THE authenticity of this epistle is ably vindicated by Dr. Paley: the principal part of his arguments I shall here introduce, and doubt not that they will be considered demonstrative evidence by every candid and unprejudiced reader.

SECTION 1.

The argument of this epistle in some measure proves its antiquity. It will hardly be doubted that it was written whilst the dispute concerning the circumcision of Gentile converts was fresh in men’s minds; for, even supposing it to have been a forgery, the only credible motive that can be assigned for the forgery was, to bring the name and authority of the apostle into this controversy. No design could be so insipid, or so unlikely to enter into the thoughts of any man, as to produce an epistle written earnestly and pointedly upon one side of a controversy, when the controversy itself was dead, and the question no longer interesting to any description of readers whatever. Now the controversy concerning the circumcision of the Gentile Christians was of such a nature that, if it arose at all, it must have arisen in the beginning of Christianity. As Judea was the scene of the Christian history; as the author and preachers of Christianity were Jews; as the religion itself acknowledged and was founded upon the Jewish religion, in contradistinction to every other religion then professed amongst mankind; it was not to be wondered at that some of its teachers should carry it out in the world rather as a sect and modification of Judaism, than as a separate original revelation; or that they should invite their proselytes to those observances in which they lived themselves. This was likely to happen; but if it did not happen at first, if, whilst the religion was in the hands of Jewish teachers, no such claim was advanced, no such condition was attempted to be imposed, it is not probable that the doctrine would be started, much less that it should prevail, in any future period. I likewise think that those pretensions of Judaism were much more likely to be insisted upon whilst the Jews continued a nation, than after their fall and dispersion; whilst Jerusalem and the temple stood, than after the destruction brought upon them by the Roman arms, the total cessation of the sacrifice and the priesthood, the humiliating loss of their country, and, with it, of the great rites and symbols of their institution. It should seem, therefore, from the nature of the subject, and the situation of the parties, that this controversy was carried on in the interval between the preaching of Christianity to the Gentiles and the invasion of Titus; and that our present epistle, which was undoubtedly intended to bear a part in this controversy, must be referred to the same period.

But again: the epistle supposes that certain designing adherents of the Jewish law had crept into the Churches of Galatia, and had been endeavoring, and but too successfully, to persuade the Galatic converts that they had been taught the new religion imperfectly, and at second hand; that the founder of their Church himself possessed only an inferior and deputed commission, the seat of truth and authority being in the apostles and elders of Jerusalem; moreover, that, whatever he might profess amongst them, he had himself, at other times and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcision. The epistle is unintelligible without supposing all this. Referring therefore to this, as to what had actually passed, we find St. Paul treating so unjust an attempt to undermine his credit, and to introduce amongst his converts a doctrine which he had uniformly reprobated, in terms of great asperity and indignation. And, in order to refute the suspicions which had been raised concerning the fidelity of his teaching, as well as to assert the independency and Divine original of his mission, we find him appealing to the history of his conversion, to his conduct under it, to the manner in which he had conferred with the apostles when he met with them at Jerusalem; alleging that, so far was his doctrine from being derived from them, or they from exercising any superiority over him, that they had simply assented 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, by opposing upon one occasion an apostle to the face, when the timidity of his behavior seemed to endanger it; that from the first, that all along, that to that hour, he had constantly resisted the claims of Judaism; and that the persecutions which he daily underwent, at the hands or by the instigation of the Jews, and of which he bore in his person the marks and scars, might have been avoided by him, if he had consented to employ his labors in bringing, through the medium of Christianity, converts over to the Jewish institution; for then would the offense of the cross have ceased.” Now an impostor, who had forged the epistle for the purpose of producing St. Paul’s authority in the dispute, which, as hath been observed, is the only credible motive that can be assigned for the forgery, might have made the apostle deliver his opinion upon the subject in strong an decisive terms, or might have put his name to a train of reasoning and argumentation upon that side of the question which the imposture was intended to recommend. I can allow the possibility of such a scheme as that. But for a writer, with this purpose in view, to feign a series of transactions supposed to have passed amongst the Christians of Galatia, and then to counterfeit expressions of anger and resentment excited by these transactions; to make the apostle travel back into his own history, and into a recital of various passages of his life, some indeed directly, but others obliquely, and others even obscurely bearing upon the point in question; in a word, to substitute narrative for argument, expostulation and complaint for dogmatic positions and controversial reasoning, in a writing properly controversial, and of which the aim and design was to support one side of a much agitated question, is a method so intricate, and so unlike the methods pursued by all other impostors, as to require the very flagrant proofs of imposition to induce us to believe it to be one.

SECTION 2.

In this section I shall endeavor 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 the epistle, though written without any communication with the history, by recital, implication, or reference, bears testimony to many of the facts contained in it.

1. The epistle and the Acts of the Apostles were written without any communication with each other.

To judge of this point we must examine those passages in each which describe the same transaction; for, if the author of either writing derived his information from the account which he had seen in the other, when he came to speak of the same transaction he would follow that account. The history of St. Paul at Damascus, as read in the Acts, and as referred to by the epistle, forms an instance of this sort. According to the Acts, Paul (after his conversion) was certain days with the “disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said: Is not this he which destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, confounding the Jews which were at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him. But their laying wait was known to Saul; and they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples.” Acts 9:19-26.

According to the epistle, “When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his own Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus; then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem.”

Besides the difference observable in the terms and general complexion of these two accounts, “the journey into Arabia,” mentioned in the epistle, and omitted in the history, affords full proof that there existed no correspondence between these writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the epistle, it is impossible that this journey should have been passed over in silence; if the epistle had been composed out of what the author had read of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it should have been inserted. (13)

(13) N.B. The Acts of the Apostles simply inform us that St. Paul left Damascus in order to go to Jerusalem, “after many days were fulfilled.” If any one doubt whether the words “many days” could be intended to express a period which included a term of three years, he will find a complete instance of the same phrase, used with the same latitude, in 1 Kings 2:38, 39: “And Shimei dwelt at Jerusalem many days; and it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away:’

The journey to Jerusalem related in the second chapter of the epistle (“then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem”) supplies another example of the same kind. Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts, or it was some journey of which the history does not take notice. If the first opinion be followed, the discrepancy in the two accounts is so considerable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the same transaction, so that upon this supposition there is no place for suspecting that the writers were guided or assisted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerusalem, and a conference with the principal members of the Church there, circumstantially related in the epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts; and we are at liberty to repeat the observation, which we before made, that the omission of the material a fact in the history is inexplicable if the historian had read the epistle, and that the insertion of it in the epistle, if the writer derived his information from the history, is not less so.

St. Peter’s visit to Antioch, during which the dispute arose between him and St. Paul, is not mentioned in the Acts.

If we connect with these instances the general observation, that no scrutiny can discover the smallest trace of transcription or imitation, either in things or words, we shall be fully satisfied in this part of our case, namely, that the two records, be the facts contained in them true or false, come to our hands from independent sources,

Secondly, I say that the epistle, thus proved to have been written without any communication with the history, bears testimony to a great variety of particulars contained in the history.

1. St. Paul in the early part of his life had addicted himself to the study of the Jewish religion, and was distinguished by his zeal for the institution and for the traditions which had been incorporated with it. Upon this part of his character the history makes St. Paul speak thus: “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous towards God, as ye all are this day.” Acts 22:3.

The epistle is as follows: “I profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” Galatians 1:14.

2. St. Paul before his conversion had been a fierce persecutor of the new sect. “As for Saul, he made havoc of the Church; entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison.” Acts 8:3.

This is the history of St. Paul, as delivered in the Acts; in the recital of his own history in the epistle, “Ye have heard,” says he, “of my conversation in times past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God.” Galatians 1:13.

3. St. Paul was miraculously converted on his way to Damascus. “And as he journeyed he came near to Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? Acts 9:3-6. With these compare the epistle, Galatians 1:15-17: “When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem, to them that were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.”

In this quotation from the epistle, I desire it to be remarked how incidentally it appears that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all; a casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus: “I returned again to Damascus.” Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this is. It also draws the agreement between the two quotations somewhat closer, to observe that they both state St. Paul to have preached the Gospel immediately upon his call: “And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God;” Acts 9:20. “ When it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.” Galatians 1:15-16.

4. The course of the apostle’s travels after his conversion was this: He went from Damascus to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem into Syria and Cilicia. “ At Damascus the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket; and when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples; Acts 9:25-26. Afterwards, “when the brethren knew the conspiracy formed against him at Jerusalem, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus, a city in Cilicia;” Acts 9:30. In the epistle St. Paul gives the following brief account of his proceedings within the same period: “After three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days; afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.” The history had told us that Paul passed from Caesarea to Tarsus: if he took this journey by land, it would carry him through Syria into Cilicia; and he would come, after his visit at Jerusalem, “into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,” in the very order in which he mentions them in the epistle. This supposition of his going from Caesarea to Tarsus by land clears up also another point. It accounts for what St. Paul says in the same place concerning the Churches of Judea: “Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the Churches of Judea which were in Christ; but they had heard only that he which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed; and they glorified God in me.” Upon which passage I observe, first, that what is here said of the Churches of Judea is spoken in connection with his journey into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Secondly, that the passage itself has little significancy, and that the connection is inexplicable, unless St. Paul went through Judea(14) (though probably by a hasty journey) at the time that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Suppose him to have passed by land from Caesarea to Tarsus, all this, as hath been observed, would be precisely true. (14) Dr. Doddridge thought that the Caesarea here mentioned was not the celebrated city of that name upon the Mediterranean Sea, but Caesarsa Philippi, near the borders of Syria, which lies in a much more direct line from Jerusalem to Tarsus than the other. The objection to this, Dr. Benson remarks, is, that Caesarea, without any addition, usually denotes Caesarea Palestinae.

5. Barnabas was with St. Paul at Antioch. “Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that a whole year they assembled themselves with the Church;” Acts 11:25, 26. Again, and upon another occasion, “They (Paul and Barnabas) sailed to Antioch; and there they continued a long time with the disciples;” Acts 14:26.

Now what says the epistle? “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; and the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation;” Galatians 2:11, 13.

6. The stated residence of the apostle was at Jerusalem. “At that time there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles;” Acts 8:1. “They (the Christians at Antioch) determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders, about this question;” Acts 15:2. With these accounts agrees the declaration in the epistle: “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;” Galatians 1:17; for this declaration implies, or rather assumes it to be known, that Jerusalem was the place were the apostles were to be met with.

7. There were at Jerusalem two apostles, or at least two eminent members of the Church, of the name of James. This is directly inferred from the Acts of the Apostles, which in the second verse of the twelfth chapter (Acts 12:2) relates the death of James, the brother of John; and yet in the fifteenth chapter, and in a subsequent part of the history, records a speech delivered by James in the assembly of the apostles and elders. It is also strongly implied by the form of expression used in the epistle: “Other apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother;” i.e. to distinguish him from James, the brother of John.

To us, who have been long conversant in the Christian history as contained in the Acts of the Apostles, these points are obvious and familiar; nor do we readily apprehend any greater difficulty in making them appear in a letter purporting to have been written by St. Paul, than there is in introducing them into a modern sermon. But to judge correctly of the argument before us, we must discharge this knowledge from our thoughts. We must propose to ourselves the situation of an author who sat down to the writing of the epistle without having seen the history; and then the concurrences we have deduced will he deemed of importance. They will, at least, be taken for separate confirmations of the several facts, and not only of these particular facts, but of the general truth of the history.

For what is the rule with respect to corroborative testimony which prevails in courts of justice, and which prevails only because experience has proved that it is a useful guide to truth? A principal witness in a cause delivers his account; his narrative, in certain parts of it, is confirmed by witnesses who are called afterwards. The credit derived from their testimony belongs not only to the particular circumstances in which the auxiliary witnesses agree with the principal witness, but in some measure to the whole of his evidence; because it is improbable that accident or fiction should draw a line which touched upon truth in so many points.

In like manner, if two records be produced, manifestly independent, that is, manifestly written without any participation of intelligence, an agreement between them, even in few and slight circumstances, (especially if from the different nature and design of the writings few points only of agreement, and those incidental, could be expected to occur,) would add a sensible weight to the authority of both, in every part of their contents.

The same rule is applicable to history, with at least as much reason as any other species of evidence.

SECTION 3.

But although the references to various particulars in the epistle, compared with the direct account of the same particulars in the history, afford a considerable proof of the truth not only of these particulars hut of the narrative which contains them; yet they do not show, it will be said, that the epistle was written by St. Paul; for, admitting (what seems to have been proved) that the writer, whoever he was, had no recourse to the Acts of the Apostles; yet many of the facts referred to, such as St. Paul’s miraculous conversion, his change from a virulent persecutor to an indefatigable preacher, his labors among the Gentiles, and his zeal for the liberties of the Gentile Church, were so notorious as to occur readily to the mind of any Christian, who should choose to personate his character and counterfeit his name; it was only to write what every body knew. Now I think that this supposition, viz. that the epistle was composed upon general information, and the general publicity of the facts alluded to, and that the author did no more than weave into his work what the common fame of the Christian Church had reported to his ears, is repelled by the particularity of the recitals and references. This particularity is observable in the following instances, in perusing which I desire the reader to reflect whether they exhibit the language of a man who had nothing but general reputation to proceed upon, or of a man actually speaking of himself and of his own history, and consequently of things concerning which he possessed a clear, intimate, and circumstantial knowledge.

