have been first named. But, till he became an apostle, Barnabas was of a prior rank in the church; having been not only in the Lord before him, but in all probability one of the feventy, and an elder, or one of the hundred and twenty on whom the Holy Ghost descended at Pentecoft without the intervention of hands (as I have endeavoured to prove in the Second Effay), which Saul was not; so that there was no reason to place Saul before Barnabas. But afterwards Luke places St. Paul generally first, and represents him always as the fpeaker ', ηγέμενα, το λόγο. Though, Barnabas being an elder as well as an apoftle, Luke does fometimes name him before St. Paul; even after St. Paul became an apoftle". But I think there can be no reafon given, why St. Luke, who gives Barnabas precedence, Acts xi. 30, and xiii. 1. fhould at any time after that give it Paul; but that Paul, who was not an apostle till a very little before, Acts xiii. 1. and who was not known to be an apostle till Acts xiii. 1. when he became one, or rather became known to be one.

XII. If it fhould be supposed, that St. Paul was made an apoftle at his converfion, yet how can we, upon that fuppofition, account for

• Acts xiii. 13, 43, 46. xv. 39. Ibid. xiii. 16-44. xiv. 12. Ibid. xiv. 14. XV. 12, 25.

Barnabas's

Barnabas's being made an apostle of the Gentiles? That he was an apostle of the Gentiles, I have proved in the Second Effay. And fince there cannot be any time fixed on for his being declared an apostle, but that mentioned in chap. xiii. of the Acts, and that he? (as well as Paul) is called an apoftle presently after, Acts xiv. 14. and never before; we must conclude that this was the time of his (as well as Paul's) commencing an apostle. Now, if he was declared the apoftle of the Gentiles at that time, Paul muft have been declared fo at that time too; for they were both ordered by the Spirit to be feparated to the fame work, to which they had been jointly called before; and to which they afterwards jointly went.

66

XIII. To confirm all that I have faid, it appears, that St. Paul and Barnabas were never received and owned as apostles, by any of the other apoftles, till the third time of St. Paul's being at Jerufalem, about the year 49; for then it was that James, and Cephas, and John, and the "chief of the Jewish apoftles, gave them the " right hand of fellowship, on perceiving the 66 grace that had been given them" (that is, the favour of the revelation of the gospel he preached to the idolatrous Gentiles, and the fuccefs that had attended it)," that he and "Barnabas should go unto the heathen" (that

is,

is, be the apoftles of the Gentiles), " and they "unto the circumcifion" (that is, continue the apoftle of the Jews). How could St. Paul be an apostle at the firft or fecond time of his being at Jerufalem, and not be then known or owned as fuch by any of the apostles, and only be known and owned as fuch by the three chief apoftles at the third time of his being there; that is, about eleven years after his being there the first time, and about fix years after his being there the fecond? No man can with any reafon fuppofe

it.

This feems to me much the ftronger, because St. Paul appeals to his being thus acknowledged as a fellow-apoftle by the three chief apoftles, against his adverfaries; who, as I obferved before, pretended, among other things against him, that he was not an apoftle; or that, if he was one, he was but a kind of an apostle of a fecondary order, deriving all his knowledge and authority from Peter and the reft of the twelve. Now can it be fuppofed that, when St. Paul was thus vindicating himself against these afperfions, he would not have carried up his apostleship, and his being owned as an apoftle, as high as he could? Since therefore he carries his being owned as an apoftle no higher than the third time of his being at Jerufalem, it cannot be ▾ Gal. ii. 9.

imagined

imagined that St. Paul was ever owned by them, or by any of the other twelve, as an apostle before; or that he would not have been owned before by the other twelve, if they had had a prior opportunity of owning him.

These reasons, vindicated from the exceptions that may be taken to them, convince me very fully, that St. Paul was not an apoftle till after he faw Chrift, at the fecond time of his being at Jerufalem after his converfion, ann. 43; and confequently, that he could not be an apostle at any time before.

W

If, after all, it should be objected, that the time of Christ's appearing to Saul, on his falling into a trance in the temple, was at his first (and not at his fecond) coming to Jerufalem, after his converfion; fince he himself feems to intimate that he had this vifion, "when he was come again to Jerufalem ";" and the time that he mentions of his being there before*, was the time just before his converfion: I anfwer, that what St. Paul had then in view, being only to fhew that he had this vifion at Jerufalem at a time after his being there to get letters from the Sanhedrim against the chriftians, made it unnecef fary and improper for him to speak fo minutely as to the very precife time when he faw this vifion, as to fay whether it was the firft or

* Acts xxii. 17. VOL. II.

R

* Ver. 5.

the

the fecond time of his being there after his converfion: it was altogether fufficient to say, that it was at fome time of his being there after his feeing the glory of Christ on the road from Jerufalem to Damafcus.

I think the history of St. Paul, fet in this light, may account for what has been called his double ordination, though there is no juft reafon to call either of them fo. In the first, the Holy Ghoft, as I apprehend, fell upon him, ann. 35. On the receiving it, he preaches Chrift to the Jews undoubtedly, that is, both Hebrew and Grecian, and perhaps to the profelytes of the gate alfo, after the year 41; a common thing for all that could do it, to do, without any ordination whatsoever; teaching being a duty in all that had abilities and inclinations, arifing from the very light of nature, and the great law of charity, as things food in the church, before the canon of the New Teftament was compleated and dispersed; every one being bound in such a cafe to communicate truths of the utmost importance to others, who could not know them but by their means. Such teaching needs a commiffion or an ordination no more, than teaching a fecret how to cure the plague does in a country infected with it. A man that had fuch a fecret would certainly communicate it, without ftaying for any commiffion whatfoever; unlefs he defired to fee

nothing