first authors of this discovery, or was it ready-made to their hands?--made by that church, from the errors of which their own has been so felicitously purified? To this question, let those look out for, and find, the answer,--in whose eyes the profit is worth the trouble.
Not a few are the divines, who have discovered Antichrist sitting in St.
Peter's chair, with a triple crown on his head. In the chair of Luther, or in that of Calvin, would the triple monarch be disposed to discover the hobgoblin, if he thought it worth while to look for him. Has he ever, or has he not, made this discovery already?
"Oh, but," says somebody, "_we_ does not here mean _we_ only who are alive at this present writing; it means, _we_ Christians of all ages:--any number of ages _after_ this, as well as this, included. In the designation thus given, neither the individuals he was addressing, nor he himself, were necessarily comprehended." This accordingly, if anything, must be said, or the title of the self-constituted Apostle, to the appellation of _false prophet_, must be admitted. Oh, yes! this may be said, and must be said: but what will it avail him? In no such comprehensive sense did _he_ use it; for, in that sense, it would not have answered his purposes: not even his spiritual and declared purposes, much less his temporal, selfish, and concealed purposes. Why was it that these disciples of his, as well as he, were to be so incessantly upon the watch! I Thess. 5:6, 7, 8. Why, but because "you yourselves," says he, ver. 2, "know perfectly, that the day of the Lord cometh like a thief in the night." Who, on that occasion, could be meant by _we_, but himself and them? In no such comprehensive sense was it understood by _them_: if it had been, no such consequences as we have seen following, could have followed. After the experience he and they had had, of the mischief produced by the narrow sense put upon the all-important pronoun, would he have continued thus to use it in that same narrow sense, if it had not been his wish that in that same sense it should continue to be understood? Would he have been at all this pains in creating the spiritual monster, for the declared purpose of putting off their expectation of the great day, if, but for this put-off, it would not have come on?[75] In what part of all his preachings can any distinct ground be seen for any such supposition, as that any portion of the field of _time_, beyond that by which his own life was bounded, was ever present to his view? In the field of _place_, yes: in that field his views were of no small amplitude: for in that field it was by his ambition that they were marked out: but in the field of _time_, no symptoms of any the smallest degree of enlargement will anywhere be found. But, on this occasion, suppose other ages, and those others to any extent, included in his views: from their including such future ages, would it follow that they had no application to the age then present?--But, supposing them understood to apply to that age, thereupon in comes the mischief in full force.
Any man that has been reading these Epistles,--let him suppose, in his own breast, any the most anxious desire to raise an expectation, such as that in question: and then let him ask himself, whether it be in the power of that desire to suggest language, that would afford any considerably better promise of giving effect to it.
Of the _nature_ of the _disorder_, as well as of the cause of it,--the persons, to whom the world is indebted for the preservation of these remains of the self-constituted Apostle,--have given us, as above, some conception. Of the _effect_ of the _remedy_, it would have been amusing to be informed: unfortunately, this portion of his history is not comprised in the labours of his historiographer.[76] [63] The account given by Luke of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus is contained in the last chapter, chap. 24:53. According to this account, by no men was Jesus seen in the interval between those two events, besides the eleven Apostles and a few others, all together not more than enough, to sit down together at meat, in one of the houses of a village. Luke 25:9, 28, 29, 30. Number of the occasions on which Jesus was seen by the Apostles, two: the company the same without addition, and both occasions having place within twenty-four hours. Between these two occasions it is that Paul sticks in the one of his own invention, in which Jesus was seen by above five hundred brethren at once.
Point-blank on this head is the contradiction given to this story of Paul's, by his own attendant and historiographer: namely, in the account put into the mouth of Peter, speaking to Centurion Cornelius, Acts 10:39 to 42. Expressly is it there said, ver. 40, "Him" (Jesus) "God raised up the third day, and showed him openly;--Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." When in the year 62, or some posterior year, the author of the Acts was writing his history, nothing, it will be inferred, did he know of the contradictory account given by his hero, in writing in a letter written in the year 57.
[64] Follows a sample of Paul's logic wrapped up as usual in a cloud of tautologies and paralogisms, the substance of which amounts to this:--Jesus resurrects; therefore all men will do the same. Admitting the legitimacy of this induction, what will be the thing proved? That every man, a few days after his death, will come to life again, and eat, drink, and walk in company with his friends.
[65] By the word _prophecy_ the idea meant to be conveyed in Jewish language seems to be very generally misconceived. It is regarded as exactly synonymous to _prediction_. Nothing can be more erroneous. In New Testament language in particular, it is no less applicable to past events than to future. Witness, "Prophecy who is it that smote thee."
Luke 17:64. In the Greek, the word is occasion, it meant evidently neither more nor less than _speak out_. Hence it came to signify speaking in public: hence again, speaking as a statesman: hence again, writing as a statesman, as well as speaking. Not that a statesman could ever or can ever be a statesman, and in the above sense, _a prophet_, without being a _predictor_ likewise: as often as any proposed measure is on the carpet, such he must be, or what he says must be nothing to the purpose. Merely by uttering a prediction concerning future events, Paul would not have included, in his prophecy, any such pretension, as that of a supernatural communication received from the Almighty: but, the one here in question was one which, supposing it true, could not have come from any other source.
[66] Here we have a sort of retractation. This shows how he was frightened.
[67] Here he gives the intermediate warning; thence the respite.
[68] Here we see the rival of Paul's god: and we see how dangerous an one.
[69] Like enough; but in the same unintelligible style, in which he tells all men all things.
[70] All's well that ends well: the friends of the Almighty may now dismiss their fears.
[71] Here we see the rival of the Almighty sunk into the ape of Satan.
What if he and Satan had made an alliance? Happily they could not agree, or time was wanting for settling the conditions.
[72] All power, with _lying_ to boot. But for the above-mentioned assurance, who would not have trembled for Paul's God?
[73] This was fighting the ape of Satan with his own weapons. But--this God of Paul's creation--in what, except an ultimate superiority of power, is he distinguishable from Satan and his ape? Those, who have been so quicksighted of late in the discovery of blasphemy, and so bent on punishing it,--have they ever found so clear a case as this which is before us? Would not they have begun at the more proper end, had they begun with the editors of these Epistles?
[74] For this damnation,--on the present as on so many other occasions, those who are so eager to believe, that all who differ from them on a question of evidence, will be consigned to everlasting torments, are indebted to the right reverend translators: the original says _condemned_. This may be understood to mean--_damned_ in the ordinary sense of the word _damned_, or whatever less unpleasant result may be more agreeable.
[75] Of this child of the self-appointed Apostle's brain, it seems not altogether improbable, that, in case of need, some further use was in contemplation to be made: with the skin of this bugbear, might, upon occasion, be invested, any person, to whom, either in the character of a declared _adversary_, or in that of a _rival_, it might happen, to have become in a certain degree troublesome: a _declared adversary_,--that is, either a Gentile or an unbelieving Jew: _a rival_,--that is, one who, believing in the religion of Jesus, adhered to that edition of it, which had the Apostles of Jesus for its publishers, or followed any other edition which was not _his_: one of those, for example, upon whom we have seen him making such bitter war in his Epistle to his Galatians.
Of the two, the believing rival would of course be much more troublesome, than the non-believing adversary, from whom, if let alone, he would not experience an annoyance. Of this rival class were they whose "_unrighteousness_," 2 Thess. 2:10, had recourse to "_deceivableness_:" for as to non-believers, no need could they have of _deceivableness_; to foil him, they had but to turn aside from him, and stand as they were. Those men, whose unrighteousness had recourse to deceivableness, who could they be, but the men of the same description in this respect as those, whom in chapter third of his Epistle to his Galatians, he complains of as having "bewitched" them; and _that_ in such sort, as to have made him so far lose his temper as to call them "_foolish_:" and that _they_ were rivals, is a matter altogether out of doubt. In a word, rivals were the only troublesome sort of men, who, at the writing of this Epistle, could, with the nameless monster since named _Antichrist_, be yet to come.
[76] As for that "_helmet of faith_," which, in the passage first quoted, he has been seen commanding his disciples to put on--of that faith, which is the everlasting object of his so indefatigably repeated "_command_," and which is always faith in _Paul_,--for of Jesus scarcely is so much as a word, except the name, to be found in any of his Epistles,--as to this helmet, it is the sort of cap, which a man learned how to put on, when he had made himself perfect, in what may be called the _self-deceptive exercise_, or in a word _the exercise of faith_. It is composed of two very simple operations: at the word of command, the recruit turns its face _to_ the arguments on one side; at the word of command, it turns its back to those on the other side. The test of perfection is--its being able to hold in its embrace, for any length of time, both parts together of a self-contradictory proposition; such as, that three _man's-persons_,--to use the German word, or if any _other sorts of persons_ there are three others,--are but one. When the helmet sits close enough on his head to enable him to do this, there is no fear of its falling off. Holding fast to improbabilities, how absurd and extravagant soever, is thenceforward but child's play to him:--for example, belief in the future existence of Paul's Antichrist: including, the coming on of those scenes, in which that _raw-head and bloody bones_ is to be the principal performer.
To this, as to anything else, the mind of man is capable of being brought, by assurances of infinite enjoyment, in case of his having made himself perfect in this exercise, or of infinite torment in case of his neglecting it: of course, still more effectually, by both assurances put together; and, considering the facility of both operations, easier terms could not very easily be imagined. A capital convenience is--that, for producing faith in this way, not a particle of anything in the shape of evidence is necessary: the place of evidence is supplied by assurance:--by the intensity, real or apparent, of the persuasion, to which expression has been given, by what the preacher has said or done.
The more intense the apparent assurance on the one part, the greater the apparent _safety_, obtained by yielding to it, on the other: and thus it is, that no absurdity can be so flagrant, that the side on which it is found may not be embraced, under the notion of its being the _safe_ side. When Paul, with his accustomed vehemence, was preaching the world's end, so many of his Thessalonians as believed in it, believed, that believing in it was being on the safe side. On the part of the preacher, the more vehement and impudent the assurance, the greater on the part of the disciple, the apparent _danger_ on the disbelieving, the apparent _safety_ on the believing side.
By this means are produced the signs and wonders we read of in the Epistles of our modern missionaries; for, how conclusive soever the evidence may be, which the assertions they employ might call in for their support,--conclusive to every reasonable mind by which it was received,--assuredly it is not by the evidence, but by the unsupported assertion, that, on the occasion of those exploits of theirs,--whatever credence has place, is produced.
CHAPTER XIII.
_Paul's supposable Miracles explained._ OBJECTIONS, APPLYING TO THEM IN THE AGGREGATE.
But, it may be said, Paul's alleged commission from God was certainly genuine; for it is proved by his miracles. Look at the Acts, no fewer than twelve miracles of his you will find. If then taken by themselves, for want of that accurate conception of the probative form of evidence, to which maturer ages have given birth, the account of the miracle by which his conversion was wrought fails of being completely satisfactory,--look at his miracles, the deficiency will be filled up.
The man, to whom God had imparted such extraordinary powers--powers so completely matchless in these our times,--can such a man have been a liar--an impostor? a liar for the purpose of deceit--of giving support to a system of deception--and that a lucrative one? An imposition so persevering as to have been carried on, from youth to death, through, perhaps, the greatest part of his life?
The observation is plausible:--the answer will not be the less satisfactory.
The answer has two branches: one, _general_, applying to all the alleged miracles in question, taken in the lump: the other _particular_, applying to the several miracles separately considered.
Observations applying to the whole together are, the following: 1. Not by Paul himself, in any one of his own Epistles, is any such general assertion made, as that he had received from God or from Jesus,--or, in a word, that he was in possession of, any such power, as the power of working miracles.
2. Nowhere in the account given of his transactions by the author of the Acts, is he in any of his speeches represented as making reference to any one act of his in the character of a miracle.
3. Nowhere in that same account, is he represented as stating himself to be in possession of any such powers. 4. Not by the author of the Acts, is he spoken of as being in possession of any such power.
5. Nowhere by the author of the Acts, is he in any general terms spoken of, as producing any effects, such as, in respect of the power necessary to the production of them, approach to those spoken of as having been no such commission from God is represented as having been received.
6. Neither on the occasion of his conversion, nor on any other occasion, is Paul stated to have received from Jesus any such power as that of working miracles:--any such power as the real Apostles are--in Mark 16:15, 16, 17, 18--stated to have received from Jesus.
Was it that, in his own conception, for gaining credence to his pretension of a commission from Jesus--from Jesus, styled by him the Lord Jesus--any need of miracles, or of a persuasion, on the part of those with whom he had to deal, of _his_ having power to work miracles?
By no means. Of the negative, the story told by him of the manner of his conversion is abundant proof. Of the efficient cause of this change in his mind, the account given, is plainly given in the character of the account of a miracle. But of this miracle, the proof given consists solely in his own evidence: his own statement, unsupported by that of any other person, or by reference to that of any other person: his account, of the discourse, which on the occasion of the vision, in which nothing was seen but a flood of light, he heard from the Lord Jesus: his own account, of the vision, which he says was seen by Ananias: his own account, of that other vision, which, according to Ananias, he, Paul, had had, but of which Paul himself says nothing.
In the work of his adherent and sole biographer, the author of _the Acts_,--we have five speeches, made by him, in vindication of his conduct, in the character of a preacher of the religion of Jesus; and, from his own hand, Epistles out of number: yet nowhere is any reference made, to so much as a single miracle wrought by his own hand, unless the trance which he falls into when he is alone, and the vision which he sees, when nobody else sees anything, are to be placed to the account of miracles. Miracles? _On_ him, yes; _by_ him, no. True it is, that, on one occasion, he speaks in general terms of "signs and wonders," as having been wrought by him. But vague, in the highest degree, is the import, as well as wide the extent, of those general terms: nor is it by any means clear, that, even by himself, any such claim was meant to be brought forward, as that of having exhibited any such manifestations of supernatural power, as are commonly regarded as designated by the word _miracles_. In the multitude of the persons, whom, in places so widely distant from one another, he succeeded in numbering in the list of his followers--in the depth of the impression, supposed to have been made on the heart of this or that one of them--in all or any one of these circumstances, it was natural he should himself behold, and, whether he did or no, use his endeavours to cause others to behold, not only so many sources of wonder, but so many circumstances; all conspiring to increase the quantity of that confidence, which, with so much industry, and, as far as appears, with such brilliant success, he was labouring to plant in every breast: circumstances, serving, in the minds of his adherents in general, in the character of a sign or proof, of the legitimacy of his pretension, as above.
But, of any such supernatural power as that which is here in question, could any such loose and vague expressions be reasonably regarded as affording any sort of proof? No:--unless whatsoever, in the affairs of men, can justly be regarded as _wonderful_, ought also to be regarded as a miracle.
In one passage, and one alone, either in the Acts or in his own Epistles, is he found laying any claim, how distant and vague soever, to any such power, as having ever been exercised by him. And, in this instance, no one individual incident being in any way brought to view or referred to, what is said will be seen to amount absolutely to nothing, being nothing more than, without incurring any such interpretation as that of imposture, is at the present time continually averred by Christians of different sects.
He who makes so much of his _sufferings_, had he wrought any miracles, would he have made nothing of his _miracles_?
In the next place, although it must be admitted, that, on several occasions, by his sole biographer and professed adherent, viz., the author of the Acts, a sort of colour of the marvellous seems endeavoured to be laid on; laid on over the incident itself, and over the part, which on that occasion was taken by him; yet on no one of these occasions, unless perhaps it be the last--of which presently,--does the account, given by him of what passed, wear any such complexion as shall render it matter of necessity, either to regard it as miraculous, or to regard the biographer, as having on that occasion asserted a complete and downright untruth.
