ページの画像
PDF
ePub

plainly attributes a kind of pre-eminency to James; and, as we hear of him twice in the fame epistle dwelling at Jerufalem, chap. i. ver. 19, and ii. 9, we muft apply it to the fituation which he held in that church. In the Acts of the Apostles divers intimations occur, conveying the fame idea of James's fituation. When Peter was miraculously delivered from prifon, and had surprised his friends by his appearance among them, after declaring unto them how the Lord had brought him out of prison, "Go shew," fays he, "these things unto James, and to "the brethren" (Acts, chap. xii. ver. 17). Here James is manifeftly spoken of in terms of distinction. He appears again with like distinction in the twenty-firft chapter and the feventeenth and eighteenth verses: “And "when we (Paul and his company) were "come to Jerufalem, the day following, Paul "went in with us unto James, and all the "elders were prefent." In the debate which took place upon the bufinefs of the Gentile converts, in the council at Jerufalem, this fame person seems to have taken the lead. It was he who clofed the debate, and proO

pofed

pofed the refolution in which the council ultimately concurred: "Wherefore my fen"tence is, that we trouble not them which "from among the Gentiles are turned to "God."

Upon the whole, that there exifts a conformity in the expreffions used concerning James, throughout the history, and in the epiftle, is unquestionable. But admitting this conformity, and admitting also the undefignedness of it, what does it prove? It proves that the circumftance itself is founded in truth; that is, that James was a real perfon, who held a fituation of eminence in a real fociety of Christians at Jerusalem. It confirms also thofe parts of the narrative which are connected with this circumftance. Suppofe, for instance, the truth of the account of Peter's. efcape from prifon was to be tried upon the teftimony of a witness who, among other things, made Peter, after his deliverance, fay, "Go fhew these things "to James and to the brethren;" would it not be material, in fuch a trial, to make out by other independent proofs, or by a comparison of proofs, drawn from independent

fources,

fources, that there was actually at that time, living at Jerufalem, fuch a perfon as James; that this person held fuch a fituation in the fociety amongst whom these things were tranfacted, as to render the words which Peter is faid to have used concerning him, proper and natural for him to have used? If this would be pertinent in the discussion of oral teftimony, it is ftill more fo in appreciating the credit of remote history.

It must not be diffembled that the comparison of our epiftle with the hiftory prefents fome difficulties, or, to fay the leaft, fome questions, of confiderable magnitude. It may be doubted, in the first place, to what journey the words which open the second chapter of the epiftle, "then, fourteen years "afterwards, I went unto Jerufalem," relate. That which beft corresponds with the date, and that to which moft interpreters apply the paffage, is the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerufalem, when they went thither from Antioch, upon the business of the Gentile converts; and which journey produced the famous council and decree recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. To me this O 2 opinion

opinion appears to be encumbered with ftrong objections. In the epiftle Paul tells us that “he went up by revelation" (chap. ii. ver. 2). In the Acts, we read that he was fent by the church of Antioch: “After "no fmall diffenfion and difputation, they "determined that Paul and Barnabas, and "certain other of them, fhould go up to the "apoftles and elders about this question" (Acts, chap. xv. ver. 2). This is not very reconcileable. In the epiftle St. Paul writes that, when he came to Jerufalem," he com"municated that Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them "which were of reputation" (chap. ii. ver. 2). If by, "that Gospel" be meant the immunity of the Gentile Chriftians from the Jewish law (and I know not what else it can mean), it is not eafy to conceive how he fhould communicate that privately, which was the subject of his public meffage. But a yet greater difficulty remains, viz, that in the account which the epistle gives of what paffed upon this vifit at Jerufalem, no notice is taken of the deliberation and decree which

66

are recorded in the Acts, and which, ac

cording

cording to that history, formed the business for the fake of which the journey was undertaken. The mention of the council and of its determination, whilft the apostle was relating his proceedings at Jerufalem, could hardly have been avoided, if in truth the narrative belong to the fame journey. To me it appears more probable that Paul and Barnabas had taken fome journey to Jerufalem, the mention of which is omitted in the Acts. Prior to the apoftolic decree, we read that "Paul and Barnabas abode at Antioch

66

a long time with the difciples" (A&s, chap. xiv. ver. 28). Is it unlikely that, during this long abode, they might go up to Jerufalem and return to Antioch? Or would the omiffion of fuch a journey be unsuitable to the general brevity with which these memoirs are written, efpecially of those parts of St. Paul's history which took place before the historian joined his fociety?

But, again, the first account we find in the Acts of the Apostles of St. Paul's vifiting Galatia, is in the fixteenth chapter, and the fixth verfe: "Now when they had through Phrygia and the region of Ga

66

gone

[blocks in formation]
« 前へ次へ »