Peter and Antioch

Intfrval of five tears in Peter’s life. The City of Antiooh. Its splendour. Growth of the Church within its walls. Threatened schism. Peter at the council of Jerusalem. His return to Antioch and unworthy vacillation.

“Climbing up high, its hills are battlements
The work of Titans

“The Apostles did not cease, even after they received the Holy Ghost, to be sinful men; along with the new man the old man too still lived in them; as sinful men therefore they remained subject to the possibility of error. .... They were distinguished from the world not by this, that they never went wrong, but by this, that when they did go wrong, they were sufficiently humble to acknowledge their mistake and immediately to correct it.” — Olshausen.

“In the person of Paul, the Lord once more * turned and looked on Peter;’ and the erring disciple was again awakened, and checked, and finally delivered.” — Archbishop Whately.

“He had before defended himself almost with rudeness, when his Divine Master had predicted his denial and desertion. In after ages, he humbly and silently permitted Paul to withstand him to the face.’ — Blunt on St Peter.

been

FTER the memorable escape from his Jerusalem prison, there occurs a blank of five or six years in the life of Peter. Not, we may feel well assured, that there any intermission in his active work, but the peculiar scene of his labours is left unchronicled. Some traditions represent him, as we have noted in last chapter, engaged during this interval in ministering to believers among the coast towns on the western shore of Palestine; while, as also already referred to, Cardinal Bellarmine and other Papal controversialists allege that he had taken up his residence in Rome, and as his Lord’s Vicar had there laid the foundation of the future Mother Church of Christendom.

While there is no reliable positive evidence to support such an assertion,1 there is much to militate against the assumption. Whatever probabilities there may be in favour of a later visit, which we shall come in due time to consider, not a tittle of proof can be adduced as to his having been in the Roman metropolis at this particular time. Such a residence indeed would have been chronologically impossible, and involves an unscrupulous perversion of facts to suit a purpose.

First of all, is it at all likely that his faithful biographer would have left entirely unnoted a sojourn of such importance and interest to the whole Church t Is it likely that if Peter had gone, as we shall find him presently doing, to the Council of Jerusalem, as u Bishop of Rome and Metropolitan,” that such a fact would have been passed in silence 1 Moreover, if Rome were the centre of his diocese, how came he, at the close of the council, to make the detour to Antioch in North Syria, which we shall also presently find him doing, and to maintain for a considerable time intercourse with the converts there, with all his urgent work ou hand in the Roman capital 1 Then, on the supposition that a permanent residence from this date in the city of the Caesars had actually taken place, how can we account for Paul’s studied silence regarding it in his letter to the Romans? While the author of that Epistle, with a remarkable profu&ness, occupies a whole chapter in sending greetings to other members of the Roman Church (embracing no less than twenty-six different persons whom he designates as “his helpers in Christ,”) how comes it that the name of the most illustrious of all

l Eusebius and Jerome, and from an incidental allusion we may add Irenaeus. are the only authorities that can be quoted in favour of such a theory. Their statements have again and again been refuted as harinf arisen from a confusion of names and dates.

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

never once occurs? Moreover, had the “Rockman” — be to whom the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven were metaphorically committed — been then in the capital, how can we account for Paul’s strong language when he speaks of his own anxiety to visit his Roman converts personally, that as an Apostle he might impart unt them spiritual gifts? “If we should say St Peter was absent, we cannot escape the difficulty; for not only does St Paul abstain from saluting Peter, but he writes positively to this flock as to a flock which had never yet seen an Apostle. 4 1 am ready, he says, 4 to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also; * that is, to preach the Gospel to the Christians of Rome, — the flock of another, and that other the Prince of Apostles, established as their Bishop for years.” 1 How utterly unlike him to employ what we would not unnaturally designate as insulting language: ignoring the presence, and gifts, and labours of one so distinguished. On the supposition of Peter having founded the greatest of the Gentile Churches in the World’s Metropolis, strange and inappropriate surely would be similar expressions of his brother Apostle in addressing the Galatians: — “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.” Could he thus speak of himself as the specially accredited messenger to the Gentiles, and associate Peter with the Jewish element alone, if the latter had been then installed as Bishop of Rome, and had entered on his twenty- five years’ alleged Episcopate 1* When Paul was on his way a prisoner to Rome a.d. 60, a number of sympathising brethren came to give him a

1 Dr Scheler quoted by West. Also Canon Norris in loc 8ee this well stated by Bishop Lee in loc kindly welcome at Appii Forum and the Three Taverns. There is not a syllable said regarding Peter beins among them. When the former reached the capital of the Caesars, we read that the chief of the Jews came to his lodging, and with eager curiosity poured in their questions regarding the origin, doctrines, and practice of the, new sect — which they had 44 heard of “as everywhere spoken against: — 41 We desire to hear of thee what thon thinkestl” What a strange query to put to this prisoner in chains, if, on the Romanist supposition, Peter had for sixteen years been occupying the Episcopal chair: and yet here are the members of his flock desiring instruction in the elements of Christianity! Could he who preached so nobly at Pentecost, and from whose Episcopate we might well expect such great results, have lived for years the nominal head of the Church: but so complete a cypher — in a state of such inaction, that these his own countrymen were glad to appoint a day to go to the lodging of a chained prisoner — for what purpose? To hear of his own personal grievances 1 No: to get information about the Religion of Jesus. 44 To whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening “(Acts xxviii. 23). For two whole years Paul lived in this hired house, 44 receiving all who came to him.” Strange that among the sympathising visitors the name of Peter is never mentioned. Paul must also at this time have written from Rome his Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, and Timothy, but there is the same absence in them all of any reference to Peter. It is inconceivable that such a ministry as his would never have been so much aa

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

alluded to, nor an apostolic salutation sent. Once more, when the same great Apostle was confined in the Mamertine dungeon, how he yearns for Christian sympathy! How he loves to enumerate the few names of those who had not been ashamed of his chain, but who had cheered him in his solitude, such as Luke and Ouesiphorus. Peter, had he been in Rome, would surely have received special mention; he is again conspicuous only by his omission.

In the absence then of all evidence in support of the Roman theory, we may much more reasonably conclude that during this gap in his history with which in the present chapter we are concerned, Peter was either engaged in the discharge of pastoral duty in some outlying districts of Palestine, or possibly among his countrymen (“they of the circumcision”) in the provinces and towns of Asia Minor.

At the close of that interval, however (about a.d. 50 or 51), the Apostle’s name reappears as one of the speakers in what is familiarly known” as “the Fibst Council op Jekusalem.” The purport of his utterances there, will be best understood by transferring our thoughts, in the first instance, to another noted locality on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, with which he is specially identified.

A magnificent city of that era was Antioch in Syria. It was picturesquely situated on the river Orontes, twenty miles from the sea, and three hundred miles from Jerusalem. It formed, with its half a million inhabitant4*, the great emporium of Eastern luxury; and, from its central position, commanded the whole trade of the Mediterranean by means of its port Seleucia. It was the outlet for merchants and caravans who travelled from the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, and ranked third (after Rome and Alexandria) among the capitals of the Roman empire. In the stately language of the historian of the “Decline and Fall,” “Autioch and Alexandria looked down with disdain on a crowd of dependent cities, and yielded with reluctance to the majesty of Rome alone.” It was built by Seleucus Nicator, B.C. 301, — the site being selected, as was often the case with Greek and Roman towns, by an eagle’s flight, after sacrifice, on Mount Silpius. It stood in a spacious hollow or plain, into which the Orontes flowed after cleaving its way between the mountain ranges of Casius and Amanus: while, through a second defile guarded by lofty precipices, the same river, after leaving the city, found its way to the sea. Owing to its isolated and remote position, Seleucus granted the newly-built capital exceptional privileges Jews had the same political rights accorded to them as the Greeks, and were governed by their own Ethnarch. Hence a great influx of the Hebrew race. A strong temptation for Greek settlers and for thousands of annual pilgrims arose from its proximity to the famous Temple and Groves of Daphne. Here the Pythian Apollo had his renowned sanctuary; enriched inside with gold, and gems, and art, — surrounded with bewitching scenery of rock, and glen, and rushing stream, and wealth of vegetation — thickets of bay and sacred cypresses. Add to this, what was more to these dissolute citizens of the gay capital — it was “a Sensual Paradise “— enjoying a base repute for the most licentious orgies — deeds of darkness perpetrated under the sanction of the” God of Light.” In the words of a writer to whom we are indebted,” under

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

the glorious sun of Syria and the patronage of Imperial Home, ail that was beautiful in nature and art had created a sanctuary for a perpetual festival of vice.” 1 The town of Antioch itself was nearly five miles long, and lay on the northern slope of Mount Silpius. Walls of enormous heights and thickness (fifty feet high, and fifteen wide) spanning in many places the deep ravines of the mountain, were miracles of art and labour. A remarkable island was formed In the centre of the city, on which stood the palace of the Seleucidse, with a bridge connecting it with the northern portion. The crags of the mountain just mentioned were all of them bol I and rugged. One remarkable column of rock overhung the town, which the arts of the Greeks had formed into an immense head with a crown upon it, and which they called “the Head of Charon.” A spacious colonnade in the central street had been erected at enormous cost by Herod the Great, running eastwards towards Aleppo, where the citizens could assemble for business or pleasure, and be protected either from rain or heat. Strange and motley must have been the crowds which there gathered — Roman soldiers, servants from the prefect’s palace, gay and pleasure-seeking Greeks, Israelites with their keen dark eyes, not arrayed in the poor garb in which they were often found in other cities, but bearing the evidences of wealth and prosperity, and worshipping the God of their fathers in handsome synagogues. From all this it will be seen that Antioch was well entitled to the name it bore, “the Queen of the East: “and it long maintained its name and reputation.2 * See also” Footsteps of St Paul,’’ with authorities there quoted.

