按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Lewes； were shortly afterwards published by him in the Fortnightly Review； September 15； 1866；
It is the lot of every book which attempts to treat the origin and progress of Christianity in a sober and scientific spirit； to meet with unsparing attacks。 Critics in plenty are always to be found； who； possessed with the idea that the entire significance and value of the Christian religion are demolished unless we regard it as a sort of historical monstrosity； are only too eager to subject the offending work to a scathing scrutiny； displaying withal a modicum of righteous indignation at the unblushing heresy of the author； not unmixed with a little scornful pity at his inability to believe very preposterous stories upon very meagre evidence。 〃Conservative〃 polemics of this sort have doubtless their function。 They serve to purge scientific literature of the awkward and careless statements too often made by writers not sufficiently instructed or cautious； which in the absence of hostile criticism might get accepted by the unthinking reader along with the truths which they accompany。 Most scientific and philosophical works have their defects； and it is fortunate that there is such a thing as dogmatic ardour in the world； ever sharpening its wits to the utmost； that it may spy each lurking inaccuracy and ruthlessly drag it to light。 But this useful spirit is wont to lead those who are inspired by it to shoot beyond the mark； and after pointing out the errors of others； to commit fresh mistakes of their own。 In the skilful criticism of M。 Renan's work on the Apostles； in No。 29 of the 〃Fortnightly Review〃 there is now and then a vulnerable spot through which a controversial shaft may perhaps be made to pierce。
It may be true that Lord Lyttelton's tract on the Conversion of St。 Paul； as Dr。 Johnson and Dr。 Rogers have said； has never yet been refuted； but if I may judge from my own recollection of the work； I should say that this must be because no competent writer ever thought it worth his pains to criticize it。 Its argument contains about as much solid consistency as a distended balloon； and collapses as readily at the first puncture。 It attempts to prove； first； that the conversion of St。 Paul cannot be made intelligible except on the assumption that there was a miracle in the case； and secondly； that if Paul was converted by a miracle； the truth of Christianity is impregnable。 Now； if the first of these points be established； the demonstration is not yet complete； for the second point must be proved independently。 But if the first point be overthrown； the second loses its prop； and falls likewise。
Great efforts are therefore made to show that no natural influences could have intervened to bring about a change in the feelings of Paul。 He was violent； 〃thorough；〃 unaffected by pity or remorse； and accordingly he could not have been so completely altered as he was； had he not actually beheld the risen Christ： such is the argument which Mr。 Rogers deems so conclusive。 I do not know that from any of Paul's own assertions we are entitled to affirm that no shade of remorse had ever crossed his mind previous to the vision near Damascus。 But waiving this point； I do maintain that； granting Paul's feelings to have been as Mr。 Rogers thinks they were； his conversion is inexplicable； even on the hypothesis of a miracle。 He that is determined not to believe； will not believe； though one should rise from the dead。 To make Paul a believer； it was not enough that he should meet his Lord face to face he must have been already prepared to believe。 Otherwise he would have easily found means of explaining the miracle from his own point of view。 He would certainly have attributed it to the wiles of the demon； even as the Pharisees are said to have done with regard to the miraculous cures performed by Jesus。 A 〃miraculous〃 occurrence in those days did not astonish as it would at present。 〃Miracles〃 were rather the order of the day； and in fact were lavished with such extreme bounty on all hands； that their convincing power was very slight。 Neither side ever thought of disputing the reality of the miracles supposed to be performed on the other； but each side considered the miracles of its antagonist to be the work of diabolic agencies。 Such being the case； it is useless to suppose that Paul could have distinguished between a true and a false miracle； or that a real miracle could of itself have had any effect in inducing him to depart from his habitual course of belief and action。 As far as Paul's mental operations were concerned； it could have made no difference whether he met with his future Master in person； or merely encountered him in a vision。 The sole point to be considered is whether or not he BELIEVED in the Divine character and authority of the event which had happened。 What the event might have really been was of no practical consequence to him or to any one else。 What he believed it to be was of the first importance。 And since he did believe that he had been divinely summoned to cease persecuting； and commence preaching the new faith； it follows that his state of mind must have been more or less affected by circumstances other than the mere vision。 Had he not been ripe for change； neither shadow nor substance could have changed him。
This view of the case is by no means so extravagant as Mr。 Rogers would have us suppose。 There is no reason for believing that Paul's character was essentially different afterwards from what it had been before。 The very fervour which caused him； as a Pharisee； to exclude all but orthodox Jews from the hope of salvation； would lead him； as a Christian； to carry the Christian idea to its extreme development； and admit all persons whatever to the privileges of the Church。 The same zeal for the truth which had urged him to persecute the Christians unto the death afterwards led him to spare no toil and shun no danger which might bring about the triumph of their cause。 It must not be forgotten that the persecutor and the martyr are but one and the same man under different circumstances。 He who is ready to die for his own faith will sometimes think it fair to make other men die for theirs。 Men of a vehement and fiery temperament； moreover；such as Paul always was；never change their opinions slowly； never rest in philosophic doubt； never take a middle course。 If they leave one extreme for an instant； they are drawn irresistibly to the other； and usually very little is needed to work the change。 The conversion of Omar is a striking instance in point； and has been cited by M。 Renan himself。 The character of Omar bears a strong likeness to that of Paul。 Previous to his conversion； he was a conscientious and virulent persecutor of Mohammedanism。＇25＇ After his conversion； he was Mohammed's most efficient disciple； and it may be safely asserted that for disinterestedness and self…abnegation he was not inferior to the Apostle of the Gentiles。 The change in his case was； moreover； quite as sudden and unexpected as it was with Paul； it was neither more nor less incomprehensible； and if Paul's conversion needs a miracle to explain it； Omar's must need one likewise。 But in truth； there is no difficulty in the case； save that