Jews?" Literally, to judaize, that is, to become Jews, and observe all the rights of the law of Moses, as necessary to salvation. That never was Peter's doctrine; but it was the tendency of his late conduct at Antioch, for which Paul now reproved him; and undoubtedly Peter submitted and acquiesced, and never more prevaricated in his conduct in the like manner. Augustiner says exactly as I have done; and I place his words below.

St. Paul's doctrine was always the same; and his conduct was ever uniform and consistent. He always said, that circumcision was not necessary, or available, in any, to justification and salvation. He never said, that it was sinful or unlawful in any.

To the Galatians he writes, ch. v. 2, 3, 4, " Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify unto every man that is circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you. Whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.' It is plain, that he is here speaking of such as expected to be justified by the law; who embraced circumcision, as necessary to acceptance with God and eternal salvation. Such men departed from the grace of the gospel, and could have no benefit by it; they came under an obligation to observe all

4 Τι τα εθνη αναγκάζεις ιουδαΐζειν ; That word is explained in vol. vi. chap. xviii. sect. iii. near the end. To which I would now add Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. cap. 10. Ατοπον εςι Χριςον Ιησουν καλειν, και ιουδαΐζειν.

Σ

Quapropter non ideo Petrum emendavit, quod paternas traditiones observaret. Quod si facere vellet, nec mendaciter, nec incongrue faceret. Quamvis enim jam superflua, tamen solita non nocerent. Sed quoniam gentes cogebat judaïzare; quod nullo modo posset, nisi ea sic ageret, tanquam etiam post Domini adventum necessaria saluti forent, quod vehementer per apostolatum Pauli veritas dissuasit. Nec apostolus Petrus id ignorabat; sed id faciebat, timens eos qui ex circumcisione erant. Augustin. ap. Hieron. ep. 67. [al. 87.] T. iv. P. ii. p. 605.

Proinde, si, post hoc apostolorum decretum, Petrus habuit illam in Antiochiâ simulationem, quâ gentes cogeret judaïzare, quod nec ipse cogebatur, quamvis propter commendanda eloquia Dei, quæ Judæis sunt credita, non prohibebatur; quid mirum, si constringeret eum Paulus libere asserere, quod cum cæteris apostolis se Jerosolymis decrevisse meminerat.

Si autem hoc, (quod magis arbitror,) ante illud Jerosolymitanum Concilium Petrus fecit; nec sic mirum est, quod eum volebat Paulus non timide obtegere, sed fidenter asserere, quod eum pariter sentire jam noverat. Sive quod cum eo contulerat evangelium; sive quod, in Cornelii centurionis vocatione, etiam divinitus, eum de hac re admonitum noverat; sive quod antequam illi, quos timuerat, venissent Antiochiam, cum gentibus eum convesci viderat. Neque enim negamus, in hac sententiâ fuisse jam Petrum, in quâ et Paulus fuit. Non itaque tunc eum quod in eâ re verum esset docebat, sed ejus simulationem, quâ gentes judaïzare cogebantur, arguebat, &c. August. ap. Hieron. ep. 76. [al. 97.] T. iv. p. 632, 633.

VOL. VII.

2 F

the rituals of the Mosaic law; and if they did not obey the law in all things, they exposed themselves to a curse, as he shows, ch. iii. 10.

In the fifth chapter, at ver. 6, he says: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith, which worketh by love. And afterwards in the same epistle, vi. 15, 16, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." And 1 Cor. vii. 18, 19, “ Is any man called circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not become circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but keeping the commandments of God.”

That was St. Paul's doctrine; and his conduct was agreeable to it. The same was the doctrine of Peter, and of all the apostles, though Peter once deviated from it in his conduct, as we have seen. What was Peter's doctrine we learn (not now to argue from his epistles, as we might) from his speech at Jerusalem, Acts xv.; wherein he plainly declares, as Paul does, that the works of the law are of no avail either to Jews, or Gentiles, in point of justification. with God; for with these words he concludes that speech; ver. 11, "But we believe, that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we Jews shall be saved, even as they," the Gentiles. And see before, ver. 8, 9, 10; and ch. x. 34, 35; and xi. 1-18. And compare this with words of St. Paul, Gal. ii. 15, 16.

Though St. Paul may be thought to have yielded to some Jewish prejudices in the several actions above mentioned, it had no such bad tendency as the behaviour of St. Peter at Antioch had; as has been well shown by Augustine in explaining 1 Cor. xi. 20. He says, • thats Paul 'practised some rites of the law, for showing that it was 'not sinful, even under the gospel, for Jews to observe the ' ordinances which they had received from their ancestors by means of the law. At the same time he taught them, 'that they should not place their hopes of salvation in obe

• Sed ideo susceperat ea celebranda, quum jam Christi esset apostolus, ut doceret non esse perniciosa his qui ea vellent, sicut a parentibus per legem acceperant, custodire, etiam cum in Christo credidissent; non tamen in eis jam constituerent spem salutis, quoniam per Dominum Jesum salus ipsa quæ ipsis sacramentis significabatur, advenerat, ideoque Gentibus, quod insuetos a fide revocarent onere gravi et non necessario, nullo modo imponenda esse censebat. August. ap. Hieron. ep. 67. [al. 87.] T. iv. p. 605.

dience to such ordinances; nor impose that yoke upon the Gentiles, as necessary to their salvation.'

Augustine has particularly considered all those actions of Paul, which have been looked upon by some as unwarrantable compliances; to which also Porphyry may be supposed to have referred; his circumcising Timothy, his vow at Cenchrea, his conduct at Jerusalem. And he we!! shows, how they differed from Peter's behaviour at Antioch. What Peter did, implied the necessity of circumcision in order to salvation, which Paul constantly and earnestly opposed. By all his several compliances just mentioned, he only showed, that he did not think the Jewish rites evil and sinful.

t

I shall now observe only upon the last of those compliances, particularly related, Acts xxi. 17-28, "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

what follows.

u

And

For it had been said at Jerusalem, that Paul, in all countries where he had been, " had taught, that the Jews ought not to circumcise their children:" that is, that it was sinful and unlawful for them so to do. This Paul had never done; and James, and the elders with him, were persuaded it was a false report; but for giving satisfaction to all, they advised him to join himself with some others then at Jerusalem, "who had a vow on them. Them take," say they "and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads, and all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing."

t Ego quidem illud Petrum egisse credo, ut gentes cogeret judaïzare. Hoc enim lego scripsisse Paulum, quem mentitum esse non credo: et ideo non recte agebat hoc Petrus. Erat enim contra evangelii veritatem, ut putarent, qui credebant in Christum, sine illis veteribus sacramentis salvos esse non posse. Hoc enim contendebant Antiochiæ, qui ex circumcisione crediderant. Contra quos Paulus perseveranter acriterque confligit. Ipsum vero Paulum non ad hoc egisse, quod vel Timotheum circumcidit, vel Cenchreis votum persolvit, vel Jerosolymis a Jacobo admonitus, cum eis qui voverant, legitima illa celebranda suscepit, ut putari videretur per ea sacramenta etiam christianam salutem dari: sed ne illa, quæ prioribus ut congruebant temporibus, in umbris rerum futurarum Deus fieri jusserat, tanquam idololatriam Gentilium damnare crederetur. Aug. ap. Hier. ep. 76. [al. 97.] T. iv. p. 631.

" Non, ut opinor, obscurum est, et Jacobum hoc ideo monuisse, ut scirent falsa esse quæ de illo audierant. Aug. ut supra, p. 632.

any

With that advice Paul complied; nor could it be of bad consequence after what had passed, as related by St. Luke: that James and the elders rejoiced, and praised God for the apostle's success among the Gentiles; and declared, that no legal services were expected of the Gen'tiles that believed.' After that, what Paul did only showed, that it was not sinful for Jews to practise the rites and ceremonies of the law. Nothing then done by him was any prejudice to the doctrine, always and every where taught by him, that the observation of those rites was not necessary to salvation, nor at all available to any, whether Jews or Gentiles, to justification in the sight of God. As Augustine says: The apostles in their council at Jerusalem ' had agreed, that no man ought to compel the Gentiles to 'judaize. They did not decree, that any man should forbid the Jews to judaize; though the christian doctrine did not require that even of them.' Augustine says again very well: There was no better way for Paul to confute the false report that had been 'raised, than for him to perform those things which he was thought to condemn as sinful; and thus to show, that neither the Jews were to be forbidden them, as evil, nor the Gentiles to be compelled to do them, as necessary.'

W

Thus I have represented this case as it has long appeared to me; and all along I have been supported by observations of Augustine, the fruit of that good sense which is a distinguishing part of his character. And I persuade myself, that most of my readers will with pleasure read them in his own words placed at the bottom of my pages. Jerom's solution, propounded by him in his Commentary upon the epistle to the Galatians, and in his letters to Augustine, though he was very positive, deserves not to be mentioned, nor taken any notice of.

This point has detained us rather too long; but I do not see how it could be passed by without notice, or without clearing up a difficulty which came in our way, and has

▾ Præsertim, quia in ipsis Jerosolymis apostoli jam decreverant, ne quisquam gentes cogeret judaïzare. Non autem decreverant, ne quisquam Judæos judaïzare prohiberet; quamvis etiam ipsos jam doctrina christiana non cogeret. Aug. ib. p. 632.

W

w Et ideo illi invidiam et persecutionem molientes concitare, tanquam inimicum legis mandatorumque divinorum criminabantur: cujus falsæ criminationis invidiam congruentius devitare non posset, quam ut ea ipsa celebraret, quæ damnare tanquam sacrilega putabatur; atque ita ostenderet, nec Judæos tunc ab eis tanquam nefariis prohibendos, nec Gentiles ad ea tanquam necessaria compellendos. Id. ib. p. 632.

* See vol. iv. chap. cxvii. init.

been supposed to affect the credit of two of Christ's apostles, and in them also the christian cause.y

VIII. We may now look back upon what we have seen in Porphyry; whence, I think, it manifestly appears, that he was well acquainted with the scriptures of the Old and New Testament. For we have bad before us many of his objections against the book of Daniel, an objection against a text in the book of Genesis. And we have observed plain references to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistle to the Galatians; and in his remarks upon that epistle, probable references to others of St. Paul's epistles. There can be no question made, that in his work against the christians many other books of the New Testament were quoted, or referred to by him. It is well, that in the remaining fragments of his work we have evidences of so many references to them as there But it may be remembered, that Jerom, who seems to have had the whole work before him, said not long ago: • That if because of Porphyry's blasphemies, 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 has found fault with, because he did not understand them.' The places of scripture, therefore, which Porphyry had remarked upon were very numerous. Theodoret observes, that Porphyry read the scriptures very carefully when he was composing his work against us.

are.

IX. I now proceed to observe some other passages of Porphyry, concerning the christian religion, or the professors of it, and their affairs; where also there may be some references to our scriptures.

6

1. Eusebius, in his Evangelical Preparation, has these words: Anda that evil demons have had no power of doing any thing, since our Saviour's dwelling among men, the • advocate of demons in our time somewhere testifies in his 'work against us in this manner: "And now people won der, that this distemper has oppressed the city so many

y This difficulty is largely considered in the Remarks upon Dr. Ward's Dissertations. See vol. x. p. 336.

Τετοις ακριβως εντυχων ὁ Πορφυριος μαλα γαρ εν αυτοις ανεδιετρεψε, την kal' ijμwv Topεvwv ypapny. Theod. Therap. Serm. vii. p. 588. A.

a

tY

* Περι δε τε μηκετι δυνασθαι τι και ισχυειν φαυλες δαίμονας, μετα τον τε Σωτηρος ήμων εις ανθρωπες παροδον, και αυτος ὁ καθ ̓ ἡμας των δαιμονων προηγόρος, εν τῇ καθ' ἡμων συσκευῃ, τ8τον πε λεγων μαρτυρεί τον τροπον. Νυνι δε θαυμαζεσιν ει τοσέτων ετων κατειληφε την πολιν ἡ νόσος, Ασκληπιε μεν επιδημιας και των άλλων θεων μηκέτ' εσης. Ιησε γαρ τιμωμεν, εδεμιας τις θεων δημοσιας ωφηλειας ησθητο. κ. λ. Pr. Ev. l. v. cap. i. p. 181. D