same time with the _denegatory declaration_, a _vow_ was made--a solemn _promise_--to enter into the temple, and back of the declaration with the sanction of an oath, by going through the ceremony. But, forasmuch, as, in the import of the Greek word, no such idea, as that of a _promise_, is comprised,--the only use of this interpretation would be--to save the translators from the imputation of an impropriety, with which it seems rather more probable that they stand chargeable.
All this while, of Paul's conduct on this occasion, to what part was it that the blame belonged?--Surely, not to the endeavour, to wean men from their attachment to the Mosaic laws: for thus far he copied Jesus; and in copying did not go against, but only beyond, the great original. True it is, that, in so doing, he served his own personal and worldly purposes: not less so, that, in this subserviency, he found the inducement by which his conduct was determined: for, by how much stronger men's attachment would continue to be to the dead lawgiver, by so much, less strong would it be to the living preacher. But, in so far as a man's conduct is serviceable to mankind at large, it certainly is not rendered the less serviceable, or the less laudable, by his being himself included in the number. The blame lay then--not in teaching men to forsake Moses: for, thus far, instead of being blame-worthy, there was nothing in his conduct, that did not merit positive praise. What there was amiss in his conduct--in what, then, did it consist? Plainly in this, and this alone: namely, that, on being taxed with having so done,--instead of avowing and justifying it, he denied it: and, having denied it, scrupled not to add to the falsehood the aggravation of such extraordinarily deliberate and solemn perjury, as hath been so plainly visible. And, to what purpose commit so flagrant a breach of the law of morality? Plainly, to no other, than the fixing himself in Jerusalem, and persevering in a project of insane and selfish ambition, which, in spite of the most urgent remonstrances that could be made by his most devoted adherents, had brought him thither: for, he had but to depart in peace, and the Apostles of Jesus would have remained unmolested, and the peace of Christendom undisturbed.
An article of evidence, that must not be left unnoticed,--is the part taken, on this occasion, by the historiographer. Nowhere does this eyewitness take upon himself to declare,--nowhere so much as to insinuate--that of the charge, thus made upon his hero, there was anything that was not true: nowhere does he so much as insinuate, that the declaration by which he says Paul had cleared himself of the charge, and, as we have seen, _before_ his entrance into the temple for the purpose of enforcing it by the sanction of an oath,--was anything short of a downright falsehood. After this, he makes a defence for Paul before Felix;[56] he makes a defence for Paul before Festus;[57] he makes a defence for Paul before Festus and Agrippa;[58] and, on no one of all those occasions, is the defence anything to the purpose. He, indeed, makes Paul declare, that he, Paul, had always been a strict observer of the Mosaic ordinances. This may have been either true or false: but, true or false, it was equally foreign to the purpose. Not improbably, it was, in a considerable degree, true: for if, while he gave to other Jews his assurance, that the operations in question, burthensome as they were, were of no use, he himself continued to bear the burthen notwithstanding,--the persuasiveness of his advice would naturally be augmented by the manifestation thus given of disinterestedness. It may accordingly have been true: but, false or true, it was equally foreign to the purpose: the question was--not what he had done himself; but what he had recommended it to others to do.
Thus--from everything that appears, by all such persons as had the best means of information--the charge made upon him was _believed_,--let it now be seen, whether we should not be warranted in saying, _known_,--to be true.
