Galatians, Epistle to The

Galatians, Epistle To The, the fourth in order of the Pauline epistles of the N.T., entitled simply, according to the best MSS. (see Tischendorf, N.T. ad loc.), πρός Γαλάτας. (See the Mercersburg Review, January 1861.)

1. Authorship. — With regard to the genuineness and authenticity of this epistle, no writer of any credit or respectability has expressed any doubts. Its Pauline origin is attested not only by the superscription which it bears (Ga 1:1), if this be genuine, but also by frequent allusions in the course of it to the great apostle of the Gentiles (Ga 1:13-23; Ga 2:1-14). It is corroborated also by the style, tone, and contents of the epistle, which are perfectly in keeping with those of the apostle's other writings. The testimony of the early Church on this subject is most decided and unanimous (see Lardner, Works, volume 2). Besides express references to the epistle (Irenaeus, Haer. 3:7, 2; 5:21,1; Tertullian, De Praescr. ch. 60, al.), we have one or two direct citations found as early as the time of the apostolic fathers (Polyc. ad Philippians chapter 3), and several apparent allusions (see Davidson, Introd. 2:318 sq.). The attempt of Bruno Bauer (Kritik der Paulin. Briefe, Berlin, 1850) to demonstrate that this epistle is a compilation of later times, out of those to the Romans and to the Corinthians, has been treated by Meyer with a contempt and a severity

(Vorrede, page 7; Einleit. page 8) which, it does not seem too much to say, are completely deserved.

2. Occasion, etc. — The parties to whom this characteristic letter was addressed are described in the epistle itself as "the churches of Galatia" (Ga 1:2; comp. Ga 3:1) in Asia Minor, otherwise called Gallogriecia (Strabo, 12:566) — a province that bore in its name its well- founded claim to a Gallic or Celtic origin (Pausanias, 1:4), and that now, after an establishment, first by predatory conquest, and subsequently by recognition but limitation at the hands of neighboring rulers (Strabo, 1.c.; Pausanias, 4:5), could date an occupancy, though not an independence, extending to more than three hundred years; the first subjection of Galatia to the Romans having taken place in B.C. 189 (Livy, 38:16 sq.), and its formal reduction (with territorial additions) to a regular Roman province in A.D. 26. SEE GALATIA. Into this district the Gospel was first introduced by Paul himself (Ac 16:6; Ga 1:8; Ga 4:13,19). Churches were then also probably formed, for on revisiting this district some time after his first visit it is mentioned that he "strengthened the disciples" (Ac 18:23). These churches seem to have been composed principally of converts directly from heathenism (Ga 4:8), but partly, also, of Jewish converts, both pure Jews and proselytes. Unhappily, the latter, not thoroughly emancipated from early opinions and prepossessions, or probably influenced by Judaizing teachers who had visited these churches, had been seized with a zealous desire to incorporate the rites and ceremonies of Judaism (especially circumcision, Ga 5:2,11-12; Ga 6:12 sq.) with the spiritual truths and simple ordinances of Christianity. (See Cruse, De statu Galatarum, etc., Hafn. 1722.) So active had this party been in disseminating their views on this head through the churches of Galatia, that the majority at least of the members had been seduced to adopt them (Ga 1:6; Ga 3:1, etc.). To this result it is probable that the previous religious conceptions of the Galatians contributed; for, accustomed to the worship of Cybele, which they had learned from their neighbors the Phrygians, and to theosophistic doctrines with which that worship was associated, they would be the more readily induced to believe that the fullness of Christianity could alone be developed through the symbolical adumbrations of an elaborate ceremonial (Neander, Apostolisches Zeitalter, 2d edit. page 400). It would seem that on his last visit to this region, Paul found the leaven of Judaism beginning to work in the churches of Galatia, and that he then warned them against it in language of the most decided character (Ga 1:9; Ga 5:3). From some passages in this epistle (e.g., Ga 1:11-24; Ga 2) it would appear also that insinuations had been disseminated among the Galatian churches to the effect that Paul was not a divinely-commissioned apostle, but only a messenger of the church at Jerusalem; that Peter and he were at variance upon the subject of the relation of the Jewish rites to Christianity; and that Paul himself was not at all times so strenuously opposed to those rites as he had chosen to be among the Galatians. Of this state of things intelligence having been conveyed to the apostle, he wrote this epistle for the purpose of vindicating his own pretensions and conduct, of counteracting the influence of these false views, and of recalling the Galatians to the simplicity of the Gospel which they had received. The importance of the case was probably the reason why the apostle put himself to the great labor of writing this epistle with his own hand (Ga 6:11).

