Revelation of the admission of Gentiles to dispensation naturally and judiciously confined the residue of his narrative. 138 39 I have remarked that St. Peter, at the time he was sent to the devout Gentiles, had no more intimation than the great body of the the Devout Church, that the Gospel was ever to be preached to the idolatrous Gentiles also. It may be observed, that Cornelius is particularly described as a devout Gentile, "who feared God with all his house." The representation under which he was announced to Peter, is that of "a righteous man, and one who feared God, and could appeal for his character to the whole nation of the Jews.' Peter, knowing all this, and having communicated personally with the good centurion, yet prefaces his address to those assembled in his house by saying, that he had hitherto considered such as he shut out from communion with God's people; but that God having declared the contrary, by telling him to call no man common or unclean, he had come to them without scruple. This shows that he understood his revelation as intended only to remove the barrier between the Jew and the proselyte of the gate, or mere believer in Jehovah. That he certainly considered the extension as proceeding no further, may be made more clear from the words which he exultingly uttered on the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and his household -words spoken in the rapture of the moment, and therefore the more likely to convey the liveliest impression which his mind had conceived of the liberality and unreservedness of the Spirit's dispensation. "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted by him.' This unquestionably limits his view to those of the Gentiles who had already renounced idolatry-in short, the devout Gentiles. It explains, also, in what sense he had understood the Divine communication made to him, that "what God had cleansed, it was not for him to call common;" namely, that, in every nation he who already feared God, and worked righteousness, and he only, had been cleansed and accepted by God. With the same sentiment, the Church of Jerusalem received his statement of what Acts xi. 18. had taken place, "glorifying God and saying, Then hath God also granted even to the Gentiles repentance unto life." In this sense, then, it will be necessary to consider the admission of the Gentiles to be spoken of, until the period when it shall appear that the Church became acquainted with the design of the Holy Spirit to offer baptism to the idolatrous Gentiles also. 38 Μαρτυρούμενος ὑπὸ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 39 "Edge. Is there not some probability that Cornelius, and the centurion, whose sick servant Jesus healed, were one and the same? Several points in the brief description of the latter coincide very closely with Cornelius's character and circumstances; e.g. that he was anxiously careful of his household, and was held in very high estimation by the Jews. Otherwise, too, it seems strange, that nothing further should have been noticed of one so promising, as to receive the Saviour's praise, "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."-Matt. viii. 10. 66 the Holy Another remark was, that on this occasion, as on one of the Visible greatest moment, the Holy Ghost manifested his descent by the Descent of same visible signs as on the day of Pentecost. To this conclusion Ghost. we are led by remarking, first, in the narrative of the event, " that the Holy Ghost fell on them," and was 'poured out on them;" expressions which could only properly apply to the above-mentioned extraordinary descent of the Holy Ghost. Again, as on the day of Pentecost, it was followed by an involuntary display of the gift of tongues, that gift which was especially denoted by the visible symbol of " tongues of fire." By this, no doubt, God gave now the same proof to the Jewish Christians, that the devout Gentiles were called, as he had before given to the unbelieving Jews, in favour of their converted brethren. And accordingly those believers of the circumcision who had come with Peter, were amazed at the gifts of the Holy Ghost having been poured out even on the Gentiles; for they heard them "speaking in divers tongues, and magnifying God. Lastly, St. Peter's words are decisive of the fact, that the mode of the Spirit's descent was the same as on the day of Pentecost; "The Acts xi, 15. Holy Ghost,' said he, "fell on them as on us at the beginning, putting no difference between them and us." It was further observed, as a solitary instance on record, that the Holy Ghost descended on the candidates for baptism before the ceremony was performed. This strongly confirms the view already taken of the extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit. They were for confirmation of its real but unseen and perpetual descent, and residence in the heart of every member of the Church in every age. Baptism, which was to be our perpetual rite of admission to this privilege, was not superseded by the miraculous signs; those signs were only hailed as a sanction for baptism, inasmuch as they proved that even the Gentiles were admissible to the mysterious and insensible influence of the Spirit through it. The signs were the appropriate miracles of God manifested by the Spirit; as healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, walking on the sea, raising the dead, and the like, were the miraculous evidence of God manifested in the flesh. When the apostles healed the sick and raised the dead, they did it by virtue of their appointment by Christ as his witnesses; but when they exercised the gifts of "tongues, of "wisdom," &c. or imparted any divine powers to others, they did so by virtue of their appointment by the Spirit. The one class of miraculous evidence exactly corresponds to the other. Nor is this correspondence diminished by the circumstance, that these gifts were also the means whereby the Holy Spirit taught and spread Christianity, but is rather increased thereby; for a like purpose did even the testimonial miracles wrought by our Saviour serve, as has been already, it is presumed, sufficiently proved and illustrated. Acts xi. 22. Acts xi. 19 21. First Gentile Church founded by Barnabas. A.D. 40. FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH. This second period of the Holy Spirit's dispensation does not require that we should pause long on any of the transactions which it embraces. Whilst the conversion of Cornelius was taking place, and indeed after Peter had made the Church acquainted with the new enactment of the Spirit respecting the devout Gentiles, those Christians who were scattered abroad still continued to call and to baptize only Jews. At length, certain converts of Cyprus and Cyrene having, doubtless, heard of Peter's revelation, boldly followed his example, and obeyed the command of their Divine Guide, in attempting the conversion of the Gentiles also. Going to Antioch of Syria, they there commenced their labours; "and the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great multitude believed and turned unto the Lord." On tidings of this being brought to the Church at Jerusalem, they took the matter into their own hands, and gave he was 66 directions for the formation of the first Gentile Church. The commission was intrusted to Barnabas, although, from the sacred narrative, it does not appear under what precise character he went. Little more is specified, than that he exhorted them to perseverance on his arrival, and, (as a reason probably for his appointment,) that a good man, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost. This description might merely imply, that being more highly and fully endowed with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, than the above-mentioned Cyprian and Cyrenian preachers, he was better fitted for the work of conversion. But when we also read that the hand of the Lord was already with these, and that the work prospered greatly under their management, this could hardly be the reason. What seems more likely is, that they had no presbyter among them, and that therefore their Church establishment was incomplete without one. Barnabas then might have been sent to them in that capacity. But Probably as a more probable reason still suggests itself. Is there not some ground to suppose that he went in the character of an apostle? In this case this higher office might supersede, and for a time render unnecessary, the inferior one of presbyter. What gives some show Acts xiv. 14. of plausibility to this is, that we know Barnabas had the title of apostle. If appointed as such, and in the same manner as the others, that appointment, as was before suggested, must have taken place at a period preceding this. Now we know that when Samaria was first converted, although he who instructed and baptized there was no less a person than Philip the deacon, yet the Church at Acts viii. 14. Jerusalem sent thither two apostles. The reason for sending these has been explained. It was because none but apostles could confer the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and these gifts or some of them were probably granted to all members of the infant Church. The instance of St. Paul regretting that he had not been able to visit the Roman converts for this purpose, was noticed in illustration an Apostle. of the truth of this statement. On so important a conversion, then, as this at Antioch, we are naturally led to expect the same procedure on the part of the Church of Jerusalem, as was observed in the conversion of Samaria. Finding it recorded that, as on that occasion, an official embassy was appointed to Antioch, we naturally expect that he whom they sent (doTEλav) should be an apostle, and that he should be sent for a similar purpose as Peter and John had been to Samaria. In Barnabas accordingly we find much which renders it by no means improbable that he was one, especially if viewed in connexion with the presumption arising out of that embassy. To all that has been already