apostles only, Peter and James. But St. Luke's words, as seems to me, imply, that all the apostles were then at Jerusalem, though Paul saw two only, the rest for some reasons declining to show themselves in person to him. Dr. Doddridge has this note upon ch. ix. 27. 'Paul himself 'tells us, that upon his going up to Jerusalem, he saw no other apostles but Peter and James. Gal. i. 19. Beza 'well observes we are quite uncertain on what occasion the ' rest were then absent from Jerusalem. Had they been there, though Paul stayed but about a fortnight, he would 6 no doubt have seen them.' Nevertheless the solution of this difficulty appears to me very easy. The apostles were now all at Jerusalem, or near it but they lived privately, because it was a time of persecution. The great persecution against the church, which began with the death of Stephen, was not yet over: the apostles therefore could not appear abroad without danger and it was sufficient, that they spoke to Paul, and received him by Peter and James; which I take to be the true import of St. Luke's expression: "But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles."

After Peter had been at the house of Cornelius, it is said, Acts xi. 1," And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea, heard, that the Gentiles also had received the word." Another proof, that all the apostles, or most of them, were still at Jerusalem. But I do not suppose, that the apostles, like many other of the Jewish believers, were offended at what Peter had done. Or, if they were at first somewhat offended, they were soon, and easily satisfied, and were very willing to testify their approbation of Peter's conduct.

From the twelfth chapter of the Acts we know, that James, son of Zebedee, and brother of John, and Peter, were at Jerusalem, in the year 44, or thereabout, near the end of the reign of Herod Agrippa: the former of whom was beheaded, and the other imprisoned. And at ver. 17, is mention made of another James, supposed to be the Lord's brother, and always resident at Jerusalem.

From the account of the council of Jerusalem, and of the occasion of it, all the apostles appear to have been then in Judea, and at Jerusalem, or in its neighbourhood. Acts xv. 2; "When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined, that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders about this question." Ver. 4, " And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and or even' the

apostles, and elders.-Ver. 6, "And the apostles and elders came together, that is, met in council,' for to consider of this matter."-Ver. 22, "Then pleased it the apostles, and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch."-Ver. 23, " And they wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting."-Ver. 33," And after they had tarried there a space," that is, at "Antioch, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles."

In all these places the apostles must intend all the apostles, or the apostles in general: for how can the expression be understood otherwise?

If it should be said, that the apostles might be at the council at Jerusalem, though several of them had been before in other countries, I think, that would be said without ground and reason. It does not appear, that the apostles were sent to, invited, or called in from abroad, to attend this council: but the christians at Antioch supposed, or rather knew, that the apostles were at Jerusalem, and therefore directly sent thither to them.

Indeed none of the apostles are expressly named as speakers in the debates of the council, beside Peter and James but all the rest may have been there. So upon divers other occasions in the gospels, and at the beginning of the Acts, Peter only spake, though all the rest were present. In Gal. ii. 8, 9, 10, St. Paul, giving an account of a journey to Jerusalem, supposed to be the same with this to the council, speaks of conferences which he had with three, namely, James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars. Here is one more mentioned as present at Jerusatwo lem,

have been others beside these three, who seemed to be pillars, or were the most eminent.

The first time that we meet with the mention of any one of the twelve, as being out of Judea, is that in Gal. ii. 11, after this council, as is generally allowed, when Peter was at Antioch. It is very observable, Acts xi. 19-22, when tidings came to the ears of the church at Jerusalem," that many Gentiles had been converted at Antioch by some of those who were scattered abroad by the persecution, "they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as Antioch." None of the apostles went, not so much as one, to accompany

h Theodoret has a like argument : Εξ ών ῥᾳδιον κατιδείν, ὡς εδέπω καταλελοίπει την Ιεδαιαν ὁ θεῖος αποτολος Ιωαννης, Theodr. Pr. in ep. ad Eph. Tom. III. p. 290.

him. And afterwards, ch. xiii. 1-3, in the account of the extraordinary mission of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch to Cyprus, and other parts, there is no mention made of any apostle, as present at Antioch; and it is plain, there was not one there.

All these considerations induce me to think, that none of the twelve apostles left Judea to teach either Jews or Gentiles in other countries until after this council.

Having now, as I apprehend, shown this to be very probable, I shall mention some remarks; whereby there may be an opportunity for answering objections, though several have been already obviated.

1. There was a fitness in it. It was very proper, and even expedient, that the apostles should stay a good while in Judea, to assert and confirm the truth of Christ's resurrection by teaching, and by miraculous works, and do their utmost to bring the Jewish people to faith in Jesus as the Christ.

2. As this was fit, it is likely that they had received some command from Christ himself, or some direction from the Holy Ghost to stay thus long in Judea.

