Nay, what is still more, they might not only be useless, but prejudicial: for, if an Epiftle be written to perfons in a peculiar fituation, with which we are unacquainted, we shall not only be unable to comprehend it, but fhall be exposed to the danger of interpreting it falfely, and of afcribing therefore to the author doctrines, which he never intended to deliver. It was no more neceffary, that all the Epiftles of the Apoftles fhould be preferved, than that all the difcourfes of Chrift, which were certainly of not less importance, fhould be recorded by the Evangelifts, who have thought proper to deliver only a felect part of them. of them. A Bible, or book of divine revelation, which is intended as a rule of faith and manners, muft, at the fame time that it contains every neceffary precept, contain them likewife in a moderate compass, If the Bible confifted of many folios, as it probably would, if it contained an account of all the actions and fpeeches of Chrift, and all that was written by the Apoftles, few perfons would read the whole of it; and even of those, who gave themselves the trouble, perhaps not one would be able to retain in his memory the whole of its contents. This would be a very material inconvenience. For theologians themfelves, who make the facred writings their particular ftudy, would never be able to recollect, when a difpute arofe relative to a point of doctrine, whether that doctrine was delivered in the Bible, or not, or at least would be unable to pronounce with certainty, that it were not in the Bible and to thofe, who are neither enabled by their education, nor permitted by their temporal occupations, to engage in theological inquiries, the inconvenience would be ftill greater. Laftly, as the Bible, moderate as it is at prefent in it's fize, is explained in commentaries, which confift of many folios, what a mass of commentary would overwhelm us, if the Bible itself were as large! Inftead therefore of fuppofing with Lardner, that it was the will of the Apoftles, that all their Epiftles fhould be preferved, I would conclude that this was no more their intention, than it was the intention of the Evangelifts

4 4

Evangelifts that all the fpeeches of Chrift should be recorded.

3. No Christian community, which had received an Epiftle from an Apostle, would have fuffered that Epistle to be loft.

Anfwer. This argument is applicable only to fuch Epiftles, as were of importance: and it is not applicable even to thefe, if it be true, as I have endeavoured to fhew in a preceding volume, that the Apostles themfelves were the editors of their own Epiftles.

4

CHA P. XI.

OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS,

1

SECT. I

The Epifle to the Galatians is among those, which are now extant, the first which St. Paul wrote.

HAT the Epiftle to the Galatians is the first of St. Paul's Epiftles is the moft ancient opinion. It was afferted in the fecond century by Marcion', whofe opinion in refpect to a plain matter of fact is not to be rejected, because he was a heretic. Tertullian likewife reprefents St. Paul as a novice in Christianity, when he wrote his Epiftle to the Galatians: though Tertullian does

'h' Vol. I. Ch. vi. Sect. 2.

See Epiphan. Hæres. XLII. § 9.

Tertullian, in his first book against Marcion, ch. xx. where the inquiry relates to what St. Paul had written in his Epiftle to the Galatians, and particularly his cenfure of St. Peter in the fecond chapter, afcribes St. Paul's zeal against Judaifm to the recentnefs of his converfion, and to his want of that experience, by which he afterwards learnt to become, as it were, a Jew to the Jews, as well as a Greek to the Greeks. Igitur fi ferventer adhuc, ut Neophytus,

adverfus

does not say in pofitive terms that this Epiftle was the firft. But modern writers have in general rejected this opinion, as the reader will find on confulting Rumpæi Commentatio critica, p. 121–128. and Lardner's Supplement, p. 154-170. For this reafon', it will be neceffary to ftate at large the arguments by which I think it may be supported.

St. Paul's firft vifit to the Galatians was not long after the council, which had been held in Jerufalem, as appears from Acts xvi. 4, 5, 6. and as they (namely, Paul and Silas) went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, which were ordained of the Apostles and elders, which were at Jerufalem: and fo were the churches eftablifhed in the faith, and increafed in number daily. Now when they had gone through Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghoft to preach the word in Afia, &c.' From this paffage we fee that St. Paul preached the Gofpel in Galatia; for the prohibition was confined to the Roman Proconfular province of Afia, to which Galatia is here oppofed. This is further confirmed by Acts xviii. 23. where St. Luke relates, that St. Paul again vifited Galatia, ftrengthening the difciples:' fo that converts must have been made on his firft vifit".

Now let us follow St. Paul on his firft journey from Galatia to Bercea in Macedonia, where he feems to have arrived in the fame year, and we fhall be convinced that he wrote his Epiftle to the Galatians upon this journey.

When

adverfus Judaismum aliquid in converfatione reprehendendum exiflimavit, paffivum fcilicet convictum, poftmodum et ipfe ufu omnibus omnia futurus, ut omnes lucraretur, Judæis quafi Judæus, et eis qui fub lege, tanquam fub lege: tu illam folius converfationis placitura poftea accufatori fuo reprehenfionem fufpectam vis haberi etiam de prædicationis erga Deum prævaricatione ?

1 Within these few years however, the opinion appears to have met with a more favourable reception.

That Chriftianity was totally unknown in Galatia, before St. Paul's first vifit, I will not affert: but, as St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Galatians treats them as his own spiritual children, we must confider their converfion as owing in a great measure, if not principally, ta St. Paul.

When he left the Galatians he was accompanied by feveral brethren, namely, by Silas (or Silvanus), ch. xv. 40. by Timothy ch. xvi. 3. and perhaps by others. This circumftance is particularly to be noted. They travelled through Myfia to Troas, ver. 8. where St. Paul had a remarkable dream, which induced him to go into Macedonia. Before he left Troas St. Luke was added to St. Paul's other companions, and in their company he travelled to Philippi, ver. 11. 12. where he preached the Gofpel, ver. 13-40. and thence to Theffalonica, ch. xvii. 19. Here fome of the brethren appear to have left St. Paul, and he travelled with Silas alone to Beroea, ver. 10. When he was no longer int fafety here, he left Silas behind him and went to Athens, fo that when he arrived in that city, none of the brethren were with him, in whofe company he had travelled from Galatia.

Now St. Paul's Epiftle to the Galatians is written not only in his own name, but in the name of all the brethren, who were with him". Who then were thefe brethren? Were they known or unknown to the Galatians? St. Paul would hardly have written to them in the name of all the brethren, who were with him, without, determining who thofe brethren were, unless they had been the fame, who attended him when he left Galatia, and who therefore were known to the Galatians without any further defcription. Confequently this Epiftle muft have been written before St. Paul feparated from this brethren, that is, before he left Theffalonica. Whether it was written in this city, or before he arrived there, I will not attempt to determine: but it certainly was written during the interval which elapfed between St.

Gal. I. 1. 2.

Perhaps on his journey. For it was his ufual practice to fend falutations at the end of his Epiftles from the Chriftian communities eftablished in the places where he wrote. But at the end of his Epiftle to the Galatians he has fent no falutations: and therefore it is probable that he wrote neither at Philippi, nor at Theffalonica, but in a place where no Chriftian fociety had been formed,

St. Paul's departure from Galatia, and his departure from Theffalonica.

There are likewife other circumftances, which confirm this opinion and fhew at least that St. Paul wrote to the Galatians foon after their converfion. For ch, i, 6. he fays, I marvel that ye are fo foon removed from him, that called you into the grace of Chrift, unto another Gospel! This Epiftle therefore was certainly not written fo late as Mill, or even fo late, as Benfon fuppofes. Further it appears from Acts xv. 1. that Afia Minor fwarmed at that time with zealots, who wished to impofe on the Chriftians the obfervance of the Levitical law: the feduction of the Galatians therefore, of which St. Paul complains in his Epiftle, may be more eafily referred to that, than to a later period. Again, St. Paul in the two firft chapters gives the Galatians a general review of his life and conduct from his converfion to the Apoftolic council in Jerufalem, and at the furtheft to his return to Antioch. Here he breaks off his narrative. It is probable therefore, that from that time to the time of his writing to the Galatians, nothing remarkable had happened except their converfion. Laftly, the fuppofition that St. Paul wrote to the Galatians at the period, which I have affigned, accounts more eafily than any other, for St. Paul's mentioning to the Gala tians that he had not obliged Titus to undergo the rite of circumcifion: namely, because he had obliged Timothy to fubmit it, immediately before his firft vifit to the Galatians, and St. Paul's adverfaries had appealed perhaps to this fact, in fupport of their doctrine, that the Levitical law fhould be retained.

The particular year of the Chriftian Era, in which the Epifle to the Galatians was written, it is difficult to determine with precision: though we are especially interested in the date of this Epiftle, because it appears from ch. iv. 10. that the Galatians were on the point of cele. brating the Jewish fabbatical year, and, in confequence of their feduction by the Jewish zealots, of leaving their

P Acts xvi. 3.

lands