letter to his Galatians, he himself says, Gal. 1:21; and, by what is said in the Acts, he is not contradicted, but confirmed. By himself what is mentioned is--the _region_, viz. Syria and Cilicia: by the Acts what is mentioned is--the _cities_, viz. Cæsarea and Tarsus.
Cæsarea,--whether at that time it was in Syria or not,--was, at any rate, little, if anything, out of the way, from Jerusalem to Tarsus.
Cæsarea was a town upon the coast:--one among those maritime towns, which, whether parts or not of Syria, are in the way between the inland city, of Jerusalem, and the coast of Cilicia: with which coast, by a river,--Tarsus, marked in the map with the mark of a capital town, appears to communicate.
In speaking of this change of place, the terms employed by Paul, are general terms,--"_I came._" By what _means_ he came, he does not mention: nor does there appear any particular reason why he should have mentioned them.
In the Acts, the account is more particular:--he was, in a manner, forced from the one place to the other:--he was, at any rate, _escorted_: it was by "_the brethren_," he was so dealt with. "Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." Acts 9:30.
By the brethren?--Yes.--But by what brethren? By the general body of the Christians, or any that belonged to it? No:--for, it was from their wrath, that he was making his escape. No:--not by the justly exasperated many; but by such few adherents as, under such prodigious disadvantage, his indefatigable artifice and energy had found means to conciliate.
SECTION 7.
MODE AND CAUSE OF ITS TERMINATION.
In relation to this subject, we have two, and no more than two, accounts,--both from the same pen,--that of the historiographer in the Acts; and these two accounts, as usual, contradictory of each other.
The first, in the order of the history, is that given by him in his own person: Acts 9:27, 28, 29. The other, is that given by him in the person of Paul: namely, in the course of his supposed first-made and unpremeditated speech,--when, on the occasion of his last visit to Jerusalem--his Invasion Visit, he was pleading for his life before the Now then, let us compare the two accounts.
Speaking in his own person,--it is to the fear of certain Grecians, that the historiographer ascribes Paul's departure for Jerusalem. In disputing with them, he had been speaking "boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus": and _thereupon_,--and as we are desired to believe, _therefore_,--came certain designs and endeavours to slay him. Designs?
on the part of whom? Answer:--on the part of those same Grecians: cause of these designs and endeavours, irritation, so it is intended we should suppose,--irritation, produced in the breasts of those same Grecians;--and produced by the dispute.
Now, as to the words of the historiographer, speaking in his own person.
It is immediately after the mention of Paul's transactions with the Apostles and the other disciples, that after saying, Acts 9:28, that "...he was with them coming in and going out of Jerusalem," the narrative continues thus: ver. 29; "And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, but _they_ went about to slay him: ver. 30; Which when _the brethren_ knew, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus."
Such is the account given, of the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, on the occasion in question--given by the historiographer, speaking in his own person, of the manner of the departure, and at the same time of the cause of it. Behold now how different is the account given, of the same matter, by the same historiographer, in the same work, when speaking in the person of his hero. Nothing now as to any disputes with Grecians: nothing now of these, or any other human beings, in the character of beings who were angry with him, and _that_ to such a degree, that, to save his life, it was deemed necessary by his adherents,--styled on this occasion "_the_ brethren," to take charge of him, as we have seen, and convey him from Jerusalem to Cæsarea and elsewhere.
The case seems to be--that, between the time of writing the account which has just been seen, and the time for giving an account of the same transaction in the person of the hero, as above,--a certain difficulty presented itself to the mind of the historiographer: and, that it is for the solution of this difficulty, that he has recourse, to one of his sovereign solvents--_a trance_. The difficulty seems to have been this: The class of persons, whom, on that first visit of his he had exasperated, were--not "_Grecians_," or any other Gentiles, but Christians: Christians, the whole body of them--Apostles and Disciples together: the same class of persons, to which belonged those who, on the occasion of this his last visit--the _Invasion Visit_--were to such a degree exasperated, by this fourth intrusion of his, as to be attempting his life. How hopeless any attempt would have been, to make them believe, that it was not by themselves, but by a set of Heathens, that his life was threatened on that former occasion, is sufficiently manifest. Here then comes a demand, for a substitute, to that cause, which, distant as the time was, could not, however, be altogether absent from their memory: and which, so far as it was present, could not but heighten their exasperation:--this substitute was _the trance_.
