acting in opposite directions in different persons at the same time, brought them into open collisions and disputes,—which, if men of their pure martyr-spirit, mostly too, under the guidance of a divine influence, could not avoid, nor could satisfactorily settle, neither may the unconsecrated historian of a later age presume to decide. Who was right and who was wrong in this difficulty, it is impossible to say; and each reader may judge for himself. It may be remarked, however, that Paul was no more likely to be right than Barnabas; he was a younger man, as it would appear from the circumstance that he is named after him in the apostolic epistle;—he was no more an apostle than Barnabas was; for both are thus named by Luke in his account of their first journey, and both were expressly called by a distinct revelation from the Holy Spirit to undertake the apostleship of the Gentiles together. Paul also is known to have quarreled with other persons, and especially with Peter himself, and that too without very just cause; and although Barnabas may have been influenced to partiality by his relationship to Mark, yet much also may be justly chargeable to Paul's natural violence and bitterness of temper, which often led him into hasty acts, of which he afterwards repented, as he certainly did in this very case, after some time; for he repeatedly mentions Mark in his epistles in terms of regard, and what is most in point, declares him to be "profitable to him in the ministry."
Witsius remarks, (Vit. Paul. iv. 16,) that the ancient Christian writers ascribe the
greatest part of the blame of this quarrel to Barnabas, whom they consider as having
been unduly influenced by natural affection for his kindred according to the
flesh. "But", as Witsius rather too cautiously remarks, "it may well be doubted
whether Paul's natural violence of temper did not carry him somewhat beyond the
bounds of right. The Greeks have not unwisely remarked—[Greek: Ho Paulos ezêtei to dikaion,
ho Barnabas to Philanthrôpon,] 'Paul demanded what was just—Barnabas, what was
charitable.' It might have been well enough if Barnabas had yielded to the zeal of
Paul; but it would not have been bad if Paul had persuaded himself to allow something
to the feelings of that most mild and amiable man. Meanwhile, it deserves
notice, that God so ordered this, that it turned out as much for the individual benefit
of Mark, as for the general benefit of the church. For the kind partiality of Barnabas
was of advantage to Mark, in preventing him from being utterly cast off from
apostolic companionship, and forsaken as unworthy; while to the church, this separation
was useful, since it was the means of confirming the faith of more of the
churches in the same time." (Witsius.)
"From hence we may learn, not only that these great lights in the Christian church were men of the like passions with us, but that God, upon this occasion, did most eminently illustrate the wisdom of his providence, by rendering the frailties of two such eminent servants instrumental to the benefit of his church, since both of them thenceforward employed their extraordinary industry and zeal singly and apart, which till then had been united, and confined to the same place." (Stanhope on the Epistles and Gospels, vol. 4.)
HIS SECOND APOSTOLIC MISSION.
After this unhappy dispute, the two great apostles of the Gen-
