Gospels say still less, for they ignore\nthe incident altogether. It is difficult to find room for such an\nappearance in the Gospel narratives. If we take the report of Paul to\nbe true, that Jesus was first seen by Cephas, the silence of three\nEvangelists and their contradictory representations, on the one hand,\nand the remarkable way in which the third Gospel avoids all but the mere\nindirect reference to the occurrence, on the other, are phenomena which\nwe leave apologists to explain.(3)\n\nHe is next seen \"by the Twelve.\" This vision is identified with that\nnarrated in John xx. 19 flf. and Luke xxiv. 36 ff,,(4) to which, as\nThomas was absent on the first occasion, some critics understand the\nepisode in John xx. 2C if. to be added. On reference to our discussion\nof\n\n{491}\n\nthese accounts, it will be seen that they have few or no elements\nof credibility. If the appearance to the Twelve mentioned by Paul be\nidentified with these episodes, and their details be declared authentic,\nthe second item in Paul's list becomes discredited.\n\nThe appearance to 500 brethren at once is not mentioned in any of the\nGospels, but critics, and especially apologetic critics, assert with\nmore or less of certainty the identity of the occasion with the scene\ndescribed in Matth. xxviii. 16 ff.(1) We remarked whilst discussing the\npassage that this is based chiefly on the statement that \"some doubted,\"\nwhich would have been inconsistent, it is thought, had Jesus already\nappeared to the Eleven.(2) The identity is, however, denied by others.3\nThe narrative in the first Synoptic would scarcely add force to the\nreport in the Epistle. Is it possible to suppose, however, that, had\nthere been so large a number of persons collected upon that occasion,\nthe Evangelist would not have mentioned the fact? On the other hand,\ndoes it not somewhat discredit the statement that Jesus was seen by so\nlarge a number at once, that no record of such a remarkable occurrence\nexists elsewhere?(4) How could the tradition of such an event, witnessed\nby so many, have so completely perished that neither in the Gospels nor\nActs,\n\n{492}\n\nnor in any other writing, is there any reference to it, and our only\nknowledge of it is this bare statement, without a single detail? There\nis only one explanation: that the assembly could not have recognized\nin the phenomenon, whatever it was, the risen Jesus,(1) or that\nsubsequently an explanation was given which dispelled some temporary\nillusion. In any case, we must insist that the total absence of all\nconfirmation of an appearance to 500 persons at once alone renders\nsuch an occurrence more than suspicious. The statement that the greater\nnumber were still living when Paul wrote does not materially affect the\nquestion. Paul doubtless believed the report that such an appearance had\ntaken place, and that the majority of witnesses still survived, but\ndoes it necessarily follow that the report was true? The survivors were\ncertainly not within reach of the Corinthians, and could not easily be\nquestioned. The whole of the argument of Paul which we are considering,\nas well as that which follows, was drawn from him by the fact that, in\nCorinth, Christians actually denied a resurrection, and it is far from\nclear that this denial did not extend to denying the Resurection of\nJesus himself.(2) That they did deny this we think certain, from the\ncare with which Paul gives what he considers evidence for the fact.\nAnother point may be mentioned. Where could so many as 500 disciples\nhave been collected at one time? The author of Acts states (i. 15) the\nnumber of the Christian community gathered together to elect a successor\nto Judas as \"about 120.\" Apologists, therefore, either suppose the\nappearance to 500 to have taken place in Jerusalem, when numbers of\npilgrims\n\n{493}\n\nfrom Galilee and other parts were in the Holy City, or that it occurred\nin Galilee itself, where they suppose believers to have been more\nnumerous.(1) This is the merest conjecture; and there is not even ground\nfor asserting that there were so many as 500 brethren in any one place,\nby whom Jesus could have been seen.\n\nThe appearance to James is not mentioned in any of our Gospels. Jerome\npreserves a legend from the Gospel of the Hebrews, which states that\nJames, after having drunk the cup of the Lord, swore that he would not\neat bread until he should see him risen from the dead. When Jesus rose,\ntherefore, he appeared to James; and, ordering a table and bread to be\nbrought, blessed and broke the bread, and gave it to James.(2) Beyond\nthis legendary story there is no other record of the report given\nby Paul. The occasion on which he was seen by \"all the Apostles\" is\nindefinite, and cannot be identified with any account in the Gospels.\n\nIt is asserted, however, that, although Paul does not state from whom he\n\"received\" the report of these appearances of the risen Jesus, he must\nhave heard them from the Apostles themselves. At any rate, it is added,\nPaul professes that his preaching on the death, burial, and Resurrection\nis the same as that of the other Apostles.(3) That the other Apostles\npreached the resurrection of Jesus may be a fact, but we have no\ninformation as to the precise statements they made. We shall presently\ndiscuss the doctrine from this point of view, but here we must confine\nourselves to Paul. It is undeniable that Paul\n\n{494}\n\nneither enters into details nor cites authority for the particular\nappearances which he mentions. As for the inference that, associating\nwith the Apostles, he must have been informed by them of the appearances\nof Jesus, we may say that this by no means follows so clearly as is\nsupposed. Paul was singularly independent, and in his writings he\ndirectly disclaims all indebtedness to the elder Apostles. He claims\nthat his Gospel is not after man, nor was it taught to him by man, but\nthrough revelation of Jesus Christ(1) Now Paul himself informs us of\nhis action after it pleased God to reveal his Son in him that he might\npreach him among the Gentiles. It might, indeed, have been reasonably\nexpected that Paul should then have sought out those who could have\ninformed him of all the extraordinary occurrences supposed to have taken\nplace after the death of Jesus. Paul does nothing of the kind. He is\napparently quite satisfied with his own convictions. \"Immediately,\"\nhe says, in his wondrously human and characteristic letter to the\nGalatians, \"I communicated not with flesh and blood; neither went I away\nto Jerusalem to them who were Apostles before me, but I went away to\nArabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went\nup to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and abode with him fifteen days; but\nother of the Apostles saw I none, save James the brother of the Lord.\nNow the things which I write, behold before God I lie not.... Then after\nfourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem,\"(2)--upon which occasion,\nwe know, his business was not of a nature to allow us to suppose he\nobtained much information regarding the Resurrection. We may ask: Is\nthere that thirst for information\n\n{495}\n\nregarding the facts and doctrines of Christianity displayed here, which\nentitles us to suppose that Paul eagerly and minutely investigated the\nevidence for them? We think not. Paul made up his own mind in his own\nway and, having waited three years without asking a question, it is not\nprobable that the questions which he then asked were of any searching\nnature. The protest that he saw none of the other Apostles may prove\nhis independence, but it certainly does not prove his anxiety for\ninformation. When Paul went up to make the acquaintance of Cephas his\nobject clearly was not to be taught by him, but to place himself in\ncommunication with the man whom he believed to be the chief of the\nApostles and, we may assume, largely with a view to establish a friendly\nfeeling, and secure his recognition of his future ministry. We should\nnot, of course, be justified in affirming that the conversation\nbetween the two great Apostles never turned upon the subject of the\nResurrection, but we think that it is obvious that Paul's visit was not\nin the least one of investigation. He believed; he believed that certain\nevents had occurred \"according to the Scriptures;\" and the legitimate\ninference from Paul's own statements must be that, in this visit after\nthree years, his purpose was in no way connected with a search for\nevidential information. The author of Acts, it will be remembered,\nrepresents him as, before any visit to Jerusalem, publicly and boldly\npreaching in Damascus that Jesus is the Son of God, and \"confounding the\nJews.... proving that this is the Christ.\"(1) This representation,\nit will be admitted, shows an advanced condition of belief little\nsupporting the idea of subsequent investigation. When all conjectures\nare exhausted, however, we have the one distinct fact\n\n{496}\n\nremaining, that Paul gives no authority for his report that Jesus was\nseen by the various persons mentioned, nor does he furnish any means by\nwhich we can judge of the nature and reality of the alleged phenomena.\nWe continue here to speak of the appearances to others, reserving the\nappearance to himself, as standing upon a different basis, for separate\nexamination.\n\nWhat is the value of this evidence? The fact to be proved is that, after\na man had been crucified, dead, and buried, he actually rose from the\ndead, and appeared alive to many persons. The evidence is that Paul,\nwriting some twenty years after the supposed miraculous occurrences,\nstates, without detailed information of any kind, and without pretending\nto have himself been an eyewitness of the phenomena, that he has been\ntold that Jesus was, after his death and burial, seen alive on the\noccasions mentioned! As to the Apostle Paul himself, let it be said in\nthe strongest and most emphatic manner possible that we do not suggest\nthe most distant suspicion of the sincerity of any historical\nstatement he makes. We implicitly accept the historical statements, as\ndistinguished from inferences, which proceed from his pen. It cannot be\ndoubted that Paul was told that such appearances had taken place. We do\nnot question the fact that he believed them to have taken place; and we\nshall hereafter discuss the weight to be attached to this circumstance.\nDoes this, however, guarantee the truth of the reports or inferences of\nthose who informed the Apostle? Does the mere passage of any story\nor tradition through Paul necessarily transmute error into\ntruth--self-deception or hallucination into objective fact? Are\nwe--without any information as to what was really stated to Paul, as to\nthe personality and character of his\n\n{497}\n\ninformants, as to the details of what was believed, to have occurred, as\nto the means taken or which it might have been possible to take to test\nthe reality of the alleged phenomena, without an opportunity of judging\nfor ourselves on a single point--to believe in the reality of these\nappearances simply because Paul states that he has been informed that\nthey occurred, and himself believes the report?\n\nSo far as the belief of Paul is concerned, we may here remark that his\nviews as to the miraculous Charismata in the Church do not prepare us to\nfeel any confidence in the sobriety of his judgment in connection\nwith alleged supernatural occurrences. We have no reliance upon his\ninstinctive mistrust of such statements, or his imperative requirement\nof evidence, but every reason to doubt them. On the other hand, without\nin any way imputing wilful incorrectness or untruth to the reporters of\nsuch phenomena, let it be remembered how important a part inference has\nto play in the narrative of every incident, and how easy it is to draw\nerroneous inferences from bare facts.(1) In proportion as persons are\nignorant, on the one hand, and have their minds disturbed, on the other,\nby religious depression or excitement, hope, fear, or any other powerful\nemotion, they are liable to confound facts and inferences, and both to\nsee and analyse wrongly. In the case of a supposed appearance\n\n     1 We may merely in passing refer to the case of Mary\n     Magdalene in the fourth Gospel. She sees a figure standing\n     beside her, and infers that it is the gardener:--presently\n     something else occurs which leads her to infer that she was\n     mistaken in her first inference, and to infer next, that it\n     is Jesus. It is a narrative upon which no serious argument\n     can be based, but had she at first turned away, her first\n     inference would have remained, and, according to the\n     narrative, have been erroneous. We might also argue that, if\n     further examination had taken place, her second inference\n     might have proved as erroneous as the first is declared to\n     have been.\n\n{498}\n\nalive of a person believed to be dead, it will scarcely be disputed,\nthere are many disturbing elements, especially when that person has just\ndied by a cruel and shameful death, and is believed to be the Messiah.\nThe occurrence which we at any time see is, strictly speaking, merely\na series of appearances, and the actual nature of the thing seen is\ndetermined in our minds by inferences. How often are these inferences\ncorrect? We venture to say that the greater part of the proverbial\nincorrectness and inaccuracy which prevails arises from the circumstance\nthat inferences are not distinguished from facts, and are constantly\nerroneous. Now in that age, under such circumstances, and with Oriental\ntemperaments, it is absolutely certain that there was exceptional\nliability to error; and the fact that Paul repeats the statements of\nunknown persons, dependent so materially upon inference, cannot possibly\nwarrant us in believing them when they contradict known laws which\nexpress the results of universal experience. It is infinitely more\nprobable that these persons were mistaken, than that a dead man returned\nto life again, and appeared to them. We shall presently consider how\nmuch importance is to be attached to the mere belief in the occurrence\nof such phenomena, but with regard to the appearances referred to by\nPaul, except in so far as they attest the fact that certain persons may\nhave believed that Jesus appeared to them, such evidence has not the\nslightest value, and is indeed almost ludicrously insufficient to\nestablish the reality of so stupendous a miracle as the Resurrection.\nIt will have been observed that of the Ascension there is not a\nword--obviously, for Paul the Resurrection and Ascension were one act.\n\nHaving so far discussed Paul's report that Jesus rose\n\n{499}\n\nfrom the dead and was seen by others, we turn to his statement that,\nlast of all, he was seen also by himself. In the former cases, we have\nhad to complain of the total absence of detailed information as to the\ncircumstances under which he was supposed to have been seen; but it\nmay be expected that, at least in his own case, we shall have full and\nminute particulars of so interesting and extraordinary a phenomenon.\nHere again we are disappointed. Paul does not give us a single detail.\nHe neither tells us when, where, nor how he saw Jesus. It was all the\nmore important that he should have entered into the particulars of this\napparition, because there is one peculiarity in his case which requires\nnotice. Whereas it may be supposed that in the other instances Jesus is\nrepresented as being seen immediately after the Resurrection and before\nhis Ascension, the appearance to Paul must be placed years after that\noccurrence is alleged to have taken place. The question, therefore,\narises: Was the appearance to Paul of the same character as the former?\nPaul evidently considers that it was. He uses the very same word when he\nsays \"he was seen [------] by me,\" that he employs in stating that\n\"he was seen [------] by Cephas\" and the rest, and he classes all the\nappearances together in precisely the same way. If, therefore, Paul\nknew anything of the nature of the appearances to the others, and yet\nconsiders them to have been of the same nature as his own, an accurate\naccount of his own vision might have enabled us in some degree to\nestimate that of the others. Even without this account, it is something\nto know that Paul believed that there was no difference between the\nearlier and later appearances. And yet, if we reflect that in the\nappearances immediately after the Resurrection the representation is\nthat Jesus possessed the very same body that had\n\n{500}\n\nhung on the cross and been laid in the sepulchre, and that, according\nto the Gospels, he exhibited his wounds, allowed them to be touched,\nassured the disciples of his corporeality by permitting himself to be\nhandled, and even by eating food in their presence, and that in the\ncase of Paul the appearance took place years after Jesus is said to have\nascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God, the identity\nof the apparitions becomes a suggestive feature.\n\nThe testimony of Paul must at least override that of the Gospels, and\nwhatever may have been the vision of Paul, we may fairly assume that\nthe vision of Peter and the rest was like it. Beyond this inference,\nhowever, Paul gives us no light with regard to the appearance of Jesus\nto himself. He merely affirms that Jesus did appear to him. \"Have I not\nseen Jesus our Lord?\" he says in one place.(1) Elsewhere he relates:\n\"But when he was pleased, who set me apart from my mother's womb, and\ncalled me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might\npreach him among the Gentiles; immediately, I communicated not with\nflesh and blood.... but I went away into Arabia and returned again\nunto Damascus.\"(2) Various opinions have been expressed regarding the\nrendering of [------].\n\nThe great majority of critics agree that the direct and natural sense\nmust be adopted: \"to reveal his son in me,\" that is to say, \"within me,\"\n\"in my spirit.\"(3) Others maintain that [------] must be\n\n{501}\n\nrendered \"through me,\"(1) giving [------] the sense of [------]; but\nin that case the following context would be quite unnecessary.\nHilgenfeld(2) thinks that the meaning is \"in his person;\" and\nRuckert(3) and a few others read \"to me.\" The liberties taken by\ninterpreters of the New Testament with the preposition [------], too\nfrequently from preconceived dogmatic reasons, are remarkable. The\nimportance of this passage chiefly lies in the question whether the\nrevelation here referred to is the same as the appearance to him of\nJesus of the Corinthian letter. Some critics incline to the view that\nit is so,(4) whilst others consider that Paul does not thus speak of\nhis vision, but rather of the doctrine concerning Jesus which formed his\nGospel, and which Paul claimed to have received, not from man, but by\nrevelation from God.(5) Upon this point we have only a few remarks to\nmake. If it be understood that Paul refers to the appearance to him of\nJesus, it is clear that he represents it in these words as a subjective\nvision, within his own consciousness. If, on the other hand, he do not\nrefer to the appearance, then the passage loses all distinct reference\nto that occurrence. We do not intend to lay any further stress upon the\nexpression than this, and it is fair to add that we do not think there\nis any special reference to the apparition of Jesus in the\n\n{502}\n\npassage, but simply an allusion to his conversion to Christianity, which\nthe Apostle considered a revelation in his mind of the true character\nand work of the Christ which had previously been so completely\nmisunderstood by him. We may as well say at once that we desire to take\nthe argument in its broadest form, without wasting time by showing that\nPaul himself uses language which seems to indicate that he recognised\nthe appearance of Jesus to have been merely subjective. The only other\npassage which we need now mention is the account which Paul gives,\n2 Cor. xii. 2 ff, of his being caught up to the third heaven. A few\ncritics consider that this may be the occasion on which Jesus appeared\nto him, to which he refers in the passage of the former letter which\nwe are considering,(1) but the great majority are opposed to the\nsupposition. In any case there is no evidence that the occasions are\nidentical, and we therefore are not entitled to assume that they are so.\n\nIt will have been observed that we have hitherto confined our attention\nwholly to the undoubted writings of Paul. Were there no other reason\nthan the simple fact that we are examining the evidence of Paul himself,\nand have, therefore, to do with that evidence alone, we should be\nthoroughly justified in this course. It is difficult to clear the mind\nof statements regarding Paul and his conversion which are made in the\nActs of the Apostles, but it is absolutely essential that we should\nunderstand clearly what Paul himself tells us and what he does not, for\nthe present totally excluding Acts. What then does Paul himself tell us\nof the circumstances under which he saw Jesus?\n\n{503}\n\nAbsolutely nothing. The whole of his evidence for the Resurrection\nconsists in the bare statement that he did see Jesus. Now can the fact\nthat any man merely affirms, without even stating the circumstances,\nthat a person once dead and buried has risen from the dead and been seen\nby him, be seriously considered satisfactory evidence for so astounding\na miracle? Is it possible for any one of sober mind, acquainted with\nthe nature of the proposition, on the one hand, and with the innumerable\npossibilities of error, on the other, to regard such an affirmation even\nas evidence of much importance in such a matter? We venture to say that,\nin such a case, an affirmation of this nature, even made by a man of\nhigh character and ability, would possess little weight. If the person\nmaking it, although of the highest honour, were known to suppose himself\nthe subject of constant revelations and visions, and if, perhaps, he had\na constitutional tendency to nervous excitement and ecstatic trance, his\nevidence would have no weight at all. We shall presently have to speak\nof this more in detail in connection with Paul. Such an allegation even\nsupported by the fullest information and most circumstantial statement\ncould not establish the reality of the miracle; without them, it has no\nclaim to belief. What is the value of a person's testimony who simply\nmakes an affirmation of some important matter, unaccompanied by\nparticulars, and the truth of which cannot be subjected to the test of\neven the slightest cross-examination? It is worth nothing. It would not\nbe received at all in a Court of Justice. If we knew the whole of the\ncircumstances of the apparition to Paul, from which he inferred that\nhe had seen the risen Jesus, the natural explanation of the supposed\nmiracle might be\n\n{504}\n\neasy. There were no other witnesses of it. This is clear; for, had there\nbeen, Paul must have mentioned them as he mentioned the five hundred.\nWe have only the report of a man who states that he had seen.Jesus,\nunconfirmed by any witnesses. Under no circumstances could isolated\nevidence like this be ol much value. Facts and inferences are alike\nuncorroborated, but on the other hand are contradicted by universal\nexperience.\n\nWhen we analyse the evidence, it is reduced to this: Paul believed that\nhe had seen Jesus. This belief constitutes the whole evidence of Paul\nhimself for the Resurrection. It is usual to argue that the powerful\neffect which this belief produced upon Paul's life and teaching renders\nthis belief of extraordinary force as evidence. This we are not prepared\nto admit. If the assertion that Jesus appeared to him had not been\nbelieved by Paul, it would not have secured a moment's attention. That\nthis belief affected his life was the inevitable consequence of such\nbelief. Paul eminently combined works with faith in his own life. When\nhe believed Jesus to be an impostor, he did not content himself with\nsneering at human credulity, but vigorously persecuted his followers.\nWhen he came to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, he was not more\ninactive, but became the irrepressible Apostle of the Gentiles. He\nacted upon his convictions in both cases; but his mere persecution\nof Christianity no more proved Jesus to be an impostor than his mere\npreaching of Christianity proved Jesus to be the Messiah. It only proved\nthat he believed so. He was as earnest in the one case as in the other.\nWe repeat, therefore, that the evidence of Paul for the Resurrection\namounts to\n\n{505}\n\nnothing more than the unfeigned belief that Jesus had been seen by him.\nWe shall presently further examine the value of this belief as evidence\nfor so astounding a miracle.\n\nWe must not form exaggerated conceptions of the effect upon Paul of\nthe appearance to him of Jesus. That his convictions and views of\nChristianity were based upon the reality of the Resurrection is\nundeniable, and that they received powerful confirmation and impulse\nthrough his vision of Jesus is also not to be doubted, but let us clear\nour minds of representations derived from other sources and clearly\nunderstand what Paul himself does and does not say of this vision, and\nfor this purpose we must confine ourselves to the undoubted writings of\nthe Apostle. Does Paul himself ascribe his conversion to Christianity to\nthe fact of his having seen Jesus? Most certainly not. That is a notion\nderived solely from the statements in Acts. The sudden and miraculous\nconversion of Paul is a product of the same pen which produced the story\nof the sudden conversion of the thief on the cross, an episode equally\nunknown to other writers. Paul neither savs when nor where he saw Jesus.\nThe revelation of God's Son in him not being an allusion to this vision\nof Jesus, but merely a reference to the light which dawned upon Paul's\nmind as to the character and mission of Jesus, there is no ground\nwhatever, from the writings of the Apostle himself, to connect the\nappearance of Jesus with the conversion of Paul. The statement in the\nEpistle to the Galatians simply amounts to this: When it pleased him\nwho elected him from his mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to\nreveal to his mind the truth concerning his Son, that he might preach\n\n{506}\n\nhim among the Gentiles, he communicated not with flesh and blood,\nneither did he go up to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before him,\nbut immediately went away to Arabia, and after that returned again to\nDamascus. It can scarcely be doubted that Paul here refers to his change\nof views--to his conversion--but as little can it be doubted that he\ndoes not ascribe that conversion to the appearance to him of Jesus\nspoken of in the Corinthian letter.\n\nLet any reader who honestly desires to ascertain the exact position of\nthe case ask himself the simple question whether, supposing the Acts of\nthe Apostles never to have existed, it is possible to deduce from this,\nor any other statement of Paul, that he actually ascribes his conversion\nto the fact that Jesus appeared to him in a supernatural manner. He may\npossibly in some degree base his apostolic claims upon that appearance,\nalthough it may be doubted how far he does even this; if he did so, it\nwould only prove the reality of his belief, but not the reality of the\nvision; but there is no evidence whatever in the writings of Paul that\nhe connected his conversion with the appearance of Jesus. All that\nwe can legitimately infer seems to be that, before his adoption of\nChristianity, he had persecuted the Church;(1) and further it may be\ngathered from the passage in the Galatian letter, that at the time when\nthis change occurred he. was at Damascus. At least he says that from\nArabia he \"returned again to Damascus,\" which seems to imply that he\nfirst went from that city to Arabia. When we consider the expressions\nin the two letters, it becomes apparent that Paul does not set forth any\ninstantaneous conversion of the\n\n{507}\n\ncharacter related elsewhere. To the Galatians he describes his election\nfrom his mother's womb and call by the grace of God as antecedent to the\nrevelation of his Son in him: \"When he who separated me from my mother's\nwomb and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me,\nthat I might preach him among the Gentiles,\" &c. And if the reading\n\"through me\" be adopted, the sense we are pointing out becomes still\nmore apparent. In the Corinthian letter again, the expressions should be\nremarked: v. 8. \"And last of all he was seen by me also, as the one born\nout of due time. 9. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not fit\nto be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God: 10. but\nby the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was (bestowed)\nupon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all,\nyet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11. Whether, therefore, it were\nI or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.\"(1) Peter sees Jesus first,\nPaul sees him last; and as the thought uppermost in his mind in\nwriting this epistle was the parties in the Corinthian Church, and the\nopposition to himself and denial even of his apostleship, the mention\nof his having seen Jesus immediately leads him to speak of his apostolic\nclaims. \"Am I not an Apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord?\" he had\njust before exclaimed, and proceeded to defend himself against his\nopponents: here again he reverts to the same\n\n508}{\n\nsubject, with proud humility calling himself, on the one hand, \"the\nleast of the Apostles,\" but, on the other, asserting that he had\n\"laboured more than they all.\" He is led to contrast his past life with\nhis present; the time when he persecuted the Church with that in\nwhich he built it up. There is, however, no allusion to any miraculous\nconversion when he says: \"by the grace of God I am what I am.\" He\nmay consider his having seen the Lord and become a witness of his\nresurrection one part of his qualification for the Apostolate, but\nassuredly he does not represent this as the means of his conversion.\n\nWe shall not pause to discuss at length how far being a witness for the\nresurrection really was made a necessary qualification for the apostolic\noffice. The passages, Luke xxiv. 48, Acts i. 22, ii. 32, upon which the\ntheory mainly rests, are not evidence of the fact which can for a moment\nbe accepted. It is obvious that the Twelve were apostles from having\nbeen chosen disciples of the Master from the commencement of his active\ncareer, and not from any fortuitous circumstance at its close. If\nPaul says: \"Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?\" he\ncontinues: \"Are ye not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle unto\nothers, yet I am at least to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are\nye in the Lord. My defence to them that examine me is this.\"(1) There\ncan be no doubt that the claims of Paul to the Apostolate were, during\nhis life, constantly denied, and his authority rejected. As we have\nelsewhere pointed out, there is no evidence that his apostleship was\never recognised by the elder Apostles, nor that his claim was ever\nsubmitted to them. Even in the\n\n{509}\n\nsecond century, the Clementine Homilies deny him the honour, and make\nlight of his visions and revelations. All the evidence we possess shows\nthat Paul's vision of Jesus did not secure for him much consideration in\nhis own time, a circumstance which certainly does not tend to establish\nits reality.\n\nWhat weight can we, then, attach to the representation in the Acts of\nthe Apostles of the conversion of Paul? Our examination of that work\nhas sufficiently shown that none of its statements can be received as\nhistorical. Where we have been able to compare them with the epistles\nof Paul, they have not been in agreement. Nothing could be more obvious\nthan the contradiction between the narrative of Paul's conduct after his\nconversion, according to Acts, and the account which Paul gives in the\nGalatian letter. We need not repeat the demonstration here. Where we\npossess the means of comparison, we discover the inaccuracy of Acts. Why\nshould we suppose that which we cannot compare more accurate? So far as\nour argument is concerned, it matters very little whether we exclude the\nnarrative of the conversion of Acts or not. We point out, however,\nthat there is no confirmation whatever in the writings of Paul of the\nrepresentation of his conversion by means of a vision of Jesus, which,\nupon all considerations, may much more reasonably be assigned to a\nsomewhat later period. If we ventured to conjecture, we should say that\nthe author of Acts has expanded the scattered sayings of Paul into this\nnarrative, making the miraculous conversion by a personal interposition\nof Jesus, which he therefore relates no less than three times,\ncounterbalance the disadvantage of his not having followed Jesus in the\n\n{510}\n\nflesh.(1) It is curious that he has introduced the bare statement into\nthe third Synoptic, that Jesus \"was seen by Simon\" [------],(2) which\nnone of the other evangelists mentions, but which he may have found,\nwithout farther particulars, [------], in the Epistle whence he derived,\nperhaps, materials for the other story. In no case can the narrative in\nActs be received as evidence of the slightest value; but in order not to\npass over even such statements in silence, we shall very briefly examine\nit.\n\nThe narrative is repeated thrice: in the first instance (ix. 1 ff.) as\na historical account of the transaction; next (xxii. 4 if.) introduced\ninto a speech supposed to be delivered by Paul to the Jews when taken\nprisoner in consequence of their uproar on finding him in the Temple\npurifying himself with the four men who had a vow,--a position which\ncannot historically be reconciled with the character and views of Paul;\nand, thirdly, again put into the mouth of the Apostle (xxvi. 9 ff.)\nwhen he pleads his cause before King Agrippa. Paul is represented in the\nheadlong career of persecuting the Church, and going with letters from\nthe high priest empowering him to bring Christian men and women bound\nunto Jerusalem. \"And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh\nto Damascus, and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of the\nheaven, and he fell upon the earth and heard a voice saying unto him:\nSaul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord?\nAnd he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise and go into the\ncity, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.\"(3) In the second\naccount, there is so far\n\n{511}\n\nno very wide discrepancy, but there, as in the third, the time is said\nto be about noon. There is a very considerable difference in the third\naccount, however, more especially in the report of what is said by\nthe voice: xxvi. 13. \"At midday, O King, I saw in the way a light from\nheaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and\nthose journeying with me; 14. And when we all fell to the earth, I\nheard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew tongue: Saul, Saul, why\npersecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against pricks. 15.\nAnd I said: Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said: I am Jesus whom thou\npersecutest. 16. But rise and stand upon thy feet; for I was seen by\nthee for this purpose, to choose thee a minister and a witness both of\nthese things which thou sawest, and of the things in which I will appear\nunto thee; 17. delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles,\nunto whom I send thee; 18. to open their eyes, that they may turn them\nfrom darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that\nthey may receive forgiveness of sins, and a lot among them which are\nsanctified by faith that is in me.\"(1)\n\n{512}\n\nIt will be admitted that this address is widely different from that\nreported in the two earlier accounts. Apologists argue that, in this\nthird narrative, Paul has simply transferred from Ananias to Jesus the\nmessage delivered to him by the former, according to the second account.\nLet us first see what Ananias is there represented as saying. Acts xxii.\n14: \"And he said: The God of our fathers chose thee, to know his will\nand to see the Righteous One'(1) 15. for thou shalt be a witness to him\nunto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.\" (2) Now Paul clearly\nprofesses in the speech which he is represented as delivering before\nAgrippa to state what the voice said to him: \"And he said,\" \"and I\nsaid,\" \"and he said,\" distinctly convey the meaning that the report is\nto be what actually was said. If the sense of what Ananias said to\nhim is embodied in part of the address ascribed to the voice, it is\nstrangely altered and put into the first person; but, beyond this,\nthere is much added which neither appears in the speech of Ananias\nnor anywhere else in any of the narratives. If we further compare the\ninstructions given to Ananias in the vision of the first narrative with\nhis words in the second and those ascribed to the voice in the third, we\nshall see that these again differ very materially. Acts ix. 15. \"But the\nLord said unto him: Go; for this man is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear\nmy name before Gentiles and kings, and the sons of Israel: 16. For I\nwill show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.\"(3)\n\n     1 It will be remembered that this epithet occurs in Acts\n     iii. 14, vii. 52, and nowhere else in the New Testament.\n\n{513}\n\nWhat must we think of a writer who deals so freely with his materials,\nand takes such liberties even with so serious a matter as this heavenly\nvision and the words of the glorified Jesus?\n\nIn the third account, Jesus is represented as saying: \"It is hard for\nthee to kick against pricks.\"(1) This is a well-known proverbial\nsaying, frequently used by classical Greek and Latin authors,(2) and\nnot altogether strange to Hebrew. It is a singularly anthropomorphic\nrepresentation to put such a saying into the mouth of the divine\napparition, and it assists in betraying the mundane origin of the whole\nscene. Another point deserving consideration is, that Paul is not told\nwhat he is to do by the voice of Jesus, but is desired to go into the\ncity to be there instructed by Ananias. This is clearly opposed to\nPaul's own repeated asseverations. \"For neither did I receive it from\nman nor was taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ,\"(3)\nis his statement. The details of the incident itself, moreover, are\ndifferently stated in the various accounts and cannot be reconciled.\nAccording to the first account, the companions of Paul \"stood\nspeechless\" (ix. 7); in the third, they \"all fell to the earth\" (xxvi.\n14). The explanation, that they first fell to the ground and then rose\nup, fails\n\n{514}\n\nsatisfactorily to harmonise the two statements; as does likewise the\nsuggestion that the first expression is simply an idiomatic mole of\nsaying that they were speechless, independent of position. Then again,\nin the first account, it is said that the men stood speechless, \"hearing\nthe voice [------] but seeing no one.\"' In the second we are told: \"And\nthey that were with me saw indeed the light; but they heard not the\nvoice [------] of him speaking to me.\"(2) No two statements could be\nmore contradictory. The attempt to reconcile them by explaining the verb\n[------] in the one place \"to hear\" and in the other \"to understand\"\nis inadmissible, because wholly arbitrary. It is quite obvious that the\nword is used in the same sense in both passages, the difference being\nmerely the negative. In the third account, the voice is described as\nspeaking \"in the Hebrew tongue,\"(3) which was probably the native\ntongue of the companions of Paul from Jerusalem. If they heard the voice\nspeaking Hebrew, they must have understood it The effort to make the\nvision clearly objective, and, at the same time, to confine it to Paul,\nleads to these complications. The voice is heard, though the speaker is\nnot seen, by the men, in the one story, whilst the light is seen, and\nthe voice not heard, in the other, and yet it speaks in Hebrew according\nto the third, and even makes use of classical proverbs, and uses\nlanguage wondrously similar to that of the author of Acts.\n\nWe may remark here that Paul's Gospel was certainly not revealed to him\nupon this occasion; and, therefore, the expressions in his epistles upon\nthis subject must be referred to other revelations. There is, however,\n\n{515}\n\nanother curious point to be observed. Paul is not described as having\nactually seen Jesus in the vision. According to the first two accounts,\na light shines round about him and he falls to the ground and hears a\nvoice; when he rises he is blind.(1) If in the third account, he sees\nthe light from heaven above the brightness of the sun shining round\nabout him and his companions,(2) they equally see it, according to the\nsecond account.(3) The blindness, therefore, is miraculous and symbolic,\nfor the men are not blinded by the light.(4) It is singular that Paul\nnowhere refers to this blindness in his letters. It cannot be doubted\nthat the writer's purpose is to symbolise the very change from darkness\nto light, in the case of Paul, which, after Old Testament prophecies,\nis referred to in the words ascribed, in the third account,(5) to the\nvoice. Paul, thus, only sees the light which surrounds the glorified\nJesus, but not his own person, and the identification proceeds only from\nthe statement: \"I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.\" It is true that\nthe expression is strangely put into the mouth of Jesus, in the third\naccount: \"for I was seen by thee [------] for this purpose,\" &c,(6)\nbut the narrative excludes the actual sight of the speaker, and it is\nscarcely possible to read the words just quoted, and their context,\nwithout being struck by their incongruity. We need not indicate the\nsources of this representation of light shrouding the heavenly vision,\nso common in the Old Testament. Before proceeding to the rest of the\naccount, we may point out in passing the similarity of the details of\nthis scene to the vision of Daniel x. 7-9.\n\n{516}\n\nReturning, however, to the first narrative, we are told that, about\nthe same time as this miracle was occurring to Paul, a supernatural\ncommunication was being made to Ananias in Damascus: ix. 10. \"And to him\nsaid the Lord in a vision: Ananias. And he said, Behold I am here,\nLord. 11. And the Lord said unto him: Rise and go to the street which is\ncalled Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul,\nof Tarsus; for, behold he prayeth; 12. and he saw a man named Ananias\nwho came in and put his hand on him that he might receive sight. 13. But\nAnanias answered, Lord, I heard from many concerning this man, how much\nevil he did to thy saints in Jerusalem: 14. And here he hath authority\nfrom the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15. But\nthe Lord said, Go, &c. (quoted above). 17. And Ananias went away, and\nentered into the house; and having put his hands on him said: Brother\nSaul, the Lord hath sent me, even Jesus that appeared unto thee in\nthe way by which thou earnest, that thou mightest receive sight and be\nfilled with the Holy Spirit. 18. And immediately there fell from\nhis eyes as it were scales; and he received sight, rose up, and was\nbaptized, and having taken food was strengthened.\" We have already had\noccasion to point out, in connection with the parallelism kept up\nin Acts between the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Apostle of the\nCircumcision, that a similar double vision is narrated by the author as\noccurring to Peter and Cornelius. Some further vision is referred to in\nv. 12; for in no form of the narrative of Paul's vision on the way to\nDamascus is he represented as seeing a man named Ananias coming to him\nfor the purpose described. Many questions are\n\n{517}\n\nsuggested by the story just quoted. How did Ananias know that Paul had\nauthority from the chief priests to arrest any one? How could he\nargue in such a way with the Lord? Did he not then know that Jesus had\nappeared to Paul on the way? How did he get that information? Is it not\nan extraordinary thing that Paul never mentions Ananias in any of\nhis letters, nor in any way refers to these miracles? We have already\nreferred to the symbolic nature of the blindness, and recovery of sight\non receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized, and this is rendered\nstill more apparent by the statement: v. 9. \"And he was three days\nwithout sight, and neither did eat nor drink.\" We may further point out\nthat in immediate connection with this episode Paul is represented,\nin the second account, as stating that, on going to Jerusalem, he has\nanother vision of Jesus:xxii. 17. \"And it came to pass that, when I\nreturned to Jerusalem and was praying in the Temple, I was in a trance,\n18. and saw him saying unto me: Make haste, and get thee quickly out of\nJerusalem; for they will not receive thy witness concerning me. 19. And\nI said: Lord, they themselves know that I was wont to imprison and beat\nin every synagogue them that believe on thee. 20. And when the blood of\nStephen, thy witness, was shed, I also was standing by and consenting,\nand keeping the garments of them that slew him. 21. And he said unto\nme: Go, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.\" It seems\nimpossible, considering the utter silence of Paul, that the apparition\nto which he refers can have spoken to him at length as described upon\nthese occasions.(1) We have elsewhere remarked\n\n{518}\n\nthat there is not the slightest evidence in his own or other writings\nconnecting Stephen with Paul, and it may be appropriate to add here\nthat, supposing him to have been present when the martyr exclaimed: \"Lo,\nI behold the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right\nhand of God,\"(1) it is singular that he does not name him as one of\nthose by whom Jesus \"was seen.\"\n\nTo resume this discussion, however: we have already shown that the\nstatements of the Acts regarding Paul's conduct after this alleged\nvision are distinctly in contradiction with the statements of Paul.\nThe explanation here given of the cause of Paul's leaving Jerusalem,\nmoreover, is not in agreement with Acts ix. 29 f., and much less\nwith Gal. i. 20 ff. The three narratives themselves are full of\nirreconcilable differences and incongruities, which destroy all\nreasonable confidence in any substantial basis for the story. It is\nevident that the three narratives are from the same pen, and betray the\ncomposition of the author of Acts.(2) They cannot be regarded as true\nhistory.(3) The hand of the composer is very apparent in the lavish use\nof the miraculous, so characteristic of the whole work.\n\n{519}\n\nIt is worth while to catalogue the supernatural incidents of this\nepisode. 1 The vision; 2 Companions hearing the voice but seeing no man,\nor not hearing the voice but seeing the light; 3 Paul's blindness; 4\nVision of Ananias; 5 Restoration of sight to Paul; 6 Trance of Paul in\nJerusalem. Such a narrative cannot be received in evidence.\n\nThe whole of the testimony before us, then, simply amounts to this: Paul\nbelieved that he had seen Jesus some years after his death: there is no\nevidence that he ever saw him during his life.(1) He states that he had\n\"received\" that he was seen by various other persons, but he does not\ngive the slightest information as to who told him, or what reasons he\nhad for believing the statements to be correct. And still less does he\nnarrate the particulars of the alleged appearances or even of his own\nvision. Although we have no detailed statements of these extraordinary\nphenomena, we may assume that, as Paul himself believed that he had\nseen Jesus, certain other people of the circle of his disciples likewise\nbelieved that they had seen the risen Master. The whole of the evidence\nfor the Resurrection reduces itself to an undefined belief on the part\nof a few persons, in a notoriously superstitious age, that after Jesus\nhad died and been buried they had seen him alive. These visions, it is\nadmitted, occurred at a time of the most intense religious excitement,\nand under circumstances of wholly exceptional mental agitation and\ndistress. The wildest alternations of fear, doubt, hope and\n\n{520}\n\nindefinite expectation added their effects to oriental imaginations\nalready excited by indignation at the fate of their Master, and sorrow\nor despair at such a dissipation of their Messianic dreams. There was\npresent every element of intellectual and moral disturbance. Now must we\nseriously ask again whether this bare and wholly unjustified belief can\nbe accepted as satisfactory evidence for so astounding a miracle as the\nResurrection? Can the belief of such men, in such an age, establish the\nreality of a phenomenon which contradicts universal experience? It comes\nto us in the form of bare belief from the Age of Miracles, unsupported\nby facts, uncorroborated by evidence, unaccompanied by proof of\ninvestigation, and unprovided with material for examination. What is\nsuch belief worth? We have no.hesitation in saying that it is absolutely\nworth nothing.\n\nWe might here well bring our inquiry to a close, for we have no further\nevidence to deal with. The problem, however, is so full of interest that\nwe cannot yet lay it down, and although we must restrain our argument\nwithin certain rigid limits, and wholly refrain from entering into\nregions of mere speculation, we may further discuss the origin and\nnature of the belief in the Resurrection. Recognizing the fact that,\nalthough its nature and extent are very indefinite, there existed\nan undoubted belief that, after his death, Jesus was seen alive; the\nargument is advanced that there must have been a real basis for this\nbelief.\n\n{521}\n\n\"The existence of a Christian society,\" says an apologetic writer, \"is\nthe first and (if rightly viewed) the final proof of the historic truth\nof the miracle on which it was founded. It may indeed be said that the\nChurch was founded upon the belief in the Resurrection, and not upon the\nResurrection itself: and that the testimony must therefore be limited\nto the attestation of the belief, and cannot reach to the attestation\nof the fact. But belief expressed in action is for the most part the\nstrongest evidence which we can have of any historic event. Unless,\ntherefore, it can be shown that the origin of the apostolic belief in\nthe Resurrection, with due regard to the fulness of its characteristic\nform, and the breadth and rapidity of its propagation can be\nsatisfactorily explained on other grounds, the belief itself is a\nsufficient proof of the fact.\"(1) This is obviously Paley's argument\nof the Twelve men(2) in a condensed form. Belief in action may be the\nstrongest evidence which we can have of any historic event; but when\nthe historic event happens to be an event in religious history, and an\nastounding miracle like the Resurrection, such bare evidence, emanating\nfrom such an age, is not very strong evidence, after all. The breadth\nand rapidity of its propagation absolutely prove nothing but belief in\nthe report of those who believed; although it is very far from evident\nthat people embraced Christianity from a rational belief in the\nResurrection. No one pretends that the Gentiles who believed made a\npreliminary examination of the truth of the Resurrection. If breadth\n\n{522}\n\nand rapidity of propagation be taken as sufficient proof of the truth\nof facts, we might consider Buddhism and Mahomedanism as satisfactorily\nattested creeds. There could not be a greater fallacy than the\nsupposition that the origin of a belief must be explained upon other\ngrounds, or that belief itself accepted as a sufficient proof of the\nfact asserted. The truth or falsehood of any allegation is determined\nby a balance of evidence, and the critic is no more bound to account for\nthe formation of erroneous belief than he is bound to believe because he\nmay not, after a great lapse of time, be able so clearly to demonstrate\nthe particular manner in which that erroneous belief originated, that\nany other mode is definitely excluded. The belief that a dead man rose\nfrom the dead and appeared to several persons alive is at once disposed\nof upon abstract grounds. The alleged occurrence is contrary to\nuniversal experience; but on the other hand the prevalence of defective\nobservation, mistaken inference, self-deception and credulity, any of\nwhich might lead to such belief, are only too well known to it. Is it\nnecessary to define which peculiar form of error is present in every\nfalse belief, before, with this immense preponderance of evidence\nagainst it, we finally reject it? We think not. Any explanation\nconsistent with universal experience must be adopted, rather than a\nbelief which is contradictory to it.\n\nThere are two theories which have been advanced to explain the origin\nof the apostolic belief in the Resurrection, to which we may now briefly\nrefer; but it must be clearly understood that the suggestion of an\nexplanation is quite apart from our examination of the actual evidence\nfor the Resurrection. Fifty\n\n{523}\n\nexplanations might be offered and be considered unsatisfactory without\nin the least degree altering the fact, that the testimony for the final\nmiracle of Christianity is totally insufficient, and that the allegation\nthat it actually occurred cannot be maintained. The first explanation,\nadopted by some able critics, is that Jesus did not really die on the\ncross, but being taken down alive, and his body being delivered to\nfriends, he subsequently revived. In support of this theory, it is\nargued that Jesus is represented by the Gospels as expiring after having\nbeen but three to six hours upon the cross, which would have been an\nun-precedentedly rapid death. It is affirmed that only the hands and\nnot the feet were nailed to the cross. The crurifragium, not usually\naccompanying crucifixion, is dismissed as unknown to the three\nSynoptists, and only inserted by the fourth Evangelist for dogmatic\nreasons, and of course the lance-thrust disappears with the\nleg-breaking. Thus the apparent death was that profound faintness which\nmight well fall upon such an organization after some hours of physical\nand mental agony on the cross, following the continued strain and\nfatigue of the previous night. As soon as he had sufficiently recovered,\nit is supposed that Jesus visited his disciples a few times to re-assure\nthem, but with precaution on account of the Jews, and was by them\nbelieved to have risen from the dead, as indeed he himself may likewise\nhave supposed, reviving as he had done from the faintness of death.(1)\n\n{524}\n\nSeeing, however, that his death had set the crown upon his work, the\nMaster withdrew into impenetrable obscurity and was heard of no more.\n\nWe have given but the baldest outline of this theory; for it would\noccupy too much space to represent it adequately and show the ingenuity\nwith which it is worked out, and the very considerable support which it\nreceives from statements in the Gospels, and from inferences deducible\nfrom them. We do not ourselves adopt this explanation, although it must\nbe clearly repeated that, were the only alternative to do so, or to fall\nback upon the hypothesis of a miracle, we should consider it preferable.\nA serious objection brought against the theory seems to be, that it is\nnot natural to suppose that, after such intense and protracted fatigue\nand anxiety followed by the most cruel agony on the cross, agony both of\nsoul and body,(1) ending in unconsciousness only short of death, Jesus\ncould within a short period have presented himself to his disciples with\nsuch an aspect as could have conveyed to them the impression of\n\n{525}\n\nvictory over death by the Prince of Life. He must still, it is urged,\nhave presented the fresh traces of suffering and weakness little\ncalculated to inspire them with the idea of divine power and glory. This\nis partly, but not altogether, true. There is no evidence, as we shall\npresently show, that the appearances of Jesus occurred so soon as is\ngenerally represented; and, in their astonishment at again seeing the\nMaster whom they supposed to be dead, the disciples could not have been\nin a state minutely to remark the signs of suffering,(1) then probably,\nwith the power of a mind like that of Jesus over physical weakness,\nlittle apparent. Time and imagination would doubtless soon have effaced\nfrom their minds any such impressions, and left only the belief that he\nhad risen from the dead to develop and form the Christian doctrine.\nA more powerful objection seems to us the disappearance of Jesus.\nWe cannot easily persuade ourselves that such a teacher could have\nrenounced his work and left no subsequent trace of his existence. Still,\nit must be admitted that many explanations might be offered on this\nhead, the most obvious being that death, whether as the result of the\nterrible crisis through which he had passed, or from some other cause,\nmay soon after have ensued. We repeat, however, that we neither advance\nthis explanation nor think it worth while to discuss it seriously, not\nbecause we think it untenable, although we do not adopt it, but because\nwe consider that there is another explanation of the origin of belief in\nthe Resurrection which\n\n     1 The repeated statement in the Gospels that the women and\n     his disciples did not at first recognize the risen Jesus,\n     are quoted in connection with this point.\n\n{528}\n\nis better, and which is in our opinion the true one. We mean that which\nis usually called the \"vision-hypothesis.\"\n\nThe phenomenon which has to be accounted for is the apostolic belief\nthat, after he had been dead and buried, Jesus \"was seen\" [------] by\ncertain persons. The explanation which we offer, and which has long been\nadopted in various forms by able critics,1 is, that doubtless Jesus\nwas seen, but the vision was not real ^and objective, but illusory\nand subjective; that is to say: Jesus was not himself seen, but only\na representation of Jesus within the minds of the beholders. This\nexplanation not only does not impeach the veracity of those who\naffirmed that they had seen Jesus, but, accepting to a certain extent\na subjective truth as the basis of the belief, explains upon well-known\nand natural principles the erroneous inference deduced from the\nsubjective vision. It seems to us that the points to be determined\nare simple and obvious: Is it possible for a man to mistake subjective\nimpressions for objective occurrences? Is it possible that any\nconsiderable number of persons can at the same time receive similar\nsubjective impressions and mistake them for objective facts? If these\nquestions can be answered affirmatively,\n\n{527}\n\nand it can be shown that the circumstances, the characters, the\nconstitution of those who believed in the first instance, favoured the\nreception of such subjective impressions, and the deduction of erroneous\ninferences, it must be admitted that a satisfactory explanation can thus\nbe given of the apostolic belief, on other grounds than the reality of a\nmiracle opposed to universal experience.