CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 Alfred C. Barnes 
 
i 
 
 Date Due 
 
 
 
 '• 
 
 
 
 prn 
 
 fW4 f 
 
 -*^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 PRINTED IN 
 
 U. a. A, 
 
 csr 
 
 NO. 23233 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 BS2505 .S11 1896 
 
 olln 
 
 3 1924 029 332 594 
 
s ^^ 
 S/i 
 
 o-r 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029332594 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL 
 
 %. S^kttc\j of i!jc Jltfcilopmtirf of '§is ^ottrint. 
 
 BY 
 
 A. SABATIER 
 
 Professor in the Faculty of Protestant Theology at Paris 
 
 TRANSLATED BY A. M. HELLIER 
 EDITED, WITH AN ADDITIONAL ESSAY ON THE PASTORAL EPISTLES^ BY 
 
 GEORGE G. FINDLAY, B.A 
 
 Headingley CoUeget Leeds 
 
 THIRD EDITION 
 
 Krfff fork 
 
 JAMES POTT AND CO 
 
 114 FIFTH AVENUE 
 
 1896 
 

 ^yo^ 
 
 
 ' V' Butler & Tanner, 
 The Selwood PRiiixiNG W015KS. 
 Fromb, and London. 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE 
 ENGLISH EDITION. 
 
 npRANSLATION into another tongue is for any 
 -*- book an honourable and a perilous experience. 
 The author of L'apdtre Paul is fully conscious both 
 of the honour and the peril. The success of a work 
 which is in any degree original depends not only 
 upon its intrinsic merit, but also, to a great extent, 
 upon a certain instinctive harmony already established 
 between the mind of the author and the requirements 
 of the public to which he addresses himself No 
 plant is rooted in its native soil by finei- and more 
 numerous fibres than is a literary work in the 
 country and society in which it was produced. It 
 is with some anxiety that I inquire whether L'apdtre 
 Paul, under the new circumstances in which it is 
 about to appear, will again meet with the inner cor- 
 respondence and the moral and spiritual sympathy 
 necessary to make it intelligible and to justify its 
 publication. 
 
 There are two things, however, which Ve-assure 
 me. The first is the distinguished patronage under 
 which my work is presented to English readers, the 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 care, learning and judgment of those who are re- 
 sponsible for the translation of my work. My 
 further ground of confidence is derived from the 
 hero of the book himself and the universal interest 
 which he inspires. Where should he be studied, loved 
 and venerated, if not in England ? Are not English 
 Christians, in a very special sense, his spiritual chil- 
 dren ? Do they not owe to him the character of their 
 religion, the form of their doctrine, even their principles 
 of religious liberty and civil right ? Is not Anglo- 
 Saxon society his work? Does not his spirit pervade 
 the thousand ramifications' of English civilization, 
 extending from individual conduct to the highest 
 scientific activity, from domestic life to the political 
 debates of Parliament ? Who is there, we may ask, 
 hot among theologians only, but amongst all earnest 
 and cultured men, who is not interested in every 
 attempt made to understand the apostle better, and 
 to explore the inner workings of his mind ? 
 
 Paul as a missionary and shepherd of souls is great 
 indeed. There is nothing in all antiquity to compare 
 with the record of his travels and his triumphs. 
 Feeble in body, living by his toil like a working- 
 man, this weaver of Tarsus enters the vast world of 
 Paganism, another Alexander, to conquer the faith 
 and the reason of mankind. Merely to form such a 
 resolution was heroic. Darkness covered the earth ; 
 the peoples, to use the language of the prophet, were 
 sitting in the valley of the shadow of death. Paul 
 entered, alone at first, into these depths of darkness, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 with the Gospel torch in his hand ; and wherever he 
 went he left in his track from Damascus to Rome a 
 succession of young expanding Churches, the radiant 
 centres of a new life, the fruitful germs of modern 
 society forming already in the midst of the old world. 
 In all this, I repeat, there is something truly heroic. 
 
 There is something greater still in the mind that 
 inspired this mighty work, and of which, in truth, the 
 work itself is only the exhibition ahd luminous tran- 
 scription in the visible order of things. Not only 
 did Paul conquer the pagan world for Jesus Christ ; 
 he accomplished a task no less necessary, and per- 
 haps even more difficult, in emancipating at the 
 same time infant Christianity from Judaism, under 
 whose guardianship it was in danger of being stifled. 
 Besides removing the centre of gravity of the new 
 Church, by the advance of his mission, from Jerusalem 
 to Antioch, from Antioch to Ephesus, and from 
 Ephesus to Rome, he also succeeded in disengaging 
 from the swaddling bands of Judaism the spiritual 
 and moral principles which constitute Christianity a 
 progressive and universal religion. 
 
 Not that Paul can in any sense claim to be the 
 founder of Christianity, or be compared to Jesus. 
 The apostle gloried, and rightly, in being the servant, 
 and not the master. It is as a servant that he is 
 great. There was nothing creative in Paul's genius. 
 The first impulse came from Jesus. Jesus it is who 
 in our religious life has substituted filial relationship 
 with the Father by means of the Holy Spirit for the 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 legal relationship based upon the Mosaic law and 
 tradition. Jesus established the new covenant ; and 
 in doing this planted His cross, if we may so say, 
 between ancient Judaism and the Gospel, in a way 
 that rendered void all attempts at reconciliation. On 
 the other hand, it is equally certain that His first 
 disciples at Jerusalem endeavoured to repair this 
 breach. They wished to keep the new wine in the old 
 bottles. Next to Stephen^ the first martyr, it was 
 Paul who. broke the Judaistic spell. To his think- 
 ing, the Christian principle only took the place of the 
 Jewish principle by destroying it His conversion 
 was, in effect, the negation of the power of the law 
 as a means of salvation ; and his theology, centring 
 entirely in the antithesis of faith and works, law 
 and grace, the old things and the new, the time 
 of bondage and the time of freedom, was but the 
 expression in argument and theory of the moral and 
 religious experiences which began in his conversion. 
 Thus the external revolution had its spring in a 
 psychological regeneration; and it is important to 
 grasp firmly this primary fact, if we would not mis- 
 take the meaning of the whole drama. 
 
 In reading the epistles of the great apostle, nothing 
 strikes the attentive observer more than this psycho- 
 logical connexion between his doctrinal creed and 
 his inward life. The first is the beautiful fruitage of 
 the second. Of no other doctrine can it be so truly 
 said, that it was lived before it was taught. It may 
 even be affirmed that oui minds do not properly 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 apprehend it, unless we have undergone for ourselves, 
 in some measure, the inward experience it implies. 
 An eminent professor of history of the Sorbonne at 
 Paris related one day that he had remained for years 
 without in the least understanding Paul's theology, 
 and that its meaning was made clear to him by a 
 Christian shoemaker at Lyons. The moral crisis of 
 conversion is, indeed, the first and best initiation into 
 the truths of Pauliriism. 
 
 But if the doctrine of the apostle Paul is always 
 the outgrowth of his experience, it is easy to infer 
 that it must have had a history, — that, in other words, 
 it was developed in the order of these experiences. 
 It is equally plain that from this historical standpoint 
 alone shall we be able to understand it fully, and to 
 account for the various forms it has assumed at dif- 
 ferent times and under varying circumstances. To 
 regard it in any other way would be inevitably to 
 pervert its character, by making it a system of ab- 
 stract philosophy, and by separating it from the parent 
 stem whence it still derives its life and truth. This 
 has been done, it seems to me, alike by the orthodoxy 
 of the past and by the rationalistic criticism of the 
 Tubingen School. They both deny the existence of 
 progress and development in Paul's doctrine ; they 
 <ever the delicate nerves, of which we have spoken, 
 that connected his spiritual . thought and his spiri- 
 tual life. 
 
 The former theory assumes that he received his 
 doctrinal system from heaven complete in its dialec- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 tical organization and its exegetical demonstrations 
 — a thing absolutely inconceivable, since reasoning 
 always implies effort on the part of the productive 
 intelligence. The second school treats Paul as though, 
 after his conversion, he had lived in solitude like a 
 philosopher, creating by means of speculation and 
 logic the entire doctrinal system that he was after- 
 wards to preach, to expound, and defend before the 
 world. In both instances there is the assumption 
 that his mental and doctrinal development was com- 
 plete from the outset, and was neither disturbed nor 
 stimulated by new .conflicts as they arose, — by the 
 arguments of opponents, and by the experiences of 
 his busy and exciting life. 
 
 This is humanly impossible ; and it is historically 
 untrue. It must be clearly understood that Paul was 
 no philosopher of the schools. The purpose or wish 
 to construct a system, properly so called, was wholly 
 foreign to his mind. He was a missionary, who 
 brought everything to bear upon his work. He learned 
 by teaching. In every crisis of his life he looked 
 for guidance from God. The solution of difficult 
 questions he sought in prayer ; and the answer 
 came sometimes like a flash of light, sometimes as 
 the result of profound meditation, but was always 
 regarded by him as a Divine inspiration. He studied 
 events ; he reflected upon past experiences ; he pro- 
 fited by his travels and his reading. Everything, in 
 short, furnished him with food for thought, and with 
 opportunities for discovering the practical or theo- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 retical issues of the faith that he incessantly preached. 
 Thus his thinking always kept pace with his outward 
 activities ; and till the end there was a constant re- 
 action of the one upon the other. Indisputable proofs 
 of this will be found, we believe, in the present work. 
 
 It is on this account that we have combined the 
 exposition of Paul's doctrine with the history of his 
 life. The exegesis of the apostle's writings must 
 always start from the latter, and be guided by it. 
 The only means of .understanding them, whether as 
 a whole or in detail, is to explain them by the 
 historical circumstances under which they originated. 
 Thus restored to their place in history, they are no 
 longer treatises in abstract theology ; they are in 
 reality acts of Paul's apostolic life, weapons of warfare 
 or means of instruction, and living manifestations 
 from time to time of the apostle's heart and will, 
 as, well as of his genius. So they acquire for us, 
 together with a singular dramatic interest, a truth and 
 life which are absolutely new. 
 
 The historical standpoint has another advantage, 
 and renders us a further and equally important 
 service. It enables us to solve without prejudice 
 or violence the important problem which modern 
 criticism has raised with regard to the authenticity 
 of Paul's epistles. The critics, as is well known, often 
 argue, from the literary or dogmatic differences they 
 have established amongst them, the impossibility of 
 their being the work of one and the same author. 
 They take their stand upon the group known as 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 that of the great epistles — Galatians, Corinthians, and 
 Romans ; and peremptorily set aside all those which 
 are not exactly of the same type. As if amid 
 changing circumstances Paul's manner of writing 
 were not bound to undergo like changes ! As if, to 
 begin with, the epistle to the Romans were not very 
 different from the epistle to the Galatians ! It has 
 been forgotten that these four letters all belong to a 
 period of scarcely three years' duration, from SS to 
 58 A.D. at latest, and that the apostle's career lasted 
 for nearly thirty years. What a long space of time 
 elapsed, both before and after those momentous years 
 spent at Ephesus and Corinth! How can we infer 
 with any certainty from the four letters of Paul then 
 written what the nature may have been of those he 
 wrote at other periods, relating to other questions? 
 Who would maintain that the apostle, when travelling 
 along with Silvanus and founding the Macedonian or 
 Corinthian Churches, wrote in the same strain to these 
 young communities as subsequently to the Christians 
 of Galatia, at the most exciting stage of his contro- 
 versy with his Judaizing opponents ? Furthermore, 
 is it probable that, after three or four years' imprison- 
 ment, he would indite a letter to his beloved Philip- 
 pians precisely like those he had formerly written 
 from Ephesus to Corinth, or from Corinth to Rome ? 
 The historical doubts accumulated by the criticism 
 of Ferdinand C. Baur and his disciples find their 
 natural answer in the supposition of historical develop- 
 ment in the Pauline system. This assumption does 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 not ignore, on the contrary it explains, the differences 
 which have been pointed out between the various 
 epistles ; nor is it in the least obliged to strain the 
 historical exegesis for the purpose of obtaining an 
 artificial unity and resemblance. By accepting the 
 idea of progress, it makes room for the variations of 
 thought and expression which exist. We perceive, 
 for instance, that in the epistles to the Colossians, 
 Ephesians, and Philippians, the apostle in his moral 
 teaching has happily attained larger views of social 
 and family duties. We observe in the same way that 
 from the time of the second letter to the Corinthians, 
 while still anticipating the glorious and speedy 
 coming of Christ, Paul no longer hopes to see it in 
 his lifetime ; already, we find, the foreboding of 
 martyrdom shadows his spirit, and has rendered the 
 visible triumph and glory of Christ a prospect more 
 remote. There is the same development in his 
 Christology. But none of these distinctions really 
 affect the authenticity of the letters, so soon as we 
 discover the chain which links them together, and 
 can trace in them a natural and normal development, 
 continuous from point to point. 
 
 This is the definite task that the author of this 
 volume has endeavoured to accomplish. How far he 
 has succeeded in reducing to a progressive series the 
 elements previously set in contrast as mutually ex- 
 clusive, and in supplying their natural explanation, 
 it is not for him, but for his readers impartially to 
 decide. In writing this book, he has striven to open 
 
xiv PREFACE. 
 
 out a path hitherto untrodden in Pauline studies. 
 Others may travel farther along it, and with surer 
 foot ; in this he will be the first to rejoice. In theo- 
 logical science as in practical life he sees servants 
 only, working not for themselves but for truth and 
 for the kingdom of God. And in offering his work 
 to those who may read, or even criticize it, he feels 
 that he cannot say to them anything better than that 
 which Paul said to the Corinthians respecting their 
 preachers : •n-avra vfimv etnlv, eire JflayXo?, eire 
 AttoWo)';, eire K.rj<^a<;, e'lre koct/j-o^, e'lTe ftoj;, elVe 
 ffdvarov, etre ■evs<n5)Ta, eire fJ-iWovra' iravra vfiSiV 
 v/iei<! Se XpiaTov, XpiaTo^ Se ©eov (i Cor. iii. 22, 23). 
 
 AUGUSTE SABATIER. 
 
*!(:* Besides the Appendix, the English editor has 
 thought fit to insert brief foot-notes, inclosed in 
 square brackets [thus], on some points of controversy 
 M. Sabatier commands, in the greater part of hia 
 exposition, an assent so warm and admiring, that it 
 is with reluctance one records, here and there, a 
 dissent equally decided. He has applied the scientific 
 method of modern historical inquiry to the life and 
 work of the apostle Paul with great skill and penetra- 
 tion, and with a singular charm of treatment, of which 
 the reader will be sensible, even through the medium, 
 necessarily imperfect, of translation. Possibly, through 
 the bias natural to a scholar so versed in historical 
 and psychological criticism, he has leaned too heavily 
 against the older " ecclesiastical theology." 
 
 It is unnecessary to bespeak for this gifted repre- 
 sentative of French Protestant scholarship a friendly 
 reception upon English soil. We rejoice to claim 
 M. Sabatier, in the words he so aptly quotes from 
 the apostle, amongst the all things that are ours. 
 
 G. G. F. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Preface v-xvi 
 
 Introduction i 
 
 BOOK t 
 
 The Sources of Paul's System of Thought . 23-94 
 I. The First Christian Cominajaity at Jerusalem. — 
 
 Christianity apd Judaism 25 
 
 II. Stephen the Precursor of Paul. — Collision between 
 
 the Jewish and the Christian Principle . . 39 
 
 III. Paul's Conversion. — Triumph of the Christian 
 
 over the Jewish Principle 47 
 
 IV. The Genesis of Paul's Gospel . , . . .71 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 First Perioi>, or Period of Missionary Activity 95-134 
 I, The Missionary Discourses in the Acts. — The two 
 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians . . > . 98 
 II. Primitive Paulinism . . . '. . .112 
 III. First Conflicts with the Judaizing Christimis. — The 
 
 Time of Crisis and Transition .... 124 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK III. 
 
 TAGB 
 
 Second Period ; or, The Period of the Great 
 
 Conflicts 135-21 1 
 
 I. The Epistle to the Galatians . 
 II. The First Epistle to the Corinthians 
 
 III. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians 
 
 IV. The Epistle to the Romans 
 
 • 137 
 . 156 
 . 165 
 
 BOOK IV. 
 
 Third Period: The Paulinism of Later Times 213-272 
 I. The Address at Miletus.— Appearance of the 
 Gnostic Asceticism. — New Evolution in Paul's 
 
 Theological Doctrine 214 
 
 II. The Epistles to Philemon, to the Colossians, and 
 
 to the Ephesians 225 
 
 III. The Epistle to the Philippians . . . .250 
 
 IV. The Three Pastoral Epistles 263 
 
 BOOK V. 
 
 Organic Form of Paul's Theological System 273-340 
 I. The Person of Christ, the Principle of the Christian 
 
 Consciousness. . ., 282 
 
 1 1. The Christian Principle in the Sphere of Psychology 
 
 (Anthropology) .... . . 286 
 
 III. The Christian Principle in the Sphere of Society 
 
 and History (The Religious Philosophy of 
 History) ... • • • • 307 
 
 IV. The Christian Principle in the Sphere of Meta- 
 
 physics (Theology) -2, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 ADDITIONAL ESSAY ON THE EPISTLES TO 
 TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introductioii 343 
 
 I. The Pastoral Epistles in Modem Criticism . . 344 
 II. The Vocabulary and Style 353 
 
 III. The Personal Data 362 
 
 IV. The Doctrinal Characteristics .... 374 
 V. The Church System of the Pastorals . . . 390 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IT Is the tendency of all tradition, and of religious 
 tradition more especially, to resolve into type 
 and symbol the persons of those whom it has once 
 enshrined. It is thus that the figures of Christ's first 
 apostles have generally assumed a sacredness and 
 immutability resembling that of their stone statues 
 as we see them ranged in frigid, symmetrical order 
 on the front of our cathedrals. And yet these daring 
 missionaries of the Christian faith were real men, men 
 of their own race and age, each bringing his peculiar' 
 temperament and genius to bear upon the work that 
 it had fallen to their lot to accomplish. It should 
 be the aim of history to discover this original and 
 distinctive physiognomy beneath legend and dogma, 
 the individual life in the traditional type, and, in 
 short, the man in the apostle. And such has been 
 the end, whether consciously or unconsciously pur- 
 sued, of all the work of Biblical criticism and exegesis 
 accomplished during the last fifty years. 
 
 Unfortunately, this kind of historical rfesurrection 
 is impossible for the majority of the apostles, whose 
 work was, as it were, anonymous, and done in com- 
 mon, leaving no personal trace beyond a bare name, 
 and that often uncertain and surrounded by legend. 
 But with the thirteenth and latest apostle, Paul of 
 
 I 
 
7 HE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Tarsus, the missionary to the Gentiles, the case is 
 very different. Not only are we in undoubted pos- 
 session of several of his authentic writings, but his 
 genius and passion have inspired them with an in- 
 tensity of life which renders them the free and 
 spontaneous revelation of his soul, — one of the most 
 powerful and ! original that ever came into being. 
 True, the beginning and end of his life are involved 
 in obscurity ; but thanks to his epistles to the Thes- 
 salonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and Philip- 
 pians on the one hand, and the detailed narrative of 
 the second part of Acts on the other, we have a vivid 
 light thrown upon a period of more than twelve years 
 in the very midst of the apostle's career, in which his 
 personality stands out with wonderful distinctness. 
 
 Starting from this luminous centre, we are enabled, 
 by m^ans of historical and psychological induction, 
 to trace the main tenor of his life with a fair amount 
 of certainty. For this purf)ose, dates and places and 
 external things are of minor importance. It has been 
 our aim to write not a general biography of Paul, 
 but a biography of his mind, and the history of ^ his 
 thought. 
 
 I. Progressive Character of Paulinism. 
 
 The law of development is so inseparable from the 
 idea of life that we always assume its action, even 
 when we cannot trace it. In the life of Paul it is 
 strikingly obvious. The more we study his writings 
 and theology, the more we feel that it was impossible 
 for a mind so ardent and so laborious speedily to 
 reach its limits and to rest in its final conclusions 
 and that a system of thought so richly and solidly 
 constructed could not be completed at a stroke. The 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ageney of dialectics is equally apparent with that of 
 inspiration. At the same time, we must not think 
 of the apostle as a professed theologian, absorbed in 
 elaborating a speculative system. He was a mis- 
 sionary and a preacher. His mind followed the guid- 
 ance of circumstances, equally with abstract logic ; it 
 developed organically and spontaneously, in response 
 to the demand for new solutions or deductions made 
 upon it by the course of events. His great soul 
 knew no repose ; the thinker kept pace with the 
 missionary ; mind and will were at equal tension, 
 and within and without were displayed the same 
 ardour and the same energy. The Gospel that he 
 preached to the heathen had to be freed from Judaism, 
 and justified to the Christian understanding by ex- 
 perience and by Old Testament exegesis. The man 
 who spread the name of Jesus from the borders of 
 Palestine to the confined of the West is the same 
 who wrote the epistles to the Romans and Colossians ; 
 and the distance between Jerusalem and Rome is but 
 a type of that much longer road the Gospel traversed 
 from the Sermon on the Mount to the Christianity 
 of these great epistles. 
 
 The course of development pursued by the apostle's 
 doctrine lies between these two limits. Taking its 
 departure from the first apostolic preaching, it reaches 
 its goal in the theological system to which we have 
 just referred. The internal progress of his thought 
 corresponds exactly with the external progress of his 
 mission ; and both were alike stormy and full of con- 
 flict. This history has more than a merely personal 
 and psychological interest ; it is virtually the history 
 of the revolution which first emancipated Christianity 
 and constituted it an independent religion, beyond the 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 sacred inclosure of the Jewish nation. This revolu- 
 tion, as we know, had various phases. Paul did not 
 in his early days see the full bearing of the liberal 
 and individualistic principle that he was introducing 
 into the traditional faith, nor all the consequences of 
 the work he was doing in the heathen world. They 
 only revealed themselves to his understanding pro- 
 gressively. He walked bravely, but only by one step 
 at a time, in the unknown path at the beginning of 
 which, in spite of himself, the very special character 
 of his conversion had placed him from the outset. 
 
 We insist on this point, because it is ignored alike 
 by those whose theory of a mechanical and wholesale 
 theopneustia leaves no room for the workings of the 
 apostle's own mind, and by those who make him out 
 to have been a sort of speculative genius, creating a. 
 priori and in solitude the system that he was after- 
 wards to preach and defend. Take as an illustration 
 one of the great declarations of Paul : his doctrine 
 of the abolition of the Mosaic law as a system and a 
 means of salvation. It is evident that he reached 
 this position by degrees. At first he was able to 
 content himself with having obtained at the famous 
 conference at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. ; Acts xv.) a dispen- 
 sation from circumcision for Christians of heathen 
 origin. A few years later this had ceased to satisfy 
 him. His mind being of an essentially dialectic 
 cast, he rose from the concrete fact to the absolute 
 principle. He had not set out by formulating the 
 latter in its abstract generality, but having found from 
 experience that the law was of no avail in the salva- 
 tion of the Gentiles, it seemed to him no longer 
 essential to the Jews ; and he ended by formulating 
 in his epistle to the Romans his profound and original 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 theory as to its scope : viz. that its purpose was not 
 to save sinners, but on the contrary to multiply sin, 
 in order to deliver up the guilty conscience more 
 entirely to the grace of God. Examine this theory 
 more closely ; you will soon see traces of the violent 
 conflicts out of which it was evolved. It is not a 
 primitive belief, but a final conclusion — the sum of 
 a long experience, and the end of a fierce controversy. 
 We might further quote passages from the epistle 
 to the Galatians (Gal. i. lo; v. 1 1) which seem to imply 
 changes in Paul's conduct with respect to circumcision 
 and the Christians of Palestine. But what is the use 
 of putting forward uncertain inferences, when we have 
 elsewhere a striking proof of the very clear conscious- 
 ness the apostle had of the successive modifications 
 and constant progress of his Christian views ? How 
 many times he laments the incapacity of his efforts 
 to grasp all the riches of the Gospel ! " When 1 was 
 a child," he writes to the Corinthians, " I spoke as 
 a child, I felt as a child, I reasoned as a child (comp. 
 I Cor. iii. i) ; now that I am become a man (comp. 
 I Cor. xvi. 13), I have put away childish thoughts.'' 
 Reference is here made, as the parallel passages show, 
 to the childhood and maturity of the Christian life. 
 Can it be doubted that the mind of the man who 
 wrote these words obeyed the natural laws of all 
 human knowledge, and that there were elementary 
 conceptions which it had already left behind? In 
 fact, this idea of progress is inherent in Paul's theo- 
 logy, and essential to it. Even his present knowledge, 
 which he regards as that of mature years, does not 
 really satisfy him. In the recollection of progress 
 achieved he only sees a cause and pledge of further 
 progress. The distance separating him from child- 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 hood is but an image to him of that which still 
 separates him from the ultimate goal. At no period 
 did his conceptions appear to him either complete 
 or final. " Now we see as in a dim mirror*; one day 
 we shall see face to face. My knowledge is but 
 imperfect and partial ; one day I shall know as I have 
 been known" (i Cor. xiii. ii ff.). 
 
 The older the apostle grew, the more this natural 
 feeling strengthened in him. This is how he wrote 
 to the Philippians a few years before his death : " I 
 do not imagine that I have reached the goal, nor 
 obtained perfection ; but I am pursuing it. This one 
 thing I do : forgetting the things which are behind 
 me, I strenuously press toward those which are before. 
 I see the goal, and march on to it" (Phil. iii. 12-16). 
 The sequel clearly shows that the progress in question 
 has as least as much reference to his mental develop- 
 ment as to his moral perfection. "If you think dif- 
 ferently from me in anything," he adds, " God shall 
 make known the truth to you. Meantime, let us walk 
 in unity in the common knowledge which we have 
 already attained." 
 
 It would have been astonishing if an idea so natural 
 in itself, and so clearly indicated in the text, had not 
 been pointed out by modern criticism. But we have 
 no such omission to complain of As soon, in fact, 
 as Paul's life and writings began to be studied from 
 an historical point of view, the idea of a progressive 
 development in his views compelled attention to itself 
 Usteri clearly suggested the idea, in a work of which 
 the third edition appeared as early as 1831 ;i but at 
 the same time he abandoned it as incapable of de- 
 
 ' Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, p. 7. 
 
Introduction. 
 
 monstration, because the historical connexion of the 
 authentic letters was still undefined, and their chrono- 
 logy unsettled, while the great critical epochs of the 
 apostle's life were wholly unrecognised. 
 
 The work of reconstruction could not be resumed 
 with any chance of success, until the task of patient 
 and minute analysis had been first performed. The 
 honour of this achievement belongs to Baur.^ Thanks 
 to his critical studies, abundant light has been thrown 
 upon Paul's epistles ; their order of sequence has been 
 recovered, their distinctive features clearly defined, 
 the historical events that occasioned them perfectly 
 established, and their differences marked out not less 
 plainly than their resemblances. In short, the first 
 and essential conditions for tracing out the apostle's 
 mental history were fulfilled. 
 
 It is true that Baur's refusal to recognise as 
 authentic anything but the doctrinal type evolved 
 from the great central epistles (Galatians, Corinthians, 
 and Romans) prevented him from completing this 
 task himself. But since then the epistles to the Thes- 
 salonians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians have 
 asserted their place by the side of these, not to mention 
 others whose authenticity is now generally admitted, 
 even by the severest critics. Yet the dogmatic dif- 
 ferences pointed out by Baur exist all the same. And 
 thus, while maintaining the Pauline origin of these 
 other writings, and recognising at the same time their 
 distinct doctrinal types, modern criticism is shut up 
 more and more to a contradiction, of which the only 
 and inevitable solution is found in the conception of 
 
 ' Pauhis der Apostel Jesu Christi, 2nd ed.. 1866 [Eng. trans. 
 1873]- 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 a progressive development in the apostle's system of 
 thought. This solution was still much disputed when 
 the first edition of this book appeared [1870]. But at 
 the present date, though subject to some modification 
 in detail, it has triumphed completely. 
 
 On reviewing, as a whole, those epistles of Paul 
 which have been preserved to us, we see that they fall 
 naturally into three groups : (i) The epistles to the 
 Thessalonians, which appear to be simply an echo of 
 his missionary preaching. (2) The great epistles to 
 the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, the outcome 
 of his conflicts' with the Judaizers. (3) The epistles 
 of the Captivity. Each of these groups contains a 
 homogeneous and clearly defined type of doctrine, 
 equally characteristic in its turn of thought and in 
 the nature of its polemics. It is no less easy to per- 
 ceive that these three types have a logical sequence, 
 and correspond exactly with the great periods of the 
 apostle's -life : the first dominated by his missionary 
 activities and interests ; the second by his fierce 
 struggle against Judaism ; the third by the appear- 
 ance of the Gnostic asceticism. 
 
 Will the establishment of these three periods enable 
 us, then, to understand how the doctrine of Paul, by 
 virtue of its inner principle and under the outward 
 pressure of events, developed from its elementary 
 into its higher form ? And will this conception of a 
 natural and necessary development solve the problems 
 to which the historical exegesis of his epistles has 
 given rise ? That is the whole question. 
 
 Our answer lies in the reconstruction that we have 
 attempted in this volume, and it will be enough here 
 to explain its historical basis and mode of procedure. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 We find our starting-point in the middle group of 
 Paul's writings — the four great epistles to the Gala- 
 tians, Corinthians, and Romans, which are closely 
 consecutive and intimately related to each other. The 
 system of Paul, eminently dialectic, is here developed 
 in its strong antithesis to the Judaistic tendency. 
 Here, in the midst of the apostle's career, it presents 
 itself in a phase in the highest degree characteristic 
 and indisputably genuine. But however important 
 and glorious, this stage of Paul's doctrine is not the 
 only one, a fact to be carefully borne in mind. These 
 letters written one after another from Ephesus, Mace- 
 donia, and Corinth during Paul's last missionary 
 journey, belong only to one period, and that the short- 
 est, of his life, to an interval of three or four years in a 
 career which lasted for nearly thirty. Must we forego 
 all knowledge — all conjecture even — as to the twenty 
 years which preceded, or the six which followed it ? 
 
 Nay, indeed : we are bold to affirm that Paul the 
 missionary must have thought and spoken differently 
 from the dialectician of these great letters. How 
 could they have been understood, unless those who 
 received them had had previous preparation ? On 
 examining them more nearly, we can plainly see 
 that Paul's dialectic expression of thought is due 
 to an external fact, to his conflict with Judaism. 
 The argument of the apostle cannot be understood 
 apart from that of his opponents. In other words, we 
 have here an antithesis, the first member of which is 
 determined and conditioned by the second. We may 
 safely affirm that before the outbreak of Judaistic 
 opposition the teaching of Paul could not possibly 
 have taken the form and development which this 
 opposition alone could give. 
 
16 THM APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Now, we are well informed of the origin and date 
 of this conflict. It could not have arisen before the 
 success of the great missions to the heathen, because 
 their success was the cause of it. Besides, we have 
 on this point the express declaration of the apostle 
 himself in his epistle to the Galatians (chap. i. 18-24). 
 He went, he tells us, three years after his conversion 
 to visit and confer with Peter at Jerusalem. From 
 thence he went to Syria and Cilicia, and the Churches 
 of Judaea rejoiced and gave thanks for his ministry 
 in those regions. The controversy, therefore, did not 
 then exist. It only broke out fourteen years later 
 (Gal. ii. i), when the Pharisaic Christians came to 
 Antioch and tried to force circumcision upon the 
 heathen converts. Here then is an earlier and pro- 
 longed period, during which the doctrine of Paul, 
 developing under other conditions and amid other 
 conflicts, must inevitably have taken a simpler, a more 
 practical and general form. Can we discover the 
 moment at which the crisis that transformed it came 
 about ? 
 
 At the conference of Jerusalem (Gal. ii. ; Acts xv.) 
 new and weighty questions presented themselves to 
 Paul's mind ; but they were not at once solved. He 
 contented himself, as we have said already, with 
 having secured for the heathen a dispensation from 
 circumcision. The epistles to the Thessalonians, 
 written a little later, are still without any sign of 
 contention with Judaizers. Evidently the apostle has 
 left Jerusalem and set out on his second missionary 
 journey fully satisfied with his victory, and without 
 any anxiety as to the future. The precise moment 
 of the crisis must therefore have occurred between the 
 epistles to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the 
 
WTSODiJCTlON. 
 
 Galatians. What happened in this interval? Tke 
 violent dispute between Peter and Paid at Antioch 
 (Gal. ii. 11-21)/ and all that the recital of it reveals 
 to us : the arrival of messengers from James in the 
 Gentile Christian community, and the counter-mission 
 organized by the Judaizers to rectify the work of Paul. 
 It was this new situation, suddenly presenting itself 
 to the apostle on his return from his second missionary 
 journey, which by compelling him to enter the con- 
 test, led him to formulate in all its rigour his prin- 
 ciple of the abrogation of the law (Gal. ii. 16). 
 
 While admitting a development in Paul's doctrine 
 during this long and obscure primitive period, some 
 may perhaps consider that it ceased with the epistle 
 to the Galatians. Now, they would say, it has come 
 to realize its essential principle ; it cannot make 
 further progress. No doubt this epistle marks an 
 epoch in the apostle's life ; but it is a point of de- 
 parture, rather than a halting place ; it inaugurates a 
 new era. Far from being at rest, the mind of Paul 
 was never more active and eager, never more fertile 
 than during this stormy period. Involved from the 
 first in the glaring antithesis of law and faith, his mind 
 strives to get beyond and above it to a loftier point of 
 view, from which he may bring about its synthesis, 
 by the subordination of the one principle to t/ie other. 
 
 In the epistles to the Corinthians his view had 
 already expanded beyond these limits, and in the 
 epistle to the Romans it is transformed ; larger pro- 
 
 ' We place this event not at the return of Paul to Anlioch 
 after the conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 33), but at his 
 return from his second missionary journey (Acts xviii. 23). 
 Thus Neander, Wieseler, Renan, etc. 
 
12 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 spects open before it. But there is no more reason 
 for arresting his mental progress at Romans than at 
 Galatians. New events and an altered situation lead 
 to a new expansion. of thought. 
 
 The last period of his life is of an entirely peculiar 
 character, determined by certain leading facts. To 
 begin with, Paul was in prison. This captivity, in 
 snatching him from the duties and conflicts of his mis- 
 sionary work, afforded him leisure ; it sentenced him 
 to solitude and to meditation. Furthermore, there was 
 springing up a tendency at once ascetic- and specu- 
 lative, a sort of early Gnosticism, which invaded Paul's 
 Churches and threatened to ruin them. Naturally, 
 and logically, these errors called forth a fresh develop- 
 ment of the apostle's doctrine, more speculative arid 
 more theological than the other two. Thus it reached 
 its highest level in the epistles of the Captivity. 
 
 The three periods of Paul's life which we have in- 
 dicated, are as follows : 
 
 First Period. — Primitive PauUnism : From the 
 conversion of Paul to the epistle to the Galatians. 
 Documents : The missionary discourses in the Acts, 
 and the epistles to the Thessalonians. This is the 
 adolescence of the apostle's system of thought. 
 
 Second Period. — The PauUnism of the great 
 epistles: From the epistle to the Galatians to the 
 imprisonment of Paul. Documents : the epistles to 
 the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans. This is the 
 virile and heroic age of his mind. 
 
 Third Period. — Pmdinism of later days: From 
 the beginning of his captivity until his death. Docu- 
 ments : the epistles to Philemon, Colossians, Ephe- 
 sians, and Philippians ; the parallel record of the Acts 
 of the Apostles (Acts xx. to the end), especially the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 discourse at Miletus. This is the age of perfect and 
 full maturity. 
 
 Such is the course and plan of this history. To 
 these three essential divisions two more must be 
 added : the first, in which the historical and psycho- 
 logical origin of Paul's theology will be set forth ; and 
 the last, a necessary conclusion to our history, in which 
 we shall endeavour to explain his theological system 
 in its definitive form, and to sketch its organism. 
 
 II. Chronology. 
 
 Before commencing our narrative, it is important 
 to fix as nearly as possible the chronology of the 
 apostle's life. 
 
 Let us admit, to begin with, that the dates of his 
 birth and death are completely lost to us. For us, 
 his historical career ends at the year 63 or 64 A.D. 
 The writer of the Acts leaves him in his prison at 
 Rome two years after he had entered it. From that 
 time we know nothing of him. Did he perish in the 
 burning of the city (July, A.D. 64), or in the persecution 
 which followed ? Was he released ? Did he go to 
 Spain, as he intended ? Did he come back to the 
 East and return to Rome, to die on the same day as 
 Peter in 67 or 68 A.D., according to Catholic tradition ? 
 On all these points we have nothing but idle con- 
 jecture or legends. 
 
 Nor are we any better informed as to the date 
 of his birth. The only two indications of which we 
 can avail ourselves, are the epithet v6avt,a<; applied to 
 him by Luke (Acts vii. 58) at the time of Stephen's 
 stoning, and that of 'Trpecr^{nri<; which he applies to 
 himself in his epistle to Philemon, written about A.D. 
 60. These two expressions are very vague ; and it is 
 
14 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 even necessary to strain them a good deal in order 
 to make them agree. The latter and more authentic 
 reference proves that in A.D. 60 Paul had at least 
 passed his fiftieth year. Give .him a few years more, 
 and he is almost exactly contemporary with Jesus. 
 This much must be admitted, if we are to give any 
 credit to an indication from the oratio encomiastica 
 in principes apostolorum Petruin et Paulum, wrongly 
 ascribed to Chrysostom, but which is found in his 
 works. We read there, in effect, that Paul died in 
 his sixty-eighth year {tj or 68 A.D.), after having 
 served the Lord for thirty-five years. This last figure 
 is exaggerated ; but at all events, Paul was born at 
 Tarsus about the beginning of the Christian era. 
 
 What is of more importance is to fix the principal 
 dates of his life. To this end we must first seek in 
 his long career for a date, perfectly established, which 
 may serve for our point of departure and a basis of 
 all our calculations. It is not to be found till the 
 close of his history. We may determine beyond dis- 
 pute, almost to a year, the date of his departure to 
 Rome from the prison at Csesarea. We know that 
 he was sent thither byPorcius Festus, a few months 
 after the arrival of that governor in Palestine (Acts 
 xxiv. 27). Now the arrival of Festus could not pos- 
 sibly have taken place earlier than 60, nor later than 
 
 62 A.D., because he was succeeded in the summer of 
 
 63 by Albinus. (Compare the following data : Tacitus 
 Aun. xiv. 65 ; Josephus, Ant. xx. 8. 9, n ; Bell. Jud. 
 vi. 5. 3; Devita 3.) We can only hesitate therefore 
 between the years 60 and 61. We prefer 60, because 
 even with this date the mission of Festus would only 
 have lasted two years ; and one year seems too short 
 a space for all the events narrated by Josephus, 
 
INTRODUCTION. ij 
 
 From the narrative of the Acts we gather that Paul 
 embarked for Rome in the autumn, and that Festus 
 had entered upon office some months before, at the 
 beginning of summer. The apostle had then been 
 in prison for two full years ; which fixes the begin- 
 ning of his captivity at the Pentecost of 58 (or 59) A.D. 
 (Acts- xxi. 27-33). Looking backwards from this 
 point, we can trace accurately the course of Paul's 
 life. He had kept the Passover of this same year 
 at Philippi in Macedonia (xx. 6), having arrived there 
 from Corinth, where he had spent the three months 
 of winter (57-8, or 58-9), and written his epistle to the 
 Romans. He had therefore reached Corinth towards 
 the end of 57 (or 8) A.D. How he was occupied during 
 the previous year we know very certainly from his two 
 letters to the Corinthians, the second of which was 
 written in Macedonia in the autumn, and the first 
 at Ephesus about the time of the previous Passover 
 (i Cor. xvi. 8; v. 7 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13). The remarkable 
 agreement, during this period of Paul's life, between 
 the data given in his great epistles and those of the 
 Acts gives to this latter record a peculiar authority, 
 and shows that we are standing on firm historical 
 ground. 
 
 From the address delivered by Paul at Miletus after 
 the Passover of 58 (or 59) A.D., we learn that he had 
 sojourned three years at Ephesus, or in the province 
 of Asia, so that he must have arrived there in the 
 spring of 55. He came thither from Antioch, where 
 he had spent the winter of 54-55 recruiting after his 
 second missionary journey, the occasion on which, 
 a;ccording to all probability, he had his sharp dis- 
 pute with Peter and Barnabas (Gal. ii. 11-15, and 
 Acts xviii. 22,' 23). Paul had then returned, as we 
 
l6 THE AfiOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 have already said, from his great journey through 
 Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia (Acts xvi.-xviii.) This 
 journey cannot have occupied less than two years, or 
 two years and a half, since the stay at Corinth alone 
 consumed more than eighteen months (Acts xviii. 
 ii). This obliges us to place the beginning of the 
 journey in the spring of 52, and the conference at 
 Jerusalem, from which Paul was then returning, in 
 the winter of 51-52 A.D. (xv. 30 ; Gal. ii. i). 
 
 All this chronology of the second half of Paul's life, 
 derived partly from his own epistles and partly from 
 the narrative in Acts given by an eye-witness in the 
 first person, is, so to speak, forced upon us ; for it 
 will be readily admitted, however questionable some 
 of the details of our calculation may be, that a period 
 of seven years (51-58) is not too long to embrace 
 all the events of his life and the results of his acti- 
 vity during this period, of which we have such exact 
 and certain knowledge. There is one circumstance 
 connected with Paul's life at Corinth, moreover, 
 that affords us an approximate verification. The 
 apostle on his arrival in that city met with a Jewish 
 couple named Aquila and Priscilla, who had been ex- 
 pelled from Rome by a decree of the Emperor Claudius 
 (Acts xviii. 1-3). If we knew the date of this edict, 
 referred to elsewhere by Suetonius {Vit. Claud. 25) 
 and Tacitus {Ann. xii. 52, 54), we should have the 
 exact date of the sojourn of Paul at Corinth. From 
 the allusions of the two Roman historians we can only 
 conjecture that the measure belongs to the later 
 years of the reign of Claudius. Orosius, who suggests 
 the seventh year, is not to be relied upon. Now 
 Claudius died in September, 54 A.D. Paul must there- 
 fore have reached Corinth, at any rate, bef/^re that 
 
-INTRODUCTION^. 
 
 year. If the edict was issued, as the best critics sup- 
 pose, in 52, there is obviously a sufficient agreement 
 between this result and that which we had pre- 
 viously reached by an entirely different method. We 
 have yet another, and a more certain datum in the 
 Achaian proconsulate of GalHo, brother of Seneca 
 (Acts xviii. 12). From the life of this personage, 
 which we can easily trace, we find that he did not 
 obtain this appointment to Achaia till the end of 
 Claudius' life (Tacitus, Ann. xv. 73 ; Dio Cass., Ix. 35 ; 
 Pliny, xxxi. 33, etc.). 
 
 It now remains to establish the chronology of the 
 former half of Paul's apostolic career, as we have jusf: 
 determined that of the second. Here our starting 
 point must of necessity be the date of the conference 
 at Jerusalem, to which we have already, referred — 
 the winter of 51-52 A.D. It will be. observed that it 
 cannot be fixed later than 52, because of the date of 
 Claudius' death, to which we have just alluded ; and 
 this is the important point. Accordingly, the majority 
 of chronologists are divided between the years 51 
 and 52 (Hug, Eichhorn, Anger, de Wette, etc.). This 
 may content us. Paul has given an account of the 
 conference in his epistle to the Galatians, and we do 
 not think that the parallelism between Galatians ii. 
 and Acts xv. can be seriously called in question. This 
 being the case, we have from the pen of Paul himself 
 all the materials for a precise chronology. We know 
 that at the beginning of his epistle he defines in the 
 clearest manner his relations with the Twelve, and the 
 exact number of his visits to Jerusalem — two in all — 
 up to that time, including the apostolic conference. 
 In such an argument it is plain he could not possibly 
 omit a single visit, for such omission would have laid 
 
 2 
 
1 8 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 him open to the charge of falsehood. We must there- 
 fore consider the journey mentioned in Acts xi. 30 as 
 apocryphal,^ it being positively excluded by the de-. 
 claration of Paul himself (Gal. i. 22). It is plain that 
 the first half of Acts is not of the same historical 
 worth as the second, and that its statements must be 
 tested by the evidence of the authentic epistles. Of 
 this we have further proof If Luke adds a journey 
 of Paul to Jerusalem he omits the journey to Arabia 
 (Gal. i. 17). He has no precise idea of the time 
 which elapsed between the conversion of Paul and. 
 his first visit to the apostles (Acts ix. 23 : rffiepai 
 iKaval = three years, according to Gal. i. 18). We 
 cannot therefore depend upon him as before, and 
 must not venture beyond the statement of the apostle 
 himself 
 
 Happily this account is as explicit as it is vigorous 
 and concise. Paul relates that he paid his first visit 
 to Peter and James at Jerusalem three years after his 
 conversion (Gal. i. 18). He only spent fifteen days with 
 them. Then he wei.l to preach the Gospel in Syria 
 and Cilicia. The Churches of Judaea had not even 
 seen his face. It was not till fourteen years after- 
 wards that he made his second journey to Jerusalem, 
 on the occasion of the apostolic conference (Gal. ii. 
 i). Since this conference, as we have already pointed' 
 out, was held in 51-52 A.D., in order to ascertain 
 
 P Bill. Acts xi. 29, 30; xii. 25 say nothing which implies that 
 on this occasion Paul met the chiefs of the Church at Jerusalem, 
 •or made himself "known by face to the Churches of Judsea." 
 The gift was sent "to the elders"; and at a time of severe 
 persecution (Acts xii. i), therefore probably in a secret and 
 expeditious way. For all that Luke says, Paul himself may not 
 tven have set foot in Jerusalem.] 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 «9 
 
 exactly the date of his conversion, we must find out 
 from what point he himself reckons these fourteen 
 years. In our opinion, there is no room for doubt. 
 The adverb -rraXiv (Gal. ii. i), showing that Paul was 
 accountmg for his visits to the Holy -City ; the pre- 
 position hia which he uses here (instead of ytiera, which 
 .we find in i. i8), indicating the time during which 
 he affirms that he had not set foot in Jerusalenj, 
 prove beyond a doubt that the tenninus a qtio of the 
 number fourteen is his first journey, previously men- 
 tioned (Gal. i. 1 8), not the event of his conversion. 
 To obtain the date of the> latter, then, we must add 
 the fourteen years spent in Syria and Cilicia to the 
 three years previously spent in Arabia, or at Damascus. 
 Paul, therefore, had been a Christian seventeen years 
 when he came to attend the conference at Jerusalem 
 in 51 or 52; and this carries back the date of his 
 conversion to the year 35 A.D., at the latest. 
 
 The only objection that can be made to this date, 
 which is not, we admit, the one generally received 
 (this varies between the years 2,7 and 42), is that the 
 murder of Stephen must then have occurred before 36 
 A.D. — that is, before the recall of Pilate. And this, it is 
 argued, is improbable; for Pilate, if still in office, would 
 not have allowed a murder which amounted on the 
 part of the Jews to a usurpation of judicial power. 
 But on what a thread hung Paul's life in the like cir- 
 cumstances (Acts xxi. 31) ! The execution of Stephen, 
 occurring in a popular riot, might have happened 
 before the Romans were aware. And it is as easy to 
 assume a temporary absence of Pilate, as a subsequent 
 interregnum ; in which latter case, moreover, the au- 
 thority of Rome would not be left without a represen- 
 tative. The uncertain inference drawn from Luke's 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 narrative could not, in any case, be maintained in face 
 of Paul's definite statements ; and we can only over- 
 throw the date of 35 A.D. for his conversion by over- 
 throwing that of 52 for the conference at Jerusalem. 
 This latter once established, the remainder of the cal- 
 culation is a matter of course. 
 
 The history of Damascus, as we find to our regret, 
 is too obscure for us to avail ourselves of the allusion 
 made by Paul in 2 Corinthians xi. 32. At the time of 
 his conversion there was still in that city an ethnarch, 
 representing Aretas the king. The Romans may 
 very well have been able to leave the government of 
 Damascus to a vassal until 36 A.D. But immediately 
 after this time, and before the death of Tiberius, war 
 broke out between king Aretas on the one side, and 
 Herod Antipas and Rome on the other ; so that it 
 is impossible to see how the king of Arabia could 
 have retained any later the authority and privileges 
 hitherto allowed him in Damascus. This suggests a 
 further indirect confirmation of 35 A.D. as the date of 
 Paul's conversion, which we had arrived at by another 
 calculation. 
 
 It only remains for us, returning to the close of the 
 apostle's life, to put together the slender indications 
 that we have of its date. He embarked for Rome 
 in the autumn of 60 (or 61) A.D. ; but was compelled 
 by shipwreck to winter in the island of Malta, and 
 only reached the Eternal City in the spring of 61 
 (62). Luke adds that he remained there as a prisoner 
 for two years, living in a private house under the 
 guard of a soldier ; then his narrative breaks off 
 abruptly, and we are confronted with the unknown 
 (Acts xxviii. 30). Paul is supposed to have perished 
 in the frightful persecution caused by the fire of Rome 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in July, 64 A.D. At the same time, we would point 
 out that the two years of imprisonment mentioned 
 by Luke at the end of his book, ending, according to 
 our chronology, in the spring of 63 — or, extending our 
 calculation by a year, in the spring of 64 — must in any 
 case have come to an end before the events of the fire, 
 and the persecution, which cannot have broken out 
 until August or September. All that is certain is 
 that he died a martyr at Rome, under Nero (Clemens 
 Romanus : i Epist. ad Corinth, v.). 
 
 Paul's apostolic career, as known to us, lasted, 
 therefore, twenty- nine or thirty years ; and it falls 
 into three distinct periods, which are summarized in 
 the following chronological table : 
 
 First Period. — Essentially Missionary. 
 
 35 A.D. Conversion of Paul. Journey to Arabia. 
 
 38." First visit to Jerusalem. 
 
 38-49. Mission in Syria and Cilicia. Tarsus and 
 Antioch. 
 
 50-51. First missionary journey. Cyprus, Pam- 
 phylia, and Galatia (Acts xiii., xiv.). 
 
 52. Conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv. ; Gal. ii.). 
 
 52-55. Second missionary journey. Epistles to tlie 
 Thessalonians (from Corinth). 
 
 Second Period. — The Great Conflicts, and the 
 Great Epistles. 
 
 54. Return to Antioch. Controversy with Peter 
 (Gal. ii. 12-22). 
 
 55-57. Mission to Ephesus and Asia. 
 
 56. Epistle to the Galatians. 
 
 57, or 58 (Passover). First Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians (Ephesus). 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 57, or 58 (Autumn). Second Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians (Macedonia). 
 
 58 (Winter). Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Third Period. — THE Captivity. 
 
 58, or 59 (Pentecost). Paul is arrested at Jerusalem. 
 58-60, or 5 9-6 1. Captivity at Caesarea. Epistles to 
 
 Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians. 
 
 60, or 61 (Autumn). Departure for Rome. 
 
 61, or 62 (Spring). Arrival of Paul in Rome. 
 62-63. Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 63, or 64. End of the narrative of the Acts of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 Note. — The Pastoral epistles (.so called) of necessity 
 lie outside the known life of Paul. Their authenticity 
 will be discussed afterwards. 
 
BOOK I. 
 
 THE SOURCES OF PAUL'S SYSTEM OF 
 THOUGHT. 
 
 THE sources of Paul's system of thought are to 
 be discovered in these three facts : in the 
 Pharisaism which he forsook, the Christian Church 
 which he entered, and the conversion by which he 
 passed from the one to the other. 
 
 The first of these facts to be considered is the 
 existence of the Church. It is sometimes forgotten 
 that a Christian community existed before Paul, 
 hitherto its fierce persecutor, came to join its ranks. 
 This conversion, while opening a new era in his life, 
 was at the same time a bond of close connexion with 
 primitive Christianity, and obliges us to look b£yond 
 Paul himself for the origin of his Christian belief 
 
 Furthermore, his conversion marked a crisis in the 
 development of the apostolic Church. However un- 
 expected it may have been, this event, we must 
 confess, was wonderfully opportune. At no other 
 time could it have had the same import or the same 
 consequences. We could not have understood its 
 earlier occurrence, before the death of Stephen ; nor 
 later, when the missions to the heathen had been 
 already set on foot But happening just when it did, 
 it seems to us the most weighty fact of this first a.ge. 
 
24 THE AFOSTLE PAUf.. 
 
 And it is so closely linked with the past which it 
 crowns, and the future which it inaugurates, that to 
 view it apart from its historical connexion is a thing 
 impossible. 
 
 It is indeed in this connexion, and invested with 
 this critical importance, that the conversion of Paul is 
 presented to us in the Acts of the Apostles. If we 
 study the course of this narrative with a little atten- 
 tion, we shall perceive in it three stages, constituting 
 by their logical sequence an internal progress within 
 the primitive Christian community, of which Paul's 
 conversion is the goal and natural conclusion. 
 
 I. The first stage is represented by the first five 
 chapters of the Acts. Judaism and Christianity are 
 still closely united and blended in the creed of the 
 first Christians. Acts i.-v. : Union of the spirit of 
 Christianity with Jeivish tradition. 
 
 II. The second stage is marked by the episode of 
 Stephen. The conflict between the Jewish and 
 Christian principles, hitherto latent, breaks out in the 
 most violent manner in the speech and the death of 
 the martyr. Acts vi., vii. : Open struggle between the 
 Jewish and Christian principles. 
 
 III. The conversion of Paul is the third stage. 
 The conflict between the two principles, undetermined 
 by brute force, ends within the breast of Saul the 
 Pharisee, by the radical negation of the one and the 
 triumphant affirmation of the other. Acts ix. : Triumph 
 of the Christian over the Jewish principle. 
 
 Such is the progressive course of Luke's narrative ; 
 and it is in this historic sequence, and under this light, 
 that we must place and study the great event that 
 made Saul the apostle to the Gentiles. 
 
CHAPTER r. 
 
 I 
 
 THE FIRST CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AT JERUSALEM 
 — CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM. 
 
 ''T^HE first beginnings of the Christian Church are 
 1 involved in obscurity. For the period that 
 elapsed between the death of Jesus and the conver- 
 sion of Saul, of which we do not even know the 
 length, we have absolutely no information beyond 
 that afforded by the much-disputed record given in the 
 Acts of the Apostles.' But this obscure period lies 
 
 '■ We attach no value to the patristic, or heretical traditions of 
 the second century. They would not, we think, have deserved 
 even the honour of a critical discussion, if the results of Baur's 
 researches had not invested them for a time with some appear- 
 ance of credit. How is it possible to discuss with any serious- 
 ness the historical value of the narratives and descriptions of 
 the Clementine Homilies, — that romance in which the dreams 
 of the Gnostic are mingled with the fastidious scruples of the 
 Pharisee? They are not popular traditions, but the work of 
 fancy ; and one cannot think the representation they give of 
 Peter any more lifelike than that of the Apostle Paul. The 
 famous portrait of James furnished by Hegesippus, and pre- 
 served for us by Eusebius, has been, it is true, much more insisted 
 on : OvTOj e/c KOikias ■nj's ii.-qTpo% avrov ayioi ^v otvov kol 
 a-Uepa ovk eiruv, ovSe i/ji.^vxov itjtayev $vpbv im. rrjv Ke<j>aXriv 
 avTOv OVK arejSij' eXaiov ovk rjXutpaTO kol fiaXaveito ovk ixP"!' 
 craTO- - TOVTw jxovta i^^v eis tci ayia elcnivai- ovSi yap ipeovv 
 
 25 
 
26 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 between two other points of history with which we 
 are somewhat better acquainted. On one side is 
 Paul's testimony, which throws hght on the course of 
 things previous to his conversion ; on the other, from 
 what we know of the life and teaching of Jesus we 
 can infer, with a tolerable degree of certainty, the 
 position of the disciples immediately after His de- 
 parture. Thus two luminous rays from opposite 
 points focus themselves on this obscure interval, and 
 
 i(j)6p£i dWa CTLvSova'S, Kal fiovo's eicrrjp^eTO eis tov vaov, k.t.X,, 
 /f. E. ii. 23. What is there in this tradition or legend but a purely 
 ideal portrait ? Its elements are derived, not from popular 
 tradition, but directly from the Old Testament. They are made 
 up of the vows of the Nazarite, the customs of the Pharisees, 
 or perhaps the Essenes, and the prerogatives of the High 
 Priest : comp. Num. vi. 3, etc., and Lev. vi. 3, in the Septuagint. 
 The writer did not himself believe that James had ever been 
 High Priest, or worn a linen robe, or had sole right of entrance 
 to the temple — a fact sufficiently proving that his intention was 
 to draw an ideal portrait. And when, on the other hand, he 
 says that James was sanctified from his mother's womb, and 
 drank neither wine nor strong drink, and that no razor ever 
 touched his head, he was evidently thinking of the birth of 
 John the Baptist "(Luke i. 15), or of Samson (Judges xiii. 4). 
 Abstinence from meat, from ointment and the bath, was still 
 a feature of Jewish sanctity, and distinguished the Jewish fast, 
 in the days of Jesus (Matt. vi. 17). To the imagination of the 
 second century, this ascetic and Levitical righteousness seemed 
 the highest ideal of piety ; and the writer therefore wished to 
 represent the life of James as that of a Nazarite and perpetual 
 priest. Since James was not High Priest, is it any more certain 
 that he was an ascetic t The epistle which bears his name 
 gives quite a different idea of him. Instead of commending 
 legal sanctity, it rather opposes it (i. 27). In place of the pre° 
 judices of the Levite or Nazarite, he gives us reminiscences of 
 the Sermon on the Mount. Moreover, the categorical state- 
 ment of Paul (I Cor. ix. 5) authorizes us to believe that James, 
 
THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 27 
 
 they seem to us to set it in a fairly vivid light. Let us 
 first, therefore, gather the testimony of Paul, since this 
 alone can furnish a safe starting point for our inquiry. 
 The grand controversy maintained by Paul against 
 the Judaizers proves clearly enough the distinctly 
 Jewish character of the primitive Christian com- 
 munity. It does not prove, however, that this com- 
 munity was a mere Jewish sect, hardly distinguished 
 
 like Peter, was married, which is hardly consistent with the 
 account of Hegesippus. 
 
 Nor is James the only one who has been thus idealized. In 
 the second century all the apostles were represented as priests, 
 or ascetics. Thus Clement of Alexandria states that Matthew 
 abstained from meat and lived only upon vegetables [Padag. 
 ii. i). In the same way Polycrates, in his letter to Victor, 
 bishop of Rome, depicts John with the attributes of the High 
 Priest (os eycviy^ij itpeis to 'TreraXov 7r£<^opijKus, -^^ -£^. iii. 3 ')■ 
 Finally, about the same period, we find a legend arising which 
 makes Jesus Himself a priest, descended from the tribe of 
 Levi, as well as from that of Judah (Tes/ameni of the Twelve 
 Patriarchs, Levi 2 ; Simeon 7). On the origin and specific 
 character of these traditions, see Ritschl, Die Entstehung der 
 altkatholischen Kirche, 2nd edition, p. 178. These' traditions, 
 while giving us very useful and accurate information about the 
 spirit of the second century, teach us nothing whatever about 
 the rise of the Church ; and they are amongst the best proofs 
 which can be adduced to show that the Acts of the Apostles 
 was of eariier date than the period at which they originated. 
 
 In seeking^ to ascertain the ideas of the primitive Christians, 
 we should be better warranted in making use of the epistle of 
 James, the Apocalypse, or the Gospel of Matthew, which be- 
 long to Judaeo-Christian Christianity. But this would bring us 
 to the same result as that already obtained, only by a more 
 uncertain route. The authors of these writings are profoundly 
 Jewish ; but no one can deny that they have got beyond 
 Judaism, and that their creed already embraced the specific 
 principle of the new religion. 
 
28 THE APOSTLK PAUL. 
 
 from that of the Pharisees. On the contrary, Paul 
 himself held, and conveys to us, a very different idea 
 of it. The manner in which he regarded this society, 
 both before and after his conversion, is a decisive 
 proof that he discerned in it an essentially new ele- 
 ment. To this his former hatred and his subsequent 
 devotion alike testify. 
 
 Let us hear what he says of this Church: "You know," 
 he writes to the Galatians, " how I lived in Judaism. 
 I persecuted the Church of God beyond measure, and 
 laid it waste ; . . . , being full of zeal for the tra- 
 ditions of our fathers" (Gal. i. 13, 14). It is remark- 
 able, to begin with, that Paul never speaks of his past 
 life without associating as cause and effect his zeal 
 for Judaism and his hatred of the Christians : ihiwKov 
 Ttjv eKKk7)mav...^nX(OTr]'i vTrdp^tov ; comp. Philippians 
 iii. 5, 6, KUTo. vofjLov ^apiaalo'i, Kara f^Xo? Sicokwv frjv 
 eKKXrjaiav. In the eyes of the jealous Pharisee,' it 
 was a merit to persecute this new enemy of the faith 
 of his fathers. His observation, quickened by fana- 
 ticism, detected from the first under the Jewish 
 exterior of the Church that which so many modern 
 critics fail to recognise. 
 
 In the second place, Paul calls this primitive 
 Christian community the Church of God, t^v eKKkt)- 
 aiav rov Qeov (Gal. i. 13, and i Cor. xv. 9); on another 
 occasion, simply ?iadi par excellence, t'^c eKKktjaiav (Phil. 
 iii. 6) [the Church]. He calls the first Christians, of 
 whom he knew a great number, by the new name 
 of d8eX(/)ot (i Cor. xv. 6) [the brethren] ; or else 
 "the saints," oi ayioi(i Cor. xvi. i ; Rom. xv. 31). He ' 
 sets them before the Thessalonian Church as models 
 which he is glad to see them imitate. "You, brethren' 
 became imitators 0/ the Churches of God which are in 
 
THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 29 
 
 JudcBa, in Christ Jesus: for you have suffered the same 
 evils from your fellow citizens which they did from 
 the Jews, who have killed the Lord Jesus, and per- 
 secuted us" (i Thess. ii. 14, 15). The recollection of 
 having persecuted the Church of God continued 
 throughout Paul's life to be a cause of grief and 
 humiliation to him. He laments for it, as if he had 
 persecuted the Lord Himself On this account he 
 reckons himself last of the apostles, unworthy even 
 to be called an apostle ; he calls himself an abortion, 
 the chief of sinners (i Cor. xv. 8 ; i Tim. i. 13-15). 
 
 It is not the case then that there were two gospels, 
 the gospel of the Twelve and the Pauline gospel, 
 each the negation of the other. Paul found himself 
 in fellowship with the primitive Church. His faith 
 rested on the same foundation. The legitimate 
 existence of two apostleships, one appointed for the 
 evangelization of the Jew and the other for that of 
 the Gentile, he did indeed admit ; but never of two 
 essentially different gospels. He acknowledged but 
 one Gospel, which saved equally and in the same way 
 both Jew and Gentile. " If any man preach another, 
 let him be anathema" (Rom. i. 16 ; Gal. i. 7-9). 
 
 Here we are confronted withthe passage in Galatians 
 ii. 7-9: "When they saw that I had been intrusted 
 with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter with 
 the gospel of the circumcision (He that wrought in 
 Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision, having 
 wrought in me also for the evangelization of the 
 Gentiles), — recognising, I say, the grace that has 
 been committed to me, they gave me the right hand 
 of fellowship." Here, it is said, we have the two 
 gospels clearly defined and contrasted with each 
 other : evar/r/eKiov ttj^ uKpo^varias, eiayyiXCSv rrj^ 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 ireptTOfifji;. But who does not see that by these two 
 genitives Paul meant to indicate, not the dogmatic 
 content, but t/ie twofold destination of the Gospel ? 
 Besides, these words are clearly explained in the 
 succeeding verse, where the equivalent terms are sub- 
 stituted : TTj? 7r6j04TO/U,^s = ets airoaToKrjV t% irepi.TO/x'rj^ ; 
 T97? dKpv^vaTia<} = €k ra 'iOvq. And, what is more, the 
 apostle ascribes these two apostleships and the abun- 
 dant fruit they bore to one and the same act of God : 
 
 lyap evepyi}cTa<; UeTpw . . . KufjioL If two hostile 
 and contradictory gospels are in question, it must be 
 admitted that Paul attributes them equally to God as 
 their suprehie Author — a crying absurdity ! We have 
 here hot a dogmatic definition, but an ethnographical 
 delimitation of two missionary fields. The apostles 
 were able, therefore, without any hypocrisy to give 
 to each other the right hand of fellowship ; they felt 
 themselves to be standing on a common basis, which 
 was broad enough to support them all. 
 
 What was this common foundation, this identical 
 content of the twofold preaching, which, belonging 
 equally to both fields of labour, for that very reason 
 may be regarded as the primitive Gospel ? Paul has 
 stated it for us in the opening verses of the fifteenth 
 chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. There 
 he sums up the Gospel that he had preached at 
 Corinth, " I remind you," he Says, " of the gospel 
 which I announced unto you, that which also I 
 received, wherein ye abide firmly, by which ye are 
 saved. . . . Among the chief things (tv Trpmroi^), 
 
 1 taught you that Christ died for our sins, according 
 to the Scriptures ; that He was buried ; and that He 
 was raised on the third day, according to the Scrip- 
 tures.'' Then, after referring to the different appear- 
 
THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 31 
 
 ances of the risen Jesus, he adds : " This is what we 
 preach, whether it be I or they (the Twelve) ; and this 
 is what you believed" These last words apply not only 
 tp the appearances recorded above, but to the entire 
 summary of the apostle's preaching as just given. 
 
 Another passage in the same epistle, no less inte- 
 resting to study, shows us how the apostle estimated 
 the work that was being done by others alongside with 
 himself, and that which had been done before him in 
 the Church ; " According to the grace of God which 
 was given unto me, I have like a wise architect laid 
 the foundation, and another is building upon it. Let 
 each man take care how he builds upon it. No 
 other foundation can be laid than that which has 
 been already laid, — namely, Jesus Christ" (iii. 10, 11). 
 So far from reproaching Peter with having built on 
 a different foundation, Paul reckons him among the 
 number of those who were labouring at God's build- 
 ing. He neither commends nor blames him, leaving 
 to God the office of appraising the work of each 
 (iii. 22). In the. epistle to the Ephesians, Paul calls 
 this primitive foundation 6e)xk\iov t&v a-jroa-ToXcov 
 (ii. 20) ; and, farther on, he adds that the mystery of 
 Christ has been revealed to His holy apostles and pro- 
 phets, as never in former ages (iii. 5).' 
 
 We see with what absolute sincerity Paul attached 
 himself to the primitive Church. Does not this 
 evidence justify us in inferring the twofold character, 
 both Jewish and Christian, of this original com- 
 munity? Had it not been Jewish in its manner of 
 
 ' We are aware that tlie authenticity of these two last pas- 
 sages is questioned. But we only quote them as confirming 
 the previous citation. 
 
32 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 life and its hopes, the struggles and schisms that 
 followed would be inexplicable. But if, on the other 
 hand, it had not in the midst of its Judaism held fast 
 to the new principle of the Gospel,' Saul would never 
 have left Pharisaism for a sect which continued so 
 much like it ; at all events, he would not after his 
 conversion have remained in communion with it. 
 
 Between Jesus and Paul, then, the Church at Jeru- 
 salem formed a necessary connecting link. The sub- 
 sequent course of events can only be satisfactorily 
 explained by the original alliance existing in the faith 
 and life of the first Christians between the Gospel of 
 Jesus Christ and traditional Judaism. It is, in fact, the 
 combination of these two fundamentally hostile prin- 
 ciples which gives to this first period of the Church's 
 history its peculiar and primitive character. 
 
 In order to understand this unique historical situa- 
 tion, we must carry our thoughts back to the morrow 
 of the death of Jesus. The attitude assumed by the 
 disciples toward Judaism was the consequence and 
 continuation of that in which the Master Himself had 
 stood. 
 
 Now, the position of Jesus in regard to the national 
 religion had a twofold aspect He was emphatically 
 a Jew ; He sought to fulfil all righteousness. His 
 life was entirely confined within the limits of Judaism. 
 Nothing is more remarkable than the way in which 
 He has succeeded in bringing about, without any 
 violence, the greatest revolution that has ever taken 
 place. He brought into the world in His own 
 person a new principle of religious life. In pre- 
 senting Himself as the object of faith and love. He 
 instituted a new righteousness, and opened to men 
 
THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 33 
 
 a new way of salvation. Thus He supplied another 
 fulcrum in place of that on which the religious con- 
 sciousness of His disciples previously rested, substi- 
 tuting for their traditional faith an absolute devotion 
 to His person. When He met with a tradition of the 
 elders, or even an article of the law which opposed 
 the application of the new principle. He brushed it 
 aside with a sovereign authority. But His reforms 
 werie, nevertheless, as free from violence as His rever- 
 ence and obedience were from weakness. Jesus never 
 formally abrogated the authority of the law ; on 
 the contrary, He vindicated it, sometimes with great 
 solemnity : " I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." 
 In these words lies the secret of His action. Jesus 
 loved to present His gospel as the realization of 
 the ancient promises, the crown of earlier revelation. 
 So that His disciples, in devoting themselves unre- 
 servedly to His person and becoming His messengers, 
 did not in any way feel that they were seceding from 
 the chosen people. On the contrary, they held them- 
 selves to belong to Israel now more truly than ever, 
 and with a better claim than their fellow citizens 
 (Acts iii. 23). 
 
 But, on the other hand, the revolution not as yet 
 effected in their minds was nevertheless accomplished 
 as an objective fact. Calvary made an irrevocable 
 breach between the religion of the past and of the 
 future. Jesus, in dying, guaranteed His work against 
 any unintelligent or timid reaction. From the outset 
 He planted His cross between Christianity and 
 Judaism ; and so often as His disciples are tempted 
 to retrace their steps, they find it placed as an impas- 
 sable barrier between them and their nation. 
 
 The cross, in fact, was the real motive principle of 
 
 3 
 
34 THE APOSTLE PAUt.. 
 
 all the progress which ensued ; it was this which gave 
 impulse and impetus to the primitive Church, and 
 drove it irresistibly beyond the limits of Judaism. 
 In spite of all their attempts at conciliation, the cross 
 was destined to bring the apostles into conflicts, ever 
 renewed, with the Jewish nation (Acts v. 28). Mean- 
 while it weighed upon their secret thoughts and 
 wrought on them like an inward goad. They have 
 to justify the cross by the declarations of the pro- 
 phets, to discover the purpose of God in this in- 
 famous punishment ; in short, to prove its necessity 
 as an essential factor in the plan of salvation pre- 
 pared by God for mankind (Acts iii. 17, 18 ; viii. 31, 
 etc.). The terminus of this movement of thought is 
 found in the theory of redemption formulated by the 
 apostle Paul. Thus the external development of the 
 Church and the internal progress of the apostolic 
 doctrine equally proceeded from the cross of Jesus. 
 The apostles, to be sure, did not foresee all these 
 consequences. The principle of their faith and their 
 loyalty to their crucified Master were about to lead 
 them whither they would not. For a little while the 
 bark which bears them remains in harbour ; but the 
 last cords are already severed, the anchor is lifted, 
 and from that moment every impulse, every motion of 
 the waves serves to carry it farther from the ancient 
 shore of Judaism, to which it will never more return. 
 
 That which seems to us, more than anything else, 
 to characterize the narrative of the Acts is this same 
 latent dualism, this tranquil co-existence of Judaism 
 and Christianity in the primitive Christian life and 
 creed. The union is sincere, because it is complete. 
 It is, in fact, in this very simplicity of hope and this 
 
THE PRIMITIVE CIJRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 33 
 
 very behaviour that the striking originality of the pic- 
 ture of early Christianity consists. There is no trace 
 of any cornpromise between hostile tendencies ; the 
 two streams are intermingled, and blend in perfect 
 harmony. No one feels it necessary to renounce 
 Moses in order to remain faithful to Jesus. There 
 is actually so little contradiction between the old and 
 new faith, that in some cases conversion to the Gospel 
 awakened a new zeal for Judaism. 
 
 We find the early Christians observing the national 
 feasts and holidays (Acts ii. i ; xviii. 21 [?] ; xx. 6, 16 ; 
 Rom. xiv. 5). They take part in the worship of the 
 temple and the synagogue ; they pray at the cus- 
 tomary hours (chaps, ii. 46 ; iii. i ; v. 42 ; x. 9). They 
 observe the fasts, and undergo voluntary abstinence, 
 binding themselves by special vows like all pious 
 Jews (xiii. 2 ; xviii. 18 ; xxi. 23). They scrupulously 
 avoid unlawful food, and all legal defilement (x. 14). 
 They have their children circumcised (xv. 5 ; xvi. 3 ; 
 Gal. V. 2). In short, they are like the pious Ananias 
 in the eyes of the Jews at Damascus \avr)p evXa^rjsi] 
 Karh Tov vofiov (Acts xxii. 12); This scrupulous piety 
 won for them the esteem and admiration of the 
 people (chap. v. 13).* 
 
 The primitive Christians were Jewish alike irt their 
 idtas and their hopes. Their creed was still com- 
 prised in a single dogma : Jestts is the Messiah. This 
 simple proposition, as M. Reuss well observes, was 
 not new in respect to its attribute, but only as regards 
 its subject.^ Their preaching of the Gospel strictly 
 
 • See Reuss, Histoire de la thdologie chrHienne an slide 
 apostollque, vol. i., p. 282, 3rd edition. [Eng. trans., i , 249.] 
 " Reuss, Histoire, etc. vol. i., p. 284. [Eng. trans., i., 251.] 
 
j6 1HE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 followed the lines of Messianic tradition (i. 7 ; ii. 36 ; 
 iii. 20). They awaited, with almost feverish expecta- 
 tion, the approaching advent of their Master, and 
 pictured his return in colours and images wholly 
 borrowed from Pharisaism. 
 
 But in reality, all this formed only the outside of 
 their life and creed. The conception of the Messiah, 
 when applied to the historical person of Jesus, could 
 not fail to undergo a transformation. The kingdom 
 of God, which the apostles invited their fellow 
 citizens to enter, was from the first divested of its 
 political and terrestrial character ; it must be entered 
 by repentance and the remission of sins ; and the 
 Saviour of the nation becomes thus, in the nature of 
 the case, the Saviour of the individual. Herein lies 
 the profound significance of the miracle of Pentecost. 
 That day w^as the birthday of the Church, not because 
 of the marvellous success of Peter's preaching, but 
 because the Christian principle, hitherto only existing 
 objectively and externally in the person of Jesus, 
 passed from that moment into the souls of His 
 disciples and there attained its inward realization. 
 On the day of Pentecost memory became faith.^ 
 
 And thus in the very midst of Judaism we see 
 created and unfolded a form of religious life essen- 
 tially different from it — the Christian life. A new 
 flower blooms on the old stem. In the midst of the 
 national family, the first Christians felt themselves 
 brethren in a peculiar sense ; side by side with the 
 temple ritual, we find the more intimate and 
 
 ' See Neander's History of the Planting and Training of 
 the Christian Church j De Pressensd's Early Years of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 37 
 
 spiritual worship of the " upper room." Exhortation 
 and prayer, baptism in the name of Jesus, the 
 breaking of bread in commemoration of His death, 
 charity to the poor — here are present already all the 
 essential elements of Christian worship. 
 
 At the same time, by the natural effect of discus- 
 sion, the apostles gained a clearer understanding of 
 the new principle which animated them. Their faith, 
 which at first was nothing more than a powerful 
 sentiment binding them to Jesus, sought day by da)- 
 to attain a more just and exact definition of its 
 object. Peter at first simply designates Jesus as a 
 man approved of God (ii. 22) ; then, as the Holy and 
 Righteous One ; as the Prince and Leader of life 
 (iii. 14, 15). At last the new faith is revealed in its 
 full import in the courageous declaration of the 
 apostle : " Jesus is the stone which you builders 
 despised, and which has become the headstone of the 
 comer. In none other is there salvation : for there 
 has not been given to men any other name under 
 heaven by which they can be saved" (iv. 11, 12). 
 To the claim of Judaism to be the sole religion is 
 here opposed the equal claim of the Gospel. Conflict 
 was inevitable. 
 
 On both sides, it is true, there seem to have been 
 efforts made to prevent it. The Jewish authorities, 
 alarmed by their too easy triumph over Jesus, hesi- 
 tated to attack His disciples. They wished to have 
 no more to do with them ; they warned, and even 
 implored them. They could not make up their minds 
 to repress them by violence, and yielded readily to 
 the wise counsel of Gamaliel. The apostles, on their 
 side, seemed equally unwilling to precipitate matters. 
 In their naive expectation of soon seeing their whole 
 
38 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 nation converted, they avoided giving it offence. 
 If they recall the murder of Jesus, they hasten to 
 excuse it, on the ground of the ignorance of the per- 
 petrators and its Divine necessity (iii. 13-19). 
 
 But the logic of principles and events was to prove 
 too strong for this goodwill. The heads of the 
 nation contented themselves at first with forbidding 
 the apostles to speak in the name of Jesus. Un- 
 fortunately, this was the one point on which it was 
 impossible for them to obey. The prohibition led to 
 transgression ; and the transgression in its turn in- 
 evitably provoked violence. These first persecutions 
 stimulated the zeal and enthusiasm of the disciples, 
 and braced them for the struggle (iv. 24 ; v. 41). " It 
 is better to obey God than man." In this phrase 
 we hear by anticipation the farewell of the apostles to 
 national Judaism. 
 
 So, little by little, Christianity and Judaism came 
 to exhibit the hostility latent in their principles. Let 
 a man now arise bold enough to disentangle the two 
 systems and set them in antithesis, and we shall see 
 the great conflict begun by the discourses and the 
 death of Jesus break forth again as fiercely as before. 
 Such a man was Stephen, deacon and martyr. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 STEPHEN THE PRECURSOR OF PAUL. — COLLISION 
 BETWEEN THE JEWISH AND THE CHRISTIAN 
 PRINCIPLE (Acts vi., vii.). 
 
 THE first verses of the sixth chapter of the Acts 
 indicate a great change in the internal con- 
 dition of the primitive Church. At the same time, we 
 find ourselves apparently on firmer historical ground. 
 The early days of pure enthusiasm are succeeded by 
 a period of bitter divisions within, and fierce conflicts 
 without 
 
 The growth of the Church destroyed its internal 
 harmony. Opposing tendencies were aroused and 
 displayed themselves in its. midst. " In those days, 
 when the number of the disciples was increasing, 
 there arose a loud murmuring of the Hellenists 
 against the Hebrews, because their widows were 
 neglected in the distribution of relief" (vi. i). Is not 
 this an undeniable proof that the Judaic spirit, with 
 its prejudice and intolerance, survived in the Chris- 
 tian community? and may we not foresee already 
 something of the more ardent and serious struggles to 
 which this spirit was afterwards to give rise ? This 
 dissension was appeased, however, by a triumph of the 
 primitive spirit of charity. The seven deacons who 
 were appointed all bear Greek names. Probably they 
 were selected, by preference, from the aggrieved party. 
 
40 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 in order to prevent further complaints. Among these 
 deacons, Stephen was designated first, being a man 
 full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and of favour and 
 influence among the people. He had apprehended 
 the spiritual character of the Gospel better than the 
 apostles themselves, and surrendered himself with 
 absolute faith to the new principle.^ 
 
 He soon found himself in the forefront of the 
 struggle that was beginning against Judaism, carried 
 onwards by the boldness of his views quite as much 
 as by his zeal. To this struggle his intervention gave 
 a new turn. The apostles had remained on the 
 defensive in their preaching of Jesus ; Stephen broke 
 through this reserve, and boldly assumed the offensive. 
 In his public discussions he laid bare the materialistic 
 principle of Pharisaic piety ; he pointed out with 
 V nsparing plainness the secret cause of that invincible 
 obstinacy with which the Jews had always resisted 
 
 ' We consider that it was in this faith and holy inspiration — 
 that is, in a clearer comprehension of the gospel of Jesus — rather 
 than in his Hellenism, that the loftiness, courage, and spiritua- 
 lity of Stephen's thought had ^heir source. We believe, contrary 
 to the received opinion, thatfit is attributing undeserved honour 
 to the Hellenist Jews to regard them as a spiritual and liberally 
 minded party. They were treated somewhat with contempt, 
 because their origin appeared less pure ; but it is probable, as 
 in all analogous cases, that they cherished on this account a 
 more bigoted temper and a sterner zeal, in order to atone for 
 their foreign taint and efface the recollection of it. They attached 
 themselves to the Pharisaic party much more than to that of 
 the Sadducees. It was the Hellenists, indeed, who accused and 
 stoned Stephen. Saul was a Hellenist. It was Hellenist Jews, 
 again, who wished to kill Paul after his conversion (ix. 29). 
 And finally, the men who, on recognising Paul in the temple, 
 denounced and sought to slay him were Jews from Asia (xxi. 27). 
 
STEPHEN THE PRECURSOR OF PAUL. 4c 
 
 the word of God. His denunciations of their religious 
 formalism recalled sometimes those accents of the 
 Master which used to excite the Pharisees to fury. 
 This fury again awoke. The capital charge ' brought 
 against Jesus was renewed against Stephen ; false 
 witnesses again repeated the accusation, "We have 
 heard this man speak against the holy place and 
 against the law. We have heard him say that this 
 Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the temple, and change 
 the customs that Moses gave us " (vi. 13, 14).. 
 
 How far was this charge true or false? What 
 was the real idea of Stephen ? We can only learn 
 it through his discourse. This speech is divided into 
 .two parts, of very unequal length — one historical, and 
 the other personal. The fifty-first verse forms the 
 somewhat abrupt transition from the one to the other. 
 At first sight, one does not readily perceive the con- 
 nexion between this long defence and the accusation ; 
 and some interpreters, misled by this, have concluded 
 that we have not here Stephen's actual discourse, but 
 a free: historical composition which the author of the 
 Acts has substituted for it. That is only a superficial 
 judgment. When we study the address more closely 
 and grasp its main idea, we find it impossible to 
 imagine anything which could have met the accu- 
 sation more directly or gone more thoroughly to the 
 root of the matter, or any defence, on the whole, more 
 apt and eloquent. 
 
 What, then, is its pervading thought? This de- 
 clares itself in that same fifty-first verse which marks 
 the transition from the first to the second part of the 
 address. " You stiff-necked men,'' cries Stephen, " un- 
 circumcised in heart and ears, will you always resist 
 the Holy Ghost ? " This vehement apostrophe, with 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 which his long historical statement concludes, com- 
 pletely sums it up. Stephen, in fact, endeavours in 
 traversing the course of Israel's history to point out 
 and illustrate the perpetual conflict that existed be- 
 tween the unfailing mercy of God and the stubborn, 
 carnal obstinacy of the people. This tragic antithesis 
 is the one subject of his discourse. He seems, at the 
 first glance, to forget the accusation laid against him ; 
 but in reality he does not lose sight of it for a moment. 
 It is the constant goal to which every word is directed. 
 In rehearsing the conflicts of the past he is well 
 aware, and makes it very evident, that he is depicting 
 by anticipation the struggle in which at the present 
 moment he is himself involved. Besides, Stephen 
 had no other means of making himself listened to and 
 understood. To the High Priest's question. Is it true 
 what these men say? he could not answer directly 
 either Yes or No. He could not answer in the affir- 
 mative ; for in his eyes the Gospel was not the de- 
 struction of the law and prophets, but their fulfilment. 
 To answer No, would have been to deny his cause, 
 and to save himself by means of an equivocation. He 
 must explain, in order to defend himself; and what 
 better explanation can he offer, than to make his case 
 parallel with that of Moses and the prophets ? On a 
 similar occasion, Jesus had made much the same reply. 
 Stephen's discourse is the complement and develop- 
 ment of the parable of the Vineyard. The orator was 
 obliged to throw his speech into this historical form. 
 By doing so he gave the rage of his opponents time 
 to subside, and meanwhile secured the means of 
 showing clearly the true cause of their hatred. The 
 great epochs in the history of the Jewish people fur- 
 nish the main divisions of hi* -discourse. 
 
STEPHEN THE PRECURSOR OF PAUL. 43 
 
 The first extends from Abraham to Moses (vii. 
 2-19). The nation does not exist as yet ; but before 
 its birth it was the object of Divine favour ; for to it, 
 in truth, the promises given to the patriarchs were 
 made (vers. 4, 5, 7). 
 
 The second epoch Hes between Moses and David. 
 In referring to the first period, the orator has extolled 
 the goodness of God ; in describing the second, he 
 endeavours to depict with equal force the ingratitude 
 and carnal disposition of the people. This period 
 becomes typical. In Moses the deliverer (XvT/awT???), 
 Stephen enables us to recognise the image of a far 
 greater Deliverer. His unworthy reception, the oppo- 
 sition he met with and the incredulity with which his 
 word was received, are set forth in such terms "that 
 the history of Moses, by an easy transition, becomes 
 the history of Jesus acted out beforehand (ver. 35). 
 
 The third period comprises the times of David and 
 Solomon. Stephen breaks off at the building of the 
 temple. He does not, as some have thought, censure 
 the very idea of' such an undertaking; on the con- 
 trary, he sees in it a distinct fulfilment of God's 
 original promise made to Abraham : " They shall 
 worship Me in this place " (ver. 7). 
 
 He saw fit to confine his historical exposition be- 
 tween these two events — the prophecy, and its fulfil- 
 ment. In vain the nation displayed its ingratitude. 
 God remained faithful, and the temple was built. But 
 alap 1 this blessing produced no better result than 
 the rest. The carnal disposition of the people spoilt 
 it, and turned it into a cause of destruction. The 
 very temple where God should have been worshipped 
 in spirit and in truth, became the centre and support 
 of a bigoted and hypocritical piety. Instead of reveal- 
 
44 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 ing to all mankind the one universal God, who made 
 heaven and earth, it only served to limit and conceal 
 the majesty of Jehovah, This, we take it, is the true 
 interpretation of the passage, the most important in 
 the whole discourse, in which Stephen shows what he 
 really thought about the temple : "David found favour 
 before God, and asked that he might build a taber- 
 nacle for the God of Jacob ; and Solomon built Him 
 a house. But the Most High dwells not in houses 
 made by human hands, according to the prophet's 
 word : Heaven is My throne, earth the footstool of 
 My feet ; what house will you build Me ? saith the 
 Lord ; or what should be the place of My rest ? Is 
 it not My hand that has made all these things?" 
 (vers. 46-50.) 
 
 Thus had Stephen advanced slowly, but always in 
 a straight line, to meet the charge laid against him. 
 He now confronts and grapples with it directly and 
 without hesitation. His answer is deduced from this 
 prolonged narrative with overwhelming effect. It is 
 an old contention, this in which he is engaged — 
 the contention between God and His people. Is it 
 surprising that the people to-day show no more 
 intelligence, no better disposition than they had done 
 with regard to Moses, or the prophets, or Jesus ? 
 " Which of the prophets did not your fathers perse- 
 cute ? They killed those who foretold of the coming 
 of the Righteous One ; and when this Righteous One 
 appeared, you became His betrayers and murderers ! 
 You possessed the law, . . . and you did not keep it." 
 In other words, You are just like your fathers : 
 (B9 Of 7raT£/369 vjxwv Kul u/xet? (vers. 51-53). At this 
 point the position appears to be changed : the accused 
 has become judge of his accusers. But at the same 
 
STEPHEN THE PRECURSOR OF PAUL. 45 
 
 time he has anticipated, in his reading of the history 
 of the past, the fate which awaits himself and the 
 sentence about to fall upon him. 
 
 Stephen, in truth, did not for one moment deceive 
 himself. He knew his adversaries well. He has no 
 hope of either convincing or softening them. This 
 sense of the inevitable is manifest from the first. He 
 does not merely point out a few passing errors or 
 accidental failings ; his object was to denounce a 
 congenital vice, inherent in the very character of his 
 people and persisting through their entire history, — 
 a carnal disposition, insensible alike to chastisement 
 and grace, and which had borne the same fruit in 
 every age. Its present obstinacy, therefore, was no 
 matter for surprise. Such a people could not deny 
 its nature. This was a radical condemnation of 
 Judaism, such as the Pharisees had not heard since 
 the days of Jesus. Stephen only discloses this view 
 by degrees. At first, he keeps it back and holds his 
 audience in suspense ; but as he goes on, his purpose 
 grows clearer, and at each new stage of the history he 
 expresses himself more pointedly and plainly. His 
 hearers begin to murmur and grow excited ; Stephen 
 in slow and unrelenting tones unfolds before them 
 this humiliating history, in which all the time they 
 could recognise their own likeness. When at last he 
 has finished, and when, as he perceives, caution could 
 no longer serve him, he launches forth his whole 
 meaning in the apostrophe, "Ye stiff-necked and 
 uncircumcised," etc. Then the rage of his adversaries 
 bursts out in turn, and gnashing their teeth they 
 rush upon him. But they interrupted him too late. 
 Stephen has spoken. He yields himself to their fury ; 
 and his martyrdom completes his discourse. 
 
45 THE AfOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Stephen's heroic death has diverted attention from 
 the depth and force which characterize his mind. He 
 left Peter and the heroes of Pentecost far behind him. 
 He compelled Judaism and Christianity to assume 
 a sharper definition, to affirm their several principles 
 more clearly, and to separate. The negation of 
 Jewish privileges, the right of all men to share in the 
 kingdom of God, the universal and spiritual character 
 of Christianity, are the more immediate deductions 
 following from his discourse. The drama in which he 
 perished seems to have been the sequel and repetition 
 of that which cost the Saviour's life. He continued 
 the work of Jesus, and prepared the way for that of 
 the apostle of the Gentiles. Paul must have heard '• 
 his address, and in after days would often call it to 
 mind, when experiencing painfully in his turn the 
 invincible unbelief of his people. What has he done 
 more in the ninth and tenth chapters of his epistle to 
 the Romans than formulate dogmatically that decree 
 of reprobation, which we find in Stephen's discousse 
 set forth under the garb of history ? 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 PAUL'S CONVERSION. — TRIUMPH OF THE CHRISTIAN 
 PVER THE JEWISH PRINCIPLE (Acts ix. 4-22). 
 
 IT was in the breast of Saul that the violent conflict 
 raised by Stephen was decided, issuing in the 
 triumph of the Christian principle. But the signifi- 
 cance of his conversion can only be understood when 
 his Pharisaism has first been clearly defined. 
 
 I. Saul's Antecedents. 
 
 Saul was a Hellenistic Jew, born at Tarsus in 
 Cilicia. The fact that he was born at this brilliant 
 centre of Greek civilization has often been made too 
 much of. The influence of Greece upon the develop- 
 ment of his mind seems to have amounted to nothing. 
 The two or three quotations from Greek poets to be 
 found in his epistles and discourses (Acts xvii. 28 ; 
 I Cor. XV. 33 ; Tit. i. 12) are lines which had become 
 proverbial, and which Paul may frequently have 
 heard quoted in pagan society. There is a notable 
 resemblance between his style of writing and that of 
 Thucydides ; but it only proves the natural aiifinity of 
 their genius. Paul did not learn his dialectics in the 
 schools of the sophists or rhetoricians ; it has much 
 more in common with that of the Talmud and the 
 
 47 
 
48 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 rabbis than of Plato or Aristotle. Though be wrote 
 in Greek, he thought in Aramaic ; he seems to have 
 borrowed from Greece nothing but his vocabulary. 
 Out of these external elements he has created a 
 language of his own, vehement and original like 
 his genius. As for the universalism of his Christian 
 belief, that was due to anything rather than his 
 Hellenistic origin. As we shall see afterwards^ it is 
 not the citizen of Tarsus, but the Pharisee of Jeru- 
 salem that accounts for the apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 Paul himself has been careful in his epistles to demon 
 strate the purity of his Hebrew descent, and the strict- 
 ness of his Judaism. Note the significant gradation he 
 makes out in Philippians iii. 4-6, when enumerating 
 his advantages according to the flesh: Circumcised 
 the eighth day, he belongs to the family of Abraham ; 
 in this family, he belongs specifically to the race of 
 Israel ; within this race, he has sprung from the tribe 
 of Benjamin — that is, from the tribe which united 
 with Judah after the separation to form the kingdom 
 in which the great religious traditions of the Old 
 Testament were 'maintained in their purity and 
 vigour. Finally, among the descendants of these two 
 Jewish tribes, he belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, 
 the strictest and most loyal of Jews ; and in its 
 midst he was further distinguished by his remark- 
 able proficiency, and his persecuting zeal (Gal. i. 13). 
 
 We have every reason to suppose that, though he 
 was born at Tarsus, Paul was from tender infancy 
 brought up at Jerusalem, where he had a married 
 sister (Acts xxiii. 16). So we may conclude from a 
 passage in Acts xxii. 3, which we translate as follows : 
 " I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but nourished 
 and brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, 
 
PAUL'S CONVERSION. 49 
 
 and carefully instructed in the law of my fathers." ^ 
 His parents, intending him to be a rabbi, had no 
 doubt placed him at the school of the illustrious 
 Pharisaic doctor, who is still counted among the 
 highest authorities of the Mishna. There Saul re- 
 ceived the scholastic training of a rabbi, and exercised 
 himself for years in the subtle dialectics and the in- 
 genious and refined hermeneutics which characterized 
 the rabbinical teaching. This mode of teaching and 
 discussion had already been determined and formu- 
 lated by HiUel ; and we know what marked traces it 
 has left on Paul's great epistles.^ 
 
 It is, however, the substance rather than the form of 
 Paul's rabbinical teaching which we are most con- 
 cerned to understand. Paul, on becoming a Christian, 
 
 ' In this passage the words kv ttj troXa ravry must meaiv 
 Jerusalem, and not Tarsus. Paul was not only instructed, 
 TreTraiSevfieviK, but nourished and brought up from eariiest child- 
 hood at Jerusalem, avaTf.6pafifiivo^. This disposes of all the 
 conjectures that have been made about Paul's Greek education. 
 
 * On Hillel and Gamaliel, see Derenbourg: Essai sur Phis- 
 toire et la gdographie de la Palestine d'apres le Talmud, ^■p. 
 178, 187, and 239. Hillel, of whose family, along with the 
 traditions of his school, Gamaliel was the heir, seems to have 
 been, so far as we can judge, the Aristotle of rabbinical theology. 
 He classified and formulated the different rules of its scholastic 
 reasoning. Here is an example of his mode of discussion, 
 quoted by M. Derenbourg. The point in question was whether, 
 if the 15th Nisan, the Passover, fell on a Saturday, it was 
 lawful to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on that day. Hillel 
 answered in the affirmative, and established his assertion by 
 three reasons : (i) by an argument drawn from analogy. The 
 law of the Sabbath does not prevent the daily sacrifice ; there is 
 no more reason why the Paschal sacrifice should be forbidden. 
 — (2) By an argument A fortiori. If the daily sacrifice was 
 offered notwithstanding the Sabbath, when its omission was 
 
 4 
 
50 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 did not abandon all his former convictions ; for had 
 not many of his Christian ideas their roots in his 
 early faith ? What else, in fact, is his entire system 
 of doctrine but Pharisaism transformed and inverted ? 
 Unfortunately, we have only very vague and im- 
 perfect information about the doctrines taught in the 
 Pharisaic schools of the period. Nevertheless, it is 
 certain that the apostle's theology owed to Judaism 
 the general basis on which it rests. There is no need 
 of appealing to external documents of doubtful 
 authority, in order to discover the exact nature of 
 this basis. It will be enough to note in his epistles 
 the general ideas which had their origin in Judaism. 
 We shall thus be able to trace the traditional mould 
 in which Paul's system of thought was cast from the 
 beginning. His theology continued to be Jewish to 
 a much greater extent than has been commonly 
 supposed. 
 
 From the Old Testament Paul drew the primary 
 and fundamental ideas of his system : the ideas of 
 God, of revelation, of righteousness, and of holiness. 
 He is essentially Jewish, in what one might call his 
 mental categories, and in the general point of view 
 
 not punishable by extermination, how much more should the 
 Passover be, seeing extermination was the punishment for its 
 omission. — (3) By an exegetical argument. It is ordained that 
 the act should be fulfilled at its appointed time ; if that means 
 in spite of the sabbath in the case of the daily sacrifice, it must 
 have the same meaning respecting the Passover. Is not this 
 the very logic used by Paul in his discussions? Comp. i Cor. 
 ix. 8-10 ; Gal. iii. 15 ; 2 Cor. iii. 7 ; Rom. v. 12. Beside these 
 three kinds of argument there were four others, not less exactly 
 defined. There was evidently a complete organum taught in 
 these schools and there acquired by Paul, who mastered and 
 wielded it with wpnderfiil effect. 
 
PAUL'S CONVERSION. 51 
 
 from which he considers the relation of God to the 
 world. The God of Paul is the God of the old cove- 
 nant ; He is the God of Abraham, of Jacob, of Moses 
 and the prophets ; He is the One, the jealous God, 
 the absolute Creator of the universe, who manifests in 
 His works the signs of His divinity ; He is the one 
 God, living and true (i Cor. viii. 4-6 ; x. 26 ; Rom. i. 
 20, 23 ; I Thess. i. 9 ; i Tim. vi. 15, 16). This God 
 was the God of Israel in a peculiar sense, because He 
 had entered into a special covenant with them, and 
 had given them the oracles and promises in trust 
 (Rom. iii. 2 ; ix. 4, 5). On this account, the Old 
 Testament still possesses the authority of a Divine 
 revelation (i Cor. xv. 4 ; Gal. iii. 8) ; it is the revela- 
 tion of the holy God, with whom we can have no 
 peace without perfect purity of heart. Hence Paul's 
 lofty conception, at once moral and religious, of 
 Sncai,offvvrj, and the correlative idea of sin ; whose 
 tragic conflict in the apostle's soul was the starting 
 point of his whole spiritual development. 
 
 Paul regards the pagan world as did the Pharisees 
 of his day. Paganism is the kingdom of darkness 
 (2 Cor. vi. 14). The heathen know not God ; they 
 adore the creature instead of the Creator (i Thess. 
 iv. S ; Gal. iv. 8). They were at once diriaToi and 
 avojjLov (2 Cor. vi. 14 ; Rom. i. 24-26 ; i Cor. vi. 6). 
 And lastly, as opposed to the Jews, they are essen- 
 tially aiMaprmXoi (Gal. ii. 15). 
 
 It was to Pharisaism, again, that Paul w^as indebted 
 for his notions respecting angels and demons. 
 Ranged in different orders, the angels surround 
 God's throne (Col. i. 16 ; Rom. viii. 38). They take 
 part in the government of the world, and will accom- 
 pany Christ at His coming (i Thess. iv. 16). The 
 
52 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 idea of the intervention of angels at the giving of 
 the law on Mount Sinai, Siarayeh 8t' ajye^wv 
 (Gal. iii. 19V belongs likewise to the Judaism of that 
 day. To the host of angels is opposed that of the 
 demons, with Satan at their head. It was he who 
 long ago tempted Eve, under the form of a serpent 
 (2 Cor. xi. 3). Since then he has never ceased his 
 endeavours to beguile men into sin (i Thess. iii. S ; 
 
 1 Cor. vii. S), or to torture them by the infliction of 
 physical pain (i Cor. v. 5 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7). His proper 
 domain is heathenism ; and he is the real object of 
 the worship of idolaters. He is the god of the present 
 age, as opposed to Christ, the King of the age to come 
 (2 Cor. iv. 4). 
 
 For Paul, in fact, as for the Pharisees, the history 
 of humanity had two great divisions : the existing,, 
 and the future age (Eph. i. 21). The latter is to be 
 inaugurated by the glorious return of Christ, of which 
 the apostle has the same conception as the other 
 disciples of Jesus (i Cor. vii. 29 ; i Thess. iv. 16; v. 2; 
 
 2 Thess. i. 7 ; I Cor. xv. 51, 52). The first period was 
 one of sin, suffering, and death ; the second will be 
 one of holiness and life. Adam is the head of the 
 old humanity ; the Messiah is the head of the new. 
 
 We know, further, that the doctrine of Predes- 
 tination, whose roots are found in the prophetic 
 teaching of the Old Testament, had been developed 
 and formulated in the Pharisaic schools. Here, no 
 doubt, lay the origin of the Pauline predestination. 
 The doctrine of the resurrection and of the last 
 judgment are derived from the same source. " The 
 
 ' Comp. Acts vii. 53; Josephus, Ant xv. 5, 3; and Deut. 
 xxxiii. 2, according to the LXX. 
 
PAUL'S CONVERSION. 53 
 
 Pharisees," Josephus tells us, " think that everything 
 which happens has been -decreed beforehand by 
 destiny. They do not on that account deny the 
 agency of the human will ; for it has pleased God 
 that the decrees of destiny and man's free will should 
 coincide, whether in respect of the practice of virtue 
 or of vice. They believe that souls possess an im- 
 mortal energy, and that beneath the earth are rewards 
 and punishments for those who in this life have lived 
 virtuously or otherwise ; that the souls of the latter 
 shall be imprisoned there for ever, while the rest shall 
 speedily be restored to life." ' 
 
 In the last place, is it not to the rabbinical theology 
 that Paul is indebted for his anthropological views ? 
 He did not invent his division of human nature 
 into trdp^, yfrv^^, vvevfia ; for it can be traced back 
 to the very phraseology of the Old Testament. The 
 idea of original sin hereditary in Adam's race seems 
 likewise to have been formulated by Pharisaism. It 
 was evidently a complete body of doctrine, coherent 
 and systematic, that Paul learned at the feet of 
 Gamaliel, This system he has greatly modified ; but 
 for all that, one can easily discern that the new edifice 
 contains much of the material of the old, and follows 
 the main lines of its construction. The mental bio- 
 graphy of Paul which we propose to relate is simply 
 the progressive transformation, under the influence 
 of the Christian principle, of that Pharisaic theology 
 which formed the object of his original faith. 
 
 The soul of Saul's Pharisaic creed was the hope of 
 the Messiah (2 Cor. v. 16), a hope which fired both 
 
 ' We quote this passage as it has been restored and trans- 
 lated by Derenbourg, op. cit., p. 123. 
 
54 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 heart and imagination. His convictions were his 
 life ; he surrendered himself to them unreservedly. But 
 this ardent piety, these holy ambitions and deep crav- 
 ings, and the absolute logic which Paul brought into 
 his Pharisaism, supplied the very force which was des- 
 tined, in driving him forwards, to carry him beyond it. 
 Let us observe here that dominant feature of Paul's 
 character which enables us to coniprehend, if not to 
 account for, the great change that took place in him. 
 We refer to his passion for the absolute. Paul's 
 was, in fact, a mind simple and complete — all of a 
 piece — one that must above everything be logical. 
 He sees in a principle all the consequences that it 
 involves ; and detects the principle in each of its 
 manifold consequences. It was of no use to speak to 
 him of degrees of truth, of accommodations or com- 
 promises ; he marches by way of a radical negation 
 to an absolute affirmative. His intellectual tempera- 
 ment was naturally intolerant. To him truth and 
 error, so far from being matters of degree, stand like 
 good and evil in radical contradiction. It is not 
 surprising, therefore, that a mind of this cast failed to 
 acquire the breadth of view and moderation of temper 
 which distinguished his master Gamaliel. He has 
 himself described what he must have been at this 
 period of his life: "You know my past life in Judaism ; 
 I excelled in zeal most of my companions in age, 
 showing myself specially zealous for the traditions of 
 my fathers " (Gal. i. 13). The teaching of the rabbis, 
 the prophetic sayings of the Old Te.stament, the 
 theocratic dreams of his contemporaries — he received 
 them all with eagerness and emphasis ; he systema- 
 tized and formulated them into a complete, coherent 
 whole. It was altogether an ideal world that this 
 
PAUL'S CONVERSION. 55 
 
 Pharisee contemplated within his soul. But the more 
 he clung to these hopes, the more he had to suffer 
 from the existing state of things. How melancholy- 
 was the contrast between his radiant inward vision 
 and the sorrowful state of his people around him ! 
 And this contradiction had no possible solution, from 
 the Pharisaic point of view. The future appeared 
 even more threatening than the present. Does not 
 this bitter consciousness; this incongruity eiidured 
 with so much impatience, explain Saul's furious 
 hatred against the new sect of Christians ? For its 
 scandalous progress was hastening the inevitable 
 destruction of Judaism. 
 
 In another direction Saul encountered an equally 
 hopeless contradiction. There was in this Pharisee 
 something still more absolute than his intellect, 
 —his conscience. In vain would he have sought to 
 satisfy it with a partial righteousness ; it demanded 
 nothing less than perfect holiness. This ideal of holi- 
 ness was set up in the written law ; and with this law 
 his conscience entered into an incessant and unequal 
 struggle, in which it was always and inevitably worsted. 
 Every fresh effort resulted, of necessity, in a more 
 humiliating defeat. He has himself described this 
 mournful struggle in the seventh chapter of the 
 epistle to the Romans. " It was through the law that 
 I knew sin; for I had not known coveting, except the 
 law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking 
 occasion from the commandment, wrought in me all 
 manner of coveting ; for without the law sin is dead. 
 Once on a time, without the law, I was indeed alive ; 
 but when the commandment came, sin recovered life, 
 and I died ; and the commandment which had been 
 given me to bring life, proved a cause of death" 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 (Rom. vii. 7-12). Thus Paul found the very power 
 in which he trusted for salvation rise against him and 
 overwhelm him. The situation was without escape ; 
 it could end only in despair (Rom. vii. 24). 
 
 It was doubtless in the midst of these experiences 
 that Paul encountered Stephen. With our know- 
 ledge of his temperament, we may safely assume that 
 he was one of those Jews from Asia and Cilicia who 
 maintained the cause of the temple and the law 
 against the disciple of Jesus (Acts vi. 9). The temp- 
 tation of breaking a theological lance with Stephen was 
 one he could not resist ; he listened to his discourses, 
 and was present at his death. Stephen's arguments 
 and his serene faith could not fail to touch him, 
 and to awaken reflection. Perhaps it was then that 
 he felt in his conscience for the first time the goad 
 of Jesus (Acts xxvi. 14). It was not from this cause, 
 however, that he became a Christian. Not only is 
 it the case that Paul never refers his conversion to 
 Stephen ; he forbids, most explicitly, any such ex- 
 planation by his solemn declaration that he was not 
 taught by any man, and does not hold his gospel in 
 charge-from any man. 
 
 Between the death of Stephen and Paul's first 
 preaching of Christianity at Damascus, there took 
 place in his life that mysterious event to which he 
 attributes his conversion and apostleship, and of which 
 we must now ascertain the true character. 
 
 II. The Appearance of Jesus to. Paul. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles contains three accounts 
 of this event — one given directly by Luke (ix. I-22), 
 the other two taken from the lips of Paul (xxv. 1-2 1 ; 
 xxvi. 9-20). 
 
PAUL'S CONVERSION. 57 
 
 There are some variations in the three narratives. 
 According to the account in the ninth chapter, Paul's 
 companions heard the voice which spoke to him ; 
 according to that in the twenty-second, they did not. 
 The ninth chapter states that they saw no one ; the 
 two others, that they saw at any rate a dazzling light. 
 In the first account, they remain standing ; in the 
 third, they fall to the ground. And, lastly, the words 
 which Jesus is said to have spoken to Paul, vary in all 
 three reports. What the Saviour said to him, accord- 
 ing to chap. xxvi. i6, is in the twenty-second chapter 
 put in the mouth of Ananias (ver. 14). 
 
 How did these differences arise ? Schleiermacher's 
 school tried, for some time, to account for them by 
 the variety of sources from which the author drew his 
 narrative ; but even a superficial comparison of the 
 three recitals shows clearly that they were drawn up 
 by the same hand, and had one and the same origin. 
 There is therefore no occasion to inquire, as has some- 
 times been done, which is the most accurate. 
 
 Could these differences have had a dogmatic reason? 
 Did they serve to express in each instance some 
 special aim pursued by the author? So thought 
 Baur. In the first account, he says, the historian, 
 narrating the event from an objective point of view, 
 lays stress upon the external circumstances of the 
 event in order to prove its absolute reality. The 
 two other accounts, put in the mouth of Paul, are 
 from a more subjective point of view.^ But of what 
 value is this distinction ? Was Paul, when speaking 
 •before the Jews at Jerusalem, or before Agrippa, less 
 concerned than Luke to prove the substantial reality 
 
 Baur, Panlus, 2nd ed., pp. 72, 73. [Eng. trans., i., 65, 66.] 
 
5S THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 of this fact ? Were this explanation as legitimate as 
 it is arbitrary, it would still in reality explain nothing. 
 The first account, it is said, dwelling on the objective 
 reality of the miracle, makes out that Paul's com- 
 panions heard the heavenly voice. But why did not 
 Luke add that they saw the lightj as appears in the 
 second account? and that instead of standing they 
 fell to the ground, as in the third ? Are not these 
 two latter circumstances as appropriate as the first 
 to prove the external reality of the vision ? or could 
 it be said that they better accord with the subjective 
 point of view of the later accounts, than with the 
 objective standpoint of the first ? 
 
 M. Zeller, unable to accept this explanation, offers 
 us another. According to him, the author has been 
 guided by a literary caprice, not by any dogmatic 
 purpose. He is indifferent to historical accuracy 
 and careless of self-contradiction ; his discrepancies 
 are such as to show that pious imagination played 
 a leading part in the composition of his narrative. 
 But are we to admit that our author has modified his 
 first account with the sole purpose of variety, or that 
 in order to avoid monotony, he went to the length of 
 contradicting himself? 
 
 Can it be correct to assert, in the face of the con- 
 trary evidence of his prologue, that the author of the 
 Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles cared 
 nothing for historical truth? Do we not find him 
 scrupulously anxious about accuracy, always trying 
 to trace things to their beginning, to get at the 
 original witnesses, and to explain the facts in their 
 true origin and connexion? Supposing he is some- 
 times in error, has he not succeeded in makino- 
 certain parts of his work pass for the journal of an 
 
PAUL'S CONVERSTON. 59 
 
 actual companion of the apostle Paul? Can we 
 fairly accuse the man who wrote the last chapters 
 of the Acts of indulging an arbitrary fancy ? 
 
 These divergences are absolutely inexplicable on 
 any hypothesis which assumes that the author was 
 aware of them, and designed them to serve some 
 doctrinal or literary purpose. It is obvious to any 
 unprejudiced mind that they were undesigned, and that 
 they entirely escaped the writer's notice. They are 
 discrepancies of precisely the sort that one always 
 finds existing in the most faithful repetitions of the 
 same narrative. Their explanation lies in their very 
 triviality. They cannot in any way affect the reality 
 of the event in question; They arise at certain ex- 
 treme points belonging to the mere circumference of 
 the narrative. They do not even belong to the cir- 
 cumstances accompanying the miracle, but only to 
 the subjective impressions made by them upon Paul's 
 companions. On this point the record was liable to 
 much more variation, as these impressions could not 
 have been the same in all cases, nor described by all 
 with the same exactitude. 
 
 To draw from these discrepancies an argument 
 against the historical character of the narrative seems 
 to us a forced and arbitrary proceeding. If they 
 were perfectly reconcilable, or even if they had never 
 existed, those who will not admit the miracle would 
 just as decisively reject the testimony of the Acts of 
 the Apostles. As Zeller frankly acknowledges, their 
 denial of the miraculous rests on a philosophical 
 theory, the discussion of which lies outside the scope 
 of historical research.^ 
 
 • Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 197. [Eng. trans., i., 291.] 
 
6o THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 For our part, we cannot set aside this triple record 
 quite so easily. We find it repeated at the end of 
 the book, in that fragment which in the judgment 
 of the majority of critics is the authentic testimony 
 of a friend of the apostle. This being so, it is natural 
 to suppose that Luke's narrative was derived from 
 the testimony of Paul himself; and it only remains 
 to ascertain how far it is confirmed by the apostle's 
 statements in his own epistles. 
 
 It is a point of the utmost importance to observe 
 that Paul knows absolutely nothing of any progressive 
 stages or gradual process in his conversion to the 
 Gospel. He looked back to it throughout his life as 
 a sudden, overwhelming event, which surprised him 
 in the full tide of his Judaic career and drove him, in 
 spite of himself, into a new channel. He was van- 
 quished and subdued by main force (Phil. iii. 12). 
 He is a conquered rebel, whom God leads in triumph 
 in face of the world (2 Cor. ii. 14). If he preaches 
 the Gospel, he cannot make any boast of doing so ; 
 he was compelled to preach it, under a higher necessity 
 which he had no power to resist. There he stands, 
 — a slave in chains! (i Cor. ix. 15-18.) 
 
 Independently of this general impression, Paul 
 makes three express statements on the subject, which 
 we must consider with close attention. 
 
 The first of these passages, where Paul undoubtedly 
 is referring to his conversion, is Galatians i. 12-17. 
 He only describes it there as an inward experience. 
 One day it pleased God, who had set him apart from 
 his mother's womb, to reveal His Son in him, in order 
 that he might go and preach Him to the heathen. 
 Paul here refers his conversion and his apostleship 
 to the same date, and the same cause. His one object 
 
FAOVS CONVERSION. 61 
 
 being to set forth the Divine origin and absolute 
 independence of' his gospel, he contents himself with 
 presenting the inner phase of his conversion {airo- 
 KoXvi^ai Tov vlov avTov iv ifioC), and makes no 
 reference to the special means employed by God to 
 bring about in him this work of grace. Two remarks 
 will show, however, that the idea of a miraculous and 
 direct revelation from Christ is none the less involved 
 in this passage. In the first place, while attributing 
 his conversion to the grace of God as its prime cause, 
 he at the same time gives as its proximate and 
 effectual cause the personal intervention of Jesus. 
 This comes out clearly in the first verse of the epistle, 
 where the name of Jesus occurs even before the name 
 of God ; and it is expressly signified in ver. 12, where 
 Jesus Christ is spoken of, not as the object alone of 
 Divine revelation, but even as its Author.^ 
 
 Secondly, Paul regards his conversion as a sudden 
 occurrence, an event sharply defined and associated 
 with certain external circumstances of time and place. 
 He observes, for instance that it happened in the 
 midst of the war he was carrying on against Chris- 
 tianity, overtaking him while yet a busy and zealous 
 persecutor. Furthermore, he remembers that it took 
 place in the neighbourhood of Damascus (Gal. i. 17); 
 and that, from this moment, his life followed an 
 entirely different course. Thus in three essential 
 points — the personal intervention of Jesus, and the 
 
 ' At' dn-OKaXvi/ftcos 'Irjcrov 'Kpurrov. These two last words 
 form what the grammarians call a subjective genitive. They 
 indicate not the object, but the author, the subject of the revela- 
 tion, as is proved by the words irap dvOputrrov, to which these 
 are the antithesis. 
 
62 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 time and place at which it occurred — the story told us 
 in the Acts is indirectly, but distinctly, confirmed. 
 
 While in this passage of Galatians Paul only brings 
 out the inner aspect of his conversion, we find him 
 dwelling quite as exclusively on its exterior and 
 objective nature in the two passages remaining for 
 our consideration. The first is in i Corinthians ix. i : 
 "Am I not an apostle'i Have I not seen the Lord 
 Jesus ? " Paul here associates his apostolic call with 
 the manifestation of the Risen One, shared by him 
 with the other apostles ; he links them to each other 
 as effect and cause. 
 
 The objective reality of this manifestation is still 
 more apparent in the second passage (i Cor. xv. 8), 
 where Paul puts it on a level with that of which the 
 Twelve were witnesses. "Lastly, and after all the 
 others, Christ appeared to me also, as to an abortion.'' 
 These last words (axnrepel tS iKTpa)fj.aTi) should be 
 noted. Only one interpretation is possible: that already 
 given by Grotius, and accepted by Baur. An eKrpcofia 
 can only mean a foetus torn violently and prematurely 
 from'' the maternal womb ; as Grotius has well ex- 
 pressed it, /loc ideo dicit, quia non longa institutione ad 
 Christianismum perductiisfuit, quo esset velut naturalis 
 partus, sed vi subita, qicomodo ifnmaturi partus ejici 
 Solent. How could Paul indicate more pointedly than 
 he does in this expression the objective nature of 
 the force exerted over his mind at his conversion ? 
 
 Whatever the fact may be, no critic will now deny 
 that Paul maintained throughout his life that he had 
 witnessed an external appearance of the risen Christ. 
 Baur contends that the apostle spoke of the matter 
 always with reserve, and with a kind of shame, as 
 though he felt instinctively that he was standing on 
 
PAUL'S conversion: 63 
 
 somewhat unstable ground. But what ground is 
 there for this assertion? Are the two passages in 
 the Corinthian epistle, in which the external side of 
 the occurrence is specially emphasized, of less impor- 
 tance than that in Galatians, which chiefly reveals its 
 internal character ? If Paul bases the independence 
 of his gospel on the inward revelation, does he not 
 regard the external reality as the source and proof of 
 his apostleship ? Does it seem as though he referred 
 but timidly to this manifestation? We are bold to 
 affirm the contrary. If in 'his epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, he makes no. more than a passing reference 
 to the event, it is because the Corinthians already 
 knew about it. The apostle, in the first verses of 
 the fifteenth chapter, is only summing up his pre- 
 vious teaching ; and among the leading facts, which 
 he dwelt ori before everything else (eV Trptorot?), he 
 mentions in its turn this appearance to him of the 
 risen Jesus. . Does not this strongly suggest to us 
 that he must have already related the great event in 
 detail, and given an account at Corinth similar to 
 the one we have in the book of the Acts ? 
 
 Paul's testimony, therefore, is explicit and incon- 
 trovertible. But though we may not mistake its 
 import, is it not possible to diminish its weight ? 
 The evidence, it is said, proves that Paul believed 
 in the reality of the manifestation, — nothing more, 
 How shall we educe the external reality from this 
 personal and subjective conception? Unquestionably, 
 criticism may push its demands in this way to a point 
 at which of necessity any positive proof becomes im- 
 possible. This style of reasoning tends to nothing less 
 than the destruction of all historical certainty ; for, 
 in point of fact, history, depends on nothing else than 
 
64 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 subjective and individual testimony. This universal 
 scepticism disarms assailants and defenders alike ; 
 on its terms, negation and affirmation are equally 
 unwarrantable. But the evidence of Paul is a fact ; 
 as such, it must have had a cause and demands an 
 explanation. To call it inexplicable, as Baur seems 
 to do, is to leave the door open for the supernatural. 
 
 This M. Holsten, the boldest and most faithful of 
 his disciples, sees clearly enough. This writer has in 
 his very remarkable work applied all his resources, 
 the closest logic and most penetrating observation, in 
 his attempt to explain the origin and natural forma- 
 tion of this conviction in the apostle's mind. But has 
 his criticism solved the psychological problem thus 
 presented to it? That it has done so, no one, I 
 think, will venture to affirm. M. Holsten himself, 
 after all his endeavours, remains in doubt ; he does 
 not mean, he declares, to insist on the truth of his 
 solution, only on its possibility. Practically, it 
 amounts to the well-worn vision-hypothesis. Saul 
 drew from Messianism the principal features of the 
 person of Christ which he claims to have seen. So 
 that all the materials of his vision were ready to 
 hand. Furthermore, he had a natural tendency to 
 ecstasy ; his physiological, no less than his spiritual 
 constitution predisposed him to it. He had a ner- 
 vous disposition easily over-wrought, a sanguino- 
 bilious temperament ; and was very delicate, subject 
 probably to epileptic attacks (2 Cor. xii., 7). That 
 he had revelations and visions, both his epistles and 
 the Acts assure us ; he spoke with tongues, worked 
 miracles, had the gift of prophecy, and often boasts 
 of his spiritual charismata (i Cor. xiv. 18 ; Gal. ii. 2 ; 
 2 Cor. xii. 1-9). What was the appearance of Christ 
 
PAUL'S CONVERSION. 6? 
 
 at his conversion but the first of these ecstatic visions, 
 and that which gave rise to all the others ? ^ 
 
 Much might bre said on the details of this argument, 
 which is full of disputable points. The passage in 
 2 ■ Corinthians xii. I-9 supplies its nucleus, and is 
 indeed its only ground of support. This text, how- 
 ever, not only fails to establish M. Holsten's theory; 
 properly understood, it even furnishes, to our thinking, 
 a decisive proof against it. It shows that Paul, so far 
 from comparing the manifestation of Christ to him at 
 his conversion with the visions he afterwards enjoyed, 
 laid down an essential difference between them. At 
 the beginning of chapter xii., Paul proposes to give 
 a full account of his visions, and commences with the 
 first, which, far from being confounded with his con- 
 version, is dated at least five years later (jrph erwv 
 SeKarea-crdpaiv). He ^oes violence to his feelings. in 
 making known this private aspect of his life. At 
 the fifth verse he is checked by this repugnance, this 
 sacred modesty, and suddenly takes quite the opposite 
 course. Instead of glorying in his privileges, he will 
 only glory in his infirmities. The visions referred to 
 in this passage, it would seem, he had never previously 
 related; and just as the insults of his enemies were on 
 the point of compelling him to do so, he checks him- 
 self and again drops the veil over these; mysteries of 
 his spiritual life. His ecstasies and visions do not 
 belong to his ministry, and are not for others, only 
 for God and himself: ehe yap i^ea-Trjfiev, ©ecu- eire 
 crcD(f)povovfj.ev, vfj2v (2 Cor. v. 13). But so far from 
 .speaking of his conversion in the manner in' which 
 
 ' Holsten, Zmn Evangeltum des Petrus und des Paulics. — 
 Christusvision des Pauhts. Rostock, 1868. 
 
66 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 he speaks of his visions, Paul shows neither reluctance 
 nor embarrassment in describing it ; it was one of 
 the staple subjects of his preaching. . He spoke, in 
 short, of the appearance vouchsafed to him with the 
 same confidence with which the Twelve related those 
 which they had witnessed. This event belonged not 
 to the sphere of Paul's private and personal life 
 (indicated by the words elre e'^ecrrij/iev), but to that 
 of his apostolic life, aptly characterized in the phrase 
 etre aeoippovovfj,ev, v/juv. Paul therefore perceived 
 an essential distinction between these two orders of 
 facts, corresponding to that which existed between 
 the two different spheres of his life to which they 
 belonged. 
 
 To make a second and equally decisive observation, 
 Paul knew that his visions were spiritual charismata, 
 effects of the Spirit. He ascribes them to the Spirit's 
 agency as their true cause ; whilst he attributes his 
 conversion to a personal and corporeal intervention of 
 the risen Jesus. In the phenomena of his visions he 
 was transported, ravished into ecstasy, carried to the 
 third heaven : at his conversion, Jesus descended to 
 him and appeared before him in the midst of his 
 ordinary life. Moreover, though Paul had several 
 visions, he states that he had seen the risen Lord but 
 once, and that this appearance was the last made by 
 Jesus on earth. In the consciousness of the apostle 
 there must therefore have existed a broad line of 
 demarcation between the series of appearances then 
 terminated {^eayaTov hi ttuvtoiv, i Cor. xv. 8), and the 
 ecstasies and visions which lasted throughout the 
 apostolic age. How could this marked distinction 
 have arisen, except from the conviction that the ap- 
 pearances of the risen Lord had a real and objective 
 
i'ACJL'S CONVERSION. 67 
 
 character, such as the spiritual visions of ecstasy did 
 not possess. 
 
 Finally, if Christ's appearance to Paul had been an 
 -inward vision, it must have been not the cause, but 
 the product of his faith. How could the mind of 
 Saul the Pharisee have created such a vision, unless 
 he were a Christian already? and if, on the other 
 hand, he were a Christian already, how could he have 
 attributed his conversion to this cause? Such a 
 transformation makes the enigma still more obscure. 
 M. Holsten's ingenious explanations leave the mystery 
 just where it was.^ 
 
 These considerations, it seems to us, deprive the 
 vision-hypothesis of all exegetical support. And we 
 must not forget that the question of Saul's conversion 
 is not to be explained as a mere isolated fact. It is 
 attached to the question of the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ, and bound up inseparably with it. The solu- 
 tion we give to the former of these miracles depends 
 upon that of the latter. Any one who accepts the 
 ^Saviour's resurrection would hardly find it worth 
 while to question His appearance to this apostle. 
 But the critic who, before entering on the question, 
 is absolutely persuaded that there is no God, or that 
 if there is. He never intervenes in human history, 
 will doubtless set aside both facts, and would have 
 recourse to the vision-hypothesis, were it ever so 
 improbable. The problem is thus carried from the 
 field of history into that of metaphysics, whither we 
 must not pursue it. 
 
 ' See Beyschlag's excellent criticisms on the vision-hypo- 
 thesis, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1864 and 1870. 
 
68 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 III. Paul's Conversion and his Theology. 
 
 It only remains to define the dognnatic significance 
 of this conversion. It was the generating fact, not 
 merely of Paul's apostolic career, but of his theology 
 besides. We find in this event — latent in the spiritual 
 experiences and feelings attending it — all the great 
 ideas and the leading antitheses which characterize 
 his doctrinal system. His conversion was the fruit of 
 God's grace, manifesting itself in him as a sovereign 
 power which triumphed over his individual will. 
 Paul rose from the ground the captive of that Divine 
 grace to which henceforth he was to surrender him- 
 self without reserve or condition (Gal. i. i6). Here 
 are, in effect, the two terms of that universal anti- 
 thesis which dominates his thought — God and man, 
 grace and liberty, faith and works. 
 
 Embraced within this wide antithesis, we must 
 notice another, which is still more conspicuous, — I 
 mean the radical opposition that displays itself be- 
 tween law and faith, between the Gospel and Judaism. 
 
 The other apostles came to Christ through the 
 medium of the Old Testament and the prophecies. 
 For them there was, as one might say, a raised 
 ladder, which they climbed step by step, finding Jesus 
 at the summit. In their eyes, the Law and the 
 Gospel had never been in opposition ; they had never 
 felt it necessary to renounce the old covenant in order 
 to enter upon the new. This was the real cause of 
 their hesitation and perplexity, when confronted with 
 the great revolution that was about to take place. 
 
 But Paul, from the first, was in a totally different 
 position. The Gospel and Judaism had always 
 seemed to him absolutely and radically opposed (Phil. 
 
PAUL'S CONVERSION. 09 
 
 iii. 7, etc.). The antithesis existed in his mind before 
 his conversion ; and it remained there. His conscience, 
 laid hold of by God's grace, was abruptly and vio- 
 lently forced from one extreme to the other. 
 
 His adhesion to the Gospel was, above everything 
 else, the complete negation of his previous life. For 
 this reason it was that his doctrine and his career 
 only attained their full development in the conflict 
 between Judaism and Christianity — the old things 
 and the new. The two terms of this dualism con- 
 tinued to be the poles round which all his theology 
 revolved. This conversion, as we see, exemplifies in 
 the most striking manner the utter impotence of the 
 ancient principle of justification by the works of the 
 law, and the triumph of the new principle of justi- 
 fication through faith and the grace of God (Rom. 
 vii. 24, 25). Here lies the germ of the whole Pauline 
 system. Our task will be to trace its progressive 
 development during the rest of the apostle's life. 
 
 To seek the origin of Paul's Christian universalism 
 in his Hellenism is dierefore, manifestly, an entire 
 mistake. It is rather to be found in his rigid 
 Pharisaism. We may safely say that if Saul had 
 been less of a Jew, Paul the apostle would have been 
 less bold and independent. His work would have 
 been more superficial, and his mind less unfettered. 
 God did not choose a heathen to be the apostle of 
 the heathen ; for he might have been ensnared by the 
 traditions of Judaism, by its priestly hierarchy and the 
 splendours of its worship, as indeed it happened with 
 the Church of the second century. On the contrary, 
 God chose a Pharisee. But this Pharisee had the 
 most complete experience of the emptiness of external 
 ceremonies and the crushing yoke of the law. There 
 
'I HE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 was no fear that he would ever look back, that he 
 would be tempted to set up again what the grace of 
 God had justly overthrown (Gal. ii. i8). Judaism 
 was wholly vanquished in his soul, for it was wholly 
 displaced. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. 
 
 WE are now in a position to understand the 
 essential principle of Paul's gospel, and the 
 leading elements which, from the beginning, entered 
 into its working and form the creative factors of his 
 Christian theology. 
 
 The origin of his gospel, as we have just seen, is 
 to be found in his conversion. Paul has well defined 
 it in those three words by which he characterizes the 
 essential content of this Divine revelation: It pleased- 
 God to reveal His Son in me, a-KoicaKv-^ai tov vVov 
 avTov iv i/jLOi (Gal. i. i6). The object of this revela- 
 tion, therefore, was simply the person of Christ. 
 There is, as we have already said, no question here 
 of that external manifestation which accompanied his 
 conversion, but only of a revelation or inward illumi- 
 nation. A veil had concealed from the Pharisee's 
 eyes the Divine glory of the crucified One. The 
 cross was to him a mystery, and a scandal (i Cor. i. 
 18-24; ii. 9, 10). This veil was now removed ; and 
 on the instant what seemed luminous before was 
 darkened, and what was dark came into light. 
 Light, the most radiant, burst suddenly out of 
 thickest darkness. We find a very exact and vivid 
 reminiscence of this marvellous phenomenon in a 
 
 71 
 
72 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 passage which is, in truth, beyond translation : Otl o 
 060? o etVcbv Ik (tkotov^ <pa)^ XayU.i|rat, os eXajx-^ev ev 
 Tah KapBiaK rj^iaiv, irpo'i (pai Tia-fiov tt)^ lyvc'oaeai^ ttJ? 
 Sd^Tj? Tov Qeov iv vpocrco'TTq) Xpicnov (2 Cor. iv. 6). At 
 that decisive hour Paul saw shining on the brow of the 
 victim of Calvary the Divine glory of the Son of God. 
 
 But there is still more in these words, a-rroKakv^ai 
 TOV vlov avTov iv €/j,oL In the same epistle Paul 
 declares, when wishing to describe his life since his 
 conversion : " li is no longer I that live, it is Christ 
 that lives in me " (Gal. ii. 20 ; Phil. i. 2 1 ; Col. iii. 3, 4). 
 His conversion, therefore, was something beyond a 
 mere illumination. It was a profound crisis of his 
 soul. The old Ego had been done away, and a new 
 Ego emerged, whose vital principle is Christ Himself. 
 Paul's conversion was nothing less than the spiritual 
 entrance, the birth of Christ in his soul. • In this 
 lies the full significance of the phrase, airoKaXv^ai 
 iv ifjioi. We find here for the first time that pre- 
 position eV which occurs so often in the apostle's 
 language, and which always indicates a mystic ar^d 
 indefinable communion. 
 
 Such is the mysterious source of his life. Here also 
 lies the root of his whole system of thought. We see 
 what depths it reached, depths from which it drew 
 unceasingly that rich nourishment which kept it 
 ■always fresh and has given it an undecaying youth. 
 Had Paul's theology been merely an abstract system, 
 it would long ago have disappeared, to be found 
 to-day only in the history of philosophy, — that her- 
 barium of dead and desiccated ideas. But it lives 
 and is still fruitful, because it is the manifestation 
 of the immortal life of Christ Himself. 
 
 What is that Christ who thus became the fountain 
 
THE GETSTESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. i% 
 
 of the apostle's new consciousness and new life ? The 
 words of 2 Corinthians v. 14-17 come to our aid, com- 
 pleting and defining, in the clearest .manner possible, 
 the sense of the Galatian passage which we have just 
 been studying. "We are possessed by the love of 
 Christ, judging that if one died for all, all died with 
 Hiin ; and He died for all, in order that the living 
 should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him 
 who for their sakes died and rose again. Henceforth 
 we know no man after the flesh. And even though 
 we have kmnvn Christ after the flesh, yet nozv we kiioiv 
 Him so. no more. If any one is in Christ, he is a new 
 creature. The old things are passed away ; all things 
 are become new." 
 
 Now what is it to have known Christ after the flesh, 
 and to cease to know Him in that character ? In the 
 apostle's life, these words can only refer to the period 
 preceding his conversion. What then is the Christ 
 whom Paul knew previous to that event? It was not 
 the human and historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, 
 whom most certainly he did not know as Christ.i 
 The only Christ whom he knew before his conversion 
 was the Jewish Messiah, a national, exclusive Messiah, 
 who should win his triumph by carnal means. This 
 Christ he knows no longer. By His death and re- 
 surrection Jesus destroyed this carnal notion of the 
 Messiah ; and these events presented Him as a new 
 Christ, a Christ Kara Tri/evfia. But all Christians had 
 
 ' This does not imply that Saul, brought up in Jerusalem 
 from his childhood, studying at the feet of Gamaliel, and having 
 a married sister in Jerusalem, might not have met Jesus, and 
 heard Him preach in the temple. On the contrary, we consider 
 that this is probable, arid that his conversion, independently of 
 human agency, cann ot be very well explained otherwise. 
 
74 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 not reached this point ; a great number of them, for- 
 getting the cross, hid the true character of Jesus 
 behind the carnal glory of the Jewish Messiah, and 
 doing so, knew nothing but a Christ according to the 
 flesh, — that is Christ without His death and resurrec- 
 tion. It was quite another Jesus {'Irjaovv dXXov) 
 whom Paursi adversaries preached at Corinth (2 Cor. 
 xi. 4). For Paul, in fact, there was an old and a new 
 Christ, just as there was the old man, the man after 
 the flesh, and the new man, the man after the spirit 
 (to, apx<'-'i'0; 'ra Kaivd: v. 17). Christ had died, -and by 
 His death abolished the flesh and all the relation- 
 ships designated by this word. The men who are in 
 Christ died and are raised with Him, and appear in 
 Him as new men ; so that we may truly say that we 
 no longer know any one after the flesh, since through 
 this great crisis of death and resurrection everything 
 has been transformed, both with regard to the Head 
 and the members ; the old things are passed away, 
 and everything made new. The Christ who entered 
 the soul of Paul and dwelt there, was the Christ who 
 had died and risen again ; for this reason He has 
 effected so radical a change. It is not enough to 
 say that the death of Christ disturbed Saul's early 
 conceptions ; it has slain the Pharisee in him. By 
 learning to know this new Christ, Saul is raised from 
 the dead to a new life. 
 
 Thus, from the very beginning, the whole Christian 
 life of Paul depended on the death and resurrection 
 of Jesus. These two great events first made for 
 themselves in his heart the place that they were sub- 
 sequently to occupy in his theology. How could it 
 be otherwise? The death of Jesus, which had been to 
 him the great scandal, must needs, in the very nature 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. 75 
 
 of things, become the great mystery. In proportion 
 as Saul had been revolted by it, Paul was to devote 
 himself to it. The object of his repugnance became 
 his boast and the mainstay of his faith. The point 
 where human wisdom stumbled, became that in which 
 the wisdom of God was triumphantly displayed. This 
 logical reversal of his views was so radical and so 
 complete, that henceforward, in his eyes, the whole 
 life of Jesus and the entire Gospel are summed up in 
 the cross. His preaching is nothing more than a 
 X6709 Tov aravpov ; he would fain know nothing but 
 Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ crucified (i Cor. i. 18, 
 23, 24 ; ii. 2). 
 
 To this object all Paul's thoughts were linked, as 
 to their organic centre ; this was their starting point, 
 from which we shall find them advancing in all 
 directions under the vigorous impulse of his dialectic. 
 The resurrection of Jesus was the triumphant proof 
 that this crucified man was the Messiah, the Son of 
 God ; but such a death as that of the Son of God 
 could in no wise be an accident, occurring without 
 cause or consequences. If it has taken place, it 
 must have been necessary ; and it has served to 
 carry out God's own plan. What then is the mean- 
 ing of this death ? Death is the wages of sin ; Christ 
 not having known sin, did not die for Himself, but 
 for humanity. His death could be nothing else than 
 a sacrifice, through which, in the view of faith, the 
 justifying grace of God is realized (Sixaioavvrj &€ov). 
 We will not push this deduction further at present. 
 The great theory of redemption was certainly not 
 formed in the apostle's mind in a single day, and we 
 do not wish to anticipate ; but we have here its out- 
 line very clearly indicated. 
 
76 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 ■ Such is the essential content and the creative 
 principle of that gospel which Paul justly claimed to 
 have received as a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. 
 He was on this matter, to use one of his own expres- 
 sions, emphatically God-tauglit. He might well call 
 this gospel my gospel, — that which had been given 
 him by God, and made his own by close assimilation. 
 On it he has stamped ineffaceably the mark of his 
 original genius. 
 
 I. Paul and the Historical Christ. 
 
 But the fact that this inner revelation of Christ is 
 independent of all human tradition makes it the more 
 important to determine the relation in which it stood 
 to the actual life and teaching of Jesus, and the nature 
 of the link which united Paul's new consciousness 
 to the historical personality of the Saviour. The 
 question amounts to this : To what extent was Paul 
 acquainted with Christ's earthly life .■' and what in- 
 fluence did this knowledge exert on the formation of 
 his views'? 
 
 We consider that the Tubingen school has dis- 
 missed this question altogether too lightly. Accord- 
 ing to that school, Paul was either very imperfectly 
 acquainted with the life and historical teaching of 
 Jesus, or else he despised its traditions as being a 
 knowledge of Christ according to the flesh, such as 
 would have made his gospel dependent on the teach- 
 ing of the first apostles. But these two explanations 
 are equally baseless. The first is only supported by 
 2 Cor. V. i6, a passage which we have already dis- 
 cussed. The distinction Paul makes there between 
 Christ after the flesh and Christ after the spirit, as we 
 have seen, is not a distinction between the historical 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. 77 
 
 Christ and the Christ dwelhng in himself. Besides, 
 we cannot see how the traditional knowledge of the 
 doings and sufferings and teaching of Jesus could 
 possibly interfere with the independence of his 
 apostleship or the originality of his gospel. It is 
 very clear that this external knowledge, however 
 minute and exact it mav have been, could not of 
 itself make him an apostle, nor even : convert him. 
 Before his conversion, he had no doubt heard many 
 particulars respecting Jesus of Nazareth ; but they 
 remained in his memory as so much foreign and dead 
 matter, altogether beyond his understanding. The 
 inward revelation, while it irradiated his soul, lighted 
 up at the same time the historical life of the Crucified. 
 So far from being contradictory, this revelation and 
 that external knowledge of Christ lent mutual con- 
 firmation ; each was necessary to the other. Without 
 the former, the historical tradition is mere worthless 
 and inert matter ; without the second, the inward 
 revelation could have produced only an idealistic 
 theology, having no root in the realities of history. 
 The two are related to each other as the soul is to 
 the body, and form in combination an indissoluble 
 organic unity. 
 
 At first sight, Paul's knowledge of the historical 
 Christ seems to have been very limited ; and we are 
 "surprised, on first examining his epistles for this pur- 
 pose; to find so few allusions to the events of the life 
 of Jesus and so few quotations from His discourses. 
 But we should be mistaken in yielding to this first 
 impression ; and it may very readily be explained. 
 
 Modern criticism, which detects- so many subtleties 
 and such delicate shades of meaning, sometimes fails 
 to perceive the simplest and most obvious things. It 
 
JS THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 has forgotten, for instance, that Paul was a missionary 
 before he was a theologian, and that he preached the 
 Gospel in places where neither Jesus nor the Messiah 
 had ever been heard of - Must he not then, of neces- 
 sity, have described this strange Person and explained 
 His title? Must he not have given in the syna- 
 gogues of Asia such a conception and impression of 
 Jesus — His life, miracles, death, and resurrection — 
 that candid minds were naturally led to declare, This 
 Jesus was the Christ ? Can we imagine the apostle's 
 missionary preaching apart from these conditions ? 
 
 But all this early preaching and historical instruc- 
 tion about the life of Jesus necessarily belonged to a, 
 period of Paul's life antecedent to that which gave 
 birth to his great epistles ; and these letters, therefore, 
 though not containing many Gospel narratives, assume 
 in their believing readers a previous and fairly detailed 
 acquaintance with the history of Jesus. Let us try to 
 gather up the passing allusions and brief indications 
 which are found scattered throughout them ; when 
 collected, they will be found, as a whole, more 
 definite and substantial than at first sight one could 
 have ventured to hope.^ 
 
 The first epistle to the Corinthians shows us what 
 place Christian tradition held in Paul's preaching 
 (i Cor. xi. 23, XV. 1-9). The death and resurrection 
 of Jesus no doubt formed the centre of his earlier 
 ministry. But the importance of the theological ideas 
 which he attached to these great facts only made his 
 care in relating them the more signal. He did this 
 
 ' See Parch, Jahrbiicher fur deutsche TheoL, 1858, pp. 1-85, 
 Paulus und Jesus ; and Keim, Geschichte Jesn von Nazara, 
 vol. i., p. 35 {Zeugniss des Paulus). [Eng. trans., i., 54-64.] 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. 
 
 with such exact and vivid detail, that after his 
 description of the great scenes of the passion, his 
 listeners felt as if they had seen them with their own 
 eyes : oM kut' 6^da\/j,ov^ 'Ji;troD? XpicrTcx; 7rpoeypdi}>T) 
 iv v/jLiv edTavpiofjievof (Gal. iii. i). What Paul had 
 done in Galatia, he had certainly done at Corinth, and 
 in all the Churches of Asia (i Cor. xi. 23, xv. 1-9). 
 
 Among these historical details we may note several 
 preserved in his letters, which are identical with those 
 found in the Gospels. They were the rulers of the 
 people (oi ap-)(^ovre'i) who condemned Jesus (i Cor. ii. 
 8; Acts xiii. 27; comp. Matt. xxvi. 3). It was through 
 an act of treachery, perpetrated at night {vvktI 
 TrapeSiSero), that He fell into their hands. In the 
 course of this night, and before His betrayal, Jesus, 
 during His last repast with His disciples, instituted 
 the holy supper. The account that Paul gives of this 
 in I Corinthians xi. 23 corresponds literally with that 
 in Luke's Gospel. 
 
 Paul knows that the Saviour's passion was the 
 time of His weakness, and of His entire desertion ; 
 and that He was overwhelmed with afflictions and 
 outrages, — accepted without a murmur (2 Cor. xiii. 
 4 ; Rom. XV. 3-6). Many other passages assume 
 previous descriptions of His sufferings and death (ttjv 
 veKpaaiv rov 'Irjcrov •n-epicpepovre';, 2 Cor. iv. lO ; comp. 
 Gal. vi. 17; Col. i. 24). According to Paul, Jesus 
 was fastened to the cross with nails, and His blood 
 poured forth (Col. ii. 14 ; comp. John xx. 25). The 
 comparison he makes between this death and the 
 sacrifice of the Paschal lamb tells us the exact time 
 of its occurrence (i Cor. v. 7), 
 
 With no less precision Paul had related the burial 
 and resurrection of Jesus. The words of i Corinthians 
 
So THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 XV. 1-9, are nothing else than, a summary of his 
 preaching on this point. This resurrection occurred 
 on " the third day." That we have here an historical 
 statement, and not the application of a saying of 
 prophecy, is proved by the substitution in the Pauline 
 Churches of the first day of the week for the Sabbath 
 (i Cor. xvi. 2). Finally, Paul seems, in this same 
 chapter, to have arranged the different appearances 
 of the risen Lord in chronological order ; and every- 
 thing that follows leads us to infer that he had 
 moreover insisted on the external and corporeal 
 nature of this resurrection. 
 
 The apostle, therefore, was perfectly familiar with 
 the last scenes of the life of Jesus, and told the story 
 of them With great exactness. The passion and resur- 
 rection of Christ were not to him, as to, the Gnostics, 
 a pair of abstract notions, — the passion and triumph of 
 an -ideal Christ resembling the Sophia of Valentinus ; 
 they were historical and concrete facts, preserved 
 in their actual character, and with all their accom- 
 panying circumstances. He sets before us the 
 veritable cross on which Jesus of Nazareth had hung 
 but a few years ago ; the tomb where His body was 
 buried, and from whence He rose in triumph. Even 
 had it been impossible to prove that Paul knew any- 
 thing else of the historical life of Jesus, the manner 
 in which he has examined and estimated these two 
 great events sufficiently proves the connexion of 
 his faith with the historical Christ, and forbids our 
 reducing his theology to mere idealism. 
 
 When he has related these last events in such 
 detail, can we believe that the apostle ignored all 
 that belonged to the previous life of Jesus ? Is it a 
 very hazardous conjecture to suppose that during his 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. 8 1 
 
 fifteen days' visit to Peter at Jerusalem after his con- 
 version, he questioned him minutely about the life 
 of their common Master ? Surely the term which 
 Paul employs in Galatians i. i8, Icrropfjaai Krj^dv, 
 allows us to think so. Besides, how could this eager 
 follower of Jesus Christ do other than seize upon and 
 master all that wealth of Gospel tradition so piously 
 preserved by the early Christian communities, and 
 reproduced in our first three Gospels ? 
 
 If he never appeals to the Saviour's words to 
 establish or defend his doctrines, this fact, however 
 strange it may appear to us, encumbered as we are 
 with scholastic methods, has nevertheless a cause 
 and an explanation other than that of ignorance 
 or contempt. The apostle was far from regarding 
 the teaching of Jesus as a collection of sayings, an 
 external law or written letter (ypd/x/Ma), which he 
 had nothing more to do than to quote at every turn. 
 Christ was to him, above all things, a life-giving 
 spirit, an immanent and. fertile principle, producing 
 new fruit at each new season. There was such a 
 perfect identity in his eyes between the historical and 
 the indwelling Christ, that he never separates nor 
 distinguishes them, and even attributes to the former 
 that with which the latter had inspired him, and to 
 the latter that which unquestionably he owed to the 
 former. We find a remarkable example of this 
 identification in i Corinthians xi. 23. 
 
 But was this a purely subjective idea ? When Paul 
 expresses his certainty that his apostolic teaching 
 is indeed the faithful interpretation of the Master's, 
 is he the victim of an illusion ? Or is it not more 
 natural to suppose that he had studied the discourses 
 of Jesus, and knew them well enough to feel sure 
 
 6 
 
82 TBE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 that no one could seriously bring any of Christ's 
 words in argument against him ? If, after all, we still 
 feel surprise at not meeting with more frequent quota- 
 tions in his epistles, we must remember that the epistle 
 of Peter, the Apocalypse, the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 the first epistle of John contain still fewer. From the 
 beginning, Christ was not so much the herald or 
 preacher of the Gospel, as Himself the object of the 
 apostles' faith and teaching. To know what Christ 
 had said or done seemed less important than to lov^ 
 Him, to receive Him, and to give oneself to Him. 
 
 There certainly existed for Paul, as for the other 
 apostles, an objective, traditional teaching of Jesus. It 
 is enough to recall the care and exactness with which 
 he has preserved and transmitted to the believers 
 at Corinth the very words used in instituting the 
 Lord's supper (i Cor. xi. 23). The whole discussion 
 on marriage and celibacy, which occupies the seventh 
 chapter of the same epistle, furnishes a proof yet 
 more decisive. The apostle distinguishes with perfect 
 clearness between the Saviour's express command 
 and his own inspiration, and repeatedly sets them in 
 contrast : ovk ijo). dX\a K.vpto<; — eyta oy^ 6 Kvpioi 
 (i Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25). The commandment Paul 
 refers to is found in the Gospels ; and on the points 
 concerning which he declares he has received nothing 
 from the Lord we find, as a matter of fact, that 
 Jesus was silent. Should any one, notwithstanding 
 this remarkable coincidence, refer this commandment 
 to an inspiration from the indwelling Christ, he must 
 in that case admit that when Paul gives his personal 
 opinion in the 2Sth verse {yvco/j.'rjv St'Sto^t), he is 
 speaking independently of his apostolic inspiration. 
 But this is to come into collision .with the 40th verse, 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. 83 
 
 Avhere he appeals to his inspiration for the very pur- 
 pose of justifying this opinion : " I believe that I also 
 have the Spirit of God." 
 
 In chapter ix. 14 there occurs another quotation, 
 introduced in a still more remarkable manner. The 
 apostle wishes to establish the right of evangelists to 
 live by the Gospel. He first gives a rational argu- 
 ment, drawn from the nature of things ; then an 
 exegetical argument taken from a passage in the 
 Law : " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth 
 the corn " ; and finally he completes his proof by 
 quoting a positive command of the Lord : 6 KiJpto? 
 Sterafei' (comp. Matt. x. 10 ; Luke x. 7). Evidently 
 the word of Jesus comes in at the last, as the supreme 
 and decisive authority. Observe further, throughout 
 this passage, the images Paul employs to describe 
 the work of the Gospel ; they are the same that Jesus 
 loved to use : <f)VTeveiv dfiTreXuva, •jroifiaiveiv Trol/J-vrjv, 
 aveipeiv, Bepi^eiv, dporpLuv. Reminiscences like these 
 are scattered through all the epistles : 
 
 Comp. Rom. xii. 14, 17, 20 with Matt. v. 44, etc. 
 „ I Thess. V. I, etc. „ Matt. xxiv. 36, 44. 
 „ I Cor. xiii. 2 „ Matt. xvii. 20. 
 
 „ Acts XX. 35. 
 
 Paul does not relate the events of the life of Jesus 
 to any larger extent than he quotes His discourses ; 
 but he assumes that they are known to his readers. 
 To people who had never heard the principal Gospel 
 narratives, his epistles would present insoluble enig- 
 mas at every line. I need no further proof of this 
 than the manner in which the apostle of the Gentiles 
 'Speaks of the Twelve, and of the brethren df Jesus 
 and His relations with them. 
 
 There is .one thing, however, calculated to impress 
 
84 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 US more powerfully than all these isolated facts. It 
 is the general picture Paul draws of the Saviour's life, 
 so exactly answering to the impression left on us by 
 the Gospel narratives as a whole. Jesus was essentially 
 man ; nothing at first sight distinguished Him from 
 other men (Rom. v. i S ; Phil. ii. 7). He was born a 
 Jew ; he lived under the law (Gal. iv. 4) ; He confined 
 His ministry to the people of Israel, and continued 
 till the end the minister of the circumcision (Rom. xv. 
 8). The apostle speaks of Jesus as Jesus Himself 
 speaks of the Son of man : He was poor, despised, 
 humble, obedient ; He did not come to be ministered 
 unto, but to minister ; He took the rank and the form 
 of a servant ; His whole life was service and obedience 
 {^laKovla, viraKori). It is perfectly true, as Baur ob- 
 serves, that Paul views the Saviour's life throughout 
 in the light of His death, and sees in this death the 
 climax of His ministry and the consummation of 
 His obedience. But was it not from the same point 
 of view that Christ Himself regarded His life and 
 work ? See Matt. xx. 28 ; Luke xxii. 27 ; Mark 
 X. 38 ; John xii. 27. 
 
 The Christ who lived in the apostle's newly 
 awakened consciousness was, therefore, by no means 
 a mere ideal and subjective image. This indwelling 
 Christ remained at the same time an external type — 
 One whom Paul cherished in his memory and strove 
 daily to know and imitate more perfectly. Indeed, 
 the imitation of Christ is, as we know, an essential 
 principle of the Pauline ethics ; and does not this 
 principle imply of necessity an objective and his- 
 torical model, which every believer keeps before his 
 eyes (i Cor. xi. i ; Phil. ii. 5)? In this way, Jesus 
 is at once the immanent principle of sanctification 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. 85 
 
 in the man, and the ideal of hoHness realized before 
 his eyes. It is impossible to detect any contradiction 
 or breach between the indwelling and the historical 
 Christ. The latter was essentially spirit {irvevixa}. 
 During His earthly life this Divine force was loca- 
 lized ; it was inclosed in the limits of the flesh. But 
 when the flesh was destroyed by death, this Divine 
 force, which was the very soul of Jesus, displayed 
 all its expansive power. Poured into the heart of 
 believers, it made not only Christ's memory live again 
 there, but His actual holiness. Christ Himself be- 
 came the believer's interior life. 
 
 Thus we see how the two Christs continued one, 
 and how the apostle passed from the one to the other. 
 Instead of being opposed in his ideas, they could 
 not exist apart from each other ; they are mutually 
 dependent and confirmatory. From this intimate 
 blending of history and faith, of the subjective and 
 objective in his mind, the Pauline theology resulted ; 
 and in this combination lies its distinguishing feature. 
 In brief, the apostle was so fully inspired by Jesus 
 of Nazareth and understood Him so. well, that his 
 apostolic teaching, with all its originality and in- 
 dependence, was, notwithstanding appearances, an 
 entirely faithful interpretation of the Master's views. 
 
 II. Paul's Use of the Old Testament. 
 
 Besides this primary external factor in the genesis 
 of Paul's system of thought we must notice a second, 
 which, though much less important, was equally 
 essential. I refer to the Old Testament, and the use 
 which the apostle continued to make of it after his 
 conversion. 
 
 The faith in the Son of God, which had seized him 
 
86 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 in his Strict Pharisaism, had destroyed the unity of 
 his religious consciousness. He found himself placed 
 between the ancient and venerated revelation which 
 he could not possibly renounce, and the new revelation 
 which had been forced upon him. So soon as the 
 contending emotions of the first few days were passed, 
 Paul must at once have set to work to re-establish 
 the unity of his belief, and recover peace of mind. 
 Nothing furthered the development of his views more 
 than this long internal struggle. 
 
 The first result of the revolution which had been 
 wrought in him was to subordinate the old revelation 
 to the new. The Christian faith served as a principle 
 of criticism to direct him in his study of the Old 
 Testament, sifting out its different elements and 
 enabling him to estimate the worth of each. By this 
 means he soon came to distinguish and contrast the 
 Law and the Promise, and to proclaim the abolition 
 of the one and the perfect realization of the other. 
 But the Divine authority of the sacred writings in 
 no wise suffered from these distinctions. If the old 
 covenant ceased to exist as an economy of salvation, 
 it became all the more important as' a preparation and 
 2. prophecy. The typological method was the result of 
 this situation, its function being to clear away contra- 
 diction and re-establish harmony between the old and 
 the new oracles. This method, which was no more 
 than the inevitable result of the relationship that the 
 new faith wished to maintain with the the old, was 
 employed by all the New Testament writers. But 
 Paul's rabbinical education gave him in this I'espect 
 an immense advantage over the other apostles. He 
 may be said to have read the Old Testament books 
 with the eyes of a Christian, and the penetration of 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S^ GOSPEL. 8; 
 
 a rabbi. Everything in this long history of God's 
 people became prophecy ; its personages and . events 
 equally so with its discourses. Its language became 
 transfigured ; the spiritual meaning shone forth 
 through the veil of the literal sense. Thus a rich 
 typology was created and evolved, which served to 
 support and illustrate all the apostle's demonstrations. 
 Only a few examples of this teaching are preserved 
 in the epistles ; but this method must have held a 
 much larger place in Paul's missionary teaching. 
 
 It will not do to regard this typology as a mere 
 formal accommodation to the Jewish mode of think- 
 ing, or as a style of literary illustration. It is. inherent 
 in the matter of Paul's doctrine, and forms an integral 
 part of it. At the same time, Baur goes much too far 
 when he says that the Old Testament was to Paul the 
 sole objective source of truth, the only external ground 
 of his religious belief. As we have seen, he found a 
 fuller and higher revelation in the person of Jesus. 
 No ; it was not from the Old Testament, not by way 
 of exegesis, that the apostle attained the ground on 
 which his doctrine rests. If his faith depends on his 
 exegesis, his exegesis depends still more on his faith. 
 His convictions are not the result of his bold method 
 of interpretation ; that method can only be explained 
 by the new convictions, which of necessity gave rise 
 to it. Paul borrowed little from the Old Testament 
 beyond its forms ; it was an ancient mould into which 
 he poured a new material. 
 
 But we can understand how greatly his ideas must 
 have been influenced by this constant effort to trace 
 them in the old • coverlant.' Nothing is better calcu'- 
 lated than allegory to develop an idea to its fullest 
 extent. The famous allegory of Hagar and Sarah 
 
S8 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 should be studied from this point of view (Gal. iv. 
 21-31). It is evident in this case, that if the idea 
 created the image, the image in its turn was a won- 
 derful help in defining the idea and developing its 
 fulness. 
 
 We now perceive how the different elements of the 
 Pauline system were constituted. The inner revelation 
 of Christ is its central and generating principle, to 
 which the other two are related as the body is to the 
 soul. Historical knowledge concerning Jesus, and 
 the institutions and prophecies of the Old Testament, 
 were in themselves nothing more than inert matter 
 which the Pauline principle permeated and vivified, 
 finding in them its constant nourishment, the means 
 for its expression and realization. But that is not 
 all. We must further ask, where the power lay that 
 created the system, that united these different elements 
 and gave to Paul's theology its eminently original 
 character. This power consisted, and could consist in 
 nothing else than the apostle's strong individuality. 
 His spiritual individuality explains his dbctrine, for 
 it has produced it. Let us endeavour, in conclusion, 
 to indicate its essential features. 
 
 HI. Paul's Idiosyncrasy. 
 The lofty character of Paul has not always been 
 properly apprehended, because it has too often been 
 considered from a narrow point of view. Its striking 
 originality seems to be due to the fruitful combi- 
 nation in it of two spiritual forces, — two orders of 
 faculty which are seldom found united in this degree 
 in one personality, and which in the case of Jesus 
 alone present themselves more perfectly blended and 
 carried even to a further height than in the apostle. 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. 8g 
 
 I mean dialectic power and religious inspiration, the 
 rational and the mystical element ; or, to borrow 
 Paul's own language, the activity of vov'i and that of 
 
 The rational or dialectic nature of the great apostle's 
 doctrine has been very forcibly exhibited by Baur. 
 Paul evidently belongs to the family of powerful 
 dialecticians ; .he ranks with Plato, with Augustine 
 and Calvin, with Schleiermacher, Spinoza, Hegel. An 
 imperious necessity compelled him to give his belief 
 full dialectic expression, and to raise it above its con- 
 tradictories. Having affirmed it, he confronts it at 
 once with its opposite ; and his faith is incomplete 
 till it has triumphed over this antithesis and reached 
 a point of higher unity. 
 
 It is interesting to study, in this aspect, the progress 
 of ideas and the unfolding of the apostle's argument 
 in his great epistles. From the particular question 
 Paul's mind rises at one bound to the general principle 
 governing the whole discussion. Having lighted up 
 the subject from this height, he descends again with 
 irresistible power to the level of fact. It is this dia- 
 lectical procedure which imparts such crushing force to 
 his logic. This method is apparent in the two epistles 
 to the Corinthians, and still more in the epistle to 
 the Romans. At the very outset Paul ascends to 
 the general idea of righteousness (StKaioa-vi/Tj), which 
 he at once divides into a negative and a positive con- 
 ception. The first eight chapters are only the dialec- 
 tical development of these two opposing ideas. The 
 apostle follows each to its ultimate consequences. 
 He shows — with what power of logic we know — how 
 the former notion, that of justification by works, soon 
 disproves itself, and inevitably ends in the despairing 
 
90 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 rry,"Oh, wretch that I am ! who shall deliver me from 
 this body of death ? " But at the same time he 
 follows the development of the latter conception in 
 all its fruitful consequences, till we hear the final song 
 of triumph : " Who shall separate us from the love of 
 God ? " (Rom. vii. 25 ; comp. viii. 35, 39.) His dialectic 
 power is certainly the mainspring of Paul's thought. 
 It is this which impelled it forward, which gave it 
 organic form and created the rich and powerful 
 system in which it has embodied itself 
 
 However important this rational element may be, 
 those who look no further only see the surface of the 
 Pauline thought. Beneath this reflective force of 
 reason there is that which we have called, for lack of 
 another name, the pneumatical life, taking its rise at 
 the point of contact between the human soul and the 
 invisible world. Paul's habitual state is, in fact, not 
 that of a mind which reasons, but of a soul which 
 contemplates and adores. Beyond the reasoning 
 faculty there lay in him the realm of intuition, — truth 
 palpable to the soul, deep feeling which nourished 
 and gave birth to thought, and which thought was 
 never quite able to express. It was in this region that 
 he felt those ineffable things which: it is not possible 
 for man to utter {appr)Ta p^/Mura, a ovk i^ov av0p(i)irm 
 XaXija-ai, 2 Cor. xii. 4). There we have a mysterious 
 life at once active and passive, an inexplicable inter- 
 course between the spirit of man and of God, which 
 the psychical man with his ordinary common sense 
 regards as foolishness (i Cor. ii. 14); but in which lay, 
 nevertheless, the apostle's chief wealth and power, and 
 his supreme consolation. 
 
 This condition of soul cannot be analysed, because 
 the soul on entering it ceases, to some extent, to 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. gt- 
 
 belong to and observe itself. It is the sphere of 
 ecstasy, of vision, and of all the phenomena that we 
 describe as inspiration. It is a permeation of the 
 individual soul by mysterious forces. In it, strangely 
 enough, we find our personal life expand, while at the 
 same time our dependence increases. To condemn 
 such a state as morbid is, in my opinion, a proof 
 of great levity of mind and rashness of judgment. 
 No doubt this mystical tendency may be perverted 
 and corrupted, like all other faculties. But it is 
 not in itself a disease, any more than they, for it is 
 natural to every human soul. I am perfectly aware 
 that ordinary psychology gives it no place in its tra- 
 ditional categories ; but these categories are far from 
 including the whole of life. Where could we find a 
 more wholesome mental constitution than belonged 
 to Socrates, or to Luther ; where a more true and 
 delicate conscience than that of Joan of Arc ? And 
 yet we know that their spiritual life had its "source 
 far beyond the sphere of pure reason. If this faculty 
 of mystical exaltation is a disease, we should have 
 to acknowledge that Jesus, despite the harmony of 
 His nature, possessed an unsound mind ; for He 
 had His moments of ecstasy — sacred moments, which 
 a coarse, vulgar understanding profanes by calling, 
 them hallucinations (Mark i. 12 ; iii. 21 ; Luke 
 ix. 29 ; X. 18). No ; this is not the sign of a morbid 
 disposition. In truth, he is much rather the sick 
 man who has never known any state but that of 
 dry, cold reason. What else is religion, what is 
 prayer and adoration, but an exaltation of spirit — to 
 employ again Paul's own language, an h irveviiaTi 
 
 eivai, ? 
 
 We recognise this mysterious life underlying all 
 
92 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 the reasonings of the apostle. It constitutes the 
 foundation of his being ; and we feel the throb of its 
 mighty pulsations through all his dialectic machinery. 
 This dialectic is, in fact, a mere instrument which 
 of itself creates nothing. The life of the Spirit, an 
 ever gushing spring, throws out the material which 
 his logic interprets, elaborates, and organizes. This 
 inner life had been created in Paul by the first 
 revelation of Christ in his soul. Christ living in him 
 continued to reveal Himself in and through him. 
 This abiding and inward revelation forms the basis 
 of apostolic inspiration. It supplies to him an abso- 
 lute assurance, springing from his conviction of being 
 in immediate possession of the truth ; it is an un- 
 erring instinct that guides the apostle alike in thought 
 and action. From that hour this pneumatical life 
 remained in him, and was ever growing and in- 
 creasing. It manifested itself not only in the joy, 
 the strength and authority that it. gave him, but in 
 extraordinary phenomena and exceptional charis- 
 mata, in his gift of healing, his speaking with tongues, 
 his ecstasies, visions and revelations (2 Cor. xii. 12 ; 
 I Cor. xiv. 13)2 Cor. xii. i). 
 
 In this mysterious sphere great problems were 
 solved, and great resolutions taken. Whenever the 
 apostle reaches a critical stage of his career, we find 
 one of these inner, revelations occurring, to show 
 him what course to pursue and to put an end to 
 his hesitations. Just when his anxiety is keenest 
 and his excitement most intense, there comes to him 
 a sudden illumination. We find this phenomenon 
 occurring in all the great crises of his life. Thus 
 on his first encounter with the Judaizers at Antioch, 
 it was a revelation that pointed out to him the way 
 
THE GENESIS OF PAWS GOSPEL. 
 
 93 
 
 to Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 2). When on the point of 
 leaving that city to begin his great mission to the 
 heathen, he had a vision in the temple (Acts xxii. 
 18). It was a vision again that directed his course 
 to Europe (Acts xvi. 9). On another, less familiar 
 occasion, when, buffeted and beaten by Satan's mes- 
 senger, he despaired .of his apostleship, there re- 
 sounded in his ears the comforting words : " My grace 
 is sufficient for thee " (2 Cor. xii. 9). Lastly, during 
 that frightful tempest which drove the vessel bearing 
 him to Rome upon the shores of Malta, a vision 
 came to assure Paul that he should see Rome and 
 Caesar (Acts xxvii. 24). 
 
 We recognise therefore that Paul's apostolic in- 
 spiration bore the chief part in the genesis and 
 development of his belief. But we must understand 
 its working differently from the way in which it has 
 been understood hitherto. Faith without criticism, 
 and criticism without faith seem to me to result 
 equally in a moral impossibility. The first assumes 
 that this theological system — so human, rational, 
 and individual in its traits — fell straight from heaven 
 into Paul's mind ; the latter makes Paul out an 
 enthusiast, a sort of Swedenborg, who mistook his 
 own ideas for a revelation from God. Let us take 
 the gospel of Paul for what it was — not a series of 
 scholastic formulae, but the positive and immanent 
 revelation of Christ, which while it continued to 
 unfold itself in the hidden depths of his conscious- 
 ness, displayed its ethical product in the fruits of 
 righteousness, and its intellectual result in his theories 
 and his ideas. Thus we find it render a priceless aid 
 to our faith, without imposing a burdensome yoke 
 upon our understanding. 
 
.94 7 HE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Being now in possession of all the elements which 
 combined to form the Pauline system, we might en- 
 deavour to reconstruct it d priori, by way of logical 
 deduction. But we shall resist this temptation. To 
 construct it in this way would only be to cramp 
 and petrify it. Paul's theology was not. developed 
 after this fashion ; it was not wrought out in solitude. 
 Its development was logical, no doubt, but slow and 
 laborious notwithstanding. The apostle's circum- 
 stances, his external conflicts and practical necessities, 
 have left their impression deeply marked upon his 
 doctrine. The course of this historical devefopment 
 we must now proceed to recover and describe. 
 
BOOK II. 
 
 FIRST PERIOD, OR PERIOD OF MISSIONARY 
 ACTIVITY. 
 
 From 35 to 53 A.D. 
 
 PAUL'S missionary preaching was, unquestion- 
 ably, the earliest historical outconie of his system 
 of belief It occupied a period of nineteen or twenty 
 :years — the longest in his life, but also that in which 
 he wrote the least ; and it therefore remains com- 
 paratively in the shadow. 
 
 During these long years the greater, part of Paul's 
 apostolic work was accomplished. It was the period 
 of his great journeys, of his fairest hopes and his early 
 successes. Then it was that, in Asia and Greece, 
 he conquered for himself the wide sphere of which 
 his great epistles show him in possession. It is not 
 surprising that during this time he wrote but little. 
 There was no occasion for it. Oral preaching of 
 necessity everywhere preceded written preaching; and 
 the work of founding Churches had to be undergone, 
 before the labours of their edification or of doctrinal 
 controversy. were possible. 
 
 The missionary character of this first period 
 naturally determined the special . form in which the 
 apostle's doctrine was cast. It cannot be doubted 
 
 95 
 
96 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 that when preaching to Jews or Pagans for the first 
 time, he presented his gospel to them in a fashion 
 essentially different from the learned and logical 
 exposition of his great epistles. 
 
 Those who refuse to recognise the true Paul except 
 in the abstruse dialectician of the great epistles, forget 
 that he was a missionary, and must have addressed 
 himself in the first instance to women, to working 
 men, to the ignorant, to little children — indeed, to 
 all sorts of low people (i Cor. i. 28). If he had 
 spoken to them as he afterwards wrote, he would not 
 even have been understood. But when we find this 
 min, meagre and feeble in appearance as he was, 
 exercising such an irresistible ascendency over every 
 one who came near him, and from Damascus to 
 Rome, wherever he sets his foot, becoming a cause 
 of disturbance and popular excitement, can we doubt 
 that beside his powers of abstract thought and logic, 
 Paul had a striking, impressive utterance, and set 
 forth his faith, in the first instance, under a very 
 concrete and palpable form? It was then that he laid 
 the historical basis upon which the laborious edifice 
 of his religious thought was afterwards .to be reared. 
 
 His doctrine, therefore, could not have at this 
 time the dialectic character that conflict was to im- 
 part to it. It is, as it were, wrapped up in itself, 
 taking shape only in the general and oratorical form 
 of preaching. Yet it does not remain stationary ; it 
 advances all the while, stimulated in its progress by 
 success and fructified by experience. These years 
 were a long, obscure period of gestation. It is cer- 
 tainly to be regretted that, for the purpose of tracing 
 this inner progress, we have not more numerous, and 
 especially more positive, documents belonging to the 
 
FIRST PERIOD. 97 
 
 period. But is not that an additional reason for try- 
 ing to turn those that remain to us to better account ? 
 
 After the fact of Paul's conversion, which is .here 
 our secure starting point, we have his first mis- 
 sionary discourses in the Acts, an indirect echo of 
 his preaching no doubt, but far from being unfaithful. 
 With these discourses the two letters to the Thessa- 
 lonians are in close connexion and sequence, resum- 
 ing and carrying forward their teaching. Finally, 
 at the close of this first period, we have the discourse 
 at Antioch addressed to Peter and the Judaizers, 
 which has been preserved in the epistle to the Gala- 
 tians (chap. ii. 15-21), 
 
 These, I frankly admit, are but scant, uncertain 
 way-marks on a very long road. But do they not 
 form a progressive and ascending series, and indicate 
 unmistakably the general direction that the apostle's 
 doctrine naturally foll'owed, under the pressure of 
 lo^ic and of circumstances ? 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE MISSIONARY DISCOURSES IN THE ACTS. — THE 
 TWO EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 I. Paul's Discourses in the Acts. 
 
 THE missionary discourses preserved in the Acts 
 are three in number, delivered at Antioch in 
 Pisidia (xiii. 16-41, 46, 47), at Lystra (xiv. 15-17), 
 and at Athens (xvii. 23-31). The first was addres.sed 
 to Jews ; the other two to Gentiles. Do these dis- 
 courses furnish us with material for delineating the 
 apostle's preaching ? 
 
 This question has been answered in different, but 
 for the most part in equally arbitrary fashions. Be- 
 fore replying to it, we must endeavour to gain a 
 definite conception of the pi-eaching itself and its 
 contents. We can do so, I think, by combining 
 certain scattered indications in the later epistles, 
 which hitherto have been neglected. Thesd indica- 
 tions will furnish us with a sure starting point, and 
 moreover with an excellent standard of appreciation. 
 
 Paul himself has given us a summary of his apo- 
 stolic preaching in his first epistle to the Corinthians : 
 " I call to your mind, brethren, the gospelcthat I have 
 preached unto you, which ye have received, and in 
 which ye stand fast. ... I delivered unto you 
 that which also I received : above all, that Christ 
 
PAUL'S MISSIONAHY PREACH J NG. 99 
 
 died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; that He 
 was buried ; that He was raised again according to 
 the Scriptures. . . . This is what / a^id the other 
 apostles preach, and what you have believed " ( i Cor. 
 XV. I- 11). To this passage should be added the 
 following : i Cor. xi. 23 ; Gal. iii. i ; Rom. ix. 4, 
 S ; I Thess. i. 10. It is manifest that the apostle's 
 preaching consisted, above everything else, in a recital 
 of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, with 
 scriptural arguments designed to prove that Jesus 
 was the Christ, and that in Him there was remission 
 of sins. Affirmation predominates here over reflection, 
 historical facts over theological ideas. Paul's preach- 
 ing, in its general character, did not differ essentially 
 from that of the Twelve. Prophecy, it appears, was 
 from the first Paul's grand argument in debate with 
 the Jews (Rorn. i. 2 ; iii. 21 ; iv. ; Gal. iii.) ; and the 
 author of the Acts is perfectly correct when he says 
 that the apostle in the synagogue of Thessalonica 
 reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures {airo tcoi/ 
 ypatftcisv), showing from them that Christ must needs 
 suffer and rise again from the dead (Acts xvii. 2, 3). 
 There could not be a better summary of Paul's 
 preaching in the synagogues. 
 
 How did he address his pagan hearers ? The 
 epistles leave no doubt on this point either. Accord- 
 ing to Romans i. 18-23, the Gentiles' chief offence 
 lay in allowing the idea of the true God to become 
 obscured and lost. With their religious consciousness, 
 their moral conscience became darkened ; still, there 
 remained in their nature some gleams of light. Their 
 conscience was inwardly disturbed, accusing and 
 defending itself by turns, unable to find rest (Rom. ii. 
 15). Here it was that Paul evidently found the basis 
 
100 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 and starting point of his appeals. To restore the 
 primitive idea of the one invisible God by showing 
 the vanity of worshipping iJoIs ; to awaken the moral 
 consciousness, by giving it a foresight of the wi-at/i 
 of God ready to punish all iniquity ; to renew it by 
 preaching repentance, and faith in Jesus the Saviour 
 and the Judge, — such must have been the apostle's 
 first and constant endeavour when in the midst of 
 heathenism (i Thess. i. 9 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16, etc. ; Eph. 
 iv. 17, i8 ; Rom. i. 19 ; ii. 16). 
 
 When we compare with this twofold result the 
 missionary discourses put into Paul's mouth in the 
 Acts, we find a correspondence sufficiently exact, at 
 least in regard to their fundamental ideas. These 
 discourses are not literal reproductions of the apostle's 
 words ; they are a little blunted and indistinct, and 
 too much resemble those of the other preachers of 
 the Gospel. In drawing up the discourse at Antioch 
 in Pisidia, for example, the writer has evidently 
 Stephen's address and Peter's Pentecostal sermon 
 in his recollection. But to infer from these resem- 
 blances that the addresses in question are merely 
 free compositions and have no historical value, is, in 
 my opinion, going too far. Although their tenor is 
 very general, original features and bold and novel 
 ideas . are not altogether wanting ; and there are 
 passages in which we distinctly catch the inimitable 
 accents of Paul's voice. It will be well to analyse 
 them more closely. 
 
 The discourse delivered in the synagogue of 
 Antioch in Pisidia has three essential divisions. The 
 first, relating the history of the Jewish people up to 
 the time of David, recalls the beginning of Stephen's 
 address (xiii. 16-23). It must, however, be acknow- 
 
PAUL'S MISSIONARY .FKEACHIKG. loi 
 
 ledged that if it presents the same history, this 
 passage exhibits it from a new point of view. It is 
 no longer the people's ingratitude, but the idea of 
 the promise which guides Paul as he proceeds in his 
 course across the wide field of the history of Israel. 
 And is not the summing up of the history under the 
 idea of the promise an essentially Pauline concep- 
 tion ? Besides, we find that Paul makes David the 
 terminus of his historical exposition, instead of de- 
 scending, like Stephen, to the time of Solomon and 
 the temple. For it was from the family of David 
 that the Messiah was to come. 
 
 Acts xiii. 23. Romans i. 2, 3. 
 
 TouTov 6 ©=os 0-TTQ rov O Trpo^TrrjyyeiXaTO Oia. rijiv 
 
 (rir£piJi,aTOS Kar CTrayyeXtai' irpot^rjTuiv avTOv, . . . ttc/di 
 «yaye t(3 'IcrparjX crwrrjpa tov vlov aliTOv tov yevofjtevov 
 'lyjcrovv. ek cnTipii,aTOi Aa/3l& Kara 
 
 crapKa. 
 
 A more novel and characteristic Pauline trait is 
 the profound distinction made in regard to the Old 
 Testament between i/ie law and tlis promise, — the 
 one being pronounced impotent (ver. 39), and the 
 other realized in Christ (ver. 32). 
 
 The second part of the discourse (vers. 24-37) shows 
 the fulfilment of the promise in the death of Jesus. 
 Its details might very well have been taken from the 
 Third Gospel ; though it will be observed that Paul 
 says nothing about the Saviour's public labours. He 
 dwells solely on three points : the sufferings and 
 death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus, — that 
 is, on the very points which are emphasized in i 
 Corinthians xv. 3, 4. Notice above all the reference, 
 so remarkable in this place, to the intermediate event 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 of the burial, which has no importance in the preach- 
 ing of the other apostles, but which had an essential 
 bearing on Paul's ethical conception of faith and 
 baptism (Rom. vi. 3, 4). 
 
 The Pauline cast of thought is still more obvious 
 in the third and subjective part of the discourse (vers. 
 38-41). Certainly we do not find here as yet the 
 theory of expiation, nor that of justification by faith ; 
 they are equally wanting, as we shall see, in the two 
 epistles to the Thessalonians. The germ of these 
 doctrines, however, is present: Sta tovtov vfjuv a,^€a-i<! 
 ufiapTiMV KarayYeKXerai,. The words Bia tovtov do 
 not relate to KaTayyeW^Tui, which would not make 
 sense, but to d4>ecrii; a/xapTia>v. Peter had said at 
 Pentecost : " Repent, and be baptized every one of 
 you in the name of Jesus, for the remission of your 
 sins." There is much more implied in Paul's phrase. 
 The remission of sins, instead of being connected 
 with baptism, is associated here with the death and 
 resurrectioji of Jesus, in and through which redemp- 
 tion is objectively realized. It is also at the same 
 time, a complete and absolute justification : Kal cltto 
 irdvTfov S)v oiiK rjSvvr^OrjTe iv v6fJ.(o Mtovcrea)'; StKaico- 
 Ofjvai, iv TovTO) Tra.'! o iriO'Tevtov SiKaiovTai. Justifica- 
 tion by faith is here presented in its negative form. 
 But, as M. Reuss has remarked, it is under this form 
 that the idea must have first originated in Paul's 
 mind. The passage is a perfectly just expression of 
 the experience which Paul himself had made of the 
 ineffectiveness of the law. Add to this, that jt would 
 be difficult to imagine a phrase more true to Paul's 
 peculiar style. In the first place, the very singular 
 grammatical form of the sentence is Pauline (comp. 
 Rom. XV. 18). Secondly, its terms are all found 
 
PAUL'S MISSIONARY PREACHING. 103 
 
 amongst those most characteristic of the epistles : 
 -^Svvrjdrjre iv v6fj,a> (comp. Rom. viii. 3 : to aSvvatov i ov 
 vofjLov) ; SiKauoOrjvai construed with diro (comp. Rom. 
 vi. 7) ; and the general and comprehensive phrase Tra? 
 & iricrrevav (comp. Rom. i. 16 ; iii. 22). Lastly, in the 
 whole proposition, iv toutw ttS? o via-Teviov BiicaiovTai, 
 the words iv tovtw cannot be grammatically related 
 to iriaTevcov — which, however, would still express a 
 Pauline idea (Gal. iii. 26) — but must be attached to 
 SiKmovrai, conveying a meaning far more original and 
 profound (comp. Gal. ii. 17 : SiKaicodfjvai iv Xpia-Tm). 
 
 Verses 46 and 47 mark the transition by which 
 the Gospel. passed the Jews to address itself to the 
 Gentiles : " It was necessary that the word of God 
 should first be spoken to you {vfilv rjv dva/yKaiov 
 TTpSiTov ; comp. Rom. i. 16 : 'IovBaiq> TrpuTov). But 
 since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of 
 eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." This 
 double experience, often repeated, of the obstinate 
 unbelief of the one people, and the receptiveness of 
 the other, gradually created in the apostle's mind the 
 conviction that the kingdom of God was about to be 
 transferred from the Jewish to the Gentile nations, — 
 a conviction entirely opposed to the hope to which the 
 apostles of the circumcision who remained in Palestine 
 fondly clung. Paul was the instrument of a new and 
 radical evolution of God's plan. His experience, as 
 it widened into a general principle, naturally took in 
 his eyes the shape of that Divine law which he was 
 afterward to interpret and formulate in the ninth, tenth, 
 and eleventh chapters of the epistle to the Romans. 
 At the same time, he gained a clearer understanding 
 of his special vocation as apostle to the Gentiles. 
 
 A vast horizon was now opening before his eyes. 
 
104 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 As the heathen world, with its history and its 
 destinies, entered more and more into his thoughts, 
 they could not fail to gain a greatly wider scope. 
 This epoch is marked by the two discourses of Lystra 
 and Athens. They are naturally associated together ; 
 for indeed they express the same idea. 
 
 These two addresses being more original than that 
 of Antioch, have excited critical suspicions to a less 
 degree. In the Athenian discourse especially, so 
 exquisite in rhetorical style and so admirable in its 
 profundity of thought, one can scarcely refuse to 
 recognise the master's touch. It is, in fact, a piece 
 of apologetics of a new order ; and there is nothing 
 to compare with it either in preceding or in following 
 discourses. 
 
 Paul's preaching na longer finds its starting point 
 in the Old Testament, but in the moral and religious 
 consciousness of humanity (comp. Rom. i. 19). 
 
 Acts xiv. 15. i Thess. i. 9. 
 
 . . CuayyeXt^o/tcvot . . . irfis cTreorpei^aTe 
 
 v^ws diro TOvTuiv tS>v fiaTMuiv Trpoi rbv ®£ov aTTO tSv 
 iin,(TTpi<^uv iin ®iov ^SvTa. etSwAtai/ 8ouXeu£ij' ©ec3 ^utvTi 
 
 Kal a\rj9iV(2. 
 
 But in these two discourses there is something 
 beyond the general notion of God, which belonged 
 properly to Jewish theology much more than to Chris- 
 tian teaching. They are an attempt to comprehend 
 paganism and its history from the standpoint of the 
 new revelation ; they are a sketch of that philosophy 
 of history which the apostle was destined afterward 
 to complete. Notice, to begin with, his new and 
 profound conception of paganism. " I find you, O 
 Athenians, devout to excess. Passing through your 
 
PAUL'S MISSIONARY PREACHING. log 
 
 city, and looking at your temples and altars, I have 
 found one with this inscription. To the unknown 
 God ! What you worship in ignorance, I come to 
 make known to you" (Acts xvii. 22, 23). In poly- 
 theism thus understood Paul could have no difficulty 
 in finding a point of attachment for the worship of 
 the true God. That paganism which the Jews, and 
 Paul himself, were accustomed to regard as a pure 
 negation of piety, has here a positive value assigned 
 to it ; and is in this way brought into th§ plan of 
 salvation prepared by God for all humanity. The 
 difference between Jews and Gentiles is reduced to 
 its minimum. God has made all nations of one blood. 
 He is not the God of the Jews alone, but also of the 
 Gentiles (Rom. iii. 29). His providence has regulated 
 the destiny not only of Israel, but of the Gentile 
 nations as well, determining the place, the time, and 
 the boundaries of their earthly habitation. They have 
 walked in darkness, it is true, groping their way ; but 
 they have been moving towards a goal fixed by God 
 Himself. In the Divine plan, the history of paganism 
 unfolds itself in a line parallel with that of Israel, and 
 both meet at the cross of Jesus Christ. Thus the 
 universalism of the new Gospel found expression; and 
 thus was formed in the mind of Paul that great 
 historical plan which he will expound in the epistle 
 to the Romans. 
 
 The Athenian address was interrupted, and its 
 specifically Christian portion remained undeveloped. 
 But on comparing i Thessalonians i. 9', 10 and Acts 
 xvii. 30, 31, it is easy to see that Paul would have 
 confined himself to the assertion of a few very simple 
 ideas and essential facts : the necessity of repentance, 
 the imminence of the last judgment, the death and 
 
ic6 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 resurrection of Jesus, and deliverance from the wrath 
 to come. 
 
 - Such was Paul's early missionary- preaching. If 
 the discourses of the Acts do not .give us his whole 
 theology, yet they mark the first stage in the develop- 
 ment of his system. The experiences of this epoch 
 were so many fertile germs out of which, under the 
 influence of the apostle's intense meditation, a rich 
 harvest of profound views and great thoughts would 
 shortly bp produced. 
 
 II. 
 
 The Two Epistles to the Thessalonians. 
 
 These two epistles are connected with the dis- 
 courses we have just analysed, alike in their chrono- 
 logical order and in the nature of their ideas. 
 
 It will be noticed, in the first place, how readily 
 the two letters adjust themselves to the setting fur- 
 nished by the account of Paul's second missionary 
 journey in the Acts, and what constant harmony 
 exists between them and it In the address of 
 both letters we read the names of the three mis- 
 sionaries who appear in the narrative : Pmd, Silas, 
 and Timothy (i Thess. i. i ; 2 Thess. i. i). Silas, 
 moreover, is mentioned before Timothy ; his name 
 ranks second in the epistles as it does in the Acts 
 — a fact all the more surprising, inasmuch as Silas' 
 name only occurs once besides in the rest of Paul's 
 epistles. This circumstance is inexplicable on the 
 hypothesis of a pseudo-apostolic authorship of the 
 two letters ; but it is fully confirmed by a phrase 
 in the second epistle to the Corinthians, where also 
 the second place is assigned to Silas (chap. i. 19). 
 
 Furthermore, we gather from the two epistles that 
 
PAUL'S MISSIONARY PREACHING. 107 
 
 Paul arrived at Thessalonica from Philippi, and that 
 from Thessalonica he passed on to Athens (i Thess. 
 ii. 2 and iii. i ; comp. Acts xvii. i and 16). We find 
 reference made in very precise terms to the ill-treat- 
 ment that he and his friends had been subject to at 
 Philippi : w/ioTra^oi/Te"? koX v^pitrffevTS'i, Ka6a)<; oiBare, 
 iv ^fXtTTTTot?, eTrapprja-iaa-dfieda XaX-Pjcrai 7rpo9 vfici'! to 
 euayyiXiov Tov ©eov ev ttoKKw dycovi (l Thess. ii. 2). 
 This boldness and great contention answer very well 
 to the account of the Acts (xvii. 1-9). Again, it 
 appears from the two epistles that the majority of 
 Christians at Thessalonica were of heathen origin ; 
 and this is just what is said in Acts xvii. 4 : rHiv 
 T6 ae^ofxevtov EWyjviov ttXtJ^o? ttoXu, ywvcuKcov re 
 rSiv TrpooTcov ovk 6\iyai. The Jews, on the contrary, 
 had violently opposed the preaching of the Gospel, 
 and having rejected it themselves, did their utmost 
 to prejudice the heathen against it and to- make 
 Paul's ministry in Thessalonica impossible (Acts 
 xvii. S ; comp. I Thess. ii. 15, 16). These statements 
 remind us at every point of the narrative of the 
 Acts : nay, the phraseology of this last passage 
 recalls its very style (eKSicoKeiv, KcoKveiv rifia^ rot? 
 edveaiv XaXrjaai iva aa>0a>aiv). It was amid affliction 
 and persecution that the Christians at Thessalonica 
 received the Gospel (Acts xvii. S ; comp. i Thess. 
 i. 6 ; ii. 14). Finally, these persecutions compelled 
 Paul to remove from Thessalonica prematurely and 
 to leave unfinished the work so full of promise which 
 he had begun there (Acts xvii. 10 ; I Thess. iii. 1-5 
 and 10: Kajapriffai ra vcrTepj]p,aTa t^? TrtcjTeaj? vp.a)v).^ 
 
 ' This very striking agreement has been fully brought out by 
 Baur in his Paultis, vol. ii., p. 97 [Eng. trans., ii., 85 fif.]. He 
 
I08 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 On the other hand, the whole character of the 
 two letters is- such that they can only be under- 
 
 makes use of it as an "unmistakable" proof that the author of 
 the two epistles borrowed their historical setting from the Acts,' 
 and at the same time imitated the style of that narrative. But 
 it is surprising that a writer who so scrupulously copies the 
 Acts in the first chapters of his epistle should contradict its 
 statements in the third chapter, making Paul and Timothy 
 meet first at Athens, when, according to the Acts, they only 
 joined each other at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5) ; though here, 
 according to Baur, the writer no longer wished to imitate the 
 Acts, but the epistles to the Corinthians, making Timothy go 
 backwards and forwards between Athens and Thessalonica, just 
 as Titus between Corinth and Ephesus ! 
 
 More than this, in the second edition of Baur's Pauliis we 
 find two opinions respecting the epistles to the Tliessalonians 
 which present a flagrant contradiction,— one which neither 
 Baur nor M. Zeller, his editor, appears to have noticed. In the 
 body of his work [vol. ii., pp. 85-88], Baur demonstrates that the 
 author of the two epistles was acquainted with the Acts and 
 imitated its style, and. that the passage in i Thess. ii. 14-16 
 had no other source ; whence it is easy to conclude that since the 
 Acts, according to Baur, cannot have been written before 120 or 
 130 A.D., these two epistles date at the earliest from 130 or 135 
 A.D. But at the end of this second volume is a dissertation 
 in which Baur adopts Kern's idea, that the Antichrist can be no 
 other than Nero; and hence, according to him, one of the two 
 epistles was written in the reign of Vespasian— Vespasian being 
 the Kfniywv who delays Nero's return — and the other after the 
 fall of Jerusalem ! We must, however, make our choice between 
 these two dates, and this double series of arguments. One 
 might perhaps say, in order to reconcile them, that the author cf 
 the two epistles had before his eyes the very journal of travels 
 which the writer of the Acts afterwards inserted in his narra- 
 tive, and which might be known in 67 or 68 A.D. Even this 
 would hot remove the difficulty, so far ks Baur's exposition is 
 concerned ; for beside his unwillingness to accept the idea of a 
 journal of travel, he asserts that the style of our two epistles 
 is strictly moulded upon the general stj'le of the Acts. 
 
PAUL'S MISSIONARY PREACHING. 109 
 
 stood in this historical setting, and in connexion 
 with this period. They contain nothing either of 
 the Iceen and profound polemics of the great epistles, 
 nor of the lofty speculation belonging to those of the 
 Captivity. They are as distinct from each of these 
 groups as they are allied both in form and substance 
 to the discourses of the Acts. In them Paul is in 
 truth only preaching from a distance ; he continues 
 and completes by letter his oral instruction. Their 
 originality consists just in this practical character. 
 They were written without premeditation, and we 
 must not expect to find in them skilful construction 
 or logical divisions. 
 
 The traditional division of Paul's epistles into the 
 dogmatic and the hortatory is here entirely inap- 
 plicable. Dogmatic pre-occupations are altogether 
 wanting. The doctrines which seem most insisted 
 on, those of the parousm and of Antichrist, are no 
 exception to this, for even on these two points the 
 apostle does not enter into any theoretical discussion ; 
 it is a practical end which he has in view (i Thess. 
 iv. 13). This is why some have been led to speak 
 of the dogmatic indifference, or neutrality, of these 
 letters, — terms which are both alike inappropriate, 
 and give an utterly misleading impression of the 
 specific character of these brief pages. There is 
 nothing tame about them, . nothing vague or in- 
 definite ; on the contrary, they breathe a spirit of 
 strong faith and overflowing life, and above all, an 
 ardour of hope destined before long to be extin- 
 guished.' Thty give a first sketch of Paul's doctrine, 
 
 1 \Svbdtied, or chastened, we admit ; but not " extinguished." 
 On p. Ill this hope is spoken of as "transformed."' Paul never 
 
no THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 corresponding with that primitive period when it pos- 
 sessed all its vigour without having as yet attained its 
 fulness. Let us note some of its .special features : 
 
 1. The anti-Judaistic controversy which char- 
 acterizes the great epistles has not broken out, or 
 at any rate has not as yet absorbed the apostle's' 
 attention. It is entirely absent from these two 
 letters. The contention which they bespeak is of a 
 general character ; it is the warfare that the great 
 missionary waged against both Jews and pagans, 
 the same that is found in his discourses in the Acts 
 (l Thess. ii. 14-16). The droTroi xal -rrovripol dvdpcoTroi 
 spoken of in 2 Thessalonians iii. 2 are not Judseo- 
 Christians, but Jews who are impeding Paul's work 
 at Corinth. Again, it is to the calumnies of the 
 Jews of Thesssalonica, or elsewhere, that the personal 
 defence in the second chapter of the first epistle 
 refers. There is no need for us to see in this an 
 artificial imitation of passages in i and 2 Corinthians, 
 such as Baur discovers. The apostle is not so much 
 endeavouring to defend himself, as to present his 
 own laborious and disinterested life for an example 
 to the Church at Thessalonica (chap. ii. 9-12). 
 
 2. The great Pauline antithesis between the law 
 and faith, having no existence as yet in these two 
 epistles, we are not surprised to find that the doc- 
 trine of Justification remains undeveloped and is 
 presented there under a very general form. It is 
 
 ceased to look forward ardently to the parousia ; though at a 
 later time the event seemed less imminent, and death came 
 between him and this glorious prospect. See Rom. viii. 18, 19 
 (comp. I Cor. i. 7); Col. iii. 4.; Phil. iii. 20, 21, — to say nothing 
 of the letters to Timothy and Titus. See further, on this point, 
 P- 379-] 
 
PA UL'S MISSrUNAR Y PRE A CHING. 1 1 1 
 
 the same with the doctrine of Redemption, which 
 is unquestionably connected with the death of Jesus 
 (l Thess. V. lo), but in a decidedly external fashion, 
 not otherwise than in the missionary discourses. The 
 death and resurrection of Christ are placed side by 
 side, but their inner logical connexion, their redemp- 
 tive and moral significance are not brought to light. 
 
 3. While the apostle's Soteriology is scarcely de- 
 veloped, his Messianic Eschatology, on the contrary, 
 holds an important place in these letters. This is 
 in fact their characteristic element, and gives them 
 their peculiar originality. In the following epistles it 
 wfill be gradually transformed, yielding to Soteriology 
 the place of honour which it occupies here. At the 
 same time it furnishes another essential and notable 
 feature of resemblance between these two earliest 
 epistles and the discourses of the Acts (chap. xvii. 
 7, 31). Paul as yet had not advanced far beyond 
 the general type of apostolic preaching. 
 
 The epistles to the Thessalonians, it is evident, 
 resemble the missionary discourses in what they leave 
 out, as well as in the special points on which they 
 dwell. Certainly there is a wide distance between 
 -these vivid pages and the pale reproduction given 
 us in the Acts ; but nevertheless we stand, here and 
 there, on the same ground. At the basis of the two 
 epistles and of the discourses analysed above there 
 lies one and the same type of doctrine, which gives 
 its character to this first stage of Paul's theology. 
 This we must endeavour to extract and define more 
 clearly. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 PRIMITIVE PAULINISM. 
 
 PAUL'S doctrine in its primitive type is quite 
 simple, and was organized in an elementary 
 fashion. Its ideas are still general, and their logical 
 connexion is not always apparent. They may be 
 completely summed up under these two heads : the 
 Gospel message, and the parousia. 
 
 I. 
 
 The Gospel {eva-^'^eKiov tov ©eou). 
 
 In common with Jesus and the Twelve, Paul 
 designates by the name of the gospel the message 
 of salvation that he bears to Jews and Gentiles. It 
 is the gospel of God, because it is God who sends it 
 and who is the Author of it (i Thess. ii. 2, 8, 9) ; or 
 again, the word of God, X0709 tov Qeov (i Thess. ii. 
 13 ; Acts xiii. 46). It is the gospel of Christ, be- 
 cause Christ is its essential content (i Thess. iii. 2 ; 
 2 Thess. i. 8). Again, Paul calls it oui'- gospel {Sia 
 TOV ei/ayyeXlov rj/xoiv, 2 Thess. ii. 14). This expres- 
 sion, however, has not as yet the particular shade 
 of meaning that it afterwards acquired in the dis- 
 cussion with the Judaizers {to evayyeXiov fiov, Rom. 
 ii. 16). Lastly, salvation being the end of this 
 
PRIMITIVE FAULINISM. 113 
 
 Gospel, it is further called Xoyo? t^? atorripiwi 
 (Acts xiii. 26 and i Thess. ii. 16). 
 
 There can be no question of the Messianic char- 
 acter of the apostle's early preaching. This consti- 
 tuted for those times precisely what we should now 
 call the religious point of view. The apostle of the 
 Gentiles began, like the rest, by preaching the -near 
 approach of the judgment of God and describing "the 
 wrath to come," in the fashion of John the Baptist 
 {opyriv epxofJ-eyrjv, I Thess. i. 10 ; 2 Thess. i. 8, 9 ; Acts 
 xvii. 31). He called men to repentance, and to faith 
 in Jesus, by whom the world was to be judged, and 
 by -whom they might be saved: "God, overlooking the 
 times of ignorance, now requires that repentance be 
 proclaimed to all men ; for He has fixed a day for 
 judging the world in righteousness by the man Jesus, 
 whom He has chosen, having raised Him from the 
 dead" (comp. Rom. ii. 16). 
 
 At the same time, Paul proved that the promises 
 were realized and the prophecies fulfilled in Jesus the 
 Messiah (6 Xpunot). This Messiah is far more than 
 the heir of David ; He is the Son of God, — the Lord 
 (6 Kvpioi). This last name, as we know, is the one 
 by which the apostle preferred to designate Jesu.s. 
 It even became in his epistles the proper name of 
 Christ (comp. I Cor. viii. 6). It implies an absolute 
 sovereignty over man's conscience, over the Church, 
 and the historical development of the world. In the 
 Septuagint, 6 Kvpio<; is specially applied to Jehovah; 
 This name, when given to Jesus, is in itself an inti- 
 mation that He has become to the Christian con- 
 sciousness that which Jehovah was to the prophetical 
 consciousness. So i/ie day of Jehovah becomes the 
 day of the Lord Jesus ( i Thess. v. 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2). 
 
 8 
 
114 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 In some few passages it is difficult to see whether 
 Kvpio<; designates God or Christ. On the other hand, 
 it is in Jesus the Son of God that the Fatherhood of 
 God with regard to men is revealed and realized. 
 Hence the formulae, eV 0e&3 iraTpl kuI Kvpio) 'Irjaov 
 XpiarrS, 060? iruTi^p rjjxwv koI Kvpiov 'Itjctov XpicrTOV 
 (i Thess. i. I ; 2 Thess. i. 2), which continue to be 
 characteristic of all Paul's letters. 
 
 But so far we have only touched on the more 
 external aspect of the apostle's doctrine, and that 
 which least distinguished it from the preaching of 
 the Twelve. Underneath these general forms an 
 intense spiritual life, singularly original in its nature, 
 was all the while developing itself, which had been 
 called into being on the very day of Paul's conversion, 
 and was speedily in its turn to give birth to a rich 
 and unique system of dogmatics. We must never 
 forget that with Paul, in truth, experience, preceded 
 system and feeling theory. What is really Pauline 
 in these two epistles is the spiritual inspiration which 
 pervades them. If we do not find here the same 
 kind of reasoning as in the epistle to the Romans, we 
 have the same modes of thought and sentiment, the 
 same moral experience, and the same specific type 
 of Christian life, which has indeed attained already 
 in the soul of the apostle a richness and sublimity 
 that compel our admiration. We find in every phrase 
 that full-charged feeling and moral weight, and that 
 profound intuition of spiritual things which charac- 
 terize the style of his great epistles. 
 
 The fruitful source of this new life is the great idea 
 oi grace (x"/"? ''""^ ®eov, 2 Thess. i. 12). This grace, 
 actuated by the Father's eternal love, is historically 
 manifested and fulfilled in Christ, and is also called 
 
PRIMITIVE PAULINISM. 115 
 
 the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (i Thess. v. 28). It 
 is the fundamental principle of the vocation {Kkr\ai<i) 
 and election (eKXoyi]) of believers (i Thess. ii. 12, 
 i. 4). Through it we are not only called, but also 
 predestinated to salvation and to life, ovk edero ^fia<: 
 6 0eb<! 6ts opyrjV aXTui ei<i irepiTToiqaiv acoTijpia^ (l 
 Thess. V. 9 ; comp. Acts xiii. 48). These are the earliest 
 traces of the doctrine of predestination. The effect 
 produced on men's minds by the apostle's preach- 
 ing did not seem to him fortuitous. In the unbelief 
 of some, and the faith of others, he saw from the first 
 the consequence of a fixed determination of God 
 (2 Thess. ii. 13, 14; comp. Rom. viii. 30). 
 
 But we must not conceive of this grace as external 
 to man, as though it were an arbitrary gift, a doniim 
 superadditum. It is an active force (Sui/a/it?), whose 
 immanence is its essential characteristic, — a regene- 
 rative power working by faith from within out- 
 wardly. Hence the Gospel preaching proves to be 
 no mere succession of empty words, but a Divine 
 energy taking possession of the soul of the believer 
 in order to renew it (\o7o? 0eoi), 09 /cat ivepyelTai ev 
 vfj.lv Tot? TTLaTevova-iv, I Thess. ii. 13 ; i. 5). The essen- 
 tial medium of this power of salvation is Jesus Christ, 
 in whom we live and who lives in us through faith. 
 The Christian life is thus an organic creation, having 
 its root in the virtue of Jesus Himself, and attaining 
 its development and completion in the glory of the 
 Saviour (i Thess. v. 9, 10 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14). Those 
 who are dead in Christ (pi veKpol ev Xpia-Tm) are not 
 lost ; Christ, in whom they have their principle of 
 life, will raise them up. Let us mark well this moral 
 dynamic ; it will gradually transform the Jewish 
 
Ii6 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 eschatology which Paul inherited, and which so far 
 he has done little more than reproduce. 
 
 Lastly, this whole Christian life, in its essential 
 principle, its permanent character, and glorious end, 
 has already found expression in the three virtues 
 which gather up and exhaust it : faith, love, hope 
 [/j,vr]fiovevovTe<i v/j,av rov epyov rij? •n-'iarem^ Ka\ rov 
 KOTTOV T?5? dyd-TrTjl Koi rri<i vTrojJ,ovrj<} rij? eXTrt'So?, I 
 Thess. i. 3; comp. v. 8; 2 Thess. i. 3, 4, 11 ; ii. 13, 16 ; 
 iii. 5). The work of faith is that profound change 
 by which the Thessalonians turned from the vain 
 worship of idols to serve the living God, and were 
 consecrated to Jesus Christ (ei' djtaa-fjLoi JJvevfiaro'; Kal 
 TTicrrei dXrjdeiaii, 2 Thess. ii. 1 3). By this consecration 
 they were separated from heathenism and snatched 
 from all its defilements ; and they must carry it out 
 in their whole life and being, by the entire sanctifica- 
 tion of. spirit, soul, and body (dyidaat vfid<; oXoreXei?, 
 I Thess, V. 23). But this destruction of the old 
 nature is the consequence of the new . life in them, 
 the essence and strength of which is love. The first 
 duty of Christians is mutual love among themselves 
 (2 Thess, i, 3), This mutual love is the love of 
 brethren, for all Christians form one family (i Thess. 
 iv, 9), It should further extend itself to all men (et? 
 dXXijXovi} Kal el<i Traj/ra?, I Thess. iii. 12). Christians 
 must not return evil for evil ; according to God's ex- 
 ample of love, they must seek the good of all (i Thess. 
 v. IS ; 2 Thess. iii. 5), It is this holy labour of love, 
 which spends and wearies itself in service and self- 
 sacrifice, that Paul describes in the energetic phrase 
 KOTTo? T^9 dyd-TTT]';. After faith and love comes hope, 
 a constant source of joy and consolation, even in the 
 midst of the darkest and severest trials. Hope begets 
 
PKIAIiriVE PAULimSM. 117 
 
 patience. Rooted in Jesus Christ, Christians are 
 enabled to stand firm in Hino, awaiting His speedy 
 coming (ot»j/ctjt€ iv Kvpim, I Thess. iii. 8). 
 
 Thus the apostle's thought, starting from eschato- 
 log}', returns to it and there reaches its goal. The 
 Messianic ideas, in short, here come both first and 
 last ; they supply not indeed the vital principle, but 
 the external framework of this early Paulinism. VVe 
 must now examine them more directly. 
 
 II. ESCHATOLOGY. 
 
 It is an apocalypse in brief which these two epistles 
 set before us. The great n/jstasy, the appearance of 
 the man of sin, or Antichrist, the advent and victory 
 of the Lord, the resurrection and the jiidgiiicn! — 
 such are the successive scenes of this great drama. 
 Underneath tlie differences of detail we feel the pro- 
 found analogy of this eschatology to that of John, 
 Fundamentallj-, Christian eschatology in the apostolic 
 times followed a regular course of development It 
 is not so richly unfolded here as in the Apocalypse, 
 but much more definitely than in the discourses of 
 Jesus ; it is at an intermediate stage between these 
 two extreme points of its history. 
 
 The apostle Paul has referred no part of his teach- 
 ing to that of Jesus more expressly than his escha- 
 tological doctrine. What he says on this point is 
 taught, he assures us, e» Xoy^ Kvpiov{i Thess. iv. 15). 
 Indeed, we may certainly recognise in the first verses 
 of the fifth chapter a faithful reproduction of some 
 of the Master's words. Jesus Himself had also 
 spoken of the outburst of evil in the last days, of the 
 apostasy of a great number of believers, and of the 
 
ii8 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 appearance of false Christs and false prophets. He 
 had, in like manner, maintained a very sober reserve 
 respecting the time and hour of the Parousia, simply 
 comparing its sudden coming to that of a thief in 
 the night. He too had spoken of the resurrection, 
 of the assembling of all the faithful with the Son of 
 man, and of the final judgment which will render 
 unto every man according to his works. Only, in 
 the teaching of Jesus there is found, under the most 
 material images borrowed from Jewish apocalyptics, 
 an indefinable inner spirituality, which gives them 
 breadth and freedom, and invests these pictures with a 
 symbolical import. In the apostolic preaching, on the 
 contrary, these ideas become set and rigid, and they 
 fall into a systematic order and scheme. It could 
 not be otherwise. The work of systematization was 
 carried on under the constant influence of the Book 
 of Daniel, traces of which are easily to be discerned 
 in the Gospel of Matthew, the epistles to the Thessa- 
 lonians, and the Apocalypse of John (2 Thess. ii. 4 ; 
 comp. Dan. xi. 36). 
 
 The end of the world will be brought about by 
 God's direct intervention. But the moment of this 
 intervention has not been arbitrarily chosen. It 
 depends upon the historical development of the forces 
 at work in the world. And for that reason this time 
 may, to some extent, be foreseen and calculated. 
 Such is the fundamental idea of the Jewish Apo- 
 calypse. The first catastrophe is to be a judgment, 
 a condemnation of the power of evil. That which 
 precedes and prepares for it, therefore, is the growth 
 of this power to its culmination and full maturity. 
 The world, in fact, must become ripe for destruction, 
 the sins of the fathers and children uniting to fill up 
 
PRIMITIVE PAULimSM. ng 
 
 their measure (Matt, xxiii. 32; i Thess. ii. 16). That 
 is what Jesus taught, and His disciples also. In like 
 manner, Paul expressly declares that the end cannot 
 come until evil has attained its final manifestation 
 {i] iiTToaTaaia irpaiTOv, 2 Thess. ii. 3). 
 
 This power of evil at work in the world is as yet 
 in a state of secret ferment, of vtystery (to iLV(nr\piov 
 ir\<i avofj,ia<i, 2 Thess. ii. 7). But it will break forth 
 violently, incarnated in a personality who will serve 
 as its medium, — the man of sin, the son of perdition 
 (Jo av6pu>iro^ riji dfj,apTia<:, 6 u/o? rrj<; dirtoXeiwi). This 
 personage will be in the order of evil what the person 
 of Christ is in the order of good. He is, therefore, 
 the evil and anti-divine principle in its ultimate reve- 
 lation. As God came into the world in the person 
 of the Messiah, Antichrist will appear as the radical 
 and absolute negation not . only of Christ, but of God 
 Himself. He will set Himself above everything 
 Divine, and will make His throne in the temple and 
 cause Himself to be worshipped as God (2 Thess. ii. 4). 
 
 Whence will this head of the powers of evil arise ? 
 The general answer is. From the midst of heathenism ; 
 so the epithet avo/j.o^ (ver. 8) might lead us to think. 
 But this adjective is used here in an absolute sense ; 
 it is not the man without law, but the man v/ho 
 knowingly tramples on the law, who is the conscious 
 negation of the law, because he is the negation of 
 good. The two epistles to the Thessalonians, as a 
 whole, lead us to suppose that in Paul's view the 
 Antichrist who will enthrone himself as God in the 
 temple of Jerusalem itself in place of the true Messiah, 
 is to arise out of Judaism. Did not the Jewish 
 people already embody for him the fiercest possible 
 opposition to the Gospel ? Those dvBpwiroi cltottoi 
 
izo THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Kal irovTjpoi of whom the apostle complains, were 
 they not Jews (2 Thess. iii. 2)? And, finally, is it 
 not the Jews whom Paul describes as hostile to the 
 human race, constantly multiplying their sins, filling 
 up the measure of their iniquities, and ready for 
 destruction by the Divine wrath (i Thess. ii. 15, 16)? 
 Antichrist, therefore, is not Nero, nor any other 
 Roman Emperor ; he is the representative of the 
 Jewish revolution, which was already at work. The 
 power that represses it and prevents its outburst, the 
 KUTexoiv, is the Roman government which maintains 
 order. Was it not this which saved Paul at Corinth, 
 and which had everywhere saved him from the machi- 
 nations of the Jews ? When this barrier is removed 
 and the ideal power of evil, already active in Judaism, 
 shall have triumphed and in its transgressions far 
 surpassed heathen idolatry (2 Thess. ii. 4) — when the 
 king of evil has come — then the world will be ripe for 
 judgment* 
 
 ' A renewed examination of these passages now renders us 
 less confident of the Jewish character of the Antichrist spoken 
 of in tliis much controverted passage. The apostasy in question 
 seems to extend far beyond the limits of Judaism, and to be the 
 outcome of a general and hopeless revolt of the whole world 
 against God and the order established by Him. In Daniel xi. 
 36, the passage alluded to by Paul, the king who blasphemes 
 and sets himself above every god, becoming the symbol of 
 Antichrist, is a he;ithen king ; it is Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 But that is no reason why, in Paul's belief, the avTiKu/xevos of 
 2 Thess. ii. 4 should be a Roman emperor. In assuming 
 a deeper moral and religious significance, the type has lost 
 much of its political character. The author of the epistle, as 
 it seems to us, abides by the prediction of Daniel, and leaves 
 the personality of Antichrist indefinite, precisely because this 
 personality did not as yet present a distinct form fo his eyes. 
 
PRIMITIVE PAULINISM. 121 
 
 Thus the parousia of Antichrist is to precede and 
 prepare for the parousia of the Lord. The latter 
 Vi'ill be a splendid and decisive triumph over the 
 adversary. At a signal given by God, Christ will 
 
 .What he asserts at the time of his writing is the existence 
 of a wide and powerful leaven of evil, which will afterward 
 have its incarnation in an individual, according to the terms of 
 Daniel's prophecy, but which at present works in an impersonal 
 form. Hence the general expression, to \).v<iTi]p\.ov ivepytiraL 
 T^$ a.voii.La's (ver. 7). 
 
 The point which it seems essential for us to maintain is that 
 the author, in any case, clearly distinguishes the Roman Empire 
 and Emperor from the personality of the Antichrist and the 
 part which he plays. Indeed the Emperor is regarded as the 
 KaTi)(ii)V, and theEmpiie as to Kari^ov {neuter) ; i.e., as the power 
 of order and justice which as yet checks the outbreak of evil, 
 and delays the disclosure of the mystery of iniquity in the per- 
 sonality of Antichrist and in the world-wide apostasy. 
 
 At a later time this distinction between the Roman Emperor 
 and Empire on the one hand, and Antichrist on the other, 
 disappeared ; and not only that, but Rome itself became the 
 mystery of iniquity, and the Emperor in person figures as the 
 Beast in the Apocalypse (Rev. xiii., xvii. ; comp. i Pet. v. 13). 
 This identification of the po» ers that we here find contrasted, 
 took place after the year 64 and in the person of Nero. But 
 in the second letter to the Christians of Thessalonica, the Empire 
 and Emperor are still regarded as the beneficent and protecting 
 powers of social order. Indeed, Paul here entertains exactly 
 the same views and opinions on this subject to which he gives 
 expression in the ep stle to the Romans, chap. xiii. 1-6 : tuo-re 
 % a.vTLTa<Ta-6fji.evos rrj iiova-ia, rrj tov ©eoB SiaTayfj 6.i'$iaTrjKev 
 OL yap o.p^ovT€s ovk etcrt <j>6po'S t<S dyotfiw £py<f>, aA.\oi 
 T(o KaKio . . . ov yap et/c^ rijv /iap^atpav (jyopei' ®eov yap 
 ScaKOvos hxTiv, IkSikos eis opyrjv t<3 to kukov irpacrcrovTi. 
 
 To our mind this correspondence is a decisive proof that this 
 much-disputed second epistle to the Thessalonians was written 
 before the year 64, and is consequently of Pauline origin. — Noie 
 written by the author for this edition. ,<' 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 descend from heaven with His mighty angels, as He 
 has Himself announced. The day of the Parousia 
 is uncertain and unknown ; but as Jesus had appa- 
 rently said that it would come before the generation 
 then present had passed away, and that men should 
 watch for it constantly, Paul, like the other apostles 
 and all the early Christians, hopes to be still living 
 at the time (i Thess. iv. 15-17). We may observe, 
 in passing, that this declaration would be very strange 
 if these two epistles to the Thessalonians had beea 
 composed after the apostle's death ; since the forgery 
 would have credited Paul, gratuitously, with a hope 
 that was obviously falsified. 
 
 The Christians who have died will rise first, and 
 join those who are still alive ; together they will be 
 caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord descend- 
 ing from heaven, and will be for ever with the Lord. 
 But this day of the Lord is at the same time the 
 day of judgment. The destruction of Antichrist is 
 nothing less than the first act of this judgment, which 
 will also bring about the eternal ruin (SXel^pos aldovtov, 
 2 Thess. i. 8-10) of all the ungodly. 
 
 We meet with this eschatological doctrine once 
 more in the first epistle to the Corinthians, wanting 
 only the figure of the Antichrist. But it is already 
 in course of transformation under the influence of the 
 principle of the Pauline gospel, which as it unfolded 
 'itself, could not possibly remain confined within the 
 very narrow lines of the Jewish Apocalypse. The 
 description of i Corinthians xv. 15-52, which by its 
 very phraseology so plainly recalls i Thessalonians iv. 
 16, is, however, sufficient proof that the eschatological 
 hopes which we have just set foith were an essential 
 feature in the earlier phase of the Pauline doctrine. 
 
PRIMITIVE PAULINISM. 123 
 
 Such then, for the present, is this early type of 
 PauHnism, — still closely allied in its general concep- 
 tion to the preaching of the other apostles, but bearing 
 within it already the new and bold ideas to which 
 subsequently it gave birth. It is admirably calculated 
 to serve as a transition, and means of organic con- 
 nexion, between the apostolic preaching with which 
 Paul set out and the independent conception of the 
 Gospel to which he afterwards attained. We shall 
 now see the true Paulinism take shape, under the 
 double pressure of the inner logic of its own prin- 
 ciples and of the external opposition of the Judaizing 
 party, which proved a still more effectual stimulus. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 FIRST CONFLICTS WITH THE JUDAIZING CHRIS- 
 TIANS.^THE TIME OF CRISIS AND TRANSITION 
 (Acts XV. ; Galatians ii.). 
 
 IN- order to understand the struggle which is about 
 to begin, we must revert to the apostle's conver- 
 sion, and note carefully the new course into which it 
 directed his mind and his life. 
 
 The conversion of Paul had been, in point of fact, a 
 radical negation of the Jewish principle. His apostle- 
 ship to the Gentiles was its logical consequence ; 
 and this mission, pursued with equal boldness and 
 success, was the practical realization of the kingdom 
 of God beyond the sacred limits of the Jewish people. 
 If during this first missionary period Paul does not 
 attack the authority of the law in theory, he com- 
 pletely ignores it in fact, and carries on his work 
 without the least reference to it. The very name of 
 the law is not to be found in the two epistles to the 
 Thessalonians. Through the unexpected progress 
 of his work, the contradiction of Judaism implied in 
 the apostle's faith passed from this inner sphere into 
 the general life of the Church; it expressed itself 
 in actual facts, previously to its being dogmatically 
 formulated. 
 
 Meanwhile the Jewish principle on its part, con- 
 
THE CONFLICT WI'J II THE JUDAIZEKS. 125 
 
 quered and negatived as it was in the soul of the 
 apostle .to the Gentiles and in his ministry, revived 
 in the Jewish Churches of Palestine in a vigorous and 
 obstinate form. It was not to be expected that the 
 old principle would yield to the new without conflict. 
 The astonishing success of the mission to the Gentiles 
 caused, no doubt, more embarrassment than pleasure 
 at Jerusalem. The old Judaism felt that its venerable 
 claims were in jeopardy; and I' could not maintain 
 and defend them without endeavouring to enforce 
 them on others. 
 
 Let us define clearly the great question which now 
 arises. It is not as to whether Gentiles shall .be 
 admitted into the kingdom of God: on that point 
 every one was agreed. The question was, On what 
 terms were they to be admitted ? Was it necessary 
 to become a Jew in order to be a Christian ? Must 
 one pass through Judaism to reach the Gospel ? This 
 was the point at issue. Those who upheld the eternal 
 claims of the old religion would, of necessity, impose 
 circumcision on the Gentiles ; for it was only through 
 circumcision that they could be materially incorpo- 
 rated with the elect people, and become members of 
 the family of Abraham. , Accordingly, it was over 
 circumcision that the great battle came to be fought. 
 
 No wonder that it was long and fierce. Christianity 
 and Judaism were now contending for their existence. 
 If the Gentiles enter the Church directly, and there 
 obtain through faith alone the same rank and 'privi- 
 leges as the Jews, what becomes of the rights of 
 Israel? v. hat advantage has the elect people over 
 other nations? Is not this utterly to deny, the abso- 
 lute validity of Judaism ? On the other hand, if 
 circumcision be imposed on the Genjtile converts, is 
 
:I26 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 not that in itself a declaration that faith in Christ is 
 insufficient for salvation? Does it not reduce the 
 Gospel to the position of a mere accessory to Mosaism? 
 Is not this to deny the absolute validity of the work 
 of Jesus Christ? 
 
 Such was the fundamental question that Paul's 
 missionary successes raised amongst the Judaean 
 Churches. It could not fail to create a profound 
 division of opinion. Up to this time Christianity 
 and Judaism had marched hand in hand. But now 
 a choice must be made. The Christian Jews, who 
 belonged more to Moses than to Jesus (and there 
 were many such), were prepared without hesitation 
 to stand forward as the ardent champions of 
 threatened Judaism. Paul, on the other hand, natu- 
 rally became the apostle of Christian freedom. To 
 defend the independence of the Gospel was to defend 
 his own work, his apostleship, his faith, his conversion. 
 This great cause became his personal cause. Betwixt 
 the two parties, the Twelve are eclipsed. They appear 
 full of anxiety and hesitation, seeking for a reconcilia- 
 tion between the two hostile principles, which could 
 not be other than precarious. 
 
 The first conflict seems to have taken place upon 
 Paul's return from his first missionary journey. Cer- 
 tain Pharisaic Christians, who had come down from 
 Judaea to Antioch, sought to impose circumcision on 
 the Gentile converts. "If you do not submit to 
 circumcision," they said, " you cannot be saved " 
 (Acts XV. i). They alleged the authority of the 
 Twelve in support of their claims. Great was the 
 disturbance they excited, and violent the dispute. 
 Paul did not underestimate the gravity of the 
 struggle then beginning. The triumph of these new 
 
TUE CONFLICT WITH THE JUDAIZERS. 127 
 
 •missionaries compromised his whole work ; and he 
 was keenly distressed. He could not tell what were, 
 at the bottom, the real sentiments of the apostles 
 at Jerusalem. He feared that a scandalous rupture 
 would be caused. The right course to pursue was 
 made plain to him by a revelation, — by a decisive 
 illumination, an inspiration full of assurance and 
 strength, following an interval of hesitation and inner 
 conflict (Gal. ii. 2). He will go up to Jerusalem with 
 Barnabas, and set forth his gospel to those who are 
 accounted pillars in the Church ; he will rehearse the 
 triumphs that have been won, and the hopes that are 
 entertained. And he will find means, if it prove neces- 
 sary, to persuade or win them over to support him. 
 They will be compelled to endorse his work, and 
 protect it from the attacks of the intruders. In any 
 case, he will deprive them of that authority from 
 the apostles from which they draw their credit and 
 strength (Gal. ii. 1-3). 
 
 In these hopes Paul was not deceived. The essen- 
 tial end he sought was gained. The revelation he 
 had received, and upon which he acted, had not 
 misled him. The Twelve in no wise supported the 
 pretensions of the false brethren. Titus was not 
 compelled to be circumcised. The authorities of the 
 Church gave Paul's gospel their unreserved approval, 
 and did not propose to add anything to it. They 
 acknowledged the legitimacy of his apostleship, and 
 gave him the right hand of fellowship ; so that they 
 might labour together in the work of God, the one 
 party among the Gentiles and the other among the 
 Jews. They even requested Paul and Barnabas to 
 bear in mind the poor of Jerusalem, and to interest 
 the new Gentile Christian Churches on their behalf. 
 
128 ■ THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 At the same time, the Twelve could not share either 
 in the boldness or confidence of Paul. They had 
 other hopes, and judged things from a totally different 
 standpoint The Gospel might, indeed, have a partial, 
 and more or less brilliant success among the Gentiles ; 
 but, in their eyes, this was quite a secondary matter. 
 The main and chiefly important work was the con- 
 version of the Jewish people, who were to be the first 
 to enter, as a nation, into the new covenant ; then thfc 
 turn of the Gentiles would come. Therefore they 
 must not scandalize the Jews, nor break with Judaism. 
 The part played by the apostles in these keen de- 
 bates was, and could only be, that of conciliation. 
 All their efforts were directed to bring about through 
 these deliberations such a compromise as would pre- 
 serve unity among all divisions in the Church, without 
 placing the new evangelical principle in peril. ;Hence 
 the equivocal position in which they were found 
 throughout, and the minor part they played in the 
 history of these great struggles.^ 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles has preserved for us the 
 material result of these conferences in the form of a 
 letter addressed by the Church at Jerusalem to the 
 new Gentile Christian Churches, for the purpose of 
 re-assuring and pacifying them. Their freedom is 
 recognised. The letter is no more than a recom- 
 mendation of observances such as Paul himself en- 
 joined and the. Churches already practised ; viz. 
 abstinence from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, 
 
 ' See an excellent estimate of the part taken by the Twelve 
 in UHistoire de la Mologie apostolique of M. Reuss,, vol. i. pp. 
 306-329 [Eng. trans., i., 263-283] ; de Pressensd, Histoire des 
 trots premiers siecles, vol. i., pp. 457-474 [Eng. trans., The 
 Apostolic Age, 'p^.-i2S-x^i]. 
 
THE CONFLICT WITH THE JUDAI/.EKS. 129 
 
 from things strangled, — and lastly, from fornication. 
 In other words, they were to continue within those 
 general limits under which the Jews received prose- 
 lytes into social communion with themselves. These 
 restrictions occur again in Paul's epistles to the 
 Corinthians, and in the Apocalypse. While it is 
 certain that the two parties at Jerusalem came at 
 last to an understanding, it is equally certain that 
 this agreement could not have been arrived at in 
 any other way or upon any other basis. 
 
 This solution, it must however be said, was really 
 no solution at all. It might have some effect in the 
 sphere of practical life ; but it left the question of 
 principle untouched. The truth is, that from this 
 time it was no longer possible to arrest the conflict 
 between the Christian and the Jewish principle. The 
 apostles at Jerusalem showed their tact and wisdom, 
 as well as their moderation, in not entering upon it. 
 Time alone could bring it to an issue. It was the 
 dawn of a religious revolution, whose course it was 
 useless to resist. So far from preventing it, the 
 debates and resolutions of the council at Jerusalem 
 served only to precipitate the struggle. The compro- 
 mise then agreed upon became the starting point and 
 occasion of still fiercer and more serious contest. The 
 two hostile parties might each, indeed, regard it as a 
 first victory. It was an obvious inference for Paul 
 to conclude from it that the Gospel has abolished 
 the Law for Jews as well as Gentiles. But on the 
 other hand, his adversaries gained an equal advan- 
 tage. It was well understood that the decision of the 
 council only affected the Gentiles ; and that the Law 
 remained obligatory for the Jews who continued to 
 form the nucleus of the Church, the Messianic com- 
 
 O 
 
130 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 munity. In relation to the Jewish Church, therefore 
 Gentile Christians held an inferior position. They 
 purchased their liberty at the cost of their privileges. 
 They became ih& proselytes of the gate of Christianity; 
 they remained, in fact, at the door of the kingdom. 
 Thus the Judaizers had, seemingly, an equal right to 
 claim the settlement made at Jerusalem as a first 
 success. It furnished them with an excellent vantage 
 ground for a new campaign. They were inevitably 
 tempted to turn these proselytes of the gate into 
 proselytes of righteousness. This persistent antagonism 
 soon declared itself in the event. 
 
 A second contest, still more serious than that at 
 Jerusalem, broke out at Antioch (Gal. ii. 13, ff.). 
 This event, as we have seen [pp. 10, 11], finds its 
 proper occasion on Paul's return from his second 
 journey, at the end of the first and the beginning of 
 the second period of our history. 
 
 In the vigorous discourse addressed to the Judaizers 
 and summed up in the epistle to the Galatians, the 
 full-grown Paul for the first time displays himself, 
 with his great thesis of justification by faith, his 
 radical negation of the law, and the irresistible logic 
 of his polemics. The crisis now reaches i':s height. 
 
 Peter on coming to Antioch had eaten with Gen- 
 tile Christians, without regard to the precepts of thfc 
 law, which were in danger of being cast aside by the 
 Jewish Christians themselves. But just then certain 
 emissaries of James arrived, who protested against this 
 apostasy and asserted the authority of the law. Peter 
 was unable to withstand their influence. After having 
 sanctioned Christian liberty by his example, he seemed 
 to condemn it. He withdrew, and separated himself 
 from the Gentile Christians in order to make common 
 
THE CONFLICT WITH THE JUDAIZERS. 131 
 
 cause with those of the circumcision. Many other 
 Christians, and Barnabas himself, were drawn into 
 this act of hypocrisy ; and there was a temporary 
 revival of zeal for Judaism. Paul remained firm 
 and faithful. " Seeing," he says, " that they walked . 
 not with straight foot according to the truth of 
 the Gospel, I said to Peter before them all, If thou, 
 being a Jew, livest like a Gentile, why dost thou 
 compel the Gentiles to Judaize ? " The inconsistency 
 of Peter's double conduct could not be better shown. 
 But Paul does not stop there ; his argument goes to 
 the root of the matter. This flagrant inconsistency 
 of behaviour arose from an inner, though perhaps 
 unconscious inconsistency, which was at the bottom 
 of the doctrine of the Judaizing Christians, and which 
 Paul's pitiless logic lays bare in the discourse which 
 follows this apostrophe. All equivocation is cut short. 
 This is the overwhelming dilemma to which Peter is 
 shut up : Either faith in Christ is sufficient in itself 
 — in that case, why ask anything more from the 
 Gentiles, why glory in anything besides ? — or else it 
 is not sufficient ; but if not, it is not really necessary, — 
 and we Jews were mistaken in despairing of salvation 
 through the law and in having recourse to faith and 
 the death of Christ. In this case. His death was 
 superfluous and useless ! The whole discourse centres 
 in this dilemma. 
 
 Paul, from the first, puts himself in. the position 
 of the Jewish Christians (^/iet9 ^vaei TouSatot) ; he 
 aims at showing the radical contradiction existing, 
 unawares ■ to them, between their professed faith in 
 Christ and the Jewish claims that they seek to im- 
 pose on others. " We, who are Jews by origin and 
 not Gentile sinners (dftapTtoXoi), beirig convinced that 
 
132 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 man cannot be justified by the law, if he continue a 
 stranger to faith in Christ, — we, I say, have also be- 
 lieved in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by 
 faith, and not by the works of the law. What does 
 this mean, if not that our conversion to Christ is with 
 us Jews an undoubted proof that the essential means 
 of justification lies not in the law, but in faith? For 
 we have only believed in Christ, after despairing of 
 the law. It is true then to affirm that in our view 
 also no flesh can be justified before God by the law." 
 It is thus that Paul was led, in conflict with the 
 Judaistic opposition, to the full development and 
 definition of the grand thesis of his theology, — viz. 
 justification by faith ; and to apply it to Jews and 
 Gentiles alike, without making any distinction. He 
 asserts and logically deduces the consequences of the 
 fundamental principle he has now arrived at. "In the 
 work of our justification, faith in Christ is therefore 
 substituted for the works of the law. In seeking to 
 be justified through Christ, we acknowledge, by that 
 very act, that the law is ineffectual to this end 
 Faith in Christ, therefore, implies the negation of the 
 law for all." 
 
 In the seventeenth verse the objection is raised 
 which Paul's teaching has ever since continued co 
 provoke. The suppression of the law will reduce the 
 Jews to the rank of the d/j,apT(i3\oi, the Gentiles. Sin 
 will no longer be restrained ; and if Jesus abolishes 
 the law. He becomes the servant, the minister of sin 
 (comp. Rom. vi. i). Paul is not content to reject this 
 conclusion, as he does, by an energetic fih yivono. 
 " So far from that," he exclaims, " it results, on the 
 contrary, that if I build up again the law which I 
 removed in coming to Christ, I am not only incon- 
 
THE CONFLICT WITH THE JUDAIZERS. 133 
 
 sistent with myself, but I lose what I have gained ; 
 in face of the law thus restored, I find, and indeed 
 constitute myself, a transgressor ! Of necessity, trans- 
 gression is revived along with the law ; and the death 
 of Christ is rendered vain. But on the contrary, 
 where there is no law, there is also no transgression. 
 The truth is, that through the law I died to the law. 
 I have been crucified and condemned by the law with 
 Christ ; I am therefore freed from the law. It is no 
 longer I that live, it is Christ who lives in me ; and 
 that life which I still live in the flesh, I live not 
 under the law, but by faith in the Son of God, who 
 has loved me and given Himself for me." Finally, 
 gathering up this profound and powerful argument 
 into a single sentence, he declares, " If righteousness 
 comes to us by any kind of law, Christ died for 
 nothing ! " 
 
 Thus understood, the discourse which Paul has con- 
 densed in this brief abstract is really the complete 
 programme developed in the great epistles. It not 
 only contains all the essential ideas of the Pauline 
 theology, but they are presented already in the same 
 logical order in which we shall find them in the epistle 
 to the Romans : the inability of born Jews and of 
 sinners among the Gentiles alike to justify themselves 
 by their works ; the necessity, identical for both 
 parties, of believing in Christ ; the opposition between 
 justification by faith and justification by law ; the 
 abolishment of the law through faith ; the conception 
 of redemption as a death to tlie law and a resurrection 
 with Christ, resulting in the glorious liberty of the 
 children of God — all the links in this golden chain 
 are found here in their organic connexion. The 
 principle implanted in Paul's mind on his conversion 
 
134 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 at last yields its full result. The germ has become 
 a mighty tree. We have passed through the first 
 period of Paul's life ; and we enter forthwith on the 
 great conflicts of the second. 
 
BOOK III. 
 
 SECOND PERIOD; OR, THE PERIOD OF 
 THE GREAT CONFLICTS. 
 
 From 53 to 58 A.D. 
 
 THE discussion which took place at Antioch 
 seems to have been a regular declaration of war. 
 From this hour the struggle became general, and was 
 carried out on both sides without truce or restraint. 
 The Judaizing opposition, originating in Palestine, 
 extends and breaks out everywhere ; we find it dis- 
 turbing Galatia, Ephesus, and the Church at Corinth 
 by turns ; and outrunning the apostle of the Gentiles 
 himself, it gets to Rome before him. The Judaizing 
 party had its missionaries, who followed in Paul's 
 track, and in every place strove with embittered zeal 
 to undermine his authority, to seduce his disciples, 
 and to destroy his work under the pretence of rectify- 
 ing it It was a counter-mission systematically 
 organized. The delegates arrived with letters of 
 recommendation, and gave themselves out as repre- 
 sentatives of the Twelve, denying Paul's apostleship 
 and sowing distrust and suspicion of him everywhere 
 by their odious calumnies. 
 
 With the apostle this was a time of bitter expe- 
 riences and keen distress. His letters show us how 
 
136 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 greatly he suffered from this intestine struggle, from 
 the treachery of some of his friends and the fickle- 
 ness of his most beloved Churches. But, we hasten 
 to add, without these great troubles we should never 
 have known Paul at his greatest, nor guessed how 
 tender his heart was, how heroic his faith, how 
 vigorous his mind, how infinite the resources of his 
 strong and supple genius. He was indeed born for 
 conflict, and in it his spiritual nature acquired its full 
 maturity and developed all its powers. 
 
 Attacked almost simultaneously at every point of 
 his work, Paul does not shrink from the contest ; he 
 redoubles his energies, and makes himself almost 
 ubiquitous, everywhere confronting his adversaries 
 and never for one moment doubting of victory. For 
 four or five years this great controversy absorbed his 
 whole thought and energy ; it was the leading fact 
 which dominated and distinguished this second period. 
 Our great epistles are the issue of these truly tragic 
 circumstances, and can only be thoroughly understood 
 in their light. These epistles are not theological 
 treatises, so much as pamphlets ; they are the crush- 
 ing and terrible blows with which the mighty com- 
 batant openly answered the covert intrigues of his 
 enemies. The contest is in reality a drama, \yhich 
 grows larger and more complicated as it advances 
 from Galatia to Rome. The letters to the Galatians, 
 the Corinthians, and the Romans, which are its 
 principal acts, mark also its successive phases. They 
 are in close connexion with each other, and enable 
 us to establish a twofold progress, both in external 
 events and in the mind of the apostle, which we shall 
 now proceed to demonstrate. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 THE epistle to the Galatians, the earliest of the 
 four, enables us to witness the first outbreak of 
 this prolonged struggle. With its opening words, wc 
 are in the midst of the fray ; and from beginning to 
 end it is simply the apostle's vehement answer to the 
 unlooked-for attack of his enemies; It would be 
 hopeless, therefore, even to attempt to understand it, 
 without first having a clear perception of the character 
 of these Judaizing teachers, the nature of their con- 
 tention, and the strength of their arguments. Upon 
 these points, fortunately, the letter itself supplies us 
 with all necessary information. 
 
 The Galatians had received Paul's earliest preach- 
 ing with an enthusiasm and gratitude which had 
 touched and charmed him (Gal. iv. 14). Their cor- 
 diality had been maintained throughout the apostle's 
 sojourn with them ; and he had carried away from 
 Galatia the most ,pleasing impressions and the 
 brightest hopes. When therefore he heard of such a 
 speedy defection, his astonishment was only equalled 
 by his distress (Gal. i. 6). 
 
 What is it that had happened ? After Paul's 
 departure, there had arrived in Galatia certain men 
 whom he only chooses to designate by the somewhat 
 scornful term rtve?, quidam (i. 7). The new mission- 
 
138 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 aries brought to these young societies not, as they 
 would have it, another gospel, but those very Judaic 
 claims for which they had already pleaded at Jeru- 
 salem, and obtained a momentary triumph at Antioch. 
 They supported them by the name and example of 
 the Twelve, and by the authority of the mother 
 Church in Jerusalem. The apostles whom Christ has 
 ordained, who lived with Him and received His 
 directions and teaching, live and preach differently 
 from Paul. Above all, it is not true, as Paul teaches, 
 that the old covenant has been abolished by the 
 death of Christ. God cannot be unfaithful and de- 
 part from His promise ; nor take back what He has 
 once given. Now, He made an eternal covenant with 
 Abraham, and promised salvation to the children of 
 Abraham only. The word of God remains. So far 
 from having abolished this covenant, the death of 
 Christ only has its full effect and actual virtue within 
 the covenant, and for those who have entered into it. 
 Into this covenant you must enter, if you wish to 
 belong to the true Messianic people. Unless you are 
 circumcised, and thus become children of Abraham, 
 you cannot be saved. So they reasoned. 
 
 Paul's doctrine and that of the Judaizers may be 
 summed up in two assertions. He declared : " The 
 law and its ceremonies are nothing without the cross 
 of Christ, and nothing to the laeliever in Christ." — 
 " The death of Christ, and faith in Christ," they re- 
 plied, " are nothing apart from circumcision and legal 
 observance." At first sight, the difference between 
 these phrases may not appear great ; at the bottom it 
 is enormous. The first proposition is the negation of 
 Judaism ; the second is the destruction of the Gospel. 
 
 But Paul's adversaries would seem powerful indeed 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 139 
 
 when they pointed out that his teaching ran counter 
 to the entire Old Testament, and to the most solemn 
 promises of Jehovah. Nor were they less so in 
 quoting against him the example and teaching of the 
 apostles at Jerusalem, the only true heirs of the word 
 of Christ. Finally, they must have succeeded in 
 shaking the apostle's firmest friends, when they urged 
 that the abolition of the law compromised the holiness 
 of God, and encouraged sin by removing the barriers 
 against it ; and when they showed that this so-called 
 Christian liberty degenerated into a license that no 
 longer had either law or limit. The doctrine of Paul, 
 they concluded, is the subversion at once of all 
 authority, all truth, and all morality. 
 
 But this radical negation of Paul's gospel involved 
 the negation of his apostleship. The discussion of 
 his views resolved itself inevitably into a violent 
 personal attack. Who is this newcomer, that he 
 should set himself up against the first apostles, and 
 against the word of God itself? What is his 
 authority ? He has not seen Christ ; he has not been 
 made an apostle. What little he knows of the Gospel, 
 has been learned from the Lord's real disciples ; and 
 now he revolts against them ! Why does he separate 
 himself from them ? Why does he not reproduce their 
 preaching in its full and proper form? His mission 
 is purely extemporized ; and he has constituted him- 
 self an apostle on his own authority, and out of his 
 mere fancy. He claims, no doubt, to have received 
 revelations, and to have had visions vouchsafed to 
 him ; but what proof have we that his assertions are 
 true? Must we believe it on the strength of his 
 word ? Besides, how can these mere personal revela- 
 tions that he alleges hold good against the traditional 
 
I40 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 teaching of men who lived so long with Jesus, who 
 saw His face and heard His words? Is not this 
 tradition the standard by which we must test every 
 private vision, in order to ascertain whether it comes 
 from God or from the Devil ? The surest proof that 
 the new apostle's visions are nothing but falsehood is 
 that they contradict and subvert the true doctrine of 
 Jesus Christ. His assumed independence is nothing . 
 but culpable audacity ; his gospel is a mutilated 
 gospel ; his apostleship, a usurpation ; and his attack 
 on the law, a sacrilege. The Galatians must beware 
 of him as an enemy ; they must hasten to enter into 
 communion with the true Church of the Messiah by 
 submitting themselves to the Divine ordinances. 
 
 What an impression this skilful and sweeping 
 attack must have made on the fickle minds of these 
 Galatian tribes ! The new teachers, apparently, had 
 the facts on their side — the external tradition of 
 Christ and the apostles, and of the Old Testament. 
 The gospel of Paul rested on his personal testimony 
 alone. How could this authority counterbalance that 
 of the traditions of Jerusalem ? 
 
 Is it surprising that the Galatians, ready, it would 
 seem, for all novelties, should have been seized with 
 distrust of the apostle, and have eagerly accepted the 
 new gospel ? 
 
 But Paul was not the man to abandon the struggle. 
 His defence rose to the height of the danger. So 
 far from weakening the force of his opponents' argu- 
 mentation, I conceive that his logical mind has 
 strengthened it, and given it a sequence and inner 
 cohesion that it probably lacked in their own repre- 
 sentation. It may be reduced to these three essential 
 points : 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 14; 
 
 1. They deny the Divine origin of his gospel, and 
 the independence of his apostleship : whatever he 
 knows of the Gospel, he received, they say, from the 
 other apostles, and his authority must consequently 
 be subordinated to theirs. His adversaries may even 
 have added that in the presence of the pillars of the 
 Church at Jerusalem he had taken care not to assert 
 his empty claims (Gal. ii. 1 1 ff.). 
 
 2. This gospel of human origin is, in addition, 
 false in substance ; for it destroy.s the law, and is in 
 flagrant contradiction to the Old Testament. 
 
 3. This gospel, human in origin and false in prin- 
 ciple, is further disastrous in its practical results. By 
 doing away with the law it removes the barrier 
 between the elect and sinners (afiapruiKoi)} 
 
 This triple attack gives us the actual plan of the 
 epistle to the Galatians, and enables us to see the 
 strength of its structure. Paul proceeds to take up 
 and refute these accusations. He has to maintain 
 the independence and authority of his apostleship, 
 and the intrinsic truth of his gospel ; and moreover to 
 explain the moral consequences which, logically and 
 in point of fact, result from it. Hence the three main 
 divisions of his letter, which has been somewhat 
 inadequately divided into an historical (chaps, i., ii.), a 
 dogmatical (chaps, iii., iv.), and moral section (chaps, v., 
 vi.). These three parts follow each other in logical suc- 
 cession. They are, in fact, the three essential branches 
 of the same demonstration. Perhaps no other of 
 Paul's letters has such a powerful inner cohesion, or so 
 much unity of character. Its one idea, from first to 
 
 ' See Holsten, op. cit., Inhalt und Gedankengang ties Briefes 
 en die Galater, p. 241. 
 
142 TUB APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 last, is the Gospel of faith, whose origin, principle, and 
 consequences are explained in turn and in progressive 
 order. The refutation of the Judaizers' arguments 
 becomes, thanks to the apostle's dialectics, the lumi- 
 nous and triumphant exposition of his own views. 
 
 The general forms of thought which met the 
 requirements of the apostle's missionary preaching, 
 manifestly could no longer suffice for this controversy; 
 and they disappeared. Paul's belief, in all its distinct- 
 ness, at last finds trenchant and decisive utterance. 
 Its whole import is contained in the following 
 antithesis, which from this time becomes its <^z.x3.z- 
 tenstic : Justification by faith, ax\d justification through 
 the law ; things new, and things old ; the flesh, and 
 the spirit ; the time of bondage, and the time of liberty. 
 Paulinism has reached its transforming crisis. 
 
 1. Paul's Apostolic Commission. 
 
 When writing to the Thessalonians, Paul did not 
 in his superscription give himself any title. The 
 superscription of the epistle to the Galatians, on the 
 contrary, is exceptionally solemn. This circumstance 
 by itself shows, from the outset, the change that had 
 taken place in the apostle's position. He now asserts, 
 and with remarkable emphasis, at once the Divine 
 origin of his apostleship (a7ro<7To\os ovk air dvOpcoTrcov 
 ovBe Si' avBpdrirov, aXKa Sia 'Itjctov Xpicrrov /cal 0eov 
 Trar/jo?), and the essential principle of that Gospel 
 which, it is his business to preach, and to defend 
 against all opponents : esus, delivered unto death 
 for our sins, according to he will of God our Father " 
 (chap. i. 4). 
 
 Full of indignation and astonishment, Paul flings 
 himself eagerly into thfe question at issue. Verses 
 
THE EPISTLE TO. THE GALATIANS. 143 
 
 6-10 lay down the thesis to be demonstrated in the 
 epistle: "I marvel that you should have allowed your- 
 selves to be so quickly turned aside from Him who 
 called you in the grace of Christ, to another gospel. 
 — Another gospel ? There is none. The fact is, there 
 are certain mischief-makers who wish to pervert the 
 gospel of Christ. But if any one, were it ourselves or 
 an angel from heaven, came to declare a different 
 gospel, let him be anathema ! I have said, and I 
 repeat, If any one preach a different gospel, let him 
 be anathema ! Am I seeking to commend myself to 
 men, or to God ? Or am I seeking to please men ? 
 If I were still trying to please men, I should not be a 
 minister of Christ." ^ 
 
 After this exordium ex abrupto, the first part of the 
 epistle immediately begins, and extends to the end 
 of the second chapter. Paul first asserts the Divine 
 origin of his gospel under its negative form : The 
 gospel that I have declared, is not according to man. 
 I have not received, neither learned it from any man ; 
 — then, under its positive form : / hold it by a direct 
 revelation from Jesus Christ (chap. i. 11, 12). He 
 proves this absolute independence of his gospel by 
 a threefold series of arguments, which fortify each 
 other and form a powerful gradation. 
 
 I. Paul insists on the absolutely miraculous nature 
 of the event which made him a Christian, and an 
 
 ' These last words, taken along with another passage in the 
 epistle (v. 11), can only be understood as alluding to a time 
 when Paul adopted a conciliatory policy toward certain men (the 
 Judaizers), and made certain concessions in order to avoid 
 giving offence. But the time for concession is now passed. The 
 apostle may not .suffer himself to be checked by any regard for 
 persons, under pain of becoming himself unfaithful to Christ; 
 
144 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 apostle. It was in the midst of his zeal for Judaism 
 and his persecuting fury that the grace of God 
 (eiiBoKTjaev Bia r/j? %aptTo? aiiTov), which had set him 
 apart from his mother's womb, took possession of himi 
 No man intervened between his conscience and the 
 Divine call. It was God Himself who revealed His 
 Son in his soul, and at the same time commissioned 
 him to go and preach Him among the heathen. This 
 work, begun without man's agency, was also com- 
 pleted without man's participation (ov irfioa-aveBefirjv 
 aapKi Kol a'lfiaTi). The purpose of vers. 16-24 is 
 to insist on the isolation in which Paul lived : he 
 emphatically declares that he did not see Peter and 
 James until three years after his conversion, and then 
 only for a few days. By virtue of this call, which was 
 solely of God, he has laboured and preached as an 
 apostle to the Gentiles for fourteen years ; and with 
 so much success that the Churches of Judaea, to whom 
 he was unknown, glorified God nevertheles.s, because 
 His grace had turned a persecutor into so mighty an 
 instrument for the extension of His kingdom. 
 
 2. But this is not all. Not only did he carry on 
 his labours as an apostle for a long period in absolute 
 independence, but also the mission entrusted to him 
 by God, and which, to be sure, needs no confirma- 
 tion from men (however great and influential their 
 position), has been officially recognised by the apostles 
 at Jerusalem, — by those who pass for pillars of the 
 Church, Peter, James, and John. They gave him the 
 right hand of fellowship, and acknowledged that 
 while Peter had received the apostleship of the Jews, 
 he, Paul, was equally entitled to the apostleship of 
 the Gentiles (chap. ii. i-io). 
 
 3. Furthermore, his apostleship is so entirely in- 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 145 
 
 dependent of that of the other disciples of Jesus, that 
 on one occasion he was enabled, in virtue of this 
 Divine vocation and the authority it conferred upon 
 him, to reprove Peter and recall him to the right path, 
 from which he had attempted to depart. This was 
 at Antioch. He went so far as to condemn Peter, 
 because he was to be blamed ; he made him feel both 
 the duplicity of his conduct and the inconsistency of 
 his views ; he succeeded in making the Gospel of 
 Jesus Christ triumph over all the fears and scruples 
 of the one party, and the opposition of the other. 
 He solemnly declared on that occasion the truth that 
 he preaches — viz. that no flesh is justified by the law, 
 but every believer is justified solely by his faith in 
 Christ. For, he insisted, the choice must be made : 
 either Christ saves us, and in that case the law does 
 not ; or else it is the law that saves, and in that case 
 Christ died in vain. In this manner, Paul naturally 
 passes from the subject of the origin of his gospel to 
 its exposition and the demonstration of its contents. 
 So the first leads to the second part of his letter. 
 
 II. The Doctrine of the Gospel. 
 
 This threefold demonstration of the Divine origin 
 of his gospel has wrought upon the apostle's own 
 feelings. The truth at this point seems to him so 
 plain, that he cannot possibly understand the defection 
 of the Galatians : " O foolish Galatians, who then 
 has bewitched you ? " With this vigorous apostrophe 
 the second part of the epistle opens. His object is 
 now to show the intrinsic truth of his gospel, and its 
 profound harmony with the Old Testament. 
 
 Without doubt, the saying of the new teachers 
 which had done most to shake the Galatians' faith 
 
 10 
 
146 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 was that ancient, ever powerful phrase : " We are the 
 children of Abraham " (comp. Matt. iii. 9). Salvation 
 belongs to the elect race alone. Now, God has given 
 in circumcision a sign by which the children of Abra- 
 ham are to be known. Those who are without it do 
 not belong to the people of God, and can have no 
 share in their privileges. This is the reasoning that 
 the apostle had to overthrow. For this theocratic and 
 narrow Messianism, Paul will substitute the great 
 universal scheme, the spiritual history of the king- 
 dom of God and of its revelation upon earth. To 
 the carnal descent from Abraham, he will oppose the 
 spiritual and only true filiation — that of faith. He will 
 appeal, in his turn, to the promise made to the father 
 of the faithful ; he will show in what manner salva- 
 tion is connected with it, and how the law is related 
 to it. He will thus reconstruct the genuine tradition 
 of Israel ; and it will be seen whether he or his 
 enemies are its true representatives. 
 
 We can now understand why the faith of Abraham 
 plays such an important part in Pauline theology. 
 It was not arbitrarily that the apostle chose this 
 example, rather than another. The promise made to 
 the patriarch was the common basis of argument, both 
 for Paul and the Judaizers; and upon this promise and 
 its accompanying conditions a keen debate was sure 
 to arise, for this was the crucial question. The whole 
 discussion turns upon this first point. If the Law 
 qualifies and limits the Promise, it is plain that it will 
 continue to be the eternal condition of salvation. In 
 the epistle to the Romans we shall find Paul returning- 
 to this example of Abraham, intent on showing that 
 faith, without the observance of the law, is the sole 
 condition implied in the promise. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 147 
 
 He appeals here at the outset to the actual fact of 
 the conversion of the Galatians — a fact which was 
 undeniable, and, in his view," sufficient of itself to 
 overthrow the Judaizers' vain pretensions. " You 
 have been converted ; you have received the Spirit, 
 the earnest of life eternal, the pledge of your adoption. 
 Well, I ask you, was it in consequence of the works 
 of the law, or through the preaching of faith, that 
 you experienced all that? Or is it all to be in vain ? 
 — See how inconsistent you are : you began in the 
 Spirit, and you would finish in the flesh ! God has 
 wrought in you, and produced through His Spirit all 
 the fruits of the new life : do you not see then that 
 the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled in you 
 through faith, and that the true sons of Abraham 
 are those who are so by faith? Through faith the 
 promise was given ; through faith, and not by the 
 law, it is fulfilled." 
 
 Paul now comes to the formulation of his great 
 distinction between the law and the promise, which, 
 in the first instance, he contrasts with each other. So 
 far from the promise being fulfilled in and by the 
 law, they produce a diametrically opposite effect. 
 The end of the promise is blessing {^h'X.o'^ia) ; and the 
 inevitable effect of the law is the curse {icaTapd). 
 All those who place themselves under the law are 
 under the curse (l/tto Kardpav elcriv). Christ placed 
 Himself under the law and became a curse for us, in 
 order to redeem us from the curse. Wherefore it is 
 in Jesus Christ, and not in the law, that it is possible 
 for the Gentiles to obtain the blessing of Abraham 
 (chap. iii. 9- 1 4). 
 
 This reasoning seems unanswerable. But Paul 
 further urges and illustrates it by a comparison drawn 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 from human relationships {Kaia avBpwrrov Xiryo}). 
 When a man has made a testament, nothing can 
 nullify his fixed decree ; nothing can be added to it. 
 Now a testament was made in favour of Abraham's 
 heir (rm airepixaTi avToii). The promise was made 
 to his seed, — that is, to Christ. The law which came 
 in 430 years later could neither abolish nor change it. 
 So that it is not the law which gives us our title as 
 heirs, but the promise, the free gift of the grace of 
 God. 
 
 Hitherto Paul has been contrasting the promise 
 and the law ; he has shown that the law brought 
 about a state diametrically opposed to that contem- 
 plated by the promise, whose realization it was bound 
 to seek. But it was not enough to set aside the law 
 thus absolutely by a mere negation ; its positive 
 value must also be understood and explained. If the 
 law is contrary to the promise, of what use is it ? 
 What part was assigned to it in the Divine plan ? 
 Why was it given ? This is the question which in- 
 evitably meets us here (rt ovv 6 vofjio^; chap. iii. 19). 
 The apostle, in answering it, completes his demon- 
 stration. The following verses, which contain this 
 answer, are the most important and the most difficult 
 in the epistle to the Galatians. They furnish the 
 key to the Pauline theory of the progress of Divine 
 revelation. But they are concise to an extent com- 
 pared with which the style of Tacitus is prolixity 
 itself. At every point thought defeats expression. 
 
 For what purpose is the law, it has been asked ? 
 It was superadded (jrpoaeTeOif) as something external, 
 in a provisional, temporary sense {ciy^pi<; ov) ; and that 
 for the sake of transgressions, — which is to say, in 
 order to produce and multiply transgressions (t&v 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALAIIANS. 149 
 
 itapa^aa&av yapiv irpoa-eredi] = 6 v6/u.o<! vapeiaPjXdev 
 ii'a ifKeovdari to irapdiTTcofLa, Rom. v. 20). Thus 
 transgression, the actual reahzation of sin, is the 
 primary end of the law. It is an essential, but transi- 
 tory factor in the development of the plan of salva- 
 tion. The law was designed to carry sin to the height 
 of its power and its extreme consequences ; it had 
 this function to fulfil, up till the time of the coming 
 of the seed of Abraham — vis. Christ — to whom the 
 promise had been made. The much disputed words 
 which follow (SiaraYets St' ayyeKav ev %et/3i fiecrlrov) 
 are still part of Paul's answer to the question pro- 
 pounded. From the form and manner in which the 
 law was given, Paul infers its character. The apostle, 
 as Holsten rightly perceived, did not intend by these 
 words either to disparage or glorify the law, but to 
 bring out its intermediate and subordinate character. 
 
 Nothing shows better than these accessory circum- 
 stances that the law was not an end in itself, not 
 the final goal, but simply a means. As the angels 
 are ministers working after the Divine plan, so the 
 law is a minister, working towards the fulfilment of 
 . the promise ; given by the hand of a mediator, it still 
 continues to be a mediator, — a middle term between 
 the promise made to Abraham and its fulfilment in 
 Christ, designed to fill up the interval that elapsed 
 between Abraham and his heir. 
 
 But what is the meaning of the yet more obscure 
 twentieth verse, o /tiecrtTr;? evo? ohic ecrrtv, o Be ©eo'i 
 eh eaTcv? In form the verse is a syllogism. The 
 mediator is not of one alone ; but God is one, 
 therefore the mediator is not of God. What does this 
 mean, if not that the mediation to be accomplished 
 by the law has nothing to do with God ? , God being 
 
1.5° THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 'ever in absolute unity, has no need in Himself of 
 any mediation. But every mediation at least implies 
 a duality. It is in history, and in humanity, that this 
 mediation has to be accomplished ; where, in fact, a 
 duality does exist between the Jews and Gentiles, 
 which has occupied the whole period intervening 
 between the time of the promise and its accomplish- 
 ment. The law, which multiplies transgressions, 
 places Jews under sin as well as Gentiles ; it con- 
 stitutes them sinners like the Gentiles ; and this is its 
 function, till the Redeemer's coming. The law, there- 
 fore, is not contrary to the promise ; for in reality it is 
 intended to bring about its fulfilment. Neither is the 
 reign of the law a simple interregnum, or parenthesis, 
 but a necessary factor in the evolution of Divine 
 grace. The law is an active agent which labours, and 
 with full success, to make men realize sin and to 
 bring them all under the curse. It is a tutor, a peda- 
 gogue, who keeps them in this state against the 
 coming of faith {i^povpovynQa cTvyK6KXeia-/iievoi). 
 
 This 23rd verse has often been misunderstood ; the 
 words i(j)povpovfieda, iraiia-ya)<y6<;, etc., have led some 
 to believe that the law was given to check sin, and 
 so to lead man by an actual progress up to Christ. 
 This idea is not at all Pauline, but the very reverse of 
 the apostle's real doctrine. The law has only one 
 aim : to multiply sin by realizing it ; to constitute all 
 men sinners, and like a gaoler to guard them, shut 
 up under sin. Thus the law brings about the unity 
 of all men after a negative fashion, by placing them 
 all equally under the curse. Christ, on the contrary, 
 realizes this unity in a positive manner, by making 
 all men alike children of God. "In Christ there Is 
 no longer Greek nor Jew, nor slave nor free, nor man 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIJNS. 151 
 
 nor woman, for you are all united in Him. And if 
 you are of Christ, you are of the seed of Abraham, 
 and therefore heirs according to the promise." Such 
 ■is the apostle's conclusion (chap. iii. 29). 
 
 To sum up, the law is neither absolutely identical 
 with the promise, nor absolutely opposed to it. It is 
 not the negation of the promise ; but it is distinct 
 from it, and subordinate to it. Its final purpose lies 
 in the promise itself It is an essential, but transi- 
 tional element in the historical development of 
 humanity. It must needs disappear on attaining its 
 goal. Christ is the end of the law. ' 
 
 Thus Paul, in opposition to the theocratic and 
 national Messianism of the Judaizers, succeeds in con- 
 structing a new economy of salvation, a history of 
 ' redemption, broad, profound, and singularly spiritual. 
 It attains its realization in three stages — tlie Promise, 
 the Law, and Christ. The first and last terms are 
 identical ; the law is the intermediary through which 
 the promise reaches its final realization. 
 
 A further comparison suffices to set the apostle's 
 idea in its full light. Humanity is a child, who 
 passes first of all through a period of minority. Man 
 under the law is a minor in tutelage, a child with a 
 pedagogue who simply forbids and commands. There 
 is no difference between this condition and that of 
 the slave. But this state of minority cannot last for 
 ever. At the appointed time Christ came, to proclaim 
 that the human race had attained its majority. Man 
 henceforward is freed from tutelage ; he is the heir put 
 in possession of his patrimony. It is as reasonable a 
 thing to seek to reduce the child of God again under 
 the law, as it would be to make the mature man return 
 to thfe rudiments, to those elementary things {oToiyfia) 
 
■ 52 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 which served to guide his youth. Between the reli- 
 gion of the letter and that of the spirit there is all 
 the distance that lies between childhood and maturity. 
 Such was the Divine adoption, the liberty and spiritual 
 manhood which the apostle came to declare to the 
 Galatians, and which they had received with so much 
 enthusiasm and gratitude. Is all this to be rendered 
 vain ? 
 
 To make his victory complete, Paul sums up his 
 exposition once more in his admirable allegory of 
 Sarah the free-woman and Hagar the bond-woman. 
 The children of the free-woman are free as she is ; 
 the children of the bond-woman are slaves like their 
 mother. The true heir is not Ishmael, the purely 
 carnal son ; it is Isaac, the spiritual son, the child of 
 faith. 
 
 III. The Gospel in its Practical Effect. 
 
 This allegory, while summing up the second part 
 of the epistle to the Galatians, is also the transition 
 which leads us to the third part. The goal of the 
 apostle's powerful demonstration is the idea of Chris- 
 tian liberty, so that this last section is no less essential 
 to the structure of the epistle than the other two. 
 It is its completion and necessary conclusion. The 
 Gospel of faith becomes the Gospel of freedom. 
 Paul's whole discourse centres in two ideas : 
 I. Christian liberty is a privilege of which the 
 Galatians must not suffer themselves to be robbed. 
 They must vindicate it against the attempts of the 
 new teachers, who would re-impose the yoke from 
 which Christ had freed them. " I Paul declare to 
 you, that if you are circumcised, Christ will no longer 
 avail you anything" (chap. v. 1-12). 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALA71ANS. 153 
 
 2. But this liberty must not be used as a starting 
 point or occasion for fleshly lusts ; it asserts itself 
 only that it may in turn submit to the law of love. 
 " Free by faith, make yourselves slaves by love." 
 Love is only another name for liberty ; and liberty, 
 so far from overthrowing the law, is on the contrary 
 the sole means of its fulfilment. For the law is ful- 
 filled by love (vers. 13-15). 
 
 Paul does not stop there. He wishes to show the 
 actual consequences of his doctrine. To admit the 
 principle of faith, and live in sin, is a logical impos- 
 sibility. I^ere we have the first outlines of the moral 
 psychology which is developed in the epistle to the 
 Romans. The apostle points out to the Galatians the 
 conflict existing in every man between the flesh and 
 the spirit, one in which the law of good is always 
 conquered by the power of sin. But, he add-s, the 
 flesh was crucified with Christ, so that the believer 
 is, with Christ, dead to sin ; if he lives henceforward, 
 he lives by the new Spirit of Christ. By a necessary 
 consequence, he must no longer walk according to 
 the flesh which is dead, but according to the Spirit 
 of holiness which raised Christ from the dead (chap. 
 V. 16-26). 
 
 Such is the epistle to the Galatians, now lying 
 before us complete in its three divisions, — the first, 
 perhaps the most admirable, manifestation of the 
 apostle's genius. There is nothing in ancient or 
 modern literature to be compared with it. All the 
 powers of Paul's soul shine forth in these few pages. 
 Broad and luminous views, keen logic, biting irony 
 — everything that is most forcible in argument, vehe- 
 ment in indignation, ardent and tender in affection. 
 
I5t 1'HE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 is found here combined and poured forth in a single 
 stream, forming a work of irresistible power. Its 
 style is no less original than the matter of its ideas, 
 and has in truth been perfected in the same conflict 
 which matured the apostle's thought. Although 
 Paul's manner is discernible in the two epistles to 
 the Thessalonians, there is nevertheless a wide dis- 
 tinction in character between those two letters and 
 the epistle to the Galatians. Here the true Pauline 
 type reveals itself, in its bold and full originality. 
 The celebrated maxim. The style is the man, was 
 never better verified. 
 
 Paul's language is his living image. There is the 
 same striking contrast between his thought and its 
 expression as was presented by his feeble constitution 
 and ardent spirit. It is an inferior style, — poor in its 
 external form, its phraseology rude and incorrect, its 
 accent barbarous. As the apostle's body, a "vessel of 
 clay," yields under the weight of his ministry, so the 
 words and form of his diction bend and break beneath 
 the weight of his thought. But from this contrast 
 spring the most marvellous effects. What power in 
 weakness ! What wealth in poverty ! What a fiery 
 soul in this frail body ! The style does not sustain 
 the thought, it is that which sustains the style, giving 
 to it its force, its life and beauty. Thought presses 
 on — overcharged, breathless and hurried — dragging 
 the words after it ! — It is a veritable torrent, which 
 •channels its own deep bed and rushes onward, over- 
 throwing all barriers in its way. Unfinished phrases, 
 daring omissions, parentheses which leave us out of 
 sight and out of breath, rabbinical subtleties, audacious 
 paradoxes, vehement apostrophes pour on like surging 
 billows. Mere words, in their ordinary meaning, are 
 
7'HE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 155 
 
 insufficient to sustain tliis overwhelming plenitude 
 of thought and feeling. Every phrase is obliged, so 
 to -speak, to bear a double and triple burden. In a 
 single proposition, or in a coiiple of words strung 
 together, Paul has lodged a whole world of ideas. 
 It is this which makes the exegesis of his epistles so 
 difficult, and their translation absolutely impossible. 
 
 From a dogmatic point of view, however, the epistle 
 to the Galatians is after all no more than a pro- 
 gramme. All the essential ideas of the Pauline 
 system are indicated in it, but they are not worked 
 out. It is indeed a masterly sketch ; the epistle to 
 the Romans turns the sketch into a picture. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 BETWEEN the epistle to the Galatians and the 
 epistle to the Romans come in chronological 
 order the two letters to the Corinthians. 
 
 The conflict raging in Galatia was of a simple and 
 open character. It was the flagrant opposition of two 
 contending principles". At Corinth the struggle was 
 complicated by a multitude of special difficulties. It 
 is less dogmatic, and more personal. Paul's enemies 
 have renounced, or at least concealed their preten- 
 sions. They do not raise the question either of cir- 
 cumcision or of the law. But their animosity is none 
 the less fierce for being more secret. It raises up a 
 crowd of practical difficulties in the apostle's way, and 
 forces upon him questions of the most grave and 
 the most delicate nature, through which his authority 
 is covertly assailed. Hence the changed character of 
 Paul's polemics. In this complex situation the con- 
 densed and solid argumentation of the epistle to the 
 Galatians would be inappropriate. He has not now to. 
 give a formal refutation of error, but to solve a variety 
 of practical problems, — to quell disputes, repress dis- 
 orders, and disconcert his opponents' schemes. For 
 this task he needed tact equally with logic, adroitness 
 as well as firmness. Paul's doctrine, so concentrated 
 
 156 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 157 
 
 in the epistle to tlie Galatians, is here expanded in a 
 multitude of varied applications. The stream hitherto 
 pent in spreads itself into a thousand channels ; but 
 it flows in the same direction, and while dividing 
 becomes enriched. We shall see in the epistle to the 
 Romans, how at a later period all its streams meet 
 again and resume their broad and mighty course. 
 
 The Church of Corinth was one of the apostle's 
 noblest creations. It was, as he says himself, the child 
 that he had begotten amid many sorrows (i Cor. iv. 
 9-15), and had nourished and reared with tenderest 
 love. But this child was of Greek birth, and retained 
 the tendencies and temperament of its race. The 
 quarrelsome spirit native to the Greek city re- 
 appeared in the Christian Church. The new faith, 
 with its hopes and mysteries, seems to have stimu- 
 lated the hereditary disposition to curiosity and subtle 
 disputations. In this town of Corinth, with its mixed 
 population, so wealtliy and so corrupt, the quest for 
 pleasure and sensual enjoyment was combined with 
 intellectual refinement. At that period, to lead a dis- 
 orderly life was called to Corinthianize. On reading 
 the descriptions of the moral condition of this great 
 city given by pagan writers, we are no longer sur- 
 prised that the little Christian congregation in its' 
 midst, formed probably out of its most impure ele- 
 ments, was tainted in some degree with the general 
 corruption. These circumstances acoStint for the 
 situation of the Church, i»as it 'appears m Paul's first 
 letter to the Coritfthians.. ' ■ 
 
 Some of its members were leading disorderly lives. 
 One of them was'actually living with his father's 
 wife, and had not been excommunicated. There were 
 heated discussions about divorce, about the respective 
 
158 THE APOSTLE PAUL, 
 
 advantages of celibacy and marriage, about sacrificial 
 meats. The celebration of the Agapse gave rise to 
 scandals. The assemblies were stormy ; every one 
 was eager to parade, in season and out of season, the 
 spiritual gifts that he claimed to possess. Pride and 
 jealousies flourished. A few, more refined than the 
 rest, did not believe in the resurrection of the body. 
 Lastly — and this perhaps was the most serious symp- 
 tom of all — the Church was split into factions, each 
 taking for its flag the name of some preacher of the 
 Gospel, as formerly in the Greek republics the citizens 
 were wont to rally round one or other of the popular 
 orators. One said, I am for Apollos ; another, I am 
 for Paul; another, I am for Cephas; another again, 
 I am for Christ (i Cor. i. 10-12). 
 
 What is the real import of these disputes ? Were 
 there four parties, each with a definite and settled 
 constitution ? Certainly not. From a dogmatic point 
 of view, such sects could have had no raison d'etre ; 
 and those who try to discover one are obliged to 
 reduce them to two factions — that of Paul, and of 
 Cephas. But it will be observed that in this first 
 letter Paul nowhere combats a dogmatic tendency 
 opposed to his own. In the earlier chapters especially, 
 his condemnation bears on the mere fact of the dis-' 
 putes ; and indeed he throws blame on his own 
 partisans and those of Apollos, rather than on the 
 adherents of Cephas (chaps, iii. 4-9 ; iv. 6). Finally, 
 he places Cephas, Paul, and Apollos on the same level, 
 as so many servants of Christ belonging to the Corin- 
 thians, but to whom the Corinthians in their turn 
 do not belong : " Whether Paul, Apollos, or Cephas — 
 all are yours ; you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." 
 Here is order ; and here is unity. If Paul had been 
 
Tim FIRST EFISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 159 
 
 encountering a party division, or a conflict similar to 
 that in Galatia, how could such a mode of procedure 
 on his part be explained? It is a vain attempt to 
 seek to trace out these four parties, especially the 
 Christ party, either in the remainder of this epistle or 
 in the second.^ 
 
 In fact, the language of chap. i. 12 does not describe I 
 a general and permanent state of affairs, but a momen- 1 
 tary situation which very soon altered. It is the 
 beginning of a fermentation in which all the elements 
 are still mingled and contending together ; the Church 
 was seized with the fever of Greek democracy. In 
 such rivalries persons play a more important par-t 
 than principles. But the agitation wonderfully served 
 to facilitate the attempts of Paul's antagonists. The 
 latter, arriving with letters of recommendation, brought 
 with them a new leaven ; they laboured secretly to 
 effect a profound schism. Paul's letter, the arrival of 
 the Judaizing teachers (2 Cor. iii. i), the logic of prin- 
 ciples, and above all, as we shall see, the affair of the/ 
 incestuous person, led to the separation of the con- 
 tending elements ; and from this general agitation 
 there were evolved two parties radically opposed, — 
 one adhering to Paul, the other to the judaizers. 
 
 ' Paulus, vol. i., pp. 287 ff. [Eng. trans., i., 269 ff.]. 1 he error 
 of Baur's exegesis of i Cor. i. 10-12, to my mind, arises from the 
 mistaken idea with which he starts, that the first and second 
 epistles to the Corinthians imply an identical situation in the 
 Church. But it is obvious that in the interval the situation 
 had materially changed, and that for the worse. The four 
 earlier parties had speedily disappeared, and given birth to two 
 that were dogmatic and essentially different, — the Pauline and 
 the Judaizing party. It is this progress of the contest at Corinth 
 that we have endeavoured to make evident. 
 
r6o THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Such is the situation afterwards disclosed by the 
 second epistle to the Corinthians. But the agitation 
 is at present somewhat complicated and undefined. 
 Beneath the actual disputes Paul's insight detects 
 unmistakably a greater danger ; he divines a secret 
 hostility to his gospel ; indeed he throws out already 
 a few words here and there in the nature of a defence 
 (chaps, iv., ix.), but always in a veiled and indirect 
 manner. It is the interests of the Church for which 
 he is here concerned, and in a general way. Farther 
 on, when the Judaizing party is unmasked, we shall 
 find him resuming the controversy in a ~style more 
 ironical, more keen and penetrating than ever. Such, 
 it seems to us, was the course of affairs, and the 
 progress of the struggle in the midst of the Church 
 at Corinth. 
 
 It was impossible that this epistle, addressed to so 
 complex a situation and such varied needs, should 
 assume the systematic and logical construction of the 
 letter to the Galatians. The apostle, however, has 
 managed to group into a few great divisions the 
 numerous questions presented to him, and has im- 
 parted some degree of method to his long reply. 
 
 His letter seems to fall naturally into three main 
 divisions : 
 
 I. The first includes the general questions (chaps. 
 i.--vi.). Paul reviews the state of the Church, setting 
 it in a decidedly gloomy aspect. He first of all pro- 
 tests against the internal divisions which are rending 
 it asunder (chaps, i.-iv.) ,; against the scandals which 
 disgrace it, especially the crime of the incestuous 
 person (chap, v.); and, lastly, against the habit which 
 the believers have formed of carrying their law-suits 
 before heathen tribunals (chap. vi.). 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. i6l 
 
 2. In a second group of questions the apostle / 
 distributes the inquiries that the Corinthians them-| 
 selves had proposed to him in writing, irepX Se wv 
 iypdifrare (chaps, vii.-x.). He discusses in succession 
 marriage, celibacy, widowhood, divorce, and meats 
 sacrificed to idols. The solution of all these diffi- 
 culties is deduced from a general principle, which 
 Paul has always accepted as- his own rule throughout 
 his apostleship (chaps, ix. and x.), and which he lays 
 down in the following terms : A// things are lazvful, 
 but all tilings edify not. 
 
 3. Lastly, after disposing of these general questions, 
 Paul enters more fully into the interior life of the 
 Church, and corrects its defects and errors, proceed- 
 ing by a well-marked gradation from the lighter to 
 the more serious. He deals in succession with the 
 position and deportment of women in the assemblies 
 (chap, xi. 1-16) ; with the disorders which disturb the 
 Agapse (vers. 17-34) ; with spiritual gifts^ their diver- 
 sity and unity, and the charity which excels them 
 all (chaps, xii., xiii.) ; with the gift of tongues (chap, 
 xiv.); and, finally, with the resurrection of the body 
 (chap. XV.). He adds some advice with respect to the 
 collection for the saints at Jerusalem, which he was 
 organizing in all the Churches ; and sums up all his 
 exhortations in the words so full of vigour : " Watch, 
 stand fast in the faith, be manly and strong. Let 
 love inspire all that you do" (chap. xvi. 13, 14). 
 
 Such is the order of this first epistle. In spite of 
 the variety of questions touched upon, a profound 
 unity prevails throughout it. Paul's dialectical mind, 
 instead of stopping short at the surface of these par- 
 ticular questions and losing itself in the details of a 
 finely drawn casuistry, always ascends from facts to 
 
 II 
 
152 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 principles, and thus sheds a fuller light on all the 
 difficulties presented to it by the way. After he has 
 carried the mind of his readers up to the serene 
 heights of Christian thought, he sweeps down from 
 this elevation with irresistible force ; and each solution 
 that he suggests is simply a new application of the 
 permanent and general principles of the Gospel. This 
 epistle exhibits, as one might say, the expansion of 
 the Christian principle, as it spreads into the sphere 
 of practical affairs. In it the new life created by the 
 .spirit of Jesus becomes conscious of itself, and asserts 
 its unique and independent character, — distinguished 
 on the one hand from the Jewish life with its servi- 
 tude, and on the other from the pagan life with its 
 license. Our modern Christian civilization, with its 
 liberty and solidarity, its constant demand for reform 
 its impulses towards progress, its delicate charity and 
 scrupulousness, its inner vigour, and its ever enlarging 
 ideal, is all here in the germ. A great revolution is 
 commencing. Already accomplished in individual 
 souls, it begins to manifest itself outwardly in social 
 and domestic relationships. A new humanity is to 
 issue from this new religion. 
 
 Such is the import of the first Corinthian epistle. 
 While the letter to the Galatians was the foundation 
 of Christian dogma, the two letters to the Corinthians, 
 signalizing as they do the emancipation of the regene- 
 rate conscience, are the beginning of Christian ethics. 
 
 Paul has clearly formulated tlie essential principle 
 of this new consciousness; it is the Spirit of God 
 Himself immanent therein (i Cor. ii. 10-16). This ' 
 does not imply a mere illumination, or a sanctifying 
 influence ; but, if I may so call it, a transformation in 
 the substance of our being. The Spirit becomes us, 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 163 
 
 and we become essentially spirit. This Spirit ot God, 
 itself the creative pov/er, makes of us a new creation 
 (i Cor. ii. 12). To the two classes of men thus formed 
 there correspond two kinds of wisdom, the wisdom 
 of the world and the wisdom of God, as contrary to 
 each other as flesh and spirit, reason and folly. The 
 carnal man cannot understand spiritual things {fiutp'ta 
 lyap avTw icrTLv). The wisdom of God becomes t/ie 
 folly of the cross, even as carnal wisdom is nothing 
 \)\\.t folly before God (chap. i. 21-25). 
 
 The work of the Spirit within us is twofold. It is( 
 first of all negative, setting us free from all external/ 
 dependence. " Where the Spirit of the I^ord is, therel 
 is liberty" (2 Cor. iii. 17). "The spiritual man judges 
 all things, and he himself is judged by nothing" 
 (l Cor. ii. 15). But this liberty is at the same time 
 a positive virtue. For the Spirit is love, as essentially 
 as He is liberty. This absolute independence becomes 
 an absolute bondage ; for it is an independence which 
 enslaves itself through love, and which sacrificing 
 itself unremittingly, by each sacrifice finds itself en- 
 larged. " Free from all things," cries the apostle, " I 
 submit myself to all, in order to" gain more souls for ^ 
 Christ" (chap. ix. 19). The, liberty of faith is found | 
 in the bondage of love. 
 
 From these principles results that great practical, 
 eternal rule, which cuts short all casuistry, and which | 
 Paul is constantly applying : All things are lawful for \ 
 ■me, but not all things are expedient (chap. vi. 12).. It 
 enables the apostle to make the logic of his principles 
 everywhere triumphant without any wound to charity, 
 and to resolve all moral questions in a manner in the 
 highest degree both bold and delicate. 
 
 On one point only the apostle's judgment appears 
 
1(4 THE Apostle paul. 
 
 to be still narrow,— I mean that of celibacy (chap. vii.). 
 This narrowness, for which he has been so greatly 
 blamed, does not arise from a dualistic asceticism. 
 There is no dualism to be found in Paul's doctrine ; 
 and it is obvious that there would be a strange 
 contradiction between the asceticism of practice sup- 
 posed, and the broad moral principles which we have 
 just expounded. It is his eschatological views which, 
 in this instance, check and trammel the apostle's 
 reasoning (chap. vii. 29). The parousia is imminent ; 
 the time is short ; all other interests fade before this 
 immediate future. But a further progress of thought 
 on this subject was soon to take place in Paul's mind. 
 Before long it finally shook off the narrow bonds of 
 Jewish eschatology. In the epistles of the Captivity 
 we shall find that he has arrived at a wider and more 
 just appreciation ^ of marriage and domestic life. 
 
 [' From what has been said it is clear that at the juncture 
 marked by I Corinthians this "wider and more just appre- 
 ciation" would have been out of place. But one is reluctant to 
 think that Paul himself, with his sympathetic nature and Jewish 
 training, had still to arrive at a just appreciation of marriage 
 and domestic life. At the same time, we quite admit that his 
 appreciation of marriage in its Christian bearings widened in 
 later years.] 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 NO Other of Paul's letters is of equal importance 
 to this second epistle in its bearing on the ( 
 history of his inner consciousness. In none does his 
 personality so prominently come into play or so 
 spontaneously and fully reveal itself, as it does under 
 the pressure of the bitter experiences and cruel griefs 
 here recounted. It is easy to perceive that the second 
 epistle bears no resemblance to the first, either in 
 tone or contents. Manifestly, it arises out of an 
 entirely new state of things, both in the Church of 
 Corinth and in the apostle's mind. To define the 
 relations of this letter to its predecessor, by recon- 
 structing the history of the troubles at Corinth, which 
 had now issued in open revolt ; to set forth the 
 contents of the epistle ; and to describe the evolution 
 of Paul's religious ideas in this, the most critical 
 period . of his life — such is the threefold ■ task which 
 now devolves upon us. 
 
 I. State of the Corinthian Church. 
 
 The second epistle to the Corinthians affords fur- 
 ther evidence of the keen anxiety which the Church 
 of Corinth gave the apostle, and the feverish .suspense 
 which had made him long for the return of Titus, his 
 latest messenger. At the time when he wrote, the 
 
 i6s 
 
i66 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Storm was dispersing, and we only hear its final 
 mutterings. But in the joy and gratitude with which 
 Paul's soul overflows there linger the vibrations of his 
 sorrow, his anger, and apprehension. A drama has 
 evidently been enacted at Corinth, of which this letter 
 is the dinouemeni. Can we retrace its course ? 
 
 Unquestionably, this very serious crisis was con- 
 nected with the affair of the incestuous person, whose 
 excommunication Paul had demanded (i Cor. v. 3) 
 But the view of the subject generally taken is too 
 narrow and isolated. This circumstance could not by 
 itself have led to the far-reaching effects which are 
 now apparent. It became a source of discord, only 
 from the opportunity which it afforded Paul's adver- 
 saries for attacking the integrity of his character and 
 the authority of his apostleship. We admit, indeed, 
 that the individual referred to in 2 Corinthians ii. 5, 6, is 
 identical with the incestuous person designated in the 
 first epistle by the same general pronouns, o toiovto<^, 
 and Tt9. But he appears here in quite a different 
 position. It is easy to see that there had been re- 
 bellion on his part, and that he had committed out- 
 rages against Paul (2 Cor. ii. 5 and 10). In his 
 manner of recalling these injuries, we recognise the 
 delicacy of the apostle's pen, and his disinterested 
 spirit (et hk ti<; XeXvirrjicev ovk e'/xe \e\inrr]Kev. — kol 
 jap iyo) o Ke'X^dpicrfJ.ai, el tv Ke'^dpia/xaL Si' vfia<i iv 
 iTpoa-coTr(p Xpia-Tov). Nor is this all. Paul's directions 
 had not been obeyed. Discussions had arisen on the 
 mode of procedure proposed by the apostle, and 
 the authority to which he laid claim. Instead of 
 the unanimity in excommunicating the guilty person 
 which he had expected from the Church, a majority 
 and a minority had been formed ; and when punish- 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 167 
 
 merit did take place; it was only decreed by the 
 majority (ij kirni^icL-v-Ko rwv irXeiovav, chap. ii. 6). 
 
 A division like this, on a point of discipline so 
 simple and obvious, is matter for astonishment. Is 
 it conceivable that the minority hostile to Paul 
 approved the conduct of the guilty person ? We know 
 that on the question of impurity the Jewish Christians 
 were even stricter than the apostle's partisans. The 
 cause of their opposition is to be found elsewhere. 
 
 In order to discover it, we must go back to chap. v. 
 of the first epistle. " I, being absent in body, present 
 in spirit, have resolved as if I were present, in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus, you and my spirit being 
 assembled, with the power of Jesus our Lord, to 
 deliver such a man unto Satan, for the destruction of 
 the flesh, and the salvation of the spirit at the day of / 
 the Lord." What d d Paul mean by this demand? 
 Evidently, he was thereby exercising his apostolic 
 authority over the Church of Corinth. .He was con- 
 voking a general assembly of the Church, over which 
 he wished to preside spiritually. He was acting 
 in the capacity of an apostle of Jesus Christ, on a 
 level with the Twelve, assuming to himself the same 
 rights and authority. But it was precisely these 
 rights and this authority that his Judaizing adver- 
 saries at Corinth disputed. To obey his orders, under 
 these circumstances, would be to acknowledge the 
 very thing that they denied him. Now, it must not 
 be forgotten how powerful the Judaizing tendency 
 represented by the partisans of Cephas and Christ 
 was in Corinth. The first epistle, without openly 
 combating them, seems to suspect their hostility and 
 secret menaces. Owing to the affair of the incestuous 
 person and Paul's claims, that which in the first in- 
 
i6S THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Stance was only a discussion on the merits of different 
 missionaries, had speedily become an ecclesiastical 
 and dogmatic schism. The apostle's letter had helped 
 to bring on the crisis, and to raise the main question. 
 Furthermore, emissaries had arrived in the interval 
 from Jerusalem or Palestine furnished with apostolic 
 letters. The report of the violent debate between 
 Paul and Peter at Antioch had got abroad, and the 
 opposition to the apostle of the Gentiles had become 
 strengthened and defined. How could his adversaries 
 accept declarations such as that of i Corinthians ix. i, 
 where Paul asserts his apostleship and founds it on his 
 vision of Christ; or those of chap. xv. i-ii, in which, 
 while calling himself the last of the apostles, unworthy 
 even to be called an apostle, he adds that by the grace 
 of God he had laboured more than all the rest ? 
 
 We see how a wider and more important question 
 became involved in that of the incestuous person. 
 Paul was accused of extravagant boasting. From a 
 distance, said they, he speaks loudly and confidently ; 
 but he takes care not to come to Corinth, for his 
 presence is ineffectual. Contrary to all reason and 
 justice, he is usurping apostolic privileges. He is not 
 competent for such an office, and has not been called 
 to it {UavoTT)^, chaps, iii. and iv.). His wish is to lord 
 it over Christ's herita:ge, in order to make his gain 
 out of it (chap. xi. 7-12). He thinks only of vexing 
 and destroying them (chap. xiii. 8-10). He is an 
 intruder, a false brother among the Messianic people, 
 one to be held in distrust (chap. xi. 21-23). We 
 understand thus why it is that the whole discussion in 
 this epistle, from first to last, turns on Paul's apostolic 
 authority. He himself had raised this question in 
 his first letter, by his mode of dealing with the case 
 of the incestuous person. 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 169 
 
 That such was the course of events is highly pro- 
 bable on logical and intrinsic grounds; and it is 
 further apparent from all that occurred between the 
 two existing letters, and from the satisfactory way in 
 which the obscure allusions, so numerous in the second, 
 are thus explained. For a long time we refused to 
 admit the existence of a lost letter written between 
 the first and second epistle. A new study of the text 
 has modified our previous opinion, and we consider 
 that there was a letter written before the second 
 epistle, just as there was another one before the first ; 
 so that the apostle must have written at least four 
 epistles to the Church of Corinth, of which the second 
 and fourth alone remain to us. 
 
 The loss of the third is the more to be regretted, 
 because it went to the very root of the conflict at 
 Corinth. Paul wrote it in a spirit of profound grief 
 and indignation, that dictated stern language. He 
 had written with tears, and in great distress of mind ; 
 and when the letter had gone, he went so far as to 
 regret some expressions which were, possibly, ex- 
 treme' (chap. vii. 5-12). What effect would it produce 
 at Corinth? For some time this anxiety seems to 
 have left him no rest. It was on this account that he 
 sent Titus immediately after, or perhaps at the same 
 time, to watch the events that might occur, and to 
 re-establish harmony and confidence between himself 
 and the Church. He awaited his return with impa- 
 tience, and not finding him at Troas, went to meet 
 him in Macedonia. It is evident that the character- 
 
 ' May not the exaggerated character of this letter, and the 
 kind of regret which Paul has expressed, explain why it has not 
 been preserved ? 
 
170 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 istics of the letter to which Paul so often refers in our 
 second epistle, do not properly belong to the first, 
 which is highly pacific in tone and calm in its. tenor, 
 and, on the whole, kindly in feeling towards the 
 Corinthians. 
 
 In the first epistle, moreover, Paul commended 
 Timothy, his earlier messenger, to the Corinthians 
 (i Cor. iv. 17 ; xvi. 10, 11). Timothy, who was still 
 very young, had not sufficient authority to allay 
 the storm ; he was overmatched by the revolt, and 
 returned to tell Paul of the fresh complications that 
 had arisen. At the beginning of the second epistle, 
 we find him with the apostle ; but it would be 
 strange, unless some letters were written in the 
 interval, that Paul says nothing of his return, or 
 of the anxious tidings he had brought. It is Titus, 
 on the contrary, who is now mentioned ; indeed Paul 
 speaks of him only to the Corinthians. We cannot, 
 therefore, question the existence of the lost letter, to 
 which he refers more than once (chap. ii. 1-3 and 9). 
 What did it contain ? It would be a daring thing to 
 attempt its reproduction. We do not consider that 
 M. Hausrath, who thinks he has found it in the last 
 four chapters of the second epistle, has been happy 
 in this hypothesis.^ But the vehement, the ironical 
 and impassioned tone of these last pages represents 
 very fairly, I believe, that of the lost letter. 
 
 We may add, in accordance with chap. ii. 9 and 
 chap. vii. 7, 11, 13, that in this letter Paul, gave ex- 
 press orders, and demanded satisfaction. Clearly, 
 the crisis was a serious one; it was a sort of ultimatum 
 that Paul had sent. We can understand the anxiety 
 
 ' Der Viercapilal Brief des Paiilus an die Corinther. 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 171 
 
 with which he awaited the news that Titus was to 
 bring him, and the joy and gratitude which it ex- 
 cited. The two first chajpters of the epistle are like 
 a sigh of relief, a cry of deliverance (chap. ii. 14). 
 Titus, armed with the severe letter of Paul which had 
 preceded him, has brought the rebels and disturbers 
 to reason. The man who had grossly outraged Paul 
 has been punished ; and the apostle now declares 
 himself satisfied, and wishes him to be forgiven. 
 Though the Corinthians had been mortified by his 
 remonstrances, their trouble led to repentance, and to 
 the display of a more ardent affection. The victory, 
 in short, remained with Paul.' 
 
 ' I do not now feel quite satisfied with this historical recon- 
 struction of the crisis which occurred in the Church of Corinth. 
 That there was a letter, now missing, which came between the two 
 existing epistles, still seems to me uncontestable ; but there was 
 something more. These passages, when studied more closely, 
 compel us to admit further a visit made by Paul to Corinth 
 during the interval that elapsed between the two canonical 
 epistles. Three passages in the second letter to the Corinthians 
 establish the fact of this visit : (i) In 2 Cor. xiii. i and 2, the 
 words rpiTov tovto tp)^ofji,ai, and especially the phrase n)s Trapuiv 
 TO Sevrepov, further followed by on iav lA-^co thro irdXiv, cannot 
 be explained by a merely projected journey, but imply a second, 
 which was actually accomplished. (2) The same conclusion 
 is equally apparent from 2 Cor. xii. 14 : 'iSov rpLTov tovto 
 iroLfiM)? t^ft) iXduv ■TTpO's vjuas, koI ov KaravapK'^aM, The assertion 
 contained in this latter verb can only be explained on the sup- 
 position of a second sojourn of Paul at Corinth, before he wrote 
 the present epistle. (3) Paul, in his first letter, promised the 
 Corinthians a speedy visit (l Cor. xvi. 7 and iv. 21), and asked 
 the faithful themselves to decide whether he should come with 
 a rod of chastisement, or with the spirit of gentleness and love 
 to console them. (4) Lastly, the language of 2 Cor. ii. 1-3 
 proves that this visit had taken place, and had been full of 
 
172 THE APOSTLE PAUL, 
 
 II. Paul's Remonstrance. 
 It was in order to secure and strengthen this new 
 situation, even more than to prepare for the collection 
 on behalf of the poor at Jerusalem, that the apostle 
 took up his pen once more. Rightly to understand 
 the tenor of the second epistle, apparently so strange, 
 we must form a clear conception of the circumstances 
 which called it forth. The crisis which had occurred 
 at Corinth had come to a relatively favourable issue ; 
 
 sorrow. The words, to fjii/ iraXiv iv \virri IXBuv irpos v/iSs, 
 cannot refer to the occasion when Paul was evangelizing 
 Corinth for the first time. The Church had not then given him 
 any disappointment ; for it did not as yet exist. The reference 
 here is to a second, and quite recent visit, of which he retained 
 a veiy sorrowful recollection, including it among the most bitter 
 trials of his apostolical career. It will be observed, in fact, that 
 Paul speaks in the same tone of this visit as he does of the 
 missing letter, written immediately afterwards, under the shock 
 of distress which it occasioned. 
 
 What, then, had taken place at Corinth during this visit of 
 Paul? There are two passages which throw some light upon 
 this question : 2 Cor. ii. 5-11 ; vii. 11, and especially ver. 12. It 
 appears from these statements that Paul had been personally 
 and directly affronted. There is some one at Corinth who in 
 his own presence, and before the whole Church, has done him 
 serious injury. The words tov aSiK-rja-avToi and tov aSi.KrjdevTO'; 
 of 2 Cor. vii. 12 are only naturally applicable to Paul and the 
 man who had affronted him. They could not refer, in this con- 
 text, to the incestuous person of I Cor. v. and his father, as is 
 generally supposed. How could Paul, in that case, have had 
 anything to forgive ? See 2 Cor. ii. 10. How could he say 
 in the same passage that he had been directly wounded : e/ie 
 XeXvTrijKtv, iv XvTnj (chap. ii. 1-5) ? And how, in the last place, 
 if it were still a question of the man whom in his first letter 
 he had delivered to Satan (i Cor. v. 5), could he now write about 
 him so considerately in 2 Cor. ii. 7, /iijTrus rrj irepicrtroTepf 
 kvTrri KwraTToOy, — and yet more in ver. 1 1 i 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 173 
 
 but it left the Church still greatly divided. The 
 majority had returned to the apostle's side, with the 
 liveliest tokens of regret and affection. But besides 
 this majority, there still remained a minority, obsti- 
 nate in its hatred and hostile in its intentions. The 
 letter, like the position of affairs, has a twofold aspect. 
 Paul could not have written it on any other plan. 
 He first addresses himself to the faithful majority, and 
 pours out the feelings which fill his soul towards them. 
 He has never written anything more touching (chaps. 
 
 The affair of the incestuous person may indeed, as we explain 
 above, have helped to raise in the Church the great question, 
 now under discussion, of Paul's apostolic dignity and authority; 
 but it was not this man who had insulted Paul ; and the vague 
 expression tis, 6 ToioCros, which Paul always uses to designate 
 his adversaries, and which occurs again and again in the same 
 epistle (chaps, x. 7 and xi. 4), must be applied to some influential 
 person in the- Church of Corinth, probably one of the Judaizers 
 come from Palestine with letters of recommendation (2 Cor. 
 iii. l), who specially claimed to be of Christ according to the 
 flesh and to speak in His name (chap. x. 7). It was this same 
 person who said that, though Paul's letters were strong and 
 weighty, his presence was ineffectual. He it was who publicly 
 affronted Paul (dStK^cravTos, chap vii. 12), and had occasioned 
 him so much distress (et Se tis XeXvTnyKci', clrap. ii. 5). 
 
 We can therefore reconstruct, with some degree of proba- 
 bility, the drama which was enacted at Corinth during Paul's 
 second visit. The apostle had hastened thither to counteract 
 the manoeuvres of the emissaries from Judseaor Syria, who were 
 undermining his authority. Debate and conflict arose. The 
 Church assembled ; and both Paul and his adversaries were 
 present. His words were of no avail ; the Church yielded in 
 part to the specious arguments and more facile eloquence of 
 the Judaizers. One of them, doubtless their leader, denounced 
 Paul openly ; he accused him of falsehood, treated his visions 
 as chimerical, and reproached him with living at the expense of 
 the Churches. The confidence of the Corinthians was shaken. 
 
17+.. THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 i.-viii.). Then, after briefly arranging the matter of 
 the collection (chap, ix.), he turns abruptly to the ^ 
 hostile minority, and mercilessly chastises it with Xh&T 
 lash of his irony. Nothing more biting than these \ 
 last pages has proceeded from his pen (chaps, x.-xiii.). | 
 This is the natural explanation of the two, most dis- 
 similar portions of his letter. Nothing bridges the 
 transition from one to the other, because there was 
 nothing in the facts to furnish a point of connexion. 
 
 Heartbroken by this affront, and feeling utterly helpless, Paul 
 left Corinth. But a few days later, pen in hand, the apostle 
 regained his power, and wrote a crushing letter, the vehement 
 tone of which he seems at first to regret (2 Cor. vii. 5-9). This 
 letter, further supported by the oral mission of Titus, seems 
 with the majority to have prevailed over the calumnies and 
 intrigues of his adversaries. The insult had been public ; it 
 was publicly withdrawn ; and the offender was so earnestly dis- 
 owned and censured by the majority of the believers, that Paul 
 is now the first to ask mercy on his behalf. 
 
 These events, taken fully into account, demand a slight modi- 
 fication in our chronology of the two epistles. At first we had 
 only allowed for an interval of five or six months between them, 
 reckoning from about the Passover of 57 to the autumn of the 
 same year. This space of time is too short for the occurrence 
 of all the facts that we have now come to recognise. We must 
 place the first epistle a year earlier, which is easily done, and 
 date it at the Passover of the year 56 A.D., leaving the second 
 in the autumn of 57 (written in Macedonia). This gives an 
 interval of eighteen months between them, which is amply 
 sufficient. 
 
 Let us restate the chronological order and development of the 
 inner history of the Church of Corinth during this period. 
 
 T, Towards the end of the year 55, and upon his arrival at 
 Ephesus, Paul writes his first letter to the Corinthians, now lost, 
 but referred to in i Cor. v. 9. The heterogeneous fragment of 
 2 Cor. vi. •14-vii. I is doubtless one of its pages, which survived 
 through having strayed into the context where it is found at 
 present. 
 
THE SECONO EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 175 
 
 Notwithstanding their marked difference of tone 
 and manner, the two parts are none the less linked 
 together by a large unity of thought and aim. It 
 is the • same adversary that Paul combats in both 
 parts, the Judaic spirit which strove by its pretensions 
 / to extinguish the Christian spirit, — that bondage to 
 the letter which still prevailed over the liberty of the 
 Gospel. He resumes, therefore, the warfare begun by 
 
 2. In the winter of 55-56 : the answer of the Corinthians to 
 Paul (i Cor. vii. i), the visit made to Paul at Ephesus by the 
 members of Cliloe's household (i Cor. i. 11) and by other 
 Corinthian Christians (i Cor. xvi. 17), and the discussion in the 
 Church on the merits of the different preachers (i Cor. i. 12-14). 
 
 3. About the passover of the year 56 : Paul's second letter — 
 our first epistle to the Corinthians, and the mission of Timothy 
 to Corinth (l Cor. xvi. 10). 
 
 4. Arrival of the Judaizing emissaries with letters of recom- 
 mendation (2 Cor. iii. i). Great disturbance in the Church. 
 
 5. In the autumn of the year 56, Timothy reports his failure 
 to Paul, who sets out for Corinth and spends one or two months 
 there. 
 
 6. The public conflict between Paul and his adversaries. 
 Paul is worsted, and leaves heartbroketi. The Church seems 
 lost to him. 
 
 7. In the spring of the year 57: Paul's third letter to the 
 Church of Corinth, now lost (2 Cor. ii. 4 and vii. 5-9). 
 
 8. About the same time, the mission of Titus. 
 
 9. In the spring of 57 : the meeting of Tjtus and Paul in 
 Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 5). 
 
 10. Autumn of 57 : Paul's fourth letter (from Macedonia), 
 our second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 11. Winter of 57-58 : Paul's third visit to Corinth, a happy 
 and peaceful one ; for it was then that he wrote his great letter 
 to the Romans. 
 
 Thus reconstructed, this dramatic chapter of the afiostle's 
 life enables us, better than anything else, to understand what 
 that life was really like. — Note of the author written for this 
 edition. 
 
176 THE APOSTLE FAUL. 
 
 the epistle to the Galatians, and carries it a stage 
 further. The battle is no longer about circumcisionJ 
 but concerns the ministry of the old, and that of thel 
 new covenant. 
 
 In the third and fourth chapters Paul addresses 
 himself to this fundamental question. The two cove- 
 nants are powerfully described (chap. iii. 6, 7) — one 
 as the letter, dead in itself and imparting death ; the 
 other as the spirit, having life in itself and giving life ; 
 one resulting in condemnation, the other in salvation. 
 If the first was glorious, notwithstanding its limited 
 and transitory character, how much more so is the 
 second, which is not only called to have its phase of 
 glory, but to abide in it {to Katap^oxjjxevov oia Sofij? 
 TO /xevov iv So^rj, chap. iii. II). 
 
 To the two covenants there correspond two minis- 
 tries {StaKOvia ypcLfifiaTO';, SiaKovia iTvev/xaTO^). The 
 first was that of Moses, whose face was veiled before 
 the children of Israel, that they might not see its 
 glory pass away. But the ministry of the new cove- 
 nant, radiant with permanent glory, is manifested 
 before all eyes without veil or reservation, because 
 its glory is progressive ; for where the Spirit of the 
 Lord is, there is entire confidence (Trapprja-la), — a 
 perfect liberty, a continual glorification (chap. iii. 
 12-18). 
 
 Here Paul introduces the dramatic contrast occu- 
 pying the fourth and fifth chapters, between the 
 inner might and glory of his ministry, and the 
 humiliations and outward infirmities, which while 
 they seem to eclipse it, only serve to reveal its 
 Divine power more adequately. " We have this trea- 
 sure in an earthen vessel, that the exceeding power 
 of its virtue may be ascribed to God, and not to us. 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 177 
 
 We are afflicted on all sides, but not overwhelmed ; 
 always in distress, yet never brought to despair ; 
 persecuted, but not conquered ; tempest-tossed, but 
 not submerged ; always bearing in our body the dying 
 and mortified image of the Lord Jesus, that in the 
 death of our flesh might also shine forth the vigour 
 of His life." 
 
 Not merely do trial and reproach fail to injure our 
 ministry, they even commend it, and are the Divine 
 seal by which it may be recognised. The Christ 
 whom we serve is not Christ according to the flesh, 
 but the Christ who died and rose again. Thus every- 
 thing that is glorious or powerful according to the 
 flesh disappears from our ministry, as with Christ 
 Himself, that the new life, the life of the Spirit, may 
 be more fully manifested. " Thus we commend our- 
 selves as ministers of God, by great patience, by 
 sufferings, by trials, by the wounds we have received ; 
 in prisons, in watchings, in weariness, in fastings ; 
 through glory and dishonour, through renown and 
 calumny. Treated as deceivers, and yet faithful ; mis- 
 taken by men, and yet known of God ; ever dying, 
 ever living ; always tried, yet always joyous ; poorest 
 of the poor, yet enriching multitudes." These ad- 
 mirable pages close with this touching appeal to 
 the Corinthians : " Our mouth is open unto you, O 
 Corinthians ; our heart is enlarged. You are not 
 straitened in our affections ; recompense us in kind. 
 Enlarge your hearts in turn " (chap. vi. ii).-" 
 
 ' It is impossible to discover tlie slightest connexion between 
 the 13th verse of chap. vi. and the totally different line of 
 thought beginning in ver. 14. The same breach of continuity 
 recurs between the first and" second verses of the 7th chapter. 
 If, on the contrary, this section (chap. vi. 14-vii. i) be removed 
 
 12 
 
IJS THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Chapters vii.-ix. revert to some details which had 
 been too briefly explained at first, and to the collec- 
 tion which had to be completed before Paul's return. 
 The controversy with the Judaizers, which in the first 
 letter was indirect and incidental, occupies, as we see, 
 the whole of the second, arid becomes keener and 
 more urgent as the apostle proceeds. Now that he 
 has disposed of the question of principle, Paul faces 
 the accusations and calumnies directed against his 
 own person by his adversaries. His long-repressed 
 indignation bursts forth in a sudden explosion (chap. 
 X. l). "I Paul myself exhort you once more with 
 all gentleness, and with the patience of Christ, — I, 
 so lowly and humble among you, so bold when absent ! 
 God grant that when I come, I may not have to put 
 forth my strength to bring to subjection those who 
 represent me as walking according to the flesh." 
 
 After refuting the assertions of his enemies, he in 
 his turn attacks them. He draws a parallel between 
 their ministry and his own, in which the most lashing 
 irony and the bitterest indignation are mingled with 
 a most delicate reserve. " Well, though at the risk of 
 appearing foolish, I too wish to boast a little : you 
 will easily endure it. I am about to speak not after 
 the Lord, bait as a fool : no matter I since others sing 
 their own praises, I too will sing mine. You who are 
 so wise, can easily bear with fools! Whether one bring 
 you into bondage, or devour you, or glorify himself, 
 or strike you on the face, you bear it with admirable 
 
 there is a most natural connexion between chap. vi. 13 and 
 vii. 2. The exegetes are therefore quite right in regarding the : 
 paragraph which so iintowardly interrupts the thread of the 
 discourse as an interpolated gloss, or a fragment of one of Paul's 
 lost letters inserted in the midst of the second epistle. 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 179 
 
 patience. What would you have? I say it to my 
 shame — but I also have my weaknesses. Of what do 
 they boast ?^I am a fool, but I too boast of the same. 
 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites ? so 
 am I. Are they servants of Christ ? (here my foolish- 
 ness has no bounds) I ami more so than they; in weari- 
 ness, imprisonment, and wounds — in the endurance of 
 suffering, I surpass them ! I have five times received 
 from the Jews forty stripes save one. I have thrice 
 been beaten with rods, and once stoned. Thrice have 
 I been shipwrecked.- I was a night and a day in 
 the jaws of the deep. Wearying journeys, perils 
 on the rivers, dangers of every kind — from robbers, 
 from my fellow countrymen, from the heathen, in 
 cities and deserts, on the sea, and among false 
 brethren — labour, sorrows, vigils, hunger, thirst, cold, 
 nakedness, — I have braved everything, endured every- 
 thing. . . . But enough ! If I must needs glory, 
 let me glory in my infirmities ! " As in the epistle to 
 the Galatians, so here Paul yields none of his rights. 
 He does not fear to place himself on a level not only 
 with those false apostles who came to trouble the 
 Churches {^ev^airoaroXoi, ep'^drui hoKioi, fieraa-'^^r]- 
 /lari^oiMevoi elt arroaToXovi Xpiarov, chap. xi. 13), 
 but with those whose authority these others so much 
 exalt, and whom he calls ol virepXlav airoo'ToXoi, the 
 arch^apostles (chap. xi. 5). This expression of Paul's 
 corresponds very well with those in the epistle to the 
 Galatians, — aivKoi, SoKovvre'i, 
 
 III. The Crisis in Paul's Soul. 
 
 While there was occurring at Corinth that profound 
 schism which alone can explain both the form and 
 substance of the second epistle, an equally momentous 
 
iSo THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 crisis had supervened in the great apostle's own soul. 
 No external changes can account for all that we find 
 in this letter ; it gives evidence of other occurrences 
 no less momentous, which took place in the author's 
 inner life. 
 
 It is very remarkable that Paul's eschatological ^ 
 notions, which, as we have seen, are maintained to the, 
 end of the first epistle to the Corinthians, disappear^ 
 — or, at least, are transformed — from the second on- 
 wards. From this time he no longer hopes to witness 
 the coming of the Lord within his lifetime. This 
 glorious parousia, which formed the horizon of his 
 vision of the future, has been indefinitely postponed, 
 and makes room for a darker and more sorrowful 
 perspective. Instead of the appearance of Jesus, the 
 apostle henceforward has the prospect of death and 
 martyrdom before him ; and beyond this painful stage, 
 the hope of being finally reunited to the Lord (2 Cor. 
 v. i-io ; Acts XX. 22-25 ; Phil. i. 20, 21). 
 
 This marked change in the Pauline eschatology 
 took place in the interval between the two letters 
 to the Corinthians. What has happened meanwhile ? 
 The beginning of our second epistle shows us. The 
 last months of Paul's stay at Ephesus and in Asia 
 seem to have been the darkest and most difficult of 
 his life. For the moment, his hopes and his spirit 
 flagged. Everything seemed to conspire against him. 
 After the defection of the Galatians, he had just 
 heard of the troubles in the Church at Corinth. He. 
 finds the same adversaries confronting him at Ephesus 
 and furiously persecuting him. The care of all the 
 Churches consumes him (2 Cor. xi. 28). He has no 
 rest in his flesh ; he is afflicted on every side (e^ayffev 
 fidj(ai, eaaOev dioBoi, 2 Cor. vii. e). 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. i8l 
 
 Nor is this all. He has just incurred a mysterious 
 danger in Asia, of exceptional gravity (2 Cor. i. 8). 
 This trial, which the apostle does not explain more 
 definitely, but which could not have been the riot of 
 Demetrius and his workmen at Ephesus (Acts xix. 
 30-41), surpassed all bounds, and exceeded his power 
 of endurance (ort KaQ^ virep^oXfju i^apjjdrjfiev vjrep 
 SvvafjLiv). He despaired of life. He carried within 
 his soul a sentence of death. And now his unhoped 
 for deliverance seems like an actual resurrection 
 (chap. i. 8-10). 
 
 The hero's indomitable courage, shaken for the 
 moment by this terrible crisis, was soon re-established. 
 But • there was one thing which was not restored : 
 the hope of seeing with his own eyes the triumph of 
 the Gospel, the establishment of the Messianic king- 
 dom, and the immediate parousm of the Lord. In this \ 
 crisis his faith at length freed itself from the last 
 bonds of traditional Judaism ; and Christian escha- ; 
 tology escaped from the narrow limits of the escha- 
 tology of the Pharisees. The spirit completes its 
 triumph over the letter. 
 
 Paul sees new prospects opening before him. He 
 can no longer reckon on the intervention of the arch- 
 angel and the celestial trumpet for the founding of 
 God's kingdom. It will be established by the weakness, 
 by the devotion and the sufferings of its messengers. 
 The image of death, with which the apostle had not 
 hitherto concerned himself, enters for the first time 
 within the scope of his doctrine. 
 
 In this season of anguish and distress, he seems to 
 have had a clear vision of niartrydom. He was to 
 seal his preaching of the Gospel with his blood. The 
 disciple, like the Master, can only triumph through 
 
1 82 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 humiliation and suffering. But Paul's resolution is 
 fixed. Henceforth he passionately devotes himself 
 to this vision of the dying Jesus ; he experiences a, 
 new and indescribable pride, a joy blended with 
 anguish, in renewing in his own body the martyrdom 
 of his Master, in carrying it forwards by his personal 
 sufferings and completing it by his death {jr\v vex- 
 paaiv rov 'Irjcov iv tc3 o-tofiaTi irepicpipovTe';, 2 Cor. 
 iv. lo ; comp. Col. i. 24 ; Phil. i. 20 ; ii. 17 ; 2 Tim. 
 iv. 6). Thus the apostle's momentary defeat is 
 changed into a higher, and, this time, a decisive 
 victory. 
 
 From henceforth he is happy and contented ; his 
 mind has discovered its true bent, and he now feels 
 that the various elements of his faith are brought into 
 full and perfect harmony. If the earthly future is 
 darkened, shrinking and closing up before his gaze, 
 in the heavenly future there is revealed to his soul 
 a new, wide, and luminous prospect. The mournful 
 conception of 5/^^o/ vanishes from his mind ; and with 
 it the Messianic framework of the Jewish apocalypse 
 gives way. Instead of the unconscious sleep of souls 
 in the bosom of the earth, there emerges triumphant 
 the Christian hope of the immediate reunion of the 
 elect with the Saviour (2 Cor. v. i-io). True, the 
 struggle between the power of the Gospel and that of 
 sin here on earth will be prolonged. Paul has no 
 doubt that it will issue at last in the full triumph of 
 Christ and His glorious advent ; but he no longer 
 attempts to estimate the length, or foresee the phases 
 of this great drama. Like Jesus, and with the same 
 filial submission, he leaves in the hands of God the 
 Father the destiny of His kingdom. The spiritual 
 principle of Christianity everywhere prevails. Death 
 
THE SECOND,- EPISTLE TO THE qORINTHlANS. 183 
 
 henceforth is completely vanquished and overcome 
 by the Christian consciousness. 
 
 We know with what a crushing effect this idea of 
 death weighed upon the Jewish, as well as the heathen 
 mind.. In spite of the doctrine of the resurrection, 
 fairly established in the popular belief as it appears 
 from the time of the production of the book of Daniel, 
 Hades, or Sheol, retained its shadows, and death its 
 terrors. The soul of Jesus had shuddered on ap- 
 proaching it. But the darkness speedily disappeared 
 before the radiance of His faith ; and He had entirely 
 triumphed over death, by His sense of perfect and 
 indissoluble union with the Father. To die was, for , 
 Jesus, to return to His Father and His God (John i 
 XX. 17). But neither the first Christians, nor the first \ 
 apostles, had appropriated to, themselves this victory 
 of the Master. Death was not less fearful to them 
 than to the Jews. The Messianic reign that they 
 were expecting was only to be realized upon earth ; 
 they knew no other sphere of life. , They were ex- 
 pecting the coming of the Lord ; and when their 
 friends died, they were deeply distressed on their 
 account. This explains the anxiety of the Thessa- 
 lonians about their dead — an anxiety which Paul 
 endeavoured to soothe. In what manner ?. He could 
 only at that time direct their expectation and faith 
 to the impending event of the coming of Jesus, and 
 assure them that the dead will then rise first of all, 
 and, with the living, share His triumph. Death still 
 retained its appalling mystery ; it was only con- 
 quered in hope, and as regards the future.^ 
 
 [ ' But see i Thess. v. 10 : " Jesus died and rose again, that, 
 wlietber we be waking or sleeping, we may live together with 
 Him" Here is already a sense of indissoluble union with 
 
i84 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 In the second letter to the Corinthians already Paul 
 comforts himself in a manner quite different from this, 
 and more effectual. While the outer man succumbs | 
 to death, the inner man, whose principle of life is ^ 
 the Spirit of God Himself, is delivered from it. Thej 
 trials which destroy the former only strengthen and/ 
 glorify the latter. In proportion as the one decays,' 
 the other is renewed and reinvigorated (2 Cor. iv. 16). 
 We sigh for the time when, above our mortal flesh 
 condemned to die, we shall put on the celestial and 
 spiritual body (kirtv^vaaarQai). Though our earthly 
 body be destroyed by death, we have yet in the 
 heavens a spiritual body awaiting us ; so that, when 
 disrobed of our earthly covering, we shall not be 
 found naked, any more than those living at the re- 
 surrection day (2 Cor. v. 3). So far, therefore, from 
 fearing death, we should rather desire it. For while 
 we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord : 
 but out of the body, we are with the Lord. Death 
 only despoils us of a perishable covering, to clothe 
 us with an immortal body. For the Christian, there- 
 fore, death is truly conquered ; it belies itself ; it is 
 nothing more than a point of transition, the final 
 crisis which accomplishes our eternal glorification 
 (2 Cor. iv. 17). 
 
 Thus regarded from the double standpoint of the 
 conflict with Judaism and the development of the 
 Pauline doctrine, we perceive how important in all 
 respects is the place which is occupied in Paul's his- 
 tory by the second letter to the Corinthians. 
 
 Jesus, corresponding to that " sense of indissoluble union with 
 the Father" by which Jesus triumphed over death. Comp. 
 I Cor. XV. 55, 56 (" God . . . giveth us the victory ") ; also 
 John vi. 50, 5 1 ; viii. 51; xi. 25, 26.] 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 THE epistle to the Romans completes and crowns 
 the progress achieved by the apostle's mind 
 during this stormy period. The ideas briefly sketched 
 in the epistle to the Galatians, or merely thrown out 
 incidentally in the two letters to the Corinthians, 
 here present themselves firmly bound together and 
 brought to a powerful unity ; they are dialectically 
 established, and organized into a complete system. 
 
 The struggle in which Paul was engaged enters upon 
 a new phase, and for himself at any rate, approaches 
 its issue. The tranquillity which seems to be attained 
 in his mind and thoughts imparts a breadth and I 
 calmness to this last letter which the others did not' 
 possess. It is no longer a question of circumcision, . 
 or of the attacks made upon Paul's person or apostle- \ 
 ship. Personal feelings and private quarrels are 
 forgotten ; the question of principle about which the 
 two parties were contending can now be seen in its 
 full import. Fundamentally, indeed, the controversy 
 is still the same ; but the apostle's doctrine, disen- 
 tangled from external incidents, is raised to a higher, 
 level and attains a freer and fuller development/ 
 Escaping from the violent antithesis by which it was 
 hitherto dominated, it tends towards a general and 
 
1 86 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 culminating synthesis. Paul at last brings Judaism 
 and Paganism within the scope of his contemplation. 
 He is not content to contrast them with the Gospel, 
 and to condemn them purely and simply ; he en- 
 deavours to understand them in their historical func- 
 tions and actual value, to assign them their due place \ 
 as transitional but essential stages in the Divine plan j 
 of redemption. In this, manner the new circle of 
 Pauline thought is enlarged and completed. Having 
 taken possession of the sphere of the conscience, it 
 conquers the domain of history. The epistle to tfie 
 Romans is the first attempt at what we should call, 
 in modern phrase, a philosophy of the religious his-i 
 tory of mankind. ' 
 
 Such appears to us to be the drift and character of 
 this great letter. It is not a formal treatise of ab- p 
 stract theology, as our ancient theologians supposed ; ' 
 neither is it an expressly controversial writing like 
 the epistle to the Galatians, or the second letter to \ 
 the Corinthians. The apostle, while designing to 
 combat the same tendency and achieve its final 
 overthrow, directs against it a more general and less 
 passionate style of argument. He places the question 
 on the ground of principle, and is not so anxious to 
 get the better of his old opponents as to do full 
 justice to the truth. The epistle to the Romans 
 marks the exact point at which controversy resolves 
 itself naturally into dogma. 
 
 But we cannot hope to gain either a. just appre- 
 ciation or a full comprehension of this letter, unless 
 we take exact account of the occasion which gave 
 rise to it, and the aim by which it is inspired. Al- / 
 though Paul's doctrine is presented here in a more 
 general and dialectical form, it would be a great 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. rS; 
 
 mistake -to look upon his letter as • the work of a 
 professed theologian, dictated by a purely speculative 
 interest. Only the historical circumstances which pro- 
 duced the epistle will enable us to understand it. 
 
 I. The Church of Rome. 
 
 Having arrived at Cbrinth shortly after his second 
 letter to the Christians of that city, Paul stayed there 
 some time, — about three months, according to the 
 narrative of the Acts of the Apostles (xx. 2, 3). 
 Doubtless his presence finally calmed the minds of 
 the Corinthians, and confirmed his authority amongst 
 them. At that time new and mighty projects were 
 germinating in his soul. 
 
 This last sojourn at Corinth marks the brilliant,, 
 climax of Paul's apostolic career. The epistle to the \ 
 Romans, which was written then, seems on the one 
 hand to conclude and crown the first stage of his 
 life and work, and on the other to prepare for and in- 
 augurate the second. The great missionary who had 
 undertaken to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth 
 here pauses a moment, mid-way in his career. Taking 
 a double survey, he looks back along the road he\ 
 has traversed and forward to that which he intends L 
 to follow. Already from Jerusalem to Illyria there 
 stretched the numerous succession of Churches which 
 seemed to mark the halting places in his long journeys. 
 From Corinth at the eastern extremity, he now sees - 
 opened before him an equally wide field of activity 
 towards the west. Before pushing into these new, 
 regions, he wishes to go up to. Jerusalem once more, 
 and take to the mother Church the offerings of the 
 Gentile Churches, that by this means the distrust ofl 
 the Christians in Palestine may be finally overcome 
 
1 88 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 and banished ; possibly also, desiring thus to makfe 
 amends to some extent for the evil that he had 
 formerly done to it. Then, leaving Syria, Asia, and 
 Greece behind him, he intends to penetrate to the 
 limits of the West, perhaps never more to return 
 (Rom. XV. 22-29).i 
 
 With such a project in view, Rome of necessity 
 was the object which in the first instance attracted 
 and engaged the apostle's thoughts. . The Church-of- 
 this city afforded the most promising and convenient . 
 vantage ground for his new mission. In the centre 
 of Italy, equally distant from Germany, Gaul, Spain, 
 and Western Africa, Rome had the further advan- 
 tage of being in direct line with the course which the 
 apostle had hitherto pursued, thus linking the work 
 he was about to undertake with that which he had 
 already accomplished ; so that, in Paul's view, the 
 Church of Rome was destined to become a mother 
 Church, and to be for the West what the great cities of 
 Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth had been by turn for 
 the East, alike the goal and starting point of his new 
 missionary enterprises (Rom. xv. 24). 
 
 The epistle to the Romans is nothing else but the 
 first step in the execution of these vast designs. In 
 announcing his impending arrival at the capital of 
 the Empire, the apostle seeks to prepare his field of 
 action, and to pave his way thither. A Christian 
 Church had been in existence in Rome for some i 
 years, and it was of the first importance to secure 
 its sympathy and support. This is the primary aim 
 of the epistle to the Romans. Inasmuch as Paul 
 
 ' Reuss, Geschiclite der Heiligen Schriften des N.T., § 105 
 [Histo?y of the Sacred Scriptures of the N.T., p. 96.] 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 189 ■ 
 
 was bound to direct all his efforts towards this pur- 
 pose, and made it his business to meet the feelings 
 and special requirements of his readers, it is evident 
 that his letter can only properly be explained by 
 the position of the Church at Rome. There, and 
 nowhere else, is the key to this epistle to be found. 
 
 Unfortunately, opinion is far from being unanimous 
 upon this capital point. Critics and expositors have 
 long been divided into two hostile camps. Some 
 insist that the Church of Rome was essentially Gentile- 
 Christian, and quote in support of their assertion 
 Romans i. 6 and xi. 17-24 — passages whose bearing 
 and significance they perhaps exaggerate. Others, 
 on the contrary, with Baur at their head, assert 
 that it was essentially a Jewish-Christian Church, and 
 openly hostile, to Paulinism. From these two opposite 
 conclusions there logically result two contradictory 
 conceptions of the epistle. 
 
 Those who look upon the Church of Rome as 
 Gentile- Christian,, can only regard Paul's letter as a 
 strictly dogmatic exposition of his gospel, made with 
 the object of elevating and confirming the faith of 
 the Romans ; or,, at most, of forearming them against 
 the intrigues of the Judaizing teachers (chap. xvi. 17). 
 According to this view, the dialectic exposition of 
 the doctrine of Justification by Faith, which occupies 
 the first eight chapters, forms the essential part of 
 the apostle's letter. The ninth,, tenth, and eleventh 
 chapters are a mere historical corollary, having no 
 direct connexion with the previous section, whose 
 tenor and whose presence, from this point of view, 
 it is impossible to explain. 
 
 On the opposite theory, the relation of these two 
 component parts of the letter are exactly reversed. 
 
ig6 ■ THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Those who regard the epistle of the Romans as " 
 polemical, and addressed to an unknown or hostile 
 Church, make these last three chapters, which, accord- 
 ing to the first hypothesis, are disconnected with the 
 rest, the central part and the essential basis of the 
 letter. There only, according to these critics, is dis- , 
 closed the apostle's true intention, the object which 
 in reality occupies his mind. His object is to justify 
 the substitution of the Gentiles for the Jewish nation ; 
 and the first eight chapters are therefore simply an 
 introduction, preparatory to the burning question of 
 the destiny of Israel.^ 
 
 In point of fact, these two conceptions of the epistle 
 to the Romans appear equally defective. They cut 
 the epistle into two parts, whose connexion and 
 unity are then entirely lost. It is very difficult, on 
 the one hand, to regard the ninth, tenth, and eleventh 
 chapters, charged with erhotions so vivid, as being • 
 a mere appendix, foreign to the main body of the 
 letter and unconnected with the state of opinion at 
 Rome ; on the other hand, it is no less difficult to 
 treat the first eight chapters as a preliminary intro- 
 
 ' The first opinion, which was that of the greater number of 
 ancient interpreters, was taken up and maintained not long 
 ago with great skill by M. Th. Schott : Der Romerbrief, seinem 
 Kndzweck und Gedankengang nach ausgelegt. (Erlangen, 1858 ) 
 This work of Schott provoked a still more remarkable study- 
 by M. Mangold, Professor at Marburg : Der Romerbrief und 
 die Anfdnge der romischen Gemeinde. (Marburg, 1866.) The 
 latter adopts Baur's thesis, but with such corrections as to 
 transform it. He seems tq me to have proved decisively that 
 the majority of the Christians at Rome were of Jewish origin. 
 M. Godet, however, in his recent Commentary, has returned' to 
 the old opinion ; and has even exaggerated it, to an extent that 
 makes it wholly untenable. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. igi ' 
 
 duction. With so slender a body and so enormous 
 a head, there would be something truly monstrous 
 in the structure of the epistle. On the contrary, one 
 of its great beauties is precisely the logical archi- 
 tecture which distinguishes it. A harmonious agree- 
 ment prevails throughout its various parts and details. 
 True, we seek in vain for any obvious transition 
 between the two sections referred to ; but have we 
 not noticed a breach of continuity, at least as great, 
 existing between the ninth and tenth chapters of 
 2 Corinthians ? Paul's mind often takes these abrupt 
 and violent turns, to the surprise and discomfiture 
 of the superficial reader; but we may rest assured 
 that even then, so far from departing from the right 
 path, it is pursuing its end more directly and eagerly 
 than ever. 
 
 Is it not obvious, for example, that the two halves 
 of the epistle to the Romans are intimately connected 
 at the bottom, and that the second without the first 
 would have no foundation, while the first without the 
 second would have no culmination ? Is it not the 
 case that these three later chapters, treating of Jews 
 and Gentiles under the state of grace, correspond 
 with, and form a pendant to the first three, in which 
 the apostle exhibited them both in a state of sin ? 
 In view of this, how can it be doubted that the two 
 portions of the epistle form an organic whole ? We 
 must therefore endeavour to discover some method 
 of understanding the letter to the Romans which will 
 preserve its internal unity, and determine its precise 
 bearing. 
 
 To return to the Church at Rome. Its members 
 were both of Jewish and Gentile extraction : this is a 
 certain fact Everything leads us to believe that the 
 
192- TIJE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 former constituted the great majority, and that in this 
 sense the Church might be called Jewish-Christian. 
 But does it follow from this that it was Judaizing, — 
 distinctly hostile to Paul's gospel, and maintaining 
 salvation through the rites of the law in opposition 
 to salvation by faith ? We answer decidedly, No ; 
 and Baur's error consisted in drawing this second 
 inference from the former. 
 
 If, as we shall see presentjy, the Church of Rome 
 did not belong to Paulinism, certainly it was just as 
 free from thfe bias of the teachers of Galatia or Corinth. 
 Paul does not regard it as hostile, or even alien to 
 himself. On the contrary, he considers this Church 
 to be included in the field of action assigned to him 
 (edvecriv, ev oh icrre Kal uytiet?, chap. i. 6). He regards 
 himself as its debtor, and declares himself ready to 
 impart his gospel to it (chap. i. 14, 15). He applies 
 to its members all the titles that he gave to his 
 Churches in Asia (kXtjtoI ^Irjaov Xpi,(7Tov, dya'jrrjTol 
 0eov, ajioi). He not only praises their faith, but 
 gives thanks to God on their behalf, just as for the 
 faith of the Thessalonians and Corinthians ; and as 
 he had not done in writing to the Galatians. To 
 view. these words as a mere insinuating exordium, 
 a sort of captatio benevolentice, is an injustice to Paul's 
 character. To say that he has modified his way of 
 looking at things and softened his views, is con- 
 tradictory to the essential tenor of the epistle itself. 
 We must recognise the fact that we have here a 
 Church of Christians who cannot be placed in. the 
 same category with the Judaizers of Galatia or 
 Corinth. The rest of the epistle accords with its 
 beginning. The apostle's line of argument does not 
 imply a declared hostility among his readers. There 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 193 
 
 is no direct polemic. His design is to instruct, rather 
 than refute ; to expound his gospel, to dispel or an- 
 ticipate misconceptions, rather than to repel particular 
 attacks. The stern wanting given to the Gentile 
 Christians (chap. xi. 17-24) does not, indeed, prove 
 that these were in the majority ; but is it conceivable 
 that Paul would address such words to a few friends 
 of his own, lost in t4ie mass of Jewish Christians 
 openly hostile to them ? Neither are the weak 
 (ao-OevovvTe^) in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters 
 Judaizers of the same class as those of Corinth. But 
 it is none the less true that Paul's appeal to the rest of 
 the Church for "tolerance and charity on their behalf, 
 implies in it a considerable breadth of view. Any one, 
 in short, who reads the fifteenth chapter attentively, 
 will have difficulty in persuading himself that words 
 like those could have been written to a Church which 
 was confessedly hostile, and had made common cause 
 with Paul's adversaries : " I exhort you by the Lord 
 Jesus," he says in concluding, "to strive with me in 
 your prayers to God, that I may be delivered from 
 the rebels in Judaea, — that the offering I am taking to 
 Jerusalem may be favourably received by the saints, 
 and that I may come to you in joy and find refresh- 
 ment and rest." Finally, if the fragment contained in 
 chap. xvi. 17-20 belongs to this epistle, it would prove 
 that the adversaries against whom Paul had formerly 
 been compelled to defend himself, had not yet reached 
 Rome ; he hoped in his letter to be beforehand with 
 them, and to anticipate their wonted attacks. 
 
 Are we to conclude from this that the Church 
 at Rome was a Pauline Church? That would be 
 going far beyond the meaning of the passages just 
 examined, to another extreme even less warrantable 
 
 13 
 
194 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 than the former. If the Romans had attained the 
 spiritual elevation of Paul, where would have been 
 their need of such a long explanation and careful 
 justification of his gospel ? Those who adopt this 
 hypothesis are obliged to regard the epistle to the 
 Romans as a dogmatic treatise, written with a purely 
 speculative end. But besides the fact that Paul has 
 never composed anything of that kind, it would be 
 impossible then to establish any connexion between 
 the epistle and the Church to which it is addressed, 
 and to explain why this dogmatic treatise was sent 
 to Rome rather than elsewhere. The explanation of 
 Paul's attempt must be found in the state of the 
 Church, at Rome. Now the apostle himself tells us 
 what he wishes to impart to the Romans, and con- 
 sequently what in his view was still lacking to them : 
 " I earnestly desire to see you, that I may impart 
 unto you some spiritual gift, that you may be es- 
 tablished " (tva Ti fieraSS) 'X^aptafia vfilv irvevfiaTiKov 
 eh TO aTT)pi)(^6P]vai v/xdi;, chap. i. II). What are we to 
 understand by this '^^dpiafia irvevfjuariKov, this doiiuin 
 spirituale f If we reflect that in i Corinthians ii. 
 10-14 Paul has given the -n-vevfia as the vital prin- 
 ciple of the Christian consciousness, the source of his 
 own liberty of faith and of his spiritual conception 
 of the Gospel ; if we remember that in the above 
 context he has distinguished between the •wvevfiariKol, 
 judges of all things and free with respect to all, and 
 the aapKiKol still in bondage, — and that, lastly, he 
 designates the Gospel- as he understands it by the 
 neuter Trvevp-aTiKci, there can be no doubt that he 
 must have intended by those two words a wider 
 and more spiritual conception of the Gospel of Jesus 
 and a clearer understanding of the intimate relation 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 195 
 
 of the believing soul with the Spirit of God, which 
 will make their faith stronger and more joyful and 
 give it greater liberty. Does not the whole epistle 
 reveal a persistent effort to raise the Christian faith 
 of the Romans from a lower to a higher level ? 
 Written to a distinctly Pauline Church, • it would 
 cease to be comprehensible ; the long disquisitions 
 on the law, and the care with which Paul anticipates 
 Judaistic objections are inexplicable. Still more per- 
 plexing would be the justification which Paul feels 
 it necessary to offer of his mission to the Gentiles 
 and their entrance into the kingdom of God. The 
 nature of the questions raised, the precautions taken, 
 the general tone — everything in the letter implies 
 not a hostile Judaizing Church, but one of Jewish 
 parentage, in which however the great questions were 
 not yet raised which for some years past had agitated 
 the Christianity of the East. 
 
 This peculiar and most remarkable position of the 
 Church at Rome is accounted for by the history ol 
 its origin, and also by the comparative isolation in 
 which it had existed until the arrival of Paul's letter. 
 We have no reliable documents relating to the intro- 
 duction of Christianity into Rome. But we may 
 safely assume that here, as elsewhere, the Church 
 had its rise in the Synagogue, and was only separ- 
 ated from it by a violent rupture. It is probable 
 that the allusion of Suetonius ( Vit. Claud., § 25), 
 Claudius Judcsos impulsore Cliresto assidue tumtiltuantes 
 expulit, refers to the inevitable disturbances that broke 
 out on this occasion in the Roman Jewry. This 
 edict of Claudius was imperfectly or only temporarily 
 carried into effect ; while the Christian community 
 suffered from it, it was not thereby destroyed. It 
 
195 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 continued to recruit itself from among the Jews and 
 the numerous proselytes, without renouncing Jewish 
 ideas and customs. It was in the same position as 
 that of the Churches of Syria, before the dissensions 
 brought on by the great success of the Gentile 
 mission. No apostolic teacher seems to have visited 
 it, or to have given it any special and exclusive bias. 
 It had been the spontaneous creation of the Gospel. 
 Paul now encountered it in the field of labour which 
 had fallen to his lot. Aquila and Priscilla had doubt- 
 less drawn the apostle's attention to this already 
 flourishing community, and encouraged him to write 
 to it, acquainting him with the kindly simplicity 
 of its disposition, and the deficiencies of its faith. 
 
 We have followed the progress of the Judaistic 
 agitation step by step from Jerusalem to Antioch, 
 from Antioch to Galatia, from Galatia to Ephesus, 
 and from Ephesus to Corinth. The Judaizing 
 teachers only seem to have reached this last town, 
 the limit of their progress westwards, in -the year 
 57, during the interval between the two epistles to 
 the Corinthians. They cannot therefore have arrived 
 at Rome, where, moreover, there was no Paulinism 
 to combat. This Church had remained in the simple 
 and un-theological faith of the primitive days, it 
 was virgin, and therefore neutral soil, which might 
 easily be claimed by the first occupant. It was most 
 important to Paul that he should take possession of 
 it, and not allow himself to be anticipated. He will 
 therefore himself expound his gospel to the Church 
 at Rome, before his adversaries come to present it in 
 caricature. He will endeavour to raise the Romans 
 to the level of his own faith, and win them to the 
 cause of the Gentile mission ; or, at any rate, if that 
 
THE -EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 197 
 
 is too much success to hope from his letter, he will 
 try by -its means to secure a favourable reception for 
 his gospel and his apostleship. Addressed to a Church 
 like this, with this object in view, the epistle is its 
 own explanation. Paul is not engaged in a con- 
 troversy, for he is writing to brethren, not enemies ; 
 he is attempting to justify his gospel and apostlcr 
 ship before a community which, reared as it was in 
 Judaism, might find both difficult for it to accept.^ 
 
 The crisis now in progress throughout the Christian 
 Churches, by which the Jewish and Christian spirit, so 
 united at the first, were growing more and more 
 distinct and coming into violent collision, could not 
 but occur at Rome. But the epistle to the Romans 
 was not subsequent to this crisis ; on the contrary, it 
 preceded and provoked it. It raised in that Church, 
 for the first^time, the great question of the abrogation 
 of the law, and thereby marked a decisive epoch in 
 its history. The Judaic spirit was to show itself here, 
 as everywhere else, obstinate and implacable. Paul 
 gained a few partizans, and made many adversaries. 
 The Church became divided. The epistle to the 
 Philippians, written three or four years later, shows 
 us the breach accomplished (Phil. i. 12-18). Two 
 (apparently authentic) passages in the second epistle 
 to Timothy give us the saddest impression of Paul's 
 position a few days before his death. He is alone, 
 
 ' These considerations, I believe, afford sufScient refutation 
 of the conjecture of M. Renan, who regards the epistle to the 
 Komans as an encyclical letter addressed by the apostle to 
 several Churches, but not more required by that of Rome than 
 by any of the others. It might, indeed, only have been sent to 
 the Roman community by way of exception ! (See his Saint 
 Paul, Introduction, p. 72.) 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 in prison, betrayed by some, deserted by the rest 
 (2 Tim. i. 15-18 ; iv. 9-18). Nevertheless, this victory 
 of the Judaizing party did not destroy Paul's in- 
 fluence at Rome. In the letter of Clement of Rome 
 it appears again, still vigorous and profound. But it 
 is time to return to the epistle itself. 
 
 II. The Plan of the Epistle. 
 
 To this Church, such as we have just described it, 
 Paul had to explain two very important facts, and 
 secure acceptance for them : the substitution in the 
 new religious economy of the Gospel for the Law, and 
 of the Gentiles for the people of Israel— the one the 
 defence of his teaching, the other llie htsiification of 
 his apostleship. The essential contents of the dog- 
 matic portion of the epistle are summed up in these 
 two theses. The first eight chapters are the de- 
 monstration of the former ; chapters ix.-xi. are the 
 demonstration of the latter. From this general dis- 
 position of the subject matter, it is very evident that 
 the two parts are equally essential to the structure of 
 the epistle to the Romans, and equally important. 
 The one is the logical consequence of the other. 
 
 Paul has formulated the fundamental thesis of his 
 gospel in the i6th and^i7th verses of the first chap- 
 ter. He introduces it by the words oh <yap eiraiCT- 
 yyvoiiai to evayyiXiov, which express the apostle's 
 courage and boldness not only in face of the con- 
 tempt of the Greek and Roman world, but most of 
 all when confronting the hostility and scorn of the 
 Judaizing party. The Gospel which he proclaims 
 before all, he well defines as a Svua/j.i<; 6dov, realizing 
 the SiKaioavvr] Qeov for the salvation (et? a'DTrjpiav) of 
 ■every believer, — of th.e Jeiv first, and also of the. pagan. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 199 
 
 This salvation is universal, just because it depends on 
 faith alone — as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 
 Whilst thus vigorously formulating the universal 
 character of his doctrine, Paul carefully from the first 
 avoids wounding the Jewish sentiment ; he accords 
 priority to the Jew (^lovSai^ irpSiTov). This is no 
 concession ; it is the recognition of the simple fact 
 that the Jew, as the heir of the promises, was in the 
 course of history called before the Gentile to enter the 
 kingdom of God. 
 
 Paul establishes this great thesis by an admir- 
 able demonstration, in which we note four essential 
 stages : 
 
 I. Chapter i. i8-iii. 31. Entering upon a survey of 
 the moral and religious condition of humanity, the 
 apostle shows that there is no salvation for it apart 
 from Christ. He sketches in broad outlines the cor- 
 ruption of the heathen world, in which the just wrath 
 of God is revealed, punishing sin through sin itself, 
 unrighteousness by idolatry, and the latter by moral 
 depravity (chap. i. 18-32). He then turns to the Jew, 
 who has a better knowledge of the Divine law, but 
 in practice keeps it still less; who condemns himself 
 in condemning the Gentile, forgetting that external 
 circumcision is nothing if the heart remain uncircum- 
 cised (chap. ii. I-29). 
 
 At this point, Paul might already consider the 
 basis of his doctrine as established ; but he is anxious 
 to remove, or to anticipate an objection which will 
 infallibly be made. Does it not seem like denying 
 the privileges of the Jews, to put them on the same 
 level as the Gentiles ? Hence the question with 
 which the third chapter opens : What advantage, then, 
 has the Jew? Paul recognises his historical privi- 
 
THS APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 leges. The Jew received the oracles of God ; and God 
 is faithful, even towards men who are not so. But 
 what is there in this belief to encourage such men, 
 and to justify their unfaithfulness ? Would any one 
 draw the impious deduction that unfaithfulness, if 
 serving to glorify the will of God, ought not to be 
 punished ? Would not this amount to saying, Let us 
 do evil that good may come? The sin of the Jew 
 remains, therefore, as much as that of the Gentile. To 
 make his demonstration still more impressive, Paul 
 sums it up in terms which are all borrowed from the 
 Old Testament. Jews and pagans, alike impefxhed 
 by the Divine justice, have equal need of salvation 
 of God (chap. iii. 9-20). Here the apostle resumes 
 the thesis in which he summed up his gospel, and 
 develops it in a more complete and exact manner 
 (chap. iii. 21-26). All are deprived of the glory of 
 God, but the righteousness of God has been mani- 
 fested apart from the law. We are justified by a 
 gratuitous act of grace, by means of the redemption 
 that is in Jesus Christ — through faith in His blood — 
 in order to manifest the righteousness of God. This 
 is no longer revealed in mere punishment, as was the 
 case under the law, but in Justifying him that be- 
 lieves. Vers. 27-31 deduce the consequences of this 
 first demonstration of Paul's thesis. 
 
 2. Chapter iv. The apostle could not stop short at 
 this point. His opponents would still have adduced 
 against his syllogisms the authority of the Old Testa- 
 ment. He therefore changes the direction of his argu- 
 ment, and in the fourth chapter endeavours to prove 
 that the doctrine of justification by faith is at the 
 very root of the old covenant, and has the evidence of 
 Scripture in its favour {/j.aprvpovij.evri viro tov vofiovKoi 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 201 
 
 Twi' ■7rpo(f)r]Tco!/). Neither Abraham nor David was 
 justified by works (chap. iv. 1-9). Abraham's faith 
 was imputed to him for righteousness before he had 
 received circumcision, which rite, so far from dispens- 
 sing with faith, has from the first merely been its 
 confirmation (vers. 10-12). Lastly, it was to /ait/i 
 that the promise was given, and through faith also it 
 is realized. Abraham believed in God, who raises the 
 dead, and addresses the things that are not as things 
 actually existing ; for the word of God is, in fact, 
 creative, and realizes by its own virtue all that it 
 declares. In the same way we believe in God, who 
 delivered Jesus to death for our sins and has raised 
 Him again for our justification (vers. 13-25). 
 
 3. Chapter v. With the fifth chapter begins a new 
 development of the subject. In order to complete the 
 demonstration of this principle of faith, Paul allows 
 it to explain and justify itself by its spiritual fruits 
 (vers. i-ii). It gives a new life, of which the believer 
 is intensely conscious, manifesting itself in the peace 
 which he enjoys before God, in patient endurance 
 of tribulation, in the love filling his heart, and in the 
 firm hope that sustains him, of which the outpouring 
 of the Holy Spirit is the sure pledge. Then, review- 
 ing the whole history of humanity and summing up 
 'all that he has just set forth, the apostle goes on 
 to show the power of sin entering the world through 
 Adam's transgression, developing there by degrees as 
 an organic force, and bringing in its train the death 
 which comes to all men, because all are sinners. But 
 beneath this progress of humanity in sin and towards 
 death, he 'joints out a new progress proceeding from 
 Chr-ist, the- second Adam, which fulfils itself in holiness 
 and tends to life. "Where sin abounded, grace super- 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 abounded ; that as sin reigned by death, grace might 
 reign through righteousness unto eternal life, through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord " (vers. i2-2i). Thus Paul has 
 demonstrated his thesis, first by dialectic reasoning, 
 then by Scriptural authority, and then by the con- 
 clusive evidence of experience and history. 
 
 4. Chapters vi.-viii. Arrived at the culminating 
 point of his demonstration, Paul again encounters the 
 perpetual objection made to his gospel, the same 
 that had been raised at Antioch and in Galatia, and 
 which his last words could not fail to arouse. Is not 
 this doctrine of an absolute grace, abounding over 
 the sin of men in order to cover it, the ruin of all 
 morality ? Will it not afford occasion and excuse 
 for saying, Let us sin, that grace may abound ? This 
 objection brings the apostle to the very tore of his 
 doctrine, and suggests the admirable exposition of the 
 seventh and eighth chapters, the profoundest pages 
 which he has ever written. He there defines with 
 wonderful clearness the relation of the three terms, 
 afj.apTia, v6fj,o<;, X'^'-P'-'^- This common objection does 
 not touch the Christian ; for in his quality as a sinner 
 he has been crucified with Christ. He left his sin in 
 the grave of Jesus ; and has risen with Him to a new 
 life, which belongs wholly to God (chap. vi. i-ii). 
 Instead of being the slave of sin, he is now the slave 
 of righteousness (vers. 12-23). 
 
 But at the same time that he died to sin, he 
 died also to the law ; he escapes by death from 
 this second power, as from the first, for it only had 
 dominion over him so long as he lived. But 7iow 
 he has died ! and if he. is raised again, it is to obey 
 not the old letter, but the new power of the Spirit of 
 God to which henceforward he belongs (chap. vii. 
 
THE EPISTLE 70 THE ROMANS. 203 
 
 1-6). Does that mean that the law is sin f Far from 
 it. But the law gives life to sin by making it known 
 as sin, and actualizing it in the form of transgression. 
 The function of the law is to awaken within us this 
 painful consciousness of sin, and intensify it to the 
 point. of despair. Thus the law, owing to our flesh 
 in which the power of sin resides, brings us death 
 (chap. vii. 7-24). 
 
 But at the very point where the law makes ship- 
 wreck and we founder on death, there triumphs the 
 almighty grace of God, manifest in Jesus Christ. 
 Paul here explains, more fully than he did in the fifth 
 chapter, the wonderful effects of this grace : absolute 
 freedom froni all condemnation (chap. viii. 1-4) ; 
 efficient sanctification'by the Holy Spirit (vers. S-ii); 
 filial adoption by God (vers. 12-27) ; the triumph of 
 faith amidst even the severest trials, through the firm 
 hope of the glory which shall be revealed in us (vers. 
 18-39). Thus triumphantly ends the demonstration 
 of Paul's first thesis. 
 
 From this point, whither the logic of his doctrine 
 and the impulse of his emotion have led him, he could 
 not descend to the second thesis of his letter by any 
 natural transition. It is useless, therefore, to look in 
 the eighth chapter for anything which announces, or 
 prepares for the developments to follow. The tran- 
 sition does not lie in the words. It takes place in 
 Paul's feelings, in the painful contrast which forced it- 
 self upon him. In the midst of the joy with which his 
 heart has just overflowed, he is seized with the thought 
 that his people remain strangers to this covenant of 
 grace. His joy changes suddenly to bitter sorrow, 
 and it is with a heartfelt cry of distress (chap. ix. 1-5) 
 that he begins the defence of his apostleship. In these 
 
20+ THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 three last chapters Paul is bent on one thuig only 
 • — to make plain the agency of God in the religious 
 revolution which has taken place, the issue of a plan 
 which may seem unjust, but which increasingly vin- 
 dicates itself as it is further unfolded. God is not 
 bound to the Jewish people. If He rejects them now, 
 in order to call the Gentiles, it Is by a free decree of 
 His sovereign grace. The Jews, moreover, have no 
 right to complain ; they have only themselves to 
 blame for their unbelief. But this rejection is neither 
 absolute nor final ; if it brings about the conversion of 
 the Gentiles, that in its turn will lead to the salvation 
 of Israel. Such, in its historical sequence, is the 
 universal plan of redemption. Where the Jews see 
 nothing but painful contradictions, an insoluble enigm-a 
 and dense darkness, the profounder insight of the 
 apostle perceives and points out the glorious issue of 
 the Divine plans. Hence the three essential stages 
 in his argumentation — the absolute freedom of the grace 
 of God, which justifies from the standpoint of the 
 Divine will Paul's work among the Gentiles (chap, 
 ix.) ; the itiibdief of the Jews, justifymg to their own 
 understanding the decree of God which abandons 
 them (chap, x.) ; the final solution of this existing 
 antithesis between Israel and the Gentiles, in the 
 complete redemption of both (chap. xi.). 
 
 I. Chapter ix. 6-29. Paul does not touch directly 
 upon the question of the future of the Gentiles. His 
 main point is to explain and reconcile his readers to 
 the sorrowful fate of the people of Israel, who, with 
 all their great privileges, continue strangers to the hew 
 covenant. The apostle starts with the principle that 
 carnal descent from Abraham does not constitute a 
 right to inherit the promise, but that this right 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 205. 
 
 depends solely upon the free, sovereign grace of God. 
 Just as in the family of Abraham, Isaac was chosen 
 and not Ishmael ; and in, the family of Isaac, Jacob 
 and not Esau ; so now from among the people of 
 Israel this grace calls some to salvation, and leaves the 
 rest to destruction (vers. 6-13). It is true that a grave 
 objection is here raised. In punishing him whom 
 He has hardened, is not God -unjust ? Several pass- 
 ages in Scripture itself seem to confirm this accusation 
 (vers. 14-18). Paul is content to repel it by abso- 
 lutely refusing to man the right of contending with 
 God, or of controlling His will (vers. 20, 21). God is 
 free to create vessels of wrath to manifest the great- 
 ness of His judgments, and vessels of mercy to mani- 
 fest the infinite riches of H!is love. These vessels of 
 mercy may be taken from any quarter, from amongst 
 the Gentiles as well as the Jews. God may, accord- 
 ing to the word of Hosea, call those His people who 
 were not His people, — and according to that of Isaiah, 
 reduce to a feeble remnant, to a small number of 
 elect, the great multitude of Israel (vers. 24-29). 
 
 2. Chapter ix. 30-x. 21. Hitherto Paul has only 
 considered these dispensations ■ from the absolute 
 standpoint of the Divine sovereignty. But they have 
 another aspect ; and from vers. 30-33 a new point 
 of view is disclosed, in which human responsibility 
 regains all its importance.. Why, after all, should the 
 Jewish people complain ? Is the judgment of God 
 arbitrary ? Is not the persistent unbelief of Israel its 
 imrriediate and historical cause ? Because the people 
 obstinately sought righteousness by the works of the 
 law, and despised that which comes by faith, therefore it 
 is now rejected (chap. x. i-i i). The Jew had the same 
 opportunity as the Gentile. The mercy of God is the 
 
2o6 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 same toward all who call upon Him. But the differ- 
 ence lies in this, that the Gentiles have believed the 
 Gospel, while the Jews have always proved rebellious 
 (vers. 1 1-2 1). 
 
 3. Chapter xi. 1-32. Paul does not stop here. 
 He will not leave his readers in a state of mournful 
 resignation, dictated solely by a sense of the inevitable 
 necessity of things. Beyond the darkness of the 
 present, he desires to show them in the future the 
 absolute triumph of the work of God. This is the 
 design of the eleventh chapter. The apostle reminds 
 them that the word of God is immutable, and that 
 He cannot absolutely and finally reject His people. 
 He saves even now a part of it. If the mass indeed 
 is rejected, it is not that it may be eternally lost. This 
 fall is in God's design a mode of bringing about the 
 salvation of the Gentiles. But the salvation of the 
 Gentiles, in turn, is intended to accomplish the full 
 and perfect , realization of the salvation of the Jews 
 (vers. I -1 2). 
 
 With this conviction, and in fulfilment of this 
 Divine idea, the apostle labours with indefatigable 
 zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles. As things 
 are, it is the best thing he can do for his nation itself. 
 He strives to excite it to jealousy, for he knows surely 
 that it cannot perish. The Gentiles, indeed, should 
 never forget that this people whose branches are now 
 cut off, are none the less the holy root, the true olive- 
 tree, on the trunk of which they are engrafted ; and 
 that while its fall led to their adoption, this in its turn 
 will yet more certainly lead to its restoration. Thus 
 the ways of God justify themselves ; and thus the 
 temporary oppositions and painful contradictions of 
 the present are effaced, and disappear in the final 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ZOT 
 
 unity and consummation of the redemption : " God 
 has shut up all men in sin, that He might have mercy 
 upon all ! " Is it surprising that the apostle, stirred 
 by such lofty thoughts and so grand a vision, suffers 
 his enthusiasm to burst forth at the last in a hymn of 
 adoration in praise of the unsearchable wisdom of 
 God ? (vers. 33-36.) The second victory won by Paul's 
 dialectic is as great and final as the first. Not only 
 has he justified his apostleship, by referring it to the 
 Divine decree ; not only has he proved that he dero- 
 gates nothing from the Jews, who are called to faith 
 equally with the Gentiles ; but he has further shown 
 that in reality he is indirectly serving, and effectively 
 preparing for, the fulfilment of the destinies of the 
 people of Israel. 
 
 There is no need that we should analyse the hor- 
 tatory portion of this epistle, the precepts and moral 
 exhortations of which are the practical issue of the 
 principles that Paul has just developed. We may 
 say, however, that nothing in 'chaps, xv. and xvi. gives 
 any ground for the doubts raised by Baur respecting 
 their authenticity. Only, these later pages of the 
 letter are in great disorder. The manuscripts entirely 
 disagree with each other, and present strange pheno- 
 mena. The epistle to the Romans, as now constituted, 
 has four, or even five terminations : chap. xiv. 23, 
 where we sometimes find intercalated the doxology 
 of chap. xvi. 25-27 ; then chap. xv. 33 ; chap. xvi. 20 ; 
 xvi. 24; and the actual termination, chap. xvi. 25-27. 
 Of all the hypotheses which have been assumed to 
 explain these details, that of M. Renan still seems to 
 me the best. According to this, several copies of the 
 letter were made and sent to the different Churches, 
 with appropriate additions from Paul himself ; one, in 
 
2o8 THE APOSTLE FAUL. 
 
 particular, to Ephesus, to which may have been added 
 the special note preserved in chap. xvi. 1-20. 
 
 This rapid analysis exhibits the new features of 
 the epistle to. the Romans and the theological pro- 
 gress accomplished since the letters to the Galatians 
 and Corinthians. The Pauline doctrine has at last 
 attained its unity. The apostle is no longer satisfied 
 with contrasting the Gospel and the Law ; whilst re- 
 jecting the yoke of the latter,- he goes further, and 
 finds the Law fulfilled in the Gospel. In the same 
 way, though he shows how the Gentiles take the place 
 in the kingdom of God which the unbelieving Jews 
 left vacant, he does not stop short at this contrast ; 
 he feels the necessity of explaining to himself, as 
 well as of justifying to others, this mystery in the 
 plan of God. The necessary consequence of the 
 Jews' rejection is to bring the Gospel out of the 
 narrow circle of Judaism and spread it to the ends of 
 the earth. But in this general conversion of the 
 Gentiles, Paul only sees a new method by which God 
 designs to bring back the people of Israel in their 
 turn into the covenant of grace. Here again, review- 
 ing the conflicts of history, his doctrine attains a final 
 reconciliation. In this unity it finds repose. From 
 this culminating point it surveys the progressive evo- 
 lution of the plan of redemption, and of the destinies 
 of humanity. 
 
 God has shut zip all men into disobedience, that He 
 might have mercy upon all. This great saying, which 
 closes and crowns our epistle, is the keystone of the 
 arch in the apostle's structure. Oneness and equality 
 in sin, oneness and equality in redemption : these 
 words sum up both the leading idea and the entire 
 plan of this great work. From this historical point 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 209 
 
 of view, the two portions of the epistle, which usually 
 have been merely placed in juxtaposition, are blended 
 together and recover their profound unity. While 
 the first' shows us the fall of humanity and its virtual 
 uplifting in Jesus Christ, the second, still on the same 
 lines, exhibits the progressive realization of the King- 
 dom of God in history, up to the point where it 
 embraces all humanity. The religious philosophy 
 broadly sketched in the epistle to the Galatians, is 
 here defined and completed. 
 
 Viewed in the light of this final unity, all the inter- 
 mediate stages through which the Divine conception 
 passes in its fulfilment, in the very nature of things 
 appear but transitory. We understand them alike 
 in their historical necessity and their subordination, 
 — in their essential relativity. Only the short-sighted 
 could sufler themselves to be "arrested or driven to 
 despair by the inevitable antagonisms and conflicts. 
 The true believer foresees the final reconciliation, and 
 knows that all these struggles really serve to fulfil 
 God's design. The apostle had to win acceptance, in 
 minds still fettered by Judaism, for two facts equally 
 revolting and equally painful — the abrogation of the 
 Law by the Gospel, arid the substitution of the 
 Gentiles for the Jews in the Kingdom of God. How 
 could he succeed better than by directly referring 
 these two facts to the Divine will, and showing them 
 to be essential stages in God's eternal plan ? 
 
 We may say, therefore^ that Paul's letter is pre- 
 eminently a work of synthesis and reconciliation. We 
 must not, however, go too far ; we will not, with some 
 theologians, speak of concessions^ of advances made 
 by the apostle towards his adversaries, of a Paulinism 
 which is not so strict as that of the epistle to the 
 
 14 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Galatians. Such an opinion could only be held by 
 superficial readers, who judge from first impressions 
 and do not attempt to analyse the epistle. None 
 of Paul's letters sets forth with greater profundity or 
 with more rigorous logic his most cherished ideas. 
 His doctrine is rounded and completed, but not 
 modified. It reduces to unity the two terms of that 
 problem which had long disturbed it. Though we 
 speak of reconciliation and of synthesis, it is of that 
 logical reconciliation of his various ideas that must be 
 sought by every earnest thinker, and of the final 
 synthesis in which alone the mind can find repose. 
 
 Hence the admirable harmony, the calm sense of 
 power which distinguish this epistle above all the 
 others. A perfect equilibrium prevails in it from 
 beginning to end. The balance is always justly held 
 between Jew and Gentile. If the Gentile is corrupt, 
 the Jew is no less guilty. By different routes they 
 arrive inevitably at the same condemnation {ol ^dp 
 eariv SlocttoXtj, chap. iii. 22). United in sin, they con- 
 tinue united in their redemption. Is God the God of 
 the Jews only, is He not also the God of the pagans ? 
 (chap. iii. 27-30.) There are only two humanities — 
 the one sinful, descended from Adam, to which all 
 belong; the other redeemed and sanctified, the issue of 
 Christ, the second Adam, to which all ought to belong. 
 This equilibrium is still more striking in chaps, ix., 
 X., and xi. Paul not only proves that the advantages 
 of the one party are not acquired to the detriment of 
 the other, but that neither obtains any grace which 
 will not in the end redound to the benefit of all. If 
 the Jews received the promises, it was that they 
 might preserve them and transmit them to the Gen- 
 tiles ; and if the Gentiles enter into the new covenant 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 their conversion is to lead to that of the Jews. In 
 the same way the apostle entreats the weak to respect 
 the strong, and exhorts the strong to support the 
 weak (chaps, xii., xiv., xv.). For blind rivalries he 
 substitutes everywhere fraternal solidarity, and for 
 intestine conflicts organic unity. 
 
 This is the culminating point which the Pauline 
 theology has now attained. From the psychological 
 sphere, where it discovered and established its funda- 
 mental principle, it has risen to the wide sphere of 
 history, and there attains its full expansion. It pauses 
 a moment to contemplate and admire the onward 
 progress o the plan and the revelations of God. 
 But at this height it has already reached its critical 
 point, where the philosophy of history changes of 
 necessity into speculative theory. As yet it does not 
 pass this limit ; but remains within the horizon of 
 time. It even declares the wisdom of God unfathom- 
 able, and the secret of His ways impenetrable ! But 
 may it not attempt to gain some glimpse of them ? 
 Shall it refrain from seeking to unveil at last the meta- 
 physical principles implied in its previous develop- 
 ments ? May it not crown the edifice so laboriously 
 ccj^structed ? 
 
 The inherent logic, the natural bias of the apostle's 
 mind, was to lead him to climb this last summit. 
 The new events and the important changes about to 
 take place in his own history, and in that of his 
 Churches in Asia, will soon furnish the occasion for 
 this. In the epistles of the Captivity Paul's inde- 
 fatigable intellect attains its final goal. 
 
BOOK IV. 
 
 THIRD PESIOD: THE PAULINISM OF 
 LATER TIMES. 
 
 From 58 A.D. to — (?) 
 
 WITH the apostle's captivity begins the last 
 epoch of his life. The letters usually referred 
 to this period present us with a new t3^pe of doctrine 
 as distinct from that of the great epistles as the latter 
 was from primitive Paulinism. The striking antithesis ■ 
 between the Law and the Gospel formulated during 
 the struggles of the preceding period is found here in 
 a qualified and more general form, though it has not 
 wholly disappeared (Phil. iiL 2, 3 ; i. 12-18). The 
 Judaistic opposition seems relegated to the back- 
 ground. Errors of another, but no less dangerous char- 
 acter, threaten the apostle's work in Asia, and evoke 
 a third and broader development of his doctrine. 
 
 Before entering upon the exposition of this last 
 phase of Paul's teaching it is necessary, therefore, to 
 define clearly the entirely new circumstances in which 
 the apostle is now placed. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE ADDRESS AT MILETUS. — APPEARANCE OF THE 
 GNOSTIC ASCETICISM. — NEW EVOLUTION IN 
 PAUL'S THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINE. 
 
 THE farewell address delivered by the apostle at 
 Miletus to the elders of the Church at Ephesus, 
 forms the natural transition from the second period 
 of his life to the third (Acts xx. 13-35). 
 
 Paul left Corinth a few days after the despatch of 
 his letter to the Church at Rome (Rom. xv. 25 ; comp. 
 Acts XX. 3). He was going up to Jerusalem. His 
 journey through Macedonia and along the shores of 
 Asia Minor was simply a long series of farewells,, 
 Paul accomplished it in great anxiety of mind and 
 under the most gloomy forebodings. Vainly did his 
 friends, who shared his fears, endeavour to shake his 
 resolution. He obeyed the inward call of God ; he 
 was bound in con-science (Acts xx. 22). His hour 
 had come. This journey reminds us of the last 
 journey of Jesus to Jerusalem. At the end of his 
 career the disciple, like the Master, was to undergo 
 his passion. The tenderness of his heart, his serene 
 faith in the midst of sorrow, his submissive and firm 
 obedience, are strikingly exhibited in his pathetic 
 farewell to the pastors of Ephesus. 
 
 The address at Miletus has a still greater historical 
 214 
 
THE LATER PAULINISM. 215 
 
 significance. The apostle was affected not only by 
 the crisis about to take place in his own life, but by 
 the changes which he already foresaw in the destiny 
 of his Churches. The Judaistic opposition had spent 
 its first fury, and no longer seemed very formidable. 
 A new crisis was developing. / know, said the 
 apostle, that after my departure rapacious wolves zvill 
 attack you, and will not spare the flock ; from the 
 midst of you zvill men arise uttering perverse things 
 {\a\ovvTev ScecTTpafj,fi6va) to draw tlie disciples after 
 them (Acts xx. 29, 30). It is very evident that these 
 rapacious wolves, these false teachers coming actually 
 from the midst of the Gentile Christian Churches, are 
 no longer the Judaizing teachers with whom we 
 have become familiar. What can their distorted talk 
 be, but an .unnatural perversion of the Gospel itself, 
 tortured from it by their false wisdom ? There is an 
 obvious allusion here to the modes of interpretation 
 familiar to Gnosticism. Some critics, it is true, have 
 only brought forward this allusion as an argum.ent 
 against the authenticity of the Address itself, or at 
 least against the fidelity of the narrator. The argu- 
 ment would be very strong, if this indication of the 
 concealed presence of the Gnostic leaven and its 
 hitherto secret working were an isolated fact. But 
 there are other considerations, more explicit and less 
 disputable than this, which serve to confirm and 
 justify these predictions as coming from Paul's mouth. 
 Let us return to the epistle to the Romans. Let 
 us ask ourselves who were the weak members of this 
 Church, whom Paul describes in chapter xiv., and 
 towards whom he preaches charity and tolerance ? 
 No doubt they were connected, more or less closely; 
 with Judaism. It was from Judaism, and not from 
 
2i6 7'HE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 the Pythagorean philosophy, that their scruples and 
 asceticism were derived. But they must not be con- 
 founded with the Judaizing Christians of Galatia and 
 Corinth, or even identified with the Judaizers of 
 Rome as a body. These Christian ascetics who insist, 
 not on circumcision and Pharisaic observances, but 
 on certain abstinences, are a new development, 
 radically different from primitive ' Juda;o-Christianity. 
 They neither eat meat nor drink wine, living only on 
 vegetables. Where shall we find the origin of this 
 asceticism ? Ritschl, not without some show of 
 reason, regards it as a result of Essenism, the spirit 
 of which was already creeping into the Church. Be 
 that as it may, this practical asceticism had its basis 
 either in a philosophical dualism, or in an interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture analogous to that employed by the 
 Ebionites to justify the same abstinences.' But at 
 Rome this ascetic morality seems to have propagated 
 itself without the dogmas which justified it. Practice 
 had anticipated theory. That is why the apostle, 
 while condemning the principle of action adopted by 
 these weak members (TreTreto-yuat eV Kvpia 'Irjaov on 
 ovSkf KOLvbv hC eavTov), does not trouble himself to 
 contend with them, and shows them the indulgence 
 which is due to every scrupulous conscience. Later 
 on, at Colossae, the two elements of theory and 
 practice are found in combination.' The tendency, 
 
 • See Epiphanius, Hcpres., 30. 15. 
 
 * Perhaps the language of Rom. xvi. 17-19 should be applied 
 to Gnostic teachers elsewhere than at Rome. It would be more 
 appropriate to such teachers, it seems to us, than to the early 
 Judaizers. It is a new indication to add to those which we are 
 now pointing out, of the early appearance of Gnosticism in 
 the apostolic Churches. 
 
THE LATER PAULINISM. 217 
 
 hitherto vague and floating, presents itself to us here 
 in a more decided and clearly marked shape. 
 
 The false teachers whom Paul attacks in his 
 epistle to the Colossians, are distinguished iij fact by 
 these two characteristics : a very rigorous asceticism, 
 and a very daring boldness of speculation. They 
 seem indeed to have endeavoured, in concert with the 
 Judaizers, to impose circumcision upon the Gentile 
 Christians (Col. ii. 1 1 ), but their originality does not 
 lie in this. It consists in that voluntary asceticism 
 which spares not the flesh, which credits itself with 
 something specially meritorious just because it goes 
 beyond the commandments of God, and which Paul 
 so aptly characterizes in the word edeXoQpriaKeLa 
 (chap. ii. 22, 23). They not only observe the Sab- 
 baths and the new moons, but they further command 
 abstinence from certain kinds of food and drink : 
 touch not ; taste not. With this system of abstinence 
 is joined the worship of angels, among whom, no 
 doubt, Jesus Christ was reckoned. 
 
 This worship of angels implied something that 
 went far beyond a mere popular superstition. It was 
 a subject of speculation and transcendental science. 
 These celestial beings were divided into classes and 
 ranged in an elaborate hierarchy, which was intended 
 to explain the relations of God and the world, the 
 origin and nature of evil, the course of the world's 
 history, and its final issue.^ This system was destined 
 to become transformed and perfected in the great 
 Gnostic schools of the beginning of the second cen- 
 
 ' It is well known that the worship of angels and a specula- 
 tive philosophy of the celestial hierarchies formed an essential 
 part of the Essenian theology. 
 
2i8 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 tury. But it is already sketched out here. The 
 vocabulary of Gnosticism is created. Its terms still 
 preserve, it is true, the religious colouring, the positive 
 character due to their origin ; but they have already 
 begun to merge both these in the metaphysical and 
 abstract signification which constantly grows upon 
 them. The aeons are enumerated : dpovoi, KvpioTTjTev, 
 apX'^^'f alwve^. Their totality is expressed by the 
 Divine irXripaiixa. Between the lowest of the aeons 
 and the supreme God there is an ascending scale 
 through which all these beings must rise, to re-enter 
 by degrees the Divinity whence they issued. 
 
 Such was the fantastic world that the teachers 
 of Colossae were absorbed in contemplating. These 
 are the far-fetched speculations, alike baseless and 
 irrational, with which the apostle upbraids them in 
 denouncing their religion of angels (a p-rj eciopaicev 
 ifi^aTEvtov, chap. iL i8). The more ingenious their 
 theories, the prouder they were of them {elKfj (pucriov- 
 p-evos). They claimed to have found the true wisdom, 
 and to possess all its treasures (chap. ii. 3, 4) ; they 
 had sounded the depths of being ; they knew, where 
 others only believed. So they opposed their gnosis 
 to the simple faith of humble Christians. Such is 
 Judaistic Gnosticism, as it appears in the epistles to 
 the Colossians and Ephesians. 
 
 Its image becomes still more definite and complete 
 in the three pastoral epistles (so called). There we 
 have the same asceticism, the same fantastic specu- 
 lations, the same dreams of the imagination (i Tim. 
 iv. 1-7). The fundamental dualism of this philosophy 
 is still more marked (chap. iv. 3, 4). The system 
 a.cquires a more articulate and consistent form ; it is 
 a profane mythology {p,v9oi ^e^rjKot, koX <ypad)Sei^), 
 
THE LATER PAULINISM. 219 
 
 around whose figures metaphysics weaves stories 
 of the strangest and most daring character. There 
 are endless genealogies {yeveaXo fiai airepavToi), pas- 
 sionate and fruitless discussions, gratifying morbid 
 curiosity. Finally, this philosophy already bears its 
 historical title, — that oi gnosis (i Tim. vi. 20).^ 
 
 There can be no doubt of the nature of this 
 primitive Gnosticism. It was evidently a speculation 
 which arose in Jewish circles, and which remained 
 Judaistic. Its teachers not only counselled circum- 
 cision, the observance of the Sabbath, and the new 
 moons (Col. ii. 11-18); they claimed moreover to be 
 the true teachers of the law (vo/j.oSLSdcrKaX.01, i Tim. 
 i. 7). Doubtless they started with the Old Testa- 
 ment, and by the mode of exegesis common at that 
 time discovered in it all their dreams. The epistles 
 call their fables fivdoi, 'lovBalKoi (Tit. i. 14) ; either 
 because these myths were originated by Jews, or 
 — what is more probable — because they consisted in 
 Jewish legends or narratives from the Old Testament, 
 transformed into philosophical myths in the spirit 
 and direction of Philonism. 
 
 But these new tendencies, which must from the 
 beginning have assumed a variety of forms, were none 
 the less fundamentally distinct from the Judaeo- 
 Christianity of the primitive days. The latter re- 
 sembled a continuation of Pharisaism in the Christian 
 Church ; the former, as Ritschl and Mangold have 
 well observed, has the appearance of a development 
 of Essenism. We are.unwilling to enter in this place 
 upon the difficult question of the origin of Gnosticism.,^ 
 
 ' See Mangold, Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe. Marburg, 
 1856. 
 
THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 It probably took its rise spontaneously, in different 
 places at the same time. It was not in fact a special 
 philosophy, but a general impulse of the human 
 jnind, which made itself felt at that period in- all 
 schools and creeds alike, striving to transform the 
 elements of tradition, to dissolve and absorb them 
 by a laborious process of speculative reason. Thus 
 neo-Platonism and Neo-pythagoreanism are nothing 
 else but a philosophical Gnosticism; just as the specu- 
 lations of Basilides or Valentinian are a Christian 
 Gnosticism, and the Alexandrianism of Philo a Jewish 
 Gnosticism. These systems are the result of the same 
 spiritualizing processes, differently applied in different 
 places and by different minds. They aim at the same 
 goal, and pursue it by the same method, seeking not 
 only discursive knowledge, but direct intuition, the 
 possession and enjoyment of absolute truth. Finally, 
 one permanent feature of all these schools is the union 
 of speculative mysticism with practical asceticism. 
 
 If we consider the abundant development of this 
 Gnosticism at the beginning of the second century, 
 and recollect that it was then the dominating 
 philosophy throughout the East, we can scarcely 
 doubt that its origin lay as far back as the middle of 
 the" first century. It cannot, in short, be supposed 
 that the systems which prevailed about 120 or 130 
 A.D., blossomed out all at once in the scholarly and 
 finished form which then distinguished them. Gnos- 
 ticism only arrived at this point of development by 
 a somewhat lengthy process of elaboration. By this 
 time it had its ancestors, its history, and traditions ; 
 it loved to connect itself directly with the apostles.^ 
 
 ' It is well known that Basilides, Valentinian, and Marcion 
 
THE LATER PAULINISM. 221 
 
 Its chronology, no doubt, is still very uncertain. 
 But the Gnostic terms scattered through Paul's later 
 epistles, especially in the epistle to the Colossians, 
 can no longer be brought forward as proofs against 
 their authenticity. They only show that the origin 
 of Gnosticism is "much earlier than has long been 
 supposed. Can we wonder to see such a tendency 
 breaking out thus early, in the very midst of the 
 Christian Church? In explanation of this fact it is 
 not necessary to refer to the eclectic methods of the 
 time, or to the general fermentation of thought in the 
 great cities of Asia Minor, which was then engen- 
 dering so many strange phenomena. It is enough 
 to observe the remarkable affinity of Gnosticism with 
 the Gospel. Gnosticism had the same end in view — 
 the union of man with God, the redemption of fallen 
 beings ; and in practical life its asceticism might only 
 seem a rigorous application of Jewish or Christian 
 morality. But we can also understand what dangers 
 the apostolic teaching incurred from this association. 
 In becoming a metaphysical speculation, the Gospel 
 was losing its moral character. The concrete facts 
 and positive tradition on which it was based, and 
 which constituted its strength, were dissolving, evapo- 
 rating, changing into symbols of abstract ideas. The 
 Gospel was becoming a mythology. The Christian 
 redemption, which always implies human liberty, and 
 which involves struggles of conscience and conversion, 
 was no longer anything more than the theory of the 
 
 claimed to have collected secret traditions, which had been 
 transmitted to them from the immediate disciples of the 
 apostles. Thus Basilides was said to hold his doctrine from a 
 certain Glaucias, an interpreter of Peter, and Valentinian from 
 Theodas, a disciple of Paul. 
 
?,22 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 gradual return to God of every being who had issued 
 from Him. Finally, the person of Christ was on the 
 point of being merged and lost amongst a crowd of 
 intermediate beings, in the hierarchy of aeons with 
 whom His work and His glory were shared.' 
 
 Such- was the new situation opening in Asia Minor, 
 the dangers of which Paul was eager to avert. The 
 apostle's penetrating mind; so swift to discern prin- 
 ciples and to seize at the first glance both their 
 nature and consequences, could not be mistaken as 
 to the gravity of this movement. Still, as M. Reuss 
 admirably remarks, "if the contact of Christianity with 
 the leaven then working in men's minds had been 
 purely hostile, it might perhaps have been possible to 
 . run the risk of leaving it alone to exhaust itself. But 
 what made it specially dangerous was the incapacity 
 of many minds to distinguish the radical difference 
 between the two currents of ideas, and the pre- 
 dilections of so many Greeks who were attracted to 
 the Church chiefly by the desire of knowledge and by 
 philosophical aspirations, and who naturally turned 
 to the quarter from which these aspirations seemed to 
 receive the most ample satisfaction. There came a 
 time, therefore, when the old reactionary party of the 
 Judaizers seemed less dangerous than the advanced 
 party, — that of the new philosophers."^ In this way 
 all the essential features in the Paulinism of later times 
 are sufficiently explained. 
 
 I. Paulinism, hitherto of such a bold, I had almost 
 said revolutionary character, was of necessity about 
 to assume a more conservative form. Resistance 
 
 ' See Reuss, Histoire de la thiologie apostolique, vol. i., pp. 
 366-377. [Eng. trans., i., pp. 316-325.] 
 ^ See Reuss, vol. i., p. 378. [Eng, trans., i., p. 37,6.] 
 
THE LATER PAULINISM. 22J 
 
 must succeed attack. The apostle seeks to recall 
 men's minds to the old doctrine, the primitive tradi- 
 tions (Eph. iii. 2-s ; ii. 20 ; Phil. iii. i ; Col. ii. 2-5). 
 
 2. The Pauline teaching, in face of this opposition, 
 takes a more speculative form. In the first epistle to 
 the Corinthians the apostle had already described his 
 Gospel as perfect wisdom (aoi^lav iv toU reXet'oi?, 
 I Cor. ii. 6). But there he still preferred to contrast 
 the foolishness of the cross with the wisdom of the 
 world. Henceforward, without robbing the Gospel 
 in any way of this Divine foolishness, or allowing the 
 Christian to forget the sphere of the inner and sanc- 
 tified life, he seeks to expound this perfect wisdom, 
 and exhibits in his teaching the most exalted 
 philosophy. Besides, his own instincts led him in 
 
 . this direction ; and he must have found a certain 
 delight in opposing to these daring speculations the 
 true Christian knowledge, and thus crowning the 
 labour of his whole system (Col. i. 9, lOj ii. 2 ; Eph. 
 iii. 10 : oi drjo-avpol Tfj<i aoxpia^ xal tt}? ryvcoa-eioi iv 
 Xpiarw aTroKpv(j)oi, Col. ii. 3). 
 
 3. From this new point of view there inevitably 
 issued a fresh re.sult, — the concentration, or, I would 
 say, the absorption, of the whole Christian system of 
 dogma in Christology. The doctrines of justification 
 by faith and universal salvation are summed up in 
 the later epistles with equal vigour, precision, and 
 fulness. But that is not the main design of these 
 letters. These great ideas no longer seem in peril. 
 It was, as we have already said, the supreme royalty 
 of Jesus Christ which was in danger of being eclipsed 
 amid the crowd of intermediate beings. Accordingly, 
 it is with triumphant pride that Paul overthrows and 
 lays prostra,te at the feet of the Son of God all these 
 
224 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 powers, thrones, and aeons, that dispute with Him 
 the honour of the work of redemption. The declara- 
 tion of the transcendental worth of the person and 
 work of JeSus follows as a matter of course. 
 
 4. Lastly, a final and no less important change 
 was at the same time taking place in Paul's ethics. 
 The letters to the Corinthians seemed to counsel 
 some degree of asceticism, especially with regard to 
 marriage. This asceticism, as we have said, was not 
 deduced from the personal doctrine of the apostle ; 
 but the expectation of Christ's immediate coming, 
 and the fear of the great tribulations which were to 
 precede it, had led him to urge, somewhat too 
 strongly, the precept of abstinence. Though mar- 
 riage is good, he had said, celibacy is still better 
 (i Cor. vii. I, 7, 28-31, 38). Already, in the epistle to 
 the Romans, whatever exclusiveness and narrowness 
 might be found in these sayings had disappeared 
 (Rom. xiv.)^ A wider view of the matter is revealed. 
 Evidently the apostle's horizon had extended in the 
 direction of the future ; the final catastrophe no 
 longer seems imminent ; family and social life, with 
 their duties, resume henceforth their value and impor- 
 tance in his eyes. Indeed, it is above all in this 
 sphere that the Christian life ought to unfold itself. 
 Nowhere has the apostle insisted on social and 
 domestic duties so much as in his later • letters 
 (Eph. V. 15-vi. 9; Col. iii. 17-iv. 6; Phil. iv. 8, 9). 
 Asceticism is radically condemned, both in its prin- 
 ciple and its precepts (i Tim. iv. 1-5). On seeing 
 it preached by such doubtful teachers, the apostle 
 became more sensible of its danger. 
 
 It is time to study more closely the character of 
 each of these epistles. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE EPISTLES TO PHILEMON, TO THE COLOSSIANS, 
 AND TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 THESE three letters form a distinct group among 
 the epistles of the Captivity, and must not be 
 separated. Written at the same time, very probably 
 from the prison at Caesarea, and carried to Asia Minor 
 by the same messengers, they preserve striking traces 
 of this close connexion in their origin (Philem. lo 
 — comp. Col. iv. 9 ; Philem. 23, 24 — comp. Col. iv. 10, 
 12, 14; Philem. 2 — comp. Col. iv. 17; Col. iv. 7 — 
 comp. Eph. vi. 21). These epistles, in fact, mutually 
 imply each other ; and it soon becomes evident that 
 they had one and the same author. 
 
 I. The Epistle to Philemon. 
 
 If they are not Paul's, it must be acknowledged 
 that there existed a writer possessed of sufficient skill 
 and information to invent a complete and happily 
 conceived historical situation, and to insert in the 
 apostle's life without violation of history a most 
 reasonable and charming romance. To admit such 
 a fiction will, perhaps, scarcely seem easier than to 
 accept the apostolic origin of these three letters. 
 
 Onesimus, one of Paul's messengers, was a fugitive 
 slave. He had been converted , by the imprisoned 
 apostle, had attached himself to his person, and 
 
 225 1 5 
 
226 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 lavished his services upon him. He belonged to a 
 Christian master in the neighbourhood of Colossse, 
 named Philemon, a personal friend of P.iul. The 
 apostle sends him back in charge of Tychicus, and 
 restores him to his master, giving him a brief note 
 written in his own hand, designed to secure his 
 favourable reception by Philemon. 
 
 The letter only contains a few friendly lines ; but 
 they are so fulf of grace and wit, of earnest, tnjstful 
 affection, that this short epistle shines among the rich 
 treasures of the New Testament as a pearl of ex- 
 quisite fineness. Never has there been a better fulfil- 
 ment of the precept given by Paul himself at the close 
 of his letter to the Colossians : o Xo'70? h^wv •n-avroTs 
 ev j^dpiTi, oXart -^pTV/j.epo';, elSevai 7r&>? Set w/ta? evi 
 eKucTTw aTTOKplvetfOai (chap. iv. 6). Baur sacrifices it 
 to the logic of his system somewhat unwillingly. 
 " This letter," he says, " is distinguished by the private 
 nature of its contents ; it has nothing of those common- 
 places, those general doctrines void of originality, 
 those repetitions of familiar things, which are so fre- 
 quent in the supposed writings of the apostle. It 
 deals with a concrete fact, a practical detail of ordinary 
 life. . . . What objection can criticism make to 
 these pleasant and charming lines, inspired by the 
 purest Christian feeling, and against which suspicion 
 has never been breathed ? " ' Alas ! all these graces 
 render the victim more interesting, but they do not 
 save it ! Beneath its innocent and candid appearance 
 this epistle conceals what astonishing subtleties, what 
 a treacherous aim ! Baur has discovered a mysterious 
 design, an ambitious dogmatic purpose underlying it ; 
 
 ' See Baui-'s Paiilus, vol, ii., p. 82 [Eng. trans., ii., p. 80], 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 227 
 
 and the poor epistle is ruthlessly condemned ! This 
 impeachment of Baur's, however, reminds us a little 
 of that of the wolf against the lamb. " If the Pauline 
 origin of the other epistles of the Captivity, especially 
 that of the Pastorals,'' says he, " gives rise to so many 
 objections and is involved in so many difficulties, if 
 therefore it is in the highest degree doubtful whether 
 we have any letter belonging to this period of the 
 apostle's life, how could this little friendly note, dealing 
 with a matter of detail and private life, be allowed to 
 make an exception ? " Obviously, this is the wolfs 
 final argument : If it was not thou, it was thy brother I 
 The little note may be innocent in itself, but it 
 has the fault and the misfortune to be too much 
 akin to the other epistles, with their very suspicious 
 character. 
 
 The complaint, doubtless, admits of no reply. But 
 we may ask whether this argument would not be 
 of equal force if we attempted to reverse it ? Would 
 it be less logical to say : The epistle to Philemon 
 affords no ground for critical suspicion ; and since 
 it is inseparably connected with the epistles to the 
 Colossians and Ephesian.s, its existence constitutes 
 a very strong argument in favour of the two latter ? 
 In fact, this short letter to Philemon is so intensely 
 original, so entirely innocent of dogmatic preoccu- 
 pation, and Paul's mind has left its impress so clearly 
 and indelibly upon it, that it can only be set aside by 
 an act of sheer violence. Linked from the first with 
 the two epistles to which we have just referred, it 
 is virtually Paul's own signature appended as their 
 guarantee, to accompany them through the centuries. 
 
 It is needless to say that we have not succeeded 
 in perceiving the profound and ambitious design 
 
2:S THE APOSTLE PAUL, 
 
 which Baur has detected in the lettef to Philemon. 
 We take it simply for what it is,— that is to say, a 
 petition to a Christian friend on behalf of his-slave. 
 We delight to meet with it on our toilsome road, 
 and to rest awhile with Paul from his great contro- 
 versies and fatiguing labours in this refreshing oasis 
 which Christian friendship offered to him. We are 
 accustomed to conceive of the apostle: as always 
 armed for warfare, sheathed in logic and. bristling 
 with arguments. It is delightful to find him at his 
 ease, and for a moment able to unbend, engaged in 
 this friendly intercourse so full of freedom and even 
 playfulness (vers, ii, ig, 20), 
 
 Paul has often been blamed for sending Onesimus 
 back to his master. His conduct has been regarded 
 as giving sanction to slavery. This accusation does 
 not seem to me at all worthy of regard. The mighty 
 force of the Gospel, which in regenerating the heart 
 elevated all men, and created a new society without 
 disturbing existing social institutions, is perhaps no- 
 "Where better exhibited than in these few lines. Where, 
 I ask, could we find, not merely a more radical con- 
 demnation of the causes and results of slavery, but a 
 more complete emancipation of the debased slave? 
 Have we not here the practical realization of the 
 beautiful Christian idea wh"ich merges all social dis- 
 tinctions in Christ, and restores to each man in his 
 neighbour hislbrother, his other self, uniting them as 
 members of the same family for all eternity ? " I do 
 not wish," writes" the apostle to Philemon, "to decree 
 anything authoritatively. It is the aged Paul who 
 from his prison, and in the name of our mutual affec- 
 tion, entreats thee on behalf of his son — that son whom 
 I have begotten in my chains — Onesimus, the once 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 229 
 
 lost and useless slave, who now returns to thee, so 
 dear and precious both to thee and me. . . . Thou 
 didst lose him for a time ; thou regainest him for 
 eternity. Receive him no longer as a slave, but as a 
 brother in the flesh, and in the Lord. If thou boldest 
 me for a friend, receive him as thou wouldst myself" 
 This epistle is not merely a revelation of the apostle's 
 heart, it becomes further, through its moral signifi- 
 cance, an invaluable document of the Pauline ethics. 
 
 II. COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS. 
 
 The epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians 
 demand more extended consideration. Their mutual 
 relations and obviously close connexion present to 
 criticism the most difficult of problems. De Wette 
 first of all expressed grave doubts of the apostolic 
 origin of the epistle to the Ephesians ; in the end, he 
 absolutely rejected it. A strict comparison with the 
 letter to the Colossians was decidedly unfavourable to 
 it. It seemed to be nothing more than an oratorical 
 and at times verbose amplification of the other ; and, 
 though not deficient in merit, it was at least wanting 
 in originality. 
 
 But de Wette's investigations, although so accurate, 
 were incomplete. The question wears another aspect, 
 which has escaped his observation. Everything has 
 not been said, when the dependence of the epistle 
 to the Ephesians on that to the Colossians is once 
 established. He should have asked whether this 
 relation is not mutual, and whether the epistle to the 
 Colossians, though apparently more original, is not in 
 its turn inseparably connected with Ephesians. It is 
 not surprising that the question, when approached 
 from this side, has received an opposite solution. 
 
236 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Mayerhoff and Schneckenburger have maintained, 
 not without some show of reason, that the epistle to 
 the Ephesians was the original and primitive letter. 
 The former, indeed, has not hesitated to bring the 
 same accusa>tion of plagiarism against Colossians that 
 de Wette brought against Ephesians. 
 
 It becomes apparent from these conflicting argu- 
 ments that the dependence of the two letters is mutual, 
 and that they cannot really be separated. On that 
 point Baur was not mistaken. Starting with the 
 assumption that Ephesians is not authentic — a fact 
 which he considered demonstrated by de Wette, he 
 had no difificulty in exhibiting clearly the inner soli- 
 darity of the two epistles ; and he insisted with logical 
 force that the fall of the one necessarily involves that 
 of the other. In his view, the identity of their aim, 
 method, and dogmatic contents, and of the desig- 
 nation of their messenger, sufficiently attest their 
 common authorship. It will perhaps be observed thai 
 in the end, and by this roundabout means, Baur's 
 criticism almost annihilates those observations of de 
 Wette which in the first instance were its support and 
 starting-point. After reaching this conclusion, what 
 are we to make of these exegetical and literary details 
 which betray the imitator's hand ? If there is pla- 
 giarism, it is in this case the author copying himself! 
 Baur only departs from the original tradition on one 
 point: he refers to the year no or 120 the literary 
 phenomenon which has usually been placed about 
 60 A.D. ; and he assumes as very probable in one 
 of Paul's disciples a procedure which he considers 
 absolutely impossible in the case of Paul himself. 
 
 In this way modern criticism brings us back to its 
 own starting-point. We must, in fact, complete de 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 
 
 Wette's examination, if we do not wish to be misled 
 at the outset by appearances. We have not here 
 the simple relation of a copy to its original. The 
 question is more complex and delicate. The coin- 
 cidences of the two epistles are not merely external. 
 Their unity of inspiration is even more striking than 
 their resemblance in style. In both there is the same 
 theological standpoint, and the same errors are con- 
 troverted. There is between them, if I may so speak, 
 an intimate and mutual interpenetration. The same 
 matter is digested twice over ; but the relation between 
 the two treatises is such that, notwithstanding their 
 constant resemblance, there is never on the one hand 
 absolute originality, nor on the other servile imitation. 
 And we have no more ground for regarding the epistle 
 to the Ephesians as a secondary amplification of the 
 epistle to the Colossians than for viewing the latter 
 as a mere summary of the former. 
 
 The double relationship of the two epistles being 
 once thoroughly apprehended, there can no longer be 
 any doubt of their common origin. Conceived at the 
 same time, in the same spirit, and produced under the 
 same circumstances, carried to neighbouring Churches 
 by the same messenger Tychicus, they seem to us 
 like twin sisters, that suffer from separation, each of 
 them complete only when the other is beside her. 
 They are in secret compact, and each makes allusion' 
 to her sister in ways more or less direct or obscure, 
 but nevertheless conclusive. 
 
 In the first place, it is evident that the epistle 
 to the Ephesians corresponds with the epistle to 
 the Colossians ; it recalls and implies it. It repro- 
 duces its main ideas and characteristic phrases, and 
 develops the same theme. At one point this tacit 
 
232 THE APOSTLE PAUL 
 
 relation is conspicuous, and is revealed in a manner so 
 incidental that the connexion becomes obvious with- 
 out there being any possibility of regarding it as the 
 intentional and studied work of a forger. Ephesians 
 yi. 21 contains a manifest allusion to Colossians iv. ']. 
 The author did not write the former passage without 
 thinking of the latter : "Iva elBrJTe koI vjjiek ra xar 
 ifie. This conjunction Kal, contained in all the manu- 
 scripts, would be inexplicable without the parallel 
 passage in Colossians. Now can we imagine that 
 an imitator, after having ccmposed the epistle to the 
 Ephesians, and conceiving the idea of connecting it 
 with the epistle to the Colossians, would have con- 
 fined himself in carrrying out his project to this 
 simple conjunction ? Such a proceeding requires a 
 skill and delicacy beyond belief. 
 
 The epistle to the Colossians, in its turn, corre- 
 sponds with that to the Ephesians ; it assumes it and 
 refers us to it. To be convinced of this, we must first 
 of all abandon the common notion that the latter is an 
 epistle addressed specially to the Church at Ephesus. 
 It is well known that the words ev 'Ecfiea^, of the 
 superscription, are wanting in the most ancient manu- 
 scripts, and that Marcion read, on the contrary, eV 
 AaoSiKeia. What is still more decisive, is the fact 
 that the so called letter to the Ephesians was ad- 
 dressed to readers whom Paul had never seen, and 
 who had never seen him (Eph. i. 15-19; iii. 1-4; 
 iv. 17-22). Who then were these readers ? It is plain 
 that they must be sought for not far from Colossse, 
 since the same messenger is charged with both letters. 
 
 A passage in the letter to the Colossians, hitherto 
 overlooked by critics, seems to me to indicate them 
 clearly enough : BeKa yap u/tfi'f eiBivai rfkiKov dymva 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 233 
 
 e^a) nrepi vfimv KoiX ran/ kv AaoSiKeia xal oaoi oit-^ 
 empaxav to Trpoaanro]/ fj,ou iv aapki (Col. ii. l). This 
 passage proves that the author of Colossians had, 
 when writing, several groups of readers in view — two 
 at any rate — that of the Church of Colossse, and that 
 of the Church of Laodicea and other Churches who 
 were unacquainted with the apostle. Does not this 
 latter expression admirably describe the readers of the 
 epistle to the Ephesians ? Moreover, the author of 
 the epistle to the Colossians wrote two letters — one to 
 the Church of Colossse, and another which he describes 
 as intended to be sent on to Colossse from Laodicea 
 (Col. iv. 16). Can this be any other than the letter to 
 the Ephesians? Whoever has duly appreciated the 
 intimate connexion of the two epistles will not for a 
 moment doubt that the author to the Colossians refers 
 in this passage to the letter that we now possess, and 
 which bears the address of Ephesus. 
 
 Does it follow that Marcion was right in reading ev 
 AaoBiKeLa for iv 'Ecpia-ai ? Certainly not. Marcion 
 only made a conjecture, on the strength of the gap in 
 the manuscripts, and one which arose naturally from 
 this very passage (Col. iv. 16). Marcion's testimony 
 at least proves that no other letter to the Laodiceans 
 was known to early Christian antiquity. But we 
 hasten to add that Marcion, and after him all critics 
 who adopted his suggestion, both misread and still 
 more misinterpreted the passage in Colossians on 
 which they relied. The text, in fact, does not indicate 
 a special letter sent from Paul to the Laodiceans. 
 The existing epistle cannot have been addressed to 
 Laodicea in particular, any more than to Ephesus. 
 If Paul had addressed his letter to the Christians of 
 Laodicea, how could he have sent greeting to them 
 
234 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 and their pastor Nymphas through those of Colossse, 
 instead of appending his salutations to the letter he 
 was sending directly to themselves ? But, in point 
 of fact, we do not read in Colossians iv. i6 ttjv et? 
 AaohiKeiav, but t^v e'/c AaoB(,Keia<; ; that is, tke letter 
 •which will reach you from Laodicea, and not the letter 
 which I have addressed to Laodicea. The epistle 
 must have been addressed to a circle of Churches in 
 the neighbourhood which had never seen Paul. 
 
 We will not pursue the discussion further. The 
 mutual affinity and solidarity of the two letters must 
 be seen to be sufficiently established. Baur's demon- 
 stration on this head is irrefragable. The two letters 
 come to us from one and the same author, who while, 
 writing one had the other planned in his mind, and in 
 composing the second did not forget the first Every 
 attempt to separate them is doomed to failure. They 
 will always stand or fall together. In these later 
 days criticism seems to have better understood the 
 complexity of this literary problem, and has invented 
 another hypothesis for its solution. An attempt has 
 been made to discover in the epistle to the Colossians 
 an authentic nucleus, by the help of which a later 
 writer might first of all have drawn up the epistle 
 to the Ephesians, returning afterwards to Paul's own 
 letter and amplifying it freely, in order to make it 
 more conformable with his own work, hoping thus to 
 conceal his device. History, and still more a candid 
 exegesis, condemn this strange solution, which finds 
 its impracticability so little of an embarrassment. 
 
 III. Progress of Paul's Doctrine. 
 The apostle, in these two epistles, does not resume 
 the dialectical exposition of his doctrine of justifica- 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 
 
 tion by faith. But it is easy to discover and trace 
 in them the anthropological and soteriological basis 
 of Paulinism (Eph. ii. 8-10; Col. ii. 12-14; Phil, iii, 
 3-10; Eph i. 13, 14; Col. iii. 1-3). The union and 
 perfect equality of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, so 
 keenly contested in the preceding period, are here set 
 forth as accomplished facts ; this victory is won (Col. 
 iii. 11). The lofty standpoint reached by the apostle 
 in the epistle to the Romans is firmly maintained 
 and powerfully vindicated (Eph. ii.-ii-ip; Col. i. 
 20-23). But all these preceding conquests are only 
 the basis and starting point of a new development. 
 
 It is here, in fact, that the epistle to the Ephesians 
 takes up the doctrinal work of the apostle, to continue 
 it in a new sphere. We now pass the boundaries 
 of history and time, and plunge into the realm of 
 metaphysics ; for it is really an essay in Christian 
 metaphysics that Paul is about to make. The Person 
 of Christ will of course be the corner-stone of this 
 edifice.^ Passing by the earlier conditions and his- 
 torical stages through which the Divine plan has been 
 accomplished, Paul apprehends the redemption as 
 an eternal thought of God. This Divine conception 
 becomes the generative principle of all future evolu- 
 tion. It is the cause and end of the entire creation ; 
 ft explains everything, because it produced every- 
 thing. The Gospel, hitherto conceived of merely as 
 a means of salvation, is thus raised through the 
 apostle's persistent study to the height of a universal 
 
 ' The thought of the author of the Fourth Gospel pursued 
 a kindred development. The Pauline theosophy and the 
 Johannine mysticisn), whilst diverse in origin, are united in 
 their end. 
 
235 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 principle. We must, however, hasten to add that 
 while thus opening new vistas to Christian doctrine, 
 by making the Gospel the subject of lofty contem- 
 plation, Paul is careful not to change the living 
 realities of faith into barren abstractions or transform 
 the moral drama of the redemption into a law of 
 necessary development. His doctrine is enlarged and" 
 elevated, without losing any of its moral fulness and 
 quality. But it had to create new forms for its new 
 matter; and some of his expressions, such as irkripfofi.a 
 and alotveif, while retaining their historical meaning 
 (Eph. Y. lo ; ii. 7), acquire a metaphysical significance 
 which they did not possess in the previous epistles. 
 
 Does this imply, as Baur supposed, that the writer 
 has borrowed from the Gnostic systems of the 
 early part of the second century ? It seems to us 
 that the change in Paul's vocabulary has a simpler 
 explanation, that it is in fact a necessary consequence 
 of the advance of his doctrine. If there has been any 
 borrowing, it is rather on the side of Basilides and 
 Valentinian, who most certainly formed their dialect 
 on the religious phraseology of the New Testament.^ 
 Indeed, it is easy to see that in our epistles this 
 terminology as yet is vague, and wavers between 
 the popular and Gnostic meaning, and that no strict 
 and settled order in the hierarchy of celestial beings 
 is here imagined. In the second century, on the 
 contrary, all this was arranged and determined with 
 mathematical accuracy. It will always be difficult to 
 believe that a Gnosticism of quite undeveloped form 
 is posterior to that which had attained its full per- 
 fection. Certainly, Paul follows the daring speculation 
 
 ' See Tertullian, De prascriftione hareticorum, chap, xxxvii. 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 237 
 
 of the new teachers into the transcendental regions of 
 the invisible world. He also sees fit to make, on his 
 own account, a cursory enumeration of the spiritual 
 powers (Eph. i. 21 ; Col. i. 16) ; for he has the spirit 
 of the age, and reasons in the same manner. But he 
 shows no interest, no curiosity about the subject. 
 His sole purpose is to make Jesus Christ sovereign in 
 heaven, as well as upon and beneath the earth (Eph. 
 i. 10, 21, 22 ; Col. ii. 15). 
 
 It is in the epistle to the Ephesians that the 
 apostle unfolds and sets forth the eternal plan of 
 redemption, as it embraces not only the course of the 
 ages, but the whole universe. This conception, which 
 forms the basis of the epistle, gives it its original and 
 distinctive character. Having in his letter to the 
 Colossians disposed of the controversial question and 
 of all incidental and personal matters, the apostle is 
 here absorbed in this great idea, which he delights to 
 set forth in all its fulness. 
 
 The basis of redemption is the grace of God (chap. 
 ii. 6, 7). This unconditional grace, the absolute and 
 eternal act of the Divine will, is the source of the pre- 
 destination already indicated in Romans viii. 29 ; and 
 it is developed with great affluence of expression 
 in the first chapter of Ephesians : " Blessed be God 
 our Father, who elected us before the creation of the 
 world to be holy and without spot before Him ; 
 having beforehand decreed our adoption in Jesus 
 Christ, in whom we have the pardon of our ^ns 
 according to the riches of His grace. Thus He has 
 made known to us the mystery of His will, which 
 according to His good pleasure he had purposed in 
 Himself" This plan of redemption remained un- 
 comprehended and unrevealed until the time of its 
 
238 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 full realization. Paul calls it a mystery (chap. i. 9 ; 
 comp. I Cor. ii. 7). As this mystery was revealed in 
 Christ, and Christ is its essential content, it is also 
 the mystery of Christ, or the mystery of the Gospel 
 (chaps, iii. 4; vi. 19 ; comp. Rom. xvi. 25). That which 
 had not become matter of history existed in this 
 way beforehand in the mind of God. Salvation was 
 actual, though not manifested. In this sense it is 
 also regarded as a heritage reserved for the faithful, 
 of which the Holy Spirit shed abroad in our hearts 
 is already the certain guarantee (chap. i. 13, 14, 18; 
 comp. Rom. viii. 16 and 2 Cor. i. 22). 
 
 This plan of salvation, the eternal conception of 
 God, is a Divine economy of the times and the worlds 
 (chap. i. 10). This economy, this plan of the ages 
 {irp66ea-i<; r&v alcovcov), is a work of wisdom. Through 
 it is revealed and made known in its wealth of variety 
 the Divine wisdom, so fertile in its resources and rich 
 in its means (ij iroKvKolKCko<i aoijiia tov &eov, chap. iii. 
 10). Thus, in the general economy, is ordained the 
 succession of special eco7iomies, which simply mark 
 stages in the progress of the work of universal re- 
 demption. This salvation, conceived in eternity and 
 prepared in preceding ages, is revealed in its own 
 time, which is the very fulness of the times (Gal. iv. 
 4 ; Eph. i. 10). But any one who has thoroughly 
 apprehended the nature of the Pauline doctrine must 
 know that it is pre-eminently realistic and matter of 
 fact, ft never represents the revelation of God as the 
 exhibition of an abstract idea, but as the unfolding of 
 a Divine operation. The consummation of revelation 
 is therefore, at the same time, the consummation of 
 God's creative work ; and the pleroma of things corre- 
 sponds of necessity with the pleroma of times. The 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 239 
 
 word irKripwfi.a thUs passes naturally from its origiual 
 to its metaphysiced signification. 
 
 The starting point of this idea — a leading charac- 
 teristic of these epistles — ^is in i Corinthians xv. 28. 
 According to this passage, the supreme design of God, 
 carried out in the whole creation throughout the entire 
 succession of ages, is to permeate and_/?// all things, to 
 become all in all. The apostle's doctrine, developing 
 in this direction, conceived of the Divine action as 
 pouring all its riches into the Person of Christ, who 
 thus actually becomes ihepleroma of Divinity. Christ 
 in His turn constantly pours out and communicates all 
 His riches upon and to His Church, which becomes 
 the pleroina of Christ, the complete realization of His 
 virtue. His actual body, precisely as Christ was the 
 corforeal manifestation (amfuniK&'i) of the Divine 
 plenitude. Thus God fills Christ ; Christ fills the 
 Church and the Church, extending to the limits of 
 all things, fills the universe (chaps. iiL 19 ; i. 23). 
 
 The crisis of this Divine action is the appearance 
 of Jesus upon earth ; and in that appearance. His 
 death upon the cross. The centre of gravity of 
 Christ's work has not been removed. The historical 
 cause of redemption is still the Saviour's expiatory 
 death (chaps, i. 7; ii. 13, 16 ; Col. ii. 14, 15). The cir- 
 cumference is enlarged ; the centre remains the same. 
 It is from this standpoint that Paul contemplates the 
 progressive realization of the plan of God, advancing 
 towards its final goal, the reconciliation of all opposi- 
 tions, and the consummation in Christ of the unity 
 of the world. Thus has the barrier been overthrown 
 already betw^een Jews and Gentiles (to fieaoroiy^ov tov 
 tftpayfiovi), now brought near and united in one and 
 the same body by the virtue of the cross (jriacrafia, 
 
240 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 chap. ii. 13-16). This work of reconciliation is to 
 extend, not only to the utmost limits of the human 
 race, but to the whole universe : " For it has pleased 
 God to reconcile all things in Him, having made 
 peace by the blood of His cross, whether on earth or 
 in heaven " (Col. i. 19, 20). 
 
 This infinite extension of Christ's work implies of 
 necessity a parallel exaltation of His Person. Since 
 it is in and through Him that God realizes His 
 eternal thought, Christ becomes by that very fact the 
 actual medium of the Divine revelation and working. 
 His Person now assumes in the transcendental region 
 of metaphysics the supreme and kingly place that it 
 already possesses in the Christian consciousness. To 
 it must be referred the work of creation, as well as 
 that of redemption. In it is attained the final unity 
 of all things. The centre of the Gospel becomes the 
 centre of the universe. The moral principle of the 
 Christian life is also the metaphysical principle of the 
 creation. 
 
 IV. The Christology of Colossians. 
 
 This transcendental Christology, implied through- 
 out the epistle to the Ephesians, constitutes the 
 special object of the letter to the Colossians. The 
 apostle remains at the same standpoint, and the 
 same horizon stretches before him ; but instead of 
 considering, as before, the work of redemption as a 
 whole, his attention is concentrated on the Person of 
 Christ, in which moreover this work is summed up. 
 The conception that he gives us of this Person rises 
 almost to the height of the Johannine Christology. 
 The name X6709 alone is wanting. But the actual 
 name, which possibly Paul intentionally avoided, 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 241 
 
 would scarcely modify in any way his conception 
 (Col. i. 17 ; comp. John i. 3, 4). 
 
 In his previous epistles the apostle had not 
 formulated any precise Chrlstological doctrine. It 
 would be indeed a vain attempt to try to discover in 
 them all the ideas of the epistle to the Colossians. 
 But, on the other hand, there is nothing in the earlier 
 epistles to exclude by anticipation the development 
 here assumed by the Pauline Christology. We may 
 gather from them some indications which prepare us 
 for it The notion of the ideal, or celestial man 
 (l Cor. XV. 47; Rom. v. 15) does not exhaust the 
 apostle's conception. The unique and sovereign place 
 which he accorded Christ in his inner consciousness, 
 the absolute dependence which he felt with regard to 
 Him, the worship he rendered Him, in which he never 
 separates Him from God, must inevitably have led him 
 on, sooner or later, to loftier conclusions. Let us read 
 over again 2 Corinthians xiii. 14 ; i Corinthians xii. 
 5-1 1. True, the doctrine of the Trinity is not formu- 
 lated in these two passages ; but whoever will compare 
 them, and observe how Paul, in expressing the very 
 foundation of his Christian convictions, spontaneously 
 attributes to the Spirit, to the Lord, and to God an 
 absolutely equal share in the work of redemption, 
 wfll easily satisfy himself that there exists here the 
 germ of an idea which will carry the writer much 
 further. Nor are these isolated and singular texts. 
 We will not dwell on Romans ix. 5, the interpretation 
 of which is so much disputed. But let us consider 
 2 Corinthians iii. 17. Paul does not say, 6 Kvpioi 
 ■jrvev/id ecTTiv; but he says absolutely, 6 Kvpiof to 
 -TTvevfid iariv. Is there not something here which goes 
 beyond the idea of the " celestial man " ? Once more. 
 
 16 
 
242 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 let us look at I Corinthians viii. 6 : el? 0eo? e'f oS 
 Ta -rrdvTa ... el? Kvpioi 'IijcroO? H.piaTO'i, St' ow ' 
 Ttt TTtti'Ta «ai ij/iiet? Si' auroO. Baur limits this ex- 
 pression, St' o5 TO TTcivTa to the work of redemption. 
 But is not this an arbitrary restriction ? Are not 
 the two propositions exactly parallel, and equally 
 absolute? The context of the passage has a general 
 bearing ; it puts the contrast between the monotheistic 
 and the polytheistic idea, stated in most general 
 terms. God is said to be the absolute source of all 
 things, and Christ His one Agent. Baur's expla- 
 nation recalls those of the Socinians, who succeeded 
 also in disposing of John's prologue and of the state- 
 ments of the epistle to the Colossians, by restricting 
 them to the Gospel economy. This passage, besides, 
 should be compared with the one preceding it. 
 Seeing that Christ is the Spirit, in an absolute sense, 
 is it incredible that Paul should have seen in this 
 Spirit the principal of the creation as well as of 
 redemption ? No doubt, there is not here all that we 
 shall find in the epistle to the Colossians. But we 
 have the germ out of which the Christology of later 
 letters was developed. On this, as on all other points, 
 we may assert that there was progress in the Pauline 
 doctrine, — but progress with continuity. 
 
 To sum up the Christology of the epistle to the 
 Colossians : Christ is the image of the invisible God ; 
 that is to say, the visible manifestation of God's 
 invisible essence (chap. i. i S). He is, from the meta- 
 physical point of view, the essential Mediator between 
 
 ' The Codex Vaticanus has 8t' ov instead of 8i' ov. But there 
 are no reasons, other than dogmatic, for preferring this reading 
 to that of all the other manuscripts. 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 243 
 
 God and the world. It is through Him that God 
 imparts Himself to the world, and that the, world 
 returns to God. No doubt the expression ttpwtoto/co? 
 irdarji KTiaeu)^ puts Christ in absolute subordination, 
 and associates Him with creation, placing Him indeed 
 at. its head, but also in the rank of creatures.^ On 
 the other hand, in face of the creation. He is raised to 
 the same level with God ; for God has been pleased to 
 pour into Him the plenitude of His divinity (Col. ii. 
 9). " In Him all things were created, in the heavens 
 and on the earth, the visible and the invisible. He is 
 before all things, and all things have the basis of their 
 existence in Him " (jk iravra ev ain^ a-vfea-TijKev). 
 He is the Divine irXrjpcafia ; i.e., in Him is the pleni- 
 tude, the totality of existence to be realized in the 
 world (chap. i. 19). He is more particularly the Head 
 of the Church, the First-born of the resurrection as 
 of the creation, everywhere having the pre-eminence 
 (ei' •naaiv aiiTOt Trpiorevaiv, chap. i. 1 8). 
 
 To comprehend these statements fully, we must 
 admit the controversial aim which already begins to 
 appear. The apostle seeks to give Christ supremacy 
 in all things, so that His dignity shall not be dimi- 
 nished nor His glory eclipsed in the hierarchy of aeons 
 set up between God and the world. Christ is not a 
 single aeon, one of a crowd — not a part of things — but 
 the TrXijpcofia. From Him the whole series of celestial 
 and terrestrial beings derive their life ; to Him they 
 must ever return, if they would not be separated 
 from God. Paul knows but one Mediator in earth 
 
 [' On this phrase see Lightfoot, or Meyer ad loc. "First- 
 born in respect of all creation " sets Christ in express contrast 
 to the creatures. Corap. Heb. iii. 6 : " Christ as a Son over His 
 (God's) house."] 
 
!244 • THE APOSTLE PAUL. ^ 
 
 and heaven. The work of mediation and universal 
 reconciliation is not a collective work ; the apostle 
 does not suffer it to be shared. Redemption is the 
 work of the Crucified. In Him alone God reconciles 
 all things. It is by the blood of His cross that peace 
 has been made in the visible and invisible universe 
 (et/DJ^i'OTTOtjJo'a? tiia tow al/iaTO? toO aravpov avTOv). 
 
 From this point of view is obviously and naturally 
 explained the passage in Colossians ii. 15, which has 
 been so tortured by commentators : aTreKSuo-a/uei/o? tu^ 
 up'^ai; Koi ra? e^ova-ia<s, iSeiyfiuTia-ev iv irapprjaLO,, 
 6pia/j,^ev<7a<; avToiiv ev aiirm ? What are these a/3xai 
 and i^ova-iaL? The majority of commentators, in- 
 cluding de Wette and Meyer, regard them as demons, 
 powers of sin and hell, and refer for proof to Eph. vi. 
 12. But the two passages are neither similar nor 
 parallel. We might ask, moreover, what the triumph 
 of God and Christ over the diabolical powers has 
 to do with this passage of Colossians ? Considering 
 that the -apostle has spoken already in Col. i. 16 of 
 the apxal and e^ovaiai, and still continues within the 
 same circle of ideas, there is absolutely no authority 
 for seeing in the second passage any powers other 
 than those mentioned in the first. Now in Colossians 
 i. 16, there is no question at all of infernal powers, 
 but of those intermediate beings that theory had 
 multiplied between the world and God, and amongst 
 whom speculation distributed the work and the 
 honour of universal redemption. Of this honour 
 Christ has deprived them ; of this undeserved glory 
 He despoiled them by His death on the cross. God 
 has made Him Lord of all these powers, which now 
 only serve in their vanquishment to adorn His triurn- 
 phal chariot. This passage, which was useless in 
 
TME ASIATIC EPISTLES. 245 
 
 its traditional interpretation, and counted for nothing 
 in the apostle's argument, is thus seen to be a de- 
 cisive blow directed against, the radical principle of 
 the Gnostic speculation. 
 
 Paul does no more than rapidly traverse these lofty 
 regions of the transcendental world ; he confines him- 
 self to dispelling the clouds which might veil from 
 our eyes the greatness of the Person and the work 
 of Jesus. Only this purpose detains him there. He 
 speaks of this invisible world with admirable sobriety ; 
 and hastens to descend into the sphere of practical 
 life, of which he has never lost sight. But he returns 
 bringing to it new wealth of thought. Upon the 
 heights he has reached, he apprehends the relation 
 of Christ to the Church from a new point of view. 
 
 Already, in Romans xii. 5 and i Corinthians xii. 
 .12-27, the Church, had been regarded as an organic 
 and substantial reality, a body whose members are 
 individuals, and which manifests in its permanent 
 unity the wealth lying hidden in its principle of life. 
 Jt has been already designated the body of Christ 
 Q/fielv Si e<TTe aa>/j.a Xpiarov, I Cor. xii. 27), — that is 
 to say, a body having the root of, its existence and its 
 principle of unity in the Person of the Saviour. This 
 appellation, i/ie body of Christ, is something more than 
 a metaphor. The Church is not conceived of apart 
 from Christ, nor Christ apart from the body of the 
 Church; but Christ continues present in the Church 
 as its immanent principle of life. Finally, the apostle 
 treated the Church as the virgin affianced to Christ 
 (2 Cor. xi. 2) ; he suggested the same relation in i 
 Corinthians xi. 3, where Christ is called head (ici^aKr]) 
 of the man, as the man is head of the woman. 
 
 The speculative reflections to which the apostle 
 
246 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 rises in the epistles of the Captivity give these 
 ideas a new significance. The title of aiafxa acquires 
 a transcendental import which it did not formerly 
 possess ; Paul no longer says aS>fia Xpiarov, but, 
 in an absolute sense, to cr&fia tov Xpta-ToO. In the 
 former idiom Xpicrrov is an objective genitive ; in the 
 latter it becomes a subjective genitive. In the first in- 
 stance, the Church depends on Christ for its existence ; 
 in the second, Christ Himself has need of the Church 
 to manifest all the plenitude of the life within Him. 
 Not that Paul has adopted a new mode of thought ; 
 but evidently he has changed his point of view. 
 Formerly, he ascended from the Church to Christ ; 
 now, starting with the idea of the transcendental 
 Christ, he contemplates the progressive manifestation 
 and realization in the Church of the possibilities latent 
 in Him. The Person of Christ is already the Church 
 potentially {in potentia) ; and the Church is Christ 
 Himself manifested {in actu). 
 
 It would be easy by abuse of logic to push this 
 spiritual unity of Christ and the Church to the point 
 of metaphysical identification. Paul himself, let us 
 say at once, did not go to this length ; his doctrine is 
 entirely distinct from all pantheistic speculations on 
 the subject. He holds, indeed, that the Church exists 
 only in Christ ; but he does not assert that Christ 
 exists only in the Church. The Person of Christ 
 is rooted in God Himself. We have not to deal 
 here with a series of abstractions equivalent to each 
 other ; but with a processus of life, an organism con- 
 sisting of living beings, who are distinct without being 
 separated, and organically united without losing 
 their identity. 
 
 The term amiia obviously gains its full meaning 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. ti,n 
 
 only by combination with irXrjpfoiia, which at the 
 bottom expresses the same idea under another form 
 (jyris effTt to awfia axnov, to ir\i]pm}ia tov to, iruvra 
 ev iracn irKrjpov/jLevov, Eph. i. 23). This passage is 
 the summary of all the ideas developed in the two 
 epistles. From the standpoint we have reached, it 
 is its own interpretation. Just as Christ is the pleni- 
 tude, the actual manifestation — we might almost say 
 the aS)/ia — of God {aoa/iaTiKcat Karoiicec irav to irX'q- 
 pto/j.a Trjv ^eoTTjTo?), so the Church is the plerema of 
 Christ, the body in which all the plenitude of the life 
 within Him is realized. But as, after all, Christ 
 communicates nothing which does not come from 
 God, the Church, from the ideal point of view, may be 
 justly called the actualized plerovm of God, who fills 
 all in all. Thus the Church and Christ are related to 
 each other as soul and body. The soul animates the 
 body; and the body makes manifest the virtues of 
 the soul. Thus it was that Paul could assert that 
 the sufferings of the Christian are the filling up of 
 the sufferings of Christ Himself (Col. i. 24) ; for the 
 Church is simply the prolonging of Christ's life, pre- 
 sent and immanent in her, as the vivifying principle 
 from which comes her growth and strength. This 
 new conception is admirably expressed in several 
 passages, the fulness and vigour of which cannot be 
 rendered in any translation (Col. ii. 19 ; Eph. iv. 15, 
 16; ii. 21). 
 
 Finally, the relations of Christ and the Church find 
 perfect expression in the image of the intimate union 
 established between the man and woman by mar- 
 riage (Eph. v. 22-25). This . analogy furnishes the 
 apostle in return with an admirable conception of 
 marriage, far superior to that which he had given 
 
248 THE APOSTLE PAC/L. 
 
 in I Corinthians. The man and the woman form 
 an indissoluble organic unity. Neither of the two 
 attains full existence without the other. While the 
 man is the head of the woman («ec^a\^ rij? yvvaiKOf), 
 the woman on her part is called the dodj of the 
 man (atijixara tSiv avBpcov, chap. v. 28), in the same 
 sense as the Church is the body of Christ. Thus 
 each belongs to and finds itself in the other ; and 
 the bond of this living unity is love (chap. v. 28). 
 
 We can now admire the energy and force of logic 
 with which Paul has guarded his Christian theory 
 from the approaches of the Gnostic dualism that 
 threatened to corrupt Christianity, alike in its dog- 
 matic principle and its ethical practice, and the un- 
 faltering consistency with which he has carried out 
 his belief From the Pauline theory there is deduced 
 a morality which is indeed the very reverse of the 
 Gnostic ethics. The profound connexion which exists 
 between the hortatory and dogmatic portions of the 
 two epistles has not always been fully apprehended. 
 The apostle dwells solely on the natural and ordinary 
 duties of man : those of marriage, of the education 
 of children, of the master towards his slave, of the 
 slave towards his master, and, in short, on social and 
 domestic duties in general. On the other hand, he 
 vigorously attacks the dualistic morality of the false 
 teachers of Colossse, which bordered on a barren asce- 
 ticism. Nothing was more important from the first 
 than to warn the Church against this fatal tendency, 
 and to prevent it from falling into this well-worn 
 groove. It is within the circle of life's ordinary duties 
 that all the sanctifying freedom of the evangelical 
 principle .should be exhibited. Christian morality 
 does not create or impose any other duties than those 
 
THE ASIATIC EPISTLES. 249 
 
 arising from the natural relations of men to each other; 
 what it aims at and labours for, is to transform these 
 relations, to purify and restore them to their ideal. 
 
 Natural duty fulfilled by the aid of Christ — that is 
 the essence of religious duty. The Church is not to 
 be a private society; it is human society regenerated 
 by the spirit of the Saviour, a new humauity. Paul 
 preaches above all things purity of heart, of conduct, 
 and of speech. He sanctifies marriage by presenting 
 for its type the union of Christ and the Church, and 
 education by placing it under the oversight of God. 
 He brings down the master to the level of the slave 
 by charity ; he raises the slave to the level of the 
 master in appealing to his conscience. In a word, he 
 opens to Christian humanity every path of progress. 
 " For the rest, my brethren," he writes to the Philip- 
 pians shortly after these two letters, " let everything 
 that is true, that is pure, that is just, that is sound, 
 lovable, arid of good report, be the subject of your 
 thoughts. Make every kind of virtue and of praise 
 your aim " (Phil. iv. 8). 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 PAUL'S dogmatics are finally resolved and ab- 
 sorbed into a lofty Ghristology. This Christo- 
 logy in its turn attains its last and crowning expression 
 in the famous passage, Philippians ii. 6-i i, which may 
 be regarded as the keystone of the apostle's theo- 
 logical edifice. But before discussing this text, it is 
 absolutely necessary to make some reference to the 
 epistle in which it is found. 
 
 This last letter, written from the Prsetorium at Rome, 
 closes the historical life of Paul as related in the Acts. 
 If the apostle had expected by appealing to Caesar to 
 shorten the long imprisonment antecedent to his trial, 
 his hope had been bitterly deceived. There was 
 scarcely any more notice taken of him at Rome than 
 at Caesarea. He had patiently to resume the work 
 of his apostleship, and to carry it on in chains. His 
 earnest words won many souls among the military 
 population of the Praetorium, and even among the 
 members of Nero's household. But at the same time 
 his courage and example, by giving a fresh impulse 
 to all missionary work, occasioned a sharper division, 
 and a more violent contention in the Church between 
 the friends of his gospel and the Judaizing party. 
 The old Jewish spirit, conquered in Greece, seemed 
 to find in the genius and customs of the Roman race 
 
THE EPISTLE TO TSE PHILIPPIANS. 251 
 
 a more favourable soil, where it was to take deep root 
 and speedily flourish anew. 
 
 Paul, therefore, had to pass through heavy trials 
 and endure painful conflicts. Many Christians who 
 should have comforted him disowned and rejected 
 him. He suffered from prolonged isolation, and pos- 
 sibly from the denunciations of his brethren. When, 
 however, he wrote his epistle to the Philippians, there 
 seemed a break in the sky that had so long been 
 overcast. Timothy was with him. Epaphroditus 
 had come to bring him the precious token of the faith- 
 ful affection of his spiritual children in Macedonia. 
 He foresees at length a speedy issue to his trial, and 
 awaits it, not without emotion, but in perfect resig- 
 nation. Even his apprehensions cannot disturb or 
 restrain the joy which overflows his heart. This long 
 and wearisome imprisonment — a thing so fatal to 
 feeble souls — had as little power to vanquish the old 
 hero as the storms and struggles of his public life. 
 He shows himself at this critical moment as indomi- 
 table and fervent as ever. Hear him cry, in those 
 triumphant tones which he can always command in 
 speaking of the cause of Christ : " And now, happen 
 what may, Christ shall always be glorified in my 
 flesh, whether by my life, or my death ! " (chap. i. 20.) 
 
 In this short letter we must not look for any dog- 
 matic controversy or design. Though the apostle 
 occasionally refers to the Judaizing agitation, whether 
 at Rome or at Philippi (chaps, i. 17 ; iii. 2, 18), it is 
 only in passing, and by way of a pastoral warning. 
 In like manner, the Christological passage (chap. ii. 
 6-1 1 ) forms an integral part of an entirely practical 
 exhortation to self-renunciation and devotion. Nei- 
 ther of these points therefore can be regarded as 
 
252 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 indicating the aim of the epistle, or as constituting 
 its direct object. We must abandon the attempt to 
 discover a purpose in the letter, or else simply accept 
 that which the author himself reveals. Paul wishes 
 to thank the Philippians for their generous bounty, to 
 give tidings of himself and hope of his speedy return 
 (chap. ii. 24). This is just an intimate and familiar 
 letter, in which he pours out with delight the 
 fulness of his heart He speaks to them of them- 
 selves, and of himself; and these two subjects, after 
 alternating throughout the epistle, are in the end 
 blended and lost in each other (comp. chaps, i. 1-12 
 and i. 12-26 ; i. 27 and ii. 17-30; chaps, iii. and iv.). 
 That is the whole plan and order of the epistle. 
 This explains the abrupt trarisitioris and unexpected 
 changes of tone, which have led some critics to sup- 
 pose that we have here two, or even three, of Paul's 
 letters combined in one. 
 
 They forget that Paul was a man, and an apostle, 
 before he was a theologian ; and are actually surprised 
 at his not giving to this familiar letter the methodical 
 order of a treatise. But we have only to read these 
 few pages consecutively to apprehfend, in the absence 
 of the logical unity for which we have no right to 
 look, their profound unity of inspiration and moral 
 tendency. The logic of feeling differs from that of 
 thought ; it is perceived by the heart. Here the 
 sentiments prompt and answer to each other, in the 
 most natural and harmonious manner. These pages 
 ivere written from a single inspiration. We may add, 
 that they do not so much exhibit the apostle's theolo- 
 gical creed, as the feelings of his heart and the matu- 
 rity of his religious life. There is here a wealth of 
 Christian experience, a fulness of faith, a strength and 
 
THE EPISTLM TO THE PSiLlPPIANS. 253 
 
 delicacy of affection, which remind us of the finest 
 chapters in the second letter to the Corinthians. 
 There is the same Overflowing inner life ; only, pro- 
 longed trial and meditation have deepened, calmed, 
 and matured it. The apostle does sonietimes speak 
 With his former severity (chap. iii. 2), but there is more 
 gentleness and resignation (chap. iv. 18). Equally 
 prepared either to live or die, his spirit is altogether 
 less passionate and rnore tender, less susceptible and 
 more detached from earth. It excites us less ; but it 
 touches us more. A subtle note of melancholy per- 
 vades it. Paul is already crowned with the martyr's' 
 halo, and with the reflection of immortality. 
 
 Its practical character notwithstanding, the epistle 
 none the less raises us to those lofty and luminous sum- 
 mits of Christian spirituality to which the apostle's 
 doctrine finally attained, and whereon it rested. This 
 spirituality is especially remarkable in its eschato- 
 logical doctrine. Paul still expects, as he always 
 had done, the great day of the Lord {fjnepa Xpiarov, 
 chap:' i. 10). The resurrection of the dead still seems 
 to him the final goal of the development of the new 
 humanity upon the earth (chap. iii. 1 1). The return of 
 Jesus, coming to change this body of humiliation into 
 the likeness of His glorified body, continues to be the 
 object of his hope. But there is no longer any 
 feverishness, or impatience, or distress in this glorious 
 expectation. It is with an absolutely disinterested 
 and submissive faith that Paul contemplates and 
 traces out in history the slow yet constant unfold- 
 ing of the Father's will. He entirely relinquishes 
 the attempt to question a future whose secret is with 
 God. Through this very renunciation he rises to the 
 serene heights of the ideal of Jesus, the thought of 
 
254 THE APOSTLE PAUL. . 
 
 the inner and progressive transformation of all 
 humanity under the continuous organic action of thn 
 Gospel leaven. Let no one say that this spiritualized 
 expectation of the consummation of the Kingdom is 
 a remainder of Jewish superstition. It is of the very 
 essence of the Christian faith ; it belonged to the 
 faith of Jesus ; it will continue to be that of the 
 Church. The Gospel, in truth, not only aims at the 
 individual salvation of the soul after death; it has also,, 
 above all things, a social and universal import, and 
 in the aim of its Founder had this from the first. It 
 entered into the history of humanity as the decisive 
 factor in its destinies. If human history is a drama, 
 it is Christ who controls it and brings about its 
 denouement. The Day of Christ will be its consum- 
 mation, which will consist in the final glorification of 
 His Person and His work. Such is the inevitable 
 conclusion of the Christian philosophy of history. If 
 this conception of the destiny of the human race is 
 mistaken, if the Gospel of Christ does not contain 
 the last word of ,all our debates, it is plain that there 
 is no salvation in Him. If Jesus ceases to be the 
 Saviour of the world, He also ceases to be the 
 Saviour of the individual. 
 
 It was its social aim that constituted the strength 
 and greatness of Jewish Messianism. There was in 
 this an element of profound truth, which Paul, following 
 Jesus, extracted from it and preserved. The philo- 
 sophy of history derived from this source, and which 
 the apostle has gradually sketched out on the largest 
 scale, is the chief glory of his doctrine. He has 
 shaken off everything that was narrow, national, 
 materialistic, or vulgarly supernatural in the Jewish 
 conception. He sets aside its ingenious calculations, 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 2^5 
 
 its " signs of the times," and fantastic visions. He 
 courageously addresses himself to the practical tasks 
 of everyday life, pointing out the way of progress, 
 and walking in it himself without either discourage- 
 ment or impatience, forgetting what has been already 
 done that he may think only of what remains to be 
 accomplished (ec 8e, ra fiev oiriato eituXavdavofievo';, 
 Tots Se e/j,-7rpoa-6ev iireKreivofievoi;, chap. iii. 1 4). 
 
 But while the short-lived hopes of the popular 
 Messianism have faded, others nobler and dearer have 
 dawned on the Christian consciousness. 
 
 Paul felt himself too thoroughly united to Christ 
 ever to admit the thought of separation from Him. 
 " In life, and in death," he had written in the epistle 
 to the Romans, " we are the Lord's " (idv re ^cifiev 
 eav re airodvqaKwuev, rov Kvpiov eafiiv) ; and else- 
 where : " I am persuaded that neither death nor life, 
 nor anything else can separate us from the love of 
 God in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. xiv. 8 ; viii. 38). 
 For a long time Paul had now lived in the presence 
 of death ; and in death itself he had learned to find 
 his Saviour, and his life. Death had been swallowed 
 up by life. This spiritual triumph over death, which 
 we have already noticed in the second letter to the 
 Corinthians, we find consummated in the epistle to 
 the Philippians. The continuance of this present 
 existence, or its cessation, is an external accident 
 which scarcely affects the apostle ; in either case it 
 leaves his communion with Christ intact and un- 
 interrupted. " For my part, to live — that is Christ ; 
 and to die is my gain!" Death in itself seems to him 
 desirable ; for his faith can only see in this last crisis 
 a renewal of his being, and a decided advance which 
 brings him nearer Still to the Lord Jesus. " I am in a 
 
■ajS Tim APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Strait between two things ; my desire is to remove to 
 be with Christ, which would be far the best for me." 
 One can imagine the absolute independence that this 
 faith gave to his soul. " I know how to be content 
 with what I have, i have learned how to be in want, 
 and in abundance. I have been initiated into t.vQty 
 condition. I know how to endure hurig'er, and enjoy 
 :jlenty ; to sustain wealth, and rejoice in poverty. I 
 can do everything through Christ who strengthens 
 me! "(chap. iv. 11-13.) Paul had now reached the 
 close of his life ; and the fruit of his faith, was ripe. 
 
 It is by keeping in view the practical character of 
 the epistle to the Philippians, and its entire freedom 
 from dogmatic pretension, that we arrive at a just 
 appreciation of the passage in chap. ii. 6-11, which 
 now remains for our consideration. Paul., in fact, only 
 refers to Jesus in this place in order to exhibit in His 
 conduct the ideal type that the Christian should strive 
 to imitate and reproduce. It is the law of moral 
 development, that glory is won through the cross. 
 The connexion existing between sufferings willingly 
 accepted, sacrifice joyfully fulfilled, and the Divine re- 
 ward of future glory, was an essential and inseparable 
 element of Paul's conception of the Christian life in 
 general (2 Cor. i. 5-7 ; iv. I1-17 ; Rom. vi, 5 and xiv. 
 7). The Pauline Christology, in becoming transcen- 
 dental, did not lose the ethical character belonging 
 to it from the first. The cross is still the centre of 
 gravity of the whole structure. We are not confronted 
 here with a metaphysical abstraction, developed by 
 a logical and inevitable processus ; but with a moral 
 Being, who rises far above us it is true, but who never- 
 theless stands on our level, and who, of His own free 
 will fulfilled His destiny, as we 'have to fulfil ours. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 257 
 
 It is only from this essentially ethical point of view 
 that we can grasp Paul's real conception. 
 
 After this, I hardly think it necessary to refute the 
 interpretation of the text which Baur has given. The 
 author, according to him, might have copied this 
 admirable story of Jesus from that of some aeon of 
 Valentinian Gnosticism — which, in aiming to make 
 itself equal with the supreme God, lapsed by a 
 deserved fall from the irXrjptidfia into a lower con- 
 dition, that of the Kevatfia, and finally rose by degrees 
 and through long expiation to the highest place ! 
 These two conceptions are separated by a whole 
 abyss ; they belong to two different worlds which 
 have nothing in common ; and I seek in vain for the 
 slightest connection between them. Baur quotes cer- 
 tain expressions in the passage that appear to favour 
 Docetism. But, as M. Reuss has justly observed, the 
 idea of Docetism is not present in the term fiopcftT], 
 since it is used to designate the Divine essence; nor 
 in ofioieana, which may be found in Romans viii. 3 
 (comp. chap. i. 23) ; nor in the words (rxvfj-a and 
 evpeOels, which always indicate an objective reality 
 (comp. I Cor. vii. 31 and iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. v. 3 ; Gal. ii. 
 17). Furthermore, a Docetic interpretation of this 
 passage would run directly counter to the author's 
 express design. How could he found the glory of 
 Christ upon a humiliation, obedience, and death, 
 which were only apparent ? The apostle is thinking, 
 •not of some celestial being, but of the historical 
 Christ ; and it is His earthly life that he so admirably 
 sums up in the idea of renunciation and obedience.^ 
 
 ' See de Wette, Exegetisches Hdndbuch, second edition, on 
 this passage in Philippians. 
 
 17 
 
2SS THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 As for the idea of Kevaxrit; itself, there is no need to 
 look for it in the Valentinian Gnosticism. Its germ 
 had long existed in the apostle's mind. It was the 
 conclusion which he was bound inevitably to reach ; 
 and it enabled him to reconcile the historical stand- 
 point from which he vigorously maintained the 
 essential humanity of Jesus, with the metaphysical 
 standpoint which led him to assert His Divine origin 
 and condition. This passage in Philippians is the 
 synthesis of the Christology of the great epistles 
 with that of Colossians. 
 
 It was, in fact, essential to the logic of Paul's doc- 
 trine that he should conceive of the earthly condition 
 of Jesus Christ as one of voluntary humiliation, and 
 sum up His whole life in the idea of sacrifice (Gal. iv. 
 4 ; Rom. viii. 32). The words of 2 Corinthians viii. 
 9 should be called to mind : Si v/j,a<; iirToy^eva-ev, 
 -n-Xovaio'; mv. The exact bearing of this latter pas- 
 sage has often been misunderstood. The word 
 iirTcoxeva-ev is not, indeed, the equivalent of iaivtoaev 
 kavTov. The verb tnt^evuv rather signifies to live 
 in poverty, paupertatem gerere ; but the aorist most 
 certainly indicates the time when this condition be- 
 gan, when Christ became poor.^ The impartial com- 
 mentator will be compelled to see at the basis of 
 this passage the idea of self-renunciation and relin- 
 quishment, which moreover alone gives force to the 
 
 • Neuter verbs in -tout, -v<a, -eu>, etc, in the present tense 
 express a condition, and in the aorist a becoming — i.e. the point 
 at which the condition begins. Thus /8a(rtX£vo> signifies I reign, 
 and efiaa-CXevaa I became king ; ■jnarTevia signifies / believe, and 
 IwiarTevtra I became a believer. In the same way, i^rjcrev, in 
 Rom. xiv. 9, signifies I/e became alive. See Holsten, Paulus 
 und I'elrus, p. 437. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 259 
 
 apostle's reasoning in the context Hence this peis- 
 sage of the epistle to the Philippians is simply the 
 natural development of the idea indicated in the earlier 
 text. 
 
 Having thus placed the text in its true light and 
 referred it to its real historical origin, it will not be 
 difficult to expound its content The subject of the 
 whole paragraph is the historical Christ, rising to 
 glory through humiliation. But that this humiliation 
 should take place, that there indeed should be room 
 for renunciation, it was certainly necessary that Christ 
 should have been already, in Himself and by nature, 
 of a higher condition. This original state the apostle 
 indicates in the words ev jkop^^ 6eov virdp-^^mv, which 
 form the most exalted metaphysical definition ever 
 given by Paul to the Person of Christ They express 
 a substantial relation to God, a relation that the 
 expressions et/rebv koX So^a tov Oeou (2 Cor. iv. 6), 
 which are sometimes adduced as a parallel, do not 
 involve. Paul has said of man in his present condi- 
 tion that he is the image and glory of God (i Cor. xi. 
 7) ; he would never have said of us, as of Christ, iv 
 jjtop(f>y Oeov {nra.pj(ovTe<i. But on the other hand, 
 the expression fiop<f>r) Oeov does not mean absolute 
 Divinity ; there is still beyond it that which Paul calls 
 equality with God, elvai lira 8em — a higher position 
 which Christ might have thought of seizing, but 
 which He did not usurp. Christ is of the Divine 
 nature. But there is this difference between Him and 
 God : that which He will be in the end. He has yet 
 to become ; and He becomes this actually, by the full 
 development of His moral being. Thus the definitive 
 condition to which Christ attains — and which Paul 
 describes in the tenth verse — is not a mere return 
 
26o THE APOSTLB PAUL. 
 
 to the point of departure, to the original condition 
 indicated in ver. 6. Between these two points there 
 is for Christ Himself a progress, a real development 
 of His being. On the other hand, Christ is no more 
 able than we are to go beyond Himself, to exceed 
 the limits of His nature. His development only 
 makes manifest what was inherent in Him in principle, 
 and the goal, which is the Divine state, implies for a 
 starting point a Divine nature and virtue. These two 
 phases of development are related to each other very 
 much as potentiality is to action. Christ was potentially 
 from the first, that which He finally became in actua- 
 lity. Thus the child, being by its very nature kv 
 fj.op<j}y avOpdaTTov, finally attains full humanity. The 
 fiopiph Qeov, therefore, indicates the general form of 
 Christ's being ; but is, if I may so speak, an empty 
 form which has to be filled — that is to say, spiritually 
 realized. There was in Him the capacity to receive 
 and contain all the plenitude of the Divine life 
 {■!T\'^pa)/J,a deorrjTOv). 
 
 This developnient of the Person of Christ is ac- 
 complished through a series of different periods or 
 stages, which the apostle specifies and analyses in the 
 text. The first,- whblly negative, lies in the fact that 
 He did not seek through egotism and pride to place 
 Himself on a level with God, to usurp prematurely 
 the Divine equality (ov^ dpirajfiov riyTjaaro to etvat 
 taa 0e^). He resisted this first temptation to aggran- 
 dise and elevate Himself by a violent self-assertion, 
 — called by Paul an act 'of robbery. Possibly this 
 phrase alludes to Genesis iii. 5 and Matthew iv. 3. 
 
 The second stage — one that is, on the contrary, 
 essentially positive — is denoted by the words eKivtaaev 
 eavTov, which have been well translated, and without 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 261 
 
 exaggeration, He annihilated Himself. We must not 
 here conceive of the Johannine Logos in the bosonr 
 of the Father, already possessed of His full existence 
 and Divine glory, as sacrificing His essence and 
 destroying Himself in order to be born again and to 
 attain full development. There is something incon- 
 ceivable in the notion of a being who should tmnsform 
 and metamorphose himself in this way ; it lies quite 
 outside that sphere of moral life within which Paul 
 alwaj^ confined himself. The pre-existence of nature 
 that he attributes to Christ is within the God- 
 head. Christ, who was by the order of His being 
 {genere essendi) of Divine nature, renounces the Divine 
 form of His essence, and annihilates His personal 
 will in the presence of the Father's will. In a word. 
 He sacrifices Himself. This annihilation is not a 
 metaphysical transubstantiation, which is an impossible 
 conception ; it is a moral acty analogous to that which 
 every spiritual being is called upon to perform, in 
 order that he may become truly himself and fulfil his 
 destiny. The words iKivotaev eavTov are explained 
 by the three participles which follow, in well-marked 
 gradation ; /Mop(j)r)i> SovKov "Kafimv — Christ who was by 
 nature ev iMop<f>y Kvpiov, took upon Him the ixop^ifv 
 hovXov, that He might develop Himself in this lower 
 condition ; He sacrificed His dignity. He became like 
 men ; and, finally, was found as a mere man. The 
 two remaining clauses, ev o/iouu/iari avOptoirotv fevo- 
 [Levo<s, evpeSeh to? dvOpioTro';, are only the explanation, 
 the objective realization of the it.op(f)ij SovXov. 
 
 The third stage, rising upon and above the other 
 two, is the obedience (yf^o/ievo^ wttij/coo?) — an obedience 
 which found its goal and consummation in the deatli 
 on the cross. This development therefore is simply 
 
262 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 an ever deepening humiliation. But this humiliation' 
 is at the same time an exaltation ; and it is here that 
 the great law of the moral life is manifested. In 
 His constant self-renunciation Christ actualized the 
 virtualities of His nature. Every sacrifice left Him 
 ennobled and enriched. Reaching the lowest depth 
 of His humiliation, in His death on the cross, He 
 attained the very height of His glory. Thus Jesus 
 fulfilled His original destiny, and arrived at last at 
 a condition of complete and actual Divine royalty. 
 " Therefore," as Paul has so finely said, " God has 
 supremely exalted Him, and given Him a name 
 above every name : that at the name of Jesus every 
 knee should bend, in heaven, upon earth, and under 
 the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that' 
 Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 
 This is the final summit reached by Paul's doctrine. 
 It had but to take one step more to attain the idea 
 of the yloyo?. This conception cannot have been 
 unknown to him. If he has never applied this name 
 to his Master, it was certainly from a fixed deter- 
 mination. Nor must we be surprised. His conception 
 of Christology is radically different from that of the 
 Fourth Gospel, which is a Christology formed from 
 the Divine standpoint. Hence, as it appears to us^' 
 the Word made flesh of St. John never comes to be 
 fully and simply man. Paul's Christology, on the 
 contrary, was framed from the human standpoint. It 
 has an anthropological origin, and retains something 
 of this essentially human character even in its meta- 
 physical form. This is doubtless the reason why the 
 Christ of Paul never comes to be simply and abso- 
 lutely God. In His full Godhead He still retains the 
 features of His glorified humanity. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE THREE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 IT now only remains to consider the three Pastoral 
 epistles. It is somewhat unfortunate for them, 
 to begin with, that they do not belong to the organic 
 whole formed by Paul's other letters, and are related 
 to it less as an integral part than as an appendix, 
 adding nothing of essential moment to the results 
 already obtained. 
 
 It is impossible, in fact, to speak here of a new 
 advance of Paulinism. True, it is presented to us 
 in a different phase ; but instead of growing richer, 
 it seems impoverished. With the epistle to the Phi- 
 lippians the living progress ceases ; with the Pastoral 
 letters the conservative tradition begins. Paul's 
 doctrine is there ; but the soul which sustained and 
 vivified it appears already to have left it. The power- 
 ful assimilation and fruitful activity of life is at an 
 end ; the body, still recognisable, seems stiffened and 
 chilled ; the dialectical articulations of the system are 
 no longer perceptible. In any case, we have reached 
 a point of arrest. This statement, incontrovertible 
 under any hypothesis, is not intended to decide the 
 critical problem raised by the origin of the three 
 letters. They present a series of enigmas which, in 
 
 the utter absence of historical information about the 
 
 263 
 
264 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 latter period of the apostle's life, will long remain 
 insoluble. 
 
 We humbly confers that, after a long, critical study 
 Of" the subject, we remain completely undecided.-' 
 The defenders of the epistles do indeed succeed in 
 making us question their apocryphal origin, but not 
 in convincing us of their authenticity. Their ad- 
 versaries easily throw doubt upon the authenticity of 
 these writings, but without enabling us to understand 
 their later origin. We do not wish to enter upon the 
 discussion here ; but there is one point which we con- 
 sider beyond all question and which we shall proceed 
 to establish, — vis. that these three letters are posterior 
 to all the others, and cannot be included in the 
 scheme of Paul's life given in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 If they are authentic, they belong to a later period 
 of his life, of which we are wholly ignorant. 
 
 Let us notice, to begin with, a preliminary fact of 
 decisive importance, and one fully established by the 
 studies of de Wette and Baur ; namely, the intimate 
 connexion of the three epistles, and their perfect 
 resemblance to each other. This resemblance not 
 only obliges us to admit all the three as authentic 
 or to reject them together as apocryphal, but abso- 
 lutely prevents our ascribing them to separate periods 
 of Paul's life. The style, the basis of thought, the 
 heresies combated, the ecclesiastical situation pour- 
 trayed, the practical counsels laid down — in a wofd, 
 
 ' During the last twenty years we have more than once taken 
 up this very obscure problem. We must confess that the 
 reasons against the authenticity of the three letters, which 
 perhaps were drawn up with the help of a few of Paul's notes, 
 and by his disciples, seem to us to carry the day. See En- 
 cyclopidie des sciences religieuses : art. " Pastorales." 
 
THE THREE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 265 
 
 everything about the letters is similar, riot to say- 
 identical. In some instances, we are tempted to think, 
 they repeat and copy each other (comp. i Tim. iv. i, 
 7 ; 2 Tim. ii. 23 ; and Tit. iii. 9, i. 14 : i Tim. iii. 2, and 
 Tit. i. 7 : I Tim. iv. i fif., and 2 Tim. iii. i : i Tim. 
 ii. 7, and 2 Tim. i, 11). Finally, besides this mutual 
 resemblance, we must further note that they are all 
 distinguished from the other epistles by their common 
 cast of doctrine ; and in these essential differences 
 they share alike. 
 
 This incontestable and uncontested fact at once 
 condernns, beyond appeal, any hypothesis dating the 
 letters in question at intervals of four or five years 
 from each other, or which puts any one of Paul's other 
 epistles between them. There is, in fact, only one 
 supposition which adequately explains their funda- 
 mental resemblance — viz. that they were written 
 within a very short space of time, and a long while 
 after all the rest, at a period when the circumstances 
 surrounding the apostle had changed, and when 
 perhaps the burden of age and his prolonged trials 
 had left their traces on his genius. The Pastoral 
 epistles certainly seem to betray, here and there, a 
 sort of weariness and enfeeblement. 
 
 Of all the attempts made to find a likely place for 
 these epistles in the historical framework of Paul's 
 life, the most ingenious is unquestionably the hypo- 
 thesis of M. Reuss.' This theologian assuming that 
 the apostle, during his three years' sojourn at Ephesus, 
 made a circular tour to Crete, Corinth, Macedonia, 
 and Epirus, formed for the epistle to Titus and the 
 
 ' History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament, 
 §§ 87-92. He has since abandoned this hypothesis. 
 
266 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 first to Timothy a ring fairly natural and sufficient 
 to link them with this period of Paul's life. The 
 second epistle to Timothy might have been written 
 later, at Rome, before the epistle to the Philippians. 
 Thus two of the Pastoral epistles would be placed 
 between the epistle to the Galatians and the first 
 epistle to the Corinthians. But such an idea is 
 wholly inadmissible, and to our thinking incompre-^ 
 hensible. How, we repeat with M. Renan, could Paul 
 have penned these mild effusions just after the epistle 
 to the Galatians, and on the eve of writing those to 
 the Corinthians ? He must have abandoned his usual 
 style on leaving Ephesus, and resumed it upon his 
 return, except when he reverted a few years later to 
 the diction employed during this supposed journey^ 
 in writing to Timothy a second time.^ An interval of 
 at least four years would separate this second letter 
 to Timothy from the other two ; and what is a still 
 greater difficulty than the number of years, is that 
 during this interval the apostle must have written the 
 epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Phile- 
 mon. Will any one suppose that Paul in writing to 
 a friend, after this space of time, can have made 
 extracts for the purpose from some of his old letters ? 
 The thing is inconceivable. 
 
 Besides, this literary difficulty is by no means the 
 most serious one. The character of the heresies con- 
 troverted, and the ecclesiastical situation these letters 
 present, constitute others which are in themselves 
 decisive. We might further discuss the sort of 
 heretics to whom the Pastoral epistles refer. But it 
 is absolutely certain that they are not the Judaizing 
 
 ' Renan : Saint Paul, Introd., p. 31. 
 
THE THREE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 267 
 
 teachers of Galatia and Corinth, and do not in any 
 wise resemble them It would be more easy to find a 
 connecting link between them and the false teachers 
 of Colossae. There is the same arbitrary asceticism, 
 resting on a similar dualism of principles (i Tim. 
 iv. 1-5), and accompanied by fantastic speculations, 
 as senseless as they were useless. Their dualistic 
 doctrines however, belong to a far more highly 
 developed and more dangerous form of Gnosticism 
 than that to which the epistles to the Ephesians and 
 Colossians refer. In these latter we find no more 
 than a tendency to these notions : here, they have 
 already taken shape and are distinctly formulated ; 
 they are sharply distinguished from the evangelical 
 teaching, and openly oppose themselves to it. 
 
 Any one who still wishes to separate the three 
 letters by placing an interval of four or five years 
 between them, is logically compelled to admit that 
 these heresies existed before the composition of the 
 epistles to the Corinthians, and were even at that 
 period threatening the Church's existence. But is it 
 conceivable that such a danger had arisen at Ephesus 
 at the time when Paul had stayed but a year in this 
 city, and when the Christian community was only 
 beginning to establish itself? If the danger did exist, 
 why do we find no indication of it in the two epistles 
 to the Corinthians, or in the epistle to the Romans ? 
 Besides, if two of the Pastorals are contemporary with 
 Galatians and Corinthians, how is it that they bear 
 no trace of the strenuous conflict with the Judaizers, 
 which at this time most certainly engrossed the 
 apostle's thought and life? The epistles must of 
 necessity be subsequent to the address at Miletus. 
 To place them earlier is an utter moral impossibility. 
 
268 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 In one particular this impossibility becomes, in- 
 deed, matter of positive fact : I refer to the heresy of 
 Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus, against which 
 the epistles to Timothy are both directed (i Tim. i. 
 20; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 17). It is sufficient to compare 
 these two passages to feel certain that the letters 
 could not have been separated by a long interval. 
 One might even think that the passage in the second 
 letter was written before that in the first. Hymenaeus, 
 who in the latter is excommunicated, does not seem 
 to be so as yet at the date of the other epistle. 
 
 The general ecclesiastical situation implied in the 
 three letters can only have occurred somewhat later. 
 One year after Paul's first preaching at Ephesus, we 
 cannot understand the possibility either of the de- 
 velopment that these heresies had already assumed, or 
 of the moral disorders that the apostle points out ; or 
 his counsels respecting widows, bishops, and deacons ; 
 or, in short, the ecclesiastical code that we find in 
 these epistles. Let any one who wishes to realize the 
 difference in the condition of the times, compare the 
 picture drawn of Church life in the Corinthian com- 
 munity (i Cor. xii.-xiv.) with the situation apparent 
 in the Pastoral letters. The period of tumultuous 
 spontaneity has been succeeded by that of prudent 
 and orderly administration. 
 
 Without pausing to discuss more fully the indi- 
 vidual details of this hypothesis, details which raise 
 many other difficulties of a geographical and historical 
 nature,^ let us boldly conclude that the three epistles 
 
 ' I Tim. i. 3, in particular, is a stumbling block to any hypo- 
 thesis which intercalates the letter to Titus and the first to 
 Timothy in Paul's supposed circular tour. 
 
THE THREE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 269 
 
 in question belong to one period of Paul's life and 
 constitute a cycle of their own, of later date in the 
 history of his doctrine. Either Paul's career did not 
 end at the point where the Acts leaves off, or else 
 the Pastoral letters are tiot authentic. Such is the 
 dilemma in which we are landed ; and I do not 
 think there is any possibility of escape from it. This 
 dilemma, unfortunately, at the same time creates a 
 circle within which the action of criticism is confined. 
 Historical information of any certainty on the latter 
 period of Paul's life is entirely wanting. While the 
 epistles require this unknown period, and a second 
 captivity, as a basis for their apostolic origin, — on the 
 other hand, the hypothesis of a second captivity 
 scarcely finds any real foundation except in the three 
 Pastoral letters. 
 
 It is enough for our purpose to have proved that 
 the three epistles actually represent the latest stage 
 of Paulinism. We may leave undecided the question 
 whether this last transformation took place in the 
 apostle's lifetime, or only after his death. In what- 
 ever way it is settled, it cannot be denied that the 
 letters belong to the history of the Pauline system. 
 They are not unworthy of the great apostle, either 
 in form or substance.' The idea of the evangelical 
 ministry which they unfold is unmistakably his. We 
 meet here and there with the profound mysticism of 
 his former letters (2 Tim. 1. 9, 10; ii. 9-1 1). The con- 
 troversial argumentations of Galatians and Romans 
 have disappeared ; but the doctrine that underlies 
 those epistles is expressed in all its energy and pro- 
 
 'See the excellent defence of them made by M. Reuss, 
 History of the Sacred Scriptures of the N. T., §§ 88-92. 
 
270 TIIE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 fundity (Tit. iii. 5-7). It is justifiable therefore, and 
 even necessary, before concluding, to pourtray the' dog- 
 matic character of these, three letters. 
 
 A very serious difficulty, under the hypothesis of 
 their unauthenticity, is to determine the dogmatic 
 design and end that the author had in view when 
 inventing them. What strikes us most of all in these 
 letters is their practical bearing. It is easy enough, 
 from this point of view, to connect them with Paul's, 
 other epistles, and to explain their special physiog- 
 nomy. The epistle to the Philippians proves the 
 practical turn that Paul's doctrine took in the latter 
 years of his life, and the simplification and condensation 
 thus effected in his ideas. The dialectic apparatus 
 which had served- to, formulate and defend them was 
 gradually disappearing, and the results obtained were 
 summed up in short and simple affirmations. 
 
 Also the conservative character of the epistles may 
 very well be connected .with a traditional element 
 which is not wanting in any of the earlier letters, 
 and which at all times was an essential feature of the 
 apostle's teaching (i Cor. xv. i-ii ; 2 Thess. ji. 15 ; 
 Eph. iv. 3 ; Phil. iii. i ; Col. ii. 6 ; Rom. xvi. 17). We 
 must never weary of repeating, because it is con- 
 tinually forgotten, that Paul was an apostle before he 
 was a theologian. To him the need of conservation 
 was more urgent than that of innovation. His gosppl 
 was, above everything else, a message that he had 
 received, and that he had to deliver and defend. He 
 preaches not only with authority, but by .authority; 
 and the greatest misfortune which can befall those 
 who have received his message is to betray the trust, 
 or to allow it to be perverted (Gal. i. 6-9). 
 
 In this way the character of these epistles can 
 
THE THREE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 271 
 
 easily be understood. They are summed up in one 
 thought: Guard the good deposit {2. Tim. i. 14). This 
 good deposit, which must not be allowed to be lost 
 or corrupted, naturally becomes, in contrast with the 
 errors of all kinds arising in the Churches, the right 
 way, the sound doctrine {X6<^o<i vyir]^, vytatVovre? 
 \670t). With this idea of orthodoxy arose of necessity 
 the correlative conception of heresy. Beside this per- 
 severance in the received^ faith, the author dwells no 
 less forcibly upon the necessity of purity of life, and 
 launches out into most vigorous practical exhortations. 
 But this is not done without involving some degree of 
 separation between dogma and practical life, a separa- 
 tion which is not to be found in the earlier epistles. 
 Here Christianity evidently tends to resolve itself 
 into a doctrine, and a morality. The organic bond 
 between faith and life, which in Paul's great letters 
 was so close, is loosened, if not already broken. In 
 that consists the real inferiority of these later epistles. 
 The author, whoever he may be, does not limit 
 himself to abstract exhortations to maintain faithfully 
 the received tradition. He carefully indicates how 
 this deposit can and ought to be preserved, entrusted 
 as it was to the Church at large, which lives by it and 
 is responsible for it. The Church is " the pillar and 
 stay of the truth" (l Tim. iii. 15). But that is not 
 enough ; it is necessary to commit this charge into 
 individual hands. As Paul himself delivered the good 
 deposit to his disciples, they in their turn must con- 
 fide it to sure hands. Hence the repeated directions 
 about the choice of bishops, deacons, and of elders in 
 general, — directions which occupy so much space in 
 the letters, and are thus connected directly with their 
 general and leading idea. 
 
273 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 By all the features we have described — the sepa- 
 ration of dogma and morality, the conception of the 
 Church, of tradition and apostolical succession — these 
 epistles furnish the transition from Paulinism to the 
 Catholicism of the second century, which was in fact 
 a synthesis of the various tendencies of the apostolic 
 age. — The creative epoch has come to an end, 
 
 The close of the apostle's life is involved in im- 
 penetrable obscurity. The practical welfare of the 
 Church of Christ, which had been his first care, was 
 doubtless also his last thought. It was not his 
 anxiety so much to complete and crown his system 
 worthily, as to finish before his death the work that 
 the Master had given him to do. This great work 
 is now accomplished. The heroic combatant may 
 at last enjoy the repose that in his lifetime neither 
 his will, nor conscience, nor intellect ever knew. 
 
 Paul was only a disciple. This, from first to last, 
 was his rdle and his ambition. But his life certainly 
 presents to our eyes the most heroic effort humanity 
 has made to apprehend and appropriate the Divine 
 teaching and life of the Master. Among all His 
 disciples, Jesus has had no greater. 
 
BOOK V. 
 
 ORGANIC FORM OF PAUL'S THEOLOGICAL 
 SYSTEM. 
 
 WE have followed the progressive course of 
 Paul's doctrine throughout his epistles. We 
 have left it, in some sort, to disclose itself in its suc- 
 ceeding manifestations. It now remains for us to 
 apprehend and set it forth as an organic whole. We 
 wish to trace out the strong and delicate articulation 
 of the structure that we have watched cis it rose 
 slowly upon our view. 
 
 Ancient theology never seems to have suspected 
 that the apostle's doctrine had an organism of its 
 own, which ought to be valued as an essential ele- 
 ment in its truth. The epistles served it simply as 
 a collection of dicta probantia. The general scheme 
 of dogma being officially prescribed, it only remained 
 to distribute these passages according to the tradi^ 
 tional rubrics : Theology, Christology, Pneumatology, 
 Anthropology, etc. Did the dogmatic teachers arrive 
 at the Pauline theology by this violent procedure? 
 Certainly not They had cut it to pieces. Nothing 
 was left of -it but scattered and lifeless fragments — 
 membra disjecta. 
 
 Usteri, whose labours we have already noticed, 
 
 272 i8 
 
2 74 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 was the first to perceive that, in order to have Paul's 
 doctrine in its life and entirety, we must apprehend 
 and unfold it in its own organic character, and make 
 its inner cohesion and logical unity apparent. He 
 therefore devoted all his efforts to reconstructing the 
 Pauline system ; and his work is an early and note- 
 worthy attempt at a sound historical interpretation. 
 Usteri indeed was not sufficiently independent of the 
 prevailing ideas of his time ; he viewed Paul's system 
 too much through that of Schleiermacher. Never- 
 theless his attempt opened up a new path, and led 
 men's minds to a truer understanding of this great 
 system of doctrine. He divided the Pauline system 
 into two parts, corresponding with two historical 
 periods : the epoch previous to Christianity {-x^povoi 
 rrif ayvoCast), and the- epoch of Christianity itself 
 {ifKripwiJia r&v y^ovtov). The first period embraces 
 the development of Paganism and Judaism, both 
 being comprehended under the dogmatic conception 
 of sin. The reign of sin and death over humanity, 
 the relation between sin and the law, the power- 
 lessness of the latter to justify man, and the ardent 
 longing for redemption that was the outcome of 
 this long preparatory period, — these are the topics 
 naturally included within it. 
 
 In the second part, Usteri penetrates to the heart 
 of the Pauline theology. He studies in succession 
 the work of redemption in the individual ; the develop- 
 ment of this work in the Christian society, or Church ; 
 and, lastly, its consummation in the final realization 
 of the kingdom of God upon earth. 
 
 We cannot but recognise the inherent sequence of 
 this exposition. But it is also very easy to indicate 
 its serious defect. The theory of man's justification, 
 
ORGANIC FORM OF THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 275 
 
 with its negative and positive aspect and its essential 
 antithesis between the law and faith, is maimed and 
 disjointed ; in order . to reconstruct it, its scattered 
 elements have to be sought in all directions. Thus 
 Paul's closely woven system is torn asunder; and 
 the rent proceeds from its very centre, with a most 
 disastrous effect on the entire construction. The ex- 
 position of the Pauline theology has become that of 
 the historical scheme of Divine revelation. No doubt 
 this idea supplied an essential factor in the apostle's 
 conception ; but it is not the only one, nor the most 
 important. Paul did not conceive this idea of the 
 historical scheme of redemption d. priori, and from 
 the outset. He only arrived at it, as we have seen, 
 by a long and laborious progress. The anthropo- 
 logical evidently preceded the historical point of view. 
 Justification by faith without the law is, both in 
 experience and theory, the logical antecedent of the 
 other question. It was from this subjective side that 
 Paul's doctrine received its first impulse ; and with 
 that we must of necessity begin. Now this individual 
 point of view, this anthropological factor, is com- 
 pletely sacrificed in Usteri's scheme. Hence it has 
 no substantial basis ; and though it may have fas- 
 cinated one's mind for a time, it has not secured 
 final acceptance. 
 
 Next to this work of Usteri, the most remarkable 
 exposition of Paulinism is undeniably that of Baur.^ 
 
 ' We refer now to the exposition of Paul's doctrine contained 
 in the Paulus of Baur. We still prefer it, notwithstanding its 
 omissions, to that which the learned Professor afterwards gave 
 in his Neutestamentliche Theologie, published in 1864, after the 
 death of the author. 
 
^^6 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 It shows a decided advance upon the former. It is 
 open to correction, and completion in its details ; but 
 it lays down the true method of reconstruction, 
 and fixes the right point of departure. Baur was 
 very sensible of the radical defect of Usteri's expo- 
 sition, and fully succeeded in rectifying it. He has 
 thoroughly apprehended and demonstrated the psy- 
 chological origin of Paulinism. He bases his recon- 
 struction on the great idea of justification by faith, 
 preserving its characteristic antithetical form and 
 dialectic movement. He then proceeds to trace the 
 development of this idea in social life and the sphere 
 of history, and shows how from these premises was 
 logically deduced that great philosophy of history 
 which defined the relation of Judaism and Paganism 
 respectively to the Gospel. At this point Baur 
 stopped short. The critical deductions from which he 
 set out scarcely admitted of his further advance. We 
 may however, and indeed we must, charge him with 
 having misconceived and slighted the metaphysical 
 principles of Paulinism. He has briefly touched 
 upon them in a short chapter entitled " Secondary 
 Questions'' {N ebenfrageti). But is it permissible to 
 call the Pauline conceptions of God, of the Person 
 of Christ, of predestination and revelation, secondary 
 questions? Are they not, on the contrary, so many 
 essential keystones, that preserve the harmony and 
 solidity of the entire structure ? While Usteri's ex- 
 position appeared to want foundation, this of Baur 
 may be said to want its topstone. 
 
 The exposition presented by M. Reuss, in his turn, 
 is the most scrupulous and exact in detail that has 
 ever been given. But on the special point which 
 we are now considering, viz. the logical structure of 
 
ORGANIC FORM OF THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 277 
 
 the system, it can hardly be said to show any real 
 advance on the preceding theories. M. Reuss has 
 correctly indicated the general character of Paul's 
 theology; he has pointed out its primary origin in 
 the apostle's moral and religious experience ; and he 
 has even sketched its main outlines with precision 
 and certainty. But the psychologiced and historical 
 aspects of the subject run into each other, and are so 
 blended together that neither of them is brought out 
 with sufficient emphasis nor developed with logical 
 completeness. The rich philosophy of history, so 
 powerfully wrought out in Paul's mind, fades and 
 disappears. Neither is the order of the individual 
 doctrines as they pass under review, nor their con- 
 nexion with the generative idea of the system, always 
 thoroughly apprehended. In short, in this very lucid 
 and facile exposition of Paul's doctrine there is more 
 art than logic. 
 
 Obviously, it is no easy undertaking to attempt to 
 reproduce, without distortion or injury, the internal 
 organization of the apostle's system of thought We 
 should even draw back from the task, were retreat 
 permissible. But it is too late. From the historical 
 exposition that we have just given is logically and 
 spontaneously evolved an- organic system which it 
 behoves us to expound. We have not created it 
 a priori; history itself has given it us, and in the 
 name of history alone we finally proceed to set it 
 forth. Our sketch of the Pauline system will, in effect, 
 furnish a brief summary of the history whose course 
 we have followed up to this point 
 
 Paul's theology has its roots in the fact of his con- 
 version. Each of his ideas may be said to have been 
 a fact of inward experience, a feeling, before it was 
 
278 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 formulated by the understanding. We must not be 
 misled by its external dress, by the scholastic forms 
 which moulded the apostle's doctrine ; for at the 
 bottom there was nothing at all abstract or formal 
 about it. Deduction is not its favourite process. On 
 the contrary, it always advances from the concrete 
 to the abstract, and rises from experience to prin- 
 ciples. Paul's is not a speculative theology, logically 
 deduced from an abstract conception ; it is un- 
 mistakably positive, having its starting point in the 
 internal reality of faith. It would be impossible to 
 find anything more vigorous and active in growth 
 than Paul's doctrine. It is, when properly understood, 
 simply the direct transcription of his experience, 
 the pure outflow of his moral and religious life, 
 which ascending from the depths of his soul into the 
 sphere of the intellect, there finally expands into its 
 theoretical form. That is why pious souls have read 
 and ever will read with profit these letters, apparently 
 so difficult. Behind their scholastic apparatus, the 
 consciousness of the humble Christian perceives and 
 responds to that of the great apostle. A corre- 
 sponding inward experience establishes between 
 them by anticipation a mysterious harmony, a secret 
 understanding ; and it very often happens that these 
 simple souls comprehend the mind of Paul better 
 than professed scholars. He who has never in any 
 degree experienced the inward change which trans- 
 formed Saul of Tarsus will never fully understand 
 his writings ; there is a hidden depth in them to 
 which he cannot penetrate. 
 
 Paul's theology being of this character, it is no 
 wonder that it was not at once completed. His 
 doctrine always followed the course of his religious 
 
ORGANIC FORM OF THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 279 
 
 experience ; and never once outran it. Originated in 
 the sphere of personal life, it advanced by a process 
 of generalization to the spheres of social life and 
 history; until, striving continually after unity and 
 ultimate principles, it finally attained its full expan- 
 sion in the sphere of metaphysics. It is through this 
 upward progress and constant enlargement that we 
 must comprehend it We shall thus follow the actual 
 course that its history has marked out for us. 
 
 The three different zones traversed by Paul's 
 thought, correspond in fact to the three great periods 
 of his life. The first was that of personal faith and 
 confession ; here the subjective aspect predominated 
 in his theology. The conflicts of the second stage 
 compelled the apostle to bring himself into harmony 
 with the past, and thus led him to the historical 
 standpoint which prevails in the major epistles. Paul 
 now came to survey the whole destiny of humanity, 
 from the first to the second Adam, and from Christ 
 to the end of time. Finally, in his later letters, his 
 mind passes the bounds which separate history from 
 metaphysics ; he endeavours to find in God Himself 
 the first and final cause, the beginning and the end 
 of the great drama enacted through the course of 
 time. 
 
 We must not make a forced separation between 
 these three psirts of Paul's system, and the three 
 periods of his life. Their logical connexion is very 
 close. The apostle's historical views arise from his 
 anthropology, his speculative ideas from his scheme 
 of history ; and all these developments were alike 
 contained in his early faith, just as the plant lies hid 
 in the germ which produces it 
 
 Involved at the outset in the violent antithesis of 
 
28o THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 the law and faith, Paul's doctrine in its development 
 instinctively tended to rise above it. In the end it 
 succeeded. It is in the psychological sphere, in fact, 
 that we find the fundamental opposition between 
 works and grace, flesh and spirit, bondage and liberty, 
 most strongly marked. In the sphere of social life 
 and history, the antithesis assumes a wider and dif- 
 ferent character ; it reappears in the contrast between 
 the old and new Gsvenants, between Adam and 
 Christ, between the period of tutelage and of in- 
 dependence. But as early as the epistle to the 
 Romans, this opposition has diminished ; Judaism 
 and Paganism become subordinate to the Gospel ; 
 and the antithesis gives way to the higher conception 
 of an evolution in the Divine plan. Finally, in the 
 sphere of metaphysics, all dualism terminates. In 
 the supreme conception of God, all contradictions are 
 reconciled and all differences disappear. The final 
 word of the Pauline theology is this : God is all in all. 
 Thus Paul's doctrine originated and grew up, like 
 a magnificent tree, rooted deeply in the soil of the 
 Christian consciousness and towering to the heavens. 
 
 SYNOPTICAL TABLE OF THE PAULINE 
 SYSTEM. 
 
 Generative principle. — The Person of Christ, the 
 principle of the Christian consciousness. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE IN THE SPHERE OF 
 PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 Anthropology. 
 I. Impossibility of attaining justification by the 
 
ORGANIC FORM OF THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM. 281 
 
 law. — afiaprla, a-dp^. — o vofto^, 6 ddvaro^. — Negative 
 development. 
 
 2. Justification by faith. — 17 BiKaioa-vvri &eov. — 6 
 X070? Tou aravpov. — 17 wtort?. — q (JmiJ. — Positive de- 
 velopment. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE IN THE SPHERE OF 
 SOCIAL LIFE AND HISTORY. 
 
 Religious Philosophy of History. 
 
 1. Christ and the Church, — amp,a Xpiarov. 
 
 2. The old and the new Covenant: 17 eTrayyeXia, 
 
 6 VOftO^, ^ TTt'oTt?. 
 
 3. Adam and Christ ; or, the ages of humanity. 
 
 4. Eschatology, — to Te\o<:. 
 $. Faith, hope, love. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE IN THE SPHERE OF 
 METAPHYSICS. 
 
 Theology. 
 
 1. Grace and Predestination : 17 x«pts, 17 -irpoOeaKs 
 rov Geov. 
 
 2. Christology, — o Xpto-rds. 
 
 3. The Father, the Lord, the Holy Spirit: o IlaTqp, 
 6 Kvptoi, TO aytov Ilvev/jta. 
 
 4. The conception of God : 6eos ra nravra iv vaacv. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE 
 CHRISTIAN CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 IN Paul's view, the only principle of the Christian 
 consciousness is the Person of Jesus Christ, which 
 characterizes, defines, and constitutes it. It is im- 
 portant to state clearly the intimate and peculiar 
 relation existing between the apostle's regenerate con- 
 sciousness and the actual Person of Jesus. 
 
 Paul was never a disciple of the crucified One, in 
 the sense in which he was formerly a disciple of 
 Gamaliel. It was not his business to be eternally 
 repeating the Master's words, or even commenting 
 on them as the rabbi explained or recited the pre- 
 cepts of the law. To Paul, this reproduction of a 
 traditional text, this knowledge learned by rote, 
 could only have been a dead and death-giving letter 
 (Siatcovla ypdfifiaTO<;, SiaKovia Oavdrov iv ypd/MfiaTi^ 
 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7). He never regarded Jesus in the 
 light of a Teacher of wisdom, whose smallest words 
 one must be careful to treasure up. In an external 
 tradition of this kind he would have only seen a 
 carnal and unfruitful knowledge. 
 
 Beyond this inferior stage, this wisdom of the 
 schools, there is a deeper and more vital method of 
 
 learning. It lies in the disciple's devoted effort to 
 
 283 
 
THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE. 283 
 
 assimilate his master's method and spirit, and to 
 reproduce them in his own life and thought. Thus 
 Plato, taking his inspiration from Socrates, continued 
 and completed the Socratic philosophy. The master 
 in this case is not merely an initiator, he is still 
 more an ideal which men contemplate and strive 
 to reproduce. Undoubtedly Paul contemplated and 
 admired in this fashion that ideal life of Jesus, in 
 which he delighted to perceive and display the per- 
 fect standard of man's spiritual development (/lirpov 
 TJXiKiai!, Eph. iv. 13). With his attention concentrated 
 on this Divine type,, he endeavoured to realize it more 
 and more fully in himself 
 
 And yet this relationship, intimate as it was, does 
 not fully explain the new consciousness of the apostle. 
 To him Christ was more than a great ideal. Ex- 
 pressions like the following, which occur so often in 
 Paul's writings — Christ is my life : As for myself I 
 live no longer ; it is Christ zvho lives in me — evidently 
 go further, and reveal a unique and peculiar relation 
 between his consciousness and the Person of Jesus, 
 such as could not possibly exist between one man 
 and another. 
 
 In every man, however great he may be, there is, 
 in truth, a material element which cannot and ought 
 not to enter into ourselves, an element which the 
 mind cannot assimilate. The most enthusiastic and 
 faithful disciple has always to make a distinction 
 between the mind of his master and its outward 
 form, the husk that contains and limits it. In other 
 words, there is in every human personality a negative 
 element, a residuum which our admiration sets aside 
 and ignores. This limitation separates and always 
 will separate the adherence of the disciple from the 
 
284 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 faith of the believer ; it distinguishes enthusiasm 
 from adoration. There is but one Being in whom 
 God is all, and who can become all in us. Because 
 Jesus was able to say, " He that hath seen Me hath 
 seen the Father," therefore He could give His own 
 Person as the object of the soul's faith and love, as 
 its veritable sustenance. His personality is so per- 
 fectly holy, so entirely spiritual, that in accepting it 
 we receive it as a whole, without making any dis^- 
 tinction or division. Jesus was, like no other, the 
 spiritual Man. As a quickening spirit (jrvev/j,a fwo- 
 TToidvv, I Cor. XV. 45), He becomes a principle of life 
 for other spirits. Paul even goes further : he declares 
 that the Lord is actually t/ie Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 17). 
 Hence His office, and His power. That which is 
 merely metaphor, when we speak of a philosopher 
 as living again in his disciples, is a spiritual reality 
 when applied to Jesus in relation to Christians. 
 Christ was not only the Founder of the Church ; He 
 is still its principle of life, the inner soul which causes 
 its constant growth and makes its death impossible. 
 
 Paul, then, was not merely the disciple or the 
 imitator of Jesus. Nor did he regard himself as a 
 new incarnation of the same spirit, which would imply 
 that the first had only a relative and temporary value. 
 He became a member of Christ ; he was possessed by 
 Him. He had the invincible assurance that Christ 
 was not only the cause, but the ever active Creator 
 of his spiritual life and thought. No one must re- 
 present Paul as having a religious genius of the 
 nature of that possessed by Jesus of Nazareth ! 
 Jesus is the Master ; Paul is the slave. This daring 
 genius bears the yoke; and the independence of which 
 he boasts, and which has sometimes been so much 
 
THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE. 2S5 
 
 misunderstood, is in reality nothing but an absolute 
 dependence upon Christ His freedom sprang from 
 his faith, and would have disappeared with it In 
 short, that which Jehovah was to the consciousness of 
 the Old Testament prophets, Jesus became to the 
 consciousness of His apostle. He speaks in the name 
 of Jesus, as they spoke in the name of the LORD. 
 
 But the Lord being actually the Spirit, His entrance 
 into our hearts is at the same time the outpouring 
 of the Holy Spirit within us. Accordingly, Paul 
 distinctly calls this Spirit the Spirit of Christ. The 
 Spirit thenceforward . forms the new essence of the 
 regenerate consciousness. By virtue of it we are 
 transformed and become, like Jesus Christ, spiritual 
 men, irvev/j-aTiKoL This constant renewal is a spiri- 
 tualization, a permanent glorification of our whole 
 being, physical and moral at once. We put off the 
 bonds of the flesh and rise to liberty, to perfect and 
 eternal communion with God. Christianity being a 
 religion of the Spirit, thus becomes the absolute reli- 
 gion. It completely realizes the highest aspiration 
 of every religious consciousness, — union with God. 
 In it all barriers are overthrown, and the final veil 
 rent asunder. We may now at last behold God face 
 to face. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE IN THE SPHERE OF 
 PSYCHOLOGY (ANTHROPOLOGY). 
 
 THE prime necessity of Paul's consciousness was 
 righteousness. This idea of righteousness, 
 derived by him from the Old Testament, linked to- 
 gether the two periods of his life, the Jewish and the 
 Christian. It sways the whole of his teaching, as it 
 engrossed his whole existence. 
 
 Righteousness is the expression of the normal 
 relation between the will of man and the will of God. 
 It is the supreme end of every human life. In that 
 alone can we find rest and happiness. But as soon 
 as man attempts to realize it, he immediately finds 
 a contrary principle rising up within him — ^viz. sin, 
 which is the very negation of righteousness. From 
 the conflict between these two opposing principles 
 the entire Pauline theology was engendered. 
 
 Just as Paul's life was divided by his conversion 
 into two parts, one of which was the radical nega- 
 tion of the other, so also his Christian belief was 
 formulated in a sweeping antithesis : justification 
 impossible under the law; justification obtained by 
 faith. The apostle always developed its two terms on 
 parallel lines, because each is defined and explained 
 
 by the other. As Baur justly perceived, this opposi- 
 
 286 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 287 
 
 tion is the double jispect of one and the same theory, 
 which is completely summed up in these two con- 
 tradictory propositions : 
 
 I. 6^ epymv vofiov ov SiKauoSijaeTai iraaa vap^ 
 ivtoiriov Oeou (Rom. iii. 20). 
 
 II. 6 avOpcoTTo^ SiKaiovrai iriVret (Rom. iii. 28). 
 
 I. Legal Justification Impossible. 
 
 Man will never be justified before God by the works 
 of the Law. — In the first three chapters of his letter 
 to the Romans Paul establishes this first thesis, by 
 means of the testimony of moral and religious ex- 
 perience. The fact of sin, denounced by the indi- 
 vidual conscience, was indeed the starting point of 
 his religious thought. But it does not stop at this 
 first stage. In that which every one experiences in 
 his own life, the apostle recognises and points out a 
 general and universal law of the history of humanity. 
 All men without distinction, both Jews and Gentiles, 
 are the slaves of sin. A fact so general must have 
 its explanation in human nature. Sin is universal, 
 — because it is inevitable. The apostle, by a very 
 obvious dialectical course, advances from the univer- 
 sality of sin to the idea of its moral necessity. Thjs 
 admirable demonstration of his first thesis brings us 
 to the heart of the Pauline anthropology. In its 
 final analysis, it is based upon the ideas of sin, of the 
 flesh, and of the law, which we must endeavour to 
 define. 
 
 I. 'AfiapTM, a-dp^. Sin, and the Flesh. 
 
 An insurmountable obstacle rises up between man 
 and righteousness ; it is sin. In Paul's phraseology 
 this word not only designates a particular sinful 
 
288 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 action, but a principle immanent in human nature, 
 of which individual sins are simply the external 
 manifestation (Rom. vii. 8). This principle is not a 
 pure abstraction, but an objective and positive power 
 {Svva/j,i(}), governing humanity and enslaving the 
 individual will. Nowhere is this objective character 
 of the power of sin more strikingly exhibited than in 
 Romans v. 12. Paul there depicts it as a new force 
 entedng into the development of the world, and con- 
 stituting the whole human race sinners. He expressly 
 says that it brings death upon all men, both upon 
 those who, like Adam, transgressed a positive law, and 
 on those who lived without it, like the generations 
 between Adam and Moses. The words «(/)' cS Travre? 
 ojfiaprov, which are employed to justify the univer- 
 sality of death, do not indicate a subjective and active 
 guilt in the individual, but an objective and passive 
 state of sin. Sin having come into the world by 
 the transgression of one man, entered {elcrrj\6ev) like 
 leaven into the general life of humanity and extended 
 its power to every individual {^h iravra? SirjXdev), 
 constituting men sinners by nature, even before the 
 manifestation of their individual will. This power 
 takes growing possession of the world and of huma- 
 nity, permeating and transforming them till they 
 become instruments, or rather incarnations of sin. 
 
 How does this, development of evil accomplish 
 itself and reach its climax ? We cannot answer this 
 question, nor advance further, without explaining the 
 relation of this power of sin to that which Paul calls 
 the flesh. This is the most delicate and difficult 
 point to elucidate in his whole system. 
 
 Paul's doctrine is equally remote from the Gnostic 
 dualism and from Pelagianism. 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 289 
 
 The apostle expressly says that the flesh is the 
 seat of sin {plKovaa iv ifioi ■.. , , tovt eaii,v iv ry 
 trapici fiov, Rom. vii. 17, 18 ; comp. ver. 23). Did he 
 see in the flesh the essential principle of sin, and was 
 his theory, after all, based on a metaphysical dualism? 
 Did he on this point depart from Hebrew tradition 
 and Jewish' modes of thought, which excluded all 
 dualism, and adopt in preference the ancient con- 
 ception of heathen philosophy ? M. Holsten has 
 vigorously advanced ^ this view, and has perseveringly 
 ransacked the Pauline theology for evidence of this 
 pretended dualism. Hardly anywhere, to our think- 
 ing, has. he grasped more than a fleeting shadow. 
 The relation of sin to the flesh is not purely immanent, 
 but also transcendent. It is not that the physical law 
 of the flesh constitutes sin ; but on the contrary, the 
 law of sin has become, and continues to be, the law of 
 the flesh. From the time that it was subjugated by 
 the power of evil, the flesh became zveak, subjected 
 to vanity, and the bondage of corruption {/xaTaiorriTi, 
 rfj SovKeia t^? ifidopa^, chap. viii. 20, 2i). In other 
 words, the relation of sin to the flesh is, in Paul's view, 
 identical with that which the Hvevfia (the Divine 
 Spirit) sustains to the soul of the believer. In both 
 cases there is an actual immanence, but an immanence 
 which presupposes an objective transcendence. This 
 transcendence of the power of sin is strikingly pro- 
 minent in the passage we have just analysed (Rom. 
 V. 12). Sin entered the world not at the time of 
 man's creation, but through the transgression {irapd- 
 iTTtofia) of the first Adam. So, too, in attributing to 
 Christ a flesh like ours, the apostle does not mean to 
 attribute sin to Him, and most jealously maintains 
 His absolute purity (2 Cor. v. 2i). In the third place, 
 
 19 
 
290 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 how could he, from the dualistic point of view, speak 
 of a redemption of the body, and represent this as the 
 final accomplishment of salvation (Rom. viii. 23) ? 
 Our salvation, in that case, would have been complete 
 as soon as our souls were freed from material bonds.' 
 To escape this dualism, we need not, on the other 
 
 ' Paul nowhere expressly speaks of the origin of evil ; perhaps 
 he never even considered this metaphysical question. If his 
 ideas about sin are logically worked out, we find that they 
 divide and flow in two opposing currents. At first sight, there 
 is the traditional theological explanation of evil as a meta- 
 physical and transcendent force introduced into the world by 
 the Devil-serpent (Rom. v. 12 ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3). This is 
 the opinion which Paul received from the schools, and which 
 he did not reject. But his own reflection and psychological 
 analysis took another direction. According to Rom. vii. 7-21 
 and I Cor. xv. 46 man appears at the first as psychical, — or 
 carnal ; from this inferior condition the spiritual man has to 
 be developed. The transition is effected by the revelation ol 
 the law, which comes to disturb the unity and peace of man 
 in his childish, animal condition, bringing division and inward 
 conflict. Without the law, sin was dead. It came into life 
 and existence through the law ; so that the latter inevitably led 
 to the fall. In the first moral action, therefore, there are two 
 things : the appearance of the law, which implies an advance, 
 for the law is holy, just, and good ; and of transgression, which 
 is a fall. But the two elements are inseparable. The latter 
 theory is the only one which accords with the logical organi- 
 zation of Paul's system. 
 
 [The author resumes this question in his essay entitled 
 L'orijiine du pdche dans le systeme thiologique de Paul (Paris, 
 1887). He here develops with brilliant logic the "psycho- 
 logical " solution of this problem ; and boldly subordinates the 
 interpretation of Rom. v. 12-14 to that of vii. 7-21, seeing in 
 Paul's inner conflict a rehearsal and a mirror of that which 
 took place in Adam. But this explanation ignores the factor 
 of heredity ; and here, it seems to us, lies its fatal defect. Paul 
 is not where Adam was ; for he is a son of Adam.] 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 291 
 
 hand, like some expositors, go-^ the length of making ' 
 Paul's doctrine meaningless and robbing it of origin- 
 ality, by separating sin- and the flesh to such an extent 
 that it becomes impossible to understand why the 
 apostle always associates them sa closely. True, the 
 word aap^ is sometimes applied to the whole man; but 
 even then it does not entirely lose its original mean- 
 ing ; the fundamental idea is still that of the material 
 organization. The term flesh when applied to human 
 nature in general,, designates- it in so far as it is 
 governed by the laws of material existence. Hence 
 the apostle speaks of the mind, will and even spirit of 
 the flesh (cfspovrifia t^v aapKot, Rom. viii. 6 ; deXrifia 
 Tfi<; aapKo';, Eph. ir. 3 ; vov<; t^9 erapKov, Col. ii. 18). 
 The flesh already governed by sin, in its turn gives 
 the mind, the will^ and the entire nature of man its 
 bias towards sin. To persist in considering the sub- 
 jective determination> of the individual will as the 
 origin of sin would prevent our having the least 
 understanding .of Paul's- doctrine. Sin within us is 
 pre-existent to- the wiM. It has its seat in our material 
 organization ; and as- this organization takes the lead 
 in our development, sin grows- with it, and takes pos- 
 session of us even before we acquire self-consciousness. 
 How did our flesh become sinful ? This Paul never 
 explains. He contents himself with establishing the 
 fact that man's physical organization and his spiritual 
 "nature are in conflict, and that in this conflict the 
 spirit has been vanquished and swallowed up in the 
 flesh. The spirit should have glorified and spiri- 
 tualized the body ; but the body has humiliated and 
 materialized the spirit. The man has become carnal; 
 and in this fact the triumph of sin consists. It has 
 so possessed itself of the flesh, as to become incarnate 
 
292 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 there. Through this instrument it now reigns, and 
 holds all men captive (Rom. vi. 19). Thus there is 
 a radical dualism between the flesh and the spirit 
 asserted in Paul's doctrine; but it does not possess 
 the metaphysical character M. Holsten imputes to 
 it. Though reaching beyond the moral sphere, the 
 dualism established by the apostle is nevertheless 
 essentially ethical ; and this gives it its tragical and 
 distressing character. The spirit, which is still the 
 organ of the mind, and the flesh now become the 
 instrument of sin {oap^ aixapTia<i, am/xa rfj<; anapria^, 
 .Rom. viii. 3 ; vi. 6), are constantly brought into col- 
 lision' by their conflicting desires [ravra he aXKrfKoii; 
 dvTiKetTai, Gal. v. 1 7). This contest can only be 
 ended by the utter annihilation of the flesh. Sin 
 must be destroyed in it and with it (Rom. vi. 10; 
 viii. 13 ; I Cor. xv. 50). 
 
 We may now gain some idea of man's real state. 
 -He "is no longer free ; he is so/ci to sin (iym Se a-apkivo<!, 
 Treir pa fiivoi; inrb rrjv dfiaprlav, Rom. vii. 1 4). Never- 
 theless, he is not altogether evil ; he still makes a 
 distinction in himself, the distinction between his real 
 nature and the power of evil which prevails over him. 
 There is in him what Paul calls the inward man 
 (chap. vii. 22), which delights in the law of God. He 
 continues to possess the vovf, which desires and 
 perceives the good. But this knowledge is only theo- 
 retical, having no decisive influence on the will ; it 
 is an empty form without spiritual power, wanting the 
 npevfia which alone can give it efficacy.^ Man thence- 
 
 ' Setting aside the i/'«X^, elsewhere included in the flesh, of 
 which indeed it is the vital principle (i/'v;(iKds = o-ap/civos, i Cor.ii. 
 14 ; iii. i), we may say that the Pauline psychology distinguishes 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. ,293 
 
 forward feels himself divided between the impotent 
 wish to do good and the irresistible impulses of the 
 flesh. In this unhappy condition his life is protracted 
 for a brief space, only to be extinguished in the end ; 
 for the power of sin is essentially destructive. . It has 
 stirred up the flesh against the spirit, to destroy the 
 spiritual life. But the flesh, in its turn, when sepa- 
 rated from the spirit, finds the vital force departing 
 by which it had been sustained ; it grows weak ; it 
 is doomed to corruption. A struggle breaks out 
 between its various inclinations ; and its life becomes 
 simply a rapid progress towards death. Thus Paul 
 calls the flesh when sold to sin a body of death, or 
 the body of this death (to aSsft-a rov davdrov rovrov, 
 Rom. vii. 24). 
 
 Such is the development of human life towards 
 
 in man four elements : a-5/ta, (rap^, voBs, irvivfui. Two of tliem 
 fall under the general category of substance, — tro/s^, wvevixa : 
 the first being the substance of the body, the other the substance 
 of his inner being. The two others fall under the general 
 category oiform : the o-S/ia is the individual form of the o-ap| ; 
 the vov% is the human form of the TireC/Aa. That which con- 
 stitutes the weakness of man's spiritual nature is his loss of the 
 substantial force of the Trvcuixa. This spiritual force lias been 
 replaced in the voCs by that of the (rip^. The voBs has thus 
 become a voBs a-apKo^, its thought a ^povyip-a t^^s a-apKo^, and 
 its will a 6iX.rip.a rrji aapKoi. Hence, in the Pauline theology, 
 man's redemption is of necessity a new spirittial creation. To 
 the question, Does Paul recognise the existence of ■irveip.a in the 
 natural man? we must therefore reply in the negative. In every 
 passage where he speaks of the irvtxpji. of the sinful man, this 
 word no longer has the specific meaning that we have just 
 defined, but the general sense of our word mind. Finally, 
 that whicii Paul calls the heart (icapSia), is not the region ol 
 feeling alone; it is the centre where all the elements constituting 
 human nature are blended into one organic whole. 
 
294 IHE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 death, which the apostle constantly sets forth as 
 carried on organically through the working of sin. 
 But at this point a new power intervenes to accelerate 
 this fatal issue and render it yet more tragic. This 
 power is the law. 
 
 2. 'O v6/io<!. The Law. 
 
 The law, being the perfect expression of the will of 
 God, is holy, just, and good (Rom. vii. 12). The cause 
 of its want of power does not. lie in itself, but entirely 
 in the flesh (Rom. viii. 3). The law is spiritual — man 
 is carnal ; and hence a mutual and irreconcilable 
 contradiction (o vofw<i irvevfiaTiicbi; — iya> Be aap/civov, 
 Rom. vii. 14). 
 
 God did not give the law, therefore, to bring about 
 the justification of sinners. In order to be saved, 
 man must be restored to life ; but it is not within the 
 power of a law to give him life {el y^p eBodrj vojio^ 
 6 Swdfievof ^CfOOTToiiicTai, ovreov €ic vofiov av rjv 7; 
 BiKatoavvrj, Gal. iii. 2i). The law shows man what 
 righteousness is, but does not impart it to him : it is 
 unattainable by the flesh. For it was promulgated 
 not to effect righteousness, but to realize and multiply 
 sin (Rom. v. 20; vii. 7-1 1 ; Gal. iii. 19). 
 
 In truth, sin, before it can be pardoned and de- 
 stroyed, must realize all its potentialities and attain 
 its complete development. The very function of the 
 law is to bring sin to this full maturity. The law, 
 in this sense, is actually the power of sin (^ Bmajiif 
 Trj(! a/juapTia'! a vofioi, I Cor. xv. 56). It is that which 
 gives to it subjective reality, — which, in short, makes 
 sin sinful. It pushes sin onward from its virtual 
 condition to that of positive transgression (Rom. vii. 
 8,9; iv. 15). 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 295 
 
 With no less penetration than vigour, Paul de- 
 scribes this inevitable development of sin under the 
 irresistible imjjulse of the law. We do not know sin 
 except by the law (t^v aftapriav ovic eyvwv, el firi Bia 
 v6/iov, Rom. vii. 7). Setting itself up before me as 
 the sovereign rule of my actions, the law at the same 
 time makes me conscious of their moral imperfection. 
 It is the law, for instance, which reveals to me the sin 
 of covetousness by saying to me : Thou shalt not 
 covet. (Aia vofiov iiriyv<oa-i,<! dfiapri'a<!, Rom. iii. 20.) 
 It does still more. Previously to the coming of the 
 law, sin indeed was within me; but I had not the 
 slightest consciousness of it ; it was there as a latent, 
 unawakened force, — as Paul puts it, it was dead 
 (ofiapTia vexpa, chap. vii. 8). The law awakens and 
 re-animates it Without law, there is no transgres- 
 sion. More than this, not only does transgression 
 become possible under the commandment ; but the 
 prohibition inevitably gives birth in me to the desire 
 for the thing forbidden (Rom. vii. 11). Nithnur in 
 vetitum semper. Thus sin becomes transgression, and 
 brings itself under the curse. The law passes the 
 sentence of death against me ; instead of giving me 
 life, it slays me. Such is the revolution inevitably 
 effected by it in my nature. Formerly, without the 
 law, I was alive. My life flourished unimpeded ; 
 nothing disturbed its unity. Now the law has come ; 
 sin has revived in me ; and I myself am dead ! 
 
 The consciousness of sin, the realization of sin 
 through transgression, the sentence of death passed 
 upon the sinner, — these are the three stages of the 
 development of evil brought about \iy the law. But 
 this penalty of death, the wages of sin, is not only 
 passed by the law against the sinner from without, in 
 
296 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 the form of a judicial sentence ; it is also realized 
 within, exciting in human nature that unhappy con- 
 flict between the law of the members and the law of 
 the understanding, in which the life of the individual 
 is consumed. The apostle, at the close of the seventh 
 chapter of Romans, sets before us this inward struggle 
 and progress towards dissolution, which inevitably 
 terminates in death. The holier the law and the 
 more clearly it shows me what I ought to be, so 
 much the more does it overwhelm me with the sense 
 of what I am. The spiritual height of the command 
 only helps me the better to measure the depth of 
 my corruption. Between what I desire and what I 
 can do, between my understanding which apprehends 
 the good, and my flesh which realizes the evil, 
 between my aspirations and my tendencies, there is 
 an ever-widening contrast. It seems as though I 
 were only engaged in my own destruction, desiring 
 good but practising evil, and condemning myself for 
 doing so. It is an intestine war, in which my under- 
 standing attacks and scorns my flesh, and my flesh 
 revenges itself by crushing the vain desires of my 
 understanding. I no longer know what I am about; 
 for I fail to do what I would, and I do just that 
 which I hate. In vain do I strive to put an end to the 
 conflict ; in vain do I redouble my efforts to observe 
 the law and overcome the flesh. In this struggle, 
 in which I am my own adversary, I am invariably 
 defeated. I shall never escape from it, till I am dead. 
 My life cannot last in this agony ; I sink in that 
 despair which is the beginning and the foretaste of 
 death ! 
 
 Paul brings the demonstration of his first thesis 
 to a close with an energy that is truly terrible. Not 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 297 
 
 only does man fail to obtain justification by means 
 of the law, but it logically conducts him to a dia- 
 metrically opposite result The law is holy and 
 spiritual, it is true ; but as man can only fulfil it by 
 means of the flesh, it comes to pass that the works 
 of the law i^p^a vofiov) are, in reality, mere works 
 of the flesh {epya aapKo^). It is useless to multiply 
 these external works ; he only multiplies the causes 
 of his condemnation and aggravates his guilt. We 
 see that the abyss is really bottomless ; and every 
 effort which the man makes to extricate himself, only 
 plunges him further in its depths. But at the very 
 point where he despairs of himself, the grace of God 
 takes hold of him and saves him. 
 
 II. Man Justified by Faith in Christ. 
 
 This development of the power of sin, under the 
 impetus given by the law, is met in the apostle's 
 doctrine by a corresponding development of holiness, 
 the essential principle of which is God's righteousness ; 
 its means, faitk in Jesus Christ — its end, life. 
 
 What Paul intended by his use of the expression 
 hiKcuoavvtf &eov has not always been fully appre- 
 hended. This genitive case has often been con- 
 sidered equivalent to ivoyiriov Oeov, and has been 
 translated the righteousness t/iai avails before God 
 (Rom. iii. 20). Righteousness, it is said, was the end 
 in view ; and Paul only wished to ascertain whether 
 it could be obtained by the law or by faith. On that 
 view, the passage would express a general notion, 
 resolved into two subordinate ideas — negative and 
 positive respectively ; and the Pauline theory might 
 be interpreted thus : 
 
29S THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 •q SiKaioo'Wrj Tov @eov. 
 
 J] eV v6/jLov Si/caioavvr]. f) ex Trt'o-Teo)? Sikaioa-vvrj.^ 
 There is, however, a grave error here, which touches 
 the very essence of the apostle's doctrine, and mis- 
 represents it from the outset. In every passage where 
 this expression recurs, the hiKaiocrvvr] &eov is directly 
 opposed to justification by the law, as an absolutely 
 contrary idea ; it is represented as being itself the 
 source' of justification by faith (Rom. i. 17 ; iii. 21). 
 If the righteousness obtained by faith is in opposi- 
 tion to justification by the fulfilment of the law, the 
 hiKaioavvr) Qeov must be opposed to the I'Sta Scxaio- 
 a-vvT] (Rom. X. 3). Instead of the foregoing triad, 
 we have a double antithesis : 
 
 17 IBia SiKaioaiivrj — 17 SiKaiocrvPr] tov &eov; 
 7) iic vofiov SiKaioavvr) — ^ eK TTHTTeta? hucaiouvvrj. 
 The BiKuioavvr] @eov is the righteousness of which 
 God is the Author, and which He gives freely, in con- 
 trast to the righteousness which man seeks by his own 
 efforts (iSia hiKaioavvrj). This righteousness exists 
 already in God as an attribute and active force ; it is 
 transferred to man, and realized in him by the action 
 of Divine grace (SiKaiovfievoi Scopeav jfj avrov 'x^dpiTi, 
 "Rom. iii. 24). Paul himself has explained his doc- 
 trine very fully in Romans iii. 25, 26. In this latter 
 passage the words Trpo? rrjv evSei^iv t^9 ZiKaioavvq's 
 avTov are fully defined by those that follow : et? ro 
 elvai avTOV Slkuiov, koI SiKaiovvra tov eic •rrlcrTeco'}. 
 Thus SiKataaiivr] &6ov= ©to? St/caio; Kal SucaiMV. The 
 idea is that of a positive righteousness immanent in 
 
 ' See Baur, Pauliis, vol. ii., p. 147 [Eng. trans., ii., 136]. He 
 seems to have abandoned this view in his KeuiestamentUche 
 Theologie (1864), p. 134. 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 299 
 
 God, and manifesting itself outwardly in the sinner's 
 justification. This conception is surprising to us, 
 accustomed as we are, by our very use of language, 
 to give the word righteousness a merely negative 
 meaning. We are so thoroughly prepossessed with 
 this judicial and inferior notion, that it is difficult 
 .for us to rise to this far higher and finer idea of a 
 righteousness which is imparted, and which tends 
 everywhere to substitute good for evil and life for 
 death. No contradiction must be asserted, therefore, 
 between the righteousness of God, in the apostle's 
 sense of this word, and the grace of God. While the 
 word xa/3«? indicates the act of love by which God 
 saves man, the phrase Sifcaioavvj] 0eov simply defines 
 the nature and moral quality of this Divine act ■ 
 
 The SiKatoavvr] Geov, thus understood, is more 
 than a simple acquittal of the guilty ; it is an actual 
 power (Svvafii'i Qeov), which enters into the world and 
 is organically developed there, — like the power of sin, 
 but in opposition to it. We have observed how the 
 latter passed from its virtual (a/tapTia) to its actual 
 state, and became realized in transgression {irapd- 
 ^aai,<i), thus arriving at its final condition of irapd- 
 vTcofxa. The righteousness of God follows a dialectical 
 course exactly parallel to this. The Bi,Kaio(Tvvij 0eov, 
 itself a transcendent principle, finds expression in 
 the Si/caicoai,?, the act of justification ; and reaches its 
 end in the SiKaiaifia, which is righteousness realized. 
 The first process results of necessity in death ; the 
 latter, with equal necessity, results in life. In each 
 case there is a similar logical processus, accomplished 
 both in the individual life and in history. 
 
 We can at once perceive how far removed was 
 Paul's real belief from the theory of forensic justi- 
 
300 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 fication elaborated by the scholasticism of the Middle 
 Ages. According to this theory, the act of justification 
 is a mere verdict of nonsuit (prdomiance de non-lieii) 
 on the part of God, — a sentence alike inadequate and 
 arbitrary. The whole case is reduced to that of an 
 old debt paid to God by Jesus. On this assumption 
 there ceases to be any organic connexion between 
 justification and regeneration ; at the most, there 
 remains, as a mere external bond, the sentiment of 
 gratitude due from the man who is set free to his 
 liberator. Not only is the nerve of the apostle's 
 reasoning thus destroyed, but we cannot, on this con- 
 ception of the matter, even prove sufficiently the duty 
 of gratitude. 
 
 Is it not obvious, indeed, that to insist on the 
 necessity of this one duty is to return in the end, by 
 a circuitous route, to the very principle to be avoided, 
 viz. that of justification by works ; and that this 
 theory leaves us with an irreducible dualism set up 
 in our soteriology ? 
 
 Paul would not have found words severe enough 
 to stigmatize such a flagrant misinterpretation of his 
 doctrine. True, he has said that God in His mercy 
 declares justification and deliverance for the sinner ; 
 but he does not know — and had he known, would 
 never have admitted — that subtle distinction between 
 declaring righteous and making righteous, j'ustuin 
 dicere and justum facere, which has been the object 
 of so much dispute. To him, the word of God is 
 always creative and full of power ; it always produces 
 an actual effect. In declaring a man justified, there- 
 fore, it actually and directly creates within him a new 
 beginning of righteousness. The BiKuioavvr] Qeov 
 from that moment enters as an active force into the 
 
IHE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 301 
 
 heart and life of the believer, and there becomes the 
 fruitful source of a permanent sanctification. Re- 
 generation is simply the consequence of justification ; 
 and works are but the outcome of faith. 
 
 Such is the profound unity and oi^nic sequence 
 of the Pauline doctrine. We shall now endeavour to 
 reproduce it by indicating its essential featurea 
 
 3. "O X6709 Tov trravpov. The Cross. 
 
 In the death of Jesus the righteousness of God in 
 its active force was historically realized and revealed 
 to all men (TredtavipeaTai). • It there apptears as a 
 positive act of justification (SucaitaaK), seeking to 
 realize itself finally through faith in the soul of the 
 believer, where it becomes an actual state of righteous- 
 ness (Sucaitofjui, Rom. iii. 24 ; iv. 25 ; viii. 4). 
 
 Thus the death of Jesus comes to be the centre of 
 the whole Pauline system. The apostle's Chris- 
 tianity is summed up in the Person of Christ ; but 
 this Person itself only acquires its proper redemptive 
 significance when He dies on the cross. Hence we 
 can quite understand the apostle's declaration that he 
 wishes to know nothing but Christ and Christ cruci- 
 fied (i Cor. ii. 2). With the death of Jesus, however, 
 is necessarily associated the fact of His resurrection. 
 Not only are these two Ic^cally connected in Paul's 
 doctrine, but we might even consider them as one 
 and the same act, since they set forth the two suc- 
 cessive and essential stages of justification. With 
 the first Paul connects the entire n^ative aspect of 
 redemption — deliverance from guilt, and the de- 
 struction of the power of sin ; to the second he 
 refers its whole positive aspect — justification, and the 
 creation of spiritual life (Rom. iv. 25 ; vi. i-i i). 
 
302 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 The ecclesiastical theory of expiation, so far from 
 interpreting the apostle's doctrine aright, amounts to 
 its formal contradiction.^ The idea of an external 
 satisfaction, given to God in order to wrest the pardon 
 of sinners from Him, is foreign to all the epistles. 
 Paul nowhere says that God needed to be appeased. 
 He starts from the contrary point of view. The 
 pardon of sin is ever the spontaneous act of God's 
 love. It is His sovereign and absolute grace which 
 took, and still maintains the initiative in the work of 
 redemption. The sacrifice of Christ, so far from being 
 the cause of this love, is its effect. It was not accom- 
 plished outside the sphere of grace — outside, as one 
 might say, of God Himself — in order to influence 
 the Divine will ; but God HiiHself was in Christ, re- 
 conciling the world to Himself by Him (2 Cor. v. 19). 
 
 As Paul does not admit the traditional dualism in 
 God between love and Fighteousness, so neither does 
 he make any separation between the forgiveness of 
 sins and the destruction of sin itself The idea of an 
 external expiation was rrot enough for him. The 
 standard passages upon which it has been founded 
 (Rom. iii. 25 ; Gal. iii. 13) are far from giving us his 
 whole teaching on the subject ; nor have they in the 
 Pauline theory the capital injiportance attributed to 
 them by scholastic theology. If we have any regard 
 for the logical unity of the Pauline doctrine, we must 
 
 [ ' M. Sabatier is scarcely fair to the " ecclesiastical theory," 
 which originated in a profound, thougli possibly one-sided, sense 
 of the guilt of sin and the anger which it has provoked in the 
 holy nature of God. On his side, such texts as Rom. i. 18 (in 
 connexion with vers. 16, 17); v. 10; Gal. iii. 13, demand further 
 elucidation. See Dorner's System of Christian Doctrine, vol. 
 iii., pp. 120-133 ; iv., 99-107, 201.] 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 303 
 
 expound these texts in harmony with Romans vi. 
 i-i I ; viii. 3 ; and 2 Corinthians v. 21. Only by the 
 aid of these latter passages can we gain an adequate 
 view of the apostle's entire doctrine of Redemption. 
 Now, these texts make the practical effect of the 
 death of Jesus to consist not in the satisfaction which 
 it rendered to God, but in the destruction of sin that 
 it accomplished. 
 
 The more foreign is the idea of satisfaction to 
 Pauline soteriolbgy, the more essential, on the con- 
 trary, seems to be that of substitution (2 Cor. v. 14-165. 
 The apostle's whole theory rests, in its final analysis, 
 upon a mystical identification of Jesus with believers : 
 Jesus becomes all that we were ; and we, on our part, 
 become all that Christ was. He is sin in us ; we are 
 righteousness in Him i^ov fir] yvovra afiapriav . . . 
 afiapriav etroiriaev, 'iva r]ixel<; yevdofieda hiKaioavvr) 
 Qeov iv avTw, 2 Cor. v. 21). He made Himself poor 
 with all our poverty, in order to enrich us with His 
 whole wealth (2 Cor. viii. 9). Jesus, it seems, could 
 not save humanity while apart from it. To realize in 
 it the righteousness of God and begin for it a new 
 organic development. He must of necessity appear 
 within it as one of its members. Thus the entire 
 burden of the work of redemption rests upon Christ's 
 humanity, — not, as in Anselm's theory, upon His 
 Divinity (8t' ap6pa)irov, tov evos avdpwtrov ^Irjaov 
 Xpi(TTov, I Cor. XV. 21 ; comp. xv. 45, and Rom. v. 15). 
 Not only must the Redeemer belong to humanity, 
 but He must subject Himself to all the powers which 
 control it, to the objective power of sin, of the law 
 and of death, that He may really vanquish then^. 
 In other words, summing up in Himself all humanity. 
 He must allow the fatal issue of the life of sin already 
 
.304 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 described to reproduce itself,— and as it were, to 
 spend itself upon His person. 
 
 So it was with Jesus. When the time was fulfilled 
 the Son of God appeared in the world as a mere man. 
 He was born of a woman, and lived under the law 
 (Gal. iv. 4) ; He died to redeem us from sin, to free 
 us from the law and rescue us from death. Sin is 
 destroyed in the death of Jesus, not only because it 
 is openly condemned and actually punished, but also 
 because it has at last produced its worst result. In 
 attaining its full development, it exhausts and destroys 
 itself. A new development may then begin. Thus 
 Jesus only properly expiates sin by bringing it to its 
 issue. His death is the consummation of the first 
 period of the life of humanity ; it terminates the life 
 of the flesh. 
 
 We must note, further, the precise link by which 
 this wonderful theory of redemption is connected with 
 that which Paul has said concerning the flesh in its 
 relation to sin. The power of evil which it was 
 Christ's mission to destroy had taken possession of 
 the flesh and even, as we said, become incarnate 
 there. Sin, therefore, could not be absolutely con- 
 quered except by the destruction of the flesh. Hence 
 that theological axiom on which the whole theory 
 of the apostle rests : He that is dead is freed from 
 sin (0 70/3 a-no6av(bv BeSiKalcoTai, awo tij? dfiapria'!, 
 Rom. vi. 7). Paul makes strict application of this 
 axiom to the death of Jesus. He brings the Re- 
 deemer as near to sinful and carnal humanity as it 
 is possible to do, without compromising His holiness. 
 Such is the imperative logic of his doctrine, that he 
 does not shrink from that most startling expression, 
 " God made Him to be sin, who knew no sin." At 
 
THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 305 
 
 last, in Romans viii. 3, he plainly says : " God. sent 
 His Son in fiesh entirely resembling our sinful flesh, 
 and thus condemned sin in the fleshy The flesh of 
 Christ, no less than all the rest of His Person, has 
 therefore a representative value ; it represents, in very 
 deed, the sinful flesh of humanity, the organ and 
 seat of sin. In the death of Christ sin is condemned, 
 the flesh is crucified and destroyed, and redemption 
 is objectively accomplished. 
 
 4. 'H TTioTf?. Faith. 
 
 By love Christ accomplishes His identification with 
 humanity ; by faith man attains his identification 
 with Christ Through it we so thoroughly participate 
 with Jesus and become so entirely one with Him, that 
 His death becomes our death, and His resurrection 
 our own resurrection. With Him we die to sin, to the 
 law and the flesh ; with Him we triumpxh over death, 
 and are born again to new life (Rom. vi. i-i i). Faith 
 carries on and repeats in each individual life the 
 decisive crisis, the revolution that the death of Jesus 
 wrought in history. It is the destruction of sin within 
 us, the inward creation of the Divine life. The justi- 
 fication and regeneration of the individual are only the 
 continuation of the original redemption, which was 
 accomplished in the Head of humanity and is realized 
 in turn by each of its members. Faith does .not save 
 us by its own virtue ; in itself it is a mere vain and 
 empty form ; but we are saved by its. Divine object — 
 by the SiKauurvvi) &eov realized in Jesus Christ, which 
 becomes thenceforward an immanent, living principle 
 in us. Through faith we are not only pardoned 
 and set free ; we are at the same time regenerated, 
 enfranchised, and, in a word, restored to life. 
 
 20 
 
3o6 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 S. 'H XwT]. Life. 
 
 Life is the natural fruit of righteousness, just as 
 death was the consequence and wages of sin (Rom. 
 vi. 22, 23). Though the flesh, which has the principle 
 of sin still within it, is doomed to death, the believer 
 possesses in Christ's own Spirit {irvevfia ^wotroiovv) a 
 principle of immortal life, which permeates, raises, and 
 transforms his entire nature. Formerly there was 
 conflict in the carnal man, a conflict ending in the 
 growing triumph of sin, and in death ; there is still a 
 struggle in the regenerate man between the old prin- 
 ciple which is dying out, and the new which is gaining 
 strength ; but this struggle now results in a victory of 
 life over death, more and more perfect and glorious. 
 All that is mortal within us will in the end be ab- 
 sorbed in life. Righteousness will restore everything 
 that sin had destroyed. 
 
 Through faith the Christian possesses by antici- 
 pation all the riches of this new life. He really. 
 " lives by his faith.'' His inner life is one of -perfect 
 liberty. He is not without law ; for Christ has be- 
 come law immanent in him (eVi/o/io? Xpia-rev, i Cor. 
 ix. 21). But this law is simply a principle of love, 
 enabling him to fulfil the will of God with joyous 
 ease. The life of love is nothing but the outcome of 
 faith (Gal. v. 6). Thus Paul's great doctrine, having 
 been perfectly established in the realm of theory, wins 
 a yet more splendid triumph in the sphere of practical 
 life. No. wonder that for the past eighteen centuries 
 it has inspired the great thinkers of Christianity in 
 the world of intellect, and in the moral world created 
 its great heroes. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 . THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE IN THE SPHERE OF 
 SOCIETY AND HISTORY. 
 
 TJie Religious Philosophy of History. 
 
 I. The Person of Christ, the Vital 
 Principle of the Church. 
 
 HITHERTO the Christian principle has been 
 confined within the sphere of the individual 
 life. But it tends by its very nature towards a uni- 
 versal realization. All that Christ is for one member 
 of humanity, He is and must become for all ; and the 
 result of this new development of the Christian prin- 
 ciple is the Church. The unity of the Church rests 
 upon the sense, common to all its members, of a 
 living communion with Christ. 
 
 To set forth this essential unity of the Church,' 
 Paul several times compares it to the organization 
 of the human body (i Cor. xii. 12, ff. ; Rom. xii. 4) : 
 " As in one body we have many members, which have - 
 not all the same office, so we are all one body in 
 Christ ; and we are towards each other what the 
 members of one body are among themselves." This 
 body is called aoajjia Xpicrrov (i Cor. xii. 27) — that is, 
 a body having the principle of its being and the basis 
 
 of its life in Christ. Christ is not only its Head, but 
 
 307 
 
3o3 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 its very soul ; He manifests in and through it all 
 His hidden virtues (Eph. iv. i6 ; Col. ii. 19). Thus 
 regarded, the Church becomes the body of Christ (to 
 o-ai/ia ToO XpLo-rov) ; it serves as the external and 
 visible manifestation, the material realization of all 
 that Christ Himself is invisibly. Into this body 
 Christ pours His plenitude of life, so that the Church, 
 filled with the virtues of its Head, becomes in turn 
 the trXTjpwfia roii Xpi,(nov (Eph. i. 23). 
 
 The Church can only realize the full virtue of its 
 vital principle through a laborious process of evolution. 
 But all development implies variety ; and hence the 
 apostle perceives and acknowledges in the Church 
 diverse offices, gifts, and ministries {Biaipea-ei<; %a/3to'- 
 fidrcov et'crtv, I Cor. xii. 4). To each of these separate 
 gifts he allows free and full development ; and through 
 them the wealth of life in the Church is manifested. 
 But on the other hand, these different charisms pro- 
 ceed from one and the same Spirit (ivepyei rb ei/ koI 
 TO avTo Uvevfia) ; and with love as their common 
 inspiration, all tend to the same goal, the perfecting 
 of the whole body of the Church. So the unity of 
 the Church is, in the first instance, broken up and 
 expanded into a rich variety ; but this, in its turn, is 
 absorbed into the supreme unity. Such is the organic 
 and harmonious development of the life of the Church. 
 
 From this conception of the Church is derived the 
 Pauline idea of baptism, and of the Lord's supper, 
 which centres in that of the substantial union of 
 the Christian with Christ. Baptism, the symbol of 
 faith, obtains its significance from faith itself ; it be- 
 comes the symbol of our death and resurrection with 
 Christ. In baptism we are buried with Jesus in His 
 death, and rise again with Him that we may walk in 
 
THE PAULINE^ PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 309 
 
 newness of life (Rom. vi. 3, 4). In like manner, the 
 Lord's supper expresses the mystical union of the 
 members of the Church with Christ and with one 
 another ; they are one loaf, one body (i Cor. x. 17). 
 By its means they appropriate and assimilate the life 
 of Christ, the substance of His spiritual being. So the 
 Church grows both without and within, both in extent 
 and in spiritual power ; for it is not only the creation 
 of the Spirit of Christ, but, if we may so speak. His 
 enlarged existence and continued life. 
 
 II. The Old Covenant and the New. 
 
 'H. iTrayyeTua, o vo/iot, tj Trt'crTt?. 
 
 The strong antithesis between the law and faith 
 established in the preceding chapter, tends to find 
 its solution, so soon as Paul examines it from the 
 historical standpoint. The apostle, indeed, could not 
 assume an entirely negative position towards Judaism. 
 Not only did he believe in the revelation of God in 
 the Old Testament, but he further admitted the 
 Divine origin of the law itself It was therefore in- 
 evitable that he should formulate the relationship of 
 the Old and New Covenant in their positive aspect. 
 
 Judaism, so regarded, was at once reduced from 
 its position as the supreme religion to that of a pre- 
 paratory revelation. The old covenant between God 
 and His people was indeed a reality ; but not being 
 an end in itself, it could not be final (2 Cor. iii: 7, 11). 
 It came in as an essential but transitional stage in 
 the progress of the Divine plan, designed to prepare 
 for that final manifestation of the righteousness of 
 God in Christ to which it bears witness (Rom. iii. 21), 
 
 This preparation has its positive side in the pri- 
 
,313 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 mordial gift of the promise, while it has another, 
 essentially negative, in the intervention and operation 
 of the law. Between faith and the promise there 
 exists, indeed, a full resemblance and identity ; for 
 they have the same object, viz., the grace of God. 
 The promise is the anticipation of faith ; and faith is 
 the realization of the promise. Hence Paul's strong 
 assertion that no other justification was at any time 
 possible to man before God, except justification by 
 faith, — that this was the primary and original idea 
 of Divine revelation, distinctly antecedent to the 
 institution of the law itself. This idea he readily 
 ■ discovers contained in the promise made to the 
 patriarch. Abraham believed in God ; and this faith 
 was imputed to him for righteousness. The begin- 
 ning of salvation by faith may therefore be traced 
 back to him (Gal. iii. 7). It was to faith alone, and 
 to faith without circumcision, that the promise was 
 made (Rom. iv. 10). Hence the capital importance 
 that belongs to the person of Abraham, according 
 to Paul's view, in the order of Divine revelation. 
 Abraham's experience marks the point where the 
 promise enters into history — the juncture at which 
 the justifying grace of God was for the first time 
 declared to the world. So the name of the patriarch 
 stands at the head of one of the great epochs of 
 religious history. This promise is a veritable testa- 
 ment, which from the first has secured the right of 
 believers to the paternal inheritance, — a testament 
 that no subsequent event could either modify or set 
 aside (Gal. iii. 15). 
 
 While the promise and faith are thus identical in 
 their origin, the law on the contrary represents an 
 external element, radically different- from both. It 
 
THE PAULINE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 311 
 
 intervenes between the two, in order . to bring about 
 the fulfilment of the promise ; but it has no direct 
 connexion with it. Its ministry represents a great 
 parenthesis in history (jrapeiafp^dev). Coming 430 
 years afterwards, it is not the continuation of the 
 promise ; for in that case we should have to admit 
 that God had modified His first intention. But the 
 word of God cannot be annulled. The law, therefore, 
 has an object quite distinct from the promise. Its 
 mission solely consists in realizing and" multiplying 
 sin (Gal. iii. 19 ; Rom v. 20) ; and to this end it inter- 
 vened between the promise and its fulfilment, and 
 served as a middle term and mediator, linking together 
 these two stages of history. In what did this tem- 
 porary mediation consist ? In the fact that it placed 
 all men under sin and the curse, keeping them under 
 this double yoke until the coming of Christ. The 
 realization of grace, in fact, could not have taken 
 place before sin had been realized ; and it was in ac- 
 complishing this end that the law worked effectually 
 to prepare for the advent of grace. Such was its 
 office, — that of a pedagogue, and temporary mediator. 
 Though justification does not come through the 
 law, and although the law produces a wholly opposite 
 result, still, it is not contrary either to the promise or 
 to faith ; it has, to be sure, its place and part in the 
 Divine plan ; it represents a stage of condemnation 
 interposed between promise and faith, through which 
 man has to pass before he attains the full conscious- 
 ness of his reconciliation with God. Thus, at the 
 close of the discussion, the apostle's doctrine recovers 
 its unity of thought, for a time impaired ; and the rSle 
 of the Law is defined, alike in its essential difference 
 from the Gospel, and in its historical relation to it. 
 
312 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 The promise, the law, faith — Abraham, Moses, Christ 
 — indicate the three successive stages in the Divine 
 plan, as they are logically connected and- logically 
 necessary to each other. 
 
 This view differs fundamentally from the mode in 
 which the Jews and Jewish Christians persisted in 
 regarding the Old Testament. It is, indeed, so bold 
 and original, that the Christian theology of following 
 centuries could neither understand nor reproduce it. 
 It preserves the letter of the old covenant, but in- 
 terprets it by the spirit of the new. Paul was fully 
 aware that the Jew could not of himself attain 
 this spiritual standpoint. " A veil remains," he says, 
 " upon the old covenant. It can be lifted by Christ 
 alone. But to this day the Jews read Moses without 
 understanding him." They did not perceive the sub- 
 ordinate character and the ephemeral glory of Moses' 
 ministry. It was not without glory, for it was a 
 manifestation of the will -of God ; but its glory was 
 fleeting, because the ministry itself was not to be 
 permanent. It fades and disappears before a glory 
 that is surpassing and imperishable (2 Cor. iii. 6-15). 
 
 III. Adam and Christ; or the Two Ages 
 OF Humanity. 
 
 Paul's doctrine hitherto had not gone beyond the 
 sacred limits of the Old Testament ; but it evidently 
 tended to embrace within its scope the whole historical 
 development of humanity, completed and crowned by 
 the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 The apostle delights to compare the life of the human 
 race, as a whole, to the natural course of the individual 
 life, and to trace in the first the various phases be- 
 
THE PAULINE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 313 
 
 longii;g to the second. Humanity itself begins with 
 childhood, and is obliged to pass through a slow and 
 painful period of education and minority. It is 
 certainly an heir, but an heir under age, who has to 
 remain in ward until the time of his full majority. 
 The promise corresponds to the paternal testament ; 
 the guardian, severe and inflexible, is the law which 
 fulfils its office until the time appointed by the father 
 himself The heir until then is treated as a slave. It 
 is in Christ that man finally gains his rights of sonship, 
 and attains his full majority (■n-X'^pio/ia tov 'x^povov). 
 At this point, the period of childhood and youth 
 spent in subjection ends ; and the second phase in 
 human life begins, that of mature age, characterized 
 by liberty and the right of self-control (Gal. iv. 1-7). 
 
 All the ideas, and all the Jewish and heathen insti- 
 tutions which had governed humanity before the 
 coming of Christ, come under this general designa- 
 tion : dcrdevfj koX •wTwya, (rTOi,j(,eia — things rudimentary, 
 primitive elements, by whose means the human race 
 was formerly educated, but which are no longer suited 
 to Christian humanity in its freedom and maturity 
 (Gal. iv. 9). By this bold conception Paul has ranged 
 Jewish and heathen traditions alike under the same 
 category ; and in some sort has blended them, by 
 subordinating them both to the Gospel. 
 
 This lofty philosophy of history is still better ex- 
 pressed in the parallel between the two Adams, in 
 which it reaches its climax (Rom. v. 12-21 ; i Cor. 
 XV. 45-49). The importance of these two passages is 
 not, in my jiidgment, fully apprehended by those who 
 see in them a mere typological figure, a figure more 
 remarkable perhaps than others, but still serving only 
 to illustrate the apostle's discourse. Placed in the 
 
314 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 logical connexion in which we find it, this parallel is 
 of capital importance in Paul's system, and expresses 
 one of his finest ideas. 
 
 Adam and Christ represent the two great periods 
 in the life of humanity. The flesh and sin, the law 
 and death, reign over the first ; the Spirit and faith, 
 righteousness and life, are the powers that prevail in 
 the second. The first Adam was earthly and carnal 
 (ij^otKo? and y{rvxiic6<i). All his descendants have been 
 earthly and carnal, have lived his life and borne his 
 image. With Adam's transgression, sin entered into 
 the world ; it has reigned over all the children of Adam, 
 giving them over to death, the inevitable wages of sin. 
 Such is the natural development of this period. Its 
 organic bond of connexion with the second epoch, 
 which is summed up in Christ, has not always been 
 fully apprehended. This new period does not inter^ 
 vene abruptly, as though it were obtruded by an arbi- 
 trary act ; it originates in the first, and is evolved from 
 it. The carnal and psychic life has to precede the 
 j)neumatic life, giving scope for its due development 
 (i Cor. XV. 46). The second period does not begin, 
 as it has been supposed, with the supernatural birth 
 of Jesus ; it may even be asked whether in Paul's 
 theory there is any place for this supernatural birth.^ 
 
 [' Paul ascribes to Christ a unique Divine sonship and un- 
 tainted holiness : at the same time, he asserts the heredity of 
 sin, and the solidarity in transgression of the descendants of 
 Adam. This flagrant contradiction does not in the least em- 
 barrass him. How could his logical mind have held together 
 these contrary beliefs, unless there lay behind them a knowledge 
 of the exceptional character of the birth of Jesus ? That there 
 was reserve upon this subject in the first generation was natural, 
 especially while the virgin mother lived, "iee/img-all these things 
 in her heart." See Weiss's Life of Christ vol. i., pp. 222-233.] 
 
THE PAULINE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 315 
 
 The position that this fact occupies , in ecclesiastical 
 theology, is filled in the apostle's system by that of 
 the resurrection. The new epoch of history begins 
 with the Saviour's resurrection, which was the first 
 manifestation of the spiritual life on earth. The 
 historical life of Jesus belongs, in reality, to the first 
 period. Christ Himself was also a descendant of 
 Adam, — born of a woman, coming under the law, with 
 a flesh like ours, living in the realm of sin and death, 
 so that under the same conditions He might develop 
 and display the Divine life which animated Him. 
 
 From this point of view, everything turns upon the 
 fact of Christ's actual humanity. The second Adam 
 is from heaven, it is true ; but He also comes forth 
 from the bosom of humanity. He enters the human 
 race as a living member thereof, and becomes for it 
 the father of a new humanity. The Spirit, righteous- 
 ness, and life are in Him not merely qualities, but 
 powers, entering into history and unfolding there 
 like the sin transmitted by descent from Adam. 
 In fact, precisely as we by our origin are in com- 
 munion with Adam's sin and participate in his death, 
 so those who enter into communion with Christ are 
 partakers of His life and righteousness. If there is 
 a difference, it is entirely to the advantage of the 
 second Adam : a single sin was the source of condem- 
 nation for the many ; redemption, on the contrary, 
 starts with the multitude of actual sins over which 
 Christ triumphs, and in the midst of which He makes 
 manifest, through His obedience, both righteousness 
 and life (Rom. v. 15-17). 
 
 Christianity, though supernatural in its Divine 
 cause, does not make any abrupt or violent entrance 
 into history, so as to interrupt its course. It manifests 
 
3i6 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 itself in due time, issuing from the very midst of 
 humanity, where God at the appointed hour causes the 
 new life to appear. The idea of a fall of the human 
 race as understood by Augustine, has no logical exis- 
 tence in Paul's system. Or, at any rate, if the apostle 
 does admit a failure, a fall of the human race into sin, 
 the idea is finally absorbed in the loftier one of constant 
 progress. The second Adam not only repairs the 
 fault of the first ; He brings about actual progress, 
 and marks out a higher order of life. The resurrec- 
 tion of Christ completes the creation of humanity. 
 
 IV. ESCHATOLOGY. 
 
 The struggles of history are summed up, according 
 to Paul, in the constant antagonism of two opposing 
 principles, death and life. This great drama is to 
 have its dhiouement. The power of death is virtually 
 already broken by the resurrection of Jesus Christ ; 
 with this first triumph the Pauline eschatology begins. 
 This doctrine signifies nothing else than the unfolding 
 or progressive realization of all the individual, social, 
 and cosmical consequences existing in germ in this 
 fundamental fact. By no means does the apostle 
 limit to humanity that radical transformation an- 
 nounced and commenced in the personal triumph of 
 Jesus. It will extend to every celestial sphere, and 
 throughout physical nature. The resurrection of 
 Christ is a crisis in the development of universal life 
 (Rom. viii. i8--24). 
 
 How will this transformation be effected ? For 
 the external mechanism of Jewish eschatology the 
 apostle, as we have seen, endeavoured to substitute 
 a moral force. It would, however, be a misconception 
 
THE PAULINE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 317 
 
 of his doctrine to attribute to him the modern notion 
 of the unlimited progress of history. He most cer- 
 tainly pictured the end as a dramatic finale, brought 
 about by God at the moment foreseen in His designs. 
 Though he may have relinquished the hope of being 
 present in his life-time at the parousia of the Lord, 
 he always expected this great event, and wished those 
 who came after him to expect it (i Cor. xv. 22 ; Phil. 
 i. 10 ; iii. 20). There is no contradiction, though it 
 has been asserted, between this ultimate expectation 
 and the hope that Paul cherished of being united 
 by death immediately to Christ and God (Phil. i. 21 ; 
 2 Cor. V. 8). Until the time of the external and 
 historical manifestation of the Lord, all Christians, 
 whether living or dead, have their glory and their 
 life hidden in God, as the glory of Christ Himself is 
 liow hidden from the eyes of the world (Col. iii. I -4). 
 The time of the Parousia will be that of the resur- 
 rection. Then the principle of the new life which is 
 in Christ will reveal its full power, in raising up 
 our mortal bodies and thus completing the work of 
 redemption (Rom. viii. 23). On the other side, Paul 
 is equally decided in excluding Jlesk and blood from 
 this glorious resurrection (i Cor. xv. 50). Evidently, 
 on his principles, the flesh, the seat and organ of sin, 
 must be destroyed. An essential distinction, there- 
 fore, must be made between the body and the flesh. 
 The flesh is the material substance of the body. The 
 body is the essential form of the human being. From 
 the philosophical point of view, it may be asked how 
 the form can subsist when the substance which filled 
 it has disappeared ? Paul did not concern himself 
 with this question. He strove to make his own 
 meaning clear ; and in this he has succeeded admirably. 
 
31 8 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 by his comparison of the resurrection to the germina- 
 tion of a grain of corn. The new plant is not com- 
 posed of the same matter ; and yet the type remains, 
 despite the change of substance. The new body 
 develops organically from the germ which gives it 
 birth. There is therefore a real connexion between 
 the body which is sown in corruption, and the body 
 which is raised in incorruption. It is the same, and 
 yet a new body. The body, in fact, represents to 
 Paul a Divine idea essential and necessary to the full 
 development of the individual life ; it is even the 
 cause or principle of our individuality. This Divine 
 type is successively realized in elements of a diverse 
 character {aXKi) adp^) ; like the soul itself, it rises 
 by the crisis of death to a higher state of life. It 
 becomes a spiritual body, inasmuch as the irvevna 
 will hereafter animate it, as the "^vxv does at 
 present. 
 
 This resurrection will be the time of the Lord's full 
 triumph. All power and authority will yield to Him. 
 His enemies will fall beneath His feet (i Cor. xv. 
 24-28). Must this final victory be regarded as an 
 external triumph ? Is it a question of the enforced 
 submission of hostile powers, or of their transforma- 
 tion, conversion, and glorification ? To some, perhaps, 
 the first conception may seem the more probable ; yet 
 when Paul declares that death itself shall be abolished 
 for ever, it seems to imply that evil will actually cease 
 to exist. The apostle says nothing of the final fate 
 reserved for the wicked, or the Devil. But the idea of 
 an eternal damnation evidently lies outside the logic 
 of his doctrine, which would rather require the abso- 
 lute annihilation of wicked beings. It is particularly 
 to be observed that Paul makes no reference to any, 
 
THE PAULINE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 319 
 
 resurrection of the wicked.^ Not having the principle 
 of life in themselves, they cannot live again. When 
 this complete victory of good over evil and life over 
 death is accomplished, Christ will then restore the 
 kingdom to God His Father. His office will cease 
 with His triumph ; He will efface Himself in His 
 turn ; and God, consummating the eternal unity, will 
 be all in all. Such is the final and glorious end of 
 history. 
 
 V. Faith, Hope, Love. 
 
 This historical development of the kingdom of 
 God remains for the present concentrated and 
 summed up in the Christian consciousness. The 
 main stages in this progressive life are there repre- 
 sented objectively by faith, hope, love. " These three 
 are," as Calvin has well said, " a brief summary of the 
 whole. of Christianity." 
 
 The first in order of time is faith. It is the creative 
 fact, containing the germ of the other two. Faith 
 looks back towards the Divine promise and the salva- 
 tion accomplished by the death of Christ. There is 
 its object and its foundation. But while faith Cast its 
 roots into the past, and lives in the present, neither 
 
 [' Then we must put out of court Acts xxiv. 15. Paul shared 
 the belief of his people, and of Jesus Himself, in a general 
 resurrection. Comp. Dan. xii. 2 ; Matt. xxv. 32 ; John v. 28, 29. 
 And " the logic of his doctrine " requires it. How can the retri- 
 bution of 2 Thess. i. 6-10, e.g., be limited to the wicked who 
 happen to be alive on earth at Christ's return ? and how other- 
 wise are we to understand Rom. ii. 5, 6, or 2 Cor. v. 10, 11 (the 
 things done through the body, — whether good or bad) ?] 
 
320 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 r^ 
 
 present nor past can suffice it ; it takes possession of 
 the future and becomes hope. 
 
 Faith bears hope within it, just as the past and 
 present contain the future. Hope, in truth, is only 
 the development of faith ; it is the side of the soul 
 which looks toward life eternal. The pfofounder the 
 discord, the more painful the contrast that exists 
 between our spiritual calling as believers and our 
 earthly condition, between our aspirations and our 
 trials, by so much the more vivid and mighty is the 
 energy with which hope springs out of faith. " In 
 truth," says the apostle, " we are only saved by hope." 
 Our existence here is one long affliction, a continual 
 bondage (^\ti/rt9, <7Tevo-)(wpL(i), in which the life of the 
 spirit is repressed and fretted by the temptations, 
 weaknesses, and sufferings of the flesh. "We walk 
 by faith, not by sight." Hope is the prospect of 
 faith. 
 
 But the essential and abiding disposition of the 
 Christian consciousness, that wherein lies its eternal 
 element, and which in this character enters into faith 
 and hope alike, is love. The two former are but 
 temporary phases of the spiritual life ; they are the 
 virtues of travellers. The third expresses the inner 
 essence, the abiding and unchangeable substance of 
 Christian life. Love is the very life of God. — " Now 
 remain these three virtues : faith, hope, and love ; 
 but the greatest of them is love" (i Cor. xiii. 13). 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN, PRINCIPLE IN THE SPHERE OF 
 METAPHYSICS. 
 
 Theology. 
 
 ALL human thought, hke all life, has its source in 
 God. It is impossible to follow out any idea 
 for long, without tracing it to this first cause. There 
 was no need for Paul to set himself to speculate, with 
 a view to formulating the transcendental principles 
 of his theology. His mind, exclusively religious as 
 it was, rose spontaneously to God. God was the 
 beginning and the endj the starting point and goal of 
 his meditations. In Him is the first and ever-active 
 source of that great unfolding of righteousness and 
 life, in history and in the human understanding, 
 which we have just surveyed. This cause is known 
 as grace. 
 
 I. Grace, Predestination. 
 
 'H %«p'?, '7 iTp6deai<i Tov @eov. 
 
 It is with a sort of jealousy that Paul claims for 
 God alone the entire and unconditional initiative in the 
 work of redemption. This initiative on the part -of 
 
 3^' 21 
 
322 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 God springs from His infinite love (Eph. i. 3, ff. ; ii. 
 4-7 ; Rom. V. 8 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14 ; 2 Thess. ii. 16). 
 
 Tlie apostle, as we have already said, does not 
 admit the existence in God of that antithesis between 
 His love and His righteousness which ecclesiastical 
 theology has so often asserted. God's righteousness 
 is not legal, it is not a negative virtue such as could 
 be satisfied by the punishment of evil. The Divine 
 power which punishes evil is called in Paul's phraseo- 
 logy the wrath of God {op'^rj &eov, Rom. i. 18 ; ii. 8). 
 The hiKaioavvT) 0eov is a positive Virtue which im- 
 parts and bestows itself, which loses itself in love. 
 Righteousness, in this aspect, might be called the 
 actual substance of God's love ; and love the essential 
 form of His righteousness (Rom. iii. 21-26). 
 
 The love of God, as exercised towards sinful men, 
 receives the name of mercy (6'\eo9, Rom. ix. 15, 16, 
 23 ; Eph. ii. 4 ; i Tim. i. 2). It has a still more 
 definite name in grace (jj ■)(api.<i). No other word 
 occurs oftener in Paul's writings. It designates the 
 love of God in action, as it intervenes definitely and 
 directly in the destinies of humanity in order to 
 raise it. Grace, therefore, is the primary source, the 
 one absolute cause of man's salvation. Since Christ 
 is the essential means by which the grace of God is 
 realized, it is also called the grace of Christ (Gal. i. 6 ; 
 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; 2 Thess. i. 12 ; j^a/oi? Xpiarov, or x'^P'''' 
 iv Xpia-Tw). As it depends entirely upon God's good 
 pleasure, it is further called evSoxla (Eph. i. 5 ; Gal. i. 
 15; I Cor. i. 21). It is God, in fact, who is our 
 Saviour (i Tim. i. i ; iv. 10 ; Tit. i. 3 ; i Cor. i. 21). 
 
 This act of love by which God saves men, is a 
 decree of His will superior to time, an eternal decree 
 (fiov\rj ToD 0e\ijfiaTo<} avrov, Eph. i. ii). But while 
 
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 323 
 
 love inspires redemption, it is wisdom which conceives 
 and ordains its plan (Eph. iii. 10, etc. ; Rom. xi. 33). 
 This Divine plan, which is also the plan of history, is 
 only fulfilled and revealed by degrees. It was un- 
 known and concealed from human wisdom until the 
 appearance of Christ, the perfect Revealer. Hence 
 Paul calls it a mystery {jx,vaTr\piov tov deXrjfx.aTo'i 
 avTov, Eph. i. 9 ; aoifiiav iv fivtmjp'ua ttjv UTroKeKpvfi- 
 fj.evr]v, I Cor. ii. 7). This plan is simply the outflow 
 of the eternal grace of God (iva evSel^rjrai iv rot? 
 al&tTiv TO vTrep^dWov irXoCjo? t^? ')(6piro<{ avrov, 
 Eph. ii. 7). Grace is the beginning, middle, and; end 
 of the redemptive work, always equally sovereign and 
 equally absolute. But as soon as it comes to be 
 applied practically to nations and to individuals, there 
 arises the inevitable question of the relation between 
 this absolute action on God's part and man's free-will ; 
 in other words, the terrible question of predestination. 
 Divine grace has to be accepted by faith ; it cannot 
 be realized in any other way. Now faith depends 
 upon man ; and Paul makes most earnest appeals to 
 the responsibility and freedom of the individual. But, 
 on the other hand, there is nothing good found in 
 man which is not the work of the grace of God ; so 
 that faith itself, to begin with, exists in us as the effect 
 of this grace. The apostle was led to consider human 
 action from this point of view, quite as much by his 
 own experience as by the logic of his belief. He 
 himself was the conquest of that higher Power which, 
 from the moment that it mastered him at the gates 
 of Damascus, led him through the world as its slave, 
 fulfilling in and through him its work upon earth 
 (2 Cor. ii. 14; v. 14; I Cor. ix. 16; xv. 10). His 
 apostolic vocation was based on the sense that he was 
 
324 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 simply an instrument in the hands of Him whom he 
 preached. He felt himself in absolute dependence 
 upon God. This feeling, we may add, is essential to 
 all deep piety. It is the characteristic of piety to 
 renounce itself, to refer everything to God, to absorb 
 the individual life in the Divine activity. Predestina- 
 tion, thus understood, is a normal product of religious 
 faith ; and the consciousness of the former is never 
 weakened without involving, and signalizing, an equal 
 diminution of the latter. 
 
 It will not be surprising, therefore, to find this 
 fundamental antinomy between human freedom and 
 the Divine action in the teaching of Jesus (Matt. xi. 
 25; xiii. 11; xxii. 14); it pervades the New Testa- 
 ment writings (i Pet. i. 2 ; John vi. 44, and passim; 
 Acts xiii. 48). Paul is not to be credited with having 
 introduced this question, but only with having made 
 it part of theology. The ninth and tenth chapters 
 of Romans, as is well known, contain the fullest 
 declaration of the apostle's views on the subject. 
 
 Expositors vainly endeavour to eliminatie from the 
 ninth chapter the idea of an absolute predestination. 
 It is Paul's express object to impute nothing to man 
 which can in any sense influence or determine the 
 Divine will. The better to do this, he is not afraid of 
 going to the length of denying all independent action 
 on man's part as he stands before God. What we are 
 and what we do has so little power to compel God, 
 that we ever are and do it only by the will of God. 
 He chooses Jacob and rejects Esau, without regard to 
 their personal merit ; He hardens whom He will ; He 
 shows mercy on whom it pleases Him. This thought 
 has yet more outspoken expression in the illustra- 
 tion of the potter and the clay, by which superficial 
 
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 325 
 
 minds are too easily disturbed.' What is the meaning 
 of this simile, but to express the idea of the sovereign 
 independence of the Divine working, the supreme 
 causality of that absolute Will which gives account 
 to ■ no man, and from which no man has the right to 
 demand account — a philosophical idea so natural and 
 inevitable, that every thoughtful mind apprehends it 
 at the first glance, when it has once discarded the 
 assumption of a moralism which is equally superficial 
 and commonplace? 
 
 But the worst possible misconception of the 
 apostle's doctrine would be to make it amount to a 
 mechanical determinism, an arbitrary and external 
 decree, controlling the actions and state of individuals 
 by anticipation. He devotes as much energy in the 
 tenth chapter to asserting man's moral responsibility 
 as he has jiist shown in maintaining the absolute 
 and unconditional character of the Divine working. 
 We now find salvation and condemnation depending 
 solely on the faith or unbelief of the individual. We 
 must not suppose that Paul intended in this way to 
 limit the application of what he had before asserted. 
 No ; he was absolute in his previous affirmations, and 
 is equally so in these. Nor was he, as I think, in the 
 slightest degree conscious of any self-contradiction. 
 
 He does not write these three chapters from a 
 speculative point of view ; nor is it the dogmatic 
 question of predestination that he discusses. His 
 standpoint is that of history ; and his object is to 
 
 ' Paul invented neither the comparison nor the argument. 
 I am not sure whether both did not recur frequently in the 
 rabbinical discussions of the time ; but both are to be found in 
 the Old Testament (comp. Isai. xlv. 9; xxix. 16 ; Jer. xviii. 2-6). 
 
326 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 solve an historical question — vis. the rejection of the 
 Jews and the coming in of the Gentiles. Why were 
 the Jews rejected ? Because they sought the right- 
 eousness of works, and had not faith. Why were the 
 Gentiles received ? Because they accepted the right- 
 eousness of faith. That is the first and subjective 
 solution of the problem, amply satisfactory to the in- 
 dividual conscience. But what relation does the faith 
 of the one and the unbelief of the other bear severally 
 to the Divine plan ? Paul answers unhesitatingly : it 
 is fulfilled by both alike. The unbelief of the Jews 
 exhibits the long-suffering of God, and His eternal 
 righteousness ; the faith of the Gentiles manifests the 
 riches of His mercy. God is glorified in all ; and man 
 is silenced. This is the second and objective solution. 
 Paul sees no contradiction between the two, because 
 he will not conceive of one apart from the other, and 
 because, in his view, it is precisely under the historical 
 form of moral responsibility that Divine predestina- 
 tion is fulfilled, human freewill having no scope 
 outside of God's plans. History is the outcome both 
 of Divine and human action ; it is the same reality, 
 now considered from man's standpoint and now from 
 that of God. The truth will be found not in sepa- 
 rating these two aspects of the question, nor even 
 in placing them side by side, but in blending them 
 together at every point. 
 
 n. Christology. 
 
 The eternal plan of God centres in the Person of 
 the Redeemer. It is in and through this Person that 
 grace becomes an active power, entering into the world 
 
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 327 
 
 and manifested {ire^avkparai, Rom. iii. 21). Paul's 
 whole doctrine comes to a head in his Christology. 
 
 Pauline Christology does not consist either in a 
 simple transfer of the Messianic attributes to the 
 Person of Jesus, or in investing that Person with 
 metaphysical ideas borrowed from the Alexandrian 
 philosophy. It is an essentially original doctrine, 
 which takes its rise in the actual fact of salvation, and 
 is the logical outcome of that doctrine of redemp- 
 tion wherein lies the very core of Paulinism. 
 
 The Redeemer must be really man, for He could 
 only save humanity by partaking of its nature and 
 becoming an actual organic member thereof On 
 the other hand, it is just as necessary for Him to 
 be absolutely distinct from sinful humanity ; for if 
 He belonged to it simply as a part belongs to the 
 whole, He Himself would have the same need of 
 salvation, and could not bestow it on others. The 
 human sinlessness of Jesus is, therefore, the primary 
 basis of Pauline Christology. Not only does the 
 apostle always, and in every place, take it for granted, 
 but in a leading passage on redemption he declares 
 that Christ knew no sin (2 Cor. v. 21). 
 
 It is true that after the words tov fir) yvovra 
 afi-apTiav the apostle adds dfiaprlav itroLrjaev. M. 
 Holsten has connected this passage with that in 
 Romans viii. 3, and has maintained that in these 
 two passages Paul, actually attributes sin to Christ, 
 as being inherent in His flesh. This interpretation 
 is the logical result of the metaphysical dualism be- 
 tween the flesh and the spirit which this theologian 
 thinks he has found underlying Paulinism. The 
 apostle, he says, could not actually invest Christ 
 with a flesh like ours, without by that very means 
 
328 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 attributing sin to Him. He does so very definitely 
 in the words of Romans, viii. 3 : eV ofioimjiaTi aapKov 
 d/iapTia^ . . . KaTexpivev ttjv dfiapriav iv ry aapxi. 
 If sin was destroyed and condemned in the flesh of 
 Jesus, it must of course have been really there. This 
 is the nerve of Paul's whole theory of redemption, and 
 by cutting it you bring about a breach of continuity 
 in the very basis of his doctrine : an incoherence 
 which enfeebles, or even destroys it. 
 
 The reasoning just quoted is, no doubt, very 
 specious. Let us, however, follow out M. Holsten's 
 idea, and see whether it is true to the logic of the 
 Pauline system throughout. Sin, he says, exists in 
 Christ's flesh as an actual power. Did not this sin 
 make Christ a sinner? No, answers M. Holsten ; for 
 in Him the afiapria never became •jrapdfiacri'i ; this 
 power of sin never brought forth transgression. Why 
 not ? we inquire further. Christ lived under the law ; 
 and is it not, from the Pauline point of view, inevit- 
 able that the law, being the strength of sin, wherever 
 sin is latent should rouse it into manifestation and 
 activity ? And at this point does not M. Holsten in 
 his turn destroy the internal logic of Paul's doctrine? 
 In short, either sin was not and could not be mani- 
 fested in Jesus ; and in that case, what has M. Holsten 
 discovered beyond that which the apostle, and the 
 Church after him, call o/noim/ia aapx6<! d/j,apTta,<;? 
 Or else, the sin inherent in the flesh of Christ was 
 realized in His life, and constituted Him a -sinner; 
 and then how could His death effect the redemption 
 of his brethren ? We are thus driven on either hand 
 into a logical contradiction, far more serious than that 
 which M. Holsten just now pointed out 
 
 We gain, therefore, no further light upon the general 
 
THE PAULINE DOCTRTNE OF GOD. 329 
 
 structure of the Pauline system, by interpreting the 
 two passages quoted above as this theologian does ; 
 while, from the standpoint of simple grammatical 
 exegesis, we involve ourselves in very serious diffi- 
 culties. Without doubt the words of Romans viii. 3, 
 eV oyttotto/iart aapnot afiaprla<!, tend to assimilate the 
 flesh of Christ to our sinful flesh ; but it is equally 
 true that with this very assimilation the term ofioicofia 
 asserts an essential difference ; or why should the 
 apostle have used this expression, instead . of simply 
 saying iv crapKi d/iapTia<; ? In every passage where 
 this word recurs it designates an approximate identi- 
 fication, never an absolute material identity (comp. 
 Rom. i. 23-; vi. 5). It should be noticed, finally, in 
 how general a manner the sentence in question ends. 
 Paul does not say, KUTeicptvev rrjv dfiaprlav iv aapA 
 avTov, in His flesh ; but, in an abstract fashion, e.v ttj 
 crapKi, in the flesh. Christ's flesh, therefore, only re- 
 presents in a general manner the flesh of humanity. 
 The two ideas of the flesh and sin are always cor- 
 relative, but still dogmatically distinct. 
 
