Epistle, which took place after the journey, and, according to the other opinion, after the Council, is unaccountable upon the supposition, that the decree, in promoting which he is represented in the Acts as having taken so active a part, had been passed before. It is highly improbable that he would have changed his opinions or his feelings so soon. The manner in which St Paul speaks of him, shows clearly that he was not countenanced by him; and there would have been no necessity for St Peter's pursuing the course he did, after the active part he had taken at the debate a short time before. We may add also that there was nothing to be gained by him as a matter of condescension. His real opinions could not be concealed. For these reasons, it seems most probable that the Epistle was written before the Council. There are no means of determining the precise time. It is probable that it was written at Antioch, during St Paul's long abode there, mentioned at the end of the fourteenth chapter of the Acts, where, after relating the return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, it is said that they abode there a long time with the disciples. St Peter, we are told in the Epistle, came down to Antioch after St Paul's journey to Jerusalem, which will agree well with the supposition that the journey taken was at that time. Those mentioned in Acts xv. 1. as coming down from Jerusalem, may be the same as those referred to in the Epistle When certain came down from James.' It may be placed, then, a short time after this, in the disputes which then took place, and before the Council. Upon this supposition, therefore, it was written first of all St Paul's Epistles.

The Epistle to the Galatians is to us of the greatest interest and importance. It shows the state of feeling and opinion with regard to the nature and spirit of our religion, which prevailed among its first followers, and in the earliest stage of its existence. It shows us the disputes and differences which then agitated and divided Christians, and the grounds with regard to them taken by the different parties, and illustrates the style of reasoning and state of feeling prevalent among the ancient Jews. On one side we see the Jewish Christians, who had adopted, indeed, the religion of Jesus, but who understood and imbibed its spirit but imperfectly, with that zeal for the rites of their ancestors, and the sacred and venerable institutions of Moses, with that jealousy of the Gentiles and of the extension of Jehovah's favor to them, which has ever distinguished their nation, striving to attach to Christianity a heavy incumbrance, which threatened to obstruct its progress, to defeat its purposes of carrying peace and happi

ness to all nations, of purifying the gross corruption and wickedness of mankind, forming them to purity and holiness, and fitting them for the enjoyments of immortal beings. On the other hand, we see one, who had also been educated a Jew and of the straitest sect, but who had imbibed the spirit of our religion, and was informed of its true nature and excellency, casting off all the feelings and prejudices in which he had been educated, and contending, with the utmost force and earnestness, for the immunity of the converted heathen from the bondage of ceremonies, for their equal and unconditional participation in the blessings and benefits of the Messiah's kingdom, and exhibiting our religion in its native purity and simplicity. We see him, sometimes in the language of indignant remonstrance, and sometimes of affectionate entreaty, appealing to the Jews with arguments drawn from their sacred scriptures; laboring to inculcate upon the heathens converted from idolatry, the true nature of Christianity, to free it from the corruptions which were already beginning to gather round it; teaching that the religion of Jesus was not one of forms and ceremonies, to be confined to a favored few, but one of universal application, intended for the blessing of the whole human family, the purification of the whole moral world, and declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

The controversy between St Paul and the Jewish teachers, was of the highest importance to the interests and efficacy of Christianity, as intended to guide and regulate the moral conduct of mankind. It was a controversy between true and false notions of religion, between a religion of the heart and life, and one of mere forms and ceremonies. In the religious history of mankind, we observe a tendency to substitute the observance of external rites, for the more difficult and laborious exercises of selfdenying virtue and internal purity; to rest their hopes of the favor of God upon certain definite and established forms, rather than impose upon themselves the constant vigilance and restraint, which are necessary for the regulation of the internal character, and the proper cultivation of the heart and affections. Those ordinances, which have been appointed as means of moral improvement, for occasional memorials of our religious duties, to assist our imperfect virtue and excite our devotional feelings, have been substituted for the effects they were intended to produce. While these means have been scrupulously adhered to, the end for which they were instituted, and for which alone they are of any value, has been lost sight of. What is only incidental has been superstitiously adhered to, to the neglect of what is essential; and unrequired

ceremonies have taken the place of piety and virtue. The tendency of this is obviously to defeat the end of religion. This was the state of the Jewish religion at the time of our Saviour; it was against this corruption that a great part of his instructions were directed, and to correct these erroneous views was the object of much that he said and did. It is a similar corruption of Christianity that St Paul opposes in this Epistle to the Galatians. The Jewish teachers were endeavouring to load Christianity with an incumbrance of forms and ceremonies, to change its character, to lead men to regard the superstitious observance of certain external forms, as of the highest importance and as essential to acceptance with God-to place their hopes of his favor in the observance of the ritual of the Mosaic law, rather than in purity of heart and virtuous conduct. When we consider this, we shall not be surprised at the warmth and earnestness with which St Paul opposes their doctrine and combats their pretensions.

B.

REVIEW.

Art. IX. Vindication of the Rights of the Churches of Christ. First printed in the Spirit of the Pilgrims. Boston, Pierce & Williams, 1828. 8vo. pp. 48.

