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

66

46

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

66

any thing to object against what I preached "to the Gentiles. But on the contrary, James,

Peter, and John, who were of reputation, and "justly esteemed to be pillars, perceiving that

66

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

66

66

my application and Apostleship to the Gentiles). "And knowing the favour that was bestowed " on me, gave me, 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 Judæa,

"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 contradiction to such a supposition: for it is highly probable, that St. Paul might be admonished immediately 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

If the above explanation is not satisfactory to Mr. Gamaliel Smith, I would have him consider 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

able to conclude that the 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 conference 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 conference certainly did not take place at St. Paul's first visit, since on that occasion he saw nonę 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 remarks 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."

Mr. Gamaliel Smith asks, (p. 176) “Who are they to whom in every thing that goes before the twelfth verse of the

second

to say, that the Apostle James is no where represented, 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 together 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 discrediting 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 kaι in the ninth verse, unites the participles, dovres ver. 7, and Yvovтes ver. 9, which participles agree with the nominative cases (viz. James, Cephas, and John,) to the verb edwкav.

SECT. II.

Conference between St. Paul and other Apostles,~ continued.

WE have seen in the account of the conference 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 fellowship, and that they determined that Paul and Barnabas should direct their mission to the Gentile world, 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.

b 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, 16, “Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." There is, however, nothing in Scripture to warrant the idea, that St. Faul's ministry was to be confined solely to Gentiles. The contrary is evident from Acts ix. 15.