FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[38]Gal. 2:1. "Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also."[39]2 Cor. 2:32. "In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me," &c. namely, on his conversion.[40]To this same Partition Treaty, allusion seems discernible in Paul's Epistle to his Roman adherents. Romans 15:15 to 22. "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you, in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,—That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.—I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.—For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed,—through mighty signs and wonders by the power of the spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ.—Yea, so I have strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:—but, as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.—For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you."[41]From this passage in Paul's Epistle to his Galatians[II.], compared with a passage in his first Epistle to the Corinthians[III.]—the Bible edited by Scholey, in a note to Acts xv. 39, (being the passage in which the rupture between Paul and Barnabas is mentioned), draws the inference, that, after this rupture between Paul and Barnabas, a reconciliation took place.From the passage in question, if taken by itself, true it is that this supposition is a natural one enough. For, according to all appearances, the date of this Epistle to the Corinthians is posterior to that of the rupture: and, from the conjunct mention of the two names, if there were no evidence on the other side, it might naturally enough be supposed probable, how far soever from certain, that the intention was thereby, to report the two persons, as operating in conjunction, and even in each other's company. But, to the purpose of the argument no such supposition (it will be seen) is necessary. Labouring they both were herein represented to be, and to all appearance were, in the same field, viz. the field of the Gentiles: labouring, after and in conformity to this same treaty—the agreement made by them with the Apostles—the partition treaty so often mentioned. But, from this it followed not, by any means, that they were labouring in thesame partof that field. For the purpose of the argument, the question was—What was the sort of relation, that had taken place, between these two preachers on the one part, and their respective disciples on the other? It is of this relation that it is stated by Paul, and stated truly, that as between him and Barnabas, it was the same: both being actual labourers in their respective parts of the same field: both being equally at liberty to cease from, to put an end to, their respective labours at any time: not that both were labouring in the same place, or in any sort of concert. "Or I only, and Barnabas, have not we, says Paul, power to forbear working?"Thus inconclusive is the argument, by which the existence of a reconciliation is inferred. Against evidence so weak, the contrary evidence seems decisive. After mention made by him of the rupture,—had any reconciliation ever taken place, within the compass of time embraced by his history, would the author of the Acts have left it unnoticed? That, among his objects was the painting every incident, in colours at least as favourable, to the church in general, and to Paul in particular, as he durst,—is sufficiently manifest. By a rupture between two such holy persons,—a token, more or less impressive, of human infirmity, could not but be presented to view: and, to any reflecting mind—in those marks ofwarmthat least, to say nothing worse, which, from first to last, are so conspicuous, in the character and conduct, of this the historian's patron and principal hero, ground could scarce fail to be seen, for supposing—that it was tohisside rather than that of Barnabas—the generous and ever-disinterested Barnabas—that the blame, principally, if not exclusively, appertained.[II.]Gal. ii. 9. "They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."[III.]1 Cor. ix. 6. "Or, I only, and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?"

[38]Gal. 2:1. "Then fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also."

[39]2 Cor. 2:32. "In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me," &c. namely, on his conversion.

[40]To this same Partition Treaty, allusion seems discernible in Paul's Epistle to his Roman adherents. Romans 15:15 to 22. "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you, in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,—That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.—I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.—For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed,—through mighty signs and wonders by the power of the spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ.—Yea, so I have strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:—but, as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.—For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you."

[41]From this passage in Paul's Epistle to his Galatians[II.], compared with a passage in his first Epistle to the Corinthians[III.]—the Bible edited by Scholey, in a note to Acts xv. 39, (being the passage in which the rupture between Paul and Barnabas is mentioned), draws the inference, that, after this rupture between Paul and Barnabas, a reconciliation took place.From the passage in question, if taken by itself, true it is that this supposition is a natural one enough. For, according to all appearances, the date of this Epistle to the Corinthians is posterior to that of the rupture: and, from the conjunct mention of the two names, if there were no evidence on the other side, it might naturally enough be supposed probable, how far soever from certain, that the intention was thereby, to report the two persons, as operating in conjunction, and even in each other's company. But, to the purpose of the argument no such supposition (it will be seen) is necessary. Labouring they both were herein represented to be, and to all appearance were, in the same field, viz. the field of the Gentiles: labouring, after and in conformity to this same treaty—the agreement made by them with the Apostles—the partition treaty so often mentioned. But, from this it followed not, by any means, that they were labouring in thesame partof that field. For the purpose of the argument, the question was—What was the sort of relation, that had taken place, between these two preachers on the one part, and their respective disciples on the other? It is of this relation that it is stated by Paul, and stated truly, that as between him and Barnabas, it was the same: both being actual labourers in their respective parts of the same field: both being equally at liberty to cease from, to put an end to, their respective labours at any time: not that both were labouring in the same place, or in any sort of concert. "Or I only, and Barnabas, have not we, says Paul, power to forbear working?"Thus inconclusive is the argument, by which the existence of a reconciliation is inferred. Against evidence so weak, the contrary evidence seems decisive. After mention made by him of the rupture,—had any reconciliation ever taken place, within the compass of time embraced by his history, would the author of the Acts have left it unnoticed? That, among his objects was the painting every incident, in colours at least as favourable, to the church in general, and to Paul in particular, as he durst,—is sufficiently manifest. By a rupture between two such holy persons,—a token, more or less impressive, of human infirmity, could not but be presented to view: and, to any reflecting mind—in those marks ofwarmthat least, to say nothing worse, which, from first to last, are so conspicuous, in the character and conduct, of this the historian's patron and principal hero, ground could scarce fail to be seen, for supposing—that it was tohisside rather than that of Barnabas—the generous and ever-disinterested Barnabas—that the blame, principally, if not exclusively, appertained.

From the passage in question, if taken by itself, true it is that this supposition is a natural one enough. For, according to all appearances, the date of this Epistle to the Corinthians is posterior to that of the rupture: and, from the conjunct mention of the two names, if there were no evidence on the other side, it might naturally enough be supposed probable, how far soever from certain, that the intention was thereby, to report the two persons, as operating in conjunction, and even in each other's company. But, to the purpose of the argument no such supposition (it will be seen) is necessary. Labouring they both were herein represented to be, and to all appearance were, in the same field, viz. the field of the Gentiles: labouring, after and in conformity to this same treaty—the agreement made by them with the Apostles—the partition treaty so often mentioned. But, from this it followed not, by any means, that they were labouring in thesame partof that field. For the purpose of the argument, the question was—What was the sort of relation, that had taken place, between these two preachers on the one part, and their respective disciples on the other? It is of this relation that it is stated by Paul, and stated truly, that as between him and Barnabas, it was the same: both being actual labourers in their respective parts of the same field: both being equally at liberty to cease from, to put an end to, their respective labours at any time: not that both were labouring in the same place, or in any sort of concert. "Or I only, and Barnabas, have not we, says Paul, power to forbear working?"

Thus inconclusive is the argument, by which the existence of a reconciliation is inferred. Against evidence so weak, the contrary evidence seems decisive. After mention made by him of the rupture,—had any reconciliation ever taken place, within the compass of time embraced by his history, would the author of the Acts have left it unnoticed? That, among his objects was the painting every incident, in colours at least as favourable, to the church in general, and to Paul in particular, as he durst,—is sufficiently manifest. By a rupture between two such holy persons,—a token, more or less impressive, of human infirmity, could not but be presented to view: and, to any reflecting mind—in those marks ofwarmthat least, to say nothing worse, which, from first to last, are so conspicuous, in the character and conduct, of this the historian's patron and principal hero, ground could scarce fail to be seen, for supposing—that it was tohisside rather than that of Barnabas—the generous and ever-disinterested Barnabas—that the blame, principally, if not exclusively, appertained.

[II.]Gal. ii. 9. "They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

[III.]1 Cor. ix. 6. "Or, I only, and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?"

We now come to the last of the four different and more or less distant occasions on which a personal intercourse, in some way or other, is recorded as having had place, between Paul on the one part, and the Apostles or some of them on the other, antecedently to that, on which Paul's history, so far as any tolerably clear, distinct, and material, information has descended to us, closes. Of this interview, the scene lies at Antioch: Peter having, for some consideration no otherwise to be looked for than by conjecture, been led to pay a visit, to that place of Paul'sthenhabitual abode, after, and, as seems probable, in consequence of, Paul's third recorded visit to Jerusalem—hisDeputation Visit.

Let us now cast an eye on the documents. RespectingPaul's disagreement with Peter, the only one we have, is that which has been furnished us by Paul himself. It consists of the following passage in his Epistle to his Galatians.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.—For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.—And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.—But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter beforethemall, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?—Wewho areJews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles,—knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Let us now see the account, given in the Acts, of what passed in Antioch, in relation to Paul, Barnabas and Silas,—during a period, which seems to be either the same, or one in contiguity with it, probably antecedent to it.

Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord withmany othersalso.—And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren, in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.—And Barnabas determined to take with them John whose surname was Mark.—But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.—And the contentionwas so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark andsailedunto Cyprus;—And Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.—And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

With regard to Paul's separation from Barnabas, departure from Antioch, and taking Silas for a companion,—we have nothing from Paul himself: nothing, from any other source, than, as above, the Acts.

In Paul's account, however, may be seen a passage, Gal. 2:13, by which some light is thrown upon the breach of Paul with Barnabas. In the Acts, though the"contention" is said to be "sharp,"no cause is stated for it, other than a difference respecting the choice of a companion: namely, on an excursion, which they are represented as having agreed to make, in the company of each other, as before.

But, according to Paul, he had had cause of complaint, against his old friend Barnabas, on another account. Barnabas had sided with the Apostles: Barnabas had been "carried away with their dissimulation"; by the dissimulation of those Apostles of Jesus, the virtuous simplicity of the self-constituted Apostle, so he desires his Galatian disciples to believe, had been foiled.

In no place can this man exist, but to exercise hostility or provoke it: with no man can he hold intercourse, without acting towards him, if not in the character of a despot, in that either of an open and audacious, or in that of a secret adversary, or both. Against Peter, at Jerusalem, in his Deputation Visit, he is intriguing, while he is bargaining with him. With the same Peter, when arrived at Antioch, he quarrels: for, at Antioch, Peter was but a visitor—a stranger; Paul, with Barnabas for his constant supporter, was on his own ground: no betrayed rulersthereto fear—no persecuted Christians. He quarrels—so he himself informs his Galatians—he quarrels with the chief of the Apostles: he "withstands him to his face." Why? because, forsooth, "he was to be blamed." In conclusion, to such a pitch,—by the degree of success, whatever it was, which by this time he had experienced,—to such a pitch of intemperance, had his mind swelled—he quarrels even with Barnabas: with Barnabas—in all his three antecedent visits to Jerusalem, his munificent protector, and steady adherent: with that Barnabas, in whose company, and under whose wing, one of his missionary excursions had already been performed. Acts 11:19-27; Ib. 2:37-40.

At Antioch, the number of his competitors could not but be considerable: at Antioch, the number of years, which he appears to have passed in that city,considered,—the number of his enemies could not be small. He accordingly plans, and executes, a new missionary excursion. He stands now upon his own legs: no Barnabas now,—no necessary protector, to share with him in his glory: to share with him, in equal or superior proportion, in the profit of his profession: in that profit, the image of which, in all its shapes, was flitting before his eyes,—and which we shall accordingly see him gathering in, in such unequalled exuberance. He now looks out for a humble companion—an assistant: he finds one in Silas: that Silas, whom, with Judas Barsabas, we have seen come to Antioch, deputed by the Apostles and their disciples, to conclude, in that second metropolis, the negotiation, commenced in the first metropolis of the new Christian world. Deserter from the service in which he was sent, Silas enlists in that of the daring and indefatigable adventurer. Thus much, and no more, do we learn concerning him: for, in the picture drawn in the Acts, no character is given to him, except the being found in company with Paul, in some of the places which Paul visits: except this exercise of the locomotive faculty, nothing is there to distinguish him from the common stock of still-life.

From this fourth recorded epoch in the intercourse between Paul and the Apostles, we now pass to that which stands fifth and last, to wit: that which was produced by his fourth and last visit to Jerusalem:—hisInvasion Visit, A.D. 62.

In the interval, come four years,—occupied by a series of successive excursions and sojournments,—in the course of which, all mention of Silas is dropped, without remark: dropped, in the same obscure and inexplicit manner, in which the historian affords to the reader, supposing him endowed withthe requisite degree of attention, the means of discovering, Acts 16:10, that not long after the commencement of this same period, the historian himself, whoever he was, was taken into the train of the self-constituted Apostle. To the reader is also left the faculty, of amusing himself in conjecturing, about what time, and in what manner, this latter event may have taken place; an event, from which such important consequences have resulted.

Of these portions of Paul's life, some view will come to be taken, in a succeeding chapter, under another head:—under the head of Paul's supposed miracles: for, it is in the account given of his achievements and adventures, and of the transactions in which, in the course of this period, he was engaged,—it is in the course of this account, that we shall have to pick up, the supposed accounts of supposed miracles, which, in this part of the Acts history lie interspersed. This review must of necessity be taken, for the purpose of placing in a true light, the evidence, supposed to be thus afforded, in support of his claims to a supernatural commission.

To this change of connection on the part of Silas,—from the service of the Apostles of Jesus to that of the self-constituted Apostle,—the character ofdefectionon the part of Silas,—seductionon the part of Paul,—may here be ascribed without difficulty. By the Apostles, one Gospel was preached—the Gospel of Jesus:—we see it in the Evangelists. By Paul, another and different Gospel was preached:—a Gospel, later and better, according to him, than that which is to be seen in the Evangelists:—a Gospel of his own. If, even down to this time, mutual prudence prevented an open and generally conspicuous rupture,—there was on his part, at any rate, an opposition. If, to men, whose conduct and temper weresuch as they uniformly appear to have been,—any such word aspartycan, without disparagement, be applied, here were twoparties. He, who wasforthe self-constituted Apostle, wasagainstthe Apostles of Jesus. In a word, in the language of modern party, Silas was arat.

In regard to the Partition Treaty,—taking the matter from Paul's first, or Reconciliation Visit, A.D. 35, to his departure from Antioch, on his missionary excursion, after the interview he had had at that city with Peter,—the state of the affairs, between Paul and the Apostles, seems to have been thus:—

1. On the occasion, and at the time, of his first Jerusalem Visit—his Reconciliation Visit—a sort of reconciliation—meaning at least an outward one—could not,—consistently with the whole train, of what is said of his subsequent intercourse and interviews with the Apostles,—could not but have taken place.

2. Of this reconciliation, the terms were—that, on condition ofhispreaching in the name of Jesus,—theywould not, to such persons in Jerusalem and elsewhere, as were in connection with them,—speakof him any longer in the character of a persecutor: for, by his disobedience and breach of trust, as towards the Jerusalem constituted authorities,—such he had put it out of his power tobeany longer: not speak of him as a persecutor, but, on the contrary, as an associate:—he taking up the name of Jesus:and preaching—never in his own, but on every occasion in that holy, name.

3. On this occasion,—it being manifest to both parties, that, by his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, and with the learning belonging to that language, he was in a peculiar degree well qualified to spread the name of Jesus among the Gentiles in general;—that is, among those to whom the Jewish was not a vernacular language;—whereas their acquaintance with language was confined to their own, to wit, the Jewish language;—on this occasion, it followed of course, from the nature of the case, and almost without need of stipulation, that,—leaving tothem, for the field of their labours, Jerusalem, and that part of the circumjacent country, in which the Jewish alone was the language of the bulk of the population,—heshould confine his exertions, principally if not exclusively, to those countries, of which Greek was, or at any rate Hebrew was not, the vernacular language.

To him, at that time, it was not in the nature of the case, that absentation from Jerusalem, or any part of the country under the same dominion, should be matter of regret. Within that circle, he could not, for any length of time, abide publicly, for fear of the legal vengeance of the constituted authorities: nor yet among the Christians; although from their chiefs he had obtained, as above, a sort of prudential endurance; considering the horror, which his persecution of them had inspired, and the terror, with which, until his conversion had been proved in the eyes of all by experience, he could not as yet fail to be regarded.

Whatever was the object of his concupiscence,—whether it were the fund—and we have seen how attractive the bait was—which, at that time, in thatmetropolis of the Christian world, offered itself to an ambitious eye,—still, though his opportunities had as yet confined his exertions to thesecondcity in that increasing world, his eyes never ceased looking to thefirst.

Twice, accordingly, between the first of his Visits,—his Reconciliation Visit—and this his last interview with Peter,—we see him visiting that inviting spot: each time, protected and escorted by the munificent Barnabas and his influence—to make him endurable: each time with a public commission—to make him respected:—- the first time with money in his hand—to make him welcome.

That, all this while, neithergood faithnorprudencewere capable of opposing to the violence of his ambition, any effectual check,—- is abundantly manifest.

Thatgood faithwas not, we learn distinctly from himself. For though, from the very nature of the two correlative situations, it is out of all question, as above, that, without some agreement to the effect above mentioned, he could not, even with the benefit of every possible means of concealment, have been preserved for two days together from the vengeance which pressed upon him, frombelowas well as fromabove; yet still was he, by his secret intrigues, Gal. 1:11, violating the treaty, at the expense of those upright, patient, and long-suffering men, to whose observance of it, he was every day indebted for his life.

Of the financial stipulation, the account we have has been seen:—an account given by one of the parties to it—Paul:—the other party being—the Apostles. In the instance of Paul, in the demonstration, supposed to be given of it, the worldliness, of the motives which gave birth to it, has in a manner been taken for granted. Well, then, if in the one instance such was the character of it,—in the other instance, can it have been any other? The question is a natural one; but not less so is the answer. For note, the stipulation is express—that, by Paul—by Paul out of the profits of his vocation—the poor, meaning the poor of Jerusalem—the poor among the disciples of the Apostles—should be remembered. Remembered, and how? Remembered, by payment of the money—into the hands, either of the Apostles themselves, or, what comes to the same thing, some other persons, in connection with them, and acting under their influence. Now, then, once more. Of the man, by whom the money was to bepaid—of this man, the motives, you say, were worldly: is it credible then, that they should have been less so, in the instance of the men by whom they were to bereceived?

Answer. Oh! yes,thatit is. Between the two cases, there is this broad difference. Whatever Paul might receive, he would receive for himself: whatever,after payment made, under the treaty, to the use of the Jerusalem poor, he retained,—he might retain for his own use. But the Apostles—that which, if anything, they received, in the name of the poor, and as for the use of that same poor,—would they—could they, for their own use, retain it, or any part of it? Not they, indeed. Not in their hands were the poor's funds: not in theirs, but in a very different set of hands:—in the hands of a set of trustees—of the trustees already mentioned in this work, Ch. 2—of those administrators, whose function, to every reader who has not the Greek original in view, is so unfortunately disguised by the wordDeacons. And these deacons, by whom appointed? By the Apostles? No; but, by the whole communion of the saints—by the whole number of the members of the Christian commonwealth;—and in the way of free election,—election, on the principle of universal suffrage. Monarchists and Aristocrats! mark well!—of universal suffrage.

So much for the treaty itself. Now, as to the subsequent conduct of the parties, under it, and in relation to it. As to the partition—Paul to the Gentiles, Peter and his associates to the Jews—such was the letter of it. Such being the letter—what, at the same time, was the spirit of it? Manifestly this: on the one hand, that the field, to which Paul's exertions should apply themselves, and confine themselves, should be that field, for the cultivation of which, with any prospect of success, he was exclusively qualified: on the other hand, that the field, to which their exertions should apply themselves and confine themselves, should be that, for the cultivation of which, they were—if not exclusively, at any rate more peculiarly, qualified. In a word—that, of all that portion of the world, that presented itself as open to theexertions, of those who preached in the name of Jesus,—they should reserve to themselves that part which was already in their possession, to wit, Jerusalem, and its near neighbourhood, together with such parts of Judea, and its neighbourhood, of which their own language, the Hebrew, was the vernacular language: this minute portion of the world reserved, all the rest was to be left open to him: over every other part of it he was to be at liberty to cast forth his shoe. Judea—the country of the Jews? say, rather, the Jews themselves:—the Jews wherever found: for, revelation apart, it was inlanguage, that Paul's pretensions—his exclusive qualifications—consisted. The Apostles spoke nothing but Hebrew: Paul was learned, and eloquent, in a certain sort, in Greek.

In regard to the interpretation to be put upon this treaty,—suppose any doubt to have place,—in the wordGentile, would obviously the seat and source of it to be to be found. Suppose, on the one handpersonsto be the objects, of which it was meant to be designative,—then, let there be but so much as one single uncircumcised man in Jerusalem, or elsewhere,—to whom, in the view of gaining him over to their communion, the Apostles, or, with their cognizance, any of their disciples, addressed themselves,—here would, ontheirpart, be a breach of the treaty. Suppose, on the other hand,placesto be the objects, of which it was meant to be designative,—on that supposition, within that tract of country, within which alone, the necessary means, of communicating with the bulk of the population, were in their possession,—they might apply themselves, to all persons without restriction: and this, still without any real breach of the agreement—of the spirit and real import of the agreement.

In respect either ofpersons or places, by the agreement, according to this—the obvious sense of it—what was it that Paul gave up? In truth, just nothing. Hadhismind been in a sober state,—strange indeed, if the field thus afforded by the whole heathen world, was not wide enough for his labour: in all parts of it he could not be at once; and the most promising parts were open to his choice. Cessation of Paul's hostilities excepted, what was it that the Apostles gained? Not much more.

As already observed—what was not gained by it, is what is above: what was really gained by it, is what follows.

What Paul gained was—exemption from the annoyance, which otherwise he would everywhere have been exposed to have received, by being designated as the quondam notorious persecutor, and still unreconciled enemy, of the Apostles and their disciples:—in a word, of all others who preached in the name of Jesus.

That which the Apostles actually gained, was—that confirmation and extension of their influence, which followed of course, upon every extension, received by that field, within which the influence of the name of Jesus was extended.

That which, besides what is above, theyought tohave gained, but did not gain, is—exemption from all such annoyance, as could not but be inflicted on them, in proportion as Paul, preaching to persons, to whomtheyhad access, a Gospel which was his, and not theirs,—should, while in pretence and name an associate, be, in truth and effect, an adversary and opponent.

This is what—though they not only should have gained, but might also reasonably have expected to gain—they didnotgain. For, not to insist any moreon his secret intrigues in Jerusalem itself, and his open opposition in the second Jerusalem, Antioch, as above; we shall—when we come to the next and last of his interviews with the Apostles on the occasion of his Invasion Visit—see, to what lengths the madness of his ambition carried him, in that birthplace and metropolis of the Christian world.

By the sort of connection, which, notwithstanding such obvious and naturally powerful principles of discrimination, have on each occasion, been visible, as between the undoubted Apostles, and this self-styled one—three distinguishable questions cannot but, from time to time, have been presenting themselves:—1. The sort of countenance—partial, cold, and guarded as it was—shown by the old established and goodly fellowship to the ever-intruding individual—is it credible? 2. Can it, in fact, have been manifested, in conjunction with a disbelief, on their part, of his pretensions to a degree of supernatural favour with the Almighty, equal or superior to their own? 3. And, if not only possible, but actual—was it, in point of morality, justifiable?

By a few obvious enough considerations, an answer—and, it is hoped, a not altogetherunsatisfactoryone,—may be given to all these questions.

As to whatever was natural in the course of the events, Barnabas was necessary to the rising Church: and Paul was, all along, necessary, or, at least, was so thought, to Barnabas.

1. Barnabas was necessary to the Church. Already, it has been seen, how preeminent was the support received by it from his munificence. In him, it had found at once the most liberal of benefactors, and, unless Peter be an exception, the most indefatigable of agents. On the part of no one of even the chosen servants of Jesus, do proofs of equal zeal and activity present themselves to our view.

In an ensuing chapter, we shall see Peter trying his strength among the Gentiles. Yet, from the direction thus given to his Apostolic zeal, no violation of the treaty, it will be seen, can with justice be imputed to him, if the interpretation above given to the wordGentilesbe correct.

1. In the first place,—according to the Acts, the date of this excursion isantecedentto that third interview, which took place on the occasion of Paul's third Jerusalem Visit—his Deputation Visit: that is to say, to the time, at which, and not before, though, if the above reasoning be just, in a sort of general terms the preliminaries had been agreed upon, the general preliminary arrangements were followed, confirmed, explained, and liquidated, by more particular ones.

2. In the next place—of all the places,—which, in the course of this excursion of Peter's, are mentioned as having been visited by him,—there is not one, that Paul is mentioned as having ever visited: whereas, in the first of them that is mentioned, the Apostles are mentioned as having already a band of disciples.[42]

3. In the third place,—the date, assigned to this excursion of Peter's, is, by several years, antecedent even to the first, of the several excursions of Paul's, of which mention is made in the Acts. In the received chronology—date assigned to the commencement of Peter's excursion, A.D. 35; date assigned to Paul's first excursion, A.D. 45.

While Peter was thus occupying himself, Paul was still at Tarsus:[43]at Tarsus—his own birthplace—whereto,—in consequence of the danger, to which his life had been exposed by his first Jerusalem Visit, his Reconciliation Visit,—he had taken his flight.[44]

4. In the fourth place,—notwithstanding the perpetual hostility of Paul's mind, as towards Peter and the rest of the Apostles,—on no occasion, on the score of any breach of this article in the partition treaty, is any complaint, on the part of Paul, to be found. When dissatisfaction is expressed, doctrine alone is mentioned by him as the source of it: doctrine, the ostensible; dominion, the original and real source.

Spite of the treaty,—spite of the manifest interest, of the only genuine religion of Jesus—the Gospel taught by the Apostles,—still in places to which they had access—in places in which, in consequence, they had formed connections,—he persisted in intruding himself: intruding himself, with that Gospel which he says himself, was his, not theirs—and not being theirs, was not Jesus's:—intruding himself, in places, in which, even had his Gospel been Jesus's,theirconnections being established, there existed no demand for him andhis. Can this be doubted of? If yes, all doubt will at any rate be removed, when,—spite of all the endeavours that could be employed, either by them or by his own adherents, to prevail upon him to desist,—we shall see him entering Jerusalem on his Invasion Visit: as if, while, for preaching the religion of Jesus, all the world, with the exception of the Jewish part of it, was not enough for this intruder,—the Apostles of Jesus—eleven in number, with their elected associate, Matthias,—were not, all together, enough, for that small part of it.

Thenamehe preached in,thatindeed not his own, but Jesus's: but thedoctrinehe preached—the Gospel, as he called it—notJesus's, nor anybody else's, but his own. All this, as he has the assurance to declare,—all this did he preach without their knowledge. And why without their knowledge? because, as he himself has the still more extraordinary assurance todeclare—forconfessionis the result not of assurance, but weakness—because, as he himself acknowledges,—if so it had been, that this Gospel of his had come to the knowledge of the Apostles—of those associates, to whom he was all along holding out the right hand of fellowship, this Gospel of his could not have been listened to—this preaching of his would have been in vain.

Already, however—for in this he may be believed—already, throughout thisfirstintercourse, though the expression is not used till he came to speak of thethird,—already must the right hand of fellowship have been held out, and on both sides: and, what followed of course,—and was not only affirmed by his statement, but demonstrated by the result,—on this last occasion was the treaty again brought upon the carpet and confirmed, after such modifications as it may naturally have received, from the consideration of intervening incidents.

FOOTNOTES:[42]Acts 9:32. "And it came to pass, as Peter passed through all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda."[43]Acts 11:25. "Then departed Barnabas for to seek Saul." A.D. 43.[44]Acts 9:30, "Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea and sent him forth to Tarsus."

[42]Acts 9:32. "And it came to pass, as Peter passed through all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda."

[43]Acts 11:25. "Then departed Barnabas for to seek Saul." A.D. 43.

[44]Acts 9:30, "Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea and sent him forth to Tarsus."

Of this momentous visit to say what were the real objects, must in a great part be left to conjecture:—to inferences drawn from the known circumstances of the case. By himself, as will be seen, they were concealed with the most persevering anxiety.

But, in default of direct evidence, the point may without much danger of error be settled by circumstantial evidence. The common objects of political concupiscence—money, power and vengeance—were all before his eyes:money—in no less a quantity than that of the aggregate mass of the property of the whole church:—that fund, for the management of which, the Apostles' seven trustees, under the name of Deacons, were not more than sufficient:—that fund, by which the repulsed concupiscence of the sorcerer of Samaria had so lately been excited:—power, that which was exercised by the direction of the consciences of the whole number of the faithful, some time before this, not less in number than three thousand:vengeance, for the repeated rebuffs, by which,at the interval of so many years from each other, his endeavours to supplant the Apostles had been repelled.

In a general point of view, ambition,—rival ambition,—the same motive which sent Caesar to Rome, may be stated as having sent Paul, at this time, to Jerusalem: to Jerusalem—the metropolis of the Christian world, by design; and thence, eventually and undesignedly, to the metropolis of the whole civilized world.

By two opposite desires—two antagonizing but correspondent and mutually explanatory desires—desires, in both parts intense and active, the external marks of which are sufficiently visible in two different quarters,—the nature as well as prevalence of this motive, will, it is believed, be found sufficiently proved:—a desire, in the breast of the self-constituted Apostle, to establish himself in the original metropolis of the Christian world:—a desire on the part of the Apostles—of the Apostles constituted by Jesus—to keep him out of it.

Ephesus, at which place he had arrived not long after his departure from Corinth, where he had made a stay, as it should seem, of more years than one,[45]touching in the way at Cenchrea, where he shaved hishead for the performance of a vow—Ephesus is the place, at which, by the author of the Acts, Paul is for the first time made to speak of himself, as harbouring, having in mind the making of this visit: and on that occasion, the visit is spoken of, as being the subject of a settled determination, and in particular as being the time fixed upon by him for the execution of this design. Acts 18:20, 21. "When they, the Jews at Ephesus, desired him to tarry longer with them, he consented not; but bade them farewell, saying, I mustby all means keep this feastthat cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again to you if God will."

As to the keeping of this or any other feast at Jerusalem or at any other place—if it was under any such notion as that of contributing to his own personal salvation by any such Mosaic work, it was an object inconsistent with his own principles—with his own so repeatedly and strenuously advocated principles:—and the like may be said of the head-shaving and the vow, performed by him, at Cenchrea, in his way to Ephesus from Corinth: and moreover, in this last-mentioned instance, more particularly in contradiction with a precept so positively delivered by Jesus, namely,Swear not at all,—if, under swearing, the making of vows is to be understood to be included.

Of this design, the next intimation which occurs in the Acts, is in the next chapter, Acts 19:21, "When these things were ended," namely, the discomfiture of the exorcists, and the burning of the books of curious arts at Ephesus,—"Paul, it is said,purposes in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome."

Fortunate it is for the credit—eitherof the spirit, or of Paul, or of the author of the Acts, that it was onthis second occasion only, and not on the first, that it wasin the spiritthat he proposed to go to Jerusalem by the then next feast: for, notwithstanding the "must" and the "by all means,"—so it is, that between those his two determinations as above, no less a space of time than two years is stated as elapsing, on one occasion, at one and the same place.[46]And this place—what was it? it was Ephesus: the same place, at which, on his departure from it, the first determination was declared: after which, and before this his second visit to Ephesus,—he is represented as having visited Cæsarea and Antioch.

The next mention, is that which occurs in the next chapter, chapter 20:16. "Paul," we are there told, being then at Miletus, "had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost."

At Miletus it is, that he sends for, and receives, from Ephesus, a number of his adherents in that place. Upon their arrival, he is represented as making a formal speech to them: and now, he not merely proposes in the spirit, as before, but is "bound in the spirit," to go thither.[47]Vain would be the attempt to ascertain, with any approach to exactness, the interval of time, during which the operation of the spirit remained in a sort of suspense betweenpurposeandobligation: it may have been months, only: it may have been years.

While, by one spirit, Paul was thus urged on, every now and then, towards Jerusalem;—by the same spirit, or by another spirit, he was pulled back.[48]

In the very next verse, Acts 20:22, in which he speaks of his being "bound in the spirit unto" that place, not knowing, as, in his speech, he thereupon adds,—"not knowing the things that shall befall me there,"—he goes on, and says: "Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things," says he, ver. 24, "move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God."

To raise, in the breast of Paul, the expectation, that of his proceeding in the course it was his way to take in preaching that religion, to which, from a persecutor, he had, in appearance, become a convert, affliction, in a variety of shapes, might prove to be the fruits,—needed no information from the spirit; if, by receiving information from the spirit, he meant any communication of a supernatural kind—anything beyond information in the ordinary shape;—be the effect—be the purpose, good or bad,—such is the lot, that awaits innovation in the field of politics—the spiritual part included, as well as the temporal—at all places, and all times.

A passage, which now presents itself, helps to show how easily and copiously, out of a few words, written in ancient times, mysteries and miracles have been manufactured in modern times. In Acts 20:22, wehave seen Paul, "bound in the spirit," as he is made to assure us, to go unto Jerusalem. In the next chapter, 21:4, we find disciples ... who said to Paul, "through the spirit," that he shouldnotgo up to Jerusalem. Oh! what a useful word this wordspirit! Let a man say plainly and simply, I shall go, or be going, to Jerusalem—or, Don't go to Jerusalem,—his words go for no more than they are worth: in either case, with a proper proposition to introduce it, add the word "spirit," the matter becomes serious. Out of a word or two, you thus add to the Godhead a third person, who talks backward and forward for you, and does for you whatever you please.

At so small a price, even to this day, are manufactured, every day, a sort ofverbalmiracles, which, as many as are disposed, are welcome to improve into real ones.

To reconcile men to this expedition of Paul's, the spirit was the more necessary,—inasmuch as it was not in his own power, or even in that of any one of his numerous attendants and dependants, to assign so much as one ostensible reason for it.

That, to the advancement of religion—of the religion of Jesus—no such presence of his was necessary;—that no good could result from it;—that much evil could not but result from it;—was obvious to all eyes. Of the original number of the Apostles,—for aught that appears, not less than eleven were still remaining on the spot: men, to every one of whom, all acts and sayings of Jesus were, by memory, rendered so familiar:—men, on the part of some of whom, and, at any rate, on the part of the chief of them, Peter,—there was no want of zeal and activity. While to these men a single city, or, at the utmost, one small region—composed the whole field of exertion—the whole earth besides is left open by them to Paul: still,such is the ravenousness of his ambition, nothing can content him, but he must be intruding himself—thrusting his restless sickle into their ripening harvest.

All this—is it not enough? Well then, take this one other—this concluding proof. In the teeth of all their endeavours, and among them, some that will be seen extraordinary enough, to prevent it,—was undertaken the fourth and last of his four recorded visits to their residence—Jerusalem.

But, in the first place, in the utter indefensibility of the design, shall be shown thecause, of the opposition so universally made to it.

Tired of a mixture of successes and miscarriages,—disdaining the conquests he had been making in so many remote, and comparatively obscure regions of the world,—he had formed—but at what precise time, the documents do not enable us to pronounce—the determination, to exhibit his glories on the two most illustrious of theatres:—in the two capitals—Jerusalem, of the Jewish, and now of the Christian world; Rome, of the whole classical heathen world:—and in the first place, Jerusalem, now, for the fourth time since his conversion. It was at Ephesus, as we have seen, this determination was first declared.

To Rome, he might have gone, and welcome: namely, in so far as his doctrines could have confined themselves within the limits of those of Jesus: which, however, it will be seen, they could not: but,success being moreover supposed, nothing but good could such visit have had for its result.

But, by a visit to any place other than Jerusalem, various were the points of spleen and ambition, that could not have been satisfied. Nothing would serve him, but, over that Edom Jerusalem, he would, in the first place, cast forth his shoe.

Unless the eleven most confidential servants, selected by Jesus himself to be the propagators of his religion, were altogether unworthy of the task thus allotted to them,—nothing to the good purposes of that religion could be more palpably unnecessary, nothing to the purposes of peace and unity more pernicious, than the intrusion thus resolved upon. That the number of these legitimately instituted Apostles had as yet suffered any diminution, is not, by any of the documents, rendered so much asprobable. Neither in the works of Paul himself, nor in that of his historiographer, is any intimation to any such effect to be found. In their own judgments, had there been any need of coadjutors—any deficiency of hands for the spiritual harvest,—they well knew how to supply it. Of the sufficiency of such knowledge, they had given the most incontestable proofs: the election of Matthias was the fruit of it. They showed—and with a disinterestedness, which has never since had, nor seems destined to have, any imitators—that, in the Christian world, if government in any shape has divine right for its support, it is in the shape of democracy;—representative democracy—operating by universal suffrage. In the eye of the Christian, as well as of the philosopher and the philanthropist, behold here the onlylegitimategovernment: the form, the exclusion of which from the Christian world, has been the object of that league, by which, by an unpunishable, yet the most mischievous—if not the onlymischievous—sort of blasphemy, the name of Christian has been profaned.

This method of filling offices, was no more to the taste of Paul, than to that of a Napoleon or a George. He determined to open their eyes, and prove to them by experience, that monarchy,—himself the first monarch—was the only legitimate form of government. The difficulties of the enterprise were such as could not escape any eyes:—least of all his own: but to die or conquer was his resolve: so he himself declares.[49]What, in case of success, would have been the use made by him of it? The fate of the Apostles may be read in the catastrophe of Saint Stephen: the vulgar herd would, in his eyes, have been as declaredly foolish as the Galatians. Gal. 3:1. "O, foolish Galatians!" Who did bewitch you, etc.

The invasion was not less inconsistent with good faith, than with brotherly love, peace and unity. It was a direct violation of thepartition-treaty: that treaty, of which he gives such unquestionable evidence against himself, in the boast he makes of it to his Galatians. Gal. 2:9. "When James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

To find so much as the colour of a reason for this perfidy, was too much for the ingenuity of hisattendantpanegyrist. In the eyes of the whole body of his attendants, of whom the historian was one, so completely unjustifiable was his design in every point of view,—they joined in a remonstrance to him, beseeching him to give it up.

Back to Index Next