A PERIODICAL Work of the most bitter and malignant spirit, reviving and exaggerating all the exasperating sentiments and language of the departed Panoplist, has recently made its appearance in Boston. Whatever may be its professions, its real purpose is, to awaken a war ad internecionem, a war of extermination against all Christians, who do not belong to the dominant sect. It is precisely in the spirit avowed by Dr Ely of Philadelphia. No man,' says Ely, substantially, 'is to be eligible to any civil office, who does not subscribe to the doctrines of the five prevailing sects.' By this, we are to understand, that there is to be a combination among the most powerful sects, to seize the civil power, and the use they may hereafter make of it, is to be sought in the calamitous history of Christendom for the last fifteen hundred years. No man is to be elected into any office of honor or trust, who is not a believer; by which these gentlemen exclude every man who does not think as they do, on the subject of religion. It would be hypocritical in us to pretend that

we feel any apprehension that these men of violence will succeed-we do not call them fanatics, because that term is exclusively applied to those who have lost their reason, whose zeal is too powerful for their understanding. But our aspirants to universal domination in church and state, are a very cool and calculating people. They will not, like the Scottish Covenanters, inconsiderately risk their lives or even fortunes for their theories, but they coolly and cunningly seek the attainment of their great purpose, which is power-power of the most enticing, yet most fatal character to the welfare of a state or nation; power over the opinions of men on the most interesting and important of all subjects. In fact we must not disguise it, the times require a fearless avowal of the truth-there is no power in its own nature so despotic, there is no power, against which human wisdom, intelligence, and industry are of so little avail, there is none which is so tremendous in its effects on the happiness and prosperity of states, as the theological power. It enslaves and debases the mind, and has led, and will forever lead to civil despotism. The successful conqueror will find it for his own interest to encourage the prosperity of a state. The theological tyrant feels, that his power can only be secured by debasing the human mind, and he always seeks an alliance with the civil power more effectually to accomplish his ends.

No man, even the most Orthodox or Exclusive, will deny, that such has been the tendency of Papal usurpations in every country of Europe. Richelieu, Ximenes, Mazarin were the firmest supporters of despotism. Loyola founded a sect, whose avowed purpose was, to govern all the thrones of Europe, and to degrade their subjects into slaves. What was the object? To promote the power of the sovereign, and the welfare of the state? No to tyrannize over both. What has impeded the efforts of the Spanish nation to redeem their character and their rights? The clergy, an unprincipled and domineering clergy. What encouraged Don Miguel to overthrow the liberal Constitution of Portugal? The clergy. What has been the bane of the South American States, since they have thrown off the Spanish yoke? An ambitious body of clergy. What then would you infer from this? that Christianity is unfavorable to civil liberty, and to the improvement of the human character and condition? God forbid! Our only inference is, that men love power; and that even Christianity itself, pure as it is, humble as its first professors were, will not always divest men of their worst, and most dangerous passion, the love of power-a passion, which, if indulged, is the most dangerous, most absorbing, most injurious

to the welfare of mankind of any to which frail and fallible humanity is subject.

But it will be said, Your examples are all taken from the Romish Church. We all admit, that her garments are spotted with the blood of saints, that her ambition has been as boundless and her measures to ensure the gratification of it, have been as unprincipled as those of Napoleon, or any ruthless adventurer, who considered mankind as his lawful prey. But what charges can you make against Protestants-those excellent men, who, at every hazard, vindicated civil liberty and religious freedom?' We would not charge the Protestants with the maintenance of the same unbounded claims to supremacy, nor even with as great excesses. But we do say, that Protestants have shed freely the blood of their fellow Christians, for differences of opinion in matters of faith. We say that the Calvinists of Geneva and of Holland and of Scotland, have claimed the right to burn and banish other Protestants, who differed from them far less than the Catholics differed from the Protestants. The age of burning is now past. But the English Church has continued its persecution of the Dissenters to this hour. No marriage can yet be solemnized by a dissenting clergyman, be he Calvinistic or Unitarian. It is not more than twenty years, since the blushes of a British parliament compelled them to strike out of the list of crimes, the denial of the equality of the Saviour and Son, with the Almighty God, his Father and Creator. Now indeed, a better day is dawning on the favored land of our fathers. Bigotry is yielding. The Anti-catholic Peele has at last, rather ungraciously, assented to a repeal of the detestable acts of exclusion of the Dissenters, and we are happy to perceive that Unitarians are included in the late reluctantly forced concession. Indeed it is a matter of sober, but singular observation, that Great Britain, whose Established Church is professedly and eminently Trinitarian, is far more liberal towards the Unitarians, than the Exclusive sect in our country-a country which professes to tolerate all sects. The late case, which occurred in Ireland, where a professed Unitarian was clerk of a Presbyterian Synod, and was, by the bigots of that Synod, attempted to be displaced on that ground, but supported by an overwhelming majority, may well excite a blush on the cheeks of our denouncing and Exclusive hierarchs. There is not, in truth, at this moment, even a tithe of the principles of religious toleration in the Exclusionists of the United States, which exists in the Established Church of Great Britain.