that no notice whatever is taken of that determination, nor any appeal made to its authority." If the false teachers at Galatia acknowledged the authority of the Apostles at Jerusalem; if they allowed that their decree would decide the dispute, Paul might with reason be expected to notice the resolution that passed in the metropolis: but in truth they cared no more for the whole apostolic council than they did for the single decision of Paul. This Apostle therefore, if he noticed their decree, and acknowledged the deference which on this occasion he paid to their sanction, instead of settling the question, would only invalidate his own authority. What then does he do? He places the dispute on the only basis on which it could rest unshaken, viz. on the authority of God, on the holy spirit which was imparted to Paul, and through Paul to the converts at Galatia; thus proving, as with a seal from heaven, that the abolition of the law, the crucifixion of Jesus, his ascension and return to raise the dead and judge the world, formed the true Gospel of God.

Paley, in alleviation of the difficulty which presses on the supposition that the Acts and the Epistle relate to the same visit, states among other reasons the following: "The decree did not go the full length of the position maintained in the epistle: the decree only declares that the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem did not impose the observance of the Mosaic law upon the Gentile converts, as a condition of their being admitted into the Christian church. Our epistle argues that the Mosaic institution itself was at an end as to all effects upon a future state, even with respect to the Jews themselves. They whose error St. Paul confuted were not persons who submitted to the Jewish law, because it was imposed by the authority, or because it was made part of the law of the Christian church; but they were persons who, having already become Christians, afterwards volun

tarily took upon themselves the observance of the Mosaic code, under a notion of attaining thereby to a greater perfection." p. 199.

The distinction here made is altogether an error, and a dangerous error too, though natural to a man who, being a churchman, suffered his fancy to run upon church authority and church articles of faith as the terms of admission to it. In truth, the question in dispute at Antioch, at Galatia, and in every other place, was, whether ritual observances, or repentance towards God and faith in Christ, formed the grounds of salvation. And I speak with perfect confidence when I say that the arguments and the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem go to the full length of the position maintained by Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. The argument alleged by Peter alone demonstrates the truth of this position,-" By the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we hope to be saved; in the same manner must they," Acts xv. 11. Which is to this effect, "Circumcision is not the medium by which we Jews expect salvation; it cannot therefore be the condition on which the Gentiles can expect to be saved. Being useless in the Jewish converts, who are already circumcised, it can by no means be of any utility to the heathen converts, should they be circumcised." Is it not here manifest that the exact question at issue was not, whether the observance of the law was a necessary condition of admittance into the Christian church, but whether it was necessary as the condition of being saved? This Peter negatives; and the very foundation of his reasoning against the necessity of circumcision to the Gentiles, was its inutility to the Jews.

Had Dr. Paley known the real character of the men who opposed the Apostle at Galatia, he would have known it to be morally impossible they could be serious in supposing that their doctrine was more conducive to perfection, than the Gospel of God taught by Paul. Those impostors composed a Gospel, which they called

the Gospel of perfection, in mere mockery of that per fection in virtue and piety, which it was the object of Christianity to produce and inculcate. It is to this mockery the Apostle alludes when he says, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for what a man soweth, that he also shall reap." Gal. vi. 7. “Are ye so unwise as to think, that having begun in the spirit, ye are now made perfect by the flesh ?" That the converts might not be deceived, he places before them in direct terms the moral effects of the flesh, that is, the effects of that carnal system which the impostors recommended to their choice, and next those of the Gospel which he had preached to them. "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, rivalries, wrath, disputes, divisions, heresies, envyings, murthers, drunkenness, revelries, and such like; of which I tell you plainly, as I have also told you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance." Gal. v. 19.

:

This I believe to be the plain sense of the above document. But Gamaliel puts upon the narrative a very different construction. According to him, the false teachers went to Antioch with the knowledge and concurrence of James, who, when the discussion was brought on, advocated their opinions against Peter and Paul: p. 160. "Spite of reason, religion and Jesus, the victory is, on this account, given to James-to Jesus's kinsman, James. The motion is carried: the course proposed is a sort of middle course a sort of compromise, at the hands of Gentile proselytes, in deference to the Mosaic law, abstinence from four things is required," p. 168. "Of this perfectly useless prohibition what would be the effect?-Not only to oppose obstacles to the exertions of Christian teachers, in their endeavours to make con

σε

verts among the Gentiles; but on the part of the Gentiles themselves, to oppose to them a needless difficulty in the way of their conversion, by rendering it impossible for them, consistently with the observance of this prohibition, to associate with their unconverted friends and families at convivial hours.... Since and from that time, the religion of Jesus has spread itself: we shall see to what extent. Spread itself, and by what means? By means of the decision thus fathered on the Apostles ? Upon the Apostles, the Elders, and the whole church? No, but in spite of it and by the neglect of it. Charged with a letter containing this decision, did Paul, together with his friend Barnabas, return from Jerusalem, if the author of the Acts is to be believed, to the society of Christian converts, by which he had been sent thither: charged with this letter, carrying with it the authority of the whole fellowship of the Apostles. Paul himself— he Paul-what sort of regard did he pay to it? He wrote against it with all his might. No more Jewish rites! No more Mosaic law! Such is the cry, that animates the whole body of those writings of his which have reached us." p. 170.

Paul, we have seen, explained the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles in a full assembly of the Apostles, the Elders, and the people; and when the opposition seceded, he condescended to lay before them a similar account apart from the church. In the decree and its preamble, which the Apostles returned to the Gentile converts, they confirm the Gospel which Paul taught, and notice the sacrifices which he made in the cause of Christ, as entitling him to confidence and affection. But what says Gamaliel Smith? "What, in obedience to this revelation, he was to do, and did accordingly, was,-the preaching of a Gospel of his own; a Gospel which as yet he had not preached to any but to the Gentiles. Preaching? how and where? in any assembly of the whole body of the believers in Jesus,

R

the Apostles themselves included? No; but privately and only to the leading men among them. A Gospel of his own? Yes that he did. Further on it will be seen what it was: a Gospel, of which, as far as appears from the Evangelists, no traces are to be found in any thing said by Jesus; especially if what on that occasion he (Paul) taught by word of mouth at Antioch agreed with what we shall find him teaching in his epistles." p. 178.

On all this I have only to remark, that if Gamaliel be sincere; if he be not conscious to himself of wilfully perverting the narrative, in order to mislead his readers, 'then the book before me presents the most singular and melancholy instance of a powerful understanding blinded by prejudice, or betrayed, by stubborn opposition to the truth, to a more wild and frantic spirit of delusion than can be found in the annals of mankind.

When Paul arrived in Tyre, in his way for the last time to Jerusalem, he was received, says Luke, in the house of Philip the Evangelist: "And as we continued there many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea; and when he came to us, he took Paul's girdle and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the holy spirit, in this manner will the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and will deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we and the men of that place entreated him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, What mean ye by weeping and breaking my heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done."

Here we see an instance of that method of conveying instruction by symbols so prevalent in ancient times. Whoever can read this passage without a quicker pulse,