In the very passage, in which the giving the right hands of fellowship to him and Barnabas is mentioned, and immediately after these very words,--it is said--that "we _should go_ unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." Thus, then, the conjunct excursion of Paul and Barnabas--an excursion, not commenced till about ten years after this same first visit, Acts 13 and 14, is mentioned, as an incident at _that_ time future. True it is, that the word directly expressive of the future is, in the English translation, but an interpretation, and as such marked. But, had any prior excursion of this kind taken place before, there seems no reason to suppose, that the event, which, by the context, would surely have been taken for an event then as yet to come,--would, had the intention been to represent it as no more than a repetition of what had taken place already, have received a form, so ill adapted to its intended purpose. But, two verses before, stands that, in which mention is made of the circumstance, by which, according to Paul, the course taken by the Apostles, in respect of their entering, into this treaty, is brought to view. "But contrariwise," says he, Gal. 2:7, "when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as _the Gospel_ of the circumcision was unto Peter:" 9. "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, _perceived_ the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we _should go_ unto the heathen," ... &c. Now these _perceptions_--the perceptions thus ascribed by him to the Apostles--when was it that they were obtained? Evidently at no time whatever, if not at the time of his _first_ visit: for, these were the perceptions--say rather the conceptions--the conveyance of which is beyond dispute manifest, not only from the whole nature of the case, according to the accounts we have of it, but from the account expressly given by the author of the Acts; and that account, in some part confirmed, and not in any part contradicted, by Paul himself, and in this very epistle.[40] To conclude. That, at the time of the Deputation Visit, Visit III., the treaty in question could not but have been on the carpet, seems, it must be confessed, altogether probable, not to say unquestionable. But, that at the time of the Reconciliation Visit, Visit I.,--it was already on the carpet, seems, if possible, still more so. For, without some understanding between Paul and the Apostles--and that to the effect of this same treaty (the impossibility that Paul's conversion story should have been the cause, having, it is believed, been hereinabove demonstrated) without some understanding of this sort, neither the continuance ascribed to the Reconciliation Visit, nor the existence of either of the two succeeding visits, to wit, the Money-bringing Visit, and this Deputation Visit, seem within the bounds of moral possibility.[41] FOOTNOTES: