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.
FOOTNOTES: [53] Acts 21:16. "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."
[54] 2 Cor. 12:12. "Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." Not that, by the words assigns and wonders, when used by Paul, anything more was meant, than what, but a few years after, was, according to him, doing, or about to be done, by Antichrist. 2 Thess. 2:9. "Even him, whose coming is, after the manner of Satan, with all powers, and signs, and lying wonders." _Lying_ is, indeed, the adjunct prefixed, in this instance; but, lying or not lying, if Paul be believed, they failed not to produce the effect intended by them. Signs and wonders being such equivocal thing, no great wonder if--writing at Corinth to nobody knows what disciples of his at Rome, A.D. 58, Rom. 15:18, 19,--he could venture, if this was venturing, to speak of what he had been doing in Jerusalem and Illyricum, in the same terms. "For I will not dare to speak, says he, of any of those things which Christ has 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."
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_.
1. To Paul was imputed as a misdeed, the having recommended the forsaking of the Mosaic law. Recommended, namely, to such disciples of his as, having been born and bred under it, were found by him settled in some Gentile nation. Proof, Acts 21:21,..."They," 'the Jews which believe,' ver. 20, "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 the customs."
2. To a great extent, the imputation was well grounded: for, to a great extent, it had been his practice, to give the recommendation thus described. Of this position the proof will follow presently.
3. By Paul, the truth of this imputation was utterly denied: denied by the opposite denegatory assertion: and, the imputation being as above well grounded,--in so far as any such denegatory assertion had been made by him, he had knowingly uttered a wilful falsehood.
4. In proof of the sincerity of this denial, it was proposed to Paul, on the part of the Apostles and Elders, to give a confirmation of it, by the performance of a certain appropriate ceremony.
5. The ceremony thus proposed, was one that was universally understood, to have the effect of attaching, to any assertion, connected with it for the purpose, the sanction of an oath.
6. Knowing such to be the effect of the ceremony, he gave his assent to the proposition, and determined, by means of it, to attach the sanction of an oath to such his denial, as above: and thereby, the assertion contained in that denial, being, as above, to his knowledge, false,--to commit, in that extraordinary solemn and deliberate form and manner, an act of perjury.
7. In pursuance of such determination, he accordingly repaired for that purpose to the temple and had his abode therein for several days: the completion of the requisite number being no otherwise prevented, than by the irruption of the indignant multitude, assured as they were of his being occupied in the commission of a perjury.
23. "_We_, the Apostles and the Elders, or at least the Apostle James, ver. 18, have _four men_, which have a _vow_ on them; 24. "Them take, and _purify thyself with them_, and be _at charges_ with them, that..._all_ may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are _nothing_; but _that_ thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
26. "Then Paul 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.
27. "And when the _seven days were almost ended_, the Jews, which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him.
28. "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 further brought Greeks also into the temple; and hath _polluted_ this holy place."
Of the perjuriousness of Paul's intent, a short proof, namely of the circumstantial kind, is thus already visible, in the indignation excited,--its intensity, its immorality, and the bitter fruits of it.
Will it be said no? for that the indignation had, for its adequate cause, his being thought to have spoken slightingly of the law in question--it being the law of the land,--and that, to this imputation, the ceremony, it being, as above the performance of a _vow_, had no reference? Assuredly no: no such interpretation will be found tenable.
True it is, that, by the persuasion, that he had thus been dealing by the Mosaic law,--by this persuasion, without need of anything else, the indignation may well have been produced: but it could only have been by the knowledge, that, upon his having been called upon to confess the having so done, or to deny it, he had, in this most extraordinary and universally conspicuous mode, given continuance and confirmation to his denial--it could only have been by _this_ knowledge, that the excitement was raised up to so high a pitch. For, What was it that the information had charged him with? It was the forsaking Moses. What was the purpose, for which the recommendation was given to him--the recommendation to perform this ceremony? It was the _purifying_ himself, "that all might know" that the information was groundless. "That those things," say the Apostles with the Elders to him, "whereof they," the thousands of Jews which believe, ver. 20, "were informed against thee were _nothing_:"--"to _purify thyself_," says the official translation: more appositely might it have said _to clear thyself_: for in that case, the idea of an _imputation_ would clearly enough, though but implicitly, have been conveyed: whereas, to some minds, the idea conveyed by the word _purify_ may perhaps be no other than that of some _general_ cleansing of the whole character, by means of some physical process, to which, in so many minds, the psychological effect in question has, by the influence of artifice on weakness, been attached.
Such then, namely, the clearing himself of the imputation by so solemn a confirmation of the denial of it,--such was the purpose, for which, in the most unequivocal terms, his performance of the ceremony was recommended: such, therefore, was the purpose for which it was commenced; such, accordingly, was the purpose for which it would have been consummated, but for the interruption which it experienced: experienced not from his hands, but from hands among which, there seems sufficient reason to believe, were the hands, if not of the very persons by whom it had been recommended, at any rate of those who till that time had been in use to be guided by their influence.
To this interpretation, what objection is there that can be opposed? If any, it can only be that which to some minds may perhaps be suggested by the word _vow_.
But the fact is--this word _vow_ is a mistranslation: the proper word should have been _oath_. By an oath everyone understands at first _promissory_, not an _assertory_ one. But an _assertory_ declaration, as every one sees, is the only sort of declaration, that admits of any application to the case in question. By nothing that, in Paul's situation, a man could _promise_ to do, in addition to the performance of the ceremony, could any evidence be given, of a man's having, or not having, done so and so, in any time _past_.
That by that which was actually done, that which was essential was considered as having been done,--is proved, by what is put into Paul's mouth in relation to this subject, in his defence against the accusation brought afterwards against him, before the Roman governor _Felix_, by the spokesman of the Jewish constituted authorities, _Tertullus_. There it is, that, beyond all doubt, what he is speaking of, is his CLEARANCE, as above: for there also, the word in the official translation, as well as in the Greek original, is _purified_: in the past tense, purified.
This being assumed, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that either in the course of that part, which at the time of the irruption, was already elapsed of the _seven days'_ ceremony, in the temple; or, what seems more probable, antecedently to the commencement of it, a denegatory declaration--a declaration denying the fact charged in the accusation,--had been made: for, that the ceremony itself was never accomplished, is what is expressly stated:--of the term of seven days stated as necessary to the accomplishment of it, no more than a part, it is said, had elapsed, when the final interruption of it took place.
To return to the time of Paul's entrance into the temple.
Thus, as hath been seen, stands the matter, even upon the face of the official English translation. But in verse 26, the word employed in the Greek original, removes all doubt. "Then," says the translation, "Paul took the men, and the next day _purifying himself_ with them, entered into the temple." Purifying himself, in the present tense, says the translation: and, even this alone taken into consideration, the purifying process, whatever it was, might be supposed to have been but commenced before the entrance into the temple, and as being thus as yet in pendency, waiting the exit out of the temple for its accomplishment.
Thus it is, that, in the translation, the verb is in the present tense, _purifying himself_: but, in the Greek original, it is in the past tense, _having purified_ himself: so that, in the original, the purification, whatever it may have been, is in express terms stated as having, even before his entrance into the temple, already accomplished.
Note that, if the historian is to be believed, he had on this occasion, the fullest opportunity, of being, in the most particular manner, acquainted with everything that passed. For, when, as above, the recommendation was given to Paul, on his appearance before the Apostle James and the Elders,--he, the historian, was actually present, "And the day following," says he, Acts 21:18, "_Paul went in with us unto James_; and all the Elders were present."
Supposing _that_ the true interpretation,--of what use and effect then, it may perhaps be asked, was the ceremony, of which the temple was the theatre? The answer has been already given. It cannot have been any other than the attaching, to the declaration that had been made, the sanction, of an oath. Without the ceremony performed in the temple, the declaration was a declaration _not_ upon oath, and as such not regarded as sufficient evidence:--evidence, in the shape which, the historian says, had been actually required for the purpose: when the ceremony, of which the temple was the theatre, had been gone through, and the last of the number of days, required for its accomplishment had been terminated;--then, and not before, it was regarded as having been converted into the appropriate and sufficient evidence. Thus it was, that this seven days' ceremony was no more than an elaborate substitute to the English ceremony of kissing the book, after hearing the dozen or so of words pronounced by the official functionary.
On this occasion, the Greek word rendered by the word _vow_, is a word which in its ordinary sense was, among Gentiles as well as Jews, exactly correspondent to our word _prayer_. But, the idea denoted by the word _prayer_, applies in this case with no less propriety to an _assertory oath_ than to a _promissory vow_. Directly and completely, it designates neither. In both cases an address is made to some supposed supernatural potentate: in cases such as the present, beseeching him to apply the sanction of punishment to the _praying_ individual, in the event of a want of sincerity on his part: in this case, in the event of his not having done that which, on this occasion, he declares himself to have done, or, what comes to the same thing, his having done that which he declares himself _not_ to have done: in the other case, in the event of his not doing that which he has promised to do, or doing that which he has promised _not to do_.[55] All this while, it is not in a direct way, it may be observed, that this word _vow_ is employed, and application made of it to Paul's case: not in speaking of Paul himself in the first instance, but after speaking of the _four other men_, whom it is proposed he should take for his comrades, on his entrance into the temple. "We have four men," James and the Elders are made to say, Acts 21:23, 24, "We have four men which have a vow on them: Them take, and purify thyself with them...that...all may know, that those things, whereof they," the multitude, ver. 22, "were informed concerning thee, are nothing": no otherwise, therefore, than by the case these four men were in, is the case designated, in which it is proposed to Paul to put himself.
As to the case these four men were in,--no otherwise than on account of its connection with the case Paul was in,--is it in anywise of importance. As probable a supposition as any seems to be--that of their being in the same case with him: accused, as well as he, of teaching "Jews to forsake Moses:" for, between their case and his, no intimation is given of any difference: and, as the _"purifying himself"_ is what is recommended to him, so is it what they are stated, as standing eventually engaged to do on their part. If then, in _his_ instance, purifying himself means--clearing himself of a charge made against _him_,--so in their instance must it naturally, not to say necessarily, have meant--clearing themselves of some charge made against _them_.
Moreover, when, as above, he is, in the Greek original, stated as having actually purified himself, before his entrance into the temple, so are they likewise; for it is "_with them_," that his purification is stated as having been performed.
This being assumed, it might not be impossible to find a use for the word _vow_, even in its proper sense--its _promissory_ sense: for, what might be supposed is--that before the entrance into the temple, at the