As to "_The Jews of Asia_,"--and the mention made of this class of men, as the instigators of the tumult--can any support be derived from it, for the inference, that it was by something else in Paul's conduct, and not by any such perjury as that in question, that the vent, thus given to the indignation, was produced?[59] No, assuredly: altogether inconsistent would any such supposition be, with the main part of the narrative. Whoever were the persons with whom the manual violence originated;--whatever were the reproaches cast upon the invader on other grounds;--the purpose--the sole purpose--for which he entered upon the ceremony, is rendered as plain as words can make it. It was the clearing himself of the charge of teaching Jews to forsake Moses: and, supposing the fact admitted, everything, in the way of justification, being, before such a tribunal, manifestly inadmissible,--of no such charge was it possible for him to clear himself, without denying the truth of it. But, according to the historian, to confirm this denial, by the solemnity, whatever it was,--was the purpose, and the sole purpose, of it: of this, the negative assertion, contained in the denial, being untrue, and, by him who made it, known to be so,--confirming such denial, by the solemnity,--call it _oath_--call it _vow_--call it anything else,--was committing an act of perjury: and, to believe that such his denial was false, and yet not believing him guilty of perjury--at any rate, on the supposition of the accomplishment of the solemnity--was not possible. How numerous so ever may have been the other causes of provocation, given by him--how numerous so ever, the different descriptions of persons to whom they had been given;--no disproof could, by all of them put together, be given, by this solemnity, to the denial in question,--supposing it false.
To the present purpose, the only question is--whether, by Paul, on the occasion in question, an act of perjury was, or was not, committed?
not--what was the cause, whether that, or any other, of any indignation of which he was the object. Even therefore, might it be allowed, that a _vow_, in the sense of which it is contradistinguished from an _oath_, was performed by him, or about to be performed,--still it would not be the less undeniable, that it was for the purpose of converting the simple declaration into a declaration upon oath, that he entered upon the solemnity: and that, therefore, if in the simple declaration there was anything to his knowledge false, the consequence is--that by his converting it into a declaration upon oath, he rendered himself guilty of perjury.
The observation, thus applied, to what is said of the "_Jews of Asia_," will be seen to be applicable, and, with equal propriety, to what is said about his being charged with "bringing _Greeks into the temple_:" and, in particular, about his being supposed to have brought in "_The Ephesian Trophimus_:" and moreover, what may, in this last case, be observable, is--that this about the Greeks is expressly stated as being a _further_ charge, distinct from the main one: nor yet is it so much as stated, that, by any such importation, to what degree so ever offensive, any such effect, as that signified by the word _pollution_ was produced.
Not altogether destitute of probability seems the supposition, that these two circumstances--about the Jews of Asia, and about Trophimus--may have been thrown in, by this adherent of Paul's, for the purpose of throwing a cloud of confusion and obscurity over the real charge: and if so, the two circumstances, with the addition of the three different defences, put into the hero's mouth, on the three several occasions of the endeavour,--must be acknowledged to have been employed, not altogether without success.
Here then closes that part of the evidence, which, to the purpose of a judgment, to be passed at this distance of time from the facts, may be considered as so much _circumstantial_ evidence: in the next section may be seen that part, which comes under the denomination of direct evidence.
SECTION 2.
PROOF FROM THE EPISTLES.
We come now to the _direct_ evidence: that evidence--all of it from Paul's own pen:--all of it from his own Epistles. It consists in those "teachings to forsake Moses," which will be now furnished, in such unequivocal terms and such ample abundance, in and by those fruits of his misty and crafty eloquence:--in the first place, in his letter to the disciples, which he had made, or hoped to make at Rome:--date of it, according to the received chronology, about four years anterior to the time here in question:--in the next place, in two successive letters to the disciples, whom, it appears, he had made at Corinth:--both these addresses, set down, as belonging to the same year as the one to the Romans. Moreover, in his so often mentioned Epistle to the Galatians, matter of the same tendency is to be found. But, this last being, according to that same chronology, of a date posterior by some years to the time, at which the charge of having preached the sort of doctrine in question was, on the present occasion, made,--it belongs not to the present question, and is therefore left unemployed. And, in the same case, is some matter that might be found in his Epistles to the Thessalonians.
1. First then as to the Mosaic "law and customs," taken in the aggregate.
On this subject, see in the first place what the oath-taker had said to his _Romans_.
Rom 15:14. "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."--17. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
Rom 3:20. "_By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified_ in his, God's sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
Rom. 3:27, 28, 29, 30, 31. "Where is boasting then? It is excluded.
By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of the faith.-- Therefore, we conclude, that _a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law_.--Is _he_ the God of the Jews only? is _he_ not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:-- Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.--_Do we then make void_ _the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law._" Rom. 10:9. "...if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.[60]--12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.--For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."[61] Rom 14:2. "...one believeth that he may eat all things: another who is weak, eateth herbs.--Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him.--_One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike._[62]" 1 Cor. 6:12. "_All things are lawful unto me_, but all things are not expedient:" or _profitable_ margin, "all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.--_Meats for the belly_, and _the belly for meats_; but God shall destroy both it and them."
1 Cor. 8:8. "But _meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse_.--Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."
1 Cor. 9:19-23. 19. "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.--_And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews_; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law:--_To them that are without law, as without law_, being not without law to God but under the law to Christ, _that I might gain them that are without law_.--To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.--And this I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you."
2 Cor. 3:12 to 17. "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.--And not as _Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished_.--But their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which vail is done away in Christ.--But even unto this day, _when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart_.--Nevertheless _when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away_.--Now the Lord is that spirit; and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
Now as to _circumcision_ in particular.
thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.--Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?_--And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?--For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:--But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Rom. 3:1, 2. "What advantages then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?--Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."
Rom. 4:9, 10, 11, 12. "_Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?_ for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.--How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision. Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.--And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which _he had yet_ being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:--And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being _yet_ uncircumcised."
Rom. 15:8. "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the premises made unto the fathers."
1 Cor. 7:18. "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. _Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.--Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God._" From any one individual, who, in either of these distant cities, had seen any one of these same Epistles,--let it now be seen whether information of their contents, supposing it credited, would not have sufficed to produce those effects, the existence of which is so unquestionable. Not but that the same rashness, which suffered him to furnish such abundant evidence against himself in those distant regions, could scarce fail to have given birth to credence in abundance, of various sorts, and of a character, which, on that occasion, would be much more impressive.
FOOTNOTES: [55] On this occasion, supposing the purpose of this ceremony to be, as here contended, no other than that of applying, to a declaration concerning a matter of fact, the supernatural penal sanction, by which it was converted into an oath,--a natural enough subject of inquiry is--to what cause is to be attributed the extraordinary length thus given to it?--seven days at the least; to which, upon examination, would be found virtually added, as much greater a length of time, as the holy person, to whose custody the oath-taker consigned himself, might be pleased to prescribe. Answer, without difficulty,--the affording time and pretence for the exaction of his _surplice fees_:--namely, those established by law,--with the addition of others, to as large an amount, as the need which the oath-taker had of the accommodation thus to be afforded to him, could engage him to submit to. As to the length of time,--in the passage in question, the translation exhibits some obscurity: nor is it altogether cleared up by the original. A determinate number of days, to wit, seven, is indeed mentioned, ver. 27, but immediately before this, ver. 26, comes a passage, from whence it seems unquestionable, that, whatever were the time a man had been thus detained, he was not to be let out, until, over and above what good things it had been made necessary he should bring in with him, a further payment, and as it should seem, in a pecuniary shape, had been made: "to signify," says ver. 26, "the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them." "And when _the seven_ days were _almost_ ended," continues ver. 27: immediately after which comes the account of the tumult, by which they were prevented from being _quite_ ended.
As to the phrase--"_to signify the accomplishment of the days_," what seems to be meant by it is--to make known when the number requisite for the completion of the train of operations had been _accomplished_. But, to make known when that number had been _accomplished_, it was previously requisite to make known when it had _commenced_: and, for making _this_ known, the act, probably a public one, of making entrance into the temple, was employed.
As to the origin, as well as particular nature, of the ceremony,--though no such word as _Nazarite_ is here employed, on turning to the Book of _Numbers_, chapter the sixth, it will be manifest, that the ceremony here in question is the same as that, by which, according to the receipt there given, any man whatever, whether, and any woman also, must be left to conjecture, might be converted into a _Nazarite_. _Nazarite_ is from a Hebrew word, which meant originally neither more nor less than a person _separated_. A person consigned himself to the custody of "_the priest of the congregation_:" or, as we should now say, the _parson of the parish_. The ceremony accomplished, the patient was thereby put into a state of appropriate sanctity: and, from this metamorphosis, as the priest and the Nazarite could agree, any inference might be drawn, and any purpose at pleasure accomplished. Neither to the _extent_ of the inference, nor therefore to the _purpose_ designed, were any limits visible. Everything depended upon the priest: for, though of certain particular operations made requisite, a most particular list is given, all of them of the most insignificant character in themselves, yet so thickly and so plainly sown are the seeds of _nullity_, that, when all the appointed fees, of which there is also an enormous list[IV.], had been paid, it would still lie at the option of the priest, to pronounce the whole procedure null and void, unless, and until any such final compliment as he chose to expect, were paid to him. Among the most obviously, as well as extensively convenient purposes, to which it was capable of being applied, is this of which the present case affords an example: namely, the manufacturing of evidence: could he but find means to satisfy the priest, a man might, to all legal purposes, and even to the satisfaction of all appropriately disposed minds, prove, and with conclusive effect, any thing to be false, which everybody knew to be true. By fabrication, falsification, or suppression of evidence, what is the right that may not be usurped? what is the wrong that may not, with success and impunity, be committed?
In the Mosaic law, immediately before _this_ institution Numbers, chap.
5., comes another, by means of which every man, who was tired of his wife, might, in another way, with the assistance of a priest--and, for aught that appears, any priest--clear himself of that incumbrance. All the man had to do was--to _say_ he was "_jealous_" of her: the priest thereupon took charge of her. If priest and husband were agreed, "_the water of jealousy_" did its office: if not, the woman remained imprisoned. Against the superhuman evidence, afforded by the purifying process here in question, no quantity of human evidence was to be available. In like manner, to warrant this poisoning process, not any the smallest particle of human evidence was necessary: the case in which it is to be performed, is "_if there be no witness against her, neither she be taken_," says the text, _Numbers_ 5. 13. Verily, verily, not without sufficient cause, did Jesus, from first to last, take every occasion, to weaken the attachment of the people, to a system of law, of which those institutions afford two, among so many samples. Yet, while in the very act of depreciating it, is he represented as declaring his purpose to be the _fulfilling it_: Matt. 5. 17. for, such was the verbal veil, which the prejudices he had to encounter, rendered it necessary to him at the moment, to throw over the tendency of his endeavors. Fulfill the very law he was preaching against? Yes: but in one sense only: namely, by fulfilling--not the real purpose of it,--the establishment of the corrupt despotism of the priesthood,--but the professed purpose of it, the good of the community: in regard to the law, fulfilling, in a word, whatever there was that was good in it, whatever there was that deserved to be fulfilled. Jesus, in whose opinion death was too severe a punishment, for a wife, in the case of a breach, on _her_ part, of a contract, the breach of which was by the _other_ contending party practised with impunity--Jesus, who accordingly, in saving the offender, exposed to merited disgrace the sanguinary law--was doubtless still further from approving, that parish priests, in unlimited numbers, should poison innocent women for the accommodation of their husbands, or sell licenses to commit every imaginable wrong by perjury.
_Vow_ is _oath_: this is not the only occasion, in which the self-constituted Apostle, if his historiographer is to be believed, took the benefit, whatever it was, of this ceremony. In Acts 18:16, he "_shaved his head_," it is said, at Cenchrea:--why?--"for he had a vow upon him." What the vow was, we are not told; this, however, we know, as well from Acts 21:26, as from Numbers 6, he could not have got anything by it, had the parson of the parish of Cenchrea been otherwise than satisfied with the "_offering_" that was made.
[IV.] In the bargain between vow-maker and vow-sanctifier, the following list of fees, provided for sanctifier, by _Excellent Church_ of that country, in those days whatever they were,--may serve to show the use of it to one of the contracting parties. To complete our conception of the nature and effects of the arrangement, nothing is wanting, but that which so unhappily must for ever remain wanting--a history of the _purposes_, to which from the commencement of the government to the dissolution of it, the solemnity had been applied on the vow-maker's side. Of these purposes, we must content ourselves as well as we can with the sample, for which we are here indebted to the author of the Acts. The table of fees is as follows: It is extracted from the Book of Numbers, chapter 6:1 to 21.
Fees to be paid in all cases: fees liquidated in quantity, and thence in value.
{ 1. He lamb of the first year, one.
I. { 2. Ewe-lamb of the first year, one.
{ 3. Ram without blemish, one.
Fees, not liquidated in quantity, and thus left to be liquidated in quantity, and thence in value, by the will of the priest.
{ 4. Basket of unleavened bread, one.
{ 5. Parcel of cakes of fine flour mingled with oil.
II. { 6. Parcel of wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, one.
{ 8. Drink-offerings--numbers and respective quantities not liquidated.
Fees payable, on a contingency: a contingency not describable without more time and labour, than would be paid for by the result.
III. { 9. Turtle-doves or pigeons, two.
{ 10. Lamb of the first year, one.
IV. Mysterious addition, the liquidation of which must be left to the Hebrew scholar. Ver. 21. "Besides _that_ that his hand shall get:" (whose hand? priest's or vow-maker's?) "according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation:"--probable meaning, according to the purpose, for which he performed the ceremony--the advantage which he looked for from it.
Moreover, by any one whose curiosity will carry him through the inquiry, causes of _nullity_ may be seen as sedulously and copiously provided, as if by the _astutia_ of an English judge, or pair of judges, to whose profit the fees were to be received: effect of the nullity, of course, repetition; necessity of repeating the process, as in case of _new trial_ or _arrest of judgment_, with the fees.
Religion was thus no less aptly served at Jerusalem, under Mosaic institutions,--than Justice is to this day, under matchless constitution and English institutions, at Westminster.
18.
"And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.--And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him,--Saying, We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:--Who also hath _gone about to profane the temple_; whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.--And the Jews also assented, saying, that these things were so.--Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered,--Thou mayest understand, that they are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.--Whereupon certain Jews from Asia _found me purified in the temple_, neither with multitude nor with tumult."
[57] Paul before Festus alone, A.D. 60. Acts 25:7, 8.
"And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove:--While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended anything at all."
7, 20, 21.
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.
Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:--I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee, touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews;--Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews; wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.--My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;--Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straightest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.--And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:--Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.--20. But showed first unto them of Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.--For these causes, the Jews _caught me in the temple_, and went about to kill me."
[59] "And when the seven days were almost ended," says Acts 21:27, "_the Jews which were of Asia_, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him."
[60] A cheap enough rate this, at which salvation is thus put up. Of what use then morality? Of what use is abstinence from mischievous acts, in what degree so ever mischievous? "Oh! but," says somebody, "though Paul said this, he meant no such thing:" and then comes something--anything--which it may suit the defender's purpose to make Paul say.
[61] Another receipt for making salvation still cheaper than as above.
Not so Jesus. Matt. 7:21: "_Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven_; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
[62] Behold here the degree of importance attached by Paul to _sabbaths_.
CHAPTER XII.
More Falsehoods.--Resurrection Witnesses multiplied.--World's End predicted.--To save credit, Antichrist invented.
SECTION 1.
RESURRECTION-WITNESSES MULTIPLIED.
After what has been seen of the seven days' course of perjury, proofs of simple falsehood will be apt to appear superfluous. To make certainty more sure, two preeminent ones shall, however, be brought to view. They may have their use, were it only as examples of the palpableness, of those falsehoods, which, for so many hundreds of years, and through so many generations of commentators, are, under favourable circumstances, capable of remaining undetected. The extravagance of the addition, made by the audacious stranger, to the number of the Resurrection-witnesses, as given by themselves:--the predicted end of the world in the prophet's own lifetime,--and the creation of Antichrist for the purpose of putting off that catastrophe,--may even be not altogether unamusing, by the picture they will give, of that mixture of rashness and craftiness, which constitutes not the least remarkable, of the ingredients in the composition of this extraordinary character. Moreover, Antichrist being in the number of the bug-bears, by the images of which many an enfeebled mind has not yet ceased to be tormented;--putting an extinguisher upon this hobgoblin may have the serious good effect, of calming a mass of disquietude, which how completely soever groundless, is not the less afflicting, to the minds into which it has found entrance.
First, as to the resurrection-witnesses. In relation to a fact of such cardinal importance, the accounts which have reached us from the four biographers of Jesus are not, it must be confessed, altogether so clear as could have been wished. But, on so ample a subject, howsoever tempting the occasion, anything that could here be offered, with any promise of usefulness, would occupy far too much space, and be by much too wide a digression from the design of the present work.[63] Sufficient to the present purpose will be the observation, that nothing can be more palpably or irreconcileably inconsistent with every one of them, than the amply and round number, thus added by the effrontery of this uninformed stranger, to the most ample that can be deduced from any of the accounts, thus stated as given by the only description of persons, whose situation would give to their testimony the character of the best evidence.
Behold now the account of the number and of the persons in Paul's own words. It is in the fifteenth chapter of the first of his two letters to his Corinthians. "Moreover, brethren," ver. 1, "I declare unto you the Gospel, the good news, which I _preached_ unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand.--By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you unless ye have believed in vain.--For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures:--And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures:--And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:--After that, he was seen of _above five hundred brethren at once_; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.--After that he was seen of James, then of all the Apostles.--And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.--For I am the least of the Apostles, which am not meet to be called as Apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."[64] As to the five hundred brethren at once, with the additions _in petto_, the more closely the Gospel accounts are looked into, the more entire will be a Man's conviction of the extravagance of this account. In addition to the eleven Apostles that remained after the death of the traitor Judas, it may be matter of question, whether so much as a single individual can be found, who, in any one of the Gospels, is stated as having, after the death of Jesus, received from the testimony of sense, the demonstration of his presence. Of the percipient witnesses in question, not to waste space and time in needless discussions, taking a round number, and including both sexes taken together, no number approaching to twenty can be made out from any one of the four Gospel accounts, nor from all of them taken together. To what end then substitute, to less than twenty, more than five hundred? To what, but to supply by falsehood the deficiency left by truth. The thing to be done was the coming up to the expectations, whatever they might be, of his Corinthians. Number twenty,--said he to himself,--may perhaps fall short: well then, strike out the twenty, and set down five hundred. Thus did the self-constituted Apostle take a leaf out of the book of the unjust steward. Luke 16:1-20.
Now then as to mutually contradictory numbers--that given by the four Evangelists, and that given by this one stranger,--to which shall we give credence? As to the Evangelists,--whether, in the situation in which they were, and writing for the purposes for which they wrote,--these most intimate of the associates of the departed Jesus, and percipient witnesses of the several facts in question,--all of them spoken of in the same narration, all of them so fully apprised of the whole real number--could have been disposed, any one of them, to get down a number _short_ of the truth,--may be left to anyone to imagine.
But, according to Paul's calculation, the truth would not come up to his purpose:--to his particular purpose: a number, such as could not fail of doing so, was therefore to be substituted.
_Five hundred_ was as easily written as _twenty_. Had Jerusalem, or any place in its neighbourhood, been the place, to which this letter of his was to be addressed, some caution might have been necessary. But Corinth--a place so remote from the scene of action--being the abode of