those only who, by virtue of their office, were called upon to express an opinion on the point, whether Paul was, in the fullest sense of the term, an apostle or not, and to take a definite position towards him. It appears probable, as a recent writer1 supposes, 'that no one in the Jerusalem church had as yet had a correct view of the new claim to apostleship. James, Peter, and John alone were enabled, by an admirable selfdenial, and by illumination from above, to recognise the wonderful fact that, without their intervention, an apostle in the fullest sense had appeared, invested with the same mission and authority from the risen Lord, for the heathen, as Peter had received from Him while on earth for the Jews; 2 and responsible, like Peter, to Christ alone.'

This being explained, we can the better understand how Paul came to pass over the Jerusalem decree in his epistles, even when engaged upon matters which might seem to suggest a reference to its decisions. He was as independent in his guidance of the churches as Peter was in his; and his independence had been acknowledged by the apostles themselves. He was trammelled by no human authority, and was responsible to none. This he asserted in Galatia and at Corinth. When his epistles to these churches were written, the time had come for him to vindicate his apostleship on every hand. He had no need, in correcting errors, to cite the decrees of others. His word, as an apostle of Christ to the Gentiles, was decree sufficient for them. At the very time when his authority was questioned by the church which he himself had planted, it would have been a fatal concession had he cited to them another power than his own as their guide.

The unequivocal acknowledgment which Paul received from Peter and others, of his call and authority as an apostle, ex

1 DR. HENRY W. J. THIERSCH, History of the Christian Church, vol. i. ch. ii. of the English translation by T. Carlyle, Esq., of the Scottish Bar. London 1852. A work which, although we dissent in some points from the conclusions it arrives at, contains many valuable suggestions; and we are essentially indebted to it in this evening's Reading.

2 Gal. ii. 7, 8.

VOL. VIII.

U

tended to a distinct recognition of his peculiar qualifications and commission to preach to the Gentiles. They perceived distinctly from his statement of 'the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles,' that 'the gospel of the uncircumcision' had been as fully committed to him, as 'the gospel of the circumcision' had been assigned to Peter; that is, as we think with Dr. Brown,1 they distinctly saw that the Holy Spirit had taught him to preach the gospel in a way peculiarly calculated for the conversion of the Gentiles, just as He had taught Peter to preach the gospel in a way peculiarly fitted for the conversion of the Jews.' And perceiving this, 'they readily acknowledged Paul and Barnabas as brethren; they gave them the right hand of fellowship, as a token of agreement in sentiment, an acknowledgment of their possessing the same authority as themselves, and a pledge that they would mutually assist each other in the work in which they were engaged; and, at the same time, it was agreed that while James, Peter, and John continued to labour chiefly among the Jews, Paul and Barnabas should continue to labour chiefly among the Gentiles. Not that either party was scrupulously to confine their labours within those bounds, but that, generally speaking, they should respectively occupy those fields of labour for which the Holy Spirit had particularly qualified them.' This was not, however, an appointment laid upon Paul by his superiors. It was a mutual agreement of equals, arising out of their clearly perceiving the will of their common Master. Accordingly, they gave Paul and Barnabas no instructions. They knew that they needed none. The only subject on which they gave anything like advice was one of a practical, not of a doctrinal kind; and even then it was a friendly hint, not an official command: 'Only they would that we should remember the poor:' same which,' says the apostle, 'I also was forward to do.'

the

1 In his Expository Discourses on Galatians, where this matter is fully explained, pp. 76–89.

Forty-eighth Week—Seventh Day.

PETER'S FAULT.-GAL. II. 11-13.

On the return to Antioch, one of the party was Mark, whom Barnabas had of course found at Jerusalem, and whom, having probably brought him to a sense of his former misconduct, he was induced to reinstate in his confidence, and to take back with him to Antioch. There were also two other persons, leading men in the church at Jerusalem, whose high character among the Jewish Christians would, it was thought, add weight to a decision so favourable to the views of Paul and Barnabas. One of them was 'Judas surnamed Barsabas,' that is, the son of Sabas. As the name of one of the persons who were nominated to fill the vacant apostleship was 'Joseph called Barsabas,'1 some have imagined that this was the same person. But there is no analogy between the names of Joseph and Judas; and the identity of the patronymic might merely suggest that Judas was a brother of Joseph-both, that is, sons of Sabas. The other was Silas, whom we shall subsequently meet with as the travelling companion of Paul, and who is believed to be the same person who is often mentioned by him in his epistles, and once by Peter, under the name of 'Silvanus.' 2 They are both indicated as 'prophets,' the application of which term has been already explained.

3

On arriving at Antioch a meeting of the church was convened, and the epistolary decree delivered. It was received in a most satisfactory manner. The Gentile Christians heartily rejoiced at having this vexed question settled on terms so slightly burdensome to them, and the Jewish Christians seem to have at least acquiesced in it as an authoritative decision of the matter. Judas and Silas ably supported these decisions by their discourses and influence, and when the whole business seemed happily concluded, Judas went home to Jerusalem; 22 Cor. i 19; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. I; 1 Pet. v. 12.

1 Acts i. 23.

3 Acts xv. 32.

but he was unaccompanied by Silas, who thought it proper to remain at Antioch. Paul and Barnabas also continued there, apparently for a good while, ' teaching and preaching the word of the Lord' with great success.

These happy days could not, however, always last, and we presently come to sad scenes between Paul and Peter, and— oh, grief!-between Paul and Barnabas.

It is to this period that we, with the best authorities, assign that visit of Peter to the metropolis of Gentile Christianity, which is recorded in Paul's interesting Epistle to the Galatians. He came, as far as appears, without any intention of interfering with Paul in his work as the apostle to the Gentiles, and with a purpose to carry out in practice the decree to which he had been an acting party. On his arrival, therefore, he ate freely with the Gentiles in their social entertainments, as well as in the Lord's Supper, and in the Agape or love-feasts. But soon there came up some members of the Jerusalem church to Antioch, who, influenced by the old leaven of Jewish exclusiveness, evinced no little interest in observing how the apostle of the circumcision would deport himself in such new company; and holding themselves too ready to take offence at his conduct, and to impart their own impressions to the strict Judaists at home. In spite of the decree of the council, these seem to have shrunk from full communion with the Gentiles. And, as a writer, lately cited, observes, 'It is not so easy to yield to a consequence as to see it.'1 Indeed, as the same author truly remarks, 'We need only look to the subsequent divisions of the church (in which the adherents of oné confession, while they dare not deny salvation to those of another, or insist on their coming over, still refrain conscientiously from communion with them) in order to find a repetition of the same state of feeling and conduct.' Peter separated himself from the society of the Gentiles, and his example was followed by all the members of Jewish descent, even by Barnabas himself. They seem then to have even celebrated their communion and their Agapæ separately; and Paul was the only Israelite who remained in 'THIERSCH, History of the Christian Church, p. 125.

free intercourse with the Gentiles. Some have questioned whether the division had the extent and significance thus assigned to it. But it is forgotten that the Lord's Supper was at first (as repeatedly intimated in the epistles, and as is known from early Christian writers) partaken, as in its original institution, in connection with a social meal of ordinary materials, but called from the occasion an Agape,—usually rendered, lovefeast; and this being expressly a feast of brotherhood, it is difficult to see how the Jews could object to take part in the domestic meals of the Gentiles, without still more pointedly objecting to the more public fraternization with the Gentile converts, and thus recognising them as sanctified.

It may well be asked, Is it possible that Peter, who had been the instrument of opening the door of hope to the Gentiles-Peter, who had spoken so generously and wisely in the council at Jerusalem, should thus fall back upon Jewish notions? The question has seemed so strange to many as to lead them to assign the visit now under consideration, to a date earlier than that of the Jerusalem decree. But the circumstances cannot be easily adjusted to this hypothesis; and even if it were admitted, the case of Cornelius would still remain a stumbling-block for those who would uphold the consistency of Peter.

How could Peter reconcile his present scruples with his experience in that case? Closely considered, it will be seen that the case left many questions unsettled. Where was yet the proof that a mere Gentile might be baptized, without having beforehand visibly received the Spirit? What warrant did it afford to go out and preach to those yet enslaved by idolatry? Where was the authority for Peter to turn his back on the Jews as a nation, especially when another had been raised up as apostle to the heathen? Besides, it is ever to be remembered, that not a word had been yet, nor was until many years after, spoken, as to the obligation of the Jews themselves to relinquish their ceremonial law-which all the Jewish disciples, even Paul himselí, continued to observe; and Peter seems to have felt that at the moment