^ 
 
z 
 
 j^ 5jt 03 03. ,£i> i:^.^2- 
 
 OK THK 
 AT 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 SAMUEL A QNEW, 
 
 OK PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 BS 2505 .W454 1824 
 
 Wells, D.B. 
 
 St. Paul vindicated 
 
V* 
 
St. PAUL VINDICATED. 
 
St. PAUL VINDICATED : 
 
 BEING PART I. Ol' 
 
 A 
 
 MEFILY 
 
 TO A 
 
 LATE PUBLICATION BY GAMALIEL SMITH, Esq. 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 "Noi Paul, hut Jesus." 
 
 By D. B wells, MA 
 
 OF CHRIST COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 As the excellent characters of the (irst believers and teachers of Christianity, are 
 in general a strong recommendation of it to mankind; so that of St. Paul in parti- 
 cular shines with distinguished lustre through his whole history, but especially his 
 Epistles, the faithful pictures of liis Soul. SeckeR. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University • 
 FOR T. STEVENSON ; 
 
 jlM) SOLI) BY C. & J. RIVINGTON, AND J. HATCHAHD & SON, 
 LONDON; AND J. WOLSTENHOLME, YORK. 
 
 1824 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Havfng lately met with a Book entitled, '' Not 
 Paul but Jesus," upon the perusal, I found it 
 abounded in gross misrepresentations, and unjust 
 accusations. Professing to be a candid enquiry 
 into the conduct of the Apostle Paul, the Work 
 in question seemed evidently dictated by a spirit 
 of hostility towards Christianity itself. Where 
 the facts relating to the history of the Apostle 
 are not mis-stated altogether, they are so dis- 
 torted and discoloured, as to wear an appearance 
 totally foreign to their real nature. It must, 
 however, at the same time be allowed, that some 
 of the arguments are brought forward with such 
 an air of plausibility, and truth and falsehood are 
 so artfully interwoven with each other, that it is 
 easy to imagine they might, at first sight, stagger 
 a careless and superficial enquirer: those persons^ 
 indeed, who are content to form their notions 
 
11 PREFACE. 
 
 of Christianity, from the representations of its 
 enemies, without examining- into its evidence 
 themselves, might be inclined to consider the 
 distorted portrait, which the Author has drawn, 
 as a faithful likeness of the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles. But I am well persuaded that those, 
 who, with candid and impartial minds, examine 
 the real conduct and pretensions of St. Paul, 
 will be so far from concurring in the opprobrious 
 malignity, with which he is assailed, that additional 
 reverence and delight, will be the result of their 
 enquiry. Indeed, if ever there was a person, who 
 exhibited a desire to adorn, by his life and con- 
 versation, the pure and heavenly precepts of the 
 blessed Jesus ; if ever there was one, who to 
 the most fervent zeal, united the most rational 
 and exalted devotion, who combined firmness 
 with moderation, wisdom with humility, and 
 toleration with truth, or who to abilities most 
 splendid, added in a just cause industry most 
 persevering; if ever, in short, there was one, 
 who more than another, followed the steps of 
 his divine Master, that man was St. Paul. To 
 vindicate such a character, from the most ma- 
 lignant imputations, and- to advocate the cause 
 
PREFACE. Ill 
 
 of truth, so shamefully violated by the Author 
 of "Not Paul hut Jesus," has been my object 
 in the following pages. Those who have inves- 
 tigated the testimony by which the Gospel Reve- 
 lation is supported, may, perhaps, think that I have 
 imposed upon myself a needless task, as they 
 will naturally suppose, that scarce any readers 
 would be deceived by the shallow sophisms, and 
 false inferences, by which an attempt is made to 
 invalidate the writings, and destroy the character 
 of St. Paul. To such my reply is, that there 
 are persons who are apt to imagine, that infidel ' 
 publications, if unanswered, are unanswerable. 
 Others may be of opinion, that it would have 
 been better not to have given additional notoriety 
 to a work that deserves to slumber in oblivion 
 and contempt. But if only one person should 
 encounter the publication, " Not Paul but Jesus," 
 and desirous of seeing its arguments refuted, 
 should find such refutation in the following 
 pages, I shall deem the time and labour, ex- 
 pended in the composition of them, not fruit- 
 lessly employed ^ 
 
 * Since the first part of my Reply was written, I have 
 perused an excellent pamphlet of the Rev. T. S. Hughes, 
 
 late 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 At the hands of the ministers of the Gospel, 
 and from those of the Established Church in 
 particular, the public have a just right to expect 
 a defence of the doctrines of Christianity : I con- 
 sideredj therefore, that a portion of that leisure, 
 which was afforded me by an intermission of the 
 more active duties of my profession, would not be 
 ill applied in an endeavour to refute the misrepre- 
 sentations of such a writer, as is the present object 
 of animadversion. How far the arguments I have 
 made use of, are calculated to convince others, 
 * I must leave to my readers to determine. But, 
 whatever be the result of the present undertaking, 
 I shall always have the satisfaction of reflecting', 
 that my sole aim was to vindicate what, after 
 
 late Fellow of Emmanuel College, on the same subject. Had 
 I entertained any idea that the able exertions of the Christian 
 Advocate would have been called forth against such an adver- 
 sary, my own labours would most probably have been super- 
 seded. As, however, Mr. Hughes has at present abstained 
 from a minute confutation of his opponent, and as I find, upon 
 a careful perusal of his book, that we have in many instances 
 arrivedj by different methods, at the same result, I have not 
 thought it necessary to withdraw my Work. In revising it for 
 publication, I have frequently referred with pleasure to a new 
 edition of The Acts of the Apostles, by the Rev. Hastings 
 Robinson, M. A. Fellow of St. John's College, of which only the 
 first nine chapters have hitherto been published. I am glad 
 to find that my own opinions are, for the most part, confirmed 
 in the notes to that Work. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 a most diligent and impartial enquiry, 1 still 
 believe to be the truth '*^once delivered to the 
 saints." I can say with the Apostle Paul^ " I am 
 not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ : for it is 
 the power of God unto salvation, to every one 
 that believeth." With this conviction, 1 hold 
 it to be a sacred duty to contend earnestly for 
 the faith ; I trust, however, that my zeal is 
 according to knowledge, and that it has not 
 betrayed me into any language, unbecoming 
 a clergyman, or a Christian. I abhor perse- 
 cution, as altogether inconsistent with the pre- 
 cepts, as well as the practice, of the Redeemer 
 of the world. When certain Samaritans refused 
 to receive Jesus, and his disciples, James and 
 John, on this account, said to him, "'Lord, wilt 
 thou that we command fire to come down from 
 heaven, and consume them;" he turned and 
 rebuked them, and said, "Ye know not what 
 manner of spirit ye are of;" and on another 
 still more trying occasion, when the disciple 
 Peter drew a sword to fight in his cause, and 
 struck a servant of the high priest, and smote 
 off his ear, the benevolent Jesus not only healed 
 the wounded man^ but said to Peter, " Put up 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 again thy sword, for all they that take the sword, 
 shall perish with the sword." Hence we may 
 learn, that nothing- is more contrary to the 
 spirit of Christianity, than violence and per- 
 secution, and that reason and argument, are the 
 proper weapons, wherewith we ought to combat 
 the enemies of our religion. The proper armour 
 of the Christian is not carnal, but spiritual, and 
 taking- '' the shield of faith/' and ' the sword 
 of the Spirit, which is the word of God/' he 
 need be ^' in nothing terrified by his adversaries/' 
 for the Gospel will stand the test of the most 
 scrutinizing investigation.' Every time it is sub- 
 mitted to the trial, it will come forth with in- 
 creased lustre. The religion of the Christian 
 being- founded on the rock of truth, and having 
 the God of truth for its author, " the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it." As to 
 those who abandon the bright hopes, and glo- 
 rious prospects of the Gospel, to wander in the 
 steril paths of infidelity and darkness, who " for- 
 saking the fountain of living- waters, hew them 
 out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no 
 water," for them every retlectin<^ Christian will 
 feel the most sincere compassion ; a compassion 
 
PREFACE. VII 
 
 which must still more be excited^ when we see 
 such characters endeavouring- by impiety and 
 ridicule to make proselytes to their own com- 
 fortless opinions. Charity should induce us to 
 hope thatj whether most deceiving or deceived, 
 such persons are not aware, either of the extent 
 of the mischief they commit, or of the guilt 
 they incur^ by opposing- a religion^ every way 
 adapted to promote the present peace, and 
 eternal happiness of mankind. Surely they are 
 like one that scatters fire-brands, " and says. 
 Am I not in sport?" Let Christians then pray 
 for them in the language of the blessed Jesus : 
 " Father, forgive th6m, for they know not what 
 they do :" and more especially let those, who 
 stand forward as the advocates of Christianity, 
 remember the excellent advice, which the Apos- 
 tle Paul gave to Timothy : " The servant of the 
 Lord must not strive'^; but be gentle unto all 
 men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instruct- 
 
 * The verb ixd-)(^e(yOaL, in the original, signifies, 1. To fight, 
 contend, in fighting, or battle. 2. To strive, contend in woi'ds. 
 It is evident that an angry, hostile, manner of disputing, as 
 opposed to gentleness, forbearance, meekness, is the onlij thing 
 here foi-bidden to Christians." Pnrkhursl. 
 
 Hence too, Hesych. explains ciaKptvofxei'wi>. fxa-^ofxevuw. 
 
Vili PREFACE. 
 
 ing those that oppose themselves ; if God per- 
 adventure will give them repentance to the 
 acknowledging of the truth." 
 
 March, 1824. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction 1 
 
 Chap. I. 
 Sect. 1. St. Paul's Conversion. — The Probability and Con- 
 sistency of the Accounts concerning it, with Prelimi- 
 nary Observations 5 
 
 Sect. 2. The Consistency of the Accounts considered, in 
 
 continuation 9 
 
 Sect. S. Vision seen by Ananias 19 
 
 Sect. 4. Ananias's Visit to St. Paul 26 
 
 Sect. 5. Accounts of what the Vision is said to have re- 
 vealed to Ananias consistent with each otlier 30 
 
 Sect. 6. St. Paul preaches Christ in the Synagogues at 
 Damascus 31 
 
 Sect. 7- The Purposes for which the Visions appeared to 
 St. Paul and Ananias, perfectly consistent with the 
 Gospel Revelation 33 
 
 Sect. 8. St. Paul's Commission from the Jerusalem Rulers . 38 
 Sect. 9- St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians does not con- 
 tradict the Account given of his Conversion in The Acts 
 of the Apostles 42 
 
 Chap. II. 
 Sect. 1. St. Paul's Motives for embracing Christianity, con- 
 sidered 46 
 
 Sect. 2. St. Paul's Visit to Arabia 55 
 
 Sect. 3. The Jews at Damascus conspire against St. Paul . 59 
 Sect. 4. St. Paul's Visit to Arabia is not inconsistent Avith 
 
 what is related in The Acts of the Apostles 6l 
 
 Sect. 5. The Jewish Teacher Gamaliel, had no part in 
 St. Paul's Conversion to Christianity 6S 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 Chap. III. Pase 
 
 Sect. 1. St Paul's Divine Commission credited by the 
 Apcstles fi5 
 
 Sect. 2. Gamaliel Smith's desultory Mode of Enquiry. . . 66 
 
 Sect 3. St. Paul believed — Topics connected with his 
 five Visits to Jerusalem 67 
 
 Sect 4. Self- written Biography ; its title to belief greatly 
 increased, when borne out by the corroborating Testi- 
 mony of another Historian 71 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 
 Sect. 1. St. Paul believed, continued. First of his five 
 
 Visits to Jerusalem after his Conversion 73 
 
 Sect. 2. Motives of St. Paul's first Visit to Jerusalem 88 
 
 Sect. 3. Manner of St. Paul's Escape from Damascus ... 92 
 Sect. 4. Length of this first Visit. — St. Paul's Employ- 
 ment during it 97 
 
 Sect. 5. Termination of this first Visit 99 
 
 Sect. 6. Causes of the Termination of this Visit, con- 
 sidered 102 
 
 Chap. V. 
 ST. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem. 
 
 Sect. 1. A Dearth having been predicted by Agabus, 
 Collections are made at Antioch for the Brethren in 
 Judaea 107 
 
 Sect. 2. St. Paul and Barnabas deputed to convey the 
 
 Contributions to Jerusalem 113 
 
 Chap. VI. 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED — Continued. 
 
 Sect. 1. St. Paul's third Visit to Jerusalem — Dissension 
 and Debates about Circumcision . . .' 117 
 
 Sect. 2. Additional Testimony in support of St. Paul's 
 Character, and Divine Commission 125 
 
 Sect. 3. St. Paul's third Visit to Jerusalem, continued. . . 127 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 Chap. VII. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED COfUinUed. Pagtt 
 
 Sect. 1. Conference between St. Paul and other Apostles . 130 
 
 Sect. 2. Conference between St. Paul and other Apostles, 
 — continued 137 
 
 Chap. VIII. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED — continucd. 
 
 Sect. 1. Interview between St. Paul and St. Peter at 
 Antioch — Paul reproves Peter 14.? 
 
 Sect. 2. St. Paul and Barnabas separate 145 
 
 Chap. IX. 
 
 ST. PAUL DELiEvED — Continued. 
 
 Sect. 1. His fourth Visit to Jerusalem 154 
 
 Chap. X. 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED — Continued. 
 
 Sect. I . His fifth and last Visit to Jerusalem 1.56 
 
 Sect. 2. Motives of this Visit considered I57 
 
 Sect. 3. St. Paul's fifth Visit to Jerusalem — continued. . . 161 
 
 Chap. XI. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED C07lfi}IUed. 
 
 Sect. 1. His Arrival at Jerusalem, and reception by the 
 Apostles 1 6q 
 
 Sect. 2. St. Paul declares the things which God wrought 
 among the Gentiles, by his Ministry 17I 
 
XU CONTENTS. 
 
 Chap. XII. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED continued. Page 
 
 Sect. 1. At the recommendation of the Apostles, St. Paul 
 complies with certain .Jewish Ceremonies 174^ 
 
 Sect. 2. St. Paul's life endangered by a Tumult, excited 
 
 by Jews 183 
 
 Sect. 3. St. Paul Vindicated from the Charge of Perjury . 188 
 
 Sect. 4. St. Paul's Epistles afford no Proof, that he taught 
 Jews to contemn the Mosaic Law 19* 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Author of ''Not Paul but Jesus" seeks, 
 in the Introduction to his pubhcation, to preju- 
 dice his reader's mind^ at the very outset, against 
 the character of St. Paul ; but, as he deals rather 
 in assertions than facts, I deem it unnecessary 
 to dwell long- upon that part of his performance. 
 There is one passag-e, however, so flagrantly 
 absurd and unjust, that it may not be amiss 
 to offer a few observations upon it on this oc- 
 casion. " The dissentlons," says Mr. Gamaliel 
 Smith, " which at all times have had place among 
 persons professing the religion of Jesus, are but 
 too notorious. The mischiefs produced by these 
 dissentions, are no less so. These dissentions, 
 and these mischiefs, in what have they had their 
 source? In certain words. These words, of 
 whom have they been the words? Of Jesus? 
 No : this has not been so much as pretended : 
 of Paul, and of Paul alone : he giving them 
 all along, not as the words of Jesus, but as 
 his own only : — he all along preaching, (as will 
 be seen) in declared opposition to the eleven. 
 
who were undisputedly the Apostles of Jesus : 
 thus, of Paul only have they been the words^." 
 "The dissentions/' which have prevailed among 
 persons professing the religion of Jesus, must 
 ever be a subject of regret to the sincere 
 Christian ; but, so far is it from being true, 
 that '^'^ those dissentions, and the mischiefs pro- 
 duced by them/' have had their origin in any 
 words of St. Paul, that they have arisen from 
 a neglect of those precepts of peace and for- 
 bearance, which that Apostle, in conformity with 
 the example of his Redeemer, so zealously la- 
 boured to inculcate. The dissentions of Chris- 
 tians have sprung from pride and passion, 
 from ignorance and prejudice; and diversity 
 of opinion exists, not only with regard to doc- 
 trines contained in St. Paul's Epistles, but with 
 regard to those ascribed to our Lord by the 
 Evangelists. Nor have religious dissentions been 
 peculiar to the Christian world, but they have 
 prevailed, more or less, in every age and country. 
 The heathen philosophers had their different 
 partisans and supporters, and if the various 
 sects among them contended less zealously for 
 their respective opinions than Christians have 
 done for the doctrines of Christianity, it was 
 because there was nothing in the absurd poly- 
 
 » Pp. 5, 6. 
 
theism of the heathen, for which life or ease 
 was deemed worth risking. If, however, any 
 one had the boldness to expose the mummery 
 of heathen superstition, we see, in the treat- 
 ment of the virtuous and philosophic Socrates, 
 the fate that awaited him. Thus much for the 
 opinion of Mr. Gamaliel ' Smith, respecting the 
 cause of religious dissentions ; and, I think, 
 equally unfortunate, on enquiry, will be found 
 his assertion, that, in ""^the Gospels and Paul's 
 Epistles, two quite different, if not opposite, 
 religions are inculcated, and that, in the reli- 
 gion of Jesus may be found all the good, that 
 has ever been the result of the compound so 
 incongruously and unhappily made — in the reli- 
 gion of Paul all the mischief, which in such 
 disastrous abundance, has so indisputably flowed 
 from it''." Mr. Gamaliel Smith tells us, that 
 from those materials with which history has 
 furnished us, he has been compelled to deduce 
 the following conclusions: — 1st, That Paul had 
 no such commission as he professed to have ; 
 2d, That his enterprize was a scheme of per- 
 sonal ambition, and nothing more ; 3d, That his 
 system is fraught with mischiefs in a variety of 
 shapes, and in as far as it departs from, or 
 adds to, those of Jesus, with good in none, 
 
 ^ Page 7- 
 a2 
 
and that it has no warrant, in any thing that, 
 as appears from any of the four Gospels, was 
 ever said, or done, by Jesus." So far from 
 concurring in these opinions, 1 have, after a 
 most diligent investigation, arrived at conclusions 
 diametrically opposite, and am content to join 
 issue with the author on the points in question, 
 and, I trust, I shall be able to offer just and 
 substantial reasons, for concluding from the 
 history with which we are furnished relative to 
 that Apostle, 1st, That St. Paul had such a com- 
 mission as he professed to have ; 2dly, That 
 personal ambition formed no part of his enter- 
 prize ; 3dly, That the doctrines which he taught, 
 were in every respect worthy of a Christian 
 Apostle^ and in perfect conformity with those, 
 which were inculcated by Jesus, and his other 
 Apostles. 
 
CHAP. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 St. Paul's Conversion. — The Probabiiity and Consistency 
 of the Accounts concerning it, with Preliininary Ob- 
 servations. 
 
 That part of the sacred Scriptures, contained 
 in what is entitled, " The Acts of the Apostles," 
 offers such a strong* body of evidence in favor, 
 not only of the character and principles of St. 
 Paulj but also in confirmation of the divine 
 mission of Jesus, that any one opposed to the 
 doctrines of the Gospel, must naturally wish 
 to invalidate its authenticity, and to throw dis- 
 credit upon its Author. Hence it is not surprising 
 that Mr. Gamaliel Smith should labour so earnestly 
 to shake the credibility of that portion of Scrip- 
 ture. When I come to that part of the enquiry 
 in which he attempts to shew, that St. Luke 
 was not the author of The Acts of the Apostles, 
 I trust I shall be able to offer satisfactory reasons 
 for the contrary. 
 
 Let us suppose in the mean time that The 
 "Acts of the Apostles" were written by St. Luke, 
 
who also wrote one of the Gospels, and who 
 is styled in the Epistle to the Colossians 
 ''the beloved physician," Now some of the 
 principal facts which are related respecting 
 the conversion of St. Paul'' in The Acts of the 
 Apostles are as follows — that St. Paul being 
 a Jew, and brought up according to the straitest 
 sect of the Jewish religion, a Phari-ee, was 
 proceeding from Jerusalem to Damascus, with 
 authority and commission from the chief priests, 
 in order that if he found any of the disciples 
 of Christ, he might bring them bound to Jeru- 
 salem. That as he journeyed, with attendants, 
 towards Damascus, about mid-day suddenly 
 there shined round about him a light from 
 heaven, that he and his companions fell to the 
 earth, and, when they were all fallen to the 
 ground, Paul heard a voice from heaven, saying 
 in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest 
 thou me ? And Paul said. Who art thou Lord, 
 to which question a voice replied, I am Jesus 
 
 ' In The Acts of the Apostles he is called Saul till the 
 ninth verse of the thirteenth chapter, and afterwards he 
 is always called Paul. No satisfactory reason has been 
 assigned for this change. Perhaps the best conjecture is 
 that of Bishop Pearce. Saul, who was himself a citizen of 
 Rome, probably changed his name, i. e. his Hebrew name 
 Saul, to the Roman name Paul, out of respect to this his 
 first Roman convert, i. e. Sergius Paulus. Acts xiii. 7. 
 Bishop Tomline. 
 
of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest, and furthei' 
 directed him to go to Damascus to a disciple 
 named Ananias ; that the companions of Paul 
 saw the light, and heard the voice ; but under- 
 stood not the words which were spoken ; that 
 when Paul arose, and opened his eyes, he found 
 himself deprived of sight, and being conducted 
 by the men who were with him to Damascus, 
 to the disciple named Ananias, he recovered his 
 sight, and from that time became a zealous 
 defender and propagator of the Christian re- 
 ligion. Such are some of the principal circum- 
 stances relating to the conversion of St. Paul, 
 but before we proceed to consider the probability, 
 and consistency, of the different accounts of the 
 matters in question, it will be proper to state 
 a few chronological data'', to which we shall 
 have occasion to refer in the course of the ensu- 
 ing enquiry. The year after the birth of Christ, 
 in which St. Paul's conversion is said to have oc- 
 curred was A.D. 35 ; and we find in the history 
 given in the Acts, that when St. Paul was about 
 to go to Jerusalem from Greece, after his second 
 visit into that country, St. Luke was in his 
 company — for after mentioning certain persons, 
 
 '' These, and other chronological data to which reference 
 is made in the following pages, will, I trust, be found generally 
 correct, as I have taken them from appoved authorities. 
 
8 
 
 St. Luke says, '' These going before tarried for 
 us at Troas, and we sailed away from Pliilippi." 
 This was in the year 58, and from that time 
 to the year 63, in which St. Paul was set at 
 liberty after his first imprisonment at Rome, 
 St. Luke appears to have been almost always 
 his companion. Thus during- a period of about 
 five yearSj St. Luke would have an opportunity 
 not only of hearing from St. Paul the particulars 
 of his former history, but he would be an eye- 
 witness of a very interesting portion of his life, 
 and consequently the better qualified both to 
 judge of his conduct, and to bear testimony to 
 his character. Having made these preliminary 
 observations, I proceed to shew the consistency 
 of the three different accounts, given in The 
 Acts of the Apostles, relative to the conversion 
 of St. Paul, The first is that related by the 
 historian in his own person : the second is that 
 which St. Paul is reported to have delivered, 
 when apprehended at his last visit to Jerusalem; 
 the third is that which St. Paul is said to have 
 given of the matter when pleading before king 
 Agrippa. 
 
SECT. II. 
 
 The Consistency of the Accounts considered, in continuation. 
 
 I. The historical Account given by the Author 
 of The Acts of the Apostles : 
 
 Acts, cb. ix. ver. 1 — 9- 
 
 IX. 1. '^And Saul J yet breathing out threatenings and 
 slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the 
 high priestj 2. And desired of him letters to Damascus 
 to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, 
 whether they were men or women, he might bring them 
 bound tmto Jerusalem. 3. And as he journeyed, he came 
 near Damascus : and suddenly there shined round about 
 him a light from heaven : 4. And he fell to the earth, 
 and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why 
 persecutest thou mer 5. And he said, Who art thou. 
 Lord ? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou per- 
 secutest : it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 
 6. And he trembling and astonished said. Lord, what 
 wilt thou have me to do ? And the Lord said unto him, 
 Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee 
 what thou must do. 7. And the men which journeyed 
 with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing 
 no man. 8. And Saul arose from the earth; and when 
 his eyes were opened, he saw no man : but they led 
 him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 
 9. And he was three days without sight, and neither 
 did cat nor drink." 
 
10 
 
 II. St. Paul's first Account (when apprehended 
 at Jerusalem.) 
 
 Acts, cli. xxii. ver. 3 — 11. 
 
 XXII. 3. "I am verily a man which am a Jew, 
 born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this 
 city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to 
 the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,, and was 
 zealous toward God^ as ye all are this day. 4. And 
 I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and 
 delivering into prisons both men and women. 5. As 
 also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all 
 the estate of the elders : from whom also I received 
 letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to 
 bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, 
 for to be punished. 6. And it came to pass, that, 
 as I made my journey^ and was come nigh unto Damas- 
 cus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great 
 light round about me. 7- And I fell unto the ground, 
 and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why 
 persecutest thou me? 8. And I answered. Who art 
 thou. Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of 
 Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9. And they that 
 were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid ; 
 but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 
 10. And I said. What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord 
 said unto me. Arise, and go into Damascus ; and there 
 it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed 
 for thee to do. 11. And when I could not see for 
 the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them 
 that were with me, I came into Damascus. " 
 
II 
 
 III. St. Paul's second Account when pleading 
 before King Agrippa. 
 
 Acts, ch. xxvi. ver. 9 — 17. 
 
 XXVI. 9- *'I verily thought with myself, that I ought 
 to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of 
 Nazareth. 10. Which thing 1 also did in Jerusalem : 
 and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having 
 received authority from the chief priests ; and when they 
 were put to death^ I gave my voice against them. 1 1 . And 
 I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled 
 them to blaspheme ; and being exceedingly mad against 
 them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. 
 12. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority 
 and commission from the chief priests, 13. At mid-day, 
 O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above 
 the brightness of the sun, shining round about me 
 and them which journeyed with me. 14. And when 
 we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking 
 unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, 
 why persecutest thou me ? it is hard for thee to kick 
 against the pricks. 15. And I saidj Who art thou, 
 Lord ? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 
 16. But rise, and stand upon thy feet : for I have appeared 
 unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and 
 a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, 
 and of those things in the which I will appear unto 
 thee; 17. Delivering thee from the people, and from 
 the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee." 
 
12 
 
 In the above plain and unvarnished accounts 
 of St. Paul's conversion, so perfectly clear and 
 consistent in all essential points, Mr. Gamaliel 
 Smith pretends to have discovered a want of 
 conformity as to the ten following circumstances : 
 
 Omissions.... 1. The light seen. 
 
 ' 2. The dialogue. 
 
 3. Falling- to the ground. 
 
 — — ' — 4. Language of the voice. 
 
 • 5. Kicking against the pricks. 
 
 Contradictions. 6. The Lord's commands. 
 
 ■ 7- Paul's companions' posture. 
 
 8. Paul's companions' hearing or 
 
 not hearing. 
 
 9. If hearing, what they heard. 
 
 ' — • 10. Nothing seen but the light. 
 
 1. Light seen. "In Acts it is a 'light/ in Paul's 
 first 'a great light,' in both it is about mid-day. 
 But in Paul's second account it is above the 
 brightness of the sun at that time of the day." 
 p. 12. So far from being contradictory, these 
 accounts, respecting the supernatural light, 
 strongly corroborate each other. But, says 
 Gamaliel Smith, Paul having on the second 
 occasion abundant time, '" flowers were to 
 be collected," and this respecting the light, 
 «'is one of them;" but what motive St. Paul 
 
13 
 
 could have for such an embellishment (had it 
 been one) Gamaliel Smith does not attempt to 
 shew. The very description given by the 
 Apostle sufficiently proves that the light was 
 supernatural'', and in reply to Gamaliel Smith's 
 flippant enquiries as to the necessity of it, and 
 his idle speculations respecting it, I may observe 
 that the occasion of such a miraculous exertion 
 of power was in every respect worthy of its 
 divine Author. St. Paul possessed the requisite 
 qualifications for becoming an instrument in the 
 hands of Providence for the propagation of the 
 Gospel, but through a blind and mistaken zeal 
 he had bitterly persecuted the disciples of Christ 
 thinking that thereby he was doing God service ; 
 and we may reasonably conclude that nothing 
 less than an immediate revelation from God him- 
 self could have converted him to the truth, since 
 he had shewn himself deaf to the eloquent and 
 forcible reasoning of St. Stephen. The inter- 
 position of God in behalf of St. Paul was, there- 
 fore, an act not less of wisdom than of mercy. 
 
 2. Dialogue. Under this head I shall content 
 myself with observing that Gamaliel Smith has 
 
 * Mr. Robinson in his note on Acts ix. 3. thinks that 
 thunder and lightning were the symbols of the divine 
 presence on this occasion, as we are told they were upon 
 Mount Sinai, at the delivery of the Law. See his note. 
 
14 
 
 been guilty of great carelessness^ or a -wilful 
 disregard of truth, by saying, that Paul ''knew 
 the voice to be the Lord's" (that is, Jesus's.) 
 The direct contrary may be inferred from the 
 question, ''Who art thou, Lord?" and as to 
 the conversation or dialogue, it will be found 
 to be in each account to the same effect. 
 
 3. Falling to the ground. In this instance 
 Gamaliel Smith is wrong again. He says, "By 
 Paul alone was this prostration experienced." 
 In none of the accounts is it said, that the 
 prostration was experienced by Paul onli/, and 
 we are assured in Paul's second account, that 
 the contrary was the case. 
 
 4. Language of the voice. Gamaliel Smith 
 says, in Acts' account, and Paul's first account, 
 " of the language nothing is said." 
 
 In reply to this, I may observe, that, as it 
 was in the Hebrew language", in which the 
 Apostle spoke in his first account, it was un- 
 necessary for him to say, that the vision ad- 
 dressed him in that language ; but as it is most 
 probable, that Paul, when pleading before king 
 Agrippa and the Roman governor at Caesarea, 
 spoke in the Greek language, with which St. 
 Paul was perfectly conversant, it was extremely 
 natural for him, then, to remark, that the voice 
 
 * Acts xxi. 40. 
 
15 
 
 which he heard, " spake unto liirn in the Hebrew 
 tong-ue." 
 
 5 . "It is hard for thee to hick against the 
 pricks^." This proverbial expression is left out 
 in Paul's second account, but the omission is by 
 no means a proof, that it was not uttered by the 
 Vision. 
 
 We come now to what Gamaliel Smith calls 
 contradictions. 
 
 6. The Lord's commands. Under this head, 
 there is neither a '' sad contradiction, or dis- 
 astrous difference," as Gamaliel Smith would 
 have us believe. If we look at the first, or his- 
 torical account, we shall find, that the compa- 
 nions of Paul led him by the hand, and brought 
 him into Damascus, — a circumstance perfectly 
 consistent with the declaration in Paul's first 
 account, that the Lord said unto him, Arise, and 
 go into Damascus, as well as with the account 
 in Paul's second speech, of the Lord's intention 
 to make St. Paul '^a minister, and a witness of 
 those things which he had seen, and of those 
 things in the which the Lord would appear 
 unto him." 
 
 '' This was a proverbial method of expressing impotent 
 rage, (like the ox kicking against the goad) which hurts only 
 itself, not those against whom it is levelled. — Dr. Hales. See 
 also Mr. Robinson's note on Acts ix. 5. This proverb here 
 mentioned is omitted in Griesbach's edition. 
 
16 
 
 7- Paul's companions — their posture. " Per 
 Acts (says Gamaliel Smith,) though he fell^ they 
 stood it out. — Per Paul's second, they fell." In 
 the original Greek, which Mr. Gamaliel Smith pro- 
 fesses to understand, the word rendered in our 
 English translation stood^, signifies also, to re- 
 main^ to continue, to stop ; and it need not sur- 
 prize any one, that the companions of St. Paul^ 
 terrified as they are reported to have been, 
 should have remained, or stopped for some time, 
 before they attempted to rise, move, or speak. 
 
 8. Paul's companions, their hearing, or not 
 hearing. " Per Acts, they not only saw the light, 
 but heard the voice. Per Paul's first, they did 
 not hear the voice''." This at first looks like 
 a formidable contradiction, but when the English 
 reader is told, that in the Greek language there 
 is a word, which signifies 1, to hear; 2, to 
 understand ; and when I inform him, that this 
 is the very word used by St. Paul, in the pas- 
 sage in question, the difficulty, and apparent 
 
 ^ e'lGTtjKeiaav, Acts ix. 7- See Mr. Robinson's note, where 
 the apparent difficulty with respect to ' this word is entirely 
 removed. See also Mr. Hughes's Defence, p. 64. 
 
 ^ Trjv 06 (pwvtjv ovK rJKovaav. Acts xxii. 9- Mr. Robinson, 
 in his note on Acts ix. 7. confirms what I have said on the 
 different significations of aKovui. He adds, on comparing the 
 two accounts, " Nullam certe in his repugnantiam inveniet, 
 qui ad talium investigationem sobrius accedit." See also 
 Mr. Hughes, p. 65. 
 
17 
 
 contradiction, will vanish, and we shall find, 
 per Acts, that the men which journeyed with 
 Paul, heard indeed the voice, but by Paul's 
 first account, they understood it not. 
 
 9. Paul's companions, if they heard, what 
 it was they heard. The contradiction attempted 
 to be established under the preceding iicad, 
 being already refuted, the superstructure which 
 Gamaliel Smith has raised upon it, falls to tiie 
 ground : but I shall make one or two remarks 
 in reply to the following passage : " How 
 was it, says Gamaliel Smith, that Paul's com- 
 panions were able to lead Paul by the hand. 
 All that he saw was the light, and by that 
 light he was blinded. But all that he saw, they 
 saw; this same light tliey saw as well as he. 
 This same light, then, by which he was blinded, 
 were they not likewise blinded by it? Was 
 it a privilege — a privilege reserved for a chosen 
 favourite?" I have already shewn, that there 
 existed a powerful reason for the interposition 
 of Providence in the case of St. Paul ; the tem- 
 porary blindness to which he was subjected, 
 formed a part of that interposition, and the 
 restoration of his sight afterwards at Damascus, 
 would add confirmation to the truth of his re- 
 ported supernatural conversion ; but the case 
 was different in regard to his companions : they 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 saw enough^ indeed^ to enable them to bear 
 witness to St. Paul's miraculous conversion, 
 upon which, mo^t probably, their own would 
 follow ; there existed no necessity for them to 
 suffer blindness, and I may add, that St. Paul 
 being- blinded by a light which others saw_, 
 without feeling any ill effects from it, clearly 
 shews, that St. Paul's blindness was not pro- 
 duced by lightning, or any other natural cause, 
 but was the immediate act of God himself. 
 
 10. Nothing seen but the light. " Saw no 
 man. Yes, so says the English version, but the 
 original is more comprehensive ; Saw no person 
 says the original, i. e., to speak literally, no 
 person of the masculine gender. — No person, 
 and therefore, no Lord, no God." — p. 20. If 
 the reader turns to the eighth verse of the 
 ninth chapter of The Acts, he will see how ill- 
 timed are the above remarks of Mr. Gamaliel 
 Smith. Paul, it is true, " saw no man" after 
 he had been blinded by the supernatural light; 
 but that Jesus manifested himself to St. Paul 
 before the blindness took place, is plainly to be 
 inferred from each of the accounts. 
 
19 
 SECT. III. 
 
 Vision seen bif Ananias. 
 
 With regard to the \vonderful fact of 
 St. Paul's conversion to the truth of Christianity, 
 we may truly say, '' we are compassed about 
 with a cloud of witnesses." The matter does 
 not rest on one or two insulated circumstances, 
 but is supported by such strong internal, as well 
 as external, evidence, as must carry conviction 
 to every unprejudiced mind. Lest any doubt 
 should exist with any of the disciples at Da- 
 mascus, respecting the reality of St. Paul's con- 
 version, or lest the report of the vision which 
 he had seen on the road to Damascus, should 
 be deemed a concerted scheme between St. Paul 
 and his companions, additional testimony was 
 given to [the fact by our Lord iiimself, who 
 appearing in a vision to Ananias at Damascus, 
 directed him to go to the house of one Judas, 
 where he would jfind Saul praying. The ac- 
 count of this vision is related in the ninth 
 chapter of The Acts, with admirable clearness 
 and simplicity, and is further corroborated by 
 what St. Paul is reported to have said when 
 apprehended at Jerusalem. 
 
 n 2 
 
20 
 
 The two accounts are as follows : 
 
 1st Acts' Account. 
 
 Chap. ix. ver. 17 — 22. 
 
 IX. 17. ^' And Ananias went his way, and entered 
 into the house ; and putting his hands on him, said. 
 Brother Saulj the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto 
 thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou 
 mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy 
 Ghost. 18. And immediately there f^ll from his eyes as it 
 had been scales ; and he received sight forthwith, and arose 
 and was baptized. IQ. And when he had received meat, he 
 was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the 
 disciples which were at Damascus. 20 And straightway 
 he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son 
 of God. 21. 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 ? 
 22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and con- 
 founded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that 
 this is very Christ." 
 
 St. Paul's Account. 
 
 Acts, Chap. xxii. ver. 12 — 16. 
 
 XXII. 12. " And one Ananias, a devout man accord- 
 ing to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which 
 dwelt there, 13. Came unto me, and stood, and said unto 
 me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour 
 1 looked up upon him. 14. And he said. The God of our 
 fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his 
 
21 
 
 will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice 
 of his mouth. 13. For thou shall be his witness unto all 
 men, of what thou hast seen and heard. l6. And now, 
 why tarriest thou ? arise,^and be baptized, and vash away 
 thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
 
 I might safely leave the consistency of the 
 accounts here given to the judgment of every 
 impartial reader, being persuaded that there 
 is not the slightest circumstance in the one, 
 tending to shake the credibility of the other; and 
 I will further venture to affirm that looking at 
 the history given in the ninth chapter of The 
 Acts, there is no rational mode of accounting 
 for the conduct of Ananias, but by supposing 
 the vision he is reported to have seen, to have 
 really taken place. Was it probable that Ananias, 
 who was a disciple of Christ, unless he had been 
 really convinced of the truth of St, Paul's con- 
 version, would have sought out St. Paul. Would 
 he have madly rushed into the arms of one, whom 
 (as appears from the account) he knew to be 
 invested with authority from the chief priests, 
 and to have set out for Damascus with the 
 express design of persecuting the followers of 
 Christ. Most assuredly not. But it may be 
 said, might not Ananias have been deceived 
 through too much credulity ; or might he not 
 have mistaken the reveries of his own brain 
 
22 
 
 for a vision. Look at the account, and you 
 will find, that instead of possessing that aptitude 
 of belief, which is most liable to imposition, 
 he was slow of heart to believe what the vision 
 declared to him. He doubted not only of the 
 fact of St. Paul's conversion, but expressed 
 his dread of him. "Lord, I have heard by 
 many, (said Ananias,) of this man how much 
 evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem. 
 And here he hath authority from the chief 
 priests, to bind all that call on thy name;" 
 nor was it, till further assured by the vision 
 of the reality of St. Paul's conversion, that he 
 obeyed the command, and went his way and 
 sought out St. Paul. If the vision which 
 Ananias is reported to have seen, had been 
 unreal, how are we to account for his going 
 to the house where St. Paul was? for his telling 
 that Apostle what had occurred to him on his 
 way to Damascus? or for St. Paul receiving 
 his sight, and being baptized by Ananias ? 
 circumstances which are clearly stated in the 
 history. Again, it may be asked, might not 
 Ananias have been engaged in a concerted 
 plan with St. Paul to impose upon the Jews, 
 and the disciples of Christ, a story of visions 
 which had never had existence? To this I 
 may reply, that euch a supposition is not le^s 
 
23 
 
 repugnant to all that is related of the matter^ 
 than it is to reason ; for St. Paul had com- 
 panions with him on his journey, and if it 
 was pretended that he had seen a vision on 
 his way to Damascus, when travelling- with 
 attendants, those attendants would naturally 
 be examined on the subject, and if no such 
 circumstances as those reported had occurred^ 
 then instead of any possible utility, or advantage, 
 arising therefrom to either Paul, or Ananias, 
 they must have been immediately covered with 
 shame and contempt, and treated as impostors 
 unworthy of belief. It was not likely, either 
 that the Jews or the disciples of Christ would 
 suffer such a remarkable circumstance as St. 
 Paul's conversion to be passed over without 
 enquiry. The Jews incensed against him for 
 having embraced Christianity, and the followers 
 of Christ fearful of him on account of his former 
 persecutions, would be equally interested in 
 ascertaining the reality of his conversion. Be- 
 sides, independent of the improbability and use- 
 lessness of such a conspiracy between St. Paul 
 and Ananias, the character given of the latter 
 proves him to have been a very unlikely person 
 to have engaged in a fraud of such a nature : 
 for '^'^he was a devout man according to the 
 law, having a good report among* all the Jews 
 
24 
 
 who dwelt at Damascus." Mr. Gamaliel Smith 
 affects surprise at the character given of Ananias: 
 he wonders how Ananias could have been a 
 "devout man according to the law;" but neither 
 Gamaliel Smith, or any other person^ can find 
 any passage in Scripture in which it is said, 
 that men could not be devout under the Jewish 
 dispensation : to say nothing of numerous 
 worthies in the Old Testament, of whose 
 devotion so much is recorded, we are told by 
 St. Luke, that Simeon was both just and devout % 
 and as at the time when Simeon is said to have 
 possessed this character, he could not have had 
 any knowledge of religion beyond that afforded 
 by the Mosaic dispensation, he must have been 
 devout according to the law. The fact is, both 
 Christ and his Apostles approved of that part 
 of the Jewish religion, which is called the moral 
 law, and so far from annulling it, Christ said, 
 "Whosoever should break one of its least com- 
 mandments, and should teach men so to do, he 
 should be accounted least in the kingdom of 
 heaven." The law, as St. Paul observed, was 
 ''holy, just, and good;" but because it was 
 clogged with numerous burthensome ceremonies, 
 which were only ''a shadow of good things to 
 
 » J.iike ii. 2.5. 
 
25 
 
 come/* Christ and his Apostles taught men 
 a more excellent way of religion, and by the 
 preaching- of the Gospel brought life and im- 
 mortality to light. 
 
 But, says Gamaliel Smith, '^^ if Ananias was so 
 happy as to be the subject of this good report, 
 this man who was already a Christian, this 
 man, and not Paul, who of all opposers of 
 Christianity had been the most fierce, would 
 naturally have been the man to receive the 
 supernatural commission. Supposing his vision 
 real and the reports of it true, no difficulty, 
 rationally speaking, could he have found in 
 obtaining credence for it, at the hands of the 
 Apostles'*." That Ananias was one of many 
 excellent witnesses to the truth of Christianity 
 appears clear from the history which is given 
 concerning him, but that he was so well 
 qualified to become a propagator of Christ's 
 religion as St. Paul, is, what I must beg to 
 deny : for independent of St. Paul's peculiar 
 attainments, the very circumstance of his having 
 once been a bitter enemy, and persecutor of 
 the disciples of Jesus, renders his testimony 
 the more important, and the more entitled to 
 belief; and I perfectly concur in the observation 
 
 ' Page 21. 
 
26 
 
 of Lord Lyttleton, that '' the conversion and 
 Apostleship of St. Paul, is, of itself, a demon- 
 stration sufficient to prove Christianity to be 
 a divine revelation''/" The visions^ then, which 
 are reported to have been seen by St. Paul 
 and Ananias being- real^ and from what has 
 been said, we have every reason to believe they 
 were so, we shall find that the circumstances 
 which followed were such as were promised, 
 and might naturally be expected to be ac- 
 complished. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 Ananias's Visit to St. Paul. 
 
 To suppose that St. Paul, who had been 
 blind three days, could immediately receive his 
 sight from the mere words of Ananias without 
 believing Ananias to have been invested with 
 supernatural power, would be to yield up our 
 minds to the most absurd credulity, especially 
 when we consider that St. Paul's blindness was 
 of no ordinary kind. " And Ananias went his 
 way, and entered into the house, and putting- 
 
 ' Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of 
 St. Paul, by the late Right Hon. George Lord Lyttleton. 
 
37 
 
 his hands on him, said, Brotlier Saul, the Lord 
 Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as 
 thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest 
 receive thy sight, and he filled with the Holy 
 Ghost. And immediately there fell from his 
 eyes scales, and he received sight forthwith." 
 Acts ix. 17, 18. 
 
 We are informed in the New Testament, 
 that when Jesus was about to ascend to heaven 
 after his resurrection, he said to the eleven dis- 
 ciples, "Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 the Gospel to every creature, he that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved." Agreeably to 
 this command we find baptism was administered 
 by his Apostles, and indeed the outward sign 
 of water was well calculated to represent the 
 internal purity of heart enjoined by Christ's 
 religion, and the cleansing efficacy of that blood 
 which was shed for the salvation of mankind. 
 It was usual for the new converts to Christianity 
 to comply with the rite of baptism, as a test 
 of their profession of the Gospel : it was, there- 
 fore, perfectly consonant with the religion of Jesus, 
 that St. Paul should give this outward evidence 
 of his conversion — an evidence that appeared in 
 his case the more necessary, from his having 
 so recently been a persecutor of the followers 
 of Christ. Accordingly we read, that St. Paul 
 
28 
 
 received baptism on the occasion of Ananias's 
 visit. 
 
 " Arise, said Ananias to him, and be baptized, 
 and wash away thy sins, calling on the name 
 of the Lord." Acts xxii. l6. "And he arose, 
 and was baptized/* Acts ix. 18. 
 
 In this circumstance Mr. Gamaliel Smith 
 has found matter for raillery, and I insert the 
 following passage, absurd as it is, to shew how 
 light and unbecoming are the remarks into 
 which writers are betrayed, who indulge in 
 a spirit of ridicule on sacred subjects. 
 
 "This is no light matter, if so it really 
 were that according to the religion of Jesus 
 by such a cause such an effect was, on that 
 occasion, produced, that such effect could in 
 a word, on any occasion, in any case, be produced, 
 that murders (or not to embarrass the question 
 with conceits of local jurisprudence) killings 
 of men, killings of men by persecution carried 
 on on a religious account — slaughters of Chris- 
 tians by non-christians, could thus, as in Paul's 
 case, be divested of all guilt, at any rate of all 
 punishment at the hands of Almighty justice, 
 if impunity could, indeed, be thus conferred by 
 the sprinkling a man with water, or dipping 
 him in it, then would it be matter of serious con- 
 sideration, not only what is the verity of that 
 
«9 
 
 religion, but what the usefulness of it, what the 
 usefulness, with reference to the present life, 
 at any rate not to speak of a life to come." 
 Not Paul hut Jesus, pp. 37, 38. 
 
 Now to offer many words in reply to such 
 frivolous observations as those just cited, would 
 be a waste of my own and my reader's time. 
 With regard, however, to the circumstance of 
 St. Paul being baptized, and the promise held 
 out to him in the name of Jesus, of remission 
 of his sins, I may remark, that we see in the 
 instance of St, Paul, that the religion of Jesus 
 is a religion of mercy, affording to every believing 
 penitent the hope, that if like that Apostle he 
 truly repents, and turns from the error of his 
 ways, the blood which Christ shed upon the cross 
 will prove effectual to atone for the guilt of 
 his past transgressions, and to obtain for him, 
 at the hands of Almighty justice, pardon and 
 salvation. The Gospel bids us "^ repent and 
 believe," and by holding out to us the promise 
 of mercy to be obtained through Christ, it admi- 
 nisters an antidote to despair, than which there 
 cannot be a worse foe to reformation of life. 
 
;iO 
 
 SECT. V 
 
 Accounts of what the Vision is said to have revealed 
 to Ananias consistent with each other. 
 
 In the historical account, and that which is 
 reported to have been dehvered afterwards by 
 St. Paul in his speech at Jerusalem, we may 
 observe a striking conformity in regard to the 
 matters stated to have taken place at the inter- 
 view between St. Paul and Ananias ; at the 
 same time, it is to be remarked, that there is not 
 that precise agreement in the language, which 
 we may naturally suppose would have been 
 adopted by a person who was forging a narra- 
 tive, with a view to impose upon the world. 
 Thus, in the historical account of what Ananias 
 said to St. Paul, we read, "that the Lord said unto 
 him (that is, to Ananias), Go thy way: for he is- 
 a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before 
 the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of 
 Israel: for I will shew him how great tilings he 
 must suffer for my name's sake." Acts ix. 15, l6. 
 In the account given by St. Paul relative to the 
 same circumstance, we meet with language to 
 the same effect. "And he, that is, Ananias, said, 
 The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that 
 
31 
 
 thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just 
 One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 
 For- thou shall be his loilness unto all men of what 
 thou hast seen and heard." Acts xxii. 14, 15. 
 
 That St. Paul should be forewarned by God, 
 and thereby the better prepared to encounter the 
 suffering's that awaited him for preaching- the 
 Gospel of Christ, seems very natural, and as we 
 proceed in our investigation we shall find, that 
 St. Paul became what the vision declared he 
 should be, a chosen vessel, to bear the name of 
 Christ before the Gentiles, and kings, and the 
 children of Israel, and that he actually did "suffer 
 great things" for preaching Christ's religion. 
 
 SECT. VI 
 
 iS^. Paul preaches Christ in the Synagogues at 
 Damascus. 
 
 Enough, I trust, has been already said to prove 
 the reality of St. Paul's conversion, and of that event, 
 we may, in what is related of his subsequent con- 
 duct, expect to witness the fruits in his zealous and 
 successful propagation of the religion which he 
 had before endeavoured to destroy. Conformably 
 
3^ 
 
 to this opinion, we find, that after his interview 
 with Ananias, St. Paul commenced ''preaching 
 Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son 
 of God/' a doctrine most unpalatable to the 
 Jews who had persecuted Jesus and his followers, 
 but most consolatory to those, who had embraced 
 the Gospel; since, if Christ was indeed the Son 
 of God, then must his religion have been true, 
 and all the hopes and promises which he had 
 held out to his disciples would, in due time, 
 receive their full accomplishment. That St. Paul 
 should preach Christ, that he is the Son of God — 
 that he should bear witness to him as the very 
 Christ, the long looked-for Messiah, and by prov- 
 ino- this, should confound the Jews which dwelt 
 at Damascus — that all that heard him should be 
 amazed, and say, "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," are 
 all matters perfectly consistent with the sincerity 
 of St. Paul's conversion, but at the same time 
 so incompatible with the opinions that Gamaliel 
 Smith labours to inculcate respecting Paul's not 
 preaching ''Jesus, but himself," nor the Gospel 
 of Jesus, but *' one of his own making," that we 
 need hardly be surprised at the cool assurance 
 with which he denies the facts altogether. "Had 
 
33 
 
 there really been any such preaching, well might 
 have amazement followed it. But there was no 
 such preaching", therefore no such amazement*." 
 Such is the language of Mr. Gamaliel Smith, and 
 to his unproved and unsupported assertions we 
 may safely oppose the well authenticated, long 
 established, testimony afforded to St. Paul's 
 preaching, by the author of The Acts of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 SECT. VII. 
 
 2'he Purposes for which the Visions appeared to St. Paul 
 and Ananias perfectly consistent with the Gospel 
 Revelation. 
 
 With regard to the purposes for which Ana- 
 nias represents St. Paul as chosen by God, they 
 are perfectly consonant with the rehgion of Jesus, 
 and shew most clearly that St. Paul was invested 
 with such a commission to preach the Gospel 
 as he professed to have. St. Paul, before his 
 conversion, was unacquainted with the will of 
 God, and had approved the deeds of those who 
 had been ''the betrayers and murderers of the 
 
 • Page 44. 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 Just One," but by the supernatural revelation 
 made to him, the eyes of his understanding were 
 enlightened, the will of God was made known 
 to him, and he was enabled to see the " truth 
 as it is in Jesus." '' The God of our fathers" 
 (said Ananias to St. Paul) " hath chosen thee, that 
 thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just 
 One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth : 
 for thou shalt be his witness unto all men, of 
 what thou hast seen and heard." The historical 
 account speaks to the same effect, saying, ''The 
 Lord said unto him." that is, Ananias, "^ Go thy 
 way, for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my 
 name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the child- 
 ren of Israel." St. Paul also, in giving an account 
 of the purposes, for which the vision appeared 
 to him in the way, represents Jesus as thus ad- 
 dressing him, "^ I have appeared unto thee for this 
 purpose, to make thee a minister, and a witness, 
 both of these things which thou hast seen, aud 
 of those things in the whicii I will appear unto 
 thee, delivering thee from the people, and from 
 the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to 
 open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness 
 to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, 
 that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and 
 inheritance among them which are sanctified 
 by faith that is in me." Now if Jesus really did 
 
35 
 
 appear to St. Paul for the purposes above-men- 
 tioned, and there is every reason to believe that 
 he did, then must St. Paul have been a minister, 
 and an Apostle commissioned by divine authority; 
 and 1 can only attribute it to Mr. Gamaliel 
 Smith's unhappy anxiety to disprove St. Paul's 
 Apostolic character, that he has indulged in 
 language, of which mature reflection must, I think, 
 shew him the extreme impropriety. " To open 
 their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to 
 light, and from the power of Satan unto God." 
 To his life's end, says Gamaliel Smith, a man 
 might be hearing such stories as these, and still 
 at the end of it be none the wiser — no additional 
 doctrine — no additional Gospel — no declaration 
 at all — no Gospel at all here. Not Paul but 
 Jesus, pp. 48, 59. '' That they may receive 
 forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them 
 which are sanctified by faith that is in me ;" 
 *' this," says Gamaliel Smith "is not doctrine — this 
 is not Gospel," p. 49. So far from subscribing 
 to these opinions of Gamaliel Smith, I think the 
 passage in question shews that Paul was com- 
 missioned to preach very important doctrine — 
 doctrine perfectly consistent with the religion 
 of Jesus, which informs us, that "^ through the 
 tender mercy of our God, the day-spring from 
 on high hath visited us, to give light to them 
 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 that sat in darkness, and in the shadow of death, 
 to guide our feet into the way of peace;" and 
 that, " for this purpose the Son of God was mani- 
 fested, that he might destroy the works of the 
 devil." It is a matter of regret rather than 
 surprise, that there should be found any who 
 can ridicule the most sacred truths, that there 
 are those who hear unmoved "to their lives' 
 end" the most important doctrines, for some 
 men "^Move darkness rather than light:" but 
 as St. Paul says, '"If the Gospel be hid, it is 
 hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of 
 this world, hath blinded the minds of them which 
 believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel 
 of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine 
 unto them." 
 
 Instead, however, of approving, or joining 
 in, /the idle cavils of the sceptic, the Christian 
 will exclaim with St. Peter, "Blessed be the 
 God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 which, according- to his abundant mercy, hath 
 begotten us again unto a lively hope by the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 
 to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, 
 and that Jadeth not away, reserved in heaven 
 for them, who are kept by the power of God 
 through faith unto salvation"" ." 
 
 * 1 Pet. i. 3, 4. 
 
37 
 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith argues, that because the 
 account given by St. Paul in one part of The 
 Acts of the Apostles, of the purposes for which 
 God had chosen him, differs in some minute 
 particulars from the account given by the his- 
 torian of the same matters, when speaking in 
 his own person — the whole is ''a fable," an 
 invented ftible, which the author of The Acts 
 did not himself believe; and then he adds, "Yet 
 this account, which, in the eyes of the very man 
 by whom it is delivered to us, is but a fable, even 
 those to whom in this same character of a fable 
 it is delivered, this account it is, that Christians 
 have thus long persisted in regarding, supporting, 
 and acting upon as if it were from beginning to 
 end, a truth — a great body of truth ! O Locke ! 
 O Newton! where was your discernment''!" 
 Christians will, I doubt not, continue to believe 
 that to be true, which Mr. Gamaliel Smith here 
 calls a fable, notwithstanding the scoffs and sneers 
 of vain and captious sciolists : but of the preten- 
 sions of Gamaliel Smith, Esq. to arraign the 
 discernment of Locke and Newton, we shall be 
 better qualified to judge, as we proceed in our 
 enquiry. In the mean time it is satisfactory to 
 remark, that those excellent and enlightened 
 men^ applying the great powers of their minds 
 
 " Page 50. 
 
38 
 
 to investigate the evidences of Christianily, were 
 firmly persuaded of its truth, and not only them" 
 selves believed the Scriptures, but devoted a 
 portion of their studies to illustrate the beauties, 
 and to elucidate the difficulties contained in 
 Holy Writ. 
 
 SECT. VIII. 
 
 St. Paul's Cumt/tission from the Jerusalem Rulers. 
 
 We read in the ninth chapter of The Acts, 
 that ''Paul, yet breathing- out threatenings and 
 slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went 
 unto the high priest, and desired of him letters 
 to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he 
 found any of this way, whether they were men 
 or women, he might bring them bound unto 
 Jerusalem," and St. Paul, when apprehended at 
 Jerusalem, confirms the account here given, and 
 is reported to have appealed to the high priest 
 and the elders, as to the truth of his having- 
 been invested with such an authority. With 
 his usual scepticism, Mr. Gamaliel Smith doubts 
 the truth of the matters altogether, and makes 
 the following very sapient remarks : " Supposing 
 the appeal made, the multitude might have 
 
39 
 
 saved themselves the trouble of putting him 
 to death : those rulers against whom, by his own 
 confession, he had committed this treason, would 
 have been ready enough to proceed against him 
 in the regular way, and take the business out 
 of the hands of an unauthorized mob*." Now, 
 according to the received chronology, the time 
 when St. Paul was invested with the commis- 
 sion to apprehend the disciples at Damascus, 
 was A. D. 35. The time when he made the 
 appeal to the high priest, was a.d. 58. I need 
 not say to those who are at all acquainted with 
 the Jewish history, that numerous changes, not 
 only in the office of the high priesthood, but 
 in other affairs, had taken place in the inter- 
 vening 23 years. At the time when Paul set 
 out on his commission to Damascus, Caiaphas 
 was the high priest, soon afterwards he was 
 deposed, and Jonathan set up in his stead. 
 
 After him, we read in Josephus, that the 
 office of high priest was held by Theophilus, 
 Simon, Matthias, Elionasus, Josephus, and Ana- 
 nias, the last of whom appears to have exer- 
 cised it at the time when St. Paul was appre- 
 hended at Jerusalem. Yet, according to Gamaliel 
 Smith, we are to shut our eyes to all that 
 might have happened in the interval between 
 ^ Page 59. 
 
40 
 
 the two periods ; we are to suppose the same 
 high priest, and the same elders to have been 
 all living', and in office ; and, that spite of the 
 Roman authority, spite of St. Paul's Roman 
 citizenship, nothing' would have been more easy 
 than to have had Paul taken up, and put to 
 death, and for what? for not having executed, 
 23 years before, a commission to bind and 
 persecute the Christians, a commission in itself 
 most barbarous, cruel, and unnatural, not to 
 say illegal. Such are the absurdities to which 
 Gamaliel Smith's hypothesis inevitably leads ! 
 That St. Paul should declare that the elders, 
 and the person who was high priest at the 
 time he was speaking, could confirm his testi- 
 mony on the subject of his commission to 
 persecute the disciples, was extremely natural, 
 for they could not be ignorant of such a com- 
 mission having formerly been granted to St. Paul ; 
 for even supposing there were uo public re- 
 cords in the archives of the high priesthood 
 of the fact, St. Paul's conversion to Christianity 
 and tlie circumstances attending it, could no< 
 have been otherwise than well known in Jeru 
 salem, especially to the ecclesiastical rulers ol 
 the Jews, from whose predecessors St. Paui 
 had received his commission, to apprehend the 
 disciples at Damascus, and bring them bound 
 
41 
 
 to Jerusalem. It was a blind and mistaken 
 zealj that induced Paul to become a perse- 
 cutor of the followers of Jesus, but as he him- 
 self declares, he "^ obtained mercy, because he 
 did it ignorantly in unbelief;" and when con- 
 vinced by the vision which he saw on the 
 road to Damascus, that the religion of Christ 
 was true, and consequently, that the commission 
 which he had received from the chief priest and 
 the elders was cruel and unjust, he resolved to 
 set it at defiance, although, from the treatment 
 experienced by Christ, and the still more re- 
 cent fate of St. Stephen, he must have well 
 known, that such a line of conduct would be 
 attended with the utmost danger to himself. 
 That the Jews afterwards pursued him with 
 the utmost malice, is evident from various parts 
 of his history. St. Paul, however, never suffered 
 any personal consideration to divert him from 
 what he considered the path of duty. He 
 thought it better to "obey God rather than 
 men," and hence it was, that, reckless of con- 
 sequences to himself, he not only set at nought 
 his commission from the high priest, but went 
 and preached in the very synagogues of the 
 Jews at Damascus, that Christ was the Son 
 of God. And we shall find, as we proceed, 
 that without subjecting himself to the imputa- 
 
4S 
 
 tion of rashness, or enthusiasm, nis conduct 
 was that of a man who was firmly persuaded 
 of the truth of what he taught, and who was 
 ready to lay down his life for the name and 
 religion of Jesus. 
 
 SECT. IX. 
 
 St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatiuns does not contradict the 
 Account given of his Conversion in The Acts of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 Speaking of St. Paul's conversion, Gamaliel 
 Smith says, '' All this while now, for little less 
 than 1800 years, from Paul's own pen, we 
 have an account of this his conversion, and of 
 any such story as that of its being- effected 
 through the instrumentality of visions in this 
 account of his, not any the slightest trace is 
 to be found, not any the slightest allusion to 
 it^a Now let us turn to the first chapter of 
 Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, and we shall 
 see the utter falsity of the above remarks. 
 Gal. i. 1. ''Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither 
 by man, but by Jesus Christ. Ver. 10. For do 
 I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to 
 " Page 64. 
 
43 
 
 please men ? for if I yet pleased men, I should 
 not be the servant of Christ. Ver. 11. But 1 
 certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which 
 was preached of me is not after man. Ver. 12. 
 For I neither received it of man, neither was 
 I taught it, but hy the revelation of Jesus 
 Christ." We here observe the most direct allu- 
 sion to those visions St. Paul is reported to 
 have seen ; for if St. Paul received not the 
 Gospel of men, neither by man, how did he 
 receive it, and by whom was it revealed to 
 him ? Undoubtedly from Christ himself, who 
 appeared to him in those visions of which we 
 have such clear and satisfactory accounts in The 
 Acts of the Apostles. Again, Gamaliel Smith 
 errs in saying-, we have an account (if by ac- 
 count he means a regular history), from Paul's 
 own pen, of his conversion. St. Paul had preached 
 the Gospel among the Galatians, before he wrote 
 his Epistle to them, and had therefore had an 
 opportunity of personally giving them an account 
 of the manner of his conversion, while among 
 them''; consequently, there was no need for 
 
 *" There is a great difference of opinion among the learned, 
 concerning the date of this Epistle (to the Galatians,) some 
 supposing that it was written as early as the year 52, and 
 others as late as the year 58. There is, however, an expres- 
 sion in the beginning, which appears to fix its date with a 
 
 considerable 
 
44 
 
 him to g-ive the history of it in his Epistle : 
 but there was a reason^, which made it ex- 
 tremely proper for him to assert the divine 
 authority by which he preached the Gospel, 
 since it appears from the Epistle, that a Juda- 
 izing faction, who wanted to introduce circum- 
 cision, and other Jewish ceremonies among the 
 Galatians, had endeavoured to undermine his 
 character, by comparing- it with that of Peter, 
 and the other Apostles, who had been the 
 companions of Jesus during his ministry on 
 earth. Enough is said in St. Paul's Epistle to 
 the Galatians, to confirm the account given in 
 
 considerable degree of probability. " I marvel, (says the 
 Apostle), that ye are so soon removed from him that called 
 you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel." This 
 passage seems to prove, that the Epistle was written soon after 
 the Galatians were converted to Christianity. From the his- 
 tory of St. Paul it appears, that he preached in Galatia in the 
 year 51, and again in the year 53. No mention is made in this 
 Epistle, of St. Paul having been twice in Galatia, and, therefore, 
 I conclude, that it was written in the interval between his two 
 visits, and, most probably, in the year 52, while he was at 
 Corinth, or it might have been written, as Michaelis thinks, 
 in Macedonia, before St. Paul went to Corinth. Bp. Toml'me. 
 Paley has shewn, that the subscription, whicli, says the 
 Epistle to the Galatians, was written from Rome, is erroneous, 
 and also, that the subscriptions at the end of five other of 
 Paul's Epistles, (viz. first Epistle to Cor., 1 Thess., 2 Thess., 
 1 Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus,) are either false or 
 improbable. The subscriptions attached to the Epistles are 
 to be regarded, as Paley remarks, as ancient scholia and 
 nothing more. 
 
45 
 
 The Acts of his conversion, and St. Paul's not 
 having- said more on the subject, is not the 
 shghtest contradiction to the truth of what is 
 related by St. Luke concerning him. Gamaliel 
 Smithj either from ignorance^ or what is worse, 
 wilful misrepresentation, speaks of St. Paul's 
 Epistles, as if they had been written in order 
 to give a history of his life, whereas they were 
 written with no such design^ but chiefly with 
 a view to confirm those to whom they were 
 addressed, in the faith of Christ, and to give 
 them instructions in various points of doctrine 
 suited to their peculiar circumstances. Thus_, in 
 this Epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle's ob- 
 ject, as Locke has justly remarked, was "^to 
 dehort and hinder the Galatians from bringing 
 themselves under the bondage of the Mosaical 
 law ;" but that St. Paul was not " acting in 
 opposition" to the Apostles at the time of 
 writing that Epistle, will be shewn hereafter. 
 
46 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 St. Pniirs Motives for enibmcitig Christianity considered. 
 
 We see^ from the accounts g-iven in The Acts 
 of the Apostles^ that about the time of St. Paul's 
 conversion to Christianity, the Christians were 
 liable to be persecuted from city to city, and 
 that they held not only property^ but life itself, 
 and all that, in a temporal point of view could 
 render life desirable, upon the most precarious 
 tenure. That implacable hatred which had 
 been displayed by the Jews towards our Lord, 
 appears after his death to have rag-ed in their 
 bosoms with undiminished fury, and to have 
 been directed against the followers of Jesus. 
 But notwithstanding the violence of persecution, 
 the cause of the Gospel, being the cause of 
 truth, was daily gaining ground, and the number 
 of the disciples increasing. That number, how- 
 ever, was now, and long afterwards, very trifling, 
 compared with the countless multitudes of their 
 adversaries. To imagine, therefore, that St. Paul 
 
41 
 
 could have been so infatuated as to join the 
 Christians from a hope of temporal advantages, 
 is to make a supposition contrary to reason and 
 to factj especially when we consider what were 
 the prospects of St. Paul previous to his con- 
 version. He was not only a Jew, but belonged 
 to the most powerful sect among- the Jews, 
 being a Pharisee, and had been instructed by 
 a celebrated Rabbi, Gamaliel, in the Jewish 
 law. He was, moreover, of the popular tribe 
 of Benjamin, and although, as was customary 
 among the Jews^ he had been instructed in a 
 trade, great attention must have been paid to 
 his education, since he appears to have possessed 
 a perfect knowledge of the Greek, as well as 
 Hebrew, language. He had also the additional 
 advantage of having been born free of the city 
 of Rome, being a native of Tarsus, in Cilicia, 
 a city which enjoyed the great privileges of a 
 Roman colony. With such attainments and 
 advantages, St. Paul might have reasonably 
 hoped to have risen to posts of the highest 
 honor and dignity among his countrymen the 
 Jews ; but by embracing the Gospel, St. Paul 
 knew not only that all such prospects must be 
 abandoned, but that he would incur the reproach 
 
 * It was a maxim among the Jews, that " he who teaches 
 not his son a trade, teaches him to be a thief." 
 
48 
 
 and hatred of his former friends and companions, 
 and be exposed to poverty, hardships and per- 
 secutions. Under such circumstances it seems 
 the very acme of absurdity, to suppose that St. 
 Paul became " a declared convert to the religion 
 of Jesus, for the purpose of setting himself at 
 the head of it, and of acquiring- power and 
 opulence\" Yet this is what Gamaliel Smith 
 has ventured to assert, and has been guilty of 
 the grossest misrepresentation in the vain attempt 
 to substantiate the charge. Engaged in a 
 common cause, and united by a sense of their 
 common danger, the first disciples, agreed soon 
 after the death of Christ, '' to have all things 
 common, neither said any of them, that ought 
 of the things which he possessed was his own." 
 Among other arrangements, dictated by charity 
 and benevolence, it appears that provision was 
 made, out of the public funds of the Christian 
 community, for the indigent widows who belonged 
 to it'. 
 
 " Page 73. 
 
 '' Commenting upon 1 Tim. v. p. Paley has the following 
 excellent remai'ks : " It is not altogether unconnected with 
 our general purpose, to remark in the passage before us the 
 selection and reserve which St. Paul recommends to the 
 governors of the church of Ephesus, in the bestowing relief 
 upon the poor, because it refutes a calumny which has been 
 insinuated, that the liberality of the first Christians was an 
 
 artifice 
 
49 
 
 Acts vi. 1 — ,5. 
 
 And in those days^ when the number of the disciples 
 was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians 
 against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected 
 in the daily ministration. 2. Then the twelve called the 
 multitude of the disciples unto them, and said. It is not 
 reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve 
 tables. 3. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you 
 seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost 
 and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 
 
 artifice to catch converts ; or one of the temptations, however, 
 by which the idle and mendicant were drawn into this 
 society : " Let not a widow be taken into the number under 
 threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, 
 well reported of for her good works ; if she have brought 
 up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have 
 washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, 
 if she have diligently followed every good work, but the 
 yomiger widows refuse." (ver. 9, 10, 11.) And in another 
 place. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, 
 let them relieve them, and let not the church be chai'ged, 
 that it may relieve them that ai'e widows indeed." And 
 to the same effect, or rather more to our present purpose, 
 the Apostle writes in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians : 
 " Even when we were with you, this we commanded you, 
 that if any would not work, neither let him eat, i. e. at the 
 public expense : for we hear that there are som.e which 
 walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are 
 busy-bodies ; now them that are such, we command and 
 exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with qviietness they 
 work, and eat their own bread." "Could a designing or 
 dissolute poor take advantage of bounty regulated with 
 so much caution ; or could the mind which dictated those 
 sober and prudent directions be influenced in his recom- 
 mendations of public charity, by any other than the properest 
 motives of beneficence." Horoe PaiiUnce. 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 4, But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to 
 the ministry of the word. 5. And the saying pleased the 
 whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of 
 faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, 
 and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parraenas, and Nicolas 
 a proselyte of Antioch^. 
 
 Now, if St. Paul before his conversion knew 
 of the above circumstances^ if he was aware that 
 the Christians had all things in common, and 
 that the greatest care and circumspection were 
 exercised in regard to their temporal affairs, 
 then was it in the highest degree improbable, 
 that a desire of opulence could have induced 
 him to join the disciples of Christ. If, on the 
 other hand, he knew nothing of their affairs, 
 then must he have been equally uninfluenced 
 by considerations of gain. Either supposition 
 affords a refutation of Gamaliel Smith's absurd 
 calumny. But fertile in invention, and ever 
 ready to impute base motives to the Apostle, 
 Gamaliel Smith says, St. Paul, while occupied 
 in persecuting the disciples, could not have 
 failed to have obtained *'an insight into their 
 
 * These officers were appropriately called Deacons : for 
 the Greek word Aimkoi/o? literally signifies, a minister or 
 servant properly at table, and hence it was properly applied 
 to those ministers whose more especial business it was to 
 take care of and minister to the wants of the poor. See 
 Mr. Robinson's note on Acts vi. 2. 
 
61 
 
 worldly affairs/' and that he had probably 
 heard of the offer of Simon Magus the sorcerer 
 to the Apostles. Now while Paul was a per- 
 secutor of the Christians, he was certainly 
 one of the last persons to whom the disciples 
 would have revefiled the state of their affairs ; 
 but if lie had iieard of the offer of Simon 
 Magus, and the utter detestation and contempt 
 with which that oB'er, and he who made it, 
 was treated by tlie Apostles, he certainly could 
 have expected no worldly advantages, or sinister 
 gains, by joining men of slicIi inflexible in- 
 tegrity. Really, when 1 see Gamaliel Smith 
 making such groundless, and malevolent, attacks 
 upon the character of St. Paul, I can scarce 
 forbear saying to him, as the Apostle Pete.r 
 did to the sorcerer above-mentioned, " Thy 
 heart is not right in the sight of God: repent 
 therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God 
 if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be 
 forgiven thee. For I perceive thou art in the 
 gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity." — 
 Worldly gain, then^ not being St. Paul's mo- 
 tive for becoming a convert to the Gospel, 
 let us next enquire, whether he appears to 
 have been influenced by the desire of power 
 or ambition. Now all power, as well as wealth, 
 at the time of St. Paul's conversion was with 
 
 D 2 
 
52 
 
 the enemies of Christianity, and not unfrequently 
 exerted with the most ruthless severity against 
 those, who espoused the religion of Jesus. To 
 the authority of Jews and Heathens, equally 
 opposed to the propagation of the Gospel, there 
 seemed not the slightest prospect that the Christ- 
 ians could offer any successful resistance ; nor 
 was it till three centuries had rolled away after 
 the birth of Christ, that a period was put to the 
 long train of sanguinary persecutionsj carried 
 on at various times against them. It niay be 
 said, however, that civil authority was not what 
 St. Paul desired, but that having a thirst for 
 command, he wished to exercise a sort of spiritual 
 sway over the Christian community, and to this 
 end declared himself a convert. Had he, however, 
 been actuated by such a motive, it is evident that 
 he might have attained his object more safely 
 and effectually, by continuing to adhere to the 
 religion in which he had been educated, and in 
 which he had made no inconsiderable proficiency : 
 or if he had been ambitious of applause, he might 
 with his acquirements, have established a reputa- 
 tion as a teacher, by embracing the philosophy 
 of the heathen. But St, Paul was so far from 
 coveting dominion, that we shall find him ready 
 on numerous occasions to consult with the other 
 Apostles ; that his humility was as conspicuous 
 
53 
 
 as his zeal; and that neither his language, nor 
 his conduct were those of a man anxious for 
 authority. In -his Epistle to the Galatians, he 
 says: ''God forbid that I should glory save in 
 the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 
 the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the 
 world*." In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he 
 says, '* I was made a minister according to the 
 gift of the grace given unto me by the effectual 
 working of his power : unto nie, who am less 
 than the least of all the saints, is this grace given^ 
 that I should preach among the Gentiles the 
 unsearchable riches of Christ''." To the Corinthian 
 converts, he writes, " I have planted, Apolios 
 watered, but God gave the increase. So then 
 neither is he that planteth any thing, neither 
 he that watereth ; but God that giveth the in- 
 crease'; and again, in another place, he says 
 to the Corinthians, '' I am the least of the Apostles, 
 that am not meet to be called an Apostle, because 
 1 persecuted the Church of God*"." To the 
 Philippians, he writes: "Brethren, 1 count not 
 myself to have apprehended : but this one thing I 
 do, forgetting those things which are behind, and 
 reaching forth unto those things which are before, 
 I press toward the mark for the prize of the 
 high calling of God in Christ Jesus \" A man, 
 
 '^ Gal. vi. 14. " Ephes. iii. 7, 8. 
 
 ' 1. Cor. iii. 6, 7- ^ 1- Cor. xv. 9 , 
 
 ' Philip, iii. 13, 14. 
 
54 
 
 ambitious of power or applause, would not thus 
 have acknowledged his own demerits ; but St. 
 Paul's is evidently the language of one who 
 was desirous of the praise, not of men, but 
 of God_, and whose heart and affections were 
 fixed on things above. When, indeed, calumni- 
 ators sought to decry his character, and thereby 
 to injure that Gospel which he preached^ then 
 it was, and then only, that for his own sake, 
 and the Gospel's, he asserted his indefatigable 
 labours, and appealed to his manifold sufferings 
 in the cause of Christ ; and yet, on such occasions, 
 his language is that of an ingenuous man to 
 whom it was painful in the extreme to be con- 
 strained to pronounce his own panegyric. Thus, 
 after recounting to the Corinthians what he had 
 done and suffered for the Gospel, he adds, "' I am 
 become a fool in glorying, ye have compelled 
 me : for I ought to have been commended of 
 you, for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest 
 Apostles, though I be nothing." 
 
 Enough, I trust, has been already said to shew 
 St. Paul could not have been influenced by the 
 desire of power or of opulence, the prevailing 
 motives'" to which Gamaliel Smith ascribes his 
 
 * Mr. Gamaliel Smith does not accuse St. Paul of being 
 a visionary enthiisiast; and therefore it did not come within 
 the scope of my understanding, to shew that St. Paul's zeal 
 
 for 
 
55 
 
 conversion ; but, as we proceed in our investiga- 
 tion, other opportunities will occur for reverting 
 to the subject of St. Paul's disinterestedness and 
 humility, of which virtues we shall find him giving* 
 the most signal proofs on various occasions. We 
 may observe in the mean time, that the account 
 which has been already given of the vision which 
 he saw on his way to Damascus, affords the most 
 satisfactory solution of St. Paul's conduct, and 
 fully accounts for his having embraced the re- 
 ligion of Jesus, that religion which before his 
 conversion he had so zealously laboured to extir- 
 pate. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 St. Paul's Visit to Arabia. 
 
 If St. Paul had been actuated by such motives 
 as those which (iamaliel Smith imputes to him, 
 it would have been his interest to have imme- 
 diately established some connection with the 
 Apostles at Jerusalem, Instead of doing this 
 
 for Christianity could not arise from enthusiasm; but Lord 
 Lyttleton has ably demonstrated that St. Paul's conversion, 
 and subsequent conduct, was totally uninfluenced by fanatic 
 delusions. See Lord Lyttleton's excellent Observations on 
 the Conversion of St. Paul. 
 
5() 
 
 he goes into Arabia, and delays, for a period of 
 three years, to hold any intercourse with any of 
 the Apostles. This circumstance alone may con- 
 vince us, that there was not the slightest collusion 
 between St. Paul and the other Apostles, and is 
 perfectly consistent with Paul's declaration to 
 the Galatians, that "he received the Gospel not 
 of man, neither was he taught it but by the 
 revelation of Jesus Christ. " The revelation 
 which was made by Christ to St. Paul was com- 
 plete ; consequently there existed no necessity 
 for his going- to Jerusalem immediately after his 
 conversion to consult with the other Apostles : 
 hence, he says, " when it pleased God, who sepa- 
 rated me from my mother's womb, and called me 
 by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might 
 preach him among the heathen, immediately I con- 
 ferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up 
 to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before 
 me, buti went into Arabia and returned again unto 
 Damascus." Gamaliel Smith says, " Paul repaired 
 to Arabia ; so in his Epistle to the Galatians 
 (Gal. i. 17.) he himself informs us: in that little 
 known country, he continued three whole years, so 
 also in the same place he informs us : there it was 
 that he experienced that success, whatever it was, 
 that went to constitute the ground of the recom- 
 mendation, given him by Barnabas to the Apostles. 
 
57 
 
 Prom thence he returned to Damascus"\" Here 
 is one instance of that artful mixture of truth 
 and falsehood, of which there are so many speci- 
 mens in Gamaliel Smith's publication. That 
 St. Paul went into Arabia and from thence 
 
 • 
 
 returned to Damascus, is true, but that he re- 
 mained three whole years in Arabia, Gamaliel 
 Smith is not warranted in saying: for indepen- 
 dent of St. Paul's stay at Damascus immediately 
 after his conversion, which was for certain days, 
 and sufficiently long- to afford him opportunities 
 for preaching" in the Jewish synagogues, and 
 confounding the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, 
 we must take into the account St. Paul's visit 
 to Damascus on his return from Arabia. St. Paul 
 after alluding to his conversion says_, "^ Neither 
 went I up to Jerusalem to them which were 
 Apostles before me, but I went into Arabia 
 and returned again unto Damascus." Thus we 
 may perceive how incorrect is Gamaliel Smith's 
 assertion, that Paul continued three whole years 
 in Arabia, and hence we may see the necessity 
 of narrowly examining his representations. Again, 
 how contrary it is to the fact, to say, that '' it 
 was in Arabia that Paul experienced that success, 
 whatever it was, that went to constitute the 
 ground of the recommendation given of him 
 
 " Page 75. 
 
58 
 
 by Barnabas to the Apostles/' Whatever success 
 St. Paul might have in Arabia, and I am by 
 no means inclined to undervalue it^ it was so 
 far from being the ground on which Barnabas 
 recommended him to the Apostles, that Barnabas 
 did not even notice it. Look at the account. "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 loaij, and 
 that he had spoken to him, and how he had 
 preached boldlj/ at Damascus in the name of 
 Jesus." Acts ix. 26, 27. Here we see that it 
 was the vision — that vision which (iamaliel Smith 
 says, (p. 91 ) " Paul would not venture to sub- 
 mit any account of to the jealous scrutiny of 
 the Apostles," that vision it was, that formed 
 one of the principal grounds of the recommenda- 
 tion of Paul, at his first interview with two of 
 the most distinguished Apostles, viz., Peter and 
 James. We have already seen with how much 
 assurance Gamaliel Smith denied Paul's preach- 
 ing at Damascus, yet that bold preaching, by 
 which he confounded the Jews, appears also to 
 have been another ground for the recommendation 
 given of him by Barnabas. Thus we see, that 
 
59 
 
 when submitted to the test of enquiry, Gamahel 
 Smith's assertions prove most unfortunate, 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith asserts that there was 
 "probably no such person as Ananias at Da- 
 mascus/' and that Paul "^had no companions" 
 on his way thither, but without wasting- time, 
 I will only refer my reader to what is related in 
 the ninth chapter of The Acts of the Apostles^ — 
 an authority which^ 1 think I need not now say, 
 is entitled to at least as much credit as Gamaliel 
 Smith. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 The Jews at Damascus conspire against St. Paul. 
 
 We have already seen that St. Paul after 
 his conversion boldly preached in the syna- 
 gogues at Damascus, and confounded the Jews 
 by proving that Jesus was the very Christ, and 
 it appears that incensed against him, (as on this 
 account they naturally would be,) on his return 
 from Arabia to Damascus they took counsel to 
 kill him, and not only did they lay wait for him, 
 but in order that he might have the less chance 
 of escape, by their insinuations, or other means. 
 
60 
 
 they obtained a special guard from the person 
 who was governor under Aretas king of Arabia, 
 to keep the gates. The disciples, however, were 
 not reg'ardless in the mean time of St. Paul's 
 safety, but desirous of preserving the life of one 
 who was justly dear to them, from having proved 
 himself so able a defender of the Christian cause, 
 and from his having confounded their malig-nant 
 enemies the Jews, they contrived the means of 
 his escape, which was effected by letting him 
 down by the walls of the city in a basket. The 
 corresponding accounts of the circumstance are 
 as follows ^ : 
 
 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. Acts ix. 
 23, 24, 25. 
 
 In Damascus the gover- 
 nor under iWetas the king 
 kept the city of the Damas- 
 cenes with a garrison, desir- 
 ous to apprehend me : and 
 through a window in a 
 basket was 1 let down by 
 the wall, and escaped his 
 hands. 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33. 
 
 ^ These two accounts evidently relate to the same circum- 
 stance, and yet they are told in such a different way, that 
 the person who wrote one, cannot be supposed to have copied 
 his relation of the matter from the history given of it in the 
 other, and it is from such striking, yet undesigned coinci- 
 dences, that we have such strong ground for considering The 
 Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul's Epistles, authentic — Paley, 
 
61 
 
 In the above statement will be found a com- 
 plete refutation of Gamaliel Smith's fiction, 
 about, the Jews being desirous to apprehend 
 Paul "in a regular way''/' for having set at 
 nought the commission from the high priest. 
 Had the Jews thought it either just or prudent 
 to proceed against St. Paul, on that account, 
 he gave them abundant opportunity of doing 
 so, when he preached boldly in their synagogues 
 at Damascus. The real cause of their conspi- 
 racy against him, is undoubtedly to be found 
 in his having preached, that Christ was the Son 
 of God.' This was a subject, that must have 
 come home to their guilty consciences, and filled 
 their hearts with fearful anticipations of future 
 retribution. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 St. Paul's Visit to Arabia is not inconsistent with what 
 is related in The Acts of the Jpostles. 
 
 St. Paul's visit to Arabia is not mentioned 
 in The Acts of the Apostles, and on this subject 
 
 in his masterly performance, entitled " Horae Paulinae," has 
 shewn the truth of the Scripture history of St. Paul, by 
 a comparison of the Epistles which bear St. Paul's name 
 with The Acts of the Apostles, and with one another. 
 . " Page 82. 
 
6^^ 
 
 Gamaliel Smith says, " In design, rather than 
 accident, or heedlessness, or want of information, 
 may be found the cause of a silence so preg*- 
 nant with misrepresentation''.'" If, indeed, it had 
 been said in The Acts, that St. Paul made no 
 such visit, or if the visit was incompatible with 
 what is there related, it might have been justly 
 said, that the historian had been guilty of mis- 
 representation, but this is not the case; and 
 I may here observe, that whether St. Luke did, 
 or did not, know of St. Paul's visit to Arabia, it 
 was evidently not his intention to give a history 
 in ''The Acts of the Apostles," of all that oc- 
 curred to Paul or the other Apostles, during the 
 thirty years over which his account extends, 
 but of such facts and circumstances as he 
 deemed most interesting and important. 
 
 There are several circumstances omitted in 
 The Acts, that are mentioned by St. Paul^ This 
 visit of St. Paul to Arabia is one. The visit 
 
 ^ Page 85. 
 
 " St. Luke, says Mr. Biscoe, in his masterly work, The His- 
 tory of The Acts conjirmedfrom other Author s, ha.?, mo%tyirohsih\y 
 omitted the relations here mentioned, as also that of the severe 
 sufferings of St. Paul, enumerated 2 Cor. xi. 24, 25. because 
 they most likely happened in the first nine or ten years after 
 his conversion, during which time he preached the Gospel in 
 Arabia, (Gal. i. H.), Syria and Cilicia, (Gal. i. 21.) and when 
 St. Luke was not with him. See also Mr. Robinson's note 
 on Acts ix. 19. 
 
6S 
 
 of St. Peter to Antioch, when Paul rebuked 
 him, is another^ and various omissions of a 
 similar nature might be pointed out; but, al- 
 though, there are omissions in The ActS;, there 
 are no contradictions to any thing stated in 
 Paul's Epistles; and in numerous important par- 
 ticulars, ''The Acts" and the Epistles strongly 
 corroborate each other. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 The Jewish Treacher Gamaliel^ had no part in St. Paul's 
 Conversion to Christianity. 
 
 According to the author of " Not Paul 
 but Jesus/' Gamaliel, the doctor of the law, 
 under whom St. Paul had studied, was instru- 
 mental in St. Paul's conversion to Christianity**; 
 for this supposition, there exists not the slightest 
 foundation in Scripture, for it does not even 
 appear, that Gamaliel himself embraced Christ- 
 ianity, although the advice which he gave, when 
 Peter and the other Apostles were brought be- 
 fore the Jewish Council, remains, to this day, 
 a lasting monument of his good sense, and 
 
 ^ Gal. ii. " Page 87> 88. 
 
64 
 
 moderation. "And now I say unto you, Refrain 
 from these men^ and let them alone : for if this 
 counsel or this work be of men, it will come to 
 nought : but if it be of God, ye cannot over° 
 throw it, lest haply ye be found even to fight 
 against God^" Acts v. 38, 39. 
 
 * " The event has proved, that Gamaliel was a wise, as 
 well as a pious man ; and what was thus so seasonably spoken 
 to the first enemies of the Gospel, may with equal propriety 
 be addressed to them who oppose it in these latter days." 
 Beattie's Evidences of the Christian Religion. 
 
65 
 
 CHAP III. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Si. Paul's divine Commission credited hy the Apostles. 
 
 It appears, from what has been already 
 said, not only that St. Paul was miraculously 
 converted to Christianity, but invested by our 
 Lord with a divine commission to preach the 
 Gospel, and that, in consequence of that com- 
 mission, he preached boldly in the name of 
 Jesus. We have also had occasion incidentally 
 to remark, that when St. Paul, at his first visit 
 to Jerusalem after his conversion, was intro- 
 duced by Barnabas to two of the Apostles, the 
 vision which St. Paul had seen, and his sub- 
 sequent exertions as a preacher of the Gospel, 
 formed the basis of Barnabas's recommendation; 
 but we shall have occasion to revert to that 
 visit, and shall find, that not only on that, 
 but on several other occasions, St. Paul's com- 
 mission and Apostleship were recognized by the 
 Apostles at Jerusalem ; strong confirmation be- 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 ing thereby afforded, to what has been already 
 stated, respecting the reality of the vision which 
 St. Paul saw, and his conversion consequent 
 thereupon. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 Gamaliel Smith's desultory Mode of Enquiry. 
 
 The vag-ue and desultory mode in which 
 Gamaliel Smith has pursued his enquiry, and 
 the incoherent way in which he has hurled his 
 random accusations against the character of 
 St. Paul, renders it difficult to pursue the dis- 
 cussion in a continued and regular manner. 
 To advert, in every instance, to his minute 
 and frivolous cavils, to charges more distin- 
 guished by the flippant volubility with which 
 they are brought forward, than by any shew 
 of reason by which they are supported, would 
 be not only a thankless, but a superfluous, 
 task. It will therefore be my object, in wading 
 through the mass of crude assertions, and unsup- 
 ported ipse dixits, to select from the rest those 
 only, which, from the ingenuity of perverted 
 argument, or the unblushing boldness of mis- 
 representation, may seem distinguished from the 
 general heap. 
 
67 
 
 SECT. I1I\ 
 
 St. Paul believed — Topics cuimected with his Jive Visits to 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Gamaliel Smith says, (Chap. iii. Sect. 2.) 
 '* ^n the course of the interval between the date 
 assigned by Paul to his conversion, and that of 
 the last particulars of his history, mention, more 
 or less particular, may be found of four visits 
 of his, distinctly four related visits, and no 
 more than four, to that metropolis of the new 
 Church, (viz. Jerusalem.) On no one of these 
 occasions, could he have avoided using his en- 
 deavours towards procuring admittance to the 
 fellowship of the distinguished persons so uni- 
 versally known, in the character of the select 
 companions, and most confidential servants, of 
 Jesus'\" 
 
 Now, so far is it from being true, that 
 "^•^ there are only four distinctly related visits, 
 that we shall find, on referring to the history, 
 that between the time of his conversion, and 
 
 * This Section, in some measure, anticipates subjects that 
 belong to a subsequent part of the enquiry, and which are 
 more amply discussed afterwards. 
 
 " Page 90. 
 
 E 2 
 
68 
 
 the period at which the account given of him 
 in The Acts of the Apostles concludes,, the 
 Apostle Paul made five visits to Jerusalem, all 
 of which are related in the most clear and dis- 
 tinct manner; and in considering- the accounts 
 that are given of these five visits, I think I 
 shall clearly demonstrate, that if on every one 
 of these occasions, St. Paul's divine com- 
 mission and Apostleship were not distinctly re- 
 cognized in express terms, yet, that such 
 recognition is plainly to be inferred from the 
 accounts given by the historian. The first of 
 the five visits which St. Paul made to Jerusalem, 
 was immediately after he had been the second 
 time at Damascus, and took place three years 
 subsequent to his conversion \ This visit, ac- 
 cording to the received chronology, was a.d. 38, 
 and it was on this occasion, that Barnabas in- 
 troduced him to the Apostles Peter and James. 
 St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was un- 
 dertaken, when he was deputed with Barnabas 
 to convey the contributions made by the dis- 
 ciples at Antioch, in Syria, for the relief of the 
 brethren in Judaea, who were suffering from 
 the elTects of a famine, which had been fore- 
 told by a prophet of the name of Agabus\ 
 This visit was made a.d. 44. The third visit 
 
 " See Acts ix. iiO. Gal. i. 18. " See Acts xi. 22—30. 
 
69 
 
 of St. Paul to Jerusalem, took place in con- 
 sequence of the dissentions which had arisen 
 at Antioch in Syria, from certain persons from 
 Judaga having' taught the Gentile converts, that, 
 unless they observed circumcision and the 
 Mosaic institutions, they could not be saved *=. 
 In a matter of so much importance to the peace 
 of the Church, it was highly desirable to have 
 the advice and concurrence of the Apostles and 
 elders at Jerusalem, lest it should seem, that 
 those, who taught that the observance of cir- 
 cumcision was unnecessary in the case of the 
 Gentiles, were acting in opposition to, or at 
 any rate without the sanction of, the heads of 
 the church at Jerusalem. It was, therefore, de- 
 termined, that Paul and Barnabas, with certain 
 others, should go up to Jerusalem unto the 
 Apostles and elders, to consult with them upon 
 the subject; and in taking this step, (as ap- 
 pears from Gal. ii. 2.) they were acting in con- 
 formity with a revelation made from heaven. 
 This third visit took place a.d. 49. St. Paul's 
 fourth visit to Jerusalem was made a.d. 53, 
 and is so distinctly related by the author of The 
 Acts'*, that one would be surprized, that Gama- 
 liel Smith should suppose the account of it 
 
 ■= See Acts xv. 1— 29. Gal. ii. 1—10. 
 " See Acts xviii. 19—23. 
 
70 
 
 "fictitious/' had we not already seen with what 
 cool assurance he takes upon himself to pro- 
 nounce other parts of '' The Acts of the Apostles" 
 '^ an invented fable." There does not appear, 
 indeed, to be any direct allusion to this fourth 
 visit in St. Paul's Epistles ; but that is not any 
 argument against its having occurred, as there 
 are numerous circumstances recorded of St. Paul 
 in The Acts of the Apostles, of which he does 
 not himself make any mention. It appears, from 
 the historical account in The Acts, that having 
 determined to keep the approaching feast at 
 Jerusalem, St. Paul declined complying with a 
 wish expressed by the Ephesians, with whom he 
 then was, that he would continue longer with 
 them at that time. Promising, however, that if 
 God permitted, he would return to them. He 
 sailed from Ephesus to Caesarea^ from whence he 
 proceeded to Jerusalem where he is supposed to 
 have arrived just before the feast of Pentecost. 
 Having kept the feast, St. Paul went down to 
 Antioch in Syria, and after making a short stay 
 at that place, he passed through Galatia and 
 Phrygia, confirming the disciples in those coun- 
 tries, and thence, agreeably to his promise, he 
 returned to Ephesus. St. Paul's fifth visit to 
 Jerusalem took place just befjre the feast of 
 Pentecost, a. d. 58 \ The occasion of it was 
 
 * Caesarsea Palestinse. '' See Acts xxi. 1 — 19. 
 
n 
 
 principally for the benevolent purpose of taking 
 the alms which had been collected among the 
 Christian converts in Greece, for the poor dis- 
 ciples at Jerusalem. This is what Gamaliel 
 Smith terms the Invasion Visits an appellation, 
 of which the absurdity will be plainly manifest, 
 when we come to the consideration of the cir- 
 cumstances under which it was undertaken, and 
 of the cordial and affectionate reception which 
 St. Paul met with on the occasion from the 
 church at Jerusalem. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 Self-written Biography; its title to belief greatly in- 
 creased, when borne out by the corroborating Testimony 
 of another Historian. 
 
 I HAVE before remarked, that it was evi- 
 dently not the intention of St. Paul, to give, in 
 his Epistles, a regular history of his life ; and 
 that, when he adverted to his own conduct, it 
 was in general with some particular view to 
 the matters which he was discussing ; I believe, 
 however, that if we had no other evidence in 
 favour of the character of St. Paul, than what 
 is afforded by himself, we might safely conclude. 
 
72 
 
 that he was not only a very enlightened Apos- 
 tle^ but also a very excellent and sincere Chris- 
 tian. It must nevertheless be admitted, that 
 self-w^ritten biography ought to be received with 
 vigilant examination, and, in some instances, 
 not without suspicion and distrust, since self- 
 partiality must naturally incline a man, when 
 writing of his own actions, not only to shed 
 a false lustre over the more imperfect parts of 
 his character, but to palliate or omit his infir- 
 mities and defects. When, with an artless in- 
 genuousness, we perceive a person acknowledging 
 his weaknesses and faults, there is indeed the 
 greater reason to give him credit for sincerity 
 and truth ; but, after all, he will certainly 
 possess a stronger title to these qualifications, 
 when we find, that in many important parti- 
 culars which he relates of himself, he is borne 
 out by the corroborating testimony of another 
 historian, who has had frequent opportunities of 
 judging of his conduct, and who had apparently 
 no motive, either to exaggerate his merits, or 
 to extenuate his failings. Applying these re- 
 marks to the case of St. Paul, we may perceive, 
 that the accounts given of him in his own 
 Epistles, and in The Acts of the Apostles, have 
 a strong claim to our belief. 
 
73 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 St. Paul believed continued. First of his Jive Visits to 
 Jerusalem after his Co)i.versiou. 
 
 With a view to invalidate the history given 
 in The Acts of the Apostles, Gamaliel Smith 
 labours to shew that there is a contradiction 
 between St. Paul, and the Author of The Acts, 
 as to the time when this first visit took place ; 
 hence he asserts, that according to Paul himself, 
 it was not till after three years spent in Arabia, 
 but that, according to The Acts, it was immediately 
 after Paul's conversion. " As to contradiction/' 
 (says Gamaliel Smith) "^^contradiction cannot easily 
 be much more pointed^ than it will be seen to 
 be between the account in respect of time, as 
 given in this instance by Paul, and the account 
 given of it by his historiographer in The Acts^." 
 Let us not be misled by this bold assertion, but 
 examine the grounds of it by attentively looking 
 at the accounts, and we shall, I imagine, perceive 
 its fallacy. 
 
 » Page 113. 
 
74 
 
 In Galatians, chap, i, St. Paul says, " When it 
 pleased God, who separated me from my mother's 
 womb, and called me by his grace, 16. To reveal his 
 Son in me, that I might preach him among the hea- 
 then ; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood : 
 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which 
 were Apostles before me ; but I went into Arabia, 
 and returned again unto Damascus. 18. Then after 
 three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and 
 abode with him fifteen days. IQ. But other of the 
 Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 
 20. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, 
 before God, I lie not." Thus far Paul's own account ; let 
 us now refer to that given of the matter, by the Author 
 of The Acts. 
 
 Acts, ch. ix. ver. 8 — 28. 
 
 8, '' And Saul arose from the earth ; and when 
 his eyes were opened, he saw no man : but they led 
 him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 
 9. And he was three days without sight, and neither 
 did eat nor drink. 10. And there was a certain disciple 
 at Damascus, named Ananias ; and to him said the 
 Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, 
 I am here, Lord. 11. And the Lord said unto him. 
 Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, 
 and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul 
 of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12. And hath seen 
 in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting 
 his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13. Then 
 Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this 
 man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jeru- 
 
is 
 
 sa\em : 14. And here he hath authority from the chief 
 priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15. But the 
 Lord said unto him. Go thy way : for he is a chosen 
 vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, 
 and kings, and the children of Israel : l6. For I will 
 shew him how great things he must suffer for my 
 name's sake. 17. And Ananias went his way, and 
 entered into the house; and putting his hands on him 
 said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared 
 unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, 
 that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with 
 the Holy Ghost. 18. And immediately there fell from 
 his eyes as it had been scales : and he received sight 
 forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19- And when 
 he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was 
 Saul certain days with the disciples which were at 
 Damascus. 20. And straightway he preached Christ 
 in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God, 21. 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 ? 22. But 
 Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded 
 the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this 
 is very Christ. 23. And after that many days were 
 fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him : 24. But 
 their laying await was known of Saul. And they 
 watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25. Then 
 the disciples took him by night, and let him down by 
 the wall in a basket. 26. 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. 27. But Barnabas took him, and brought 
 
76 
 
 liini 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. 28. And he was with them coming in 
 and going out at Jerusalem." 
 
 Now if it can be shewn that the phrase "' many 
 days/' which is used in the twenty-third verse, is 
 ever applied by any other author to signify so long* 
 a space as three years, it must be admitted, that 
 not only is there no contradiction between Paul 
 and the Author of The Acts, as to the time when 
 Paul made his first visit to Jerusalem, but the 
 most perfect consistency between the two ac- 
 counts. With this view, then, I must request the 
 reader to look at the thirty-eighth and thirty- 
 ninth verses of the second chapter of the first 
 book of Kings, where he will find the same words 
 used with the same latitude. ^"^And Shimei dwelt 
 at Jerusalem ''many days," and it came to pass 
 at the end of three years, that two of the servants 
 of Shimei ran away." What is related from the 
 eighth to the end of the twenty-second verse of the 
 ninth chapter of Acts, evidently applies to what oc- 
 curred on the occasion of St. Paul's first visit to Da- 
 mascus, immediately after his conversion; and the 
 two following verses relate to circumstances which 
 happened subsequent to St. Paul's return to 
 Damascus from Arabia. Nor is there any con- 
 
tradiction given to the above accounts^ by what 
 is reported by the Autlior of The Acts^ as having- 
 been spoken by St. Paul before the Jewish king 
 Agrippa ; for we are to consider the occasion 
 on which Paul was speaking, and the objects 
 he had in view : he was pleading in defence of 
 himself and the doctrines of Christianity^ and to 
 this end appealed to some of the more important 
 circumstances of his })ast life, and miraculous 
 conversion. To have entered into a minute detail 
 of all that he had done and suffered^ or to have 
 recounted his travels over a very considerable 
 portion of the known world, for the purpose of 
 propagating the Gospel, would have been an un- 
 necessary waste of time; hence, like a judicious 
 speaker, St. Paul compressed, into a small compass 
 the matters to which alone he deemed it necessary 
 to advert. After having stated the purposes for 
 which Jesus appeared to him in a vision, he pro- 
 ceeds to shew that he had not been regardless of 
 the divine commission with which he had been 
 invested. '^'^ Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was 
 not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, but 
 shewed first unto them of Damascus and at Jeru- 
 salem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea,, 
 and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent 
 and turn to God, and do works nieet for repent- 
 ance." Is not what is here said in conformity 
 
78 
 
 with what Paul elsewhere declares, as well as 
 what is stated by the Author of The Acts concern- 
 ing him^ Did not Paul immediately obey the 
 vision by preaching at Damascus? Did he not 
 afterwards preach at Jerusalem and in Judaea, 
 and after that, among the Gentiles in Greece, 
 and Asia, and numerous other places, which he 
 visited prior to the time when he pleaded before 
 king Agrippa ? With a view to shew that he was 
 not disobedient to the heavenly vision, it was not 
 necessary for St. Paul to say how long he had 
 staid at Damascus, how many times he had been 
 there, or how many places he had visited pre- 
 vious to his going to Jerusalem. If, as Gamaliel 
 Smith supposes, St. Paul had wished " to ingra- 
 tiate himself with the Jewish king Agrippa, by 
 magnifying the services he had done to the Jews," 
 St. Paul might have appealed, not only to his 
 earnest endeavours to convert them to the truth 
 at Damascus, but also to his zealous labours in 
 the same cause at Corinth, at Ephesus, and 
 various other places. Having thus shewn that 
 no contradiction exists between St. Paul and the 
 Author of The Acts, it would be superfluous to 
 dwell upon the supposed motives to which Gamaliel 
 Smith imputes the discordance : but it may be 
 proper, on this occasion, to point out some of the 
 mistakes and misrepresentations, into which that. 
 
79 
 
 writer has fallen, in regard to what St. Paul says 
 in his Epistle to the Galatians. Gamaliel Smith 
 saySj '' On the occasion on which Paul himself 
 " speaks, what was the persuasion which it was his 
 "" endeavour to produce? It was that for a number 
 " of years commencing- from the moment of his 
 " conversion, — with no persons who to this purpose 
 *' could be called Jews, had he to any such purpose 
 '' as this had any intercourse, for this being ad- 
 " mitted, it follows of course, that if, on the subject 
 " of the religion of Jesus, he had really received 
 **■ the information he declared himself to have re- 
 " ceived, it was not from the Apostles that he had 
 ^' had it, or any part of it : On them, says he, I am 
 *' perfectly independent : to them I am even supe- 
 " rior. With Jesus they had no communication 
 " but in a natural way, with the same Jesus / have 
 " had communication in a supernatural way, in the 
 *^ way of revelation. My communication with him 
 " is, moreover, of a date posterior to their's, to any 
 " that they can pretend to : in so far as there is any 
 " contrariety between what 1 teach and what they 
 " teach, it is for their's on both these accounts, — it 
 *' is for their's to yield to mine. From God is my 
 '* doctrine : in opposition to it, if either they or 
 " any other men presume to persevere, let the 
 " curse of God be on their heads, (ver. 8). Ac- 
 '' cordingly at the time of my first visit to Jeru- 
 
80 
 
 '' salem, lafter my conversion, no communication 
 '• had I with them, (for no such communication, 
 " teaching- as I did from revelation, could I stand 
 '^^ in need of). I had already passed three years 
 " at least in Arabia, teaching- to the Gentiles there 
 '" my peculiar doctrine. This peculiar doctrine, as 
 " I made no scruple of teaching- it to those Gentiles, 
 " as little on the occasion of that visit of mine to 
 '^ Jerusalem, did I make any scruple of teaching- 
 '' it to Jews as well as Gentiles. True it is, I did 
 '' not then teach it publickly : I did not teach my 
 " peculiar doctrine so publickly as they did their's. 
 '' But as to this comparative secrecy, it had for its 
 "^ cause the advantage of being free from oppo- 
 " sition : for had the fact of my teaching this 
 " doctrine, so different from their's, been known 
 " to them, they might have opposed it, and thus 
 '' my labours might have been lost." Not Paul 
 but Jesus, p. 118, 119. After this Gamaliel 
 Smith adds, with an affectation of candour, "whe- 
 ther in the representation here given of what he 
 (Paul) says to his Galatians, there be any misre- 
 presentation, the reader may judge." Now I will 
 take upon myself to say, that in many parts of the 
 above '^ representation" there is very gross mis- 
 represientation, but whether it arose from igno- 
 rance, or design, I pretend not to determine. 
 In the first place, 1 may remark, that it was not 
 
8t 
 
 St. Paul's " endeavour" to produce a persuasion, 
 that for a number of years, commencing from the 
 moment of his conversion, with no persons who 
 could be called Jews had he had any intercourse, 
 but to shew that he had not, until three years 
 after his conversion, had any intercourse with any 
 of the Apostles, — that he had not been instructed 
 by them or by any man in the doctrines of the 
 Gospel, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ; 
 consequently that those who undervalued Paul, 
 by invidiously comparing- him with those Apostles 
 who had been the companions of Jesus during his 
 ministry on earth, did him injustice. In the next 
 place, I may observe, that it was not to any 
 of the Apostles that St. Paul intended to apply 
 his anathema, but against those false teachers who 
 had " troubled" the Galatians, and were desirous 
 of " perverting" the Gospel of Christ, that Gos- 
 pel, the truth of which St. Paul, and the other 
 Apostles of Jesus, were equally anxious to main- 
 tain, — neither did St. Paul arrogantly boast, as 
 Gamaliel Smith would have us believe, that he 
 was superior to the other Apostles, but he shews 
 that he was full as well qualified to teach the 
 Gospel as they were, since it had pleased God 
 to reveal it to him by his Son Jesus Christ, and 
 that being thus instructed, he had no need of 
 conferring with them who were Apostles before 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 him, in order to qualify him for being- a teacher 
 of the doctrines of Christianity. Gamaliel Smith 
 has unfortunately confounded what relates to two 
 distinct periods, and has stated that Paul preached 
 a ''peculiar doctrine," a doctrine different from 
 the other Apostles, but this assertion the language 
 of St. Paul does not warrant. What St. Paul 
 states in the latter part of his first chapter to the 
 Galatians, has reference to what occurred at, and 
 about the time of his first visit to Jerusalem, 
 whereas what he states in the beginning of his 
 second chapter, refers to his third visit to Jeru- 
 salem, and to the doctrine of circumcision, and 
 the freedom of the Gentiles from the Mosaic law. 
 This was a doctrine which (as is evident from the 
 fifteenth chapter of Acts) the other Apostles con- 
 curred in and sanctioned. This doctrine of free- 
 dom from circumcision, St. Paul had preached 
 publicly to the Gentiles, but he had thought it 
 right at Jerusalem to preach it privately, and to 
 persons eminent for their faith and knowledge of 
 the Gospel, lest he should give unnecessary offence 
 to the Jews, lose his labour, and retard the success 
 of Christ's religion. I believe, on referring to St. 
 Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, the above state- 
 ment will be found correct. I will now, in con- 
 firmation of my opinion, cite the passages in ques- 
 tion, and transcribe the paraphrase of a very able 
 
83 
 
 writer, the celebrated Locke, who appears to me to 
 have given the correct sense of St. Paul's language, 
 and whose authority, though it may not have much 
 weight with Gamaliel Smith, will, I doubt not, be 
 deemed worthy of respect by every impartial person. 
 
 Gal. chap. I. 
 
 Ver. 6. I marvel 
 that ye are so soon 
 removed from him 
 that called you into 
 the grace of Christ 
 unto another gos- 
 pel : 
 
 7- Which is not 
 another; but there 
 be some that trouble 
 you, and would per- 
 vert the gospel of 
 Christ. 
 
 8. But though we, 
 or an angel from 
 heaven, preach any 
 other gospel unto 
 you than that which 
 we have preached 
 unto you, let him 
 be accursed. 
 
 9 As we said be- 
 fore, so say I now 
 again, If any man 
 preach any other 
 gospel unto you 
 than that ve have 
 
 Paraphrase. 
 
 1 cannot but wonder that you 6 
 are so soon removed from me (who 
 called you into the covenant of 
 grace which is in Christ) unto an- 
 
 other sort of gospel, which is not 7 
 owing to any thing else but only 
 this, that ye are troubled by a certain 
 sort of men who would overturn 
 the gospel of Christ, by making 
 circumcision, and the keeping of 
 the law, necessary under the gospel. 
 But if even I inyself, or an angel 8 
 from heaven, should preach any 
 thing to you for gospel, different 
 from the gospel I have preached 
 unto you, let him be accursed. 
 
 I say it again to you, If any one 9 
 under pretence of the gospel, preach 
 any other thing to you than what 
 ye have received from me, let 
 him be accursed. For can it be 
 doubted of me after having done and 
 F 2 
 
84 
 
 received, let him 
 be accursed. 
 
 10. For do I now 
 persuade men, or 
 God ? or do I seek 
 to please men? for 
 if I yet pleased men, 
 I should not be the 
 servant of Christ. 
 
 1 1 . But 1 certify 
 you, brethren, that 
 the gospel which 
 was preached of 
 me is not after 
 man. 
 
 12. For I neither 
 received it of man, 
 neither was 1 taught 
 it, but by the re- 
 velation of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 13. For ye have 
 beard of my conver- 
 sation in time past 
 in the Jews' religion, 
 how that beyond 
 measure I persecu- 
 ted the Church of 
 God, and wasted it : 
 
 14. And profited 
 in the Jews' religion 
 above many my 
 equals in mine own 
 nation, being more 
 exceedingly zealous 
 of the traditions of 
 my fathers. 
 
 suffered so much for the gospel of 
 Christ, whether I do now at this 10 
 time of day make my court to men, 
 or seek the favour of God? If I 
 had hitherto made it my business 
 to please men, I should not have 
 been the servant of Christ, nor taken 
 up the profession of the gospel. 
 
 But I certify you, brethren, that the 1 1 
 gospel which has been every where 
 preached by me, is not such as is 
 pliant to human interest, or can be 
 accommodated to the pleasing of 
 
 men, (For I neither received it from 12 
 man, nor was T taught it by any one 
 as his scholar;) but it is the pure, 
 and unmixed immediate revelation of 
 
 Christ to me. To satisfy you of 13 
 this ; my behaviour, whilst I was of 
 the Jewish religion, is so well known, 
 that I need not tell you how exces- 
 sive violent I was in persecuting the 
 Church of God, and destroyed it 
 
 all I could; and, that being carried 14 
 on by an extraordinary zeal for the 
 traditions of my forefathers, I out- 
 stripped many students of my own 
 age, and nation in Judaism. But 
 
85 
 
 15. But when it 
 pleased God_, who 
 separated me from 
 my mother's womb, 
 and called me by his 
 grace, 
 
 16. To reveal his 
 Son in me, that I 
 might preach him 
 among the heathen ; 
 immediately I con- 
 ferred not w ith flesh 
 and blood : 
 
 17. Neither went 
 I up to Jerusalem 
 to them which were 
 apostles before me ; 
 but I went into Ara- 
 bia, and returned 
 again unto Damas- 
 cus. 
 
 18. Then after 
 three years I went 
 up to Jerusalem to 
 see Peter, and abode 
 with him fifteen 
 days. 
 
 19- But other of 
 the apostles saw I 
 none, save James 
 the Lord's brother. 
 20. Now the things 
 which I write unto 
 you, behold, before 
 God, I lie not. 
 
 21. Afterwards 1 
 came into the re- 
 
 when it pleased God, who separated 15 
 me from my mother's womb, and 
 by his especial favor called me 
 to be a Christian, and a preacher 
 
 of the gospel, to reveal his son 16 
 to me, that 1 might preach him 
 among the Gentiles, 1 thereupon 
 applied not myself to any man for 
 
 advice what to do : neither went I 17 
 up to Jerusalem to those who were 
 Apostles before me, to see whether 
 they approved of my doctrine, or to 
 have further instructions from them: 
 but I went immediately unto Arabia, 
 and from thence returned again to 
 
 Damascus. Then after three years, 18 
 I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter 
 and abode with him fifteen days. 
 
 But other of the Apostles saw I IQ 
 none but James the brother of our 
 
 Lord. These things that I write 20 
 to you I call God to witness, are 
 all true, there is no falsehood in 
 
 them. Afterwards I came into the 21 
 regions of Syria and Cilicia. But 
 
S6 
 
 gions of Syria and 
 Cilicia : 
 
 22. And was un- 
 known by face unto 
 the churches of Ju- 
 dea which were in 
 Christ : 
 
 23. But they had 
 heard only, that he 
 which persecuted us 
 in times past, now 
 preacheth the faith 
 which once he de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 24 And they glo- 
 rified God in me. 
 
 Chap. II. 
 Ver. 1 . Then 
 fourteen years after 
 I went up again to 
 Jerusalem with Bar- 
 nabas, and took Ti- 
 tus with me also. 
 
 2. And I went up 
 by revelation, and 
 communicated unto 
 them that gospel 
 which I preach a- 
 mong the Gentiles; 
 but privately to them 
 which were of re- 
 putation, lest by any 
 means I should run, 
 or had run^ in vain. 
 
 3. But neither Ti- 
 tus, who was with 
 me, being a Greek, 
 
 with the churches of Christ in Ju- 22 
 dea, 1 had had no communication ; 
 they had not so much as seen my 
 
 face ; only they had heard that I who 23 
 formerly persecuted the Churches of 
 Christ, did now preach the gospel, 
 which I once endeavoured to sup- 
 
 press, and extirpate. And they glo- 24 
 rified God upon my account. 
 
 Chap. II. 
 Then fourteen years after I went 1 
 up again to Jerusalem with Barna- 
 bas, and took Titus also with me. 
 
 And I went up by revelation, and 2 
 there laid before them the gospel 
 which I preached to the Gentiles ; 
 but privately to those who were of 
 note, and reputation amongst them, 
 lest the pains that I have already 
 taken, or should take in the gospel. 
 
 should be in vain. But though I 3 
 communicated the gospel which I 
 preached to the Gentiles, to the 
 eminent men of the Church at Jeru- 
 salem, yet neither Titus, who was 
 
8? 
 
 witli nie being a Greek, was forced 
 to be circumcised : nor did 1 4 
 yield any thing one moment, by way 
 of subjection'' to the law, to those 
 false brethren, who, by an, unwary 
 admittance had slily crept in, to 
 spy out our liberty from the law, 
 which we have under the gospel, . 
 that they might bring us into bon- 
 
 was compelled to 
 be circumcised : 
 
 4. 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 : 
 
 5, To whom we 
 gave place by sub- 
 jection, no, not for 
 an hour ; that the 
 truth of the gospel 
 might continue with 
 you. 
 
 1 think any one who reads the foregoing ex- 
 tracts, will immediately perceive how very widely 
 Gamaliel Smith's representation of St. Paul's 
 language to the Galatians, differs from the truth. 
 
 dage to the law. liut I stood my 5 
 ground against it, that th^ truth of 
 the gospel might remain among 
 you. 
 
 " "Tt7 vTioraytj, by subjection. The point, those false bre- 
 thren, contended for, was that the law of Moses was to be kept. 
 See Acts xv. 5. St. Paul, who on other oocasions was so 
 complaisant, that to the Jews he became as a Jew, to those 
 under the law, as under the law, (l Cor. ix. IQ — 22.) yet 
 when subjection to the law was claimed as due in any case, 
 he would not yield the least matter : this I take to be his 
 meaning of ovce tl^ufxev Ttj vTroraytj, for where compliance 
 was desired of him upon the account of expedience, and 
 not of subjection to the law, we do not find him stiff and 
 inflexible, as may be seen Acts xxi. 18 — 26, which was after 
 the writing of this Epistle. " Locke. 
 
88 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 Motives of St. Paul's Jirst Visit to Jerusalem. 
 
 Gamaliel Smith has been pleased to call 
 St. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem^ a reconcilia- 
 tion visit. He says, '' As to Paul's motive for 
 this visit, he has endeavoured to keep it to 
 himself: but by the result, according to the 
 account he himself gives of it, it is betrayed. 
 It was to effect the so much needed recon- 
 ciliation — his reconcihation with the Apostles : 
 without an interval of considerable length, all 
 such reconciliation would have been plainly 
 hopeless''/' If, as I have before remarked, 
 St. Paul had been actuated by a '' plan of 
 worldly ambition," or, if he had thought him- 
 self in need of "the countenance of the Apo- 
 stles," it is highly improbable, that he would 
 have so long delayed to have any intercourse 
 with those distinguished individuals. We do 
 not find that any steps were take.n, or any 
 overtures made by him, in the three years that 
 immediately followed his conversion, to gain 
 their friendship. On the contrary, we perceive 
 from the accounts given in The Acts, that at 
 
 '^ Pages 112, 113. 
 
89 
 
 this first visit to Jerusalem, the memory of his 
 former persecutions was still fresh in the minds 
 of the iVpostles. Time had not impaired the 
 terrors which his former conduct had inspired : 
 '"^ distrust of him was not lessened, nor con- 
 fidence strengthened." It is therefore reason- 
 able to suppose, that it would have been quite 
 as easy for St. Paul to have obtained coun- 
 tenance and support from the Apostles, (had 
 such been his object) immediately after his first 
 visit to Damascus, as it was at a much later 
 period, after his sojourn in Arabia. "As to 
 Paul's motive for this visit," says Gamaliel 
 Smith, 'Mt must be left to inference, to con- 
 jecture grounded on circumstances/' and Ga- 
 maliel Smith has chosen to infer from St. Paul 
 having said, that "^ after three years he went 
 up to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen 
 days," that the visit was undertaken with a 
 view to a reconciliation with the Apostles. 
 Now, if uninfluenced as he was by any worldly 
 considerations, St. Paul's object had been merely 
 to seek a reconciliation with those disciples, 
 whom, from an ignorant zeal, he had formerly 
 persecuted, his conduct would have been en- 
 titled to praise, and worthy of a Christian ; but 
 we may conjecture from circumstances which 
 are stated, that higher and more important con- 
 
90 
 
 siderations induced St. Paul to undertake this 
 visit to Jerusalem ; that he went there under 
 a persuasion, that his evidence and abilities 
 would be of service to that Gospel, which he, 
 and the other Apostles, were commissioned to 
 preach, and that he might concert with Peter 
 one of the chief of tl>e Apostles, as to the 
 best means of promoting its success, and of 
 defeating the machinations of its adversaries. 
 This conjecture is borne out by what is stated 
 respecting- the repeated conferences which took 
 place, between St. Paul and the two Apostles 
 Peter and James, as well as by what is related 
 of his conduct, during the time he remained 
 in Jerusalem. He was with them for fifteen 
 days, (Gal. i.) coming in and going out at 
 Jerusalem, and he spake boldly in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the 
 Grecians, Acts ix. 28. The person, moreover, 
 who introduced St. Paul to the Apostles on this 
 occasion, was one, who was very unlikely to 
 lend himself to the furtherance of any schenie of 
 worldly ambition, (had Paul been actuated by 
 any such project,} for Barnabas had been one 
 of the first to give a disinterested support to 
 the cause of the Gospel, and the welfare of 
 the Christian community. "And Joses, who 
 by the Apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which 
 
91 
 
 is, being interpreted. The Son of Consolation,) 
 a Levite of the country of Cyprus, having- land, 
 sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at 
 the Apostles' feet." (Acts iv. 36\ 3/.) Barnabas 
 was also '^a good man, and full of the Holy 
 Ghost and of faith." (Acts xi. 24.) Gamaliel 
 Smith is pleased to call Paul's account of this 
 visit to Jerusalem, a 'Moose account," p. 131. 
 So far is it from being a loose account, that 
 it is much more circumstantial and particular, 
 than that given in " The Acts" relative to the 
 same transactions. The historian speaks in 
 general terms as of facts, at which he was not 
 present, but St. Paul "^ particularizes time, names^ 
 and circumstances." 
 
 I agree with Locke, that " no man ever 
 called St. Paul a loose writer, who was not 
 himself a loose reader/' and the author of "Not 
 Paul but Jesus" affords an illustration of the 
 remark. Numerous, indeed, are the instances, 
 in which Gamaliel Smith has shewn his igno- 
 rance of the meaning of Scripture ; and occa- 
 sionally there are passages in his book, which 
 induce me to think, that he has either not 
 read the whole of the New Testament, or that, 
 if he has read it, his perusal has been of a 
 very cursory, as well as unprofitable, nature. 
 Among other gross mistakes into which he has 
 
92 
 
 fallen, I may here notice his calling- "Jerusalem 
 the birth-place of Jesus^" Let Gamaliel Smith 
 refer to the two Evangelists \ who have re- 
 corded the particulars of our Saviour's birth, 
 and he will find, that Jesus was born, not in 
 Jerusalem, but in Bethlehem of Judaea! Igno- 
 rance, unaccompanied by arrogance or presump- 
 tion, is rather deserving of pity than of censure ; 
 but when a man, affecting to comment on the 
 Scriptures, not only betrays how little he is 
 acquainted with the matters on which he writes, 
 but attacks characters and subjects the most 
 sacred, with profane and indecent levity, it is 
 difficult to say, whether his arrogance, or his 
 temerity, is most to be condemned. 
 
 SECT. 111. 
 
 Manner of St. PauVs Escape from Damascus. 
 
 I HAVE already shewn the absurdity of 
 Gamaliel Smith's supposition, that St. Paul fled 
 from Damascus to avoid being apprehended in 
 a "regular way" for the purposes of justice; 
 *' and that the accounts given by the Author of 
 
 " Page 125. 
 
 *> Matt. ii. 1. Luke ii. 
 
93 
 
 The Acts and Paul himself, relative to the tians- 
 actioDj have a striking-, yet evidently undesigned 
 coincidence. Gamaliel Smith, in again alluding 
 to this "adventure of the basket/' as he is 
 pleased to term it, says, " 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 pro- 
 bability seems to be given to Paul's account. 
 A curious circumstance is, that in this Epistle 
 of Paul's, (the second Epistle to the Corinthians) 
 this anecdote of the basket stands completely in- 
 sulated, it has not any the slightest connexion 
 with any thing that precedes or follows it^." 
 Now, so far from not having' any connexion 
 with any thing- that precedes it, I think this 
 " anecdote of the basket" is intimately connected 
 with, and naturally suggested itself to St. Paul's 
 mind, from what he had just been writing, with 
 respect to being* ''^in perils by his own coun- 
 trymen, in perils by the heathen ;" for it appears 
 from the history, that not only did a base un- 
 principled band of Paul's own countrymen, the 
 Jews, lie in wait to kill him, but that, insti- 
 gated by those same Jews, the heathen governor, 
 
 ' Page 134. 
 
94 
 
 who kept the city with a g-arrison^ was desirous 
 of apprehending" him. Whether there was, or 
 was not, a governor with a garrison at Da- 
 mascus, upon Paul's visit to that place, imme- 
 diately after his conversion, I think perfectly 
 immaterial''. The Scriptures were not written 
 with a view to g'ratify idle curiosity, but to 
 make men " wise unto eternal life." For this 
 purpose, they contain all the information, and 
 are supported by all the evidence, that reason- 
 able men need desire ; and it is gratifying to 
 know, that in many important circumstances, the 
 sacred historians are corroborated by the testi- 
 mony of other writers, who cannot be suspected 
 of any design to represent matters in a light 
 favourable to the Christians. If, previous to 
 writing his invectives against St. Paul, Mr. Ga- 
 maliel Smith had attentively perused the Jewish 
 historian Josephus, he might have found, not 
 only that such a person as Aretas king of 
 Arabia really existed, but reasons for his having 
 a governor with a garrison at Damascus, at the 
 time when Paul is reported to have been let 
 down from the walls of that city in a basket. 
 It was not long after St. Paul's conversion, 
 that the animosity, which had for some time 
 
 ■^ Ml". Robinsoii;, in his note on Acts ix. 23, has, I think, 
 fully explained this seeming difficulty. 
 
95 
 
 subsisted between Aretas king of Arabia, and 
 Herod the tetrarch, broke out into open war. 
 The cause of this animosity originated in He- 
 rod's having put away his wife, the daughter of 
 AretaSj in order that he might marry Herodias^ 
 his brother PhiHp's wife. Aretas, having col- 
 lected a sufficient force, made war upon Herod, 
 and, in a set battle, Herod's army was com- 
 pletely overthrown*. Herod, upon the destruc- 
 tion of his army, applied himself to his master, 
 the Emperor Tiberius, who was so far wrought 
 upon by the representations of Herod, that he 
 was exceedingly displeased at the success of 
 Aretas, and at his audacity in making war in his 
 dominions; and that he immediately wrote letters 
 to Vitellius, governor of Syria, ordering him to 
 undertake the war, and to bring the rebellious 
 Aretas prisoner, or to send his head to Rome. 
 It was about the time of St. Paul's return from 
 Arabia to Damascus, that Aretas was engaged 
 in making preparations against the intended 
 attack of Vitellius. It was therefore extremely 
 probable, that among other warlike measures of 
 
 * Josephus informs us, that it was commonly believed 
 among the Jews, that the defeat of Herod's army proceeded 
 from the immediate vengeance of heaven, for his having mur- 
 dered the honest and virtuous John the Baptist. See Jo- 
 seph. Antiq.. Book XVIII. Chap. v. Sect. 1, 2, 3. and 
 Book XIII. Chap. xv. Sect. 2. 
 
 / 
 
96 
 
 defence, Aretas should have a governor and a 
 garrison in the important and populous city of 
 Damascus, which though in Coelo-Syria, was at 
 this time in subjection to Aretas. As to the 
 governor having been influenced by the Jews 
 to apprehend St. Paul, it is easy to assign a motive 
 for his conduct. The Jews were a commercial 
 people, — they were, moreover, at this time, nu- 
 merous in Damascus', having synagogues there, 
 and among other expedients it was not unlikely 
 that Aretas, or his governor, might have occasion 
 to apply to them for some kind of assistance 
 during the impending war. Political considera- 
 tions might- therefore have induced the governor 
 to pay court to the Jews, and it is hardly possible 
 to conceive any way in which he could more 
 effectually do so, than by attempting to destroy 
 so zealous a propagator of Christ's religion as 
 St. Paul. 
 
 * See Mr. Robinson on Acts ix. 2, where this assertion is 
 corroborated by a quotation from Josephus. 
 
97 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 Loigfh of this Jirst Visit. St. Paul's Employment 
 during it. 
 
 It appears that on tlie occasion of this first 
 visit to Jerusalem, St. Paul remained there fifteen 
 days, and his employment during- his stay was 
 consistent with his Apostolic character^, for we 
 find that he was not only credited by Peter and 
 James,, with whom he was in frequent conference, 
 but that he spake boldly in the name of the Lord 
 JesuSj and disputed against the Grecians. — "^^ Why 
 with the Grecians and no other?" says Gamaliel 
 Smith. "The reason is no mystery. Greek was 
 the language of Paul. — Greeks for any thing that 
 appears, was not the language of Peter, or of any 
 other of the Apostles," p. 143. It is probable that 
 St. Paul might preach to others as well as the 
 Grecians, — be that as it might, a much juster 
 reason than that given by Gamaliel Smith, may 
 be assigned for St. Paul's directing his discourses 
 more particularly on this occasion to the Grecians, 
 The expression used in the original passage^ will 
 apply to such proselytes to Judaism as had resided 
 
 ** E/XaAei T€ K«i o-i/i/e^r/Vei TrpoV tow '^Wrivtiyrd';. Acts IX. 2f). 
 
 G , 
 
98 
 
 always or mostly in (Grecian cities, and conse- 
 quently, whose common tongue was Greek. Now 
 if we turn to the sixth chapter of The Acts% we 
 shall find that there was a synagogue, called the 
 synagogue of the Libertines and Cyrenians, and 
 Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia, and of Asia; 
 and that the members of this synagogue were the 
 persons who stirred up the persecution against 
 St. Stephen ; and as St. Paul had on that occasion 
 unhappily countenanced them in error, so it was 
 an act of kindness, and peculiarly proper in him 
 now to endeavour to bring them to a knowledge 
 of the truth of Christianity. This I apprehend 
 to have been the reason of St. Pauls addressing 
 himself to the Grecians. St. Paul, it is true, was 
 well skilled in the Greek language, but he a})- 
 pears to have been equally conversant with the 
 Hebrew : but, in reply to Gamaliel Smith's ob- 
 servation, that " it appears Greek was not the 
 language of Peter, or of any other of the Apo- 
 stles," 1 would ask him, if they did not under- 
 stand Greek, how came it to pass that the Apostle 
 St. Peter was able to write his Epistles in the 
 Greek language? How did it happen that the 
 Gospel and other books of tlie New Testament 
 were written by the Apostles, John, James, and 
 
 "* See Mr Robir\son's Notes on Acts vi. 9- 
 
99 
 
 Jude, in the same Greek language ? The means 
 by which these Apostles, who were originally 
 unlearned men of Galilee, and whose native 
 tongue was Hebrew, attained to a knowledge 
 of the Greek language, the Christian readily 
 discovers in the second chapter of The Acts of 
 the Apostles. To return to the conduct of St. 
 Paul. It appears that the same prejudices which 
 had prevented the persons who stirred up the 
 persecution against Stephen from believing the 
 Gospel, frustrated St. Paul's meritorious exertions 
 in the same cause, on the present occasion. In- 
 stead, therefore, of attempting to refute his argu- 
 ments, these Grecians sought to take away his 
 life. '' And he spake boldly in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians : 
 but they went about to slay him." Acts ix. 29. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 Termination of f/iis first Vint. 
 
 The disciples at Jerusalem, like those of 
 Damascus, appear to have appreciated the ex- 
 cellence of St. Paul's character, and to have been 
 equally interested in his safety. Hence it wa* 
 
 G 2 
 
100 
 
 that when they found the Grecizing Jews were 
 plotting- his destruction^ they determined to send 
 him forth to Tarsus^ his native city, where, 
 among his relations and friends, they might 
 naturally hope he would be safe. It appears that 
 some of the disciples accompanied him on his 
 way as far as Caesara^a, probably with a view 
 of protecting him against the murderous designs 
 of his and their own adversaries. "And he spake 
 boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and 
 disputed against the Grecians, but they went 
 about to slay him. Which when the brethren 
 knew, they brought him down to Caesaraea, and 
 sent him forth to Tarsus," Acts ix. 29, 30. There 
 are two towns of the name of Caesaraea mentioned 
 in The Acts ; one was a sea-coast town of Pales- 
 tine, and called Caesaraea'*, or Caesaraea Palestinae, 
 
 •* " Tarsus the native place of St. Paul, situated at the 
 north-east corner of the Mediten-anean sea, was a town of 
 such note in the times of the Roman Empire, that it was not 
 only made the capital of Cilicia, but was peculiarly honoured 
 with the great privileges of a Roman colony, on which account 
 we read (Acts xxii. 25.) that St. Paul pleaded the privilege of 
 being a free-born Roman. Here were many Jews resident, 
 among whom were the parents of St. Paul. This city possess- 
 ed an academy, furnished with many eminent men, and hence 
 it was that St. Paul became instructed in liberal knowledge, 
 and so well acquainted with heathen Authors." See Dr. Wells's 
 Geography of the Old and New Testaments, Vol. II. Part ii. 
 Chap. 2. 
 
 ^' The ancient name, as Josephus informs us, was Strato's 
 Tower. 
 
lOl 
 
 the other^ Caesaraea Philippi, was an inland town, 
 nigh mount Lebanon, on the borders of Syria. 
 Now from what St. Paul says (Gal. i.) about 
 going into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;, at 
 a time when he was personally unknown to the 
 churches in Judaea^ I apprehend it was not Cae- 
 saraea^ the sea-coast town in Palestine, but 
 Caesaraea Philippi, to which St. Paul was con- 
 ducted by the Apostles on this occasion. If St. 
 Paul made the journey by land, as he probably 
 would if he went into Syria, Ceesaraea the sea-' 
 coast town would have been out of his way, 
 whereas Caesaraea Philippi would have been in 
 his route. From the manner in which Gamaliel 
 Smith speaks on the subject, one may infer that 
 he had never heard of more than one town of 
 the name, and that his geographical knowledge 
 on the subject, was, to say the least, very de- 
 fective. "Caesaraea (he says) 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'." It 
 is very easy for any man to fall into mistakes, 
 
 • Pages 144, 14.'5. 
 
and 1 should have considered any trifling- errors 
 less worthy of remark, had 1 not frequently ob- 
 served the self-sufficient manner in which Mr. 
 Gamaliel Smith has chosen to hazard his as- 
 sertions." 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 Causes of the Termination of' this Visit considered. 
 
 A¥iTH regard to St. Paul's departure from 
 Jerusalem, we have two accounts, both by the 
 author of The Acts; but these accounts^ though 
 different, are not irreconcileable with each other. 
 The first is contained in the ninth chapter of 
 Acts, and is as follows : '' And he spake boldly 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed 
 against the Grecians ; but they went about to slay 
 him, which, when the brethren knew, they brought 
 him down to Caesaraea, and sent him forth to 
 Tarsus." St. Paul, in his address to the assem- 
 
 * Mr. Gamaliel Smith says, p. 24. Judas Iscariot was an 
 " inhabitant of Iscara." This Iscara never had existence, ex- 
 cept in the fertile brain of Mr. Gamaliel Smith. Karioth, or 
 Kerioth, (mentioned by Joshua, chap. xv. ver. 2.5.) is sup- 
 posed to have been the place from whence the traitor received 
 liis surname. 
 
bled multitude at Jerusalem, (on the occasion oi" 
 his fifth and last visit to that city), after having- 
 related how the Lord had appeared to him on his 
 way to Damascus, and what occurred at the inter- 
 view with Ananias, proceeds afterwards to say, 
 " 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, (i. e. the 
 Lord), saying- unto me. Make haste, and get thee 
 quickly out of Jerusalem : for they will not re- 
 ceive thy testimony concerning* me*"." Acts xxii. 
 17, 18. Now what Paul is here reported as 
 saying, certainly does not contradict what is re- 
 lated as above, in the ninth chapter of Acts. 
 St. Paul, anxious to repair to the utmost of his 
 power, the mischief done to the Christian cause 
 by his former persecutions, and particularly by 
 his conduct in assenting to the death of St. Ste- 
 phen, by his zealous preaching- in the name of 
 Jesus, incurred, (as we have already seen), the 
 enmity of some Grecizing Jews, who were bent 
 on his destruction. Conscious of the purity of 
 his motives^, and the importance of that religion 
 to which he had been converted, it is most pro- 
 bable that St. Paul would have continued at Jeru- 
 
 '' This passage corroborates St. Paul's account (GaL chap, i.) 
 concerning the shortness of his stay at his first visit to Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
104 
 
 salem, and been fruitlessly sacrificed to the fury 
 of his enemies, before the great objects of his 
 ministry had been accomplished, had not the Lord 
 revealed to him that his further stay at Jerusalem 
 at that time^ could answer no good, end, as the 
 JewSj (including- the Grecian proselytes above- 
 mentioned), would not receive his testimony con- 
 cerning Jesus. When enjoined, however, by 
 divine command, to depart from Jerusalem, and 
 to go to the Gentiles, St. Paul readily obeyed, 
 and fell in with those arrangements which the 
 disciples made with a view to his safety ; and 
 being conducted by them to Csesaraea, went forth 
 to Tarsus. In recording the circumstance of St. 
 Paul's departure from Jerusalem, in his ninth 
 chapter, there was no necessity for the author 
 of The Acts to mention that that departure took 
 place in consequence of a revelation made from 
 heaven, especially as that would afterwards be 
 seen to be the case from what he should relate 
 in giving a speech of St. Paul's in a subsequent 
 part of the history. It was, however, extremely 
 natural for St. Paul to notice this especial reve- 
 lation, when pleading before the Jews, that it 
 might appear unto the Jews that he did not, 
 out of caprice or ill-will, leave them and preach 
 to the Gentiles, but in compliance with the divine 
 command. 
 
105 
 
 On the subject of thq revelation made to St. 
 Paul, in order to warn him to leave Jerusalem, 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith says, " A circumstance not 
 altogether clear, nor worth taking- much trouble 
 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." p. 150. 
 There is such a want of clearness and gramma- 
 tical propriety in the above remarks, that it is 
 difficult to say what ideas the author of them 
 intended they should convey. If, however, he 
 meant fo say that it is in the power of any man 
 to have such revelations from heaven as were 
 made to St. Paul, I must take the liberty of 
 denying" his assertion. A man may pretend to 
 have seen "visions," or to have heard or seen 
 any thing in a trance that " it suits his conve- 
 nience" to declare, but unless his pretensions to 
 supernatural revelations should be supported by 
 the most convincing testimony, it is unlikely they 
 would be believed. The reason why credit is 
 due I.O what St. Paul is reported to have seen 
 
106 
 
 and heard in visions, is because, in his case, the 
 most powerful evidence is afforded to the miracles 
 he is said to have wrought, as well as to the 
 truth of his pretensions''. 
 
 ' If the reader refers to Parkhurst's Greek and English 
 Lexicon, (Article Eic(rTa<T<?), he will see with what strict pro- 
 priety our English Translators have used the word " Trance" 
 in The Acts, ch. x. 10. xi. 5. xxii. 17. 
 
107 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 ST. PAUL S SECOND VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 A Dearth having behi predicted by Agabus, Collections 
 are made at Antioch for the Brethren in Judcca. 
 
 The actions of corrupt and wicked men, 
 are often rendered subservient by God, to the 
 wisest and most benevolent purposes. Thus, 
 the persecution in which perished the proto- 
 martyr Stephen, and which was intended to give 
 a check to the progress of Christianity, turned 
 out to the furtherance of the Gospel. 
 
 Acts xl. 19, 20, 21. 
 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. 20. And some of them 
 were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were 
 come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians*, preaching 
 
 " From the manner in which these Grecians are spoken of 
 as contradistinguished from Jews, (ver. I9.) it would seem, that 
 
 these 
 
108 
 
 the Lord Jesus. 21. And the hand of the Lord was with 
 them : and a great number believed, and turned unto the 
 Lord. 
 
 The very means employed by the enemies 
 of Christianity, to oppose the progress of truth, 
 contributed to diffuse it more extensively. It 
 seemSj that the offers of salvation through Christ, 
 were in the first instance to be made to the 
 Jewish people, and, after that, to be extended 
 to all the other nations of the world. Hence 
 it was, that our Lord's ministry was principally 
 confined to Judaea, and that he said, '^'^I am 
 not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house 
 of Israel," and hence it was, that the Apostles 
 and first teachers of Christianity addressed them- 
 selves at first only to the Jews. It was on 
 this account, that those who went to Phenice, 
 and Cyprus, and Antioch, preached the word 
 unto none but Jews only. When, however, 
 the conversion of the Roman centurion, Corne- 
 lius, by St. Peter, had convinced all the Apo- 
 stles, that " to the Gentiles also God had granted 
 
 these Grecians were Gentiles, and not Grecizing Jews : and, 
 indeed, we may the more safely make such a supposition, as 
 the Alexandrian MS. authorizes us in reading 'F^Wrjua^ instead 
 of 'Fj\\t]viffTa<;, and Doddridge goes so far as to say, " that com- 
 mon sense would require us to adopt this reading ('E\\r}va<:,) 
 even if it were not supported by the authority of any manu- 
 script at all." Griesbach has received it into the text. 
 
109 
 
 repentance unto life," they no longer confined 
 their preaching to the Jews. At Antioch, the 
 capital of Syria, considerable success attended 
 the preaching of the Gospel among the Gre- 
 cians; hearing- of this success, the Apostles, 
 with a view to ffive further effect to the la- 
 bours so happily commenced, sent Barnabas to 
 Antioch. 
 
 Acts xi. 22, 23. 
 
 22. 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. 23. 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. 
 
 From Antioch, Barnabas, being anxious for 
 St. Paul's assistance, went to Tarsus % to seek 
 
 ' " We cannot doubt, says Paley, but that the new Apostle 
 had been busied in his ministry, yet of what he did, or what he 
 suffered, during this period, which may include three or four 
 years, the history professes not to deliver any information. As 
 Tarsus was situated upon the sea-coast, and as though Tarsus 
 was his home, yet it is probable he visited from thence many 
 other places, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel, it is not 
 unlikely, that in the course of three or four years, he might 
 undertake many short voyages to neighbouring countries, in 
 the navigating of which, we may be allowed to suppose, that 
 some of those disasters and shipwrecks befel him, to which he 
 refers in the quotation before us, ' thrice I suffered shipwreck, 
 a night and a day have I been in the deep.' (2 Cor. xi. 25.) 
 This last clause I am inclined to interpret, of his being obliged 
 
 to 
 
no 
 
 him. St, Paul would doubtless be exceedingly 
 rejoiced to learn the success which the Chris- 
 tian religion had obtained at Antioch. To that 
 city he immediately accompanied Barnabas, and 
 it appears^ they both continued there a whole 
 year, in the faithful exercise of their ministry. 
 " Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to 
 seek Saul : and when he had found him, he 
 brought him unto Antioch. And it came to 
 pass, that a whole year they assembled them- 
 selves with the church, and taught much people. 
 And the disciples were first called Christians in 
 Antioch." (Acts xi. 25, 26.) While Paul and 
 Barnabas were thus engaged, a prophet, whose 
 name was Agabus, came to Antioch, and fore- 
 told a famine which was to prevail throughout 
 the land of Judaea. 
 
 I must here advert to one or two misre- 
 presentations, in which Mr. Gamaliel Smith has 
 chosen to indulge, on the subject of tliis pre- 
 diction. After saying, that '' Agabus had lived 
 at Jerusalem under the spiritual dominion of 
 the Apostles," he presently adds, ''The fact for 
 the purpose of predicting, or giving information 
 of, which this useful emissary was, on the present 
 
 to take to an open boat, upon the loss of the ship, and his con- 
 tinuing out at sea in that dangerous situation a night and a 
 day. St. Paul is here recoimting his sufferings, not relating 
 
 miracles." IJonr PauliiKV. 
 
Ill 
 
 occasion, sent from Jerusalem to Antioch, was 
 that of signifying, that there should be a g-reat 
 dearth ; an inference deduced from it was, that 
 at this same Antioch, for the relief of the bre- 
 thren at Jerusalem, contributions should be col- 
 lected and sent to Jerusalem." Now, if we look 
 at the account, we shall find there is not the 
 slig-htest foundation for asserting, that Agabus 
 lived under the dominion of the Apostles, it 
 does not even appear, that previous to this pre- 
 diction they knew of the existence of such a 
 persoHj much less that he was an 'emissary' 
 sent forth by them to Antioch. 
 
 Acts xi. 27 — 30. 
 
 27. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem 
 unto Antioch. 28. And there stood up one of them 
 named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there 
 should be great dearth throughout all the world"* : which 
 
 " I think Macknight has clearly shewn, that -naaav rtjv oIkov- 
 tx6i'r]v, (Luke ii. 1.) which answers to the expression oA>;i/ T^/V 
 ol>i.ovfxevt]v, here translated "all the world," signifies all the land 
 of Israel. See Macknight's Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. I. 
 Chronological Dissertation " Of the Taxing." 
 
 On this subject, I may also quote the opinion of the learned 
 and ingenious Lardner. " The original word (olKovfxevt]), does 
 sometimes signify, not the whole world, but a particular 
 country only. It is evident, that the prophecy was understood 
 by the disciples at Antioch, in whose hearing it was delivered, 
 to relate to Judaea only. There is not the least hint of any 
 thought of sending relief to any other pl;ice, nor yet of any 
 
 hesitatiois 
 
112 
 
 came to pass in the days of Claudius Csesar. 29. Then 
 the disciples, every man according to his ability, deter- 
 mined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in 
 Judaea : 30. Which also they did, and sent it to the 
 elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. 
 
 I think it extremely improbable^ had Agabus 
 been an impostor, or '^a false prophet," as 
 Gamaliel Smith insinuates^ that he would have 
 hazarded a prediction on such a subject as 
 that of a famine, throughout the whole of an ex- 
 tensive province like Judaea. We have, how- 
 ever, not only the authority of St. Luke for 
 saying, that Agabus did foretel the famine above- 
 mentioned, and that it came to pass agreeably 
 to his prediction ; but the foregoing account 
 receives corroboration from Josephus, who tells 
 us, that such a dearth occurred in Judaea in 
 
 hesitation in taking the resolution here mentioned, for fear their 
 own circumstances might be necessitous," &c. See Cre- 
 dibility of the Gospel History, Part I. Book 1. chap. xi. If 
 it be enquired, if the land of Judaea only be meant, what does 
 the term all signify ; I answer, it was very proper to be added. 
 At the time when St. Luke wrote, and, indeed, from the death 
 of Herod, which happened soon after the nativity of Jesus, the 
 land of Judeea, or of Israel, had sufFei'ed a dismembering. 
 Archelaus had to his share Judaea, properly so called, together 
 with Samaria and Idumaea, and the province of Judaea, which 
 was afterwards governed by Roman Procurators, was pretty 
 much of the same extent. But Galilee, Ituraea, and other parts 
 of the land of Israel, had been given to other descendants of 
 Herod the Great. Credibility of the Gospel History, Part I. 
 Book II. chap. i. 
 
113 
 
 the reign of Claudius Caesar, and that writer 
 not only says nothing- of the famine having ex- 
 tended to Syria, but he informs us, that vast 
 quantities of corn were sent up to Jerusalem 
 from other countries \ What is stated, there- 
 fore, in The Acts, receives confirmation from 
 what is related by Josephus, and we may safely 
 conclude, that this prophecy of Agabus must 
 have been dictated by the Spirit of God, wiio 
 took' this method of providing for the wants of 
 the Christians, in the approaching dearth. The 
 reason, then, is obvious, why " contributions 
 should be sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, 
 rather than from Jerusalem to Antioch." 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 St. Paul and Barnabas deputed to convey the Contribu' 
 tions to Jerusalem. 
 
 The conduct of the disciples at Antioch, 
 upon hearing the prediction of Agabus, was 
 extremely meritorious, and worthy of that reli- 
 gion in which they had been instructed. They 
 seem to have felt, that "it was more blessed 
 
 * See Joseph. Antiq. Book XX. Chap. ii. Sect. 6. and 
 Chap. V. Sect. 2. 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 to g-ive than to receive ^" and that wealth is 
 never so well ajiplied, as when it is employed 
 in relieving the distresses, and promoting the 
 happiness of mankind. They immediately de- 
 termined, according- to their ability^ to send re- 
 lief to the brethren at Jerusalem ; and the 
 persons they selected, as the bearers of their con- 
 tributions, were Barnabas and Paul, more just 
 and honourable men than whom it was impos- 
 sible to have chosen. The account of the 
 manner in which these persons fulfilled their 
 mission is short, but very satisfactory. '' And 
 Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, 
 when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took 
 with them John, whose surname Avas Mark." 
 Acts xii. 25. I confess, that in the admirable 
 conciseness and simplicity, with which this, and 
 other circumstances are related by the author of 
 The Acts of the Apostles, I see strong ground 
 
 8 Gamaliel Smith camiot discover, he tells us, where Paul 
 "got these words," which he is represented as using. Acts 
 XX. 2>5. " In the works of the four received biographers of 
 Jesus, with Cruden and his concordance for guides, all search 
 for them has been fruitless," p. 154. 
 
 The Evangelists have informed us, that they neither have 
 related, or intended to relate, all that Jesus did or said. Those 
 words, therefore, might have been well known among the 
 Apostles, to have been uttered by our Lord. But, although 
 the words themselves cannot be found in the Evangelists, the 
 substance of them may be discovered in various places, as 
 Luke vi. .S8. and xvi. p. 
 
115 
 
 for deeming- the history authentic. The writer 
 appears to have had no other object in view, 
 than to relate facts, as he believed them to 
 have occurred. Paul and Barnabas, the history 
 says, were sent with the money to the elders. 
 Now, this is a title given to the Apostles them- 
 selves, as well as to inferior ministers, who were 
 appointed "^overseers of the flock of Christ, to 
 feed the church of God." It is highly probable, 
 therefore, that at this^ as well as other visits, 
 St. Paul had an interview with such of the 
 Apostles, as were then at Jerusalem. Having 
 rendered a full and satisfactory account of all 
 the contributions entrusted to their care, Paul 
 and Barnabas returned to Antioch. As to 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith's observations,, about St. 
 Paul's having " a personal project" in view on 
 this occasion, and about " the situation of Pre- 
 sident of the Christian commonwealth being the 
 prime object of his ambition," they are so 
 utterly unfounded, as to be unworthy of a reply. 
 When Gamaliel Smith attempts to shew, by 
 arguments drawn from St. Paul's conduct and 
 writings, that St. Paul was influenced by per- 
 sonal ambition, I wifl endeavour to shew the 
 fallacy of his reasoning. 
 
 It was about the time of this second visit, 
 that Herod Agrippa commenced a persecution 
 
 h2 
 
116 
 
 against the church at Jerusalem. In this per- 
 secution James, the brother of John, was slain, 
 and Peter being- imprisoned, was miraculously 
 delivered by an angel. The wretched end of 
 the royal persecutor, is mentioned towards the 
 conclusion of the twelfth chapter of The Acts*. 
 
 " " The fidelity and accuracy of St. Luke, as an historian, 
 are confirmed by Josephus in every particular of this narration 
 of the death of Herod, as to the place, (Caesaraea,) the set day, 
 the gorgeous dress, the acclamations of the assembly, the pecu- 
 liar turn of the flattery, the manner in which it was received, 
 and the sudden and critical attack of the disease." — Paley. 
 See Joseph. Antiq. Book XIX. Chap. viii. Sect. 2. 
 
117 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELiEYETf — continued. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 St. Paul's third Visit to Jerusalem — Dissentions and 
 Debates about Circumcision. 
 
 The occasion of St. Paul's third visit to 
 Jerusalem, as has already been remarked, was 
 a dissention which arose at Antioch, in conse- 
 quence of certain persons from Judaea having 
 taught the brethren, that " unless they were 
 circumcised, they could not be saved." The 
 question being one of great importance to the 
 peace of the Christian churches, it was deter- 
 mined, that Paul and Barnabas, with certain 
 others, should go up to Jerusalem, to consult 
 with the Apostles and elders on the subject. 
 It appears from the history, (Acts xv. 5.) that 
 when Paul and Barnabas had arrived at Jeru- 
 salem, a party of Pharisees, who had been con- 
 verted to Christianity, taught the necessity not 
 
118 
 
 only of circumcision, but of observing the whole 
 law of MoseSj with its burdensome rites and 
 ceremonies. 
 
 Acts xv. 1 — 5. 
 
 1. And certain men which came down from Judea taught 
 the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after 
 the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2. When 
 therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissention 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 con- 
 version of the Gentiles : and they caused great joy unto 
 all the brethren. 4. And when they were come to Jeru- 
 salem, they were received of the church, and of the Apo- 
 stles and elders; and they declared all things that God 
 had done with them*. 5. But there rose up certain of the 
 
 * Gal. i. 18, 19. Then after three years I went up to Jeru- 
 salem, to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But 
 other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's 
 brother. 
 
 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 with them. 
 
 Gamaliel Smith says, p. I6I, there is a contradiction 
 between these two passages, and with his usual habit of in- 
 vention, he proceeds to assign motives for the contrariety : 
 but he must be a careless reader, indeed, who does not know, 
 that the two passages relate to two different visits; that in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians, to Paul's first visit, and that in The 
 Acts, to Paul's third visit to Jerusalem. 
 
119 
 
 sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was 
 needful to circumcise them, and to command them to 
 keep the law of Moses. 
 
 On account of the conduct of the Pharisees 
 in question,, it was the more necessary, in order 
 to check the growing; mischief, that the Apostles 
 and elders should hold a speedy consultation on 
 the subjects respecting- which, Paul and Bar- 
 nabas had been deputed, by the Antioch dis- 
 ciples, to confer with them. Accordingly, a 
 council of the church at Jerusalem was imme- 
 diately assembled, and the following" is the account 
 of what took place on the occasion : 
 
 Acts xv. 6 — 29. 
 6. And the Apostles and elders came together for to 
 consider of this matter. 7. 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. 8. And 
 God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving 
 them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us ; 9- And 
 put no difference between us and them, purifying their 
 hearts by faith. 10. 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? 11. But 
 we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12. Then all the 
 multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and 
 
120 
 
 Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had 
 wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13. And after 
 they had held their peace, James answered^ saying, Men 
 and brethren, hearken unto me ; 1 4. Simeon hath de- 
 clared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take 
 out of them a people for his name. 15. And to this 
 agree the words of the prophets ; as it is written, 
 
 16. After this I will return, atid 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 : 
 
 17. 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. 18. Known unto 
 God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 
 
 19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, 
 which from among the Gentiles are turned to God : 
 
 20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from 
 pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things 
 strangled, and from blood. 21. For Moses of old time 
 hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the 
 synagogues every sabbath-day. 22. Then pleased it the 
 apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send 
 chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul 
 and Barnabas ; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and 
 Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23. And they wrote 
 letters by them after this manner; The apostles and 
 elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which 
 are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia : 
 24. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went 
 out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your 
 souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law : 
 to whom we gave no such commandment; 25. It 
 
121 
 
 seemed good mito us, being assembled with one accord, 
 to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas 
 and Paul, 26. Men that have hazarded their lives for the 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27. We have sent 
 therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the 
 same things by mouth. 28. For it seemed good to the 
 Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden 
 than these necessary things ; 29. That ye abstain from 
 meats oftered 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. 
 
