Chapter XXXVI: Section 7: Mode and Cause of Its Termination

In relation to this subject, we have two, and no more than two, accounts,--both from the same pen,--that of the historiographer in the Acts; and these two accounts, as usual, contradictory of each other. The first, in the order of the history, is that given by him in his own person: Acts 9:27, 28, 29. The other, is that given by him in the person of Paul: namely, in the course of his supposed first-made and unpremeditated speech,--when, on the occasion of his last visit to Jerusalem--his Invasion Visit, he was pleading for his life before the angry multitude. Acts 22:17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Now then, let us compare the two accounts.

Speaking in his own person,--it is to the fear of certain Grecians, that the historiographer ascribes Paul's departure for Jerusalem. In disputing with them, he had been speaking "boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus": and _thereupon_,--and as we are desired to believe, _therefore_,--came certain designs and endeavours to slay him. Designs? on the part of whom? Answer:--on the part of those same Grecians: cause of these designs and endeavours, irritation, so it is intended we should suppose,--irritation, produced in the breasts of those same Grecians;--and produced by the dispute.

Now, as to the words of the historiographer, speaking in his own person. It is immediately after the mention of Paul's transactions with the Apostles and the other disciples, that after saying, Acts 9:28, that "... he was with them coming in and going out of Jerusalem," the narrative continues thus: ver. 29; "And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, but _they_ went about to slay him: ver. 30; Which when _the brethren_ knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."

Such is the account given, of the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, on the occasion in question--given by the historiographer, speaking in his own person, of the manner of the departure, and at the same time of the cause of it. Behold now how different is the account given, of the same matter, by the same historiographer, in the same work, when speaking in the person of his hero. Nothing now as to any disputes with Grecians: nothing now of these, or any other human beings, in the character of beings who were angry with him, and _that_ to such a degree, that, to save his life, it was deemed necessary by his adherents,--styled on this occasion "_the_ brethren," to take charge of him, as we have seen, and convey him from Jerusalem to Cæsarea and elsewhere.

The case seems to be--that, between the time of writing the account which has just been seen, and the time for giving an account of the same transaction in the person of the hero, as above,--a certain difficulty presented itself to the mind of the historiographer: and, that it is for the solution of this difficulty, that he has recourse, to one of his sovereign solvents--_a trance_. The difficulty seems to have been this: The class of persons, whom, on that first visit of his he had exasperated, were--not "_Grecians_," or any other Gentiles, but Christians: Christians, the whole body of them--Apostles and Disciples together: the same class of persons, to which belonged those who, on the occasion of this his last visit--the _Invasion Visit_--were to such a degree exasperated, by this fourth intrusion of his, as to be attempting his life. How hopeless any attempt would have been, to make them believe, that it was not by themselves, but by a set of Heathens, that his life was threatened on that former occasion, is sufficiently manifest. Here then comes a demand, for a substitute, to that cause, which, distant as the time was, could not, however, be altogether absent from their memory: and which, so far as it was present, could not but heighten their exasperation:--this substitute was _the trance_.

The cause of the departure is now--not the fear of any human being, but the express command of "_the Lord_":--a command delivered in the course, and by means, of this same _trance_. Moreover, as if, from such a quarter, _commands_ were not sufficient of themselves; on the present occasion, it will be seen, they came backed by _reasons_. Was it that, as the historiographer has been telling us in his own person, certain Grecians were exasperated? No: but that the persons, to whom, with Barnabas for his supporting witness, Acts 9:27, he had been telling his story, gave no credit to it: so that, by a man with his reputation in this state, nothing in the way of his business was to be done.

But now let us see the text. It comes immediately after that passage, in which Paul is made to speak of Ananias, as giving orders to him, in the name of the Lord: orders, concluding in these words: Acts 22:16: ... "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This said,--his story, as told to the multitude, continues thus: "And it came to pass that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in _a trance_: And saw him saying unto me, Make _haste_, and get thee _quickly_ out of Jerusalem: _for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me_. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live."

It may now be seen, how useful and convenient an implement this same trance was: how well adapted, to the occasion on which it was employed. Taken by itself, this story about the enraged Grecians might serve to impose upon readers in general: but, to the knowledge of the really enraged Christians, whose wrath he was endeavouring to assuage,--it was not only too palpably false to be related to them, but too much so, to be even for a moment supposed to be related to them: hence came the demand for the supernatural cause. Nothing, it is evident, could be better suited to the purpose. The assertion was of the sort of those, which, how palpably soever untrue, are not exposed to contradiction by direct evidence: and which, supposing them believed, ensure universal respect, and put all gainsayers to silence.

An incident not unworthy here of notice, is--the sort of acknowledgment contained in the words--"for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me." In this may be seen--a confirmation of the important fact, so fully proved on the occasion of the first or _Reconciliation Visit_: and we see--with what consistency and propriety, the mention of it comes in, on the present occasion: namely, in a speech, made to a multitude, of which, many of those,--by whom he had been disbelieved and rejected on that former occasion,--must of course have formed a part.

Such is the fact, which, after having communicated to us, in his own person, Acts 9:26, "they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple," the historiographer is frank enough to communicate to us a second time, through the mouths of Paul and "the Lord," the one within the other. _True_ enough this information: and, moreover, at Jerusalem, as well when the historiographer was writing, as when Paul was speaking, _notorious_ enough: or we should hardly have had it _here_ and _now_. But, what a truth to put into the mouth of Paul, whose title to credence for his claim, is so effectually destroyed by it!

To return to what, on the occasion of the first visit, is said by the historiographer, in his own person, about the Grecians. That it was false, as to the main point,--namely, that it was by the fear of those same Gentiles that he was driven out of Jerusalem,--is now, it is hoped, sufficiently evident. But, as to his having held disputation with them,--in this there seems not to be anything inconsistent or improbable: and this part, supposing it true, might, in so far as known, help to gain credence for that which was false.

A circumstance--not altogether clear, nor worth taking much trouble in the endeavour to render it so, is--on the occasion of this dialogue, the change made, of the supernatural vehicle, from a _vision_ into a "_trance_." Whatsoever, if any, is the difference,--they agree in the one essential point: namely, that it is in the power, of any man, at any time, to have had as many of them as he pleases: hearing and seeing, moreover, in every one of them, whatsoever things it suits his convenience to have heard or seen.--"I saw a vision:" or, "I was in a trance": either postulate granted, everything whatsoever follows.

This _trance_, it may be observed, is of a much more substantial nature than any of the _visions_. By Paul in his _road vision_,--vision as it was,--neither _person_ nor _thing_, with the exception of a quantity of light, was seen: only a voice, _said to be the Lord's_, heard. In this trance, the Lord is not only heard, but seen. In those visions, that which is said to have been heard, amounts to nothing: on the present occasion, what is said to have been heard, is material to the purpose, and perfectly intelligible. Not that there could be any use in Paul's _actually_ hearing of it: for what it informed him of, was nothing more than that which, at the very time, he was in full experience of. But, in a situation such as his, it was really of use to him, to be _thought_ to have heard it: and therefore it is, that, in the speech ascribed to him, he is represented as _saying_ that he heard it.

FOOTNOTES:

[25] In the current chronology, this Epistle to the Galatians is placed in the year 58; on the part of the author of the Acts, the first mention of his being in the company of Paul is placed in the year next following, to wit, 59. Note, that at the end of the Epistle to the Galatians, it is stated to be written from Rome: yet, according to the current chronology, his arrival at Rome, in custody, from Jerusalem,--at which time unquestionably he had never as yet visited Rome,--did not take place till the year 62.

[26] First time, Acts ii. 45. Second time, Acts iv. 34.

[27] "I conferred not with flesh and blood." (Gal. ii. 16.) "Of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." Not till "after three years" did I go "up to Jerusalem to see Peter." With language in this strain, it would have harmonized but indifferently, to have added, "nor should I have seen him then, had it not been for Barnabas."

CHAPTER V.

_Paul disbelieved_ continued.--_Jerusalem Visit II._
_Money-bringing Visit._--_Barnabas accompanying him from Antioch._