into Bithynia."

"latia, they affayed to go The progress here recorded was fubfequent to the apoftolic decree; therefore that decree must have been extant when our epiftle was written. Now, as the profeffed defign of the epiftle was to establish the exemption of the Gentile converts from the law of Mofes, and as the decree pronounced and confirmed that exemption, it may feem extraordinary that no notice whatever is taken of that determination, nor any appeal. made to its authority. Much however of the weight of this objection, which applies alfo to fome other of St. Paul's epiftles, is removed by the following reflections.

1. It was not St. Paul's manner, nor agreeable to it, to refort or defer much to the authority of the other apoftles, especially whilst he was infifting, as he does ftrenuoufly throughout this epiftle infift, upon his own original inspiration. He who could fpeak of the very chiefeft of the apoftles in fuch terms as the following" of thofe who "feemed to be fomewhat (whatsoever they "were it maketh no matter to me, God "accepteth no man's perfon) for they who "feemed

"feemed to be fomewhat in conference "added nothing to me"-he, I fay, was not likely to fupport himself by their decifion.

2. The epiftle argues the point upon principle; and it is not perhaps more to be wondered at, that in fuch an argument St. Paul fhould not cite the apoftolic decree, than it would be that, in a discourse designed to prove the moral and religious duty of obferving the fabbath, the writer should not quote the thirteenth canon.

3. The decree did not go the length of the pofition maintained in the epiftle; the decree only declares that the apostles and elders at Jerufalem did not impofe the obfervance of the Mofaic law upon the Gentile converts, as a condition of their being admitted into the Chriftian church. Our epiftle argues that the Mofaic inftitution itfelf was at an end, as to all effects upon a future ftate, even with refpect to the Jews themselves.

4. They whofe error St. Paul combated, were not perfons who fubmitted to the Jewish law, because it was imposed by the authority, or because it was made part

66

of the law of the Chriftian church; but they were perfons who, having already become Chriftians, afterwards voluntarily took upon themselves the obfervance of the Mofaic code, under a notion of attaining thereby to a greater perfection. This, I think, is precifely the opinion which St. Paul opposes in this epiftle. Many of his expreffions apply exactly to it: "Are ye fo foolish? having begun in the spirit, are ye now "made perfect in the flesh?" (chap. iii. ver. 3). "Tell me, ye that defire to be “under the law, do ye not hear the law?" (chap. iv. ver. 21). "How turn ye again "to the weak and beggarly elements, where"unto ye defire again to be in bondage?" (chap. iv. ver. 9). It cannot be thought extraordinary that St. Paul fhould refift this opinion with earneftnefs; for it both changed the character of the Chriftian difpenfation, and derogated exprefsly from the completenefs of that redemption which Jesus Christ had wrought for them that believed in him. But it was to no purpose to alledge to fuch perfons the decision at Jerufalem, for that only fhewed that they were not bound to

thefe

thefe obfervances by any law of the Christian church: they did not pretend to be fo bound. Nevertheless they imagined that there was an efficacy in thefe obfervances, a merit, a recommendation to favour, and a ground of acceptance with God for those who complied with them. This was a fituation of thought to which the tenor of the decree did not apply. Accordingly, St. Paul's address to the Galatians, which is throughout adapted to this fituation, runs in a strain widely different from the language of the decree: "Chrift is become of no effect unto

you, whofoever of you are justified by the "law" (chap. v. ver. 4); i. e. whofoever places his dependance upon any, merit he may apprehend there to be in legal obfervances. The decree had faid nothing like this; therefore it would have been useless to have produced the decree in an argument of which this was the burthen. In like manner as in contending with an anchorite, who should infift upon the fuperior holiness of a recluse, ascetic life, and the value of fuch mortifications in the fight of God, it would be to no purpose to prove that the

laws

laws of the church did not require these vows, or even to prove that the laws of the church exprefsly left every chriftian to his liberty. This would avail little towards abating his estimation of their merit, or towards fettling the point in controversy*.

Another

Mr. Locke's folution of this difficulty is by no means fatisfactory. "St. Paul," he fays, " did not "remind the Galatians of the apoftolic decree, because 66 they already had it." In the first place, it does not appear with certainty that they had it; in the fecond place, if they had it, this was rather a reason, than otherwife, for referring them to it. The paffage in the Acts, from which Mr. Locke concludes that the Galatic churches were in poffeffion of the decree, is the fourth verse of the fixteenth chapter: "And as they" Paul and Timothy) "went through the cities, they delivered them "the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the "apostles and elders which were at Jerufalem." In my opinion, this delivery of the decree was confined to the churches to which St. Paul came, in pursuance of the plan upon which he fet out, " of vifiting the brethren in

66

every city where he had preached the word of the "Lord;" the history of which progress, and of all that pertained to it, is clofed in the fifth verfe, when the hiftory informs us that, "fo were the churches eftablished "in the faith, and increased in number daily." Then the history proceeds upon a new fection of the narrative, by telling us, that "when they had gone throughout "Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they assayed to

go