observable between them must have proceeded from the actual occurrence of the events related. What then: shall we say to the following representation of Gamaliel?" Truly, then, of his own making was this Gospel which Paul went preaching; of his own making as well as of his own using; that Gospel which he himself declares to his Galatians was not of man, was not therefore of those Apostles, to whom the opposition made by him is thus proclaimed. When after having given in his own person an account of a supposed occurrence— an historian on another occasion, takes up the same occurrence; and in the person of another individual, gives of that same occurrence another account different from, and so different from, as to be irreconcileable with, it; can this historian, with any propriety, he said to be himself a believer in this second account which he thus gives? Instead of giving it as a true account, does he not, at any rate, in respect of all the several distinguishable circumstances in which it differs from the account given in his own person--give it in the character of a fable? A fable invented on the occasion on which the other person is supposed to speak,-invented in the intent that it shall promote the purpose for which this speech is supposed to be made? Yet this account, which in the eyes of the very man by whom it is delivered to us is but a fable, even to those to whom in this same character of a fable it is delivered-this account it is that Christians have thus long persisted in regarding, supporting, and acting upon, as if it were from beginning to end a truth-a great body of truth. O Locke! O Newton! where was your discernment !" p. 47, 48.

This jargon, this disgusting tissue of absurdities and falsehoods, is founded in the puerile blunder already pointed out, that the impostors, who sought to undermine the Gospel at Galatia, were the same with the Apostles; nor has a syllable of it any existence but in the brain of Gamaliel Smith. The apostrophe to New-.

ton must remind the reader of the boy, who thought him a ridiculous trifler when seeking to elicit the secrets of nature by his profound experiments on light. His youth and want of education might excuse the urchin : but what apology can be made for Gamaliel? What language can be applied to him with so much propriety as that of him whom he maliciously slanders, " Professing himself wiser than others he became a fool."

CHAPTER III.

The Apostolic decree sent to Antioch explained.-The question proposed to the Apostles by the Gentile converts, Whether the Gospel of Paul was the same with that of Jesus, decided in the affirmative by them.-Paul defended from the charge of perjury in taking the vow.

PAUL appears to have visited Jerusalem four times during his ministry. These visits Gamaliel designates by different names, according to the objects which he imputes to the Apostle in paying those visits. The first was the reconciliation-visit; the second was the moneybringing visit mentioned in Acts xi. 30; the third was the deputation-visit from Antioch; the fourth and last he calls the invasion-visit, meaning that visit of Paul, by which his arrestation, and consequent visit to Rome in a state of confinement, was produced. "Invasion," says he," it may well be termed: the object of it having manifestly been, the making in that original metropolis of the Christian world, spiritual conquests, at the expense of the gentle sway of the Apostles." p. 96.

The third chapter opens with the following title: "Paul disbelieved-Neither his divine commission nor his inward conversion ever credited by the Apostles or their Jerusalem disciples." This title stands at the head of eight or nine chapters; and the reader is thus drawn to conclude, that a long series of proofs is produced in support of this proposition. The author of "Not Paul but Jesus," is a lawyer, and he knows that display, a show of reasoning, and lofty confidence, have usually great effect. But these artifices in the absence of truth cannot long avail: in a few pages I will strip them of their false colour, and prove that while every credence is due to the Apostle Paul, no credence whatever is due to Gamaliel Smith. "Void," says he, "as we have seen, of all title to credence, is the story of Paul's commission from Jesus ;-void may it be seen to be, even if taken by itself and without need of resort to any counter evidence. Who could have expected to have found it, moreover, disproved by the most irresistible counter-evidence-by the evidence of the Apostles themselves? Yet of the Apostles themselves, of whom it will plainly enough be seen, that by not so much as one of them was it ever believed." p. 89.-One of two things at any rate will, it is believed, be seen to a certainty; namely, either no such story as that which we see, nor any thing like it, was ever told to them by him; or if yes, it obtained no credit at their hands." p. 91.

When Paul returned from Damascus, which was three years after his conversion, it is said, that "Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles, and he explained to them how on the road he saw the Lord, and that the Lord spoke unto him." Acts ix. 23. Here then it appears certain, if the history is to be believed, that the story of Paul's conversion was told to the Apostles. In the next verse it seems equally certain, that they believed it to be true: for they received him without hesitation into their society and confidence ;

while he concurred with them against their adversaries in support of the common cause: "And he was with them coming in and going out in Jerusalem, and speaking with boldness in the name of the Lord Jesus."

A little incident is next presented, which proceeds on the supposition that Paul's commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was recognised by the Apostles and brethren in Jerusalem; which supposition tallies with the declaration, that the leading Apostles had now given him the right hand of fellowship: for we find him disputing with the Grecian Jews and Greek proselytes (both which may be comprehended under the word Ελληνισται). "And he spoke and disputed with the Hellenists; and they attempted to kill him." It is immediately added, "The brethren, having known this, conducted him to Cæsarea, and thence sent him away to Tarsus." The Apostles and the converts, on discovering the plot, interposed to save his life; and so much interested were they in his preservation, that the brethren attended him to Cæsarea ;-the danger being there over, he took his leave of his friends and protectors, and departed, as it should seem, alone for Tarsus.

The object of Paul in his first visit, so far from that which Gamaliel, in defiance of the strongest evidence, imputes to him, was, as he says himself, to confer with Peter. On this occasion, as we have seen, a plan was concerted between them, in which Peter, as the leading Apostle of Christ, took upon himself the responsibility of beginning to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and thus by his authority to shield his less popular and responsible brother from the obloquy and odium which this measure would necessarily bring upon him from his bigoted countrymen. The execution of this plan, so honourable to both the Apostles, so illustrative of their cordiality and mutual confidence, excludes the possibility of that jealousy and suspicion which Gamaliel supposes to have subsisted between them. And if

this were not sufficient to set his assertions aside as false, we have Peter's own testimony in favour of Paul. "Wherefore, beloved, expecting these things strive earnestly to be found by him in peace, unspotted and blameless, and deem the long delay of our Lord to be your salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, hath written to you." 2 Pet. iii, 14, 15. With these facts before us, with what astonishment and indignation must we peruse the following words of Gamaliel ! "One of two things, at any rate, will, it is believed, be seen to a certainty: namely, either no such story (as that of Paul's conversion) or any thing like it was ever told to them (to the Apostles) by him; or if yes, it obtained no credit at their hands.” p. 91.

We have seen that certain impostors introduced into all the churches a gospel of their own, artfully planned to subvert the Gospel of Christ. The leading points in this gospel were, that the Christ was a God, and that circumcision and other rites of the law, without any regard to the duties of piety and morality, comprehended the terms, and the only terms, of salvation. The first of these, as setting aside the real death, the resurrection, and the ascension of Christ, and his return at some distant period to raise the dead, virtually set aside the doctrine of a future state. The second deprived the new faith of its purifying influence, by superseding the necessity of repentance and reformation. The framers of this system in Jerusalem, who conveyed it by their emissaries to the other Gentile churches, conveyed it also by similar means to the church at Antioch. The impostors professed to be members of the church at Jerusalem; and, to give greater weight to their doctrine, they pretended to teach it with the approbation of James and the rest of the church. But it is observable, that the emissaries to this place proceeded with much more caution and reserve than those who were sent to