ページの画像
PDF
ePub

bunal?

Had it the power of life and death? Had it the power to execute

its decrees affecting life, or even the liberty of the citizen.

had not.

You know it

We are next told, that Paul was making havoc of the church-entering into every house, and haling men and women to prison-that anxious to extend the field of his operation, he went to the Chief Priest, and obtained a warrant from him to seize all christians he might find in Damascus, and bring them bound to Jerusalem. In his speech before Aggrippa, he says he received authority from the chief priests to shut up the christians in prison, and when they were put to death, he gave his vote or voice against them.

Can Luke be reconciled with the others, or even with himself? Are not these statements, respecting Paul, irreconcilable with the political state of Judea at that time? Let us suppose, Paul presenting a christian to a Roman jailor for incarceration. The jailor asks for his mittimus. Paul shews him the warrant from the chief priests. The jailor replies, that he acknowledges no such authority-that he does not know this body as a judicial tribunal, that heresy is no crime, and consequently he cannot receive the prisoner. Can it be believed for a moment, that the chief priests of Jerusalem had cognizance of crimes, affecting life or limb, and that their jurisdiction extended to Damascus. Would a Roman Governor or chief captain in his absence, who thought that christianity was a mere question of the Jewish law, and not worthy of death or bonds—who would drive from his court a complainant prefering it as a charge-who would protect this same Paul, after he had become the great champion of the cross, from the violence cf a mob, and order an escort of 470 men to accompany him from Jerusalem to Cesarea, that he might not be assassinated by the enraged Jews; I say, would such a Governor, suffer these same Jews to drag men and women to prison, and murder them, having no accusation against them, of which he would take notice, "but certain questions of their own superstitutions."

To what tribunal did Paul belong when he gave his vote that the christians he had immured, should be put to death? Did mob law prevail at that day, in that great city? Were an enraged populace, under the eye of the regularly constituted authorities, suffered to put to death any and every individual that might be obnoxious to them? Can it be believed that such outrages as the murder of Stephen, were common and frequent at Jerusalem, and the actors suffered to go unpunished. Luke tells us so, and yet this Luke tells us that, which renders all such allegations wholly incredible.

It will be remembered, that Paul is made to say, he was a Pharisee, a disciple of Gamaliel. When he was brought before a Jewish council to be examined, that the Roman Governor might know of what he was accused,

Y

he relies upon his Pharisaism to ingratiate himself with those of the council who were of this sect. It is true, as he afterwards confesses, that he played off a little finesse upon them, shifted the question, and put them on a false scent; stating, that he was charged with preaching the doctrine of the resurrection, whereas, (as he well knew) the real charge, whether true or false, was a profanation of the temple. This piece of stratagem succeeded, for we are told, the Pharisaical part of the court, arose and said, they found no fault in him. Now I ask, if it is not incredible, that a young pharisee of the strictest sect, should be banded with his bitter enemies the Sadduces, in persecuting the christians, who taught the great and leading doctrine in which he had been educated, and for teaching which, the other Pharisees were well disposed towards them, and particularly Gamaliel, at whose feet he had been educated. For we are told that this learned doctor not only dissuaded the Sadduces from further molestation of the christians, but recommended mild measures towards them.

What could have been Paul's motive? The christians differed from his party only in this, that they believed in a resurrection, because Jesus taught it, and, as they alleged, proved it by rising himself. Both were still zealous of the law. We would suppose, that the Pharisees would have been pleased with this accession to their party, and with this further alleged proof of the truth of their great and leading tenet. And so they were. Paul is the only exception. His singularity is not attempted to be accountfor by Luke, uor can it be now, on rational principles, by your greatest divines.

John informs us, that Pontius Pilate was willing to deliver Jesus over to the Jews, to be judged or condemned, according to their own law, and that they refused, saying "It is not permitted us to condemn any man to death.” How can you reconcile Luke's account of Paul's making havoc of the christians, haling men and women to prison, and giving his voice against them, when they were put to death, with this declaration of the Jews, in answer to Pilate?

We cannot learn from the book, with certainty and exactnes, the extent of jurisdiction, belonging to a Governor, stationed at Jerusalem. But Luke in his gospel gives us plainly to understand, that the province alloted to him, did not embrace Damascus: for he tells us, that Pilate ascertaining that Jesus was from Galilee, handed him over to Herod, as Galilee was in his (Herod's) jurisdiction. And he also lets us know, that at the commencement of Christ's ministry, which could not have been more than a year or two before Paul commenced his persecutions, Pontius Pilate was Procurator of Judea, which never embraced Damascus, that that this same Herod, tetrach of Galilee, and Lysanias of Abiline, which did embrace Da

mascus.

