"these four things at prefent:" and then have added those reasons to enforce their advice, fo ingenioufly contrived by Spencer; and in which the whole force of that advice muft have lain. But Spencer's hypothefis is not only entirely unfupported from the text, and against fome hints in it, from the then ftate of things; but directly against St. Paul's express affertions elsewhere. For fo far is he from telling the Corinthians, that they must not ufe any meats or drinks that had been offered to idols, because they are the enticements, the concomitants and marks of idolatry, and therefore to be abftained from in that early age of the christian religion; that he allows the Corinthians to eat meat offered to the idols, which was fold in the shambles, and at private tables, and even in the idols temple f; and only forbids the use of them in profeffed honour and worship of an idol ; in cafe of hardening an idolater; or in cafe of fcandal to weak chriftians: which fingle confideration alone deftroys Spencer's scheme. But I fhall speak more fully to this point under the IXth head. These abstinences therefore cannot be called neceffary to any Gentile chriftian, on these reasons, or on any other, d I Cor. iv. 25. but only that of their being enjoined by Mo fes's law to fome Gentiles; namely, the profelytes of the gate: fo that the church of Jerufalem advifes the profelytes, who were become chriftians, against the use of those things which were forbidden to them by the law of Mofes, but not against the use of those things which, however they might be forbid❤ den to the Jews, were allowed them; as fwines flesh, or any of the other unclean meats forbidden by that law to the Jews, but not to the profelytes of the gate. Nor do they decree against the use of any thing that died of itself, or that was torn of beasts (though the blood was in a thing that died of itself altogether as much as in that that was ftrangled, and in that which was torn by beafts perhaps almost as much), because that was not forbidden to a profelyte of the gate by the law of Mofes k.' VI. This is the only hypothefis that makes the answer given by the church of Jerufalem to the question fent from the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch, &c. exprefs, direct, fimple, and pertinent; or that makes the question and anfwer ad idem. The question is," Are "the Gentiles that are now converted to christianity, in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (or, in other words, are the profelytes of the gate converted to chriftianity, in Antioch, k Lev. xvii. 15. Deut. xiv, 21. 66 66 66 “Syria, 86 Syria, and Cilicia), bound by Mofes's law?" The answer, as it is reprefented by fome, is, "All Gentile chriftians are bound by the law “of nature to abstain from pollutions of idols, things ftrangled, blood, and fornication." As it is reprefented by others, it is, "All "Gentile Chriftians are bound by the seven "precepts of Noah, to abftain from them." Again, as it is reprefented by others, it is, "All Gentile chriftians are bound to abstain "from them, by rules of chriftian prudence, "whilst such a state of things lasts." Whereas, as nothing of all this is ever mentioned or hinted at in the anfwer; fo it can never be made to relate to the queftion (as any one may easily perceive) but by a very remote implication, and that not without great learning; and at laft appears too laboured for truth. Let any one read Spencer's Differtation on this decree, and fee if it does not appear fo to him; though it is fet off to the greatest advantage by that able writer. Whereas, if the anfwer be this, "The profelytes of the gate are bound by those laws "of Mofes after their converfion to chriftianity by which they were bound before, "and by no others;" it is the most clear, fimple, express, and pertinent, that could poffibly be given to the question. 46 66 VII. But it will put it past doubt, that the decree related only to the profelytes of the gate gate converted to christianity, if it appears that the converfion of the idolatrous Gentiles was not known at Jerufalem at the time of this decree. I have faid a good deal, that may ferve to this purpose, in the Third Essay; but I will repeat fome things here that I said there (they being very material to my view at prefent) rather than give the leaft interruption to the thoughts of the reader, by turning him thither; where what I have faid, that is to my prefent purpose, is applied to another. St. Paul tells the Galatians, that, at this time of his going up to Jerufalem, "he "went up by revelation," or fpecial direction (that is, to himself immediately, or to fome in the church of Antioch); and, as I think is plainly implied, to communicate the gofpel which he preached to the Gentiles (that is, the faith of Chrift, with an entire freedom from all the laws of Mofes, which I have proved to be the meaning of the Gentile gofpel in the Second Effay), to the three chief apostles, James, Peter, and John; though but only privately to them, "left by any means "he fhould run, or had run, in vain;" that is, left the furious oppofition, that would have been given him by the Jewith chriftians, bigoted to their own law, and violently fet against the idolatrous Gentiles (to whom they would not fo much as have Chrift preached, even after this; as St. Paul tells the Theffa ESSAY IV. 305 Theffalonians'; left, I fay, this perverfeness of the Jewish chriftians fhould have raised an oppofition to the preaching the gospel to the idolatrous Gentiles", and have been a means of obftructing the propagation of the gospel among the Jewish believers, or an occafion of their apoftacy from it. But whether there was any revelation that Paul should communicate his gofpel to thefe three apostles, and them only, or no, as well as to go up to Jerufalem; yet it is certain, that he acquaints the Galatians, that in fact he did at this time first communicate that gofpel to these three apoftles, and to them alone; or, which is the fame thing, that he communicated it to them privately: the words are, ̓Ανέβην ἢ κατὰ ἀποκάλυ ψιν ἢ ἀνέθεμεν αὐτοῖς, fcil. ἀπόςολοις, of whom he had before spoken"; or rois doneσ, which immediately follows. For there is nothing elfe that alors can refer to, either of any thing that goes before, or follows after. For "them" can never be referred to Jerufalem°; and the fense must be," and I communicated to "them," namely, the apoftles, "the gospel "which I preach among the Gentiles, but "to them that were of reputation (only), privately;" or elfe the fenfe muft be, and I "communicated to them (namely, which "were of reputation) the gofpel, which I I Theff. ii, 16. m Gal. ii. I-II. Chap. i. 17, 19. • Ibid. ii. I. |