suggested, in accordance with this view, it may be added, that, for no reason assigned, Barnabas's name always precedes Paul's, although the latter was equally proved to be "full of the Holy Ghost," until by inflicting blindness on the sorcerer Elymas he displayed his evidence, that he was not only a minister of the Spirit, but one bearing a commission also from the Lord Jesus,-in short, an apostle.40 Does not this then seem to intimate, that up to that period Barnabas was treated as Paul's superior? Afterwards, we may observe, the order is not reversed, but sometimes the one name, sometimes the other, takes precedence. Doubtless, Paul's is thenceforward more frequently placed first; but this, if it affect the argument at all, only renders the circumstance noticed more remarkable. Supposing Barnabas to have been an apostle, a reason obviously suggests itself, why, in preference to the others, he should be chosen for this mission. "A Levite and of the country of Cyprus," is the Acts iv. 36. character under which he is first introduced to our notice. Belonging then to the numerous settlement of Jews in that island, he was naturally fixed on as the most proper apostle for converts who had received their first instruction and baptism from his fellow-countrymen, perhaps from his friends or acquaintance.* 40 Acts xiii. 8. He is however called a prophet in verse 1, perhaps because he is there described as exercising the office of prophet, which was no doubt comprehended in the apostolic commission. Eusebius (Lib. I. C. 12) suggests, that others besides the twelve must have been called apostles during our Lord's abode on earth. His conjecture is founded on St. Paul's account of the Resurrection, in the fifteenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. It must be confessed, however, that his interpretation of the passage is a forced one; and the notion is besides inconsistent with the indifferent use which is constantly made by the Evangelists of the terms the apostles " and the twelve." It is moreover expressly contradicted by St. Luke's assertion, (vi. 13,) "He chose twelve, whom he named apostles.' 66 41 In this view of the Church of Antioch, 41 the reader of the New Testament in the Among the circumstances which con Acts xiii 22; xxii. 17. A.D. 42. ST. PAUL'S REVELATION AND APPOINTMENT. To the establishment of the Church of Antioch, the first society which admitted the Gentiles as brethren and members of one Christian body, we may reasonably attribute the second burst of malignant feeling in the Jewish unbelievers towards their believing brethren. At their instance, Herod put to death James the brother of John; and his imprisonment of Peter, with the intent to execute him also, is said to have taken place, because he observed that the former "pleased the Jews." Peter, indeed, would at this time be naturally the chief object of their vengeance, and could have escaped from the fate which they had prepared for him only by the interposition of God's angel. On his deliverance from prison he left Jerusalem, as it is probable all the other apostles had already done. St. Paul, at least, when he undertakes to show the impossibility of his having received his instruction from the other apostles, instead of what he asserted to be the case, from Christ himself, and for this purpose enumerates his several visits 2 to Jerusalem, makes no firm this, it would be wrong to pass It may be regarded, by the way, as a 42 proof that the New Testament histories were not the production of an age much later than the facts they record, that in them the members of the Church are not called Christians; but are designated by the terms which that word gradually superseded. An argument similar to this has been suggested for the early date of the four Gospels, from the fact that our Lord is called in them Jesus, and Christ in the Epistles, as of later date. See "Dobbin's Antiquity of the Gospels." 42 St. Paul, after his conversion, appears to have visited Jerusalem five times. I. After his return from Arabia to Damascus, at which time he was introduced to Peter and James by Barnabas. -See Acts ix. 26, 28, and Gal. i. 18. No II. When he and Barnabas were sent from Antioch with the contribution. apostle was then at Jerusalem, but the management of affairs was left to the elders. It was during this visit that he probably received his revelation in the temple, as mentioned in 2 Cor. xii.-This visit is omitted in his Epistle to the Galatians. See Acts xi. 30. III. On his return from his first apostolical journey, when he went with Barnabas to consult the Church of Jerusalem, concerning the obligation of the Mosaic law on the Gentile Christians. It was during this visit that he communicated "his Gospel" privately to Peter, and James, and John.-See Acts xv. and Gal. ii. IV. When, in fulfilment of a vow made at Cenchræa, he went from Ephesus, and returned after a very short stay.Acts xviii. 18, 22. V. This was at the close of his third apostolical journey, when he went up to |