_Tongues_ are the organs most men speak with. As to _prophesying_, it was an operation that might as well be performed after the fact as before the fact: witness in Luke 22:64, "Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?" Read the Bible over from beginning to end, a _prophet_, whatever else be meant, if there be anything else meant, you will find to have been _a politician: to prophesy_ was to talk _politics_. Make a new translation, or, what would be shorter, a list of _corrigenda_, and instead of _prophet_ put _politician_,--a world of labour, now employed in explanations, will be saved.
CHAPTER XIV.
_Acts, part false, part true: Author not Saint Luke._ SECTION 1.
BY THE FALSE PARTS, THE GOSPEL NOT AFFECTED: MOST PARTS TRUE.
In regard to the Acts, a notion, generally, not to say universally, received, is--that it had Saint Luke for its author: and that, accordingly, it may with propriety be regarded as a continuation of the Gospel of that Evangelist, written by the same hand. Were this conception a correct one, whatsoever shock were given to the credit of the Acts, would unavoidably extend itself to the Gospel history: at any rate, to that part of it which bears the name of Luke.
Before this chapter is at an end,--the reader, if the author is not much mistaken, will not only be convinced that that opinion is untenable, but see no small ground for wondering, how by any person, by whom any survey had been taken of the two objects in that point of view, any such notion should ever have come to be entertained.
Another memento, of which, if made before, even the repetition may in this place, perhaps, be not without its use, is--that, from nothing that is here said, is any such conception meant to be conveyed, as that the history called _The Acts_, is from beginning to end, like that of Geoffrey of Monmouth's _History of Britain_, a mere falsity. In a great part, perhaps even by much the greatest, it is here looked upon as true: in great part true, although in no inconsiderable part incorrect, to say no worse: and, in particular, on every point, on which the colour of the marvellous is visible. As to the sort and degree of evidence due to it, one general assumption there is, by which the whole of this inquiry has, from first to last, been guided. This is--that, in relation to one and the same work, whatsoever be the subject of it, credence may, without inconsistency or impropriety, by one and the same person, be given and withholden: given, on this or that occasion; withholden, on this or that other occasion: given, in so far as the truth of the contents seems probable; withholden, as far as it seems improbable.
For the support of this assumption,--all that, on the present occasion, can be offered, is--an appeal to universal experience. As to the general foundations of the law of evidence,--for any excursion into so wide an expanse, neither this chapter nor any other part of this work would, it has been thought, be generally regarded as a proper place. What had been written on that subject has accordingly been discarded.
SECTION 2.
TIME BETWEEN RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION--ACTS CONTRADICTS LUKE.
In the first place then, Saint Luke cannot have been the author of the Acts.
The reason is very simple. In respect of the time between Jesus's resurrection and his ascension,--the one of these narratives gives one account, the other, another account: and, so wide is the difference between the two, that by one and the same person they could not have both been given. According to Saint Luke, the time during which, after his resurrection, and before his ascension, Jesus was seen by his disciples, extended not beyond _one_ day: according to the Acts, it extended as far as _forty_ days. By Saint Luke, that the time was not more than a day, is not indeed said in so many words; but upon examination of the text, it will be found, that, consistently with the particulars given, no longer duration can be assigned to it. In the Acts, that the time, during which he continued showing himself after his _passion_, Acts 1:3,[79] to the Apostles, was "_forty days_," is affirmed in those very words.
The point here in question, be it observed, is not _truth_, but _consistency_: not the truth of either of the two accounts; but their consistency, the one with the other: and, instead of consistency, so palpable is the inconsistency, that the conclusion is,--by no one man, who did not, on one or other of the two occasions, intend thereby to deceive, can both of them, morally speaking, have been penned.
Now for the proof. First, let us hear Saint Luke: it is all of it in his last chapter--the 24th. In verse 10, mention is made of certain women, three named, others not named. In verses 2 and 3, "they entered into," it is said, "the sepulchre," ver. 2, "and found not the body of the Lord Jesus." In ver. 9, "they returned," it is said, "from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." Thereupon it is, that, of all them, "two" ver. 13, of whom Cleopas, ver. 18, was one, "went _that same day_ to Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about sixty furlongs: and while they communed together," it was that "Jesus," ver.
15, "drew near, and went with them," whereupon between him and them a conversation therein reported, ensued. The conversation,--the same conversation, as reported in verses from 16 to 27,--continues till their arrival at the village, ver. 28, namely, Emmaus, as per ver. 13.
According to the next verse, ver. 29, "the day," namely, that same day, "being far spent," at that same place, "he went in to tarry with them," they having "constrained him." Then also it is that, ver. 30, "he sat at meat with them:" and, ver. 31, "they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight." Moreover, "at that same hour" it is, ver. 33, that "they returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying," ver. 34, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon." Then it is also, that, ver. 36, they reporting what had passed, "as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." Thereupon follows a conversation, reported in verses from 37 to 49, in the course of which he, ver. 43, "did eat before them." Then it is, that, immediately after the last words, which, in ver. 49, he is stated to have uttered, come these words, ver. 50, "And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass," says the next verse, ver. 51, "while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him," continues the next verse, ver. 52, "and returned to Jerusalem with great joy." And, with the next verse, which says, "they were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God,"--the chapter, and with it the Gospel, ends.
So much for Saint Luke. Now for the author of the Acts, chapter 1, ver.
3, "To whom," says he, namely the Apostles, ver. 2, "he," namely Jesus, ver. 1, "showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them _forty_ days..."
Thus while, according to the author of the Acts the time--during which Jesus was seen by the persons in question was not less than _forty_ days,--according to Saint Luke, the whole time, during which this same Jesus was seen by those same persons, was not more than _one_ day. And who was this historian, who, on the supposition of the identity, speaking of this all-important scene, on one occasion says, that it lasted no more than _one_ day; and, on another occasion, professing, Acts 1:1, to be giving continuance to such his former discourse, declares, in so many words, that it lasted "forty days"? It is Saint Luke, one of the Apostles of Jesus;--one, of the eleven, before whose eyes, everything of that which has just been read, is stated as having passed.
With all this before him, does the editor of the edition of the Bible, called Scholey's Bible, in a note to the commencement of the Acts, very composedly assure us, that "from its style, and other internal marks, it is evidently the production of Luke": quoting for his authority, Bishop of Lincoln's _Elements of Christian Theology_, vol. 4. Who this same Bishop of Lincoln was, by whose Elements of Christian Theology, instruction such as this is administered, let those inquire, in whose eyes the profit of the inquiry promises payment for the trouble. From any such particular inquiry, the profit will perhaps appear the less, the greater appears the probability, that, in the minds of all Bishops,--from the first that ever committed his instructions in theology to the press, down to those by whom the Christian world is illuminated at this present writing,--the same sort of discernment, or the same sort of sincerity, has all along had place.
When 20,000_l_, a year--or though it were but 20_l_, once told--or, though it were but salvation from everlasting torment--is to be gained; gained, by the perception, that two men, the one of whom writes in point-blank contradiction to the other, are one and the same man,--the task is not, naturally speaking, of the number of those, by the performance of which much wonder need be excited.
The sort of improvement, made by the author of the later history, upon the account given in the earlier, has now been seen. Would anyone wish to see the inducement? He will not have far to look for it. For making the impression, which it was his desire to make,--the _one_ day, allotted to the occurrence by one of the company, was not, in the estimation of the anonymous writer, sufficient. To render it sufficient, he calls in the powers of arithmetic: he multiplies the _one_ by forty; and thus, to the unquestionable satisfaction of a host of mathematicians,--Barrow, Newton, and so many other mathematical divines, not to speak of Locke, of the number--thus is done what is required to be done: thus, by so simple an operation, is the probative force of the occurrence multiplied forty-fold.[80] SECTION 3.
AS TO ASCENSION, ACTS IS INCONSISTENT WITH LUKE.
Thus far, the embellishments, made by our anonymous artist, have had for their ground the work of the original hand: meaning always Saint Luke, with whom the common error has identified him. Here comes an instance, in which the whole is altogether of his own workmanship. This is the story of the "two men in white apparel," by whom, what, in his eyes, were the deficiencies in the instruction offered by Jesus to the witnesses of his ascension, may be seen supplied.
Still the same delicacy as before: by his own hand no miracle made: only a quantity of matter, fit for this purpose, put into the hands of readers; and to their imagination is left a task so natural and so, agreeable.
Scarcely, after finishing his instructions to his Apostles, has Jesus ceased to be visible to them, when, if Acts is to be believed, "two men in white apparel"--two men, _to_ whom none of them were known, and _by_ whom none of them were known, make their appearance, and from nobody knows where. But these same two men in white, who are they? "Oh!" says _Imagination_, for the hints we have already seen given to her are quite sufficient, "Oh!" says Imagination, "they were angels. Think for a moment, and say what else they can have been. Had they been men, could they have been thus unknowing and unknown? could their appearance have been thus sudden? not less sudden than the vanishing of a spirit? not to speak of the beautiful white clothes you see they had,--and would they have been thus dressed? To believe them men, would be to believe in direct contradiction to Saint Luke; for, in his account of the matter, as you may see, from first to last, not two men were there in the whole party, that were not in the most intimate manner known to each other.
But though, by Saint Luke's account, so decided a negative is put upon all men-strangers, yet nothing is said about angels. Angels, therefore, they may have been,--you may venture to say they _were_: and the report made by all persons present, remains nevertheless uncontradicted."
"Another proof, that they cannot have been men, and that therefore they were angels. Of these beings, who were then unknown to all the company, what was the errand? It was no less than the giving to the whole company of the companions of Jesus,--of that Jesus, by whom, after giving to them such instructions as he thought fit to give to them, they had but that moment been left,--the giving to them some _other_ instructions, which he had not thought fit, or else had forgot, to give to them. But, as by no men-strangers could any such conceit have been entertained, as that, by the party in question, any such instructions would be listened to,--so, by no men-strangers can it be that any such instructions were given:--an additional proof that they cannot have been anything but angels." Thus readily does the imagination of the reader, answer with her logic, the call given to her by the imagination of the author.
Angels if they were, they appear not to have been very knowing ones.
Sent, for the purpose of giving information,--and such information, nothing of that which was known to all those, to whom they came to give it,--nothing, if they themselves are to be believed, was known to them.
Addressing themselves to the company--the company whom Jesus had but that moment left,--"Whom saw ye going up," say they, ver. 11, "into heaven"? Then comes the information, which Jesus, on his departure, Jesus, we are expected to believe, has not thought fit, or else had forgot, to give. "This same Jesus," say they, ver. 11, "which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Here we have the information and--they to whom it was given,--what can they have been the better for it?--"Shall so come."
Yes: but when and where, and to what end, and what to do? points these, as to all which, the information is altogether mute.
One other proof is yet behind. What has been seen as yet is in the first chapter. The tenth of his eight and twenty chapters is not finished, where, speaking in agreement with Saint Luke, he now disagrees with himself. On this occasion, it is by the mouth of Peter that he speaks.
"God," he makes Peter say, Acts 10:41, "God showed him," Jesus, "openly."--Showed him, let anybody ask, and to whom? "Not," says he, "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." Thus again it is, that for any men-strangers, not a particle of room is left. But, for angels, considering the materials they are made of, no quantity of room can be insufficient: therefore, once more, nothing can these men have been but angels.
FOOTNOTES: [79] As to the word _passion_, that by this word could not have been meant the same event as that denoted by the word _resurrection_, cannot but be acknowledged. But, with regard to the alleged inconsistency, this distinction will not be found to make any difference: for, as will be seen, it is not till after his resurrection, that, by Saint Luke, Jesus is represented as having begun to show himself.
