At the time here in question,--the Gentiles had received more or less of instruction, from three different sets of teachers:--1. from the disciples who had been driven from Jerusalem by the tragical death of Saint Stephen; 2. from Saint Peter, principally on the occasion of the excursion made by him to Lydda, Saron, Joppa, and Cæsarea; and 3. from Paul and Barnabas, on the occasion, and by the means, of the long tour, made by them for that special purpose, as above. At this maritime metropolis of the faith, the new religion was spreading itself,--and, as far at least as depended on exemption from all disturbance from without, in a state of peace and tranquility;--when, by a set of _nameless_ men from Judea,--if to the author of the Acts credit is to be given on this point, for by him no mention is made of any one of their names,--the harmony of the Church was disturbed. Converts as they were to the religion of Jesus, yet,--in their view of the matter, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, without circumcision, no salvation was to be had. By Paul it is said, "they came from James," Gal. 2:12, which is as much as to say that they were sent by James: and accordingly, when James's speech is seen, by him will these scruples of theirs be seen advocated. If the Gospel history, as delivered by the Evangelists, is to be believed,--nothing could be more inconsistent, on many occasions with the practice, and at length with the direct precepts, of Jesus, than this deference to the Mosaic law: if human prudence is to be regarded,--nothing could be more impolitic--nothing more likely to narrow, instead of extending, the dominion of the Church. On this principle, no man who was not born a Jew, could be a Christian without first becoming a Jew, without embracing the Mosaic law; and thus loading himself with two different, and mutually inconsistent, sets of obligations. From Paul, this conceit,--as was natural,--experienced a strenuous resistance. No recognition as yet had Paul received, from the body of the Apostles. In Jerusalem, for anything that appears,--though this was at least seventeen years after the death of Jesus--they remained alive--all of them:--at any rate the two chiefs of them, if Paul is to be believed, who, Gal. i. 19, says he saw them, namely, Saint Peter "and James, the Lord's brother": which two, he says, he saw, out of a number, the rest of whom, he studiously assures his Galatians that he did not see: though by his historiographer, Acts 15:4, by his all-comprehensive expression, "_the Apostles_," we are desired to believe, that he saw all of them.[30] Whichever be the truth,--at Jerusalem, the metropolis of Judaism, no employment could, under these circumstances, be reasonably expected for Paul: whereas, _out_ of Judea,--wherever the language of Greece was the mother tongue, or familiarly spoken,--the advantage, which, in every address to the Gentiles, he would have over those unlearned Jews, was universally manifest.