But this city was iuvested with a deeper interest than that which gathers around towers and temples, villas and gardens, baths and theatres. Some Hellenists from the Island of Cyprus and the city of Cyrene in Africa,1 who had been scattered on the death of Stephen, had crossed a year before from their native shores and preached in this mighty mart. It was in the Hebrew synagogues in the first instance that the religion of Jesus was proclaimed. But these Hellenists of the Dispersion ventured to unfold the glad tidings also to the numerous Gentile population. The new faith, comparatively slow in combating the ancestral pride and prejudices of the children of Abraham, told with greater power on the susceptible Greeks — perhaps all the more so, as they listened to the new and strange tale, not from the lips of pronounced Jewish Evangelists or ordained propagandists, who might have had a purpose to serve in their proselytising, but from lay converts of their own blood and kindred; probably men engaged like many among themselves in ordinary commercial business — the battle of life. And more than all, some of these may have even been at one time also like them, the devotees of Apollo, and yet had been willing to renounce the bewitching dreams and fascinations of their mythology for the doctrines and worship of a peasant of Galilee. Nothing short, surely was it, of that Pentecostal baptism of fire, which gave potency to the word of these Cyprus Hellenists, and diverted their voluptuous and demoralised countrymen, votaries of pleasure and vice, from the licentious rites of the Sun-God, to sit at the feet of Jesus of Nazareth.

1 It will be remembered that the Jews from Cyrene are specially mentioned as being present ou the day of Pentecost.

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

The tidings of this remarkable movement in one of the great mercantile centres of the empire, had created naturally alike interest and anxiety among the members of the mother Church in Jerusalem; and desirous of ascertaining the true state of matters, they resolved to delegate one of their own number, on whose prudence and wisdom they could rely, to visit the scene and report on the rumoured revival. Barnabas, “the son of consolation,” whose name is already familiar to us, was selected for this delicate mission. His character, “a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith,” was guarantee sufficient for its faithful discharge. Being himself a Cyprian and Jewish Hellenist, he Was specially calculated to judge of the novelty of the situation without bias or prejudice, while his personal qualities would render him acceptable to all parties. On reaching Antioch he seems to have entertained no doubt as to the reality of the work. His first favourable impressions received growing confirmation. He recognised in all he saw the indubitable tokens of the grace of God: and the pleasing outcome of his mission was not rebuke but encouragement and consolation. “He was glad; and exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (Acts xi. 23). The scenes witnessed now on the banks of the Orontes would take his mind back to the marvels of those days of first Whitsuntide, when he himself had felt the kindlings of a new and nobler life. Even the novel and interesting scene we recently contemplated in the barracks of Caesarea was dwarfed in impressiveness by these vast accessions from the ranks of Gentile and heathenism.

Barnabas seems soon to have felt the responsibility too onerous of working there alone, and sought the co-

2 K operation of some one better able than himself to cope with Jewish prejudices, Greek learning, and false philosophy, and to combat the subtleties of human wisdom by the wisdom of God. He secured such a fellow-worker in the great Apostle of the Gentiles. He was personally acquainted with his friend’s exceptional ability, as well as with his future appointed work among the Gentiles. Perhaps it was with unfeigned sorrow that he was aware of Saul’s present constrained domicile in his native Cilicia, whither he had retired owing to attempts made on his life. It was a waste and neglect of much needed power: and to make all the more certain of securing his invaluable services and co-operation, he resolves, long as the journey was, to lay the urgent case before him by a personal visit. Accordingly we may think of the good Cyprian setting out from the mountain-girded city — travelling across the ridge of Amanus by what is known as “the Iron Gate of Syria,” and round the head of the Gulf of Issus, to the city of Tarsus. “He departed to Tarsus to seek Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch.” His illustrious colleague and he continued probably for a year their abundant labours. The cause nearest and dearest to their hearts abundantly prospered. Jews and Gentiles in vast numbers believed in Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. Indeed beyond Judea, Antioch soon came to contain numerically the largest community of the faithful. The once insignificant sect of believers within its walls gradually developed itself into a “Church” and the name was there assumed which has survived to this day — “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts xi. 26). It has been well observed, that as Jerusalem

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

TOs the natural head of Hebrew, so was Antioch that of Gentile Christianity. It was the scene of the first consecration of Christian missionaries; the centre of Church life and Church operations; the spiritual Pharos of that earliest age. Nor, it is interesting further to note, was that light soon dimmed or extinguished. In the age of Chrysostom we find the Christians numbering one hundred thousand, and supporting no less than three thousand poor, besides relieving many more. It became — along with Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem — one of the five patriarchates, for centuries continuing the capital of Christendom, and called by the name of Theopolis (“the City of God.”)1

But to return from this somewhat lengthened but needful introduction, to the connection of this “Mother City” with the Apostle Peter.

