vision he received an assurance from the Lord, that though he would be able to effect nothing at Jerusalem, on account of the animosity of the Jews, he was destined to carry the doctrine of salvation to other nations, even in remote regions; Acts xxii. 21. Accordingly, after staying in Jerusalem not more than fourteen days, he was obliged to leave it, through the machinations of the Jews. He now returned to his native place, Tarsus, where he spent several years, certainly not in inactivity; for by his labours the gospel was spread among both Jews and Gentiles in Tarsus and throughout Cilicia; there is good reason for believing, that to him the Gentile churches, which in a short time we find in Cilicia, owed their origin.*

*The silence of the Acts respecting the labours of Paul in Cilicia, cannot be brought as evidence against the fact, for the account it gives of this period has many lacunæ. From the manner in which Paul is mentioned as secondary to Barnabas, till the time of their first missionary journey, an argument might be drawn for his not having previously entered on any independent sphere of labour. But the case may be, that though Paul, as the younger and less known, was at first spoken of as subordinate to Barnabas, the elder and approved publisher of the gospel; yet, by degrees, Paul's extraordinary exertions gave a different aspect to their relative position. In Jerusalem they continued for a longer time to assign the priority to Barnabas, as appears from the apostolic Epistle in Acts xv. 25, a circumstance which Bleek very justly adduces as a mark of the unaltered originality of this document; v. Studien und Kritiken 1836, part iv. p. 1037. At all events, one would rather assign a date some years later to the conversion of Paul, (on which too, we can never come to a decisive conclusion,) than suppose that he could spend several years in his native place without exerting himself for the propagation of Christianity, he who solemnly declares, that, from the time of his conversion, he felt so strongly the impulse of an inward call to preach the gospel.

CHAPTER II.

THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH THE GENTILE MOTHER-CHURCH, AND ITS RELATION TO THE JEWISH MOTHER-CHURCH.

In the mean time, as we have already remarked, Christianity was propagated among the Gentiles by Hellenist teachers in Antioch, the metropolis of Eastern Roman Asia. The news of this event excited great interest among the Christians at Jerusalem. It is true, the information was not received in exactly the same manner as it would have been, if the account of the operation of Christianity among the Gentiles in the conversion of Cornelius had not materially contributed to allay their prejudices. But still a measure of mistrust was prevafent against the Gentile believers who were non-observant of the Mosaic law, a feeling which, after many repeated exhibitions of the divine power of the gospel among Gentile Christians, lingered for a long time in the majority of Jewish believers. On this account, Barnabas, a teacher who stood high in the general confidence, and who as a Hellenist was better fitted to deal with Christians of the same class, was commissioned to visit the new Gentile converts, On his arrival he rejoiced in witnessing the genuine effects of the gospel, and used his utmost endeavours to advance the work. The extensive prospect which opened here for the advancement of the kingdom of God, occasioned his inviting Paul, who had been active among the Gentiles in Cilicia, to become his fellow-labourer. One evidence of the power with which Christianity in an independent manner spread itself among the Gentiles, was the new name of Christians which was here given to believers. Among themselves they were called, the Disciples of the Lord, the Disciples of Jesus, the Brethren, the Believers. By the Jews names were imposed upon them which implied undervaluation or contempt, such as the Galileans, the Nazarenes, the Paupers; and Jews would of course not give them a name

meaning the adherents of the Messiah. The Gentiles had hitherto, on account of their observance of the ceremonial law, not known how to distinguish them from Jews. But now, when Christianity was spread among the Gentiles apart from the observance of the ceremonial law, its professors appeared as an entirely new religious sect (a genus tertium, as they were sometimes termed, being neither Jews nor Gentiles); and as the term Christ was held to be a proper name, the adherents of the new religious teacher were distinguished by a word formed from it, as the adherents of any school of philosophy were wont to be named after its founder.

Antioch from this time occupied a most important place in the propagation of Christianity, for which there were now two central points; what Jerusalem had hitherto been for this purpose among the Jews, that Antioch now became among the Gentiles. Here first the two representations of Christianity, distinguished from one another by the predominance of the Jewish or Gentile element, came into collision. As at Alexandria at a later period, the development of Christianity had to experience the effect of various mixtures of the ancient oriental modes of thinking with the mental cultivation of the Grecian schools, so in this Roman metropolis of Eastern Asia, it met with various mixtures of the oriental forms of religious belief. From Antioch, at the beginning of the second century, proceeded the system of an oriental-anti-Jewish Gnosis, which opposed Christianity to Judaism.

As there was considerable intercourse between the two churches at Jerusalem and Antioch, Christian teachers frequently came from the former to the latter; among these was a prophet named Agabus, who prophesied of an approaching famine, which would be felt severely by a great number of poor Christians in Jerusalem, and he called upon the believers in Antioch to assist their poorer brethren. This famine actually occurred in Palestine about A. D. 44.*

* We cannot fix the exact time when this famine began. It is

The faculty of foretelling a future event, did not necessarily enter into the New Testament idea of a prophet, if we assume that Luke wrote from his own standing-point. An address fitted to produce a powerful effect on an audience, one by which Christians would be excited to deeds of beneficence, would agree with the marks of a prophetic address in the New Testament sense; but as in the Acts it is expressly added, that the famine foretold by the prophet actually came to pass; we must doubtless admit, in this instance, that there was a prediction of an impending famine, although it is possible that the prophecy was founded on the observation of natural prognostics.

The Christians at Antioch felt themselves bound to assist in its temporal distress, that church from which they had received the highest spiritual benefits, and probably sent their contributions before the beginning of the famine, by the hands of Paul and Barnabas, to the presiding elders of the church at Jerusalem. This church, after enjoying about eight years' peace, since the persecu tion that ensued on Stephen's martyrdom, was once more assailed by a violent but transient tempest. King Herod Agrippa, to whom the Emperor Claudius had granted the government of Judea, affected great zeal for the strict observance of the ancient ritual, although on many occasions he acted contrary to it, on purpose to ingratiate him

*

mentioned by Josephus in his Antiq. book xx. ch. 2 § 5. It was so great that numbers died in it from want. Queen Helena of Adiabene in Syria, a convert to Judaism, sent a vessel laden with corn, which she had purchased at Alexandria, and with figs procured in the island of Cyprus, to Jerusalem, and caused these provisions to be distributed among the poor. Luke, indeed, speaks of a famine that spread itself over the whole xovμvn, which was not the case with this. To understand by novusvn in this passage, Palestine only, is not justified by the New Testament phraseology; but, it is possible that the famine extended to other parts, and, we must then suppose the word to be used somewhat rhetorically, and not with literal exactness, especially if we consider it as spoken by a prophet come from Jerusalem.

*Josephus, Antiq. book xix. ch. 6 and 7.

self with the Gentiles, just as by his zeal for Judaism, he tried to attach the Jewish people to himself. Actuated by such motives, he thought it expedient to manifest hostility to the teachers of the new doctrine, of whom he had received unfavourable reports. He caused James the son of Zebedee, and a brother of the apostle John, who probably, by some particular act or discourse, had excited the anger of the Jewish zealots, to be put to death; and during the Passover in the year 44,* he cast Peter into prison, intending that he should meet with the same fate after the feast. But by the special providence of God, Peter was delivered from prison, and the death of the king which shortly followed, once more gave peace to the church.

If Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem during this disturbed state of things, their stay was necessarily shortened by it, and they could accomplish nothing of consequence.t But if we compare the account in the Acts, with the narrative of the apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, and if we assume that the journey to Jerusalem, which he there mentions as the second, was really the second, this journey would acquire great importance. We must then assume, that although

*For it was the last year of Herod Agrippa's reign, who held for at least three whole years the sovereignty of Judea, (Joseph. xix. 8. 2); and, therefore, certainly reigned from the end of Jauuary 41, to the beginning of the reign of Claudius, the end of January 44; so that only the Passover of this last year could be intended, that which took place after Herod had reigned three whole years.

† As the words xar' izeivor Toy xaigov, in Acts xii. 1, cannot serve for fixing the exact date, the coincidence of this journey of Paul's with the events at Jerusalem, and the whole chronology founded upon it of the apostle's history, is not absolutely certain. Yet there is no valid argument against this arrangement.

Irenæus adv. hæres. Lib. iii. c. 13, seems to consider it as settled that this was Paul's third journey. But what Tertullian says (contra Marcion i. 20), goes on the supposition that it was his second journey. He alleges the same reason for thinking so, as Keil, in his essay on the subject lately