3. There were considerations that would incline them to it, and induce them to do what was fit to be done, and was agreeable to the mind of Christ. One was the difficulty of preaching the gospel in foreign countries. This would induce them to stay in Judea till the circumstances of things facilitated their farther progress, or called them to it. Another thing was their affection for the Jewish people, their countrymen, especially those of Judea, with whom they had been brought up, and among whom they dwelt, together with a persuasion of the great value of the blessing of the gospel. This last consideration, I apprehend, would induce them to labour in Judea, with earnest desires, and some hopes of bringing all, or however many, to faith in Jesus. This influenced Paul also to a great degree, and for a good while. Nor was he without hopes of persuading his brethren and countrymen to what appeared to himself very certain and evident: so he says in his speech to the people at Jerusalem. Acts xxii. 17-20. He assures them, that whilst he was worshipping at Jerusalem, in the temple, he had a trance or ecstasy: that he there saw Christ, who said to him, "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me." Paul pleaded, that they must needs pay a regard to his testimony, who was well known to have been for some while very zealous in opposing his followers,

and was now convinced and persuaded. But the Lord said unto him," Depart; for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." This trance, or vision, seems to have happened in the year 44, after that Paul had preached at Antioch with great success among Gentiles. Nevertheless he had an earnest desire to make one attempt more among the Jews of Judea, where was the body of that people and if they could have been persuaded, many abroad would follow their example. And it required an express and repeated order from Jesus Christ, in vision, to induce him to lay aside that design, and to proceed to preach to Gentiles in remote parts.

It is a most affectionate concern, which he expresses for the Jewish people in divers places of the epistle to the Romans, written so late as the year 58. ch. ix. 1—5; x. 1, 2; xi. 4; "if by any means," says he, "I may provoke them to emulation which are my flesh, and might save some of them." Nor can it be questioned, that the like sentiments prevailed in the other apostles. If it needs any proof, let St. Peter's discourses at the beginning of the book of the Acts be consulted, particularly ch. ii. 38—40; iii. 22—26; not to refer to any other.

4. There were many advantages attending the stay of the apostles in Judea. Many more Jews were by this means converted, than otherwise there would have been. St. Luke says, Acts iv. 4, that "the number of the men was five thousand." But when Paul came to Jerusalem some years afterwards, James says to him, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe," ch. xxi. 20. And it is very likely, that the Jewish believers had better and freer principles, than otherwise they would have had. They were, it is true, for observing the law themselves, ver. 20: but they agreed, that the Gentiles were under no such obligations, ver. 25. Farther, by this means every step taken in planting the christian religion, and spreading the gospel in the world, had the sanction of all the apostles, and of the whole church of Jerusalem.

Upon occasion of the persecution at Jerusalem, many were "scattered abroad, who went every where preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them," Acts viii. 5. "Now when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." This was the first step taken in carrying the gospel to any, beside native Jews, and prosclytes to their religion. And what had been done by

Philip at Samaria, was approved and ratified by all the apostles.

The next step was preaching to Gentiles, which work was solemnly allotted to Peter. "And the apostles and elders that were in Judea, heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God," ch. xi. 1. Upon Peter's rehearsing to them the whole affair, and what had happened at the house of Cornelius at Cæsarea, all were satisfied. "They glorified God, saying: then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life," ver. 18.

Soon after this, some of those who were scattered abroad upon the persecution, went to Antioch, and there" spake to the Greeks," or Gentiles, "preaching the Lord Jesus. And a great number believed, and turned to the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church, which was at Jerusalem; and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch," ver. 19–22. This step therefore was also approved and ratified by the whole church of Jerusalem, including the apostles.

And henceforward no objections could be made by wise men against preaching to Gentiles and receiving them, but what arose from the difficulty of the work. Nevertheless some good while after this, there was a dispute raised at Antioch by some bigoted Jews, who asserted it to be necessary, that the Gentile believers" should be circumcised after the manner of Moses." This occasioned the council of Jerusalem; where the controversy was fully determined by the apostles and elders: which was a great advantage. By this means the manner of receiving Gentiles was fixed, and settled beyond dispute, and beyond opposition: or, if any should be made afterwards, it could not be successful, nor very troublesome. And we may be assured, that all the apostles, and their disciples, would be harmonious, and preach the same doctrine to Jews and Gentiles, wheresoever they went.

5. There was a necessity of the apostles staying in Judea, till about this time. Otherwise, they could not have sufficiently testified the doctrine concerning Jesus in Judea, nor have fully taught the Jewish people, so as to render them inexcusable, if they did not believe, and repent.

If we consider the state of things in Judea, we may discern, that in the year 44, the apostles had not had an opportunity to fulfil their ministry in that country. It must be evident to all from the history in the Acts, that for some while, soon after our Lord's ascension, the apostles were