CHAPTER I.

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, had,

at the instance of Paul, been made to pay, with his life, for the

imprudence, with which he had, in the most public manner, indulged

himself, in blaspheming the idol of the Jews--their temple.[13]

Of that flourishing condition, Paul, under his original name of Saul,

had all along been a witness. While carrying on against it that

persecution, in which, if not the original instigator, he had been a

most active instrument, persecuting, if he himself, in what he is made

to say, in Acts xxii. 4, is to be believed,--"persecuting unto the

death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women;"--while

thus occupied, he could not in the course of such his disastrous

employment, have failed to obtain a considerable insight into the state

of their worldly affairs.

Samaria--the field of the exploits and renown of the great sorcerer

Simon, distinguished in those times by the name of _Magus_--Samaria, the

near neighbour and constant rival, not to say enemy, of Jerusalem;--is

not more than about five and forty miles distant from it. To Paul's

alert and busy mind,--the offer, made by the sorcerer, to purchase of

the Apostles a share in the government of the church, could not have

been a secret.

At the hands of those rulers of the Christian Church, this offer had not

found acceptance. Shares in the direction of their affairs were not,

like those in the government of the British Empire in these our days,

objects of sale. The nine rulers would not come into any such bargain;

their disciples were not as cattle in their eyes: by those disciples

themselves no such bargain would have been endured; they were not as

cattle in their own eyes.

But, though the bargain proposed by the sorcerer did not take place,

this evidence, which the offer of it so clearly affords,--this evidence,

of the value of a situation of that sort in a commercial point of view,

could not naturally either have remained a secret to Paul, or failed to

engage his attention, and present to his avidity and ambition a ground

of speculation--an inviting field of enterprise.

From the time when he took that leading part, in the condemnation and

execution, of the too flamingly zealous manager, of the temporal

concerns of the associated disciples of that disastrous orator, by whom

the preaching and spiritual functions might, with so much happier an

issue, have been left in the hands of the Apostles--from that time, down

to that in which we find him, with letters in his pocket, from the

rulers of the Jews in their own country, to the rulers of the same

nation under the government of the neighbouring state of Damascus, he

continued, according to the Acts ix. 1; "yet breathing out threatenings

and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord."

Of these letters, the object was--the employing the influence of the

authorities from which they came, viz. the High Priest and the Elders,

to the purpose of engaging those to whom they were addressed, to enable

him to bring in bonds, to Jerusalem from Damascus, all such converts to

the religion of Jesus, as should have been found in the place last

mentioned.

In his own person the author of the Acts informs us--that, by Saul,

letters to this effect were _desired_[14]. In a subsequent chapter, in

the person of Paul, viz. in the speech, to the multitude by whom he had

been dragged out of the Temple, in the design of putting him to death,

he informs us they were actually _obtained_[15].

It was in the course of this his journey, and with these letters in his

pocket, that, in and by the vision seen by him while on the road--at

that time and not earlier--his conversion was, according to his own

account of the matter, effected.

That which is thought to have been already proved, let it, at least for

argument's sake, be affirmed. Let us say accordingly--this vision-story

was a mere fable. On this supposition, then, what will be to be said of

those same letters?--of the views in which they were obtained?--of the

use which was eventually made of them?--of the purpose to which they

were applied? For all these questions one solution may serve. From what

is known beyond dispute--on the one hand, of his former way of life and

connections--on the other hand, of his subsequent proceeding--an answer,

of the satisfactoriness of which the reader will have to judge, may,

without much expense of thought, be collected.

If, in reality, no such vision was perceived by him, no circumstance

remains manifest whereby the change which so manifestly and notoriously

took place in his plan of life, came to be referred to _that_ point in

the field of time--in preference to any antecedent one.

Supposing, then, the time of the change to have been antecedent to the

commencement of that journey of his to Damascus--antecedent to the time

of the application, in compliance with which his letter from the ruling

powers at Jerusalem the object of which was to place at his disposal the

lot of the Christians at Damascus, was obtained;--this supposed, what,

in the endeavour to obtain this letter, was his object? Manifestly to

place in his power these same Christians: to place them in his power,

and thereby to obtain from them whatsoever assistance was regarded by

him as necessary for the ulterior prosecution of his schemes, as above

indicated.

On this supposition, in the event of their giving him that assistance,

which, in the shape of money and other necessary shapes, he

required--on this supposition, he made known to them his determination,

not only to spare their persons, but to join with them in their

religion; and, by taking the lead in it among the heathen, to whom he

was, in several respects, so much better qualified for communicating it

than any of the Apostles or their adherents, to promote it to the utmost

of his power. An offer of this nature--was it in the nature of things

that it should be refused? Whatsoever was most dear to them--their own

personal security, and the sacred interests of the new religion, the

zeal of which was yet flaming in their bosoms, concurred in pressing it

upon their acceptance.

With the assistance thus obtained, the plan was--to become a declared

convert to the religion of Jesus, for the purpose of setting himself at

the head of it; and, by means of the expertness he had acquired in the

use of the Greek language, to preach, in the name of Jesus, that sort of

religion, by the preaching of which, an empire over the minds of his

converts, and, by that means, the power and opulence to which he

aspired, might, with the fairest prospect of success, be aimed at.

But, towards the accomplishment of this design, what presented itself as

a necessary step, was--the entering into a sort of _treaty_, and forming

at least in appearance, a sort of junction, with the leaders of the new

religion and their adherents--the Apostles and the rest of the

disciples. As for _them_, in acceding to this proposal, on the

supposition of anything like sincerity and consistency on his part,

_they_ would naturally see much to gain and nothing to lose: much indeed

to gain; no less than peace and security, instead of that persecution,

by which, with the exception of the Apostles themselves, to all of whom

experience seems, without exception, to have imparted the gift of

prudence, the whole fraternity had so lately been driven from their

homes, and scattered abroad in various directions.

With the Christians at Damascus, that projected junction was actually

effected by him: but, in this state of things, to return to Jerusalem

was not, at that time, to be thought of. In the eyes of the ruling

powers, he would have been a trust-breaker--a traitor to their cause: in

the eyes of the Christians, he would have been a murderer, with the

blood of the innocent still reeking on his hands: no one would he have

found so much as to lend an ear to his story, much less to endure it. In

Damascus, after making his agreement with his new brethren, there

remained little for him to do. Much had he to inform himself of

concerning Jesus. Damascus--where Jesus had already so many

followers--Damascus was a place for him to _learn_ in: not to _teach_

in:--at any rate, at that time.

Arabia, a promising field of enterprise--Arabia, a virgin soil, opened

to his view. There he would find none to abhor his person--none to

contradict his assertions: there his eloquence--and, under the direction

of his judgment, his invention--would find free scope: in that country

the reproach of inconsistency could not attach upon him: in that foreign

land he beheld his place of quarantine--his school of probation--the

scene of his novitiate. By a few years employed in the exercise of his

new calling--with that spirit and activity which would accompany him of

course in every occupation to which he could betake himself--he would

initiate himself in, and familiarize himself with, the connected

exercises of preaching and spiritual rule. At the end of that period,

whatsoever might be his success in that country, such a portion of

time, passed in innocence, would at any rate allay enmity: such a

portion of time, manifestly passed, in the endeavour at any rate to

render service to the common cause, might even establish confidence.

At the end of that time, he might, nor altogether without hope of

success, present himself to the rulers of the church, in the metropolis

of their spiritual empire: "Behold, he might say, in me no longer a

persecutor, but a friend. The persecutor has long vanished: he has given

place to the friend. Too true it is, that I was so once your persecutor.

Years spent in unison with you--years spent in the service of the common

cause--have proved me. You see before you, a tried man--an ally of tried

fidelity: present me as such to your disciples: take me into your

councils: all my talent, all my faculties, shall be yours. The land of

Israel will continue, as it has been, the field of _your_ holy labours;

the land of the Gentiles shall be mine: we will carry on our operations

in concert; innumerable are the ways in which each of us will derive

from the other--information, assistance, and support."

To Arabia he accordingly repaired: so, in his Epistle to the Galatians,

Gal. i. 17, he himself informs us: in that little-known country, he

continued three whole years--so also, in the same place, he informs us.

There it was, that he experienced that success, whatever it was, that

went to constitute the ground, of the recommendation given of him by

Barnabas to the Apostles. From thence he returned to Damascus: and, in

that city, presenting himself in his regenerated character, and having

realized by his subsequent conduct the expectations raised by his

promises at the outset of his career[16]; he planned, and as will be

seen, executed his expedition to Jerusalem: the expedition, the object

of which has just been brought to view. "Then," says Paul himself, "I

went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."

Gal. 1:18. There, says the author of the Acts, Acts 9:27, 28, "Barnabas

took him and brought him to the Apostles ... and he was with them coming

in and going out of Jerusalem."

SECTION 2.

AT DAMASCUS, NO SUCH ANANIAS PROBABLY.

This same Ananias--of whom so much has been seen in the last

chapter--Paul's own imagination excepted, had he anywhere any existence?

The probability seems to be on the negative side: and, in the next

section, as to whether Paul's companions on the road are not in a

similar predicament, the reader will have to judge. But let us begin

with Ananias.

At Damascus, at any rate--with such power in his hands, for securing

obsequiousness at the hands of those to whom he was addressing

himself--with such power in his hands, Paul could not have had much need

of anything in the shape of a vision:--he could not have had any need of

any such person as the seer of the correspondent vision--Ananias.

For the purpose of aiding the operation of those considerations of

worldly prudence, which these powers of his enabled him to present, to

those whom it concerned,--there might be some perhaps, who, for yielding

to those considerations, and thus putting themselves under the command

of this formidable potentate, might look for an authority from the Lord

Jesus. But, forasmuch as, in this very case, even at this time of day,

visions, _two_ in name, but, in respect of probative force, reducible to

_one_--are so generally received as conclusive evidence,--no wonder if,

at that time of day, by persons so circumstanced, that _one_ vision

should be received in that same character. At Damascus, therefore, on

his first arrival, there could not be any occasion for any such

corroborating story as the story of the vision of Ananias. At

Damascus--unless he had already obtained, and instructed as his

confederate, a man of that name--no such story could, with any prospect

of success, have been circulated: for the purpose of learning the

particulars of an occurrence of such high importance, the residence of

this Ananias would have been inquired after: and, by supposition, no

satisfactory answer being capable of being given to any such

inquiries,--no such story could be ventured to be told.

Such was the case, at that place and at that time. As to any such

evidence, as that afforded by the _principal_ vision, viz. Paul's

own,--perhaps no such evidence was found necessary: but, if it _was_

found necessary, nothing could be easier than the furnishing it. As to

the _secondary_ vision, viz. that ascribed afterwards to a man of the

name of Ananias,--at that time scarcely could there have been any need

of it--any demand for it; and, had there been any such demand, scarcely,

unless previously provided, could any such correspondent supply have

been afforded.

In other places and posterior times alone, could this supplemental

vision, therefore, have been put into circulation: accordingly, not till

a great many years after, was mention made of it by the author of the

Acts:--mention made by him, either in his own person, or as having been

related, or alluded to, by Paul himself. Even the author of the

Acts,--though in this same chapter he has been relating the story of

Ananias's vision,--yet, when he comes to speak, of the way, in which,

according to him, Paul, by means of his protector and benefactor

Barnabas, obtained an introduction to the Apostles, viz. all the

Apostles, in which, however, he is so pointedly contradicted by Paul

himself,--yet speaks not of Barnabas, as including, in the

recommendatory account he gave them, of Paul--his vision, and his

merits--any mention of this supplemental vision:--any mention of any

Ananias. Acts 9:27.

At Damascus, howsoever it might be in regard to the Christians--neither

to Jews, nor to Gentiles, could the production, of any such letters as

those in question, have availed him anything. Such as had embraced

Christianity excepted, neither over Gentiles nor over Jews did those

letters give him any power: and, as to Jews, the character in

which--after any declaration made of his conversion--he would have

presented himself, would have been no better than that of an apostate,

and betrayer of a highly important public trust. To men of both these

descriptions, a plea of some sort or other, such as, if believed, would

be capable of accounting for so extraordinary a step, as that he should

change, from the condition of a most cruel and inveterate persecutor of

the new religion, to that of a most zealous supporter and leader,--could

not, therefore, but be altogether necessary. No sooner was he arrived at

Damascus, than, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, he began

pleading, with all his energy, the cause of that religion, which, almost

to that moment, he had with so much cruelty opposed. As to the story of

his vision,--what is certain is--that, sooner or later, for the purpose

of rendering to men of all descriptions a reason for a change so

preëminently extraordinary, he employed this story. But, forasmuch as of

no other account of it, as given by him, is any trace to be found;--nor

can any reason be found, why that which was certainly employed

afterwards might not as well be employed at and from the first;--hence

comes the probability, that from the first it accordingly was employed.

SECTION 3.

ON DAMASCUS JOURNEY--COMPANIONS NONE.

In the preceding chapter, a question was started, but no determinate

answer as yet found for it: this is--what became of the men,

who--according to all the accounts given by Paul, or from him, of his

conversion vision--were his _companions_ in the journey? At Damascus, if

any such men there were, they would in course arrive as well as he, and

at the same time with him. This circumstance considered, if any such men

there were,--and they were not in confederacy with him,--the imposition

must have been put upon _them_: and, for that purpose, he must, in their

presence, have uttered the sort of discourse, and exhibited the sort of

deportment, mentioned in the above accounts.

To this difficulty, however, a very simple solution presents itself. _He

had no such companions._ Neither by name, nor so much as by any the most

general description,--either of the persons, or of the total number,--is

any designation to be found anywhere:--not in the account given in the

Acts; not in any account, given by himself, in any Epistle of his; or,

as from himself, in any part of the Acts. In the company of divers

others, a man was struck down, he says, or it is said of him, by a

supernatural light: and, at the instant, and on the spot, has a

conversation with somebody. Instead of saying who these _other_ men are,

the credit of the whole story is left to rest on the credit of this

_one_ man:--the credit, of a story, the natural improbability of which,

stood so much need of collateral evidence, to render it credible.

Not till many years had elapsed, after this journey of his were these

accounts, any one of them, made public: and, in relation to these

pretended companions--supposing him interrogated at any time posterior

to the publication of the account in the Acts,--after the lapse of such

a number of years, he could, without much difficulty, especially his

situation and personal character considered, hold himself at full

liberty, to remember or to forget, as much or as little, as on each

occasion he should find convenient.

SECTION 4.

FLIGHT FROM DAMASCUS: CAUSES--FALSE--TRUE.

ACTS ix. 19-25.

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 destroyeth them which called on his 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.--And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took

counsel to kill him.--But their laying await was known of Saul. And

they watched the gates day and night to kill him.--Then the

disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a

basket.

The conception, which it was the evident design of this passage to

impress upon the mind of the reader, is--that, as soon almost as he was

arrived at Damascus, Paul not only went about preaching Jesus, but

preaching to that effect openly, and without reserve, in all the

synagogues: and that it was for this preaching, and nothing else, that

"the Jews," thus undiscriminating is the appellation, purposely it should

seem, employed, "went about to kill him:" that thereupon it was, that he

made his escape over the wall, and having so done, repaired immediately

to Jerusalem.

In this conception, there seems to be evidently a mixture of truth and

falsehood.

That he addressed himself, in a greater or less number, to the

disciples,--must assuredly have been true: to the accomplishment of his

designs, as above explained, intercourse with them could not but be

altogether necessary.

That, when any probable hope of favourable attention and secrecy were

pointed out to him--that, in here and there an instance, he ventured so

far as to address himself to this or that individual, who was not as yet

enlisted in the number of disciples,--may also have been true: and, for

this purpose, he might have ventured perhaps to show himself in some

comparatively obscure synagogue or synagogues.

But, as to his venturing himself so far as to preach in all synagogues

without distinction,--or in any synagogue frequented by any of the

constituted authorities,--this seems altogether incredible.

To engage them to seek his life; to lie in wait to kill him; in other

words, to apprehend him for the purpose of trying him, and probably at

the upshot killing him,--this is no more than, considering what, in

their eyes, he had been guilty of, was a thing of course: a measure,

called for--not, for preaching the religion of Jesus; not, for any

boldness in any other way displayed; but, for the betraying of the

trust, reposed in him by the constituted authorities at Jerusalem: thus

protecting and cherishing those malefactors, for such they had been

pronounced by authority, for the apprehending and punishing of whom, he

had solicited the commission he thereupon betrayed. Independently of all

other offence, given by preaching or anything else,--in this there was

that, which, under any government whatever, would have amply

sufficed--would even more than sufficed--to draw down, upon the head of

the offender, a most exemplary punishment.

In this view, note well the description, given in the Acts, of the

persons, by whose enmity he was driven out of Damascus; compare with it

what, in relation to this same point, is declared--most explicitly

declared--by Paul himself.

By the account in the Acts, they were the persons to whom he had been

preaching Jesus; and who, by that preaching, had been confounded and

provoked. Among those persons, a conspiracy was formed for murdering

him; and it was to save him from this conspiracy that the disciples let

him down the wall in a basket.

Such is the colour, put upon the matter by the author of the Acts. Now,

what is the truth--the manifest and necessary truth, as

related--explicitly related--by Paul himself? related, in the second of

his letters to his Corinthians, on an occasion when the truth would be

more to his purpose than the false gloss put upon it by his adherents as

above? The peril, by which he was driven thus to make his escape,

was--not a murderous conspiracy, formed against him by a set of

individuals provoked by his preaching;--it was the intention, formed by

the governor of the city. Intention? to do what? to put him to death

against law? No; but to "_apprehend_" him. To apprehend him? for what?

Evidently for the purpose of bringing him to justice in the regular

way--whatsoever was the regular way--for the offence he had so recently

committed: committed, by betraying his trust, and entering into a

confederacy with the offenders, whom he had been commissioned, and had

engaged, to occupy himself, in concert with the constituted authorities

of the place, in bringing to justice.

"In Damascus," says he, 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33, "the governor under Aretas

the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to

apprehend me. And through a window in a basket was I let down by the

wall, and escaped his hands."

And on what _occasion_ is it, that this account of the matter is given

by him? It is at the close of a declamation, which occupies ten

verses--a declamation, the object of which is--to impress upon the minds

of his adherents the idea of his merits: viz. those which consisted in

labour, suffering, and perils: merits, on which he places his title to

the preference he claims above the competitors to whom he

alludes:--alludes, though without naming them: they being, as he

acknowledges therein, ministers of Christ, and probably enough, if not

any of them Apostles, persons commissioned by the Apostles. Greater, it

is evident, must have been the danger from the ruling powers of the

place, than from a set of individual intended murderers:--from the power

of the rulers there could not be so much as a hope of salvation, except

by escape: from the individuals there would be a naturally sufficient

means of salvation; the power of the rulers presenting a means of

salvation, and that naturally a sufficient one.

Note here, by the by, one of the many exemplifications, of that

confusion which reigns throughout in Paul's discourses: the result, of

that mixture, which, in unascertainable proportions, seems to have had

place--that mixture of nature and artifice. It is at the end of a long

list of labours, sufferings, and perils, that this anecdote presents

itself. Was it accordingly at the end of them that the fact itself had

taken place?--No: it was _at_ the very commencement: or rather, so far

as concerned preaching, _before_ the commencement. Only in the way of

allusion--allusion in general terms--in terms of merely general

description, without mention of _time_ or _place_, or persons

concerned,--are any of the other sufferings or perils mentioned: in this

instance alone, is any mention made under any one of those heads: and

here we see it under two of them, viz. _place_ and _person_: and

moreover, by other circumstances, the _time_, viz. the _relative_ time,

is pretty effectually fixed.

Immediately afterwards, this same indisputably false colouring will be

seen laid on, when the account comes to be given, of his departure for

Jerusalem: always for preaching Jesus is he sought after, never for

anything else.

According to this representation, here are two governments--two

municipal governments--one of them, at the solicitation of a functionary

of its own, giving him a commission to negotiate with another, for the

purpose of obtaining, at his hands, an authority, for apprehending a set

of men, who, in the eyes of both, were guilty of an offence against

both. Instead of pursuing his commission, and using his endeavours to

obtain the desired cooperation, he betrays the trust reposed in him:--he

not only suffers the alleged malefactors to remain unapprehended and

untouched, but enters into a confederacy with them. To both governments,

this conduct of his is, according to him, matter of such entire

indifference, that he might have presented himself everywhere, as if

nothing had happened, had it not been for his preaching:--had it not

been for his standing forth _openly_, to preach to all that would hear

him, the very religion which he had been commissioned to extinguish.

In such a state of things, is there anything that can, by any

supposition, be reconciled to the nature of man, in any situation,--or

to any form of government?

Three years having been passed by him in that to him strange country,

what, during all that time, were his means of subsistence? To this

question an unquestionable answer will be afforded by the known nature

of his situation. He was bred to a trade, indeed a handicraft

trade--tent-making: an art, in which the operations of the architect

and the upholsterer are combined. But, it was not to practise either

that, or any other manual operation, that he paid his visit to that

country. When he really did practise it, he took care that this

condescension of his should not remain a secret: from that, as from

everything else he ever did or suffered, or pretended to have done or

suffered, he failed not to extract the matter of glory for himself, as

well as edification for his readers. In Arabia, his means of subsistence

were not then derived from his trade: if they had been, we should have

known it:--from what source then were they derived?[17] By the very

nature of his situation, this question has been already answered:--from

the purses of those, whom, having had it in his power, and even in his

commission, to destroy, he had saved.

And now, as to all those things, which, from the relinquishment of his

labours in the field of persecution to the first of his four recorded

visits to Jerusalem, he is known to have done, answers have been

furnished:--answers, to the several questions _why_ and by what _means_,

such as, upon the supposition that the supernatural mode of his

conversion was but a fable, it will not, it is hoped, be easy to find

cause for objecting to as insufficient.

SECTION 5.

ARABIA-VISIT--MENTIONED BY PAUL, NOT ACTS.

Not altogether without special reason, seems the veil of obscurity to

have been cast over this long interval. In design, rather than accident,

or heedlessness, or want of information,--may be found, it should seem,

the cause, of a silence so pregnant with misrepresentation. In addition

to a length of time, more or less considerable, spent in Damascus, a

city in close communication with Jerusalem, in giving proofs of his

conversion,--three years spent in some part or other of the contiguous

indeed, but wide-extending, country of Arabia--(spent, if Paul is to be

believed, in preaching the religion of Jesus, and at any rate in a state

of peace and innoxiousness with relation to it)--afforded such proof of

a change of plan and sentiment, as, in the case of many a man, might,

without miracle or wonder, have sufficed to form a basis for the

projected alliance:--this proof, even of itself; much more, when

corroborated, by the sort of certificate, given to the Church by its

preeminent benefactor Barnabas, who, in introducing the new convert, to

the leaders among the Apostles, for the special purpose of proposing the

alliance,--took upon himself the personal responsibility, so inseparably

involved in such a mark of confidence.

In this state of things then, which is expressly asserted by Paul to

have been, and appears indubitably to have been, a real

one,--considerations of an ordinary nature being sufficient--to

produce--not only the effect actually produced--but, in the case of many

a man, much more than the effect actually produced,--there was no

demand, at that time, for a miracle: no demand for a miracle, for any

such purpose, as that of working, upon the minds of the Apostles, to any

such effect as that of their maintaining, towards the new convert, a

conduct free from hostility, accompanied with a countenance of outward

amity. But, for other purposes, and in the course of his intercourse

with persons of other descriptions, it became necessary for him to have

had these visions: it became necessary--not only for the purpose of

proving connection on his part with the departed Jesus, to the

satisfaction of all those by whom such proof would be looked for,--but,

for the further purpose, of ascribing to Jesus, whatsoever doctrines the

prosecution of his design might from time to time call upon him to

promulgate;--those doctrines, in a word, which, (as will be seen), being

his and not Jesus's--not reported by anyone else as being Jesus's--we

shall find him, notwithstanding, preaching, and delivering,--so much at

his ease, and with unhesitating assurance.

A miracle having therefore been deemed necessary (the miracle of the

conversion-vision), and reported accordingly,--thus it is, that, by the

appearance of suddenness, given to the sort and degree of confidence

thereupon reported as having been bestowed upon him by the Apostles, a

sort of confirmation is, in the Acts account, given to the report of the

miracle: according to this account, it was not by the three or four

years passed by him in the prosecution of their designs, or at least

without obstruction given to them;--it was not by any such proof of

amity, that the intercourse, such as it was, had been effected:--no: it

was by the report of the vision--that report which, in the first

instance, was made to them by their generous benefactor and powerful

supporter, Barnabas; confirmed, as, to every candid eye it could not

fail to be, by whatever accounts were, on the occasion of the personal

intercourse, delivered from his own lips. "But Barnabas (says the

author) took him and brought him to the Apostles, and declared unto them

how he had _seen_ the Lord by the way, and that he had spoken to him,

and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus." Acts

9:27.

When in the year 57, Paul,[18] to so many other boastings, was added the

sufferings he would have us think were courted and endured by him, while

preaching in the name of Jesus, that gospel, which he proclaims to have

been his own, and not that of the Apostles, little assuredly did he

think, that five years after, or thereabout, from the hand of one of his

own attendants, a narrative was to appear, in which, of these same

sufferings a so much shorter list would be given; or that, by an odd

enough coincidence, more than seventeen centuries after, by a namesake

of his honored patron, Doctor Gamaliel, the contradiction thus given to

him, would be held up to view.

In the second of his epistles to his Corinthians, dated A.D. 57,--the

following is the summary he gives of those same sufferings. Speaking of

certain unnamed persons, styled by him false Apostles, but whom reasons

are not wanting for believing to have been among the disciples of the

real ones,--"Are they," says he, 2 Cor. xi. 23, "ministers of Christ? I

speak as one beside himself, I am more: in labours more abundant: in

_stripes_ above measure: in prisons more frequent: in deaths, oft.--Of

the Jews five times received I forty stripes, save one.--Thrice was I

beaten with rods; once was I stoned: thrice I suffered shipwreck: a

night and a day have I been in the deep." Thus far as per _Paul_.

Add from his former Epistle to the same in the same year, battle with

beasts, one. "If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at

Ephesus, what advantageth it me," continues he, 1 Cor. XV. 32, "if the

dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Let us now see how the account stands, as per _Acts_. On the part of

this his panegyrist, whether any such habit had place as that of cutting

down below their real amount, either the sufferings or the actings of

his hero, the reader will have judged. Of both together, let it not be

forgotten, the Acts' account comes some five years lower, than the date

of the above tragical list: in it are included those sufferings and

perils which we have seen, namely, those produced by the voyage to Rome,

and which, at the time of Paul's list, had not taken their commencement.

Now then for the Acts' list. Stripes, nine-and-thirty in a parcel, none:

difference five. Beatings with rods, saving one possible one, of which

presently, none; difference, three. Stoning, one[19]. Shipwreck, as yet

none: the accident at Malta being three years subsequent. "Night and day

in the deep,"--according as it was _on_ or _in_ the deep--either nothing

at all, or an adventure considerably too singular to have been passed

over. _Diving-bells_ are not commonly supposed to have been, at that

time of day, in use; but whoever has a taste for predictions, may, if it

be agreeable to him, see those same scientific instruments or the

equivalent in this Gospel of Paul's predicted.

As to the parcels of stripes, the self-constituted Apostle takes credit

for, they would have been,--supposing them administered,--administered,

all of them, according to law, meaning always the law of _Moses_: for,

it is in that law, (namely in Deuteronomy XXV. 3) that the clause,

limiting to nine-and-thirty, the number to be given at a time, is to be

found. Of these statements of Paul's, let it not pass unnoticed, the

place is--a formal and studied Epistle, not an extempore speech: so that

the falsehood in them, if any, was not less deliberate than the Temple

perjury.

Of all these same boasted bodily sufferings, eight in the whole, when

put together,--one was, at the outset, reserved for consideration: let

us see what light, if any, is cast upon it by the Acts. One beating, the

Acts informs us of: and it was a beating by order of magistrates: and

accordingly, a beating according to law. But the law, according to which

it was given, was not Jewish law: the magistrates, by whose order it was

given, were not Jewish magistrates. The magistrates were heathens: and

it was for being Jews, and preaching in the Jewish style, that Paul, and

his companion Silas, were thus visited. It was at Philippi that the

affair happened: it was immediately preceded by their adventure with the

divineress, as per Acts 16:16; 34, Chap. 13: and brought about by the

resentment of her masters, to whose established business, the

innovation, introduced by these interlopers, had given disturbance: it

was followed--immediately followed--by the earthquake, which was so

dexterous in taking irons off. Whether therefore this beating was in

Paul's account comprised in the eight stripings and beatings, seems not

possible, humanly speaking, to know: not possible, unless so it be, that

Paul, being the wandering Jew, we have sometimes heard of, is still

alive,--still upon the look-out, for that aërial voyage, which, with or

without the expectation of an aërostatic vehicle, we have seen him so

confident in the assurance of.

Remains the battle with the beasts. What these same beasts were, how

many there were of them,--how many legs they respectively had--for

example, two or four--in what way he was introduced into their

company,--whence his difference with them took its rise,--whether it was

of his own seeking, or by invitation that he entered the lists with

these his antagonists,--how it fared with _them_ when the affair was

over,--(for as to the hero himself, it does not appear that he was much

the worse for it);--these, amongst other questions, might be worth

answering, upon the supposition, that these antagonists of his were real

beings and real beasts, and not of the same class as the arch-beast of

his own begetting--Antichrist. But, the plain truth seems to be, that if

ever he fought with beasts, it was in one of his visions: in which case,

for proof of the occurrence, no visible mark of laceration could

reasonably be demanded. Meantime, to prove the negative, as far as, in a

case such as this, it is in the nature of a negative to be proved,--we

may, without much fear of the result, venture to call his ever-devoted

scribe. To this same Ephesus,--not more than a twelvemonth or

thereabouts, before the date of the Epistle--he brings his

patron,--finds appropriate employment for him,--and, off and on, keeps

him there for no inconsiderable length of time. There it is, that we

have seen, Chap. 13, §. 7., his handkerchiefs driving out devils as well

as diseases: there it is, and for no other reason than that _he_ is

there--there it is, that we have seen so many thousand pounds worth of

magical books burnt--and by their owners: there it is, that with a

single handkerchief of his,--which so it were but used, was an overmatch

for we know not how many devils,--we saw a single devil, with no other

hands than those of the man he lodged in, wounding and stripping to the

skin no fewer than seven men at the same time. If, then, with or without

a whole skin at the conclusion of it, he had really had any such

rencounter, with one knows not how many beasts, is it in the nature of

the case, that this same historiographer of his, should have kept us

ignorant of it? To be shut up with wild beasts, until torn to pieces by

them, was indeed one of the punishments, for which men were indebted to

the ingenuity of the Roman lawyers: but, if any such sentence was really

executed upon our self-constituted Apostle, his surviving it was a

miracle too brilliant not to have been placed at the head of all his

other miracles: at any rate, too extraordinary to have been passed by

altogether without notice. The biographer of Daniel was not thus

negligent.

After all, was it really matter of pure invention--this same battle? or

may it not, like so many of the quasi-miracles in the Acts, have had a

more or less substantial foundation in fact? The case may it not have

been--that, while he was at Ephesus, somebody or other set a dog at him,

as men will sometimes do at a troublesome beggar? or that, whether with

hand or tongue, some person, male or female, set upon him with a degree

of vivacity, which, according to Paul's zoology, elucidated by Paul's

eloquence, entitled him or her to a place in the order of beasts?--Where

darkness is thus visible, no light can be so faint, as not to bring with

it some title to indulgence.

Of the accounts, given us by the historiographer, of the exploits and

experiences of his hero while at Ephesus, one article more will complete

the list. When any such opportunity offered, as that of presenting him

to view, in his here assumed character, of a candidate for the honours

of martyrdom,--was it or was it not in the character of the

historiographer to let it pass unimproved? To our judgment on this

question, some further maturity may be given, by one more law-case, now

to be brought to view. Under some such name as that of the _Ephesian

Diana_, not unfrequent are the allusions to it. _Church of Diana

silversmiths versus Paul and Co._ is a name, by which, in an English law

report, it might with more strict propriety be designated. Plaintiffs,

silversmiths' company just named: Defendants, Paul and Co.; to wit, said

Paul, Alexander, Aristarchus, Alexander and others. Acts, 22:41. Action

on the case for words:--the words, in tenor not reported: purport,

importing injury in the way of trade. Out of the principal cause, we

shall see growing a sort of cross cause: a case of assault, in which

three of the defendants were, or might have been, plaintiffs: cause of

action, assault, terminating in false imprisonment. In this

exercetitious cause, defendants not individually specified: for, in

those early days, note-taking had not arrived at the pitch of

perfection, at which we see it at present. That which,--with reference

to the question--as to the truth of the beast-fighting story,--is more

particularly material in the two cases taken together,--is this: in the

situation, in which these junior partners of Paul found themselves,

there was some difficulty, not to say some danger. Pressed, as he

himself was afterwards, in his invasion of Jerusalem,--pressed in more

senses than one, _they_ found themselves by an accusing multitude. What

on this occasion does Paul? He slips his neck out of the collar. So far

from lending them a hand for their support, he will not so much as lend

them a syllable of his eloquence. Why? because forsooth, says his

historiographer, Acts xix. 30, 31, "the disciples suffered him not:"

_item_, v. 30, "certain" others of "his friends." When, as we have seen

him, spite of everything that could be said to him, he repaired to

Jerusalem on his _Invasion Visit_,--he was not quite so perfectly under

the government of his friends. On the present occasion, we shall find

him sufficiently tractable. Was this a man to be an antagonist and

overmatch for wild beasts?

Now as to the above-mentioned principal case. Plaintiffs, dealers in

silver goods: Defendants, dealers in words. To be rivals in trade, it is

not necessary that men should deal exactly in the same articles:--the

sale of the words injured the sale of the goods: so at least the

plaintiffs took upon them to aver: for, in such a case, suspicion is not

apt to lie asleep. The church of Diana was the Established Church, of

that place and time. To the honour, the plaintiffs added the profit, of

being silversmiths to that same Excellent Church. To the value of that

sort of evidence, which it is the province of silversmiths to furnish,

no established church was ever insensible. The evidence, furnished by

the church silversmiths of these days, is composed of _chalices_: under

the Pagan dispensation, the evidence furnished by the church

silversmiths of the church of the Ephesian Diana, was composed of

_shrines_. When, with that resurrection of his own, and that Gospel of

his own, of which so copious a sample remains to us in his

Epistles,--Paul, with or without the name of Jesus in his mouth, made

his appearance in the market, Plaintiffs, as we have seen, took the

alarm. They proceeded, as the pious sons of an established church could

not fail to proceed. Before action commenced, to prepare the way for a

suitable judgment,--they set to work, and set on fire the inflammable

part of the public mind. The church was declared to be in danger, ver.

27: the church of Diana, just as the church of England and Ireland would

be, should any such sacrilegious proposition be seriously made, as that

of tearing out of her bosom any of those precious sinecures, of which

her vitals are composed. In Ephesus, it is not stated, that, at that

time, any society bearing the name of the _Vice Society_, or the

_Constitutional Association_, was on foot. But, of those pious

institutions the equivalent could not be wanting. Accordingly, the

charge of _blasphemy_, it may be seen, ver. 37, was not left unemployed.

So the defence shows: the defence, to wit, made by the probity and

wisdom of the judge: for, by the violence of the church mob,--who, but

for him, were prepared to have given a precedent, to that which set

Birmingham in flames,--the defendants were placed in the condition of

prisoners: and the judge, seeing the violence, of the prejudice they had

to encounter, felt the necessity, of adding to the function of judge,

that of counsel for the prisoners.

But it is time to turn to the text: not a particle of it can be spared.

ACTS xix. 22-41.

22. So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him,

Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a

season.--And the same time, there arose no small stir about that

way;--For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made

silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the

craftsmen;--Whom he called together with the workmen of like

occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our

wealth.--Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but

almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned

away much people, saying, that they be no gods, which are made

with hands:--So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set

at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana

should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom

all Asia and the world worshippeth.--And when they heard these

sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is

Diana of the Ephesians.--And the whole city was filled with

confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of

Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord

into the theatre.--And when Paul would have entered in, unto the

people, the disciples suffered him not.--And certain of the chief

of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that

he would not adventure himself into the theatre.--Some, therefore,

cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused;

and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.--And

they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him

forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made

his defence unto the people;--But when they knew he was a Jew, all

with one voice, about the space of two hours, cried out, Great is

Diana of the Ephesians.--And when the town clerk had appeased the

people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth

not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great

goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from

Jupiter?--Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against,

ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.--For ye have

brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches,

nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.--Wherefore, if Demetrius, and

the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man,

the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one

another.--But if ye inquire anything concerning other matters, it

shall be determined in a lawful assembly.--For we are in danger to

be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause

whereby we may give an account of this concourse.--And when he had

thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

The _Judge_ by whom the principal cause was tried, and the plaintiffs

non-suited, is styled, we see "_the Town Clerk_:" the more appropriate

and respected title would not on this occasion have been ill-applied to

him. Except what we have here been seeing, we know nothing of him that

is _positive_: but, seeing thus much of him, we see that he was an

honest man: and an honest man is not ill portrayed by negatives. He had

no coronet playing before his eyes: no overpaid places and sinecures for

relatives. He had not been made judge, for publishing a liturgy of the

church of Diana, with an embroidery composed of his own comments,--or

for circulating, with anonymous delicacy, a pious warning, never to be

absent from the shrine of Diana, when the sacred cup was, proffered by

the hands of holy priests. Accordingly, when the charge of _blasphemy_

was brought before him,--being a heathen, he found no difficulty in

treating it, in that gentle and soothing mode, in which, when, from the

bosom of an established church it enters into a man, the spirit, which

calls itself the spirit of Christianity, renders him so averse to the

treating it. If, when his robes were off, he spoke of Diana what we now

think of her,--he did not, when they were on, foam or rave,

declare--that all, who would not swear to their belief in her, were not

fit to be believed, or so much as fit to live.

By him, one man was not robbed of his rights, because another man, when

called upon as a witness, refused to perjure himself. By him, a man was

not refused to be heard as a witness, nor refused protection for the

fruits of his industry, nor deprived of the guardianship of his

children, because he waited to see Diana, before he declared himself a

believer in her existence. In the open theatre was pronounced the

judgment we have seen. He did not, by secret sittings, deprive men of

the protection of the public eye. He did not, we may stand assured--for

we see how far the people of Ephesus were from being tame enough to

endure it--he did not keep men's property in his hands, to be plundered

by himself, his children, or his creatures, till the property was

absorbed, and the proprietors sent broken-hearted to their graves. He

did not--for the people of Ephesus would not have endured it--wring out

of distress a princely income, on pretence of giving decisions,

declaring all the while his matchless incapacity for everything but

prating or raising doubts. He did not display,--he could not have

displayed--the people of Ephesus could not have endured it--any such

effrontery, as, when a judicatory was to sit upon his conduct, to set

himself down in it, and assume and carry on the management of it. He

would not have sought impunity--for if he had sought it in Ephesus, he

would not have found it there--he would not have sought impunity, in

eyes lifted up to heaven, or streaming with crocodile tears.

Thus much as to his negative merits. But, we have seen enough of him, to

see one great positive one. When, from the inexhaustible source of

inflammation, a flame was kindled,--he did not fan the flame,--he

quenched it.

The religion of Diana having thus come upon the carpet, a reflection

which could not be put by, is--spite of all efforts of the church

silversmiths, in how many essential points, negative as they are, the

religion of Diana had, on the ground of usefulness, the advantage of

that, which _is_ the religion of Paul, and _is called_ the religion of

Jesus. Diana drove no men out of their senses, by pictures or

preachments of never-ending torments. On pretence of saving men from

future sufferings, no men were consigned by it to present ones. No

mischievous, no pain-producing, no real vice, was promoted by it. It

compelled no perjury, no hypocrisy: it rewarded none. It committed, it

supported, it blessed, it lauded, no depredation, no oppression in any

shape: it plundered no man of the fruits of his industry, under the name

of _tithes_. For the enrichment of the sacred shrines,--money, in any

quantity, we may venture to say, received: received, yes: but in no

quantity extorted. One temple was sufficient for _that_ goddess.

Believing, or not believing in her divinity,--no men were compelled to

pay money, for more temples, more priests, or more shrines.

_As to the religion of Jesus, true it is, that so long as it continued

the religion of Jesus, all was good government, all was equality, all

was harmony: free church, the whole; established church, none: monarchy,

none; constitution, democratical. Constitutive authority, the whole

community: legislative, the Apostles of Jesus_; executive, the

Commissioners of the Treasury: not Lords Commissioners, appointed by a

King Herod, but trustees or _stewards_; for such should have been the

word, and not _deacons_,--_agents elected by universal suffrage_. In

this felicitous state, how long it continued--we know not. What we do

know, is--that, _in the fourth century_, _despotism_ took possession of

it, and made an instrument of it. Becoming _established_, it became

noxious,--preponderantly noxious. For, where _established_ is the

adjunct to it, what does _religion_ mean? what but _depredation_,

corruption, oppression, hypocrisy? _depredation_, _corruption_,

_oppression_, _hypocrisy_--these four: with delusion, in all its forms

and trappings, for support.

So pregnant is this same boasting passage--1 Cor. xv. 32, the labour it

has thrown upon us, is not altogether at an end. By what it says of the

resurrection, the memory has been led back, to what we have seen on the

same subject, in one of Paul's Epistles to his Thessalonians: brought

together, the two doctrines present a contrast too curious to be left

unnoticed. Of the apparatus employed by him in his trade of

_disciple-catcher_, his talk about the resurrection, was, it may well be

imagined, a capital article. Being, according to his own motto, _all

things to all men_, 1 Cor. ix. 22, whatever it happened to him to say on

the subject, was dished up, of course, according to the taste of those

he had to deal with. To some it was a _prediction_: for such, we have

seen, was the form it assumed when the people to be wrought upon were

the Thessalonians. To others, when occasion called, it was a statement

concerning something _past_, or supposed to be past. On an occasion of

this sort it was, that the name of Jesus, another article of that same

apparatus, was of so much use to him. True it is, that to the doctrine

of the _general_ resurrection in time future, he had, it must be

remembered, no need of declaring himself beholden to Jesus: at least, if

on this point, the Acts' history is to be believed: for, of the

Pharisees,--the sect to which Paul belonged--of the Pharisees, as

compared with the other sect the Sadducees, it was the distinctive

tenet. But, of the then future, the then past, as exemplified in the

_particular_ case of Jesus, could not but afford very impressive

circumstantial evidence. Of this momentous occurrence, there were the

real Apostles, ready to give their accounts,--conformable, it may be

presumed, to those we see given, as from them, by the four Evangelists.

These accounts, however, would not suit the purpose of the

self-constituted Apostle: in the first place, because they came from

the real Apostles, with whom, as we have so often seen, it was a

declared principle with him not to have had anything to do: in the next

place, because the Apostles were too scrupulous: they would not have

furnished him with witnesses enough. His own inexhaustible fund--his own

invention,--was therefore the fund, on this occasion, drawn upon: and,

accordingly, instead of the number of witnesses,--say _a score_ or two

at the utmost--he could have got from the Apostles,--it supplied him

with _five hundred_: five hundred, _all at once_: to which, if pressed,

he could have added any other number of percipient witnesses whatsoever,

provided only that it was at _different_ times they had been such.

So much for explanation: now for the announced contrast. Whoever the

people were, whom he had to address himself to,--they had contracted, he

found, a bad habit: it was that of _eating and drinking_. Reason is but

too apt to be seduced by, and enlisted in the service of her most

dangerous enemy--_Appetite_. Not only did they eat and drink; but they

had found, as it seemed to them, _reason_ for so doing. They ate and

drank--why? because they were to die after it. "Let us eat and drink,"

said the language we have seen him reproaching them with, 1 Cor. xv. 32.

"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

The case is--that, in pleasure, in whatever shape they see her,--all

men, to whose ambition supernatural terrors supply an instrument of

dominion, behold their most formidable rival. Against such a rival,

wonderful indeed it would be, if their hostility were not

proportionable. No morality accordingly do they acknowledge, that does

not include, with or without other things, hatred,--with or without

contempt, of pleasure. Such, too, as is their morality, such is their

law. Death is scarce severe enough, for a pleasure, which they either

have, or would be thought to have, no relish for. So at least says what

they teach: but, teaching how to act is one thing; acting accordingly,

another. Thus we all see it is, in so many instances: and thus, without

much danger of injustice, we may venture to suppose it may have been, in

that of the self-constituted Apostle.

Not so Jesus: no harm did he see in eating and drinking, unless with the

pleasure it produced greater pain. With this reserve, no harm,--for

anything that appears in any one of the four histories we have of

him,--no harm did he see in anything that gives pleasure. What every man

knows--and what Jesus knew as well as any man--for neither in words nor

in acts did he deny it--is,--that happiness, at what time soever

experienced,--happiness, to be anything, must be composed of pleasures:

and, be the man who he may, of what it is that gives pleasure to him, he

alone can be judge.

But, to return to eating and drinking. Eating and drinking--he gives his

men to understand--even he, holy as he is, should not have had any

objection to, had it not been for this same resurrection of his, which

he was telling them of: eating and drinking--a practice, to which,

notwithstanding this resurrection of his, and so much as he had told

them of it, he had the mortification to find them so much addicted. So

much for his _Corinthians_. It was, as we see, _for want_ of their

paying, to what he was thus telling them about the resurrection, that

attention, to which it was so well entitled,--that _they_ still kept on

in that bad habit. But his _Thessalonians_--they too, as we have seen,

had got the same bad habit. Well: and what was it that gave it them?

What but their paying too much attention to this same resurrection of

his, dished up in the same or another manner, by the same inventive and

experienced hand. In conclusion, on laying the two cases together, what

seems evident enough is--that, in whatever manner served up to them, his

resurrection, whatever it was, was considerably more effectual in making

people eat and drink, than in weaning them from it.

SECTION 6.

GAMALIEL--HAD HE PART IN PAUL'S PLAN?

Gamaliel--in the working of this conversion, may it not be that

Gamaliel--a person whose reality seems little exposed to doubt--had

rather a more considerable share, than the above-mentioned unknown and

unknowable Ananias?

Gamaliel was "a doctor of law" Acts 5:34--a person of sufficient note,

to have been a member of the council, in which the chief priests, under

the presidency of the High Priest, Acts 5:24, took cognizance of the

offence with which Peter and his associates had a little before this

been charged, on the occasion of their preaching Jesus. Under this

Gamaliel, had Paul, he so at least is made to tell us, studied, Acts

22:3. Between Paul and this Gamaliel, here then is a connection: a

connection--of that sort, which, in all places, at all times, has

existence,--and of which the nature is everywhere and at all times so

well understood--the connection between _protegé_ and protector. It was

by authority from the governing body, that Paul was, at this time,

lavishing his exertions in the persecution of the Apostles and their

adherents:--who then so likely, as this same Gamaliel, to have been the

patron, at whose recommendation the commission was obtained? Of the

cognizance which this Gamaliel took, of the conduct and mode of life of

the religionists in question,--the result was favourable. "Let them

alone," were his words. Acts v. 38. The maintenance, derived by the

_protegé_, on that same occasion, from the persecution of these

innoxious men--this maintenance being at once odious, dangerous, and

precarious,--while the maintenance, derivable from the taking a part in

the direction of their affairs, presented to view a promise of being at

once respectable, lucrative, and permanent;--what more natural then,

that this change, from left to right, had for its origin the advice of

this same patron?--advice, to which, all things considered, the epithet

_good_ could not very easily be refused.

FALSE PRETENCES EMPLOYED.

To the self-constituted Apostle, false pretences were familiar. They

were not--they could not have been--without an object. One object was

power: this object, when pursued, is of itself abundantly sufficient to

call forth such means. But, another object with Paul was money: of its

being so, the passages referred to as above, will afford abundant

proofs. A man, in whose composition the appetite for money, and the

habit of using false pretences are conjoined, will be still more likely

to apply them to that productive purpose, than to any barren one. In the

character of a general argument, the observations thus submitted, are

not, it should seem, much exposed to controversy.

But, of a particular instance, of money obtained by him on a false

pretence,--namely, by the pretence of its being for the use of others,

when his intention was to convert it to his own use,--a mass of evidence

we have, which presents itself as being in no slight degree probative.

It is composed of two several declarations of his own,--with, as above

referred to, the explanation of it, afforded by a body of circumstantial

evidence, which has already been under review: and as, in the nature of

the case, from an evil-doer of this sort, evidence to a fact of this

sort, cannot reasonably be expected to be frequently observable,--the

labour, employed in bringing it here to view, will not, it is presumed,

be chargeable, with being employed altogether without fruit.

First, let us see a passage, in the first of his Epistles to his

_Corinthians_, date of it, A.D. 57. In this, we shall see a regularly

formed system of money-gathering: an extensive application of it to

various and mutually distant countries, with indication given of

particular times and places, in which it was his intention to pursue it:

also, intimation, of a special charitable purpose, to which it was his

professed intention to make application of the produce of it, at a place

specified: namely, Jerusalem.

First then comes, 1 Cor. 16:1-8. A.D. 57.

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to

the churches of _Galatia_, even so do _ye_.--Upon the _first day of the

week_, let every one of you _lay by him in store_, as God hath prospered

him, that there be no gatherings when I come.--And when I come,

whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring

your liberality unto _Jerusalem_.--And if it be meet that I go also,

they shall go with me.--Now I will come unto you when I shall pass

through Macedonia; for I do pass through _Macedonia_.--And it may be

that I will abide, yea and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my

journey whithersoever I go.--For I will not see you now by the way: but

I trust to tarry a while with _you_ if the Lord permit.--But I will

tarry at _Ephesus_ until Pentecost." At Ephesus, where he becomes an

object of jealousy, as we have seen, to the church-silversmiths; and,

from his declared business at those _other_ places, some evidence surely

is afforded of what was his probable business in _that_ place.

Next let us see a passage in his Epistle to his _Romans_: date of it,

A.D. 58. Here, in two instances, we shall see the success, with which

this system was pursued by him: as also a maxim, laid down by him--a

maxim, in which the existence of this same system, on his part, is

acknowledged: a maxim, in which his hopes of success in the pursuit of

it, are declaredly founded.

Rom. 15:24-28. A.D. 58.

"Whensoever I take my journey into _Spain_, I will come to you; for I

trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward

by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.--But now I go

unto _Jerusalem, to minister unto the Saints_.--For it hath pleased them

of _Macedonia_ and _Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor

saints which are at Jerusalem_.--It hath pleased them verily: and their

debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made _partakers of their

spiritual things_, their _duty_ is also _to minister unto them in carnal

things_.--When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them

this fruit, I will come _by you_ into _Spain_."

In the instance in question, money (we see)--of the quantity of course

nothing said--is mentioned by him, as being actually in his hands: the

purpose, for which it was there,--and to which he would of course be

understood to intend applying it,--being also mentioned by

him:--applying it, at Jerusalem, to the use of the poor saints. So much

for _professed_ intentions. Now then for _real_ ones. Answer, in his own

words: that those Gentiles, who by him had been made partakers of his

spiritual things, might, as in "_duty_" bound, "minister" to him, so

much the more effectively "in carnal things:" that he, who preached,

what he called the Gospel, might, as he had been preaching to his

Corinthians also (1 Cor. ix. 14) be enabled so much the more comfortably

to "live by" it.

"The poor saints which are at Jerusalem:"--_the_ poor saints--to wit,

not here and there a saint or two, but the whole Christian population

living together on a common stock--if now, A.D. 58, they were living, as

A.D. 53 they were (Acts ii. 44; vi. 1) and, in this particular, from the

beginning to the end of the history, no change is mentioned--in

Jerusalem--was it in the nature of man, in that state of men and

things,--was it in the nature of men and things, that any man, who had

any knowledge of their situation, and of the terms on which Paul, from

first to last, had been with them, could for a moment have thought of

lodging, for _their_ use, any the smallest sum of money in _his_ hands?

as well might it be said, at this moment--a man, whose wish it was to

convey money to Spain, for the use of the Cortes, would choose the hand

of the Duc d'Angouleme to send it by. All this time, _there_ were the

Apostles of Jesus--patrons of those same saints: and, anywhere more

easily than _there_, could he be. That, with this money in his hands,

among his objects was--the employing more or less of it in the endeavour

to form a party there, may not unreasonably be supposed, from what we

have seen of that _Invasion Visit_, by which his designs upon Jerusalem

were endeavoured to be carried into effect. For, according to Acts

19:21, already when he was at Ephesus, as above, was it his known

design, to try his fortune once more in Jerusalem, and after that in

Rome. This may have been among his designs, or not. Be this as it may,

this would have been no more than a particular way, of converting the

money to his own use.

Not that, if at this time, and for _this purpose_ from even the quarters

in question, money had come, as he says it had, there was anything very

wonderful in its so doing. As to _us_ indeed _we_ know pretty well what

sort of terms he was on, from first to last, with the community in

question: _we_ know this, because his historiographer has made us know

it. But, as to the people of those same countries respectively,--at

their distance from Jerusalem, what, in their situation, might easily

enough happen was,--not to have, as to this point, any adequate

information till it was too late to profit by it: and, that such would

be their ignorance, is a matter, of which he might not less easily have

that which, to a man of his daring and sanguine temper, would be a

sufficient assurance.

One thing there is, which, on the occasion of any view they took of this

subject, may perhaps have contributed to blind their eyes. This is--the

fact, of his having actually been concerned, in bringing money to

Jerusalem, for a similar purpose, though it must be confessed, not less

than fourteen years before this: to wit, from Antioch, as stated in

Chapter V., speaking of _that_--his second Jerusalem Visit, by the name

of the _Money-bringing Visit_.

But,--what may easily enough have happened, distance in time and place,

together considered, is--that to those particulars, which composed no

more than the surface of the business, _their_ knowledge was confined:

while _we_, though at the distance of more than seventeen centuries,

know more or less of the inside of it,--let into it, as we have been, by

the author of the Acts.

As to their arriving sooner or later, at the suspicion, or though it

were the discovery, that the money had not, any part of it, reached the

hands it was intended for, nor was in any way to do so,--what bar could

the apprehension of any such result oppose, to the enterprise,

systematic, as we see it was, of the creator of Antichrist? When, to a

man, who occupies a certain situation in the eye of the political world,

calls for accounts are become troublesome,--Scipio might have informed

him, if he had not well enough known of himself, how to answer them.

When a charge made upon you is true--evidence full against you,

and none to oppose to it,--fly into a passion, magnify your own

excellence--magnify the depravity of your adversaries. This mode, of

parrying a charge, is perfectly well understood in our days, nor could

it have been much less well understood in Paul's days. As for _his_

adversaries, Paul had a storm _in petto_ at all times ready for them:

for the materials, turn to any page of his Epistles: whatever, in this

way, he had for rivals,--_that_ and more he could not fail to have for

accusing witnesses. To the creator of Antichrist--sower of tares between

Pharisees and Sadducees,--whatever were the charges, defence, the most

triumphant, could never be wanting: arguments, suited with the utmost

nicety, to the taste of judges. He would warn them, against false

brethren, and liars, and wolves, and children of Satan, and so forth:

he would talk to them, about life and death, and sin and righteousness,

and faith and repentance, and this world and that world, and the Lord

and resurrection: he would talk backwards and forwards--give nonsense

for mystery, and terror for instruction: he would contradict everybody,

and himself not less than anybody: he would raise such a cloud of words,

with here and there an _ignis fatuus_ dancing in the smoke,--that the

judges, confounded and bewildered, would forget all the evidence, and

cry out _Not Guilty_ through pure lassitude.

As to us,--the case being now before us, what shall be our verdict?

Obtaining money on false pretences is the charge. Guilty shall we say,

or not guilty? Obtainment on a certain pretence, is proved by _direct_

evidence--his own evidence: proof, of falsity in the pretence, rests, as

it could not but rest, on _circumstantial_ evidence.

One observation more: for another piece of circumstantial evidence has

just presented itself: it consists of the utter silence, about the

receipt of the money or any particle of it,--when, if there had been any

such receipt, occasions there were in such abundance for the mention of

it. A.D. 57, in his first to his Corinthians,--there it is, as we have

seen, that he urges them to lay by money for him, declaring it is for

the saints at Jerusalem; and that on this same errand it is, that he is

going to Macedonia,--and that in his way to Jerusalem he will give them

another call, to receive, for that same purpose, the intermediate

produce of these proposed _saving-banks_. In his letter to the Romans,

written the next year, A.D. 58--written at Corinth,--then it is, that he

has already made the said intended money-gathering visit, and with

success:--with success not only in Macedonia, as he had proposed, but in

Achaia likewise: and, with this money in his hand, and for the purpose

of delivering the money to those for whom he obtained it;--for this

purpose (he says) it is, that he is at that moment on his way to

Jerusalem--the place of their abode. This is in the year A.D. 58. Well

then: after this it is, that he takes up his abode at Ephesus. And when,

after his contests with the church silversmiths there, he departs from

thence, whither does he betake himself? To Jerusalem? No: he turns his

back upon Jerusalem, and goes for Macedonia (Acts xx. 1.) then into

Greece, where he stays three months; and purposes, Acts 20:3, to return

through Macedonia. A.D. 60, it is, that, for the first time, Acts 20:16,

any intention of his to visit Jerusalem is declared, he having coveted

no man's silver or gold, as his historian, Acts xx. 33, makes him assure

us. When, at length he arrived there, what his reception was, we have

seen. Had any of the _money_ been received there, would such as we have

seen have been the reception given to the _man_? When, by the Christians

at Jerusalem, Agabus was sent to him, to keep him if possible from

coming there,--is it in the nature of things, that they should have

already received any of it, or been in any expectation of it? In what

passed between him and the Elders, headed by the Apostle James, is any

the slightest allusion made to it? When, in Cæsarea, all in tears, Acts

21:12, 13, his attendants were striving, might and main, to dissuade him

from going to Jerusalem,--did he say anything about the money--the money

he had been so long charged with? Oh no; not a syllable: to Jerusalem he

is resolved to go indeed: Oh yes: but not the shadow of a reason can he

find for going there.

When arrived at Jerusalem, the brethren, says the Acts 20:17, received

him gladly. The brethren: yes, what adherents he had, would of course

receive him gladly, or at least appear to do so. But the money? On their

side, was anything said about the money? Not a syllable. Either at this

time by his own hand, or any time before, by other hands, had they

received this money, or any considerable part of it, could they have

received him otherwise than not only gladly, but gratefully?

All the time, the hero was thus employed in money-craving and

money-gathering, the historian, let it never be out of mind, was of the

party: four years before, A.D. 53, had he been taken into it; yet not

any the least hint about these money-matters does he give. So far indeed

as regarded what was avowedly for Paul's own use, neither could the

receipt nor the craving of the money from their customers, have been

unknown to him; for this was what they had to live upon. But the letters

his master wrote--wrote to their customers everywhere--letters, in which

the demand was made, for the so much more extensive purpose,--of these,

so many of which have reached these our times, the contents may to him

have easily enough remained a secret: little reason had he to expect,

none at all to fear, the exposure,--which now, at the end of more than

seventeen centuries, has, at length, been made of them,--confronted, as

they may now be, with the particulars he himself has furnished us with.

FOOTNOTES:

[13] Acts vii. ver. 47. Speech of St. Stephen. "But Solomon built him an

house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as

saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what

house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my

rest?" In itself, perfectly comfortable all this, to the dictates of

reason and the instruction of Jesus: but not the less clear blasphemy

against the Mosaic law.

[14] Acts ix. ver. 1 and 2. "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,

&c."

[15] Acts xxii. ver. 5. "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."

[16] Yet, for even at the outset, after certain "days spent with the

disciples," and employed of course in receiving from them the necessary

instructions, he preached Jesus with such energy and success as not only

to "confound," Acts ix. 19 to 24, the unbelieving among the Jews, but to

provoke them to "take counsel to kill him."

[17] Paul, says--2nd Cor. 11:6--"For though I be rude in speech yet am I

not in knowledge nay, in everything we have made it manifest among all

men to you-ward, or did I commit a sin in abasing myself that ye might

be exalted, because I preached to you the Gospel of God for naught? I

robbed other Churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto

you; and when I was present with you I was in want, I was not a burden

on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia supplied the

measure of my want, and in everything I kept myself from being

burdensome unto you and so I will keep myself. As the truth of Christ is

in me no man shall stop me of this glorying in the regions of Achaia,

&c."

When ever we get a Temperamental and psychological view of Paul, we see

verified the deductions of the author of this treatise, that he was a

transparent imposter. An unscrupulous adventurer. With talent well

adapted to dogmatically command the attention of the ignorant and

especially those of organized hereditary idolatry, the extreme vanity,

the vain glorious pretensions of this new priest was well adapted to

obtain obsequious complacence from such people. He always presents

himself in a controversial spirit of self-exaltation.

His egotistic diction could hardly be made more manifest than in the

terms above quoted, to wit:--"I robbed other Churches taking wages of

them that I might minister unto you, &c." It presents a striking

contrast to the benevolent and fraternal spirit of Christ and his

disciples.

[18] N.B. The editor at this place inserts pages of discussion--which

the author exhibited by way of an appendix. At the expense of a little

redundancy and incongruity the editor inserts it in this place.--Ed.

[19] According to the Acts' account, this same stoning, if it was the

same, was much in the style of that same resurrection of Eutychus, which

we have seen in Chapter xiii. §. 10. As to Paul, when this martyrdom had

been suffered by him,--"some" says Acts xiv. 19, were "supposing he had

been dead:" and on that supposition, "drew him out of the city." Paul,

on the other hand, thought otherwise: he supposed himself alive, and, on

that supposition, he walked off, as if nothing had been the matter with

him. "Certain Jews ... say verses 19 and 20, having stoned Paul, drew

him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. Howbeit, as the

disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and

the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe."

CHAPTER III.

_Paul disbelieved.--Neither his divine Commission nor his inward

Conversion ever credited by the Apostles or their Jerusalem

Disciples.--Source of Proof stated._

SECTION 1.

TO PAUL'S CONVERSION VISION, SOLE ORIGINAL WITNESS HIMSELF.

Void, as we have seen, of all title to credence, is the story of Paul's

commission from Jesus:--void may it be seen to be, even if taken by

itself, and without need of resort to any counter-evidence. Who could

have expected to have found it, moreover, disproved by the most

irresistible counter-evidence--by the evidence of the Apostles

themselves? Yes: of the Apostles themselves, of whom it will plainly

enough be seen, that by not so much as one of them was it ever believed:

no, not to even the very latest period, of which any account has reached

us: namely that, at which the history of the Acts of the Apostles

closes, or that of the date of the last-written of Paul's Epistles,

whichsoever of the two may be the latest.

In regard to the story of his conversion, its cause, and manner,--it has

been seen, that it is either from himself directly, or from an adherent

of his, the author of the Acts,--who had it from himself, unless Ananias

was a person known to the author of the Acts, and heard by him,--it is

from Paul, and Paul alone, that all the evidence, which the case has

happened to supply, has been derived.

In regard to the degree of credence given, to his pretence to the having

received a commission from Jesus, still the same remark applies: still,

either from himself, or from the same partial, and, as will be seen, not

altogether trustworthy, narrator, comes the whole of the evidence, with

which the case happens to have furnished us.

SECTION 2.

COUNTER-WITNESSES, THE APOSTLES. BY THEM, THE STORY WAS PROBABLY

NOT HEARD--CERTAINLY NOT CREDITED.

Jerusalem, according to the Acts, was the headquarters of the noble army

of the Apostles: the ordinary residence of that goodly fellowship:--a

station, which they none of them ever quitted, for any considerable

length of time.

In the course of the interval, between the date assigned by Paul to his

conversion, and that of the last particulars we have of his

history,--mention, more or less particular, may be found of four visits

of his--distinctly four related visits, and no more than four,--to that

metropolis of the new Church. On no one of these occasions, could he

have avoided using his endeavours, towards procuring admittance, to the

fellowship of the distinguished persons, so universally known in the

character of the select companions and most confidential servants of

Jesus: of that Jesus, whom, in the flesh at any rate, he never so much

as pretended to have ever seen: _from whom_ he had consequently, if they

thought proper to impart it, so much to learn, or at least to wish to

learn: while _to_ them he had nothing to impart, except that which, if

anything, it was only in the way of _vision_, if in any way, that he had

learned from Jesus.

That on three at least of these four occasions, viz. the 1st, 3d, and

4th, he accordingly did use his endeavours to confer with them, will be

put out of dispute by direct evidence; and that, in the remaining one,

namely that which in the order of time stands second,--successfully or

not, his endeavours were directed to the same purpose,--will, it will be

seen, be reasonably to be inferred from circumstantial evidence. In the

character of an additional occasion of intercourse, between him and one

of the Apostles, namely, Peter, the chief of them,--will be to be added,

that which will be seen taking place at Antioch; immediately upon the

back, and in consequence, of the third of these same visits of his to

Jerusalem.

As to the mode of his conversion as above stated,--the _time_, for him

to have stated it to them, was manifestly that of the first of these

four visits;--say his _reconciliation-visit_: and that, of that first

visit, to see them, or at any rate the chief of them, namely, Peter, was

the object,--is what, in his Epistle to the Galatians, we shall see him

declaring in express terms.

After all--that story of his, in which the supposed manner of his

conversion is related, as above,--did he so much as venture to submit it

to them? The more closely it is examined, the less probable surely will

be seen to be--his having ventured, to submit any such narrative, to a

scrutiny so jealous, as theirs, under these circumstances, could not

fail to be.

One of two things at any rate will, it is believed, be seen to a

certainty: namely, Either no such story as that which we see, nor

anything like it, was ever told to them by him; or, if yes, it obtained

no credit at their hands.

SECTION 3.

IN PROOF OF THIS, SO MUCH OF THE ACTS HISTORY MUST HERE BE

ANTICIPATED.

For proof, of the disbelief, which his story will, it is believed, be

found to have experienced, at the hands of those supremely competent

judges,--the time is now come, for collecting together, and submitting

in a confronted state to the reader, all the several particulars that

have reached us, in relation to these four important visits.

Between the first-recorded and the last-recorded of the four, the length

of the interval being so considerable as it will be seen to be, namely,

upwards of 17 years at the least,--and, in the course of the interval,

so numerous and various a series of incidents being to be seen

comprised,--the consequence is--that this one topic will unavoidably

spread itself to such an extent, as to cover the whole of the

chronological field of the history of the Church in those eventful

times. A sort of necessity has thus been found, of taking a view of the

principal part of all those several incidents, in a sort of historical

order, in a succeeding part of this work: hence, of that which, for the

proof of what has just been advanced, will here be necessary to be

brought to view,--no inconsiderable portion will be an anticipation, of

that which belongs properly to the historical sketch, and, but for this

necessity, would have been reserved for it.

SECTION 4.

TOPICS UNDER HIS SEVERAL JERUSALEM-VISITS.

Thick clouds, and those covering no small portion of its extent, will,

after everything that can be done to dispel them, be found still hanging

over the field of this inquiry. But, if to the purpose of the present

question, sufficient light be elicited; in whatever darkness any

collateral points may remain still involved, the conclusion will not be

affected by it.

As to the credibility of Paul's story,--taken in itself, and viewed from

the only position, from which we, at this time of day, can view it,--the

question has just been discussed.

That which remains for discussion is--whether, from the Church, which

Paul found in existence--the Church composed of the Apostles of Jesus,

and his and their disciples--it ever obtained credence.

On this occasion, to the Apostles more particularly must the attention

be directed: and this--not only because by their opinion, that of the

great body of those disciples would, of course, on a point of such vital

importance, be governed; but, because, in the case of these confidential

servants and habitual attendants of Jesus, the individuals, of whom the

body is composed, and who are designated by one and the same

denomination, are always determinable: determinable, in such sort, that,

at all times, wheresoever they are represented as being, the eye can

follow them.

To judge with what aspect Paul with his pretensions was viewed by them,

always with a view to the main question--whether, in any particular, the

alleged supernatural cause of his outward conversion, and thence of his

presumable inward conversion, ever obtained credence from them;--one

primary object, which requires to be attended to, is--personal

intercourse; viz. the sort of personal intercourse, which between him on

the one part, and them, or some of them, on the other part, appears to

have had place.

Of this intercourse, the several _interviews_, which appear to have

had place, will form the links. Correspondent to those _interviews_

will be found to be so many _visits_: all of them, except one,

visits made by him to the great original metropolis of the Christian

world--Jerusalem:--the scene of the acts and sufferings of the departed

Jesus:--the ordinary abode of these his chosen disciples and successors.

If, to these visits of Paul's is to be added any other interview,--it

will be in another city, to wit, Antioch: and, in this instance, between

Paul, and not, as in the case of the other visits might naturally be

expected, the Apostles in a body; but one, or some other small number of

members, by whom a visit to that place was made, in consequence of their

having been selected for that purpose, and deputed by the rest.

Of the interviews corresponding with these visits, the real number,--and

not only the real number, but the number upon record,--is unhappily, in

no inconsiderable degree, exposed to doubt; for, considering the terms

they were upon, as we shall see, at the interviews produced by Paul's

first Jerusalem visit, it does not by any means follow, that, between

the persons in question, because there were two more such visits, there

was, on each occasion, an interview.

Two of them, however, at any rate, if any degree of credence whatever be

given to the documents, remain altogether clear of doubt: and whatever

uncertainty may be found to attach upon any of the others, may be

regarded as so many fixed points: fixed points, forming so many

standards of reference, to which the others may in speaking of them be

referred, and by reference to which the reality and time of those

others, will be endeavoured to be ascertained.

For the designation of the visits which produced these two

unquestionable interviews, the terms _Reconciliation Visit_, and

_Invasion Visit_, will here be employed: the former being that which

gave rise to the first-mentioned of the two interviews, which, after the

conversion, appear for certain to have had place between the rival and

contending powers; the other, to the last.

1. By the _Reconciliation Visit_ is here meant--that visit--by which was

produced the _first_ interview, which, after the conversion of Paul, had

place between him and any of the Apostles. Its title to this appellation

is altogether unquestionable. After these proceedings of Paul's, by

which the destruction of so many of the Christians had already been

effected, and that of all the rest was threatened,--it was not

possible, that, without a reconciliation,--if not an inward at any

rate an outward one,--any interview, on both sides voluntary, should

have taken place. Of the Apostles, Peter was the acknowledged chief:

that it was for the purpose of seeing Peter, that a visit of Paul's to

Jerusalem--the first of those mentioned by him--was made,--is

acknowledged by himself: acknowledged, in that Epistle of his, to his

Galatian disciples, of which so much will have to be said, Gal. i. and

ii.[20] Without the assistance of some mediator, scarcely was it in the

nature of the case, that, in any way, any such reconciliation could have

been effected. In the person of Barnabas,--a most munificent patron, as

will be seen, of the infant church,--this indispensable friend was

found.

According to the received chronology, the time of this visit was A.D.

38. In the account, given in the Acts, Acts 16:6, of the conjunct

missionary excursion made from Antioch by Paul and Barnabas--an

excursion, the commencement of which is, by that same chronology, placed

in the year 53,--Galatia stands fifth, in the number of the places,

which they are spoken of as visiting. Of any visit, made in that

country, either before this or after it, no mention is to be found in

the Acts, except in Acts 18:23: on which occasion, he is spoken of as

revisiting Galatia, "strengthening the churches."[21]

Of what passed on the occasion of this visit, the account, given as

above by Paul, will be seen receiving explanation, from what is said of

this same visit in the Acts.

ACTS ix. 26 to 30.

26. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, 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, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in

the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached

boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.--And he was with them

coming in and going out at Jerusalem.--And he spake boldly in the

name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they

went about to slay him.--Which when the brethren knew, they brought

him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

2. By the _Invasion Visit_ is here meant--that visit of Paul to

Jerusalem, by which his arrestation, and consequent visit to Rome in a

state of confinement, were produced. _Invasion_ it may well be termed:

the object of it having manifestly been--the making, in that original

metropolis of the Christian world, spiritual conquests, at the expense

of the gentle sway of the Apostles: spiritual acquisitions--not to speak

of their natural consequences, temporal ones. It was undertaken, as will

be seen, in spite of the most strenuous exertions, made for the

prevention of it: made, not only by those, whose dominions he was so

needlessly invading, but by the unanimous remonstrances and entreaties

of his own adherents.

The date--assigned to the commencement of this visit, is A.D. 60.

Interval, between this his last recorded visit and his first, according

to the received chronology, 22 years.

Neither of the occasion of it, nor of any individual occurrence which

took place in the course of it, have we any account--from any other

source than the history of the Acts. Paul's account is all in generals.

3. Paul's Jerusalem Visit the Second.--According to the Acts, Acts

11:30, "which also they did, and sent it to the Elders by the hands of

Barnabas and Saul," between these two indisputable interviews of Paul's

with the Apostles occurs another visit, herein designated by the name of

the _Money-bringing Visit_. Under the apprehension of a predicted

dearth, money is sent from the Antioch to the Jerusalem saints.

Barnabas, and with him Paul, are employed in the conveyance of it. Time,

assigned to this Visit, A.D. 43. Of this visit, not any the least trace

is to be found in any Epistle of Paul's. Yet, in this Epistle of his to

his Galatians, he will be seen undertaking in a manner, to give an

account, of every visit of his to Jerusalem, in which, with reference to

spiritual dominion, between himself and the Apostles, anything material

had ever passed.

By this silence of Paul's, no counter-evidence is opposed, to the

account given of this visit in the Acts. What may very well be is,--that

he went along with the money, and departed, without having had any

personal communication with any Apostle, or even with any one of their

disciples.

4. _Deputation Visit._ Paul's Jerusalem Visit the Third--say his

Deputation Visit. According to the Acts,[22] Paul being at the Syrian

Antioch, certain men came thither from Judea, teaching, that Mosaic

circumcision is necessary to Christian salvation. Dissension being thus

produced, Paul, and Barnabas as usual with him, are dispatched to confer

on this subject with the Apostles and the Elders--Time, assigned to this

visit, A.D. 52. Interval between the first and this third visit--years

15.

In addition to the first Jerusalem Visit, mentioned as above by Paul, to

wit, in the first chapter of his Epistle to his Galatians,--in the

second, mention is made of another.

Of the incidents mentioned by Paul, as belonging to this other visit,

scarcely can any one, unless it be that of his having Barnabas for a

companion, be found, that presents itself as being the same with any

incident mentioned in the Acts, in the account given of the above named

Deputation Visit. But, between the two accounts, neither does any

repugnance manifest itself: and, forasmuch as, in a statement, the

purpose of which required that no interview, in which anything material

passed between him and the Apostles, should pass unnoticed,--he mentions

no more than one visit besides the first,--it seems reasonable to

conclude, that it was but one and the same visit, that, in the penning

of both these accounts, was in view.

As far as appears, it is from the account thus given by Paul of the

second, of the two visits mentioned by him as made to Jerusalem, that

the received chronology has deduced the year, which it assigns to the

Deputation Visit, as recorded in the Acts.

In Paul's account alone--in Paul's, and not in that in the Acts--is the

distance given in a determinate number of years. According to one of two

interpretations, 17--the number above mentioned as adopted in the

current chronology--is the number of years mentioned by Paul as

intervening between those two visits. But even in this place, a

circumstance that must not pass altogether unnoticed is,--that,

according to another interpretation, to which the text presents itself

as almost equally open, the length of the interval would be considerably

greater. Galatians i. 17: "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which

were Apostles before me: but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto

Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,

and abode with him fifteen days." After what period?--after that of his

conversion? or after the expiration of this his second visit to

Damascus? Reckoning from this latter period, the interval may be ever so

much greater than that of the three years: for, to the three years may

be added an indefinite length of time for the second, and even for the

first, of his abodes at Damascus. But, as we advance, reason will appear

for concluding, that, being in the eyes of the Damascus rulers, as well

as the Jerusalem rulers, a traitor--in the highest degree a traitor--his

abode at Damascus could not, at either of these times, have been other

than short as well as secret.

Gal. ii. 1: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem

with Barnabas, and took Titus also." This being supposed to be the

Deputation Visit, these fourteen added to the former three, make the

seventeen.

5. _Peter's Antioch Visit._--In Paul's Epistle, addressed to his

Galatians, as above,--immediately after the mention of his own second

Jerusalem Visit as above, comes the mention of an interview, which he

says he has at Antioch with Peter: "Peter being come," he says, "to that

place." Gal. ii. 11. In the Acts, 15:22, immediately upon the back of

the accounts of the Deputation Visit, as above,--comes an account of

what may be called a _counter Deputation Visit_. Of the former

Deputation Visit, according to the Acts, the result is--from the

Apostles, the Elders, and the whole Church, a _letter_, concluding with

a _decree_: and "by men chosen of their own company," this letter is

stated as having been carried to Antioch: and, with these men, so

chosen, Paul and Barnabas are stated as returning to Antioch, from which

city, as above, they had been deputed. As and for the names of "chosen

men," those of Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, are mentioned:

"chief men among the brethren" is another title by which they are, both

of them, distinguished. To these, no other names are added: in

particular, not that of Peter. Thus far the Acts.

As to Paul, in the account _he_ gives, of the discussion, to which,

after--and apparently, as above, in consequence of--his _secondly

mentioned_ interview with Peter at Jerusalem,--no mention is made either

of Judas Barsabas, or of Silas: of Peter--and him alone--it is, that, on

this occasion, any mention is made. Peter comes, as it should seem, to

Antioch from Jerusalem; which last city seems to have been his ordinary

abode. But, on this occasion likewise, in addition to this visitor,

mention is again made of Barnabas, of whom, as far as appears, from the

time of the Reconciliation Visit down to this time, Antioch was the

ordinary abode. In relation to each of these several Visits, a brief

preparatory indication of the topic or topics, which will be brought to

view, when an account comes to be given of it, may in this place have

its use.

I. _Reconciliation Visit._--On this occasion, a difficulty that

naturally presents itself--is--if the relation is in substance true, and

the occasion is the same--how it can have happened, that if Peter was at

Antioch--Peter, the universally acknowledged chief of the Apostles--no

mention should be to be found of him in the Acts: instead of him, two

men as yet unknown--this _Judas Barsabas_, and this _Silas_--neither of

them of the number belonging to the goodly fellowship of the

Apostles,--being the only persons mentioned.

But, for this difficulty, conjecture presents a solution, in which there

is nothing either in itself improbable, or inconsistent with either of

the two accounts--that of Paul as above, and that in the Acts. This

is--that those two were the men, and the only men, deputed in the first

instance: but, that after them, at no long interval, came thither to

their assistance that chief of the Apostles. Whether the importance of

the question be considered--to wit, whether, upon being received as

Christians, Gentiles should be obliged to submit to Mosaic

circumcision--whether the importance of the question, or the

strenuousness of the debates to which it is spoken of as having given

rise, Acts 15:2, be considered--the visit of the chief of the Apostles

at Jerusalem, to the scene of controversy at Antioch, presents not any

supposition, to which any imputation of improbability seems to attach.

ACTS xv. 1 to 34.

1. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren

and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye

cannot be saved.--When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small

dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and

Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto

the Apostles and Elders about this question.--And being brought on

their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice 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 of the Apostles and Elders, and

they declared all things that God had done with them.--But there

rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,

saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them

to keep the law of Moses.--And the Apostles and Elders came

together for to consider of this matter.--And when there had been

much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and

brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among

us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the

Gospel, and believe.--And God which knoweth the hearts, bare them

witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us:--And

put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by

faith.--Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks

of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to

bear?--But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus

Christ, we shall be saved even as they.--Then all the multitude

kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring

what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by

them.--And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying,

Men and brethren, hearken unto me.--Simeon hath declared how God at

the first 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 this I will return, and will build again the

tabernacle of David which is fallen down; and I will build again

the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:--That the residue of men

might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name

is called, saith the Lord who doeth all these things.--Known unto

God are all his works from the beginning of the world.--Wherefore

my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the

Gentiles are turned to God:--But that we write unto them, that they

abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from

things strangled, and from blood.--For Moses of old time hath in

every city, them that preach him, being read in the synagogues

every sabbath-day.--Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with

the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to

Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; _namely_, Judas surnamed Barsabas,

and Silas, chief men among the brethren.--And they wrote letters by

them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send

greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and

Syria and Cilicia.--Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which

went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your

souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised; and keep the law; to whom we

gave no such commandment:--It seemed good unto us, being assembled

with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved

Barnabas and Paul;--Men that have hazarded their lives for the name

of our Lord Jesus Christ.--We have therefore sent Judas and Silas,

who shall also tell you the same things by 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 meats

offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and

from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do

well. Fare ye well.--So when they were dismissed, they came to

Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they

delivered the Epistle.--Which when they had read, they rejoiced for

the consolation.--And Judas and Silas, being prophets also

themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed

them.--And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go

in peace from the brethren unto the Apostles.--34. Notwithstanding

it pleased Silas to abide there still.

GALATIANS ii. 1 to the end.

1. Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with

Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.--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.--But neither

Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be

circumcised.--And that because of false brethren unawares 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 by subjection, no not for an hour; that the truth of the

Gospel might continue with you.--But of those, who seemed to be

somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God

accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed _to be somewhat_, in

conference added nothing to me.--But contrariwise, when they saw

that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the

Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter:--For he that wrought

effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, the

same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles.--And when James,

Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace

that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right

hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they

unto the circumcision.--Only _they would_ that we should remember

the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.--But when Peter

was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to

be blamed.--For before that certain came from James, he did eat

with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and

separated himself, fearing them _which were_ of the

circumcision.--And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him,

insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away by their

dissimulation.--But when I saw that they walked not uprightly,

according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them

all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and

not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do

the Jews?--We _who are_ Jews by nature, and not sinners of the

Gentiles,--Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the

law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in

Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and

not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no

flesh be justified.--But if while we seek to be justified by Christ

we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the

minister of sin? God forbid.--For if I build again the things which

I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.--For I through the law

am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.--I am crucified

with Christ. Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in

me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith

of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.--21. I do

not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness _come_ by the

law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Of the falsity of his story concerning the manner of his

conversion,--one proof, that has been given, has been deduced from the

inconsistency, of the several accounts which we have of it--all of them

originally from himself--as compared with one another.

Of the erroneousness of the notion of his having ever been in the eyes

of the Apostles what he professed himself to be--of this, and at the

same time of the want of correctness, and trustworthiness, in every

account, which, by him, or from him, is to be seen rendered, of his

proceedings, adventures, and dangers--proof will, on the ensuing

occasions, be afforded, by evidence of this same kind: by similar

instances of inconsistency, which will be all along brought to view.

On the occasion of his _first_ visit to Jerusalem--to the metropolis of

Christendom--will be to be noted--1. The cause and manner of his

arrival. 2. The circumstances of his abode--its duration, and business.

3. The cause and circumstances of his departure. 4. The general result

of this his expedition.

1. Of the cause of his visit, and manner of his arrival, we shall see

two different accounts: namely, one, given by himself directly, in an

epistle of his to his disciples in Galatia; the other, by a man, who

afterwards became his adherent and travelling companion--namely the

author of the Acts.

2. Of the duration and business of his abode, we shall see, in like

manner, two different accounts, delivered respectively by those same

pens.

3. So, of the cause of his departure;--from the same two sources.

4. So, of the circumstances of it.

5. Of the general result of this same expedition of his, we have no

fewer than three different accounts: namely, the same two as above; with

the addition of a third, as reported, in the Acts, to have been given by

Paul himself, in the course of the speech he made, at the time of his

fourth visit, to an assembled multitude, headed by the constituted

authorities among the Jews:--when, after having been dragged by force

out of the Temple, he would--had he not been saved by a commander of the

Roman guard--have been torn to pieces.

On this occasion, we shall find, that, by his own confession, made for a

particular purpose--for the purpose of saving his life--under an

exigency which allowed no time for the study of consistency, and

recorded by the blindness and inconsiderateness of his biographer;--we

shall find, that the account, whatever it was, which, on the occasion of

this his first visit, he gave of himself to the Apostles, failed

altogether in its endeavours to obtain credence.

SECTION 5.

TOPICS UNDER VISIT II.--MONEY-BRINGING VISIT.

Of the occasion and particulars of the second of these four visits, we

have but one account: viz. that which is to be seen in the Acts.

Compared with what belongs to the other visits, that which belongs to

this is but of small importance. The information, to be collected from

it, will, however, be seen to be this: namely, that this was the second,

of the attempts he made to join himself to the Apostles: and that it

succeeded no better than the first. It did not even succeed so well:

for, notwithstanding the claims which the business of it gave him to

their regard--it was to bring them a sum of money, the fruit of the

liberality of the Church at Antioch--he could not so much as obtain

admittance into the presence of any one of them. Without much

hesitation, this may be affirmed. If he had, he would have made mention

of it: for, it will be seen, that, whatsoever apparent countenance he

ever succeeded in obtaining from them, it was his care to make the most

of it.

SECTION 6.

REMARKS ON VISIT III.--DEPUTATION VISIT.

Of the occasion, and particulars, and termination, of the _third_ of

these four visits, we have two, and but two, accounts: one--that given

in the Acts; the other--that given by Paul himself, as above, in his

letter to his Galatians: that in the Acts, the only one which goes into

particulars; and which must accordingly be taken for the basis of the

narrative, and in that character be brought to view in the first

instance: that given by Paul himself confining itself to generals; but,

as far as it goes, much more to be depended upon, and affording much

more instruction, than that given in the Acts.

Among its immediate consequences, this third visit appears to have had

some sort of intercourse between Paul and Saint Peter at Antioch--the

next most considerable seat of the new religion after Jerusalem; at

Antioch, to which city, Paul,--who, with Barnabas, had been settled

there,--was on his return: Peter being then on a temporary visit, made

to that place, for the final settlement of the business, by which the

last preceding visit of Paul to Jerusalem had been occasioned.

At the time of this visit, the residence of Paul was at this same

Antioch. The occasion of it was--the dissemination there, of a doctrine,

which, by certain persons not named, had been imported thither from

Jerusalem: a doctrine, according to which it was taught to the

brethren--"Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot

be saved." For the settlement of this important matter,--Barnabas, with

Paul for his companion, besides other companions not named, was, by the

brethren at Antioch, now, for the second time, sent, as a delegate, to

the brethren at Jerusalem.

On every one of these three visits, it was under the protection of this

Barnabas (it will be seen) that Paul had presented himself:--on the

first of them, for the purpose of making known his conversion, and, if

possible, forming a connection with the brethren there;--the second, for

the purpose of bringing them money, the fruits of the respect and

affection of the brethren at Antioch;--the third time, for the

settlement of this important point of doctrine. As for Barnabas, he was

a _Cypriot_, who, as will be seen, had an establishment at Jerusalem:

and who, by his indefatigable zeal, added to his unrivalled munificence,

appears to have obtained an influence not exceeded by any but that of

the Apostles.

Of this same Deputation Visit, being the third of the recorded visits of

Paul to Jerusalem,--followed by, and coupled with, one of Peter to

Antioch--Gal. ii. 11, the place of Paul's residence,--two most important

results, or alleged results, are mentioned: the first, mentioned by the

author of the Acts alone, the decree, of a council, composed of the

Apostles and certain other persons, by the name of Elders, at

Jerusalem;--which decree, together with a letter, was from thence sent

by the hands of Judas Barsabas and Silas, to the brethren at Antioch;

Paul and Barnabas being of the party, on their return to that same

place: the other result, mentioned by Paul alone, a sort of _partition

treaty_, by which the field of doctrinal labour, and thence of spiritual

dominion was divided between him, (Paul), on the one part, and the

Apostles on the other. The _Jewish world_, for a less ambiguous

designation would hardly find a sufficient warrant, to remain with the

Apostles; the _Gentile world_, to be left free to the exertions of the

declared convert and self-constituted Apostle. As to the _decree and

letter_, reasons for questioning the authenticity of these documents

will be hereinafter brought to view, Ch. 6. Of the _partition treaty_,

the reality presents itself as altogether natural and probable--and, by

circumstantial as well as direct evidence, sufficiently established: by

direct evidence supported, by circumstantial evidence confirmed.

SECTION 7.

TOPICS UNDER VISIT IV.--INVASION VISIT.

Of the occasion of the fourth and last of these four visits--call it

_Paul's Invasion Visit_--we have, though but from one immediate source,

what may, to some purposes, be called two distinct and different

accounts, included one within another: to wit, that which the historian

gives as from himself, and that which he puts into the mouth of his

hero, whose adventures he is relating. On this subject, from the mouth

of the hero, the historian has not given us, and probably could not give

us, anything but mystery. From the circumstances, it will be seen,

whether the appellation _Invasion Visit_, by which this last of his

recorded visits to Jerusalem is here distinguished, is not fully

justified.

Neither, of the occurrences which took place during the course of it,

nor of the mode in which it terminated, have we any more than one

account; viz. the account which, speaking in his own person, is given of

it by the author of the Acts.[23]

But, upon one part of this account--and that a part in itself in no

small degree obscure--light, and that such as, it is believed, will be

found to dispel the darkness, will be seen thrown, by an article of the

Mosaic law: upon which article, light will be seen reciprocally

reflected, by the application here recorded as having been made of it.

This regards the _Temple scene_:--an expensive ceremony spun out for

days together only to produce the effect of an _Oath_.

On the occasion of this visit, in spite of a universal opposition on the

part of all concerned--his own adherents and dependents, as well as his

adversaries of all classes included,--Paul, for reasons by himself

studiously concealed,--and, if brought to light at all, brought to light

no otherways than by inference,--will be seen making his entry into

Jerusalem, as it were by force. In the hope of freeing themselves, as it

should seem, of this annoyance, it is,--that the rulers of the Christian

church, insist upon his clearing himself from certain suspicions, in the

harbouring of which the whole church had concurred.[24]

SECTION 8.

SELF-WRITTEN BIOGRAPHY--ITS SUPERIOR VALUE AND CLAIM TO CREDENCE.

On the occasion of this portion of history, it seems particularly

material, to bring to view an observation, which, on the occasion of

every portion of history, it will, it is believed, be of no small use to

have in remembrance.

In comparison of self-written biography, scarcely does any other

biography deserve the name.

Faint, indeterminate, uninstructive, deceptive, is the information

furnished by any other hand, of whatsoever concerns the state of the

mental frame, in comparison of what is furnished by a man's own. Even of

those particulars which make against himself,--even of those motives and

intentions which he would most anxiously conceal,--more clear and

correct, as far as it goes, if not more complete--is the information

given by him, than any which is commonly afforded, even by an impartial

hand. By a man's own hand, not unfrequently is information afforded, of

a sort which makes against himself, and which would not, because it

could not, have been afforded by any other hand, though ever so hostile.

He states the self-condemnatory mental facts, the blindness of

self-partiality concealing from his eyes the condemnatory inference: or,

even with his eyes open, he lays himself under the imputation: bartering

merit in this or that inferior shape, for the merit of candour, or for

the hope of augmenting the probative force of his own self-serving

evidence, in favour of every other merit for which it is his ambition to

gain credence.

FOOTNOTES:

[20] Gal. i. 18. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see

Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."