Not many years had passed, we cannot be far wrong in speaking of it as a.d. 49 or 50, when a new subject of alarm and anxiety occurred with reference to the now consolidated Church in Antioch — a momentous discussion arose on a question which threatened to rend the spiritual community in twain, and Peter was one of

1 It was as Bishop of Antioch that Ignatius was summoned by Trajan to Rome in the year a.d. 115, and thrown to the lions in the Coliseum; while in the fourth century it was the home of the “golden-mouthed Chryso«tom/* It may not be out of place to refer also in bis note to the present condition of the illustrious city. Dr Porter, who visited it personally, speaks specially of the magnificence of the ruined walls and towers on the dizzy heights of Mount Silpius. carried in some places along the edge of precipices, — “triumphs of mural architecture.” An old gate where this gigantic wal’ crosses the Aleppo road still bears the name, not of Peter, but of his distingui hed brother. Bab Bulus, “Paul s Gate” Another traveller speaks of the remains of a church on the top of Mount Silpius conjointly dedicated to St Peter and St Paul Antioch still boasts of a Patriarch, though its degraded Christian population only number a few hundreds. “The spirit of Apostolical Christianity has long since deserted it. Nothing in fact seems to remain of the Antioch of olden times, but... the name in its Arabic form — Ant4kieh.”-J&.

those, as we shall presently see, who was in the first instance at least instrumental in healing the threatened breach.

The question was the old one which appeared to have been finally settled on the admission of Cornelius to the Christian brotherhood, but which we then stated was likely at a future time to imperil the Church’s peace and safety. That time had now arrived. Nor is it difficult to account for the fact of how a debateable point which seemed to have been definitely adjusted should have been afresh raised The signal revelation that had been made to Peter at Joppa, followed by the judicial decision of the elders and brethren at Jerusalem, had, for the time being, allayed the scruples and smoothed the prejudices of the conservative party among the Jews: they had tacitly accepted the admission of Cornelius and his friends within the circle of believers, ratified as it had been by the united voice of the Church. Since then, however, converts had been announced from the most distant and unlikely quarters. As the result of the first great missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas, even the mountaineers from the half civilised regions of Upper Asia were reported to have embraced the religion of Jesus. The smouldering fires of Jewish exclusiveness again burst into a flame, and the old complaints were vehemently renewed that Ichabod had been written on the cherished Mosaic dispensation. Judaism sought once more loudly to assert its prerogatives; the Hebrew converts resented the thought of an abrogated ritual. They would make their rites and ceremonies a preliminary to Christianity — they would conserve their ancient polity by having every convert to the new doctrines become in the first

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

instance a Jew. They were willing to accept the new faith as an advanced Judaism; but they were unwilling to accept it if it were designed to absorb the Jewish element altogether. This would be “a rebellion against all they had been taught to hold inviolably sacred.... Many of the Pharisees, after the example of St Paul, had believed that Jesus was Christ; but they had not followed the example of their school-companion in the surrender of Jewish bigotry.”1 We must not, indeed r judge these children of Abraham harshly for such fond adherence to the old observances of their law. Had not the Christ whom they had been brought to acknowledge as their Sayiour — Himself a Jew — submitted to the initiatory rite? Had’ He not in His opening sermon proclaimed, that He had not come to destroy their law but to fulfil it? Nay, had not those who had instructed them in the doctrines of the new faith — the Apostles of Christianity — themselves clung lovingly to their ancient Temple, to its hours of prayer, its morning and evening sacrifices? Was it unreasonable, then, that Hebrews who had become Christians, should make an effort to combine both systems, and specially endeavour to make the rite of circumcision obligatory on all Gentile converts?

Matters were brought to a crisis by some professing Christians — zealots belonging to the sect of the Pharisees, but who had entertained these scruples and prejudices in their extremest form — having gone down clandestinely from Jerusalem to Antioch. They evidently claimed to be representatives of the opinions of the Mother Church, and openly inculcated that Christian baptism would be of no avail, unless accompanied with

