the Apostles, convicted of Falsehood.
Not contented with pursuing this oblique or hypocritical conduct, we
again see, our great Apostle, evidently, wilfully guilty of perjury,
or a false oath. To convince ourselves of this we have only to read the
commencement of his Epistle to the Galatians; to prove to them, that the
gospel which he announced to them; was divinely inspired, he says "But
certify to 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." Further on he proves what he
advances by saying, "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my
mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his son in me, that
I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with
flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were
apostles before me but I went into Arabia, and returned again into
Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,
and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles, saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you
behold before God I lie not*." But if Paul did not lie, in what he
related to the Galatians, it is clear that the author of the Acts of the
Apostles, whom the Christian church regards as an inspired writer
equally with St. Paul, has lied. In fact in the ninth chapter of the
Acts, it is said that Paul after his conversion, and after having
recovered his sight remained some days with the disciples who were at
Damascus; which proves that he was instructed by men, or that he took
counsel of flesh and blood. Believing himself sufficiently fortified in
his theology, by Ananias or others, he began to preach Christ in the
synagogue, at which conduct the Jews were so shocked that they sought to
take away his life: but Saul escaped from their fury by means of a
basket, and without mention made of his journey to Arabia, he directly
returns to Jerusalem, where the disciples were in the first instance
fearful of him, but Barnabas, encouraged them, and presented him to the
apostles, at the same time relating to them his miraculous conversion,
and his courageous preaching at Damascus. In consequence it is said that
Paul was added to the number of the faithful. (Acts ix).
* This passage proves very forcibly that Paul preached a
different gospel from that of the other apostles, i. e.
from the Ebionites or Nazarenes.
It is easy to see, how little this recital of the inspired historian
of the Acts, agrees with that of the inspired Apostle, who wrote to the
Galatians, and confirmed his narration by an oath. Besides the journey
of St. Paul to Arabia upon leaving Damascus, and which preceded his
arrival at Jerusalem by three years, becomes very improbable, as well as
his stay in this country. In fact the disciples at Jerusalem must have
been in habits of correspondence with those of Damascus, consequently
they would thus have heard of an event so interesting to their sect,
as the conversion of St. Paul and the pains he took to propagate their
doctrines; thus the presence of our Apostle would not have created any
uneasiness, and there could have been no need of Barnabas becoming his
surety. It appears then that the new convert upon leaving Damascus went
directly to Jerusalem, that he had there an opportunity of conversing
with the apostles, and that his theology was not intuitive.
But even supposing that the journey and sojourn of three years in
Arabia, really took place, it would be no less certain that Paul took a
false oath to the Galatians, or that the author of the Acts is deceived.
In fact St. Paul writes that at the end of three years he returned to
Jerusalem to visit Peter, and that he remained fifteen days with him
without seeing any other of the apostles. This is quite at variance
with the author of the Acts, who informs us that Paul being come to
Jerusalem, sought to join himself to the disciples, who were afraid of
him, not knowing that he was a disciple. Our Saint contradicts all this
by a different tale which he confirms by an oath.
Moreover by this oath Paul himself contradicts the discourse which the
author of the Acts, puts into his mouth in the presence of King Agrippa,
of Queen Berenice, and the governor Festus*.
In relating to them his conversion, he says to them, Whereupon, O King
Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision; but shewed
first unto them at Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the
coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles that they should repent and
turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Thus according to the
author of the Acts, St. Paul himself acknowledges that he first
preached at Damascus, then at Jerusalem before addressing himself to the
Gentiles.
If he had preached during a period of three years in Arabia, he would
have spoken of the circumstance, of which no mention is made in all the
Acts of the Apostles, whilst we find there the most minute details of
the continual journeyings.
We shall just remark here a visible contradiction in the Acts of the
Apostles; The author of this work in relating the miraculous conversion
of St. Paul, says that those who accompanied him, were speechless,
hearing a voice but seeing no man**. However the same author, forgetting
himself makes Paul say in his discourse to the Jews, "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***".
It belongs to the impartial reader to judge what degree of confidence is
due to writers who are so often at variance. In the first instance Paul
solemnly attests by an oath, the truth of a fact, not only omitted, but
even formally contradicted by St. Luke, his historian and disciple. In
the second instance the historian contradicts himself. This ought at
least to shake the implicit faith, that so many persons put in works
which possess neither the consistence nor harmony required in ordinary
writers. As to our doctors they tell us their ways of saving the honour
of these two inspired ones; whom they have much interest in washing from
so grave an accusation, and such a taint upon the Christian religion.
* Acts, xxvi. ver. 29.
**Acts, ix. ver. 7.
***Acts, xxii. ver. 9.