'ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." For since this quotation is composed 'out of Malachi [iii. 1.] and Isaiah [xl. 3.] he asks, how it comes to pass, that it is all said 'to be taken from Isaiah? To which question,' says Jerom, ecclesiastical writers have an'swered largely: but I am of opinion, that the name of Isaiah has been added through the 'fault of the transcribers of the gospels.' Hence, I think, it appears, that Porphyry had read the gospels with care, and that he did not. overlook any advantage against them. a Jerom has considered this point elsewhere. We hence perceive, that at that time the name of Esaias was read in St. Mark as well as in St. Matthew: whereas now in St. Mark it is in the prophets. Concerning this various reading divers learned moderns may be consulted. Once more. It appears from the homily of an ancient anonymous writer, that this objection of Porphyry was in the fourteenth book of his work against the Christians. 9. Jerom, writing against Vigilantius, who disliked the excessive veneration then paid to the martyrs, and did not give credit to every miracle said to be wrought by their reliques, useth these expressions: Unless, says he, after the manner of the Gentiles, and the impious Porphyry ' and Eunomius, you pretend that these are only artifices of the dæmons, and that the dæmons 'do not complain, but only feign themselves to be tormented.' It is likely that Jerom here refers to some disagreeable reflections, which Porphyry had made upon our Lord's cure of the dæmoniacs in the country of the Gadarenes, or elsewhere. See Matt. viii. 29. Mark v. 7. Luke viii. 28. and Mark i. 23, 24. Luke iv. 33, 34. 10. Theophylact, in his Commentary upon the beginning of St. John's gospel, has these expressions: So that the sophism of that Gentile writer, Porphyry, falls to the ground. He, ⚫ endeavouring to overthrow the gospel, makes use of these divisions. If," says he, "the Son of God be Word, he must be either outward word, or inward word." [That is, reason, thought, or speech]. "But he is neither this, nor that. Therefore he is not Word."' Upon which Theophylact observes, that such divisions may be made use of concerning us, and other natural things, but have no place among things supernatural. 11. In a work of Jerom against the Pelagians we find this passage. • Our 'Lord says to his 'brethren, that he should not go up to the feast of tabernacles. John vii. 8. And yet afterwards it is written: "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he up also to the feast, not 'openly, but as it were in secret." ver. 10. He said he would not go and yet he went. Here Porphyry barks, charging our Lord with fickleness and inconstancy.' g We now read in ver. 8. "I go not yet up to the feast." But from this place of Jerom, as well as from the quotations of other ancient authors, it appears, that the common reading then was: "I go not up to the feast." Upon which divers learned men may be consulted. Supposing that to be the true reading, I see not any reason for the charge of inconstancy, or of our Lord's altering his intention. The context shews, that he had spoke of deferring his journey to Jerusalem for a short time: not that he had resolved not to go at all to the feast. He went to the feast; and he always intended so to do: but he went not up to that feast so soon, nor so publickly, as he did at some other seasons: and he assigns the reason of that conduct, which may be seen ver. 6, and 7. 12. In his Commentary upon Joel ii. 28-31. Which words are quoted by St. Peter, Acts ii. 16-20. Jerom speaking of the apostles' way of arguing: Not,' says he, that a De optimo genere interpretandi. Ad Pamm. ep. 33. al. 101. T. iv. P. 2. p. 253. b Mill. et Wetst. et Bez. in loc. Incertus auctor homiliæ de principio Evangelii secundum Marcum inter opera Chrysostomi, Locum istum, inquit, impius ille Porphyrius in quarto decimo volumine disputat, et dicit: Evangelista tam imperiti fuerunt homines, non solum in secularibus, sed etiam in scripturis divinis, ut testimonium, quod alibi scriptum est, de alio ponerent Prophetâ. Citat. ap. Wetsten. in loc. Vid. et Bez, in loc. d Spiritus ille immundus, qui hæc te cogit scribere, sæpe hoc vilissimo tortus est pulvere: imo hodieque torquetur, et qui in te plagas dissimulat, in cæteris confitetur; nisi forte in morem Gentilium, impiorumque Porphyrii et Eunomii, has præstigias dæmonum esse confingas, et non vere clamare dæ h monas, sed sua simulare tormenta. Adv. Vig.T. iv. P. ii. p. 286. • Ωςε διαπεπίωκε το Ελληνος Πορφυριο το σοφισμα. Εκείνος γαρ αναίρεπειν πειρωμενος το ευα/γελιον, τοιαυταις εχρητο διαιρε σεσιν. E γαρ λογος, φησιν, ὁ Υἱος τε Θε8, ητοι προφορικός εσιν, η ενδιαθείος αλλα μην είε τείο, ετε εκείνο. Ουκ άρα δε λογος ESIV. Theoph. p. 558. A. f Negat fratribus et propinquis, ire se ad Scenopagiam. Et postea scriptum est: Ut autem ascenderunt fratres ejus, tum et ipse ascendit.—Iturum se negavit, et-fecit quod prius negaverat. Latrat Porphyrius: inconstantiæ ac mutationis accusat -Hieron. adv. Pelag. lib. ii. T. iv. p. 521. Vid. in loc. Mill. Wetst. Bez. Grot. &c. h Non quod abuterentur audientium simplicitate et imperitiâ, ut impius calumniatur Porphyrius. In Joël cap. 2. Tom. iii. p. 1359. they abused the simplicity and ignorance of their hearers, as the impious Porphyry in 'sinuates.' However, I do not affirm, that Porphyry referred to this place of the Acts; he might refer to some other: and possibly, often said such things of the apostles, or some of them. 13. In another place Jerom, speaking of the charity of the first believers at Jerusalem, and of the behaviour of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, Acts v. 1-14. has this observation: Lastly, the apostle Peter by no means imprecates death to them, as the foolish Porphyry [or, а as in some MSS. philosopher,] calumniates: but by the prophetic spirit declares the judgment of God, that the punishment of two persons might be an instruction to many.' 14. Gal. i. 15, 16. "But when it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, I conferred not with flesh and blood." b I know,' says Jerom in his comment upon this text, that many so understand this expression of the apostle. And Porphyry likewise objects, that after the revelation of Christ, Paul did not vouchsafe to go to any men, to confer with them, lest, truly, after having been taught by God, he should receive instruction from flesh and blood. But E 'can never persuade myself to think, that by flesh and blood are to be understood Peter, • James and John.' 6 But, notwithstanding that judgment of Jerom, I suppose, that still most will be of opinion, that in the expression flesh and blood, are intended all men, not excluding the greatest apostles. Compare this with ver. 12. "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." And see ver. 17, 18. There can be no question made, but that Porphyry had an eye to these passages of the epistle to the Galatians. 15. Gal. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14. St. Paul says: "But 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 I saw, that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all? In the preface to his Commentary upon the epistle to the Galatians, Jerom speaks thus of this matter. The wicked Porphyry not understanding this, in the first book of his work against us, objects, that Peter was reproved by Paul: that he did not proceed uprightly in preaching the gospel aiming thereby to affix the blot of a mistake upon the one, and of peevishness upon "the other. And hence he argues the falsehood of the whole doctrine, as if it were a mere invention, since the heads of the churches disagreed.' d In his Commentary upon the words above quoted, Jerom says, that some think Cephas, whom Paul withstood to the face, was not the apostle Peter, but another of the same name, possibly, one of the seventy disciples. They argued, that Peter could not withdraw from conversation with the Gentiles, who had baptized Cornelius. They argued likewise from the defence he made of what he had done at the house of Cornelius, when “ they of the 'circumcision at Jerusalem contended with him," as recorded Acts xi. 1-18. They_also *said, that St. Luke in the Acts makes not any mention of this dissention; nor that Peter ' and Paul ever were together at Antioch. They also insisted, that there would be an advantage 'given to Porphyry, if it were allowed, either that Peter erred, or that Paul peevishly confuted a Denique et Apostolus Petrus nequaquam imprecatur eis mortem, ut stultus Porphyrius [MSS. Philosophus] calumniatur: sed Dei judicium prophetico spiritu annuntiat, ut pœna duorum hominum sit doctrina multorum. Ad Demetriad. ep. 97. al. S. T. iv. p. 792. Scio, plerosque de apostolis hoc dictum arbitrari. Nam et Porphyrius objicit, quod post revelationem Christi non fuerit dignatus ire ad homines, et cum iis conferre sermonem; ne, post doctrinam videlicet Dei, a carne et sanguine instrueretur. Sed absit, ut ego Petrum et Jacobum et Johannem carnem et sanguinem putem. In ep, ad Gal. cap. i. p. 233 Quod nequaquam intelligens Bataneotes, et sceleratus ille Porphyrius in primo operis sui adversus nos libro, Petrum a Paulo objecit esse reprehensum, quod non recto pede incederet ad evangelizandum; volens et illi maculam erroris inurere, et huic procacitatis; et in commune ficti dogmatis accusare mendacium, dum inter se ecclesiarum principes discrepent. Pr. in ep. ad Gal. p. 223. Sunt qui Cephan, cui hic in faciem Paulus restitisse se scribit, non putent Apostolum Petrum, sed alium de septuaginta discipulis, isto vocabulo nuncupatum. Et dicunt, nequâquam Petrum a convictu Gentium se potuisse subtrahere, qui et Centurionem Cornelium baptizâratet locum dari Porphyrio blasphemanti, si aut Petrus errâsse, aut Paulus procaciter Apostolorum principem confutâsse credatur. Quibus primum respondendum, alterius nescio cujus Cephæ nescire nos nomen, nisi ejus qui in Evangelio, et in aliis Pauli epistolis, et in hac quoque ipsâ modo Čephas modo Petrus scribitur -Ad extremum, si propter Porphyrii blasphemiam alius nobis fingendus est Cephas, ne Petrus putetur errâsse, infinita de Scripturis radenda divinis, quæ ille, quia non intelligit, criminatur. Sed adversum Porphyrium in alio, si Christus jusserit, opere pugnabimus. Nunc reliqua prosequamur. In ep. ad Gal. ib. p. 244. the chief of the apostles. To all which Jerom answers, that he knows not of any Cephas, but him who is mentioned in the gospels, and in other epistles of Paul, and in this same epistle, and is sometimes called Cephas, sometimes Peter. And after considering the other just ' mentioned arguments, he concludes: Finally, if because of Porphyry's blasphemy, another Cephas must be invented, lest Peter should be thought to have erred, innumerable passages 'must be struck out of the divine scriptures; which he finds fault with, because he does not ' understand them.' Jerom occasionally refers to this objection of Porphyry in his Commentary upon the fiftythird chapter of Isaiah. a In a letter to Augustine upon this subject, Jerom tells him, how he and others had asserted ⚫ the prudence of the apostles, and restrained the impudence of the blaspheming Porphyry, who says, that Peter and Paul had a childish quarrel with one another; and that Paul burned with envy at the virtues of Peter, and had written in a boasting manner of things, which either he never did; or if he did, it was mere peevishness to blame that in another which he had been 'guilty of himself.' Here we might wish to see Porphyry himself in his own words. But there seems to have been a reference to several things said by Paul in other epistles, besides this to the Galatians : in the last words of the passage thus transcribed, I think it plain, that there is a reference to what is said by Paul 1 Cor. ix. 20. "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:" and, perhaps, to some other like texts: and, possibly, he had also a regard to several things done by St. Paul, and related by St. Luke in the Acts; such as his circumcising Timothy, Acts xvi. 1-8. his vow at Cenchrea, ch. xviii. 18: and to what he did at Jerusalem by the advice of St. James. xxi. 20-28. 6 Jerom had before spoken of this matter in another place of the same epistle to Augustine: telling him, that others before him had explained the conduct of the two apostles in the same • manner that he had done, in answer to the blasphemous Porphyry, who charged Paul with 'peevishness, in that he presumed to reprove the chief of the apostles, and dispute with him to the face, and tell him, that he was to be blamed, that is, was in an error: when he who reproved 'the other was as guilty himself." By all which, I think, we may perceive the force of Porphyry's argument upon this point. He supposed Peter to have taught, for a while at least, a different doctrine from Paul: and 'thence argued, that the religion taught by them could not be a revelation from heaven. Or, if 'Peter did not for a while teach a doctrine different from what himself had taught at other • times, and different from that generally taught by Paul, he was guilty of some improper com'pliance, for which he was blamed by Paul. But that Paul, if indeed he did reprove Peter at Antioch, as he boastingly says to the Galatians, ch. ii. he shewed therein pride, and envy, and 'peevishness; and was a very unfit reprover of another, when he had himself been guilty of the same fault, and had often complied in a like manner.' This seems to be the substance of Porphyry's observations upon this, and some other texts of scripture and undoubtedly he hence argued, that both Peter and Paul were deceivers, and impostors, and that the doctrine taught by them could not be a revelation from heaven. And it must be owned, that this has appeared a difficulty to many; and the solutions of learned Christians have been different: to me the case seems to be this. St. Peter never taught a doctrine different from himself, nor from St. Paul: but he was not uniform in his conduct. Once, at least, he complied too far with those believers of the Jews, a Ex quo, qui dispensatoriam inter Petrum et Paulum con- vel, si fecerit, procaciter fecerit, id in alio, reprehendens quod tentionem vere dicunt jurgium fuisse atque certamen, ut blas- ipse commiserit. Ad Augustin. ep. 74. al. 89. T. iv. P. ii. phemanti Porphyrio satisfaciant, et veteris legis cæremonias in p. 622. ecclesia Christi a stirpe credentis Israël asserunt esse servandas, debent et auream in mille annis exspectare Jerusalem.-In Is. cap. liii. T. iii. p. 388. b Ego, imo alii ante me exposuerunt causam quam putaverant, non officiosum mendacium defendentes, sicut tu scribis, sed ostendentes honestam dispensationem, ut et Apostolorum prudentiam demonstrarent, et blasphemantis Porphyrii impudentiam coërcerent, qui Paulum et Petrum puerili dicit inter se pugnâsse certamine; imo exarsisse Paulum in invidiam virtutum Petri, et ea scripsisse jactanter, quæ vel non fecerit, Hanc autem explicationem, quam primus Origenes in decimo Stromateôn libro, ubi epistolam Pauli ad Galatas interpretatur, et cæteri deinceps interpretes sunt secuti, illâ vel maxime causâ introducunt, ut Porphyrio respondeant blasphemanti, qui Pauli arguit procacitatem, quod principem Apostoloruni Petrum ausus est reprehendere, et arguere in faciem, ac ratione constringere, quod male fecerit, id est, in errore fuerit; in quo fuit ipse, qui alium arguit delinquentem. Ibid. p. 619. who were for imposing circumcision, and the other rites of the law, upon the Gentiles, as necessary to salvation. As St. Paul says, Gal. ii. 11. "When Peter was at Antioch, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when some came from Jerusalem, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." Herein, out of fear of offending others, Peter acted contrary to his own judgment: therefore Paul calls it dissimulation, and shews the bad consequence of such conduct; and that it implied the necessity of the Gentiles being circumcised in order to obtain salvation, and to the having communion with the Jewish believers. "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 the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews: why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Literally, to judaize, 2 that is, to become Jews, and observe all the rights of the law of Moses, as necessary to salvation. That never was Peter's doctrine: but it was the tendency of his late conduct at Antioch, for which Paul now reproved him: and undoubtedly Peter submitted and acquiesced, and never more prevaricated in his conduct in the like manner. Augustine says exactly as I have done and I place his words below. b a St. Paul's doctrine was always the same; and his conduct was ever uniform and consistent. He always said, that circumcision was not necessary, or available, in any, to justification and salvation. He never said, that it was sinful or unlawful in any. To the Galatians he writes, ch. v. 2, 3, 4. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify unto every man that is circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you. Whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. It is plain, that he is here speaking of such as expected to be justified by the law; who embraced circumcision, as necessary to acceptance with God and eternal salvation. Such men departed from the grace of the gospel, and could have no benefit by it: they came under an obligation to observe all the rituals of the Mosaic law; and if they did not obey the law in all things, they exposed themselves to a curse, as he shews, ch. iii. 10. In the fifth chapter at ver. 6, he says: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith, which worketh by love." And afterwards, in the same epistle, vi. 15, 16. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." And 1 Cor. vii. 18, 19. "Is any man called circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not become circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but keeping the commandments of God." That was St. Paul's doctrine; and his conduct was agreeable to it. The same was the doctrine of Peter, and of all the apostles, though Peter once deviated from it in his conduct, as we have seen. What was Peter's doctrine, we learn (not now to argue from his epistles, as we might) from his speech at Jerusalem: Acts xv. wherein he plainly declares, as Paul does, that the works of the law are of no avail either to Jews, or Gentiles, in point of justification with God: for with these words he concludes that speech: ver. 11. "But we believe, that through • Τι τα εθνη αναγκάζεις ισδαΐζειν ; That word is explained in Vol.iii. Chap. 18. sect. iii. near the end. To which I would now add Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. cap. 10. Alomov 851 Xpisov Ιησεν καλείν, και ιδδαΐζειν. b Quapropter non ideo Petrum emendavit, quod paternas traditiones observaret. Quod si facere vellet, nec mendaciter, nec incongrue faceret. Quamvis enim jam superflua, tamen solita non nocerent. Sed quoniam gentes cogebat judaïzare; quod nullo modo posset, nisi ea sic ageret, tamquam etiain post Domini adventuin necessaria saluti forent, quod vehementer per apostolatum Pauli veritas dissuasit. Nec aposto lus Petrus id ignorabat; sed id faciebat, timens eos qui ex circumcisione erant. Augustin. ap. Hieron. ep. 67. al. 87. T. iv. P. ii. p. 605. Proinde, si, post hoc Apostolorum decretum, Petrus habuit illam in Antiochia simulationem, quâ Gentes cogeret judaïzare, quod nec ipse cogebatur, quamvis propter commen danda eloquia Dei, quæ Judæis sunt credita, non prohibebatur; quid mirum, si constringeret eum Paulus libere asserere, quod cum cæteris Apostolis se Jerosolymis decrevisse me minerat. Si autem hoc, (quod magis arbitror) ante illud Jerosolymitanum Concilium Petrus fecit; nec sic mirum est, quod eum volebat Paulus non timide obtegere, sed fidenter asserere, quod eum pariter sentire jam noverat. Sive quod cum eo contulerat evangelium; sive quod, in Cornelii centurionis vocatione, etiam divinitus eum de hac re admonitum noverat; sive quod antequam illi, quos timuerat, venissent Antiochiam, cum Gentibus eum convesci viderat. Neque enim negamus, in hac sententiâ fuisse jam Petrum, in quâ et Paulus fuit. Non itaque tunc eum quod in eâ re verum esset dosebat, sed ejus simulationem, quà Gentes judaïzare cogebantur, arguebat, &c. August. ap. Hieron. ep. 76. al. 97. T. iv. p. 632, 633. the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we Jews shall be saved, even as they," the Gentiles. And see before ver. 8, 9, 10. and ch. x. 34, 35. and xi. 1-18. And compare this with words of St. Paul, Gal. ii. 15, 16. a Though St. Paul may be thought to have yielded to some Jewish prejudices in the several actions above mentioned, it