"Moses 66 And the Apostles and Elders came together for to consider of this matter." Here it is to be observed, that the question propounded was not whether the Jews might continue their observance of the Mosaic Law, but whether such observance was necessary to the Gentiles: and accordingly, the decision of this council at Jerusalem went no further than to the determination of that point. The determination appears also to have been grounded, not so much upon a general view of the impropriety of combining the peculiarities of Judaism with Christianity, as upon a conviction that the Divine will, with respect to the Gentiles, had been sufficiently manifested by the miraculous success of the Gospel in those heathen countries where this yoke had not been imposed. St. Peter's convincing argument, "Can any man "forbid water, that these should not be bap 66 tized, which have received the Holy Ghost "as well as wes?" superseded the necessity of further consideration. They were moved also, (as it is expressly stated,) by Paul and Barnabas, "declaring what miracles and won"ders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them"." Accordingly, their decision was prompt and unequivocal. They sent back 66 f Acts xv. 1-6. g Acts x. 47. h Acts xv. 12. Paul and Barnabas with this definitive judgment:" It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, "and to us, to lay upon you no greater bur"then than these necessary things; That ye "abstain from meats offered to idols, and "from blood, and from things strangled, and "from fornication: from which if ye keep "yourselves, ye shall do well." In this decree, none of the peculiar distinctions of the Jewish Law are insisted upon. The restrictions relate either to general principles of moral duty, or to practices which not only would give offence to the scruples of the Jews, but might ensnare the consciences of the heathen themselves. And thus were the Gentile converts released from the dread of that yoke which Pharisaical rigour sought to have laid upon them. But although this solemn edict, deliberately issued by "the Apostles, and Elders, "with the whole church," did not actually extend further than to the liberty which should be allowed to converted Pagans, yet it virtually decided a question of vital importance to the Jews themselves. For the Pharisees, who provoked the discussion, had grounded their complaints against Paul and Barnabas upon the supposed general neces i Acts xv. 28, 29. k Acts xv. 22. sity of keeping the Mosaic Law; without which, they denied the possibility of salvation: "Except ye be circumcised after the "manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved!." Now, if this principle had been admitted by the Apostles, they could not but have insisted upon the Gentiles becoming Jewish as well as Christian proselytes. But this principle being rejected, it followed also, that the Jewish Law was no longer necessary, even to the disciples of Moses. The utmost that could, after this decree, be conceded to the Jews, was a discretionary or a tacit permission, to continue the observance of the Law, although its obligation had evidently ceased, and although its institutions could be no longer attended with their wonted efficacy, as services acceptable in the sight of God. Thus was the great fundamental question concerning the extent and the perpetuity of the Jewish Law authoritatively set at rest. Thenceforth, we may conceive each Apostle, and each Christian teacher under the direction of the Apostles, unfolding, as occasion offered, the grounds and reasons of this decision, and gradually removing those prejudices which had hitherto obstructed the full progress of the Gospel. Of their labours in this 1 Acts xv. 1. respect we have abundant proof in the invaluable writings of the Apostles themselves, addressed to different churches, or distinguished individuals, for their confirmation in the faith. The difficulties, however, which the Apostles encountered, in endeavouring to eradicate these prejudices, appear to have been very great. It required all the tenderness due to scrupulous minds, to prevent this subject of contention from becoming a source of irreconcilable animosity. St. Paul adverts to these difficulties, when he says, "Unto the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain "the Jews; to them that are under the Law, "as under the Law, that I might gain them "that are under the Law; to them that are "without Law, as without Law, that I might gain them that are without Law. To the "weak became I as weak, that I might gain "the weak: I am made all things to all 66 66 66 men, that I might by all means save some!" Three remarkable instances of his accommodation to Jewish prejudices are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles:-his circumcising Timothy; his shaving his head at Cenchrea, in fulfilment of a vow made according to the injunctions of the Levitical Law; and his performing a solemn rite of purification at Jerusalem, with four other persons bound by a similar vow. Yet the same Apostle makes his boast of not having circumcised Titus, "because," says he, "of false brethren, un 66 66 66 66 awares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondagem" Nor was St. Paul justly chargeable with inconsistency in these proceedings. It is evident on what grounds he acted, in conforming to the Jewish Law on some occasions, and in departing from it on others. We may collect from his writings on this subject three main principles which governed his conduct in these respects:-1st, That the ceremonial Law being virtually done away, could no longer oblige any person to its observance; 2dly, That since it was no longer in force as a Law, the performance or the omission of it was become a matter of indifference, and in no respect essential to an acceptance of the Christian faith; "circumci"sion being nothing, and uncircumcision no 66 thing, but the keeping of the command"ments of God";" 3dly, That they who insisted upon its being still necessary to salva m Gal. ii. 4. n 1 Cor. vii. 19. |