Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

occasion. For the purpose of obviating suspicion, he associated with himself other individuals in the trust: he provided for "things honest," for what was becoming and honourable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but in the sight of men; nor could the breath of calumny taint his reputation. This apostle even waived the exercise of his right to a maintenance on the part of those whose spiritual interests he superintended. It is therefore impossible that the love of money could have been his motive for entering into the Christian church.

Was fame the end of his pursuit? Did his soul burn with the fever of ambition? Were power and dominion the acquisitions for which he panted? Let his writings and his history give the answer: let these declare, whether it was practicable for him to gratify such passions, when he enlisted under the banner of Jesus Christ. What human reputation could he expect to obtain by joining, or even by leading, a poor, despised, persecuted sect, by exchanging the vanity and pride of the school of Gamaliel for the humble lessons of the prophet of Nazareth, of the sufferer on Calvary? We do not ask our readers to receive Paul's own assertions, unless they are substantiated by evidence. But we call on ingenuous men to weigh deliberately every part of the narrative of the apostle's ministry, and to say, whether he did not with truth represent himself as being made “the offscouring of all things." Let us judge of him, as the oppugners of Christianity would have us to judge for a moment, let us imagine that he was not really converted, but was an interested deceiver. Then, how shall we explain his conduct, on the laws of the mind and the principles of our nature? If we compare, or rather contrast, what, in a temporal point of view, he relinquished with what he gained, we shall discover, that he surrendered more than even an Indian Bramin would lose in being deprived of his caste; and that, in return, no wordly equivalent was secured. In the circles of learning and philosophy at least, the fine parts of Paul, and his high attainments, would have opened his way to great distinction. Why

* 2 Cor. viii. ix.

:

did he prefer to preach Christ, and him crucified?

His epistles, and the history of his public life, will endure the scrutiny of rigorous criticism. So examined, they prove that he evinced uncommon moderation in employing the miraculous powers with which he was supplied. Was this the disposition, this the course, of a crafty and ambitious man? Or rather, was not the fact, a demonstration of still more than honest intentions-of pure and delicate feelings, and of a sober judgment ? And is this the man on whom the charge can be fixed of either imposture or enthusiasın? If in simplicity and godly sincerity, and not with fleshly wisdom, he had his conversation in the world, who can resist the inference, that he was an apostle not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ?

Paul's writings, too, authenticate themselves, and the history of his labours: they do so pre-eminently-in a degree beyond those of any indivi dual with whose existence we are acquainted. That such writings should have been constructed on the basis of deceit, is morally impossible.

At the same time, the letters of Paul, though full of argument, and containing a number of precepts and prohibitions, abound in allusions and references to facts: they every where present an animated, living scene; and, happily, we have it in our power to compare them with memoirs of a large portion of his ministry. The result of this comparison (for it has been made) is, in our own judgment, inferior only to the report of the senses, and to the force of absolute demonstration. Indolence and prejudice may shrink from instituting or reviewing it: however, it is not to indolence and prejudice that our appeal is urged.

When we consider the style, observe the topics, and weigh the reasoning of Paul's Epistles, we cannot but assign the date of them to an interval of time between the ascension of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem-to nearly, or precisely, what external testimony declares to have been their real date.

It is assumed, but has not been shewn, or even attempted to be shewn, that the doctrine of this apostle con

tradicts his Master's. Such a discordancy would be "passing strange ;" inasmuch as he professes to have received his knowledge of the gospel immediately by revelation from Jesus Christ. In truth, the allegation has been hazarded by men, who, we venture to assert, have either not read Paul's Epistles or not studied them on any just principles of interpretation. Those letters, when attentively examined, will be found to contain nothing which opposes what our Sa viour and the companions of his ministry delivered.

The issue of the whole inquiry may fairly be put on many parts of the apostle's writings, and especially on the following chapters: Rom. xiv., xv.; 1 Cor. xiii., xv. he who diligently peruses them, in the silence of his closet, will, it is probable, rise from the employment with an enlightened, a strong and delightful conviction of the authenticity of the works in which they appear. Surely, no impostor, no enthusiast, could be so ingenuous, so wise and sober, or cherish such views of men and things, of mortality and immortality, of human duty and human expectations. What remains, therefore, except to acknowledge that Paul has made good his claims to be an apostle not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ?

These are the observations which presented themselves to us, on reading the volume, the title of which we have transcribed. We deem it unnecessary to follow the author through his several chapters and sections. All that we shall further do, is to bring forward a few passages illustrative of his qualifications for his undertaking.

In the Table, marked No. I., which faces the title-page, he contrasts with each other the following clauses, Acts ix. 1-9, xxii. 3-11, and prints in italic characters the words synagogues and brethren; as though they were in mutual contradiction. The expression is indeed varied, yet the meaning is the same; the synagogues, or rulers and members of the synagogues, and the brethren being equally descriptive of Saul's countrymen, the Jews-and the term brethren throughout this history being restricted or extended in its signification by the context, and

VOL. XIX.

4 K

denoting sometimes Jews, and sometimes Christians.*

We read in page xiii. this sentence: "Of the notes to Scholey's [Bible], the author or compiler was, as every page testifies, a Church of Englandist: Blair, it is presumed, a Church of Scotlandist." Why is this presumed? A little inquiry would have_enabled the writer to ascertain, that Dr. John Blair, the author of the Chronological Tables, was indeed a native of North Britain, yet, in respect of religious profession and ecclesiastical station, a member and a dignitary of the Church of England. The mistake is of no moment in itself, and in any ordinary case would be so trifling and venial as not to require animadversion. We notice it, because, together with numerous other passages, it illustrates an extreme want of care in Gamaliel Smith, even with regard to circumstances that come under the immediate observation of almost every man of literature and reading; and because it shews his incompetency, so far, to discuss with correctness the question of Paul's apostleship.

In p. xv. he says of Paul's Epistles, that their genuineness, "unless in one not very material instance, seems to stand hitherto clear of dispute." A most remarkable admission by such a writer! How he can reconcile it, and a similar concession, in p. 4, in favour of Luke, with the strain and purpose of his own work, we are unaable to imagine.

He observes, in p. 33, that "For administering the ceremony of baptism, a single apostle, Philip, was sufficient." Now the Philip of whom he is speaking was a deacon and evangelist, and not the apostle of that name. The nature of the case makes the distinction clear and essential; Philip, who preached to the Samaritans, not having the power of conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But Mr. Gamaliel Smith, who classes Luke among the eleven, might with ease commit the more pardonable error of confounding Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle.

A capital mistake, which pervades

* Acts xxviii. 14, 15, 21, are examples fully to the purpose.

Acts vi. 5. Matt. x. 3. § P. 342.

a large portion of this author's voJume, is the assumption, (p. 59,) that Saul incurred the guilt of treason, when, converted, as he was, to the gospel, he refrained from persecuting the Christians at Damascus. The Roman government was, at that time, the only earthly power against whom Saul, or any other Jew, could commit treason: and the Roman government had not authorized the persecution. Were the Jews, at the æra before us, a sovereign people? Could Mr. Gamaliel Smith be unacquainted with their political subjection and dependence? Is it only by these inaccuraries of conception and of language that he can plead his cause? What would he say to the believer, who should permit himself to fall into these mistakes? Probably, what we will say to him, Tantamne rem tam negligenter agere!

a period, and in an instance, of which we have no precise knowledge, he had brought himself under the obligation of a vow: and being with injustice suspected and accused, by some of his countrymen, of hostility to the law of Moses, he refutes the accusation, by performing those legal ceremonies which, in his own case, he had never renounced, and by assisting others to perform them. An author, nevertheless, who can affirm that aux signifies an oath, may well refrain from discriminating between vows and oaths: he who sees no difference between the names will, of course, see no difference in the things.

What can fair and candid readers think of the following paragraph ?— Pp. 361, &c.

"Now then comes the trial. (Acts xxvi. 1.) Scene, at Cæsarea, the Emperor's bench. Lord Chief Justice, Roman Governor Festus; Puisne judge, Jew Sub-king Agrippa. Present Bernice..

chief captains and principal men of the city.' Special accusers, none. Sole speaker, whose speech is reported, the defendant. Points in defendant's speech, these:" &c.

Obviously, there was no trial at all. The Jewish prince, Agrippa, wished to hear the prisoner; and Agrippa's wish was gratified. For the rest, so burlesque a method of treating the subject, as this paragraph discloses, is alike revolting to correct taste and to manly feeling.

