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 commission and Apostleship were not distinctly recognized 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, according to the received chronology, was A.D. 38, and it was on this occasion, that Barnabas introduced him to the Apostles Peter and James. St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was undertaken, when he was deputed with Barnabas to convey the contributions made by the disciples at Antioch, in Syria, for the relief of the brethren in Judæa, who were suffering from the effects of a famine, which had been foretold by a prophet of the name of Agabus . This visit was made A.D. 44. The third visit

a

See Acts ix. 20. Gal. i. 18.

b See Acts xi. 22-30.

of St. Paul to Jerusalem, took place in consequence of the dissentions which had arisen at Antioch in Syria, from certain persons from Judæa 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 circumcision 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, determined, 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 appears from Gal. ii. 2.) they were acting in conformity 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 Gamaliel Smith should suppose the account of it

"fictitious," had we not already seen with what cool assurance he takes upon himself to pronounce 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 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 Cæsarea, 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 countries, and thence, agreeably to his promise, he returned to Ephesus. St. Paul's fifth visit to Jerusalem took place just before the feast of Pentecost, A. D. 58. The occasion of it was

a Cæsaræa Falestinæ.

b

See Acts xxi. 1-19.

principally for the benevolent purpose of taking the alms which had been collected among the Christian converts in Greece, for the poor disciples at Jerusalem. This is what Gamaliel · Smith terms the Invasion Visit, an appellation, of which the absurdity will be plainly manifest, when we come to the consideration of the circumstances 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 increased, when borne out by the corroborating Testimony of another Historian.

I HAVE before remarked, that it was evidently 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,

that he was not only a very enlightened Apostle, but also a very excellent and sincere Christian. It must nevertheless be admitted, that self-written biography ought to be received with vigilant examination, and, in some instances, not without suspicion and distrust, since selfpartiality 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 infirmities and defects. When, with an artless ingenuousness, 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 particulars 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 remarks 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.