sent to Rome
Paul now embarked for Jerusalem; notwithstanding his own presentiments,
the warnings that were given him, and the prayers of his adherents,
he was obstinately determined to resort to this city, where the Jews
irritated by his successes, prepared him an unpleasant reception. He
was welcomed by the brethren, to whom he related the progress of the
new sect, but these informed him of the bad designs of the Jews, who
pretended, and not without reason, that he taught a doctrine contrary
to that of Moses. To silence these rumours, and to calm the anger of the
populace, they advised him to fulfil some of the Jewish ceremonies in
public, and to give to these acts of religion much solemnity.
Paul consented to this counsel, but the Jews of Asia, were not thus
duped, they knew what to keep to respecting the doctrine which had
disgusted them; they then excited the Jews of Jerusalem, by saying, that
he brought the Gentiles into the Temple. All the city was soon in an
uproar, the devout people seized Paul, drew him out of the Temple, the
gates of which were closed against this profaner. They were going to
kill him, had not a tribune rescued him out of their hands, and shut him
up in a fortress, in the midst of the clamour of an enraged populace,
which demanded his death.
The Apostle ready to enter his prison, asked of the tribune permission
to harangue the mob, which was granted after his Conductor was
probably assured that he was not the brigand who had lately excited an
insurrection in the country.
In his discourse, which he pronounced in Hebrew, Paul related to the
people the history of his miraculous conversion, nearly in the manner
in which it has been narrated. This recital far from softening the Jews,
made them lose all patience, especially when our Apostle told them he
was sent to the Gentiles. They then broke silence, crying out, "away
with such a fellow from the earth, it is not fit that he should live."
The tribune then shut him up in prison, and commanded that he should be
scourged, in order to draw from him an acknowledgment of the crime which
had excited the fury of the Jews. Paul then declared himself a Roman
citizen, and represented to the centurion charged with the execution
of these orders, that it was contrary to law, thus to treat a citizen
without a trial. The centurion informed the tribune, who was fearful of
having acted with too much precipitation. He was desirous of knowing for
a certainty of what he was accused by the Jews, and the next morning,
freeing him from his chains, presented him to the priests and council of
the nation. Paul then began to harangue the council. He first declared
that in all he had done, he had followed strictly the dictates of his
conscience. At these words the High Priest gave him a box on the ear,
at which Paul being irritated, instead of turning the other cheek,
according to the precept of Jesus, abused the High Priest, treated him
as a hypocrite, or whitened wall. But as he perceived that he had given
offence by his insolence to a man respected by the Jews, he moderated
himself, and alleged that he was ignorant that it was the High Priest
whom he had thus addressed in such terms; an ignorance, however, which
cannot fail to excite surprise, considering that he was a man, who must
have been informed respecting the place where he was, and the quality of
those before whom he was speaking. Our orator was more of an adept,
in managing the opinions of his auditory: aware that the council was
composed of Sadducees, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection;
and of Pharisees, who supported it, he knew how to profit by this
circumstance, by sowing the seed of discord among his judges. In order
to this he pretended that he was a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee,
and asserted that they sought his life, because of his hope in the
resurrection of the dead, This stratagem produced the desired effect,
the Pharisees declared in his favour, and acknowledged his innocence,
saying, "We find no evil in this man, but if a spirit or an angel hath
spoken to this man, let us not fight against God." The tumult increased,
and the tribune fearing that the orator would be torn in pieces, put him
under a guard of soldiers, and carried him back to prison.
During the following night, Paul had a vision, in which he thought he
saw the Lord, who told him to be of good courage; and prophecied that
he should go to Rome to bear witness. On the other hand forty fanatical
Jews, made a vow neither to eat nor drink till they had assassinated
Paul. This resolution had the approbation of the princes and priests,
who, according to the clerical spirit, found nothing more just than
assassination in order to get rid of an enemy. The senators also
consented to this treachery. But Paul's nephew having informed him of
this plot, he made the tribune acquainted with it, who to secure the
safety of his prisoner, and to rescue him from the fury of the Jews,
conducted him under a good escort to Cæsarea, and put him under the
protection of Felix, the governor of that province.
Paul, and his accusers, made their appearance before the pagan governor,
who, little versed in the theological disputes of the Jews, told them
that he should decide the affair when he was more fully acquainted with
the particulars. However some days after, he caused the Apostle to be
brought before himself, and his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess; they
heard what he had to say to them of faith in Jesus Christ. But when
Paul, after having preached to them of justice, charity, and repentance,
spoke of the last judgment, they were afraid, and ordered him to retire,
postponing the hearing till a future time. Felix hoping to draw some
money from his prisoner, often sent for him to converse with him. This
conduct lasted two years, at the end of which period this Governor was
replaced by Festus.
The Jews proceeded to accuse Paul before the new governor, and demanded
that he should be sent to Jerusalem. The accused, well knowing that
the place of this scene would be unfavourable to him, and fearing that
Festus would yield to the importunities of his enemies, appealed from
him to Cæsar. This appeal suspended all proceedings. However Festus
having spoken of his prisoner to King Agrippa, who had the curiosity
to see a man that had made so much noise in Judea. Paul appeared before
this prince, justified himself from the accusations brought against
him, and finished by preaching the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This
doctrine appeared so strange to Festus that he did not doubt a moment of
his being deranged. However as folly did not seem to him a crime worthy
of death, he would instantly have acquitted him, had he not made an
appeal to Cæsar. In consequence of this appeal, Paul was put on board a
ship about to sail for Italy. After many difficulties he was shipwrecked
on the coast of the isle of Malta, where the author of the Acts, from
whom we have taken this narrative, does not fail to make him perform
miracles, a necessary seasoning to legends.
Amongst other wonders which Paul wrought in the isle of Malta, he cured
himself, in a very natural manner, of the bite of a viper; in fact, it
appears that he applied fire to it immediately, a simple and well known
remedy, but which was such a prodigy in the eyes of the poor Maltese,
that they took him, who was in possession of so fine a secret, for a
God*. There was apparently nothing more wonderful in the Apostle
curing the son of his host, whom he found ill of a fever and dysentery;
disorders which we find yield to very simple remedies. Still this cure
gained Paul great reputation, they soon brought him a great number of
sick, who, according to our historian, he did not fail to cure. They
rendered him great honours, furnished him with the necessary provisions
for his voyage, and he embarked for Italy.
* Acts chap. xxviii. ver. 3-6.
Upon his arrival at Rome, Paul was permitted to confer with the
Christians, and to preach to the Jews, whom he endeavoured to convert to
the faith of Christ by the law of Moses and the prophets, which he had
the talent of applying wonderfully to his views: Some smitten with the
mystical, cabalistical, and allegorical explications, that our Apostle
gave them, adopted his opinions, while many others resisted his
arguments.
Indignant against the latter, he told them that their hardness of heart
had been predicted by Isaiah; he then gave them to understand, that God
had formed the project of blinding them, in order to have a fair pretext
for rejecting them, and transferring to the Gentiles, the light and
salvation of which the Jews had made themselves unworthy, by the
obstinacy in which it was the will of God that they should persist.
This conduct of the Divinity must doubtless have appeared very strange
to the Jews. So the Acts inform us, that there arose from these
preachings of Paul, great contests among them. They turned apparently
upon predestination and grace; questions upon which Christian
theologians, have not after eighteen centuries been able to come, either
to an understanding or agreement.
It appears that notwithstanding the obscurity of his doctrine our
Apostle succeeded in gaining proselytes to his sect; this obscurity
itself, has charms for many persons, who believe that a doctrine, is
so much the more marvellous or divine, as it is above the power of the
understanding. He preached during two years to the Romans, without any
person throwing obstacles in his way, and thus laboured to spread this
religion in the capital of the world.
The Acts of the Apostles, which the church orders us to receive as of
divine inspiration, informs us nothing more. St Luke to whom this work
is generally attributed, has transmitted to us, neither the actions,
miracles nor death of his heroes. We are reduced to seek our information
thereupon from traditions, which the interests of the clergy would wish
us to regard, almost as sacred as divine inspirations. According to
these respectable traditions, our Apostle shed his blood for the faith
in the propagation of which he had laboured; he was, say they, beheaded
in the reign of Nero, and in the sixty-sixth year of the Christian era.
After what has been said, we ought naturally to regard St. Paul as
the true founder of the pontifical see of Rome. Nevertheless certain
traditions, useful to the Roman Pontiffs, oblige us to believe that it
was St. Peter, who established his throne in the capital of the world;
the popes have thought, that their interests required, that they should
pass for the authorized successors of this Prince of the Apostles, to
whom Christ himself according to the Gospel, granted immense rights and
privileges. These traditions then make St. Peter travel to Rome, prior to
St. Paul, and only regard the latter as the subaltern associate in the
Apostolic labours of the former.
Nevertheless some critics have ventured to doubt of the reality of St.
Peter's voyage to Italy, and his foundation of the first see in the
world, some authors otherwise very orthodox, without regarding the
interests of the Pope, or respect for the traditions which favour them,
have treated those pretensions as chimeras: as to the heretics, the
sworn enemies of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, they have asserted,
that the voyage of St. Peter to Rome was a fable invented by the
supporters and partizans, with a design to exalt his authority. Both
parties found their doubts or assertions upon these grounds. First, That
the books which the church considers as inspired, make no mention of the
voyage of Simon Peter, although the circumstance of going to plant the
faith in the capital of the world, was sufficiently remarkable to claim
a notice in preference to all the minor cities, which the Acts inform
us that he visited to preach; in fact, the Holy Ghost, or St. Luke his
organ, wishing to inform us in this history of the means made use of by
God, to propagate the Gospel, could not without injustice, omit such a
signal success, nor fail to give the honour of it to St. Peter, in case
he had a claim to it.
Secondly, St. Paul who was at Rome at the same time, that Peter was
supposed to have been there, never once mentions this Prince of the
Apostles, in the epistles to the faithful at different places, while he
speaks to them of many other disciples of much less consideration than
his illustrious colleague: we ought piously to suppose that if St. Peter
had really established the faith at Rome, the Apostle of the Gentiles
would have been too equitable to ravish from him the glory, that must
have accrued to him from so fine a conquest.
Thirdly, Our two Apostles, after the disputes, which they had at Antioch
would not have been desirous of meeting, or exhibiting in the same
place. St. Peter would naturally avoid a haughty colleague, who resisted
him to his face, and who publicly reproved him in a manner sufficiently
disagreeable. Besides Rome being a pagan city, naturally fell into the
department of the Apostle of the Gentiles. In short according to the
Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul was too hasty to agree long with an
associate greater than himself. His quarrel with Barnabas, for a slight
difference, proves that Paul was easily irritated.
Fourthly, St. Peter wrote his first epistle from Babylon, and not from
Rome. It is true that the advocates of this voyage of Peter's, pretend
that Babylon is the same city as Rome, but this is a geographical error,
that without a great share of faith can never be admitted for a truth.
Again, the city of Babylon in Syria, no longer existed in the time of
Peter, there was then only a Babylon in Egypt; it is only there that we
can suppose Peter to have written this first epistle.
Fifthly, The traditions which make St. Peter travel to Rome, are filled
with fables, which make them very suspicious, such as his dispute with
Simon the magician, who having raised himself into the air, by virtue
of his art, fell down and broke his limbs by virtue of the Apostles
prayers. We may also place in the list of fables, the apparition of
Christ to Peter, when he fled from Rome, and his crucifixion with his
head downwards. These facts are related neither by inspired authors,
nor eye witnesses, they are founded on traditions only, that is to say,
popular rumour, which many persons do not respect so much as the Pope,
and the clergy seem to desire.
At the risk then of "uncovering Peter to cover Paul" we say that all
these reasons, seem at least to authorize a doubt respecting the voyage
of St. Peter to Rome, at any rate the Acts of the Apostles appears to
insinuate that Paul was the true founder of the see of Rome. He must
then be regarded as the first Pope. Besides the popes have adopted his
maxims, and faithfully imitate his policy in many respects; this would
easily be proved by comparing the almost constant principles of the
church of Rome, with those of our Apostle, which we shall soon have
occasion to examine.