l See Howson and Conybeare in lot circumcision. “It is very important to observe the exact form which their teaching assumed. They did not merely recommend or enjoin, for prudential reasons, the continuance of certain ceremonies in themselves indifferent; but they said,” Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be save*!.“1 In one word, these emissaries, whom Paul does not scruple to call” false brethren,” wished to incorporate Christianity with Judaism, and make the rites and duties of the latter, ceremonial and moral, “a conjunct cause of justification.” It is well indeed also carefully to note that it is to Gentile converts these strong dissuasives are addressed. The Apostles, as “Jews by nature,” did not, as we have more than once noted, lay aside the observances of the old dispensation (see Acts xviii. 18 and xxi. 24). To have done so would have implied that the law was contrary to Christianity, which it was not. “Paul himself,” to quote the words of Archbishop Whately “(like the other Apostles), always continued to observe the Mosaic law, as national customs... lest he should seem to cast any slight on the institutions of his nation, as in themselves adverse to Christianity; while, on the very same principle he declared to the Galatians, that if they embraced the Mosaic law * Christ profited them nothing,’ since that would have implied their trusting in those observances for salvation under the Gospel.“2 In matters of mere ritual he was never unreasonable or intolerant; indeed, on the principle of doing all things to all men, and not unnecessarily to wound Jewish prejudices, it will be remembered that he afterwards,” with a prudential accommodation to circum-

1 “Howson and Conybeare’s St Paul,” p. 2it. ’ * Whately’s 44 Lectures on the Apostles,” p. 1*4.

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

stances, without endangering the faith of the Gospel,” performed the rite of circumcision on Timothy. He ever sought to illustrate in practice his own great principle and maxim, “If it be possible, inasmuch as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” At present, however, he saw with eagle eye the danger that would inevitably result if these false teachings were suffered to go uncontradicted and unopposed. He refused to compromise truth by silent acquiescence, and by any connivance at principles so diametrically opposed to the whole spirit of the religion of Jesus. He tells us “he could not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour.” This doctrine of ceremonial justification must be dealt with as with a spirit of evil, and at all hazards be exorcised and cast out; since whatever was thus put upon an equality with the Great Sacrifice of our Lord, would dim the glory of His work, and render His cross of none effect It would be tantamount to declaring that the One only Foundation of a sinner’s hope was insufficient, or at all events that that Foundation would be rendered broader and more secure, by buttressing it with the forms and ceremonies of Judaism, How strongly Paul himself felt, is evidenced by the vehemence of his protestation to the Galatians against these troublers in Israel:” Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a 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 (Gal. v. 1-4).

This unfortunate dissension continued to vex and disturb the minds of the Gentile converts in Antioch; and as the violence of party feeling prevented an amicable settlement there, Paul and Barnabas were requested to go up to Jerusalem again to submit the question to the Apostles and brethren; and by obtain ing in the stronghold of Jewish nationality an authoritative deliverance, silence the agitators, and restore tranquillity. He had a higher authority in undertaking the journey. God Himself had commissioned him to proceed. He mentions expressly in his Epistle to the Galatians that he went “by revelation,” “Besides, it was not a local, but a general question, which might be agitated in any other part of the world; so that it was necessary to obtain a final sentence which should be alike respected in Antioch and in all the cities of the Gentiles.”1

Paul’s two companions were well selected. Barnabas was himself a Jew and a Levite. Titus, his other fellow-traveller, was a young uncircu incised Greek, and therefore a good sample of a heathen convert. They journeyed along the coast-road through Phenicia, thence to Samaria. It would seem they were not travelling among strangers to the Gospel; for we are told, that “as they passed tjirough, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, they caused great joy to ail the brethre!l.,,2

On reaching Jerusalem, the great Apostle, sensible of the intrigues of his adversaries, determined, before holding a conference in public, to see Peter, James, and John in private. After consulting with these “pillars of the Church,” a meeting or synod was convened for a full hearing and decision.3 “It must have been,” says i Prof. Dick, in loco. * Acts XT. 8. * GaL if. 8.

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

a thoughtful writer, “a most interesting assembly. From different regions were gathered the Apostles and Evangelists, the standard-bearers and leaders of the sacramental host. There were to be seen a number of those venerable men, the chosen attendants of our Lord while He was upon earth, who had now for twenty-years, since His ascension, been fighting manfully under His banner. Time must have traced its furrows on their brows, and the burden of constant labour and care must have bent their frames; but their hearts were as- full of fervour, zeal, and love, as when they beheld their risen Saviour on the first memorable Easter. There were many others, who, on their testimony, had believed in a Saviour unseen by the bodily eye. There were laborious missionaries, like Paul and Barnabas, who had travelled many a weary mile to spread abroad the glad tidings of salvation. Men who had never before met face to face, but well known to each other by reputation, and loved as well as known, now first exchanged fraternal greetings. Truly must such a meeting have presented to the observer a most impressive scene, and have proved to those gathered there a most affecting and refreshing season, a lively emblem of the blessed assemblage of all God’s dispersed children in His Kingdom of Glory.”1

