duct would have met Rénan's approbation, which, as it was, it does not, it he had observed over against his adversaries and opponents, on all occasions, an imperturbable silence. That silence which is, indeed, at times, if not a virtue, at least good policy, may at other times be a crime—of this M. Rénan seems to have no idea.

As to the emissaries from Jerusalem that created the disturbance at Antioch, M. Renan has no authority whatever to say that they were sent by James and acted according to his instructions. In Gal. ii. 12, it is said that Tiveç ndov áno 'IakóBov, i. e., from the place of James, from Jerusalem, not that they were sent by James, in which case ÚTÓ or mapá would have been used. What he says of these mischief-makers may be true—not that James established a counter-mission, which followed Paul wherever he went and tried to break up the churches founded by him, as Renan maintains, but that Judaizers actually treated Paul as stated by Rénan, although they did not act in concert with James. Both Acts xv. and Galatians declare that James as well as all the others present at the Synod gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship and pronounced his proceeding legitimate; Acts xxi. James and Paul met again. This part of Acts Rénan professes to recognize as authentic, as coming from an eye-witness. The meeting was, as intimated before, exactly what we should expect it to have been, thus in the main the two Apostles agree; James only desires Paul to do certain acts in order to refute thereby reports circulated among, and believed by the Christians of Jerusalemn; Paul follows the advice, most likely against his better judgment, certainly to his sorrow. This meeting took place about A. D. 60. Could James have established counter-missions, and treated Paul on the occasion in question the way he did, without being a consummate hypocrite ? James dies soon afterward (A. D. 62), and, whether we follow the account of Hegesippns or Josephus, a radical change of his views had not taken place. In that interval (60-62) he penned also his epistle, which cannot have been intended for a marked attack on Paul, being addressed to readers on whom Paul had exerted no influence whatsoever. Moreover, there is no real discrepancy between that document and the doctrines of Paul. All attempts to



make James and Paul perfectly alike, appear to us, indeed, forced and unnatural; we readily admit a relative discrepancy between them, and we are persuaded that Paul would not have been likely to use James' language with regard to justification as being effected by faith and works ; but a real contradiction between them there exists not, as every one can satisfy himself that will take the trouble to study James' system of doctrine thoroughly as well as that of Paul. The faith of James is in some accidental features different from that of Paulhence their relative discrepancy. Still worse, if possible, is M. Renan's representation of John's relation to and conduct toward Paul, or rather, his memory, doctrine, and influence.

According to our `author, the Apocalypse is the work of John the Apostle, and was composed about a. D. 68. That it was no revelation from Jesus or any other higher power, is a matter of course;" it was John's production exclusively. All the harsh terms applied in that book to false teachers, apostles, etc., are aimed at Paul, the oversight of whose churches in Asia Minor John had taken upon himself after Paul's death. “From that moment Paul becomes in the eyes of an entire fragment of the church, a most dangerous heretic, a false Jew, a false Apostle, a false prophet, a second Balaam, a Jezebel, a wretch who was harping upon the destruction of the temple. To tell all in two words, a Simon the magician.”—(P. 188.) Of these flattering designations,“ the false Jew," "false Apostle,” “ false prophet,” and others of the same import, owe their paternity to the Apocalypse. But that John should have applied these terms to Paul, and that of “Nicolaitanes” to his disciples, should have called his visions “the deep things of Satan,” the churches founded by him “the synagogues of Satan" (pp. 188–189), is not only unqualifiedly false, but not even the semblance of proof can be brought forward for this reckless assertion. These titles are applied by John to individuals still living (Apoc. ii. 9 and iii. 9, etc.); according to Rénan the Apocalypse was composed in a. D. 68, when Paul was either dead or awaiting his sentence of death in prison—did this point escape our historian? Soon after Paul's death, his churches in Asia Minor as well as elsewhere saw themselves greatly endangered by errors coming from without and from


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


their own midst, as Paul had often foretold, combating them wherever they made their appearance. The churches in Asia Minor, where, for a variety of reasons, the danger was greatest, entreated John to take charge of them. As Paul's doctrine was so greatly perverted, through the ignorance and malice, in his life-time (“we are slanderously reported and some affirm that we say: Let us do evil that good may come "), is it strange that this should have been done to a greater extent and with better success after his death? The same canses that had prepared the way for Christianity, paved it also, in a high degree, for dangerous errors that had mixed with the pure doctrines of the Gospel; and as error mixed with truth is always more dangerous, because more successful, than error alone, the danger was really very great for the infant churches, and history testifies that Ebionitism on the one hand, and Gnosticism on the other, at one time fairly eclipsed the glory of the Church. These errorists and the assemblies gathered by them John coinbats in the Apocalypse and in his epistles; but to say that he directed his shafts against Paul, is a real slander of the disciple whom Jesus loved. For John had also given to Paul, at the Synod, the right hand of fellowship, thus recognizing his apostolic mission, and as Paul did but consistently develop and carry out the principles approved then and there, only a total change of principles in John would have enabled the latter to attack Paul in the manner asserted by Rénan. But how is it in this respect? What is the doctrinal system of the Apocalypse ? Is there such a radical difference between it and the doctrines of Paul ? Let the documents be compared, and it will be seen by every competent and unprejudiced critic that the agreement between the two sets of documents is almost perfect, greater than between the fourth Gospel, which is the work of John, and the Apocalypse. Paul and the Apocalypse agree as to the higher character of Jesus and his mediatorial position. Will any honest man maintain that the Christ of the Apocalypse is Ebionitic ? Let him read the first chapter and then say whether Jesus is represented there as a mere creature, however exalted. The revelation is, indeed, given him by God, but this is the position uniformly claimed by the Saviour himself, and ascribed

