صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Moses, but from their being expressly forbidden by Christ and his apostles. At the death of Christ, the law of Moses was abolished in all its parts, to all mankind as a religious institution, Coloss. ii. 14. note 5. Wherefore, no one is obliged to perform any moral duty, because it was enjoined by Moses, but because it is written on men's hearts, and is enjoined by Christ; who in his gospel hath renewed the moral precepts of the law of Moses, with greater efficacy than they were enjoined to the Jews, having established them on better promises than were held forth in the law.

5. That the brethren of the Gentiles, who were bound by the decree, were the converted proselytes alone, may be argued from the reproof which Paul gave to Peter, for refusing to eat with the Gentiles in Antioch.

After the council, Peter followed Paul to Antioch, and did eat with the Gentiles, before certain persons came from James; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself. For this Paul blamed him openly, as compelling the Gentiles to Judaize. I ask, Did Paul mean that Peter compelled the Gentiles to observe the four precepts enjoined in the decree? If the decree was general, we cannot doubt that all the converted Gentiles in Antioch were observing these precepts when Peter withdrew from them, and did not need to be compelled to observe them. And if they were not observing them, Peter did right to compel them; and was not to be blamed for so doing. Or, by Peter's compelling the Gentiles to Judaize, did Paul mean, that he compelled them to receive circumcision, and give obedience to the whole law of Moses? This I think no one will affirm, who recollects what Peter and James declared in the council, that that law was not to be put on the necks of the Gentiles. The truth is, the Judaizing to which Peter compelled the Gentiles, by separating himself from them after the council passed their decree, cannot be understood, on the supposition that their decree related to the whole body of the Gentiles: but it may easily be explained, if it related to the converted proselytes only. For when the converts from idolatry began to multiply in Antioch, through the labours of Paul and Barnabas, it is natural to think, that after the council of Jerusalem had bound the converted proselytes to observe the four precepts as formerly, the zealous Jewish believers in Antioch would insist, that the converts from idolatry ought to be put on the same footing with the converted proselytes, and be obliged to obey the

four precepts: that the brethren of Antioch consulted James on the question, who it would seem sent them word by their messengers, that the converted idolaters were bound by the decree equally with the proselytes: that the idolatrous Gentiles, rightly instructed by Paul, refused to observe these precepts: and that on their refusal, Peter, who happened to be then in Antioch, withdrew from them; although before the messengers returned from James, he had gone into their houses, and eaten with them. This conduct Paul justly condemned, as a compelling the converts from idolatry to Judaize, that is, to obey the four precepts as necessary to salvation, contrary to the truth of the gospel. For the idolatrous Gentiles, having no connection with the commonwealth of Israel, were under no obligation whatever to obey the law of Moses, and therefore, if any part of that law was bound on them by Peter, it must have been as a term of salvation, contrary to that freedom from the law of Moses wherewith Christ had made the idolatrous Gentiles free.

These arguments, if I am not mistaken, prove that the brethren of the Gentiles, about whom the apostles and elders in Jerusalem deliberated, and concerning whom they passed their decree, were not converted idolaters, but converted proselytes. And I have been at the more pains to establish this fact, First, Because it shews us that the four precepts enjoined in the decree, were, as they are called in the decree, necessary things to the converted proselytes only; not however as terms of salvation, but to entitle them to those political privileges which were granted to them by the law of Moses, as inhabitants of Canaan; consequently that these were not religious, but political precepts, whose obligation was confined to the converted proselytes, and expired when that class of men ceased to exist. Secondly, Because this decree, contrary to the intention of those who framed it, affording a plausible pretence to the Judaizers for insisting, that all the Gentile brethren were bound to observe the law of Moses, the right knowledge of the persons who were bound by that decree, will make us sensible that the controversy concerning the obligation of the law of Moses, which rent all the Gentile churches in the first age, was determined by the apostle Paul, according to the mind of his brethren apostles, and according to truth, when he taught, that after the death of Christ, the obligation which lay on the Jews themselves to obey the law of Moses, arose merely from its being the municipal law of Judea. Thirdly, The right knowledge of the purpose for which the four

precepts, mentioned in the apostolical decree, were enjoined on the converted proselytes, will convince us, that Paul's practice, with respect to the law of Moses, was perfectly consistent with his doctrine concerning that law, and with the truth of the gospel, which made no alteration in any person's political state. His doctrine was, that every one ought to continue in the political state wherein he had been called. Wherefore, when he exhorted the Jewish converts to continue subject to the law of Moses, it was only because it was the municipal law of Judea, which as good citizens they were bound to obey. For the same reason, he himself always obeyed the law whilst he resided in Judea. And even in the Gentile countries where the Jews were numerous, he observed the distinction of meats and days appointed by Moses, that he might gain the Jews to Christ. And when he came to Jerusalem with the collections, because a report prevailed, Acts xxi. 21. that he taught all the Jews who were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, That they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs, he, by the advice of James, assisted certain Nazarites to discharge their vow; and thereby shewed the falsehood of the report which was spread concerning him. The truth is, he no where taught any of the Jews to forsake the law of Moses, but always inculcated the obligation of that law as the law of their state. What he taught was, that no person could be justified by the law of Moses, and that whoever sought salvation by obedience to that law, separated himself from Christ, and was fallen from grace. Wherefore, when he himself obeyed the law, and advised others to do so, it was not as a term of salvation, but merely as a matter of political obligation.

In giving to the assembly of the apostles, and elders, and brethren of the church of Jerusalem, who met to deliberate concerning the circumcision of the converted Gentiles, the appellation of The Council of Jerusalem, I have followed the ancient ecclesiastical writers, who generally gave it that name. Nor is the appellation improper. For though it was inferior to those assemblies, which in after times were dignified with the title of Councils, in this respect, that it was composed of members from one church only, it far surpassed them all in the quality of its members, and in the authority of its decisions. It was composed of all the apostles who were then in Jerusalem, men endowed with the continued inspiration of the Spirit of God; and of the elders of the church of Jerusalem, most, if not all of them,

men upon whom the Holy Ghost fell on the memorable day of Pentecost; and of the brethren of the greatest note in that church, chosen by the different bodies of the faithful in Jerusalem who assembled in separate places for the worship of God. Hence these brethren are called, in the preamble to the decree, Acts xv. 22. 25. chosen men; and ver. 22. Chief men among the brethren. In short, the Council of Jerusalem, consisting of such men, was a more respectable assembly than any council which hath met since, or which will ever meet again. And its decisions are, without doubt, of greater authority than the decisions of those councils, who have called themselves Oecumenical, because composed of members gathered from the greatest part of the Christian world; and Holy, on the feigned pretence that their decisions were dictated by the Holy Ghost.

GALATIANS.

CHAPTER I.

So that St. Paul, both of his being raised to

View and Illustration of the Facts asserted in this Chapter. BECAUSE the false teachers had called Paul an apostle of men, and had said that he was made an apostle by the church at Antioch, or at best by the apostles in Jerusalem, he began his letter with affirming, that he was not an apostle of men; but an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ himself, and by God the Fa ther who raised Jesus from the dead, ver. 1.-By mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, St. Paul glanced at the miraculous manner in which he himself was made an apostle by Christ after his resurrection; and of which Luke hath given an account, Acts ix. 5.-9. He alluded to it likewise ver. 5. where he calls it God's revealing his Son to him. in respect of the time and of the manner the apostolic office, instead of being inferior, was superior to the other apostles: Christ came from heaven by the appointment of his Father, to qualify him for that office, and to confer it on him. Next he told the Galatians, that all the brethren who were with him, joined him in this letter; by which he insinuated that they attested the whole of the facts he was going to relate, ver. 2.—Then expressed his surprise, that the Galatians were so soon removed from his doctrine, to another gospel, ver. 6. which he told them was no gospel at all, ver. 7.-And because the false teachers affirmed, that after conversing with the apostles in Jerusalem, Paul had become sensible of his error, and now enjoined circumcision, chap. v. 11. he twice anathematized every one who preached contrary to what they had heard him preach, though it were himself, or an angel from heaven, who did it, ver. 8, 9.-Then asked his opponents, whether in so speaking he endeavoured to please men or God, ver. 10.-It seems the Judaizers had represented him to the Galatians, as one who suited his doctrine to the inclinations of his hearers: A calumny which they hoped would be believed, as Paul's apostolical character was not then generally known. Besides, the Judaizers were for the most part bad men, and capable of

VOL. III.

13

« السابقةمتابعة »