\n\nNo sooner is the first question formulated than it becomes obvious\nto every one who is acquainted with psychological and physiological\nresearches, or who has even the most elementary knowledge of the\ninfluence of the mind upon the body, that it must at once be answered in\nthe affirmative. Indeed the affirmation that subjective impressions, in\nconnection with every sense, can be mistaken for, and believed to be,\nactual objective effects, is so trite that it seems almost superfluous\nto make it. Every reader must be well acquainted with illustrations of\nthe fact. The only difficulty is to deal authoritatively with such a\npoint within moderate compass. We must limit ourselves to the sense\nof sight \"There are abundant proofs,\" says Sir Benjamin Brodie, \"that\nimpressions may be made in the brain by other causes simulating those\nwhich are made on it by external objects through the medium of the\norgans of sense, thus producing false perceptions, which may, in the\nfirst instance, and before we have had time to reflect on the subject,\nbe mistaken for realities.\"(1) The limitation here introduced: \"before\nwe have had time to reflect on the subject,\" is of course valid in\nthe case of those whose reason is capable of rejecting the false\nperceptions, whether on the ground of natural\n\n{528}\n\nlaw or of probability; but, in anyone ignorant of natural law, familiar\nwith the idea of supernatural agency and the occurrence of miraculous\nevents, it is obvious, reflection, if reflection of a sceptical kind\ncan even be assumed, would have little chance of arriving at any true\ndiscrimination of phenomena. Speaking of the nervous system and its\nfunctions, and more immediately of the relation of the Cerebrum to the\nSensorium and the production of spectral illusions, Dr. Carpenter says,\nin his work on the \"Principles of Mental Physiology,\" which is well\nworth the study of those interested in the question we are discussing:\n\"Still stronger evidence of the same associated action of the Cerebrum\nand Sensorium, is furnished by the study of the phenomena designated as\nSpectral Illusions. These are clearly sensorial states not excited by\nexternal objects; and it is also clear that they frequently originate\nin cerebral changes, since they represent creations of the mind, and\nare not mere reproductions of past sensations.\" Dr. Carpenter refers\nin illustration to a curious illusion to which Sir John Herschel\nwas subject, \"in the shape of the involuntary occurrence of Visual\nimpressions, into which Geometrical regularity of form enters as the\nleading character. These were not of the nature of those ocular Spectra\nwhich may be attributed with probability to retinal changes.\"(1) Dr.\nCarpenter then continues: \"We have here not a reproduction of sensorial\nimpressions formerly received; but a construction of new forms, by a\nprocess which, if it had been carried on consciously, we should have\ncalled imagination. And it is difficult to see\n\n{529}\n\nhow it is to be accounted for in any other way, than by an unconscious\naction of the cerebrum; the products of which impress themselves on\nthe sensorial consciousness, just as, in other cases, they express\nthemselves through the motor apparatus.\"(1) The illusions described by\nSir John Herschel who, as he himself says, was \"as little visionary as\nmost people\" should be referred to.\n\nOf the production of sensations by ideas there can be no possible\ndoubt(2) and, consequently, as little of the realisation by the person\nin whom they are produced of subjective impressions exactly as though\nthey were objective. With regard to false perceptions, Dr. Carpenter\nsays: \"It has been shown that the action of ideational states upon\nthe Sensorium can modify or even produce sensations. But the action of\npre-existing states of Mind is still more frequently shown in modifying\nthe interpretation which we put upon our sense-impressions. For since\nalmost every such interpretation is an act of judgment based upon\nexperience, that judgment will vary according to our mental condition at\nthe time it is delivered; and will be greatly affected by any dominant\nidea or feeling, so as even to occasion a complete mis-interpretation of\nthe objective source of the sense-impression, as often occurs in what is\ntermed 'absence of mind.' The following case, mentioned by Dr. Tuke(3)\nas occurring within his own knowledge, affords a good example of this\nfallacy:--'A lady was walking one day from Penryn to Falmouth, and\nher mind being at that time, or recently, occupied by the subject of\ndrinking-fountains, thought she saw\n\n{530}\n\nin the road a newly-erected fountain, and even distinguished an\ninscription upon it, namely--\"_If any man thirst let him come unto me\nand drink_.\" Some time afterwards, she mentioned the fact with pleasure\nto the daughters of a gentleman who was supposed to have erected it.\nThey expressed their surprise at her statement, and assured her that\nshe must be quite mistaken. Perplexed with the contradiction between the\ntestimony of her senses and of those who would have been aware of the\nfact had it been true, and feeling that she could not have been deceived\n(\" for seeing is believing \"), she repaired to the spot, and found to\nher astonishment that no drinking-fountain was in existence--only a\nfew scattered stones, which had formed the foundation upon which the\nsuggestion of an expectant imagination had built the superstructure.\nThe subject having previously occupied her attention, these sufficed to\nform, not only a definite erection, but one inscribed by an appropriate\nmotto corresponding to the leading idea.'\"(1)\n\nWe may give as another illustration an illusion which presented itself\nto Sir Walter Scott(2) He had been reading, shortly after the death of\nLord Byron, an account in a publication professing to detail the habits\nand opinions of the poet. As Scott had been intimate with Lord Byron\nhe was deeply interested in the publication, which contained some\nparticulars relative to himself and other friends. \"Their sitting-room\nopened into an entrance hall, rather fantastically fitted up with\narticles of armour, skins of wild animals, and the like. It was when\nlaying down his book,\n\n{531}\n\nand passing into this hall, through which the moon was beginning to\nshine, that the individual of whom I speak saw, right before him, and\nin a standing posture, the exact representation of his departed friend\nwhose recollection had been so strongly brought to his imagination. He\nstopped for a single moment, so as to notice the wonderful accuracy with\nwhich fancy had impressed upon the bodily eye the peculiarities of dress\nand posture of the illustrious poet. Sensible, however, of the delusion,\nhe felt no sentiment save that of wonder at the extraordinary accuracy\nof the resemblance, and stepped onward towards the figure, which\nresolved itself, as he approached, into the various materials of which\nit was composed. These were merely a screen, occupied by great-coats,\nshawls, plaids and such other articles as usually are found in a country\nentrance-hall. The spectator returned to the spot from which he had seen\nthe illusion, and endeavoured, with all his power, to recall the image\nwhich had been so singularly vivid. But this was beyond his capacity,\"\n&C.1 Although Sir Walter Scott might be sensible of the delusion, it may\nbe more than doubted whether, in the first century of our era, such an\napparition proceeding from or connected with religious agitation of mind\nwould have been considered so.\n\nDr. Abercrombie(2) mentions many instances of spectral illusions, \"some\nof the most authentic facts\" relating to which he classes under the head\nof \"intense mental conceptions so strongly impressed upon the mind as,\nfor the moment, to be believed to have a real existence.\"\n\n{532}\n\nWe cannot, however, venture to quote illustrations.(1) Dr. Hibbert, in\nwhose work on Apparitions many interesting instances are to be found,\nthus concludes his consideration of the conditions which lead to such\nillusions: \"I have at length concluded my observations on what may\nbe considered as the leading mental laws which are connected with the\norigin of spectral impressions. The general inference to be drawn from\nthem is,--that _Apparitions are nothing more than morbid symptoms, which\nare indicative of an intense excitement of the renovated feelings of the\nmind_.\"(2) Subjective visions, believed to have had objective reality,\nabound in the history of the world. They are familiar to all who have\nread the lives of the Saints, and they have accompanied the progress\nof Christianity in various forms from the trances of Montanism to the\nvision of the \"Immaculate Conception\" in the Grotto of Lourdes.\n\nIf we turn to the inquiry whether a similar subjective impression can\nbe received by many persons at one time and be mistaken by them for\nan objective reality, an equally certain reply in the affirmative must\nunhesitatingly be given. The contagiousness of emotion is well known,(3)\nand the rapidity with which panic, for instance, spreads from a\nsingle individual to the mass is remarked every day. The most trifling\nincident, unseen by more than a few and, therefore, more pliant in the\nimagination\n\n     1 Every one remembers the case of Luther and his visions of\n     the Devil.\n\n{533}\n\nof the many, has instantaneously convinced multitudes of the most\nerroneous inferences. We need not refer, moreover, to the numerous\nreligious and other mental epidemics which have swept over the face of\nthe world, infecting society with the wildest delusions. From Montanism\nto camp meetings and revivals in our own day, it has been demonstrated\nthat religious excitement and dominant ideas have spread with\nastonishing rapidity and power amongst the circles in which they have\narisen. In certain states of nervous expectation, false impressions are\ninstantaneously transmitted from one to another in a religious assembly.\nDr. Carpenter says: \"Moreover, if not only a single individual, but\nseveral persons should be 'possessed' by one and the same idea or\nfeeling, the same misinterpretation may be made by all of them; and in\nsuch a case the concurrence of their testimony does not add the least\nstrength to it.--Of this we have a good example in the following\noccurrence cited by Dr. Tuke, as showing the influence of a 'dominant\nidea' in falsifying the perceptions of a number of persons at\nonce:--'During the conflagration at the Crystal Palace in the winter\nof 1866-67, when the animals were destroyed by the fire, it was supposed\nthat the Chimpanzee had succeeded in escaping from his cage. Attracted\nto the roof, with this expectation in full force, men saw the unhappy\nanimal holding on to it, and writhing in agony to get astride one of the\niron ribs. It need not be said that its struggles were watched by those\nbelow with breathless suspense, and as the newspapers informed us 'with\nsickening dread.' But there was no animal whatever there; and all this\nfeeling was thrown away upon a tattered piece of blind, so torn as to\nresemble to the eye of fancy, the body, arms, and legs of an ape!' (Op.\ncit., p. 44.) Another\n\n{534}\n\nexample of a like influence affecting several individuals simultaneously\nin a similar manner is mentioned by Dr. Hibbert in his well-known\nTreatise on Apparitions:--'A whole ship's company was thrown into the\nutmost consternation by the apparition of a cook who had died a few\ndays before. He was distinctly seen walking a-head of the ship, with a\npeculiar gait by which he was distinguished when alive, through having\none of his legs shorter than the other. On steering the ship towards\nthe object, it was found to be a piece of floating wreck.' Many similar\ncases might be referred to, in which the imagination has worked up into\n'apparitions' some common-place objects, which it has invested with\nattributes derived from the previous Mental state of the observer; and\nthe belief in such an apparition as a reality, which usually exists in\nsuch cases, unless antagonized by an effort of the reason, constitutes a\n_delusion_.\"(1)\n\nWe must maintain indeed that a number of persons assembled under the\ninfluence of strong similar ideas, and excited by the same active\nreligious emotion are more likely to be affected by similar subjective\nimpressions to the extent of believing them to be objective than one or\ntwo would be. The excitement of each acts upon the whole body, and is\nitself increased by reaction from the aggregate emotion. Each receives\nimpressions from the other, which are vividly felt even without being\nverified by personal experience. The most nervous temperament in the\nassembly gives the final impetus to the excited imagination of the\nrest. In moments of supreme expectation and doubt, enthusiasm overcomes\nreason. If one man see, if one man hear, the mental impression is\ncredited with an objective cause, even when unfelt by others, and then a\n\n{535}\n\nsimilar impression is soon carried from the brain to the sensorium\nof all. This does not involve the supposition of a diseased mind in\nordinary cases, and in the instances which we have in view the false\nperceptions were, obviously, determined and encouraged by foregone\nconclusions of a nature rarely possible and, when existing, rarely\nresisted. \"There are many persons,\" adds Dr. Carpenter, \"quite sane upon\nordinary matters, and even (it may be) distinguished by some special\nform of ability, who are yet affected with what the writer once heard\nMr. Carlyle term a 'diluted insanity;' allowing their minds to become so\ncompletely 'possessed' by 'dominant ideas,' that their testimony as\nto what they declare themselves to have witnessed--even when several\nindividuals concur in giving exactly the same account of it--must be\nregarded as utterly untrustworthy.\"(1)\n\nThat subjective impressions can, in the opinion of eminent apologists,\nbe recorded by an Evangelist as objective reality, we have already\npointed out in connection with the statement of the first Synoptist,\nthat \"Many bodies of the saints were raised; and they came out of the\nsepulchres after his resurrection and appeared unto many.\" (xxvii. 52\nf.) Dean Milman and Canon Farrar explain this by the supposition that\nthe earthquake \"seemed to have filled the air with ghostly visitants,\nwho after Christ had risen appeared to linger in the Holy City.\"(2) It\nfollows as a logical consequence that, as this subjective impression\nfelt by many at once is described in the Gospel as objective, these\nwriters not only admit the possibility of such a mistake on the part\n\n{536}\n\nof the observers, but that the Gospel, in adopting that mistake, may be\nsuspected of a similar course in recording the appearances of Jesus.\n\nWe have thus replied to the question whether the \"vision hypothesis\"\ncould explain the belief of five hundred, or even of eleven persons who\nsupposed they had seen Jesus at once, and we do not think that any one\nwho seriously considers the Age, and the circumstances under which the\nphenomenon is alleged to have occurred, can doubt that such belief could\nvery easily have resulted from merely subjective impressions. Before\ngoing further into the discussion of the matter, however, we must again,\nwith a little more minuteness, call attention to the date of the actual\nstatements upon which the whole argument turns. The Apostle Paul writes\nabout a quarter of a century after the time when it is said that Jesus\n\"was seen\" by those whom he names. Whatever opinion may be formed as to\nthe amount of information obtained by Paul during the visit he paid to\nJerusalem for the purpose of making the acquaintance of Peter, it is\nundeniable that some years had elapsed between the time when Jesus is\nsupposed to have been seen and the time when Paul could have received\ninformation regarding these appearances from any of the Apostles. If we\ndate the death of Jesus in the year 33, almost the latest date assigned\nto it by any eminent critic, and the conversion of Paul about a.d.\n38-40,(1) it will be remembered that the\n\n{537}\n\nApostle himself states that he did not go to Jerusalem till three years\nafter, which brings us to a.d. 41-43 as the earliest time when Paul\nfirst came in personal contact with Peter and James. He did not go up to\nJerusalem again for fourteen years after that, and we have no reason\nfor believing that he met any of the Apostles in the interval, but the\ncontrary, from his own account of that second visit, Gal. ii. 2. He\ncould not, therefore, have heard anything of the appearances of Jesus\neven from Peter and James till some eight to ten years after they had\ntaken place. From the other Apostles, in all probability, he cannot have\nheard anything till nearly twenty years had elapsed since they supposed\nthey, had seen Jesus.\n\nWhere did he get his information regarding the 500 brethren at once?\nFrom whom did he get it? If the supposed appearance took place, as so\nmany suppose, in Galilee, the date of his information is still more\nuncertain. If, on the other hand, it occurred in Jerusalem, whilst so\nmany of the numbers were visitors only, it is obvious that the greater\npart must subsequently have left the Holy City and become scattered to\ntheir respective homes. The difficulty of obtaining information from\nmore than a few of the 500 becomes obvious. In any case, from no\nauthority which we are entitled to assume could Paul have been minutely\ninformed of these appearances less than eight to ten years after they\noccurred, and then of the vision of the Eleven, only from one of the\nnumber to whom the first vision occurred. Now, no one who considers\nthe operation of memory, even in persons of more than usual sobriety of\nimagination, dealing with circumstances not likely to be exaggerated\nor distorted by feeling in the course of time, can doubt that, in ten\nyears,\n\n{538}\n\nall the circumstances of such occasions, amidst which much excitement\ncertainly prevailed, must have assumed a very different aspect from what\nthey originally bore. We may be permitted to quote a few words on this\nsubject: \"Though we are accustomed to speak of memory as if it consisted\nin an exact reproduction of past states of Consciousness, yet experience\nis continually showing us that this reproduction is very often inexact,\nthrough the modification which the 'trace' has undergone in the\ninterval. Sometimes the trace has been partially obliterated; and what\nremains may serve to give a very erroneous (because imperfect) view of\nthe occurrence..... And where it is one in which our own Feelings are\ninterested, we are extremely apt to lose sight of what goes against\nthem, so that the representation given by Memory is altogether\none-sided. This is continually demonstrated by the entire dissimilarity\nof the accounts of the same occurrence or conversation, which shall be\ngiven by two or more parties concerned in it, even when the matter is\nfresh in their minds, and they are honestly desirous of telling the\ntruth. And this diversity will usually become still more pronounced\nwith the lapse of time: the trace becoming gradually but unconsciously\nmodified by the habitual course of thought and feeling; so that when it\nis so acted on after a lengthened interval as to bring up a reminiscence\nof the original occurrence, that reminiscence really represents, not the\nactual occurrence, but the modified trace of it.\"(1) This is specially\nlikely to occur where, as in our case, there were Old Testament\nprophecies supposed to describe minutely the sufferings, death, and\nresurrection of the Messiah, to furnish lines which the transformation\nof memory must\n\n{539}\n\ninsensibly follow. Unconsciously, we may be certain, the misty outlines\nof the original transaction would acquire consistency and take form\naccording to the tenor of so infallible an index. It would require\na memory of iron and of more than stubborn doggedness to resist the\nunobtrusive influence of supposed prophecies. Be it clearly understood\nthat we speak of an unconscious process, which is perfectly consistent\nwith complete belief that the transformed trace exactly represents what\noriginally took place.\n\nBut adhering more closely to the point before us, can we suppose that\nthe account which Paul received of these appearances, after that lapse\nof time, was a perfectly sober and unwarped description of what actually\ntook place? We think not. Is it possible that the vision of the 500,\nfor instance, had escaped the maturing influence of time? or that of the\nEleven? We believe that it is not possible. However, Paul does not\ngive a single detail, and consequently this argument mainly affects the\nabstract value of all such evidence whether at first or second hand, but\nit likewise makes more vague the original transaction, so indefinitely\nsketched for us, which we have to explain. What was it the 500 really\nsaw? \"Jesus,\" says the report matured by time; and modern divines taking\nthe statement in its most objective sense, demand an explanation of the\nunknown phenomenon which led 500 to believe that they actually saw the\nrisen. Master. Did the 500 originally think anything of the kind? What\nimpression did the individuals receive? Did any two receive precisely\nthe same impressions? There is not the slightest evidence that they did.\nAlthough Paul gives the most meagre report of these appearances that\ncould well be conceived, it must be remembered that the\n\n{540}\n\nimpression made upon his own mind was not by the events themselves, but\nby the narrative of the events recounted at least eight or ten years\nafterwards. There can be po doubt that, earlier, Paul the persecutor\nmust also frequently have heard of the Resurrection, and of alleged\noccasions when Jesus had been seen after his death and burial, from\npersecuted members of the Christian community, but beyond the undefined\ncertainty of this we are not entitled to go. That what he heard must\nhave received warmth of colouring from the fire of persecution is\nmost probable. Of this, however, we shall speak presently. It is not\nnecessary further to enlarge upon the superstition of the age of which\nwe write. We have elsewhere quoted the opinion of an orthodox divine and\nHebrew scholar on the character of the Jewish people about that period.\n\"Not to be more tedious, therefore, in this matter,\" he says, \"let two\nthings only be observed: i. That the nation under the second Temple, was\ngiven to magical arts beyond measure; and ii. That it was given to an\neasiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond measure.\"(1) And\nagain: \"It is a disputable case whether the Jewish nation were more\nmad with superstition in matters of religion, or with superstition in\ncurious arts.\"(2) Even supposing the Twelve to have been men of superior\nintelligence to most of their fellow countrymen of the period, it cannot\nreasonably be questioned that they were \"men of like passions\" and\nfailings with the rest, and that, as were the most eminent men of all\ncountries for centuries after, they were ignorant of the true order of\nnature, full of superstitious ideas regarding cosmical phenomena, and\nready at all times to\n\n{541}\n\nbelieve in miracles and supernatural interference with the affairs of\nlife. As Jews, moreover, they had inherited belief in angelic agency,\nand divine apparitions. The Old Testament is full of narratives in which\nJehovah appears to the Patriarchs and Lawgivers of Israel. Celestial\nvisions had been familiar to every Jew from his infancy, and the\nconstant personal communications of the Almighty with his peculiar\npeople were still the most sacred traditions of the nation.\n\nNursed in the prevalent superstition of the time, educated by the Law\nand the Prophets to familiarity with the supernatural, and prepared by\nthe fervid imagination of their race to recognize wonders in heaven and\nearth,(1) the disciples were naturally prepared for the great Christian\nMiracle. The special circumstances in which they were placed at the\ndeath of Jesus conduced in the highest degree to excite that expectant\nattention which, in their state of profound agitation, rendered them\nreadily susceptible of extraordinary impressions. The disciples had\nfor a long period followed Jesus and felt the influence of his elevated\ncharacter. It may be doubted how far they had entered into the spirit\nof his sublime teaching, or understood the spiritual wisdom which lay\nbeneath the noble simplicity of his language, but it cannot be doubted\nthat his personal greatness must have produced a profound effect upon\ntheir minds. When they came at last to understand, if in a material and\nimperfect way, his views as to his Messianic character, they can have\nhad little difficulty in believing, in spite of the mysterious lowliness\nand humility of his aspect, although probably in a sense widely\ndifferent from his own, that\n\n{542}\n\nthe hope of Israel had at last come, and that the hour of her redemption\nwas at hand. It is probable that, as the enmity of the priests and\nrulers increased, and the danger of his position became more apparent,\nwhilst he disdained unworthily to shrink from his public work, he must\nhave felt all the peril before him, and observed the anxiety of his\nfollowers. It may be conceived that, under such circumstances, his\nteachings may have assumed even a higher spirituality than before and,\nrising above the clouds of the present, soared out into that calmer\nfuture when the religion he founded would be accepted by men, and\nbecome a light to the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel. It\nis probable that he may have spoken of his death in spiritual terms as a\nsacrifice for them and for the world, which would secure the triumph of\nhis work and regenerate mankind. Comforting those who had left all and\nfollowed him, but from whom he might so soon be parted, and knowing\ntheir doubts and fears, he must have re-assured their minds by\ninspiriting views of the inseparable nature of his union with those who\nloved him and did his commandments; his spirit dwelling within them\nand leading them safely through the world, in the peace and security\nof souls raised by the truth beyond the reach of its corruption and its\nwrong.\n\nThat they must have felt the strongest conviction of his Messianic\ncharacter, we think cannot be doubted, however confused may have been\ntheir ideas of the exact nature of his office and of the manner in\nwhich his coming was to secure the triumph of Israel The shock to their\nexpectations and the utter dissipation of their hopes which must have\nbeen felt in the first moment of his arrest, hurried trial, and cruel\n\n{543}\n\ncondemnation can well be imagined. It is probable that in that first\nmoment of terror and bewilderment the disciples indeed all forsook him\nand fled. No one who had consorted with the Great Teacher, however, and\nfelt the influence of his mind, could long have resisted the reaction to\nnobler thoughts of him. In all the bitterness of sorrow for the loss of\ntheir master and friend, in horror at his agonizing and shameful death,\nand in doubt, consternation, and almost despair, they must have gathered\ntogether again and spoken of these strange events. Believing Jesus to\nhave been the Messiah, how could they interpret his death on the cross?\nIf he was the Messiah could he thus die?(1) If Enoch and Elijah, if\nMoses, precursors of the Messiah, had not seen death, how could that\nprophet like unto Moses whom Jehovah had raised up end his career by a\nshameful death on the cross?\n\nThroughout that time of fiery trial and supreme mental agitation, they\nmust have perpetually sought in their own minds some explanation of the\nterrible events then occurring and seeming to blast all their hopes,\nand doubtless mystic utterances of Jesus must have assumed new meanings,\nmeanings probably different from his own. In the accounts of the coming\nMessiah in the prophets, they must have searched for some light by which\nto solve the inexplicable problem. Is it not conceivable that, in that\nlast time of danger and darkness, when he saw the persecution against\nhim become more vehement, and felt that the path which he had chosen\nled him through danger and distress perhaps to death, Jesus may, in the\nbitter contemplation of that fanatical opposition of bigotry and\n\n{544}\n\nsuperstition have applied to himself the description of the suffering\nservant of Jehovah, suffering--as all noble souls have done who are\nin advance of their age, and preach great truths which condemn either\ndirectly or by implication the vices and follies of their time,--\"the\noppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,\" and, worse still, the\nignoble insults of popular ignorance and fickleness? Here might seem to\nthem the solution of the enigma; and returning from that first flight of\nterror and bewilderment, feeling all the intense reaction of affection\nand grief and faith in the Master quickened by shame at their\nabandonment of him in his moment of supreme danger and affliction,\nstill believing that he must be the Messiah, and in mute longing and\nexpectation of the next events which were to confirm or confound their\nhopes, the disciples must have been in the climax of nervous agitation\nand excitement, and ready to receive any impression which might be\nsuggested in their embarrassment.(1)\n\nAccording to Paul it was Peter who first saw the risen Jesus. According\nto the first and fourth Gospels, the first appearance was to the women,\nand notably, in the latter, to Mary Magdalene out of whom had been cast\n\"seven devils,\" and whose temperament probably rendered her unusually\nsusceptible of all such impressions. Did Paul intentionally omit all\nmention of the appearances to the women, or did he not know of them?\nIn the latter case, we have an instructive light thrown on the Gospel\ntradition; in the former, the first suggestion\n\n     1 Ewald points out that, according to the belief of the\n     period, the souls of the dead hovered for a time between\n     heaven and earth, and he considers that the belief\n     undeniably played an important part in this sphere of\n     visions of the Christ    Gesch. d. V. Isr., vi. p. 72 a.\n\n{545}\n\nof the Resurrection becomes even more clearly intelligible. It will be\nobserved that in all this explanation we are left chiefly to conjecture,\nfor the statements in the Gospels cannot, upon any point, be used with\nthe slightest confidence. On the other hand, all that is demanded is\nthat a probable or possible explanation of the origin of the belief in\nthe Resurrection should be given; and in the total absence of historical\ndata we are entitled to draw inferences as to the course of events at\nthe time. It may well be that a mistake as to the sepulchre, rendered\nnot improbable if any hint of the truth be conveyed in the conflicting\ntraditions of the Gospel, or one of many other suggestions which might\nbe advanced, might lead the women or Peter to believe that the sepulchre\nwas empty. Or some other even trifling circumstance, which we no longer\ncan indicate with precision, might convey to the women or to Peter, in\ntheir state of nervous excitement, the last impulse wanting to cause\nthat rapid revulsion from extreme depression, which is so suitable to\nthe state which we may perhaps be allowed to call creative subjectivity.\nIf we are to accept the indications scattered about the New Testament,\nthe impetuous ardent temperament of Peter was eminently one to bound\ninto sudden ecstatic enthusiasm, and in all probability some commonplace\nor trifling incident may have been the spark which kindled into flame\nthe materials already at glowing heat. The strong subjective impression\nthat Jesus had risen would create a vision of him which, at once\nconfirming previous conclusions, resolving perplexing doubts and\nsatisfying feverish expectations, would be accepted by each mind with\nlittle or no question as an objective reality. If Peter, or even the\n\n{546}\n\nwomen, brought to the disciples the assurance that they had seen the\nLord, we cannot doubt that, in the unparalleled position in which they\nwere then placed, under all the circumstances of intense feeling and\nreligious excitement at the moment, such emotions would be suddenly\ncalled into action as would give to these men the impression that they\nhad seen the Master whom they had lost. These subjective impressions\nwould be strengthened daily and unconsciously into ever more objective\nconsistency, and being confirmed by supposed prophecy would be affirmed\nwith a confidence insensibly inspired by dogmatic considerations.1 That\nthe news would fly from believer to believer, meeting everywhere excited\nattention and satisfying eager expectancy, is certain; and that these\ndevout souls, swayed by every emotion of glad and exultant enthusiasm,\nwould constantly mistake the suggestions of their own thoughts for\nobjective realities is probable. Jesus died, was buried, and rose again\n\"according to the Scriptures.\" This would harden every timid supposition\ninto assurance; and as time went on, what was doubtful would become\ncertain, what was mysterious, clear; and those who had seen nothing\nwould take up and strengthen the tradition of those who had seen the\nLord.\n\nIt is argued that there was not time for the preparation of the\ndisciples to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus between his\ncrucifixion and \"the third day,\" when that event is alleged to have\noccurred, and, consequently, no probability of subjective impressions of\nso unexpected a nature being received. To those\n\n{547}\n\napologists who adopt this argument we might point to many passages in\nthe Gospels, which affirm that the resurrection on the third day was\npredicted. These, however, we assign of course to a later date. The\nargument assumes that there was no preparation in the teaching of Jesus,\nwhich, as we have endeavoured to suggest, is not the case. If there had\nbeen no other, the mere assurance that he was the Messiah must have led\nto reflections, which demanded some other sequel to his career than the\ndeath of a slave. The mere suggestion of such a problem as must have\nproposed itself to the minds of the disciples: If all is to end\nhere, Jesus was not the Messiah: if he was the Messiah, what will now\nhappen?--must have led to expectant attention. But there was much\nmore than this. In such moments as those of the Passion, thought works\nfeverishly and fast. It is not to be supposed that Peter and the rest\ndid not foresee the end, when Jesus was led away prisoner in the hands\nof his enemies. It is still less to be imagined that their minds\nwere not ceaselessly revolving that problem, on the solution of which\ndepended their fondest hopes and highest aspirations.1 It is most\nprobable, indeed, that no time could have found the disciples in a state\nso ripe for strong impressions as that immediately succeeding the death\nof their Master. There are, however, other aspects in which this point\nmay be placed. What evidence is there that Jesus was seen, or supposed\nto have been seen, on the third day? Absolutely none worthy of the name.\nPaul does not say that he was, and as for the Gospels their\n\n{548}\n\nstatement is of no value, and the tradition which they record may be\nset down as a foregone dogmatic con-elusion. Paul very distinctly shows\nthis. He says: \"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also\nreceived, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and\nthat he was buried, and that he has been raised the third day, according\nto the Scriptures.\"(1) The repetition of the phrase \"according to the\nScriptures\" is very marked, and points to the fact that the purpose for\nwhich Jesus died--\"for our sins\"--and the date of his resurrection--\"the\nthird day\"--are statements directly based upon Scripture. We have\nmentioned that the Scriptures supposed to indicate the third day, do\nnot really apply to the Messiah at all, but this does not affect the\nquestion before us. Now believing this epoch to be defined in prophecy,\nthis is precisely one of those points upon which memory would, in the\nlapse of time, be most likely to adjust itself to the prophecy. We will\nassume that Jesus was not \"seen\" before the third day. It is obvious\nthat if he was seen forty days after, it might be affirmed that he had\nbeen actually raised long before, on the third day. The vision occurring\non the third day itself, even, could not prove that he had not \"risen\"\nbefore. There is, in fact, no way that we can see of fixing the third\nday except the statement ol \"Scripture,\" and, the moment we accept that,\nwe must recognize the force of dogmatic influence.(2) The fact that the\nthird day has from early\n\n     2 We do not go into any argument based on the order given in\n     the first two Synoptics to go into Galilee--a three\n     days' journey at least--where the disciples were to see\n     Jesus. Nor need we touch upon other similar points which\n     arise out of the narratives of the Gospels.\n\n{549}\n\ntimes been set apart as the Christian Sabbath, does not prove anything.\nIf the third day was believed to be the day indicated by \"Scripture\" for\nthe Resurrection, of course that day would be selected as the time at\nwhich it must have occurred, and on which it should be commemorated. So\nfar as the vision hypothesis is concerned, the day is of no consequence\nwhatever, and the objection upon this point has no force.\n\nThere is another consideration which we must mention, which is not\nonly important in connection with an estimate of the evidence for\nthe Resurrection, but the inferences from which clearly support the\nexplanation we are proposing. Before stating it we may, in passing,\nagain refer to the fact that it is nowhere affirmed that anyone was an\neye-witness of the actual Resurrection. It is supposed to be proved by\nthe circumstance that Jesus was subsequently \"seen.\" Observe, however,\nthat the part of this miracle which could not well have been ascribed to\nsubjective impressions--the actual resurrection--is, naturally enough,\nnot seen by anyone, but that which comes precisely within the scope of\nsuch subjective action is said to have been seen by many. To come at\nonce to our point, however, neither Paul, nor the Gospels, nor Christian\ntradition in any form, pretends that Jesus was seen by any one but his\ndisciples and those who believed in him. In fact, Jesus only appeared to\nthose who were prepared by faith and expectant attention to see him in\nthe manner we assert. We are at present merely speaking of the earlier\nappearances, and reserving Paul for separate discussion. Why, we may\ninquire, did Jesus not appear to his\n\n{550}\n\nenemies as well as to his friends?(1) Nothing of course could have been\nmore intelligible than his desire to comfort and reassure those who\nbelieved in and mourned for him, but to do this by no means excluded\na wider manifestation of himself, supposing him to have actually risen\nfrom the dead. On the hypothesis that he only rose again and was seen\nthrough the yearning and enthusiastic faith of his followers, the reason\nwhy he was not seen by others is not hard to find. Yet it might be\nthought that the object of at once establishing beyond doubt his\nsupernatural mission, and convincing his enemies of their crime, and the\nJews of their blindness and folly, was important enough. Had he shown\nhimself to the Chief Priests and elders, and confounded the Pharisees\nwith the vision of him whom they had so cruelly nailed to the accursed\ntree, how might not the future of his followers have been smoothed, and\nthe faith of many made strong! Or if he had stood again in the Courts of\nthe Roman Procurator, no longer a prisoner buffeted and spat upon, but\nthe glorious Messiah, beyond the reach of Jewish malignity or Roman\ninjustice. But no, he was seen by none but those devoted to him. We\nshall of course be told by apologists that this also was \"for the trial\nof our faith;\" though to anyone who earnestly reflects, it must seem\nchildish to ask men to believe what is beyond their reason, yet conceal\nthe evidence by which reason is supposed to be guided. The reply,\nhowever, is clear: for the trial of our faith or for any other reason,\nit is nevertheless certain that this evidence does not exist.\n\n{551}\n\nWhen the argument which we are now discussing was first advanced long\nago by Celsus, Origen had no better refutation than, after admitting the\nfact that Jesus was not after his resurrection seen as before publicly\nand by all men, to take refuge in the belief that the passage of\nPaul regarding his appearances contains wonderful mysteries which, if\nunderstood, would explain why Jesus did not show himself after that\nevent as he had done before it.(1)\n\nWe must now proceed to show that the vision of Paul is satisfactorily\nexplained by the same hypothesis.(2) We have already proved that there\nis no evidence of any value that Paul's conversion was due to his\nhaving seen Jesus in a manner which he believed to be objective and\nsupernatural. To represent the arch persecutor Paul transformed in\na moment, by a miraculous vision of Jesus, into the Apostle of the\nGentiles was highly characteristic of the author of\n\n     1 Contra Cels., ii. 63. It is curious that, in an earlier\n     chapter, Origen, discussing the question of Celsus,--whether\n     any one who had been actually dead had ever risen with a\n     real body, says that if Celsus had been a Jew who believed\n     that Elijah and Elisha had raised little children he could\n     not have advanced this objection. Origen adds that he thinks\n     the reason why Jesus appeared to no other nation but the\n     Jews was, that they had become accustomed to miracles, and\n     could, by comparing the works of Jesus and what was told of\n     him with what had been done before, recognize that he was\n     greater than all who had preceded him.   ii. 57.\n\n{552}\n\nActs, who further represents Paul as immediately preaching publicly in\nDamascus and confounding the Jews. Widely different is the statement of\nPaul. He distinctly affirms that he did not communicate with flesh and\nblood, nor went he up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before\nhim, but that he immediately went away into Arabia. The Fathers\ndelighted in representing this journey to Arabia as an instance of\nPaul's fervour and eagerness to preach the Gospel in lands over which\nits sound had not yet gone forth. There can be no doubt, however, we\nthink, that Paul's journey to Arabia and his sojourn there were for\nthe purpose of reflection.(1) It is only in legends that instantaneous\nspiritual revolutions take place. In sober history the process is more\nslow and progressive. We repeat that there is no evidence which can at\nall be accepted that Paul's conversion was effected by a vision, and\nthat it is infinitely more probable that it was, so to say, merely\ncompleted and crowned by seeing Jesus; but, at the same time, even if\nthe view be held that this vision was the decisive circumstance which\ninduced Paul at once to resign his course of persecution and embrace\nChristianity, our argument is not materially affected. In any case, much\nsilent, deep, and almost unconscious preparation for the change must\nlong before have proceeded in the mind of Paul, which was finally\nmatured in the Arabian waste. Upon no view that is taken can this be\nexcluded; upon every ground of common sense, experience, and necessary\ninference, it must be admitted.\n\n{553}\n\nIndifference is the only great gulf which separates opinions. There was\nno stolid barrier of apathy between Saul of Tarsus and belief in the\nMessiah-ship of Jesus. In persecuting Christianity, Paul proved two\nthings: the earnestness and energy of his convictions, and the fact\nthat his attention was keenly directed to the new sect. Both points\ncontributed to the result we are discussing. Paul's Judaism was no mere\nformalism. It was the adoption, heart and soul, of the religion of\nhis people; which was to him no dead principle, but a living faith\nstimulating that eager impetuous character to defend its integrity with\n\"fire and sword.\" He did not, like so many of his countrymen, turn away\nwith scorn from the followers of the despised Nazarene and leave them\nto their delusion; but turned to them, on the contrary, with the fierce\nattraction of the zealot whose own belief is outraged by the misbelief\nof others. The earnest Jew came into sharp collision with the earnest\nChristian. The earnestness of each was an element of mutual respect. The\nendurance and firmness of the one might not melt the bigoted resolution\nof the other, but it arrested his attention and commanded his\nunconscious sympathy. Just so would the persecutor have endured and\nresisted persecution; so, subsequently, he actually did meet it. And\nwhat was the main difference between the persecutor and the persecuted?\nIt consisted in that which constituted the burden of the apostolic\npreaching: the belief that \"this was the Christ.\" The creed of the new\nsect at least was not complicated. It was little more at that time\nthan a question of identity, until Paul himself developed it into an\nelaborate system of theology.\n\n{554}\n\nIn this question of identity, however, there was comprised a vast change\nof national ideas. To the devout Jew,--looking for the hope of Israel,\nyearning and praying for the advent of that Son of David who was to\nsit upon the throne of his fathers, restore the fortunes of the people,\ndrive out the heathen and subdue the nations again to the yoke of\nIsrael, establishing the worship of Jehovah in its purity and turning\nthe Gentiles to the service of the God of Gods,--it was an abhorrent\nthought that the lowly peasant who had died a shameful death on Golgotha\nshould be represented as the Messiah, the promised King of the Jews.\nStill there was something sufficiently startling in the idea to excite\nreflection. A political aspirant, who pretended to play the part, and\nafter some feeble attempt at armed insurrection had been crushed by the\nheel of the Roman, could not have attracted attention. In that, there\nwould have been no originality to astonish, and no singularity to\nrequire explanation. This man, on the contrary, who was said to be the\nMessiah, assumed no earthly dignity; claimed no kingdom in this world;\nhad not even a place to lay his head; but ended a short and unambitious\ncareer as the teacher of a simple but profound system of morality by\ndeath on a cross. There was no vulgar imitation here. This was the\nreverse of the Messiah of the Jews. In spite of so much dissimilarity,\nhowever, there was in the two parties a fundamental agreement of belief.\nThe Jew expected the Messiah; the Christian believed he had now come.\nThe Messiah expected by the Jew was certainly a very different Saviour\nfrom the despised and rejected Jesus of Nazareth, but at the root of the\n\n{555}\n\nChristian faith lay belief in a Messiah. It was a thoroughly Jewish\nbelief, springing out of the covenant with the fathers, and based upon\nthe Law and the Prophets. The difference was not one of principle but\none of details. Their interpretation of the promises was strangely\ndissimilar, but the trust of both was in the God of Israel. To pass from\none to the other did not involve the adoption of a new religion, but\nmerely a modification of the views of the old. Once convinced that\nthe Messiah was not a political ruler but a spiritual guide, not a\nvictorious leader, but a suffering servant of Jehovah, the transition\nfrom judaic hopes to recognition of Jesus was almost accomplished.\n\nIt is clear that Paul in his capacity of Persecutor must have become\nwell acquainted with the views of the Christians, and probably must\nhave heard them repeatedly expounded by his captives before the Jewish\nSanhedrin.1 He must have heard the victims of his blind religious zeal\naffirming their faith with all that ecstatic assurance which springs out\nof persecution. The vision of Peter contributed to the vision of\nPaul. There can be no doubt that Paul must have become aware of the\napplication to Jesus of Old Testament prophecies, and of the new\nconception thence derived of a suffering Messiah. The political horizon\nwas certainly not suggestive of the coming of the Lord's Anointed. Never\nhad the fortunes of Israel been at a lower ebb. The hope of a Prince of\nthe house of David to restore dominion to the fallen race was hard to\nentertain. The suggestion of an alternative theory based upon a new\ninterpretation of the prophets, if startling, was not untimely, when the\nold confidence\n\n{556}\n\nwas becoming faint in many minds, and the hope of his coming seemed so\ndistant and unsure. If we do not misjudge the character of Paul, however\nshocked he may have been at first by the substitution of a crucified\nNazarene for the triumphant Messiah of his earlier visions, there must\nhave been something profoundly pleasing to his mind in the conception of\na spiritual Messiah. As he became familiar with the idea, it is probable\nthat flashes of doubt must have crossed his mind as to the correctness\nof his more material views. If the belief were true, which Christians\nprofessed, that this Jesus, despised and rejected of men, was actually\nthe suffering servant of Jehovah, and this servant of Jehovah the\nMessiah! If the claim of this Jesus who had been esteemed smitten of God\nand afflicted, had been verified by his rising again from the dead and\nascending to the right hand of God! This aspect of the Messianic idea\nhad a mystery and significance congenial to the soul of Paul. The\nsupernatural elements could have presented no difficulties to him.\nBelief in the Resurrection was part of his creed as a Pharisee. That the\nrisen Messiah should have been seen by many, the fundamental idea once\nadmitted, could not surprise the visionary Jew. We can well imagine\nthe conflict which went on in the ardent mind of Paul when doubts first\nentered it; his resistance and struggle for the faith of his youth;\nthe pursuance as duty of the course he had begun, whilst the former\nconviction no longer strengthened the feverish energy; the excitement of\nreligious zeal in the mad course of persecution, not to be arrested in\na moment, but become, by growing doubt, bitterness and pain to him; the\nsuffering\n\n{557}\n\ninflicted sending its pang into his own flesh. There was ample\npreparation in such a situation for the vision of Paul.\n\nThe constitution and temperament of the Apostle were eminently\ncalculated to receive impressions of the strongest description.(1) We\nhave mentioned the conjecture of many able men that his \"stake in the\nflesh\" was a form of epilepsy. It is, of course, but a conjecture,\nthough one which has great probability,(2) and we must not treat it\notherwise; but, if it could be proved correct, much light would be\nthrown upon Paul's visions. We have discussed the Apostle's statements\nregarding the supernatural Charismata in the Church, and have seen his\nextreme readiness to believe in the lavish bestowal of miraculous gifts\nwhere others could recognise but ordinary qualities. That Paul should\nbe able to claim the power of speaking with tongues more than all the\nCorinthians, whose exercise of that spiritual gift he so unceremoniously\nrestrains, is in perfect keeping with all that we elsewhere learn about\nhim. Everywhere we find the keenly impressionable nature so apt to\nfall into the ecstatic state when brought under the influence of active\nreligious emotion. \"I must glory,\" he exclaims with irresistible impulse\non coming to a theme so congenial to him, \"I must glory; it is not\nindeed expedient, but I will come to visions and revelations of the\nLord.\"(3) Even when he speaks of the stake in his flesh, which he does\nin such suggestive connection with his visions, he describes it as sent\nlest he should \"be exalted above measure by the\n\n{558}\n\nexcess of the revelations.\"(1) We have so repeatedly had to refer to\nPaul's claim to have received his Gospel by special revelation that we\nneed not again speak of it here. If we could quote Acts as a genuine\nrepresentation of Christian tradition regarding Paul, we might point out\nthe visions and revelations therein so freely ascribed to him, but\nhis own writings are amply sufficient for our purpose. Even his second\njourney to Jerusalem is attributed to the direction of revelation.(2)\n\nThe only vision regarding which the Apostle gives any particulars is\nthat referred to, 2 Cor. xii. 2: \"I know a man in Christ above fourteen\nyears ago (whether in the body I know not, whether out of the body\nI know not, God knoweth), such an one caught up even unto the third\nheaven. 3. And I know such a man (whether in the body or out of the body\nI know not, God knoweth), 4. that he was caught up into paradise and\nheard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5.\nFor such an one will I boast,\" etc.(3) It has been argued from this\npassage and the repetition of the expression \"whether in the body or\nout of the body I know not,\" that Paul himself could clearly distinguish\nobjective facts from subjective impressions.(4) No interpretation could\nwell be more erroneous. It is evident that Paul has no doubt whatever of\nhis having been in the third heaven and in Paradise, and as little of\n\n{559}\n\nhis having heard the unspeakable words. That is quite objectively real\nto him. His only doubt is whether the body was caught up with his\nsoul upon this occasion.(1) No one who has carefully considered such\nphenomena and examined the statements here made can have any doubt as to\nthe nature of this vision. The conception of being caught up into \"the\nthird heaven,\" \"into Paradise,\" and there hearing these \"unspeakable\nwords which it is not lawful for a man to utter,\" betrays in no doubtful\nmanner the source of the subjective impressions. Of course, divines who\nare prepared to see in this passage the account of an actual objective\nevent will not consider it evidence that Paul had subjective visions\nwhich he believed to have been objective facts; but to those who, more\nrightly and reasonably, we think, recognize the subjective character of\nthe vision, it must at once definitely settle the point that Paul could\nmistake subjective impressions for objective realities, and consequently\nthe argument for the similar subjectivity of the vision of Jesus becomes\ncomplete. The possibility of such a mistake is precisely what apologists\nquestion. Here is an instance in which the mistake has clearly been made\nby Paul.\n\nThe Apostle's own statements show him to have been superlatively\nvisionary and impressionable, with restless nervous energy it is true,\nbut, at the same time, with keen physical and mental susceptibility.\nLiable to be uplifted by \"the excess of revelations,\" glorying in\n\"visions and revelations of the Lord,\" possessing ecstatic\n\n{560}\n\npowers more than all others, subjecting his very movements, his visits\nto Jerusalem, to the direction of impulses which he supposed to be\nrevelations: there has never been a case in which both temperament\nand religious belief more thoroughly combined to ascribe, with perfect\nconviction, objective reality to subjective impressions connected with\ndivine things then occupying his mind.\n\nPaul moreover lived in a time when the Messianic longing of the Jews\nled them to be profoundly interested students of the later apocalyptic\nwritings, which certainly made a deep impression upon the Apostle, and\nin which he must have been struck by the image of the promised Messiah,\nlike the Son of Man, coming on the clouds of heaven (Dan. vii. 13, cf.\n1 Cor. xv. 47).(1) At no time was such a vision more likely to present\nitself to him, than when his mind was fixed upon the Messianic idea with\nall the intensity of one who had been persecuting those who asserted\nthat the Messiah had already come. Here was reason for all that\nconcentration of thought upon the subject which produces such visions:\nand when doubt and hesitation entered into that eager intense spirit,\nthe conflict must have been sharp and the nerves highly strung. The\nJesus whom he saw with his mind's eye was the climax of conviction\nin such a nature; and the vision vividly brought to him his own\nself-reproachful thoughts for cruelly mistaken zeal, and the remorse of\nnoble souls which bounds to reparation. He devoted himself as eagerly\nto Christianity, as he had previously done to Judaism. He changed the\ncontents but not the form of his mind.(2) Paul the\n\n{561}\n\nChristian was the same man as Paul the Jew; and in abandoning the\nconception of a Messiah \"according to the flesh,\" and placing his\nwhole faith in one \"according to the spirit,\" he displayed the same\ncharacteristics as before. The revolution in his mind, of which so much\nis said, was merely one affecting the Messianic idea. He did not at\na bound become the complete Apostle of the Gentiles, but accepting at\nfirst nothing more than belief in a Messiah according to the spirit, his\ncomprehensive and peculiar system of theology was, \"of course, only the\nresult of subsequent reflection. That his conviction should have been\ncompleted by a subjective vision is no more strange than that he should\nbelieve in supernatural Charismata, miraculous speaking with tongues,\nand being actually caught up into the third heaven, into Paradise, and\nhearing there unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to\nutter. Paul evidently never questioned the source of his visions. They\nwere simply accepted as divine revelations, and they excited all the\nless of misgiving in his soul from the fact that, without doubt, they\nexpressed the expected solution of problems which intensely occupied his\nmind, and reflected conclusions already practically formed by his own\nthoughts.(1)\n\nThere remain two points to be briefly considered.\n\n{562}\n\nThe first of these is the assertion, constantly made in various shapes,\nthat the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and Ascension were\nproclaimed as unquestionable facts, without contradiction, at a time\nwhen such an assertion might have been easily refuted. The production of\nthe body, the still occupied sepulchre, it is said, would have set such\npretensions at rest It is unnecessary to say that the proclamation\nof the Resurrection and Ascension as facts proved nothing beyond\nthe belief, perhaps, of those who asserted them. So far as Paul is\nconcerned, we may seek in vain for any assertion of a bodily Ascension.\nBut there is not the slightest evidence to show when the Resurrection\nand Ascension were first publicly proclaimed as unquestionable facts.\nEven the Gospels do not state that they were mentioned beyond the\ncircle of disciples. The second Synoptist, who does not state that Jesus\nhimself was seen by any one, makes the curious affirmation at the\nclose of his Gospel as we have it, that the women, on receiving the\nannouncement of the Resurrection from the angels, and the command for\nthe disciples and Peter to go into Galilee, \"went out and fled from the\nsepulchre; for trembling and astonishment seized them, and they said\nnothing to any one; for they were afraid.\"(1) In the fourth Gospel,\nalthough the \"beloved disciple\" went into the sepulchre, \"and he saw and\nbelieved,\" it is related of him and Peter: \"So the disciples went away\nagain unto their own home.