Acts of the Apostles, xxvi. 9.
I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
The case of the Apostle, Paul, as represented by himself in these words, is so remarkable, that it cannot but deserve our attentive consideration.
The account of those many things, which he thought himself obliged to do against the name of Jesus, during his unbelieving state, he gives us in the chapter whence the text is taken. These things, continues he in his apology to king Agrippa, I did in Jerusalem, and many of the Saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief-priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them, even to strange cities. And then he proceeds to speak of his going, with the same authority, and the same zeal, to persecute the Christians that were at Damascus; when, in his journey thither, he was suddenly stopt in the career of his impiety by a heavenly vision, which had the effect to overturn his former persuasion, and to make a full convert of him to the Christian faith.
1. From this account of himself, we learn, that Paul, in his Jewish state, had been carried, by his zeal, into all the horrors of persecution. And these things, he says, he verily believed he ought to do, contrary to the name of Jesus.
“But what, you will ask, did this belief then justify those crimes? And, are blasphemy, murder, and persecution, innocent things, from the time that a man persuades himself he ought to commit them? This would open a door to all the evils of the most outrageous fanaticism, and evacuate the whole moral law, under the pretence of conscience.”
In general, it would do so: and we shall presently find, that St. Paul does not pretend to justify himself, notwithstanding he verily believed he ought to do these things. But to see the degree of his crime, it will be convenient, and but just to the criminal, to call to mind, in the first place, the peculiar circumstances under which it was committed.
Paul was at that time a Jew; and, as a follower of this law, his conduct, supposing his conscience to have been rightly informed, had not been blameable; on the contrary, had been highly meritorious. For the law of Moses made the restraint of opinions, in matter of religion, lawful: Heterodoxy was to a Jew but another word for disloyalty; and a zeal to see the rigour of the law executed on that crime, was the honour of a Jewish subject. Paul, then, conceiving of Jesus as a false prophet, and the author of a new worship, contrary to that of the God of Israel, Paul, I say, regarding Jesus in this light, but conformed to the spirit of the law, when he joined in persecuting the Jewish Christians, and must esteem himself to have deserved well of it.
And this he, in fact, did. For, reckoning up the several merits, which, as a Jew, he might claim to himself, he mentions this zeal of persecution, as one, which did him honour, under that character—Concerning zeal, says he, PERSECUTING THE CHURCH[136].
The crime of Paul, then, as of the other Jews, in persecuting Christ and his religion, was not simply the crime of persecution (for, had that religion been a false one, by the peculiar structure of the Jewish œconomy, there would have been no crime at all in punishing such of the Jews, as professed themselves of it); but his guilt was, and, in general, the guilt of the other Jews was, in misapplying the law to this particular case; in persecuting a just and divine person, whom their own prophets had foretold and pointed out, who came in no opposition to the Jewish law, nay, who came not to destroy, but to fulfill[137].
The conclusion is, that, though persecution be on no pretence of conscience excusable in another man, yet in a Jew, and as directed against an apostate Jew, it had not this malignity, and was not the proper subject of his abhorrence[138].
To the question then, “Whether Paul’s belief justified his practice, in the case before us, that is, whether he did right in doing that which he verily believed he ought to do,” You may take his own answer—This, says he, is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, OF WHOM I AM CHIEF[139]. He owns himself, we see, to have been the chief of sinners, that is, making all allowance for the hyperbole and modesty of the expression, a very great sinner. And if you ask in what respect, he tells you that, too: for, in the immediately preceding verses, he declares the ground of this charge upon himself, That he had been a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious. And in another place he says of himself, I am the least of the Apostles; that am not meet to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the church of God[140].
You see, then, that, notwithstanding his former religion authorized him to persecute its enemies, notwithstanding he verily believed, that he ought to persecute Jesus as such, yet he now condemns himself, as having grievously sinned in giving way to that authority, and to that persuasion. How is this conduct to be accounted for and made consistent? plainly, by observing, that he had persecuted without warrant, even from his former religion; that he had culpably and rashly overlooked (what he might and ought to have seen) that Jesus was no fit object of this severity even to a Jew, that he was no enemy or subverter of the Jewish law, that he was no rebel to the God and king of Israel, but came indeed from him, acted by his commission, and displayed all the signs and credentials of the Messiah, in whom the law and the prophets were finally to be completed.
Without doubt, his being now of a religion, which forbad persecution, under all its forms, sharpened his sense of this crime, and may perhaps account for his calling himself the chief of sinners; yet, that the persecution of Christians was to him a crime, and that he had sinned in committing it, he could not but know, and is clearly to be inferred from his expression. All the use he makes of his Jewish persuasion, is, but to palliate something what he knew was without excuse:—I obtained mercy, says he, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief: that is, because I persecuted in my unbelieving state of a Jew, and was kept, by the genius of the Mosaic law, from knowing and considering the general malignity of persecution. And that there may be some ground of mercy in this consideration, who can doubt, when we find the Son of God interceding for his very murderers on the same principle—Father, says he, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
There was this difference, you see, between a Jewish and a Gentile persecutor. The Jew was answerable for his not seeing that Jesus was the Messiah: The Gentile was to answer for that ignorance, and for his not seeing the general iniquity of persecution, on account of religion.
Paul, however, was certainly to blame; nay, he takes much blame on himself, for acting ignorantly against the name of Jesus, though his ignorance was of the former kind only.
2. But now another question, and a very important one, arises out of this state of the case. Paul verily thought that the religion of Jesus was an imposture. Yet he was mistaken in thinking so; and, what is more, his mistake was highly criminal.
What then shall we say to those persons, who affirm, that, provided a man be persuaded of the truth of his opinions, he is not answerable for his mistakes? or, in other words, what becomes of that notion which many have taken up, concerning the innocency of error in matters of religion?
I understand what is generally alledged in support of this candid and conciliating opinion. But the text says expressly, that Paul verily believed he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus; and with all this firmness of belief Paul was the chief of sinners.
Men therefore conclude too hastily, when from the sole persuasion of their sincerity they infer the innocence of their errors.
“But what then would you require of poor unhappy man, whose reason is naturally so weak, and whose prejudices are often so strong?” Why, to use the force he has; to consider well whether he be indeed sincere (for to be firmly, and to be sincerely persuaded, is not always the same thing); to employ his reason, such as it is, with care, and to controul his prejudices, what he can, by an impartial examination.
All this, it will be answered, is already done. It may be so. Let me then have leave to interrogate the sincere rejecter of Christianity, and try his good faith, of which he is so well assured, by the following questions.
“Has he cultivated his mind, and furnished himself with the requisite helps for religious inquiry? Has he studied the sacred volumes with care? Has he considered their scope and end? their genius and character? Has he fixed the boundaries of reason and of faith? Does he know where the province of the former ends, and where that of the second commences? Has he studied himself, his faculties and powers, his wants and necessities? Has he weighed the importance of the search, he is making into the will and word of God? Has he made that search with a suitable diligence and sobriety? Has he accustomed himself to the investigation of moral evidence? Has he collected, compared, and estimated, what is brought in evidence for the truth of the Christian religion? Has he, in short, (for I address myself to capable inquirers only) omitted none of those means which reason requires, and employed all that industry, and thought, and application, which the sincere love of truth demands on so momentous an occasion?
“Still, I have other inquiries to make. Has he approached the sanctuary of religion with awe? Has he purged his mind from all gross, nay from all refined vices? Had he no interest to serve, no prejudice to sooth, no predominant passion to gratify, by a hasty conclusion concerning the truth of Christianity? Or, (not to suspect a philosophic mind of these vulgar illusions) had he no vanity to flatter, no capricious levity to indulge, by a short and disdainful rejection of it? Had he no spleen to divert, no regard of fashion, no partialities of acquaintance or education to mislead him, from conviction? Had he no secret wish or hope, which he scarcely durst tell to himself, that his inquiry would end in doubt at least, if not in infidelity? In a word, can he assure himself, that in these several respects, he had no bias on his mind, or did his best at least to have none, against a conclusion, to which an impartial love of truth might invite and compell him?”