Here I ask, if it is credible or probable, that Lysanias, or any other tetrach ef Damascus, would suffer a young hot-blooded Jew from Jerusalem to come into his territories-load his citizens with chains, and drag them from their homes? The idea is preposterous.

Thus much as to Paul's persecutions. I will now compare Luke's account of his proceedings after his conversion, with the one given by Paul himself, in his letter to the Galatians.

In the 9th Acts we are told, that immediately after he was struck dumb, Paul was taken to Damascus, where he was baptised, and that on receiving meat he was strengthened.

"Then Saul was certain days with the disciples which were at Damas

cus.

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of Cod.

“But all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that destroyed them which called on his name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?

"But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews, which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

"“And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him.

"But their laying wait was known of Saul; and they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

"Then the disciples took him by night and let him down by the wall in a basket.

“And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

"But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoke to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

"And he was with them coming in, and going out at Jerusalem. "And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: and they went about to slay him.

"Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."

After the reader has carefully examined this extract, I wish him to determine how long it must have been, on a fair and reasonable construction of this passage, from the time of this conversion, to Paul's return to Jernsalem. Luke says he was certain days with the disciples before he began to preach, and that after many days the Jews sought to kill him, watching

the gates day and night to apprehend him, and that his friends finally let him down in a basket out side of the wall when he went to Jerusalem.How long was it I ask? We never make use of the term days when we speak of a period of time equal to a month, We must therefore conclude, it could not have been a month from the time of his baptism till he commenced preaching-nor a month from that time till he was on his way to Jerusalem. But say it was six months, (no man can ask more,) from the time of his leaving Jerusalem, till his return to that city. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, says expressly, that he did not go from Damascus to Jerusalem, immediately after his conversion, but went into Arabia, and then returned to Damascus, and then, after three years, that is, three years after his return to Damascus, he went to Jerusalem. It was, then, more than three years according to Paul, before he went to Jerusalem. How much more we do not know, for he does not tell us how long he was in Arabia. Paul, or his parasite must state falsely here-both statements cannot be true. But this is not the main point in which they conflict.— Luke says, that on Paul's return to Jerusalem, he was coming in and going out with the apostles, and spoke so boldly that the Jews there also sought to kill him, which his brethren hearing, conducted him to Cesarea, and sent him home to Tarsus. Now Paul in this same letter informs us that on his first visit to Jerusalem, after his conversion, he was incog-that he went to see Peter only, but by accident saw James, but no other of the apostles -that after his leaving there, he was uuknown by face, to the churches of Judea; only they had heard that he who once persecuted now preached the gospel. Luke says, the great church of Judea knew Paul by face, and knew that he preached Paul says they had only heard. If you contend that there is no discrepaucy as to the time of this visit, you must admit that there is, as to the facts attending it.

CHAPTER XV.

Much stress has been laid on the disinterestedness of the apostles. I have already alluded to this argument. The assertions of your divines, as to their sufferings, journeys, labors and persecutions, and martyrdoms, are gratuitous. There is no warrant for them in your scriptures. Allowing the historical part of the testament to be true, (miracles always excepted,) I now proceed to show thst the twelve apostles, were not merely fanatics, nor men actuated by those motives of self common to our species, but that they were villains of the first water, hypocrites, swindlers, and murderers.

This is a serious and startling charge, but if I do not make it good, I stand convicted of baseness of heart or obliquity of intellect. Bear in mind, that in matters of fact, mathematical certainty is not to be expected. I am now to make out a highly probable case-to show that it is more probable they were villains than saints.

It is admitted by all of you," that they entered the service of Christ, and continued his followers, out of worldly and interested motives, and those only. Stars and garters, and all the paraphernalia of a splendid court, were dancing before their delighted imaginations. They expected and were made to believe, or (if you like the expression better,) did believe that Jesus would become a King in Judea, and they Lords and Dukes, and grandees of his court. I need not quote from the gospels to prove this. The question now arises; when did they become disinterested saints-spiritually minded men. You answer, at the resurrection or ascension, or outpouring of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. I have already shown there was no resurrection, no ascension, and consequently no affusion of the Holy Spirit,

Here, however, you introduce your great argument, somewhat in this form: "Can it be believed that a few ignorant and uneducated men, would have had the boldness and assurance to have proclaimed these great facts in the face of the Jewish people, if they were not true? Is it not a miracle that such men would have asserted these falsehoods, and built a system of pure morality upon them? Is it not a miracle that these men should have endured penury, want, contumely, stripes, and finally, death itself, in defence of what they must have known to be falsehoods? How can you re

« 前へ次へ »