\"(2) The Eleven, in fact, who all forsook\ntheir Master and fled--who are represented as meeting with closed doors\n\"for fear of the Jews\"--with closed doors after eight days, it is\nagain said, although, a week before, ten of them are said to have seen\nJesus--were not likely to expose\n\n{563}\n\nthemselves to the fate of Jesus by rushing into the highways and\nasserting the Resurrection. Beyond the statement of the Gospels, the\nvalue of which we have seen, and a statement accompanied by so many\nconfused circumstances, there is no evidence whatever that the sepulchre\nwas found empty. There is no evidence that the sepulchre was really\nknown to the disciples, none of whom, probably, was present at the\ncrucifixion; and it might well be inferred that the women, who are\nrepresented as ignorant that the body had already been embalmed, yet\nwho are the chief supposed witnesses for the empty sepulchre and the\ninformants of the disciples, were equally ignorant of the sepulchre in\nwhich the body was laid. We might ask whether the 500 brethren who are\nsaid to have seen Jesus at the same time came from Galilee, or wherever\nthey were, and examined the state of the sepulchre? We have already\nsaid, however, that if the sepulchre had been shown to be empty, the\nvery last thing which could be proved by that circumstance would be the\ncorrectness of the assertion that it had become so in consequence of a\nstupendous miracle. On the other hand, if it had been shown that it was\noccupied by a body, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the fact would\nhave convinced any one not previously sure that Jesus could not have\nrisen from the dead, and he would not have required such evidence. When\nthe Resurrection was publicly proclaimed as a fact, the body could\nno longer have been recognizable, and the idea that any of those in\nauthority could have thought such demonstration necessary to refute a\nstory whispered about amongst an obscure sect in Jerusalem, or even\nmore courageously asserted, is a product of later times. When Jesus of\nNazareth, the head of the nascent sect, was suppressed\n\n{564}\n\nby a shameful death, his humble and timid followers were obviously for\na time despised; and there is little reason to suppose that the chief\npriests and rulers of the Jews would have condescended to any public\ncontradiction of their affirmations, if they had even felt indifference\nto the defilement of exposing for such a purpose a decaying body to\nthe gaze of Jerusalem. This kind of refutation is possible only in the\nimagination of divines. Besides, what evidence is there that even a\nsingle indifferent person found the sepulchre empty? There is not an\niota of proof.\n\nOn the contrary, there is the very strongest evidence that when the\nassertion of the Resurrection and Ascension as \"unquestionable facts\"\nwas made, it was contradicted in the only practical and practicable way\nconceivable: (1.) by all but universal disbelief in Jerusalem; (2.)\nby actual persecution of those who asserted it. It is a perfectly\nundeniable fact that the great mass of the Jews totally denied the\ntruth of the statement by disbelieving it, and that the converts to\nChristianity who soon swelled the numbers of the Church and spread its\ninfluence amongst the nations were not the citizens of Jerusalem, who\nwere capable of refuting such assertions, but strangers and Gentiles.\nThe number of the community of Jerusalem after the forty days seems to\nbe stated by the author of Acts as \"about 120,\" and although the numbers\nadded to the Church, according to this document, are evidently fabulous,\nthe converts at Pentecost are apparently chiefly from amongst the devout\nmen of every nation upon earth congregated at Jerusalem. To this\nhour the Jews have retained as their inheritance the denial by their\nforefathers of the asserted facts. The assertion, secondly, was\nemphatically denied by the persecution, as soon as it\n\n{565}\n\nbecame worth any one's while to persecute, of those who made it. It\nwas in this way denied by Paul himself, at a time when verification was\ninfinitely more possible than when he came to join in the assertion. Are\nwe to suppose that the Apostle took no trouble to convince himself of\nthe facts before he began to persecute? He was in the confidence of the\nhigh priests it seems, can he ever have heard the slightest doubt from\nthem on the subject? Is it not palpable that Paul and his party, by\ntheir very pursuit of those who maintained such allegations, stigmatized\nthem as falsehoods, and perhaps as imposture? If it be said that Paul\nbecame convinced of his mistake, it is perfectly obvious that his\nconversion was not due to local and circumstantial evidence, but to\ndogmatic considerations and his supposed vision of Jesus. He disbelieved\nwhen the alleged occurrences were recent and, as it is said, capable of\nrefutation; he believed when the time for such refutation had passed.\n\nThe second point to which we have referred is the vague and final\nobjection of apologists that, if the vision of Jesus was merely\nsubjective, the fabric of the Church and even of Christianity is based\nupon unreality and self-deception. Is this possible? they ask. Is it\npossible that for eighteen centuries the Resurrection and Ascension\nhave been proclaimed and believed by millions, with no other original\nfoundation than self-delusion? The vagueness and apparent vastness of\nthis objection, perhaps, make it a formidable _argumentum ad hominem_,\nbut it vanishes into very small proportions as we approach it. Must\nwe then understand that the dogmas of all religions which have been\nestablished must have been objective truths? and that this is a\nnecessary inference from their wide adoption? If so, then all\n\n{566}\n\nhistorical religions before Christianity, and after it, must take rank\nas substantially true. In that case the religion of the Veda, of Buddha,\nof Zoroaster, of Mahomet, for instance, can as little be based on\nunreality and self-deception as Christianity. They have secured wide\nacceptance from mankind. Millions have for centuries devoutly held their\ntenets, and to this day the followers of Sakya Muni are as numerous as\nthe believers in the religion of Paul. If not, the objection at once\nfalls to the ground as an argument, and the problem becomes a simple\nmatter of evidence, which has been fully discussed and disposed of.\n\nWhen we analyse the fact, it becomes apparent that, ultimately, belief\nin the Resurrection and Ascension resolves itself into the belief of a\nfew or of one. It requires very little reflection to perceive that the\nChristian Church is founded much more upon belief in the Resurrection\nthan on the fact itself.(1) Nothing is more undeniable than the\ncircumstance that not more than a very small number of men are even\nalleged to have seen the risen Jesus. The mass of those who have\nbelieved in the Resurrection have done so because of the assurance of\nthese few men, and perhaps because they may have been led to think that\nthe event was predicted in Scripture. Up to this day, converts to the\ndogma are made, if made at all, upon the assurance of Paul and the\nGospels. The vast question at last dwindles down to the inquiry: Can a\nfew men, can one man, draw erroneous inferences and be honestly deceived\nby something supposed to have been seen? We presume that there can be no\nhesitation in giving an affirmative reply. The rest follows as a matter\nof\n\n{567}\n\ncourse. Others simply believe the report of those who have believed\nbefore them. In course of time, so many believe that it is considered\nalmost outrageous to disbelieve or demand evidence. The number of those\nwho have believed is viewed at last as an overwhelming proof of the\ntruth of the creed.\n\nIt is a most striking and extraordinary fact that the life and teaching\nof Jesus have scarcely a place in the system of Paul. Had we been\ndependent upon him we should have had no idea of the Great Master who\npreached the Sermon on the Mount, and embodied pure truths in parables\nof such luminous simplicity. His noble morality would have remained\nunknown, and his lessons of rare spiritual excellence have been lost to\nthe world. Paul sees no significance in that life, but concentrates all\ninterest in the death and resurrection of his Messiah. In the sepulchre\nhewn out of the rock are deposited the teaching and example of Jesus,\nand from it there rises a mystic Christ lost in a halo of theology.\nThe ecclesiastical Christianity which was mainly Paul's work has almost\neffaced the true work of Jesus. Too little can now be traced of that\nteaching, and few are the genuine records of his work which have\nsurvived the pious enthusiasm evoked by his character. Theology has done\nits worst with the life; and that death, which will ever be the\ndarkest blot upon history, has been represented as the climax of divine\nbeneficence. The Resurrection and Ascension have deified Jesus of\nNazareth; but they have done so at the expense of all that was most\ntruly sublime in his work.\n\n{568}\n\nThe world will gain when it recognises the real character and source of\nsuch dogmas, and resigns this inheritance from the Age of Miracles. For,\nalthough we lose a faith which has long been our guide in the past, we\nneed not now fear to walk boldly with Truth in the future, and turning\naway from fancied benefits to be derived from the virtue of his death,\nwe may find real help and guidance from more earnest contemplation of\nthe life and teaching of Jesus.\n\n{569}\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS.\n\nWe have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or\nconceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we\ncould not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which\nare essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested\nin any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as divine.\nIt is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the\nspecific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of\nwhich is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its\ndoctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be\npronounced \"the wildest delusions.\" \"By no rational being could a\njust and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing\nannouncements.\"\n\nOn examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine\nRevelation, however, we find that even if the actual occurrence of the\nsupposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would\nbe destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited\nto one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are\nperformed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and\nare not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive\nand for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed\n\n{570}\n\nare beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved\nby the human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and\ninconclusive a nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would\ndisqualify the Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are\ncapable of performing.\n\nThe supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover,\nis not only without any special divine character, being avowedly common\nalso to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or\ndetails. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the\nfirst promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for\ncenturies after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has\nflowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed\nthrough the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has\nentered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and\ncommonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian\nmiracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to\nconvince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed.\nThe selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more\ncharacteristic of human weakness than of divine power.\n\nThe true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that\ntheir supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance\nand superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or\nplace where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and\nascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There is\nnot the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate the\nsupposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so freely\ndrawn from them, nor is there any reason to\n\n{571}\n\nbelieve that the witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the\nfulness of knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose.\nNo miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent\nreality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of\nimagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles,\nconnected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all\nmiraculous pretension.\n\nThere is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural\ninterference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have\nsprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a\nsingle valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates\nthat, wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure\noccurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely\nacknowledged that, under their influence, inexplicable and miraculous\nare convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as knowledge of\nnatural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural interference with\nthe order of nature has been dispelled, and miracles have ceased. The\neffect of science, however, is not limited to the present and future,\nbut its action is equally retrospective, and phenomena which were once\nignorantly isolated from the sequence of natural cause and effect,\nare now restored to their place in the unbroken order. Ignorance and\nsuperstition created miracles; knowledge has for ever annihilated them.\n\nTo justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite\nPersonal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution\nof which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is\nargued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate\n\n{572}\n\ncauses, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this\nInfinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the\nDivine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably\nmaintained. The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once\nlimited and unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human\nthought can possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God\nworking miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the\norder of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles\nis further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles\nis avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other\nspiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to\nprove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not\nwith another. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of\nRevelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived\nfrom the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise\nthe assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as\narguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine\ndesign, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible, and\nopposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any\ntheory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the\nhuman race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of\ncreation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as\ninconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed\npunishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them\nare opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially\ninadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.\n\n{573}\n\nWhatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena\nmust at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute\nknowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence,\nand it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of\nnature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously\ngreater than can be the testimony for my alleged exception to it. On the\nother hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of\nthe senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not\nonly possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of\nphenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more\nespecially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and\nsuperstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses\nonly reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the\nprobability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of\nmiracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the\norder of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation\nand testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world, and\nthe circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are\nexamining, suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which\nwholly remove them from the region of the supernatural.\n\nWhen we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian\nmiracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralizing\nthe preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case\nturns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere\nnarratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years\nago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force\nand validity, it is essential that\n\n{574}\n\ntheir character and authorship should be placed beyond all doubt. They\nmust proceed from eye-witnesses capable of estimating aright the nature\nof the phenomena. Our four Gospels, however, are strictly anonymous\nworks. The superscriptions which now distinguish them are undeniably\nof later origin than the works themselves, and do not proceed from the\ncomposers of the Gospels. Of the writers to whom these narratives are\ntraditionally ascribed only two are even said to have been apostles, the\nalleged authors of the second and third Synoptics neither having\nbeen personal followers of Jesus, nor eyewitnesses of the events they\ndescribe. Under these circumstances, we are wholly dependent upon\nexternal evidence for information regarding the authorship and\ntrustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels.\n\nIn examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite\nprinciples. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the\ndate or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the\nFathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for\ninformation regarding the composition and character of these works, and\neven for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these\ncould prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at\nthe date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were\nguided by canons of criticism previously laid down, and which are based\nupon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the\nFathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a\ncomplete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and\ncharacter of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition\npreserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details\nof which fully justify\n\n{575}\n\nthe conclusion that our first and second Synoptics, in their present\nform, cannot be the works said to have been composed by Matthew and\nMark. There is thus no evidence whatever directly connecting any of\nthe canonical Gospels with the writers to whom they are popularly\nattributed, and later tradition, of little or no value in itself, is\nseparated by a long interval of profound silence from the epoch at which\nthey are supposed to have been composed. With one exception, moreover,\nwe found that, during the same century and a half, there is no certain\nand unmistakable trace even of the anonymous use of any of our Gospels\nin the early Church. This fact, of course, does not justify the\nconclusion that none of these Gospels was actually in existence during\nany part of that time, nor have we anywhere suggested such an inference,\nbut strict examination of the evidence shows that there is no positive\nproof that they were. The exception to which we refer is Marcion's\nGospel, which was, we think, based upon our third Synoptic, and\nconsequently must be accepted as evidence of the existence of that work.