Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

magistrate; or would not the terrible suspicion of secret poisoning have aroused so general a feeling of indignation against the new sect, as to have imperilled the existence of Christianity?

'And great fear came upon the whole Church, and upon all that heard these things.' In fact, a reign of terror was established among the new converts; and the wonder grows how men who had ever listened to the teaching of Jesus became reconciled to the intervention of the Paraclete. But has not the time arrived for modern piety to vindicate the consistency of Trinitarian Providence, by recognising in the story of Ananias and Sapphira an extravagant legend, indiscreetly authenticated in an uncritical age by the too credulous compiler of the Acts of the Apostles ?

The logical result of the Day of Pentecost was uniformity, and consequent infallibility, of belief; for how could minds filled with the Holy Spirit have any room for error? The compiler of the Acts accordingly affirms that all believers were of one heart and one soul'; when, therefore, dissensions had arisen among the faithful, Christianity had practically surrendered the theory of divine inspiration.

Centuries later the Church recognised that the existence of ecclesiastical Christianity was contingent on suppression of the theological controversies which raged on every side, and, forthwith, proceeded to stamp out, by decree of Pope and Council, the pretensions of human reason to question the necessarily infallible conclusions of divine inspiration; and thus, the superstition. born on the Day of Pentecost forms the basis of Roman pretensions to infallibility. But when Protestantism

[ocr errors]

evolved divergent sects preaching conflicting gospels, the inference thenceforth became inevitable that either inspiration is a mere illusion, or, as in Judaism, there is a Chosen Race, so also in Christianity there is a favoured sect, whose members are the true heirs of Pentecost. If, however, we accept the broader view that conflicting Protestants are all divinely enlightened, is there not greater consistency in the Pope who claims to be infallible because he is inspired, than in the Protestant who claims to be inspired, and yet is not infallible?

Roman and Anglican theologians concur in believing that the miracle of Pentecost is periodically renewed by Episcopal manipulation. The author of the Acts admits the obligation of proof by recording the gift of tongues; but we moderns are asked to believe that the young deacon or priest, in whom we find no vestige of the transformation, goes forth from the presence of his Bishop a divinely inspired minister of the gospel.

As the Messianic superstition had, in due time, produced a Messiah, so also illusory expectation of the Paraclete, unsatisfied by the Pentecostal fiction, eventually evoked personal candidates for the divine office. If the eternal Logos was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, why should not the Paraclete also appear in the form of man? So Montanus, Manes, and Mahomed have each, at different epochs, claimed to be the mysterious visitant said to have been promised by the Hebrew Messiah; and thus a Christian superstition has become the source of kindred illusions, culminating in the Moslem fanaticism which rivals Christianity in spiritual dominion over the races of mankind.

U

Peter, having explained the marvels of Pentecost through the prophecies of Joel, proves the Resurrection by the Psalms of David! That monarch had sung-neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption-therefore, as the body of Jesus could not be decomposed, he must inevitably have risen from the dead! According to Paul five hundred witnesses could have attested the miracle; but Peter relies not on an attested, but on a constructive Resurrection. He, however, quotes the sixteenth psalm from the Septuagint, which erroneously translates the Hebrew plural 'Holy One,' instead of saints; the Resurrection was therefore inevitable because the author of the Acts did not understand Hebrew!

When we, however, subsequently find Paul proving at Antioch that Jesus had risen from the dead, by the same fallacious argument adopted by Peter at Jerusalem, we necessarily infer that the Acts of the Apostles is as much a work of fiction as The Abbot' or 'Kenilworth,' but infinitely inferior to the productions of Scott, in judicious adaptation of imaginative eloquence to the lips of traditional or historical personages.

[ocr errors]

This view receives further confirmation through the speech of Stephen, one of the seven appointed to superintend the communistic commissariat, but who at once attained apostolic pre-eminence by brilliant disputation with Hellenistic Jews, whom he overwhelmed by his enthusiastic eloquence. We are ignorant of the subjects of debate, nor can we trace in the teaching of Jesus any materials or encouragement for theological controversy. His gospel was a simple question of faith in the Son of Man, unattainable through polemical dis

putation; and, in arousing the angry passions of his opponents, Stephen anticipates the suicidal mania for martyrdom which characterises a later generation of Christians.

Arrested and arraigned before the Sanhedrim, this noble fanatic is depicted as a man full of faith, wisdom, and the Holy Ghost; when, therefore, the High Priest calls for his defence, we necessarily anticipate a discourse as absolutely divine as if uttered by a voice from heaven. Jesus was doomed to silence by prophetic destiny, but Stephen may freely utter, in the presence of the great Council of the nation, so lucid an exposition of the gospel of Jesus that it may furnish mankind throughout all time with an infallible guide to the eternal truths of Christianity. Are these reasonable expectations fulfilled in the speech of Stephen?

Turning to that discourse, we find nothing more than an inaccurate résumé of the history of Judaism from Abraham to Solomon, followed by a fanatical outburst of hostility towards his judges, and a declaration that he saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God-an announcement which awakened the furious indignation of his adversaries, and won for him the second crown of martyrdom in the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus we witness the fruits of religious intolerance. Stephen denies the existence of all honesty of purpose in his adversaries; and they, as the party in power, proceed to exterminate heresy by violence. The time came when all this was changed, and Christianity, as the dominant religion, consigned the descendants of the Sanhedrim to the flames, for the honour and glory of God.

But is there not an air of improbability about the entire narrative? Could men, so studious of legal forms at the trial of Jesus, have thus suddenly become seditious violators of Roman justice? Or could members of the Council, controlled by the judicious advice of so moderate a theologian as Gamaliel,1 have been transformed into wild beasts rushing on their prey, with the consent and approval of that sage's most distinguished pupil, Saul of Tarsus? 2

Jesus having personally chosen the chief missionaries of the Kingdom of Heaven, we might reasonably expect a record of the life and teaching of each in the Acts of the Apostles. But, when their names have been recorded, Peter assigned a prominent place in the first chapter, James enrolled among the martyrs, and John and Philip briefly mentioned, the entire twelve disappear out of the narrative to make way for a member of the Hebrew sect abhorred by Jesus. Apostolic biography is thus left at the disposal of legendary fiction; and we lose all trace of the Galilean disciples until brief epistles appear, in the second century, in the names of Peter, James, and John.

The epistles of James, 1 John, and 1 Peter, when and by whomsoever written, confirm the simplicity of the Gospel, and the promise of a speedy re-appearance of Jesus in the clouds of heaven. Be 'Be ye also patient, for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh,'' said James. The end of all things is at hand,' said Peter. If this can be no question

is the language of Apostles, there

[ocr errors]

as to the meaning of Jesus when he said: There are

1 Acts v. 34-40.

3 James v. 8.

2 Acts xxii. 3.

4 1 Peter iv. 7.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »