Julian Pe- seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should Thessaloriod, 4762. not be the servant of Christ. Vulgar Æra,

51.

sion, denied his apostleship; and, in support of their denial,
alleged that he was made an apostle only by the Church at An-
tioch, and that he had received all his knowledge of the Gospel
from the apostles. This the Judaizers might allege with some
plausibility, before Paul's apostleship was recognized at Jeru-
salem. But after Peter, James, and John, in the time of the
council, gave him the right hand of fellowship, as an apostle
of equal authority with themselves, and agreed that he should
go among the Gentiles, and they among the Jews, his apostle-
ship would be called in question no longer in any Church, than
while the brethren of that Church were ignorant of what had
happened at Jerusalem.

We may therefore believe, that immediately after the council,
the apostle would write his Epistle to the Galatians, in which
he not only gave them an account of his having been acknow-
ledged by the three chief apostles, but related many other parti-
culars, by which his apostleship was raised beyond all doubt.

This argument, however, does not prove that the epistle was necessarily written, as the learned author supposes, at Antioch, though it might be written not long after the council.

Macknight's second reason is taken from the inscription of the epistle, in which it is said, that all the brethren who were with St. Paul joined him in writing it. For as the only view which any of the brethren could join the apostle in writing to the Galatians, was to attest the facts which he advanced in the first and second chapters, for proving his apostleship, the brethren who joined him in writing it must have been such as knew the truth of these facts. Wherefore they could be neither the brethren of Corinth, nor of Ephesus, nor of Rome, nor of Troas, nor of any other Gentile city, where this epistle has been dated, except Antioch. As little could they be the brethren who accompanied the apostle in his travels among the Gentiles, as Hammond conjectures. For none of them, except Silas, had any notice of the facts advanced in this epistle, but what they received from the apostle himself; so that their testimony was in reality, the apostle's own testimony. The only brethren who could bear effectual testimony to these things, were those who lived in Judea and its neighbourhood, particularly the brethren of Antioch, who, by their intercourse with those of Jerusalem, must have known what happened to St. Paul there, as fully as they knew what happened to him in their own city, where he had resided often and long. I therefore have no doubt that the Epistle to the Galatians was written from Antioch, and that the brethren who joined St. Paul in writing it, were the brethren there, whose testimony merited the highest credit. For, among them were varions prophets and teachers, whose names are mentioned, Acts xiii. 1. with others of respectable characters, whose place of residence, early conversion, eminent station in the Church, and intercourse with the brethren in Jerusalem, gave them an opportunity of knowing St. Paul's manner of life before his conversion. His being made an apostle by Christ himself-his being acknowledged as an apostle by his brethren in Jerusalem -his teaching uniformly that men are saved by faith, without obedience to the law of Moses-his having strenuously main. tained that doctrine in the hearing of the Church at Antiochhis having publicly reproved St. Peter for seeming to depart from it, by refusing to eat with the converted Gentiles; and that on being reproved by St. Paul, St. Peter acknowledged his miscon

nica.

Julian Period, 4762. Valgar Era,

31.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS-CHAP. XI.

§ 3. GAL. i. 11. to the end. ii. 1-10.
St. Paul, in Answer to the False Teachers, asserts he re-

duct, by making no reply. All these things the brethren ofAntioch
could attest, as matters which they knew and believed; so that,
with the greatest propriety, they joined the apostle in writing
the letter wherein they are asserted.

Dr. Macknight, however, has omitted to observe that the cir-
cumstances of St. Paul's conversion, preaching, and call to the
apostleship, were known to all the brethren, whether of Rome,
Corinth, Ephesus, or any other place; and therefore the testi-
mony of any who were well acquainted with these facts would
be sufficiently satisfactory to the Galatian converts. It is not
necessary therefore to suppose that the brethren who are men-
tioned in the inscription of the epistle, must have been of
Antioch.

Dr. Macknight's third argument for the early date is derived from the omission by St. Paul of his usual command, that the persons to whom he wrote should remember the poor. This is evidently an unsafe mode of reasoning.

When the apostle wrote his Epistle to the Galatians, he had heard of the defection of some of them from the true doctrine of the Gospel. This defection he represents as having happened soon after they were converted, Gal. i. 6. “I wonder that ye are so soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ." But if the Epistle to the Galatians was written either from Rome, during the apostle's first confinement there; or from Corinth, during his eighteen months abode in that city; or from Ephesus, where he abode three years; or from Troas, in his way to Jerusalem with the collections, the defection of the Galatians must have happened a considerable time after their conversion, on the supposition that they were first called when Paul and Barnabas went into their country from Lycaonia. Wherefore if the apostle's expression, "I wonder that ye are so soon removed," is proper; the Epistle to the Galatians could not be written later than the interval between the council of Jerusalem and the apostle's second journey into the Gentile countries with Silas, when they delivered to the Churches the decrees of the council.