\nMarcion, however, does not give the slightest information as to the\nauthorship of the Gospel, and his charges against it of adulteration\ncannot be considered very favourable testimony as to its infallible\ncharacter. The canonical Gospels continue to the end anonymous documents\nof no evidential value for miracles. They do not themselves pretend to\nbe inspired histories, and they cannot escape from the ordinary rules\nof criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the inferences from\nexternal testimony. Apart from continual minor contradictions\nthroughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to reconcile the\nrepresentations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth Gospel. They\nmutually destroy each other as evidence. They must\n\n{576}\n\nbe pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded,\nby unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged\nmiraculous occurrences, nor hearers of the statements they profess to\nreport. They cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and\nthe reality of Divine Revelation.\n\nApplying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles, we arrived at\nsimilar results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who\nproduced the third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made\nmore clear. There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its\ncharacter, but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an\nextent with miraculous incidents and supernatural agency, that the\ncredibility of the narrative requires an extraordinary amount of\nattestation to secure for it any serious consideration. When the\nstatements of the author are compared with the emphatic declarations of\nthe Apostle Paul, and with authentic accounts of the development of\nthe early Christian Church, it becomes evident that the Acts of the\nApostles, as might have been supposed, is a legendary composition of a\nlater day, which cannot be regarded as sober and credible history, and\nrather discredits than tends to establish the reality of the miracles\nwith which its pages so suspiciously abound.\n\nThe remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate\nexamination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional\ntestimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied\nbelief in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is\nunquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles\nbelieved in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so,\nsupersedes the necessity for\n\n{577}\n\nexamining the authenticity of the Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse. In\nlike manner, the recognition as genuine of four Epistles of Paul, which\ncontain his testimony to miracles, renders it superfluous to discuss the\nauthenticity of the other letters attributed to him.\n\nThe general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church\nis brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After\nelaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating\nconclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the\nunconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with\nwhich erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into\nsupernatural occurrences.\n\nAs a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for\nthe cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of\nJesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of\nthese events are not only full of legendary matter, but that they even\ncontradict and exclude each other, and so far from establishing the\nreality of such stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to\nbe placed on the statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the\ntestimony of Paul, which is more important as at least authentic and\nproceeding from an Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the\nearly missionaries of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and\nutterly insufficient. His so-called \"circumstantial account of the\ntestimony upon which the belief in the Resurrection rested\" consists\nmerely of vague and undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can\nbe compared, from the statements in the Gospels, and without other\nattestation than the bare fact that it is repeated by Paul, who\ndoubtless believed it, although he had not himself been a witness\n\n{578}\n\nof any of the supposed appearances of the risen Jesus which he so\nbriefly catalogues. Paul's own personal testimony to the Resurrection\nis limited to a vision of Jesus, of which we have no authentic details,\nseen many years after the alleged miracle. Considering the peculiar\nand highly nervous temperament of Paul, of which he himself supplies\nabundant evidence, there can be no hesitation in deciding that this\nvision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in all probability, the\nappearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The testimony of Paul\nhimself, before his imagination was stimulated to ecstatic fervour by\nthe beauty of a spiritualized religion, was an earnest denial of the\ngreat Christian dogma emphasized by the active persecution of those who\naffirmed it, and a vision, especially in the case of one so constituted,\nsupposed to be seen many years after the fact of the Resurrection had\nceased to be capable of verification, is not an argument of convincing\nforce. We were compelled to pronounce the evidence for the Resurrection\nand Ascension absolutely and hopelessly inadequate to prove the reality\nof such stupendous miracles, which must consequently be unhesitatingly\nrejected. There is no reason given, or even conceivable, why allegations\nsuch as these, and dogmas affecting the religion and even the salvation\nof the human race, should be accepted upon evidence which would be\ndeclared totally insufficient in the case of any common question of\nproperty or title before a legal tribunal On the contrary, the more\nmomentous the point to be established, the more complete must be the\nproof required.\n\nIf we test the results at which we have arrived by general\nconsiderations, we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There\nis nothing original in the\n\n{579}\n\nclaim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation, and nothing\nnew either in the doctrines said to have been revealed, or in the\nmiracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished. There has\nnot been a single historical religion largely held amongst men which has\nnot pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written books of which\nhave not been represented as directly inspired. There is not a doctrine,\nsacrament or rite of Christianity which has not substantially formed\npart of earlier religions; and not a single phase of the supernatural\nhistory of the Christ, from his miraculous conception, birth and\nincarnation to his death, resurrection and ascension, which has not\nhad its counterpart in earlier mythologies. Heaven and hell, with\ncharacteristic variation of details, have held an important place in the\neschatology of many creeds and races. The same may be said even of the\nmoral teaching of Christianity, the elevated precepts of which, although\nin a less perfect and connected form, had already suggested themselves\nto many noble minds and been promulgated by ancient sages and\nphilosophers. That this Inquiry into the reality of Divine Revelation\nhas been limited to the claim of Christianity has arisen solely from a\ndesire to condense it within reasonable bounds, and confine it to the\nonly Religion in connection with which it could practically interest us\nnow.\n\nThere is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which\ncan be considered characteristic of a Religion divinely revealed for\nthe salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a\nsingle nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, and for\nwhom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost\nunanimously rejected by that\n\n{580}\n\nnation at the time, and it has continued to be repudiated by its\ndescendants with singular unanimity to the present day. After more than\neighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of salvation has not obtained\neven the nominal adhesion of more than a third of the human race,(1) and\nif, in a census of Christendom, distinction could now be made of\nthose who no longer seriously believe in it as Supernatural Religion,\nChristianity would take a much lower numerical position. Sakya Muni,\na teacher only second in nobility of character to Jesus, and who, like\nhim, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even now almost twice\nthe number of followers, although his missionaries never sought converts\nin the West. Considered as a scheme Divinely devised as the best, if\nnot only, mode of redeeming the human race, and saving them from eternal\ndamnation, promulgated by God himself incarnate in human form, and\ncompleted by his own actual death upon the cross for the sins of the\nworld, such results as these can only be regarded as practical\n\n{581}\n\nfailure, although they may not be disproportionate for a system of\nelevated morality.\n\nWe shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher\nmay through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances\nhave suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to\nhim, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed;\nbut no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by\nthe absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It\nis to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we\nowe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age\nand people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the\ndoctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus.\nThe great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had\nnever seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after\nit had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the\nEast constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow\nthe development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most\ninstructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas\nwere expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents\nseveral stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had\npassed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples,\nwho had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life,\npiously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and\nhumility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate\nstructure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of\nhuman superstition, and deeply coloured by Alexandrian\n\n{582}\n\nphilosophy, displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal\ncontroversy, which commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since\ndivided the unity of the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity\nof successive generations of churchmen has filled the world with\ntheological quibbles, which have naturally enough culminated of late in\ndoctrines of Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility.\n\nIt is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such\nconclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but\nremove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before\nexisting belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a\nsubstitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or\nsilence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of\nTruth cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by\nconsiderations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious\nand suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never\nbe premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a\nhumiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality\nis concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments,\nalthough of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent,\nhave promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and\neven in our own, but it may, we think, be shown that education and\ncivilization have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far\nChristianity has promoted education and civilization, we shall not here\nventure adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that\nwhatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due,\nnot to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic\nTheology,\n\n{583}\n\non the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science. Wherever it\nhas been dominant civilization has stood still. Science has been judged\nand suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of Genesis. Almost\nevery great advance which has been made towards enlightenment has\nbeen achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema of the Church.\nSubmissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been tacitly fostered\nas the most desirable condition of the popular mind. \"Except ye be\nconverted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the\nkingdom of heaven,\" has been the favourite text of Doctors of Divinity\nwith a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of assimilation by the\nvirile mind. Even now, the fiction of theological resistance is a\nconstant waste of intellectual power. The early enunciation of so pure\na system of morality, and one so intelligible to the simple as well as\nprofound to the wise, was of great value to the world, but experience\nbeing once systematized and codified, if higher principles do not\nconstrain us, society may safely be left to see morals sufficiently\nobserved. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating rules,\nmorality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine institution, but\nits sway has not, in consequence, been more real than it must be as the\nsimple result of human wisdom, and the outcome of social experience.\nThe choice of a noble life is no longer a theological question, and\necclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have finally expired.\nMorality, which has ever changed its complexion and modified its\ninjunctions according to social requirements, will necessarily be\nenforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent on religious\nterrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed to say:\n\n{584}\n\n_Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right principles, to\ngain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, for such grudging\nand calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation which can as\nwell be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever been really\npenetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any degree\nattained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the true\nand noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action,\nwe shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and\npunishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as\nessential to Christianity.\n\nAs to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed\nby such an inquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by\nany means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The\nRevelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an\nillusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it\nand its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the\ntraveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters\nand green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool\nfountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his\nwearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank.\nRather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the\ndesert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not\nvainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to\nother horizons, and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to\necclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search\nelsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of\nthe man who persistently repulsed\n\n{585}\n\nthe persuasion that two and two make four from the ardent desire to\nbelieve that two and two make five? Whose fault is it that two and two\ndo make four and not five? Whose folly is it that it should be more\nagreeable to think that two and two make five than to know that they\nonly make four? This folly is theirs who represent the value of life\nas dependent on the reality of special illusions, which they have\nreligiously adopted. To discover that a former belief is unfounded is to\nchange nothing of the realities of existence. The sun will descend as it\npasses the meridian whether we believe it to be noon or not. It is idle\nand foolish, if human, to repine because the truth is not precisely what\nwe thought it, and at least we shall not change reality by childishly\nclinging to a dream.\n\nThe argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is\nnecessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation\nare required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and\nderived from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing\nabsolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must\nour moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the\nexpectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through\nnatural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished\nas supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that\nwe desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to\ncomplaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To\nattain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should\nbe our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be\ncertain that information which is beyond the ultimate\n\n{586}\n\nreach of Reason is as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know\nall that man requires to know.\n\nWe gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human\ninvention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from\nthe incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine\ngovernment which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in\nthe place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic\nvisions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of\nunseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered\nfrom quibbling discussions of the meaning of [------], and our eternal\nhope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured in hell\nfor ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of life\nthere may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light of\napocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable\nhorror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless\nvictims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous\nrepresentations at all as part of the contents of \"Divine Revelation,\"\nit was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the\nways of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the\nperfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call\nwrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now\nthe reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns\nto the Jewish superstition from which it sprang.\n\nAs myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be\nbaseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass\naway, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although\nit\n\n{587}\n\ncannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for so\nlong the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can rightly\nbe maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish between what\nwe know and know not, but as carefully abstain from characterising that\nwhich we know not as if it were really known to us. That mysterious\nUnknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply an impenetrable\ndistance into which we are impotent to glance, but which excludes no\nlegitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Supernatural Religion, Vol. 3 (of 3): An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":147709}