[80] In chapter XII. of this work, section 1, notice has already been taken, of a similar operation as having been performed by Paul himself: of the improvement made in _that_ case, the subject was the number of the witnesses: according to the real Apostle, who was one of the company, the number, as we have seen, was eleven, and a few more: this number, whatever it was, the self-constituted Apostle, who knew nothing about the matter, took in hand, and multiplied till he had raised it to five hundred. Thus, with or without concert, with like effect,--and it is almost needless to say, with the same object, and from the same inducement,--may be seen the master and the journeyman, working on different occasions, but with well-matched industry, at the manufacturing of evidence. Add now together the results of the two operations, and note the aggregate. Number of witnesses, according to Luke, say,--for the sake of round numbers,--twenty; though there seems little reason to suppose it so great: addition made to it by Paul, 480.
Number of days,--during which, as above, they continued seeing and hearing what they saw and heard,--according to Saint Luke, but one: according to Paul's attendant, 40. Multiply together the two improvements, that is to say, the 480 by the 40, you have 19,200 for the sum total of probative force, added by the arguments of the author of the Acts to the amount of the original quantity, as reported by Saint Luke.
CHAPTER XV.
_Law Report.--Jews versus Paul: Trials five, with Observations._ SECTION 1.
INTRODUCTION.
On the occasion of what passed at the Temple, the report of a great law-case,--to speak in modern and English language,--the case of _The Jews against Paul_, was begun. The judicatory before which he underwent that trial,--partly before the Jewish multitude, partly before the Roman chief by whom he was rescued,--was a sort of mixed and extempore judicatory, something betwixt a legal and an illegal one: for, as has been seen in the case of Saint Stephen, and as may be seen in the case of the woman taken in adultery, and moreover, in the body of the law itself, a sort of mob-law might, not altogether without ground, be stated as forming part and parcel of the law of Moses. To this sort of irregular trial, succeeded, before the definite judgment was pronounced, no fewer than four others, each of them before a tribunal, as regular as any the most zealous supporter of what is called legitimacy could desire. In execution of this definitive judgment it was, that Paul was sent, on that half-forced, half-voluntary expedition of his, to Rome: at which place, on his arrival at that capital, the Acts history closes. Of the reports of these several trials, as given in the Acts,--follows a summary view, accompanied with a few remarks for elucidation.
SECTION 2.
TRIAL I. PLACE, JERUSALEM TEMPLE.--JUDICATORY, THE MIXED Scene, the Temple. Judges, prosecutors, and--stated as intended executioners, a Jerusalem multitude. Sole class, by whom any declared or special cause of irritation had been received, the Christianized Jews, provoked by Paul's preachings against the law of the land, to which they as yet maintained their adherence; by his intrusion upon their society, by which, were it only for his former persecution, he could not but be abhorred; and by the notorious perjury he was at that moment committing, having chosen to commit it, rather than cease to obtrude upon them the object of their abhorrence.
Of the particulars of the accusation nothing is said: but, the above circumstances, and the subsequent charges made upon him the next day by the constituted authorities,--who immediately took up the matter, and carried on a regular prosecution against him,--sufficiently show, what, if expressed, would have been the purport of them. By the preparations made for execution, we shall see broken off the defence, before it had come, if ever it was designed to come, to the substance of the alleged offence.
Points touched upon in it are these:-- 1. Defendant's birthplace, Tarsus; parentage, Jewish; religious persuasion, Pharasaical; education, under Gamaliel, verse 3.
2. Part, borne by him, in the persecution of the Christians, when Stephen was stoned: his commission for that purpose stated, and the High Priest and Elders called to witness, verses 4 and 5.
N.B. Time of _that_ same commission, according to the received chronology, not less than 26 years before this.
3. Story, of that first vision, of which so much has been seen: namely, that from whence his conversion was dated: occasion, his journey to Damascus, for the execution of that same commission, verses 6 to 16.