[ocr errors]

to him by the synoptics, the fourth Gospel, and by Paul, and his mediatorial character demands this very position. This implies identity of views of the Incarnation-the same identity of views we find in the two documents with regard to justification; the vicarious sufferings of Jesus appear in both as the pardon-procuring cause, which the sinner can appropriate to himself only by faith. Although Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, yet his attachment to his former co-religionists remains as strong all his life long as that of any of the older Apostles. Let the reader read in proof of this the first five verses of Rom. ix.; nor are his hopes as to the future of Israel less bright than those of any of the others.--See Rom. xi. 25– 28. But greatest of all is the agreement between the eschatologies of the two parties. This fact seems to have been overlooked to a great extent by the Church, as in fact the whole subject of eschatology has not yet received its proper share of attention. The two sets of documents are, on this subject, so independent that neither can be fully understood without the other. Paul does not particularly distinguish between the first and the second resurrection, although he hints also at the second. What he writes in 1 Thess. iv, can be fully understood only by comparing it with Apoc. xix. and xx., and the whole of 1 Cor. xv. remains more or less dark without the Apocalypse. In 1 Cor. xv. 24, we read," then the end ;" .

“ between ver. 24 and 25 the millennium falls; the coming of Christ, ver. 24, is identical with that spoken of in 1 Thess. iv., and the end is the consummation of all things, but without Apoc. xx, we should not know this. And John, who agreed so fully with Paul, who had formally recognized him as the Apostle of the Gentiles, who had taken charge of his churches after his death, John should apply such terrible terms to Paul! Had he done so, he would be the worst of defamers and calumniators on record.

In this way we could follow our author and convict him of rashness, falsehood, and misrepresentation almost step by step, but the few specimens we have given are sufficient to convey a correct idea of the whole book. We call attention before bringing our review to a close, to one more subject, viz., Panl's preaching at Athens. From pages 126-140 we have a

lengthy and, on the whole, clever dissertation on Athens and Grecian culture; but Paul, as might be expected, is made to play a wretched rôle there. Rénan's comment on the words of Acts : “ His spirit was stirred within him when he saw the city wholly given up to idolatry,” is “Ah! beautiful and chaste images, true gods and true goddesses, tremble! here is one who will raise the hammer against you. The fatal word has been pronounced, ye are idols. The error of this ugly little Jew will prove your death-warrant.” Our author's representation of Paul's conduct and appearance at Athens is nothing but a caricature. His treatment of the subject is moreover so shallow and superficial that even the common error of the unknown God is retained and commented upon, while Paul spoke of an unknown god, setting out from a position which Rénan has failed to discover. The masterly discourse delivered by Paul at Athens, is not only censured as to form and diction, but is pronounced deistical and a disingenuous attempt at reconciling irreconcilable ways of thinking. “Biblical ideas and those of Greek philosophy aspire to embrace each other; but for that they will need make many concessions to each other, for this God in whom we live and move is very different from the Jehovah of the prophets and heavenly Father of Jesus.” (P. 138.) “What was Paul? He was not a saint. The dominant feature of his character is not goodness; he was haughty, pertinacious, aggressive ; he defended himself; maintained his point; his expressions were harsh ; he deemed himself absolutely in the right; he clung to his opinions; he quarrelled with different persons. He was not learned. It may even be said that he greatly injured science by his paradoxical contempt for reason, by his eulogy upon apparent folly, by his apotheosis of transcendental absurdity. He wishes to succeed for this he makes sacrifices. ... He is not even a virtuous man, for he is never irreproachable. ... Paul, so great, so upright, is obliged to decree to himself the title of Apostle.” (Pp. 329-30.) Such, then, were the leading features of the character of “St.” Paul! By an accident, by a purely subjective phenomenon that had no objective basis whatever, he is changed of a sudden from a fierce persecntor into an enthusiastic follower of Jesus, the infallible exponent

« ElőzőTovább »