FOOTNOTES:

19. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saulcertain dayswith thediscipleswhich were at Damascus.—And straightway he preachedChristin the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.—But all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?—But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.—And after thatmany dayswere fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:—But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.—Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in abasket.—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 ofJesus.—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.—30. Which, when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

In the above account—a remarkable incident is presented, by the occasion and manner of his escape from Damascus. In part, it has for its support an assertion made by Paul himself; but, as usual, as to part it is scarcely reconcileable with the account he gives of it. In respect of the adventure of thebasket, the two accounts agree: and thus the occasion is identified and fixed. It is in respect of the description of the persons, by whom the attack upon him was made or meditated, that the accounts differ. According to the Acts, the hostile hands are those of the Jews, who are spoken of as so many unauthorized and criminal conspirators: but, according to Paul, they are those of the constituted authorities—a governor acting under a king.

31. "In Damascus"—says he, in 2 Cor. 11:32-33—"In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me. And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands."

Now, supposing the adverse force to have been that of a band of conspirators, it was natural for them to watch the "city gates": a more promising resource they could scarcely have had at their command. But, suppose it to have been that of the governor,—what need had he to watch the gates? he might have searched houses. By the reference made, to a matter of fact, which, supposing it real, must in its nature have been notorious—to wit, the existence of a king, of the name in question, in the countryin question, at the time in question—a comparative degree of probability seems to be given to Paul's account. A curious circumstance is—that, in this Epistle of Paul's, this anecdote of the Basket stands completely insulated; it has not any the slightest connection with anything that precedes or follows it.

In the Acts' account, as already observed, Chap. 4, it looks as if it was immediately after the adventure of the basket, that he went on this his first visit to the Apostles at Jerusalem: for, as we see, it is immediately thereupon that his arrival at that city is mentioned. If so, the abode he hadthenbeen making at Damascus, was probablyafterhis return from Arabia: that return from Arabia, which we have seen him speaking of in his Epistle to the Galatians, Gal. i. 15. "When it pleased God ... to reveal his son to me, that I might preach him to the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; Neither went I up to Jerusalem, to them which were Apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.Then afterthree years, I went up to Jerusalem, to see Peter." &c.

"After three years?"—three years, reckoning from whattime? Here we see the ambiguity, and along with it the difficulty. If reckoning from his conversion,—then we have the three years, to be spent—partly in Damascus, partly in Arabia: in Damascus, in obtaining, perhaps, from the Christianized Jews—in return for the impunity given to them by the breach of the trust committed to him by the Jerusalem rulers—money, for defraying his expenses while in Arabia. If, reckoning from his escape from Damascus in a basket, then we have three years, during which not so much as any thefaintest trace of him is perceptible. All, therefore, that is clear is—that according to his account of the matter, there was an interval of at least three years between his conversion, and this first of his subsequent Jerusalem visits—this visit of his to Jerusalem, to see the Apostles.

Between the two interpretations,—in respect of length of time, observe here the difference. According to one of them, between the conversion and the first Jerusalem visit, we have an interval of three years, and no more: and, in this interval, three lengths of time—one passed in Damascus, another in Arabia, a third, terminated by the basket adventure, passed also in Damascus, are all included: the entire interval determinate: but its parts, all of them, indeterminate. According to the other interpretation, we have also three lengths of time: the first, indeterminate, passed in Damascus; the second, as indeterminate, passed in Arabia; the third, passed in Damascus, and this a determinate one—namely, the three years. Thus, upon the first supposition, the interval consists of three years, and no more: upon the second supposition, it consists of three years, preceded by two lengths of time, which are both indeterminate, but one of which—that passed in Arabia—may have been to any amount protracted.

Upon either supposition,—it seems not unlikely, that it was immediately after his escape from Damascus, that this first visit of his to Jerusalem took place. And, the greater the preceding interval of time, whether passed in Arabia or Damascus, the less unpromising his prospect, that the resentments, produced by the provocations given by him to the Christians, by his persecution of them,—and to the Jewish rulers, by his treachery towards them,—should, both, have to such a degree subsided, as torender even so short a stay, as that of fifteen days which he mentions, consistent with personal safety. Yet, as we see in the Acts, are these two events spoken of as if they had been contiguous: at any rate, it is in contiguity that they are spoken of.

Uncertainties crowd upon uncertainties. At the time of Paul's conversion,—had Damascus already this same king, named Aretas, with a governor under him? If so, how happens it, that, of this state of the government, no intimation is perceptible, in the account given of that conversion in the Acts? Was it—that, at that time, there existed not any such monarchical personage? but that, before the adventure of the basket, some revolution had placed him there?

According to Paul's account,—the state of things, produced in Damascus by his exertions, was somewhat curious. On the face of this account, in ordinary there was nogarrisonin Damascus: it was only by special order from the monarch, and for no other purpose than the bringing to justice—or what was called justice—the person of the self-constituted Apostle,—that a garrison was put into the town, with a governor for the command of it.

What a foundation all this for credence! and, with it, for a system of religious doctrine to build itself upon!—religious doctrine—with the difference between eternal happiness and eternal misery depending upon it!

Between these two accounts, such being the discordance—where shall we find thecauseof it? Answer: in the different views, in which, at the time of writing, the two accounts were penned: in the different objects, to the accomplishment of which, at the time of penning their respective accounts, the endeavours of the two writers were directed.

The author of the Acts—what, then, washisobject? To obtain for his patron—his chief hero—alive or dead—a recognition, as universal as possible, in his assumed character of an Apostle. The more complete the recognition, bestowed upon him by those most competent of all judges,—the more extensive the recognition he might look for, at the hands of all other their fellow-believers.

Sufficient was this—sufficient for the general purposes of the party—in the eyes of a person other than Paul, even though that other person was a protegé, a retainer, a satellite.

Sufficient this was not, however, to the arrogance of the head of the party—Paul himself: at least, at the time of his writing this his letter to his Galatian converts.

Think you, says he, that any relation, I have ever borne to any of those who were Apostles before me, had, on my part, anything in it of dependence? Think you, that I ever stood in need of anything at their hands? Think you, that I had ever any more need of them, than they of me? Not I, indeed. TheGospel, which I have always preached—neither from them did I receive it, nor from them, in preaching it, did I ever seek or receive any assistance. Gal. i. 11, 12. Think you, that I stood in any need, or ever supposed myself to stand in any need, of any acceptance or acknowledgement at their hands? Not I, indeed. When my revelation had been received by me, did I present myself to them, for any such purpose as that of remuneration and acceptance? Not I, indeed. I went not to them: I went not so much as to Jerusalem, where they then were: I conferred not with flesh and blood:—off I went to Arabia; and when my business in Arabia was at an end, even then, did I repair to Jerusalem? Not I, indeed. I returned again to Damascus. True it is, to Jerusalem I did go at last.—But when?—Not till three years afterwards. Well—and, when I was at Jerusalem, how many, and which of them, think you that I saw? Think you, that I put myself to any such trouble, as that of seeing them all together? the whole herd of them? No. Peter was naturally a chief among them: with him I had accordingly some business to settle:—him, accordingly, I saw, as also James, whom, as being a brother, or other near kinsman, of Jesus, I had a curiosity to see.

Paul himself wrote at one time; this his disciple at another: each of them pursued the purpose of the time. Not on this occasion, at any rate,—perhaps not on any other, was there anything, that either wrote, concerted between them.[25]Of this want of concert, what has just been seen is one of the consequences.

Reserved as we have seen him, in regard to time and other circumstances,—one circumstance more there is, for which our curiosity is to no small amount, debtor, to the author of the Acts. This is—information, of the means—of the channel, through which Paul obtained the introduction, which, without mention made of the object, we have seen him acknowledging that, so far as concerned Peter, he was desirous of: andthatto such a degree, as to undertake a journey from Damascus to Jerusalem, some 120 or 130 miles, for the purpose.

Repugnancy, so natural, and naturally so vehement—even at the end of three years, or the still greater number of years—by what means could he remove it, or so much as flatter himself with a prospect of being able to remove it? To this question, it is to the author of the Acts that we are indebted for an answer: and that answer a satisfactory one:—it was by the assistance of Barnabas, that the object, so far as it was accomplished, was accomplished.

To the religion of Jesus, after as well as before this,—to the Apostles in particular before this,—Barnabas was a supporter of no small importance.