But a little grosser error must be exposed. He continues to maintain that Paul was guilty of an act of perjury. In other words, Mr. Gamaliel Smith does not distinguish an exculpatory oath from a Nazaritic or some other vow. We entreat those of his readers into whose hands our pages come, to consult Acts xxi. 18, &c., and then to ask themselves, whether any, and what, perjury was committed by the individual whom this author styles "the self-constituted apostle." Perjury is the wilful violation of the truth which has been declared, or of the assurance which has been given, under the solemnity of an oath. That man is perjured who forswears himself. Paul, nevertheless, on the occasion to which reference has been made, violated nothing. He had contracted, no doubt, a certain obligation, from which he gained his discharge, exactly Of the synopsis of this work we in the way prescribed by the legal in- took such notice as we deemed it to stitutions of his country. A vow is require. Internal evidence led us to not an oath a vow is then violated ascribe it, in our own minds, to a when it is not fulfilled. Yet Paul ful- writer of no ordinary merit, yet of filled his (we do not now inquire what considerable singularity in method and it was) with the utmost punctuality, in style. To that distinguished indiOn his becoming a Christian, it was vidual it is now unhesitatingly attriperfectly optional with him to observe buted: and the public seems to unor not the Levitical injunctions. At derstand that Gamaliel Smith is the nom de guerre of Jeremy Bentham. It is, we confess, a mortifying disco

Mon. Repos. XVI. 234.

+ Dr. George Benson has some valuable observations on this case in his History of the First Planting of Christianity. (2d ed.) II, 227, &c.

Against credulity Mr. Gamaliel Smith perpetually levels his reproaches; sometimes in direct terms-sometimes by inuendo. Yet he endeavours to persuade us that Paul is the Antichrist whom Paul denounced and stigmatized !+

[blocks in formation]

very. We have no pleasure in com-
templating the decay of high talent
and extensive intelligence, of mental
vigour and moral sensibility. How
can we account for the melancholy
change? The circumstances whatever
they are, which have impaired so gifted
a mind, and occasioned such a perver-
sion of spirit, taste and thought, must
be seriously deplored. Yet we ques-
tion not the sincerity of the writer.
We recollect with gratitude his nu-
merous and valuable services to his
fellow-men; and we are desirous of
forgetting that the author of the "Let
ters on Usury,'
," is also the author
of "Not Paul, but Jesus;"

— quantum mutatus ab illo Hectore, qui redit exuvias indutus Achilli,

Vel Danaum Phrygios jaculatus puppibus ignis!

BEN

N.

ART. II.-A Reply to Two Deistical
Works, &c. &c. By Ben David.
(Contiuued from p. 558.)
EN DAVID justly complains of
Gamaliel Smith's disingenuous-
ness in pretending to have in view
merely the purification and establish-
ment of Christianity, and to be fol-
lowing in the steps of Lardner and
Farmer:

"The author of this work is not a believer in Revelation: and his pretence to imitate the example of the above venerable names, in removing the corruptions which, in the eye of reason, weigh down Christianity, is a mere snare to entrap his readers; and if this publication succeeded, it might soon be followed by another from the same pen, entitled, "Neither Paul nor Jesus."P. 172.

Resenting this insidious mode of proceeding, Ben David rebukes sharply the Deistical author; and if we grieve that hard epithets should be affixed to a name on many accounts so respectable, we grieve more that we cannot censure them as undeserved.

There is weight in the following remarks on the antecedent probability of Paul's conversion, the history of which Gamaliel Smith represents as a fable:

"If we would judge fairly of the probability or improbability of the conver sion of Paul, we must not consider it as a naked or isolated event, but in connexion with the events which preceded it, and the end which Providence intended tion was made to Jesus of Nazareth, to answer by it. If a divine communica designed and calculated to reform the world, the choice of a person, like Paul, qualified to fulfil that design, the account of his conversion, though supernatural, cannot be deemed improbable. The other apostles, though not illiterate, were not men of learning. Still less, it is probable, were they acquainted with the state of the heathen world, and therefore little qualified as far as they could be by human means, to convert the nations. On the other hand, Paul possessed superior talents, which he had cultivated and improved by all the advantages of a refined education, having made himself acquainted not only with the language, but with the literature of Greece. Nor was he fitted for his high destina

tion, less by temper and character, than

by talents and cultivation: for he was open, sincere and ardent in his attachments, yet steady and circumspect in his pursuits-patient of injuries, fatigue the face of danger, and capable of sacriand hunger-resolute and collected in ficing every personal consideration, every selfish interest, for the attainment of his glorious end. Now whatever evidence renders the gospel or the history of Christ credible, disposes us to look upon the miraculous story of the Apostle Paul as not incredible: whatever evidence supports the one, lends its full weight in support of the other; so that he who on resurrection of Jesus, cannot hesitate to rational ground believes the miracles and believe his supernatural appearance to Paul."-P. 177.

The moral reason of the time and place of Paul's conversion is thus happily stated:

"If Paul was an apostle according to the will of God, if he had been separated from the beginning a chosen vessel to carry the gospel before the Gentiles, how was he not chosen also to be a disciple of Christ during his ministry? At least, why not appointed to succeed Judas, or why not converted by the apostles, or mission in their presence, before their divine Master had yet ascended to hea

converted and furnished with his com

ven? Then a writer like Gamaliel would have nothing to say agaiust Paul, but what he would have said against the

* See Mr. Wyun's opinion of this work, apostles or against Jesus himself. No in Mon. Repos. XIX. 188.

circumstance connected with Christianity

places the wisdom of heaven in so conspicuous a light as the manner in which Paul was called to his high office as apostle of the Gentiles. The Anti-chris

tian teachers endeavoured to undermine the gospel by maintaining, that the Christ who appeared after death was not the same with him who had been put to death. If this position were well-found. ed, the return of Jesus to raise the dead and judge the world, would fall to the ground. The divine power promised to the disciples was deferred till Jesus had ascended to heaven, in order that its communication from thence might be considered as a conclusive proof of his actual ascension, and a pledge of his return at some future period to confer a new life on mankind. The conversion of Paul in the manner it was effected, had in view the more complete establishment of the same great object. If Jesus some years after he had left the earth appeared to one that was an enemy-if, appearing amidst his celestial glory, he convinced that enemy that he was the very Jesus of Nazareth whom he was persecuting-if The next enlisted him within the same service with those whom he had already chosen, imparting to him precisely the same doctrine, inspiring him with the same spirit of meekness, patience and devotion in the cause of his divine Master -finally, if he endowed him with the same power of working miracles, and that without any communication with the rest of the apostles, and even with out their knowledge:-if Jesus did all these things, he gave to Paul, to all his followers, and to the whole world, an everlasting proof that the Saviour was still alive, dwelling in inaccessibie light with his heavenly Father, and that one day, however distant, he would in the power of his Father descend to consummate the grand events promised in the gospel. This scheme of Divine Providence required that Paul should hold no intercourse with the other apostles until he was converted, until his credentials were fully ratified from above, independently of them. In pursuance of this purpose, Divine Wisdom made use of his misguided zeal to remove him from Jerusalem and Jesus deferred appearing to him, till he was too far on the road to return. Being near Damascus, he was led to that city, where he was to receive his commission, and to commence his arduous undertaking as an apostle of Christ."-Pp. 183-185.

Gamaliel Smith has seized with great acuteness some of the discrepancies between the several relations of the same circumstances in Paul's history in various parts of the Acts

and the Epistles. These Ben David attempts to explain, sometimes successfully, but at other times rather ingeniously than satisfactorily: e. g.

:

"the historian asserts that, while the companions of Saul, though they saw no one, did hear the voice, Acts ix. 7; while Paul in his apology, xxii. 9, represents them as having seen the light, without having heard the voice. Here it must be remembered that the mode in which the apostle had stated the event, was afterwards penned by Luke, as well as his own and it is utterly incredible that he should have recorded two statements apparently so inconsistent, and so likely to furnish objections against himself, unless he was perfectly satisfied of the correctness of both. And the case stood thus: The commission in which Saul engaged, must have been occasioned by an information brought to the chief priests and authorities in Jerusalein, from the enemies of the gospel in Damascus. The delegates who had brought the information, of course returned with Saul : and as they were Greeks or Hellenistic Jews, they might not understand the Hebrew language. It is further reasonable to suppose, that persons, concurring with the object of his commission, attended Saul in his journey: who as Jews, educated in the seat of Hebrew learning, must have understood the He

brew tongue.

When, therefore, Jesus appeared unto Saul, they heard, or, more conformably to the original, understood or obeyed the voice, that is, they became converts and joined with their principal, the persecuted - party. But there was this difference in the vision: these attendants saw no man, that is, though they heard the voice of Jesus, they did not see his form, as Saul had done. The pre-eminent end to be answered by Saul's conversion, Jesus thus distinctly marked by shewing himself exclusively to him, as designed to bear his name before the Gentiles. Divine Wisdom, in order to meet the exigencies of the case, appointed that the rest of the party should remain among the enemies of the gospel. Accordingly Jesus declined to appear to them also. They saw the light indeed, and though they must have heard the sound of his voice, they did not compre hend it, nor of course did they, like the rest, become obedient to it. Now Luke, writing for the use of the believers, and having in his mind that party only who had joined them, writes, And the men who journeyed with him, stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no man.' On the other hand, common sense required that Paul, when defending himself before his accusers, should

[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »