under the name, rendered in the English translation by that of Deacon, at the recommendation of the Apostles, had been chosen by universal suffrage, for the management of the pecuniary affairs of the Church.
Here they took up their quarters: and here a fresh scene awaited them.
In the person of a man, whose name was Agabus, the Apostles and their associates had found, as we have seen, an agent of approved talents, and usefulness: to him they had been indebted, for the most important service, of a temporal nature, which the history of the church in those days furnishes:--the supply of money already received, as above mentioned, from the first-born daughter of the church--the church of Antioch, in Syria. At this place, Cæsarea, as a last resource, this same Agabus, or another, was, as it should seem, dispatched to meet--at any rate did meet--the self-appointed Apostle in his way; and, in the character of a _prophet_, for so _this_ Agabus is styled, strained every nerve, in the endeavour to divert the invader from the so anxiously apprehended purpose.
Whoever he was, employed on this occasion, but employed in vain, were all the treasures of his eloquence. The Holy Ghost was once more, and by name, set in array against Paul's Lord Jesus. The powers of verbal and oral eloquence were not thought sufficient: action--and not only of that sort which, in the eyes of Demosthenes, was an object of such prime importance, but even pantomime--was employed in aid. Acts 21:11. As to argument--fear in the bosom of the Church, for a life so precious, was the only one, which the skill of the orator could permit him to employ: as to fear for their own sakes, and resentment for the injury which they were predestinated to suffer,--these were passions, too strongly felt to be avowed. "He took Paul's girdle," Acts 21:11, "and bound his own hands and feet, 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."
Supposing the Agabus mentioned on this occasion, to be the same Agabus as he who was mentioned on the occasion of the apprehended dearth--supposing this to be he--and no reason presents itself in favour of the contrary supposition--well known indeed must he have been to Paul, since it was by his means that Paul was indebted for the opportunity of paying, to Jerusalem, that second visit of his, from which, as we have seen, so little fruit was reaped.
The singular circumstance here is, the manner, in which, on this second occasion, mention is made of this name--Agabus: "a certain prophet named Agabus," Acts 21:10. Whether this was, or was not, the same as the former Agabus,--this mode of designation presents itself as alike extraordinary. If he _was_ the same,--in that case, as, by the addition of the adjunct "a certain prophet," a sort of cloud is thrown over his identity,--so, by so simple an expedient as that of the non-insertion of these redundant words, the clouds would have been dispelled. If he was _not_ the same,--so expressive being the circumstances, by which identity stands indicated--namely, the quarter _from_ whence the same; the quarter _to_ which the same; the importance of the mission, and the demand for talents and influence, in both cases so great; on this supposition, to prevent misconception, no less obvious than urgent was the demand, for some mark of distinction, to be added on this second occasion: in a word, for that sort of mark of distinction, which, on other occasions; may, in this same history, be seen more than once employed: witness _that John_, twice distinguished by the name of _John, whose surname was Mark_. Acts 22:25, _ib._ 25:37.
Hence a suspicion, nor that an unnatural one--that, in this history, the part, in which the name Agabus occurs for the first time, and the part, in which that same name occurs for the second time, were not the work of the same hand.
With or without the assistance of the Holy Ghost, with the like importunity, though in a tone corresponding to the difference of situation, was a dissuasion, to the same effect, added, with one voice, by the adherents, of whom the suite of the self-appointed Apostle was composed, and by all the other Christians then present. "And when we heard these things," says the author of the Acts, "both we, and they of that place, Cæsarea, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem." Acts 21:12.
The Holy Ghost, whom all the rest of the Church had for their advocate, was no equal match for the Holy Ghost whom Paul had for his adviser.
"What mean ye," says he, "to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 21:13. To a Holy Ghost so highly seated, submission from a Holy Ghost of inferior rank, was the only course left.
"When he could not be persuaded, concludes the historian, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done."
Paul die at Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord Jesus? He, Paul, this self-constituted Apostle, who, upon his own showing, had never seen Jesus? for the name of Jesus, forsooth, die at Jerusalem? at that Jerusalem, at which the indisputable Apostles had been, and continued to be, living and labouring, in the service of that same holy name, each of them, or they are much misrepresented, not less ready and willing, both to live and upon occasion to die for it, than he could be? Was it then really to die for the name of Jesus? was it not rather to live? to live for his own name, for his own glory, for his own profit, and for the pleasure of depriving of their flock those shepherds of souls, by whom his pretensions had been disallowed, his glory disbelieved, his advances received with that distrust and jealousy, for which the long and bitter experience they had had of him, afforded so amply sufficient a warrant?
men, in whose eyes, though in the clothing of a shepherd, he was still a wolf?
What was he to die for? By whose hands was he to die? By no danger, since he had ceased to be their declared persecutor, had any Christians, in their character of Christians, whether disciples or preachers, then, or at any time, been menaced;[51] of no such danger, at any rate, is any, the slightest, intimation ever to be found: if any danger awaited him, it was by himself, by his own restless and insatiable ambition, by his own overbearing and ungovernable temper, that it was created. Had he but kept to his agreement; had the whole of the known world, with the single exception of Judea, been wide enough for him: no danger would have awaited him:--he and Jerusalem might have remained in peace.
What service that _they_ could not, could _he_ hope to do to the cause?
For doctrine, they had nothing to do but to report the discourses; for proof, the miracles which they had witnessed. To this, what could _he_ add? Nothing, but facts, such as we have seen, out of his own head,--or, at best, facts taken at second hand, or through any number of removes from _them_,--and, in an infinity of shapes and degrees, travestied in their passage.
In this account, the curious thing is--that upon the face of it, the Holy Ghost of prophet Agabus is mistaken: nothing happened in the manner mentioned by him: for, in the same chapter comes the account of what did happen, or at any rate is, by this same historian, stated as that which happened:--by no Jews is the owner of the girdle bound: dragged by the people out of the temple,--by that same people he is indeed attempted to be killed, but bound he is not: for, with his being bound, the attempt to kill him is not consistent: binding requires mastery, and a certain length of time, which killing does not: a single blow from a stone may suffice for it.
As to the Jews delivering him unto the hands of the Gentiles,--it is by the Gentiles that he is delivered out of the hands of the Jews: of the Jews, the endeavour was--to deprive him of his life; of the Gentiles, to save it.
SECTION 6.
PLAN OF THE APOSTLES FOR RIDDING THEMSELVES OF PAUL.
In this important contest, the Holy Ghost of Agabus was predestinated to yield to the irresistible power of Paul's Lord Jesus. He made his entry into Jerusalem, Acts 21:17, and the very next day commenced the storm, by which, after having been on the point of perishing, he was driven, at last, as far as from Jerusalem to Rome, but the particulars of which belong not to the present purpose.
What _is_ to the present purpose, however, is the company, which, upon this occasion, he saw. James, it may be remembered, was one of the three Apostles--out of the whole number, the only three who, on the occasion of the partition treaty, could be prevailed upon to give him the right hand of fellowship. Into the house of this James he entered: and there what he saw was an assembly, met together for the purpose, of giving him the advice, of which more particular mention will be made in its place.
It was--to clear himself of the charge,--a charge made against him by the Jewish converts,--of teaching all the Jews, which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, and of inculcating that doctrine by his own example, Acts 21:20-24. Well! at this assembly who were present?
Answer--the Elders--all of them: of the Apostles with the single exception of James, at whose house it was held, not one: not even John,--not even Peter:--the two other Apostles, by whom on their part, the treaty had been entered into:--Peter, the chief of the Apostles;--John "the disciple," John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7-20, whom Jesus loved. The nerves of James it appears, from other tokens besides this, were of a stronger texture than those of either of these his two colleagues; he alone stood the brunt. As for Peter, he had been so "withstood to his face" by Paul on the occasion of his first visit, that he had no stomach to be so withstood a second time.
James, it may be remembered, was the Apostle, at whose motion, against the opinion and speech of Peter, the resolution insisting upon certain Jewish observances, on the part of heathen converts to the Church, was carried.
Here then, in support of the proposition maintained, by James,--here, was an assembly of the rulers of the Church convened: the Elders--the elected coadjutors of the Apostles all of them present: of the Apostles themselves, not one: James excepted, whose presence, it is evident, could not, on this occasion, be dispensed with. Of this assembly, the object, and sole object, was--the insisting upon Paul's taking, for the sake of the peace of the Church, a certain measure. Now, the measure thus insisted upon, what was it? The clearing himself of a certain charge then mentioned. And this charge, what was it? A charge--of which, consistently with truth,--of which without such direct falsehood, as if committed would be notorious,--he could not clear himself. In this case, one of two things would absolutely be the result. Either he would be rash enough to commit the falsehood,--in which case his reputation and power of disturbing the peace of the Church would be at an end; or, shrinking from the summons, he would virtually confess himself guilty: in which case likewise, he would find his situation, in the midst of an universally adverse multitude, no longer tenable.
For this clearance, a ceremony was prescribed to him:--a ceremony, the effect of which was--to declare, in a manner, beyond all comparison, more solemn and deliberate than that of anything which is commonly understood by the word _oath_,--that he had not done anything, of that which he stood charged with having done, and which it could not but be generally known that he had done. Witness those Epistles of his, which in another place we shall see, Ch. 12:--Epistles in which he will be seen, so frequently, and upon such a variety of occasions, and in such a variety of language, not only proclaiming the needlessness of circumcision--its uselessness to salvation,--but, in a word, on all points making war upon Moses.
No course was so rash, that Paul would shrink from it, no ceremony so awful, or so public that Paul would fear to profane it. Of the asseveration, to which he was called upon to give, in an extraordinary form, the sanction of an oath, the purport was universally notorious: the falsity, no less so: the ceremony, a solemnity on which the powers of sacerdotal ingenuity had been exhausted, in the endeavour to render is efficaciously impressive. Place of performance, the most sacred among the sacred: act of entrance, universally public, purpose universally notorious; operations, whatever they were, inscrutably concealed from vulgar eyes: person of the principal actor occasionally visible, but at an awful elevation: time, requisite for accomplishment, Acts 21:27, not less than seven days: the whole ceremony, effectually secured against frequent profanation, by "charges" too heavy to be borne by the united power of four ordinary purses.[52] With all the ingredients of the most finished perjury in his breast,--perfect consciousness, fixed intentionality, predetermined perseverance, and full view of the sanction about to be violated,--we shall see him entering upon the task, and persevering in it. While the long drama was thus acting in the consecrated theatre, the mind of the multitude was accumulating heat without doors. The seven days necessary, were as yet unaccomplished, when indignation could hold no longer: they burst into the sacred edifice, dragged him out, and were upon the point of putting him to death, when the interference of a Roman officer saved him, and became the first link in that chain of events, which terminated in his visit to Rome, and belongs not to this place.
Thus much, in order to have the clearer view of the plan of the Apostles, and of the grounds of it, from which will be seen the unexceptionableness of it, it seemed necessary for us here to anticipate. But such rashness, with the result that followed--the Apostles, in their situation, how could they have anticipated it?
Baffled, in their former endeavours to keep the invader from entering the holy city--that holy city, with the peace of which his presence was so incompatible, such was the course which they devised and embraced from driving him out of it. For the carrying of this measure into effect, a general assembly of the governing body of the Church was necessary. At this assembly had no Apostle been present, it could not, in the eyes of the Church at large, have been what it was necessary it should appear to be. Though, of the whole number of the Apostles, no more than one was present,--yet, his being the house at which it was held, and the others, whether summoned or no, being expected of course, by the disciples at large, to be likewise present,--the Elders being likewise "_all_" of them present,--this attendance was deemed sufficient: as to the other Apostles--all of them but the one whose presence was thus indispensable,--abhorrence, towards the man, whose career had in their eyes commenced with murder, continued in imposture, and had recently been stained with perfidy,--rendered the meeting him face to face, a suffering too violent to be submitted to, when by any means it could be avoided.
On this occasion, the opinion, which, as we have seen, cannot but have been entertained by them, concerning Paul and his pretensions to Revelation, and to a share equal to their own in the confidence of Jesus,--must not, for a moment, be out of mind.
The whole fellowship of the Apostles,--all others, to whom, at the time, anything about the matter was known, believed his story to be, the whole of it, a pure invention. In their eyes it was a fabrication: though we, at this time of day--we, who of ourselves know nothing about it, take for granted, that it was all true.
For proving the truth of it, all we have are his own accounts of it: his own accounts, given, some of them, by himself directly: the rest ultimately, his being the only mouth from which the accounts we have seen in the _Acts_ could have been derived. Bearing all this in mind, let us now form our judgment on the matter, and say, whether the light, in which the Apostles viewed his character and conduct, and the course pursued by them as above, was not from first to last, not only conformable to the precepts of their master, but a model of patience, forbearance, and prudence.
FOOTNOTES: [45] Acts 18:11. "He continued there, at Corinth, a year and six months."--18. "And Paul tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave."
[46] Acts 19:10. "And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks."
[47] Acts 20:22. "And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there."
[48] Acts 20:23. "Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me."
[49] Acts 20:24. "But none of these things 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."
Acts 21:13. "Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break my heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."
[50] Gal. ii. 2. "I went up by revelation."
[51] In Acts 12:1, King Herod is indeed spoken of as having "stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the Church, and he killed," it is said, "James, the brother of John, with the sword." Then comes the story of Peter's imprisonment and liberation. But the cause of these inflictions had nothing to do with religion: the proof is--nor can there be a more conclusive one--to no such cause are they attributed.
[52] Acts 21:23, 24. "We have four men, say the Apostles and Elders, we have four men which have a vow on them:--Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them."
CHAPTER X.
_Paul disbelieved continued.--His Fourth Jerusalem Visit continued.
His Arrival and Reception. Accused by all the Disciples of the Apostles, he commences an exculpatory Oath in the Temple. Dragged out by them--rescued by a Roman Commander--sent in Custody to Rome._ SECTION 1.
AT JERUSALEM, PAUL IS RECEIVED BY THE ELDERS AND JAMES, BUT BY NO OTHER APOSTLE.
Spite of the opposing Holy Ghost,--spite of the Apostles, and their prophet,--there he is at Jerusalem. Now comes an incident--or say, rather, a relation--which is altogether curious.
At "Jerusalem," says the history, "the brethren received us gladly," Acts 21:17. The brethren? what brethren? the brethren, by whom Agabus, with his stage-trick, had been sent some sixty or seventy miles' journey, in the endeavour to keep him at a distance? the thousands of Jews thereupon immediately mentioned? those Jews, who, though believers in Jesus, are not the "less zealous of the law," and enraged at Saul for those breaches of it, with which he is charged?
That, by such of them, if any, by whom--by the appearance he made, with his suite, it had happened to be more or less overawed,--that by these, an appearance of gladness was assumed, seems credible enough: look for those, by whom he could have been received with real gladness--they will not, it should seem, be very easy to be found.
Not, till the next day after his arrival, do Paul and his suite present themselves to any in authority in this spiritual commonwealth. The first person, to whom, on this occasion, he presents himself, is James: that one of the Apostles, who, with the exception of Peter, is the person, and the only person, with whom Paul has, on the occasion of any of his visits, been represented as holding converse. Not with this James--not with any settled inhabitants of Jerusalem--has he had his lodging: only with Mnason,[53] a man of Cyprus, whom, lest lodging should be wholly wanting, they had brought with them from Cæsarea. Of this so extensively apprehended arrival, there had been full time for ample notice: among the rulers, those, who, as well as James, chose to see him, were all present. Who were they? the elders--"all the elders." Of the Apostles, not so much as one, besides James. Let it not be said, that, under the word _elders_, the Apostles were meant to be included: on other occasions, on which elders are mentioned, Acts 15:4; 6:23, the Apostles are mentioned, as forming a body, distinct, as they naturally would be,--distinct from these same elders.
Salutations performed, he addresses the assembly in that strain, which was so familiar to him: boasting upon boasting, and, above all things, boasting that he does not boast: "declaring," says his historian;--declaring? what? declaring what was his business at Jerusalem? declaring what service, in his eyes the cause stood in need of, at his hands? Not he, indeed: to any such effect, declaration might not have been altogether so easy. What he declared, and that "_particularly_," was--what "things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry." Exactly on this, as on his last preceding visit,--when all, but himself, were speaking to the question before him--Peter on one side; after him, James on the other side--nothing, is either he, or his companion Barnabas, represented as saying, that belongs to the question; nothing, but "declaring what miracles and wonders, God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." Between what is represented, as having been said on the two occasions,--one difference, and no more than one, is visible.
On the former occasion, "miracles and wonders"; on this latter occasion, no miracles no wonders:--nothing more than _things_. Supposing any of them particularized--neither miracles nor wonders had, it should seem, been fortunate enough to obtain credence: for that reason, it should seem, that, on this occasion, all mention of them is dropped.
Hearing of these _things_, what did these elders? Being things that "God," as they were informed, "had wrought," they could do no less than glorify "the Lord." Acts 21:19-20. As in Paul's Epistles, so here, in the Acts,--by _the Lord_, it is Jesus, who, as far as it appears, is the person, all along meant to be designated. Here, _God_, it may be observed, is the person, by whom everything good, that is done, is done: Jesus--the Lord Jesus--the person, who is _glorified_ for it.
To make his boasts, was _his_ business with _them_: but, to subscribe to those same boasts, was not _their_ business with _him_.
Their business was--to inform him, of the storm of unpopularity, which by his audacity he had brought upon himself: to inform him of the storm, and to point out the only course, which, in their view of the matter, presented a chance for his escape from it. "Thou seest,"--say they,--"thou seest how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses; saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after their customs," Acts 21:20. "What is it, therefore?" add they, "the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come."
SECTION 2.
LOW TONE ASSUMED BY HIM ON THIS OCCASION.
On more accounts than one, remarkable,--and not a little instructive, is the account we have of this last recorded visit: and, in particular, as to what concerns the reception he experienced from the ruling powers of the Church.
It is, in some particulars, more especially to be depended upon,--inasmuch as, at this important meeting, the author of the Acts--if he is to be believed--was himself present.
The first remarkable circumstance is--that, on this occasion, Paul, the self-elected Apostle--instead of taking the lead, and introducing his companions--keeps behind, and is introduced _by them_: such was the pliancy, with which--even on this expedition, of invasion and projected conquest,--an expedition,--undertaken, in spite of everything that could be done, both on the part of the intended objects of the conquest, and on the part of his own adherents--such was the pliancy, with which this man, among whose boasts was that of being all things to all men, could bend himself to circumstances.
Acts 21:15-18. "And after those days, we took up our carriages, and went to Jerusalem. There went with us, also, certain of the disciples of Cæsarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge." At Jerusalem, not so much as a house, to harbour them, could they have been assured of, but for this old disciple--fellow countryman, of Paul's old patron, the Son of Consolation, Barnabas. Not even with him could they have been assured of this token of friendship, had he not either been already of their party, or detached himself to meet them, and afford them the assurance: although, at Cæsarea,--from some cause, of which, while the effect is brought to view, no intimation is given,--they were fortunate enough to obtain a hospitable reception, Acts 21:8, at the house of Philip. This, however, be it observed, was not Philip, the Apostle, whether it may have been Philip, styled here the Evangelist:--one of the seven trustees, or directors, Acts 6:5, to whom, with his six colleagues, under the name, so inexpressively rendered, in the English, by the word _Deacons_,--the management of the common fund had, by the suffrages of the disciples, been committed, must be left to conjecture.
17. "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren," Acts 21:17, "received _us_ gladly." What _brethren_? The Apostles, or any one of them? no: The elders? no. Who then?--Who, but such of the members of the Church, as, notwithstanding the general repugnancy,--as testified at Tyre, and afterwards, by prophet Agabus, at Cæsarea,--could, by the influence of the Cypriot Mnason, or otherwise, be prevailed upon to see them.
And, _to_ whom was it, that this sort of reception, whatsoever it was, was afforded? Was it to Paul? No: it was to _those_, who, on other occasions, were with _him_; but, with _whom_, on this occasion, his prudence forced his pride to submit to be.
Witness the next verse, Acts 21:18; "And the day following," not till the day following, "Paul went in with us unto James." _With them_--with these his attendants--did Paul, then and there, go in:--not _they with him_.
At the house of James--mark well, now--who were the persons present?
Answer--"all the elders." But, forasmuch as these elders were, _all_ of them, present,--notice, within the compass of the two fragments of two days,--notice, to and by all of them must have been given and received: for it has just been seen, whether, between any of them, on the one hand,--and Paul, or, so much as any one of his attendants, on the other,--there could have been any such sort of good understanding, as to have produced any the least personal intercourse, but at, and on, the occasion of the general and formal meeting:--a meeting, which--as will be seen presently--had, for its sole object, the imposing upon him, in the event of his continuance at Jerusalem, an obligation: an obligation--to a man in his circumstances--it has been seen, of how perilous and repulsive a nature.
Such, then, was the notice, as to have brought to the place, all the Elders--All the Elders?--good. But, these _Elders_--Elders among the _disciples in ordinary_,--on an occasion such as this, what were _they_ in comparison of the Apostles--the only known chosen servants, and constant companions of Jesus? Well, then, while--at this meeting--this formally convened meeting--those Elders were, every one of them, present--what was the number of _Apostles_ present? Answer--Besides James, not one.
And--why James?--manifestly, because it was at _his_ house, that the meeting was held.
And--why at _his_ house? Because, on the occasion, and for the purpose, of the _partition treaty_,--that treaty, so necessary to the peace of the Church,--on the one hand; and, to the carrying on of Paul's scheme of dominion, on the other hand;--James was one, of the only three, who could ever endure the sight of the self-declared Apostle: Peter and John, as hath been seen, being the two others:--and, because, when, for the purpose of investing the meeting, in the eyes of the disciples at large, with the character of a meeting of the ruling administrative body--the Apostles,--less than that one, if there were any, there could not be. This one, James--under the pressure of the present emergency--prevailed upon himself to be: and, to be so irksome an intercourse--notwithstanding the obviousness of the demand for as great a number, as could be collected, of that primarily influential body--of no other of the Apostles, could the attendance be obtained: not even of Peter, who, on a former occasion, had brought himself to endure the hateful presence.
SECTION 3.
POSTERIOR TO ALL HIS SUPPOSED MIRACLES, HIS SILENCE PROVES THEM UNREAL.
Now, then, as to _miracles_. Had Paul, really and truly, ever received from Jesus, any such preeminent and characteristic appendage and mark of Apostleship,--here, of all others, was an occasion, on which it concerned him to make proof of it. Here was an occasion, on which, with the design, and for the purpose--the palpable, and almost universally and so strenuously opposed design and purpose--of constituting himself the superior of the Apostles, he was presenting himself--though in circumstances of such humiliation--in the character of an equal, with whom they had treated on equal terms. Here--in order to impose silence on all gainsayers--here was the occasion, for his bringing to public view, this most important of all items in the list of his credentials.
The Apostles, to whom--without any exception, by Jesus, if the Evangelist, Mark 16:15-18, is to be believed--this power had, previously to his ascension, been imparted,--these, if any, were the men--not to say the only men--qualified to form a judgment on the question--whether, by any other individual, and, more especially, by the individual before them, namely, by this their self-declared colleague, any such extraordinary power had, on any, and what, occasion, been exercised or possessed. Of all imaginable occasions, this was the one, on which he had most at stake, in the being able to make proof of so matchless an endowment:--of an endowment, which in the character of a proof, in support of all his claims, would, in the very nature of it, have been so perfectly irresistible.
Well, then: this proof of his title--did he use every endeavour, or make any offer, to produce it? No: not so much did he venture upon, as, in any the most general terms, to assert, or, so much as insinuate, the existence of it. According to his own statement, what was the general description of the tokens brought forward by him, for the purpose of obtaining acceptance? Were they _signs and wonders_? Oh, no! His historiographer, indeed--in that, or any other such indeterminate, and conveniently ambiguous phrase--his historiographer, at some twenty or seven-and-twenty years' distance, might venture, Acts 14:3, to speak of his exploits--of the effects produced by his exertions: in the like terms, in writing to his Corinthian disciples, he might, even himself, venture, for once, to speak of his own exploits.[54] But, before an assembly, so composed, was this boast, loose, and conveniently ambiguous, as it was,--in his eyes, too much to venture. Acts 21:19--Behold here the passage: "And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly"--what? what--signs and wonders? No: but simply--"what _things_ God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry."
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