 We see from the above account, that it 
 was determined by a decree of the whole coun- 
 cil, not to impose circumcision, or other Jewish 
 rites upon the Gentile converts. The decree, 
 however, enjoined, that the Christian churches 
 in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, should abstain 
 from meats offered to idols, from blood, and 
 from things strangled, and from fornication. 
 The three first of these prohibitions, could not 
 be said to contain any thing '' burdensome ;" 
 the fourth had reference to a sin which was 
 not only prohibited in the law of Moses, but 
 which was utterly incompatible with the holiness 
 and purity required by the Gospel. This pro- 
 hibition too was the more necessary, as it re- 
 lated to a vice, which was not only lightly 
 esteemed by the heathens, but was sometimes 
 even practised as a part of their idolatrous 
 
122 
 
 worship. In the decision adopted by the coun- 
 cil, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, 
 prudence was united with wisdom. The Jewish 
 converts to Christianity were numerous in 
 various parts of the world, and having been 
 brought up in a zealous regard for the law of 
 Moses, they could not easily be induced to lay 
 aside their prejudices; so that had the Apostles 
 and elders decreed a total neglect of the Jewish 
 law, they would have increased those divisions 
 in the Christian Church, which it was their 
 grand object to heal and prevent. It was, 
 therefore, equally the part of kindness and 
 condescension, thus to pay regard to the pre- 
 judices of those weak and scrupulous, though 
 well meaning- persons, who were still attached 
 to the Mosaic institutions. On the other hand, 
 the prohibitions enjoined to the Christian con- 
 verts in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, were of a 
 nature so reasonable and simple, tliat they could 
 not well object to them. Speaking- of the 
 decision of the council, Gamaliel Smith says, 
 '^'^ Spite of reason, religion and Jesus, the vic- 
 tory is, in this account, given to James'*." 
 In vain, however, do we look into the account 
 itself for any thing to warrant this conclusion. 
 With as much propriety might we say, that the 
 
 » Page 168. 
 
123 
 
 victory was given to Peter^ or to Barnabas 
 and Paul, who pleaded, that circumcision was 
 unnecessary, since great success had attended 
 their ministry among the Gentiles. The fact 
 is, the Apostles were not contending one against 
 another for victory, but they were " striving 
 together for the faith of the Gospel," and the 
 peace of the church : they were consulting how 
 they might best defeat the machinations of those 
 who ''troubled" the Christians by "'perverting 
 the Gospel of Christ." And truly it must be 
 admitted, that the arguments made use of, and 
 the decree which was adopted, were well cal- 
 culated to achieve the important objects they 
 had in view. Mr. Gamaliel Smith has fallen 
 into an error by supposing, that the decree was 
 to be universally acted upon ; hence he says, 
 ''the religion of Jesus spread itself in spite of 
 the decision of the Apostles, the elders, and 
 the whole church," and that "St. Paul wrote 
 against the decree with all his might**." New 
 a very little attention to the real state of the 
 case will enable us to see the fallacy of his 
 remarks. The decree was written, not with a 
 design to be universally acted upon, but with 
 a view to the state of the churches in Antioch, 
 Syria, and Cilicia. And so far from the reli- 
 
 *> Page 170. 
 
1S4 
 
 gion of Jesus having- spread itself in those 
 places, in spite of the decree, the decree pro- 
 moted peace^ and the success of the Gospel, and 
 gave the utmost satisfaction to the churches. 
 " So when they," (that is, the persons who were 
 charged with the delivery of the letter and de- 
 cree) "were dismissed, they came to Antioch, 
 and when they had gathered the multitude to- 
 gether, they delivered the Epistle, which, when 
 they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation." 
 Acts XV. 30, 31. And "as they went through 
 the cities, they delivered them the decrees for 
 to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles 
 and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so 
 were the churches established in the faith, and 
 increased in number daily^." Gamaliel Smith 
 
 * The author of the " Miscellanea Sacra," in an ingenious 
 Essay " on the Apostolical Decree," has an opinion, that ap- 
 pears to be well founded ; that there is, in this part of The Acts, 
 a transposition of the text, and that the fourth and fifth verses 
 of the l6th chapter of The Acts, ought to follow the last verse 
 of the 15th chapter: the entire passage will then be as follows: 
 " And Paul chose Silas, and depai'ted, being recommended by 
 the brethren to the grace of God : and he went through Syria 
 and Cilicia, (to the Christians of which countries the decree 
 was addressed,)" confirming the churches. " And as they went 
 through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to 
 keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and elders, which 
 were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in 
 the faith, and increased in number daily." The l6th chapter 
 then commences with a fresh section of the narrative, " Then 
 came he to Derbe, and Lystra, &c." Harrington's Miscellanea 
 Sacra, Vol. II. Essay iv. 
 
125 
 
 says not a word about this last passage, it 
 would not have answered his purpose to men- 
 tion it; but we may see in this instance, how 
 little his representations are to be depended 
 on. Again, where do we find, in St. Paul's 
 writings, any one word against the decree. So 
 far from writing against it, St. Paul approved it, 
 and was one of those, who delivered it to the 
 churches for whom it was intended, in order that 
 they might "keep," or observe it''. To those, 
 indeed, to whom the decree did not apply, 
 St. Paul wrote, that the observance of circum- 
 cision, and other Jewish rites, was not neces- 
 sary to salvation. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 Additional Testimony in support of St. Paul's Character, 
 and Divine Commission. 
 
 Supposing the document containing the letter 
 and decree to be genuine, and, to use Mr. 
 Gamaliel Smith's own words, ''in favour of its 
 genuineness, reasons present themselves*"," what 
 an important body of evidence does it afford 
 
 '' ^uXao-o-eii/. Acts xvi. 4. ' Page 171. 
 
136 
 
 to St. Paul's character. How completely does 
 it refute those absurd and senseless calumnies^ 
 which represent St. Paul " as not having been 
 credited by the Apostles," but as "quarrelling 
 with, and opposing them," as "preaching not 
 Jesus, but himself," as "having peculiar doctrines 
 of his own, doctrines different from those which 
 were taught by the other Apostles." By uni- 
 versal consent of the church at Jerusalem, are 
 St. Paul's character and pretensions fully re- 
 cognized : he is styled the '^'^ beloved" Paul, 
 (for this endearing epithet, in the original 
 Greeks is in the plural number, and therefore 
 applies to Paul, as well as Barnabas.) And 
 with just reason was St. Paul so styled : his 
 zeal, his virtues, and his talents, had acquired 
 him a claim to the title, for he had given every 
 possible proof of the sincerity of his faith, and 
 was "^a man who had hazarded his life for the 
 name of the Lord Jesus Christ''." We need 
 not wonder, that those who were persons of 
 eminence, and who were pillars of the church, 
 such as James, and Peter, and John, should 
 desire the friendship of such a man, or, that 
 they should give him as a pledge of their sin- 
 cere regard, '' the right hand of fellowship/* 
 
 " <rvv Toll d'yairt^TOif tj^wv. Acts XV. 25. 
 
 ^ Acts XV. 26. 
 
127 
 
 Yet strange to say, Mr. Gamaliel Smith, (not- 
 withstanding all that is related in the foregoing- 
 account,) still persists in calling Paul " an un- 
 reconciled enemy of the Apostles and their dis- 
 ciples, in a word, of all who preached in the 
 name of Jesus:" nay, he even goes so far as 
 to say, in defiance of the most positive evidence 
 to the contrary, that the countenance given to 
 St. Paul by the Apostles, was " partial, cold, 
 and guarded," pages 205, 206. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 St. Paul's third Visit to Jerusalem, continued. 
 
 Among others, who accompanied St. Paul 
 on this third visit to Jerusalem, it appears was 
 Titus, whom being a Grecian, Paul refused to 
 circumcise, on account of those false brethren, 
 who were anxious to scandalize the liberty 
 Avhich Christians enjoyed under the Gospel dis- 
 pensation. To have submitted, on such an oc- 
 casion, would have been an unworthy compli- 
 ance on the part of St. Paul, and might have 
 afforded a dangerous precedent to those, who 
 wanted to impose on the Gentiles the observ- 
 ance of the ceremonial law of Moses. The 
 
128 
 
 question in the case of Titus was, whether cii- 
 cumcision was necessary to be practised by the 
 Gentile converts. St. Paul, therefore, would not 
 yield to those who were desirous of bringing 
 Christians into subjection to the law, but made 
 a resolute and effectual resistance, that the truth 
 of the Gospel might continue. His determina- 
 tion in this respect was perfectly consistent with 
 the decree adopted by the Apostles and elders ; 
 nor was his conduct afterwards, in regard to 
 circumcising Timothy, inconsistent with what 
 is above related. St. Paul circumcised Timothy, 
 because his mother Eunice" was a Jewess'', and 
 he thereby avoided giving offence to the Jews, 
 without establishing any precedent for the cir- 
 cumcision of the Gentile converts. 
 
 Acts xvi. 1 — 3. 
 1. 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 : 2. Which was well reported 
 of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. 
 3. Him would Paul have to go forth with him ; and took 
 and circumcised him, because of the Jews which were 
 in those quarters. 
 
 * 2 Tim. i. 5. Acts xv. 1. 
 
 " Selden says, " Israelitidis prolem, sive a pagano, sive 
 a servo, susceptam generis esse Israelitici." See Selden, de Jur. 
 Nat. lib. V. chap. xv. 
 
129 
 
 On the above, as well as on other occasions, 
 St. Paul proved equally incapable of unworthy 
 compliances on the one hand, and of intolerant 
 bigotry on the other. He did not regard circum- 
 cision as necessary to salvation, either for Jewish 
 or Gentile converts; but in things lawful and 
 indifferent, St. Paul yielded to the wishes and 
 prejudices of others; where, however, an im- 
 portant principle was at stake, as in the case 
 of Titus, he would not give way, no, not even 
 for an hour. 
 
130 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED — Continued. 
 
 m 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Conference between St. Paul and other Apostles. 
 GalatianSj ch. ii. ver. 1 — 16. 
 
 1. " Ihen fourteen years after 1 went up again to 
 Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 
 2. 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. 3. But 
 neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was 
 compelled to be circumcised : 4. 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: 5. To 
 whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an 
 hour ; that the truth of the gospel might continue 
 with you. 6. But of those who seemed to be some- 
 what, 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: 7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the 
 gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, 
 as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 
 
131 
 
 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the 
 apostleship of the chcumcision, the same was mighty 
 in me toward the Gentiles :) 9- 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 hand of fellowship ; that we 
 should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circum- 
 cision. 10. Only they would that we should remember 
 the poor ; the same which I also was forward to do. 
 11. But vv'hen Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood 
 him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. 13. And the other Jews dissembled 
 likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was 
 carried away with their dissimulation. 14. 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 ? 15. We who are Jews by nature, 
 and not sinners of the Gentiles, l6. 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." 
 
 The object of St. Paul, in writing' his Epistle 
 to the Galatians, has been already stated ; we 
 have seen, that it was with a view to counteract 
 
 I 2 
 
132 
 
 the attempts made by a judaizing faction, to under- 
 mine his character, and to prevent the Galatian 
 converts from being- brought into bondage to 
 the Mosaic institutions. We have also seen 
 what was meant by his preaching privately, and 
 unto them which were of reputation, that Gospel, 
 or doctrine of freedom from the Jewish law, 
 whicli he preached among the Gentiles; and 
 what sort of characters the false brethren were, 
 to whom Paul would not give place, no, not even 
 for an hour. Consistently with what St. Paul 
 had said in a former part of his Epistle, respecting 
 his not having any need of being instructed in 
 the Gospel, by any of those Apostles, with whom 
 the judaizing faction had invidiously compared 
 him, he proceeds to say, that those very Apostles, 
 had not only imparted to him no new information, 
 but that they had themselves borne testimony to 
 the truth of his Apostleship, by giving him the 
 right hand of fellowship, upon hearing of the 
 success, which had attended his ministry among 
 the Gentiles. As a further proof, that he had 
 not derived his authority or Apostleship, from 
 any of the Apostles, he tells the Galatians, that 
 when Peter was in error, he boldly rebuked him 
 to his face. From the beginning of the sixth, 
 to the end of the twelfth verse of chap. ii. of 
 Galatians, we may consider St. Paul as writing" 
 
vss 
 
 to the following- effect: "As for those, who 
 " were really men of eminence and value, 
 '' what they were heretofore, it matters not at 
 " all to me. God accepts not the person of 
 '' any man, but communicates the Gospel to 
 '' whom he pleases, as he has done to me by 
 " revelation, without their help, for in their 
 " conference with me, they added nothing- to 
 "me, they taught me nothing new, or that 
 '* Christ had not taught me before ; nor had they 
 " any thing to object against what I preached 
 " to the Gentiles. But on the contrary, Jcwies, 
 " Peter, and John, who were of reputation, and 
 "justly esteemed to be pillars, perceiving that 
 " the Gospel which was to be preached to the 
 '''^ Gentiles was committed to me, as that which 
 " was to be preached to the Jews was committed 
 " to Peter, (for he that had wrought powerfully 
 " in Peter, to his executing- the office of an 
 " Apostle, had also wrought powerfully in me, in 
 " my application and Apostleship to the Gentiles). 
 " And knowing the favour that was bestowed 
 " on me, gave u\e, and Barnabas, the right hand 
 " of fellowship, that we should preach the Gospel 
 " to the Gentiles, and they to the children of 
 " Israel. All that they proposed was, that we 
 '"should remember to make collections among- 
 "the Gentiles, for the poor Christians of Juda3a, 
 
1^4 
 
 '* which was a thing that I myself was forward 
 " to do\" 
 
 Upon comparing what is said in this second 
 chapter to the Galatians, about '' false brethren," 
 who wanted to have Titus circumcised^ with what 
 is stated in the fifteenth chapter of The Acts, 
 respecting' the conduct of certain of the Pharisees, 
 there is reason to believe that the conference 
 alluded to^ between Paul, James, Peter, and John, 
 took place on the occasion of St. Paul's third visit 
 to Jerusalem, when Paul and Barnabas went up 
 to consult with the Apostles and elders, on the 
 subject of circumcision, St, Paul's saying (Gal. ii.) 
 that he went up by revelation, affords no contra- 
 diction to such a supposition : for it is highly 
 probable, that St. Paul might be admonished im- 
 mediately by a revelation from heaven, as to what 
 steps he ought to take in a question that seemed 
 so seriously to affect the Christian Church, yet 
 this circumstance might not have been imparted 
 to St, Luke^ To me it appears altogether reason- 
 
 ^ Locke's paraphrase. 
 
 *• If the above explanation is not satisfactory to Mr. Gamaliel 
 Smith, I would have him coiisider that there exists no actual 
 necessity for supposing the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in 
 Acts XV. 2. is the same with that spoken of in Galatians, chap. ii. 
 Paley, I am aware, thought it probable that Paul and Barnabas 
 had taken some journey to Jerusalem, the mention of which 
 is omitted in The Acts, and he observes, that " the omission of 
 
 such 
 
135 
 
 able to conclude that tlie visit to Jerusalem, 
 mentioned in the beginning* of the second chapter 
 of Galatians, is the same with that related in the 
 fifteenth chapter of The Acts ; and that this con- 
 ference between Paul and other Apostles, was 
 held either immediately before or after the Council, 
 which was assembled at Jerusalem, to consult 
 about the question of circumcision. This con- 
 ference certainly did not take place at St. Paul's 
 first visit, since on that occasion he saw none 
 of the Apostles, except Peter and James, and 
 there is no ground for supposing it to have 
 taken place, at Paul's second visit to Jerusalem. 
 Before I proceed to consider the nature of the 
 conference, I will here advert to one or two re- 
 marks of Mr. Gamaliel Smith, who says'', '^^ unnamed 
 are the persons, whom Paul calls false brethren : 
 thus much only is said of them, that they came 
 from James. It seems from thence, that it was 
 James from whom they received support, that 
 those scruples of their's, out of which sprung these 
 differences, originated''." It is scarce necessary 
 
 such a journey, would not be unsuitable to the general brevity 
 with which those memoirs are writtten, especially of those parts 
 of St. Paul's history, which took place before the historian 
 joined his society." 
 
 " Page 176. 
 
 "1 Mr. Gamaliel Smith asks, (p. I76) "Who are thei/ to 
 whom in every thing that goes before the twelfth verse of the 
 
 second 
 
136 
 
 to say, that the Apostle James is no where repre- 
 sentedj as countenancing- or supporting- " false 
 brethren ;" but if we refer to the chapter (Gal. ii.) 
 we shall immediately discover that, in the above 
 observations, Gamaliel Smith has confounded to- 
 gether what took place at Jerusalem, (ver. 1 — 10.) 
 with what occurred upon another occasion at 
 Antioch, ver. 11, &c. 
 
 Gamaliel Smith urges as a reason for dis- 
 crediting what is related in The Acts, respecting 
 Peter's visit to Cornelius, the "^ miracles and 
 visions included%" that Paul makes no mention 
 of those circumstances in his Epistle to the 
 Galatians, To this a very ready answer may 
 be given ; St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, 
 was not writing a history of The Acts of the 
 Apostles, but a vindication of himself, and the 
 doctrines of the Gospel. 
 
 second chapter of Galatians, Paul is alluding?" I will answer 
 his question. The pronoun " they" in the fourth verse, applies 
 evidently to the false brethren there spoken of, but in each 
 verse afterwards, to ver. 10. the word " they" applies to James, 
 Cephas, and John. In proof of this observation, I may remark, 
 that in the Greek Original the copulative conjunction kui in 
 the ninth verse, unites the participles, iSoi/Tt? ver. 'J, and 
 •^vovTe^ ver. Q, which participles agree with the nominative 
 cases (viz. James, Cephas, and John,) to the verb ecxoKav. 
 ver. 9- 
 
 ' Pages 182, 183. 
 
137 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 Conference between St. Paul and other Apostles^ — 
 continued. 
 
 We have seen in the account of the con- 
 ference mentioned in the preceding Section^ 
 that when James, Peter ^, and John, perceived 
 the grace that was given unto Paul, they gave 
 to him and Barnabas the right hands of fellow- 
 ship, and that they determined that Paul and 
 Barnabas should direct their mission to the 
 Gentile worlds while they themselves laboured 
 more particularly among the Jews. In this 
 arrangement, so perfectly consistent with those 
 revelations "", which had declared that St. Paul 
 
 • He is called Cephas, (Gal. ii. 9.) which is the Hebrew 
 name for Peter. 
 
 '' See Acts ix. 15. xxii. 21. It is evident from St. Paul's 
 own writings, that he considered himself more particularly an 
 Apostle of the Gentiles. Thus he says to the Romans, (ch. xi. 
 13.) "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the 
 Apostle of the Gentiles:" and again Rom. xv. 15, I6, "Never- 
 theless, bretlu-en, I have written the more boldly unto you in 
 some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that 
 is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus 
 Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God, that the 
 offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified 
 by the Holy Ghost." There is, however, nothing in Scripture 
 to warrant the idea, that St. Paul's ministry was to be confined 
 solely to Gentiles. The contrary is evident from Acts ix. 15. 
 
138 
 
 should be a minister and a witness of Christ 
 unto the Gentiles, Mr. Gamaliel Smith's in- 
 ventive mind has discovered a reg-ular "par- 
 tition treaty/' in which the " contracting parties" 
 were Paul and Barnabas on the one part/' and 
 James, Peter, and John, on the other, with 
 " financial stipulations, " and a division of terri- 
 tory, by which Jerusalem and its neighbourhood, 
 "a minute portion of the world," were reserved 
 to the Apostles, while Paul and Barnabas were 
 allowed to exercise dominion over every other 
 part of it^ Such are the strange and fanciful 
 conceits, in which Gamaliel Smith, Esq. giving 
 the reins to his imagination, has chosen to 
 indulge. But let us now attend to some of 
 his observations on the subject of "this im- 
 portant treaty" as he terms it. 
 
 "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 rest of the Apostles, he was to remember the poor, 
 which is what (says he,) 1 also was forward to do." 
 Now as to the remembering the poor, what is meant by it at 
 
 " Pages 183—203. 
 
139 
 
 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 with- 
 out 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, was a principle acted upon 
 in those days, by the Jewish Christians. The property 
 of each was thrown into one common stock, and the dis- 
 posal of it was committed to a set of trustees, who it is 
 positively related were confirmed, and to all appearance j 
 were recommended by, and continued to act under the influ- 
 ence of the Apostles." — Not Paul but Jesus, p. 183, 184. 
 
 I cannot say, I envy that morbid disposition of 
 mind, which is inclined to impute to every action 
 a corrupt and sordid motive. That " man is far 
 gone from original righteousness" and that his 
 conduct is too frequently tainted by selfishness, 
 I readily admit : yet to argue that disinterestedness 
 has never had existence among the children of 
 men, is to pronounce a libel upon humanity. 
 Candour and justice, (not to mention Christian 
 
140 
 
 charity) alike forbid, that in the absence of all 
 proof, corruption should be charged against any 
 man. It is not generous, it is not just that the 
 characters of those who have laboured for the 
 benefit of mankind, should be frittered away by 
 vague phrases, and miserable innuendoes. Let 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith, then, if he can bring forward 
 proofs that the Apostles were influenced by a 
 desire of profit or of patronage. In vain will 
 he attempt it. Happily the characters of those 
 righteous men, the Apostles, are placed beyond 
 the reach of suspicion or reproach : their whole 
 history mocks the representations of malevolence, 
 and shews that they were as incorruptible as they 
 were kind, and that their proceedings were distin- 
 guished by the most disinterested benevolence : 
 they renounced the enjoyments and honors of the 
 worldj the endearments of home and of kindred, 
 and braved danger, persecution, and even death, 
 to promote the happiness and salvation of man- 
 kind. Nothing this world could give, could 
 compensate such sacrifices, but it was not in 
 this world they looked for their reward ; it was 
 not profit, or patronage, or honor, of which 
 they were ambitious, but they were persuaded 
 of the truth of that Gospel which they preached, 
 and that if they suffered for the name of Christ 
 on earth, they would reign with him in glory. 
 
141 
 
 We see in the sixth Chapter of The Acts 
 (as I have ah'eady remarked) the care and 
 circumspection which were exercised by the 
 Apostles, in regard to the temporal affairs of 
 the Christian community ; but not one word is 
 there in that, or any other, part of Scripture, to 
 warrant the supposition that the Deacons % or, 
 as Mr. Gamaliel Smith is pleased to call them, 
 the trustees appointed for the administration of 
 the temporal affairs of the Christians, were 
 '^recommended by, or continued to act under 
 the influence of the Apostles." But let us hear 
 what Gamaliel Smith himself says on this same 
 subject, in another part of his book. " These 
 Deacons, by whom appointed? by the Apostles? 
 No, but by the whole communion of the Saints, 
 by the whole number of the members of the 
 Christian commonwealth, and in the way of 
 free election, on the principle of universal suffrage, 
 p. 202, 203. Thus it is that Mr. Gamaliel Smith 
 asserts any thing that suits his purpose; at one 
 time he contradicts Scripture, at another time 
 he contradicts himself. And shall we on the re- 
 presentations of such a writer, believe St. Paul 
 an "Impostor"'" or the Apostles mercenary or 
 
 " The appositeness of this title has been already shewn, 
 chap. ii. §.1. 
 
 " " The Apostles," says Gamaliel Smith, " could not be in- 
 duced 
 
142 
 
 corrupt. No ! common sense, and common 
 justice equally forbid it. 
 
 duced to regard Paul in any other light than that of an 
 Impostor/' p. 185; and then to make good the assertion he 
 misapplies the following passage : " They will not receive 
 thy testimony concerning me." Acts xxii. 18. Let the reader 
 refer to the Bible, and he will at once see how grossly Scripture 
 is, in this instance, perverted by Gamaliel Smith, Esq. 
 
143 
 
 CHAP VIII. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED — cofitinued. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Interview between St. Paul and St. Peter at Antioch — 
 Paul reproves Peter. 
 
 Galatians_, ch, ii. ver. 11 — 21. 
 
 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I with- 
 stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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 cir- 
 cumcision. 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise 
 with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away 
 with their dissimulation. 14. 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 .^ 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners 
 of the Gentiles, 16. Knowing that a man is not justified 
 by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, 
 even we have beheved 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. 
 
144 
 
 17. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christy we 
 ourselves also are found sinners^ is therefore Christ the 
 minister of sin ? God forbid. 18. For if I build again 
 the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 
 19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I 
 might live unto God. 20. I am crucified with Christ : 
 nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me : 
 and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the 
 faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself 
 for me. 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God : for if 
 righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in 
 vain. 
 
 It is not easy to determine whether the in- 
 terview between St. Paul and St. Peter, mentioned 
 in the above account, took place before or after 
 St. Paul's third visit to Jerusalem. On either 
 supposition, St. Paul's conduct was consistent 
 with the uniform regard which he evinced for 
 the religious liberty of the Gentiles, and the 
 rebuke which he gave to Peter, was justified 
 by the occasion which gave rise to it. Having 
 arrived at Antioch^ St. Peter it appears not only 
 required conformity to Jewish rites and cere- 
 monies, but withdrew himself from the society 
 of the Gentile converts, '' fearing them which 
 were of the circumcision," and thereby scan- 
 dalizing the liberty of the Gospel. Encouraged 
 by this vacillating conduct the other Jews likewise 
 dissembled, and even Barnabas was also carried 
 
145 
 
 away by their dissimulation, so dangerous is bad 
 example. " Peter therefore was to be blamed," 
 and St. Paul by openly withstanding him, made 
 an honorable stand for the truth and purity of 
 the Gospel. His reproof of Peter was at once 
 temperate and firm, and the arguments by which 
 he justified it, were calculated to convince Peter 
 of the error of his conduct; and that this rebuke 
 produced no diminution of St. Peter's regard for 
 St. Paul, is evident from the affectionate and com- 
 mendatory manner in which the former spoke of 
 St. Paul, in an Epistle written subsequent to the 
 above interview. " Account that the long-suffer- 
 ing- of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved 
 brother Paul also according to the wisdom given 
 unto hi7n hath icritten unto you," 2 Pet. iii. 15. 
 
 SECT. li. 
 
 St. Paul and Barnabas separate. 
 
 Not content with having stigmatized St. Paul 
 as an " impostor," our author proceeds to repre- 
 sent him as a despot, a title which, utterly un- 
 warranted as it is by any thing Paul ever did 
 or wrote, seems to accord well enough with 
 
 K 
 
146 
 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith's conceit, that "Paul was 
 to cast forth his shoe" over the whole heathen 
 world". " In no place," says Gamaliel Smith, 
 " can this man exist, but to exercise hostility, or 
 to provoke it : with no man can he hold inter- 
 course^ without acting* towards him, if not in 
 the character of a despot, in that either of an 
 open and audacious, or in that of a secret ad- 
 versary, or both." p. 196. In the angry and 
 virulent style of invective, in which Mr. Gama- 
 liel Smith has indulg-ed, we may discern strong 
 presumptive proof of the weakness of that cause 
 which he has unfortunately espoused. Nothing 
 daunted, however, by Mr. Gamaliel Smith's hard 
 words, let us proceed to examine the grounds 
 for his assertions. In regard to the rebuke 
 given by St. Paul to Peter at Antioch, it has 
 already appeared, that Paul was fully justified. 
 We are now about to take a view of what 
 afterwards passed in Antioch, as far as regards 
 Paul, Barnabas, and Silas. 
 
 Acts xv. 35 — 41. 
 
 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch^ teaching 
 ^nd preaching the word of the Lord, with many others 
 also. 36. And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, 
 Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where 
 
 » Pafife 203. 
 
14T 
 
 we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they 
 do. 37. And Barnabas determined to take with them 
 John, whose surname was Mark. 38. But Paul thought 
 not good to take him zoith them, who departed from them 
 from Pamphi/lia, and iveut not zoith them to the wo7'k. 
 39. And the contention was so sharp between them, that 
 they departed asunder one from the other : and so Bar- 
 nabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus ; 40. And Paul 
 chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the 
 brethren unto the grace of God. 41. And he went 
 through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. 
 
 " With regard," says Gamaliel Smith, " to 
 Paul's separation from Barnabas, departure from 
 Antioch, and taking Silas for a companion, we 
 have nothing from Paul himself, nothing from 
 any other source, than as above, The Acts. 
 In The Acts, though the contention is said to be 
 sharp, no cause is stated for it other than a dif- 
 ference respecting the choice of a companion^." 
 Now, even had Gamaliel Smith's assertion been 
 correct, which it is not, the above account 
 would afford ample vindication of St. Paul's 
 conduct on the occasion. St. Paul felt an affec- 
 tionate solicitude for the welfare of the churches, 
 which he and Barnabas had planted ; when, 
 therefore, he was about to visit them, for the 
 purpose of confirming them in the faith, it was 
 natural that he should wish to be accompanied by 
 
 '•' Page 195. 
 K 2 
 
14B 
 
 such persons as would be likely, by their zeal 
 and activity, to promote the success of the 
 Gospel. Firmness,, and industry, are qualifica- 
 tions ^t all times requisite for the faithful and 
 effectual discharge of the Christian ministry, 
 and never were they more necessary, than in 
 the times of the Apostles, when the preaching 
 of the Gospel was attended with the most for- 
 midable obstacles. In these qualifications, John, 
 (whose surname was Mark), had shewn himself 
 deficient, and either from fear, or from luke- 
 warmness in the Christian cause, he had de- 
 parted from Barnabas and Paul at Perga in 
 Pamphylia, (Acts xiii. l.S.) instead of continuing- 
 to share in their labours and their dangers. 
 "No man," said Christ, "having put his hand 
 to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the 
 kingdom of heaven." St. Paul, therefore, judged 
 wisely, in not taking with him, as a companion, 
 one who seemed so little qualified, at this time, 
 " to be profitable to him in the ministry." 
 There is, however, an incidental mention of 
 Mark, in one of St. Paul's Epistles % which 
 throws additional light on this matter, and shews 
 us what it was that induced Barnabas, who in 
 ireneral acted so well, to form an erroneous 
 judgement on this occasion. This John Mark 
 
 ^ Coloss. iv. 10. 
 
149 
 
 was a near relative to Barnabas, being his 
 sister's son. We need not doubt^ therefore, 
 but that a fond partiahty influenced Barnabas 
 to entertain a more favourable opinion of his 
 nephew, than that nephew's actions justified. 
 So far from St. Paul's conduct being blameable, 
 it is entitled to the highest praise. Christi- 
 anity^ by its tendency to inspire it's professors 
 with a most noble and disinterested spirit of 
 benevolence and philanthropy, is admirably cal- 
 culated to promote virtuous friendships ; and we 
 cannot suppose, that he who has told us ''^to 
 be kindly aflfectioned one to another with bro- 
 therly love ; to weep with them that weep, 
 and to rejoice with them that do rejoice**/' was 
 himself a stranger to the most generous sen- 
 sibilities of the human heart. No ! St. Paul 
 must have been susceptible, in the highest de- 
 gree, of the pure and exquisite delights of 
 friendship, and in Barnabas he had met with 
 one, for whom, from a similarity of pursuits, 
 and a partnership in dangers, he must have 
 felt a more than ordinary regard. St. Paul 
 would not, however, suffer the private feelings 
 of affection to interfere with the faithful dis- 
 charge of his public duty. He had no corrupt 
 objects to attain, no party feelings to influence 
 
 " Rom. xii. 10, 15. 
 
J50 
 
 his judgment. Hence, in looking- out for a com- 
 panion in the ministry, he naturally enquired, 
 who was most worthy of the honourable em- 
 ployment, (for honourable it was, although at- 
 tended with poverty and danger.) The first 
 consideration with St. Paul always appears to 
 have been, how he might best please, not his 
 friend, but his God. *' Lord, what wilt Thou 
 have me to do''?" was the language of his lips, 
 and the rule of his actions, and nothing could 
 more forcibly evince the singleness of heart, 
 and sincerity of purpose, with which St. Paul 
 devoted himself to the duties of his high calling, 
 than his conduct on the above occasion. Had 
 the author of The Acts, (as Mr. Gamaliel 
 Smith would have us believe,) been anxious " to 
 paint every incident in colours favourable to 
 Paul''/' he might have found, in this circum- 
 stance alone, ample ground for panegyric. 
 But St. Paul's conduct stood in no need of 
 praise, and, therefore, St. Luke has stated facts, 
 leaving- the world to draw its inferences ; and 
 where prejudice does not pervert the judge- 
 ment, such inferences will always be favourable 
 to St. Paul". But, according to Mr. Gamaliel 
 
 = Acts ix. 6. " Page 193. 
 
 ' That no lasting animosity subsisted between Paul and 
 Barnabas, may be fairly inferred from the mention which 
 
 St. Paul 
 
151 
 
 Smith, the number of Paul's enemies in An- 
 tioch, the time he had passed there, being- con- 
 sidered, could not have been small. It was, 
 therefore, a matter of prudence for him " to 
 plan and execute a new missionary excursion," 
 and, with this view, " he looked out for a 
 humble companion, and found one in Silas," 
 "of whom," adds Gamaliel Smith, " no character 
 is given, except the being found in company 
 with Paul, in some of the places which Paul 
 visits'^!!!" Surely Mr. Gamaliel Smith could 
 not have anticipated, that any one would take 
 the trouble to trace his numerous deviations 
 from truth, or he would not have hazarded 
 such barefaced assertions. This Silas, of whom 
 he speaks so contemptuously, is acknowledged, 
 (Acts XV. 22.) as a '' chief man among the 
 brethren," and this acknowledgement is repre- 
 sented as publickly proceeding- from the Apostles 
 
 St. Paul makes of Barnabas, 1 Cor. ix. 6. A very little reflec- 
 tion would probably convince Barnabas of his error, and he 
 would find in St. Paul, every disposition to forgiveness and re- 
 conciliation : and, with regard to Mark, " by St. Paul's severity 
 he was brought," as Nelson observes, " to a sense of his former 
 indifFerency in the work of the Gospel, and became so useful 
 a minister of Christ, that he not only deserved to be a com- 
 panion of St. Paul, but received from him a high testimony of 
 his zeal, that he was ' profitable to him for the ministry.' " 
 2 Tim. iv. 11. 
 
 " Page 197- 
 
152 
 
 and elders, with the whole church at Jerusalem. 
 We may also infer, from the honourable testi- 
 mony borne to the conduct of Silas in a sub- 
 sequent part of the history, that St. Paul could 
 not have chosen a more excellent companion^. 
 But let us look at the manner of St. Paul's 
 leaving Antioch. Is it like that of a man 
 stealing away from his enemies ? No ! The 
 history informs us, that the prayers and bene- 
 dictions of the brethren accompanied his de- 
 parture. " And Paul chose Silas, and departed, 
 being recommended by the brethren to the 
 grace of God." Acts xv. 40. Indeed, wherever 
 St. Paul went, his virtues, and the glad tidings 
 of the Gospel which he preached, appear to 
 have acquired for him the respect of the up- 
 right and the just. Nay, even his very enemies 
 could not gainsay the excellence of his cha- 
 racter. '" We find no evil in this man," said 
 the Scribes^. "This man doeth nothing wor- 
 thy of death or of bonds%" exclaimed Festus 
 and Agrippa. If, however, in the places which 
 St. Paul visited, there was a corrupt sorcerer, 
 who sought to peryert the right ways of the 
 Lord, if there were a set of unbelieving Jews, 
 
 » This Silas is supposed to be the Sylvanus mentioned by 
 St. Paul in his Epistles to the Thessalonians, and 2 Cor. i. 19- 
 *■ Acts xxiii. 9. ' Acts xxvi. 31. 
 
153 
 
 leagued with the very dregs of society, or if 
 there were any, who reaped ''no small gain" 
 from lies and superstition, such men were sure 
 to be the enemies of St. Paul, of him, who 
 was the friend of man, of righteousness, and 
 truths 
 
 ^ See Acts xiii. 6, &c. xvii. 5. xvi. l6, &c. xix. 24, &c. 
 
154 
 
 CHAP IX. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED COntiflUcd. 
 
 His fourth Visit to Jerusalem. 
 
 Acts xviii. 19 — 23. 
 
 19- And he came to Ephesus^ and left them there : 
 but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned 
 with the Jews. 20. When they desired him to tarry 
 longer time with them, he consented not ; 21. But bade 
 them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast 
 that Cometh in Jerusalem : but I will return again unto 
 you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. 22. And 
 when he had landed at Cesarea, and gone up, and saluted 
 the church, he went down to Antioch. 23. And after 
 he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over 
 all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strength- 
 ening all the disciples. 
 
 There are several obvious reasons why Mr. 
 Gamaliel Smith should be desirous of regarding- 
 the above interesting account as ''fictitious." 
 1. It proves,- that St. Paul was not afraid to 
 shew himself at Jerusalem, or among Jews, 
 which would naturally have been the case, if 
 
155 
 
 he had been engaged in any scheme of im- 
 posture, or personal ambition. 2. It evinces the 
 high regard in which St. Paul was held among 
 the Ephesian converts, who must have been 
 well acquainted with his character. 3. It illus- 
 trates St. Paul's piety and submission to the 
 will of (lod. 4. It shews the cordial harmony 
 which subsisted between St. Paul and the 
 church at Jerusalem. 5. It demonstrates the 
 absurdity of Gamaliel Smith's opinion, that St. 
 Paul had formerly fled from Antioch, because 
 ""the number of his enemies in that place was 
 not small." 6, It exhibits additional proof of 
 St. Paul's unwearied zeal and diligence in the 
 cause of the Gospel. 
 
 With regard to the cause of this fourth 
 visit, it was undertaken with a view to keep 
 the feast, as some learned men have supposed, 
 of the Passover. But whatever feast it was, 
 for the celebration of which he went to Jeru- 
 salem, it is plain, that he received on this, as 
 well as on other occasions, proofs of regard and 
 attachment from the church at that place ; for 
 he did not depart without saluting that churchy 
 which, (as Gamaliel Smith himself declares) 
 was " composed of the Apostles of Jesus, and 
 his and their disciples/' p. 93. 
 
156 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED — coutinued. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 His fifth and last Visit to Jerusalem. 
 
 Numerous specimens of our Author's inven- 
 tive faculties, have already been exhibited ; under 
 the head of St. Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, 
 (absurdly denominated an "Invasion Visit") fresh 
 instances of his talent for fiction^ present them- 
 selves. His object being to ridicule and vilify 
 St. Paul, and the writings which record his history, 
 simple truth and the plain detail of facts, would 
 not have answered his purpose. Hence, to give 
 a sort of dramatic effect to his performance, he 
 again has recourse to imagination, and with the 
 versatility of a performer in a modern panto- 
 mime, he now transforms St. Paul, whom he before 
 represented as an "^Mmpostor" and a '^^ despot," 
 into a monarch, who influenced by '"spleen," 
 " vengeance," " ambition," and a " love of money,'^ 
 makes an invasion of Jerusalem". 
 
 ''^ Sed tamen amoto quffiraimis seria Iiido." 
 
 Leaving these romantic fictions of Gamahel 
 
 - Pages 210, and 2l6, 217- 
 
157 
 
 Smith, Esq. to those who have a taste for such 
 inventions, let us proceed seriously to consider 
 the real motives, by which St. Paul was actuated 
 in making this, his fifth and last visit to Jerusalem. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 Motives of this Visit considered. 
 
 It has been already seen, that in the con- 
 ference between Paul, Peter, James, and John, 
 it was resolved, that collections should be made 
 for the poor Christians of Judea^ St. Paul 
 did not prove unmindful of this benevolent 
 arrangement ; he not merely preached, but he 
 also practised that part of charity, which consists 
 in alms-deeds : for while he appealed to others, 
 to contribute to the relief of the necessitous, he 
 himself laboured with his hands, that instead of 
 being himself chargeable, he might have to give 
 to them that needed*". A recommendation of 
 charity, enforced by such a character, could scarce 
 fail to have its due weight, and accordingly 
 
 " Galat. ii. 
 
 '^ See Acts xx. S3, 34. 1 Thess. ii. 5-^9. 
 
158 
 
 we find that contributions were made for the 
 poor of Jerusalem^ by the Christian converts of 
 Greece, particularly in Macedonia^ and Achaia\ 
 
 " The following observations will satisfy us, concerning 
 the purity of our Apostle's conduct, in the suspicious business 
 of a pecuniary contribution. 
 
 1st, He disclaims the having received any inspired autho- 
 rity for the directions which he is giving : " I speak not by 
 commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, 
 and to prove the sincerity of your love," (2 Cor. viii. 8.) Who 
 that had a sinister purpose to answer, by the recommending 
 of subscriptions, would thus distinguish, and thus lower the 
 credit of his own recommendation ? 
 
 2dly, Although he asserts the general right of Christian 
 ministers, to a maintenance from their ministry, yet he protests 
 against the making use of this right, in his own person : "even 
 so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, 
 should live of the Gospel ; but I have used none of these 
 things, neither have I written these things, that it should 
 be so done unto me ; for it were better for me to die, than that 
 any man should make my glorying, that is, my professions 
 of disinterestedness, void," 1 Cor. ix. 14, 15. 
 
 3dly, He repeatedly proposes, that there should be associates 
 with himself, in the management of the public bounty ; not 
 colleagues of his own appointment, but persons elected for 
 that purpose, by the contributors themselves : " and when 
 I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them 
 will I send, to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem ; and if it 
 be meet that I go also, they shall go with me," (1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4.) 
 And in the second Epistle, what is here proposed, we find 
 actually done, and done for the very purpose of guarding his 
 character against any imputation that might be brought upon 
 it, in the discharge of a pecuniary trust : " and we have sent 
 with him the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel, throughout 
 all the Churches ; and not that only, but who was also chosen 
 of the Churches, to travel with us with this grace (gift), which 
 is administered by us, to the glory of the same Lord, and tlie 
 
 declaration 
 
159 
 
 To convey tliese contributions to Jerusalem^ 
 was one motive^, which induced St. Paul to under- 
 take th6 present journey. This we learn from 
 certain passages in Epistles, which he wrote 
 just before he made this fifth visit. Thus he 
 says to the Corinthians, ''Now concerning the 
 collection for the saints, as 1 have given order 
 to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon 
 the first day of the week, let every one lay by 
 him in store, according as God hath prospered 
 him, that there be no gatherings when I come. 
 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve 
 by your letters, them will I send to bring your 
 liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet 
 that I go also, they shall go with me''." To 
 the Romans he says, " Now I go unto Jerusalem, 
 to minister unto the saints, for it hath pleased 
 them of Macedonia and Achaia, to make a certain 
 contribution for the poor saints, which are at 
 Jerusalem". Agreeably to what is stated in the 
 above passages, we find in the history given in 
 The Acts, that when St. Paul was at Ephesus, 
 
 declaration of your ready mind ; avoiding this, that no man 
 should blame us in this abundance, which is administered by 
 us ; providing for things honest, not only in the sight of the 
 Lord, but also in the sight of men," that is, " not resting in the 
 consciousness of our own integrity, but in such a subject, 
 careful also to approve our integrity to the public judgement." 
 (2 Cor. viii. 18 — 21.) Paleifs Horw Paulince. 
 
 " 1 Cor. xvi. 1—4. ' Rom. xv. 25, 26". 
 
160 
 
 subsequent to his fourth visit to Jerusalem^ " he 
 sent Timotlieus, and Erastus into Macedonia/' 
 while "" he himself stayed in Asia for a season/' 
 Acts xix. 22. St. Paul also himself afterwards 
 visited Macedonia, in his way to Jerusalem ; 
 and, indeed^ St. Paul, when pleading- before Felix 
 the Roman Governor, modestly alludes to the 
 occasion, which gave rise to this his fifth visit to 
 Jerusalem. "Now after many years, I came 
 to bring alms to my nation, and offerings," 
 Acts xxiv. 17. Such being the primary object 
 St. Paul had in view, it appears that this 
 journey was undertaken to benefit, not himself, 
 but others. 
 
 When once this truly excellent Apostle was 
 persuaded, that any undertaking was agreeable 
 to the will of God, no sense of personal danger ; 
 no entreaties of his friends; no fear of his enemies, 
 could divert him from his purpose. Hence, 
 although the Holy Ghost witnessed to Paul, 
 that bonds and afflictions awaited him in every 
 city, none of those things moved him, neither 
 (as he said,) did he count his life dear unto 
 himself, so that he might finish his course with 
 joy, and the ministry which he had received of 
 the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace 
 of God, (Acts XX. 23, 24.) We learn from the 
 history, that in his way from Greece to Jerusalem, 
 
161 
 
 Paul determined to sail by Ephesus, because he 
 hasted to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. 
 The reason of this is obvious. Although St. Paul 
 could not, as a Christian, attach any great import- 
 ance to this relig-ious feast of the Jews, yet he 
 knew that as it was customary, for a vast con- 
 course of people to attend on such solemn 
 occasions, he should have the greater opportunity 
 of testifying- of Christ, and the doctrines of 
 Christianity. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 St. Paiirs ^/ifth Visit to Jerusalem — continued. 
 
 Before we proceed to review the occurrences 
 which took place upon St. Paul's arrival at Jeru- 
 salem, it w^ill be interesting to advert to some of 
 the events which happened on his route thither. 
 Having arrived from Greece at Miletus, a town 
 of Ionia, near the sea-coast, and not far from 
 Ephesus, St. Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders 
 of the Church. St. Paul had personally ministered 
 among the Ephesians for the space of about three 
 years, and his labours among them bad been foU 
 
 L 
 
\6% 
 
 lowed by the happiest consequences, " so that 
 mightily *^rew the word of God and prevailed." 
 Acts xix. 20. The elders of Ephesus would, 
 therefore, rejoice at the opportunity afforded 
 them of receiving" advice from one whose minis- 
 try' had been attended with such successful 
 results, while on the other hand, St. Paul would 
 feel equal pleasure in testifying the regard which 
 he entertained towards the Ephesians, and in 
 giving the elders of their church, such instruc- 
 tions as would most conduce to its peace and 
 welfare. When, therefore, the elders had arrived, 
 St. Paul addressed them in a speech which was 
 characterized by strong feeling, ardent piety, and 
 sound instruction; a speech at once calculated 
 to display the deep interest which St. Paul took 
 in the success of the Gospel, and the disinterested 
 and unwearied zeal, with which he had devoted 
 himself to the discharge of his ministry among 
 them\ And when he had thus spoken, he kneel- 
 ed down and prayed with them all. And they 
 all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed 
 him ; sorrowing- most of all for the words which 
 he spake, that they should see his face no more. 
 And they accompanied him to the ship. Acts xx. 
 SC, 37, 38. The scene here described may 
 
 =• See Acts xx. 18 — 3.5- 
 
163 
 
 be not unaptly compared to that of honourable 
 and dutiful children, taking' their last farewell of 
 a beloved parent, about to quit this world and 
 its concerns for ever : — for, in a spiritual point 
 of view, St. Paul had been to these Ephesian 
 elders as a parent. He had instructed them 
 in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord/' 
 He had watched over their spiritual interests 
 with paternal anxiety, and whatever advance 
 they had severally made, ''in the unity of the 
 faith, and of the knowledi^e of the Son of God, 
 unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the 
 stature of the fuhiess of Christ'"' their attachment 
 to St. Paul must have ''grown with their growth, 
 and strengthened with their strength." The 
 affectionate regard therefore which they evinced 
 on this occasion towards the Apostle, v\hom they 
 supposed they should behold no more, was not 
 less honourable to themselveSj than it must have 
 been gratifying to him, and afforded the best 
 guarantee that the instructions which he gave 
 them would not be disregarded. Having taken 
 ieave of the elders at Miletus, St. Paul sailed 
 with his companions unto Coos, and the day 
 followinL'- unto Rhodes, and from thence to 
 Patara. Here finding a ship that was bound 
 
 '' Ephes. iv. 13. 
 L 2 
 
164 
 
 for PhcBnicia^ a country in Syria, they went 
 on board, and leaving- Cyprus on fheir left, 
 sailed to Tyre. It was at this last-mentioned 
 place, they met with certain disciples, who 
 endeavoured to dissuade St. Paul from making 
 this visit to Jerusalem. '"And finding- disciples, 
 we tarried there seven days, who said to Paul 
 through the Spirit that he should not go up 
 to Jerusalem." Acts xxi. 4. This verse at first 
 appears to contradict what is stated in the 
 22d verse of the 20th chapter of The Acts, 
 where St. Paul says, in his speech to the 
 Ephesian elders : " And now behold I go bound 
 in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, that is, powerfully 
 persuaded by divine influence to undertake the 
 journey." In reply to this apparent difiiculty, 
 and Mr. Gamaliel Smith's cavil on the subject, it 
 may be observed, that it had been revealed to 
 these disciples by the Spirit, that St. Paul could 
 not go up to Jerusalem without exposing himself 
 to danger, and therefore from the kindest and 
 most charitable motives, .they endeavoured to 
 persuade him to give up the journey*. When 
 
 * " By the spirit of prophecy, they (i. e. certain disciples 
 at Tyre) foretold Paul's sufferings at Jerusalem which ac- 
 cordingly befel him, and they being ignorant of his undertaking 
 that journey, at God's command, out of commiseration and pity, 
 dissuade St. Paul from going to such a place where they foresaw 
 
 he 
 
165 
 
 the disciples at Tyre found, however, that St. Paul 
 was bent on goin^ to Jerusalem, they evinced 
 their esteem for him, by conducting- him out of 
 the city to the sea-side, where Paul and his 
 companions, having- first joined with them in 
 prayer, bade them farewell, and sailing to Pto- 
 lemais, they there saluted the brethren, and 
 abode witli them one day. From Ptolenuiis 
 they proceeded to Cffisarea'', which was about 
 twenty-seven miles from Jerusalem. Wherever 
 there were any Christian disciples, St. Paul ap- 
 pears to have held intercourse with them, and to 
 have received the most signal proofs of attachment. 
 At Csesarea further demonstrations of affection 
 awaited him. While he was at this place, residing 
 with his fellow-travellers at the house of Philip 
 the Evangelist, the prophet Agabus arrived from 
 
 he would suffer so much. And this it is said they did through 
 the Spirit, because they had that foreknowledge of all his suffer- 
 ings from the Spirit, and knowing but in part, being ignorant 
 of that special command St. Paul had had to go to Jerusalem, 
 they did, according to what tliey knew, dissuade Paul from tliat 
 journey : but they knowing that their prophecy about St. Paul's 
 sufferings must be fulfilled, and that the Spirit by which they 
 spake could not err or be mistaken, how came they to dissuade 
 St. Paul from going to Jerusalem? It may be answered, that 
 they might think this prediction of his sufferings to be only 
 conditional in case he went to Jerusalem, as David was told 
 that the men of Keilah would deliver him to Saul (1 Sam. xxiii. 
 11, 12,^i that is, in case he had trusted himself among them." 
 Poole's Aniinl(ilio)is. 
 
 ^ (^aesarea Palestina.-. 
 
166 
 
 Judiea, and "^ when he was come he took Paul's 
 girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and 
 said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jeics 
 at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, 
 and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gen- 
 tiles." 
 
 This prediction we find (Actsxxi. 33, &c.) was 
 strictly accomplished; for, by the instrumentality 
 of «/et£JA-, Paul was not only bound with two chains, 
 but delivered over to the Roman authorities. 
 
 Acts xxi. 8 — 14. 
 8. And the next day we that were of Paul's company 
 departed, and came unto Caesarea : and we entered into 
 the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the 
 seven; and abode with him. 9- And the same man had 
 four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. 10. And as 
 we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea 
 a certain prophet, named Agabus^. 11. And when he 
 was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his 
 own hands and feet, and said. Thus saith the Holy Ghost, 
 So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth 
 this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the 
 
 '' A certain prophet. The Greek word t^v, here translated, 
 a " certain" has Aarioiis significations, and is sometimes used 
 to import dignity, or eminence. From the original passage, 
 therefore, and from the quarter from whence Agabus is said 
 to come (Judaea,) it is most probable that this was the same 
 Agabus, whom St. Luke had mentioned in a preceding 
 portion of the history, as having eminently distinguished him- 
 self by the prediction relative to the famine. Acts xi. 27, .38. 
 
167 
 
 Gentiles. 12. And when we heard these things, both we, 
 and they of that place, besought him not to go up to 
 Jerusalem. 13. Then Paul answered,, What mean ye to 
 weep and to break mine heart ? for I am not ready to be 
 bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name 
 of the Lord Jesus. 14. And when he would not be 
 persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be 
 done. 
 
 From the above interesting- account'it is mani- 
 fest, that the sole cause of the reluctance, which 
 the disciples at Ccesarea felt at St. Paul's under- 
 taking this visit to Jerusalem, arose from an 
 anxious and affectionate solicitude for his safety ; 
 and it is equally clear, that St. Paul himself, would 
 not, for a moment, suffer any personal considera- 
 tions to divert him from the faithful discharge 
 of vi^hat he regarded as his duty. St. Paul was 
 perfectly ready, if necessary, to sacrifice his life 
 in defence of the "Truth as it is in Jesus." 
 He knew that " if his earthly house of this taber- 
 nacle was dissolved, he should have a building 
 of God, an house not made with hands, eternal 
 in the heavens'*." Instead therefore of cling-ini?- 
 to this world, as those do who have no hope, no 
 wishes, no treasures beyond it, St. Paul could 
 joyfully anticipate that period, when " mortality 
 should be swallowed up of life^" In the mean- 
 
 *" 2 Cor. V. 1. '2 Cor. v. 4. 
 
168 
 
 time, he felt prepared to do and suffer all that 
 his heavenly Father should allot him. Hence, 
 instead of yielding- to the entreaties of his friends, 
 he persevered in his intended visit to Jerusalem, 
 in spite of the dangers that, he was well assured, 
 there awaited him. Certain of the disciples of 
 Cassarea, it appears^ accompanied St. Paul and 
 his companions to Jerusalem, taking- with them 
 an old disciple of Cyprus, of the name of Mnason, 
 with whom it was proposed that Paul and his 
 companions should take up their abode during 
 this visit. It is probable, this Mnason might 
 have been converted by St. Paul, when that 
 Apostle went with Barnabas to Cyprus, soon 
 after his second visit to Jerusalem ^ In that 
 case, a feeling of gratitude would naturally make 
 him the more anxious to afford St. Paul every 
 accommodation on the present occasion. Be that 
 as it might, this aged disciple could not but 
 feel honoured and happy, in receiving as a guest 
 one who was so generally, and so justly esteemed, 
 as was St. Paul. 
 
 ' Acts xiii. 4. 
 
169 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED — Continued. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 His Arrival at Jerusalem, and Reception by the 
 
 Apostles. 
 
 So far were the brethren, at Jerusalem, from 
 viewing- St. Paul as an intruder, or an un- 
 welcome visitor, that they received him and his 
 companions with feelings of delight. The conduct 
 of James, and other Apostles and elders, clearly 
 evinced the estimation, in which they held the 
 life and character of St. Paul, since they pro- 
 posed that certain measures should be adopted, 
 with a view to protect his reputation and his 
 person, against the malevolence of his enemies. 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith has laboured hard to shew, 
 that on the occasion of this last visit to Jeru- 
 salem, Paul had no intercourse wiHi any of the 
 Apostles, except James. A little consideration, 
 however, will shew us how unadvisedly he has 
 written on the subject. The history says, "And 
 
170 
 
 the day following- Paul went in with us unto 
 James; and all the elders were present." Acts 
 xxi. 18, Commenting; upon this passage, Gama- 
 maliel Smith says, ''Who were they? the elders, 
 all the elders ; of the Apostles not so much as 
 one besides James. Let it not be said, that 
 under the word elders, the Apostles were meant 
 to be included : on other occasions, on which 
 elders are mentioned, (Acts xv. 4, 6, 23.) the 
 Apostles are mentioned as forming a body, dis- 
 tinct as they naturally would be, distinct from 
 these same elders," p. 233. Now, in spite of this 
 bold declaration of Mr. Gamaliel Smith, I am 
 prepared to contend, that by the term elders, 
 the Apostles, where they are not distinctly men- 
 tioned, are included. James, and all the elders 
 were present. From the expression used, we 
 «iay fairly infer that James was one of the 
 elders. John the beloved disciple of Jesus was 
 also an elder, so he himself more than once 
 declares ^ The Apostle Peter also was an elder, 
 as he himself assures us^'. Thus, without further 
 controversy, it appears that three of the most 
 distinguished Apostles, at the least, were present 
 on this occasion, and if those three Apostles 
 were elders, it is highly probable, that other 
 
 " 2 John i. and .j John i. 
 * 1 Pet. V. 1 . 
 
171 
 
 of the Apostles were occasionally designated by 
 a like title, and were present at this interview 
 with St. Paul^ 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 St. Paul declares the Things lohich God wrought among 
 the Gentiles, by his Ministry. 
 
 Highly honourable to St. Paul, was the re- 
 ception which he met with from the Apostles and 
 elders, assembled to greet him on his arrival ; and 
 the grateful humility, with which they ascribed 
 to God the glory of St. Paul's success among 
 the Gentiles, while it evinced their perfect de- 
 pendence on the author of "^ every good and every 
 perfect gift," clearly shewed that they regarded 
 
 ' Mr. Gamaliel Smith, heedless of what is stated in The 
 Acts (xii. 2.) says, " That the number of the legitimately 
 instituted Apostles, had as yet" (namely, at the time of 
 St. Paul's last visit to Jerusalem,) " suffered any diminution, 
 is not, by any of the documents, rendered so much as probable. 
 Neither in the works of Paul himself, tior in that of his historic 
 ograpker, is a7iy i7itimation to any such effect to he found," p. 21 7. 
 Gamaliel Smith also tells us, that St. Luke waa one of the 
 eleven Apostles, and an eye-witness of all that he relates, 
 (p. 3 12.) and that Aquila, and Priscilla, were two fomale dis- 
 ciples of Paul's ! ! (p. 370.) See Luke i. 2. and Acts xviii. 2. 
 O Gamaliel Smith ! " VVhere was ifour discernment !" 
 
172 
 
 St. Paul as an Apostle, whose ministry was de- 
 rived from, and accompanied by the blessing of 
 God. Gamaliel Smith says, St. Paul did not, on 
 this occasion, speak of the miracles which he is 
 reported to have performed, and that " his silence 
 proves them unreal," p. 238. I entirely disagree 
 both with Mr. Gamaliel Smith's assertion, and 
 the inference drawn from it. St. Paul's Apostle- 
 ship having- been so often recognized by the 
 other Apostles, it was by no means requisite, 
 that he should, on his own account, speak of the 
 miracles which God had wrought among the 
 Gentiles by his ministry; but that St. Paul did 
 mention the miracles which he had performed, 
 a very little attention either to the English 
 Translation, or the Greek Original, will clearly 
 shew ; and we may safely conclude, that his 
 reason for doing so, arose from a persuasion, 
 (which was justified by the event,) that the 
 Apostles would hear with emotions of delight 
 and satisfaction, the success with which his 
 ministry, accompanied by miracles, had been 
 attended, and glorify God on that account. 
 *' And the day following Paul went in with 
 us unto James, and all the elders were present. 
 And when he had saluted them, he declared 
 'particularly,' what things God had wrought 
 among the Gentiles by his ministry." The Ori- 
 
173 
 
 ginal Greek is^ if possible^ still more explicit, and 
 might very correctly be rendered % And when 
 he had saluted them, he declared one by one, 
 (that is, particularly) each of those things, 
 which God had wrought among the Gentiles by 
 his ministry. Now if he mentioned each thing, 
 which God had wrought by his ministry, St. Paul 
 must have mentioned miracles, since the author 
 of The Acts expressly relates, that miracles had 
 been performed by him among the Gentiles; but 
 not only did St. Paul mention his miracles, but 
 he particularized them, in giving an account of 
 them to the Apostles. Besides, the very expres- 
 sion used, is that which is applied by the same 
 writer in other passages of The Acts, when speak- 
 ing of the performance of miracles. Thus, in 
 Acts xix. 11, it is said, ''God" wrought "special 
 miracles by the hands of Pau^'." But I need not 
 dwell longer on this point, since both the Greek 
 Text, and the p]ngUsh Translation, refute what 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith asserts about Paul not having- 
 mentioned his miracles on this occasion. 
 
 * Kai daTTavafxeya avTow e^tjyeTro Ka0' ei', eaaffTov uv CTroe- 
 i/cei/ 6 Geo? eV to?? tOveat Sict Trj^ diaKovta<: avTov. Acts xxi. ip. 
 
 Ayi/a/jiei? re ov xa? TVYOv<ra<s eitoiei 6 Geo? hid twv y£<pwr 
 WavXov. Acts xix. 11. 
 
174 
 
 CHAP XII. 
 
 ST. PAUL BELIEVED — continued. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 At the Recommendation of the Apostles, St. Paul 
 complies with certain Jewish Ceremonies. 
 
 We come now to the discussion of a subject, 
 which Mr. Gamaliel Smith has studiously endea- 
 voured to involve in much verbiage and mysti- 
 fication, namely, the proceedings adopted by 
 St. Paul, at the recommendation of James, and 
 other Apostles and elders. It would be super- 
 fluous to point out all the mistakes and misrepre- 
 sentations of Gamaliel Smith, in reference to this 
 matter: the propriety and integrity of St. Paul's 
 conduct, will be best illustrated, by having 
 recourse to the account given in The Acts of 
 the Apostles, of what occurred on the occasion. 
 The Jews, as 1 have before remarked % were 
 exceedingly tenacious of the Mosaic institutions, 
 and regarding themselves as the chosen people 
 
 " See above. Chap. vi. Sect. 1. 
 
175 
 
 of God, they indulged a supercilious feeling 
 towards the Gentiles. Even such of the Jews 
 as had embraced Christianity, were, for the most 
 part, attached to the ceremonies of the Jewish 
 religion, and as at this time, there were assembled 
 in Jerusalem great multitudes of Jewish converts^ 
 it was very desirable not to offend the prejudices 
 of those persons, not only lest they should relapse 
 into Judaism, but lest other Jews should be deterred 
 from embracing Christianity. It seems that a report 
 had reached Jerusalem, that St. Paul had taught 
 such of the Jews, as dwelt among the Gentiles, "to 
 forsake Moses," and that they ought not to circum- 
 cise their children, or conform to the customs of 
 the Jewish law. There is no ground for believing 
 that Paul had persuaded Jews to violate or neglect 
 the observances of the law ; on the contrary, we 
 find, that he not only circumcised Timothy, who was 
 the son of a Jewish woman, but himself complied 
 on various occasions with Jewish customs \ St. Paul 
 doubtless regarded Jewish ceremonies as ineffec- 
 tual for the purposes of salvation, and considered 
 that " by the deeds of the law, should no flesh 
 be justified in the sight of God''/' and that "in 
 Christ Jesus neither circumcision availed any 
 thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which work- 
 
 •^ Acts xxi. 20. ^ See Acts xvi. 3, and xviii. 18. 
 
 ■* Rom. iii. 20. 
 
176 
 
 ed by love"," and that men could only '' be^ 
 justified freely by the grace of God^ through the 
 redemption that is in Christ Jesus'"." These 
 doctrines St. Paul had strenuously maintained. 
 Hence he had resisted the attempts of those, 
 who had sought to impose the observance of 
 Mosaic rites, upon the Gentile converts. But 
 in fact, the real cause of the prejudice excited 
 against him, was his having- asserted the right 
 of the Gentiles to be admitted to the privileges 
 of Christianity, without conforming to the Jewish 
 law ; and hence had originated the reports, that 
 St. Paul had taught the Jews to forsake Moses 
 and the law. With a view therefore to allay 
 the prejudice entertained against St. Paul, and 
 which seemed likely to prove detrimental, not 
 only to that Apostle, but also to the success of 
 the Gospel among the Jews, the Apostles and 
 elders advise St. Paul to comply with certain 
 Jewish ceremonies, and to bear the expenses 
 of four persons, who had taken upon themselves 
 a vow. 
 
 Acts xxi. 19 — 26. 
 19. " And when he had saluted them, he declared 
 particularly what things God had wrought among the 
 Gentiles by his ministry. 20. And when they heard it, 
 
 > Gal. V. 6. *" Rom. iii. 24. 
 
177 
 
 . they glorified llie Lord, and said unto him, Thou 
 seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are 
 which beheve ; and they are all zealous of the law : 
 21. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest 
 all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake 
 Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their 
 children, neither to walk alter the customs. 22. What 
 is it therefore ? the multitude must needs come together : 
 for they will hear that thou art come. QS. Do therefore 
 this that we say to thee : We have four men which have 
 a vow on them ; 24. Them take, and purify thyself with 
 them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave 
 their heads : and all may know that those things, whereof 
 they were informed concerning thee, are nothing ; but that 
 tliou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 
 25. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have 
 written and concluded that they observe no such thing, 
 save only that they keep themselves from things offered 
 to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from 
 fornication. 26. Then Paul took the men, and the next 
 day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, 
 to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, 
 until that an offering should be offered for every one 
 of them. 
 
 Upon comparino- what is said above, in the 
 23d and 24th verses, with the account given of 
 the qualifications of the Nazarites in the Old 
 Testament", it appears evident, that the vow 
 which the four men had upon them, was nei- 
 ther more nor less than the vow of a Nazarite. 
 
 " See Numbers vi. 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 By advising' St. Paul to purify himself agreeably 
 to the Mosaic law, and to defray the expenses 
 which these four men would incur, in order to 
 offer the appointed sacrifices, the Apostles sug- 
 gested to him a course calculated to remove 
 the opinion which the Jews had imbibed cori- 
 cerning him, that he despised the law of Moses". 
 While the line of conduct recommended to 
 St. Paul, seemed well adapted to conciliate the 
 Jews, it demanded no unworthy compromise on 
 the part of that Apostle. It did not require 
 him to renounce the doctrines he had taught 
 the Gentiles, respecting their freedom from the 
 law of Moses, nor did it pledge him to abstain 
 from teaching such doctrines in future. It did 
 not call upon him to forego intercourse with 
 the Gentiles^ as St. Peter had done at Antioch ; 
 it did not stigmatize or offend the Gentile 
 converts, by affixing to them any imputations 
 of inferiority to the Jews, or afford a precedent 
 for bringing the former into subjection to Jewish 
 ceremonies. St. Paul, therefore, was not only 
 justified in complying with the advice of the 
 
 " It appears from a passage of Josephus, that it was deemed 
 an act of piety among the Jews, to defray for those, who were 
 under the Nazarite vow, the expenses which attended its com- 
 pletion. The custom, as mentioned by him, is remarkable, 
 and in close conformity with this scriptural account. Pale^. 
 See Joseph. Antiq. Book IV. Chap. iv. Sect. 4. 
 
179 
 
 Apostles, but in so dping, lie pursued that 
 course, which was best suited to promote the 
 cause of the Gospel. From the time of his 
 conversion, St. Paul appears to have entertained 
 the most just and enlightened views of Christi- 
 anity. Bigotry and intolerance, those dire ene- 
 mies to true religion, formed no part of his 
 character. Hence, he did not offer a needless, 
 and violent opposition to the prejudices of others, 
 in cases where such prejudices would not pro- 
 duc/e injijirious effects. His compliance, on this 
 occasion, so far from being censurable, reflected 
 the highest credit on his understanding, and 
 shewed him to be a skilful and accurate dis- 
 cerner of human nature, and consequently, one 
 who was well qualified to be a preacher of 
 righteousness*'. It was not from any selfish 
 
 •" " We may, (observes a learned and pious writer) expressly 
 aHow and indulge those prejudices for a season, which seem to 
 stand ag^iiist the truth, and endeavour jto iiitro,duce the truth 
 by degrees, while those prejudices are expressly allowed, till, 
 by degrees, the advanced truth may of itself wear out the pre- 
 judice. Thus Gad himself dealt with |\is own people the Jews, 
 after the resurrection of Christ ; for though, from the following 
 days of Pentecost, when the Gospel was proclaimed and con- 
 firmed at Jerusalem, the Jewish ceremonies began to be void 
 and ineffectual for any divine purpose, yet the Jews, who re- 
 ceived Christ the Messiah, were perrnitted to circumcise their 
 children, and to practise vimuj Levitical forms, till that consti- 
 tution, which then waxed old, should in time vanish away. 
 Where the prejudices of mankind cannot l)e conquered at once, 
 
 \I 2 - but 
 
180 
 
 feeling-, or any unworthy fears, that St. Pauf, 
 on this occasion, gave way to the prejudices of 
 others ; for, in making the journey to Jerusalem, 
 notwithstanding the dangers that he knew 
 awaited him, he had shewn himself regardless 
 of every personal consideration, but it was his 
 anxious endeavour, on all occasions, so to act, 
 as " not to give offence in any] thing, that his 
 ministry might not be blamed"." There were, 
 at this time, in Jerusalem, ''many thousands of 
 Jews, who believed, and they were all zealous 
 of the law." (Acts xxi. 20.) There is every 
 reason to suppose, that a delicate and honour- 
 able regard to their feelings and scruples, in- 
 duced St. Paul to adopt the course suggested 
 by the Apostles. His complaisance was disin- 
 terested, and ''practised for the benefit of man- 
 kind." In writing to the Corinthians, before 
 the period at which these occurrences at Jeru- 
 salem took place, St. Paul had expressly de- 
 scribed the grounds of his accommodating con- 
 duct, both towards Jews and Gentiles. " Unto 
 
 but they will rise up in arms against the evidence of ti'uth, 
 there we must make some allowances, and yield to them for the 
 present, as far as we can safely do it, without real injury to 
 truth ; and if we would have any success in our endeavours to 
 convince the world, we must practise this complaisance for the 
 benefit of mankind." Watts on the Improvement of the Mind. 
 * 2 Cor. vi. 3. 
 
181 
 
 the Jews," lie says, '' 1 became as a Jew, that 
 I mijrht e-ain the Jews; to them that are under 
 the law, as under the law, that I might gain 
 them that are under the law. To them that 
 are without law, as without law, (being- not 
 without law to God, but under the law to 
 Christ,) that I might gain them that are with- 
 out law. To the weak became 1 as weak, 
 that I might gain the weak. I am made all 
 things to all men, that I might hy all means 
 save some^." St. Paul, by conforming to the 
 ceremonies of the Jewish religion, not only ex- 
 ercised a sound discretion, but copied the bright 
 example of his divine Lord and Master; for 
 the blessed Jesus, instead of offering any rash 
 and violent opposition to the law, enjoined, on 
 various occasions, an observance of its precepts. 
 " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there 
 remember, that thy brother hath aught against 
 thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and 
 go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, 
 and then come and offer thy gift^" To one 
 whom he had healed of leprosy, he said, '"Go 
 thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer 
 the gift that Moses commanded**." So far was 
 our Lord from speaking with disrespect of the 
 law, that his general exhortation to the people 
 " 1 Cor. ix. 20—22. '■ Matt. v. 24. " Matt. viii. 4. 
 
was, " Whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees 
 command you to observe, that observe and do^" 
 On other occasions he said, ''What is writteh 
 in the law? how readest thou''?" "Think not 
 that I am come to destroy the law, arid the 
 prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to 
 fulfill" Christ, indeed, came into the world, 
 not for the purpose of violently overturning the 
 institutions of the Jewish law, but to accomplish 
 its most important ends, to fulfil its types and 
 prophecies, and gradually to supersede it by a 
 more perfect law of grace and truth. St. Paul, 
 therefore, in imitation of his divine Redeemer, 
 carefully abstained from shewing any disrespect 
 to the Mosaic institutions, while, at the same 
 time, like him, he enforced the precepts and 
 superior excellence of the Gospel covenant. 
 Enough, I trust, has been already said, to shew, 
 that Paul, in complying with the coui*se recom- 
 mended by the Apostles, was actuated by the 
 most honourable and disinterested motives; but, 
 as the best motives, and the most upright con- 
 duct, cannot always insure success, so, on this 
 occasion, St. Paul's compliance did not protect 
 him from the machinations of his enemies. 
 
 ' Matt, xxiii. 1—3. " Luke x. 26. ' Matt v. 17. 
 
I8J 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 St. Paul's Life endangered hif a Tumult excited hy 
 Jews, 
 
 Influenced by the motives already described, 
 St. Paul proceeded, (in compliance with the ad- 
 vice of the Apostles,) with the four men, who 
 had the vow of Nazariteship, to the temple, 
 with a view to purify or separate himself with 
 them, agreeably to the forms prescribed by the 
 law; he appointed a day on which he would 
 (after the time of the vow was completed,) pay 
 the money that was necessary to defray the 
 charges, and buy the victims that were to be 
 offered upon the occasion. Before, however, 
 the time appointed had expired, certain Jews 
 from Asia*, having seen St. Paul in the temple, 
 stirred up the people against him, and had it 
 not been for the providential interference of 
 Claudius Lysias, the Roman commander, they 
 would, most probably, have accomplished the 
 Apostle's destruction. The pretexts, which the 
 instigators of the tumult made use of, to inflame 
 the passions of the multitude, were, that St. Paul 
 taught all men every where against the people, 
 
 * Probably these were Jews who dwelt at Ephesus, but 
 who were come up to Jerusalem, to observe the feast. See 
 Acts xix. 9—17- 
 
184 
 
 and the law, and the temple, and further brought 
 Greeks also into the temple, and polluted that 
 holy place. 
 
 Acts xxi. 20. 
 
 26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day puri- 
 fying hiniself with them entered into the temple, to signify 
 the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that 
 an offering should be offered for every one of them. 
 27- And when the seven days were almost ended, the 
 Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the tem- 
 ple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 
 28. Crying out, Men of Israel, help : This is the man, 
 that teacheth all men every where against the people*, and 
 
 * So far from being, as tliese Jews represented him, an 
 enemy, St. Paul was the tiaie friend, of the Jewish people. He 
 zealously laboured to promote their best interests, and deeply 
 deplored the infatuation, which caused so many of them to 
 reject the means of salvation. Notwithstanding the ill usage 
 he had frequently received from the Jews, the manner in which 
 he spoke of, and acted towards them, was in the highest degree 
 generous and affectionate. " I say the truth in Christ Jesus; 
 I lie not ; my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy 
 Ghost, that I have great heaviness, and continual sorrow in my 
 heart; for I could wish, that myself were accursed from Christ, 
 for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are 
 Israelites ; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and 
 the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of 
 God, and the promises." Rom. ix. 1 — -i. Again, " Brethren, 
 my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they 
 might be saved." Rom. x. 1. But it is the very spirit of Christi- 
 anity, " to do good to them that hate us, and pray for them 
 which despitefully use us and persecute us," and, perhaps, no 
 man ever partook more largely of the " spirit of Christ," than 
 St. Paul. 
 
185 
 
 the law, and this place : and further brought Greeks also 
 into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. 
 
 With regard (o the three first articles of the 
 charge, which these Asiatic Jews alleged against 
 Paul, they were well calculated to excite hos- 
 tility against him, tenacious as the people were, 
 even to bigotry, of the Mosaic institutions ; yet 
 so little of truth was there in this part of the 
 accusation, that the orator, or lawyer, Tertullus, 
 (who was afterwards employed by the Jews to 
 accuse Paul before Felix) did not even venture 
 to name charges so vague and utterly unfounded. 
 With regard to that part of the accusation, 
 that related to the pollution of the temple, it 
 arose from a supposition, that St. Paul had 
 taken Trophimus, an Ephesian, into the inner 
 court of the Jews, which it was unlawful for 
 any stranger or foreigner to enter. This part 
 of the charge it was, that Tertullus mainly 
 insisted upon, in his speech, but that it was 
 untrue, may be fairly concluded, from those 
 who first made it, not having appeared to sup- 
 port it by evidence, as they would doubtless 
 have gladly done, had it been in their power. 
 "Certain Jews from Asia," said Paul, when 
 pleading before Felix, " found me purified in 
 the temple, neither with multitude, nor with 
 tumult, who ought to have been here before 
 
186 
 
 thee, and object if they had ought against i\\e\" 
 But the real source of the enmity excited 
 against Paul, is to be found in his having 
 maintained the right of the Gentiles to be ad- 
 mitted, equally with the Jews, to the privileges 
 of the Gospel dispensation, as is evident from 
 what is related in a subsequent part of the his- 
 tory : for when Paul had been delivered by the 
 Roman commander from the infuriated populace, 
 and was permitted to address the multitude 
 from the stairs of the castle*", they heard him 
 patiently, till he spoke of a vision, which en- 
 joined him to go unto the Gentiles, " for I 
 will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." 
 Acts xxii. 21. The author of The Acts says, 
 " They gave him audience unto this word, and 
 then lift up their voices and said. Away with 
 such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit 
 that he should live." Acts xxii. 22. And it is 
 clear from what St. Paul said, in his speech 
 before king Agrippa, that he considered his 
 mission to the Gentiles, as the chief cause of 
 the hostility exercised against him by the Jews, 
 and of that tumult in particular, whereby his 
 
 » Acts xxiv. 18, 19. 
 
 '' The castle called Antonia, where the Roman garrison was 
 stationed. It ^as built, or augmented, by Herod the Great, 
 who named it from Marcus Antonius. Bp. Pearce. 
 
187 
 
 life had been endang-ered, at this last visit to 
 Jerusalem*'. After speaking- of the occurrences, 
 which happened on his way to Damascus^ he 
 proceeds in continuation, to give an account 
 of what the vision declared, " I have appeared 
 unto thee for this purpose, to make a minister 
 and a witness, both of these things which thou 
 hast seeU;, and of those things in the which I 
 will appear to thee, delivering thee from the 
 people, and from the Gentiles unto whom now 
 I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn 
 them from darkness to light, and from the power 
 of Satan unto God, that they may receive in- 
 heritance among them that are sanctified by 
 faith that is in me. "^ Whereupon O king Agrippa, 
 I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision : 
 but shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at 
 Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, 
 and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent 
 and turn to 'God, and do works meet for repent- 
 ance. For these causes the Jews caught me in 
 the temple, and went about to kill me." Acts xxvi. 
 
 " For the arguments here used, lam indebted to Paley's 
 Horse Paulinae, (Chap. viji. No. 1.), where the passages I have 
 quoted, are applied in a similar manner. 
 
18S 
 
 SECT. 111. 
 
 Si. Paul vindicated J'otn the Charge of Perjury. 
 
 As 1 shall have occasion^ in a different part 
 of my undertaking", to speak of those occurrences, 
 which arose out of the tumult excited against 
 St. Paul, and which terminated in his being sent 
 prisoner to Rome, and there testifying to the 
 truth of Christianity, it is unnecessary in this 
 place, to dwell longer on the subjects which 
 occupy the remainder of the history given in 
 The Acts of the Apostles ; but it may be proper 
 before 1 quit this portion of the enquiry, to 
 notice a few of the mistakes and false reasonings, 
 by which Mr. Gamaliel Smith has attempted to 
 establish, against St. Paul, a charge of '"per- 
 juriousness" in consequence of the proceedings 
 in which St. Paul engaged, at the suggestion 
 of the Apostles, during this ' st visit to Jerusalem. 
 Mr. Gamaliel Smith says, .he word which our 
 English official translators, (as he terms them) 
 have rendered "vow" in t|ie twenty-third verse 
 of the twenty-first chapter of The Acts, signifies 
 also "an assertory declaration" and should have 
 
189 
 
 been translated "oath"." This assertion of 
 Gamaliel Smith, I beg leave to deny, and so far 
 from the word vow being- a ''mistranslation/' I 
 contend it was the most proper term which our 
 English translators could have employed. The 
 word '' in the original signifies, 1 . A prayer poured 
 forth to God. 2. A religious vow; and in this 
 latter sense, it is not only frequently used in 
 the Septuagint, but also by the prophane writers, 
 as the classical reader will find on reference to 
 Scapula's Greek Lexicon. But Gamaliel Smith 
 was desirous of making out a charge of perjury 
 against St. Paul, and as the true meaning of the 
 word would not have answerd this purpose, he 
 finds fault with our English translation, and 
 gives to the Greek word a false and unauthorized 
 interpretation. Again, Gamaliel Smith says, the 
 phrase rendered (Acts xxi. 24.) "purify thyself*^" 
 should have been translated " clear thyself, " p. 258. 
 In this instance, also, Gamaliel Smith has the mis- 
 fortune to be at variance with approved authorities. 
 The learned Parkhurst tells us that the verb 
 which is rendered ''purify" in the passage of 
 The Acts in question, signifies in the active 
 voice to "purify" ceremonially, or levitically, 
 and in the passive and middle voice to be sepa- 
 
 • Page 258. C''X''* ' ayfKrOriTi. 
 
19^ 
 
 rated, or to separate oneself, by a voyv of Naza- 
 riteship: and this sense of the verb is fully justified 
 by the second and third verses of the sixth chapter 
 of Numbers, in the Septuagint, where the same 
 verb is used in a similar manner'*. But let us 
 take another specimen of Gamaliel Smith's cap- 
 tious, and at the same time erroneous, crjticisips 
 on our English translation of the Bible. Mr- 
 Gamaliel Smith tells us, the participle which i^ 
 translated in the twenty-sixth verse of the twenty- 
 first chapter of The Acts, by the present tense, 
 "purifying himself," is in the Greek original in 
 the past tense''. This is not striqtly true. In the 
 Greek, the word is in vvhat is called by grammarians 
 the first Aorist, a tense of which the very name 
 implies that It is used in reference to an indefinite 
 period of time^ and, as in the passage of The Acts 
 just mentioned, the participle applies to an action 
 commenced, but not concluded, our translatOjTs 
 have most properly rendered it in English, by 
 the present tense, the only tense of which in 
 
 * dyvtt^d), also signifies to purify internally and spiritually. 
 In this sense it occurs James iv. 8. 1 Pet. i. 22. and 1 John iii. ?. 
 It is likewise sometimes rendered by the Latin word expio, to 
 expiate or atone, to purge by sacrifice : lut any one acquaint- 
 ed with Scripture and with Greek, kn^ws that the verb could 
 not have been used in this sense, in th.^ passage of The Acts 
 (xxi. 24.) much less could it have been trs islated " clear thyself," 
 as Mr. Gamaliel Smith asserts. 
 
 •■ dyvi(r0(i<; Acts xxi. 26. 
 
191 
 
 our language the case admitted. That the 
 charge of perjury, alleged by Gamaliel Smith 
 against St. Paul, is without foundation, has, I 
 think, been^already shewn ; indeed nothing could 
 be more ridiculous than such an accusation, 
 and the mode, by which Gamaliel Smith has 
 attempted to sustain it, is both fallacious and 
 disingenuous. Let us take a specimen. " The 
 evidence," says Gamaliel Smith, "from The Acts 
 " is of the circumstantial kind; the evidence from 
 ''the Epistles is direct. To Paul was imputed 
 " as a misdeed, the having recommended the 
 '' forsaking of the Mosaic law, recommended, 
 " namely, to such disciples of his, as having 
 " been born and bred under it, were found 
 '' by him settled in some Gentile nation. Proof, 
 '' Acts xxi. 21. They the Jews which believe 
 " are informed of thee, that thou teachest all 
 " the Jews, which are among the Gentiles, to 
 '' forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not 
 " to circumcise their children, neither to walk 
 " after the customs." Not Paul, hut Jesus. 
 p. 255. Now, allowing to circumstantial evidence 
 its due importance, what does the passage just 
 cited prove? not that Paul was guilty of the 
 charge alleged against him, of teaching Jews 
 to forsake the law of Moses, but that such a 
 sinister report prevailed to the Apostle's dis- 
 
\92 
 
 advantage in Jerusalem. But what upright judg-e, 
 what honest unprejudiced man, would, for a 
 moment, condemn a person on the ground of 
 vague surmises, and uncertain rumours? 
 
 The very evidence which Gamaliel Smith 
 has brought forward " to warrant/' as he tells 
 us, "^a verdict of guilty," may be considered 
 as so much circumstantial evidence, that the 
 Apostles regarded the charges, which the Jews 
 brought against St. Paul as utterly unfounded. 
 To this end, I must request the reader attentively 
 to peruse the following passages. 
 
 Acts xxi. 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29. 
 
 23. We, (the Apostles and elders) have four men 
 which have a vow on them; 24. Them take and purify 
 thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that. . . . 
 all may know that those tilings whereof they were informed 
 concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thyself also 
 walkest orderly, and keepest the laiv^. 26. Then Paul 
 took the men, and the next day purifying himself with 
 them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment 
 of the days of purification, until that an oflferiiig should be 
 
 ' The consti'uction of the original passage is thus stated by 
 Parkhurst. 'Oti ovtev (toi/twi/) wv (for a) KaTrj^rjvTai irept 
 <Tov e<iTiv. For what reason (adds he) can be given why wV is 
 in the genitive case, but that it is drawn into that case by the 
 preceding word Tovru>v understood ? That none of those things 
 which they have heard concerning thee is, or exists, that is, 
 real or true. 
 
193 
 
 offered Tor every one of them. '27- And when the seven 
 days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, 
 when they saw him in the ten)ple, stirred np all the 
 people, and laid hands on him, 28. Crying out^ Men of 
 Israel, help : This is the man, that teacheth all men 
 every where against the people, and the law, and this 
 place : and further brought Greeks also into the temple, 
 and hath polluted this holy place. £9- For they had 
 seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, 
 whom they apposed that Paul had brought into the 
 temple^. 
 
 It appears evident from the above account, 
 especially from the 24th verse, that the Apostles 
 and elders considered the charge alleged against 
 St. Paul of teaching Jews to forsake the law as 
 altogether unfounded, nay, that they believed 
 him to be one, who ''walked orderly and kept 
 the law, " and consequently a very unlikely 
 person to encourage others to contemn it. 
 Unless, therefore, we are prepared to prefer the 
 testimony of Mr. Gamaliel Smith, to that of 
 the Apostles, we cannot hesitate for an instant 
 to pronounce St. Paul innocent. 
 
 '' This verse, Gamaliel Smith disingenuously omits, after 
 quoting those which precede it. 
 
 N 
 
194 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 iit. l^aufs Epistles afford no proof that he taughf 
 Jews to contemn the Mosaic Law. 
 
 But let us now look at what Mr. Gamaliel Smitl* 
 calls the direct evidence, evidence from Paul's 
 own pen, of "teachings to forsake Moses." For 
 this purpose, Gramaliel Smith makes the following- 
 extracts from Paul's Epistles. 
 
 Rom. xiv. 14. I know, and am persuaded by the 
 Lord Jesus, that there is nothing uuclean of itself: but 
 to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is 
 unclean. 17. For the kingdom of God is not meat and 
 drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 Rom. iii. 20. By the deeds of the law there shall no 
 flesh be justified iq his (God's) sight, for by the law is the 
 knowledge of sin.- 
 
 Rom. iii. 27, 28, 29, 30,. 31. Where is boasting 
 then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but 
 by the law of faith. 28. Therefore we conclude that a 
 man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 
 29. Is he the God of the Jews only ? is he not also of the 
 Gentiles r yes, of the Gentiles also : 30. Seeing it is one 
 God, who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and 
 uncircumcision through faith. 31. Do we then make 
 void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish, 
 the law. 
 
iyj 
 
 Rom. X. 9. If thou shall confess with thy mouth 
 
 tTie Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God 
 liath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 12. For 
 ihere is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, for 
 the same Lord over all, is rich unto all that call upon him. 
 13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord 
 shall be saved*. 
 
 Rom. xiv. 2. One believeth that he may eat all 
 
 things, another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3. Let not 
 him that eateth despise him that eateth not ; and let not 
 bim which eateth not, judge him that eateth : for God ha'li 
 received him. .5. One man esteemeth one day above an- 
 other : another esteemeth every day alike , 
 
 " It is well known that, " Christ crucified'^ {)i-oved in many 
 instances to tiie Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks 
 foolishness. Hence, St. Paul obviates in this chapter, tlie 
 doubts and scruples of those who distrusted either the power 
 •or willingness of Christ to save such as believe, whether Jews 
 or Gentiles. The doctrine wbich St. Paul teaclies ir. thp 
 ■Qth, 10th, 11th, and 12th verses of this Chapter has a striking- 
 conformity with that of Christ. (Matth. x. 32, 33.) " iVhosoever 
 .shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my 
 Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny uie before 
 men, him will I also deny before my Father Avhich is in Heaven." 
 
 '' " Behold, here," says Gamaliel Smith, " the degree of im- 
 portance attached by Paul to Sabbaths." p. 274. That St. 
 Paul religiously observed the Sabbath is manifest, from what 
 is related of him, in The Acts of the Apostles. See Acts xiii. 
 14 — 44. xvii. 2. xviii. 4. With regard to other festival days, 
 appointed by the ceremonial law of Moses, and which the 
 converted Jews thought it right to keep holy, but the observ- 
 ance of which, the Gentiles deemed unnecessary under the 
 Gospel dispensation, St Paul gave advice worthy of a liberal 
 minded conscientious man, " Let every man be fully persuaded 
 
 it; 
 
\m 
 
 1 Cor. vi. I'i. All things are lawful unto me, but all 
 things are not expedient, all things are lawful for me, but 
 I will not be brought under the power of any. 13. Meats 
 for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy 
 both it, and them. 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 8. But meat commendeth us not to God : 
 for neither, if we eat, are we the better: neither, if we eat 
 not, are we the worse. 
 
 1 Cor. ix. 19 to 23. 19- For though I be free from 
 all men, yet have 1 made myself servant unto all, that I might 
 gain the more. '20. And unto the Jews I became as a 
 Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the 
 law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are un- 
 der the law ; 21. To them that are without law, as without 
 law, {being riol without laio to God, hut under the laze 
 to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 
 22. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain th(! 
 weak : I am made all things to all men, that I might by all 
 means save some. 23. And this I do for the Gospel's sake, 
 that I might be partaker thereof with you. 
 
 2 Cor. iii. 12 to 17- 12. Seeing then that we have 
 such hope, we use great plainness of speech. 13. And 
 not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the 
 children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of 
 that which is abolished: 14. But their minds were blind- 
 ed : for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away 
 in the reading of the Old Testament; which vail is done 
 away in Christ. 15. But even unto this day, when Moses 
 
 in his own mind. He that reg.-trdeth the day, regardeth it 
 unto the Lord^ and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord 
 he doth not regard it." The whole of thi.s chapter (Rom xiv.) 
 strongly illustrates the liberality and goodne^.'> ol'Sl. Piml's heart. 
 
197 
 
 is read, the vail is upon their heart. l6. Nevertheless 
 when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 
 17. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of 
 the Lord is, there is liberty. 
 
 Rom. ii. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. 25. For circumcision 
 verily profiteth, if thou keep the law : but if thou be a 
 breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircum- 
 cision. 26. Therefore if the uncircumcisiou keep the 
 righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcisiou be 
 counted for circumcision. 27. i^nd shall not uncircum- 
 cisiou which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, 
 who by the letter and circumcision, dost transgress the 
 law ? 28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; 
 neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh : 
 29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circum- 
 cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 
 letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. 
 
 Rom. iii. 1, 2. What advantage then hath the Jew ? 
 or what profit is there of circumcision ? much every way : 
 chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles 
 of God. 
 
 Rom. iv. 9, 10, 1 1;, 12. 9- Cometh this blessedness 
 then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircum- 
 cision also ? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham 
 for righteousness. 10. How was it then reckoned ? when 
 he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcisiou ? not in 
 circumcision, but in uncircumcisiou. 11. And he received 
 the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the 
 faith which he had yet being uncircumcised : that he might 
 be the father of all them that believe, though they be not 
 circumcised: that righteousness might be imputed unto them 
 also: 12. And the father of circumcision to them who are 
 
198 
 
 not of the circimicisiou only, but who also walk in the steps 
 of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had, being 
 yet uncircumcised. 
 
 Rom. XV. 8. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a 
 minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to 
 confirm the promises made unto the fathers. 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 18. Is any man called being circumcised.'' 
 let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in un- 
 circumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19- Circumcision 
 is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping 
 of the commandments of God. 
 
 Now to what, I would ask, do all the foregoing- 
 passages amount? do they prove that St. Paul 
 taught tiic Jetos which were among the Gentiles, 
 to forsake Moses ? niost assuredly not I they only 
 shew that which St. Paul never attempted to 
 deny, that he considered that the Gentiles 
 were to be freely admitted as well as Jews, to 
 the privileges of the Gospel, that the Gentiles 
 were not under any obligation to observe cir- 
 cumcision, and other ceremonies of the Mosaic 
 law, and that by those ceremonies, neitlier Jews 
 or Gentiles could obtain justilication in tlie sight 
 of God. But it so happens, that the very Epistle 
 to the Romans, from which Mr. Gamaliel Smith 
 (piotes, to prove that St. Paul had taught Jews 
 to forsake Moses, contains decisive counter- 
 evidence, proving St. Paul's deference to the 
 Mosaic law. 
 
199 
 
 Rom. vii. 7. 12, 14, l6. 7. ''Wliat shall we say tlien: 
 Ts the law slur God forbid. Nay, I l»;»d not known sin bul 
 by the law. 12. The law is holy, and the commandment 
 holy, and just, and good, 14. For we know that the law 
 is spiritual. 16. T consent unto the law that it is good," 
 
 These and similar expressions, clearly shew 
 that however weak and ineffectual St. Paul might 
 reg-ard the law, as to the purposes of salvation, 
 he neither spoke of, or treated it with conten^pt. 
 The fact was, St. Paul knew and acknowledocd 
 that " the law was good if a man used it law- 
 fully ^" and hence, instead of resting in the letter 
 of it, as did the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, 
 condemned by our Lord, St. Paul acted ag-reeably 
 to its spirit and intention, and always kept in view 
 " the end of the commandment, which is charity, 
 out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, 
 and of faith unfeigned^'." 
 
 ° 1 Tim. i. 8. »> 1 Tim. i. 5. 
 
 END OF PART THE FIRST. 
 
Princeton Theological , Sfmlna^,, Lib'-a[|« 
 
 1 1012 01249 4979