Paul, standing at the head of the Church in the apostolic age, and being the principal New-Testament writer and the principal teacher and doctrinal expounder of the New Covenant, or gospel dispensation, his practical life and his doctrines must therefore be regarded as constituting a part, if not the principal part, of the basis of the Christian religion. We shall therefore make no apology for presenting here a brief exposition of his character and his doctrines; and we shall show that both present numerous defects and inconsistent and contradictory features.

1. In his First Epistle to Timothy (i. 13) he states that he had been "a blasphemer and persecutor, and injurious", and confesses that he was particeps criminis in the martyrdom of Stephen; yet, in the Acts of the Apostles, he declares, "I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day" (Acts xxiii. 1). Here is one specimen of his many incongruous statements.

2. He relates the account of his miraculous conversion three times, and in three different ways. In the first statement he says, "The men stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts ix. 7). In the second account he says, "They heard not the voice that spake to me" (Acts xxii. 9). In the third statement, when relating the case to King Agrippa, he says, "They were all fallen to the earth" (Acts xxvi. 14); while, in the first account, he had stated, "The men stood speechless." It is evident they could not stand speechless while they were all fallen to the earth.

3. In one account he states that Jesus told him to stand up, and receive his mission; but in another place he says he was ordered to go to Damascus to receive the message.

4. He told the king that he showed himself first at Damascus, and then at Jerusalem (Acts xxvi. 20); but in his Epistle to the Galatians he declares that he did not go to Jerusalem.

5. Again he says he went to Jerusalem, and Barnabas took him by the hand, and brought him to the apostles (Acts ix. 27).

6. And then, again, to the Galatians he declares he saw none of the apostles,n"save James, the Lord's brother" (Gal. i. 13).

7. In 1 Cor. x. 35 he says, "I please all men in all things;" but in Gal. i. 10 he says, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of God." Here, then, is another palpable contradiction.

8. In Rom. xi. 5 he speaks of the "election of grace;" but in Tit. xi. 9 he says the grace of God has appeared to all.

9. In his letter to Timothy he says, "God will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim. ii. 4): but in Rom. ix. 22 he speaks of "the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction;" and in Rom. ix. 27 he says, "A remnant shall be saved." All will not be saved if only a remnant are saved.

10. When about embarking for Rome he stated, "I perceive the voyage will be of much hurt and damage to life" (Acts xxvii. 10); yet on the voyage he declared, "There shall be no loss of any man's life among you" (Acts xxvii. 22). An "inspired apostle" and oracle of God should be punctiliously accurate in all cases, or all his statements will be brought under distrust, and it will be impossible to arrive at the truth in the case; or, in any case, all will be involved in doubt and conjecture.

11. Paul's errors in doctrinal inculcations are numerous. His confession to the Corinthians, that, "being crafty, I caught you with guile" (2 Cor. xii. 16), sets forth a bad example, and indicates a bad system of morals, which is calculated to have a demoralizing effect upon Bible readers and believers, especially the heathen and the youth of Christian countries.

12. And his statement that the truth of God "hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory" (Rom. iii. 7), is still more demoralizing in its tendencies. Many have looked upon it as a justification for lying. It seems to imply that lying is all right if done for the glory of God; and as he states in 1 Cor. x. 31, that whatsoever we do should be done to the glory of God, it logically follows that lying is justifiable in all cases. And Mr. Higgins states that such doctrine had the effect to reduce lying to a system among the early Christians, and that they considered it a duty to lie when the interest of the Church could be promoted by it. A book inculcating such bad morality should not be circulated amongst the heathen.

13. Paul's reason for recommending a life of single blessedness is deserving of notice. He says the unmarried man careth for the things of the Lord; but the married man careth for the things of the world,—"how he may please his wife" (1 Cor. vii. 33). The last act he named here does not trouble men much nowadays, at least after the honeymoon is passed; and a man who considers God worthy of more attention than wives, as Paul did, would not be likely to bestow a very high appreciation on the latter. But the greatest objection to the doctrine is, that, if practically carried out in accordance with his recommendation, there would soon be no wives to please. 14. We must notice another objectionable doctrine of Paul with respect to marriage. Instead of acknowledging an honorable and virtuous motive for marriage, he would tolerate it as the least of two evils; that is, as a means of mitigating a burning lust (1 Cor. vii. 9). This makes marriage a mere animal attraction,—the union of a man and woman drawn together from lustful motives. Paul advises bachelors not to marry or touch a woman, but remain single like himself (1 Cor. vii? 1). But such advice, if practically complied with, would soon depopulate the globe. If not so strongly adverse to human nature, it would doubtless ere this have filled the world, first with Shakers, and then with the graves of an extinct race.

15. Paul says to the Romans (Rom. vii. 17), "It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I prove... that in my flesh dwelleth no good thing." Here are taught two erroneous doctrines: (1) The essentially corrupt and sinful nature of the human body, taught anciently by the Hindoo ascetics; (2) that sin or the Devil operates on the mind independent of the human will or volition, which savors of fatalism. And his statement that some vessels are made to honor, and some to dishonor (Rom. ix. 21), seems unequivocally to set forth the same doctrine. Many commentators have puzzled their brains over it to make it mean something else, but with ill success the declaration is not, that men become vessels of honor and dishonor, but that they are made so.

16. Paul's exhortation to servants to be obedient to their masters has furnished pious Christian slaveholders a good text to preach from throughout slaveholding Christendom, and has done much to rivet the chains tighter upon the limbs of the slave.

17. When Paul calls the Cretans "liars, evil beasts," &c., he descends to a low position, both in the scale of manners and morals: he is not only uncivil, but exhibits bad passions. They did not merit such personal abuse, as they had never done him an injury, at least we have no proof of it.

18. Paul tells us that God sends people a strong delusion, that they may believe a lie and be damned (2 Thess. ii. 12). More fatalism. To delude people with lies in order to damn them is worse than hardening Pharaoh's heart in order to find a pretext for drowning him. Let it be borne in mind, that, if there is any spiritual signification justly assignable to, this text, it can only benefit the few, as the common people always accept language with its common signification. But can we assume that Paul was such a blunderer that he frequently used language conveying exactly the opposite meaning from that intended, and that in this way he taught fatalism and when he did not intend to do so? And then, he was inspired, is it not a slander upon Infinite Wisdom to assume that God was so ignorant of human language that he put these pernicious doctrines in Paul's mouth by mistake? One or the other of these conclusions we are driven to accept, in order to save Paul from condemnation; but this only saves his moral character at the expense of his good sense. The most rational assumption appears to be, that Paul lived in an age and country which knew nothing of mental or moral science, and honestly believed and taught these pernicious doctrines. We will now learn something about the moral code of bachelors.

19. "I suffer not a woman to speak in the church." "It is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Cor. xiv. 35). He says, if they want to know any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. But this, in some cases, would be the blind leading the blind; and, in other cases, only the leaders would be blind. Paul should have learned the lesson of O'Connell, the Irish agitator, who said, "Since I have learned that my mother was a woman, I have great respect for women, and advocate their rights."

20. We will now notice the reason Paul assigns for having immoral doctrines as it is claimed wives subject to their husbands: it is simply because man was created before woman (1 Tim. ii. 13). What profound logic! worthy a Locke or a Newton! But, if there is any logical force in the argument, then monkeys should have the preference of men in the churches, as they came still earlier in the order of creation.

21. Paul's doctrine that all governments are ordained of God, and that those who resist them shall receive to themselves damnation (Rom. xiii. 1), is a virtual condemnation of those noble philanthropists who in various ages and countries resisted the authority of tyrants. It makes Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and others sinners and criminals for opposing the tyranny of King George.

22. Paul evinced a very intolerant spirit when he said, "If any man preach any other doctrine than that which I declare onto you, let him be accursed" (1 Gal. i. 9). This is the spirit of intolerance, persecution, and bigotry,—the spirit which has erected the scaffold, piled the fiery fagots around the stake, wielded the guillotine, adjusted the halter around the neck of the martyr, and crimsoned the earth with the blood of the righteous. This very text has had the effect to fire up such a spirit; and it has frequently been quoted as authority for such cruel deeds as those just cited.

