Trait 24.

TRAIT 24.

His prudence in frustrating the designs of his enemies.

THERE is no kind of calumny which the incredulous have not advanced, in order to render Christianity either odious or contemptible. According to the notions of these men, to adopt the maxims of evangelical patience argues a want of sensibility; and to regulate our conduct according to the dictates of Christian prudence, is to act the hypocrite. What we have to say, in this place, will chiefly respect the latter charge. It has been asserted, by modern infidels, that the gentleness and forbearance which the Gospel requires of its professors, must necessarily make them the dupes of designing men, and lead them unreluctantly into the snares of their persecutors. But to draw this inference from some few passages of Scripture, understood in too literal a sense, is to set truth at variance with itself, merely for the purpose of charging Christians with all the evil, which, it is presumed, they might have avoided by prudence, or have overcome by resolution. The example of our Lord, and that of St. Paul, might have rectified the ideas of cavillers upon this point. When Christ exhorted his disciples to be “harmless as doves,” he admonished them at the same time to be “wise as serpents:” and of this harmless wisdom he himself gave a striking example, when he was interrogated by the Jews respecting the lawfulness of paying tribute unto Cesar. Well acquainted with the different sentiments of that people with regard to the Roman yoke, without directly combatting the prejudices of any party, he returned a satisfactory answer to all parties, by an inference drawn from “the image and superscription” borne upon their current coin,—”Render therefore unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” Matthew 22:21.

The sincere Christian, and the faithful minister, have frequently occasion for this happy prudence, as well as St. Paul, who, more than once, employed it with success. The Jews, irritated against this apostle, sought occasion to destroy him, on account of the zeal with which he published the Gospel among the Gentiles. Hoping to soften the prejudices they entertained against his conduct, he recounted to them how Jesus, being raised from the dead and appearing to him in an extraordinary manner, had expressly sent him to the Gentiles, Acts 22:21, when the Jews, more irritated than before, would have torn him in pieces, had he not been rescued out of their hands by the Roman garrison. By this means Paul was preserved for a more peaceful hearing. And on the morrow, when he stood before the Jewish council, perceiving that the assembly was composed partly of Sadducees, who say there is “no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit;” and partly of Pharisees, who believe equally in the existence of spirits and the resurrection of the body; he immediately availed himself of this circumstance, and cried out, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question,” Acts 23:6. As though he had said, The great cause of the violent persecution that is now raised against me is, that I preach “Jesus and the resurrection.” Our fathers, indeed, were not absolutely assured of a life to come; but the important doctrine of the resurrection, and of the judgment that shall follow, is now demonstrated; since God has given an incontestable proof of it, in raising up his son Jesus from the dead. And I myself have been an eye witness of his resurrection, to whom he has appeared two several times; once as I journeyed to Damascus, and afterward as I prayed in the temple. But when I mentioned this second appearance of a risen Saviour, my incredulous accusers began vehemently to cry out, “Away with such a fellow from the earth.” By this just exposition of the fact, and by his prudent selection of “the resurrection of Christ” from among the other great doctrines of Christianity, St. Paul happily caused a division to take place among his judges. And the event answered his expectation: for “the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part, arose, saying, We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit,” that is, a man risen from the dead, “or an angel, hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God,” Acts 23:9. There is still another instance of the wisdom of the serpent reconciling itself with the innocence of the dove, in the conduct of this apostle, when marking the disposition of his Athenian judges, he took advantage of their taste for novelty by announcing to them “The unknown God,” to whom they had already erected an altar, Acts 17. This Christian prudence, equally distant from the duplicity of hypocrites and the stupidity of idiots, merits a place among the traits which characterize this great apostle, not only because it is worthy of our imitation, but also because it has been indirectly represented, by a modern Celsus, as mere cunning and artifice. The author here alluded to, who deserves rather to be called a great poet than a faithful painter, having disfigured this trait of St. Paul’s character with a pencil dipped in the gall of prejudice, we gladly take this occasion of setting forth the injustice of his imputations, so illiberally cast both upon Christianity itself, and the most eminent of its defenders. This witty philosopher, who has said so many good things against the spirit of persecution, never perceived that he himself was actuated by an intolerant spirit: so true it is, that the most sagacious are liable to be blinded by passion or prejudice. The same spirit of persecution which excited the Athenians to discountenance the justice of Aristides as a dangerous singularity, and to punish the piety of Socrates as a species of atheism, led the author of the Philosophical Dictionary to represent the prudence of St. Paul as the duplicity of a hypocrite. Had this severe judge occupied the seat of Ananias, he might, perhaps, with an affected liberality, have overlooked the peculiarities of the apostles’ creed; but, in the end, his innate detestation of piety would have assisted him, according to the general custom of persecutors, to feign some just cause for treating him with the utmost rigour. And this he has done in our day as far as his circumstances would permit, since, not being able to disgrace him by the hand of a public executioner, he has studied to do it with his pen, by ravishing from him, not only his reputation for extraordinary piety, but even his claim to common honesty. Persecutor! whoever thou art, be content that thy predecessors have taken away the lives of the righteous, and spare them, what they prefer infinitely before life itself, “the testimony of a good conscience.”