and Gentiles. To this declaration now Peter would certainly have shown himself unfaithful, by the preference which he had given to the Jewish Christians. * And would there not have been in that case even as much foundation for the reproof which Paul administers to him on account of this inconsistency, as if the apostolic decree had been violated by him?†

So far, therefore, as regards the propriety of the conduct of Peter, we may as well understand Gal. 2: 1, of the third as of the second journey of Paul. It is clearly impossible to obtain in this way any ground for affirming, that the latter only can here be the subject of discourse. But why, then, did not Paul refer here to the apostolic decree, and thus convict him so much the more palpably of his error?" Of all the objections, this presents the least difficulty. It is possible, that Paul did really refer Peter to the decree of the apostles, but that in what he communicated to the Galatians respecting his reproof of him, he gave merely a general account of it. It is not necessary, however, to assume, that Paul, in his admonition of Peter, made any such reference to this decree, and, I think we may say, it is not at all probable. For, in the first place, Peter needed to be convinced on some other ground than that of an appeal to the decretal act, which, however, he could not possibly have forgotten so soon, and which had not been sufficient to preserve him in a course of true Christian freedom. In addition to this, the decree contained nothing respecting the particular case, in which Peter had erred. The letter of it, therefore, he had not violated; and hence, a direct reference to it would not have been at all appropriate. But, in the next place, and this should be specially observed, Paul was not accustomed to rely on human authority. Why then should he make an exception to this principle here? In that case, he would manifestly have acted at variance with the declaration, made with

*The explanation of Vogel (Journ. f. auserl., &c., I. 2, S. 261), who would understand by Oveo, heathen, properly so called, is warranted neither by philology nor history.

+ WINER, exc. 2, on the ep. P. Gal., p. 105, ed. 2.

See Henke on Paley, Hor. Paul. p. 429, and Winer, p. 107.

VOL. VI.--NO. XXI.

10

such emphasis in Gal. 2: 6;-"Of those who seemed to be somewhat; whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." The decree, merely as such, weighed nothing with him, and could weigh nothing, so far as the form of itself was considered, while the principles on which it rested had long since received his acknowledgment, and directed him in his official labors; nor could it impart to them any new weight or sanctity, that the other apostles had formally approved and sanctioned them. Hence, he urges upon Peter, not the letter of the decree adopted at Jerusalem, but the principles and doctrines of the freedom conferred by faith in Christ. Hence, he holds up to his view the opposition between the law and the gospel. (Gal. 2: 16-19.) This contrariety he would manifestly have weakened again, had he appealed, in confirmation of it, to the authority of a law.

We need no longer wonder, then, if these remarks are true, that Paul did not refer his fellow-apostle to the decree of the council, and plead it as a ground of obligation. And far less reason have we for deeming it strange, that, in arguing with the Christians to whom he wrote, he in like manner refrained from all allusion to it. Although some attach great importance to this omission, yet in fact no really conceivable object required that he should remind them of it. The general considerations, which we endeavored to establish in the case of Peter, apply in all their force to that of the Galatians. Where, then, was the necessity that Paul should adduce the authority of the apostolic decree? The proceedings of the council at Jerusalem were entirely coincident, it is true, with the object of the epistle; but then was it not sufficient that Paul declared to the Galatians that the other apostles in that assembly had agreed perfectly with him? It was this precisely, which his opponents had denied; and the reply of Paul fully met the case. He showed from general Christian principles, and the relation in which he had stood to the other apostles, that there existed no difference between his doctrine and that preached by them. That he did not refer also on this subject to the formal decision of the apostles, in regard to the abrogation of circumcision. and other Mosaic rites, proves, perhaps, that he supposed it was already known to the Galatians, or, at all events,

that he himself did not rest his views so much upon that decision, as upon Christian truth in general. * And here, too, it is important to consider, that the apostle in the epistle went somewhat further than the strict letter of the decree. He maintained the position, that Christians are released altogether from the observance of the Mosaic law; and argued that whoever esteems one thing in the law, for instance, circumcision, as necessary to salvation, is bound to keep the whole law, and can derive no benefit from faith in Christ (Gal. 5:3); whereas, he who would obtain the justification which is by faith, the only way in which it can be obtained, must renounce the whole law, and consequently must not adhere to particular rites, such as those which, although not imposed, were allowed to stand by the apostolic decree. It is evident, that with such a design, he could have promised himself no great advantage from citing the decree. On this account, he did not name it expressly, and could, without being misunderstood, be silent respecting it. That Paul, therefore, does not appeal in the Epistle to the Galatians to the apostolic act, is no proof that, in Gal. 2: 1, he can be speaking only of his second journey to Jerusalem.

But, finally, the other view has been opposed, also, on the following ground. Paul, after the assembly of the apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 15), expressed himself much more mildly respecting the relation of Judaism to Chris-, tianity and the consistency of the one with the other, than he does in the Epistle to the Galatians; hence this epistle was written, not after but before that assembly, and consequently also the journey, mentioned Gal. 2:1, can be only the second (Acts 11), and not the third (Acts 15). After he had, for example (Acts 16: 3), caused Timothy to be circumcised, whose mother was a Jewess, but his father a Greek, that he might give no offence to the Jews in the regions which he wished to visit, and thus secure for himself

[The epistle," says Paley, "argues the point upon principle; and it is not perhaps more to be wondered at, that in such an argument St. Paul should not cite the apostolic decree, than it would be, that in a discourse designed to prove the moral and religious duty of observing the Sabbath, the writer should not quote the thirteenth canon."-TR.]

a more ready reception among them, how can it be conceived that he would speak of circumcision in the manner that he does in Gal. 5: 2, 3? He there rejects, in decided terms, every observance of the Mosaic ritual, and censures severely the conduct of Peter, because he had yielded to the weakness of certain Jewish Christians, and refused to associate with the Gentile believers (v. 19, 20.) Still the same Paul affirms, 1 Cor. 9: 20, seq., that to the Jews he became a Jew; to the Gentiles, a Gentile; to the weak, as one weak; and in general that he became all things to all men, that he might by all means save some; and this principle he confirmed by a remarkable illustration, Acts 21: 20, seq. Here now is a difference, which, as KEIL thinks, can be explained only by the fact, that the letter to the Galatians belongs to a much earlier period, when the apostle was still animated by the most earnest zeal against the religion of his fathers, which he had renounced, and was disposed to regard as utterly hostile to his new faith. The instructions of the other apostles afterwards led him to relax his views, and his own experience also taught him, that he had more to gain from moderation, than from strictness.

But plausible as these suppositions may seem, we find them, on closer examination, utterly untenable. In the first place, the assertion, that Paul, at the beginning of his career, declared himself with greater decision and strictness against Judaism, than at a later period, can by no means be established. On the contrary, every thing shows that at first after his conversion, he adhered still to the faith of his fathers, and considered its union with Christianity as possible.* He afterwards maintained. most firmly the incompatibility of the two systems. Of

[* We should prefer to answer the objection here considered, by saying, that while Paul was decided from the very first respecting the unimportance of Jewish rites, he manifested no less opposition to them in the latter part of his ministry. The assertion can be sustained, it is believed; and if so, the letter to the Galatians may have been written, so far as this particular point is concerned, at one period of the apostle's Christian life, as well as at another. The very gradual manner in which Hemsen here intimates that Paul obtained his freedom from Jewish prejudices, does not comport, we think, with the intimations in the New Testament on this subject.-TR.]

this, the Epistle to the Romans, reckoned by general consent among his later writings, furnishes incontestible proof. The doctrine of justification by faith and not by works forms here the peculiar, fundamental idea, while all efficacy of the law is strenuously denied. That Paul, however, under certain circumstances, showed himself indulgent to Jewish practices, can be easily reconciled with the firmness with which he rejected them on other occasions. No instances can be adduced, showing that he ever by his compliance gave offence to the weak in faith. We do not learn that the circumcision of Timothy, or the conduct of the apostle, Acts 21: 20, seq., was a cause of complaint to any class of Christians. In the latter case, he yielded to the wish of the elders, and what he did was done, not from fear and weakness, but a generous zeal for the gospel. With Peter the case was entirely different. He not only yielded from fear, but gave offence by this concession. Hence Paul could censure him with justice, and in perfect consistency with his own subsequent conduct. He would not certainly have either permitted the circumcision of Timothy, or acceded to the request of the elders, if, in either case, he must have given offence to Christians themselves, or led any to attribute to Christianity what did not belong to it. Hence we see, why he expressed himself so strongly against these things, so soon as he perceived that any were disposed to regard them as important, or at all necessary. He then labors to present the question of their importance in its true light; and seems often, in his zeal for the liberty of the gospel, to be at a loss for terms sufficiently strong to describe the worthlessness of such prejudices. In this way, Gal. 5: 2, 3, is explained without difficulty. The objection proposes to account, therefore, for what is not true. It is entirely incapable of proof, and, considering the independence of Paul, improbable, also, that he was persuaded to a milder course by the other apostles, or learned himself from experience, that he must moderate his tone in regard to the separation of Judaism from Christianity. Beginning indeed with a disposition to harmonize the two systems, he afterwards adopted, and pursued faithfully the principle, πάντα πρὸς οικοδομήν, yet with a wise reference always to time and circumstances.