Gentiles had been received into it, that is-either in that book of the New Teftament which is entitled the Acts of the Apofles, or, in the Epiftles; but in thofe epiffles above the reft which were written by certain of the Twelve-more especially however in the first mentioned part of the facred volume. Indeed the title of that hiftory would but ill accord with its contents fhould the fervices of the Twelve among Gentiles not appear to be as circumftantially detailed in it as thofe which were performed by Paul and others, if it may be underfood to profefs to treat of the Acts of the Twelve as well as of Paul and his affociates. Such a detail it may be obferved, would render an intimation that the Twelve on this occafion exprefsly acknowledged their recollection of what they had been required to do by their Lord feveral years before, and their inadvertency to their duty, during all the intermediate interval, unneceffary-and, of courfe, juftify the omiffion of any fuch intimation by the writer of that hiftory. And, on the other hand, as we find that the author of it hath not fcrupled to exhibit, without any kind of referve, the confcientious hefitation of the Twelve to make any alteration in the ancient pale of the church, and to detail fo particularly the extraordinary means which were employed by each of the facred perfons in the Godhead to affure them of their being, not only permitted, but ftri&ly enjoined to affociate with Gentiles as fellow heirs of the common falvation—if he has not in the fequel of his history taken every poffible cate to do away that prejudice which the above-mentioned difplay of their irrefolute conduct seems calculated to excite, by at leafl, an equally ftriking difplay of their after services, it will not furely be denied that there will be at least fome caufe to fufpect, not only that he may have had fome indirect view in prefixing fuch a title (c) to

his

(c) Had it been the author's design to have displayed the early progress of Christianity, he would undoubtedly have collected, or, at least, have set forth, accounts of the preaching of the rest of the Apostles, who cannot, without extreme improbability, be supposed to have remained silent and inactive, or not to have met with a share of that success which attended their colleagues., Paley's Evidences, Vol. ii. p. 221.

It appears from the preceding paragraph, that St. Luke's object in writing the book, which is called "The Acts of the Apostles," was to deliver neither a general history of the propagation of Christianity, nor a complete history of St. Paul in particular. He seems to have had a twofold object in view, namely:-1. To re

late

his work-but also-what is of a still more alarming nature, that either the intellectual faculties (and particularly the memories) of this felect few, may not have been quite so strong, and their feelings fo fufceptible of the influence of the Holy Spirit, as Chriftians in all ages have been inclined to believe -or-that their fidelity may not have been altogether fo meritorious.

Let us then proceed to inquire what account the New Teftament writers afford us of the conduct of the Twelve with regard to Gentiles, either in or out of Judæa, in confequence of that change in their minds which may be supposed to have been wrought by this event.

If fuch an account is to be met with in any book of the New-Teftament, it feems most likely to occur in the Acts of the Apoftles. But in vain do we turn over the pages of that history in quest of information on this point; not the leaft mention whatever can we find therein made of any of the Twelve having left Judæa for the purpose of teaching Gentiles, nor indeed of their teaching them even in that country, In the epifle to the Galatians (d) we indeed find Peter fpoken of as having been at Antioch, while Paul and Bar

nabas

late in what manner the gifts of the Holy Ghost were communicated on the day of Pentecost, and the subsequent miracles performed by the Apostles, by which the truth of Christianity was confirmed. An authentic account of this matter was absolutely necessary, because, Christ had so often assured his disciples, that they should receive the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers therefore, whether Jews or Heathens, might have made objections to our religion, if it had not been shewn, that Christ's declaration was really fulfilled.-2. To deliver such accounts, as proved the claim of the Gentiles to admission into the Church of Christ, a claim disputed by the Jews, especially at the time when St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. And it was this very circumstance which excited the hatred of the Jews against St. Paul, and occasioned his imprisonment at Rome, with which St. Luke closes his history. Hence we see the reason, why he relates, (c. viii.) the conversion of the Samaritans, and (c. x. xi.) the story of Cornelius, whom St. Peter (to whose authority the adversaries of St. Paul had appealed in favour of circumcision) baptized, though he was not of the cir cumcision. Hence also, St. Luke relates the determination of the first council in Jerusalem relative to the Levitical law: and for the same reason he is more diffuse in his account of St. Paul's preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, than on any other subject, &c. MICHAELIS, Vol. iii, Fart 1. c. viii. §. 3,

(d) Gal. ii. 11.... 16,

VOL. XIV.

Chm. Mag. April 1208,

K. K

nabas were abiding in that city: but in fuch a manner and under fuch circumftances as to excite in us not a very high eftimation of the value of the fervice he rendered the cause there. (e) We have no gospel account whatever of any previous ftep being taken by any of their company beyond the limits of Judæa. Neither indeed do we appear to have any fuch account of the proceedings of Peter or of any of the reft in foreign parts after he left Antioch. What is faid by other writers of the travels of fome them is not much to the purpose. What then? Did Peter indeed go no whither but to Antioch? And did none of the rest leave Judæa till the expiration of fome unknown period? So indeed it now feems. But when did that visit of St. Peter to Antioch happen? It has been a general opinion (as we are told by an eminent modern writer, (f) who has himself adopted it) that Peter did not remove thither till after the Apoftolic convention mentioned A&ts 15.-that is, in the year 50, and 17 years after the Afcenfion. Could it be made to appear that this general opinion concerning Peter's removal to Antioch is correct, what would become of even that small portion of credit which might be otherwife due to him for going only thither, fince the Gofpel feems to have been pretty generally received in that city a long while before, and in all proba bility on the recommendation of Paul and Barnabas, who we find had affembled themselves with the church therein, a whole year in its infancy, and were both refiding there again when Peter went thither; during which vifit, his conduct feems but ill calculated to produce any good effect among the Gentile believers ?—Others, (g) we however find, have entertained

(e) An nunquid perfectam tunc cognitionem nondum habebat Petrus, quam postea ad invenerunt hi?. Imperfectus igitur secundum hos Petrus, imperfecti autem et reliqui Apostoli : et oportebit eos reviviscentes, horum fieri discipulos, ut et ipsi perfecti fiant. IRENEUS, lib. iii. c. 12. p. 228.

(f) It was, as I suppose, soon after the council, and the year 50, in which Peter came to Antioch. And, I imagine, that he now first of all went abroad out of Judæa, into Gentile countries. It is very likely that he was desirous to see the Christian people at Antioch, &c. WATSON'S TRACTS, Vol. ii. p. 423.

(g) Some short time afterwards, as it seems, Peter was at Antioch, as we learn from St. Paul, Ga!. ii. 16. I place this journey of Peter to Antioch after the council at Jerusalem, according to the general opinion. But Basnage argues that (*) it was before it.

tertained an opinion that this vifit of Peter to the church at Antioch must have happened earlier. And very probable evidence, it must be confeffed, they have adduced in favor of their opinion; as we fhall hereafter perhaps fee more clearly, But how did the Twelve employ themselves in the mean time?-Were it poffible that they could have loft all recollection of the injunction laid upon them by their Lord to go into all the world (to account for which, it must be confeffed, it would be very difficult) yet a new courfe of conduct with regard to fuch Gentiles as happened to be refiding in Judæa, may furely be expected from them after they had thus publickly acknowledged their conviction of their being allowed free intercourfe with them. Is then the Gofpel evidence concerning their after conduct, consistent with its atteftation of their having acknowledged themfelves convinced by Peter's report of the visible defcent of the Holy Ghoft on Cornelius and his party, that the Gentiles were become objects of the Divine favour: even though they may have fill conceived themfelyes to be under no obligation to go abroad to affure them of it? Did they, from that time, embrace every opportunity of bringing fuch Gentiles, as happened to be refiding among them, acquainted with the marvellous act of Grace that had been paffed in their favor, and with the privileges to which they were confequently entitled-and encourage others to do fo? On the former of thefe points the facred volume is entirely filent, and on the other it fays but little. It only informs us that the fame event which made Peter leave Jerufalem, and go

to

If it was not till after it (as I rather think) it could not be long. For Barnabas was now at Antioch: whereas in a short time after their return thither from Jerusalem, he and Paul parted.

WATSON. LARDNER'S APP. ch. xviii. §. 3. (*) Illud nobis vero similius, concilii Hierosolymitani celebrationi antecessisse Petrinam hanc in Syriæ metropoli commorationem. Argumento est disceptatio Pauli cum Petro, cujus dissimu lationem obruisset auctoritate synodi, si jam coacta fuisset. Quin immo nulla Petro, et timendi Judaos, et eorum gratiâ sese separandi a Gentibus causa fuit, si tum temporis promulgata fuisset concilii Hierosolymitani epistola, qua veluit clypeo, ad omnes telorum Judaicorum ictus tutus erat. BASNAGE, Ann. 46. num. xxv. BEZA in a note on Gal. ii. says, Quinam enim nobilissimam llam synodum Paulus præteriisset cujus pars magna fuerat, et cujus vel unius compescendis itis pseuda Apostolis sudicebat? Et quis existimare possit Petrum in co quod subjicit Pau us fuisse peccaturum, si post illius synodi decisionem Antiochiam venisset?

66

to Samaria, and from thence through Lydda, Saron and Joppa, to Cefarea, was also the cause of certain other difciples travelling as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and Antioch." That though, at firft, none of the party would prefume to preach to any but Jews at either of thofe places, yet at lalt some of them, who are faid to have been men of Cyprus and Cyrene, after their arrival at Antioch, took upon them to preach to Hellenifls, of whom, we are affured “ a great number believed."-And-that, when tidings of what had happened at Antioch came to the ears of "the church which was at Jerufalem, they fent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as that city." (h)

But what were thofe Hellenists? (i) Why are they set in oppofition to Jews in this place, and to Hebrews in a preceding chapter (k) of this fame book? Were they Jews diftinguished

(h) Acts ii.

(2) Пgos 785 Eλλevisas. Cum hoc loco videantur opponi £2.5 Judæis, quorum mentio facta est in superiore versiculo, et Antiochenam ecclesiam constet veluti novam quandam Gentium Hierusalem fuisse, apparet Exλes appellatione non tantum provinciales vel proselytos Judæos-id est-huc et illuc dispersos, sed ipsos etiam intelligi ex gentibus, qui alibi vocantur a Luca σɛCoμevoś -id est qui eo usque profecerant ex consortio Judæorum, ut, idololatriâ damnatâ, Deum per Moysen et Prophetas locutum agnoscerent, licet in circumcisi, qualem fuisse Cornelium ex historiâ præcedente liquet. Sic enim Deo visum est paulatim Gentibus additum ad plenam Dei cognitionem aperire. Itaque Eλλ15 appellatio minus hic late patet quam supra 6. 1, nec tamen.comprehendit in genere τα έθνη sive της Ελληνας quibus destinatus fuit Paulus peculiariter. Alioqui non dubito quin si isti fuissent Judæi, jam tum fuerint, accedentibus in ipsorum cætus Græcis, eam controversiam maturi, quæ tandem etiam fuit excitata, sed per eos qui ex Judæa venerant, ut disertè dicitur infra 15. 1 et 24. cum antea tranquilla fuisset ecclesia Antiochena, armis (ut mihi quidem videtur) non paucis, si quidem post quatuor decim demum annos ascendit Paulus Hierosolymam, ut cum Apostolis conferret de câ doctrinâ quam inter gentes promulgarat. BEZA, 2. Gal. 1.

Beza, here tells us, that we must not understand by this, Greeks or Gentiles in general-nor those Gentiles who had been received into the Jewish Church, but another sort of oɛboevo, who were not permitted to associate with Jews, because not circumcised. But though they were not admitted to the privileges of the Jewish Church, they were it seems, to those of the Christian Church; which he says suffered no molestation on that account for many years from the legal Jewish believers.

(k) Acts vi. 1.