Another difficulty arifes from the account of Peter's conduct towards the Gentile converts at Antioch, as given in the epistle, in the latter part of the fecond chapter; which conduct, it is faid, is confiftent neither with the revelation communicated to him, upon

"go into Bithynia."

the

The decree itself is directed "to the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, "Syria, and Cilicia;" that is, to churches already founded, and in which this question had been stirred. And I think the obfervation of the noble author of the Mifcellanea Sacra is not only ingenious, but highly probable, viz. that there is, in this place, a dislocation of the text, and that the fourth and fifth verses of the fixteenth chapter ought to follow the last verse of the fifteenth, fo as to make the entire paffage run thus: "And they went through Syria and Cilicia" (to the Christians of which countries the decree was addreffed), "confirming the "churches; and as they went through the cities, they "delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were "ordained of the apoftles and elders which were at Je"rufalem; and fo were the churches established in the "faith, and increased in number daily." And then the fixteenth chapter takes up a new and unbroken paragraph: "Then came he to Derbe and Lyftra, &c.” When St. Paul came, as he did into Galatia, to preach the gospel, for the first time, in a new place, it is not probable that he would make mention of the decree, or rather letter, of the church of Jerufalem, which pre-. fuppofed Christianity to be known, and which related to

certain

the converfion of Cornelius, nor with the part he took in the debate at Jerufalem. But, in order to understand either the difficulty or the folution, it will be neceffary to state and explain the paffage itself. "When "Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood "him to the face, because he was to be "blamed; for, before that certain came "from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; "but when they were come, he withdrew "and separated himself, fearing them which "were of the circumcifion; and the other

66

Jews diffembled likewife with him, in"fomuch that Barnabas alfo was carried 66 away with their diffimulation: but when

certain doubts that had arifen in fome established Chriftian communities.

The fecond reafon which Mr. Locke affigns for the omiffion of the decree, viz. " that St. Paul's fole object "in the epiftle, was to acquit himself of the imputation "that had been charged upon him of actually preaching "circumcifion," does not appear to me to be strictly true. It was not the fole object. The epiftle is written in general oppofition to the Judaizing inclinations which he found to prevail amongst his converts. The avowal of his own doctrine, and of his steadfast adherence to that doctrine, formed a neceffary part of the defign of his letter, but was not the whole of it.

86

66

a

"I faw they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel, I faid unto Peter, before them all, If thou, being Jew, liveft after the manner of Gentiles, ❝and not as do the Jews, why compelleft "thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Now the question that produced the difpute to which these words relate, was not whether the Gentiles were capable of being admitted into the Christian covenant; that had been fully fettled: nor was it whether it should be accounted effential to the profeffion of Christianity that they should conform themselves to the law of Mofes that was the question at Jerufalem: but it was, whether, upon the Gentiles becoming Christians, the Jews might thenceforth eat and drink with them, as with their own brethren. Upon this point St. Peter betrayed some inconstancy; and so he might, agreeably enough to his history. He might confider the vifion at Joppa as a direction for the occafion, rather than as univerfally abolifhing the diftinction between Jew and Gentile; I do not mean with respect to final

·

;

acceptance

acceptance with God, but as to the manner of their living together in fociety at least he might not have comprehended this point with such clearness and certainty, as to stand out upon it against the fear of bringing upon himself the censure and complaint of his brethren in the church of Jerufalem, who still adhered to their ancient prejudices. But Peter, it is faid, compelled the Gentiles Iudae" why compelleft thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" How did he do that? The only way in which Peter appears to have compelled the Gentiles to comply with the Jewish institution, was by withdrawing himself from their fociety. By which he may be understood to have made this declaration: "We do not deny your right to be confidered as Chriftians; we do not deny your title in the promises of the Gospel, even without compliance with our law; but if you would have us Jews live with you, as we do with one another, that is, if you would in all respects be treated by us as Jews, you must live as fuch yourfelves." This, I think, was the com

2

pulfion

pulfion which St. Peter's conduct imposed upon the Gentiles, and for which St. Paul reproved him.

As to the part which the historian ascribes to St. Peter, in the debate at Jerufalem, befide that it was a different queftion which was there agitated from that which produced the dispute at Antioch, there is nothing to hinder us from fuppofing that the dispute at Artioch was prior to the confultation at Jerufalem; or that Peter, in confequence of this rebuke, might have afterwards maintained firmer fentiments,

CHAP.