brotherly love. As to contradiction, contradiction cannot easily be much more pointed, than it will be seen to be, between the account in respect of time, as given in this instance by Paul, and the account given of it by his historiographer in the Acts. On a double ground, it is Paul's account that claims the precedence. Of _his_ account, such as it is, the rank, in the scale of trustworthiness, is that of _immediate_ evidence; that of his historiographer, no higher than that of _unimmediate_ evidence:--evidence once removed; having, for its most probable and least untrustworthy source, that same _immediate_ evidence. Paul's evidence is, at the same time, not only more circumstantiated, but supported by the reasons which he has combined with it. Not till three years after his alleged miraculous conversion, did he go near to any of the Apostles.--Why?--Because, though, _at_ that time, for reasons which he has left us to guess, he had regarded himself as having considerable need of them,--_till_ that time he did not regard himself as having any need of them. And, why was it, that, for so great a length of time, he did not regard himself as having any need of them?--The answer he himself gives us, Gal. i. 10: ... "do I seek to please men?--I certify to you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after man.--For I received it not of man, nor was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.--When it pleased God, who called me by his grace,--to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, _immediately_ I conferred not with flesh and blood:--Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned _again_ unto Damascus.--Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.--But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother."