in contending with an anchorite, who should insist upon the superior holiness of a recluse, ascetic life, and the value of such mortifications in the sight of God, it would be to no purpose to prove that the laws of the church did not require these vows, or even to prove that the laws of the church expressly left every Christian to his liberty. This would avail little towards abating his estimation of their merit, or towards settling the point in controversy.* Another difficulty arises from the account of Peter's conduct towards the Gentile converts at Antioch, as given in the epistle, in the latter part of the second chapter; which conduct, it is said, is consistent neither with the revelation communicated to him, upon the conversion of Cornelius, nor with the part he took in the debate at Jerusalem. But, in order to understand either the difficulty or the solution, it will be *Mr. Locke's solution of this difficulty is by no means satisfactory. "St. Paul," he says, "did not remind the Galatians of the apostolic decree, because they already had it." In the first place, it does not appear with any certainty that they had it; in the second place, if they had it, this was rather a reason than otherwise for referring them to it. The passage in the Acts, from which Mr. Locke concludes that the Galatic churches were in possession of the decree, is the fourth verse of the sixteenth chapter: "And as they (Paul and Timothy) went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." In my opinion, this delivery of the decree was confined to the churches to which St. Paul came, in pursuance of the plan upon which he set out, "of visiting the brethren in every city where he had preached the word of the Lord;" the history of which progress, and of all that pertained to it, is closed in the fifth verse, when the history informs us that "so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily." Then the history proceeds upon a new section of the narrative, by telling us that "when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they assayed to go into Bithynia." The decree itself is directed to "the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia;" that is, to churches already founded, and in which this question had been stirred. And I think the observation of the noble author of the Miscellanea Sacra is not only ingenious but highly probable, namely, that there is in this place a dislocation of the text, and that the fourth and fifth verses of the sixteenth chapter ought to follow the last verse of the fifteenth, so as to make the entire passage run thus: "And they went through Syria and Cilicia (to the Christians of which country the decree was addressed), confirming the churches; and as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem; and so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily." And then the sixteenth chapter takes up a new and unbroken paragraph: "Then came he to Derbe and Lystra," etc. When St. Paul came, as he did into Galatia, to preach the gospel, for the first time, in a new place, it is not probable that he would make mention of the decree, or rather letter, of the church of Jerusalem, which presupposed Christianity to be known, and which related to certain doubts that had arisen in some established Christian communities. The second reason which Mr. Locke assigns for the omission of the decree, namely, "that St. Paul's sole object in the epistle was to acquit himself of the imputation that had been charged upon him of actually preaching circumcision," does not appear to me to be strictly true. It was not the sole object. The epistle is written in general opposition to the Judaizing inclination which he found to prevail among his converts. The avowal of his own doctrine, and of his stedfast adherence to that doctrine, formed a necessary part of the design of his letter, but was not the whole of it. necessary to state and explain the passage itself. “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 they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw 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?" Now the question that produced the dispute to which these words relate, was not whether the Gentiles were capable of being admitted into the Christian covenant; that had been fully settled nor was it whether it should be accounted essential to the profession of Christianity that they should conform themselves to the law of Moses; that was the question at Jerusalem: but it was, whether, upon the Gentiles becoming Christians, the Jews might henceforth eat and drink with them, as with their own brethren. Upon this point St. Peter betrayed some inconstancy; and so he might, agreeably enough to his history. He might consider the vision at Joppa as a direction for the occasion, rather than as universally abolishing the distinction between Jew and Gentile; I do not mean with respect to final acceptance with God, but as to the manner of their living together in society: at least, he might not have comprehended this point with such clearness and certainty, as to stand out upon it against the fear of bringing upon himself the censure and complaint of his brethren in the church of Jerusalem, who still adhered to their ancient prejudices. But Peter, it is said, compelled the Gentiles Ιουδαίζειν—“ Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" How did he do that? The only way in which Peter appears to have compelled the Gentiles to comply with the Jewish institution, was by withdrawing himself from their society. By which he may be understood to have made this declaration: "We do not deny your right to be considered as Christians; we do not deny your title in the promises of the gospel, even without compliance with our law: but if you would have us Jews live with you as we do with one another, that is, if you would in all respects be treated by us as Jews, you must live as such yourselves." This, I think, was the compulsion which St. Peter's conduct imposed upon the Gentiles, and for which St. Paul reproved him. As to the part which the historian ascribes to St. Peter in the debate at Jerusalem, beside that it was a different question which was there agitated from that which produced the dispute at Antioch, there is nothing to hinder us from supposing that the dispute at Antioch was prior to the consultation at Jerusalem; or that Peter, in consequence of this rebuke, might have afterwards maintained firmer sentiments. (†) CHAPTER VI. THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. No. 1.* THIS epistle, and the Epistle to the Colossians, appear to have been transmitted to their respective churches by the same messenger: "But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things; whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts," Ephes. vi. 21, 22. This text, if it do not expressly declare, clearly I think intimates, that the letter was sent by Tychicus. The words made use of by him in the Epistle to the Colossians are very similar to these, and afford the same implication that Tychicus, in conjunction with Onesimus, was the bearer of the letter to that church: "All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord; whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts; with Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, (t) See Hora Apost. cap. 11. No. Iv., where the sameness of the visit, in the book of Acts, and the Epistle, is placed, I conceive, on solid grounds of evidence. Among recent writers, Dr. Burton and Mr. Biley maintain their identity, while Mr. Browne (Ordo Seclorum), Mr. Greswell, in his Dissertations, and Canon Tate, in his Continuous History of St. Paul, suppose them to be distinct. These three writers, however, all disagree in their own hypothesis. The first identifies it with the journey in Acts xi., the second with the one in Acts xviii., and the third with a private journey, not mentioned by the historian, during the interval of Acts xiii. 28. The question is fundamental in the whole subject of the chronology of the book of Acts, besides its important bearing on the harmony of the epistle with the sacred history.-ED. "" 66 "" 66 66 who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here," Col. iv. 7-9. Both epistles represent the writer as under imprisonment for the gospel; and both treat of the same general subject. The Epistle therefore to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to the Colossians, import to be two letters written by the same person, at, or nearly at, the same time, and upon the same subject, and to have been sent by the same messenger. Now everything in the sentiments, order, and diction of the two writings, corresponds with what might be expected from this circumstance of identity or cognation in their original. The leading doctrine of both epistles is the union of Jews and Gentiles under the Christian dispensation; and that doctrine in both is established by the same arguments, or, more properly speaking, illustrated by the same similitudes :* “ one head,' one body," one new man, one temple," are in both epistles the figures under which the society of believers in Christ, and their common relation to him as such, is represented. The ancient, and, as had been thought, the indelible distinction between Jew and Gentile, in both epistles, is declared to be " now abolished by his cross." Beside this consent in the general tenor of the two epistles, and in the run also and warmth of thought with which they are composed, we may naturally expect, in letters produced under the circumstances in which these appear to have been written, a closer resemblance of style and diction, than between other letters of the same person but of distant dates, or between letters adapted to different occasions. In particular, we may look for many of the same expressions, and sometimes for whole sentences being alike; since such expressions and sentences would be repeated in the second letter, (whichever that was,) as yet fresh in the St. Paul, I am apt to believe, has been sometimes accused of inconclusive reasoning, by our mistaking that for reasoning which was only intended for illustration. He is not to be read as a man whose own persuasion of the truth of what he taught always or solely depended upon the views under which he represents it in his writings. Taking for granted the certainty of his doctrine, as resting upon the revelation that had been imparted to him, he exhibits it frequently to the conception of his readers under images and allegories, in which, if an analogy may be perceived, or even sometimes à poetic resemblance be found, it is all perhaps that is required. Ephes. i. 22 Colos. i. 18. + Compare iv. 15 with ii. 15 Ephes. ii. 14, 15 ii. 19. Also ii. 16 with ii. 20 i. 18-21. ii. 7. author's mind from the writing of the first. This repetition occurs in the following_examples :* Ephes. ch. i. 7. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins."† Colos. ch. i. 14. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." Besides the sameness of the words, it is further remarkable that the sentence is, in both places, preceded by the same introductory idea. In the Epistle to the Ephesians it is the "beloved" (hyarnμév); in that to the Colossians it is "his dear Son," (viou rñs áɣáπns avtoũ), "in whom we have redemption." The sentence appears to have been suggested to the mind of the writer by the idea which had accompanied it before. Ephes. ch. i. 10. "All things, both which are in heaven and which are on earth even in him."§ Colos. ch. i. 20. "All things by him, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."|| This quotation is the more observable, because the connecting of things in earth with things in heaven is a very singular sentiment, and found nowhere else but in these two epistles. The words also are introduced by describing the union which Christ had effected, and they are followed by telling the Gentile churches that they were incorporated into it. Ephes. ch. iii. 2. "The dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you ward."¶ Colos. ch. i. 25. "The dispensation of God, which is given to me for you.' "** Of these sentences it may likewise be observed that the accompanying ideas are similar. In both places they are immediately preceded by the mention of his present sufferings; in both places they are immediately followed by the mention of the mystery which was the great subject of his preaching. *When verbal comparisons are relied upon, it becomes necessary to state the original; but that the English reader may be interrupted as little as may be, I shall in general do this in the notes. + Ephes. ch. i. 7. Εν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος ἀυτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων. * Colos. ch. i. 14. Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος ἀυτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν Twν àμаρтiov. However, it must be observed, that in this latter text many copies have not διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αυτοῦ. Ephes. ch. i. 10. Colos. ch. i. 20. Ephes. ch. iii. 2. ** Colos. ch. i. 25. Τά τε ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐν ἀυτῷ. |