by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.--But now I go unto _Jerusalem, to minister unto the Saints_.--For it hath pleased them of _Macedonia_ and _Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem_.--It hath pleased them verily: and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made _partakers of their spiritual things_, their _duty_ is also _to minister unto them in carnal things_.--When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come _by you_ into _Spain_."
In the instance in question, money (we see)--of the quantity of course nothing said--is mentioned by him, as being actually in his hands: the purpose, for which it was there,--and to which he would of course be understood to intend applying it,--being also mentioned by him:--applying it, at Jerusalem, to the use of the poor saints. So much for _professed_ intentions. Now then for _real_ ones. Answer, in his own words: that those Gentiles, who by him had been made partakers of his spiritual things, might, as in "_duty_" bound, "minister" to him, so much the more effectively "in carnal things:" that he, who preached, what he called the Gospel, might, as he had been preaching to his Corinthians also (1 Cor. ix. 14) be enabled so much the more comfortably to "live by" it.
"The poor saints which are at Jerusalem:"--_the_ poor saints--to wit, not here and there a saint or two, but the whole Christian population living together on a common stock--if now, A.D. 58, they were living, as A.D. 53 they were (Acts ii. 44; vi. 1) and, in this particular, from the beginning to the end of the history, no change is mentioned--in Jerusalem--was it in the nature of man, in that state of men and things,--was it in the nature of men and things, that any man, who had any knowledge of their situation, and of the terms on which Paul, from first to last, had been with them, could for a moment have thought of lodging, for _their_ use, any the smallest sum of money in _his_ hands?
as well might it be said, at this moment--a man, whose wish it was to convey money to Spain, for the use of the Cortes, would choose the hand of the Duc d'Angouleme to send it by. All this time, _there_ were the Apostles of Jesus--patrons of those same saints: and, anywhere more easily than _there_, could he be. That, with this money in his hands, among his objects was--the employing more or less of it in the endeavour to form a party there, may not unreasonably be supposed, from what we have seen of that _Invasion Visit_, by which his designs upon Jerusalem were endeavoured to be carried into effect. For, according to Acts 19:21, already when he was at Ephesus, as above, was it his known design, to try his fortune once more in Jerusalem, and after that in Rome. This may have been among his designs, or not. Be this as it may, this would have been no more than a particular way, of converting the money to his own use.
Not that, if at this time, and for _this purpose_ from even the quarters in question, money had come, as he says it had, there was anything very wonderful in its so doing. As to _us_ indeed _we_ know pretty well what sort of terms he was on, from first to last, with the community in question: _we_ know this, because his historiographer has made us know it. But, as to the people of those same countries respectively,--at their distance from Jerusalem, what, in their situation, might easily enough happen was,--not to have, as to this point, any adequate information till it was too late to profit by it: and, that such would be their ignorance, is a matter, of which he might not less easily have that which, to a man of his daring and sanguine temper, would be a sufficient assurance.
One thing there is, which, on the occasion of any view they took of this subject, may perhaps have contributed to blind their eyes. This is--the fact, of his having actually been concerned, in bringing money to Jerusalem, for a similar purpose, though it must be confessed, not less than fourteen years before this: to wit, from Antioch, as stated in Chapter V., speaking of _that_--his second Jerusalem Visit, by the name of the _Money-bringing Visit_.
But,--what may easily enough have happened, distance in time and place, together considered, is--that to those particulars, which composed no more than the surface of the business, _their_ knowledge was confined: while _we_, though at the distance of more than seventeen centuries, know more or less of the inside of it,--let into it, as we have been, by the author of the Acts.
As to their arriving sooner or later, at the suspicion, or though it were the discovery, that the money had not, any part of it, reached the hands it was intended for, nor was in any way to do so,--what bar could the apprehension of any such result oppose, to the enterprise, systematic, as we see it was, of the creator of Antichrist? When, to a man, who occupies a certain situation in the eye of the political world, calls for accounts are become troublesome,--Scipio might have informed him, if he had not well enough known of himself, how to answer them.
When a charge made upon you is true--evidence full against you, and none to oppose to it,--fly into a passion, magnify your own excellence--magnify the depravity of your adversaries. This mode, of parrying a charge, is perfectly well understood in our days, nor could it have been much less well understood in Paul's days. As for _his_ adversaries, Paul had a storm _in petto_ at all times ready for them: for the materials, turn to any page of his Epistles: whatever, in this way, he had for rivals,--_that_ and more he could not fail to have for accusing witnesses. To the creator of Antichrist--sower of tares between Pharisees and Sadducees,--whatever were the charges, defence, the most triumphant, could never be wanting: arguments, suited with the utmost nicety, to the taste of judges. He would warn them, against false brethren, and liars, and wolves, and children of Satan, and so forth: he would talk to them, about life and death, and sin and righteousness, and faith and repentance, and this world and that world, and the Lord and resurrection: he would talk backwards and forwards--give nonsense for mystery, and terror for instruction: he would contradict everybody, and himself not less than anybody: he would raise such a cloud of words, with here and there an _ignis fatuus_ dancing in the smoke,--that the judges, confounded and bewildered, would forget all the evidence, and cry out _Not Guilty_ through pure lassitude.
As to us,--the case being now before us, what shall be our verdict?
Obtaining money on false pretences is the charge. Guilty shall we say, or not guilty? Obtainment on a certain pretence, is proved by _direct_ evidence--his own evidence: proof, of falsity in the pretence, rests, as it could not but rest, on _circumstantial_ evidence.
One observation more: for another piece of circumstantial evidence has just presented itself: it consists of the utter silence, about the receipt of the money or any particle of it,--when, if there had been any such receipt, occasions there were in such abundance for the mention of it. A.D. 57, in his first to his Corinthians,--there it is, as we have seen, that he urges them to lay by money for him, declaring it is for the saints at Jerusalem; and that on this same errand it is, that he is going to Macedonia,--and that in his way to Jerusalem he will give them another call, to receive, for that same purpose, the intermediate produce of these proposed _saving-banks_. In his letter to the Romans, written the next year, A.D. 58--written at Corinth,--then it is, that he has already made the said intended money-gathering visit, and with success:--with success not only in Macedonia, as he had proposed, but in Achaia likewise: and, with this money in his hand, and for the purpose of delivering the money to those for whom he obtained it;--for this purpose (he says) it is, that he is at that moment on his way to Jerusalem--the place of their abode. This is in the year A.D. 58. Well then: after this it is, that he takes up his abode at Ephesus. And when, after his contests with the church silversmiths there, he departs from thence, whither does he betake himself? To Jerusalem? No: he turns his back upon Jerusalem, and goes for Macedonia (Acts xx. 1.) then into Greece, where he stays three months; and purposes, Acts 20:3, to return through Macedonia. A.D. 60, it is, that, for the first time, Acts 20:16, any intention of his to visit Jerusalem is declared, he having coveted no man's silver or gold, as his historian, Acts xx. 33, makes him assure us. When, at length he arrived there, what his reception was, we have seen. Had any of the _money_ been received there, would such as we have seen have been the reception given to the _man_? When, by the Christians at Jerusalem, Agabus was sent to him, to keep him if possible from coming there,--is it in the nature of things, that they should have already received any of it, or been in any expectation of it? In what passed between him and the Elders, headed by the Apostle James, is any the slightest allusion made to it? When, in Cæsarea, all in tears, Acts 21:12, 13, his attendants were striving, might and main, to dissuade him from going to Jerusalem,--did he say anything about the money--the money he had been so long charged with? Oh no; not a syllable: to Jerusalem he is resolved to go indeed: Oh yes: but not the shadow of a reason can he find for going there.
When arrived at Jerusalem, the brethren, says the Acts 20:17, received him gladly. The brethren: yes, what adherents he had, would of course receive him gladly, or at least appear to do so. But the money? On their side, was anything said about the money? Not a syllable. Either at this time by his own hand, or any time before, by other hands, had they received this money, or any considerable part of it, could they have received him otherwise than not only gladly, but gratefully?
All the time, the hero was thus employed in money-craving and money-gathering, the historian, let it never be out of mind, was of the party: four years before, A.D. 53, had he been taken into it; yet not any the least hint about these money-matters does he give. So far indeed as regarded what was avowedly for Paul's own use, neither could the receipt nor the craving of the money from their customers, have been unknown to him; for this was what they had to live upon. But the letters his master wrote--wrote to their customers everywhere--letters, in which the demand was made, for the so much more extensive purpose,--of these, so many of which have reached these our times, the contents may to him have easily enough remained a secret: little reason had he to expect, none at all to fear, the exposure,--which now, at the end of more than seventeen centuries, has, at length, been made of them,--confronted, as they may now be, with the particulars he himself has furnished us with.
[13] Acts vii. ver. 47. Speech of St. Stephen. "But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?" In itself, perfectly comfortable all this, to the dictates of reason and the instruction of Jesus: but not the less clear blasphemy against the Mosaic law.
[14] Acts ix. ver. 1 and 2. "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord, _went_ unto the _High Priest_,--And _desired_ of him letters to Damascus to the Synagogues, &c."
[15] Acts xxii. ver. 5. "As also the High Priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the Elders: from _whom also I received letters_ unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem for to be punished."
[16] Yet, for even at the outset, after certain "days spent with the disciples," and employed of course in receiving from them the necessary instructions, he preached Jesus with such energy and success as not only to "confound," Acts ix. 19 to 24, the unbelieving among the Jews, but to provoke them to "take counsel to kill him."
[17] Paul, says--2nd Cor. 11:6--"For though I be rude in speech yet am I not in knowledge nay, in everything we have made it manifest among all men to you-ward, or did I commit a sin in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I preached to you the Gospel of God for naught? I robbed other Churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you; and when I was present with you I was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia supplied the measure of my want, and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome unto you and so I will keep myself. As the truth of Christ is in me no man shall stop me of this glorying in the regions of Achaia, &c."
When ever we get a Temperamental and psychological view of Paul, we see verified the deductions of the author of this treatise, that he was a transparent imposter. An unscrupulous adventurer. With talent well adapted to dogmatically command the attention of the ignorant and especially those of organized hereditary idolatry, the extreme vanity, the vain glorious pretensions of this new priest was well adapted to obtain obsequious complacence from such people. He always presents himself in a controversial spirit of self-exaltation.
His egotistic diction could hardly be made more manifest than in the terms above quoted, to wit:--"I robbed other Churches taking wages of them that I might minister unto you, &c." It presents a striking contrast to the benevolent and fraternal spirit of Christ and his disciples.
[18] N.B. The editor at this place inserts pages of discussion--which the author exhibited by way of an appendix. At the expense of a little redundancy and incongruity the editor inserts it in this place.--Ed. [19] According to the Acts' account, this same stoning, if it was the same, was much in the style of that same resurrection of Eutychus, which we have seen in Chapter xiii. §. 10. As to Paul, when this martyrdom had been suffered by him,--"some" says Acts xiv. 19, were "supposing he had been dead:" and on that supposition, "drew him out of the city." Paul, on the other hand, thought otherwise: he supposed himself alive, and, on that supposition, he walked off, as if nothing had been the matter with him. "Certain Jews...say verses 19 and 20, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe."
CHAPTER III.
_Paul disbelieved.--Neither his divine Commission nor his inward Conversion ever credited by the Apostles or their Jerusalem Disciples.--Source of Proof stated._ TO PAUL'S CONVERSION VISION, SOLE ORIGINAL WITNESS HIMSELF.
Void, as we have seen, of all title to credence, is the story of Paul's commission from Jesus:--void may it be seen to be, even if taken by itself, and without need of resort to any counter-evidence. Who could have expected to have found it, moreover, disproved by the most irresistible counter-evidence--by the evidence of the Apostles themselves? Yes: of the Apostles themselves, of whom it will plainly enough be seen, that by not so much as one of them was it ever believed: no, not to even the very latest period, of which any account has reached us: namely that, at which the history of the Acts of the Apostles closes, or that of the date of the last-written of Paul's Epistles, whichsoever of the two may be the latest.
In regard to the story of his conversion, its cause, and manner,--it has been seen, that it is either from himself directly, or from an adherent of his, the author of the Acts,--who had it from himself, unless Ananias was a person known to the author of the Acts, and heard by him,--it is from Paul, and Paul alone, that all the evidence, which the case has happened to supply, has been derived.
In regard to the degree of credence given, to his pretence to the having received a commission from Jesus, still the same remark applies: still, either from himself, or from the same partial, and, as will be seen, not altogether trustworthy, narrator, comes the whole of the evidence, with which the case happens to have furnished us.
COUNTER-WITNESSES, THE APOSTLES. BY THEM, THE STORY WAS PROBABLY NOT HEARD--CERTAINLY NOT CREDITED.
Jerusalem, according to the Acts, was the headquarters of the noble army of the Apostles: the ordinary residence of that goodly fellowship:--a station, which they none of them ever quitted, for any considerable length of time.
In the course of the interval, between the date assigned by Paul to his conversion, and that of the last particulars we have of his history,--mention, more or less particular, may be found of four visits of his--distinctly four related visits, and no more than four,--to that metropolis of the new Church. On no one of these occasions, could he have avoided using his endeavours, towards procuring admittance, to the fellowship of the distinguished persons, so universally known in the character of the select companions and most confidential servants of Jesus: of that Jesus, whom, in the flesh at any rate, he never so much as pretended to have ever seen: _from whom_ he had consequently, if they thought proper to impart it, so much to learn, or at least to wish to learn: while _to_ them he had nothing to impart, except that which, if anything, it was only in the way of _vision_, if in any way, that he had learned from Jesus.
That on three at least of these four occasions, viz. the 1st, 3d, and 4th, he accordingly did use his endeavours to confer with them, will be put out of dispute by direct evidence; and that, in the remaining one, namely that which in the order of time stands second,--successfully or not, his endeavours were directed to the same purpose,--will, it will be seen, be reasonably to be inferred from circumstantial evidence. In the character of an additional occasion of intercourse, between him and one of the Apostles, namely, Peter, the chief of them,--will be to be added, that which will be seen taking place at Antioch; immediately upon the back, and in consequence, of the third of these same visits of his to Jerusalem.
As to the mode of his conversion as above stated,--the _time_, for him to have stated it to them, was manifestly that of the first of these four visits;--say his _reconciliation-visit_: and that, of that first visit, to see them, or at any rate the chief of them, namely, Peter, was the object,--is what, in his Epistle to the Galatians, we shall see him declaring in express terms.
After all--that story of his, in which the supposed manner of his conversion is related, as above,--did he so much as venture to submit it to them? The more closely it is examined, the less probable surely will be seen to be--his having ventured, to submit any such narrative, to a scrutiny so jealous, as theirs, under these circumstances, could not fail to be.
One of two things at any rate will, it is believed, be seen to a certainty: namely, Either no such story as that which we see, nor anything like it, was ever told to them by him; or, if yes, it obtained no credit at their hands.
IN PROOF OF THIS, SO MUCH OF THE ACTS HISTORY MUST HERE BE ANTICIPATED.
For proof, of the disbelief, which his story will, it is believed, be found to have experienced, at the hands of those supremely competent judges,--the time is now come, for collecting together, and submitting in a confronted state to the reader, all the several particulars that have reached us, in relation to these four important visits.
Between the first-recorded and the last-recorded of the four, the length of the interval being so considerable as it will be seen to be, namely, upwards of 17 years at the least,--and, in the course of the interval, so numerous and various a series of incidents being to be seen comprised,--the consequence is--that this one topic will unavoidably spread itself to such an extent, as to cover the whole of the chronological field of the history of the Church in those eventful times. A sort of necessity has thus been found, of taking a view of the principal part of all those several incidents, in a sort of historical order, in a succeeding part of this work: hence, of that which, for the proof of what has just been advanced, will here be necessary to be brought to view,--no inconsiderable portion will be an anticipation, of that which belongs properly to the historical sketch, and, but for this necessity, would have been reserved for it.
TOPICS UNDER HIS SEVERAL JERUSALEM-VISITS.
Thick clouds, and those covering no small portion of its extent, will, after everything that can be done to dispel them, be found still hanging over the field of this inquiry. But, if to the purpose of the present question, sufficient light be elicited; in whatever darkness any collateral points may remain still involved, the conclusion will not be affected by it.
As to the credibility of Paul's story,--taken in itself, and viewed from the only position, from which we, at this time of day, can view it,--the question has just been discussed.
That which remains for discussion is--whether, from the Church, which Paul found in existence--the Church composed of the Apostles of Jesus, and his and their disciples--it ever obtained credence.
On this occasion, to the Apostles more particularly must the attention be directed: and this--not only because by their opinion, that of the great body of those disciples would, of course, on a point of such vital importance, be governed; but, because, in the case of these confidential servants and habitual attendants of Jesus, the individuals, of whom the body is composed, and who are designated by one and the same denomination, are always determinable: determinable, in such sort, that, at all times, wheresoever they are represented as being, the eye can follow them.
To judge with what aspect Paul with his pretensions was viewed by them, always with a view to the main question--whether, in any particular, the alleged supernatural cause of his outward conversion, and thence of his presumable inward conversion, ever obtained credence from them;--one primary object, which requires to be attended to, is--personal intercourse; viz. the sort of personal intercourse, which between him on the one part, and them, or some of them, on the other part, appears to have had place.
Of this intercourse, the several _interviews_, which appear to have had place, will form the links. Correspondent to those _interviews_ will be found to be so many _visits_: all of them, except one, visits made by him to the great original metropolis of the Christian world--Jerusalem:--the scene of the acts and sufferings of the departed Jesus:--the ordinary abode of these his chosen disciples and successors.
If, to these visits of Paul's is to be added any other interview,--it will be in another city, to wit, Antioch: and, in this instance, between Paul, and not, as in the case of the other visits might naturally be expected, the Apostles in a body; but one, or some other small number of members, by whom a visit to that place was made, in consequence of their having been selected for that purpose, and deputed by the rest. Of the interviews corresponding with these visits, the real number,--and not only the real number, but the number upon record,--is unhappily, in no inconsiderable degree, exposed to doubt; for, considering the terms they were upon, as we shall see, at the interviews produced by Paul's first Jerusalem visit, it does not by any means follow, that, between the persons in question, because there were two more such visits, there was, on each occasion, an interview.
Two of them, however, at any rate, if any degree of credence whatever be given to the documents, remain altogether clear of doubt: and whatever uncertainty may be found to attach upon any of the others, may be regarded as so many fixed points: fixed points, forming so many standards of reference, to which the others may in speaking of them be referred, and by reference to which the reality and time of those others, will be endeavoured to be ascertained.
For the designation of the visits which produced these two unquestionable interviews, the terms _Reconciliation Visit_, and _Invasion Visit_, will here be employed: the former being that which gave rise to the first-mentioned of the two interviews, which, after the conversion, appear for certain to have had place between the rival and contending powers; the other, to the last.
