people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?--Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.--For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.--Wherefore, if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.--But if ye inquire anything concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.--For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.--And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
The _Judge_ by whom the principal cause was tried, and the plaintiffs non-suited, is styled, we see "_the Town Clerk_:" the more appropriate and respected title would not on this occasion have been ill-applied to him. Except what we have here been seeing, we know nothing of him that is _positive_: but, seeing thus much of him, we see that he was an honest man: and an honest man is not ill portrayed by negatives. He had no coronet playing before his eyes: no overpaid places and sinecures for relatives. He had not been made judge, for publishing a liturgy of the church of Diana, with an embroidery composed of his own comments,--or for circulating, with anonymous delicacy, a pious warning, never to be absent from the shrine of Diana, when the sacred cup was, proffered by the hands of holy priests. Accordingly, when the charge of _blasphemy_ was brought before him,--being a heathen, he found no difficulty in treating it, in that gentle and soothing mode, in which, when, from the bosom of an established church it enters into a man, the spirit, which calls itself the spirit of Christianity, renders him so averse to the treating it. If, when his robes were off, he spoke of Diana what we now think of her,--he did not, when they were on, foam or rave, declare--that all, who would not swear to their belief in her, were not fit to be believed, or so much as fit to live.
By him, one man was not robbed of his rights, because another man, when called upon as a witness, refused to perjure himself. By him, a man was not refused to be heard as a witness, nor refused protection for the fruits of his industry, nor deprived of the guardianship of his children, because he waited to see Diana, before he declared himself a believer in her existence. In the open theatre was pronounced the judgment we have seen. He did not, by secret sittings, deprive men of the protection of the public eye. He did not, we may stand assured--for we see how far the people of Ephesus were from being tame enough to endure it--he did not keep men's property in his hands, to be plundered by himself, his children, or his creatures, till the property was absorbed, and the proprietors sent broken-hearted to their graves. He did not--for the people of Ephesus would not have endured it--wring out of distress a princely income, on pretence of giving decisions, declaring all the while his matchless incapacity for everything but prating or raising doubts. He did not display,--he could not have displayed--the people of Ephesus could not have endured it--any such effrontery, as, when a judicatory was to sit upon his conduct, to set himself down in it, and assume and carry on the management of it. He would not have sought impunity--for if he had sought it in Ephesus, he would not have found it there--he would not have sought impunity, in eyes lifted up to heaven, or streaming with crocodile tears.
Thus much as to his negative merits. But, we have seen enough of him, to see one great positive one. When, from the inexhaustible source of inflammation, a flame was kindled,--he did not fan the flame,--he quenched it.
The religion of Diana having thus come upon the carpet, a reflection which could not be put by, is--spite of all efforts of the church silversmiths, in how many essential points, negative as they are, the religion of Diana had, on the ground of usefulness, the advantage of that, which _is_ the religion of Paul, and _is called_ the religion of Jesus. Diana drove no men out of their senses, by pictures or preachments of never-ending torments. On pretence of saving men from future sufferings, no men were consigned by it to present ones. No mischievous, no pain-producing, no real vice, was promoted by it. It compelled no perjury, no hypocrisy: it rewarded none. It committed, it supported, it blessed, it lauded, no depredation, no oppression in any shape: it plundered no man of the fruits of his industry, under the name of _tithes_. For the enrichment of the sacred shrines,--money, in any quantity, we may venture to say, received: received, yes: but in no quantity extorted. One temple was sufficient for _that_ goddess.
Believing, or not believing in her divinity,--no men were compelled to pay money, for more temples, more priests, or more shrines.
_As to the religion of Jesus, true it is, that so long as it continued the religion of Jesus, all was good government, all was equality, all was harmony: free church, the whole; established church, none: monarchy, none; constitution, democratical. Constitutive authority, the whole community: legislative, the Apostles of Jesus_; executive, the Commissioners of the Treasury: not Lords Commissioners, appointed by a King Herod, but trustees or _stewards_; for such should have been the word, and not _deacons_,--_agents elected by universal suffrage_. In this felicitous state, how long it continued--we know not. What we do know, is--that, _in the fourth century_, _despotism_ took possession of it, and made an instrument of it. Becoming _established_, it became noxious,--preponderantly noxious. For, where _established_ is the adjunct to it, what does _religion_ mean? what but _depredation_, corruption, oppression, hypocrisy? _depredation_, _corruption_, _oppression_, _hypocrisy_--these four: with delusion, in all its forms and trappings, for support.
So pregnant is this same boasting passage--1 Cor. xv. 32, the labour it has thrown upon us, is not altogether at an end. By what it says of the resurrection, the memory has been led back, to what we have seen on the same subject, in one of Paul's Epistles to his Thessalonians: brought together, the two doctrines present a contrast too curious to be left unnoticed. Of the apparatus employed by him in his trade of _disciple-catcher_, his talk about the resurrection, was, it may well be imagined, a capital article. Being, according to his own motto, _all things to all men_, 1 Cor. ix. 22, whatever it happened to him to say on the subject, was dished up, of course, according to the taste of those he had to deal with. To some it was a _prediction_: for such, we have seen, was the form it assumed when the people to be wrought upon were the Thessalonians. To others, when occasion called, it was a statement concerning something _past_, or supposed to be past. On an occasion of this sort it was, that the name of Jesus, another article of that same apparatus, was of so much use to him. True it is, that to the doctrine of the _general_ resurrection in time future, he had, it must be remembered, no need of declaring himself beholden to Jesus: at least, if on this point, the Acts' history is to be believed: for, of the Pharisees,--the sect to which Paul belonged--of the Pharisees, as compared with the other sect the Sadducees, it was the distinctive tenet. But, of the then future, the then past, as exemplified in the _particular_ case of Jesus, could not but afford very impressive circumstantial evidence. Of this momentous occurrence, there were the real Apostles, ready to give their accounts,--conformable, it may be presumed, to those we see given, as from them, by the four Evangelists.
These accounts, however, would not suit the purpose of the self-constituted Apostle: in the first place, because they came from the real Apostles, with whom, as we have so often seen, it was a declared principle with him not to have had anything to do: in the next place, because the Apostles were too scrupulous: they would not have furnished him with witnesses enough. His own inexhaustible fund--his own invention,--was therefore the fund, on this occasion, drawn upon: and, accordingly, instead of the number of witnesses,--say _a score_ or two at the utmost--he could have got from the Apostles,--it supplied him with _five hundred_: five hundred, _all at once_: to which, if pressed, he could have added any other number of percipient witnesses whatsoever, provided only that it was at _different_ times they had been such.
So much for explanation: now for the announced contrast. Whoever the people were, whom he had to address himself to,--they had contracted, he found, a bad habit: it was that of _eating and drinking_. Reason is but too apt to be seduced by, and enlisted in the service of her most dangerous enemy--_Appetite_. Not only did they eat and drink; but they had found, as it seemed to them, _reason_ for so doing. They ate and drank--why? because they were to die after it. "Let us eat and drink," said the language we have seen him reproaching them with, 1 Cor. xv. 32.
"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
The case is--that, in pleasure, in whatever shape they see her,--all men, to whose ambition supernatural terrors supply an instrument of dominion, behold their most formidable rival. Against such a rival, wonderful indeed it would be, if their hostility were not proportionable. No morality accordingly do they acknowledge, that does not include, with or without other things, hatred,--with or without contempt, of pleasure. Such, too, as is their morality, such is their law. Death is scarce severe enough, for a pleasure, which they either have, or would be thought to have, no relish for. So at least says what they teach: but, teaching how to act is one thing; acting accordingly, another. Thus we all see it is, in so many instances: and thus, without much danger of injustice, we may venture to suppose it may have been, in that of the self-constituted Apostle.
Not so Jesus: no harm did he see in eating and drinking, unless with the pleasure it produced greater pain. With this reserve, no harm,--for anything that appears in any one of the four histories we have of him,--no harm did he see in anything that gives pleasure. What every man knows--and what Jesus knew as well as any man--for neither in words nor in acts did he deny it--is,--that happiness, at what time soever experienced,--happiness, to be anything, must be composed of pleasures: and, be the man who he may, of what it is that gives pleasure to him, he alone can be judge.
But, to return to eating and drinking. Eating and drinking--he gives his men to understand--even he, holy as he is, should not have had any objection to, had it not been for this same resurrection of his, which he was telling them of: eating and drinking--a practice, to which, notwithstanding this resurrection of his, and so much as he had told them of it, he had the mortification to find them so much addicted. So much for his _Corinthians_. It was, as we see, _for want_ of their paying, to what he was thus telling them about the resurrection, that attention, to which it was so well entitled,--that _they_ still kept on in that bad habit. But his _Thessalonians_--they too, as we have seen, had got the same bad habit. Well: and what was it that gave it them?
What but their paying too much attention to this same resurrection of his, dished up in the same or another manner, by the same inventive and experienced hand. In conclusion, on laying the two cases together, what seems evident enough is--that, in whatever manner served up to them, his resurrection, whatever it was, was considerably more effectual in making people eat and drink, than in weaning them from it.
SECTION 6.
GAMALIEL--HAD HE PART IN PAUL'S PLAN?
Gamaliel--in the working of this conversion, may it not be that Gamaliel--a person whose reality seems little exposed to doubt--had rather a more considerable share, than the above-mentioned unknown and unknowable Ananias?
Gamaliel was "a doctor of law" Acts 5:34--a person of sufficient note, to have been a member of the council, in which the chief priests, under the presidency of the High Priest, Acts 5:24, took cognizance of the offence with which Peter and his associates had a little before this been charged, on the occasion of their preaching Jesus. Under this Gamaliel, had Paul, he so at least is made to tell us, studied, Acts 22:3. Between Paul and this Gamaliel, here then is a connection: a connection--of that sort, which, in all places, at all times, has existence,--and of which the nature is everywhere and at all times so well understood--the connection between _protegé_ and protector. It was by authority from the governing body, that Paul was, at this time, lavishing his exertions in the persecution of the Apostles and their adherents:--who then so likely, as this same Gamaliel, to have been the patron, at whose recommendation the commission was obtained? Of the cognizance which this Gamaliel took, of the conduct and mode of life of the religionists in question,--the result was favourable. "Let them alone," were his words. Acts v. 38. The maintenance, derived by the _protegé_, on that same occasion, from the persecution of these innoxious men--this maintenance being at once odious, dangerous, and precarious,--while the maintenance, derivable from the taking a part in the direction of their affairs, presented to view a promise of being at once respectable, lucrative, and permanent;--what more natural then, that this change, from left to right, had for its origin the advice of this same patron?--advice, to which, all things considered, the epithet _good_ could not very easily be refused.
FALSE PRETENCES EMPLOYED.
To the self-constituted Apostle, false pretences were familiar. They were not--they could not have been--without an object. One object was power: this object, when pursued, is of itself abundantly sufficient to call forth such means. But, another object with Paul was money: of its being so, the passages referred to as above, will afford abundant proofs. A man, in whose composition the appetite for money, and the habit of using false pretences are conjoined, will be still more likely to apply them to that productive purpose, than to any barren one. In the character of a general argument, the observations thus submitted, are not, it should seem, much exposed to controversy.
But, of a particular instance, of money obtained by him on a false pretence,--namely, by the pretence of its being for the use of others, when his intention was to convert it to his own use,--a mass of evidence we have, which presents itself as being in no slight degree probative.
It is composed of two several declarations of his own,--with, as above referred to, the explanation of it, afforded by a body of circumstantial evidence, which has already been under review: and as, in the nature of the case, from an evil-doer of this sort, evidence to a fact of this sort, cannot reasonably be expected to be frequently observable,--the labour, employed in bringing it here to view, will not, it is presumed, be chargeable, with being employed altogether without fruit.
First, let us see a passage, in the first of his Epistles to his _Corinthians_, date of it, A.D. 57. In this, we shall see a regularly formed system of money-gathering: an extensive application of it to various and mutually distant countries, with indication given of particular times and places, in which it was his intention to pursue it: also, intimation, of a special charitable purpose, to which it was his professed intention to make application of the produce of it, at a place specified: namely, Jerusalem.
First then comes, 1 Cor. 16:1-8. A.D. 57.
"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of _Galatia_, even so do _ye_.--Upon the _first day of the week_, let every one of you _lay by him in store_, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.--And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto _Jerusalem_.--And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.--Now I will come unto you when I shall pass through Macedonia; for I do pass through _Macedonia_.--And it may be that I will abide, yea and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.--For I will not see you now by the way: but I trust to tarry a while with _you_ if the Lord permit.--But I will tarry at _Ephesus_ until Pentecost." At Ephesus, where he becomes an object of jealousy, as we have seen, to the church-silversmiths; and, from his declared business at those _other_ places, some evidence surely is afforded of what was his probable business in _that_ place.
Next let us see a passage in his Epistle to his _Romans_: date of it, A.D. 58. Here, in two instances, we shall see the success, with which this system was pursued by him: as also a maxim, laid down by him--a maxim, in which the existence of this same system, on his part, is acknowledged: a maxim, in which his hopes of success in the pursuit of it, are declaredly founded.
"Whensoever I take my journey into _Spain_, I will come to you; for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.--But now I go unto _Jerusalem, to minister unto the Saints_.--For it hath pleased them of _Macedonia_ and _Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem_.--It hath pleased them verily: and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made _partakers of their spiritual things_, their _duty_ is also _to minister unto them in carnal things_.--When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come _by you_ into _Spain_."
In the instance in question, money (we see)--of the quantity of course nothing said--is mentioned by him, as being actually in his hands: the purpose, for which it was there,--and to which he would of course be understood to intend applying it,--being also mentioned by him:--applying it, at Jerusalem, to the use of the poor saints. So much for _professed_ intentions. Now then for _real_ ones. Answer, in his own words: that those Gentiles, who by him had been made partakers of his spiritual things, might, as in "_duty_" bound, "minister" to him, so much the more effectively "in carnal things:" that he, who preached, what he called the Gospel, might, as he had been preaching to his Corinthians also (1 Cor. ix. 14) be enabled so much the more comfortably to "live by" it.
"The poor saints which are at Jerusalem:"--_the_ poor saints--to wit, not here and there a saint or two, but the whole Christian population living together on a common stock--if now, A.D. 58, they were living, as A.D. 53 they were (Acts ii. 44; vi. 1) and, in this particular, from the beginning to the end of the history, no change is mentioned--in Jerusalem--was it in the nature of man, in that state of men and things,--was it in the nature of men and things, that any man, who had any knowledge of their situation, and of the terms on which Paul, from first to last, had been with them, could for a moment have thought of lodging, for _their_ use, any the smallest sum of money in _his_ hands?
as well might it be said, at this moment--a man, whose wish it was to convey money to Spain, for the use of the Cortes, would choose the hand of the Duc d'Angouleme to send it by. All this time, _there_ were the Apostles of Jesus--patrons of those same saints: and, anywhere more easily than _there_, could he be. That, with this money in his hands, among his objects was--the employing more or less of it in the endeavour to form a party there, may not unreasonably be supposed, from what we have seen of that _Invasion Visit_, by which his designs upon Jerusalem were endeavoured to be carried into effect. For, according to Acts 19:21, already when he was at Ephesus, as above, was it his known design, to try his fortune once more in Jerusalem, and after that in Rome. This may have been among his designs, or not. Be this as it may, this would have been no more than a particular way, of converting the money to his own use.
