againft St. Paul, that he taught all men "every where against the people, and "the law, and the temple." But it was a falfe accufation; and one that was fo injurious to him, that, by the advice of James and all the elders, he was to fhew by a vow (the only voluntary part of the Jewish polity) that he did not teach the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forfake" Mofes, cir cumcifion, and the customs; but that he "himself walked orderly," as one, who acknowledged himself subject to the law and the common ufage of the Jews (not indeed as the law of the kingdom which God had fet up under Chrift in the world, but as the law of God, as King and Governor of the Jewish nation); and that he kept the law accordingly. He therefore fays, " He went up "to Jerufalem for to worship; and that the Jews of Afia found him purified in the temple f;" and afterwards afferts, " that he had "not offended against the law 8." Thus, "unto the Jews, he became a Jew; and to "them that are under the law, as under the "law" (as by preaching the Gentile gospel he became fo without the law, as a Jew being without the law); being, as a Jew, according to the Chriftian religion itself, as much subject to the higher powers of Judæa, f Acts xxiv. 11, 18. Y Ibid. xxv. 8. xxvii. 17. as as the Romans were to those of Rome 1. On this account it was, that Timothy was circumcifed, being a Jew, his mother being a Jewefs, tho' his father was a Greek. For «Partus fequitur ventrem" was then a certain maxim among the Jews as well as the Romans; whilft St. Paul would not allow Titus a Greek to be circumcifed, and declares in the strongest terms to the Galatians who were Gentiles, that "if ye be circumcifed, "Chrift fhall profit you nothing," is become of no effect to you, for that ye are fallen "from grace!" If the Jewish Christians had fubmitted to the law of Moses otherwise than as to the civil law of their country, I do not fee but fubmitting to it must have been as fatal to their fouls as to the fouls of the Galatians. Thus therefore we fee this precept ftrictly pursued by St. Paul, that if they were Jews and fubject to the law, they were to remain Jews and fubject to the law; and if Gentiles, or free from the law, they were to continue Gentiles, or free from it. And tho' the occafion did not lead St. Paul here to add, “Art thou called a profelyte of "the gate? continue a profelyte of the gate;" yet his reasoning holds as ftrong in the cafe of the profelytes of the gate, for their conti nuing fo, as it does in the cafe of the Jews, or of the idolatrous Gentiles. 66 Confider Gal. ii. 12, 14. as an objection to this: "Peter eat with the Gentiles, and lived "after the manner of the Gentiles." Anfwer: Eating with the Gentiles is perhaps only a proverbial speech, fignifying to converfe with them; but does not neceffarily fignify eating unclean meats, which they did. This is confirmed by Gal. ii. 12. that "when the Jews came, Peter separated and withdrew.” It should feem therefore that, by eating, converfing and living familiarly is the only thing that is meant, fince that which is opposed to it is feparating and withdrawing. Hereby they treated them as unclean, as they were not righteous by the law. This was contrary to the truth of the gospel which he had preached to Cornelius. The tendency of this practice was to induce them to think, that juftification was by the works of the law, and not by the faith of Jefus Chrift, which was deftroying the things he had built; and, being contrary to his own perfuafion,, which was, "that a man was to be justified by faith, and "not by the works of the law," was a grofs diffimulation and hypocrify, and well deferved the reprimand Paul gave him. But, 2dly, if eating with the Gentiles and living after the Luke xv. 1. See Acts xi. 3. manner manner of the Gentiles fignifies laying aside all obfervance of Mofes's laws about eating, yet Peter is not here juftified for that, but only blamed that he, who had gone fuch a length in laying afide all regard to the law, before the decree came from James, fhould now go to the other extreme, and entirely withdraw and feparate from all communion and converfation with them; and Paul might mention both these extremes, to fhew Peter's inconfiftency and prevarication the more glaringly. If it be faid, But why did not Paul tell the Galatians that he blamed the laying afide all regard for the law, if that was blameworthy, as well as withdrawing afterwards? I answer, Because it was befide his purpose; which was, not to blame Peter, but to justify himself, and fhew the Galatians, that he was uniform in his preaching to the Gentiles a freedom from Mofes's law; and that he did not promise any other gospel to the Gentiles than what he had preached to them, as had been infinuated of him ". And he blames Peter no farther to the Galatians than was neceflary to his own defence. For this reafon, he here blames Peter for running from one extreme to the other; but does not blame him for the first extreme. The principal characters, and the very genius of the Chriftian religion, is an entire n Gal. i. 8. freedom freedom from the law of Mofes, and a reasonable service; that is, (as far as this is concerned) a fervice which does not debar us from any thing that has not a moral turpitude in it, or at least that is not too base and mean for a man who has the revelation of a fpiritual, glorious, and immortal life in the world to come. Now the explication I have given of this decree agrees perfectly with these characters; for it fhews, that these abstinences which are here enjoined are only enjoined on profelytes of the gate converted to the Chriftian faith, in virtue of the obedience they owed to the civil law of Paleftine. IX. I think this hypothefis recommends itfelf no lefs to us, because it entirely reconciles this decree, not only with St. Paul's entire filence about it to the idolatrous Gentiles in all his epiftles (which would be altogether unaccountable, if the decree related to any Gentile Chriftians but profelyted ones), but with feveral of his moft exprefs declarations in thofe epiftles, which are utterly inconfiftent with any scheme that makes the decree relate to idolatrous Gentile Chriftians: for he fays, that "nothing is "unclean of itself;" and afferts with the greatest affurance imaginable, "I know and • Rom. xiv. 14, 20. Y 3 66 am |