Not Paul, But Jesus. Bentham Jeremy
companions. But to no such hazard was the story of the scales exposed: not to any great danger, on the supposition of the existence of Paul's Ananias: not to any danger at all, upon the supposition of his non-existence.
But, upon this occasion, now again once more present themselves – present themselves to the mind's eye – Paul's companions. That they were blinded at all can scarcely, it has been seen, be believed, if on this matter the historian himself is believed. For, per Acts ix. 8, "they led him by the hand: " so, per Paul 1st, Acts xxii. 11, "When I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those that were with me, I came unto Damascus." But if, notwithstanding so it was that they too were blinded, – how was it with their eyes? Had their eyes scales upon them? did these scales ever fall off? – if so, by what means were they made to fall off? their evidence would have been not much, if anything, less impressive, – and it would have been much less open to suspicion, – than Paul's evidence, supposing him to have spoken of these scales – which the historian, to whom, if he is to be believed, their existence is so well known, did not take upon him to represent Paul as saying that he did. But if so it was, that, though rendered blind as Paul's, no scales were superinduced upon, nor consequently made to fall off, the eyes of those nameless and unknown persons, – how came they to be superinduced upon and made to fall off from the eyes of their singularly favoured principal? If, for a length of time more or less considerable, they really were made blind, – it was, if the historian is to be believed, by the same cause by which, in the instance of Paul's eyes, this same effect was produced: – the same cause, to wit an extraordinary light at noonday. If, whatsoever was the matter with them, the eyes of these ordinary persons could be set to rights without a miracle, what need could there be of a miracle for the producing the same desirable effect in the person of this their leader or master, extraordinary as this same leader or master was?
The baptism thus spoken of – was it performed? Yes: if you will believe the historian, speaking in his own person, speaking in his own historical ac- count: "And forthwith," in the first place, "Paul recovered his sight;" – then, when, his sight having been recovered, he was able to go about as usual, – he arose and was baptized: baptized – that is say, as from this expression taken by itself any one would conclude – baptized, as soon as he arose, to wit, as soon as water could be found for the purpose: that water, which his guest Ananias, foreknowing what was to come to pass, and what was to be done to make it come to pass, might naturally be expected to have provided, and this without any supernatural foresight: in a word, without the expense of any additional miracle in any shape: – the water being thus ready upon the spot, and he in equal readiness to administer it.
This, according to the historian, speaking in his own person: but, when the time comes for giving an account of the matter in the person of Paul himself, – to wit in the supposed unpremeditated oratorical speech, – then, for whatever it was that stopped him, (whether the supposed urgency of the occasion on which the supposed speech was supposed to be made, or any thing and what else,) so it is, that he gives not any such information: he leaves the matter to hang in doubt: – a doubt, which, down to the present day remains unsolved.
A command to this effect is spoken of as having been given: thus much is said. But, what is not said is – whether to this same command any or what obedience was paid.
Thus it is that, instead of an effect which it seems desired that we should consider as being produced, what we see directly stated as being produced, is nothing more than a command– a command, by which, as by its cause, we are to suppose the effect to have been produced. What is more, in the same blind way, is intimation given us, of another and very different effect —the washing away of sins– as if produced by the first-mentioned physical operation; – namely, by that of a man's being dipped in, or sprinkled with, water: and thus it is, that from a mere physical operation of the most trivial nature, we are called upon to infer a spiritual and supernatural effect of the most awful importance; the spiritual effect stated as if it were produced by the physical operation, to which it has no perceptible real relation – nothing but the mere verbal one thus given to it; produced by it, and following it, as of course – just as if sins were a species of dirt, which, by washing, could as surely be got off as any other dirt.11
And was he then really baptized? If so he was, then also if, speaking in the person of his hero, the historian is to be believed, – then also, by this ceremony, the name of the Lord being at the same time called upon, – then also were his sins washed away; his sins washed away; the sinner, therefore and thereby, put into the same case as if the sins had not any of them been ever committed. How can it be understood otherwise? for if, in and by this passage, intimation – sufficiently perfect information – is given, that the ceremony was performed – then also is sufficiently perfect information given, that such was the effect actually produced by it. "Arise" (Ananias is made to say) – "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
This is no light matter: if so it really were, that according to the religion of Jesus, by such a cause, such an effect was on that occasion produced; – that such effect could, in a word, on any occasion, in any case be produced, – that murders, or (not to embarrass the question with conceits of local jurisprudence) killings of men – killings of men by persecution carried on, on a religious account – slaughters of Christians by non-Christians – could thus, as in Paul's case, be divested of all guilt, at any rate of all punishment, at the hands of Almighty Justice; – if impunity could indeed be thus conferred by the sprinkling a man with water or dipping him in it, then would it be matter of serious consideration – not only what is the verity of that religion, but what the usefulness of it, what the usefulness – with reference to the present life at any rate, not to speak of a life to come: what the usefulness of it; and on what ground stands its claim to support by all the powers of factitious punishment and factitious reward, at the hands of the temporal magistrate.12
If the supposed promise is inadequate to the occasion, the supposed performance is still more inadequate with reference to the promise.
In the supposed promise are two distinguishable parts, and in neither of them is the one thing needful to be found. Of these two parts, the only one in which in any direct stage the matter of a promise is contained, is the one last mentioned: it is the promise to show him, (Paul) what sufferings he will have to undergo in the course of the career, whatever it is, in which he is about to engage: to wit, in name and profession, the preaching the religion of Jesus: "for I will show him," says the Lord, according to the historian, – "I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." If so it was, that upon this promise, such as it is, performance never followed, the regret for the failure need not be very great. Whatsoever were the sufferings that he was predestined to undergo, that which was not in the nature of this foreshowing, was – the lessening their aggregate amount; that which was in the nature of it was – the making an addition to that same afflicting aggregate; to wit, by constant and unavoidable anticipation of the approach of such sufferings.
Of this talk, vague as it is, about sufferings, the obvious enough object was – the giving exaltation to the idea meant to be conveyed of the merits of the hero: – an object, which, by this and other means, has accordingly, down to the present day, in no small degree been accomplished. So much as to sufferings: as to enjoyments, by any idea entertained of the enjoyments derived by him from the same source, this design would have been – not promoted, but counteracted. But, when the time arrives, whether the mass of suffering was not, to no small amount, overbalanced by that of his enjoyments – meaning always worldly sufferings and worldly enjoyments – the reader will be left to judge.
Here then we have the only promise, which in any direct way is expressed: – a promise which, in the first place would have been useless, in the next place worse than useless.
In the whole substance
It is well known that this dogma of Original sin – a disease that the human family enjoys by sad inheritance, Christ treated with negligible indifference. He dealt with the problems of man in a social state, as socially conditioned only. A human being conditioned as isolated from neighbors, friends and society, he did not as he scientifically could not deal with, He discoursed upon social duties, however sublimely, N.B. Acts 18:15, "But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone, If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them then tell it unto the church. And if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican, Amen I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."
Now without quibbling about the translation this scheme of social arbitration contains the ultimate of justice, It contains the only working hypothesis within any social condition of mankind. There is no such thing as justice in the abstract or concrete, It is like heat and electricity, a mere mode of motion, a form of action. And when a controversy between Citizens is fairly submitted to the judgment of normal men the voice of their consciousness, being the ultimate organ of nature's Creator, must be "binding" so far as man is concerned socially.
And as there does not appear to the natural man any appeal to heaven, the arbitrament of man in the special case carries the seal of the eternities and forecloses all further controversy. The speech of the honorable Consciousness of Man is the voice of the Creator of his personality. – Ed.
Since what is in the text was written, maturer thoughts have suggested an interpretation, by which, if received, the sad inferences presented by the doctrine, that misdeeds, and consequent suffering that have had place, could by a dip into a piece of water be caused never to have happened, may be repelled. According to this interpretation, the act of being baptized – the bodily act – is one thing; an act of washing away the sins – the spiritual act – another. The effect produced is – not the causing the misdeeds and sufferings never to have had place, but the causing them to be compensated for, by acts productive of enjoyment, or of saving in the article of sufferings, to an equal or greater amount.