one thing Rénan takes great pains, viz.: in describing natural scenery, the culture and way of religious thinking in the several cities and countries, so that nothing is wanting in his works to make them novels, historical romances, or philosophical disquisitions—they are any thing but history.

We shall now furnish the proof of what we have said. As a specimen of the novelistic character of the work we are reviewing, we quote from page 48, on the journey of St. Paul to Cyprus, to wit: “It is a short day's journey from Antioch to Seleucia. The route follows at a distance the right bank of the Orontes, rising and falling on the last undulations of the mountains of Pieria, and traversing by ford the numerous streams which flow down from them. On all sides there are myrtle underwood, arbutus, laurels, and green oaks; rich villages are suspended in the sharply-cut crests of the mountains. On the left plain of the Orontes spreads out its high cultivation. The wooded summits of the mountains of Daphne shut in the horizon in the south. We are now no longer in Syria. This is a classical, fertile, pleasant, civilized land."

In what light our author himself looks upon the documents from which he draws his information, and upon the theme of his story, he tells us with great naïveté, p. 53 : “ The Acts of the Apostles, an expression of this first transport of the Christian conscience, compose a book of joy, of serene ardor. Since the Homeric poems, no work had been seen full of such fresh sensations. A breeze of morning, an odor of the sea, if I dare express it so, inspiring something joyful and strong, penetrates the whole book, and makes it an excellent compagnon de voyage, the exquisite breviary for him who is searching for ancient remains on the seas of the south. This is the second idyl of Christianity. The Lake of Tiberias and its fishing barks had furnished the first.” Our author, being so completely captivated with scenery, idyllic beauty, can naturally pay but little attention to the nature of the work of his hero.

We come now to the narrative itself, and in the treatment of the first incident we find every charge made by us more than sustained ; the incident is the conversion of the Proconsul Sergius Paulus, at Paphos, recorded Acts xii. 6–12. What has our author to say of this event, narrated by the sacred historian in language as brief as it is simple and unadorned? He devotes pp. 54-56 to it.

In the first place, we are told that S. Paulus was of an illustrious Roman family, which statement is evidently made for a certain purpose, since in point of fact it is altogether gratuitous. He is represented as a scion of an illustrious family, in order to make it appear probable that he shared the scepticism of many of his contemporaries belonging to the higher classes, and thus to justify the assertion, which gives the lie to Acts, that “the conversion of a Roman of this order, at this period, is a thing absolutely inadmissible.” But where is the proof of the asserted nobility of birth? The fact that he was proconsul of so unimportant a province as Cyprus does certainly not furnish it. The event took place toward the close of the first half of the first century; Claudius was emperor-Pallas, his freedman, was one of the most powerful men of the empire, and men of this class, favorites of the emperors, held far more important offices than members of the old patrician families. Felix was the brother of this Pallas, who remained in power for some time under Nero. This madman did, from the second half of his reign, all he could to degrade the ancient noble families, and to deprive them even of all self-respect. (See Sat. III. of Juvenal.) S. Paulus is called an åvno ovvetos, which has nothing to do with his birth. We do, however, not say that he was not of illustrious descent, but only that we know nothing about this, and M. Rénan does, in this instance, know not more than we do. We pass by the infamous remark (p. 55), “Probably the illusions, to which it is unfortunately permitted us to think that Paul and Barnabas sometimes had recourse, appeared to him more striking and greater than those of Bar-jesus.' But we ask, why “is the conversion of a Roman of this order, at this period, a thing absolutely inadmissible?” Paul writes (Gal. iv. 4), that when the fulness of time was come, i.e., when the world was prepared both positively and negatively, God sent his Son. The views of a man like Paul have, as a matter of course, little weight with Rénan, but what

