the close of the chapter, the argument is enlivened by a beautiful allegory.

1

In the fifth chapter, he exhorts to stand fast in the liberty which has been obtained by the blood of Christ, and to beware of allowing our consciences to be ensnared by "the doctrines of men; reminding us, at the same time, in what manner liberty may be lawfully used. He then takes occasion to point out the proper employments of Christians, that they may not uselessly spend their time in ceremonies, and neglect matters of real importance.

ON

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL

TO THE

GALATIANS.

CHAPTER I.

1. PAUL, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2. And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3. Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4. Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5. To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

1. Paul, an apostle. In the salutations with which he commenced his Epistles, Paul was accustomed to claim the title of an Apostle. His object in doing so, as we have remarked on former occasions, was to employ the authority of his station, for the purpose of enforcing his doctrine. This authority depends not on the judgment or opinion of men, but exclusively on the calling of God; and therefore he demands a hearing on the ground of his being an apostle. Let us always bear this in mind, that in the church we ought to listen to God alone, and to Jesus Christ, whom he has appointed to be our teacher. Whoever assumes a right to instruct us, must speak in the name of God or of Christ. But as the calling of Paul was more vehemently disputed among the Galatians, he asserts it more strongly in his address to that church, than in his

other Epistles. He does not simply affirm that he was called by God, but states expressly that it was not of men, neither by man. This statement, be it observed, applies not to the office which he held in common with other pastors, but to the apostleship. The authors of the calumnies which he has in his eye, did not venture to deprive him altogether of the honour of the Christian ministry. They merely refused to allow him the name and rank of an apostle.

We are now speaking of the apostleship in the strictest sense; for the word is employed in two different ways. Sometimes, it denotes preachers of the Gospel, to whatever class they might belong. Here, it bears a distinct reference to the highest rank in the church, which Peter and the rest of the apostles were admitted to occupy, and in which Paul was their equal. The first clause, that he was called not of men, he had in common with all the true ministers of Christ. As no man ought to "take this honour unto himself," so it is not in the power of men to bestow it on whom they choose. It belongs to God alone to govern his church. No calling, therefore, which does not proceed from him, can be lawful. So far as the church is concerned, a man who has been led, not by a good conscience, but by ungodly motives, to enter the church, may happen to be regularly called. But Paul is here speaking of a call ascertained in so perfect a manner, that nothing farther can be desired. It will, perhaps, be objectedDo not the false apostles frequently indulge in the same kind of boasting? I admit they do, and in a more haughty and disdainful style than the servants of the Lord venture to employ; but they want that actual call from Heaven, to which Paul was entitled to lay claim.

The second clause, that he was called not by man, belonged in a peculiar manner to the apostles. In an ordinary pastor, this would have implied nothing wrong. Paul himself, when travelling through various cities in

company with Barnabas," ordained elders in every church," by the choice of the people; and he enjoins Titus and Timothy to proceed in the same work.3 Such is the ordinary method of electing pastors; for we are not entitled to wait until God shall reveal from heaven the names of the persons whom he has chosen. But if human agency was not improper, if it was even commendable, why does Paul disclaim it in reference to himself? I have already mentioned that something more was necessary to be proved than that Paul was a pastor, or that he was a minister of the Gospel; for the point in dispute was the apostleship. It was necessary that the apostles should be elected, not in the same manner as other pastors, but by the direct agency of the Lord himself. Thus, Christ himself called the Twelve ; and when a successor was to be appointed in the room of Judas, the church does not venture to vote in the election, but has recourse to lot. We are certain that the lot was not employed in electing pastors. Why was it resorted to in the election of Matthias? To mark the express agency of God; for it was proper that the apostles should be distinguished from other ministers. And thus Paul, in order to show that he does not belong to the ordinary rank of ministers, contends that his calling proceeded immediately from God.

5

But how does Paul affirm that he was not called by men, while Luke records that Paul and Barnabas were called by the church at Antioch ?6 Some have replied, that he had previously discharged the duties of an apostle, and that, consequently, his apostleship was not founded on his appointment by that church. But here, again, it may be objected, that this was his first designation to be the apostle of the Gentiles, to which class the Galatians belonged. The more correct and obvious reply is, that he did not intend here to set aside entirely the calling of that church, but merely to show that his apostleship rests on a higher title. This is true; for even those who laid their hands on Paul at Antioch, did

so, not of their own accord, but in obedience to express revelation. "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” "1 Since, therefore, he was called by Divine revelation, and was appointed and declared by the Holy Spirit to be the apostle of the Gentiles, it follows, that he was not brought forward by men, although the customary rite of ordination was afterwards added. It will, perhaps, be thought that an indirect contrast between Paul and the false apostles is here intended. I have no objection to that view; for they were in the habit of glorying in the name of men. His meaning will therefore stand thus: Whoever may be the persons by whom others boast that they have been sent, I shall be superior to them, for I hold my commission from God and Christ.

But

By Jesus Christ and God the Father. He asserts that God the Father and Christ had bestowed on him his apostleship. Christ is first named, because it is his preroga.. tive to send, and because we are his ambassadors. to make the statement more complete, the Father is also mentioned,- -as much as to say, if there be any one whom the name of Christ is not sufficient to inspire with reverence, let him know that I have received my office from God the Father.- Who raised him from the dead. The resurrection of Christ is the commencement of his reign, and is therefore closely connected with the present subject. It was a reproach brought against Paul that he had held no communication with Christ while he was on the earth. He argues, on the other hand, that, as Christ was glorified by his resurrection, so he has actually exercised his authority in the government of his church. The calling of Paul is therefore more illustrious than it would have been, if Christ, while still a mortal, had ordained him to the office. And this circumstance deserves attention; for Paul intimates that

1 Acts xiii. 2,3.