Chapter LXII: 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 lodgment 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 anything, 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 21:21, ... "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 children, neither to walk after the customs."

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 extraordinary 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 21:23, 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 thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

26. "Then Paul took the men, and _the next day purifying himself with them_ entered into the temple, 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 everywhere _against_ the people, and _the law_, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple; and hath _polluted_ this holy place."

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 anything 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 solemn 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 _vow_.

But the fact is--this word _vow_ is a mistranslation: the proper word should have been _oath_. By an oath everyone understands at first mention an _assertory_, not a _promissory_, declaration: by a _vow_, a _promissory_, not an _assertory_ one. But an _assertory_ declaration, as every one sees, is the only sort of declaration, that admits of any application to the case in question. By nothing that, in Paul's situation, a man could _promise_ to do, in addition to the performance of the ceremony, could any evidence be given, of a man's having, or not having, done so and so, in any time _past_.

That by that which was actually done, that which was essential was considered as having been done,--is proved, by what is put into Paul's mouth in relation to this subject, in his defence against the accusation brought afterwards against him, before the Roman governor _Felix_, by the spokesman of the Jewish constituted authorities, _Tertullus_. There it is, that, beyond all doubt, what he is speaking of, is his CLEARANCE, as above: for there also, the word in the official translation, as well as in the Greek original, is _purified_: in the past tense, purified. This being assumed, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that either in the course of that part, which at the time of the irruption, was already elapsed of the _seven days'_ ceremony, in the temple; or, what seems more probable, antecedently to the commencement of it, a denegatory declaration--a declaration denying the fact charged in the accusation,--had been made: for, that the ceremony itself was never accomplished, is what is expressly stated:--of the term of seven days stated as necessary to the accomplishment of it, no more than a part, it is said, had elapsed, when the final interruption of it took place.

To return to the time of Paul's entrance into the temple.

Thus, as hath been seen, stands the matter, even upon the face of the official English translation. But in verse 26, the word employed in the Greek original, removes all doubt. "Then," says the translation, "Paul took the men, and the next day _purifying himself_ with them, entered into the temple." Purifying himself, in the present tense, says the translation: and, even this alone taken into consideration, the purifying process, whatever it was, might be supposed to have been but commenced before the entrance into the temple, and as being thus as yet in pendency, waiting the exit out of the temple for its accomplishment. Thus it is, that, in the translation, the verb is in the present tense, _purifying himself_: but, in the Greek original, it is in the past tense, _having purified_ himself: so that, in the original, the purification, whatever it may have been, is in express terms stated as having, even before his entrance into the temple, already accomplished.

Note that, if the historian is to be believed, he had on this occasion, the fullest opportunity, of being, in the most particular manner, acquainted with everything that passed. For, when, as above, the recommendation was given to Paul, on his appearance before the Apostle James and the Elders,--he, the historian, was actually present, "And the day following," says he, Acts 21:18, "_Paul went in with us unto James_; and all the Elders were present."

Supposing _that_ the true interpretation,--of what use and effect then, it may perhaps be asked, was the ceremony, of which the temple was the theatre? The answer has been already given. It cannot have been any other than the attaching, to the declaration that had been made, the sanction, of an oath. Without the ceremony performed in the temple, the declaration was a declaration _not_ upon oath, and as such not regarded as sufficient evidence:--evidence, in the shape which, the historian says, had been actually required for the purpose: when the ceremony, of which the temple was the theatre, had been gone through, and the last of the number of days, required for its accomplishment had been terminated;--then, and not before, it was regarded as having been converted into the appropriate and sufficient evidence. Thus it was, that this seven days' ceremony was no more than an elaborate substitute to the English ceremony of kissing the book, after hearing the dozen or so of words pronounced by the official functionary.

On this occasion, the Greek word rendered by the word _vow_, is a word which in its ordinary sense was, among Gentiles as well as Jews, exactly correspondent to our word _prayer_. But, the idea denoted by the word _prayer_, applies in this case with no less propriety to an _assertory oath_ than to a _promissory vow_. Directly and completely, it designates neither. In both cases an address is made to some supposed supernatural potentate: in cases such as the present, beseeching him to apply the sanction of punishment to the _praying_ individual, in the event of a want of sincerity on his part: in this case, in the event of his not having done that which, on this occasion, he declares himself to have done, or, what comes to the same thing, his having done that which he declares himself _not_ to have done: in the other case, in the event of his not doing that which he has promised to do, or doing that which he has promised _not to do_.[55]

All this while, it is not in a direct way, it may be observed, that this word _vow_ is employed, and application made of it to Paul's case: not in speaking of Paul himself in the first instance, but after speaking of the _four other men_, whom it is proposed he should take for his comrades, on his entrance into the temple. "We have four men," James and the Elders are made to say, Acts 21:23, 24, "We have four men which have a vow on them: Them take, and purify thyself with them ... that ... all may know, that those things, whereof they," the multitude, ver. 22, "were informed concerning thee, are nothing": no otherwise, therefore, than by the case these four men were in, is the case designated, in which it is proposed to Paul to put himself.

As to the case these four men were in,--no otherwise than on account of its connection with the case Paul was in,--is it in anywise of importance. As probable a supposition as any seems to be--that of their being in the same case with him: accused, as well as he, of teaching "Jews to forsake Moses:" for, between their case and his, no intimation is given of any difference: and, as the _"purifying himself"_ is what is recommended to him, so is it what they are stated, as standing eventually engaged to do on their part. If then, in _his_ instance, purifying himself means--clearing himself of a charge made against _him_,--so in their instance must it naturally, not to say necessarily, have meant--clearing themselves of some charge made against _them_. Moreover, when, as above, he is, in the Greek original, stated as having actually purified himself, before his entrance into the temple, so are they likewise; for it is "_with them_," that his purification is stated as having been performed.

This being assumed, it might not be impossible to find a use for the word _vow_, even in its proper sense--its _promissory_ sense: for, what might be supposed is--that before the entrance into the temple, at the same time with the _denegatory declaration_, a _vow_ was made--a solemn _promise_--to enter into the temple, and back of the declaration with the sanction of an oath, by going through the ceremony. But, forasmuch, as, in the import of the Greek word, no such idea, as that of a _promise_, is comprised,--the only use of this interpretation would be--to save the translators from the imputation of an impropriety, with which it seems rather more probable that they stand chargeable.

All this while, of Paul's conduct on this occasion, to what part was it that the blame belonged?--Surely, not to the endeavour, to wean men from their attachment to the Mosaic laws: for thus far he copied Jesus; and in copying did not go against, but only beyond, the great original. True it is, that, in so doing, he served his own personal and worldly purposes: not less so, that, in this subserviency, he found the inducement by which his conduct was determined: for, by how much stronger men's attachment would continue to be to the dead lawgiver, by so much, less strong would it be to the living preacher. But, in so far as a man's conduct is serviceable to mankind at large, it certainly is not rendered the less serviceable, or the less laudable, by his being himself included in the number. The blame lay then--not in teaching men to forsake Moses: for, thus far, instead of being blame-worthy, there was nothing in his conduct, that did not merit positive praise. What there was amiss in his conduct--in what, then, did it consist? Plainly in this, and this alone: namely, that, on being taxed with having so done,--instead of avowing and justifying it, he denied it: and, having denied it, scrupled not to add to the falsehood the aggravation of such extraordinarily deliberate and solemn perjury, as hath been so plainly visible. And, to what purpose commit so flagrant a breach of the law of morality? Plainly, to no other, than the fixing himself in Jerusalem, and persevering in a project of insane and selfish ambition, which, in spite of the most urgent remonstrances that could be made by his most devoted adherents, had brought him thither: for, he had but to depart in peace, and the Apostles of Jesus would have remained unmolested, and the peace of Christendom undisturbed.

An article of evidence, that must not be left unnoticed,--is the part taken, on this occasion, by the historiographer. Nowhere does this eyewitness take upon himself to declare,--nowhere so much as to insinuate--that of the charge, thus made upon his hero, there was anything that was not true: nowhere does he so much as insinuate, that the declaration by which he says Paul had cleared himself of the charge, and, as we have seen, _before_ his entrance into the temple for the purpose of enforcing it by the sanction of an oath,--was anything short of a downright falsehood. After this, he makes a defence for Paul before Felix;[56] he makes a defence for Paul before Festus;[57] he makes a defence for Paul before Festus and Agrippa;[58] and, on no one of all those occasions, is the defence anything to the purpose. He, indeed, makes Paul declare, that he, Paul, had always been a strict observer of the Mosaic ordinances. This may have been either true or false: but, true or false, it was equally foreign to the purpose. Not improbably, it was, in a considerable degree, true: for if, while he gave to other Jews his assurance, that the operations in question, burthensome as they were, were of no use, he himself continued to bear the burthen notwithstanding,--the persuasiveness of his advice would naturally be augmented by the manifestation thus given of disinterestedness. It may accordingly have been true: but, false or true, it was equally foreign to the purpose: the question was--not what he had done himself; but what he had recommended it to others to do.

Thus--from everything that appears, by all such persons as had the best means of information--the charge made upon him was _believed_,--let it now be seen, whether we should not be warranted in saying, _known_,--to be true.

As to "_The Jews of Asia_,"--and the mention made of this class of men, as the instigators of the tumult--can any support be derived from it, for the inference, that it was by something else in Paul's conduct, and not by any such perjury as that in question, that the vent, thus given to the indignation, was produced?[59] No, assuredly: altogether inconsistent would any such supposition be, with the main part of the narrative. Whoever were the persons with whom the manual violence originated;--whatever were the reproaches cast upon the invader on other grounds;--the purpose--the sole purpose--for which he entered upon the ceremony, is rendered as plain as words can make it. It was the clearing himself of the charge of teaching Jews to forsake Moses: and, supposing the fact admitted, everything, in the way of justification, being, before such a tribunal, manifestly inadmissible,--of no such charge was it possible for him to clear himself, without denying the truth of it. But, according to the historian, to confirm this denial, by the solemnity, whatever it was,--was the purpose, and the sole purpose, of it: of this, the negative assertion, contained in the denial, being untrue, and, by him who made it, known to be so,--confirming such denial, by the solemnity,--call it _oath_--call it _vow_--call it anything else,--was committing an act of perjury: and, to believe that such his denial was false, and yet not believing him guilty of perjury--at any rate, on the supposition of the accomplishment of the solemnity--was not possible. How numerous so ever may have been the other causes of provocation, given by him--how numerous so ever, the different descriptions of persons to whom they had been given;--no disproof could, by all of them put together, be given, by this solemnity, to the denial in question,--supposing it false.

To the present purpose, the only question is--whether, by Paul, on the occasion in question, an act of perjury was, or was not, committed? not--what was the cause, whether that, or any other, of any indignation of which he was the object. Even therefore, might it be allowed, that a _vow_, in the sense of which it is contradistinguished from an _oath_, was performed by him, or about to be performed,--still it would not be the less undeniable, that it was for the purpose of converting the simple declaration into a declaration upon oath, that he entered upon the solemnity: and that, therefore, if in the simple declaration there was anything to his knowledge false, the consequence is--that by his converting it into a declaration upon oath, he rendered himself guilty of perjury.

The observation, thus applied, to what is said of the "_Jews of Asia_," will be seen to be applicable, and, with equal propriety, to what is said about his being charged with "bringing _Greeks into the temple_:" and, in particular, about his being supposed to have brought in "_The Ephesian Trophimus_:" and moreover, what may, in this last case, be observable, is--that this about the Greeks is expressly stated as being a _further_ charge, distinct from the main one: nor yet is it so much as stated, that, by any such importation, to what degree so ever offensive, any such effect, as that signified by the word _pollution_ was produced.

Not altogether destitute of probability seems the supposition, that these two circumstances--about the Jews of Asia, and about Trophimus--may have been thrown in, by this adherent of Paul's, for the purpose of throwing a cloud of confusion and obscurity over the real charge: and if so, the two circumstances, with the addition of the three different defences, put into the hero's mouth, on the three several occasions of the endeavour,--must be acknowledged to have been employed, not altogether without success.

Here then closes that part of the evidence, which, to the purpose of a judgment, to be passed at this distance of time from the facts, may be considered as so much _circumstantial_ evidence: in the next section may be seen that part, which comes under the denomination of direct evidence.