To perfect success it was necessary, that not only these shepherds of the Church pasture, but, through them the whole flock, should thus be brought under management. So far as regarded those same _rulers_, we shall find him, in a certain degree,--and even, with reference to his purpose, in a sufficient degree,--successful. But, with reference to the Disciples in general, and to all those rulers but three,--it will be seen to have completely failed.
Circumstanced as he was, to those rulers alone, was it possible for him to have addressed himself, with any the smallest hope. To any assembly of the faithful at large, to have repaired with no better recommendation than his vision story,--even with Barnabas, ready, as we shall see, to take him by the hand,--would have been plainly hopeless. Not less so would it have been--to present himself to the Apostles,--if, in support of such proposition as he had to make,--nothing more apposite, nothing to them in their situation more credible, than this same vision story,--had been capable of being produced. On them, therefore, the case seems already pretty well ripe for the conclusion, that, no such story was ever attempted to be passed. But, setting aside that aërial argument,--inducements of a more substantial nature, such as we shall find brought to view by Paul himself, were neither on this occasion wanting,--nor could, at any time, have been out of the view of that same Barnabas, whom we shall see appearing so often, in the character of his generous patron and steady friend. "On this plan, might Barnabas say to them,--On this plan, which he has chalked out for himself, he will be acting--not only not in opposition to, but even in furtherance of, your wishes and endeavors. Grecian as he is,--skilled in that language, and that learning, which serves a man as a passport through the whole of the Gentile world,--it is to that world that his labours will confine themselves; a field surely ample enough for the most comprehensive views. To you he will leave,--and leave certainly without privation, and therefore naturally without regret,--that field, of which you are already in possession,--and, by the boundaries of which, your means of convenient culture are circumscribed."
"On this plan,--not only will your exertions remain unimpeded, but the influence of the name of Jesus--that name, on the influence of which those same exertions are so materially dependent for their success,--will, in proportion to Paul's success, be extended."
In a discourse, to this effect, from the generous and enlightened mediator,--may be seen the natural origin of that agreement, which, further on in its place, under the name of the _partition treaty_, there will be occasion to bring, in a more particular manner, under review.
But, what is little less evident, than the propriety and prudence of this plan, viewed at least in the point of view in which it might not unnaturally be viewed by Barnabas, is--the impossibility, of coming forward, with any tolerable prospect of success, with any such plan in hand, in presence of a vast and promiscuous assemblage. To engage, on the part of any such assemblage, not to say any steady confidence, but any the slightest hope,--that, from an enemy even to death, the same man would become a partner and assistant,--would require a most particular and protracted exposition, of all those facts and arguments, which the requisite confidence would require for its support:--a detail, which no such assembly would so much as find time to listen to, were it possible for it to find patience.
Even in the case of the Apostles themselves,--taking the whole council of them together, the nature of the plan, it will be seen, admitted not of any successful negotiation. Accordingly, to the chief of them alone, to wit, to Peter, was it so much as the intention of Paul to make any communication of it in the first instance: and, in the whole length of the intercourse, such as it was, that he kept up with, them--in all the four visits, in the course of which that intercourse was kept up--being a period of not less than twenty-five years, to wit, from the year 35 to the year 60,--with no more than three of the eleven, will he be seen so much as pretending to have had any personal interview: _they_ not seeing him, except when they could not avoid it; and _the others_ never seeing him at all.
SECTION 3.
OCCASION OF THIS VISIT, AS PER PAUL'S OWN ACCOUNT.
After his conversion--after the time at which, if he is to be believed, he saw that first-mentioned of his visions--that vision, by which the most strenuous opponent of the new religion was changed into one who, in profession, was the most active of its supporters,--what was the course he took? Did he repair immediately to Jerusalem from whence he came? Did he present himself to the eleven Apostles--to the confidential companions of the departed Jesus, to lay before them his credentials? to report to those by whom everything about Jesus that was to be known to man was known--what had been experienced by him?--by him, Paul, by whom, till the moment of that experience, nothing of it whatever had been known? Not he, indeed. Behold what he says himself.
Instead of so doing, off he goes, in the first instance to Arabia; from whence, at the end of a length of time not specified, he returns to Damascus. At length, however, to Jerusalem he does repair: at length, into the presence of those against whose lives he had so long conspired,--he now uses his endeavours to intrude himself.
At length? at the end then of what length of time? At the end of three years? Yes: but from what point of time computed? From the time of his conversion on the road,--or from the last day of his stay at Damascus, upon his return thither from Arabia? By that man, let an answer to these questions be given--by that man who can find grounds for it.
