{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42984/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42984","id":"gutenberg_42984","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42984","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Origin","Paul, the Apostle, Saint"],"text":"Transcriber's Note: Italics are indicated by _underscores_.\n\n\n\n\n  Not Paul, But Jesus\n\n\n  BY JEREMY BENTHAM, ESQR.,--The Eminent\n  Philosopher of Sociology, Jurisprudence,\n  &c., of London.\n\n\n  With Preface Containing Sketches of His Life and\n  Works Together with Critical Notes by John\n  J. Crandall, Esqr., of the New Jersey Bar--author\n  of Right to Begin and Reply\n\n\n\n\nEDITOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nJeremy Bentham, an eminent English judicial or jural philosopher, was\nborn in London, February 15, 1748, and died at Westminster, his\nresidence for six years previously, June 6, 1832. His grandfather was a\nLondon Attorney; his father, who followed the same profession, was a\nshrewd man of business, and added considerably to his patrimony by land\nspeculations. These London Benthams were probably an offshoot from an\nancient York family of the same name, which boasted a Bishopric among\nits members; but our author did not trouble himself to trace his\ngenealogy beyond the pawnbroker. His mother, Alicia Groove, was the\ndaughter of an Andover shopkeeper. Jeremy, the eldest, and for nine\nyears the only child of this marriage, was for the first sixteen years\nof his life exceedingly puny, small and feeble. At the same time, he\nexhibited a remarkable precocity which greatly stimulated the pride and\naffection of his father. At five years of age he acquired a knowledge of\nmusical notes and learned to play the violin. At four or earlier, having\npreviously learned to write, he was initiated into Latin grammar, and in\nhis seventh year entered Westminster School. Meanwhile, he was taught\nFrench by a private master at home and at seven read Telemaque, a book\nwhich strongly impressed him. Learning to dance was a much more serious\nundertaking, as he was so weak in his legs.\n\nYoung as he was, he acquired distinction at Westminster as a fabricator\nof Latin and Greek verses, the great end and aim of the instruction\ngiven there.\n\nWhen twelve years old, he was entered as a Commoner at Queen's College,\nOxford, where he spent the next three years. Though very uncomfortable\nat Oxford, he went through the exercises of the College with credit and\neven with some distinction. Some Latin verses of his, on the accession\nof George III, attracted a great deal of attention as the production of\none so young. Into all of the disputations which formed a part of the\nCollege exercises, he entered with zeal and much satisfaction; yet he\nnever felt at home in the University because of its historical monotony,\nand of all of which he retained the most unfavorable recollections.\n\nIn 1763, while not yet sixteen, he took the degree of A.B. Shortly\nafter this he began his course of Law in Lincoln's Inn, and journeyed\nback and forth to Oxford to hear Blackstone's Lectures. These lectures\nwere published and read throughout the realm of England and particularly\nin the American Colonies. These were criticised by the whole school of\nCromwell, Milton and such followers as Priestly and others in England\nand many in the Colonies in America. Young Bentham returned to London\nand attended as a student the Court of the King's Bench, then presided\nover by Mansfield, of whom he continued for some years a great admirer.\n\nAmong the advocates, Dunning's clearness, directness and precision most\nimpressed him. He took the degree of A.M. at the age of 18, the\nyoungest graduate that had been known at the Universities; and in 1772\nhe was admitted to the Bar.\n\nYoung Bentham had breathed from infancy, at home, at school, at college\nand in the Courts, an atmosphere conservative and submissive to\nauthority, yet in the progress of his law studies, he found a striking\ncontrast between the structural imperialism of the British Empire as\nexpounded by Blackstone and others of his day, and the philosophical\nsocial state discussed by Aristotle, Plato, Aurelius, the struggling\npatriots of France, and the new brotherhood, then agitating the colonies\nof America.\n\nHis father had hoped to see him Lord-Chancellor, and took great pains to\npush him forward. But having perceived a shocking contrast between the\nlaw as it was under the Church imperial structure and such as he\nconceived it ought to be, he gradually abandoned the position of a\nsubmissive and admiring student and assumed a position among the school\nof reformers and afterwards the role of sharp critic and indignant\ndenouncer.\n\nHe heroically suffered privations for several years in Lincoln's Inn\ngarrett, but persevered in study. He devoted some of his time to the\nstudy of science. The writings of Hume, Helvetius and others led him to\nadopt utility as the basis of Morals and Legislation. There had\ndeveloped two distinct parties in England: The Radicals and\nImperialists. The Radicals contended that the foundation of Legislation\nwas that utility which produced the greatest happiness to the greatest\nnumber.\n\nBlackstone and the Ecclesiastics had adopted the theory of Locke, that\nthe foundation of Legislation was a kind of covenant of mankind to\nconform to the laws of God and Nature, as interpreted by hereditarily\nself-constituted rulers.\n\nBentham contended that this was only a vague and uncertain collection of\nwords well adapted to the promotion of rule by dogmatic opinions of the\nLords and King and Ecclesiastics in combination well calculated to\ndeprive the people of the benefits of popular government. He conceived\nthe idea of codifying the laws so as to define them in terms of the\ngreatest good to the greatest number, and devoted a large share of the\nbalance of his life to this work.\n\nIn 1775 he published a small book in defense of the policy of Lord North\ntoward the Colonies, but for fear of prosecution it was issued by one\nJohn Lind and extensively read. A little later he published a book\nentitled \"A Fragment on Government.\" This created a great deal of\nattention. Readers variously ascribed the book to Mansfield, to Camden\nand to Dunning. The impatient pride of Bentham's father betrayed this\nsecret. It was variously interpreted as a philosophical Treatise and a\nCritical Personal Attack upon the Government. But he persevered in the\nadvocacy of his principals of Morals and Government. He hoped also to be\nappointed Secretary of the Commission sent out by Lord North to propose\nterms to the revolted American Colonies. But as King George III had\ncontracted a dislike to him, he was disappointed in his plan of\nConference with the Colonies. His writings were, however, more\nappreciated in France. He was openly espoused as a philosopher and\nreformer by D'Alimbert, Castillux, Brissat and others. But in the\nmeantime some such men as Lord Shelbourne, Mills and others became his\nfriends and admirers, and encouraged him to persevere with his\nphilosophical Code of laws, largely gleaned from the ancient\nphilosophers of liberty and equality which had been smothered and\nsuperseded by military and Church imperialism.\n\nIn 1785 he took an extensive tour across the Alps and while at Kricov on\nthe Dou, he wrote his letters on Usury. These were printed in London,\nwhich were now welcomed by the people largely on account of his\nreputation in France as a philosopher of popular government. In the\nmeantime, Paley had printed a treatise on the Principle of applying\nutility to morals and legislation. He determined to print his views in\nFrench and address them to that people then struggling for liberal\ngovernment.\n\nHe revised his sheets on his favorite penal Code and published them\nunder the title of \"An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and\nLegislation.\" The Principles enunciated in this treatise attracted the\nattention of the liberals in France, as well as England and America.\nMirabeau and other French publishers spread his reputation far and wide.\n\nMeanwhile, Bentham with the idea of aiding the deliberations of the\nStates General of France, and encouraged by the liberals on both\ncontinents, and especially such men as Franklin, Jefferson and others,\nprinted a \"Draft of a Code for the organization of a Judicial\nEstablishment in France,\" for which services the National Assembly\nconferred on him the Citizenship of France by a decree, August 23, 1792,\nin which his name was included with those of Priestly, Paine,\nWilberforce, Clarkson, Mackintosh, Anacharsis, Clootz, Washington,\nKlopstock, Kosiosco, and several others.\n\nIn the meantime, in his travels, he conceived an extensive plan of\nPrison reform which he strenuously urged the Crown Officers and the\nEnglish Parliament to adopt. After several years of strenuous labors and\nthe expenditure of a large part of the patrimony left him by his father,\nthe enterprise was thwarted by the refusal of the King to concur with\nParliament in the enterprise. This scheme is fully set forth in the\nhistories of the reign of George III. But to avoid persecution under the\ndrastic penal Codes of England, Bentham boasted that he was a man of no\nparty but a man of all countries and a fraternal unit of the human race,\nhe had come to occupy at home the position of a party chief.\n\nHe espoused with characteristic zeal and enthusiasm the ideas of the\nradicals, who, in spite of themselves, were ranked as a political party.\nHe went, indeed, the whole length, not merely republicanism, but on many\npoints of ancient democracy including Universal Suffrage and the\nEmancipation of all Colonies.\n\nNo matter how adroitly the Contention was managed, the Imperialists\ninsisted that it was merely resurrecting the historic struggle of the\ndays of Cromwell and his \"bare bones.\" The Church establishment by way\nof the Lords and Bishops and Bishop Lords was the real foundation of the\nCrown rule in all its ramifications. This superstructure was protected\nby all forms of penal laws against \"lease\" Majesty and even the\nappearance of Church Creed heresy. The Radicals always confronted by\nCrown detectives were compelled to be very wary in their attacks upon\nthis that they called imperial idolatry and were compelled to move by\nindirect and flank attacks.\n\nThe upheaval by Martin Luther in the reign of Henry VIII at the Council\nof Trent and others over the Divine authenticity of the Athanasian Creed\nnever abated among the humanitarians of England or France. But in the\npresence of criminal inquisitions too barbarous to mention, the Radicals\nwere handicapped and were compelled to work strategically and by pits\nand mines beneath the superstructure of Church imperialism. The Church\nstructure as established in Europe is by common consent based upon the\nhypothesis of Divinity in the life, works, and dogmas of one Saul of\nTarsus, or as denominated Paul, or the canonized St. Paul. The\nsubstantial Creed might well be denominated Paulism. Hence the legendary\nPaul has been one of the points of attack by the rationalists of the\ncenturies.\n\nWhile many of the contemporaries of Bentham both in England, America and\nthe Continent denied the verity of the whole Mosaic cosmogony and\nhistoriology, yet Bentham seemed to ignore this task as superserviceable\nand unimportant. He and his school of Radicals were devoted to the life\nworks and teachings of Jesus. Jesus was the idol of his school and he\nheartily espoused the task of eliminating Paul as the nemesis of Jesus\nand his Apostles, and a character invented and staged by imperialists to\nsubordinate the toiling classes to the production of resources to\nsubserve their personal luxuries.\n\nBentham began writing a philosophic analysis of the Church's pretensions\nconcerning the divine agency of Paul. After several years of examination\nand study, and while he was writing his famous treatise entitled \"The\nRational of Judicial Evidence\" afterwards collected and published by\nMill, he finished the manuscript criticisms of Paul and entitled them\n\"Not Paul but Jesus.\"\n\nFor fear of prosecution for direct heresy or denunciation of the Creed\nof the Church, he evaded the use of his own name as writer of the\nCriticism and used the name of Conyers Middleton, a Cambridge Divine,\nwho by his writings had created a great deal of disturbance. He had been\nconvicted twice for heresy. He had been dead fifty years when Bentham\nintroduced him in the first lines in the Introduction to his Criticisms\nherein published (See Introduction). Bentham, no doubt, intended to\nevade prosecution, as it will be seen that his name does not appear in\nthe book, and yet at the same time used the name most obnoxious to the\nChurch in all its history.\n\nIn 1729 Middleton published his \"Letter from Rome\" in which he boldly\nessayed to demonstrate that the then religion of the Roman Church was\nderived from their heathen ancestral idolaters. He published other works\non the uses of miracles and prophecy. But Bentham's \"Not Paul but Jesus\"\ndid not long remain anonymous. It was read extensively in France and\nAmerica. But this treatise formed a part of the labor of his life, which\nwas to promote the theory of the social state based upon \"The greatest\ngood to the greatest number, and subordinate the whole to rational\ncalculations of utility.\" These views he continually urged in the form\nof Codification so as to eliminate all pretensions of hierarchical\ncontrol by historical divine prophets, the faithful souls and agents of\nKings and princes. In the meantime, he was indefatigable in his attacks\nupon the English System of Jurisprudence, which was being operated in\nAmerica as a kind of paternal inheritance. Dumont, in 1811, compiled\nfrom the manuscripts of Bentham a complete code which was readily\nadopted in France, because it conformed so closely to the old Roman\nprocedure which was held tenaciously in France.\n\nIn the meantime, by importunity of Lord Brougham and others, and\nparticularly of his friends in America, such as Adams, Franklin and\nothers, he wrote to Madison offering his services to draw up a complete\ncode of laws for the United States. Mr. Madison caused these ideas to be\nspread broadcast by pamphlets as pamphleteering was much in vogue for\nsuch purposes in those days. But on account of our dual form of\ngovernment, and as the code would apply to the States separately, the\nscheme as a whole failed. But some of the Governors, especially those\nof Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire, got hold of the manuscripts\nand many of the provisions were adopted and still obtain.\n\nIn the meantime, Mr. Mill had collected his manuscripts on \"The\nRationale of Judicial Evidence\" and published them in 5 vols. They\nshortly became a part of the libraries of the lawyers and statesmen of\nEngland, and especially in the United States. His manuscripts on \"Not\nPaul but Jesus\" were extensively read and universally admitted to be\nrational and sound in point of rational jural demonstration. During this\ntime, Thomas Jefferson had been writing on the same subject and after\nreading the prints of Bentham, he abandoned the part directed to the\ncriticism of Paul, but he arranged chronologically all of the verses\nfrom the four gospels that pertain to the career of Jesus, omitting,\nhowever, every verse or paragraph that to his mind was ambiguous or\ncontroversial, and every statement of fact that would not have been\nadmitted as evidence in a Court of Justice. The original copy of what is\ndenominated as \"Jefferson Bible,\" is now preserved in the National\nMuseum at Washington. It was purchased by the Government as a memento of\nthe author of the Declaration of Independence.\n\nThis \"The Thomas Jefferson Bible\" has lately been republished by David\nMcKay, 604 S. Washington Sq., Philadelphia. The treatise \"Not Paul but\nJesus\" was published in 1825. The printing art was not as well advanced\nas at present, and the division of subjects for discussion and\ncorrelation were not arranged strictly methodically, so the Editor has\nrearranged some of the titles with a view to improve the order of\nsequence. With this change, every word has been preserved.\n\nIt will all the time be borne in mind that the examination is Judicial\nand the Character Paul had to be staged from many points of view and\nexamination. Jeremy Bentham has revolved him in the limelight of\ninquisition with a thoroughness that commands the attention of all\nthoughtful readers. With this view the Editor hopes to be justified in\nits republication by the reading and inquiring public.\n\n                                             J. J. CRANDALL.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIllustrious, in the church of Jesus in general, and in the church of\nEngland in particular, is the name of CONYERS MIDDLETON. Signal was, and\nis, the service rendered by him to the religion of Jesus. By that bold,\nthough reverend, hand, it now stands cleared of many a heap of\npernicious rubbish, with which it had been incumbered and defiled, by\nthe unhallowed labours of a succession of writers, who,--without\npersonal intercourse with the founder, any more than we have now,--have,\nfrom the mere circumstance of the comparative vicinity of their days to\nthose in which he lived, derived the exclusive possession of the\nimposing title of _Fathers of the Church_, or, in one word, _The\nFathers_.\n\nSo able, so effectual, has been this clearance, that, as it has been\nobserved by the Edinburgh Reviewers,--speaking of course of protestants,\nand more particularly of English protestants,--till one unexpected\nexception, which it mentions, had presented itself, they had thought\nthat in no man's opinion were those writers any \"longer to be regarded\nas guides, either in faith or morals.\"\n\nOne step further was still wanting. One thorn still remained, to be\nplucked out of the side of this so much injured religion,--and that was,\nthe addition made to it by _Saul of Tarsus_: by that _Saul_, who, under\nthe name of _Paul_, has,--as will be seen, without warrant from, and\neven in the teeth of, the history of Jesus, as delivered by his\ncompanions and biographers the four evangelists,--been dignified with\nthe title of _his_ apostle: his _apostle_, that is to say, his\n_emissary_: his _emissary_, that is to say, _sent out_ by him: sent out,\nby that Jesus, whose immediate disciples he so long persecuted and\ndestroyed, and whose person,--unless dreaming of a person after his\ndeath, or professing to have dreamt of him, is seeing him,--he never\nsaw.\n\nIn the course of the ensuing examination, the subject of _miracles_ has\ncome, unavoidably, under consideration. On this delicate ground, it has\nbeen matter of no small comfort to the author, to behold precursors,\namong divines of different persuasions, whose reputation for piety has\nnot been diminished by the spirit of critical inquiry which accompanies\nit. Such were Mede, Sykes, and others, whose ingenious labours were, in\nthe case called that of the _daemoniacs_, employed in the endeavor to\nremove the supernatural character, from what, in their eyes, was no more\nthan a natural appearance. On the success of these their labours, any\njudgment would here be irrelevant. Not altogether so the observation,\nthat in no instance does it appear to him that any such latitude of\ninterpretation has been employed, as that which, on that occasion, was\nfound necessary for the conversion of _devils_ into _diseases_.\n\nThe _dissentions_ which, at all times, have had place among persons\nprofessing the religion of Jesus, are but too notorious. The\n_mischiefs_, produced by these dissentions, are no less so. These\ndissentions, and these mischiefs--in what have they had their source? In\ncertain words. These words, of whom have they been the words? Of Jesus?\nNo: this has not been so much as pretended. Of Paul, and of Paul alone:\nhe giving them all along not as the words of Jesus, but as his own\nonly:--he all along preaching (as will be seen) in declared opposition\nto the eleven who were undisputedly the apostles of Jesus: thus, of Paul\nonly have they been the words.\n\nThat, by these words, and, consequently, by him whose words they were\nand are, all the mischiefs, which have been imputed to _the religion of\nJesus_, have been produced,--in so far as the dissentions, from which\nthese mischiefs flowed, have had these words for their subjects,--cannot\nbe denied. But, moreover, in these same words, that is to say, in the\ndoctrines delivered by them, cannot but be to be found the origin, and\nthe cause, of no small part--perhaps of the greatest part--of the\n_opposition_, which _that religion, with its benevolent system of\nmorals_, has hitherto experienced. If this be so, then, by the clearing\nit of this incumbrance, not only as yet unexampled purity, but\nadditional extent, may not unreasonably be expected to be given to it.\n\nIt was by the frequent recurrence of these observations, that the author\nof these pages was led to the inquiry, whether the religion of Paul,--as\ncontained in the writings ascribed to Paul, and with a degree of\npropriety which the author sees no reason to dispute,--whether the\nreligion of Paul has any just title to be considered as forming a part\nof the religion of Jesus. The result was in the negative. The\nconsiderations, by which this result was produced, will form the matter\nof the ensuing pages.\n\nIf, by cutting off a source of useless privations and groundless\nterrors, comfort and _inward peace_ should be restored or secured;--if,\nby cutting off a source of bitter animosity,--good-will, and peace from\n_without_, should be restored or secured;--if, by the removal of an\nincongruous appendage, acceptance should be obtained for what is good in\nthe religion commonly ascribed to Jesus;--obtained at the hands of any\nman, much more of many, to whom at present it is an object of\naversion;--if, in any one of these several ways, much more if in all of\nthem, the labours of the author should be crowned with success,--good\nservice will, so far, and on all hands, be allowed to have been rendered\nto mankind.\n\nWhosoever, putting aside all prepossessions, feels strong enough in\nmind, to look steadily at the originals, and from _them_ to take his\nconceptions of the matter, not from the discourses of others,--whosoever\nhas this command over himself, will recognise, if the author does not\nmuch deceive himself, that by the two persons in question, as\nrepresented in the two sources of information--the Gospels and Paul's\nEpistles,--two quite different, if not opposite, religions are\ninculcated: and that, in the religion of Jesus may be found all the\n_good_ that has ever been the result of the compound so incongruously\nand unhappily made,--in the religion of Paul, all the _mischief_, which,\nin such disastrous abundance, has so indisputably flowed from it.\n\n1. That Paul had no such commission as he professed to have;--2. that\nhis enterprize was a scheme of personal ambition, and nothing more;--3.\nthat his system of doctrine is fraught with mischief in a variety of\nshapes, and, in so far as it departs from, or adds to, those of Jesus,\nwith good in none;--and that it has no warrant, in anything that, as far\nas appears from any of the four gospels, was ever said or done by\nJesus;--such are the conclusions, which the author of these pages has\nfound himself compelled to deduce, from those materials with which\nhistory has furnished us. The grounds of these conclusions he proceeds\nto submit to the consideration of his readers.\n\n\n\n\nPLAN OF THE WORK.\n\n\nThe work may be conceived as divided into five parts.\n\n1. In Part the first, the five different, and in many respects\ndiscordant, accounts given of Paul's conversion, which, in these\naccounts, is of course represented as being not only _outward_ but\n_inward_, are confronted, and, so far as regards inward conversion,\nshown to be, all of them, untrue: and, immediately after, the state of\nthings, which produced, accompanied, and immediately followed, his\noutward conversion,--together with the time and manner in which that\nchange was declared,--is brought to view. This part occupies the first\ntwo chapters.\n\n2. Part the Second is employed in showing,--that, from the first\ncommencement, of the intercourse, which, upon the tokens given of his\noutward conversion, took place at Jerusalem between him and the\napostles, Acts 9:27, to the time when,--in consequence of the\ninterposition of the Roman commander, to save him from the unanimous\nindignation of the whole people, more particularly of the disciples of\nthe apostles,--he was conveyed from thence under guard to Rome, a space,\naccording to the commonly received computation, not less than six and\ntwenty years, (Acts 21 and 23), no supernatural commission from Jesus,\nnor any inward conversion, was,--either by those distinguished servants\nand companions of Jesus, or by their disciples at Jerusalem,--believed\nto have place in his instance. This part occupies eight chapters: to\nwit, from the 3d to the 10th inclusive.\n\n3. In Part the Third, in further proof of the insincerity of his\ncharacter,--in addition to an oath proved to be false, are brought to\nview two unquestionably false assertions:--each having for its subject a\nmatter of prime importance,--each deliberate and having in view a\nparticular purpose: the one, a false account of the number of the\nwitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus; 1 Cor. 15:6; the other, a\nprediction of the end of the world before the death of persons then\nliving; 1 Thes. 4, 15, 16, 17. This part occupies Chapters 11 and 12.\n\n4. Part the Fourth is employed in showing,--that no proof, of his\nalleged supernatural commission from the Almighty, is deducible, from\nany account we have, of any of those scenes, in which he is commonly\nregarded as having exercised a power of working miracles. For, that not\nonly he himself never made exercise of any such power,--on any of those\noccasions, on which the demand for it, for the purpose of overcoming the\ndisbelief entertained of his story by the Apostles, was extreme,--but,\nneither on those, nor any other occasions, did he ever take upon himself\nto make reference, to so much as any one instance of any such proof of\nspecial authority from the Almighty, as having been exhibited by him on\nany other occasion: that, for the belief in any such gift, we have no\nother ground, than the relations contained in the history called \"_The\nActs of the Apostles_,\" or, for shortness, _The Acts_: and that such\nthroughout is,--on the one hand, the nature of the occurrence itself, on\nthe other hand, the character of the representation given of it,--that,\nto a disbelief in the exercise of any such supernatural power, it is\nnot necessary that any such imputation as that of downright and wilful\nfalsehood should be cast upon the author of that narrative: the\noccurrences in question being, mostly, if not entirely, such as lie\nwithin the ordinary course of nature,--but, upon which, either by the\nfancy, or by the artifice of the narrator, a sort of supernatural\ncolouring has been superinduced. For this purpose, these supposed\nmiracles are, each of them, separately brought to view and examined.\nThis part occupies the 13th chapter.\n\n5. Part the Fifth is employed in showing, that,--even if, on all these\nseveral occasions, the exercise of a power of producing supernatural\neffects had, by unequivocal statements, been ascribed to Paul by the\nauthor of the Acts,--such testimony, independently of the virtual\ncontradiction given to it by the above-mentioned circumstantial\nevidence,--could not, with any propriety, be regarded as affording\nadequate proof--either of the fact of Paul's having received a divine\ncommission, and thereby, having become, inwardly as well as outwardly, a\nconvert to the religion of Jesus--either of that radical fact, or so\nmuch as of any one of the alleged achievements, which, upon the face of\nthe accounts in question, are wont to present themselves as miraculous:\nfor that, in the first place, it is only by error that the history in\nquestion has been ascribed to Saint Luke: it being, in respect of the\naccount given of the circumstances accompanying the ascension of Jesus,\ninconsistent with the account given in the gospel of Saint Luke, when\ncompared with Acts 1:3 to 12,--and as to those attendant on the death of\nJudas, inconsistent with the account in Saint Matthew 27:3 to 10 and\nActs 1:16 to 20: and moreover, such being the whole complexion of his\nnarrative, as to render it incapable of giving any tolerably adequate\nsupport to any statement whereby the exercise of supernatural power is\nasserted. This part occupies Chapter 14.\n\nIn Part the Sixth, to give additional correctness and completeness, to\nthe conception supposed to be conveyed, of the character of Paul and his\nattendant historiographer, jointly and severally considered,--a conjunct\nview is given of _five_ reports of his five trials, as reported in the\nActs. This part has been added since the publication of the\nabove-mentioned Summary View. It occupies Chapter 15 of the present\nwork.\n\nChapter XVI. and last, winds up the whole, with some general\nobservations on the self-declared oppositeness of Paul's Gospel, as he\ncalls it, to that of the Apostles: together with an indication of a real\nAntichrist, in compensation for the fabulous one, created by Paul, and\nnursed by the episcopal authors and editors of the Church of England,\ntranslators of the Bible: and by Chapter 12 of the present work, the\nimaginary Antichrist is, it is hoped, strangled.\n\nAt the time of the publication of the Summary View,--for the more\ncomplete and satisfactory demonstration of the relative insufficiency of\nthe narrative in question, a short but critical sketch was, as herein\nstated, intended to be given, of the parts not before noticed of the\n_History of the Church_,--from the ascension of Jesus, being the period\nat which that narrative commences, to that at which it terminates,--to\nwit, about two years after the arrival of Paul at Rome, Acts 28: the\nhistory--to wit, as deducible from the materials which, in that same\nnarrative, are brought to view: the duration of the period being,\naccording to commonly received computations, about 28 or 30 years[A]:\nthe author of \"_The Acts_\" himself,--if he is to be believed,--an\neyewitness, during a considerable portion of the time, to the several\noccurrences which he relates.\n\nOn this occasion, and for this purpose,--the history in question had\nbeen sifted, in the same manner and on the same principles, as any\nprofane history, in which, in a series of occurrences mostly natural, a\nfew, wearing a supernatural appearance, are, here and there,\ninterspersed: as, for instance, in Livy's, and even in Tacitus's Roman\nHistory: on the one hand, the authority not being regarded as affording\na sufficient foundation, for a belief in the supernatural parts of the\nnarrative; nor, on the other hand, the sort of countenance, given to the\nsupernatural parts, as affording a sufficient reason, for the disbelief\nof those, which have nothing in them that is unconformable to the\nuniversally experienced course of nature.\n\nIn respect of _doctrine_, the conclusion is--that no point of doctrine,\nwhich has no other authority than that of Paul's writings for its\nsupport, can justly be regarded as belonging to the religion of\nJesus,--any more than if, at this time of day, it were broached by any\nman now living: that thus, in so far as he is seen to have _added_\nanything to the religion of Jesus, he is seen to set himself _above_ it\nand _against_ it: that, therefore, if this be true, it rests with every\nprofessor of the religion of Jesus, to settle with himself, to which of\nthe two religions, that of Jesus and that of Paul, he will adhere: and,\naccordingly, either to say, _Not Jesus but Paul_,--or, in the words of\nthe title to this work, _Not Paul but Jesus_.[B]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[A] To prevent, if possible, an embarrassment, which might otherwise be\nliable to have place on the part of the reader,--and therewith, the idea\nof inconsistency, as having place here and there in the work,--the\nfollowing indication may be found to have its use.\n\nA cloud of uncertainty, to the length of one or two years, hangs over\nthe duration of the period embraced by this work: namely, that between\nthe point of time at which the conversion of Paul is stated to have\ntaken place, and the point of time at which the history, intituled The\nActs of the Apostles, as therein declared, concludes:--a point of time,\nposterior by two years to that of his arrival at Rome.\n\n[B] For making the requisite separation, between the two religions of\nJesus and the religion of Paul,--an instrument, alike commodious and\nunexceptionable, has--for these many years, though, assuredly, not with\nany such view,--been presented to all hands, by Doctor _Gastrell_, an\nEnglish and Church of England Bishop: namely, in a well-known work,\nintituled _The Christian Institutes_: date of the 14th Edition, 1808. It\nis composed of a collection of points of faith and morality, and under\neach are quoted the several texts, in the New Testament, which are\nregarded by the author as affording grounds for the positions indicated.\nIf then, anywhere, in his composition of the ground, passages, one or\nmore, from this or that Epistle of Paul, are employed,--unaccompanied\nwith any passage, extracted from any of the four Gospels,--the reader\nmay, without much danger of error, venture to conclude, that it is to\nthe religion of Paul alone, that the point of doctrine thus supported\nappertains, and not to the religion of Jesus. As to any of the Epistles,\nwhich bear the name of any of the real Apostles of Jesus,--a\ncorresponding question may perhaps be here suggesting itself. But, with\nregard to the design of the present work, scarcely will they be found\nrelevant. For, when compared with the sayings of Jesus as repeated in\nthe four Gospels, scarcely will they be found exhibiting any additional\npoints of doctrine: never, pregnant with any of those dissentions,\nwhich, from the writings of Paul, have issued in such disastrous\nabundance. Only lest they should be thought to have been overlooked, is\nany mention here made, of those documents, which, how much soever on\nother accounts entitled to regard, may, with reference to the question\nbetween the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul, be, as above,\nand without impropriety, stated as irrelevant.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE I.\n\n\nOUTWARD CONVERSION.\n\n     _Showing at one view, under the head of Paul's Conversion, the\n     different accounts from which the inference is drawn that the\n     Conversion was outward only, not inward._\n\n\nVISION I. ACTS ACCOUNT.\n\nCh. ix. 1-9.\n\n    1.--But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the\n    disciples of the Lord, went unto the High Priest, and asked of him\n    letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that\n    were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to\n    Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh\n    unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone around about him a light out\n    of heaven: and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto\n    him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou,\n    Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for\n    thee to kick against the pricks: (1) but rise, and enter into the\n    city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men that\n    journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice,--but\n    beholding no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes\n    were opened, he saw nothing; (old version \"no man\") and they led him\n    by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days\n    without sight, and did neither eat nor drink.\n\n\nII. PAUL'S FIRST PERSONAL ACCOUNT.\n\nAs per Acts xxii. 3-11.\n\n    I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city,\n    at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner\n    of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are\n    this day: and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and\n    delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the High Priest\n    doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom\n    also I received letters unto the brethren; and journeyed to\n    Damascus, to bring them also which were there unto Jerusalem in\n    bonds, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my\n    journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there\n    shown from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the\n    ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why\n    persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said\n    unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they\n    that were with me beheld in deed the light, but they heard not the\n    voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord?\n    And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it\n    shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.\n    And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by\n    the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.\n\n\nIII. PAUL'S SECOND PERSONAL ACCOUNT.\n\nAs per Acts xxvi. 9-20.\n\n    I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things\n    contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And this I also did in\n    Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prison, having\n    received authority from the Chief Priests, and when they were put to\n    death, I gave my vote against them. And punishing them oftentimes in\n    all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being\n    exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign\n    cities. Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and\n    commission of the Chief Priests, at midday, O, king, I saw on the\n    way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining\n    round about me and them that journeyed with me. And when we were all\n    fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew\n    language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee\n    to kick against the goad. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And the\n    Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But arise, and stand\n    upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint\n    thee a minister and a witness both of thee, to appoint thee a\n    minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me,\n    and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee\n    from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to\n    open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from\n    the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins\n    and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me.\n    Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly\n    vision: but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at\n    Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the\n    Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works\n    worthy of repentance.\n\n\nIV. PAUL'S ALLUSIONS.\n\nI. As per Paul to Corinth. i. xv. 8.\n\n    And last of all, as unto one born out of due time, he appeared to\n    me, also.\n\n\nII. As per Paul to Gal. i. 12, 15, 16, 17.\n\n    12. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but\n    it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.\n\n    15. But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even\n    from my mother's womb,\n\n    16. And called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I\n    might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not\n    with flesh and blood:\n\n    17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles\n    before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto\n    Damascus.\n\n\nII. VISION 2.--ANANIAS'S.\n\n_I. Acts Account._\n\nix. 10-16.\n\n    10. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and\n    the Lord said unto him in a vision, Ananias! And he said, Behold, I\n    am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go to the\n    street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas\n    for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: for behold, he prayeth: and he\n    hath seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on\n    him, that he might receive his sight. But Ananias answered, Lord, I\n    have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to thy saints\n    at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the chief priests to\n    bind all that call upon thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy\n    way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the\n    Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will shew him\n    how many things he must suffer for my name's sake.\n\n\nIII. ANANIAS'S VISIT TO PAUL.\n\n_I. Acts Account._\n\nix. 17-22.\n\n    And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his\n    hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord even Jesus, who appeared\n    unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou\n    mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And\n    straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he\n    received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took food\n    and was strengthened.\n\n    And he was certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.\n    And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is\n    the Son of God. And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not\n    this he that in Jerusalem made havock of them which called on his\n    name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring\n    them bound before the chief priests. But Saul increased the more in\n    strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving\n    that this is the Christ.\n\n\n_II. Paul's Account._\n\nAs per Acts xxii. 12-16.\n\n    xxii. 12. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well\n    reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and\n    standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And\n    in that very hour I looked up on him. And he said, The God of our\n    fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the\n    Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be\n    a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And\n    now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy\n    sins, calling on his name.\n\n\n\n\nNOT PAUL, BUT JESUS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n     _Paul's Conversion._[1]--_Improbability and Discordancy of the\n     Accounts of it._\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nLIST OF THESE ACCOUNTS, WITH PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.\n\n(_See_ TABLE I., _in which they are confronted_.)\n\nIn one single work, and that alone, is comprised the whole of the\ninformation, in which, in relation to this momentous occurrence, any\nparticulars are at this time of day to be found. This is that historical\nwork, which in our edition of the Bible, has for its title _The Acts of\nthe Apostles_; for shortness, let us say _The Acts_.\n\nOf this same occurrence, in this one short work no fewer than three\nseparate accounts are visible; one, in which the story is related by the\nhistorian in his own person; two others, in each of which Paul is\nintroduced as giving his own account of it. Of these three accounts, no\ntwo will be found agreeing with each other. By the historian, Paul when\nintroduced as speaking in his own person, is represented as\ncontradicting not only the historian's account, but his own account. On\neach occasion, it should seem, Paul's account is adapted to the\noccasion. On the first occasion, the historian's account was not exactly\nadapted to that same first occasion. By the historian's ingenuity, Paul\nis accordingly represented as giving on that same occasion another and\nbetter-adapted account. On the second occasion, neither was the\nhistorian's account nor Paul's own account, as given on the former\noccasion, found suitable to this fresh occasion; on this same fresh\noccasion, a suitable amendment is accordingly framed.\n\nHere, at the very outset of the inquiry, the distance of time between\nthe point of time on which the occurrence is supposed to have taken\nplace, and the time at which the historian's account of it was penned,\nare circumstances that present a claim to notice.\n\nThe year 35 after the birth of Christ is the year which, according to\nthe received accounts, is assigned to the occurrence. According to these\nsame accounts, the year 63 is the date given to the last occurrence\nmentioned by the historian, Acts 28: after which occurrence, two years\nare stated by him as having elapsed, at the time at which the history\ncloses. Here then is an interval of about 30 years, between the time at\nwhich the occurrence is stated to have happened, and the time at which\nthese three mutually contradictory accounts of it were framed.\n\nIn regard to this radical occurrence in particular, namely Paul's\nconversion,--for the foundation of this his report, what evidence was it\nthat the reporter had, or could have had in his possession, or at his\ncommand? One answer may serve for all; the accounts given of the matter\nby Paul himself.\n\nWith Paul, then, what were this same reporter's means and mode of\nintercourse? In the year 59, and not before, (such is the inference from\nhis own words) did it fall to his lot to be taken into the train of this\nself-denominated Apostle. Then it is, that for the first time, in the\nseveral accounts given by him of Paul's migrations from place to place,\nthe pronouns _us_, Acts 20:5, and _we_ make their appearance. From 34 to\n59 years are 25. At the end of this interval came the earliest\nopportunity, which, for anything that appears, he could have had of\nhearing from his master's own mouth, whatsoever account, if any, it may\nhave been the pleasure of that same master to give, of an occurrence, in\nrelation to which there existed not among men any other percipient\nwitness.\n\nHaving accompanied his master during the whole of his progress from\nJerusalem, the historian speaks of himself as being still in his train\non his arrival at Rome. Acts xxviii. 16, \"And when we came to Rome,\" &c.\nIt is not precisely stated, nor can it very determinately be inferred,\nwhether at the point of time at which the history closes, the historian\nwas still at that capital; the negative supposition presents itself as\nthe most probable. Posterior to the closing of the real action of the\nhistory, the penning of it will naturally be to be placed.\n\n\"Paul, says the Acts xxviii. 30, dwelt two whole years in his own hired\nhouse, and received all that came in unto him,\" &c. When this last verse\nbut one of the history was penning, had the historian been living with\nPaul, he would naturally have given us to understand as much; instead of\n_dwelt_, he would have said _has been dwelling_.\n\nBy the tokens of carelessness afforded by the omission of so many\nparticulars, which in every work of an historical nature the reader will\nnaturally expect to see specified; such as the name of the historian,\nthe particulars, occasion and manner of his being taken into the company\nof the illustrious missionary, and the time of that event;--by these\ntokens, two inferences, how different soever their tendency, seem at\nonce to be suggested. One is, the genuineness of the narrative. A\nwriter, who was conscious that he was not the man he was thus\nrepresenting himself to be, viz. the companion of the missionary, would\nhardly have slid in, in so careless a manner, the mention of so material\na circumstance. The other is, the slenderness of the author's\nqualification for the task thus executed by him; the lowness of his\nstation in the scale of trustworthiness, and consequently the smallness\nof the probative force, with which a mass of evidence thus circumstanced\ncan reasonably be considered as operating, in support of any alleged\nmatter of fact, which, (either by the extraordinariness of its nature,\nor the temptation which the circumstances of the case afforded for\nentire fiction or misrepresentation), presents itself as exposed to\ndoubt or controversy.\n\nA supernatural conversion, and the receipt of a supernatural commission\nfor the delivery of a fresh body of doctrine; such are the two events,\nwhich, though in their nature so perfectly distinguishable, were\naccording to this narrative combined in one:--the conversion from an\nunbelieving, cruel, and destructive persecutor of the new fellowship,\ninto a most zealous supporter and coadjutor: the body of doctrine such\nas if it amounted to anything, could not but have been--what the person\nin question declared it to be--a supplement to the religion taught by\nJesus while in the flesh;--a supplement, containing matter never\nrevealed to, and consequently never taught by, his Apostles.\n\nNow then, of all these supernatural occurrences, which, by the nameless\nhistoriographer, are related to have happened to Paul, if anything had\nreally happened to him--on this supposition, (so many as were the\ndifferent sets of disciples of his, inhabitants of so many mutually\ndistant provinces, no fewer than eight in number); is it in the nature\nof the case, that in no one instance, in any of his numerous Epistles,\nhe should have felt the necessity of stating and accordingly have\nstated, to any of these his disciples, the circumstances attending the\nevent of his conversion--an event on which alone all his professions\nwere founded? circumstances to which, as stated in his historian's\nnarrative, could not from their nature have been known to any human\nbeing other than himself?\n\nYet, in no one of all his Epistles, to any one of these his disciples,\nof any such particular, either in the way of direct assertion, or in the\nway of allusion, is any trace to be found. Of _revelation_, yes: of\n_revelation_--this one most momentous indeed, but at the same time most\nmysterious and uninstructive word, repetitions we have in abundance. But\nof the time and manner of the alleged communication, or of the matter\ncommunicated, nothing is anywhere said.\n\nIn these considerations may be seen a part, though but a part, of those,\non which, in due season, will be seen grounded the inference,--that at\nno time, in all the personal conferences he had with the Apostles, was\nany such story told by Paul, as is related by the author of the Acts.\n\nOn the supposition that the narrative, such as it is, is\ngenuine,--taking it as a whole, a very important source of division,\nfrom which it will require to be divided in idea into two parts or\nperiods, here presents itself. Period the first, containing the portion\nof time _anterior_ to the historian's admission into the train of the\nsupposed Apostle: Period the second, containing the portion of time\n_posterior_ to that event: this latter portion continuing, as far as\nappears, to the time at which the history closes.\n\nIn this latest and last-mentioned period are comprised all the several\nfacts, or supposed facts, in relation to which any grounds appear for\nthe supposition that the historian was, in his own person, a percipient\nwitness.\n\nIn relation to all the several facts, or supposed facts, anterior to\nthis period,--the best evidence, which, for anything that appears, ever\ncame within his reach, was composed of such statements as, in the course\nof his service, it may have been the pleasure of the master to make to,\nor in the hearing of, this his attendant. Whatsoever may be the grounds\nof suspicion that may be found attaching themselves to evidence passing\nthrough such a channel, or issuing from such a source; other evidence\nwill, if taken in the lump, present itself as being in comparison much\nless trustworthy. All other evidence consists of statements, coming from\nwe know not whom, at we know not what times, on we know not what\noccasion, each of them with we know not how many reporting witnesses,\none after and from another, through so many different and successive\nchannels, between the percipient witness or witnesses, and the last\nreporting witness or witnesses, from whom the historian received the\nstatement in the way of personal intercourse.\n\nThe period of _rumour_, and the period of _observation_--By these two\nappellations it should seem, may the two periods be not altogether\nunaptly or uninstructively distinguished.\n\nWith reference to the period of rumour,--whether, it was from Paul's own\nstatement, or from a source still more exposed to suspicion, that the\nhistorian's conception was derived,--one consideration presents itself,\nas requisite to be kept in mind. This is, With what facility, especially\nin that age, upon an occurrence in itself true, and including nothing\nthat lies without the ordinary course of nature,--a circumstance out of\nthe course of nature, giving to the whole a supernatural, and to use the\nordinary word a miraculous, character, may, in and by the narrative,\nhave been superinduced.[2] Fact, for instance, as it _really_ was--at\nthe word of command, (suppose) a man, having the appearance of a\ncripple, stands up erect and walks: untrue circumstances, one or both\nsuperinduced by _rumour_--the man had been so from his birth; from his\nbirth down to that same time he had been an inhabitant of that same\nplace.\n\nIn the chapter on Paul's supposable miracles, about a dozen occurrences\nof this description will be found. On each one of these several\noccasions, the propriety of bearing in mind the above-mentioned\nconsideration, will, it is believed, not appear open to dispute,\nwhatsoever on each several occasion may be the application made of it.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nVISION I.--DIALOGUE ON THE ROAD: PAUL HEARS A VOICE, SEES NOTHING.\n\nI. ACCOUNT.--_As per Acts_ ix. 1-9.\n\n     ix. 1. And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter\n     against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,--and\n     _desired_ of him letters to Damascus to the _synagogues_, that if\n     he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might\n     bring them bound unto Jerusalem.--And as he journeyed, he came near\n     Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from\n     _heaven_:--and he fell to the earth, and _heard a voice_ saying\n     unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?--And he said, Who\n     art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou\n     persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.--And\n     he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to\n     do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it\n     shall be told thee what thou must do.--And the men which journeyed\n     with him stood speechless, _hearing a voice_ but _seeing no\n     man_.--And Saul arose from the earth; and _when his eyes were\n     opened, he saw no man_; but they led him by the hand, and brought\n     him into Damascus.--And he was _three days without sight, and\n     neither did eat nor drink_.\n\nII. PAUL'S supposed FIRST OR UNSTUDIED ACCOUNT.--_As per_ ACTS xxii.\n3-11.\n\n    xxii. 3. I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in\n    Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and\n    taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,\n    and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.--And I\n    persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into\n    prisons both men and women.--As also the high priest doth bear me\n    witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I\n    _received_ letters unto the _brethren_, and went to Damascus, to\n    bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be\n    punished.--And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was\n    come nigh unto Damascus _about noon_, suddenly there shone from\n    _heaven_ a great light round about me.--And I fell unto the ground,\n    and _heard a voice_ saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou\n    me?--And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am\n    Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest.--And they that were with me\n    _saw indeed the light_, and were afraid; but _they heard not_ the\n    voice of him that spake to me.--And I said, What shall I do, Lord?\n    And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it\n    shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to\n    do.--And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led\n    by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.\n\n\nIII. PAUL'S supposed ORATORICAL OR STUDIED ACCOUNT.--_As per_ ACTS xxvi.\n9-20.\n\n    xxvi. 9. I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many\n    things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.--Which thing I\n    also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in\n    prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when\n    they were put to death I gave my voice against them.--And I punished\n    them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and\n    being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto\n    strange cities.--Whereupon as I went to Damascus with _authority_\n    and _commission_ from the _chief priests_,--at _midday_, O king, I\n    saw in the way a light from _heaven_, above the brightness of the\n    sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.--And\n    when we were all fallen to the earth, _I heard_ a voice speaking\n    unto me, and saying _in the Hebrew tongue_, Saul, Saul, why\n    persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.\n    And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou\n    persecutest.--But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared\n    unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness\n    both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in\n    the which I will appear unto thee;--delivering thee from the people,\n    and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee.\n\n\nOn comparing the three accounts of Vision 1st, the particulars will be\nfound referable to twelve heads. Under no more than two of the twelve,\nwill the conformity among them be found entire.\n\nWhere disconformity has place it may be clear or not clear of\ncontradiction. Clear it may be of contradiction, when it consists either\nof mere deficiency or mere redundancy, or of both: deficiency or\nredundancy, according as it is this or that account, which, on the\noccasion of the comparison, is taken for the standard.\n\nOn the occasion in question, such is the importance of the occurrence,\nthat the proper standard of reference and comparison is that which is\nmost ample: that which, if not strictly speaking complete, wants the\nleast of being so. On the part of the historian, speaking in his own\nperson, omission is in such a case without excuse.\n\nNot so, necessarily, in the case of a person whom the historian speaks\nof as giving that person's own account of that same occurrence. What may\nbe is, that in the nature of the occasion in which the person is\nrepresented as speaking of it, there is so much of suddenness, by reason\nof impending danger, or urgent pressure, that, of the quantity of time\nnecessary for complete utterance, and even of that necessary for\ncomplete and correct recollection, more or less was wanting.\n\nOn the occasion of that account of the matter, which is the first of the\ntwo on which the historian represents Paul as giving an account of this\nmomentous occurrence,--this justification for want of completeness, or\nthis excuse for want of correctness, might naturally enough have place.\nFor it was while pleading for his life at Jerusalem, before a mixed\nmultitude, no inconsiderable part of which were endeavouring at the\ndestruction of it, that Paul is represented as delivering this first of\nhis two accounts:--call that _the supposed unstudied or unpremeditated\naccount_.\n\nNot so, on the occasion on which he is represented as delivering the\nsecond of these same two accounts. On this occasion, it is true, he is\nrepresented as pleading in his defence. But it is pleading in and before\na regularly constituted judiciary, and after time for preparation in\nmuch greater abundance than he could have wished:--call this _the\nsupposed studied or premeditated account_.\n\nIn this view, the proper standard of comparison can not be dubious. The\nhistorian being himself, in all three accounts, the immediately\nreporting witness, and having had his own time for the forming of them\nall,--that which he gives in his own person, and which therefore\nnaturally occupies the first place, should, in respect of both\nqualities, as well as in that of clearness, have been, (and, setting\naside deceptious design, naturally would have been), as perfect as it\nwas in his power to make it. To the others alone could any excuse be\nafforded, in respect of any one of those requisites, by any circumstance\npeculiar to the respective cases.\n\nWhat is above being observed--Of the ten following instances of\ndisconformity, seven will be found to be cases of simple deficiency,\nthree of contradiction.\n\nIn those which are cases of simple deficiency, it will be seen to have\nurgency for its justification or excuse; for the others there appears no\njustification or excuse.[3] Of the twelve distinguishable heads in\nquestion, under two alone, viz. that of _place_ and that of _time_, will\nthe conformity be found complete. _Place_, a spot near to Damascus, in\nthe road leading from Jerusalem to Damascus: _Time_, meaning time of\n_day_,--about noon. But, in the quality of trustworthiness deficient as\nall three accounts will presently be shown to be, it will be seen how\nlittle is contributed, by conformity as to the mere circumstances of\ntime and place.\n\nNow then let us see the subjects, in relation to which a want of\nconformity is observable. To save words, the shortest form of\ndescription possible will throughout be employed.\n\n                    {1. The light seen.\n                    {2. The dialogue.\n  _Omissions_       {3. Falling to the ground.\n                    {4. Language of the voice.\n                    {5. Kicking against the pricks.\n\n                    {6. The Lord's commands.\n                    {7. Paul's companions' posture.\n  _Contradictions_  {8. Paul's companions' hearing or not hearing.\n                    {9. If hearing, what they heard.\n                    {10. Nothing seen but light.\n\n1. _Light seen._ Between Acts account and Paul's 1st or supposed\nunstudied account, no disconformity worth remarking. In Acts it is a\n\"_light_,\" in Paul 1st a \"_great light_\";[4] in both it is about midday.\nBut in Paul's 2d or supposed studied account, it is above the brightness\nof the sun at that time of the day.\n\nIn Acts the passage is simply narrative: in Paul's 1st, the urgency of\nthe occasion left no room for flowers. But in Paul's 2d, time being\nabundant, flowers were to be collected, and this is one of them. In the\nordinary course of nature there exists not upon earth any light equal in\nbrightness to that of the sun; especially the sun at midday, and in such\na latitude. Supposing the light in question ever so much greater than\nthe midday sun, neither Paul nor this his historian could, without a\nmiracle on purpose, have had any means of knowing as much. For a miracle\nfor such a purpose, the existence of any effectual demand does not seem\nprobable. For the purpose mentioned,--namely the bereaving of the power\nof vision every open eye that should direct itself towards it,--to wit,\nso long as that same direction should continue,--the ordinary light of\nthe sun would have been quite sufficient. At the time and place in\nquestion, whatever they may have been, suppose it true that, though\nmidday was the time, the atmosphere was cloudy, and in such sort cloudy,\nthat without something done for the purpose, a light productive of such\neffects could not have been produced. Still, for this purpose, a\nspecially created body of light different from that of the sun, and\nexceeding it in intensity, could not be needful. The removal of a single\ncloud would have been amply sufficient:--a single cloud, and that a very\nsmall one.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut if the light was really a light created for the purpose, and\nbrighter than that of the sun; of circumstances so important, mention\nshould not have been omitted in the standard narrative.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHere then is either a deficiency in the standard narrative,--and this\ndeficiency, as already observed, an inexcusable one,--or a redundancy in\nthe subsequent account: a redundancy, the cause of which seems\nsufficiently obvious: a redundancy--in that account which, being\npremeditated on the part of the historian, is given by him as being\npremeditated on the part of the speaker, whom he represents as\ndelivering it: a redundancy,--and that in a word a falsehood: a\nfalsehood, and for what purpose?--for deception: the hero represented by\nhis historian as using endeavours to deceive.\n\n2. _Dialogue._ Per Acts, the Dialogue contained five speeches: to wit,\n1. The voice's speech; 2. Paul's; 3. The Lord's, whose voice, Paul and\nhis historiographer[5], from what experience is not said, knew the voice\nto be; 4. Paul's; 5. The Lord's. In Paul 1st, speeches the same in\nnumber, order, and, save in one phrase about kicking against the\npricks, nearly so in terms. But in Paul 2d, the number of the speeches\nis no more than three: and, as will be seen below, of the last the\nimport is widely different from that of any of those reported in the\nother two accounts.\n\n3. _Falling to the ground._ Per Acts and Paul 1st, by Paul alone was\nthis prostration experienced. Per Paul 2d, by his unnumbered companions,\nby the whole company of them, as well as by himself. Deficiency here on\nthe part of the proper standard; so, in the case of the unstudied\nspeech. In the studied speech it is supplied.\n\n4. _Language of the voice._ Per Acts and Paul 1st, of the language\nnothing is said. Deficiency, as in the case last mentioned; to wit, in\nthe regular history, and in the unstudied speech. In the studied speech\nit is supplied. Stage effect greater. Agrippa, to whom it was more\nparticularly addressed, being, under the Roman viceroy, a sort of king\nof the Jews,--what seems to have occurred to the historian is--that it\nmight be a sort of gratification to him to be informed, that his own\nlanguage, the Hebrew, was the language which, on this occasion, was\nemployed by that voice, which by Paul, by whom it had never been heard\nbefore, was immediately understood to be the Lord's; _i.e._ Jesus's;\n_i.e._ God's. The character, in which Paul was on this occasion brought\nby his historiographer on the stage, being that of a consummate orator,\nfurnished with all his graces,--this compliment was among the rest put\ninto his mouth. Moreover, by Jesus no language, for aught that appears,\nbut the Hebrew, having been ever spoken, hence the account became the\nmore consistent or credible.\n\n5. _Kicking against the pricks._[6] \"Hard for thee to kick against the\npricks.\" Per Acts, this proverbial expression is employed by the voice,\nas soon as it turns out to have been the Lord's. In the supposed and\nhasty unstudied speech, it is dropped. This is natural enough. In Paul\n2d--in that studied speech, it is employed: it stands there among the\nflowers.\n\n6. _The Lord's Commands._ Commands delivered to Paul by the Lord. Under\nthis head there is a disastrous difference; a sad contradiction. Per\nActs, the command is for Paul to go into Damascus: there it stops.\nFollows immediately an article of information, which is, that at that\ntime and place there is no information for him; but that, sooner or\nlater, some will be ready for him. After he has arrived at Damascus, it\nshall there, by somebody or other, be told him, it is said, what he is\nto do. So likewise in Paul 1st, in the unstudied speech, he is, in like\nmanner, to learn not merely what he is to do, but everything that he is\nto do. Lastly comes, Paul 2d, the studied speech. By the time the\nhistorian had arrived at this point in his history, he had forgotten\nthat, according to his own account of the matter, no information at all\nhad, during the road scene, been given to Paul by the Lord's voice; by\nthat voice which was so well known to be the Lord's. That the supposed\nstudied speech, by the charms of which the favour of the King was so\nhappily gained, might be the more impressive,--he makes his orator, in\ndirect contradiction to the account which, on the former occasion, had\nby him (the historian) been given, enter, on the very spot, into all the\ndetails of the Lord's commands.\n\nWhen the time had come for composing this supposed studied speech,--the\nhistorian had, it should seem, forgot Ananias's vision, that subsidiary\nvision, which we shall come to presently, containing a further promise\nof the Lord's commands and instructions; and which, after all, unless it\nis by this studied speech that they are to be regarded as given, are not\ngiven by him anywhere.\n\n7. _Paul's companions--their posture._ Per Acts, though he fell, they\nstood it out. Per Paul 1st, not said whether they fell or stood it out.\nPer Paul 2d, they fell. The supposed studied oratorical account is here\nin full contradiction with the historical one.\n\n8. _Paul's companions--their hearing or not hearing._ Per Acts, they not\nonly saw the light, but heard the voice. Per Paul 1st, they did NOT hear\nthe voice. In the supposed hasty and unstudied speech is the oratorical\naccount made to contradict the historical one. In this particular, which\nof the accounts was true? If the historical, the haste must, in the\noratorical, be the apology, not only for the incompleteness but for the\nincorrectness. In Paul 2d, nothing is said about their hearing or not\nhearing.\n\nSupposing the story in any of the accounts to have had any truth in it,\nthere was a middle case, fully as possible and natural as either of\nthese extreme and mutually contradictory ones. It may have been, that\nwhile some stood their ground, others fell. And the greater the numbers,\nthe greater the probability of this middle case. But as to their number,\nall is darkness.\n\n9. _Paul's companions--if they heard, what it was they heard._ If they\nheard anything, they heard, as far as appears, whatever Paul himself\nheard. Per Acts, it is after the order given to Paul to go on to\nDamascus,--with the promise thereupon, that there and then, and not\nbefore, he should receive the information he should receive; it is after\nthe statement made of his hearing all this from the voice, that the\nfurther statement comes, declaring that it was by Paul's companions also\nthat this same voice was heard. But this same voice was, it is said, the\nLord's voice. That when the voice had answered to the name by which Paul\ncalled it, to wit, the name of Lord, it stopt there, so far as concerned\nPaul's companions;--and that it reserved what followed, to wit, the\nabove-mentioned order with the promise, for Paul's single ear; true it\nis, this may be _imagined_ as well as anything else: but at any rate it\nis not _said_.\n\nIf Paul 2d--the studied oratorical account--is to be believed, all the\ninformation for the communication of which this miracle was performed\nwas, as will be seen, communicated here upon the road: viz. immediately\nafter the voice had been called by him _Lord_. But, if this was the\ncase, and, as above, Paul's companions heard all that he heard,--then so\nit is, that the revelation was made as well to them as to him;--this\nrevelation, upon the strength of which we shall see him setting himself\nup above all the Apostles; himself and that Gospel of his own, which he\nsays was his own, and none of theirs. Now then--these companions--was it\nupon the same errand as his that they went, to wit, the bringing in\nbonds to Jerusalem all the Damascus Christians? If so, or if on any\nother account they were any of them in a condition to need\nconversion,--they were converted as well as he; or else, so far as\nconcerned them, the miracle was thrown away. Companions as they were of\nhis, were they or were they not respectively attendants of his?\nattendants going under his orders, and on the same errand? Unless, by\nthe Jerusalem rulers, on the part of the Damascus rulers, both will and\npower were depended upon, as adequate to the task of apprehending the\nfollowers of Jesus and sending them bound to Jerusalem, such these\ncompanions ought to have been, every one of them--supposing always on\nthe part of this about-to-be Apostle an ordinary prudence: that sort and\ndegree of prudence with which no ordinary police-officer is unprovided.\nSome persons under his orders he must have had, or he could never have\nbeen sent on so extensively and strongly coercive an errand.\n\nThese companions, if, on this occasion, any such or any other companions\nhe had, had each of them a name. To this vision, such as it was, they\nbeing each of them respectively, as well as himself, whether in the way\nof sight and hearing both, or in the way of sight alone, percipient\nwitnesses, their names, in the character of so many percipient\nwitnesses, ready upon every proper occasion to answer in the character\nof _reporting_ witnesses, would have been of no small use: of use, were\nit only for the giving to this story a little more substance than it has\nin the form we see it in.\n\nAs to Ananias--the supposed principal actor in the scene next to\nPaul--for him, indeed, supposing any such person to have existed, a\nname, it is seen, was found. But, with a view to any purpose of\nevidence, how little that name amounted to, will be seen likewise.\n\nIn this vision of Paul's, as it is called,--was any person seen, or\nanything but light--light at midday? No; positively not any person, nor\nas far as appears, the light excepted, anything whatsoever. Per Acts,\nchap. ix:8, when \"his eyes were opened,\"--so it is expressly said,--\"he\nsaw no man.\" This was after he had fallen to the earth; for it was after\nhe arose from the earth. But, it was before he fell to the earth, and\nthereupon heard the voice, that, according to this same account, he saw\nthe extra light--the light created for the purpose: and, forasmuch as at\nthe conclusion of the dialogue with the five speeches in it--forasmuch\nas at the conclusion of it, such was the effect produced upon him by the\nlight, as to render him at that time stone-blind, requiring to be led by\nthe hand, it could not from the first have been anything less effective.\nPer Acts, in this state he continues all the way as far as Damascus, and\nfor three days after his arrival there. So likewise in the supposed\nunstudied speech, Paul 1st. But in the studied speech, Paul 2d, there is\nno blindness; the blindness is either forgotten or discarded.\n\nBut the curious circumstance is, his being led by the hand--all the way\nto Damascus led by the hand:--led by the hand by these same companions.\nNow these same companions, how was it that they were able to lead him by\nthe hand? All that he saw was the light, and by that light he was\nblinded. But all that he saw they saw: this same light they saw as well\nas he. This same light, then, by which he was blinded--were they not\nblinded likewise by it? Was it a privilege--a privilege reserved for a\nchosen favourite--a privilege which it cost a miracle to produce--the\nbeing blinded when nobody else was blinded?\n\nBlinded then as they were, how came he to be led by them, any more than\nthey by him? Can the blind lead the blind? Let Jesus answer. Shall they\nnot both fall into the ditch?\n\nOh! but (says somebody) it is only in Paul 1st,--in Paul's supposed\nunstudied speech, that the historian makes them see the light that Paul\nsaw. Answer. True: but neither in his own person does he say the\ncontrary. As to their seeing, all he says is, that _they_ saw no man,\n\"hearing a voice but seeing no man.\" (ver. 7.) But by the same account,\n(ver. 8.) \"When _his_ eyes were opened, he saw no man;\" so that, though\nin what he says in his own person the historian does not mention this\nwhich he mentions, speaking in Paul's person,--yet he does not\ncontradict it.\n\n10. _Paul's companions. What part, if any, took they in the\nconversation?_ Per Acts, they stood speechless: and it is after the\ndialogue has been reported, that this is stated. In the unstudied\nspeech, nothing is said about their speech. In the studied speech, with\nreference to them, no mention is made of speech; any more than of sight\nor hearing.\n\nBut, forasmuch as, according to Acts, whatever Paul saw and heard, they\nsaw and heard likewise; how happened it, that by no one of them, so much\nas a word, on an occasion so interesting to all, was said--or a question\nput? To be sure it was to Paul alone, that by the voice, whosever it\nwas, any address was made. It was his concern:--his alone, and none of\ntheirs.\n\nSo, indeed, some might think; but, others in their situation, quite as\nnaturally might think otherwise. Sooner or later, at any rate, they\nwould recover whatever it was they lost: sight, if sight; speech, if\nspeech. Whenever recovered, speech would thereupon range with but the\ngreater freedom, for the restraint which, for a time, had been put upon\nit:--range over the whole business, including whatever secrets Paul had\nbeen put in possession of:--the commission, the sweeping and\nincarcerating commission he had been intrusted with by the rulers, and\nthe unperformed promise that had been made to him by the voice, which\nbeing at midday, accompanied by an extraordinary light, was of course\nthe Lord's voice. These things would naturally, by these his companions,\nhave been converted from secrets into town-talk.\n\nNay but (says somebody) though it _is_ said he saw no _man_, it is _not_\nsaid, he saw not the Lord: and elsewhere he may be seen saying--saying\nin the most positive terms, that he did see the Lord[7]. And if he did\nsee the Lord anywhere, why not here as well as anywhere else?\n\n\"_Saw no man._\" Yes: so says the English version. But the original is\nmore comprehensive:--Saw no person, says the original: that is, to speak\nliterally, saw no one of the masculine gender. No one what? No one\nperson of this gender: this is what the word means, if it means\nanything. No person; and therefore no Lord: no God; if so it be that,\nwhen applied to denote God, the word person means God, or as some say, a\npart of God.\n\nNote, likewise,--that, when the companions are spoken of,--both in the\ntranslation and in the original, the object to which the negative is\napplied is expressed by the same word as when he, Paul, is spoken of.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nVISION II.--ANANIAS'S.\n\nTOPIC 1.--_Ananias's Description._\n\nOf the vision itself there being but one account, by this singleness\ndiscordancy is saved.\n\nBut, of the description belonging to Ananias there are two accounts.\nOne the historical, as before: the other, the unpremeditated\noratorical account supposed to be given by Paul in the first of\nhis two supposed speeches, as above; and, room being thus given for\ndiscordancy,--discordancy, as of course, enters--or at any rate a\nstrong suspicion of it.\n\nPer Acts, Ananias is a disciple: a disciple, to wit, a Christian; a\ndisciple immediately of Jesus or his Apostles: for, such is the\nsignification attached to the word _disciple_ in the Acts: such he would\non this occasion be of course understood to be; for, otherwise the word\nwould be uncharacteristic and insignificant.\n\nMaterially different is the description supposed to have been given of\nthis same Ananias by Paul in that same supposed unpremeditated speech;\nso different as to be not without effort, if by any effort, reconcilable\nwith it.\n\nHe is now a disciple of Jesus and the Apostles; of that Jesus, by whom\nthe law, _i.e._ the Mosaic law, was after such repeated exposure of its\ninaptitude, pronounced obsolete. He is now not only spoken of as being,\nnotwithstanding this conversion, a devout man according to that same\nlaw; but, moreover, as having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt\nthere, to wit, at Damascus. Of the Jews? Yes; of \"_all_\" the Jews.\n\nIf, notwithstanding his conversion to a religion by which that of the\nJews was slighted and declared to be superseded, he was still so happy\nas to be the subject of this good _report_, which is as much as to\nsay--of a correspondently unanimous good opinion; this, it would seem,\nwould have been the man to preach to them that religion: especially if\nthat part of the story were true, according to which he was\ndistinguished by the same supernatural sort of communication; this man,\nwho was already a Christian, this man, and not Paul, who of all opposers\nof Christianity had been the most fierce and the most mischievous, would\nnaturally have been the man to receive the supernatural commission.\nSupposing his vision real, and the reports of it true, no difficulty,\nrationally speaking, could he have found in obtaining credence for it at\nthe hands of the Apostles: those Apostles, at whose hands, from first to\nlast it will be seen, never was it the lot of Paul, with _his_ vision or\nvisions, to obtain credence.\n\nThe audience, before which this speech was supposed to be delivered, of\nwhom was it composed? With the exception of a few Romans, to whom it was\nprobably unintelligible unless by accident, altogether of Jews; and\nthese--no one can say in what proportion, probably in by much the\nlargest, Jews not christianized. Hence then the sort of character, which\nthe occasion and the purpose required should be given, to this supposed\nmiraculously formed acquaintance of the person who, upon the strength of\nthis acquaintance, was to be numbered among the Apostles.\n\n\nTOPIC 2.--_Mode of Conversation._\n\nBy this vision is produced a dialogue. Interlocutors, the Lord and\nAnanias. In the course of the dialogue, speeches five: whereof, by the\nLord, three; the other two by Ananias.\n\nIn and by the first pair of speeches the Lord calls the man by his name:\nthe man answers, Behold, says he, I am here, Lord. In the English\ntranslation, to atone for the too great conciseness of the Greek\noriginal, the words \"_am here_\" are not improperly interpolated. Giving\nto this supposed supernatural intercourse what seemed to him a natural\ncast--a cast suited to the occasion--seems to have been the object of\nthe historian in the composition of this dialogue. But, upon so\nsupernatural a body, a natural colouring, at any rate a colouring such\nas this, does not seem to fit quite so completely as might have been\nwished. On the road, when the voice,--which turned out to be that of the\nLord, that is, being interpreted, Jesus's,--addressed itself to Paul,\nthis being the first intercourse, there was a necessity for its\ndeclaring itself, for its declaring whose it was; and the declaration\nwas made accordingly. Here, on the other hand, no sooner does Ananias\nhear himself called by his name, than he knows who the person is by whom\nhe is thus addressed. Taken as it stands, an answer thus prompt includes\nthe supposition of an already established intercourse. Such intercourse\nsupposed--in what way on former occasions had it been carried on? Laying\nsuch former occasion out of the question--in what way is it supposed to\nbe carried on on the occasion here in question? On the occasion of his\nvisit to Paul,--the Lord, to whomsoever he may have been audible, had\nnever, from first to last, as we have seen, been visible. On the\noccasion of this visit of his to Ananias--was the Lord audible only, or\nvisible only, or both audible and visible? If both audible and visible,\nor even if only visible,--the mode of revelation was more favourable to\nthis secondary and virtually unknown personage, than to the principal\none.\n\nBetween mortal and mortal, when it is the desire of one man to have\npersonal communication with another whom he supposes to be within\nhearing, but who is either not in his sight or not looking towards\nhim,--he calls to him by his name; and in token of his having heard, the\nother answers. From man to man, such information is really necessary;\nfor--that the requisite attention has place where it is his desire that\nit should have place, the human interlocutor has no other means of\nknowing. Not considering, that the person to whom the information is\nsupposed to be conveyed is a sort of person to whom no such information\ncould be necessary, the historian represents his Ananias as giving to\nthe Lord, as if to a mere mortal, information of his presence. Behold,\nLord! I am here.\n\n\nTOPIC 3.--_Lord's Commands and Information: Want of particularization a\ndisprobative Circumstance._\n\nThe conversation being thus begun, the interlocutors proceed to\nbusiness. In speech the 3d, Lord delivers to Ananias, the devout Jew, a\ncommand, and thereupon a piece of information. The command is--to repair\nto a place therein described, and find out Paul: the information\nis--that at the time then present Paul is praying; and that, at an\nanterior point of time not designated, he had seen a vision.\n\nIn the command, the designation of the place wears, upon the face of it,\nthe appearance of that sort and degree of particularity, the exaction of\nwhich is, in these days, in which genuine visions are never exemplified,\nmatter of course, on every occasion on which it is the real intention,\nof those on whom it depends, that through the medium of personal\ntestimony the truth should be extracted. On every such occasion, the\nobject in question, whether it be an event or a quiescent state of\nthings, is endeavoured to be individualized: and, for the production of\nthis effect, the individual portion of space, and the individual portion\nof time, are endeavoured to be brought to view together.\n\nOn the occasion here in question, towards the individualization of the\nportion of space some approach is made: the town being foreknown, to\nwit, Damascus, the _street_ is particularized; it is the street called\n_Straight_: as in Westminster we have _Long-ditch_, and in London\n_Crooked-lane_. Moreover, the _house_ is particularized; it is the house\nof Judas. To this Judas had any one of those marks of distinction been\nadded, which in that age and nation we find to have been common,--as in\nthe instance of the too notorious Judas the Iscariot, _i.e._, the\ninhabitant of Iscara, and in that of Judas Barsabas, _i.e._, the son of\nSabas, or, as we should say, Sabasson, not long after mentioned, Acts\n25:22,--it would have been something. But, destitute of such limitative\nadjunct, _Judas_ of itself was nothing. In that age and country, even\nwithout reckoning notorious traitors, there was never any want of\nJudases. Not inferior in plenty were Ananiases: in the Acts we have\nthree of them;--this private inhabitant of Damascus: the High Priest,\nwhose seat was at Jerusalem; and the husband of Sapphira: and in\nJosephus they vie in abundance with the Johns and Jesuses.\n\nBut, on the occasion in question, and to the purpose in question, though\na distinctive adjunct as above would have done something, it would have\ndone very little. In the field of time,--seven-and-twenty years at\nleast, and we know not how much more, according to the received\nchronology, was the distance between the event in question, and the\nreport given of it in this history. Neither in Damascus nor yet in\nJerusalem was any such thing as a newspaper,--not even an enslaved\nnewspaper, in existence; no, nor yet so much as a printing-press,--not\neven an enslaved printing-press. For writing, the materials were\nexpensive; and handwriting was the only mode of copying. Publication was\nnot, as under the printing-press, promiscuous: unless by accident, for\nan indefinite length of time, into no other hand did any copy find its\nway, other than those of the author's confidential friends, or friends\nseparated from the author by a greater or less number of removes, as it\nmight happen; but all of them linked to one another by the bonds of\namity, and unity of principle and practice.\n\nIn such a capital as Damascus, Straight Street might have been as long\nas Oxford Street; and, unless the style of building in those earlier\ndays had much more of convenience and luxury in it than in these latter\ndays, was much more crowded. Conceive a man at this time of day, going\nto Oxford Street with the intention of finding the house, in which,\nthirty years ago, a man of the name of Brown or Smith had his\nresidence,--to wit, on some indeterminate day, of the number of those\nincluded within the space of an indeterminate number of years; and this,\nfor the purpose of ascertaining whether, on this indeterminate day, and\nby this Smith or this Brown, a vision, not seen by anybody else, had\nbeen seen. Suppose a man in Rome set out on such an errand--and then say\nwhat would be the probable result of it.\n\n\nTOPIC 4.--_Vision reported to Ananias by the Lord as having been seen by\nPaul._\n\nOf the report then given of this anterior vision, the character is too\nremarkable to be given, as it were, in a parenthesis: it is therefore\nreferred to a separate head. Acts ix. 12. \"And Paul hath seen in a\nvision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him that\nhe might receive his sight.\"\n\n\nTOPIC 5.--_Ananias's Objection to the Lord's Commands to visit Paul--He\ninforms the Lord what he had heard about Paul._\n\nBy the two first speeches of this dialogue, we are given to understand\nthat Ananias had already held intercourse with the Lord; an intercourse\nwhich, the nature of the two parties considered, could not have been\nother than a supernatural intercourse: yes, and on this very subject:\nfor, if not on this particular subject, the subject of it, whatever it\nwas, could not but have called for notice and communication. But, no\nsooner does this next speech commence, than we are given to understand\nthat there had not--could not have been any such intercourse: for if\nthere had been, what follows would have been rendered useless and\nneedless. Upon receiving the command, Ananias's first thought is--to\nendeavour to excuse himself from paying obedience to it; for in this\nendeavour it is, that he gives the Lord a piece of information; to\nwit--of what, in relation to Paul's character, he (Ananias) had heard.\nActs ix. 13: \"Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this\nman, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem. And here he\nhath authority from the Chief Priests to bind all that call on thy\nname.\" Thus then, commands known to have been the Lord's, having that\ninstant been received,--the man by whom they have been received--so\nsmall is the confidence, reposed in the Lord by this his favoured\ndisciple--instead of paying obedience to them, answers them by an\nobjection. This objection, prepared for it or not prepared for it, the\nLord, as might well be expected, immediately overrules.\n\nA question that here presents itself is--Since it was from _many_, i.e.\n_many men_, that Ananias had heard, not only what everybody had been\nhearing for weeks, or months, or years,--viz. of the evil that Paul had\nbeen doing to the Jerusalem saints, but of the authority that he had so\nlately received, to bind at Damascus all the Damascus saints he could\nfind--since it was from so many, who then were these many? How was it,\nthat in the compass of the three days (ver. 9), during which Paul had\nremained without sight or nourishment, a commission,--to the execution\nof which secrecy was so obviously necessary,--had to such a degree\ntranspired? Suppose the secret to have thus transpired,--two results\nwould, in any natural and credible state of things, have been among the\nconsequences. The persons thus devoted to destruction would have made\ntheir escape; the commission by which alone the supposed proceedings\nagainst them could have found a justification or a cause, not having\nbeen delivered. On the other hand, hearing that Paul was there, and that\nhe either was, or pretended to be, in the house in question, or in some\nother, in the extraordinary condition above described,--the persons\nspoken of in the Acts under the name of _the Synagogue_, would not have\nleft him there, but would have convened him before them, and, if he\nreally had any such commission, have caused it to be produced, and read\nit: convened before them, not only Paul with his supposed commission,\nbut those companions of his that we have already heard of, if any such\nhe had[8].\n\nBut of these there will be occasion to speak in another place.\n\n\nTOPIC 6.--_The Lord's Answer, obviating the objection, and giving\nintimation of his designs in favour of Paul._\n\nThis objection, no sooner has the Lord overruled it, than he undertakes\nto answer it, and to explain to this his so singularly favoured old\ndisciple the intentions he had formed in favour of his intended new\nconvert, whose conversion is, however, as yet but in progress (ver. 14):\n\"But the Lord said to him, Go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto\nme, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of\nIsrael:--For (continues the Lord) I will show him how great things he\nmust suffer for my name's sake.\" Being, and therefore at the time of\nPaul's vision purposing to be, in relation to his designs for Paul, thus\ncommunicative to this same Ananias, who is a perfect stranger to this\nsame Paul,--to what purpose, on the occasion of his supposed visionary\nintercourse with Paul, should _the Lord_ have stopped short; reserving\nthe communication, for the intention of giving it him at second-hand by\nthe mouth of that same stranger? This is one of the swarms of questions\nwhich an account of this sort could scarcely fail to present to any\ninquiring mind.\n\nMeantime, as to the Lord's having thus stopped short, this we shall see\nis in full contradiction with the account which the historian makes him\ngive in his supposed second reported speech, to wit, the supposed\npremeditated one, spoken before Agrippa, who, under the proconsul\nFestus, was king of the Jews, and who, on that occasion, is spoken of as\nbeing assessor to the said proconsul Festus. On that occasion the Lord\nis represented as explaining himself more fully to Paul himself, than\nhere, for the benefit of Paul, through Ananias.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nANANIAS: HIS VISIT TO PAUL AT DAMASCUS.\n\nWe now come to the visit, which, we are to understand, was, in reality,\npaid to Paul by Ananias, in consequence of this vision, in obedience to\nthe command imagined to be given in it.\n\nNote that, though, in the original--in _the including vision_, as it may\nbe called--the command is given to inquire in the house in question for\nthe person (Saul) in question,--this is _all_ the command which, in that\nleast visionary of the two visions, is delivered. In the first instance\nto make the inquiry, and in conclusion to go his way--this is all to\nwhich the commands given to him in the direct way extend themselves. To\naccomplish the object of this intercourse--to do anything towards it\nbeyond the making of this inquiry--he has to take hints and to draw\ninferences:--inferences from the Lord's speech, which is thus continued,\nActs ix. 12: \"And (Paul) _hath seen in a vision_ a man named Ananias\ncoming in, and putting his hand on him that he might receive his sight.\"\nFrom having been told what--in a vision, to wit, this _contained or\nincluded vision_--this same Paul had been _fancying_ he _had_ seen him\n(Ananias) do--from this he was to conclude that it was the Lord's will\nthat he (Ananias) _should_ do _in reality_ that which Paul had been\nfancying him to have done; though the only effect, for the doing of\nwhich it had so been fancied to have been performed, had never been\nproduced. This was what he was to conclude was the Lord's will; although\nthe Lord himself, who (if any person) should have known how to speak\nplainly and beyond danger of misconception, had forborne to tell him as\nmuch.\n\nOn the occasion of this important visit--this visit of Ananias to\nPaul,--the double light--the light cast by the first of the two\noratorical accounts--to wit, the supposed unpremeditated one, upon the\nhistorical one--recommences.\n\nFollows now--and from both sources--the account of the interview, and of\nthe cure performed in the course of it.\n\nACTS' ACCOUNT.--Ch. ix. ver. 17-22.\n\n    And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting\n    his hands on him, said: Brother Saul, the Lord, _even_ Jesus, that\n    _appeared_ unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that\n    thou mightest receive thy sight, _and be filled with the Holy\n    Ghost_.--And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been\n    _scales_: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and _was\n    baptized_.--And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then\n    was Saul _certain days_ with the disciples which were _at\n    Damascus_.--And straightway he _preached_ Christ in the synagogues,\n    that he is the Son of God.--But all that heard _him_ were amazed,\n    and said: Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this\n    name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might\n    bring them bound unto the Chief Priests?--But Saul _increased the\n    more_ in strength, and _confounded the Jews_ which dwelt at\n    _Damascus_, proving that this is very Christ.\n\nPAUL'S ACCOUNT.--ACTS, Ch. xxii. ver. 12-16.\n\n    12. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a\n    good report of all the Jews which dwelt _there_,--Came unto me, and\n    stood, and said unto me: Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the\n    same hour I looked up upon him.--And he said: The God of our fathers\n    hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and _see_ that\n    Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.--For thou shalt\n    be his witness unto all men of what thou hast _seen_ and heard.--And\n    now, why tarriest thou? arise, and _be baptized_, and wash away thy\n    sins; calling on the name of the Lord.\n\n\nTOPIC 1.--_On visiting Paul, Ananias's Introductory Speech--Preliminary\nRecital._\n\nI. In the historical account, the speech has in it several\ndistinguishable parts.\n\nI. \"Brother Saul.\"\n\nFirst comes the address, in which Saul, the future Paul, is addressed by\ndisciple Ananias by the name of _brother_. If, as between Jew and Jew,\nthis was a common form of salutation,--so far everything is in order.\nBut, if it was only in consideration of his having been denominated a\ndisciple, to wit, of Jesus,--the salutation is rather premature: the\nconversion, supposing it effected, is, at any rate, not yet declared.\nNot only in the historical account is this appellation employed, but\nlikewise in the oratorical one.\n\nThe attention of Paul being thus bespoken by his visitor, mention is\nthereupon made of the purpose of the visit.\n\nI. In the first place comes a recital. \"The Lord (says he), even Jesus,\nthat _appeared_ unto thee on the way as thou camest, hath sent me\"....\nUnfortunately, according to the historian himself, this assertion, as we\nhave seen already, is not true. In no manner or shape did the Lord\nJesus, or any other person, make his appearance;--all that _did_ appear\nwas the light--the light at midday: so he has just been writing, and\nbefore the ink, if ink it was that he used, was dry, already had he\nforgotten it.\n\nThis, however, is but a collateral averment:--a recital, an episode,\nmatter of _inducement_, as an English lawyer would phrase it.\n\n\nTOPIC 2.--_Declared Purposes or Objects of the Visit._\n\nPurpose the first. \"That thou mightest,\" says Ananias, \"receive thy\nsight.\" Thus says Ananias in the historical account: in the supposed\noratorical one he is more concise. No supposed past occurrence referred\nto:--no purpose declared. \"Receive thy sight\" are the words.\n\nPurpose the second. That thou mightest \"be filled with the Holy Ghost,\"\nsays the historical account. But in a succeeding passage what is the\npurpose, which, in the supposed oratorical account Ananias is made to\nspeak of, in the design that it should be taken for the purpose which\nthe Lord by his commandment meant to be accomplished? Not the being\nfilled by the Holy Ghost; only the being baptized. \"And now, why\ntarriest thou? (Acts xxii. ver. 16) Arise and be baptized, and wash away\nthy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.\" Well but (says somebody)\nreceiving the Holy Ghost, and being baptized,--by these two\nexpressions, is not one, and no more than one effect--one and the same\neffect--to be understood? No, in truth, if the historian himself is to\nbe believed. Turn to another chapter--the very next chapter before this,\nActs 12 to 17, and there you will see, that the being baptized was one\nthing, the receiving the Holy Ghost another thing, and much more. For\nadministering the ceremony of baptism, a single Apostle, Philip, was\nsufficient: whereas, for the causing the Holy Ghost to be received,\nnothing less was requisite than the cooperation of two Apostles, and\nthose two commissioned by the rest.\n\nSo serious always, according to this historian, was the difference, that\nit was after he had been already baptized, and baptized gratis in a\ncrowd, that for the power of conferring this benefit, whatever it was\nthat it was composed of, Sorcerer Simon made to the two Apostles, those\noffers--those pecuniary offers--which are said to have been no sooner\nmade than rejected. Acts 13 to 24.\n\n\nTOPIC 3.--_Actual Effects of the Visit, and the Application in\nconsequence made in the course of it._ Effect 1. _Scales fall from Eyes,\nand Sight is received in consequence._\n\nIn the historical narrative, the effect is as complete as it is\nremarkable. Fall from his eyes a portion of matter of the nature or\nresemblance of scales: whereupon he receives sight forthwith.\n\nIn the supposed oratorical account, whatsoever had been meant by scales,\nnothing is said of them. Neither is the declaration made of the\ncompleteness of the case quite so explicit. One look he gave--gave to\nhis wonder-working surgeon--and instead of its being given forthwith--to\ngive this one look required, it should seem, if not a whole hour, at\nany rate so little less, that any time less than an hour could\nnot--such, in this supposed unpremeditated speech, was the anxiety felt\nfor correctness--could not be ventured to be particularized.\n\nThe more closely these scales, or things resembling scales, are looked\nat, the more difficult will it be to find them amount to anything. In no\ncure, performed upon eyes in any natural way, in these our days--upon\neyes that have lost their sight--do any scales fall off, or anything in\nany degree resembling scales;--in no disorder of the eyes, known to have\nplace in these our days, do scales, or anything like scales, come over\nthe eyes. By the taking of matter from the eyes, sight, it is true, is\nevery now and then restored: but this matter is not matter, foreign in\nrelation to the eye and exterior to it; but one of the component parts\ncalled _humours_ of the eye, which, by losing its transparency having\nsuspended the faculty of vision, is let out by a lancet; whereupon not\nonly is the faculty of sight restored, but the part which had been\nextirpated restored likewise; and without any expense in the article of\nmiracles.\n\nOn the supposition of falsity,--quere the use of this circumstance?