their Divine Inspiration
If we may believe the author of the Acts of the Apostles, the disciples
assembled at Jerusalem on the the day of Pentecost, were filled with the
Holy Ghost. But by what sign shall we be sure that they were filled with
the Holy Ghost? It is this that they began to speak divers languages.
But do these various languages prove the presence of the Holy Ghost?
Could not the disciples of Jesus speak these languages naturally?
However the Jews who had come from the different provinces of Asia to
Jerusalem to celebrate the feast all understood Hebrew, since it was
the language in which their law was written; nothing more then was
requisite but to speak Hebrew, in order to be understood by all of
them; we cannot suppose that men assembled at Jerusalem to celebrate the
Pentecost were Gentiles. That granted of what use was the gift tongues?
In supposing that among the Jews there were some who only understood
Greek, which was at that time universal over all Asia, it is very
possible that without a miracle, some of the disciples or Apostles,
might know this language by the aid of which they could make themselves
understood in most of the provinces mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles.
There is then reason for believing, that the Apostles and disciples
were on this occasion desirous of passing for inspired. With this view,
according to the practice of the diviners and prophets amongst
the Jews, they made noises contortions, cries, &c, and produced an
extravagant cacophony, which, many well disposed persons mistook for
undoubted sign of inspiration, while those who were less credulous took
them for certain proofs of drunkenness or folly. But St. Peter justified
them, and showed that what they received to be extravagancies ought to
be considered as proofs of inspiration. This he confirmed by quoting a
prophecy of the prophet Joel, (see Acts of Apostles, chap. ii. ver. 17.)
But the question at issue is, whether visions, dreams, extravagancies,
&c. are signs of divine inspiration. It is true that from the contents
of the books, which Christians regard as dictated by the Holy Ghost, and
examining the nonsense and contradictions found in the writings of St.
Paul, we should be tempted to believe so. If the absence of reason,
probability, logic, and harmony, is the distinguishing mark of divine
inspiration, we cannot deny that St. Paul has proved himself, by his
writings, to have been divinely inspired.
However at this rate nothing can be more easy than to pass; for
inspired. If madness be a sufficient qualification to cause a man to be
regarded as one filled with the Holy Ghost, there are many men who have
just pretensions to this faculty. If we doubt it they have only to
reply gravely that God hath confounded the wisdom of the wise; that our
rebellious reason ought to be submissive, that the human mind becomes
perverted by reasoning. Such is however the language continually
repeated by the supporters of St. Paul and Christianity. According to
them, wisdom is folly, reason an uncertain guide, common sense useless,
and contradictions are impenetrable mysteries, which we must adore
in silence; and when our mind loses itself in the abyss of folly and
imposture, they cry out with their great Apostle: "Oh! the depth of the
riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are
his ways, and his judgments past finding out!" A lucky quibble of which
our theologians avail themselves with success, in order to escape from
the embarrassment into which they are thrown by any reasoning on the
ways of providence.
It is thus that those who pretend to inspiration have the boldness to
outrage the Divinity, and make the Holy Ghost the accomplice of their
blasphemies. When they find it impossible to escape from the labyrinth
into which impostures and ill-contrived fables have led them, they make
God responsible for their extravagancies; they pretend that their
own follies are the effects of divine wisdom, they term their own
perplexities mysteries; and assent that the author of reason is at the
same time, the enemy of reason.
Men however are not shocked by these impious propositions. Accustomed
to regard St. Paul as inspired, it never occurs to them that so great a
Saint may blaspheme. But what authority have Christians for their high
opinion of St. Paul? It is the Acts of the Apostles, that is to say upon
the suspected testimony of a partizan of Paul's sect, who has compiled
a history of his hero, filled with contradictions, but embellished with
prodigies and fable, which however serve to establish his romance.
But what proofs have we of these miracles themselves? We have no
other evidence than the word of the Romancer himself confirmed by
the authority of the church, i.e. of a body of men interested in
establishing the fable.
It is true that we have in addition the testimony of St. Paul himself,
to whom are attributed the epistles in which are found a great number of
details of his life. But does this Apostle agree with his historian
in his own narrative? No, doubtless, they vary materially in many
circumstances, and frequently contradict each other in the most positive
manner. Who then shall we find to reconcile them, and show us what we
ought to think of a history so differently related? The church. But
what is the church? A body composed of the spiritual guides of the
Christians. Have these guides been witnesses of the actions and miracles
so differently related by Paul and his historian? No; they know nothing
of them but by a tradition, contested even in the times of the first
Christians, but since confirmed by a revelation of the Holy Ghost, who
never, according to them, ceases to enlighten his church. How are we
to know if the church is continually inspired? She herself says so, and
there is, she says, the greatest danger in doubting this. It would be to
resist the Holy Ghost who is identified with the church, and who makes
common cause with her; a crime which will never be forgiven either
in this world or in the next. Of all sins the most unpardonable is to
resist the clergy.