The cause of the departure is now--not the fear of any human being, but the express command of "_the Lord_":--a command delivered in the course, and by means, of this same _trance_. Moreover, as if, from such a quarter, _commands_ were not sufficient of themselves; on the present occasion, it will be seen, they came backed by _reasons_. Was it that, as the historiographer has been telling us in his own person, certain Grecians were exasperated? No: but that the persons, to whom, with Barnabas for his supporting witness, Acts 9:27, he had been telling his story, gave no credit to it: so that, by a man with his reputation in this state, nothing in the way of his business was to be done.
But now let us see the text. It comes immediately after that passage, in which Paul is made to speak of Ananias, as giving orders to him, in the name of the Lord: orders, concluding in these words: Acts 22:16:..."arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This said,--his story, as told to the multitude, continues thus: "And it came to pass that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in _a trance_: And saw him saying unto me, Make _haste_, and get thee _quickly_ out of Jerusalem: _for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me_. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live."
It may now be seen, how useful and convenient an implement this same trance was: how well adapted, to the occasion on which it was employed.
Taken by itself, this story about the enraged Grecians might serve to impose upon readers in general: but, to the knowledge of the really enraged Christians, whose wrath he was endeavouring to assuage,--it was not only too palpably false to be related to them, but too much so, to be even for a moment supposed to be related to them: hence came the demand for the supernatural cause. Nothing, it is evident, could be better suited to the purpose. The assertion was of the sort of those, which, how palpably soever untrue, are not exposed to contradiction by direct evidence: and which, supposing them believed, ensure universal respect, and put all gainsayers to silence.
An incident not unworthy here of notice, is--the sort of acknowledgment contained in the words--"for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me." In this may be seen--a confirmation of the important fact, so fully proved on the occasion of the first or _Reconciliation Visit_: and we see--with what consistency and propriety, the mention of it comes in, on the present occasion: namely, in a speech, made to a multitude, of which, many of those,--by whom he had been disbelieved and rejected on that former occasion,--must of course have formed a part.
Such is the fact, which, after having communicated to us, in his own person, Acts 9:26, "they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple," the historiographer is frank enough to communicate to us a second time, through the mouths of Paul and "the Lord," the one within the other. _True_ enough this information: and, moreover, at Jerusalem, as well when the historiographer was writing, as when Paul was speaking, _notorious_ enough: or we should hardly have had it _here_ and _now_. But, what a truth to put into the mouth of Paul, whose title to credence for his claim, is so effectually destroyed by it!
To return to what, on the occasion of the first visit, is said by the historiographer, in his own person, about the Grecians. That it was false, as to the main point,--namely, that it was by the fear of those same Gentiles that he was driven out of Jerusalem,--is now, it is hoped, sufficiently evident. But, as to his having held disputation with them,--in this there seems not to be anything inconsistent or improbable: and this part, supposing it true, might, in so far as known, help to gain credence for that which was false.
A circumstance--not altogether clear, nor worth taking much trouble in the endeavour to render it so, is--on the occasion of this dialogue, the change made, of the supernatural vehicle, from a _vision_ into a "_trance_." Whatsoever, if any, is the difference,--they agree in the one essential point: namely, that it is in the power, of any man, at any time, to have had as many of them as he pleases: hearing and seeing, moreover, in every one of them, whatsoever things it suits his convenience to have heard or seen.--"I saw a vision:" or, "I was in a trance": either postulate granted, everything whatsoever follows.
This _trance_, it may be observed, is of a much more substantial nature than any of the _visions_. By Paul in his _road vision_,--vision as it was,--neither _person_ nor _thing_, with the exception of a quantity of light, was seen: only a voice, _said to be the Lord's_, heard. In this trance, the Lord is not only heard, but seen. In those visions, that which is said to have been heard, amounts to nothing: on the present occasion, what is said to have been heard, is material to the purpose, and perfectly intelligible. Not that there could be any use in Paul's _actually_ hearing of it: for what it informed him of, was nothing more than that which, at the very time, he was in full experience of. But, in a situation such as his, it was really of use to him, to be _thought_ to have heard it: and therefore it is, that, in the speech ascribed to him, he is represented as _saying_ that he heard it.
FOOTNOTES: [25] In the current chronology, this Epistle to the Galatians is placed in the year 58; on the part of the author of the Acts, the first mention of his being in the company of Paul is placed in the year next following, to wit, 59. Note, that at the end of the Epistle to the Galatians, it is stated to be written from Rome: yet, according to the current chronology, his arrival at Rome, in custody, from Jerusalem,--at which time unquestionably he had never as yet visited Rome,--did not take place till the year 62.
[26] First time, Acts ii. 45. Second time, Acts iv. 34.
[27] "I conferred not with flesh and blood." (Gal. ii. 16.) "Of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." Not till "after three years" did I go "up to Jerusalem to see Peter." With language in this strain, it would have harmonized but indifferently, to have added, "nor should I have seen him then, had it not been for Barnabas."
CHAPTER V.
_Money-bringing Visit._--_Barnabas accompanying him from Antioch._ SECTION 1.
AT ANTIOCH, AGABUS HAVING PREDICTED A DEARTH, MONEY IS COLLECTED FOR THE JERUSALEM SAINTS.
At his own house it was, that we last left our self-declared Apostle: at his own birthplace--Tarsus: what we have next to see is--what drew him from thence.
All this while there were other disciples that had not been idle. To the new religion, already was Antioch, Antioch in Syria, become a new Jerusalem.
Upon the dispersion of the Jerusalem Christians, occasioned by the judicial murder of the sainted trustee of the poor's fund--Stephen,--some of them, among whom were some natives of Cyprus,--in which island was situated the property of the son of consolation, Barnabas,--had betaken themselves to that same island, others to that same city of Antioch in Syria.
ACTS xi. 19-24.
19. Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.--And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.--And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.--Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.--Who, when he came and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.--For he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
Of these, some addressed themselves exclusively to the _Jews_: others ventured so far, as to make an experiment upon the _Grecians_.
Unfortunately, these terms are, neither of them, wholly free from ambiguity. By the word _Jews_, may have been meant either Jews by _birth_ and _abode_, or Jews by _religion_: by the word _Grecians_, either Jews who, born or dwelling within the field of quondam Grecian dominion, used the Greek as their native language,--or Greeks, who were such, not only by language, but by religion. In this latter case, their lot was among the Gentiles, and much more extraordinary and conspicuous was the importance of the success.
"They which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel." Such, in his own words, 1 Cor. 9:14, is the maxim laid down by Paul, for the edification of his Corinthian disciples. To save doubts and disputation, he prefaces it with the assurance--"even so hath the Lord ordained." No great need of support from revelation, seems to attach upon a maxim so natural, and so reasonable: from the time of the first planting of the Gospel, it appears to have been, as indeed it could not fail to be, universally acted upon; saving such few exceptions as a happy union of zeal, with sufficient pecuniary means, might render possible.
How, under the Apostolical aristocracy, it had been acted upon in Jerusalem, has been seen already. The time was now come,--for its being established, and acted upon in Antioch.
At Jerusalem, under the spiritual dominion of the Apostles, lived a man of the name of _Agabus_. Among the endowments,--of which, in the character of _qualifications_, a demand was by some understood to be created, by the business of propagating the new religion,--qualifications, a list of which, according to his conception of it, Paul, 1 Cor. 12:10, has given us,--was one, which, among these endowments, was called the "_gift of prophecy_":--a gift, under which, as under that of speech in general, particularly when applied to occasions of importance, the faculty of _prediction_--of forming correct judgments respecting future contingencies--would, if not necessarily, very frequently at least, come to be included.
In the instance of the _prophecy_ here in question, this same prospective faculty, it should seem, was actually included.
The _fact_, for the purpose of predicting, or giving information of which, this useful emissary was, on the present occasion, sent from Jerusalem to Antioch,--was--that of signifying, that there should be a great dearth: an _inference_ deduced from it, was--that, at this same Antioch, for the relief of the brethren at Jerusalem, _contributions_ should be collected, and sent to Jerusalem.
ACTS xi. 27-30.
27. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.--And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be a great dearth throughout all the world; which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.--Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea:--Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
In the calamity of _dearth_ may be seen one of those events, of which--especially if the time of it be not predesignated with too rigid an exactness--a prediction may be hazarded,--and even by any man,--without much risk of falling under the disgrace attached to the appellation of _a false prophet_. Of this observation, an exemplification seems to have been afforded, in the present instance.
With not unaccustomed prudence,--"the spirit," by which, on this occasion, the calamity was "signified," forbore, as we see, from the fixation of any particular year--either for the prophecy, or for the accomplishment of it. "The days of Claudius Caesar" are mentioned as the time of the accomplishment. By agreement of all chronologists,--the duration of his reign is stated as occupying not less than thirteen years. Whether this same reign had then already commenced,--is not, on this occasion, mentioned: from the manner in which it is mentioned, the negative seems not improbable; if so, then to find the time which the prophecy had for finding its accomplishment to the definite term of thirteen years, we must add another, and that an indefinite one.
According to the situation, of the individuals by whom the word is employed,--_worlds_ vary in their sizes. Of the dearth in question, the whole world, "all the world," is, by the author of the Acts, stated as having been the afflicted theatre: "great dearth throughout all the world." Acts 11:28. As to the rest of the world, we may leave it to itself. For the purpose then and now in question, it was and is sufficient--that two cities, Jerusalem and Antioch, were included in it.
The calamity being thus universal,--no reason of the ordinary kind is given, or seems discoverable--why, of any such contribution as should come to be raised, the course should be--from Antioch to Jerusalem, rather than from Jerusalem to Antioch. Inquired for, however, on religious ground,--a _reason_ presents itself, without much difficulty.
What Rome became afterwards, Jerusalem was then--the capital of _that world_, which now, for the first time, received the name of _Christian_.
According to one of the sayings of Jesus--if Paul, his self-appointed Apostle, is to be trusted to--of them it was pronounced "_more blessed to give than to receive_":[28] but in the eyes of the successors of St.
Peter at all times,--and at this time, as it should seem, in his own--it was _more blessed to receive than give_.
SECTION 2.
BARNABAS AND PAUL DISPATCHED WITH THE MONEY TO JERUSALEM.
Of the _amount_ of the eleemosynary harvest, no intimation is to be found. As to the _consequence_ of it, Barnabas, we see, is the man stated as having, with obvious propriety, been chosen for the important trust: Barnabas--of whose opulence, trustworthiness, steadiness, and zeal, such ample proofs, not to speak of those subsequent ones, which will be seen in their place, had already manifested themselves. In consequence of the information, already received by the Mother Church in Jerusalem, of the prosperity of the Daughter Church, Acts 11:20, 21, planted, as above, in the capital of Syria,--this most active of all Christian citizens had been sent to give increase to it.
But, of the talents and activity of Paul, his indefatigable supporter and powerful patron had had full occasion to be apprized. Accordingly, without the aid of this his not less indefatigable helper, still was the strength of the rising church, in the eyes of the patron, incomplete. "A prophet," says a not ill-grounded proverb, "has no honor in his own country." In his native city, among the witnesses of his youth, Paul had indeed found _safety_: but, as the nature of the case manifests, in a circle, from which respect stood excluded by familiarity, safety had not been accompanied with _influence_: and, in eyes such as those of Paul, safety without influence was valueless. Under these circumstances,--the patron, going to Tarsus in person in quest of his protegé, could not naturally find much difficulty in regaining possession of him, and bringing with him the so highly-valued prize, on his return to Antioch.
"Then," says the Acts, 11:25, 26, "departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch."
At this place, with their united powers, they had been carrying on their operations for the space of a twelvemonth, when the petition for pecuniary assistance was received there.
As for Paul,--from the moment of his conversion, notwithstanding the ill success of his first attempt,--the prime object of his ambition--the situation of President of the Christian Commonwealth--had never quitted its hold on his concupiscence. Occasions, for renewing the enterprise, were still watched for with unabated anxiety:--a more favourable one than the one herein question, could not have presented itself to his fondest wishes. The entire produce, of the filial bounty of the Daughter Church, was now to be poured into the bosom of the necessitous Mother.
For the self-destined head of that rising Church, two more acceptable occupations, than those which one and the same occasion brought to him, could not have been found:--First, the collection of the contributions;--and then the conveying of them, to the place of their destination. Of the labours of such agents, in such circumstances, the success, we are told, they found, was a natural result. "Then," says the Acts 11:29, 30, "Then the disciples, every one according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea:--Which also they did; and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." Thus much as to the _public_ purpose. Very different was the lot of Paul's _personal_ project. What the elders could not have any objection to the receipt of, was--the money. But, what they had an insuperable objection to, was--the receipt of the yoke of this their outwardly-converted, but once already rejected, persecutor. This second enterprise,--though still under the same powerful leader, and produced by such flattering prospects,--succeeded no better than the first.
Five-and-twenty verses after, we are told of the _termination_ of this their second Jerusalem visit; and this is all we hear of it: "And Barnabas and Saul," says the Acts 12:25, "returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark." This same John Mark they got by their expedition: and this, for anything that appears, was all they got by it.
Between the mention of their arrival at Jerusalem, and the mention of their departure from thence,--comes the episode about Peter:--his incarceration and liberation under Herod; and the extraordinary death of the royal prosecutor,--of which, in its place. As to the interval,--what the length of it was, and in what manner, by Paul, under the wing of the Son of Consolation, it was occupied,--are points, on which we are left altogether in the dark: as also, whether the _time_ of these adventures of Peter, the _mention_ of which stands inserted between the mention of the two occurrences in the history of Paul, was comprised in that same interval.
FOOTNOTES: [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, with _Cruden_ and his _Concordance_ for guides, all search for them has been fruitless.
CHAPTER VI.
_Paul disbelieved continued.--His third Jerusalem Visit.--Paul and Barnabas delegated by Antioch Saints, to confer on the Necessity of Jewish Rites to Heathen Converts to the Religion of Jesus._ SECTION 1.
OCCASION OF THIS VISIT.
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 of _doctrine_ relative to circumcision, as above; the other, a question about _jurisdiction_, 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 of _nameless_ men 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,--experienced a 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, _out_ of 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 the _Church_," which is as much as to say, by the whole fraternity of Christians there established.
SECTION 2.
THE DELEGATES HOW RECEIVED.--COUNCIL OF APOSTLES AND ELDERS.
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 of _Elders_.
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,--there seems to be, humanly speaking, but one way to account for it. That which the Apostles, and they alone, _could_ contribute to the cause, was--the authority and the evidence resulting from that peculiar intimacy: what they could _not_ contribute 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. By _the_ Apostles: to wit--so as any one would conclude--by _all_ the 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,--say rather 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