\n_Answer._ To afford support to the conception, that memory and not\nimagination was the source from which the story was derived. True it is,\nthat, instead of support, a circumstance exposed to contradiction would\nbe an instrument of weakness: if, for example, on the supposition that\nPaul had no companions on the road, names indicative of really existing\nand well-known persons had been added, to the intimation given in the\n_Acts_, of the existence of such companions. But to no such hazard was\nthe story of the scales exposed: not to any great danger, on the\nsupposition of the existence of Paul's Ananias: not to any danger at\nall, upon the supposition of his non-existence.\n\nBut, upon this occasion, now again once more present themselves--present\nthemselves to the mind's eye--Paul's companions. That they were blinded\nat all can scarcely, it has been seen, be believed, if on this matter\nthe historian himself is believed. For, per Acts ix. 8, \"they led him by\nthe hand:\" so, per Paul 1st, Acts xxii. 11, \"When I could not see for\nthe glory of that light, being led by the hand of those that were with\nme, I came unto Damascus.\" But if, notwithstanding so it was that _they_\ntoo were blinded,--how was it with _their_ eyes? Had _their_ eyes scales\nupon them? did these scales ever fall off?--if so, by what means were\nthey made to fall off? _their_ evidence would have been not much, if\nanything, less impressive,--and it would have been much less open to\nsuspicion,--than Paul's evidence, supposing him to have spoken of these\nscales--which the historian, to whom, if he is to be believed, their\nexistence is so well known, did not take upon him to represent Paul as\nsaying that he did. But if so it was, that, though rendered blind as\nPaul's, no scales were superinduced upon, nor consequently made to fall\noff, the eyes of those nameless and unknown persons,--how came they to\nbe superinduced upon and made to fall off from the eyes of their\nsingularly favoured principal? If, for a length of time more or less\nconsiderable, they really were made blind,--it was, if the historian is\nto be believed, by the same cause by which, in the instance of Paul's\neyes, this same effect was produced:--the same cause, to wit an\nextraordinary light at noonday. If, whatsoever was the matter with them,\nthe eyes of these ordinary persons could be set to rights without a\nmiracle, what need could there be of a miracle for the producing the\nsame desirable effect in the person of this their leader or master,\nextraordinary as this same leader or master was?\n\n\nTOPIC 4.--_Baptism--was it performed? when, where, by whom, &c.?_\n\nThe baptism thus spoken of--was it performed? Yes: if you will believe\nthe historian, speaking in his own person, speaking in his own\nhistorical account: \"And forthwith,\" in the first place, \"Paul\nrecovered his sight;\"--then, when, his sight having been recovered, he\nwas able to go about as usual,--he arose and was baptized:\nbaptized--that is say, as from this expression taken by itself any one\nwould conclude--baptized, as soon as he arose, to wit, as soon as water\ncould be found for the purpose: that water, which his guest Ananias,\nforeknowing what was to come to pass, and what was to be done to make it\ncome to pass, might naturally be expected to have provided, and this\nwithout any supernatural foresight: in a word, without the expense of\nany additional miracle in any shape:--the water being thus ready upon\nthe spot, and he in equal readiness to administer it.\n\nThis, according to the historian, speaking in his own person: but, when\nthe time comes for giving an account of the matter in the person of Paul\nhimself,--to wit in the supposed unpremeditated oratorical\nspeech,--then, for whatever it was that stopped him, (whether the\nsupposed urgency of the occasion on which the supposed speech was\nsupposed to be made, or any thing and what else,) so it is, that he\ngives not any such information: he leaves the matter to hang in\ndoubt:--a doubt, which, down to the present day remains unsolved.\n\nA command to this effect is spoken of as having been given: thus much\nis said. But, what is not said is--whether to this same command any or\nwhat obedience was paid.\n\nThus it is that, instead of an _effect_ which it seems desired that we\nshould consider as being produced, what we see directly stated as being\nproduced, is nothing more than a _command_--a command, by which, as by\nits cause, we are to suppose the effect to have been produced. What is\nmore, in the same blind way, is intimation given us, of another and very\ndifferent effect--_the washing away of sins_--as if produced by the\nfirst-mentioned physical operation;--namely, by that of a man's being\ndipped in, or sprinkled with, water: and thus it is, that from a mere\nphysical operation of the most trivial nature, we are called upon to\ninfer a spiritual and supernatural effect of the most awful importance;\nthe spiritual effect stated as if it were produced by the physical\noperation, to which it has no perceptible real relation--nothing but the\nmere verbal one thus given to it; produced by it, and following it, as\nof course--just as if sins were a species of dirt, which, by washing,\ncould as surely be got off as any other dirt.[9]\n\nAnd was he then really baptized? If so he was, then also if, speaking in\nthe person of his hero, the historian is to be believed,--then also, by\nthis ceremony, the name of the Lord being at the same time called\nupon,--then also were his sins washed away; his sins washed away; the\nsinner, therefore and thereby, put into the same case as if the sins had\nnot any of them been ever committed. How can it be understood otherwise?\nfor if, in and by this passage, intimation--sufficiently perfect\ninformation--is given, that the ceremony was performed--then also is\nsufficiently perfect information given, that such was the effect\nactually produced by it. \"Arise\" (Ananias is made to say)--\"_Arise and\nbe baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord._\"\n\nThis is no light matter: if so it really were, that according to the\nreligion of Jesus, by such a cause, such an effect was on that occasion\nproduced;--that such effect could, in a word, on any occasion, in any\ncase be produced,--that _murders_, or (not to embarrass the question\nwith conceits of local jurisprudence) _killings_ of men--killings of men\nby persecution carried on, on a religious account--slaughters of\nChristians by non-Christians--could thus, as in Paul's case, be divested\nof all guilt, at any rate of all punishment, at the hands of Almighty\nJustice;--if impunity could indeed be thus conferred by the sprinkling a\nman with water or dipping him in it, then would it be matter of serious\nconsideration--not only what is the _verity_ of that religion, but what\nthe _usefulness_ of it, what the usefulness--with reference to the\npresent life at any rate, not to speak of a life to come: what the\nusefulness of it; and on what ground stands its claim to support by all\nthe powers of factitious punishment and factitious reward, at the hands\nof the temporal magistrate.[10]\n\n\nTOPIC 5.--_Performance of the Promise, supposed to have been made by the\nLord, in favour of Paul, to Ananias._\n\nIf the supposed promise is inadequate to the occasion, the supposed\nperformance is still more inadequate with reference to the promise.\n\nIn the supposed promise are two distinguishable parts, and in neither of\nthem is the one thing needful to be found. Of these two parts, the only\none in which in any direct stage the matter of a promise is contained,\nis the one last mentioned: it is the promise to show him, (Paul) what\nsufferings he will have to undergo in the course of the career, whatever\nit is, in which he is about to engage: to wit, in name and profession,\nthe preaching the religion of Jesus: \"for I will show him,\" says the\nLord, according to the historian,--\"I will show him how great things he\nmust suffer for my name's sake.\" If so it was, that upon this promise,\nsuch as it is, performance never followed, the regret for the failure\nneed not be very great. Whatsoever were the sufferings that he was\npredestined to undergo, that which was _not_ in the nature of this\nforeshowing, was--the lessening their aggregate amount; that which _was_\nin the nature of it was--the making an addition to that same afflicting\naggregate; to wit, by constant and unavoidable anticipation of the\napproach of such sufferings.\n\nOf this talk, vague as it is, about sufferings, the obvious enough\nobject was--the giving exaltation to the idea meant to be conveyed of\nthe merits of the hero:--an object, which, by this and other means, has\naccordingly, down to the present day, in no small degree been\naccomplished. So much as to sufferings: as to enjoyments, by any idea\nentertained of the enjoyments derived by him from the same source, this\ndesign would have been--not promoted, but counteracted. But, when the\ntime arrives, whether the mass of suffering was not, to no small amount,\noverbalanced by that of his enjoyments--meaning always worldly\nsufferings and worldly enjoyments--the reader will be left to judge.\n\nHere then we have the only promise, which in any direct way is\nexpressed:--a promise which, in the first place would have been useless,\nin the next place worse than useless.\n\n\nTOPIC 6.--_Indirect Promise, that Paul shall spread the Name of Jesus._\n\nIn the whole substance of this promise, if there be anything, which,\nwith reference to the professed end--to wit the giving extension to the\nreligion of Jesus--would have been of use, it is in the foregoing part\nthat it must be looked for. In this part then, if there be any such\nmatter to be found, it will be this: to wit, a promise that he (Paul)\nshall bear, and therefore that he shall be enabled to bear, the name of\nthe Lord, to wit, the name of Jesus, before the classes of persons\nspecified, to wit, the Gentiles, and kings, and children of Israel: Acts\nix. 15. But, only in an indirect way is this solely material part of the\npromise expressed: \"He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name,\" &c.\n_i.e._ When I chose him, it was my design that he should do so. But, in\nthe case of the Lord, according to the picture drawn of him by this\nhistorian, how very inconclusive evidence _intention_ is of _execution_,\nthere will, in the course of this work, have been abundant occasion to\nsee.\n\nBear the name of Jesus? so far, so good. But for this function no such\nspecial and supernatural commission was necessary: without any such\ncommission, the name of Jesus had been borne to the people at large, if\nin this particular the Gospel history is to be believed. Luke ix. 49,\n50: \"And John answered and said, 'Master, we saw one casting out devils\nin thy name: and we forbad him, because he followed not with us.' And\nJesus said unto him, 'Forbid him not, for he that is not against us, is\nfor us.'\" How inadequate soever, with reference to the professed end, to\nwit, giving extension to the religion of Jesus, the promise was\nperfectly adequate, and commensurate, to what we shall find to be Paul's\nreal design; to wit, the planting a Gospel of his own, as, and for, and\ninstead of, the Gospel of Jesus. The Gospel of Jesus was the Gospel of\nJesus: and the Gospel, which, availing himself of the name of Jesus, it\nwas Paul's design and practice to preach, was, as he himself\ndeclares,--as we shall see him declaring in the plainest and most\nexpress terms,--a Gospel of his own; a Gospel which was not the Gospel\nof the Apostles, and which, for fear of its being opposed by them, he\nkept studiously concealed from those confidential servants and real\nassociates of Jesus, as may be seen in the following passages: Gal. i.\n9, 11, and 12; \"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach\nany other Gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be\naccursed.--But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was\npreached of me is not after man.--For I neither received it of man,\nneither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.\" Gal.\n2:2: \"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that\nGospel which I preach among the Gentiles; but privately to them which\nwere of reputation, lest by any means, I should run, or had run, in\nvain.\"\n\nIn the course of Paul's dialogue with the voice on the road--that voice\nwhich we are given to understand was the Lord's, _i.e._ Jesus's--the\npromise supposed to be made to Paul, it must be remembered, was--the\npromise to tell him, when in the city, what he was to do. \"What thou\nmust do,\" says the historian in his historical account:--\"all things\nwhich are appointed for thee to do,\" says the historian in the supposed\nunpremeditated oratorical account, which, in this so often mentioned\nfirst of the speeches, he is supposed by the historian to have\ndelivered.\n\nAmong all these things,--one thing, which it is manifestly the design of\nthe historian, as it was that of his hero, to make men believe, was\naccomplished: to wit, the satisfying them what was the religious\ndoctrine, for the dissemination of which the expense of this miracle\nwas incurred. This, moreover, is the promise; which, in the reading of\nthe story everybody looks for: this too is the promise which in the\nreading of this same story, the believers in the religion of Jesus have\nvery generally been in the habit of considering as performed. Not in and\nby this history, however, will they have any such satisfaction, when the\nmatter comes to be looked into. For, in respect of this information,\ndesirable as it is,--Paul is, in this strangely supposed intercourse,\nput off--put off to another time and place: put off, for no reason\ngiven, nor for any substantial reason that can be imagined. Further on,\nwhen a show of performing the promise comes to be made, then, instead of\naccomplishment, we have more evasion. Instead of furnishing the\ninformation to Paul himself--to Paul directly--for, when the time and\nplace for performance comes, performance--what the Lord is not supposed\nso much as to profess to do, what he professes to do is--to make the\ncommunication to this man, who, his existence being supposed, was an\nutter stranger to Paul--namely to this Ananias. Well, and for the\nconveying the information, in this indirect and inadequate way--for\nconveying it to and through this same Ananias--what is done?--as we have\nseen, what amounts to nothing.\n\nWhen, for affording the information--had any information been intended\nto be afforded--the time and place are come; when Ananias and Paul have\nbeen brought together; what is it that, from the information afforded us\nby the historian, we are to understand, passed? _Answer_, that, after\nthe scales had fallen from his eyes, Paul was baptized; that he ate\nmeat, and that after he had eaten meat he was strengthened:\nstrengthened, we are warranted to suppose, by the meat which he had so\neaten. Moreover, that somehow or other, in this large city he was\ncertain days--number not specified,--with certain disciples--neither\nnames nor number specified,--and preached Christ in the synagogues,\nsaying that he was the son of God.\n\nThus far then we are got; and, of the supposed revelation, in all this\ntime nothing revealed. Promises, put-offs, evasions--and, after all, no\nperformance.\n\nAmong the purposes of this work, is the satisfying the reader--not only\nthat Paul received not any revelation from the Almighty; but that, even\nupon his own showing, never did he receive any such revelation: that, on\npretence of his having received it from the Almighty by a special\nrevelation, he preached indeed a certain doctrine; but that this\ndoctrine was partly one of his own, contrary to that of Jesus's\napostles, and therefore contrary to that of Jesus: and that, in the way\nof revelation, he never did receive anything; neither that doctrine of\nhis own which he preached, nor anything else.\n\n\nTOPIC 7.--_Doctrine, supposed to be preached by Paul at Damascus in the\nsynagogues._\n\nStraightway, if the historian is to be believed;--straightway after\nbeing strengthened by the meat;--and straightway after he had passed the\ncertain days with the disciples;--then did Paul preach Christ in the\nsynagogues--preach that he is the son of God.\n\nHere, had he really preached in any such places--here would have been\nthe time, and the best time, for telling us what, in pursuance of the\nsupposed revelation, he preached. For, whatever it was, if anything,\nthat he ever learnt from his supposed revelation, it was not till he had\nlearnt it, till he made this necessary acquisition, that the time for\nbeginning to preach in the synagogues in question or anywhere else was\ncome. And, no sooner had he received it, than then, when it was fresh in\nhis memory--then was the time for preaching it. But, never having\nreceived any such thing as that which he pretended, and which the\nhistorian has made so many people believe, he received,--no such thing\nhad he to preach at any time or place.\n\nWhatever of that nature he had had, if he had had at any _time_,\nDamascus was not the _place_, at any rate at _that time_, for him to\npreach it, or anything else, in synagogues--in any receptacle so\nextensively open to the public eye.\n\nPreach, in the name of Jesus--in the name of that Jesus, whose\ndisciples, and with them whose religion, he now went thither with a\ncommission to exterminate,--preach in that name he could not, without\nproclaiming his own religion--his own perfidy;--his own rebellion,\nagainst the authorities, from which, at his own solicitation, the\ncommission so granted to him had been obtained:--his own perfidious\ncontempt--not only of those Jerusalem rulers, but of those Damascus\nauthorities, from whom, for that important and cruel purpose, he was\nsent to receive instruction and assistance. At some seven-and-twenty\nyears distance in the field of time, and at we know not what distance in\nthe field of space, probably that between Rome and Damascus, it was as\neasy for the historian to affirm the supposed preaching, as to deny it:\nbut, as to the preaching itself, whether it was within the bounds of\nmoral possibility, let the reader judge.\n\n\nTOPIC 8.--_Supposed Amazement of the People of Damascus at this Paul's\nsupposed preaching of Christ in the Synagogues there._\n\nHad there really been any such preaching, well might have amazement\nfollowed it. But there was no such preaching, therefore no such\namazement. Had there been real preaching, and real amazement produced by\nit--what would have been the subject of the amazement! Not so much the\naudacity of the preacher--for madmen acting singly are to be seen in but\ntoo great frequency: not so much the audacity of the speaker, as the\nsupineness of the constituted authorities; for, madmen acting in bodies\nin the character of public functionaries have never yet been visible.\nAnd if any such assemblage was ever seen, many such would be seen,\nbefore any one could be seen, whose madness took the course of sitting\nstill, while an offender against their authority, coming to them single\nand without support,--neither bringing with him support, nor finding it\nthere,--continued, at a public meeting, preaching against them, and\nsetting their authority at defiance.\n\n\nTOPIC 9.--_Matter of the Revelation, which, in and by the supposed\nunpremeditated Oratorical Account, is supposed to have been made._\n\nForgetting what, as we have seen, he had so lately been saying in his\nown person--in the person of Paul,--he on this occasion, returns to the\nsubject: and more evasive is the result.\n\nOn this occasion--this proper occasion--what is it that he, Paul, takes\nupon him to give an account of.--That which the Lord had revealed to\nhim?--revealed, communicated in the supernatural way of revelation, to\nhim--Paul? No; but that which, according to him,--if he, and through him\nthe historian, is to be believed,--the Lord communicated to Ananias\nconcerning him--Paul. The Almighty having minded to communicate\nsomething to a man, and yet not communicating to that man any part of\nit, but communicating the whole of it to another! What a proceeding\n_this_ to attribute to the Almighty, and upon such evidence!\n\nStill we shall see, supposing it communicated, and from such a source\ncommunicated--still we shall see it amounted to nothing: to\nnothing--always excepted the contradiction to what, in relation to this\nsubject, had, by this same historian, been a little before asserted.\n\nObserve what were the _purposes_, for which, by this Ananias, Paul is\nsupposed to be made to understand, that God--the God, says he, of our\nfathers--had chosen him.\n\n1. Purpose the first--\"To know his will.\" His will, respecting what? If\nrespecting anything to the great purpose here in question, respecting\nthe new doctrine which, to this Paul, to the exclusion of the Apostles\nof Jesus, is all along supposed to have been revealed. Of no such\ndoctrine is any indication anywhere in these accounts to be found.\n\n2. Purpose the second--\"And see this just one.\" Meaning, we are to\nunderstand, the person all along spoken of under the name of the Lord;\nto wit, Jesus. But, in the vision in question, if the historian is to be\nbelieved, no Jesus did Paul see. All that he saw was a light,--an\nextraordinary strong light at midday; so strong, that after it, till the\nscales fell from his eyes, he saw not any person in any place: and this\nlight, whatever it was, was seen by all that were with him, as well as\nby him.\n\n3. Purpose the third--\"And shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.\" Oh!\nyes; if what the historian says in that other place is to be\nbelieved--hear a voice he did; and if the historian is to be again\nbelieved, that voice was the Lord's. But, by hearing this voice, how was\nhe distinguished? those that were with him, according to the historian's\nown account, heard it as well as he. And what was he the wiser? This\nalso, it is hoped, has been rendered sufficiently visible--just nothing.\n\nPurpose the fourth and last--\"Thou shalt be his witness (the Lord's\nwitness), of everything thou hast seen and heard:\"--that is, of that\nwhich was nothing, and that which amounted to nothing.\n\nUnhappily, even this is not all: for, before the subject is concluded,\nwe must go back and take up once more the supposed premeditated and\nstudied speech, which, on the second occasion, the self-constituted\nApostle is supposed to have made to the Sub-king of the Jews, Agrippa,\nsitting by the side of his superior--the Roman Proconsul, Festus.\n\nIn the course of this long-studied speech,--to whom, is the\ncommunication, such as it is,--to whom, in an immediate way, and without\nthe intervention of any other person, is it supposed to be made? Not to\nAnanias;--not to any such superfluous and unknown personage;--not to\nAnanias, but to Paul himself: viz. to the very person _by_ whom this\nsame communication, supposed to have been made to him, is supposed to be\nreported (Acts xxvi. 16 to 18): to this principal, or rather, only\nperson concerned:--to this one person, the communication, such as it is,\nand to him the whole of it at once, is supposed to be made.\n\nHere then is this Ananias discarded:--discarded with this vision of his,\nand that other vision which we have seen within it: the communication,\nwhich, speaking in the first place in his own person,--and then, on one\noccasion, in the person of this same hero of his--the historian had just\nbeen declaring, was made--not to Paul, but to Ananias;--this\nall-important communication, speaking again in this same third person,\nbut on another occasion--the discourse being supposed to be a\nlong-studied one--he makes this same Paul declare, was given--not to any\nAnanias, not to any other person--but directly to him, Paul, himself.\n\nLet us now see what it amounts to. In the most logical manner, it begins\nwith declaring the _purposes_ it is made for; and, when the purposes are\ndeclared, all that it does is done. Ver. 16. \"But now: rise, and stand\nupon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose.\"...In\nthis purpose are several parts: let us look into them one by one.\n\n1. Part 1. \"To make thee (says the Lord) a minister and a witness, both\nof these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I\nwill appear unto thee.\" But, as to the things which he had seen, by this\nsame account they amounted to nothing but a glare of light. Here then\nwas the light to _bear witness of_, if it was worth while: but, as to\nthe _ministering_, here was nothing at all to minister to: for the light\nwas past, and it required no ministering to, when it was present. Had it\nbeen the light of a lamp--yes; but there was no lamp in the case.\n\nThus much, as to these things which he had seen. Thereupon comes the\nmention of those things \"in the which, the Lord is supposed to say, I\nwill appear unto thee!\" Here, as before, we have another put-off. If, in\nthe way in question, and of the sort in question, there had been\nanything said, here was the time, the only time, for saying it. For\nimmediately upon the mention of this communication, such as it is,\nfollows the mention of what was due in consequence of it, in obedience\nto the commands supposed to be embodied in it, and by the light of the\ninformation supposed to be conveyed by it. \"Whereupon, says he, King\nAgrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision...\"\n\nPart 2. The purpose continued.--\"Delivering thee from the people, and\nfrom the Gentiles, unto whom I now send thee.\" This, we see, is but a\ncontinuation of the same put-off: no revelation, no doctrine, no Gospel\nhere. As to the doctrine--the Gospel--that Gospel which he preached, and\nwhich he said was his own, no such Gospel is on this occasion given to\nhim; and, not being so much as reported to have been given to him on any\nother occasion, was it not therefore of his own making, and without any\nsuch supernatural assistance, as Christians have been hitherto made to\nbelieve was given to him?\n\nAs to the deliverance from the people and from the Gentiles, this is a\nclause, put in with reference to the dangers, into which the\nintemperance of his ambition had plunged him, and from whence in part it\nhad been his lot to escape. Here then the sub-king and his Roman\nsuperior were desired to behold the accomplishment of a prophecy: but\nthe prophecy was of that sort which came after the fact.--\"Unto whom now\nI send thee...\" In this they were desired to see a continuation of the\nprophecy: for, as to this point, it was, in the hope of the prophet, of\nthe number of those, which not only announce, but by announcing\ncontribute to, their own accomplishment.\n\nPart 3. The purpose continued.--\"To open their eyes, and to turn them\nfrom darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God...\" Still\nthe same nothingness: to his life's end a man might be hearing stories\nsuch as these, and still at the end of it be none the wiser:--no\nadditional doctrine--no additional gospel--no declaration at all--no\ngospel at all--here.\n\nPart 4. The purpose continued and concluded... \"that they may receive\nforgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by\nfaith that is in me.\" Good. But this is not doctrine; this is not\ngospel; this is not itself the promised doctrine: but it is a\ndescription of the effect, of which the promised doctrine was to be the\ncause.\n\nNow it is, as we have just seen, that Paul is represented as commencing\nhis preaching, or sallying forth upon his mission; preaching, from\n_instructions_ received in a supernatural way--received by revelation.\nYet, after all, no such _instructions_ has he received. Thrice has the\nhistorian--once in his own person, twice in that of his hero--undertaken\nto produce those instructions. But by no one, from first to last, have\nthey anywhere been produced.\n\nTruly, then, of his own making was this Gospel which Paul went\npreaching; of his own making, as well as of his own using; that Gospel,\nwhich he himself declares to his Galatians was not of man, was not,\ntherefore, of those Apostles, to whom the opposition made by him is thus\nproclaimed.\n\nWhen, after having given in his own person an account of a supposed\noccurrence,--an historian, on another occasion, takes up the same\noccurrence; and, in the person of another individual, gives of that same\noccurrence another account different from, and so different from, as to\nbe irreconcileable with it; can this historian, with any propriety, be\nsaid to be himself a believer in this second account which he thus\ngives? Instead of giving it as a true account, does he not, at any rate,\nin respect of all the several distinguishable circumstances in which it\ndiffers from the account given in his own person--give it in the\ncharacter of a fable? a fable invented on the occasion on which the\nother person is supposed to speak--invented in the intent that it shall\npromote the purpose for which this speech is supposed to be made? Yet\nthis account, which in the eyes of the very man by whom it is delivered\nto us, is but a fable, even those to whom in this same character of a\nfable it is delivered--this account it is that _Christians_ have thus\nlong persisted in regarding, supporting, and acting upon, as if it were\nfrom beginning to end, a truth--a great body of truth!--O Locke! O\nNewton! where was your discernment!\n\nOn such evidence would any Judge fine a man a shilling? Would he give\neffect to a claim to that amount? Yet such is the evidence, on the\nbelief of which the difference between happiness and misery, both in\nintensity as well as duration, infinite, we are told, depends!\n\n\nSECTION 5.\n\nVISION III.--PAUL'S ANTERIOR VISION, AS REPORTED BY THE LORD TO ANANIAS.\n\nBy the nature of the acts which are the objects of it, the command, we\nsee, is necessarily pregnant with information: but now comes the\ninformation given as such--the piece of information with which the\ncommand is followed. This information--in and by which another, an\nantecedent vision, is brought upon the carpet, and communicated--has\nbeen reserved for a separate consideration.\n\nThis information is in its complexion truly curious: to present a clear\nview of it, is not an altogether easy task. The information thus given\nby the Lord--given to this Ananias--this information, of which Paul is\nthe subject, is--what? that, on some former occasion, neither time nor\nplace mentioned, he, Ananias, to whom the Lord is giving the\ninformation, had been seen by this same Paul performing, with a certain\nintention, a certain action; the intention being--that, in relation to\nthis same Paul, a certain effect should be produced--to wit, that of his\nreceiving his sight. The Lord declares, Acts ix. 12, to Ananias, that\nPaul \"had _seen in a vision_ a man, Ananias himself, coming and putting\nhis hand on him, that he (Paul) might receive his sight.\"\n\nWell then--this action which the Lord thus informs Ananias that he,\nAnanias, had performed,--did he, at any time and place, ever perform it?\nOh, no; that is not necessary: the question is not a fair one; for it\nwas only in a vision that it was performed. Well then--if it was only in\na vision that it was performed, then, in reality, it was never\nperformed. The Lord said that it had been performed; but in so saying\nthe Lord had said that which was not true. The Lord had caused him to\nbelieve this--the Lord knowing all the while that it was not true. Such\nis the deed, which, according to our historian, the Lord relates himself\nto have achieved.\n\nBut the _intention_, was that true? Oh, no; nor was there any need of\nits being so: for the intention, with which the act was supposed to be\nperformed, was part and parcel of the divinely-taught untruth.\n\nThe effect, the production of which had been the object of the\nintention, was it then--had it then been--produced? Wait a little; no,\nnot at that time. But the time was not then as yet come; and now it is\ncoming apace.\n\nBut this effect--what is it? a man's receiving his sight; this same\nPaul's receiving his sight; this same Paul, of whom Ananias knew\nnothing, nor had ever heard anything, except what he had just been\nhearing--to wit, that, by a man of that name, he, Ananias, had once been\nseen--seen to do so and so--he, all the while--he, the doer, knowing\nnothing of what he was doing--knowing nothing at all about the matter.\nHowever, only in a vision did all this pass; which being the case, no\nproper subject of wonder was afforded to him by such otherwise somewhat\nextraordinary ignorance.\n\nBut this sight--which, at the hands of this seer of visions, to whom\nthis information is thus addressed, this stranger, whose name was still\n_Saul_, was to receive--how happened it that it was to him, Ananias,\nthat he came to receive it? This faculty--at his birth, was he not, like\nany other man, in possession of it? If he was, what was become of it? In\nthis particular, the information thus supposed to have been given by\nOmniscience, was rather of the scantiest.\n\nSupposing the story to have any foundation in truth,--such, to Ananias,\nit could not but have appeared; and, supposing him bold enough to ask\nquestions, or even to open his mouth, a question, in the view of finding\na supply for the deficiency, is what the assertion would naturally have\nfor its first result. No such curiosity, however, has Ananias: instead\nof seeking at the hands of Omniscience an information, the demand for\nwhich was so natural, the first use he makes of his speech, or rather\nwould have made of it, if, instead of being imagined in a vision, the\nstate of things in question had been true, is--the furnishing to\nOmniscience a quantity of information of a sort in no small degree\nextraordinary. For, hereupon begins a speech, in and by which Ananias\nundertakes to give Omniscience to understand, what reports, in relation\nto this same Paul, had reached his (Ananias's) ears. What he is willing\nthus to _speak_ is more, however, than Omniscience is willing to _hear:_\nthe story is cut short, and the story-teller bid to \"go his way.\" \"Then\nAnanias,\" says the text, Acts ix. 13. \"Then Ananias answered, Lord, I\nhave heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints\nat Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the Chief Priests to bind\nall that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way;\nfor...\" &c.\n\nBut, though thus cut short, he is far from being in disgrace. So far\nfrom it, that he is taken into confidence. Then comes--still in a\nvision, and the same vision--information of the till then secret acts\nand intentions of Omnipotence in relation to this same Paul: he had\nactually been \"chosen\" as \"a vessel to bear the Lord's name before the\nGentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:\" and the determination\nhad been taken, says the Lord in this vision, \"to show him how great\nthings he must suffer for my name's sake.\" \"For I will show him,\" says\nthe Acts, ix. 16, \"how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.\"\nAnd, with the announcement thus made of this determination, the\nhistorical account, thus by the historian in his own person given, of\nthis same vision, closes.\n\nThus highly distinguished, and favoured with a confidence, equalling, if\nnot surpassing, any which, according to any of the Gospel accounts,\nappears ever to have been imparted to any one of the Apostles, how comes\nit that Ananias has never been put in the number of the _Saints?_\nmeaning always the Calendar _Saints_--those persons, to wit, who, as a\nmark of distinction and title of honour, behold their ordinary names\npreceded by this extraordinary one? Still the answer is: Aye, but this\nwas but in vision: and of a vision one use is--that of the matter of\nwhich all that there is _not_ a use for, is left to be taken for false;\nall that there _is_ a use for, is taken, and is to pass, for true. When,\nby the name of Ananias, who, humanly speaking, never existed but in\nname, the service for which it was invented has been performed--to wit,\nthe giving a support to Paul and his vision,--it has done all that was\nwanted of it: there is no, further use for it.\n\nSupposing that thirdly mentioned vision really seen, at what point of\ntime shall we place the seeing of it? In this too there seems to be no\nsmall difficulty.\n\nBetween the moment at which Paul is said to have had his vision, if a\nvision that can be called in which, the time being midday, he saw\nnothing but a glare of light,--between the moment of this vision, of\nwhich a loss of sight was the instantaneous consequence--between the\nmoment of this loss of sight and the moment of the recovery of it, the\ninterval is mentioned: three days it was exactly. Acts ix. 9, \"And he\nwas three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.\"\n\nThe time during which, in verse 9, he has just been declared to have\nbeen the whole time without sight,--this is the time, within which he is\ndeclared--declared, if the historian is to be believed, declared by the\nLord himself--to have seen this introductory vision--this preparatory\nvision, for which it is so difficult to find a use. And thus it is, that\nin a vision, though _vision_ means seeing, it is not necessary a man\nshould have sight.\n\nMeantime, of all these matters, on which his own existence, not to speak\nof the salvation of mankind, so absolutely depends, not a syllable is he\nto know, but through the medium of this so perfectly obscure and\nquestionable personage--this personage so completely unknown to\nhim--this same Ananias.\n\nThree whole days he is kept from doing anything: during these three\nwhole days the business of the miracle stands still. For what purpose is\nit thus kept at a stand? Is it that there might be time sufficient left\nfor his learning to see, when his sight is returned, this preparatory\nvision, by which so little is done, and for which there is so little\nuse?\n\n\nSECTION 6.\n\nVISIONS, WHY TWO OR THREE INSTEAD OF ONE.\n\nAs to the matter of fact designated by the words _Paul's conversion_, so\nfar as regards _outward_ conversion, the truth of it is out of all\ndispute:--that he was _converted, i.e._ that after having been a\npersecutor of the votaries of the new religion, he turned full round,\nand became a leader. Whether the so illustriously victorious effect, had\nfor its cause a supernatural intercourse of Paul with Jesus after his\nresurrection and ascension, and thence for its accompaniment an _inward_\nconversion--in this lies the matter in dispute.\n\nFrom those, by whom, in its essential particular, the statement is\nregarded as being true, a natural question may be--If the whole was an\ninvention of his own, to what cause can we refer the other vision, the\nvision of Ananias? To what purpose should he have been at the pains of\ninventing, remembering, and all along supporting and defending, the\nvision of the unknown supposed associate? Answer.--To the purpose, it\nshould seem, of giving additional breadth to the basis of his\npretensions.\n\nAmong that people, in those times, the story of a vision was so common\nan article,--so difficultly distinguishable from, so easily confounded\nwith, on the one hand the true story of a dream, on the other hand a\ncompletely false story of an occurrence, which, had it happened, would\nhave been a supernatural one, but which never did happen,--that a basis,\nso indeterminate and a\u00ebrial, would seem to have been in danger of not\nproving strong enough to support the structure designed to be reared\nupon it.\n\nOn the supposition of falsity, the case seems to be--that, to\ndistinguish his vision from such as in those days were to be found among\nevery man's stories, as well as in every history,--and which, while\nbelieved by some, were disbelieved and scorned by others,--either Paul\nor his historian bethought himself of this contrivance of a _pair_ of\nvisions:--a pair of corresponding visions, each of which should, by\nreference and acknowledgment, bear witness and give support to the\nother: a _pair_ of visions: for, for simplicity of conception, it seems\ngood not to speak any further, of the antecedent vision interwoven so\ncuriously in the texture of one of them, after the similitude of the\nflower termed by some gardeners _hose in hose_.\n\nOf this piece of machinery, which in the present instance has been seen\nplayed off with such brilliant success upon the theological theatre, the\nglory of the invention may, it is believed, be justly claimed, if not by\nPaul, by his historian. With the exception of one that will be mentioned\npresently[11], no similar one has, upon inquiry, been found to present\nitself, in any history, Jewish or Gentile.\n\nThe other pair of visions there alluded to, is--that which is also to be\nfound in the Acts: one of them ascribed to Saint Peter, the other to the\ncenturion Cornelius.\n\nPaul, or his historian?--The alternative was but the suggestion of the\nfirst moment. To a second glance the claim of the historian presents\nitself as incontestable. In the case of Peter's pair of visions, suppose\nthe story the work of invention, no assignable competitor has the\nhistorian for the honour of it: in the case of Paul's pair of visions,\nsupposing _that_ the only pair, the invention was at least as likely to\nhave been the work of the historian as of the hero: add to this pair the\nother pair--that other pair that presents itself in this same work of\nthis same history--all competition is at an end. In the case of even the\nmost fertile genius, copying is an easier task than invention:\nand, where the original is of a man's own invention, copying is\nan operation still easier than in the opposite case. That an\noccurrence thus curious should find so much as a single inventor,\nis a circumstance not a little extraordinary: but, that two separate\nwits should jump in concurrence in the production of it, is a\nsupposition that swells the extraordinariness, and with it the\nimprobability, beyond all bounds.\n\n\nSECTION 7.\n\nCOMMISSION TO PAUL BY JERUSALEM RULERS--COMMISSION TO BRING IN BONDS\nDAMASCUS CHRISTIANS--PAUL'S CONTEMPT PUT UPON IT.\n\nPer Acts, in the historical account, is stated the existence of a\ncommission:--granters, the Jerusalem rulers; persons to whom addressed,\nPaul himself at Jerusalem; and the synagogues, _i.e._ the rulers of the\nsynagogues, at Damascus: object, the bringing in custody, from Damascus\nto Jerusalem, all Christians found there: all adult Christians at any\nrate, females as well as males; at Paul's own _desire_, adds this same\nhistorical account (ix. 2.); \"for to be punished,\" adds Paul 1st\nsupposed unpremeditated oratorical account, xxii. 5. In the supposed\npremeditated oratorical account, Paul 2nd, the existence of authority\nand commission granted to him by the Chief Priests is indeed mentioned,\nxxvi. 12: but, of the object nothing is said.\n\nIn the unpremeditated oratorical account, such is the boldness of the\nhistorian, nothing will serve him but to make the orator call to witness\nthe constituted authorities--the Jerusalem rulers--whoever they were,\nthat were present,--to acknowledge the treachery and the aggravated\ncontempt he had been guilty of towards themselves or their predecessors:\ntowards themselves, if it be in the literal sense that what on this\noccasion he says is to be understood: \"As also the High Priest doth bear\nme witness, and all the estate of the Elders, from whom also I received\nletters,\" &c., Acts xxii. 5. In the premeditated oratorical account, the\nboldness of the orator is not quite so prominent; he says--it was \"with\nauthority and commission from the Chief Priests\" at Jerusalem, that he\nwent to Damascus; but, for the correctness of this statement of his, he\ndoes not now call upon them, or any of them, to bear witness.\n\nIn respect of the description of the persons, of whom the Jerusalem\nrulers, exercising authority in their behalf, were composed,--the\nconformity, as between the several accounts, is altogether entire. In\nthe historical account, it is the authority of the High Priest, and the\nHigh Priest alone, that is exercised: in the unpremeditated oratorical\naccount, it is that of the High Priest and all the estate of the Elders:\nin the premeditated account, it is that of the Chief Priests: nothing\nsaid either of High Priests or Elders.\n\nNeither, in the supposed unpremeditated oratorical account, is it\nstated--that, at the time and place of the tumult, the rulers thus\ncalled to witness, or any of them, were actually on the spot. But, the\nspot being contiguous to the Temple--the Temple, out of which Paul had\nbeen that instant dragged, before there had been time enough for\naccomplishing the determination that had been formed for killing\nhim,--the distance, between the spot, at which Paul with the surrounding\nmultitude was standing, Paul being under the momentary protection of the\nRoman commander--between this spot and the spot, whatever it was, at\nwhich the question might have been put to them, or some of them, could\nnot be great.\n\nOn the part of the historian, the boldness, requisite for the ascribing\nthe correspondent boldness to the orator, may be believed without much\ndifficulty. The materials for writing being at hand, there was no more\ndanger in employing them in the writing of these words, than in the\nwriting of an equal number of other words.\n\nNot so on the part of the orator himself. For, supposing the appeal\nmade, the multitude might have saved themselves the trouble of putting\nhim to death: the constituted authorities whom he was thus\ninvoking--those rulers, against whom, by his own confession, he had\ncommitted this treason--would have been ready enough to proceed against\nhim in the regular way, and take the business out of the hands of an\nunauthorized mob.\n\nThe truth of the story, and for that purpose the trustworthiness of the\nhistorian, being to be defended at any rate,--by some people, all this\ncontradiction, all this mass of self-contradiction, will of course be\nreferred to _artlessness_, or, to take the choice of another eulogistic\nword, to _simplicity:_ and, of trustworthiness, this amiable quality,\nwhatever may be the name given to it, will be stated as constituting\nsufficient proof. No such design, as that of deceiving, inhabited, it\nwill be said, his artless bosom: no such design was he capable of\nharbouring: for, supposing any such wicked design harboured by him,\ncould he have been thus continually off his guard?\n\nBut--by all this self-contradiction, the quality really proved is--not\nartlessness, but weakness: and, with the desire of deceiving, no degree\nof weakness, be it ever so high, is incompatible. By weakness, when\nrisen even to insanity, artfulness is not excluded: and, in the\nfashioning, from beginning to end, of all this story, art, we see, is by\nno means deficient, how unhappily soever applied.\n\nBut the story being such as it is, what matters it, as to the credence\ndue to it, in what state, in respect of probity, was the author's mind?\nBeing, as it is, to such a degree untrustworthy and incredible, as that,\nin so many parts of it, it is impossible it should have been true, the\ntruth of it is impossible: what matters it then, whether it be to the\nweakness of the moral, or to that of the intellectual, quarter of the\nauthor's mind, that the falsity is to be ascribed?\n\nNot only in the whole does this history, anonymous as it is, present\nsatisfactory marks of _genuineness_,--that is, of being written by the\nsort of person it professes to be written by, namely, a person who in\nthe course of Paul's last excursion was taken into his suite; but in\nmany parts, so does it of _historic verity_. True or not true,--like any\nother history ancient or modern, it has a claim to be provisionally\ntaken for true, as to every point, in relation to which no adequate\nreason appears for the contrary: improbability, for example, of the\nsupposed facts as related, contradictoriness to itself,\ncontradictoriness to other more satisfactory evidence, or probable\nsubjection to sinister and mendacity-prompting interest.\n\nBut, under so much self-contradiction as hath been seen,--whether _bias_\nbe or be not considered, could any, the most ordinary fact, be regarded\nas being sufficiently proved?\n\nMeantime, let not any man make to himself a pretence for rejecting the\nimportant position thus offered to his consideration;--let him not, for\nfear of its being the truth, shut his eyes against that which is\npresented to him as and for the truth;--let him not shut his eyes, on\nany such pretence, as that of its being deficient in the quality of\n_seriousness_. If, indeed, there be any such duty, religious or moral,\nas that of _seriousness_; and that the stating as absurd that which is\nreally absurd is a violation of that duty;--at that rate, _seriousness_\nis a quality, incompatible with the delivery and perception of truth on\nall subjects, and in particular on this of the most vital importance:\nseriousness is a disposition to cling to falsehood, and to reject truth.\nIn no part has any ridicule _ab extra_, been employed:--ridicule, by\nallusion made to another object, and that an irrelevant one.[12]\n\n\nSECTION 8.\n\nCOMPANIONS--HAD PAUL ANY UPON THE ROAD?\n\nMeantime, if all these miraculous visions and other miracles must needs\nbe supposed,--a cluster of other miracles, though not mentioned, must be\nsupposed along with them: miracles, for the production of which a still\ngreater mass of supernatural force must have been expended. Here, their\nexistence being supposed, here were those companions of his, who,\nunknown in names and number, saw or saw not all or anything that he saw,\nand heard or heard not all or anything that he heard. These men, at any\nrate, if so it be that they themselves, blind or not blind, led him, as\nit is said they did, into the city, because he could not see to guide\nhimself,--must, in some way or other, have perceived that something in\nno small degree extraordinary had happened to him: so extraordinary,\nthat, in the condition in which he was, and in which, if they saw\nanything, they saw him to be--no such commission, as that, for the\nexecution of which, if, as well as companions, they were his destined\nassistants, they were put under his command,--could, in any human\nprobability, receive execution at his hands. If they were apprised of\nthis commission of his, could they, whether with his consent or even\nwithout his consent, avoid repairing to the constituted authorities to\ntell them what had happened? This commission of his, so important in\nitself, and granted to a man of letters by men of letters, could not but\nhave been in writing: and accordingly, in the form of letters we are, by\nthe historian, expressly informed it was. Of the existence of these\nletters, on the tenor of which their future proceedings as well as his\ndepended,--these conductors of his, if _he_ did not, with or without his\nconsent would of course have given information, to the rulers to whom\nthese same letters were addressed. Not being struck dumb, nor having,\namongst the orders given by the voice, received any order to keep\nsilence, or so much as to keep secret anything of what little they had\nheard, they would scarcely, under these circumstances, have maintained\neither silence or secrecy. The historian, knowing what he (the\nhistorian) intended to do with his hero--knowing that, at three days'\nend, he intended not only to make scales fall from his eyes, but to fill\nhis belly,--might not feel any great anxiety on his account. But Paul\nhimself, if he, in the condition he is represented in by the\nhistorian,--was, for three days together, with scales on his eyes, and\nnothing in his stomach: and, at the end of the three days, as ignorant\nas at the beginning, whether the scales would, at any time, and when,\ndrop off, and his stomach receive a supply: in such a state surely, a\nman could not but feel a curiosity, not unattended with impatience, to\nknow when and how all this was to end. Under these circumstances, by\nsome means or other, would all these tongues have been to be stopped:\notherwise, instead of the house of Judas in Straight-street, Paul might\nhave had no other place, to receive his visitor in, than the town jail,\nor some one other of those strong places, into which visitors do not\nalways find it more easy to gain entrance, than inmates to get out.\n\nThese tongues then--Paul's tongue, his companions' tongues--this\nassemblage of tongues, all so strongly urged to let themselves loose--by\nwhat could they have been stopped? If, by anything, by a correspondent\ncluster of miracles--nothing less.\n\nThat, from Jerusalem, about the time in question, Paul went to\nDamascus,--and that it was with some such letters in his\npossession,--seems, as will be seen presently, altogether\nprobable;--also, that when there, he acted in the way his historian\nspeaks of, betraying the confidence reposed in him by the constituted\nauthorities, and joining with those whom he had solicited and received a\ncommission to destroy;--that these were among the circumstances of his\nalleged conversion, seems probable enough:--though he, with all the need\nhe had of miracles, if any were to be had, gives not--in what he\nhimself, writing to his Galatian converts, says of his conversion--any\nof the slightest hint of them.\n\nAs to his conversion--meaning his _outward_ conversion, which was all\nthat was necessary to the production of the effect so notoriously\nproduced by him--to _that_, it will be seen, no miracle was necessary:\nnothing but what belonged to the ordinary course of things. As to\ncompanions on the journey--whether he had any or not; and if he had any,\nwhether they were attendants on his orders, or acquaintances of his not\nunder his orders; or mere strangers into whose company accident threw\nhim--all this we must satisfy ourselves, as well as we can, under the\nignorance of.\n\nThat, for giving effect, by his means, to the sort of commission he went\nentrusted with, the power of local authorities was trusted to, is a\nsupposition altogether natural. For bringing to Jerusalem \"bound, for to\nbe punished (Acts ix. 2. xxii. 4), all the Christians that could be\nfound in Damascus, both men and women,\" if the Damascus rulers were\nfavourable to the persecuting design, no large force from Jerusalem\ncould be needful. Even a small one would be superfluous: and, by a\nforce, great or small, sent from the one set of constituted authorities,\na slight would be shown to the other.\n\n\nSECTION 9.\n\nIN PAUL'S EPISTLE TO HIS GALATIANS,--BY HIS SILENCE, ACTS' ACCOUNTS OF\nHIS CONVERSION ARE VIRTUALLY CONTRADICTED.\n\nOf Paul's _outward_ conversion--conversion from the character of an\nauthorized persecutor of the religion of Jesus, to that of a preacher of\na religion preached in the name of Jesus--such, as we have seen, is the\naccount given in the Acts; given by the author of the Acts, and by him\nalone. For, what ought never to be out of mind, if instead of two\ndifferent accounts--declared by him as having been, on different\noccasions, delivered by Paul--he had given two hundred, still they\nwould have been his:--not Paul's, but his.\n\nAll this while, now for little less than 1800 years, from Paul's own pen\nwe have an account of this his conversion: and, of any such story as\nthat of its being effected through the instrumentality of visions,--in\nthis account of his, not any the slightest trace is to be found;--not\nany the slightest allusion to it.\n\nAt the time of his giving this account--supposing this story of the mode\nof his conversion true--supposing even that, though false, it had been\ngot up and propagated--at the time of his giving the account which bears\nsuch unquestionable marks of being his, was the occasion such as to\nrender it probable, that he could thus have omitted all allusion, to an\noccurrence at once so extraordinary and so important? If not, then so it\nis--that, by the silence of Paul himself, the story related by his\nhistorian is virtually contradicted.\n\nThe occasion here in view is--that of his writing the so often\nmentioned, and so often about to be mentioned, Epistle to his Galatian\ndisciples.\n\nAt the time of his writing this letter, so we shall have occasion to see\nover and over again in the tenor of it, he was acting in\nopposition--declared and violent opposition--to the Apostles: struggling\nwith them for the mastery; declaring that to them he was not beholden\nfor anything;--that the Gospel he preached was not their Gospel, but a\nGospel of his own, received by him directly from Jesus;--declaring, that\nin Jerusalem itself, the seat of their authority, he had preached this\nGospel of his, which was not theirs; but confessing, at the same time,\nthat when he did so, it was in a secret manner, for fear of the\nopposition, which he well knew, had they known of it, they could not\nbut have made to it.\n\nIn this state of contention--supposing any such miracle as that in\nquestion wrought in his favour--was it in the nature of the case that he\nshould have failed to avail himself of it?--to avail himself of the\naccount which the truth--the important truth--would have so well\nwarranted him in giving of it? Supposing it true, had there at that time\nbeen witnesses to it--any percipient witnesses--the supposed\nAnanias--the supposed companions on the road,--would he have failed\nmaking his appeal to their testimony? Supposing even that there were\nnone such left, the truth of the occurrence--of an occurrence of such\nmomentous importance, would it not have inspired him with boldness,\nsufficient for the assertion of it, with all that intensity for which\nthe case itself furnished so sufficient a warrant, and which the\nvehemence of his character would have rendered it so impossible for him\nto avoid? Supposing even the story an utter falsehood, yet, had it been\nat this time got up and promulgated, could he, if he saw any tolerable\nprospect of its obtaining credence, have failed to endeavour to avail\nhimself of it?\n\nNo, surely. Yet, in this his address, made to his Galatian disciples,\nand to all such inhabitants of that country, as he could see a prospect\nof numbering among his disciples--in this address, written under a sense\nof the necessity he was under, of making for his support against the\nApostles, the most plausible case his ingenuity could enable him to\nmake,--not any, so much as the slightest, hint of any such miracle, does\nhe venture to give. _Revelation! revelation!_--on this single word--on\nthe ideas, which, in the minds with which he had to deal, he hoped to\nfind associated with that word--on this ground, without any other, did\nhe see himself reduced to seek support in his contest with the Apostles.\nRevelation? revelation from Jesus? from the Lord, speaking from heaven?\nfrom the Almighty? On what occasion, in what place, at what time, in\nwhat company, if in any, was it thus received? To no one of these\nquestions does he venture to furnish an answer--or so much as an\nallusion to an answer. Why?--even because he had none to give. He had\nbeen a persecutor of the disciples of Jesus--this he confesses and\ndeclares: he became a preacher in the name of Jesus--this he also\ndeclares; a preacher in the name of him, of whose disciples--the whole\nfellowship of them--he had been a persecutor--a blood-thirsty and\nblood-stained persecutor. His conversion, whatever it amounted to, how\ncame it about? what was the cause, the time, the place, the mode of it;\nwho the percipient witnesses of it? To all these questions,\n_revelation_; in the single word is contained all the answer, which--in\nthis letter--in this plea of his--he, audacious as he was, could summon\nup audacity enough to give. Why, on so pressing an occasion, this\nforbearing? Why? but that, had he ventured to tell any such story, that\nstory being a false one, there were his opponents--there were the\nApostles, or men in connection with the Apostles--to contradict it--to\nconfute it.\n\nHad he made reference to any specific, to any individual, portion of\nplace and time, the pretended facts might have found themselves in\ncontradiction with some real and provable facts. But, time as well as\nplace being left thus unparticularized,--he left himself at liberty, on\neach occasion, if called upon for time or place, to assign what portion\nof time and place the occasion should point out to him as being most\nconvenient;--best adapted to the purpose of giving lodgment to an\nappropriate falsity;--and without danger, or with little danger, of\nexposure.\n\nAt distinct and different times, _five_ interviews we shall see him\nhave, with the Apostles--one or more of them: the first interview\nbeing,--according to his own account, as given in this very Epistle,--at\nlittle if anything more, than three years' distance from the time of his\nquitting the occupation of persecution. Then, says he, it was, Gal. i.\n17 and 18, that \"I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him\nfifteen days.\" In all these days, is it possible, that, if the\nconversion miracle had really taken place as stated in the Acts, with\nthe companions on the road and Ananias for witnesses,--he should not\nhave related to Peter, and, if not spontaneously, at any rate in answer\nto such questions as a man in Peter's situation could not fail to put,\nhave brought to view, every the minutest circumstance? This then was the\ntime--or at least _one_ time--of his trial, on the question, _revelation\nor no revelation_. Here then, when, with such vehemence, declaring--not\nhis independence merely, but his superiority, in relation to the\nApostles--and _that_ on no other ground than this alleged revelation,\nwas it, had the judgment in that trial been in his favour--was it\npossible, that he should have omitted to avail himself of it? Yet no\nsuch attempt, we see, does he make:--no attempt, to avail himself of\nthe issue of the trial, or of anything that passed on the occasion of\nit. Altogether does he keep clear of any allusion to it: and indeed, if\nhis historian--the author of the Acts--is to be believed,--with very\ngood reason: for, whatever it was that, on that occasion, he said, in\nthe Acts it is expressly declared that, by the disciples at least, he\nwas utterly disbelieved. Acts ix. 26: \"He assayed to join himself to the\ndisciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was\na disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles,\" &c.\nWhy it was, that, after the disciples had thus unanimously declared him\nand his story unworthy of credit, the Apostles gave him notwithstanding\na sort of reception;--and that, by no countenance, which they on that\noccasion gave him, was any ground afforded, for the supposition that any\nmore credence was given to him and his story, by them than by the\ndisciples at large,--will be explained in its place.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE II.--PAUL DISBELIEVED.\n\n     TABLE--_Showing, at one View, the Passages, from which the\n     Inference is drawn, that Paul's inward Conversion was never\n     believed, by any of the Apostles, or their Disciples._\n\n_Explanations._--The Interviews here seen are between Paul and one or\nmore Apostles. Number of Interviews five,--of Visits the same: whereof,\nby Paul to Peter, four,--by Peter to Paul,--one: besides the one\nsupposed fictitious. Of the Accounts, Paul's as far as it goes, is taken\nfor the standard. Of Paul's Epistles the genuineness is out of dispute:\nActs history is anonymous. Paul's evidence is that of an alleged\npercipient witness. His historian's,--as to these matters, mostly that\nof a narrator,--narrating--but from hearsay, Probably from Paul's.\n\n\nINTERVIEWS, A.D. 35 (I); A.D. 52 (III).\n\nAs per Paul, Gal. A.D. 58.\n\n1. _Introduction._\n\nGal. 1:1. \"Paul, an apostle, not from men, neither through man, but\nthrough Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,\nand all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:\nGrace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,\nwho gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this\npresent evil world, according to the will of our God and Father: to whom\nbe the glory for ever and ever. Amen.\"\n\n2. _Independence Declared._\n\nGal. 1:6. \"I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called\nyou in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another\ngospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the\ngospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach\nunto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him\nbe anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man\npreacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him\nbe anathema. For am I now persuading men, or God? or am I seeking to\nplease men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of\nChrist.\n\n\"For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was\npreached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it\nfrom man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of\nJesus Christ.\"\n\n\n3. _Conversion Spoken Of._\n\nVer. 13. \"For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the\nJews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God,\nand made havock of it: and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many\nof mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for\nthe traditions of my fathers. But when it was the good pleasure of God,\nwho separated me, even from my mother's womb and called me through his\ngrace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the\nGentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went\nI up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me: but I went away\ninto Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.\"\n\n\n4. _Account of Interview I._\n\nVer. 18. \"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas,\nand tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none,\nsave James the Lord's brother. Now touching the things which I write\nunto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Then I came into the regions of\nSyria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of\nJudea which were in Christ: but they only heard say, He that once\npersecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havock; and\nthey glorified God in me.\"\n\n\n5. _Account of Interview III. II._\n\nGal. 2:1. \"Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to\nJerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by\nrevelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the\nGentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any\nmeans I should be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus who\nwas with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that\nbecause of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to\nspy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring\nus into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not\nfor an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But\nfrom those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it\nmaketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)--they, I say,\nwho were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they\nsay that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision,\neven as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision, for he that wrought\nfor Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also\nunto the Gentiles.\"\n\n\n6. _Partition Treaty._\n\nVer. 9. \"And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me,\nJames and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to\nme and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto\nthe Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only they would that we\nshould remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.\"\n\n\n7. _Jealousy, Notwithstanding._\n\nVer. 11. \"But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I resisted him to the\nface, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from\nJames, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back\nand separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And\nthe rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even\nBarnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that\nthey walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said\nunto Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the\nGentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to\nlive as do the Jews? We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the\nGentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the\nlaw, save through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ\nJesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the\nworks of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be\njustified. But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we\nourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God\nforbid. For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove\nmyself a transgressor. For I through the law died unto the law, that I\nmight live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live; and\nyet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live\nin the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who\nloved me, and gave himself up for me. I do not make void the grace of\nGod: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for\nnought.\"\n\n\nINTERVIEW I. A.D. 35.\n\n_Paul's Jerusalem Visit I._\n\nReconciliation Visit.\n\n(_Departure from Damascus._)\n\nActs 9:23-30. \"And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel\ntogether to kill him: but their plot became known to Saul. And they\nwatched the gates also day and night that they might kill him: but his\ndisciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering\nhim in a basket.\"\n\n(_Arrival at Jerusalem--Results._)\n\nVer. 26. \"And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself\nto the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he\nwas a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles,\nand declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he\nhad spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the\nname of Jesus. And he was with them going in and going out at Jerusalem,\npreaching boldly in the name of the Lord.\"\n\n(_Departure--Cause._)\n\nVer. 29. \"And he spake and disputed against the Grecian Jews; but they\nwent about to kill him. And when the brethren knew it, they brought him\ndown to C\u00e6sarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.\"\n\n\nINTERVIEW I. A.D. 35.\n\n_Departure--Cause._\n\nIn Paul's First Account.\n\nActs 22:17-21. \"And it came to pass, that, when I had returned to\nJerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance, and\nsaw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of\nJerusalem: because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning\nme. And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in\nevery synagogue them that believed on thee: and when the blood of\nStephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting,\nand keeping the garments of them that slew him. And he said unto me,\nDepart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.\"\n\n\nINTERVIEW II. A.D. 43.\n\n_Paul's Jerusalem Visit II._\n\nMoney-Bringing Visit.\n\nActs 11:22-30. \"And the report concerning them came to the ears of the\nchurch which was in Jerusalem: and then sent forth Barnabas as far as\nAntioch: who, when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad;\nand he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave\nunto the Lord: for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of\nfaith: and much people was added unto the Lord. And he went forth to\nTarsus to seek for Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto\nAntioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were\ngathered together with the church, and taught much people; and that the\ndisciples were called Christians first in Antioch.\n\n\"Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.\nAnd there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit\nthat there should be a great famine over all the world: which came to\npass in the days of Claudius. And the disciples, every man according to\nhis ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in\nJudea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of\nBarnabas and Saul.\"\n\n\nINTERVIEW III. A.D. 52.\n\n_Paul's Jerusalem Visit III._\n\nDeputation Visit.\n\nAs per ACTS xv. 1-21.\n\nActs 25:1-23. \"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the\nbrethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses,\nye cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension\nand questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and\nBarnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the\napostles and elders about this question. They therefore, being brought\non their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria,\ndeclaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto\nall the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were\nreceived of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they\nrehearsed all things that God had done with them. But there arose up\ncertain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful\nto circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.\n\n\"And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of\nthis matter. And when there had been much questioning Peter rose up, and\nsaid unto them,\n\n\"Brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among you,\nthat by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and\nbelieve. And God, which knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving\nthem the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction\nbetween us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why\ntempt ye God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,\nwhich neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that\nwe shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as\nthey.\n\n\"And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas\nand Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the\nGentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered,\nsaying,\n\n\"Brethren, hearken unto me: Symeon hath rehearsed how first God did\nvisit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to\nthis agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,\n\n    \"After these things I will return,\n    And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen;\n    And I will build again the ruins thereof,\n    And I will set it up:\n    That the residue of men may seek after the Lord,\n    And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,\n    Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the beginning\n      of the world.\n\n\"Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them which from among the\nGentiles turn to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain\nfrom the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is\nstrangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in\nevery city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every\nsabbath.\"\n\n\nINTERVIEW IV. A.D. 52.\n\n_Peter's Visit to Antioch._\n\nActs 15:22-33. \"Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with\nthe whole church, to chose men out of their company, and send them to\nAntioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and\nSilas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote thus by them, The\napostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren which are of the\nGentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we\nhave heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with\nwords, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed\ngood unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them\nunto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded\ntheir lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent\ntherefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same\nthings by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to\nus, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that\nye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from\nthings strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep\nyourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.\n\n\"So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having\ngathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. And when\nthey had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and\nSilas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many\nwords, and confirmed them. And after they had spent some time there,\nthey were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent\nthem forth.\"\n\n\nINTERVIEW A.D. 52.\n\n_Paul's Visit._\n\nAs per ACTS xviii. 19-23.\n\n(_Supposed Fictitious._)\n\n\"And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there: but he himself\nentered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. And when they\nasked him to abide a longer time, he consented not; but taking his leave\nof them and saying, I will return again unto you, if God will, he set\nsail from Ephesus. And when he had landed at C\u00e6sarea, he went up and\nsaluted the church, and went down to Antioch. And having spent some time\nthere, he departed, and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia\nin order, stablishing all the disciples.\"\n\n\nINTERVIEW V. A.D. 60.\n\n_Paul's Jerusalem Visit IV._\n\nInvasion Visit.\n\n(_Visit Proposed. A.D._ 56.)\n\nActs 19:20-21. \"Now after these things were ended, Paul purposed in the\nspirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to\nJerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome. And\nhaving sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timothy\nand Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.\"\n\n(_Visit Again Proposed. A.D._ 60.)\n\nActs 20:16. \"For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus, that he might\nnot have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were\npossible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.\n\n\"And from Miletus he went to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of\nthe church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them,\n\n\"Ye yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, after\nthat manner I was with you all the time, serving the Lord with all\nlowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by\nthe lots of the Jews: how that I shrank not from declaring unto you\nanything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house\nto house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God,\nand faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I go bound in\nthe spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me\nthere: save that the Holy Ghost testifieth unto me in every city, saying\nthat bonds and afflictions abide me. But I hold not my life of any\naccount, as dear unto myself, so that I may accomplish my course, and\nthe ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel\nof the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I\nwent about preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more.\"\n\nActs 21:7-9. \"And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived\nat Ptolemais; and we saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day.\nAnd on the morrow we departed, and came unto C\u00e6sarea: and entering into\nthe house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode\nwith him. Now this man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.\"\n\n(_Visit Opposed. A.D._ 60.)\n\nVer. 10. \"And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea\na certain prophet, named Agabus. (See Acts xi. 27.)\n\n\"And coming to us, and taking Paul's girdle, he bound his own feet and\nhands, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at\nJerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him\ninto the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we\nand they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul\nanswered, What do ye, weeping and breaking my heart? for I am ready not\nto be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord\nJesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will\nof the Lord be done.\"\n\n\nINTERVIEW V. A.D. 60.\n\n_Paul's Jerusalem Visit IV._\n\nInvasion Visit--Results.\n\n_Arrival._\n\nActs 21:15-36. \"And after these days we took up our baggage, and went up\nto Jerusalem. And there went with us also certain of the disciples from\nC\u00e6sarea, bringing with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple,\nwith whom we should lodge.\n\n\"And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.\"\n\n_Test, Proposed for Riddance._\n\n\"And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the\nelders were present. And when he had saluted them, he rehearsed one by\none the things which God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.\nAnd they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said unto him,\nThou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them\nwhich have believed; and they are all zealous for the law: and they have\nbeen informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are\namong the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise\ntheir children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore?\nthey will certainly hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we\nsay to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; these take, and\npurify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may\nshave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the\nthings whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou\nthyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law. But as touching the\nGentiles which have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they\nshould keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood,\nand from what is strangled, and from fornication.\"\n\n_The Test Swallowed._\n\n\"Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them\nwent into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of\npurification, until the offering was offered for every one of them.\"\n\n_Indignation Universal._\n\n\"And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when\nthey saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude, and laid hands\non him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth\nall men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place: and\nmoreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this\nholy place. For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the\nEphesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. And\nall the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they laid hold\non Paul, and dragged him out of the temple: and straightway the doors\nwere shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, tidings came up to the\nchief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in confusion. And\nforthwith he took soldiers and centurions, and ran down upon them: and\nthey, when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, left off beating\nPaul. Then the chief captain came near, and laid hold on him, and\ncommanded him to be bound with two chains; and inquired who he was, and\nwhat he had done. And some shouted one thing, some another, among the\ncrowd: and when he could not know the certainty for the uproar, he\ncommanded him to be brought into the castle. And when he came upon the\nstairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of\nthe crowd; for the multitude of the people followed after, crying out,\nAway with him.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Of the word _conversion_, as employed everywhere and in all times in\nspeaking of Paul, commonly called Saint Paul, the import has been found\ninvolved in such a cloud, as, on pain of perpetual misconception, it has\nbeen found necessary, here at the outset, to clear away. That, from\nbeing an ardent and destructive persecutor of the disciples of the\ndeparted Jesus, he became their collaborator, and in _that_ sense their\nally,--preaching, in speech, and by writing, a religion under the name\nof the religion of Jesus, assuming even the appellation of an _Apostle_\nof Jesus,--_Apostle_, that is to say, special envoy--(that being the\ntitle by which the twelve most confidential servants of Jesus stood\ndistinguished), is altogether out of dispute. That in this sense he\nbecame a _convert_ to the religion of Jesus, and that in this sense his\nalleged conversion was real, is accordingly in this work not only\nadmitted, but affirmed. Few points of ancient history seem more\nsatisfactorily attested. In this sense then he was converted beyond\ndispute. Call this then his _outward conversion_; and say, Paul's\n_outward conversion_ is indubitable. But, that this conversion had for\nits cause, or consequence, any supernatural intercourse with the\nAlmighty, or any belief in the supernatural character of Jesus himself;\nthis is the position, the erroneousness of which has, in the eyes of the\nauthor, been rendered more and more assured, the more closely the\ncircumstances of the case have been looked into. That, in speech and\neven in action, he was in outward appearance a convert to the religion\nof Jesus; this is what is admitted: that, inwardly, he was a convert to\nthe religion of Jesus, believing Jesus to be God, or authorized by any\nsupernatural commission from God; this is the position, the negative of\nwhich it is the object of the present work to render as evident to the\nreader, as a close examination has rendered it to the author. The\nconsequence, the practical consequence, follows of itself. In the way of\ndoctrine, whatsoever, being in the Epistles of Paul is not in any one of\nthe Gospels, belongs to Paul, and Paul alone, and forms no part of the\nreligion of Jesus. This is what it seemed necessary to state at the\nopening; and to this, in the character of a conclusion, the argument\nwill be seen all along to tend.\n\n[2] See Ch. 15. Paul's supposable miracles explained.\n\n[3] In regard to the matter testified, that is, in regard to the object\nof the testimony; it is, first of all, a requisite condition, that what\nis reported to be true should be possible, both absolutely, or as an\nobject of the elaborative Faculty, and relatively, or as an object of\nthe Presentative Faculties,--Perception, External or Internal. A thing\nis possible absolutely, or in itself, when it can be construed to\nthought, that is, when it is not inconsistent with the logical laws of\nthinking; a thing is relatively possible as an object of perception,\nExternal or Internal, when it can affect Sense or Self-consciousness,\nand, through such affection, determine its apprehension by one or other\nof these faculties.\n\nA testimony is, therefore, to be unconditionally rejected, if the fact\nwhich it reports be either in itself impossible, or impossible as an\nobject of the representative faculties.\n\nBut the impossibility of a thing, as an object of these faculties, must\nbe decided either upon physical, or upon metaphysical, principles.\n\nA thing is physically impossible as an object of sense, when the\nexistence itself, or its perception by us, is, by the laws of the\nmaterial world impossible.--Hamilton's Logic 460.--Ed.\n\n[4] \"_Light_,--great _Light_.\"--It will be noticed that this \"light\" is\npresented first objectively as a phenomenon, a thing, But what is\n\"light\"? The universal answer is \"That force in nature which, acting on\nthe Retina of the eye produces the sensation we call vision.\" This\nvision is the total of the subjective effect of that agency of Nature,\nthe subjective realization through the functions of the Cerebellum. But\nfunctions are accomplished through agencies called organs. The retina is\none of these organs. Through the operations of these organs and\ncerebellum subjective apprehension is produced as an effect, but in some\ncases of very forcible apprehensions they are interpreted as a diseased\ncondition of the organs of sense. Ideas sometimes acquire unusual\nvividness and permanence and are, therefore, peculiarly liable to be\nmistaken for their objective prototypes and hence specters, spectral\nallusions which are very common in cases of emotional excitement.\n\nFurther, it will be noticed all the time that the reporter, Luke, wrote\nwhat Paul, or some other person or rumor had previously communicated to\nhim. Now Luke, was accustomed to pen these wonders, these superhuman\nChimerical prodigies. Take the example of the trial of Stephen, Acts 7.\nAfter the Charges of the Complainants, Ib. 6-9, \"Libertines\" and others\nhad been heard by the High Priest, he inquired of Stephen personally as\nto the verity of the charges, And Luke reports his responses, And then\nto make sure of portraying fully the Emotional conditions of the\nwitnesses and the spectators, he reports, V. 54. \"When they heard these\nthings, they were cut to the heart and they grabed on him with their\nteeth; but he, Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost looked up\nsteadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at\nthe right hand of God, and said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and\nthe son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out\nwith a loud voice, and stopped their ears and ran upon him with one\naccord, and cast him out of the City and stoned him, and the witnesses\nlaid down their clothes at a young man's feet whose name was Saul.\"\n\nThis Saul, now Paul, must have acted as overseer or umpire. Paul, is by\nchronologers reckoned to have been about 12 years of age; But it will be\nseen that Luke, the narrator, is just such a superserviceable witness as\nwholly impairs his credibility. He says first, Stephen was in fact\nfilled with the Holy Ghost, saw the glory of God, for he evidently was\ngloriable, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; and that in\naddition thereto he states that Stephen, said he saw the same\nwonders--with the addition that the heavens were opened, &c. If he had\nbeen cross-examined and asked whether little Paul, did not behold all\nthese wonders, he no doubt would have answered in the affirmative and\nvolunteered the statement, That they all saw these wonders, the high\npriest, the accusers, by-standers, and human canines that gnashed their\nteeth upon Stephen. Consult any author on Psychology on the subject of\nEmotions, Exstatic illusions, &c.\n\nBut in the assembly inquisitors of Stephen, Paul and others before the\nhigh priests, what special law or cannons were they accused of\nviolating? Answer, one cannon is quite conspicuous, to wit:--Ex. 22:28.\n\"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of the people.\"\n\nWhen the inquisitor the high priest found the accused guilty, he was\ndelivered over to the witnesses for execution. The detectives enjoyed\nthe luxury of doing the stoning. If Christ's limitation had been in use,\nto wit:--that none but the guiltless should throw stones, the accusing\nsleuths might have been less zealous.--Ed.\n\n[5] Historiographer is used purposely by the author to denote a\nspecialist for the occasion.\n\n[6] \"Goad\" is the word used in the Douay Testament and in the late\nrevisions of The Protestants.\n\n[7] Cor. 15:8--\"As unto one born out of due time, He appeared unto me\nalso.\"\n\n[8] Another question that here presents itself is--How could it have\nhappened that, Jerusalem being under one government, and Damascus under\nanother (if so the case was), the will of the local rulers at Jerusalem\nfound obedience, as it were of course, at the hands of the adequate\nauthorities at Damascus? To the question how this _actually_ happened,\nit were too much to undertake to give an answer. For an answer to the\nquestion how it may be _conceived_ to have happened, reference may be\nmade to existing English practice. The warrant issued by the constituted\nauthorities in Jerusalem expected to find, and found accordingly in\nDamascus, an adequate authority disposed to back it. In whatsoever\nGentile countries Jews, in a number sufficient to compose a synagogue,\nestablished themselves, a habit naturally enough took place, as of\ncourse, among them--the habit of paying obedience, to a considerable\nextent, to the functionaries who were regarded as rulers of the\nsynagogue. Few are or have been the conquered countries, in which some\nshare of subordinate power has not been left, as well to the natives of\nthe conquered nation as to any independent foreigners, to whom, in\nnumbers sufficient to constitute a sort of corporate body, it happened\nfrom time to time to have become settlers. After all, what must be\nconfessed is--that, in all this there seems nothing but what might\nreadily enough have been conceived, without its having been thus\nexpressed.\n\n[9] It is well known that this dogma of Original sin--a disease that the\nhuman family enjoys by sad inheritance, Christ treated with negligible\nindifference. He dealt with the problems of man in a social state, as\nsocially conditioned only. A human being conditioned as isolated from\nneighbors, friends and society, he did not as he scientifically could\nnot deal with, He discoursed upon social duties, however sublimely, N.B.\nActs 18:15, \"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke\nhim between thee and him alone, If he shall hear thee thou hast gained\nthy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or\ntwo more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be\nestablished. And if he shall neglect to hear them then tell it unto the\nchurch. And if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as the\nheathen and publican, Amen I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall bind on\nearth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on\nearth shall be loosed also in heaven.\"\n\nNow without quibbling about the translation this scheme of social\narbitration contains the ultimate of justice, It contains the only\nworking hypothesis within any social condition of mankind. There is no\nsuch thing as justice in the abstract or concrete, It is like heat and\nelectricity, a mere mode of motion, a form of action. And when a\ncontroversy between Citizens is fairly submitted to the judgment of\nnormal men the voice of their consciousness, being the ultimate organ of\nnature's Creator, must be \"binding\" so far as man is concerned socially.\n\nAnd as there does not appear to the natural man any appeal to heaven,\nthe arbitrament of man in the special case carries the seal of the\neternities and forecloses all further controversy. The speech of the\nhonorable Consciousness of Man is the voice of the Creator of his\npersonality.--Ed.\n\n[10] Since what is in the text was written, maturer thoughts have\nsuggested an interpretation, by which, if received, the sad inferences\npresented by the doctrine, that misdeeds, and consequent suffering that\nhave had place, could by a dip into a piece of water be caused never to\nhave happened, may be repelled. According to this interpretation, the\nact of being baptized--the bodily act--is one thing; an act of washing\naway the sins--the spiritual act--another. The effect produced is--not\nthe causing the misdeeds and sufferings never to have had place, but the\ncausing them to be compensated for, by acts productive of enjoyment, or\nof saving in the article of sufferings, to an equal or greater amount.\n\n[11] See Ch. xvii. \u00a7. v. 4. Peter's and Cornelius's visions.\n\n[12] See Bentham's _Church of Englandism examined_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n     _Outward Conversion--how produced--how planned._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nMOTIVE, TEMPORAL ADVANTAGE--PLAN.\n\nHow flourishing the state of the church had at this period become, will\nbe seen more fully in another place. Long before this period,--numbers\nof converts, in Jerusalem alone, above three thousand. The aggregate, of\nthe property belonging to the individuals, had been formed into one\ncommon fund: the management--too great a burden for the united labours\nof the eleven Apostles, with their new associate Mathias--had, under the\nname so inappositely represented at present by the English word\n_deacon_, been committed to seven trustees; one of whom, Stephen, had,\nat the instance of Paul, been made to pay, with his life, for the\nimprudence, with which he had, in the most public manner, indulged\nhimself, in blaspheming the idol of the Jews--their temple.[13]\n\n\nOf that flourishing condition, Paul, under his original name of Saul,\nhad all along been a witness. While carrying on against it that\npersecution, in which, if not the original instigator, he had been a\nmost active instrument, persecuting, if he himself, in what he is made\nto say, in Acts xxii. 4, is to be believed,--\"persecuting unto the\ndeath, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women;\"--while\nthus occupied, he could not in the course of such his disastrous\nemployment, have failed to obtain a considerable insight into the state\nof their worldly affairs.\n\nSamaria--the field of the exploits and renown of the great sorcerer\nSimon, distinguished in those times by the name of _Magus_--Samaria, the\nnear neighbour and constant rival, not to say enemy, of Jerusalem;--is\nnot more than about five and forty miles distant from it. To Paul's\nalert and busy mind,--the offer, made by the sorcerer, to purchase of\nthe Apostles a share in the government of the church, could not have\nbeen a secret.\n\nAt the hands of those rulers of the Christian Church, this offer had not\nfound acceptance. Shares in the direction of their affairs were not,\nlike those in the government of the British Empire in these our days,\nobjects of sale. The nine rulers would not come into any such bargain;\ntheir disciples were not as cattle in their eyes: by those disciples\nthemselves no such bargain would have been endured; they were not as\ncattle in their own eyes.\n\nBut, though the bargain proposed by the sorcerer did not take place,\nthis evidence, which the offer of it so clearly affords,--this evidence,\nof the value of a situation of that sort in a commercial point of view,\ncould not naturally either have remained a secret to Paul, or failed to\nengage his attention, and present to his avidity and ambition a ground\nof speculation--an inviting field of enterprise.\n\nFrom the time when he took that leading part, in the condemnation and\nexecution, of the too flamingly zealous manager, of the temporal\nconcerns of the associated disciples of that disastrous orator, by whom\nthe preaching and spiritual functions might, with so much happier an\nissue, have been left in the hands of the Apostles--from that time, down\nto that in which we find him, with letters in his pocket, from the\nrulers of the Jews in their own country, to the rulers of the same\nnation under the government of the neighbouring state of Damascus, he\ncontinued, according to the Acts ix. 1; \"yet breathing out threatenings\nand slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.\"\n\nOf these letters, the object was--the employing the influence of the\nauthorities from which they came, viz. the High Priest and the Elders,\nto the purpose of engaging those to whom they were addressed, to enable\nhim to bring in bonds, to Jerusalem from Damascus, all such converts to\nthe religion of Jesus, as should have been found in the place last\nmentioned.\n\nIn his own person the author of the Acts informs us--that, by Saul,\nletters to this effect were _desired_[14]. In a subsequent chapter, in\nthe person of Paul, viz. in the speech, to the multitude by whom he had\nbeen dragged out of the Temple, in the design of putting him to death,\nhe informs us they were actually _obtained_[15].\n\nIt was in the course of this his journey, and with these letters in his\npocket, that, in and by the vision seen by him while on the road--at\nthat time and not earlier--his conversion was, according to his own\naccount of the matter, effected.\n\nThat which is thought to have been already proved, let it, at least for\nargument's sake, be affirmed. Let us say accordingly--this vision-story\nwas a mere fable. On this supposition, then, what will be to be said of\nthose same letters?--of the views in which they were obtained?--of the\nuse which was eventually made of them?--of the purpose to which they\nwere applied? For all these questions one solution may serve. From what\nis known beyond dispute--on the one hand, of his former way of life and\nconnections--on the other hand, of his subsequent proceeding--an answer,\nof the satisfactoriness of which the reader will have to judge, may,\nwithout much expense of thought, be collected.\n\nIf, in reality, no such vision was perceived by him, no circumstance\nremains manifest whereby the change which so manifestly and notoriously\ntook place in his plan of life, came to be referred to _that_ point in\nthe field of time--in preference to any antecedent one.\n\nSupposing, then, the time of the change to have been antecedent to the\ncommencement of that journey of his to Damascus--antecedent to the time\nof the application, in compliance with which his letter from the ruling\npowers at Jerusalem the object of which was to place at his disposal the\nlot of the Christians at Damascus, was obtained;--this supposed, what,\nin the endeavour to obtain this letter, was his object? Manifestly to\nplace in his power these same Christians: to place them in his power,\nand thereby to obtain from them whatsoever assistance was regarded by\nhim as necessary for the ulterior prosecution of his schemes, as above\nindicated.\n\nOn this supposition, in the event of their giving him that assistance,\nwhich, in the shape of money and other necessary shapes, he\nrequired--on this supposition, he made known to them his determination,\nnot only to spare their persons, but to join with them in their\nreligion; and, by taking the lead in it among the heathen, to whom he\nwas, in several respects, so much better qualified for communicating it\nthan any of the Apostles or their adherents, to promote it to the utmost\nof his power. An offer of this nature--was it in the nature of things\nthat it should be refused? Whatsoever was most dear to them--their own\npersonal security, and the sacred interests of the new religion, the\nzeal of which was yet flaming in their bosoms, concurred in pressing it\nupon their acceptance.\n\nWith the assistance thus obtained, the plan was--to become a declared\nconvert to the religion of Jesus, for the purpose of setting himself at\nthe head of it; and, by means of the expertness he had acquired in the\nuse of the Greek language, to preach, in the name of Jesus, that sort of\nreligion, by the preaching of which, an empire over the minds of his\nconverts, and, by that means, the power and opulence to which he\naspired, might, with the fairest prospect of success, be aimed at.\n\nBut, towards the accomplishment of this design, what presented itself as\na necessary step, was--the entering into a sort of _treaty_, and forming\nat least in appearance, a sort of junction, with the leaders of the new\nreligion and their adherents--the Apostles and the rest of the\ndisciples. As for _them_, in acceding to this proposal, on the\nsupposition of anything like sincerity and consistency on his part,\n_they_ would naturally see much to gain and nothing to lose: much indeed\nto gain; no less than peace and security, instead of that persecution,\nby which, with the exception of the Apostles themselves, to all of whom\nexperience seems, without exception, to have imparted the gift of\nprudence, the whole fraternity had so lately been driven from their\nhomes, and scattered abroad in various directions.\n\nWith the Christians at Damascus, that projected junction was actually\neffected by him: but, in this state of things, to return to Jerusalem\nwas not, at that time, to be thought of. In the eyes of the ruling\npowers, he would have been a trust-breaker--a traitor to their cause: in\nthe eyes of the Christians, he would have been a murderer, with the\nblood of the innocent still reeking on his hands: no one would he have\nfound so much as to lend an ear to his story, much less to endure it. In\nDamascus, after making his agreement with his new brethren, there\nremained little for him to do. Much had he to inform himself of\nconcerning Jesus. Damascus--where Jesus had already so many\nfollowers--Damascus was a place for him to _learn_ in: not to _teach_\nin:--at any rate, at that time.\n\nArabia, a promising field of enterprise--Arabia, a virgin soil, opened\nto his view. There he would find none to abhor his person--none to\ncontradict his assertions: there his eloquence--and, under the direction\nof his judgment, his invention--would find free scope: in that country\nthe reproach of inconsistency could not attach upon him: in that foreign\nland he beheld his place of quarantine--his school of probation--the\nscene of his novitiate. By a few years employed in the exercise of his\nnew calling--with that spirit and activity which would accompany him of\ncourse in every occupation to which he could betake himself--he would\ninitiate himself in, and familiarize himself with, the connected\nexercises of preaching and spiritual rule. At the end of that period,\nwhatsoever might be his success in that country, such a portion of\ntime, passed in innocence, would at any rate allay enmity: such a\nportion of time, manifestly passed, in the endeavour at any rate to\nrender service to the common cause, might even establish confidence.\n\nAt the end of that time, he might, nor altogether without hope of\nsuccess, present himself to the rulers of the church, in the metropolis\nof their spiritual empire: \"Behold, he might say, in me no longer a\npersecutor, but a friend. The persecutor has long vanished: he has given\nplace to the friend. Too true it is, that I was so once your persecutor.\nYears spent in unison with you--years spent in the service of the common\ncause--have proved me. You see before you, a tried man--an ally of tried\nfidelity: present me as such to your disciples: take me into your\ncouncils: all my talent, all my faculties, shall be yours. The land of\nIsrael will continue, as it has been, the field of _your_ holy labours;\nthe land of the Gentiles shall be mine: we will carry on our operations\nin concert; innumerable are the ways in which each of us will derive\nfrom the other--information, assistance, and support.\"\n\nTo Arabia he accordingly repaired: so, in his Epistle to the Galatians,\nGal. i. 17, he himself informs us: in that little-known country, he\ncontinued three whole years--so also, in the same place, he informs us.\nThere it was, that he experienced that success, whatever it was, that\nwent to constitute the ground, of the recommendation given of him by\nBarnabas to the Apostles. From thence he returned to Damascus: and, in\nthat city, presenting himself in his regenerated character, and having\nrealized by his subsequent conduct the expectations raised by his\npromises at the outset of his career[16]; he planned, and as will be\nseen, executed his expedition to Jerusalem: the expedition, the object\nof which has just been brought to view. \"Then,\" says Paul himself, \"I\nwent up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.\"\nGal. 1:18. There, says the author of the Acts, Acts 9:27, 28, \"Barnabas\ntook him and brought him to the Apostles ... and he was with them coming\nin and going out of Jerusalem.\"\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nAT DAMASCUS, NO SUCH ANANIAS PROBABLY.\n\nThis same Ananias--of whom so much has been seen in the last\nchapter--Paul's own imagination excepted, had he anywhere any existence?\nThe probability seems to be on the negative side: and, in the next\nsection, as to whether Paul's companions on the road are not in a\nsimilar predicament, the reader will have to judge. But let us begin\nwith Ananias.\n\nAt Damascus, at any rate--with such power in his hands, for securing\nobsequiousness at the hands of those to whom he was addressing\nhimself--with such power in his hands, Paul could not have had much need\nof anything in the shape of a vision:--he could not have had any need of\nany such person as the seer of the correspondent vision--Ananias.\n\nFor the purpose of aiding the operation of those considerations of\nworldly prudence, which these powers of his enabled him to present, to\nthose whom it concerned,--there might be some perhaps, who, for yielding\nto those considerations, and thus putting themselves under the command\nof this formidable potentate, might look for an authority from the Lord\nJesus. But, forasmuch as, in this very case, even at this time of day,\nvisions, _two_ in name, but, in respect of probative force, reducible to\n_one_--are so generally received as conclusive evidence,--no wonder if,\nat that time of day, by persons so circumstanced, that _one_ vision\nshould be received in that same character. At Damascus, therefore, on\nhis first arrival, there could not be any occasion for any such\ncorroborating story as the story of the vision of Ananias. At\nDamascus--unless he had already obtained, and instructed as his\nconfederate, a man of that name--no such story could, with any prospect\nof success, have been circulated: for the purpose of learning the\nparticulars of an occurrence of such high importance, the residence of\nthis Ananias would have been inquired after: and, by supposition, no\nsatisfactory answer being capable of being given to any such\ninquiries,--no such story could be ventured to be told.\n\nSuch was the case, at that place and at that time. As to any such\nevidence, as that afforded by the _principal_ vision, viz. Paul's\nown,--perhaps no such evidence was found necessary: but, if it _was_\nfound necessary, nothing could be easier than the furnishing it. As to\nthe _secondary_ vision, viz. that ascribed afterwards to a man of the\nname of Ananias,--at that time scarcely could there have been any need\nof it--any demand for it; and, had there been any such demand, scarcely,\nunless previously provided, could any such correspondent supply have\nbeen afforded.\n\nIn other places and posterior times alone, could this supplemental\nvision, therefore, have been put into circulation: accordingly, not till\na great many years after, was mention made of it by the author of the\nActs:--mention made by him, either in his own person, or as having been\nrelated, or alluded to, by Paul himself. Even the author of the\nActs,--though in this same chapter he has been relating the story of\nAnanias's vision,--yet, when he comes to speak, of the way, in which,\naccording to him, Paul, by means of his protector and benefactor\nBarnabas, obtained an introduction to the Apostles, viz. all the\nApostles, in which, however, he is so pointedly contradicted by Paul\nhimself,--yet speaks not of Barnabas, as including, in the\nrecommendatory account he gave them, of Paul--his vision, and his\nmerits--any mention of this supplemental vision:--any mention of any\nAnanias. Acts 9:27.\n\nAt Damascus, howsoever it might be in regard to the Christians--neither\nto Jews, nor to Gentiles, could the production, of any such letters as\nthose in question, have availed him anything. Such as had embraced\nChristianity excepted, neither over Gentiles nor over Jews did those\nletters give him any power: and, as to Jews, the character in\nwhich--after any declaration made of his conversion--he would have\npresented himself, would have been no better than that of an apostate,\nand betrayer of a highly important public trust. To men of both these\ndescriptions, a plea of some sort or other, such as, if believed, would\nbe capable of accounting for so extraordinary a step, as that he should\nchange, from the condition of a most cruel and inveterate persecutor of\nthe new religion, to that of a most zealous supporter and leader,--could\nnot, therefore, but be altogether necessary. No sooner was he arrived at\nDamascus, than, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, he began\npleading, with all his energy, the cause of that religion, which, almost\nto that moment, he had with so much cruelty opposed. As to the story of\nhis vision,--what is certain is--that, sooner or later, for the purpose\nof rendering to men of all descriptions a reason for a change so\npre\u00ebminently extraordinary, he employed this story. But, forasmuch as of\nno other account of it, as given by him, is any trace to be found;--nor\ncan any reason be found, why that which was certainly employed\nafterwards might not as well be employed at and from the first;--hence\ncomes the probability, that from the first it accordingly was employed.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nON DAMASCUS JOURNEY--COMPANIONS NONE.\n\nIn the preceding chapter, a question was started, but no determinate\nanswer as yet found for it: this is--what became of the men,\nwho--according to all the accounts given by Paul, or from him, of his\nconversion vision--were his _companions_ in the journey? At Damascus, if\nany such men there were, they would in course arrive as well as he, and\nat the same time with him. This circumstance considered, if any such men\nthere were,--and they were not in confederacy with him,--the imposition\nmust have been put upon _them_: and, for that purpose, he must, in their\npresence, have uttered the sort of discourse, and exhibited the sort of\ndeportment, mentioned in the above accounts.\n\nTo this difficulty, however, a very simple solution presents itself. _He\nhad no such companions._ Neither by name, nor so much as by any the most\ngeneral description,--either of the persons, or of the total number,--is\nany designation to be found anywhere:--not in the account given in the\nActs; not in any account, given by himself, in any Epistle of his; or,\nas from himself, in any part of the Acts. In the company of divers\nothers, a man was struck down, he says, or it is said of him, by a\nsupernatural light: and, at the instant, and on the spot, has a\nconversation with somebody. Instead of saying who these _other_ men are,\nthe credit of the whole story is left to rest on the credit of this\n_one_ man:--the credit, of a story, the natural improbability of which,\nstood so much need of collateral evidence, to render it credible.\n\nNot till many years had elapsed, after this journey of his were these\naccounts, any one of them, made public: and, in relation to these\npretended companions--supposing him interrogated at any time posterior\nto the publication of the account in the Acts,--after the lapse of such\na number of years, he could, without much difficulty, especially his\nsituation and personal character considered, hold himself at full\nliberty, to remember or to forget, as much or as little, as on each\noccasion he should find convenient.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nFLIGHT FROM DAMASCUS: CAUSES--FALSE--TRUE.\n\nACTS ix. 19-25.\n\n    And when he had received meat he was strengthened. Then was Saul\n    certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.--And\n    straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son\n    of God.--But all that heard him were amazed, and said: Is not this\n    he that destroyeth them which called on his name in Jerusalem; and\n    came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the\n    chief priests?--But Saul increased the more in strength, and\n    confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is\n    very Christ.--And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took\n    counsel to kill him.--But their laying await was known of Saul. And\n    they watched the gates day and night to kill him.--Then the\n    disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a\n    basket.\n\nThe conception, which it was the evident design of this passage to\nimpress upon the mind of the reader, is--that, as soon almost as he was\narrived at Damascus, Paul not only went about preaching Jesus, but\npreaching to that effect openly, and without reserve, in all the\nsynagogues: and that it was for this preaching, and nothing else, that\n\"the Jews,\" thus undiscriminating is the appellation, purposely it should\nseem, employed, \"went about to kill him:\" that thereupon it was, that he\nmade his escape over the wall, and having so done, repaired immediately\nto Jerusalem.\n\nIn this conception, there seems to be evidently a mixture of truth and\nfalsehood.\n\nThat he addressed himself, in a greater or less number, to the\ndisciples,--must assuredly have been true: to the accomplishment of his\ndesigns, as above explained, intercourse with them could not but be\naltogether necessary.\n\nThat, when any probable hope of favourable attention and secrecy were\npointed out to him--that, in here and there an instance, he ventured so\nfar as to address himself to this or that individual, who was not as yet\nenlisted in the number of disciples,--may also have been true: and, for\nthis purpose, he might have ventured perhaps to show himself in some\ncomparatively obscure synagogue or synagogues.\n\nBut, as to his venturing himself so far as to preach in all synagogues\nwithout distinction,--or in any synagogue frequented by any of the\nconstituted authorities,--this seems altogether incredible.\n\nTo engage them to seek his life; to lie in wait to kill him; in other\nwords, to apprehend him for the purpose of trying him, and probably at\nthe upshot killing him,--this is no more than, considering what, in\ntheir eyes, he had been guilty of, was a thing of course: a measure,\ncalled for--not, for preaching the religion of Jesus; not, for any\nboldness in any other way displayed; but, for the betraying of the\ntrust, reposed in him by the constituted authorities at Jerusalem: thus\nprotecting and cherishing those malefactors, for such they had been\npronounced by authority, for the apprehending and punishing of whom, he\nhad solicited the commission he thereupon betrayed. Independently of all\nother offence, given by preaching or anything else,--in this there was\nthat, which, under any government whatever, would have amply\nsufficed--would even more than sufficed--to draw down, upon the head of\nthe offender, a most exemplary punishment.\n\nIn this view, note well the description, given in the Acts, of the\npersons, by whose enmity he was driven out of Damascus; compare with it\nwhat, in relation to this same point, is declared--most explicitly\ndeclared--by Paul himself.\n\nBy the account in the Acts, they were the persons to whom he had been\npreaching Jesus; and who, by that preaching, had been confounded and\nprovoked. Among those persons, a conspiracy was formed for murdering\nhim; and it was to save him from this conspiracy that the disciples let\nhim down the wall in a basket.\n\nSuch is the colour, put upon the matter by the author of the Acts. Now,\nwhat is the truth--the manifest and necessary truth, as\nrelated--explicitly related--by Paul himself? related, in the second of\nhis letters to his Corinthians, on an occasion when the truth would be\nmore to his purpose than the false gloss put upon it by his adherents as\nabove? The peril, by which he was driven thus to make his escape,\nwas--not a murderous conspiracy, formed against him by a set of\nindividuals provoked by his preaching;--it was the intention, formed by\nthe governor of the city. Intention? to do what? to put him to death\nagainst law? No; but to \"_apprehend_\" him. To apprehend him? for what?\nEvidently for the purpose of bringing him to justice in the regular\nway--whatsoever was the regular way--for the offence he had so recently\ncommitted: committed, by betraying his trust, and entering into a\nconfederacy with the offenders, whom he had been commissioned, and had\nengaged, to occupy himself, in concert with the constituted authorities\nof the place, in bringing to justice.\n\n\"In Damascus,\" says he, 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33, \"the governor under Aretas\nthe king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to\napprehend me. And through a window in a basket was I let down by the\nwall, and escaped his hands.\"\n\nAnd on what _occasion_ is it, that this account of the matter is given\nby him? It is at the close of a declamation, which occupies ten\nverses--a declamation, the object of which is--to impress upon the minds\nof his adherents the idea of his merits: viz. those which consisted in\nlabour, suffering, and perils: merits, on which he places his title to\nthe preference he claims above the competitors to whom he\nalludes:--alludes, though without naming them: they being, as he\nacknowledges therein, ministers of Christ, and probably enough, if not\nany of them Apostles, persons commissioned by the Apostles. Greater, it\nis evident, must have been the danger from the ruling powers of the\nplace, than from a set of individual intended murderers:--from the power\nof the rulers there could not be so much as a hope of salvation, except\nby escape: from the individuals there would be a naturally sufficient\nmeans of salvation; the power of the rulers presenting a means of\nsalvation, and that naturally a sufficient one.\n\nNote here, by the by, one of the many exemplifications, of that\nconfusion which reigns throughout in Paul's discourses: the result, of\nthat mixture, which, in unascertainable proportions, seems to have had\nplace--that mixture of nature and artifice. It is at the end of a long\nlist of labours, sufferings, and perils, that this anecdote presents\nitself. Was it accordingly at the end of them that the fact itself had\ntaken place?--No: it was _at_ the very commencement: or rather, so far\nas concerned preaching, _before_ the commencement. Only in the way of\nallusion--allusion in general terms--in terms of merely general\ndescription, without mention of _time_ or _place_, or persons\nconcerned,--are any of the other sufferings or perils mentioned: in this\ninstance alone, is any mention made under any one of those heads: and\nhere we see it under two of them, viz. _place_ and _person_: and\nmoreover, by other circumstances, the _time_, viz. the _relative_ time,\nis pretty effectually fixed.\n\nImmediately afterwards, this same indisputably false colouring will be\nseen laid on, when the account comes to be given, of his departure for\nJerusalem: always for preaching Jesus is he sought after, never for\nanything else.\n\nAccording to this representation, here are two governments--two\nmunicipal governments--one of them, at the solicitation of a functionary\nof its own, giving him a commission to negotiate with another, for the\npurpose of obtaining, at his hands, an authority, for apprehending a set\nof men, who, in the eyes of both, were guilty of an offence against\nboth. Instead of pursuing his commission, and using his endeavours to\nobtain the desired cooperation, he betrays the trust reposed in him:--he\nnot only suffers the alleged malefactors to remain unapprehended and\nuntouched, but enters into a confederacy with them. To both governments,\nthis conduct of his is, according to him, matter of such entire\nindifference, that he might have presented himself everywhere, as if\nnothing had happened, had it not been for his preaching:--had it not\nbeen for his standing forth _openly_, to preach to all that would hear\nhim, the very religion which he had been commissioned to extinguish.\n\nIn such a state of things, is there anything that can, by any\nsupposition, be reconciled to the nature of man, in any situation,--or\nto any form of government?\n\nThree years having been passed by him in that to him strange country,\nwhat, during all that time, were his means of subsistence? To this\nquestion an unquestionable answer will be afforded by the known nature\nof his situation. He was bred to a trade, indeed a handicraft\ntrade--tent-making: an art, in which the operations of the architect\nand the upholsterer are combined. But, it was not to practise either\nthat, or any other manual operation, that he paid his visit to that\ncountry. When he really did practise it, he took care that this\ncondescension of his should not remain a secret: from that, as from\neverything else he ever did or suffered, or pretended to have done or\nsuffered, he failed not to extract the matter of glory for himself, as\nwell as edification for his readers. In Arabia, his means of subsistence\nwere not then derived from his trade: if they had been, we should have\nknown it:--from what source then were they derived?[17] By the very\nnature of his situation, this question has been already answered:--from\nthe purses of those, whom, having had it in his power, and even in his\ncommission, to destroy, he had saved.\n\nAnd now, as to all those things, which, from the relinquishment of his\nlabours in the field of persecution to the first of his four recorded\nvisits to Jerusalem, he is known to have done, answers have been\nfurnished:--answers, to the several questions _why_ and by what _means_,\nsuch as, upon the supposition that the supernatural mode of his\nconversion was but a fable, it will not, it is hoped, be easy to find\ncause for objecting to as insufficient.\n\n\nSECTION 5.\n\nARABIA-VISIT--MENTIONED BY PAUL, NOT ACTS.\n\nNot altogether without special reason, seems the veil of obscurity to\nhave been cast over this long interval. In design, rather than accident,\nor heedlessness, or want of information,--may be found, it should seem,\nthe cause, of a silence so pregnant with misrepresentation. In addition\nto a length of time, more or less considerable, spent in Damascus, a\ncity in close communication with Jerusalem, in giving proofs of his\nconversion,--three years spent in some part or other of the contiguous\nindeed, but wide-extending, country of Arabia--(spent, if Paul is to be\nbelieved, in preaching the religion of Jesus, and at any rate in a state\nof peace and innoxiousness with relation to it)--afforded such proof of\na change of plan and sentiment, as, in the case of many a man, might,\nwithout miracle or wonder, have sufficed to form a basis for the\nprojected alliance:--this proof, even of itself; much more, when\ncorroborated, by the sort of certificate, given to the Church by its\npreeminent benefactor Barnabas, who, in introducing the new convert, to\nthe leaders among the Apostles, for the special purpose of proposing the\nalliance,--took upon himself the personal responsibility, so inseparably\ninvolved in such a mark of confidence.\n\nIn this state of things then, which is expressly asserted by Paul to\nhave been, and appears indubitably to have been, a real\none,--considerations of an ordinary nature being sufficient--to\nproduce--not only the effect actually produced--but, in the case of many\na man, much more than the effect actually produced,--there was no\ndemand, at that time, for a miracle: no demand for a miracle, for any\nsuch purpose, as that of working, upon the minds of the Apostles, to any\nsuch effect as that of their maintaining, towards the new convert, a\nconduct free from hostility, accompanied with a countenance of outward\namity. But, for other purposes, and in the course of his intercourse\nwith persons of other descriptions, it became necessary for him to have\nhad these visions: it became necessary--not only for the purpose of\nproving connection on his part with the departed Jesus, to the\nsatisfaction of all those by whom such proof would be looked for,--but,\nfor the further purpose, of ascribing to Jesus, whatsoever doctrines the\nprosecution of his design might from time to time call upon him to\npromulgate;--those doctrines, in a word, which, (as will be seen), being\nhis and not Jesus's--not reported by anyone else as being Jesus's--we\nshall find him, notwithstanding, preaching, and delivering,--so much at\nhis ease, and with unhesitating assurance.\n\nA miracle having therefore been deemed necessary (the miracle of the\nconversion-vision), and reported accordingly,--thus it is, that, by the\nappearance of suddenness, given to the sort and degree of confidence\nthereupon reported as having been bestowed upon him by the Apostles, a\nsort of confirmation is, in the Acts account, given to the report of the\nmiracle: according to this account, it was not by the three or four\nyears passed by him in the prosecution of their designs, or at least\nwithout obstruction given to them;--it was not by any such proof of\namity, that the intercourse, such as it was, had been effected:--no: it\nwas by the report of the vision--that report which, in the first\ninstance, was made to them by their generous benefactor and powerful\nsupporter, Barnabas; confirmed, as, to every candid eye it could not\nfail to be, by whatever accounts were, on the occasion of the personal\nintercourse, delivered from his own lips. \"But Barnabas (says the\nauthor) took him and brought him to the Apostles, and declared unto them\nhow he had _seen_ the Lord by the way, and that he had spoken to him,\nand how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.\" Acts\n9:27.\n\nWhen in the year 57, Paul,[18] to so many other boastings, was added the\nsufferings he would have us think were courted and endured by him, while\npreaching in the name of Jesus, that gospel, which he proclaims to have\nbeen his own, and not that of the Apostles, little assuredly did he\nthink, that five years after, or thereabout, from the hand of one of his\nown attendants, a narrative was to appear, in which, of these same\nsufferings a so much shorter list would be given; or that, by an odd\nenough coincidence, more than seventeen centuries after, by a namesake\nof his honored patron, Doctor Gamaliel, the contradiction thus given to\nhim, would be held up to view.\n\nIn the second of his epistles to his Corinthians, dated A.D. 57,--the\nfollowing is the summary he gives of those same sufferings. Speaking of\ncertain unnamed persons, styled by him false Apostles, but whom reasons\nare not wanting for believing to have been among the disciples of the\nreal ones,--\"Are they,\" says he, 2 Cor. xi. 23, \"ministers of Christ? I\nspeak as one beside himself, I am more: in labours more abundant: in\n_stripes_ above measure: in prisons more frequent: in deaths, oft.--Of\nthe Jews five times received I forty stripes, save one.--Thrice was I\nbeaten with rods; once was I stoned: thrice I suffered shipwreck: a\nnight and a day have I been in the deep.\" Thus far as per _Paul_.\n\nAdd from his former Epistle to the same in the same year, battle with\nbeasts, one. \"If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at\nEphesus, what advantageth it me,\" continues he, 1 Cor. XV. 32, \"if the\ndead rise not, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.\"\n\nLet us now see how the account stands, as per _Acts_. On the part of\nthis his panegyrist, whether any such habit had place as that of cutting\ndown below their real amount, either the sufferings or the actings of\nhis hero, the reader will have judged. Of both together, let it not be\nforgotten, the Acts' account comes some five years lower, than the date\nof the above tragical list: in it are included those sufferings and\nperils which we have seen, namely, those produced by the voyage to Rome,\nand which, at the time of Paul's list, had not taken their commencement.\nNow then for the Acts' list. Stripes, nine-and-thirty in a parcel, none:\ndifference five. Beatings with rods, saving one possible one, of which\npresently, none; difference, three. Stoning, one[19]. Shipwreck, as yet\nnone: the accident at Malta being three years subsequent. \"Night and day\nin the deep,\"--according as it was _on_ or _in_ the deep--either nothing\nat all, or an adventure considerably too singular to have been passed\nover. _Diving-bells_ are not commonly supposed to have been, at that\ntime of day, in use; but whoever has a taste for predictions, may, if it\nbe agreeable to him, see those same scientific instruments or the\nequivalent in this Gospel of Paul's predicted.\n\nAs to the parcels of stripes, the self-constituted Apostle takes credit\nfor, they would have been,--supposing them administered,--administered,\nall of them, according to law, meaning always the law of _Moses_: for,\nit is in that law, (namely in Deuteronomy XXV. 3) that the clause,\nlimiting to nine-and-thirty, the number to be given at a time, is to be\nfound. Of these statements of Paul's, let it not pass unnoticed, the\nplace is--a formal and studied Epistle, not an extempore speech: so that\nthe falsehood in them, if any, was not less deliberate than the Temple\nperjury.\n\nOf all these same boasted bodily sufferings, eight in the whole, when\nput together,--one was, at the outset, reserved for consideration: let\nus see what light, if any, is cast upon it by the Acts. One beating, the\nActs informs us of: and it was a beating by order of magistrates: and\naccordingly, a beating according to law. But the law, according to which\nit was given, was not Jewish law: the magistrates, by whose order it was\ngiven, were not Jewish magistrates. The magistrates were heathens: and\nit was for being Jews, and preaching in the Jewish style, that Paul, and\nhis companion Silas, were thus visited. It was at Philippi that the\naffair happened: it was immediately preceded by their adventure with the\ndivineress, as per Acts 16:16; 34, Chap. 13: and brought about by the\nresentment of her masters, to whose established business, the\ninnovation, introduced by these interlopers, had given disturbance: it\nwas followed--immediately followed--by the earthquake, which was so\ndexterous in taking irons off. Whether therefore this beating was in\nPaul's account comprised in the eight stripings and beatings, seems not\npossible, humanly speaking, to know: not possible, unless so it be, that\nPaul, being the wandering Jew, we have sometimes heard of, is still\nalive,--still upon the look-out, for that a\u00ebrial voyage, which, with or\nwithout the expectation of an a\u00ebrostatic vehicle, we have seen him so\nconfident in the assurance of.\n\nRemains the battle with the beasts. What these same beasts were, how\nmany there were of them,--how many legs they respectively had--for\nexample, two or four--in what way he was introduced into their\ncompany,--whence his difference with them took its rise,--whether it was\nof his own seeking, or by invitation that he entered the lists with\nthese his antagonists,--how it fared with _them_ when the affair was\nover,--(for as to the hero himself, it does not appear that he was much\nthe worse for it);--these, amongst other questions, might be worth\nanswering, upon the supposition, that these antagonists of his were real\nbeings and real beasts, and not of the same class as the arch-beast of\nhis own begetting--Antichrist. But, the plain truth seems to be, that if\never he fought with beasts, it was in one of his visions: in which case,\nfor proof of the occurrence, no visible mark of laceration could\nreasonably be demanded. Meantime, to prove the negative, as far as, in a\ncase such as this, it is in the nature of a negative to be proved,--we\nmay, without much fear of the result, venture to call his ever-devoted\nscribe. To this same Ephesus,--not more than a twelvemonth or\nthereabouts, before the date of the Epistle--he brings his\npatron,--finds appropriate employment for him,--and, off and on, keeps\nhim there for no inconsiderable length of time. There it is, that we\nhave seen, Chap. 13, \u00a7. 7., his handkerchiefs driving out devils as well\nas diseases: there it is, and for no other reason than that _he_ is\nthere--there it is, that we have seen so many thousand pounds worth of\nmagical books burnt--and by their owners: there it is, that with a\nsingle handkerchief of his,--which so it were but used, was an overmatch\nfor we know not how many devils,--we saw a single devil, with no other\nhands than those of the man he lodged in, wounding and stripping to the\nskin no fewer than seven men at the same time. If, then, with or without\na whole skin at the conclusion of it, he had really had any such\nrencounter, with one knows not how many beasts, is it in the nature of\nthe case, that this same historiographer of his, should have kept us\nignorant of it? To be shut up with wild beasts, until torn to pieces by\nthem, was indeed one of the punishments, for which men were indebted to\nthe ingenuity of the Roman lawyers: but, if any such sentence was really\nexecuted upon our self-constituted Apostle, his surviving it was a\nmiracle too brilliant not to have been placed at the head of all his\nother miracles: at any rate, too extraordinary to have been passed by\naltogether without notice. The biographer of Daniel was not thus\nnegligent.\n\nAfter all, was it really matter of pure invention--this same battle? or\nmay it not, like so many of the quasi-miracles in the Acts, have had a\nmore or less substantial foundation in fact? The case may it not have\nbeen--that, while he was at Ephesus, somebody or other set a dog at him,\nas men will sometimes do at a troublesome beggar? or that, whether with\nhand or tongue, some person, male or female, set upon him with a degree\nof vivacity, which, according to Paul's zoology, elucidated by Paul's\neloquence, entitled him or her to a place in the order of beasts?--Where\ndarkness is thus visible, no light can be so faint, as not to bring with\nit some title to indulgence.\n\nOf the accounts, given us by the historiographer, of the exploits and\nexperiences of his hero while at Ephesus, one article more will complete\nthe list. When any such opportunity offered, as that of presenting him\nto view, in his here assumed character, of a candidate for the honours\nof martyrdom,--was it or was it not in the character of the\nhistoriographer to let it pass unimproved? To our judgment on this\nquestion, some further maturity may be given, by one more law-case, now\nto be brought to view. Under some such name as that of the _Ephesian\nDiana_, not unfrequent are the allusions to it. _Church of Diana\nsilversmiths versus Paul and Co._ is a name, by which, in an English law\nreport, it might with more strict propriety be designated. Plaintiffs,\nsilversmiths' company just named: Defendants, Paul and Co.; to wit, said\nPaul, Alexander, Aristarchus, Alexander and others. Acts, 22:41. Action\non the case for words:--the words, in tenor not reported: purport,\nimporting injury in the way of trade. Out of the principal cause, we\nshall see growing a sort of cross cause: a case of assault, in which\nthree of the defendants were, or might have been, plaintiffs: cause of\naction, assault, terminating in false imprisonment. In this\nexercetitious cause, defendants not individually specified: for, in\nthose early days, note-taking had not arrived at the pitch of\nperfection, at which we see it at present. That which,--with reference\nto the question--as to the truth of the beast-fighting story,--is more\nparticularly material in the two cases taken together,--is this: in the\nsituation, in which these junior partners of Paul found themselves,\nthere was some difficulty, not to say some danger. Pressed, as he\nhimself was afterwards, in his invasion of Jerusalem,--pressed in more\nsenses than one, _they_ found themselves by an accusing multitude. What\non this occasion does Paul? He slips his neck out of the collar. So far\nfrom lending them a hand for their support, he will not so much as lend\nthem a syllable of his eloquence. Why? because forsooth, says his\nhistoriographer, Acts xix. 30, 31, \"the disciples suffered him not:\"\n_item_, v. 30, \"certain\" others of \"his friends.\" When, as we have seen\nhim, spite of everything that could be said to him, he repaired to\nJerusalem on his _Invasion Visit_,--he was not quite so perfectly under\nthe government of his friends. On the present occasion, we shall find\nhim sufficiently tractable. Was this a man to be an antagonist and\novermatch for wild beasts?\n\nNow as to the above-mentioned principal case. Plaintiffs, dealers in\nsilver goods: Defendants, dealers in words. To be rivals in trade, it is\nnot necessary that men should deal exactly in the same articles:--the\nsale of the words injured the sale of the goods: so at least the\nplaintiffs took upon them to aver: for, in such a case, suspicion is not\napt to lie asleep. The church of Diana was the Established Church, of\nthat place and time. To the honour, the plaintiffs added the profit, of\nbeing silversmiths to that same Excellent Church. To the value of that\nsort of evidence, which it is the province of silversmiths to furnish,\nno established church was ever insensible. The evidence, furnished by\nthe church silversmiths of these days, is composed of _chalices_: under\nthe Pagan dispensation, the evidence furnished by the church\nsilversmiths of the church of the Ephesian Diana, was composed of\n_shrines_. When, with that resurrection of his own, and that Gospel of\nhis own, of which so copious a sample remains to us in his\nEpistles,--Paul, with or without the name of Jesus in his mouth, made\nhis appearance in the market, Plaintiffs, as we have seen, took the\nalarm. They proceeded, as the pious sons of an established church could\nnot fail to proceed. Before action commenced, to prepare the way for a\nsuitable judgment,--they set to work, and set on fire the inflammable\npart of the public mind. The church was declared to be in danger, ver.\n27: the church of Diana, just as the church of England and Ireland would\nbe, should any such sacrilegious proposition be seriously made, as that\nof tearing out of her bosom any of those precious sinecures, of which\nher vitals are composed. In Ephesus, it is not stated, that, at that\ntime, any society bearing the name of the _Vice Society_, or the\n_Constitutional Association_, was on foot. But, of those pious\ninstitutions the equivalent could not be wanting. Accordingly, the\ncharge of _blasphemy_, it may be seen, ver. 37, was not left unemployed.\nSo the defence shows: the defence, to wit, made by the probity and\nwisdom of the judge: for, by the violence of the church mob,--who, but\nfor him, were prepared to have given a precedent, to that which set\nBirmingham in flames,--the defendants were placed in the condition of\nprisoners: and the judge, seeing the violence, of the prejudice they had\nto encounter, felt the necessity, of adding to the function of judge,\nthat of counsel for the prisoners.\n\nBut it is time to turn to the text: not a particle of it can be spared.\n\nACTS xix. 22-41.\n\n     22. So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him,\n     Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a\n     season.--And the same time, there arose no small stir about that\n     way;--For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made\n     silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the\n     craftsmen;--Whom he called together with the workmen of like\n     occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our\n     wealth.--Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but\n     almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned\n     away much people, saying, that they be no gods, which are made\n     with hands:--So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set\n     at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana\n     should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom\n     all Asia and the world worshippeth.--And when they heard these\n     sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is\n     Diana of the Ephesians.--And the whole city was filled with\n     confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of\n     Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord\n     into the theatre.--And when Paul would have entered in, unto the\n     people, the disciples suffered him not.--And certain of the chief\n     of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that\n     he would not adventure himself into the theatre.--Some, therefore,\n     cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused;\n     and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.--And\n     they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him\n     forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made\n     his defence unto the people;--But when they knew he was a Jew, all\n     with one voice, about the space of two hours, cried out, Great is\n     Diana of the Ephesians.--And when the town clerk had appeased the\n     people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth\n     not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great\n     goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from\n     Jupiter?--Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against,\n     ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.--For ye have\n     brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches,\n     nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.--Wherefore, if Demetrius, and\n     the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man,\n     the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one\n     another.--But if ye inquire anything concerning other matters, it\n     shall be determined in a lawful assembly.--For we are in danger to\n     be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause\n     whereby we may give an account of this concourse.--And when he had\n     thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.\n\nThe _Judge_ by whom the principal cause was tried, and the plaintiffs\nnon-suited, is styled, we see \"_the Town Clerk_:\" the more appropriate\nand respected title would not on this occasion have been ill-applied to\nhim. Except what we have here been seeing, we know nothing of him that\nis _positive_: but, seeing thus much of him, we see that he was an\nhonest man: and an honest man is not ill portrayed by negatives. He had\nno coronet playing before his eyes: no overpaid places and sinecures for\nrelatives. He had not been made judge, for publishing a liturgy of the\nchurch of Diana, with an embroidery composed of his own comments,--or\nfor circulating, with anonymous delicacy, a pious warning, never to be\nabsent from the shrine of Diana, when the sacred cup was, proffered by\nthe hands of holy priests. Accordingly, when the charge of _blasphemy_\nwas brought before him,--being a heathen, he found no difficulty in\ntreating it, in that gentle and soothing mode, in which, when, from the\nbosom of an established church it enters into a man, the spirit, which\ncalls itself the spirit of Christianity, renders him so averse to the\ntreating it. If, when his robes were off, he spoke of Diana what we now\nthink of her,--he did not, when they were on, foam or rave,\ndeclare--that all, who would not swear to their belief in her, were not\nfit to be believed, or so much as fit to live.\n\nBy him, one man was not robbed of his rights, because another man, when\ncalled upon as a witness, refused to perjure himself. By him, a man was\nnot refused to be heard as a witness, nor refused protection for the\nfruits of his industry, nor deprived of the guardianship of his\nchildren, because he waited to see Diana, before he declared himself a\nbeliever in her existence. In the open theatre was pronounced the\njudgment we have seen. He did not, by secret sittings, deprive men of\nthe protection of the public eye. He did not, we may stand assured--for\nwe see how far the people of Ephesus were from being tame enough to\nendure it--he did not keep men's property in his hands, to be plundered\nby himself, his children, or his creatures, till the property was\nabsorbed, and the proprietors sent broken-hearted to their graves. He\ndid not--for the people of Ephesus would not have endured it--wring out\nof distress a princely income, on pretence of giving decisions,\ndeclaring all the while his matchless incapacity for everything but\nprating or raising doubts. He did not display,--he could not have\ndisplayed--the people of Ephesus could not have endured it--any such\neffrontery, as, when a judicatory was to sit upon his conduct, to set\nhimself down in it, and assume and carry on the management of it. He\nwould not have sought impunity--for if he had sought it in Ephesus, he\nwould not have found it there--he would not have sought impunity, in\neyes lifted up to heaven, or streaming with crocodile tears.\n\nThus much as to his negative merits. But, we have seen enough of him, to\nsee one great positive one. When, from the inexhaustible source of\ninflammation, a flame was kindled,--he did not fan the flame,--he\nquenched it.\n\nThe religion of Diana having thus come upon the carpet, a reflection\nwhich could not be put by, is--spite of all efforts of the church\nsilversmiths, in how many essential points, negative as they are, the\nreligion of Diana had, on the ground of usefulness, the advantage of\nthat, which _is_ the religion of Paul, and _is called_ the religion of\nJesus. Diana drove no men out of their senses, by pictures or\npreachments of never-ending torments. On pretence of saving men from\nfuture sufferings, no men were consigned by it to present ones. No\nmischievous, no pain-producing, no real vice, was promoted by it. It\ncompelled no perjury, no hypocrisy: it rewarded none. It committed, it\nsupported, it blessed, it lauded, no depredation, no oppression in any\nshape: it plundered no man of the fruits of his industry, under the name\nof _tithes_. For the enrichment of the sacred shrines,--money, in any\nquantity, we may venture to say, received: received, yes: but in no\nquantity extorted. One temple was sufficient for _that_ goddess.\nBelieving, or not believing in her divinity,--no men were compelled to\npay money, for more temples, more priests, or more shrines.\n\n_As to the religion of Jesus, true it is, that so long as it continued\nthe religion of Jesus, all was good government, all was equality, all\nwas harmony: free church, the whole; established church, none: monarchy,\nnone; constitution, democratical. Constitutive authority, the whole\ncommunity: legislative, the Apostles of Jesus_; executive, the\nCommissioners of the Treasury: not Lords Commissioners, appointed by a\nKing Herod, but trustees or _stewards_; for such should have been the\nword, and not _deacons_,--_agents elected by universal suffrage_. In\nthis felicitous state, how long it continued--we know not. What we do\nknow, is--that, _in the fourth century_, _despotism_ took possession of\nit, and made an instrument of it. Becoming _established_, it became\nnoxious,--preponderantly noxious. For, where _established_ is the\nadjunct to it, what does _religion_ mean? what but _depredation_,\ncorruption, oppression, hypocrisy? _depredation_, _corruption_,\n_oppression_, _hypocrisy_--these four: with delusion, in all its forms\nand trappings, for support.\n\nSo pregnant is this same boasting passage--1 Cor. xv. 32, the labour it\nhas thrown upon us, is not altogether at an end. By what it says of the\nresurrection, the memory has been led back, to what we have seen on the\nsame subject, in one of Paul's Epistles to his Thessalonians: brought\ntogether, the two doctrines present a contrast too curious to be left\nunnoticed. Of the apparatus employed by him in his trade of\n_disciple-catcher_, his talk about the resurrection, was, it may well be\nimagined, a capital article. Being, according to his own motto, _all\nthings to all men_, 1 Cor. ix. 22, whatever it happened to him to say on\nthe subject, was dished up, of course, according to the taste of those\nhe had to deal with. To some it was a _prediction_: for such, we have\nseen, was the form it assumed when the people to be wrought upon were\nthe Thessalonians. To others, when occasion called, it was a statement\nconcerning something _past_, or supposed to be past. On an occasion of\nthis sort it was, that the name of Jesus, another article of that same\napparatus, was of so much use to him. True it is, that to the doctrine\nof the _general_ resurrection in time future, he had, it must be\nremembered, no need of declaring himself beholden to Jesus: at least, if\non this point, the Acts' history is to be believed: for, of the\nPharisees,--the sect to which Paul belonged--of the Pharisees, as\ncompared with the other sect the Sadducees, it was the distinctive\ntenet. But, of the then future, the then past, as exemplified in the\n_particular_ case of Jesus, could not but afford very impressive\ncircumstantial evidence. Of this momentous occurrence, there were the\nreal Apostles, ready to give their accounts,--conformable, it may be\npresumed, to those we see given, as from them, by the four Evangelists.\nThese accounts, however, would not suit the purpose of the\nself-constituted Apostle: in the first place, because they came from\nthe real Apostles, with whom, as we have so often seen, it was a\ndeclared principle with him not to have had anything to do: in the next\nplace, because the Apostles were too scrupulous: they would not have\nfurnished him with witnesses enough. His own inexhaustible fund--his own\ninvention,--was therefore the fund, on this occasion, drawn upon: and,\naccordingly, instead of the number of witnesses,--say _a score_ or two\nat the utmost--he could have got from the Apostles,--it supplied him\nwith _five hundred_: five hundred, _all at once_: to which, if pressed,\nhe could have added any other number of percipient witnesses whatsoever,\nprovided only that it was at _different_ times they had been such.\n\nSo much for explanation: now for the announced contrast. Whoever the\npeople were, whom he had to address himself to,--they had contracted, he\nfound, a bad habit: it was that of _eating and drinking_. Reason is but\ntoo apt to be seduced by, and enlisted in the service of her most\ndangerous enemy--_Appetite_. Not only did they eat and drink; but they\nhad found, as it seemed to them, _reason_ for so doing. They ate and\ndrank--why? because they were to die after it. \"Let us eat and drink,\"\nsaid the language we have seen him reproaching them with, 1 Cor. xv. 32.\n\"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.\"\n\nThe case is--that, in pleasure, in whatever shape they see her,--all\nmen, to whose ambition supernatural terrors supply an instrument of\ndominion, behold their most formidable rival. Against such a rival,\nwonderful indeed it would be, if their hostility were not\nproportionable. No morality accordingly do they acknowledge, that does\nnot include, with or without other things, hatred,--with or without\ncontempt, of pleasure. Such, too, as is their morality, such is their\nlaw. Death is scarce severe enough, for a pleasure, which they either\nhave, or would be thought to have, no relish for. So at least says what\nthey teach: but, teaching how to act is one thing; acting accordingly,\nanother. Thus we all see it is, in so many instances: and thus, without\nmuch danger of injustice, we may venture to suppose it may have been, in\nthat of the self-constituted Apostle.\n\nNot so Jesus: no harm did he see in eating and drinking, unless with the\npleasure it produced greater pain. With this reserve, no harm,--for\nanything that appears in any one of the four histories we have of\nhim,--no harm did he see in anything that gives pleasure. What every man\nknows--and what Jesus knew as well as any man--for neither in words nor\nin acts did he deny it--is,--that happiness, at what time soever\nexperienced,--happiness, to be anything, must be composed of pleasures:\nand, be the man who he may, of what it is that gives pleasure to him, he\nalone can be judge.\n\nBut, to return to eating and drinking. Eating and drinking--he gives his\nmen to understand--even he, holy as he is, should not have had any\nobjection to, had it not been for this same resurrection of his, which\nhe was telling them of: eating and drinking--a practice, to which,\nnotwithstanding this resurrection of his, and so much as he had told\nthem of it, he had the mortification to find them so much addicted. So\nmuch for his _Corinthians_. It was, as we see, _for want_ of their\npaying, to what he was thus telling them about the resurrection, that\nattention, to which it was so well entitled,--that _they_ still kept on\nin that bad habit. But his _Thessalonians_--they too, as we have seen,\nhad got the same bad habit. Well: and what was it that gave it them?\nWhat but their paying too much attention to this same resurrection of\nhis, dished up in the same or another manner, by the same inventive and\nexperienced hand. In conclusion, on laying the two cases together, what\nseems evident enough is--that, in whatever manner served up to them, his\nresurrection, whatever it was, was considerably more effectual in making\npeople eat and drink, than in weaning them from it.\n\n\nSECTION 6.\n\nGAMALIEL--HAD HE PART IN PAUL'S PLAN?\n\nGamaliel--in the working of this conversion, may it not be that\nGamaliel--a person whose reality seems little exposed to doubt--had\nrather a more considerable share, than the above-mentioned unknown and\nunknowable Ananias?\n\nGamaliel was \"a doctor of law\" Acts 5:34--a person of sufficient note,\nto have been a member of the council, in which the chief priests, under\nthe presidency of the High Priest, Acts 5:24, took cognizance of the\noffence with which Peter and his associates had a little before this\nbeen charged, on the occasion of their preaching Jesus. Under this\nGamaliel, had Paul, he so at least is made to tell us, studied, Acts\n22:3. Between Paul and this Gamaliel, here then is a connection: a\nconnection--of that sort, which, in all places, at all times, has\nexistence,--and of which the nature is everywhere and at all times so\nwell understood--the connection between _proteg\u00e9_ and protector. It was\nby authority from the governing body, that Paul was, at this time,\nlavishing his exertions in the persecution of the Apostles and their\nadherents:--who then so likely, as this same Gamaliel, to have been the\npatron, at whose recommendation the commission was obtained? Of the\ncognizance which this Gamaliel took, of the conduct and mode of life of\nthe religionists in question,--the result was favourable. \"Let them\nalone,\" were his words. Acts v. 38. The maintenance, derived by the\n_proteg\u00e9_, on that same occasion, from the persecution of these\ninnoxious men--this maintenance being at once odious, dangerous, and\nprecarious,--while the maintenance, derivable from the taking a part in\nthe direction of their affairs, presented to view a promise of being at\nonce respectable, lucrative, and permanent;--what more natural then,\nthat this change, from left to right, had for its origin the advice of\nthis same patron?--advice, to which, all things considered, the epithet\n_good_ could not very easily be refused.\n\n\nFALSE PRETENCES EMPLOYED.\n\nTo the self-constituted Apostle, false pretences were familiar. They\nwere not--they could not have been--without an object. One object was\npower: this object, when pursued, is of itself abundantly sufficient to\ncall forth such means. But, another object with Paul was money: of its\nbeing so, the passages referred to as above, will afford abundant\nproofs. A man, in whose composition the appetite for money, and the\nhabit of using false pretences are conjoined, will be still more likely\nto apply them to that productive purpose, than to any barren one. In the\ncharacter of a general argument, the observations thus submitted, are\nnot, it should seem, much exposed to controversy.\n\nBut, of a particular instance, of money obtained by him on a false\npretence,--namely, by the pretence of its being for the use of others,\nwhen his intention was to convert it to his own use,--a mass of evidence\nwe have, which presents itself as being in no slight degree probative.\nIt is composed of two several declarations of his own,--with, as above\nreferred to, the explanation of it, afforded by a body of circumstantial\nevidence, which has already been under review: and as, in the nature of\nthe case, from an evil-doer of this sort, evidence to a fact of this\nsort, cannot reasonably be expected to be frequently observable,--the\nlabour, employed in bringing it here to view, will not, it is presumed,\nbe chargeable, with being employed altogether without fruit.\n\nFirst, let us see a passage, in the first of his Epistles to his\n_Corinthians_, date of it, A.D. 57. In this, we shall see a regularly\nformed system of money-gathering: an extensive application of it to\nvarious and mutually distant countries, with indication given of\nparticular times and places, in which it was his intention to pursue it:\nalso, intimation, of a special charitable purpose, to which it was his\nprofessed intention to make application of the produce of it, at a place\nspecified: namely, Jerusalem.\n\nFirst then comes, 1 Cor. 16:1-8. A.D. 57.\n\n\"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to\nthe churches of _Galatia_, even so do _ye_.--Upon the _first day of the\nweek_, let every one of you _lay by him in store_, as God hath prospered\nhim, that there be no gatherings when I come.--And when I come,\nwhomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring\nyour liberality unto _Jerusalem_.--And if it be meet that I go also,\nthey shall go with me.--Now I will come unto you when I shall pass\nthrough Macedonia; for I do pass through _Macedonia_.--And it may be\nthat I will abide, yea and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my\njourney whithersoever I go.--For I will not see you now by the way: but\nI trust to tarry a while with _you_ if the Lord permit.--But I will\ntarry at _Ephesus_ until Pentecost.\" At Ephesus, where he becomes an\nobject of jealousy, as we have seen, to the church-silversmiths; and,\nfrom his declared business at those _other_ places, some evidence surely\nis afforded of what was his probable business in _that_ place.\n\nNext let us see a passage in his Epistle to his _Romans_: date of it,\nA.D. 58. Here, in two instances, we shall see the success, with which\nthis system was pursued by him: as also a maxim, laid down by him--a\nmaxim, in which the existence of this same system, on his part, is\nacknowledged: a maxim, in which his hopes of success in the pursuit of\nit, are declaredly founded.\n\nRom. 15:24-28. A.D. 58.\n\n\"Whensoever I take my journey into _Spain_, I will come to you; for I\ntrust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward\nby you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.--But now I go\nunto _Jerusalem, to minister unto the Saints_.--For it hath pleased them\nof _Macedonia_ and _Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor\nsaints which are at Jerusalem_.--It hath pleased them verily: and their\ndebtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made _partakers of their\nspiritual things_, their _duty_ is also _to minister unto them in carnal\nthings_.--When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them\nthis fruit, I will come _by you_ into _Spain_.\"\n\nIn the instance in question, money (we see)--of the quantity of course\nnothing said--is mentioned by him, as being actually in his hands: the\npurpose, for which it was there,--and to which he would of course be\nunderstood to intend applying it,--being also mentioned by\nhim:--applying it, at Jerusalem, to the use of the poor saints. So much\nfor _professed_ intentions. Now then for _real_ ones. Answer, in his own\nwords: that those Gentiles, who by him had been made partakers of his\nspiritual things, might, as in \"_duty_\" bound, \"minister\" to him, so\nmuch the more effectively \"in carnal things:\" that he, who preached,\nwhat he called the Gospel, might, as he had been preaching to his\nCorinthians also (1 Cor. ix. 14) be enabled so much the more comfortably\nto \"live by\" it.\n\n\"The poor saints which are at Jerusalem:\"--_the_ poor saints--to wit,\nnot here and there a saint or two, but the whole Christian population\nliving together on a common stock--if now, A.D. 58, they were living, as\nA.D. 53 they were (Acts ii. 44; vi. 1) and, in this particular, from the\nbeginning to the end of the history, no change is mentioned--in\nJerusalem--was it in the nature of man, in that state of men and\nthings,--was it in the nature of men and things, that any man, who had\nany knowledge of their situation, and of the terms on which Paul, from\nfirst to last, had been with them, could for a moment have thought of\nlodging, for _their_ use, any the smallest sum of money in _his_ hands?\nas well might it be said, at this moment--a man, whose wish it was to\nconvey money to Spain, for the use of the Cortes, would choose the hand\nof the Duc d'Angouleme to send it by. All this time, _there_ were the\nApostles of Jesus--patrons of those same saints: and, anywhere more\neasily than _there_, could he be. That, with this money in his hands,\namong his objects was--the employing more or less of it in the endeavour\nto form a party there, may not unreasonably be supposed, from what we\nhave seen of that _Invasion Visit_, by which his designs upon Jerusalem\nwere endeavoured to be carried into effect. For, according to Acts\n19:21, already when he was at Ephesus, as above, was it his known\ndesign, to try his fortune once more in Jerusalem, and after that in\nRome. This may have been among his designs, or not. Be this as it may,\nthis would have been no more than a particular way, of converting the\nmoney to his own use.\n\nNot that, if at this time, and for _this purpose_ from even the quarters\nin question, money had come, as he says it had, there was anything very\nwonderful in its so doing. As to _us_ indeed _we_ know pretty well what\nsort of terms he was on, from first to last, with the community in\nquestion: _we_ know this, because his historiographer has made us know\nit. But, as to the people of those same countries respectively,--at\ntheir distance from Jerusalem, what, in their situation, might easily\nenough happen was,--not to have, as to this point, any adequate\ninformation till it was too late to profit by it: and, that such would\nbe their ignorance, is a matter, of which he might not less easily have\nthat which, to a man of his daring and sanguine temper, would be a\nsufficient assurance.\n\nOne thing there is, which, on the occasion of any view they took of this\nsubject, may perhaps have contributed to blind their eyes. This is--the\nfact, of his having actually been concerned, in bringing money to\nJerusalem, for a similar purpose, though it must be confessed, not less\nthan fourteen years before this: to wit, from Antioch, as stated in\nChapter V., speaking of _that_--his second Jerusalem Visit, by the name\nof the _Money-bringing Visit_.\n\nBut,--what may easily enough have happened, distance in time and place,\ntogether considered, is--that to those particulars, which composed no\nmore than the surface of the business, _their_ knowledge was confined:\nwhile _we_, though at the distance of more than seventeen centuries,\nknow more or less of the inside of it,--let into it, as we have been, by\nthe author of the Acts.\n\nAs to their arriving sooner or later, at the suspicion, or though it\nwere the discovery, that the money had not, any part of it, reached the\nhands it was intended for, nor was in any way to do so,--what bar could\nthe apprehension of any such result oppose, to the enterprise,\nsystematic, as we see it was, of the creator of Antichrist? When, to a\nman, who occupies a certain situation in the eye of the political world,\ncalls for accounts are become troublesome,--Scipio might have informed\nhim, if he had not well enough known of himself, how to answer them.\n\nWhen a charge made upon you is true--evidence full against you,\nand none to oppose to it,--fly into a passion, magnify your own\nexcellence--magnify the depravity of your adversaries. This mode, of\nparrying a charge, is perfectly well understood in our days, nor could\nit have been much less well understood in Paul's days. As for _his_\nadversaries, Paul had a storm _in petto_ at all times ready for them:\nfor the materials, turn to any page of his Epistles: whatever, in this\nway, he had for rivals,--_that_ and more he could not fail to have for\naccusing witnesses. To the creator of Antichrist--sower of tares between\nPharisees and Sadducees,--whatever were the charges, defence, the most\ntriumphant, could never be wanting: arguments, suited with the utmost\nnicety, to the taste of judges. He would warn them, against false\nbrethren, and liars, and wolves, and children of Satan, and so forth:\nhe would talk to them, about life and death, and sin and righteousness,\nand faith and repentance, and this world and that world, and the Lord\nand resurrection: he would talk backwards and forwards--give nonsense\nfor mystery, and terror for instruction: he would contradict everybody,\nand himself not less than anybody: he would raise such a cloud of words,\nwith here and there an _ignis fatuus_ dancing in the smoke,--that the\njudges, confounded and bewildered, would forget all the evidence, and\ncry out _Not Guilty_ through pure lassitude.\n\nAs to us,--the case being now before us, what shall be our verdict?\nObtaining money on false pretences is the charge. Guilty shall we say,\nor not guilty? Obtainment on a certain pretence, is proved by _direct_\nevidence--his own evidence: proof, of falsity in the pretence, rests, as\nit could not but rest, on _circumstantial_ evidence.\n\nOne observation more: for another piece of circumstantial evidence has\njust presented itself: it consists of the utter silence, about the\nreceipt of the money or any particle of it,--when, if there had been any\nsuch receipt, occasions there were in such abundance for the mention of\nit. A.D. 57, in his first to his Corinthians,--there it is, as we have\nseen, that he urges them to lay by money for him, declaring it is for\nthe saints at Jerusalem; and that on this same errand it is, that he is\ngoing to Macedonia,--and that in his way to Jerusalem he will give them\nanother call, to receive, for that same purpose, the intermediate\nproduce of these proposed _saving-banks_. In his letter to the Romans,\nwritten the next year, A.D. 58--written at Corinth,--then it is, that he\nhas already made the said intended money-gathering visit, and with\nsuccess:--with success not only in Macedonia, as he had proposed, but in\nAchaia likewise: and, with this money in his hand, and for the purpose\nof delivering the money to those for whom he obtained it;--for this\npurpose (he says) it is, that he is at that moment on his way to\nJerusalem--the place of their abode. This is in the year A.D. 58. Well\nthen: after this it is, that he takes up his abode at Ephesus. And when,\nafter his contests with the church silversmiths there, he departs from\nthence, whither does he betake himself? To Jerusalem? No: he turns his\nback upon Jerusalem, and goes for Macedonia (Acts xx. 1.) then into\nGreece, where he stays three months; and purposes, Acts 20:3, to return\nthrough Macedonia. A.D. 60, it is, that, for the first time, Acts 20:16,\nany intention of his to visit Jerusalem is declared, he having coveted\nno man's silver or gold, as his historian, Acts xx. 33, makes him assure\nus. When, at length he arrived there, what his reception was, we have\nseen. Had any of the _money_ been received there, would such as we have\nseen have been the reception given to the _man_? When, by the Christians\nat Jerusalem, Agabus was sent to him, to keep him if possible from\ncoming there,--is it in the nature of things, that they should have\nalready received any of it, or been in any expectation of it? In what\npassed between him and the Elders, headed by the Apostle James, is any\nthe slightest allusion made to it? When, in C\u00e6sarea, all in tears, Acts\n21:12, 13, his attendants were striving, might and main, to dissuade him\nfrom going to Jerusalem,--did he say anything about the money--the money\nhe had been so long charged with? Oh no; not a syllable: to Jerusalem he\nis resolved to go indeed: Oh yes: but not the shadow of a reason can he\nfind for going there.\n\nWhen arrived at Jerusalem, the brethren, says the Acts 20:17, received\nhim gladly. The brethren: yes, what adherents he had, would of course\nreceive him gladly, or at least appear to do so. But the money? On their\nside, was anything said about the money? Not a syllable. Either at this\ntime by his own hand, or any time before, by other hands, had they\nreceived this money, or any considerable part of it, could they have\nreceived him otherwise than not only gladly, but gratefully?\n\nAll the time, the hero was thus employed in money-craving and\nmoney-gathering, the historian, let it never be out of mind, was of the\nparty: four years before, A.D. 53, had he been taken into it; yet not\nany the least hint about these money-matters does he give. So far indeed\nas regarded what was avowedly for Paul's own use, neither could the\nreceipt nor the craving of the money from their customers, have been\nunknown to him; for this was what they had to live upon. But the letters\nhis master wrote--wrote to their customers everywhere--letters, in which\nthe demand was made, for the so much more extensive purpose,--of these,\nso many of which have reached these our times, the contents may to him\nhave easily enough remained a secret: little reason had he to expect,\nnone at all to fear, the exposure,--which now, at the end of more than\nseventeen centuries, has, at length, been made of them,--confronted, as\nthey may now be, with the particulars he himself has furnished us with.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[13] Acts vii. ver. 47. Speech of St. Stephen. \"But Solomon built him an\nhouse. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as\nsaith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what\nhouse will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my\nrest?\" In itself, perfectly comfortable all this, to the dictates of\nreason and the instruction of Jesus: but not the less clear blasphemy\nagainst the Mosaic law.\n\n[14] Acts ix. ver. 1 and 2. \"And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings\nand slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord, _went_ unto the _High\nPriest_,--And _desired_ of him letters to Damascus to the Synagogues,\n&c.\"\n\n[15] Acts xxii. ver. 5. \"As also the High Priest doth bear me witness,\nand all the estate of the Elders: from _whom also I received letters_\nunto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there\nbound unto Jerusalem for to be punished.\"\n\n[16] Yet, for even at the outset, after certain \"days spent with the\ndisciples,\" and employed of course in receiving from them the necessary\ninstructions, he preached Jesus with such energy and success as not only\nto \"confound,\" Acts ix. 19 to 24, the unbelieving among the Jews, but to\nprovoke them to \"take counsel to kill him.\"\n\n[17] Paul, says--2nd Cor. 11:6--\"For though I be rude in speech yet am I\nnot in knowledge nay, in everything we have made it manifest among all\nmen to you-ward, or did I commit a sin in abasing myself that ye might\nbe exalted, because I preached to you the Gospel of God for naught? I\nrobbed other Churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto\nyou; and when I was present with you I was in want, I was not a burden\non any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia supplied the\nmeasure of my want, and in everything I kept myself from being\nburdensome unto you and so I will keep myself. As the truth of Christ is\nin me no man shall stop me of this glorying in the regions of Achaia,\n&c.\"\n\nWhen ever we get a Temperamental and psychological view of Paul, we see\nverified the deductions of the author of this treatise, that he was a\ntransparent imposter. An unscrupulous adventurer. With talent well\nadapted to dogmatically command the attention of the ignorant and\nespecially those of organized hereditary idolatry, the extreme vanity,\nthe vain glorious pretensions of this new priest was well adapted to\nobtain obsequious complacence from such people. He always presents\nhimself in a controversial spirit of self-exaltation.\n\nHis egotistic diction could hardly be made more manifest than in the\nterms above quoted, to wit:--\"I robbed other Churches taking wages of\nthem that I might minister unto you, &c.\" It presents a striking\ncontrast to the benevolent and fraternal spirit of Christ and his\ndisciples.\n\n[18] N.B. The editor at this place inserts pages of discussion--which\nthe author exhibited by way of an appendix. At the expense of a little\nredundancy and incongruity the editor inserts it in this place.--Ed.\n\n[19] According to the Acts' account, this same stoning, if it was the\nsame, was much in the style of that same resurrection of Eutychus, which\nwe have seen in Chapter xiii. \u00a7. 10. As to Paul, when this martyrdom had\nbeen suffered by him,--\"some\" says Acts xiv. 19, were \"supposing he had\nbeen dead:\" and on that supposition, \"drew him out of the city.\" Paul,\non the other hand, thought otherwise: he supposed himself alive, and, on\nthat supposition, he walked off, as if nothing had been the matter with\nhim. \"Certain Jews ... say verses 19 and 20, having stoned Paul, drew\nhim out of the city, supposing he had been dead. Howbeit, as the\ndisciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and\nthe next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n     _Paul disbelieved.--Neither his divine Commission nor his inward\n     Conversion ever credited by the Apostles or their Jerusalem\n     Disciples.--Source of Proof stated._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nTO PAUL'S CONVERSION VISION, SOLE ORIGINAL WITNESS HIMSELF.\n\nVoid, as we have seen, of all title to credence, is the story of Paul's\ncommission from Jesus:--void may it be seen to be, even if taken by\nitself, and without need of resort to any counter-evidence. Who could\nhave expected to have found it, moreover, disproved by the most\nirresistible counter-evidence--by the evidence of the Apostles\nthemselves? Yes: of the Apostles themselves, of whom it will plainly\nenough be seen, that by not so much as one of them was it ever believed:\nno, not to even the very latest period, of which any account has reached\nus: namely that, at which the history of the Acts of the Apostles\ncloses, or that of the date of the last-written of Paul's Epistles,\nwhichsoever of the two may be the latest.\n\nIn regard to the story of his conversion, its cause, and manner,--it has\nbeen seen, that it is either from himself directly, or from an adherent\nof his, the author of the Acts,--who had it from himself, unless Ananias\nwas a person known to the author of the Acts, and heard by him,--it is\nfrom Paul, and Paul alone, that all the evidence, which the case has\nhappened to supply, has been derived.\n\nIn regard to the degree of credence given, to his pretence to the having\nreceived a commission from Jesus, still the same remark applies: still,\neither from himself, or from the same partial, and, as will be seen, not\naltogether trustworthy, narrator, comes the whole of the evidence, with\nwhich the case happens to have furnished us.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nCOUNTER-WITNESSES, THE APOSTLES. BY THEM, THE STORY WAS PROBABLY\nNOT HEARD--CERTAINLY NOT CREDITED.\n\nJerusalem, according to the Acts, was the headquarters of the noble army\nof the Apostles: the ordinary residence of that goodly fellowship:--a\nstation, which they none of them ever quitted, for any considerable\nlength of time.\n\nIn the course of the interval, between the date assigned by Paul to his\nconversion, and that of the last particulars we have of his\nhistory,--mention, more or less particular, may be found of four visits\nof his--distinctly four related visits, and no more than four,--to that\nmetropolis of the new Church. On no one of these occasions, could he\nhave avoided using his endeavours, towards procuring admittance, to the\nfellowship of the distinguished persons, so universally known in the\ncharacter of the select companions and most confidential servants of\nJesus: of that Jesus, whom, in the flesh at any rate, he never so much\nas pretended to have ever seen: _from whom_ he had consequently, if they\nthought proper to impart it, so much to learn, or at least to wish to\nlearn: while _to_ them he had nothing to impart, except that which, if\nanything, it was only in the way of _vision_, if in any way, that he had\nlearned from Jesus.\n\nThat on three at least of these four occasions, viz. the 1st, 3d, and\n4th, he accordingly did use his endeavours to confer with them, will be\nput out of dispute by direct evidence; and that, in the remaining one,\nnamely that which in the order of time stands second,--successfully or\nnot, his endeavours were directed to the same purpose,--will, it will be\nseen, be reasonably to be inferred from circumstantial evidence. In the\ncharacter of an additional occasion of intercourse, between him and one\nof the Apostles, namely, Peter, the chief of them,--will be to be added,\nthat which will be seen taking place at Antioch; immediately upon the\nback, and in consequence, of the third of these same visits of his to\nJerusalem.\n\nAs to the mode of his conversion as above stated,--the _time_, for him\nto have stated it to them, was manifestly that of the first of these\nfour visits;--say his _reconciliation-visit_: and that, of that first\nvisit, to see them, or at any rate the chief of them, namely, Peter, was\nthe object,--is what, in his Epistle to the Galatians, we shall see him\ndeclaring in express terms.\n\nAfter all--that story of his, in which the supposed manner of his\nconversion is related, as above,--did he so much as venture to submit it\nto them? The more closely it is examined, the less probable surely will\nbe seen to be--his having ventured, to submit any such narrative, to a\nscrutiny so jealous, as theirs, under these circumstances, could not\nfail to be.\n\nOne of two things at any rate will, it is believed, be seen to a\ncertainty: namely, Either no such story as that which we see, nor\nanything like it, was ever told to them by him; or, if yes, it obtained\nno credit at their hands.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nIN PROOF OF THIS, SO MUCH OF THE ACTS HISTORY MUST HERE BE\nANTICIPATED.\n\nFor proof, of the disbelief, which his story will, it is believed, be\nfound to have experienced, at the hands of those supremely competent\njudges,--the time is now come, for collecting together, and submitting\nin a confronted state to the reader, all the several particulars that\nhave reached us, in relation to these four important visits.\n\nBetween the first-recorded and the last-recorded of the four, the length\nof the interval being so considerable as it will be seen to be, namely,\nupwards of 17 years at the least,--and, in the course of the interval,\nso numerous and various a series of incidents being to be seen\ncomprised,--the consequence is--that this one topic will unavoidably\nspread itself to such an extent, as to cover the whole of the\nchronological field of the history of the Church in those eventful\ntimes. A sort of necessity has thus been found, of taking a view of the\nprincipal part of all those several incidents, in a sort of historical\norder, in a succeeding part of this work: hence, of that which, for the\nproof of what has just been advanced, will here be necessary to be\nbrought to view,--no inconsiderable portion will be an anticipation, of\nthat which belongs properly to the historical sketch, and, but for this\nnecessity, would have been reserved for it.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nTOPICS UNDER HIS SEVERAL JERUSALEM-VISITS.\n\nThick clouds, and those covering no small portion of its extent, will,\nafter everything that can be done to dispel them, be found still hanging\nover the field of this inquiry. But, if to the purpose of the present\nquestion, sufficient light be elicited; in whatever darkness any\ncollateral points may remain still involved, the conclusion will not be\naffected by it.\n\nAs to the credibility of Paul's story,--taken in itself, and viewed from\nthe only position, from which we, at this time of day, can view it,--the\nquestion has just been discussed.\n\nThat which remains for discussion is--whether, from the Church, which\nPaul found in existence--the Church composed of the Apostles of Jesus,\nand his and their disciples--it ever obtained credence.\n\nOn this occasion, to the Apostles more particularly must the attention\nbe directed: and this--not only because by their opinion, that of the\ngreat body of those disciples would, of course, on a point of such vital\nimportance, be governed; but, because, in the case of these confidential\nservants and habitual attendants of Jesus, the individuals, of whom the\nbody is composed, and who are designated by one and the same\ndenomination, are always determinable: determinable, in such sort, that,\nat all times, wheresoever they are represented as being, the eye can\nfollow them.\n\nTo judge with what aspect Paul with his pretensions was viewed by them,\nalways with a view to the main question--whether, in any particular, the\nalleged supernatural cause of his outward conversion, and thence of his\npresumable inward conversion, ever obtained credence from them;--one\nprimary object, which requires to be attended to, is--personal\nintercourse; viz. the sort of personal intercourse, which between him on\nthe one part, and them, or some of them, on the other part, appears to\nhave had place.\n\nOf this intercourse, the several _interviews_, which appear to have\nhad place, will form the links. Correspondent to those _interviews_\nwill be found to be so many _visits_: all of them, except one,\nvisits made by him to the great original metropolis of the Christian\nworld--Jerusalem:--the scene of the acts and sufferings of the departed\nJesus:--the ordinary abode of these his chosen disciples and successors.\nIf, to these visits of Paul's is to be added any other interview,--it\nwill be in another city, to wit, Antioch: and, in this instance, between\nPaul, and not, as in the case of the other visits might naturally be\nexpected, the Apostles in a body; but one, or some other small number of\nmembers, by whom a visit to that place was made, in consequence of their\nhaving been selected for that purpose, and deputed by the rest.\n\nOf the interviews corresponding with these visits, the real number,--and\nnot only the real number, but the number upon record,--is unhappily, in\nno inconsiderable degree, exposed to doubt; for, considering the terms\nthey were upon, as we shall see, at the interviews produced by Paul's\nfirst Jerusalem visit, it does not by any means follow, that, between\nthe persons in question, because there were two more such visits, there\nwas, on each occasion, an interview.\n\nTwo of them, however, at any rate, if any degree of credence whatever be\ngiven to the documents, remain altogether clear of doubt: and whatever\nuncertainty may be found to attach upon any of the others, may be\nregarded as so many fixed points: fixed points, forming so many\nstandards of reference, to which the others may in speaking of them be\nreferred, and by reference to which the reality and time of those\nothers, will be endeavoured to be ascertained.\n\nFor the designation of the visits which produced these two\nunquestionable interviews, the terms _Reconciliation Visit_, and\n_Invasion Visit_, will here be employed: the former being that which\ngave rise to the first-mentioned of the two interviews, which, after the\nconversion, appear for certain to have had place between the rival and\ncontending powers; the other, to the last.\n\n1. By the _Reconciliation Visit_ is here meant--that visit--by which was\nproduced the _first_ interview, which, after the conversion of Paul, had\nplace between him and any of the Apostles. Its title to this appellation\nis altogether unquestionable. After these proceedings of Paul's, by\nwhich the destruction of so many of the Christians had already been\neffected, and that of all the rest was threatened,--it was not\npossible, that, without a reconciliation,--if not an inward at any\nrate an outward one,--any interview, on both sides voluntary, should\nhave taken place. Of the Apostles, Peter was the acknowledged chief:\nthat it was for the purpose of seeing Peter, that a visit of Paul's to\nJerusalem--the first of those mentioned by him--was made,--is\nacknowledged by himself: acknowledged, in that Epistle of his, to his\nGalatian disciples, of which so much will have to be said, Gal. i. and\nii.[20] Without the assistance of some mediator, scarcely was it in the\nnature of the case, that, in any way, any such reconciliation could have\nbeen effected. In the person of Barnabas,--a most munificent patron, as\nwill be seen, of the infant church,--this indispensable friend was\nfound.\n\nAccording to the received chronology, the time of this visit was A.D.\n38. In the account, given in the Acts, Acts 16:6, of the conjunct\nmissionary excursion made from Antioch by Paul and Barnabas--an\nexcursion, the commencement of which is, by that same chronology, placed\nin the year 53,--Galatia stands fifth, in the number of the places,\nwhich they are spoken of as visiting. Of any visit, made in that\ncountry, either before this or after it, no mention is to be found in\nthe Acts, except in Acts 18:23: on which occasion, he is spoken of as\nrevisiting Galatia, \"strengthening the churches.\"[21]\n\nOf what passed on the occasion of this visit, the account, given as\nabove by Paul, will be seen receiving explanation, from what is said of\nthis same visit in the Acts.\n\nACTS ix. 26 to 30.\n\n     26. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself\n     to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not\n     that he was a disciple.--But Barnabas took him, and brought _him_\n     to the Apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in\n     the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached\n     boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.--And he was with them\n     coming in and going out at Jerusalem.--And he spake boldly in the\n     name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they\n     went about to slay him.--Which when the brethren knew, they brought\n     him down to C\u00e6sarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.\n\n2. By the _Invasion Visit_ is here meant--that visit of Paul to\nJerusalem, by which his arrestation, and consequent visit to Rome in a\nstate of confinement, were produced. _Invasion_ it may well be termed:\nthe object of it having manifestly been--the making, in that original\nmetropolis of the Christian world, spiritual conquests, at the expense\nof the gentle sway of the Apostles: spiritual acquisitions--not to speak\nof their natural consequences, temporal ones. It was undertaken, as will\nbe seen, in spite of the most strenuous exertions, made for the\nprevention of it: made, not only by those, whose dominions he was so\nneedlessly invading, but by the unanimous remonstrances and entreaties\nof his own adherents.\n\nThe date--assigned to the commencement of this visit, is A.D. 60.\nInterval, between this his last recorded visit and his first, according\nto the received chronology, 22 years.\n\nNeither of the occasion of it, nor of any individual occurrence which\ntook place in the course of it, have we any account--from any other\nsource than the history of the Acts. Paul's account is all in generals.\n\n\n3. Paul's Jerusalem Visit the Second.--According to the Acts, Acts\n11:30, \"which also they did, and sent it to the Elders by the hands of\nBarnabas and Saul,\" between these two indisputable interviews of Paul's\nwith the Apostles occurs another visit, herein designated by the name of\nthe _Money-bringing Visit_. Under the apprehension of a predicted\ndearth, money is sent from the Antioch to the Jerusalem saints.\nBarnabas, and with him Paul, are employed in the conveyance of it. Time,\nassigned to this Visit, A.D. 43. Of this visit, not any the least trace\nis to be found in any Epistle of Paul's. Yet, in this Epistle of his to\nhis Galatians, he will be seen undertaking in a manner, to give an\naccount, of every visit of his to Jerusalem, in which, with reference to\nspiritual dominion, between himself and the Apostles, anything material\nhad ever passed.\n\nBy this silence of Paul's, no counter-evidence is opposed, to the\naccount given of this visit in the Acts. What may very well be is,--that\nhe went along with the money, and departed, without having had any\npersonal communication with any Apostle, or even with any one of their\ndisciples.\n\n4. _Deputation Visit._ Paul's Jerusalem Visit the Third--say his\nDeputation Visit. According to the Acts,[22] Paul being at the Syrian\nAntioch, certain men came thither from Judea, teaching, that Mosaic\ncircumcision is necessary to Christian salvation. Dissension being thus\nproduced, Paul, and Barnabas as usual with him, are dispatched to confer\non this subject with the Apostles and the Elders--Time, assigned to this\nvisit, A.D. 52. Interval between the first and this third visit--years\n15.\n\nIn addition to the first Jerusalem Visit, mentioned as above by Paul, to\nwit, in the first chapter of his Epistle to his Galatians,--in the\nsecond, mention is made of another.\n\nOf the incidents mentioned by Paul, as belonging to this other visit,\nscarcely can any one, unless it be that of his having Barnabas for a\ncompanion, be found, that presents itself as being the same with any\nincident mentioned in the Acts, in the account given of the above named\nDeputation Visit. But, between the two accounts, neither does any\nrepugnance manifest itself: and, forasmuch as, in a statement, the\npurpose of which required that no interview, in which anything material\npassed between him and the Apostles, should pass unnoticed,--he mentions\nno more than one visit besides the first,--it seems reasonable to\nconclude, that it was but one and the same visit, that, in the penning\nof both these accounts, was in view.\n\nAs far as appears, it is from the account thus given by Paul of the\nsecond, of the two visits mentioned by him as made to Jerusalem, that\nthe received chronology has deduced the year, which it assigns to the\nDeputation Visit, as recorded in the Acts.\n\nIn Paul's account alone--in Paul's, and not in that in the Acts--is the\ndistance given in a determinate number of years. According to one of two\ninterpretations, 17--the number above mentioned as adopted in the\ncurrent chronology--is the number of years mentioned by Paul as\nintervening between those two visits. But even in this place, a\ncircumstance that must not pass altogether unnoticed is,--that,\naccording to another interpretation, to which the text presents itself\nas almost equally open, the length of the interval would be considerably\ngreater. Galatians i. 17: \"Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which\nwere Apostles before me: but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto\nDamascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,\nand abode with him fifteen days.\" After what period?--after that of his\nconversion? or after the expiration of this his second visit to\nDamascus? Reckoning from this latter period, the interval may be ever so\nmuch greater than that of the three years: for, to the three years may\nbe added an indefinite length of time for the second, and even for the\nfirst, of his abodes at Damascus. But, as we advance, reason will appear\nfor concluding, that, being in the eyes of the Damascus rulers, as well\nas the Jerusalem rulers, a traitor--in the highest degree a traitor--his\nabode at Damascus could not, at either of these times, have been other\nthan short as well as secret.\n\nGal. ii. 1: \"Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem\nwith Barnabas, and took Titus also.\" This being supposed to be the\nDeputation Visit, these fourteen added to the former three, make the\nseventeen.\n\n5. _Peter's Antioch Visit._--In Paul's Epistle, addressed to his\nGalatians, as above,--immediately after the mention of his own second\nJerusalem Visit as above, comes the mention of an interview, which he\nsays he has at Antioch with Peter: \"Peter being come,\" he says, \"to that\nplace.\" Gal. ii. 11. In the Acts, 15:22, immediately upon the back of\nthe accounts of the Deputation Visit, as above,--comes an account of\nwhat may be called a _counter Deputation Visit_. Of the former\nDeputation Visit, according to the Acts, the result is--from the\nApostles, the Elders, and the whole Church, a _letter_, concluding with\na _decree_: and \"by men chosen of their own company,\" this letter is\nstated as having been carried to Antioch: and, with these men, so\nchosen, Paul and Barnabas are stated as returning to Antioch, from which\ncity, as above, they had been deputed. As and for the names of \"chosen\nmen,\" those of Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, are mentioned:\n\"chief men among the brethren\" is another title by which they are, both\nof them, distinguished. To these, no other names are added: in\nparticular, not that of Peter. Thus far the Acts.\n\nAs to Paul, in the account _he_ gives, of the discussion, to which,\nafter--and apparently, as above, in consequence of--his _secondly\nmentioned_ interview with Peter at Jerusalem,--no mention is made either\nof Judas Barsabas, or of Silas: of Peter--and him alone--it is, that, on\nthis occasion, any mention is made. Peter comes, as it should seem, to\nAntioch from Jerusalem; which last city seems to have been his ordinary\nabode. But, on this occasion likewise, in addition to this visitor,\nmention is again made of Barnabas, of whom, as far as appears, from the\ntime of the Reconciliation Visit down to this time, Antioch was the\nordinary abode. In relation to each of these several Visits, a brief\npreparatory indication of the topic or topics, which will be brought to\nview, when an account comes to be given of it, may in this place have\nits use.\n\nI. _Reconciliation Visit._--On this occasion, a difficulty that\nnaturally presents itself--is--if the relation is in substance true, and\nthe occasion is the same--how it can have happened, that if Peter was at\nAntioch--Peter, the universally acknowledged chief of the Apostles--no\nmention should be to be found of him in the Acts: instead of him, two\nmen as yet unknown--this _Judas Barsabas_, and this _Silas_--neither of\nthem of the number belonging to the goodly fellowship of the\nApostles,--being the only persons mentioned.\n\nBut, for this difficulty, conjecture presents a solution, in which there\nis nothing either in itself improbable, or inconsistent with either of\nthe two accounts--that of Paul as above, and that in the Acts. This\nis--that those two were the men, and the only men, deputed in the first\ninstance: but, that after them, at no long interval, came thither to\ntheir assistance that chief of the Apostles. Whether the importance of\nthe question be considered--to wit, whether, upon being received as\nChristians, Gentiles should be obliged to submit to Mosaic\ncircumcision--whether the importance of the question, or the\nstrenuousness of the debates to which it is spoken of as having given\nrise, Acts 15:2, be considered--the visit of the chief of the Apostles\nat Jerusalem, to the scene of controversy at Antioch, presents not any\nsupposition, to which any imputation of improbability seems to attach.\n\nACTS xv. 1 to 34.\n\n     1. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren\n     and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye\n     cannot be saved.--When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small\n     dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and\n     Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto\n     the Apostles and Elders about this question.--And being brought on\n     their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria,\n     declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy\n     unto all the brethren.--And when they were come to Jerusalem, they\n     were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and Elders, and\n     they declared all things that God had done with them.--But there\n     rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,\n     saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them\n     to keep the law of Moses.--And the Apostles and Elders came\n     together for to consider of this matter.--And when there had been\n     much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and\n     brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among\n     us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the\n     Gospel, and believe.--And God which knoweth the hearts, bare them\n     witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us:--And\n     put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by\n     faith.--Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks\n     of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to\n     bear?--But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus\n     Christ, we shall be saved even as they.--Then all the multitude\n     kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring\n     what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by\n     them.--And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying,\n     Men and brethren, hearken unto me.--Simeon hath declared how God at\n     the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for\n     his name.--And to this agree the words of the Prophets; as it is\n     written,--After this I will return, and will build again the\n     tabernacle of David which is fallen down; and I will build again\n     the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:--That the residue of men\n     might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name\n     is called, saith the Lord who doeth all these things.--Known unto\n     God are all his works from the beginning of the world.--Wherefore\n     my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the\n     Gentiles are turned to God:--But that we write unto them, that they\n     abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from\n     things strangled, and from blood.--For Moses of old time hath in\n     every city, them that preach him, being read in the synagogues\n     every sabbath-day.--Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with\n     the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to\n     Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; _namely_, Judas surnamed Barsabas,\n     and Silas, chief men among the brethren.--And they wrote letters by\n     them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send\n     greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and\n     Syria and Cilicia.--Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which\n     went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your\n     souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised; and keep the law; to whom we\n     gave no such commandment:--It seemed good unto us, being assembled\n     with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved\n     Barnabas and Paul;--Men that have hazarded their lives for the name\n     of our Lord Jesus Christ.--We have therefore sent Judas and Silas,\n     who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.--For it seemed\n     good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater\n     burden than these necessary things;--That ye abstain from meats\n     offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and\n     from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do\n     well. Fare ye well.--So when they were dismissed, they came to\n     Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they\n     delivered the Epistle.--Which when they had read, they rejoiced for\n     the consolation.--And Judas and Silas, being prophets also\n     themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed\n     them.--And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go\n     in peace from the brethren unto the Apostles.--34. Notwithstanding\n     it pleased Silas to abide there still.\n\nGALATIANS ii. 1 to the end.\n\n     1. Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with\n     Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.--And I went up by\n     revelation, and communicated unto them that Gospel which I preach\n     among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation,\n     lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain.--But neither\n     Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be\n     circumcised.--And that because of false brethren unawares brought\n     in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in\n     Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.--To whom we\n     gave place by subjection, no not for an hour; that the truth of the\n     Gospel might continue with you.--But of those, who seemed to be\n     somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God\n     accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed _to be somewhat_, in\n     conference added nothing to me.--But contrariwise, when they saw\n     that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the\n     Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter:--For he that wrought\n     effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, the\n     same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles.--And when James,\n     Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace\n     that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right\n     hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they\n     unto the circumcision.--Only _they would_ that we should remember\n     the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.--But when Peter\n     was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to\n     be blamed.--For before that certain came from James, he did eat\n     with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and\n     separated himself, fearing them _which were_ of the\n     circumcision.--And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him,\n     insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away by their\n     dissimulation.--But when I saw that they walked not uprightly,\n     according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them\n     all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and\n     not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do\n     the Jews?--We _who are_ Jews by nature, and not sinners of the\n     Gentiles,--Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the\n     law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in\n     Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and\n     not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no\n     flesh be justified.--But if while we seek to be justified by Christ\n     we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the\n     minister of sin? God forbid.--For if I build again the things which\n     I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.--For I through the law\n     am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.--I am crucified\n     with Christ. Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in\n     me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith\n     of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.--21. I do\n     not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness _come_ by the\n     law, then Christ is dead in vain.\n\nOf the falsity of his story concerning the manner of his\nconversion,--one proof, that has been given, has been deduced from the\ninconsistency, of the several accounts which we have of it--all of them\noriginally from himself--as compared with one another.\n\nOf the erroneousness of the notion of his having ever been in the eyes\nof the Apostles what he professed himself to be--of this, and at the\nsame time of the want of correctness, and trustworthiness, in every\naccount, which, by him, or from him, is to be seen rendered, of his\nproceedings, adventures, and dangers--proof will, on the ensuing\noccasions, be afforded, by evidence of this same kind: by similar\ninstances of inconsistency, which will be all along brought to view.\n\nOn the occasion of his _first_ visit to Jerusalem--to the metropolis of\nChristendom--will be to be noted--1. The cause and manner of his\narrival. 2. The circumstances of his abode--its duration, and business.\n3. The cause and circumstances of his departure. 