Not that, if at this time, and for _this purpose_ from even the quarters in question, money had come, as he says it had, there was anything very wonderful in its so doing. As to _us_ indeed _we_ know pretty well what sort of terms he was on, from first to last, with the community in question: _we_ know this, because his historiographer has made us know it. But, as to the people of those same countries respectively,--at their distance from Jerusalem, what, in their situation, might easily enough happen was,--not to have, as to this point, any adequate information till it was too late to profit by it: and, that such would be their ignorance, is a matter, of which he might not less easily have that which, to a man of his daring and sanguine temper, would be a sufficient assurance.
One thing there is, which, on the occasion of any view they took of this subject, may perhaps have contributed to blind their eyes. This is--the fact, of his having actually been concerned, in bringing money to Jerusalem, for a similar purpose, though it must be confessed, not less than fourteen years before this: to wit, from Antioch, as stated in Chapter V., speaking of _that_--his second Jerusalem Visit, by the name of the _Money-bringing Visit_.
But,--what may easily enough have happened, distance in time and place, together considered, is--that to those particulars, which composed no more than the surface of the business, _their_ knowledge was confined: while _we_, though at the distance of more than seventeen centuries, know more or less of the inside of it,--let into it, as we have been, by the author of the Acts.
As to their arriving sooner or later, at the suspicion, or though it were the discovery, that the money had not, any part of it, reached the hands it was intended for, nor was in any way to do so,--what bar could the apprehension of any such result oppose, to the enterprise, systematic, as we see it was, of the creator of Antichrist? When, to a man, who occupies a certain situation in the eye of the political world, calls for accounts are become troublesome,--Scipio might have informed him, if he had not well enough known of himself, how to answer them.
When a charge made upon you is true--evidence full against you, and none to oppose to it,--fly into a passion, magnify your own excellence--magnify the depravity of your adversaries. This mode, of parrying a charge, is perfectly well understood in our days, nor could it have been much less well understood in Paul's days. As for _his_ adversaries, Paul had a storm _in petto_ at all times ready for them: for the materials, turn to any page of his Epistles: whatever, in this way, he had for rivals,--_that_ and more he could not fail to have for accusing witnesses. To the creator of Antichrist--sower of tares between Pharisees and Sadducees,--whatever were the charges, defence, the most triumphant, could never be wanting: arguments, suited with the utmost nicety, to the taste of judges. He would warn them, against false brethren, and liars, and wolves, and children of Satan, and so forth: he would talk to them, about life and death, and sin and righteousness, and faith and repentance, and this world and that world, and the Lord and resurrection: he would talk backwards and forwards--give nonsense for mystery, and terror for instruction: he would contradict everybody, and himself not less than anybody: he would raise such a cloud of words, with here and there an _ignis fatuus_ dancing in the smoke,--that the judges, confounded and bewildered, would forget all the evidence, and cry out _Not Guilty_ through pure lassitude.
As to us,--the case being now before us, what shall be our verdict?
Obtaining money on false pretences is the charge. Guilty shall we say, or not guilty? Obtainment on a certain pretence, is proved by _direct_ evidence--his own evidence: proof, of falsity in the pretence, rests, as it could not but rest, on _circumstantial_ evidence.