3. Time and Place of Writing. — On the date of this epistle great diversity of opinion prevails. (See Fischem, De tempore quo ep. ad G. scriptafuersit, s. Longos. 1808; Keil, De tempore, etc., in his Opusc. acad. page 351 sq.; also Ueb. d. Zeit. etc., in Tzschirner's Asalekten, 3:2, 55 sq., Niemeyer, De tempore, etc., Gott. 1827; Ulrich, Ueb. d. Abfassunqzeit, etc., in the Theol. Stud. n. Krit. 1836, 2:448 sq.). Marcion held this to be the earliest of Paul's letters (Epiphanius, adv. Hares. 42:9); and Tertullias is generally supposed to favor the same opinion, from his speaking of Paul's zeal against Judaismn displayed is this epistle as characteristic of his being yet a neophyte (adv. Marc. 1:20); though to us it does not appear that in this passage Tertullian is referring at all to the writing of this epistle, but only to Paul's personal intercourse with Peter and other of the apostles mentioned by him in the epistle (Ga 2:9-14). Michaelis also has given his suffrage in favor of a date earlier than that of the apostle's second visit to Galatia, and very shortly after that of his first. Koppe's view (Nov. Test. 6:7) is the same, though he supposes the apostle to have preached in Galatia before the visit mentioned by Luke is Ac 16:6, and which is usually reckoned his first visit to that district. Others, again, such as Mill (Proleg. in Nov. Test. page 4), Calovius (Biblia Illust. 4:529), and, more recently, Schrader (Der Ap. Paulus, 1:226), place the date of this epistle at a late period of the apostle's life: the last, indeed, advocatest he date assigned in the Greek MSS., and in the Syrian and Arabic versions, which announce that it wag "written from Rome" during the apostle's imprisonment there. But this subscription is of very little critical authority, and seems in every way improbable; it was not unlikely suggested by a mistaken reference of the expressions in Ga 6:17 to the sufferings of imprisonment. See Alford, Prolegomena, page 459. Lightfoot (Journal of Sacred and Class. Philo. January 1857) urges the probability of its having been written at about the same time as the Epistle to the Romans, and finds it very unlikely that two epistles so nearly allied in subject and line of argument should have been separated in order of composition by the two epistles to the Corinthians. He would therefore assign Corinth as the place where the epistle was written, and the three months that the apostle staid there (Ac 20:2-3) as the exact period. But when the language of the epistle to the Galatians is compared with that to the Romans, the similarity between the two is such as rather to suggest that the latter is a development at a later period, and in a more systematic form, of thoughts more hastily thrown out to meet a pressing emergency in the former. The majority of interpreters, however, concur in a medium view between these extremes, and fix the date of this epistle at some time shortly after the apostle's second visit to Galatia. From the apostle's abrupt exclamation in Ga 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you," etc., it seems just to infer that he wrote this epistle not very long after he had left Galatia. It is true, as has been urged (see especially Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul 2:132), that οὔτω ταχέως in this verse may mean "so quickly" as well as "so soon;" but the abruptness of the apostle's statement appears to us rather to favor the latter rendering; for, as a complaint of the quickness of their change respected the manner in which it had been made, and as the apostle could be aware of that only by report, and as it was a matter on which there might be a difference of opinion between him and them, it would seem necessary that the grounds of such a charge should be stated; whereas if the complaint merely related to the shortness of time during which, after the apostle had been among them, they had remained steadfast in the faith, a mere allusion to it was sufficient, as it was a matter not admitting of any dieversity of opinion. We should consider, also, the obvious fervor and freshness of interest that seems to breathe through the whole epistle as an evidence that he had but lately left them.

