The Christ Of Paul Part 4

Justin Martyr was born about the year A. D. 100, and was a native of Neapolis in Syria. (Apology, sec. I.) At the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius he fixed his abode in Rome, and afterwards wrote numerous works, princ.i.p.ally devoted to the defence of Christians. (Cave's _Life of Martyr_, vol. 2, chap. 6.) No one had better opportunities of knowing about Peter, and the church at Rome, than he had, and no one who wrote as much as he did which concerned Christianity, would have been more likely to mention him, if what Irenaeus says of him had been true. He is so oblivious of Peter that he seems to have been unconscious of his existence. No writer in the first years of the second century, who is ent.i.tled to credit, speaks of him, and he first begins to figure in the pages of Irenaeus when the disputes with the Gnostics were at their height. The Clementines were composed later in the century, when Pauline Christianity was giving way to the new school, and the dogma of an Apostolic succession had taken possession of the church. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who lived and wrote during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and his son Commodus, about A. D. 180, according to Eusebius, also states that Paul and Peter were at Rome together engaged in laying the foundation of a church. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., lib. ii. ch. 25.) But this writer has got out of the Pauline period, and even goes beyond Irenaeus, for he states, according to the same authority, that Peter and Paul laid the foundation of the church at Corinth.

Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, Apollinarius of Hierapolis, all writers about the same time, A. D. 180, like Irenaeus, take sides against the Gnostics, and show that they were committed to the new school. From this time Irenaeus is quoted as the authority for the fact that Peter and Paul had founded the church at Rome, and we are asked to give special weight to what he says, as he was the companion of Polycarp, who had seen and conversed with John.

Speaking of Paul, Clement is made to say, "He preached both in the East and in the West--taught the whole world righteousness, and reached the farthest extremity of the West, and suffered martyrdom, by the command of the Governors." This pa.s.sage has long been a stumbling-block among learned critics. It is the only authority on which is founded the story, that after Paul was discharged from prison in A. D. 63, he went into Spain, Gaul, and Britain. Caius, the Presbyter, in the beginning of the third century, says: "Writings not included in the canon of Scripture expressly mention the journey from Rome into Spain." Hippolytus, in the same century, says that Paul went as far as Illyric.u.m, preaching the gospel. Athanasius, in the fourth century, says that St. Paul did not hesitate to go to Rome and Spain. Jerome, in the same century, says that "St. Paul, after his release from his trial before Nero, preached the Gospels in the Western parts." (Quoted from Chevallier's _Apostolical Epistles_, note, p. 487.)

These is no authority for Paul's travels in the Western provinces, except the pa.s.sage from Clement, and as Irenaeus is the founder of the story, it is not improved by the repet.i.tion of subsequent writers.

The whole is a transparent falsehood. From the time of Paul's career, commencing with his adventure near Damascus to the time of his imprisonment in Rome, in the spring of A. D. 61, we have an account of his travels, and know where he was each year during this time. He never in this time went west of Rome. In the spring of A. D. 63, in company with Mark, t.i.tus, Timothy and others, he left Rome and went in all probability to Colosse, where, in pursuance of some agreement he made with the people of that place, he left Mark. How long he remained is uncertain, but the next time we hear of him he is in Crete, where no doubt he spent the winter of A. D. 63 and A. D. 64, In the mean time he made some converts, whom he left in charge of t.i.tus, and in the spring went west into Macedonia. Some time in the summer or fall of A. D. 64 we find him in Nicopolis, where he informed t.i.tus he meant to spend the winter. The following spring or summer he went to Rome and was soon imprisoned. If he was at Colosse or Crete in A. D. 63, and Nicopolis in A. D. 64, he could not have gone to Britain, Gaul, and Spain between the spring of A. D. 63 and the summer of A. D. 65, for it would not be possible.

But it is conclusive that Paul did not go into the provinces of the West after his release from prison; that there is no mention of his travels in the West, except what is said in this pa.s.sage from the letter of Clement--a thing impossible, when we consider that he never went anywhere but he made his mark, and left his footprints behind him. Even Paul himself, in his subsequent letters, makes no allusion to any such travels, which is accountable upon no other hypothesis than that he never made them. But what was gained in fabricating this pa.s.sage?

The idea of Irenaeus, that there could be no church unless its origin could be traced to some one of the Apostles, who were special bankers of divine favors, never left him. He furnished Rome with Peter, and Asia with John, and now he is required to furnish one for the churches in Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Here were churches in these countries in his day, and who had authority to establish them? It would not do to claim that either of the Twelve had been in the West, for even falsehood has its' boundaries. Paul will do. He is the great Apostle of the Gentiles.

Besides, according to the Acts, he had submitted to ordination at the hands of the Apostles. The explanation of the reasons which dictated this spurious pa.s.sage in Clement's letter is consistent with the acts of Irenaeus, and the whole current of his thoughts throughout his life.

But this story, invented by him, has been repeated by others, until it settled down--as history! It is clear from the proof here shown, that Irenaeus has no claim to our belief as a writer, and that the statements he makes in regard to Peter in Rome and Paul in the West are mere inventions of his own to a.s.sist him in his disputes with the Gnostics, in which he was engaged for the best part of his life.

CHAPTER IX.

The claim of Irenaeus that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and Luke the author of the third Gospel, considered.--Luke and Mark both put to death with Paul in Rome.

Irenaeus, after stating that Peter and Paul preached in Rome and laid the foundation of a church at that place, continues: "After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him." (Book iii. sec.

1.) Again no time is given. The last time we know anything of Mark and Luke that is certain, or at all reliable, they were both with Paul in Rome. In his second letter to Timothy he says: "Only Luke is with me.

Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry." (2 Timothy iv. 11.) That Timothy obeyed this request and took Mark with him, does not admit of doubt. Paul and Timothy were inseparable, and Mark was Paul's near friend and companion. This must have been in the fall of A. D. 65, when Paul was in prison, with little or no hope to escape the second time from the fangs of Nero.

At the time Timothy and Mark entered Rome, the fury of Nero raged with all its sanguinary cruelty. It was just about the time the conspiracy of Piso was brought to light. Made mad by his fears, he struck in all directions. Not content with the destruction of the conspirators, he put to death all who offended his vanity or moved his jealousy. Seneca, a man whose many virtues added l.u.s.tre to the Roman people, and who was an honor to any age, was not suffered to live. His very virtues gave offence to the tyrant. Lu-can and others, distinguished for genius and learning, were put to death. Tacitus says that at this time "the city presented a scene of blood, and funerals darkened all the streets."

(Annals, book XV. sec. 21.) Speaking of the events of the year 66, when Paul was put to death, the same writer says: "We have nothing before us but tame servility, and a deluge of blood spilt by a tyrant in the hour of peace. The heart recoils from the dismal story. But let it be remembered by those who may hereafter think these events worthy of their notice, that I have discharged the duty of an historian, and if in relating the fate of so many eminent citizens, who resigned their lives to the will of one man, I mingle tears with indignation, let me be allowed to feel for the unhappy. The truth is, the wrath of Heaven was bent against the Roman State. The calamities that followed cannot, like the slaughter of an army or the sacking of a city, be painted forth in one general draught. Repeated murders must be given in succession."

(Annals, B. XVI. sec. XVI.) The author then proceeds to give a long list of victims. At the time Paul was in prison, and Mark and Luke his companions were with him, the Roman legions, under the command of Vespasian, were marching to make war upon the Jews, if they had not done so already. They had rebelled and defied the power of Rome. At this time, no Jew could be in Rome and live. Not only was the anger of Nero aroused against them, but that of the entire people of Rome--and this feeling did not abate until after almost the entire nation was destroyed. No doubt Timothy, Luke, Linus, Paul, and all others who were with them, perished in the general calamity. Why put to death Paul, and not his fellow-laborers? Nero waged war not against Christians, but against Christianity. We trace all these parties inside the gates of Rome, and then we lose their trail forever. There is not one single item of reliable proof that any one of them ever left the doomed city. The footprints of Christians going into Rome at this time were like the tracks going into the cave of Polyphemus--many were seen going in, but none coming out.

We learn from Eusebius and Jerome, that Mark went to Egypt and founded a church at Alexandria, and the latter states that he died and was buried there in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. This is impossible. As Nero commenced his reign A.D. 54, this would made him die in A.D. 62.

Now we find him alive with Paul in A.D. 65. Eusebius, in his loose way, says: "The same Mark, _they say also_, being the first that was sent to Egypt, proclaimed the gospel there which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria." (Book I. ch. 16.) This father had special reasons why he wanted to get Mark to Alexandria. The close resemblance between Christians and Therapeutae, as we have shown, was a reason with him why he should insist that the latter were in fact believers in Christ by a different name. Mark is sent to be their teacher, and was claimed to be the founder of this new sect of Christians. Nothing is wider from the truth. If ever Mark or Luke left Rome, there is no reason why we should not hear something of them.

Situated as they were in their relations with the founders of Christianity, had they survived the slaughter at Rome, one or both would have left behind them evidence, of some kind, of their escape. What remained of Paul, Timothy, Mark, Luke, Linus and others after they entered Rome in the winter of A.D. 65 and A.D. 66, could only be found after that time among the graves of Nero's victims. Whatever Mark and Luke wrote, in the nature of Gospels, was written before they entered the gates for the last time.

As this was in A. D. 65 or A. D. 66, and the gospels ascribed to them were neither extant nor known before the beginning of the second century, we are forced to look to some other quarter for those who wrote them.

But what proof is there that Mark and Peter were on such intimate terms as is claimed by Irenaeus? None, except that which is afforded in the first Epistle of Peter (1 Peter v. 13), wherein Mark is spoken of by Peter as his son. What better evidence can we have of the studied dishonesty of Irenaeus, than his attempt to have it appear or believed that the Mark referred to in the first of Peter, was the companion of Paul and interpreter of Peter? We have just shown he was not--but an entirely different person, and it sweeps away the whole foundation upon which rests the claim that the Gospel of Mark was written at the dictation of Peter. While Mark was with Paul, either in Rome or Asia Minor, Peter, with his son Mark, is preaching among the Jews of Chaldea.

What Presbyter John says on this subject is here worthy of notice.

Eusebius, speaking of the writings of Papias, says: "He also inserted into his work other accounts of the above-mentioned Aristion respecting our Lord, as also the _traditions_ of the Presbyter John, to which referring those that are desirous of learning them, we shall now subjoin to the extracts from him already given a _tradition_ which _he_, sets forth concerning Mark, who wrote the Gospel, in the following words: 'And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, _but not to give a history of our Lord's discourses._'" (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., book iii.

chap. 39.) Papias here gives _a tradition_ derived through Presbyter John. Slender proof that Peter dictated the Gospel of Mark! To rank among canonical Gospels, and as a corner-stone of Christianity, with the authority of an inspired book, the proof falls far below what we have a right to expect and demand. On such a subject it is no proof at all. It is difficult to tell what Mark did write, according to Papias. What he did write was not in the order in which the events in the life of Christ occurred--nor in the order in which he spoke or taught. Peter would not allow him to give the history of our Lord's discourses. If that is so, then the Gospel to which Papias refers is not our present Gospel of Mark. This relates the acts of Christ in the order of time, and gives his discourses in full. In this respect the second Gospel does not differ from the first and third. It is quite probable that Mark, in his intercourse with the Apostles, may have learned many things in relation to Christ which he wrote out, but which, like the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, was condemned or cast one side, as it did not help to strengthen the new ideas in relation to Christ, which sprang up some time before the death of Paul. But we can never know what Mark wrote, as Papias does not claim he ever saw it, nor do we know of any one who did.

