the gospel should be extinguished, a snare laid for the conscience, and the distinction between the Old and New Testaments taken away. These errors he perceived to be connected with a wicked and dangerous opinion, as to the manner in which justification is obtained. This is the reason why he fights with so much earnestness and vehemence; and having learned from him the important and serious nature of the controversy, it is our duty to read with greater attention.

One who forms his views from the Commentaries of Origen or Jerome, will be surprised that Paul should take so deep an interest in any external rites; but whoever goes to the fountain will acknowledge that there was abundant reason for all this sharpness of reproof. The Galatians had allowed themselves to be drawn aside from the proper course by excessive credulity, or rather by lightness and folly. He therefore censures them more severely; for I do not agree with those who attribute the harshness of his language to their slowness of apprehension. The Ephesians and Colossians had been subjected to the same temptations. If they had lent as ready an ear to the tale of the impostors, is it imagined that Paul would have treated them with greater gentleness? His boldness of rebuke was not suggested by the disposition of the people, but extorted by the baseness of their conduct.

Having ascertained the subject of the Epistle, let us attend to the order in which it is treated. In the first and second chapters, he maintains the authority of his apostleship, except that towards the close of the second chapter, he touches incidentally on his main point, the question of man's justification; which however is avowedly and directly argued in the third chapter. He appears, indeed, in the first two chapters, to have a variety of objects in view; but his only object is to prove that he is equal to the highest apostles, and that there is no reason why he should not be considered to hold an equally honourable rank.

It is of importance to know why he labours so hard in establishing his own claim to respect. Provided that

Christ reigns, and the purity of doctrine is untouched, what matters it whether he is higher or lower than Peter, or whether they are all on a footing of equality? If all must "" decrease," that Christ alone may "increase, ,"1 it is idle to dispute about human ranks. Besides, it may be asked, why does he draw a comparison between himself and other apostles? What dispute had he with Peter, and James, and John? What good purpose did it serve to bring into collision those who were united in sentiment, and in the closest friendship? I answer, the false apostles, who had imposed on the Galatians, endeavoured to obtain their favour by pretending that they had received a commission from those apostles. Their chief influence arose from insinuating the belief that they represented the apostles, and delivered their message. To Paul, on the other hand, they refused the name and authority of an apostle. They objected that he had not been chosen by our Lord as one of the twelve,-that he had never been acknowledged by the college of the apostles,-that he did not receive his doctrine from Christ, or even from the apostles themselves. All this tended not only to lower Paul's authority, but to class him with the ordinary members of the church, and therefore to place him far below the persons who made these insinuations.

If this had been merely a personal matter, it would have given no uneasiness to Paul to be reckoned an ordinary disciple. But when he saw that his doctrine was beginning to lose its weight and authority, he was not entitled to be silent. It became his duty to make a bold resistance. When Satan does not venture openly to attack doctrine, his next stratagem is to diminish its influence by indirect attacks. Let us remember, then, that in the person of Paul the truth of the gospel was assailed. If he had allowed himself to be stripped of the honour of apostleship, it followed that he had hitherto claimed what he had no title to enjoy ; and this false boasting would have made him liable to suspicion in other matters. The estimation in which his doctrine

John iii. 30.

was held depended on the question whether it came, as some had begun to think, from an ordinary disciple, or from an apostle of Christ.

He was overwhelmed, on the other hand, by the lustre of great names. Those who referred, in a boastful manner, to Peter, and James, and John, pretended to apostolical authority. If Paul had not manfully resisted this boasting, he would have given way to falsehood, and would have allowed the truth to suffer again in his own person. He therefore contends earnestly for both points, that he was appointed by the Lord to be an apostle, and that he was, in no respect, inferior to the rest, but enjoyed the same title, and was equal in authority and rank. He might, indeed, have denied that those men were either sent, or possessed any commission from Peter and his associates. But he takes far higher ground, that he does not yield to the apostles themselves; and if he had declined doing so, he would have been supposed to have distrusted his cause.

Jerusalem was, at that time, the mother of all the churches, for the gospel had spread from it over the whole world; and it might be said to be the principal seat of the kingdom of Christ. Any one who came from it into other churches was received with due respect. But many were foolishly elated with the thought that they had enjoyed the friendship of the apostles, or at least had been taught in their school. Nothing pleased them but what they had seen at Jerusalem. Every custom that had not been practised there, was not only disliked, but unsparingly condemned. This peevish manner becomes highly pernicious, when the custom of a single church is attempted to be enforced as a universal law. We are sometimes so devoted to a man or a place, that, without exercising any judgment of our own, we make the opinion of one man the standard for all men, and the customs of one place the standard for every other place. Such attachment is ridiculous, if there be not also as indeed there always is a mixture of ambition.

To return to those false apostlcs: if they had merely

attempted, through a spirit of contention, to establish everywhere those ceremonies which they had seen observed at Jerusalem, that would have been no slight offence; for when a custom is forth with converted into a law, injustice is perpetrated. But a more serious evil was involved in the wicked and dangerous doctrine, that the conscience was bound to them by religious considerations, that the observance of them was necessary in order to justification. Such were the reasons why Paul defended his apostleship with so much earnestness, and placed himself in apparent opposition to the other apostles. This subject is pursued to the end of the second chapter, when he proceeds to argue the doctrine, that we are justified in the sight of God by free grace, aud not by the works of the law.

His argument is this: If ceremonies have not the power of bestowing justification, the observance of them is unnecessary. We must remark, however, that he does not confine himself entirely to ceremonies, but argues generally about works,-otherwise the whole discussion would be trifling. Whoever hesitates to make this admission, is requested to attend to the two following reasons:-First, the question could not be settled without referring to the general principle, that we are justified by the free grace of God; and this principle sets aside not only ceremonies, but every other kind of works. Again, Paul did not attach so much importance to ceremonies, as to the wicked doctrine of obtaining salvation by works. He had good reasons for recurring to first principles. It was necessary to go to the fountain, and to warn his readers that the controversy related to no insignificant trifle, but to the most important of all matters the method of obtaining salvation.

It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that this dispute was entirely confined to ceremonies,-a subject which did not admit of being settled by itself. A similar instance occurs in history.' Strife and contention had arisen from the question, whether or not ceremonies

1 Acts xv. 2.

were necessary to be observed. In the course of the discussion, the apostles dwell largely on the intolerable yoke of the law, and the free forgiveness of sins. What was the object of this? It appears to be a foolish departure from the point in hand; but the contrary is the fact. A particular error could not be satisfactorily refuted without assuming a universal principle. As, for instance, if I am called to dispute about the lawfulness of eating flesh, I shall not confine myself to speak entirely about food. I shall fortify myself with the general doctrine: what authority have the traditions of men for binding the conscience? I shall quote the de-, claration, that "there is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy." 1 In short, Paul argues from general to particular propositions, which is the ordinary and most natural method of reasoning. By what evidences and arguments he proves this principle, that we are justified by the grace of Christ alone, we shall see when we come to the passage. This topic is pursued to the end of the third chapter.

In the commencement of the fourth chapter, he inquires into the proper use of ceremonies, and the reasons why they were appointed, showing, at the same time, that they are now abolished. It became necessary to meet this objection, which might occur to some minds. What then was the purpose of ceremonies? Were they useless? Were the Fathers idly employed in observing them? He illustrates briefly two statements, that in their own times they were not superfluous, and that they have now been abolished by the coming of Christ; which contains their truth and design, and by which, therefore, we ought to abide. Glancing briefly at the difference between our condition and that of the Fathers, he infers that the doctrine of the false apostles is wicked and dangerous, because it involves the clearness of the gospel in the darkness of ancient shadows. The apostle's doctrine is now intermingled with some affecting exhortations. Towards

1 James iv. 12.

C