FOOTNOTE:

FOOTNOTE:[28]Acts 20:35. It is in the parting scene—when about to break from his dissuading disciples, and enter upon his invasion project—that Paul is represented as saying to them: "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Whence this self-appointed and posthumous Apostle of Jesus got these words of Jesus—if such they were—must be left to conjecture. In the works of the four received biographers of Jesus, withCrudenand hisConcordancefor guides, all search for them has been fruitless.

[28]Acts 20:35. It is in the parting scene—when about to break from his dissuading disciples, and enter upon his invasion project—that Paul is represented as saying to them: "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Whence this self-appointed and posthumous Apostle of Jesus got these words of Jesus—if such they were—must be left to conjecture. In the works of the four received biographers of Jesus, withCrudenand hisConcordancefor guides, all search for them has been fruitless.

We come now to the transaction, on the occasion of which, the grand object of Paul's ambition received, in part, its accomplishment: namely, that, by which,—though without any such popular election as, in the instance of Matthias, had been necessary to constitute a man an associate to the Apostles,—he was, in some sort, taken by them into fellowship, and admitted, with their consent, into a participation of their labours.

This occasion was—the dispute, which, in the Syrian Antioch, took place, according to the author of the Acts, on the question—whether, under the religion of Jesus, circumcision was necessary to salvation: a question, in which,—whether explicitly or no,—was implicitly, it should seem, and perhaps inextricably, understood to be involved, the so much wider question—whether, under that same new religion, the old ceremonial law should, in any part of it, be regarded as necessary.

On this same occasion, two important subjects present themselves to view at the same time: the one, a question ofdoctrinerelative to circumcision, as above; the other, a question aboutjurisdiction, as between Paul on the one part, and Peter, with or without the rest of the Apostles.

As to what concerns the debate about circumcision, we have no other evidence than the statement of the author of the Acts.

As to what concerns the jurisdiction question, we have the evidence of Paul himself, as contained in his letter to the Galatian converts: and an original letter, howsoever dubious the correctness of the author in respect of matters of fact, is more trustworthy than a multitude of anonymous narratives.[29]

In respect of the progress made by the religion of Jesus,—Antioch, it has already been observed—the Syrian Antioch—had become a second Jerusalem; and, so far as concerned the Gentiles at large, its maritime situation gave to it a convenience, that was not shared with it by that inland city.

At the time here in question,—the Gentiles had received more or less of instruction, from three different sets of teachers:—1. from the disciples who had been driven from Jerusalem by the tragical death of Saint Stephen; 2. from Saint Peter, principally on the occasion of the excursion made by him to Lydda, Saron, Joppa, and Cæsarea; and 3. from Paul and Barnabas, on the occasion, and by the means, of the long tour, made by them for that special purpose, as above.

At this maritime metropolis of the faith, the new religion was spreading itself,—and, as far at least as depended on exemption from all disturbance from without, in a state of peace and tranquility;—when, by a set ofnamelessmen from Judea,—if to the author of the Acts credit is to be given on this point, for by him no mention is made of any one of their names,—the harmony of the Church was disturbed.

Converts as they were to the religion of Jesus, yet,—in their view of the matter, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, without circumcision, no salvation was to be had.

By Paul it is said, "they came from James," Gal. 2:12, which is as much as to say that they were sent by James: and accordingly, when James's speech is seen, by him will these scruples of theirs be seen advocated.

If the Gospel history, as delivered by the Evangelists, is to be believed,—nothing could be more inconsistent, on many occasions with the practice, and at length with the direct precepts, of Jesus, than this deference to the Mosaic law: if human prudence is to be regarded,—nothing could be more impolitic—nothing more likely to narrow, instead of extending, the dominion of the Church. On this principle, no man who was not born a Jew, could be a Christian without first becoming a Jew, without embracing the Mosaic law; and thus loading himself with two different, and mutually inconsistent, sets of obligations.

From Paul, this conceit,—as was natural,—experienceda strenuous resistance. No recognition as yet had Paul received, from the body of the Apostles. In Jerusalem, for anything that appears,—though this was at least seventeen years after the death of Jesus—they remained alive—all of them:—at any rate the two chiefs of them, if Paul is to be believed, who, Gal. i. 19, says he saw them, namely, Saint Peter "and James, the Lord's brother": which two, he says, he saw, out of a number, the rest of whom, he studiously assures his Galatians that he did not see: though by his historiographer, Acts 15:4, by his all-comprehensive expression, "the Apostles," we are desired to believe, that he saw all of them.[30]Whichever be the truth,—at Jerusalem, the metropolis of Judaism, no employment could, under these circumstances, be reasonably expected for Paul: whereas,outof Judea,—wherever the language of Greece was the mother tongue, or familiarly spoken,—the advantage, which, in every address to the Gentiles, he would have over those unlearned Jews, was universally manifest.

Such, however, were the impressions, made by these unnamed manufacturers and disseminators of scruples, who, if Paul is to be believed, came from James the brother of our Lord—that, by the whole Church, as it is called, of Antioch, a determination was taken—to send to Jerusalem, to the Apostles and the Elders that were associated with them, a numerous mission, headed by Paul and Barnabas, who are the only two persons named. Accordingly, out they set, "after having been brought on their way," says the author of the Acts, 15:3, "by theChurch," which is as much as to say, by the whole fraternity of Christians there established.

Against the pretensions of a man thus supported, vain, on the part of the original and real Apostles, would have been any attempt, to resist the pretensions of this their self-constituted rival: they, Barnabas and Paul, were received, says the author of the Acts, of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders.[31]

Arrived at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas told their own story—related their adventures and experiences—declared, to use the language of the Acts 15:4, all things that God had done unto them.

Notwithstanding the utmost exertion of Paul's ever-ready eloquence,—some, it is stated, there were, who, believers as, in a certain sort, they were in the religion of Jesus,—were not to be persuaded, to give up so much as a single tittle of the Mosaic law: these were, as it was natural they should be, of the sect of Pharisees. "There rose up," says the Acts 15:5, "certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them (the Gentiles), and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Of these private discussions, the result was—the convocation of an assembly of the managing body, in which, associated with the Apostles, we find others—under the name ofElders.

How, on an occasion, on which the proposed subject of determination was a question of such cardinal importance to the religion of Jesus;—how it should have come to pass, that the Apostles, to whom alone, and by whom alone, the whole tenor of the acts and sayings of Jesus had been made known—made known by an uninterrupted habit of exclusive intimacy, and especially during the short but momentous interval between his resurrection and ascension;—how it should have happened, that, to the Apostles, any other persons not possessed of these first of all titles to credence and influence, should have come to be associated,—is not mentioned. Upon no other authority than that of this author, are we to believe it to be true? On the supposition of its being true,—thereseems to be, humanly speaking, but one way to account for it. That which the Apostles, and they alone,couldcontribute to the cause, was—the authority and the evidence resulting from that peculiar intimacy: what they couldnotcontribute was—money and influence derived from ordinary and external sources: to the exclusive possession of these latter titles to regard, will, therefore, it should seem, be to be ascribed, supposing it credited, the circumstance of an incorporation otherwise so incongruous.

"Received," say the Acts 15:4, they were.—But by whom received?—By the Church, by the Apostles, by the Elders, says that same history in that same place. BytheApostles: to wit—so as any one would conclude—byallthe Apostles—by the whole fellowship of Apostles.

Whether in any, and, if so, in what degree that conclusion is correct, we have no determinate means of knowing.

If, however, it was so to the utmost,—nothing appears in favor of the notion, that between Paul on the one part, and the Apostles and their disciples on the other, there existed at this time any real harmony. For, in what character was it that he made his appearance? In that of a commissioned envoy, from the whole body of the Church, established in that station, which was next in importance to Jerusalem, to which he was sent. And who was it that, at that time, as on both the former times, he, Paul, had in his company? Still his constant patron and associate Barnabas—the munificent friend and patron of that church which he was visiting—the indefatigable Barnabas.

By Paul himself, in his Epistle to the Galatians, 2:9, 10, 11, the idea of any such extensive cordiality,—sayrather of cordiality to any the smallest extent,—is pretty plainly negatived.[32]On that occasion, it was that of the Partition Treaty, what his interest required was—that, on the part of the Apostles and their disciples, the concurrence given to it, should appear as extensive as possible. If then they had all of them, really and personally concurred in it,—or even if the contrary had not been notorious, this is the conception which he would have been forward to convey and inculcate. No such notion, however, does he venture to convey. When speaking of them in general terms—of no affection on either side, more kindly than that of ill humor, does he give any intimation. Gal. 2:6. "Of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepted no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me."

When, again, he comes to speak of the sort of intercourse, such as it was, which he had with the Apostles,—who are the persons that he speaks of? All the Apostles? the body of the Apostles in general?—No: James, Cephas, the Hebrew name of which Peter is a translation, and John: these three, and no more. These are the men, whom, to him Paul and his protector Barnabas in conjunction, he on that same occasion speaks of, as "giving the right hand of fellowship:"to wit, for the purpose of the Partition Treaty, the terms of which immediately follow.

And, even of these men, in what way does he speak? As of men "who seemed to be pillars:" so that, as to what concerned the rest of the Apostles, he found himself reduced to speak no otherwise than by conjecture. And this same "right hand of fellowship"—what was their inducement for giving it?—It was, says he, that "they perceived the grace that was given unto me":i.e., in plain language, and ungrounded pretension apart,—the power, which they saw he had, of doing mischief:—of passing, from the character of a jealous and restless rival, into that of a declared enemy: into that character, in which he had originally appeared, and with such disastrous effect.

Immediately after this comes the mention of the visit, made by Peter to Antioch: and therefore it is, that, no sooner is Peter—that chief of the Apostles of Jesus—mentioned,—than he is mentioned, as a man whom this Paul "withstood to his face, because he was to be blamed." Gal. 2:11.

Peter was to be blamed: those other Jews that were come to Antioch from James—they were to be blamed. Barnabas, under whose powerful protection,—by the Church at Jerusalem, her justly odious persecutor had, at three different times, been endured,—he too was to be blamed. He too was, at that time, to be blamed; and, as will be seen presently after, openly quarrelled with; and, if on this point the Acts are to be believed, parted with. Acts 15:39. "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus."

Of what passed at this assembly, the only account we have—the account given to us by the author of the Acts—is curious:—curious at any rate; and whether it be in every particular circumstance true or not,—in so far as it can be depended upon, instructive.[33]

We have the persons mentioned as having spoken: they are, in the order in which they are here enumerated, these four:—to wit, Peter, Barnabas, Paul and James. Of the speech of Peter, the particulars are given: so likewise of that of James: of Barnabas and Paul, nothing more than the topic.

Against the Mosaic lawin toto, we find Peter; and such contribution as he is represented as furnishing to this side of the cause in the shape of argument. On the same side, were Barnabas and Paul: what they furnished was matter of fact:—namely, in the language of the Acts, "what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them:"—in plain language, the success they had met with among the Gentiles.

On this question, on the side of the chief of the Apostles, were—the manifest interest of the religion of Jesus as to extent of diffusion,—the authority derived from situation,—the express command of Jesus as delivered in the Gospel history,—and Jesus' own practice: not to speak of the inutility and unreasonableness of the observances themselves. Yet, as far as appears from the author of the Acts,—of these arguments, conclusive as they would or at least should have been,—it appears not that any use was made: the success, he spoke of as having been experienced by himself among the Gentiles,—in this may be seen the sole argument employed in Peter's speech. Thus,—in so far as this report is to be believed,—thus, upon their own respective achievements, did,—not only Paul but Peter,—rest, each of them, the whole strength of the cause.

