Paul, standing at the head of the Church in the apostolic age, and
being the principal New-Testament writer and the principal teacher and
doctrinal expounder of the New Covenant, or gospel dispensation,
his practical life and his doctrines must therefore be regarded as
constituting a part, if not the principal part, of the basis of the
Christian religion. We shall therefore make no apology for presenting
here a brief exposition of his character and his doctrines; and we
shall show that both present numerous defects and inconsistent and
contradictory features.
1. In his First Epistle to Timothy (i. 13) he states that he had been
"a blasphemer and persecutor, and injurious", and confesses that he was
_particeps criminis_ in the martyrdom of Stephen; yet, in the Acts of
the Apostles, he declares, "I have lived in all good conscience before
God unto this day" (Acts xxiii. 1). Here is one specimen of his many
incongruous statements.
2. He relates the account of his miraculous conversion three times, and
in three different ways. In the first statement he says, "The men stood
speechless, _hearing a voice_, but seeing no man" (Acts ix. 7). In the
second account he says, "_They heard not the voice_ that spake to me"
(Acts xxii. 9). In the third statement, when relating the case to King
Agrippa, he says, "They were all fallen to the earth" (Acts xxvi. 14);
while, in the first account, he had stated, "The men stood speechless."
It is evident they could not stand speechless while they were all fallen
to the earth.
3. In one account he states that Jesus told him to stand up, and receive
his mission; but in another place he says he was ordered to go to
Damascus to receive the message.
4. He told the king that he showed himself first at Damascus, and then
at Jerusalem (Acts xxvi. 20); but in his Epistle to the Galatians he
declares that he did not go to Jerusalem.
5. Again he says he went to Jerusalem, and Barnabas took him by the
hand, and brought him to the apostles (Acts ix. 27).
6. And then, again, to the Galatians he declares he saw none of the
apostles,n"save James, the Lord's brother" (Gal. i. 13).
7. In 1 Cor. x. 35 he says, "I please all men in all things;" but in Gal.
i. 10 he says, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of
God." Here, then, is another palpable contradiction.
8. In Rom. xi. 5 he speaks of the "election of grace;" but in Tit. xi. 9
he says the grace of God has appeared to all.
9. In his letter to Timothy he says, "God will have all men to be saved"
(1 Tim. ii. 4): but in Rom. ix. 22 he speaks of "the vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction;" and in Rom. ix. 27 he says, "A remnant shall be
saved." All will not be saved if only a remnant are saved.
10. When about embarking for Rome he stated, "I perceive the voyage will
be of much hurt and damage to life" (Acts xxvii. 10); yet on the voyage
he declared, "There shall be no loss of any man's life among you"
(Acts xxvii. 22). An "inspired apostle" and oracle of God should be
punctiliously accurate in all cases, or all his statements will be
brought under distrust, and it will be impossible to arrive at the
truth in the case; or, in any case, all will be involved in doubt and
conjecture.
11. Paul's errors in doctrinal inculcations are numerous. His confession
to the Corinthians, that, "being crafty, I caught you with guile" (2
Cor. xii. 16), sets forth a bad example, and indicates a bad system of
morals, which is calculated to have a demoralizing effect upon Bible
readers and believers, especially the heathen and the youth of Christian
countries.
12. And his statement that the truth of God "hath more abounded through
my lie unto his glory" (Rom. iii. 7), is still more demoralizing in its
tendencies. Many have looked upon it as a justification for lying. It
seems to imply that lying is all right if done for the glory of God; and
as he states in 1 Cor. x. 31, that whatsoever we do should be done to
the glory of God, it logically follows that lying is justifiable in
all cases. And Mr. Higgins states that such doctrine had the effect
to reduce lying to a system among the early Christians, and that they
considered it a duty to lie when the interest of the Church could be
promoted by it. A book inculcating such bad morality should not be
circulated amongst the heathen.
13. Paul's reason for recommending a life of single blessedness is
deserving of notice. He says the unmarried man careth for the things of
the Lord; but the married man careth for the things of the world,--"how
he may please his wife" (1 Cor. vii. 33). The last act he named here
does not trouble men much nowadays, at least after the honeymoon is
passed; and a man who considers God worthy of more attention than wives,
as Paul did, would not be likely to bestow a very high appreciation
on the latter. But the greatest objection to the doctrine is, that, if
practically carried out in accordance with his recommendation,
there would soon be no wives to please. 14. We must notice another
objectionable doctrine of Paul with respect to marriage. Instead of
acknowledging an honorable and virtuous motive for marriage, he would
tolerate it as the least of two evils; that is, as a means of mitigating
a burning lust (1 Cor. vii. 9). This makes marriage a mere animal
attraction,--the union of a man and woman drawn together from lustful
motives. Paul advises bachelors not to marry or touch a woman, but
remain single like himself (1 Cor. vii? 1). But such advice, if
practically complied with, would soon depopulate the globe. If not
so strongly adverse to human nature, it would doubtless ere this have
filled the world, first with Shakers, and then with the graves of an
extinct race.
15. Paul says to the Romans (Rom. vii. 17), "It is no more I that do it,
but sin that dwelleth in me. For I prove... that in my flesh dwelleth
no good thing." Here are taught two erroneous doctrines: (1) The
essentially corrupt and sinful nature of the human body, taught
anciently by the Hindoo ascetics; (2) that sin or the Devil operates
on the mind independent of the human will or volition, which savors of
fatalism. And his statement that some vessels are made to honor, and
some to dishonor (Rom. ix. 21), seems unequivocally to set forth the
same doctrine. Many commentators have puzzled their brains over it to
make it mean something else, but with ill success the declaration is
not, that men _become_ vessels of honor and dishonor, but that they _are
made so_.
16. Paul's exhortation to servants to be obedient to their masters
has furnished pious Christian slaveholders a good text to preach from
throughout slaveholding Christendom, and has done much to rivet the
chains tighter upon the limbs of the slave.
17. When Paul calls the Cretans "liars, evil beasts," &c., he descends
to a low position, both in the scale of manners and morals: he is
not only uncivil, but exhibits bad passions. They did not merit such
personal abuse, as they had never done him an injury, at least we have
no proof of it.
18. Paul tells us that God sends people a strong delusion, that they may
believe a lie and be damned (2 Thess. ii. 12). More fatalism. To delude
people with lies in order to damn them is worse than hardening Pharaoh's
heart in order to find a pretext for drowning him. Let it be borne in
mind, that, if there is any spiritual signification justly assignable
to, this text, it can only benefit the few, as the common people always
accept language with its common signification. But can we assume that
Paul was such a blunderer that he frequently used language conveying
exactly the opposite meaning from that intended, and that in this way
he taught fatalism and when he did not intend to do so? And then, he was
inspired, is it not a slander upon Infinite Wisdom to assume that God
was so ignorant of human language that he put these pernicious doctrines
in Paul's mouth by mistake? One or the other of these conclusions we are
driven to accept, in order to save Paul from condemnation; but this only
saves his moral character at the expense of his good sense. The most
rational assumption appears to be, that Paul lived in an age and country
which knew nothing of mental or moral science, and honestly believed and
taught these pernicious doctrines. We will now learn something about the
moral code of bachelors.
19. "I suffer not a woman to speak in the church." "It is a shame for a
woman to speak in the church" (1 Cor. xiv. 35). He says, if they want to
know any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. But this, in some
cases, would be the blind leading the blind; and, in other cases, only
the leaders would be blind. Paul should have learned the lesson of
O'Connell, the Irish agitator, who said, "Since I have learned that my
mother was a woman, I have great respect for women, and advocate their
rights."
20. We will now notice the reason Paul assigns for having immoral
doctrines as it is claimed wives subject to their husbands: it is simply
because man was created before woman (1 Tim. ii. 13). What profound
logic! worthy a Locke or a Newton! But, if there is any logical force
in the argument, then monkeys should have the preference of men in the
churches, as they came still earlier in the order of creation.
21. Paul's doctrine that all governments are ordained of God, and that
those who resist them shall receive to themselves damnation (Rom. xiii.
1), is a virtual condemnation of those noble philanthropists who in
various ages and countries resisted the authority of tyrants. It makes
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and others sinners and criminals for
opposing the tyranny of King George.
22. Paul evinced a very intolerant spirit when he said, "If any man
preach any other doctrine than that which I declare onto you, let him be
accursed" (1 Gal. i. 9). This is the spirit of intolerance, persecution,
and bigotry,--the spirit which has erected the scaffold, piled the fiery
fagots around the stake, wielded the guillotine, adjusted the halter
around the neck of the martyr, and crimsoned the earth with the blood
of the righteous. This very text has had the effect to fire up such a
spirit; and it has frequently been quoted as authority for such cruel
deeds as those just cited.
23. Paul gives utterance to a very singular doctrine when he says that
even nature teaches that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair, but
the glory for a woman, because nature gave it to her for a covering.
(See 1 Cor. xi. 14.) He was certainly not much of a philosopher, or he
would have made the discovery that nature promotes the growth of the
hair upon the heads of men and women exactly alike. If nature did not
permit any hair to grow upon the head of man, or did not allow it to
grow more than an inch in length, there might be some plausibility
in the assertion. But, as the case stands, it is the shears, and not
nature, which teaches that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair;
or rather, if there is any shame in the case, it consists in man cutting
off his hair after nature has been so kind as to supply him with such a
useful covering.
24. Paul's indorsement of the doctrine of the atonement, and his
declaration that "without the shedding of blood there can be no
remission for sin" (Heb. ix. 22), show that he had not advanced beyond
the old Jewish and pagan superstition of "blood for blood." The doctrine
is a relic of heathen barbarism, and is shocking to persons of fine
moral sensibilities; but this subject is treated in another chapter.
25. Paul also indorses the old heathen tradition that God is an angry,
revengeful being. (See Eph. ii. 3.) He lent the influence of his
powerful mind and pen to perpetuate this demoralizing and blasphemous
doctrine, which has had an injurious effect upon the minds and morals of
the people in all post ages.
26. We again call attention to Paul's declaration that God sent the
people a strong delusion that they might believe a lie and be damned.
Think of a just and righteous God deluding people in order to damn them!
The doctrine is certainly blasphemous. It is enough to charge a demon
with such acts as this. Some writers suppose that Paul did not mean what
is here literally expressed; but it is probable he did, for it is the
old Jewish idea that every thing that takes place is the achievement of
a God. We must assume that the devil who now attends to such business,
had not been sworn into office at that time. Hence he supposed that
Jehovah still attended to such business.
27. One indelible stigma on Paul's character is found in his indorsement
of the pagan and Jewish rite of circumcision,--a cruel and bloody
custom,--which no truly enlightened and sensible man would lend his
sanction to perpetuate, much less perform with his own hands, as Paul
did on Timotheus (Acts xvi. 3). Paul also contradicts himself with
respect to the matter. He says, "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall
profit you nothing" (Gal. v. 2). Yet he afterward performed the act
on Timotheus, as stated above. This is preaching one doctrine and
practicing another.
28. Paul said that he was a Roman citizen; but no Jew could be a full
Roman citizen till the reign of Philip or Decius, long after. He also
passed for Paul of Tarsus; but Tarsus was not a Roman city at that time,
nor until about a hundred years after ward. This was being all things to
all men in order to gain a few proselytes; and truly he carries out the
doctrine quite well. At one time he professes to be a Roman (Acts xxii.
26); at another time he professes to be a Pharisee, and says that his
parents were Pharisees (see Acts xxiii. 5); and then, again, he was an
apostle of Jesus Christ (Acts xv. 10).
29. Paul uses some rather doughy arguments on the subject of the
resurrection. He says that on the last day, at the sound of the trumpet,
we shall all be raised, the dead in Christ first (1 Cor. xv. 52). We are
also told that "this mortal shall put on immortality." We are compelled
to believe, from the language here used, that Paul believed in the sleep
of the soul in the grave; and the resurrection of the natural body is a
ridiculous absurdity and a physical impossibility. The sleep of the
soul is a still worse assumption. Why should the soul lay in the ground
covered with filth and worms? What possible benefit could it derive from
laying in a state of insensibility for centuries? And what would become
of it if some one should remove the decomposed remains of the body,
and all the earth contiguous, to some other locality, or toss it into a
running stream? And this has been done. What becomes of the soul in such
a case? Does it float down the stream with the physical debris? If so,
where will it stop? and how will it be found in the day of resurrection?
30. And the doctrine of the resurrection is attended with still greater
difficulties and logical obstructions. The physical body, according
to Paul, is to become a spiritual body. But a portion of the body is
consumed by worms during the process of decomposition in the grave; and
those worms, when they die, are consumed by other worms. Will it not,
then, require a search-warrant in the day of resurrection to find
all those worms, and to gather every minute particle of the old body
together to form the spiritual body? Why not make the new body of a
stone or a stump, or some other material, instead of the old, decayed,
decomposed body? It would require a miracle in either case. Cases have
been reported of Christian missionaries being eaten up by cannibals. The
flesh of the Christian in such cases becomes a part of the physical body
of the cannibal; and the cannibal will, according to Christian theology,
come forth unto "the resurrection of damnation," and will take a
portion of the body of the missionary with him to the bottomless pit.
