SECT. II.

Motives of St. Paul's first Visit to Jerusalem.

GAMALIEL Smith has been pleased to call St. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, a reconciliation 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 reconciliation-his reconciliation 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 himself in need of "the countenance of the Apostles," 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 taken, 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

this first visit to Jerusalem, the memory of his former persecutions was still fresh in the minds of the Apostles. Time had not impaired the terrors which his former conduct had inspired : "distrust of him was not lessened, nor confidence strengthened." It is therefore reasonable to suppose, that it would have been quite as easy for St. Paul to have obtained countenance 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, "it must be left to inference, to conjecture grounded on circumstances," and Gamaliel 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 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 entitled to praise, and worthy of a Christian; but we may conjecture from circumstances which are stated, that higher and more important con

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 the 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 Jerusalem, and he spake of the Lord Jesus, and Grecians, Acts ix. 28.

and going out at boldly in the name disputed against the 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 scheme 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

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, 37.) 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 "loose 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."

that "no
that "no man ever

I agree with Locke, 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 ignorance of the meaning of Scripture; and occasionally 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

fallen, I may here notice his calling "Jerusalem the birth-place of Jesus." Let Gamaliel Smith refer to the two Evangelists, who have recorded the particulars of our Saviour's birth, and he will find, that Jesus was born, not in Jerusalem, but in Bethlehem of Judæa! Ignorance, unaccompanied by arrogance or presumption, 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. III.

Manner of St. Paul's 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.

b Matt. ii. 1. Luke ii.