5. _Peter's Antioch Visit._--In Paul's Epistle, addressed to his Galatians, as above,--immediately after the mention of his own second Jerusalem Visit as above, comes the mention of an interview, which he says he has at Antioch with Peter: "Peter being come," he says, "to that place." Gal. ii. 11. In the Acts, 15:22, immediately upon the back of the accounts of the Deputation Visit, as above,--comes an account of what may be called a _counter Deputation Visit_. Of the former Deputation Visit, according to the Acts, the result is--from the Apostles, the Elders, and the whole Church, a _letter_, concluding with a _decree_: and "by men chosen of their own company," this letter is stated as having been carried to Antioch: and, with these men, so chosen, Paul and Barnabas are stated as returning to Antioch, from which city, as above, they had been deputed. As and for the names of "chosen men," those of Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, are mentioned: "chief men among the brethren" is another title by which they are, both of them, distinguished. To these, no other names are added: in particular, not that of Peter. Thus far the Acts. As to Paul, in the account _he_ gives, of the discussion, to which, after--and apparently, as above, in consequence of--his _secondly mentioned_ interview with Peter at Jerusalem,--no mention is made either of Judas Barsabas, or of Silas: of Peter--and him alone--it is, that, on this occasion, any mention is made. Peter comes, as it should seem, to Antioch from Jerusalem; which last city seems to have been his ordinary abode. But, on this occasion likewise, in addition to this visitor, mention is again made of Barnabas, of whom, as far as appears, from the time of the Reconciliation Visit down to this time, Antioch was the ordinary abode. In relation to each of these several Visits, a brief preparatory indication of the topic or topics, which will be brought to view, when an account comes to be given of it, may in this place have its use. I. _Reconciliation Visit._--On this occasion, a difficulty that naturally presents itself--is--if the relation is in substance true, and the occasion is the same--how it can have happened, that if Peter was at Antioch--Peter, the universally acknowledged chief of the Apostles--no mention should be to be found of him in the Acts: instead of him, two men as yet unknown--this _Judas Barsabas_, and this _Silas_--neither of them of the number belonging to the goodly fellowship of the Apostles,--being the only persons mentioned.