1. The history, in giving an account of St. Paul after his conversion, relates, “that, after many days,” effecting, by the assistance of the disciples, his escape from Damascus, “he proceeded to Jerusalem;” Acts 9:25-26. The epistle, speaking of the same period, makes St. Paul say that he “went into Arabia,” that he returned again to Damascus, that after three years he went up to Jerusalem; Galatians 1:17, 18.

2. The history relates that when Saul was come from Damascus, “he was with the disciples coming in and going out;” Acts 9:28. The epistle, describing the same journey, tells us, “that he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days;” Galatians 1:18.

3. The history relates that, when Paul was come to Jerusalem, “Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles;” Acts 9:27. The epistle, “that he saw Peter; but other of the apostles saw he none, save James the Lord’s brother;” Galatians 1:19.

Now this is as it should be. The historian delivers his account in general terms, as of facts to which he was not present. The person who is the subject of that account, when he comes to speak of these facts himself, particularizes time, names, and circumstances.

4. The like notation of places, persons, and dates, is met with in the account of St. Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, given in the second chapter of the epistle. It was fourteen years after his conversion; it was in company with Barnabas and Titus; it was then that he met with James, Cephas, and John; it was then also that it was agreed amongst them that they should go to the circumcision, and he unto the Gentiles.

5. The dispute with Peter, which occupies the sequel of the second chapter, is marked with the same particularity. It was at Antioch; it was after certain came from James; it was whilst Barnabas was there, who was carried away by their dissimulation. These examples negative the insinuation that the epistle presents nothing but indefinite allusions to public facts.

SECTION 4.

Galatians 4:11-16: “I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain. Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am, for I am as ye are. Ye have not injured me at all. Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel unto you at first; and my temptation which was in the flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness YOU SPAKE OF? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them unto me. Amos I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”

With this passage compare 2 Corinthians 12:1-9: “It is not expedient for me, doubtless, to glory; I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell, or whether out of the body, I cannot tell, God knoweth;) such a one was caught up to the third heaven; and I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell, God knoweth,) how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such a one will I glory, yet of myself will I not glory, but in mine infirmities; for, though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth. But now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure, through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

There can be no doubt that “the temptation which was in the flesh,” mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians, and “the thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him,” mentioned in the epistle to the Corinthians, were intended to denote the same thing. Either, therefore, it was, what we pretend it to have been, the same person in both-that is, we are reading the letters of a real apostle; or it was that a sophist, who had seen the circumstance in one epistle, contrived, for the sake of correspondency, to bring it into another; or, lastly, it was a circumstance in St. Paul’s personal condition supposed to be well known to those into whose hands the epistle was likely to fall, and for that reason introduced into a writing designed to bear his name. I have extracted the quotations at length, in order to enable the reader to judge accurately of the manner in which the mention of this particular occurs in each; because that judgment, I think, will acquit the author of the epistle of the charge of having studiously inserted it, either with a view of producing an apparent agreement between them, or for any other purpose whatever.

The context, by which the circumstance before us is introduced, is in the two places totally different, and without any mark of imitation; yet in both places does the circumstance rise aptly and naturally out of the context, and that context from the train of thought carried on in the epistle.

The Epistle to the Galatians, from the beginning to the end, runs in a strain of angry complaint of their defection from the apostle, and from the principles which he had taught them. It was very natural to contrast with this conduct the zeal with which they had once received him; and it was not less so to mention, as a proof of their former disposition towards him, the indulgence which, whilst he was amongst them, they had shown to his infirmity: “My temptation which was in the flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness you spake of, i.e. the benedictions which you bestowed upon me? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.”

In the two epistles to the Corinthians, especially in the second, we have the apostle contending with certain teachers in Corinth, who had formed a party in that Church against him. To vindicate his personal authority, as well as the dignity and credit of his ministry amongst them, he takes occasion (but not without apologizing repeatedly for the folly, that is, for the indecorum of pronouncing his own panegyric) to meet his adversaries in their boastings: “Whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they the ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.” Being led to the subject, he goes on, as was natural, to recount his trials and dangers, his incessant cares and labors in the Christian mission. From the proofs which he had given of his zeal and activity in the service of Christ, he passes (and that with the same view of establishing his claim to be considered as “not a whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles”) to the visions and revelations which from time to time had been vouchsafed to him. And then, by a close and easy connection, comes in the mention of his infirmity: “Lest I should be exalted,” says he, “above measure, through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me.”

Thus, then, in both epistles the notice of his infirmity is suited to the place in which it is found. In the epistle to the Corinthians the train of thought draws up the circumstance by a regular approximation; in this epistle it is suggested by the subject and occasion of the epistle itself. Which observation we offer as an argument to prove that it is not, in either epistle, a circumstance industriously brought forward for the sake of procuring credit to an imposture.

A reader will be taught to perceive the force of this argument, who shall attempt to introduce a given circumstance into the body of a writing. To do this without abruptness, or without betraying marks of design in the transition, requires, he will find, more art than he expected to be necessary; certainly more than any one can believe to have been exercised in the composition of these epistles.

SECTION 5.

Galatians 4:29: “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.”

Galatians 5:11: “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased.”

Galatians 6:17: “From henceforth let no man trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.”

From these several texts it is apparent that the persecutions which our apostle had undergone were from the hands or by the instigation of the Jews; that it was not for preaching Christianity in opposition to heathenism, but it was for preaching it as distinct from Judaism, that he had brought upon himself the sufferings which had attended his ministry. And this representation perfectly coincides with that which results from the detail of St. Paul’s history as delivered in the Acts. At Antioch, in Pisidia, the “word of the Lord was published throughout all the region; but the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.” (Acts 13:50.) Not long after, at Iconium, “a great multitude of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed; but the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.” (Acts 14:1, 2.) “At Lystra there came certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people; and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.” (Acts 14:19.) The same enmity, and from the same quarter, our apostle experienced in Greece: “At Thessalonica, some of them (the Jews) believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few: but the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city in an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.” (Acts 17:4, 5.) Their persecutors follow them to Berea: “When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came hither also, and stirred up the people.” (Acts 17:13.) And, lastly, at Corinth, when Gallio was deputy of Achaia, “the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat.” I think it does not appear that our apostle was ever set upon by the Gentiles, unless they were first stirred up by the Jews, except in two instances; in both which the persons who began the assault were immediately interested in his expulsion from the place. Once this happened at Philippi, after the cure of the Pythoness: “When the masters saw the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the market-place unto the rulers.” (Acts 16:19.) And a second time at Ephesus, at the instance of Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines for Diana, “who called together workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth; moreover ye see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded away much people, saying, that they be no gods which are made with hands; so that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought, but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.”

SECTION 6.

I observe an agreement in a somewhat peculiar rule of Christian conduct as laid down in this epistle, and as exemplified in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. It is not the repetition of the same general precept, which would have been a coincidence of little value; but it is the general precept in one place, and the application of that precept to an actual occurrence in the other. In the sixth chapter and first verse of this epistle, {Galatians 6:1} our apostle gives the following direction: “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness.” In 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, he writes thus: “Sufficient to such a man (the incestuous person mentioned in the first epistle) is this punishment, which was inflicted of many; so that, contrariwise, ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow.”

SECTION 7.

This epistle goes farther than any of St. Paul’s epistles, for it avows in direct terms the supersession of the Jewish law as an instrument of salvation, even to the Jews themselves. Not only were the Gentiles exempt from its authority, but even the Jews were no longer either to place any dependence upon it, or consider themselves as subject to it on a religious account. “Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed: wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but, after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster; Galatians 3:23-25. This was undoubtedly spoken of Jews, and to Jews. In like manner, Galatians 4:1-5: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, until the time appointed of the father: even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world; but when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” These passages are nothing short of a declaration, that the obligation of the Jewish law, considered as a religious dispensation, the effects of which were to take place in another life, had ceased, with respect even to the Jews themselves. What then should be the conduct of a Jew (for such St. Paul was) who preached this doctrine? To be consistent with himself, either he would no longer comply, in his own person, with the directions of the law; or, if he did comply, it would be for some other reason than any confidence which he placed in its efficacy, as a religious institution. Now so it happens, that, whenever St. Paul’s compliance with the Jewish law is mentioned in the history, it is mentioned in connection with circumstances which point out the motive from which it proceeded; and this motive appears to have been always exoteric, namely, a love of order and tranquillity, or an unwillingness to give unnecessary offense. Thus, Acts 16:3: “Him (Timothy) would Paul have to go forth with him, and took and circumcised him, because of the Jew’s which were in those quarters.” Again, Acts 21:26, when Paul consented to exhibit an example of public compliance with a Jewish rite, by purifying himself in the temple, it is plainly intimated that he did this to satisfy “many thousands of Jews, who believed, and who were all zealous of the law.” So far the instances related in one book correspond with the doctrine delivered in another.

SECTION 8.

Galatians 1:18: “Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.”

The shortness of St. Paul’s stay at Jerusalem is what I desire the reader to remark. The direct account of the same journey in the Acts, Acts 9:28, determines nothing concerning the time of his continuance there: “And he was with them (the apostles) coming in and going out, at Jerusalem; and he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him; which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea.” Or rather, this account, taken by itself would lead a reader to suppose that St. Paul’s abode at Jerusalem had been longer than fifteen days. But turn to the twenty-second chapter of the Acts, {Acts 22:17, 18} and you will find a reference to this visit to Jerusalem, which plainly indicates that Paul’s continuance in that city had been of short duration: “And it came to pass, that when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.” Here we have the general terms of one text so explained by a distinct text in the same book, as to bring an indeterminate expression into a close conformity with a specification delivered in another book-a species of consistency not, I think, usually found in fabulous relations.

SECTION 9.

Galatians 6:11: “Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.”

These words imply that he did not always write with his own hand; which is consonant to what we find intimated in some other of the epistles. The Epistle to the Romans was written by Tertius: “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord;” Romans 16:22. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Colossians, and the second to the Thessalonians, have all, near the conclusion, this clause: “The salutation of me, Paul, with mine own hand; which must be understood, and is universally understood, to import that the rest of the epistle was written by another hand. I do not think it improbable that an impostor, who had marked this subscription in some other epistle, should invent the same in a forgery; but that is not done here. The author of this epistle does not imitate the manner of giving St. Paul’s signature; he only bids the Galatians observe how large a letter he had written to them with his own hand. He does not say this was different from his ordinary usage; that is left to implication. Now, to suppose that this was an artifice to procure credit to an imposture, is to suppose that the author of the forgery, because he knew that others of St. Paul’s were not written by himself, therefore made the apostle say that this was; which seems an odd turn to give to the circumstance, and to be given for a purpose which would more naturally and more directly have been answered, by subjoining the salutation or signature in the form in which it is found in other epistles.

SECTION 10.

An exact conformity appears in the manner in which a certain apostle or eminent Christian, whose name was James, is spoken of in the epistle and in the history. Both writings refer to a situation of his at Jerusalem, somewhat different from that of the other apostles-a kind of eminence or presidency in the Church there, or, at least, a more fixed and stationary residence. Galatians 2:12: “When Peter was at Antioch, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles.” This text plainly attributes a kind of pre-eminence to James; and as we hear of him twice in the same epistle dwelling at Jerusalem, Galatians 1:19; 2:9, we must apply it to the situation which he held in that Church. In the Acts of the Apostles divers intimations occur, conveying the same idea of James’s situation. When Peter was miraculously delivered from prison, and had surprised his friends by his appearance among them, after declaring unto them how the Lord had brought him out of prison, “Go, show,” says he, “these things unto James, and to the brethren;” Acts 12:17. Here James is manifestly spoken of in terms of distinction. He appears again with like distinction in the twenty-first chapter and the seventeenth and eighteenth verses: {Acts 21:17, 18} “And when we (Paul and his company) were come to Jerusalem, the day following Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were present.” In the debate which took place upon the business of the Gentile converts, in the council at Jerusalem, this same person seems to have taken the lead. It was he who closed the debate, and proposed the resolution in which the council ultimately concurred: “Wherefore my sentence is, etc.”

Upon the whole, that there exists a conformity in the expressions used concerning James, throughout the history and in the epistle, is unquestionable. This proves that the circumstance itself is founded in truth; viz. that James was a real person, who held a situation of eminence in a real society of Christians at Jerusalem. It confirms also those parts of the narrative which are connected with this circumstance. Suppose, for instance, the truth of the account of Peter’s escape from prison was to be tried upon the testimony of a witness who, among other things, made Peter, after his deliverance, say, “Go, show these things to James and to the brethren;” would it not be material, in such a trial, to make out by other independent proofs, or by a comparison of proofs, drawn from independent sources, that there was actually at that time, living at Jerusalem, such a person as James; that this person held such a situation in the society amongst whom these things were transacted as to render the words which Peter is said to have used concerning him proper and natural? If this would be pertinent in the discussion of oral testimony, it is still more so in appreciating the credit of remote history.