Spite of reason, religion, and Jesus, the victory is in this account, given to James—to Jesus' kinsman, James. The motion is carried: the course proposed, is a sort of middle course—a sort of compromise. Atthe hands of Gentile proselytes, in deference to the Mosaic law, abstinence from four things is required: namely, meats offered to idols, blood, things strangled: these, and the irregularities of the sexual appetite,—whatsoever they were, that were meant by the word, rendered into English by the wordfornication.

If any such decision were really come to,—by nothing but necessity—necessity produced by the circumstances of place and time—will it be found excusable. Abstinence from food killed in the way of sacrifice to heathen gods, on the occasion of public sacrifices: yes; for, for such food, little relish could remain, on the part of persons devoted to the religion of Jesus: from fornication, yes; for, for a sacrifice in this shape, even among the Gentiles, some preparation had been made by stoicism. But, as to blood and things strangled,[34]that is to say, animals so slaughtered as to have more blood left in their carcasses than the Mosaic law would allow to be left in them—animals slaughtered otherwise than in the Jewish manner,—thus forbidding teachings of the religion of Jesus, to eat a meal furnished by Gentile hands,—this, as above observed, was depriving them of their most favourable opportunities, for carrying their pious and beneficent purposes into effect, by adding to the number of believers.

Altogether remarkable is theconsideration, upon the face of it, by which, if the historian is to be believed, this decision was produced. "For Moses ofold time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in synagogues every sabbath day," Acts 15:21. "May be so: but what if he has? what is that to the purpose? Good, if the question were about the Jews: but, it isnotabout the Jews: the Gentiles, and they only, are the subjects of it. And the Gentiles—what know or caretheyabout Moses? what is it that is to sendtheminto the synagogues, to hear anything that is "read in synagogues"?

By this imaginary abstinence from blood,—for, after all, by no exertion of Mosaic ingenuity could the flesh ever be completely divested of the blood that had circulated in it,—of this perfectly useless prohibition, what would be the effect?—Not only to oppose obstacles, to the exertions of Christian teachers, in their endeavors to make converts among the Gentiles,—but, on the part of the Gentiles themselves to oppose to them a needless difficulty, in the way of their conversion, by rendering it impossible for them, consistently with the observance of this prohibition, to associate with their unconverted friends and families at convivial hours. Thus much as to what concerns the Gentiles.[35]

Since, and from that time, the religion of Jesus has spread itself:—we all see to what extent. Spread itself: and by what means? By means of the decision thus fathered upon the Apostles? Upon the Apostles, the Elders, and the whole Church?—No: but in spite of it, and by the neglect of it.

Charged with a letter, containing this decision, did Paul, together with his friend Barnabas, return from Jerusalem,—if the author of the Acts is to be believed,—to the society of Christian converts, by which he had been sent thither: charged with this letter, carrying with it the authority of the whole fellowship of the Apostles. Paul himself—he Paul—what sort of regard did he pay to it?He wrote against it with all his might.No more Jewish rites! No more Mosaic law! Such is the cry, that animates the whole body of those writings of his which have reached us.

Of a decision, agreed upon and pronounced to the above effect—a decision expressed by a decree;—and of a copy of that decree, included in and prefaced by a letter addressed to the saints at Antioch,—were Paul and Barnabas, along with others who were associated with them, on their return to that city, the bearers:—that is to say, if, as to these matters, credence is given, to the statement, made by the author of the Acts; by whom the alleged decree and letter are given, in words, which, according to him, were their very words:—these words are those which follow:

22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Pauland Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.—And they wrote letters by them after this manner: The Apostles and elders, and brethren,sendgreeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.—Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Yemustbe circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:—It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,—Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.—We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.—For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;—That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.—So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle.—Whichwhen they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.—And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmedthem.

Supposing it genuine,—a most curious, important and interesting document, this letter and decree must be allowed to be. Supposing it genuine: and, in favor of its genuineness, reasons present themselves, which, so long as they remain unopposed, and no preponderating reasons in support of the contrary opinion are produced, must decide our judgment.

Not long after the account of the acceptance given at Antioch to this decision,—comes that of a conjunct missionary excursion from that place made by Paul, with Timotheus, and perhaps Silas, for his companion. At the very commencement of this excursion—if, in the decree spoken of, this decree is to be understood as included; and there seems no reason why it should not be, they are represented as taking an active part in the distribution of it. Acts 16:4. "And says the historian, as they" (Paul, &c.) "wentthrough the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders that were at Jerusalem."

That, by Paul, this token, of association with the Apostles, should at that time be exhibited and made manifest, seems altogether natural. It affords a further proof, of the need, which, at that period of his labors, he regarded himself as having, of the appearance—the outward signs at least—of a connection with the Apostles.

True, it is, that the persuasion of any such need is altogether inconsistent with that independence, which, in such precise and lofty terms, we have seen him declaring in his Epistle to his Galatians,—is sufficiently manifest. But, in the current chronology, the date, ascribed to that Epistle, is by five years posterior, to the date ascribed to the commencement of this excursion: date of the excursion, A.D. 53; date of the Epistle, A.D. 58: difference, five years: and five years are not too great a number of years, for the experience of success and prosperity, to have raised to so high a pitch, the temperature of his mind.[36]

Even before this time, we find him even outstretching the concessions, which, in that decree, in the case of the Gentiles, in compliance with the scruples of the Jewish disciples they had to deal with, we have been seeing made by the Apostles, in favor of the Mosaic law. Abstinence—from meat offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication—composed all the Mosaic observances exacted inthat decree. To these, he, in his practice, at this time, added another, andthat, in respect of extent, in a prodigious degree a more important one: to wit, the submitting to circumcision. For, to this painful observance,—in which a submission to all the other Mosaic observances was implied,—he had already subjected his new convert Timotheus, whom, in this excursion, in addition to Silas, he took with him for a companion. Born of a Greek father as he was,—adult as he was,—he took him, says the historian, and circumcised him. Circumcised him—and why?—"Because of the Jews, which were in those quarters."[37]

FOOTNOTES:[29]Acts xv. 1 to 4:—"1. And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren,and said, Except ye be circumised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.—2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question.—3. And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.—4. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and Elders; and they declared all things that God had done with them."[30]Gal. i. 18, 19. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.—9. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."Acts 15:4. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and oftheApostles and Elders; and they declared all things that God had done with them."The cause of this contrariety lies not far beneath the surface. Paul had one object in view; his historiographer another. In the two passages, they wrote at distant times, and with different purposes. In his address to his Galatian disciples, Paul's object was to magnify his own importance at the expense of that of the Apostles: to establish the persuasion, not only of his independence of them, but of his superiority over them. The generality of them were not worth his notice; but having some business to settle with them, Peter, the chief of them, he "went" to see, and James, as being "the Lord's brother," he vouchsafed to see. On that particular occasion, such was the conception which Paul was labouring to produce: and such, accordingly, was his discourse. As for the historiographer, his object was, of course, throughout, to place the importance of his hero on as high a ground as possible. But, in this view, when once Paul had come to a settlement with the Apostles, the more universal the acceptance understood to have been received by him—received from the whole body of Christians, and from those their illustrious leaders in particular,—the better adapted to this his historiographer's general purposes would be the conception thus conveyed: accordingly they were received, he says, "of the Church, and the Apostles, and Elders."[31]Acts xv. 4. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders, and they declared all things that God had done unto them."[32]Gal. ii. 6. "But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.—And when James, Cephas, 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.—Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.—But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."[33]Acts 15:5-21. 5. "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.—And the Apostles and Elders came together for to consider of this matter.—And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.—And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even ashe didunto us;—And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.—Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?—But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.—Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.—And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:—Simon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.—And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,—After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:—That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.—Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.—Wherefore my sentence is,—that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:—But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.—For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."[34]After the word blood, the mention made of things strangled seems to have been rather for explanation than as a separate ordinance. Of strangling, instead of bleeding in the Jewish style,—what the effect would be, other than that of retaining blood, which the Mosaic ordinance required should be let out, is not very apparent.[35]Another observation there is that applies even to the Jews. By Moses were all these several things forbidden. True: but so were a vast multitude of other things, from, which (after the exceptions here in question) the prohibition is, by this decision, taken off. These things, still proposed to be prohibited, as often as they entered a synagogue, they would hear prohibited: but, so would they all those other things, which, by this decision, are left free.[36]In the account of this excursion, Galatia—now mentioned for the first time in the Acts,—is mentioned, in the number of the countries, which, in the course of it, he visited. It stands fourth: the preceding places being Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Phrygia. Acts 16:1 to 6. In Acts 18:23, "He ... went over [all]Galatia... strengthening the disciples."[37]Acts 16:1 to 3. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess and believed: but his father was a Greek:—Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.—Him would Paul have to go forth to him, and took and circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

[29]Acts xv. 1 to 4:—"1. And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren,and said, Except ye be circumised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.—2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question.—3. And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.—4. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and Elders; and they declared all things that God had done with them."

[30]Gal. i. 18, 19. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.—9. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."Acts 15:4. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and oftheApostles and Elders; and they declared all things that God had done with them."The cause of this contrariety lies not far beneath the surface. Paul had one object in view; his historiographer another. In the two passages, they wrote at distant times, and with different purposes. In his address to his Galatian disciples, Paul's object was to magnify his own importance at the expense of that of the Apostles: to establish the persuasion, not only of his independence of them, but of his superiority over them. The generality of them were not worth his notice; but having some business to settle with them, Peter, the chief of them, he "went" to see, and James, as being "the Lord's brother," he vouchsafed to see. On that particular occasion, such was the conception which Paul was labouring to produce: and such, accordingly, was his discourse. As for the historiographer, his object was, of course, throughout, to place the importance of his hero on as high a ground as possible. But, in this view, when once Paul had come to a settlement with the Apostles, the more universal the acceptance understood to have been received by him—received from the whole body of Christians, and from those their illustrious leaders in particular,—the better adapted to this his historiographer's general purposes would be the conception thus conveyed: accordingly they were received, he says, "of the Church, and the Apostles, and Elders."

[30]Gal. i. 18, 19. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.—9. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Acts 15:4. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and oftheApostles and Elders; and they declared all things that God had done with them."

The cause of this contrariety lies not far beneath the surface. Paul had one object in view; his historiographer another. In the two passages, they wrote at distant times, and with different purposes. In his address to his Galatian disciples, Paul's object was to magnify his own importance at the expense of that of the Apostles: to establish the persuasion, not only of his independence of them, but of his superiority over them. The generality of them were not worth his notice; but having some business to settle with them, Peter, the chief of them, he "went" to see, and James, as being "the Lord's brother," he vouchsafed to see. On that particular occasion, such was the conception which Paul was labouring to produce: and such, accordingly, was his discourse. As for the historiographer, his object was, of course, throughout, to place the importance of his hero on as high a ground as possible. But, in this view, when once Paul had come to a settlement with the Apostles, the more universal the acceptance understood to have been received by him—received from the whole body of Christians, and from those their illustrious leaders in particular,—the better adapted to this his historiographer's general purposes would be the conception thus conveyed: accordingly they were received, he says, "of the Church, and the Apostles, and Elders."

[31]Acts xv. 4. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders, and they declared all things that God had done unto them."

[32]Gal. ii. 6. "But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.—And when James, Cephas, 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.—Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.—But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

[33]Acts 15:5-21. 5. "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.—And the Apostles and Elders came together for to consider of this matter.—And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.—And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even ashe didunto us;—And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.—Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?—But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.—Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.—And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:—Simon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.—And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,—After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:—That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.—Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.—Wherefore my sentence is,—that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:—But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.—For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

[34]After the word blood, the mention made of things strangled seems to have been rather for explanation than as a separate ordinance. Of strangling, instead of bleeding in the Jewish style,—what the effect would be, other than that of retaining blood, which the Mosaic ordinance required should be let out, is not very apparent.

