Not Paul, but Jesus
by Jeremy Bentham · English · Gutenberg #42984 · 842,495 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Not Paul, but Jesus
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Not Paul, but Jesus
Author: Jeremy Bentham
Editor: John J. Crandall
Release date: June 18, 2013 [eBook #42984]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42984
Credits: Produced by Dianne Nolan and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NOT PAUL, BUT JESUS ***
Transcriber's Note: Italics are indicated by _underscores_.
Not Paul, But Jesus
BY JEREMY BENTHAM, ESQR.,--The Eminent
Philosopher of Sociology, Jurisprudence,
&c., of London.
With Preface Containing Sketches of His Life and
Works Together with Critical Notes by John
J. Crandall, Esqr., of the New Jersey Bar--author
of Right to Begin and Reply
EDITOR'S PREFACE.
Jeremy Bentham, an eminent English judicial or jural philosopher, was
born in London, February 15, 1748, and died at Westminster, his
residence for six years previously, June 6, 1832. His grandfather was a
London Attorney; his father, who followed the same profession, was a
shrewd man of business, and added considerably to his patrimony by land
speculations. These London Benthams were probably an offshoot from an
ancient York family of the same name, which boasted a Bishopric among
its members; but our author did not trouble himself to trace his
genealogy beyond the pawnbroker. His mother, Alicia Groove, was the
daughter of an Andover shopkeeper. Jeremy, the eldest, and for nine
years the only child of this marriage, was for the first sixteen years
of his life exceedingly puny, small and feeble. At the same time, he
exhibited a remarkable precocity which greatly stimulated the pride and
affection of his father. At five years of age he acquired a knowledge of
musical notes and learned to play the violin. At four or earlier, having
previously learned to write, he was initiated into Latin grammar, and in
his seventh year entered Westminster School. Meanwhile, he was taught
French by a private master at home and at seven read Telemaque, a book
which strongly impressed him. Learning to dance was a much more serious
undertaking, as he was so weak in his legs.
Young as he was, he acquired distinction at Westminster as a fabricator
of Latin and Greek verses, the great end and aim of the instruction
given there.
When twelve years old, he was entered as a Commoner at Queen's College,
Oxford, where he spent the next three years. Though very uncomfortable
at Oxford, he went through the exercises of the College with credit and
even with some distinction. Some Latin verses of his, on the accession
of George III, attracted a great deal of attention as the production of
one so young. Into all of the disputations which formed a part of the
College exercises, he entered with zeal and much satisfaction; yet he
never felt at home in the University because of its historical monotony,
and of all of which he retained the most unfavorable recollections.
In 1763, while not yet sixteen, he took the degree of A.B. Shortly
after this he began his course of Law in Lincoln's Inn, and journeyed
back and forth to Oxford to hear Blackstone's Lectures. These lectures
were published and read throughout the realm of England and particularly
in the American Colonies. These were criticised by the whole school of
Cromwell, Milton and such followers as Priestly and others in England
and many in the Colonies in America. Young Bentham returned to London
and attended as a student the Court of the King's Bench, then presided
over by Mansfield, of whom he continued for some years a great admirer.
Among the advocates, Dunning's clearness, directness and precision most
impressed him. He took the degree of A.M. at the age of 18, the
youngest graduate that had been known at the Universities; and in 1772
he was admitted to the Bar.
Young Bentham had breathed from infancy, at home, at school, at college
and in the Courts, an atmosphere conservative and submissive to
authority, yet in the progress of his law studies, he found a striking
contrast between the structural imperialism of the British Empire as
expounded by Blackstone and others of his day, and the philosophical
social state discussed by Aristotle, Plato, Aurelius, the struggling
patriots of France, and the new brotherhood, then agitating the colonies
of America.
His father had hoped to see him Lord-Chancellor, and took great pains to
push him forward. But having perceived a shocking contrast between the
law as it was under the Church imperial structure and such as he
conceived it ought to be, he gradually abandoned the position of a
submissive and admiring student and assumed a position among the school
of reformers and afterwards the role of sharp critic and indignant
denouncer.
He heroically suffered privations for several years in Lincoln's Inn
garrett, but persevered in study. He devoted some of his time to the
study of science. The writings of Hume, Helvetius and others led him to
adopt utility as the basis of Morals and Legislation. There had
developed two distinct parties in England: The Radicals and
Imperialists. The Radicals contended that the foundation of Legislation
was that utility which produced the greatest happiness to the greatest
number.
Blackstone and the Ecclesiastics had adopted the theory of Locke, that
the foundation of Legislation was a kind of covenant of mankind to
conform to the laws of God and Nature, as interpreted by hereditarily
self-constituted rulers.
Bentham contended that this was only a vague and uncertain collection of
words well adapted to the promotion of rule by dogmatic opinions of the
Lords and King and Ecclesiastics in combination well calculated to
deprive the people of the benefits of popular government. He conceived
the idea of codifying the laws so as to define them in terms of the
greatest good to the greatest number, and devoted a large share of the
balance of his life to this work.
In 1775 he published a small book in defense of the policy of Lord North
toward the Colonies, but for fear of prosecution it was issued by one
John Lind and extensively read. A little later he published a book
entitled "A Fragment on Government." This created a great deal of
attention. Readers variously ascribed the book to Mansfield, to Camden
and to Dunning. The impatient pride of Bentham's father betrayed this
secret. It was variously interpreted as a philosophical Treatise and a
Critical Personal Attack upon the Government. But he persevered in the
advocacy of his principals of Morals and Government. He hoped also to be
appointed Secretary of the Commission sent out by Lord North to propose
terms to the revolted American Colonies. But as King George III had
contracted a dislike to him, he was disappointed in his plan of
Conference with the Colonies. His writings were, however, more
appreciated in France. He was openly espoused as a philosopher and
reformer by D'Alimbert, Castillux, Brissat and others. But in the
meantime some such men as Lord Shelbourne, Mills and others became his
friends and admirers, and encouraged him to persevere with his
philosophical Code of laws, largely gleaned from the ancient
philosophers of liberty and equality which had been smothered and
superseded by military and Church imperialism.
In 1785 he took an extensive tour across the Alps and while at Kricov on
the Dou, he wrote his letters on Usury. These were printed in London,
which were now welcomed by the people largely on account of his
reputation in France as a philosopher of popular government. In the
meantime, Paley had printed a treatise on the Principle of applying
utility to morals and legislation. He determined to print his views in
French and address them to that people then struggling for liberal
government.
He revised his sheets on his favorite penal Code and published them
under the title of "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation." The Principles enunciated in this treatise attracted the
attention of the liberals in France, as well as England and America.
Mirabeau and other French publishers spread his reputation far and wide.
Meanwhile, Bentham with the idea of aiding the deliberations of the
States General of France, and encouraged by the liberals on both
continents, and especially such men as Franklin, Jefferson and others,
printed a "Draft of a Code for the organization of a Judicial
Establishment in France," for which services the National Assembly
conferred on him the Citizenship of France by a decree, August 23, 1792,
in which his name was included with those of Priestly, Paine,
Wilberforce, Clarkson, Mackintosh, Anacharsis, Clootz, Washington,
Klopstock, Kosiosco, and several others.
In the meantime, in his travels, he conceived an extensive plan of
Prison reform which he strenuously urged the Crown Officers and the
English Parliament to adopt. After several years of strenuous labors and
the expenditure of a large part of the patrimony left him by his father,
the enterprise was thwarted by the refusal of the King to concur with
Parliament in the enterprise. This scheme is fully set forth in the
histories of the reign of George III. But to avoid persecution under the
drastic penal Codes of England, Bentham boasted that he was a man of no
party but a man of all countries and a fraternal unit of the human race,
he had come to occupy at home the position of a party chief.
He espoused with characteristic zeal and enthusiasm the ideas of the
radicals, who, in spite of themselves, were ranked as a political party.
He went, indeed, the whole length, not merely republicanism, but on many
points of ancient democracy including Universal Suffrage and the
Emancipation of all Colonies.
No matter how adroitly the Contention was managed, the Imperialists
insisted that it was merely resurrecting the historic struggle of the
days of Cromwell and his "bare bones." The Church establishment by way
of the Lords and Bishops and Bishop Lords was the real foundation of the
Crown rule in all its ramifications. This superstructure was protected
by all forms of penal laws against "lease" Majesty and even the
appearance of Church Creed heresy. The Radicals always confronted by
Crown detectives were compelled to be very wary in their attacks upon
this that they called imperial idolatry and were compelled to move by
indirect and flank attacks.
The upheaval by Martin Luther in the reign of Henry VIII at the Council
of Trent and others over the Divine authenticity of the Athanasian Creed
never abated among the humanitarians of England or France. But in the
presence of criminal inquisitions too barbarous to mention, the Radicals
were handicapped and were compelled to work strategically and by pits
and mines beneath the superstructure of Church imperialism. The Church
structure as established in Europe is by common consent based upon the
hypothesis of Divinity in the life, works, and dogmas of one Saul of
Tarsus, or as denominated Paul, or the canonized St. Paul. The
substantial Creed might well be denominated Paulism. Hence the legendary
Paul has been one of the points of attack by the rationalists of the
centuries.
While many of the contemporaries of Bentham both in England, America and
the Continent denied the verity of the whole Mosaic cosmogony and
historiology, yet Bentham seemed to ignore this task as superserviceable
and unimportant. He and his school of Radicals were devoted to the life
works and teachings of Jesus. Jesus was the idol of his school and he
heartily espoused the task of eliminating Paul as the nemesis of Jesus
and his Apostles, and a character invented and staged by imperialists to
subordinate the toiling classes to the production of resources to
subserve their personal luxuries.
Bentham began writing a philosophic analysis of the Church's pretensions
concerning the divine agency of Paul. After several years of examination
and study, and while he was writing his famous treatise entitled "The
Rational of Judicial Evidence" afterwards collected and published by
Mill, he finished the manuscript criticisms of Paul and entitled them
"Not Paul but Jesus."
For fear of prosecution for direct heresy or denunciation of the Creed
of the Church, he evaded the use of his own name as writer of the
Criticism and used the name of Conyers Middleton, a Cambridge Divine,
who by his writings had created a great deal of disturbance. He had been
convicted twice for heresy. He had been dead fifty years when Bentham
introduced him in the first lines in the Introduction to his Criticisms
herein published (See Introduction). Bentham, no doubt, intended to
evade prosecution, as it will be seen that his name does not appear in
the book, and yet at the same time used the name most obnoxious to the
Church in all its history.
In 1729 Middleton published his "Letter from Rome" in which he boldly
essayed to demonstrate that the then religion of the Roman Church was
derived from their heathen ancestral idolaters. He published other works
on the uses of miracles and prophecy. But Bentham's "Not Paul but Jesus"
did not long remain anonymous. It was read extensively in France and
America. But this treatise formed a part of the labor of his life, which
was to promote the theory of the social state based upon "The greatest
good to the greatest number, and subordinate the whole to rational
calculations of utility." These views he continually urged in the form
of Codification so as to eliminate all pretensions of hierarchical
control by historical divine prophets, the faithful souls and agents of
Kings and princes. In the meantime, he was indefatigable in his attacks
upon the English System of Jurisprudence, which was being operated in
America as a kind of paternal inheritance. Dumont, in 1811, compiled
from the manuscripts of Bentham a complete code which was readily
adopted in France, because it conformed so closely to the old Roman
procedure which was held tenaciously in France.
In the meantime, by importunity of Lord Brougham and others, and
particularly of his friends in America, such as Adams, Franklin and
others, he wrote to Madison offering his services to draw up a complete
code of laws for the United States. Mr. Madison caused these ideas to be
spread broadcast by pamphlets as pamphleteering was much in vogue for
such purposes in those days. But on account of our dual form of
government, and as the code would apply to the States separately, the
scheme as a whole failed. But some of the Governors, especially those
of Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire, got hold of the manuscripts
and many of the provisions were adopted and still obtain.
In the meantime, Mr. Mill had collected his manuscripts on "The
Rationale of Judicial Evidence" and published them in 5 vols. They
shortly became a part of the libraries of the lawyers and statesmen of
England, and especially in the United States. His manuscripts on "Not
Paul but Jesus" were extensively read and universally admitted to be
rational and sound in point of rational jural demonstration. During this
time, Thomas Jefferson had been writing on the same subject and after
reading the prints of Bentham, he abandoned the part directed to the
criticism of Paul, but he arranged chronologically all of the verses
from the four gospels that pertain to the career of Jesus, omitting,
however, every verse or paragraph that to his mind was ambiguous or
controversial, and every statement of fact that would not have been
admitted as evidence in a Court of Justice. The original copy of what is
denominated as "Jefferson Bible," is now preserved in the National
Museum at Washington. It was purchased by the Government as a memento of
the author of the Declaration of Independence.
This "The Thomas Jefferson Bible" has lately been republished by David
McKay, 604 S. Washington Sq., Philadelphia. The treatise "Not Paul but
Jesus" was published in 1825. The printing art was not as well advanced
as at present, and the division of subjects for discussion and
correlation were not arranged strictly methodically, so the Editor has
rearranged some of the titles with a view to improve the order of
sequence. With this change, every word has been preserved.
It will all the time be borne in mind that the examination is Judicial
and the Character Paul had to be staged from many points of view and
examination. Jeremy Bentham has revolved him in the limelight of
inquisition with a thoroughness that commands the attention of all
thoughtful readers. With this view the Editor hopes to be justified in
its republication by the reading and inquiring public.
J. J. CRANDALL.
INTRODUCTION.
Illustrious, in the church of Jesus in general, and in the church of
England in particular, is the name of CONYERS MIDDLETON. Signal was, and
is, the service rendered by him to the religion of Jesus. By that bold,
though reverend, hand, it now stands cleared of many a heap of
pernicious rubbish, with which it had been incumbered and defiled, by
the unhallowed labours of a succession of writers, who,--without
personal intercourse with the founder, any more than we have now,--have,
from the mere circumstance of the comparative vicinity of their days to
those in which he lived, derived the exclusive possession of the
imposing title of _Fathers of the Church_, or, in one word, _The
Fathers_.
So able, so effectual, has been this clearance, that, as it has been
observed by the Edinburgh Reviewers,--speaking of course of protestants,
and more particularly of English protestants,--till one unexpected
exception, which it mentions, had presented itself, they had thought
that in no man's opinion were those writers any "longer to be regarded
as guides, either in faith or morals."
One step further was still wanting. One thorn still remained, to be
plucked out of the side of this so much injured religion,--and that was,
the addition made to it by _Saul of Tarsus_: by that _Saul_, who, under
the name of _Paul_, has,--as will be seen, without warrant from, and
even in the teeth of, the history of Jesus, as delivered by his
companions and biographers the four evangelists,--been dignified with
the title of _his_ apostle: his _apostle_, that is to say, his
_emissary_: his _emissary_, that is to say, _sent out_ by him: sent out,
by that Jesus, whose immediate disciples he so long persecuted and
destroyed, and whose person,--unless dreaming of a person after his
death, or professing to have dreamt of him, is seeing him,--he never
saw.
In the course of the ensuing examination, the subject of _miracles_ has
come, unavoidably, under consideration. On this delicate ground, it has
been matter of no small comfort to the author, to behold precursors,
among divines of different persuasions, whose reputation for piety has
not been diminished by the spirit of critical inquiry which accompanies
it. Such were Mede, Sykes, and others, whose ingenious labours were, in
the case called that of the _daemoniacs_, employed in the endeavor to
remove the supernatural character, from what, in their eyes, was no more
than a natural appearance. On the success of these their labours, any
judgment would here be irrelevant. Not altogether so the observation,
that in no instance does it appear to him that any such latitude of
interpretation has been employed, as that which, on that occasion, was
found necessary for the conversion of _devils_ into _diseases_.
The _dissentions_ which, at all times, have had place among persons
professing the religion of Jesus, are but too notorious. The
_mischiefs_, produced by these dissentions, are no less so. These
dissentions, and these mischiefs--in what have they had their source? In
certain words. These words, of whom have they been the words? Of Jesus?
No: this has not been so much as pretended. Of Paul, and of Paul alone:
he giving them all along not as the words of Jesus, but as his own
only:--he all along preaching (as will be seen) in declared opposition
to the eleven who were undisputedly the apostles of Jesus: thus, of Paul
only have they been the words.
That, by these words, and, consequently, by him whose words they were
and are, all the mischiefs, which have been imputed to _the religion of
Jesus_, have been produced,--in so far as the dissentions, from which
these mischiefs flowed, have had these words for their subjects,--cannot
be denied. But, moreover, in these same words, that is to say, in the
doctrines delivered by them, cannot but be to be found the origin, and
the cause, of no small part--perhaps of the greatest part--of the
_opposition_, which _that religion, with its benevolent system of
morals_, has hitherto experienced. If this be so, then, by the clearing
it of this incumbrance, not only as yet unexampled purity, but
additional extent, may not unreasonably be expected to be given to it.
It was by the frequent recurrence of these observations, that the author
of these pages was led to the inquiry, whether the religion of Paul,--as
contained in the writings ascribed to Paul, and with a degree of
propriety which the author sees no reason to dispute,--whether the
religion of Paul has any just title to be considered as forming a part
of the religion of Jesus. The result was in the negative. The
considerations, by which this result was produced, will form the matter
of the ensuing pages.
If, by cutting off a source of useless privations and groundless
terrors, comfort and _inward peace_ should be restored or secured;--if,
by cutting off a source of bitter animosity,--good-will, and peace from
_without_, should be restored or secured;--if, by the removal of an
incongruous appendage, acceptance should be obtained for what is good in
the religion commonly ascribed to Jesus;--obtained at the hands of any
man, much more of many, to whom at present it is an object of
aversion;--if, in any one of these several ways, much more if in all of
them, the labours of the author should be crowned with success,--good
service will, so far, and on all hands, be allowed to have been rendered
to mankind.
Whosoever, putting aside all prepossessions, feels strong enough in
mind, to look steadily at the originals, and from _them_ to take his
conceptions of the matter, not from the discourses of others,--whosoever
has this command over himself, will recognise, if the author does not
much deceive himself, that by the two persons in question, as
represented in the two sources of information--the Gospels and Paul's
Epistles,--two quite different, if not opposite, religions are
inculcated: and that, in the religion of Jesus may be found all the
_good_ that has ever been the result of the compound so incongruously
and unhappily made,--in the religion of Paul, all the _mischief_, which,
in such disastrous abundance, has so indisputably flowed from it.
1. That Paul had no such commission as he professed to have;--2. that
his enterprize was a scheme of personal ambition, and nothing more;--3.
that his system of doctrine is fraught with mischief in a variety of
shapes, and, in so far as it departs from, or adds to, those of Jesus,
with good in none;--and that it has no warrant, in anything that, as far
as appears from any of the four gospels, was ever said or done by
Jesus;--such are the conclusions, which the author of these pages has
found himself compelled to deduce, from those materials with which
history has furnished us. The grounds of these conclusions he proceeds
to submit to the consideration of his readers.
PLAN OF THE WORK.
The work may be conceived as divided into five parts.
1. In Part the first, the five different, and in many respects
discordant, accounts given of Paul's conversion, which, in these
accounts, is of course represented as being not only _outward_ but
_inward_, are confronted, and, so far as regards inward conversion,
shown to be, all of them, untrue: and, immediately after, the state of
things, which produced, accompanied, and immediately followed, his
outward conversion,--together with the time and manner in which that
change was declared,--is brought to view. This part occupies the first
two chapters.
2. Part the Second is employed in showing,--that, from the first
commencement, of the intercourse, which, upon the tokens given of his
outward conversion, took place at Jerusalem between him and the
apostles, Acts 9:27, to the time when,--in consequence of the
interposition of the Roman commander, to save him from the unanimous
indignation of the whole people, more particularly of the disciples of
the apostles,--he was conveyed from thence under guard to Rome, a space,
according to the commonly received computation, not less than six and
twenty years, (Acts 21 and 23), no supernatural commission from Jesus,
nor any inward conversion, was,--either by those distinguished servants
and companions of Jesus, or by their disciples at Jerusalem,--believed
to have place in his instance. This part occupies eight chapters: to
wit, from the 3d to the 10th inclusive.
3. In Part the Third, in further proof of the insincerity of his
character,--in addition to an oath proved to be false, are brought to
view two unquestionably false assertions:--each having for its subject a
matter of prime importance,--each deliberate and having in view a
particular purpose: the one, a false account of the number of the
witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus; 1 Cor. 15:6; the other, a
prediction of the end of the world before the death of persons then
living; 1 Thes. 4, 15, 16, 17. This part occupies Chapters 11 and 12.
4. Part the Fourth is employed in showing,--that no proof, of his
alleged supernatural commission from the Almighty, is deducible, from
any account we have, of any of those scenes, in which he is commonly
regarded as having exercised a power of working miracles. For, that not
only he himself never made exercise of any such power,--on any of those
occasions, on which the demand for it, for the purpose of overcoming the
disbelief entertained of his story by the Apostles, was extreme,--but,
neither on those, nor any other occasions, did he ever take upon himself
to make reference, to so much as any one instance of any such proof of
special authority from the Almighty, as having been exhibited by him on
any other occasion: that, for the belief in any such gift, we have no
other ground, than the relations contained in the history called "_The
Acts of the Apostles_," or, for shortness, _The Acts_: and that such
throughout is,--on the one hand, the nature of the occurrence itself, on
the other hand, the character of the representation given of it,--that,
to a disbelief in the exercise of any such supernatural power, it is
not necessary that any such imputation as that of downright and wilful
falsehood should be cast upon the author of that narrative: the
occurrences in question being, mostly, if not entirely, such as lie
within the ordinary course of nature,--but, upon which, either by the
fancy, or by the artifice of the narrator, a sort of supernatural
colouring has been superinduced. For this purpose, these supposed
miracles are, each of them, separately brought to view and examined.
This part occupies the 13th chapter.
5. Part the Fifth is employed in showing, that,--even if, on all these
several occasions, the exercise of a power of producing supernatural
effects had, by unequivocal statements, been ascribed to Paul by the
author of the Acts,--such testimony, independently of the virtual
contradiction given to it by the above-mentioned circumstantial
evidence,--could not, with any propriety, be regarded as affording
adequate proof--either of the fact of Paul's having received a divine
commission, and thereby, having become, inwardly as well as outwardly, a
convert to the religion of Jesus--either of that radical fact, or so
much as of any one of the alleged achievements, which, upon the face of
the accounts in question, are wont to present themselves as miraculous:
for that, in the first place, it is only by error that the history in
question has been ascribed to Saint Luke: it being, in respect of the
account given of the circumstances accompanying the ascension of Jesus,
inconsistent with the account given in the gospel of Saint Luke, when
compared with Acts 1:3 to 12,--and as to those attendant on the death of
Judas, inconsistent with the account in Saint Matthew 27:3 to 10 and
Acts 1:16 to 20: and moreover, such being the whole complexion of his
narrative, as to render it incapable of giving any tolerably adequate
support to any statement whereby the exercise of supernatural power is
asserted. This part occupies Chapter 14.
In Part the Sixth, to give additional correctness and completeness, to
the conception supposed to be conveyed, of the character of Paul and his
attendant historiographer, jointly and severally considered,--a conjunct
view is given of _five_ reports of his five trials, as reported in the
Acts. This part has been added since the publication of the
above-mentioned Summary View. It occupies Chapter 15 of the present
work.
Chapter XVI. and last, winds up the whole, with some general
observations on the self-declared oppositeness of Paul's Gospel, as he
calls it, to that of the Apostles: together with an indication of a real
Antichrist, in compensation for the fabulous one, created by Paul, and
nursed by the episcopal authors and editors of the Church of England,
translators of the Bible: and by Chapter 12 of the present work, the
imaginary Antichrist is, it is hoped, strangled.
At the time of the publication of the Summary View,--for the more
complete and satisfactory demonstration of the relative insufficiency of
the narrative in question, a short but critical sketch was, as herein
stated, intended to be given, of the parts not before noticed of the
_History of the Church_,--from the ascension of Jesus, being the period
at which that narrative commences, to that at which it terminates,--to
wit, about two years after the arrival of Paul at Rome, Acts 28: the
history--to wit, as deducible from the materials which, in that same
narrative, are brought to view: the duration of the period being,
according to commonly received computations, about 28 or 30 years[A]:
the author of "_The Acts_" himself,--if he is to be believed,--an
eyewitness, during a considerable portion of the time, to the several
occurrences which he relates.
On this occasion, and for this purpose,--the history in question had
been sifted, in the same manner and on the same principles, as any
profane history, in which, in a series of occurrences mostly natural, a
few, wearing a supernatural appearance, are, here and there,
interspersed: as, for instance, in Livy's, and even in Tacitus's Roman
History: on the one hand, the authority not being regarded as affording
a sufficient foundation, for a belief in the supernatural parts of the
narrative; nor, on the other hand, the sort of countenance, given to the
supernatural parts, as affording a sufficient reason, for the disbelief
of those, which have nothing in them that is unconformable to the
universally experienced course of nature.
In respect of _doctrine_, the conclusion is--that no point of doctrine,
which has no other authority than that of Paul's writings for its
support, can justly be regarded as belonging to the religion of
Jesus,--any more than if, at this time of day, it were broached by any
man now living: that thus, in so far as he is seen to have _added_
anything to the religion of Jesus, he is seen to set himself _above_ it
and _against_ it: that, therefore, if this be true, it rests with every
professor of the religion of Jesus, to settle with himself, to which of
the two religions, that of Jesus and that of Paul, he will adhere: and,
accordingly, either to say, _Not Jesus but Paul_,--or, in the words of
the title to this work, _Not Paul but Jesus_.[B]
FOOTNOTES:
[A] To prevent, if possible, an embarrassment, which might otherwise be
liable to have place on the part of the reader,--and therewith, the idea
of inconsistency, as having place here and there in the work,--the
following indication may be found to have its use.
A cloud of uncertainty, to the length of one or two years, hangs over
the duration of the period embraced by this work: namely, that between
the point of time at which the conversion of Paul is stated to have
taken place, and the point of time at which the history, intituled The
Acts of the Apostles, as therein declared, concludes:--a point of time,
posterior by two years to that of his arrival at Rome.
[B] For making the requisite separation, between the two religions of
Jesus and the religion of Paul,--an instrument, alike commodious and
unexceptionable, has--for these many years, though, assuredly, not with
any such view,--been presented to all hands, by Doctor _Gastrell_, an
English and Church of England Bishop: namely, in a well-known work,
intituled _The Christian Institutes_: date of the 14th Edition, 1808. It
is composed of a collection of points of faith and morality, and under
each are quoted the several texts, in the New Testament, which are
regarded by the author as affording grounds for the positions indicated.
If then, anywhere, in his composition of the ground, passages, one or
more, from this or that Epistle of Paul, are employed,--unaccompanied
with any passage, extracted from any of the four Gospels,--the reader
may, without much danger of error, venture to conclude, that it is to
the religion of Paul alone, that the point of doctrine thus supported
appertains, and not to the religion of Jesus. As to any of the Epistles,
which bear the name of any of the real Apostles of Jesus,--a
corresponding question may perhaps be here suggesting itself. But, with
regard to the design of the present work, scarcely will they be found
relevant. For, when compared with the sayings of Jesus as repeated in
the four Gospels, scarcely will they be found exhibiting any additional
points of doctrine: never, pregnant with any of those dissentions,
which, from the writings of Paul, have issued in such disastrous
abundance. Only lest they should be thought to have been overlooked, is
any mention here made, of those documents, which, how much soever on
other accounts entitled to regard, may, with reference to the question
between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul, be, as above,
and without impropriety, stated as irrelevant.
TABLE I.
OUTWARD CONVERSION.
_Showing at one view, under the head of Paul's Conversion, the
different accounts from which the inference is drawn that the
Conversion was outward only, not inward._
VISION I. ACTS ACCOUNT.
Ch. ix. 1-9.
1.--But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the
disciples of the Lord, went unto the High Priest, and asked of him
letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that
were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to
Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh
unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone around about him a light out
of heaven: and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto
him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou,
Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for
thee to kick against the pricks: (1) but rise, and enter into the
city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men that
journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice,--but
beholding no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes
were opened, he saw nothing; (old version "no man") and they led him
by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days
without sight, and did neither eat nor drink.
II. PAUL'S FIRST PERSONAL ACCOUNT.
As per Acts xxii. 3-11.
I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city,
at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner
of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are
this day: and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and
delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the High Priest
doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom
also I received letters unto the brethren; and journeyed to
Damascus, to bring them also which were there unto Jerusalem in
bonds, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my
journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there
shown from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the
ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said
unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they
that were with me beheld in deed the light, but they heard not the
voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord?
And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it
shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by
the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
III. PAUL'S SECOND PERSONAL ACCOUNT.
As per Acts xxvi. 9-20.
I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things
contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And this I also did in
Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prison, having
received authority from the Chief Priests, and when they were put to
death, I gave my vote against them. And punishing them oftentimes in
all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being
exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign
cities. Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and
commission of the Chief Priests, at midday, O, king, I saw on the
way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining
round about me and them that journeyed with me. And when we were all
fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew
language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee
to kick against the goad. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And the
Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But arise, and stand
upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint
thee a minister and a witness both of thee, to appoint thee a
minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me,
and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee
from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to
open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from
the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins
and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me.
Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly
vision: but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at
Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the
Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works
worthy of repentance.
IV. PAUL'S ALLUSIONS.
I. As per Paul to Corinth. i. xv. 8.
And last of all, as unto one born out of due time, he appeared to
me, also.
II. As per Paul to Gal. i. 12, 15, 16, 17.
12. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but
it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.
15. But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even
from my mother's womb,
16. And called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I
might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not
with flesh and blood:
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles
before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto
Damascus.
II. VISION 2.--ANANIAS'S.
_I. Acts Account._
ix. 10-16.
10. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and
the Lord said unto him in a vision, Ananias! And he said, Behold, I
am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go to the
street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas
for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: for behold, he prayeth: and he
hath seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on
him, that he might receive his sight. But Ananias answered, Lord, I
have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to thy saints
at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the chief priests to
bind all that call upon thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy
way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the
Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will shew him
how many things he must suffer for my name's sake.
III. ANANIAS'S VISIT TO PAUL.
_I. Acts Account._
ix. 17-22.
And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his
hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord even Jesus, who appeared
unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou
mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And
straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he
received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took food
and was strengthened.
And he was certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is
the Son of God. And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not
this he that in Jerusalem made havock of them which called on his
name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring
them bound before the chief priests. But Saul increased the more in
strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving
that this is the Christ.
_II. Paul's Account._
As per Acts xxii. 12-16.
xxii. 12. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well
reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and
standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And
in that very hour I looked up on him. And he said, The God of our
fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the
Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be
a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And
now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins, calling on his name.
NOT PAUL, BUT JESUS
CHAPTER I.
_Paul's Conversion._[1]--_Improbability and Discordancy of the
Accounts of it._
SECTION I.
LIST OF THESE ACCOUNTS, WITH PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
(_See_ TABLE I., _in which they are confronted_.)
In one single work, and that alone, is comprised the whole of the
information, in which, in relation to this momentous occurrence, any
particulars are at this time of day to be found. This is that historical
work, which in our edition of the Bible, has for its title _The Acts of
the Apostles_; for shortness, let us say _The Acts_.
Of this same occurrence, in this one short work no fewer than three
separate accounts are visible; one, in which the story is related by the
historian in his own person; two others, in each of which Paul is
introduced as giving his own account of it. Of these three accounts, no
two will be found agreeing with each other. By the historian, Paul when
introduced as speaking in his own person, is represented as
contradicting not only the historian's account, but his own account. On
each occasion, it should seem, Paul's account is adapted to the
occasion. On the first occasion, the historian's account was not exactly
adapted to that same first occasion. By the historian's ingenuity, Paul
is accordingly represented as giving on that same occasion another and
better-adapted account. On the second occasion, neither was the
historian's account nor Paul's own account, as given on the former
occasion, found suitable to this fresh occasion; on this same fresh
occasion, a suitable amendment is accordingly framed.
Here, at the very outset of the inquiry, the distance of time between
the point of time on which the occurrence is supposed to have taken
place, and the time at which the historian's account of it was penned,
are circumstances that present a claim to notice.
The year 35 after the birth of Christ is the year which, according to
the received accounts, is assigned to the occurrence. According to these
same accounts, the year 63 is the date given to the last occurrence
mentioned by the historian, Acts 28: after which occurrence, two years
are stated by him as having elapsed, at the time at which the history
closes. Here then is an interval of about 30 years, between the time at
which the occurrence is stated to have happened, and the time at which
these three mutually contradictory accounts of it were framed.
In regard to this radical occurrence in particular, namely Paul's
conversion,--for the foundation of this his report, what evidence was it
that the reporter had, or could have had in his possession, or at his
command? One answer may serve for all; the accounts given of the matter
by Paul himself.
With Paul, then, what were this same reporter's means and mode of
intercourse? In the year 59, and not before, (such is the inference from
his own words) did it fall to his lot to be taken into the train of this
self-denominated Apostle. Then it is, that for the first time, in the
several accounts given by him of Paul's migrations from place to place,
the pronouns _us_, Acts 20:5, and _we_ make their appearance. From 34 to
59 years are 25. At the end of this interval came the earliest
opportunity, which, for anything that appears, he could have had of
hearing from his master's own mouth, whatsoever account, if any, it may
have been the pleasure of that same master to give, of an occurrence, in
relation to which there existed not among men any other percipient
witness.
Having accompanied his master during the whole of his progress from
Jerusalem, the historian speaks of himself as being still in his train
on his arrival at Rome. Acts xxviii. 16, "And when we came to Rome," &c.
It is not precisely stated, nor can it very determinately be inferred,
whether at the point of time at which the history closes, the historian
was still at that capital; the negative supposition presents itself as
the most probable. Posterior to the closing of the real action of the
history, the penning of it will naturally be to be placed.
"Paul, says the Acts xxviii. 30, dwelt two whole years in his own hired
house, and received all that came in unto him," &c. When this last verse
but one of the history was penning, had the historian been living with
Paul, he would naturally have given us to understand as much; instead of
_dwelt_, he would have said _has been dwelling_.
By the tokens of carelessness afforded by the omission of so many
particulars, which in every work of an historical nature the reader will
naturally expect to see specified; such as the name of the historian,
the particulars, occasion and manner of his being taken into the company
of the illustrious missionary, and the time of that event;--by these
tokens, two inferences, how different soever their tendency, seem at
once to be suggested. One is, the genuineness of the narrative. A
writer, who was conscious that he was not the man he was thus
representing himself to be, viz. the companion of the missionary, would
hardly have slid in, in so careless a manner, the mention of so material
a circumstance. The other is, the slenderness of the author's
qualification for the task thus executed by him; the lowness of his
station in the scale of trustworthiness, and consequently the smallness
of the probative force, with which a mass of evidence thus circumstanced
can reasonably be considered as operating, in support of any alleged
matter of fact, which, (either by the extraordinariness of its nature,
or the temptation which the circumstances of the case afforded for
entire fiction or misrepresentation), presents itself as exposed to
doubt or controversy.
A supernatural conversion, and the receipt of a supernatural commission
for the delivery of a fresh body of doctrine; such are the two events,
which, though in their nature so perfectly distinguishable, were
according to this narrative combined in one:--the conversion from an
unbelieving, cruel, and destructive persecutor of the new fellowship,
into a most zealous supporter and coadjutor: the body of doctrine such
as if it amounted to anything, could not but have been--what the person
in question declared it to be--a supplement to the religion taught by
Jesus while in the flesh;--a supplement, containing matter never
revealed to, and consequently never taught by, his Apostles.
Now then, of all these supernatural occurrences, which, by the nameless
historiographer, are related to have happened to Paul, if anything had
really happened to him--on this supposition, (so many as were the
different sets of disciples of his, inhabitants of so many mutually
distant provinces, no fewer than eight in number); is it in the nature
of the case, that in no one instance, in any of his numerous Epistles,
he should have felt the necessity of stating and accordingly have
stated, to any of these his disciples, the circumstances attending the
event of his conversion--an event on which alone all his professions
were founded? circumstances to which, as stated in his historian's
narrative, could not from their nature have been known to any human
being other than himself?
Yet, in no one of all his Epistles, to any one of these his disciples,
of any such particular, either in the way of direct assertion, or in the
way of allusion, is any trace to be found. Of _revelation_, yes: of
_revelation_--this one most momentous indeed, but at the same time most
mysterious and uninstructive word, repetitions we have in abundance. But
of the time and manner of the alleged communication, or of the matter
communicated, nothing is anywhere said.
In these considerations may be seen a part, though but a part, of those,
on which, in due season, will be seen grounded the inference,--that at
no time, in all the personal conferences he had with the Apostles, was
any such story told by Paul, as is related by the author of the Acts.
On the supposition that the narrative, such as it is, is
genuine,--taking it as a whole, a very important source of division,
from which it will require to be divided in idea into two parts or
periods, here presents itself. Period the first, containing the portion
of time _anterior_ to the historian's admission into the train of the
supposed Apostle: Period the second, containing the portion of time
_posterior_ to that event: this latter portion continuing, as far as
appears, to the time at which the history closes.
In this latest and last-mentioned period are comprised all the several
facts, or supposed facts, in relation to which any grounds appear for
the supposition that the historian was, in his own person, a percipient
witness.
In relation to all the several facts, or supposed facts, anterior to
this period,--the best evidence, which, for anything that appears, ever
came within his reach, was composed of such statements as, in the course
of his service, it may have been the pleasure of the master to make to,
or in the hearing of, this his attendant. Whatsoever may be the grounds
of suspicion that may be found attaching themselves to evidence passing
through such a channel, or issuing from such a source; other evidence
will, if taken in the lump, present itself as being in comparison much
less trustworthy. All other evidence consists of statements, coming from
we know not whom, at we know not what times, on we know not what
occasion, each of them with we know not how many reporting witnesses,
one after and from another, through so many different and successive
channels, between the percipient witness or witnesses, and the last
reporting witness or witnesses, from whom the historian received the
statement in the way of personal intercourse.
The period of _rumour_, and the period of _observation_--By these two
appellations it should seem, may the two periods be not altogether
unaptly or uninstructively distinguished.
With reference to the period of rumour,--whether, it was from Paul's own
statement, or from a source still more exposed to suspicion, that the
historian's conception was derived,--one consideration presents itself,
as requisite to be kept in mind. This is, With what facility, especially
in that age, upon an occurrence in itself true, and including nothing
that lies without the ordinary course of nature,--a circumstance out of
the course of nature, giving to the whole a supernatural, and to use the
ordinary word a miraculous, character, may, in and by the narrative,
have been superinduced.[2] Fact, for instance, as it _really_ was--at
the word of command, (suppose) a man, having the appearance of a
cripple, stands up erect and walks: untrue circumstances, one or both
superinduced by _rumour_--the man had been so from his birth; from his
birth down to that same time he had been an inhabitant of that same
place.
In the chapter on Paul's supposable miracles, about a dozen occurrences
of this description will be found. On each one of these several
occasions, the propriety of bearing in mind the above-mentioned
consideration, will, it is believed, not appear open to dispute,
whatsoever on each several occasion may be the application made of it.
SECTION 2.
VISION I.--DIALOGUE ON THE ROAD: PAUL HEARS A VOICE, SEES NOTHING.
I. ACCOUNT.--_As per Acts_ ix. 1-9.
ix. 1. And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter
against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,--and
_desired_ of him letters to Damascus to the _synagogues_, that if
he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might
bring them bound unto Jerusalem.--And as he journeyed, he came near
Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from
_heaven_:--and he fell to the earth, and _heard a voice_ saying
unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?--And he said, Who
art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.--And
he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it
shall be told thee what thou must do.--And the men which journeyed
with him stood speechless, _hearing a voice_ but _seeing no
man_.--And Saul arose from the earth; and _when his eyes were
opened, he saw no man_; but they led him by the hand, and brought
him into Damascus.--And he was _three days without sight, and
neither did eat nor drink_.
II. PAUL'S supposed FIRST OR UNSTUDIED ACCOUNT.--_As per_ ACTS xxii.
3-11.
xxii. 3. I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in
Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and
taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,
and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.--And I
persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into
prisons both men and women.--As also the high priest doth bear me
witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I
_received_ letters unto the _brethren_, and went to Damascus, to
bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be
punished.--And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was
come nigh unto Damascus _about noon_, suddenly there shone from
_heaven_ a great light round about me.--And I fell unto the ground,
and _heard a voice_ saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me?--And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am
Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest.--And they that were with me
_saw indeed the light_, and were afraid; but _they heard not_ the
voice of him that spake to me.--And I said, What shall I do, Lord?
And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it
shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to
do.--And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led
by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
III. PAUL'S supposed ORATORICAL OR STUDIED ACCOUNT.--_As per_ ACTS xxvi.
9-20.
xxvi. 9. I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.--Which thing I
also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in
prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when
they were put to death I gave my voice against them.--And I punished
them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and
being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto
strange cities.--Whereupon as I went to Damascus with _authority_
and _commission_ from the _chief priests_,--at _midday_, O king, I
saw in the way a light from _heaven_, above the brightness of the
sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.--And
when we were all fallen to the earth, _I heard_ a voice speaking
unto me, and saying _in the Hebrew tongue_, Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest.--But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared
unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness
both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in
the which I will appear unto thee;--delivering thee from the people,
and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee.
On comparing the three accounts of Vision 1st, the particulars will be
found referable to twelve heads. Under no more than two of the twelve,
will the conformity among them be found entire.
Where disconformity has place it may be clear or not clear of
contradiction. Clear it may be of contradiction, when it consists either
of mere deficiency or mere redundancy, or of both: deficiency or
redundancy, according as it is this or that account, which, on the
occasion of the comparison, is taken for the standard.
On the occasion in question, such is the importance of the occurrence,
that the proper standard of reference and comparison is that which is
most ample: that which, if not strictly speaking complete, wants the
least of being so. On the part of the historian, speaking in his own
person, omission is in such a case without excuse.
Not so, necessarily, in the case of a person whom the historian speaks
of as giving that person's own account of that same occurrence. What may
be is, that in the nature of the occasion in which the person is
represented as speaking of it, there is so much of suddenness, by reason
of impending danger, or urgent pressure, that, of the quantity of time
necessary for complete utterance, and even of that necessary for
complete and correct recollection, more or less was wanting.
On the occasion of that account of the matter, which is the first of the
two on which the historian represents Paul as giving an account of this
momentous occurrence,--this justification for want of completeness, or
this excuse for want of correctness, might naturally enough have place.
For it was while pleading for his life at Jerusalem, before a mixed
multitude, no inconsiderable part of which were endeavouring at the
destruction of it, that Paul is represented as delivering this first of
his two accounts:--call that _the supposed unstudied or unpremeditated
account_.
Not so, on the occasion on which he is represented as delivering the
second of these same two accounts. On this occasion, it is true, he is
represented as pleading in his defence. But it is pleading in and before
a regularly constituted judiciary, and after time for preparation in
much greater abundance than he could have wished:--call this _the
supposed studied or premeditated account_.
In this view, the proper standard of comparison can not be dubious. The
historian being himself, in all three accounts, the immediately
reporting witness, and having had his own time for the forming of them
all,--that which he gives in his own person, and which therefore
naturally occupies the first place, should, in respect of both
qualities, as well as in that of clearness, have been, (and, setting
aside deceptious design, naturally would have been), as perfect as it
was in his power to make it. To the others alone could any excuse be
afforded, in respect of any one of those requisites, by any circumstance
peculiar to the respective cases.
What is above being observed--Of the ten following instances of
disconformity, seven will be found to be cases of simple deficiency,
three of contradiction.
In those which are cases of simple deficiency, it will be seen to have
urgency for its justification or excuse; for the others there appears no
justification or excuse.[3] Of the twelve distinguishable heads in
question, under two alone, viz. that of _place_ and that of _time_, will
the conformity be found complete. _Place_, a spot near to Damascus, in
the road leading from Jerusalem to Damascus: _Time_, meaning time of
_day_,--about noon. But, in the quality of trustworthiness deficient as
all three accounts will presently be shown to be, it will be seen how
little is contributed, by conformity as to the mere circumstances of
time and place.
Now then let us see the subjects, in relation to which a want of
conformity is observable. To save words, the shortest form of
description possible will throughout be employed.
{1. The light seen.
{2. The dialogue.
_Omissions_ {3. Falling to the ground.
{4. Language of the voice.
{5. Kicking against the pricks.
{6. The Lord's commands.
{7. Paul's companions' posture.
_Contradictions_ {8. Paul's companions' hearing or not hearing.
{9. If hearing, what they heard.
{10. Nothing seen but light.
1. _Light seen._ Between Acts account and Paul's 1st or supposed
unstudied account, no disconformity worth remarking. In Acts it is a
"_light_," in Paul 1st a "_great light_";[4] in both it is about midday.
But in Paul's 2d or supposed studied account, it is above the brightness
of the sun at that time of the day.
In Acts the passage is simply narrative: in Paul's 1st, the urgency of
the occasion left no room for flowers. But in Paul's 2d, time being
abundant, flowers were to be collected, and this is one of them. In the
ordinary course of nature there exists not upon earth any light equal in
brightness to that of the sun; especially the sun at midday, and in such
a latitude. Supposing the light in question ever so much greater than
the midday sun, neither Paul nor this his historian could, without a
miracle on purpose, have had any means of knowing as much. For a miracle
for such a purpose, the existence of any effectual demand does not seem
probable. For the purpose mentioned,--namely the bereaving of the power
of vision every open eye that should direct itself towards it,--to wit,
so long as that same direction should continue,--the ordinary light of
the sun would have been quite sufficient. At the time and place in
question, whatever they may have been, suppose it true that, though
midday was the time, the atmosphere was cloudy, and in such sort cloudy,
that without something done for the purpose, a light productive of such
effects could not have been produced. Still, for this purpose, a
specially created body of light different from that of the sun, and
exceeding it in intensity, could not be needful. The removal of a single
cloud would have been amply sufficient:--a single cloud, and that a very
small one.
* * * * *
But if the light was really a light created for the purpose, and
brighter than that of the sun; of circumstances so important, mention
should not have been omitted in the standard narrative.
* * * * *
Here then is either a deficiency in the standard narrative,--and this
deficiency, as already observed, an inexcusable one,--or a redundancy in
the subsequent account: a redundancy, the cause of which seems
sufficiently obvious: a redundancy--in that account which, being
premeditated on the part of the historian, is given by him as being
premeditated on the part of the speaker, whom he represents as
delivering it: a redundancy,--and that in a word a falsehood: a
falsehood, and for what purpose?--for deception: the hero represented by
his historian as using endeavours to deceive.
2. _Dialogue._ Per Acts, the Dialogue contained five speeches: to wit,
1. The voice's speech; 2. Paul's; 3. The Lord's, whose voice, Paul and
his historiographer[5], from what experience is not said, knew the voice
to be; 4. Paul's; 5. The Lord's. In Paul 1st, speeches the same in
number, order, and, save in one phrase about kicking against the
pricks, nearly so in terms. But in Paul 2d, the number of the speeches
is no more than three: and, as will be seen below, of the last the
import is widely different from that of any of those reported in the
other two accounts.
3. _Falling to the ground._ Per Acts and Paul 1st, by Paul alone was
this prostration experienced. Per Paul 2d, by his unnumbered companions,
by the whole company of them, as well as by himself. Deficiency here on
the part of the proper standard; so, in the case of the unstudied
speech. In the studied speech it is supplied.
4. _Language of the voice._ Per Acts and Paul 1st, of the language
nothing is said. Deficiency, as in the case last mentioned; to wit, in
the regular history, and in the unstudied speech. In the studied speech
it is supplied. Stage effect greater. Agrippa, to whom it was more
particularly addressed, being, under the Roman viceroy, a sort of king
of the Jews,--what seems to have occurred to the historian is--that it
might be a sort of gratification to him to be informed, that his own
language, the Hebrew, was the language which, on this occasion, was
employed by that voice, which by Paul, by whom it had never been heard
before, was immediately understood to be the Lord's; _i.e._ Jesus's;
_i.e._ God's. The character, in which Paul was on this occasion brought
by his historiographer on the stage, being that of a consummate orator,
furnished with all his graces,--this compliment was among the rest put
into his mouth. Moreover, by Jesus no language, for aught that appears,
but the Hebrew, having been ever spoken, hence the account became the
more consistent or credible.
5. _Kicking against the pricks._[6] "Hard for thee to kick against the
pricks." Per Acts, this proverbial expression is employed by the voice,
as soon as it turns out to have been the Lord's. In the supposed and
hasty unstudied speech, it is dropped. This is natural enough. In Paul
2d--in that studied speech, it is employed: it stands there among the
flowers.
6. _The Lord's Commands._ Commands delivered to Paul by the Lord. Under
this head there is a disastrous difference; a sad contradiction. Per
Acts, the command is for Paul to go into Damascus: there it stops.
Follows immediately an article of information, which is, that at that
time and place there is no information for him; but that, sooner or
later, some will be ready for him. After he has arrived at Damascus, it
shall there, by somebody or other, be told him, it is said, what he is
to do. So likewise in Paul 1st, in the unstudied speech, he is, in like
manner, to learn not merely what he is to do, but everything that he is
to do. Lastly comes, Paul 2d, the studied speech. By the time the
historian had arrived at this point in his history, he had forgotten
that, according to his own account of the matter, no information at all
had, during the road scene, been given to Paul by the Lord's voice; by
that voice which was so well known to be the Lord's. That the supposed
studied speech, by the charms of which the favour of the King was so
happily gained, might be the more impressive,--he makes his orator, in
direct contradiction to the account which, on the former occasion, had
by him (the historian) been given, enter, on the very spot, into all the
details of the Lord's commands.
When the time had come for composing this supposed studied speech,--the
historian had, it should seem, forgot Ananias's vision, that subsidiary
vision, which we shall come to presently, containing a further promise
of the Lord's commands and instructions; and which, after all, unless it
is by this studied speech that they are to be regarded as given, are not
given by him anywhere.
7. _Paul's companions--their posture._ Per Acts, though he fell, they
stood it out. Per Paul 1st, not said whether they fell or stood it out.
Per Paul 2d, they fell. The supposed studied oratorical account is here
in full contradiction with the historical one.
8. _Paul's companions--their hearing or not hearing._ Per Acts, they not
only saw the light, but heard the voice. Per Paul 1st, they did NOT hear
the voice. In the supposed hasty and unstudied speech is the oratorical
account made to contradict the historical one. In this particular, which
of the accounts was true? If the historical, the haste must, in the
oratorical, be the apology, not only for the incompleteness but for the
incorrectness. In Paul 2d, nothing is said about their hearing or not
hearing.
Supposing the story in any of the accounts to have had any truth in it,
there was a middle case, fully as possible and natural as either of
these extreme and mutually contradictory ones. It may have been, that
while some stood their ground, others fell. And the greater the numbers,
the greater the probability of this middle case. But as to their number,
all is darkness.
9. _Paul's companions--if they heard, what it was they heard._ If they
heard anything, they heard, as far as appears, whatever Paul himself
heard. Per Acts, it is after the order given to Paul to go on to
Damascus,--with the promise thereupon, that there and then, and not
before, he should receive the information he should receive; it is after
the statement made of his hearing all this from the voice, that the
further statement comes, declaring that it was by Paul's companions also
that this same voice was heard. But this same voice was, it is said, the
Lord's voice. That when the voice had answered to the name by which Paul
called it, to wit, the name of Lord, it stopt there, so far as concerned
Paul's companions;--and that it reserved what followed, to wit, the
above-mentioned order with the promise, for Paul's single ear; true it
is, this may be _imagined_ as well as anything else: but at any rate it
is not _said_.
If Paul 2d--the studied oratorical account--is to be believed, all the
information for the communication of which this miracle was performed
was, as will be seen, communicated here upon the road: viz. immediately
after the voice had been called by him _Lord_. But, if this was the
case, and, as above, Paul's companions heard all that he heard,--then so
it is, that the revelation was made as well to them as to him;--this
revelation, upon the strength of which we shall see him setting himself
up above all the Apostles; himself and that Gospel of his own, which he
says was his own, and none of theirs. Now then--these companions--was it
upon the same errand as his that they went, to wit, the bringing in
bonds to Jerusalem all the Damascus Christians? If so, or if on any
other account they were any of them in a condition to need
conversion,--they were converted as well as he; or else, so far as
concerned them, the miracle was thrown away. Companions as they were of
his, were they or were they not respectively attendants of his?
attendants going under his orders, and on the same errand? Unless, by
the Jerusalem rulers, on the part of the Damascus rulers, both will and
power were depended upon, as adequate to the task of apprehending the
followers of Jesus and sending them bound to Jerusalem, such these
companions ought to have been, every one of them--supposing always on
the part of this about-to-be Apostle an ordinary prudence: that sort and
degree of prudence with which no ordinary police-officer is unprovided.
Some persons under his orders he must have had, or he could never have
been sent on so extensively and strongly coercive an errand.
These companions, if, on this occasion, any such or any other companions
he had, had each of them a name. To this vision, such as it was, they
being each of them respectively, as well as himself, whether in the way
of sight and hearing both, or in the way of sight alone, percipient
witnesses, their names, in the character of so many percipient
witnesses, ready upon every proper occasion to answer in the character
of _reporting_ witnesses, would have been of no small use: of use, were
it only for the giving to this story a little more substance than it has
in the form we see it in.
As to Ananias--the supposed principal actor in the scene next to
Paul--for him, indeed, supposing any such person to have existed, a
name, it is seen, was found. But, with a view to any purpose of
evidence, how little that name amounted to, will be seen likewise.
In this vision of Paul's, as it is called,--was any person seen, or
anything but light--light at midday? No; positively not any person, nor
as far as appears, the light excepted, anything whatsoever. Per Acts,
chap. ix:8, when "his eyes were opened,"--so it is expressly said,--"he
saw no man." This was after he had fallen to the earth; for it was after
he arose from the earth. But, it was before he fell to the earth, and
thereupon heard the voice, that, according to this same account, he saw
the extra light--the light created for the purpose: and, forasmuch as at
the conclusion of the dialogue with the five speeches in it--forasmuch
as at the conclusion of it, such was the effect produced upon him by the
light, as to render him at that time stone-blind, requiring to be led by
the hand, it could not from the first have been anything less effective.
Per Acts, in this state he continues all the way as far as Damascus, and
for three days after his arrival there. So likewise in the supposed
unstudied speech, Paul 1st. But in the studied speech, Paul 2d, there is
no blindness; the blindness is either forgotten or discarded.
But the curious circumstance is, his being led by the hand--all the way
to Damascus led by the hand:--led by the hand by these same companions.
Now these same companions, how was it that they were able to lead him by
the hand? All that he saw was the light, and by that light he was
blinded. But all that he saw they saw: this same light they saw as well
as he. This same light, then, by which he was blinded--were they not
blinded likewise by it? Was it a privilege--a privilege reserved for a
chosen favourite--a privilege which it cost a miracle to produce--the
being blinded when nobody else was blinded?
Blinded then as they were, how came he to be led by them, any more than
they by him? Can the blind lead the blind? Let Jesus answer. Shall they
not both fall into the ditch?
Oh! but (says somebody) it is only in Paul 1st,--in Paul's supposed
unstudied speech, that the historian makes them see the light that Paul
saw. Answer. True: but neither in his own person does he say the
contrary. As to their seeing, all he says is, that _they_ saw no man,
"hearing a voice but seeing no man." (ver. 7.) But by the same account,
(ver. 8.) "When _his_ eyes were opened, he saw no man;" so that, though
in what he says in his own person the historian does not mention this
which he mentions, speaking in Paul's person,--yet he does not
contradict it.
10. _Paul's companions. What part, if any, took they in the
conversation?_ Per Acts, they stood speechless: and it is after the
dialogue has been reported, that this is stated. In the unstudied
speech, nothing is said about their speech. In the studied speech, with
reference to them, no mention is made of speech; any more than of sight
or hearing.
But, forasmuch as, according to Acts, whatever Paul saw and heard, they
saw and heard likewise; how happened it, that by no one of them, so much
as a word, on an occasion so interesting to all, was said--or a question
put? To be sure it was to Paul alone, that by the voice, whosever it
was, any address was made. It was his concern:--his alone, and none of
theirs.
So, indeed, some might think; but, others in their situation, quite as
naturally might think otherwise. Sooner or later, at any rate, they
would recover whatever it was they lost: sight, if sight; speech, if
speech. Whenever recovered, speech would thereupon range with but the
greater freedom, for the restraint which, for a time, had been put upon
it:--range over the whole business, including whatever secrets Paul had
been put in possession of:--the commission, the sweeping and
incarcerating commission he had been intrusted with by the rulers, and
the unperformed promise that had been made to him by the voice, which
being at midday, accompanied by an extraordinary light, was of course
the Lord's voice. These things would naturally, by these his companions,
have been converted from secrets into town-talk.
Nay but (says somebody) though it _is_ said he saw no _man_, it is _not_
said, he saw not the Lord: and elsewhere he may be seen saying--saying
in the most positive terms, that he did see the Lord[7]. And if he did
see the Lord anywhere, why not here as well as anywhere else?
"_Saw no man._" Yes: so says the English version. But the original is
more comprehensive:--Saw no person, says the original: that is, to speak
literally, saw no one of the masculine gender. No one what? No one
person of this gender: this is what the word means, if it means
anything. No person; and therefore no Lord: no God; if so it be that,
when applied to denote God, the word person means God, or as some say, a
part of God.
Note, likewise,--that, when the companions are spoken of,--both in the
translation and in the original, the object to which the negative is
applied is expressed by the same word as when he, Paul, is spoken of.
SECTION 3.
VISION II.--ANANIAS'S.
TOPIC 1.--_Ananias's Description._
Of the vision itself there being but one account, by this singleness
discordancy is saved.
But, of the description belonging to Ananias there are two accounts.
One the historical, as before: the other, the unpremeditated
oratorical account supposed to be given by Paul in the first of
his two supposed speeches, as above; and, room being thus given for
discordancy,--discordancy, as of course, enters--or at any rate a
strong suspicion of it.
Per Acts, Ananias is a disciple: a disciple, to wit, a Christian; a
disciple immediately of Jesus or his Apostles: for, such is the
signification attached to the word _disciple_ in the Acts: such he would
on this occasion be of course understood to be; for, otherwise the word
would be uncharacteristic and insignificant.
Materially different is the description supposed to have been given of
this same Ananias by Paul in that same supposed unpremeditated speech;
so different as to be not without effort, if by any effort, reconcilable
with it.
He is now a disciple of Jesus and the Apostles; of that Jesus, by whom
the law, _i.e._ the Mosaic law, was after such repeated exposure of its
inaptitude, pronounced obsolete. He is now not only spoken of as being,
notwithstanding this conversion, a devout man according to that same
law; but, moreover, as having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt
there, to wit, at Damascus. Of the Jews? Yes; of "_all_" the Jews.
If, notwithstanding his conversion to a religion by which that of the
Jews was slighted and declared to be superseded, he was still so happy
as to be the subject of this good _report_, which is as much as to
say--of a correspondently unanimous good opinion; this, it would seem,
would have been the man to preach to them that religion: especially if
that part of the story were true, according to which he was
distinguished by the same supernatural sort of communication; this man,
who was already a Christian, this man, and not Paul, who of all opposers
of Christianity had been the most fierce and the most mischievous, would
naturally have been the man to receive the supernatural commission.
Supposing his vision real, and the reports of it true, no difficulty,
rationally speaking, could he have found in obtaining credence for it at
the hands of the Apostles: those Apostles, at whose hands, from first to
last it will be seen, never was it the lot of Paul, with _his_ vision or
visions, to obtain credence.
The audience, before which this speech was supposed to be delivered, of
whom was it composed? With the exception of a few Romans, to whom it was
probably unintelligible unless by accident, altogether of Jews; and
these--no one can say in what proportion, probably in by much the
largest, Jews not christianized. Hence then the sort of character, which
the occasion and the purpose required should be given, to this supposed
miraculously formed acquaintance of the person who, upon the strength of
this acquaintance, was to be numbered among the Apostles.
TOPIC 2.--_Mode of Conversation._
By this vision is produced a dialogue. Interlocutors, the Lord and
Ananias. In the course of the dialogue, speeches five: whereof, by the
Lord, three; the other two by Ananias.
In and by the first pair of speeches the Lord calls the man by his name:
the man answers, Behold, says he, I am here, Lord. In the English
translation, to atone for the too great conciseness of the Greek
original, the words "_am here_" are not improperly interpolated. Giving
to this supposed supernatural intercourse what seemed to him a natural
cast--a cast suited to the occasion--seems to have been the object of
the historian in the composition of this dialogue. But, upon so
supernatural a body, a natural colouring, at any rate a colouring such
as this, does not seem to fit quite so completely as might have been
wished. On the road, when the voice,--which turned out to be that of the
Lord, that is, being interpreted, Jesus's,--addressed itself to Paul,
this being the first intercourse, there was a necessity for its
declaring itself, for its declaring whose it was; and the declaration
was made accordingly. Here, on the other hand, no sooner does Ananias
hear himself called by his name, than he knows who the person is by whom
he is thus addressed. Taken as it stands, an answer thus prompt includes
the supposition of an already established intercourse. Such intercourse
supposed--in what way on former occasions had it been carried on? Laying
such former occasion out of the question--in what way is it supposed to
be carried on on the occasion here in question? On the occasion of his
visit to Paul,--the Lord, to whomsoever he may have been audible, had
never, from first to last, as we have seen, been visible. On the
occasion of this visit of his to Ananias--was the Lord audible only, or
visible only, or both audible and visible? If both audible and visible,
or even if only visible,--the mode of revelation was more favourable to
this secondary and virtually unknown personage, than to the principal
one.
Between mortal and mortal, when it is the desire of one man to have
personal communication with another whom he supposes to be within
hearing, but who is either not in his sight or not looking towards
him,--he calls to him by his name; and in token of his having heard, the
other answers. From man to man, such information is really necessary;
for--that the requisite attention has place where it is his desire that
it should have place, the human interlocutor has no other means of
knowing. Not considering, that the person to whom the information is
supposed to be conveyed is a sort of person to whom no such information
could be necessary, the historian represents his Ananias as giving to
the Lord, as if to a mere mortal, information of his presence. Behold,
Lord! I am here.
TOPIC 3.--_Lord's Commands and Information: Want of particularization a
disprobative Circumstance._
The conversation being thus begun, the interlocutors proceed to
business. In speech the 3d, Lord delivers to Ananias, the devout Jew, a
command, and thereupon a piece of information. The command is--to repair
to a place therein described, and find out Paul: the information
is--that at the time then present Paul is praying; and that, at an
anterior point of time not designated, he had seen a vision.
In the command, the designation of the place wears, upon the face of it,
the appearance of that sort and degree of particularity, the exaction of
which is, in these days, in which genuine visions are never exemplified,
matter of course, on every occasion on which it is the real intention,
of those on whom it depends, that through the medium of personal
testimony the truth should be extracted. On every such occasion, the
object in question, whether it be an event or a quiescent state of
things, is endeavoured to be individualized: and, for the production of
this effect, the individual portion of space, and the individual portion
of time, are endeavoured to be brought to view together.
On the occasion here in question, towards the individualization of the
portion of space some approach is made: the town being foreknown, to
wit, Damascus, the _street_ is particularized; it is the street called
_Straight_: as in Westminster we have _Long-ditch_, and in London
_Crooked-lane_. Moreover, the _house_ is particularized; it is the house
of Judas. To this Judas had any one of those marks of distinction been
added, which in that age and nation we find to have been common,--as in
the instance of the too notorious Judas the Iscariot, _i.e._, the
inhabitant of Iscara, and in that of Judas Barsabas, _i.e._, the son of
Sabas, or, as we should say, Sabasson, not long after mentioned, Acts
25:22,--it would have been something. But, destitute of such limitative
adjunct, _Judas_ of itself was nothing. In that age and country, even
without reckoning notorious traitors, there was never any want of
Judases. Not inferior in plenty were Ananiases: in the Acts we have
three of them;--this private inhabitant of Damascus: the High Priest,
whose seat was at Jerusalem; and the husband of Sapphira: and in
Josephus they vie in abundance with the Johns and Jesuses.
But, on the occasion in question, and to the purpose in question, though
a distinctive adjunct as above would have done something, it would have
done very little. In the field of time,--seven-and-twenty years at
least, and we know not how much more, according to the received
chronology, was the distance between the event in question, and the
report given of it in this history. Neither in Damascus nor yet in
Jerusalem was any such thing as a newspaper,--not even an enslaved
newspaper, in existence; no, nor yet so much as a printing-press,--not
even an enslaved printing-press. For writing, the materials were
expensive; and handwriting was the only mode of copying. Publication was
not, as under the printing-press, promiscuous: unless by accident, for
an indefinite length of time, into no other hand did any copy find its
way, other than those of the author's confidential friends, or friends
separated from the author by a greater or less number of removes, as it
might happen; but all of them linked to one another by the bonds of
amity, and unity of principle and practice.
In such a capital as Damascus, Straight Street might have been as long
as Oxford Street; and, unless the style of building in those earlier
days had much more of convenience and luxury in it than in these latter
days, was much more crowded. Conceive a man at this time of day, going
to Oxford Street with the intention of finding the house, in which,
thirty years ago, a man of the name of Brown or Smith had his
residence,--to wit, on some indeterminate day, of the number of those
included within the space of an indeterminate number of years; and this,
for the purpose of ascertaining whether, on this indeterminate day, and
by this Smith or this Brown, a vision, not seen by anybody else, had
been seen. Suppose a man in Rome set out on such an errand--and then say
what would be the probable result of it.
TOPIC 4.--_Vision reported to Ananias by the Lord as having been seen by
Paul._
Of the report then given of this anterior vision, the character is too
remarkable to be given, as it were, in a parenthesis: it is therefore
referred to a separate head. Acts ix. 12. "And Paul hath seen in a
vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him that
he might receive his sight."
TOPIC 5.--_Ananias's Objection to the Lord's Commands to visit Paul--He
informs the Lord what he had heard about Paul._
By the two first speeches of this dialogue, we are given to understand
that Ananias had already held intercourse with the Lord; an intercourse
which, the nature of the two parties considered, could not have been
other than a supernatural intercourse: yes, and on this very subject:
for, if not on this particular subject, the subject of it, whatever it
was, could not but have called for notice and communication. But, no
sooner does this next speech commence, than we are given to understand
that there had not--could not have been any such intercourse: for if
there had been, what follows would have been rendered useless and
needless. Upon receiving the command, Ananias's first thought is--to
endeavour to excuse himself from paying obedience to it; for in this
endeavour it is, that he gives the Lord a piece of information; to
wit--of what, in relation to Paul's character, he (Ananias) had heard.
Acts ix. 13: "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this
man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem. And here he
hath authority from the Chief Priests to bind all that call on thy
name." Thus then, commands known to have been the Lord's, having that
instant been received,--the man by whom they have been received--so
small is the confidence, reposed in the Lord by this his favoured
disciple--instead of paying obedience to them, answers them by an
objection. This objection, prepared for it or not prepared for it, the
Lord, as might well be expected, immediately overrules.
A question that here presents itself is--Since it was from _many_, i.e.
_many men_, that Ananias had heard, not only what everybody had been
hearing for weeks, or months, or years,--viz. of the evil that Paul had
been doing to the Jerusalem saints, but of the authority that he had so
lately received, to bind at Damascus all the Damascus saints he could
find--since it was from so many, who then were these many? How was it,
that in the compass of the three days (ver. 9), during which Paul had
remained without sight or nourishment, a commission,--to the execution
of which secrecy was so obviously necessary,--had to such a degree
transpired? Suppose the secret to have thus transpired,--two results
would, in any natural and credible state of things, have been among the
consequences. The persons thus devoted to destruction would have made
their escape; the commission by which alone the supposed proceedings
against them could have found a justification or a cause, not having
been delivered. On the other hand, hearing that Paul was there, and that
he either was, or pretended to be, in the house in question, or in some
other, in the extraordinary condition above described,--the persons
spoken of in the Acts under the name of _the Synagogue_, would not have
left him there, but would have convened him before them, and, if he
really had any such commission, have caused it to be produced, and read
it: convened before them, not only Paul with his supposed commission,
but those companions of his that we have already heard of, if any such
he had[8].
But of these there will be occasion to speak in another place.
TOPIC 6.--_The Lord's Answer, obviating the objection, and giving
intimation of his designs in favour of Paul._
This objection, no sooner has the Lord overruled it, than he undertakes
to answer it, and to explain to this his so singularly favoured old
disciple the intentions he had formed in favour of his intended new
convert, whose conversion is, however, as yet but in progress (ver. 14):
"But the Lord said to him, Go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto
me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of
Israel:--For (continues the Lord) I will show him how great things he
must suffer for my name's sake." Being, and therefore at the time of
Paul's vision purposing to be, in relation to his designs for Paul, thus
communicative to this same Ananias, who is a perfect stranger to this
same Paul,--to what purpose, on the occasion of his supposed visionary
intercourse with Paul, should _the Lord_ have stopped short; reserving
the communication, for the intention of giving it him at second-hand by
the mouth of that same stranger? This is one of the swarms of questions
which an account of this sort could scarcely fail to present to any
inquiring mind.
Meantime, as to the Lord's having thus stopped short, this we shall see
is in full contradiction with the account which the historian makes him
give in his supposed second reported speech, to wit, the supposed
premeditated one, spoken before Agrippa, who, under the proconsul
Festus, was king of the Jews, and who, on that occasion, is spoken of as
being assessor to the said proconsul Festus. On that occasion the Lord
is represented as explaining himself more fully to Paul himself, than
here, for the benefit of Paul, through Ananias.
SECTION 4.
ANANIAS: HIS VISIT TO PAUL AT DAMASCUS.
We now come to the visit, which, we are to understand, was, in reality,
paid to Paul by Ananias, in consequence of this vision, in obedience to
the command imagined to be given in it.
Note that, though, in the original--in _the including vision_, as it may
be called--the command is given to inquire in the house in question for
the person (Saul) in question,--this is _all_ the command which, in that
least visionary of the two visions, is delivered. In the first instance
to make the inquiry, and in conclusion to go his way--this is all to
which the commands given to him in the direct way extend themselves. To
accomplish the object of this intercourse--to do anything towards it
beyond the making of this inquiry--he has to take hints and to draw
inferences:--inferences from the Lord's speech, which is thus continued,
Acts ix. 12: "And (Paul) _hath seen in a vision_ a man named Ananias
coming in, and putting his hand on him that he might receive his sight."
From having been told what--in a vision, to wit, this _contained or
included vision_--this same Paul had been _fancying_ he _had_ seen him
(Ananias) do--from this he was to conclude that it was the Lord's will
that he (Ananias) _should_ do _in reality_ that which Paul had been
fancying him to have done; though the only effect, for the doing of
which it had so been fancied to have been performed, had never been
produced. This was what he was to conclude was the Lord's will; although
the Lord himself, who (if any person) should have known how to speak
plainly and beyond danger of misconception, had forborne to tell him as
much.
On the occasion of this important visit--this visit of Ananias to
Paul,--the double light--the light cast by the first of the two
oratorical accounts--to wit, the supposed unpremeditated one, upon the
historical one--recommences.
Follows now--and from both sources--the account of the interview, and of
the cure performed in the course of it.
ACTS' ACCOUNT.--Ch. ix. ver. 17-22.
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting
his hands on him, said: Brother Saul, the Lord, _even_ Jesus, that
_appeared_ unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that
thou mightest receive thy sight, _and be filled with the Holy
Ghost_.--And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been
_scales_: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and _was
baptized_.--And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then
was Saul _certain days_ with the disciples which were _at
Damascus_.--And straightway he _preached_ Christ in the synagogues,
that he is the Son of God.--But all that heard _him_ were amazed,
and said: Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this
name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might
bring them bound unto the Chief Priests?--But Saul _increased the
more_ in strength, and _confounded the Jews_ which dwelt at
_Damascus_, proving that this is very Christ.
PAUL'S ACCOUNT.--ACTS, Ch. xxii. ver. 12-16.
12. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a
good report of all the Jews which dwelt _there_,--Came unto me, and
stood, and said unto me: Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the
same hour I looked up upon him.--And he said: The God of our fathers
hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and _see_ that
Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.--For thou shalt
be his witness unto all men of what thou hast _seen_ and heard.--And
now, why tarriest thou? arise, and _be baptized_, and wash away thy
sins; calling on the name of the Lord.
TOPIC 1.--_On visiting Paul, Ananias's Introductory Speech--Preliminary
Recital._
I. In the historical account, the speech has in it several
distinguishable parts.
I. "Brother Saul."
First comes the address, in which Saul, the future Paul, is addressed by
disciple Ananias by the name of _brother_. If, as between Jew and Jew,
this was a common form of salutation,--so far everything is in order.
But, if it was only in consideration of his having been denominated a
disciple, to wit, of Jesus,--the salutation is rather premature: the
conversion, supposing it effected, is, at any rate, not yet declared.
Not only in the historical account is this appellation employed, but
likewise in the oratorical one.
The attention of Paul being thus bespoken by his visitor, mention is
thereupon made of the purpose of the visit.
I. In the first place comes a recital. "The Lord (says he), even Jesus,
that _appeared_ unto thee on the way as thou camest, hath sent me"....
Unfortunately, according to the historian himself, this assertion, as we
have seen already, is not true. In no manner or shape did the Lord
Jesus, or any other person, make his appearance;--all that _did_ appear
was the light--the light at midday: so he has just been writing, and
before the ink, if ink it was that he used, was dry, already had he
forgotten it.
This, however, is but a collateral averment:--a recital, an episode,
matter of _inducement_, as an English lawyer would phrase it.
TOPIC 2.--_Declared Purposes or Objects of the Visit._
Purpose the first. "That thou mightest," says Ananias, "receive thy
sight." Thus says Ananias in the historical account: in the supposed
oratorical one he is more concise. No supposed past occurrence referred
to:--no purpose declared. "Receive thy sight" are the words.
Purpose the second. That thou mightest "be filled with the Holy Ghost,"
says the historical account. But in a succeeding passage what is the
purpose, which, in the supposed oratorical account Ananias is made to
speak of, in the design that it should be taken for the purpose which
the Lord by his commandment meant to be accomplished? Not the being
filled by the Holy Ghost; only the being baptized. "And now, why
tarriest thou? (Acts xxii. ver. 16) Arise and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Well but (says somebody)
receiving the Holy Ghost, and being baptized,--by these two
expressions, is not one, and no more than one effect--one and the same
effect--to be understood? No, in truth, if the historian himself is to
be believed. Turn to another chapter--the very next chapter before this,
Acts 12 to 17, and there you will see, that the being baptized was one
thing, the receiving the Holy Ghost another thing, and much more. For
administering the ceremony of baptism, a single Apostle, Philip, was
sufficient: whereas, for the causing the Holy Ghost to be received,
nothing less was requisite than the cooperation of two Apostles, and
those two commissioned by the rest.
So serious always, according to this historian, was the difference, that
it was after he had been already baptized, and baptized gratis in a
crowd, that for the power of conferring this benefit, whatever it was
that it was composed of, Sorcerer Simon made to the two Apostles, those
offers--those pecuniary offers--which are said to have been no sooner
made than rejected. Acts 13 to 24.
TOPIC 3.--_Actual Effects of the Visit, and the Application in
consequence made in the course of it._ Effect 1. _Scales fall from Eyes,
and Sight is received in consequence._
In the historical narrative, the effect is as complete as it is
remarkable. Fall from his eyes a portion of matter of the nature or
resemblance of scales: whereupon he receives sight forthwith.
In the supposed oratorical account, whatsoever had been meant by scales,
nothing is said of them. Neither is the declaration made of the
completeness of the case quite so explicit. One look he gave--gave to
his wonder-working surgeon--and instead of its being given forthwith--to
give this one look required, it should seem, if not a whole hour, at
any rate so little less, that any time less than an hour could
not--such, in this supposed unpremeditated speech, was the anxiety felt
for correctness--could not be ventured to be particularized.
The more closely these scales, or things resembling scales, are looked
at, the more difficult will it be to find them amount to anything. In no
cure, performed upon eyes in any natural way, in these our days--upon
eyes that have lost their sight--do any scales fall off, or anything in
any degree resembling scales;--in no disorder of the eyes, known to have
place in these our days, do scales, or anything like scales, come over
the eyes. By the taking of matter from the eyes, sight, it is true, is
every now and then restored: but this matter is not matter, foreign in
relation to the eye and exterior to it; but one of the component parts
called _humours_ of the eye, which, by losing its transparency having
suspended the faculty of vision, is let out by a lancet; whereupon not
only is the faculty of sight restored, but the part which had been
extirpated restored likewise; and without any expense in the article of
miracles.
On the supposition of falsity,--quere the use of this circumstance?
_Answer._ To afford support to the conception, that memory and not
imagination was the source from which the story was derived. True it is,
that, instead of support, a circumstance exposed to contradiction would
be an instrument of weakness: if, for example, on the supposition that
Paul had no companions on the road, names indicative of really existing
and well-known persons had been added, to the intimation given in the
_Acts_, of the existence of such companions. But to no such hazard was
the story of the scales exposed: not to any great danger, on the
supposition of the existence of Paul's Ananias: not to any danger at
all, upon the supposition of his non-existence.
But, upon this occasion, now again once more present themselves--present
themselves to the mind's eye--Paul's companions. That they were blinded
at all can scarcely, it has been seen, be believed, if on this matter
the historian himself is believed. For, per Acts ix. 8, "they led him by
the hand:" so, per Paul 1st, Acts xxii. 11, "When I could not see for
the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those that were with
me, I came unto Damascus." But if, notwithstanding so it was that _they_
too were blinded,--how was it with _their_ eyes? Had _their_ eyes scales
upon them? did these scales ever fall off?--if so, by what means were
they made to fall off? _their_ evidence would have been not much, if
anything, less impressive,--and it would have been much less open to
suspicion,--than Paul's evidence, supposing him to have spoken of these
scales--which the historian, to whom, if he is to be believed, their
existence is so well known, did not take upon him to represent Paul as
saying that he did. But if so it was, that, though rendered blind as
Paul's, no scales were superinduced upon, nor consequently made to fall
off, the eyes of those nameless and unknown persons,--how came they to
be superinduced upon and made to fall off from the eyes of their
singularly favoured principal? If, for a length of time more or less
considerable, they really were made blind,--it was, if the historian is
to be believed, by the same cause by which, in the instance of Paul's
eyes, this same effect was produced:--the same cause, to wit an
extraordinary light at noonday. If, whatsoever was the matter with them,
the eyes of these ordinary persons could be set to rights without a
miracle, what need could there be of a miracle for the producing the
same desirable effect in the person of this their leader or master,
extraordinary as this same leader or master was?
TOPIC 4.--_Baptism--was it performed? when, where, by whom, &c.?_
The baptism thus spoken of--was it performed? Yes: if you will believe
the historian, speaking in his own person, speaking in his own
historical account: "And forthwith," in the first place, "Paul
recovered his sight;"--then, when, his sight having been recovered, he
was able to go about as usual,--he arose and was baptized:
baptized--that is say, as from this expression taken by itself any one
would conclude--baptized, as soon as he arose, to wit, as soon as water
could be found for the purpose: that water, which his guest Ananias,
foreknowing what was to come to pass, and what was to be done to make it
come to pass, might naturally be expected to have provided, and this
without any supernatural foresight: in a word, without the expense of
any additional miracle in any shape:--the water being thus ready upon
the spot, and he in equal readiness to administer it.
This, according to the historian, speaking in his own person: but, when
the time comes for giving an account of the matter in the person of Paul
himself,--to wit in the supposed unpremeditated oratorical
speech,--then, for whatever it was that stopped him, (whether the
supposed urgency of the occasion on which the supposed speech was
supposed to be made, or any thing and what else,) so it is, that he
gives not any such information: he leaves the matter to hang in
doubt:--a doubt, which, down to the present day remains unsolved.
A command to this effect is spoken of as having been given: thus much
is said. But, what is not said is--whether to this same command any or
what obedience was paid.
Thus it is that, instead of an _effect_ which it seems desired that we
should consider as being produced, what we see directly stated as being
produced, is nothing more than a _command_--a command, by which, as by
its cause, we are to suppose the effect to have been produced. What is
more, in the same blind way, is intimation given us, of another and very
different effect--_the washing away of sins_--as if produced by the
first-mentioned physical operation;--namely, by that of a man's being
dipped in, or sprinkled with, water: and thus it is, that from a mere
physical operation of the most trivial nature, we are called upon to
infer a spiritual and supernatural effect of the most awful importance;
the spiritual effect stated as if it were produced by the physical
operation, to which it has no perceptible real relation--nothing but the
mere verbal one thus given to it; produced by it, and following it, as
of course--just as if sins were a species of dirt, which, by washing,
could as surely be got off as any other dirt.[9]
And was he then really baptized? If so he was, then also if, speaking in
the person of his hero, the historian is to be believed,--then also, by
this ceremony, the name of the Lord being at the same time called
upon,--then also were his sins washed away; his sins washed away; the
sinner, therefore and thereby, put into the same case as if the sins had
not any of them been ever committed. How can it be understood otherwise?
for if, in and by this passage, intimation--sufficiently perfect
information--is given, that the ceremony was performed--then also is
sufficiently perfect information given, that such was the effect
actually produced by it. "Arise" (Ananias is made to say)--"_Arise and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord._"
This is no light matter: if so it really were, that according to the
religion of Jesus, by such a cause, such an effect was on that occasion
produced;--that such effect could, in a word, on any occasion, in any
case be produced,--that _murders_, or (not to embarrass the question
with conceits of local jurisprudence) _killings_ of men--killings of men
by persecution carried on, on a religious account--slaughters of
Christians by non-Christians--could thus, as in Paul's case, be divested
of all guilt, at any rate of all punishment, at the hands of Almighty
Justice;--if impunity could indeed be thus conferred by the sprinkling a
man with water or dipping him in it, then would it be matter of serious
consideration--not only what is the _verity_ of that religion, but what
the _usefulness_ of it, what the usefulness--with reference to the
present life at any rate, not to speak of a life to come: what the
usefulness of it; and on what ground stands its claim to support by all
the powers of factitious punishment and factitious reward, at the hands
of the temporal magistrate.[10]
TOPIC 5.--_Performance of the Promise, supposed to have been made by the
Lord, in favour of Paul, to Ananias._
If the supposed promise is inadequate to the occasion, the supposed
performance is still more inadequate with reference to the promise.
In the supposed promise are two distinguishable parts, and in neither of
them is the one thing needful to be found. Of these two parts, the only
one in which in any direct stage the matter of a promise is contained,
is the one last mentioned: it is the promise to show him, (Paul) what
sufferings he will have to undergo in the course of the career, whatever
it is, in which he is about to engage: to wit, in name and profession,
the preaching the religion of Jesus: "for I will show him," says the
Lord, according to the historian,--"I will show him how great things he
must suffer for my name's sake." If so it was, that upon this promise,
such as it is, performance never followed, the regret for the failure
need not be very great. Whatsoever were the sufferings that he was
predestined to undergo, that which was _not_ in the nature of this
foreshowing, was--the lessening their aggregate amount; that which _was_
in the nature of it was--the making an addition to that same afflicting
aggregate; to wit, by constant and unavoidable anticipation of the
approach of such sufferings.
Of this talk, vague as it is, about sufferings, the obvious enough
object was--the giving exaltation to the idea meant to be conveyed of
the merits of the hero:--an object, which, by this and other means, has
accordingly, down to the present day, in no small degree been
accomplished. So much as to sufferings: as to enjoyments, by any idea
entertained of the enjoyments derived by him from the same source, this
design would have been--not promoted, but counteracted. But, when the
time arrives, whether the mass of suffering was not, to no small amount,
overbalanced by that of his enjoyments--meaning always worldly
sufferings and worldly enjoyments--the reader will be left to judge.
Here then we have the only promise, which in any direct way is
expressed:--a promise which, in the first place would have been useless,
in the next place worse than useless.
TOPIC 6.--_Indirect Promise, that Paul shall spread the Name of Jesus._
In the whole substance of this promise, if there be anything, which,
with reference to the professed end--to wit the giving extension to the
religion of Jesus--would have been of use, it is in the foregoing part
that it must be looked for. In this part then, if there be any such
matter to be found, it will be this: to wit, a promise that he (Paul)
shall bear, and therefore that he shall be enabled to bear, the name of
the Lord, to wit, the name of Jesus, before the classes of persons
specified, to wit, the Gentiles, and kings, and children of Israel: Acts
ix. 15. But, only in an indirect way is this solely material part of the
promise expressed: "He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name," &c.
_i.e._ When I chose him, it was my design that he should do so. But, in
the case of the Lord, according to the picture drawn of him by this
historian, how very inconclusive evidence _intention_ is of _execution_,
there will, in the course of this work, have been abundant occasion to
see.
Bear the name of Jesus? so far, so good. But for this function no such
special and supernatural commission was necessary: without any such
commission, the name of Jesus had been borne to the people at large, if
in this particular the Gospel history is to be believed. Luke ix. 49,
50: "And John answered and said, 'Master, we saw one casting out devils
in thy name: and we forbad him, because he followed not with us.' And
Jesus said unto him, 'Forbid him not, for he that is not against us, is
for us.'" How inadequate soever, with reference to the professed end, to
wit, giving extension to the religion of Jesus, the promise was
perfectly adequate, and commensurate, to what we shall find to be Paul's
real design; to wit, the planting a Gospel of his own, as, and for, and
instead of, the Gospel of Jesus. The Gospel of Jesus was the Gospel of
Jesus: and the Gospel, which, availing himself of the name of Jesus, it
was Paul's design and practice to preach, was, as he himself
declares,--as we shall see him declaring in the plainest and most
express terms,--a Gospel of his own; a Gospel which was not the Gospel
of the Apostles, and which, for fear of its being opposed by them, he
kept studiously concealed from those confidential servants and real
associates of Jesus, as may be seen in the following passages: Gal. i.
9, 11, and 12; "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach
any other Gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be
accursed.--But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was
preached of me is not after man.--For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal.
2:2: "And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that
Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles; but privately to them which
were of reputation, lest by any means, I should run, or had run, in
vain."
In the course of Paul's dialogue with the voice on the road--that voice
which we are given to understand was the Lord's, _i.e._ Jesus's--the
promise supposed to be made to Paul, it must be remembered, was--the
promise to tell him, when in the city, what he was to do. "What thou
must do," says the historian in his historical account:--"all things
which are appointed for thee to do," says the historian in the supposed
unpremeditated oratorical account, which, in this so often mentioned
first of the speeches, he is supposed by the historian to have
delivered.
Among all these things,--one thing, which it is manifestly the design of
the historian, as it was that of his hero, to make men believe, was
accomplished: to wit, the satisfying them what was the religious
doctrine, for the dissemination of which the expense of this miracle
was incurred. This, moreover, is the promise; which, in the reading of
the story everybody looks for: this too is the promise which in the
reading of this same story, the believers in the religion of Jesus have
very generally been in the habit of considering as performed. Not in and
by this history, however, will they have any such satisfaction, when the
matter comes to be looked into. For, in respect of this information,
desirable as it is,--Paul is, in this strangely supposed intercourse,
put off--put off to another time and place: put off, for no reason
given, nor for any substantial reason that can be imagined. Further on,
when a show of performing the promise comes to be made, then, instead of
accomplishment, we have more evasion. Instead of furnishing the
information to Paul himself--to Paul directly--for, when the time and
place for performance comes, performance--what the Lord is not supposed
so much as to profess to do, what he professes to do is--to make the
communication to this man, who, his existence being supposed, was an
utter stranger to Paul--namely to this Ananias. Well, and for the
conveying the information, in this indirect and inadequate way--for
conveying it to and through this same Ananias--what is done?--as we have
seen, what amounts to nothing.
When, for affording the information--had any information been intended
to be afforded--the time and place are come; when Ananias and Paul have
been brought together; what is it that, from the information afforded us
by the historian, we are to understand, passed? _Answer_, that, after
the scales had fallen from his eyes, Paul was baptized; that he ate
meat, and that after he had eaten meat he was strengthened:
strengthened, we are warranted to suppose, by the meat which he had so
eaten. Moreover, that somehow or other, in this large city he was
certain days--number not specified,--with certain disciples--neither
names nor number specified,--and preached Christ in the synagogues,
saying that he was the son of God.
Thus far then we are got; and, of the supposed revelation, in all this
time nothing revealed. Promises, put-offs, evasions--and, after all, no
performance.
Among the purposes of this work, is the satisfying the reader--not only
that Paul received not any revelation from the Almighty; but that, even
upon his own showing, never did he receive any such revelation: that, on
pretence of his having received it from the Almighty by a special
revelation, he preached indeed a certain doctrine; but that this
doctrine was partly one of his own, contrary to that of Jesus's
apostles, and therefore contrary to that of Jesus: and that, in the way
of revelation, he never did receive anything; neither that doctrine of
his own which he preached, nor anything else.
TOPIC 7.--_Doctrine, supposed to be preached by Paul at Damascus in the
synagogues._
Straightway, if the historian is to be believed;--straightway after
being strengthened by the meat;--and straightway after he had passed the
certain days with the disciples;--then did Paul preach Christ in the
synagogues--preach that he is the son of God.
Here, had he really preached in any such places--here would have been
the time, and the best time, for telling us what, in pursuance of the
supposed revelation, he preached. For, whatever it was, if anything,
that he ever learnt from his supposed revelation, it was not till he had
learnt it, till he made this necessary acquisition, that the time for
beginning to preach in the synagogues in question or anywhere else was
come. And, no sooner had he received it, than then, when it was fresh in
his memory--then was the time for preaching it. But, never having
received any such thing as that which he pretended, and which the
historian has made so many people believe, he received,--no such thing
had he to preach at any time or place.
Whatever of that nature he had had, if he had had at any _time_,
Damascus was not the _place_, at any rate at _that time_, for him to
preach it, or anything else, in synagogues--in any receptacle so
extensively open to the public eye.
Preach, in the name of Jesus--in the name of that Jesus, whose
disciples, and with them whose religion, he now went thither with a
commission to exterminate,--preach in that name he could not, without
proclaiming his own religion--his own perfidy;--his own rebellion,
against the authorities, from which, at his own solicitation, the
commission so granted to him had been obtained:--his own perfidious
contempt--not only of those Jerusalem rulers, but of those Damascus
authorities, from whom, for that important and cruel purpose, he was
sent to receive instruction and assistance. At some seven-and-twenty
years distance in the field of time, and at we know not what distance in
the field of space, probably that between Rome and Damascus, it was as
easy for the historian to affirm the supposed preaching, as to deny it:
but, as to the preaching itself, whether it was within the bounds of
moral possibility, let the reader judge.
TOPIC 8.--_Supposed Amazement of the People of Damascus at this Paul's
supposed preaching of Christ in the Synagogues there._
Had there really been any such preaching, well might have amazement
followed it. But there was no such preaching, therefore no such
amazement. Had there been real preaching, and real amazement produced by
it--what would have been the subject of the amazement! Not so much the
audacity of the preacher--for madmen acting singly are to be seen in but
too great frequency: not so much the audacity of the speaker, as the
supineness of the constituted authorities; for, madmen acting in bodies
in the character of public functionaries have never yet been visible.
And if any such assemblage was ever seen, many such would be seen,
before any one could be seen, whose madness took the course of sitting
still, while an offender against their authority, coming to them single
and without support,--neither bringing with him support, nor finding it
there,--continued, at a public meeting, preaching against them, and
setting their authority at defiance.
TOPIC 9.--_Matter of the Revelation, which, in and by the supposed
unpremeditated Oratorical Account, is supposed to have been made._
Forgetting what, as we have seen, he had so lately been saying in his
own person--in the person of Paul,--he on this occasion, returns to the
subject: and more evasive is the result.
On this occasion--this proper occasion--what is it that he, Paul, takes
upon him to give an account of.--That which the Lord had revealed to
him?--revealed, communicated in the supernatural way of revelation, to
him--Paul? No; but that which, according to him,--if he, and through him
the historian, is to be believed,--the Lord communicated to Ananias
concerning him--Paul. The Almighty having minded to communicate
something to a man, and yet not communicating to that man any part of
it, but communicating the whole of it to another! What a proceeding
_this_ to attribute to the Almighty, and upon such evidence!
Still we shall see, supposing it communicated, and from such a source
communicated--still we shall see it amounted to nothing: to
nothing--always excepted the contradiction to what, in relation to this
subject, had, by this same historian, been a little before asserted.
Observe what were the _purposes_, for which, by this Ananias, Paul is
supposed to be made to understand, that God--the God, says he, of our
fathers--had chosen him.
1. Purpose the first--"To know his will." His will, respecting what? If
respecting anything to the great purpose here in question, respecting
the new doctrine which, to this Paul, to the exclusion of the Apostles
of Jesus, is all along supposed to have been revealed. Of no such
doctrine is any indication anywhere in these accounts to be found.
2. Purpose the second--"And see this just one." Meaning, we are to
understand, the person all along spoken of under the name of the Lord;
to wit, Jesus. But, in the vision in question, if the historian is to be
believed, no Jesus did Paul see. All that he saw was a light,--an
extraordinary strong light at midday; so strong, that after it, till the
scales fell from his eyes, he saw not any person in any place: and this
light, whatever it was, was seen by all that were with him, as well as
by him.
3. Purpose the third--"And shouldest hear the voice of his mouth." Oh!
yes; if what the historian says in that other place is to be
believed--hear a voice he did; and if the historian is to be again
believed, that voice was the Lord's. But, by hearing this voice, how was
he distinguished? those that were with him, according to the historian's
own account, heard it as well as he. And what was he the wiser? This
also, it is hoped, has been rendered sufficiently visible--just nothing.
Purpose the fourth and last--"Thou shalt be his witness (the Lord's
witness), of everything thou hast seen and heard:"--that is, of that
which was nothing, and that which amounted to nothing.
Unhappily, even this is not all: for, before the subject is concluded,
we must go back and take up once more the supposed premeditated and
studied speech, which, on the second occasion, the self-constituted
Apostle is supposed to have made to the Sub-king of the Jews, Agrippa,
sitting by the side of his superior--the Roman Proconsul, Festus.
In the course of this long-studied speech,--to whom, is the
communication, such as it is,--to whom, in an immediate way, and without
the intervention of any other person, is it supposed to be made? Not to
Ananias;--not to any such superfluous and unknown personage;--not to
Ananias, but to Paul himself: viz. to the very person _by_ whom this
same communication, supposed to have been made to him, is supposed to be
reported (Acts xxvi. 16 to 18): to this principal, or rather, only
person concerned:--to this one person, the communication, such as it is,
and to him the whole of it at once, is supposed to be made.
Here then is this Ananias discarded:--discarded with this vision of his,
and that other vision which we have seen within it: the communication,
which, speaking in the first place in his own person,--and then, on one
occasion, in the person of this same hero of his--the historian had just
been declaring, was made--not to Paul, but to Ananias;--this
all-important communication, speaking again in this same third person,
but on another occasion--the discourse being supposed to be a
long-studied one--he makes this same Paul declare, was given--not to any
Ananias, not to any other person--but directly to him, Paul, himself.
Let us now see what it amounts to. In the most logical manner, it begins
with declaring the _purposes_ it is made for; and, when the purposes are
declared, all that it does is done. Ver. 16. "But now: rise, and stand
upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose."...In
this purpose are several parts: let us look into them one by one.
1. Part 1. "To make thee (says the Lord) a minister and a witness, both
of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I
will appear unto thee." But, as to the things which he had seen, by this
same account they amounted to nothing but a glare of light. Here then
was the light to _bear witness of_, if it was worth while: but, as to
the _ministering_, here was nothing at all to minister to: for the light
was past, and it required no ministering to, when it was present. Had it
been the light of a lamp--yes; but there was no lamp in the case.
Thus much, as to these things which he had seen. Thereupon comes the
mention of those things "in the which, the Lord is supposed to say, I
will appear unto thee!" Here, as before, we have another put-off. If, in
the way in question, and of the sort in question, there had been
anything said, here was the time, the only time, for saying it. For
immediately upon the mention of this communication, such as it is,
follows the mention of what was due in consequence of it, in obedience
to the commands supposed to be embodied in it, and by the light of the
information supposed to be conveyed by it. "Whereupon, says he, King
Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision..."
Part 2. The purpose continued.--"Delivering thee from the people, and
from the Gentiles, unto whom I now send thee." This, we see, is but a
continuation of the same put-off: no revelation, no doctrine, no Gospel
here. As to the doctrine--the Gospel--that Gospel which he preached, and
which he said was his own, no such Gospel is on this occasion given to
him; and, not being so much as reported to have been given to him on any
other occasion, was it not therefore of his own making, and without any
such supernatural assistance, as Christians have been hitherto made to
believe was given to him?
As to the deliverance from the people and from the Gentiles, this is a
clause, put in with reference to the dangers, into which the
intemperance of his ambition had plunged him, and from whence in part it
had been his lot to escape. Here then the sub-king and his Roman
superior were desired to behold the accomplishment of a prophecy: but
the prophecy was of that sort which came after the fact.--"Unto whom now
I send thee..." In this they were desired to see a continuation of the
prophecy: for, as to this point, it was, in the hope of the prophet, of
the number of those, which not only announce, but by announcing
contribute to, their own accomplishment.
Part 3. The purpose continued.--"To open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God..." Still
the same nothingness: to his life's end a man might be hearing stories
such as these, and still at the end of it be none the wiser:--no
additional doctrine--no additional gospel--no declaration at all--no
gospel at all--here.
Part 4. The purpose continued and concluded... "that they may receive
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by
faith that is in me." Good. But this is not doctrine; this is not
gospel; this is not itself the promised doctrine: but it is a
description of the effect, of which the promised doctrine was to be the
cause.
Now it is, as we have just seen, that Paul is represented as commencing
his preaching, or sallying forth upon his mission; preaching, from
_instructions_ received in a supernatural way--received by revelation.
Yet, after all, no such _instructions_ has he received. Thrice has the
historian--once in his own person, twice in that of his hero--undertaken
to produce those instructions. But by no one, from first to last, have
they anywhere been produced.
Truly, then, of his own making was this Gospel which Paul went
preaching; of his own making, as well as of his own using; that Gospel,
which he himself declares to his Galatians was not of man, was not,
therefore, of those Apostles, to whom the opposition made by him is thus
proclaimed.
When, after having given in his own person an account of a supposed
occurrence,--an historian, on another occasion, takes up the same
occurrence; and, in the person of another individual, gives of that same
occurrence another account different from, and so different from, as to
be irreconcileable with it; can this historian, with any propriety, be
said to be himself a believer in this second account which he thus
gives? Instead of giving it as a true account, does he not, at any rate,
in respect of all the several distinguishable circumstances in which it
differs from the account given in his own person--give it in the
character of a fable? a fable invented on the occasion on which the
other person is supposed to speak--invented in the intent that it shall
promote the purpose for which this speech is supposed to be made? Yet
this account, which in the eyes of the very man by whom it is delivered
to us, is but a fable, even those to whom in this same character of a
fable it is delivered--this account it is that _Christians_ have thus
long persisted in regarding, supporting, and acting upon, as if it were
from beginning to end, a truth--a great body of truth!--O Locke! O
Newton! where was your discernment!
On such evidence would any Judge fine a man a shilling? Would he give
effect to a claim to that amount? Yet such is the evidence, on the
belief of which the difference between happiness and misery, both in
intensity as well as duration, infinite, we are told, depends!
SECTION 5.
VISION III.--PAUL'S ANTERIOR VISION, AS REPORTED BY THE LORD TO ANANIAS.
By the nature of the acts which are the objects of it, the command, we
see, is necessarily pregnant with information: but now comes the
information given as such--the piece of information with which the
command is followed. This information--in and by which another, an
antecedent vision, is brought upon the carpet, and communicated--has
been reserved for a separate consideration.
This information is in its complexion truly curious: to present a clear
view of it, is not an altogether easy task. The information thus given
by the Lord--given to this Ananias--this information, of which Paul is
the subject, is--what? that, on some former occasion, neither time nor
place mentioned, he, Ananias, to whom the Lord is giving the
information, had been seen by this same Paul performing, with a certain
intention, a certain action; the intention being--that, in relation to
this same Paul, a certain effect should be produced--to wit, that of his
receiving his sight. The Lord declares, Acts ix. 12, to Ananias, that
Paul "had _seen in a vision_ a man, Ananias himself, coming and putting
his hand on him, that he (Paul) might receive his sight."
Well then--this action which the Lord thus informs Ananias that he,
Ananias, had performed,--did he, at any time and place, ever perform it?
Oh, no; that is not necessary: the question is not a fair one; for it
was only in a vision that it was performed. Well then--if it was only in
a vision that it was performed, then, in reality, it was never
performed. The Lord said that it had been performed; but in so saying
the Lord had said that which was not true. The Lord had caused him to
believe this--the Lord knowing all the while that it was not true. Such
is the deed, which, according to our historian, the Lord relates himself
to have achieved.
But the _intention_, was that true? Oh, no; nor was there any need of
its being so: for the intention, with which the act was supposed to be
performed, was part and parcel of the divinely-taught untruth.
The effect, the production of which had been the object of the
intention, was it then--had it then been--produced? Wait a little; no,
not at that time. But the time was not then as yet come; and now it is
coming apace.
But this effect--what is it? a man's receiving his sight; this same
Paul's receiving his sight; this same Paul, of whom Ananias knew
nothing, nor had ever heard anything, except what he had just been
hearing--to wit, that, by a man of that name, he, Ananias, had once been
seen--seen to do so and so--he, all the while--he, the doer, knowing
nothing of what he was doing--knowing nothing at all about the matter.
However, only in a vision did all this pass; which being the case, no
proper subject of wonder was afforded to him by such otherwise somewhat
extraordinary ignorance.
But this sight--which, at the hands of this seer of visions, to whom
this information is thus addressed, this stranger, whose name was still
_Saul_, was to receive--how happened it that it was to him, Ananias,
that he came to receive it? This faculty--at his birth, was he not, like
any other man, in possession of it? If he was, what was become of it? In
this particular, the information thus supposed to have been given by
Omniscience, was rather of the scantiest.
Supposing the story to have any foundation in truth,--such, to Ananias,
it could not but have appeared; and, supposing him bold enough to ask
questions, or even to open his mouth, a question, in the view of finding
a supply for the deficiency, is what the assertion would naturally have
for its first result. No such curiosity, however, has Ananias: instead
of seeking at the hands of Omniscience an information, the demand for
which was so natural, the first use he makes of his speech, or rather
would have made of it, if, instead of being imagined in a vision, the
state of things in question had been true, is--the furnishing to
Omniscience a quantity of information of a sort in no small degree
extraordinary. For, hereupon begins a speech, in and by which Ananias
undertakes to give Omniscience to understand, what reports, in relation
to this same Paul, had reached his (Ananias's) ears. What he is willing
thus to _speak_ is more, however, than Omniscience is willing to _hear:_
the story is cut short, and the story-teller bid to "go his way." "Then
Ananias," says the text, Acts ix. 13. "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I
have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints
at Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the Chief Priests to bind
all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way;
for..." &c.
But, though thus cut short, he is far from being in disgrace. So far
from it, that he is taken into confidence. Then comes--still in a
vision, and the same vision--information of the till then secret acts
and intentions of Omnipotence in relation to this same Paul: he had
actually been "chosen" as "a vessel to bear the Lord's name before the
Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:" and the determination
had been taken, says the Lord in this vision, "to show him how great
things he must suffer for my name's sake." "For I will show him," says
the Acts, ix. 16, "how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."
And, with the announcement thus made of this determination, the
historical account, thus by the historian in his own person given, of
this same vision, closes.
Thus highly distinguished, and favoured with a confidence, equalling, if
not surpassing, any which, according to any of the Gospel accounts,
appears ever to have been imparted to any one of the Apostles, how comes
it that Ananias has never been put in the number of the _Saints?_
meaning always the Calendar _Saints_--those persons, to wit, who, as a
mark of distinction and title of honour, behold their ordinary names
preceded by this extraordinary one? Still the answer is: Aye, but this
was but in vision: and of a vision one use is--that of the matter of
which all that there is _not_ a use for, is left to be taken for false;
all that there _is_ a use for, is taken, and is to pass, for true. When,
by the name of Ananias, who, humanly speaking, never existed but in
name, the service for which it was invented has been performed--to wit,
the giving a support to Paul and his vision,--it has done all that was
wanted of it: there is no, further use for it.
Supposing that thirdly mentioned vision really seen, at what point of
time shall we place the seeing of it? In this too there seems to be no
small difficulty.
Between the moment at which Paul is said to have had his vision, if a
vision that can be called in which, the time being midday, he saw
nothing but a glare of light,--between the moment of this vision, of
which a loss of sight was the instantaneous consequence--between the
moment of this loss of sight and the moment of the recovery of it, the
interval is mentioned: three days it was exactly. Acts ix. 9, "And he
was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink."
The time during which, in verse 9, he has just been declared to have
been the whole time without sight,--this is the time, within which he is
declared--declared, if the historian is to be believed, declared by the
Lord himself--to have seen this introductory vision--this preparatory
vision, for which it is so difficult to find a use. And thus it is, that
in a vision, though _vision_ means seeing, it is not necessary a man
should have sight.
Meantime, of all these matters, on which his own existence, not to speak
of the salvation of mankind, so absolutely depends, not a syllable is he
to know, but through the medium of this so perfectly obscure and
questionable personage--this personage so completely unknown to
him--this same Ananias.
Three whole days he is kept from doing anything: during these three
whole days the business of the miracle stands still. For what purpose is
it thus kept at a stand? Is it that there might be time sufficient left
for his learning to see, when his sight is returned, this preparatory
vision, by which so little is done, and for which there is so little
use?
SECTION 6.
VISIONS, WHY TWO OR THREE INSTEAD OF ONE.
As to the matter of fact designated by the words _Paul's conversion_, so
far as regards _outward_ conversion, the truth of it is out of all
dispute:--that he was _converted, i.e._ that after having been a
persecutor of the votaries of the new religion, he turned full round,
and became a leader. Whether the so illustriously victorious effect, had
for its cause a supernatural intercourse of Paul with Jesus after his
resurrection and ascension, and thence for its accompaniment an _inward_
conversion--in this lies the matter in dispute.
From those, by whom, in its essential particular, the statement is
regarded as being true, a natural question may be--If the whole was an
invention of his own, to what cause can we refer the other vision, the
vision of Ananias? To what purpose should he have been at the pains of
inventing, remembering, and all along supporting and defending, the
vision of the unknown supposed associate? Answer.--To the purpose, it
should seem, of giving additional breadth to the basis of his
pretensions.
Among that people, in those times, the story of a vision was so common
an article,--so difficultly distinguishable from, so easily confounded
with, on the one hand the true story of a dream, on the other hand a
completely false story of an occurrence, which, had it happened, would
have been a supernatural one, but which never did happen,--that a basis,
so indeterminate and aërial, would seem to have been in danger of not
proving strong enough to support the structure designed to be reared
upon it.
On the supposition of falsity, the case seems to be--that, to
distinguish his vision from such as in those days were to be found among
every man's stories, as well as in every history,--and which, while
believed by some, were disbelieved and scorned by others,--either Paul
or his historian bethought himself of this contrivance of a _pair_ of
visions:--a pair of corresponding visions, each of which should, by
reference and acknowledgment, bear witness and give support to the
other: a _pair_ of visions: for, for simplicity of conception, it seems
good not to speak any further, of the antecedent vision interwoven so
curiously in the texture of one of them, after the similitude of the
flower termed by some gardeners _hose in hose_.
Of this piece of machinery, which in the present instance has been seen
played off with such brilliant success upon the theological theatre, the
glory of the invention may, it is believed, be justly claimed, if not by
Paul, by his historian. With the exception of one that will be mentioned
presently[11], no similar one has, upon inquiry, been found to present
itself, in any history, Jewish or Gentile.
The other pair of visions there alluded to, is--that which is also to be
found in the Acts: one of them ascribed to Saint Peter, the other to the
centurion Cornelius.
Paul, or his historian?--The alternative was but the suggestion of the
first moment. To a second glance the claim of the historian presents
itself as incontestable. In the case of Peter's pair of visions, suppose
the story the work of invention, no assignable competitor has the
historian for the honour of it: in the case of Paul's pair of visions,
supposing _that_ the only pair, the invention was at least as likely to
have been the work of the historian as of the hero: add to this pair the
other pair--that other pair that presents itself in this same work of
this same history--all competition is at an end. In the case of even the
most fertile genius, copying is an easier task than invention:
and, where the original is of a man's own invention, copying is
an operation still easier than in the opposite case. That an
occurrence thus curious should find so much as a single inventor,
is a circumstance not a little extraordinary: but, that two separate
wits should jump in concurrence in the production of it, is a
supposition that swells the extraordinariness, and with it the
improbability, beyond all bounds.
SECTION 7.
COMMISSION TO PAUL BY JERUSALEM RULERS--COMMISSION TO BRING IN BONDS
DAMASCUS CHRISTIANS--PAUL'S CONTEMPT PUT UPON IT.
Per Acts, in the historical account, is stated the existence of a
commission:--granters, the Jerusalem rulers; persons to whom addressed,
Paul himself at Jerusalem; and the synagogues, _i.e._ the rulers of the
synagogues, at Damascus: object, the bringing in custody, from Damascus
to Jerusalem, all Christians found there: all adult Christians at any
rate, females as well as males; at Paul's own _desire_, adds this same
historical account (ix. 2.); "for to be punished," adds Paul 1st
supposed unpremeditated oratorical account, xxii. 5. In the supposed
premeditated oratorical account, Paul 2nd, the existence of authority
and commission granted to him by the Chief Priests is indeed mentioned,
xxvi. 12: but, of the object nothing is said.
In the unpremeditated oratorical account, such is the boldness of the
historian, nothing will serve him but to make the orator call to witness
the constituted authorities--the Jerusalem rulers--whoever they were,
that were present,--to acknowledge the treachery and the aggravated
contempt he had been guilty of towards themselves or their predecessors:
towards themselves, if it be in the literal sense that what on this
occasion he says is to be understood: "As also the High Priest doth bear
me witness, and all the estate of the Elders, from whom also I received
letters," &c., Acts xxii. 5. In the premeditated oratorical account, the
boldness of the orator is not quite so prominent; he says--it was "with
authority and commission from the Chief Priests" at Jerusalem, that he
went to Damascus; but, for the correctness of this statement of his, he
does not now call upon them, or any of them, to bear witness.
In respect of the description of the persons, of whom the Jerusalem
rulers, exercising authority in their behalf, were composed,--the
conformity, as between the several accounts, is altogether entire. In
the historical account, it is the authority of the High Priest, and the
High Priest alone, that is exercised: in the unpremeditated oratorical
account, it is that of the High Priest and all the estate of the Elders:
in the premeditated account, it is that of the Chief Priests: nothing
said either of High Priests or Elders.
Neither, in the supposed unpremeditated oratorical account, is it
stated--that, at the time and place of the tumult, the rulers thus
called to witness, or any of them, were actually on the spot. But, the
spot being contiguous to the Temple--the Temple, out of which Paul had
been that instant dragged, before there had been time enough for
accomplishing the determination that had been formed for killing
him,--the distance, between the spot, at which Paul with the surrounding
multitude was standing, Paul being under the momentary protection of the
Roman commander--between this spot and the spot, whatever it was, at
which the question might have been put to them, or some of them, could
not be great.
On the part of the historian, the boldness, requisite for the ascribing
the correspondent boldness to the orator, may be believed without much
difficulty. The materials for writing being at hand, there was no more
danger in employing them in the writing of these words, than in the
writing of an equal number of other words.
Not so on the part of the orator himself. For, supposing the appeal
made, the multitude might have saved themselves the trouble of putting
him to death: the constituted authorities whom he was thus
invoking--those rulers, against whom, by his own confession, he had
committed this treason--would have been ready enough to proceed against
him in the regular way, and take the business out of the hands of an
unauthorized mob.
The truth of the story, and for that purpose the trustworthiness of the
historian, being to be defended at any rate,--by some people, all this
contradiction, all this mass of self-contradiction, will of course be
referred to _artlessness_, or, to take the choice of another eulogistic
word, to _simplicity:_ and, of trustworthiness, this amiable quality,
whatever may be the name given to it, will be stated as constituting
sufficient proof. No such design, as that of deceiving, inhabited, it
will be said, his artless bosom: no such design was he capable of
harbouring: for, supposing any such wicked design harboured by him,
could he have been thus continually off his guard?
But--by all this self-contradiction, the quality really proved is--not
artlessness, but weakness: and, with the desire of deceiving, no degree
of weakness, be it ever so high, is incompatible. By weakness, when
risen even to insanity, artfulness is not excluded: and, in the
fashioning, from beginning to end, of all this story, art, we see, is by
no means deficient, how unhappily soever applied.
But the story being such as it is, what matters it, as to the credence
due to it, in what state, in respect of probity, was the author's mind?
Being, as it is, to such a degree untrustworthy and incredible, as that,
in so many parts of it, it is impossible it should have been true, the
truth of it is impossible: what matters it then, whether it be to the
weakness of the moral, or to that of the intellectual, quarter of the
author's mind, that the falsity is to be ascribed?
Not only in the whole does this history, anonymous as it is, present
satisfactory marks of _genuineness_,--that is, of being written by the
sort of person it professes to be written by, namely, a person who in
the course of Paul's last excursion was taken into his suite; but in
many parts, so does it of _historic verity_. True or not true,--like any
other history ancient or modern, it has a claim to be provisionally
taken for true, as to every point, in relation to which no adequate
reason appears for the contrary: improbability, for example, of the
supposed facts as related, contradictoriness to itself,
contradictoriness to other more satisfactory evidence, or probable
subjection to sinister and mendacity-prompting interest.
But, under so much self-contradiction as hath been seen,--whether _bias_
be or be not considered, could any, the most ordinary fact, be regarded
as being sufficiently proved?
Meantime, let not any man make to himself a pretence for rejecting the
important position thus offered to his consideration;--let him not, for
fear of its being the truth, shut his eyes against that which is
presented to him as and for the truth;--let him not shut his eyes, on
any such pretence, as that of its being deficient in the quality of
_seriousness_. If, indeed, there be any such duty, religious or moral,
as that of _seriousness_; and that the stating as absurd that which is
really absurd is a violation of that duty;--at that rate, _seriousness_
is a quality, incompatible with the delivery and perception of truth on
all subjects, and in particular on this of the most vital importance:
seriousness is a disposition to cling to falsehood, and to reject truth.
In no part has any ridicule _ab extra_, been employed:--ridicule, by
allusion made to another object, and that an irrelevant one.[12]
SECTION 8.
COMPANIONS--HAD PAUL ANY UPON THE ROAD?
Meantime, if all these miraculous visions and other miracles must needs
be supposed,--a cluster of other miracles, though not mentioned, must be
supposed along with them: miracles, for the production of which a still
greater mass of supernatural force must have been expended. Here, their
existence being supposed, here were those companions of his, who,
unknown in names and number, saw or saw not all or anything that he saw,
and heard or heard not all or anything that he heard. These men, at any
rate, if so it be that they themselves, blind or not blind, led him, as
it is said they did, into the city, because he could not see to guide
himself,--must, in some way or other, have perceived that something in
no small degree extraordinary had happened to him: so extraordinary,
that, in the condition in which he was, and in which, if they saw
anything, they saw him to be--no such commission, as that, for the
execution of which, if, as well as companions, they were his destined
assistants, they were put under his command,--could, in any human
probability, receive execution at his hands. If they were apprised of
this commission of his, could they, whether with his consent or even
without his consent, avoid repairing to the constituted authorities to
tell them what had happened? This commission of his, so important in
itself, and granted to a man of letters by men of letters, could not but
have been in writing: and accordingly, in the form of letters we are, by
the historian, expressly informed it was. Of the existence of these
letters, on the tenor of which their future proceedings as well as his
depended,--these conductors of his, if _he_ did not, with or without his
consent would of course have given information, to the rulers to whom
these same letters were addressed. Not being struck dumb, nor having,
amongst the orders given by the voice, received any order to keep
silence, or so much as to keep secret anything of what little they had
heard, they would scarcely, under these circumstances, have maintained
either silence or secrecy. The historian, knowing what he (the
historian) intended to do with his hero--knowing that, at three days'
end, he intended not only to make scales fall from his eyes, but to fill
his belly,--might not feel any great anxiety on his account. But Paul
himself, if he, in the condition he is represented in by the
historian,--was, for three days together, with scales on his eyes, and
nothing in his stomach: and, at the end of the three days, as ignorant
as at the beginning, whether the scales would, at any time, and when,
drop off, and his stomach receive a supply: in such a state surely, a
man could not but feel a curiosity, not unattended with impatience, to
know when and how all this was to end. Under these circumstances, by
some means or other, would all these tongues have been to be stopped:
otherwise, instead of the house of Judas in Straight-street, Paul might
have had no other place, to receive his visitor in, than the town jail,
or some one other of those strong places, into which visitors do not
always find it more easy to gain entrance, than inmates to get out.
These tongues then--Paul's tongue, his companions' tongues--this
assemblage of tongues, all so strongly urged to let themselves loose--by
what could they have been stopped? If, by anything, by a correspondent
cluster of miracles--nothing less.
That, from Jerusalem, about the time in question, Paul went to
Damascus,--and that it was with some such letters in his
possession,--seems, as will be seen presently, altogether
probable;--also, that when there, he acted in the way his historian
speaks of, betraying the confidence reposed in him by the constituted
authorities, and joining with those whom he had solicited and received a
commission to destroy;--that these were among the circumstances of his
alleged conversion, seems probable enough:--though he, with all the need
he had of miracles, if any were to be had, gives not--in what he
himself, writing to his Galatian converts, says of his conversion--any
of the slightest hint of them.
As to his conversion--meaning his _outward_ conversion, which was all
that was necessary to the production of the effect so notoriously
produced by him--to _that_, it will be seen, no miracle was necessary:
nothing but what belonged to the ordinary course of things. As to
companions on the journey--whether he had any or not; and if he had any,
whether they were attendants on his orders, or acquaintances of his not
under his orders; or mere strangers into whose company accident threw
him--all this we must satisfy ourselves, as well as we can, under the
ignorance of.
That, for giving effect, by his means, to the sort of commission he went
entrusted with, the power of local authorities was trusted to, is a
supposition altogether natural. For bringing to Jerusalem "bound, for to
be punished (Acts ix. 2. xxii. 4), all the Christians that could be
found in Damascus, both men and women," if the Damascus rulers were
favourable to the persecuting design, no large force from Jerusalem
could be needful. Even a small one would be superfluous: and, by a
force, great or small, sent from the one set of constituted authorities,
a slight would be shown to the other.
SECTION 9.
IN PAUL'S EPISTLE TO HIS GALATIANS,--BY HIS SILENCE, ACTS' ACCOUNTS OF
HIS CONVERSION ARE VIRTUALLY CONTRADICTED.
Of Paul's _outward_ conversion--conversion from the character of an
authorized persecutor of the religion of Jesus, to that of a preacher of
a religion preached in the name of Jesus--such, as we have seen, is the
account given in the Acts; given by the author of the Acts, and by him
alone. For, what ought never to be out of mind, if instead of two
different accounts--declared by him as having been, on different
occasions, delivered by Paul--he had given two hundred, still they
would have been his:--not Paul's, but his.
All this while, now for little less than 1800 years, from Paul's own pen
we have an account of this his conversion: and, of any such story as
that of its being effected through the instrumentality of visions,--in
this account of his, not any the slightest trace is to be found;--not
any the slightest allusion to it.
At the time of his giving this account--supposing this story of the mode
of his conversion true--supposing even that, though false, it had been
got up and propagated--at the time of his giving the account which bears
such unquestionable marks of being his, was the occasion such as to
render it probable, that he could thus have omitted all allusion, to an
occurrence at once so extraordinary and so important? If not, then so it
is--that, by the silence of Paul himself, the story related by his
historian is virtually contradicted.
The occasion here in view is--that of his writing the so often
mentioned, and so often about to be mentioned, Epistle to his Galatian
disciples.
At the time of his writing this letter, so we shall have occasion to see
over and over again in the tenor of it, he was acting in
opposition--declared and violent opposition--to the Apostles: struggling
with them for the mastery; declaring that to them he was not beholden
for anything;--that the Gospel he preached was not their Gospel, but a
Gospel of his own, received by him directly from Jesus;--declaring, that
in Jerusalem itself, the seat of their authority, he had preached this
Gospel of his, which was not theirs; but confessing, at the same time,
that when he did so, it was in a secret manner, for fear of the
opposition, which he well knew, had they known of it, they could not
but have made to it.
In this state of contention--supposing any such miracle as that in
question wrought in his favour--was it in the nature of the case that he
should have failed to avail himself of it?--to avail himself of the
account which the truth--the important truth--would have so well
warranted him in giving of it? Supposing it true, had there at that time
been witnesses to it--any percipient witnesses--the supposed
Ananias--the supposed companions on the road,--would he have failed
making his appeal to their testimony? Supposing even that there were
none such left, the truth of the occurrence--of an occurrence of such
momentous importance, would it not have inspired him with boldness,
sufficient for the assertion of it, with all that intensity for which
the case itself furnished so sufficient a warrant, and which the
vehemence of his character would have rendered it so impossible for him
to avoid? Supposing even the story an utter falsehood, yet, had it been
at this time got up and promulgated, could he, if he saw any tolerable
prospect of its obtaining credence, have failed to endeavour to avail
himself of it?
No, surely. Yet, in this his address, made to his Galatian disciples,
and to all such inhabitants of that country, as he could see a prospect
of numbering among his disciples--in this address, written under a sense
of the necessity he was under, of making for his support against the
Apostles, the most plausible case his ingenuity could enable him to
make,--not any, so much as the slightest, hint of any such miracle, does
he venture to give. _Revelation! revelation!_--on this single word--on
the ideas, which, in the minds with which he had to deal, he hoped to
find associated with that word--on this ground, without any other, did
he see himself reduced to seek support in his contest with the Apostles.
Revelation? revelation from Jesus? from the Lord, speaking from heaven?
from the Almighty? On what occasion, in what place, at what time, in
what company, if in any, was it thus received? To no one of these
questions does he venture to furnish an answer--or so much as an
allusion to an answer. Why?--even because he had none to give. He had
been a persecutor of the disciples of Jesus--this he confesses and
declares: he became a preacher in the name of Jesus--this he also
declares; a preacher in the name of him, of whose disciples--the whole
fellowship of them--he had been a persecutor--a blood-thirsty and
blood-stained persecutor. His conversion, whatever it amounted to, how
came it about? what was the cause, the time, the place, the mode of it;
who the percipient witnesses of it? To all these questions,
_revelation_; in the single word is contained all the answer, which--in
this letter--in this plea of his--he, audacious as he was, could summon
up audacity enough to give. Why, on so pressing an occasion, this
forbearing? Why? but that, had he ventured to tell any such story, that
story being a false one, there were his opponents--there were the
Apostles, or men in connection with the Apostles--to contradict it--to
confute it.
Had he made reference to any specific, to any individual, portion of
place and time, the pretended facts might have found themselves in
contradiction with some real and provable facts. But, time as well as
place being left thus unparticularized,--he left himself at liberty, on
each occasion, if called upon for time or place, to assign what portion
of time and place the occasion should point out to him as being most
convenient;--best adapted to the purpose of giving lodgment to an
appropriate falsity;--and without danger, or with little danger, of
exposure.
At distinct and different times, _five_ interviews we shall see him
have, with the Apostles--one or more of them: the first interview
being,--according to his own account, as given in this very Epistle,--at
little if anything more, than three years' distance from the time of his
quitting the occupation of persecution. Then, says he, it was, Gal. i.
17 and 18, that "I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him
fifteen days." In all these days, is it possible, that, if the
conversion miracle had really taken place as stated in the Acts, with
the companions on the road and Ananias for witnesses,--he should not
have related to Peter, and, if not spontaneously, at any rate in answer
to such questions as a man in Peter's situation could not fail to put,
have brought to view, every the minutest circumstance? This then was the
time--or at least _one_ time--of his trial, on the question, _revelation
or no revelation_. Here then, when, with such vehemence, declaring--not
his independence merely, but his superiority, in relation to the
Apostles--and _that_ on no other ground than this alleged revelation,
was it, had the judgment in that trial been in his favour--was it
possible, that he should have omitted to avail himself of it? Yet no
such attempt, we see, does he make:--no attempt, to avail himself of
the issue of the trial, or of anything that passed on the occasion of
it. Altogether does he keep clear of any allusion to it: and indeed, if
his historian--the author of the Acts--is to be believed,--with very
good reason: for, whatever it was that, on that occasion, he said, in
the Acts it is expressly declared that, by the disciples at least, he
was utterly disbelieved. Acts ix. 26: "He assayed to join himself to the
disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was
a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles," &c.
Why it was, that, after the disciples had thus unanimously declared him
and his story unworthy of credit, the Apostles gave him notwithstanding
a sort of reception;--and that, by no countenance, which they on that
occasion gave him, was any ground afforded, for the supposition that any
more credence was given to him and his story, by them than by the
disciples at large,--will be explained in its place.
TABLE II.--PAUL DISBELIEVED.
TABLE--_Showing, at one View, the Passages, from which the
Inference is drawn, that Paul's inward Conversion was never
believed, by any of the Apostles, or their Disciples._
_Explanations._--The Interviews here seen are between Paul and one or
more Apostles. Number of Interviews five,--of Visits the same: whereof,
by Paul to Peter, four,--by Peter to Paul,--one: besides the one
supposed fictitious. Of the Accounts, Paul's as far as it goes, is taken
for the standard. Of Paul's Epistles the genuineness is out of dispute:
Acts history is anonymous. Paul's evidence is that of an alleged
percipient witness. His historian's,--as to these matters, mostly that
of a narrator,--narrating--but from hearsay, Probably from Paul's.
INTERVIEWS, A.D. 35 (I); A.D. 52 (III).
As per Paul, Gal. A.D. 58.
1. _Introduction._
Gal. 1:1. "Paul, an apostle, not from men, neither through man, but
through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,
and all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,
who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this
present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father: to whom
be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."
2. _Independence Declared._
Gal. 1:6. "I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called
you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another
gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the
gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach
unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him
be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man
preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him
be anathema. For am I now persuading men, or God? or am I seeking to
please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of
Christ.
"For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was
preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it
from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of
Jesus Christ."
3. _Conversion Spoken Of._
Ver. 13. "For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the
Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God,
and made havock of it: and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many
of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for
the traditions of my fathers. But when it was the good pleasure of God,
who separated me, even from my mother's womb and called me through his
grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the
Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went
I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me: but I went away
into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus."
4. _Account of Interview I._
Ver. 18. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas,
and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother. Now touching the things which I write
unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Then I came into the regions of
Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of
Judea which were in Christ: but they only heard say, He that once
persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havock; and
they glorified God in me."
5. _Account of Interview III. II._
Gal. 2:1. "Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by
revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any
means I should be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus who
was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that
because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to
spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring
us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not
for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But
from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it
maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)--they, I say,
who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they
say that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision,
even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision, for he that wrought
for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also
unto the Gentiles."
6. _Partition Treaty._
Ver. 9. "And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me,
James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to
me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto
the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only they would that we
should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do."
7. _Jealousy, Notwithstanding._
Ver. 11. "But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I resisted him to the
face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from
James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back
and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And
the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even
Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that
they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said
unto Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the
Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to
live as do the Jews? We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ
Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the
works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified. But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we
ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God
forbid. For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove
myself a transgressor. For I through the law died unto the law, that I
might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live; and
yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live
in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who
loved me, and gave himself up for me. I do not make void the grace of
God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for
nought."
INTERVIEW I. A.D. 35.
_Paul's Jerusalem Visit I._
Reconciliation Visit.
(_Departure from Damascus._)
Acts 9:23-30. "And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel
together to kill him: but their plot became known to Saul. And they
watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him: but his
disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering
him in a basket."
(_Arrival at Jerusalem--Results._)
Ver. 26. "And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself
to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he
was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles,
and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he
had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the
name of Jesus. And he was with them going in and going out at Jerusalem,
preaching boldly in the name of the Lord."
(_Departure--Cause._)
Ver. 29. "And he spake and disputed against the Grecian Jews; but they
went about to kill him. And when the brethren knew it, they brought him
down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."
INTERVIEW I. A.D. 35.
_Departure--Cause._
In Paul's First Account.
Acts 22:17-21. "And it came to pass, that, when I had returned to
Jerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance, and
saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of
Jerusalem: because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning
me. And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in
every synagogue them that believed on thee: and when the blood of
Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting,
and keeping the garments of them that slew him. And he said unto me,
Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles."
INTERVIEW II. A.D. 43.
_Paul's Jerusalem Visit II._
Money-Bringing Visit.
Acts 11:22-30. "And the report concerning them came to the ears of the
church which was in Jerusalem: and then sent forth Barnabas as far as
Antioch: who, when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad;
and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave
unto the Lord: for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of
faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. And he went forth to
Tarsus to seek for Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto
Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were
gathered together with the church, and taught much people; and that the
disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
"Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit
that there should be a great famine over all the world: which came to
pass in the days of Claudius. And the disciples, every man according to
his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in
Judea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of
Barnabas and Saul."
INTERVIEW III. A.D. 52.
_Paul's Jerusalem Visit III._
Deputation Visit.
As per ACTS xv. 1-21.
Acts 25:1-23. "And certain men came down from Judea and taught the
brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses,
ye cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension
and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and
Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the
apostles and elders about this question. They therefore, being brought
on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria,
declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto
all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were
received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they
rehearsed all things that God had done with them. But there arose up
certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful
to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.
"And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of
this matter. And when there had been much questioning Peter rose up, and
said unto them,
"Brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among you,
that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and
believe. And God, which knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving
them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction
between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why
tempt ye God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that
we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as
they.
"And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas
and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the
Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered,
saying,
"Brethren, hearken unto me: Symeon hath rehearsed how first God did
visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to
this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
"After these things I will return,
And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen;
And I will build again the ruins thereof,
And I will set it up:
That the residue of men may seek after the Lord,
And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the beginning
of the world.
"Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them which from among the
Gentiles turn to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain
from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is
strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in
every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every
sabbath."
INTERVIEW IV. A.D. 52.
_Peter's Visit to Antioch._
Acts 15:22-33. "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with
the whole church, to chose men out of their company, and send them to
Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and
Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote thus by them, The
apostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren which are of the
Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we
have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with
words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed
good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them
unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded
their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent
therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same
things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to
us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that
ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from
things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep
yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.
"So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having
gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. And when
they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and
Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many
words, and confirmed them. And after they had spent some time there,
they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent
them forth."
INTERVIEW A.D. 52.
_Paul's Visit._
As per ACTS xviii. 19-23.
(_Supposed Fictitious._)
"And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there: but he himself
entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. And when they
asked him to abide a longer time, he consented not; but taking his leave
of them and saying, I will return again unto you, if God will, he set
sail from Ephesus. And when he had landed at Cæsarea, he went up and
saluted the church, and went down to Antioch. And having spent some time
there, he departed, and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia
in order, stablishing all the disciples."
INTERVIEW V. A.D. 60.
_Paul's Jerusalem Visit IV._
Invasion Visit.
(_Visit Proposed. A.D._ 56.)
Acts 19:20-21. "Now after these things were ended, Paul purposed in the
spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to
Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome. And
having sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timothy
and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while."
(_Visit Again Proposed. A.D._ 60.)
Acts 20:16. "For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus, that he might
not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were
possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
"And from Miletus he went to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of
the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them,
"Ye yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, after
that manner I was with you all the time, serving the Lord with all
lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by
the lots of the Jews: how that I shrank not from declaring unto you
anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house
to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God,
and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I go bound in
the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me
there: save that the Holy Ghost testifieth unto me in every city, saying
that bonds and afflictions abide me. But I hold not my life of any
account, as dear unto myself, so that I may accomplish my course, and
the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel
of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I
went about preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more."
Acts 21:7-9. "And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived
at Ptolemais; and we saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day.
And on the morrow we departed, and came unto Cæsarea: and entering into
the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode
with him. Now this man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy."
(_Visit Opposed. A.D._ 60.)
Ver. 10. "And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea
a certain prophet, named Agabus. (See Acts xi. 27.)
"And coming to us, and taking Paul's girdle, he bound his own feet and
hands, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at
Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him
into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we
and they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul
answered, What do ye, weeping and breaking my heart? for I am ready not
to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord
Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will
of the Lord be done."
INTERVIEW V. A.D. 60.
_Paul's Jerusalem Visit IV._
Invasion Visit--Results.
_Arrival._
Acts 21:15-36. "And after these days we took up our baggage, and went up
to Jerusalem. And there went with us also certain of the disciples from
Cæsarea, bringing with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple,
with whom we should lodge.
"And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly."
_Test, Proposed for Riddance._
"And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the
elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he rehearsed one by
one the things which God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
And they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said unto him,
Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them
which have believed; and they are all zealous for the law: and they have
been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are
among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise
their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore?
they will certainly hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we
say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; these take, and
purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may
shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the
things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou
thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law. But as touching the
Gentiles which have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they
should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood,
and from what is strangled, and from fornication."
_The Test Swallowed._
"Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them
went into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of
purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them."
_Indignation Universal._
"And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when
they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude, and laid hands
on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth
all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place: and
moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this
holy place. For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the
Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. And
all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they laid hold
on Paul, and dragged him out of the temple: and straightway the doors
were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, tidings came up to the
chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in confusion. And
forthwith he took soldiers and centurions, and ran down upon them: and
they, when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, left off beating
Paul. Then the chief captain came near, and laid hold on him, and
commanded him to be bound with two chains; and inquired who he was, and
what he had done. And some shouted one thing, some another, among the
crowd: and when he could not know the certainty for the uproar, he
commanded him to be brought into the castle. And when he came upon the
stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of
the crowd; for the multitude of the people followed after, crying out,
Away with him."
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Of the word _conversion_, as employed everywhere and in all times in
speaking of Paul, commonly called Saint Paul, the import has been found
involved in such a cloud, as, on pain of perpetual misconception, it has
been found necessary, here at the outset, to clear away. That, from
being an ardent and destructive persecutor of the disciples of the
departed Jesus, he became their collaborator, and in _that_ sense their
ally,--preaching, in speech, and by writing, a religion under the name
of the religion of Jesus, assuming even the appellation of an _Apostle_
of Jesus,--_Apostle_, that is to say, special envoy--(that being the
title by which the twelve most confidential servants of Jesus stood
distinguished), is altogether out of dispute. That in this sense he
became a _convert_ to the religion of Jesus, and that in this sense his
alleged conversion was real, is accordingly in this work not only
admitted, but affirmed. Few points of ancient history seem more
satisfactorily attested. In this sense then he was converted beyond
dispute. Call this then his _outward conversion_; and say, Paul's
_outward conversion_ is indubitable. But, that this conversion had for
its cause, or consequence, any supernatural intercourse with the
Almighty, or any belief in the supernatural character of Jesus himself;
this is the position, the erroneousness of which has, in the eyes of the
author, been rendered more and more assured, the more closely the
circumstances of the case have been looked into. That, in speech and
even in action, he was in outward appearance a convert to the religion
of Jesus; this is what is admitted: that, inwardly, he was a convert to
the religion of Jesus, believing Jesus to be God, or authorized by any
supernatural commission from God; this is the position, the negative of
which it is the object of the present work to render as evident to the
reader, as a close examination has rendered it to the author. The
consequence, the practical consequence, follows of itself. In the way of
doctrine, whatsoever, being in the Epistles of Paul is not in any one of
the Gospels, belongs to Paul, and Paul alone, and forms no part of the
religion of Jesus. This is what it seemed necessary to state at the
opening; and to this, in the character of a conclusion, the argument
will be seen all along to tend.
[2] See Ch. 15. Paul's supposable miracles explained.
[3] In regard to the matter testified, that is, in regard to the object
of the testimony; it is, first of all, a requisite condition, that what
is reported to be true should be possible, both absolutely, or as an
object of the elaborative Faculty, and relatively, or as an object of
the Presentative Faculties,--Perception, External or Internal. A thing
is possible absolutely, or in itself, when it can be construed to
thought, that is, when it is not inconsistent with the logical laws of
thinking; a thing is relatively possible as an object of perception,
External or Internal, when it can affect Sense or Self-consciousness,
and, through such affection, determine its apprehension by one or other
of these faculties.
A testimony is, therefore, to be unconditionally rejected, if the fact
which it reports be either in itself impossible, or impossible as an
object of the representative faculties.
But the impossibility of a thing, as an object of these faculties, must
be decided either upon physical, or upon metaphysical, principles.
A thing is physically impossible as an object of sense, when the
existence itself, or its perception by us, is, by the laws of the
material world impossible.--Hamilton's Logic 460.--Ed.
[4] "_Light_,--great _Light_."--It will be noticed that this "light" is
presented first objectively as a phenomenon, a thing, But what is
"light"? The universal answer is "That force in nature which, acting on
the Retina of the eye produces the sensation we call vision." This
vision is the total of the subjective effect of that agency of Nature,
the subjective realization through the functions of the Cerebellum. But
functions are accomplished through agencies called organs. The retina is
one of these organs. Through the operations of these organs and
cerebellum subjective apprehension is produced as an effect, but in some
cases of very forcible apprehensions they are interpreted as a diseased
condition of the organs of sense. Ideas sometimes acquire unusual
vividness and permanence and are, therefore, peculiarly liable to be
mistaken for their objective prototypes and hence specters, spectral
allusions which are very common in cases of emotional excitement.
Further, it will be noticed all the time that the reporter, Luke, wrote
what Paul, or some other person or rumor had previously communicated to
him. Now Luke, was accustomed to pen these wonders, these superhuman
Chimerical prodigies. Take the example of the trial of Stephen, Acts 7.
After the Charges of the Complainants, Ib. 6-9, "Libertines" and others
had been heard by the High Priest, he inquired of Stephen personally as
to the verity of the charges, And Luke reports his responses, And then
to make sure of portraying fully the Emotional conditions of the
witnesses and the spectators, he reports, V. 54. "When they heard these
things, they were cut to the heart and they grabed on him with their
teeth; but he, Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost looked up
steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at
the right hand of God, and said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and
the son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out
with a loud voice, and stopped their ears and ran upon him with one
accord, and cast him out of the City and stoned him, and the witnesses
laid down their clothes at a young man's feet whose name was Saul."
This Saul, now Paul, must have acted as overseer or umpire. Paul, is by
chronologers reckoned to have been about 12 years of age; But it will be
seen that Luke, the narrator, is just such a superserviceable witness as
wholly impairs his credibility. He says first, Stephen was in fact
filled with the Holy Ghost, saw the glory of God, for he evidently was
gloriable, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; and that in
addition thereto he states that Stephen, said he saw the same
wonders--with the addition that the heavens were opened, &c. If he had
been cross-examined and asked whether little Paul, did not behold all
these wonders, he no doubt would have answered in the affirmative and
volunteered the statement, That they all saw these wonders, the high
priest, the accusers, by-standers, and human canines that gnashed their
teeth upon Stephen. Consult any author on Psychology on the subject of
Emotions, Exstatic illusions, &c.
But in the assembly inquisitors of Stephen, Paul and others before the
high priests, what special law or cannons were they accused of
violating? Answer, one cannon is quite conspicuous, to wit:--Ex. 22:28.
"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of the people."
When the inquisitor the high priest found the accused guilty, he was
delivered over to the witnesses for execution. The detectives enjoyed
the luxury of doing the stoning. If Christ's limitation had been in use,
to wit:--that none but the guiltless should throw stones, the accusing
sleuths might have been less zealous.--Ed.
[5] Historiographer is used purposely by the author to denote a
specialist for the occasion.
[6] "Goad" is the word used in the Douay Testament and in the late
revisions of The Protestants.
[7] Cor. 15:8--"As unto one born out of due time, He appeared unto me
also."
[8] Another question that here presents itself is--How could it have
happened that, Jerusalem being under one government, and Damascus under
another (if so the case was), the will of the local rulers at Jerusalem
found obedience, as it were of course, at the hands of the adequate
authorities at Damascus? To the question how this _actually_ happened,
it were too much to undertake to give an answer. For an answer to the
question how it may be _conceived_ to have happened, reference may be
made to existing English practice. The warrant issued by the constituted
authorities in Jerusalem expected to find, and found accordingly in
Damascus, an adequate authority disposed to back it. In whatsoever
Gentile countries Jews, in a number sufficient to compose a synagogue,
established themselves, a habit naturally enough took place, as of
course, among them--the habit of paying obedience, to a considerable
extent, to the functionaries who were regarded as rulers of the
synagogue. Few are or have been the conquered countries, in which some
share of subordinate power has not been left, as well to the natives of
the conquered nation as to any independent foreigners, to whom, in
numbers sufficient to constitute a sort of corporate body, it happened
from time to time to have become settlers. After all, what must be
confessed is--that, in all this there seems nothing but what might
readily enough have been conceived, without its having been thus
expressed.
[9] It is well known that this dogma of Original sin--a disease that the
human family enjoys by sad inheritance, Christ treated with negligible
indifference. He dealt with the problems of man in a social state, as
socially conditioned only. A human being conditioned as isolated from
neighbors, friends and society, he did not as he scientifically could
not deal with, He discoursed upon social duties, however sublimely, N.B.
Acts 18:15, "But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke
him between thee and him alone, If he shall hear thee thou hast gained
thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or
two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established. And if he shall neglect to hear them then tell it unto the
church. And if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as the
heathen and publican, Amen I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall bind on
earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on
earth shall be loosed also in heaven."
Now without quibbling about the translation this scheme of social
arbitration contains the ultimate of justice, It contains the only
working hypothesis within any social condition of mankind. There is no
such thing as justice in the abstract or concrete, It is like heat and
electricity, a mere mode of motion, a form of action. And when a
controversy between Citizens is fairly submitted to the judgment of
normal men the voice of their consciousness, being the ultimate organ of
nature's Creator, must be "binding" so far as man is concerned socially.
And as there does not appear to the natural man any appeal to heaven,
the arbitrament of man in the special case carries the seal of the
eternities and forecloses all further controversy. The speech of the
honorable Consciousness of Man is the voice of the Creator of his
personality.--Ed.
[10] Since what is in the text was written, maturer thoughts have
suggested an interpretation, by which, if received, the sad inferences
presented by the doctrine, that misdeeds, and consequent suffering that
have had place, could by a dip into a piece of water be caused never to
have happened, may be repelled. According to this interpretation, the
act of being baptized--the bodily act--is one thing; an act of washing
away the sins--the spiritual act--another. The effect produced is--not
the causing the misdeeds and sufferings never to have had place, but the
causing them to be compensated for, by acts productive of enjoyment, or
of saving in the article of sufferings, to an equal or greater amount.
[11] See Ch. xvii. §. v. 4. Peter's and Cornelius's visions.
[12] See Bentham's _Church of Englandism examined_.
CHAPTER II.
_Outward Conversion--how produced--how planned._
SECTION 1.
MOTIVE, TEMPORAL ADVANTAGE--PLAN.
How flourishing the state of the church had at this period become, will
be seen more fully in another place. Long before this period,--numbers
of converts, in Jerusalem alone, above three thousand. The aggregate, of
the property belonging to the individuals, had been formed into one
common fund: the management--too great a burden for the united labours
of the eleven Apostles, with their new associate Mathias--had, under the
name so inappositely represented at present by the English word
_deacon_, been committed to seven trustees; one of whom, Stephen,
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/42984