Not Paul, But Jesus

Had he hazarded so much as the general expression of signs and wonders – well, and what were these signs and wonders? give us, at any rate, something by way of a sample of them? In any one of them, was there anything supernatural? anything – beyond the success, the extraordinary success – we are to understand, your exertions were attended with? Questions, to some such effect as this, which, in an assembly, so composed, had he ventured upon any such expressions, he could not but have expected to be annoyed with.

The occurrences which, in the course of it, in the character of miracles, he has ventured to present to view, will have been seen in their place and order. Yet, – notwithstanding the mention there respectively and severally made of them – no mention of them does he, in the account given by him of the meeting, venture to put in his leader's mouth. Why? because – forasmuch as, by Paul himself, no such pretence was ventured to be made – the meeting was too important, and too notorious, to render it safe to advance any such matter of fact; the face being false; or, that any such pretensions were really made.

But, hereupon come two questions.

1. Had any such miracles been really wrought – was it in the nature of things, that, on this occasion, Paul should have omitted all mention of them? even so much as the most distant allusion to them?

2. If any such intimation had really been given, by the historian himself, is it in the nature of the case, that, on this occasion, – he having been one of the witnesses, in whose presence they had been performed, – all mention of such intimation should have been omitted?

Well, then – suppose that to both these questions, let it but be a negative answer or the true one, the consequence is plain – no such miracles were wrought. Yet, in his narrative, has this man – exhibiting himself, at the same time, in the character of a percipient witness, in relation to them – ventured to assert the existence, one after another, of the whole list of these particularized miracles, not to speak of the cluster of unparticularized ones.

SECTION 4.

ACCUSED BY THE DISCIPLES, HE COMMENCES, AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE APOSTLES, AN EXCULPATORY OATH IN THE TEMPLE

Such being in their eyes the danger; now comes their expedient for the arresting of it. It is an altogether curious one: and among those persons styled elders– all the elders – to every sincere and pious Christian it will naturally be matter of no small satisfaction that no one of the whole fellowship of the Apostles is to be found.

According to the description here given of it, the expedient is of such a sort, that – but for the occasion on which it is represented as being proposed, – scarcely would it be possible to divine what is meant; what it was that was proposed to be done; or, whatever it was, what could be the use or effect of it?

"Do therefore this," Acts 21:23, continues the speech attributed to these elders, "do therefore this that we say to thee: we have four men which have a vow on them: – Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law. – As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood and from fornication. – Then Paul," it is added, "took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."

In the terms of the historian, the matter of the accusation in question is this: namely, "that thou," speaking to Paul, "teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses": it then divides itself into two branches: one is – that "they ought not to circumcise their children"; the other is – that "they ought not to walk after the customs": —i. e., conform to any part of the habitual observances – acts and forbearances together – prescribed by the Mosaic law.

Such is the accusation: such the act charged upon him, in the character of an offence: – the teaching of the doctrine in question.

In regard to the question – whether the doctrine he is thus said to have taught, had really ever been taught by him, – much will depend upon the difference between simple permission and prohibition: in English, upon the difference between need not and ought not. If, – in the doctrine, the teaching of which is thus charged upon him as a crime, – simple permission was included – if, in speaking of the converts in question, the saying was – that they need not circumcise their children – that they need not walk after these customs – this and no more; – in this case, that the charge, such as it is, was true, is altogether out of doubt: – if, on the other hand, the act he was charged with, went so far as to the teaching that they ought not to circumcise any of their children, or that they ought not to walk after the customs prescribed in the Mosaic law – on this supposition, the truth of the charge will at any rate not be quite so clear as in the other case.

According to the English translation, that which is charged as an offence, was not committed, unless, in the doctrine taught, a direct prohibition was contained: to a doctrine importing nothing more than a simple permission to abstain from the acts and forbearances in question, the charge would not have any application. Not thus unambiguous, however, is the Greek original; either by prohibition, or by ample permission, might the doctrine charged as criminal have been taught.

Such is the description of the obnoxious practice, with which Paul is here stated as having been charged: the practice by which the odium is stated as having been incurred.

But this imaginary guilt, in what view do they mention it as imputed to him? In this view evidently, viz., that at their recommendation he may take that course, by which, in their view, he will escape from the wrath of which he had become the object. The effect thus aimed at is, – that the indignation of which he is the object, may be made to cease. How made to cease? in one or other of two ways: for the nature of the case admits not of any other: either by proving that that which he had been supposed to have taught, had not in truth ever been taught by him, and thus, that no such offence as he was charged with, had, in fact, ever been committed by him; or that, if any such offence had been committed, the practice recommended might be accepted as an atonement: or rather as an assurance, that whatever in his past conduct had given them offence, would not be repeated by him in future.

When the supposed remedial practice has been explained, – then immediately after comes, we see, a more particular indication of the good effects, for the production of which it is recommended. These are – in the first place, that, whatsoever were the doctrines he was charged with having taught it, it will be generally known that no such doctrines were ever taught by him: in the next place, that it will in like manner be known, that by himself no such habitual offence as that of an habitual violation of the law in question was committed.

Such are the effects, stated as resulting from his performing the ceremony, the performance of which was thus recommended to him.

This ceremony we see: and what we see at the same time is – that it could not be, in the nature of it, productive of any such effects.

Here is a certain doctrine, which he had been charged with having taught. If the case was, that he had taught it; let him have purified himself ever so purely, whatsoever was meant by purification, – let him have purified himself ever so completely, let him have paid ever so much money, let him have shaved his head ever so close, – by any, or all of all these supposed meritorious acts, how could that be caused, not to have happened, which in fact had happened? by what means could they afford proof of his performance of any ceremony, other than those very same purification ceremonies themselves?

As to the purpose of furthering the temporal interest of the individual in question; namely, by removing the load of odium, with which at that time it seems he was burdened, – how far, in relation to this object, the expedient promised to be an effectual cure, is more than at this time we can find any ground for saying: as to any good purposes of any other kind, that it was not in the nature of it to be productive of any, may be pronounced without much danger of error.

Here at any rate was a ceremony – a ceremony the object of which was – to apply, to the purpose of ensuring obsequiousness, the power of the religious sanction.

The object, to which it was meant to apply that form, comes, it may be seen, under the general denomination of an oath. An oath is either assertory or promissory: if it be an oath of the promissory kind, it is called a vow. An oath which is not a vow cannot respect anything but what is past: upon that which is past, no human act can any longer exercise any influence. A vow has respect to something future – to the future conduct of him by whom the vow is taken: and to this conduct a man, in and by the taking of the vow, engages to give the form therein mentioned.

Whatsoever, therefore, these ceremonies were in themselves, – thus much seems plain enough, respecting the immediate effect they were designed to answer: namely, either the delivery of a certain species of evidence, or the entering into an engagement to a certain effect: the evidence being a denial of the act charged: the engagement, a promise not to practice any acts of the sort in question in future.

Whatsoever was the effect looked for, and intended, by the ceremony, – thus much we know, if the historian is here to be believed: namely, that, in conformity to the advice, Paul betook himself to the performance of it.

But, in so doing, thus much also we know: namely, that he consented to, and betook himself to one of two things: an act of perjury, if the effect of the ceremony was to convey an assertion, that he had never taught, that a Jew, on being converted to the religion of Jesus, need not circumcise his children, or walk after the Mosaic customs: an act of apostasy, if the effect of it was an engagement never to teach this same doctrine in future: an act of apostasy – and for what? only to save himself from the displeasure entertained towards him on unjust grounds by a set of ill-advised and inconsistent disciples.

Under the general head of Paul's Doctrines, particular title Faith and Works, it will be seen what pains he had taken, on so many occasions, to weed out of men's breasts, Gentiles and Jews together, all regard for the Mosaic law – to cause them, in the words of the charge, to forsake Moses. "By the works of the law," says he in his letter to the Galatians, Gal. 2:16, "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

In this same letter, and in the same paragraph, – he speaks, of a speech which he had made, of a reproof which, at Antioch, he had given to Peter: – given to him, at a point of time long before the time here in question, namely, that of his last preceding visit – his third visit to Jerusalem, – this being the fourth. Let us see, once more, on what occasion, and for what cause, this reproof: we shall thereby be the better enabled to judge – how far, supposing the ceremony to have the effect of an assertory oath, – how far that oath can have been conformable to the truth.

Speaking of Peter, "Time was," he says, "when he did eat with the Gentiles: but at Antioch, as above, certain persons came from James": Gal. 2:12, 13, and then it was that "he, Peter, withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. – And the Jews," continues he, "dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." Of his return to Judaism, or at any rate of the dissimulation which accompanied it, what is the judgment which, if he is to be believed, he pronounced? Answer, That in so doing "they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel." Thereupon it is, that he charged Peter with inconsistency, and reproved him for it: "Because," says he, "he was to be blamed." Gal. 2:14. "When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

Before me lies a book by Thomas Lewis, M. A., in four 8vo volumes, entitled Origines Hebraicae. In this book, under titles Vow and Purification, my expectation was, to find some explanation of this matter: as also of the other vow taken by Paul at Cenchrea, Acts 17:18, in the interval between his third visit to Jerusalem, and this fourth: but no mention is made of either: nor does anything appear, by which any light can be reflected upon either.

On the four men, whom, in pursuance of the recommendation in question, Paul is said to have taken, that he might "purify himself along with them," the intended effect of the ceremony in question is said to be – the making or performance of a vow. But, from the circumstance of its being a vow in their case, it follows not absolutely that it may not have been an oath – an assertory oath, in his case.

At Jerusalem, for the taking or performance of a vow, a man was received into the temple: – a district more extensive by far, it appears, than the district called Rules of the King's Bench at London: from the account given by Lewis, as well as by this, – it appears that, on every such occasion, fees were taken by the priests. As to the four men here in question – having already, as it is stated, a vow on them, but nothing as yet done in consequence, – it looks as if it had been by poverty that they had hitherto been kept from the accomplishment of their purpose: on which supposition, Paul being the head of a considerable party, and as such having a command of money, – part of the recommendation seems to have been – that, to acquire the reputation of liberality, he should open his purse to these his proposed companions, and pay their fees.

On the occasion here in question, whatsoever was the purpose and intended effect of the ceremony, what appears from verse 27, Acts 27, is – that seven days were regarded as necessary for the accomplishment of it: no mention of this in Lewis.

On this occasion, by the author of the Acts, once more is mentioned the conciliatory decree of the Apostles and Elders. Still, not a syllable about it is to be found in any Epistle of Saint Paul, or in any other of the Apostolical Epistles that have come down to us.

Humanly speaking, – in what motives, in what circumstances, in what considerations, shall we say, that the causes, final and efficient, of this temperament – this mezzo termino– this middle course – are to be found? The answer that presents itself is as follows:

Two stumbling-blocks were to be steered clear of: – the scruples of the Jewish converts, and the refractoriness of the Gentiles. So far as regarded abstinence from idolatrous feasts, and from meat with the whole blood in it, killed and dressed in a manner other than that in practice among the Jews, – conformity, it was judged, need not be dispensed of, at the hands of the Gentiles: and, so long as they would be content with meat killed and dressed after the Jewish mode, – the Jewish teachers might, without giving offence to their Jewish converts, have the convenience of partaking of the tables of the Gentile converts. As to the rest – the endless train of habitual observances, by which so large a portion of a man's life was occupied and tormented, neither these permanent plagues, nor the initiatory plague of circumcision, though the affair of a minute, and performed once for all, were found endurable: neither upon himself nor upon his children would a man submit to have it practiced.

After all, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, – it was by the Jews of Asia, and not by those of Jerusalem, that, at Jerusalem, the tumult was raised, by which this purification of Paul's was rendered incomplete, and his stay at Jerusalem cut short: he being removed for trial to Rome; at which place the history leaves him and concludes.

Of the behaviour observed by the Jerusalem Christians, on that occasion – Apostles, Elders, Deacons and ordinary brethren all together – nothing is said. Yet, of these there were many thousands on the spot, Acts 21:20: all of them of course informed of the place – the holy place, – in which, at the recommendation of the Elders, Paul had stationed himself. By the Jews of Asia were "all the people on this occasion stirred up," Acts 21:27: yet, among so many thousands, no protection, nor any endeavour to afford him protection, for aught that appears, did he experience. Yet Asia it was, that had been, to the exclusion of Judaea, the theatre of his labours: from Asia it was, that the train of attendants he brought with him, were come – were come with him to these brethren – "the brethren," – as if it had been said, all the brethren, – by whom, according to the author of the Acts, they were "received so gladly."

At this period ends all that, on the present occasion, it will be necessary to say, of this last recorded visit to Jerusalem. Of the two inconsistent accounts said to have been given by him of his conversion – one to the Jerusalem mob, the other to King Agrippa – full notice has been taken under the head of his conversion: of the miracles ascribed to him at Malta, mention is here made, in the chapter allotted to the history of his supposed miracles. Of any other subsequent acts or sayings of his, no notice will require to be taken in this place. The matter here in question has been – the sort of relation, stated as having had place, between this self-constituted Apostle, and those who beyond controversy were constituted such by, and lived as such with, Jesus himself: and to this have incidentally been added the causes, which have continually been presenting themselves, for suspicion, in respect of the verity and authenticity, or both, of the history, which, under the name of the Acts of the Apostles, has come down to us, connected by the operations of the bookbinder, in the same volume with the several histories of the four Evangelists, and the Epistles – not only of Paul himself but of others among the Apostles; and with the work styled, as if in derision, "The Revelations."

SECTION 5.

THE DESIGN OF THIS RECOMMENDATION JUSTIFIED

But the Apostles – says somebody – what are we to think of the Apostles? If by Paul a perjury was thus committed, were they not – all of them who joined in this recommendation – so many suborners of this same perjury?

The answer will, it is hoped, by most readers at least, have been anticipated. – Yes or no, if so it be, that it was their expectation that he would commit it: no, assuredly; if it were their expectation – their assured expectation – that he would not commit it: that, even in his person, even after all they had witnessed in him, the union of profligacy and rashness would never soar to so high a pitch. The necessity they were under, of ridding themselves of his presence was extreme: – of ridding themselves– and, what was so much more, their cause. Stay in the same town, and in the same company with them, he could not, – without being either their known adversary, or their known associate. Their known adversary he could not be, without either continuing himself to be an object of universal horror, or else rendering them objects of horror, to the whole body of their disciples. Their associate he could not be, without involving them in that odium, with which he himself was, by the confession of his own adherent and historiographer, covered. Under these circumstances, not to speak of the cause of mankind, for saving themselves and their cause from destruction, – what course could they take, so gentle, and at the same time, to all appearance, so surely effectual, as the proposing to him this test? – a test, which no man could rationally expect, that any man in his circumstances would take.

SECTION 6.

DRAGGED OUT OF THE TEMPLE BY JEWS OR CHRISTIANS, HE IS SAVED BY A GENTILE, NAMELY, A ROMAN COMMANDER

With this occurrence concludes so much of Paul's history, as, – for the purpose of perfecting the demonstration given, of the disbelief manifested towards his pretensions to a supernatural intercourse with the Almighty, – it was found necessary here to anticipate.

In the matter of the chapter – the 13th – in which Paul's supposed miracles are brought to view, – his history is, as to all those particulars which seemed necessary to be brought to view for the purpose of the present inquiry, – deduced to very near the time, at which the historian of the Acts, having conducted him to Rome, leaves him there: leaves him there, and with no other notice, than that of his having, at the time, at which the history closes, passed two years at that capital, in a sort of ambiguous state between freedom and confinement: waiting to receive, at the hands of the constituted authorities, the final determination of his fate.

Meantime, lest anything should be wanting, that could have contributed to the elucidation on a point of such supreme importance, follows in the next chapter a concluding and more particular view of the grounds, on which, on the occasion of his visit to the temple, the intention of deliberate perjury was found necessary to be imputed to him.

CHAPTER XI

Paul disbelieved continued. – Paul's fourth Jerusalem Visit continued. – Perjurious was the Purpose of the exculpatory Oath commenced by him in the Temple

SECTION 1.

GENERAL PROOF OF THE PERJURY FROM THE ACTS

We have seen the indignation produced by Paul's invasion of the dominion of the Apostles: we have seen it carried to its height, by his commencement of, and perseverance in, the exculpatory ceremony, for the purpose of which he made his entrance, and took up his lodgment in the temple. We have seen the fruits of that same indignation: we have seen the general result of them. What remains is – to give a clearer and more explicit conception, than can as yet have been given, of the cause of it.

This was – neither more nor less, than an universal persuasion – that the assertion, – to which, on his part, this ceremony had for its object the attaching the sanction of an oath, – was, to his full knowledge, false: the oath employed being, in its form, beyond comparison more impressive, than any that has been known to be at any time in use, in this or any other country: and that, accordingly, the confirmation given to the falsehood, in and by means of that most elaborate and conspicuous ceremony, was an act of perjury: of perjury, more deliberate and barefaced, than anything, of which, in these days, any example can have place.

That, on this occasion, the conduct of the self-constituted Apostle was stained with perjury, is a matter, intimation of which has unavoidably come to have been already given, in more parts perhaps of this work than one. But, for a support to a charge, which, if true, will of itself be so completely destructive of Paul's pretensions – of all title to respect, at the hands of every professor of the religion of Jesus – no slight body of evidence could have been sufficient.

For this purpose, let us, in the first place, bring together the several elementary positions, proof or explanation of which, may be regarded as necessary, and at the same time as sufficient, to warrant, in this case, a verdict of guilty.

To these charges, is immediately subjoined such part of the evidence, as is furnished, by the account of the matter, as given in the Acts: in another section will be brought to view the evidence, furnished by Paul himself, in his Epistles. The evidence from the Acts is of the circumstantial kind: the evidence from the Epistles is direct.