1. By the _Reconciliation Visit_ is here meant--that visit--by which was produced the _first_ interview, which, after the conversion of Paul, had place between him and any of the Apostles. Its title to this appellation is altogether unquestionable. After these proceedings of Paul's, by which the destruction of so many of the Christians had already been effected, and that of all the rest was threatened,--it was not possible, that, without a reconciliation,--if not an inward at any rate an outward one,--any interview, on both sides voluntary, should have taken place. Of the Apostles, Peter was the acknowledged chief: that it was for the purpose of seeing Peter, that a visit of Paul's to Jerusalem--the first of those mentioned by him--was made,--is acknowledged by himself: acknowledged, in that Epistle of his, to his Galatian disciples, of which so much will have to be said, Gal. i. and ii.[20] Without the assistance of some mediator, scarcely was it in the nature of the case, that, in any way, any such reconciliation could have been effected. In the person of Barnabas,--a most munificent patron, as will be seen, of the infant church,--this indispensable friend was found.
According to the received chronology, the time of this visit was A.D.
38. In the account, given in the Acts, Acts 16:6, of the conjunct missionary excursion made from Antioch by Paul and Barnabas--an excursion, the commencement of which is, by that same chronology, placed in the year 53,--Galatia stands fifth, in the number of the places, which they are spoken of as visiting. Of any visit, made in that country, either before this or after it, no mention is to be found in the Acts, except in Acts 18:23: on which occasion, he is spoken of as revisiting Galatia, "strengthening the churches."[21] Of what passed on the occasion of this visit, the account, given as above by Paul, will be seen receiving explanation, from what is said of this same visit in the Acts.
ACTS ix. 26 to 30.
26. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.--But Barnabas took him, and brought _him_ to the Apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.--And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.--And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.--Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.
2. By the _Invasion Visit_ is here meant--that visit of Paul to Jerusalem, by which his arrestation, and consequent visit to Rome in a state of confinement, were produced. _Invasion_ it may well be termed: the object of it having manifestly been--the making, in that original metropolis of the Christian world, spiritual conquests, at the expense of the gentle sway of the Apostles: spiritual acquisitions--not to speak of their natural consequences, temporal ones. It was undertaken, as will be seen, in spite of the most strenuous exertions, made for the prevention of it: made, not only by those, whose dominions he was so needlessly invading, but by the unanimous remonstrances and entreaties of his own adherents. The date--assigned to the commencement of this visit, is A.D. 60.
Interval, between this his last recorded visit and his first, according to the received chronology, 22 years.
Neither of the occasion of it, nor of any individual occurrence which took place in the course of it, have we any account--from any other source than the history of the Acts. Paul's account is all in generals.
3. Paul's Jerusalem Visit the Second.--According to the Acts, Acts 11:30, "which also they did, and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul," between these two indisputable interviews of Paul's with the Apostles occurs another visit, herein designated by the name of the _Money-bringing Visit_. Under the apprehension of a predicted dearth, money is sent from the Antioch to the Jerusalem saints.
Barnabas, and with him Paul, are employed in the conveyance of it. Time, assigned to this Visit, A.D. 43. Of this visit, not any the least trace is to be found in any Epistle of Paul's. Yet, in this Epistle of his to his Galatians, he will be seen undertaking in a manner, to give an account, of every visit of his to Jerusalem, in which, with reference to spiritual dominion, between himself and the Apostles, anything material had ever passed. By this silence of Paul's, no counter-evidence is opposed, to the account given of this visit in the Acts. What may very well be is,--that he went along with the money, and departed, without having had any personal communication with any Apostle, or even with any one of their disciples.
Deputation Visit. According to the Acts,[22] Paul being at the Syrian Antioch, certain men came thither from Judea, teaching, that Mosaic circumcision is necessary to Christian salvation. Dissension being thus produced, Paul, and Barnabas as usual with him, are dispatched to confer on this subject with the Apostles and the Elders--Time, assigned to this visit, A.D. 52. Interval between the first and this third visit--years 15.
In addition to the first Jerusalem Visit, mentioned as above by Paul, to wit, in the first chapter of his Epistle to his Galatians,--in the second, mention is made of another.
Of the incidents mentioned by Paul, as belonging to this other visit, scarcely can any one, unless it be that of his having Barnabas for a companion, be found, that presents itself as being the same with any incident mentioned in the Acts, in the account given of the above named Deputation Visit. But, between the two accounts, neither does any repugnance manifest itself: and, forasmuch as, in a statement, the purpose of which required that no interview, in which anything material passed between him and the Apostles, should pass unnoticed,--he mentions no more than one visit besides the first,--it seems reasonable to conclude, that it was but one and the same visit, that, in the penning of both these accounts, was in view.
As far as appears, it is from the account thus given by Paul of the second, of the two visits mentioned by him as made to Jerusalem, that the received chronology has deduced the year, which it assigns to the Deputation Visit, as recorded in the Acts.
In Paul's account alone--in Paul's, and not in that in the Acts--is the distance given in a determinate number of years. According to one of two interpretations, 17--the number above mentioned as adopted in the current chronology--is the number of years mentioned by Paul as intervening between those two visits. But even in this place, a circumstance that must not pass altogether unnoticed is,--that, according to another interpretation, to which the text presents itself as almost equally open, the length of the interval would be considerably greater. Galatians i. 17: "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me: but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." After what period?--after that of his conversion? or after the expiration of this his second visit to Damascus? Reckoning from this latter period, the interval may be ever so much greater than that of the three years: for, to the three years may be added an indefinite length of time for the second, and even for the first, of his abodes at Damascus. But, as we advance, reason will appear for concluding, that, being in the eyes of the Damascus rulers, as well as the Jerusalem rulers, a traitor--in the highest degree a traitor--his abode at Damascus could not, at either of these times, have been other than short as well as secret.
Gal. ii. 1: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus also." This being supposed to be the Deputation Visit, these fourteen added to the former three, make the seventeen. 5. _Peter's Antioch Visit._--In Paul's Epistle, addressed to his Galatians, as above,--immediately after the mention of his own second Jerusalem Visit as above, comes the mention of an interview, which he says he has at Antioch with Peter: "Peter being come," he says, "to that place." Gal. ii. 11. In the Acts, 15:22, immediately upon the back of the accounts of the Deputation Visit, as above,--comes an account of what may be called a _counter Deputation Visit_. Of the former Deputation Visit, according to the Acts, the result is--from the Apostles, the Elders, and the whole Church, a _letter_, concluding with a _decree_: and "by men chosen of their own company," this letter is stated as having been carried to Antioch: and, with these men, so chosen, Paul and Barnabas are stated as returning to Antioch, from which city, as above, they had been deputed. As and for the names of "chosen men," those of Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, are mentioned: "chief men among the brethren" is another title by which they are, both of them, distinguished. To these, no other names are added: in particular, not that of Peter. Thus far the Acts.
As to Paul, in the account _he_ gives, of the discussion, to which, after--and apparently, as above, in consequence of--his _secondly mentioned_ interview with Peter at Jerusalem,--no mention is made either of Judas Barsabas, or of Silas: of Peter--and him alone--it is, that, on this occasion, any mention is made. Peter comes, as it should seem, to Antioch from Jerusalem; which last city seems to have been his ordinary abode. But, on this occasion likewise, in addition to this visitor, mention is again made of Barnabas, of whom, as far as appears, from the time of the Reconciliation Visit down to this time, Antioch was the ordinary abode. In relation to each of these several Visits, a brief preparatory indication of the topic or topics, which will be brought to view, when an account comes to be given of it, may in this place have its use.
I. _Reconciliation Visit._--On this occasion, a difficulty that naturally presents itself--is--if the relation is in substance true, and the occasion is the same--how it can have happened, that if Peter was at Antioch--Peter, the universally acknowledged chief of the Apostles--no mention should be to be found of him in the Acts: instead of him, two men as yet unknown--this _Judas Barsabas_, and this _Silas_--neither of