4. Story of his trance: for this see Chapter IV. §. 7. In this state, "the Lord" seen by him.--_Lord to Defendant._ "Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me."
_Defendant, to Lord._ Informing or reminding said Lord of the details of the part borne by said defendant in the persecution of Saint Stephen.--_Lord to Defendant._ "Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." Note, Defendant cut short: Lord's patience no match for defendant's eloquence.
with him...he is not fit to live":--clothes cast off, as in Stephen's case, as if to prepare for stoning him.[81] "Dust thrown into the air."
Present, chief captain Claudius Lysias, who commands him to be "brought into the castle," and "examined by scourging." While, for this purpose, they are binding him, on Defendant crying out, "_I am a Roman citizen_," the binding ceases, no scourging commences: the next day he is released, and the "chief priests and all their council" are "sent for," and Defendant is "set before them."
SECTION 3.
TRIAL II. JUDICATORY, JERUSALEM COUNCIL-BOARD.--_Acts_ 23:1 to 10.
Judges, chief priests in council assembled: present, the high priests.
Prosecutors, the said judge: other prosecutors, as far as appears, none.
In modern Rome-bred law, this mode of procedure, in which the parts of judge and prosecutor are performed by the same person, is styled the _inquisitorial_: in contradistinction to this, that in which the part of prosecutor is borne by a different person, is stiled the _accusatorial_.
Charges or questions put, not stated.
_Defendant._ "I am a Pharisee...the son of a Pharisee. Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."
Thereupon, ver. 9, "great cry"...--"Great dissention." "Chief captain, fearing lest," Defendant, "Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them," inuendo the said judges, "commands soldiers," who take him back into the castle.
"Cry? dissention?"--whence all this? Acts has not here been explicit enough to inform us. As to Defendant's plea, that it was for believing in the resurrection that he was prosecuted,--what could not but be perfectly known to him was,--that it neither was true, nor by possibility could be so. Among said Judges, parties two--Pharisees and Sadducees: Pharisees the predominant. "The Sadducees," on this occasion, says ver. 8, "say there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both." Prosecuting a Pharisee for preaching the resurrection, meaning always the general resurrection, would have been as if a Church-of-Englandist Priest were indicted in the King's Bench, for reading the Athanasian creed. Accordingly--it was a stratagem of the Defendant's--this same misstatement: such it is expressly stated to be:--when defendant "_perceived_," ver. 6, "that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees,"--then it was that he came out with it: and, already it has been seen, how effectually it answered its purpose.
Enter once more the history of the _trance_. Note here the sudden termination of Defendant's first Jerusalem visit, alias his _Reconciliation Visit_, and turn back to Chapter IV. §. 7, Cause of it,--historian speaking in his own person--"Grecians," Acts 9:29, "went about to slay him," for disputing with them:--historian, speaking, to wit, here, in defendant's person, Christianized Jews' disbelief of his conversion, and of that vision story of his, that he produced in evidence of it. It is on the occasion of the just-mentioned Temple trial, that Defendant is made to come out with it. On that occasion, as hath been seen, it was of no use: but, in this second trial, it will be seen to be of prime use. That it was told over again at this trial is not indeed expressly said: but, that it was so is sufficiently manifest.
This and no other is the handle which his supporters in the council lay hold of: and this they could not have done, had he not, as will be seen presently, put it into their hands. "The Scribes," says ver. 9, "that were of the Pharisees' part, arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God." Well then--this spirit, or this angel, who was he?
Who but that spirit, whom defendant had so manifestly told them of, and who was no other than that "_Lord_" of his, whom he had seen in the trance: in the trance, which, while the multitude were beating him, invention had furnished him with for the purpose.
Mark now, how apposite a weapon the Pharisees found, in this same trance, in their war against the Sadducees. As to Jesus,--though from first to last, so far from being recognized by their sect, he had been the object of that enmity of theirs under which he sunk,--yet, so far as, in general terms, he preached the _general_ resurrection,--his doctrine not only agreed with theirs, but was of no small use to them: it was of use to them, against those political rivals, whose opposition to their sect was the sole cause of everything that was troublesome to it. As to Paul,--had he confined himself, to the speaking of Jesus's _particular_ resurrection,--this indeed was what no Pharisee could be disposed to admit: but if, by Paul or anyone else, Jesus, or any other person, was at any time seen in an incorporeal state,--here was a piece of evidence on their side. With relation to any interview of the _Apostles_ with Jesus after his resurrection, nothing that Paul had to say--to say with truth or colour of truth--was anything more than _hearsay_ evidence: but, as to that, which on this occasion, he had been relating about the Lord, whom he had seen in his trance,--this, how false soever, was not only _direct_, but _immediate_ evidence: evidence, in the delivery of which, the _relating_ witness stated himself to have been, with relation to the alleged fact in question, a _percipient_ witness.
That, on this occasion, Paul dwelt, with any particularity, on the appearance of Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection, is not said: and, as it would not have contributed anything to the purpose, the less particular the safer and the better. _Lord_ or not _Lord_, that which appeared was at any rate a _spirit_: and for the war against the Sadducees, a spirit was all that was wanted: no matter of what sort.
SECTION 4.
TRIAL III. PLACE, CÆSAREA.--_Acts_ 24:1-23.
SCENE, "Governor" Felix's judicatory. Judge, said Governor. Prosecutor, Orator Tertullus: Present, his clients,--the "High Priest" and "the Elders." Procedure, accusatorial. Time, "twelve days," ver. 11, "after Trial 1; eleven, after Trial 2."
1. Opening compliment to Governor Judge.--His "providence" and "clemency."
II. 1. Vituperative surplusage, of course, as if in B. R.: though not paid for, in fees and taxes, by the sheet.--Defendant, "a pestilent fellow."
Charges three. To make the matter more intelligible, had the proceeding been by writing in the first instance, they might have been styled counts.
2. Charge 1. Defendant "a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world."
3. Charge 2. Said Defendant "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."
4. Charge 3. Defendant "gone about to profane the temple."
5. Statement made of Trial 2, and the termination given to it by Roman chief captain Lysias, taking said Defendant out of their hands, and commanding accusers' appearance in this court: verses 7, 8.
6. _Viva voce_ evidence accordant: witnesses, neither quality nor number stated. "And _the Jews_ also assented, saying that these things were so." ver. 9.
III. Defendant's defence: verses 10-21.
Points touched upon in it, these:-- 1. Defendant's confidence in this his judge.
2. At Jerusalem "to worship" was his errand. The ostensible one, yes: of the real one,--supplanting the Apostles,--of course nothing said.
3. In the temple, defendant was not "found by _them_," by whom?
"disputing with any man." Disputing? No. It was to take the oath--the seven-days-long false oath,--that he went there:--this, and nothing else. The priests, in whose keeping he was, and on whose acceptance the validity and efficacy of the ceremony depended, were not men to be disputed with.
4. Defendant not found by them "raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city." ver. 12. No: neither was any such raising charged upon him: nor would it have suited his purpose. Seditious _acts_ are one thing; seditious _discourses_, another. From seditious acts he had nothing to gain; from seditious discourses everything: to wit, in so far as the effect of it was to weaken men's attachment to the law of the land, and engage them to transfer it to the schism he had raised in the religion of Jesus.
5. General denial: but not amounting to _Not Guilty_. "Neither _can they prove_ the things whereof they now accuse me." ver. 13.
6. In verses 14, 15, 16, matter nothing to the purpose. Orthodox his belief: among the objects of it, the resurrection: void of offence towards God and man, his conscience.
7. False pretence--object of this his visit to Jerusalem--of this his _Invasion Visit_--falsely stated. "Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings." ver. 17.
8. When Defendant was "found purified in the temple," it was "neither with multitude, nor with tumult." True: but nothing to the purpose: the priests, in whose boarding-house he was, while the _purifying_, that is to say, the eating and paying, process was carrying on, were not a _multitude_: nor would _tumult_ have been either profitable or practicable.
