Page images
PDF
EPUB

2. That the epiftle, though written without any communication with the history, by recital, implication, or reference, bears teftimony to many of the facts contained in it.

I. The epiftle and the Acts of the Apoftles were written without any communication with each other.

To judge of this point, we must examine thofe paffages in each, which describe the fame tranfaction; for if the author of either writing derived his information from the account which he had feen in the other, when he came to speak of the fame tranfaction, he would follow that account. The hiftory of St. Paul, at Damafcus, as read in the Acts, and as referred to by the epiftle, forms an inftance of this fort. Ac-, cording to the Acts, Paul (after his converfion) was certain days with the " disciples "which were at Damafcus; and straight"way he preached Christ in the synagogues, "that he is the fon of God. But all that "heard him were amazed, and said, is not "this he which deftroyed them which called "on this name in Jerufalem, and came hi

ther for that intent, that he might bring

[merged small][ocr errors]

"them bound unto the chief priests? But “Saul increased the more in ftrength, con

$6

founding the Jews which were at Damaf"cus, proving that this is the very Christ. "And after many days were fulfilled, the "Jews took counfel to kill him; but their

laying in wait was known of Saul, and they "watched the gates day and night to kill “him; then the difciples took him by night, "and let him down by the wall in a basket; "and when Saul was come to Jerufalem, "he affayed to join himself to the difci"ples." Acts, chap. ix. ver. 19-26. According to the epiftle, "when it pleased "God, who feparated me from my mo"ther's womb, and called me by his grace, "to reveal his own fon in me, that I "might preach him among the heathen, "immediately I conferred not with flesh. “and blood, neither went I up to Jerufa"lem to them which were apoftles before "me: but I went into Arabia, and return"ed again to Damafcus; then, after three years, I went up to Jerufalem."

Befide the difference obfervable in the terms and general complexion of these two

accounts,

accounts, "the journey into Arabia,” mentioned in the epiftle, and omitted in the hiftory, affords full proof that there existed no correfpondence between these writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the epiftle, it is impoffible that this journey fhould have been paffed over in filence; if the epiftle had been composed out of what the author had read of St. Paul's hiftory in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it should have been inferted *.

The journey to Jerufalem related in the fecond chapter of the epiftle (" then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerufalem") fupplies another example of the fame kind, Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul

*N. B. The Acts of the Apostles fimply inform us that St. Paul left Damafcus in order to go to Jerusalem, "after many days were fulfilled." If any one doubt whether the words "many days" could be intended to exprefs a period which included a term of three years, he will find a complete instance of the same phrase used with the fame latitude in the first book of Kings, chap. xi. ver. 38, 39: "And Shimei dwelt at Jerufalem many

66

days; and it came to pafs, at the end of three years, "that two of the fervants of Shimei ran away.".

and

[ocr errors]

and Barnabas were fent from Antioch to Jerufalem, to confult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts; or it was fome journey of which the hiftory does not take notice. If the firft opinion be 'followed, the difcrepancy in the two accounts is fo confiderable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the fame tranfaction: fo that, upon this fuppofition, there is no place for fufpecting that the writers were guided or affifted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerufalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumftantially related in the epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts and we are at liberty to repeat the obfervation, which we before made, that the omiffion of fo material a fact in the hiftory is inexplicable, if the hiftorian had read the epistle; and that the infertion of it in the epiftle, if the writer derived his information from the hiftory, is not less so.

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

If we connect, with these instances, the general obfervation, that no fcrutiny can difcover the smallest trace of transcription or imitation either in things or words, we fhall be fully fatisfied in this part of our cafe; namely, that the two records, be the facts contained in them true or falfe, come to our hands from independent fources.

Secondly, I fay that the epiftle, thus proved to have been written without any communication with the hiftory, 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 diftinguished by his zeal for the inftitution and for the traditions which had been incorporated with it.. Upon this part of his character the history makes St. Paul fpeak thus: "Iam verily a "man which am a Jew, born in Tarfus, a

city of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city "at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught accord"ing to the perfect manner of the law of the

fathers; and was zealous towards God,

as

« EelmineJätka »