What is said by Clement of Alexandria and all other writers on the origin of the second Gospel is derived from the extract taken from the works of Papias, and from what is said by Irenaeus: their statements do not better the case, any more than a superstructure will give strength to the base on which it rests. If Mark ever wrote anything, it would contain nothing that did not accord with Paul, for he was not only his fellow-traveller, but he was his fellow-laborer in the spread of the doctrines of Christianity; and so near and dear were the relations between them, that when Paul saw his end approach, he wrote to Timothy to bring Mark with him, as brother would for brother, for a parting inter view. What Paul taught, Mark believed--and Paul dead or Paul in life would have made no difference with Mark.

After reading the Gospel of Mark, who would suppose that he had been the companion of Paul and the interpreter of Peter? We would expect to find some thought or expression that had in it the soul of Paul, as his very spirit penetrated all his followers and made them a reflex of himself.

Paul drew from the depths of his own consciousness, which he took for revelations, the ideas which formed the basis of his religion and made Christ what he believed him to be. It was a holy faith with him, disconnected from all material laws. The second Gospel is founded on works, and the divinity of Christ proven by his power over the laws of the universe. All nature bows down before him; even demons and evil spirits fly before his presence. Mark the interpreter of Peter!! Where do we see Peter in the Gospel of Mark? What, all at once, has become of circ.u.mcision? Did he, after his quarrel with Paul, shake off his Jewish prejudice and bigotry and rise to a higher plane? The proof is he did not.

Paul, Luke, and Mark were as companions inseparable--they were fellow-laborers, held the same doctrines, died for the same cause and at the same time.

In another chapter we inquired from what source Luke got his knowledge of the wonderful statement he makes in relation to the visitation of the angel to Mary and Zacharias, for he did not get it from Paul, who never mentions the name of Mary. We now ask, from whom did Mark learn the story of John the Baptist? Paul knew nothing about him. Who had a better opportunity than he to know everything which related to him, if he had been the person described by Mark? What better proof can be offered to show that neither Luke nor Mark wrote the Gospels ascribed to them, than that they are made to state matters which lay at the bottom of Christianity in after-ages, of which Paul, their teacher and co-laborer, knew nothing? To find the authors of these Gospels we must look to the second century.

CHAPTER X.

Acts of the Apostles.--Schemes to exalt Peter at the expense of Paul.

The Acts of the Apostles dates between A. D. 140 or 150 and A. D. 170.

The book, _as we now find it_, was not in existence before Justin's _Apology_, because before his time there were no miracles, as will be shown; while the Acts abounds in those of the most extravagant character. Between A. D. 140 or 150, and A. D. 180, is the time when the war among the different sects raged with the greatest violence, and frauds and forgeries were practised by all parties without remorse or shame. It was during this time that Lazarus was made to rise superior to death, and a.s.sume his place among men, after his body had become putrid and began to decay. There was nothing too false or extravagant for parties to a.s.sert at this period of the world, and the only wonder is, that the absurd stories of the age have pa.s.sed down to subsequent generations as truths of a revealed religion.

The book of the Acts, in its present form, came to light soon after the doctrine of the Apostolic succession was conceived, for it is very evident that the first half is devoted to give prominence to Peter among the Apostles, who was to be made the corner-stone of the Church. As all other churches are made to bow to the supremacy of Rome, so all the Apostles must be subordinate to Peter. This is so obvious that the work is overdone. On the day of Pentecost he is put forward to explain the miracle of the cloven tongue, and show that it was in accordance with what the prophet Joel had foretold--which if Peter did say what he is made to say, only proved his ignorance of what the prophet meant. His miraculous powers are wonderful. He cured a man forty years old, who had been lame from his birth, so that he leaped and walked. His power extends over death, and he raises Dorcas from the grave. He is now chief speaker. Ananias and his wife Sapphira fall down dead before him. So extraordinary is his power over diseases, "that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that _at the least the shadow of Peter_ pa.s.sing by might overshadow some of them."

(Acts v. 15.)

It is surprising that the incredulity of the Jews did not give way before such wonderful works; but it seems it did not, and the only effect produced on their minds was to send Peter to prison. Peter is twice committed to prison for doing good, and the sole object in sending him there is to give an opportunity to the Lord to deliver him, and show that he is under the special protection and guardians.h.i.+p of G.o.d. "And behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light s.h.i.+ned in the prison; and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals: and so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me." (Acts xii.

7, 8.) "And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews" (verse 11).

The person over whom the Lord had manifested so much care, must certainly have been set apart to act some great part in his providences towards our race. At the time we are writing about, the struggle between the followers of Peter and Paul was raging; the latter claiming that the Apostle of the Gentiles was of equal authority as to doctrine with Peter or any of the Apostles; while the former insisted that Paul had a special commission--to convert the Gentiles--and as he had performed his work, his mission ceased, and he was no longer to be regarded as an authority in the church. No less a person than G.o.d himself can settle the dispute, and the cunningly devised stories of Cornelius, and Paul's conversion, are introduced into the Acts in order to give the Lord an opportunity to decide between the two parties.

Cornelius, a devout man, is laboring under what is called religious conviction, and is in doubt what to do. He stands in need of a spiritual adviser, and when in this condition of mind, "He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of G.o.d coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thy alms are come up for a memorial before G.o.d. And now send men to Joppa, and call for one _Simon_, whose surname is Peter." (Acts x. 3, 4, 5.) The centurion was sent to Peter, because he was the depositary of divine light, and the dispenser of spiritual gifts--an intimation from G.o.d to all the world, for all ages, where men must look to, to find the true interpreter and expounder of religious faith. Cornelius did as he was commanded.

But it was not enough that this was true of Peter; but it must be shown that Paul was but a simple missionary, whose powers ended with his death. To do this, the story of his conversion in the Acts is told, notwithstanding it is in direct conflict with what Paul says himself on the subject. When Ananias was requested by the Lord to call on Paul while he was still prostrate from the effects of the blow he received near Damascus, he declined to do so--apparently in fear of Paul, on account of his previous treatment of Christians. This gave the Lord an opportunity to tell Ananias, why he is anxious to do as he was requested. "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." (Acts ix. 15, 16.)

The Lord has now settled all disputes between the followers of Peter and Paul, and the office of each is settled and defined. Under such a judgment, p.r.o.nounced by G.o.d himself, no wonder the influence of Paul ceased to be felt in the latter part of the second century, and Peter proportionally increased in weight and authority. This attempt to put up Peter and put down Paul, determines the date of the Acts, and fixes it somewhere between A.D. 150 and A.D. 170, a period in the century prolific of spurious writings. It may be called the Petrine age of Christianity.

When Paul made his defence before the Jews at Jerusalem, and explained to them the mode of his conversion, it would be dangerous, or at least suspicious, to leave out the story of Cornelius; but as it differed so much from the one he gives in second Corinthians, it was necessary to omit the one given in the epistle entirely. But the fraud is easily detected. The account as given in the Acts, to the sixth verse inclusive, is as it was doubtless delivered by Paul; but from this point the story diverges from the one given by himself, and is a sheer fabrication. "And it came to pa.s.s, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great. light round about me." (Acts xxii. 6.) Then according to Paul's account, given in his letter to the Corinthians, he was caught up to the third heaven, and there heard unspeakable words which it was not lawful for man to utter. What transpired between G.o.d and Paul, all took place in heaven, where no man could bear witness. The account in the Acts, which commences in the seventh verse, says that after the light shone from heaven, Paul fell to the ground, and did not ascend to heaven, but was led by the same light to Damascus. This version is to let in the story of Ananias. He could not bear witness to what pa.s.sed between the Lord and Paul in the third heaven, but he might if the scene was laid on the earth. Besides, what pa.s.sed between the Lord and Paul the latter does not pretend to state, for the words he heard were unspeakable and not lawful for man to utter. There is nothing in the story in the Acts that is unspeakable or unlawful to be repeated, unless it is to be regarded as a piece of blasphemy.

Had Paul told the story as given in the Acts in his defence, there was nothing in it to arouse the Jews to such a pitch of madness as to cause them to insist that he should be put to death. There was more in it to provoke a sneer than to excite anger. The scene in Jerusalem, when Paul was compelled to make his defence, was in A.D. 58, and he could have appealed to Ananias, who in the course of nature might still be living, and others, if the story was true. It was not the story in the Acts that incensed the Jews. When Paul claimed he was taken up to heaven, and there met the Lord and talked to him face to face, he had reached, in the minds of his hearers, a point in blasphemy that drove them to frenzy, so that they exclaimed: "Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live." The Jews listened to Stephen with patience until he exclaimed, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of G.o.d," when they could stand it no longer, and ran upon him with one accord and stoned him to death. It is clear that Paul's defence, made before the Jews, of his conversion, is omitted, and the story of Ananias subst.i.tuted, to aid the enemies of Paul in placing Peter over him.

When we find the same story variously stated by Paul, and in the Acts, there should be no hesitation in choosing between the two. The Acts, like the works of the early fathers, bears so many marks of forgeries, to suit the emergencies and wants of the day, that very little contained in either is of any historic value. The epistles of Paul had obtained a large circulation before the time when the men of the second century inaugurated an era of forgeries, and long before the Acts were in existence; so that the forgers were compelled to exercise great caution when they came to deal with the epistles, and only ventured to insert pa.s.sages into the genuine writings to give the sanction of his name to the doctrines of the Alexandrian or Johannean school, or some dogma of the day. Such pa.s.sages are scattered all through the epistles, but we can easily point them out, for they are doctrinal and exceedingly pointed.

Peter disappears at the end of the twelfth chapter; but enough has been done to make him chief among the Apostles, and claim for him a spiritual supremacy in all matters which relate to the church. John, afterwards the great light of Asia, only plays the part of an esquire to Peter, his lord and superior. They are often together, but John is not suffered to speak. It was designed that John, who was to take Asia in charge, should stand next to Peter; but the writer, by imposing silence on him on all occasions, took care that the supremacy of Peter was not put in jeopardy. The preaching of Philip in Samaria was a device to show that Peter and John were superior to the rest of the Apostles in their power to confer the Holy Ghost. Philip made many converts, both men and women, and he baptized them--but his baptism was not sufficient. "Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of G.o.d, they sent unto them Peter and John. They laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."--Acts viii. 14, 17.

According to Paul, and this is made clear by the quarrels between him and Peter, as related in the epistles, the latter was tenacious to the last for the Jewish rite of circ.u.mcision, and we have no evidence, and no reason to believe, that he ever gave it up. A sectarian Jew would never answer to be the head and founder of a Catholic church. The sectarian character of Peter must be got rid of, and we see studied efforts in the Acts to do so. We have seen that Peter, in the first words he addressed to Cornelius, took the opportunity to declare that he believed in the doctrine that G.o.d was no respecter of persons. But this was not enough, in the opinion of the writer of the Acts, or at least the first half, and to make Peter's emanc.i.p.ation from his old Jewish opinions more conspicuous, and enable him to explain how it happened that the change was brought about, the vision of Peter on the house-top is produced. He went up upon the house-top to pray, about the sixth hour, and became very hungry; but while they were preparing something for him to eat, he had a trance, "And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What G.o.d hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven."

The command of the Lord to Peter to eat, was a command to give up his Jewish views and notions; for that all flesh was alike, and equally proper to be taken on an empty stomach. Peter was at a loss to understand the vision, and while he was revolving the subject in his mind, Cornelius and his party came to be instructed by him, in accordance with the directions of the Lord. When Cornelius, who was of the Gentiles, made at known the object of his visit, Peter at once understood the import of the vision, and exclaimed, "Of a truth I perceive that G.o.d is no respecter of persons," and that the gospel of Christ is to supply the spiritual wants of all nations, as the beasts and fowls are to furnish food for the hungry.

