Page images
PDF
EPUB

prove that the laws of the church expressly left every Christian to his liberty. This would avail little towards abating his estimation of their merit, or towards settling the point in controversy.*

* Mr. Locke's solution of this difficulty is by no means satisfactory. "St. Paul,” he says, "did not remind the Galatians of the "apostolic decree, because they already had it." In the first place, it does not appear with certainty that they had it; in the second place, if they had it, this was rather a reason, than otherwise, for referring them to it. The passage in the Acts, from which Mr. Locke concludes that the Galatic churches were in possession of the decree, is the fourth verse of the sixteenth chapter: "And as "they" (Paul and Timothy) "went through the cities, they "delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained "of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." In my opinion, this delivery of the decree was confined to the churches to which St. Paul came, in pursuance of the plan upon which he set out, of "visiting the brethren in every city where he had "preached the word of the Lord;" the history of which progress, and of all that pertained to it, is closed in the fifth verse, when the history informs us that "so were the churches established in "the faith, and increased in number daily." Then the history proceeds upon a new section of the narrative, by telling us that "when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Ga"latia, they assayed to go into Bithynia." 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 observation of the noble author [Lord Barrington] of the Miscellanea 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 sixteenth chapter ought to follow the last verse of the fifteenth, so as to make the entire passage run thus: "And they "went through Syria and Cilicia" (to the Christians of which countries the decree was addressed)," confirming the churches; "and as they went through the cities, they delivered them the "decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders "which were at Jerusalem; and so were the churches established "in the faith, and increased in number daily." And then the sixteenth chapter takes up a new and unbroken paragraph: "Then came he to Derbe and Lystra," &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 Jerusalem, which pre-supposed Christianity to be known, and which related to certain doubts that had arisen in some established Christian communities.

The second reason which Mr. Locke assigns for the omission of the decree, viz. "that St. Paul's sole object in the epistle, was to

(iii.) Another difficulty arises from the account of Peter's conduct towards the Gentile converts at Antioch, as given in the epistle, in the latter part of the second chapter; which conduct, it is said, is consistent neither with the revelation communicated to him, upon the conversion of Cornelius, nor with the part he took in the debate at Jerusalem. But, in order to understand either the difficulty or the solution, it will be necessary to state and explain the passage itself. [ii. 11..14.] "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 circumcision; “and the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, in"somuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their "dissimulation: but when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel, I said "unto Peter, before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest "after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, "why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the "Jews?" Now the question that produced the dispute to which these words relate, was not whether the Gentiles were capable of being admitted into the Christian covenant; that had been fully settled: nor was it whether it should be accounted essential to the profession of Christianity that they should conform themselves to the law of Moses; that was the question at Jerusalem: 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

[ocr errors]

"acquit himself of the imputation that had been charged upon him "of actually preaching circumcision," does not appear to me to be strictly true. It was not the sole object. The epistle is written in general opposition 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 necessary part of the design of his letter, but was not the whole of it.

history. He might consider the vision at Joppa as a direction for the occasion, rather than as universally abolishing the distinction between Jew and Gentile; I do not mean with respect to final acceptance with God, but as to the manner of their living together in society: 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 Jerusalem, who still adhered to their ancient prejudices. But Peter, it is said, compelled the Gentiles 'Loudate why

66

66

compellest 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 society. By which he may be understood to have made this declaration: "We do not deny your right to "be considered as Christians; 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 such yourselves." This, I think, was the compulsion which St. Peter's conduct imposed upon the Gentiles, and for which St. Paul reproved him.

66

66

As to the part which the historian ascribes to St. Peter, in the debate at Jerusalem, beside that it was a different question which was there agitated from that which produced the dispute at Antioch, there is nothing to hinder us from supposing that the dispute at Antioch was prior to the consultation at Jerusalem; or that Peter, in consequence of this rebuke, might have afterwards maintained firmer sentiments.

[Note on p. 86.—With some reluctance I stop here to remark what appears a singular oversight as to the geography of Palestine. When St. Paul arrived in Cæsarea, he had actually gone (A. xii. 19. xxi. 8. 10.) through Judea in his way; and even if the same regard to his personal safety which carried him to Cæsarea had allowed the continuance of his journey by land, it was through part of Samaria and through Phoenice (A. xv. 2, 3.) he must have travelled, before he could pass through Syria; so that his going

onward from Cæsarea by land could, bear no relation whatever to his being either known or unknown by face to the churches in Judea. It is true, also, that if St. Paul had proceeded by land from Cæsarea onward, he would have gone through the regions of Syria and Cilicia, in the very order which the epistle exhibits; whereas, if he went by sea to Tarsus in the first instance, he would of course visit Cilicia before he visited Syria. But merely from the different order in which St. Paul, long afterwards, writing to the Galatians, names those two regions, it would be quite idle to draw any conclusion as to the fact itself. On some occasions, to be sure, where the context demands it, the order of travel, as "Macedonia and Achaia," (A. xix. 21.) must regulate the order of mention also. Otherwise, as in the case before us, where no such necessity directed, and under a tacit reference, perhaps, to Antioch or Jerusalem as the central point, it would be more natural for St. Paul to place Syria and Cilicia in that very succession than in the contrary.]

CHAP. VI.

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

66

No. I.

THIS epistle, and the Epistle to the Colossians, appear to have been transmitted to their respective churches by the same messenger: "But that ye also may know my "affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and "faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things; whom I have sent unto you for the 66 same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, and that "he might comfort your hearts." (Eph. vi. 21, 22.) This text, if it do not expressly declare, clearly, I think, intimates, that the letter was sent by Tychicus. The words made use of in the Epistle to the Colossians are very similar to these, and afford the same implication that Tychicus, in conjunction with Onesimus, was the bearer of the letter to that church: "All my state shall Tychicus "declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a

66

"faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord; whom "I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts; with "Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one "of you they shall make known unto you all things "which are done here." (Colos. iv. 7-9.) Both epistles represent the writer as under imprisonment for the gospel; and both treat of the same general subject. The Epistle therefore to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to the Colossians, import to be two letters written by the same person, at, or nearly at, the same time, and upon the same subject, and to have been sent by the same messenger. Now, every thing in the sentiments, order, and diction of the two writings corresponds with what might be expected from this circumstance of identity or cognation in their original. The leading doctrine of both epistles is the union of Jews and Gentiles under the Christian dispensation; and that doctrine in both is established by the same arguments, or, more properly speaking, illustrated by the same similitudes: "one head," one body," one new man, one temple,” are in both epistles the figures, under which the society of believers in Christ, and their common relation to him as such, is represented. The ancient, and, as had been thought, the indelible distinction between Jew and Gentile, in both

66

66

99.66

St. Paul, I am apt to believe, has been sometimes accused of inconclusive reasoning, by our mistaking that for reasoning which was only intended for illustration. He is not to be read as a man, whose own persuasion of the truth of what he taught, always or solely depended upon the views under which he represents it in his writings. Taking for granted the certainty of his doctrine, as resting upon the revelation that had been imparted to him, he exhibits it frequently to the conception of his readers under images and allegories, in which if an analogy may be perceived, or even sometimes a poetic resemblance be found, it is all perhaps that is required.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »