Jerusalem,') supplies another example of the same kind. Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts; or it was some journey of which the history does not take notice. If the first opinion be followed, the discrepancy in the two accounts is so considerable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the same transaction so that, upon this suppositon, there is no place for suspecting that the writers were guided or assisted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerusalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumstantially related in the epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts: and we are at liberty to repeat the observation, which we before made, that the omission of so material a fact in the history is inexplicable, if the historian had read the epistle; and that the insertion of it in the epistle, if the writer derived his information from the history, is not less

So.

St Peter's visit to Antioch, during which the dispute arose between him and St Paul, is not mentioned in the Acts.

If we connect, with these instances, the general observation, that no scrutiny can discover the smallest trace of transcription or imitation either in things or words, we shall be fully satisfied in this part of our case; namely, that the two records, be the facts contained in them true or false, come to our hands from independent sources.

Secondly, I say that the epistle, thus proved to have been written without any communication with the history, bears testimony to a great variety of particulars contained in the history.

-1. St. Paul in the early part of his life had addicted himself to the study of the Jewish religion, and was distinguished by his zeal for the institution, and for the traditions which had been incorporated with it. Upon this part of his character the history makes St Paul speak thus: 'I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of 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 towards God, as ye all are this day.' Acts, chap. xxii. 3.

The epistle is as follows: 'I profited in the Jews religion

above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.' Chap. i. 14. 2. St Paul, before his conversion, had been a fierce persecutor of the new sect. As for Saul, he made havoc of the church; entering into every house, and, haling men and women, committed them to prison.' Acts, chap. viii. 3.

This is the history of St Paul, as delivered in the Acts; in the recital of his own history in the epistle, 'Ye have heard,' says he, of my conversation in times past in the Jews religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God.' Chap. i. 13.

3. St Paul was miraculously converted on his way to Damascus. 'And as he journeyed he came near to Damascus ; and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?' Acts. chap. ix. 3-6. With these compare the epistle, chap. i. 15-17. When it pleased God, who separated 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 conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem, to them that were apostles before me but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.'

In this quotation from the epistle, I desire it to be remarked how incidently it appears, that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all: a casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus: 'I returned again to Damascus.' Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this is. It also draws the agreement between the two quotations somewhat closer, to observe that they both state St Paul to have preached the gospel immediately upon his call: And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.' Acts, chap. ix. 20. 'When it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.' Gal. chap. i. 15.

4. The course of the apostle's travels after his conversion was this: He went from Damascus to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem into Syria and Cilicia. At Damascus the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket; and when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples.' Acts, chap. ix. 25. Afterwards, 'when the brethren knew the conspiracy formed against him at Jerusalem, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus, a city in Cilicia.' Chap. ix. 30. In the epistle, St Paul gives the following brief account of his proceedings within the same period; 'After three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days; afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.' The history had told us that Paul passed from Cæsarea to Tarsus: if he took this journey by land, it would carry him through Syria into Cilicia; and he would come, after his visit at Jerusalem, 'into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,' in the very order in which he mentions them in the epistle. This supposition of his going from Cæsarea to Tarsus, by land, clears up also another point. It accounts for what St Paul says in the same place concerning the churches of Judea: Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea, which were in Christ: but they had heard only that he which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith, which once he destroyed; and they glorified God in me.' Upon which passage I observe, first, that what is here said of the churches of Judea, is spoken in connexion with his journey into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Secondly, that the passage itself has little significancy, and that the connexion is inexplicable, unless St Paul went through Judea* (though probably by a hasty journey) at the time that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Suppose him to have passed by land from Cæsarea to Tarsus, all this, as hath been observed, would be precisely true.

،

5. Barnabas was with St Paul at Antioch. ed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul; and found him, he brought him unto Antioch.

Then departwhen he had And it came to

* Dr Doddridge thought that the Cæsarea here mentioned was not the celebrated city of that name upon the Mediterranean Sea, but Cæsarea Phillippi, near the borders of Syria, which lies in a much more direct line from Jerusalem to Tarsus than the other. The objection to this, Dr Benson remarks, is, that Cæsarea, without any addition, usually denotes Cæsarea Palestinæ.

pass that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church.' Acts, chap. xi. 25, 26. Again, and upon another occasion, 'they (Paul and Barnabas) sailed to Antioch; and there they continued a long time with the disciples.' Chap. xiv.

26.

Now what says the epistle? When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; and the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.' Chap. ii. 11, 13.

เ

6. The stated residence of the apostles was at Jerusalem. 'At that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Acts, chap. viii. 1. They (the Christians at Antioch) determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders, about this question.' Acts, chap. xv. 2.-With these accounts agrees the declaration in the epistle: "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me,' chap. i. 17. for this declaration implies, or rather assumes it to be known, that Jerusalem was the place where the apostles were to be met with.

7. There were at Jerusalem two apostles, or at the least two eminent members of the church, of the name of James. This is directly inferred from the Acts of the Apostles, which in the second verse of the twelfth chapter relates the death of James the brother of John; and yet in the fifteenth chapter, and in a subsequent part of the history, records a speech delivered by James in the assembly of the apostles and elders. It is also strongly implied by the form of expression used in the epistle: Other apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother;' i. e. to distinguish him from James the brother of John.

To us who have been long conversant in the Christian history, as contained in the Acts of the Apostles, these points are obvious and familiar; nor do we readily apprehend any greater difficulty in making them appear in a letter purporting to have been written by St Paul, than there is in introducing them into a modern sermon. But, to judge correctly of the argument before us, we must discharge this knowledge from our thoughts. We must propose to ourselves the situation of an author who sat down to the writing of the epistle without

concurrences we have They will at least be several facts, and not

having seen the history; and then the deduced will be deemed of importance. taken for separate confirmations of the only of these particular facts, bút of the general truth of the history.

For what is the rule with respect to corroborative testimony which prevails in courts of justice, and which prevails only because experience has proved that it is a useful guide to truth? A principal witness in a cause delivers his account: his narrative, in certain parts of it, is confirmed by witnesses who are called afterwards. The credit derived from their testimony belongs not only to the particular circumstances in which the auxiliary witnesses agree with the principal witness, but in some measure to the whole of his evidence; because it is improbable that accident or fiction should draw a line which touched upon truth in so many points.

In like manner, if two records be produced, manifestly independent, that is, manifestly written without any participation of intelligence, an agreement between them, even in few and slight circumstances (especially if, from the different nature and design of the writings, few points only of agreement, and those incidental, could be expected to occur), would add a sensible weight to the authority of both, in every part of their

contents.

The same rule is applicable to history, with at least as much reason as any other species of evidence.

No. III.

But although the reference to various particulars in the epistle, compared with the direct account of the same particulars in the history, afford a considerable proof of the truth not only of these particulars but of the narrative which contains them; yet they do not show, it will be said, that the epistle was written by St Paul: for admitting (what seems to have been proved) that the writer, whoever he was, had no recourse to the Acts of the Apostles, yet many of the facts referred to, such as St Paul's miraculous conversion, his change from a virulent persecutor to an indefatigable preacher, his labours amongst the Gentiles, and his zeal for the liberties of the Gentile church, were so notorious as to occur readily to the mind of any Christian, who should choose to personate his character,