the Galatians. It would have afforded a practical proof that though the author opposed the false doctrines of Judaizers, he was not biassed by any prejudices against the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, who were zealous in behalf of the Levitical Law (Acts xxi. 20), and that he was actuated by feelings of love towards their persons, although he impugned their principles. He therefore does not omit to mention in this Epistle to the Galatians (chap. ii. 10) that before the Council of Jerusalem he "was forward to remember the poor," i. e. the poor saints at Jerusalem; an assertion confirmed and explained by the Acts of the Apostles (Acts xi. 27-30; xii. 25).

How much force would have accrued to this important affirmation if he could have also said, that at the very time in which he was engaged in writing this Epistle, he was making a charitable collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem!

The estrangement of many of the Galatians from him at the time of writing this Epistle might, and probably would, have deterred him from enjoining such a collection on them by his own authority, but it would have even suggested a reason for a reference to the collection itself in which he was zealously engaged.

This collection would have been a demonstrative argument to the Galatians that his earnest zeal against the errors of the Judaizers was accompanied with fervent charity to the erring, and could not be imputed to any personal animosity on his part, but was prompted by love of the Truth, and even by love for the erring, whom he desired to recover from their error.

He enlarges upon the subject of this collection in those three other Epistles (the two to the Corinthians, and that to the Romans); and he would not have omitted to mention the collection in this Epistle, if it had been written at the same time as those Epistles when he was engaged in making the collection.

15. This consideration derives additional force from the fact that St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, does not omit to mention that he had then given an order, on the subject of this collection, to the Churches of Galatia (1 Cor. xvi. 1), "Concerning the collection for the saints (the poor Christians of Jerusalem), as I gave charge (diéтağa) to the Churches of Galatia, so do ye." 16. When did he give this charge to the Churches of Galatia?

Not in this Epistle,-there is no reference to it there.

But he might, it is said, have sent an oral message to that effect with the Epistle.

Undoubtedly he might have done so. But why should he not mention in the Epistle to the Galatians what he has mentioned in all those other Epistles? If an oral message would suffice for one, why not for all?

Besides, the charge was given, he says, to the Churches of Galatia. It was not merely sent to one, but to many.

This circumstance bespeaks some general mission, or a visit from the Apostle himself.

17. Had then St. Paul any communication with the Churches of Galatia a short time before he wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he speaks of having given a direction "to the Churches of Galatia" (1 Cor. xvi. 1)?

He had. The history of the Acts of the Apostles relates that, after his first visit to Corinth, he went by way of Ephesus up to Jerusalem, and thence returned to Antioch, the centre of his missionary labours, where he remained some time, and thence came back to Ephesus through the country of Galatia and Phrygia, "confirming all the disciples"."

2

After his return to Ephesus he wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians from that City.

It was probably in that visit to Galatia, where he "confirmed all the disciples," that he gave this charge concerning the collection to "the Churches of Galatia," to which he refers in his first Epistle to the Corinthians.

18. He had "confirmed the disciples" in Galatia. His Apostolic authority was now reestablished there; and he was now in a condition to give an injunction which, at the time when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians, and their minds had been estranged from him by false teachers, would not have been so readily given, nor cheerfully obeyed.

This consideration, therefore, leads us to place the Epistle before that second visit to Galatia. 19. Besides, let it be remembered that when the affections of a Church had been alienated from him, as was the case with the Churches of Galatia, it was not St. Paul's custom to visit that

Church in person at once.

As he himself says to a Church thus disaffected, "He would not come to

it in sorrow (2 Cor. ii. 1), and with a rod" (1 Cor. iv. 21).

However desirous he might be to see it, yet in order to spare the offending he would not come to them (2 Cor. i. 23), even at the risk of being taunted (as he was) with timidity and vacillation (2 Cor. i. 17).

His practice was, first, to try the more lenient process of an Epistle, and then, when the Epistle had wrought its proper effect upon them, but not till then, he would follow up the Epistle by a visit.

This Apostolic method of retrieving an erring Church is illustrated by the history of his dealings with the Church of Corinth (2 Cor. i. 23; ii. 1).

He would probably have resorted to the same wise and merciful treatment in restoring his spiritual children of Galatia.

Therefore, on this ground also, it seems to be more probable that the Epistle should have preceded the Visit, than that the Visit should have preceded the Epistle.

Accordingly, we find in the Epistle to the Galatians a desire expressed on his part to visit them (iv. 20). But he first writes to them.