The question, however, still remains, which of the two visits of Paul to Galatia mentioned in the Acts was it after which this epistle was written? In reply to this, Michaelis and some others maintain that it was the first, but in coming to this conclusion they appear to have unaccountably overlooked the apostle's phraseology (4:13), where he speaks of circumstances connected with his preaching the Gospel among the Galatians, τὸ πρότερον, the former time, an expression which clearly indicates that at the period this epistle was written Paul had been at least twice in Galatia. On these grounds it is probable that the apostle wrote and dispatched this epistle not long after he had left Galatia for the second time, and perhaps whilst he was residing at Ephesus (comp. Ac 18:23; Ac 19:1 sq.), i.e., A.D. 51. The apostle would in that city have been easily able to receive tidings of his Galatian converts; the dangers of Judaism, against which be personally warned them, would have been fresh in his thoughts; and when he found that these warnings were proving unavailing, and that even his apostolic authority was becoming undermined by a fresh arrival of Judaizing teachers, it is then that he would have written, as it were on the spur of the moment, in those terms of earnest and almost impassioned warning that so noticeably mark this epistle. The reasons which Michaelis urges for an earlier date are of no weight. He appeals, in the first place, to Ga 1:2, and asks whether Paul would have used the vague expression, "all the brethren," without naming them, had it not been that the parties in question were those by whose he had been accompanied on his first visit to Galatia, viz. Silas and Timothy, and, "perhaps, some others." The answer to this obviously is that had Paul referred in this expression to these individuals, who were known to the Galatians, he was much more likely, on that very account, to have named them than otherwise; and besides, the expressions "all the brethren that are with me" is much more naturally understood of a considerable number of persons, such as the elders of the church at Ephesus, than of two persons, and "perhaps some others." Again, he urges the fact that, about the time of Paul's first visit to Galatia, Asia Minor was full of zealots for the law, and that consequently it is easier to account for the seduction of the Galatians at this period than at a later. But the passage to which Michaelis refers in support of this assertion (Ac 15:1) simply informs us that certain Judaizing teachers visited Antioch, and gives us no information whatever as to the time when such zealots entered Asia Minor. In fine, he lays great stress on the circumtance that Paul, in recapitulating the history of his own life in the first and second chapters, brings the narrative down only to the period of the conference at Jerusalem, the reason of which is to be found, he thinks, in the fact that this epistle was written so soon after that event that nothing of moment had subsequently occurred in the apostle's history.

But, even admitting that the period referred to in this second chapter was that of the conference mentioned Acts 15 (though this is much doubted by many writers of note), the reason assigned by Michaelis for Paul's carrying the narrative of his life no further than this cannot be admitted; for it overlooks the design of the apostle in furnishing that narrative, which was certainly not to deliver himself of a piece of mere autobiographical detail, but to show from certain leading incidents in his early apostolic life how from the first he had claimed and exercised an independent apostolic authority, and how his rights in this respect had been admitted by the pillars of the Church, Peter, James, and John. For this purpose it was not necessary that the narrative should be brought down to a lower date than the period when Paul went forth as the apostle of the Gentiles, formally recognized as such by the other apostles of Christ.

Some of the advocates of a date earlier than A.D. 50 suppose that the persons addressed under the name of Galatians were not the inhabitants of Galatia proper, but of Lystra and Derbe (Ac 14:6), since among the seven districts into which Asia Minor was divided by the Romans the name of Lycaonia does not occur; the latter therefore, with its cities of Derbe and Lystra, must have been included in the province of Galatia, as indeed Pliny, (ist. Nat. 5:27) makes it a part thereof. (See Schmidt, De Galatas, etc., Hefeld. 1748.) It is urged, in addition, that, while copious details are given in Acts 14 respecting the founding of the Lycaonian churches, the first mention of Galatia (Ac 16:6) is merely to the effect that Paul passed through that country. On these grounds Pasilus, Ulrich (Stud. und Ksrit. 1836), Böttger, and others hold that under the term περίχωρον, "the region round about" (Ac 14:6), Galatia must be included; and therefore they put back the composition of the epistle to a date anterior to the apostolic council (Acts 15). It is certain, however, that Luke did not follow the Roman division into provinces (which, moreover, was frequently changed), because he specially mentions Lycaonia, which was no province, and distinguishes it from Galatia. As to the latter point, no valid inferences can be drawn from the comparative silence of the inspired history upon the details of Paul's labors in particular places, provided his presence there is clearly recorded, although in brief terms. There seems, therefore, no reason to depart from the common opinion that the apostle's first visit is recorded inActs 16:6; and consequently the epistle must have been written subsequently to the council (Acts 15). With this, too, the references in the epistle itself best agree. The visit to Jerusalem alluded to in Ga 2:1-10, is, on the best grounds, supposed to be identical with that of Acts 15 (A.D. 47); and the apostle speaks of it as a thing of the past. SEE PAUL.

4. Contents. — The epistle consists of three parts. In the first part (1, 2), which is apologetic, Paul vindicates his own apostolic authority and independence as a directly-commissioned ambassador of Christ to men and especially to the Gentile portion of the race. After an address and salutation, in which his direct appointment by heaven is distinctly asserted (Ga 1:1), and a brief doxology (Ga 1:5), the apostle expresses his astonishment at the speedy lapse of his converts, and reminds them how he had forewarned them that even if an angel preached to them another gospel he was to be anathema (Ga 1:6-10). The gospel he preached was not of men, as his former course of life (Ga 1:11-14), and as his actual history subsequent to his conversion (Ga 1:15-24), convincingly proved. When he went up to Jerusalem it was not to be instructed by the apostles, but on a special mission, which resulted in his being formally accredited by them. (Ga 2:1-10); nay, more, when Peter dissembled in his communion with Gentiles, he rebuked him, and demonstrated the danger of such in consistency (Ga 2:11-21). In the second part (3, 4), which is polemical, having been led to refer to his zeal for the great doctrine of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ, the apostle now enters at large upon the illustration and defense of this cardinal truth of Christianity. He appeals to the former experience of the Galaties. and urges specially the doctrine of justification, as evinced by the gift of the Spirit (Ga 3:1-5), the case of Abraham (Ga 3:6-9), the fact of the law involving a curse, from which Christ has freed us (Ga 3:10-14), and, lastly, the prior validity of the promise (Ga 3:16-18), and that preparatory character of the law (Ga 3:19-24) which ceased when faith in Christ and baptism into him had fully come (Ga 3:25-29). All this the apostle illustrates by a comparison of the nonage of an heir with that of bondage under the law: they were now sons ands inheritors (Ga 4:1-7); why, then, were they now turning back to bondage (Ga 4:8-11)? They once treated the apostle very differently (Ga 4:12-16); now they pay court to others, and awaken feelings of serious mistrust (Ga 4:17-20); and yet, with all their approval of the law, they show that they do not unederstand its deeper and more allegorical meanings (Ga 4:21-

31). In the third part (5, 6), which is hortatory and admonitory, the Galatians are exhorted to stand fast in their freedom, and beware that they make not void their union with Christ (v5:1-6): their perverters, at any rate, shall be punished (Ga 5:7-12). The real fulfilment of the law is love (Ga 5:13-15): the works of the Spirit are what no law condemns, the works of the flesh are what exclude from the kingdom of God (Ga 5:16-26). The apostle further exhorts the spiritual to be forbearing (Ga 6:1-5), the taught to be liberal to their teachers, and to remember that as they sowed so would they reap (Ga 6:6-10). Then, after a noticeable recapitulation, and a contrast between his own conduct and that of the false teachers (Ga 6:11-16), and an affecting entreaty that they would trouble him no more (Ga 6:17), the apostle concludes with his usual benediction ( Ga 6:18).

5. Commentaries. — The following are special exegetical helps on the whole of this epistle, the most important being designated by an asterisk [*] prefixed: Victorinus, Commentarii (in Mai, Script. Vet. III, 2:1); Jerome, Comasentarii (in Opp. 7:367; Opp. Suppos. 11:97, 9); Augustine, Expositio (in Opp. 4:1248); Chrysostom, Commentarius (in Opp. 10:779; also Erasmi, Opp. 8:267, tr. in Lib. of Fathers, Oxf. 1840, volume 6, 8vo); Cramer, Catena (volume 6); Claudius Taur., Commentarius (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 14:139); Aquinas, Expositio (in Opp. 7); *Luther, Commentarius (Lips. 1519, 4to, and often since; also in Opp. 3:1, etc.; tr. London, 1807, 1835, 8vo); also his fuller Commentarius (Vitemb. and Hag. 1535, 8vo, and later; both works also in Germ. often); Bugenhagen, Adnotationes (Basil. 1525, 8vo); Megander, Commentarius (Tigur. 1:533, 8vo); Seripandus, Commenataria (in his work on Romans, Lugd. 1541, 8vo; also separately, Antw. 1565, 8vo, and later); Calvin, Commentaries et lemones (both in Opp.; the former tr. Edinb. 1854, 8vo; the latter, Lond. 1574, 4to); Meyer, Adnotationes, (Berne, 1546, Hanosa. 1602, 8vo); Sarcer, Adnotationes (Frankfort, 1542, 8vo); Salmeron, Disputationes (in Opp. 15); Major, Enarratio (Vitemb. 1560, 8mo; also in German ib. eod.); Musculus, Commentarius (Basil. 1561, 1569, fol.); Cogelerus, Solationes (Vitemb. 1564, 8vo); Chytraeus, Enarratio (Franc. 1569, 8vo); Heshusins, Commentarius (Helmst. 1579, 8vo); Wigand, Adnotatioae (Vitemb. 1580; Lips. 1596, 8vo); Grynous, Asnalysis (Basil. 1583, 4to); Cornesus, Commentarius [after Luther] (Heidelb. 1583, 8vo); Prime, Exposition (Oxford, 1587, 8mo); Heilbrunner, Commentarius (Lansug. 1591, 8vo);

Perkins, Commentary (in Works, 2:153; Cambr. 1601, Lond. 1603; in Latin, Genev. 1611, 2 volumes, fol.); Rollock, Analysis (London, 1602, Geneva, 1603, 8vo); Hoe, Commentarius (Lips. 1605, 4to); Winckelmann, Commentarius (Giess. 1608, 8vo) Weinrich, Exposi (Lips. 1610, 4to); Betuleius: Paraphrasis (Halle, 1612, 1617, 8vo); Battus, Commentarii (Gryphisen. 1613, 4to); Lyser, Analysis (Lips. 1616, 4to); Pareus, Commentarius (Heidelb. 1621, 4to; also in Opp. 3); Crell, Commentarius (Raconigi. 1628, 8vo; also in Opp. 1:373); Coutzen, Commentarius (Colossians and Mog. 1631, folio); Himmel, Commentarius (Jena, 1641, 4to); Lithmann, Συζήτησις (Upsal. 1641, 4to); Weininann, Exercitationes (Altorf. 1647, 4to); Terser, Analysis (Upsal. 1649, 4to); Lushington, Conmmentary (Lond. 1650, fol.); Cocceius, Conmmentarius (Opp. 5.); also Explicatio (ib. 12:199); Feurborn, Expositio (Giess. 1653,1669, 4to); Chemnitz, Collegium (Jen. 1656, 1663, 4to); *Kunadus, Disputationes (Vitemb. 1658, 4to); Ferguson, Exposition (Edinb. 1657, Lond. 1841, 8vo); Lagus, Commentatio (Gryph. 1664, 4to); *Stolberg, Lectiones (Vitemb. 1667, 4to); Kronnayer, Commentarius (Lips. 1670, 4to); Moommas, Meditationes (Hag. 1678, 8vo); Van der Waeyen, Verklaaring (Lebard. 1682, 8vo; also in Latin, Franecker, 1681, 4to); *Steengracht, Vitlegging (Ench. 1688, 4to); *Schmid, Commentatio (Kilon. 1690, Hamb. 1696,1704, 4to); Leydekker, in ep. ad Galatians (Tr. ad Rh. 1694, 8vo); *Akersloot, an de Galatians (Leyd. 1695, 4to; in German, Brem. 1699, 4to); *Spener, Erklarung (F.a.M. 1677, 1714, 4to); Aurivilius, Animadversiones (Halle, 1702, 4to); Locke, Paraphrase (Lond. 1705, 1733, 4to); Weisius, Commentarius (Helmst. 1705, 4to); Mayer, Dissertationes (Grypl. 1709, 8vo); Van Dyck, Anmerking (Amst. 1710, 8vo); Boston, Paraphrase (in Works, 6:240); Hazevoet, Verklaaring (Leyd. 1720, 4to); Vitringa, De br. an d. Galatians (Franeq. 1728, 4to); *Plevier, Verklaaring (Leyden, 1738, 4to); Rambach, Erklarung (Giess. 1739, 4to); Murray, Erklarung (Lips. 1739, 8vo); Wessel, Commentarius (L. Bat. 1750, 4to); Hoffmann, Introductio (Lips. 1750, 4to); *Struensee, Erklarung (Flensb. 1764, 4to); Baumgarten, Auslegung (Hal. 1767, 4to); Michaelis, Anmerk. (2d ed. Gotting. 1769, 4to); Zacharia, Erklar. (Gotting. 1770, 8vo); Moldenhauer, Erklarung (Hamb. 1773, 8vo); Cramer, Versuch (in the Beitrdge zu Beford. 1:112 sq.); Chandler, Parcapthrase (London, 1777, 4to); Weber, Anmerkungen (Lpz. 1778, 8vo); Semler, Paraphrasis (Hal. 1779, 8vo); Lavater, Uezschreibung (in Pfenniger's Magaz. 1:33-72); Riccaltoun, Notes (in Works, 3); Anon. Erklar. (in the Beitrage zu Beford. 5:126 sq.); Esmarch, Uebersetzung

(Flensburg, 1784); Schutze, Scholia (Ger. 1784, 4to); Roos, Auslegueng (Tub. 1784, 1786, 8vo); Mayer, Anmerk. (Wien, 1788, 8vo); Krause, Anmerkungen (Frkf. 1788, 8vo); Stroth, Erklar. (in Eichhorn's Report. 4:41 sq.); Schilling, Anmerkungen (Leipzig, 1792, 8vo); Carpzov, Uebersetzung (Helmstadt, 1794, 8vo); Morus, Acroases (Lips. 1795, 8vo); also Erklar. (Gorl. 1798, 8vo); Anonym. Anmerl. (in Henke's Magaz. 2:22); Bair, Explicatio (Frcft. 1798, 8vo); Hensler, Anmerk. (Lpz. 1805); Borger, Interpretatio (L. Bat. 1807, 8vo); *Winer, Commentarius (Lips. 1821, 1828, 1829, 1859, 8vo); Anon. Uebers. (Neust. 1827, 8vo); Flatt, Vorles. (Tub. 1828, 8vo); Paulus, Erlauterung (Heidelb. 1831, 8vo); Hermann, In primis 3 cap. (Lips. 1832,4to); *Usteri, Commentar (Zur. 1833, 8vo); *Matthies, Erklarung (Oreifs. 1833, 8vo); *Ruckert, Commentar. (Lpz. 1833, 8vo); Fritzsche, De nonnullis locis, etc. (Rostock, 1833-4, 4to); Zschocke, Erklarung (Halle, 1834, 8vo); Schott, Erklar. (Lpz. 1834, 8vo); Sardinoux, Commentaire (Valence, 1837, 8vo) Windischmann, Erklarung (Mainz, 1843, 8vo); Barnes, Notes (N.Y. 1844, 12mo); Baumgarten-Crusius, Galaterbrief (in Exeg. Schriften, II, 2), Haldane, Exposition (London, 1848, 8vo); Olshausen, Commentary (tr. Edinb. 1851, 8vo); *Hilgenfeld, Erklarung (Halle, 1852, 8vo); Brown, Exposition (Edinb. 1853, 8vo); Muller, Erklarung (Hamb. 1853, 8vo); *Ellicott, Commentary (Lond. 1854,1859, Andov. 1864, 8vo); *Turner, Commentary (N.Y. 1855, 8vo); Jatho, Erlauterung (Hildesheim, 1856, 8vo); Anasker, Auslegung (Lpz. 1856, 8vo); Meyer, Galaterbrief (in Commentar, 7, Gotting. 1857, 8vo); Bagge, Commentary (London, 1857, 8vo); Frana, Commentarius (Goth. 1857, 8vo); Twele, Predigten (Hann. 1858, 8vo) * Wieseler, Commentar (Gotting. 1859, 8vo); Jowett, Notes (in Epistle, 1, London, 1859, 8vo); Gwinne, Commentary (Dubl. 1863, 8vo); Lightfoot, Notes (Lond. 1855, 8vo); Reithmayer, Commentar (Munch. 1865, 8vo); Vomel; Anmerk. (Freft. a.M. 1865, 8vo); Matthias, Erkldrunag (Cassel, 1865, 8vo); *Eadie, Commentary (Glasg. 1869, 8vo); Brandes, Freiheitsbrief (Wiesb. 1869, 8vo). SEE EPISTLE.