{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38102/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38102","id":"gutenberg_38102","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38102","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Paul, the Apostle, Saint"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL\n\nBy Boulanger\n\nTranslated From The French Of Boulanger\n\n\"Paul, thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad.\"\n\nActs, chap. 26, ver. 24.\n\n1823\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nEPISTLE DEDICATORY TO M. L. N.\n\nSir, In our last conversation you appeared to me, very much smitten with\nSt. Paul and his works; you recommended me to reperuse his writings;\nassuring me that I should there find arguments well calculated to shake\nincredulity and confirm a Christian in his faith.\n\nAlthough the actions of this celebrated Apostle, related in the Acts,\nand his doctrine contained in his Epistles, were already perfectly known\nto me, yet to conform myself to your desires, and give you proofs of\nmy docility, I have again read those works, and I can assure you that\nI have done it with the greatest attention. You will judge of that\nyourself, by the reflections I send you; they will at least prove to you\nthat I have read with attention. A superficial glance is only likely to\ndeceive us or leave us in error. The passions and the prejudices of men\nprevent them from examining with candour, and from their indolence they\nare often disgusted with the researches necessary for discovering truth;\nthat has also been with so much care veiled from their eyes: but it is\nin vain to cover it, its splendour will sooner or later shine forth;\nthe works of enthusiasm or imposture, will always end by betraying\nthemselves. As for the rest, read and judge. You will find, I think, at\nleast, some reasons for abating a little from that high opinion, that\nprejudice gives us of the Apostle of the Gentiles, and of the religious\nsystem of the Christians, of which St. Paul was evidently the true\narchitect. I am not ignorant that it is very difficult to undo at\none blow the ideas to which the mind has been so long accustomed;\nbut whatever may be your judgment it will not alter the sentiments of\nfriendship and attachment which are due to the goodness of your heart.\n\nI am, &c, &c.\n\n\n\n\nCRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. Is the Conversion of St. Paul a proof in favour of the\nChristian Religion?\n\nMany theologians would make us regard the miraculous conversion and\napostleship of St. Paul as one of the strongest proofs of the truth of\nChristianity. But in viewing the thing closely it appears that this\nconversion, far from proving any thing in favour of this religion,\ninvalidates the other proofs of it, in fact, our doctors continually\nassure us that the Christian religion draws its strongest proofs from\nthe prophecies of the Old Testament, whilst there is not in fact a\nsingle one of these prophecies that can be literally applied to the\nMessiah of the Christians. St. Paul himself willing to make use of these\noracles of the Jewish nation to prove the mission of Christ, is obliged\nto distort them, and to seek in them a mystical, allegorical, and\nfigurative sense. On the other side, how can these prophecies made by\nJews and addressed to Jews, serve as proofs of the doctrine of St.\nPaul, who had evidently formed the design of altering, or even of\ndestroying, the Jewish religion, in order to raise a new system on its\nruins? Such being the state of things, what real connection, or what\nrelation, can there be between the religious system of the Jews, and\nthat of St. Paul? For this Apostle to have had the right of making use of\nthe Jewish prophecies, it would have been necessary that he should have\nremained a Jew; his conversion to Christianity evidently deprived him of\nthe privilege of serving himself, by having recourse to the prophecies\nbelonging to a religion that he had just abandoned, and the ruin of\nwhich he meditated. True prophecies can only be found in a divine\nreligion, and a religion truly divine, can neither be altered, reformed,\nnor destroyed: God himself, if he is immutable, could not change it.\n\nIn fact, might not the Jews have said to St. Paul, \"Apostate that you\nare! you believe in our prophecies, and you come to destroy the religion\nfounded upon the same prophecies. If you believe in our oracles, you\nare forced to believe that the religion which you have quitted is a true\nreligion and divinely inspired. If you say, that God has changed his\nmind, you are impious in pretending that God could change, and was not\nsufficiently wise, to give at once to his people a perfect worship, and\none which had no need of being reformed. On the other side, do not the\nreiterated promises of the Most High, confirmed by paths to our fathers,\nassure us, that his alliance with us should endure eternally? You are\nthen an impostor, and, according to our law, we ought to exterminate\nyou; seeing that Moses, our divine legislator, orders us to put to\ndeath, whoever shall have the temerity to preach to us a new worship,\neven though he should confirm his mission by prodigies. The God that you\npreach is not the God of our fathers: you say that Christ is his son;\nbut we know that God has no son. You pretend that this son, whom we have\nput to death as a false prophet, has risen from the dead, but Moses has\nnot spoken of the resurrection; thus your new God and your dogmas\nare contrary to our law, and consequently we ought to hold them in\nabhorrence.\" In short these same Jews might have said to St. Paul: \"You\ndeceive yourself in saying, that you are the disciple of Jesus, your\nJesus was a Jew, during the whole of his life he was circumcised, he\nconformed himself to all the legal ordinances; he often protested\nthat he came to accomplish, and not to abolish the law; whilst you in\ncontempt of the protestations of the Master, whose Apostle you say you\nare, take the liberty of changing this holy law, of decrying it, of\ndispensing with its most essential ordinances.\"\n\nMoreover the conversion of St. Paul strangely weakens the proof that\nthe Christian religion draws from the miracles of Jesus Christ and his\nApostles. According to the evangelists themselves the Jews were not\nat all convinced by these miracles. The transcendant prodigy of the\nresurrection of Christ, the wonders since wrought by some of his\nadherents did not contribute more to their conversion. St. Paul believed\nnothing of them at first, he was a zealous persecutor of the first\nChristians to such a degree, that, according to the Christians, nothing\nshort of a new miracle, performed for him alone, was able to convert\nhim; which proves to us that there was, at least, a time when St. Paul\ndid not give any credit to the wonders that the partisans of Jesus\nrelated at Jerusalem.\n\nHe needed a particular miracle to believe in those miracles, that we\nare obliged to believe in at the time in which we live, without heaven\noperating any new prodigy to demonstrate to us the truth of them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. Opinions of the first Christians upon the Acts of the\nApostles, and upon the Epistles and Person of St. Paul.\n\nIt is in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, that\nwe find the details of his life and the system of his doctrine; but, how\ncan we be certain of the authenticity of these works, whilst we see many\nof the first Christians doubt and reject them as apocryphal? We find,\nin fact, that from the earliest period of the church, entire sects of\nChristians, who believed that many of the Epistles published under\nthe name of this Apostle, were not really his. The Marcionites were\nconfident that the gospels were filled with falshoods, and Marcion,\ntheir head, pretended that his gospel was the only true one.\n\nThe Manicheans, who formed a very numerous sect at the commencement of\nChristianity, rejected as false, all the New Testament, and produced\nother writings, quite different, which they gave as authentic. The\nCorinthians, as well as the Marcionites, did not admit the Acts of the\nApostles. The Encratites and the Severians did not adopt either the Acts\nor the Epistles of St. Paul. St. John Chrysostom in a homily, which he\nhas made upon the Acts, says, that in his time (that is to say, towards\nthe end of the fourth century) many men were ignorant not only of the\nname of the author, or of the collector of these Acts, but even did\nnot know this work. The Valentinians, as well as many other sects\nof Christians accused our scriptures of being filled with errors,\nimperfections, and contradictions, and of being insufficient without the\nassistance of traditions; this is a fact that is attested to us by St.\nIren\u00e6us. The Ebionites or Nazarenes, who, as we shall soon see, were the\nfirst Christians, rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul, and regarded\nhim as an impostor and hypocrite.\n\nIt will not fail being said to us, that we ought not to rely on\nthe testimony of heretics; but I shall reply, that in the matter in\nquestion, their testimony is of the same weight as that of the orthodox,\nseeing that all the different sects consider themselves as orthodox,\nand have treated their adversaries as heretics. How shall we unravel the\ntruth if we do not hear both parties? By what signs shall we know those\non whom we ought to rely? Shall we cede the cause without examining their\nadversaries, to writers who utter to us falshoods without number, who\ncontradict each other, who are never agreed amongst themselves, and\nwhose discordant writings are nevertheless produced as proofs of what\nthey advance? In any other subject such a conduct would seem to betray a\npartiality or even insincerity: but in religious matters, every thing is\nfair, and there is no necessity of being so nice.\n\nHowever that may be, it does not follow that because one sect has\nreceived or rejected a work, that the work itself is either true or\nfalse; there cannot be otherwise than, a diversity of opinions between\npersons of different parties; their testimony ought to have equal\nweight, until the partisans of one sect, have been convicted of being\ngreater cheats and liars, than those of the other. If we pay no regard\nto the authority of heretics, it is because they have not had sufficient\npower to enforce their opinions. It is power or weakness which makes\northodoxians or heretics: the last are always those who have not power\nenough to make their opinions current.\n\nWhat course shall we then pursue to discover on which side is the truth?\nAn impartial man will no more expect to find it in one party than in\nanother, thus the testimony of the one can have no greater weight than\nthat of the other in the eye of an unprejudiced man.\n\nThis granted, we cannot rely on the authority of Christian traditions\nwhich vary in all sects, and we shall be reduced to recur solely\nto reason, especially when we find that the works, which are to-day\nregarded as authentic, have in other times been considered as\nsuppositious, or apocryphal, by some very ancient sects of Christians,\nand that the works and writings, then regarded as apocryphal, have since\nbeen adopted as true.\n\nIt appears that in the ancient churches, they read at once the works\nthat we now regard as true, and those that now-pass for suppositious,\nin such sort, that there is reason to believe they were then held to\npossess equal claim to authenticity: it is, at least, very, difficult\nto demonstrate the contrary in the present time. Some churches have\nattributed the same authority to false or doubtful writings as to true.\n\nThe Roman Church to-day adopts as authentic and divinely inspired many\nbooks of the Bible, absolutely rejected by the Protestants. How is it\npossible to decide which is the party that deceives itself?\n\nBy what right can we then affirm to-day that the works of St. Paul,\nformerly rejected by so many Christian sects, are authentic, that is\nto say, truly belong to this Apostle? On the other hand, how can we\nattribute to divine inspiration writings filled with inconsistencies,\ncontradictions, mistakes, and false reasonings, in a word, which bear\nevery character of delirium, of ignorance, and of fraud? I acknowledge\nthat those who want valid proofs, always do right to affirm the thing,\nwith the tone of authority; but this tone proves nothing, and always\nprejudices against those who take it. Nothing is more injurious to the\ninterest of truth, than the arrogance of an usurped authority. These\nare, however, the arms that are incessantly opposed to those who doubt\nof religion. It would seem that its defenders have no other arguments\nthan their pretences; it is easy to feel that these arguments are every\nthing, but convincing.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles, adopted by the Ebionites or Nazarenes, relate\namongst other things, that, \"Paul was originally a Pagan, that he\ncame to Jerusalem where he dwelt for some time; that being desirous of\nmarrying the daughter of the High Priest he became a proselyte, and\nwas circumcised; but not being able to obtain the woman he desired,\nhe quarrelled with the Jews, began to write against the circumcision,\nagainst the observation of the Sabbath, and against legal ordinances.\"\n\nWe know that the name of Nazarenes was the first which was given to the\nChristians. St. Epiphanius, from whom the preceding passage is taken,\nsays, \"that they were thus named because of Jesus of Nazareth,\" of whom\nthey were the first disciples. The Jews called them Nazarenes from the\nHebrew word Nozerim, which signifies one separated or excommunicated;\nagain they designated them under the name of Mineans, that is to say,\nheretics. They were also by contempt called Ebionites, which signifies\npoor, mendicant, weak-minded. In fact, the Hebrew Ebion, means poor,\nmiserable, and we know, that the first followers of Christ, were every\nthing but opulent or intelligent men.\n\nThe first faithful, were Jews converted by Jesus himself, or by the most\nancient Apostles, such as Peter, James, and John, who as well as their\nmaster, lived in Judaism. These Apostles, disciples, and new converts,\ndiffered from the Jews in nothing but the belief in Jesus Christ, whom\nthey regarded as the Messiah predicted by the prophets; otherwise\nthey believed themselves bound constantly to observe the Mosaic law,\npersuaded that their Messiah was come to accomplish and not to destroy\nthis law. In consequence of this, they observed circumcision, the\nabstinence from certain meats, separation from the Gentiles, in a word,\nthe Jewish rites and ordinances.\n\nThus the first Apostles, and their adherents, were only Jews, persuaded\nthat the Messiah was already come, and was going soon to commence his\nreign, which made them hated and persecuted as schismatics or heretics\nby their fellow-citizens. St. Jerome informs us, \"that even down to his\ntime, the Jews used to anathematize the Christians, under the name of\nNazarenes, three times a day in their synagogues.\"\n\nAll this evidently proves, that the Nazarenes, of Ebionites, were the\nfirst Christians, taught by the most considerable of the Apostles, and\nthat the first Christians were only reformed Jews; this is clearly the\nonly idea we can form of Christianity, such as it was taught by Jesus\nChrist himself.\n\nHow then comes it that since Jesus, Christianity has been so separated\nfrom Judaism? a slight attention will prove to us that this is owing to\nSt. Paul. Repulsed by the Jews, or perhaps desirous of playing a\nmore important part, we see him separate himself from his brethren of\nJerusalem, and undertake the conversion of the Gentiles, for whom\nthe Jews entertained no sentiment but horror. Encouraged by his first\nsuccesses and wishing to extend them, he dispensed the Pagans from the\npainful ceremony of circumcision; he declared that the law of Moses, was\nonly a law of servitude, from which Jesus was come to free mankind; he\npretended that all the old law was merely the emblem and figure of the\nnew; he announced himself as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and leaving\nPeter and the other Nazarenes to preach the gospel of circumcision,\nhe preached his own gospel, which he himself called the gospel of\nuncircumcision: in a word, he made a divorce with the Jewish laws, to\nwhich his apostolic brethren believed they ought to hold themselves\nattached, at least, in most respects.\n\nThe conduct of Paul, must naturally have displeased his seniors in the\nApostleship, but fear appears to have deter mined them to cede, at least\nfor a time, to our missionary who had already made a considerable party.\nNevertheless the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Paul, prove to\nus his quarrels with his brethren, who, according to appearances, never\nviewed with a friendly eye, his enterprizes and innovations. Moreover,\nEusebius and St. Epiphanius inform us, that our Apostle was regarded as\nan apostate, an impostor, and an enemy by the Ebionites, that is to say,\nby the first faithful. But St. Paul's party having in the end prevailed,\nthe Jewish law was entirely banished from Christianity, and the\nEbionites, or Nazarenes, though of more ancient date and though formed\nby Christ and his first apostles were declared heretics.\n\nIt is proper to remark in this place that these Ebionites, or first\nChristians, believed that Jesus was but a man, as much on the side of\nhis father as on that of his mother, that is to say, the son of Joseph\nand Mary; but that he was a wise, just, and excellent person, thus\nmeriting the appellation of the son of God, because of his holy life and\ngood qualities whence we see that the first Christians were as well as\nthe first Apostles, true Socinians. But St. Paul to give, without doubt,\nmore lustre to his ministry, and his adherents after him, willing to\nextol the holiness of their religion, made a God of Jesus, a dogma which\nit is no more permitted to doubt, especially since the partizans of Paul\nhave become more numerous, and stronger than those of St. Peter and the\nother Nazarenes, or Jewish founders of primitive Christianity, which\nthus totally changed its face as to its capital dogmas.\n\nHaving thus become masters of the field of battle, Paul, his adherents,\nand the disciples formed in their school, saw themselves in possession\nof the power of regulating belief, of inventing new dogmas, of making\ngospels, and of arranging them in their own manner, of forging to\nthemselves titles, and of excommunicating as heretics all those who\nshowed themselves unteachable. It is thus that the author of the Acts of\nthe Apostles, only speaks, as it were, of his master, of St. Paul, and\nglances very slightly over the Acts of the Apostles of the contrary\nparty. The same author (St. Luke) is presumed to have composed his\ngospel from the notes furnished him by St. Paul, though he had neither\nknown nor seen Jesus Christ.\n\nFaustus, the Manichean, said on the subject of the gospels, \"that\nthey had been composed a long time after the Apostles, by some obscure\nindividuals, who fearing that faith would not be given to histories of\nfacts with which they must have been unacquainted, published under the\nname of the Apostles their own writings, so filled with mistakes and\ndiscordant relations and opinions, that we can find in them neither\nconnection nor agreement with themselves.\"\n\nA little further on he loudly accuses his adversaries, who had\nthe credit of being orthodox, and says to them, \"It is thus that\npredecessors have inserted in the writings of our Lord many things\nwhich, though they bear his name, do not # at all agree with his\ndoctrine. That is not surprising since we have often proved that these\nthings have not been written by himself nor by his Apostles, but that\nfor the greater part they are founded on tales, on vague reports,\nand collected by I know not who, half Jews, but little agreed among\nthemselves, who have nevertheless published them under the name of our\nLord, and thus have attributed to him their own errors and deceptions.\"\n\nOrigeo informs us, that Celsus exclaimed against the licence that the\nChristians of his time, had taken of altering many times imprudently the\noriginals of their gospels, in order to be able to deny or to retract\nthose things, which embarrassed them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. Of the Authority of the Councils, of the Fathers of the\nChurch, and of Tradition\n\nIt is only in the Fathers of the Church, and the Councils, that we can\nfind the proofs of the authenticity of the Christian traditions, and\naccording to the proofs which remain it appears, that they only approved\nor rejected opinions, as they found them favourable or injurious to the\ninterests of the party which they had embraced. Every ecclesiastical\nwriter, and every assembly of Bishops, adopted as canonical the writings\nin which they found their own particular dogmas, the others they treated\nas apocryphal or suppositious. A slight acquaintance with the writings\nof the Fathers, will show us that we cannot rely on them for any facts;\nwe shall find that their books are filled with negligences, tales,\nimpertinences and falsehoods; we shall see them buried in the thickest\ndarkness of superstition and prejudice. Every word announces their\nincredulity or their insincerity. St. Clement the Roman, believed the\nfable of the phoenix reviving from its ashes, and cites it as a proof of\nthe resurrection.\n\nPapias, who was the master of St. Iren\u00e6us, was, in the opinion of\nEusebius himself, a man of weak mind, a fabulous author, who had\ncontributed to lead many men into error, and amongst others St. Iren\u00e6us\nwho was his disciple, whom Eusebius regards as a very credulous man,\nthough he was the first ecclesiastical historian of note. It is not\nsurprising that those who have followed such guides have fallen into\nerror.\n\nOn the other side, we should never finish, were we to enter into a\ndetail of the excesses committed by the Fathers of the Church and the\nCouncils: their history would only serve to prove their ambition their\npride, their infatuation, their seditious spirit, their cheats, their\nintrigues, and their cruelties in the persecutions which they excited\nagainst their adversaries. It is nevertheless on the probity and on the\nknowledge of these great personages that we are called to rely! It is\npretended that it is from them that we hold the pure oracles of truth;\nmust we then take lessons of mildness, of charity, of, holiness,\nfrom the writings of some factious individuals, who were perpetually\nquarrelling and treating their adversaries with the utmost cruelty,\nwhose works were filled with gall, whose conduct it is admitted even by\ntheir own friends and admirers, was almost always unjust, violent, and\ncriminal? How can it be expected that we should find any point of unity\nin the canons and decrees of assemblies agitated by intrigue, discord,\nand animosity? How can we regard as saints, and infallible doctors, as\npersons worthy of our confidence, perverse men, continually involved in\ndisputations with others, and in contradictions with themselves?\nWhat guide can we expect to find in turbulent priests whose ambition,\navarice, and intriguing and persecuting spirit are every where visible?\nIt is only necessary to read ecclesiastical history to be convinced that\nthe picture which we have drawn of the Councils and Fathers is no ways\nexaggerated.\n\nOn the other hand the writers and Councils on whose authority,\nChristians are called upon to found their belief, do, in all their\ntraditions, but blindly follow and copy each other; we see them devoid\nof the arts of reasoning, of logic, and of criticism; hence their\nworks are found filled with fables, vulgar errors, and forgeries. Is it\npossible to believe the traditions of such a man as St. Jerome, who in\nhis life of St. Anthony, assures us that this holy man had a conference\nwith satyrs with goats feet? Do we not justly doubt the sincerity of St.\nAugustine, when he says, \"that he had seen a nation composed of men,\nwho had eyes in the middle of their stomachs?\" Are such authors more\nentitled to credit, than those of Robinson Crusoe, and of the Thousand\nand One Nights?\n\nSupposing even that at the commencement of Christianity, there had been\nauthentic books in which the actions and the discourses of Jesus Christ\nand his Apostles had been faithfully related, should we be justified\nin supposing that they have been handed down to us such as they were\noriginally? Prior to the invention of printing, it was doubtless much\neasier to impose upon the public than it is now, and notwithstanding, we\nsee that the _Press_ gives currency to innumerable falsehoods.\n\nThe spirit of party causes every thing to be adopted that is useful\nto its own cause. That granted, how easy was it for the heads of the\nChurch, who were once the only guardians of the holy books, either from\npious fraud, or a determined wish to deceive, to insert falsehoods and\narticles of faith, in the books entrusted to their care.\n\nThe learned Dodwell admits, that the books which compose the New\nTestament did not appear in public, until at least 100 Years after\nChrist. If this fact be certain, how shall we convince ourselves that\nthey existed prior to this time? These books were solely entrusted to\nthe care of the ecclesiastical gentry, till the third or fourth\ncentury, that is to say, to the guardianship of men, whose conduct\nwas universally regulated by self interest and party spirit, and who\npossessed neither the probity nor knowledge requisite for discovering\nthe truth, or of transmitting it in its original purity. Thus each\ndoctor had the power of making such holy books as he pleased, and\nwhen, under Constantine, the Christians saw themselves supported by the\nEmperor, their chiefs were able to accept, and cause to be accepted as\nauthentic, and of rejecting as apocryphal, such books as suited their\ninterest, or did not agree with the prevailing doctrine. But were we\neven sure of the authenticity of the books, which the church of this\nday adopts, we are nevertheless, without any other guarantee of the\nauthority of the scriptures than the books themselves. Is there a\nhistory which has the right to prove itself by itself? Can we rely upon\nwitnesses who give no other proof of what they advance than their own\nwords? Yet the first Christians have rendered themselves famous by their\ndeceptions, their factions, and their frauds, which are termed pious\nwhen they tend to the advantage of religion. Have not these pious\nfalsehoods been ascribed to the works of Jesus Christ himself and to the\nApostles his successors? Have we not, in their manner, sybilline verses,\nwhich are evidently all Christian prophecies, made afterwards, and often\ncopied word for word into the Old and New Testament? If it had pleased\nthe Fathers at the council of Nice, to regard these prophecies as\ndivinely inspired, what or who should have prevented them from inserting\nthem into the canon of the Scriptures? And from that the Christians\nwould not have failed to regard them in the present day, as indubitable\nproofs of the truth of their religion.\n\nIf the Christians at the commencement of Christianity, gave credit to\nworks filled with reveries, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel\nof the Infancy, the Letter of Jesus Christ to Algarus, what confidence\ncan we have in such of their books as remain? Can we flatter ourselves,\nwith having even these such as they were originally written? How can we\nat the present time, distinguish the true from the false, in books, in\nwhich enthusiasm, roguery and credulity pervade every page.\n\nSince the gospels themselves fail in the proofs necessary to establish\ntheir authenticity, and the truth of the facts which they relate, I\ndo not see that the epistles of St. Paul, or the Acts of the Apostles,\nenjoy in this respect a greater advantage. If the first Christians had\nno difficulty in attributing works to Jesus, would they have been over\nscrupulous, in doing the same to his apostles, or in making for\nthem romantic legends, which length of time has caused to pass for\nrespectable books? If a body of powerful men, had it in their power to\ncommand the credulity of the people, and found it their interest, they\nwould succeed, at the end of a few centuries, in establishing the belief\nthat the adventures of Don Quixote were perfectly true, and that the\nprophecies of Nostradamus were inspirations of the divinity. By means of\nglossaries, commentaries and allegories, we may find and prove whatever\nwe desire; however glaring an imposture may be, it may, by the aid of\ntime, deception, and force, pass in the end for a truth, which it is not\npermitted to doubt; Determined cheats supported by public authority\nmay cause ignorance, which is always credulous to believe whatever\nthey choose, especially by persuading it that there is merit in not\nperceiving inconsistencies, contradictions, and palpable absurdities,\nand that there is danger in reasoning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. Life of St. Paul, according to the Acts of the Apostles\n\nI have thus far shewn that nothing was more destitute of proof than the\nauthenticity of the books which contain the life and writings of St.\nPaul. I have shewn that the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of\nSt. Paul, were rejected by some Christian sects which subsisted from the\nearliest times of the church. It must have been seen that the opinion\nof the authenticity of these books was founded solely on traditions, to\nwhich it is very difficult to give credit, considering the characters of\nthose by whom these traditions have been transmitted, it is however upon\nsuch suspicious guarantees, that the authority of these works has been\npretended to be established; it will then be necessary to admit them\nat once and without examination, or else recur to reason in order to\nexamine for ourselves, what we ought to think concerning them.\n\nTo form our ideas of St. Paul, let us then consult only these works,\nhowever suspected their origin may appear to us, which contain the\ndetail of his life; there are no others to which we can have recourse.\n\nThe author of the Acts of the Apostles, whoever he be, relates the\nmiraculous conversion of Saul, afterwards called Paul, in the ninth\nchapter. We find him already named in the two preceding chapters, first\nas approving of the death of St. Stephen, the first martyr for the\nChristian religion, and next as persecuting and desolating the church.\nNot contented with tormenting the Christians of Jerusalem, he furnished\nhimself with letters from the High Priest which authorised him to seize\nthose whom he might find at Damascus; but, while on the road a miracle\ncaused him to change all his projects; he is suddenly surrounded by a\ndivine light, without seeing any one, he hears the voice of Jesus of\nNazareth, who demands of him the motives of his persecutions. Saul\ntrembling enquired what conduct he ought to pursue. Jesus tells him,\nthat at Damascus he would be informed of his intentions. Our persecutor\non this occasion is struck blind, but his heart is converted, and\nsight is miraculously restored to him by a Christian of Damascus named\nAnanias, who had been, by a particular revelation informed of his\nhostile designs against the church, and of the great designs of God,\nwho, of this persecutor, would form a vessel of election, that is to\nsay the Apostle of the Gentiles.\n\nSoon after this conversion and cure, Saul is baptized and commences\npreaching Christ in the synagogues, confounding the Jews to such a\ndegree that they came to the resolution to take away his life. But the\nnew missionary deceived their vigilance by saving himself during the\nnight by means of a basket, in which he was lowered, and made his escape\nfrom Damascus. He returned to Jerusalem where the disciples of Jesus\nwere thrown into consternation at his appearance; but Barnabas presented\nhim to the Apostles, informed them of his conversion, and enrolled him\nto their college. In consequence he preached the Gospel; this conduct\nsoon raised troubles and persecutions against him on the part of the\nJews, who again formed the design of putting him to death. But he found\nmeans of escaping from their fury by the assistance of some disciples\nwho conducted him to Cesarea, whence they afterward sent him to Tarsus.\nBarnabas came and joined Saul in the latter city, whence he led him to\nAntioch. Here Saul and Barnabas remained during a year, they there made\na great number of converts; it was there that the proselytes first took\nthe name of Christians. To warm the zeal of the new converts, they sent\nfor prophets from Jerusalem, one of these named Agabus predicted a great\nfamine, which determined the disciples of Antioch to distribute alms\nto their brethren of Judea; Saul and Barnabas were the bearers of these\nmarks of generosity, and the Apostles, whom the first faithful made\nthe depositaries of their riches, knew, without doubt, the price of the\nacquisition that the sect had made in the person of the new missionary*.\n\n     * Acts of Apostles, chap. 12.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. St. Paul styles himself the Apostle of the Gentiles--Causes\nof his Success.\n\nAll proves to us that Paul and his associate Barnabas found it much\neasier to convert the Gentiles than the Jews, who showed themselves\nalmost always rebels to their lessons. The docility of the first, and\nindocility of the latter may be traced to very natural causes; the\nidolators were destitute of instruction, their priests, content with\nexacting from them their offerings and sacrifices, never thought of\ninstructing them in their religion; thus our missionaries encountered\nfew obstacles in persuading them of the truth of the novelties which\nthey came to announce to them. It was not thus with the Jews, who had\na law, to which they were very strongly attached, since they were\nconvinced that it had been dictated by God himself. In consequence our\npreach-. ers could not make themselves listened to, but, in proportion,\nas the doctrine they preached agreed with the notions with which the\nJews were previously imbued. The Apostles were therefore compelled to\nreason with the Jews, according to their own system, to shew them that\nthe Christ whom they announced was the Messiah which they expected from\ntheir own prophets; in a word, in preaching the Gospel to the Jews, the\npreachers were driven into embarrassing discussions, and perpetually\nexposed to cavils and contradictions which they had no fear of on the\npart of the Gentiles, who received without disputing the novelties which\nthey broached to them, and which besides agreed well enough with the\nnotions of the pagan mythology, as we have shewn in another work.\n\nOn the other side also, the idolators had not the exclusive ideas of\nreligion peculiar to the Jews; they were tolerant, they admitted every\nspecies of worship, and were disposed to pay homage to every God that\nwas proposed to them. The Hebrews were not of this disposition, they\nbelieved themselves alone in the possession of the knowledge of the true\nGod, and rejected with horror strange Gods and worships.\n\nThese reflections are sufficient to explain to us the reason of the\ngreat success that the Apostles had in preaching to the Gentiles,\ncompared with their endeavours amongst the Jews; they likewise show us\nespecially the true motives of Paul's conduct. In fact, repulsed by\nthe cavils and opposition of the Jews, we see Paul and Barnabas turn\nthemselves to the side of the Pagans, who listened to them with more\nattention and declared to the Jews, that God had forsaken them*.\n\n     * Acts of Apostles, chap. xiii. ver. 45, &c,\n\nThe Gentiles were apparently flattered by the preference; numbers of\nthem adopted the religion announced to them, which did not hinder the\nJews from exciting, against our missionaries, the zeal of the female\ndevotees whose clamour obliged them to quit Antioch.\n\nFrom thence our two associates, after having shook the dust of their\nfeet against their opposers, repaired to Iconium, where they again met\nwith opposition on the part of the Jews who even irritated the Gentiles\nagainst them, which compelled them to fly to Lystra in Lycaonia. There\naccording to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul thought it necessary to\nperform a miracle, well knowing that nothing is more efficacious than a\nprodigy in making an impression on the minds of the vulgar.\n\nHe then cured a lame man. This miracle convinced the idolators, who took\nPaul and his comrade for Gods, and under this idea would have offered\nthem sacrifices. However this wonder did not produce the same effect\nupon the Jews; these apparently regarded it as a deception, or some\ntrick of which they were not the dupes. In fact we see that the Jews,\nwho nevertheless yielded to no people in credulity, so far from being\nmoved by Paul's miracle, that they stoned him as a malefactor and left\nhim for dead. From this unlucky affair he however extricated himself and\nreturned to Antioch, whence he set out in order to give an account of\nthe success of his mission, from which it appears that he had no reason\nfor self congratulation, since, if he made a number of recruits for\nJesus, he had succeeded at the expence of much personal ill usage.\n\nNevertheless the Nazarenes, or Ebionites, i. e. the first of the Jews,\nwho had embraced the doctrine of the Apostles, were persuaded that the\nreligion of Christ was merely a reformed Judaism. Always attached to\nthe practices of the Mosaic law, they believed themselves called upon to\nevince their zeal in its favour; in consequence of which they pretended\nthat the Gentiles, converted by the Apostles, ought, like themselves,\nto submit to the rite of circumcision. But Paul and Barnabas strongly\nopposed this opinion*; they were well aware that so painful an\noperation, especially after a certain age, would be very likely to\ndishearten the heathen whom they had drawn to their sect. But as\nthe affair appeared very important they referred the decision to the\nApostles who remained at Jerusalem. In consequence Paul and Barnabas,\nand also the partisans of circumcision, repaired, thither, each with the\nview of maintaining their own opinion. The question was argued, and our\ntwo missionaries convinced the Apostolic College of the necessity of\nfreeing the Gentiles from a rite at which they revolted. Thus, according\nto the author of the Acts of the Apostles, (who appears to have been\ndevoted to St. Paul's party) it was decided, that the newly converted\nGentiles should be exempted from a ceremony which, until now, had been\nregarded as highly essential, since it had been ordained by the Divinity\nhimself.\n\n     * See Acts of Apostles, chap. xv. ver. 5; see also in the\n     second chapter, of this work what is said of the Nazarenes.\n\nThere is reason to believe that the old Apostles did not subscribe\nwithout great reluctance to a decision which seemed to annul one of the\ncapital points of the Mosaic law, and had the appearance of rectifying\nthe ordinances, of the Most High. Jesus himself in his infancy underwent\nthe ceremony of circumcision; during his life he practised the customs\nprescribed to his nation; he formerly declared that he was come, not to\ndestroy, but to accomplish the law of the Jews; and nevertheless we see\nSt. Paul and his adherents, of their own authority, annul at one blow a\nceremony of divine institution, approved of and observed by their master\nand that for political and worldly considerations, which saints ought\nnever to regard.\n\nHowever this may be, by this decision, which Paul extorted from the\nApostles, it seemed from that time to give the signal of the schism,\nwhich in the end totally separated the Jews from the Christians.\nNevertheless we shall soon see Paul, who on this occasion took in\nhand the cause of the Gentiles, prepare (resuming the old errors) and\ncircumcise a disciple himself. So true it is, that the greatest saints\nare not always consistent in their opinions, nor uniform in their\nconduct.\n\nThe Apostles having shewn so much indulgence in the article of the\ncircumcision of the Gentiles, were, however desirous of giving a kind of\nsatisfaction to the partisans of Judaism; with this view they prohibited\nthe new converts from worshipping idols, from giving themselves up to\nfornication; and ordered them to abstain from things strangled and from\nthe blood of animals. By these means they sought to conciliate every\none; the Gentiles were not circumcised, and submitted themselves, in\npart, to the ordinances of the Jews, who thus saw a deference always\npaid to the law of their fathers, to which they were ever strongly\nattached *.\n\n     * See Acts of Apostles, chap. xv. All seems to prove that\n     the Apostles soon repented of the weakness they had been\n     guilty of in ceding to St. Paul, for we find he formed a\n     separate party, who preached the Gospel in his own manner,\n     that is to say, the Gospel of the uncircumcision.\n\nFurnished with this decision of the council of Jerusalem, in which the\nApostles declare themselves authorised by the Holy Spirit, Paul and\nBarnabas returned to Antioch, whence they were desirous of visiting\nthe towns where they had already preached; but a contest respecting the\nchoice of an associate of their labours, made a breach between our two\nmissionaries and caused a separation between them. Barnabas accompanied\nby Mark embarked for the Isle of Cyprus, whilst Paul with Silas, his new\ncompanion, traversed Syria and Cilicia to confirm in the faith those who\nhad been recently converted *.\n\n     * It ought here to be remarked, that there exists yet a\n     Gospel of the Nazarenes, the honour of which has been\n     decreed to St. Barnabas, and in which Paul is roughly\n     handled. In fact this Apostle preached, as we have shewn,\n     besides uncircumcision, a doctrine very different from that\n     of the Nazarenes, Ebionites, or first Christians, who,\n     according to St. Iren\u00e6us, St. Epiphanius, and Eusebius,\n     regarded Jesus merely as a man, the son of Joseph and Mary,\n     and who was called the Son of God, only on account of his\n     virtues. This may enable us to guess at the cause of Paul's\n     quarrel with Barnabas, whose Gospel insinuates that Paul was\n     in error in teaching that Jesus was God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. Paul preaches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece\n\nUpon his arrival at Lystra, St. Paul, notwithstanding the indulgence\nof the Council of Jerusalem, thought it good policy to circumcise a\nproselyte named Timothy, who was born of a Gentile father and a Jewish\nmother. The Acts of the Apostles inform us of the motive of this\ncircumcision (chap. xvi. ver. 3) it being done \"because of the Jews\nwhich were in those quarters.\"\n\nOur two Missionaries now travelled over several provinces of Asia Minor,\nsuch as Phrygia and Galatia, and yet we find that the Holy Ghost forbade\nthem to announce the word of God in Asia. We may indeed suppose, that\nin this passage, the \"Holy Ghost\" is only intended to indicate that our\nmissionaries themselves perceived, that it would be dangerous for them\nto preach their doctrine; for in the Holy Scriptures the persons of whom\nit speaks are always supposed to act from divine impulse.\n\nPaul had a vision, which persuaded him to go to Macedonia. Being arrived\nat Phillippi, he preached to the women with such success, that he had\nthe happiness of converting a dealer in purple, named Lydia, who, from\ngratitude, invited them pressingly to lodge in her house. They were\nwell accommodated no doubt, since devotees take great care of their\ndirectors; but our holy personages had the misfortune to perform a\nmiracle which deranged all their affairs. Paul cast out the evil spirit\nfrom a damsel, who having a spirit of divination, brought great profit\nto her masters by soothsaying. The cure, or perhaps conversion, of\nthis slave, displeased her masters, they carried their complaint to\nthe magistrates; the people took a part against our preachers, who were\nbeaten with rods and then sent to prison. An earthquake retrieved their\naffairs, they gained over the gaoler whom they converted to the faith.\nIn the meantime the magistrates sent him an order to release our\nprisoners. But Paul, bearing in mind the scourging they had received,\nrequired that the magistrates should come in person and release them,\nasserting that they were Roman citizens: at these words the magistrates\nwere intimidated, and came with apologies to set them free, begging them\nto leave their city, which request they complied with, after having\nbeen to console Lydia the devout, and the brethren, who according to\nappearances did not suffer them to depart empty-handed. This bad success\ndid not discourage our missionaries who were aware doubtless, that\nthey were inconveniences attached to their profession. They now went to\nThessalonica, where Paul had the good luck to make some proselytes\nboth among Jews and Gentiles; he converted especially, some ladies\nof quality; but the hardened Jews were very much irritated at his\nsuccesses; they endeavoured to apprehend Paul and Silas, but not being\nable to find them, they dragged Jason, their host, and some of the\nbrethren, before the magistrates, accusing them of treason, and of\nacknowledging another king besides C\u00e6sar.\n\nThis uproar obliged our missionaries to decamp during the night from\nThessalonica, and take the road to Berea, where they were well received\nby the Jews, since Paul succeeded in convincing them that the Gospel\nwhich he announced was clearly predicted in their own Scriptures: there\nis reason to believe that this was effected by the aid of mystical,\ncabalistical, and allegorical senses, of which he so well knew the use,\nin finding in the Old Testament sufficient to establish whatever he was\ndesirous of proving.\n\nHe gained in this city a great number of recruits from amongst the Greek\nfemales of quality, women, according to St. Jerome are best fitted to\npropagate a sect; their levity makes them easily caught by novelties;\ntheir ignorance renders them credulous; their talkativeness spreads\nthe opinions with which they are imbued; and, in short, their obstinacy\nstrongly attaches them to the way of thinking they have once adopted. In\na word we see, that in all times the Christian religion has been under\nthe greatest obligations to women; it is to them that innovators ought\nespecially to address themselves when they have opinions to establish,\nit is by their aid that fanatics and devout impostors succeed in giving\nimportance to their doctrine, and sow the seeds of discord in society.\nIt appears that in the time of Paul, women had the right of speaking or\nof prophesying in the church, of this, they have since been deprived,\nand they are only allowed the privilege of bawling in public, in\nfavour of the systems of their holy directors, whom they always believe\ninfallible, without so much as knowing the state of the question. The\nQuakers are now the only sect which permits women to preach *.\n\n     * There appears some little ambiguity in this paragraph,\n     since if the levity of women renders them so easily\n     susceptible to the embracing new opinions, the obstinacy\n     with which they are charged in adhering to old ones, would\n     seem to neutralize the opposite propensity, and like the\n     infinite attributes of Justice and Mercy in the Christians'\n     God, they would annihilate each other. The fact is, that the\n     ignorant of either sex, are always the most credulous, and\n     their opinions, when imbibed, are seldom to be dignified\n     with any other term than prejudice. Of the great influence\n     of woman in society, no one can doubt, and it is the duty of\n     all who think, and who desire a reformation of the present\n     semi-barbarous state of society, to endeavour to inform and\n     enlighten the female mind; it belongs to man to war against\n     old systems, and errors rendered sacred by their antiquity,\n     and perhaps to lay down some few elementary principles,\n     founded upon a more rational basis, but so long as the\n     infant mind is under the controul of woman, it is to her\n     that we must look to see those principles implanted: it is\n     by the aid of woman that the mass of mankind will (if ever\n     it be done) be transformed from a herd of slaves, to a race\n     of happy and intelligent beings, knowing their rights, and\n     daring to defend them.\n\nThe Jews of Thessalonica proceeded to trouble our preachers, in their\napostolic labours, to such a degree that Paul was under the necessity\nof flying. He, however, took care to leave two missionaries at Berea,\nto watch over the flock which he had gathered. Nevertheless these soon\nreceived orders to join him at Athens.\n\nIn this celebrated city the zeal of our Apostle kindled, he had\nconferences with the philosophers: desirous to learn the nature of the\ndiscoveries which this man had come to announce to them, they conducted\nhim to the Areopagus, there Paul harangued them and spoke to them of\nhis God, in a manner something conformable to the notions already\nentertained by some of the Greek philosophers of the Divinity. To\nconfirm his discourse he cited to them a passage from the poet Aratus,\nwho nevertheless appears to suppose, according to the doctrine of Plato,\nthat God is the soul of the world. He inveighed against gods made of\nstone and metal, which did not shock the philosophers, whose ideas were\nmore refined than those of the vulgar.\n\nThus far our orator was attentively heard, but the sages of Athens would\nno longer listen to him, when he began to speak of the last judgment,\nand of the resurrection, which they regarded as an absurd and ridiculous\nnotion. Nevertheless the preaching of Paul was not totally useless at\nAthens, the dogma of the resurrection was no obstacle to the conversion\nof Dionysius, the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and some others.\nThese were none of them shocked at this doctrine, which was so revolting\nto philosophers, who were accustomed to the study of nature, and who\nrefused to adopt, without examination, such marvellous and romantic\nideas.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. Preaching of St. Paul at Corinth and Ephesus\n\nAfter leaving Athens our Apostle came to Corinth. It appears that\nat first he had not much success, for he took to his old trade of\ntent-making. However, he ventured to preach in the synagogue, where the\nJews were indignant at his discourse: they carried him to the tribunal\nof the proconsul of Achate, who had sufficient prudence to refuse to\ninterfere in their contests. The Jews did not imitate his moderation;\nthey ill-treated Sostenus, the chief of their synagogue, either for\nhaving allowed Paul to preach there, or for having been converted by his\ndiscourse.\n\nPaul, after some days, departed from Corinth, he cut off his hair to\nfulfil a vow he had made, and which apparently obliged him to be present\nat Jerusalem, in order to sacrifice in the temple, according to the law.\nWhence we see that our Apostle had not yet totally abandoned the Jewish\nreligion, and that he judged it good policy, occasionally to manoeuvre\nwith the Jews. In fact we continually see him sometimes practising, and\nat others decrying, Judaism. From Jerusalem, Paul went to Antioch, where\nhe remained some time, but the activity of his mind soon put him in\nmotion. After having crossed the high provinces of Asia he came to\nEphesus, where he found the secret of uniting to his sect the disciples\nof St. John the Baptist, whom he rebaptized, and made them acquainted\nwith the Holy Ghost of whom they had no idea. Having now increased his\nparty by these new recruits, Paul set about preaching in the synagogue,\nbut finding the Jews rather untractable, he withdrew himself, and\nseparated his disciples from them. He then commenced teaching in a\nseparate school and performing miracles to confirm his discourses; he\ncured the sick, and especially those possessed, in which he succeeded\nmuch better than those of the Jews, who endeavoured from his example to\nattempt such cures. These miracles converted many persons.\n\nNevertheless, the preaching of Paul at Ephesus gave rise to an affair,\nwhich had nearly proved very troublesome. The Goldsmiths of this city\nderived much profit from the manufacture of little silver shrines of\nDiana, the patroness of the Ephesians These artisans were much disturbed\nwith the preaching of our apostle, who decried the gods, and might thus\noccasion the ruin of their trade; their clamour alarmed the people, and\ncaused a great commotion; the public, as is generally the case, when the\naffair relates to religion, grew very violent, without knowing why. They\ncomprehended, in general terms, that their religion and its patroness\nwere attacked; and there needed nothing more to inflame their zeal.\nHowever the town-clerk of the city having explained to them that\ntheir goddess was in no danger, succeeded in calming the fury of\nthe superstitious populace, and thus extricated our apostle from his\nembarassments.\n\nPaul, however, thought proper to quit a city, in which he had run such\na risk, and again put himself in motion. Arrived at Troas he recommenced\npreaching, when his sermon, being a little too long, sent a young man to\nsleep, who fell from the third story into the street: they took him up\nfor dead, when our Apostle having embraced him, assured them that he\nlived, the author of the Acts, takes this fact for a miracle, and tells\nus gravely that Paul raised a dead man on this occasion.\n\nNotwithstanding this pretended miracle, which if it had been true\nought to have converted the whole town, Paul went directly away, and\nrecommenced his travels. At Miletus he took leave of the priests of all\nthe adjacent places, after having made them a pathetic exhortation, in\nwhich he boasts of his humility and disinterestedness, and desires them\nto watch over the flock which he had gathered together by his preaching\nand indefatigable exertions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. The Apostle gets into embarrassments at Jerusalem, and is\nsent to Rome\n\nPaul now embarked for Jerusalem; notwithstanding his own presentiments,\nthe warnings that were given him, and the prayers of his adherents,\nhe was obstinately determined to resort to this city, where the Jews\nirritated by his successes, prepared him an unpleasant reception. He\nwas welcomed by the brethren, to whom he related the progress of the\nnew sect, but these informed him of the bad designs of the Jews, who\npretended, and not without reason, that he taught a doctrine contrary\nto that of Moses. To silence these rumours, and to calm the anger of the\npopulace, they advised him to fulfil some of the Jewish ceremonies in\npublic, and to give to these acts of religion much solemnity.\n\nPaul consented to this counsel, but the Jews of Asia, were not thus\nduped, they knew what to keep to respecting the doctrine which had\ndisgusted them; they then excited the Jews of Jerusalem, by saying, that\nhe brought the Gentiles into the Temple. All the city was soon in an\nuproar, the devout people seized Paul, drew him out of the Temple, the\ngates of which were closed against this profaner. They were going to\nkill him, had not a tribune rescued him out of their hands, and shut him\nup in a fortress, in the midst of the clamour of an enraged populace,\nwhich demanded his death.\n\nThe Apostle ready to enter his prison, asked of the tribune permission\nto harangue the mob, which was granted after his Conductor was\nprobably assured that he was not the brigand who had lately excited an\ninsurrection in the country.\n\nIn his discourse, which he pronounced in Hebrew, Paul related to the\npeople the history of his miraculous conversion, nearly in the manner\nin which it has been narrated. This recital far from softening the Jews,\nmade them lose all patience, especially when our Apostle told them he\nwas sent to the Gentiles. They then broke silence, crying out, \"away\nwith such a fellow from the earth, it is not fit that he should live.\"\nThe tribune then shut him up in prison, and commanded that he should be\nscourged, in order to draw from him an acknowledgment of the crime which\nhad excited the fury of the Jews. Paul then declared himself a Roman\ncitizen, and represented to the centurion charged with the execution\nof these orders, that it was contrary to law, thus to treat a citizen\nwithout a trial. The centurion informed the tribune, who was fearful of\nhaving acted with too much precipitation. He was desirous of knowing for\na certainty of what he was accused by the Jews, and the next morning,\nfreeing him from his chains, presented him to the priests and council of\nthe nation. Paul then began to harangue the council. He first declared\nthat in all he had done, he had followed strictly the dictates of his\nconscience. At these words the High Priest gave him a box on the ear,\nat which Paul being irritated, instead of turning the other cheek,\naccording to the precept of Jesus, abused the High Priest, treated him\nas a hypocrite, or whitened wall. But as he perceived that he had given\noffence by his insolence to a man respected by the Jews, he moderated\nhimself, and alleged that he was ignorant that it was the High Priest\nwhom he had thus addressed in such terms; an ignorance, however, which\ncannot fail to excite surprise, considering that he was a man, who must\nhave been informed respecting the place where he was, and the quality of\nthose before whom he was speaking. Our orator was more of an adept,\nin managing the opinions of his auditory: aware that the council was\ncomposed of Sadducees, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection;\nand of Pharisees, who supported it, he knew how to profit by this\ncircumstance, by sowing the seed of discord among his judges. In order\nto this he pretended that he was a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee,\nand asserted that they sought his life, because of his hope in the\nresurrection of the dead, This stratagem produced the desired effect,\nthe Pharisees declared in his favour, and acknowledged his innocence,\nsaying, \"We find no evil in this man, but if a spirit or an angel hath\nspoken to this man, let us not fight against God.\" The tumult increased,\nand the tribune fearing that the orator would be torn in pieces, put him\nunder a guard of soldiers, and carried him back to prison.\n\nDuring the following night, Paul had a vision, in which he thought he\nsaw the Lord, who told him to be of good courage; and prophecied that\nhe should go to Rome to bear witness. On the other hand forty fanatical\nJews, made a vow neither to eat nor drink till they had assassinated\nPaul. This resolution had the approbation of the princes and priests,\nwho, according to the clerical spirit, found nothing more just than\nassassination in order to get rid of an enemy. The senators also\nconsented to this treachery. But Paul's nephew having informed him of\nthis plot, he made the tribune acquainted with it, who to secure the\nsafety of his prisoner, and to rescue him from the fury of the Jews,\nconducted him under a good escort to C\u00e6sarea, and put him under the\nprotection of Felix, the governor of that province.\n\nPaul, and his accusers, made their appearance before the pagan governor,\nwho, little versed in the theological disputes of the Jews, told them\nthat he should decide the affair when he was more fully acquainted with\nthe particulars. However some days after, he caused the Apostle to be\nbrought before himself, and his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess; they\nheard what he had to say to them of faith in Jesus Christ. But when\nPaul, after having preached to them of justice, charity, and repentance,\nspoke of the last judgment, they were afraid, and ordered him to retire,\npostponing the hearing till a future time. Felix hoping to draw some\nmoney from his prisoner, often sent for him to converse with him. This\nconduct lasted two years, at the end of which period this Governor was\nreplaced by Festus.\n\nThe Jews proceeded to accuse Paul before the new governor, and demanded\nthat he should be sent to Jerusalem. The accused, well knowing that\nthe place of this scene would be unfavourable to him, and fearing that\nFestus would yield to the importunities of his enemies, appealed from\nhim to C\u00e6sar. This appeal suspended all proceedings. However Festus\nhaving spoken of his prisoner to King Agrippa, who had the curiosity\nto see a man that had made so much noise in Judea. Paul appeared before\nthis prince, justified himself from the accusations brought against\nhim, and finished by preaching the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This\ndoctrine appeared so strange to Festus that he did not doubt a moment of\nhis being deranged. However as folly did not seem to him a crime worthy\nof death, he would instantly have acquitted him, had he not made an\nappeal to C\u00e6sar. In consequence of this appeal, Paul was put on board a\nship about to sail for Italy. After many difficulties he was shipwrecked\non the coast of the isle of Malta, where the author of the Acts, from\nwhom we have taken this narrative, does not fail to make him perform\nmiracles, a necessary seasoning to legends.\n\nAmongst other wonders which Paul wrought in the isle of Malta, he cured\nhimself, in a very natural manner, of the bite of a viper; in fact, it\nappears that he applied fire to it immediately, a simple and well known\nremedy, but which was such a prodigy in the eyes of the poor Maltese,\nthat they took him, who was in possession of so fine a secret, for a\nGod*. There was apparently nothing more wonderful in the Apostle\ncuring the son of his host, whom he found ill of a fever and dysentery;\ndisorders which we find yield to very simple remedies. Still this cure\ngained Paul great reputation, they soon brought him a great number of\nsick, who, according to our historian, he did not fail to cure. They\nrendered him great honours, furnished him with the necessary provisions\nfor his voyage, and he embarked for Italy.\n\n     * Acts chap. xxviii. ver. 3-6.\n\nUpon his arrival at Rome, Paul was permitted to confer with the\nChristians, and to preach to the Jews, whom he endeavoured to convert to\nthe faith of Christ by the law of Moses and the prophets, which he had\nthe talent of applying wonderfully to his views: Some smitten with the\nmystical, cabalistical, and allegorical explications, that our Apostle\ngave them, adopted his opinions, while many others resisted his\narguments.\n\nIndignant against the latter, he told them that their hardness of heart\nhad been predicted by Isaiah; he then gave them to understand, that God\nhad formed the project of blinding them, in order to have a fair pretext\nfor rejecting them, and transferring to the Gentiles, the light and\nsalvation of which the Jews had made themselves unworthy, by the\nobstinacy in which it was the will of God that they should persist.\n\nThis conduct of the Divinity must doubtless have appeared very strange\nto the Jews. So the Acts inform us, that there arose from these\npreachings of Paul, great contests among them. They turned apparently\nupon predestination and grace; questions upon which Christian\ntheologians, have not after eighteen centuries been able to come, either\nto an understanding or agreement.\n\nIt appears that notwithstanding the obscurity of his doctrine our\nApostle succeeded in gaining proselytes to his sect; this obscurity\nitself, has charms for many persons, who believe that a doctrine, is\nso much the more marvellous or divine, as it is above the power of the\nunderstanding. He preached during two years to the Romans, without any\nperson throwing obstacles in his way, and thus laboured to spread this\nreligion in the capital of the world.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles, which the church orders us to receive as of\ndivine inspiration, informs us nothing more. St Luke to whom this work\nis generally attributed, has transmitted to us, neither the actions,\nmiracles nor death of his heroes. We are reduced to seek our information\nthereupon from traditions, which the interests of the clergy would wish\nus to regard, almost as sacred as divine inspirations. According to\nthese respectable traditions, our Apostle shed his blood for the faith\nin the propagation of which he had laboured; he was, say they, beheaded\nin the reign of Nero, and in the sixty-sixth year of the Christian era.\n\nAfter what has been said, we ought naturally to regard St. Paul as\nthe true founder of the pontifical see of Rome. Nevertheless certain\ntraditions, useful to the Roman Pontiffs, oblige us to believe that it\nwas St. Peter, who established his throne in the capital of the world;\nthe popes have thought, that their interests required, that they should\npass for the authorized successors of this Prince of the Apostles, to\nwhom Christ himself according to the Gospel, granted immense rights and\nprivileges. These traditions then make St. Peter travel to Rome, prior to\nSt. Paul, and only regard the latter as the subaltern associate in the\nApostolic labours of the former.\n\nNevertheless some critics have ventured to doubt of the reality of St.\nPeter's voyage to Italy, and his foundation of the first see in the\nworld, some authors otherwise very orthodox, without regarding the\ninterests of the Pope, or respect for the traditions which favour them,\nhave treated those pretensions as chimeras: as to the heretics, the\nsworn enemies of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, they have asserted,\nthat the voyage of St. Peter to Rome was a fable invented by the\nsupporters and partizans, with a design to exalt his authority. Both\nparties found their doubts or assertions upon these grounds. First, That\nthe books which the church considers as inspired, make no mention of the\nvoyage of Simon Peter, although the circumstance of going to plant the\nfaith in the capital of the world, was sufficiently remarkable to claim\na notice in preference to all the minor cities, which the Acts inform\nus that he visited to preach; in fact, the Holy Ghost, or St. Luke his\norgan, wishing to inform us in this history of the means made use of by\nGod, to propagate the Gospel, could not without injustice, omit such a\nsignal success, nor fail to give the honour of it to St. Peter, in case\nhe had a claim to it.\n\nSecondly, St. Paul who was at Rome at the same time, that Peter was\nsupposed to have been there, never once mentions this Prince of the\nApostles, in the epistles to the faithful at different places, while he\nspeaks to them of many other disciples of much less consideration than\nhis illustrious colleague: we ought piously to suppose that if St. Peter\nhad really established the faith at Rome, the Apostle of the Gentiles\nwould have been too equitable to ravish from him the glory, that must\nhave accrued to him from so fine a conquest.\n\nThirdly, Our two Apostles, after the disputes, which they had at Antioch\nwould not have been desirous of meeting, or exhibiting in the same\nplace. St. Peter would naturally avoid a haughty colleague, who resisted\nhim to his face, and who publicly reproved him in a manner sufficiently\ndisagreeable. Besides Rome being a pagan city, naturally fell into the\ndepartment of the Apostle of the Gentiles. In short according to the\nActs of the Apostles, St. Paul was too hasty to agree long with an\nassociate greater than himself. His quarrel with Barnabas, for a slight\ndifference, proves that Paul was easily irritated.