other words, a " perversion or rejection of the true Gospele." Now what ground had he for such heavy accusations, if he himself preached salvation (whether in whole or in part) by the works of the law ? On this supposition, the more works they did, the more certain they would be to obtain justifica- tion : supposing the Mosaic ritual to be abrogated, there still was no harm in " observing days, and months, and years ;" and all that he could properly say to them on the occasion, was, " That they were giving themselves needless trouble :" he must have commended them for their zeal in doing these works ; and only told them, that now there was no occasion for these observances. But if he preached justification by faith without the works of the law, and saw that they were performing these works in order to secure their justification, then he might well say, " I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vainf."
Again — We read of heavy complaints against Peter. What had Peter done ? He had conversed familiarly with the Gentile converts, and lived for a season, as they did, without any regard to the Mosaic ritual. But when some Judaizing converts came from Jerusalem, he was afraid of offending their prejudices; and therefore he forsook the Gentile converts, and lived with the others in the observance of all the Jewish rites and ceremonies s. By this conduct, he not only sanctioned the erroneous idea that the Mosaic rites were still obligatory on the Jewish Christians, but that it was necessary even for the Gentile Christians to conform to them. Now this, in any view of St. Paul's doctrine, was highly blameworthy ; because it was imposing a needless yoke upon the neck of the Gentiles. But this was all : and supposing that Paul had preached justification by works, this was all that he could properly lay to the charge of Peter. But supposing, as we have shewn, that the Gospel which Paul preached held forth justification by faith alone, then there was abundant reason for rebuking Peter in the presence of the whole Church, and accusing him of subverting the foundations of the Gospel h, and declaring that, so far as he prevailed, he " frustrated the grace of God," and made "the death of Christ to be in vain1."]
We are convinced that, if this accumulated evi- dence be duly weighed, no doubt can remain upon our minds respecting the doctrine which Paul preached, and which he calls in our text " The Gospel." Let us then inquire,
e Gal. i. 6, 7. with hi. 1. f Gal. iv. 11. s Gal. ii. 11—13. h Gal. ii. 14— 1G. * Gal. ii. 21.