says history? What was the religious condition of the RomanGrecian world of those days ? had not the old religions of state outlived themselves I had not the belief in the national deities almost entirely given way so as to create a fearful vacuum in the human breast ? was not the necessity of something new and better felt keenly and painfully? There were, indeed, philosophers, Stoics, Epicureans, and others, to whom might, at least at times, apply what Rénan says of the higher classes as a whole. But were these all philosophers ? what portion of the whole population did the sceptic philosophers constitute, especially in a nation so emphatically unspecula. tive and unphilosophical as the Romans? Was there one philosopher to every 100,000 souls? We trow not. That under these circumstances the mass of the people, high and low, were ready to receive new religious teaching, may fairly be taken for granted, and is fully corroborated by the many converts to Judaism, both proselytes of the gate and proselytes of righteousness. The almost universal expectation of a deliverer coming from the East exerted, likewise, a powerful influence in the same direction. (See Tacitus, Hist., V., 13; Suet., Vesp., 4.) Cicero already (pro Flacco, 28) complains of the great number of conversions of Greeks and Romans to Judaism; so do Juvenal, Tacitus, Seneca. Juvenal (XIV., 96, etc.) uses this language : “Some that happen to have Sabbath-fearing fathers, worship nothing but the clouds and the sky; soon they submit to circumcision, but, accustomed to despise the Roman laws, they learn by heart, observe, and fear the Jewish laws whichsoever Moses has handed down in a secret volume." Tacitus says (Hist., V., 5): “ The other Jewish rites got the upper hand by the baseness of men. For all the worst despised the religion of their fathers, and carried tributes and presents to Jerusalem, whence their power increased. ... Those that go over to them do the same things, nor do they learn any thing quicker than to despise the gods, to deny their fatherland, and to hold parents, children, and brothers in derision.” Again (Ann., II., 85): “4,000 freedmen, seized with the same superstition (Jewish belief), were sent to the island of Sardinia.” Seneca (De Superst.) says: “The Jewish religion spreads over the whole earth—the con. quered gave laws to the conquerors.” Dio Cassius (XXXVII., 17) says: “Among the Romans also is this race"-the Jews_"indeed, often persecuted, but they increased to such an extent, that they express their belief without any fear.” With regard to Antioch, says Josephus (Bell. Jud., VII., 33) that the married women were nearly all observers of the law --so of Damascus. Helen and her royal son Izates turn Jews (Antiq., 20); Vespasian's nephew suffered death for his inclination toward Judaism. The smaller number of these converts were proselytes of righteousness; the vast majority were proselytes of the gate, and these as well as the women were most ready to embrace Christianity. And in the face of these facts of history, M. Renan dares to say, that the conversion of S. Paulus to Christianity in those days was a psychological impossibility! Paul and Barnabas must have recourse to trickery, and the illustrious Roman must have seen in a miracle only a trick for amusement, or the proof of the presence of a god (p. 55). “ If S. Paulus had really believed in Paul's miracles, he would have reasoned as follows: “this man is very powerful, perhaps he is a god, and not, the doctrine which he preaches is true?” (p. 56). To this we reply by merely asking M. Rénan, whether he thinks that S. Paulus would have taken the words of a presumed god for a lie?

Or as the transaction under consideration bears some resemblance to Peter's encounter of Simon Magus (Acts viii.), distorted in the Clementines a whole century later so as to make it almost unrecognizable, it is, according to Rénan, possibly a mere version of the Peter story, without any historical basis, with a view of glorifying Paul. And such a wilful mutilation of history we are called upon to accept as the quintessence of truth! Very pathetically says Rénan at the close of the volume under review: “O humanity! certain of thy judgmnents are just,” to which we would add : 60 history! certain of thy pages are comically defaced by designing men !”

We cannot possibly follow our author step by step through the whole work, as we should have to write not a review, but a work larger than the work reviewed, and we shall, therefore, content ourselves with calling attention to one or two more prominent points, and this we can do with the greater propriety, as our author has followed in his sketch the commonly received opinions, has started no new theory or hypothesis, and has brought forward no new argument in support of his views. Nor has he attempted to give us something like a system of Paul's teaching, as he was bound to do, in order to establish the truth of what he asserts as to the unrelenting opposition of some of the older Apostles to Paul, especially of James and John. For if there is no radical difference between Paul's teaching and that of his reported enemies and persecutors proved to exist, however widely they may differ in terminology and even on minor points of doctrine, the allegation, that men who once have recognized Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and had given him the right hand of fellowship, afterward turned his unrelenting enemies, is nothing but an empty assertion, and unworthy of any intelligent student of history.

It is true we have in the book before is very lengthy extracts from the writings of Paul, but in no case are these extracts given with a view of systematizing Paul's doctrine, or of proving and elucidating certain points of his doctrine. So we have (pp. 193–201) the whole Epistle to the Galatians transcribed, apparently for no other purpose than that of swelling the size of the book, for the few comments are puerile and worthless ; pp. 229-233 we have lengthy extracts from 1 Cor., but likewise for no other purpose, as it would seem ; p. 244 we have 1 Cor. xiii. transcribed, introduced, indeed, with the compliment: “ Borne along by a truly prophetic inspiration beyond the mingled ideas and aberrations, Paul wrote this admirable page, the only one in all Christian literature which might be compared with the discourses of Jesus.” But the additum reads: “Had he been versed in experimental psychology, Paul would have proceeded a little further. He would have said, Brethren, put away illusions. These inarticulate stammerings, these ecstasies, these miracles, are the dreams of your childhood. But what is not chimerical—what is eternal—that I have just been preaching to you;'” pp. 248-249, we have the greater

« ElőzőTovább »