4. The general result\nof this his expedition.\n\n1. Of the cause of his visit, and manner of his arrival, we shall see\ntwo different accounts: namely, one, given by himself directly, in an\nepistle of his to his disciples in Galatia; the other, by a man, who\nafterwards became his adherent and travelling companion--namely the\nauthor of the Acts.\n\n2. Of the duration and business of his abode, we shall see, in like\nmanner, two different accounts, delivered respectively by those same\npens.\n\n3. So, of the cause of his departure;--from the same two sources.\n\n4. So, of the circumstances of it.\n\n5. Of the general result of this same expedition of his, we have no\nfewer than three different accounts: namely, the same two as above; with\nthe addition of a third, as reported, in the Acts, to have been given by\nPaul himself, in the course of the speech he made, at the time of his\nfourth visit, to an assembled multitude, headed by the constituted\nauthorities among the Jews:--when, after having been dragged by force\nout of the Temple, he would--had he not been saved by a commander of the\nRoman guard--have been torn to pieces.\n\nOn this occasion, we shall find, that, by his own confession, made for a\nparticular purpose--for the purpose of saving his life--under an\nexigency which allowed no time for the study of consistency, and\nrecorded by the blindness and inconsiderateness of his biographer;--we\nshall find, that the account, whatever it was, which, on the occasion of\nthis his first visit, he gave of himself to the Apostles, failed\naltogether in its endeavours to obtain credence.\n\n\nSECTION 5.\n\nTOPICS UNDER VISIT II.--MONEY-BRINGING VISIT.\n\nOf the occasion and particulars of the second of these four visits, we\nhave but one account: viz. that which is to be seen in the Acts.\n\nCompared with what belongs to the other visits, that which belongs to\nthis is but of small importance. The information, to be collected from\nit, will, however, be seen to be this: namely, that this was the second,\nof the attempts he made to join himself to the Apostles: and that it\nsucceeded no better than the first. It did not even succeed so well:\nfor, notwithstanding the claims which the business of it gave him to\ntheir regard--it was to bring them a sum of money, the fruit of the\nliberality of the Church at Antioch--he could not so much as obtain\nadmittance into the presence of any one of them. Without much\nhesitation, this may be affirmed. If he had, he would have made mention\nof it: for, it will be seen, that, whatsoever apparent countenance he\never succeeded in obtaining from them, it was his care to make the most\nof it.\n\n\nSECTION 6.\n\nREMARKS ON VISIT III.--DEPUTATION VISIT.\n\nOf the occasion, and particulars, and termination, of the _third_ of\nthese four visits, we have two, and but two, accounts: one--that given\nin the Acts; the other--that given by Paul himself, as above, in his\nletter to his Galatians: that in the Acts, the only one which goes into\nparticulars; and which must accordingly be taken for the basis of the\nnarrative, and in that character be brought to view in the first\ninstance: that given by Paul himself confining itself to generals; but,\nas far as it goes, much more to be depended upon, and affording much\nmore instruction, than that given in the Acts.\n\nAmong its immediate consequences, this third visit appears to have had\nsome sort of intercourse between Paul and Saint Peter at Antioch--the\nnext most considerable seat of the new religion after Jerusalem; at\nAntioch, to which city, Paul,--who, with Barnabas, had been settled\nthere,--was on his return: Peter being then on a temporary visit, made\nto that place, for the final settlement of the business, by which the\nlast preceding visit of Paul to Jerusalem had been occasioned.\n\nAt the time of this visit, the residence of Paul was at this same\nAntioch. The occasion of it was--the dissemination there, of a doctrine,\nwhich, by certain persons not named, had been imported thither from\nJerusalem: a doctrine, according to which it was taught to the\nbrethren--\"Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot\nbe saved.\" For the settlement of this important matter,--Barnabas, with\nPaul for his companion, besides other companions not named, was, by the\nbrethren at Antioch, now, for the second time, sent, as a delegate, to\nthe brethren at Jerusalem.\n\nOn every one of these three visits, it was under the protection of this\nBarnabas (it will be seen) that Paul had presented himself:--on the\nfirst of them, for the purpose of making known his conversion, and, if\npossible, forming a connection with the brethren there;--the second, for\nthe purpose of bringing them money, the fruits of the respect and\naffection of the brethren at Antioch;--the third time, for the\nsettlement of this important point of doctrine. As for Barnabas, he was\na _Cypriot_, who, as will be seen, had an establishment at Jerusalem:\nand who, by his indefatigable zeal, added to his unrivalled munificence,\nappears to have obtained an influence not exceeded by any but that of\nthe Apostles.\n\nOf this same Deputation Visit, being the third of the recorded visits of\nPaul to Jerusalem,--followed by, and coupled with, one of Peter to\nAntioch--Gal. ii. 11, the place of Paul's residence,--two most important\nresults, or alleged results, are mentioned: the first, mentioned by the\nauthor of the Acts alone, the decree, of a council, composed of the\nApostles and certain other persons, by the name of Elders, at\nJerusalem;--which decree, together with a letter, was from thence sent\nby the hands of Judas Barsabas and Silas, to the brethren at Antioch;\nPaul and Barnabas being of the party, on their return to that same\nplace: the other result, mentioned by Paul alone, a sort of _partition\ntreaty_, by which the field of doctrinal labour, and thence of spiritual\ndominion was divided between him, (Paul), on the one part, and the\nApostles on the other. The _Jewish world_, for a less ambiguous\ndesignation would hardly find a sufficient warrant, to remain with the\nApostles; the _Gentile world_, to be left free to the exertions of the\ndeclared convert and self-constituted Apostle. As to the _decree and\nletter_, reasons for questioning the authenticity of these documents\nwill be hereinafter brought to view, Ch. 6. Of the _partition treaty_,\nthe reality presents itself as altogether natural and probable--and, by\ncircumstantial as well as direct evidence, sufficiently established: by\ndirect evidence supported, by circumstantial evidence confirmed.\n\n\nSECTION 7.\n\nTOPICS UNDER VISIT IV.--INVASION VISIT.\n\nOf the occasion of the fourth and last of these four visits--call it\n_Paul's Invasion Visit_--we have, though but from one immediate source,\nwhat may, to some purposes, be called two distinct and different\naccounts, included one within another: to wit, that which the historian\ngives as from himself, and that which he puts into the mouth of his\nhero, whose adventures he is relating. On this subject, from the mouth\nof the hero, the historian has not given us, and probably could not give\nus, anything but mystery. From the circumstances, it will be seen,\nwhether the appellation _Invasion Visit_, by which this last of his\nrecorded visits to Jerusalem is here distinguished, is not fully\njustified.\n\nNeither, of the occurrences which took place during the course of it,\nnor of the mode in which it terminated, have we any more than one\naccount; viz. the account which, speaking in his own person, is given of\nit by the author of the Acts.[23]\n\nBut, upon one part of this account--and that a part in itself in no\nsmall degree obscure--light, and that such as, it is believed, will be\nfound to dispel the darkness, will be seen thrown, by an article of the\nMosaic law: upon which article, light will be seen reciprocally\nreflected, by the application here recorded as having been made of it.\nThis regards the _Temple scene_:--an expensive ceremony spun out for\ndays together only to produce the effect of an _Oath_.\n\nOn the occasion of this visit, in spite of a universal opposition on the\npart of all concerned--his own adherents and dependents, as well as his\nadversaries of all classes included,--Paul, for reasons by himself\nstudiously concealed,--and, if brought to light at all, brought to light\nno otherways than by inference,--will be seen making his entry into\nJerusalem, as it were by force. In the hope of freeing themselves, as it\nshould seem, of this annoyance, it is,--that the rulers of the Christian\nchurch, insist upon his clearing himself from certain suspicions, in the\nharbouring of which the whole church had concurred.[24]\n\n\nSECTION 8.\n\nSELF-WRITTEN BIOGRAPHY--ITS SUPERIOR VALUE AND CLAIM TO CREDENCE.\n\nOn the occasion of this portion of history, it seems particularly\nmaterial, to bring to view an observation, which, on the occasion of\nevery portion of history, it will, it is believed, be of no small use to\nhave in remembrance.\n\nIn comparison of self-written biography, scarcely does any other\nbiography deserve the name.\n\nFaint, indeterminate, uninstructive, deceptive, is the information\nfurnished by any other hand, of whatsoever concerns the state of the\nmental frame, in comparison of what is furnished by a man's own. Even of\nthose particulars which make against himself,--even of those motives and\nintentions which he would most anxiously conceal,--more clear and\ncorrect, as far as it goes, if not more complete--is the information\ngiven by him, than any which is commonly afforded, even by an impartial\nhand. By a man's own hand, not unfrequently is information afforded, of\na sort which makes against himself, and which would not, because it\ncould not, have been afforded by any other hand, though ever so hostile.\nHe states the self-condemnatory mental facts, the blindness of\nself-partiality concealing from his eyes the condemnatory inference: or,\neven with his eyes open, he lays himself under the imputation: bartering\nmerit in this or that inferior shape, for the merit of candour, or for\nthe hope of augmenting the probative force of his own self-serving\nevidence, in favour of every other merit for which it is his ambition to\ngain credence.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[20] Gal. i. 18. \"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see\nPeter, and abode with him fifteen days.\"\n\n[21] Of any mention made of Galatia, in any of the Books of the New\nTestament, the following are, according to Cruden's Concordance, the\nonly instances: 1 Cor. xvi. 1. \"... have given order to the churches at\nGalatia.\" Times, assigned to these Epistles, A.D. 59. 2 Tim. iv. 10:\n\"Crescens is departed to Galatia.\" A.D. 66. 1 Pet. i. 1: \"to the\nstrangers scattered in Galatia.\" Date A.D. 60.\n\n[22] Acts xv. 1-4. 1. \"And certain men which came down from Judea taught\nthe brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of\nMoses, ye cannot be saved.--When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no\nsmall dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul\nand Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto\nthe Apostles and Elders about this question.--And being brought on their\nway by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring\nthe conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the\nbrethren.--And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of\nthe Church, and of the Apostles and Elders, and they declared all things\nthat God had done with them.\"\n\n[23] Be this as it may, that he must have been in the way to hear, from\nvarious persons present, accounts, such as they were, of what was said\nby Paul,--seems to follow almost of course. This seems applicable even\nto the _latest_ of the two occasions; for, though the place, C\u00e6sarea,\nwas some distance from Jerusalem, 56 miles,--yet the distance was not so\ngreat, but that the persons, who were attached to him, might, for the\nmost part, be naturally supposed to have followed him: and in particular\nthe historian, who, according to his history, continued in Paul's suite\ntill, at the conclusion of this his forced excursion, he arrived at\nRome.\n\nBut, on the subject of _possible materials_, one concluding query here\npresents itself. On a _subject_ such as that in question, on an\n_occasion_, such as that in question, for a _purpose_ such as that in\nquestion, a _speech_ such as either of those in question, might it not,\nby a person in the historian's situation--not to speak of other\nsituations--be just as easily made without any special materials, as\nwith any the most correct and complete stock of materials?\n\n[24] Between Paul's third visit, and that which is here reckoned as his\nfourth, another is, by some, supposed[I.] to, have been taken place; on\nwhich supposition, this concluding one, which is here styled the fourth,\nought to be reckoned the fifth.\n\nBut, for the support of this supposition, the grounds referred to for\nthis purpose do not seem sufficient:--not that, if the supposition were\ntrue, any consequence material to the present purpose would follow.\n\nFor this supposition, what ground there is, consists in a passage in the\nActs:--Acts 18:20, 21, 22.\n\n20. When they, the Jews at Ephesus, desired [him] to tarry longer time\nwith them, he consented not;\n\nBut bade them farewell, saying, I _must_ by all means _keep this feast\nthat cometh in Jerusalem_; but I will return again unto you, if God\nwill. And he sailed from Ephesus.\n\nAnd when he had _landed_ at C\u00e6sarea, and _gone up_, and saluted the\n_church_, he _went down_ to Antioch.\n\nThere we have the grounds of the supposition. But, what is the support\nthey give to it?--declaration, affirming the existence of an intention,\nis one thing; actually existing intention is another. Even supposing the\nexistence of the intention in question,--intention is one thing;\ncorresponding action, another. Jerusalem is not mentioned. C\u00e6sarea\nbeing on the sea-coast, Jerusalem is indeed in the interior: and\ntherefore, it may be said, is a place, to which, if a man went from\nC\u00e6sarea, he would \"_go up_:\" but, from C\u00e6sarea, it being on the coast,\na man could not go to any place in Judaea not on the coast, without\n_going up_.\n\nSo much for _place_:--and now as to _time_. The time mentioned as the\nobject of the _intention_, is the _passover_; but, that the time, at\nwhich, being _gone up_, Paul \"_saluted the church_\"--this being all\nwhich, upon this _going up_, he is here stated as doing--that this time\nwas the passover, is not stated.\n\nAs to the _salute_ here stated as given to the _church_,--at the\nconclusion, and as a material part of the result, of this inquiry, it\nwill appear plain beyond all doubt, that, if by \"_the church_\" be\nunderstood any member of it at Jerusalem, besides two, or at most three,\nof the Apostles,--according to this interpretation, from the time of his\nConversion Visit to Damascus antecedently to his first visit to\nJerusalem, down to the last visit here reckoned as his fourth--there\nnever was a day on which the _church_ would have received his salute.\n\nWhat will also be rendered manifest is--that it was an object with the\nauthor of the Acts, to induce a belief, that Paul, before the conclusion\nof his first visit, was upon good terms with the church, and so\ncontinued to the last: and that, to this end, a purposed\nmisrepresentation was employed by the historian.\n\nNot that, in regard to the visit here in question, to the purpose of the\nargument--it makes any sort of difference, whether it had place or had\nnot. If it had place, neither the conclusion, nor any part of the\nargument, will be seen to require any variation in consequence.\n\n     [I.] Wells's _Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament_,\n     ii. 271. Ch. 5. Of Saint Paul's Travels and Voyages into Asia.\n     \"St. Paul\" (says Wells very composedly) \"_having kept_ the passover\n     at Jerusalem, went thence down, &c.\"--And for this the Acts are\n     quoted as above: but the Acts, it will here be seen, say no such\n     thing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n     Paul disbelieved _continued_.--_First of his four Visits to\n     Jerusalem after his Conversion_; _say_ Jerusalem Visit I. _or_\n     Reconciliation Visit.--_Barnabas introducing him from Antioch to\n     the Apostles._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nPAUL'S PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN HIS CONVERSION AND THIS\nVISIT.--CONTRADICTION. PER PAUL, IT WAS NOT TILL AFTER THREE YEARS\nSPENT IN ARABIA; PER ACTS, IMMEDIATELY.\n\nAlready on another occasion, and for a different purpose, have the two\naccounts, between which this self-contradiction manifests itself, been\nbrought to view: viz. on the occasion of the accounts, given or\nsupposed to be given, by Paul, of the cause and manner of his\nconversion:--accounts given in the first place, in writing, and\nconsequently, with all requisite time for deliberation, in his Epistle\nto the Galatians:--given, or supposed to be given, in the next place, by\na speech spoken, namely, that which, in the Acts is reported as spoken\nby him, on the occasion of his trial, to Festus and Agrippa:--Festus,\nthe Roman Proconsul, Agrippa, the Jewish King.\n\nIn the whole account of this matter, as given by Paul in his Epistle to\nthe Galatians, how much of truth there probably was, and how much of\nfalsehood or misrepresentation,--has been seen already in some measure,\nch. II. i. 5, and will be seen more fully as we advance.\n\nAs to his motive for this visit, he has endeavoured to keep it to\nhimself: but, by the result, according to the account he himself gives\nof it, it is betrayed. It was--to effect the so much needed\n_reconciliation_:--his reconciliation with the Apostles:--the Apostles,\nin relation to whom his disregard is professed, the need he had of them,\nno otherwise than virtually, nor yet the less effectually confessed.\nWithout an interval of considerable length between his conversion and\nthis visit, all such reconciliation would have been plainly hopeless.\nFrom this circumstance, the length, as alleged by him, of his abode in\nArabia, receives obvious and highly probative confirmation. The\nconfirmation is, indeed, reciprocal. The nature of his situation, proves\nthe need he had, of an interval of considerable length, before any hope\nof reconciliation could be fulfilled, or, naturally speaking, so much\nas conceived: by this circumstance, his abode in some other country is\nrendered probable to us: and this other country may, for aught we know,\nas well have been the country mentioned by him--to wit, _Arabia_,\nas any other: and, thus it is, that this assertion, of his having\nbeen three years in Arabia, between the time of his departure from\nJerusalem to Damascus, and his return to Jerusalem to see Peter, is\nconfirmed:--confirmed, by the natural length, of the interval, requisite\nto the affording any, the least chance, that Peter could be induced to\nmeet upon terms of amity and intercourse a man, in whom he beheld the\nmurderer of a countless multitude of human beings, linked to him by the\nclosest bonds of self-regarding interest, as well as sympathy and\nbrotherly love.\n\nAs to contradiction, contradiction cannot easily be much more pointed,\nthan it will be seen to be, between the account in respect of time, as\ngiven in this instance by Paul, and the account given of it by his\nhistoriographer in the Acts. On a double ground, it is Paul's account\nthat claims the precedence. Of _his_ account, such as it is, the rank,\nin the scale of trustworthiness, is that of _immediate_ evidence; that\nof his historiographer, no higher than that of _unimmediate_\nevidence:--evidence once removed; having, for its most probable and\nleast untrustworthy source, that same _immediate_ evidence. Paul's\nevidence is, at the same time, not only more circumstantiated, but\nsupported by the reasons which he has combined with it. Not till three\nyears after his alleged miraculous conversion, did he go near to any of\nthe Apostles.--Why?--Because, though, _at_ that time, for reasons which\nhe has left us to guess, he had regarded himself as having considerable\nneed of them,--_till_ that time he did not regard himself as having any\nneed of them. And, why was it, that, for so great a length of time, he\ndid not regard himself as having any need of them?--The answer he\nhimself gives us, Gal. i. 10: ... \"do I seek to please men?--I certify\nto you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after\nman.--For I received it not of man, nor was I taught it but by the\nrevelation of Jesus Christ.--When it pleased God, who called me by his\ngrace,--to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the\nheathen, _immediately_ I conferred not with flesh and blood:--Neither\nwent I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went\ninto Arabia, and returned _again_ unto Damascus.--Then after three years\nI went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen\ndays.--But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's\nbrother.\"\n\nThus far Paul himself. Let us now see, what is said in regard to the\ntime, by his subsequent attendant and historiographer. Acts ix ... \"as\nhe (Saul) journeyed, he came near Damascus, and, suddenly there shined\nround him a light,\" &c.--ver. 8. \"And Saul arose from the earth, and ...\nthey led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.--And he was\nthree days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.--And there was\na certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord\nin a vision...--...go into the street called _Straight_, and inquire\nin the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus...--17. And Ananias\n... entered into the house, and ... said, Brother Saul, the Lord ...\nhath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight ...--And ... he\nreceived sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.--And when he had\nreceived meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the\ndisciples which were at Damascus.--And straightway he preached Christ\nin the synagogues,...--22. ... and confounded the Jews which dwelt at\nDamascus,...--And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took\ncounsel to kill him.--... and they watched the gates day and night to\nkill him.--Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the\nwall in a basket.--And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to\njoin himself to the disciples: but they were _all_ afraid of him, and\n_believed not that he was a disciple_.--But Barnabas took him, and\nbrought him to the _Apostles_, and declared unto them how he had seen\nthe Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had\npreached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.\"\n\nWith what the historiographer says in his own person, agrees, as to the\nparticular point now in question, what, in the studied oration, he puts\ninto Paul's mouth. In that account likewise, immediately after the\nmention of what Paul did at Damascus,--follows, the mention of what he\ndid at Jerusalem: and, as to everything done by him among the Gentiles,\nnot only does the mention of it come after the mention of what was done\nby him at Jerusalem, but, between the two, comes the mention, of\nwhatever was done by him, in any of the coasts of Judea. Acts 26:19.\n\"Whereupon, O, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly\nvision:--but showed, first unto them of Damascus, and of Jerusalem, and\nthroughout all the coasts of Judea; and then to the Gentiles, that they\nshould repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.\"\n\nHere then, according to Paul's own account, after his visit to Damascus\nfrom Jerusalem, he visited Arabia, and moreover Damascus a second time,\nbefore he made his visit to Jerusalem to see Peter: before this visit\ndid he make both those other visits; and, in making them, pass three\nyears, with or without the addition, of the time, occupied by his first\nvisit to Damascus,--and the time, occupied by his abode in Arabia.\nAccording to Paul's own account then, between his second departure from,\nand his arrival at, Jerusalem from thence, there was an interval either\nof three years, or of so much more than three years. On the contrary,\naccording to both the accounts given of the matter by his\nhistoriographer in the Acts, there was not between the two events in\nquestion, any interval other than such as the journey from the one to\nthe other--about 130 British miles as the crow flies, say about 160,\nallowance made for turnings and windings,--would require.\n\nNow, as between Jews and Gentiles, _alias_ heathens:--to which of these\ntwo descriptions of persons, were his preachings addressed in the first\ninstance?\n\nAccording to his Epistle to his Galatians, preaching to the heathen\nbeing his peculiar destination, this accordingly is the vocation upon\nwhich he proceeded in the first place: and we have seen how probable it\nis, not to say certain, that, in this particular, what he asserted was\ntrue. His appointment being to \"the heathen,\" he conferred not with\nflesh and blood: _i.e._ with the Apostles, their immediate disciples, or\nother flesh and blood of the Christian persuasion: for, of any such\nconference--of any assistance or support from any such quarter, he has,\nin this same Epistle, been declaring and protesting--most vehemently\nprotesting--that he had no need. Neither then for the purpose of\nconference with \"those who were Apostles,\" as he says, \"before him,\" nor\nfor any other purpose, went he up to Jerusalem: no, not till either\nthree years after his conversion, or three years, with the addition of\nanother term of unmeasurable length.\n\nNow then, how stands this matter according to the Acts--according to the\nspeech put into Paul's mouth by the author of the Acts? Instead of the\nGentiles being the description of persons, to whom, in the first\ninstance, he applies his labours,--it is the Jews. What he _shows_ is\n\"_shown_,\" in the first place, to those \"of Damascus;\" then \"at\nJerusalem;\" then \"throughout all the coasts of Judea;\" and, not till\n_then_--to the Gentiles: of his abode in Arabia--of any visit of his to\nArabia--not any of the slightest mention, or so much as allusion to it.\nBut, all this while, for anything that appears to the contrary, Arabia\nwas completely open to him: whereas, after the offence he had committed\nagainst the authority of the ruling powers at Judea, it was not, morally\nspeaking, in the nature of things that he could have continued in any\nplace coming within that description--have continued, long enough to\nmake any sensible impression: and, in Jerusalem in particular, in this\nsame Epistle to the Galatians, from which the above particulars are\ntaken,--it was, as he himself declares, only in secrecy, that, even\nfourteen years after this, he ventured to disseminate those doctrines,\nwhatever they were, that were peculiar to himself, 2nd Gal.: 1, 2.\n\"Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas,\nand took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated\nunto them that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but _privately_\nto them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had\nrun, in vain.\"\n\nThus stands the contrariety:--the contrariety, between Paul's own\naccount of his own proceedings, and the account, which, by the author of\nthe Acts, he is represented as giving of them, on another occasion.\nSays Paul _himself_, in his own Epistle to his Galatians--After my\nconversion, it was to the Gentiles that I applied myself first: to the\nJews, not till afterwards; nor then, to any considerable extent. Says\nthe author of the _Acts_, in a speech, which he puts into the mouth of\nPaul--It was to the Jews that he applied himself first, and _that_ to a\ngreat extent: to the Gentiles, not till afterwards.\n\nThus stands the contrariety, taken in itself. As to the _cause_, it will\nneither be far to seek, nor dubious. In the differences of situations,\noccasions, and purposes in view--in the differences, that had place in\nrespect of all those particulars--it will be found.\n\nOn the occasion, on which Paul himself speaks, what was the persuasion\nwhich it was his endeavour to produce? It was--that, for a number of\nyears, commencing from the moment of his conversion,--with no persons,\nwho, to this purpose, could be called _Jews_, had he, to any such\npurpose as this, had any intercourse: for, this being admitted, it\nfollowed, of course, that, if, on the subject of the religion of Jesus,\nhe had really received the information he declared himself to have\nreceived, it was _not_ from the Apostles, that he had had it, or any\npart of it. \"On them (says he) I am perfectly independent: to them I am\neven superior. With Jesus _they_ had no communication but in a natural\nway; with the same Jesus _I_ have had communication in a supernatural\nway:--in the way of '_revelation_.' My communication with him is,\nmoreover, of a date posterior to theirs--to any that they can pretend\nto: in so far as there is any contrariety between that I teach and what\nthey teach, it is for theirs, on both these accounts--it is for theirs,\nto yield to mine. From God is my doctrine: in opposition to it, if\neither they, or any other men presume to preserve, let the curse of God\nbe on their heads. ver. 8. Accordingly, at the time of my first visit to\nJerusalem after my conversion, no communication had I with them, for, no\nsuch communication, teaching as I did from revelation, could I stand in\nneed of, I had already passed three years at least in Arabia, teaching\nto the Gentiles there my peculiar doctrine. This peculiar doctrine, as I\nmade no scruple of teaching it to those Gentiles, as little, on the\noccasion of that visit of mine to Jerusalem, did I make any scruple of\nteaching it to Jews as well as Gentiles. True it is, I did not then\nteach it publicly:--I did not teach my peculiar doctrine, so publicly as\nthey did theirs. But, as to this comparative secrecy, it had for its\ncause the advantage of being free from opposition; for, had the fact of\nmy teaching this doctrine so different from theirs--been known to\nthem,--they might have opposed it, and thus my labours might have been\nlost.\"\n\nWhether, in the representation here given of what he says to his\nGalatians, there be any misrepresentation, the reader may judge.\n\nOn the occasion, on which _his historian_ represents him as speaking,\nwhat now, as to this same matter, was the persuasion, which the nature\nof his situation required him to endeavour to produce? It was, that Jews\nwere the sort of persons, with whom, during the period in question, he\nhad, to the purpose in question, been holding intercourse: Jews, even in\npreference to--not to say to the exclusion of--Gentiles: so far is he\nfrom being _now_ represented, as stating himself to have held converse\nwith Gentiles, to the exclusion of Jews; which is, that of which he\n_himself_ has been seen taking so much pains to persuade his Galatian\ndisciples. Yes: as far as competition could have place, Jews, on this\noccasion, in _preference_, at least, to Gentiles: for, on this occasion,\nwhat he was labouring at was--to recommend himself to the favour of his\nJewish Judge, King Agrippa, Acts 26:8-21, by magnifying the services he\nhad been rendering to the Jews, his very accusers not excepted:\nservices, to the rendering of which, close and continued intercourse,\nduring that same period, could not but have been necessary.\n\nOn this occasion, being accused of--his historian does not choose to say\nwhat,--his defence was--that, of the persecution he was suffering, his\npreaching the _resurrection_ was the only real cause: that, having been\nborn and bred a Pharisee,--in preaching that doctrine, so far from\nopposing, he had been supporting, with all his might, the principles\nmaintained by the constituted authorities: adducing, in proof of the\ngeneral proposition, the evidence furnished by a particular fact, the\nresurrection, that had place in the case of Jesus, Acts 25:19: that\nwhen, in his conversion vision, Jesus gave him his commission, the\nprincipal object of that commission was--the instruction of the\nGentiles: to wit, by informing them--that, to such of them as would\nbelieve in the resurrection, and repent of their sins, and do works\naccordingly,--the benefit of it would be extended: that to this mandate,\nit was true, he did not ultimately fail to pay substantial obedience:\nyet, such was his affection for his brethren the Jews,--that it was not\ntill, for a considerable time, he had been conferring on _them_ the\nbenefit of his labours, that he betook himself to the Gentiles. Acts\n26:19. \"I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:--But showed\nfirst unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the\ncoasts of Judea; and _then_ to the Gentiles, that they should repent,\n&c.--For these causes the Jews caught me in the Temple, and went about\nto kill me.\"\n\nThe repugnancy (says somebody), the repugnancy, is--not between Paul and\nPaul--but between Paul and the author of the Acts; and, since the facts\nin question are occurrences in which Paul himself was either agent or\npatient, to the author of the Acts, and not to Paul, is the\nincorrectness, wherever it be, to be imputed. Be it so: for the purpose\nof the argument at least, be it so: but, if so it be, what are we to\nthink of the author of the Acts? Take away the author of the Acts, what\nbecomes of Paul? Take away the authority of the Acts in the character of\nan inspired writer--writing from supernatural inspiration, after an\nimmediate and continued intercourse, in some unexplained and\ninexplicable manner, with the Almighty,--what remains, then, of the\nevidence, on the ground of which the mighty fabric of Paul and his\ndoctrine has been erected?\n\nA man, who is thus continually in contradiction--sometimes with himself,\nat other times with the most unimpeachable authorities--what credence\ncan, with reason and propriety, be given to his evidence, in relation to\nany important matter of fact? at any rate, when any purpose, which he\nhimself has at heart, is to be served by it? Of such a man, the\ntestimony--the uncross-examined and uncross-examinable testimony--would\nit, of itself, be sufficient to warrant a verdict, on a question of the\nmost inconsiderable pecuniary import? how much less then, on questions,\nin comparison of which those of the greatest importance which the\naffairs of this life admit of, shrink into insignificance? Even, suppose\nveracity, and every other branch of probity, unimpeached and\nunimpeachable,--if such confusion of mind, such want of memory, such\nnegligence, in relation to incidents and particulars, of too immensely\nmomentous a nature, to escape, at any interval of time, from the most\nordinary mind;--if such want of attention, such deficiency, in respect\nof the most ordinary intellectual faculties and attainments, are\ndiscernible in his narrative,--what solid, what substantial ground of\ndependence can it furnish, or even leave in existence?\n\nOf this sort are the questions for which already no inconsiderable\nwarrant has, it is believed, been found; nor, if so, throughout the\nwhole remaining course of this inquiry, should they ever be out of mind.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nGROUNDS OF PAUL'S PROSPECT OF RECONCILIATION ON THIS OCCASION WITH\nTHE APOSTLES AND THEIR DISCIPLES.\n\nOn this head, in addition to, and in explanation of, the sort of\nnarrative given in the Acts,--information, of the most instructive and\nimpressive stamp, may be seen furnished by himself: at the head of it,\nmay be placed that, which may be seen in his Epistle to his Galatian\nconverts.\n\nAt Jerusalem was the board-room in which sat the Council of the\nApostles: of those men, to whom their bitterest enemies would not, any\nmore than their disciples and adherents, have refused the appellation of\nconstant companions and selected disciples of the departed Jesus. To\nthem was known, everything that, in relation to Jesus, was known to any\none else: and moreover, in unlimited abundance, particulars not capable\nof being known by any one else.\n\nAs to Paul, let us suppose him now a believer in Jesus; and, on this\nsupposition, note what could not but have been the state of his mind,\nwith relation to those select servants of Jesus.\n\nIn them he beheld the witnesses--not only of the most material and\ncharacteristic acts and sayings of their Master, but of his death, and\nits supernatural consequences--the _resurrection_ and _ascension_, with\nwhich it had been followed.\n\nIn them he beheld--not only the witnesses of his _miracles_, but a set\nof pupils, to whom such powers of working the like miracles--such\nmiraculous powers, in a word, as it had pleased him to impart,--had been\nimparted.\n\nIn their labours, he beheld the causes of whatsoever prosperity, he\nfound the society, established by them, in possession of.\n\nIn himself, he beheld the man, who, with such distinguished acrimony and\nperseverance, had done his utmost, for the destruction of that society,\ninto which, for the purposes, indication of which has been so clearly\ngiven by his own pen, he was preparing to intrude himself.\n\nTo form an ostensible cause for his intrusion,--in addition to such\ninformation, as, by means of his persecution, it had happened to him to\nextract from those whom he had been persecuting, what, on his part, had\nhe?--He had his own learning, his own talents, his own restless and\naudacious temper, and the vision he had got up:--the baseless fabric of\nthat vision, a view of which has just been given.\n\nOf the representation thus given of the matter,--whether we take his own\naccount of it, or that of the Acts,--suppose the truth to rest upon no\nother ground than this vision, with or without that other vision, which\nhas been seen so slenderly tacked to it, and so strangely inserted into\nit,--thus slender is the ground, on which we shall find him embarking\nupon his enterprize,--assuming to himself, without modification or\napology, the name of _an Apostle_,--thrusting himself into the society,\nand putting himself altogether upon an equality, not to say more than an\nequality, with the whole company of the men, whose title to that\nappellation was above dispute:--those of them who, among the chosen, had\nbeen the most favoured, not excepted.\n\n\nGALATIANS i. 11-23.\n\n     11. But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached\n     of me is not after man.--For I neither received it of man, neither\n     was I taught _it_, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.--For ye\n     have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion,\n     how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted\n     it:--And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in\n     mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions\n     of my fathers.--But when it pleased God, who separated me from my\n     mother's womb, and called _me_ by his grace,--To reveal his Son in\n     me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I\n     conferred not with flesh and blood,--Neither went I up to Jerusalem\n     to them which were Apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and\n     returned again unto Damascus.--Then after three years I went up to\n     Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.--But other\n     of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.--Now the\n     things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie\n     not.--Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;--And\n     was unknown by face unto the Churches of Judea which were in\n     Christ.--But they had heard only, that he which persecuted us in\n     times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.\n\nThus, however indistinctly and incoherently stated, stands the matter,\non the surface of both these accounts. On the surface. But, by a little\nreflection on the nature of the case--the obvious and indisputable\nnature of the case--as collected from all accounts, as already brought\nto view in a preceding chapter II, we shall be led to another\nconception, and the only tenable one.\n\nThe plan of worldly ambition--that plan by which we have already seen\nhis outward conversion produced--had been not only formed, but acted\nupon:--acted upon, during a course of at least three years: of three\nyears, employed at Damascus in preparation,--in Arabia in probation.\nWhat remained, and was now become necessary, was--some sort of\ncountenance from the Apostles: from the Apostles, and thence, if\npossible, from the rest of the then existing Church. Necessary\naltogether was this countenance for his support: for, to this plan the\n_name_ of Jesus was essential. It was in that _name_, that all his\noperations were to be carried on:--in that name, from the use of which\nit was to be universally understood, that it was according to\ndirections, and with support, from the departed Jesus, that by this, his\nnewly-enlisted servant, everything was said and done.\n\nIn Damascus--yes:--in Damascus, where were the only persons, with whom,\nfor the purpose of his dominion, he could with safety communicate: that\nis to say, persons, whom his commission from the Jerusalem authorities\nhad placed under his power. In Arabia--yes: where, though he had made no\nprogress of which he saw any advantage in giving any account--he at any\nrate had not experienced any opposition, of such a sort as to engage him\nto drop his scheme. In those comparatively distant countries--yes. But,\nin Jerusalem--the birthplace of Jesus and his religion,--in that\nmetropolis, within which, or the near neighbourhood of it, all the\nwitnesses of its rise and progress--all the proselytes, that had been\nmade to it, were collected,--and from whence, and to which, the votaries\nof that religion, out of which it had sprung, would be continually\nflocking from all quarters;--in this place, for a man, known so\nnotoriously to them all as a persecutor, in whose scheme of persecution\nthey had all of them been involved,--for such a man to have, all on a\nsudden, begun preaching and acting, in the name of that Jesus, whom, to\nuse his own language, he had persecuted--such an enterprise as this,\nwhich, even with the utmost support which it was in their power to give,\nwould have been audacity, would, without some sort of countenance from\nthem,--have been downright madness.\n\nTo perfect success it was necessary, that not only these shepherds of\nthe Church pasture, but, through them the whole flock, should thus be\nbrought under management. So far as regarded those same _rulers_, we\nshall find him, in a certain degree,--and even, with reference to his\npurpose, in a sufficient degree,--successful. But, with reference to the\nDisciples in general, and to all those rulers but three,--it will be\nseen to have completely failed.\n\nCircumstanced as he was, to those rulers alone, was it possible for him\nto have addressed himself, with any the smallest hope. To any assembly\nof the faithful at large, to have repaired with no better recommendation\nthan his vision story,--even with Barnabas, ready, as we shall see, to\ntake him by the hand,--would have been plainly hopeless. Not less so\nwould it have been--to present himself to the Apostles,--if, in support\nof such proposition as he had to make,--nothing more apposite, nothing\nto them in their situation more credible, than this same vision\nstory,--had been capable of being produced. On them, therefore, the case\nseems already pretty well ripe for the conclusion, that, no such story\nwas ever attempted to be passed. But, setting aside that a\u00ebrial\nargument,--inducements of a more substantial nature, such as we shall\nfind brought to view by Paul himself, were neither on this occasion\nwanting,--nor could, at any time, have been out of the view of that same\nBarnabas, whom we shall see appearing so often, in the character of his\ngenerous patron and steady friend. \"On this plan, might Barnabas say to\nthem,--On this plan, which he has chalked out for himself, he will be\nacting--not only not in opposition to, but even in furtherance of, your\nwishes and endeavors. Grecian as he is,--skilled in that language, and\nthat learning, which serves a man as a passport through the whole of the\nGentile world,--it is to that world that his labours will confine\nthemselves; a field surely ample enough for the most comprehensive\nviews. To you he will leave,--and leave certainly without privation, and\ntherefore naturally without regret,--that field, of which you are\nalready in possession,--and, by the boundaries of which, your means of\nconvenient culture are circumscribed.\"\n\n\"On this plan,--not only will your exertions remain unimpeded, but the\ninfluence of the name of Jesus--that name, on the influence of which\nthose same exertions are so materially dependent for their\nsuccess,--will, in proportion to Paul's success, be extended.\"\n\nIn a discourse, to this effect, from the generous and enlightened\nmediator,--may be seen the natural origin of that agreement, which,\nfurther on in its place, under the name of the _partition treaty_, there\nwill be occasion to bring, in a more particular manner, under review.\n\nBut, what is little less evident, than the propriety and prudence of\nthis plan, viewed at least in the point of view in which it might not\nunnaturally be viewed by Barnabas, is--the impossibility, of coming\nforward, with any tolerable prospect of success, with any such plan in\nhand, in presence of a vast and promiscuous assemblage. To engage, on\nthe part of any such assemblage, not to say any steady confidence, but\nany the slightest hope,--that, from an enemy even to death, the same man\nwould become a partner and assistant,--would require a most particular\nand protracted exposition, of all those facts and arguments, which the\nrequisite confidence would require for its support:--a detail, which no\nsuch assembly would so much as find time to listen to, were it possible\nfor it to find patience.\n\nEven in the case of the Apostles themselves,--taking the whole council\nof them together, the nature of the plan, it will be seen, admitted not\nof any successful negotiation. Accordingly, to the chief of them alone,\nto wit, to Peter, was it so much as the intention of Paul to make any\ncommunication of it in the first instance: and, in the whole length of\nthe intercourse, such as it was, that he kept up with, them--in all the\nfour visits, in the course of which that intercourse was kept up--being\na period of not less than twenty-five years, to wit, from the year 35 to\nthe year 60,--with no more than three of the eleven, will he be seen so\nmuch as pretending to have had any personal interview: _they_ not seeing\nhim, except when they could not avoid it; and _the others_ never seeing\nhim at all.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nOCCASION OF THIS VISIT, AS PER PAUL'S OWN ACCOUNT.\n\nAfter his conversion--after the time at which, if he is to be believed,\nhe saw that first-mentioned of his visions--that vision, by which the\nmost strenuous opponent of the new religion was changed into one who, in\nprofession, was the most active of its supporters,--what was the course\nhe took? Did he repair immediately to Jerusalem from whence he came? Did\nhe present himself to the eleven Apostles--to the confidential\ncompanions of the departed Jesus, to lay before them his credentials? to\nreport to those by whom everything about Jesus that was to be known to\nman was known--what had been experienced by him?--by him, Paul, by whom,\ntill the moment of that experience, nothing of it whatever had been\nknown? Not he, indeed. Behold what he says himself.\n\nInstead of so doing, off he goes, in the first instance to Arabia; from\nwhence, at the end of a length of time not specified, he returns to\nDamascus. At length, however, to Jerusalem he does repair: at length,\ninto the presence of those against whose lives he had so long\nconspired,--he now uses his endeavours to intrude himself.\n\nAt length? at the end then of what length of time? At the end of three\nyears? Yes: but from what point of time computed? From the time of his\nconversion on the road,--or from the last day of his stay at Damascus,\nupon his return thither from Arabia? By that man, let an answer to these\nquestions be given--by that man who can find grounds for it.\n\nThus much, however, may, at any rate, be said:--of the length of this\ninterval three years is the minimum.\n\nIn what view did it occur to him to seek this conference? in what view\nto make the attempt? and in what view delay it?\n\n1. As to his view in seeking it,--it must be left to inference:--to\nconjecture, grounded on circumstances.\n\n2. Being engaged, as he was, in the plan of making converts to a\nreligion, called by him the religion of Jesus,--and this among the\nnations at large--among others besides those in the bosom of whose\nreligion the founder of the new religion had been born;--feeling, as it\nseemed to him, the need, of information in various shapes--concerning\nthe acts and sayings of Jesus;--not having, for the purpose, had, as\nyet, access, to any of the persons, to whom the benefit, of an interview\nwith Jesus, upon terms of peculiar confidence, had been imparted;--he\nwas desirous, of taking this--his only course--for rectifying the\nmisconception, under which, to no small extent, he must probably have\nbeen labouring,--and filling up the deficiencies, under which he could\nnot but be labouring.\n\n3. Obvious is the need he had, of countenance from these universally\nacknowledged chiefs, of the religion professed to be taught by him.\n\nGood, says some one: but, having, from the first, been thus long\nlabouring, under the need of information,--how happened it, that he so\nlong delayed, the exertions he made at length, for the obtaining of it?\n\nThe answer is surely not unobvious.\n\nHad the time, of his presenting-himself, been when the memory of his\nconversion was fresh,--when the memory, of the vision, by which it was\nto be stated as having been effected, would, supposing it really\nexperienced, have been fresh also,--in such case, the narrative, true or\nuntrue, would have found, opposed to its reception, all imaginable\nrepugnance, in so many ulcerated minds: and, on the supposition of its\nbeing untrue, he--the supposed percipient and actually narrating\nwitness--he, who knew nothing about the subject of his testimony, would\nhave had to submit himself to the severest imaginable cross-examination,\nat the hands of those, to whom everything about Jesus was matter of\nperfect knowledge.\n\nThus the matter would have stood, in the first instance. On the other\nhand, as time ran on, several results, favourable to his design, would\nnaturally have taken place.\n\n1. The exasperation, produced by the experience of the persecution\nsuffered at his hands, would have been diminished.\n\n2. His own recollection, of the particulars, might be supposed less\nvivid.\n\n3. The curiosity, respecting them, would have become less eager.\n\n4. Time might have given admission to behaviour on his part, of a sort,\nby which distrust might be lessened, confidence strengthened.\n\nWell; now we have him at Jerusalem,--and for the first time after his\nconversion. When thus, at Jerusalem,--of those whom he went to see, whom\ndid he actually see? Answer, Peter for one; James, whom he styles the\nLord's brother, and who, according to him, though not literally a\nbrother, was, however, a kinsman of Jesus:--these two, according to his\nown shewing; these two, and no more. \"Then after three years I went up\nto Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But of the\nother Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother.\" Gal. 1:18,\n19.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nOCCASION, AS PER ACTS ACCOUNT COMPARED WITH PAUL'S.\n\nSuch as hath been seen is Paul's account of the matter:--Paul's own\naccount, of the interval that elapsed, between his conversion, and the\nfirst of his subsequent visits to Jerusalem:--to the residence of the\nChristians, whom he had been persecuting, and of the rulers, under and\nby the authority of whom, the persecution had been carried on. Such,\nloose as it is, is his account, of the interval between these two\nevents: and of the place, in which, either almost the whole, or at any\nrate the greatest part of it, was passed.\n\nSuch was Paul's own account of his own proceedings,--at the distance of\ntwenty-five years and more. Compare with it, now, the account, given by\nhis historiographer--given, of the interval, that, according to him, had\nplace, between these same two events. Acts 9:19-29.\n\nHere, no three years' sojournment in Arabia: no visit to that country:\nno notice, of any place, other than Damascus, as being a place, in which\nthe whole, or any part, of the time in question, was passed. In a\nposition, with respect to each other, scarcely different from that of\ncontiguity,--are the two events brought together. The blood of their\ndisciples scarce washed from off his hands, when, with Barnabas for his\nintroducer, he presents himself to the Apostles!\n\nAt the very time, when the Jerusalem rulers, would have been expecting\nto receive from him, the proofs of his punctuality, in the execution of\nthe important plan, of official oppression, of which, at his own\ninstance, he had been solemnly constituted and appointed the\ninstrument; when, after going over to and forming a league with the\ncriminals, for such they must have been called, whom he had been\ncommissioned by these rulers to bring to justice;--at this very time it\nis, that he returns to the seat of their dominion:--to the place in\nwhich, at that very time, his return to them, with the intended victims\nin captivity, could not but be the subject of universal expectation!\n\nLet any one now judge, whether, in any state of things, natural or\nsupernatural, the sort of conduct thus supposed is credible.\n\nAt Damascus, instead of presenting himself to the Damascus rulers, to\nwhom the commission of which he was the bearer was addressed,--the first\npersons, whom, according to this account, Acts 9:19, he sees, are \"the\ndisciples,\" _i.e._, the persons whom, by that commission, he was to\narrest: and, with them, instead of arresting them, he passes \"certain\ndays.\"\n\nThese certain days ended,--does he thereupon, with or without an\napology, present himself to these same rulers? Not he, indeed. Not\npresenting himself to them, does he, by flight or otherwise, take any\nmeasures, for securing himself, against their legitimate and necessarily\nintended vengeance? No such thing:--instead of doing so, he runs in the\nvery face of it. He shows himself in the Jewish synagogues, in the\npublic places of worship: and there, instead of preaching Moses and his\nlaw, he preaches Christ,--that Christ, whose disciples he was\ncommissioned to extirpate.\n\nThis breach of trust--this transgression, which, however commendable in\nitself, could not but,--in the eyes of all those by whom, or for whom,\nhe was in trust,--be a most flagitious and justly punishable act of\ntreachery,--could it even from the first, for so much as two days,\ntogether, remain unknown? Not it, indeed: if, in this particular, to\nthis same conversion story, as related by this same author, any credit\nis due. For, according to this same account,--in this same journey, and\nat the very time of his conversion vision, was he alone? No; he had\ncompanions: companions, who, whatsoever became of him, would, at the\nvery time of his entrance, unless any cause can be shown to the\ncontrary, have entered thither in due course. Well, then--ask the men in\nauthority,--\"This Paul, in whose train you came,--where is he, what has\nbecome of him?\" Such would of course have been the questions put to\nthese, his companions, even on the supposition, that by these same\ncompanions, no visit had, of their own accord, been paid to these same\nrulers, under whose authority they went to place themselves.\n\nAt length,--and the days which by this time had elapsed were\n\"_many_,\"--he finds it expedient to quit Damascus. He is driven from\nthence: but by what force? By the exercise of the legal authority of the\noffended rulers? in a word, by public vengeance? No: but by a private\nconspiracy--nothing more: for, to these rulers,--so different are they\nfrom all other rulers,--whether their authority is obeyed or contemned,\nhas, all the while, been matter of indifference.\n\n\nACTS ix. 19-30.\n\n     19. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was\n     Saul _certain days_ with the _disciples_ which were at\n     Damascus.--And straightway he preached _Christ_ in the synagogues,\n     that he is the Son of God.--But all that heard him were amazed, and\n     said, Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name\n     in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring\n     them bound unto the chief priests?--But Saul increased the more in\n     strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving\n     that this is very Christ.--And after that _many days_ were\n     fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:--But their laying\n     await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night\n     to kill him.--Then the disciples took him by night, and let him\n     down by the wall in a _basket_.--And when Saul was come to\n     Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they\n     were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a\n     disciple.--But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles,\n     and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and\n     that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at\n     Damascus in the name of Jesus.--And he was with them coming in and\n     going out at Jerusalem.--And he spake boldly in the name of the\n     Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about\n     to slay him.--30. Which, when the brethren knew, they brought him\n     down to C\u00e6sarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.\n\nIn the above account--a remarkable incident is presented, by the\noccasion and manner of his escape from Damascus. In part, it has for its\nsupport an assertion made by Paul himself; but, as usual, as to part it\nis scarcely reconcileable with the account he gives of it. In respect of\nthe adventure of the _basket_, the two accounts agree: and thus the\noccasion is identified and fixed. It is in respect of the description of\nthe persons, by whom the attack upon him was made or meditated, that the\naccounts differ. According to the Acts, the hostile hands are those of\nthe Jews, who are spoken of as so many unauthorized and criminal\nconspirators: but, according to Paul, they are those of the constituted\nauthorities--a governor acting under a king.\n\n     31. \"In Damascus\"--says he, in 2 Cor. 11:32-33--\"In Damascus, the\n     governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with\n     a garrison, desirous to apprehend me. And through a window in a\n     basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.\"\n\nNow, supposing the adverse force to have been that of a band of\nconspirators, it was natural for them to watch the \"city gates\": a more\npromising resource they could scarcely have had at their command. But,\nsuppose it to have been that of the governor,--what need had he to watch\nthe gates? he might have searched houses. By the reference made, to a\nmatter of fact, which, supposing it real, must in its nature have been\nnotorious--to wit, the existence of a king, of the name in question, in\nthe country in question, at the time in question--a comparative degree\nof probability seems to be given to Paul's account. A curious\ncircumstance is--that, in this Epistle of Paul's, this anecdote of the\nBasket stands completely insulated; it has not any the slightest\nconnection with anything that precedes or follows it.\n\nIn the Acts' account, as already observed, Chap. 4, it looks as if it\nwas immediately after the adventure of the basket, that he went on this\nhis first visit to the Apostles at Jerusalem: for, as we see, it is\nimmediately thereupon that his arrival at that city is mentioned. If so,\nthe abode he had _then_ been making at Damascus, was probably _after_\nhis return from Arabia: that return from Arabia, which we have seen him\nspeaking of in his Epistle to the Galatians, Gal. i. 15. \"When it\npleased God ... to reveal his son to me, that I might preach him to the\nheathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; Neither went\nI up to Jerusalem, to them which were Apostles before me; but I went\ninto Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. _Then after_ three years,\nI went up to Jerusalem, to see Peter.\" &c.\n\n\"After three years?\"--three years, reckoning from what _time_? Here we\nsee the ambiguity, and along with it the difficulty. If reckoning from\nhis conversion,--then we have the three years, to be spent--partly in\nDamascus, partly in Arabia: in Damascus, in obtaining, perhaps, from the\nChristianized Jews--in return for the impunity given to them by the\nbreach of the trust committed to him by the Jerusalem rulers--money, for\ndefraying his expenses while in Arabia. If, reckoning from his escape\nfrom Damascus in a basket, then we have three years, during which not so\nmuch as any the faintest trace of him is perceptible. All, therefore,\nthat is clear is--that according to his account of the matter, there was\nan interval of at least three years between his conversion, and this\nfirst of his subsequent Jerusalem visits--this visit of his to\nJerusalem, to see the Apostles.\n\nBetween the two interpretations,--in respect of length of time, observe\nhere the difference. According to one of them, between the conversion\nand the first Jerusalem visit, we have an interval of three years, and\nno more: and, in this interval, three lengths of time--one passed in\nDamascus, another in Arabia, a third, terminated by the basket\nadventure, passed also in Damascus, are all included: the entire\ninterval determinate: but its parts, all of them, indeterminate.\nAccording to the other interpretation, we have also three lengths of\ntime: the first, indeterminate, passed in Damascus; the second, as\nindeterminate, passed in Arabia; the third, passed in Damascus, and this\na determinate one--namely, the three years. Thus, upon the first\nsupposition, the interval consists of three years, and no more: upon the\nsecond supposition, it consists of three years, preceded by two lengths\nof time, which are both indeterminate, but one of which--that passed in\nArabia--may have been to any amount protracted.\n\nUpon either supposition,--it seems not unlikely, that it was immediately\nafter his escape from Damascus, that this first visit of his to\nJerusalem took place. And, the greater the preceding interval of time,\nwhether passed in Arabia or Damascus, the less unpromising his prospect,\nthat the resentments, produced by the provocations given by him to the\nChristians, by his persecution of them,--and to the Jewish rulers, by\nhis treachery towards them,--should, both, have to such a degree\nsubsided, as to render even so short a stay, as that of fifteen days\nwhich he mentions, consistent with personal safety. Yet, as we see in\nthe Acts, are these two events spoken of as if they had been contiguous:\nat any rate, it is in contiguity that they are spoken of.\n\nUncertainties crowd upon uncertainties. At the time of Paul's\nconversion,--had Damascus already this same king, named Aretas, with a\ngovernor under him? If so, how happens it, that, of this state of the\ngovernment, no intimation is perceptible, in the account given of that\nconversion in the Acts? Was it--that, at that time, there existed not\nany such monarchical personage? but that, before the adventure of the\nbasket, some revolution had placed him there?\n\nAccording to Paul's account,--the state of things, produced in Damascus\nby his exertions, was somewhat curious. On the face of this account, in\nordinary there was no _garrison_ in Damascus: it was only by special\norder from the monarch, and for no other purpose than the bringing to\njustice--or what was called justice--the person of the self-constituted\nApostle,--that a garrison was put into the town, with a governor for the\ncommand of it.\n\nWhat a foundation all this for credence! and, with it, for a system of\nreligious doctrine to build itself upon!--religious doctrine--with the\ndifference between eternal happiness and eternal misery depending upon\nit!\n\n\nSECTION 5.\n\nCAUSE OF THE DISCORDANCE BETWEEN THE TWO ACCOUNTS.\n\nBetween these two accounts, such being the discordance--where shall we\nfind the _cause_ of it? Answer: in the different views, in which, at the\ntime of writing, the two accounts were penned: in the different objects,\nto the accomplishment of which, at the time of penning their respective\naccounts, the endeavours of the two writers were directed.\n\nThe author of the Acts--what, then, was _his_ object? To obtain for his\npatron--his chief hero--alive or dead--a recognition, as universal as\npossible, in his assumed character of an Apostle. The more complete the\nrecognition, bestowed upon him by those most competent of all\njudges,--the more extensive the recognition he might look for, at the\nhands of all other their fellow-believers.\n\nSufficient was this--sufficient for the general purposes of the\nparty--in the eyes of a person other than Paul, even though that other\nperson was a proteg\u00e9, a retainer, a satellite.\n\nSufficient this was not, however, to the arrogance of the head of the\nparty--Paul himself: at least, at the time of his writing this his\nletter to his Galatian converts.\n\nThink you, says he, that any relation, I have ever borne to any of those\nwho were Apostles before me, had, on my part, anything in it of\ndependence? Think you, that I ever stood in need of anything at their\nhands? Think you, that I had ever any more need of them, than they of\nme? Not I, indeed. The Gospel, which I have always preached--neither\nfrom them did I receive it, nor from them, in preaching it, did I ever\nseek or receive any assistance. Gal. i. 11, 12. Think you, that I stood\nin any need, or ever supposed myself to stand in any need, of any\nacceptance or acknowledgement at their hands? Not I, indeed. When my\nrevelation had been received by me, did I present myself to them, for\nany such purpose as that of remuneration and acceptance? Not I, indeed.\nI went not to them: I went not so much as to Jerusalem, where they then\nwere: I conferred not with flesh and blood:--off I went to Arabia; and\nwhen my business in Arabia was at an end, even then, did I repair to\nJerusalem? Not I, indeed. I returned again to Damascus. True it is, to\nJerusalem I did go at last.--But when?--Not till three years\nafterwards. Well--and, when I was at Jerusalem, how many, and which of\nthem, think you that I saw? Think you, that I put myself to any such\ntrouble, as that of seeing them all together? the whole herd of them?\nNo. Peter was naturally a chief among them: with him I had accordingly\nsome business to settle:--him, accordingly, I saw, as also James, whom,\nas being a brother, or other near kinsman, of Jesus, I had a curiosity\nto see.\n\nPaul himself wrote at one time; this his disciple at another: each of\nthem pursued the purpose of the time. Not on this occasion, at any\nrate,--perhaps not on any other, was there anything, that either wrote,\nconcerted between them.[25] Of this want of concert, what has just been\nseen is one of the consequences.\n\nReserved as we have seen him, in regard to time and other\ncircumstances,--one circumstance more there is, for which our curiosity\nis to no small amount, debtor, to the author of the Acts. This\nis--information, of the means--of the channel, through which Paul\nobtained the introduction, which, without mention made of the object, we\nhave seen him acknowledging that, so far as concerned Peter, he was\ndesirous of: and _that_ to such a degree, as to undertake a journey from\nDamascus to Jerusalem, some 120 or 130 miles, for the purpose.\n\nRepugnancy, so natural, and naturally so vehement--even at the end of\nthree years, or the still greater number of years--by what means could\nhe remove it, or so much as flatter himself with a prospect of being\nable to remove it? To this question, it is to the author of the Acts\nthat we are indebted for an answer: and that answer a satisfactory\none:--it was by the assistance of Barnabas, that the object, so far as\nit was accomplished, was accomplished.\n\nTo the religion of Jesus, after as well as before this,--to the Apostles\nin particular before this,--Barnabas was a supporter of no small\nimportance.\n\nAt the time when the financial arrangements were for the second time\nsettled;[26]--when, from the substance of the opulent among the\nfaithful, enough was collected for the support of all the\nindigent;--among those, by whom, on this second occasion, lands and\nhouses, were for this purpose sold, particular persons are, on this\nsecond occasion, for the first time mentioned. The first place is\noccupied by this Barnabas: and not till after him come Ananias and\nSapphira--the unfortunate pair, of whose fate mention will have to be\nmade in another place.\n\nJoses was, it seems, the original name--the proper name of this\nbeneficent protector: Barnabas, the _Son of consolation_, Acts 4:36, was\nno more than a title of honour,--a token of gratitude. A title of\nhonour? and by whom conferred? Even by the Apostles. By Barnabas,\ntherefore, whatsoever thereafter comes to be reported as done,--it is by\n_the Son of consolation_ that we are to understand it to have been, and\nto be, done.\n\nAs to the arguments, by which this son of consolation succeeded,--in\nprevailing, upon two, and, if we are to believe Paul, no more than two,\nof these so lately persecuted or threatened servants of Jesus,--to be,\nfor a few days, upon speaking terms, with him, who so lately had been\ntheir deadly, as well as open enemy,--it is from imagination, with\njudgment for her guide, that they must, if at all, be deduced from the\nsurrounding circumstances of the case.\n\nAs to these arguments, however,--whatever were the rest of them, of two\nof them a hint is given by the author of the Acts: these are,--the\nstory of the conversion,--and the boldness of the preaching, which at\nDamascus was among the first-fruits of it. Those which, under the\nguidance of judgment, imagination would not find much difficulty in\nadding, are,--the evil--that might result from his enmity, in case the\nadvances then made by him were rejected,--and the useful service, which,\nby the blessing of God, might be hoped for at his hands, if admitted in\nthe character of an ally and cooperator: at any rate, so long as the\nwhole field of his exertions, and in particular the geographical part of\nit, continued different from theirs.\n\nWith Peter, on whatever account, it was Paul's own desire to hold a\nconference:--so we have seen him declaring to the Galatians. To this\nPeter, whom he was desirous of seeing, and whom at length he succeeded\nin seeing,--to this Peter did he then himself tell the story of his\nvision, of his conversion, and the mode of it? If at any time he\ndid,--at any rate, if the author of the Acts is to be believed,--it was\nnot till Barnabas, the son of consolation, had told it for him. Had it\nbeen by himself that his story had been to be told in the first\ninstance,--he would thereby have stood exposed to cross-examination:\nand, among those things, which Barnabas might in his situation say for\nhim,--were many things, which, if at all, he could not, with anything\nlike an equal prospect of good effect, have said for himself. To any\nasseveration of his own,--in any promises of future amity, it was not in\nthe nature of the case, that from his own mouth they should give\ncredence. But, when by Barnabas, of whose zeal in their cause they had\nreceived such substantial proofs--when from this son of consolation they\nreceived assurance, that Paul had actually engaged himself in that line\nof service, which he professed himself desirous to embrace;--that he had\nengaged so far, that no prospect of safe retreat could reasonably be in\nhis view;--then it was, that, without imprudence, they might, venture to\nhold at least a conference with him, and hear and see what he had to say\nfor himself.\n\nAs to the account, given on this occasion by Barnabas, of the famous\nvision,--had it been but preserved, it would probably have been no less\ncurious than those which we have been already seeing. Though we cannot\nbe precisely assured in what way,--we may be pretty well assured, that,\nin some way or other, additions would have been to be seen made in it,\nto the list of _variations_.\n\nBut, the great advantage,--producible, and probably produced, by\nthe opening of the matter, as performed by Barnabas,--was this:\nin company with those arguments, by which the sincerity of Paul was\nto be demonstrated,--would naturally come those, by which intimation\nwould be given, of the advantage there might be, in forbearing to\napply too strict a scrutiny, to this important statement. The\ninterests, which, in the character of motives, pleaded for the\nacceptance, of the advance made towards reconciliation and mutually\nadvantageous cooperation,--would, in this manner, prepare the way,\nfor receiving, without any troublesome counter-interrogation, the\nimportant narrative: or, perhaps, for considering the matter, as\nalready sufficiently explained, by the son of consolation,--in such\nsort that, to the new Apostle, the trouble of repeating a narrative,\nwhich he must already have so frequently found himself under the\nnecessity of repeating, might be spared.\n\nThe greater was the importance, of the service thus rendered to Paul by\nthe son of consolation,--the more studiously, in giving the account, as\nabove, of the intercourse with the Apostles at Jerusalem,--the more\nstudiously, would he avoid all mention of it.[27]\n\n\nSECTION 6.\n\nLENGTH OF THIS VISIT--PAUL'S EMPLOYMENT DURING IT.\n\nFifteen days, if Paul is to be believed--fifteen days, and no more,--was\nthe length of time, during which his intercourse with Peter continued:\nGal. i. 18, that same length of time, and no greater, it may without\nmuch rashness be inferred, was his stay at Jerusalem.\n\nThese fifteen days,--or whatever, if anything longer, was the duration\nof his stay in that seat of their common religion,--in what occupations\nwere they employed? It is in the Acts, if anywhere, that this question\nwill receive its answer. It was in \"disputing against the Grecians.\"\nActs 9:29.\n\nThat such should have been his occupation, is in his situation\naltogether natural.\n\nOf a sort of _partition treaty_, as having, at one time, been entered\ninto between himself and Peter,--Paul, in his so-often mentioned\nletters to the Galatians, informs us in express terms. As to the time,\nwhich, on that occasion, he has in view,--it was, according to\nappearance, not the time of _this_ his first visit, but of the third. At\nthat third visit, the treaty was, at any rate, either entered into for\nthe first time, or confirmed: receiving, at the same time, what was on\nboth sides agreed upon, as an amendment requisite to add to it, in\nrespect of clearness, correctness, or completeness.\n\nBut, at this visit, it seems altogether natural, that, with more or less\nof these same qualities, a treaty of this sort took place. By the sort\nof relation, produced between them, by the state of interests,--the\nexistence of an agreement of this sort seems sufficiently probabilized:\nand, from the few words, in which, by the author of the Acts, mention is\nmade of the Grecians, and of Paul's disputes with them,--the inference\nreceives the confirmation afforded by _direct_ evidence.\n\nWith the Grecians then it was, that these disputations of Paul were\nheld. Why with the Grecians, and no other? The reason is no mystery.\nGreek was the language of Paul: Greek, for anything that appears, was\nnot the language of Peter, or of any other of the Apostles. Applying\nhimself to the Grecians, and to them alone,--Paul might, to any amount,\nhave given additional extent to his own dominion, without subtracting\nanything from theirs.\n\nNot productive, it should seem, of much fruit,--was this portion, of the\nnew Apostle's labours. No sooner are we informed, of the boon thus\noffered to these Grecian Gentiles, than comes, moreover, the further\ninformation, that some there were, that \"went about to slay him. Which\nwhen the brethren knew, they brought him,\" it is added, \"to C\u00e6sarea,\nand sent him forth to Tarsus.\" Acts 9:29.\n\nMeantime, those men, who went about to slay him,--who were they?\nPossibly they were Grecians, if by the disputation in question, the\nannoyance produced was so intolerable to them, as to be productive of a\nwish and enterprise thus flagitious: and, if the evidence afforded by\nthe rules of grammar be in this case regarded as conclusive,--the\npronoun _they_ having for its last possible antecedent the substantive\n_Grecians_--these, and no other, must have been the intended murderers.\nOn the other hand, among the heathen--the philosophical disputants of\nthis nation,--disputations, having any such abstractions for their\nsubject, were not wont to be productive, of any such practical and\nflagitious consequences. Among the heathens, moreover, it appears not,\nthat, antecedently to his conversion, the zeal of Paul had led him to\nput any to death: on the other hand among the Christianized Jews, his\nfellow-religionists, the number of persons, of whom he had put to death\nsome, and in other ways plagued others, was unhappily but too great. By\nthe religion _into_ which they had been converted,--revenge, it is true,\nwas not (as in that which they were converted _from_) magnified, but\nprohibited: but, the influence of it has never been equally efficient\nupon all minds.\n\nBe this as it may,--upon his leaving Jerusalem, it was to the region of\nSyria and Cilicia, that, at this time, he betook himself. So, in his\nletter to his Galatians, he himself says, Gal. 1:21; and, by what is\nsaid in the Acts, he is not contradicted, but confirmed. By himself what\nis mentioned is--the _region_, viz. Syria and Cilicia: by the Acts what\nis mentioned is--the _cities_, viz. C\u00e6sarea and Tarsus.\nC\u00e6sarea,--whether at that time it was in Syria or not,--was, at any\nrate, little, if anything, out of the way, from Jerusalem to Tarsus.\nC\u00e6sarea was a town upon the coast:--one among those maritime towns,\nwhich, whether parts or not of Syria, are in the way between the inland\ncity, of Jerusalem, and the coast of Cilicia: with which coast, by a\nriver,--Tarsus, marked in the map with the mark of a capital town,\nappears to communicate.\n\nIn speaking of this change of place, the terms employed by Paul, are\ngeneral terms,--\"_I came._\" By what _means_ he came, he does not\nmention: nor does there appear any particular reason why he should have\nmentioned them.\n\nIn the Acts, the account is more particular:--he was, in a manner,\nforced from the one place to the other:--he was, at any rate,\n_escorted_: it was by \"_the brethren_,\" he was so dealt with. \"Which\nwhen the brethren knew, they brought him down to C\u00e6sarea, and sent him\nforth to Tarsus.\" Acts 9:30.\n\nBy the brethren?--Yes.--But by what brethren? By the general body of the\nChristians, or any that belonged to it? No:--for, it was from their\nwrath, that he was making his escape. No:--not by the justly exasperated\nmany; but by such few adherents as, under such prodigious disadvantage,\nhis indefatigable artifice and energy had found means to conciliate.\n\n\nSECTION 7.\n\nMODE AND CAUSE OF ITS TERMINATION.\n\nIn relation to this subject, we have two, and no more than two,\naccounts,--both from the same pen,--that of the historiographer in the\nActs; and these two accounts, as usual, contradictory of each other.\nThe first, in the order of the history, is that given by him in his own\nperson: Acts 9:27, 28, 29. The other, is that given by him in the person\nof Paul: namely, in the course of his supposed first-made and\nunpremeditated speech,--when, on the occasion of his last visit to\nJerusalem--his Invasion Visit, he was pleading for his life before the\nangry multitude. Acts 22:17, 18, 19, 20, 21.\n\nNow then, let us compare the two accounts.\n\nSpeaking in his own person,--it is to the fear of certain Grecians, that\nthe historiographer ascribes Paul's departure for Jerusalem. In\ndisputing with them, he had been speaking \"boldly in the name of the\nLord Jesus\": and _thereupon_,--and as we are desired to believe,\n_therefore_,--came certain designs and endeavours to slay him. Designs?\non the part of whom? Answer:--on the part of those same Grecians: cause\nof these designs and endeavours, irritation, so it is intended we should\nsuppose,--irritation, produced in the breasts of those same\nGrecians;--and produced by the dispute.\n\nNow, as to the words of the historiographer, speaking in his own person.\nIt is immediately after the mention of Paul's transactions with the\nApostles and the other disciples, that after saying, Acts 9:28, that\n\"... he was with them coming in and going out of Jerusalem,\" the\nnarrative continues thus: ver. 29; \"And he spake boldly in the name of\nthe Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, but _they_ went about\nto slay him: ver. 30; Which when _the brethren_ knew, they brought him\ndown to C\u00e6sarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.\"\n\nSuch is the account given, of the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, on\nthe occasion in question--given by the historiographer, speaking in his\nown person, of the manner of the departure, and at the same time of the\ncause of it. Behold now how different is the account given, of the same\nmatter, by the same historiographer, in the same work, when speaking in\nthe person of his hero. Nothing now as to any disputes with Grecians:\nnothing now of these, or any other human beings, in the character of\nbeings who were angry with him, and _that_ to such a degree, that, to\nsave his life, it was deemed necessary by his adherents,--styled on this\noccasion \"_the_ brethren,\" to take charge of him, as we have seen, and\nconvey him from Jerusalem to C\u00e6sarea and elsewhere.\n\nThe case seems to be--that, between the time of writing the account\nwhich has just been seen, and the time for giving an account of the same\ntransaction in the person of the hero, as above,--a certain difficulty\npresented itself to the mind of the historiographer: and, that it is for\nthe solution of this difficulty, that he has recourse, to one of his\nsovereign solvents--_a trance_. The difficulty seems to have been this:\nThe class of persons, whom, on that first visit of his he had\nexasperated, were--not \"_Grecians_,\" or any other Gentiles, but\nChristians: Christians, the whole body of them--Apostles and Disciples\ntogether: the same class of persons, to which belonged those who, on the\noccasion of this his last visit--the _Invasion Visit_--were to such a\ndegree exasperated, by this fourth intrusion of his, as to be attempting\nhis life. How hopeless any attempt would have been, to make them\nbelieve, that it was not by themselves, but by a set of Heathens, that\nhis life was threatened on that former occasion, is sufficiently\nmanifest. Here then comes a demand, for a substitute, to that cause,\nwhich, distant as the time was, could not, however, be altogether absent\nfrom their memory: and which, so far as it was present, could not but\nheighten their exasperation:--this substitute was _the trance_.\n\nThe cause of the departure is now--not the fear of any human being, but\nthe express command of \"_the Lord_\":--a command delivered in the course,\nand by means, of this same _trance_. Moreover, as if, from such a\nquarter, _commands_ were not sufficient of themselves; on the present\noccasion, it will be seen, they came backed by _reasons_. Was it that,\nas the historiographer has been telling us in his own person, certain\nGrecians were exasperated? No: but that the persons, to whom, with\nBarnabas for his supporting witness, Acts 9:27, he had been telling his\nstory, gave no credit to it: so that, by a man with his reputation in\nthis state, nothing in the way of his business was to be done.\n\nBut now let us see the text. It comes immediately after that passage, in\nwhich Paul is made to speak of Ananias, as giving orders to him, in the\nname of the Lord: orders, concluding in these words: Acts 22:16: ...\n\"arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of\nthe Lord.\" This said,--his story, as told to the multitude, continues\nthus: \"And it came to pass that, when I was come again to Jerusalem,\neven while I prayed in the temple, I was in _a trance_: And saw him\nsaying unto me, Make _haste_, and get thee _quickly_ out of Jerusalem:\n_for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me_. And I said,\nLord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that\nbelieved on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I\nalso was standing by, and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment\nof them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee\nfar hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word,\nand then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from\nthe earth; for it is not fit that he should live.\"\n\nIt may now be seen, how useful and convenient an implement this same\ntrance was: how well adapted, to the occasion on which it was employed.\nTaken by itself, this story about the enraged Grecians might serve to\nimpose upon readers in general: but, to the knowledge of the really\nenraged Christians, whose wrath he was endeavouring to assuage,--it was\nnot only too palpably false to be related to them, but too much so, to\nbe even for a moment supposed to be related to them: hence came the\ndemand for the supernatural cause. Nothing, it is evident, could be\nbetter suited to the purpose. The assertion was of the sort of those,\nwhich, how palpably soever untrue, are not exposed to contradiction by\ndirect evidence: and which, supposing them believed, ensure universal\nrespect, and put all gainsayers to silence.\n\nAn incident not unworthy here of notice, is--the sort of acknowledgment\ncontained in the words--\"for they will not receive thy testimony\nconcerning me.\" In this may be seen--a confirmation of the important\nfact, so fully proved on the occasion of the first or _Reconciliation\nVisit_: and we see--with what consistency and propriety, the mention of\nit comes in, on the present occasion: namely, in a speech, made to a\nmultitude, of which, many of those,--by whom he had been disbelieved and\nrejected on that former occasion,--must of course have formed a part.\n\nSuch is the fact, which, after having communicated to us, in his own\nperson, Acts 9:26, \"they were all afraid of him, and believed not that\nhe was a disciple,\" the historiographer is frank enough to communicate\nto us a second time, through the mouths of Paul and \"the Lord,\" the one\nwithin the other. _True_ enough this information: and, moreover, at\nJerusalem, as well when the historiographer was writing, as when Paul\nwas speaking, _notorious_ enough: or we should hardly have had it _here_\nand _now_. But, what a truth to put into the mouth of Paul, whose title\nto credence for his claim, is so effectually destroyed by it!\n\nTo return to what, on the occasion of the first visit, is said by the\nhistoriographer, in his own person, about the Grecians. That it was\nfalse, as to the main point,--namely, that it was by the fear of those\nsame Gentiles that he was driven out of Jerusalem,--is now, it is hoped,\nsufficiently evident. But, as to his having held disputation with\nthem,--in this there seems not to be anything inconsistent or\nimprobable: and this part, supposing it true, might, in so far as known,\nhelp to gain credence for that which was false.\n\nA circumstance--not altogether clear, nor worth taking much trouble in\nthe endeavour to render it so, is--on the occasion of this dialogue, the\nchange made, of the supernatural vehicle, from a _vision_ into a\n\"_trance_.\" Whatsoever, if any, is the difference,--they agree in the\none essential point: namely, that it is in the power, of any man, at any\ntime, to have had as many of them as he pleases: hearing and seeing,\nmoreover, in every one of them, whatsoever things it suits his\nconvenience to have heard or seen.--\"I saw a vision:\" or, \"I was in a\ntrance\": either postulate granted, everything whatsoever follows.\n\nThis _trance_, it may be observed, is of a much more substantial nature\nthan any of the _visions_. By Paul in his _road vision_,--vision as it\nwas,--neither _person_ nor _thing_, with the exception of a quantity of\nlight, was seen: only a voice, _said to be the Lord's_, heard. In this\ntrance, the Lord is not only heard, but seen. In those visions, that\nwhich is said to have been heard, amounts to nothing: on the present\noccasion, what is said to have been heard, is material to the purpose,\nand perfectly intelligible. Not that there could be any use in Paul's\n_actually_ hearing of it: for what it informed him of, was nothing more\nthan that which, at the very time, he was in full experience of. But, in\na situation such as his, it was really of use to him, to be _thought_ to\nhave heard it: and therefore it is, that, in the speech ascribed to him,\nhe is represented as _saying_ that he heard it.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[25] In the current chronology, this Epistle to the Galatians is placed\nin the year 58; on the part of the author of the Acts, the first mention\nof his being in the company of Paul is placed in the year next\nfollowing, to wit, 59. Note, that at the end of the Epistle to the\nGalatians, it is stated to be written from Rome: yet, according to the\ncurrent chronology, his arrival at Rome, in custody, from Jerusalem,--at\nwhich time unquestionably he had never as yet visited Rome,--did not\ntake place till the year 62.\n\n[26] First time, Acts ii. 45. Second time, Acts iv. 34.\n\n[27] \"I conferred not with flesh and blood.\" (Gal. ii. 16.) \"Of those\nwho seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to\nme.\" Not till \"after three years\" did I go \"up to Jerusalem to see\nPeter.\" With language in this strain, it would have harmonized but\nindifferently, to have added, \"nor should I have seen him then, had it\nnot been for Barnabas.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n     _Paul disbelieved_ continued.--_Jerusalem Visit II._\n     _Money-bringing Visit._--_Barnabas accompanying him from Antioch._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nAT ANTIOCH, AGABUS HAVING PREDICTED A DEARTH, MONEY IS COLLECTED FOR THE\nJERUSALEM SAINTS.\n\nAt his own house it was, that we last left our self-declared Apostle: at\nhis own birthplace--Tarsus: what we have next to see is--what drew him\nfrom thence.\n\nAll this while there were other disciples that had not been idle. To the\nnew religion, already was Antioch, Antioch in Syria, become a new\nJerusalem.\n\nUpon the dispersion of the Jerusalem Christians, occasioned by\nthe judicial murder of the sainted trustee of the poor's\nfund--Stephen,--some of them, among whom were some natives of\nCyprus,--in which island was situated the property of the son of\nconsolation, Barnabas,--had betaken themselves to that same island,\nothers to that same city of Antioch in Syria.\n\nACTS xi. 19-24.\n\n     19. Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that\n     arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and\n     Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.--And\n     some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were\n     come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord\n     Jesus.--And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number\n     believed, and turned unto the Lord.--Then tidings of these things\n     came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they\n     sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.--Who,\n     when he came and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and exhorted\n     them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the\n     Lord.--For he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith:\n     and much people was added unto the Lord.\n\nOf these, some addressed themselves exclusively to the _Jews_: others\nventured so far, as to make an experiment upon the _Grecians_.\nUnfortunately, these terms are, neither of them, wholly free from\nambiguity. By the word _Jews_, may have been meant either Jews by\n_birth_ and _abode_, or Jews by _religion_: by the word _Grecians_,\neither Jews who, born or dwelling within the field of quondam Grecian\ndominion, used the Greek as their native language,--or Greeks, who were\nsuch, not only by language, but by religion. In this latter case, their\nlot was among the Gentiles, and much more extraordinary and conspicuous\nwas the importance of the success.\n\n\"They which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel.\" Such, in his\nown words, 1 Cor. 9:14, is the maxim laid down by Paul, for the\nedification of his Corinthian disciples. To save doubts and disputation,\nhe prefaces it with the assurance--\"even so hath the Lord ordained.\" No\ngreat need of support from revelation, seems to attach upon a maxim so\nnatural, and so reasonable: from the time of the first planting of the\nGospel, it appears to have been, as indeed it could not fail to be,\nuniversally acted upon; saving such few exceptions as a happy union of\nzeal, with sufficient pecuniary means, might render possible.\n\nHow, under the Apostolical aristocracy, it had been acted upon in\nJerusalem, has been seen already. The time was now come,--for its being\nestablished, and acted upon in Antioch.\n\nAt Jerusalem, under the spiritual dominion of the Apostles,\nlived a man of the name of _Agabus_. Among the endowments,--of\nwhich, in the character of _qualifications_, a demand was by some\nunderstood to be created, by the business of propagating the new\nreligion,--qualifications, a list of which, according to his conception\nof it, Paul, 1 Cor. 12:10, has given us,--was one, which, among these\nendowments, was called the \"_gift of prophecy_\":--a gift, under which,\nas under that of speech in general, particularly when applied to\noccasions of importance, the faculty of _prediction_--of forming correct\njudgments respecting future contingencies--would, if not necessarily,\nvery frequently at least, come to be included.\n\nIn the instance of the _prophecy_ here in question, this same\nprospective faculty, it should seem, was actually included.\n\nThe _fact_, for the purpose of predicting, or giving information of\nwhich, this useful emissary was, on the present occasion, sent from\nJerusalem to Antioch,--was--that of signifying, that there should be a\ngreat dearth: an _inference_ deduced from it, was--that, at this same\nAntioch, for the relief of the brethren at Jerusalem, _contributions_\nshould be collected, and sent to Jerusalem.\n\nACTS xi. 27-30.\n\n     27. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto\n     Antioch.--And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and\n     signified by the spirit that there should be a great dearth\n     throughout all the world; which came to pass in the days of\n     Claudius Caesar.--Then the disciples, every man according to his\n     ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in\n     Judea:--Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands\n     of Barnabas and Saul.\n\nIn the calamity of _dearth_ may be seen one of those events, of\nwhich--especially if the time of it be not predesignated with too rigid\nan exactness--a prediction may be hazarded,--and even by any\nman,--without much risk of falling under the disgrace attached to the\nappellation of _a false prophet_. Of this observation, an\nexemplification seems to have been afforded, in the present instance.\nWith not unaccustomed prudence,--\"the spirit,\" by which, on this\noccasion, the calamity was \"signified,\" forbore, as we see, from the\nfixation of any particular year--either for the prophecy, or for the\naccomplishment of it. \"The days of Claudius Caesar\" are mentioned as the\ntime of the accomplishment. By agreement of all chronologists,--the\nduration of his reign is stated as occupying not less than thirteen\nyears. Whether this same reign had then already commenced,--is not, on\nthis occasion, mentioned: from the manner in which it is mentioned, the\nnegative seems not improbable; if so, then to find the time which the\nprophecy had for finding its accomplishment to the definite term of\nthirteen years, we must add another, and that an indefinite one.\n\nAccording to the situation, of the individuals by whom the word is\nemployed,--_worlds_ vary in their sizes. Of the dearth in question, the\nwhole world, \"all the world,\" is, by the author of the Acts, stated as\nhaving been the afflicted theatre: \"great dearth throughout all the\nworld.\" Acts 11:28. As to the rest of the world, we may leave it to\nitself. For the purpose then and now in question, it was and is\nsufficient--that two cities, Jerusalem and Antioch, were included in it.\nThe calamity being thus universal,--no reason of the ordinary kind is\ngiven, or seems discoverable--why, of any such contribution as should\ncome to be raised, the course should be--from Antioch to Jerusalem,\nrather than from Jerusalem to Antioch. Inquired for, however, on\nreligious ground,--a _reason_ presents itself, without much difficulty.\nWhat Rome became afterwards, Jerusalem was then--the capital of _that\nworld_, which now, for the first time, received the name of _Christian_.\nAccording to one of the sayings of Jesus--if Paul, his self-appointed\nApostle, is to be trusted to--of them it was pronounced \"_more blessed\nto give than to receive_\":[28] but in the eyes of the successors of St.\nPeter at all times,--and at this time, as it should seem, in his own--it\nwas _more blessed to receive than give_.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nBARNABAS AND PAUL DISPATCHED WITH THE MONEY TO JERUSALEM.\n\nOf the _amount_ of the eleemosynary harvest, no intimation is to be\nfound. As to the _consequence_ of it, Barnabas, we see, is the man\nstated as having, with obvious propriety, been chosen for the important\ntrust: Barnabas--of whose opulence, trustworthiness, steadiness, and\nzeal, such ample proofs, not to speak of those subsequent ones, which\nwill be seen in their place, had already manifested themselves. In\nconsequence of the information, already received by the Mother Church\nin Jerusalem, of the prosperity of the Daughter Church, Acts 11:20, 21,\nplanted, as above, in the capital of Syria,--this most active of all\nChristian citizens had been sent to give increase to it.\n\nBut, of the talents and activity of Paul, his indefatigable supporter\nand powerful patron had had full occasion to be apprized. Accordingly,\nwithout the aid of this his not less indefatigable helper, still was the\nstrength of the rising church, in the eyes of the patron, incomplete. \"A\nprophet,\" says a not ill-grounded proverb, \"has no honor in his own\ncountry.\" In his native city, among the witnesses of his youth, Paul had\nindeed found _safety_: but, as the nature of the case manifests, in a\ncircle, from which respect stood excluded by familiarity, safety had not\nbeen accompanied with _influence_: and, in eyes such as those of Paul,\nsafety without influence was valueless. Under these circumstances,--the\npatron, going to Tarsus in person in quest of his proteg\u00e9, could not\nnaturally find much difficulty in regaining possession of him, and\nbringing with him the so highly-valued prize, on his return to Antioch.\n\"Then,\" says the Acts, 11:25, 26, \"departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to\nseek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch.\"\n\nAt this place, with their united powers, they had been carrying on their\noperations for the space of a twelvemonth, when the petition for\npecuniary assistance was received there.\n\nAs for Paul,--from the moment of his conversion, notwithstanding the ill\nsuccess of his first attempt,--the prime object of his ambition--the\nsituation of President of the Christian Commonwealth--had never quitted\nits hold on his concupiscence. Occasions, for renewing the enterprise,\nwere still watched for with unabated anxiety:--a more favourable one\nthan the one herein question, could not have presented itself to his\nfondest wishes. The entire produce, of the filial bounty of the Daughter\nChurch, was now to be poured into the bosom of the necessitous Mother.\nFor the self-destined head of that rising Church, two more acceptable\noccupations, than those which one and the same occasion brought to him,\ncould not have been found:--First, the collection of the\ncontributions;--and then the conveying of them, to the place of their\ndestination. Of the labours of such agents, in such circumstances, the\nsuccess, we are told, they found, was a natural result. \"Then,\" says the\nActs 11:29, 30, \"Then the disciples, every one according to his ability,\ndetermined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea:--Which\nalso they did; and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and\nSaul.\" Thus much as to the _public_ purpose. Very different was the lot\nof Paul's _personal_ project. What the elders could not have any\nobjection to the receipt of, was--the money. But, what they had an\ninsuperable objection to, was--the receipt of the yoke of this their\noutwardly-converted, but once already rejected, persecutor. This second\nenterprise,--though still under the same powerful leader, and produced\nby such flattering prospects,--succeeded no better than the first.\nFive-and-twenty verses after, we are told of the _termination_ of this\ntheir second Jerusalem visit; and this is all we hear of it: \"And\nBarnabas and Saul,\" says the Acts 12:25, \"returned from Jerusalem, when\nthey had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose\nsurname was Mark.\" This same John Mark they got by their expedition: and\nthis, for anything that appears, was all they got by it.\n\nBetween the mention of their arrival at Jerusalem, and the mention of\ntheir departure from thence,--comes the episode about Peter:--his\nincarceration and liberation under Herod; and the extraordinary death of\nthe royal prosecutor,--of which, in its place. As to the interval,--what\nthe length of it was, and in what manner, by Paul, under the wing of the\nSon of Consolation, it was occupied,--are points, on which we are left\naltogether in the dark: as also, whether the _time_ of these adventures\nof Peter, the _mention_ of which stands inserted between the mention of\nthe two occurrences in the history of Paul, was comprised in that same\ninterval.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[28] Acts 20:35. It is in the parting scene--when about to break from\nhis dissuading disciples, and enter upon his invasion project--that Paul\nis represented as saying to them: \"Remember the words of the Lord Jesus,\nhow he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.\" Whence this\nself-appointed and posthumous Apostle of Jesus got these words of\nJesus--if such they were--must be left to conjecture. In the works of\nthe four received biographers of Jesus, with _Cruden_ and his\n_Concordance_ for guides, all search for them has been fruitless.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n     _Paul disbelieved continued.--His third Jerusalem Visit.--Paul and\n     Barnabas delegated by Antioch Saints, to confer on the Necessity of\n     Jewish Rites to Heathen Converts to the Religion of Jesus._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nOCCASION OF THIS VISIT.\n\nWe come now to the transaction, on the occasion of which, the grand\nobject of Paul's ambition received, in part, its accomplishment: namely,\nthat, by which,--though without any such popular election as, in the\ninstance of Matthias, had been necessary to constitute a man an\nassociate to the Apostles,--he was, in some sort, taken by them into\nfellowship, and admitted, with their consent, into a participation of\ntheir labours.\n\nThis occasion was--the dispute, which, in the Syrian Antioch, took\nplace, according to the author of the Acts, on the question--whether,\nunder the religion of Jesus, circumcision was necessary to salvation: a\nquestion, in which,--whether explicitly or no,--was implicitly, it\nshould seem, and perhaps inextricably, understood to be involved, the so\nmuch wider question--whether, under that same new religion, the old\nceremonial law should, in any part of it, be regarded as necessary.\n\nOn this same occasion, two important subjects present themselves to view\nat the same time: the one, a question of _doctrine_ relative to\ncircumcision, as above; the other, a question about _jurisdiction_, as\nbetween Paul on the one part, and Peter, with or without the rest of the\nApostles.\n\nAs to what concerns the debate about circumcision, we have no other\nevidence than the statement of the author of the Acts.\n\nAs to what concerns the jurisdiction question, we have the evidence of\nPaul himself, as contained in his letter to the Galatian converts: and\nan original letter, howsoever dubious the correctness of the author in\nrespect of matters of fact, is more trustworthy than a multitude of\nanonymous narratives.[29]\n\nIn respect of the progress made by the religion of Jesus,--Antioch, it\nhas already been observed--the Syrian Antioch--had become a second\nJerusalem; and, so far as concerned the Gentiles at large, its maritime\nsituation gave to it a convenience, that was not shared with it by that\ninland city.\n\nAt the time here in question,--the Gentiles had received more or less of\ninstruction, from three different sets of teachers:--1. from the\ndisciples who had been driven from Jerusalem by the tragical death of\nSaint Stephen; 2. from Saint Peter, principally on the occasion of the\nexcursion made by him to Lydda, Saron, Joppa, and C\u00e6sarea; and 3. from\nPaul and Barnabas, on the occasion, and by the means, of the long tour,\nmade by them for that special purpose, as above.\n\nAt this maritime metropolis of the faith, the new religion was spreading\nitself,--and, as far at least as depended on exemption from all\ndisturbance from without, in a state of peace and tranquility;--when, by\na set of _nameless_ men from Judea,--if to the author of the Acts credit\nis to be given on this point, for by him no mention is made of any one\nof their names,--the harmony of the Church was disturbed.\n\nConverts as they were to the religion of Jesus, yet,--in their view of\nthe matter, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, without\ncircumcision, no salvation was to be had.\n\nBy Paul it is said, \"they came from James,\" Gal. 2:12, which is as much\nas to say that they were sent by James: and accordingly, when James's\nspeech is seen, by him will these scruples of theirs be seen advocated.\n\nIf the Gospel history, as delivered by the Evangelists, is to be\nbelieved,--nothing could be more inconsistent, on many occasions with\nthe practice, and at length with the direct precepts, of Jesus, than\nthis deference to the Mosaic law: if human prudence is to be\nregarded,--nothing could be more impolitic--nothing more likely to\nnarrow, instead of extending, the dominion of the Church. On this\nprinciple, no man who was not born a Jew, could be a Christian without\nfirst becoming a Jew, without embracing the Mosaic law; and thus loading\nhimself with two different, and mutually inconsistent, sets of\nobligations.\n\nFrom Paul, this conceit,--as was natural,--experienced a strenuous\nresistance. No recognition as yet had Paul received, from the body of\nthe Apostles. In Jerusalem, for anything that appears,--though this was\nat least seventeen years after the death of Jesus--they remained\nalive--all of them:--at any rate the two chiefs of them, if Paul is to\nbe believed, who, Gal. i. 19, says he saw them, namely, Saint Peter \"and\nJames, the Lord's brother\": which two, he says, he saw, out of a number,\nthe rest of whom, he studiously assures his Galatians that he did not\nsee: though by his historiographer, Acts 15:4, by his all-comprehensive\nexpression, \"_the Apostles_,\" we are desired to believe, that he saw all\nof them.[30] Whichever be the truth,--at Jerusalem, the metropolis of\nJudaism, no employment could, under these circumstances, be reasonably\nexpected for Paul: whereas, _out_ of Judea,--wherever the language of\nGreece was the mother tongue, or familiarly spoken,--the advantage,\nwhich, in every address to the Gentiles, he would have over those\nunlearned Jews, was universally manifest.\n\nSuch, however, were the impressions, made by these unnamed manufacturers\nand disseminators of scruples, who, if Paul is to be believed, came from\nJames the brother of our Lord--that, by the whole Church, as it is\ncalled, of Antioch, a determination was taken--to send to Jerusalem, to\nthe Apostles and the Elders that were associated with them, a numerous\nmission, headed by Paul and Barnabas, who are the only two persons\nnamed. Accordingly, out they set, \"after having been brought on their\nway,\" says the author of the Acts, 15:3, \"by the _Church_,\" which is as\nmuch as to say, by the whole fraternity of Christians there established.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nTHE DELEGATES HOW RECEIVED.--COUNCIL OF APOSTLES AND ELDERS.\n\nAgainst the pretensions of a man thus supported, vain, on the part of\nthe original and real Apostles, would have been any attempt, to resist\nthe pretensions of this their self-constituted rival: they, Barnabas and\nPaul, were received, says the author of the Acts, of the Church and of\nthe Apostles and Elders.[31]\n\nArrived at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas told their own story--related\ntheir adventures and experiences--declared, to use the language of the\nActs 15:4, all things that God had done unto them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNotwithstanding the utmost exertion of Paul's ever-ready\neloquence,--some, it is stated, there were, who, believers as, in a\ncertain sort, they were in the religion of Jesus,--were not to be\npersuaded, to give up so much as a single tittle of the Mosaic law:\nthese were, as it was natural they should be, of the sect of Pharisees.\n\"There rose up,\" says the Acts 15:5, \"certain of the sect of the\nPharisees which believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them\n(the Gentiles), and to command them to keep the law of Moses.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOf these private discussions, the result was--the convocation of an\nassembly of the managing body, in which, associated with the Apostles,\nwe find others--under the name of _Elders_.\n\nHow, on an occasion, on which the proposed subject of determination was\na question of such cardinal importance to the religion of Jesus;--how it\nshould have come to pass, that the Apostles, to whom alone, and by whom\nalone, the whole tenor of the acts and sayings of Jesus had been made\nknown--made known by an uninterrupted habit of exclusive intimacy, and\nespecially during the short but momentous interval between his\nresurrection and ascension;--how it should have happened, that, to the\nApostles, any other persons not possessed of these first of all titles\nto credence and influence, should have come to be associated,--is not\nmentioned. Upon no other authority than that of this author, are we to\nbelieve it to be true? On the supposition of its being true,--there\nseems to be, humanly speaking, but one way to account for it. That which\nthe Apostles, and they alone, _could_ contribute to the cause, was--the\nauthority and the evidence resulting from that peculiar intimacy: what\nthey could _not_ contribute was--money and influence derived from\nordinary and external sources: to the exclusive possession of these\nlatter titles to regard, will, therefore, it should seem, be to be\nascribed, supposing it credited, the circumstance of an incorporation\notherwise so incongruous.\n\n\"Received,\" say the Acts 15:4, they were.--But by whom received?--By the\nChurch, by the Apostles, by the Elders, says that same history in that\nsame place. By _the_ Apostles: to wit--so as any one would conclude--by\n_all_ the Apostles--by the whole fellowship of Apostles.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhether in any, and, if so, in what degree that conclusion is correct,\nwe have no determinate means of knowing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf, however, it was so to the utmost,--nothing appears in favor of the\nnotion, that between Paul on the one part, and the Apostles and their\ndisciples on the other, there existed at this time any real harmony.\nFor, in what character was it that he made his appearance? In that of a\ncommissioned envoy, from the whole body of the Church, established in\nthat station, which was next in importance to Jerusalem, to which he was\nsent. And who was it that, at that time, as on both the former times,\nhe, Paul, had in his company? Still his constant patron and associate\nBarnabas--the munificent friend and patron of that church which he was\nvisiting--the indefatigable Barnabas.\n\nBy Paul himself, in his Epistle to the Galatians, 2:9, 10, 11, the idea\nof any such extensive cordiality,--say rather of cordiality to any the\nsmallest extent,--is pretty plainly negatived.[32] On that occasion, it\nwas that of the Partition Treaty, what his interest required was--that,\non the part of the Apostles and their disciples, the concurrence given\nto it, should appear as extensive as possible. If then they had all of\nthem, really and personally concurred in it,--or even if the contrary\nhad not been notorious, this is the conception which he would have been\nforward to convey and inculcate. No such notion, however, does he\nventure to convey. When speaking of them in general terms--of no\naffection on either side, more kindly than that of ill humor, does he\ngive any intimation. Gal. 2:6. \"Of those who seemed to be somewhat,\nwhatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepted no man's\nperson: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing\nto me.\"\n\nWhen, again, he comes to speak of the sort of intercourse, such as it\nwas, which he had with the Apostles,--who are the persons that he speaks\nof? All the Apostles? the body of the Apostles in general?--No: James,\nCephas, the Hebrew name of which Peter is a translation, and John: these\nthree, and no more. These are the men, whom, to him Paul and his\nprotector Barnabas in conjunction, he on that same occasion speaks of,\nas \"giving the right hand of fellowship:\" to wit, for the purpose of the\nPartition Treaty, the terms of which immediately follow.\n\nAnd, even of these men, in what way does he speak? As of men \"who seemed\nto be pillars:\" so that, as to what concerned the rest of the Apostles,\nhe found himself reduced to speak no otherwise than by conjecture. And\nthis same \"right hand of fellowship\"--what was their inducement for\ngiving it?--It was, says he, that \"they perceived the grace that was\ngiven unto me\": _i.e._, in plain language, and ungrounded pretension\napart,--the power, which they saw he had, of doing mischief:--of\npassing, from the character of a jealous and restless rival, into that\nof a declared enemy: into that character, in which he had originally\nappeared, and with such disastrous effect.\n\nImmediately after this comes the mention of the visit, made by Peter to\nAntioch: and therefore it is, that, no sooner is Peter--that chief of\nthe Apostles of Jesus--mentioned,--than he is mentioned, as a man whom\nthis Paul \"withstood to his face, because he was to be blamed.\" Gal.\n2:11.\n\nPeter was to be blamed: those other Jews that were come to Antioch from\nJames--they were to be blamed. Barnabas, under whose powerful\nprotection,--by the Church at Jerusalem, her justly odious persecutor\nhad, at three different times, been endured,--he too was to be blamed.\nHe too was, at that time, to be blamed; and, as will be seen presently\nafter, openly quarrelled with; and, if on this point the Acts are to be\nbelieved, parted with. Acts 15:39. \"And the contention was so sharp\nbetween them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so\nBarnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus.\"\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nDEBATES--COURSE CARRIED BY JAMES AGAINST PETER.\n\nOf what passed at this assembly, the only account we have--the account\ngiven to us by the author of the Acts--is curious:--curious at any rate;\nand whether it be in every particular circumstance true or not,--in so\nfar as it can be depended upon, instructive.[33]\n\nWe have the persons mentioned as having spoken: they are, in the order\nin which they are here enumerated, these four:--to wit, Peter, Barnabas,\nPaul and James. Of the speech of Peter, the particulars are given: so\nlikewise of that of James: of Barnabas and Paul, nothing more than the\ntopic.\n\nAgainst the Mosaic law _in toto_, we find Peter; and such contribution\nas he is represented as furnishing to this side of the cause in the\nshape of argument. On the same side, were Barnabas and Paul: what they\nfurnished was matter of fact:--namely, in the language of the Acts,\n\"what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by\nthem:\"--in plain language, the success they had met with among the\nGentiles.\n\nOn this question, on the side of the chief of the Apostles, were--the\nmanifest interest of the religion of Jesus as to extent of\ndiffusion,--the authority derived from situation,--the express command\nof Jesus as delivered in the Gospel history,--and Jesus' own practice:\nnot to speak of the inutility and unreasonableness of the observances\nthemselves. Yet, as far as appears from the author of the Acts,--of\nthese arguments, conclusive as they would or at least should have\nbeen,--it appears not that any use was made: the success, he spoke of as\nhaving been experienced by himself among the Gentiles,--in this may be\nseen the sole argument employed in Peter's speech. Thus,--in so far as\nthis report is to be believed,--thus, upon their own respective\nachievements, did,--not only Paul but Peter,--rest, each of them, the\nwhole strength of the cause.\n\nSpite of reason, religion, and Jesus, the victory is in this account,\ngiven to James--to Jesus' kinsman, James. The motion is carried: the\ncourse proposed, is a sort of middle course--a sort of compromise. At\nthe hands of Gentile proselytes, in deference to the Mosaic law,\nabstinence from four things is required: namely, meats offered to\nidols, blood, things strangled: these, and the irregularities of the\nsexual appetite,--whatsoever they were, that were meant by the word,\nrendered into English by the word _fornication_.\n\nIf any such decision were really come to,--by nothing but\nnecessity--necessity produced by the circumstances of place and\ntime--will it be found excusable. Abstinence from food killed in the way\nof sacrifice to heathen gods, on the occasion of public sacrifices: yes;\nfor, for such food, little relish could remain, on the part of persons\ndevoted to the religion of Jesus: from fornication, yes; for, for a\nsacrifice in this shape, even among the Gentiles, some preparation had\nbeen made by stoicism. But, as to blood and things strangled,[34] that\nis to say, animals so slaughtered as to have more blood left in their\ncarcasses than the Mosaic law would allow to be left in them--animals\nslaughtered otherwise than in the Jewish manner,--thus forbidding\nteachings of the religion of Jesus, to eat a meal furnished by Gentile\nhands,--this, as above observed, was depriving them of their most\nfavourable opportunities, for carrying their pious and beneficent\npurposes into effect, by adding to the number of believers.\n\nAltogether remarkable is the consideration, upon the face of it, by\nwhich, if the historian is to be believed, this decision was produced.\n\"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being\nread in synagogues every sabbath day,\" Acts 15:21. May be so: but what\nif he has? what is that to the purpose? Good, if the question were about\nthe Jews: but, it is _not_ about the Jews: the Gentiles, and they only,\nare the subjects of it. And the Gentiles--what know or care _they_ about\nMoses? what is it that is to send _them_ into the synagogues, to hear\nanything that is \"read in synagogues\"?\n\nBy this imaginary abstinence from blood,--for, after all, by no exertion\nof Mosaic ingenuity could the flesh ever be completely divested of the\nblood that had circulated in it,--of this perfectly useless prohibition,\nwhat would be the effect?--Not only to oppose obstacles, to the\nexertions of Christian teachers, in their endeavors to make converts\namong the Gentiles,--but, on the part of the Gentiles themselves to\noppose to them a needless difficulty, in the way of their conversion, by\nrendering it impossible for them, consistently with the observance of\nthis prohibition, to associate with their unconverted friends and\nfamilies at convivial hours. Thus much as to what concerns the\nGentiles.[35]\n\nSince, and from that time, the religion of Jesus has spread itself:--we\nall see to what extent. Spread itself: and by what means? By means of\nthe decision thus fathered upon the Apostles? Upon the Apostles, the\nElders, and the whole Church?--No: but in spite of it, and by the\nneglect of it.\n\nCharged with a letter, containing this decision, did Paul, together with\nhis friend Barnabas, return from Jerusalem,--if the author of the Acts\nis to be believed,--to the society of Christian converts, by which he\nhad been sent thither: charged with this letter, carrying with it the\nauthority of the whole fellowship of the Apostles. Paul himself--he\nPaul--what sort of regard did he pay to it? _He wrote against it with\nall his might._ No more Jewish rites! No more Mosaic law! Such is the\ncry, that animates the whole body of those writings of his which have\nreached us.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nRESULT, SUPPOSED APOSTOLIC DECREE AND LETTER TO ANTIOCH, WHICH, PER\nACTS, PAUL CIRCULATES.\n\nOf a decision, agreed upon and pronounced to the above effect--a\ndecision expressed by a decree;--and of a copy of that decree, included\nin and prefaced by a letter addressed to the saints at Antioch,--were\nPaul and Barnabas, along with others who were associated with them, on\ntheir return to that city, the bearers:--that is to say, if, as to these\nmatters, credence is given, to the statement, made by the author of the\nActs; by whom the alleged decree and letter are given, in words, which,\naccording to him, were their very words:--these words are those which\nfollow:\n\nACTS 15:22 to 32.\n\n     22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church,\n     to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and\n     Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.--And they wrote\n     letters by them after this manner: The Apostles and elders, and\n     brethren, _send_ greeting unto the brethren which are of the\n     Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.--Forasmuch as we have\n     heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with\n     words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye _must_ be circumcised, and\n     keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:--It seemed good\n     unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto\n     you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,--Men that have hazarded\n     their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.--We have sent\n     therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things\n     by mouth.--For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay\n     upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;--That ye\n     abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from\n     things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep\n     yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.--So when they were\n     dismissed, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the\n     multitude together, they delivered the epistle.--_Which_ when they\n     had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.--And Judas and Silas,\n     being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many\n     words, and confirmed _them_.\n\nSupposing it genuine,--a most curious, important and interesting\ndocument, this letter and decree must be allowed to be. Supposing it\ngenuine: and, in favor of its genuineness, reasons present themselves,\nwhich, so long as they remain unopposed, and no preponderating reasons\nin support of the contrary opinion are produced, must decide our\njudgment.\n\nNot long after the account of the acceptance given at Antioch to this\ndecision,--comes that of a conjunct missionary excursion from that place\nmade by Paul, with Timotheus, and perhaps Silas, for his companion. At\nthe very commencement of this excursion--if, in the decree spoken of,\nthis decree is to be understood as included; and there seems no reason\nwhy it should not be, they are represented as taking an active part in\nthe distribution of it. Acts 16:4. \"And says the historian, as they\"\n(Paul, &c.) \"went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees\nfor to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders that were at\nJerusalem.\"\n\nThat, by Paul, this token, of association with the Apostles, should at\nthat time be exhibited and made manifest, seems altogether natural. It\naffords a further proof, of the need, which, at that period of his\nlabors, he regarded himself as having, of the appearance--the outward\nsigns at least--of a connection with the Apostles.\n\nTrue, it is, that the persuasion of any such need is altogether\ninconsistent with that independence, which, in such precise and lofty\nterms, we have seen him declaring in his Epistle to his Galatians,--is\nsufficiently manifest. But, in the current chronology, the date,\nascribed to that Epistle, is by five years posterior, to the date\nascribed to the commencement of this excursion: date of the excursion,\nA.D. 53; date of the Epistle, A.D. 58: difference, five years: and five\nyears are not too great a number of years, for the experience of success\nand prosperity, to have raised to so high a pitch, the temperature of\nhis mind.[36]\n\nEven before this time, we find him even outstretching the concessions,\nwhich, in that decree, in the case of the Gentiles, in compliance with\nthe scruples of the Jewish disciples they had to deal with, we have been\nseeing made by the Apostles, in favor of the Mosaic law.\nAbstinence--from meat offered to idols, from blood, from things\nstrangled, and from fornication--composed all the Mosaic observances\nexacted in that decree. To these, he, in his practice, at this time,\nadded another, and _that_, in respect of extent, in a prodigious degree\na more important one: to wit, the submitting to circumcision. For, to\nthis painful observance,--in which a submission to all the other Mosaic\nobservances was implied,--he had already subjected his new convert\nTimotheus, whom, in this excursion, in addition to Silas, he took with\nhim for a companion. Born of a Greek father as he was,--adult as he\nwas,--he took him, says the historian, and circumcised him. Circumcised\nhim--and why?--\"_Because of the Jews, which were in those\nquarters._\"[37]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[29] Acts xv. 1 to 4:--\"1. And certain men which came down from Judea,\ntaught the brethren, _and said_, Except ye be circumised after the\nmanner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.--2. When therefore Paul and\nBarnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they\ndetermined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go\nup to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question.--3.\nAnd being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through\nPhenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they\ncaused great joy unto all the brethren.--4. And when they were come to\nJerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and\nElders; and they declared all things that God had done with them.\"\n\n[30] Gal. i. 18, 19. \"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to\nsee Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.--9. But other of the\nApostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.\"\n\nActs 15:4. \"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of\nthe Church, and of _the_ Apostles and Elders; and they declared all\nthings that God had done with them.\"\n\nThe cause of this contrariety lies not far beneath the surface. Paul had\none object in view; his historiographer another. In the two passages,\nthey wrote at distant times, and with different purposes. In his address\nto his Galatian disciples, Paul's object was to magnify his own\nimportance at the expense of that of the Apostles: to establish the\npersuasion, not only of his independence of them, but of his superiority\nover them. The generality of them were not worth his notice; but having\nsome business to settle with them, Peter, the chief of them, he \"went\"\nto see, and James, as being \"the Lord's brother,\" he vouchsafed to see.\nOn that particular occasion, such was the conception which Paul was\nlabouring to produce: and such, accordingly, was his discourse. As for\nthe historiographer, his object was, of course, throughout, to place the\nimportance of his hero on as high a ground as possible. But, in this\nview, when once Paul had come to a settlement with the Apostles, the\nmore universal the acceptance understood to have been received by\nhim--received from the whole body of Christians, and from those their\nillustrious leaders in particular,--the better adapted to this his\nhistoriographer's general purposes would be the conception thus\nconveyed: accordingly they were received, he says, \"of the Church, and\nthe Apostles, and Elders.\"\n\n[31] Acts xv. 4. \"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were\nreceived of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders, and they declared\nall things that God had done unto them.\"\n\n[32] Gal. ii. 6. \"But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever\nthey were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for\nthey who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.--And\nwhen James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the\ngrace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right\nhands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto\nthe circumcision.--Only they would that we should remember the poor; the\nsame which I also was forward to do.--But when Peter was come to\nAntioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.\"\n\n[33] Acts 15:5-21. 5. \"But there rose up certain of the sect of the\nPharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise\nthem, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.--And the Apostles\nand Elders came together for to consider of this matter.--And when there\nhad been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and\nbrethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,\nthat the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and\nbelieve.--And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving\nthem the Holy Ghost, even as _he did_ unto us;--And put no difference\nbetween us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.--Now therefore why\ntempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which\nneither our fathers nor we were able to bear?--But we believe that\nthrough the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as\nthey.--Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to\nBarnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought\namong the Gentiles by them.--And after they had held their peace, James\nanswered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:--Simon hath\ndeclared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of\nthem a people for his name.--And to this agree the words of the\nprophets; as it is written,--After this I will return, and will build\nagain the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build\nagain the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:--That the residue of men\nmight seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is\ncalled, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.--Known unto God are\nall his works from the beginning of the world.--Wherefore my sentence\nis,--that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned\nto God:--But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions\nof idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from\nblood.--For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,\nbeing read in the synagogues every sabbath day.\"\n\n[34] After the word blood, the mention made of things strangled seems to\nhave been rather for explanation than as a separate ordinance. Of\nstrangling, instead of bleeding in the Jewish style,--what the effect\nwould be, other than that of retaining blood, which the Mosaic ordinance\nrequired should be let out, is not very apparent.\n\n[35] Another observation there is that applies even to the Jews. By\nMoses were all these several things forbidden. True: but so were a vast\nmultitude of other things, from, which (after the exceptions here in\nquestion) the prohibition is, by this decision, taken off. These things,\nstill proposed to be prohibited, as often as they entered a synagogue,\nthey would hear prohibited: but, so would they all those other things,\nwhich, by this decision, are left free.\n\n[36] In the account of this excursion, Galatia--now mentioned for the\nfirst time in the Acts,--is mentioned, in the number of the countries,\nwhich, in the course of it, he visited. It stands fourth: the preceding\nplaces being Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Phrygia. Acts 16:1 to 6. In Acts\n18:23, \"He ... went over [all] Galatia ... strengthening the disciples.\"\n\n[37] Acts 16:1 to 3. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a\ncertain disciple was there named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman,\nwhich was a Jewess and believed: but his father was a Greek:--Which was\nwell reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.--Him\nwould Paul have to go forth to him, and took and circumcised him,\nbecause of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that\nhis father was a Greek.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n     _Paul disbelieved continued.--After His Third Jerusalem Visit,\n     Contest Between Him and Peter at Antioch._ PARTITION TREATY: PAUL\n     _for Himself_: PETER, JAMES _and_ JOHN, _for the Apostles_.\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nCONTEST AND PARTITION TREATY, AS PER ACTS, AND PAUL'S EPISTLES.\n\nGALATIANS ii. 1 to 16.\n\n     1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with\n     Barnabas, and took Titus with _me_ also.--And I went up by\n     revelation, and communicated unto them that Gospel which I preach\n     among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation,\n     lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.--But neither\n     Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be\n     circumcised:--and that because of false brethren unawares brought\n     in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in\n     Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.--To whom we\n     gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of\n     the Gospel might continue with you.--But of those who seemed to be\n     somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God\n     accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in\n     conference added nothing to me;--but contrariwise, when they saw\n     that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, _as\n     the gospel_ of the circumcision _was_ unto Peter;--For he that\n     wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the\n     circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:--and\n     when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived\n     the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the\n     right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and\n     they unto the circumcision.--Only they would that we should\n     remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.--But\n     _when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face_,\n     because he was to be blamed.--For before that certain came from\n     James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he\n     withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the\n     circumcision.--And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;\n     insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their\n     dissimulation.--But when I saw that they walked not uprightly\n     according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them\n     all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and\n     not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do\n     the Jews?--We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the\n     Gentiles,--knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the\n     law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in\n     Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,\n     and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall\n     no flesh be justified.\n\nSo much for the question about Jewish rites.\n\nWe come now to the state of affairs between Paul and Peter. Concerning\nthis, we have little, as hath been seen, from the author of the Acts:\nfrom Paul himself, not much: but what there is of it is of prime\nimportance.\n\nOn this occasion, to judge from the account given in the Acts,--between\nPaul and Peter, all was harmony. In their principles, in their speeches,\nthey may be seen pleading on the same side: arguing, and arguing in\nvain, both of them against the superior influence of James: of that\nJames, of whose written works, in comparison of those we have from Paul,\nwe have so little. But presently, on one side at least,--we shall see\ncontention--preserving contention--and rival ambition, for the cause of\nit.\n\nIn this pregnant and instructive letter,--Paul's second letter to his\nGalatians,--the authenticity of which seems to be altogether out of the\nreach of doubt,--among the particulars, that bear relation to this the\nthird visit, the following are those, by which the greatest share of\nattention seems demanded at our hands.\n\nIn the first place, let us view them in the order in which they _stand_:\nthat done, the degree of _importance_ may determine the order in which\nthey are _considered_.\n\n1. Fourteen is the number of years, between this third visit of his to\nJerusalem, reckoning either from the first of his visits made to that\nsame holy place after his conversion, or from his departure from\nDamascus after his return thither from Arabia.\n\n2. On this journey of his to Jerusalem, he has with him not only\nBarnabas, as mentioned in the Acts, but _Titus_, of whom no mention is\nthere made.\n\n3. It is by revelation, that this journey of his was undertaken.\n\n4. The Gospel, which he then and there preaches, is a Gospel of his own.\n\n5. Private at the same time, and for reasons thereupon given, is his\nmode of communicating it.\n\n6. Titus, though at his disposal, he leaves uncircumcised.\n\n7. _False brethren_ is the appellation he bestows upon those, who, on\nthis occasion, standing up for the Mosaic law, give occasion to this\ndebate.\n\n8. Elders, Apostles, kinsmen of Jesus,--be they who they may,--he, Paul,\nis not on this occasion a man to give place to any such persons: to give\nplace by _subjection_: say rather in the way of _subordination_.\n\n9. Unnamed are the persons, on whom the vituperation he discharges, is\npoured forth. Thus much only is said of them: namely, verse 12, that\nthey \"came from James,\" the brother of our Lord. Contemptuous throughout\nis the manner in which he speaks of all those persons whom he does not\nname. Quere, Who are they, to whom, in everything that goes before that\nsame verse, he is alluding? It seems from thence, that it was with\nJames, from whom they received support, that those scruples of theirs,\nout of which sprung these differences and negotiations, originated.\n\n10. Leaving the Jews to Peter--he claims to himself as his own the whole\npopulation of the Gentiles.\n\n11. To this effect, an explicit agreement was actually entered into;\nparties, he and Barnabas of the one part; James, Peter, by his Hebrew\nsurname of Cephas, and John, of the other part.\n\n12. Of this agreement, one condition was--that, of such pecuniary\nprofit, as should be among the fruits of the labors of Paul among the\nGentiles, a part should be remitted, to be at the disposal of Peter.\n\n13. Paul, at the time of this visit, stood up against Peter.\n\n14. The cause, of his doing so, was--an alleged weakness and\ninconsistency in the conduct of Peter, and his gaining to his side--not\nonly Jews of inferior account, but Barnabas.\n\n15. The weakness and inconsistency consisted in this: viz: that whereas\nhe himself had been in use to act with the Gentiles, yet after the\narrival at Antioch of those who came from James at Jerusalem,--he from\nfear of the Jewish converts, not only ceased to eat with the Gentiles,\nbut to the extent of his influence forced the Gentile converts to live\nafter the manner of the Jews.\n\n16. On the occasion of this his dispute with Peter, he gave it\nexplicitly as his opinion,--that, to a convert to the religion of Jesus,\nJew or Gentile,--observance of the Mosaic law would, as to everything\npeculiar to it, be useless, not to say worse than useless, Gal. 2:16,\n\"for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.\"\n\n1. As to his place in relation to the Apostles. His was not inferior to\nanybody's: upon terms altogether equal did he treat with the Apostles:\nin and by the first partition treaty,--he, with Barnabas for his\ncolleague,--Barnabas, from whom, according to the Acts, he afterwards\nseparated,--obtains the whole of the Gentile world for the field of\ntheir labors. Thus elevated, according to his account of the matter, was\nthe situation, occupied by him on the occasion of this his third visit\nto Jerusalem, in comparison of what it had been at the time of his\nfirst,--and, to all appearance, at the time of the second. At the time\nof his first visit, the Apostles,--all but Peter and James, upon which\ntwo Barnabas forced him,--turned their backs upon him: upon his second\nvisit, none of them, as far as appears, had anything to do with him:\nnow, upon his third visit, they deal with him upon equal terms: and now,\nnot only Peter and James, but John, are stated as having intercourse\nwith him.\n\n2. Of this partition treaty, important as it is, no mention is to be\nfound in the Acts. From first to last,--in the account given in the\nActs, no such figure does he make as in his own. In the Acts, of the\nspeech of Peter, and even of that of James, the substance is reported:\nof Paul's, nothing more than the subject: viz. his own achievements\namong the Gentiles: against Paul's opinion, as well as Peter's, the\ncompromise, moved by James, is represented as carried.\n\n3. As to the cause, or occasion, of his third visit to Jerusalem. In the\naccount given in the Acts, it is particularly and clearly enough\nexplained. It is in conjunction with Barnabas that he goes thither: both\nof them, to confer with the Apostles and elders, on the subject of the\nnotion, entertained by numbers among the Jewish converts, that, by\nconversion to the religion of Jesus, they were not set free from any of\nthe obligations imposed by the law of Moses.\n\nOf this commission,--creditable as it could not but have been to\nhim,--Paul, in his account of the matter, as given to the Galatians,\nmakes not the least mention. No: it is not from men on this occasion nor\non others, it is not from men, that he received his authority, but from\nGod: it is by revelation, that is, immediately from God, and by a sort\nof miracle.\n\n4. What, in obedience to this revelation, he was to do, and did\naccordingly, was,--the preaching of a gospel of his own; a gospel which\nas yet he had not preached to any body but the Gentiles. Preaching? how\nand where? in an assembly of the whole body of the believers in Jesus,\nthe Apostles themselves included? No: but privately, and only to the\nleading men among them: \"to them which were of reputation.\"\n\nA gospel of his own? Yes: that he did. Further on, it will be seen what\nit was: a Gospel, of which, as far as appears from the evangelists, no\ntraces are to be found, in anything said by Jesus: especially, if what,\non that occasion, he, Paul, taught by word of mouth at Antioch, agreed\nwith what we shall find him teaching in his Epistles.\n\n5. \"False brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out\nour liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring up into\nbondage.\" Liberty? what liberty? evidently that liberty which consisted\nin exemption from the ceremonials of the Mosaic law. Who then were these\nfalse brethren, these sticklers for the ceremonial law? If the account\nin the Acts is to be believed,--they were the greater part of the\nfraternity of Christians in Jerusalem: a party so considerable, that\nPeter, the chief of the Apostles, though in his sentiments on this\nsubject so decidedly and completely opposite to them, was obliged to\ngive way to it: and, as to several of the obligations,--by which, as\nabove stated, no small obstacle was opposed to the progress of the\nreligion of Jesus,--the whole body of the Apostles found themselves\nunder the like necessity. If he himself is to be believed, Gal. 2:12,\nthe men in question were men, who, if they continued in those scruples\nin which they went beyond the brother of our Lord, had, at any rate, in\nthe first instance, received from that highly distinguished personage\ntheir instructions. And shortly after this, Acts 16:3, in deference to\nthis party, Paul himself \"took Timothy, a Gentile, and circumcised\nhim.\" But, supposing the public transactions, thus reported in the\nhistory of the author of the Acts, to have really had place;--namely,\nmission of Paul and Barnabas, from the Christians of Antioch to\nJerusalem,--mission of Judas Barsabas and Silas, from the Apostles and\nelders, with Paul and Barnabas in their company, to Antioch,--letter of\nthe Apostles and elders sent by them to the Christians of Antioch,--all\nthis supposed, how erroneous soever in their opinions, in affirmance of\nthe obligatoriness of these ceremonials,--this majority, to whose\nscruples the whole body of the Apostles saw reason to give way,--could\nthey, by this self-intruded convert, be considered as persons to whom\nthe epithet of _false brethren_, would be admitted to be applicable?\n\n6. Does it not seem, rather, that this story, about the deputation of\nPaul and Barnabas to the Apostles and brethren at Jerusalem from the\nApostles at Antioch, and the counter deputation of Judas Barsabas, and\nSilas, to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return to Antioch,\nbearing all of them together a letter from the Apostles at\nJerusalem,--was an invention of the anonymous author of the Acts? or\nelse a story, either altogether false, or false in great part, picked up\nby him, and thus inserted?\n\n7. Mark now, in this letter of Paul, another circumstance: and judge\nwhether it tends not to cast discredit on what is said of Peter in the\nActs.\n\nIn the Acts account we have seen Peter in the great council, supporting,\nin a sort of speech, the liberty side--of the question,--Jesus against\nMoses,--supporting it in the great council, in which, in that same\naccount, Paul, though present, is, as to that point, represented as\nsilent: in that same account, shall we see Peter, five years before this\ntime, addressing himself to the Gentiles,--using this same\nliberty,--and, when called to account for doing so, employing _his_ pair\nof visions, his and Cornelius's, Acts 10:30-41, in and for his defence:\nwe shall see him in this new part of his career,--in this part, for\nwhich he was by both education and habits of life so ill qualified,--we\nshall see him so much in earliest in this part of his labors, as to have\nexpended miracles,--a supernatural cure, and even a raising from the\ndead,--for his support in it.\n\nHad any such facts really happened--facts in their nature so\nnotorious,--would Paul, in this letter of his to the Galatians, have\nspoken of Peter, as if he had never made, or attempted to make, any\nprogress in the conversion of the Gentiles? Speaking of the sticklers\nfor Moses, as well as of Peter,--would he have said \"When they saw that\nthe Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of\nthe circumcision was to Peter?\" Gal. 2:7, \"For he that wrought\neffectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, the same\nwas mighty in me toward the Gentiles?\"\n\nThat, in some way or other, Peter had tried his hand upon some persons\nwho were Gentiles--in this there is nothing but what may well enough be\nbelieved: provided it be also believed--that, in the experiment so made\nby him, he had little or no success:--for, that after the expenditure of\ntwo such miracles of so public a nature, besides a pair of visions,--he\nhad after all made so poor a hand of it, as to be content to give up to\nPaul the whole of his prospects from that quarter,--does it seem\ncredible?\n\n8. As to the partition-treaty itself,--whatsoever were the incidents\nthat had brought it about, nothing could be more natural--nothing more\nprobable--nothing more beneficial to the common cause--to the religion\nof Jesus, meaning always so far as the religion taught by Paul was\ncomfortable to it. Each retained to himself the only part of the field,\nfor the cultivation of which he was qualified: each gave up no other\npart of the field, than that, for the cultivation of which he was _not_\nqualified.\n\n9. Gal. 2:12. \"For before that certain came from James, he did eat with\nthe Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated\nhimself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.\n\n10. \"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the\nuncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision\nwas unto Peter.\n\n11. \"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,\nperceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas\nthe right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and\nthey unto the circumcision.\n\n12. Gal. 2:10. \"Only they would that we should remember the poor; the\nsame which I also was forward to do.\n\n13. \"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,\nbecause he was to be blamed.\n\n14. \"For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the\nGentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself,\nfearing them which were of the circumcision.--And the other Jews\ndissembled likewise with him: insomuch that Barnabas also was carried\naway with their dissimulation.\n\n15. \"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the\ntruth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a\nJew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why\ncompellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?\"\n\n16. \"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by\nthe faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that\nwe might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of\nthe law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.\"\n\nNote, in this same letter, the mention made of Peter's eating with the\nGentiles. \"For before that certain came from James, he, Peter, did eat\nwith the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated\nhimself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.\"\n\nNote here, an additional reason for discrediting the whole story of\nPeter's expedition,--_miracles_ and visions included,--as reported in\nthe Acts. In regard to the _visions_,--from this circumstance it may be\nseen, that either no such visions were, as stated in the Acts 11:1-13,\nrelated by Peter, on his defence against the accusations preferred\nagainst him on this ground,--or that, if any such relation was given, no\ncredit was given to it: for, it is after this, and, according to\nappearance, long after,--that, according to the Acts 15:1-33, not less\nthan five years after, the meeting at Jerusalem took place; that\nmeeting, at which, at the motion of James, the adherence to the Mosaic\nlaw was indeed in part dispensed with; but, so far as regards the\npractice charged upon Peter as an offence,--namely the eating with the\nGentiles, insisted on and ordained.\n\nIf Paul's evidence was good and conclusive evidence in support of Paul's\nvisions,--how came Peter's evidence not to be received as good and\nconclusive evidence in support of Peter's visions? Paul's evidence, with\nthe visions reported by it, was not better evidence, in support of his\nclaim to the Apostleship,--than Peter's visions, if the account in the\nActs is to be believed, in support of the abrogation of the Mosaic law.\nYet, as, according to the author of the Acts, by Paul's account of his\nvisions, the Apostles were not any of them convinced; so here, according\nto Paul, by Peter's account of his visions, if ever really related to\nthe fellowship of the Apostles, and to the elders,--their\nassociates,--that same goodly fellowship was not convinced.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nPARTITION-TREATY--PROBABILITY GIVEN, BY THE FINANCIAL STIPULATION, TO\nPAUL'S ACCOUNT OF IT.\n\nOf this important treaty, mention may have been seen above. In the\nfinancial stipulation which may have been observed in it,--may be seen a\ncircumstance, by which an additional degree of credibility seems to be\ngiven, to Paul's account of the transaction; at the same time that light\nis thrown upon the nature of it. Paul alone, with his adherents, were to\naddress themselves to the Gentiles: but, in return for the countenance\ngiven to him by Peter and the rest of the Apostles, he was to _remember\nthe poor_; which is what, says he, \"I also was forward to do.\" Now, as\nto the remembering the poor, what is meant by it at this time of day,\nwas meant by it at that time of day, or it would not have been meant by\nit at this:--supplying money, need it be added? for the use of the poor.\nWhatsoever, in relation to this money, was the intention of the\nrulers,--whether to retain any part in compensation for their own\ntrouble, or to distribute among the poor the whole of it, without\ndeduction;--in other words, whether profit as well as patronage,--or\npatronage alone, and without profit,--was to be the fruit;--human nature\nmust, in this instance, have ceased to be human nature, if, to the men\nin question--Apostles as they were--the money could have been altogether\nan object of indifference. According to a statement, to which, as above,\nch. ii., though contained in this anonymous history, there seems no\nreason to refuse credence,--community of goods--a principle, even now,\nin these days, acted upon by the Moravian Christians--was a principle,\nacted upon in those days, by the Jewish Christians. The property of each\nwas thrown into one common stock: and the disposal of it was committed\nto a set of trustees, who--it is positively related--were confirmed,\nand, to all appearance, were recommended by,--and continued to act under\nthe influence of,--the Apostles.\n\nOn neither side were motives of the ordinary human complexion--motives\nby which man's nature was made to be governed--wanting, to the\ncontracting parties. By Peter and the rest of the Apostles, much\nexperience had been acquired, of the activity and energy of this their\nself-constituted colleague: within that field of action, which alone was\nsuited to their powers, and within which they had stood exposed to be\ndisturbed by his interference, within that field to be secured against\nsuch interference,--was, to them and their interests, an object of no\nsmall moment. Such seems to have been the consideration, on the part of\nthe acknowledged and indisputable Apostles.\n\nNot less obvious was the advantage, which, by the stipulation of this\nsame treaty in his favour, was in a still more effectual manner,\nsecured to Paul. That, when the whole transaction was so fresh,--all\nthat Paul was able to say for himself, with all that Barnabas was able\nto say for him, had not been sufficient, to induce the Apostles to give\ncredence to his story about the manner of his conversion,--in a word, to\nregard him in any other light than that of an impostor,--is directly\nasserted by the author of the Acts. So again, in his unpremeditated\nspeech to the enraged multitude, Acts 22:18, \"They will not receive thy\ntestimony concerning me,\" is the information which the Acts make him\nreport as having been communicated to him by the Lord, when \"while I\nprayed in the Temple,\" says he, ver. 17, \"I was in a trance.\" Should a\ncharge to any such effect happen to encounter him in the course of his\nlabours;--should he, in a word, find himself stigmatized as an\nimpostor;--find himself encountered by a certificate of impostorship;--a\ncertificate, signed by the known and sole confidential servants, as well\nas constant companions, of that Jesus, whom--without so much as\npretending any knowledge of his person, he had thus pretended to have\nheard without seeing him,--and at a time and place, in which he was\nneither heard nor seen by anybody else;--it is obvious enough, in any\nsuch case, how formidable an obstruction of this sort was liable to\nprove. On the other hand, so he were but once seen to be publicly\nrecognized, in the character of an associate and acknowledged labourer\nin the same field,--a recognition of him in that character--a virtual\nrecognition at least, if not an express one--would be seen to have taken\nplace:--a recognition, such as it would scarcely, at any time after, be\nin their power to revoke: since it would scarcely be possible for them,\never to accuse him of the principal offence, without accusing themselves\nof the correspondent connivance. Note, that, of this treaty, important\nas it was--this partition-treaty--by which a division was made of the\nwhole Christian world--no mention, not any the least hint, is to be\nfound in the Acts.\n\nThus much for this third visit of Paul's to Jerusalem, reckoning from\nthe time of his conversion: thus much for this third visit, and the\npartition-treaty that was the result of it. In and by his fourth visit\nto that original metropolis of the Christian world,--we shall see how\nthis same treaty was violated--violated, without any the slightest\nreason or pretext, or so much as an attempt, on the part of his\nanonymous biographer,--either by his own mouth, or by that of his\nhero,--to assign a motive. Violated--that is to say, by and on the part\nof Paul: for, of Peter, no further mention is, in all this history, to\nbe found.\n\nThe truth is--that, instead of \"the Acts of the Apostles,\" the History\nof Paul--namely, from the time of his conversion to the time of his\narrival at Rome--would have been the more proper denomination of it. Of\nany other of the Apostles, and their acts,--little, if anything, more is\nsaid, than what is just sufficient, to prepare the reader, for the\nhistory of Paul, by bringing to view the state of the Christian world,\nat the time of his coming upon the stage. As to Saint Peter,--the\nauthor's chief hero being all along Saint Paul, in whose train, during\nthis last-mentioned of his excursions, he represents himself as being\nestablished,--what is said of Saint Peter and his achievements, stands,\nas it were, but as an episode. And though, by this historiographer, no\nmention is made of the _partition-treaty_, it has eventually been of use\nto us, by serving to show what, at the time of entering into that\nengagement, was the situation of St. Peter; and how good the title is,\nwhich the transaction presents to our credence,--as being so natural,\nbecause so manifestly for the advantage of both the contracting parties,\nas well as of the religion of Jesus, in so far as that of Paul was\nconformable to it.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nTIME OF THE PARTITION TREATY, MOST PROBABLY THAT OF VISIT I.\n\nThe time, at which this partition-treaty took place, appears involved in\nmuch obscurity, and presents some difficulties: question--whether it was\nat the first, or not till the third, of these visits--of these four\nvisits of Paul's to Jerusalem.\n\nThe consideration, by which the assigning to it the time of the first\nvisit has been determined, is--that it was at this first visit, that the\ndemand for it, in respect of all interests concerned, namely, that of\nthe religion of Jesus--that of the existing Christians in general,--as\nwell as that of the individuals particularly concerned on both\nsides,--took place: that, from that time, so, as far as appears, did the\nobservance of it: and that it was not till a long time after, that\neither symptoms, or complaints of non-observance, seem to have made\ntheir appearance.\n\n4. Among the conditions of the treaty, the financial stipulation has\nbeen brought to view:--party to be remembered, the poor--then under the\ngentle sway of the Apostles: party, by whom they were to be remembered,\nPaul--their recognized, though, for aught appears, no otherwise than\nlocally and negatively recognized, associate. In and by the Deputation\nVisit, on the part of Paul, with the assistance of Barnabas,--we see\nthis stipulation actually conformed to and carried into effect. From the\nChristians at Antioch to the Apostles at Jerusalem,--for the benefit of\nthe poor, at that metropolis of the Christian world, by the conjoined\nhands of Paul and Barnabas,--money, it has been seen, was actually\nbrought.\n\nOn the other hand, an observation which, at first sight, may seem to\nshut the door against this supposition, is--that whereas in his letter,\nto his Galatians, Gal. i. 18, 19, after saying, \"I went up to Jerusalem\nto see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days,\" and adding, \"But other\nof the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother\"; he, not\nmore than fourteen verses afterwards, Gal. 2:9, in the verse in which\nhis account of this important treaty is continued,--speaks as if it was\nat that very time that he had seen--not only the above two Apostles, on\nthis occasion designated by the names of James and Cephas--but John\nlikewise: and that this must have been his third Jerusalem visit,\nbecause it is after _mention_ made of that same third visit, which, in a\npassage intermediate between these, namely, Gal. 2:1, is stated, in\nexpress terms, as being by fourteen years posterior to his first\nvisit,[38] that this circumstance, of his seeing John likewise, is\nmentioned as having had place.\n\nBut, in neither of these considerations, is there anything, that\npresents itself as conclusive, against the supposition--that whatever\ntreaty there was, took place at the first visit.\n\n1. As to the first, at that time it is, that for giving intimation of\nthe treaty, _giving the right hands of fellowship_ is the expression\nemployed: and that if this union were to be taken in a literal, and\nthence in a physical sense, as an agreement in which, as a token of\nmutual consent, the physical operation of junction of hands was\nemployed,--here must have been an actual meeting, in which John was seen\nas well as the two others--and, consequently, on the supposition that\nthe account thus given by Paul, is, in this particular, on both\noccasions correct,--this must have been a different meeting from the\nfirst: on which supposition, on comparison with the account given in the\nActs of Paul's second visit,--there can be no difficulty in determining\nthat this visit cannot have been any other than the third. But, so\nevidently figurative is the turn of the expression,--that, even in the\nlanguage used in this country at this time, slight indeed, if it\namounted to anything at all, would be the force, of the inference drawn\nfrom it, in favour of the supposition of mutual presence. To signify an\nagreement on any point--especially if regarded as important--who is\nthere that would scruple to speak of his having given the right hand of\nfellowship to another, although it were known to be only by letter? or,\neven through the medium of a common friend, and without any personal\nintercourse?\n\n2. As to the other consideration, whatsoever might be the force of it,\nif applied to a composition of modern times--after so many intervening\ncenturies, during several of which the arts of literary composition\nhave, with the benefit of the facilities afforded by the press, been the\nsubject of general study and practice;--whatsoever on this supposition\nmight be the force of it, applied to the style and character of Paul,\nlittle weight seems necessary to be attached to it. Of the\nconfusion--designed or undesigned--in which the style of this self-named\nApostle involves every point it touches upon, not a page can be read\nwithout presenting samples in abundance, to every eye that can endure to\nopen itself to them: in this very work, some must probably have already\noffered themselves to notice; and before it closes, many will be\npresented in this express view: the point in question belongs to the\nfield of chronology: and, of the perturbate mode of his operation in\nthis field, a particular exemplification has been already brought to\nview, Ch. 2, in a passage, in which, of a long train of sufferings and\nperils,--some real, some to all appearance not so--the one first\nundergone is last mentioned.[39] From the order in which two events are\nmentioned by this writer, no argument, in any degree conclusive, can be\ndeduced, for the persuasion, that that which stands first mentioned, was\nso much as intended by him to be regarded as that which first took\nplace.\n\nIn the very passage, in which the giving the right hands of fellowship\nto him and Barnabas is mentioned, and immediately after these very\nwords,--it is said--that \"we _should go_ unto the heathen, and they unto\nthe circumcision.\" Thus, then, the conjunct excursion of Paul and\nBarnabas--an excursion, not commenced till about ten years after this\nsame first visit, Acts 13 and 14, is mentioned, as an incident at _that_\ntime future. True it is, that the word directly expressive of the future\nis, in the English translation, but an interpretation, and as such\nmarked. But, had any prior excursion of this kind taken place before,\nthere seems no reason to suppose, that the event, which, by the context,\nwould surely have been taken for an event then as yet to come,--would,\nhad the intention been to represent it as no more than a repetition of\nwhat had taken place already, have received a form, so ill adapted to\nits intended purpose.\n\nBut, two verses before, stands that, in which mention is made of the\ncircumstance, by which, according to Paul, the course taken by the\nApostles, in respect of their entering, into this treaty, is brought to\nview. \"But contrariwise,\" says he, Gal. 2:7, \"when they saw that the\nGospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as _the Gospel_ of\nthe circumcision was unto Peter:\" 9. \"And when James, Cephas, and John,\nwho seemed to be pillars, _perceived_ the grace that was given to me,\nthey gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we\n_should go_ unto the heathen,\" ... &c.\n\nNow these _perceptions_--the perceptions thus ascribed by him to the\nApostles--when was it that they were obtained? Evidently at no time\nwhatever, if not at the time of his _first_ visit: for, these were the\nperceptions--say rather the conceptions--the conveyance of which is\nbeyond dispute manifest, not only from the whole nature of the case,\naccording to the accounts we have of it, but from the account expressly\ngiven by the author of the Acts; and that account, in some part\nconfirmed, and not in any part contradicted, by Paul himself, and in\nthis very epistle.[40]\n\nTo conclude. That, at the time of the Deputation Visit, Visit III., the\ntreaty in question could not but have been on the carpet, seems, it must\nbe confessed, altogether probable, not to say unquestionable. But, that\nat the time of the Reconciliation Visit, Visit I.,--it was already on\nthe carpet, seems, if possible, still more so. For, without some\nunderstanding between Paul and the Apostles--and that to the effect of\nthis same treaty (the impossibility that Paul's conversion story should\nhave been the cause, having, it is believed, been hereinabove\ndemonstrated) without some understanding of this sort, neither the\ncontinuance ascribed to the Reconciliation Visit, nor the existence of\neither of the two succeeding visits, to wit, the Money-bringing Visit,\nand this Deputation Visit, seem within the bounds of moral\npossibility.[41]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[38] Gal. 2:1. \"Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem\nwith Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.\"\n\n[39] 2 Cor. 2:32. \"In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king kept\nthe city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me,\"\n&c. namely, on his conversion.\n\n[40] To this same Partition Treaty, allusion seems discernible in Paul's\nEpistle to his Roman adherents. Romans 15:15 to 22. \"Nevertheless,\nbrethren, I have written the more boldly unto you, in some sort, as\nputting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of\nGod,--That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,\nministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles\nmight be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.--I have\ntherefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which\npertain to God.--For I will not dare to speak of any of those things\nwhich Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient by\nword and deed,--through mighty signs and wonders by the power of the\nspirit of God, so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I\nhave fully preached the Gospel of Christ.--Yea, so I have strived to\npreach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon\nanother man's foundation:--but, as it is written, To whom he was not\nspoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall\nunderstand.--For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming\nto you.\"\n\n[41] From this passage in Paul's Epistle to his Galatians[II.], compared\nwith a passage in his first Epistle to the Corinthians[III.]--the Bible\nedited by Scholey, in a note to Acts xv. 39, (being the passage in which\nthe rupture between Paul and Barnabas is mentioned), draws the\ninference, that, after this rupture between Paul and Barnabas, a\nreconciliation took place.\n\n     [II.] Gal. ii. 9. \"They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of\n     fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the\n     circumcision.\"\n\n     [III.] 1 Cor. ix. 6. \"Or, I only, and Barnabas, have not we power to\n     forbear working?\"\n\nFrom the passage in question, if taken by itself, true it is that this\nsupposition is a natural one enough. For, according to all appearances,\nthe date of this Epistle to the Corinthians is posterior to that of the\nrupture: and, from the conjunct mention of the two names, if there were\nno evidence on the other side, it might naturally enough be supposed\nprobable, how far soever from certain, that the intention was thereby,\nto report the two persons, as operating in conjunction, and even in each\nother's company. But, to the purpose of the argument no such supposition\n(it will be seen) is necessary. Labouring they both were herein\nrepresented to be, and to all appearance were, in the same field, viz.\nthe field of the Gentiles: labouring, after and in conformity to this\nsame treaty--the agreement made by them with the Apostles--the partition\ntreaty so often mentioned. But, from this it followed not, by any means,\nthat they were labouring in the _same part_ of that field. For the\npurpose of the argument, the question was--What was the sort of\nrelation, that had taken place, between these two preachers on the one\npart, and their respective disciples on the other? It is of this\nrelation that it is stated by Paul, and stated truly, that as between\nhim and Barnabas, it was the same: both being actual labourers in their\nrespective parts of the same field: both being equally at liberty to\ncease from, to put an end to, their respective labours at any time: not\nthat both were labouring in the same place, or in any sort of concert.\n\"Or I only, and Barnabas, have not we, says Paul, power to forbear\nworking?\"\n\nThus inconclusive is the argument, by which the existence of a\nreconciliation is inferred. Against evidence so weak, the contrary\nevidence seems decisive. After mention made by him of the rupture,--had\nany reconciliation ever taken place, within the compass of time embraced\nby his history, would the author of the Acts have left it unnoticed?\nThat, among his objects was the painting every incident, in colours at\nleast as favourable, to the church in general, and to Paul in\nparticular, as he durst,--is sufficiently manifest. By a rupture between\ntwo such holy persons,--a token, more or less impressive, of human\ninfirmity, could not but be presented to view: and, to any reflecting\nmind--in those marks of _warmth_ at least, to say nothing worse, which,\nfrom first to last, are so conspicuous, in the character and conduct, of\nthis the historian's patron and principal hero, ground could scarce fail\nto be seen, for supposing--that it was to _his_ side rather than that of\nBarnabas--the generous and ever-disinterested Barnabas--that the blame,\nprincipally, if not exclusively, appertained.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n     _Interview the Fourth.--Peter at Antioch.--Deputies to Antioch from\n     Jerusalem, Judas and Silas.--Paul disagrees with Peter and\n     Barnabas, quits Antioch, and on a Missionary Excursion takes with\n     him Silas. What concerns the Partition Treaty, down to this Period,\n     reviewed.--Peter and the Apostles justified._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nPAUL'S ACCOUNT OF THIS INTERVIEW QUOTED.--ACTS ACCOUNT OF WHAT FOLLOWED\nUPON IT.\n\nWe now come to the last of the four different and more or less distant\noccasions on which a personal intercourse, in some way or other, is\nrecorded as having had place, between Paul on the one part, and the\nApostles or some of them on the other, antecedently to that, on which\nPaul's history, so far as any tolerably clear, distinct, and material,\ninformation has descended to us, closes. Of this interview, the scene\nlies at Antioch: Peter having, for some consideration no otherwise to be\nlooked for than by conjecture, been led to pay a visit, to that place of\nPaul's _then_ habitual abode, after, and, as seems probable, in\nconsequence of, Paul's third recorded visit to Jerusalem--his\n_Deputation Visit_.\n\nLet us now cast an eye on the documents. Respecting Paul's disagreement\nwith Peter, the only one we have, is that which has been furnished us\nby Paul himself. It consists of the following passage in his Epistle to\nhis Galatians.\n\nGALATIANS 2:11 to 16.\n\n     But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,\n     because he was to be blamed.--For before that certain came from\n     James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he\n     withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the\n     circumcision.--And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;\n     insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their\n     dissimulation.--But when I saw that they walked not uprightly\n     according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before\n     _them_ all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of\n     Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles\n     to live as do the Jews?--We _who are_ Jews by nature and not\n     sinners of the Gentiles,--knowing that a man is not justified by\n     the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we\n     have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the\n     faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works\n     of the law shall no flesh be justified.\n\nLet us now see the account, given in the Acts, of what passed in\nAntioch, in relation to Paul, Barnabas and Silas,--during a period,\nwhich seems to be either the same, or one in contiguity with it,\nprobably antecedent to it.\n\nACTS 15:35 to 41.\n\n     Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching\n     the word of the Lord with _many others_ also.--And some days after,\n     Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren,\n     in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see\n     how they do.--And Barnabas determined to take with them John whose\n     surname was Mark.--But Paul thought not good to take him with them,\n     who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to\n     the work.--And the contention was so sharp between them, that they\n     departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark and\n     sailed unto Cyprus;--And Paul chose Silas and departed, being\n     recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.--And he went\n     through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.\n\nWith regard to Paul's separation from Barnabas, departure from Antioch,\nand taking Silas for a companion,--we have nothing from Paul himself:\nnothing, from any other source, than, as above, the Acts.\n\nIn Paul's account, however, may be seen a passage, Gal. 2:13, by which\nsome light is thrown upon the breach of Paul with Barnabas. In the Acts,\nthough the _\"contention\" is said to be \"sharp,\"_ no cause is stated for\nit, other than a difference respecting the choice of a companion:\nnamely, on an excursion, which they are represented as having agreed to\nmake, in the company of each other, as before.\n\nBut, according to Paul, he had had cause of complaint, against his old\nfriend Barnabas, on another account. Barnabas had sided with the\nApostles: Barnabas had been \"carried away with their dissimulation\"; by\nthe dissimulation of those Apostles of Jesus, the virtuous simplicity of\nthe self-constituted Apostle, so he desires his Galatian disciples to\nbelieve, had been foiled.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nPAUL DISAGREES WITH PETER--AND BARNABAS--QUITS ANTIOCH, TAKING SILAS\nFROM THE APOSTLES.\n\nIn no place can this man exist, but to exercise hostility or provoke it:\nwith no man can he hold intercourse, without acting towards him, if not\nin the character of a despot, in that either of an open and audacious,\nor in that of a secret adversary, or both. Against Peter, at Jerusalem,\nin his Deputation Visit, he is intriguing, while he is bargaining with\nhim. With the same Peter, when arrived at Antioch, he quarrels: for, at\nAntioch, Peter was but a visitor--a stranger; Paul, with Barnabas for\nhis constant supporter, was on his own ground: no betrayed rulers\n_there_ to fear--no persecuted Christians. He quarrels--so he himself\ninforms his Galatians--he quarrels with the chief of the Apostles: he\n\"withstands him to his face.\" Why? because, forsooth, \"he was to be\nblamed.\" In conclusion, to such a pitch,--by the degree of success,\nwhatever it was, which by this time he had experienced,--to such a pitch\nof intemperance, had his mind swelled--he quarrels even with Barnabas:\nwith Barnabas--in all his three antecedent visits to Jerusalem, his\nmunificent protector, and steady adherent: with that Barnabas, in whose\ncompany, and under whose wing, one of his missionary excursions had\nalready been performed. Acts 11:19-27; Ib. 2:37-40.\n\nAt Antioch, the number of his competitors could not but be considerable:\nat Antioch, the number of years, which he appears to have passed in that\ncity, considered,--the number of his enemies could not be small. He\naccordingly plans, and executes, a new missionary excursion. He stands\nnow upon his own legs: no Barnabas now,--no necessary protector, to\nshare with him in his glory: to share with him, in equal or superior\nproportion, in the profit of his profession: in that profit, the image\nof which, in all its shapes, was flitting before his eyes,--and which we\nshall accordingly see him gathering in, in such unequalled exuberance.\nHe now looks out for a humble companion--an assistant: he finds one in\nSilas: that Silas, whom, with Judas Barsabas, we have seen come to\nAntioch, deputed by the Apostles and their disciples, to conclude, in\nthat second metropolis, the negotiation, commenced in the first\nmetropolis of the new Christian world. Deserter from the service in\nwhich he was sent, Silas enlists in that of the daring and indefatigable\nadventurer. Thus much, and no more, do we learn concerning him: for, in\nthe picture drawn in the Acts, no character is given to him, except the\nbeing found in company with Paul, in some of the places which Paul\nvisits: except this exercise of the locomotive faculty, nothing is there\nto distinguish him from the common stock of still-life.\n\nFrom this fourth recorded epoch in the intercourse between Paul and the\nApostles, we now pass to that which stands fifth and last, to wit: that\nwhich was produced by his fourth and last visit to Jerusalem:--his\n_Invasion Visit_, A.D. 62.\n\nIn the interval, come four years,--occupied by a series of successive\nexcursions and sojournments,--in the course of which, all mention of\nSilas is dropped, without remark: dropped, in the same obscure and\ninexplicit manner, in which the historian affords to the reader,\nsupposing him endowed with the requisite degree of attention, the means\nof discovering, Acts 16:10, that not long after the commencement of this\nsame period, the historian himself, whoever he was, was taken into the\ntrain of the self-constituted Apostle. To the reader is also left the\nfaculty, of amusing himself in conjecturing, about what time, and in\nwhat manner, this latter event may have taken place; an event, from\nwhich such important consequences have resulted.\n\nOf these portions of Paul's life, some view will come to be taken, in a\nsucceeding chapter, under another head:--under the head of Paul's\nsupposed miracles: for, it is in the account given of his achievements\nand adventures, and of the transactions in which, in the course of this\nperiod, he was engaged,--it is in the course of this account, that we\nshall have to pick up, the supposed accounts of supposed miracles,\nwhich, in this part of the Acts history lie interspersed. This review\nmust of necessity be taken, for the purpose of placing in a true light,\nthe evidence, supposed to be thus afforded, in support of his claims to\na supernatural commission.\n\nTo this change of connection on the part of Silas,--from the service of\nthe Apostles of Jesus to that of the self-constituted Apostle,--the\ncharacter of _defection_ on the part of Silas,--_seduction_ on the part\nof Paul,--may here be ascribed without difficulty. By the Apostles, one\nGospel was preached--the Gospel of Jesus:--we see it in the Evangelists.\nBy Paul, another and different Gospel was preached:--a Gospel, later and\nbetter, according to him, than that which is to be seen in the\nEvangelists:--a Gospel of his own. If, even down to this time, mutual\nprudence prevented an open and generally conspicuous rupture,--there was\non his part, at any rate, an opposition. If, to men, whose conduct and\ntemper were such as they uniformly appear to have been,--any such word\nas _party_ can, without disparagement, be applied, here were two\n_parties_. He, who was _for_ the self-constituted Apostle, was _against_\nthe Apostles of Jesus. In a word, in the language of modern party,\nSilas was a _rat_.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nTHE PARTITION TREATY, AND THE PROCEEDINGS, IN RELATION TO IT, DOWN TO\nTHIS PERIOD, REVIEWED.\n\nIn regard to the Partition Treaty,--taking the matter from Paul's first,\nor Reconciliation Visit, A.D. 35, to his departure from Antioch, on his\nmissionary excursion, after the interview he had had at that city with\nPeter,--the state of the affairs, between Paul and the Apostles, seems\nto have been thus:--\n\n1. On the occasion, and at the time, of his first Jerusalem Visit--his\nReconciliation Visit--a sort of reconciliation--meaning at least an\noutward one--could not,--consistently with the whole train, of what is\nsaid of his subsequent intercourse and interviews with the\nApostles,--could not but have taken place.\n\n2. Of this reconciliation, the terms were--that, on condition of _his_\npreaching in the name of Jesus,--_they_ would not, to such persons in\nJerusalem and elsewhere, as were in connection with them,--_speak_ of\nhim any longer in the character of a persecutor: for, by his\ndisobedience and breach of trust, as towards the Jerusalem constituted\nauthorities,--such he had put it out of his power to _be_ any longer:\nnot speak of him as a persecutor, but, on the contrary, as an\nassociate:--he taking up the name of Jesus: and preaching--never in his\nown, but on every occasion in that holy, name.\n\n3. On this occasion,--it being manifest to both parties, that, by his\nintimate acquaintance with the Greek language, and with the learning\nbelonging to that language, he was in a peculiar degree well qualified\nto spread the name of Jesus among the Gentiles in general;--that is,\namong those to whom the Jewish was not a vernacular language;--whereas\ntheir acquaintance with language was confined to their own, to wit, the\nJewish language;--on this occasion, it followed of course, from the\nnature of the case, and almost without need of stipulation,\nthat,--leaving to _them_, for the field of their labours, Jerusalem, and\nthat part of the circumjacent country, in which the Jewish alone was the\nlanguage of the bulk of the population,--_he_ should confine his\nexertions, principally if not exclusively, to those countries, of which\nGreek was, or at any rate Hebrew was not, the vernacular language.\n\nTo him, at that time, it was not in the nature of the case, that\nabsentation from Jerusalem, or any part of the country under the same\ndominion, should be matter of regret. Within that circle, he could not,\nfor any length of time, abide publicly, for fear of the legal vengeance\nof the constituted authorities: nor yet among the Christians; although\nfrom their chiefs he had obtained, as above, a sort of prudential\nendurance; considering the horror, which his persecution of them had\ninspired, and the terror, with which, until his conversion had been\nproved in the eyes of all by experience, he could not as yet fail to be\nregarded.\n\nWhatever was the object of his concupiscence,--whether it were the\nfund--and we have seen how attractive the bait was--which, at that time,\nin that metropolis of the Christian world, offered itself to an\nambitious eye,--still, though his opportunities had as yet confined his\nexertions to the _second_ city in that increasing world, his eyes never\nceased looking to the _first_.\n\nTwice, accordingly, between the first of his Visits,--his Reconciliation\nVisit--and this his last interview with Peter,--we see him visiting that\ninviting spot: each time, protected and escorted by the munificent\nBarnabas and his influence--to make him endurable: each time with a\npublic commission--to make him respected:--the first time with money\nin his hand--to make him welcome.\n\nThat, all this while, neither _good faith_ nor _prudence_ were capable\nof opposing to the violence of his ambition, any effectual check,--is\nabundantly manifest.\n\nThat _good faith_ was not, we learn distinctly from himself. For though,\nfrom the very nature of the two correlative situations, it is out of all\nquestion, as above, that, without some agreement to the effect above\nmentioned, he could not, even with the benefit of every possible means\nof concealment, have been preserved for two days together from the\nvengeance which pressed upon him, from _below_ as well as from _above_;\nyet still was he, by his secret intrigues, Gal. 1:11, violating the\ntreaty, at the expense of those upright, patient, and long-suffering\nmen, to whose observance of it, he was every day indebted for his life.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nPETER AND THE APOSTLES JUSTIFIED AS TO THE FINANCIAL STIPULATION IN\nTHE TREATY, AND THE SUCCEEDING MISSIONARY LABOURS OF PETER AMONG\nTHE GENTILES.\n\nOf the financial stipulation, the account we have has been seen:--an\naccount given by one of the parties to it--Paul:--the other party\nbeing--the Apostles. In the instance of Paul, in the demonstration,\nsupposed to be given of it, the worldliness, of the motives which gave\nbirth to it, has in a manner been taken for granted. Well, then, if in\nthe one instance such was the character of it,--in the other instance,\ncan it have been any other? The question is a natural one; but not less\nso is the answer. For note, the stipulation is express--that, by\nPaul--by Paul out of the profits of his vocation--the poor, meaning the\npoor of Jerusalem--the poor among the disciples of the Apostles--should\nbe remembered. Remembered, and how? Remembered, by payment of the\nmoney--into the hands, either of the Apostles themselves, or, what comes\nto the same thing, some other persons, in connection with them, and\nacting under their influence. Now, then, once more. Of the man, by whom\nthe money was to be _paid_--of this man, the motives, you say, were\nworldly: is it credible then, that they should have been less so, in the\ninstance of the men by whom they were to be _received_?\n\nAnswer. Oh! yes, _that_ it is. Between the two cases, there is this\nbroad difference. Whatever Paul might receive, he would receive for\nhimself: whatever, after payment made, under the treaty, to the use of\nthe Jerusalem poor, he retained,--he might retain for his own use. But\nthe Apostles--that which, if anything, they received, in the name of the\npoor, and as for the use of that same poor,--would they--could they, for\ntheir own use, retain it, or any part of it? Not they, indeed. Not in\ntheir hands were the poor's funds: not in theirs, but in a very\ndifferent set of hands:--in the hands of a set of trustees--of the\ntrustees already mentioned in this work, Ch. 2--of those administrators,\nwhose function, to every reader who has not the Greek original in view,\nis so unfortunately disguised by the word _Deacons_. And these deacons,\nby whom appointed? By the Apostles? No; but, by the whole communion of\nthe saints--by the whole number of the members of the Christian\ncommonwealth;--and in the way of free election,--_election, on the\nprinciple of universal suffrage_. Monarchists and Aristocrats! mark\nwell!--_of universal suffrage_.\n\nSo much for the treaty itself. Now, as to the subsequent conduct of the\nparties, under it, and in relation to it. As to the partition--Paul to\nthe Gentiles, Peter and his associates to the Jews--such was the letter\nof it. Such being the letter--what, at the same time, was the spirit of\nit? Manifestly this: on the one hand, that the field, to which Paul's\nexertions should apply themselves, and confine themselves, should be\nthat field, for the cultivation of which, with any prospect of success,\nhe was exclusively qualified: on the other hand, that the field, to\nwhich their exertions should apply themselves and confine themselves,\nshould be that, for the cultivation of which, they were--if not\nexclusively, at any rate more peculiarly, qualified. In a word--that, of\nall that portion of the world, that presented itself as open to the\nexertions, of those who preached in the name of Jesus,--they should\nreserve to themselves that part which was already in their possession,\nto wit, Jerusalem, and its near neighbourhood, together with such parts\nof Judea, and its neighbourhood, of which their own language, the\nHebrew, was the vernacular language: this minute portion of the world\nreserved, all the rest was to be left open to him: over every other part\nof it he was to be at liberty to cast forth his shoe. Judea--the country\nof the Jews? say, rather, the Jews themselves:--the Jews wherever found:\nfor, revelation apart, it was in _language_, that Paul's\npretensions--his exclusive qualifications--consisted. The Apostles spoke\nnothing but Hebrew: Paul was learned, and eloquent, in a certain sort,\nin Greek.\n\nIn regard to the interpretation to be put upon this treaty,--suppose any\ndoubt to have place,--in the word _Gentile_, would obviously the seat\nand source of it to be to be found. Suppose, on the one hand _persons_\nto be the objects, of which it was meant to be designative,--then, let\nthere be but so much as one single uncircumcised man in Jerusalem, or\nelsewhere,--to whom, in the view of gaining him over to their communion,\nthe Apostles, or, with their cognizance, any of their disciples,\naddressed themselves,--here would, on _their_ part, be a breach of the\ntreaty. Suppose, on the other hand, _places_ to be the objects, of which\nit was meant to be designative,--on that supposition, within that tract\nof country, within which alone, the necessary means, of communicating\nwith the bulk of the population, were in their possession,--they might\napply themselves, to all persons without restriction: and this, still\nwithout any real breach of the agreement--of the spirit and real import\nof the agreement.\n\nIn respect either of _persons or places_, by the agreement, according to\nthis--the obvious sense of it--what was it that Paul gave up? In truth,\njust nothing. Had his mind been in a sober state,--strange indeed, if\nthe field thus afforded by the whole heathen world, was not wide enough\nfor his labour: in all parts of it he could not be at once; and the most\npromising parts were open to his choice. Cessation of Paul's\nhostilities excepted, what was it that the Apostles gained? Not much\nmore.\n\nAs already observed--what was not gained by it, is what is above: what\nwas really gained by it, is what follows.\n\nWhat Paul gained was--exemption from the annoyance, which otherwise he\nwould everywhere have been exposed to have received, by being designated\nas the quondam notorious persecutor, and still unreconciled enemy, of\nthe Apostles and their disciples:--in a word, of all others who preached\nin the name of Jesus.\n\nThat which the Apostles actually gained, was--that confirmation and\nextension of their influence, which followed of course, upon every\nextension, received by that field, within which the influence of the\nname of Jesus was extended.\n\nThat which, besides what is above, they _ought to_ have gained, but did\nnot gain, is--exemption from all such annoyance, as could not but be\ninflicted on them, in proportion as Paul, preaching to persons, to whom\n_they_ had access, a Gospel which was his, and not theirs,--should,\nwhile in pretence and name an associate, be, in truth and effect, an\nadversary and opponent.\n\nThis is what--though they not only should have gained, but might also\nreasonably have expected to gain--they did _not_ gain. For, not to\ninsist any more on his secret intrigues in Jerusalem itself, and his\nopen opposition in the second Jerusalem, Antioch, as above; we\nshall--when we come to the next and last of his interviews with the\nApostles on the occasion of his Invasion Visit--see, to what lengths the\nmadness of his ambition carried him, in that birthplace and metropolis\nof the Christian world.\n\nBy the sort of connection, which, notwithstanding such obvious and\nnaturally powerful principles of discrimination, have on each occasion,\nbeen visible, as between the undoubted Apostles, and this self-styled\none--three distinguishable questions cannot but, from time to time, have\nbeen presenting themselves:--1. The sort of countenance--partial, cold,\nand guarded as it was--shown by the old established and goodly\nfellowship to the ever-intruding individual--is it credible? 2. Can it,\nin fact, have been manifested, in conjunction with a disbelief, on their\npart, of his pretensions to a degree of supernatural favour with the\nAlmighty, equal or superior to their own? 3. And, if not only possible,\nbut actual--was it, in point of morality, justifiable?\n\nBy a few obvious enough considerations, an answer--and, it is hoped, a\nnot altogether unsatisfactory one,--may be given to all these questions.\n\nAs to whatever was natural in the course of the events, Barnabas was\nnecessary to the rising Church: and Paul was, all along, necessary, or,\nat least, was so thought, to Barnabas.\n\n1. Barnabas was necessary to the Church. Already, it has been seen, how\npreeminent was the support received by it from his munificence. In him,\nit had found at once the most liberal of benefactors, and, unless Peter\nbe an exception, the most indefatigable of agents. On the part of no one\nof even the chosen servants of Jesus, do proofs of equal zeal and\nactivity present themselves to our view.\n\nIn an ensuing chapter, we shall see Peter trying his strength among the\nGentiles. Yet, from the direction thus given to his Apostolic zeal, no\nviolation of the treaty, it will be seen, can with justice be imputed to\nhim, if the interpretation above given to the word _Gentiles_ be\ncorrect.\n\n1. In the first place,--according to the Acts, the date of this\nexcursion is _antecedent_ to that third interview, which took place on\nthe occasion of Paul's third Jerusalem Visit--his Deputation Visit: that\nis to say, to the time, at which, and not before, though, if the above\nreasoning be just, in a sort of general terms the preliminaries had been\nagreed upon, the general preliminary arrangements were followed,\nconfirmed, explained, and liquidated, by more particular ones.\n\n2. In the next place--of all the places,--which, in the course of this\nexcursion of Peter's, are mentioned as having been visited by\nhim,--there is not one, that Paul is mentioned as having ever visited:\nwhereas, in the first of them that is mentioned, the Apostles are\nmentioned as having already a band of disciples.[42]\n\n3. In the third place,--the date, assigned to this excursion of Peter's,\nis, by several years, antecedent even to the first, of the several\nexcursions of Paul's, of which mention is made in the Acts. In the\nreceived chronology--date assigned to the commencement of Peter's\nexcursion, A.D. 35; date assigned to Paul's first excursion, A.D. 45.\n\nWhile Peter was thus occupying himself, Paul was still at Tarsus:[43] at\nTarsus--his own birthplace--whereto,--in consequence of the danger, to\nwhich his life had been exposed by his first Jerusalem Visit, his\nReconciliation Visit,--he had taken his flight.[44]\n\n4. In the fourth place,--notwithstanding the perpetual hostility of\nPaul's mind, as towards Peter and the rest of the Apostles,--on no\noccasion, on the score of any breach of this article in the partition\ntreaty, is any complaint, on the part of Paul, to be found. When\ndissatisfaction is expressed, doctrine alone is mentioned by him as the\nsource of it: doctrine, the ostensible; dominion, the original and real\nsource.\n\nSpite of the treaty,--spite of the manifest interest, of the only\ngenuine religion of Jesus--the Gospel taught by the Apostles,--still in\nplaces to which they had access--in places in which, in consequence,\nthey had formed connections,--he persisted in intruding himself:\nintruding himself, with that Gospel which he says himself, was his, not\ntheirs--and not being theirs, was not Jesus's:--intruding himself, in\nplaces, in which, even had his Gospel been Jesus's, _their_ connections\nbeing established, there existed no demand for him and _his_. Can this\nbe doubted of? If yes, all doubt will at any rate be removed,\nwhen,--spite of all the endeavours that could be employed, either by\nthem or by his own adherents, to prevail upon him to desist,--we shall\nsee him entering Jerusalem on his Invasion Visit: as if, while, for\npreaching the religion of Jesus, all the world, with the exception of\nthe Jewish part of it, was not enough for this intruder,--the Apostles\nof Jesus--eleven in number, with their elected associate,\nMatthias,--were not, all together, enough, for that small part of it.\n\nThe _name_ he preached in, _that_ indeed not his own, but Jesus's: but\nthe _doctrine_ he preached--the Gospel, as he called it--not _Jesus's_,\nnor anybody else's, but his own. All this, as he has the assurance to\ndeclare,--all this did he preach without their knowledge. And why\nwithout their knowledge? because, as he himself has the still more\nextraordinary assurance to _declare_--for _confession_ is the result not\nof assurance, but weakness--because, as he himself acknowledges,--if so\nit had been, that this Gospel of his had come to the knowledge of the\nApostles--of those associates, to whom he was all along holding out the\nright hand of fellowship, this Gospel of his could not have been\nlistened to--this preaching of his would have been in vain.\n\nAlready, however--for in this he may be believed--already, throughout\nthis _first_ intercourse, though the expression is not used till he came\nto speak of the _third_,--already must the right hand of fellowship have\nbeen held out, and on both sides: and, what followed of course,--and was\nnot only affirmed by his statement, but demonstrated by the result,--on\nthis last occasion was the treaty again brought upon the carpet and\nconfirmed, after such modifications as it may naturally have received,\nfrom the consideration of intervening incidents.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[42] Acts 9:32. \"And it came to pass, as Peter passed through all\nquarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.\"\n\n[43] Acts 11:25. \"Then departed Barnabas for to seek Saul.\" A.D. 43.\n\n[44] Acts 9:30, \"Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to\nC\u00e6sarea and sent him forth to Tarsus.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n     _Paul disbelieved continued--The Fourth and Last Jerusalem Visit.\n     The Purpose concealed: Opposition universal; among his own\n     Disciples, and among those of the Apostles._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nMOTIVES TO THIS VISIT.\n\nOf this momentous visit to say what were the real objects, must in a\ngreat part be left to conjecture:--to inferences drawn from the known\ncircumstances of the case. By himself, as will be seen, they were\nconcealed with the most persevering anxiety.\n\nBut, in default of direct evidence, the point may without much danger of\nerror be settled by circumstantial evidence. The common objects of\npolitical concupiscence--money, power and vengeance--were all before his\neyes: _money_--in no less a quantity than that of the aggregate mass of\nthe property of the whole church:--that fund, for the management of\nwhich, the Apostles' seven trustees, under the name of Deacons, were not\nmore than sufficient:--that fund, by which the repulsed concupiscence of\nthe sorcerer of Samaria had so lately been excited:--_power_, that\nwhich was exercised by the direction of the consciences of the whole\nnumber of the faithful, some time before this, not less in number than\nthree thousand: _vengeance_, for the repeated rebuffs, by which, at the\ninterval of so many years from each other, his endeavours to supplant\nthe Apostles had been repelled.\n\nIn a general point of view, ambition,--rival ambition,--the same motive\nwhich sent Caesar to Rome, may be stated as having sent Paul, at this\ntime, to Jerusalem: to Jerusalem--the metropolis of the Christian world,\nby design; and thence, eventually and undesignedly, to the metropolis of\nthe whole civilized world.\n\nBy two opposite desires--two antagonizing but correspondent and mutually\nexplanatory desires--desires, in both parts intense and active, the\nexternal marks of which are sufficiently visible in two different\nquarters,--the nature as well as prevalence of this motive, will, it is\nbelieved, be found sufficiently proved:--a desire, in the breast of the\nself-constituted Apostle, to establish himself in the original\nmetropolis of the Christian world:--a desire on the part of the\nApostles--of the Apostles constituted by Jesus--to keep him out of it.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nTHE VISIT ANNOUNCED BY PAUL AND DEFERRED.\n\nEphesus, at which place he had arrived not long after his departure from\nCorinth, where he had made a stay, as it should seem, of more years than\none,[45] touching in the way at Cenchrea, where he shaved his head for\nthe performance of a vow--Ephesus is the place, at which, by the author\nof the Acts, Paul is for the first time made to speak of himself, as\nharbouring, having in mind the making of this visit: and on that\noccasion, the visit is spoken of, as being the subject of a settled\ndetermination, and in particular as being the time fixed upon by him for\nthe execution of this design. Acts 18:20, 21. \"When they, the Jews at\nEphesus, desired him to tarry longer with them, he consented not; but\nbade them farewell, saying, I must _by all means keep this feast_ that\ncometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again to you if God will.\"\n\nAs to the keeping of this or any other feast at Jerusalem or at any\nother place--if it was under any such notion as that of contributing to\nhis own personal salvation by any such Mosaic work, it was an object\ninconsistent with his own principles--with his own so repeatedly and\nstrenuously advocated principles:--and the like may be said of the\nhead-shaving and the vow, performed by him, at Cenchrea, in his way to\nEphesus from Corinth: and moreover, in this last-mentioned instance,\nmore particularly in contradiction with a precept so positively\ndelivered by Jesus, namely, _Swear not at all_,--if, under swearing, the\nmaking of vows is to be understood to be included.\n\nOf this design, the next intimation which occurs in the Acts, is in the\nnext chapter, Acts 19:21, \"When these things were ended,\" namely, the\ndiscomfiture of the exorcists, and the burning of the books of curious\narts at Ephesus,--\"Paul, it is said, _purposes in the spirit_, when he\nhad passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying,\nAfter I have been there, I must also see Rome.\"\n\nFortunate it is for the credit--either _of the spirit_, or of Paul, or\nof the author of the Acts, that it was on this second occasion only, and\nnot on the first, that it was _in the spirit_ that he proposed to go to\nJerusalem by the then next feast: for, notwithstanding the \"_must_\" and\nthe \"_by all means_,\"--so it is, that between those his two\ndeterminations as above, no less a space of time than two years is\nstated as elapsing, on one occasion, at one and the same place.[46] And\nthis place--what was it? it was Ephesus: the same place, at which, on\nhis departure from it, the first determination was declared: after\nwhich, and before this his second visit to Ephesus,--he is represented\nas having visited C\u00e6sarea and Antioch.\n\nThe next mention, is that which occurs in the next chapter, chapter\n20:16. \"Paul,\" we are there told, being then at Miletus, \"had determined\nto sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he\nhasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of\nPentecost.\"\n\nAt Miletus it is, that he sends for, and receives, from Ephesus, a\nnumber of his adherents in that place. Upon their arrival, he is\nrepresented as making a formal speech to them: and now, he not merely\nproposes in the spirit, as before, but is \"_bound in the spirit_,\" to go\nthither.