I will admit, says the apostle in effect, that I did not come away from the visit to

Jerusalem quite as I went, something was laid upon me by the apostles there--it was not

a confirmation of my apostleship--for that they were compelled to recognize (that I)

stood on parallel grounds with that of Peter, it was not that they attempted the slightest

modification of the gospel I preached, Titus being a living witness, they did place upon

me one obligation which I was only too ready to shoulder, they said--listen carefully

now for the mighty edict, they said, "Remember the poor!" If, said Paul, you can make

anything out of that to militate against my independence you are welcome to it.

When men criticize our message to-day we have in Gal. 1: and 2: an impregnable

position. They say of us sometimes that we are wrong to differentiate between the gospel

of the kingdom and the gospel of Peter and James, and the gospel of the grace of God

entrusted to Paul.

We need waste no time in arguing, we have a faultless and unassailable argument in

these two chapters. Whether the gospel of the kingdom, is or is not the same as that

preached by Paul, whether the gospel as preached by Peter, James and John is or is not

the same as the gospel of the grace of God, let others attempt to decide--for us it is

settled. Though an angel from heaven, let alone a preacher of the kingdom, should

preach any other gospel than that which was preached by Paul, and found in his epistles

"let him be anathema". If men to-day would impose upon us the message delivered by

Peter, let them read for themselves that Peter endorsed the distinctive gospel of the

uncircumcision entrusted to Paul. In this matter we can safely and happily echo the

apostle's closing words:

not because we can exhibit the scars of conflict as that man of God could, but because the

matter is settled and closed for every believer in these two opening chapters of Paul's