These arguments seem to prove, that the Epistle to the Galatians was written soon after the council of Jerusalem: the exact time seems, however, to be more satisfactorily ascertained by Michaelis, who has assigned it to some part of this second apostolical journey, before St. Paul came to Berea, where the brethren appear to have left him. St. Paul's first visit to the Galatians was not long after the council which had been held in Jerusalem, as appears from Acts xvi. 4, 5, 6. "And as they (namely, Paul and Silas), went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, which were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem: and so were the Churches established in the faith, and increased in numbers daily. Now when they had gone through Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia," &c. &c. From this passage we see that St. Paul preached the Gospel in Galatia; for the prohibition was confined to the Roman proconsular province of Asia, to which Galatia is here opposed. This is further confirmed by Acts xviii. 23. where St. Luke relates, that St. Paul again visited Galatia, strengthening his disciples, so that converts must have have been made on his first visit (kk). Now let us follow St. Paul on his first journey from Galatia to Berea, in

223

Thessalonica.

༡

ceived his Apostleship from God, and relates his Conver- Thessalo-
sion, Commission, and General History.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which
was preached of me is not after man.

Macedonia, where he seems to have arrived in the same year,
and we shall be convinced that he wrote his Epistle to the Ga-
latians upon this journey.

When he left the Galatians he was accompanied by several
brethren, namely, by Silas (or Silvanus), chap. xv. 40. by Ti-
mothy, chap. xvi. 3. and perhaps by others. This circumstance
is particularly to be noted. They travelled through Mysia to
Troas, ver. 8. where St. Paul had a remarkable dream, which
induced him to go into Macedonia. Before he left Troas, St.
Luke was added to St. Paul's other companions, and in their
company he travelled to Philippi, ver. 11, 12. where he preached
the Gospel, ver. 13-40. and thence to Thessalonica, chap.
xvii. 1-9: here some of the brethren appear to have left St.
Paul, and he travelled with Silas alone to Beroa, ver. 10.

When he was no longer in safety here, he left Galatia, he left Silas behind, and went to Athens, so that when he arrived in that city, none of the brethren were with him, in whose company he had travelled from Galatia.

Now St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians is written not only in his own name, but in the name of all the brethren who were with him. Who, then, were these brethren? Were they known or unknown to the Galatians? St. Paul would hardly have written to them in the name of all the brethren who were with him, without determining who those brethren were, unless they had been the same who attended when he left Galatia, and who therefore were known to the Galatians without any farther description.

Consequently this Epistle must have been written before St. Paul separated from these brethren, that is, before he left Thessalonica. Whether it was written in this city, or before he arrived there, I will not, says Michaelis, attempt to determine; but it certainly was written during the interval which elapsed between St. Paul's departure from Galatia, and his departure from Thessalonica.

Again, St. Paul in the two first chapters, gives the Galatians a general review of his life and conduct from his conversion to apostolic council in Jerusalem, and at the farthest at his return to Antioch. Here he breaks off his narrative. It is probable, therefore, that from that time to the time of his writing to the Galatians, nothing remarkable had happened except their conversion. Lastly, the supposition that St. Paul wrote to the Galatians at the period which I have assigned, accounts more easily than any other for St. Paul's mentioning to the Galatians, that he had not obliged Titus to undergo the rite of circumcision, namely, because he had obliged Timothy to submit to it immediately before his first visit to the Galatians; and St. Paul's adversaries had appealed, perhaps, to this in support of their doctrine, that the Levitical law should be retained.

The particular year of the Christian era (continues Michaelis), in which the Epistle to the Galatians was written, it is difficult to determine with precision, though we are especially interested in the date of this Epistle, because it appears from chap. iv. 10. that the Galatians were on the point of celebrating the Jewish Sabbatical year, and in that of their seduction by the Jewish zealots, of leaving their lands uncultivated for a whole

nica.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS-CHAP. XII.

225

Julian Period, 4762. Vulgar Æra,

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I Thessalotaught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

nica.

51.

year, though the law of Moses on this article could not possibly
extend to Galatia.

What Michaelis conjectured (says Dr. Hales), but was not
able to establish, from the discordant systems of chronology in
his time, may be now proved. The first year of our Lord's
public ministry, A.D. 28, was a sabbatical year, and also a
jubilee. Therefore A. D. 49, which was 3 + 727 years after,
was also a sabbatical year. It is more probable, however,
that the Epistle was not written during the sabbatical year
itself, in which Paul attended the council at Jerusalem, (Gal.
xi. 1.) but rather the year after, A.D. 50, during the apostle's
circuit through the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, to confirm
them in the faith, and to communicate to them the apostolical
decree, (Acts xvi. 36-41. xvi. 4.) and to this year I have assign-
ed it.

To understand the design of this Epistle, we must take into consideration certain opinions which were prevalent in the apostolic age.

The Jews believed that God demanded implicit obedience to the law of Moses-that this obedience would justify them, or place them, with respect to God, in the same situation in which they would have been, if they had not transgressed; and it had the power of obtaining for them also eternal life. They thought that man was not so fallen, but that he was of himself able to obcy the law, and thus fulfil the conditions on which eternal life was promised. These opinions were so blended in the minds of the Jews, with undoubted truths, that it would have been difficult to have answered them satisfactorily, unless by divine inspiration. The apostle, however, proves by irrefragable arguments, both here, in his Epistle to the Galatians, and in his Epistle to the Romans-that the justification of man could not be accomplished by his own obedience. It was utterly impossible that man could fully and satisfactorily obey the demands of a law, which was designed rather to convince men of sin, and enforce upon them the conviction that something more was necessary to obtain the favour of God, and that the ceremonies of their Levitical law were only typical of some better and more perfect salvation: the law was as a servant, leading them as children from the painfulness and bondage of school, to the glo. rious liberty of the sons of God and heirs of heaven.

In opposition to this Judaizing heresy, St. Paul addresses the Galatians, and endeavours to convince them, by a masterly strain of argument, that the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is the doctrine of Scripture. After having established his apos. tolic commission against the attacks of the false teachers, he asserts, that as the law has no power to give life, it is useless to compel the Gentiles, or the Christian couverts, to conform to the full observance of the ceremonial law. He assures them no flesh shall be justified by the law, but by the faith of Christ Jesus, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ shall be dead in vain; and he proves the superiority of the new covenant, by referring to those gifts they had received from the Holy Spirit since their admission into the Christian dispensation.

He further assures them, that the Christian covenant was founded on the promise given to Abraham and to his seed, which was made and confirmed by God in Christ, four hundred and thirty years before the law; therefore it was not possible that the law should disannul or make the promise, of a redeeming Saviour of Isaac's line of none effect. If, then, the Gospel was

VOL. II.

Q

51.

Julian Pe-
riod, 4762.
Vulgar Era, preached before unto Abraham, and we through him (and not
through the law are to be blessed), we must inquire into that
faith which rendered this eminent father acceptable in the sight
of his Almighty Creator. He believed God, and it was account-
ed to him for righteousness. Christ himself declares, that
Abraham saw his day afar off, and was glad-like the holy mar-
tyrs of the Christian dispensation, the faithful Abraham was
called to give an evidence of his integrity, by the most painful
of all human sacrifices-he was required not indeed to offer up
himself but his son, his only son, the beloved companion of
his age, in whom all the blessings and promises of God were to
be fulfilled, and from whom the Saviour of the world was to be
born-without any revelation as to the manner in which this
apparently contradictory command could he made to agree with
the former important predictions. His faith was the substance
of things hoped for-the evidence of things not seen. He un-
derstood the promise conveyed in those gracious_words-" In
thee shall all nations be blessed." He knew that the same
Almighty Being who gave life could restore it; and in this faith
he acted; he took the knife, and in the full assurance of faith,
the father prepared to become the slayer of his only son,
counting," as the apostle tells us, " that God was able to raise
him up even from the dead." (Heb. xi. 17.) Abraham was justi-
fied by his faith, and by works was his faith made perfect; and
if we would become his children, we must give the same evi-
dence of our sincerity and faith. We must declare our faith by
our works.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past Thessalo

ac

Macknight remarks on this subject, referring to the Epistle of St. James, that faith and works are inseparably connected as cause and effect; that faith, as the cause, necessarily produces good works as its effect, and that good works must flow from faith, as their principle; that neither of them, separately, are the means of our justification, but that, when joined, they become effectual for that end. Wherefore, when in Scripture we are said to be "justified by faith," it is a faith accompanied by good works. On the other hand, when we are said to be justified by works, it is works "proceeding from faith." Therefore, in this Epistle, St. Paul must be considered as arguing against the possibility of salvation or justification by works of the law, while he enforces, by the example of Abraham, the necessity of good works on the principle of a well-grounded or justifying faith on the Son of God. This doctrine of justification, however, has been infinitely discussed and controverted-many depreciating good works in favour of faith alone; but this error frequently arises for want of a proper consideration of the apostle's arguments. It is dangerous, so far as it checks exertions, and insidiously draws men from those outward forms which are the land-marks of religion. Under the pretence of encouraging, it destroys internal religion; by representing it as a system of pious feelings, which are independant of those outward ordinances which were ordained by Christ himself. The whole system of revelation corroborates the view here taken of "justification by faith." It is illustrated by all the eminent characters of the Old Testament, and is confirmed in the New, by the parables and actions of our Lord himself.

It will excite surprise among those who are interested in theological studies, that I have made little or no use of the labours of two writers, who of late years have paid great attention to these Epistles-Mr. Belsham, and Dr. Semler of Halle. My reasons shall be briefly given.

nica.