There seems to have been at first a keen discussion, “much disputing” on the question. The Pharisees, who believed, strongly held to the views already stated. “They professedly embraced the Gospel, but.. baptized Pharisaism proved as dangerous and hostile to the Gospel of Jesus, as ever did Jewish Pharisaism to Jesus Himself.” 2 Of the speeches which were delivered

l Bishop Lee, p. 309. * lb., p. 308.

we Lave only four mentioned, and these probably no more than outlines — those of Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James. They all advocated the same ground, and claimed the same deliverance. Peter rose first to address. He was heard with that marked attention, due alike to his own character, and his special connection with the subject under debate. He declared again what had been revealed to him years before by means of the vision at Joppa, that he had been divinely authorised and commanded to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. He reminded his hearers that the Holy Spirit had on that memorable occasion been poured out upon the uncircumcised Cornelius and his household; thereby unequivocally testifying God’s acceptance of the believer independent of ceremonial rites, and that any attempt to impose such a burden on the Gentile converts would be in direct opposition to the Divine will and purpose, as then and there made known. It would, in his own words, be “a tempting of God.” It were strange, moreover, he adds, if those who now listened to him, Hebrews by birth, professing their entire dependence on Christ and on the all-sufficiency of His atoning Sacrifice, and who rejoiced at their own deliverance from legal bondage, should dream of assenting to the imposition of a ceremonial yoke on the necks of their Gentile brethren. Let his own calm, sententious utterances be. given in full:” And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should bear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved, even as they” (Acts xv. 7-11).

After a few moments’ silence, Paul and Barnabas followed. The concluding speaker was James the Just. Founding on the statement made by Peter (Symeon),1 he adverted to a passage in the prophecies of Amos, wherein God announces beforehand His purpose of mercy in the formation of a Gentile Church, figuratively there spoken of as “the restoration of the tabernacle of David.” He argued that it would be equivalent to an attempt to frustrate the Divine purposes, were the Jewish converts to insist on making conformity on the part of their Gentile brethren to a partial and local ritual, a condition of membership in the new dispensation. His opinion could not fail to carry great weight, not only from his reputed sanctity, but from his Hebrew sympathies. The Judaising party may have entertained strong hopes of support from one they had supposed with some reason to be of their “school of thought” But when bis sentiments endorsed those of the preceding speakers, and upheld and vindicated Gentile freedom, they could do nothing but acquiesce. As “Moderator” or President, he pronounced the deliverance:” Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are

i “It is worth noting how James, in his final speech, speaks of his brother Apostle under the Hebrew form of his name, 4 Symeon,’ as if to suggest to the Jewish multitude that the gnat Apostle was truly one of themselves.” — I),Grten,p. 107. turned to God. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts xv. ’19, 20).

We have already, in an earlier chapter, adverted to the incidental but cogent refutation which is here given us of the alleged primacy of Peter. We may repeat the reference. Had he been invested with the precedence, which the Church of Rome claims for him, as representative of his Lord, the authorised Prince of the Apostles, his judgment infallible in the settlement of controversies, — what an opportunity was now presented for exercising his prerogative, as ecclesiastical umpire and arbiter! But it is evident he claims and arrogates no such distinction. He states his view of the case, calmly and clearly, as a member of the court, placed on a parity with Paul and Barnabas; and the decree issued was the result of their united deliberation. If any one member in that sacred conclave seems to claim priority of official rank, it is rather, as we also previously noted, the venerable James, who, in a tone of greater authority, as the mouthpiece of the Assembly, thus formulates and announces its decision, “My sentence is.” It has been well remarked that “if these few words had fallen from the mouth of Peter, rather than of James, they would have constituted a far stronger argument for the former’s supremacy than all besides that is to be found in the New Testament.” But “he did not preside at the meeting; for he neither summoned nor dismissed it, he neither collected the suffrages, nor pronounced the decision.“1” Had Peter been Pope,” is the quaint remark of Mr Lewin,” the

i Bib. Die, Art. “Peter.

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

appeal would have been to him personally, and he would have issued his Bull; whereas the appeal was to the Council, and the decree wa3 issued by James.”1

The glorious truth was then finally :»nd for ever proclaimed, that the Gentiles were released from the yoke of the ceremonial law; that henceforth there was to be neither “Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncitcumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ was ail and in all.” v

A letter was drawn up in the name of the Assembly, to be conveyed by the hands of confidential messengers to the Gentile brethren at Antioch. It is short, but of much interest; being the first missive of the kind we possess as given forth by a Church Court. “This remarkable and interesting document seems to bear the mark of James* own hand in the form of salutation — * greeting ’ (Acts xv. 23), which occurs nowhere else but here, and in the salutation of his own Epistle (James i. 1).” 2 We may picture a crowded gathering in the great Syrian city, where the following communication was read amid breathless silence:” The Apostles and Presbyters, brethren,3 send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled

1 Letoirit Life of St Paul, vol. i. p. 159. a Kitto, 2«d

3 So in the most approved MSS., probably indicating the unanimity of the decision. “How needful it was thus to assert the perfect accord of the elder Apostles with Paul and Barnabas, appears only too plainly from the Epistles of St Paul, in which he is ever alluding to the wicked attempts of thj Juriaisers to represent them as heads of opposite factions.” — Canon Norr is, J>.71

with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul. Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore J udas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: That ye abstain from meats offered unto idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well * (Acts xv. 23-29).