23. Paul gives utterance to a very singular doctrine when he says that even nature teaches that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair, but the glory for a woman, because nature gave it to her for a covering. (See 1 Cor. xi. 14.) He was certainly not much of a philosopher, or he would have made the discovery that nature promotes the growth of the hair upon the heads of men and women exactly alike. If nature did not permit any hair to grow upon the head of man, or did not allow it to grow more than an inch in length, there might be some plausibility in the assertion. But, as the case stands, it is the shears, and not nature, which teaches that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair; or rather, if there is any shame in the case, it consists in man cutting off his hair after nature has been so kind as to supply him with such a useful covering.

24. Paul's indorsement of the doctrine of the atonement, and his declaration that "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission for sin" (Heb. ix. 22), show that he had not advanced beyond the old Jewish and pagan superstition of "blood for blood." The doctrine is a relic of heathen barbarism, and is shocking to persons of fine moral sensibilities; but this subject is treated in another chapter.

25. Paul also indorses the old heathen tradition that God is an angry, revengeful being. (See Eph. ii. 3.) He lent the influence of his powerful mind and pen to perpetuate this demoralizing and blasphemous doctrine, which has had an injurious effect upon the minds and morals of the people in all post ages.

26. We again call attention to Paul's declaration that God sent the people a strong delusion that they might believe a lie and be damned. Think of a just and righteous God deluding people in order to damn them! The doctrine is certainly blasphemous. It is enough to charge a demon with such acts as this. Some writers suppose that Paul did not mean what is here literally expressed; but it is probable he did, for it is the old Jewish idea that every thing that takes place is the achievement of a God. We must assume that the devil who now attends to such business, had not been sworn into office at that time. Hence he supposed that Jehovah still attended to such business.

27. One indelible stigma on Paul's character is found in his indorsement of the pagan and Jewish rite of circumcision,—a cruel and bloody custom,—which no truly enlightened and sensible man would lend his sanction to perpetuate, much less perform with his own hands, as Paul did on Timotheus (Acts xvi. 3). Paul also contradicts himself with respect to the matter. He says, "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Gal. v. 2). Yet he afterward performed the act on Timotheus, as stated above. This is preaching one doctrine and practicing another.

28. Paul said that he was a Roman citizen; but no Jew could be a full Roman citizen till the reign of Philip or Decius, long after. He also passed for Paul of Tarsus; but Tarsus was not a Roman city at that time, nor until about a hundred years after ward. This was being all things to all men in order to gain a few proselytes; and truly he carries out the doctrine quite well. At one time he professes to be a Roman (Acts xxii. 26); at another time he professes to be a Pharisee, and says that his parents were Pharisees (see Acts xxiii. 5); and then, again, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ (Acts xv. 10).

29. Paul uses some rather doughy arguments on the subject of the resurrection. He says that on the last day, at the sound of the trumpet, we shall all be raised, the dead in Christ first (1 Cor. xv. 52). We are also told that "this mortal shall put on immortality." We are compelled to believe, from the language here used, that Paul believed in the sleep of the soul in the grave; and the resurrection of the natural body is a ridiculous absurdity and a physical impossibility. The sleep of the soul is a still worse assumption. Why should the soul lay in the ground covered with filth and worms? What possible benefit could it derive from laying in a state of insensibility for centuries? And what would become of it if some one should remove the decomposed remains of the body, and all the earth contiguous, to some other locality, or toss it into a running stream? And this has been done. What becomes of the soul in such a case? Does it float down the stream with the physical debris? If so, where will it stop? and how will it be found in the day of resurrection?

30. And the doctrine of the resurrection is attended with still greater difficulties and logical obstructions. The physical body, according to Paul, is to become a spiritual body. But a portion of the body is consumed by worms during the process of decomposition in the grave; and those worms, when they die, are consumed by other worms. Will it not, then, require a search-warrant in the day of resurrection to find all those worms, and to gather every minute particle of the old body together to form the spiritual body? Why not make the new body of a stone or a stump, or some other material, instead of the old, decayed, decomposed body? It would require a miracle in either case. Cases have been reported of Christian missionaries being eaten up by cannibals. The flesh of the Christian in such cases becomes a part of the physical body of the cannibal; and the cannibal will, according to Christian theology, come forth unto "the resurrection of damnation," and will take a portion of the body of the missionary with him to the bottomless pit. How will it be obtained? A serious difficulty, certainly! How is it to be met and surmounted? Many other logical difficulties lie in the way of making a practical application of the doctrine.

