254

CHAPTER XI.

Paul disbelieved continued.-Paul's fourth Jerusalem Visit continued.-Perjurious was the Purpose of the exculpatory Oath commenced by him in the Temple.

SECTION 1.

GENERAL PROOF OF THE PERJURY FROM THE ACTS.

We have seen the indignation produced by Paul's invasion of the dominion of the Apostles: we have seen it carried to its height, by his commencement of, and perseverance in, the exculpatory ceremony, for the purpose of which he made his entrance, and took up his lodgement in the temple. We have seen the fruits of that same indignation: we have seen the general result of them. What remains is to give a clearer and more explicit conception, than can as yet have been given, of the cause of it.

This was neither more nor less, than an universal persuasion-that the assertion,-to which, on his part, this ceremony had for its object the attaching the sanction of an oath,-was, to his full knowledge, false: the oath employed being, in its form, beyond comparison more impressive, than any that has been known to be at any time in use, in this or any other country: and that, accordingly, the confirmation given to the falsehood, in and by means of that most elaborate and conspicuous ceremony, was an act of perjury: of perjury, more deliberate and barefaced, than any thing, of which, in these days, any example can have place.

That, on this occasion, the conduct of the self-constituted Apostle was stained with perjury, is a matter,

intimation of which has unavoidably come to have been already given, in more parts perhaps of this work than one. But, for a support to a charge, which, if true, will of itself be so completely destructive of Paul's pretensions-of all title to respect, at the hands of every professor of the religion of Jesus-no slight body of evidence could have been sufficient.

For this purpose, let us, in the first place, bring together the several elementary positions, proof or explanation of which, may be regarded as necessary, and at the same time as sufficient, to warrant, in this case, a verdict of guilty.

To these charges, is immediately subjoined such part of the evidence, as is furnished, by the account of the matter, as given in the Acts: in another section will be brought to view the evidence, furnished by Paul himself, in his Epistles. The evidence from the Acts is of the circumstantial kind: the evidence from the Epistles is direct.

1. To Paul was imputed as a misdeed, the having recommended the forsaking of the Mosaic law. Recommended, namely, to such disciples of his as, having been born and bred under it, were found by him settled in some Gentile nation. Proof [Acts xxi. 21] They" (the Jews which believe, ver, 20) “are "informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews "which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their chil"dren, neither to walk after the customs."

66

2. To a great extent, the imputation was well grounded: for, to a great extent, it had been his practice, to give the recommendation thus described. Of this position the proof will follow presently.

3. By Paul, the truth of this imputation was utterly denied: denied by the opposite denegatory assertion: and, the imputation being as above well grounded,-in so far as any such denegatory assertion

had been made by him, he had knowingly uttered a wilful falsehood.

4. In proof of the sincerity of this denial, it was proposed to Paul, on the part of the Apostles and Elders, to give a confirmation of it, by the performance of a certain appropriate ceremony.

5. The ceremony thus proposed, was one that was universally understood, to have the effect of attaching, to any assertion, connected with it for the purpose, the sanction of an oath.

6. Knowing such to be the effect of the ceremony, he gave his assent to the proposition, and determined, by means of it, to attach the sanction of an oath to such his denial, as above: and thereby, the assertion contained in that denial, being, as above, to his knowledge, false,―to commit, in that extraordinarily solemn and deliberate form and manner, an act of perjury.

7. In pursuance of such determination, he accordingly repaired for that purpose to the temple, and had his abode therein for several days: the completion of the requisite number being no otherwise prevented, than by the irruption of the indignant multitude, assured as they were of his being occupied in the commission of a perjury.

Proof of Charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Acts xxi. 23, 24, 26, 27, 28.

23. "We (the Apostles and the Elders, or at least "the Apostle James, ver. 18) have four men, which "have a vow on them;

24. "Them take, and purify thyself with them, "and be at charges with them, that .... all may "know that those things, whereof they were informed "concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thy"self also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

26. "Then Paul took the men, and the next day "purifying himself with them entered into the tem"ple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of

purification, until that an offering should be offered "for every one of them.

27. "And when the seven days were almost ended, "the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him "in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid "hands on him.

28. "Crying out, Men of Israel, help; This is the "man, that teacheth all [men] every where against "the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple; and hath pol"luted this holy place.'

66

99

Of the perjuriousness of Paul's intent, a short proof, namely of the circumstantial kind, is thus already visible, in the indignation excited,—its intensity, its immorality, and the bitter fruits of it. Will it be said no? for that the indignation had, for its adequate cause, his being thought to have spoken slightingly of the law in question-it being the law of the land,-and that, to this imputation, the ceremony, it being, as above the performance of a vow, had no reference? Assuredly no: no such interpretation will be found tenable. True it is, that, by the persuasion, that he had thus been dealing by the Mosaic law-by this persuasion, without need of any thing else, the indignation may well have been produced: but it could only have been by the knowledge, that, upon his having been called upon to confess the having so done, or to deny it, he had, in this most extraordinary and universally conspicuous mode, given continuance and confirmation to his denial-it could only have been by this knowledge, that the excitement was raised up to so high a pitch. For, What was it that the information had charged him with? It was the forsaking Moses. What was the purpose, for which the recommendation was given to him-the recommendation to perform this ceremony? It was the purifying himself, "that all might know" that the information was groundless.

"That those things," (say the Apostles with the Elders to him) "whereof they" (the thousands of Jews which believe, ver. 20)" were informed against thee were nothing:"-" to purify thyself," says the official translation more appositely might it have said to clear thyself: for in that case, the idea of an imputation would clearly enough, though but implicitly, have been conveyed: whereas, to some minds, the idea conveyed by the word purify may perhaps be no other than that of some general cleansing of the whole character, by means of some physical process, to which, in so many minds, the psychological effect in question has, by the influence of artifice on weakness, been attached.

Such then, namely, the clearing himself of the imputation by so soleinn a confirmation of the denial of it, such was the purpose, for which, in the most unequivocal terms, his performance of the ceremony was recommended: such, therefore, was the purpose for which it was commenced; such, accordingly, was the purpose for which it would have been consummated, but for the interruption which it experienced: experienced not from his hands, but from hands, among which, there seems sufficient reason to believe, were the hands, if not of the very persons by whom it had been recommended, at any rate of those who till that time had been in use to be guided by their influence.

To this interpretation, what objection is there that can be opposed? If any, it can only be that which to some minds may perhaps be suggested by the word

vou.

But the fact is-this word vow is a mis-translation: the proper word would have been oath. By an oath every one understands at first mention an assertory, not a promissory, declaration: by a vow, a promissory, not an assertory one. But an assertory decla