SUPPOSABLE MIRACLE I.--ELYMAS THE SORCERER BLINDED.--_Acts_ 13:6 to 12.
1. Of these supposable miracles, the first that occurs is that which had for its subject Elymas the sorcerer.
At Paphos, in the island of Cyprus,[77] Paul and his associate Barnabas are sent for, by "the deputy of the country," Sergius Paulus, who desires to hear the word of God. But at that same place is a certain Jew, of the name of Barjesus, alias Elymas,--a sorcerer by profession, who "withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith." To this man, it is not said, either where or when, Paul is thereupon represented as making a short speech, at the end of which, after calling him a child of the devil, and so forth; he says to him, "_Thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season_. Thereupon," continues the story, "immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy," it concludes, "when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."
Supposing this story to have had any foundation in fact,--of the appearance of blindness thus exhibited, where shall we look for the cause? In a suspension of the laws of nature, performed by the author of nature, to no other assignable end, than the conversion of this Roman governor? At no greater expense, than that of a speech from this same Paul, the conversion of a king,--King Agrippa--if the author of the Acts is to be believed, was nearly effected. "Almost," says Agrippa, "thou hast persuaded me to become a Christian." So often as God is represented, as operating in a direct--however secret and mysterious--manner, upon the heart, _i.e._, the mind, of this and that man,--while the accounts given of the suspension of the laws of nature are comparatively so few--to speak in that sort of human language, in which alone the nature of the case admits of our speaking, if the expense of a miracle were not grudged,--might not, in the way above mentioned, by a much less lavish use of supernatural power, the same effect have been produced? viz., by a slight influence, exercised on the heart of governor Paulus?
Whatsoever may have been the real state of the case,--thus much seems pretty clear, viz., that at this time of day, to a person whose judgment on the subject should have, for its ground, the nature of the human mind as manifested by experience,--another mode of accounting for the appearance in question will be apt to present itself as much more probable. That is--that, by an understanding between Paul and Elymas--between the ex-persecutor and the sorcerer--the sorcerer, in the view of all persons, in whose instance it was material that credence should be given to the supposed miracle,--for and during "_the season_" that was thought requisite, kept his eyes shut.
The sorcerer was a Jew:--Paul was also a Jew. Between them here was already one indissoluble bond of connection and channel of intercourse.
Elymas, by trade a sorcerer, _i.e._, an impostor--a person of the same trade with Simon Magus, by whom so conspicuous a figure is cut in the chapter of this history--was a sort of person, who, on the supposition of an adequate motive, could not naturally feel any greater repugnance, at the idea of practicing imposition, at so easy a rate as that of keeping his eyes shut, than at the idea of practicing it, in any of the shapes to which he had been accustomed:--shapes, requiring more dexterity, and some, by which he would be more or less exposed, to that detection, from which, in the mode here in question, it would be altogether secure.
But Paul--was he in a condition to render it worth the sorcerer's while to give this shape to his imposture? Who can say that he was not? Yes: if to a certain degree he had it in his power, either to benefit him or to make him suffer? And who can say but that these two means of operating, were one or other, or both of them, in his power? As to the sorcerer's betraying him, this is what he could not have done, without betraying himself.
True it is, that, by acting this under part,--this self-humiliating part,--so long as Paul stayed, so long was the sorcerer, not the first, but only the second wonder-worker of the town. But no sooner did Paul's departure take place, than Elymas, from being the second, became again the first.
SUPPOSABLE MIRACLE II.--AT LYSTRA, CRIPPLE CURED.--_Acts_ 14:8 to 11. Second of these supposed miracles,--cure of the cripple at Lystra.
This miracle makes a bad match with the before-mentioned one.
Seeing a man at Lystra, neither man's name, nor place's, except in that general way, nor time, in any way mentioned,--seeing a man in the guise of a cripple, "_Stand upright on thy feet_," says Paul to him with a loud voice. "And," continues the story, "he leaped and walked, steadfastly beholding and perceiving that he had faith to be healed."