31. When Paul calls our physical tenements "vile bodies" (see Phil. iii. 21), he reveals the old pagan idea of the body being sinful. They looked upon it as a kind of prison for the soul, and a thing to be hated and contemned as you would a tyrant with a rope around your neck. This error discloses great ignorance of the functions of the human body, and its relation to the soul or mind. It would be impossible to have a pure soul in a vile body. Here Paul discloses still further ignorance of science.

There are other acts and other erroneous doctrines, which mark the practical life of Paul, that are quite obnoxious to criticism; as, for example, the curse he pronounced upon Ely mas, whom he stigmatized as a sorcerer, though he does not prove he was one, but says that was his name by interpretation (Acts xiii. 8). This act, which it is stated produced total blindness, must be regarded as an act of bigotry and intolerance. Elymas is not charged with any crime or immoral conduct; and, so far as we can learn his history, he was an honest, upright man: but he sought "to turn away the deputy from the faith" (Acts xiii. 8); that is, like the Greek philosophers, he attempted to point out the absurdity of some of Paul's doctrines. There is something very significant in the statement of Paul, that some of his doctrines were "to the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. i. 23); for they were a learned, intelligent, and sensible nation of people. And no such nation ever has, or ever will, accept as true and sound doctrine some of the theological nonsense and absurd doctrines which Paul preached. Future generations will wonder that such doctrines were ever taught by people claiming to be sensible and intelligent.

The circumstance which Paul relates of a viper coming out of a bundle of sticks, and fastening on his hand without inflicting a deadly wound, evinces a degree of superstition which no philosopher could entertain. The assumption is, that God, after bestowing upon the reptile the disposition and means of defending itself, interposed by a divine act to prevent their action.

Christ and his apostles (including Paul), instead of studying and understanding the laws of nature, were constantly looking for something to contravene them, and set them aside. Of course they were honest in this; but it shows their want of scientific knowledge, which was characteristic of the age.

The circumstance of Paul's handkerchief and apron healing the sick, as related in Acts xix. 12, is evidently regarded as another interposition of divine power. But cases are frequently performed in this manner in various parts of this country by Dr. Newton and other healers, who impart their magnetic aura to a handkerchief, or some article of clothing, or a piece of paper, and send it to the sick, who are cured as effectually as those were by Paul's magnetized handkerchief; for it was undoubtedly his magnetism imparted to the handkerchief that effected the cures. Modern science is solving the mysteries and miracles of the past.

We will only observe further, that Paul lays down three systems of salvation, which, when arranged side by side, certainly make the road broad enough to enable nearly every son and daughter of Adam to reach the heavenly kingdom:—

Salvation by Faith.—"By faith ye are saved, and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. ii. 8). It being the gift of God, we, of course, can have no agency in the matter. "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. iii. 28). This is a direct contradiction of James, who declares, "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead" (Jas. ii. 17).

Salvation by Works,—"God will render to every man according to his deeds" (Rom. ii. 6). "The doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom. ii. 13). Thus, it will be observed, Paul, in the above-cited texts, not only contradicts James, but contradicts himself.

Salvation by Divine Predestination,—"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts xiii. 48). This is not given as Paul's language; but it is spoken with respect to his preaching. And Paul sets forth the same doctrine in Rom. xi. 5 when he speaks of a remnant being "saved by the election of grace." Here, then, are three roads to heaven, which so multiply the chances of being saved that but few can be lost.

Such conflicting statements show that confusion and ambiguity characterize the Bible, and render it impossible to learn any thing definite from its statements.

Note.—How can Christians believe In the immortality of the soul after reading Paul's declaration that "God alone hath life and immortality dwelling in the light "? If so, then man is not an immortal being (see 1 Tim. ri. 16).

2. CHARACTER AND ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES OF PETER.

In his practical life St. Peter was a singular and angular being. He presents us with the opposite extremes of virtue and vice. He appears to have been about as distinguished for wickedness as for piety. He told the same falsehood repeatedly, and backed it up with an oath (Matt, xxvi.): hence lying, cursing, and swearing are laid to his charge. And then, we are told, he was put in possession of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi. 19). How a man, guilty of such moral derelictions, could have had a higher honor bestowed upon him than was ever bestowed upon any other human being, or how he could have been considered a safe custodian for such an important charge, it is difficult to see; and then it looks too much like a bribe for immoral conduct. It weakens the incentives to a virtuous life to reward the criminal, and shows imperfection in the moral system which he was allowed to represent. As for his doctrines, they are characterized by the same moral and scientific errors and defects as those of St. Paul, and embrace some of the same doctrines of heathen mythology.

1. He speaks of the earth as "standing out of the water and in the water" (2 Pet. iii. 5). Here is the old Hindoo tradition which taught that the earth floated on a sea of water, traces of which are also found in Genesis.

2. He tells us, also, that the earth has been once destroyed by water, and in the day of judgment will be destroyed by fire (2 Pet. iii. 6, 7). It has been from time immemorial a very prevalent tradition amongst the Oriental nations that the world had been, and would be again, alternately destroyed by water and fire. Peter and Josephus also seem to indorse this tradition.

3. Peter also indorses and teaches the absurd and unphilosophical doctrine of fore-ordination (1 Pet. i. 20).

4. He also enjoins "servants to be in subjection to their masters," not only the good, but the froward (1 Pet. ii. 18). This is absolute tyranny. There is to be no resistance to the bloody lash. The motto of Patrick Henry is much better,—"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

5. Wives are to be in subjection to their husbands (1 Pet. iii. 1), even as Sarah obeyed Abraham (verse 6). There is nothing said about husbands obeying wives, probably because, as he says, woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. iii. 7). Wonderful logic! A sage conclusion for a Christian moralist. He thus places Christian morality below that of the ancient Druids, who placed women on a level with men in both Church and State.

6. Peter tells us, "Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. ii. 24). This is the old Jewish idea of carrying away sins by scapegoats, and the Oriental heathen doctrine of putting innocent Gods to death as a punishment for the sins of the people,—a doctrine which posterity will condemn as barbarous. (See "The Sixteen Crucified Saviors," Chapter xxi.)

7. Peter says a "dumb ass spoke with man's voice" (2 Pet. ii. 16). He thus indorses the story of Balaam's ass becoming endowed with human speech.

8. Peter, like Paul and Christ, indorses the absurd story of Noah and the flood (1 Pet. iii. 20).

9. But space will not permit us to notice all the erroneous doctrines set forth by Peter. He teaches the doctrine of a general judgment (2 Pet. ii. 9), the doctrine of election and reprobation (2 Pet. i. 10), the doctrine of a general conflagration of all things terrestrial (2 Pet. iii. 12).

10. But the most remarkable incident in the life of Peter is his connection with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira. We find many logical absurdities and moral errors in this story recorded in Acts v. 1. It is very strange that Peter, who denied his Lord and master three times, and hence was repeatedly guilty of telling positive falsehoods, should be the chosen instrument under Christ's religion to pronounce sentence of death upon Ananias and Sapphira for the same sin. 2. Why should Ananias and Sapphira be punished with death for a crime that Peter, Abraham, and Isaac were all guilty of several times? 3. Is it not strange that Jehovah should be considered as being strongly opposed to lying, if he himself, as stated in 1 Kings xxii., converted four hundred of his prophets into liars, and then indorsed the lying Peter? 4. Is not the crime of Ananias and Sapphira—that of attempting to withhold a little money from the priests by lying—of less magnitude than that of ruining a whole nation by robbery, as we are told God's holy people did? They robbed and "spoiled the Egyptians" (Exod. xii. 36). 5. Is it not probable they needed it more than the priests did? The moral law teaches that it is necessity, and not might, that makes right. 6. Does it not look rather unreasonable that Sapphira should repeat the same falsehood for which her husband had just been struck dead, as it must have been known to her? Who can believe it? 7. And can we suppose that God would be so partial as to kill a man and woman for the first offense of lying, and let Abraham, Isaac, and Peter, and others, escape after committing the sin several times! These considerations seriously damage the credibility of the story.