The conversion of Peter receives further importance and prominence from the defence he is compelled to make before the brethren, for his disregard of the rite of circ.u.mcision in the baptism of Cornelius. Peter makes a speech, in which he declares that he was commanded by G.o.d, not less than three times, to give up his old Jewish notions; and no sooner was the command given than Cornelius, a Gentile, who was sent to him by G.o.d, made his appearance. The command from G.o.d to Peter, and the arrival of the centurion, who was instructed by the Lord to come to him, left him no choice in the matter, and that he baptized the Gentile, in obedience to the commands of the Lord. The reason was sufficient. "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified G.o.d, saying, Then hath G.o.d also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts. xi. 18.) The wall between Jew and Gentile is now broken down, and Peter a fit subject for the head of a universal or catholic church.

It seems that the person who put the speech into the mouth of Peter, renouncing circ.u.mcision, was not satisfied with what he said at the time. Something had been omitted or overlooked. Peter had shed his Jewish skin, but the Lord had not given him a commission to preach the gospel to all nations, and this he must have to be the head of a universal church. At the council held at Jerusalem by the Apostles to settle the question of circ.u.mcision, Peter, according to the Acts, seizes the opportunity to supply the omission: "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, G.o.d made choice among us, that the Gentiles, by _my mouth_, should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts xv. 7.) Now there was no occasion for Peter to make this claim or a.s.sertion, for it had nothing to do with the subject before the council, and was not true. The account which Paul gives of what took place at the council is quite different, contradictory, and no doubt true. He says, when he stated before the council the trouble and vexations which were occasioned by this rite, and reasons why it should not be forced on the Gentiles, that Peter, James, and John agreed with him--gave him the right hand of fellows.h.i.+p, and then entered into a compact that he should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circ.u.mcised.

(Gal. ii.)

This agreement was never departed from; but not so with regard to circ.u.mcision. That Peter, James, and all the disciples disregarded the order of the Council in regard to that subject, is rendered clear by their subsequent conduct. After that, as much as two years, for the Council was held in A.D. 49 or A.D. 50, and the epistle to the Galatians was written in A. D. 52, Peter went to Antioch, where he found Paul.

He ate with the uncirc.u.mcised until some Jewish converts came from Jerusalem at the instance of James, who found fault with his course.

Peter, it seems, then changed front and stood up for circ.u.mcision. "I withstood him to the face," says Paul, for he was wrong. A discussion springs up. Paul claimed that men were not to be saved through old rites and ceremonies, nor by-works, but by faith. At this time, neither James nor Peter had given up their contracted notions on the Jewish rite.

Nor had Peter as late as A. D. 57, twenty-four years after the death of Christ. Of the four parties which disturbed the peace of the church at Corinth at the time of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, which was written in A. D. 57, the party of _Cephas_ was one. Peter was at the head of a party which held out for circ.u.mcision, seven years after the council at Jerusalem; and if he had not given it up then, when he was fifty-seven years old, there is no reason to believe he did after that.

Nothing gave the men in the second century who undertook to put Peter at the head of a universal church so much trouble as this thing of circ.u.mcision, which we can readily detect by the pains and labors they have taken to free him from it. But the stain will not wash out.

The story told in the Acts about the way in which Peter was disenthralled from his narrow Jewish notions, is wholly inconsistent with the subsequent history of the church at Jerusalem. After the Lord had taken so much pains to prove to the disciples that a new dispensation had commenced, and the wall between the Jews and Gentiles was broken down, there was no reason why they should not all dispense with the practice of circ.u.mcision. But they never did. The fifteen first Bishops of Jerusalem, commencing with James and including Judas, were all circ.u.mcised Jews. (Eus., Ex. 77., B., iv. ch. v. Sulpicius Severus, vol. 11-31.) With the twelve disciples, jealousy of Paul, who fought this Jewish practice to the last, seemed to be the most active feeling of their natures, and we seldom hear of them unless they were d.o.g.g.i.ng his footsteps, and stirring up the Jews against him. It was through their intrigues that the doors of the synagogue were slammed in his face wherever he went.