Thus, as we have already observed, circumstances were favourable for the mission of our Apostle amongst the Gentiles; they were more disposed to listen than the Jews, and to regard him who performed such wonders before them, as an extraordinary man favoured by heaven. In fact St. Paul gave himself out for such. And how can we doubt the veracity of a man who performs miracles? It was then necessary to give him credit; and without having seen these miracles we believe the same thing, and especially his divine inspiration, upon the authority of the writings, attributed to him, and upon the word of him who has transmitted to us an account of his actions in the Acts of the Apostles, works which the church enjoins us to regard as divinely inspired. It would be, I think, useless to make any long reflections on the validity of the titles of the church, and the right, that the writings which she has adopted have to the claim of divine inspiration. It is enough to remark, that if we admit those titles and rights, we have no reason to refuse also to admit those of any man, or body of men, which shall give themselves out as divinely inspired. If, on the word of Paul, we believe that he was inspired, why shall we not have the same deference for the word of Mahomet, who pretended to be the sent of the most high? If, after the decision of the Christian church, we regard the books contained in the New Testament as dictated by the Holy Ghost; what right have we to refuse our assent to the decision of the body of Imans and Mollahs, that the Koran was revealed by the angel Gabriel to Mahomet? if it be permitted to one man, or body of men, to invest themselves with titles, and at the same time forbid the titles to be investigated, we shall be obliged to admit all the reveries, extravagancies, and fables that we see spread over the various countries of the earth. Priests every where show us books, which they say were inspired by the divinity, and weak and silly people adore and and follow without examination books thus announced. All religions in the world are founded upon sacred hooks which contain the divine will, and whose truth is proved by miracles.
CHAPTER. XXIII. Of the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, or their Divine Inspiration
If we may believe the author of the Acts of the Apostles, the disciples assembled at Jerusalem on the the day of Pentecost, were filled with the Holy Ghost. But by what sign shall we be sure that they were filled with the Holy Ghost? It is this that they began to speak divers languages. But do these various languages prove the presence of the Holy Ghost? Could not the disciples of Jesus speak these languages naturally? However the Jews who had come from the different provinces of Asia to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast all understood Hebrew, since it was the language in which their law was written; nothing more then was requisite but to speak Hebrew, in order to be understood by all of them; we cannot suppose that men assembled at Jerusalem to celebrate the Pentecost were Gentiles. That granted of what use was the gift tongues? In supposing that among the Jews there were some who only understood Greek, which was at that time universal over all Asia, it is very possible that without a miracle, some of the disciples or Apostles, might know this language by the aid of which they could make themselves understood in most of the provinces mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
There is then reason for believing, that the Apostles and disciples were on this occasion desirous of passing for inspired. With this view, according to the practice of the diviners and prophets amongst the Jews, they made noises contortions, cries, &c, and produced an extravagant cacophony, which, many well disposed persons mistook for undoubted sign of inspiration, while those who were less credulous took them for certain proofs of drunkenness or folly. But St. Peter justified them, and showed that what they received to be extravagancies ought to be considered as proofs of inspiration. This he confirmed by quoting a prophecy of the prophet Joel, (see Acts of Apostles, chap. ii. ver. 17.)
But the question at issue is, whether visions, dreams, extravagancies, &c. are signs of divine inspiration. It is true that from the contents of the books, which Christians regard as dictated by the Holy Ghost, and examining the nonsense and contradictions found in the writings of St. Paul, we should be tempted to believe so. If the absence of reason, probability, logic, and harmony, is the distinguishing mark of divine inspiration, we cannot deny that St. Paul has proved himself, by his writings, to have been divinely inspired.
However at this rate nothing can be more easy than to pass; for inspired. If madness be a sufficient qualification to cause a man to be regarded as one filled with the Holy Ghost, there are many men who have just pretensions to this faculty. If we doubt it they have only to reply gravely that God hath confounded the wisdom of the wise; that our rebellious reason ought to be submissive, that the human mind becomes perverted by reasoning. Such is however the language continually repeated by the supporters of St. Paul and Christianity. According to them, wisdom is folly, reason an uncertain guide, common sense useless, and contradictions are impenetrable mysteries, which we must adore in silence; and when our mind loses itself in the abyss of folly and imposture, they cry out with their great Apostle: "Oh! the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his ways, and his judgments past finding out!" A lucky quibble of which our theologians avail themselves with success, in order to escape from the embarrassment into which they are thrown by any reasoning on the ways of providence.
It is thus that those who pretend to inspiration have the boldness to outrage the Divinity, and make the Holy Ghost the accomplice of their blasphemies. When they find it impossible to escape from the labyrinth into which impostures and ill-contrived fables have led them, they make God responsible for their extravagancies; they pretend that their own follies are the effects of divine wisdom, they term their own perplexities mysteries; and assent that the author of reason is at the same time, the enemy of reason.
Men however are not shocked by these impious propositions. Accustomed to regard St. Paul as inspired, it never occurs to them that so great a Saint may blaspheme. But what authority have Christians for their high opinion of St. Paul? It is the Acts of the Apostles, that is to say upon the suspected testimony of a partizan of Paul's sect, who has compiled a history of his hero, filled with contradictions, but embellished with prodigies and fable, which however serve to establish his romance. But what proofs have we of these miracles themselves? We have no other evidence than the word of the Romancer himself confirmed by the authority of the church, i.e. of a body of men interested in establishing the fable.
It is true that we have in addition the testimony of St. Paul himself, to whom are attributed the epistles in which are found a great number of details of his life. But does this Apostle agree with his historian in his own narrative? No, doubtless, they vary materially in many circumstances, and frequently contradict each other in the most positive manner. Who then shall we find to reconcile them, and show us what we ought to think of a history so differently related? The church. But what is the church? A body composed of the spiritual guides of the Christians. Have these guides been witnesses of the actions and miracles so differently related by Paul and his historian? No; they know nothing of them but by a tradition, contested even in the times of the first Christians, but since confirmed by a revelation of the Holy Ghost, who never, according to them, ceases to enlighten his church. How are we to know if the church is continually inspired? She herself says so, and there is, she says, the greatest danger in doubting this. It would be to resist the Holy Ghost who is identified with the church, and who makes common cause with her; a crime which will never be forgiven either in this world or in the next. Of all sins the most unpardonable is to resist the clergy.