had no such bad tendency as the behaviour of St. Peter at Antioch had as has been well shewn by Augustine in explaining 1 Cor. xi. 20. He says, that Paul practised some rites of the law, for shewing, that it was not sinful, even under the gospel, for Jews to observe the ordinances which they had received from their ancestors by means of the law. At the same time he taught them, that they should not place their hopes of salvation in • obedience to such ordinances; nor impose that yoke upon the Gentiles, as necessary to their 'salvation.' Augustine has particularly considered all those actions of Paul, which have been looked upon by some as unwarrantable compliances: to which also Porphyry may be supposed to have referred: his circumcising Timothy, his vow at Cenchrea, his conduct at Jerusalem. And he well shews, how they differed from Peter's behaviour at Antioch. What Peter did, implied the necessity of circumcision in order to salvation, which Paul constantly and earnestly opposed. By all his several compliances just mentioned, he only shewed, that he did not think the Jewish rites evil and sinful. I shall now observe only upon the last of those compliances, particularly related Acts xxi. 17-28. "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly, what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry." And what follows. с For it had been said at Jerusalem, that Paul, in all countries where he had been, "had taught, that the Jews ought not to circumcise their children:" that is, that it was sinful and unlawful for them so to do. This Paul had never done: and James, and the elders with him, were persuaded it was a false report: but for giving satisfaction to all, they advised him to join himself with some others then at Jerusalem, "who had a vow on them. Them take," say they, "and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads, and all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing." With that advice Paul complied: nor could it be of any bad consequence after what had passed, as related by St. Luke: that James and the elders rejoiced, and praised God for the apostle's success among the Gentiles; and declared, that no legal services were expected of • the Gentiles that believed.' After that, what Paul did only shewed, that it was not sinful for Jews to practise the rites and ceremonies of the law. Nothing then done by him was any prejudice to the doctrine, always, and every where, taught by him, that the observation of those rites was not necessary to salvation, nor at all available to any, whether Jews or Gentiles, to justification in the sight of God. As Augustine says: The apostles in their council at Jerusalem had agreed, that no man ought to compel the Gentiles to judaïze. They did not decree, that any man should forbid the Jews to judaïze: though the Christian doctrine did not require that < even of them.' Sed ideo susceperat ea celebranda, quum jam Christi esset Apostolus, ut doceret non esse perniciosa his qui ea vellent, sicut a parentibus per legem acceperant, custodire, etiam cum in Christo credidissent; non tamen in eis jam constituerent spem salutis, quoniam per Dominum Jesum salus ipsa, quæ ipsis sacramentis significabatur, advenerat, ideoque Gentibus, quod insuetos a fide revocarent onere gravi et non necessario, nullo modo imponenda esse censebat. August. ap. Hieron. ep. 67. al. 87. T. iv. p. 605. b Ego quidem illud Petrum sic egisse, credo, ut Gentes cogeret judaïzare. Hoc enim lego scripsisse Paulùm, quem mentitum esse non credo: et ideo non recte agebat hoc Petrus. Erat enim contra evangelii veritatem, ut putarent, qui credebant in Christum, sine illis veteribus sacramentis salvos esse non posse. Hoc enim contendebant Antiochiæ, qui ex circumcisione crediderant. Contra quos Paulus perseveranter acriterque confligit. Ipsum vero Paulum non ad hoc egisse, VOL. IV. quod vel Timotheum circumcidit, vel Cenchreis votum per- Præsertim, quia in ipsis Jerosolymis Apostoli jam decreverant, ne quisquam Gentes cogeret judaïzare. Non autem decreverant, ne quisquam Judæos judaïzare prohiberet; quamvis etiam ipsos jam doctrina Christiana non cogeret. Aug. ib. p. 632. 2 H |