of his Success.
All proves to us that Paul and his associate Barnabas found it much
easier to convert the Gentiles than the Jews, who showed themselves
almost always rebels to their lessons. The docility of the first, and
indocility of the latter may be traced to very natural causes; the
idolators were destitute of instruction, their priests, content with
exacting from them their offerings and sacrifices, never thought of
instructing them in their religion; thus our missionaries encountered
few obstacles in persuading them of the truth of the novelties which
they came to announce to them. It was not thus with the Jews, who had
a law, to which they were very strongly attached, since they were
convinced that it had been dictated by God himself. In consequence our
preach-. ers could not make themselves listened to, but, in proportion,
as the doctrine they preached agreed with the notions with which the
Jews were previously imbued. The Apostles were therefore compelled to
reason with the Jews, according to their own system, to shew them that
the Christ whom they announced was the Messiah which they expected from
their own prophets; in a word, in preaching the Gospel to the Jews, the
preachers were driven into embarrassing discussions, and perpetually
exposed to cavils and contradictions which they had no fear of on the
part of the Gentiles, who received without disputing the novelties which
they broached to them, and which besides agreed well enough with the
notions of the pagan mythology, as we have shewn in another work.
On the other side also, the idolators had not the exclusive ideas of
religion peculiar to the Jews; they were tolerant, they admitted every
species of worship, and were disposed to pay homage to every God that
was proposed to them. The Hebrews were not of this disposition, they
believed themselves alone in the possession of the knowledge of the true
God, and rejected with horror strange Gods and worships.
These reflections are sufficient to explain to us the reason of the
great success that the Apostles had in preaching to the Gentiles,
compared with their endeavours amongst the Jews; they likewise show us
especially the true motives of Paul's conduct. In fact, repulsed by
the cavils and opposition of the Jews, we see Paul and Barnabas turn
themselves to the side of the Pagans, who listened to them with more
attention and declared to the Jews, that God had forsaken them*.
* Acts of Apostles, chap. xiii. ver. 45, &c,
The Gentiles were apparently flattered by the preference; numbers of
them adopted the religion announced to them, which did not hinder the
Jews from exciting, against our missionaries, the zeal of the female
devotees whose clamour obliged them to quit Antioch.
From thence our two associates, after having shook the dust of their
feet against their opposers, repaired to Iconium, where they again met
with opposition on the part of the Jews who even irritated the Gentiles
against them, which compelled them to fly to Lystra in Lycaonia. There
according to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul thought it necessary to
perform a miracle, well knowing that nothing is more efficacious than a
prodigy in making an impression on the minds of the vulgar.
He then cured a lame man. This miracle convinced the idolators, who took
Paul and his comrade for Gods, and under this idea would have offered
them sacrifices. However this wonder did not produce the same effect
upon the Jews; these apparently regarded it as a deception, or some
trick of which they were not the dupes. In fact we see that the Jews,
who nevertheless yielded to no people in credulity, so far from being
moved by Paul's miracle, that they stoned him as a malefactor and left
him for dead. From this unlucky affair he however extricated himself and
returned to Antioch, whence he set out in order to give an account of
the success of his mission, from which it appears that he had no reason
for self congratulation, since, if he made a number of recruits for
Jesus, he had succeeded at the expence of much personal ill usage.
Nevertheless the Nazarenes, or Ebionites, i. e. the first of the Jews,
who had embraced the doctrine of the Apostles, were persuaded that the
religion of Christ was merely a reformed Judaism. Always attached to
the practices of the Mosaic law, they believed themselves called upon to
evince their zeal in its favour; in consequence of which they pretended
that the Gentiles, converted by the Apostles, ought, like themselves,
to submit to the rite of circumcision. But Paul and Barnabas strongly
opposed this opinion*; they were well aware that so painful an
operation, especially after a certain age, would be very likely to
dishearten the heathen whom they had drawn to their sect. But as
the affair appeared very important they referred the decision to the
Apostles who remained at Jerusalem. In consequence Paul and Barnabas,
and also the partisans of circumcision, repaired, thither, each with the
view of maintaining their own opinion. The question was argued, and our
two missionaries convinced the Apostolic College of the necessity of
freeing the Gentiles from a rite at which they revolted. Thus, according
to the author of the Acts of the Apostles, (who appears to have been
devoted to St. Paul's party) it was decided, that the newly converted
Gentiles should be exempted from a ceremony which, until now, had been
regarded as highly essential, since it had been ordained by the Divinity
himself.
* See Acts of Apostles, chap. xv. ver. 5; see also in the
second chapter, of this work what is said of the Nazarenes.
There is reason to believe that the old Apostles did not subscribe
without great reluctance to a decision which seemed to annul one of the
capital points of the Mosaic law, and had the appearance of rectifying
the ordinances, of the Most High. Jesus himself in his infancy underwent
the ceremony of circumcision; during his life he practised the customs
prescribed to his nation; he formerly declared that he was come, not to
destroy, but to accomplish the law of the Jews; and nevertheless we see
St. Paul and his adherents, of their own authority, annul at one blow a
ceremony of divine institution, approved of and observed by their master
and that for political and worldly considerations, which saints ought
never to regard.
However this may be, by this decision, which Paul extorted from the
Apostles, it seemed from that time to give the signal of the schism,
which in the end totally separated the Jews from the Christians.
Nevertheless we shall soon see Paul, who on this occasion took in
hand the cause of the Gentiles, prepare (resuming the old errors) and
circumcise a disciple himself. So true it is, that the greatest saints
are not always consistent in their opinions, nor uniform in their
conduct.
The Apostles having shewn so much indulgence in the article of the
circumcision of the Gentiles, were, however desirous of giving a kind of
satisfaction to the partisans of Judaism; with this view they prohibited
the new converts from worshipping idols, from giving themselves up to
fornication; and ordered them to abstain from things strangled and from
the blood of animals. By these means they sought to conciliate every
one; the Gentiles were not circumcised, and submitted themselves, in
part, to the ordinances of the Jews, who thus saw a deference always
paid to the law of their fathers, to which they were ever strongly
attached *.
* See Acts of Apostles, chap. xv. All seems to prove that
the Apostles soon repented of the weakness they had been
guilty of in ceding to St. Paul, for we find he formed a
separate party, who preached the Gospel in his own manner,
that is to say, the Gospel of the uncircumcision.
Furnished with this decision of the council of Jerusalem, in which the
Apostles declare themselves authorised by the Holy Spirit, Paul and
Barnabas returned to Antioch, whence they were desirous of visiting
the towns where they had already preached; but a contest respecting the
choice of an associate of their labours, made a breach between our two
missionaries and caused a separation between them. Barnabas accompanied
by Mark embarked for the Isle of Cyprus, whilst Paul with Silas, his new
companion, traversed Syria and Cilicia to confirm in the faith those who
had been recently converted *.
* It ought here to be remarked, that there exists yet a
Gospel of the Nazarenes, the honour of which has been
decreed to St. Barnabas, and in which Paul is roughly
handled. In fact this Apostle preached, as we have shewn,
besides uncircumcision, a doctrine very different from that
of the Nazarenes, Ebionites, or first Christians, who,
according to St. Irenæus, St. Epiphanius, and Eusebius,
regarded Jesus merely as a man, the son of Joseph and Mary,
and who was called the Son of God, only on account of his
virtues. This may enable us to guess at the cause of Paul's
quarrel with Barnabas, whose Gospel insinuates that Paul was
in error in teaching that Jesus was God.