9. The men, who so found Defendant there, were "certain Jews from Asia," and, if they were accusers or witnesses, ought to have appeared in that character on the present occasion. "Who ought," says ver. 19, "to have been here before thee, and object, if they had aught against me." Ought?
why ought they? Defendant called no witnesses: by non-appearance of witnesses, if against him, so far from being injured, he was benefited.
The proceeding, too, was _inquisitorial_, not _accusatorial_: it required no accusers. Jews of Asia indeed? as if there were any Jews of Asia, to whom any more natural or legitimate cause of indignation could have been given by his misdeeds, than had been given by them to all the Jews in Jerusalem, not to speak of the rest of the world, or the Christianized Jews.
10. By Defendant's saying to the judges in Trial 2, that it was for preaching the resurrection that he stood accused by and before them--by this, without anything else, the indignation thereupon expressed by them against him had been excited. "Or else," say verses 20, 21, "let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, Except it be for this one voice, that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day."
Follows the judge's decision, "When Felix," says ver. 22, "heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter." Such is stated to have been the decision of the judge: and, so far as regarded what passed on Defendant's trial before Jerusalem council, it was clearly the only proper one: a more impartial, as well as, in every point of view, suitable witness, the case could hardly have afforded: and, as to the main question, nothing could be more natural, than that what it had fallen in Lysias's way on that occasion to observe, might afford instructive light.
Interlocutory order. Defendant recommitted: but access to him free for everybody. "And he commanded a centurion," says ver. 23, "to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister, or come unto him."
In this state continues Paul for "two years": at which time, says ver.
27, "Porcius Festus came into Felix's room: and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound."
In verses 24, 25, 26, this interval of delay is filled up with an account, such as it is, of certain intrigues, of which the Defendant was the subject. The Roman has a Jewess for his wife. The prisoner is sent for, and wife shares with husband the benefit of his eloquence.
Self-constituted Apostle preaches: heathen trembles: trembling, however, prevents not his "hoping" to get money out of the prisoner, if this part of the history is to be believed. "And after certain days," says ver.
24, "when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning," what is here called, "the faith in Christ." Faith _in Christ_ indeed? After the word _faith_, the word _Christ_ costs no more to write than the word _Paul_: but in whatever was said about faith by Paul, which would be the most prominent figure,--Christ or Paul--may by this time be imagined. As for any faith which it was in the nature of the case, that the Roman heathen should derive from the Greek Jew's eloquence, it must have been faith in Paul, and Paul only. Paul he had seen and heard, Christ he had neither seen nor heard; nor, for aught that appears, anything concerning him, till that very time.
"And as he reasoned," says ver. 25, "of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time, when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. He hoped," continues ver. 26, "that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him."
SECTION 5.
TRIAL IV. PLACE AGAIN, CÆSAREA.--_Acts_ 25:1-12.
SCENE, Cæsarea judicatory.--Judge, new Roman governor, Festus.
Accusers, "Jews," not named, sent by the high priest and his colleagues from Jerusalem to Cæsarea for the purpose. Defendant still in the prison at Cæsarea: Roman judge, at Jerusalem. Prosecutors, the council there--petition to have Defendant brought thither. Judge chooses rather to go to him at Cæsarea, than thus send for him to Jerusalem.
According to the _historian_, it was for the purpose of causing Defendant to be murdered, in the way to the judicatory, that the prosecutors were so earnest as they were to obtain the _habeas corpus_: according to _probability_, it was for any purpose, rather than that of committing any such outrage upon the authority of their constituted superior, with an army at his command. Be this as it may, instead of sending for Defendant to Jerusalem, the judge returned himself to Cæsarea.
"Now," says ver. 1, "when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Cæsarea to Jerusalem.--Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him.--And desired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him.--But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Cæsarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.--Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.--And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Cæsarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment-seat commanded Paul to be brought."