Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The Author alleges the fact here related, in the first place, -"As a farther proof, that human “errors have been blended with the pure word of "God, as contained in the Sacred Volume; and "that every part of it," (the New Testament as we now have it,)" was not given by divine infpiration and authority"

66

But what can poffibly be more ridiculous than this? If the fact here related really happened as St. Paul has related it; and the Author has not even fuggefted, that it did not, but fuppofes that it did, and objects to Peter on this very account; how can this relation prove, either that the New Teftament is corrupted, or that St. Paul did not write under the influence of divine fuperintendency? As far as the facts related in the New Teftament are concerned, the Divine Influence could have nothing more to do, than to fuggest when neceffary, fuch facts as there was caufe for relating; and to prevent the Apostles from relating any that had happened, in a manner different from that in which they did happen. To fuppofe therefore, as the Author does, that the fact here concerned is related as it really happened; and yet to allege this relation of it, as a proof that the New Teftament is corrupted; or at leaft that St. Paul did not write under the reftraining influence of Divine Superintendency; is a method of arguing, of which the Author, upon fecond thoughts, will be not a little ashamed.

But he further objects, that this inconfiftency between the conduct of Peter and Paul, is a proof that the Apostles could not be a fet of men chofen, by God to teach his will to mankind, and acting under his immediate influence and direction; becaufe fuch inconsistency obfervable in Them, must

*P. 321.

have

have a tendency to prevent the spreading of Chrif tianity and that it is evident, that either Peter or Paul acted improperly on this occafion, and consequently that One or the Other was not then infpired. From all which the inference he would draw is, That neither can what they have written in the Books of the New Testament be relied on, as coming from perfons who wrote under the fuperintending guidance of the Spirit of God +.

Now the truth is, we have no reason to fuppofe that Either of the Apoftles did act by inspiration in this affair; because it was a matter in which there was no neceffity for their being infpired, though they were really chofen by God to teach his revealed will to mankind.

To qualify them for this office nothing more was neceffary, than that they fhould be fecured from teaching any doctrine, or recommending any practice, as obligatory on the Difciples, and as coming from God, which they were not commiffioned fo to teach and recommend. In matters of mere prudence and difcretion they might still be left to the guidance of their own judgment; and such a matter That before us moft undoubtedly was.

The whole affair, as we learn from St. Paul's account of it in his Epistle to the Galatians, compared with the fifteenth Chapter of the Acts of the Apoftles, was this.

A great difpute had been raised at Antioch, by fome Jewish Converts; who had infifted, that it was neceffary for the Gentile Converts to be circumcifed, and to obferve the ceremonial of the Jewish Law. To put an end to this difpute, Paul and Barnabas had been fent from Antioch to the Apostles at Jerufalem; where, in a meeting of the Apostles, held on purpofe to confider this

[blocks in formation]

point, it had been publicly and finally determined, that this compliance of the Gentile Converts with the Jewish Law was not neceffary. At this meeting Peter had been one of the principal fpeakers in fupport of this determination ; fo that it is certain, Peter's fentiments that it was not neceffary for the Gentile Converts to comply with the Jewish ceremonial, must have been authentically known to all the Difciples at Antioch, from the time that Paul and Barnabas had returned thither, with the authoritative decree of the Apostles from Jerufalem, upon the point.

Soon after this Peter himself went to Antioch and agreeably to those fentiments he had expreffed in the late meeting of the Apostles, he even himfelf laid afide the obfervation of the Jewish diftinctions, and ate and converfed freely with the Gentile Converts there.

But when, foon after, fome Jewish Converts came thither from James at Jerufalem; having, as it fhould feem, fome reason to apprehend, that his own omiffion of the Legal Obfervances, as he was the Apostle of the Circumcifion, might give offence to Them; and thus in the end be productive of fome new contention between the two Sets of Difciples; he then left off eating with the Gentile Converts, and affociating with them; and, again obferved the diftinctions of the Mofaic Law.

In this Peter did nothing unlawful, nothing but what every few univerfally was permitted to do; and the circumftances in which he did it were. manifeftly fuch, that it is evident he could have no other defign in it, than to prevent mischief and diffenfion, between the Jewish Converts who were come from Jerufalem, zealous for the Law, and the Gentile Converts of Antiocb.

[ocr errors][merged small]

-But it happened, that the step which Peter took, merely it feems as a prudent compliance, was followed, in confequence of his example, not only by the Jewish Converts; among whom was even Barnabas himfelf, Paul's own companion in preaching the Gofpel; but by fome even of the Gentile Converts likewife: perhaps upon fome confused fuppofition, that it was a commendable, though not a neceffary compliance in them. To prevent the evils therefore, that might by degrees have arifen, from fuffering fuch a practice to take place; which might at length have produced opinions inconfiftent with the freedom and univerfality of the Gofpel Difpenfation; Paul thought it neceffary to remonstrate to Peter, that the effects which had eventually arifen, from the compli ance he had himself adopted, would in the end prove prejudicial to the common cause, the propagation of the true knowledge of the Gofpel.

Such was the inconfiftency in question, if it may be called an inconfiftency, between Peter and Paul. The ftep Peter had taken was a mere prudential compliance, with which infpiration had no concern; perfectly innocent in itself, and as far as we can judge well defigned; though in the event it proved, or perhaps was only likely to prove, productive of an inconvenience which he, it seems, did not apprehend.

Peter acted upon this occafion, as the whole circumstances of the case seem to fhew, on the felf-fame motives that Paul himself always acted upon; and in particular, when on account of the Jewish Converts, he himself publicly went through all the Legal Rites of purification at Jerufalem* ; and, more especially, when he even circumcifed Timothy t, as an expedient ftep to render His

[ocr errors]

*Acts xxi. 24, 26.

M 3

† Acts xvi. 3.

preaching

preaching more fuccessful among the JewsThough he refused to do the fame by Titus, when it was required as a neceffary act*.

All that Peter did, on this occafion, as far as appears, was the abridging himself of a liberty, which he not only might have used, but then actually had ufed, in that very place; merely for the fake of preferving peace, and avoiding offence. His fentiments, that fuch a compliance with the Mofaic Law was not neceffary, were fo authentically known, both from the public part he had taken in the council at Jerufalem, and from his not having observed it even himself upon his coming to Antioch; that it was very natural for him to fuppofe his own compliance with the Jews, who came from Jerufalem, could not lead any one into a mistake, either with refpect to the thing itself, or his own motive for fo complying with them. It happened otherwife; his example had an influence, which might in the end have been productive of ill effects; St. Paul reprefented this to him; and, from any thing that appears, we have no reafon to doubt, but that upon this expoftulation Peter took whatever fteps were proper to prevent the future mischiefs, which Paul apprehended.

But poffibly the Author may be inclined to afk, Why Peter himself did not take proper notice of the accidental inconvenience which was likely to arife, from his originally well meant compliance with the Jews; and act as was proper upon it; without staying till he was called to account for it by Paul? To which enquiry, for want of explicit information, I can only give him this conjectural anfwer; That perhaps he faw no ground to apprehend any ill confequence; perhaps none had yet followed, till the very time when Paul,

Gal. ii. 3.

(who

« AnteriorContinuar »