Chorus of the people thereupon, "The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men."
To the production of an appearance of this sort, what was necessary? a real miracle? No, surely: so long as a vagrant was to be found, who, without any risk, could act a part of this sort for a few pence, in an age so fertile in imposture.
True it is, that this same man, whoever he was, is represented as being "impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked." But these words, how much more than any other words, of the same length, in the same number, did the writing of them cost the author of this story? As to the correctness of his narratives,--of the self-contradictory accounts given by him of Paul's conversion, a sample has been already given. As to detection, supposing this circumstance false,--detection is what the account thus given of it renders impossible. For--this same cripple, what was his name? from birth to this time, where had he been living? Of this nothing is said. That, at Lystra, or anywhere else, the account was ever made public, is neither affirmed, nor so much as insinuated: not but that it might have been published, and, at the same time, though as to everything but the scene that exhibited itself to outward appearance, false,--might not have found any person, at the same time able and willing to contradict the falsity, and thus naturalize the miracle.
While Paul and his suite,--of whom, according to the author of the Acts, he himself was one,--were at Philippi,--a Roman colony, and capital of a part of Macedonia,--among their hearers, is Lydia--a purple-seller of the City of Thyatira. Being converted, she receives the whole party into her house.
From this house, on their way to prayers,--probably in a Jewish synagogue,--they are met by a certain damsel, as nameless as the lame-born cripple, who, being possessed of a spirit of divination, or of Python, brings to her masters, for masters it seems she had more than one, much gain by soothsaying. Here then is a female, who, by being possessed by or with a spirit,--a real spirit, whether devil or a spirit of any other sort,--is converted into a prophetess, and, doubtless, in the main a false prophetess.
In the present instance, however, she is a true prophetess: for, following Paul and his suite, she runs after them, saying, "These men are the servants of the Most High God, which show unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days."
If, instead of a demon, it had been an angel, that took her vocal organs for the instrument of his communications, it is difficult to say, in what manner he could have deserved better at the hands of these "servants," real or pretended, "of the Most High God."
Yet, from some cause or other that does not appear, so it was it seems,--there was something about her with which Paul was not well pleased. "Being grieved, he turns and says,"--not to the damsel herself, but to the spirit, which _possessed her_, or rather, since for the benefit of her masters, it brought her so much gain, which _she possessed_,--"I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her."
Amongst the superstitions of that and other ages, one was--the notion of a property, possessed by such and such words--possessed, by these mere evanescent sounds--by the air of the atmosphere, when made to vibrate in a certain manner:--a property, of working effects in endless abundance and variety, and those, too, supernatural ones. In some instances, the wonders would be wrought by the words themselves, whatsoever were the mouths by which they were uttered. In other instances, they required, for the production of the effects, a person, who being possessed of a particular and appropriate power, should, for the purpose of giving exercise to such his power, give them passage through his lips. Of this latter kind was the present case. The command issued as above, "he," for it was a he-spirit, "came out of her," the damsel, "the same hour."
When the devil that Josephus saw expelled, came out of the man, the channel at which he made his exit, being manifest, it was accordingly specified: it was the man's _nose_. This was something to know: especially, in relation to an occurrence, the time of which was at so great a distance from our own. At the same time, however, other particulars present themselves, by which curiosity is excited, and for want of which, the information thus bestowed must be confessed to be rather imperfect. What the shape of the devil was? what the substance?
whence he last came? to what place, to what occupation, after being thus dislodged, he betook himself, and so forth: not to speak of many others, which howsoever instructive and satisfactory it would have been to be acquainted with, yet now that all acquaintance with them is hopeless, it would be tedious to enumerate.
In the present instance, not only as to all these particulars, has the historian,--eyewitness as it should seem he was of everything that passed,--left us in the dark; but, neither has he vouchsafed to afford us that single article of information, scanty as it was, for which, as above, in the case mentioned by Josephus, we are indebted to Josephus: to Josephus--that most respectable and instructive of the uninspired historians of his age.
In relation to this story, as well as to those others, the same question still presents itself:--if told of the present time,--if spoken of in some newspaper, as having happened in the present year,--exists here any person, even among the most ignorant populace, with whom it would obtain any permanent credence?
But, a reported state of things--which, if reported as having had place in the present century, would, by its disconformity to the manifest state of things, and the whole course of nature, be regarded as too absurd and flagrantly incredible to deserve to be entitled to a moment's notice,--what is there that should render it more credible, when reported as having happened in this same world of ours, at any anterior point of time?
SUPPOSABLE MIRACLE IV.--AT PHILIPPI, AN EARTHQUAKE: PAUL AND SILAS FREED FROM PRISON, A.D. 53.
The passage, in which these events are related, is in Acts 16:19-40, inclusive.
On this occasion three principal events are narrated;--the incarceration of Paul, an earthquake, and the liberation of Paul. Between the earthquake and the liberation of this prisoner, what was in reality the connection? In the answer there is not much difficulty: The same as that between the earthquake and any other event that took place after it. But, by an answer thus simple, the purpose of the narrator would not have been answered: the purpose was--to induce, on the part of his readers, the belief--that it was for the purpose of bringing about the liberation of the self-constituted Apostle of Jesus, that the earth was made to shake. As to the liberation, by means altogether natural was that event produced: so he himself has the candour to inform us. Of this quasi-miracle, or of the last-mentioned one, Philippi, capital of Macedonia, was the theatre. By order of the magistrates of that town, Paul and his attendant had been beaten one evening, and thrown into prison: next morning, came to the jailor an order of these same magistrates, and in obedience to it the prisoners were discharged. That, in the minds of these magistrates, there was any connection, between the earthquake and the treatment they had given to these adventurers, is not so much as insinuated. The purpose, which it had in view, was answered: it was the ridding the town of a pair of visitors, whose visit to it had produced disturbance to existing institutions. Acts 16:20-40.
Be it as it may with regard to the historiographer,--that it was an object with his hero to produce a notion of a connection between the stripes and the imprisonment he had undergone on one hand, and the earthquake on the other, is manifest enough. The person, in whose mind the prisoner had endeavoured to produce the idea of such a connection, was the jailor: and, for its having in this instance been successful, there seems little difficulty in giving credit to the historiographer.
Everything that appears to have been said, either of Paul or by Paul, tends to show the wonderful strength of his mind, and the facility and promptitude, with which it enabled him to gain the ascendency over other minds. In the language of the place and time, he had bid the fortune-telling damsel cease her imposture, and the imposture ceased.
Acts 16:18. Committed to prison he formed a project for making a proselyte of the keeper: and, in this too, and in so small a compass of time as a few hours, there seems reason to believe he was successful. In his presumption, in daring to execute the sentence of the law upon so holy a person, the keeper saw the cause of the earthquake; and, whether by Paul any very strenuous endeavours were used to correct so convenient an error in geology, may be left to be imagined. Paul, when introduced into the prison, found no want of comrades: how then happened it, that it was to Paul's imprisonment that the earthquake, when it happened, was attributed, and not to any of his fellow-prisoners? Answer: It happened thus.
Of the trade, which, with such brilliant success, Paul,--with this journeyman of his,--was carrying on, a set of songs with the name of God for the burthen of them, constituted a part of the capital, and, as it should seem, not the least valuable. When midnight came, Paul--the trader in godliness--treated the company in the prison with a duet: the other prisoners, though they shared in the benefit of it, did not join in it. While this duet was performing, came on the earthquake; and Paul was not such a novice as to let pass unimproved the opportunity it put into his hand.
The historiographer, if he is to be believed, was at this time in Paul's train, as well as Silas; for so, by the word _we_, in the tenth verse of this same chapter, he, as it were, silently informs us. The beating and the imprisonment were confined to the two principals; by his comparative