It is consequently impossible, from a supposed relaxation of the principles of the apostle in respect to Judaism and its relation to Christianity, to maintain, that the journey intended, Gal. 2: 1, must be the second, on the ground that the epistle itself was written before the third had yet taken place.

But while the grounds, on which the passage, Gal. 2: 1, has been understood of the second journey of the apostle, are thus inconclusive, every thing, on the other hand, requires, that it should be understood of the third. No circumstances are mentioned by Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, 2: 1, seq., which are not appropriate also to the journey, Acts 15: 2, seq., and decidedly more appropriate to that, than to any other.* In Gal. 2: 1, Paul says, that he made the journey to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus; and the journey, Acts 15: 2, is performed by Paul and Barnabas and certain others. That Paul now in the Epistle to the Galatians mentions merely the two companions Barnabas and Titus, by no means excludes the attendance also of other persons. What Paul says further, Gal. 2: 2, respecting the Soxovo, accords exactly with what is related of the apostles and elders in Acts 15: 2, whom he had been directed specially to consult on the subjects in dispute. Further it is said, Gal. 2: 3, that Titus, who accompanied Paul, was not required to submit to circumcision. This agrees entirely with Acts 15: 10, where Peter dissuades from all compulsion in regard to circumcision, and represents it as something unworthy of Christians. The same judgment is solemnly affirmed, v. 28, in the decree of the apostles. Further allusion is made, Gal. 2: 4, to false brethren, who had

[* The fact, that in Gal. 2: 2, Paul says that he "went up by revelation," while in Acts 15: 2, it is said, that he was sent by the church at Antioch, has been urged more perhaps than any other objection against supposing that the same journey can be meant in both places. But why may not Paul himself have proposed the mission to Jerusalem in consequence of a special divine revelation, and then the church have acceded to it on this recommendation; or, if the measure originated with the church, why may not Paul have been instructed from the same source to favor it, and especially to go in compliance with their request as one of the delegates to Jerusalem? Either supposition harmonizes the apparent discrepancy.--TR.]

crept into the church, to spy out the degree of freedom from the law which was claimed by Christians, that they might artfully bring them into bondage again to the old yoke of the law. Altogether similar to this is Acts 15: 1, where mention is made of those who sought to convince the Christians at Antioch, that they must submit to circumcision, if they would have part in the blessings of the kingdom of God. So again verse 5.

These points of resemblance between the two journeys are too obvious certainly to be overlooked. Still less can they be explained as mere accidental coincidences, especially when we consider, on the other hand, the undeniable difference between Acts 11: 26, seq., and Gal. 1: 18, seq., 2: 1, seq. For, in the first place, the manner in which Paul and his relation to Barnabas are spoken of in Acts 11, shows, as every one must see, that Paul at that time had not entered upon his missionary tour, properly so called. Barnabas had first brought him from his native city, Tarsus, and he afterwards began his real apostolic career at Antioch, and for the first time, Acts 13, goes forth with Barnabas upon journeys, for the purpose of preaching the gospel among the heathen, also, in other places. But the case is altogether different, Gal. 2: 1, seq., where Paul speaks as an apostle, who had already given decided and manifold proofs of zeal for the gospel, who could appeal with confidence to his labors among the heathen, and whose voice, consequently, must have even then some weight in the assembly of the apostles. The occasion, Acts 11, appropriates no trait of this description, and cannot be the same. Every feature of it, on the contrary, applies to Acts 14: 27, where Paul and Barnabas speak of the great success of their mission among the heathen. To this, also, it should be added, that the relation in which Paul stands to Barnabas, Acts 11: 25 and 30. 12: 15. 13: 2, appears to be altogether a different one from that which Paul himself intimates, Gal. 2: 1. There Paul appears to be rather the companion of Barnabas; here, it is reversed. That their connection should finally assume this form, was, with the mental superiority of Paul, entirely natural; but it was also natural that it should be the result of time. The gradual manner in which this relation between the two men developed

itself, may be easily traced in the Acts of the Apostles by Luke.

So much, then, is certain, that between Gal. 2: 1, seq., and Acts 11: 30, there exists a much greater difference, than between Gal. 2: 1, seq., and Acts 15: 2, seq. We have no hesitation, therefore, after having thus examined the subject, in declaring our conviction, that Paul, Gal. 2: 1, seq., can speak only of the third journey (Acts 15), not of the second (Acts 11.) *

[* Hemsen, it will be perceived, has said nothing of the fourteen years, at the end of which Paul performed the journey, Gal. 2: 1; and upon which much has sometimes been made to depend in the discussion of this subject. Whether the apostle reckoned these fourteen years from his conversion, or his first journey to Jerusalem after this event, cannot be certainly ascertained; nor in fact has the inquiry, by any means, the importance as to its bearing on the present question, which some have attached to it. The chronology of the life and labors of the apostle is not so fixed and certain, that any thing decisive at all can be inferred from this source any way; and hence, of the writers who agree in the opinion, that the journey in Gal. 2: 1 must be the third of the Acts, some compute the fourteen years from one limit, and some from another. The opinion of Hemsen, as elsewhere expressed, is, that they should be reckoned from the apostle's first journey to Jerusalem after his conversion as mentioned Gal. 1: 18. He supposes, that Paul was converted in the year 36; that he went to Jerusalem for the first time after this in 39; that he went the second time with Barnabas to carry alms, as related Acts 11: 30, but not referred to in Gal. in the year 42; and again the third time, which was the journey intended Gal. 2: 1 and Acts 15: 2, seq., fourteen years after, that is, in the year 53.—TR.]

ARTICLE V.

LIFE AND CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIAN NIEBUHR.

Lebensnachrichten über Barthold Georg Niebuhr, aus Briefen desselben und aus Erinnerungen einiger seinen nächsten Freunde; or a Biographical Account of B. G. NIEBUHR, from his letters and from the reminiscences of some of his most intimate friends. In 3 vols. 8vo. Hamburg. Perthes. 1838, 1839.

THE publication of these volumes of the correspondence of Mr. Niebuhr furnishes an opportunity, which we gladly embrace, of presenting to the readers of the Christian Review some notices of his life, and remarks upon his character. The subject is one of diversified and of rather uncommon interest. To Mr. Niebuhr, his countrymen and the world owe much of that ardor for profound historical investigation which characterizes the present age, and Germany in particular. He led the way into previously unexplored regions, and bore his adventurous torch into the thickest darkness of antiquity. His example has had great effects. Possessing qualities which were eminently attractive, he drew around him friends and disciples who eagerly caught his spirit and followed out his plans. Many others, who had no personal connection with him, were stimulated to walk in the same path of useful and honorable toil. Even the numerous and sturdy opponents whom he aroused, and who vindicated with much learning, and, at the same time, with much acrimony, the integrity of the ancient historians, are to be regarded as the fruits of Mr. Niebuhr's labors. * Whatever may be thought of the results of his researches in Roman history, no one can deny him the praise of original genius; for nothing short of that could have produced the impression which he made on Europe.

Again, his intellectual character is peculiarly interesting from the union of seemingly opposite qualities. Nothing

*Such is Die Verfassung des Koenigs Servius Tullius, von Huschke, who is a strenuous champion of Livy, and an opponent of Niebuhr. VOL. VI.NO. XXI. 11

is more common, especially in Germany, than a passion for speculation, for subtle and wire-drawn analysis. The dialectical tendencies in man's nature are there developed with untiring assiduity. Phenomena, undoubted facts, are scouted as empirical, as worthy of the attention only of sciolists and quacks. The external evidences of Christianity are trampled under foot in proud scorn. Miracles were designed, in the opinion of many, only for a barbarous age, or for the gaze of a gaping multitude. We have some in our country, who are never satisfied with the presentation of honest and well-arranged facts. Every conceivable topic must be exhibited logically and philosophically, or it is cast out as having no savor. On the other hand, there are men (peculiarly the growth of England and the United States), who delight to pile together facts unconscionably and incongruously, who have no power of distributing them in a natural order, or of reasoning upon them independently. Such men are lost in a labyrinth of details. Their intellect is burdened and fettered by a superincumbent load of figures and names. Their souls seem to be as dry and barren as the unformed materials with which they have to do. A striking contrast to all such men, was Niebuhr. Elements, apparently discordant and heterogeneous, were harmoniously blended in him. His temperament was peculiarly susceptible. His feelings were quick and easily aroused, even to vehemence, but as readily calmed, or turned into a new channel. The pictures of oriental life and scenery, which his staid and prosaic father, the great traveller, spread out before him, were transfigured by his powerful imagination into living forms of more than eastern gorgeousness. These ideal creations were not only the aliment of his dreams by night, but the delightful amusement and almost the sober occupation of his waking hours. At the same time, Niebuhr was a statesman and a financier. The statistical antiquaries of London or Edinburgh could not have found a more boon companion. He had the practical tact and sound judgment which would have delighted our transatlantic mother. His memory was made of iron; it had a tenacity which is almost incredible. He used to say, that he never forgot any thing which he had once seen, heard or read, and that he never should have been able to write his history, if he had not possessed in his own mind an index to the