20. Again; the terms in which that second visit to Galatia is described in the ACTS of the APOSTLES, deserve careful attention.

We there read that he went through in order («a@e§îs) the region of Galatia and Phrygia, confirming or establishing (eToTnpiwv) all the disciples (Acts xviii. 23).

Since it is thus affirmed in a Book of Canonical Scripture, written some time after that visit, that the Apostle went through a country settling all the disciples, we may reasonably conclude that they were settled; and we cannot bring ourselves to imagine that soon after a visit, in which the holy Apostle settled all the disciples, the Churches of Galatia generally became so unsettled, as the Galatians evidently were, when they received this Epistle from St. Paul. (See Gal. iii. 1-4; iv. 19; v. 4.)

We cannot, therefore, be induced to concur with those learned persons, who think that the Epistle to the Galatians, representing such a state of spiritual disorganization, was written soon after the visit in which, as Holy Scripture assures us, they were confirmed by St. Paul.

21. Reasons have now already been given for assigning an earlier date to this Epistle. This then being assumed as probable, the word emi-σтηpiwv, used by St. Luke in describing St. Paul's second visit to Galatia, may perhaps afford a clue for determining the date of the Epistle. That word intimates some previous act of corroboration.

The Visit of the Apostle came upon (èπì) some prior work of spiritual settling in the faith. The Epistle represents the Galatians in an unsettled state; but the Epistle was designed to settle them.

This work of restoration was, it is probable, commenced by the Holy Ghost inspiring the Apostle to write this Epistle, and blessing His Word written, and granting the Apostle's prayers, and recovering those who had swerved from their Christian stedfastness.

When this previous work of reparation and recovery had been performed by an Epistle, then it was prosecuted (as might have been expected) by a Visit, which the Epistle had pre-announced as probable (iv. 20). The Visit completed the work happily commenced by the Epistle.

St. Paul went through the region of Galatia, èπɩστηρílwv—giving additional strength and stedfastness-to all the disciples.

22. This conclusion comes in very appropriately to explain what he says to the Corinthians concerning the above-mentioned charge to the Galatian Churches with regard to the collection of alms for the poor saints of Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi. 1).

St. Paul could hardly have ventured to give such a charge to the Galatians when they were in that condition of spiritual revolt and defection from him, which is described in the Epistle.

But now that they had been brought back to their allegiance by the Epistle and the Visit, he

was enabled to issue such a mandate in full confidence that it would be obeyed.

Here, perhaps, we may recognize the reason why he mentions to the Corinthians the fact that he had given such a direction to the Galatians, whose estrangement from St. Paul must have been matter of notoriety, and perhaps of boasting, among the Judaizers of Corinth.

He specifies the fact, that he had given such a direction to the Churches of Galatia, in order

that the Corinthians might thus learn by a practical proof, that the Galatians had been recovered from the schismatical and heretical influence of the Judaizing opponents of the Apostle, and had returned to their spiritual obedience and loyalty to him, and recognized St. Paul once more as their Apostle, and regarded him with their original feelings of enthusiastic admiration and love (Gal. iv. 15), and were ready to obey his commands, and could now be cited by him as examples of Obedience and Charity for the edification of other Churches; and that thus the Corinthians themselves, who were exposed to the same evil influences as the Galatians were, and had been injured by them, might derive practical benefit from the example of the Churches of Galatia.

23. On the whole then we arrive at the following results:

(1) That the Epistle to the Galatians was written by St. Paul after A.D. 52, the date of his first visit to Galatia.

(2) That it was written before the date of his second visit to Galatia.

(3) That it was probably written at Corinth on his first visit to Greece, A.D. 53 or a.d. 54*.

(4) That it was written next after his two Epistles to the Thessalonians.

(5) That not long after the Epistle had been sent, he heard, probably at Ephesus, a good report of the favourable manner in which the Epistle had been received by the Galatians, and consequently resolved to visit Galatia in person on his return to Ephesus from Jerusalem and Antioch.

(6) That accordingly, having gone up from Ephesus to Jerusalem (Acts xviii. 22), and thence to Antioch, where he abode some time, he did not return by a direct course to Ephesus, although the Ephesian disciples were very desirous of his presence (Acts xviii. 20), but came back by a circuitous route through Galatia, where he strengthened all the disciples (Acts xviii. 23).

(7) That St. Paul's authority was re-established in Galatia, and the Galatians themselves were recovered to the faith, and that this Epistle was a blessed instrument to them, as it has been to every age and country of Christendom, for building up the hope of salvation on the only solid basis upon which it can stand unmoveably,-that of a sound Faith in the meritorious efficacy of the Death of Christ.

II. On the Design of the Epistle to the Galatians.

This subject will be considered in the Review at the close of the Second Chapter of this Epistle, and in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans.

The following preliminary remarks upon it are from S. Augustine®.

The cause for which this Epistle was written to the Galatians was this :

When St. Paul had preached to them the Grace of God in the Gospel, some persons of the Circumcision arose, bearing the Christian name, who desired to bring the Galatians under the bondage of the Levitical Law.

They alleged that the Gospel would profit them nothing unless they were circumcised, and submitted to the other carnal observances of the Jewish ritual.

Hence the Galatians began to regard St. Paul with suspicion, as if he did not observe the same discipline as that of the other Apostles.

The Apostle Peter had given way to the scruples of these persons, and had been led to a semblance of agreement with them, as if he also was of their mind, that the Gospel was of no avail to the Gentiles unless they submitted to the burden of the Law.

Peter had been reclaimed from this simulation by St. Paul, as is related in this Epistle (ii. 14). The subject of this Epistle is similar to that of the Epistle to the Romans, with, however, some difference. In the Epistle to the Romans the Apostle determines judicially the questions which were debated between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, the former alleging that the Gospel was awarded to them as a reward due to their own deservings consequent on a performance of the works of the Law, and not allowing this reward to be communicated to the Gentiles, who were not circumcised, and therefore, in the opinion of the Jews, did not merit the same. (Augustine.)

Compare Lardner, Vol. iii. p. 289, chap. xii. sect. iii. Birk's Hora Apostolicæ, p. 207.

This is the opinion of many of the most learned writers on the Chronology of St Paul's Epistles, e. g. L. Capellus, Heidegger, Hottinger, Benson, Lardner, Schmid, De Wette, Feilmoser, VOL. II.-PART III.

Schott, Anger, Neander, Wieseler, and others. See Wieseler,
Chron. Syn. p. 607.

6 Whose Commentary on this Epistle will be found in Vol. iii. pp. 2660-2713 of his works, ed. Bened. 1837.

G

The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, exulted in their own preference to the Jews, who had been guilty of killing Christ.

In the present Epistle the Apostle writes to those who had been swayed by the influence of some false Teachers, exacting from them an observance of the Ceremonial Law, and had begun to listen to their insinuations that because St. Paul was unwilling that they should be circumcised, he had not preached to them the truth.

There is also this difference between the Epistle to the Galatians and that to the Romans, that in this Epistle St. Paul does not address himself to persons who had passed from Judaism to Christianity, but to such as had been converted to the Gospel from Heathenism, and were lapsing into Judaism under the influence of false Teachers, who affirmed that Peter, and James, and all the Churches of Judæa had joined the Law with the Gospel, and had exacted a like observance of both. They also alleged that Paul was inconsistent with himself, that he did one thing in Judæa and preached another, to the Heathen; and that it would be vain for them to believe in Christ unless they conformed to those things which were observed by His principal Apostles.

St. Paul, therefore, is obliged to steer a middle course, so as neither on the one hand to betray the Grace of the Gospel, nor yet, on the other, to disparage the authority of his predecessors in the Apostleship. S. Jerome'.

Another difference may be remarked in the character of the two Epistles.

In that to the Romans, the Apostle speaks with more deference and reserve to those whom he addresses, whom he had never seen, and who had been converted by others to Christ.

In the Epistle to the Galatians he speaks with the affectionate sternness of a spiritual Father to his own children in the Faith, who were disparaging his authority, and renouncing his precepts, to the injury of their own souls, and the perversion of the Gospel of Christ. See Gal. iii. 1; iv. 8-20; v. 7.

7 Proœm. in Epist. ad Gal. Vol. iv. p. 223, ed. Bened. Paris, 1706.

ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ.

I. 14 ΠΑΥΛΟΣ, ἀπόστολος, οὐκ ἀπ ̓ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι ̓ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, 2 καὶ οἱ ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοὶ, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας, 3 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη Θεοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 4 τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ,

1 Cor. 6. 14. & 15. 15. 2 Cor. 4. 14. Eph. 1. 20. Col. 2. 12. 1 Thess. 1. 10. Heb. 13. 20.
1 Tim. 2. 6. Tit. 2. 14. Heb. 9. 14. & 10. 9, 10. John 15. 19. 1 Pet. 2. 24. & 3. 18. 1 John 5. 19.