of God be Word, he must be either outward word, or 'inward word." [That is, reason, thought, or speech.] "But he is neither this, nor that. Therefore he is not "Word."

Upon which Theophylact observes, that such divisions may be made use of concerning us, and other natural things, but have no place among things supernatural.

11. In a work of Jerom against the Pelagians we find this passage. Ourf Lord says to his brethren, that he should not go up to the feast of tabernacles. John vii. 8. And yet afterwards it is written: "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he up also to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret," ver. 10. He said he would not go; and yet he went. Here Porphyry barks, charging our Lord with fickleness and inconstancy.'

We now read in ver. 8, “I go not yet up to the feast." But from this place of Jerom, as well as from the quotations of other ancient authors, it appears, that the common reading then was: "I go not up to the feast." Upon which divers learned mens may be consulted. Supposing that to be the true reading, I see not any reason for the charge of inconstancy, or of our Lord's altering his intention. The context shows, that he had spoke of deferring his journey to Jerusalem for a short time; not that he had resolved not to go at all to the feast. He went to the feast; and he always intended so to do; but he went not up to that feast so soon, nor so publicly, as he did at some other seasons; and be assigns the reason of that conduct, which may be seen ver. 6, and 7.

Which

12. In his Commentary upon Joel ii. 28-31. words are quoted by St. Peter, Acts ii. 16-20. Jerom speaking of the apostles' way of arguing: Not,' says he, that they abused the simplicity and ignorance of their 'hearers, as the impious Porphyry insinuates.'

However, I do not affirm, that Porphyry referred to this place of the Acts; he might refer to some other; and possibly, often said such things of the apostles, or some of them.

13. In another place Jerom, speaking of the charity of the first believers at Jerusalem, and of the behaviour of f Negat fratribus et propinquis, ire se ad Scenopagiam. Et postea scriptum est: ut autem ascenderunt fratres ejus, tum et ipse ascendit.negavit, et fecit quod prius negaverat. Latrat Porphyrius: inconstantiæ ac mutationis accusat- Hieron. adv. Pelag. lib. ii. T. iv. p. 521.

8 Vid. in loc. Mill. Wetst. Bez. Grot. &c.

-Iturum se

h Non quod abuterentur audientium simplicitate et imperitiâ, ut impius calumniatur Porphyrius. In Joël. cap. 2. Tom. iii. p. 1359.

6

Ananias and his wife Sapphira, Acts v. 1—14, has this observation; Lastly, the apostle Peter by no means impre'cates death to them, as the foolish Porphyry [or, as in some MSS. philosopher] calumniates; but by the prophetic spirit declares the judgment of God, that the 'punishment of two persons might be an instruction to inany."

14. Gal. i. 15, 16, " But when it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, I conferred not with flesh and blood."

I know," says Jerom in his comment upon this text, that many so understand this expression of the apostle. And Porphyry likewise objects, that after the revelation of Christ, Paul did not vouchsafe to go to any men, to confer with them, lest, truly, after having been taught by God, he should receive instruction from flesh and blood. But I can never persuade myself to think, that by flesh and blood are to be understood Peter, James, and John.' But, notwithstanding that judgment of Jerom, I suppose that still most will be of opinion, that in the expression flesh and blood, are intended all men, not excluding the greatest apostles. Compare this with ver. 12, “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." And see ver. 17, 18. There can be no question made, but that Porphyry had an eye to these passages of the epistle to the Galatians.

15. Gal. ii. 11-14, St. Paul says: "But 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 I saw, that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all

In the preface to bis Commentary upon the epistle to the Galatians, Jerom speaks thus of this matter. The wicked

i Denique et apostolus Petrus nequâquam imprecatur eis mortem, ut stultus Porphyrius [MSS. Philosophus] calumniatur: sed Dei judicium prophetico spiritu annuntiat, ut pœna duorum hominum sit doctrina multorum. Ad Demetriad. ep. 97. al. 8. T. iv. p. 792.

k Scio, plerosque de apostolis hoc dictum arbitrari. Nam et Porphyrius objicit, quod post revelationem Christi non fuerit dignatus ire ad homines, et cum iis conferre sermonem; ne, post doctrinam videlicet Dei, a carne et sanguine instrueretur. Sed absit, ut ego Petrum et Jacobum et Johannem carnem et sanguinem putem. In ep. ad Gal. cap. i. p. 233.

1 Quod nequâquam intelligens Bataneotes, et sceleratus ille Porphyrius in primo operis sui adversus nos libro, Petrum a Paulo objecit esse reprehensum, quod non recto pede incederet ad evangelizandum; volens et illi maculam erroris inurere, et huic procacitatis; et in commune ficti dogmatis accusare

Porphyry not understanding this, in the first book of his work against us, objects, that Peter was reproved by 'Paul; that he did not proceed uprightly in preaching the gospel; aiming thereby to affix the blot of a mistake upon 'the one, and of peevishness upon the other. And hence 'he argues the falsehood of the whole doctrine, as if it were a mere invention, since the heads of the churches disagreed.'

m

In his Commentary upon the words above quoted, Jerom says, that some think Cephas, whom Paul withstood to the face, was not the apostle Peter, but another of the 'same name, possibly, one of the seventy disciples. They argued, that Peter could not withdraw from conversation 'with the Gentiles, who had baptized Cornelius. They argued likewise from the defence he inade of what he had done at the house of Cornelius, when they of the cir'cumcision at Jerusalem contended with him," as recorded 'Acts xi. 1—18. They also said, that St. Luke in the Acts 'makes not any mention of this dissension; nor that Peter and Paul ever were together at Antioch. They also in'sisted, that there would be an advantage given to Porphyry, if it were allowed, either that Peter erred, or that Paul peevishly confuted the chief of the apostles. To all which Jerom answers, that he knows not of any Cephas, 'but him who is mentioned in the gospels, and in other epistles of Paul, and in this same epistle, and is sometimes 'called Cephas, sometimes Peter. And after considering 'the other just-mentioned arguments, he concludes; Finally, if because of Porphyry's blasphemy, another Cephas must be invented, lest Peter should be thought to have erred, innumerable passages must be struck out of the divine scriptures; which he finds fault with, because he does not • understand them.'

mendacium, dum inter se ecclesiarum principes discrepent. Pr. in ep. ad Gal. p. 223.

m Sunt qui Cephan, cui hic in faciem Paulus restitisse se scribit, non putent apostolum Petrum, sed alium de septuaginta discipulus, isto vocabulo nuncupatum. Et dicunt, nequâquam Petrum a convictu Gentium se potuisse subtrahere, qui et centurionem Cornelium baptizârat――et locum dari Porphyrio blasphemanti, si aut Petrus errâsse, aut Paulus procaciter apostolorum principem confutâsse credatur. Quibus primum respondendum, alterius nescio cujus Cephæ nescire nos nomen, nisi ejus qui in evangelio, et in aliis Pauli epistolis, et in hac quoque ipsâ modo Cephas modo Petrus scribitur---Ad extremum, si propter Porphyrii blasphemiam alius nobis fingendus est Cephas, ne Petrus putetur errâsse, infinita de scripturis radenda divinis, quæ ille, quia non intelligit, criminatur. Sed adversum Porphyrium in alio, si Christus jusserit, opere pugnabimus. Nunc reliqua prosequamur. In ep. ad Gal. ib. p. 244.

Jerom occasionally refers to this objection of Porphyry in his Commentary upon the fifty-third chapter of" Isaiah. In a letter to Augustine upon this subject, Jerom tells him, how he and others had asserted the prudence of the apostles, and restrained the impudence of the blaspheming Porphyry, who says, that Peter and Paul had a childish quarrel with one another; and that Paul burned with envy ' at the virtues of Peter, and had written in a boasting manner of things, which either he never did, or if he did, it was mere peevishness to blame that in another which he had been guilty of himself."

Here we might wish to see Porphyry himself in his own words. But there seems to have been a reference to several things said by Paul in other epistles, besides this to the Galatians; in the last words of the passage thus transcribed, I think it plain, that there is a reference to what is said by Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 20" Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:" and, perhaps, to some other like texts; and, possibly, he had also a regard to several things done by St. Paul, and related by St. Luke in the Acts; such as his circumcising Timothy, Acts xvi. 1-3, his vow at Cenchrea, ch. xviii. 18; and to what he did at Jerusalem by the advice of St. James. xxi. 20—28.

Jerom had before spoken of this matter in another place of the same epistle to Augustine; telling him, that others before him had explained the conduct of the two apostles in the same manner that he had done, in answer to the blasphemous Porphyry, who charged Paul with peevish

"Ex quo, qui dispensatoriam inter Petrum et Paulum contentionem vere dicunt jurgium fuisse atque certamen, ut blasphemanti Porphyrio satisfaciant, et veteris legis cæremonias in ecclesiâ Christi a stirpe credentis Israël asserunt esse servandas, debent et auream in mille annis exspectare Jerusalem.--In Is. cap. liii. T. iii. p. 388.

Ego, imo alii ante me exposuerunt causam quam putaverant, non officiosum mendacium defendentes, sicut tu scribis, sed ostendentes honestam dispensationem, ut et apostolorum prudentiam demonstrarent, et blasphemantis Porphyrii impudentiam coërcerent, qui Paulum et Petrum puerili dicit inter se pugnâsse certamine; imo exarsisse Paulum in invidiam virtutum Petri, et ea scripsisse jactanter, quæ vel non fecerit, vel, si fecerit, procaciter fecerit, id in alio reprehendens quod ipse commisserit. Ad Augustin. ep. 74. [al. 89.] T. iv. P. ii. p. 622.

P Hanc autem explicationem, quam primus Origenes in decimo Stromateôn libro, ubi epistolam Pauli ad Galatas interpretatur, et cæteri deinceps interpretes sunt secuti, illâ vel maxime causâ introducunt, ut Porphyrio respondeant blasphemanti, qui Pauli arguit procacitatem, quod principem apostolorum Petrum ausus est reprehendere, et arguere in faciem, ac ratione constringere, quod male fecerit, id est, in errore fuerit; in quo fuit ipse, qui alium arguit delinquentem. Ibid. p. 619.

ness, in that he presumed to reprove the chief of the apostles, and dispute with him to the face, and tell him, that he was to be blamed, that is, was in an error; when 'he who reproved the other was as guilty himself.'

By all which, I think, we may perceive the force of Porphyry's argument upon this point. • He supposed

Peter to have taught, for a while at least, a different doctrine from Paul; and thence argued, that the religion taught by them could not be a revelation from heaven. Or, if Peter did not for a while teach a doctrine different 'from what himself had taught at other times, and different from that generally taught by Paul, he was guilty of some improper compliance, for which he was blamed by Paul. But that Paul, if indeed he did reprove Peter at Antioch, as he boastingly says to the Galatians, ch. ii. he showed therein pride, and envy, and peevishness; and was • a very unfit reprover of another, when he had himself been 'guilty of the same fault, and had often complied in a like

'manner.'

This seems to be the substance of Porphyry's observations upon this, and some other texts of scripture; and undoubtedly he hence argued, that both Peter and Paul were deceivers and impostors, and that the doctrine taught by them could not be a revelation from heaven.

And it must be owned, that this has appeared a difficulty to many; and the solutions of learned christians have been different; to me the case seems to be this.

St. Peter never taught a doctrine different from himself, nor from St. Paul; but he was not uniform in his conduct. Once, at least, he complied too far with those believers of the Jews, who were for imposing circumcision, and the other rites of the law, upon the Gentiles, as necessary to salvation. As St. Paul says, Gal. ii. 11, "When Peter was at Antioch, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when some came from Jerusalem, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." Herein, out of fear of offending others, Peter acted contrary to his own judgment; therefore Paul calls it dissimulation, and shows the bad consequence of such conduct; and that it implied the necessity of the Gentiles being circumcised in order to obtain salvation, and to the having communion with the Jewish believers. "But when I saw, that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gosple, 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