covenant given to Noah, the father of the whole world (Gen. ix. 3, 4) :

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, snall ye not

eat.

This was all that was to be required of the Christians besides the simple law of purity, to which the Gentiles had become utter strangers. As to the eternal moral law, they could be instructed in that by the Scriptures constantly read in the synagogues. This decision was agreed to, and communicated in a letter to the Church of Antioch, of which St. Luke gives an exact copy.

Practically, St. Augustine tells us that the rule about pouring out the blood of every animal killed for food was dropped by the third century, the Church having decided that it was meant at first only to train the world in a sense of the sacredness of blood, and that it had been adopted by the Apostles to lessen the repulsion of the Jewish Christians at eating with their Gentile brethren. This repulsion is still so strong that Jews have butchers of their own. It may be observed here, that in this case we follow the custom of the Church rather than the literal word of Scripture.

LESSON XXXVII.

THE DEBATE BETWEEN ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL.

A.D. 51.—ACTS xv. 30-35; GAL. ii. 11-16.

So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.

Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

After a time St. Peter came to Antioch. St. Paul writes :

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

:

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

COMMENT.-The letter on the decision of the Council was sent to Antioch by Paul and Barnabas, accompanied by one Judas Barsabas, of whom no more is known, and by Silvanus or Silas, apparently a Greek Jew of Roman citizenship, who cast in his lot with St. Paul, and remained to work with him at Antioch.

The tradition of the Church is that after the Council of Jerusalem the Apostles began to go forth their several ways. The Blessed Virgin had died in St. John's house, and he turned his steps first to the East, while all the others turned towards the lands whose Churches view them as their founders. Only St. James remained permanently at Jerusalem, and it seems that St. Peter's first stage was Antioch. Indeed the archives of the Church of Antioch place him at the head of the line of Jewish Bishops there, and one Euodias as the contemporary Gentile Bishop, the two lines going on together till Judaism died out in the Church.

When first Peter arrived, he mingled freely with the Greek Christians, partook with them of the feast of love, and treated them as brethren after the example of St. Barnabas and St. Paul. By and by, however, some Jews came fresh from Jerusalem, who were exceedingly scandalized at the mingling with the strangers. They actually talked over, not only Peter, but Barnabas, into joining with them, and keeping the Jews aloof from the Gentiles, who had not accepted the ceremonial law. The arguments would be easy—namely, both that the Jews would be alienated by anything so abhorrent to them as thus mingling with other nations, and that if the Gentiles would submit to the law, they would no longer be in

an anomalous position, much more exposed to persecution than the Jews, whose existence was recognised. Peter and Barnabas were both led back to the habits so much less repugnant to their original training, but St. Paul boldly withstood them.

His argument was this-" Jew and Gentile both alike have no righteousness of their own." Even a Psalmist, born under the

law, wrote (Ps. cxliii. 2) :—

Enter not into judgment with Thy servant,

For in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.

Both alike owed salvation to the Redemption of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, in Whom both had the same faith. Why, then, hold apart according to the rules of the code whose purpose was over?

St. Paul, in his letter, does not tell the result of the controversy: St. Luke does not mention it at all. But we may conclude that in the end the arguments prevailed with both, since Barnabas was an open-hearted, liberal, temperate man, and Peter had been the foremost in admitting the Gentiles. Both had failed through the difficulty in withstanding the arguments of highly-cultivated Pharisees, which would tell much on the Levite Barnabas, and the Galilean Peter, while the more deeply-read and powerfully-minded Paul would know how to withstand them.

It is one of the first indications that we have that supernatural grace does not so overcome the natural character as to rule the decisions and the will of men mechanically. Peter and Barnabas were weak men by nature, the first from impetuosity, the second from good nature; and they from weakness erred-it may be in this special case for want of sufficiently leaning on heavenly grace, and trusting to their own understanding. Another memorable point, telling against the assumptions of the Popes, is that St. Peter was not in this case infallible.

LESSON XXXVIII.

THE CONTENTION BETWEEN PAUL AND BARNABAS.

A.D. 51.-ACTS xv. 36—41; xvi. 1—5.

And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.

And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus ;

And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess and believed; but his father was a Greek :

Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.

Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

COMMENT.-Some have thought that the strife about the Gentiles had made the first little rift between the two Apostles, Barnabas and Paul; but be that as it may, it was the past weakness of Mark that was the occasion of their parting. He had returned to Antioch, probably with St. Peter, whose special minister he afterwards was, and offered himself for the new journey for which the two Apostles were preparing. His uncle wished to take him, but Paul distrusted his resolution, and refused his company.

Oh! who shall dare in this frail scene,
On holiest, happiest thoughts to lean,
On friendship, kindness, or on love,
Since not apostles' hands can clasp
Each other in so firm a grasp,

But they can change and variance prove.

Barnabas took his nephew with him to Cyprus, where, under Sergius Paulus, the work was comparatively safe at that time, and therefore the fitter to train the wavering courage of the young man. There Barnabas spent the rest of his life, though there is reason to think that he came once more to meet St. Paul and St. John after many years of toil, and with them regulated the Church. And at Salamis, without doubt, he was martyred. His gentle training had saved his nephew, whom by and by we shall see as much strengthened by grace as his master St. Peter. Paul chose as his companion Silvanus, or Silas, whom he took with him through Syria and his own province of Cilicia, where Churches already existed, probably founded by St. Paul himself during those years of which we are not told before his summons to Antioch. The habit of the Apostle seems to have been to take with him several younger men, to assist him as deacons in teaching first, and then in baptizing. They were thus under his immediate eye, and were prepared to act separately, in course of time, either as missionaries or as resident overseers of Churches, even as the Apostles themselves had been prepared by our Blessed Lord Himself. Titus was almost certainly one of this band, and at Lystra, St. Paul, finding that young Timotheus had diligently continued in the faith since his former visit, called on him to be likewise a companion on the journey now beginning. But as Timothy was of Jewish descent on the mother's side, Paul thought it right that he should obey the command which was still in force on the children of Abraham, namely, that they should be circumcised. Titus, as wholly Gentile, remained uncircumcised, as not being concerned in the covenant made with Abraham, as a forefather after the flesh; but Timothy, being an heir of that covenant, was circumcised, to supply the omission of his childhood; and though St. Paul repudiated all wrong concessions to expediency, yet he was willing to prove that he by no means meant to exempt a