At the time when the financial arrangements were for the second time settled;[26]—when, from the substance of the opulent among the faithful, enough was collected for the support of all the indigent;—among those, by whom, on this second occasion, lands and houses, were for this purpose sold, particular persons are, on this second occasion, for the first time mentioned. The first place is occupied by this Barnabas:and not till after him come Ananias and Sapphira—the unfortunate pair, of whose fate mention will have to be made in another place.

Joses was, it seems, the original name—the proper name of this beneficent protector: Barnabas, theSon of consolation, Acts 4:36, was no more than a title of honour,—a token of gratitude. A title of honour? and by whom conferred? Even by the Apostles. By Barnabas, therefore, whatsoever thereafter comes to be reported as done,—it is bythe Son of consolationthat we are to understand it to have been, and to be, done.

As to the arguments, by which this son of consolation succeeded,—in prevailing, upon two, and, if we are to believe Paul, no more than two, of these so lately persecuted or threatened servants of Jesus,—to be, for a few days, upon speaking terms, with him, who so lately had been their deadly, as well as open enemy,—it is from imagination, with judgment for her guide, that they must, if at all, be deduced from the surrounding circumstances of the case.

As to these arguments, however,—whatever were the rest of them, of two of them a hint is given by the author of the Acts: these are,—the story of the conversion,—and the boldness of the preaching, which at Damascus was among the first-fruits of it. Those which, under the guidance of judgment, imagination would not find much difficulty in adding, are,—the evil—that might result from his enmity, in case the advances then made by him were rejected,—and the useful service, which, by the blessing of God, might be hoped for at his hands, if admitted in the character of an ally and cooperator: at any rate, so long as the whole field of his exertions, and in particular the geographical part of it, continued different from theirs.

With Peter, on whatever account, it was Paul's own desire to hold a conference:—so we have seen him declaring to the Galatians. To this Peter, whom he was desirous of seeing, and whom at length he succeeded in seeing,—to this Peter did he then himself tell the story of his vision, of his conversion, and the mode of it? If at any time he did,—at any rate, if the author of the Acts is to be believed,—it was not till Barnabas, the son of consolation, had told it for him. Had it been by himself that his story had been to be told in the first instance,—he would thereby have stood exposed to cross-examination: and, among those things, which Barnabas might in his situation say for him,—were many things, which, if at all, he could not, with anything like an equal prospect of good effect, have said for himself. To any asseveration of his own,—in any promises of future amity, it was not in the nature of the case, that from his own mouth they should give credence. But, when by Barnabas, of whose zeal in their cause they had received such substantial proofs—when from this son of consolation they received assurance, that Paul had actually engaged himself in that line of service, which he professed himself desirous to embrace;—that he had engaged so far, that no prospect of safe retreat could reasonably be in his view;—then it was, that, without imprudence, they might, venture to hold at least a conference with him, and hear and see what he had to say for himself.

As to the account, given on this occasion by Barnabas, of the famous vision,—had it been but preserved, it would probably have been no less curious than those which we have been already seeing. Though we cannot be precisely assured in what way,—we may be pretty well assured, that, in some way or other, additions would have been to be seen made in it, to the list ofvariations.

But, the great advantage,—producible, and probably produced, by the opening of the matter, as performed by Barnabas,—was this: in company with those arguments, by which the sincerity of Paul was to be demonstrated,—would naturally come those, by which intimation would be given, of the advantage there might be, in forbearing to apply too strict a scrutiny, to this important statement. The interests, which, in the character of motives, pleaded for the acceptance, of the advance made towards reconciliation and mutually advantageous cooperation,—would, in this manner, prepare the way, for receiving, without any troublesome counter-interrogation, the important narrative: or, perhaps, for considering the matter, as already sufficiently explained, by the son of consolation,—in such sort that, to the new Apostle, the trouble of repeating a narrative, which he must already have so frequently found himself under the necessity of repeating, might be spared.

The greater was the importance, of the service thus rendered to Paul by the son of consolation,—the more studiously, in giving the account, as above, of the intercourse with the Apostles at Jerusalem,—the more studiously, would he avoid all mention of it.[27]

Fifteen days, if Paul is to be believed—fifteen days, and no more,—was the length of time, during which his intercourse with Peter continued: Gal. i. 18, that same length of time, and no greater, it may without much rashness be inferred, was his stay at Jerusalem.

These fifteen days,—or whatever, if anything longer, was the duration of his stay in that seat of their common religion,—in what occupations were they employed? It is in the Acts, if anywhere, that this question will receive its answer. It was in "disputing against the Grecians." Acts 9:29.

That such should have been his occupation, is in his situation altogether natural.

Of a sort ofpartition treaty, as having, at one time, been entered into between himself and Peter,—Paul, in his so-often mentioned letters to the Galatians, informs us in express terms. As to the time, which, on that occasion, he has in view,—it was, according to appearance, not the time ofthishis first visit, but of the third. At that third visit, the treaty was, at any rate, either entered into for the first time, or confirmed: receiving, at the same time, what was on both sides agreed upon, as an amendment requisite to add to it, in respect of clearness, correctness, or completeness.

But, at this visit, it seems altogether natural, that, with more or less of these same qualities, a treaty ofthis sort took place. By the sort of relation, produced between them, by the state of interests,—the existence of an agreement of this sort seems sufficiently probabilized: and, from the few words, in which, by the author of the Acts, mention is made of the Grecians, and of Paul's disputes with them,—the inference receives the confirmation afforded bydirectevidence.

With the Grecians then it was, that these disputations of Paul were held. Why with the Grecians, and no other? The reason is no mystery. Greek was the language of Paul: Greek, for anything that appears, was not the language of Peter, or of any other of the Apostles. Applying himself to the Grecians, and to them alone,—Paul might, to any amount, have given additional extent to his own dominion, without subtracting anything from theirs.

Not productive, it should seem, of much fruit,—was this portion, of the new Apostle's labours. No sooner are we informed, of the boon thus offered to these Grecian Gentiles, than comes, moreover, the further information, that some there were, that "went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him," it is added, "to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." Acts 9:29.

Meantime, those men, who went about to slay him,—who were they? Possibly they were Grecians, if by the disputation in question, the annoyance produced was so intolerable to them, as to be productive of a wish and enterprise thus flagitious: and, if the evidence afforded by the rules of grammar be in this case regarded as conclusive,—the pronountheyhaving for its last possible antecedent the substantiveGrecians—these, and no other, must have been the intended murderers. On the other hand, among the heathen—the philosophical disputants of this nation,—disputations,having any such abstractions for their subject, were not wont to be productive, of any such practical and flagitious consequences. Among the heathens, moreover, it appears not, that, antecedently to his conversion, the zeal of Paul had led him to put any to death: on the other hand among the Christianized Jews, his fellow-religionists, the number of persons, of whom he had put to death some, and in other ways plagued others, was unhappily but too great. By the religionintowhich they had been converted,—revenge, it is true, was not (as in that which they were convertedfrom) magnified, but prohibited: but, the influence of it has never been equally efficient upon all minds.

Be this as it may,—upon his leaving Jerusalem, it was to the region of Syria and Cilicia, that, at this time, he betook himself. So, in his letter to his Galatians, he himself says, Gal. 1:21; and, by what is said in the Acts, he is not contradicted, but confirmed. By himself what is mentioned is—theregion, viz. Syria and Cilicia: by the Acts what is mentioned is—thecities, viz. Cæsarea and Tarsus. Cæsarea,—whether at that time it was in Syria or not,—was, at any rate, little, if anything, out of the way, from Jerusalem to Tarsus. Cæsarea was a town upon the coast:—one among those maritime towns, which, whether parts or not of Syria, are in the way between the inland city, of Jerusalem, and the coast of Cilicia: with which coast, by a river,—Tarsus, marked in the map with the mark of a capital town, appears to communicate.

In speaking of this change of place, the terms employed by Paul, are general terms,—"I came." By whatmeanshe came, he does not mention: nor does there appear any particular reason why he should have mentioned them.

In the Acts, the account is more particular:—he was, in a manner, forced from the one place to the other:—he was, at any rate,escorted: it was by "the brethren," he was so dealt with. "Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." Acts 9:30.

By the brethren?—Yes.—But by what brethren? By the general body of the Christians, or any that belonged to it? No:—for, it was from their wrath, that he was making his escape. No:—not by the justly exasperated many; but by such few adherents as, under such prodigious disadvantage, his indefatigable artifice and energy had found means to conciliate.

In relation to this subject, we have two, and no more than two, accounts,—both from the same pen,—that of the historiographer in the Acts; and these two accounts, as usual, contradictory of each other. The first, in the order of the history, is that given by him in his own person: Acts 9:27, 28, 29. The other, is that given by him in the person of Paul: namely, in the course of his supposed first-made and unpremeditated speech,—when, on the occasion of his last visit to Jerusalem—his Invasion Visit, he was pleading for his life before the angry multitude. Acts 22:17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Now then, let us compare the two accounts.

Speaking in his own person,—it is to the fear ofcertain Grecians, that the historiographer ascribes Paul's departure for Jerusalem. In disputing with them, he had been speaking "boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus": andthereupon,—and as we are desired to believe,therefore,—came certain designs and endeavours to slay him. Designs? on the part of whom? Answer:—on the part of those same Grecians: cause of these designs and endeavours, irritation, so it is intended we should suppose,—irritation, produced in the breasts of those same Grecians;—and produced by the dispute.

Now, as to the words of the historiographer, speaking in his own person. It is immediately after the mention of Paul's transactions with the Apostles and the other disciples, that after saying, Acts 9:28, that "... he was with them coming in and going out of Jerusalem," the narrative continues thus: ver. 29; "And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, buttheywent about to slay him: ver. 30; Which whenthe brethrenknew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."

Such is the account given, of the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, on the occasion in question—given by the historiographer, speaking in his own person, of the manner of the departure, and at the same time of the cause of it. Behold now how different is the account given, of the same matter, by the same historiographer, in the same work, when speaking in the person of his hero. Nothing now as to any disputes with Grecians: nothing now of these, or any other human beings, in the character of beings who were angry with him, andthatto such a degree, that, to save his life, it was deemed necessary by his adherents,—styled on this occasion "thebrethren," to take charge of him, as we have seen, and convey him from Jerusalem to Cæsarea and elsewhere.

The case seems to be—that, between the time of writing the account which has just been seen, and the time for giving an account of the same transaction in the person of the hero, as above,—a certain difficulty presented itself to the mind of the historiographer: and, that it is for the solution of this difficulty, that he has recourse, to one of his sovereign solvents—a trance. The difficulty seems to have been this: The class of persons, whom, on that first visit of his he had exasperated, were—not "Grecians," or any other Gentiles, but Christians: Christians, the whole body of them—Apostles and Disciples together: the same class of persons, to which belonged those who, on the occasion of this his last visit—theInvasion Visit—were to such a degree exasperated, by this fourth intrusion of his, as to be attempting his life. How hopeless any attempt would have been, to make them believe, that it was not by themselves, but by a set of Heathens, that his life was threatened on that former occasion, is sufficiently manifest. Here then comes a demand, for a substitute, to that cause, which, distant as the time was, could not, however, be altogether absent from their memory: and which, so far as it was present, could not but heighten their exasperation:—this substitute wasthe trance.

The cause of the departure is now—not the fear of any human being, but the express command of "the Lord":—a command delivered in the course, and by means, of this sametrance. Moreover, as if, from such a quarter,commandswere not sufficient of themselves; on the present occasion, it will be seen, they came backed byreasons. Was it that, as the historiographer has been telling us in his own person, certain Grecians were exasperated? No: but that the persons, to whom, with Barnabas for his supportingwitness, Acts 9:27, he had been telling his story, gave no credit to it: so that, by a man with his reputation in this state, nothing in the way of his business was to be done.

But now let us see the text. It comes immediately after that passage, in which Paul is made to speak of Ananias, as giving orders to him, in the name of the Lord: orders, concluding in these words: Acts 22:16: ... "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This said,—his story, as told to the multitude, continues thus: "And it came to pass that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was ina trance: And saw him saying unto me, Makehaste, and get theequicklyout of Jerusalem:for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live."

It may now be seen, how useful and convenient an implement this same trance was: how well adapted, to the occasion on which it was employed. Taken by itself, this story about the enraged Grecians might serve to impose upon readers in general: but, to the knowledge of the really enraged Christians, whose wrath he was endeavouring to assuage,—it was not only too palpably false to be related to them, but too much so, to be even for a moment supposed to berelated to them: hence came the demand for the supernatural cause. Nothing, it is evident, could be better suited to the purpose. The assertion was of the sort of those, which, how palpably soever untrue, are not exposed to contradiction by direct evidence: and which, supposing them believed, ensure universal respect, and put all gainsayers to silence.

An incident not unworthy here of notice, is—the sort of acknowledgment contained in the words—"for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me." In this may be seen—a confirmation of the important fact, so fully proved on the occasion of the first orReconciliation Visit: and we see—with what consistency and propriety, the mention of it comes in, on the present occasion: namely, in a speech, made to a multitude, of which, many of those,—by whom he had been disbelieved and rejected on that former occasion,—must of course have formed a part.

Such is the fact, which, after having communicated to us, in his own person, Acts 9:26, "they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple," the historiographer is frank enough to communicate to us a second time, through the mouths of Paul and "the Lord," the one within the other.Trueenough this information: and, moreover, at Jerusalem, as well when the historiographer was writing, as when Paul was speaking,notoriousenough: or we should hardly have had ithereandnow. But, what a truth to put into the mouth of Paul, whose title to credence for his claim, is so effectually destroyed by it!

To return to what, on the occasion of the first visit, is said by the historiographer, in his own person, about the Grecians. That it was false, as to the main point,—namely, that it was by the fear of those sameGentiles that he was driven out of Jerusalem,—is now, it is hoped, sufficiently evident. But, as to his having held disputation with them,—in this there seems not to be anything inconsistent or improbable: and this part, supposing it true, might, in so far as known, help to gain credence for that which was false.

A circumstance—not altogether clear, nor worth taking much trouble in the endeavour to render it so, is—on the occasion of this dialogue, the change made, of the supernatural vehicle, from avisioninto a "trance." Whatsoever, if any, is the difference,—they agree in the one essential point: namely, that it is in the power, of any man, at any time, to have had as many of them as he pleases: hearing and seeing, moreover, in every one of them, whatsoever things it suits his convenience to have heard or seen.—"I saw a vision:" or, "I was in a trance": either postulate granted, everything whatsoever follows.

Thistrance, it may be observed, is of a much more substantial nature than any of thevisions. By Paul in hisroad vision,—vision as it was,—neitherpersonnorthing, with the exception of a quantity of light, was seen: only a voice,said to be the Lord's, heard. In this trance, the Lord is not only heard, but seen. In those visions, that which is said to have been heard, amounts to nothing: on the present occasion, what is said to have been heard, is material to the purpose, and perfectly intelligible. Not that there could be any use in Paul'sactuallyhearing of it: for what it informed him of, was nothing more than that which, at the very time, he was in full experience of. But, in a situation such as his, it was really of use to him, to bethoughtto have heard it: and therefore it is, that, in the speech ascribed to him, he is represented assayingthat he heard it.

FOOTNOTES:[25]In the current chronology, this Epistle to the Galatians is placed in the year 58; on the part of the author of the Acts, the first mention of his being in the company of Paul is placed in the year next following, to wit, 59. Note, that at the end of the Epistle to the Galatians, it is stated to be written from Rome: yet, according to the current chronology, his arrival at Rome, in custody, from Jerusalem,—at which time unquestionably he had never as yet visited Rome,—did not take place till the year 62.[26]First time, Acts ii. 45. Second time, Acts iv. 34.[27]"I conferred not with flesh and blood." (Gal. ii. 16.) "Of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." Not till "after three years" did I go "up to Jerusalem to see Peter." With language in this strain, it would have harmonized but indifferently, to have added, "nor should I have seen him then, had it not been for Barnabas."

[25]In the current chronology, this Epistle to the Galatians is placed in the year 58; on the part of the author of the Acts, the first mention of his being in the company of Paul is placed in the year next following, to wit, 59. Note, that at the end of the Epistle to the Galatians, it is stated to be written from Rome: yet, according to the current chronology, his arrival at Rome, in custody, from Jerusalem,—at which time unquestionably he had never as yet visited Rome,—did not take place till the year 62.

[26]First time, Acts ii. 45. Second time, Acts iv. 34.

[27]"I conferred not with flesh and blood." (Gal. ii. 16.) "Of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." Not till "after three years" did I go "up to Jerusalem to see Peter." With language in this strain, it would have harmonized but indifferently, to have added, "nor should I have seen him then, had it not been for Barnabas."

At his own house it was, that we last left our self-declared Apostle: at his own birthplace—Tarsus: what we have next to see is—what drew him from thence.

All this while there were other disciples that had not been idle. To the new religion, already was Antioch, Antioch in Syria, become a new Jerusalem.

Upon the dispersion of the Jerusalem Christians, occasioned by the judicial murder of the sainted trustee of the poor's fund—Stephen,—some of them, among whom were some natives of Cyprus,—in which island was situated the property of the son of consolation, Barnabas,—had betaken themselves to that same island, others to that same city of Antioch in Syria.

19. Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus,and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.—And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.—And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.—Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.—Who, when he came and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.—For he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

Of these, some addressed themselves exclusively to theJews: others ventured so far, as to make an experiment upon theGrecians. Unfortunately, these terms are, neither of them, wholly free from ambiguity. By the wordJews, may have been meant either Jews bybirthandabode, or Jews byreligion: by the wordGrecians, either Jews who, born or dwelling within the field of quondam Grecian dominion, used the Greek as their native language,—or Greeks, who were such, not only by language, but by religion. In this latter case, their lot was among the Gentiles, and much more extraordinary and conspicuous was the importance of the success.

"They which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel." Such, in his own words, 1 Cor. 9:14, is the maxim laid down by Paul, for the edification of his Corinthian disciples. To save doubts and disputation, he prefaces it with the assurance—"even so hath the Lord ordained." No great need of support from revelation, seems to attach upon a maxim so natural, and so reasonable: from the time of the first planting of the Gospel, it appears to have been, as indeed it could not fail to be, universally acted upon; saving such few exceptions as a happy union of zeal, with sufficient pecuniary means, might render possible.

How, under the Apostolical aristocracy, it had been acted upon in Jerusalem, has been seen already. The time was now come,—for its being established, and acted upon in Antioch.

At Jerusalem, under the spiritual dominion of the Apostles, lived a man of the name ofAgabus. Among the endowments,—of which, in the character ofqualifications, a demand was by some understood to be created, by the business of propagating the new religion,—qualifications, a list of which, according to his conception of it, Paul, 1 Cor. 12:10, has given us,—was one, which, among these endowments, was called the "gift of prophecy":—a gift, under which, as under that of speech in general, particularly when applied to occasions of importance, the faculty ofprediction—of forming correct judgments respecting future contingencies—would, if not necessarily, very frequently at least, come to be included.

In the instance of theprophecyhere in question, this same prospective faculty, it should seem, was actually included.

Thefact, for the purpose of predicting, or giving information of which, this useful emissary was, on the present occasion, sent from Jerusalem to Antioch,—was—that of signifying, that there should be a great dearth: aninferencededuced from it, was—that, at this same Antioch, for the relief of the brethren at Jerusalem,contributionsshould be collected, and sent to Jerusalem.

27. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.—And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be a great dearth throughout all the world; which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.—Thenthe disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea:—Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

In the calamity ofdearthmay be seen one of those events, of which—especially if the time of it be not predesignated with too rigid an exactness—a prediction may be hazarded,—and even by any man,—without much risk of falling under the disgrace attached to the appellation ofa false prophet. Of this observation, an exemplification seems to have been afforded, in the present instance. With not unaccustomed prudence,—"the spirit," by which, on this occasion, the calamity was "signified," forbore, as we see, from the fixation of any particular year—either for the prophecy, or for the accomplishment of it. "The days of Claudius Caesar" are mentioned as the time of the accomplishment. By agreement of all chronologists,—the duration of his reign is stated as occupying not less than thirteen years. Whether this same reign had then already commenced,—is not, on this occasion, mentioned: from the manner in which it is mentioned, the negative seems not improbable; if so, then to find the time which the prophecy had for finding its accomplishment to the definite term of thirteen years, we must add another, and that an indefinite one.

According to the situation, of the individuals by whom the word is employed,—worldsvary in their sizes. Of the dearth in question, the whole world, "all the world," is, by the author of the Acts, stated as having been the afflicted theatre: "great dearth throughout all the world." Acts 11:28. As to the rest of the world, we may leave it to itself. For the purpose then and now in question, it was and is sufficient—that two cities, Jerusalem and Antioch,were included in it. The calamity being thus universal,—no reason of the ordinary kind is given, or seems discoverable—why, of any such contribution as should come to be raised, the course should be—from Antioch to Jerusalem, rather than from Jerusalem to Antioch. Inquired for, however, on religious ground,—areasonpresents itself, without much difficulty. What Rome became afterwards, Jerusalem was then—the capital ofthat world, which now, for the first time, received the name ofChristian. According to one of the sayings of Jesus—if Paul, his self-appointed Apostle, is to be trusted to—of them it was pronounced "more blessed to give than to receive":[28]but in the eyes of the successors of St. Peter at all times,—and at this time, as it should seem, in his own—it wasmore blessed to receive than give.

Of theamountof the eleemosynary harvest, no intimation is to be found. As to theconsequenceof it, Barnabas, we see, is the man stated as having, with obvious propriety, been chosen for the important trust: Barnabas—of whose opulence, trustworthiness, steadiness, and zeal, such ample proofs, not to speak of those subsequent ones, which will be seen in their place, had already manifested themselves. In consequence of the information, already received by the Mother Church in Jerusalem, of the prosperity of the Daughter Church, Acts 11:20, 21, planted, as above, in the capital of Syria,—this most active of all Christian citizens had been sent to give increase to it.

But, of the talents and activity of Paul, his indefatigable supporter and powerful patron had had full occasion to be apprized. Accordingly, without the aid of this his not less indefatigable helper, still was the strength of the rising church, in the eyes of the patron, incomplete. "A prophet," says a not ill-grounded proverb, "has no honor in his own country." In his native city, among the witnesses of his youth, Paul had indeed foundsafety: but, as the nature of the case manifests, in a circle, from which respect stood excluded by familiarity, safety had not been accompanied withinfluence: and, in eyes such as those of Paul, safety without influence was valueless. Under these circumstances,—thepatron, going to Tarsus in person in quest of his protegé, could not naturally find much difficulty in regaining possession of him, and bringing with him the so highly-valued prize, on his return to Antioch. "Then," says the Acts, 11:25, 26, "departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch."

At this place, with their united powers, they had been carrying on their operations for the space of a twelvemonth, when the petition for pecuniary assistance was received there.

As for Paul,—from the moment of his conversion, notwithstanding the ill success of his first attempt,—the prime object of his ambition—the situation of President of the Christian Commonwealth—had never quitted its hold on his concupiscence. Occasions, for renewing the enterprise, were still watched for with unabated anxiety:—a more favourable one than the one herein question, could not have presented itself to his fondest wishes. The entire produce, of the filial bounty of the Daughter Church, was now to be poured into the bosom of the necessitous Mother. For the self-destined head of that rising Church, two more acceptable occupations, than those which one and the same occasion brought to him, could not have been found:—First, the collection of the contributions;—and then the conveying of them, to the place of their destination. Of the labours of such agents, in such circumstances, the success, we are told, they found, was a natural result. "Then," says the Acts 11:29, 30, "Then the disciples, every one according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea:—Which also they did; and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." Thus much as to thepublicpurpose. Very different was the lot ofPaul'spersonalproject. What the elders could not have any objection to the receipt of, was—the money. But, what they had an insuperable objection to, was—the receipt of the yoke of this their outwardly-converted, but once already rejected, persecutor. This second enterprise,—though still under the same powerful leader, and produced by such flattering prospects,—succeeded no better than the first. Five-and-twenty verses after, we are told of theterminationof this their second Jerusalem visit; and this is all we hear of it: "And Barnabas and Saul," says the Acts 12:25, "returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark." This same John Mark they got by their expedition: and this, for anything that appears, was all they got by it.

Between the mention of their arrival at Jerusalem, and the mention of their departure from thence,—comes the episode about Peter:—his incarceration and liberation under Herod; and the extraordinary death of the royal prosecutor,—of which, in its place. As to the interval,—what the length of it was, and in what manner, by Paul, under the wing of the Son of Consolation, it was occupied,—are points, on which we are left altogether in the dark: as also, whether thetimeof these adventures of Peter, thementionof which stands inserted between the mention of the two occurrences in the history of Paul, was comprised in that same interval.

Back to Index Next