Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

SECTION IV.

The conduct of St. Paul in particular was not directed or influenced by Enthusiasm.

THE Conduct of this apostle perpetually displays a zeal, ardent indeed and active, but constantly united with the observance of decorum and propriety, as well as attention to his reputation and his personal safety, so far as was consistent with the discharge of his sacred office, and to a much higher degree than can possibly be conceived to exist in a mind distracted by the frenzy of enthusiasm. A few instances will illustrate and prove this position.

* When at Philippi he was unjustly scourged and imprisoned, and the discovery of his innocence induced the magistrates to give orders for his immediate, but private enlargement. Heis not satisfied with securing his safety, without guarding his character, which was exposed to suspicion and disgrace, from the ignominious treatment he had received; and he uses that motive to procure an honourable dismissal, which alone could excite the attention of the magistrates. "They have beaten us (says the apostle) openly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison, and now do they thrust us out privately? nay, verily, but let them come themselves and fetch us out." The event justified the expectation of the apostle; for, "the magistrates feared when they heard they were Romans, and came and besought them and brought them out."

But having thus vindicated their character, they did not attempt to retaliate the ill usage they had received, by public or legal complaint, or to irritate the resentment, and provoke the further vengeance of the magistrates, by obstinate opposition. When desired by them to depart of the city, they only waited to see the brethren, "and when they had seen them, they comforted them, and departed."

The apostle displays a similar care of his reputation when he enjoins the Corinthians, "whomsoever ye shall approve, by † 1 Cor, xvi. 1—4.

*Acts xvi. 19, 38.

His

your letters, will I send to bring your liberality to Jerusalem; and if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me." reason he states in another address to them, *" and we have sent with him (Titus) the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the churches; and not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us, with this grace which is administered by us, to the glory of the Lord, and declaration of your ready mind; avoiding this, that any man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us, providing for honest things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of men." How remote from enthusiasm is such cool precaution as this.

And as he guarded his character, so neither did he neglect his safety. True it is, indeed, that no reproaches, no dangers, no punishments, could deter him from preaching the Gospel of Christ, when shame and persecution were inevitable in discharging this sacred duty. Yet it is equally clear, that he employed all innocent means which reason could suggest, consistent with that duty, to elude the rage of malignant bigotry -but he preached the Gospel still.

To escape persecution he fled from †Damascus, from Antioch, from §Iconium, from ||Thessalonica. To avoid being scourged, he pleaded his privilege as a Roman citizen. ¶ In a violent tumult at Jerusalem, he preserved himself from instant death, by availing himself, with admirable presence of mind, of the contrariety of opinions which prevailed amongst the different parties of his assailants. For when he **66 For when he **" perceived that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, for the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question;" and the scribes of the Pharisees arose and said, tt" we find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God." Thus he gained time to obtain the protection of the civil power.‡‡

66

With similar

Acts xvii. 14.

*2 Cor. 1, 8-21. † Acts ix. 25.
$ Acts xiv. 16.
**Acts xxiii. 6, 7. tt Acts xxiii. 9.

Acts xiii. 50.
Acts xxii. 25.

In defence of St. Paul's conduct on this occasion, consult Limborchi Collatio cum Judæo, p. 134-165, and Benson's History of Christianity, vol. 3, book 3, chap. viii. s. 3, p. 241, edit. 2; and Doddridge's Expositor, in Loc. vol. 3, p. 365;

prudence he afterwards escaped the malignity of assassination, by appealing to the tribunal of Cæsar. "More than forty *Jews bound themselves by a curse, that they would neither eat nor drink, till they had killed Paul." The apostle, on discovering

and Leland's Answer to Morgan, chap. xiv. The objection that St. Paul dissembled his profession of Christianity in order to escape danger, is advanced by Orobio, the Jew, in his Amica Collatio cum Limborcho, p. 134, in these words;-“ In Judea, (says he,) where the danger of persecution was imminent, where he was accused of apostatizing from the law of the Jews, and had been taken by the Roman procurator; he, before Festus and Agrippa, denied all things of which he was accused, saying, that he had taught nothing contrary to circumcision, or the laws of his country; but that the people persecuted him because he preached the resurrection of the dead, and related that he had seen some celestial vision, (to which the Pharisees, in opposition to the Sadducees, assented,) and because he taught repentance; though it was not true, that it was on account of these things he had excited the hatred of the people, but because he turned away the Jews from circumcision, and other legal rites, as abundantly appears from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. Thus did they to the utmost of their power avoid danger." Limborch's Answer, p. 165, seems very satisfactory, "in exclaiming in the Jewish senate, that for the hope and resurrection of the dead he was called in question; and thus exciting a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, how was Paul culpable? Did he deny he was a Christian? No-he only said he was brought into judgment, on account of the resurrection of the dead; and was not this true? was it not the principal doctrine of the Christian religion, that Christ had risen, and that all who believe and obey him should rise like him [rather that all mankind should rise to judgment.] Thus he who is tried for the Christian religion, is really tried for the resurrection of the dead. Paul was too well known to the Jews, and it was too notorious that he was a Christian for him to deny it, if he even wished to do so, or for the Pharisees to believe his denial. Paul spoke in the Sanhedrim not directly of Christ, but of the resurrection of the dead, that he might shew that the Pharisees had no cause to persecute the Christian religion, since it so strongly supported the principal doctrine which they espoused against the Sadducees."-So far Limborch.

We may add, Paul's conduct was the more justifiable, as Ananias, who was a Sadducee, and probably the chief of the sect, was so incensed against him, he would not afford him any opportunity of exculpating himself, but interrupted him with a gross insult in the very first sentence of his defence; there seemed therefore no other expedient to procure an impartial hearing, but that of interesting some of the Sanhedrim to interfere in support of the apostle, and curb the violence of Ananias and his party. The mode adopted by St. Paul seemed most likely to effect this; but so heated were the passions of his enemies, even this could not succeed; the dissension excited by the least attempt to protect the accused apostle, was so violent, that the chief captain was obliged to interfere, and take him by force from amongst them, lest they should tear him to pieces. Had Paul not employed this expedient, the entire Sanhedrim would have probably unanimously condemned him to death, and, as probably, on the instant executed their sentence, by what they termed a judgment of zeal. Thus St. Paul seemed to have no means of obtaining an opportunity to vindicate his innocence, or even to save his life, but that which he adopted, in which he did not in the least violate truth, or deny Christianity.

What Orobio asserts of St. Paul's conduct before Festus and Agrippa is an absolute falsehood. Before them he openly avows his faith in Christ, relates his miraculous conversion to that faith, and strenuously defends its truth.

The propriety and wisdom of his conduct, as to the observance of the Jewish law, are, I trust, sufficiently vindicated in this chapter.

*Acts xxiii. 12.

the conspiracy, discloses it secretly to the chief captain, whose prisoner he then was, and by a secret removal escapes.

When a similar conspiracy was afterwards *renewed, and the Jews requested Festus, the governor, to bring him back to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him, and Festus† desires the apostle's compliance with this request; how admirably does he, in his reply, guard both his safety and his character! "I stand (says he) at Cæsar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged; to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest; for if I have been an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them: I appeal unto Cæsar." How contrary this to the artifice and conscious guilt of imposture on the one side, or the folly of enthusiasm on the other!

At Athens, a similar temper of mind is still more conspicuous in the conduct of the apostle; there, when summoned before the august court of Areopagus, to answer an accusation "of having set forth strange gods," which their laws pronounced a capital crime, mark his defence. "An impostor, (says Lord Lyttleton, speaking of this transaction,) an impostor would have retracted his doctrine to save his life; an enthusiast would have lost his life without trying to save it by innocent means; St. Paul did neither the one nor the other; he availed himself of an altar, inscribed to the unknown God, and pleaded, that he did not propose the worship of any new God, but only explained to the people the nature and attributes of that unknown Divinity, whom their government had already received; Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you; God, who made the world, and all things therein, in whom we live, and move, and have our being. Thus he eluded condemnation, without departing in the least from the truth of the Gospel, or violating the honour of his God; an admirable proof of the good sense with which he acted, and that there was no mixture of fanaticism in his religion."

It is further peculiarly worthy of remark, that in all these various trying situations, in which the apostle of the Gentiles

*Acts xxv. 3.

+ Acts xxv. 9.

Acts xvii. 16-34. Lyttleton on the Conversion of St. Paul, p. 47, note.

was placed, we find him observant of those decorums of language, and those distinctions of rank, which the intercourse of society and the preservation of order require, but which the pride and violence of fanaticism almost always contemns and tramples on.

He is brought before kings and rulers, to bear testimony to the name of Jesus. We see him as at the tribunal of the Areopagus at Athens, so also before the council of the chief priests at Jerusalem, before two different Roman governors, and especially before king Agrippa; and to all he yields that tribute of external respect which their external situation demanded, without departing in the least item from sincerity and truth, or debasing by any mean adulation, or unworthy compliance, the integrity of his character, and the honour of his God. Nor does any peevish or passionate, any rude or contemptuous expression escape him. Once, and only once, an unmerited and wanton insult drew from him an indignant reproach against

Ananias, who, though he presided as his judge, commanded the infliction of the insult. But the moment he is reminded of the character which Ananias bore-the moment they that stood by said, "revilest thou God's high priest ?" he apologizes, and accounts for his warmth, "brethren, I wist not that he was the high priest, for it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the rulers of thy people."

And what is most remarkable, the testimony of history renders probable what the apostle insinuates, that Ananias was not in truth high priest; † but that in a period of anarchy, when the office was unfilled, he rashly assumed that character, which by his insolence he disgraced. This single instance excepted, (if indeed thus circumstanced it constitutes an exception,) the language and conduct of the apostle was uniformly temperate and decorous, as it was firm and dignified, naturally resulting from piety and sobriety of mind, utterly inconsistent with folly and fanaticism.

I have dwelt more particularly on the character of St. Paul not only because his history is recorded more fully than that of

*Acts xxiii. 2-6.

+ Vide Michaelis's Lectures, translated by Bishop Marsh, vol. 1, p. 52.

« ElőzőTovább »