Between the two interpretations,--in respect of length of time, observe here the difference. According to one of them, between the conversion and the first Jerusalem visit, we have an interval of three years, and no more: and, in this interval, three lengths of time--one passed in Damascus, another in Arabia, a third, terminated by the basket adventure, passed also in Damascus, are all included: the entire interval determinate: but its parts, all of them, indeterminate. According to the other interpretation, we have also three lengths of time: the first, indeterminate, passed in Damascus; the second, as indeterminate, passed in Arabia; the third, passed in Damascus, and this a determinate one--namely, the three years. Thus, upon the first supposition, the interval consists of three years, and no more: upon the second supposition, it consists of three years, preceded by two lengths of time, which are both indeterminate, but one of which--that passed in Arabia--may have been to any amount protracted. Upon either supposition,--it seems not unlikely, that it was immediately after his escape from Damascus, that this first visit of his to Jerusalem took place. And, the greater the preceding interval of time, whether passed in Arabia or Damascus, the less unpromising his prospect, that the resentments, produced by the provocations given by him to the Christians, by his persecution of them,--and to the Jewish rulers, by his treachery towards them,--should, both, have to such a degree subsided, as to render even so short a stay, as that of fifteen days which he mentions, consistent with personal safety. Yet, as we see in the Acts, are these two events spoken of as if they had been contiguous: at any rate, it is in contiguity that they are spoken of. Uncertainties crowd upon uncertainties. At the time of Paul's conversion,--had Damascus already this same king, named Aretas, with a governor under him? If so, how happens it, that, of this state of the government, no intimation is perceptible, in the account given of that conversion in the Acts? Was it--that, at that time, there existed not any such monarchical personage? but that, before the adventure of the basket, some revolution had placed him there? According to Paul's account,--the state of things, produced in Damascus by his exertions, was somewhat curious. On the face of this account, in ordinary there was no _garrison_ in Damascus: it was only by special order from the monarch, and for no other purpose than the bringing to justice--or what was called justice--the person of the self-constituted Apostle,--that a garrison was put into the town, with a governor for the command of it. What a foundation all this for credence! and, with it, for a system of religious doctrine to build itself upon!--religious doctrine--with the difference between eternal happiness and eternal misery depending upon it! SECTION 5. CAUSE OF THE DISCORDANCE BETWEEN THE TWO ACCOUNTS.