[21] Of any mention made of Galatia, in any of the Books of the New

Testament, the following are, according to Cruden's Concordance, the

only instances: 1 Cor. xvi. 1. "... have given order to the churches at

Galatia." Times, assigned to these Epistles, A.D. 59. 2 Tim. iv. 10:

"Crescens is departed to Galatia." A.D. 66. 1 Pet. i. 1: "to the

strangers scattered in Galatia." Date A.D. 60.

[22] Acts xv. 1-4. 1. "And certain men which came down from Judea taught

the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of

Moses, ye cannot be saved.--When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no

small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul

and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto

the Apostles and Elders about this question.--And being brought on their

way by the church, they passed through Phenice 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 of the Apostles and Elders, and they declared all things

that God had done with them."

[23] Be this as it may, that he must have been in the way to hear, from

various persons present, accounts, such as they were, of what was said

by Paul,--seems to follow almost of course. This seems applicable even

to the _latest_ of the two occasions; for, though the place, Cæsarea,

was some distance from Jerusalem, 56 miles,--yet the distance was not so

great, but that the persons, who were attached to him, might, for the

most part, be naturally supposed to have followed him: and in particular

the historian, who, according to his history, continued in Paul's suite

till, at the conclusion of this his forced excursion, he arrived at

Rome.

But, on the subject of _possible materials_, one concluding query here

presents itself. On a _subject_ such as that in question, on an

_occasion_, such as that in question, for a _purpose_ such as that in

question, a _speech_ such as either of those in question, might it not,

by a person in the historian's situation--not to speak of other

situations--be just as easily made without any special materials, as

with any the most correct and complete stock of materials?

[24] Between Paul's third visit, and that which is here reckoned as his

fourth, another is, by some, supposed[I.] to, have been taken place; on

which supposition, this concluding one, which is here styled the fourth,

ought to be reckoned the fifth.

But, for the support of this supposition, the grounds referred to for

this purpose do not seem sufficient:--not that, if the supposition were

true, any consequence material to the present purpose would follow.

For this supposition, what ground there is, consists in a passage in the

Acts:--Acts 18:20, 21, 22.

20. When they, the Jews at Ephesus, desired [him] to tarry longer time

with them, he consented not;

But bade them farewell, saying, I _must_ by all means _keep this feast

that cometh in Jerusalem_; but I will return again unto you, if God

will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

And when he had _landed_ at Cæsarea, and _gone up_, and saluted the

_church_, he _went down_ to Antioch.

There we have the grounds of the supposition. But, what is the support

they give to it?--declaration, affirming the existence of an intention,

is one thing; actually existing intention is another. Even supposing the

existence of the intention in question,--intention is one thing;

corresponding action, another. Jerusalem is not mentioned. Cæsarea

being on the sea-coast, Jerusalem is indeed in the interior: and

therefore, it may be said, is a place, to which, if a man went from

Cæsarea, he would "_go up_:" but, from Cæsarea, it being on the coast,

a man could not go to any place in Judaea not on the coast, without

_going up_.

So much for _place_:--and now as to _time_. The time mentioned as the

object of the _intention_, is the _passover_; but, that the time, at

which, being _gone up_, Paul "_saluted the church_"--this being all

which, upon this _going up_, he is here stated as doing--that this time

was the passover, is not stated.

As to the _salute_ here stated as given to the _church_,--at the

conclusion, and as a material part of the result, of this inquiry, it

will appear plain beyond all doubt, that, if by "_the church_" be

understood any member of it at Jerusalem, besides two, or at most three,

of the Apostles,--according to this interpretation, from the time of his

Conversion Visit to Damascus antecedently to his first visit to

Jerusalem, down to the last visit here reckoned as his fourth--there

never was a day on which the _church_ would have received his salute.

What will also be rendered manifest is--that it was an object with the

author of the Acts, to induce a belief, that Paul, before the conclusion

of his first visit, was upon good terms with the church, and so

continued to the last: and that, to this end, a purposed

misrepresentation was employed by the historian.

Not that, in regard to the visit here in question, to the purpose of the

argument--it makes any sort of difference, whether it had place or had

not. If it had place, neither the conclusion, nor any part of the

argument, will be seen to require any variation in consequence.

[I.] Wells's _Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament_,

ii. 271. Ch. 5. Of Saint Paul's Travels and Voyages into Asia.

"St. Paul" (says Wells very composedly) "_having kept_ the passover

at Jerusalem, went thence down, &c."--And for this the Acts are

quoted as above: but the Acts, it will here be seen, say no such

thing.

CHAPTER IV.

Paul disbelieved _continued_.--_First of his four Visits to

Jerusalem after his Conversion_; _say_ Jerusalem Visit I. _or_

Reconciliation Visit.--_Barnabas introducing him from Antioch to

the Apostles._

SECTION 1.

PAUL'S PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN HIS CONVERSION AND THIS

VISIT.--CONTRADICTION. PER PAUL, IT WAS NOT TILL AFTER THREE YEARS

SPENT IN ARABIA; PER ACTS, IMMEDIATELY.

Already on another occasion, and for a different purpose, have the two

accounts, between which this self-contradiction manifests itself, been

brought to view: viz. on the occasion of the accounts, given or

supposed to be given, by Paul, of the cause and manner of his

conversion:--accounts given in the first place, in writing, and

consequently, with all requisite time for deliberation, in his Epistle

to the Galatians:--given, or supposed to be given, in the next place, by

a speech spoken, namely, that which, in the Acts is reported as spoken

by him, on the occasion of his trial, to Festus and Agrippa:--Festus,

the Roman Proconsul, Agrippa, the Jewish King.

In the whole account of this matter, as given by Paul in his Epistle to

the Galatians, how much of truth there probably was, and how much of

falsehood or misrepresentation,--has been seen already in some measure,

ch. II. i. 5, and will be seen more fully as we advance.

As to his motive for this visit, he has endeavoured to keep it to

himself: but, by the result, according to the account he himself gives

of it, it is betrayed. It was--to effect the so much needed

_reconciliation_:--his reconciliation with the Apostles:--the Apostles,

in relation to whom his disregard is professed, the need he had of them,

no otherwise than virtually, nor yet the less effectually confessed.

Without an interval of considerable length between his conversion and

this visit, all such reconciliation would have been plainly hopeless.

From this circumstance, the length, as alleged by him, of his abode in

Arabia, receives obvious and highly probative confirmation. The

confirmation is, indeed, reciprocal. The nature of his situation, proves

the need he had, of an interval of considerable length, before any hope

of reconciliation could be fulfilled, or, naturally speaking, so much

as conceived: by this circumstance, his abode in some other country is

rendered probable to us: and this other country may, for aught we know,

as well have been the country mentioned by him--to wit, _Arabia_,

as any other: and, thus it is, that this assertion, of his having

been three years in Arabia, between the time of his departure from

Jerusalem to Damascus, and his return to Jerusalem to see Peter, is

confirmed:--confirmed, by the natural length, of the interval, requisite

to the affording any, the least chance, that Peter could be induced to

meet upon terms of amity and intercourse a man, in whom he beheld the

murderer of a countless multitude of human beings, linked to him by the

closest bonds of self-regarding interest, as well as sympathy and

brotherly love.

As to contradiction, contradiction cannot easily be much more pointed,

than it will be seen to be, between the account in respect of time, as

given in this instance by Paul, and the account given of it by his

historiographer in the Acts. On a double ground, it is Paul's account

that claims the precedence. Of _his_ account, such as it is, the rank,

in the scale of trustworthiness, is that of _immediate_ evidence; that

of his historiographer, no higher than that of _unimmediate_

evidence:--evidence once removed; having, for its most probable and

least untrustworthy source, that same _immediate_ evidence. Paul's

evidence is, at the same time, not only more circumstantiated, but

supported by the reasons which he has combined with it. Not till three

years after his alleged miraculous conversion, did he go near to any of

the Apostles.--Why?--Because, though, _at_ that time, for reasons which

he has left us to guess, he had regarded himself as having considerable

need of them,--_till_ that time he did not regard himself as having any

need of them. And, why was it, that, for so great a length of time, he

did not regard himself as having any need of them?--The answer he

himself gives us, Gal. i. 10: ... "do I seek to please men?--I certify

to you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after

man.--For I received it not of man, nor was I taught it but by the

revelation of Jesus Christ.--When it pleased God, who 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_ unto 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."

Thus far Paul himself. Let us now see, what is said in regard to the

time, by his subsequent attendant and historiographer. Acts ix ... "as

he (Saul) journeyed, he came near Damascus, and, suddenly there shined

round him a light," &c.--ver. 8. "And Saul arose from the earth, and ...

they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.--And he was

three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.--And there was

a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord

in a vision...--...go into the street called _Straight_, and inquire

in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus...--17. And Ananias

... entered into the house, and ... said, Brother Saul, the Lord ...

hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight ...--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,...--22. ... and confounded the Jews which dwelt at

Damascus,...--And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took

counsel to kill him.--... and they watched the gates day and night to

kill him.--Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the

wall in a basket.--And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, 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_, and declared unto them how he had seen

the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had

preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus."

With what the historiographer says in his own person, agrees, as to the

particular point now in question, what, in the studied oration, he puts

into Paul's mouth. In that account likewise, immediately after the

mention of what Paul did at Damascus,--follows, the mention of what he

did at Jerusalem: and, as to everything done by him among the Gentiles,

not only does the mention of it come after the mention of what was done

by him at Jerusalem, but, between the two, comes the mention, of

whatever was done by him, in any of the coasts of Judea. Acts 26:19.

"Whereupon, O, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly

vision:--but showed, first unto them of Damascus, and of 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."

Here then, according to Paul's own account, after his visit to Damascus

from Jerusalem, he visited Arabia, and moreover Damascus a second time,

before he made his visit to Jerusalem to see Peter: before this visit

did he make both those other visits; and, in making them, pass three

years, with or without the addition, of the time, occupied by his first

visit to Damascus,--and the time, occupied by his abode in Arabia.

According to Paul's own account then, between his second departure from,

and his arrival at, Jerusalem from thence, there was an interval either

of three years, or of so much more than three years. On the contrary,

according to both the accounts given of the matter by his

historiographer in the Acts, there was not between the two events in

question, any interval other than such as the journey from the one to

the other--about 130 British miles as the crow flies, say about 160,

allowance made for turnings and windings,--would require.

Now, as between Jews and Gentiles, _alias_ heathens:--to which of these

two descriptions of persons, were his preachings addressed in the first

instance?

According to his Epistle to his Galatians, preaching to the heathen

being his peculiar destination, this accordingly is the vocation upon

which he proceeded in the first place: and we have seen how probable it

is, not to say certain, that, in this particular, what he asserted was

true. His appointment being to "the heathen," he conferred not with

flesh and blood: _i.e._ with the Apostles, their immediate disciples, or

other flesh and blood of the Christian persuasion: for, of any such

conference--of any assistance or support from any such quarter, he has,

in this same Epistle, been declaring and protesting--most vehemently

protesting--that he had no need. Neither then for the purpose of

conference with "those who were Apostles," as he says, "before him," nor

for any other purpose, went he up to Jerusalem: no, not till either

three years after his conversion, or three years, with the addition of

another term of unmeasurable length.

Now then, how stands this matter according to the Acts--according to the

speech put into Paul's mouth by the author of the Acts? Instead of the

Gentiles being the description of persons, to whom, in the first

instance, he applies his labours,--it is the Jews. What he _shows_ is

"_shown_," in the first place, to those "of Damascus;" then "at

Jerusalem;" then "throughout all the coasts of Judea;" and, not till

_then_--to the Gentiles: of his abode in Arabia--of any visit of his to

Arabia--not any of the slightest mention, or so much as allusion to it.

But, all this while, for anything that appears to the contrary, Arabia

was completely open to him: whereas, after the offence he had committed

against the authority of the ruling powers at Judea, it was not, morally

speaking, in the nature of things that he could have continued in any

place coming within that description--have continued, long enough to

make any sensible impression: and, in Jerusalem in particular, in this

same Epistle to the Galatians, from which the above particulars are

taken,--it was, as he himself declares, only in secrecy, that, even

fourteen years after this, he ventured to disseminate those doctrines,

whatever they were, that were peculiar to himself, 2nd Gal.: 1, 2.

"Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas,

and took Titus with me. 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."

Thus stands the contrariety:--the contrariety, between Paul's own

account of his own proceedings, and the account, which, by the author of

the Acts, he is represented as giving of them, on another occasion.

Says Paul _himself_, in his own Epistle to his Galatians--After my

conversion, it was to the Gentiles that I applied myself first: to the

Jews, not till afterwards; nor then, to any considerable extent. Says

the author of the _Acts_, in a speech, which he puts into the mouth of

Paul--It was to the Jews that he applied himself first, and _that_ to a

great extent: to the Gentiles, not till afterwards.

Thus stands the contrariety, taken in itself. As to the _cause_, it will

neither be far to seek, nor dubious. In the differences of situations,

occasions, and purposes in view--in the differences, that had place in

respect of all those particulars--it will be found.

On the occasion, on which Paul himself speaks, what was the persuasion

which it was his endeavour to produce? It was--that, for a number of

years, commencing from the moment of his conversion,--with no persons,

who, to this purpose, could be called _Jews_, had he, to any such

purpose as this, had any intercourse: for, this being admitted, it

followed, of course, that, if, on the subject of the religion of Jesus,

he had really received the information he declared himself to have

received, it was _not_ from the Apostles, that he had had it, or any

part of it. "On them (says he) I am perfectly independent: to them I am

even superior. With Jesus _they_ had no communication but in a natural

way; with the same Jesus _I_ have had communication in a supernatural

way:--in the way of '_revelation_.' My communication with him is,

moreover, of a date posterior to theirs--to any that they can pretend

to: in so far as there is any contrariety between that I teach and what

they teach, it is for theirs, on both these accounts--it is for theirs,

to yield to mine. From God is my doctrine: in opposition to it, if

either they, or any other men presume to preserve, let the curse of God

be on their heads. ver. 8. Accordingly, at the time of my first visit to

Jerusalem after my conversion, no communication had I with them, for, no

such communication, teaching as I did from revelation, could I stand in

need of, I had already passed three years at least in Arabia, teaching

to the Gentiles there my peculiar doctrine. This peculiar doctrine, as I

made no scruple of teaching it to those Gentiles, as little, on the

occasion of that visit of mine to Jerusalem, did I make any scruple of

teaching it to Jews as well as Gentiles. True it is, I did not then

teach it publicly:--I did not teach my peculiar doctrine, so publicly as

they did theirs. But, as to this comparative secrecy, it had for its

cause the advantage of being free from opposition; for, had the fact of

my teaching this doctrine so different from theirs--been known to

them,--they might have opposed it, and thus my labours might have been

lost."

Whether, in the representation here given of what he says to his

Galatians, there be any misrepresentation, the reader may judge.

On the occasion, on which _his historian_ represents him as speaking,

what now, as to this same matter, was the persuasion, which the nature

of his situation required him to endeavour to produce? It was, that Jews

were the sort of persons, with whom, during the period in question, he

had, to the purpose in question, been holding intercourse: Jews, even in

preference to--not to say to the exclusion of--Gentiles: so far is he

from being _now_ represented, as stating himself to have held converse

with Gentiles, to the exclusion of Jews; which is, that of which he

_himself_ has been seen taking so much pains to persuade his Galatian

disciples. Yes: as far as competition could have place, Jews, on this

occasion, in _preference_, at least, to Gentiles: for, on this occasion,

what he was labouring at was--to recommend himself to the favour of his

Jewish Judge, King Agrippa, Acts 26:8-21, by magnifying the services he

had been rendering to the Jews, his very accusers not excepted:

services, to the rendering of which, close and continued intercourse,

during that same period, could not but have been necessary.

On this occasion, being accused of--his historian does not choose to say

what,--his defence was--that, of the persecution he was suffering, his

preaching the _resurrection_ was the only real cause: that, having been

born and bred a Pharisee,--in preaching that doctrine, so far from

opposing, he had been supporting, with all his might, the principles

maintained by the constituted authorities: adducing, in proof of the

general proposition, the evidence furnished by a particular fact, the

resurrection, that had place in the case of Jesus, Acts 25:19: that

when, in his conversion vision, Jesus gave him his commission, the

principal object of that commission was--the instruction of the

Gentiles: to wit, by informing them--that, to such of them as would

believe in the resurrection, and repent of their sins, and do works

accordingly,--the benefit of it would be extended: that to this mandate,

it was true, he did not ultimately fail to pay substantial obedience:

yet, such was his affection for his brethren the Jews,--that it was not

till, for a considerable time, he had been conferring on _them_ the

benefit of his labours, that he betook himself to the Gentiles. Acts

26:19. "I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:--But showed

first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the

coasts of Judea; and _then_ to the Gentiles, that they should repent,

&c.--For these causes the Jews caught me in the Temple, and went about

to kill me."

The repugnancy (says somebody), the repugnancy, is--not between Paul and

Paul--but between Paul and the author of the Acts; and, since the facts

in question are occurrences in which Paul himself was either agent or

patient, to the author of the Acts, and not to Paul, is the

incorrectness, wherever it be, to be imputed. Be it so: for the purpose

of the argument at least, be it so: but, if so it be, what are we to

think of the author of the Acts? Take away the author of the Acts, what

becomes of Paul? Take away the authority of the Acts in the character of

an inspired writer--writing from supernatural inspiration, after an

immediate and continued intercourse, in some unexplained and

inexplicable manner, with the Almighty,--what remains, then, of the

evidence, on the ground of which the mighty fabric of Paul and his

doctrine has been erected?

A man, who is thus continually in contradiction--sometimes with himself,

at other times with the most unimpeachable authorities--what credence

can, with reason and propriety, be given to his evidence, in relation to

any important matter of fact? at any rate, when any purpose, which he

himself has at heart, is to be served by it? Of such a man, the

testimony--the uncross-examined and uncross-examinable testimony--would

it, of itself, be sufficient to warrant a verdict, on a question of the

most inconsiderable pecuniary import? how much less then, on questions,

in comparison of which those of the greatest importance which the

affairs of this life admit of, shrink into insignificance? Even, suppose

veracity, and every other branch of probity, unimpeached and

unimpeachable,--if such confusion of mind, such want of memory, such

negligence, in relation to incidents and particulars, of too immensely

momentous a nature, to escape, at any interval of time, from the most

ordinary mind;--if such want of attention, such deficiency, in respect

of the most ordinary intellectual faculties and attainments, are

discernible in his narrative,--what solid, what substantial ground of

dependence can it furnish, or even leave in existence?

Of this sort are the questions for which already no inconsiderable

warrant has, it is believed, been found; nor, if so, throughout the

whole remaining course of this inquiry, should they ever be out of mind.

SECTION 2.

GROUNDS OF PAUL'S PROSPECT OF RECONCILIATION ON THIS OCCASION WITH

THE APOSTLES AND THEIR DISCIPLES.

On this head, in addition to, and in explanation of, the sort of

narrative given in the Acts,--information, of the most instructive and

impressive stamp, may be seen furnished by himself: at the head of it,

may be placed that, which may be seen in his Epistle to his Galatian

converts.

At Jerusalem was the board-room in which sat the Council of the

Apostles: of those men, to whom their bitterest enemies would not, any

more than their disciples and adherents, have refused the appellation of

constant companions and selected disciples of the departed Jesus. To

them was known, everything that, in relation to Jesus, was known to any

one else: and moreover, in unlimited abundance, particulars not capable

of being known by any one else.

As to Paul, let us suppose him now a believer in Jesus; and, on this

supposition, note what could not but have been the state of his mind,

with relation to those select servants of Jesus.

In them he beheld the witnesses--not only of the most material and

characteristic acts and sayings of their Master, but of his death, and

its supernatural consequences--the _resurrection_ and _ascension_, with

which it had been followed.

In them he beheld--not only the witnesses of his _miracles_, but a set

of pupils, to whom such powers of working the like miracles--such

miraculous powers, in a word, as it had pleased him to impart,--had been

imparted.

In their labours, he beheld the causes of whatsoever prosperity, he

found the society, established by them, in possession of.

In himself, he beheld the man, who, with such distinguished acrimony and

perseverance, had done his utmost, for the destruction of that society,

into which, for the purposes, indication of which has been so clearly

given by his own pen, he was preparing to intrude himself.

To form an ostensible cause for his intrusion,--in addition to such

information, as, by means of his persecution, it had happened to him to

extract from those whom he had been persecuting, what, on his part, had

he?--He had his own learning, his own talents, his own restless and

audacious temper, and the vision he had got up:--the baseless fabric of

that vision, a view of which has just been given.

Of the representation thus given of the matter,--whether we take his own

account of it, or that of the Acts,--suppose the truth to rest upon no

other ground than this vision, with or without that other vision, which

has been seen so slenderly tacked to it, and so strangely inserted into

it,--thus slender is the ground, on which we shall find him embarking

upon his enterprize,--assuming to himself, without modification or

apology, the name of _an Apostle_,--thrusting himself into the society,

and putting himself altogether upon an equality, not to say more than an

equality, with the whole company of the men, whose title to that

appellation was above dispute:--those of them who, among the chosen, had

been the most favoured, not excepted.

GALATIANS i. 11-23.

11. 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.--For ye

have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion,

how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted

it:--And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in

mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions

of my fathers.--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 unto 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.--Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;--And

was unknown by face unto the Churches of Judea which were in

Christ.--But they had heard only, that he which persecuted us in

times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

Thus, however indistinctly and incoherently stated, stands the matter,

on the surface of both these accounts. On the surface. But, by a little

reflection on the nature of the case--the obvious and indisputable

nature of the case--as collected from all accounts, as already brought

to view in a preceding chapter II, we shall be led to another

conception, and the only tenable one.

The plan of worldly ambition--that plan by which we have already seen

his outward conversion produced--had been not only formed, but acted

upon:--acted upon, during a course of at least three years: of three

years, employed at Damascus in preparation,--in Arabia in probation.

What remained, and was now become necessary, was--some sort of

countenance from the Apostles: from the Apostles, and thence, if

possible, from the rest of the then existing Church. Necessary

altogether was this countenance for his support: for, to this plan the

_name_ of Jesus was essential. It was in that _name_, that all his

operations were to be carried on:--in that name, from the use of which

it was to be universally understood, that it was according to

directions, and with support, from the departed Jesus, that by this, his

newly-enlisted servant, everything was said and done.

In Damascus--yes:--in Damascus, where were the only persons, with whom,

for the purpose of his dominion, he could with safety communicate: that

is to say, persons, whom his commission from the Jerusalem authorities

had placed under his power. In Arabia--yes: where, though he had made no

progress of which he saw any advantage in giving any account--he at any

rate had not experienced any opposition, of such a sort as to engage him

to drop his scheme. In those comparatively distant countries--yes. But,

in Jerusalem--the birthplace of Jesus and his religion,--in that

metropolis, within which, or the near neighbourhood of it, all the

witnesses of its rise and progress--all the proselytes, that had been

made to it, were collected,--and from whence, and to which, the votaries

of that religion, out of which it had sprung, would be continually

flocking from all quarters;--in this place, for a man, known so

notoriously to them all as a persecutor, in whose scheme of persecution

they had all of them been involved,--for such a man to have, all on a

sudden, begun preaching and acting, in the name of that Jesus, whom, to

use his own language, he had persecuted--such an enterprise as this,

which, even with the utmost support which it was in their power to give,

would have been audacity, would, without some sort of countenance from

them,--have been downright madness.

To perfect success it was necessary, that not only these shepherds of

the Church pasture, but, through them the whole flock, should thus be

brought under management. So far as regarded those same _rulers_, we

shall find him, in a certain degree,--and even, with reference to his

purpose, in a sufficient degree,--successful. But, with reference to the

Disciples in general, and to all those rulers but three,--it will be

seen to have completely failed.

Circumstanced as he was, to those rulers alone, was it possible for him

to have addressed himself, with any the smallest hope. To any assembly

of the faithful at large, to have repaired with no better recommendation

than his vision story,--even with Barnabas, ready, as we shall see, to

take him by the hand,--would have been plainly hopeless. Not less so

would it have been--to present himself to the Apostles,--if, in support

of such proposition as he had to make,--nothing more apposite, nothing

to them in their situation more credible, than this same vision

story,--had been capable of being produced. On them, therefore, the case

seems already pretty well ripe for the conclusion, that, no such story

was ever attempted to be passed. But, setting aside that aërial

argument,--inducements of a more substantial nature, such as we shall

find brought to view by Paul himself, were neither on this occasion

wanting,--nor could, at any time, have been out of the view of that same

Barnabas, whom we shall see appearing so often, in the character of his

generous patron and steady friend. "On this plan, might Barnabas say to

them,--On this plan, which he has chalked out for himself, he will be

acting--not only not in opposition to, but even in furtherance of, your

wishes and endeavors. Grecian as he is,--skilled in that language, and

that learning, which serves a man as a passport through the whole of the

Gentile world,--it is to that world that his labours will confine

themselves; a field surely ample enough for the most comprehensive

views. To you he will leave,--and leave certainly without privation, and

therefore naturally without regret,--that field, of which you are

already in possession,--and, by the boundaries of which, your means of

convenient culture are circumscribed."

"On this plan,--not only will your exertions remain unimpeded, but the

influence of the name of Jesus--that name, on the influence of which

those same exertions are so materially dependent for their

success,--will, in proportion to Paul's success, be extended."

In a discourse, to this effect, from the generous and enlightened

mediator,--may be seen the natural origin of that agreement, which,

further on in its place, under the name of the _partition treaty_, there

will be occasion to bring, in a more particular manner, under review.

But, what is little less evident, than the propriety and prudence of

this plan, viewed at least in the point of view in which it might not

unnaturally be viewed by Barnabas, is--the impossibility, of coming

forward, with any tolerable prospect of success, with any such plan in

hand, in presence of a vast and promiscuous assemblage. To engage, on

the part of any such assemblage, not to say any steady confidence, but

any the slightest hope,--that, from an enemy even to death, the same man

would become a partner and assistant,--would require a most particular

and protracted exposition, of all those facts and arguments, which the

requisite confidence would require for its support:--a detail, which no

such assembly would so much as find time to listen to, were it possible

for it to find patience.

Even in the case of the Apostles themselves,--taking the whole council

of them together, the nature of the plan, it will be seen, admitted not

of any successful negotiation. Accordingly, to the chief of them alone,

to wit, to Peter, was it so much as the intention of Paul to make any

communication of it in the first instance: and, in the whole length of

the intercourse, such as it was, that he kept up with, them--in all the

four visits, in the course of which that intercourse was kept up--being

a period of not less than twenty-five years, to wit, from the year 35 to

the year 60,--with no more than three of the eleven, will he be seen so

much as pretending to have had any personal interview: _they_ not seeing

him, except when they could not avoid it; and _the others_ never seeing

him at all.

SECTION 3.

OCCASION OF THIS VISIT, AS PER PAUL'S OWN ACCOUNT.

After his conversion--after the time at which, if he is to be believed,

he saw that first-mentioned of his visions--that vision, by which the

most strenuous opponent of the new religion was changed into one who, in

profession, was the most active of its supporters,--what was the course

he took? Did he repair immediately to Jerusalem from whence he came? Did

he present himself to the eleven Apostles--to the confidential

companions of the departed Jesus, to lay before them his credentials? to

report to those by whom everything about Jesus that was to be known to

man was known--what had been experienced by him?--by him, Paul, by whom,

till the moment of that experience, nothing of it whatever had been

known? Not he, indeed. Behold what he says himself.

Instead of so doing, off he goes, in the first instance to Arabia; from

whence, at the end of a length of time not specified, he returns to

Damascus. At length, however, to Jerusalem he does repair: at length,

into the presence of those against whose lives he had so long

conspired,--he now uses his endeavours to intrude himself.

At length? at the end then of what length of time? At the end of three

years? Yes: but from what point of time computed? From the time of his

conversion on the road,--or from the last day of his stay at Damascus,

upon his return thither from Arabia? By that man, let an answer to these

questions be given--by that man who can find grounds for it.

Thus much, however, may, at any rate, be said:--of the length of this

interval three years is the minimum.

In what view did it occur to him to seek this conference? in what view

to make the attempt? and in what view delay it?

1. As to his view in seeking it,--it must be left to inference:--to

conjecture, grounded on circumstances.

2. Being engaged, as he was, in the plan of making converts to a

religion, called by him the religion of Jesus,--and this among the

nations at large--among others besides those in the bosom of whose

religion the founder of the new religion had been born;--feeling, as it

seemed to him, the need, of information in various shapes--concerning

the acts and sayings of Jesus;--not having, for the purpose, had, as

yet, access, to any of the persons, to whom the benefit, of an interview

with Jesus, upon terms of peculiar confidence, had been imparted;--he

was desirous, of taking this--his only course--for rectifying the

misconception, under which, to no small extent, he must probably have

been labouring,--and filling up the deficiencies, under which he could

not but be labouring.

3. Obvious is the need he had, of countenance from these universally

acknowledged chiefs, of the religion professed to be taught by him.

Good, says some one: but, having, from the first, been thus long

labouring, under the need of information,--how happened it, that he so

long delayed, the exertions he made at length, for the obtaining of it?

The answer is surely not unobvious.

Had the time, of his presenting-himself, been when the memory of his

conversion was fresh,--when the memory, of the vision, by which it was

to be stated as having been effected, would, supposing it really

experienced, have been fresh also,--in such case, the narrative, true or

untrue, would have found, opposed to its reception, all imaginable

repugnance, in so many ulcerated minds: and, on the supposition of its

being untrue, he--the supposed percipient and actually narrating

witness--he, who knew nothing about the subject of his testimony, would

have had to submit himself to the severest imaginable cross-examination,

at the hands of those, to whom everything about Jesus was matter of

perfect knowledge.

Thus the matter would have stood, in the first instance. On the other

hand, as time ran on, several results, favourable to his design, would

naturally have taken place.

1. The exasperation, produced by the experience of the persecution

suffered at his hands, would have been diminished.

2. His own recollection, of the particulars, might be supposed less

vivid.

3. The curiosity, respecting them, would have become less eager.

4. Time might have given admission to behaviour on his part, of a sort,

by which distrust might be lessened, confidence strengthened.

Well; now we have him at Jerusalem,--and for the first time after his

conversion. When thus, at Jerusalem,--of those whom he went to see, whom

did he actually see? Answer, Peter for one; James, whom he styles the

Lord's brother, and who, according to him, though not literally a

brother, was, however, a kinsman of Jesus:--these two, according to his

own shewing; these two, and no more. "Then after three years I went up

to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But of the

other Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother." Gal. 1:18,

19.

SECTION 4.

OCCASION, AS PER ACTS ACCOUNT COMPARED WITH PAUL'S.

Such as hath been seen is Paul's account of the matter:--Paul's own

account, of the interval that elapsed, between his conversion, and the

first of his subsequent visits to Jerusalem:--to the residence of the

Christians, whom he had been persecuting, and of the rulers, under and

by the authority of whom, the persecution had been carried on. Such,

loose as it is, is his account, of the interval between these two

events: and of the place, in which, either almost the whole, or at any

rate the greatest part of it, was passed.

Such was Paul's own account of his own proceedings,--at the distance of

twenty-five years and more. Compare with it, now, the account, given by

his historiographer--given, of the interval, that, according to him, had

place, between these same two events. Acts 9:19-29.

Here, no three years' sojournment in Arabia: no visit to that country:

no notice, of any place, other than Damascus, as being a place, in which

the whole, or any part, of the time in question, was passed. In a

position, with respect to each other, scarcely different from that of

contiguity,--are the two events brought together. The blood of their

disciples scarce washed from off his hands, when, with Barnabas for his

introducer, he presents himself to the Apostles!

At the very time, when the Jerusalem rulers, would have been expecting

to receive from him, the proofs of his punctuality, in the execution of

the important plan, of official oppression, of which, at his own

instance, he had been solemnly constituted and appointed the

instrument; when, after going over to and forming a league with the

criminals, for such they must have been called, whom he had been

commissioned by these rulers to bring to justice;--at this very time it

is, that he returns to the seat of their dominion:--to the place in

which, at that very time, his return to them, with the intended victims

in captivity, could not but be the subject of universal expectation!

Let any one now judge, whether, in any state of things, natural or

supernatural, the sort of conduct thus supposed is credible.

At Damascus, instead of presenting himself to the Damascus rulers, to

whom the commission of which he was the bearer was addressed,--the first

persons, whom, according to this account, Acts 9:19, he sees, are "the

disciples," _i.e._, the persons whom, by that commission, he was to

arrest: and, with them, instead of arresting them, he passes "certain

days."

These certain days ended,--does he thereupon, with or without an

apology, present himself to these same rulers? Not he, indeed. Not

presenting himself to them, does he, by flight or otherwise, take any

measures, for securing himself, against their legitimate and necessarily

intended vengeance? No such thing:--instead of doing so, he runs in the

very face of it. He shows himself in the Jewish synagogues, in the

public places of worship: and there, instead of preaching Moses and his

law, he preaches Christ,--that Christ, whose disciples he was

commissioned to extirpate.

This breach of trust--this transgression, which, however commendable in

itself, could not but,--in the eyes of all those by whom, or for whom,

he was in trust,--be a most flagitious and justly punishable act of

treachery,--could it even from the first, for so much as two days,

together, remain unknown? Not it, indeed: if, in this particular, to

this same conversion story, as related by this same author, any credit

is due. For, according to this same account,--in this same journey, and

at the very time of his conversion vision, was he alone? No; he had

companions: companions, who, whatsoever became of him, would, at the

very time of his entrance, unless any cause can be shown to the

contrary, have entered thither in due course. Well, then--ask the men in

authority,--"This Paul, in whose train you came,--where is he, what has

become of him?" Such would of course have been the questions put to

these, his companions, even on the supposition, that by these same

companions, no visit had, of their own accord, been paid to these same

rulers, under whose authority they went to place themselves.

At length,--and the days which by this time had elapsed were

"_many_,"--he finds it expedient to quit Damascus. He is driven from

thence: but by what force? By the exercise of the legal authority of the

offended rulers? in a word, by public vengeance? No: but by a private

conspiracy--nothing more: for, to these rulers,--so different are they

from all other rulers,--whether their authority is obeyed or contemned,

has, all the while, been matter of indifference.

ACTS ix. 19-30.

19. 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.--And after that _many days_ were

fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:--But their laying

await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night

to kill him.--Then the disciples took him by night, and let him

down by the wall in a _basket_.--And when Saul was come to

Jerusalem, 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,

and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and

that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at

Damascus in the name of Jesus.--And he was with them coming in and

going out at Jerusalem.--And he spake boldly in the name of the

Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about

to slay him.--30. Which, when the brethren knew, they brought him

down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

In the above account--a remarkable incident is presented, by the

occasion and manner of his escape from Damascus. In part, it has for its

support an assertion made by Paul himself; but, as usual, as to part it

is scarcely reconcileable with the account he gives of it. In respect of

the adventure of the _basket_, the two accounts agree: and thus the

occasion is identified and fixed. It is in respect of the description of

the persons, by whom the attack upon him was made or meditated, that the

accounts differ. According to the Acts, the hostile hands are those of

the Jews, who are spoken of as so many unauthorized and criminal

conspirators: but, according to Paul, they are those of the constituted

authorities--a governor acting under a king.

31. "In Damascus"--says he, in 2 Cor. 11:32-33--"In Damascus, the

governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with

a garrison, desirous to apprehend me. And through a window in a

basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands."

Now, supposing the adverse force to have been that of a band of

conspirators, it was natural for them to watch the "city gates": a more

promising resource they could scarcely have had at their command. But,

suppose it to have been that of the governor,--what need had he to watch

the gates? he might have searched houses. By the reference made, to a

matter of fact, which, supposing it real, must in its nature have been

notorious--to wit, the existence of a king, of the name in question, in

the country in question, at the time in question--a comparative degree

of probability seems to be given to Paul's account. A curious

circumstance is--that, in this Epistle of Paul's, this anecdote of the

Basket stands completely insulated; it has not any the slightest

connection with anything that precedes or follows it.

In the Acts' account, as already observed, Chap. 4, it looks as if it

was immediately after the adventure of the basket, that he went on this

his first visit to the Apostles at Jerusalem: for, as we see, it is

immediately thereupon that his arrival at that city is mentioned. If so,

the abode he had _then_ been making at Damascus, was probably _after_

his return from Arabia: that return from Arabia, which we have seen him

speaking of in his Epistle to the Galatians, Gal. i. 15. "When it

pleased God ... to reveal his son to me, that I might preach him to 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 unto Damascus. _Then after_ three years,

I went up to Jerusalem, to see Peter." &c.

"After three years?"--three years, reckoning from what _time_? Here we

see the ambiguity, and along with it the difficulty. If reckoning from

his conversion,--then we have the three years, to be spent--partly in

Damascus, partly in Arabia: in Damascus, in obtaining, perhaps, from the

Christianized Jews--in return for the impunity given to them by the

breach of the trust committed to him by the Jerusalem rulers--money, for

defraying his expenses while in Arabia. If, reckoning from his escape

from Damascus in a basket, then we have three years, during which not so

much as any the faintest trace of him is perceptible. All, therefore,

that is clear is--that according to his account of the matter, there was

an interval of at least three years between his conversion, and this

first of his subsequent Jerusalem visits--this visit of his to

Jerusalem, to see the Apostles.

Between the two interpretations,--in respect of length of time, observe

here the difference. According to one of them, between the conversion

and the first Jerusalem visit, we have an interval of three years, and

no more: and, in this interval, three lengths of time--one passed in

Damascus, another in Arabia, a third, terminated by the basket

adventure, passed also in Damascus, are all included: the entire

interval determinate: but its parts, all of them, indeterminate.

According to the other interpretation, we have also three lengths of

time: the first, indeterminate, passed in Damascus; the second, as

indeterminate, passed in Arabia; the third, passed in Damascus, and this

a determinate one--namely, the three years. Thus, upon the first

supposition, the interval consists of three years, and no more: upon the

second supposition, it consists of three years, preceded by two lengths

of time, which are both indeterminate, but one of which--that passed in

Arabia--may have been to any amount protracted.

Upon either supposition,--it seems not unlikely, that it was immediately

after his escape from Damascus, that this first visit of his to

Jerusalem took place. And, the greater the preceding interval of time,

whether passed in Arabia or Damascus, the less unpromising his prospect,

that the resentments, produced by the provocations given by him to the

Christians, by his persecution of them,--and to the Jewish rulers, by

his treachery towards them,--should, both, have to such a degree

subsided, as to render even so short a stay, as that of fifteen days

which he mentions, consistent with personal safety. Yet, as we see in

the Acts, are these two events spoken of as if they had been contiguous:

at any rate, it is in contiguity that they are spoken of.

Uncertainties crowd upon uncertainties. At the time of Paul's

conversion,--had Damascus already this same king, named Aretas, with a

governor under him? If so, how happens it, that, of this state of the

government, no intimation is perceptible, in the account given of that

conversion in the Acts? Was it--that, at that time, there existed not

any such monarchical personage? but that, before the adventure of the

basket, some revolution had placed him there?

According to Paul's account,--the state of things, produced in Damascus

by his exertions, was somewhat curious. On the face of this account, in

ordinary there was no _garrison_ in Damascus: it was only by special

order from the monarch, and for no other purpose than the bringing to

justice--or what was called justice--the person of the self-constituted

Apostle,--that a garrison was put into the town, with a governor for the

command of it.

What a foundation all this for credence! and, with it, for a system of

religious doctrine to build itself upon!--religious doctrine--with the

difference between eternal happiness and eternal misery depending upon

it!

SECTION 5.

CAUSE OF THE DISCORDANCE BETWEEN THE TWO ACCOUNTS.

Between these two accounts, such being the discordance--where shall we

find the _cause_ of it? Answer: in the different views, in which, at the

time of writing, the two accounts were penned: in the different objects,

to the accomplishment of which, at the time of penning their respective

accounts, the endeavours of the two writers were directed.

The author of the Acts--what, then, was _his_ object? To obtain for his

patron--his chief hero--alive or dead--a recognition, as universal as

possible, in his assumed character of an Apostle. The more complete the

recognition, bestowed upon him by those most competent of all

judges,--the more extensive the recognition he might look for, at the

hands of all other their fellow-believers.

Sufficient was this--sufficient for the general purposes of the

party--in the eyes of a person other than Paul, even though that other

person was a protegé, a retainer, a satellite.

Sufficient this was not, however, to the arrogance of the head of the

party--Paul himself: at least, at the time of his writing this his

letter to his Galatian converts.

Think you, says he, that any relation, I have ever borne to any of those

who were Apostles before me, had, on my part, anything in it of

dependence? Think you, that I ever stood in need of anything at their

hands? Think you, that I had ever any more need of them, than they of

me? Not I, indeed. The Gospel, which I have always preached--neither

from them did I receive it, nor from them, in preaching it, did I ever

seek or receive any assistance. Gal. i. 11, 12. Think you, that I stood

in any need, or ever supposed myself to stand in any need, of any

acceptance or acknowledgement at their hands? Not I, indeed. When my

revelation had been received by me, did I present myself to them, for

any such purpose as that of remuneration and acceptance? Not I, indeed.

I went not to them: I went not so much as to Jerusalem, where they then

were: I conferred not with flesh and blood:--off I went to Arabia; and

when my business in Arabia was at an end, even then, did I repair to

Jerusalem? Not I, indeed. I returned again to Damascus. True it is, to

Jerusalem I did go at last.--But when?--Not till three years

afterwards. Well--and, when I was at Jerusalem, how many, and which of

them, think you that I saw? Think you, that I put myself to any such

trouble, as that of seeing them all together? the whole herd of them?

No. Peter was naturally a chief among them: with him I had accordingly

some business to settle:--him, accordingly, I saw, as also James, whom,

as being a brother, or other near kinsman, of Jesus, I had a curiosity

to see.

Paul himself wrote at one time; this his disciple at another: each of

them pursued the purpose of the time. Not on this occasion, at any

rate,--perhaps not on any other, was there anything, that either wrote,

concerted between them.[25] Of this want of concert, what has just been

seen is one of the consequences.

Reserved as we have seen him, in regard to time and other

circumstances,--one circumstance more there is, for which our curiosity

is to no small amount, debtor, to the author of the Acts. This

is--information, of the means--of the channel, through which Paul

obtained the introduction, which, without mention made of the object, we

have seen him acknowledging that, so far as concerned Peter, he was

desirous of: and _that_ to such a degree, as to undertake a journey from

Damascus to Jerusalem, some 120 or 130 miles, for the purpose.

Repugnancy, so natural, and naturally so vehement--even at the end of

three years, or the still greater number of years--by what means could

he remove it, or so much as flatter himself with a prospect of being

able to remove it? To this question, it is to the author of the Acts

that we are indebted for an answer: and that answer a satisfactory

one:--it was by the assistance of Barnabas, that the object, so far as

it was accomplished, was accomplished.

To the religion of Jesus, after as well as before this,--to the Apostles

in particular before this,--Barnabas was a supporter of no small

importance.

At the time when the financial arrangements were for the second time

settled;[26]--when, from the substance of the opulent among the

faithful, enough was collected for the support of all the

indigent;--among those, by whom, on this second occasion, lands and

houses, were for this purpose sold, particular persons are, on this

second occasion, for the first time mentioned. The first place is

occupied by this Barnabas: and not till after him come Ananias and

Sapphira--the unfortunate pair, of whose fate mention will have to be

made in another place.

Joses was, it seems, the original name--the proper name of this

beneficent protector: Barnabas, the _Son of consolation_, Acts 4:36, was

no more than a title of honour,--a token of gratitude. A title of

honour? and by whom conferred? Even by the Apostles. By Barnabas,

therefore, whatsoever thereafter comes to be reported as done,--it is by

_the Son of consolation_ that we are to understand it to have been, and

to be, done.

As to the arguments, by which this son of consolation succeeded,--in

prevailing, upon two, and, if we are to believe Paul, no more than two,

of these so lately persecuted or threatened servants of Jesus,--to be,

for a few days, upon speaking terms, with him, who so lately had been

their deadly, as well as open enemy,--it is from imagination, with

judgment for her guide, that they must, if at all, be deduced from the

surrounding circumstances of the case.

As to these arguments, however,--whatever were the rest of them, of two

of them a hint is given by the author of the Acts: these are,--the

story of the conversion,--and the boldness of the preaching, which at

Damascus was among the first-fruits of it. Those which, under the

guidance of judgment, imagination would not find much difficulty in

adding, are,--the evil--that might result from his enmity, in case the

advances then made by him were rejected,--and the useful service, which,

by the blessing of God, might be hoped for at his hands, if admitted in

the character of an ally and cooperator: at any rate, so long as the

whole field of his exertions, and in particular the geographical part of

it, continued different from theirs.

With Peter, on whatever account, it was Paul's own desire to hold a

conference:--so we have seen him declaring to the Galatians. To this

Peter, whom he was desirous of seeing, and whom at length he succeeded

in seeing,--to this Peter did he then himself tell the story of his

vision, of his conversion, and the mode of it? If at any time he

did,--at any rate, if the author of the Acts is to be believed,--it was

not till Barnabas, the son of consolation, had told it for him. Had it

been by himself that his story had been to be told in the first

instance,--he would thereby have stood exposed to cross-examination:

and, among those things, which Barnabas might in his situation say for

him,--were many things, which, if at all, he could not, with anything

like an equal prospect of good effect, have said for himself. To any

asseveration of his own,--in any promises of future amity, it was not in

the nature of the case, that from his own mouth they should give

credence. But, when by Barnabas, of whose zeal in their cause they had

received such substantial proofs--when from this son of consolation they

received assurance, that Paul had actually engaged himself in that line

of service, which he professed himself desirous to embrace;--that he had

engaged so far, that no prospect of safe retreat could reasonably be in

his view;--then it was, that, without imprudence, they might, venture to

hold at least a conference with him, and hear and see what he had to say

for himself.

As to the account, given on this occasion by Barnabas, of the famous

vision,--had it been but preserved, it would probably have been no less

curious than those which we have been already seeing. Though we cannot

be precisely assured in what way,--we may be pretty well assured, that,

in some way or other, additions would have been to be seen made in it,

to the list of _variations_.

But, the great advantage,--producible, and probably produced, by

the opening of the matter, as performed by Barnabas,--was this:

in company with those arguments, by which the sincerity of Paul was

to be demonstrated,--would naturally come those, by which intimation

would be given, of the advantage there might be, in forbearing to

apply too strict a scrutiny, to this important statement. The

interests, which, in the character of motives, pleaded for the

acceptance, of the advance made towards reconciliation and mutually

advantageous cooperation,--would, in this manner, prepare the way,

for receiving, without any troublesome counter-interrogation, the

important narrative: or, perhaps, for considering the matter, as

already sufficiently explained, by the son of consolation,--in such

sort that, to the new Apostle, the trouble of repeating a narrative,

which he must already have so frequently found himself under the

necessity of repeating, might be spared.

The greater was the importance, of the service thus rendered to Paul by

the son of consolation,--the more studiously, in giving the account, as

above, of the intercourse with the Apostles at Jerusalem,--the more

studiously, would he avoid all mention of it.[27]

SECTION 6.

LENGTH OF THIS VISIT--PAUL'S EMPLOYMENT DURING IT.

Fifteen days, if Paul is to be believed--fifteen days, and no more,--was

the length of time, during which his intercourse with Peter continued:

Gal. i. 18, that same length of time, and no greater, it may without

much rashness be inferred, was his stay at Jerusalem.

These fifteen days,--or whatever, if anything longer, was the duration

of his stay in that seat of their common religion,--in what occupations

were they employed? It is in the Acts, if anywhere, that this question

will receive its answer. It was in "disputing against the Grecians."

Acts 9:29.

That such should have been his occupation, is in his situation

altogether natural.

Of a sort of _partition treaty_, as having, at one time, been entered

into between himself and Peter,--Paul, in his so-often mentioned

letters to the Galatians, informs us in express terms. As to the time,

which, on that occasion, he has in view,--it was, according to

appearance, not the time of _this_ his first visit, but of the third. At

that third visit, the treaty was, at any rate, either entered into for

the first time, or confirmed: receiving, at the same time, what was on

both sides agreed upon, as an amendment requisite to add to it, in

respect of clearness, correctness, or completeness.

But, at this visit, it seems altogether natural, that, with more or less

of these same qualities, a treaty of this sort took place. By the sort

of relation, produced between them, by the state of interests,--the

existence of an agreement of this sort seems sufficiently probabilized:

and, from the few words, in which, by the author of the Acts, mention is

made of the Grecians, and of Paul's disputes with them,--the inference

receives the confirmation afforded by _direct_ evidence.

With the Grecians then it was, that these disputations of Paul were

held. Why with the Grecians, and no other? The reason is no mystery.

Greek was the language of Paul: Greek, for anything that appears, was

not the language of Peter, or of any other of the Apostles. Applying

himself to the Grecians, and to them alone,--Paul might, to any amount,

have given additional extent to his own dominion, without subtracting

anything from theirs.

Not productive, it should seem, of much fruit,--was this portion, of the

new Apostle's labours. No sooner are we informed, of the boon thus

offered to these Grecian Gentiles, than comes, moreover, the further

information, that some there were, that "went about to slay him. Which

when the brethren knew, they brought him," it is added, "to Cæsarea,

and sent him forth to Tarsus." Acts 9:29.

Meantime, those men, who went about to slay him,--who were they?

Possibly they were Grecians, if by the disputation in question, the

annoyance produced was so intolerable to them, as to be productive of a

wish and enterprise thus flagitious: and, if the evidence afforded by

the rules of grammar be in this case regarded as conclusive,--the

pronoun _they_ having for its last possible antecedent the substantive

_Grecians_--these, and no other, must have been the intended murderers.

On the other hand, among the heathen--the philosophical disputants of

this nation,--disputations, having any such abstractions for their

subject, were not wont to be productive, of any such practical and

flagitious consequences. Among the heathens, moreover, it appears not,

that, antecedently to his conversion, the zeal of Paul had led him to

put any to death: on the other hand among the Christianized Jews, his

fellow-religionists, the number of persons, of whom he had put to death

some, and in other ways plagued others, was unhappily but too great. By

the religion _into_ which they had been converted,--revenge, it is true,

was not (as in that which they were converted _from_) magnified, but

prohibited: but, the influence of it has never been equally efficient

upon all minds.

Be this as it may,--upon his leaving Jerusalem, it was to the region of

Syria and Cilicia, that, at this time, he betook himself. So, in his

letter to his Galatians, he himself says, Gal. 1:21; and, by what is

said in the Acts, he is not contradicted, but confirmed. By himself what

is mentioned is--the _region_, viz. Syria and Cilicia: by the Acts what

is mentioned is--the _cities_, viz. Cæsarea and Tarsus.

Cæsarea,--whether at that time it was in Syria or not,--was, at any

rate, little, if anything, out of the way, from Jerusalem to Tarsus.

Cæsarea was a town upon the coast:--one among those maritime towns,

which, whether parts or not of Syria, are in the way between the inland

city, of Jerusalem, and the coast of Cilicia: with which coast, by a

river,--Tarsus, marked in the map with the mark of a capital town,

appears to communicate.

In speaking of this change of place, the terms employed by Paul, are

general terms,--"_I came._" By what _means_ he came, he does not

mention: nor does there appear any particular reason why he should have

mentioned them.

In the Acts, the account is more particular:--he was, in a manner,

forced from the one place to the other:--he was, at any rate,

_escorted_: it was by "_the brethren_," he was so dealt with. "Which

when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him

forth to Tarsus." Acts 9:30.

By the brethren?--Yes.--But by what brethren? By the general body of the

Christians, or any that belonged to it? No:--for, it was from their

wrath, that he was making his escape. No:--not by the justly exasperated

many; but by such few adherents as, under such prodigious disadvantage,

his indefatigable artifice and energy had found means to conciliate.

SECTION 7.

MODE AND CAUSE OF ITS TERMINATION.

In relation to this subject, we have two, and no more than two,

accounts,--both from the same pen,--that of the historiographer in the

Acts; and these two accounts, as usual, contradictory of each other.

The first, in the order of the history, is that given by him in his own

person: Acts 9:27, 28, 29. The other, is that given by him in the person

of Paul: namely, in the course of his supposed first-made and

unpremeditated speech,--when, on the occasion of his last visit to

Jerusalem--his Invasion Visit, he was pleading for his life before the

angry multitude. Acts 22:17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Now then, let us compare the two accounts.

Speaking in his own person,--it is to the fear of certain Grecians, that

the historiographer ascribes Paul's departure for Jerusalem. In

disputing with them, he had been speaking "boldly in the name of the

Lord Jesus": and _thereupon_,--and as we are desired to believe,

_therefore_,--came certain designs and endeavours to slay him. Designs?

on the part of whom? Answer:--on the part of those same Grecians: cause

of these designs and endeavours, irritation, so it is intended we should

suppose,--irritation, produced in the breasts of those same

Grecians;--and produced by the dispute.

Now, as to the words of the historiographer, speaking in his own person.

It is immediately after the mention of Paul's transactions with the

Apostles and the other disciples, that after saying, Acts 9:28, that

"... he was with them coming in and going out of Jerusalem," the

narrative continues thus: ver. 29; "And he spake boldly in the name of

the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, but _they_ went about

to slay him: ver. 30; Which when _the brethren_ knew, they brought him

down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."

Such is the account given, of the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, on

the occasion in question--given by the historiographer, speaking in his

own person, of the manner of the departure, and at the same time of the

cause of it. Behold now how different is the account given, of the same

matter, by the same historiographer, in the same work, when speaking in

the person of his hero. Nothing now as to any disputes with Grecians:

nothing now of these, or any other human beings, in the character of

beings who were angry with him, and _that_ to such a degree, that, to

save his life, it was deemed necessary by his adherents,--styled on this

occasion "_the_ brethren," to take charge of him, as we have seen, and

convey him from Jerusalem to Cæsarea and elsewhere.

The case seems to be--that, between the time of writing the account

which has just been seen, and the time for giving an account of the same

transaction in the person of the hero, as above,--a certain difficulty

presented itself to the mind of the historiographer: and, that it is for

the solution of this difficulty, that he has recourse, to one of his

sovereign solvents--_a trance_. The difficulty seems to have been this:

The class of persons, whom, on that first visit of his he had

exasperated, were--not "_Grecians_," or any other Gentiles, but

Christians: Christians, the whole body of them--Apostles and Disciples

together: the same class of persons, to which belonged those who, on the

occasion of this his last visit--the _Invasion Visit_--were to such a

degree exasperated, by this fourth intrusion of his, as to be attempting

his life. How hopeless any attempt would have been, to make them

believe, that it was not by themselves, but by a set of Heathens, that

his life was threatened on that former occasion, is sufficiently

manifest. Here then comes a demand, for a substitute, to that cause,

which, distant as the time was, could not, however, be altogether absent

from their memory: and which, so far as it was present, could not but

heighten their exasperation:--this substitute was _the trance_.

The cause of the departure is now--not the fear of any human being, but

the express command of "_the Lord_":--a command delivered in the course,

and by means, of this same _trance_. Moreover, as if, from such a

quarter, _commands_ were not sufficient of themselves; on the present

occasion, it will be seen, they came backed by _reasons_. Was it that,

as the historiographer has been telling us in his own person, certain

Grecians were exasperated? No: but that the persons, to whom, with

Barnabas for his supporting witness, Acts 9:27, he had been telling his

story, gave no credit to it: so that, by a man with his reputation in

this state, nothing in the way of his business was to be done.

But now let us see the text. It comes immediately after that passage, in

which Paul is made to speak of Ananias, as giving orders to him, in the

name of the Lord: orders, concluding in these words: Acts 22:16: ...

"arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of

the Lord." This said,--his story, as told to the multitude, continues

thus: "And it came to pass that, when I was come again to Jerusalem,

even while I prayed in the temple, I was in _a trance_: And saw him

saying unto me, Make _haste_, and get thee _quickly_ out of Jerusalem:

_for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me_. And I said,

Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that

believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I

also was standing by, and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment

of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee

far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word,

and then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from

the earth; for it is not fit that he should live."

It may now be seen, how useful and convenient an implement this same

trance was: how well adapted, to the occasion on which it was employed.

Taken by itself, this story about the enraged Grecians might serve to

impose upon readers in general: but, to the knowledge of the really

enraged Christians, whose wrath he was endeavouring to assuage,--it was

not only too palpably false to be related to them, but too much so, to

be even for a moment supposed to be related to them: hence came the

demand for the supernatural cause. Nothing, it is evident, could be

better suited to the purpose. The assertion was of the sort of those,

which, how palpably soever untrue, are not exposed to contradiction by

direct evidence: and which, supposing them believed, ensure universal

respect, and put all gainsayers to silence.

An incident not unworthy here of notice, is--the sort of acknowledgment

contained in the words--"for they will not receive thy testimony

concerning me." In this may be seen--a confirmation of the important

fact, so fully proved on the occasion of the first or _Reconciliation

Visit_: and we see--with what consistency and propriety, the mention of

it comes in, on the present occasion: namely, in a speech, made to a

multitude, of which, many of those,--by whom he had been disbelieved and

rejected on that former occasion,--must of course have formed a part.

Such is the fact, which, after having communicated to us, in his own

person, Acts 9:26, "they were all afraid of him, and believed not that

he was a disciple," the historiographer is frank enough to communicate

to us a second time, through the mouths of Paul and "the Lord," the one

within the other. _True_ enough this information: and, moreover, at

Jerusalem, as well when the historiographer was writing, as when Paul

was speaking, _notorious_ enough: or we should hardly have had it _here_

and _now_. But, what a truth to put into the mouth of Paul, whose title

to credence for his claim, is so effectually destroyed by it!

To return to what, on the occasion of the first visit, is said by the

historiographer, in his own person, about the Grecians. That it was

false, as to the main point,--namely, that it was by the fear of those

same Gentiles that he was driven out of Jerusalem,--is now, it is hoped,

sufficiently evident. But, as to his having held disputation with

them,--in this there seems not to be anything inconsistent or

improbable: and this part, supposing it true, might, in so far as known,

help to gain credence for that which was false.

A circumstance--not altogether clear, nor worth taking much trouble in

the endeavour to render it so, is--on the occasion of this dialogue, the

change made, of the supernatural vehicle, from a _vision_ into a

"_trance_." Whatsoever, if any, is the difference,--they agree in the

one essential point: namely, that it is in the power, of any man, at any

time, to have had as many of them as he pleases: hearing and seeing,

moreover, in every one of them, whatsoever things it suits his

convenience to have heard or seen.--"I saw a vision:" or, "I was in a

trance": either postulate granted, everything whatsoever follows.

This _trance_, it may be observed, is of a much more substantial nature

than any of the _visions_. By Paul in his _road vision_,--vision as it

was,--neither _person_ nor _thing_, with the exception of a quantity of

light, was seen: only a voice, _said to be the Lord's_, heard. In this

trance, the Lord is not only heard, but seen. In those visions, that

which is said to have been heard, amounts to nothing: on the present

occasion, what is said to have been heard, is material to the purpose,

and perfectly intelligible. Not that there could be any use in Paul's

_actually_ hearing of it: for what it informed him of, was nothing more

than that which, at the very time, he was in full experience of. But, in

a situation such as his, it was really of use to him, to be _thought_ to

have heard it: and therefore it is, that, in the speech ascribed to him,

he is represented as _saying_ that he heard it.

FOOTNOTES:

[25] In the current chronology, this Epistle to the Galatians is placed

in the year 58; on the part of the author of the Acts, the first mention

of his being in the company of Paul is placed in the year next

following, to wit, 59. Note, that at the end of the Epistle to the

Galatians, it is stated to be written from Rome: yet, according to the

current chronology, his arrival at Rome, in custody, from Jerusalem,--at

which time unquestionably he had never as yet visited Rome,--did not

take place till the year 62.

[26] First time, Acts ii. 45. Second time, Acts iv. 34.

[27] "I conferred not with flesh and blood." (Gal. ii. 16.) "Of those

who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to

me." Not till "after three years" did I go "up to Jerusalem to see

Peter." With language in this strain, it would have harmonized but

indifferently, to have added, "nor should I have seen him then, had it

not been for Barnabas."

CHAPTER V.

_Paul disbelieved_ continued.--_Jerusalem Visit II._

_Money-bringing Visit._--_Barnabas accompanying him from Antioch._

SECTION 1.

AT ANTIOCH, AGABUS HAVING PREDICTED A DEARTH, MONEY IS COLLECTED FOR THE

JERUSALEM SAINTS.

At his own house it was, that we last left our self-declared Apostle: at

his own birthplace--Tarsus: what we have next to see is--what drew him

from thence.

All this while there were other disciples that had not been idle. To the

new religion, already was Antioch, Antioch in Syria, become a new

Jerusalem.

Upon the dispersion of the Jerusalem Christians, occasioned by

the judicial murder of the sainted trustee of the poor's

fund--Stephen,--some of them, among whom were some natives of

Cyprus,--in which island was situated the property of the son of

consolation, Barnabas,--had betaken themselves to that same island,

others to that same city of Antioch in Syria.