\n\nFourthly, St. Peter wrote his first epistle from Babylon, and not from\nRome. It is true that the advocates of this voyage of Peter's, pretend\nthat Babylon is the same city as Rome, but this is a geographical error,\nthat without a great share of faith can never be admitted for a truth.\nAgain, the city of Babylon in Syria, no longer existed in the time of\nPeter, there was then only a Babylon in Egypt; it is only there that we\ncan suppose Peter to have written this first epistle.\n\nFifthly, The traditions which make St. Peter travel to Rome, are filled\nwith fables, which make them very suspicious, such as his dispute with\nSimon the magician, who having raised himself into the air, by virtue\nof his art, fell down and broke his limbs by virtue of the Apostles\nprayers. We may also place in the list of fables, the apparition of\nChrist to Peter, when he fled from Rome, and his crucifixion with his\nhead downwards. These facts are related neither by inspired authors,\nnor eye witnesses, they are founded on traditions only, that is to say,\npopular rumour, which many persons do not respect so much as the Pope,\nand the clergy seem to desire.\n\nAt the risk then of \"uncovering Peter to cover Paul\" we say that all\nthese reasons, seem at least to authorize a doubt respecting the voyage\nof St. Peter to Rome, at any rate the Acts of the Apostles appears to\ninsinuate that Paul was the true founder of the see of Rome. He must\nthen be regarded as the first Pope. Besides the popes have adopted his\nmaxims, and faithfully imitate his policy in many respects; this would\neasily be proved by comparing the almost constant principles of the\nchurch of Rome, with those of our Apostle, which we shall soon have\noccasion to examine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. Reflections on the Life and Character of St. Paul\n\nSuch is in a few words the life of St. Paul whom we are justly entitled\nto regard as the principal founder of the Christian Religion. In fact\nit appears that without him, the ignorant and rude disciples of Jesus,\nwould never have been able to spread their sect. In order to succeed\nthey required a man of greater information and activity, more\nenterprising and enthusiastic, and possessing more dexterity than any of\nthose, who composed the apostolic college, before it was joined by Paul.\nIn him we see all those qualities united, which made him of all others,\nthe most fitted to lay the foundation of a new sect. He knew how to\nprofit by the lessons he had received from Gamaliel; from him he had\nacquired a profound knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures, and learnt the\nart of explaining them in an allegorical sense, or, in other words, the\nCabala by which we may find in these books whatever we desire.\n\nIt can hardly be doubted that our Apostle, possessed much energy and\nambition. We first see him persecuting the disciples of Jesus with\nardour; and with the view of gaining his ends, and making court to the\npriests, stoop to the trade of informer and spy. Apparently he expected\nby these means to advance himself, but seeing the futility of these\nambitious hopes, and probably despised and neglected even by those whom\nhe had thus zealously served; he changes his batteries, threw himself\nupon the enemies side, and seeing the abilities of those whom he found\nat the head of the new sect, he felt how easily he could eclipse them,\nand constitute himself the chief.\n\nThere is reason to believe that these were the true motives of Paul's\nconversion; a mind of his stamp in declaring itself on the side of the\nnew sect, at once satisfied its vengeance and ambition. It was then very\neasy for Ananias to make him listen to reason. The apostles were\nnot slow in discovering the value of their new acquisition; they\nacknowledged the superiority of such a man; they foresaw the advantages\nthe rising sect would derive from his knowledge, his active and\npersevering genius and intrepidity of character. Thus we see the new\nApostle, from the moment that he was enrolled in the Apostolic College,\nperform the principal part, and throw his coadjutors completely in\nthe shade. These contented with preaching at Jerusalem, seldom showed\nthemselves at a distance from this city, whilst our hero, continually\ntraversed the provinces, made spiritual conquests, and strengthened in a\nhundred places the cause of the disciples of Christ, now become his own.\nIn a word Paul now becomes the soul of his sect; his enthusiasm extends\nitself; he braves danger when it is necessary to increase the number\nof his partizans; his ambition is flattered by the empire that he has\ngained; crosses, fatigues, imprisonments, and blows are not capable\nof abating his ardour; determined to succeed at any cost he sacrifices\nevery thing to the desire that he has of extending those opinions, which\ngive him the power of reigning over the minds of men. He knew well that\nno-empire upon earth is more grateful or stronger than that of opinion.\n\nNothing appears that ought to induce us to regard the activity,\nobstinate constancy, and courage of Paul as miraculous or supernatural\neffects. We find the same zeal, and frequently the same intrepidity\nand obstinacy in all those strongly animated by ambition or any other\npassion. Obstacles but serve generally to irritate energetic minds, more\nand more, they make a merit of braving dangers; torture, and even death,\ncannot restrain those who are thoroughly enamoured with any object in\nwhich they have placed their happiness.\n\nSt. Paul has been held up to us as a man divested of all personal views.\nHis humility, constancy, disinterestedness, and patience, have been\nadvanced, as undoubted proofs of his sincerity, and pure zeal for his\nreligion. But we say that all these things prove nothing but his violent\ndesire for success. The preachers of an infant and oppressed sect,\ndestitute of power, must always announce themselves with much\nsuppleness, mildness and humility; an ambitious man must in order to\ngain men's hearts, effect much moderation and appear disinterested;\nbesides he is sure of losing nothing, when he shall succeed in\nestablishing his empire over the mind. Do devotees ever neglect their\nspiritual guides? In short patience and constancy are necessary in all\nenterprises; every man who would crown a great adventure with success,\nought to avoid hastiness. Nevertheless if we turn to the history of St.\nPaul, we shall see that patience was not always his ruling virtue;\nhe very often spoiled his plans by his eagerness, and especially he\nalienated the minds of the Jews, rather than converted them to his\nopinions. He would perhaps have succeeded much better with them, had he\nkept a better government over his impetuous temper, at which it appears\nhis coadjutors often revolted. Devotees generally mistake that for\nzeal, which is but a vice in their character, and an imprudence in their\nconduct. The bitter reply that Paul made to the High Priest, proves that\nour Apostle was not excessively enduring, and forgot, at least, on some\noccasions his Christian patience.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. Of the Enthusiasm of St. Paul\n\nIt appears certain that this apostle was filled with enthusiasm and\nzeal. It will perhaps be asked whether we have a right to regard him\nas an impostor? a thousand examples prove to us, that nothing is more\ncommon, than to witness enthusiasm, zeal and imposture united in the\nsame person. The most sincere enthusiast is generally a man whose\npassions are turbulent, and capable of blinding him; he takes his\npassions for divine impulses, be deludes himself, and if we may be\nallowed the expression, gets intoxicated with his own wine. A man who\nat first engages in a particular cause from motives of interest, or\nambition, very frequently finishes by attaching himself to it with\nsincerity and with strength proportioned to the sacrifices he may have\nmade for it. If he succeed in persuading himself, that the cause of his\npassions is the cause of God, he will make no scruple of supporting\nit by all sorts of means, he will sometimes allow the use of artifice,\ndeceit, and oblique ways of maintaining the opinions of which he happens\nto be convinced. It is thus we daily see very zealous devotees, employ\ndeception, fraud, and sometimes crime, in support of the interests of\nreligion, i. e. of the cause they have embraced.\n\nThus although in the first instance the desire of being revenged on the\npriests, or ambitious views, may have determined St. Paul to join the\nsect of Christians, he might have been able by degrees to attach himself\nstrongly to it, to persuade himself that it was preferable to the\nreligion of the Jews, and to employ objectionable means, in order to\nmake it succeed in the world.\n\nThe examination that now remains for us to make of some features in the\nconduct of our apostle, and of some passages in the writings which are\nattributed to him, will serve better than any reasoning to determine the\njudgment, we ought to come to respecting this person. Let us then hear\nwhat he has to say for himself. This analysis will shew us whether\nPaul was so sincere, disinterested, humble, mild, and upright as his\npartizans, maintain him to have been.\n\nSt. Paul in speaking of himself says: \"That he knew a man who was caught\nup into the third heaven, and that there he heard unspeakable words,\nwhich it was not lawful for man to utter*.\" It appears in the first\nplace that no one but a man of a very heated imagination could with\nsincerity pretend to have been caught up into the third Heaven; and no\none but an impostor, could assert such a fact without being persuaded\nof it. In the second place we may ask of what use could it be to mankind\nthat St. Paul should hear in the third heaven, unspeakable words, that\nis to say, such as it was unlawful for man to utter? What should we\nthink of a man who should come and assure us, that he possessed a secret\nmost important to our happiness, but yet one which he was not permitted\nto divulge? Thus the voyage of St. Paul is either a chimera engendered\nby a sickly brain, or a fable, contrived by a cheat, who sought to make\nhimself respected by boasting of the peculiar favours of the almighty.\nThis voyage then was perfectly useless, since it was not permitted him\nwho made it to relate that which he learnt from it. In short there is\nmalice in St. Paul thus irritating the curiosity of his hearers and\nrefusing to satisfy it. Under whatever point of view then we behold this\nhistory or tale of Paul's ravishment into the third heaven, it can be of\nno utility to us, and reflects but little honour upon himself.\n\n     * 2 Corinthians, chap. xii. ver. 2, 3, 4.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. Of the Disinterestedness of St. Paul\n\nIn narrowly examining into the conduct of our Apostle, we shall have\nmuch difficulty in discovering that disinterestedness with which his\npartizans are so desirous of investing him. We have already exposed the\nnatural motives which may have contributed to his conversion. If it be\ntrue as the Acts of the Apostles, adopted by the Ebionites or Nazarenes,\nasserts, that St. Paul flattered himself with the idea of marrying the\nhigh priest's daughter, and failed in the project, the disappointment\nmight to a man of his passionate and hasty temper, be a motive\nsufficient to determine him to change sides, and from being as we have\nshewn him to have been the spy and satellite of the priests, basely\nseeking to gain their good will, by becoming the agent in their furies\nagainst the disciples of Jesus; to declare himself in favour of those,\nwho were their greatest enemies. It was perhaps the ill success of\nPaul's amours, that determined him to a life of celibacy, and to boast\nof it as meritorious, whilst according to the Jewish law, nothing was\nheld in less repute than this state. This holy man would doubtless\ntransform into a virtue, a conduct, which in him was nothing but chagrin\nand ill temper. He asserts that it is good for men to abstain from\nwomen; consequently our clergy have regarded celibacy as a virtue: they\nhave fancied themselves obliged to imitate the great St. Paul even in\nhis resentments against the sex. They have flattered themselves with\nthe idea of being able to resist like him the temptations of the flesh,\nwhich often torments them; if they have indulgently permitted marriage\nto the profane, it is because Paul has said, it is better to marry than\nto burn. It is notwithstanding probable that the conversion of St. Paul\nwas occasioned by other motives than the anecdote related by the Acts\nof the Ebionites, which appears exposed to many objections. In fact,\naccording to these Acts, Paul was a pagan born, was made a proselyte,\nand consequently he could not, without having been guilty of great\nfolly, pretend to the daughter of a high priest, whose dignity was so\neminent amongst the Jews. On the other hand according to the writings\nadopted by the Christians of our time, St. Paul was of the tribe of\nBenjamin, and would not have been permitted to marry the daughter of a\nhigh priest, who must necessarily have been of the tribe of Levi. Again\nPaul was a mechanic, a tent-maker, a situation which must have deprived\nhim of all hope of an alliance so illustrious as that of a sovereign\nPontiff. Thus unless we suppose that love had totally blinded our hero,\nto the obstacles which naturally opposed themselves to his desires,\nthere is reason to believe that his conversion, or change of party,\noriginated from other motives, than the chagrin of seeing his amours\nfrustrated. There is reason to believe that Paul being of a very unquiet\ngenius, was tired of his trade: desirous of trying his fortune, and\nliving without work, he became the spy of the priests and the informer\nagainst the Christians. Dissatisfied with the priests, who perhaps had\nnot rewarded him to the extent of his expectations, he joined the new\nsect, which assisted by his talents promised good success, or even a\nprobability that he might become the head; at least he might fairly\ncalculate on an easy and honourable subsistence without being obliged to\nmake tents, In fact he saw, that the apostles, who were vulgar men much\ninferior to himself, lived very well at the expence of the new converts,\nwho eagerly brought their wealth and laid it at the apostles feet,\nconsequently Paul was sensible, how easy it was for him to live in the\nsame way, and provide himself a very comfortable birth, in a sect, in\nwhich he felt himself capable of playing a very important part. His\nambition must have been more gratified with occupying one of the\nfirst posts, even amongst beggars, than of cringing in an infamous\nand dishonourable capacity, under avaricious, haughty and disdainful\npriests. Indeed Paul himself tells us that he had relations of\nconsiderable note among the apostles, who having embraced the faith\nbefore him, might have laboured with success for the conversion of a man\nso disposed.*\n\n     * Epis, to Romans, chap. xvi. verse 7.\n\nThe persecutions that he had excited against the disciples could not\nhave put any very serious obstacles in the way of his admission into the\napostolic college: nothing was required but to explain and agree upon\nfacts. The chiefs of the sect were very much flattered at seeing the\nconquest made by their party of an inconvenient adversary, who came of\nhis own accord, and offered his services. His conversion, effected by a\nmiracle, did honour to his mission, and showed the vulgar the protection\nof heaven, which changed the heart of the most bitter enemy of the\nChristians. As Paul was not ignorant that in this sect great value was\nset upon miracles, visions and revelations, he thought this was the most\nfavourable door by which he could enter, and render himself acceptable\nto the Apostles; they received him with open arms well assured of the\nsincerity of a man who after having made such an uproar could not recede\nwithout making himself equally odious both to Jews and Christians.\nSt. Paul amongst other talents which rendered him a fit person to\npropagate the new religion, understood, according to appearances,\nHebrew, Greek, and Latin, whilst in spite of the gift of tongues, we do\nnot find, that the other apostles possessed these advantages. In fact we\nsee them remain at Jerusalem, preaching to the Jews only, whilst the new\napostle extended his spiritual conquests, into the provinces of Asia and\nGreece, where it appears that without him the Gospel would not have been\npreached so soon.\n\nOnce connected with the new sect, Paul had doubtless a great interest in\nspreading it, in strengthening his party, and making converts in order\nto gain support, and have the pleasure of reigning over a great number\nof devotees. Thus, under every point of view, we see that our Apostle,\nwhether in his conversion, or in his preaching, was every thing but\nnegligent of his interest. All missionaries have necessarily ambition;\nthey propose to themselves the pleasure of governing minds, and every\nthing proves that Paul was not exempt from a passion inherent in\nall founders of sects. And further having once established his\necclesiastical power, we often see him taking care of his temporal\ninterests, and making his flock feel how just it is that the priest\nshould live by the altar; in a word to occupy himself with the\nemoluments of his preaching. \"Let him,\" says he, \"that is taught in the\nword communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.*\" He speaks\nin the same tone to the Thessalonicans (chap. v. ver. 12.) He likewise\nrecommends them an abundant charity.\n\n     * Epis, to Galatians, chap. vi. ver. 6.\n\nIt remains to be observed, St. Paul is not like his successors\nungrateful for the benefits which he has received. He thanks the\nPhilippians for having twice assisted him in his need. It appears that\nin his time the Apostles did not possess the divine right that men had\nthe goodness to give them: but the clergy have since asserted that they\nhold from God alone, that which they obtained from the generosity of\nprinces and people, which evidently frees them from the necessity of\nshowing gratitude to any one.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. Of the imperious Tone and political Views of St. Paul\n\nIt appears by the writings attributed to Paul himself that the empire\nwhich he exercised over the members whom he had added to his sect, was\nnot one of mildness. In proof of this, may be cited the manner in which\nthis spiritual despot speaks to the faithful of Corinth. \"Moreover (says\nhe) I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you, I came not\nas yet into Corinth.\"* Again, \"For to this end also did I write, that I\nmight know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things**\". He\nthreatens the Corinthians, and says to them, \"if I come again I will\nnot spare.\" Again he justifies the tone in which he talks, by saying,\n\"Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I\nshould use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given\nme to edification, and not to destruction.\"*** It is probably by virtue\nof this right of chastising, here assumed by St. Paul, that the Pontiffs\nand Priests of the Christians have since arrogated to themselves an\nunlimited spiritual power over, the thoughts of their subjects. Their\nempire extended itself by degrees over their persons; Christian priests,\nexceeding the Apostle to whom the Lord had given this power to\nedify, availed themselves of it to destroy those whom they found not\nsufficiently submissive to their decisions. If St. Paul did not exercise\nover his sheep a power so extensive, it is doubtless because he had not,\nlike our pastors, princes, magistrates and soldiers under his orders,\ncapable of executing his holy will: with his imperious temper we may\njustly conclude that he would have conducted himself much in the same\nmanner as some fathers of the church, the Pontiffs of Rome, or the Holy\nInquisition.\n\nWe see also that the Apostle, not satisfied with being sole judge in\nspiritual affairs, was desirous of the power of deciding in civil suits.\n\"Dare any of you having a matter against another go to law before the\nunjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall\njudge the world?****\" This passage evidently proves that the Apostle\nin the depth of his policy had already formed the design of making\nthe saints, i. e. the clergy, masters of the fortunes as well as the\nconsciences of the faithful. In fact, he adds, know ye not that we shall\njudge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? We cannot\nsufficiently admire the moderation of the Christian clergy, in not\nhaving rigorously acted up to the letter of this decisive text, which\nformally gives them the right of judging in all temporal affairs, or the\nconcerns of this life. Indeed it appears according to this passage, that\nChristians in their transactions, ought to have no other judges, or even\nsovereigns, than the church. It is from these maxims, that our priests\nhave become censors, or a kind of magistrates, who interfere with every\nthing, and set themselves up for the judges of the legitimacy of civil\nacts, of births and marriages, of which they have made themselves\nmasters; in a few words, they seize upon man the moment he is born, and\nregulate all his motions until his death. It is from these pretences,\nthat the popes have impudently arrogated the power of disposing of\ncrowns, of exciting insurrections and wars, and of deciding upon the\nrights of sovereigns and people.\n\n     * 2 Corinthians, chap. i. ver. 23.\n\n     ** 2 Corinthians, chap. ii. ver. 9.\n\n     ***  2 Corinthians, chap. xiii. ver. 2. and 10.\n\n     **** 1 Corinthians, chap. vi. ver. 1. and 2.\n\nIt is by no means surprising that the heads of the Christian church,\nhave at all times held up St. Paul, as a man divinely inspired; have\nfor a distinction entitled him, the Apostle, have inculcated for his\nwritings the most profound veneration, and have caused them to be\nconsidered, as the oracles of the Holy Ghost. This Apostle was evidently\nthe architect of the church. We may consider him especially as the\nfounder of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is to him that are owing the\nprerogatives, privileges, divine rights and pretences of the clergy.\nSt. Paul established bishops, assigned them their rights, and in his\nwritings laid the foundations of that spiritual power, which has since\nbecome so formidable to temporal authority. How could the inventor of so\nmany useful things, fail to be regarded as the organ of the divinity.\n\nNevertheless, if we read the gospels with the slightest attention, we\nshall find that Jesus has no where spoken of this hierarchy or power,\nnor of the prerogatives of the clergy; on the contrary, we see him'\nincessantly preaching to his apostles, equality, humility and poverty.\nBut in that as in many other instances, our Apostle thought himself\nat liberty to correct the institutions of Christ, who on all occasions\nshewed himself unfavourable to priests. These changes effected by\nPaul are sufficient to make us acquainted with his secret policy. He\nendeavoured apparently to make himself the spiritual and temporal\nhead of the churches, which he had by his labours, founded among the\nGentiles, with whom, as we have shewn, he had more success than amongst\nthe Jews. It was to gain them over that he became all things to all\nmen, that he dispensed them, as we have said, from the most essential\nordinances of the Mosaic law. In short he had the secret of insinuating\nhimself, into the minds of idolators, whom he sometimes took by surprize\naccommodating himself to their capacities, and giving them as he himself\nhas said, sometimes milk, and at others, solid food. As we have already\nsufficiently shewn, Paul after his successes with the Gentiles, gave\nhimself little trouble respecting the converted Jews, or with his elder\nbrethren in the apostle-ship; and openly declared himself against the\nMosaic law. As we have seen be went himself to Jerusalem, to solicit a\ndecree, to dispense the Gentiles from the rite of circumcision; this he\nhad much at heart, feeling how necessary this indulgence was, in order\nto secure his new subjects. Thus it was he who enlarged the breach,\nthough small in its origin, which separated the Jews from the\nChristians, or Nazarenes. This conduct naturally displeased the rest of\nthe apostles, who appeared, even after the council, always attached\nto the Jewish ordinances, but who on this occasion, found themselves\ncompelled to cede to Paul, or at least to temporize with a man who had\ngained an ascendancy over them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII. Of the Humility, of St. Paul\n\nWith the ability and ambitious conduct which we have just remarked in\nSt. Paul it is difficult to conceive that humility could have been his\nruling passion. Perusing his writings, we shall without much difficulty\ndiscover that when he humbles himself it is generally with a view of\nexalting himself in the eyes of his adherents; he does not fail to boast\nof the penalties, sufferings, and labours that he has submitted to\nfor love of them, it is upon this, that he founds his claims to their\nrespect and gratitude. \"Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers\nof Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God:\" further on he adds,\n\"for I think that God hath set forth us, the apostles last, as it were\nappointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to\nangels, and to men.\"\n\nSt. Paul then reproaches the Corinthians, with their ease, their luxury,\nand their pretences, and compares their happy situation with his own.\n\"We are, (says he to them,) fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in\nChrist: we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are\ndespised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are\nbuffeted, and have no certain dwelling place, and labour, working with\nour own hands.\" He then enumerates the evils he has suffered, and adds\n\"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons to warn\nyou.\" Of what? He explains himself, and says, \"For though you have ten\nthousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for\nin Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.\" Our humble\nmissionary sends them his lieutenant, Timothy, to bring them back to\ntheir duty, i. e. to the obedience they owed to their spiritual father,\nhe threatens them himself, and mildly demands of them, \"What will ye?\nShall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of\nmeekness?\"\n\nIn all this remarkable tirade there are no traces of that profound\nhumility, for which credit has been given to Paul: on the contrary, all\ndiscovers a domineering spirit, and a desire of exclusive power over\nthe faithful whom he had converted. It is generally the proudest men who\ncomplain the most bitterly of being despised and treated with contempt;\nand, amongst devotees, Pride knows how to cover appearances with the\ngarb of humility. However, our Apostle does not give himself the trouble\nto mask his self-love: in fact, when he compares himself to the rest of\nthe Apostles, he makes us understand, that though he terms himself the\nlast, he has a right to be considered as the first. He says, \"For I\nsuppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.\" It seems\nthat the Corinthians were shocked with the harshness of his tone; for he\nadds, \"but though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge: but we have\nbeen thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.\" Then feeling\nthat they might be disgusted with these imprudent self commendations, he\nsays, \"Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.\"\n\nIt is easy to see that our Evangelical Doctors propose to themselves\nPaul's humility as a model for their own. It is doubtless, in imitation\nof this great Saint, that the Pope calls himself the Servant of the\nServants of God, which does not, however, prevent him from making those\nwho refuse to acknowledge his unlimited power, and blindly subscribe to\nhis infallible decisions, feel his pastoral rod; but when the rulers of\nthe Church make use of this rod, it is only to shew their great zeal for\nthe interests of the Lord.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV. Of the Zeal of St. Paul; Reflections on this Christian\nVirtue\n\nThat passion which in common life is termed, anger, fury, vengeance or\ndelirium, becomes zeal as soon as its object is religion, or the cause\nof God. It is a maxim among Christian devotees, that we cannot love God\ntoo much, consequently we cannot sin in excess of zeal. According\nto these principles, our doctors in their quarrels, injure, defame,\ncalumniate, and asperse, and when they have the power, persecute and\nexterminate each other. Each sect, firmly persuaded that it is in the\nright, and that its peculiar way of thinking is the only one that God\ncan approve, thinks itself justified in destroying the opinions of its\nadversaries, which displeasing to itself, must consequently displease\nthe divinity. Thus in attentively examining the thing, we find that\nreligious zeal is nothing but anger, excited in a bigot by opinions\nadverse to his own, or those of the party he has espoused. In a word,\nzeal is the gall which contradiction secretes in the souls of bigots.\nThere can be no doubt, but that St. Paul has left a model of this sort,\nwhich our evangelical doctors, have in all times faithfully copied. If\nthis great Apostle did not go to the extent of persecuting those who\nresisted his arguments, or refused blindly to submit to his supreme\ndecisions, it is because he was not sufficiently strong; otherwise\njudging from the warmth of his temperament we may reasonably presume,\nthat he would have been easily carried to extremities, well calculated\nto justify the holy passion to which the heads of the church have since\ngiven themselves up on all occasions, when they have had sufficient\npower to give a lustre to their zeal.\n\nIn fact we find, that Paul's self love, did not suffer contradiction\nwith too much patience. He delivers over to Satan those who refuse\nto obey him, he pretended that any other Gospel, than his own, was\nabominable. \"I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called\nyou into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.\" He pretends and\naffirms that he alone taught the true doctrine, and that all others are\nimpostors, false prophets, and disturbers; we are obliged to believe on\nhis own word that he possesses infallibility.\n\nHe goes so far as to say in the heat of his self-love \"But though we, or\nan angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which\nwe have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so\nsay I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that\nye have received, let him be accursed.\"* This language might well appear\ninsolent, presumptuous, and even impious to those who have not faith,\nnevertheless it is that which is invariably held by the chiefs of every\nsect; we see them, upon their own authority, continually anathematizing,\nexcommunicating, damning and delivering over to the devil, whoever has\nthe temerity to understand the Gospel in any other way but their own.\nEvery doctor like Paul, declares himself and even believes himself to be\ninfallible; nothing in the world, (not even the angels of heaven) could\nmake him renounce opinions which his self-love, his obstinacy, and his\nvanity, cause him to behold as the only true.\n\n     * Epistle to Gal. Chap. i. ver. 8 and 9.\n\nThe history of Paul, however furnishes us with an embarrassing\ncircumstance. Ardent in dispute and obstinately attached to his own\nideas, we see this infallible Apostle boasted of having resisted Cephas,\ni.e. Peter, to his face, who nevertheless appears to have had titles to\ninfallibility, still better established than those of our Apostle; in\nfact if Paul, in order to prove his own infallibility, supports it by\nhis visions, inspirations, revelations, and miracles: St. Peter might in\nfavour of his own, oppose to him a great number of visions, dreams, and\nprodigies equally authentic with those of his brother. If Paul founded\nthe divinity of his mission, and the truth of his particular way of\nthinking on his own testimony, could not St. Peter cite, in support of\nhis authority, the testimony of Jesus Christ, who had declared him the\nchief of the apostles, who had established him, as the first shepherd of\nhis flock, and the rock on which, he would found his church? Is it not\nupon this authentic evidence, that the Pope, who stiles himself\nthe successor of Peter, founds his infallibility, acknowledged and\nmaintained by the greater part of the Roman Catholic Clergy? There\nis then reason to be astonished that Paul, with titles not so well\nestablished, should have dared to resist Peter to his face, or that he\nshould have boasted of such resistance; and it is not less surprising\nthat the latter should have ceded to his junior in the apostleship,\nhaving such powerful arguments to support his claim to infallibility.\n\nAll may however be explained by the supposition that upon this occasion\nSt. Paul showed himself more headstrong than St. Peter, who for the\nsake of peace, yielded to the eagerness of his adversary, and would not\nsupport his own infallibility at the risk of exciting a schism in the\nrising sect. We have seen in our time pious Jansenists avail themselves\nof St. Paul's example, to resist to the face the infallible decisions of\nthe Roman Pontiff; but he, less moderate than his predecessor St. Peter,\nwould not cede, but remained obstinate in maintaining his irrefragable\nauthority, and by this means produced and fomented divisions, which the\ndetermined zeal displayed by both parties, has rendered very dangerous.\nThe successor of St. Peter anathematizes, and finding himself the\nstrongest, persecutes the imitators of St. Paul, for daring to resist\nhim: these of course strongly attached to their principles which they\ndeem infallible, are obstinate in their resistance, detest the opinions\nof their tyrants, and in spite of charity, very cordially damn those who\ndo not think like themselves, whilst these last from attachment to\nthe infallibility of the Pope, whom they have on their side, believe\nthemselves compelled, in conscience, to make their adversaries submit to\nthe most inhuman and unreasonable treatment.\n\nSuch are the salutary effects which zeal has produced in the Church of\nJesus Christ, from the first preaching of the gospel to the present day.\nThe zeal of St. Paul not contented with exercising itself against his\nbrethren the apostles, shewed itself strongly in all situations. We see\nhim excite trouble and clamour in whatever cities he happened to be. We\ngenerally term a man a public disturber, who troubles the peace of his\nneighbours; but, in religion, a saint is a man who dares to preach his\nown opinions, as those of God himself, at the risk of exciting the most\ndisastrous revolutions in society. His self-love becomes legitimate as\nsoon as its object is religion; proves to him in the most convincing\nmanner that he is always right; that his way of thinking is necessary\nto salvation, and that all considerations ought to give way to such\nan important object. If religious zeal is able one day to procure\nadvantages in the other world; it is at least very evident that it\ncauses many misfortunes here below. In the eyes of reason it is always\nequally dangerous, even when it is the fruit of the most sincere\ndevotion. If the impostor, the ambitious man and the hypocrite, avail\nthemselves of it as a cloak to cover all crimes, the sincere bigot\nthinks that zeal justifies the greatest excesses, and often makes a\nmerit, and even a duty, of detesting his fellows and troubling society.\n\nIt is in fact difficult to reconcile zeal with the spirit of union,\nconcord, and peace, that Christianity recommends, or with that charity\nwhich St. Paul places above all virtues, and without which, he assures\nus that all the others are useless. But did this Apostle himself possess\nmuch charity, when not satisfied with carrying trouble into every place\nwhere he preached, he inveighed against those whom he found not disposed\nto believe*?\n\n     * Epistle to Tim. Chap. i. ver. 20.\n\nIt is doubtless nothing but a lively faith, which can reconcile the\nviolent conduct of this great Apostle, with the charity which he\nincessantly recommends. It appears at least difficult to have a sincere\nregard for men whom zeal obliges us to hate, either as our own enemies,\nor as the enemies of God. The subtle theology of the Christians, can\nalone reconcile these incompatible dispositions.\n\nIt is only the ministers of the Church, who have the talent of proving,\nthat without a violation of Christian charity, it is lawful to harass,\npersecute, and destroy ones neighbours. They can in fact clearly show\nthat we may burn the body of a man, out of tenderness for his soul. They\nthink they have a right to excommunicate a man, or anathematize him,\nthat is to say, exclude him for ever from spiritual grace, to put him\nin short into the road to damnation, to deliver him to Satan, for the\ndestruction of the flesh, in order to save him, according to the spirit.\nThis conduct is not the least inconceivable mystery of the Christian\nreligion; faith is doubtless necessary to find it either charitable\nor intelligible. How can we conceive, for example, that the desire of\nsaving the soul of an heretic, or an impious man, can determine the\ninquisition or Christian magistrates to consign him to the flames, even\nwhile be persists in those opinions, which they suppose must plunge him\ninto hell?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV. Of the Deceptions or Apostacy of St. Paul\n\nBy the aid of faith we never find any thing to condemn in the conduct\nof those, whom we have been accustomed to regard as saints; their\nobstinacy, seditious spirit, pride, even their ferocity, are justified,\nby saying that they are animated with a holy zeal. In a word, a saint\nmay violate with impunity, the most sacred rules of morality, without\nhis bigoted admirers permitting themselves to criticise his conduct.\nSaints have always been in the habit of terming those chastisements,\nwhich they have drawn upon themselves (oftentimes justly) by their\nunruly passions or indiscreet zeal, persecution. Those whom a devout\nphrensy excites to tumult and disorder are honoured as confessors and\nmartyrs, and we find the Jews and Pagans were the most unjust and cruel\nof men, for having treated the Christians, whom they could not consider\nbut as disturbers of the public peace, in the same manner as the\nChristians now treat the Jews, heretics, and infidels. Bigots, accustom\nthemselves to regard their saints as irreproachable characters, or if\nthey cannot justify their conduct, they say that God has permitted them\nto sin, to humiliate them, in order that he might have an opportunity of\npardoning them. It is thus that every good Christian regards a brigand\nin revolt against his legitimate sovereign, an usurper, a monster of\ncruelty, an infamous adulterer, an assassin, in a word, a David, as a\ngreat saint; or even by excellence, as the man after God's own heart!\nFaith in the mind of a bigot, is able to reverse, even the most simple\nrules of morality and virtue. Religion encourages the most perverse men\nto give themselves up to the blackest crimes, the most shameful vices,\nand the most shocking irregularities, by setting before them the\nexamples of scoundrels, who were nevertheless the friends of God.\n\nIt cannot be pretended that St. Paul of whom we are now speaking, was\nguilty of excesses, similar to those committed by the king of the Jews,\nwhose whole history is a series of horrors: but without faith it is\ndifficult to consider our Apostle as an irreproachable character; though\nthe historian, whoever he be, to whom we are indebted for the Acts of\nthe Apostles, has designed to hold him up as a model of virtue, we find\nthat by a singular oversight he did not seem aware, that he made him\ntell an untruth in public, and in the most solemn manner in presence of\nthe Sanhedrim or great council of the Jews. In fact as we have already\nremarked, perceiving that his audience was composed of Sadducees and\nPharisees, with the view of dividing them and gaining friends, Paul\ncried out that he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and that they\nsought to kill him, because of his hope in the resurrection.\n\nIn this assertion we may detect two deceptions. In the first place Paul\nwas not a Pharisee, at the moment he spoke he was a Christian, he was\nan Apostle, he preached Jesus Christ, he laboured effectually to make\nproselytes to his sect, he had disgusted the Jews in announcing to them\na new law, contrary to that of Moses, he had procured in the council\nat Jerusalem the abolition of the practice of circumcision so strictly\nordained by their law. In a word he preached Christianity and not\nJudaism in the same moment that he declared himself a Pharisee. On this\noccasion his conduct was in fact that of an apostate, at least it cannot\nbe denied, that he conducted himself as a coward, who did not care to\nacknowledge his real belief in the presence of the council, and who had\nrecourse to an artifice to outwit his Judges. In fact the conduct of\nPaul on this occasion has no resemblance to that of a great number of\nmartyrs, who freely acknowledge themselves Christians at the risk of\ntheir lives, and boldly confessed Jesus Christ, in the presence of\ntheir persecutors and executioners. The presence of the High Priest\nand council so much imposed on St. Paul, that he declared himself a\nPharisee; fear troubled his memory to such a degree, that he forgot he\nhad just acknowledged himself a Christian, and missionary of Jesus to\nthe Gentiles in the presence of the people collected before the gate of\nthe fortress, who indignant at his discourse, cried out, \"away with such\na fellow from the earth for it is not fit that he should live.\" Nothing\nthen but theological subtilty, can clear Paul from deception, apostacy,\nand cowardice on this occasion.\n\nIn the second place it was not true, that it was because of the hope\nof another life, and of the resurrection of the dead, that Paul was\npersecuted by the Jews. It was for having preached a new doctrine,\ncontrary to the law of Moses; this great legislator has in no part\ntaught us what we ought to believe concerning the resurrection of the\ndead or of another life. The Jews without ceasing to be Jews, embraced\nrespecting it whatever opinion they pleased, the Sadducees rejected it\nwithout however being on that account, excluded from the synagogue,\nand without ceasing to observe the Judaic law; the Pharisee admitted it\nwithout its appearing to cause a schism between them, ami those who\ndid not think, as they did. It is true that Paul had preached the\nresurrection, but it was that of Jesus, on which he endeavoured to\nestablish a new sect very different from the Jewish religion. Thus the\nwords of St. Paul were merely a subterfuge unworthy of a man, whom grace\nought to have endued with sufficient courage to maintain before the\ncouncil, at the peril of his liberty and his life, the same sentiments\nthat he had taught the people and preached in all those places where he\nhad planted the faith. It was then for having preached Christianity,\nand for having (in spite even of his brethren the apostles) desired in\nfavour of the Gentiles the abolition of the Jewish customs, that Paul\nwas persecuted, the priests were doubtless irritated against a man who\nsought to abrogate a law and a priesthood which a divine revelation had\nso many times taught them was to endure eternally, whilst the authors of\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews formerly assures us that they have been set.\naside by the Gospel.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI. St. Paul's Hypocrisy\n\nWe cannot avoid perceiving still more of the insincerity and profound\nhypocrisy of Paul's conduct at Jerusalem. After having preached in a\ngreat number of towns in Asia and Greece, a doctrine revolting to the\nfeelings of the Jews, and which every where caused disturbances amongst\nthem, after having in favour of the Gentiles abolished circumcision so\nparticularly ordained by the law of Moses, and deemed so essential to\nthe proselytes of the gate; we see this great Apostle, by the advice\nof his brethren, submit himself, during seven days, to the Jewish\nceremonies; purify himself with affectation. \"Then Paul took the men,\nand the next day purifying himself with them, entered into the temple,\nto signify the accomplishing of the days of purification, until that\nan offering should be offered for every one of them*.\" But the Jews of\nAsia, who knew the real sentiments of our missionary, from having heard\nhim preach when amongst them, were not the dupes of his hypocrisy: they\nexcited the people \"crying out, men of Israel, help: this is the man\nthat teacheth all men every where against the people, and the laws of\nthis place; and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath\npolluted this holy placet.**\" These were the true charges of the Jews\nagainst Paul, and without denying what we find in the Acts of the\nApostles, we must acknowledge, that they were well founded.\n\n     * Acts of Apostles, chap. xxi. ver. 6.\n\n     **  Acts of Apostles, chap. xxi. ver. 28.\n\nWhat should we say in the present day of a bishop, who, whilst\npretending to be a Christian, should go for a period of seven days into\na synagogue in London or Amsterdam, to fulfil Jewish ceremonies in the\nsight of the public? We should not fail to regard him as an apostate,\nor a knave, who had sinister intentions at any rate, the most favourable\nconstruction, we would put upon his motives, would be to suppose him\na fool. We are however to admire this conduct in Paul, he pretends to\njustify himself by the necessity of becoming all things to all men. It\nis thus we see that hypocrisy, falsehood, and imposture, are legitimate\nmeans, by which to advance the cause of God and gain souls.\n\nNevertheless there is every reason to think that St. Paul in acting in\nsuch a singular manner, had his own interest and safety, more at heart\nthan the cause of the divinity. His conduct has been faithfully copied\nby a great number of Christian missionaries, and especially by the\nJesuits, whom their adversaries often reproach with having frequently\nassimilated the worship of Jesus with that of those idolatrous people,\nwhom they were endeavouring to convert.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII. St. Paul accused of Perjury, or the Author of the Acts of\nthe Apostles, convicted of Falsehood.\n\nNot contented with pursuing this oblique or hypocritical conduct, we\nagain see, our great Apostle, evidently, wilfully guilty of perjury,\nor a false oath. To convince ourselves of this we have only to read the\ncommencement of his Epistle to the Galatians; to prove to them, that the\ngospel which he announced to them; was divinely inspired, he says \"But\ncertify to you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me, is\nnot after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught\nit, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.\" Further on he proves what he\nadvances by saying, \"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my\nmother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his son in me, that\nI might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with\nflesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were\napostles before me but I went into Arabia, and returned again into\nDamascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,\nand abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles, saw I none,\nsave James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you\nbehold before God I lie not*.\" But if Paul did not lie, in what he\nrelated to the Galatians, it is clear that the author of the Acts of the\nApostles, whom the Christian church regards as an inspired writer\nequally with St. Paul, has lied. In fact in the ninth chapter of the\nActs, it is said that Paul after his conversion, and after having\nrecovered his sight remained some days with the disciples who were at\nDamascus; which proves that he was instructed by men, or that he took\ncounsel of flesh and blood. Believing himself sufficiently fortified in\nhis theology, by Ananias or others, he began to preach Christ in the\nsynagogue, at which conduct the Jews were so shocked that they sought to\ntake away his life: but Saul escaped from their fury by means of a\nbasket, and without mention made of his journey to Arabia, he directly\nreturns to Jerusalem, where the disciples were in the first instance\nfearful of him, but Barnabas, encouraged them, and presented him to the\napostles, at the same time relating to them his miraculous conversion,\nand his courageous preaching at Damascus. In consequence it is said that\nPaul was added to the number of the faithful. (Acts ix).\n\n     * This passage proves very forcibly that Paul preached a\n     different gospel from that of the other apostles,  i. e.\n     from the Ebionites or Nazarenes.\n\nIt is easy to see, how little this recital of the inspired historian\nof the Acts, agrees with that of the inspired Apostle, who wrote to the\nGalatians, and confirmed his narration by an oath. Besides the journey\nof St. Paul to Arabia upon leaving Damascus, and which preceded his\narrival at Jerusalem by three years, becomes very improbable, as well as\nhis stay in this country. In fact the disciples at Jerusalem must have\nbeen in habits of correspondence with those of Damascus, consequently\nthey would thus have heard of an event so interesting to their sect,\nas the conversion of St. Paul and the pains he took to propagate their\ndoctrines; thus the presence of our Apostle would not have created any\nuneasiness, and there could have been no need of Barnabas becoming his\nsurety. It appears then that the new convert upon leaving Damascus went\ndirectly to Jerusalem, that he had there an opportunity of conversing\nwith the apostles, and that his theology was not intuitive.\n\nBut even supposing that the journey and sojourn of three years in\nArabia, really took place, it would be no less certain that Paul took a\nfalse oath to the Galatians, or that the author of the Acts is deceived.\nIn fact St. Paul writes that at the end of three years he returned to\nJerusalem to visit Peter, and that he remained fifteen days with him\nwithout seeing any other of the apostles. This is quite at variance\nwith the author of the Acts, who informs us that Paul being come to\nJerusalem, sought to join himself to the disciples, who were afraid of\nhim, not knowing that he was a disciple. Our Saint contradicts all this\nby a different tale which he confirms by an oath.\n\nMoreover by this oath Paul himself contradicts the discourse which the\nauthor of the Acts, puts into his mouth in the presence of King Agrippa,\nof Queen Berenice, and the governor Festus*.\n\nIn relating to them his conversion, he says to them, Whereupon, O King\nAgrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision; but shewed\nfirst unto them at Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the\ncoasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles that they should repent and\nturn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Thus according to the\nauthor of the Acts, St. Paul himself acknowledges that he first\npreached at Damascus, then at Jerusalem before addressing himself to the\nGentiles.\n\nIf he had preached during a period of three years in Arabia, he would\nhave spoken of the circumstance, of which no mention is made in all the\nActs of the Apostles, whilst we find there the most minute details of\nthe continual journeyings.\n\nWe shall just remark here a visible contradiction in the Acts of the\nApostles; The author of this work in relating the miraculous conversion\nof St. Paul, says that those who accompanied him, were speechless,\nhearing a voice but seeing no man**. However the same author, forgetting\nhimself makes Paul say in his discourse to the Jews, \"And they that were\nwith me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the\nvoice of him that spake to me***\".\n\nIt belongs to the impartial reader to judge what degree of confidence is\ndue to writers who are so often at variance. In the first instance Paul\nsolemnly attests by an oath, the truth of a fact, not only omitted, but\neven formally contradicted by St. Luke, his historian and disciple. In\nthe second instance the historian contradicts himself. This ought at\nleast to shake the implicit faith, that so many persons put in works\nwhich possess neither the consistence nor harmony required in ordinary\nwriters. As to our doctors they tell us their ways of saving the honour\nof these two inspired ones; whom they have much interest in washing from\nso grave an accusation, and such a taint upon the Christian religion.\n\n     * Acts, xxvi. ver. 29.\n\n     **Acts, ix. ver. 7.\n\n     ***Acts, xxii. ver. 9.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII. Examination of St. Paul's Miracles\n\nThough St. Paul as we have just seen, has himself taken care to shake\nthe credit of the author of the Acts of the Apostles, it is nevertheless\non the word of this writer that Christians think themselves obliged to\nbelieve in the miracles of our great Apostle. In fact, like all those\nwho have endeavoured to establish new sects, our preacher could not\ndispense with performing prodigies: this is the most certain method\nof exciting the admiration of the vulgar. Incapable of reasoning, of\njudging of the soundness of a doctrine, and frequently unable in the\nleast to comprehend it, miracles always become the most powerful of\narguments; they are indubitable proofs that he who works them is the\nfavourite of the divinity, that consequently he cannot be in the wrong,\nnor capable of a wish to deceive.\n\nMiracles were more especially necessary amongst the Jews; they demanded\nsigns from all those who spoke to them in the name of the Lord, and\nthere was little difficulty in working them, before an ignorant and\ncredulous people, ready to receive as such every thing that was shewn to\nthem. In spite of a disposition so favourable to miracle-mongers, we\ndo not find that those of Jesus himself and afterwards of his apostles,\nproduced on the Jews those effects which we have a right to expect from\nthem. We find that at the time they were performed they convinced nobody\nand drew those who worked them, into difficult situations. It was\nnot until a long time had elapsed that these prodigies produced their\neffects, and by a miracle that we can never cease to admire, we find,\nthat these prodigies, which were discarded by those who saw them, were\nmost firmly believed by those who did not see them, and are now ranked\namongst the strongest evidences of the divinity of the Christian\nreligion. There are only some reasoners who persist in judging of these\nancient miracles in the same manner as the contemporaries who did\nnot see them, or who, if they did see them, regarded them as so many\ninstances of deception and slight of hand, incapable of imposing on\nthem. It is only the simplicity, of faith, that is to say, an implicit\nconfidence in the assertions of our guides, which can make us see\nmiracles, or cause us to believe in those we have not seen. But this\nsimple faith is the effect of an especial grace that God grants only to\nthose who are poor in spirit, and harshly refuses to those who think and\nreason. As soon as we want confidence in the operators, we see no more\nmiracles, or at least we doubt of those that are shewn to us.\n\nIt does not appear that St. Paul performed miracles at Jerusalem after\nhis conversion; this city was not in his department: it belonged to St.\nPeter and the other Jewish apostles, who, according to the Acts, did not\ncease to work miracles there. Our Apostle of the uncircumcised, or of\nthe district in which the Gentiles were converted, having quitted his\nbrethren, commenced his course of miracles at Paphos. He was upon the\npoint of converting Sergius, proconsul of the province, had not a cursed\nsorcerer of a Jew, named Barjesus, and surnamed Elymas, i.e. magician,\nendeavoured to prevent the magistrate from believing in Jesus Christ.\nIndignant at the obstacle that this man opposed to the divine will,\ninstead of converting and convincing him, Paul abused him according\nto the present practice of theologians, and called him a child of the\ndevil, and finished with striking him with blindness. If this conduct\nwas conducive to the salvation of the proconsul, who according to the\nauthor of the Acts, having seen this miracle, believed, being astonished\nat the doctrine of the Lord, there are many who will not be so edified,\nat this prodigy, so contrary to Christian charity and mildness. In fact\nwould it not have been more kind of St. Paul armed with divine power,\nto have enlightened the eyes of the sorcerer's mind, than to have struck\nthose of his body with darkness? But we always see that the miracle\nthat the apostles as well as their divine master had most difficulty in\nworking was that of convincing those who were not disposed to believe\nevery thing.\n\nIt appears that on the present occasion, the sorcerer was stronger, in\npoint of reasoning, than St. Paul, which put him in a passion. Logic was\nnot in fact, the most prominent quality in our Apostle, any more than\nin his brethren and successors. Besides, this holy Missionary was of too\nimpetuous a temper to reason with moderation, and argue in a clear and\nprecise manner. Thus to terminate the dispute with Elymas, he abused\nhim, and perhaps relying on the protection of the proconsul, whom he saw\nwavering in favour of his doctrine, ventured to strike his antagonist,\nwhich deprived him of his sight for a period, for it is easy to deprive\na man of the use of his eyes without a miracle*.\n\n     * This, it must in candour be acknowledged, is an inference\n     which the text will not warrant us to draw, and is unworthy\n     Boulanger's pen.    It seems to be compromising the dignity\n     of truth, to impose upon itself the necessity of accounting\n     for all the hocus pocus tricks, or wilful falshoods, which\n     the ignorance, bigotry, and knavery of a deplorable\n     superstition, have handed down through the mist of eighteen\n     centuries.--Translators\n\nWe learn that our Apostle and his associate Barnabas, wrought such\nmiracles at Iconiura, that all the city was divided, one part being\nin favour of the Jews, and the other for the Apostles. But immediately\nafter we are informed, that \"when there was an assault made, both of\nthe Gentiles and also of the Jews, with their rulers, to use them\ndespite-fully, and to stone them, the Apostles were aware of it, and\nfled to Lystra and Derbe.\"\n\nThis conduct of the inhabitants of Iconiura is certainly inconceivable.\nPagans and Jews unite to ill treat and stone our Apostles, who in spite\nof the divine power which they possess have no other expedient, than to\nseek safety in flight.\n\nIn spite of the inutility of his miracles, Paul worked more at Lystra; he\nthere cured a lame man, in whom by mere inspection he discovered much\nfaith. This gives rise to a suspicion that this might have been a\nmiracle concerted between them. He said to him, with a loud voice, stand\nupright on thy feet, and he leaped and walked. The people of Lystra\nwere so struck by this prodigy, that they took our two missionaries\nfor gods, and would have offered them sacrifices, but Paul and Barnabas\nforbade them with great modesty. This great miracle must have been\nbelieved, even by the priest of Jupiter, since it is said, that he\nbrought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have sacrificed with\nthem. This circumstance clearly proves that nobody at Lystra doubted the\ntruth of this miracle. However some Jews who had arrived from Iconium\nwere able to undeceive a whole city, which had seen the miracle of the\nlame man. The poor St. Paul, who had just before been taken for Jupiter,\nwas stoned, and dragged out of the city for dead; he revived, however,\nand, in spite of his miracle, he saved himself, with Barnabas by fleeing\nto Derbe.\n\nThe miracle wrought by our saint at Philippi in Macedonia, did not meet\nwith more success, he there cured a girl, who had a spirit of Python,\nand being by that means possessed of the power of divination, gained\ngreat profit to her masters. These, far from acknowledging and admiring\nthe power of a man who reduced to silence Apollo, one of the\nmost powerful gods of paganism, brought Paul and Silas before the\nmagistrates, and excited the people against them. It is right to\nremark in this place, that Apollo (i. e. the Devil) who resided in this\nprophetess, laboured to destroy his own empire. In fact having perceived\nPaul and his comrade, the girl followed them, crying, these men are the\nservants of the Most High God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.\nAnd this did she many days. But Paul being grieved, turned and said to\nthe spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of\nher, and he came out the same hour*.\n\nIt is surprising that Paul was grieved at a declaration so favourable\nto his mission, and that he should impose silence on a demon, whose\ntestimony was so honourable, and likely to draw adherents! but the\nconduct of saints is always inexplicable.\n\nIn these unhappy times in which faith is so cold, no credit is given,\neither to those possessed, or to soothsayers; it is difficult to know\nwhat the nature of the spirit of Python, which inhabited the Macedonian\ngirl could have been**. If we might hazard a conjecture on the subject,\nit might be supposed that our Apostles, to give themselves some relief,\ngained her over, and employed her to play her part, by giving her to\nunderstand that it would be her interest to attach herself to the new\nsect, rather than work for masters, who, probably, paid her very poorly\nfor her services from which they drew all the profit.\n\n     * Acts xvi. 17, 18.\n\n     ** Some critics have been very much embarrassed, to\n     conjecture what the nature of this spirit of Python could\n     have been: several have thought that those who had this\n     spirit, were such as are known to us in the present day by\n     the name of ventriloquists, who have the power of\n     articulating words, more or less distinctly, without any\n     motion of the lips being perceptible. There are such\n     persons, who create much surprise to those unacquainted with\n     this faculty, and we cannot be astonished that the vulgar,\n     who doat upon the marvellous, should attribute this power to\n     supernatural causes.\n\nThe magistrates of Philippi on the complaint of those masters, as we\nhave seen, caused our exorcists to be flogged, and sent them to prison.\nAn earthquake happened very opportunely, the jailor was gained over\nor converted; the magistrates, thinking the Missionaries had been\nsufficiently punished, permitted them to depart; but then, as we have\nseen, they declared themselves Roman citizens, and refused to go, until\nthe magistrates, who were now intimidated, consented to make them an\nhonourable reparation.\n\nNotwithstanding the miracles wrought by Paul during his mission,\ndisagreeable reports every where accompanied him, or followed him, so\nclosely in all the cities through which he passed, that neither himself\nnor his comrades could remain long in the same place. They only passed\nthrough Amphipolis and Apollonia, and repaired to Thessalonica, where,\nin a very short time, the whole city was in an alarm. Jason, their\nhost, was, as we have already seen, ill treated on their account, it was\nalleged against our Missionaries, that they overthrew every thing, and\nin preaching another king than Caesar, seemed desirous of plotting a\nconspiracy. In consequence of this, as it was a serious accusation, the\nbrethren contrived the escape of Paul and Silas during the night.\n\nArrived at Berea, our two adventurers, soon excited similar\ndisturbances. Paul repaired to Athens, where the philosophers who heard\nhim, took him for a talker whose brain was unsound. However in spite of\nhis success, which was doubtless very slow, he had the mortification of\nbeing compelled to labour at his original trade of tent-making, which\nwas very hard for a preacher ordained to live by the altar, that is to\nsay, one whose trade it was to sell spiritual wares, to those who\nbound themselves to provide him, wherewith to subsist on credit Such is\nclerical traffic. Further, St. Paul takes special care to boast to the\nCorinthians of his great disinterestedness. He makes them understand he\nwould not be chargeable upon them; by which he appears to have intended\nsome indirect reproaches, calculated to pique their pride and\nexcite their generosity, towards the holy man who laboured for their\nsalvation*. The Corinthians probably imagined that men who performed\nmiracles, had no need of assistance: but our miracle-mongers were under\nthe necessity of satisfying their wants by ordinary methods. They were\nlike the adepts, who were always in poverty though offering to others\nthe secret of making gold.\n\nThere is reason to believe that Paul performed great miracles amongst\nthe Corinthians, at least he says to them himself \"Truly the signs of\nan apostle, were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders\nand in mighty deeds**.\" However we find that these miracles had not yet\nsufficiently convinced the Corinthians, since Paul says to them \"Seek ye\na proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you ward is not weak, but is\nmighty in you***.\"\n\n     * See 2. Corinthians, chap. xi. ver. 7, 8, 9, 16. Chap. xii.\n     ver. 13, and also 1. Corinthians chap. ix. ver 11,13, 14,\n\n     ** 2 Corinthians xii. 12.\n\n     *** 2 Corinthians xiii. 3.\n\nRespecting the miracles wrought by St. Paul at Corinth, we have only his\nown evidence, and that is sufficient; the author of the Acts though very\nfree upon this article does not inform us, that he wrought any in this\ncity, this was most likely the case, since he remained there a long\ntime, an unusual circumstance, where he condescended to perform\nmiracles, which generally compelled him to remove, in consequence of the\ndisturbance they excited. He was obliged to quit Ephesus, where we are\nassured, that he performed a great number, and where handkerchiefs,\nlinen, &c. which had touched him, cured the sick, and expelled devils.\nHe departed from Troas directly after having raised a dead man to life,\nor at least after having asserted that a young man, who was thought so,\nwas in reality not so. In short in the isle of Malta he cured himself of\nthe bite, either because the reptile had not in fact bitten him, or\nby applying fire to the wound, a remedy which though common, might be\nunknown to the inhabitants of the island, as we have already remarked.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX. Analysis of the writings attributed to St. Paul\n\nAfter having examined the character of St. Paul by His conduct, it will\nbe proper to make some reflections on his writings; they will serve\nto place in a still clearer light, this celebrated man, to whom\nChristianity owes so many obligations. If we confine ourselves to those\nworks attributed to him, the Apostle of the Gentiles must have been a\nvery extraordinary compound of discordant qualities, which when united\nmust have produced an inexplicable whole. He himself informs us, that he\nhad within him two men, the new man and the old man; the just man, and\nthe sinner. He had two bodies, the one natural and the other spiritual;\nthe body of sin and death, and the body of justification and life. He\nhad within him, two laws, which regulated his actions, the law of sin,\nand the law of justice, the law of the flesh, and the law of the spirit.\nNever was poor mortal so perplexed and teazed, than was our Apostle\naccording to his own account, by these two opposite laws, which he had\nwithin himself. The carnal man makes him say, (see Romans, chapter vii.\nverse 18, to the end of the chapter.)\n\nIn other places the spiritual man, makes him hold another language, he\nassures the Galatians, that he is one with Christ and crucified with him\n(see Galatians. chapter vii. verse 19 and 20.) In another place he says\nto the Romans. \"For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath\nmade me free from the law of sin and death.\" It is clear that this\nduplicity of nature and law in St. Paul as acknowledged by himself\nis calculated to throw us into much embarrassment. In fact how can we\ndistinguish in his conduct or discourse, that which springs from the\nold, from that which arises from the new man, or the spirit of life and\nthe grace of Christ? Is it very easy at this time, to determine which\ngoverned St. Paul in those moments in which he spoke, acted, or wrote?\nPerhaps those maxims and dogmas most admired by Christians have been the\nsuggestions of the flesh, the fruits of the old man, and that this old\nman often influenced his conduct, which, as we have shewn was not at all\ntimes free from reproach. In short the acknowledgments are of a nature\nwell calculated to plunge the most firm Christians into uncertainties\nfrom which, without supernatural assistance, they will have great\ndifficulty in extricating themselves. These confessions may further\nserve to shew us the inconsistencies, contradictions, absurdities, the\nsophistry and superficial reasoning, and disjointed ideas, which we meet\nwith at every page of the writings attributed to St. Paul. It is to\nbe presumed, that it is the Holy Ghost, or Christ, who speaks when he\nappears reasonable, it would be blasphemous to say or think, that they\ncould talk nonsense: in this case we shall say, that it is St. Paul\nor the flesh, who speaks, when we find him using bad arguments,\nextravagancies, and unintelligible nonsense. We cannot imagine that the\nspirit of God would have made him utter contradictions, or inspired him\nwith a language incomprehensible to those whom he designed to enlighten\nand instruct by the mouth of this Apostle. In fact, St. Peter himself\ncomplains of the obscurities of Paul's epistles, in which, says he, \"are\nsome things hard to be understood.\"*\n\n     * 2 Epis. Peter, chap. iii. ver. 16\n\nThe distinction which we have just made will enable us to judge of the\nworks of St. Paul, and explain the obscurities which we find in them,\nas well as the continual variations, which we must remark in his\nprinciples. He tells the Galatians that he was angry with Peter, and\nwithstood him to his face, and that he was offended, with the other\napostles, because they temporized and used dissimulation, sometimes\nadvocating the usages of the Jews, and at others the customs of the\nGentiles*.\n\nElsewhere he says (here see 1 Corinthians, chap. ix. ver. 19 to 22.)\nAccording to these passages, is it right to temporize, or not? It\nremains for our doctors to decide which of these two principles has been\ndivinely inspired to St. Paul, and in which of them we ought to imitate\nthis great Saint. Our doctors however are not much in the habit of\ntemporizing with their enemies unless they find themselves, too weak to\ncope with them.\n\nOur Apostle declares, formally to the Galatians that circumcision,\nis useless and will avail them nothing, he says the same thing to the\nCorinthians, Yet we find him circumcising his dear Timothy, and he tells\nthe Romans that circumcision is useful to those who fulfil the law.\n\nHe writes to Timothy, that God is the saviour of all men expecially of\nthe faithful, which evidently supposes that the unfaithful, will not\nbe excluded from Salvation. He had also said, that God willed that all\nshould be saved. But speaking to the Romans, he will not allow that the\ngates of Paradise, shall be opened to all the world**.\n\n     * Galatians chap. ii. ver. 11, &c.\n\n     **  Romans, chap. xi. ver. 7.\n\nWe should never finish, were we to relate all the contradictions which\nare to be found in the writings attributed to St. Paul. It is clear\nthat if he be really the author of them, he exhibits himself to us, as a\nfanatical writer, whose disordered head prevents him from seeing that\nhe is eternally contradicting himself. He says that black is white.\nHe follows only the impulses of a heated imagination; he establishes\nprinciples to destroy them immediately; in a word from his want of\nlogic, and the little connexion of his ideas without a most lively faith\nwe should suspect, that he was in a continual state of delirium.\n\nIt cannot be denied that this great Saint was of a temperament too\nardent to allow him to reason connectedly, or to speak with coolness.\nThe tumultuous ideas which presented themselves in crowds to his\nbrain, did not permit him to put them into any thing like an orderly\narrangement; he incessantly wandered from his subject, so much so that\nan imagination, as warm as his own, is necessary in order to follow\nhim in his flights. Perpetually involved in figures, allusions\nand allegories, it is nearly impossible to guess what are his real\nsentiments. According to his doctrine he appears to establish in the\nstrongest manner the dreadful doctrine of absolute predestination and\nreprobation. According to him God grants grace to whom he pleases,\nand whom he pleases he hardens. If we demand how this doctrine can\nbe reconciled with the goodness and justice of God; or how a God who\noperates in man the will and the deed, can be offended with the wills\nand actions of men? He extricates himself by asking if the vessel shall\nsay to him who made it, why hast thou fashioned me thus? Thus St. Paul,\nand after him all Christian doctors, explain the conduct of a God,\nwhom they pretend to love, at the same time that they hold him up as\na tyrant, who is not accountable for his most unjust caprices, and\ndespot-like is restrained by no rule!\n\nSt. Paul being divinely inspired should have taught us something of the\nnature of the soul, an object which so embarrasses alt philosophers who\nnot being illumined from above, have formed ideas upon this subject,\nso much at variance with those of our Christian doctors. But far from\nthrowing any light upon this important matter, our Apostle, who appears\nstrongly tinctured with the platonic philosophy so universally taught in\nhis time, distinguishes the body, soul and spirit, and thus obscures the\nthing still more. But it is the essense of theology to confound\nevery thing, and the interest of theologians to plunge mankind into a\nlabyrinth, from which nothing but faith can extricate them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX. Of Faith, in what this Virtue consists\n\nGenerally speaking it is St. Paul, or the author of the Epistles,\n(wherever he be) that are attributed to him, that ought to be regarded\nas the true founder of Christian theology. The mysterious obscurity\nof his works, the tone of fanaticism which reigns in them, and the\nunintelligible oracles with which they are filled, render them well\nsuited to impose on the vulgar, who respect things only in proportion\nas they are impossible to be comprehended. Devout enthusiasm and pious\nmelancholy there finds a continual feast for its sickly brain. Oracles\nand enigmas are taken for divine mysteries, which without a strong\ndose of faith we should conclude were the production of delirium or the\ninventions of imposture, which seeks to put reason to flight. Reason had\nno means of examining ideas which are totally unreasonable; thus they\npersuaded men that it was necessary to renounce reason in order\nto become a good Christian. In consequence of this principle, so\nhumiliating to mankind and derogatory to the character of a God, the\nauthor of reason, it was no longer permitted to examine anything;\nman was commanded blindly to subscribe to the most incomprehensible\nreveries, and it was considered meritorious to renounce common sense\nand adopt fables and opinions revolting to every thinking being. Thus\ndelirium was changed into wisdom, deception into truth, and frequently\ncrime became virtue. They closed the mouths of reasoners by citing the\nlanguage of Paul, who had said \"that the foolishness of God is wiser\nthan men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.\" According to\nthe same Apostle God himself had predicted by the mouth of a prophet,\nthe revolution that Christianity was to produce in the minds of mankind.\n\"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the\nunderstanding of the prudent.\" Where is the wise? Where is the scribe?\nwhere is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the\nwisdom of this world, &c.* And he concludes by saying, \"But we preach\nChrist crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks\nfoolishness.\"\n\n     * 1 Corinth, chap. i. ver. 19.\n\nHowever violent Paul's enthusiasm may have been, he well knew how odd\nthe doctrine he preached, must appear to reasonable beings. He must have\nbeen aware, that it overturned all received ideas; that it would not\nbear the test of examination; that it was a difficult enterprise to\npersuade sensible beings that a God could die, that this God had arisen\nagain, that an immutable God had changed and annulled the eternal\nalliance he had made with the Jews, and which been so repeatedly\nconfirmed with oaths, &c. Thus our Apostle in order to pass such\nimprobable opinions, believed it requisite, to substitute folly in the\nplace of reason, and to fortify his disciples against the weapons of\nlogic. For the evidence which results from the testimony of the senses\nbe substituted faith, which according to him is the evidence of things\nnot seen, and evidence which can only be founded on the most stupid\ncredulity.\n\nThus this prudent orator took care to guard against the philosophy of\ncommon sense, and against all science, seeing clearly that they opposed,\ninvincible obstacles to the religion that he sought to establish, and of\nwhich he pretended to be the soul and chief. Hence we find he attached\nthe greatest merit to faith, that is to say, to a blind submission to\nhis authority; and such an unbounded confidence in himself as prevented\nany doubt of those things, the truth of which he attested.\n\nAs science was injurious to the establishment of his empire he decried\nit. \"Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.\" By charity, we may\nhere understand that affection to a spiritual director which closing\nthe eyes against those defects, which in common with other men he may\npossess, convinces us that he is always right, that he is incapable\nof the wish to deceive, and in short, that he ought to be believed in\npreference to the evidence of our senses.\n\nIt is thus that this great Apostle laboured incessantly to establish his\nown authority on the ruins of wisdom, reason, and science. However we\nmay reply to his doctrine, so useful to those whose interest it is\nto maintain absurd opinions and incredible fables, that God who, is,\naccording to them, the author of reason could not have destroyed his own\nwork. We shall demand of St. Paul and of those who like him preach\nup implicit faith, if folly is more able than wisdom to attain to the\nknowledge of God? We shall ask of them, if God has given wisdom to men\non condition of their never using it, and if it is not by the aid of\nhuman wisdom, that man gains some idea of the divine wisdom? We shall\nask if God can, without absolutely changing the nature of things, make\nwisdom folly, and folly wisdom? In short we shall ask them, if in order\nto become a Christian it is necessary to renounce common sense, or how\nfar our folly must prevail to have a religion?\n\nTo all these questions theologians, faithfully treading in the steps\nof St. Paul, will reply, that we must believe, and that as soon as they\nspeak, we must submit to their authority. \"Faith\" says Paul \"comes\nby hearing,\" whence it results that have faith, we must sacrifice our\nreason, to the wills of our spiritual pastors. Charity ought to convince\nus, that these infallible guides, can neither deceive nor desire to lead\nus into error.\n\nAccording to this firm persuasion we shall never be embarrassed, unless,\nby chance, those pastors should happen to disagree in their opinions.\nThis however often occurs in the church, and has done from the\ncommencement. In fact we have seen St. Paul himself resist St. Peter to\nhis face and differ from him in opinion. Their quarrels like many others\nhad fatal results, and produced a true schism between the partizans of\nPeter, and those of Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles.\n\nThe latter has acknowledged himself, that there must be heresies in\na church, perpetually guided by the most high. This prophecy has been\nverified in the Christian religion, which from its foundation has been\nincessantly agitated by quarrels, divisions, animosities, troubles, and\nparoxysms of fury mat would induce a belief, that the gospel was given\nto nations only to excite in them, fermentations unknown to Paganism,\nand show them to what a degree of madness credulity could lead.\n\nThe writings of Paul especially have furnished in all ages ample matter,\nfor disputes to the Christian doctors. The obscure dogmas they contain,\nhave of necessity been diversely understood by profound dreamers, who\nhave passed their time in meditation. Each pretended to have discovered\nthe true sense of this infallible and divinely inspired doctor. Each\nfound in his writings a confirmation of his own sentiments. Works filled\nwith contradiction continually gave rise to parties the most opposite to\neach other, and virulently bent upon mutual destruction. The authority\nof St. Paul was opposed to himself, and in the impossibility of deciding\nupon questions totally out of the power of reason to discuss, recourse\nwas had to violence, and the strongest always made the weak feel,\nthat they alone comprehended the true sense of the great Apostle. They\ndisputed continually on predestination, on grace, and on the liberty\nof man; they understood neither themselves nor St. Paul. The most\nheadstrong, the most wicked, and the most powerful, enforced their\nopinions as the only ones which the Holy Ghost had dictated.\n\nTo conclude, the incredulous, are not those, who alone find the writings\nof Paul obscure and unintelligible, as we have seen in the the case\nof St. Peter already quoted. If this prince of the Apostles founded\ndifficulties in the work of St. Paul, what shall we think of the\npresumption of modern commentators when they pretend to explain to us,\nthe enigmatical and confused passages that we meet with in the epistles\nof this doctor of the Gentiles.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI. Of the Holy Ghost, and Divine Inspiration\n\nIt would however have been wiser in the first instance to examine into\nthe degree of confidence due to the real or pretended writings of this\nwonderful man, whose history we have been developing. Before disputing\nit would have been better to have been certain of the authority of an\nApostle whose works appear to us infallible only on his own word, or on\nthat of the written to whom we owe the Acts of the Apostles. In fact we\nare told that St. Paul was inspired by the Holy Ghost. But what is the\nHoly Ghost? How can it inspire a man? What certainty have we that it has\never inspired anyone? By what signs shall we distinguish these invisible\ninspirations? As it is upon these inspirations only that the Christian\nreligion is established, these questions are well worth the trouble of\nbeing discussed.\n\nThere is no mention made of the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament; there\nis mention made of the spirit of the Lord, which possessed, or resided\nin the prophets, and other holy personages charged with speaking to the\nJewish people; but in no place of the Old Testament is the Holy Ghost\nannounced as a being distinct from the Divinity, it is only in the New\nTestament that we find this metaphysical being deified, or this divine\nbreath personified. In fact it is only in the history of Jesus Christ,\nthat the Holy Ghost begins to perform, a part; we there find him\ncommissioned to overshadow Mary, and produce the savour of the world,\nwho was, as we are told, begotten by the operation of the Holy Ghost.\n\nThis same Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus Christ\nat the moment of his baptism in the river Jordan by John the Baptist.\nIn the Gospel according to St. John, the author of which appears to have\ndrawn his ideas from the platonic philosophy, there is much talk of the\nHoly Ghost which is never defined. Jesus promises to send him to the\ndisciples when he himself shall have left them. This spirit is described\nunder term of the Paraclete or Comforter. Jesus assures them that he\nproceeded from the father, and that he will send him on the part of the\nfather, to bear witness of him Jesus. Further on he promises them, that\nwhen this spirit shall come, he shall guide them into all truth.\n\nAccording to the promise of Jesus, this comforter did in fact descend\nupon the Apostles at the feast of Pentecost, see Acts ari. ver. 2, 3,\n13. Many were astonished at the prodigy there related, but it seems not\nto have convinced others, who had probably less faith than the first.\nThese sceptics pretended that the inspired Apostles were drunken with\nnew wine. But Peter filled with the spirit, made them a long prophetic\nharangue; which, according to the author of the Acts, produced a great\neffect upon many of his hearers, who were converted upon the spot.\n\nIn consequence of the descent of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles received\nthe power, not only of speaking divers tongues, but likewise of driving\nout devils and performing miracles. However we do not find by their\nhistory, though written by one favourable to their cause, that the\nHoly Ghost gave them the power to cast out the demon of incredulity,\nespecially from the minds of the Jews; these resisted constantly the\nHoly Ghost and made those who said they were filled with it, to suffer\ncruel treatment.\n\nthe Apostles had not only received the Holy Ghost, but they had also\nreceived the power of communicating it to others by the imposition of\nhands. It is difficult, without a submissive faith, to conceive a clear\nidea of this invisible communication of the Holy Ghost, or the manner\nin which an indivisible spirit, divides itself among so many\ndifferent individuals. However it is not allowed us to doubt that\nthis transmission of the Holy Ghost has been perpetuated down from the\nApostles to our time. It is still by imposition of hands that the guides\nof the Christian Church receive the Holy Ghost, and the right to teach.\nIf our bishops and and priests who represent in our eyes the Apostles\nand disciples, have not received the gift of tongues and miracles they\nhave, at least, received the faculty of pretending, that the Holy Ghost\ndoes not cease to illuminate them, in their frequently contradictory\ndecisions, which ought to be regarded as a great prodigy.\n\nA Christian would run the risk of being damned if he should dare to\ndoubt, that the Holy Ghost invisibly presided in the church and will\nreside in the brains of its chiefs until the consummation of all things.\nWhat can be more calculated to inspire us with regard and respect for\nthose, who themselves assure us, that they are the living temples of\nthe Holy Ghost. In gratitude for these advantages which the Holy\nGhost procured to the ministers of the Christian religion, they felt\nthemselves bound to deify him. It was the least they could do for a\nbeing from whom their power clearly emanated. In fact if the Holy Ghost,\ncharged with inspiring the church had not been a God, the authority of\nthe church might have been contested. But it being clearly decided,\nthat the Holy Ghost is a God, men are no longer permitted to dispute his\nrights; it only remains to them to subscribe blindly to the decisions of\nthose whom he has chosen for his organs; to contradict them, would be to\nrevolt against God.\n\nWe see then how important it was to the heads of the church to\napotheosise the Holy Ghost. It was necessary to make him a God at\nany rate; otherwise the church would not have been infallible, its\ninfallibility being founded, solely on the continued inspirations of the\nHoly Ghost; and that he himself should be infallible, it was necessary\nthat he should be a God. Thus the church has wisely made the God which\nmakes her infallible.\n\nHowever useful this deification was to the church, it was attended with\nsome difficulties. In fact how could they reconcile this new God, this\nMercury, this messenger of the father and son, with the unity of God?\nTo cut short all dispute upon so important a matter, the heads of the\nchurch decided that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the father and son,\nand yet made but one God with them. They closed the mouths of those\nwho cried out against this unintelligible oracle, by saying it was a\nmystery, that man was made to adore and believe, without being able to\ncomprehend; they added that the church was infallible had thus decided,\nthat being inspired by the Holy Ghost (i.e. by a God) it was impossible\nto avoid believing that she had the right to decide, that the Holy Ghost\nwas a God.\n\nThis is sufficient to show us upon what the authority of church, and the\ndivinity of the Holy Ghost is founded. The church has deified the Holy\nGhost, and the divinity of the Holy Ghost serves as the basis of\nthe authority of the church. We thus see the true foundations of\nEcclesiastical power; we see the solidity of the titles of the church,\nwe see the true origin of the mystery of the trinity, now held in such\nveneration by the faithful. In short we see what we ought to think of\nthe inspirations of the Holy Ghost from the time of its origin until\nnow.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII. Of the Inspiration of the Prophets of the Old Testament\n\nIt does not appear, as we have already observed, that the Jews had\nany precise ideas of the Holy Ghost similar to those of the Christian\ntheologians. Moreover there is reason to believe, that the Apostles had\nnot yet imagined such subtle notions of it, as the church has invented\nsince their time. Amongst the Hebrews, every man who, during his sleep,\nhad dreams, every enthusiast who had, or pretended to have visions,\nbelieved himself inspired by the Lord, or at least gave himself out as\nsuch. He regarded the fancies of his brain, as warnings from heaven; he\ndelivered his pious nonsense as oracles to credulous hearers, who did\nnot doubt for an instant, that the unintelligible delirium of these\nharangues, was the effect of some divine illumination from the Almighty.\nAs in dreams, madness, in ebriation, in enthusiasm, man does not appear\nmaster of himself, they believed that what he uttered in these divers\nstates must, of necessity, spring, from some supernatural force acting\nin him, without his knowledge, and in spite of himself; the sentences\nand discourse, which issued from his mouth, were regarded as\ninspirations from on high, and received as divine commands. Their\nobscurity only served to excite curiosity, redouble terror, and confuse\nthe imagination. It was supposed that God, who spoke by these demoniacs,\ndid not choose to express himself in a clearer manner.\n\nThese reflections founded upon the nature of credulous, ignorant, and\nsuperstitious men, may serve to fix our ideas of so many prophets and\njugglers, that we see play such a prominent part, not only in Jewish\nhistory, but in all Pagan antiquity, and even among all savage and\nuninformed people that are now scattered over the globe. The trade of\nprophesying, appears to have been very lucrative and respectable amongst\nthe Jews, a people degraded by superstition, and whose priests always\ntook care to keep them in a state of profound ignorance, and credulity,\nwell-suited for the ends of those who sought to direct them after\ntheir own fancies. Whoever desired to gain the attention of the Jews,\nannounced himself as inspired, threatened or promised them in the name\nof the Lord, prophesied to them of evils calculated to intimidate, or\nof happy events which seduced them into belief. To draw the attention of\nthe public, and frequently to produce revolutions in the state, it was\nenough for a prophet to say gravely, that the Lord had spoken to him;\nand assure them that heaven had intrusted him with its designs in a\nvision; thus the brains of the Jews were put into a fermentation. The\nApostles desirous of establishing reform, or exciting a revolution, in\nmen's minds, felt the necessity of conforming to the prevailing liste of\nthe nation. In consequence they erected themselves into prophets,\ngave themselves out for inspired, spoke in an obscure manner, uttered\noracles, predicted the end of the world, they preached a messiah, they\nannounced a kingdom in which their followers would enjoy a happiness,\nwhich their subjugated country had long since been deprived of. In short\nto prove the truth of their predictions, and the legitimacy of their\nmission, they performed miracles, i.e. works calculated to astonish so\ncredulous a people as the Jews.\n\nThe Jews, however, in spite of all their ignorance, did not suffer\nthemselves to be convinced by either the harangues and miracles of\nJesus, nor by the preachings and prodigies of his Apostles. All their\nefforts failed against the hardness of heart of a people so often the\ndupe of the numberless inspired who had so successfully deceived them.\nThere is then reason to think that Jesus and his disciples did not\nperform their part well, or else that in their time, the Jews become\nmore cautious, had not so much faith as their ancestors had formerly\nexhibited. Indeed we do not find that the first preachers of\nChristianity made much impression upon their fellow citizens; they had\nmuch more success, and Paul especially amongst idolators, for whom their\nenthusiastic harangues, their preachings, and miracles was a more novel\nspectacle. Amongst the Gentiles preaching was an unknown thing, the\npeople was held in disdain by the priests; each formed such ideas of\nreligion as he choose, there was no theological system that they were\ncompelled to adopt; in short, with the exception of Esculapius, the Gods\nworked but few miracles for their worshippers.\n\nThus, as we have already observed, circumstances were favourable for the\nmission of our Apostle amongst the Gentiles; they were more disposed\nto listen than the Jews, and to regard him who performed such wonders\nbefore them, as an extraordinary man favoured by heaven. In fact St.\nPaul gave himself out for such. And how can we doubt the veracity of a\nman who performs miracles? It was then necessary to give him credit;\nand without having seen these miracles we believe the same thing, and\nespecially his divine inspiration, upon the authority of the writings,\nattributed to him, and upon the word of him who has transmitted to us\nan account of his actions in the Acts of the Apostles, works which the\nchurch enjoins us to regard as divinely inspired. It would be, I think,\nuseless to make any long reflections on the validity of the titles of\nthe church, and the right, that the writings which she has adopted have\nto the claim of divine inspiration. It is enough to remark, that if we\nadmit those titles and rights, we have no reason to refuse also to admit\nthose of any man, or body of men, which shall give themselves out as\ndivinely inspired. If, on the word of Paul, we believe that he was\ninspired, why shall we not have the same deference for the word of\nMahomet, who pretended to be the sent of the most high? If, after the\ndecision of the Christian church, we regard the books contained in\nthe New Testament as dictated by the Holy Ghost; what right have we to\nrefuse our assent to the decision of the body of Imans and Mollahs,\nthat the Koran was revealed by the angel Gabriel to Mahomet? if it be\npermitted to one man, or body of men, to invest themselves with titles,\nand at the same time forbid the titles to be investigated, we shall be\nobliged to admit all the reveries, extravagancies, and fables that we\nsee spread over the various countries of the earth. Priests every where\nshow us books, which they say were inspired by the divinity, and weak\nand silly people adore and and follow without examination books thus\nannounced. All religions in the world are founded upon sacred hooks\nwhich contain the divine will, and whose truth is proved by miracles.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER. XXIII. Of the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, or\ntheir Divine Inspiration\n\nIf we may believe the author of the Acts of the Apostles, the disciples\nassembled at Jerusalem on the the day of Pentecost, were filled with the\nHoly Ghost. But by what sign shall we be sure that they were filled with\nthe Holy Ghost? It is this that they began to speak divers languages.\nBut do these various languages prove the presence of the Holy Ghost?\nCould not the disciples of Jesus speak these languages naturally?\nHowever the Jews who had come from the different provinces of Asia to\nJerusalem to celebrate the feast all understood Hebrew, since it was\nthe language in which their law was written; nothing more then was\nrequisite but to speak Hebrew, in order to be understood by all of\nthem; we cannot suppose that men assembled at Jerusalem to celebrate the\nPentecost were Gentiles. That granted of what use was the gift tongues?\nIn supposing that among the Jews there were some who only understood\nGreek, which was at that time universal over all Asia, it is very\npossible that without a miracle, some of the disciples or Apostles,\nmight know this language by the aid of which they could make themselves\nunderstood in most of the provinces mentioned in the Acts of the\nApostles.\n\nThere is then reason for believing, that the Apostles and disciples\nwere on this occasion desirous of passing for inspired. With this view,\naccording to the practice of the diviners and prophets amongst\nthe Jews, they made noises contortions, cries, &c, and produced an\nextravagant cacophony, which, many well disposed persons mistook for\nundoubted sign of inspiration, while those who were less credulous took\nthem for certain proofs of drunkenness or folly. But St. Peter justified\nthem, and showed that what they received to be extravagancies ought to\nbe considered as proofs of inspiration. This he confirmed by quoting a\nprophecy of the prophet Joel, (see Acts of Apostles, chap. ii. ver. 17.)\n\nBut the question at issue is, whether visions, dreams, extravagancies,\n&c. are signs of divine inspiration. It is true that from the contents\nof the books, which Christians regard as dictated by the Holy Ghost, and\nexamining the nonsense and contradictions found in the writings of St.\nPaul, we should be tempted to believe so. If the absence of reason,\nprobability, logic, and harmony, is the distinguishing mark of divine\ninspiration, we cannot deny that St. Paul has proved himself, by his\nwritings, to have been divinely inspired.\n\nHowever at this rate nothing can be more easy than to pass; for\ninspired. If madness be a sufficient qualification to cause a man to be\nregarded as one filled with the Holy Ghost, there are many men who have\njust pretensions to this faculty. If we doubt it they have only to\nreply gravely that God hath confounded the wisdom of the wise; that our\nrebellious reason ought to be submissive, that the human mind becomes\nperverted by reasoning. Such is however the language continually\nrepeated by the supporters of St. Paul and Christianity. According to\nthem, wisdom is folly, reason an uncertain guide, common sense useless,\nand contradictions are impenetrable mysteries, which we must adore\nin silence; and when our mind loses itself in the abyss of folly and\nimposture, they cry out with their great Apostle: \"Oh! the depth of the\nriches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are\nhis ways, and his judgments past finding out!\" A lucky quibble of which\nour theologians avail themselves with success, in order to escape from\nthe embarrassment into which they are thrown by any reasoning on the\nways of providence.\n\nIt is thus that those who pretend to inspiration have the boldness to\noutrage the Divinity, and make the Holy Ghost the accomplice of their\nblasphemies. When they find it impossible to escape from the labyrinth\ninto which impostures and ill-contrived fables have led them, they make\nGod responsible for their extravagancies; they pretend that their\nown follies are the effects of divine wisdom, they term their own\nperplexities mysteries; and assent that the author of reason is at the\nsame time, the enemy of reason.\n\nMen however are not shocked by these impious propositions. Accustomed\nto regard St. Paul as inspired, it never occurs to them that so great a\nSaint may blaspheme. But what authority have Christians for their high\nopinion of St. Paul? It is the Acts of the Apostles, that is to say upon\nthe suspected testimony of a partizan of Paul's sect, who has compiled\na history of his hero, filled with contradictions, but embellished with\nprodigies and fable, which however serve to establish his romance.\nBut what proofs have we of these miracles themselves? We have no\nother evidence than the word of the Romancer himself confirmed by\nthe authority of the church, i.e. of a body of men interested in\nestablishing the fable.\n\nIt is true that we have in addition the testimony of St. Paul himself,\nto whom are attributed the epistles in which are found a great number of\ndetails of his life. But does this Apostle agree with his historian\nin his own narrative? No, doubtless, they vary materially in many\ncircumstances, and frequently contradict each other in the most positive\nmanner. Who then shall we find to reconcile them, and show us what we\nought to think of a history so differently related? The church. But\nwhat is the church? A body composed of the spiritual guides of the\nChristians. Have these guides been witnesses of the actions and miracles\nso differently related by Paul and his historian? No; they know nothing\nof them but by a tradition, contested even in the times of the first\nChristians, but since confirmed by a revelation of the Holy Ghost, who\nnever, according to them, ceases to enlighten his church. How are we\nto know if the church is continually inspired? She herself says so, and\nthere is, she says, the greatest danger in doubting this. It would be to\nresist the Holy Ghost who is identified with the church, and who makes\ncommon cause with her; a crime which will never be forgiven either\nin this world or in the next. Of all sins the most unpardonable is to\nresist the clergy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV. General reflections on the foundations of Christian Faith,\nand on the Causes of Credulity\n\nThese then are the only foundations of faith! Christians are obliged to\nbelieve that St. Paul was neither an enthusiast nor a cheat, because the\nchurch has decided that he was divinely inspired: the church has decided\nthis important point of belief, according to the Acts of the Apostles\nand epistles, which, as we have shown, were both rejected by many sects\nof the primitive Christians, and which, as we have proved in the course\nof this work, are filled with contradictions and absurdities.\n\nNevertheless no Christian now dares to doubt of the authenticity of\nthese books. These works are regarded as sacred by the universal church,\nby Christians of all sects, who with the exception notwithstanding of\nsome considerable and important variations, read them in the same manner\nand entertain for them the same veneration. What can we oppose to this\nunanimity? The example of Mahomet. This prophet who is at this day\nequally revered by all sects of Mussulmen, was at first regarded as an\nimpostor at Mecca, whence he was compelled to fly. His Koran now\nbecome the rule and code of a clergy, supported by princes and powerful\nnations, was at first considered as a tissue of fables compiled by\nimposture. This unanimity of the Mahometans, in acknowledging the\nsanctity of Mahomet, and the divinity of the Koran proves no more in\ntheir favour, than the agreement of all sects of Christians in admitting\nthe Saintship of Paul, and the inspiration of his writings, proves in\nfavour of the Apostle and his wonderful epistles.\n\nIt is the property of habit to change the appearance of things, men by\ndegrees become familiar with that which at first disgusted them; time is\nable to confound truth and falsehood; clearly proved deceptions, finish\nby becoming undoubted facts to the ignorant, the idle, and those either\ntoo much occupied, or involved in dissipation to examine, and these are\nthe majority of mankind. The most palpable imposture when it has existed\na length of time, acquires a solidity which nothing can shake: that\nwhich has been believed by many for ages appears to have a real\nfoundation, and to have at least a claim to probability. When once time\nhas obliterated the traces of imposture, they are difficult to detect,\nand most men find it easier to stick to received opinions than to\nundergo the painful task of examining what they ought to think.\n\nSuch are the true causes of the indolence that men generally show,\nas often as they are called upon to give a reason for their religious\nnotions, they are contented to follow the current. Besides when\nprejudice is supported by force, and becomes necessary to the interests\nof a powerful body, it is dangerous to combat it, and few men have the\ncourage to oppose deceptions, approved by the world, and authorised by\nthe governing powers.\n\nOn the other hand error, when habitual passes for truth, and is equally\nagreeable. We hold fast to our vices and prejudices, the virtues and\nopinions which are opposed to them, appear ridiculous or disagreeable.\nIt is this natural disposition of the human, species, which, by little\nand little, imbue nations with the most extravagant opinions, absurd\nfables, and ill-digested systems.\n\nNo, artifice was; ever better imagined, nor trick was ever more\ncalculated to deceive the vulgar than that of divine inspiration. Upon\nthis is founded all the religions in the world; it is to this marvellous\ninvention that the priests of the whole earth are indebted for their\nauthority, their riches, and their existence. When a man tells us,\nthat he is divinely inspired, it is difficult for most men to ascertain\nwhether he lie, or speak the truth. God never contradicts those who\nmake him speak, on the contrary those impostors who deceive in his\nname generally perform miracles and prodigies, and these miracles and\nprodigies, are to the short sighted multitude undoubted signs of divine\nfavor.\n\nShall we then judge those who are inspired by their conduct? They\ngenerally take care to impose on us by their disinterestedness,\npatience, and mildness of behaviour, and it can hardly be supposed that\nsuch moderate men could have formed the design of deceiving or gaining\npower. It is only when they have gently insinuated themselves into men's\nminds, that we find ambition, avarice, and passions of the missionary\ndevelope themselves: it is after having won over the multitude, that\ntheir empire discovers itself; and they exact with pride, the tribute\nand respect due to the organs of heaven, and the messengers of the most\nhigh.\n\nThese are the means by which Christianity has been established, the\nmanoeuvres have been practised by our great Apostle, and all those who\nhave assisted in disseminating his doctrine. His own experience\noften made Paul sensible, that his pride and fiery disposition, were\nfrequently obstacles to his mission; thus we see him sometimes doa\nviolence to his character, take the air of mildness and humility, so\nmuch better suited, to insinuate into mens good opinions than arrogance\nand pride. He only assumes the tone of the master, when he knows his\nground; then he threatens, thunders, and displays his authority. Does\na dispute arise between himself and an associate? He resists him to his\nface; he makes the church feel how necessary he is to the cause; and\navails himself of it, to exhibit his authority, His example has been at\nall times faithfully followed by the heads of the Christian religion.\nHumble, mild, patient, tolerant, and disinterested whenever they have\nbeen weak, they become haughty, quarrelsome, intolerant, avaricious,\nand rebellious subjects to princes whenever they were certain of their\nempire over the people. It was then that they prescribed laws, crushed\ntheir enemies, plundered the people, and caused kings to tremble at the\nname of the God whose interpreters they declared themselves to be.\n\nThe heads of the Christian religion have at all times made those\nopinions, most comfortable to their own interest pass for divine\noracles. The Holy Ghost has had no other function, than to serve for a\ncloak to their intrigues, passions, and pretensions. The works of our\nApostle furnished quarrelsome priests with arguments for injuring\neach other; his disjointed reveries, his obscure mysteries, and his\nambiguous oracles, were an arsenal whence the most opposite parties\nprocured arms to combat incessantly. In short the writings inspired by a\nGod who was desirous of instructing mankind, have only served to plunge\nnations in darkness. Guides enlightened by the Holy Ghost saw no clearer\nthan the ignorant, into mysteries, they continually presented to them by\nan unintelligible system. These great doctors were agreed upon nothing,\neach one sought to gain adherents whom he excited against the enemies\nof his own opinions, which he regarded as those only approved by heaven.\nThence arose animosities, hatred, persecutions, and wars, which have\na thousand times spread trouble and desolation among Christians, blind\nenough to follow men who pretended to be led by the Holy Ghost, while\nit was evident, that the only spirit which inspired them, was that of\npride, ambition, obstinacy, vengeance, avarice, and rebellion.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nLet us then be careful, oh! my friends, of allowing ourselves to be\nguided by inspired persons. Deceivers, or enthusiasts, they will only\nlead us into errors destructive of our peace. Let us consult reason, so\ndecried by men, whose interest it is to extinguish a light which is able\nto show us the plots of their dark policy, this reason will inform us\nthat contradictory works do not merit our belief; that a turbulent,\nambitious and enthusiastic Apostle, may have been a very useful Saint to\nthe church, and a very bad citizen. This reason will convince us, that\na God filled with wisdom could never inspire men with systems, in which\nfolly is the most prominent feature; that a God who is the author of\nreason could never have called for its immolation, before the shrine of\nfable, and pretended mystery incapable of producing any thing but evil\nand dissension upon the earth. Let us be just, benevolent, peaceable,\nlet us leave to St. Paul, and to those who take him for a model, their\nlofty ambition, their turbulent fanaticism, their obstinate vanity,\ntheir persecuting spirit, and above all things their bitter zeal, which\nthey term an interest for the salvation of souls. Let us show to all men\nnot an evangelic charity which is converted into fury and hatred, but\na real charity which inspires us with love, peace, indulgence, and\nhumanity. May this charity so much boasted of, and so little practised,\nby St. Paul and his successors, be the rule of our conduct, and the\nstandard of our judgments on men and their opinions. Examine all\nthings, and hold fast that which is good. Let us not be blinded by the\nprejudices, of infancy, of habit, or of authority. Let us not be imposed\nupon by the pompous names of Paul, of Cephas, or of Apollos; but let\nus seek the truth and follow reason, which can never lead astray, nor\nrender us troublesome members of society.\n\nFINIS.","title":"Critical Examination of the Life of St. Paul","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":30777}