strength of constitution. But men of delicate health have often gone through the greatest exertions; and his own words on more than one occasion show that he suffered much from bodily infirmity. St. Peter is represented to us as a man of larger and stronger form, as his character was harsher and more abrupt. The quick impulses of his soul revealed themselves in the flashes of a dark eye. The complexion of his face was pale and sallow; and the short hair, which is described as entirely grey at the time of his death, curled black and thick round his temples and his chin, when the two apostles stood together at Antioch, twenty years before their martyrdom.'

"1

It should be observed that, in the passage before us, Paul, after his direct rebuke of Peter, proceeded to declare the truth of the gospel, which he feared might be obscured by the conduct of that apostle and the rest; and in conclusion, he enforced, by their operation in himself, the views he advocated, and would always maintain. The last passage is very emphatic and striking: 'I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and give himself for me.'

Of these important words a very intelligible and effective interpretation is given by Dr. Brown, in the form of a paraphrase, which we are glad to be able to adopt: ""By the law having had its full course so as to be glorified in the obedience to death of Him in whom I am, I am completely delivered from the law. The law has no more to do with me, and I have no more to do with it in the matter of justification. And this freedom from law is at once necessary and effectual to my living a truly holy life-a life devoted to God." What follows is explanatory of this thought, which was ever present to the mind of the apostle "I consider myself as identified with the Lord Jesus Christ;" "I am crucified with Christ." I view myself as so connected with Christ, as that when He was crucified I was, as it were, crucified; and I am as much interested in the effects 1 CONYBEARE and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, i. 240, 241.

of that crucifixion as if I had undergone it myself. He, in being crucified, endured the curse, and I in Him endured it; so that I am redeemed from the law and its curse, He having become a curse for me. "Nevertheless I live." Christ died, and in Him I died; Christ revived, and in Him I revived. I am a dead man with regard to the law, but I am a living man in regard to Christ. The law has killed me, and by doing so, it has set me free from itself. I have no more to do with the law. The life I have now, is not the life of a man under the law, but the life of a man delivered from the law: having died and risen again with Christ Jesus, Christ's righteousness justifies me, Christ's Spirit animates me. My relations to God are his relations. The influences under which I live are the influences under which He lives. Christ's views are my views; Christ's feelings my feelings. He is the soul of my soul, the life of my life. My state, my sentiments, my feelings, my conduct, are all Christian. "And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." "The life I live in the flesh" is the life I live in this mortal body, this embodied state. The belief of the truth is the regulating principle of my conduct. It is as it were the soul of a new creature. I no longer think, or feel, or act like a Jew, or like a man born merely after the flesh. All my opinions, sentiments, and habits are subject to the truth about Him "who loved me and gave himself for me;" and I live devoted to Him who died devoted for me.'

It is most important to observe, that the operations of the Holy Spirit upon man, whether extraordinary, as in inspiration, or ordinary, as in regeneration and sanctification, do not change the characteristics of the mind, or the peculiarities of the individual temperament. Many and striking proofs of this are afforded in the lives and writings of the great Bible worthies. We see it in Abraham and Jacob, in Moses and David, and here in Peter and Paul. Peter was a man of impulse. His strong feelings often outran his judgment. In times of excitement, his ardent temperament would give no time for calm, sober thought. Hence numerous errors, and at least one sad and humiliating fall. Though his

character had been chastened by the kind yet severe rebukes of his Master, though it had been elevated by the subsequent teaching of the promised Spirit; yet still he was led, perhaps by a generous impulse, into that serious mistake which called forth the manly rebuke of Paul. Had he taken time for reflection, there can be little doubt he would have given as plain a declaration in favour of Gentile liberty as he had done at Jerusalem.

While Peter was a man of impulse, Paul's prominent characteristic was clear and ready judgment. Under the most perplexing circumstances, his keen intellect and calm logical faculty at once detected the line of duty, and from this no power could divert him. Cool and collected himself, animated only by one noble ambition, to advance the truth of Christ, he seems to have reproved, in a manner approaching even to harshness, the weaknesses and failings of others. In Paul we see a subtilty of intellect, a tenacity of purpose, and an enthusiastic devotion to truth, combined with sound practical wisdom and unconquerable heroism, to such an extent as has never been equalled in history, whether civil or sacred. Allegiance to Jesus, his Saviour and King, was Paul's ruling principle; and this, united to a profound apprehension of the plan of salvation, enabled him to resist all temptations, and avoid all

errors.