[47] Vain would be the attempt to ascertain, with any approach\nto exactness, the interval of time, during which the operation of the\nspirit remained in a sort of suspense between _purpose_ and\n_obligation_: it may have been months, only: it may have been years.\n\nWhile, by one spirit, Paul was thus urged on, every now and then,\ntowards Jerusalem;--by the same spirit, or by another spirit, he was\npulled back.[48]\n\nIn the very next verse, Acts 20:22, in which he speaks of his being\n\"bound in the spirit unto\" that place, not knowing, as, in his speech,\nhe thereupon adds,--\"not knowing the things that shall befall me\nthere,\"--he goes on, and says: \"Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in\nevery city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of\nthese things,\" says he, ver. 24, \"move me, neither count I my life dear\nunto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the\nministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel\nof the grace of God.\"\n\nTo raise, in the breast of Paul, the expectation, that of his proceeding\nin the course it was his way to take in preaching that religion, to\nwhich, from a persecutor, he had, in appearance, become a convert,\naffliction, in a variety of shapes, might prove to be the\nfruits,--needed no information from the spirit; if, by receiving\ninformation from the spirit, he meant any communication of a\nsupernatural kind--anything beyond information in the ordinary\nshape;--be the effect--be the purpose, good or bad,--such is the lot,\nthat awaits innovation in the field of politics--the spiritual part\nincluded, as well as the temporal--at all places, and all times.\n\nA passage, which now presents itself, helps to show how easily and\ncopiously, out of a few words, written in ancient times, mysteries and\nmiracles have been manufactured in modern times. In Acts 20:22, we have\nseen Paul, \"_bound in the spirit_,\" as he is made to assure us, to go\nunto Jerusalem. In the next chapter, 21:4, we find disciples ... who\nsaid to Paul, \"_through the spirit_,\" that he should _not_ go up to\nJerusalem. Oh! what a useful word this word _spirit_! Let a man say\nplainly and simply, I shall go, or be going, to Jerusalem--or, Don't go\nto Jerusalem,--his words go for no more than they are worth: in either\ncase, with a proper proposition to introduce it, add the word \"spirit,\"\nthe matter becomes serious. Out of a word or two, you thus add to the\nGodhead a third person, who talks backward and forward for you, and does\nfor you whatever you please.\n\nAt so small a price, even to this day, are manufactured, every day, a\nsort of _verbal_ miracles, which, as many as are disposed, are welcome\nto improve into real ones.\n\nTo reconcile men to this expedition of Paul's, the spirit was the more\nnecessary,--inasmuch as it was not in his own power, or even in that of\nany one of his numerous attendants and dependants, to assign so much as\none ostensible reason for it.\n\nThat, to the advancement of religion--of the religion of Jesus--no such\npresence of his was necessary;--that no good could result from it;--that\nmuch evil could not but result from it;--was obvious to all eyes. Of the\noriginal number of the Apostles,--for aught that appears, not less than\neleven were still remaining on the spot: men, to every one of whom, all\nacts and sayings of Jesus were, by memory, rendered so familiar:--men,\non the part of some of whom, and, at any rate, on the part of the chief\nof them, Peter,--there was no want of zeal and activity. While to these\nmen a single city, or, at the utmost, one small region--composed the\nwhole field of exertion--the whole earth besides is left open by them\nto Paul: still, such is the ravenousness of his ambition, nothing can\ncontent him, but he must be intruding himself--thrusting his restless\nsickle into their ripening harvest.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nTHE DESIGN INDEFENSIBLE.\n\nAll this--is it not enough? Well then, take this one other--this\nconcluding proof. In the teeth of all their endeavours, and among them,\nsome that will be seen extraordinary enough, to prevent it,--was\nundertaken the fourth and last of his four recorded visits to their\nresidence--Jerusalem.\n\nBut, in the first place, in the utter indefensibility of the design,\nshall be shown the _cause_, of the opposition so universally made to it.\n\nTired of a mixture of successes and miscarriages,--disdaining the\nconquests he had been making in so many remote, and comparatively\nobscure regions of the world,--he had formed--but at what precise time,\nthe documents do not enable us to pronounce--the determination, to\nexhibit his glories on the two most illustrious of theatres:--in the two\ncapitals--Jerusalem, of the Jewish, and now of the Christian world;\nRome, of the whole classical heathen world:--and in the first place,\nJerusalem, now, for the fourth time since his conversion. It was at\nEphesus, as we have seen, this determination was first declared.\n\nTo Rome, he might have gone, and welcome: namely, in so far as his\ndoctrines could have confined themselves within the limits of those of\nJesus: which, however, it will be seen, they could not: but, success\nbeing moreover supposed, nothing but good could such visit have had for\nits result.\n\nBut, by a visit to any place other than Jerusalem, various were the\npoints of spleen and ambition, that could not have been satisfied.\nNothing would serve him, but, over that Edom Jerusalem, he would, in the\nfirst place, cast forth his shoe.\n\nUnless the eleven most confidential servants, selected by Jesus himself\nto be the propagators of his religion, were altogether unworthy of the\ntask thus allotted to them,--nothing to the good purposes of that\nreligion could be more palpably unnecessary, nothing to the purposes of\npeace and unity more pernicious, than the intrusion thus resolved upon.\nThat the number of these legitimately instituted Apostles had as yet\nsuffered any diminution, is not, by any of the documents, rendered so\nmuch as probable. Neither in the works of Paul himself, nor in that of\nhis historiographer, is any intimation to any such effect to be found.\nIn their own judgments, had there been any need of coadjutors--any\ndeficiency of hands for the spiritual harvest,--they well knew how to\nsupply it. Of the sufficiency of such knowledge, they had given the\nmost incontestable proofs: the election of Matthias was the fruit of it.\nThey showed--and with a disinterestedness, which has never since had,\nnor seems destined to have, any imitators--that, in the Christian world,\nif government in any shape has divine right for its support, it is in\nthe shape of democracy;--representative democracy--operating by\nuniversal suffrage. In the eye of the Christian, as well as of the\nphilosopher and the philanthropist, behold here the only legitimate\ngovernment: the form, the exclusion of which from the Christian world,\nhas been the object of that league, by which, by an unpunishable, yet\nthe most mischievous--if not the only mischievous--sort of blasphemy,\nthe name of Christian has been profaned.\n\nThis method of filling offices, was no more to the taste of Paul, than\nto that of a Napoleon or a George. He determined to open their eyes, and\nprove to them by experience, that monarchy,--himself the first\nmonarch--was the only legitimate form of government. The difficulties of\nthe enterprise were such as could not escape any eyes:--least of all his\nown: but to die or conquer was his resolve: so he himself declares.[49]\nWhat, in case of success, would have been the use made by him of it? The\nfate of the Apostles may be read in the catastrophe of Saint Stephen:\nthe vulgar herd would, in his eyes, have been as declaredly foolish as\nthe Galatians. Gal. 3:1. \"O, foolish Galatians!\" Who did bewitch you,\netc.\n\nThe invasion was not less inconsistent with good faith, than with\nbrotherly love, peace and unity. It was a direct violation of the\n_partition-treaty_: that treaty, of which he gives such unquestionable\nevidence against himself, in the boast he makes of it to his Galatians.\nGal. 2:9. \"When James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be\npillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me\nand Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the\nheathen, and they unto the circumcision.\"\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nOPPOSITION MADE TO IT BY HIS OWN ATTENDANTS AND OTHER ADHERENTS.\n\nTo find so much as the colour of a reason for this perfidy, was too much\nfor the ingenuity of his attendant panegyrist. In the eyes of the whole\nbody of his attendants, of whom the historian was one, so completely\nunjustifiable was his design in every point of view,--they joined in a\nremonstrance to him, beseeching him to give it up.\n\n\nACTS 21:12 to 14.\n\n     And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place,\n     besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.--Then Paul answered, What\n     mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be\n     bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord\n     Jesus.--And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The\n     will of the Lord be done.\n\nAt no such loss, however, was Paul himself: for this, and for everything\nelse it was his will to do, he had a reason ready made. It was no less\nconcise and economical than convenient: a word, and no more than a word,\nwas the price paid for it:--_revelation_ was that word.[50] So he\nassures his \"foolish\" Galatians: and if they were foolish enough to\nbelieve it, these, though first, have not been last, in the career of\nfoolishness.\n\nAllow a man but the use of this one word, so it be in the sense in which\nPaul here uses it--admit the matter of fact, of which it contains the\nassertion,--the will of that man is not only sufficient reason, but\nsufficient law, for everything: in all places, and to all persons, his\nwill is law. The will of this man is the will of that God, by whom this\nrevelation of it has been made to him: the will of God, what man shall\nbe audacious enough to dispute?\n\nThe motives, which gave birth to this act of perfidy and hostility, will\nnow be visible enough, to every eye, that dares to open itself to them.\nAt the time in question, they were too manifest to need mentioning: and\nat the same time too unjustifiable, to bear to be mentioned by his\ndependent historian, when speaking of the opposition, which, even on the\npart of his own dependents, it produced. They besought him--with tears\nthey besought him: but, as to the reflections by which these tears were\nproduced, they could not bear the light: it was not for a declared\nadherent to give them utterance. The sort of colour, put upon the\nproject by Paul, with the help of one of his phrases--this was the only\ncolour that could be found for it. It was for the _name_ of the Lord\nJesus, Acts 21:13, that he was ready--\"ready, not to be bound only, but\nalso to die.\" For the name? O, yes, for the name at all times; for, in\nthe name of Jesus, he beheld from first to last his necessary support:\nand of the Lord Jesus, nothing, as we shall find,--nothing from first to\nlast, did he ever employ but the name. But, to be bound at Jerusalem--to\ndie at Jerusalem--to be bound--to die--supposing this to take\nplace,--where--to the religion of Jesus--would be, where could be, the\nuse of it? There, at Jerusalem, the Apostles--the real Apostles of\nJesus:--executing, without either dying or being bound for it, the\ncommission, which to them had been really given by Jesus.\n\n\nSECTION 5.\n\nOPPOSITION MADE TO IT BY THE APOSTLES AND THEIR DISCIPLES.\n\nThus indefensible and deplorable, in the eyes even of his own\ndependents,--it may be imagined in what light the invasion presented\nitself at Jerusalem, to those who found themselves so cruelly menaced by\nit.\n\nAt the first place, at which, after a voyage of some length, they landed\non their way to Judea,--they found the alarm already spread. This place\nwas Tyre: there they found \"disciples,\" Acts 21:4, \"who said to Paul,\"\nand \"through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.\" It was\nthrough _their spirit_, that they bade him not to go; but _his\nrevelation_, as we have seen, bade him to go, notwithstanding:--his\nrevelation was too strong for their spirit. If it was from the _Lord\nJesus_, as he all along informs us, that his revelation came, while\ntheir spirit was the _Holy Spirit_, otherwise called the _Holy\nGhost_,--already another schism was produced: a schism, in a council\nstill higher than that of the Apostles.\n\nAt Ptolemais, on the road from Tyre to Jerusalem, they stayed but one\nday: Acts 21:7, not long enough, it should seem, for any fresh marks of\nopposition to this enterprise to manifest themselves.\n\nContinuing their approach to the metropolis, the next day they came to\nC\u00e6sarea, Acts 21:4, \"The house,\" then \"entered into,\" was that of\nPhilip, there styled the Evangelist, one of the seven trustees, who,\nunder the name, rendered in the English translation by that of Deacon,\nat the recommendation of the Apostles, had been chosen by universal\nsuffrage, for the management of the pecuniary affairs of the Church.\nHere they took up their quarters: and here a fresh scene awaited them.\n\nIn the person of a man, whose name was Agabus, the Apostles and their\nassociates had found, as we have seen, an agent of approved talents, and\nusefulness: to him they had been indebted, for the most important\nservice, of a temporal nature, which the history of the church in those\ndays furnishes:--the supply of money already received, as above\nmentioned, from the first-born daughter of the church--the church of\nAntioch, in Syria. At this place, C\u00e6sarea, as a last resource, this\nsame Agabus, or another, was, as it should seem, dispatched to meet--at\nany rate did meet--the self-appointed Apostle in his way; and, in the\ncharacter of a _prophet_, for so _this_ Agabus is styled, strained every\nnerve, in the endeavour to divert the invader from the so anxiously\napprehended purpose.\n\nWhoever he was, employed on this occasion, but employed in vain, were\nall the treasures of his eloquence. The Holy Ghost was once more, and by\nname, set in array against Paul's Lord Jesus. The powers of verbal and\noral eloquence were not thought sufficient: action--and not only of that\nsort which, in the eyes of Demosthenes, was an object of such prime\nimportance, but even pantomime--was employed in aid. Acts 21:11. As to\nargument--fear in the bosom of the Church, for a life so precious, was\nthe only one, which the skill of the orator could permit him to employ:\nas to fear for their own sakes, and resentment for the injury which they\nwere predestinated to suffer,--these were passions, too strongly felt\nto be avowed. \"He took Paul's girdle,\" Acts 21:11, \"and bound his own\nhands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews\nat Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him\ninto the hands of the Gentiles.\"\n\nSupposing the Agabus mentioned on this occasion, to be the same Agabus\nas he who was mentioned on the occasion of the apprehended\ndearth--supposing this to be he--and no reason presents itself in favour\nof the contrary supposition--well known indeed must he have been to\nPaul, since it was by his means that Paul was indebted for the\nopportunity of paying, to Jerusalem, that second visit of his, from\nwhich, as we have seen, so little fruit was reaped.\n\nThe singular circumstance here is, the manner, in which, on this second\noccasion, mention is made of this name--Agabus: \"a certain prophet named\nAgabus,\" Acts 21:10. Whether this was, or was not, the same as the\nformer Agabus,--this mode of designation presents itself as alike\nextraordinary. If he _was_ the same,--in that case, as, by the addition\nof the adjunct \"a certain prophet,\" a sort of cloud is thrown over his\nidentity,--so, by so simple an expedient as that of the non-insertion of\nthese redundant words, the clouds would have been dispelled. If he was\n_not_ the same,--so expressive being the circumstances, by which\nidentity stands indicated--namely, the quarter _from_ whence the same;\nthe quarter _to_ which the same; the importance of the mission, and the\ndemand for talents and influence, in both cases so great; on this\nsupposition, to prevent misconception, no less obvious than urgent was\nthe demand, for some mark of distinction, to be added on this second\noccasion: in a word, for that sort of mark of distinction, which, on\nother occasions; may, in this same history, be seen more than once\nemployed: witness _that John_, twice distinguished by the name of _John,\nwhose surname was Mark_. Acts 22:25, _ib._ 25:37.\n\nHence a suspicion, nor that an unnatural one--that, in this history, the\npart, in which the name Agabus occurs for the first time, and the part,\nin which that same name occurs for the second time, were not the work of\nthe same hand.\n\nWith or without the assistance of the Holy Ghost, with the like\nimportunity, though in a tone corresponding to the difference of\nsituation, was a dissuasion, to the same effect, added, with one voice,\nby the adherents, of whom the suite of the self-appointed Apostle was\ncomposed, and by all the other Christians then present. \"And when we\nheard these things,\" says the author of the Acts, \"both we, and they of\nthat place, C\u00e6sarea, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.\" Acts\n21:12.\n\nThe Holy Ghost, whom all the rest of the Church had for their advocate,\nwas no equal match for the Holy Ghost whom Paul had for his adviser.\n\"What mean ye,\" says he, \"to weep and to break mine heart? for I am\nready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of\nthe Lord Jesus.\" Acts 21:13. To a Holy Ghost so highly seated,\nsubmission from a Holy Ghost of inferior rank, was the only course left.\n\"When he could not be persuaded, concludes the historian, we ceased,\nsaying, The will of the Lord be done.\"\n\nPaul die at Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord Jesus? He, Paul, this\nself-constituted Apostle, who, upon his own showing, had never seen\nJesus? for the name of Jesus, forsooth, die at Jerusalem? at that\nJerusalem, at which the indisputable Apostles had been, and continued to\nbe, living and labouring, in the service of that same holy name, each of\nthem, or they are much misrepresented, not less ready and willing, both\nto live and upon occasion to die for it, than he could be? Was it then\nreally to die for the name of Jesus? was it not rather to live? to live\nfor his own name, for his own glory, for his own profit, and for the\npleasure of depriving of their flock those shepherds of souls, by whom\nhis pretensions had been disallowed, his glory disbelieved, his advances\nreceived with that distrust and jealousy, for which the long and bitter\nexperience they had had of him, afforded so amply sufficient a warrant?\nmen, in whose eyes, though in the clothing of a shepherd, he was still a\nwolf?\n\nWhat was he to die for? By whose hands was he to die? By no danger,\nsince he had ceased to be their declared persecutor, had any Christians,\nin their character of Christians, whether disciples or preachers, then,\nor at any time, been menaced;[51] of no such danger, at any rate, is\nany, the slightest, intimation ever to be found: if any danger awaited\nhim, it was by himself, by his own restless and insatiable ambition, by\nhis own overbearing and ungovernable temper, that it was created. Had he\nbut kept to his agreement; had the whole of the known world, with the\nsingle exception of Judea, been wide enough for him: no danger would\nhave awaited him:--he and Jerusalem might have remained in peace.\n\nWhat service that _they_ could not, could _he_ hope to do to the cause?\nFor doctrine, they had nothing to do but to report the discourses; for\nproof, the miracles which they had witnessed. To this, what could _he_\nadd? Nothing, but facts, such as we have seen, out of his own head,--or,\nat best, facts taken at second hand, or through any number of removes\nfrom _them_,--and, in an infinity of shapes and degrees, travestied in\ntheir passage.\n\nIn this account, the curious thing is--that upon the face of it, the\nHoly Ghost of prophet Agabus is mistaken: nothing happened in the manner\nmentioned by him: for, in the same chapter comes the account of what did\nhappen, or at any rate is, by this same historian, stated as that which\nhappened:--by no Jews is the owner of the girdle bound: dragged by the\npeople out of the temple,--by that same people he is indeed attempted to\nbe killed, but bound he is not: for, with his being bound, the attempt\nto kill him is not consistent: binding requires mastery, and a certain\nlength of time, which killing does not: a single blow from a stone may\nsuffice for it.\n\nAs to the Jews delivering him unto the hands of the Gentiles,--it is by\nthe Gentiles that he is delivered out of the hands of the Jews: of the\nJews, the endeavour was--to deprive him of his life; of the Gentiles, to\nsave it.\n\n\nSECTION 6.\n\nPLAN OF THE APOSTLES FOR RIDDING THEMSELVES OF PAUL.\n\nIn this important contest, the Holy Ghost of Agabus was predestinated to\nyield to the irresistible power of Paul's Lord Jesus. He made his entry\ninto Jerusalem, Acts 21:17, and the very next day commenced the storm,\nby which, after having been on the point of perishing, he was driven, at\nlast, as far as from Jerusalem to Rome, but the particulars of which\nbelong not to the present purpose.\n\nWhat _is_ to the present purpose, however, is the company, which, upon\nthis occasion, he saw. James, it may be remembered, was one of the three\nApostles--out of the whole number, the only three who, on the occasion\nof the partition treaty, could be prevailed upon to give him the right\nhand of fellowship. Into the house of this James he entered: and there\nwhat he saw was an assembly, met together for the purpose, of giving him\nthe advice, of which more particular mention will be made in its place.\nIt was--to clear himself of the charge,--a charge made against him by\nthe Jewish converts,--of teaching all the Jews, which are among the\nGentiles, to forsake Moses, and of inculcating that doctrine by his own\nexample, Acts 21:20-24. Well! at this assembly who were present?\nAnswer--the Elders--all of them: of the Apostles with the single\nexception of James, at whose house it was held, not one: not even\nJohn,--not even Peter:--the two other Apostles, by whom on their part,\nthe treaty had been entered into:--Peter, the chief of the\nApostles;--John \"the disciple,\" John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7-20, whom Jesus\nloved. The nerves of James it appears, from other tokens besides this,\nwere of a stronger texture than those of either of these his two\ncolleagues; he alone stood the brunt. As for Peter, he had been so\n\"withstood to his face\" by Paul on the occasion of his first visit,\nthat he had no stomach to be so withstood a second time.\n\nJames, it may be remembered, was the Apostle, at whose motion, against\nthe opinion and speech of Peter, the resolution insisting upon certain\nJewish observances, on the part of heathen converts to the Church, was\ncarried.\n\nHere then, in support of the proposition maintained, by James,--here,\nwas an assembly of the rulers of the Church convened: the Elders--the\nelected coadjutors of the Apostles all of them present: of the Apostles\nthemselves, not one: James excepted, whose presence, it is evident,\ncould not, on this occasion, be dispensed with. Of this assembly, the\nobject, and sole object, was--the insisting upon Paul's taking, for the\nsake of the peace of the Church, a certain measure. Now, the measure\nthus insisted upon, what was it? The clearing himself of a certain\ncharge then mentioned. And this charge, what was it? A charge--of which,\nconsistently with truth,--of which without such direct falsehood, as if\ncommitted would be notorious,--he could not clear himself. In this case,\none of two things would absolutely be the result. Either he would be\nrash enough to commit the falsehood,--in which case his reputation and\npower of disturbing the peace of the Church would be at an end; or,\nshrinking from the summons, he would virtually confess himself guilty:\nin which case likewise, he would find his situation, in the midst of an\nuniversally adverse multitude, no longer tenable.\n\nFor this clearance, a ceremony was prescribed to him:--a ceremony, the\neffect of which was--to declare, in a manner, beyond all comparison,\nmore solemn and deliberate than that of anything which is commonly\nunderstood by the word _oath_,--that he had not done anything, of that\nwhich he stood charged with having done, and which it could not but be\ngenerally known that he had done. Witness those Epistles of his, which\nin another place we shall see, Ch. 12:--Epistles in which he will be\nseen, so frequently, and upon such a variety of occasions, and in such a\nvariety of language, not only proclaiming the needlessness of\ncircumcision--its uselessness to salvation,--but, in a word, on all\npoints making war upon Moses.\n\nNo course was so rash, that Paul would shrink from it, no ceremony so\nawful, or so public that Paul would fear to profane it. Of the\nasseveration, to which he was called upon to give, in an extraordinary\nform, the sanction of an oath, the purport was universally notorious:\nthe falsity, no less so: the ceremony, a solemnity on which the powers\nof sacerdotal ingenuity had been exhausted, in the endeavour to render\nis efficaciously impressive. Place of performance, the most sacred among\nthe sacred: act of entrance, universally public, purpose universally\nnotorious; operations, whatever they were, inscrutably concealed from\nvulgar eyes: person of the principal actor occasionally visible, but at\nan awful elevation: time, requisite for accomplishment, Acts 21:27, not\nless than seven days: the whole ceremony, effectually secured against\nfrequent profanation, by \"charges\" too heavy to be borne by the united\npower of four ordinary purses.[52] With all the ingredients of the most\nfinished perjury in his breast,--perfect consciousness, fixed\nintentionality, predetermined perseverance, and full view of the\nsanction about to be violated,--we shall see him entering upon the task,\nand persevering in it. While the long drama was thus acting in the\nconsecrated theatre, the mind of the multitude was accumulating heat\nwithout doors. The seven days necessary, were as yet unaccomplished,\nwhen indignation could hold no longer: they burst into the sacred\nedifice, dragged him out, and were upon the point of putting him to\ndeath, when the interference of a Roman officer saved him, and became\nthe first link in that chain of events, which terminated in his visit to\nRome, and belongs not to this place.\n\nThus much, in order to have the clearer view of the plan of the\nApostles, and of the grounds of it, from which will be seen the\nunexceptionableness of it, it seemed necessary for us here to\nanticipate. But such rashness, with the result that followed--the\nApostles, in their situation, how could they have anticipated it?\n\nBaffled, in their former endeavours to keep the invader from entering\nthe holy city--that holy city, with the peace of which his presence was\nso incompatible, such was the course which they devised and embraced\nfrom driving him out of it. For the carrying of this measure into\neffect, a general assembly of the governing body of the Church was\nnecessary. At this assembly had no Apostle been present, it could not,\nin the eyes of the Church at large, have been what it was necessary it\nshould appear to be. Though, of the whole number of the Apostles, no\nmore than one was present,--yet, his being the house at which it was\nheld, and the others, whether summoned or no, being expected of course,\nby the disciples at large, to be likewise present,--the Elders being\nlikewise \"_all_\" of them present,--this attendance was deemed\nsufficient: as to the other Apostles--all of them but the one whose\npresence was thus indispensable,--abhorrence, towards the man, whose\ncareer had in their eyes commenced with murder, continued in imposture,\nand had recently been stained with perfidy,--rendered the meeting him\nface to face, a suffering too violent to be submitted to, when by any\nmeans it could be avoided.\n\nOn this occasion, the opinion, which, as we have seen, cannot but have\nbeen entertained by them, concerning Paul and his pretensions to\nRevelation, and to a share equal to their own in the confidence of\nJesus,--must not, for a moment, be out of mind.\n\nThe whole fellowship of the Apostles,--all others, to whom, at the time,\nanything about the matter was known, believed his story to be, the whole\nof it, a pure invention. In their eyes it was a fabrication: though we,\nat this time of day--we, who of ourselves know nothing about it, take\nfor granted, that it was all true.\n\nFor proving the truth of it, all we have are his own accounts of it: his\nown accounts, given, some of them, by himself directly: the rest\nultimately, his being the only mouth from which the accounts we have\nseen in the _Acts_ could have been derived. Bearing all this in mind,\nlet us now form our judgment on the matter, and say, whether the light,\nin which the Apostles viewed his character and conduct, and the course\npursued by them as above, was not from first to last, not only\nconformable to the precepts of their master, but a model of patience,\nforbearance, and prudence.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[45] Acts 18:11. \"He continued there, at Corinth, a year and six\nmonths.\"--18. \"And Paul tarried there yet a good while, and then took\nhis leave.\"\n\n[46] Acts 19:10. \"And this continued by the space of two years; so that\nall they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews\nand Greeks.\"\n\n[47] Acts 20:22. \"And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto\nJerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there.\"\n\n[48] Acts 20:23. \"Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city,\nsaying, that bonds and afflictions abide me.\"\n\n[49] Acts 20:24. \"But none of these things move me, neither count I my\nlife dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and\nthe ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the\nGospel of the grace of God.\"\n\nActs 21:13. \"Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break my\nheart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem\nfor the name of the Lord Jesus.\"\n\n[50] Gal. ii. 2. \"I went up by revelation.\"\n\n[51] In Acts 12:1, King Herod is indeed spoken of as having \"stretched\nforth his hands to vex certain of the Church, and he killed,\" it is\nsaid, \"James, the brother of John, with the sword.\" Then comes the story\nof Peter's imprisonment and liberation. But the cause of these\ninflictions had nothing to do with religion: the proof is--nor can there\nbe a more conclusive one--to no such cause are they attributed.\n\n[52] Acts 21:23, 24. \"We have four men, say the Apostles and Elders, we\nhave four men which have a vow on them:--Them take, and purify thyself\nwith them, and be at charges with them.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n     _Paul disbelieved continued.--His Fourth Jerusalem Visit continued.\n     His Arrival and Reception. Accused by all the Disciples of the\n     Apostles, he commences an exculpatory Oath in the Temple. Dragged\n     out by them--rescued by a Roman Commander--sent in Custody to\n     Rome._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nAT JERUSALEM, PAUL IS RECEIVED BY THE ELDERS AND JAMES, BUT BY NO OTHER\nAPOSTLE.\n\nSpite of the opposing Holy Ghost,--spite of the Apostles, and their\nprophet,--there he is at Jerusalem. Now comes an incident--or say,\nrather, a relation--which is altogether curious.\n\nAt \"Jerusalem,\" says the history, \"the brethren received us gladly,\"\nActs 21:17. The brethren? what brethren? the brethren, by whom Agabus,\nwith his stage-trick, had been sent some sixty or seventy miles'\njourney, in the endeavour to keep him at a distance? the thousands of\nJews thereupon immediately mentioned? those Jews, who, though believers\nin Jesus, are not the \"less zealous of the law,\" and enraged at Saul\nfor those breaches of it, with which he is charged?\n\nThat, by such of them, if any, by whom--by the appearance he made, with\nhis suite, it had happened to be more or less overawed,--that by these,\nan appearance of gladness was assumed, seems credible enough: look for\nthose, by whom he could have been received with real gladness--they will\nnot, it should seem, be very easy to be found.\n\nNot, till the next day after his arrival, do Paul and his suite present\nthemselves to any in authority in this spiritual commonwealth. The first\nperson, to whom, on this occasion, he presents himself, is James: that\none of the Apostles, who, with the exception of Peter, is the person,\nand the only person, with whom Paul has, on the occasion of any of his\nvisits, been represented as holding converse. Not with this James--not\nwith any settled inhabitants of Jerusalem--has he had his lodging: only\nwith Mnason,[53] a man of Cyprus, whom, lest lodging should be wholly\nwanting, they had brought with them from C\u00e6sarea. Of this so\nextensively apprehended arrival, there had been full time for ample\nnotice: among the rulers, those, who, as well as James, chose to see\nhim, were all present. Who were they? the elders--\"all the elders.\" Of\nthe Apostles, not so much as one, besides James. Let it not be said,\nthat, under the word _elders_, the Apostles were meant to be included:\non other occasions, on which elders are mentioned, Acts 15:4; 6:23, the\nApostles are mentioned, as forming a body, distinct, as they naturally\nwould be,--distinct from these same elders.\n\nSalutations performed, he addresses the assembly in that strain,\nwhich was so familiar to him: boasting upon boasting, and, above\nall things, boasting that he does not boast: \"declaring,\" says his\nhistorian;--declaring? what? declaring what was his business at\nJerusalem? declaring what service, in his eyes the cause stood in need\nof, at his hands? Not he, indeed: to any such effect, declaration might\nnot have been altogether so easy. What he declared, and that\n\"_particularly_,\" was--what \"things God had wrought among the Gentiles\nby his ministry.\" Exactly on this, as on his last preceding visit,--when\nall, but himself, were speaking to the question before him--Peter on one\nside; after him, James on the other side--nothing, is either he, or his\ncompanion Barnabas, represented as saying, that belongs to the question;\nnothing, but \"declaring what miracles and wonders, God had wrought among\nthe Gentiles by them.\" Between what is represented, as having been said\non the two occasions,--one difference, and no more than one, is visible.\nOn the former occasion, \"miracles and wonders\"; on this latter occasion,\nno miracles no wonders:--nothing more than _things_. Supposing any of\nthem particularized--neither miracles nor wonders had, it should seem,\nbeen fortunate enough to obtain credence: for that reason, it should\nseem, that, on this occasion, all mention of them is dropped.\n\nHearing of these _things_, what did these elders? Being things that\n\"God,\" as they were informed, \"had wrought,\" they could do no less than\nglorify \"the Lord.\" Acts 21:19-20. As in Paul's Epistles, so here, in\nthe Acts,--by _the Lord_, it is Jesus, who, as far as it appears, is the\nperson, all along meant to be designated. Here, _God_, it may be\nobserved, is the person, by whom everything good, that is done, is done:\nJesus--the Lord Jesus--the person, who is _glorified_ for it.\n\nTo make his boasts, was _his_ business with _them_: but, to subscribe to\nthose same boasts, was not _their_ business with _him_.\n\nTheir business was--to inform him, of the storm of unpopularity, which\nby his audacity he had brought upon himself: to inform him of the storm,\nand to point out the only course, which, in their view of the matter,\npresented a chance for his escape from it. \"Thou seest,\"--say\nthey,--\"thou seest how many thousands of Jews there are which believe;\nand they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee, that\nthou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake\nMoses; saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither\nto walk after their customs,\" Acts 21:20. \"What is it, therefore?\" add\nthey, \"the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that\nthou art come.\"\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nLOW TONE ASSUMED BY HIM ON THIS OCCASION.\n\nOn more accounts than one, remarkable,--and not a little instructive, is\nthe account we have of this last recorded visit: and, in particular, as\nto what concerns the reception he experienced from the ruling powers of\nthe Church.\n\nIt is, in some particulars, more especially to be depended\nupon,--inasmuch as, at this important meeting, the author of the\nActs--if he is to be believed--was himself present.\n\nThe first remarkable circumstance is--that, on this occasion, Paul, the\nself-elected Apostle--instead of taking the lead, and introducing his\ncompanions--keeps behind, and is introduced _by them_: such was the\npliancy, with which--even on this expedition, of invasion and projected\nconquest,--an expedition,--undertaken, in spite of everything that could\nbe done, both on the part of the intended objects of the conquest, and\non the part of his own adherents--such was the pliancy, with which this\nman, among whose boasts was that of being all things to all men, could\nbend himself to circumstances.\n\nActs 21:15-18. \"And after those days, we took up our carriages, and went\nto Jerusalem. There went with us, also, certain of the disciples of\nC\u00e6sarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple,\nwith whom we should lodge.\" At Jerusalem, not so much as a house, to\nharbour them, could they have been assured of, but for this old\ndisciple--fellow countryman, of Paul's old patron, the Son of\nConsolation, Barnabas. Not even with him could they have been assured of\nthis token of friendship, had he not either been already of their party,\nor detached himself to meet them, and afford them the assurance:\nalthough, at C\u00e6sarea,--from some cause, of which, while the effect is\nbrought to view, no intimation is given,--they were fortunate enough to\nobtain a hospitable reception, Acts 21:8, at the house of Philip. This,\nhowever, be it observed, was not Philip, the Apostle, whether it may\nhave been Philip, styled here the Evangelist:--one of the seven\ntrustees, or directors, Acts 6:5, to whom, with his six colleagues,\nunder the name, so inexpressively rendered, in the English, by the word\n_Deacons_,--the management of the common fund had, by the suffrages of\nthe disciples, been committed, must be left to conjecture.\n\n17. \"And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren,\" Acts 21:17,\n\"received _us_ gladly.\" What _brethren_? The Apostles, or any one of\nthem? no: The elders? no. Who then?--Who, but such of the members of the\nChurch, as, notwithstanding the general repugnancy,--as testified at\nTyre, and afterwards, by prophet Agabus, at C\u00e6sarea,--could, by the\ninfluence of the Cypriot Mnason, or otherwise, be prevailed upon to see\nthem.\n\nAnd, _to_ whom was it, that this sort of reception, whatsoever it was,\nwas afforded? Was it to Paul? No: it was to _those_, who, on other\noccasions, were with _him_; but, with _whom_, on this occasion, his\nprudence forced his pride to submit to be.\n\nWitness the next verse, Acts 21:18; \"And the day following,\" not till\nthe day following, \"Paul went in with us unto James.\" _With them_--with\nthese his attendants--did Paul, then and there, go in:--not _they with\nhim_.\n\nAt the house of James--mark well, now--who were the persons present?\nAnswer--\"all the elders.\" But, forasmuch as these elders were, _all_ of\nthem, present,--notice, within the compass of the two fragments of two\ndays,--notice, to and by all of them must have been given and received:\nfor it has just been seen, whether, between any of them, on the one\nhand,--and Paul, or, so much as any one of his attendants, on the\nother,--there could have been any such sort of good understanding, as to\nhave produced any the least personal intercourse, but at, and on, the\noccasion of the general and formal meeting:--a meeting, which--as will\nbe seen presently--had, for its sole object, the imposing upon him, in\nthe event of his continuance at Jerusalem, an obligation: an\nobligation--to a man in his circumstances--it has been seen, of how\nperilous and repulsive a nature.\n\nSuch, then, was the notice, as to have brought to the place, all the\nElders--All the Elders?--good. But, these _Elders_--Elders among the\n_disciples in ordinary_,--on an occasion such as this, what were _they_\nin comparison of the Apostles--the only known chosen servants, and\nconstant companions of Jesus? Well, then, while--at this meeting--this\nformally convened meeting--those Elders were, every one of them,\npresent--what was the number of _Apostles_ present? Answer--Besides\nJames, not one.\n\nAnd--why James?--manifestly, because it was at _his_ house, that the\nmeeting was held.\n\nAnd--why at _his_ house? Because, on the occasion, and for the purpose,\nof the _partition treaty_,--that treaty, so necessary to the peace of\nthe Church,--on the one hand; and, to the carrying on of Paul's scheme\nof dominion, on the other hand;--James was one, of the only three, who\ncould ever endure the sight of the self-declared Apostle: Peter and\nJohn, as hath been seen, being the two others:--and, because, when, for\nthe purpose of investing the meeting, in the eyes of the disciples at\nlarge, with the character of a meeting of the ruling administrative\nbody--the Apostles,--less than that one, if there were any, there could\nnot be. This one, James--under the pressure of the present\nemergency--prevailed upon himself to be: and, to be so irksome an\nintercourse--notwithstanding the obviousness of the demand for as great\na number, as could be collected, of that primarily influential body--of\nno other of the Apostles, could the attendance be obtained: not even of\nPeter, who, on a former occasion, had brought himself to endure the\nhateful presence.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nPOSTERIOR TO ALL HIS SUPPOSED MIRACLES, HIS SILENCE PROVES THEM UNREAL.\n\nNow, then, as to _miracles_. Had Paul, really and truly, ever received\nfrom Jesus, any such preeminent and characteristic appendage and mark of\nApostleship,--here, of all others, was an occasion, on which it\nconcerned him to make proof of it. Here was an occasion, on which, with\nthe design, and for the purpose--the palpable, and almost universally\nand so strenuously opposed design and purpose--of constituting himself\nthe superior of the Apostles, he was presenting himself--though in\ncircumstances of such humiliation--in the character of an equal, with\nwhom they had treated on equal terms. Here--in order to impose silence\non all gainsayers--here was the occasion, for his bringing to public\nview, this most important of all items in the list of his credentials.\nThe Apostles, to whom--without any exception, by Jesus, if the\nEvangelist, Mark 16:15-18, is to be believed--this power had, previously\nto his ascension, been imparted,--these, if any, were the men--not to\nsay the only men--qualified to form a judgment on the question--whether,\nby any other individual, and, more especially, by the individual before\nthem, namely, by this their self-declared colleague, any such\nextraordinary power had, on any, and what, occasion, been exercised or\npossessed. Of all imaginable occasions, this was the one, on which he\nhad most at stake, in the being able to make proof of so matchless an\nendowment:--of an endowment, which in the character of a proof, in\nsupport of all his claims, would, in the very nature of it, have been so\nperfectly irresistible.\n\nWell, then: this proof of his title--did he use every endeavour, or make\nany offer, to produce it? No: not so much did he venture upon, as, in\nany the most general terms, to assert, or, so much as insinuate, the\nexistence of it. According to his own statement, what was the general\ndescription of the tokens brought forward by him, for the purpose of\nobtaining acceptance? Were they _signs and wonders_? Oh, no! His\nhistoriographer, indeed--in that, or any other such indeterminate, and\nconveniently ambiguous phrase--his historiographer, at some twenty or\nseven-and-twenty years' distance, might venture, Acts 14:3, to speak of\nhis exploits--of the effects produced by his exertions: in the like\nterms, in writing to his Corinthian disciples, he might, even himself,\nventure, for once, to speak of his own exploits.[54] But, before an\nassembly, so composed, was this boast, loose, and conveniently\nambiguous, as it was,--in his eyes, too much to venture. Acts\n21:19--Behold here the passage: \"And when he had saluted them, he\ndeclared particularly\"--what? what--signs and wonders? No: but\nsimply--\"what _things_ God had wrought among the Gentiles by his\nministry.\"\n\nHad he hazarded so much as the general expression of signs and\nwonders--well, and what were these signs and wonders? give us, at any\nrate, something by way of a sample of them? In any one of them, was\nthere anything supernatural? anything--beyond the success, the\nextraordinary success--we are to understand, your exertions were\nattended with? Questions, to some such effect as this, which, in an\nassembly, so composed, had he ventured upon any such expressions, he\ncould not but have expected to be annoyed with.\n\nThe occurrences which, in the course of it, in the character of\n_miracles_, he has ventured to present to view, will have been seen in\ntheir place and order. Yet,--notwithstanding the mention there\nrespectively and severally made of them--no mention of them does he, in\nthe account given by him of the meeting, venture to put in his leader's\nmouth. Why? because--forasmuch as, by Paul himself, no such pretence was\nventured to be made--the meeting was too important, and too notorious,\nto render it safe to advance any such matter of fact; the face being\nfalse; or, that any such pretensions were really made.\n\nBut, hereupon come two questions.\n\n1. Had any such miracles been really wrought--was it in the nature of\nthings, that, on this occasion, Paul should have omitted all mention of\nthem? even so much as the most distant allusion to them?\n\n2. If any such intimation had really been given, by the historian\nhimself, is it in the nature of the case, that, on this occasion,--he\nhaving been one of the witnesses, in whose presence they had been\nperformed,--all mention of such intimation should have been omitted?\n\nWell, then--suppose that to both these questions, let it but be a\nnegative answer or the true one, the consequence is plain--no such\nmiracles were wrought. Yet, in his narrative, has this man--exhibiting\nhimself, at the same time, in the character of a _percipient_ witness,\nin relation to them--ventured to assert the existence, one after\nanother, of the whole list of these particularized miracles, not to\nspeak of the cluster of unparticularized ones.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nACCUSED BY THE DISCIPLES, HE COMMENCES, AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF\nTHE APOSTLES, AN EXCULPATORY OATH IN THE TEMPLE.\n\nSuch being in their eyes the danger; now comes their expedient for the\narresting of it. It is an altogether curious one: and among those\npersons styled _elders_--all the elders--to every sincere and pious\nChristian it will naturally be matter of no small satisfaction that no\none of the whole fellowship of the Apostles is to be found.\n\nAccording to the description here given of it, the expedient is of such\na sort, that--but for the occasion on which it is represented as being\nproposed,--scarcely would it be possible to divine what is meant; what\nit was that was proposed to be done; or, whatever it was, what could be\nthe use or effect of it?\n\n\"Do therefore this,\" Acts 21:23, continues the speech attributed to\nthese elders, \"do therefore this that we say to thee: we have four men\nwhich have a vow on them:--Them take, and purify thyself with them, and\nbe at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may\nknow that those things, whereof they were informed, are nothing; but\nthat thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law.--As touching\nthe Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they\nobserve no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things\noffered to idols, and from blood and from fornication.--Then Paul,\" it\nis added, \"took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them\nentered into the temple to signify the accomplishment of the days of\npurification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of\nthem.\"\n\nIn the terms of the historian, the matter of the accusation in question\nis this: namely, \"that thou,\" speaking to Paul, \"teachest all the Jews\nwhich are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses\": it then divides itself\ninto two branches: one is--that \"they ought not to circumcise their\nchildren\"; the other is--that \"they ought not to walk after the\ncustoms\":--_i. e._, conform to any part of the habitual\nobservances--acts and forbearances together--prescribed by the Mosaic\nlaw.\n\nSuch is the accusation: such the act charged upon him, in the character\nof an offence:--the teaching of the doctrine in question.\n\nIn regard to the question--whether the doctrine he is thus said to have\ntaught, had really ever been taught by him,--much will depend upon the\ndifference between simple _permission_ and _prohibition_: in English,\nupon the difference between _need not_ and _ought not_. If,--in the\ndoctrine, the teaching of which is thus charged upon him as a\ncrime,--simple _permission_ was included--if, in speaking of the\nconverts in question, the saying was--that they _need_ not circumcise\ntheir children--that they _need_ not walk after these customs--this and\nno more;--in this case, that the charge, such as it is, was true, is\naltogether out of doubt:--if, on the other hand, the act he was charged\nwith, went so far as to the teaching that they _ought_ not to circumcise\nany of their children, or that they _ought_ not to walk after the\ncustoms prescribed in the Mosaic law--on this supposition, the truth of\nthe charge will at any rate not be quite so clear as in the other case.\n\nAccording to the English translation, that which is charged as an\noffence, was not committed, unless, in the doctrine taught, a direct\n_prohibition_ was contained: to a doctrine importing nothing more than a\nsimple _permission_ to abstain from the acts and forbearances in\nquestion, the charge would not have any application. Not thus\nunambiguous, however, is the Greek original; either by prohibition, or\nby ample permission, might the doctrine charged as criminal have been\ntaught.\n\nSuch is the description of the obnoxious practice, with which Paul is\nhere stated as having been charged: the practice by which the odium is\nstated as having been incurred.\n\nBut this imaginary guilt, in what view do they mention it as imputed to\nhim? In this view evidently, viz., that at their recommendation he may\ntake that course, by which, in their view, he will escape from the wrath\nof which he had become the object. The effect thus aimed at is,--that\nthe indignation of which he is the object, may be made to cease. How\nmade to cease? in one or other of two ways: for the nature of the case\nadmits not of any other: either by proving that _that_ which he had\nbeen supposed to have taught, had not in truth ever been taught by him,\nand thus, that no such offence as he was charged with, had, in fact,\never been committed by him; or that, if any such offence had been\ncommitted, the practice recommended might be accepted as an _atonement_:\nor rather as an assurance, that whatever in his past conduct had given\nthem offence, would not be repeated by him in future.\n\nWhen the supposed remedial practice has been explained,--then\nimmediately after comes, we see, a more particular indication of the\ngood effects, for the production of which it is recommended. These\nare--in the first place, that, whatsoever were the doctrines he was\ncharged with having taught it, it will be generally known that no such\ndoctrines were ever taught by him: in the next place, that it will in\nlike manner be known, that by himself no such habitual offence as that\nof an habitual violation of the law in question was committed.\n\nSuch are the effects, stated as resulting from his performing the\nceremony, the performance of which was thus recommended to him.\n\nThis ceremony we see: and what we see at the same time is--that it could\nnot be, in the nature of it, productive of any such effects.\n\nHere is a certain doctrine, which he had been charged with having\ntaught. If the case was, that he had taught it; let him have purified\nhimself ever so purely, whatsoever was meant by purification,--let him\nhave purified himself ever so completely, let him have paid ever so much\nmoney, let him have shaved his head ever so close,--by any, or all of\nall these supposed meritorious acts, how could that be caused, not to\nhave happened, which in fact had happened? by what means could they\nafford proof of his performance of any ceremony, other than those very\nsame purification ceremonies themselves?\n\nAs to the purpose of furthering the temporal interest of the individual\nin question; namely, by removing the load of odium, with which at that\ntime it seems he was burdened,--how far, in relation to this object, the\nexpedient promised to be an effectual cure, is more than at this time we\ncan find any ground for saying: as to any good purposes of any other\nkind, that it was not in the nature of it to be productive of any, may\nbe pronounced without much danger of error.\n\nHere at any rate was a ceremony--a ceremony the object of which was--to\napply, to the purpose of ensuring obsequiousness, the power of the\nreligious sanction.\n\nThe object, to which it was meant to apply that form, comes, it may be\nseen, under the general denomination of an _oath_. An oath is either\nassertory or promissory: if it be an oath of the promissory kind, it is\ncalled a _vow_. An oath which is not a vow cannot respect anything but\nwhat is past: upon that which is past, no human act can any longer\nexercise any influence. A _vow_ has respect to something future--to the\nfuture conduct of him by whom the vow is taken: and to this conduct a\nman, in and by the taking of the vow, engages to give the form therein\nmentioned.\n\nWhatsoever, therefore, these ceremonies were in themselves,--thus much\nseems plain enough, respecting the immediate effect they were designed\nto answer: namely, either the delivery of a certain species of\n_evidence_, or the entering into an _engagement_ to a certain effect:\nthe evidence being a denial of the act charged: the engagement, a\npromise not to practice any acts of the sort in question in future.\n\nWhatsoever was the effect looked for, and intended, by the\nceremony,--thus much we know, if the historian is here to be believed:\nnamely, that, in conformity to the advice, Paul betook himself to the\nperformance of it.\n\nBut, in so doing, thus much also we know: namely, that he consented to,\nand betook himself to one of two things: an act of perjury, if the\neffect of the ceremony was to convey an assertion, that he had never\ntaught, that a Jew, on being converted to the religion of Jesus, _need_\nnot circumcise his children, or walk after the Mosaic customs: an act of\napostasy, if the effect of it was an engagement never to teach this same\ndoctrine in future: an act of apostasy--and for what? only to save\nhimself from the displeasure entertained towards him on unjust grounds\nby a set of ill-advised and inconsistent disciples.\n\nUnder the general head of _Paul's Doctrines_, particular title _Faith\nand Works_, it will be seen what pains he had taken, on so many\noccasions, to weed out of men's breasts, Gentiles and Jews together, all\nregard for the Mosaic law--to cause them, in the words of the charge,\n_to forsake Moses_. \"By the works of the law,\" says he in his letter to\nthe Galatians, Gal. 2:16, \"by the works of the law shall no flesh be\njustified.\"\n\nIn this same letter, and in the same paragraph,--he speaks, of a speech\nwhich he had made, of a reproof which, at Antioch, he had given to\nPeter:--given to him, at a point of time long before the time here in\nquestion, namely, that of his last preceding visit--his third visit to\nJerusalem,--this being the fourth. Let us see, once more, on what\noccasion, and for what cause, this reproof: we shall thereby be the\nbetter enabled to judge--how far, supposing the ceremony to have the\neffect of an assertory oath,--how far that oath can have been\nconformable to the truth.\n\nSpeaking of Peter, \"Time was,\" he says, \"when he did eat with the\nGentiles: but at Antioch, as above, certain persons came from James\":\nGal. 2:12, 13, and then it was that \"he, Peter, withdrew and separated\nhimself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.--And the Jews,\"\ncontinues he, \"dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also\nwas carried away with their dissimulation.\" Of his return to Judaism, or\nat any rate of the dissimulation which accompanied it, what is the\njudgment which, if he is to be believed, he pronounced? Answer, That in\nso doing \"they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the\nGospel.\" Thereupon it is, that he charged Peter with inconsistency, and\nreproved him for it: \"Because,\" says he, \"he was to be blamed.\" Gal.\n2:14. \"When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the\nGospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest\nafter the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest\nthou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?\"\n\nBefore me lies a book by Thomas Lewis, M. A., in four 8vo volumes,\nentitled _Origines Hebraicae_. In this book, under titles _Vow_ and\n_Purification_, my expectation was, to find some explanation of this\nmatter: as also of the other _vow_ taken by Paul at Cenchrea, Acts\n17:18, in the interval between his third visit to Jerusalem, and this\nfourth: but no mention is made of either: nor does anything appear, by\nwhich any light can be reflected upon either.\n\nOn the four men, whom, in pursuance of the recommendation in question,\nPaul is said to have taken, that he might \"purify himself along with\nthem,\" the intended effect of the ceremony in question is said to\nbe--the making or performance of a _vow_. But, from the circumstance of\nits being a vow in their case, it follows not absolutely that it may not\nhave been an oath--an assertory oath, in his case.\n\nAt Jerusalem, for the taking or performance of a vow, a man was received\ninto the temple:--a district more extensive by far, it appears, than the\ndistrict called _Rules of the King's Bench_ at London: from the account\ngiven by Lewis, as well as by this,--it appears that, on every such\noccasion, fees were taken by the priests. As to the four men here in\nquestion--having already, as it is stated, a vow on them, but nothing as\nyet done in consequence,--it looks as if it had been by poverty that\nthey had hitherto been kept from the accomplishment of their purpose: on\nwhich supposition, Paul being the head of a considerable party, and as\nsuch having a command of money,--part of the recommendation seems to\nhave been--that, to acquire the reputation of liberality, he should open\nhis purse to these his proposed companions, and pay their fees.\n\nOn the occasion here in question, whatsoever was the purpose and\nintended effect of the ceremony, what appears from verse 27, Acts 27,\nis--that seven days were regarded as necessary for the accomplishment of\nit: no mention of this in Lewis.\n\nOn this occasion, by the author of the Acts, once more is mentioned the\nconciliatory decree of the Apostles and Elders. Still, not a syllable\nabout it is to be found in any Epistle of Saint Paul, or in any other\nof the Apostolical Epistles that have come down to us.\n\nHumanly speaking,--in what motives, in what circumstances, in what\nconsiderations, shall we say, that the causes, final and efficient, of\nthis temperament--this _mezzo termino_--this middle course--are to be\nfound? The answer that presents itself is as follows:\n\nTwo stumbling-blocks were to be steered clear of:--the scruples of the\nJewish converts, and the refractoriness of the Gentiles. So far as\nregarded abstinence from idolatrous feasts, and from meat with the whole\nblood in it, killed and dressed in a manner other than that in practice\namong the Jews,--conformity, it was judged, need not be dispensed of, at\nthe hands of the Gentiles: and, so long as they would be content with\nmeat killed and dressed after the Jewish mode,--the Jewish teachers\nmight, without giving offence to their Jewish converts, have the\nconvenience of partaking of the tables of the Gentile converts. As to\nthe rest--the endless train of habitual observances, by which so large a\nportion of a man's life was occupied and tormented, neither these\npermanent plagues, nor the initiatory plague of circumcision, though the\naffair of a minute, and performed once for all, were found endurable:\nneither upon himself nor upon his children would a man submit to have it\npracticed.\n\nAfter all, if the author of the Acts is to be believed,--it was by the\nJews of Asia, and not by those of Jerusalem, that, at Jerusalem, the\ntumult was raised, by which this purification of Paul's was rendered\nincomplete, and his stay at Jerusalem cut short: he being removed for\ntrial to Rome; at which place the history leaves him and concludes.\n\nOf the behaviour observed by the Jerusalem Christians, on that\noccasion--Apostles, Elders, Deacons and ordinary brethren all\ntogether--nothing is said. Yet, of these there were many thousands on\nthe spot, Acts 21:20: all of them of course informed of the place--the\nholy place,--in which, at the recommendation of the Elders, Paul had\nstationed himself. By the Jews of Asia were \"all the people on this\noccasion stirred up,\" Acts 21:27: yet, among so many thousands, no\nprotection, nor any endeavour to afford him protection, for aught that\nappears, did he experience. Yet Asia it was, that had been, to the\nexclusion of Judaea, the theatre of his labours: from Asia it was, that\nthe train of attendants he brought with him, were come--were come with\nhim to these brethren--\"the brethren,\"--as if it had been said, _all_\nthe brethren,--by whom, according to the author of the Acts, they were\n\"received so gladly.\"\n\nAt this period ends all that, on the present occasion, it will be\nnecessary to say, of this last recorded visit to Jerusalem. Of the two\ninconsistent accounts said to have been given by him of his\nconversion--one to the Jerusalem mob, the other to King Agrippa--full\nnotice has been taken under the head of his conversion: of the miracles\nascribed to him at Malta, mention is here made, in the chapter allotted\nto the history of his supposed miracles. Of any other subsequent acts or\nsayings of his, no notice will require to be taken in this place. The\nmatter here in question has been--the sort of relation, stated as having\nhad place, between this self-constituted Apostle, and those who beyond\ncontroversy were constituted such by, and lived as such with, Jesus\nhimself: and to this have incidentally been added the causes, which have\ncontinually been presenting themselves, for suspicion, in respect of the\nverity and authenticity, or both, of the history, which, under the name\nof the Acts of the Apostles, has come down to us, connected by the\noperations of the bookbinder, in the same volume with the several\nhistories of the four Evangelists, and the Epistles--not only of Paul\nhimself but of others among the Apostles; and with the work styled, as\nif in derision, \"_The Revelations_.\"\n\n\nSECTION 5.\n\nTHE DESIGN OF THIS RECOMMENDATION JUSTIFIED.\n\nBut the Apostles--says somebody--what are we to think of the Apostles?\nIf by Paul a _perjury_ was thus committed, were they not--all of them\nwho joined in this recommendation--so many _suborners_ of this same\nperjury?\n\nThe answer will, it is hoped, by most readers at least, have been\nanticipated.--Yes or no, if so it be, that it was their expectation that\nhe would commit it: no, assuredly; if it were their expectation--their\nassured expectation--that he would _not_ commit it: that, even in his\nperson, even after all they had witnessed in him, the union of\nprofligacy and rashness would never soar to so high a pitch. The\nnecessity they were under, of ridding themselves of his presence was\nextreme:--of ridding _themselves_--and, what was so much more, their\n_cause_. Stay in the same town, and in the same company with them, he\ncould not,--without being either their known _adversary_, or their known\n_associate_. Their known _adversary_ he could not be, without either\ncontinuing himself to be an object of universal horror, or else\nrendering _them_ objects of horror, to the whole body of their\ndisciples. Their _associate_ he could not be, without involving _them_\nin that odium, with which he himself was, by the confession of his own\nadherent and historiographer, covered. Under these circumstances, not to\nspeak of the cause of mankind, for saving _themselves_ and _their_ cause\nfrom destruction,--what course could they take, so gentle, and at the\nsame time, to all appearance, so surely effectual, as the proposing to\nhim this test?--a test, which no man could rationally expect, that any\nman in his circumstances would take.\n\n\nSECTION 6.\n\nDRAGGED OUT OF THE TEMPLE BY JEWS OR CHRISTIANS, HE IS SAVED BY A\nGENTILE, NAMELY, A ROMAN COMMANDER.\n\nWith this occurrence concludes so much of Paul's history, as,--for the\npurpose of perfecting the demonstration given, of the disbelief\nmanifested towards his pretensions to a supernatural intercourse with\nthe Almighty,--it was found necessary here to anticipate.\n\nIn the matter of the chapter--the 13th--in which Paul's supposed\nmiracles are brought to view,--his history is, as to all those\nparticulars which seemed necessary to be brought to view for the purpose\nof the present inquiry,--deduced to very near the time, at which the\nhistorian of the Acts, having conducted him to Rome, leaves him there:\nleaves him there, and with no other notice, than that of his having, at\nthe time, at which the history closes, passed two years at that capital,\nin a sort of ambiguous state between freedom and confinement: waiting to\nreceive, at the hands of the constituted authorities, the final\ndetermination of his fate.\n\nMeantime, lest anything should be wanting, that could have contributed\nto the elucidation on a point of such supreme importance, follows in the\nnext chapter a concluding and more particular view of the grounds, on\nwhich, on the occasion of his visit to the temple, the intention of\ndeliberate perjury was found necessary to be imputed to him.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[53] Acts 21:16. \"There went with us also _certain_ of the disciples of\nC\u00e6sarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple,\nwith whom we should lodge.\"\n\n[54] 2 Cor. 12:12. \"Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you\nin all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.\" Not that, by\nthe words assigns and wonders, when used by Paul, anything more was\nmeant, than what, but a few years after, was, according to him, doing,\nor about to be done, by Antichrist. 2 Thess. 2:9. \"Even him, whose\ncoming is, after the manner of Satan, with all powers, and signs, and\nlying wonders.\" _Lying_ is, indeed, the adjunct prefixed, in this\ninstance; but, lying or not lying, if Paul be believed, they failed not\nto produce the effect intended by them. Signs and wonders being such\nequivocal thing, no great wonder if--writing at Corinth to nobody knows\nwhat disciples of his at Rome, A.D. 58, Rom. 15:18, 19,--he could\nventure, if this was venturing, to speak of what he had been doing in\nJerusalem and Illyricum, in the same terms. \"For I will not dare to\nspeak, says he, of any of those things which Christ has not wrought by\nme, to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed.--Through mighty\nsigns and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from\nJerusalem, and round about, unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the\nGospel of Christ.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n     _Paul disbelieved continued.--Paul's fourth Jerusalem Visit\n     continued.--Perjurious was the Purpose of the exculpatory Oath\n     commenced by him in the Temple._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nGENERAL PROOF OF THE PERJURY FROM THE ACTS.\n\nWe have seen the indignation produced by Paul's invasion of the dominion\nof the Apostles: we have seen it carried to its height, by his\ncommencement of, and perseverance in, the exculpatory ceremony, for the\npurpose of which he made his entrance, and took up his lodgment in the\ntemple. We have seen the fruits of that same indignation: we have seen\nthe general result of them. What remains is--to give a clearer and more\nexplicit conception, than can as yet have been given, of the _cause_ of\nit.\n\nThis was--neither more nor less, than an universal persuasion--that the\nassertion,--to which, on his part, this ceremony had for its object the\nattaching the sanction of an oath,--was, to his full knowledge, false:\nthe oath employed being, in its form, beyond comparison more impressive,\nthan any that has been known to be at any time in use, in this or any\nother country: and that, accordingly, the confirmation given to the\nfalsehood, in and by means of that most elaborate and conspicuous\nceremony, was an act of _perjury_: of perjury, more deliberate and\nbarefaced, than anything, of which, in these days, any example can have\nplace.\n\nThat, on this occasion, the conduct of the self-constituted Apostle was\nstained with perjury, is a matter, intimation of which has unavoidably\ncome to have been already given, in more parts perhaps of this work than\none. But, for a support to a charge, which, if true, will of itself be\nso completely destructive of Paul's pretensions--of all title to\nrespect, at the hands of every professor of the religion of Jesus--no\nslight body of evidence could have been sufficient.\n\nFor this purpose, let us, in the first place, bring together the several\nelementary positions, proof or explanation of which, may be regarded as\nnecessary, and at the same time as sufficient, to warrant, in this case,\na verdict of _guilty_.\n\nTo these charges, is immediately subjoined such part of the evidence, as\nis furnished, by the account of the matter, as given in the Acts: in\nanother section will be brought to view the evidence, furnished by Paul\nhimself, in his Epistles. The evidence from the Acts is of the\n_circumstantial kind_: the evidence from the Epistles is _direct_.\n\n1. To Paul was imputed as a misdeed, the having recommended the\nforsaking of the Mosaic law. Recommended, namely, to such disciples of\nhis as, having been born and bred under it, were found by him settled in\nsome Gentile nation. Proof, Acts 21:21, ... \"They,\" 'the Jews which\nbelieve,' ver. 20, \"are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the\nJews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they\nought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the\ncustoms.\"\n\n2. To a great extent, the imputation was well grounded: for, to a great\nextent, it had been his practice, to give the recommendation thus\ndescribed. Of this position the proof will follow presently.\n\n3. By Paul, the truth of this imputation was utterly denied: denied by\nthe opposite denegatory assertion: and, the imputation being as above\nwell grounded,--in so far as any such denegatory assertion had been made\nby him, he had knowingly uttered a wilful falsehood.\n\n4. In proof of the sincerity of this denial, it was proposed to Paul, on\nthe part of the Apostles and Elders, to give a confirmation of it, by\nthe performance of a certain appropriate ceremony.\n\n5. The ceremony thus proposed, was one that was universally understood,\nto have the effect of attaching, to any assertion, connected with it for\nthe purpose, the sanction of an oath.\n\n6. Knowing such to be the effect of the ceremony, he gave his assent to\nthe proposition, and determined, by means of it, to attach the sanction\nof an oath to such his denial, as above: and thereby, the assertion\ncontained in that denial, being, as above, to his knowledge, false,--to\ncommit, in that extraordinary solemn and deliberate form and manner, an\nact of perjury.\n\n7. In pursuance of such determination, he accordingly repaired for that\npurpose to the temple and had his abode therein for several days: the\ncompletion of the requisite number being no otherwise prevented, than by\nthe irruption of the indignant multitude, assured as they were of his\nbeing occupied in the commission of a perjury.\n\nProof of charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Acts 21:23, 24, 26, 27, 28.\n\n23. \"_We_, the Apostles and the Elders, or at least the Apostle James,\nver. 18, have _four men_, which have a _vow_ on them;\n\n24. \"Them take, and _purify thyself with them_, and be _at charges_ with\nthem, that ... _all_ may know that those things, whereof they were\ninformed concerning thee, are _nothing_; but _that_ thou thyself also\nwalkest orderly, and keepest the law.\n\n26. \"Then Paul took the men, and _the next day purifying himself with\nthem_ entered into the temple, to _signify_ the accomplishment of the\ndays of purification, until that an _offering_ should be offered for\nevery one of them.\n\n27. \"And when the _seven days were almost ended_, the Jews, which were\nof Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and\nlaid hands on him.\n\n28. \"Crying out, Men of Israel, help; This is the man, that teacheth all\nmen everywhere _against_ the people, and _the law_, and this place: and\nfurther brought Greeks also into the temple; and hath _polluted_ this\nholy place.\"\n\nOf the perjuriousness of Paul's intent, a short proof, namely of the\ncircumstantial kind, is thus already visible, in the indignation\nexcited,--its intensity, its immorality, and the bitter fruits of it.\nWill it be said no? for that the indignation had, for its adequate\ncause, his being thought to have spoken slightingly of the law in\nquestion--it being the law of the land,--and that, to this imputation,\nthe ceremony, it being, as above the performance of a _vow_, had no\nreference? Assuredly no: no such interpretation will be found tenable.\nTrue it is, that, by the persuasion, that he had thus been dealing by\nthe Mosaic law,--by this persuasion, without need of anything else, the\nindignation may well have been produced: but it could only have been by\nthe knowledge, that, upon his having been called upon to confess the\nhaving so done, or to deny it, he had, in this most extraordinary and\nuniversally conspicuous mode, given continuance and confirmation to his\ndenial--it could only have been by _this_ knowledge, that the excitement\nwas raised up to so high a pitch. For, What was it that the information\nhad charged him with? It was the forsaking Moses. What was the purpose,\nfor which the recommendation was given to him--the recommendation to\nperform this ceremony? It was the _purifying_ himself, \"that all might\nknow\" that the information was groundless. \"That those things,\" say the\nApostles with the Elders to him, \"whereof they,\" the thousands of Jews\nwhich believe, ver. 20, \"were informed against thee were\n_nothing_:\"--\"to _purify thyself_,\" says the official translation: more\nappositely might it have said _to clear thyself_: for in that case, the\nidea of an _imputation_ would clearly enough, though but implicitly,\nhave been conveyed: whereas, to some minds, the idea conveyed by the\nword _purify_ may perhaps be no other than that of some _general_\ncleansing of the whole character, by means of some physical process, to\nwhich, in so many minds, the psychological effect in question has, by\nthe influence of artifice on weakness, been attached.\n\nSuch then, namely, the clearing himself of the imputation by so solemn a\nconfirmation of the denial of it,--such was the purpose, for which, in\nthe most unequivocal terms, his performance of the ceremony was\nrecommended: such, therefore, was the purpose for which it was\ncommenced; such, accordingly, was the purpose for which it would have\nbeen consummated, but for the interruption which it experienced:\nexperienced not from his hands, but from hands among which, there seems\nsufficient reason to believe, were the hands, if not of the very persons\nby whom it had been recommended, at any rate of those who till that time\nhad been in use to be guided by their influence.\n\nTo this interpretation, what objection is there that can be opposed? If\nany, it can only be that which to some minds may perhaps be suggested by\nthe word _vow_.\n\nBut the fact is--this word _vow_ is a mistranslation: the proper word\nshould have been _oath_. By an oath everyone understands at first\nmention an _assertory_, not a _promissory_, declaration: by a _vow_, a\n_promissory_, not an _assertory_ one. But an _assertory_ declaration, as\nevery one sees, is the only sort of declaration, that admits of any\napplication to the case in question. By nothing that, in Paul's\nsituation, a man could _promise_ to do, in addition to the performance\nof the ceremony, could any evidence be given, of a man's having, or not\nhaving, done so and so, in any time _past_.\n\nThat by that which was actually done, that which was essential was\nconsidered as having been done,--is proved, by what is put into Paul's\nmouth in relation to this subject, in his defence against the accusation\nbrought afterwards against him, before the Roman governor _Felix_, by\nthe spokesman of the Jewish constituted authorities, _Tertullus_. There\nit is, that, beyond all doubt, what he is speaking of, is his CLEARANCE,\nas above: for there also, the word in the official translation, as well\nas in the Greek original, is _purified_: in the past tense, purified.\nThis being assumed, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that either\nin the course of that part, which at the time of the irruption, was\nalready elapsed of the _seven days'_ ceremony, in the temple; or, what\nseems more probable, antecedently to the commencement of it, a\ndenegatory declaration--a declaration denying the fact charged in the\naccusation,--had been made: for, that the ceremony itself was never\naccomplished, is what is expressly stated:--of the term of seven days\nstated as necessary to the accomplishment of it, no more than a part, it\nis said, had elapsed, when the final interruption of it took place.\n\nTo return to the time of Paul's entrance into the temple.\n\nThus, as hath been seen, stands the matter, even upon the face of the\nofficial English translation. But in verse 26, the word employed in the\nGreek original, removes all doubt. \"Then,\" says the translation, \"Paul\ntook the men, and the next day _purifying himself_ with them, entered\ninto the temple.\" Purifying himself, in the present tense, says the\ntranslation: and, even this alone taken into consideration, the\npurifying process, whatever it was, might be supposed to have been but\ncommenced before the entrance into the temple, and as being thus as yet\nin pendency, waiting the exit out of the temple for its accomplishment.\nThus it is, that, in the translation, the verb is in the present tense,\n_purifying himself_: but, in the Greek original, it is in the past\ntense, _having purified_ himself: so that, in the original, the\npurification, whatever it may have been, is in express terms stated as\nhaving, even before his entrance into the temple, already accomplished.\n\nNote that, if the historian is to be believed, he had on this occasion,\nthe fullest opportunity, of being, in the most particular manner,\nacquainted with everything that passed. For, when, as above, the\nrecommendation was given to Paul, on his appearance before the Apostle\nJames and the Elders,--he, the historian, was actually present, \"And the\nday following,\" says he, Acts 21:18, \"_Paul went in with us unto James_;\nand all the Elders were present.\"\n\nSupposing _that_ the true interpretation,--of what use and effect then,\nit may perhaps be asked, was the ceremony, of which the temple was the\ntheatre? The answer has been already given. It cannot have been any\nother than the attaching, to the declaration that had been made, the\nsanction, of an oath. Without the ceremony performed in the temple, the\ndeclaration was a declaration _not_ upon oath, and as such not regarded\nas sufficient evidence:--evidence, in the shape which, the historian\nsays, had been actually required for the purpose: when the ceremony, of\nwhich the temple was the theatre, had been gone through, and the last of\nthe number of days, required for its accomplishment had been\nterminated;--then, and not before, it was regarded as having been\nconverted into the appropriate and sufficient evidence. Thus it was,\nthat this seven days' ceremony was no more than an elaborate substitute\nto the English ceremony of kissing the book, after hearing the dozen or\nso of words pronounced by the official functionary.\n\nOn this occasion, the Greek word rendered by the word _vow_, is a word\nwhich in its ordinary sense was, among Gentiles as well as Jews, exactly\ncorrespondent to our word _prayer_. But, the idea denoted by the word\n_prayer_, applies in this case with no less propriety to an _assertory\noath_ than to a _promissory vow_. Directly and completely, it designates\nneither. In both cases an address is made to some supposed supernatural\npotentate: in cases such as the present, beseeching him to apply the\nsanction of punishment to the _praying_ individual, in the event of a\nwant of sincerity on his part: in this case, in the event of his not\nhaving done that which, on this occasion, he declares himself to have\ndone, or, what comes to the same thing, his having done that which he\ndeclares himself _not_ to have done: in the other case, in the event of\nhis not doing that which he has promised to do, or doing that which he\nhas promised _not to do_.[55]\n\nAll this while, it is not in a direct way, it may be observed, that this\nword _vow_ is employed, and application made of it to Paul's case: not\nin speaking of Paul himself in the first instance, but after speaking of\nthe _four other men_, whom it is proposed he should take for his\ncomrades, on his entrance into the temple. \"We have four men,\" James and\nthe Elders are made to say, Acts 21:23, 24, \"We have four men which have\na vow on them: Them take, and purify thyself with them ... that ... all\nmay know, that those things, whereof they,\" the multitude, ver. 22,\n\"were informed concerning thee, are nothing\": no otherwise, therefore,\nthan by the case these four men were in, is the case designated, in\nwhich it is proposed to Paul to put himself.\n\nAs to the case these four men were in,--no otherwise than on account of\nits connection with the case Paul was in,--is it in anywise of\nimportance. As probable a supposition as any seems to be--that of their\nbeing in the same case with him: accused, as well as he, of teaching\n\"Jews to forsake Moses:\" for, between their case and his, no intimation\nis given of any difference: and, as the _\"purifying himself\"_ is what is\nrecommended to him, so is it what they are stated, as standing\neventually engaged to do on their part. If then, in _his_ instance,\npurifying himself means--clearing himself of a charge made against\n_him_,--so in their instance must it naturally, not to say necessarily,\nhave meant--clearing themselves of some charge made against _them_.\nMoreover, when, as above, he is, in the Greek original, stated as having\nactually purified himself, before his entrance into the temple, so are\nthey likewise; for it is \"_with them_,\" that his purification is stated\nas having been performed.\n\nThis being assumed, it might not be impossible to find a use for the\nword _vow_, even in its proper sense--its _promissory_ sense: for, what\nmight be supposed is--that before the entrance into the temple, at the\nsame time with the _denegatory declaration_, a _vow_ was made--a solemn\n_promise_--to enter into the temple, and back of the declaration with\nthe sanction of an oath, by going through the ceremony. But, forasmuch,\nas, in the import of the Greek word, no such idea, as that of a\n_promise_, is comprised,--the only use of this interpretation would\nbe--to save the translators from the imputation of an impropriety, with\nwhich it seems rather more probable that they stand chargeable.\n\nAll this while, of Paul's conduct on this occasion, to what part was it\nthat the blame belonged?--Surely, not to the endeavour, to wean men from\ntheir attachment to the Mosaic laws: for thus far he copied Jesus; and\nin copying did not go against, but only beyond, the great original. True\nit is, that, in so doing, he served his own personal and worldly\npurposes: not less so, that, in this subserviency, he found the\ninducement by which his conduct was determined: for, by how much\nstronger men's attachment would continue to be to the dead lawgiver, by\nso much, less strong would it be to the living preacher. But, in so far\nas a man's conduct is serviceable to mankind at large, it certainly is\nnot rendered the less serviceable, or the less laudable, by his being\nhimself included in the number. The blame lay then--not in teaching men\nto forsake Moses: for, thus far, instead of being blame-worthy, there\nwas nothing in his conduct, that did not merit positive praise. What\nthere was amiss in his conduct--in what, then, did it consist? Plainly\nin this, and this alone: namely, that, on being taxed with having so\ndone,--instead of avowing and justifying it, he denied it: and, having\ndenied it, scrupled not to add to the falsehood the aggravation of such\nextraordinarily deliberate and solemn perjury, as hath been so plainly\nvisible. And, to what purpose commit so flagrant a breach of the law of\nmorality? Plainly, to no other, than the fixing himself in Jerusalem,\nand persevering in a project of insane and selfish ambition, which, in\nspite of the most urgent remonstrances that could be made by his most\ndevoted adherents, had brought him thither: for, he had but to depart in\npeace, and the Apostles of Jesus would have remained unmolested, and the\npeace of Christendom undisturbed.\n\nAn article of evidence, that must not be left unnoticed,--is the part\ntaken, on this occasion, by the historiographer. Nowhere does this\neyewitness take upon himself to declare,--nowhere so much as to\ninsinuate--that of the charge, thus made upon his hero, there was\nanything that was not true: nowhere does he so much as insinuate, that\nthe declaration by which he says Paul had cleared himself of the charge,\nand, as we have seen, _before_ his entrance into the temple for the\npurpose of enforcing it by the sanction of an oath,--was anything short\nof a downright falsehood. After this, he makes a defence for Paul before\nFelix;[56] he makes a defence for Paul before Festus;[57] he makes a\ndefence for Paul before Festus and Agrippa;[58] and, on no one of all\nthose occasions, is the defence anything to the purpose. He, indeed,\nmakes Paul declare, that he, Paul, had always been a strict observer of\nthe Mosaic ordinances. This may have been either true or false: but,\ntrue or false, it was equally foreign to the purpose. Not improbably, it\nwas, in a considerable degree, true: for if, while he gave to other Jews\nhis assurance, that the operations in question, burthensome as they\nwere, were of no use, he himself continued to bear the burthen\nnotwithstanding,--the persuasiveness of his advice would naturally be\naugmented by the manifestation thus given of disinterestedness. It may\naccordingly have been true: but, false or true, it was equally foreign\nto the purpose: the question was--not what he had done himself; but what\nhe had recommended it to others to do.\n\n\nThus--from everything that appears, by all such persons as had the best\nmeans of information--the charge made upon him was _believed_,--let it\nnow be seen, whether we should not be warranted in saying, _known_,--to\nbe true.\n\nAs to \"_The Jews of Asia_,\"--and the mention made of this class of men,\nas the instigators of the tumult--can any support be derived from it,\nfor the inference, that it was by something else in Paul's conduct, and\nnot by any such perjury as that in question, that the vent, thus given\nto the indignation, was produced?[59] No, assuredly: altogether\ninconsistent would any such supposition be, with the main part of the\nnarrative. Whoever were the persons with whom the manual violence\noriginated;--whatever were the reproaches cast upon the invader on other\ngrounds;--the purpose--the sole purpose--for which he entered upon the\nceremony, is rendered as plain as words can make it. It was the\nclearing himself of the charge of teaching Jews to forsake Moses: and,\nsupposing the fact admitted, everything, in the way of justification,\nbeing, before such a tribunal, manifestly inadmissible,--of no such\ncharge was it possible for him to clear himself, without denying the\ntruth of it. But, according to the historian, to confirm this denial, by\nthe solemnity, whatever it was,--was the purpose, and the sole purpose,\nof it: of this, the negative assertion, contained in the denial, being\nuntrue, and, by him who made it, known to be so,--confirming such\ndenial, by the solemnity,--call it _oath_--call it _vow_--call it\nanything else,--was committing an act of perjury: and, to believe that\nsuch his denial was false, and yet not believing him guilty of\nperjury--at any rate, on the supposition of the accomplishment of the\nsolemnity--was not possible. How numerous so ever may have been the\nother causes of provocation, given by him--how numerous so ever, the\ndifferent descriptions of persons to whom they had been given;--no\ndisproof could, by all of them put together, be given, by this\nsolemnity, to the denial in question,--supposing it false.\n\nTo the present purpose, the only question is--whether, by Paul, on the\noccasion in question, an act of perjury was, or was not, committed?\nnot--what was the cause, whether that, or any other, of any indignation\nof which he was the object. Even therefore, might it be allowed, that a\n_vow_, in the sense of which it is contradistinguished from an _oath_,\nwas performed by him, or about to be performed,--still it would not be\nthe less undeniable, that it was for the purpose of converting the\nsimple declaration into a declaration upon oath, that he entered upon\nthe solemnity: and that, therefore, if in the simple declaration there\nwas anything to his knowledge false, the consequence is--that by his\nconverting it into a declaration upon oath, he rendered himself guilty\nof perjury.\n\nThe observation, thus applied, to what is said of the \"_Jews of Asia_,\"\nwill be seen to be applicable, and, with equal propriety, to what is\nsaid about his being charged with \"bringing _Greeks into the temple_:\"\nand, in particular, about his being supposed to have brought in \"_The\nEphesian Trophimus_:\" and moreover, what may, in this last case, be\nobservable, is--that this about the Greeks is expressly stated as being\na _further_ charge, distinct from the main one: nor yet is it so much as\nstated, that, by any such importation, to what degree so ever offensive,\nany such effect, as that signified by the word _pollution_ was produced.\n\nNot altogether destitute of probability seems the supposition, that\nthese two circumstances--about the Jews of Asia, and about\nTrophimus--may have been thrown in, by this adherent of Paul's, for the\npurpose of throwing a cloud of confusion and obscurity over the real\ncharge: and if so, the two circumstances, with the addition of the three\ndifferent defences, put into the hero's mouth, on the three several\noccasions of the endeavour,--must be acknowledged to have been employed,\nnot altogether without success.\n\nHere then closes that part of the evidence, which, to the purpose of a\njudgment, to be passed at this distance of time from the facts, may be\nconsidered as so much _circumstantial_ evidence: in the next section may\nbe seen that part, which comes under the denomination of direct\nevidence.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nPROOF FROM THE EPISTLES.\n\nWe come now to the _direct_ evidence: that evidence--all of it from\nPaul's own pen:--all of it from his own Epistles. It consists in those\n\"teachings to forsake Moses,\" which will be now furnished, in such\nunequivocal terms and such ample abundance, in and by those fruits of\nhis misty and crafty eloquence:--in the first place, in his letter to\nthe disciples, which he had made, or hoped to make at Rome:--date of it,\naccording to the received chronology, about four years anterior to the\ntime here in question:--in the next place, in two successive letters to\nthe disciples, whom, it appears, he had made at Corinth:--both these\naddresses, set down, as belonging to the same year as the one to the\nRomans. Moreover, in his so often mentioned Epistle to the Galatians,\nmatter of the same tendency is to be found. But, this last being,\naccording to that same chronology, of a date posterior by some years to\nthe time, at which the charge of having preached the sort of doctrine in\nquestion was, on the present occasion, made,--it belongs not to the\npresent question, and is therefore left unemployed. And, in the same\ncase, is some matter that might be found in his Epistles to the\nThessalonians.\n\n1. First then as to the Mosaic \"law and customs,\" taken in the\naggregate.\n\nOn this subject, see in the first place what the oath-taker had said to\nhis _Romans_.\n\n\n     Rom 15:14. \"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there\n     is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to\n     be unclean, to him it is unclean.\"--17. \"For the kingdom of God\n     is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the\n     Holy Ghost.\"\n\n     Rom 3:20. \"_By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be\n     justified_ in his, God's sight; for by the law is the knowledge of\n     sin.\"\n\n     Rom. 3:27, 28, 29, 30, 31. \"Where is boasting then? It is excluded.\n     By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of the faith.--\n     Therefore, we conclude, that _a man is justified by faith without\n     the deeds of the law_.--Is _he_ the God of the Jews only? is\n     _he_ not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:--\n     Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by\n     faith, and uncircumcision through faith.--_Do we then make void_\n     _the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law._\"\n\n     Rom. 10:9. \"... if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord\n     Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him\n     from the dead, thou shalt be saved.[60]--12. For there is no\n     difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over\n     all is rich unto all that call upon him.--For whosoever shall\n     call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.\"[61]\n\n     Rom 14:2. \"... one believeth that he may eat all things: another\n     who is weak, eateth herbs.--Let not him that eateth despise him\n     that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that\n     eateth; for God hath received him.--_One man esteemeth one day\n     above another: another esteemeth every day alike._[62]\"\n\n     1 Cor. 6:12. \"_All things are lawful unto me_, but all things are\n     not expedient:\" or _profitable_ margin, \"all things are lawful for\n     me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.--_Meats\n     for the belly_, and _the belly for meats_; but God shall destroy\n     both it and them.\"\n\n     1 Cor. 8:8. \"But _meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we\n     eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the\n     worse_.--Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will\n     eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to\n     offend.\"\n\n     1 Cor. 9:19-23. 19. \"For though I be free from all men, yet have I\n     made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.--_And\n     unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews_; to\n     them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain\n     them that are under the law:--_To them that are without law, as\n     without law_, being not without law to God but under the law to\n     Christ, _that I might gain them that are without law_.--To the\n     weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all\n     things to all men, that I might by all means save some.--And\n     this I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof\n     with you.\"\n\n     2 Cor. 3:12 to 17. \"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use\n     great plainness of speech.--And not as _Moses, which put a vail\n     over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly\n     look to the end of that which is abolished_.--But their minds\n     were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken\n     away in the reading of the Old Testament; which vail is done away\n     in Christ.--But even unto this day, _when Moses is read, the\n     vail is upon their heart_.--Nevertheless _when it shall turn to\n     the Lord, the vail shall be taken away_.--Now the Lord is that\n     spirit; and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.\"\n\nNow as to _circumcision_ in particular.\n\n     Rom. 2:25, 26, 27, 28, 29. \"For _circumcision verily profiteth, if\n     thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy\n     circumcision is made uncircumcision.--Therefore if the\n     uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his\n     uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?_--And shall not\n     uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge\n     thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the\n     law?--For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is\n     that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:--But he is a\n     Jew, which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart,\n     in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men,\n     but of God.\"\n\n     Rom. 3:1, 2. \"What advantages then hath the Jew? or what profit is\n     there of circumcision?--Much every way: chiefly, because that\n     unto them were committed the oracles of God.\"\n\n     Rom. 4:9, 10, 11, 12. \"_Cometh this blessedness then upon the\n     circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?_ for we say\n     that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.--How was\n     it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in\n     uncircumcision. Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.--And\n     he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness\n     of the faith which _he had yet_ being uncircumcised: that he might\n     be the father of all them that believe, though they be not\n     circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them\n     also:--And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the\n     circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of\n     our father Abraham, which he had being _yet_ uncircumcised.\"\n\n     Rom. 15:8. \"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the\n     circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the premises made unto\n     the fathers.\"\n\n     1 Cor. 7:18. \"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not\n     become uncircumcised. _Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not\n     be circumcised.--Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is\n     nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God._\"\n\nFrom any one individual, who, in either of these distant cities, had\nseen any one of these same Epistles,--let it now be seen whether\ninformation of their contents, supposing it credited, would not have\nsufficed to produce those effects, the existence of which is so\nunquestionable. Not but that the same rashness, which suffered him to\nfurnish such abundant evidence against himself in those distant regions,\ncould scarce fail to have given birth to credence in abundance, of\nvarious sorts, and of a character, which, on that occasion, would be\nmuch more impressive.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[55] On this occasion, supposing the purpose of this ceremony to be, as\nhere contended, no other than that of applying, to a declaration\nconcerning a matter of fact, the supernatural penal sanction, by which\nit was converted into an oath,--a natural enough subject of inquiry\nis--to what cause is to be attributed the extraordinary length thus\ngiven to it?--seven days at the least; to which, upon examination, would\nbe found virtually added, as much greater a length of time, as the holy\nperson, to whose custody the oath-taker consigned himself, might be\npleased to prescribe. Answer, without difficulty,--the affording time\nand pretence for the exaction of his _surplice fees_:--namely, those\nestablished by law,--with the addition of others, to as large an amount,\nas the need which the oath-taker had of the accommodation thus to be\nafforded to him, could engage him to submit to. As to the length of\ntime,--in the passage in question, the translation exhibits some\nobscurity: nor is it altogether cleared up by the original. A\ndeterminate number of days, to wit, seven, is indeed mentioned, ver. 27,\nbut immediately before this, ver. 26, comes a passage, from whence it\nseems unquestionable, that, whatever were the time a man had been thus\ndetained, he was not to be let out, until, over and above what good\nthings it had been made necessary he should bring in with him, a further\npayment, and as it should seem, in a pecuniary shape, had been made: \"to\nsignify,\" says ver. 26, \"the accomplishment of the days of purification,\nuntil that an offering should be offered for every one of them.\" \"And\nwhen _the seven_ days were _almost_ ended,\" continues ver. 27:\nimmediately after which comes the account of the tumult, by which they\nwere prevented from being _quite_ ended.\n\nAs to the phrase--\"_to signify the accomplishment of the days_,\" what\nseems to be meant by it is--to make known when the number requisite for\nthe completion of the train of operations had been _accomplished_. But,\nto make known when that number had been _accomplished_, it was\npreviously requisite to make known when it had _commenced_: and, for\nmaking _this_ known, the act, probably a public one, of making entrance\ninto the temple, was employed.\n\nAs to the origin, as well as particular nature, of the ceremony,--though\nno such word as _Nazarite_ is here employed, on turning to the Book of\n_Numbers_, chapter the sixth, it will be manifest, that the ceremony\nhere in question is the same as that, by which, according to the receipt\nthere given, any man whatever, whether, and any woman also, must be left\nto conjecture, might be converted into a _Nazarite_. _Nazarite_ is from\na Hebrew word, which meant originally neither more nor less than a\nperson _separated_. A person consigned himself to the custody of \"_the\npriest of the congregation_:\" or, as we should now say, the _parson of\nthe parish_. The ceremony accomplished, the patient was thereby put into\na state of appropriate sanctity: and, from this metamorphosis, as the\npriest and the Nazarite could agree, any inference might be drawn, and\nany purpose at pleasure accomplished. Neither to the _extent_ of the\ninference, nor therefore to the _purpose_ designed, were any limits\nvisible. Everything depended upon the priest: for, though of certain\nparticular operations made requisite, a most particular list is given,\nall of them of the most insignificant character in themselves, yet so\nthickly and so plainly sown are the seeds of _nullity_, that, when all\nthe appointed fees, of which there is also an enormous list[IV.], had\nbeen paid, it would still lie at the option of the priest, to pronounce\nthe whole procedure null and void, unless, and until any such final\ncompliment as he chose to expect, were paid to him. Among the most\nobviously, as well as extensively convenient purposes, to which it was\ncapable of being applied, is this of which the present case affords an\nexample: namely, the manufacturing of evidence: could he but find means\nto satisfy the priest, a man might, to all legal purposes, and even to\nthe satisfaction of all appropriately disposed minds, prove, and with\nconclusive effect, any thing to be false, which everybody knew to be\ntrue. By fabrication, falsification, or suppression of evidence, what is\nthe right that may not be usurped? what is the wrong that may not, with\nsuccess and impunity, be committed?\n\nIn the Mosaic law, immediately before _this_ institution Numbers, chap.\n5., comes another, by means of which every man, who was tired of his\nwife, might, in another way, with the assistance of a priest--and, for\naught that appears, any priest--clear himself of that incumbrance. All\nthe man had to do was--to _say_ he was \"_jealous_\" of her: the priest\nthereupon took charge of her. If priest and husband were agreed, \"_the\nwater of jealousy_\" did its office: if not, the woman remained\nimprisoned. Against the superhuman evidence, afforded by the purifying\nprocess here in question, no quantity of human evidence was to be\navailable. In like manner, to warrant this poisoning process, not any\nthe smallest particle of human evidence was necessary: the case in which\nit is to be performed, is \"_if there be no witness against her, neither\nshe be taken_,\" says the text, _Numbers_ 5. 13. Verily, verily, not\nwithout sufficient cause, did Jesus, from first to last, take every\noccasion, to weaken the attachment of the people, to a system of law, of\nwhich those institutions afford two, among so many samples. Yet, while\nin the very act of depreciating it, is he represented as declaring his\npurpose to be the _fulfilling it_: Matt. 5. 17. for, such was the verbal\nveil, which the prejudices he had to encounter, rendered it necessary to\nhim at the moment, to throw over the tendency of his endeavors. Fulfill\nthe very law he was preaching against? Yes: but in one sense only:\nnamely, by fulfilling--not the real purpose of it,--the establishment of\nthe corrupt despotism of the priesthood,--but the professed purpose of\nit, the good of the community: in regard to the law, fulfilling, in a\nword, whatever there was that was good in it, whatever there was that\ndeserved to be fulfilled. Jesus, in whose opinion death was too severe a\npunishment, for a wife, in the case of a breach, on _her_ part, of a\ncontract, the breach of which was by the _other_ contending party\npractised with impunity--Jesus, who accordingly, in saving the offender,\nexposed to merited disgrace the sanguinary law--was doubtless still\nfurther from approving, that parish priests, in unlimited numbers,\nshould poison innocent women for the accommodation of their husbands, or\nsell licenses to commit every imaginable wrong by perjury.\n\n_Vow_ is _oath_: this is not the only occasion, in which the\nself-constituted Apostle, if his historiographer is to be believed, took\nthe benefit, whatever it was, of this ceremony. In Acts 18:16, he\n\"_shaved his head_,\" it is said, at Cenchrea:--why?--\"for he had a vow\nupon him.\" What the vow was, we are not told; this, however, we know, as\nwell from Acts 21:26, as from Numbers 6, he could not have got anything\nby it, had the parson of the parish of Cenchrea been otherwise than\nsatisfied with the \"_offering_\" that was made.\n\n[IV.] In the bargain between vow-maker and vow-sanctifier, the following\nlist of fees, provided for sanctifier, by _Excellent Church_ of that\ncountry, in those days whatever they were,--may serve to show the use of\nit to one of the contracting parties. To complete our conception of the\nnature and effects of the arrangement, nothing is wanting, but that\nwhich so unhappily must for ever remain wanting--a history of the\n_purposes_, to which from the commencement of the government to the\ndissolution of it, the solemnity had been applied on the vow-maker's\nside. Of these purposes, we must content ourselves as well as we can\nwith the sample, for which we are here indebted to the author of the\nActs. The table of fees is as follows:\n\nIt is extracted from the Book of Numbers, chapter 6:1 to 21.\n\nFees to be paid in all cases: fees liquidated in quantity, and thence in\nvalue.\n\n       { 1. He lamb of the first year, one.\n    I. { 2. Ewe-lamb of the first year, one.\n       { 3. Ram without blemish, one.\n\nFees, not liquidated in quantity, and thus left to be liquidated in\nquantity, and thence in value, by the will of the priest.\n\n       { 4. Basket of unleavened bread, one.\n       { 5. Parcel of cakes of fine flour mingled with oil.\n   II. { 6. Parcel of wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, one.\n       { 7. Meat-offering, one.\n       { 8. Drink-offerings--numbers and respective quantities not\n            liquidated.\n\nFees payable, on a contingency: a contingency not describable without\nmore time and labour, than would be paid for by the result.\n\n  III. {  9. Turtle-doves or pigeons, two.\n       { 10. Lamb of the first year, one.\n\nIV. Mysterious addition, the liquidation of which must be left to the\nHebrew scholar. Ver. 21. \"Besides _that_ that his hand shall get:\"\n(whose hand? priest's or vow-maker's?) \"according to the vow which he\nvowed, so he must do after the law of his separation:\"--probable\nmeaning, according to the purpose, for which he performed the\nceremony--the advantage which he looked for from it.\n\nMoreover, by any one whose curiosity will carry him through the inquiry,\ncauses of _nullity_ may be seen as sedulously and copiously provided, as\nif by the _astutia_ of an English judge, or pair of judges, to whose\nprofit the fees were to be received: effect of the nullity, of course,\nrepetition; necessity of repeating the process, as in case of _new\ntrial_ or _arrest of judgment_, with the fees.\n\nReligion was thus no less aptly served at Jerusalem, under Mosaic\ninstitutions,--than Justice is to this day, under matchless constitution\nand English institutions, at Westminster.\n\n[56] Paul at the suit of Tertullus, A.D. 60. Acts 24:1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11,\n18.\n\n\"And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders,\nand with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor\nagainst Paul.--And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse\nhim,--Saying, We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of\nsedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of\nthe sect of the Nazarenes:--Who also hath _gone about to profane the\ntemple_; whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.--And\nthe Jews also assented, saying, that these things were so.--Then Paul,\nafter that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered,--Thou\nmayest understand, that they are yet but twelve days since I went up to\nJerusalem for to worship.--Whereupon certain Jews from Asia _found me\npurified in the temple_, neither with multitude nor with tumult.\"\n\n[57] Paul before Festus alone, A.D. 60. Acts 25:7, 8.\n\n\"And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood\nround about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which\nthey could not prove:--While he answered for himself, Neither against\nthe law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar,\nhave I offended anything at all.\"\n\n[58] Paul before Festus and Agrippa, A.D. 62. Acts 26:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,\n7, 20, 21.\n\n\"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.\nThen Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:--I think\nmyself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day\nbefore thee, touching all the things whereof I am accused of the\nJews;--Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and\nquestions which are among the Jews; wherefore I beseech thee to hear me\npatiently.--My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first\namong mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;--Which knew me\nfrom the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most\nstraightest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.--And now I stand\nand am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our\nfathers:--Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God\nday and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am\naccused of the Jews.--20. But showed first unto them of Damascus and at\nJerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the\nGentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for\nrepentance.--For these causes, the Jews _caught me in the temple_, and\nwent about to kill me.\"\n\n[59] \"And when the seven days were almost ended,\" says Acts 21:27, \"_the\nJews which were of Asia_, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up\nall the people, and laid hands on him.\"\n\n[60] A cheap enough rate this, at which salvation is thus put up. Of\nwhat use then morality? Of what use is abstinence from mischievous acts,\nin what degree so ever mischievous? \"Oh! but,\" says somebody, \"though\nPaul said this, he meant no such thing:\" and then comes\nsomething--anything--which it may suit the defender's purpose to make\nPaul say.\n\n[61] Another receipt for making salvation still cheaper than as above.\nNot so Jesus. Matt. 7:21: \"_Not every one that saith unto me, Lord,\nLord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven_; but he that doeth the\nwill of my Father which is in heaven.\"\n\n[62] Behold here the degree of importance attached by Paul to\n_sabbaths_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n     More Falsehoods.--Resurrection Witnesses multiplied.--World's End\n     predicted.--To save credit, Antichrist invented.\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nRESURRECTION-WITNESSES MULTIPLIED.\n\nAfter what has been seen of the seven days' course of perjury, proofs of\nsimple falsehood will be apt to appear superfluous. To make certainty\nmore sure, two preeminent ones shall, however, be brought to view. They\nmay have their use, were it only as examples of the palpableness, of\nthose falsehoods, which, for so many hundreds of years, and through so\nmany generations of commentators, are, under favourable circumstances,\ncapable of remaining undetected. The extravagance of the addition, made\nby the audacious stranger, to the number of the Resurrection-witnesses,\nas given by themselves:--the predicted end of the world in the prophet's\nown lifetime,--and the creation of Antichrist for the purpose of putting\noff that catastrophe,--may even be not altogether unamusing, by the\npicture they will give, of that mixture of rashness and craftiness,\nwhich constitutes not the least remarkable, of the ingredients in the\ncomposition of this extraordinary character. Moreover, Antichrist being\nin the number of the bug-bears, by the images of which many an enfeebled\nmind has not yet ceased to be tormented;--putting an extinguisher upon\nthis hobgoblin may have the serious good effect, of calming a mass of\ndisquietude, which how completely soever groundless, is not the less\nafflicting, to the minds into which it has found entrance.\n\nFirst, as to the resurrection-witnesses. In relation to a fact of such\ncardinal importance, the accounts which have reached us from the four\nbiographers of Jesus are not, it must be confessed, altogether so clear\nas could have been wished. But, on so ample a subject, howsoever\ntempting the occasion, anything that could here be offered, with any\npromise of usefulness, would occupy far too much space, and be by much\ntoo wide a digression from the design of the present work.[63]\n\nSufficient to the present purpose will be the observation, that nothing\ncan be more palpably or irreconcileably inconsistent with every one of\nthem, than the amply and round number, thus added by the effrontery of\nthis uninformed stranger, to the most ample that can be deduced from any\nof the accounts, thus stated as given by the only description of\npersons, whose situation would give to their testimony the character of\nthe best evidence.\n\nBehold now the account of the number and of the persons in Paul's own\nwords. It is in the fifteenth chapter of the first of his two letters to\nhis Corinthians. \"Moreover, brethren,\" ver. 1, \"I declare unto you the\nGospel, the good news, which I _preached_ unto you, which also ye have\nreceived, and wherein ye stand.--By which also ye are saved, if ye\nkeep in memory what I preached unto you unless ye have believed in\nvain.--For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also\nreceived, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the\nScriptures:--And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third\nday, according to the Scriptures:--And that he was seen of Cephas,\nthen of the twelve:--After that, he was seen of _above five hundred\nbrethren at once_; of whom the greater part remain unto this present,\nbut some are fallen asleep.--After that he was seen of James, then of\nall the Apostles.--And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one\nborn out of due time.--For I am the least of the Apostles, which am\nnot meet to be called as Apostle, because I persecuted the church of\nGod.\"[64]\n\nAs to the five hundred brethren at once, with the additions _in petto_,\nthe more closely the Gospel accounts are looked into, the more entire\nwill be a Man's conviction of the extravagance of this account. In\naddition to the eleven Apostles that remained after the death of the\ntraitor Judas, it may be matter of question, whether so much as a single\nindividual can be found, who, in any one of the Gospels, is stated as\nhaving, after the death of Jesus, received from the testimony of sense,\nthe demonstration of his presence. Of the percipient witnesses in\nquestion, not to waste space and time in needless discussions, taking a\nround number, and including both sexes taken together, no number\napproaching to twenty can be made out from any one of the four Gospel\naccounts, nor from all of them taken together. To what end then\nsubstitute, to less than twenty, more than five hundred? To what, but to\nsupply by falsehood the deficiency left by truth. The thing to be done\nwas the coming up to the expectations, whatever they might be, of his\nCorinthians. Number twenty,--said he to himself,--may perhaps fall\nshort: well then, strike out the twenty, and set down five hundred. Thus\ndid the self-constituted Apostle take a leaf out of the book of the\nunjust steward. Luke 16:1-20.\n\nNow then as to mutually contradictory numbers--that given by the four\nEvangelists, and that given by this one stranger,--to which shall we\ngive credence? As to the Evangelists,--whether, in the situation in\nwhich they were, and writing for the purposes for which they\nwrote,--these most intimate of the associates of the departed Jesus, and\npercipient witnesses of the several facts in question,--all of them\nspoken of in the same narration, all of them so fully apprised of the\nwhole real number--could have been disposed, any one of them, to get\ndown a number _short_ of the truth,--may be left to anyone to imagine.\n\nBut, according to Paul's calculation, the truth would not come up to his\npurpose:--to his particular purpose: a number, such as could not fail of\ndoing so, was therefore to be substituted.\n\n_Five hundred_ was as easily written as _twenty_. Had Jerusalem, or any\nplace in its neighbourhood, been the place, to which this letter of his\nwas to be addressed, some caution might have been necessary. But\nCorinth--a place so remote from the scene of action--being the abode of\nthe disciples, to whom this letter of his was addressed,--and the\nletters themselves, not destined to be seen by any other than devoted\neyes,--Invention found herself at ease.\n\nMeantime, while Jesus was thus magnified, Paul was not to be forgotten.\nInsufficient still would be the cloud of witnesses, unless himself were\nadded to it. \"Last of all,\" says he, 1 Cor. 15:8, \"he,\" Jesus, \"was seen\nof me also.\" Seen by him Paul? at what place? at what time? At the time\nof his conversion, when hearing a voice and seeing light, but nothing\nelse? But the whole constellation of his visions will here be crowding\nto the reader's view, and any more particular reference to them would be\nuseless: suffice it to observe, that on no other occasion, either does\nPaul himself, or his historiographer for him, take upon himself to say,\nthat he had ever seen Jesus any otherwise than in a _vision_,\nwhatsoever may have been meant by this so convenient term. On no\noccasion is it so much as pretended, either by him or for him, that _in\nthe flesh_ Jesus was ever seen by him. By no fingers of his\nmurder-abetting hand, had ever been so much as pretended to have been\nprobed, the wounds of Jesus. Yet, what are the terms employed, by him,\nin speaking of the _sight_, he pretended to have had of Jesus? exactly\nthe same, as those employed by him, when speaking of the evidence,\nvouchsafed to the Apostles.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nFALSE PROPHECY,--THAT THE WORLD WOULD END IN THE LIFETIME OF\nPERSONS THEN LIVING.\n\nThe unsatiableness of Paul's ambition meets the eye at every page: the\nfertility of his invention is no less conspicuous. So long as, between\nthis and the other world, the grave stood interposed,--the strongest\nimpression capable of being made by pictures of futurity, even when\ndrawn by so bold a hand, was not yet sufficient for stocking it with the\npower it grasped at. This barrier, at whatever hazard, he accordingly\ndetermined to remove. The future world being thus brought at both ends\ninto immediate contact with the present,--the obedient, for whom the\njoys of heaven were provided, would behold the troubles of _the middle\npassage_ saved to them, while the disobedient would see the jaws of hell\nopened for their reception, without any such halting-place, as might\notherwise seem to be offered by the grave. In particular, by a nearer as\nwell as smoother road than that rugged one, he would make his way to\nheaven: nor would they, whose obedience gave them a just claim to so\nhigh a favour, be left behind.\n\nHis Thessalonians were the disciples, chosen by him for the trial of\nthis experiment. Addressed to them we have two of his Epistles. In these\ncurious and instructive documents, the general purport--not only of what\nhad been said to the persons in question on a former occasion, but\nlikewise of the observation of which on _their_ part it had been\nproductive,--is rendered sufficiently manifest, by what we shall find\nhim saying in the first of them. \"Good,\" said they, \"as to _some_ of us,\nwhoever they may be: but, how is it to be with _the rest_? in\nparticular, with those who have actually died already: not to speak of\nthose others who will have been dying off in the meantime: for you do\nnot go so far as to promise, that we shall, all of us, be so sure of\nescaping death as you yourself are.\" \"Make yourselves easy,\" we shall\nfind him saying to them: \"sooner or later, take my word for it, we\nshall, all of us, mount up together in a body: those who are dead, those\nwho are to die, and those who are not to die--all of us at once, and by\nthe same conveyance: up, in the air, and through the clouds, we shall\ngo. The Lord will come down and meet us, and show us the way:--music,\nvocal and instrumental, will come with him, and a rare noise altogether\nthere will be! Those who died first will have risen first; what little\ndifferences there may be are not worth thinking about. Comfort\nyourselves,\" concludes he, \"with these words.\" Assuredly not easily\ncould more comfortable ones have been found:--always supposing them\nfollowed by belief, as it appears they were. But it is time we should\nsee more particularly what they were.\n\n1 Thess. 4:10 to 18.--\"And indeed ye do it,\" viz. love one another, ver.\n9, \"toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech\nyou, brethren, that ye increase more and more;--And that ye study to be\n_quiet_, and to do _your own business, and to work with your own hands,\nas we commanded you_;--That ye may walk honestly toward them that are\nwithout, and that ye may have lack of nothing.--But I would not have you\nto be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are _asleep_, that ye\nsorrow not, even as others which have no hope.--For if we believe that\nJesus died and rose again, even so _them also which sleep in Jesus will\nGod bring with him_.--For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord,\nthat _we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall\nnot prevent them which are asleep_.--For the Lord himself shall descend\nfrom heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the\ntrump of God: and _the dead in Christ shall rise first.--Then we which\nare alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the\nclouds_, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the\nLord.--Wherefore comfort one another with these words.\" Hereupon,\nwithout any intervening matter, follows that of the next chapter. The\ndivision into chapters,--though, for the purpose of reference, not\nmerely a useful, but an altogether necessary one,--is universally\nacknowledged to have been a comparatively modern one.\n\n1 Thess. 5:1-11. \"But _of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have\nno need that I write unto you_.--For yourselves know perfectly, that\n_the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night_.--For when they\nshall say, Peace and safety, then _sudden destruction cometh upon them_,\nas travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.--_But ye,\nbrethren, are not in darkness_, that that day should overtake you as a\nthief.--Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day:\nwe are not of the night, nor of darkness.--Therefore _let us not sleep,\nas do others; but let us watch and be sober_.--For they that sleep,\nsleep in the night; and they that be drunken, are drunken in the\nnight.--But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the\nbreastplate of _faith_ and love; and for an helmet, the hope of\nsalvation.--For _God hath not appointed us to wrath_, but to obtain\nsalvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.--Who died for us, that, whether we\nwake or sleep, we should live together with him.--Wherefore _comfort\nyourselves_ together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.\"\n\nAn ingenious game was the one thus played by Paul, if ever there was\none. Of this prophecy,[65] what when once mentioned, is plainly enough\nvisible, is--this is of the number of those predictions, by which profit\nis put in for, and no loss risked: for such is the shape given to it. So\nlong as the predictor lived, it would remain good and undisfulfilled:\nat the end of a certain time--namely, at the end of the life of the\nlongest liver of the aggregate number of individuals in existence at\nthat time,--the disfulfillment would indeed take place. But if, by that\ntime, the predictor had made his exit,--as, in this case, being already\nof a certain age, it is tolerably certain he would,--the reproach of\nfalse prophecy would not have reached him: and, even, supposing it to\nhave reached him, as it would do if he survived the last of them, still\nthe speculation would not be a very bad one. His _prophecy_, his\n_purposes_ would have been fulfilled.\n\nNot altogether without claim to observation, is the manner, in which, by\nthe adroitness of the soothsayer, the anxiety of questioners is evaded.\nThat he himself does not know, nor ever expects to know,--that is what\nhis prudence forbids his telling them. \"The day of the Lord so cometh as\na thief in the night:\" this is what, in answer to former importunities,\nhe had at _that_ time told them. \"For you yourselves,\" says he, \"know\nthis perfectly;\" that is, in so far as they could know from _his\ntelling_: this being, in this instance, the only source,--of that\n_delusion_, to which he gave the name of _knowledge_. This he had told\nthem _then_: and more, he takes care not to tell them _now_. \"Of the\ntimes and seasons, brethren,\" says he, \"ye have no need that I write\nunto you.\" Meantime, their hopes and fears, and therewith their\ndependence upon his good pleasure, are kept still alive: in the first\nplace, the hope--that, knowing already more than he as yet desires to\ndisclose, he may by ulterior obsequiousness be prevailed upon to\ndisclose it: in the next place, the hope--that, though not as yet\npossessed of the information, he may at some future period be able to\nobtain it, and in that case give them the benefit of it.\n\nTo a speculation of this sort,--in how particular a degree favourable\nthe mode of communication by letter was, is sufficiently visible.\nWriting, was an operation not quite so prompt, in those days as in\nthese. Between Thessalonica and Athens,--from whence, as they tell us,\nthese Epistles were written,--there was not, it may be affirmed without\nmuch danger of error, any established letter-post: and, even if there\nwas,--to this or that question, which a man sees in a letter, he makes\nor does not make answer, as he finds convenient. Not exactly so, when\nthe questioner is at his elbow.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nDISORDER AND MISCHIEF PRODUCED BY THIS PREDICTION.\n\nWe have seen the prophecy: let us now see the effects of it. They were\nsuch as might have been expected. They were such as had been expected:\nexpected, as may have been observed, at a very early period. But there\nwas rather _more_ in them than had been expected.\n\nOf the confusion, which, by an expectation of this sort, in a state of\nsociety, so much inferior, in the scale of moral conduct, to any, of\nwhich in this our age and country we have experience, was capable of\nbeing produced,--it can scarcely, at this time of day, be in any man's\npower, to frame to himself anything approaching to an adequate\nconception. So far as regards peaceable idleness, of the general nature\nof it, some faint conception may under modern manners be formed, from\nthe accounts of the effects produced by a similar prediction, delivered\nfirst in France, then in England, about the time of Queen Anne:--so far\nas regards a mixture of idleness and positive mischief in a time of\nterror, under ancient manners,--from the accounts, given by Thucydides,\nof the effects produced at Athens, by the near approach of death, on the\noccasion of the plague;--and, from that given by Josephus, of the\neffects produced by the like cause, on the occasion of the siege, which,\nunder his eye, terminated in the final destruction of Jerusalem by the\nRomans.\n\nAccording to each man's cast of mind, and the colour of the expectations\nthat had been imbibed by it,--terror and self-mortification, or\nconfidence and mischievous self-indulgence, would be the natural result:\nterror and self-mortification, if apprehensions grounded on the\nretrospect of past misconduct predominated--mischievous indulgence, if,\nby the alleged or supposed all-sufficiency of faith,--of faith, of which\nthe preacher was the object--the importance of morality had, even in the\nimagination of the disciple, been thrown into the back-ground:\nconfabulation without end, in the case of terror; cessation from work,\nin both cases.\n\nHad he been somewhat less positive on the head of _time_,--the purposes\nof those announcements of his might have been completely, and without\nany deduction, fulfilled. The terror he infused could not be\nunfavourable to those purposes, so long as it made no deduction, from\nthe value of the produce of their industry! It was his interest, that\nthey should \"_walk honestly_,\" lest they should be punished for walking\notherwise:--punished, capitally or not capitally--and, in either case,\nbring his teaching into disgrace. It was his interest, that they should\n_work_, in such sort, as to earn each of them the expense of his\nmaintenance; lest, by abstaining from work, they should, any one of\nthem, impose a burthen upon the charity of the others, or be seen to\nwalk dishonestly, to the prejudice of the common cause, as above. It was\nhis interest, that they should, each of them, gain as much as could be\ngained without reproach or danger; because, the greater the surplus\nproduced by each disciple, the greater the tribute, that could be paid\nto the spiritual master, under whose command they had put themselves.\nThus far his interest and theirs were in agreement. But, it was his\ninterest, that, while working to these ends, their minds, at the expense\nof whatever torment to themselves, should be kept in a state of constant\nferment, between the passions of hope and fear; because, the stronger\nthe influence of the two allied passions in their breasts, the more\nabundant would be the contributions, of which, to the extent of each\nman's ability, they might reasonably be expected to be productive. Here\nit was, that his interest acted in a direction opposite to theirs: and\nit was by too ardent a pursuit of this his separate interest, that so\nmuch injury, as we shall see, was done to all those other interests.\n\nOf the disease which we shall see described, the description, such as it\nis, is presented, by the matter furnished by the practitioner himself,\nby whose prescription the disease was produced. This matter we must be\ncontent to take, in that state of disorder, which constitutes one of the\nmost striking features of the issue of his brain. In speaking of the\nsymptoms,--addressed as his discourse is to nobody but the patients\nthemselves by whom these symptoms had been experienced,--only in the way\nof allusion, and thence in very general terms, could they naturally have\nbeen, as they will actually be seen to be, presented to view. As to\ndetails,--from them to him, not from him to them, was, it will readily\nbe acknowledged, the only natural course.\n\nIn the same Epistle,--namely in the second, which is the last, but, in a\npassage which does not come till after the announcement, which, as will\nbe seen under the next head, was to operate as a remedy,--stands the\nprincipal part of the matter from whence we have been enabled to collect\nthe nature of the disease. The chapter is the third and concluding\none:--the words that add nothing to the information, are here and there\nomitted.\n\n1. \"Finally, brethren, pray for us ...--that we may be delivered from\nunreasonable and wicked men; for all men have not faith.--And we have\nconfidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the\nthings which we _command_ you.--And the Lord direct your hearts ... into\nthe _patient waiting for Christ_.--Now we _command_ you, brethren ...\nthat ye _withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh\ndisorderly_, and not after the tradition which he received of us.--For\nyourselves know how ye ought to follow _us_: for we _behaved not\nourselves disorderly among you:--Neither did we eat any man's bread for\nnought_: but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we\nmight not be chargeable to any of you.--_Not because we have not power_,\nbut to make ourselves an example unto you to follow us.--for _even when\nwe were with you_, this we _commanded_ you, that _if any would not work,\nneither should he eat_.--For we hear that _there are some which walk\namong you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies_.--Now them\nthat are such, _we command_ and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, _that\nwith quietness they work, and eat their own bread_.--But ye brethren,\n_be not weary in well-doing_.--And if any man obey not our word by this\nEpistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be\nashamed.\"\n\nBy anything we have as yet seen, the symptoms of the disease, it may be\nthought, are not painted in any very strong colours. But, of the\nvirulence of it there is no want of evidence. It may be seen, in the\ndrastic nature of the remedy:--a remedy, for the invention of which, we\nshall, in the next section, see the ingenuity of the practitioner put to\nso extraordinary a stretch.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nPAUL'S REMEDY FOR THE DISORDER, AND SALVO FOR HIMSELF.--ANTICHRIST\nMUST FIRST COME.\n\nWe have seen the disorder: we had before that seen the causes of it. We\nnow come to the remedy--the remedy provided by the practitioner for a\ndisease of his own creating. Of the shape given to this remedy, the\ningenuity will be seen to be truly worthy of the author of the disease.\nIt consists in the announcement made, of an intermediate state of\nthings, of the commencement of which, any more than of the termination,\nnothing is said: except that it was to take place, antecedently to that\noriginally announced state of things, by the expectation of which the\ndisorder had been produced. Of the _time_ of its commencement, no:\nexcept as above, on that point no information is given. But of its\n_duration_, though no determinate information, yet such a description is\ngiven, as suffices for giving his disciples to understand, that in the\nnature of things, it could not be a short one: and that thus, before the\n_principal_ state of things took place, there would be a proportionate\nquantity of time for _preparation_. Satisfied of this, they would see\nthe necessity of conforming themselves to those reiterated \"_commands_,\"\nwith which his prediction had from the first been accomplished; and to\nwhich he had so erroneously trusted, when he regarded them as composing\na sufficient antidote to the poison he had infused. That the warning\nthus provided for them would be a very short one, he left them, it will\nbe seen, no great reason to apprehend. A sort of spiritual monster,--a\nsort of an ape of _Satan_, a rival to the Almighty,--and _that_ by no\nmeans a contemptible one--was to enter upon the stage.\n\nWhat with force and what with fraud, such would be his power,--that the\nfate of the Almighty would have appeared too precarious, had not the\nspirits of his partisans been kept up, by the assurance, that when all\nwas over, the Almighty would remain master of the field.\n\nThe time, originally fixed, by him for the aerial voyage, was too\n_near_. By the hourly expectation of it, had been produced all those\ndisastrous effects which had ensued. After what had been said, an\n_adjournment_ presented the only possible remedy. But this adjournment,\nafter what had been said, by what imaginable means could it be produced?\nOne only means was left by the nature of the case.\n\n     2 Thess. 2:1-12. \"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of\n     our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto\n     him,--That ye _be not_ soon shaken in mind, or be _troubled_,\n     neither by spirit, nor by word, nor _by letter as from us,[66] as\n     that the day of Christ is at hand_.--Let no man deceive you by any\n     means; for _that day shall not come, except_[67] there come a\n     falling away first, and _that man of sin be revealed_, the son of\n     perdition;--_Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is\n     called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the\n     temple of God, showing himself that he is God_[68]--Remember ye\n     not, that when I was yet with you, I told you _these\n     things_[69]--And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be\n     revealed in his time.--For the mystery of iniquity doth already\n     work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of\n     the way.--And _then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord_\n     shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and _shall destroy with\n     the brightness of his coming_.[70]--Even _him, whose coming is\n     after the working of Satan,[71] with all power and signs and lying\n     wonders_[72]--And with all _deceivableness of unrighteousness_ in\n     them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth,\n     that they might be saved.--And for this cause God shall send them\n     strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:[73]--That they all\n     might be _damned, who believed not the truth_,[74] but had pleasure\n     in unrighteousness.\"\n\nTo this rival of his God--God and rival--both of them of his own\ncreation, the creator has not, we see, given any name. By this omission,\nhe has, perhaps, as perhaps he thought to do, rendered the bugbear but\nthe more terrible. The deficiency, such as it is, the Church of England\ntranslators of the English official translation of the Bible, have\nfilled up: they have taken it in hand--this bantling of Paul's--and\nchristened it _Antichrist_. \"He,\" Paul, \"showeth,\" say they, \"a\ndiscovery of _Antichrist_, before the day of the Lord come.\" Such is the\ndiscovery, communicated in the _heading_, prefixed to the second chapter\nof the second of the two Epistles: and, of the readers of this so\nabundantly and gratuitously distributed Bible, how few are there, by\nwhom any such distinction as that between the headings and the text is\nborne in mind! The right reverend divines in question,--were they the\nfirst authors of this discovery, or was it ready-made to their\nhands?--made by that church, from the errors of which their own has been\nso felicitously purified? To this question, let those look out for, and\nfind, the answer,--in whose eyes the profit is worth the trouble.\n\nNot a few are the divines, who have discovered Antichrist sitting in St.\nPeter's chair, with a triple crown on his head. In the chair of Luther,\nor in that of Calvin, would the triple monarch be disposed to discover\nthe hobgoblin, if he thought it worth while to look for him. Has he\never, or has he not, made this discovery already?\n\n\"Oh, but,\" says somebody, \"_we_ does not here mean _we_ only who are\nalive at this present writing; it means, _we_ Christians of all\nages:--any number of ages _after_ this, as well as this, included. In\nthe designation thus given, neither the individuals he was addressing,\nnor he himself, were necessarily comprehended.\" This accordingly, if\nanything, must be said, or the title of the self-constituted Apostle, to\nthe appellation of _false prophet_, must be admitted. Oh, yes! this may\nbe said, and must be said: but what will it avail him? In no such\ncomprehensive sense did _he_ use it; for, in that sense, it would not\nhave answered his purposes: not even his spiritual and declared\npurposes, much less his temporal, selfish, and concealed purposes. Why\nwas it that these disciples of his, as well as he, were to be so\nincessantly upon the watch! I Thess. 5:6, 7, 8. Why, but because \"you\nyourselves,\" says he, ver. 2, \"know perfectly, that the day of the Lord\ncometh like a thief in the night.\" Who, on that occasion, could be meant\nby _we_, but himself and them? In no such comprehensive sense was it\nunderstood by _them_: if it had been, no such consequences as we have\nseen following, could have followed. After the experience he and they\nhad had, of the mischief produced by the narrow sense put upon the\nall-important pronoun, would he have continued thus to use it in that\nsame narrow sense, if it had not been his wish that in that same sense\nit should continue to be understood? Would he have been at all this\npains in creating the spiritual monster, for the declared purpose of\nputting off their expectation of the great day, if, but for this\nput-off, it would not have come on?[75] In what part of all his\npreachings can any distinct ground be seen for any such supposition, as\nthat any portion of the field of _time_, beyond that by which his own\nlife was bounded, was ever present to his view? In the field of _place_,\nyes: in that field his views were of no small amplitude: for in that\nfield it was by his ambition that they were marked out: but in the field\nof _time_, no symptoms of any the smallest degree of enlargement will\nanywhere be found. But, on this occasion, suppose other ages, and those\nothers to any extent, included in his views: from their including such\nfuture ages, would it follow that they had no application to the age\nthen present?--But, supposing them understood to apply to that age,\nthereupon in comes the mischief in full force.\n\nAny man that has been reading these Epistles,--let him suppose, in his\nown breast, any the most anxious desire to raise an expectation, such as\nthat in question: and then let him ask himself, whether it be in the\npower of that desire to suggest language, that would afford any\nconsiderably better promise of giving effect to it.\n\nOf the _nature_ of the _disorder_, as well as of the cause of it,--the\npersons, to whom the world is indebted for the preservation of these\nremains of the self-constituted Apostle,--have given us, as above, some\nconception. Of the _effect_ of the _remedy_, it would have been amusing\nto be informed: unfortunately, this portion of his history is not\ncomprised in the labours of his historiographer.[76]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[63] The account given by Luke of the resurrection and ascension of\nJesus is contained in the last chapter, chap. 24:53. According to this\naccount, by no men was Jesus seen in the interval between those two\nevents, besides the eleven Apostles and a few others, all together not\nmore than enough, to sit down together at meat, in one of the houses of\na village. Luke 25:9, 28, 29, 30. Number of the occasions on which Jesus\nwas seen by the Apostles, two: the company the same without addition,\nand both occasions having place within twenty-four hours. Between these\ntwo occasions it is that Paul sticks in the one of his own invention, in\nwhich Jesus was seen by above five hundred brethren at once.\n\nPoint-blank on this head is the contradiction given to this story of\nPaul's, by his own attendant and historiographer: namely, in the account\nput into the mouth of Peter, speaking to Centurion Cornelius, Acts 10:39\nto 42. Expressly is it there said, ver. 40, \"Him\" (Jesus) \"God raised up\nthe third day, and showed him openly;--Not to all the people, but unto\nwitnesses chosen before of God even to us, who did eat and drink with\nhim after he rose from the dead.\" When in the year 62, or some posterior\nyear, the author of the Acts was writing his history, nothing, it will\nbe inferred, did he know of the contradictory account given by his hero,\nin writing in a letter written in the year 57.\n\n[64] Follows a sample of Paul's logic wrapped up as usual in a cloud of\ntautologies and paralogisms, the substance of which amounts to\nthis:--Jesus resurrects; therefore all men will do the same. Admitting\nthe legitimacy of this induction, what will be the thing proved? That\nevery man, a few days after his death, will come to life again, and eat,\ndrink, and walk in company with his friends.\n\n[65] By the word _prophecy_ the idea meant to be conveyed in Jewish\nlanguage seems to be very generally misconceived. It is regarded as\nexactly synonymous to _prediction_. Nothing can be more erroneous. In\nNew Testament language in particular, it is no less applicable to past\nevents than to future. Witness, \"Prophecy who is it that smote thee.\"\nLuke 17:64. In the Greek, the word is occasion, it meant evidently\nneither more nor less than _speak out_. Hence it came to signify\nspeaking in public: hence again, speaking as a statesman: hence again,\nwriting as a statesman, as well as speaking. Not that a statesman could\never or can ever be a statesman, and in the above sense, _a prophet_,\nwithout being a _predictor_ likewise: as often as any proposed measure\nis on the carpet, such he must be, or what he says must be nothing to\nthe purpose. Merely by uttering a prediction concerning future events,\nPaul would not have included, in his prophecy, any such pretension, as\nthat of a supernatural communication received from the Almighty: but,\nthe one here in question was one which, supposing it true, could not\nhave come from any other source.\n\n[66] Here we have a sort of retractation. This shows how he was\nfrightened.\n\n[67] Here he gives the intermediate warning; thence the respite.\n\n[68] Here we see the rival of Paul's god: and we see how dangerous an\none.\n\n[69] Like enough; but in the same unintelligible style, in which he\ntells all men all things.\n\n[70] All's well that ends well: the friends of the Almighty may now\ndismiss their fears.\n\n[71] Here we see the rival of the Almighty sunk into the ape of Satan.\nWhat if he and Satan had made an alliance? Happily they could not agree,\nor time was wanting for settling the conditions.\n\n[72] All power, with _lying_ to boot. But for the above-mentioned\nassurance, who would not have trembled for Paul's God?\n\n[73] This was fighting the ape of Satan with his own weapons. But--this\nGod of Paul's creation--in what, except an ultimate superiority of\npower, is he distinguishable from Satan and his ape? Those, who have\nbeen so quicksighted of late in the discovery of blasphemy, and so bent\non punishing it,--have they ever found so clear a case as this which is\nbefore us? Would not they have begun at the more proper end, had they\nbegun with the editors of these Epistles?\n\n[74] For this damnation,--on the present as on so many other occasions,\nthose who are so eager to believe, that all who differ from them on a\nquestion of evidence, will be consigned to everlasting torments, are\nindebted to the right reverend translators: the original says\n_condemned_. This may be understood to mean--_damned_ in the ordinary\nsense of the word _damned_, or whatever less unpleasant result may be\nmore agreeable.\n\n[75] Of this child of the self-appointed Apostle's brain, it seems not\naltogether improbable, that, in case of need, some further use was in\ncontemplation to be made: with the skin of this bugbear, might, upon\noccasion, be invested, any person, to whom, either in the character of a\ndeclared _adversary_, or in that of a _rival_, it might happen, to have\nbecome in a certain degree troublesome: a _declared adversary_,--that\nis, either a Gentile or an unbelieving Jew: _a rival_,--that is, one\nwho, believing in the religion of Jesus, adhered to that edition of it,\nwhich had the Apostles of Jesus for its publishers, or followed any\nother edition which was not _his_: one of those, for example, upon whom\nwe have seen him making such bitter war in his Epistle to his Galatians.\nOf the two, the believing rival would of course be much more\ntroublesome, than the non-believing adversary, from whom, if let alone,\nhe would not experience an annoyance. Of this rival class were they\nwhose \"_unrighteousness_,\" 2 Thess. 2:10, had recourse to\n\"_deceivableness_:\" for as to non-believers, no need could they have of\n_deceivableness_; to foil him, they had but to turn aside from him, and\nstand as they were. Those men, whose unrighteousness had recourse to\ndeceivableness, who could they be, but the men of the same description\nin this respect as those, whom in chapter third of his Epistle to his\nGalatians, he complains of as having \"bewitched\" them; and _that_ in\nsuch sort, as to have made him so far lose his temper as to call them\n\"_foolish_:\" and that _they_ were rivals, is a matter altogether out of\ndoubt. In a word, rivals were the only troublesome sort of men, who, at\nthe writing of this Epistle, could, with the nameless monster since\nnamed _Antichrist_, be yet to come.\n\n[76] As for that \"_helmet of faith_,\" which, in the passage first\nquoted, he has been seen commanding his disciples to put on--of that\nfaith, which is the everlasting object of his so indefatigably repeated\n\"_command_,\" and which is always faith in _Paul_,--for of Jesus scarcely\nis so much as a word, except the name, to be found in any of his\nEpistles,--as to this helmet, it is the sort of cap, which a man learned\nhow to put on, when he had made himself perfect, in what may be called\nthe _self-deceptive exercise_, or in a word _the exercise of faith_. It\nis composed of two very simple operations: at the word of command, the\nrecruit turns its face _to_ the arguments on one side; at the word of\ncommand, it turns its back to those on the other side. The test of\nperfection is--its being able to hold in its embrace, for any length of\ntime, both parts together of a self-contradictory proposition; such as,\nthat three _man's-persons_,--to use the German word, or if any _other\nsorts of persons_ there are three others,--are but one. When the helmet\nsits close enough on his head to enable him to do this, there is no fear\nof its falling off. Holding fast to improbabilities, how absurd and\nextravagant soever, is thenceforward but child's play to him:--for\nexample, belief in the future existence of Paul's Antichrist: including,\nthe coming on of those scenes, in which that _raw-head and bloody bones_\nis to be the principal performer.\n\nTo this, as to anything else, the mind of man is capable of being\nbrought, by assurances of infinite enjoyment, in case of his having made\nhimself perfect in this exercise, or of infinite torment in case of his\nneglecting it: of course, still more effectually, by both assurances put\ntogether; and, considering the facility of both operations, easier terms\ncould not very easily be imagined. A capital convenience is--that, for\nproducing faith in this way, not a particle of anything in the shape of\nevidence is necessary: the place of evidence is supplied by\nassurance:--by the intensity, real or apparent, of the persuasion, to\nwhich expression has been given, by what the preacher has said or done.\nThe more intense the apparent assurance on the one part, the greater the\napparent _safety_, obtained by yielding to it, on the other: and thus it\nis, that no absurdity can be so flagrant, that the side on which it is\nfound may not be embraced, under the notion of its being the _safe_\nside. When Paul, with his accustomed vehemence, was preaching the\nworld's end, so many of his Thessalonians as believed in it, believed,\nthat believing in it was being on the safe side. On the part of the\npreacher, the more vehement and impudent the assurance, the greater on\nthe part of the disciple, the apparent _danger_ on the disbelieving, the\napparent _safety_ on the believing side.\n\nBy this means are produced the signs and wonders we read of in the\nEpistles of our modern missionaries; for, how conclusive soever the\nevidence may be, which the assertions they employ might call in for\ntheir support,--conclusive to every reasonable mind by which it was\nreceived,--assuredly it is not by the evidence, but by the unsupported\nassertion, that, on the occasion of those exploits of theirs,--whatever\ncredence has place, is produced.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n     _Paul's supposable Miracles explained._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nOBJECTIONS, APPLYING TO THEM IN THE AGGREGATE.\n\nBut, it may be said, Paul's alleged commission from God was certainly\ngenuine; for it is proved by his miracles. Look at the Acts, no fewer\nthan twelve miracles of his you will find. If then taken by themselves,\nfor want of that accurate conception of the probative form of evidence,\nto which maturer ages have given birth, the account of the miracle by\nwhich his conversion was wrought fails of being completely\nsatisfactory,--look at his miracles, the deficiency will be filled up.\nThe man, to whom God had imparted such extraordinary powers--powers so\ncompletely matchless in these our times,--can such a man have been a\nliar--an impostor? a liar for the purpose of deceit--of giving support\nto a system of deception--and that a lucrative one? An imposition so\npersevering as to have been carried on, from youth to death, through,\nperhaps, the greatest part of his life?\n\nThe observation is plausible:--the answer will not be the less\nsatisfactory.\n\nThe answer has two branches: one, _general_, applying to all the alleged\nmiracles in question, taken in the lump: the other _particular_,\napplying to the several miracles separately considered.\n\nObservations applying to the whole together are, the following:\n\n1. Not by Paul himself, in any one of his own Epistles, is any such\ngeneral assertion made, as that he had received from God or from\nJesus,--or, in a word, that he was in possession of, any such power, as\nthe power of working miracles.\n\n2. Nowhere in the account given of his transactions by the author of the\nActs, is he in any of his speeches represented as making reference to\nany one act of his in the character of a miracle.\n\n3. Nowhere in that same account, is he represented as stating himself to\nbe in possession of any such powers.\n\n4. Not by the author of the Acts, is he spoken of as being in possession\nof any such power.\n\n5. Nowhere by the author of the Acts, is he in any general terms spoken\nof, as producing any effects, such as, in respect of the power necessary\nto the production of them, approach to those spoken of as having been\nproduced by Simon Magus; by that declared impostor, in whose instance,\nno such commission from God is represented as having been received.\n\n6. Neither on the occasion of his conversion, nor on any other occasion,\nis Paul stated to have received from Jesus any such power as that of\nworking miracles:--any such power as the real Apostles are--in Mark\n16:15, 16, 17, 18--stated to have received from Jesus.\n\nWas it that, in his own conception, for gaining credence to his\npretension of a commission from Jesus--from Jesus, styled by him the\nLord Jesus--any need of miracles, or of a persuasion, on the part of\nthose with whom he had to deal, of _his_ having power to work miracles?\nBy no means. Of the negative, the story told by him of the manner of his\nconversion is abundant proof. Of the efficient cause of this change in\nhis mind, the account given, is plainly given in the character of the\naccount of a miracle. But of this miracle, the proof given consists\nsolely in his own evidence: his own statement, unsupported by that of\nany other person, or by reference to that of any other person: his\naccount, of the discourse, which on the occasion of the vision, in which\nnothing was seen but a flood of light, he heard from the Lord Jesus: his\nown account, of the vision, which he says was seen by Ananias: his own\naccount, of that other vision, which, according to Ananias, he, Paul,\nhad had, but of which Paul himself says nothing.\n\nIn the work of his adherent and sole biographer, the author of _the\nActs_,--we have five speeches, made by him, in vindication of his\nconduct, in the character of a preacher of the religion of Jesus; and,\nfrom his own hand, Epistles out of number: yet nowhere is any reference\nmade, to so much as a single miracle wrought by his own hand, unless the\ntrance which he falls into when he is alone, and the vision which he\nsees, when nobody else sees anything, are to be placed to the account of\nmiracles. Miracles? _On_ him, yes; _by_ him, no. True it is, that, on\none occasion, he speaks in general terms of \"signs and wonders,\" as\nhaving been wrought by him. But vague, in the highest degree, is the\nimport, as well as wide the extent, of those general terms: nor is it by\nany means clear, that, even by himself, any such claim was meant to be\nbrought forward, as that of having exhibited any such manifestations of\nsupernatural power, as are commonly regarded as designated by the word\n_miracles_. In the multitude of the persons, whom, in places so widely\ndistant from one another, he succeeded in numbering in the list of his\nfollowers--in the depth of the impression, supposed to have been made on\nthe heart of this or that one of them--in all or any one of these\ncircumstances, it was natural he should himself behold, and, whether he\ndid or no, use his endeavours to cause others to behold, not only so\nmany sources of wonder, but so many circumstances; all conspiring to\nincrease the quantity of that confidence, which, with so much industry,\nand, as far as appears, with such brilliant success, he was labouring\nto plant in every breast: circumstances, serving, in the minds of his\nadherents in general, in the character of a sign or proof, of the\nlegitimacy of his pretension, as above.\n\nBut, of any such supernatural power as that which is here in question,\ncould any such loose and vague expressions be reasonably regarded as\naffording any sort of proof? No:--unless whatsoever, in the affairs of\nmen, can justly be regarded as _wonderful_, ought also to be regarded as\na miracle.\n\nIn one passage, and one alone, either in the Acts or in his own\nEpistles, is he found laying any claim, how distant and vague soever, to\nany such power, as having ever been exercised by him. And, in this\ninstance, no one individual incident being in any way brought to view or\nreferred to, what is said will be seen to amount absolutely to nothing,\nbeing nothing more than, without incurring any such interpretation as\nthat of imposture, is at the present time continually averred by\nChristians of different sects.\n\nHe who makes so much of his _sufferings_, had he wrought any miracles,\nwould he have made nothing of his _miracles_?\n\nIn the next place, although it must be admitted, that, on several\noccasions, by his sole biographer and professed adherent, viz., the\nauthor of the Acts, a sort of colour of the marvellous seems endeavoured\nto be laid on; laid on over the incident itself, and over the part,\nwhich on that occasion was taken by him; yet on no one of these\noccasions, unless perhaps it be the last--of which presently,--does the\naccount, given by him of what passed, wear any such complexion as shall\nrender it matter of necessity, either to regard it as miraculous, or to\nregard the biographer, as having on that occasion asserted a complete\nand downright untruth.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE I.--ELYMAS THE SORCERER BLINDED.--_Acts_ 13:6 to 12.\n\n1. Of these supposable miracles, the first that occurs is that which had\nfor its subject Elymas the sorcerer.\n\nAt Paphos, in the island of Cyprus,[77] Paul and his associate Barnabas\nare sent for, by \"the deputy of the country,\" Sergius Paulus, who\ndesires to hear the word of God. But at that same place is a certain\nJew, of the name of Barjesus, alias Elymas,--a sorcerer by profession,\nwho \"withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.\" To\nthis man, it is not said, either where or when, Paul is thereupon\nrepresented as making a short speech, at the end of which, after calling\nhim a child of the devil, and so forth; he says to him, \"_Thou shalt be\nblind, not seeing the sun for a season_. Thereupon,\" continues the\nstory, \"immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went\nabout seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy,\" it\nconcludes, \"when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the\ndoctrine of the Lord.\"\n\nSupposing this story to have had any foundation in fact,--of the\nappearance of blindness thus exhibited, where shall we look for the\ncause? In a suspension of the laws of nature, performed by the author\nof nature, to no other assignable end, than the conversion of this Roman\ngovernor? At no greater expense, than that of a speech from this same\nPaul, the conversion of a king,--King Agrippa--if the author of the Acts\nis to be believed, was nearly effected. \"Almost,\" says Agrippa, \"thou\nhast persuaded me to become a Christian.\" So often as God is\nrepresented, as operating in a direct--however secret and\nmysterious--manner, upon the heart, _i.e._, the mind, of this and that\nman,--while the accounts given of the suspension of the laws of nature\nare comparatively so few--to speak in that sort of human language, in\nwhich alone the nature of the case admits of our speaking, if the\nexpense of a miracle were not grudged,--might not, in the way above\nmentioned, by a much less lavish use of supernatural power, the same\neffect have been produced? viz., by a slight influence, exercised on the\nheart of governor Paulus?\n\nWhatsoever may have been the real state of the case,--thus much seems\npretty clear, viz., that at this time of day, to a person whose judgment\non the subject should have, for its ground, the nature of the human mind\nas manifested by experience,--another mode of accounting for the\nappearance in question will be apt to present itself as much more\nprobable. That is--that, by an understanding between Paul and\nElymas--between the ex-persecutor and the sorcerer--the sorcerer, in the\nview of all persons, in whose instance it was material that credence\nshould be given to the supposed miracle,--for and during \"_the season_\"\nthat was thought requisite, kept his eyes shut.\n\nThe sorcerer was a Jew:--Paul was also a Jew. Between them here was\nalready one indissoluble bond of connection and channel of intercourse.\nElymas, by trade a sorcerer, _i.e._, an impostor--a person of the same\ntrade with Simon Magus, by whom so conspicuous a figure is cut in the\nchapter of this history--was a sort of person, who, on the supposition\nof an adequate motive, could not naturally feel any greater repugnance,\nat the idea of practicing imposition, at so easy a rate as that of\nkeeping his eyes shut, than at the idea of practicing it, in any of the\nshapes to which he had been accustomed:--shapes, requiring more\ndexterity, and some, by which he would be more or less exposed, to that\ndetection, from which, in the mode here in question, it would be\naltogether secure.\n\nBut Paul--was he in a condition to render it worth the sorcerer's while\nto give this shape to his imposture? Who can say that he was not? Yes:\nif to a certain degree he had it in his power, either to benefit him or\nto make him suffer? And who can say but that these two means of\noperating, were one or other, or both of them, in his power? As to the\nsorcerer's betraying him, this is what he could not have done, without\nbetraying himself.\n\nTrue it is, that, by acting this under part,--this self-humiliating\npart,--so long as Paul stayed, so long was the sorcerer, not the first,\nbut only the second wonder-worker of the town. But no sooner did Paul's\ndeparture take place, than Elymas, from being the second, became again\nthe first.\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE II.--AT LYSTRA, CRIPPLE CURED.--_Acts_ 14:8 to 11.\n\nSecond of these supposed miracles,--cure of the cripple at Lystra.\n\nThis miracle makes a bad match with the before-mentioned one.\n\nSeeing a man at Lystra, neither man's name, nor place's, except in that\ngeneral way, nor time, in any way mentioned,--seeing a man in the guise\nof a cripple, \"_Stand upright on thy feet_,\" says Paul to him with a\nloud voice. \"And,\" continues the story, \"he leaped and walked,\nsteadfastly beholding and perceiving that he had faith to be healed.\"\nChorus of the people thereupon, \"The Gods are come down to us in the\nlikeness of men.\"\n\nTo the production of an appearance of this sort, what was necessary? a\nreal miracle? No, surely: so long as a vagrant was to be found, who,\nwithout any risk, could act a part of this sort for a few pence, in an\nage so fertile in imposture.\n\nTrue it is, that this same man, whoever he was, is represented as being\n\"impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never\nhad walked.\" But these words, how much more than any other words, of the\nsame length, in the same number, did the writing of them cost the author\nof this story? As to the correctness of his narratives,--of the\nself-contradictory accounts given by him of Paul's conversion, a sample\nhas been already given. As to detection, supposing this circumstance\nfalse,--detection is what the account thus given of it renders\nimpossible. For--this same cripple, what was his name? from birth to\nthis time, where had he been living? Of this nothing is said. That, at\nLystra, or anywhere else, the account was ever made public, is neither\naffirmed, nor so much as insinuated: not but that it might have been\npublished, and, at the same time, though as to everything but the scene\nthat exhibited itself to outward appearance, false,--might not have\nfound any person, at the same time able and willing to contradict the\nfalsity, and thus naturalize the miracle.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE III.--DIVINERESS SILENCED.--_Acts_ 16:16-18.\n\nWhile Paul and his suite,--of whom, according to the author of the Acts,\nhe himself was one,--were at Philippi,--a Roman colony, and capital of a\npart of Macedonia,--among their hearers, is Lydia--a purple-seller of\nthe City of Thyatira. Being converted, she receives the whole party into\nher house.\n\nFrom this house, on their way to prayers,--probably in a Jewish\nsynagogue,--they are met by a certain damsel, as nameless as the\nlame-born cripple, who, being possessed of a spirit of divination, or of\nPython, brings to her masters, for masters it seems she had more than\none, much gain by soothsaying. Here then is a female, who, by being\npossessed by or with a spirit,--a real spirit, whether devil or a spirit\nof any other sort,--is converted into a prophetess, and, doubtless, in\nthe main a false prophetess.\n\nIn the present instance, however, she is a true prophetess: for,\nfollowing Paul and his suite, she runs after them, saying, \"These men\nare the servants of the Most High God, which show unto us the way of\nsalvation. And this did she many days.\"\n\nIf, instead of a demon, it had been an angel, that took her vocal organs\nfor the instrument of his communications, it is difficult to say, in\nwhat manner he could have deserved better at the hands of these\n\"servants,\" real or pretended, \"of the Most High God.\"\n\nYet, from some cause or other that does not appear, so it was it\nseems,--there was something about her with which Paul was not well\npleased. \"Being grieved, he turns and says,\"--not to the damsel herself,\nbut to the spirit, which _possessed her_, or rather, since for the\nbenefit of her masters, it brought her so much gain, which _she\npossessed_,--\"I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out\nof her.\"\n\nAmongst the superstitions of that and other ages, one was--the notion of\na property, possessed by such and such words--possessed, by these mere\nevanescent sounds--by the air of the atmosphere, when made to vibrate in\na certain manner:--a property, of working effects in endless abundance\nand variety, and those, too, supernatural ones. In some instances, the\nwonders would be wrought by the words themselves, whatsoever were the\nmouths by which they were uttered. In other instances, they required,\nfor the production of the effects, a person, who being possessed of a\nparticular and appropriate power, should, for the purpose of giving\nexercise to such his power, give them passage through his lips. Of this\nlatter kind was the present case. The command issued as above, \"he,\" for\nit was a he-spirit, \"came out of her,\" the damsel, \"the same hour.\"\n\nWhen the devil that Josephus saw expelled, came out of the man, the\nchannel at which he made his exit, being manifest, it was accordingly\nspecified: it was the man's _nose_. This was something to know:\nespecially, in relation to an occurrence, the time of which was at so\ngreat a distance from our own. At the same time, however, other\nparticulars present themselves, by which curiosity is excited, and for\nwant of which, the information thus bestowed must be confessed to be\nrather imperfect. What the shape of the devil was? what the substance?\nwhence he last came? to what place, to what occupation, after being thus\ndislodged, he betook himself, and so forth: not to speak of many others,\nwhich howsoever instructive and satisfactory it would have been to be\nacquainted with, yet now that all acquaintance with them is hopeless, it\nwould be tedious to enumerate.\n\nIn the present instance, not only as to all these particulars, has the\nhistorian,--eyewitness as it should seem he was of everything that\npassed,--left us in the dark; but, neither has he vouchsafed to afford\nus that single article of information, scanty as it was, for which, as\nabove, in the case mentioned by Josephus, we are indebted to Josephus:\nto Josephus--that most respectable and instructive of the uninspired\nhistorians of his age.\n\nIn relation to this story, as well as to those others, the same question\nstill presents itself:--if told of the present time,--if spoken of in\nsome newspaper, as having happened in the present year,--exists here any\nperson, even among the most ignorant populace, with whom it would obtain\nany permanent credence?\n\nBut, a reported state of things--which, if reported as having had place\nin the present century, would, by its disconformity to the manifest\nstate of things, and the whole course of nature, be regarded as too\nabsurd and flagrantly incredible to deserve to be entitled to a\nmoment's notice,--what is there that should render it more credible,\nwhen reported as having happened in this same world of ours, at any\nanterior point of time?\n\n\nSECTION 5.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE IV.--AT PHILIPPI, AN EARTHQUAKE: PAUL AND SILAS\nFREED FROM PRISON, A.D. 53.\n\nThe passage, in which these events are related, is in Acts 16:19-40,\ninclusive.\n\nOn this occasion three principal events are narrated;--the incarceration\nof Paul, an earthquake, and the liberation of Paul. Between the\nearthquake and the liberation of this prisoner, what was in reality the\nconnection? In the answer there is not much difficulty: The same as that\nbetween the earthquake and any other event that took place after it.\nBut, by an answer thus simple, the purpose of the narrator would not\nhave been answered: the purpose was--to induce, on the part of his\nreaders, the belief--that it was for the purpose of bringing about the\nliberation of the self-constituted Apostle of Jesus, that the earth was\nmade to shake. As to the liberation, by means altogether natural was\nthat event produced: so he himself has the candour to inform us. Of this\nquasi-miracle, or of the last-mentioned one, Philippi, capital of\nMacedonia, was the theatre. By order of the magistrates of that town,\nPaul and his attendant had been beaten one evening, and thrown into\nprison: next morning, came to the jailor an order of these same\nmagistrates, and in obedience to it the prisoners were discharged. That,\nin the minds of these magistrates, there was any connection, between the\nearthquake and the treatment they had given to these adventurers, is not\nso much as insinuated. The purpose, which it had in view, was answered:\nit was the ridding the town of a pair of visitors, whose visit to it had\nproduced disturbance to existing institutions. Acts 16:20-40.\n\nBe it as it may with regard to the historiographer,--that it was an\nobject with his hero to produce a notion of a connection between the\nstripes and the imprisonment he had undergone on one hand, and the\nearthquake on the other, is manifest enough. The person, in whose mind\nthe prisoner had endeavoured to produce the idea of such a connection,\nwas the jailor: and, for its having in this instance been successful,\nthere seems little difficulty in giving credit to the historiographer.\nEverything that appears to have been said, either of Paul or by Paul,\ntends to show the wonderful strength of his mind, and the facility and\npromptitude, with which it enabled him to gain the ascendency over other\nminds. In the language of the place and time, he had bid the\nfortune-telling damsel cease her imposture, and the imposture ceased.\nActs 16:18. Committed to prison he formed a project for making a\nproselyte of the keeper: and, in this too, and in so small a compass of\ntime as a few hours, there seems reason to believe he was successful. In\nhis presumption, in daring to execute the sentence of the law upon so\nholy a person, the keeper saw the cause of the earthquake; and, whether\nby Paul any very strenuous endeavours were used to correct so convenient\nan error in geology, may be left to be imagined. Paul, when introduced\ninto the prison, found no want of comrades: how then happened it, that\nit was to Paul's imprisonment that the earthquake, when it happened, was\nattributed, and not to any of his fellow-prisoners? Answer: It happened\nthus.\n\nOf the trade, which, with such brilliant success, Paul,--with this\njourneyman of his,--was carrying on, a set of songs with the name of God\nfor the burthen of them, constituted a part of the capital, and, as it\nshould seem, not the least valuable. When midnight came, Paul--the\ntrader in godliness--treated the company in the prison with a duet: the\nother prisoners, though they shared in the benefit of it, did not join\nin it. While this duet was performing, came on the earthquake; and Paul\nwas not such a novice as to let pass unimproved the opportunity it put\ninto his hand.\n\nThe historiographer, if he is to be believed, was at this time in Paul's\ntrain, as well as Silas; for so, by the word _we_, in the tenth verse of\nthis same chapter, he, as it were, silently informs us. The beating and\nthe imprisonment were confined to the two principals; by his comparative\ninsignificance, as it should seem, the historiographer was saved from\nit. From the relation, given to him by Paul or Silas, and in particular\nby Paul,--must this conception, formed by the historiographer of what\npassed on the occasion, have of course been derived. It was coloured of\ncourse in Paul's manner: and in his colouring, there was of course no\nwant of the marvellous. By the earthquake, not only were \"foundations\nshaken\" and \"doors opened,\" but \"bands loosened.\" The \"feet\" of the two\nholy men had been \"made ... fast in the stocks,\" ver. 24: from these\nsame stocks, the earthquake was ingenious enough to let them out, and,\nas far as appears, without hurt: the unholy part of the prisoners had\neach of them bands of some sort, by which they were confined; for, ver.\n26, \"everyone's bands were loosed:\" in every instance if they were\nlocked, the earthquake performed the office of a picklock. Earthquakes\nin these latter days, we have but too many, in breaking open doors they\nfind no great difficulty; but they have no such nicety of touch as the\nearthquake, which produced to the self-constituted Apostle a family of\nproselytes: they are no more able to let feet out of the stocks, or\nhands out of hand-cuffs, than to make watches.\n\nThese elucidations being furnished, the reader is desired to turn to the\ntext, and lay before him: to reprint it would require more paper than he\nmight choose to see thus employed.\n\nAs to the name of God and the name of Jesus, the two names, it should\nappear, were not--on the occasions in question--used at random. When the\nfortune-telling damsel was the subject of Paul's holy labours, she\nhaving been in some way or other already gained, ver. 17, the case was\nalready of a sort, in which the name of Jesus Christ, the name under\nwhich the self-constituted Apostle enlisted all his followers,--might be\nemployed with advantage.\n\nWhen Paul and Silas were committed to prison, no such name as that of\n\"Jesus Christ\" would as yet have served. Of \"Jesus Christ\" neither had\nthe keeper as yet heard anything, nor had the other prisoners. But, of\nGod, in some shape or other, they could not but have heard all of them:\n_God_ accordingly was the name, by which at this time the sensibilities\nof the persons in question were to be worked upon. When the earth\ntrembled, the jailor trembled likewise: he \"came trembling and fell\ndown,\" ver. 29, before Paul and Silas. And brought them out, ver. 30,\nand said, \"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?\" Now then was the time come\nfor the enlistment--for the enlistment in the spiritual warfare against\nthe devil and his angels: in the as yet new name of \"the Lord Jesus\nChrist\" were these recruits accordingly enlisted, as now, for the\npurpose of carnal warfare, in the name of King George. \"And they said,\"\ncontinues the narration, ver. 31, \"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and\nthou shalt be saved, and thy house.\"\n\n\nSECTION 6.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE V.--AT CORINTH, PAUL COMFORTED BY THE LORD IN AN\nUNSEEN VISION, A.D. 54.--_Acts_ 18:7-11.\n\nA vision, being a species of miracle, could, no more than a pantomime,\nhave place without some expense. In the present case, as in any other, a\nnatural question is--What was the object to be accomplished, upon which\nthe expense--whatever it was--was bestowed? The answer is--The keeping\nhis attendants, whoever they were, in the necessary state of\nobsequiousness: for no other is perceptible. To the dependants in Paul's\ntrain, it was no very uncommon sentiment to be not quite so well\nsatisfied with the course he took, as he himself was. Corinth was at\nthis time the theatre of his labours: of the men, whoever they were, who\nhad staked their fortunes upon _his_, some,--the historiographer, as it\nshould seem, of the number,--there were, whose wish it was to change the\nscene. In that Gentile city,--the chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue,\nCrispus by name--this man, besides another man, of the name of Justus,\n\"whose house joined hard to\" that same synagogue, had become his\nconverts: \"and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were\nbaptized.\" Eyes, however, there were, in which the success, whatsoever\nit was, was not yet enough to afford a sufficient warrant for his stay.\nA vision was necessary, and a vision accordingly, or at least a\nsomething, which was called by that name, made its appearance. \"Thus\nspake the Lord,\" says the historiographer, ver. 9, \"Thus spake the Lord\nto Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not\nthy peace.----For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt\nthee; for I have much people in this city.\" Nor was the vision without\nits effect; for, as the next verse informs us, ver. 11, \"He continued\n_there_ a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.\"\n\nThat which, on this occasion, may be believed without much difficulty\nis, that the word thus taught by Paul was Paul's word: and, that which\nmay be believed with as little, by those, whoever they may be, who\nbelieve in his original conversion-vision, is--that it was God's word\nlikewise. From Paul himself must the account of this vision have been\ndelivered to the historiographer: for, unless at the expense of a sort\nof miracle, in the shape of an additional vision at least, if not in\nsome more expensive shape, no information of any such thing could have\nreached him. In these latter days, no ghost is ever seen but in a\n_tete-a-tete_: in those days, no vision, as far as appears, was ever\nseen but in the same degree of privacy. A vision is the word in these\npages, because such is the word in the authoritative translation made of\nthe historiographer's. That which Paul is related to have heard,\nis--what we have just seen as above: but that, upon this occasion\nhe saw anything--that he saw so much as a flash of light, this is\nwhat we are not told: any more than by what other means he became so\nwell assured, that the voice which he heard, supposing him to have heard\na voice, was the Lord's voice. In these latter days,--inquiries, of\nsome such sort as these, would as surely be put, by a counsel who were\nagainst the vision,--as, in the case of the Cock-lane Ghost, which\ngave so much exercise to the faith of the archlexicographer,\nwere put by the counsel who were against the ghost; but, by a\nsort of general understanding,--than which nothing can be more\nconvenient,--inquiries, such as these,--how strictly soever in season\nwhen applied to the 19th century of the vulgar ear, are altogether\nout of season, as often as they are applied to the commencement of it.\n\nAs to the speaking by a vision, the only intelligible way, in which any\nsuch thing can really have place, is that, which under the pressure of\nnecessity has been realized by the ingenuity of dramatists in these\nlatter days. Such is the mode employed, when the actors, having been\nstruck dumb by the tyranny of foolish laws, and consequently having no\nauditors, convey to the spectators what information seems necessary, by\nan appropriate assortment of gold letters on a silk ground: whether the\nLord who, on this occasion, according to Paul, spoke to the eyes of\nPaul, came provided with any such implement, he has not informed us.\nWithout much danger of error, we may venture to assert the negative:\nfor, if such was the mode of converse, there was nothing but what might\nhappen without sign or wonder: and, on this supposition, no addition was\nmade by it, to those signs and wonders, which, as has been seen, it was\nhis way to make reference to, in the character of evidence.\n\n\nSECTION 7.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE VI.--AT EPHESUS, DISEASES AND DEVILS EXPELLED BY\nFOUL HANDKERCHIEFS.--_Acts_ 19:1-12.\n\nAt Ephesus, Paul makes a stay of between two and three years; for \"two\nyears\" together, disputing \"daily in the school of one Tyrannus,\" \"so\nthat all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both\nJews and Greeks.\n\n\"And God,\" continues the history, \"wrought special miracles by the hands\nof Paul.\"\n\nThese \"_special_ miracles,\" what were they? Of the whole number, is\nthere so much as a single one particularized? No; not one. _Special_ as\nthey are, the following is the account, and the only account given of\nthem. \"So that,\" continues the history, \"from his body were brought unto\nthe sick, handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them,\nand the evil spirits went out of them.\"\n\nNo circumstances whatever particularized, name of the person, name of\nthe place, description of the time--nothing, by means of which, in case\nof falsity _in toto_, or incorrectness in circumstance, the misstatement\nmight have been exposed,--to what degree of credence, or so much as\nconsideration with a view to credence, vague generalities such as these,\ncan they present so much as the slightest claim? If allusions such as\nthese are to pass proof, where is the imposture, to which proofs--proofs\nsufficient in number and value--can ever be wanting?\n\nOpposed as Paul was, wherever he went,--by gainsayers or\npersecutors, or both--sometimes successful, sometimes altogether\nunsuccessful,--sometimes in a slight degree successful--in so much as\nany one occasion, either in this history, or in any one of his own\nnumerous Epistles, do we find so much as a single one of these\n\"_special miracles_,\" any more than of any other miracles, brought to\nview by him, or so much as alluded to by him, in the character of proofs\nof the commission to which he pretended? Answer: No, not one.\n\nDiseases cured, evil spirits driven out, by handkerchiefs and\naprons!--by handkerchiefs and aprons brought from a man's body! Diseases\ncured and devils seared away by foul linen! By Jesus--by any one of his\nApostles--were any such implements, any such eye-traps ever employed?\nNo; never. As to diseases, if by such means a disease had been\n_propagated_, the case would have been intelligible enough. But what was\nwanted was a miracle: and this would have been no miracle. The price,\nreceived by the holy wearer for any of these cast-off habiliments--the\nprice, of the precious effluvia thus conveyed--by any such little\ncircumstance, had it been mentioned, some light might have been cast on\nwhat was done.\n\nOne thing, indeed, may be stated with some assurance: and this is--that,\nafter a man, well or not well, had received one of these same dirty\nhandkerchiefs, or of these same dirty aprons, no evil spirit in him was\nvisible.\n\nOne other thing may also be stated with no less confidence:--this is\nthat, infection out of the question, and supposing Paul free from all\ncontagious disease, if, without handkerchief or apron, the disease would\nhave had its exit,--by no such handkerchief or any such apron was the\nexit of it prevented.\n\nNote, that all this time, according to this man, the author of the Acts,\nhe himself was in Paul's suite. Yet, taking credit for all these\nmiracles--taking credit thus for miracles out of number, not so much as\none of them all does he take upon himself to particularize.[78]\n\n\nSECTION 8.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE VII.--AT EPHESUS, EXORCISTS SCEVAS\nBEDEVILED.--_Acts_ 19:13-20.\n\nThus it is that, as under the last head has been observed, of all these\nalleged successful exhibitions, not so much as a single one is\nparticularized.\n\nIn lieu, however, of these successes of Paul's, something of a story to\na certain degree particularized we have. But this is--what? a successful\nperformance of Paul's? No: but an unsuccessful attempt of certain\npersons,--here termed exorcists,--who took upon themselves to act\nagainst him in the character of competitors.\n\nWell, then: when the time came for demonstrating supernatural powers by\nexperiment, these exorcists--these impostors, no doubt it was intended\nthey should be deemed--made a very indifferent hand of it. Good: but the\ntrue man, Did he go beyond these same impostors? Not he, indeed: he did\nnot so much as attempt it. But, let us hear his historiographer, who all\nthis while was at his elbow. Acts 19:13-20. \"Then certain of the\nvagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had\nevil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by\nJesus, whom Paul preacheth.\n\n\"And there were,\" continues the narrative, ver. 14, \"seven sons of\nSceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.\" Thus far the\nnarrative.\n\nThe sons of the chief of the priests? Such men styled not only\n_exorcists_ but _vagabonds_? If they are not here, in express terms,\nthemselves styled _vagabonds_, at any rate, what is here imputed to them\nis the doing those same things, the doers of which have just been\nstyled, not only _exorcists_, but at the same time _vagabonds_. But let\nus continue, \"And the evil spirit,\" ver. 15, \"answered and said, Jesus,\nI know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?--And the man, in whom the evil\nspirit was, leaped on them and overcame them, and prevailed against\nthem, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.\" Thus far\nthe narrative.\n\nTo whatsoever order of beings the hero of this tale may have\nbelonged;--whatsoever may have been his proper appellative,--a man with\ntwo natures, one human, the other diabolical,--a man with a devil in\nhim, a madman,--or a man in his sound senses counterfeiting a diabolized\nman or a madman,--the tale itself is surely an eminently curious one. Of\nthese human or superhuman antagonists of his--of these pretended masters\nover evil spirits--the number is not less than seven: yet, in comparison\nof him, so feeble and helpless are they all together, that he not only\nmasters them all seven, but gets them down, all seven together, and\nwhile they are lying on the ground in a state of disablement, pulls the\nclothes off their backs: but whether one after another, or all at the\nsame time, is not mentioned. Be this as it may, hereupon comes a\nquestion or two. While he was stripping any one of them, what were the\nothers about all that time? The beating they received, was it such as to\nrender them senseless and motionless? No: this can scarcely have been\nthe case; for, when the devil had done his worst, and their sufferings\nwere at the height, out of the house did they flee, wounded as they\nwere.\n\n\"Jesus I know, and Paul I know,\" says the mysterious hero, in the\nfifteenth verse. Hereupon an observation or two calls for utterance.\nSupposing him a man, who, knowing what he was about, counterfeited the\nsort of being, who was half man, half devil,--one-half of this speech of\nhis, namely, _Paul I know_, may without much difficulty be believed.\nBut, upon this supposition, forasmuch as he acted with so much effect\nagainst these rivals of Paul's,--a supposition not less natural, to say\nthe least of it, is--that to Paul he was not unknown, any more than Paul\nto him: in a word, that on this occasion, between the evil spirit and\nthe self-constituted Apostle, a sort of understanding had place. Be this\nas it may, how extraordinary a person must he not have been, to\nundertake the complete mastery of seven men at once! Seven men, all of\nthem young enough to have a father, not only living, but officiating as\na priest: and at the same time, all of them old enough, if not to\nexercise, mastery over evil spirits, at any rate to undertake it!\n\nIn Paul's suite, all this time, as far as appears, was the author of\nthis narrative. The scene thus exhibited--was he then, or was he not,\nhimself an eyewitness of it? On a point so material and so natural, no\nlight has he afforded us.\n\nAnother circumstance, not less curious, is--that it is immediately after\nthe story of the unnamed multitudes, so wonderfully cured by foul\nclothes,--that this story of the devil-masters discomfited by a\nrebellious servant of theirs, makes its appearance. Turn now to the\nsupposed true devil-master--on this score, what was it that he did? Just\nnothing. The devil,--and a most mischievous one he was,--_he_ was doing\nall this mischief:--the man, who had all such devils so completely in\nhis power, that they quit possession, and decamp at the mere sight or\nsmell of a dirty handkerchief or apron of his;--he, though seeing all\nthis mischief done,--done by this pre\u00ebminently mischievous as well as\npowerful devil,--still suffers him to go on;--and not any the least\nrestraint in any shape, does he impose upon him; but leaves him in\ncomplete possession of that receptacle, which, according to the\nnarrative, he wanted neither the power nor the will to convert into an\ninstrument of so much mischief. Was it from Paul himself, that, on this\nspecial occasion, for this special purpose, namely, the putting down\nthese presumptuous competitors, this mysterious being received so\nextraordinary a gift? This is not said, but not improbably, as it should\nseem, this was the miracle, which it was intended by the historian\nshould be believed.\n\nOccasions there are--and this we are desired to believe was one of\nthem--in which the impossibility of a thing is no bar to the knowledge\nof it.\n\n\"And this was known,\" continues the narrative, ver. 17, \"And this was\nknown to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus: and fear fell\non them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.\"\n\nNow, supposing this thing known, the fear stated as the result of it may\nwithout difficulty be believed:--fear of being treated as those sons of\nthe chief of the Jewish priests had been: fear of the devil, by whom\nthose, his unequal antagonists, had been thus dealt with: fear of the\nmore skilful devil-master, under whose eye these bunglers had been thus\ndealt with.\n\nBut the name here said to be _magnified_--the name of the Lord\nJesus--how _that_ came to be _magnified_: in this lies all the while the\ndifficulty, and it seems no small one.\n\nThe _name_, on this occasion, and thus said to be employed, whose was\nit? It was, indeed, the Lord Jesus's. But was it successful? Quite the\ncontrary. It made bad worse. In the whole of this business, what was\nthere from which the name of Jesus could in any shape receive\nmagnification? Yes: if after the so eminently unsuccessful use, thus\nmade of it by those exorcists, a successful use had, on the same\noccasion, been made of it by Paul. But, no: no such enterprise did he\nventure upon. Madman, devil, counterfeit madman, counterfeit devil,--by\nproxy, any of these he was ready to encounter, taking for his proxy one\nof his foul handkerchiefs or aprons: any of this sort of work, if his\nhistoriographer is to be believed, he was ready enough to do by proxy.\nBut, in person? No; he knew better things.\n\n\"And many that believed,\" concludes this part of the narrative, ver. 18,\n\"came and confessed, and showed their deeds.\" Yes; supposing there were\nany, by whom all this or any part of it was believed,--that they spoke\nand acted in consequence, may be believed without much difficulty: and,\nwith this observation may the story, and the sort of elucidation\nendeavouring to be given of it, be left to close.\n\n\nSECTION 9.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE VIII.--MAGICAL BOOKS BURNT BY THE\nOWNERS.--_Acts_ 19:19, 20.\n\nSuch as it was, the supposable miracle last mentioned was not without\nits supposed fruit: destruction of property, such as it was--destruction\nof property, and to an amount sufficiently wonderful for the\nsatisfaction of any ordinary appetite for wonders. But let us see the\ntext. It follows in the verse 19, next after that, in which mention is\nmade, as in the last preceding section, of what was done by the \"many\nwho believed.\"\n\n\"Many of them also,\" ver. 19, \"which used curious arts, brought their\nbooks together, and burned them before all men; and they counted the\nprice of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.\" \"So\nmightily,\" ver 20, \"grew the word of God, and prevailed.\" And there ends\nthe story of the books of curious arts.\n\nAs to the sum total, nothing can be more precise: as to the items, could\nthe list of them be but produced, this would be indeed a treasure. As to\nthe denomination _magical_, given in the title of this section to those\nbooks, styled books \"_of curious arts_,\"--in the text, short is the only\napology that need be made for it. Of the number of those _curious arts_\ncould not, most assuredly, have been any of the arts included at present\nunder the name of _fine arts_; of the character of the _arts_ here\ndesignated by the appellation of _curious_, a sufficient indication is\nafforded by the story, by which the mention of them is, as above,\nimmediately preceded. They were the arts, by which effects were\nundertaken to be produced, such as the self-constituted Apostle\nundertook to produce by so much more simple means. How vast soever were\nthe collection, what would be the value of it,--the whole taken\ntogether,--when so much more than could be done by everything which it\nprofessed to teach, could be done by about a score or a dozen words, on\nthe single condition, that the lips by which they were uttered were\nproperly commissioned lips, not to speak of the still more simple\noperation of the touch of a used handkerchief?\n\nOf the state of art and science in the wake of the great temple of\nDiana, the representation here given is of itself no small curiosity.\nBooks of curious arts--all of them arts of imposture--books, employed,\nall of them, in teaching the most secret of all secrets--books of this\ndescription, so well known to all men, as to bear a market-price! a\nmarket-price, so well known to all men, as if it were the price of bread\nand butcher's meat: and, in the single town of Ephesus, these books so\nnumerous,--such the multitude or the value,--or rather the multitude as\nwell as value, of them taken in the aggregate, that the price, that had\nbeen given for such of them as were thus given up, and which are only\npart, and, as it should seem by the word _many_, not the larger part, of\nthe whole number, of those, which, at that same place, were at that same\ntime in existence,--was, upon summing up, found actually to amount, so\nwe are required to believe, to that vast sum.\n\nOf the aggregate, of the prices that had been paid, we are told, for\nthis smaller part of the aggregate number of the books, then and there\nexisting on this single subject,--inadequate, indeed, would our\nconception be of it were we to regard it as not exceeding the value of\nthe whole library collected by King George the Third, and given by his\nsuccessor to the English part of his subjects. _Data_, though not for\nnumeration, yet sufficient for conception, are by no means wanting. To\nconsult Arbuthnot, or any successor of his, would be mere illusion; in\nso far as the value of money is unknown, prices in money serve but to\ndeceive. History--and _that_ the most appropriate history--has furnished\nus with much surer grounds. Thirty pieces of silver, Matt. 28:3-10, was\nthe purchase-money of the field, called _the potters' field_, bought for\na burying-ground, with the money received and returned by the traitor,\nJudas, as the reward for his treachery. Suppose it no more than half an\nacre. What, in English money of the present day, would be the value of\nhalf an acre of land in or close by a closely built metropolis? A\nhundred pounds would, assuredly, be a very moderate allowance. Multiply\nthe hundred pounds by fifty thousand, you have five millions; divide the\nfive millions by thirty, you have, on the above supposition, 166,666_l_.\nand odd for the value of these books. Look to the English translation,\nlook to the Greek original, the pieces of silver are the same.\n\n\nSECTION 10.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE IX.--AT TROAS, EUTYCHUS FOUND NOT TO BE\nDEAD.--_Acts_ 20:7-12.\n\nIn this story may be seen another example, of the facility with which,\nwhen men are upon the hunt for miracles, something may be made out of\nnothing: the most ordinary occurrence, by the addition of a loose word\nor two, metamorphosed into a miracle.\n\nPaul, one evening, was treating his disciples with a sermon: he was at\nthe same time treating them, or they him, with a supper. The\narchitecture of the house was such, that, under favourable\ncircumstances, a fall might be got from the top of it, or thereabouts,\nto the bottom, without much difficulty. If any difficulty there was, on\nthe occasion in question it was overcome. According to circumstances,\nsermons produce on different minds different effects: from some, they\ndrive sleep; in others, they produce it. On the occasion in question,\nthe latter was the effect experienced by a certain youth. His station\nis represented as being an elevated one:--so elevated that, after\nthe fall he got from it, it may be believed without difficulty, he\nlay for some time motionless. Paul \"went down\" to him, we are told,\nand embraced him. The youth received the embrace; Paul, the praise\nof tender-heartedness:--this is what may be asserted with a safe\nconscience, though it be without any special evidence. Trifling,\nhowever, is the boon he received from that congregation, in comparison\nof what he has been receiving from so many succeeding ones--the\nreputation of having made so brilliant an addition to the catalogue of\nhis miracles. By the accident, whatever may have been the interruption,\ngiven by it to the festivity, no end was put to it. Sermon and supper\nended, the rest of the congregation went their way: and with them went\nthe youth, to whom had anything serious happened, the historian would\nscarcely have left us uninformed of it.\n\nOn this occasion, between the hero and his historian, there is somewhat\nof a difference. The historian will have it, that when Paul reached the\nbody he found it dead. Paul's own account of the matter is the direct\ncontrary: so the historian himself informs us. Here then the historian\nand his hero are at issue. But, the historian, having the first word,\nmakes, if we may venture to say so, a rather unfair advantage of it, and\nby this same first word gives a contradiction to what he makes his hero\nsay in the next. \"He was taken up dead,\" says the historian, who was or\nwas not there: \"His life is in him,\" says the preacher, who was there\nbeyond dispute.\n\nBut let us see the text.\n\nACTS 20:7-12.\n\n     7. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came\n     together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart\n     on the morrow, and continued his speech till midnight.--And there\n     were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered\n     together.--And there sat in a window a certain young man named\n     Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long\n     preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third\n     loft, and was taken up dead.--And Paul went down, and fell on him,\n     and embracing him, said, Trouble not yourselves, for his life is in\n     him.--When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread,\n     and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he\n     departed.--And they brought the young man alive, and were not a\n     little comforted.\n\nAt this time of day, any such contrariety might produce some\nembarrassment; but, when it is considered how long ago the thing\nhappened, no such uneasy sensation is experienced. A supposition, by\nwhich all embarrassment is excluded, is so immediately obvious, as to be\nscarce worth mentioning. When Paul reached the body, the soul was\nalready in the other world; but, with the kisses goes a whisper, and the\nsoul comes back again. Whether from indolence or from archness, there is\nsomething amusing in the course the historian takes for enlivening his\nnarration with these flowers: he sketches out the outline, but leaves it\nto our imaginations to fill it up.\n\n\nSECTION 11.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE X.--ON SHIPBOARD, PAUL COMFORTED BY AN ANGEL.\n\nACTS 27:20-25.\n\n     And when neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small\n     tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be preserved was\n     thenceforth taken away.--But after long abstinence Paul stood in\n     the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened to me,\n     and not have loosed from Crete, but have prevented this harm and\n     damage.--And now I exhort you to be of good courage: for there\n     shall be no loss of life among you, but of the ship, _there shall\n     be loss_.--For there stood by me this night an angel of that God,\n     whose I am, and whom I serve, saying,--Fear not, Paul, thou must be\n     brought before Caesar; and lo, God hath graciously given to thee\n     all who sail with thee.--Wherefore, Sirs, be of good courage: for I\n     believe God, that it will be as it hath been told me.\n\nThe sea being stormy, the crew are alarmed. The storm, however, is not\nso violent, but that Paul is able to make a speech, and they to hear it.\nTo keep up their spirits, and, at the same time, let them see the sort\nof terms he is upon with the Almighty, he tells them a story about an\nangel. The angel had been sent to him upon a visit, and was but just\ngone. The business of the angel was to quiet the mind of the Apostle.\nThe matter had been settled. The precious life was in no danger: and,\nnot only so, but, out of compliment to him, God had been pleased to\ngrant to him the lives of all who were happy enough to be in his\ncompany.\n\nIn the situation, in which so many lives are represented as being\nplaced,--no very severe condemnation can easily be passed upon any\nlittle fraud, by which they might be saved. But, is it really to be\nbelieved, that this angel, whom, in a deckless vessel, for the vessels\nof _those_ times were not like the vessels of present times, no person\nbut Paul either saw or heard, was really sent express from the sky by\nGod Almighty, on such an errand? If not, then have we this additional\nproof,--if any additional proof can be needed,--to help to satisfy\nus,--that, where a purpose was to be answered, falsehood, or as he would\nhave called it _lying_, was not among the obstacles, by which Paul would\nbe stopped, in his endeavours to accomplish it.\n\n\nSECTION 12.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE XI.--AT MALTA, A REPTILE SHAKEN OFF BY PAUL\nWITHOUT HURT.--_Acts_ 28:1-6.\n\nA fire of sticks being kindled, a reptile, here called a viper, is\nrepresented as \"coming out of the heat,\" and fastening on Paul's hand.\nOn beholding this incident,--\"the barbarous people,\" as the inhabitants\nare called, whose hospitality kindled the fire for the relief of the\nshipwrecked company, concluded that Paul was a murderer: and were,\naccordingly, in expectation of seeing him \"swollen, or fallen down dead\nsuddenly.\" Nothing of this sort happened, their next conclusion was,\n_that he was a God_. As such, did these barbarians, as did the civilized\ninhabitants of Lystra, sacrifice to him, or in any other way worship\nhim? No: these conceptions of theirs reported, there the story ends.\n\nOf this story, what is to be made? At this time of day, among Christians\nin general, what we should expect to find is, that it passed for a\nmiracle. But, if by miracle is meant, not merely an accident, somewhat\nsingular and extraordinary,--but, by a special act of Almighty power, an\neffect produced, by means disconformable to the uniform course of\nnature,--it might be too much to say, that even by the reporter himself,\nit is for the decided purpose of its being taken for miracle, that it is\nbrought to view.\n\nIf, however, the design was not here, that the incident should be taken\nfor a miracle,--the story amounted to nothing, and was not worth the\ntelling. But, if it _is_ to be made into a miracle, where is the matter\nin it, out of which a miracle can be made?\n\nThe reptile--was it really a viper? Neither the barbarians of Malta, nor\nthe reporter of this story, nor in a word, at that time of day, any\nother persons whatever, were either very complete or very correct, in\ntheir conception of matters belonging to the field of natural history.\nAt present, reptiles are crawling creatures. At this time of day, when\n_leeches_ are excepted, to fasten upon the part they have bitten is not\nthe practice with any reptiles that we know of. If, instead of _viper_,\nthe Greek word had been one that could have been translated\n_leech_,--the story would have been probable enough, but, were it only\nfor that very reason, no miracle could have been made out of it. Shaken\ndown into the fire, that is, into the burning fuel,--a small reptile,\nsuch as a leech, how brisk soever in the water, would be very apt to be\noverpowered by the heat, before it could make its escape: with a reptile\nof the ordinary size of a viper, this would hardly be the case.\n\nBe this as it may, \"he felt,\"--so says the story,--\"he felt no harm.\"\nHow came it that he felt no harm? Because the Almighty performed a\nmiracle to preserve him from harm? So long as eyes are open, causes out\nof number--causes that have nothing wonderful in them--present\nthemselves to view before this. \"The beast,\" as it is translated, \"was\nnot a viper\":--if really a viper, it happened, at that moment, not to be\nprovided with a competent stock of venom: it had already expended it\nupon some other object:--by some accident or other, it had lost the\nappropriate tooth. Not to look out for others,--any mind that was not\nbent upon having a miracle at any price, would lay hold of some such\ncause as one of these, sooner than give itself any such trouble as that\nof torturing the incident into a miracle.\n\nTo bring under calculation the quantity of supernatural power necessary\nto the production of a given effect is no very easy task. At any\nrate,--without more or less of expense in a certain shape, nothing in\nthat way could ever be done. In the case here in question, what could\nhave been the object of any such expense? Was it the saving the\nself-constituted Apostle the pain of a bite? The expense then, would it\nnot have been less--the operation, so to speak, more economical--had a\nslight turn been given to Paul's hand, or to the course of the reptile?\nBut, in either case, neither would the name of the Lord, nor--what was\nrather more material--that of his Apostle, have received that\nglorification which was so needful to it.\n\nAny such design, as that of giving an unequivocal manifestation of\nAlmighty power, such as should stand the test of scrutiny, testifying\nthe verity of Paul's commission to the end of time,--any such design\ncould the incident have had for its final cause? A more equivocal,--a\nless conclusive,--proof of the manifestation of supernatural power,\nseems not very easy to imagine.\n\nHere then comes once more the so often repeated conclusion:--the\nnarrative began to be in want of a miracle, and the miracle was made.\n\nIn those days, among that people, miracles were so much in course, that\nwithout a reasonable number of them, a history would hardly have\nobtained credence: at any rate it would not have obtained readers, and\nwithout readers no history can ever obtain much credence.\n\n\nSECTION 13.\n\nSUPPOSABLE MIRACLE XII.--AT MALTA, DEPUTY PUBLIUS'S FATHER\nCURED.--_Acts_ 28:7-10.\n\n\"In the same quarters,\" says the story--it follows immediately upon that\nof the viper. \"In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of\nthe island, whose name was _Publius_, who received us and lodged us\nthree days courteously.--And it came to pass, that the father of Publius\nlay sick of a fever, and of a bloody flux, to whom Paul entered in and\nprayed, and laid his hands on him and healed him.--So when this was\ndone, others also which had diseases in the island, came and were\nhealed.--Who also honoured us with many honours, and when we departed,\nthey laded us with such things as were necessary.\"\n\nOf the fevers, which, within the compass of any given spot, and any\ngiven space of time, have place, it almost always happens, that a\ncertain number go off of themselves. Of, perhaps, all sorts of\nfever,--at least of almost all sorts at present known, thus much is\nagreed upon by all physicians:--they have at least two regular courses,\none of which terminates in death, the other or others in recovery.\nSupposing the person in question to have had a fever,--what is pretty\nclear is--that, if _of itself_, it would have taken a favourable\ntermination, there was nothing, in the forms employed by Paul, viz.,\nutterance of prayers and imposition of hands, that could have any\nnatural tendency to _cause_ it to take an unfavourable one.\n\nBut--the course afterwards taken by the fever, was there anything in it\nto distinguish it from the ordinary favourable course? If not, in that\ncase, so far from miraculous, there is nothing that is so much as\nwonderful in the case.\n\nNote here two things--the narrator one of the party; the narrative so\nloose and uncircumstantial. But _to see_ is one thing; _to narrate_,\nanother.\n\nThree days, it seems, and no more, did Paul and his suite stay at the\nhouse of this Publius. Was it during that time, or not till afterwards,\nthat Paul performed on him those ceremonies, of which healing is\nrepresented as having been the consequence? Was it within that same\nspace of time, or not till afterwards, that the healing is supposed to\nhave taken place? As to the English word _healing_, it cannot be accused\nof being indecisive. But in some languages they have words, by which a\nvery convenient veil is thrown over the result. In the languages in\nquestion, for the endeavour to heal, whether successful or unsuccessful,\nthe word employed is the same. The Latin affords one of these convenient\nwords, _curo_. The Greek has another, _iasato_, and in the Greek\noriginal of this history, this is the word employed.\n\nIn a case where a ceremony and nothing else is trusted to, it being\nsupposed that the patient really has the disease, the safe and prudent\ncourse is, so to order times and seasons, that between the time of\nperforming the ceremony, and the time at which restoration to health is\nexpected to take place, the time shall have come for the practitioner to\nhave shifted quarters; for, in this case, this is an interval more or\nless considerable during which it being taken for granted that the\ndesired result will take place of course, reward, in the shapes of\nprofit and honour, will pour in upon the scientific head.\n\nHere, as elsewhere, not only no _symptoms_ are particularized, but no\n_place_ is mentioned: no _time_ is particularized, no _persons_ are\nmentioned as _percipient witnesses_: even the individual who was the\nsubject of the cure is not mentioned by name.\n\nAs to the givers of the supposed honours and presents--persons are\nindeed mentioned:--mentioned, but no otherwise than by the name of\n_others_. One individual alone is particularized: particularized as\nhaving received the benefit of these ceremonies. This is the father of\nPublius. This man, to use the phraseology of the passage, was _also\nhealed_. But--this man who was he? He was no less a person than the\nfather of the chief man in the island. Well then, what are the honours,\nwhat the allotment of \"_such things as were necessary_?\" What were the\nproofs of gratitude, afforded by this man, who was so much better able\nto afford such presents, than any of those other persons cured? By such\nproofs of remuneration, some evidence--some circumstantial\nevidence,--supposing them exhibited at a proper time, would have been\nafforded, in proof of the reality of the service. But, neither by the\nperson thus spoken of as healed, nor by his son--the chief man in the\nisland,--is it said that any such proofs were afforded. For such a\nsilence when the case of an individual was brought to view, coupled with\nthe express declaration made, of gifts presented by persons\nunnamed,--three cases cannot but present themselves, as being any one of\nthem more probable, than that, on this occasion, a real miracle was\nperformed. One is--that there was no disease, perhaps no such person:\nanother is, that though there was a disease, it went off of itself: the\nthird is, that it never went off at all.\n\nOne thing may be asserted without much fear of contradiction:\nand that is, that in this country, if in terms such as these,\naccounts were inserted in the public prints;--accounts of diseases\ncured without medicine;--diseases cured by nothing but words and\ngesticulations;--though the accounts given were ever so numerous, not\nthe smallest notice would they be thought worthy of,--not the smallest\nattention would they receive from anyone, unless it were for the joke's\nsake.\n\nWhat is more,--numerous are the publications, in which, encompassed\nwith circumstantiality in all manner of shapes, not only the names of\nthe fortunate patients are mentioned, but under the signatures of those\npatients declarations made, assuring the public of the reality of the\ncure,--and yet, when at the same time, by competent persons, due inquiry\nhas been made, it turns out after all that no such cure has been\nperformed.\n\nAccounts, which would not be believed were they to come out at a time of\nso widely diffused knowledge, are they to be believed, merely because\nthe time they belonged to,--facts and accounts together,--was, as to all\nsuch matters, a time of universal ignorance? The less a man understands\nthe subject, the more firmly is he to be believed, as to everything he\nsays of it? Or is it that, between then and now, _men_ and _things_ have\nundergone a total change? and, if so, when did it take place?\n\n\nSECTION 14.\n\nCONCLUSION: THE SUPPOSABLE MIRACLES CLASSED AND SUMMED UP.\n\nInferences,--conveying more or less of instruction,--may, perhaps, be\nfound deducible,--at any rate our conception of the whole series taken\ntogether, will be rendered so much the clearer, by bringing the same\nsupposed marvels again under review, arranged in the order of time.\n\nFor this purpose, the time may be considered as divided into three\nperiods.\n\nIn the first are included--those, which are represented as having had\nplace during the time when at the outset of his missionary expedition,\nPaul had Barnabas for his associate. Of these there are two, viz. 1. At\nPaphos, A.D. 45, Sorcerer Elymas blinded. 2. At Lystra, A.D. 46, cripple\ncured. Of this part of the expedition, the commencement, as in the\ncurrent account, placed in the year 45.\n\nIn the second period are included--those, which are represented as\nhaving had place, during the time when Paul, after his separation from\nBarnabas, had Silas for his associate, and the unnamed author of the\nActs for an attendant. This ends with his arrival at Jerusalem, on the\noccasion of his fourth visit--the Invasion Visit.\n\nIn the current accounts, this event is placed in the year 60. Within\nthis period, we have the seven following supposed marvels: 1. At\nPhilippi, A.D. 53, divineress silenced. 2. At Philippi, A.D. 53,\nearthquake: Paul and Silas freed from prison. 3. At Corinth, A.D. 54,\nPaul comforted by the Lord in an unseen vision. 4. At Ephesus, A.D. 56,\ndiseases and devils expelled by Paul's foul handkerchiefs. 5. At\nEphesus, A.D. 55, Exorcist Scevas bedeviled. 6. At Ephesus, A.D. 56,\nmagic books burned by the owners. 7. At Troas, A.D. 59, Eutychus found\nnot to be dead.\n\nIn the third period are included--those which are represented as having\nhad place, in the interval between his forced departure from Jerusalem\nfor Rome, and his arrival at Rome.\n\nIn the current accounts, this event is placed in the year 62. Within\nthis concluding period, we have the following supposed marvels: 1. On\nshipboard, A.D. 62, Paul comforted by an angel. 2. At Malta, A.D. 62, a\nreptile shaken off by Paul without his being hurt. 3. At Malta, A.D. 62,\nDeputy Publius's father cured by Paul of some disorder. Year of all\nthese three last marvels, the same as that of Paul's arrival at Rome.\nTotal number of supposed marvels, twelve.\n\nTo the first of these three periods belong two supposed marvels, which,\nsupposing them to have any foundation in truth, present themselves as\nbeing, in a greater degree than most of the others, exposed to the\nsuspicion of contrivance. A moderate sum, greater or less according to\nthe state more or less flourishing of his practice, might suffice to\nengage a sorcerer, for a few minutes or hours, to declare himself\nstruck blind: a still more moderate sum might suffice to engage an\nitinerant beggar, to exhibit himself with one leg tied up, and after\nhearing what was proper to be heard, or seeing what was proper to be\nseen, to declare himself cured.\n\nThis was the period, during which Paul had Barnabas, or Barnabas Paul,\nfor an associate. In these cases, if fraud in any shape had place,--it\nis not without reluctance, that any such supposition could be\nentertained, as that Barnabas--the generous, the conciliating, the\nbeneficent, the persevering Barnabas--was privy to it. But, times and\ntemptation considered, even might this supposition be assented to, on\nrather more substantial grounds, than that which stands in competition\nwith it: namely, that for the production of two effects,--comparatively\nso inconsiderable, and not represented as having been followed by any\ndeterminate effects of greater moment,--the ordinary course of nature\nwas, by a special interposition of Almighty power, broken through and\ndisturbed.\n\nIs it or is it not a matter worth remarking--that, of all these twelve\nsupposed occurrences, such as they are,--in not more than four is the\nhero represented,--even by his own attendant, historian, and\npanegyrist,--as decidedly taking any active part in the production of\nthe effect? These are--the blinding of the sorcerer, the cure of the\ncripple, the silencing of the divineress, the curing of Deputy Publius's\nfather: the three first, at the commencement of this supposed\nwonder-working part of his career; the last,--with an interval of\nfifteen years between that and the first,--at the very close of it. In\nthe eight intermediate instances, either the effect itself amounted to\nnothing, or the hero is scarcely represented as being instrumental in\nthe production of it. These are--the being let out of prison after an\nearthquake had happened--being comforted, whether by God or man, in a\nvision or without one--having handkerchiefs, by which, when he had done\nwith them, diseases and devils were expelled--being present when a gang\nof exorcists were beaten and stripped by a devil, whom they had\nundertaken to drive out of a man--being in a place, in which some\nnonsensical books were burned by their owners--being in a house, in\nwhich a youth said to be dead, was found not to be so--being comforted\nby an angel, who had the kindness to come on board ship\nuninvited--shaking off a reptile, without being hurt by it.\n\nWhatever store may be set at this time of day upon all these marvels,\nless cannot easily be set upon them by anybody than was by Paul himself.\nFor proof, take the whole tenor of his own Epistles, as well as the\nwhole tenor of his visions, as delivered by his attendant. Numberless as\nwere the scrapes he got himself into,--numberless as were the hosts of\nenemies he everywhere made himself,--open as all ears were to everything\nthat presented itself as marvellous,--unable as men were to distinguish\nwhat could be done from what could not be done,--pressing as was at all\ntimes the need he had of evidence, that could arrest the hands of\nenemies,--on no occasion do we find him calling into his aid, so much as\na single one of all these supposed irrefragable evidences.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[77] _And they had also John to their minister_, 13:5. What _John_ was\nthis? Answer, see chap. 15:37 to 40. This appears to have been that\nJohn, whose surname was Mark, who was the cause of the angry separation\nof Paul from Barnabas.\n\n[78] Another branch of his trade, already mentioned in this same\nchapter, as having been carried on by him in this same place, namely,\nEphesus,--and which, where circumstances created a demand for the\narticle, appears to have been more profitable than that of expelling\ndevils or diseases,--is _that_, of which the Holy Ghost was the subject.\nThis power of conferring--that is to say, of being thought to\nconfer--the Holy Ghost,--such, and of such sort was the value of it,\nthat Simon Magus, as there may be occasion to mention in another\nchapter, had, not less than one-and-twenty years before this, offered\nthe Apostles money for it. Acts 8:18-24, A.D. 34. This power, two\npreceding verses of the same 19th chapter, namely the 5th and 6th,\nrepresent Paul as exercising: and, whatsoever was the benefit derived,\ntwelve is the number of the persons here spoken of as having received\nit.\n\nActs 19:5-7. After \"they,\" the above twelve, v. 7, disciples, v. 9,\n\"were baptized, v. 5, in the name of the Lord Jesus;\" when Paul, v. 6,\n\"had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they\nspake with tongues, and prophesied.\" Here then, if, by thus laying on of\nhands, it is by _Paul_ that any operation is performed, it is the\nconferring of \"the Holy Ghost.\" But this power, whence had Paul received\nit? Not from Jesus, had the self-constituted Apostle received this gift,\nwhatever it was, any more than he had baptism, by which ceremony, as\nappears from Acts 8:16, it was regularly preceded: as in the case of the\nmagician it actually had been. Not from Jesus: no such thing is anywhere\nso much as pretended. Not from the Apostles, or any of them; from two,\nfor example, by commission from the rest--as in the case of Peter and\nJohn, Acts 8:14-19:--no such thing is anywhere so much as pretended. In\nno such persons could this--would this--their self-declared superior,\nhave vouchsafed to acknowledge the existence, of a power in which he had\nno share. On this occasion, as on every other, independently of the\nApostles did he act, and in spite of the Apostles.\n\nAs to the \"_speaking with tongues and prophesying_,\" these are\npretensions, which may be acknowledged without much difficulty.\n_Tongues_ are the organs most men speak with. As to _prophesying_, it\nwas an operation that might as well be performed after the fact as\nbefore the fact: witness in Luke 22:64, \"Prophesy, who is it that smote\nthee?\" Read the Bible over from beginning to end, a _prophet_, whatever\nelse be meant, if there be anything else meant, you will find to have\nbeen _a politician: to prophesy_ was to talk _politics_. Make a new\ntranslation, or, what would be shorter, a list of _corrigenda_, and\ninstead of _prophet_ put _politician_,--a world of labour, now employed\nin explanations, will be saved.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n     _Acts, part false, part true: Author not Saint Luke._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nBY THE FALSE PARTS, THE GOSPEL NOT AFFECTED: MOST PARTS TRUE.\n\nIn regard to the Acts, a notion, generally, not to say universally,\nreceived, is--that it had Saint Luke for its author: and that,\naccordingly, it may with propriety be regarded as a continuation of the\nGospel of that Evangelist, written by the same hand. Were this\nconception a correct one, whatsoever shock were given to the credit of\nthe Acts, would unavoidably extend itself to the Gospel history: at any\nrate, to that part of it which bears the name of Luke.\n\nBefore this chapter is at an end,--the reader, if the author is not much\nmistaken, will not only be convinced that that opinion is untenable, but\nsee no small ground for wondering, how by any person, by whom any survey\nhad been taken of the two objects in that point of view, any such notion\nshould ever have come to be entertained.\n\nAnother memento, of which, if made before, even the repetition may in\nthis place, perhaps, be not without its use, is--that, from nothing that\nis here said, is any such conception meant to be conveyed, as that the\nhistory called _The Acts_, is from beginning to end, like that of\nGeoffrey of Monmouth's _History of Britain_, a mere falsity. In a\ngreat part, perhaps even by much the greatest, it is here looked upon as\ntrue: in great part true, although in no inconsiderable part incorrect,\nto say no worse: and, in particular, on every point, on which the colour\nof the marvellous is visible. As to the sort and degree of evidence due\nto it, one general assumption there is, by which the whole of this\ninquiry has, from first to last, been guided. This is--that, in relation\nto one and the same work, whatsoever be the subject of it, credence may,\nwithout inconsistency or impropriety, by one and the same person, be\ngiven and withholden: given, on this or that occasion; withholden, on\nthis or that other occasion: given, in so far as the truth of the\ncontents seems probable; withholden, as far as it seems improbable.\n\nFor the support of this assumption,--all that, on the present occasion,\ncan be offered, is--an appeal to universal experience. As to the general\nfoundations of the law of evidence,--for any excursion into so wide an\nexpanse, neither this chapter nor any other part of this work would, it\nhas been thought, be generally regarded as a proper place. What had been\nwritten on that subject has accordingly been discarded.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nTIME BETWEEN RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION--ACTS CONTRADICTS LUKE.\n\nIn the first place then, Saint Luke cannot have been the author of the\nActs.\n\nThe reason is very simple. In respect of the time between Jesus's\nresurrection and his ascension,--the one of these narratives gives one\naccount, the other, another account: and, so wide is the difference\nbetween the two, that by one and the same person they could not have\nboth been given. According to Saint Luke, the time during which, after\nhis resurrection, and before his ascension, Jesus was seen by his\ndisciples, extended not beyond _one_ day: according to the Acts, it\nextended as far as _forty_ days. By Saint Luke, that the time was not\nmore than a day, is not indeed said in so many words; but upon\nexamination of the text, it will be found, that, consistently with the\nparticulars given, no longer duration can be assigned to it. In the\nActs, that the time, during which he continued showing himself after his\n_passion_, Acts 1:3,[79] to the Apostles, was \"_forty days_,\" is\naffirmed in those very words.\n\nThe point here in question, be it observed, is not _truth_, but\n_consistency_: not the truth of either of the two accounts; but their\nconsistency, the one with the other: and, instead of consistency, so\npalpable is the inconsistency, that the conclusion is,--by no one man,\nwho did not, on one or other of the two occasions, intend thereby to\ndeceive, can both of them, morally speaking, have been penned.\n\nNow for the proof. First, let us hear Saint Luke: it is all of it in his\nlast chapter--the 24th. In verse 10, mention is made of certain women,\nthree named, others not named. In verses 2 and 3, \"they entered into,\"\nit is said, \"the sepulchre,\" ver. 2, \"and found not the body of the Lord\nJesus.\" In ver. 9, \"they returned,\" it is said, \"from the sepulchre, and\ntold all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.\" Thereupon it\nis, that, of all them, \"two\" ver. 13, of whom Cleopas, ver. 18, was one,\n\"went _that same day_ to Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about sixty\nfurlongs: and while they communed together,\" it was that \"Jesus,\" ver.\n15, \"drew near, and went with them,\" whereupon between him and them a\nconversation therein reported, ensued. The conversation,--the same\nconversation, as reported in verses from 16 to 27,--continues till their\narrival at the village, ver. 28, namely, Emmaus, as per ver. 13.\nAccording to the next verse, ver. 29, \"the day,\" namely, that same day,\n\"being far spent,\" at that same place, \"he went in to tarry with them,\"\nthey having \"constrained him.\" Then also it is that, ver. 30, \"he sat at\nmeat with them:\" and, ver. 31, \"they knew him, and he vanished out of\ntheir sight.\" Moreover, \"at that same hour\" it is, ver. 33, that \"they\nreturned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them\nthat were with them, saying,\" ver. 34, \"The Lord is risen indeed, and\nhath appeared unto Simon.\" Then it is also, that, ver. 36, they\nreporting what had passed, \"as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in\nthe midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.\" Thereupon\nfollows a conversation, reported in verses from 37 to 49, in the course\nof which he, ver. 43, \"did eat before them.\" Then it is, that,\nimmediately after the last words, which, in ver. 49, he is stated to\nhave uttered, come these words, ver. 50, \"And he led them out as far as\nto Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to\npass,\" says the next verse, ver. 51, \"while he blessed them, he was\nparted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him,\"\ncontinues the next verse, ver. 52, \"and returned to Jerusalem with great\njoy.\" And, with the next verse, which says, \"they were continually in\nthe temple, praising and blessing God,\"--the chapter, and with it the\nGospel, ends.\n\nSo much for Saint Luke. Now for the author of the Acts, chapter 1, ver.\n3, \"To whom,\" says he, namely the Apostles, ver. 2, \"he,\" namely Jesus,\nver. 1, \"showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible\nproofs, being seen of them _forty_ days...\"\n\nThus while, according to the author of the Acts the time--during which\nJesus was seen by the persons in question was not less than _forty_\ndays,--according to Saint Luke, the whole time, during which this same\nJesus was seen by those same persons, was not more than _one_ day. And\nwho was this historian, who, on the supposition of the identity,\nspeaking of this all-important scene, on one occasion says, that it\nlasted no more than _one_ day; and, on another occasion, professing,\nActs 1:1, to be giving continuance to such his former discourse,\ndeclares, in so many words, that it lasted \"forty days\"? It is Saint\nLuke, one of the Apostles of Jesus;--one, of the eleven, before whose\neyes, everything of that which has just been read, is stated as having\npassed.\n\nWith all this before him, does the editor of the edition of the Bible,\ncalled Scholey's Bible, in a note to the commencement of the Acts, very\ncomposedly assure us, that \"from its style, and other internal marks, it\nis evidently the production of Luke\": quoting for his authority, Bishop\nof Lincoln's _Elements of Christian Theology_, vol. 4. Who this same\nBishop of Lincoln was, by whose Elements of Christian Theology,\ninstruction such as this is administered, let those inquire, in whose\neyes the profit of the inquiry promises payment for the trouble. From\nany such particular inquiry, the profit will perhaps appear the less,\nthe greater appears the probability, that, in the minds of all\nBishops,--from the first that ever committed his instructions in\ntheology to the press, down to those by whom the Christian world is\nilluminated at this present writing,--the same sort of discernment, or\nthe same sort of sincerity, has all along had place.\n\nWhen 20,000_l_, a year--or though it were but 20_l_, once told--or,\nthough it were but salvation from everlasting torment--is to be gained;\ngained, by the perception, that two men, the one of whom writes in\npoint-blank contradiction to the other, are one and the same man,--the\ntask is not, naturally speaking, of the number of those, by the\nperformance of which much wonder need be excited.\n\nThe sort of improvement, made by the author of the later history, upon\nthe account given in the earlier, has now been seen. Would anyone wish\nto see the inducement? He will not have far to look for it. For making\nthe impression, which it was his desire to make,--the _one_ day,\nallotted to the occurrence by one of the company, was not, in the\nestimation of the anonymous writer, sufficient. To render it sufficient,\nhe calls in the powers of arithmetic: he multiplies the _one_ by forty;\nand thus, to the unquestionable satisfaction of a host of\nmathematicians,--Barrow, Newton, and so many other mathematical divines,\nnot to speak of Locke, of the number--thus is done what is required to\nbe done: thus, by so simple an operation, is the probative force of the\noccurrence multiplied forty-fold.[80]\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nAS TO ASCENSION, ACTS IS INCONSISTENT WITH LUKE.\n\nThus far, the embellishments, made by our anonymous artist, have had for\ntheir ground the work of the original hand: meaning always Saint Luke,\nwith whom the common error has identified him. Here comes an instance,\nin which the whole is altogether of his own workmanship. This is the\nstory of the \"two men in white apparel,\" by whom, what, in his eyes,\nwere the deficiencies in the instruction offered by Jesus to the\nwitnesses of his ascension, may be seen supplied.\n\nStill the same delicacy as before: by his own hand no miracle made: only\na quantity of matter, fit for this purpose, put into the hands of\nreaders; and to their imagination is left a task so natural and so,\nagreeable.\n\nScarcely, after finishing his instructions to his Apostles, has Jesus\nceased to be visible to them, when, if Acts is to be believed, \"two men\nin white apparel\"--two men, _to_ whom none of them were known, and _by_\nwhom none of them were known, make their appearance, and from nobody\nknows where. But these same two men in white, who are they? \"Oh!\" says\n_Imagination_, for the hints we have already seen given to her are quite\nsufficient, \"Oh!\" says Imagination, \"they were angels. Think for a\nmoment, and say what else they can have been. Had they been men, could\nthey have been thus unknowing and unknown? could their appearance have\nbeen thus sudden? not less sudden than the vanishing of a spirit? not to\nspeak of the beautiful white clothes you see they had,--and would they\nhave been thus dressed? To believe them men, would be to believe in\ndirect contradiction to Saint Luke; for, in his account of the matter,\nas you may see, from first to last, not two men were there in the whole\nparty, that were not in the most intimate manner known to each other.\nBut though, by Saint Luke's account, so decided a negative is put upon\nall men-strangers, yet nothing is said about angels. Angels, therefore,\nthey may have been,--you may venture to say they _were_: and the report\nmade by all persons present, remains nevertheless uncontradicted.\"\n\n\"Another proof, that they cannot have been men, and that therefore they\nwere angels. Of these beings, who were then unknown to all the company,\nwhat was the errand? It was no less than the giving to the whole company\nof the companions of Jesus,--of that Jesus, by whom, after giving to\nthem such instructions as he thought fit to give to them, they had but\nthat moment been left,--the giving to them some _other_ instructions,\nwhich he had not thought fit, or else had forgot, to give to them. But,\nas by no men-strangers could any such conceit have been entertained, as\nthat, by the party in question, any such instructions would be listened\nto,--so, by no men-strangers can it be that any such instructions were\ngiven:--an additional proof that they cannot have been anything but\nangels.\" Thus readily does the imagination of the reader, answer with\nher logic, the call given to her by the imagination of the author.\n\nAngels if they were, they appear not to have been very knowing ones.\nSent, for the purpose of giving information,--and such information,\nnothing of that which was known to all those, to whom they came to give\nit,--nothing, if they themselves are to be believed, was known to them.\nAddressing themselves to the company--the company whom Jesus had but\nthat moment left,--\"Whom saw ye going up,\" say they, ver. 11, \"into\nheaven\"? Then comes the information, which Jesus, on his departure,\nJesus, we are expected to believe, has not thought fit, or else had\nforgot, to give. \"This same Jesus,\" say they, ver. 11, \"which is taken\nup from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen\nhim go into heaven.\" Here we have the information and--they to whom it\nwas given,--what can they have been the better for it?--\"Shall so come.\"\nYes: but when and where, and to what end, and what to do? points these,\nas to all which, the information is altogether mute.\n\nOne other proof is yet behind. What has been seen as yet is in the first\nchapter. The tenth of his eight and twenty chapters is not finished,\nwhere, speaking in agreement with Saint Luke, he now disagrees with\nhimself. On this occasion, it is by the mouth of Peter that he speaks.\n\"God,\" he makes Peter say, Acts 10:41, \"God showed him,\" Jesus,\n\"openly.\"--Showed him, let anybody ask, and to whom? \"Not,\" says he, \"to\nall the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who\ndid eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.\" Thus again it\nis, that for any men-strangers, not a particle of room is left. But,\nfor angels, considering the materials they are made of, no quantity of\nroom can be insufficient: therefore, once more, nothing can these men\nhave been but angels.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[79] As to the word _passion_, that by this word could not have been\nmeant the same event as that denoted by the word _resurrection_, cannot\nbut be acknowledged. But, with regard to the alleged inconsistency, this\ndistinction will not be found to make any difference: for, as will be\nseen, it is not till after his resurrection, that, by Saint Luke, Jesus\nis represented as having begun to show himself.\n\n[80] In chapter XII. of this work, section 1, notice has already been\ntaken, of a similar operation as having been performed by Paul himself:\nof the improvement made in _that_ case, the subject was the number of\nthe witnesses: according to the real Apostle, who was one of the\ncompany, the number, as we have seen, was eleven, and a few more: this\nnumber, whatever it was, the self-constituted Apostle, who knew nothing\nabout the matter, took in hand, and multiplied till he had raised it to\nfive hundred. Thus, with or without concert, with like effect,--and it\nis almost needless to say, with the same object, and from the same\ninducement,--may be seen the master and the journeyman, working on\ndifferent occasions, but with well-matched industry, at the\nmanufacturing of evidence. Add now together the results of the two\noperations, and note the aggregate. Number of witnesses, according to\nLuke, say,--for the sake of round numbers,--twenty; though there seems\nlittle reason to suppose it so great: addition made to it by Paul, 480.\nNumber of days,--during which, as above, they continued seeing and\nhearing what they saw and heard,--according to Saint Luke, but one:\naccording to Paul's attendant, 40. Multiply together the two\nimprovements, that is to say, the 480 by the 40, you have 19,200 for the\nsum total of probative force, added by the arguments of the author of\nthe Acts to the amount of the original quantity, as reported by Saint\nLuke.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n     _Law Report.--Jews versus Paul: Trials five, with Observations._\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nOn the occasion of what passed at the Temple, the report of a great\nlaw-case,--to speak in modern and English language,--the case of _The\nJews against Paul_, was begun. The judicatory before which he underwent\nthat trial,--partly before the Jewish multitude, partly before the Roman\nchief by whom he was rescued,--was a sort of mixed and extempore\njudicatory, something betwixt a legal and an illegal one: for, as has\nbeen seen in the case of Saint Stephen, and as may be seen in the case\nof the woman taken in adultery, and moreover, in the body of the law\nitself, a sort of mob-law might, not altogether without ground, be\nstated as forming part and parcel of the law of Moses. To this sort of\nirregular trial, succeeded, before the definite judgment was pronounced,\nno fewer than four others, each of them before a tribunal, as regular as\nany the most zealous supporter of what is called legitimacy could\ndesire. In execution of this definitive judgment it was, that Paul was\nsent, on that half-forced, half-voluntary expedition of his, to Rome: at\nwhich place, on his arrival at that capital, the Acts history closes. Of\nthe reports of these several trials, as given in the Acts,--follows a\nsummary view, accompanied with a few remarks for elucidation.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nTRIAL I. PLACE, JERUSALEM TEMPLE.--JUDICATORY, THE MIXED\nMULTITUDE.--_Acts_ 22:1 to 21.\n\nScene, the Temple. Judges, prosecutors, and--stated as intended\nexecutioners, a Jerusalem multitude. Sole class, by whom any declared or\nspecial cause of irritation had been received, the Christianized Jews,\nprovoked by Paul's preachings against the law of the land, to which they\nas yet maintained their adherence; by his intrusion upon their society,\nby which, were it only for his former persecution, he could not but be\nabhorred; and by the notorious perjury he was at that moment committing,\nhaving chosen to commit it, rather than cease to obtrude upon them the\nobject of their abhorrence.\n\nOf the particulars of the accusation nothing is said: but, the above\ncircumstances, and the subsequent charges made upon him the next day by\nthe constituted authorities,--who immediately took up the matter, and\ncarried on a regular prosecution against him,--sufficiently show, what,\nif expressed, would have been the purport of them. By the preparations\nmade for execution, we shall see broken off the defence, before it had\ncome, if ever it was designed to come, to the substance of the alleged\noffence.\n\nPoints touched upon in it are these:--\n\n1. Defendant's birthplace, Tarsus; parentage, Jewish; religious\npersuasion, Pharasaical; education, under Gamaliel, verse 3.\n\n2. Part, borne by him, in the persecution of the Christians, when\nStephen was stoned: his commission for that purpose stated, and the High\nPriest and Elders called to witness, verses 4 and 5.\n\n     N.B. Time of _that_ same commission, according to the received\n     chronology, not less than 26 years before this.\n\n3. Story, of that first vision, of which so much has been seen: namely,\nthat from whence his conversion was dated: occasion, his journey to\nDamascus, for the execution of that same commission, verses 6 to 16.\n\n4. Story of his trance: for this see Chapter IV. \u00a7. 7. In this state,\n\"the Lord\" seen by him.--_Lord to Defendant._ \"Get thee quickly out of\nJerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.\"\n_Defendant, to Lord._ Informing or reminding said Lord of the details of\nthe part borne by said defendant in the persecution of Saint\nStephen.--_Lord to Defendant._ \"Depart, for I will send thee far hence\nunto the Gentiles.\" Note, Defendant cut short: Lord's patience no match\nfor defendant's eloquence.\n\n_Judges and executioners._--At the word _Gentiles_, exclamation:--\"Away\nwith him ... he is not fit to live\":--clothes cast off, as in Stephen's\ncase, as if to prepare for stoning him.[81] \"Dust thrown into the air.\"\nPresent, chief captain Claudius Lysias, who commands him to be \"brought\ninto the castle,\" and \"examined by scourging.\" While, for this purpose,\nthey are binding him, on Defendant crying out, \"_I am a Roman citizen_,\"\nthe binding ceases, no scourging commences: the next day he is released,\nand the \"chief priests and all their council\" are \"sent for,\" and\nDefendant is \"set before them.\"\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nTRIAL II. JUDICATORY, JERUSALEM COUNCIL-BOARD.--_Acts_ 23:1 to 10.\n\nJudges, chief priests in council assembled: present, the high priests.\nProsecutors, the said judge: other prosecutors, as far as appears, none.\nIn modern Rome-bred law, this mode of procedure, in which the parts of\njudge and prosecutor are performed by the same person, is styled the\n_inquisitorial_: in contradistinction to this, that in which the part of\nprosecutor is borne by a different person, is stiled the _accusatorial_.\n\nCharges or questions put, not stated.\n\n_Defendant._ \"I am a Pharisee ... the son of a Pharisee. Of the hope and\nresurrection of the dead I am called in question.\"\n\nThereupon, ver. 9, \"great cry\" ...--\"Great dissention.\" \"Chief captain,\nfearing lest,\" Defendant, \"Paul should have been pulled in pieces of\nthem,\" inuendo the said judges, \"commands soldiers,\" who take him back\ninto the castle.\n\n\"Cry? dissention?\"--whence all this? Acts has not here been explicit\nenough to inform us. As to Defendant's plea, that it was for believing\nin the resurrection that he was prosecuted,--what could not but be\nperfectly known to him was,--that it neither was true, nor by\npossibility could be so. Among said Judges, parties two--Pharisees and\nSadducees: Pharisees the predominant. \"The Sadducees,\" on this occasion,\nsays ver. 8, \"say there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit;\nbut the Pharisees confess both.\" Prosecuting a Pharisee for preaching\nthe resurrection, meaning always the general resurrection, would have\nbeen as if a Church-of-Englandist Priest were indicted in the King's\nBench, for reading the Athanasian creed. Accordingly--it was a stratagem\nof the Defendant's--this same misstatement: such it is expressly stated\nto be:--when defendant \"_perceived_,\" ver. 6, \"that the one part were\nSadducees, and the other Pharisees,\"--then it was that he came out with\nit: and, already it has been seen, how effectually it answered its\npurpose.\n\nEnter once more the history of the _trance_. Note here the sudden\ntermination of Defendant's first Jerusalem visit, alias his\n_Reconciliation Visit_, and turn back to Chapter IV. \u00a7. 7, Cause of\nit,--historian speaking in his own person--\"Grecians,\" Acts 9:29, \"went\nabout to slay him,\" for disputing with them:--historian, speaking, to\nwit, here, in defendant's person, Christianized Jews' disbelief of his\nconversion, and of that vision story of his, that he produced in\nevidence of it. It is on the occasion of the just-mentioned Temple\ntrial, that Defendant is made to come out with it. On that occasion, as\nhath been seen, it was of no use: but, in this second trial, it will be\nseen to be of prime use. That it was told over again at this trial is\nnot indeed expressly said: but, that it was so is sufficiently manifest.\nThis and no other is the handle which his supporters in the council lay\nhold of: and this they could not have done, had he not, as will be seen\npresently, put it into their hands. \"The Scribes,\" says ver. 9, \"that\nwere of the Pharisees' part, arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil\nin this man; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not\nfight against God.\" Well then--this spirit, or this angel, who was he?\nWho but that spirit, whom defendant had so manifestly told them of, and\nwho was no other than that \"_Lord_\" of his, whom he had seen in the\ntrance: in the trance, which, while the multitude were beating him,\ninvention had furnished him with for the purpose.\n\nMark now, how apposite a weapon the Pharisees found, in this same\ntrance, in their war against the Sadducees. As to Jesus,--though from\nfirst to last, so far from being recognized by their sect, he had been\nthe object of that enmity of theirs under which he sunk,--yet, so far\nas, in general terms, he preached the _general_ resurrection,--his\ndoctrine not only agreed with theirs, but was of no small use to them:\nit was of use to them, against those political rivals, whose opposition\nto their sect was the sole cause of everything that was troublesome to\nit. As to Paul,--had he confined himself, to the speaking of Jesus's\n_particular_ resurrection,--this indeed was what no Pharisee could be\ndisposed to admit: but if, by Paul or anyone else, Jesus, or any other\nperson, was at any time seen in an incorporeal state,--here was a piece\nof evidence on their side. With relation to any interview of the\n_Apostles_ with Jesus after his resurrection, nothing that Paul had to\nsay--to say with truth or colour of truth--was anything more than\n_hearsay_ evidence: but, as to that, which on this occasion, he had been\nrelating about the Lord, whom he had seen in his trance,--this, how\nfalse soever, was not only _direct_, but _immediate_ evidence: evidence,\nin the delivery of which, the _relating_ witness stated himself to have\nbeen, with relation to the alleged fact in question, a _percipient_\nwitness.\n\nThat, on this occasion, Paul dwelt, with any particularity, on the\nappearance of Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection, is not said:\nand, as it would not have contributed anything to the purpose, the less\nparticular the safer and the better. _Lord_ or not _Lord_, that which\nappeared was at any rate a _spirit_: and for the war against the\nSadducees, a spirit was all that was wanted: no matter of what sort.\n\n\nSECTION 4.\n\nTRIAL III. PLACE, C\u00c6SAREA.--_Acts_ 24:1-23.\n\nSCENE, \"Governor\" Felix's judicatory. Judge, said Governor. Prosecutor,\nOrator Tertullus: Present, his clients,--the \"High Priest\" and \"the\nElders.\" Procedure, accusatorial. Time, \"twelve days,\" ver. 11, \"after\nTrial 1; eleven, after Trial 2.\"\n\nI. Counsel's Speech--Points touched upon in it, these:--verses 1-4.\n\n1. Opening compliment to Governor Judge.--His \"providence\" and\n\"clemency.\"\n\nII. 1. Vituperative surplusage, of course, as if in B. R.: though not\npaid for, in fees and taxes, by the sheet.--Defendant, \"a pestilent\nfellow.\"\n\nCharges three. To make the matter more intelligible, had the proceeding\nbeen by writing in the first instance, they might have been styled\ncounts.\n\n2. Charge 1. Defendant \"a mover of sedition among all the Jews\nthroughout the world.\"\n\n3. Charge 2. Said Defendant \"a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.\"\n\n4. Charge 3. Defendant \"gone about to profane the temple.\"\n\n5. Statement made of Trial 2, and the termination given to it by Roman\nchief captain Lysias, taking said Defendant out of their hands, and\ncommanding accusers' appearance in this court: verses 7, 8.\n\n6. _Viva voce_ evidence accordant: witnesses, neither quality nor number\nstated. \"And _the Jews_ also assented, saying that these things were\nso.\" ver. 9.\n\nIII. Defendant's defence: verses 10-21.\n\nPoints touched upon in it, these:--\n\n1. Defendant's confidence in this his judge.\n\n2. At Jerusalem \"to worship\" was his errand. The ostensible one, yes: of\nthe real one,--supplanting the Apostles,--of course nothing said.\n\n3. In the temple, defendant was not \"found by _them_,\" by whom?\n\"disputing with any man.\" Disputing? No. It was to take the oath--the\nseven-days-long false oath,--that he went there:--this, and nothing\nelse. The priests, in whose keeping he was, and on whose acceptance the\nvalidity and efficacy of the ceremony depended, were not men to be\ndisputed with.\n\n4. Defendant not found by them \"raising up the people, neither in the\nsynagogues, nor in the city.\" ver. 12. No: neither was any such raising\ncharged upon him: nor would it have suited his purpose. Seditious _acts_\nare one thing; seditious _discourses_, another. From seditious acts he\nhad nothing to gain; from seditious discourses everything: to wit, in so\nfar as the effect of it was to weaken men's attachment to the law of the\nland, and engage them to transfer it to the schism he had raised in the\nreligion of Jesus.\n\n5. General denial: but not amounting to _Not Guilty_. \"Neither _can they\nprove_ the things whereof they now accuse me.\" ver. 13.\n\n6. In verses 14, 15, 16, matter nothing to the purpose. Orthodox his\nbelief: among the objects of it, the resurrection: void of offence\ntowards God and man, his conscience.\n\n7. False pretence--object of this his visit to Jerusalem--of this his\n_Invasion Visit_--falsely stated. \"Now after many years I came to bring\nalms to my nation, and offerings.\" ver. 17.\n\n8. When Defendant was \"found purified in the temple,\" it was \"neither\nwith multitude, nor with tumult.\" True: but nothing to the purpose: the\npriests, in whose boarding-house he was, while the _purifying_, that is\nto say, the eating and paying, process was carrying on, were not a\n_multitude_: nor would _tumult_ have been either profitable or\npracticable.\n\n9. The men, who so found Defendant there, were \"certain Jews from Asia,\"\nand, if they were accusers or witnesses, ought to have appeared in that\ncharacter on the present occasion. \"Who ought,\" says ver. 19, \"to have\nbeen here before thee, and object, if they had aught against me.\" Ought?\nwhy ought they? Defendant called no witnesses: by non-appearance of\nwitnesses, if against him, so far from being injured, he was benefited.\nThe proceeding, too, was _inquisitorial_, not _accusatorial_: it\nrequired no accusers. Jews of Asia indeed? as if there were any Jews of\nAsia, to whom any more natural or legitimate cause of indignation could\nhave been given by his misdeeds, than had been given by them to all the\nJews in Jerusalem, not to speak of the rest of the world, or the\nChristianized Jews.\n\n10. By Defendant's saying to the judges in Trial 2, that it was for\npreaching the resurrection that he stood accused by and before them--by\nthis, without anything else, the indignation thereupon expressed by them\nagainst him had been excited. \"Or else,\" say verses 20, 21, \"let these\nsame here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood\nbefore the council, Except it be for this one voice, that I cried,\nstanding among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called\nin question by you this day.\"\n\nFollows the judge's decision, \"When Felix,\" says ver. 22, \"heard these\nthings, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and\nsaid, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the\nuttermost of your matter.\" Such is stated to have been the decision of\nthe judge: and, so far as regarded what passed on Defendant's trial\nbefore Jerusalem council, it was clearly the only proper one: a more\nimpartial, as well as, in every point of view, suitable witness, the\ncase could hardly have afforded: and, as to the main question, nothing\ncould be more natural, than that what it had fallen in Lysias's way on\nthat occasion to observe, might afford instructive light.\n\nInterlocutory order. Defendant recommitted: but access to him free for\neverybody. \"And he commanded a centurion,\" says ver. 23, \"to keep Paul,\nand to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his\nacquaintance to minister, or come unto him.\"\n\nIn this state continues Paul for \"two years\": at which time, says ver.\n27, \"Porcius Festus came into Felix's room: and Felix, willing to show\nthe Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.\"\n\nIn verses 24, 25, 26, this interval of delay is filled up with an\naccount, such as it is, of certain intrigues, of which the Defendant was\nthe subject. The Roman has a Jewess for his wife. The prisoner is sent\nfor, and wife shares with husband the benefit of his eloquence.\nSelf-constituted Apostle preaches: heathen trembles: trembling, however,\nprevents not his \"hoping\" to get money out of the prisoner, if this part\nof the history is to be believed. \"And after certain days,\" says ver.\n24, \"when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he\nsent for Paul, and heard him concerning,\" what is here called, \"the\nfaith in Christ.\" Faith _in Christ_ indeed? After the word _faith_, the\nword _Christ_ costs no more to write than the word _Paul_: but in\nwhatever was said about faith by Paul, which would be the most prominent\nfigure,--Christ or Paul--may by this time be imagined. As for any faith\nwhich it was in the nature of the case, that the Roman heathen should\nderive from the Greek Jew's eloquence, it must have been faith in Paul,\nand Paul only. Paul he had seen and heard, Christ he had neither seen\nnor heard; nor, for aught that appears, anything concerning him, till\nthat very time.\n\n\"And as he reasoned,\" says ver. 25, \"of righteousness, temperance, and\njudgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this\ntime, when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. He hoped,\"\ncontinues ver. 26, \"that money should have been given him of Paul, that\nhe might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed\nwith him.\"\n\n\nSECTION 5.\n\nTRIAL IV. PLACE AGAIN, C\u00c6SAREA.--_Acts_ 25:1-12.\n\nSCENE, C\u00e6sarea judicatory.--Judge, new Roman governor, Festus.\nAccusers, \"Jews,\" not named, sent by the high priest and his colleagues\nfrom Jerusalem to C\u00e6sarea for the purpose. Defendant still in the\nprison at C\u00e6sarea: Roman judge, at Jerusalem. Prosecutors, the council\nthere--petition to have Defendant brought thither. Judge chooses rather\nto go to him at C\u00e6sarea, than thus send for him to Jerusalem.\n\nAccording to the _historian_, it was for the purpose of causing\nDefendant to be murdered, in the way to the judicatory, that the\nprosecutors were so earnest as they were to obtain the _habeas corpus_:\naccording to _probability_, it was for any purpose, rather than that of\ncommitting any such outrage upon the authority of their constituted\nsuperior, with an army at his command. Be this as it may, instead of\nsending for Defendant to Jerusalem, the judge returned himself to\nC\u00e6sarea.\n\n\"Now,\" says ver. 1, \"when Festus was come into the province, after three\ndays he ascended from C\u00e6sarea to Jerusalem.--Then the high priest and\nthe chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him.--And\ndesired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem,\nlaying wait in the way to kill him.--But Festus answered, that Paul\nshould be kept at C\u00e6sarea, and that he himself would depart shortly\nthither.--Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down\nwith me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.--And\nwhen he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto\nC\u00e6sarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment-seat commanded Paul\nto be brought.\"\n\nCharges, not particularized: said of them, not so much as that they were\nthe same as before. \"Many and grievous complaints against Paul, which\nthey could not prove\": ver. 7--such is the only account given of them.\n\nDefence--points contained in it. As before, no offence, says ver. 8,\nagainst the law--no offence against \"the temple.\" One point added, \"Nor\nyet against Caesar.\" Good. But how comes this here? Here we have a\ndefence, against what, it is plain, was never charged.\n\n_Festus_--judge, to Defendant, ver. 9: \"Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem,\nand there be judged of these things _before me_?\"\n\nDefendant to judge, ver. 10: \"I stand at Caesar's judgment-seat, where I\nought to be judged\": meaning, as appears from the direct words of appeal\nin the next verse,--by a Roman, not by a Jewish judicatory, ought I to\nbe tried. Against the being judged at C\u00e6sarea, instead of Jerusalem, he\ncould not naturally have meant to object: at least, if the historian\nspeaks true, in what he says about the plot for murdering the prisoner\non the road.\n\n2. \"To the Jews,\" says ver. 10, \"have I done no wrong.\" Thus far nothing\nmore is said than _Not Guilty_. But now follows another trait of that\neffrontery, which was so leading a feature in Paul's eloquence, \"as,\"\ncontinues he, \"thou very well knowest.\" Now what anybody may see\nis,--that Festus neither did know, nor could know, any such thing.\nWitness the historiographer himself, who, but eight verses after, (18,\n19, 20,) makes Festus himself, in discourse with King Agrippa, declare\nas much. But the more audacious, the more in Defendant's character; and\nthe greater the probability, that, in the conflict between the\nLaw-Report and the narrative, truth is on the side of the Report.\n\n3. Conclusion: ver. 11, defendant gives judge to understand, that if he,\nthe Defendant, has done any of the things he has been charged with, he\nhas no objection to be put to death: but in the same breath ends with\nsaying, \"I appeal to Caesar!\" submitting thus to Festus's judgment,\nwhatever it may be, and at the same time appealing from it.\n\nFestus judge: ver. 12, \"when he had conferred with _the council_,\"\nwhoever they were,--\"Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar thou\nshalt go.\" Here ends Trial IV.\n\n\nSECTION 6.\n\nTRIAL V. AND LAST.--PLACE, STILL C\u00c6SAREA.\n\nThis requires some previous explanation.\n\nA few days after the last preceding trial, came to C\u00e6sarea, says verse\n13, _Agrippa and Bernice_: Festus being still there: Agrippa, sub-king\nof the Jews under the Romans: Bernice, it may be presumed, his queen:\nsaluting this their superior, their only business mentioned. Follows\nthereupon a conversation, of which Defendant is the subject, and which\ncontinues the length of fourteen verses. Defendant having appealed to\nCaesar, judge has determined to send him to Caesar accordingly. But,\nconsidering that, by the emperor, on the arrival of a man sent to him in\nthe character of a prisoner, some assigned cause, for his having been\nput into that condition, will naturally be looked for; and, as the only\noffences, the Jew stands charged with, are of a sort, which, while to\nthe heathen emperor they would not be intelligible, would to a Jew\nsub-king, if to any one, be sufficiently so;--thereupon it is, that he\ndesires his sub-majesty to join with him in the hearing of the cause,\nand by that means put him in a way to report upon it.\n\nSpeaking of the accusers, \"they brought,\" says Festus to Agrippa in\nverse 18, \"none accusation of such things as I supposed.--But had\ncertain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one\nJesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.--And because I\ndoubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to\nJerusalem, and there be judged of these matters.--But Paul...had\nappealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus...\" Such, as\nabove noticed, is the declaration which the historian puts into the\nmouth of Festus: and this, after having so recently made Paul tell\nFestus, that his, Paul's, having done no wrong to the Jews, was to him,\nFestus, matter of such perfect knowledge.[82]\n\nNow then comes the trial, Acts 26:1. Scene, at C\u00e6sarea, the Emperor's\nBench. Lord chief justice, Roman governor Festus; Puisne judge, Jew\nsub-king Agrippa. Present, \"Bernice...chief captains and principal men\nof the city.\" Special accusers, none. Sole speaker, whose speech is\nreported, the Defendant.\n\nPoints in Defendant's speech, these:\n\n1. Verses 2 and 3. Patient hearing requested, acknowledgment of\nAgrippa's special confidence.\n\n2. Verses 4 and 5. Protestation of Phariseeism.\n\n3. Verses 6, 7, 8. Same false insinuation as before,--Phariseeism the\nsole crime imputed to him.\n\n4. Verses 9, 10, 11. Confession or avowal, whichever it is to be called,\nof his proceedings six-and-twenty years before, against the\nChristianized Jews, shutting them up in prison, in pursuance of\nauthority from \"the chief priests,\" down to the time of his\nconversion-vision. See Table I. Conversion Table.\n\n5. Verses 12 to 20. Account of this same vision. See that same Table.\n\n6. Declaration. \"For _these_ causes the Jews caught me in the temple,\nand went about to kill me.\"--For these causes? For what causes? If for\nbeing a Pharisee, or preaching the general resurrection, or even the\nparticular one,--assuredly no. But, if for the breach of trust, in\njoining with the state offenders, the Christianized Jews, whom he was\ncommissioned to apprehend;--joining with those state offenders, and then\nbringing out the vision-story for an excuse;--if telling everybody that\nwould hear him, that the law of the land was a dead letter;--and, if the\ndenying he had ever done so; and, for giving himself the benefit of such\nmendacious denial, rendering the temple an instrument of notorious\nperjury;--if it was for all this, that they \"went about\" indeed \"to kill\nhim,\"--but to kill him no otherwise than in the manner prescribed by\nthat same law,--Jewishly speaking, they were not to blame in what they\ndid,--humanly speaking, nothing can be seen that is not altogether\nnatural in it.\n\n7. Conclusion: namely, if not of what he would have said,--at any rate,\nof what, according to the reporter, he was permitted to say:--it is\nformed by a passage, in which, in continuance of his plan for keeping up\nhis interest with the Pharisee part of the council, his ingenuity\nemploys itself in strengthening the connection between the particular\nresurrection of Jesus, and the general resurrection maintained by the\nPharisees.\n\n\"Having therefore,\" says verse 22, \"obtained help of God, I continue\nunto this day, _witnessing_ both to small and great, saying none other\nthings than those which the prophets and Moses did say should\ncome:--That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that\nshould rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to\nthe Gentiles.\"--Lord Chief Justice Festus, \"with a loud voice, as he,\"\nthe Defendant, \"thus spake for himself--Paul, thou art beside thyself;\nmuch learning hath made thee mad.\" In the mouth of a Roman, and that\nRoman so high in rank, the notion thus expressed had nothing in it but\nwhat was natural enough. As to the _general_ resurrection, _that_ was\none of the above-mentioned \"questions about their own superstition,\"\nwhich he therefore left to the Jewish judges: as to the _particular_\nresurrection, of this he had heard no better evidence than the\ndefendant's: and what, in discriminating eyes, _that_ was likely to be\nworth, the reader has by this time judged.\n\n8. Defendant in reply, ver. 25: Not mad, but sober:--for confirmation,\nappeal to the Jewish sub-monarch, then and there present. \"I am not mad,\nmost noble Festus; but speak for the words of truth and soberness.--For\nthe King knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely; for I\nam persuaded, that none of these things are hidden from him; for this\nwas not done in a corner.\" Here would have been a place for the five\nhundred, by whom, after his resurrection, Jesus was seen at once--see\nabove chapter--but, upon the present occasion, the general expression,\nhere employed, was deemed preferable. \"King Agrippa,\" continues verse\n27, \"believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.\"\n\nKing Agrippa to Paul, ver. 28. \"Almost thou persuadest me to be a\nChristian.\"\n\nPaul to Agrippa: \"I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that\nhear me this day were both almost and altogether such as I am, _except\nthese bonds_.\" No bad trait of polite oratory this exception.\n\nAssembly breaks up.--\"And when he had thus spoken, the King rose up, and\nthe governor and Bernice, and they that sat with them. And when they\nwere gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth\nnothing worthy of death or of bonds. Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This\nman might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.\"\nObservation. In this observation, something of the obscure seems to\npresent itself. For, Paul himself being the appellant, and _that_ for no\nother purpose than the saving himself from death or bonds, he had but to\nwithdraw the appeal, and, supposing a judgment pronounced to the effect\nthus mentioned, this was everything he could have wished from it. But,\nPaul having already, to judge from his Epistle to the Romans, laid the\nfoundation of a spiritual kingdom in the metropolis of the civilized\nworld,--it looks as if he had no objection to figure there, as we shall\nfind him figuring accordingly, in the character of a state-prisoner, for\nthe purpose of displaying, and in the eye of the Caesar of that day, a\nsample of his eloquence, in a cause so much greater than any in which\nthat of the first Caesar could ever have displayed itself. Reason is not\nwanting for the supposition, that it was by what passed at the council,\nthat the idea was first suggested to him: for \"the night following, the\nLord,\" says 23:11, \"stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul; for\nas thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness\nalso at Rome.\" The Lord has commanded me so and so, is the sort of\nlanguage in which he would naturally make communication of this idea to\nhis attendants.\n\nThe circumstantiated and dramatic style of this part of the narrative,\nseems to add to the probability, that, on this occasion, the historian\nhimself was present. On this supposition, though in the Greek as well as\nin the English, they are represented as if they had quitted the\njustice-room,--any conversation, that took place among them immediately\nafter, in the street, might not unnaturally have been overheard by him.\nIn chapter 24, ver. 23, stands Felix's order of admittance, as above,\nfor Paul's acquaintance, to minister or come to him. One other attendant\nhas appeared, in the character of his sister's son, Acts 23:16; by whom\ninformation was given to Felix, that the men there spoken of were lying\nin wait for him to kill him. On the occasion of this invasion of his, it\nwould have been interesting enough to have had a complete list of his\nstaff.\n\nHere ends trial fifth and last: and in the next verse it is, that,\ntogether with other prisoners, and the historian at least for his free\nattendant, he is dispatched on his voyage. Acts 27:1. \"And when it was\ndetermined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and\ncertain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus'\nband.--And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, _we_ launched...\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[81] If in any former part of this work, in speaking of this scene, the\npersons in question have been spoken of as having actually proceeded to\nacts of manual violence, it was an oversight.\n\nAs to the examination by scourging,--singular enough will naturally\nappear this mode of collecting evidence: declared purpose of it, \"that\nhe,\" the captain, \"might know wherefore _they_,\" the Jews, \"cried out\nagainst him,\" meaning the defendant. A simpler way would have been to\nhave asked _them_; and, as to the scourge, what use it could have been\nof is not altogether obvious. To begin with torturing a man, and proceed\nby questioning him, was, however, among the Romans a well-known mode of\nobtaining evidence. But, then and there, as now and everywhere, unless\nthe United States form an exception, \"whatever is--is right,\" provided\nalways that it is by power that it is done.\n\n[82] Acts 25:12-27.\n\n\"Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast\nthou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.--And after certain\ndays king Agrippa and Bernice came unto C\u00e6sarea to salute Festus.--And\nwhen they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul's cause unto\nthe king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix:--About\nwhom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the\nJews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him.--To whom I\nanswered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die,\nbefore that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have\nlicense to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against\nhim.--Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the\nmorrow I sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded the man to be brought\nforth:--Against whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought none\naccusation of such things as I supposed:--But had certain questions\nagainst him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead,\nwhom Paul affirmed to be alive.--And because I doubted of such manner of\nquestions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be\njudged of these matters.--But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto\nthe hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send\nhim to Caesar.--Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man\nmyself. To-morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.--And on the morrow,\nwhen Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered\ninto the place of hearing, with the chief captains and principal men of\nthe city, at Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth.--And Festus\nsaid, King Agrippa, and all men which are present with us, ye see this\nman about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at\nJerusalem and also here, crying that he ought not to live any\nlonger.--But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death,\nand that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send\nhim.--Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord, wherefore I\nhave brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O, King\nAgrippa, that after examination had, I might have somewhat to\nwrite.--For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not\nwithal to signify the crimes laid against him.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n     _Paul's Doctrines Anti-apostolic_.--_Was he not Anti-Christ?_\n\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nPAUL'S DOCTRINE WAS AT VARIANCE WITH THAT OF THE APOSTLES.\n\nIf Paul's pretensions to a supernatural intercourse with the Almighty\nwere no better than a pretence;--his visit to Jerusalem, from first to\nlast, an object of abhorrence to the Apostles and all their disciples;\nin a word, to all, who in the birthplace of Christianity, bore the name\nof Christian, and were regarded as belonging to the religion of\nJesus;--if, not only to _their_ knowledge, but to that of the whole\npopulation of Jerusalem, he was a depraved character, marked by the\nstain,--not merely of habitual insincerity, but of perjury in its most\naggravated form;--if it was no otherwise than by his having declared\nhimself a Roman citizen, that he escaped from the punishment--apparently\na capital one--attached by the law of the land to the crimes of which he\nhad been guilty; if, in a word, it was only in places, in which\nJesus--his doctrines, and his Apostles--were alike unknown, that this\nself-declared Apostle of Jesus was received as such;--if all, or though\nit were but some, of these points may be regarded as established,--any\nfurther proof, in support of the position, that no doctrine of his,\nwhich is not contained in some one or other of the four Gospels, has any\npretension to be regarded as part and parcel of the religion of Jesus,\nmight well, in any ordinary case, be regarded as superfluous: and, of\nthe several charges here brought to view, whether there be any one, of\nthe truth of which the demonstration is not complete, the reader has all\nalong been invited to consider with himself, and judge. If thereupon the\njudgment be condemnatory, the result is--that whatever is in Paul, and\nis not to be found in any one of the four Gospels, is not Christianity,\nbut Paulism.\n\nIn any case of ordinary complexion, sufficient then, it is presumed, to\nevery judicious eye, would be what the reader has seen already: but the\npresent case is no ordinary case. An error, if such it be, which\nnotwithstanding all the sources of correction, which in the course of\nthe work have at length been laid open and brought to view, has now, for\nupwards of seventeen centuries past, maintained its ground throughout\nthe Christian world, cannot, without the utmost reluctance, be parted\nwith: for dissolving the association so unhappily formed, scarcely,\ntherefore, can any argument which reason offers be deemed superfluous.\n\nFor this purpose, one such argument, though on a preceding occasion\nalready touched upon, remains to be brought to view. It consists of his\nown confession. Confession? say rather avowal: for--such is the temper\nof the man--in the way of boasting it is, not in the way of concession\nand self-humiliation that he comes out with it. Be this as it may--when,\nspeaking of the undoubted Apostles, he himself declares, that he has\nreceived nothing from them, and that he has doctrines which are not\ntheirs, shall he not obtain credence? Yes: for this once, it should\nseem, he may, without much danger of error, be taken at his word.\n\nTo see this--if he can endure the sight--will not cost the reader much\ntrouble, Table II. _Paul disbelieved Table_, lies before him. Under the\nhead of _Independence declared_, in Paul's Epistle to his Galatians,\nchapter 1, verses 11, 12, he will find these words. \"But I certify you,\nbrethren, that the Gospel which was _preached of me is not after man_:\nfor _I neither received it of man_, neither was _I taught, but by the\nrevelation of Jesus Christ_.\" Thus far Paul. If then it was not received\nby him by the revelation of Jesus Christ--this Gospel of his; nor yet,\nas he assures us, \"_of man_,\"--the consequence is a necessary one--it\nwas made by him, out of his own head.\n\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nOF CONFORMITY, USE MADE OF THE NAME OF JESUS NO PROOF.\n\nOf the name of Jesus, whatever use he may have made--made (as it was\nseen) without authority--can any use, made in contradiction to this his\nown confession, afford any the slightest ground for regarding _his_\nGospel, whatever it be,--his Gospel, or any part of it,--as belonging to\nthe religion of Jesus? If so, then are all impostors the persons they\nfalsely pretend to be--all counterfeit productions of any kind, genuine\nones.\n\nWhile preaching to Gentiles at a distance from Jerusalem, from any use\nhe could have the assurance to make of so revered a name, it is almost\nsuperfluous to observe, how much he had to gain, and how little to lose.\nIn a case of this sort, how much soever there may be that is offensive\nin the demeanour of the pretended agent eulogizing, no part of it is\nascribed to the pretended principal eulogized: and, in such his eulogy,\nthe pretended agent is not hampered by any of those considerations, by\nwhich he would stand precluded from all prospect of advantage, had he\nthe effrontery to lay it in equally strong colours on himself. Thus, in\nthe case of Paul, from putting in the foreground where he did, the name\nof Jesus, there was this great advantage to gain: and, the pretended\nprincipal being never present to disavow him, the consequence was--that,\nso long as no accredited and credited agents, of that same principal,\nwere at hand to contradict his pretensions,--the mere name of this\nprincipal would be no obstacle, to the preaching of doctrines, ever so\ndecidedly at variance with his.\n\nIf, on the other hand,--in a company, in which he was preaching\ndoctrines of his own, which were not Jesus's,--men should happen to be\npresent, to whom, by reason of their personal acquaintance with Jesus,\nor with any immediate disciples of Jesus, these same doctrines of Paul's\nshould be perceived and declared not to be Jesus's, here would be an\ninconvenience: and, on this account,--wherever, without using the name\nof Jesus, or any other name than his own, he could be sufficiently\nassured, of obtaining a degree of confidence sufficient for his\npurpose,--this course, supposing it successful, would, on several\naccounts, be more advantageous.\n\nHere then, on each occasion, or at any rate on some occasions, would be\nan option for him to make: namely, either to preach in the name of\nJesus, or else to set up for himself:--to set up for himself, and, on\nthe strength of a pretended revelation from the Almighty, without the\nintervention of Jesus, preach in no other human name than his own.\n\nFrom a passage, in the first of his two Epistles to his Corinthian\ndisciples, it looks as if an experiment of this kind--an experiment for\nadding nominal independence to real--had actually been tried: but that,\nthe success of it was not such as to be followed by continuance. For\nthis suspicion--for it is but a suspicion,--any reader who thinks it\nworth his while may see the grounds in the subjoined note.[83]\n\n\nSECTION 3.\n\nPAUL, WAS HE NOT ANTICHRIST?\n\nA child, of Paul's ready and fruitful brain--a bugbear, which the\nofficious hands of the English official translators of his Epistles,\nhave in their way christened, so to speak, by the name of\n_Antichrist_,--has been already brought to view. See Chap. XII. \u00a7. 4. If\nthere be any persons, to whose religion,--in addition to a devil, with\nor without horns and tail,--with or without other spirits, in no less\ncarnal howsoever unrepulsive forms,--an Antichrist is necessary for the\ncompletion of the polytheistical official establishment; and if, in\nplace of an ideal, they can put up with a real Antichrist,--an\nAntichrist of flesh and blood,--they need not go far to look for one. Of\nSaul, alias Paul, the existence is not fabulous. If, in his time, a\nbeing there was, in whom, with the exception of some two or three\nattendants of his own, every person, that bore the name of Christian,\nbeheld, and felt an opponent, and that opponent an indefatigable\nadversary, it was this same Paul: Yes, such he was, if, in this\nparticular, one may venture to give credence, to what has been seen so\ncontinually testified,--testified, not by any enemy of his, but by his\nown dependent,--his own historiographer,--his own panegyrist,--his own\nsteady friend. Here then, for anybody that wants an Antichrist, here is\nan Antichrist, and he an undeniable one.\n\nAntichrist, as everybody sees, Antichrist means neither more nor less\nthan that which is opposed to Christ. To Christ himself, the bugbear,\nchristened by the English bishops _Antichrist_, was not, by its creator,\nspoken of as opposing itself. To Christ himself, Paul himself could not,\nat that time, be an opponent: the Jesus, whom he called Christ, was no\nlonger in the flesh. But of all that, in the customary figurative\nsense--of all that, in any intelligible sense, could on this occasion be\ncalled _Christ_--namely, the real Apostles of Jesus, and their disciples\nand followers,--Paul, if he himself is to be believed, was an opponent,\nif ever there was one.\n\nPaul preached the resurrection of the dead. Agreed. But did not all\nPharisees do so, too? And was not Paul a Pharisee? And Jesus--had he not\nin all Pharisees so many opponents? And the real Christians, had they\nanywhere in his lifetime, any other opponent so acrid or so persevering\nas this same Paul?\n\nPaul preached the resurrection of the dead. Agreed. But _that_\nresurrection of the dead which he preached, was it not a resurrection,\nthat was to take place in the lifetime of himself and other persons then\nliving? And--any such resurrection, did it accordingly take place?[84]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[83] \"Were ye baptized,\" says he, speaking to his Corinthians, 2 Cor.\nii. 13. \"Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?--I thank God,\" continues\nhe, \"that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius,--Lest any man\nshould say that I had baptized in mine own name.--And I baptized also\nthe household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any\nother.\" For an experiment of this kind, it should seem from that\nEpistle, that motives were by no means wanting. For, among these same\ndisciples, in the preaching of his doctrines, he had found himself\nannoyed by divers names more or less formidable: there was the name,\nthough probably never the person--of _Cephas_, the real Hebrew name, of\nwhich, in the four Gospels, written as they are in Greek, _Peter_ is the\ntranslation: there was the name, and not improbably the person--of\n_Apollos_, whom, about three years before, Acts 18:18-26, two female\ndisciples of Paul's, Aquila and Priscilla, had at Ephesus enlisted under\nhis banners: there was, according to him, _the name of Christ_, though\nassuredly, never the person of _Jesus_.\n\n\"For it hath been declared unto me of you, brethren,\" says he, 1 Cor. i.\n11, \"that there are contentions among you,--Now this I say, that every\none of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I\nof Christ.\" Thereupon follows immediately a short flourish of Paulian\neloquence:--\"Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye\nbaptized in the name of Paul?\" and so forth, as above.\n\n\"Division,\" says he, \"among you:\" in this phrase may be seen the style\nof modern royalty. Towards a will so intimately connected with the\ndivine as the royal, no such temper of mind, so intolerable as\nopposition, is ever to be supposed: were it on all occasions equally\nknown--known to all, and alike interpreted by all, no division could\nhave place: but, some put one interpretation upon it, some another: in\nsome eyes, this course is regarded as best adapted to the giving effect\nto it; in others, that: hence that division, to which, on every\noccasion, it is the duty of all to put the speediest end. Now then as to\nPaul. This same assumed fatherly affection, under the name of\nelder-brotherly--this desire of seeing concord among brethren--what was\nit in plain truth? Answer, love of power. Would you have proof? Take in\nhand this same Epistle of his to his Corinthians, or, if at verse the\ntenth, it will be to this purpose early enough, and read on, till you\ncome to chapter iv. verses 15, 16. \"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the\nname of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and\nthat there be no divisions among you: but that ye be perfectly joined\ntogether in the same mind, and in the same judgment.--For it hath been\ndeclared unto me,\" and so forth, as above. Read on, and at length you\nwill come to the essence of all this good advice, 1 Cor. 4:15. \"For,\nthough ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,\" says he, \"yet have\nye not many fathers; for, in Christ Jesus, _I have begotten you_,\nthrough the Gospel.--Wherefore, I beseech you, _be ye followers of me_.\"\n\nAt this time, it should seem that, on the occasion of this his courtship\nof the Jews of Corinth, not only was the name of Peter an object of his\ndeclared rivalry, but the name and person of his own sub-disciple\nApollos, an object of his jealousy. \"For, while one saith,\" 1 Cor. iii.\n4, \"I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not,\" says he,\n\"carnal?--Who then,\" continues he, \"is Paul, and who is Apollos, but\nministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?--I\nhave planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.--Now he that\nplanteth and he that watereth are one; and every man shall receive his\nown reward according to his own labour.\" Fifteen verses after comes a\nflourish, in which Apollos is spoken of for the last time. \"Whether\nPaul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things\npresent, or things to come, all are yours;--23. And ye are Christ's, and\nChrist is God's.\" At the word _Cephas_ ends, it may have been observed,\ncommon sense: what follows being dust for the eyes: dust, composed of\nthe flowers of Saulo-Paulian eloquence.\n\nAs to Apollos, if so it was, that, at one time, in the mind of our\nspiritual monarch, any such sentiment as jealousy, in regard to this\nsub-minister had place, it seems to have been afterwards, in some way or\nother, removed: for, in his Epistle to Titus, bearing date about seven\nyears after, namely A.D. 64, the devotion of the subject seems to have\nbeen entire. Speaking to Titus, Tit. 3:13, \"Bring with you,\" says Paul,\n\"Zenas the lawyer, and Apollos, on their journey diligently, that\nnothing be wanting to them.\"\n\n[84] Paul must have thought that he had the Church at Corinth under\ncomplete control of his hypnotic suggestion or otherwise so much under\nhis control as to assume the exalted office of Clairvoyant Oracle\nwithout question. He says, 2 Cor. 1-7, \"I must needs glory, though it is\nnot expedient; but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord, I\nknow a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body I know\nnot; or whether out of the body, I know not, God knoweth). Such a one\ncaught up even to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in\nthe body, or apart from the body, I know not, God knoweth); how that he\nwas caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is\nnot lawful for a man to utter. On behalf of such a one will I glory: but\non mine own behalf I will not glory, save in my weakness. For if I\nshould desire to glory, I shall not be foolish; for I shall speak the\ntruth: but I forbear, lest any man should account of me above that which\nhe seeth me to be, or heareth from me.\n\n\"And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations--wherefore,\nthat I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me _a thorn in\nthe flesh_, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I should not be\nexalted overmuch. Concerning this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that\nit might depart from me.\n\n\"And he has said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee.\"\n\nIt would require a Swift, Dryden, Pope, Milton or Knowles to stage the\nabove so as make appreciable objective quantities out of the above\nverbal terms. They might create characters and give them the plumage of\nangels, nymphs, spirits, heathen gods, etc., and so feast the\nimagination into paranoia.\n\n\"Thorn in the flesh.\" This phrase has baffled the Ecclesiastics. The\nearlier Commentators interpreted it to mean Paul's great disappointment\nin all his schemes to subordinate the Apostles of Christ to his\npersonal dominion of which so much has been disparaged by the author.\n\n\n\n\nEND.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX TO CONTENTS.\n\n\n  TABLE I-XXII\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n  Paul's Conversion. Improbability and Discordancy of the\n  Accounts of it                                                     1\n\n  1. List of these Accounts, with preliminary Observations.\n     Table in which they are confronted                              1\n\n  2. Vision I. Dialogue on the road: Paul hears a voice,\n     sees nothing                                                    8\n\n  3. Vision II. Ananias's                                       21, 34\n\n  4. Ananias: his Visit to Paul at Damascus                     26, 57\n\n  5. Vision III. Paul's anterior Vision, as reported by the\n     Lord to Ananias. _Acts_ ix. 12                                 62\n\n  6. Visions, why two or three, instead of one?                     64\n\n  7. Commission to Paul by Jerusalem Rulers--Commission\n     to bring in Bonds Damascus Christians--Paul's Contempt\n     put upon it                                                    69\n\n  8. Companions--had Paul any upon the road?                        72\n\n  9. In Paul's Epistle to his Galatians,--by his silence, Acts\n     Accounts of his Conversion are virtually contradicted          77\n\n\n  TABLE II\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  Outward Conversion--how produced--how planned                     89\n\n  1. Motive, Temporal Advantage--Plan                               93\n\n  2. At Damascus, no such Ananias probably                          97\n\n  3. On Damascus journey--Companions none                          100\n\n  4. Flight from Damascus: Causes--false--true                     101\n\n  5. Arabia Visit--mentioned by Paul, not _Acts_              108, 113\n\n  6. Gamaliel--had he part in Paul's plan?                         125\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  _Paul disbelieved_.--Neither his divine Commission nor his\n  inward Conversion ever credited by the Apostles or their\n  Jerusalem Disciples.--Source of Proof stated                     135\n\n  1. To Paul's Conversion Vision, sole original Witness\n  himself                                                          135\n\n  2. Counter-Witnesses, the Apostles: by them, the Story\n     probably not heard--certainly not credited                    136\n\n  3. In proof, so much of the _Acts_ history must here be\n     anticipated                                                   138\n\n  4. Topics under his several Jerusalem Visits: _viz_.\n     I. Reconciliation Visit                                  139, 143\n\n  5. Topics under Visit II.--Money-bringing Visit                  153\n\n  6. Remarks on Visit III.--Deputation Visit                       154\n\n  7. Topics under Visit IV.--Invasion Visit                        156\n\n  8. Self-written Biography--its superior Value and Claim\n     to Credence                                                   159\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  _Paul disbelieved_ continued. _First_ of his four Visits\n  to Jerusalem after his Conversion--say _Jerusalem Visit\n  I_. or _Reconciliation Visit_.--Barnabas introducing him\n  from Antioch to the Apostles                                     160\n\n  1. Paul's Proceedings between his Conversion and this\n     Visit.--Contradiction. Per Paul, it was not till after\n     three Years spent in Arabia; per _Acts_, immediately          164\n\n  2. Grounds of Paul's Prospect of Reconciliation on this\n     Occasion with the Apostles and their Disciples                171\n\n  3. Occasion of this Visit, as per _Paul's_ own Account           177\n\n  4. Occasion, as per _Acts_ Account compared with Paul's          180\n\n  5. Cause of the Discordance between the two Accounts             188\n\n  6. Length of this Visit                                          192\n\n  7. Mode and Cause of its Termination                             197\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  _Paul disbelieved_ continued. _Jerusalem Visit II._\n  _Money-bringing Visit._--Barnabas accompanying him\n  from Antioch                                                     203\n\n  1. At Antioch, Agabus having predicted a Dearth, Money\n     is collected for the Jerusalem Saints                         203\n\n\n  2. Barnabas and Paul dispatched with the Money to Jerusalem      208\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  _Paul disbelieved_ continued.--_Jerusalem Visit III._\n  _Deputation Visit._--_Paul_ and _Barnabas_ delegated by\n  _Antioch_ Saints, to confer on the Necessity of Jewish Rites\n  to Heathen Converts to the Religion of Jesus                     211\n\n  1. Occasion of this Visit                                        211\n\n  2. The Delegates how received.--Council of Apostles and\n     Elders                                                        215\n\n  3. Debates--Course carried by _James_ against _Peter_            220\n\n  4. Result, supposed Apostolic Decree and Letter to\n     _Antioch_, which, per _Acts_, Paul circulates                 224\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  _Paul disbelieved_ continued. After his third Jerusalem\n  Visit, Contest between him and _Peter_ at Antioch.\n  _Partition Treaty_: _Paul_ for himself: _Peter_, _James_\n  and _John_ for the Apostles                                      228\n\n  1. _Contest_ and _Partition-Treaty_, as per _Acts_ and\n     _Paul's Epistles_                                             228\n\n  2. Partition-Treaty--_Probability_, given by the _financial\n     Stipulation_, to Paul's Account of it                         238\n\n  3. _Time_ of the Partition-Treaty, most probably that of\n     _Visit I_                                                     242\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  _Interview the Fourth._--_Peter_ at _Antioch_.--Deputies to\n  Antioch from Jerusalem, _Judas_ and _Silas_.--Paul disagrees\n  with _Peter_ and _Barnabas_, quits Antioch, and on a\n  Missionary Excursion takes with him _Silas_. What concerns\n  the Partition Treaty, down to this Period, reviewed.--Peter\n  and the Apostles justified                                       249\n\n  1. _Paul's_ Account of this Interview quoted.--_Acts_\n     Account of what followed upon it                              249\n\n  2. Paul disagrees with _Peter_ and _Barnabas_; quits\n     Antioch, taking _Silas_ from the Apostles                     252\n\n  3. The _Partition Treaty_, and the proceedings in relation\n     to it, down to this Period, _reviewed_                        255\n\n  4. Peter and the Apostles justified, as to the _financial\n     Stipulation_ in the Treaty, and the succeeding Missionary\n     Labours of _Peter_ among the _Gentiles_                       258\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n\n  _Paul disbelieved_ continued.--_Jerusalem Visit IV._ and\n  last _Invasion Visit_. The Purpose concealed: Opposition\n  universal; among his own Disciples, and among those of the\n  Apostles                                                         266\n\n  1. Motives to this Visit                                         266\n\n  2. The Visit _announced_ by Paul and _deferred_                  267\n\n  3. The design indefensible                                       272\n\n  4. Opposition made to it by his own _attendants_ and other\n     _adherents_                                                   275\n\n  5. Opposition made to it by the _Apostles_ and their\n     disciples                                                     277\n\n  6. Plan of the _Apostles_ for _ridding themselves_ of Paul       282\n\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n\n  _Paul disbelieved_ continued.--_Jerusalem Visit IV._\n  continued. His Arrival and Reception. Accused by all the\n  Disciples of the Apostles, he commences an _exculpatory\n  Oath_ in the Temple. Dragged out by them--rescued by a\n  Roman Commander--sent in Custody to Rome                         288\n\n  1. At Jerusalem, Paul is received by the _Elders_ and\n     _James_; but by _no other Apostle_                            288\n\n  2. Low Tone assumed by him on this Occasion                      291\n\n  3. Posterior to all his supposed Miracles, his Silence\n     proves them unreal                                            295\n\n  4. Accused by the Disciples, he commences, at the\n     Recommendation of the Apostles, an _exculpatory\n     Oath_ in the Temple                                           298\n\n  5. The Design of this Recommendation justified                   308\n\n  6. Dragged out of the Temple by _Jews_ or _Christians_,\n     he is saved by a Roman Commander                              309\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n\n  _Paul disbelieved_ continued.--Paul's _fourth Jerusalem\n  Visit_ continued. _Perjurious_ was the Purpose of the\n  exculpatory Ceremony commenced in the Temple                     310\n\n  1. General Proof of the Perjury from the Acts                    310\n\n  2. Proof from the Epistles                                       327\n\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n\n  More Falsehoods.--Resurrection-Witnesses multiplied.--World's\n  End predicted.--To save credit, Antichrist invented              333\n\n  1. Resurrection-Witnesses multiplied                             333\n\n  2. False Prophecy, that the World would end in the Lifetime\n     of Persons then living                                        338\n\n  3. Disorder and Mischief produced by this Prediction             343\n\n  4. Paul's Remedy for the Disorder, and Salvo for himself.\n     _Antichrist_ must first come                                  347\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIII.\n\n  Paul's supposable _Miracles_ explained                           354\n\n  1. Objections, applying to them in the Aggregate                 354\n\n  2. Supposable Miracle I. Elymas the Sorcerer blinded.--_Acts_\n     xiii. 6-12                                                    358\n\n  3. Supposable Miracle II.--At Lystra, Cripple cured.--_Acts_\n     xiv. 8-11                                                     361\n\n  4. Supposable Miracle III.--Divineress silenced.--_Acts_\n     xvi 16-18                                                     362\n\n  5. Supposable Miracle IV.--At Philippi, an Earthquake:\n     Paul and Silas freed from Prison, A.D. 53                     365\n\n  6. Supposable Miracle V.--At Corinth, Paul comforted by\n     the Lord in an _unseen_ Vision, A.D. 54--_Acts_\n     xviii. 7-11                                                   369\n\n  7. Supposable Miracle VI.--At Ephesus, Diseases and\n     Devils expelled by foul Handkerchiefs.--_Acts_\n     xix. 1-12                                                     372\n\n  8. Supposable Miracle VII.--At Ephesus, Exorcist Scevas\n     bedeviled.--_Acts_ xix. 13-20                                 373\n\n  9. Supposable Miracle VIII.--Magical Books burnt by the\n     Owners.--_Acts_ xix. 19, 20                                   380\n\n 10. Supposable Miracle IX.--At Troas, Eutychus found\n     not to be dead.--_Acts_ xx. 7-12                              382\n\n 11. Supposable Miracle X.--On Shipboard, Paul comforted\n     by an Angel.--_Acts_ xxvii. 20-25                             385\n\n 12. Supposable Miracle XI.--At Malta, a Reptile shaken off\n     by Paul without hurt.--_Acts_ xxviii. 1-6                     386\n\n 13. Supposable Miracle XII.--At Malta, Deputy Publius's\n     Father cured.--_Acts_ xxviii. 7, 8                            389\n\n 14. Conclusion: the Supposable Miracles classed and\n     summed up                                                     393\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIV.\n\n  Acts, Part false, Part true: Author not Saint Luke               397\n\n  1. By the false Parts, the Gospel not affected: most Parts\n     true                                                          397\n\n  2. Time between Resurrection and Ascension--Acts contradicts\n     Luke                                                          398\n\n  3. As to Ascension, Acts inconsistent with Luke                  403\n\n\n  CHAPTER XV.\n\n  Law Report.--Jews _versus_ Paul: Trials five, with\n  Observations                                                     406\n\n  1. Introduction                                                  406\n\n  2. Trial I. Place, Jerusalem-Temple.--Judicatory, the mixed\n     Multitude.--_Acts_ xxii. 1-21                                 407\n\n  3. Trial II. Judicatory, Jerusalem Council-Board.--_Acts_\n     xxiii. 1-10                                                   409\n\n  4. Trial III. Place, C\u00e6sarea.--_Acts_ xxiv. 1-23                413\n\n  5. Trial IV. Place, again, C\u00e6sarea.--_Acts_ xxv. 1-12           417\n\n  6. Trial V. and last.--Place, still C\u00e6sarea                     420\n\n\n  CHAPTER XVI.\n\n  Paul's Doctrines Anti-Apostolic.--Was he not Antichrist?         426\n\n  1. Paul's Doctrine was at variance with that of the\n     Apostles                                                      426\n\n  2. Of Conformity, use made of the Name of Jesus no Proof         428\n\n  3. Paul, was he not Antichrist?                                  432\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:\nPunctuation corrected without comment. Original spelling retained with\nthe exception of the following apparent typesetting errors:\n\nPg iv \"D'unning's\" changed to \"Dunning's\"--\"Dunning's clearness\"\n\nPg xxiv \"Stright\" changed to \"Straight\"--\"street which is called\nStraight,\"\n\nPg 13 \"read\" changed to \"road\"--\"in the road leading\"; \"was\" changed\nto \"what\"--\"But what is\"\n\nPg 14 \"superservicable\" changed to \"superserviceable\"--\"such a\nsuperserviceable witness\"\n\nPg 75 \"proveable\" changed to \"provable\"--\"real and provable facts.\"\n\nPg 79 \"he\" changed to \"the\"--\"uprightly according to the truth of the\ngospel\"\n\nPg 81 \"Casearea\" changed to \"Caesarea\"--\"down to Caesarea\"\n\nPg 82 \"Cladius\" changed to \"Claudius\"--\"in the days of Claudius\"\n\nPg 83 \"Gentile\" changed to \"Gentiles\"--\"among the Gentiles\"; missing\nword \"brethren\" added \"unto the brethren\"\n\nPg 84 \"the\" changed to \"they\"--\"when they were dismissed\"; \"Casearea\"\nchanged to \"Caesarea\"--\"landed at Caesarea\"\n\nPg 119 \"pourtrayed\" changed to \"portrayed\"--\"is not ill portrayed\"\n\nPg 120 \"woud\" changed to \"would\"--\"Ephesus would not\"; \"coud\" changed\nto \"could\"--\"could not have endured\"\n\nPg 142 and 226 \"Galacia\" changed to \"Galatia\"--\"Galatia stands fifth,\"\nand \"over [all] Galatia\"\n\nPg 178 numbering corrected. Original had two 1's.\n\nPg 179 \"narative\" changed to \"narrative\"--\"in such case, the narrative\"\n\nPg 222 \"cosideration\" changed to \"consideration\"--\"is the consideration,\nupon\"\n\nPg 251 \"saled\" changed to \"sailed\"--\"Mark and sailed unto\"\n\nPg 261 \"has\" changed to \"his\"--\"Had his mind been\"\n\nPg 262 \"unsatifactory\" changed to \"unsatisfactory\"--\"not altogether\nunsatisfactory\"\n\nPg 273 \"probably\" changed to \"probable\"--\"so much as probable.\";\n\"ligitimate\" changed to \"legitimate\"--\"the only legitimate government:\"\n\nPg 275 \"attedant\" changed to \"attendant\"--\"of his attendant\"\n\nPg 280 \"distiguished\" changed to \"distinguished\"--\"distinguished by\nthe name\"; \"dissuation\" changed to \"dissuasion\"--\"was a dissuasion to\nthe\"\n\nPg 292 \"and\" changed to \"an\"--\"an old disciple\"\n\nPg 296 \"irrestible\" changed to \"irresistible\"--\"so perfectly\nirresistible.\"\n\nPg 318 \"previoulsy\" changed to \"previously\"--\"it was previously\nrequisite\"\n\nPg 319 \"chcarge\" changed to \"charge\"--\"took charge of her.\"\n\nPg 337 \"be to\" changed to \"to be\"--\"not to be forgotten.\"\n\nPg 363 \"in\" changed to \"on\"--\"on their way\"\n\nPg 365 \"absurb\" changed to \"absurd\"--\"too absurd and flagrantly\"\n\nPg 366 \"succussful\" changed to \"successful\"--\"instance been successful\"\n\nPg 376 \"epirits\" changed to \"spirits\"--\"masters over evil spirits\"\n\nPg 386 missing word \"be\" added--\"purpose was to be answered\"; \"their\"\nchanged to \"theirs\"--\"conceptions of theirs reported,\"\n\nPg 415 numbering corrected, II changed to III; 13 changed to 10.\n\nPg 438 \"Galations\" changed to \"Galatians\"--\"In Paul's Epistle to\nhis Galatians\"","title":"Not Paul, but Jesus","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":139442}