Thus much, however, may, at any rate, be said:--of the length of this interval three years is the minimum.
In what view did it occur to him to seek this conference? in what view to make the attempt? and in what view delay it?
1. As to his view in seeking it,--it must be left to inference:--to conjecture, grounded on circumstances.
2. Being engaged, as he was, in the plan of making converts to a religion, called by him the religion of Jesus,--and this among the nations at large--among others besides those in the bosom of whose religion the founder of the new religion had been born;--feeling, as it seemed to him, the need, of information in various shapes--concerning the acts and sayings of Jesus;--not having, for the purpose, had, as yet, access, to any of the persons, to whom the benefit, of an interview with Jesus, upon terms of peculiar confidence, had been imparted;--he was desirous, of taking this--his only course--for rectifying the misconception, under which, to no small extent, he must probably have been labouring,--and filling up the deficiencies, under which he could not but be labouring.
3. Obvious is the need he had, of countenance from these universally acknowledged chiefs, of the religion professed to be taught by him.
Good, says some one: but, having, from the first, been thus long labouring, under the need of information,--how happened it, that he so long delayed, the exertions he made at length, for the obtaining of it?
The answer is surely not unobvious.
Had the time, of his presenting-himself, been when the memory of his conversion was fresh,--when the memory, of the vision, by which it was to be stated as having been effected, would, supposing it really experienced, have been fresh also,--in such case, the narrative, true or untrue, would have found, opposed to its reception, all imaginable repugnance, in so many ulcerated minds: and, on the supposition of its being untrue, he--the supposed percipient and actually narrating witness--he, who knew nothing about the subject of his testimony, would have had to submit himself to the severest imaginable cross-examination, at the hands of those, to whom everything about Jesus was matter of perfect knowledge.
Thus the matter would have stood, in the first instance. On the other hand, as time ran on, several results, favourable to his design, would naturally have taken place.
1. The exasperation, produced by the experience of the persecution suffered at his hands, would have been diminished.
2. His own recollection, of the particulars, might be supposed less vivid.
3. The curiosity, respecting them, would have become less eager.
4. Time might have given admission to behaviour on his part, of a sort, by which distrust might be lessened, confidence strengthened.
Well; now we have him at Jerusalem,--and for the first time after his conversion. When thus, at Jerusalem,--of those whom he went to see, whom did he actually see? Answer, Peter for one; James, whom he styles the Lord's brother, and who, according to him, though not literally a brother, was, however, a kinsman of Jesus:--these two, according to his own shewing; these two, and no more. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But of the other Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother." Gal. 1:18, 19.
SECTION 4.
OCCASION, AS PER ACTS ACCOUNT COMPARED WITH PAUL'S.
Such as hath been seen is Paul's account of the matter:--Paul's own account, of the interval that elapsed, between his conversion, and the first of his subsequent visits to Jerusalem:--to the residence of the Christians, whom he had been persecuting, and of the rulers, under and by the authority of whom, the persecution had been carried on. Such, loose as it is, is his account, of the interval between these two events: and of the place, in which, either almost the whole, or at any rate the greatest part of it, was passed.
Such was Paul's own account of his own proceedings,--at the distance of twenty-five years and more. Compare with it, now, the account, given by his historiographer--given, of the interval, that, according to him, had place, between these same two events. Acts 9:19-29.
Here, no three years' sojournment in Arabia: no visit to that country: no notice, of any place, other than Damascus, as being a place, in which the whole, or any part, of the time in question, was passed. In a position, with respect to each other, scarcely different from that of contiguity,--are the two events brought together. The blood of their disciples scarce washed from off his hands, when, with Barnabas for his introducer, he presents himself to the Apostles!
At the very time, when the Jerusalem rulers, would have been expecting to receive from him, the proofs of his punctuality, in the execution of the important plan, of official oppression, of which, at his own instance, he had been solemnly constituted and appointed the instrument; when, after going over to and forming a league with the criminals, for such they must have been called, whom he had been commissioned by these rulers to bring to justice;--at this very time it is, that he returns to the seat of their dominion:--to the place in which, at that very time, his return to them, with the intended victims in captivity, could not but be the subject of universal expectation!
Let any one now judge, whether, in any state of things, natural or supernatural, the sort of conduct thus supposed is credible.
At Damascus, instead of presenting himself to the Damascus rulers, to whom the commission of which he was the bearer was addressed,--the first persons, whom, according to this account, Acts 9:19, he sees, are "the disciples," _i.e._, the persons whom, by that commission, he was to arrest: and, with them, instead of arresting them, he passes "certain days."
These certain days ended,--does he thereupon, with or without an apology, present himself to these same rulers? Not he, indeed. Not presenting himself to them, does he, by flight or otherwise, take any measures, for securing himself, against their legitimate and necessarily intended vengeance? No such thing:--instead of doing so, he runs in the very face of it. He shows himself in the Jewish synagogues, in the public places of worship: and there, instead of preaching Moses and his law, he preaches Christ,--that Christ, whose disciples he was commissioned to extirpate.
This breach of trust--this transgression, which, however commendable in itself, could not but,--in the eyes of all those by whom, or for whom, he was in trust,--be a most flagitious and justly punishable act of treachery,--could it even from the first, for so much as two days, together, remain unknown? Not it, indeed: if, in this particular, to this same conversion story, as related by this same author, any credit is due. For, according to this same account,--in this same journey, and at the very time of his conversion vision, was he alone? No; he had companions: companions, who, whatsoever became of him, would, at the very time of his entrance, unless any cause can be shown to the contrary, have entered thither in due course. Well, then--ask the men in authority,--"This Paul, in whose train you came,--where is he, what has become of him?" Such would of course have been the questions put to these, his companions, even on the supposition, that by these same companions, no visit had, of their own accord, been paid to these same rulers, under whose authority they went to place themselves.
At length,--and the days which by this time had elapsed were "_many_,"--he finds it expedient to quit Damascus. He is driven from thence: but by what force? By the exercise of the legal authority of the offended rulers? in a word, by public vengeance? No: but by a private conspiracy--nothing more: for, to these rulers,--so different are they from all other rulers,--whether their authority is obeyed or contemned, has, all the while, been matter of indifference.
ACTS ix. 19-30.
19. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul _certain days_ with the _disciples_ which were at Damascus.--And straightway he preached _Christ_ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.--But all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?--But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.--And after that _many days_ were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:--But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.--Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a _basket_.--And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.--But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.--And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.--And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.--30. Which, when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.
In the above account--a remarkable incident is presented, by the occasion and manner of his escape from Damascus. In part, it has for its support an assertion made by Paul himself; but, as usual, as to part it is scarcely reconcileable with the account he gives of it. In respect of the adventure of the _basket_, the two accounts agree: and thus the occasion is identified and fixed. It is in respect of the description of the persons, by whom the attack upon him was made or meditated, that the accounts differ. According to the Acts, the hostile hands are those of the Jews, who are spoken of as so many unauthorized and criminal conspirators: but, according to Paul, they are those of the constituted authorities--a governor acting under a king.
31. "In Damascus"--says he, in 2 Cor. 11:32-33--"In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me. And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands."
Now, supposing the adverse force to have been that of a band of conspirators, it was natural for them to watch the "city gates": a more promising resource they could scarcely have had at their command. But, suppose it to have been that of the governor,--what need had he to watch the gates? he might have searched houses. By the reference made, to a matter of fact, which, supposing it real, must in its nature have been notorious--to wit, the existence of a king, of the name in question, in the country in question, at the time in question--a comparative degree of probability seems to be given to Paul's account. A curious circumstance is--that, in this Epistle of Paul's, this anecdote of the Basket stands completely insulated; it has not any the slightest connection with anything that precedes or follows it.
In the Acts' account, as already observed, Chap. 4, it looks as if it was immediately after the adventure of the basket, that he went on this his first visit to the Apostles at Jerusalem: for, as we see, it is immediately thereupon that his arrival at that city is mentioned. If so, the abode he had _then_ been making at Damascus, was probably _after_ his return from Arabia: that return from Arabia, which we have seen him speaking of in his Epistle to the Galatians, Gal. i. 15. "When it pleased God...to reveal his son to me, that I might preach him to the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; Neither went I up to Jerusalem, to them which were Apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. _Then after_ three years, I went up to Jerusalem, to see Peter." &c.
"After three years?"--three years, reckoning from what _time_? Here we see the ambiguity, and along with it the difficulty. If reckoning from his conversion,--then we have the three years, to be spent--partly in Damascus, partly in Arabia: in Damascus, in obtaining, perhaps, from the Christianized Jews--in return for the impunity given to them by the breach of the trust committed to him by the Jerusalem rulers--money, for defraying his expenses while in Arabia. If, reckoning from his escape from Damascus in a basket, then we have three years, during which not so much as any the faintest trace of him is perceptible. All, therefore, that is clear is--that according to his account of the matter, there was an interval of at least three years between his conversion, and this first of his subsequent Jerusalem visits--this visit of his to Jerusalem, to see the Apostles.
Between the two interpretations,--in respect of length of time, observe here the difference. According to one of them, between the conversion and the first Jerusalem visit, we have an interval of three years, and no more: and, in this interval, three lengths of time--one passed in Damascus, another in Arabia, a third, terminated by the basket adventure, passed also in Damascus, are all included: the entire interval determinate: but its parts, all of them, indeterminate.
According to the other interpretation, we have also three lengths of time: the first, indeterminate, passed in Damascus; the second, as indeterminate, passed in Arabia; the third, passed in Damascus, and this a determinate one--namely, the three years. Thus, upon the first supposition, the interval consists of three years, and no more: upon the second supposition, it consists of three years, preceded by two lengths of time, which are both indeterminate, but one of which--that passed in Arabia--may have been to any amount protracted.
Upon either supposition,--it seems not unlikely, that it was immediately after his escape from Damascus, that this first visit of his to Jerusalem took place. And, the greater the preceding interval of time, whether passed in Arabia or Damascus, the less unpromising his prospect, that the resentments, produced by the provocations given by him to the Christians, by his persecution of them,--and to the Jewish rulers, by his treachery towards them,--should, both, have to such a degree subsided, as to render even so short a stay, as that of fifteen days which he mentions, consistent with personal safety. Yet, as we see in the Acts, are these two events spoken of as if they had been contiguous: at any rate, it is in contiguity that they are spoken of.
Uncertainties crowd upon uncertainties. At the time of Paul's conversion,--had Damascus already this same king, named Aretas, with a governor under him? If so, how happens it, that, of this state of the government, no intimation is perceptible, in the account given of that conversion in the Acts? Was it--that, at that time, there existed not any such monarchical personage? but that, before the adventure of the basket, some revolution had placed him there?
According to Paul's account,--the state of things, produced in Damascus by his exertions, was somewhat curious. On the face of this account, in ordinary there was no _garrison_ in Damascus: it was only by special order from the monarch, and for no other purpose than the bringing to justice--or what was called justice--the person of the self-constituted Apostle,--that a garrison was put into the town, with a governor for the command of it.
What a foundation all this for credence! and, with it, for a system of religious doctrine to build itself upon!--religious doctrine--with the difference between eternal happiness and eternal misery depending upon it!
SECTION 5.
CAUSE OF THE DISCORDANCE BETWEEN THE TWO ACCOUNTS.
Between these two accounts, such being the discordance--where shall we find the _cause_ of it? Answer: in the different views, in which, at the time of writing, the two accounts were penned: in the different objects, to the accomplishment of which, at the time of penning their respective accounts, the endeavours of the two writers were directed.
The author of the Acts--what, then, was _his_ object? To obtain for his patron--his chief hero--alive or dead--a recognition, as universal as possible, in his assumed character of an Apostle. The more complete the recognition, bestowed upon him by those most competent of all judges,--the more extensive the recognition he might look for, at the hands of all other their fellow-believers.
Sufficient was this--sufficient for the general purposes of the party--in the eyes of a person other than Paul, even though that other person was a protegé, a retainer, a satellite.
Sufficient this was not, however, to the arrogance of the head of the party--Paul himself: at least, at the time of his writing this his letter to his Galatian converts.
Think you, says he, that any relation, I have ever borne to any of those who were Apostles before me, had, on my part, anything in it of dependence? Think you, that I ever stood in need of anything at their hands? Think you, that I had ever any more need of them, than they of me? Not I, indeed. The Gospel, which I have always preached--neither from them did I receive it, nor from them, in preaching it, did I ever seek or receive any assistance. Gal. i. 11, 12. Think you, that I stood in any need, or ever supposed myself to stand in any need, of any acceptance or acknowledgement at their hands? Not I, indeed. When my revelation had been received by me, did I present myself to them, for any such purpose as that of remuneration and acceptance? Not I, indeed.
I went not to them: I went not so much as to Jerusalem, where they then were: I conferred not with flesh and blood:--off I went to Arabia; and when my business in Arabia was at an end, even then, did I repair to Jerusalem? Not I, indeed. I returned again to Damascus. True it is, to Jerusalem I did go at last.--But when?--Not till three years afterwards. Well--and, when I was at Jerusalem, how many, and which of them, think you that I saw? Think you, that I put myself to any such trouble, as that of seeing them all together? the whole herd of them?
No. Peter was naturally a chief among them: with him I had accordingly some business to settle:--him, accordingly, I saw, as also James, whom, as being a brother, or other near kinsman, of Jesus, I had a curiosity to see.
Paul himself wrote at one time; this his disciple at another: each of them pursued the purpose of the time. Not on this occasion, at any rate,--perhaps not on any other, was there anything, that either wrote, concerted between them.[25] Of this want of concert, what has just been seen is one of the consequences.
Reserved as we have seen him, in regard to time and other circumstances,--one circumstance more there is, for which our curiosity is to no small amount, debtor, to the author of the Acts. This is--information, of the means--of the channel, through which Paul obtained the introduction, which, without mention made of the object, we have seen him acknowledging that, so far as concerned Peter, he was desirous of: and _that_ to such a degree, as to undertake a journey from Damascus to Jerusalem, some 120 or 130 miles, for the purpose.
Repugnancy, so natural, and naturally so vehement--even at the end of three years, or the still greater number of years--by what means could he remove it, or so much as flatter himself with a prospect of being able to remove it? To this question, it is to the author of the Acts that we are indebted for an answer: and that answer a satisfactory one:--it was by the assistance of Barnabas, that the object, so far as it was accomplished, was accomplished.
To the religion of Jesus, after as well as before this,--to the Apostles in particular before this,--Barnabas was a supporter of no small importance.
At the time when the financial arrangements were for the second time settled;[26]--when, from the substance of the opulent among the faithful, enough was collected for the support of all the indigent;--among those, by whom, on this second occasion, lands and houses, were for this purpose sold, particular persons are, on this second occasion, for the first time mentioned. The first place is occupied by this Barnabas: and not till after him come Ananias and Sapphira--the unfortunate pair, of whose fate mention will have to be made in another place.
Joses was, it seems, the original name--the proper name of this beneficent protector: Barnabas, the _Son of consolation_, Acts 4:36, was no more than a title of honour,--a token of gratitude. A title of honour? and by whom conferred? Even by the Apostles. By Barnabas, therefore, whatsoever thereafter comes to be reported as done,--it is by _the Son of consolation_ that we are to understand it to have been, and to be, done.
As to the arguments, by which this son of consolation succeeded,--in prevailing, upon two, and, if we are to believe Paul, no more than two, of these so lately persecuted or threatened servants of Jesus,--to be, for a few days, upon speaking terms, with him, who so lately had been their deadly, as well as open enemy,--it is from imagination, with judgment for her guide, that they must, if at all, be deduced from the surrounding circumstances of the case.
As to these arguments, however,--whatever were the rest of them, of two of them a hint is given by the author of the Acts: these are,--the story of the conversion,--and the boldness of the preaching, which at Damascus was among the first-fruits of it. Those which, under the guidance of judgment, imagination would not find much difficulty in adding, are,--the evil--that might result from his enmity, in case the advances then made by him were rejected,--and the useful service, which, by the blessing of God, might be hoped for at his hands, if admitted in the character of an ally and cooperator: at any rate, so long as the whole field of his exertions, and in particular the geographical part of it, continued different from theirs.
With Peter, on whatever account, it was Paul's own desire to hold a conference:--so we have seen him declaring to the Galatians. To this Peter, whom he was desirous of seeing, and whom at length he succeeded in seeing,--to this Peter did he then himself tell the story of his vision, of his conversion, and the mode of it? If at any time he did,--at any rate, if the author of the Acts is to be believed,--it was not till Barnabas, the son of consolation, had told it for him. Had it been by himself that his story had been to be told in the first instance,--he would thereby have stood exposed to cross-examination: and, among those things, which Barnabas might in his situation say for him,--were many things, which, if at all, he could not, with anything like an equal prospect of good effect, have said for himself. To any asseveration of his own,--in any promises of future amity, it was not in the nature of the case, that from his own mouth they should give credence. But, when by Barnabas, of whose zeal in their cause they had received such substantial proofs--when from this son of consolation they received assurance, that Paul had actually engaged himself in that line of service, which he professed himself desirous to embrace;--that he had engaged so far, that no prospect of safe retreat could reasonably be in his view;--then it was, that, without imprudence, they might, venture to hold at least a conference with him, and hear and see what he had to say for himself.
As to the account, given on this occasion by Barnabas, of the famous vision,--had it been but preserved, it would probably have been no less curious than those which we have been already seeing. Though we cannot be precisely assured in what way,--we may be pretty well assured, that, in some way or other, additions would have been to be seen made in it, to the list of _variations_.
But, the great advantage,--producible, and probably produced, by the opening of the matter, as performed by Barnabas,--was this: in company with those arguments, by which the sincerity of Paul was to be demonstrated,--would naturally come those, by which intimation would be given, of the advantage there might be, in forbearing to apply too strict a scrutiny, to this important statement. The interests, which, in the character of motives, pleaded for the acceptance, of the advance made towards reconciliation and mutually advantageous cooperation,--would, in this manner, prepare the way, for receiving, without any troublesome counter-interrogation, the important narrative: or, perhaps, for considering the matter, as already sufficiently explained, by the son of consolation,--in such sort that, to the new Apostle, the trouble of repeating a narrative, which he must already have so frequently found himself under the necessity of repeating, might be spared.
The greater was the importance, of the service thus rendered to Paul by the son of consolation,--the more studiously, in giving the account, as above, of the intercourse with the Apostles at Jerusalem,--the more studiously, would he avoid all mention of it.[27] SECTION 6.
LENGTH OF THIS VISIT--PAUL'S EMPLOYMENT DURING IT.
Fifteen days, if Paul is to be believed--fifteen days, and no more,--was the length of time, during which his intercourse with Peter continued: Gal. i. 18, that same length of time, and no greater, it may without much rashness be inferred, was his stay at Jerusalem.
These fifteen days,--or whatever, if anything longer, was the duration of his stay in that seat of their common religion,--in what occupations were they employed? It is in the Acts, if anywhere, that this question will receive its answer. It was in "disputing against the Grecians."
Acts 9:29.
That such should have been his occupation, is in his situation altogether natural.
Of a sort of _partition treaty_, as having, at one time, been entered into between himself and Peter,--Paul, in his so-often mentioned letters to the Galatians, informs us in express terms. As to the time, which, on that occasion, he has in view,--it was, according to appearance, not the time of _this_ his first visit, but of the third. At that third visit, the treaty was, at any rate, either entered into for the first time, or confirmed: receiving, at the same time, what was on both sides agreed upon, as an amendment requisite to add to it, in respect of clearness, correctness, or completeness.
But, at this visit, it seems altogether natural, that, with more or less of these same qualities, a treaty of this sort took place. By the sort of relation, produced between them, by the state of interests,--the existence of an agreement of this sort seems sufficiently probabilized: and, from the few words, in which, by the author of the Acts, mention is made of the Grecians, and of Paul's disputes with them,--the inference receives the confirmation afforded by _direct_ evidence.
With the Grecians then it was, that these disputations of Paul were held. Why with the Grecians, and no other? The reason is no mystery.
Greek was the language of Paul: Greek, for anything that appears, was not the language of Peter, or of any other of the Apostles. Applying himself to the Grecians, and to them alone,--Paul might, to any amount, have given additional extent to his own dominion, without subtracting anything from theirs.
Not productive, it should seem, of much fruit,--was this portion, of the new Apostle's labours. No sooner are we informed, of the boon thus offered to these Grecian Gentiles, than comes, moreover, the further information, that some there were, that "went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him," it is added, "to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." Acts 9:29.
Meantime, those men, who went about to slay him,--who were they?
Possibly they were Grecians, if by the disputation in question, the annoyance produced was so intolerable to them, as to be productive of a wish and enterprise thus flagitious: and, if the evidence afforded by the rules of grammar be in this case regarded as conclusive,--the pronoun _they_ having for its last possible antecedent the substantive _Grecians_--these, and no other, must have been the intended murderers.
On the other hand, among the heathen--the philosophical disputants of this nation,--disputations, having any such abstractions for their subject, were not wont to be productive, of any such practical and flagitious consequences. Among the heathens, moreover, it appears not, that, antecedently to his conversion, the zeal of Paul had led him to put any to death: on the other hand among the Christianized Jews, his fellow-religionists, the number of persons, of whom he had put to death some, and in other ways plagued others, was unhappily but too great. By the religion _into_ which they had been converted,--revenge, it is true, was not (as in that which they were converted _from_) magnified, but prohibited: but, the influence of it has never been equally efficient upon all minds.
Be this as it may,--upon his leaving Jerusalem, it was to the region of Syria and Cilicia, that, at this time, he betook himself. So, in his