Had St. Paul himself been questioned in this manner, concerning his sincere belief, that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus, he would hardly, I suppose, have said, that he had fulfilled all these conditions;—But we know what he did say, to himself and to the world: He said, He was THE CHIEF OF SINNERS.
So remote is persuasion from sincerity! and so little acquainted, many times, are innocence and error!
But ‘these questions, it will be said, may be retorted on the believer; who may be neither more diligent, nor more impartial in his inquiries, than the unbeliever.’
Allow that they may; yet observe the immense difference of the two cases, in regard both to the danger incurred, and to the crime committed.
If I believe, on insufficient grounds, what do I lose? only what I can well spare; my unbelief and my vices. And what do I gain? that, which of all things is most precious to me; peace of mind, and the hopes of heaven. On the other hand, if I disbelieve, I lose all that is valuable in both worlds, and gain nothing but the sad privilege of being set free from the restraints of this religion[141].
Consider, too, the difference of the crime, in the two cases. If the Christian errs in admitting the truth of his religion, he has only to answer for his ill judgment, at most: he could be drawn to this persuasion by no criminal motives: for, which of these could bias him to the belief of the holiest of all religions? If the error lies on the other side, in rejecting this religion, how shall he know, that, besides the blame of judging ill, some immoral purposes and dispositions may not have secretly concurred to pervert his judgment? The Christian may be unreasonable: but the unbeliever, I do not say, certainly, but, is too probably vicious.
Thus the danger, in all views, is on the unbelieving side. And if there be difficulty in knowing when I am sincere, there is none in knowing which of the two mistakes is safer and less criminal.
It will be said, perhaps, that an inquirer may be biassed in favour of Christianity by corrupt motives, that is, by views of credit or interest, attending the profession of it, in countries where this religion is legally established. Without doubt. But such persons can hardly put themselves in the case of St. Paul, and say, They are verily persuaded, they ought to be Christians. For such gross motives can be no secret to their own hearts, and they cannot but know that Christianity condemns all such motives. I regard then such persons in the light of hypocrites confessed, and by no means in that of believers. On the other hand, men may affect to disbelieve from the like views of credit or interest, in certain circumstances; and so become hypocrites of another kind; of which the number is, perhaps, not inconsiderable. But I am here speaking of such corrupt partialities as may consist with a firm belief, or disbelief of Christianity. And here it is plain, the criminality is likely to be much greater in him who without ground rejects, than in him who too hastily admits such a religion.
To conclude, then, with the case of St. Paul, which has given occasion to these reflexions.
No firmness of persuasion, it is plain, can justify a man in being led by it into the commission of gross and acknowledged crimes. And the reason is, that no persuasion of the truth of any principle can be greater than that which every man has that he ought not to commit such actions. If St. Paul’s persuasion saved him from this guilt, it was owing to the peculiar genius of the Jewish religion.
But, further, St. Paul was blameable for taking up that persuasion, on which he acted. His mind had been corrupted by hasty prejudices, and ungoverned passion. He concluded too fast, then, when he thought his persuasion sincere, though it was indeed strong and violent. His persuasion did not exclude error, and that error implied insincerity, and so was not innocent.
It follows from the whole, that we ought never to act wrong on the pretence of conscience; and that we should learn to suspect the possibility of guilt’s mixing itself even with what we call our speculative opinions. Error may be innocent; but not so long as truth lies before us, and we may, if we do our duty, discover it. Let our inquiries, then, in all matters of moment, above all in those of religion, be diligent, and strictly honest. Where these precautions are not observed, our mistakes are always blameable, because in some degree they are wilful and insincere.