[35]Another observation there is that applies even to the Jews. By Moses were all these several things forbidden. True: but so were a vast multitude of other things, from, which (after the exceptions here in question) the prohibition is, by this decision, taken off. These things, still proposed to be prohibited, as often as they entered a synagogue, they would hear prohibited: but, so would they all those other things, which, by this decision, are left free.

[36]In the account of this excursion, Galatia—now mentioned for the first time in the Acts,—is mentioned, in the number of the countries, which, in the course of it, he visited. It stands fourth: the preceding places being Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Phrygia. Acts 16:1 to 6. In Acts 18:23, "He ... went over [all]Galatia... strengthening the disciples."

[37]Acts 16:1 to 3. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess and believed: but his father was a Greek:—Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.—Him would Paul have to go forth to him, and took and circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus withmealso.—And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.—But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:—and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.—To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.—But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me;—but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me,as the gospelof the circumcisionwasunto Peter;—For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:—and when James, Cephas, 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.—Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.—Butwhen 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 before them all, 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?—We who are Jews 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.

So much for the question about Jewish rites.

We come now to the state of affairs between Paul and Peter. Concerning this, we have little, as hath been seen, from the author of the Acts: from Paul himself, not much: but what there is of it is of prime importance.

On this occasion, to judge from the account given in the Acts,—between Paul and Peter, all was harmony. In their principles, in their speeches, they may be seen pleading on the same side: arguing, and arguing in vain, both of them against the superior influence of James: of that James, of whose written works, in comparison of those we have from Paul, we have so little. But presently, on one side at least,—we shall see contention—preserving contention—and rival ambition, for the cause of it.

In this pregnant and instructive letter,—Paul's second letter to his Galatians,—the authenticity of which seems to be altogether out of the reach of doubt,—among the particulars, that bear relation to this the third visit, the following are those, by which the greatest share of attention seems demanded at our hands.

In the first place, let us view them in the order in which theystand: that done, the degree ofimportancemay determine the order in which they areconsidered.

1. Fourteen is the number of years, between this third visit of his to Jerusalem, reckoning either from the first of his visits made to that same holy place after his conversion, or from his departure from Damascus after his return thither from Arabia.

2. On this journey of his to Jerusalem, he has with him not only Barnabas, as mentioned in the Acts, butTitus, of whom no mention is there made.

3. It is by revelation, that this journey of his was undertaken.

4. The Gospel, which he then and there preaches, is a Gospel of his own.

5. Private at the same time, and for reasons thereupon given, is his mode of communicating it.

6. Titus, though at his disposal, he leaves uncircumcised.

7.False brethrenis the appellation he bestows upon those, who, on this occasion, standing up for the Mosaic law, give occasion to this debate.

8. Elders, Apostles, kinsmen of Jesus,—be they who they may,—he, Paul, is not on this occasion a man to give place to any such persons: to give place bysubjection: say rather in the way ofsubordination.

9. Unnamed are the persons, on whom the vituperation he discharges, is poured forth. Thus much only is said of them: namely, verse 12, that they "came from James," the brother of our Lord. Contemptuous throughout is the manner in which he speaks of all those persons whom he does not name. Quere, Who are they, to whom, in everything that goes before that same verse, he is alluding? It seems from thence, that it was with James, from whom theyreceived support, that those scruples of theirs, out of which sprung these differences and negotiations, originated.

10. Leaving the Jews to Peter—he claims to himself as his own the whole population of the Gentiles.

11. To this effect, an explicit agreement was actually entered into; parties, he and Barnabas of the one part; James, Peter, by his Hebrew surname of Cephas, and John, of the other part.

12. Of this agreement, one condition was—that, of such pecuniary profit, as should be among the fruits of the labors of Paul among the Gentiles, a part should be remitted, to be at the disposal of Peter.

13. Paul, at the time of this visit, stood up against Peter.

14. The cause, of his doing so, was—an alleged weakness and inconsistency in the conduct of Peter, and his gaining to his side—not only Jews of inferior account, but Barnabas.

15. The weakness and inconsistency consisted in this: viz: that whereas he himself had been in use to act with the Gentiles, yet after the arrival at Antioch of those who came from James at Jerusalem,—he from fear of the Jewish converts, not only ceased to eat with the Gentiles, but to the extent of his influence forced the Gentile converts to live after the manner of the Jews.

16. On the occasion of this his dispute with Peter, he gave it explicitly as his opinion,—that, to a convert to the religion of Jesus, Jew or Gentile,—observance of the Mosaic law would, as to everything peculiar to it, be useless, not to say worse than useless, Gal. 2:16, "for by the works of the law shall no "flesh be justified."

1. As to his place in relation to the Apostles. His was not inferior to anybody's: upon terms altogetherequal did he treat with the Apostles: in and by the first partition treaty,—he, with Barnabas for his colleague,—Barnabas, from whom, according to the Acts, he afterwards separated,—obtains the whole of the Gentile world for the field of their labors. Thus elevated, according to his account of the matter, was the situation, occupied by him on the occasion of this his third visit to Jerusalem, in comparison of what it had been at the time of his first,—and, to all appearance, at the time of the second. At the time of his first visit, the Apostles,—all but Peter and James, upon which two Barnabas forced him,—turned their backs upon him: upon his second visit, none of them, as far as appears, had anything to do with him: now, upon his third visit, they deal with him upon equal terms: and now, not only Peter and James, but John, are stated as having intercourse with him.

2. Of this partition treaty, important as it is, no mention is to be found in the Acts. From first to last,—in the account given in the Acts, no such figure does he make as in his own. In the Acts, of the speech of Peter, and even of that of James, the substance is reported: of Paul's, nothing more than the subject: viz. his own achievements among the Gentiles: against Paul's opinion, as well as Peter's, the compromise, moved by James, is represented as carried.

3. As to the cause, or occasion, of his third visit to Jerusalem. In the account given in the Acts, it is particularly and clearly enough explained. It is in conjunction with Barnabas that he goes thither: both of them, to confer with the Apostles and elders, on the subject of the notion, entertained by numbers among the Jewish converts, that, by conversion to the religion of Jesus, they were not set free from any of the obligations imposed by the law of Moses.

Of this commission,—creditable as it could not but have been to him,—Paul, in his account of the matter, as given to the Galatians, makes not the least mention. No: it is not from men on this occasion nor on others, it is not from men, that he received his authority, but from God: it is by revelation, that is, immediately from God, and by a sort of miracle.

4. What, in obedience to this revelation, he was to do, and did accordingly, was,—the preaching of a gospel of his own; a gospel which as yet he had not preached to any body but the Gentiles. Preaching? how and where? in an assembly of the whole body of the believers in Jesus, the Apostles themselves included? No: but privately, and only to the leading men among them: "to them which were of reputation."

A gospel of his own? Yes: that he did. Further on, it will be seen what it was: a Gospel, of which, as far as appears from the evangelists, no traces are to be found, in anything said by Jesus: especially, if what, on that occasion, he, Paul, taught by word of mouth at Antioch, agreed with what we shall find him teaching in his Epistles.

5. "False brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring up into bondage." Liberty? what liberty? evidently that liberty which consisted in exemption from the ceremonials of the Mosaic law. Who then were these false brethren, these sticklers for the ceremonial law? If the account in the Acts is to be believed,—they were the greater part of the fraternity of Christians in Jerusalem: a party so considerable, that Peter, the chief of the Apostles, though in his sentiments on this subject so decidedly and completely opposite to them, was obliged to give way to it: and, as to several ofthe obligations,—by which, as above stated, no small obstacle was opposed to the progress of the religion of Jesus,—the whole body of the Apostles found themselves under the like necessity. If he himself is to be believed, Gal. 2:12, the men in question were men, who, if they continued in those scruples in which they went beyond the brother of our Lord, had, at any rate, in the first instance, received from that highly distinguished personage their instructions. And shortly after this, Acts 16:3, in deference to this party, Paul himself "took Timothy, a Gentile, and circumcised him." But, supposing the public transactions, thus reported in the history of the author of the Acts, to have really had place;—namely, mission of Paul and Barnabas, from the Christians of Antioch to Jerusalem,—mission of Judas Barsabas and Silas, from the Apostles and elders, with Paul and Barnabas in their company, to Antioch,—letter of the Apostles and elders sent by them to the Christians of Antioch,—all this supposed, how erroneous soever in their opinions, in affirmance of the obligatoriness of these ceremonials,—this majority, to whose scruples the whole body of the Apostles saw reason to give way,—could they, by this self-intruded convert, be considered as persons to whom the epithet offalse brethren, would be admitted to be applicable?

6. Does it not seem, rather, that this story, about the deputation of Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and brethren at Jerusalem from the Apostles at Antioch, and the counter deputation of Judas Barsabas, and Silas, to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return to Antioch, bearing all of them together a letter from the Apostles at Jerusalem,—was an invention of the anonymous author of the Acts? or else a story, either altogether false, or false in great part, picked up by him, and thus inserted?

7. Mark now, in this letter of Paul, another circumstance: and judge whether it tends not to cast discredit on what is said of Peter in the Acts.

In the Acts account we have seen Peter in the great council, supporting, in a sort of speech, the liberty side—of the question,—Jesus against Moses,—supporting it in the great council, in which, in that same account, Paul, though present, is, as to that point, represented as silent: in that same account, shall we see Peter, five years before this time, addressing himself to the Gentiles,—using this same liberty,—and, when called to account for doing so, employinghispair of visions, his and Cornelius's, Acts 10:30-41, in and for his defence: we shall see him in this new part of his career,—in this part, for which he was by both education and habits of life so ill qualified,—we shall see him so much in earliest in this part of his labors, as to have expended miracles,—a supernatural cure, and even a raising from the dead,—for his support in it.

Had any such facts really happened—facts in their nature so notorious,—would Paul, in this letter of his to the Galatians, have spoken of Peter, as if he had never made, or attempted to make, any progress in the conversion of the Gentiles? Speaking of the sticklers for Moses, as well as of Peter,—would he have said "When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was to Peter?" Gal. 2:7, "For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles?"

That, in some way or other, Peter had tried his hand upon some persons who were Gentiles—in this there is nothing but what may well enough be believed: provided it be also believed—that, in the experimentso made by him, he had little or no success:—for, that after the expenditure of two such miracles of so public a nature, besides a pair of visions,—he had after all made so poor a hand of it, as to be content to give up to Paul the whole of his prospects from that quarter,—does it seem credible?

8. As to the partition-treaty itself,—whatsoever were the incidents that had brought it about, nothing could be more natural—nothing more probable—nothing more beneficial to the common cause—to the religion of Jesus, meaning always so far as the religion taught by Paul was comfortable to it. Each retained to himself the only part of the field, for the cultivation of which he was qualified: each gave up no other part of the field, than that, for the cultivation of which he wasnotqualified.

9. Gal. 2:12. "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.

10. "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.

11. "And when James, Cephas, 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.

12. Gal. 2:10. "Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

13. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

14. "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they werecome, 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.

15. "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, 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?"

16. "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."

Note, in this same letter, the mention made of Peter's eating with the Gentiles. "For before that certain came from James, he, Peter, did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

Note here, an additional reason for discrediting the whole story of Peter's expedition,—miraclesand visions included,—as reported in the Acts. In regard to thevisions,—from this circumstance it may be seen, that either no such visions were, as stated in the Acts 11:1-13, related by Peter, on his defence against the accusations preferred against him on this ground,—or that, if any such relation was given, no credit was given to it: for, it is after this, and, according to appearance, long after,—that, according to the Acts 15:1-33, not less than five years after, the meeting at Jerusalem took place; that meeting, at which, at the motion of James, the adherence to the Mosaic lawwas indeed in part dispensed with; but, so far as regards the practice charged upon Peter as an offence,—namely the eating with the Gentiles, insisted on and ordained.

If Paul's evidence was good and conclusive evidence in support of Paul's visions,—how came Peter's evidence not to be received as good and conclusive evidence in support of Peter's visions? Paul's evidence, with the visions reported by it, was not better evidence, in support of his claim to the Apostleship,—than Peter's visions, if the account in the Acts is to be believed, in support of the abrogation of the Mosaic law. Yet, as, according to the author of the Acts, by Paul's account of his visions, the Apostles were not any of them convinced; so here, according to Paul, by Peter's account of his visions, if ever really related to the fellowship of the Apostles, and to the elders,—their associates,—that same goodly fellowship was not convinced.

Of this important treaty, mention may have been seen above. In the financial stipulation which may have been observed in it,—may be seen a circumstance, by which an additional degree of credibility seems to be given, to Paul's account of the transaction; at the same time that light is thrown upon the nature of it. Paul alone, with his adherents, were to address themselves to the Gentiles: but, in return for the countenance given to him by Peter and the restof the Apostles, he was toremember the poor; which is what, says he, "I also was forward to do." Now, as to the remembering the poor, what is meant by it at this time of day, was meant by it at that time of day, or it would not have been meant by it at this:—supplying money, need it be added? for the use of the poor. Whatsoever, in relation to this money, was the intention of the rulers,—whether to retain any part in compensation for their own trouble, or to distribute among the poor the whole of it, without deduction;—in other words, whether profit as well as patronage,—or patronage alone, and without profit,—was to be the fruit;—human nature must, in this instance, have ceased to be human nature, if, to the men in question—Apostles as they were—the money could have been altogether an object of indifference. According to a statement, to which, as above, ch. ii., though contained in this anonymous history, there seems no reason to refuse credence,—community of goods—a principle, even now, in these days, acted upon by the Moravian Christians—was a principle, acted upon in those days, by the Jewish Christians. The property of each was thrown into one common stock: and the disposal of it was committed to a set of trustees, who—it is positively related—were confirmed, and, to all appearance, were recommended by,—and continued to act under the influence of,—the Apostles.

On neither side were motives of the ordinary human complexion—motives by which man's nature was made to be governed—wanting, to the contracting parties. By Peter and the rest of the Apostles, much experience had been acquired, of the activity and energy of this their self-constituted colleague: within that field of action, which alone was suited to their powers, and within which they had stoodexposed to be disturbed by his interference, within that field to be secured against such interference,—was, to them and their interests, an object of no small moment. Such seems to have been the consideration, on the part of the acknowledged and indisputable Apostles.

Not less obvious was the advantage, which, by the stipulation of this same treaty in his favour, was in a still more effectual manner, secured to Paul. That, when the whole transaction was so fresh,—all that Paul was able to say for himself, with all that Barnabas was able to say for him, had not been sufficient, to induce the Apostles to give credence to his story about the manner of his conversion,—in a word, to regard him in any other light than that of an impostor,—is directly asserted by the author of the Acts. So again, in his unpremeditated speech to the enraged multitude, Acts 22:18, "They will not receive thy testimony concerning me," is the information which the Acts make him report as having been communicated to him by the Lord, when "while I prayed in the Temple," says he, ver. 17, "I was in a trance." Should a charge to any such effect happen to encounter him in the course of his labours;—should he, in a word, find himself stigmatized as an impostor;—find himself encountered by a certificate of impostorship;—a certificate, signed by the known and sole confidential servants, as well as constant companions, of that Jesus, whom—without so much as pretending any knowledge of his person, he had thus pretended to have heard without seeing him,—and at a time and place, in which he was neither heard nor seen by anybody else;—it is obvious enough, in any such case, how formidable an obstruction of this sort was liable to prove. On the other hand, so he were but once seen to be publicly recognized, in thecharacter of an associate and acknowledged labourer in the same field,—a recognition of him in that character—a virtual recognition at least, if not an express one—would be seen to have taken place:—a recognition, such as it would scarcely, at any time after, be in their power to revoke: since it would scarcely be possible for them, ever to accuse him of the principal offence, without accusing themselves of the correspondent connivance. Note, that, of this treaty, important as it was—this partition-treaty—by which a division was made of the whole Christian world—no mention, not any the least hint, is to be found in the Acts.

Thus much for this third visit of Paul's to Jerusalem, reckoning from the time of his conversion: thus much for this third visit, and the partition-treaty that was the result of it. In and by his fourth visit to that original metropolis of the Christian world,—we shall see how this same treaty was violated—violated, without any the slightest reason or pretext, or so much as an attempt, on the part of his anonymous biographer,—either by his own mouth, or by that of his hero,—to assign a motive. Violated—that is to say, by and on the part of Paul: for, of Peter, no further mention is, in all this history, to be found.

The truth is—that, instead of "the Acts of the Apostles," the History of Paul—namely, from the time of his conversion to the time of his arrival at Rome—would have been the more proper denomination of it. Of any other of the Apostles, and their acts,—little, if anything, more is said, than what is just sufficient, to prepare the reader, for the history of Paul, by bringing to view the state of the Christian world, at the time of his coming upon the stage. As to Saint Peter,—the author's chief hero beingall along Saint Paul, in whose train, during this last-mentioned of his excursions, he represents himself as being established,—what is said of Saint Peter and his achievements, stands, as it were, but as an episode. And though, by this historiographer, no mention is made of thepartition-treaty, it has eventually been of use to us, by serving to show what, at the time of entering into that engagement, was the situation of St. Peter; and how good the title is, which the transaction presents to our credence,—as being so natural, because so manifestly for the advantage of both the contracting parties, as well as of the religion of Jesus, in so far as that of Paul was conformable to it.

The time, at which this partition-treaty took place, appears involved in much obscurity, and presents some difficulties: question—whether it was at the first, or not till the third, of these visits—of these four visits of Paul's to Jerusalem.

The consideration, by which the assigning to it the time of the first visit has been determined, is—that it was at this first visit, that the demand for it, in respect of all interests concerned, namely, that of the religion of Jesus—that of the existing Christians in general,—as well as that of the individuals particularly concerned on both sides,—took place: that, from that time, so, as far as appears, did the observance of it: and that it was not till a long timeafter, that either symptoms, or complaints of non-observance, seem to have made their appearance.

4. Among the conditions of the treaty, the financial stipulation has been brought to view:—party to be remembered, the poor—then under the gentle sway of the Apostles: party, by whom they were to be remembered, Paul—their recognized, though, for aught appears, no otherwise than locally and negatively recognized, associate. In and by the Deputation Visit, on the part of Paul, with the assistance of Barnabas,—we see this stipulation actually conformed to and carried into effect. From the Christians at Antioch to the Apostles at Jerusalem,—for the benefit of the poor, at that metropolis of the Christian world, by the conjoined hands of Paul and Barnabas,—money, it has been seen, was actually brought.

On the other hand, an observation which, at first sight, may seem to shut the door against this supposition, is—that whereas in his letter, to his Galatians, Gal. i. 18, 19, after saying, "I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days," and adding, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother"; he, not more than fourteen verses afterwards, Gal. 2:9, in the verse in which his account of this important treaty is continued,—speaks as if it was at that very time that he had seen—not only the above two Apostles, on this occasion designated by the names of James and Cephas—but John likewise: and that this must have been his third Jerusalem visit, because it is aftermentionmade of that same third visit, which, in a passage intermediate between these, namely, Gal. 2:1, is stated, in express terms, as being by fourteen years posterior to his first visit,[38]that this circumstance, of his seeing John likewise, is mentioned as having had place.

But, in neither of these considerations, is there anything, that presents itself as conclusive, against the supposition—that whatever treaty there was, took place at the first visit.

1. As to the first, at that time it is, that for giving intimation of the treaty,giving the right hands of fellowshipis the expression employed: and that if this union were to be taken in a literal, and thence in a physical sense, as an agreement in which, as a token of mutual consent, the physical operation of junction of hands was employed,—here must have been an actual meeting, in which John was seen as well as the two others—and, consequently, on the supposition that the account thus given by Paul, is, in this particular, on both occasions correct,—this must have been a different meeting from the first: on which supposition, on comparison with the account given in the Acts of Paul's second visit,—there can be no difficulty in determining that this visit cannot have been any other than the third. But, so evidently figurative is the turn of the expression,—that, even in the language used in this country at this time, slight indeed, if it amounted to anything at all, would be the force, of the inference drawn from it, in favour of the supposition of mutual presence. To signify an agreement on any point—especially if regarded as important—who is there that would scruple to speak of his having given the right hand of fellowship to another, although it were known to be only by letter? or, even through the medium of a common friend, and without any personal intercourse?

2. As to the other consideration, whatsoever might be the force of it, if applied to a composition ofmodern times—after so many intervening centuries, during several of which the arts of literary composition have, with the benefit of the facilities afforded by the press, been the subject of general study and practice;—whatsoever on this supposition might be the force of it, applied to the style and character of Paul, little weight seems necessary to be attached to it. Of the confusion—designed or undesigned—in which the style of this self-named Apostle involves every point it touches upon, not a page can be read without presenting samples in abundance, to every eye that can endure to open itself to them: in this very work, some must probably have already offered themselves to notice; and before it closes, many will be presented in this express view: the point in question belongs to the field of chronology: and, of the perturbate mode of his operation in this field, a particular exemplification has been already brought to view, Ch. 2, in a passage, in which, of a long train of sufferings and perils,—some real, some to all appearance not so—the one first undergone is last mentioned.[39]From the order in which two events are mentioned by this writer, no argument, in any degree conclusive, can be deduced, for the persuasion, that that which stands first mentioned, was so much as intended by him to be regarded as that which first took place.

In the very passage, in which the giving the right hands of fellowship to him and Barnabas is mentioned, and immediately after these very words,—it is said—that "weshould gounto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." Thus, then, the conjunctexcursion of Paul and Barnabas—an excursion, not commenced till about ten years after this same first visit, Acts 13 and 14, is mentioned, as an incident atthattime future. True it is, that the word directly expressive of the future is, in the English translation, but an interpretation, and as such marked. But, had any prior excursion of this kind taken place before, there seems no reason to suppose, that the event, which, by the context, would surely have been taken for an event then as yet to come,—would, had the intention been to represent it as no more than a repetition of what had taken place already, have received a form, so ill adapted to its intended purpose.

But, two verses before, stands that, in which mention is made of the circumstance, by which, according to Paul, the course taken by the Apostles, in respect of their entering, into this treaty, is brought to view. "But contrariwise," says he, Gal. 2:7, "when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, asthe Gospelof the circumcision was unto Peter:" 9. "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,perceivedthe grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that weshould gounto the heathen," ... &c.

Now theseperceptions—the perceptions thus ascribed by him to the Apostles—when was it that they were obtained? Evidently at no time whatever, if not at the time of hisfirstvisit: for, these were the perceptions—say rather the conceptions—the conveyance of which is beyond dispute manifest, not only from the whole nature of the case, according to the accounts we have of it, but from the account expressly given by the author of the Acts; and thataccount, in some part confirmed, and not in any part contradicted, by Paul himself, and in this very epistle.[40]

To conclude. That, at the time of the Deputation Visit, Visit III., the treaty in question could not but have been on the carpet, seems, it must be confessed, altogether probable, not to say unquestionable. But, that at the time of the Reconciliation Visit, Visit I.,—it was already on the carpet, seems, if possible, still more so. For, without some understanding between Paul and the Apostles—and that to the effect of this same treaty (the impossibility that Paul's conversion story should have been the cause, having, it is believed, been hereinabove demonstrated) without some understanding of this sort, neither the continuance ascribed to the Reconciliation Visit, nor the existence of either of the two succeeding visits, to wit, the Money-bringing Visit, and this Deputation Visit, seem within the bounds of moral possibility.[41]

Back to Index Next