Judas and Silas still further explained the scope and contents of the letter by word of mouth. The result was a happy one. The storm was immediately changed into a calm. The Gentile Christians would hail with satisfaction, and the Jewish converts would gladly acquiesce in, what came with the stamp of unquestionable authority. Agitated minds were soothed, and the danger of future disturbance averted.

Not long subsequent to this, however, an occurrence took place at Antioch, which has a peculiar and painful connection with our Apostle. It forms the last exceptionable incident in his life. Ever since the

1 Both Neander and Lange suppose the meeting to hare taken place some years later, and Wieseler at great length supports the view, that it must have occurred after Paul’s second missionary journey. But though we hare nothing definitely to fix the time, by far the preponderance of rel able authorities are in favour of its immediate sequence to the events just described. Dr Howson, in supporting the latter hypothesis, remarks in a note: “From the order of narration in the Epistle to the Galatians, it is most natural to infer that the meeting at Antioch took place soon after the Council at Jerusalem. Some writers wish to make it anterior to the Council, from an unwillingness to believe that Peter wou’d have acted thus after the decree. But it is a sufficient answer to this objection to say, that his conduct was equally inconsistent with his own previous conduct in the case of Cornelius.”

Lord’s Ascension, a period of seventeen or eighteen years, his path which we have been endeavouring to trace has been that of the just, “as the shining light,” “shining more and more.” One transient cloud dims the lustre of the sky. Unmistakable symptoms of the old pusillanimity betray themselves. He had now come to Antioch, to prosecute from thence a missionary journey in Asia Minor, entertaining no design save to strengthen the hands of his fellow-workmen, Paul and Barnabas, and to see that the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, which he had so vigorously supported, was carried into full effect. In accordance with that public and manly declaration, he was in the habit of mingling freely and without scruple with the Gentile converts in the Syrian capital, partaking of their meals, and sharing with them their “Agape,” or love feasts; owning them in everyway indeed as “one in Christ Jesus.” But, ere long, some of the Judaisers, inspired by the lingering jealousies of their party, came down from Jerusalem, evidently to ascertain for themselves the precise relation which existed socially between the Gentile and the Hebrew converts. They expressed their displeasure at finding the Apostle holding with the former unrestrained intercourse, and, by sitting with them at the same tables, contracting ceremonial uncleanness. Peter began to waver; his manner was suddenly changed towards the Gentile believers; and though we have no ground to infer that he carried matters so far as entirely to cease holding communion with them, all social fellowship was at least suspended. The wall of separation was once more raised.

He performed in this a double part. It was the same lamentable weakness which we found led him, at one of the great crises of his former history, to quail in the presence of the portress in the High Priest’s hall, and after the loudest protestation of his fidelity, three times to deny his Lord and Master. It was an unworthy repudiating of what he had done so much by word and personal influence to settle at the Jerusalem Council,” contradicting his own principles, and giving the sanction of his example to the introduction of caste into the Church of Christ. l The perils likely to result from his conduct were manifest. The fear and threat of forfeiting such social fellowship would inevitably have tended to Judaise the Gentile converts. It would have induced many of them at least to submit to circumcision, in order thereby to avoid exclusion from the intimate society of the Apostles of the Church.

Paul was roused to a holy indignation against his erring brother, thus seduced into abandonment of his own avowed principles, and to an unwarrantable and indefensible compliance with the prejudices of the weak. He “withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. “2 His conduct, indeed, had already produced much mischief, as even Barnabas, who had gone as his colleague to Jerusalem for the settlement of this very question, was carried away with his dissimulation;3 and as Dr Light foot well remarks,” This incident, by producing a temporary feeling of distrust, may have prepared the way for the dissension between Paul and Barnabas, which shortly afterwards led to their separa-

1 Howson and Conybeare, p. 239, vol. i. p. 212.

* “‘Because he was self -condemned,’ would perhaps be the more exact rendering: that is, he was acting in contradiction to his own avowed principles, and exhibiting a complete inconsistency.” — Archbith p Whatdy, p. 1S6L

8 Gal. ii. 13.

PETER AND ANTTOCH.

tion.” We cannot wonder, however, that Paul was obliged to do, what must have cost him a painful effort, “to rebuke. Peter before all.” These were the words which doubtless with a heavy heart he uttered; I give them as paraphrased by one of the ablest of his biographers: — “If thou, who art a Jew, didst before, as it were, go over to the Gentiles by living with them, why now, by a contrary example, dost thou countenance the doctrine of these Judaisers, that the Gentiles should come over to the Jews?”1 “The reproof of Peter,” continues the same writer, “in the face of the Antiochian Church, is one of the most remarkable incidents in the New Testament. Both Paul and he were inspired; and yet one of them was in the wrong. But the question at issue, it will be observed, was one not of doctrine but of conduct. Both were agreed as to the article of faith, viz., that henceforth the Jew was not bound by the law of Moses; but what called the vehement spirit of Paul into action, was the duplicity of Peter, in at one time associating with the Gentiles, and at another avoiding the contamination of their company.”

All thanks to the heroic fidelity displayed by the great Apostle on this occasion. But for his prompt intervention, there is no predicting what would have been the result, had this refluent wave of Judaism and Hebrew exclusiveness again swept through the recently erected barriers. He may well have had transferred to him the title which his unstable brother had, for the time being at all events, forfeited, — as the true “Rockman” who broke the force of that threatening wave and averted the disaster of a lamentable schism. But for his brave policy of “no surrender” (not in all cir-

1 Lewin’s “Life and Letters of St Paul,” vol. i. p. 339. cumstances the wise one, but certainly so in the present case), there might have been a formidable disruption among the Faithful, dividing them into rival organisations of Jew and Gentile. He saved the Church from being narrowed into an insignificant sect. The victoryhe achieved vindicated its God-given destiny and comprehension as the Spiritual Temple of the whole human race.

We believe that, sharp as the rebuke was, it was given and received in love. Nor can we fail to note the beautiful lesson of humility the conduct of our Apostle conveys. One in his dignified position might have resented the wrong sought to be inflicted. Sa long the acknowledged leader of the Apostolic band, he might have felt stung to the quick by the interference of a younger brother, who, moreover, was not satisfied with a private remonstrance, but must needs sist his senior before a public tribunal. But Peter gives no acrimonious retort as he once might, as he once would have done. He modestly submits, without even an attempt to extenuate his fault or to justify himself. He manifests no false shame in owning and confessing his inconsistency, JIe felt that “faithful were the rebukes of a -friend.-” t’His mind was easily susceptible of quick and sudden changes; his disposition was loving and generous, and we should expect his contrition, as well as bis weakness, at Antioch, to be what it was in the High Priests house at Jerusalem. “2 At all events,

1 At a later period, indeed (in the coarse of the second century), th*»se old Jewish prejudices once more strove to reassert their claims. The Church had, however, by this time, become too strong to be imperilled by the schismatics, who, under the name of Ebionites, separated themselves oq

th s very question from their br thren.

2 How .-ou.

PETER AND ANTIOCH.

he died twenty years after, loving his rebuker, and speaking of him to all the churches, as a “beloved brother 1 while Paul amply reciprocates, more than once, by an honourable reference to Cephas. We should have been sorry to have been without this short clause in the end of one of Peter’s letters: —” Our beloved brother Paul” We might have been apt otherwise to fear that the reprimand had created a misunderstanding and estrangement, which they had carried to the grave. No such thing. Grace brought about what nature might not have done. Nor is it the least beautiful attestation to Peter’s complete forgiveness, his penitence, his humility, his noble-hearted, magnanimous unselfishness, that he could thus in one of his own letters direct public attention to “all the Epistles n of his brother Apostle, when, as it has been remarked, one of these very writings contained the circumstantial account of the rebuke which had been administered to him by their author. “It is pleasing to trace the traditionary confirmations of their entire unity — the unity which joins St Peter to St Paul, rather than to his own early friend St John, the legends which represent them as joint rulers of Antioch,2 Corinth, and Rome,... and in all the early works of Christian art, both ever exhibited side by side, the one with his inverted cross, the other with the executioner’s sword.”8 These vague traditions are sufficient at least to show what the impression of the early age of the Church was, as to the sacred harmony existing between these two truly great

1 2 Peter Hi. 15, 16.

3 An utterly unsupported tradition, in contradiction to others already referred to, represents Peter as being Bishop of Antioch for seven years before he was elevated to the See of Rome.

8 Stanley’s “Sermons on the Apostolic Age,” p. 101.

men; that they died faithful to their Blessed Master’s last bequest, “This is My commandment, that ye love one another,”

We close this chapter with the happy thought in regard to the one with whom we are most concerned, that the transient moral cowardice displayed at Antioch in carrying out his professed convictions, forms the last recorded blemish in a noble life. The God he served seemed to have signally answered the prayer which has grown familiar to worshipping millions: “Strengthen such as do stand: comfort and help the weak-hearted: raise up them that fall, and finally beat down Satan under our feet.”