Forty-ninth Week—Second Day.

THE SHARP CONTENTION.—ACTS XV. 36-41.

Not long after the transactions which last engaged our attention, Paul, animated by that keen interest in the spiritual welfare of his converts, which glows through the epistles afterwards written, conceived an earnest desire to revisit the places where the gospel had been preached by him and Barnabas in their former missionary tour. Let us go again,' he said to the other, and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.'

Barnabas was very willing; but it would seem that the band of brotherhood had been somewhat relaxed between them, in the recent affairs wherein Paul had been greatly

vexed by the unsteadiness of Barnabas; and the latter had probably been somewhat hurt at being involved, with Peter and others, in the public reproof administered by one whose patron he had in some sort been, but who was already become not only a more prominent Christian teacher than himself, but a more regarded leader in that very church which he himself had founded. We are not bound to overlook these probabilities, which lie in human nature; and we know that these excellent men were, as they declared to the Lystrians, 'men of like passions' with ourselves. We know, further,

'How slight a cause may move Dissension between hearts that love,'

when once such uneasiness of feeling has arisen as that which this affair was calculated to excite, and seems to have excited. In such a case an outbreak commonly occurs sooner or later; and is often, if not always, supplied by some very inadequate cause. In the present instance the immediate cause of difference was the declared intention of Barnabas, that Mark should accompany them on the proposed tour. Paul had no ground for interference when the uncle thought proper to bring his nephew from Jerusalem to Antioch; but now when it was proposed to make Mark a third party in the demands and responsibilities of a missionary journey, Paul very strongly objected. Barnabas persisted, and then Paul's objections rose into absolute refusal. Barnabas declared that he would not go without Mark, and Paul protested that he would not go with Mark. In short, there was nothing less than 'a sharp contention' between the two, which, as is usual in such cases, probably branched out right and left into matters not immediately connected with the question in hand, producing altogether a sad breach between friends who had together 'hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.'

Which of the two was right, or which wrong, we cannot very well say. Probably they were both right and both wrongright in some points and wrong in others. We incline to suppose that Paul was the more right, judging by their know

ledge at the time; but that Barnabas is shown to be the more right, by our after knowledge. Barnabas had confidence in Mark's present steadiness, and the result shows that this confidence was not misplaced. Having this confidence, it was natural that he should be exceedingly unwilling that one, to whom he stood in an almost paternal relation, should be turned back at the threshold of life, from that career of usefulness in the Lord's vineyard for which he seemed fitted, and which he now earnestly desired to follow, and all for a fault of which he had by this time heartily repented. It seemed too hard. Are faults never to be forgiven? are their consequences to follow us for ever? O Lord, if THOU be extreme to mark our failures of duty-O Lord, who then shall stand!

On the other hand, Paul had not the same grounds as Barnabas for confidence in Mark, nor the same personal reasons for overlooking his error. In a case where he could not judge the heart, and had not acquired confidence in the party concerned, it might seem unsafe to proceed on any other grounds than those of public duty, and the safety and honour of the work entrusted to him. That work required steady men; and he could hardly be considered as having evinced any particular qualification for it, who had already, with respect to the very same journey, exhibited infirmity of purpose and considerable disregard for his fellow-travellers. And such a mission was scarcely one upon which to try experiments with uncertain characters. Indeed, that was a point on which our Lord himself, it would be remembered, had pronounced a strong verdict, when He declared that, 'No man having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'

In this unhappy contention it may seem that Barnabas was the more irascible, or the less placable, of the two; for he was the first to leave Antioch, instead of lingering behind to the last moment, in the hope that some accommodation between himself and Paul might be finally attained. He took Mark with him and went to Cyprus, seemingly taking upon himself that portion of what was to have been the united