Chriftians was of fuch a nature, that, if it arofe at all, it must have arifen in the beginning of Christianity. As Judæa was the scene of the Christian history; as the author and preachers of Chriftianity were Jews; as the religion itself acknowledged and was founded upon the Jewish religion, in contradistinction to every other religion then profeffed amongst mankind; it was not to be wondered at, that fome of its teachers fhould carry it out in the world rather as a fect and modification of Judaism, than as a separate original revelation; or that they should invite their profelytes to thofe obfervances, in which they lived themselves. This was likely to happen; but if it did not happen at first; if, whilft the religion was in the hands of Jewish teachers, no fuch claim was advanced, no fuch condition was attempted to be impofed, it is not probable that the doctrine would be started, much less that it fhould prevail in any future period. I likewife think, that thofe pretenfions of Judaifm were much more likely to be insisted upon, whilft the Jews continued a nation, than after their fall and difperfion; whilft Jerufalem and

the temple ftood, than after the destruction brought upon them by the Roman arms, the fatal ceffation of the facrifice and the priesthood, the humiliating lofs of their country, and, with it, of the great rites and fymbols of their inftitution. It should feem therefore, from the nature of the fubject, and the fituation of the parties, that this controverfy was carried on in the interval between the preaching of Christianity to the Gentiles, and the invafion of Titus; and that our present epistle, which was undoubtedly intended to bear a part in this controversy, must be referred to the fame period.

But, again, the epistle supposes that certain defigning adherents of the Jewish law had crept into the churches of Galatia; and had been endeavouring, and but too fuccefsfully, to perfuade the Galatic converts, that they had been taught the new religion imperfectly and at fecond hand; that the founder of their church himself poffeffed only an inferior and deputed commiffion, the seat of truth and authority being in the apostles and elders of Jerufalem; moreover, that whatever he might profefs amongst them,

he

he had himself at other times, and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcifion. The epiftle is unintelligible without fuppofing all this. Referring therefore to this, as to what had actually paffed, we find St. Paul treating fo unjust an attempt to undermine his credit, and to introduce amongst his converts a doctrine which he had uniformly reprobated, in terms of great afperity and indignation. And in order to refute the fufpicions which had been raised concerning the fidelity of his teaching, as well as to affert the independency and divine original of his miffion, we find him appealing to the hiftory of his converfion, to his conduct under it, to the manner in which he had conferred with the apoftles when he met with them at Jerufalem; alledging, that fo far was his doctrine from being derived from them, or they from exercifing any fuperiority over him, that they had fimply affented to what he had already preached amongst the Gentiles, and which preaching was communicated not by them to him, but by himself to them; that he had maintained the liberty of the Gentile church,

church, by oppofing, upon one occafion, an apostle to the face, when the timidity of his behaviour feemed to endanger it; that from the first, that all along, that to that hour, he had conftantly refifted the claims of Judaism; and that the perfecutions which he daily underwent, at the hands or by the inftigation of the Jews, and of which he bore in his person the marks and fcars, might have been avoided by him, if he had confented to employ his labours in bringing, through the medium of Christianity, converts over to the Jewish inftitution, for then ❝ would the offence of the cross have ceafed." Now an impoftor who had forged the epiftle for the purpose of producing St. Paul's authority in the difpute, which, as hath been obferved, is the only credible motive that can be affigned for the forgery, might have made the apostle deliver his opinion upon the fubject, in strong and decifive terms, or might have put his name to a train of reafoning and argumentation upon that fide of the question, which the imposture was intended to recommend. I can allow the poffibility of such a scheme as that. But for a

writer,

writer, with this purpose in view, to feign a series of transactions supposed to have passed amongst the Chriftians of Galatia, and then to counterfeit expreffions of anger and refentment excited by thefe tranfactions; to make the apostle travel back into his own history, and into a recital of various paffages of his life, fome indeed directly, but others obliquely, and others even obfcurely bearing upon the point in queftion; in a word, to substitute narrative for argument, expoftulation and complaint for dogmatic pofitions and controverfial reafoning, in a writing properly controverfial, and of which the aim and design was to fupport one fide of a much agitated question-is a method fo intricate, and fo unlike the methods purfued by all other impoftors, as to require very flagrant proofs of impofition to induce

us to believe it to be one.

No. II.

In this number I fhall endeavour to prove, 1. That the Epistle to the Galatians, and the Acts of the Apostles, were written without any communication with each other.

2. That