ACTS xi. 19-24.

19. Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that

arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and

Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.--And

some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were

come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord

Jesus.--And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number

believed, and turned unto the Lord.--Then tidings of these things

came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they

sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.--Who,

when he came and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and exhorted

them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the

Lord.--For he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith:

and much people was added unto the Lord.

Of these, some addressed themselves exclusively to the _Jews_: others

ventured so far, as to make an experiment upon the _Grecians_.

Unfortunately, these terms are, neither of them, wholly free from

ambiguity. By the word _Jews_, may have been meant either Jews by

_birth_ and _abode_, or Jews by _religion_: by the word _Grecians_,

either Jews who, born or dwelling within the field of quondam Grecian

dominion, used the Greek as their native language,--or Greeks, who were

such, not only by language, but by religion. In this latter case, their

lot was among the Gentiles, and much more extraordinary and conspicuous

was the importance of the success.

"They which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel." Such, in his

own words, 1 Cor. 9:14, is the maxim laid down by Paul, for the

edification of his Corinthian disciples. To save doubts and disputation,

he prefaces it with the assurance--"even so hath the Lord ordained." No

great need of support from revelation, seems to attach upon a maxim so

natural, and so reasonable: from the time of the first planting of the

Gospel, it appears to have been, as indeed it could not fail to be,

universally acted upon; saving such few exceptions as a happy union of

zeal, with sufficient pecuniary means, might render possible.

How, under the Apostolical aristocracy, it had been acted upon in

Jerusalem, has been seen already. The time was now come,--for its being

established, and acted upon in Antioch.

At Jerusalem, under the spiritual dominion of the Apostles,

lived a man of the name of _Agabus_. Among the endowments,--of

which, in the character of _qualifications_, a demand was by some

understood to be created, by the business of propagating the new

religion,--qualifications, a list of which, according to his conception

of it, Paul, 1 Cor. 12:10, has given us,--was one, which, among these

endowments, was called the "_gift of prophecy_":--a gift, under which,

as under that of speech in general, particularly when applied to

occasions of importance, the faculty of _prediction_--of forming correct

judgments respecting future contingencies--would, if not necessarily,

very frequently at least, come to be included.

In the instance of the _prophecy_ here in question, this same

prospective faculty, it should seem, was actually included.

The _fact_, for the purpose of predicting, or giving information of

which, this useful emissary was, on the present occasion, sent from

Jerusalem to Antioch,--was--that of signifying, that there should be a

great dearth: an _inference_ deduced from it, was--that, at this same

Antioch, for the relief of the brethren at Jerusalem, _contributions_

should be collected, and sent to Jerusalem.

ACTS xi. 27-30.

27. And in these days came 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 dearth

throughout all the world; which came to pass in the days of

Claudius Caesar.--Then the disciples, every man according to his

ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in

Judea:--Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands

of Barnabas and Saul.

In the calamity of _dearth_ may be seen one of those events, of

which--especially if the time of it be not predesignated with too rigid

an exactness--a prediction may be hazarded,--and even by any

man,--without much risk of falling under the disgrace attached to the

appellation of _a false prophet_. Of this observation, an

exemplification seems to have been afforded, in the present instance.

With not unaccustomed prudence,--"the spirit," by which, on this

occasion, the calamity was "signified," forbore, as we see, from the

fixation of any particular year--either for the prophecy, or for the

accomplishment of it. "The days of Claudius Caesar" are mentioned as the

time of the accomplishment. By agreement of all chronologists,--the

duration of his reign is stated as occupying not less than thirteen

years. Whether this same reign had then already commenced,--is not, on

this occasion, mentioned: from the manner in which it is mentioned, the

negative seems not improbable; if so, then to find the time which the

prophecy had for finding its accomplishment to the definite term of

thirteen years, we must add another, and that an indefinite one.

According to the situation, of the individuals by whom the word is

employed,--_worlds_ vary in their sizes. Of the dearth in question, the

whole world, "all the world," is, by the author of the Acts, stated as

having been the afflicted theatre: "great dearth throughout all the

world." Acts 11:28. As to the rest of the world, we may leave it to

itself. For the purpose then and now in question, it was and is

sufficient--that two cities, Jerusalem and Antioch, were included in it.

The calamity being thus universal,--no reason of the ordinary kind is

given, or seems discoverable--why, of any such contribution as should

come to be raised, the course should be--from Antioch to Jerusalem,

rather than from Jerusalem to Antioch. Inquired for, however, on

religious ground,--a _reason_ presents itself, without much difficulty.

What Rome became afterwards, Jerusalem was then--the capital of _that

world_, which now, for the first time, received the name of _Christian_.

According to one of the sayings of Jesus--if Paul, his self-appointed

Apostle, is to be trusted to--of them it was pronounced "_more blessed

to give than to receive_":[28] but in the eyes of the successors of St.

Peter at all times,--and at this time, as it should seem, in his own--it

was _more blessed to receive than give_.

SECTION 2.

BARNABAS AND PAUL DISPATCHED WITH THE MONEY TO JERUSALEM.

Of the _amount_ of the eleemosynary harvest, no intimation is to be

found. As to the _consequence_ of it, Barnabas, we see, is the man

stated as having, with obvious propriety, been chosen for the important

trust: Barnabas--of whose opulence, trustworthiness, steadiness, and

zeal, such ample proofs, not to speak of those subsequent ones, which

will be seen in their place, had already manifested themselves. In

consequence of the information, already received by the Mother Church

in Jerusalem, of the prosperity of the Daughter Church, Acts 11:20, 21,

planted, as above, in the capital of Syria,--this most active of all

Christian citizens had been sent to give increase to it.

But, of the talents and activity of Paul, his indefatigable supporter

and powerful patron had had full occasion to be apprized. Accordingly,

without the aid of this his not less indefatigable helper, still was the

strength of the rising church, in the eyes of the patron, incomplete. "A

prophet," says a not ill-grounded proverb, "has no honor in his own

country." In his native city, among the witnesses of his youth, Paul had

indeed found _safety_: but, as the nature of the case manifests, in a

circle, from which respect stood excluded by familiarity, safety had not

been accompanied with _influence_: and, in eyes such as those of Paul,

safety without influence was valueless. Under these circumstances,--the

patron, going to Tarsus in person in quest of his protegé, could not

naturally find much difficulty in regaining possession of him, and

bringing with him the so highly-valued prize, on his return to Antioch.

"Then," says the Acts, 11:25, 26, "departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to

seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch."

At this place, with their united powers, they had been carrying on their

operations for the space of a twelvemonth, when the petition for

pecuniary assistance was received there.

As for Paul,--from the moment of his conversion, notwithstanding the ill

success of his first attempt,--the prime object of his ambition--the

situation of President of the Christian Commonwealth--had never quitted

its hold on his concupiscence. Occasions, for renewing the enterprise,

were still watched for with unabated anxiety:--a more favourable one

than the one herein question, could not have presented itself to his

fondest wishes. The entire produce, of the filial bounty of the Daughter

Church, was now to be poured into the bosom of the necessitous Mother.

For the self-destined head of that rising Church, two more acceptable

occupations, than those which one and the same occasion brought to him,

could not have been found:--First, the collection of the

contributions;--and then the conveying of them, to the place of their

destination. Of the labours of such agents, in such circumstances, the

success, we are told, they found, was a natural result. "Then," says the

Acts 11:29, 30, "Then the disciples, every one according to his ability,

determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea:--Which

also they did; and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and

Saul." Thus much as to the _public_ purpose. Very different was the lot

of Paul's _personal_ project. What the elders could not have any

objection to the receipt of, was--the money. But, what they had an

insuperable objection to, was--the receipt of the yoke of this their

outwardly-converted, but once already rejected, persecutor. This second

enterprise,--though still under the same powerful leader, and produced

by such flattering prospects,--succeeded no better than the first.

Five-and-twenty verses after, we are told of the _termination_ of this

their second Jerusalem visit; and this is all we hear of it: "And

Barnabas and Saul," says the Acts 12:25, "returned from Jerusalem, when

they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose

surname was Mark." This same John Mark they got by their expedition: and

this, for anything that appears, was all they got by it.

Between the mention of their arrival at Jerusalem, and the mention of

their departure from thence,--comes the episode about Peter:--his

incarceration and liberation under Herod; and the extraordinary death of

the royal prosecutor,--of which, in its place. As to the interval,--what

the length of it was, and in what manner, by Paul, under the wing of the

Son of Consolation, it was occupied,--are points, on which we are left

altogether in the dark: as also, whether the _time_ of these adventures

of Peter, the _mention_ of which stands inserted between the mention of

the two occurrences in the history of Paul, was comprised in that same

interval.

FOOTNOTES:

[28] Acts 20:35. It is in the parting scene--when about to break from

his dissuading disciples, and enter upon his invasion project--that Paul

is represented as saying to them: "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus,

how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Whence this

self-appointed and posthumous Apostle of Jesus got these words of

Jesus--if such they were--must be left to conjecture. In the works of

the four received biographers of Jesus, with _Cruden_ and his

_Concordance_ for guides, all search for them has been fruitless.

CHAPTER VI.

_Paul disbelieved continued.--His third Jerusalem Visit.--Paul and

Barnabas delegated by Antioch Saints, to confer on the Necessity of

Jewish Rites to Heathen Converts to the Religion of Jesus._

SECTION 1.

OCCASION OF THIS VISIT.

We come now to the transaction, on the occasion of which, the grand

object of Paul's ambition received, in part, its accomplishment: namely,

that, by which,--though without any such popular election as, in the

instance of Matthias, had been necessary to constitute a man an

associate to the Apostles,--he was, in some sort, taken by them into

fellowship, and admitted, with their consent, into a participation of

their labours.

This occasion was--the dispute, which, in the Syrian Antioch, took

place, according to the author of the Acts, on the question--whether,

under the religion of Jesus, circumcision was necessary to salvation: a

question, in which,--whether explicitly or no,--was implicitly, it

should seem, and perhaps inextricably, understood to be involved, the so

much wider question--whether, under that same new religion, the old

ceremonial law should, in any part of it, be regarded as necessary.

On this same occasion, two important subjects present themselves to view

at the same time: the one, a question of _doctrine_ relative to

circumcision, as above; the other, a question about _jurisdiction_, as

between Paul on the one part, and Peter, with or without the rest of the

Apostles.

As to what concerns the debate about circumcision, we have no other

evidence than the statement of the author of the Acts.

As to what concerns the jurisdiction question, we have the evidence of

Paul himself, as contained in his letter to the Galatian converts: and

an original letter, howsoever dubious the correctness of the author in

respect of matters of fact, is more trustworthy than a multitude of

anonymous narratives.[29]

In respect of the progress made by the religion of Jesus,--Antioch, it

has already been observed--the Syrian Antioch--had become a second

Jerusalem; and, so far as concerned the Gentiles at large, its maritime

situation gave to it a convenience, that was not shared with it by that

inland city.

At the time here in question,--the Gentiles had received more or less of

instruction, from three different sets of teachers:--1. from the

disciples who had been driven from Jerusalem by the tragical death of

Saint Stephen; 2. from Saint Peter, principally on the occasion of the

excursion made by him to Lydda, Saron, Joppa, and Cæsarea; and 3. from

Paul and Barnabas, on the occasion, and by the means, of the long tour,

made by them for that special purpose, as above.

At this maritime metropolis of the faith, the new religion was spreading

itself,--and, as far at least as depended on exemption from all

disturbance from without, in a state of peace and tranquility;--when, by

a set of _nameless_ men from Judea,--if to the author of the Acts credit

is to be given on this point, for by him no mention is made of any one

of their names,--the harmony of the Church was disturbed.

Converts as they were to the religion of Jesus, yet,--in their view of

the matter, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, without

circumcision, no salvation was to be had.

By Paul it is said, "they came from James," Gal. 2:12, which is as much

as to say that they were sent by James: and accordingly, when James's

speech is seen, by him will these scruples of theirs be seen advocated.

If the Gospel history, as delivered by the Evangelists, is to be

believed,--nothing could be more inconsistent, on many occasions with

the practice, and at length with the direct precepts, of Jesus, than

this deference to the Mosaic law: if human prudence is to be

regarded,--nothing could be more impolitic--nothing more likely to

narrow, instead of extending, the dominion of the Church. On this

principle, no man who was not born a Jew, could be a Christian without

first becoming a Jew, without embracing the Mosaic law; and thus loading

himself with two different, and mutually inconsistent, sets of

obligations.

From Paul, this conceit,--as was natural,--experienced a strenuous

resistance. No recognition as yet had Paul received, from the body of

the Apostles. In Jerusalem, for anything that appears,--though this was

at least seventeen years after the death of Jesus--they remained

alive--all of them:--at any rate the two chiefs of them, if Paul is to

be believed, who, Gal. i. 19, says he saw them, namely, Saint Peter "and

James, the Lord's brother": which two, he says, he saw, out of a number,

the rest of whom, he studiously assures his Galatians that he did not

see: though by his historiographer, Acts 15:4, by his all-comprehensive

expression, "_the Apostles_," we are desired to believe, that he saw all

of them.[30] Whichever be the truth,--at Jerusalem, the metropolis of

Judaism, no employment could, under these circumstances, be reasonably

expected for Paul: whereas, _out_ of Judea,--wherever the language of

Greece was the mother tongue, or familiarly spoken,--the advantage,

which, in every address to the Gentiles, he would have over those

unlearned Jews, was universally manifest.

Such, however, were the impressions, made by these unnamed manufacturers

and disseminators of scruples, who, if Paul is to be believed, came from

James the brother of our Lord--that, by the whole Church, as it is

called, of Antioch, a determination was taken--to send to Jerusalem, to

the Apostles and the Elders that were associated with them, a numerous

mission, headed by Paul and Barnabas, who are the only two persons

named. Accordingly, out they set, "after having been brought on their

way," says the author of the Acts, 15:3, "by the _Church_," which is as

much as to say, by the whole fraternity of Christians there established.

SECTION 2.

THE DELEGATES HOW RECEIVED.--COUNCIL OF APOSTLES AND ELDERS.

Against the pretensions of a man thus supported, vain, on the part of

the original and real Apostles, would have been any attempt, to resist

the pretensions of this their self-constituted rival: they, Barnabas and

Paul, were received, says the author of the Acts, of the Church and of

the Apostles and Elders.[31]

Arrived at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas told their own story--related

their adventures and experiences--declared, to use the language of the

Acts 15:4, all things that God had done unto them.

* * * * *

Notwithstanding the utmost exertion of Paul's ever-ready

eloquence,--some, it is stated, there were, who, believers as, in a

certain sort, they were in the religion of Jesus,--were not to be

persuaded, to give up so much as a single tittle of the Mosaic law:

these were, as it was natural they should be, of the sect of Pharisees.

"There rose up," says the Acts 15:5, "certain of the sect of the

Pharisees which believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them

(the Gentiles), and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

* * * * *

Of these private discussions, the result was--the convocation of an

assembly of the managing body, in which, associated with the Apostles,

we find others--under the name of _Elders_.

How, on an occasion, on which the proposed subject of determination was

a question of such cardinal importance to the religion of Jesus;--how it

should have come to pass, that the Apostles, to whom alone, and by whom

alone, the whole tenor of the acts and sayings of Jesus had been made

known--made known by an uninterrupted habit of exclusive intimacy, and

especially during the short but momentous interval between his

resurrection and ascension;--how it should have happened, that, to the

Apostles, any other persons not possessed of these first of all titles

to credence and influence, should have come to be associated,--is not

mentioned. Upon no other authority than that of this author, are we to

believe it to be true? On the supposition of its being true,--there

seems to be, humanly speaking, but one way to account for it. That which

the Apostles, and they alone, _could_ contribute to the cause, was--the

authority and the evidence resulting from that peculiar intimacy: what

they could _not_ contribute was--money and influence derived from

ordinary and external sources: to the exclusive possession of these

latter titles to regard, will, therefore, it should seem, be to be

ascribed, supposing it credited, the circumstance of an incorporation

otherwise so incongruous.

"Received," say the Acts 15:4, they were.--But by whom received?--By the

Church, by the Apostles, by the Elders, says that same history in that

same place. By _the_ Apostles: to wit--so as any one would conclude--by

_all_ the Apostles--by the whole fellowship of Apostles.

* * * * *

Whether in any, and, if so, in what degree that conclusion is correct,

we have no determinate means of knowing.

* * * * *

If, however, it was so to the utmost,--nothing appears in favor of the

notion, that between Paul on the one part, and the Apostles and their

disciples on the other, there existed at this time any real harmony.

For, in what character was it that he made his appearance? In that of a

commissioned envoy, from the whole body of the Church, established in

that station, which was next in importance to Jerusalem, to which he was

sent. And who was it that, at that time, as on both the former times,

he, Paul, had in his company? Still his constant patron and associate

Barnabas--the munificent friend and patron of that church which he was

visiting--the indefatigable Barnabas.

By Paul himself, in his Epistle to the Galatians, 2:9, 10, 11, the idea

of any such extensive cordiality,--say rather of cordiality to any the

smallest extent,--is pretty plainly negatived.[32] On that occasion, it

was that of the Partition Treaty, what his interest required was--that,

on the part of the Apostles and their disciples, the concurrence given

to it, should appear as extensive as possible. If then they had all of

them, really and personally concurred in it,--or even if the contrary

had not been notorious, this is the conception which he would have been

forward to convey and inculcate. No such notion, however, does he

venture to convey. When speaking of them in general terms--of no

affection on either side, more kindly than that of ill humor, does he

give any intimation. Gal. 2:6. "Of those who seemed to be somewhat,

whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepted no man's

person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing

to me."

When, again, he comes to speak of the sort of intercourse, such as it

was, which he had with the Apostles,--who are the persons that he speaks

of? All the Apostles? the body of the Apostles in general?--No: James,

Cephas, the Hebrew name of which Peter is a translation, and John: these

three, and no more. These are the men, whom, to him Paul and his

protector Barnabas in conjunction, he on that same occasion speaks of,

as "giving the right hand of fellowship:" to wit, for the purpose of the

Partition Treaty, the terms of which immediately follow.

And, even of these men, in what way does he speak? As of men "who seemed

to be pillars:" so that, as to what concerned the rest of the Apostles,

he found himself reduced to speak no otherwise than by conjecture. And

this same "right hand of fellowship"--what was their inducement for

giving it?--It was, says he, that "they perceived the grace that was

given unto me": _i.e._, in plain language, and ungrounded pretension

apart,--the power, which they saw he had, of doing mischief:--of

passing, from the character of a jealous and restless rival, into that

of a declared enemy: into that character, in which he had originally

appeared, and with such disastrous effect.

Immediately after this comes the mention of the visit, made by Peter to

Antioch: and therefore it is, that, no sooner is Peter--that chief of

the Apostles of Jesus--mentioned,--than he is mentioned, as a man whom

this Paul "withstood to his face, because he was to be blamed." Gal.

2:11.

Peter was to be blamed: those other Jews that were come to Antioch from

James--they were to be blamed. Barnabas, under whose powerful

protection,--by the Church at Jerusalem, her justly odious persecutor

had, at three different times, been endured,--he too was to be blamed.

He too was, at that time, to be blamed; and, as will be seen presently

after, openly quarrelled with; and, if on this point the Acts are to be

believed, parted with. Acts 15:39. "And the contention was so sharp

between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so

Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus."

SECTION 3.

DEBATES--COURSE CARRIED BY JAMES AGAINST PETER.

Of what passed at this assembly, the only account we have--the account

given to us by the author of the Acts--is curious:--curious at any rate;

and whether it be in every particular circumstance true or not,--in so

far as it can be depended upon, instructive.[33]

We have the persons mentioned as having spoken: they are, in the order

in which they are here enumerated, these four:--to wit, Peter, Barnabas,

Paul and James. Of the speech of Peter, the particulars are given: so

likewise of that of James: of Barnabas and Paul, nothing more than the

topic.

Against the Mosaic law _in toto_, we find Peter; and such contribution

as he is represented as furnishing to this side of the cause in the

shape of argument. On the same side, were Barnabas and Paul: what they

furnished was matter of fact:--namely, in the language of the Acts,

"what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by

them:"--in plain language, the success they had met with among the

Gentiles.

On this question, on the side of the chief of the Apostles, were--the

manifest interest of the religion of Jesus as to extent of

diffusion,--the authority derived from situation,--the express command

of Jesus as delivered in the Gospel history,--and Jesus' own practice:

not to speak of the inutility and unreasonableness of the observances

themselves. Yet, as far as appears from the author of the Acts,--of

these arguments, conclusive as they would or at least should have

been,--it appears not that any use was made: the success, he spoke of as

having been experienced by himself among the Gentiles,--in this may be

seen the sole argument employed in Peter's speech. Thus,--in so far as

this report is to be believed,--thus, upon their own respective

achievements, did,--not only Paul but Peter,--rest, each of them, the

whole strength of the cause.

Spite of reason, religion, and Jesus, the victory is in this account,

given to James--to Jesus' kinsman, James. The motion is carried: the

course proposed, is a sort of middle course--a sort of compromise. At

the hands of Gentile proselytes, in deference to the Mosaic law,

abstinence from four things is required: namely, meats offered to

idols, blood, things strangled: these, and the irregularities of the

sexual appetite,--whatsoever they were, that were meant by the word,

rendered into English by the word _fornication_.

If any such decision were really come to,--by nothing but

necessity--necessity produced by the circumstances of place and

time--will it be found excusable. Abstinence from food killed in the way

of sacrifice to heathen gods, on the occasion of public sacrifices: yes;

for, for such food, little relish could remain, on the part of persons

devoted to the religion of Jesus: from fornication, yes; for, for a

sacrifice in this shape, even among the Gentiles, some preparation had

been made by stoicism. But, as to blood and things strangled,[34] that

is to say, animals so slaughtered as to have more blood left in their

carcasses than the Mosaic law would allow to be left in them--animals

slaughtered otherwise than in the Jewish manner,--thus forbidding

teachings of the religion of Jesus, to eat a meal furnished by Gentile

hands,--this, as above observed, was depriving them of their most

favourable opportunities, for carrying their pious and beneficent

purposes into effect, by adding to the number of believers.

Altogether remarkable is the consideration, upon the face of it, by

which, if the historian is to be believed, this decision was produced.

"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being

read in synagogues every sabbath day," Acts 15:21. May be so: but what

if he has? what is that to the purpose? Good, if the question were about

the Jews: but, it is _not_ about the Jews: the Gentiles, and they only,

are the subjects of it. And the Gentiles--what know or care _they_ about

Moses? what is it that is to send _them_ into the synagogues, to hear

anything that is "read in synagogues"?

By this imaginary abstinence from blood,--for, after all, by no exertion

of Mosaic ingenuity could the flesh ever be completely divested of the

blood that had circulated in it,--of this perfectly useless prohibition,

what would be the effect?--Not only to oppose obstacles, to the

exertions of Christian teachers, in their endeavors to make converts

among the Gentiles,--but, on the part of the Gentiles themselves to

oppose to them a needless difficulty, in the way of their conversion, by

rendering it impossible for them, consistently with the observance of

this prohibition, to associate with their unconverted friends and

families at convivial hours. Thus much as to what concerns the

Gentiles.[35]

Since, and from that time, the religion of Jesus has spread itself:--we

all see to what extent. Spread itself: and by what means? By means of

the decision thus fathered upon the Apostles? Upon the Apostles, the

Elders, and the whole Church?--No: but in spite of it, and by the

neglect of it.

Charged with a letter, containing this decision, did Paul, together with

his friend Barnabas, return from Jerusalem,--if the author of the Acts

is to be believed,--to the society of Christian converts, by which he

had been sent thither: charged with this letter, carrying with it the

authority of the whole fellowship of the Apostles. Paul himself--he

Paul--what sort of regard did he pay to it? _He wrote against it with

all his might._ No more Jewish rites! No more Mosaic law! Such is the

cry, that animates the whole body of those writings of his which have

reached us.

SECTION 4.

RESULT, SUPPOSED APOSTOLIC DECREE AND LETTER TO ANTIOCH, WHICH, PER

ACTS, PAUL CIRCULATES.

Of a decision, agreed upon and pronounced to the above effect--a

decision expressed by a decree;--and of a copy of that decree, included

in and prefaced by a letter addressed to the saints at Antioch,--were

Paul and Barnabas, along with others who were associated with them, on

their return to that city, the bearers:--that is to say, if, as to these

matters, credence is given, to the statement, made by the author of the

Acts; by whom the alleged decree and letter are given, in words, which,

according to him, were their very words:--these words are those which

follow:

ACTS 15:22 to 32.

22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church,

to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and

Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.--And they wrote

letters by them after this manner: The Apostles and elders, and

brethren, _send_ greeting unto the brethren which are of the

Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.--Forasmuch as we have

heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with

words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye _must_ be circumcised, and

keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:--It seemed good

unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men 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 shall also tell you the same things

by 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 meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from

things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep

yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.--So when they were

dismissed, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the

multitude together, they delivered the epistle.--_Which_ when they

had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.--And Judas and Silas,

being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many

words, and confirmed _them_.

Supposing it genuine,--a most curious, important and interesting

document, this letter and decree must be allowed to be. Supposing it

genuine: and, in favor of its genuineness, reasons present themselves,

which, so long as they remain unopposed, and no preponderating reasons

in support of the contrary opinion are produced, must decide our

judgment.

Not long after the account of the acceptance given at Antioch to this

decision,--comes that of a conjunct missionary excursion from that place

made by Paul, with Timotheus, and perhaps Silas, for his companion. At

the very commencement of this excursion--if, in the decree spoken of,

this decree is to be understood as included; and there seems no reason

why it should not be, they are represented as taking an active part in

the distribution of it. Acts 16:4. "And says the historian, as they"

(Paul, &c.) "went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees

for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders that were at

Jerusalem."

That, by Paul, this token, of association with the Apostles, should at

that time be exhibited and made manifest, seems altogether natural. It

affords a further proof, of the need, which, at that period of his

labors, he regarded himself as having, of the appearance--the outward

signs at least--of a connection with the Apostles.

True, it is, that the persuasion of any such need is altogether

inconsistent with that independence, which, in such precise and lofty

terms, we have seen him declaring in his Epistle to his Galatians,--is

sufficiently manifest. But, in the current chronology, the date,

ascribed to that Epistle, is by five years posterior, to the date

ascribed to the commencement of this excursion: date of the excursion,

A.D. 53; date of the Epistle, A.D. 58: difference, five years: and five

years are not too great a number of years, for the experience of success

and prosperity, to have raised to so high a pitch, the temperature of

his mind.[36]

Even before this time, we find him even outstretching the concessions,

which, in that decree, in the case of the Gentiles, in compliance with

the scruples of the Jewish disciples they had to deal with, we have been

seeing made by the Apostles, in favor of the Mosaic law.

Abstinence--from meat offered to idols, from blood, from things

strangled, and from fornication--composed all the Mosaic observances

exacted in that decree. To these, he, in his practice, at this time,

added another, and _that_, in respect of extent, in a prodigious degree

a more important one: to wit, the submitting to circumcision. For, to

this painful observance,--in which a submission to all the other Mosaic

observances was implied,--he had already subjected his new convert

Timotheus, whom, in this excursion, in addition to Silas, he took with

him for a companion. Born of a Greek father as he was,--adult as he

was,--he took him, says the historian, and circumcised him. Circumcised

him--and why?--"_Because of the Jews, which were in those

quarters._"[37]

FOOTNOTES:

[29] Acts xv. 1 to 4:--"1. And certain men which came down from Judea,

taught the brethren, _and said_, Except ye be circumised after the

manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.--2. When therefore Paul and

Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they

determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go

up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question.--3.

And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through

Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they

caused great joy unto all the brethren.--4. And when they were come to

Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and

Elders; and they declared all things that God had done with them."

[30] Gal. i. 18, 19. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to

see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.--9. But other of the

Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Acts 15:4. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of

the Church, and of _the_ Apostles and Elders; and they declared all

things that God had done with them."

The cause of this contrariety lies not far beneath the surface. Paul had

one object in view; his historiographer another. In the two passages,

they wrote at distant times, and with different purposes. In his address

to his Galatian disciples, Paul's object was to magnify his own

importance at the expense of that of the Apostles: to establish the

persuasion, not only of his independence of them, but of his superiority

over them. The generality of them were not worth his notice; but having

some business to settle with them, Peter, the chief of them, he "went"

to see, and James, as being "the Lord's brother," he vouchsafed to see.

On that particular occasion, such was the conception which Paul was

labouring to produce: and such, accordingly, was his discourse. As for

the historiographer, his object was, of course, throughout, to place the

importance of his hero on as high a ground as possible. But, in this

view, when once Paul had come to a settlement with the Apostles, the

more universal the acceptance understood to have been received by

him--received from the whole body of Christians, and from those their

illustrious leaders in particular,--the better adapted to this his

historiographer's general purposes would be the conception thus

conveyed: accordingly they were received, he says, "of the Church, and

the Apostles, and Elders."

[31] Acts xv. 4. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were

received of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders, and they declared

all things that God had done unto them."

[32] Gal. ii. 6. "But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever

they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for

they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.--And

when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the

grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right

hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto

the circumcision.--Only they would that we should remember the poor; the

same which I also was forward to do.--But when Peter was come to

Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

[33] Acts 15:5-21. 5. "But there rose up certain of the sect of the

Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise

them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.--And the Apostles

and Elders came together for to consider of this matter.--And when there

had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and

brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,

that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and

believe.--And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving

them the Holy Ghost, even as _he did_ unto us;--And put no difference

between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.--Now therefore why

tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which

neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?--But we believe that

through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as

they.--Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to

Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought

among the Gentiles by them.--And after they had held their peace, James

answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:--Simon hath

declared how God at the first 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 this I will return, and will build

again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build

again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:--That the residue of men

might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is

called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.--Known unto God are

all his works from the beginning of the world.--Wherefore my sentence

is,--that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned

to God:--But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions

of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from

blood.--For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,

being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

[34] After the word blood, the mention made of things strangled seems to

have been rather for explanation than as a separate ordinance. Of

strangling, instead of bleeding in the Jewish style,--what the effect

would be, other than that of retaining blood, which the Mosaic ordinance

required should be let out, is not very apparent.

[35] Another observation there is that applies even to the Jews. By

Moses were all these several things forbidden. True: but so were a vast

multitude of other things, from, which (after the exceptions here in

question) the prohibition is, by this decision, taken off. These things,

still proposed to be prohibited, as often as they entered a synagogue,

they would hear prohibited: but, so would they all those other things,

which, by this decision, are left free.

[36] In the account of this excursion, Galatia--now mentioned for the

first time in the Acts,--is mentioned, in the number of the countries,

which, in the course of it, he visited. It stands fourth: the preceding

places being Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Phrygia. Acts 16:1 to 6. In Acts

18:23, "He ... went over [all] Galatia ... strengthening the disciples."

[37] Acts 16:1 to 3. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a

certain disciple was there named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman,

which was a Jewess and believed: but his father was a Greek:--Which was

well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.--Him

would Paul have to go forth to him, and took and circumcised him,

because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that

his father was a Greek.

CHAPTER VII.

_Paul disbelieved continued.--After His Third Jerusalem Visit,

Contest Between Him and Peter at Antioch._ PARTITION TREATY: PAUL

_for Himself_: PETER, JAMES _and_ JOHN, _for the Apostles_.

SECTION 1.

CONTEST AND PARTITION TREATY, AS PER ACTS, AND PAUL'S EPISTLES.

GALATIANS ii. 1 to 16.

1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with

Barnabas, and took Titus with _me_ also.--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.--But neither

Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be

circumcised:--and that because of false brethren unawares 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 by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of

the Gospel might continue with you.--But of those who seemed to be

somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God

accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in

conference added nothing to me;--but contrariwise, when they saw

that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, _as

the gospel_ of the circumcision _was_ unto Peter;--For he that

wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the

circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:--and

when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived

the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the

right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and

they unto the circumcision.--Only they would that we should

remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.--But

_when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face_,

because he was to be blamed.--For before that certain came from

James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he

withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the

circumcision.--And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;

insomuch that Barnabas also 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 Peter before them

all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and

not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do

the Jews?--We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the

Gentiles,--knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the

law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in

Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,

and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall

no flesh be justified.

So much for the question about Jewish rites.

We come now to the state of affairs between Paul and Peter. Concerning

this, we have little, as hath been seen, from the author of the Acts:

from Paul himself, not much: but what there is of it is of prime

importance.

On this occasion, to judge from the account given in the Acts,--between

Paul and Peter, all was harmony. In their principles, in their speeches,

they may be seen pleading on the same side: arguing, and arguing in

vain, both of them against the superior influence of James: of that

James, of whose written works, in comparison of those we have from Paul,

we have so little. But presently, on one side at least,--we shall see

contention--preserving contention--and rival ambition, for the cause of

it.

In this pregnant and instructive letter,--Paul's second letter to his

Galatians,--the authenticity of which seems to be altogether out of the

reach of doubt,--among the particulars, that bear relation to this the

third visit, the following are those, by which the greatest share of

attention seems demanded at our hands.

In the first place, let us view them in the order in which they _stand_:

that done, the degree of _importance_ may determine the order in which

they are _considered_.

1. Fourteen is the number of years, between this third visit of his to

Jerusalem, reckoning either from the first of his visits made to that

same holy place after his conversion, or from his departure from

Damascus after his return thither from Arabia.

2. On this journey of his to Jerusalem, he has with him not only

Barnabas, as mentioned in the Acts, but _Titus_, of whom no mention is

there made.

3. It is by revelation, that this journey of his was undertaken.

4. The Gospel, which he then and there preaches, is a Gospel of his own.

5. Private at the same time, and for reasons thereupon given, is his

mode of communicating it.

6. Titus, though at his disposal, he leaves uncircumcised.

7. _False brethren_ is the appellation he bestows upon those, who, on

this occasion, standing up for the Mosaic law, give occasion to this

debate.

8. Elders, Apostles, kinsmen of Jesus,--be they who they may,--he, Paul,

is not on this occasion a man to give place to any such persons: to give

place by _subjection_: say rather in the way of _subordination_.

9. Unnamed are the persons, on whom the vituperation he discharges, is

poured forth. Thus much only is said of them: namely, verse 12, that

they "came from James," the brother of our Lord. Contemptuous throughout

is the manner in which he speaks of all those persons whom he does not

name. Quere, Who are they, to whom, in everything that goes before that

same verse, he is alluding? It seems from thence, that it was with

James, from whom they received support, that those scruples of theirs,

out of which sprung these differences and negotiations, originated.

10. Leaving the Jews to Peter--he claims to himself as his own the whole

population of the Gentiles.

11. To this effect, an explicit agreement was actually entered into;

parties, he and Barnabas of the one part; James, Peter, by his Hebrew

surname of Cephas, and John, of the other part.

12. Of this agreement, one condition was--that, of such pecuniary

profit, as should be among the fruits of the labors of Paul among the

Gentiles, a part should be remitted, to be at the disposal of Peter.

13. Paul, at the time of this visit, stood up against Peter.

14. The cause, of his doing so, was--an alleged weakness and

inconsistency in the conduct of Peter, and his gaining to his side--not

only Jews of inferior account, but Barnabas.

15. The weakness and inconsistency consisted in this: viz: that whereas

he himself had been in use to act with the Gentiles, yet after the

arrival at Antioch of those who came from James at Jerusalem,--he from

fear of the Jewish converts, not only ceased to eat with the Gentiles,

but to the extent of his influence forced the Gentile converts to live

after the manner of the Jews.

16. On the occasion of this his dispute with Peter, he gave it

explicitly as his opinion,--that, to a convert to the religion of Jesus,

Jew or Gentile,--observance of the Mosaic law would, as to everything

peculiar to it, be useless, not to say worse than useless, Gal. 2:16,

"for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

1. As to his place in relation to the Apostles. His was not inferior to

anybody's: upon terms altogether equal did he treat with the Apostles:

in and by the first partition treaty,--he, with Barnabas for his

colleague,--Barnabas, from whom, according to the Acts, he afterwards

separated,--obtains the whole of the Gentile world for the field of

their labors. Thus elevated, according to his account of the matter, was

the situation, occupied by him on the occasion of this his third visit

to Jerusalem, in comparison of what it had been at the time of his

first,--and, to all appearance, at the time of the second. At the time

of his first visit, the Apostles,--all but Peter and James, upon which

two Barnabas forced him,--turned their backs upon him: upon his second

visit, none of them, as far as appears, had anything to do with him:

now, upon his third visit, they deal with him upon equal terms: and now,

not only Peter and James, but John, are stated as having intercourse

with him.

2. Of this partition treaty, important as it is, no mention is to be

found in the Acts. From first to last,--in the account given in the

Acts, no such figure does he make as in his own. In the Acts, of the

speech of Peter, and even of that of James, the substance is reported:

of Paul's, nothing more than the subject: viz. his own achievements

among the Gentiles: against Paul's opinion, as well as Peter's, the

compromise, moved by James, is represented as carried.

3. As to the cause, or occasion, of his third visit to Jerusalem. In the

account given in the Acts, it is particularly and clearly enough

explained. It is in conjunction with Barnabas that he goes thither: both

of them, to confer with the Apostles and elders, on the subject of the

notion, entertained by numbers among the Jewish converts, that, by

conversion to the religion of Jesus, they were not set free from any of

the obligations imposed by the law of Moses.

Of this commission,--creditable as it could not but have been to

him,--Paul, in his account of the matter, as given to the Galatians,

makes not the least mention. No: it is not from men on this occasion nor

on others, it is not from men, that he received his authority, but from

God: it is by revelation, that is, immediately from God, and by a sort

of miracle.

4. What, in obedience to this revelation, he was to do, and did

accordingly, was,--the preaching of a gospel of his own; a gospel which

as yet he had not preached to any body but the Gentiles. Preaching? how

and where? in an assembly of the whole body of the believers in Jesus,

the Apostles themselves included? No: but privately, and only to the

leading men among them: "to them which were of reputation."

A gospel of his own? Yes: that he did. Further on, it will be seen what

it was: a Gospel, of which, as far as appears from the evangelists, no

traces are to be found, in anything said by Jesus: especially, if what,

on that occasion, he, Paul, taught by word of mouth at Antioch, agreed

with what we shall find him teaching in his Epistles.

5. "False brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out

our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring up into

bondage." Liberty? what liberty? evidently that liberty which consisted

in exemption from the ceremonials of the Mosaic law. Who then were these

false brethren, these sticklers for the ceremonial law? If the account

in the Acts is to be believed,--they were the greater part of the

fraternity of Christians in Jerusalem: a party so considerable, that

Peter, the chief of the Apostles, though in his sentiments on this

subject so decidedly and completely opposite to them, was obliged to

give way to it: and, as to several of the obligations,--by which, as

above stated, no small obstacle was opposed to the progress of the

religion of Jesus,--the whole body of the Apostles found themselves

under the like necessity. If he himself is to be believed, Gal. 2:12,

the men in question were men, who, if they continued in those scruples

in which they went beyond the brother of our Lord, had, at any rate, in

the first instance, received from that highly distinguished personage

their instructions. And shortly after this, Acts 16:3, in deference to

this party, Paul himself "took Timothy, a Gentile, and circumcised

him." But, supposing the public transactions, thus reported in the

history of the author of the Acts, to have really had place;--namely,

mission of Paul and Barnabas, from the Christians of Antioch to

Jerusalem,--mission of Judas Barsabas and Silas, from the Apostles and

elders, with Paul and Barnabas in their company, to Antioch,--letter of

the Apostles and elders sent by them to the Christians of Antioch,--all

this supposed, how erroneous soever in their opinions, in affirmance of

the obligatoriness of these ceremonials,--this majority, to whose

scruples the whole body of the Apostles saw reason to give way,--could

they, by this self-intruded convert, be considered as persons to whom

the epithet of _false brethren_, would be admitted to be applicable?

6. Does it not seem, rather, that this story, about the deputation of

Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and brethren at Jerusalem from the

Apostles at Antioch, and the counter deputation of Judas Barsabas, and

Silas, to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return to Antioch,

bearing all of them together a letter from the Apostles at

Jerusalem,--was an invention of the anonymous author of the Acts? or

else a story, either altogether false, or false in great part, picked up

by him, and thus inserted?

7. Mark now, in this letter of Paul, another circumstance: and judge

whether it tends not to cast discredit on what is said of Peter in the

Acts.

In the Acts account we have seen Peter in the great council, supporting,

in a sort of speech, the liberty side--of the question,--Jesus against

Moses,--supporting it in the great council, in which, in that same

account, Paul, though present, is, as to that point, represented as

silent: in that same account, shall we see Peter, five years before this

time, addressing himself to the Gentiles,--using this same

liberty,--and, when called to account for doing so, employing _his_ pair

of visions, his and Cornelius's, Acts 10:30-41, in and for his defence:

we shall see him in this new part of his career,--in this part, for

which he was by both education and habits of life so ill qualified,--we

shall see him so much in earliest in this part of his labors, as to have

expended miracles,--a supernatural cure, and even a raising from the

dead,--for his support in it.

Had any such facts really happened--facts in their nature so

notorious,--would Paul, in this letter of his to the Galatians, have

spoken of Peter, as if he had never made, or attempted to make, any

progress in the conversion of the Gentiles? Speaking of the sticklers

for Moses, as well as of Peter,--would he have said "When they saw that

the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of

the circumcision was to Peter?" Gal. 2:7, "For he that wrought

effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, the same

was mighty in me toward the Gentiles?"

That, in some way or other, Peter had tried his hand upon some persons

who were Gentiles--in this there is nothing but what may well enough be

believed: provided it be also believed--that, in the experiment so made

by him, he had little or no success:--for, that after the expenditure of

two such miracles of so public a nature, besides a pair of visions,--he

had after all made so poor a hand of it, as to be content to give up to

Paul the whole of his prospects from that quarter,--does it seem

credible?

8. As to the partition-treaty itself,--whatsoever were the incidents

that had brought it about, nothing could be more natural--nothing more

probable--nothing more beneficial to the common cause--to the religion

of Jesus, meaning always so far as the religion taught by Paul was

comfortable to it. Each retained to himself the only part of the field,

for the cultivation of which he was qualified: each gave up no other

part of the field, than that, for the cultivation of which he was _not_

qualified.

9. Gal. 2:12. "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with

the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated

himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

10. "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the

uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision

was unto Peter.

11. "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,

perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas

the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and

they unto the circumcision.

12. Gal. 2:10. "Only they would that we should remember the poor; the

same which I also was forward to do.

13. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,

because he was to be blamed.

14. "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the

Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself,

fearing them which were of the circumcision.--And the other Jews

dissembled likewise with him: insomuch that Barnabas also was carried

away with their dissimulation.

15. "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the

truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a

Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why

compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

16. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by

the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that

we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of

the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Note, in this same letter, the mention made of Peter's eating with the

Gentiles. "For before that certain came from James, he, Peter, did eat

with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated

himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

Note here, an additional reason for discrediting the whole story of

Peter's expedition,--_miracles_ and visions included,--as reported in

the Acts. In regard to the _visions_,--from this circumstance it may be

seen, that either no such visions were, as stated in the Acts 11:1-13,

related by Peter, on his defence against the accusations preferred

against him on this ground,--or that, if any such relation was given, no

credit was given to it: for, it is after this, and, according to

appearance, long after,--that, according to the Acts 15:1-33, not less

than five years after, the meeting at Jerusalem took place; that

meeting, at which, at the motion of James, the adherence to the Mosaic

law was indeed in part dispensed with; but, so far as regards the

practice charged upon Peter as an offence,--namely the eating with the

Gentiles, insisted on and ordained.

If Paul's evidence was good and conclusive evidence in support of Paul's

visions,--how came Peter's evidence not to be received as good and

conclusive evidence in support of Peter's visions? Paul's evidence, with

the visions reported by it, was not better evidence, in support of his

claim to the Apostleship,--than Peter's visions, if the account in the

Acts is to be believed, in support of the abrogation of the Mosaic law.

Yet, as, according to the author of the Acts, by Paul's account of his

visions, the Apostles were not any of them convinced; so here, according

to Paul, by Peter's account of his visions, if ever really related to

the fellowship of the Apostles, and to the elders,--their

associates,--that same goodly fellowship was not convinced.

SECTION 2.

PARTITION-TREATY--PROBABILITY GIVEN, BY THE FINANCIAL STIPULATION, TO

PAUL'S ACCOUNT OF IT.

Of this important treaty, mention may have been seen above. In the

financial stipulation which may have been observed in it,--may be seen a

circumstance, by which an additional degree of credibility seems to be

given, to Paul's account of the transaction; at the same time that light

is thrown upon the nature of it. Paul alone, with his adherents, were to

address themselves to the Gentiles: but, in return for the countenance

given to him by Peter and the rest of the Apostles, he was to _remember

the poor_; which is what, says he, "I also was forward to do." Now, as

to the remembering the poor, what is meant by it at this time of day,

was meant by it at that time of day, or it would not have been meant by

it at this:--supplying money, need it be added? for the use of the poor.

Whatsoever, in relation to this money, was the intention of the

rulers,--whether to retain any part in compensation for their own

trouble, or to distribute among the poor the whole of it, without

deduction;--in other words, whether profit as well as patronage,--or

patronage alone, and without profit,--was to be the fruit;--human nature

must, in this instance, have ceased to be human nature, if, to the men

in question--Apostles as they were--the money could have been altogether

an object of indifference. According to a statement, to which, as above,

ch. ii., though contained in this anonymous history, there seems no

reason to refuse credence,--community of goods--a principle, even now,

in these days, acted upon by the Moravian Christians--was a principle,

acted upon in those days, by the Jewish Christians. The property of each

was thrown into one common stock: and the disposal of it was committed

to a set of trustees, who--it is positively related--were confirmed,

and, to all appearance, were recommended by,--and continued to act under

the influence of,--the Apostles.

On neither side were motives of the ordinary human complexion--motives

by which man's nature was made to be governed--wanting, to the

contracting parties. By Peter and the rest of the Apostles, much

experience had been acquired, of the activity and energy of this their

self-constituted colleague: within that field of action, which alone was

suited to their powers, and within which they had stood exposed to be

disturbed by his interference, within that field to be secured against

such interference,--was, to them and their interests, an object of no

small moment. Such seems to have been the consideration, on the part of

the acknowledged and indisputable Apostles.

Not less obvious was the advantage, which, by the stipulation of this

same treaty in his favour, was in a still more effectual manner,

secured to Paul. That, when the whole transaction was so fresh,--all

that Paul was able to say for himself, with all that Barnabas was able

to say for him, had not been sufficient, to induce the Apostles to give

credence to his story about the manner of his conversion,--in a word, to

regard him in any other light than that of an impostor,--is directly

asserted by the author of the Acts. So again, in his unpremeditated

speech to the enraged multitude, Acts 22:18, "They will not receive thy

testimony concerning me," is the information which the Acts make him

report as having been communicated to him by the Lord, when "while I

prayed in the Temple," says he, ver. 17, "I was in a trance." Should a

charge to any such effect happen to encounter him in the course of his

labours;--should he, in a word, find himself stigmatized as an

impostor;--find himself encountered by a certificate of impostorship;--a

certificate, signed by the known and sole confidential servants, as well

as constant companions, of that Jesus, whom--without so much as

pretending any knowledge of his person, he had thus pretended to have

heard without seeing him,--and at a time and place, in which he was

neither heard nor seen by anybody else;--it is obvious enough, in any

such case, how formidable an obstruction of this sort was liable to

prove. On the other hand, so he were but once seen to be publicly

recognized, in the character of an associate and acknowledged labourer

in the same field,--a recognition of him in that character--a virtual

recognition at least, if not an express one--would be seen to have taken

place:--a recognition, such as it would scarcely, at any time after, be

in their power to revoke: since it would scarcely be possible for them,

ever to accuse him of the principal offence, without accusing themselves

of the correspondent connivance. Note, that, of this treaty, important

as it was--this partition-treaty--by which a division was made of the

whole Christian world--no mention, not any the least hint, is to be

found in the Acts.

Thus much for this third visit of Paul's to Jerusalem, reckoning from

the time of his conversion: thus much for this third visit, and the

partition-treaty that was the result of it. In and by his fourth visit

to that original metropolis of the Christian world,--we shall see how

this same treaty was violated--violated, without any the slightest

reason or pretext, or so much as an attempt, on the part of his

anonymous biographer,--either by his own mouth, or by that of his

hero,--to assign a motive. Violated--that is to say, by and on the part

of Paul: for, of Peter, no further mention is, in all this history, to

be found.

The truth is--that, instead of "the Acts of the Apostles," the History

of Paul--namely, from the time of his conversion to the time of his

arrival at Rome--would have been the more proper denomination of it. Of

any other of the Apostles, and their acts,--little, if anything, more is

said, than what is just sufficient, to prepare the reader, for the

history of Paul, by bringing to view the state of the Christian world,

at the time of his coming upon the stage. As to Saint Peter,--the

author's chief hero being all along Saint Paul, in whose train, during

this last-mentioned of his excursions, he represents himself as being

established,--what is said of Saint Peter and his achievements, stands,

as it were, but as an episode. And though, by this historiographer, no

mention is made of the _partition-treaty_, it has eventually been of use

to us, by serving to show what, at the time of entering into that

engagement, was the situation of St. Peter; and how good the title is,

which the transaction presents to our credence,--as being so natural,

because so manifestly for the advantage of both the contracting parties,

as well as of the religion of Jesus, in so far as that of Paul was

conformable to it.

SECTION 3.

TIME OF THE PARTITION TREATY, MOST PROBABLY THAT OF VISIT I.

The time, at which this partition-treaty took place, appears involved in

much obscurity, and presents some difficulties: question--whether it was

at the first, or not till the third, of these visits--of these four

visits of Paul's to Jerusalem.

The consideration, by which the assigning to it the time of the first

visit has been determined, is--that it was at this first visit, that the

demand for it, in respect of all interests concerned, namely, that of

the religion of Jesus--that of the existing Christians in general,--as

well as that of the individuals particularly concerned on both

sides,--took place: that, from that time, so, as far as appears, did the

observance of it: and that it was not till a long time after, that

either symptoms, or complaints of non-observance, seem to have made

their appearance.

4. Among the conditions of the treaty, the financial stipulation has

been brought to view:--party to be remembered, the poor--then under the

gentle sway of the Apostles: party, by whom they were to be remembered,

Paul--their recognized, though, for aught appears, no otherwise than

locally and negatively recognized, associate. In and by the Deputation

Visit, on the part of Paul, with the assistance of Barnabas,--we see

this stipulation actually conformed to and carried into effect. From the

Christians at Antioch to the Apostles at Jerusalem,--for the benefit of

the poor, at that metropolis of the Christian world, by the conjoined

hands of Paul and Barnabas,--money, it has been seen, was actually

brought.

On the other hand, an observation which, at first sight, may seem to

shut the door against this supposition, is--that whereas in his letter,

to his Galatians, Gal. i. 18, 19, after saying, "I went up to Jerusalem

to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days," and adding, "But other

of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother"; he, not

more than fourteen verses afterwards, Gal. 2:9, in the verse in which

his account of this important treaty is continued,--speaks as if it was

at that very time that he had seen--not only the above two Apostles, on

this occasion designated by the names of James and Cephas--but John

likewise: and that this must have been his third Jerusalem visit,

because it is after _mention_ made of that same third visit, which, in a

passage intermediate between these, namely, Gal. 2:1, is stated, in

express terms, as being by fourteen years posterior to his first

visit,[38] that this circumstance, of his seeing John likewise, is

mentioned as having had place.

But, in neither of these considerations, is there anything, that

presents itself as conclusive, against the supposition--that whatever

treaty there was, took place at the first visit.

1. As to the first, at that time it is, that for giving intimation of

the treaty, _giving the right hands of fellowship_ is the expression

employed: and that if this union were to be taken in a literal, and

thence in a physical sense, as an agreement in which, as a token of

mutual consent, the physical operation of junction of hands was

employed,--here must have been an actual meeting, in which John was seen

as well as the two others--and, consequently, on the supposition that

the account thus given by Paul, is, in this particular, on both

occasions correct,--this must have been a different meeting from the

first: on which supposition, on comparison with the account given in the

Acts of Paul's second visit,--there can be no difficulty in determining

that this visit cannot have been any other than the third. But, so

evidently figurative is the turn of the expression,--that, even in the

language used in this country at this time, slight indeed, if it

amounted to anything at all, would be the force, of the inference drawn

from it, in favour of the supposition of mutual presence. To signify an

agreement on any point--especially if regarded as important--who is

there that would scruple to speak of his having given the right hand of

fellowship to another, although it were known to be only by letter? or,

even through the medium of a common friend, and without any personal

intercourse?

2. As to the other consideration, whatsoever might be the force of it,

if applied to a composition of modern times--after so many intervening

centuries, during several of which the arts of literary composition

have, with the benefit of the facilities afforded by the press, been the

subject of general study and practice;--whatsoever on this supposition

might be the force of it, applied to the style and character of Paul,

little weight seems necessary to be attached to it. Of the

confusion--designed or undesigned--in which the style of this self-named

Apostle involves every point it touches upon, not a page can be read

without presenting samples in abundance, to every eye that can endure to

open itself to them: in this very work, some must probably have already

offered themselves to notice; and before it closes, many will be

presented in this express view: the point in question belongs to the

field of chronology: and, of the perturbate mode of his operation in

this field, a particular exemplification has been already brought to

view, Ch. 2, in a passage, in which, of a long train of sufferings and

perils,--some real, some to all appearance not so--the one first

undergone is last mentioned.[39] From the order in which two events are

mentioned by this writer, no argument, in any degree conclusive, can be

deduced, for the persuasion, that that which stands first mentioned, was

so much as intended by him to be regarded as that which first took

place.

In the very passage, in which the giving the right hands of fellowship

to him and Barnabas is mentioned, and immediately after these very

words,--it is said--that "we _should go_ unto the heathen, and they unto

the circumcision." Thus, then, the conjunct excursion of Paul and

Barnabas--an excursion, not commenced till about ten years after this

same first visit, Acts 13 and 14, is mentioned, as an incident at _that_

time future. True it is, that the word directly expressive of the future

is, in the English translation, but an interpretation, and as such

marked. But, had any prior excursion of this kind taken place before,

there seems no reason to suppose, that the event, which, by the context,

would surely have been taken for an event then as yet to come,--would,

had the intention been to represent it as no more than a repetition of

what had taken place already, have received a form, so ill adapted to

its intended purpose.

But, two verses before, stands that, in which mention is made of the

circumstance, by which, according to Paul, the course taken by the

Apostles, in respect of their entering, into this treaty, is brought to

view. "But contrariwise," says he, Gal. 2:7, "when they saw that the

Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as _the Gospel_ of

the circumcision was unto Peter:" 9. "And when James, Cephas, and John,

who seemed to be pillars, _perceived_ the grace that was given to me,

they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we

_should go_ unto the heathen," ... &c.

Now these _perceptions_--the perceptions thus ascribed by him to the

Apostles--when was it that they were obtained? Evidently at no time

whatever, if not at the time of his _first_ visit: for, these were the

perceptions--say rather the conceptions--the conveyance of which is

beyond dispute manifest, not only from the whole nature of the case,

according to the accounts we have of it, but from the account expressly

given by the author of the Acts; and that account, in some part

confirmed, and not in any part contradicted, by Paul himself, and in

this very epistle.[40]

To conclude. That, at the time of the Deputation Visit, Visit III., the

treaty in question could not but have been on the carpet, seems, it must

be confessed, altogether probable, not to say unquestionable. But, that

at the time of the Reconciliation Visit, Visit I.,--it was already on

the carpet, seems, if possible, still more so. For, without some

understanding between Paul and the Apostles--and that to the effect of

this same treaty (the impossibility that Paul's conversion story should

have been the cause, having, it is believed, been hereinabove

demonstrated) without some understanding of this sort, neither the

continuance ascribed to the Reconciliation Visit, nor the existence of

either of the two succeeding visits, to wit, the Money-bringing Visit,

and this Deputation Visit, seem within the bounds of moral

possibility.[41]

FOOTNOTES:

[38] Gal. 2:1. "Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem

with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also."

[39] 2 Cor. 2:32. "In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king kept

the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me,"

&c. namely, on his conversion.

[40] To this same Partition Treaty, allusion seems discernible in Paul's

Epistle to his Roman adherents. Romans 15:15 to 22. "Nevertheless,

brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you, in some sort, as

putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of

God,--That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,

ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles

might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.--I have

therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which

pertain to God.--For I will not dare to speak of any of those things

which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient by

word and deed,--through mighty signs and wonders by the power of the

spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I

have fully preached the Gospel of Christ.--Yea, so I have strived to

preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon

another man's foundation:--but, as it is written, To whom he was not

spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall

understand.--For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming

to you."

[41] From this passage in Paul's Epistle to his Galatians[II.], compared

with a passage in his first Epistle to the Corinthians[III.]--the Bible

edited by Scholey, in a note to Acts xv. 39, (being the passage in which

the rupture between Paul and Barnabas is mentioned), draws the

inference, that, after this rupture between Paul and Barnabas, a

reconciliation took place.

[II.] Gal. ii. 9. "They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of

fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the

circumcision."

[III.] 1 Cor. ix. 6. "Or, I only, and Barnabas, have not we power to

forbear working?"

From the passage in question, if taken by itself, true it is that this

supposition is a natural one enough. For, according to all appearances,

the date of this Epistle to the Corinthians is posterior to that of the

rupture: and, from the conjunct mention of the two names, if there were

no evidence on the other side, it might naturally enough be supposed

probable, how far soever from certain, that the intention was thereby,

to report the two persons, as operating in conjunction, and even in each

other's company. But, to the purpose of the argument no such supposition

(it will be seen) is necessary. Labouring they both were herein

represented to be, and to all appearance were, in the same field, viz.

the field of the Gentiles: labouring, after and in conformity to this

same treaty--the agreement made by them with the Apostles--the partition

treaty so often mentioned. But, from this it followed not, by any means,

that they were labouring in the _same part_ of that field. For the

purpose of the argument, the question was--What was the sort of

relation, that had taken place, between these two preachers on the one

part, and their respective disciples on the other? It is of this

relation that it is stated by Paul, and stated truly, that as between

him and Barnabas, it was the same: both being actual labourers in their

respective parts of the same field: both being equally at liberty to

cease from, to put an end to, their respective labours at any time: not

that both were labouring in the same place, or in any sort of concert.

"Or I only, and Barnabas, have not we, says Paul, power to forbear

working?"

Thus inconclusive is the argument, by which the existence of a

reconciliation is inferred. Against evidence so weak, the contrary

evidence seems decisive. After mention made by him of the rupture,--had

any reconciliation ever taken place, within the compass of time embraced

by his history, would the author of the Acts have left it unnoticed?

That, among his objects was the painting every incident, in colours at

least as favourable, to the church in general, and to Paul in

particular, as he durst,--is sufficiently manifest. By a rupture between

two such holy persons,--a token, more or less impressive, of human

infirmity, could not but be presented to view: and, to any reflecting

mind--in those marks of _warmth_ at least, to say nothing worse, which,

from first to last, are so conspicuous, in the character and conduct, of

this the historian's patron and principal hero, ground could scarce fail

to be seen, for supposing--that it was to _his_ side rather than that of

Barnabas--the generous and ever-disinterested Barnabas--that the blame,

principally, if not exclusively, appertained.

CHAPTER VIII.

_Interview the Fourth.--Peter at Antioch.--Deputies to Antioch from

Jerusalem, Judas and Silas.--Paul disagrees with Peter and

Barnabas, quits Antioch, and on a Missionary Excursion takes with

him Silas. What concerns the Partition Treaty, down to this Period,

reviewed.--Peter and the Apostles justified._

SECTION 1.

PAUL'S ACCOUNT OF THIS INTERVIEW QUOTED.--ACTS ACCOUNT OF WHAT FOLLOWED

UPON IT.

We now come to the last of the four different and more or less distant

occasions on which a personal intercourse, in some way or other, is

recorded as having had place, between Paul on the one part, and the

Apostles or some of them on the other, antecedently to that, on which

Paul's history, so far as any tolerably clear, distinct, and material,

information has descended to us, closes. Of this interview, the scene

lies at Antioch: Peter having, for some consideration no otherwise to be

looked for than by conjecture, been led to pay a visit, to that place of

Paul's _then_ habitual abode, after, and, as seems probable, in

consequence of, Paul's third recorded visit to Jerusalem--his

_Deputation Visit_.

Let us now cast an eye on the documents. Respecting Paul's disagreement

with Peter, the only one we have, is that which has been furnished us

by Paul himself. It consists of the following passage in his Epistle to

his Galatians.

GALATIANS 2:11 to 16.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,

because he was to be blamed.--For before that certain came from

James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he

withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the

circumcision.--And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;

insomuch that Barnabas also 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 Peter before

_them_ all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of

Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles

to live as do the Jews?--We _who are_ Jews by nature and not

sinners of the Gentiles,--knowing that a man is not justified by

the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we

have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the

faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works

of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Let us now see the account, given in the Acts, of what passed in

Antioch, in relation to Paul, Barnabas and Silas,--during a period,

which seems to be either the same, or one in contiguity with it,

probably antecedent to it.

ACTS 15:35 to 41.

Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching

the word of the Lord with _many others_ also.--And some days after,

Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren,

in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see

how they do.--And Barnabas determined to take with them John whose

surname was Mark.--But Paul thought not good to take him with them,

who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to

the work.--And the contention was so sharp between them, that they

departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark and

sailed unto Cyprus;--And Paul chose Silas and departed, being

recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.--And he went

through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

With regard to Paul's separation from Barnabas, departure from Antioch,

and taking Silas for a companion,--we have nothing from Paul himself:

nothing, from any other source, than, as above, the Acts.

In Paul's account, however, may be seen a passage, Gal. 2:13, by which

some light is thrown upon the breach of Paul with Barnabas. In the Acts,

though the _"contention" is said to be "sharp,"_ no cause is stated for

it, other than a difference respecting the choice of a companion:

namely, on an excursion, which they are represented as having agreed to

make, in the company of each other, as before.

But, according to Paul, he had had cause of complaint, against his old

friend Barnabas, on another account. Barnabas had sided with the

Apostles: Barnabas had been "carried away with their dissimulation"; by

the dissimulation of those Apostles of Jesus, the virtuous simplicity of

the self-constituted Apostle, so he desires his Galatian disciples to

believe, had been foiled.

SECTION 2.

PAUL DISAGREES WITH PETER--AND BARNABAS--QUITS ANTIOCH, TAKING SILAS

FROM THE APOSTLES.

In no place can this man exist, but to exercise hostility or provoke it:

with no man can he hold intercourse, without acting towards him, if not

in the character of a despot, in that either of an open and audacious,

or in that of a secret adversary, or both. Against Peter, at Jerusalem,

in his Deputation Visit, he is intriguing, while he is bargaining with

him. With the same Peter, when arrived at Antioch, he quarrels: for, at

Antioch, Peter was but a visitor--a stranger; Paul, with Barnabas for

his constant supporter, was on his own ground: no betrayed rulers

_there_ to fear--no persecuted Christians. He quarrels--so he himself

informs his Galatians--he quarrels with the chief of the Apostles: he

"withstands him to his face." Why? because, forsooth, "he was to be

blamed." In conclusion, to such a pitch,--by the degree of success,

whatever it was, which by this time he had experienced,--to such a pitch

of intemperance, had his mind swelled--he quarrels even with Barnabas:

with Barnabas--in all his three antecedent visits to Jerusalem, his

munificent protector, and steady adherent: with that Barnabas, in whose

company, and under whose wing, one of his missionary excursions had

already been performed. Acts 11:19-27; Ib. 2:37-40.

At Antioch, the number of his competitors could not but be considerable:

at Antioch, the number of years, which he appears to have passed in that

city, considered,--the number of his enemies could not be small. He

accordingly plans, and executes, a new missionary excursion. He stands

now upon his own legs: no Barnabas now,--no necessary protector, to

share with him in his glory: to share with him, in equal or superior

proportion, in the profit of his profession: in that profit, the image

of which, in all its shapes, was flitting before his eyes,--and which we

shall accordingly see him gathering in, in such unequalled exuberance.

He now looks out for a humble companion--an assistant: he finds one in

Silas: that Silas, whom, with Judas Barsabas, we have seen come to

Antioch, deputed by the Apostles and their disciples, to conclude, in

that second metropolis, the negotiation, commenced in the first

metropolis of the new Christian world. Deserter from the service in

which he was sent, Silas enlists in that of the daring and indefatigable

adventurer. Thus much, and no more, do we learn concerning him: for, in

the picture drawn in the Acts, no character is given to him, except the

being found in company with Paul, in some of the places which Paul

visits: except this exercise of the locomotive faculty, nothing is there

to distinguish him from the common stock of still-life.

From this fourth recorded epoch in the intercourse between Paul and the

Apostles, we now pass to that which stands fifth and last, to wit: that

which was produced by his fourth and last visit to Jerusalem:--his

_Invasion Visit_, A.D. 62.

In the interval, come four years,--occupied by a series of successive

excursions and sojournments,--in the course of which, all mention of

Silas is dropped, without remark: dropped, in the same obscure and

inexplicit manner, in which the historian affords to the reader,

supposing him endowed with the requisite degree of attention, the means

of discovering, Acts 16:10, that not long after the commencement of this

same period, the historian himself, whoever he was, was taken into the

train of the self-constituted Apostle. To the reader is also left the

faculty, of amusing himself in conjecturing, about what time, and in

what manner, this latter event may have taken place; an event, from

which such important consequences have resulted.

Of these portions of Paul's life, some view will come to be taken, in a

succeeding chapter, under another head:--under the head of Paul's

supposed miracles: for, it is in the account given of his achievements

and adventures, and of the transactions in which, in the course of this

period, he was engaged,--it is in the course of this account, that we

shall have to pick up, the supposed accounts of supposed miracles,

which, in this part of the Acts history lie interspersed. This review

must of necessity be taken, for the purpose of placing in a true light,

the evidence, supposed to be thus afforded, in support of his claims to

a supernatural commission.

To this change of connection on the part of Silas,--from the service of

the Apostles of Jesus to that of the self-constituted Apostle,--the

character of _defection_ on the part of Silas,--_seduction_ on the part

of Paul,--may here be ascribed without difficulty. By the Apostles, one

Gospel was preached--the Gospel of Jesus:--we see it in the Evangelists.

By Paul, another and different Gospel was preached:--a Gospel, later and

better, according to him, than that which is to be seen in the

Evangelists:--a Gospel of his own. If, even down to this time, mutual

prudence prevented an open and generally conspicuous rupture,--there was

on his part, at any rate, an opposition. If, to men, whose conduct and

temper were such as they uniformly appear to have been,--any such word

as _party_ can, without disparagement, be applied, here were two

_parties_. He, who was _for_ the self-constituted Apostle, was _against_

the Apostles of Jesus. In a word, in the language of modern party,

Silas was a _rat_.

SECTION 3.

THE PARTITION TREATY, AND THE PROCEEDINGS, IN RELATION TO IT, DOWN TO

THIS PERIOD, REVIEWED.

In regard to the Partition Treaty,--taking the matter from Paul's first,

or Reconciliation Visit, A.D. 35, to his departure from Antioch, on his

missionary excursion, after the interview he had had at that city with

Peter,--the state of the affairs, between Paul and the Apostles, seems

to have been thus:--

1. On the occasion, and at the time, of his first Jerusalem Visit--his

Reconciliation Visit--a sort of reconciliation--meaning at least an

outward one--could not,--consistently with the whole train, of what is

said of his subsequent intercourse and interviews with the

Apostles,--could not but have taken place.

2. Of this reconciliation, the terms were--that, on condition of _his_

preaching in the name of Jesus,--_they_ would not, to such persons in

Jerusalem and elsewhere, as were in connection with them,--_speak_ of

him any longer in the character of a persecutor: for, by his

disobedience and breach of trust, as towards the Jerusalem constituted

authorities,--such he had put it out of his power to _be_ any longer:

not speak of him as a persecutor, but, on the contrary, as an

associate:--he taking up the name of Jesus: and preaching--never in his

own, but on every occasion in that holy, name.

3. On this occasion,--it being manifest to both parties, that, by his

intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, and with the learning

belonging to that language, he was in a peculiar degree well qualified

to spread the name of Jesus among the Gentiles in general;--that is,

among those to whom the Jewish was not a vernacular language;--whereas

their acquaintance with language was confined to their own, to wit, the

Jewish language;--on this occasion, it followed of course, from the

nature of the case, and almost without need of stipulation,

that,--leaving to _them_, for the field of their labours, Jerusalem, and

that part of the circumjacent country, in which the Jewish alone was the

language of the bulk of the population,--_he_ should confine his

exertions, principally if not exclusively, to those countries, of which

Greek was, or at any rate Hebrew was not, the vernacular language.

To him, at that time, it was not in the nature of the case, that

absentation from Jerusalem, or any part of the country under the same

dominion, should be matter of regret. Within that circle, he could not,

for any length of time, abide publicly, for fear of the legal vengeance

of the constituted authorities: nor yet among the Christians; although

from their chiefs he had obtained, as above, a sort of prudential

endurance; considering the horror, which his persecution of them had

inspired, and the terror, with which, until his conversion had been

proved in the eyes of all by experience, he could not as yet fail to be

regarded.

Whatever was the object of his concupiscence,--whether it were the

fund--and we have seen how attractive the bait was--which, at that time,

in that metropolis of the Christian world, offered itself to an

ambitious eye,--still, though his opportunities had as yet confined his

exertions to the _second_ city in that increasing world, his eyes never

ceased looking to the _first_.

Twice, accordingly, between the first of his Visits,--his Reconciliation

Visit--and this his last interview with Peter,--we see him visiting that

inviting spot: each time, protected and escorted by the munificent

Barnabas and his influence--to make him endurable: each time with a

public commission--to make him respected:--the first time with money

in his hand--to make him welcome.

That, all this while, neither _good faith_ nor _prudence_ were capable

of opposing to the violence of his ambition, any effectual check,--is

abundantly manifest.

That _good faith_ was not, we learn distinctly from himself. For though,

from the very nature of the two correlative situations, it is out of all

question, as above, that, without some agreement to the effect above

mentioned, he could not, even with the benefit of every possible means

of concealment, have been preserved for two days together from the

vengeance which pressed upon him, from _below_ as well as from _above_;

yet still was he, by his secret intrigues, Gal. 1:11, violating the

treaty, at the expense of those upright, patient, and long-suffering

men, to whose observance of it, he was every day indebted for his life.

SECTION 4.

PETER AND THE APOSTLES JUSTIFIED AS TO THE FINANCIAL STIPULATION IN

THE TREATY, AND THE SUCCEEDING MISSIONARY LABOURS OF PETER AMONG

THE GENTILES.

Of the financial stipulation, the account we have has been seen:--an

account given by one of the parties to it--Paul:--the other party

being--the Apostles. In the instance of Paul, in the demonstration,

supposed to be given of it, the worldliness, of the motives which gave

birth to it, has in a manner been taken for granted. Well, then, if in

the one instance such was the character of it,--in the other instance,

can it have been any other? The question is a natural one; but not less

so is the answer. For note, the stipulation is express--that, by

Paul--by Paul out of the profits of his vocation--the poor, meaning the

poor of Jerusalem--the poor among the disciples of the Apostles--should

be remembered. Remembered, and how? Remembered, by payment of the

money--into the hands, either of the Apostles themselves, or, what comes

to the same thing, some other persons, in connection with them, and

acting under their influence. Now, then, once more. Of the man, by whom

the money was to be _paid_--of this man, the motives, you say, were

worldly: is it credible then, that they should have been less so, in the

instance of the men by whom they were to be _received_?

Answer. Oh! yes, _that_ it is. Between the two cases, there is this

broad difference. Whatever Paul might receive, he would receive for

himself: whatever, after payment made, under the treaty, to the use of

the Jerusalem poor, he retained,--he might retain for his own use. But

the Apostles--that which, if anything, they received, in the name of the

poor, and as for the use of that same poor,--would they--could they, for

their own use, retain it, or any part of it? Not they, indeed. Not in

their hands were the poor's funds: not in theirs, but in a very

different set of hands:--in the hands of a set of trustees--of the

trustees already mentioned in this work, Ch. 2--of those administrators,

whose function, to every reader who has not the Greek original in view,

is so unfortunately disguised by the word _Deacons_. And these deacons,

by whom appointed? By the Apostles? No; but, by the whole communion of

the saints--by the whole number of the members of the Christian

commonwealth;--and in the way of free election,--_election, on the

principle of universal suffrage_. Monarchists and Aristocrats! mark

well!--_of universal suffrage_.

So much for the treaty itself. Now, as to the subsequent conduct of the

parties, under it, and in relation to it. As to the partition--Paul to

the Gentiles, Peter and his associates to the Jews--such was the letter

of it. Such being the letter--what, at the same time, was the spirit of

it? Manifestly this: on the one hand, that the field, to which Paul's

exertions should apply themselves, and confine themselves, should be

that field, for the cultivation of which, with any prospect of success,

he was exclusively qualified: on the other hand, that the field, to

which their exertions should apply themselves and confine themselves,

should be that, for the cultivation of which, they were--if not

exclusively, at any rate more peculiarly, qualified. In a word--that, of

all that portion of the world, that presented itself as open to the

exertions, of those who preached in the name of Jesus,--they should

reserve to themselves that part which was already in their possession,

to wit, Jerusalem, and its near neighbourhood, together with such parts

of Judea, and its neighbourhood, of which their own language, the

Hebrew, was the vernacular language: this minute portion of the world

reserved, all the rest was to be left open to him: over every other part

of it he was to be at liberty to cast forth his shoe. Judea--the country

of the Jews? say, rather, the Jews themselves:--the Jews wherever found:

for, revelation apart, it was in _language_, that Paul's

pretensions--his exclusive qualifications--consisted. The Apostles spoke

nothing but Hebrew: Paul was learned, and eloquent, in a certain sort,

in Greek.

In regard to the interpretation to be put upon this treaty,--suppose any

doubt to have place,--in the word _Gentile_, would obviously the seat

and source of it to be to be found. Suppose, on the one hand _persons_

to be the objects, of which it was meant to be designative,--then, let

there be but so much as one single uncircumcised man in Jerusalem, or

elsewhere,--to whom, in the view of gaining him over to their communion,

the Apostles, or, with their cognizance, any of their disciples,

addressed themselves,--here would, on _their_ part, be a breach of the

treaty. Suppose, on the other hand, _places_ to be the objects, of which

it was meant to be designative,--on that supposition, within that tract

of country, within which alone, the necessary means, of communicating

with the bulk of the population, were in their possession,--they might

apply themselves, to all persons without restriction: and this, still

without any real breach of the agreement--of the spirit and real import

of the agreement.

In respect either of _persons or places_, by the agreement, according to

this--the obvious sense of it--what was it that Paul gave up? In truth,

just nothing. Had his mind been in a sober state,--strange indeed, if

the field thus afforded by the whole heathen world, was not wide enough

for his labour: in all parts of it he could not be at once; and the most

promising parts were open to his choice. Cessation of Paul's

hostilities excepted, what was it that the Apostles gained? Not much

more.

As already observed--what was not gained by it, is what is above: what

was really gained by it, is what follows.

What Paul gained was--exemption from the annoyance, which otherwise he

would everywhere have been exposed to have received, by being designated

as the quondam notorious persecutor, and still unreconciled enemy, of

the Apostles and their disciples:--in a word, of all others who preached

in the name of Jesus.

That which the Apostles actually gained, was--that confirmation and

extension of their influence, which followed of course, upon every

extension, received by that field, within which the influence of the

name of Jesus was extended.

That which, besides what is above, they _ought to_ have gained, but did

not gain, is--exemption from all such annoyance, as could not but be

inflicted on them, in proportion as Paul, preaching to persons, to whom

_they_ had access, a Gospel which was his, and not theirs,--should,

while in pretence and name an associate, be, in truth and effect, an

adversary and opponent.

This is what--though they not only should have gained, but might also

reasonably have expected to gain--they did _not_ gain. For, not to

insist any more on his secret intrigues in Jerusalem itself, and his

open opposition in the second Jerusalem, Antioch, as above; we

shall--when we come to the next and last of his interviews with the

Apostles on the occasion of his Invasion Visit--see, to what lengths the

madness of his ambition carried him, in that birthplace and metropolis

of the Christian world.

By the sort of connection, which, notwithstanding such obvious and

naturally powerful principles of discrimination, have on each occasion,

been visible, as between the undoubted Apostles, and this self-styled

one--three distinguishable questions cannot but, from time to time, have

been presenting themselves:--1. The sort of countenance--partial, cold,

and guarded as it was--shown by the old established and goodly

fellowship to the ever-intruding individual--is it credible? 2. Can it,

in fact, have been manifested, in conjunction with a disbelief, on their

part, of his pretensions to a degree of supernatural favour with the

Almighty, equal or superior to their own? 3. And, if not only possible,

but actual--was it, in point of morality, justifiable?

By a few obvious enough considerations, an answer--and, it is hoped, a

not altogether unsatisfactory one,--may be given to all these questions.

As to whatever was natural in the course of the events, Barnabas was

necessary to the rising Church: and Paul was, all along, necessary, or,

at least, was so thought, to Barnabas.

1. Barnabas was necessary to the Church. Already, it has been seen, how

preeminent was the support received by it from his munificence. In him,

it had found at once the most liberal of benefactors, and, unless Peter

be an exception, the most indefatigable of agents. On the part of no one

of even the chosen servants of Jesus, do proofs of equal zeal and

activity present themselves to our view.

In an ensuing chapter, we shall see Peter trying his strength among the

Gentiles. Yet, from the direction thus given to his Apostolic zeal, no

violation of the treaty, it will be seen, can with justice be imputed to

him, if the interpretation above given to the word _Gentiles_ be

correct.

1. In the first place,--according to the Acts, the date of this

excursion is _antecedent_ to that third interview, which took place on

the occasion of Paul's third Jerusalem Visit--his Deputation Visit: that

is to say, to the time, at which, and not before, though, if the above

reasoning be just, in a sort of general terms the preliminaries had been

agreed upon, the general preliminary arrangements were followed,

confirmed, explained, and liquidated, by more particular ones.

2. In the next place--of all the places,--which, in the course of this

excursion of Peter's, are mentioned as having been visited by

him,--there is not one, that Paul is mentioned as having ever visited:

whereas, in the first of them that is mentioned, the Apostles are

mentioned as having already a band of disciples.[42]

3. In the third place,--the date, assigned to this excursion of Peter's,

is, by several years, antecedent even to the first, of the several

excursions of Paul's, of which mention is made in the Acts. In the

received chronology--date assigned to the commencement of Peter's

excursion, A.D. 35; date assigned to Paul's first excursion, A.D. 45.

While Peter was thus occupying himself, Paul was still at Tarsus:[43] at

Tarsus--his own birthplace--whereto,--in consequence of the danger, to

which his life had been exposed by his first Jerusalem Visit, his

Reconciliation Visit,--he had taken his flight.[44]

4. In the fourth place,--notwithstanding the perpetual hostility of

Paul's mind, as towards Peter and the rest of the Apostles,--on no

occasion, on the score of any breach of this article in the partition

treaty, is any complaint, on the part of Paul, to be found. When

dissatisfaction is expressed, doctrine alone is mentioned by him as the

source of it: doctrine, the ostensible; dominion, the original and real

source.

Spite of the treaty,--spite of the manifest interest, of the only

genuine religion of Jesus--the Gospel taught by the Apostles,--still in

places to which they had access--in places in which, in consequence,

they had formed connections,--he persisted in intruding himself:

intruding himself, with that Gospel which he says himself, was his, not

theirs--and not being theirs, was not Jesus's:--intruding himself, in

places, in which, even had his Gospel been Jesus's, _their_ connections

being established, there existed no demand for him and _his_. Can this

be doubted of? If yes, all doubt will at any rate be removed,

when,--spite of all the endeavours that could be employed, either by

them or by his own adherents, to prevail upon him to desist,--we shall

see him entering Jerusalem on his Invasion Visit: as if, while, for

preaching the religion of Jesus, all the world, with the exception of

the Jewish part of it, was not enough for this intruder,--the Apostles

of Jesus--eleven in number, with their elected associate,

Matthias,--were not, all together, enough, for that small part of it.

The _name_ he preached in, _that_ indeed not his own, but Jesus's: but

the _doctrine_ he preached--the Gospel, as he called it--not _Jesus's_,

nor anybody else's, but his own. All this, as he has the assurance to

declare,--all this did he preach without their knowledge. And why

without their knowledge? because, as he himself has the still more

extraordinary assurance to _declare_--for _confession_ is the result not

of assurance, but weakness--because, as he himself acknowledges,--if so

it had been, that this Gospel of his had come to the knowledge of the

Apostles--of those associates, to whom he was all along holding out the

right hand of fellowship, this Gospel of his could not have been

listened to--this preaching of his would have been in vain.

Already, however--for in this he may be believed--already, throughout

this _first_ intercourse, though the expression is not used till he came

to speak of the _third_,--already must the right hand of fellowship have

been held out, and on both sides: and, what followed of course,--and was

not only affirmed by his statement, but demonstrated by the result,--on

this last occasion was the treaty again brought upon the carpet and

confirmed, after such modifications as it may naturally have received,

from the consideration of intervening incidents.

FOOTNOTES:

[42] Acts 9:32. "And it came to pass, as Peter passed through all

quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda."

[43] Acts 11:25. "Then departed Barnabas for to seek Saul." A.D. 43.

[44] Acts 9:30, "Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to

Cæsarea and sent him forth to Tarsus."

CHAPTER IX.

_Paul disbelieved continued--The Fourth and Last Jerusalem Visit.

The Purpose concealed: Opposition universal; among his own

Disciples, and among those of the Apostles._

SECTION 1.

MOTIVES TO THIS VISIT.

Of this momentous visit to say what were the real objects, must in a

great part be left to conjecture:--to inferences drawn from the known

circumstances of the case. By himself, as will be seen, they were

concealed with the most persevering anxiety.

But, in default of direct evidence, the point may without much danger of

error be settled by circumstantial evidence. The common objects of

political concupiscence--money, power and vengeance--were all before his

eyes: _money_--in no less a quantity than that of the aggregate mass of

the property of the whole church:--that fund, for the management of

which, the Apostles' seven trustees, under the name of Deacons, were not

more than sufficient:--that fund, by which the repulsed concupiscence of

the sorcerer of Samaria had so lately been excited:--_power_, that

which was exercised by the direction of the consciences of the whole

number of the faithful, some time before this, not less in number than

three thousand: _vengeance_, for the repeated rebuffs, by which, at the

interval of so many years from each other, his endeavours to supplant

the Apostles had been repelled.

In a general point of view, ambition,--rival ambition,--the same motive

which sent Caesar to Rome, may be stated as having sent Paul, at this

time, to Jerusalem: to Jerusalem--the metropolis of the Christian world,

by design; and thence, eventually and undesignedly, to the metropolis of

the whole civilized world.

By two opposite desires--two antagonizing but correspondent and mutually

explanatory desires--desires, in both parts intense and active, the

external marks of which are sufficiently visible in two different

quarters,--the nature as well as prevalence of this motive, will, it is

believed, be found sufficiently proved:--a desire, in the breast of the

self-constituted Apostle, to establish himself in the original

metropolis of the Christian world:--a desire on the part of the

Apostles--of the Apostles constituted by Jesus--to keep him out of it.

SECTION 2.

THE VISIT ANNOUNCED BY PAUL AND DEFERRED.

Ephesus, at which place he had arrived not long after his departure from

Corinth, where he had made a stay, as it should seem, of more years than

one,[45] touching in the way at Cenchrea, where he shaved his head for

the performance of a vow--Ephesus is the place, at which, by the author

of the Acts, Paul is for the first time made to speak of himself, as

harbouring, having in mind the making of this visit: and on that

occasion, the visit is spoken of, as being the subject of a settled

determination, and in particular as being the time fixed upon by him for

the execution of this design. Acts 18:20, 21. "When they, the Jews at

Ephesus, desired him to tarry longer with them, he consented not; but

bade them farewell, saying, I must _by all means keep this feast_ that

cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again to you if God will."

As to the keeping of this or any other feast at Jerusalem or at any

other place--if it was under any such notion as that of contributing to

his own personal salvation by any such Mosaic work, it was an object

inconsistent with his own principles--with his own so repeatedly and

strenuously advocated principles:--and the like may be said of the

head-shaving and the vow, performed by him, at Cenchrea, in his way to

Ephesus from Corinth: and moreover, in this last-mentioned instance,

more particularly in contradiction with a precept so positively

delivered by Jesus, namely, _Swear not at all_,--if, under swearing, the

making of vows is to be understood to be included.

Of this design, the next intimation which occurs in the Acts, is in the

next chapter, Acts 19:21, "When these things were ended," namely, the

discomfiture of the exorcists, and the burning of the books of curious

arts at Ephesus,--"Paul, it is said, _purposes 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."

Fortunate it is for the credit--either _of the spirit_, or of Paul, or

of the author of the Acts, that it was on this second occasion only, and

not on the first, that it was _in the spirit_ that he proposed to go to

Jerusalem by the then next feast: for, notwithstanding the "_must_" and

the "_by all means_,"--so it is, that between those his two

determinations as above, no less a space of time than two years is

stated as elapsing, on one occasion, at one and the same place.[46] And

this place--what was it? it was Ephesus: the same place, at which, on

his departure from it, the first determination was declared: after

which, and before this his second visit to Ephesus,--he is represented

as having visited Cæsarea and Antioch.

The next mention, is that which occurs in the next chapter, chapter

20:16. "Paul," we are there told, being then at Miletus, "had determined

to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he

hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of

Pentecost."

At Miletus it is, that he sends for, and receives, from Ephesus, a

number of his adherents in that place. Upon their arrival, he is

represented as making a formal speech to them: and now, he not merely

proposes in the spirit, as before, but is "_bound in the spirit_," to go

thither.[47] Vain would be the attempt to ascertain, with any approach

to exactness, the interval of time, during which the operation of the

spirit remained in a sort of suspense between _purpose_ and

_obligation_: it may have been months, only: it may have been years.

While, by one spirit, Paul was thus urged on, every now and then,

towards Jerusalem;--by the same spirit, or by another spirit, he was

pulled back.[48]

In the very next verse, Acts 20:22, in which he speaks of his being

"bound in the spirit unto" that place, not knowing, as, in his speech,

he thereupon adds,--"not knowing the things that shall befall me

there,"--he goes on, and says: "Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in

every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of

these things," says he, ver. 24, "move me, neither count I my life dear

unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the

ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel

of the grace of God."

To raise, in the breast of Paul, the expectation, that of his proceeding

in the course it was his way to take in preaching that religion, to

which, from a persecutor, he had, in appearance, become a convert,

affliction, in a variety of shapes, might prove to be the

fruits,--needed no information from the spirit; if, by receiving

information from the spirit, he meant any communication of a

supernatural kind--anything beyond information in the ordinary

shape;--be the effect--be the purpose, good or bad,--such is the lot,

that awaits innovation in the field of politics--the spiritual part

included, as well as the temporal--at all places, and all times.

A passage, which now presents itself, helps to show how easily and

copiously, out of a few words, written in ancient times, mysteries and

miracles have been manufactured in modern times. In Acts 20:22, we have

seen Paul, "_bound in the spirit_," as he is made to assure us, to go

unto Jerusalem. In the next chapter, 21:4, we find disciples ... who

said to Paul, "_through the spirit_," that he should _not_ go up to

Jerusalem. Oh! what a useful word this word _spirit_! Let a man say

plainly and simply, I shall go, or be going, to Jerusalem--or, Don't go

to Jerusalem,--his words go for no more than they are worth: in either

case, with a proper proposition to introduce it, add the word "spirit,"

the matter becomes serious. Out of a word or two, you thus add to the

Godhead a third person, who talks backward and forward for you, and does

for you whatever you please.

At so small a price, even to this day, are manufactured, every day, a

sort of _verbal_ miracles, which, as many as are disposed, are welcome

to improve into real ones.

To reconcile men to this expedition of Paul's, the spirit was the more

necessary,--inasmuch as it was not in his own power, or even in that of

any one of his numerous attendants and dependants, to assign so much as

one ostensible reason for it.

That, to the advancement of religion--of the religion of Jesus--no such

presence of his was necessary;--that no good could result from it;--that

much evil could not but result from it;--was obvious to all eyes. Of the

original number of the Apostles,--for aught that appears, not less than

eleven were still remaining on the spot: men, to every one of whom, all

acts and sayings of Jesus were, by memory, rendered so familiar:--men,

on the part of some of whom, and, at any rate, on the part of the chief

of them, Peter,--there was no want of zeal and activity. While to these

men a single city, or, at the utmost, one small region--composed the

whole field of exertion--the whole earth besides is left open by them

to Paul: still, such is the ravenousness of his ambition, nothing can

content him, but he must be intruding himself--thrusting his restless

sickle into their ripening harvest.

SECTION 3.

THE DESIGN INDEFENSIBLE.

All this--is it not enough? Well then, take this one other--this

concluding proof. In the teeth of all their endeavours, and among them,

some that will be seen extraordinary enough, to prevent it,--was

undertaken the fourth and last of his four recorded visits to their

residence--Jerusalem.

But, in the first place, in the utter indefensibility of the design,

shall be shown the _cause_, of the opposition so universally made to it.

Tired of a mixture of successes and miscarriages,--disdaining the

conquests he had been making in so many remote, and comparatively

obscure regions of the world,--he had formed--but at what precise time,

the documents do not enable us to pronounce--the determination, to

exhibit his glories on the two most illustrious of theatres:--in the two

capitals--Jerusalem, of the Jewish, and now of the Christian world;

Rome, of the whole classical heathen world:--and in the first place,

Jerusalem, now, for the fourth time since his conversion. It was at

Ephesus, as we have seen, this determination was first declared.

To Rome, he might have gone, and welcome: namely, in so far as his

doctrines could have confined themselves within the limits of those of

Jesus: which, however, it will be seen, they could not: but, success

being moreover supposed, nothing but good could such visit have had for

its result.

But, by a visit to any place other than Jerusalem, various were the

points of spleen and ambition, that could not have been satisfied.

Nothing would serve him, but, over that Edom Jerusalem, he would, in the

first place, cast forth his shoe.

Unless the eleven most confidential servants, selected by Jesus himself

to be the propagators of his religion, were altogether unworthy of the

task thus allotted to them,--nothing to the good purposes of that

religion could be more palpably unnecessary, nothing to the purposes of

peace and unity more pernicious, than the intrusion thus resolved upon.

That the number of these legitimately instituted Apostles had as yet

suffered any diminution, is not, by any of the documents, rendered so

much as probable. Neither in the works of Paul himself, nor in that of

his historiographer, is any intimation to any such effect to be found.

In their own judgments, had there been any need of coadjutors--any

deficiency of hands for the spiritual harvest,--they well knew how to

supply it. Of the sufficiency of such knowledge, they had given the

most incontestable proofs: the election of Matthias was the fruit of it.

They showed--and with a disinterestedness, which has never since had,

nor seems destined to have, any imitators--that, in the Christian world,

if government in any shape has divine right for its support, it is in