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！
epted 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 which stupid dogmatism has created。 The conversions of Paul and Omar are paralleled by innumerable events which occur in every period of religious or political excitement。 Far from being extraordinary； or inexplicable on natural grounds； such phenomena are just what might occasionally be looked for。
＇25＇ Saint…Hilaire： Mahomet et le Coran； p。 109。
But； says Mr。 Rogers； 〃is it possible for a moment to imagine the doting and dreaming victim of hallucinations （which M。 Renan's theory represents Paul） to be the man whose masculine sense； strong logic； practical prudence； and high administrative talent appear in the achievements of his life； and in the Epistles he has left behind him？〃 M。 Renan's theory does not； however； represent Paul as the 〃victim of hallucinations 〃to a greater degree than Mohammed。 The latter； as every one knows； laboured during much of his life under almost constant 〃hallucination〃； yet 〃masculine sense； strong logic；〃 etc。； were qualities quite as conspicuous in him as in St。 Paul。
Here； as throughout his essay； Mr。 Rogers shows himself totally unable to comprehend the mental condition of men in past ages。 If an Apostle has a dream or sees a vision； and interprets it according to the ideas of his time and country； instead of according to the ideas of scientific England in the nineteenth century Mr。 Rogers thinks he must needs be mad： and when according to the well…known law that mental excitement is contagious；＇26＇ several persons are said to have concurred in interpreting some phenomenon supernaturally； Mr。 Rogers cannot see why so many people should all go mad at once！ 〃To go mad；〃 in fact is his favourite designation for a mental act； which nearly all the human race have habitually performed in all ages； the act of mistaking subjective impressions for outward realities。 The disposition to regard all strange phenomena as manifestations of supernatural power was universally prevalent in the first century of Christianity； and long after。 Neither greatness of intellect nor thoroughness of scepticism gave exemption。 Even Julius Caesar； the greatest practical genius that ever lived； was somewhat superstitious； despite his atheism and his Vigorous common…sense。 It is too often argued that the prevalence of scepticism in the Roman Empire must have made men scrupulous about accepting miracles。 By no means。 Nothing but physical science ever drives out miracles： mere doctrinal scepticism is powerless to do it。 In the age of the Apostles； little if any radical distinction was drawn between a miracle and an ordinary occurrence。 No one supposed a miracle to be an infraction of the laws of nature； for no one had a clear idea that there were such things as laws of nature。 A miracle was simply an extraordinary act； exhibiting the power of the person who performed it。 Blank； indeed； would the evangelists have looked； had any one told them what an enormous theory of systematic meddling with nature was destined to grow out of their beautiful and artless narratives。
＇26＇ Hecker's Epidemics of the Midd