idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood,"—that is, to command them to observe just so much and no more of the Jewish law as they had observed before Christianity was preached to them. To this they would hardly object, (as the apostle probably means to say,) because in every part of the world, the devout Gentiles readily consented to keep these few observances of the Jewish law, however unwilling to burthen themselves further, and to become proselytes of righteousness. "For Moses of old Acts xv. 21. time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day." 48 tions of this Decree. When, therefore, Paul is afterwards represented as distributing Qualificathis sentence or opinion of the Council of Jerusalem to the several Churches through which he passed in his second journey, it cannot be supposed that he intended to recommend it as a rule binding on the converts from idolatry also. This, indeed, would be wholly irreconcileable with his own repeated declarations to them in his Epistles, and is not implied by any statement in St. Luke's narrative. It may be even doubted whether St. Paul's preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles, was at that time known generally to the Churches of Judæa, or to that particular Council of Jerusalem. It is said, indeed, that the conversion of the Gentiles was proclaimed by Paul and Barnabas as they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria in their journey to Jerusalem, and that they even reported to the Church there, all things that God had done with them."49 But Acts xv, 4. still the whole account, considered as a whole, looks very much as if they were understood by all-by all, at least, except the apostles -to speak of the devout Gentiles. That there was a good reason why St. Paul should not yet venture to give publicity to his mission, nobody will question, who considers the rancorous persecution which assailed him, when the Jewish Christians, (for the first time, as it seems,) became acquainted with it. Possibly for this very reason the appointment took place at Antioch, and not at Jerusalem. His own account of this transaction, too, as given in his Epistle to the 66 istent, rather than successive portions of the same religion. Even as it was, such was doubtless the impression made on the minds of many, for the first century, and longer. That Tertullian, e.g. considered it in this light is more than probable.-See Apol. sect. 9. This non-interference with established usages beyond what was absolutely necessary, was, it is to be observed, in exact conformity with the method by which the Jewish religion had been established. The Jews had been allowed to retain many Egyptian rites, as Warburton points out in his fourth book of the Divine Legation; and hence, the error of assigning a heathen origin to several of the corruptions of the Christian Church, which, although manifestly resembling heathen ceremonies, were im mediately derived from the Jews. Some, 48 Inter al. Rom. xiv. 14: "I know and 49 This and the like expressions may be noticed in reference to the distinction pointed out between the miracles of Jesus and those of his apostles. Gal. ii. 2. Galatians, is, that he told the secret privately, and only to Peter, James, and John, "lest by any means he should run, or had run, in vain." The narrative of the last visit which he paid to Jerusalem tends to produce the same impression. He is represented as explaining his ministry to the Church, in terms which strongly indicate that the whole Church then for the first time understood the nature of it. On this occasion it is particularly recorded, that Acts xxi. 18. all the presbyters were present. His Gospel is then more pointedly Acts xxi. 19, declared to be one appropriated to him, the details of it are given one by one, (xa Ev Exaσтov,) and the assembly glorify God, as for some new and marvellous act. Then, too, it is for the first time thought necessary to warn him of the danger to which his mission was likely to expose him from the Jewish party; and it is then, indeed, that he first incurs any risk amongst his countrymen at Jerusalem; although the same reason had long been operating to render him an object of deadly hatred to Jews and Judaizing Christians out of Palestine. 20. And how did the persecution commence? Not with the Jews residing at Jerusalem; but after he had been almost seven days in the temple, without incurring any suspicion from them, "the Jews which were of Asia," (and who doubtless recognised him as the person they had often seen preaching to the idolaters, and who, perhaps, had before this assaulted him,) when they saw him in the Acts xxi. 27, temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, "crying out, Men of Israel, help: this is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place," &c. 28. Objection auswered. One powerful objection, it must be confessed, bears upon this supposition. If it be correct, the most important act of the blessed Spirit's dispensation, and the most remarkable, must have remained a secret from the Church of Jerusalem (the apostles being excepted) for fifteen years. Whether our familiarity with the ordinary modes of communication in modern days, may not cause us unduly to magnify the objection, especially as the want of such modes must have been peculiarly felt in the intercourse between the members of a poor and suspected sect on domestic affairs, the reader is left to consider. However, be it allowed or not, it must be admitted that this would not be a solitary instance of a strange ignorance in one part of the Christian society of its proceedings elsewhere. What, for instance, could have been a more interesting subject of report than the conversion of St. Paul? And yet, although this took place almost on the borders of Judæa, it is clear that the apostles themselves could not have known it for certain, when after an interval of several years he visited Jerusalem; else it would not Acts ix. 27. have been necessary for Barnabas to assure them of it, before they received him to their confidence and fellowship. The ignorance of those disciples of John Baptist, whom St. Paul met with in Asia Minor, whether there was any Holy Ghost, is another similar case. Acts xviii. 24, to xix. 2, 3. But, whatever was the information of the Church of Jerusalem respecting the admission of idolatrous converts to Christianity, the decree of the council could not, for the reasons assigned, have been intended to apply to them also. The proselytes of the gate-the devout Gentiles-were enjoined to observe the rules enumerated, on the principle, that Christianity did not interfere with any civil or social institution, but left the members of all societies bound, as before, by their social or civil obligations. On this principle it was, doubtless, that St. Paul circumcised Timothy, and not Titus; Acts. xvi. 3; and, on the same principle, the Church was not inconsistent in Gal. ii. 3. observing the first day of the week, as appears from Acts xx. 7, and also the seventh day of the week, as appears from Acts xiii. 14, 42, and xvi. 13. These observances they retained as partial adherents of the Jewish society; and accordingly, when Jerusalem was destroyed, its rites overthrown, and the nation, as a nation, annihilated, they, as well as the Jewish Christians themselves, considered themselves released from the obligation. Some superstitious observance of the decree indeed long existed in the Church, although it does not appear to have been by any means generally looked on as binding. Still, its directions are sanctioned in the decrees of at least one council, and its authority has from time to time been recognised by several Christian communities.52 50 Decree is of Individuals, too, among the most learned and enlightened of later whether the times, have maintained its perpetual authority,-Grotius among perpetual others. That the introduction of one moral rule into the list of authority. injunctions might have biassed these, in their view of it, is not impossible. In rejecting it they seemed to be annulling, not only the precept to abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood, but that also which forbade fornication. Lightfoot accordingly avoids the scruple by making fornication and polygamy synonymous. And, that the word translated "fornication "should embrace under its general signification polygamy and adultery is perhaps admissible; but that it should be applied to either specifically, is more than can be proved. In truth, all the doubt and difficulty may be traced to a false, or rather an indistinct, view of the true character of the Jewish law, of which this was, after all, only a portion. As the observance of the old law was sanctioned by the apostle in 50 See Justin Martyr, Dialog. cum Trypho, p. 237. Origen, cont. Celsum, Lib. VIII. C. 30, and Tertullian Apolog. C. 9. In like manner, we find the eastern Churches in the second century alleging the example of St. John and St. Philip for celebrating Easter on the day of the Jewish Passover, while the western Churches urged the practice of St. Peter and St. Paul in support of their observance of the day of the Resurrection. The question was not set at rest until the decree of the Nicene Council on the subject; and even then some refused to acquiesce, and were on that account stig- 51 Conc. Gangr. can. 2. 52 The more rigid Anabaptists have maintained its perpetual obligation on Christians; and likewise the sect founded by Glass and Sandeman in the beginning of the last century. The Copts are reported not only to observe the decree, but to circumcise; probably with the view of conciliating the Mahometans.-See Boone's Book of Churches and Sects, p. 163. Rom. ii. 15. the case of those Christians who had been subject to it before their conversion; so, in the case of the proselytes of the gate, that portion of it which they had previously embraced received a similar sanction. The Mosaic law, it is well known, comprises moral commandments and ceremonial rules all blended together, not only in the great body of Jewish Scripture, but even in the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God. The command to keep the seventh day as a sabbath is there found side by side with those which enjoin love to God and our neighbour, and with those which prohibit murder, theft, adultery, and false-witness. Nevertheless, a distinction is drawn by universal consent between the two portions of the law. It is agreed, that the ceremonial part has been abrogated, the moral left in force; and this is true, and for all practical purposes sufficient. It would, however, be a more exact and correct mode of expressing the truth, to say, that the whole of the Mosaic law was done away with, as far as it was binding because found in the law of Moses; but that the moral portion of the law continues in force, because it was in force prior to the promulgation of the Mosaic law. If, for instance, the sinfulness of murder depends on its being a violation of the sixth commandment, then was Cain guiltless.63 66 66 Why what was already written on men's hearts should have been specified in God's written law; whether it be, that in this, as in the whole course of God's dealings with man, each succeeding revelation was a comment on the former; or that these precepts were incorporated with the ceremonial or judicial law, in order to annex to them civil and temporal rewards and punishments, are questions which need not now be discussed. It is enough for the present purpose that such was the case. Now, the Gentiles, as members of the human race, had all the moral law engraven on their hearts; their consciences," as St. Paul tells us, accusing or else excusing them. In admitting these, therefore, to a partial fellowship with them, (such as the proselyte of the gate enjoyed,) it was not to be expected that the Jews would enjoin on them any rules beyond those which were ceremonial, and of these only enough to serve as a badge of distinction, and a test of sincere proselytism. The observance of the moral law would be considered as otherwise binding. History, however, sufficiently explains why it may have been expedient to place among these ceremonial rules one moral precept, that, namely, which enjoined them to abstain from fornication. Murder, theft, false-witness, and all other moral offences, were still universally recognised as such by the consent of conscience 53 Tertullian points out the manner in which our first parents may be convicted of having violated every command in the Decalogue by eating the forbidden fruit; and thence argues for the prior existence of a law equivalent in authority and im port to the Decalogue. Such a law has been communicated and is registered on every man's conscience.-See his Tract. adv. Judæos, C. 2. See also Whately's Essays, Second Series, Essay 5. in all. Fornication, alone, was not merely a common vice, but had If this view of the subject be correct, it will appear, that when the authority of the decree of Jerusalem ceased, Christians were thereby no more absolved from the duty of continence, than they were, by the cessation of the authority of the whole law of Moses, from the duty of honouring their parents, or abstaining from theft and murder. Indeed, he who is contented to do only what forms an express precept in holy writ, and to abstain from that only which is formally forbidden, misapplies the Scriptures. On man's conscience alone it is that the whole moral law is written, like the Ten Commandments, by the finger of God himself, but not, like these, in perishable characters. This was the first revelation of God to man, and co-existent with his creation; and even the last dispensation was not at all designed to supersede the use of this original internal revelation. The New Testament does not contain any code of ethics; it only alludes to the moral law as already known and provided; or seeks to correct and reform those parts which, although engraven perfect on man's heart by God, had become indistinct, and, in some few instances, nearly effaced. It furnishes motives to the observance of this law, and promises assistance in the performance of it. This, and not a revelation of the moral law, is the instruction which a Christian is to expect from his Bible. As the author of this instruction, our Lord speaks of himself, and of him whom he was to send to us, under the title of God encouraging us, (that is, exciting us by new motives, and new promises of aid,) and not under that of lawgiver: “ ἄλλον Παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν—He shall give you John xiv. 16. another Comforter." Our So much for the temporary character of this famous decree, whatever authority it may be supposed to have had while it remained in force. On this point much difference of opinion has existed. estimate of its authority must, of course, greatly depend on the character we assign to the persons who composed the assembly, and the circumstances under which they were acting. Without, therefore, referring to the specific conclusions which have been drawn, either for or against the authority of general councils, from the various assumptions with regard to this, it will be plainer, and less tedious, to state concisely the leading questions by which those views 54"Ne sequerer moechas concessa cum Venere uti, Possem," &c.-HORACE. |