If Paul's evidence was good and conclusive evidence in support of Paul's visions,--how came Peter's evidence not to be received as good and conclusive evidence in support of Peter's visions? Paul's evidence, with the visions reported by it, was not better evidence, in support of his claim to the Apostleship,--than Peter's visions, if the account in the Acts is to be believed, in support of the abrogation of the Mosaic law. Yet, as, according to the author of the Acts, by Paul's account of his visions, the Apostles were not any of them convinced; so here, according to Paul, by Peter's account of his visions, if ever really related to the fellowship of the Apostles, and to the elders,--their associates,--that same goodly fellowship was not convinced. SECTION 2. PARTITION-TREATY--PROBABILITY GIVEN, BY THE FINANCIAL STIPULATION, TO PAUL'S ACCOUNT OF IT. Of this important treaty, mention may have been seen above. In the financial stipulation which may have been observed in it,--may be seen a circumstance, by which an additional degree of credibility seems to be given, to Paul's account of the transaction; at the same time that light is thrown upon the nature of it. Paul alone, with his adherents, were to address themselves to the Gentiles: but, in return for the countenance given to him by Peter and the rest of the Apostles, he was to _remember the poor_; which is what, says he, "I also was forward to do." Now, as to the remembering the poor, what is meant by it at this time of day, was meant by it at that time of day, or it would not have been meant by it at this:--supplying money, need it be added? for the use of the poor. Whatsoever, in relation to this money, was the intention of the rulers,--whether to retain any part in compensation for their own trouble, or to distribute among the poor the whole of it, without deduction;--in other words, whether profit as well as patronage,--or patronage alone, and without profit,--was to be the fruit;--human nature must, in this instance, have ceased to be human nature, if, to the men in question--Apostles as they were--the money could have been altogether an object of indifference. According to a statement, to which, as above, ch. ii., though contained in this anonymous history, there seems no reason to refuse credence,--community of goods--a principle, even now, in these days, acted upon by the Moravian Christians--was a principle, acted upon in those days, by the Jewish Christians. The property of each was thrown into one common stock: and the disposal of it was committed to a set of trustees, who--it is positively related--were confirmed, and, to all appearance, were recommended by,--and continued to act under the influence of,--the Apostles.