How will it be obtained? A serious difficulty, certainly! How is it to
be met and surmounted? Many other logical difficulties lie in the way of
making a practical application of the doctrine.
31. When Paul calls our physical tenements "vile bodies" (see Phil. iii.
21), he reveals the old pagan idea of the body being sinful. They looked
upon it as a kind of prison for the soul, and a thing to be hated and
contemned as you would a tyrant with a rope around your neck. This error
discloses great ignorance of the functions of the human body, and its
relation to the soul or mind. It would be impossible to have a pure soul
in a vile body. Here Paul discloses still further ignorance of science.
There are other acts and other erroneous doctrines, which mark the
practical life of Paul, that are quite obnoxious to criticism; as, for
example, the curse he pronounced upon Ely mas, whom he stigmatized as
a sorcerer, though he does not prove he was one, but says that was his
name by interpretation (Acts xiii. 8). This act, which it is stated
produced total blindness, must be regarded as an act of bigotry and
intolerance. Elymas is not charged with any crime or immoral conduct;
and, so far as we can learn his history, he was an honest, upright man:
but he sought "to turn away the deputy from the faith" (Acts xiii. 8);
that is, like the Greek philosophers, he attempted to point out
the absurdity of some of Paul's doctrines. There is something very
significant in the statement of Paul, that some of his doctrines were
"to the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. i. 23); for they were a learned,
intelligent, and sensible nation of people. And no such nation ever has,
or ever will, accept as true and sound doctrine some of the theological
nonsense and absurd doctrines which Paul preached. Future generations
will wonder that such doctrines were ever taught by people claiming to
be sensible and intelligent.
The circumstance which Paul relates of a viper coming out of a bundle
of sticks, and fastening on his hand without inflicting a deadly wound,
evinces a degree of superstition which no philosopher could entertain.
The assumption is, that God, after bestowing upon the reptile the
disposition and means of defending itself, interposed by a divine act to
prevent their action.
Christ and his apostles (including Paul), instead of studying and
understanding the laws of nature, were constantly looking for something
to contravene them, and set them aside. Of course they were honest
in this; but it shows their want of scientific knowledge, which was
characteristic of the age.
The circumstance of Paul's handkerchief and apron healing the sick, as
related in Acts xix. 12, is evidently regarded as another interposition
of divine power. But cases are frequently performed in this manner
in various parts of this country by Dr. Newton and other healers,
who impart their magnetic aura to a handkerchief, or some article of
clothing, or a piece of paper, and send it to the sick, who are cured as
effectually as those were by Paul's magnetized handkerchief; for it was
undoubtedly his magnetism imparted to the handkerchief that effected the
cures. Modern science is solving the mysteries and miracles of the past.
We will only observe further, that Paul lays down three systems of
salvation, which, when arranged side by side, certainly make the road
broad enough to enable nearly every son and daughter of Adam to reach
the heavenly kingdom:--
_Salvation by Faith_.--"By faith ye are saved, and not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God" (Eph. ii. 8). It being the gift of God, we, of
course, can have no agency in the matter. "A man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. iii. 28). This is a direct
contradiction of James, who declares, "Faith, if it hath not works, is
dead" (Jas. ii. 17).
_Salvation by Works_,--"God will render to every man according to his
deeds" (Rom. ii. 6). "The doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom. ii.
13). Thus, it will be observed, Paul, in the above-cited texts, not only
contradicts James, but contradicts himself.
_Salvation by Divine Predestination_,--"As many as were ordained to
eternal life believed" (Acts xiii. 48). This is not given as Paul's
language; but it is spoken with respect to his preaching. And Paul sets
forth the same doctrine in Rom. xi. 5 when he speaks of a remnant
being "saved by the election of grace." Here, then, are three roads to
heaven, which so multiply the chances of being saved that but few can be
lost.
Such conflicting statements show that confusion and ambiguity
characterize the Bible, and render it impossible to learn any thing
definite from its statements.
Note.--How can Christians believe In the immortality of the soul after
reading Paul's declaration that "God alone hath life and immortality
dwelling in the light "? If so, then man is not an immortal being (see 1
Tim. ri. 16).
2. CHARACTER AND ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES OF PETER.
In his practical life St. Peter was a singular and angular being. He
presents us with the opposite extremes of virtue and vice. He appears
to have been about as distinguished for wickedness as for piety. He
told the same falsehood repeatedly, and backed it up with an oath (Matt,
xxvi.): hence lying, cursing, and swearing are laid to his charge. And
then, we are told, he was put in possession of the keys of the kingdom
of heaven (Matt. xvi. 19). How a man, guilty of such moral derelictions,
could have had a higher honor bestowed upon him than was ever bestowed
upon any other human being, or how he could have been considered a safe
custodian for such an important charge, it is difficult to see; and
then it looks too much like a bribe for immoral conduct. It weakens
the incentives to a virtuous life to reward the criminal, and shows
imperfection in the moral system which he was allowed to represent.
As for his doctrines, they are characterized by the same moral and
scientific errors and defects as those of St. Paul, and embrace some of
the same doctrines of heathen mythology.
1. He speaks of the earth as "standing out of the water and in the
water" (2 Pet. iii. 5). Here is the old Hindoo tradition which taught
that the earth floated on a sea of water, traces of which are also found
in Genesis.
2. He tells us, also, that the earth has been once destroyed by water,
and in the day of judgment will be destroyed by fire (2 Pet. iii. 6, 7).
It has been from time immemorial a very prevalent tradition amongst
the Oriental nations that the world had been, and would be again,
alternately destroyed by water and fire. Peter and Josephus also seem to
indorse this tradition.
3. Peter also indorses and teaches the absurd and unphilosophical
doctrine of fore-ordination (1 Pet. i. 20).
4. He also enjoins "servants to be in subjection to their masters,"
not only the good, but the froward (1 Pet. ii. 18). This is absolute
tyranny. There is to be no resistance to the bloody lash. The motto of
Patrick Henry is much better,--"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to
God."
5. Wives are to be in subjection to their husbands (1 Pet. iii. 1), even
as Sarah obeyed Abraham (verse 6). There is nothing said about husbands
obeying wives, probably because, as he says, woman is the weaker vessel
(1 Pet. iii. 7). Wonderful logic! A sage conclusion for a Christian
moralist. He thus places Christian morality below that of the ancient
Druids, who placed women on a level with men in both Church and State.
6. Peter tells us, "Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree"
(1 Pet. ii. 24). This is the old Jewish idea of carrying away sins by
scapegoats, and the Oriental heathen doctrine of putting innocent Gods
to death as a punishment for the sins of the people,--a doctrine
which posterity will condemn as barbarous. (See "The Sixteen Crucified
Saviors," Chapter xxi.)
7. Peter says a "dumb ass spoke with man's voice" (2 Pet. ii. 16). He
thus indorses the story of Balaam's ass becoming endowed with human
speech.
8. Peter, like Paul and Christ, indorses the absurd story of Noah and
the flood (1 Pet. iii. 20).
9. But space will not permit us to notice all the erroneous doctrines
set forth by Peter. He teaches the doctrine of a general judgment (2
Pet. ii. 9), the doctrine of election and reprobation (2 Pet. i. 10),
the doctrine of a general conflagration of all things terrestrial (2
Pet. iii. 12).
10. But the most remarkable incident in the life of Peter is his
connection with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira. We find many logical
absurdities and moral errors in this story recorded in Acts v. 1. It is
very strange that Peter, who denied his Lord and master three times, and
hence was repeatedly guilty of telling positive falsehoods, should be
the chosen instrument under Christ's religion to pronounce sentence of
death upon Ananias and Sapphira for the same sin. 2. Why should Ananias
and Sapphira be punished with death for a crime that Peter, Abraham,
and Isaac were all guilty of several times? 3. Is it not strange that
Jehovah should be considered as being strongly opposed to lying, if
he himself, as stated in 1 Kings xxii., converted four hundred of his
prophets into liars, and then indorsed the lying Peter? 4. Is not the
crime of Ananias and Sapphira--that of attempting to withhold a little
money from the priests by lying--of less magnitude than that of ruining
a whole nation by robbery, as we are told God's holy people did?
They robbed and "spoiled the Egyptians" (Exod. xii. 36). 5. Is it not
probable they needed it more than the priests did? The moral law teaches
that it is necessity, and not might, that makes right. 6. Does it not
look rather unreasonable that Sapphira should repeat the same falsehood
for which her husband had just been struck dead, as it must have been
known to her? Who can believe it? 7. And can we suppose that God would
be so partial as to kill a man and woman for the first offense of lying,
and let Abraham, Isaac, and Peter, and others, escape after committing
the sin several times! These considerations seriously damage the
credibility of the story.