vehemently assailed, and the very principles against which it was originally directed, are again striving for the mastery. If we now are deterred by the difficulty of certain parts of Scripture from endeavouring to explain them, we serve the purposes of those to whom these very parts of Scripture are most unwelcome, and we encourage that notion of the difficulty of Scripture altogether, which leads immediately to that other notion, that therefore we had much better despair of explaining it for ourselves, and listen to a supposed infallible interpreter of it. Something, it is evident, the Galatian Christians had done or believed to which St. Paul strongly objected. Thus much appears from the text, and from the verses which immediately follow it; it appears no less from several passages of the fourth and fifth chapters, in one of which he says plainly, "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." We cannot think, therefore, that the evil which he combats was any thing trifling; it is certain at least that he did not so regard it. But if he did not so regard it, much less can we regard it as trifling now. I confess that if we can carry ourselves back in thought to St. Paul's time, and observe the strength of his language, and then see what it was which he was so condemning, we may find it hard, looking at the question as it appeared on the surface of it to the men of that generation,

to explain the earnestness of his censure. But with the history of eighteen hundred years to enlighten us, his language does indeed seem to have divinely anticipated the wants of coming generations; he seems rather to have had his eye fixed in vision on the full grown evil of later times, than on the first imperfect show of it in his own. That other Gospel, as he calls it, which yet was not another; that other scheme of Christianity, which rather is a subversion of Christianity; then as it seems giving only faint indications of its character, undiscerned and unsuspected by common eyes, has since been put forth to the sight of all the world in its full developement, speaking to the most careless in the language of its practical results. Christ's honour obscured, his law corrupted, his church utterly destroyed, so that now, eighteen hundred years and more after his resurrection, its very foundations, as it were, are to be laid afresh; these are the fruits of that system ripened which St. Paul saw only in the bud, but which in the bud as it was then, he was yet directed with such earnestness of language to condemn: "O foolish Galatians! who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth?"

Explain the Epistle historically, and how inadequate do the facts at first sight appear to justify the strong condemnation of the Apostle. The Galatian Christians, so the historical com

mentator would say, had been persuaded to continue the practices enjoined by the law of Moses, practices not necessary for Christians, so the Apostles had decided, yet ancient, striking in themselves, commanded by God himself to the fathers, and which, if adopted by the Gentile churches, would have the effect of uniting God's ancient people with his newly chosen, all visibly bearing the same seal, and walking in the same ordinances. Historically, this is what the Galatians did, and no more. How is this reverent, this devout, this catholic spirit deserving of the name of the subversion of Christ's Gospel? Yet what does St. Paul say? "Behold I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." What! the reverent use of God's appointed ordinance, in order to a greater conformity with his ancient church, cause them to lose the benefit of Christ's salvation; and this too, when Paul himself circumcised Timotheus, whose father was a Gentile, when he first took him out as his companion on his journeys? Surely there is something extraordinary in all this, which needs, which calls aloud for our careful attention, that we may be able to comprehend it.

But let us see what follows the words which I have just quoted, for it may be that the Apostle will explain himself. "Behold I, Paul, say unto you that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you

nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

Through some faults or obscurities of translation, the root of the whole matter does indeed here appear, but not so as that we can at once fully comprehend it. Only we see that this practice of circumcision is called a being justified by the law, and that he who tries to be so justified, is said to have fallen from grace: and then we remember the earnest language of the Epistle to the Romans, and particularly of the tenth chapter, and comparing the two Epistles together, that to the Galatians written indeed on a particular occasion, but that to the Romans written to those whom the Apostle had never seen, on no particular subject, but as a general statement of the peculiar truths of that Gospel of Christ which he was everywhere preaching,-comparing, I say, the two Epistles together, that to the Galatians, and that to the Romans, we shall see what was St. Paul's Gospel, and what that other Gospel, which was not another, because it was rather no Gospel at all.

St. Paul's Gospel, as he himself tells us, was briefly this," Repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." The first part of it was plain enough; the second was misrepresented

from the beginning, and was indeed so sure to be misrepresented, that there must have been some strong reason for bringing it forward so prominently at all risks, and in this particular form. Doubtless it was misrepresented immediately to the churches of Judea; Paul, it was said, teaches men that if they believe the fact of Christ's resurrection, they are forthwith justified in the sight of God. Nay, said St. James, this is shocking and monstrous; for the devils believe the fact that there is one God, and yet they are not justified; and faith without works is dead. So St. James said, and so he was permitted to write, condemning most justly the misrepresented doctrine of St. Paul, in no way touching the doctrine itself. But although thus open to the most shocking misrepresentation, still St. Paul could not suppress the doctrine, nor qualify it, he could not help declaring that by faith men were justified; he could not help affirming to the Galatians, that if they sought to be justified by the law, they were not partakers of the justification of Christ.

What did he mean then, when he spoke so earnestly against the law? Did he mean the law of ceremonies? Did he condemn circumcision, because it was regarded in the light of a moral act, as if God's favour could be won by forms or ritual observances? Certainly he did mean this, and justly, for men will not take a great deal of trouble