be found, in any thing said by Jesus: especially, if what, on that occasion, he (Paul) taught by word of mouth at Antioch, agreed with what we shall find him teaching in his Epistles.

5. "False brethren unawares brought in, who came "in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in "Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. Liberty? what liberty? evidently that liberty, which consisted in exemption from the ceremonials of the Mosaic law. Who then were these false brethren, these sticklers for the ceremonial law? If the account in the Acts is to be believed,-they were the greater part of the fraternity of Christians in Jerusalem a party so considerable, that Peter, the chief of the Apostles, though in his sentiments on this subject so decidedly and completely opposite to them, was obliged to give way to it: and, as to several of the obligations, by which, as above stated, no small obstacle was opposed to the progress of the religion of Jesus, the whole body of the Apostles found themselves under the like necessity. If he himself is to be believed, (Gal. ii 12.) the men in question were men, who, if they continued in those scruples in which they went beyond the brother of our Lord, had, at any rate, in the first instance, received from that highly distinguished personage their instructions. And shortly after this, (Acts xvi. 3.) in deference to this party, Paul himself "took Timothy, a Gentile, and cir"cumcised him." But, supposing the public transactions, thus reported in the history of the author of the Acts, to have really had place;-namely, mission of Paul and Barnabas, from the Christians of Antioch to Jerusalem,-mission of Judas Barsabas and Silas, from the Apostles and elders, with Paul and Barnabas in their company, to Antioch,-letter of the Apostles and elders sent by them to the Christians of Antioch, -all this supposed, how erroneous soever in their opinions, in affirmance of the obligatoriness of these ce

remonials, this majority, to whose scruples the whole body of the Apostles saw reason to give way,-could they, by this self-intruded convert, be considered as persons to whom the epithet of false brethren, would be admitted to be applicable?

6. Does it not seem, rather, that this story, about the deputation of Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and brethren at Jerusalem from the Apostles at Antioch, and the counter deputation of Judas Barsabas, and Silas, to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return to Antioch, bearing all of them together a letter from the Apostles at Jerusalem,—was an invention, of the anonymous author of the Acts? or else a story, either altogether false, or false in great part, picked up by him, and thus inserted ?

Mark now, in this letter of Paul, another circumstance: and judge whether it tends not to cast discredit on what is said of Peter in the Acts.

In the Acts account, we have seen Peter, in the great council, supporting, in a sort of speech, the liberty side -of the question,-Jesus against Moses,-supporting it in that great council, in which, in that same account, Paul, though present, is, as to that point, represented as silent in that same account, shall we see Peter, five years before this time, addressing himself to the Gentiles, using this same liberty,-and, when called to account for doing so, employing his pair of visions (his and Cornelius's) (Acts x. A. 41.) in and for his defence: we shall see him in this new part of his career, -in this part, for which he was by both education and habits of life so ill qualified,-we shall see him so much in earnest in this part of his labours, as to have expended miracles,-a supernatural cure, and even a raising from the dead,-for his support in it.

Had any such facts really happened-facts in their nature so notorious,-would Paul, in this letter of his to the Galatians, have spoken of Peter, as if he had never made, or attempted to make, any progress in the con

version of the Gentiles? Speaking of the sticklers for Moses, as well as of Peter,-would he have said "When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumci"sion was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the "circumcision was to Peter ?" (Gal. ii. 7.) or, (v. 8.) "For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in "me toward the Gentiles?"

That, in some way or other, Peter had tried his hand upon some persons who were Gentiles-in this there is nothing but what may well enough be believed: provided it be also believed-that, in the experiment so made by him, he had little or no success:-for, that after the expenditure of two such miracles of so public a nature, besides a pair of visions, he had after all made so poor a hand of it, as to be content to give up to Paul the whole of his prospects from that quarter,

-does it seem credible?

8. As to the partition-treaty itself,-whatsoever were the incidents that had brought it about, nothing could be more natural-nothing more probable--nothing more beneficial to the common cause-to the religion of Jesus, meaning always so far as the religion taught by Paul was conformable to it. Each retained to himself the only part of the field, for the cultivation of which he was qualified: each gave up no other part of the field, than that, for the cultivation of which he was not qualified.

9. Gal. ii. 12. "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.

10. ii. 7. "But contrariwise, when they saw that the 'gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto "me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.

11. ii. 9. "And when James, Cephas, and John, who "seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the

66

'right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto "the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

12. Galat. ii. 10. "Only they would that we should "remember the poor; the same which I also was for"ward to do.

13. ii. 11. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, "I withstood him to the face, because he was to be "blamed.

14. ii. 12. "For before that certain came from James, "he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were 66 come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing "them which were of the circumcision.-13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch "that Barnabas also was carried away with their dis"simulation.

15. ii. 14. "But when I saw that 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 Gentiles, and not as do "the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live "as do the Jews?

16. ii. 16. “Knowing that a man is not justified by "the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that "we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the "law shall no flesh be justified."

Note, in this same letter, the mention made of Peter's eating with the Gentiles. "For before that "certain came from James, he (Peter) did eat with "the Gentiles: but when they were come, he with"drew and separated himself, fearing them which "were of the circumcision *."

Note here, an additional reason for discrediting the wholestory of Peter's expedition,-miracles and visions included, as reported in the Acts. In regard to the

Gal. ii. 12.

visions,-from this circumstance it may be seen, that either no such visions were, as stated in the Acts*, related by Peter, on his defence against the accusations preferred against him on this ground,-or that, if any such relation was given, no credit was given to it: for, it is after this, and, according to appearance, long after,-that, according to the Acts, the meeting at Jerusalem took place; that meeting, at which, at the motion of James, the adherence to the Mosaic law was indeed in part dispensed with; but, so far as regards the practice charged upon Peter as an offence,—namely the eating with the Gentiles, insisted on and ordained.

If Paul's evidence was good and conclusive evidence in support of Paul's visions,-how came Peter's evidence not to be received as good and conclusive evidence in support of Peter's visions? Paul's evidence, with the visions reported by it, was not better evidence, in support of his claim to the Apostleship,—than Peter's visions, if the account in the Acts is to be believed, in support of the abrogation of the Mosaic law. Yet, as, according to the author of the Acts, by Paul's account of his visions, the Apostles were not any of them convinced; so here, according to Paul, by Peter's account of his visions, if ever really related to the fellowship of the Apostles, and to the elders,-their associates, that same goodly fellowship was not convinced.

SECTION 2.

PARTITION-TREATY--PROBABILITY GIVEN, BY THE FINANCIAL STIPULATION, TO PAUL'S ACCOUNT of it. Of this important treaty, mention may have been seen above. In the financial stipulation which may have been observed in it, may be seen a circumstance, by

Acts xi. 1-18.

† Ibid. xv. 1--33: not less than five years after.