Holy Ghost, of mildness and patience under reproof. But this was not his former temper. He was not so patient, when he heard a declaration from Jesus, inconsistent with his mistaken view of the glory of the Messiah's kingdom. He then presumed to expostulate even with his Divine Lord 1. He was not so patient, when his act of denial was predicted. He had then that self-confidence, which " goeth before a fall?" At the time, to which the present history refers, Peter's natural impetuosity had been corrected by the Spirit of grace. He was able to meet St. Paul's charge with the "meekness of wisdom 3" He was not of a disposition to be drawn into a personal dispute by a censure, which he was conscious that he had deserved. He was ready rather to say, with the Psalmist, "Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness *."

Had St. Peter seen St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians when he wrote his own Second Apostolic Letter? He there refers with commendation to all St. Paul's Epistles, then sent abroad, and the Epistle to the Galatians was one of an early date. If St.

1 ἤρξατο ἐπιτιμᾷν αὐτῷ. Matt. xvi. 22. 2 Prov. xvi. 18.

3 James iii. 13.

4 Ps. cxli. 5.

Tertullian supposed that St. Paul wrote to the Galatians soon after his conversion, when he was adhuc neophytus. Adv. Marc. lib. i. c. 20. Modern biblical critics, though they esteem this an early Epistle, refer it to a later date than Tertullian suggested. Michaelis places it, A.D. 49; Bishop Pearson, and

Peter was acquainted with this writing, we are jus tified in concluding, from the manner in which he makes mention of its author, that he was satisfied with the statement contained in it, and received, without displeasure against any but himself', the

Locke, in 57; Mill, in 58; Lardner, at the end of 52, or the beginning of 53; Greswell, in 55; and Burton, about 52. It seems that the Epistle was addressed to the Galatians shortly after their reception of the Gospel, for St. Paul complains in it of their speedy defection from the faith: "I marvel that ye are so soon (our Taxéws) removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ." i. 6. St. Paul's first visit to Galatia, the great occasion of the conversion of the people, was not long after the council of Jerusalem. Acts xvi. 4—6. It was, probably, A.D. 51 or 52. St. Peter's Second Epistle was not written before A.D. 63 or 64...

The phrase, indeed, in St. Peter's Second Epistle, "Even as our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you," may well incline us to think that the Epistle to the Galatians was one of the writings of St. Paul alluded to. This phrase shows that St. Paul had addressed himself to the persons, to whom St. Peter was directing an Apostolic Letter, and, among these, were converts scattered throughout Galatia.

1 It has been improperly said, that the Apostles disputed at Antioch. Dr. Conyers Middleton published remarks, "On the dispute, or dissension, which happened at Antioch between the Apostles Peter and Paul;" and this is the language in which many other writers describe the relation in Gal. ii. Even the accurate Paley speaks of "the dispute at Antioch."-Hora Paulina, chap. v. There is no reason to think that any dispute arose. St. Paul writes, Karà πρóowπov avtý dvtéσrηy; I opposed him to the face; I openly protested against the conduct he was pursuing. St. Paul, who "refrained not to speak when there was occasion to do good," (Ecclesiasticus iv. 23.) stood up against St. Peter, who had provoked the reproof, not by anything he

reprehension from his brother Apostle's lips, and the public account of it from his pen '.

V. Though we observe a most remarkable change in the character of St. Peter, after the effusion of the Holy Ghost, and one evidence of it, in his submission to St. Paul's rebuke, yet it cannot escape observation, that the infirmity which he betrayed at Antioch, in yielding to the violence of the Jewish zealots, corresponds with some occurrences in the early part of his history. Except in this instance, no vestige of his former deficiency in steady, persevering courage is discoverable. He braved for a

had said, but by what he had been doing, and who appears not to have engaged with his reprover in any contest of argument, or to have attempted to defend the course he had taken.

1

Gregory I. (consecrated Bishop of Rome, A.D. 590.) taking it for granted that the Epistle to the Galatic converts had been in St. Peter's hands, thus commends the temper, with which he supposes him to have perused it: "Peter, the first of the Apostles, addressing his disciples, and knowing that some of them had detracted from the merits of St. Paul's writings, says: Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also, in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things. Behold, Paul in one of these Epistles had pronounced Peter culpable, but Peter asserts notwithstanding, that St. Paul was to be honoured for what he had written. If Peter had not read Paul's Epistles, he could not have praised them; but, if he read them, he saw it published, that he was to be blamed.' St. Peter's love of truth caused him to extol the record of his own frailty, and he, who was first in Apostolic rank, was first also in the virtue of humility.". In Ezech. 1. ii. Hom. 6.

long term of years the utmost rigour of persecution, and at last vindicated on the cross the truth of his testimony. But his natural constitution of mind appeared on this occasion, and he committed a fault, which reminds us of former failures, of his alarm on the sea of Galilee, and his terror in the house of Caiaphas.

If it had been related of St. Paul, that he had subjected himself to a reproof from St. Peter for timidity of conduct, we should have been surprised indeed at the intelligence; but that St. Peter should, in one single instance, have shown a want of Christian fortitude, even in his regenerate state, excites less wonder. When we read of this defect, we are only the more disposed to believe that the writers of the New Testament communicated the truth, and transmitted an account of real transactions.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ACCOUNT given of st. PETER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AFFORDS PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS AN ACCOUNT FOUNDED UPON FACTS.

The authenticity of the Christian Histories is illustrated by the strict CONSISTENCY, with which the characters of our Lord and His followers are supported. In each, and throughout all, of these records, a harmony of narrative is preserved. The person, whom St. Matthew, or any one of the writers, singly attended to, places before us, is not only the same person, in features of mind and conduct, from the beginning to the end of the relation, but the very person, whom the other writers, delivering separate and independent notices, describe.

This remark may be well exemplified by a review of some of the leading facts related of the Apostle Peter.

I. The instances are frequent and uniform in the