One observation more: for another piece of circumstantial evidence has just presented itself: it consists of the utter silence, about the receipt of the money or any particle of it,--when, if there had been any such receipt, occasions there were in such abundance for the mention of it. A.D. 57, in his first to his Corinthians,--there it is, as we have seen, that he urges them to lay by money for him, declaring it is for the saints at Jerusalem; and that on this same errand it is, that he is going to Macedonia,--and that in his way to Jerusalem he will give them another call, to receive, for that same purpose, the intermediate produce of these proposed _saving-banks_. In his letter to the Romans, written the next year, A.D. 58--written at Corinth,--then it is, that he has already made the said intended money-gathering visit, and with success:--with success not only in Macedonia, as he had proposed, but in Achaia likewise: and, with this money in his hand, and for the purpose of delivering the money to those for whom he obtained it;--for this purpose (he says) it is, that he is at that moment on his way to Jerusalem--the place of their abode. This is in the year A.D. 58. Well then: after this it is, that he takes up his abode at Ephesus. And when, after his contests with the church silversmiths there, he departs from thence, whither does he betake himself? To Jerusalem? No: he turns his back upon Jerusalem, and goes for Macedonia (Acts xx. 1.) then into Greece, where he stays three months; and purposes, Acts 20:3, to return through Macedonia. A.D. 60, it is, that, for the first time, Acts 20:16, any intention of his to visit Jerusalem is declared, he having coveted no man's silver or gold, as his historian, Acts xx. 33, makes him assure us. When, at length he arrived there, what his reception was, we have seen. Had any of the _money_ been received there, would such as we have seen have been the reception given to the _man_? When, by the Christians at Jerusalem, Agabus was sent to him, to keep him if possible from coming there,--is it in the nature of things, that they should have already received any of it, or been in any expectation of it? In what passed between him and the Elders, headed by the Apostle James, is any the slightest allusion made to it? When, in Cæsarea, all in tears, Acts 21:12, 13, his attendants were striving, might and main, to dissuade him from going to Jerusalem,--did he say anything about the money--the money he had been so long charged with? Oh no; not a syllable: to Jerusalem he is resolved to go indeed: Oh yes: but not the shadow of a reason can he find for going there.
When arrived at Jerusalem, the brethren, says the Acts 20:17, received him gladly. The brethren: yes, what adherents he had, would of course receive him gladly, or at least appear to do so. But the money? On their side, was anything said about the money? Not a syllable. Either at this time by his own hand, or any time before, by other hands, had they received this money, or any considerable part of it, could they have received him otherwise than not only gladly, but gratefully?
All the time, the hero was thus employed in money-craving and money-gathering, the historian, let it never be out of mind, was of the party: four years before, A.D. 53, had he been taken into it; yet not any the least hint about these money-matters does he give. So far indeed as regarded what was avowedly for Paul's own use, neither could the receipt nor the craving of the money from their customers, have been unknown to him; for this was what they had to live upon. But the letters his master wrote--wrote to their customers everywhere--letters, in which the demand was made, for the so much more extensive purpose,--of these, so many of which have reached these our times, the contents may to him have easily enough remained a secret: little reason had he to expect, none at all to fear, the exposure,--which now, at the end of more than seventeen centuries, has, at length, been made of them,--confronted, as they may now be, with the particulars he himself has furnished us with.
FOOTNOTES: [13] Acts vii. ver. 47. Speech of St. Stephen. "But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?" In itself, perfectly comfortable all this, to the dictates of reason and the instruction of Jesus: but not the less clear blasphemy against the Mosaic law.
[14] Acts ix. ver. 1 and 2. "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord, _went_ unto the _High Priest_,--And _desired_ of him letters to Damascus to the Synagogues, &c."
[15] Acts xxii. ver. 5. "As also the High Priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the Elders: from _whom also I received letters_ unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem for to be punished."
[16] Yet, for even at the outset, after certain "days spent with the disciples," and employed of course in receiving from them the necessary instructions, he preached Jesus with such energy and success as not only to "confound," Acts ix. 19 to 24, the unbelieving among the Jews, but to provoke them to "take counsel to kill him."
[17] Paul, says--2nd Cor. 11:6--"For though I be rude in speech yet am I not in knowledge nay, in everything we have made it manifest among all men to you-ward, or did I commit a sin in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I preached to you the Gospel of God for naught? I robbed other Churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you; and when I was present with you I was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia supplied the measure of my want, and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome unto you and so I will keep myself. As the truth of Christ is in me no man shall stop me of this glorying in the regions of Achaia, &c."
When ever we get a Temperamental and psychological view of Paul, we see verified the deductions of the author of this treatise, that he was a transparent imposter. An unscrupulous adventurer. With talent well adapted to dogmatically command the attention of the ignorant and especially those of organized hereditary idolatry, the extreme vanity, the vain glorious pretensions of this new priest was well adapted to obtain obsequious complacence from such people. He always presents himself in a controversial spirit of self-exaltation.
His egotistic diction could hardly be made more manifest than in the terms above quoted, to wit:--"I robbed other Churches taking wages of them that I might minister unto you, &c." It presents a striking contrast to the benevolent and fraternal spirit of Christ and his disciples.
[18] N.B. The editor at this place inserts pages of discussion--which the author exhibited by way of an appendix. At the expense of a little redundancy and incongruity the editor inserts it in this place.--Ed.
[19] According to the Acts' account, this same stoning, if it was the same, was much in the style of that same resurrection of Eutychus, which we have seen in Chapter xiii. §. 10. As to Paul, when this martyrdom had been suffered by him,--"some" says Acts xiv. 19, were "supposing he had been dead:" and on that supposition, "drew him out of the city." Paul, on the other hand, thought otherwise: he supposed himself alive, and, on that supposition, he walked off, as if nothing had been the matter with him. "Certain Jews...say verses 19 and 20, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe."
CHAPTER III.
_Paul disbelieved.--Neither his divine Commission nor his inward Conversion ever credited by the Apostles or their Jerusalem Disciples.--Source of Proof stated._ SECTION 1.
TO PAUL'S CONVERSION VISION, SOLE ORIGINAL WITNESS HIMSELF.
Void, as we have seen, of all title to credence, is the story of Paul's commission from Jesus:--void may it be seen to be, even if taken by itself, and without need of resort to any counter-evidence. Who could have expected to have found it, moreover, disproved by the most irresistible counter-evidence--by the evidence of the Apostles themselves? Yes: of the Apostles themselves, of whom it will plainly enough be seen, that by not so much as one of them was it ever believed: no, not to even the very latest period, of which any account has reached us: namely that, at which the history of the Acts of the Apostles closes, or that of the date of the last-written of Paul's Epistles, whichsoever of the two may be the latest.
In regard to the story of his conversion, its cause, and manner,--it has been seen, that it is either from himself directly, or from an adherent of his, the author of the Acts,--who had it from himself, unless Ananias was a person known to the author of the Acts, and heard by him,--it is from Paul, and Paul alone, that all the evidence, which the case has happened to supply, has been derived.
In regard to the degree of credence given, to his pretence to the having received a commission from Jesus, still the same remark applies: still, either from himself, or from the same partial, and, as will be seen, not altogether trustworthy, narrator, comes the whole of the evidence, with which the case happens to have furnished us.
SECTION 2.
COUNTER-WITNESSES, THE APOSTLES. BY THEM, THE STORY WAS PROBABLY NOT HEARD--CERTAINLY NOT CREDITED.
Jerusalem, according to the Acts, was the headquarters of the noble army of the Apostles: the ordinary residence of that goodly fellowship:--a station, which they none of them ever quitted, for any considerable length of time.
In the course of the interval, between the date assigned by Paul to his conversion, and that of the last particulars we have of his history,--mention, more or less particular, may be found of four visits of his--distinctly four related visits, and no more than four,--to that metropolis of the new Church. On no one of these occasions, could he have avoided using his endeavours, towards procuring admittance, to the fellowship of the distinguished persons, so universally known in the character of the select companions and most confidential servants of