 The analogous interpretation that M. Holsten 
 gives of 2 Corinthians v. 21, is even less tenable. The 
 words " God made sin Him who did not know sin," 
 he understands in a material sense, as though Christ 
 became sin by taking upon Him the flesh of sin. 
 This obliges M. Holsten to refer the phrase eirolT^aev 
 a/iapTiav to the mere incarnation of the Son of God, 
 and the preceding words, t6v jjut) '^vovra afiaprlav, to 
 the pre-existent Christ — two things equally impossible. 
 In short, it is evident, with absolute clearness, that 
 this passage refers solely to the Christ of history, and 
 that the words eTroirjaep d/xaprlav do not allude to the 
 fact of the incarnation of the Son of God, but to the 
 
330 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 death of Jesus upon the cross. But how could Christ 
 at that moment become sin, except by means of an 
 ideal substitution, as indeed is plainly indicated in 
 the words virkp rjfiwv ? The fact of this substitution 
 is the essential basis of the Pauline theory. And the 
 very idea of substitution implies a distinction in the 
 two terms, for otherwise it would have no meaning. 
 Redemption consists precisely in this, that God sees 
 in Christ that which is in us, — namely, sin ; and in us 
 that which is in Christ, — namely, righteousness. No 
 doubt this is a logical contradiction ; but it is the 
 Divine contradiction of love. The logic of the heart 
 triumphs over that of the intellect. 
 
 The personality of Christ, then, was without sin. 
 But this definition is purely negative. Paul has given 
 a more positive description of His Person at the be- 
 ginning of the epistle to the Romans : yevo/ievov sk 
 aTripfiaTOt Aa^lS Kara aiipKa, opiadevTOt vlov @eov iv 
 Swdfiei Kara irvevfia dyiwavvTi^ i^ dvaa-Tdtreo><! veKpmu 
 (i. 3, 4). There is no reference here to the miraculous 
 conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary 
 by the special virtue of the Holy Spirit. Paul is 
 neither combating nor confirming the narratives of 
 Luke and Matthew ; he simply ignores them. The 
 apostle in this passage considers the Person of Jesus 
 under a twofold aspect, — as regards His external 
 material frame, and His inner and spiritual nature. 
 Jesus owed His earthly being to the family of David. 
 But by the side of this carnal descent Paul points out 
 another, higher and more mysterious origin — a Divine 
 descent after the Spirit. Just as the flesh formed the 
 substance of His body, so the spirit ofholiness formed 
 the substance of His moral being. We must note 
 again the words eV Svi'dfj,ei : they explain themselves. 
 
THE PAULIAB DOCTRINE OF GOD. 331 
 
 provided they have as their antithesis the other ex- 
 pression eV aaOeveia. Jesus was the Son of God from 
 the very first ; but He was the Son of God in weak- 
 ness during the whole of His earthly life (e^ aaOeveiat 
 ia-TavptoOTj, aXKa ^y eK Svvdfieoo<;, 2 Cor. xiii. 4). The 
 spirit of holiness which constituted His being was 
 restrained within the prison of feeble flesh. But when 
 the flesh was destroyed on the cross, Christ was then 
 manifested, and at His resurrection appeared in power 
 as the Son of God (opiaBevTo^ . . . iv Swdfiei 
 . . . 6^ avacTTda-eo)'; veKpwv). Death as it broke 
 all fleshly bonds and destroyed every material barrier, 
 set free the spirit, the very essence of His nature. 
 From that moment Christ became absolutely spiritual. 
 He retains a body, it is true ; but it is a spiritual one, 
 which, so far from interfering with the action of the 
 spirit, merely obeys and makes it manifest. The 
 reign of the Redeemer does not actually begin until 
 the resurrection. The risen Christ alone is the per- 
 fect Christ. Then, and not till then. He appears as 
 the second Adam, the celestial man (i Cor. xv. 22, 
 
 45-49)- 
 
 But this new designation of Christ has not the 
 importance nor the metaphysical significance which 
 many theologians attach to it ; it does not so much 
 indicate the essential nature of .Jesus, as His part 
 in history as a member of humanity. The words 
 6 Sei/T6pos dvdpcoTTo^ i^ ovpavov (ver. 47) do not in 
 any wise imply pre-existence ; and it would be a 
 serious mistake to conclude that in the view of the 
 apostle the pre-existence of Christ was that of the 
 ideal or typical man. This latter idea belongs to 
 Philonism, and is altogether foreign to the Pauline 
 system. There is a radical diiTerence between the 
 
332 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 two systems. Philo always takes a purely speculative 
 view ; Paul adheres to the historical one. The former 
 would say that the ideal man is the first, and that 
 the psychical man, the imperfect reproduction of the 
 Divine type, comes afterwards ; , the latter, on the con- 
 trary, expressly says that the psychical man appears 
 first, and then' the spiritual man. The SevTepoi; 
 avOpmiTO'i of which the apostle here speaks, is not 
 the pre-existent, but the risen Christ, as the whole 
 context sufficiently proves. The antithesis asserted 
 between the words iic t?}? 7^? ^oiVos and e^ ovpavov 
 iirovpdvio<; has no bearing on the idea of priority, but 
 solely on that of quality ; a fact so unmistakable, 
 that in the s^me passage Christians themselves are 
 called iirovpavLoi (comp. Phil. iii. 20). Paul's object 
 is not to establish the fact of Christ's pre-existence to 
 Adam, but of His essentially different nature. 
 
 Leaving, therefore, this conception of the heavenly 
 man — which is wholly misleading — we will return to 
 the far more fruitful idea of the spirit of holiness, the 
 very essence of Christ. Paul has not only said that 
 the Lord is a life-giving spirit (irvevfia ^mo-n-oiovv), he 
 goes further, and adds, " The Lord is the sjririt itself" 
 (6 Se Kvpio'i to irvevixd icrTtv, 2 Cor. iii. 17). It must 
 not be asserted that in Paul's view the Lord is spirit 
 because He has become a life-giving spirit in the 
 soul of believers ; He only became a principle of 
 immanent life in them, because He is spirit in His 
 very essence. Thus we reach this new definition. 
 Christ is the Spirit Himself personified, the Divine 
 Spirit in the form of human individuality. 
 
 Here we reach the very centre of the Pauline 
 Christology. It is with this most original conception 
 of the Divine essence of Jesus Christ that we must 
 
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 333 
 
 associate the fact of His pre-existence. Paul, as we 
 have seen, does not assert the pre-existence of the 
 heavenly m^n, the second Adam ; but he does assert 
 that of the Son of God (Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom. viii. 32 ; 
 I Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9). Christ was in God, 
 antecedently to creation, the original form of His 
 existence being Divine (ei' ft^op^y @e.ov vitdpj(wv, Phil, 
 ii. 6 ; Col. i. 15). This pre-existence, however, is not 
 the Divine eternity, and we are still far from the 
 Trinitarian formulae of Nicsea. The phrase of Colos- 
 sians, Trpwroroaos Traffics /ertVeto?, even implies the 
 opposite ; while raising Jesus above creation, it still 
 links Him closely to it. The Person of Christ is not 
 the absolute ; it is neither the supreme cause, nor the 
 final end of the universe. His very existence, accord- 
 ing to the apostle, seems to depend on that of the 
 world of which it is the Divine type, the perfect 
 risume {ovaice^dKaiwaaadai to, iravra iv rm Xpicrrm} 
 Eph. i. 10). The pre-existent Christ, like the his- 
 torical Christ, remains essentially Mediator. His 
 Person, if we may so speak, is the metaphysical locus 
 at which God and creation meet. 
 
 How did Paul represent to himself this pre- 
 existence ? What was its mode ? Was it a personal, 
 or simply an ideal existence ? The apostle is not 
 
 [ ' But this, as the entire context shows, is " the (historical) 
 Christ," the centre and sum of the Divine plans for the world. 
 Nothing is said here of the pre-existent Christ. Is not eternity 
 involved in the ti-op<j>ri ®em> of Phil. ii. 6 ? If the existence of 
 the historical Christ depends on that of the created world, the 
 existence of the latter depends in turn, according to Paul's logic 
 — and according to M. Sabatier's — on the pre-existence of the 
 Divine Christ, whom Col. i. 15-17 "^ links" indeed "to creation," 
 but with an infinite disparity of nature. Comp. note on p. 243. 
 
334 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 very explicit on the point. We are disposed to think 
 that his doctrine on this subject halted at a middle 
 point, somewhat difficult to seize, between the two 
 opinions, a position implying something less than the 
 one theory and more than the other. The latter 
 view is purely abstract ; and the Hebraic genius 
 neither favoured nor understood abstractions. The 
 former might seem to lend itself to schemes of Divine 
 and mythological genealogy ; and might easily be 
 pushed to Docetic consequences. Paul seems to 
 have avoided both these snares. The pre-historical 
 actiori of Christ is blended with that of the Divine 
 Tlvevfiu. It was this Divine Spirit which appeared 
 as a human person in Christ ; and- it is difficult, if not 
 impossible, to conceive His separate pre-existence. 
 
 However that may be, the principle of the Divine 
 Sonship of Christ is precisely that Divine Spirit which 
 constitutes its essence. Paul does not call Jesus the 
 Son of God because he has found in Him the Messiah. 
 The term uw? -rov @eov implies, to his thinking, some- 
 thing very different. Jesus is the Son of God, because, 
 being the spirit of holiness. He proceeds in His 
 essence from the Divine nature. This spirit forms an 
 essential bond of relationship between the Father arid 
 the Son. Thus Paul calls Christ in a very special, 
 sense God's own Son {iZiov viov, Rom. viii. 32). This 
 is because Christ, when coming to dwell in our souls, 
 brings thither His own substance. His Spirit, so that 
 we also in our turn become in and through Him sons 
 of God {viol Tov 0eov), co-heirs with Christ. The 
 Spirit of Jesus is therefore called the Spirit of adop- 
 tion {-Trvevfia viodeaia<;, Rom. viii. 15). We are thus 
 raised to the same plane as Christ,' and become in 
 fact His brethren (ets to elvai avrov irpcoToroKOV iv 
 
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 335 
 
 7roA,\o4s aSeXi^ot?, Rom. viii. 29). This dignity, how- 
 ever, is with us purely a favour ; but with Him a 
 natural right. We have to rise ; He had to stoop ! 
 Christ, in short, is God's own Son, — essentially His. 
 We are, and shall always be so by adoption only. 
 
 Lastly, this same virtue of the Spirit which is in 
 Christ, is the foundation of His sovereign dominion 
 (TtjctoO? Kvpio^, I Cor. xii. 3) over the historical 
 development of humanity. This sovereignty is not 
 limited to the work of redemption ; or rather, His 
 work itself is universal in scope, and links itself to 
 creation as an essential stage in the evolution of the 
 world. Hence the creation is nothing more than 
 the beginning of redemption ; and the latter is the 
 completion of creation ; so that in the end each alike 
 finds its place within the sphere of Christ. In Him 
 and by Him God created all things, just as in Him 
 and by Him He reconciles all things to Himself 
 
 The starting-point of this Christological theory is 
 still the work of salvation. The cross is the centre 
 of that vast circumference which includes the whole 
 work of Christ. The sovereignty of the Lord coin- 
 cides with His redemptive mission, and is only of the 
 same duration. The former ceases with the consum- 
 mation of the latter. Its constant tendency therefore, 
 if I may venture to use the expression, is to render 
 itself needless. So Paul in all his epistles maintains 
 a strict distinction between the Lord {Kvpio';) and the 
 supreme God. Everything has to be subjected to 
 Christ, except God ; but when everything shall have 
 been subjected to Him, the Son in His turn will 
 submit himself to God (/cat avToi 6 vl6<;). He will 
 restore the kingdom to God His Father, in order that 
 God may be all in all (i Cor. xv. 28). 
 
336 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Christ's office will then terminate. But here a last 
 question presents itself. At the close of this evolu- 
 tion, what will be the final and natural position of the 
 Saviour ? Will He re-enter humanity as the eldest 
 among many brethren, or will He return to the bosom 
 of God as an integral member of the Divinity ? The 
 second is the ecclesiastical opinion ; the first, we 
 believe, is Paul's ; at least, it is that which the logic 
 of his system seems to require. Paul, in fact, is not 
 explicit on this point. Had the question been pre- 
 sented to him, he would probably have dismissed 
 it as idle. It could not really occur, from the stand- 
 point of the Pauline theology. As soon as we reach 
 the final stage, the moment when God shall be all 
 in all, it seems decidedly superfluous to discuss the 
 categories of the Divine and human further, since 
 from that time they are resolved into each other. Gn 
 the other hand, this submission of Christ to God, this 
 resignation into the Father's hands, cannot possibly 
 be regarded as a downfall or abasement of the Son. 
 On the contrary, will it not be the grandest moment 
 of His triumph ? He will remain united to humanity, 
 not by stooping again to it, but by its elevation to 
 Himself 
 
 The Christological conception which best corre- 
 sponds with Paul's ideas still seems to me that of 
 the God-man. The human and Divine elements of 
 His nature are firmly maintained to the end. How 
 did Paul harmonize them ? This question seems not 
 to have perplexed him, or even crossed his mind. 
 He carried out his various lines of thought boldly, 
 starting with the great fact of redemption, without 
 concerning himself with the metaphysical problem 
 which they involved. The basis of Paul's system was 
 
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 337 
 
 soteriological and experimental. On this foundation' 
 he had slowly raised a most elaborate mental struc- 
 ture. The edifice was never completed ; and the 
 efitbrts since made by ecclesiastical theology to finish 
 it have sufficiently proved the apostle's wisdom, and 
 the impotence of speculation. 
 
 III. The Father, the Lord, the Spirit. 
 
 'O Uarrip, 6 Kvpio^, to ayiov UvevfJM. 
 
 Since we have not found the ecclesiastical Chris- 
 tology in Paul's epistles, neither must we expect to 
 find there the doctrine of the Trinity.* The triad 
 forming the title of this chapter is very different from 
 that of the Nicene formulary. The apostle, who 
 does not admit the equality of Christ and the Father, 
 seems to have been equally without the notion of the 
 personality of the Holy Spirit. To him the Spirit is 
 evidently a Divine power and faculty, not yet a dis- 
 tinct Person. He does, however, make distinctions 
 in the Divine working, which may be regarded as a 
 starting point for subsequent speculation and for 
 ecclesiastical metaphysics : 17 %apt? rov Kvpiov 'Itjo-ov 
 XpicTTOV, Koi 7} dydiTTj Tov ©eoO, Kal >/ Koivtovia rov dyCov 
 Ui/eiz/ifltTo? (2 Cor. xiii. 14; comp. i Cor.xii.4-11). This 
 formula simply expresses the unity and sequence of 
 
 [' Supposing Paul's Trinitarianism to be adequately represented 
 here (and this will be disputed), we still remember that Paul 
 was not the only, nor the last, exponent of New Testament 
 doctrine. The theology of the Church has to take account of 
 John as well as Paul. On the doctrine of the essential tri-unity 
 of God, in its biblical and ecclesiastical developments, see the 
 profound and well-balanced discussion of Dorner, System of 
 Christian Doctrine, vol. i., pp. 344-4 12.J 
 
338 TBE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 the historical development of salvation, in its essential 
 stages : the love of the Father which is its permanent 
 cause, the grace of Jesus the Lord which makes it 
 manifest, and the Holy Spirit who gives it reality 
 within the soul. The very order of the apostle's words 
 shows how far he was from any metaphysical design. 
 Not only did Paul's theology terminate otherwise 
 than the traditional theology, not only does the 
 dogma of the Trinity lie outside its scope, but it 
 seems to me that, instead of seeking in such a dogma 
 his final conclusion and the crown of his system, he 
 has found both in the absolute idea of God. 
 
 IV. The Conception of God. 
 
 O @iO'i TO. TTCivra iv Traaiv. 
 
 God is one (el? ©eo? 6 Uarrip, I Cor. viii. 6). Of 
 Him, by Him, and for Him are all things (e^ axnov 
 Kul Be aiiTov Kal el<; avrov to, iravTa, Rom. xi. 36). 
 He is the beginning, middle, and end of all existence. 
 In Him every creature has its source, its life, and 
 object. It was the constant aim of the apostle to 
 assert this absolute and supreme causality of God in 
 man, in history, and in the universe. This idea of 
 the absoluteness of God is the real metaphysical basis 
 of salvation by grace, justification by faith, and pre- 
 destination : God does everything in redemption, as 
 in creation. Again, it is the foundation of the univer- 
 salism of the apostle of the Gentiles. The supreme, 
 absolute God is the God of all. " Is God the God of 
 the Jews ? is He not also the God of the Gentiles ? " 
 (Rom. iii. 29.) Lastly, it is the basis of his religious 
 philosophy of histoiy, as sketched in the epistle to 
 
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 339 
 
 the Romans. This idea of the absolute unity of God, 
 arid of His universal and permanent activity, is just 
 what constitutes the unity of human history and 
 brings its every part and epoch into one plan, the 
 plan of the Divine working. 
 
 This work of God assumes diiiferent forms ; but it 
 is neither intermittent nor external ; it is continuous 
 and immanent. The world and God are indeed 
 essentially distinct, but not separate. God works 
 upon, and in the world; He permeates and trans- 
 forms it ; He reveals Himself in it ; " He manifests in 
 the world His eternal power and His Divinity " (Rom. 
 i. 20). God reveals Himself stjll more fully in the 
 redemption, which is the consequence and completion 
 of creation, the last stage of progress in the Divine 
 activity. Christ is the medium of this revelation. In 
 Him it is concentred. He conveys, and communicates 
 it. God has. poured His Godhead into Him ; He 
 becomes the pleroma of God, as the Church in its turn, 
 embracing in its extended sphere the universe, is the 
 pleroma of Christ (Eph. i. 23 ; Col. ii. 9). Everything 
 comes from God ; everything returns to Him. The 
 perfect union of God and His creation — that is the 
 glorious end of all things. 
 
 By pushing this view and these declarations of the 
 apostle to their strict consequences in the way of 
 formal and abstract logic, it would be easy to deduce 
 from them a , sort of dialectical pantheism. But let 
 us remember once more, that Paul never indulged in 
 pure speculation ; his reasonings advanced from expe- 
 rience to principles, but were never wrought out by 
 the method of abstract deduction. God does not be- 
 come lost in the world ; the world is transfigured into 
 the Divine. The apostle's metaphysics are strictly 
 
340 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 theistic. While he does not distinguish a plurality of 
 Persons in God, he maintains the existence in Him 
 of an inner personal life — that of the Spirit which 
 searches the depths of God (i Cor. ii. lo). The Spirit, 
 therefore, is in God Himself, as in us, the essential 
 principle of consciousness, knowledge, and personality. 
 The God of Paul is a living God (i Thess. i. 9). His 
 true name is that which Jesus gave Him : 0e6? «al 6 
 TlaTi'ip (i Cor. viii. 6). This name of FATHER is the 
 first word, and the last, in the gospel of the great 
 apostle. 
 
APPENDIX ON THE EPISTLES TO 
 TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 
 
 By Geo. G. Findlay, B.A. 
 
THE following essay on the Epistles of Paul to Timothy 
 and Titus ' is appended to this volume on the sug- 
 gestion of the General Editor of the series, and with the 
 consent, freely and courteously granted, of the distinguished 
 author, M. A. Sabatier. Those who are responsible for the 
 English translation of Lapot^-e Paul regard the Pastoral 
 Epistles as having a good right to bear St. Paul's name, and 
 as therefore demanding a place in the history of his doctrine. 
 Deprived of these documents, it appears to us that the 
 representation of the apostle's work in teaching and found- 
 ing the Church is incomplete. We are no longer able to 
 trace the progress of his thoughts, and the unfolding of his 
 plans and hopes for the future to their latest stage. The 
 interpreters who reject or distrust these writings, and who 
 believe that the dosing verses of the Acts of the Apostles 
 have said the last word of Paul's history, are compelled to see 
 his sun set before its time ; they terminate his career with 
 a sudden and mysterious eclipse. The pensive hours of 
 evening, the broken yet touching accents of old age, the 
 final directions and warnings to his children of the father 
 who knows that it is time to set his house in order and to 
 resign his earthly charge, the dying testimony and the last 
 farewell — these pathetic eleinents of the drama of life are 
 wanting to the image of the great apostle, if the letters to 
 Timothy and Titus are not truly his own. We do not say 
 this by way of plea for their authenticity, nor in order to 
 enlist a sentimental pre-judgment in their favour, but in 
 
 ' This essay is in substance a reprint of the articles on " St. Paul 
 and the Pastoral Epistles," and " Doctrine and Church in the Pastoral 
 Epistles," that appeared in the London Quarterly Review for October, 
 18S9 and 1890. 
 
•344 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 justification of our attempt, which possibly may seem invi- 
 dious or presumptuous, to supplement the masterly work 
 here presented to the English public. Convinced of the 
 genuineness and the importance of the Pastoral Epistles, 
 and regretting that our author is obliged to leave their place 
 vacant in his admirable picture, we thought it right to en- 
 deavour, with however inferior art, to fill in the unoccupied 
 space in the canvas. We desire, in effect, to add a fourth, 
 completing section to the analysis of " Paul's theological 
 system'' given above (Book V.), under this title : The 
 Christian Principle in the Sphere of Ethics and Church Life 
 {The Care of Souls). 
 
 The Appendix necessarily assumes a polemical shape. 
 We are compelled to vindicate, while we expound the 
 Pastoral Epistles. But the writer has directed his apologetic 
 to a practical and constructive aim. Indeed no defence of 
 documents such as these can be satisfactory, or thoroughly 
 valid, which does not disclose in them a lesson for all time, a 
 message and doctrine worthy of the apostle of the Gentiles, 
 basing itself by its intrinsic character and import upon his 
 fundamental teaching and the mission of his life. 
 
 * 
 I. The Pastoral Epistles in Modern Criticism. 
 
 The Pastoral Epistles were the first of the writings bear- 
 ing St. Paul's name to be denounced by modern historical 
 scepticism. They are the last which it seems likely to 
 release from its grasp. Schleiermacher, from whom the 
 theology of the present century has received in so many 
 directions its initiative, in the year 1807 definitely raised 
 this critical problem. He attempted to show on internal 
 grounds that the "so called" First Epistle of Paul to 
 Timothy was in reality a compilation from 2 Timothy and 
 Titus, worked over and adapted to post-apostolic times. 
 Eichhorn, in his Introduction, and de Wette still more 
 decidedly in his Commentary, extended the sanie doubts 
 to all three epistles. These attacks, were, however, of a 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 345 
 
 desultory and negative character, and left the origin of the 
 documents unexplained. They proved to be the prelude 
 to a far more dangerous assault, directed against the histo- 
 rical character and claims of the New Testament generally, 
 which was commenced in the year 1835 by the epoch- 
 making work of F. C. Baur, of Tiibingen, on the " so called 
 Pastoral Epistles of the apostle Paul." In this discussion 
 Baur first developed his peculiar critical method, and laid 
 down the principles on which the Tendency School has 
 based its reconstruction of the history of the Primitive 
 Church and the growth of the New Testament canon. 
 
 The preface of this manifesto contains the following 
 pregnant sentences; 
 
 "I, at least, cannot see how the question [of authorship] is to be 
 decided otherwise than in relation to the historical phenomena of the 
 entire period in which these letters originated^ — that is to say, in the 
 light of the history of the first two centuries. It is only after such 
 inquiry that we shall be in a position to show where. In the course of 
 these phenomena, the place of the writings in question is to be found." 
 
 The Tiibingen master found in the Pastoral Epistles a 
 product of second-century orthodoxy, written under cover 
 of the apostle's name, as polemical tractates against the 
 Gnosticism of the time, and in the interest of catholic 
 Church union and ecclesiastical discipline. From the stand- 
 point gained in this essay, Baur proceeded to attack the 
 other Pauline writings, leaving at last only the four major 
 epistles standing as authentic remains of the veritable Paul. 
 
 The defenders of the New Testament have by this time 
 driven back the Tubingen assault along the whole line. 
 Baur's successors in Germany have, in almost every instance, 
 retreated from the extreme positions of their leader ; and the 
 genuineness of all the thirteen epistles, with the exception 
 of the Pastorals and Ephesians, is admitted by one or other 
 of the leading negative critics. With these writers we must 
 range, on this particular question, other scholars of emi- 
 nence, who are undoubtedly on the side of faith in Jesus and 
 
346 THE APOSTLM PAUL. 
 
 the Resurrection, such as Harnack ^ of Germany, and the 
 lamented Dr. Edwin Hatch,^ of Oxford, along with Professor 
 Sabatier,^ who decline to accept the letters to Timothy and ' 
 Titus in their canonical form as genuine writings of the 
 apostle Paul. 
 
 Those who hold by the Pauline authorship are therefore 
 called upon to give some reason for their faith. And this 
 is the more needful in view of the revived interest visible 
 on many sides in questions of Church history and polity, 
 which cannot fail to bring these documents into the front 
 of the field of controversy. We want to be sure of the 
 ground on which we stand. Of what practical use are these 
 epistles to us, if it remain doubtful whether they are the 
 genuine expression of St. Paul's mind ; or whether they have 
 not been imposed on the Church by some clever ecclesiastic 
 of the second century, and embody in reality the ideas anri 
 aims prevailing in the Church at that very different epoch f 
 The question of the genuineness of the Pastorals is vital 
 to our entire conception of the apostolic Church. It was 
 essential to Baur's theory of early Christianity that their 
 spuriousness should first of all be demonstrated. If they 
 can be proved genuine, the whole Tiibingen construction 
 falls to the ground. On the other hand, let these epistles 
 be struck out of the canon, and while the fundamental 
 doctrines of the Gospel remain unimpaired, we should still 
 feel ourselves greatly impoverished, missing not only some 
 that we have counted amongst the most precious passages 
 of inspired Scripture, but robbed of much that has helped 
 (as we thought) to form our view of the life and growth, the 
 difficulties and temptations of the early Church — of much, 
 too, of precious import bearing on the history and inner 
 mind of the great apostle. 
 
 ' See the Expositor, 3rd series, v. 335, note 1. 
 
 ^ Article "Pastoral Epistles," in the Eiicyclopcedia Britannica, 
 ninth edition. 
 
 ' See pp. 263-272 above; also article " Pastorales, " in the Ency- 
 dopedie des Sciences religieuses. 
 
TUB PASTORAL EPISTLES. 347 
 
 Great as our loss would be, we must still submit to it, if 
 the Church proves to have been deceived in these long, 
 treasured writings. " We can do nothing against the truth." 
 To foreclose such questions and forbid inquiry into the 
 authenticity and historical worth of canonical writings on 
 dogmatic grounds or on the authority of ecclesiastical tra- 
 dition, is a useless and, for Protestant Churches, a suicidal 
 pohcy. , The Bible has nothing to fear from honest criticism. 
 In the case of these epistles, we are persuaded that it con- 
 cerns historical truth even more than Christian orthodoxy, 
 that they should be cleared from the suspicions cherished 
 against them. 
 
 The interpretation of these books, it is to be regretted, 
 has fallen behind that of the other epistles of St. Paul. A 
 more complete and penetrating exegesis would, we imagine, 
 set some controverted passages in a different light, and 
 would reveal connexion of thought and historical relevance 
 in what often seems pointless and obscure. Bishop Ellicott's 
 grammatical method, admirable and indispensable within 
 its limits, scarcely touches the crucial difficulties of the 
 subject. Huther's industry and good sense are only a 
 partial substitute for the exegetical genius of Meyer,i whose 
 work unfortunately terminated with the epistles to Colos- 
 sians and Philemon. English students miss still more in 
 this obscure field the help of the broad and luminous 
 scholarship and the fine literary tact of Bishop Lightfoot, 
 — for whose guidance, alas ! we must look no more. 
 
 Dr. Wace has supplied a powerful vindication of the 
 Pastorals in his hitroduction to the Speaker's Commentary, 
 and Canon Farrar in the appendix to his St. Paul; Dr. 
 Salmon in his masterly Introduction to the New Testament, 
 and, finally. Dr. Plummer, in his excellent and most useful 
 
 ' This great critic has ranged himself amongst the opponents of 
 authenticity. His " remark " on the epistles to Timothy and Titus 
 appended to sect, i of the "Introduction" to his Commentary on 
 liomans, amounts, however, to little more than an ipse dixit. 
 
348 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 commentary in the " Expositor's Bible," have carried on 
 the defence very effectively. Dr. Samuel Davidson, on the 
 other side, in the last edition of his Introduction to the New 
 Testament, gives a complete and lucid summary of the nega- 
 tive arguments. In Germany, Wiesinger, the coUdborateur 
 of Olshausen, and Hofmann, amongst other defenders of 
 the Pauline authenticity, have grappled with the subject in 
 its modern aspects with conspicuous ability. Hofmann's 
 exposition,! though marred by his caprice and super- 
 subtlety, has materially advanced the study of these writings. 
 Dr. Ernst Kiihl has likewise put us under great obligations 
 by his keen and judicial essay on the " Church Order of 
 the Pastoral Epistles " {Die Gemeinde-ordnung in den Pas- 
 toral-briefen. Berlin, 1885). 
 
 Holtzmann's recent work on the subject ^ contains the 
 most full and authoritative treatment which it has received 
 from the opponents of authenticity. He maintains, follow- 
 ing Baur, that the letters originated with the orthodox 
 Church party in Rome about the year 140 of our Lord. 
 Holtzmann, however, lays less emphasis on their anti- 
 heretical and more upon their " catholicizing " tendency 
 than did his predecessors, regarding it as the principal 
 object of these writings to confirm Church authority and 
 surround it with an apostolic halo. Connected with this 
 purpose, in his view, was the endeavour of the unknown 
 author to strike a blow at Gnostic heresy, in the form 
 that it was assuming toward the middle of the second cen- 
 tury. Pfleiderer, in his great critical work on the Chris- 
 
 ' Die heilige Schrift neiien Testamentes zusammenhangend unter^ 
 sucht. Sechster Theil\Timotheus u. Titus). Nordlingen, 1874. Hof- 
 mann appears to unusual advantage in this volume, where he is free 
 from the rivalry of Meyer. 
 
 ^ Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt. Leipzig, 1880. 
 The exegetical part of the book does not strike one as containing much 
 that is original or valuable. The " critical behandling " has taken the 
 life out of Holtzmann's exegesis. It reads like a post mortem inquiry. 
 So soon as the epistles are detached from the personality of St. Paul, 
 tlieir living purpose and meaning are gone. 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 349 
 
 tian origins, Das Urchristenthtim, returns to Baur's opinion 
 as to the date of the epistles ; in the Paulinismus he had 
 referred them to a somewhat earher period. The picture 
 which the epistles give of Church organization and of here- 
 tical teaching — a confused representation, as Holtzmann 
 regards it — he attributes to the attempt of the falsarius to 
 combine the notions of his own day with what he imagined 
 proper to St. Paul. 
 
 This theory, it will be seen, makes decided concessions 
 to the defensive criticism. It admits a large element of 
 Pauline verisimilitude previously denied.! ^nd it ascribes 
 to the supposed ecclesiastical romancer a conscious, and 
 largely successful, reproduction of the social and mental 
 conditions of a bygone age, as well as of the dialect and 
 manner of the apostle — a kind of success, so far as we know, 
 quite unexampled and foreign to the literary habits and 
 attainments of early Christian writers.^ 
 
 Holtzmann is a veteran critic, and master of many legions 
 in the field of biblical scholarship. In this work he brings 
 them all into the battle. In his five hundred closely printed 
 pages of multifarious learning and keen analysis, the fruit 
 
 ' Kenan's account of the Pastorals (L'^glise chrStienne, pp. 95-106, 
 and Saint Paul, pp. xxiii.-lii.) indicates a certain reaction against the 
 extreme rigour of the Baurian hypothesis. M. Kenan's literary con- 
 science saves him from endorsing the charges of feebleness and vapidity 
 which it suits the Tendency critics to malte against these writings. 
 " Some passages of these letters," he says, "are so beautiful, that we 
 cannot help asking whether the forger had not in his hands some 
 authentic notes of St. Paul, which he incorporated in his apocryphal 
 composition." Again he writes, '"What runs through the whole is 
 admirable practical good sense. . . . The piety our author advo- 
 cates is wholly spiritual. You can perceive the iniluence of St. Paul, 
 
 . . a sort of sobriety in mysticism, a great fund of rectitude and 
 sincerity." This in a forger ! In M. Kenan paradox often verges 
 upon jest. Kenan dates the epistles about 100 A.D. 
 
 2 Contrast this extraordinary skill of the supposed falsarius in 
 mimicking the style, sentiment, and doctrine of Paul with the bungling 
 failure of his attempt, on the "critical" hypothesis, to fit his com- 
 positions into the historical framework given him in the Acts of the 
 Apostles. Who ever heard of a forger at once so clever and so stupid 
 — so adroit and maladroit? 
 
350 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 of immense industry, the subject is exhausted. Not a point 
 is missed ; not a single contribution to the study of the 
 question, of any moment, seems to be overlooked. Every- 
 thing is said that criticism can possibly say. It is well if 
 our poor little letters are not crushed by the mere weight of 
 the ponderous indictment ! May we dare to say that we 
 rise from a repeated perusal of this able and exhaustive 
 book more convinced than ever that Paul, and no other, wrote 
 the epistles to Timothy and Titus from the first page to the 
 last ? Holtzmann's work is admirable as a critical lour de 
 force. If we might forget the conditions of historical and 
 literary construction, and imagine ourselves in a world 
 peopled by vocabularies and phrase-books, where sentences 
 come together and works of literature are composed by 
 some kind of elective affinity or fortuitous concourse of 
 verbal atoms, then such theories would be plausible. Their 
 condemnation is that, as M. Sabatier says (p. 234), they 
 are so " little embarrassed by their impracticability." Try 
 as we will, we cannot form any coherent mental image of 
 such a writer as the Tendency School would have us ima- 
 gine for these letters. 
 
 Indeed Holtzmann's hypothesis of the Pastorals, like 
 some other of his critical reconstructions, is its own re- 
 futation. It breaks down by its very ingenuity. No 
 fabricator of the second century was clever enough to 
 need all this ado to find him out. It would have required 
 a skill surpassing that of the detectives to contrive a plot 
 that still seems to baffle them. The cunning interpolations 
 and imitations, the deft touches of Pauline colouring, the 
 veiled allusions and nicely calculated introduction of matter 
 relevant to later times which the critics with incredible 
 acuteness have discovered, the deceptive air of truthfulness 
 and unstudied freshness which the pseudo-Paul has thrown 
 over his work — all this belongs to the literary artifice of the 
 nineteenth century. Baur and his disciples have projected 
 their own subtlety and the accomplishments of their cul- 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 351 
 
 tured professional circles into the Christian mind of the 
 second century, to which such aptitudes were wholly want- 
 ing. At the same time they impute to that mind a readi- 
 ness to deceive and to be deceived, which is contrary to 
 what we know of its character. The early Church neither 
 could invent such documents as these, nor would have 
 entertained them, so invented, without grave questioning. 
 For specimens of fictitious early Christian literature, we 
 have the pseudo-Clementine books, the Apocryphal Gospels, 
 and the Epistle to the Laodiceans ; and who would say that 
 these writings approach in any degree to the vraisemblance 
 of our epistles — or to their success? 
 
 The external attestation of these epistles is met in an 
 evasive and unsatisfactory way by the Tendency critics. 
 They habitually minimize the force of patristic evidence. 
 HoltzmAnn devotes to this branch of the subject but nine 
 out of his 282 pages of criticism, reserving it for a con- 
 cluding subsection of his argument (pp. 257-266). It 
 would be impossible to express more decidedly than Holtz- 
 mann does in this way, one's contempt for the judgment of 
 the great Church leaders who established the New Testa- 
 ment canon. Weiss's statement, that " the Pastoral epistles 
 are as strongly attested as any writings of Paul," remains 
 unshaken. Holtzmann himself admits it to be nearer the 
 truth than the hardy assertion of Baur, to the effect that 
 they are supported by " no testimony of any weight earlier 
 than the end of the second century." How Holtzmann 
 reconciles their acknowledged use in the epistles of Ignatius 
 and Polycarp with the date he assigns to them, we are at a 
 loss to understand. Marcion, with Tatian (in regard to i 
 and 2 Timothy), and some other Gnostics, alone dissented 
 from the Church of the second century in this matter ; but 
 Marcion must have ceased to be a Marcionite, if he had 
 given a place in his Apostolicon to these writings. Now 
 that it is demonstrated that Marcion's Z«/J^— the only 
 Gospel he accepted — was a mutilated edition of the canoni- 
 
353 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 cal Third Gospel,' his name ceases to be of weight in ques- 
 tions of canonicity. TertuUian's reference to Marcion on 
 this point implies that Marcion knew these books and 
 excluded them from the list of Pauline epistles, where they 
 already held a recognised place. If Tertullian is to be 
 trusted, we can therefore trace as far back as the middle of 
 the second century, not the origin, but the general reeog- 
 nition and ecclesiastical use of the Pastoral Epistles ; and this 
 involves their previous diffusion through the Church, and 
 a considerable term of pre-existence. This is but one point 
 out of several in which recent investigation has brought out- 
 more clearly the force and definiteness of the testimony 
 to their early reception. " If the battle had to be fought on 
 the ground of external evidence," Dr. Salmon justly says, 
 " the Pastoral epistles would gain a complete victory." 
 
 But we must now betake ourselves to the field of internal 
 criticism. Here, we hasten to admit, there are difficulties 
 and obscurities which call for inquiry, such as in the 
 modern critical mind were bound to awaken misgiving. 
 Chief amongst these is the fact — now generally admitted, 
 arid against which apologists like Otto and Wieseler, and 
 even Reuss in his earlier discussions, have contended in 
 vain —that no place exists for the Pastorals in the scheme 
 of Paul's life given us in the Acts of the Apostles. On 
 the other hand, Luke's biography expressly leaves the 
 apostle's story unfinished ; and if there be evidence sufficient 
 to prove these letters written by St. Paul, they become 
 themselves a decisive proof that his life extended beyond 
 the point reached in Acts xxviii. Against this supposition 
 there is no counter-evidence of any positive worth. The 
 testimony of tradition, such as it is,^ inclines in its favour. 
 
 ' See Sanday's Gospels in the Second Century, and the section on 
 " Maicion's Gospel " in Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament. 
 
 2 It is strange, indeed, that the Church preserved so shadowy a 
 recollection of later apostolic times. With the last sentence of the 
 Acts the curtain drops suddenly upon an unfinished scene, full of 
 light and action, which we were watching with the most eager interest. 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 353 
 
 The record of the Acts, if it does not supply the historical 
 basis of these epistles, at any rate leaves the ground clear 
 for them. Granting, however, their fullest force to the 
 embarrassments and uncertainties of the traditional view, 
 it appears to us, on a candid re-examination, that the 
 difficulties in the way of the contrary hypothesis are very 
 considerably greater, and amount, in fact, to a literary and 
 historical impossibility. 
 
 We proceed to examine, in support of this position, the 
 vocabulary and style of the Pastoral Epistles; thtix perso?ial 
 and circumstantial details ; their doctrinal features ; and the 
 ecclesiastical situation which they assume 
 
 II. Vocabulary and Style. 
 
 In examining the vocabulary of the Pastorals every 
 observer is struck by the number of their hapax-legomena. 
 Holtzmann (pp. 86-95) enumerates seventy-four in the six 
 chapters of i Timothy, forty-six in the four of 2 Timothy, 
 and twenty-eight in the three of Titus ; to these add twenty- 
 three verbal peculiarities common to two or more of the 
 letters, and we have a total of 171 out of 897, or nearly a 
 fifth of the words of the Pastorals, which are found nowhere 
 else in the New Testament. (The list given in the valuable 
 appendices to the Grimm-Thayer New Testament Lexicon 
 agrees closely with this estimate.) On the first blush of the 
 matter, this looks suspicious. The epistle to the Hebrews, 
 whose authorship we cannot claim for St. Paul, contains 
 in its thirteen longer chapters a slightly smaller number of 
 hapax-legomena. The epistle of James, the only extant 
 work of its author, in five chapters has but seventy-three. 
 
 It seems, to change the figure, as though the glare of the fires of 
 burning Rome and Jerusalem had thrown all contemporary events into 
 the shade. Christian minds were so occupied and overwhelmed with 
 the national convulsions taking place, which in view of the prophecies 
 of Christ appeared to portend the end of the world, that personal inci- 
 dents remained unrecorded or left but a faint impress on the memory. 
 
 2^ 
 
354 THE APOSTLE PAUL 
 
 one less than i Timothy with six ; while the Apocalypse, 
 with all its specialty of matter, has only 156 such words m 
 its twenty-two chapters. 
 
 But let us compare the vocabulary of the Pastorals with 
 that of other Pauline epistles, and the matter assumes a 
 different aspect. The apostle Paul excelled his companion 
 writers in the New Testament in versatility ot expression, 
 no less than in intellectual breadth and force. And we are 
 able to trace a gradual advance in the freedom and variety 
 of his dialect. In the two Thessalonian epistles, forming 
 the first group of his writings, there is an average oi five 
 hapax-legomena to the chapter ; in Romans, of the second 
 group, the average number is nearly seven ; in Ephesians 
 and Colossians taken together, eig/ii; in Philippians, a little 
 later— although the subject-matter is of so general a pur- 
 port — the figure reaches (en. It is not surprising, therefore, 
 that the Pastorals furnish thirteen hapax-legomena to the 
 chapter, especially when it is considered that this is the last 
 group of the four, and that if later writings from the same 
 hand had been extant, the list of its peculiarities would in 
 all likelihood have been reduced. The regular progres- 
 sion of the above figures marks them as belonging to one 
 and the same series. They show in St. Paul a writer whose 
 mind, fixed as it was in its essential principles, yet never 
 grew stereotyped nor encased itself in set phrases and 
 formulae, but to the last was active and sensitive, taking on 
 new colours and modes of expression from its changing 
 environment. 
 
 That this is the true interpretation of the statistics we 
 have given is confirmed by the variety of language apparent 
 in this single group. Only a ninth of their entire voca- 
 bulary is common to the three epistles, notwithstanding their 
 close connexion of thought;. This ninth of the whole 
 forms a third of the words of Titus — evidently the middle 
 letter of the group, as it is the least peculiar ; somewhat 
 less than a fourth of its verbiage occurs in neither of its 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 355 
 
 comrades ; and the remSimdeT, nearly a half, it shares with 
 one or other of the two, but not with both. Now, an imi- 
 tator, . seeking to palm off his writings as St. Paul's, would 
 presumably have followed the language of his exemplac 
 more closely, than the actual writer has : done j he would 
 infallibly have repeated himself more frequently, . when he 
 had once formed a dialect which he thought would pass for 
 the apostle's.. , 
 
 On comparing Colossians with its neighbours, -Ephesians 
 and Philippians, we find it agreeing . with both in a little 
 less, and differing from both in somewhat more than aMird 
 of its vocabulary; in. the remaining third it coincides with 
 one or other of the two, with Ephesians, of course,! in a 
 greatly preponderating degree. Of the words of Galatians, 
 above two-thirds recur in the kindred Romans. The^ 
 results correspond very closeily, with that given by com- 
 parison of Titus with its fellows, allowance being made for 
 the greater variety of matter in, the earlier sets, of letters. 
 The author of the Pastoral Epistles has the same freedom 
 and fertihty of expression that distinguished the Paul of 
 the accepted epistles. And after all, his language . is sub- 
 stantially Pauline. Out of the 726 words common to the 
 Pastorals with other New Testament books, while! 133 occur 
 elsewhere only in non-Pauline books (including Hebrews), 
 in the reniaining 593, or as nearly as possible two-thirds of, 
 their whole lexical content — the same proportion in which 
 Galatians is identified with Romans — they associate them- 
 selves with the older epistles of the apostle. 
 
 The analysis of the 171 hapax-legomena yields interest- 
 ing results. A number of them are merely variations of 
 characteristic words, of Paul, branches of the same word- 
 stem — e.g., aKaiptoi, avaXvais,^ iSpaiia/jM, {Tc/Ai/on/s, inrepirXco- 
 
 ' The first two of these belong to a small group of words, including 
 also xipSos, wpoKOTrii, ffe/wAs, awifSoiMi, by which the Pastorals are 
 connected with Philippians, probably the most recent of I'aul's previous 
 writings. 
 
356 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 vaX^ia, \nroTvTrio(ni, ijbpEvairarjjs. In the earlier epistles one 
 notes an increasing fondness* for compound words, some- 
 timws of strange and original forms. Tiiis tendency, is yet 
 more noticeable in the Pastorals. Out of some 200 nega- 
 tive compounds (i/i a- or ax-) in the Greek Testament 
 Lexicon, 40 are peculiar to the other Pauline epistles, and 
 no less than 15 to these books alone. In Paul and the 
 Pastorals alone are found compounds of eVepo-, koXo-, kei/o-, 
 opBo- ; lepo- appears but once (A. xix. 37) elsewhere. Com- 
 pare, further, the peculiar derivatives of oIko-, ^iKa-, i/reu8o-, 
 and of Xoyos and ^pi)v {-(jipov-) in the second member, 
 with their parallels in other epistles. Such comparison, 
 when extending to a large number of particulars, seems to 
 us to supply a peculiarly delicate test of authorship. For 
 while a forger may with some success reproduce in novel 
 combinations the identical language of his original, to 
 •create fresh words on the same analogy, and even to carry 
 on further, up to the date required, the growing verbal 
 habits and hobbies (if we may so say) of the master, is a 
 feat of literary personation beyond belief. 
 
 Subtracting from the Pastoral vocabulary that which is 
 either contained in other Pauline letters or has its analogy 
 and basis there, the residue is, for the most part, not diffi- 
 cult of explanation. The bulk of the really isolated and 
 extraordinary expressions of these books are due to their 
 subject-matter. J^aM unfeigned, sound speech uncondemned, 
 the doctrine according to godliness, a spirit of discipline, a 
 good degree ; the deposit, the laying on of hands, the presby- 
 ttry ; and, on the other hand, fables and endless genealogies, 
 questionings and logomachies, oppositions of falsely named 
 kno^vledge ; men diseased, puffed up, corrupted in niind and 
 bereft of truth, vain talkers and deceivers, greedy of base gain. 
 
 ' Any one who will compare the hapax-legomena of Colossians or 
 Philippians with those of any of the epistles of the earlier groups, as 
 given in Thayer's Appendix to Grimm's Lexicon, will easily verify this 
 statement. 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 337 
 
 making shijiwreck of faith — these phrases are as distinctive 
 of and proper to the Pastoral Epistles as justification and 
 adoption, bondage and works of law to Romans and Gala- 
 tians ; or the fulness of Christ, If is body the Church, princi- 
 palities and powers, wisdom and mystery to Ephesians and 
 Colossians. Provided there is nothing un-Pauline in their 
 structure, the novelty of such words tells in no way against 
 them. New circumstances, in a mind like St. Paul's, in- 
 evitably call forth new ideas and expressions. The ques- 
 tion passes from the domain of language to that of history. 
 And we shall have to consider whether it was possible and 
 likely that before the apostle's death the condition of things 
 had come about which the expressions we have quoted 
 indicate and describe. 
 
 There is, it is curious to observe, a group of words con- 
 necting, these letters with the epistle to the Hebrews and 
 the writings of Luke (between which, as is well known, 
 there are many resemblances of language). Out of the 
 133 words employed in these but not in other acknow- 
 ledged letters of St Paul, 17 belong to the epistle to the 
 Hebrews, and 34 to the Third Gospel or the Acts.* 
 Amongst these are a few so rare and distinctive, that they 
 strongly surest the existence of some bond of association 
 connecting the. several writers with each other. We note, as 
 bearing on the same point, the predilection of our author 
 for medical figures and phrases, of which there are dis- 
 
 ' See The Pemliiie Antil^omeHo, a. paper by the lamented W. H. 
 Simcox, in the Expositor, 3rd series, viii. 180-192 ; also Hollzmann, 
 pp. 9S-97. A few words are special to the three in common. Amongst 
 the d&tinctive expressions peculiar to the Pastorals and Hebrew.s are 
 
 ■rpdSjfkos. Peculiar to Luke (Gospel or Acts) and the Pastorals in 
 the N.T., are iroia, iMTtXa/tfiipeirSiu, imXiyeir, ixupurris, fivBiiea, 
 SmiffTtp, e(afnii'Ea>, {taypetw, itaoyopeiD, yo/uodtSiuricaXos, tnxri/ilj^etrSai, 
 reiSapxtai, rtpicpyos, wpoSir^, ■wporeriis, aa^pwrir^, ^iXaMBpuirla. 
 Peculiar to the three : &' Ijf oiTlar (elsewhere Sib in St. Paul), /xeroXa.u- 
 pipeiw, mpiicTcurBiu, Tiryjfi'eu', X"*/"" ^*" (elsewhere the Pauline 
 dxa-purrH), In I Timothy and Hebrews alone Christ is called " medi- 
 ator.' 
 
358 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 tinct but less numerous traces in earlier epistles.^ These 
 features of, the dialect of the Pastorals are naturally ex- 
 plained by the intimate and prolonged' companionship 
 which " Luke, the beloved physician," enjoyed with the 
 apostle in his declining years. The pathetic reference of 
 2 Timothy iv. ii, '"Only Luke is with ihe," affords one of 
 those undesigned coincidences which are of peculiar force 
 in arguments of this kind. Hebrews xiii. 23, 24, supplies 
 a- link connecting the writer of this epistle with Timothy 
 and Rome ; and leads us to suppose that he was in touch 
 with the little circle surrounding the apostle in his Roman 
 prison. 
 
 Occasional Latinisms^ appearing now for the first time, 
 may indicate the effect on Paul's speech of his prison-life 
 in Italy and his travels in the West — probably as far as 
 Spain (to " the limits of the West," Clemens Romanus). 
 If there is still left, after all that has been said, a residuum 
 of expressions that "defy all attempts at explanation" 
 (Weiss), this will not surprise us when we remember how 
 much of the circumstances of Paul's life in these latest 
 years, and of his mental history, is unknown to us. Much 
 the same might be said concerning the language of the 
 undoubted epistles. 
 
 When we look at the larger features of style and com- 
 position, the conclusion drawn from our examination of the 
 writer's vocabulary is confirmed. True, we miss here, as 
 Holtzmann says, " the pervasive dialectical character," the 
 organic unity and logical articulation of the major epistles ; 
 although, in some instances, this defect lies with the in- 
 
 • On St. Luke and St. Paul, their mutual relations, see the Expositor 
 (Dean Plumptre), 1st series, iv. 134-160. E.g., cancer, cauterized, dis- 
 eased about questions, having itching ears ; and especially the frequent 
 recurrence of sound, wholesome, and the opposite, applied to character 
 and teaching. For other epistles, see Col. ii. 19, and Lightfoot's note 
 in his Commentary, 
 
 ' E.g., Hvrpoirov, o'lovs Suayuois (2 Tim. iii. 8, II) ; 6.8ri\6T7ji, TrpbKpiiM 
 (prceiudicium), aeffapev/i^pa afiapriais. See Holtzmann, p. 109. 
 
7^HE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 359 
 
 . terpreter rather than the author, and we may fail to catch 
 the logical thread which in reality runs through these 
 detached warnings and instructions. We rniss also notably 
 the passion and glow, the incomparable verve of the earlier 
 Paul. This is only to be expected. We are listening to 
 " Paul the aged," as he called himself perhaps three years 
 before this time (Philem. 9), a man broken by extreme 
 mental ; strain and physical : labour, by hardship , and im- 
 prisoiunent. In the epistle to the Romans the, apostle's 
 thought and style were in their noontide of strength and 
 fervour ; in Ephesians we find their mellow afternoon ; and 
 in the Pastorals the time of evening, has arrived, with its 
 
 . shaded light and slackened step. Neither the. subjects on 
 which he writes, nor the need of his correspondents call for 
 the effort put forth in the letters to Corinth and. Rome 
 But if these writings do not exhibit the sustained -^ly^fx of 
 the great epistles, the same power manifests -itself — the 
 Pauline subtlety of reasoning, and wealth of theological 
 conception, and intensity of personal feeling — coming out in 
 single expressions and sentences that flash with the genius 
 of the old master. Who but the apostle Paul could have 
 penned such passages as i Timothy i. 8-ii; ii. 5-7 ; 2 
 Timothy i. 8-12 ; iv. 6-8; Titus ii. 11-15; iii. 4-8? " E'en 
 in our ashes live their wonted fires." The Church has not 
 erred in discerning in these books the ring of Paul's voice 
 and inspiration. 
 
 If the logical particles of the argumentative epistles are 
 missing — if yap, for instance, recurs oftener in Galatians than 
 in the three Pastorals together, and apa.., eircLra, In, Sicnrep 
 never put in an appearance — this is in favour of authenticity 
 rather than otherwise. Nothing would have been easier 
 for a man steeped in Paulinism like our author, than to 
 sprinkle his pages with catchwords of this kind. This 
 objection applies with almost equal force to the letters- of 
 the first imprisonment, which form in several respects a 
 middle term between the major epistles and the Pastorals. 
 
36o THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 It is true, again, that instances of anacoluthon and paren- 
 thesis, of the interrupted and varied periods so characteristic 
 of Paul's style, are infrequent here ; but the reason for this 
 is obvious — namely, that the long-drawn argument and 
 passionate feeling of the great epistles are also wanting. 
 Broken periods, notwithstanding, do occur, as in i Timothy 
 i. 3, ff. (comp. Rom. v. 12, ff.) ; i Timothy ii. i, resumed in 
 ver. 12 (comp. Eph. iii. 1-14) ; i Timothy iii. 15, f. ; Titus i. 
 1-3 ; iii. 4-7. The tendency of Paul's sentences to grow out 
 of shape, extending themselves indefinitely in a chain of pre- 
 positional, participial, or relative clauses, reaches an extreme 
 in such passages as i Timothy i. 18-20 (comp., for the string 
 of relatives, i Cor. ii. 7, 8; Col. i. 27-29); iv. 1-3; vi. 13-16 ; 
 2 Timothy i. 3-5, 8-12 ; Titus i. 1-4 (comp. Rom. i. 1-7) ; ii. 
 11-14. These periods reproduce the Pauline manner, with- 
 out the least sign of artifice or imitation. In what other 
 writer can we find such looseness of grammatical construc- 
 tion combined with such closeness and continuity of 
 thought ? " St. Paul's style," M. Renan says, " is the most 
 personal that ever was — hardly a consecutive phrase in it ; 
 it is a rapid conversation stenographed, and reproduced 
 without correction." This is precisely the impression which 
 the reading of these epistles makes on the Greek Testa- 
 ment scholar. 
 
 Let the student compare, for example, i Timothy ii. with 
 a practical section of the early epistles — say, Romans xiii. 
 He will discover an identical method and movement of mind 
 in both places — injunction guarded by careful distinction 
 and explanation, supported by large general principles, 
 and enforced by appeals to the presence of God or of 
 Christ — all this poured out as a living stream of thought, 
 in the most informal manner one can conceive. Or let 
 him put I Timothy vi. 3-12 by the side of Colossians ii. 
 8 — iii. 4, as a specimen of the apostle's later polemical style. 
 In each case he sets out by stating the contradiction of the 
 principles condemned to the doctrine of Christ, going on 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 361 
 
 to indicate the character of their professors and the out- 
 come of their teaching, and concludes by urging his readers 
 to pursue the opposite path and showing them its glorious 
 issue. 
 
 Among minor mannerisms in which this writer iden- 
 tifies himself with St. Paul, are the argumentative use of 
 oTSa in such phrases as Knowing this. But we know, etc. ; 
 the reference to opponents as nves (certain persons) ; the 
 frequent use of if any, if anything else, for whosoever, what- 
 ever else; the characteristic in Christ as a distinguishing 
 adjunct of Christian acts and states ; the intensive use of 
 n-os to heighten qualities, as all acceptation, all long-suffering, 
 etc. ; the employment of ■n-Kmvu) in the passive (exclusively 
 Pauline in the New Testament, found thrice here, five times 
 elsewhere); of fidXia-Ta, especially, in qualifications (four 
 times here, thrice in Paul elsewhere) ; the agreemerit of 
 oo-Tts with its predicate (i Tim. iii. 15, six times in other epp. ; 
 Acts xvi. 12 is different); and the accusative of apposition 
 to a sentence, an idiom confined to i Timothy ii. 6 and two 
 earlier passages of St. Paul. Most remarkable of all, per- 
 haps, is the order Christ Jesus (according to the critical 
 texts) in which our Saviour's name is written wherever His 
 official character or His present rule over His servants or 
 relation to them is in the writer's mind. The distinction 
 between Jesus Christ (historical) and Christ Jesus (official) 
 has never been observed by any other Christian writer with 
 the same instinctive care and delicacy as by St. Paul.' 
 
 Now, the appearance of new and disappearance of older 
 forms of speech are accountable in the later compositions 
 of a versatile writer. But the persistence in these epistles 
 of so many Pauline idiosyncrasies, and these of so varied a 
 
 ' See on this subject a valuable essay by the late revered Benjamin 
 Hellier on " The Pauline Usage of the Names of Christ," in the Theo- 
 logical Monthly for February, April, and July, 1890. Mr. Hellier 
 finds that this criterion tells decisively in favour of the Pauline author- 
 ship of the Pastorals, but against that of the epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
362 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 character as we have shown them to be, sporadic in their 
 occurrence and inwoven into the. entire texture of thought 
 and speech, is only consistent with one assumption — namely, 
 that their titular is also their actual author, and that the 
 word Faiil, with which they each begin, is the honest truth. 
 
 III. Personal Data of the Pastorals. 
 
 In the case of 2 Timothy the references to person and 
 place are so multiplied (more numerous, in fact,- than in 
 any other epistle except Romans) and wear so genuine an 
 aspect, that they have secured in its favour the verdict of 
 many critics, including Schleiermacher, Bleek, Neander, 
 Ritschl, and finally Reuss (formerly accepting all three), who 
 reject one or both of its comrades. Others, such as Ewald, 
 Renan, Hausrath, Hitzig, Pfleiderer, Sabatier, are inclined 
 to see in these circumstantial notices (2 Tim. i. 15-18 ; iv. 
 9-21; also Tit. iii. 12-15) fragments of one or more lost 
 letters of the apostle; Holtzmann, following Baur, declines 
 all theories of partial authenticity (pp. 11 9-1 2 6) ; he regards 
 these verses as concocted for the express purpose of giving a 
 colour to documents wholly spurious and supposititious. 
 This is, at least, consistent. The three epistles must stand 
 or fall together, and in their integrity ; they are of one 
 piece and texture. If the genuineness of 2 Timothy is 
 certified by circumstantial evidence, the reason is gone for 
 impugning the rest ; for their dialect, and the ecclesiastical 
 situation they suppose, are already proved to be Pauline. 
 Let us review these passages, and see if they do not com- 
 mend themselves and the documents to which they belong. 
 
 The mention of the Asiatic party " of whom is Phygelus 
 and Hermogenes" (2 Tim. i. 15), serves as a motive for 
 Timothy to " guard the good deposit " (ver. 14 ; comp. 
 chap. ii. 1, 2) ; and the desertion of these men in turn reminds 
 Paul of the contrasted behaviour of Onesiphorus (vers. 16-18). 
 This parenthesis (vers. 15-18) enforces the need for courage 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 363 
 
 and faithfulness on Timothy's part, and for the choice of 
 a succession of " faithful men " as teachers in the Church. 
 It cannot be detached from the context. 
 
 The tidings and messages concluding the letter are the 
 most miscellaneous of the kind in Paul's correspondence. 
 They are thro-wfn out with the unstudied freedom natural 
 when the heart is full and there are many things to say, 
 and perhaps little time to say them. Renan's phrase, 
 " conversation stenographed," exactly describes 2 Timothy 
 iv. 9-21. The repeated "Come quickly" of Paul's yearning 
 heart (vers. 9, 21) is put down by Holtzmann (p. 62), as 
 in Titus, iii. 12, to the "tendency" of the writer, who is 
 anxious that Timothy and Titus " should not seem too 
 independent by the side of the apostle ! " — a pitiful ex- 
 ample of the Tiibingen method. — The allusion to the 
 despatch of "Titus to Dalmatia" in 2 Timothy iv. 10 agrees 
 with the summons previously given him in Titus iii. 12 
 " to Nicopolis," lying in the same direction. — The apostle 
 wishes to have Mark by his side, as well as Timothy 
 himself (ver. 11); and this surely suggests his saying, 
 "Tychicus have I sent* to Ephesus" (ver. 12); he is not 
 forgetting that Timothy is there,^ but intimates that Ephesus 
 would not be left without oversight (comp. Tit. iii. 12). 
 We know from Colossians iv. 10 that Mark had recovered 
 St. Paul's esteem, forfeited by the conduct related in Acts 
 xiii. 13, and was with him during the former imprisonment 
 at Rome, where he had doubtless shown himself "use- 
 ful for service " ; and, moreover, that he was then aboult 
 to set out for Asia — whence Paul now desires to recall 
 him. — The "cloak" and "books" (ver. 13), we presume, 
 were "left at Troas with Carpus" on St. Paul's last 
 
 ' " Sent " probably with this very letter. ' XvidreiXa we may take 
 to be epistolary aorist, written from the reader's standpoint, as in 
 Col. iv. 8. 
 
 2 So we learn from ver. 19, if not from the general tenor of the 
 letter, in its connexion with I Timothy. 
 
364 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 journey to Macedonia (i Tim. i. 3), which found an un- 
 expected terminus in the prison at Rome. The Tendency 
 critics are sadly at a loss to account for the manufacture 
 by the pseudo-Paul of these articles. The thought of the 
 coming " winter " (ver. 21) reminds the imprisoned man 
 of his old cloak ; and in his solitude he craves the com- 
 panionship of books. — " Alexander the coppersmith " (vers. 
 14, 15) forms a link between the apostle's directions to 
 Timothy (vers. 9-13), and the account of his own position 
 he is about to give in vers. 16-18. This man If ad borne 
 witness, directly or indirectly, against Paul at Rome, and 
 this was not the first injury suffered from him : was it 
 through his machinations that the apostle's renewed im- 
 prisonment had come about? Timothy, in starting for 
 Rome, is warned against his plots. -The satisfaction St. 
 Paul feels in having proclaimed his great message on the 
 occasion of his defence before the Emperor's tribunal (ver. 
 T 7) is in keeping with what he intimates in Romans i. 8, 
 14-16 (comp. Acts xxiii. 11) touching the importance that, 
 in his judgment, belonged to the imperial city as a centre 
 for Gentile Christianity. This opportunity was, in truth, 
 the climax of the apostle's mission to the heathen (Acts ix. 
 1 5 ; xxvii. 24). Ver. 1 8 signifies that his present deliver- 
 ance is but a respite, perhaps for a few months (ver. 21), 
 leaving no doubt in his mind as to the final issue ; it is 
 " into Christ's heavenly kingdom " that Paul now looks to be 
 " saved." — Perhaps the salutation to " the house of Onesi- 
 phorus " (ver. 19 ; comp. chap. i. 16) recalls to the writer's 
 mind " Erastus " and " Trophimus " (ver. 20), who had failed 
 to render him the service expected from them. One is 
 surprised, however, that Timothy should be told of what 
 had occurred "at Miletus," but a few miles distant from 
 Ephesus, months before this time. Possibly the apostle 
 at this point is talking to himself raXh&r than to Timothy ; 
 he drops into soliloquy. We have met before with Erastus 
 and Trophimus in Timothy's company (Acts xix. 22 ; xx. 4 : 
 not the Erastus of Romans xvi. 23 , 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 365 
 
 The names of those who greet Timothy from Rome bear 
 the marks of authenticity. They are new to the epistles ; 
 two of them are Greek, two Latin names. " Linus " 
 appears in the list of the first bishops of Rome. 
 
 Twenty-three members of the apostolic Church are men- 
 tioned in this letter ; eleven of them for the first and last 
 time in the New Testament. In the cases of the other 
 twelve, there is nothing at variance with, nor anything 
 repeated from, what we learn elsewhere about the persons 
 referred to, but much that agrees with it, and in unexpected 
 ways. 
 
 Towards Timothy and Titus, some of the critics say, 
 Paul is made to assume a domineering attitude, lecturing 
 and " scolding " Timothy, forsooth, as if he were " a raw 
 catechumen " ! This is grossly exaggerated. What we do 
 see is the apostolic dignity, softened by a tender sympathy 
 and blended in Timothy's case with apprehension, with 
 which St. Paul, in the presence of the Church, charges his 
 representatives placed in circumstances of grave responsi- 
 bility and peril. He addresses Timothy, his helper for 
 many years, as a youtigraaxi. (i Tim. iv. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22 ; 
 comp. Tit. ii. 15); but when these , letters were written 
 Timothy had scarcely passed his thirtieth year, and he was 
 set over the eldership of Ephesus. He was of a nature 
 apt to retain its youth ; and to old men those of the next 
 generation always seem young. 
 
 On the whole, it does not appear that Timothy's charac- 
 ter had matured in the way we might have hoped. He was 
 not prepared to be thrown on his own resources. The 
 youthful timidity hinted at in i Corinthians xvi. 10, 11 he 
 had not sufficiently outgrown; the repeated exhortations 
 to courage and endurance addressed to him in the second 
 epistle imply some failure in this respect. With this was 
 connected a want of firmness, a pliability and accessibility 
 to private influences, against which he needed to be cau- 
 tioned (i Tim. V. 19, 22). We imagine there was some- 
 
365 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 thing recluse and contemplative in his disposition, tending 
 to abstract him from public and practical duties (i Thn. iv. 
 I r-i 6) J and associated with this a touch of asceticism, which 
 made him weaker to resist the very temptations he most 
 shunned (i Tim. v. 22, 23). And we suspect that Hofmann 
 is right in inferring from i Timothy vi. 3-12, that the young 
 minister was sometimes inclined in his weariness and de- 
 spondency to envy the easy, gainful life which false teachers 
 were pursuing under his eyes. 
 
 In fact, Timothy's was a fine, but not a robust nature ; 
 liable to suffer from an uncongenial atmosphere, and ill- 
 framed for conflict and leadership, with more of the ivy in 
 its composition than the oak. St. Paul found in him the 
 complement of his own bold and active temperament, as 
 Peter did in John, and LUther in Melanchthon. In the 
 apostle's company Timothy had shown admirable devotion 
 and steadfastness (Phil. ii. 19-23). But he drooped alone. 
 Separated so long from his leader, amid surroundings trying 
 in the last degree to his sensitive disposition and delicate 
 frame, his faith and his character were severely strained. 
 The " tears " with which he parted from the apostle (2 Tim. 
 i. 4) and his reluctance to be left longer at Ephesus (i Tim', 
 i. 3) were due not merely to his love for his father in 
 Christ, but to the peculiar difficulty to him of the work laid 
 upon him. The portrait which these letters give us of 
 young Timothy is consistent and life-like, and it harmonizes 
 well with the slighter traits preserved in the other epistles 
 and the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 A plausible objection to i Timothy lies in the fact that 
 when he wrote this letter, St. Paul, it appears, had very re- 
 cently left Timothy behind at Ephesus, after himself paying 
 a visit to the city (chap. i. 3). What need, then, for these 
 detailed and reiterated advices, about matters, too, which, 
 one would have thought, the apostle might have arranged' 
 himself when he was on the spot? Our answer is that,. in 
 all probability, Paul had not been at Ephesus at this time. 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 367 
 
 " The words of i Timothy i. 3 only say that Paul wished 
 Timothy to stay at Ephesus where he then was, while he 
 himself went on to Macedonia" (Hofmann). npotr/xeivai 
 means to remain, still, to stay on (Acts xviii. 18), not to re- 
 main behind, which is ujro/iei/civ (Acts xvii. 14) or might have 
 been expressed as in Titus i. 5. And Tropevo/jievos may signify 
 on my way, in the course of my journey to Macedonia, just 
 as well as setting out to Macedonia (see Acts xxi. 6). The 
 apostle was bound for Macedonia, and could not afford to 
 turn aside to Ephesus ; ^ for this very reason he desired 
 Timothy to continue his sojourn there, in order to carry out 
 instructions already given in brief, and which he now com- 
 municates at length. The incident of Acts xx. 17 ("from 
 Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the 
 Church ") seems to have repeated itself, perhaps at the same 
 spot (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 20) ; only Paul is now travelling in tlie 
 opposite direction (chap. iv. 13, 20),^ and summons Timothy 
 
 ' Another reason sugge.sts itself for St. Paul's giving Ephesus the go- 
 by. His first ministry there ended in a great popular tumult. He had 
 made powerful and bitter enemies in the city, and left it shaken both 
 in mind and body and in peril of his life (comp. 2 Cor. i. 8-10 with 
 I Cor. XV. 32 and Acts xix.). It was " the Jews from Asia " who began 
 the murderous assault upon him afterwards in Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 27)' ; 
 and "Alexander the coppersmith," in all likelihood the Jewish leader 
 whom his countrymen put forward in the Ephesian riot (Acts xix 
 33), about this time did the apostle "much evil." Paul sought help 
 from his friends "in Asia" (2 Tim. i. 15 ; comp. Acts xix. 30, 31) — 
 probably rebutting evidence ; and it was refused (through the influence 
 of his opponents there?). All this goes to show that Ephesus was a most 
 dangerous place for St. Paul, and that he had good reason for the sorrow- 
 ful anticipation of Acts xx. 25. His relation to Ephesus was something 
 like that to Thessalonica long before, when he " would fain have come 
 once and again ; but Satan hindered." 
 
 * It is evident that the three Pastbral Epistles were written in quick 
 succession, and that the events connected with them marched rapidly. 
 The course of Paul's movements, in our view, was something like this : 
 He sailed from Crete (calling there, perhaps, on his way East from 
 Spain), where he left Titus ; then coasted along the Asiatic shore, call- 
 ing at Miletus and Troas amongst other places ; wrote to Timothy from 
 Macedonia, shortly afterwards to Titus ; then proceeded to Corinth, and 
 was arrested and hurried to Rome during the summer, before he reached 
 Nicopolis. The journey to the East proposed in Phil ii. 24. and Phile- 
 mon 22 was accomplished, we imagine, before the mission to Spain. 
 
36S THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 (not the body of the elders) from Ephesus for an interview,' 
 at the end of which his young helper, tearful (chap. i. 4) and 
 reluctant (" I exhorted thee "), returns to his station, and 
 the apostle pursues his journey, promising to send Timothy 
 a full letter of instructions based on the representations his 
 assistant had made to him touching the condition of things 
 in the Ephesian Church. Such a letter we have in the first 
 epistle to Timothy. Since Paul and Timothy had met so 
 recently, there would be no need for inserting anything in 
 the shape of news or private messages. All that remained 
 to be said was of an official character, and pertained to the 
 public conduct of Timothy's ministry at Ephesus. 
 
 If our view of the order of things be correct, then St. 
 Paul's presentiment of six or seven years ago, that the 
 Ephesians would " see his face no more " (Acts xx. 25) was 
 verified. He still " hopes to come " (i Tim. iii. 14 ; iv. 13), 
 but with no certainty ; and we gather from the silence of the 
 second letter that he had failed to do so, and Timothy had 
 still to remain month after month at his unwelcome post, 
 without sight of his dear master and enduring the hope 
 deferred which " maketh the heart sick." The service of 
 Onesiphorus to the apostle " in Ephesus " (2 Tim. i. 18) 
 may just as well have beet) rendered to him during his 
 former long residence there. His repulse by " all those in 
 Asia," and the " evil " done him by Alexander, related pro- 
 bably to his trial now in process at Rome, when unfavour- 
 able evidence was given by the latter and favourable evidence 
 withheld by the former (chap. i. 15 ; iv. 14-16). The sentence 
 against " Hymenaeus and Alexander " (i Tim. L 20) — not 
 the Alexander of 2 Timothy iv. 14 — could have been pro- 
 
 1 Hofmann does not suppose an interview necessaiy (pp. 66, 67). 
 He thinks the " exhortation " of I Tim. i. 3 was made by letter ; and 
 that the " tears" of 2 Tim. L 4 were wept by letter in return (briefiith 
 gewdnt) —a conceit by which he compromises an otherwise stroi^ posi- 
 tion. There is no need for the apostle in either epistle to refer further 
 to the circumstances of his meeting with Timothy. A meeting some- 
 where there clearly had been. 
 
THS PASTORAL EPISTl^S. 369 
 
 nounced from a distance, like that against the Corinthian 
 offender (i Cor. v. 3-5)- None of these allusions compel 
 us to suppose that Paul had himself been recently in 
 Ephesus. 
 
 Against the authenticity of 2 Timothy it is contended 
 that the exhortations of chap. ii. i-iv. 6 are inconsistent 
 with the " speedy " coming to Rome which Paul urges on 
 his friend. But it will be observed that these directions are 
 much less specific than those previously given in the first 
 epistle, and bear on Timothy's own spirit and character 
 rather than his administrative duties ; also that his " dmng 
 his diligence to come before winter " does not exclude — it 
 rather implies — uncertainty and causes of delay. Especially 
 we must bear in mind that the apostle knew his end to 
 be near, and feared that this might be his last message to 
 his "dear child Timothy" (2 Tim. iv. 5, 6). 
 
 A similar objection is brought against the epistle to Titus, 
 grounded on chap. iii. 1 2, and much the same reply may 
 be made. In this case it will be noticed that Paul expressly 
 provides for the continuance" of Titus' mission by " Artemas, 
 or Tychicus " ; in which event, we may presume, Titus would 
 hand over the instructions now received to the brother who 
 relieved him. 
 
 We have finally to consider the light in which Paul kim- 
 i-^^ appears in these epistles. AVhy, it is asked, should he 
 write to his old assistants and familiars, his " true children " 
 in the faith, with so much stiffness and formality and such 
 an air of authority, so that the greeting to Titus, for 
 example, is only surpassed by that of the epistle to the 
 Romans in its solemnity and rhetorical fulness? The 
 answer lies partly in the fact that these epistles, especially 
 I Timothy and Titus, are " open," or quasi-public letters, 
 written with the Churches of Ephesus and Crete in view, 
 and such as it would be suitable to read, in part at least, 
 at their assemblies. The case of Philemon is quite dif- 
 ferent. And the apostle writes, above all in 2 Timothy, 
 
 24 
 
370 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 under the sense that "the time of his departure is at 
 hand." His words have the grave and pathetic dignity of 
 a valedictory address to his successors in the ministry 
 of Christ. 
 
 ■ The critics find something of exaggeration and " extreme 
 rhetoric" in the allusions of i Timothy i. 12-17 to Paul's 
 earlier life. But these references are in keeping with i 
 Corinthians xv. g and Ephesians iii. 8. The ardent grati- 
 tude and profound self-abasement before the sovereignty 
 of Divine grace which animated the apostle throughout his 
 ministry naturally, come to their fullest ' expression in his 
 closing years. We catch in these words the very beating 
 of St. Paul's heart. Nemo potest Paulinum pectus effingere 
 (Erasmus). To treat them as the cold and crafty invention 
 of a forgej is little short of sacrilege. It is, said that there 
 is an egotism in the letters, a fondness for reverting to 
 his own history and making himself a model for others, 
 unlike the genuine Paul. (See however, i Thess. ii. i, 2 ; 
 I Cor. ix. ; iv. 1-6; x. 33-xi. i; Gal. iv. 11-20, etc.) 
 This feature of the Pastorals is, to our mind, one of the 
 subtlest traits of reality. How naturally the old man's mind 
 turns to the days of his youth ! His memory lingers over 
 the past. He delights to dwell on the great trust that God 
 first committed to him, and which must so soon pass into 
 the hands of others. It is truly affecting thus to see the 
 old warrior " fight his battles o'er again," and to note the' 
 simple-hearted joy with which he draw^s from his own trials 
 and triumphs encouragements for the fearful Timothy.. 
 His references to the family and childhood of Timothy 
 further show how much the aged apostle's mind is living 
 in the past (2 Tim. i. 5 ; iii. 14, 15). 
 
 The beauty of St. Paul's " swan-song," in 2 Timothy iv. 
 6-8, should have raised it for ever above critical mistrust. 
 No passage in his epistles is more finely touched with 
 the apostle's genius. It has the Hebraistic rhythm of all ' 
 his more exajted utterances. It echoes earlier sayings, but 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 371 
 
 without repetition. It is the cup of a deep spring filled to 
 the brim with Paul's finest thought and tenderest feeling, 
 expressed with a serenity which came to his strenuous 
 nature only at rare moments, and speaks of a heart at ease 
 within itself and that knows its labour ended and its storms 
 gone by. These verses have an ideal fitness as the apostle's 
 final record and pronouncement upon his own career. 
 They put the seal of their faithful testimony on .he earthly 
 conflicts and toils of Christ's senrant, crowned already with 
 the earnest of the crown that awaits him from the hand ot 
 his Saviour and Judge. Nor has Christian faith since found 
 any higher expression of its sense of victory in the presence 
 of the last enemy. 
 
 The concluding line^ in which the aposde claims this 
 crown for " all," with himself, " who have loved the Lord's 
 appealing" breathes the essence of the Pauline spirit It 
 was esacdy like him to say this at the summit of his glad- 
 ness and hope, whose life was a sacrifice to the Church of 
 God and his glory and crown of rejoicing in the consummate 
 salvation of his brethren in Christ. He invites us to share 
 his own perfected fellowship in the joy of our Lord. We 
 accept the token and hold it fast, knoteing from whom ■we 
 ktnre recdred it. 
 
 We have now completed our examination of the language 
 di the disputed epistles, and the circumstantial evidence 
 for their origin which they themselves supply. However 
 defective the inquiry, and open to objection in the details 
 of interpretation, we venture to think that it furnishes suflS- 
 cient proof that the canonical epistles to Timothy and 
 Titos are the work of the aposde Paul, and that the. early 
 Church was justified in accepting these three letters in the 
 name which they bore, and incorporating them with the 
 odier ten' episties upon the same footing of unquestioned 
 authority. Neither in the style of the writings, nor in the 
 tenor of their personal allusions, is there adequate ground 
 
372 THE APOSTLE ^AUL. 
 
 it seems to us, for the serious and long-sustained suspicions 
 which exist against them. It is in the subject-matter of the 
 epistles, in the nature of their theological and ecclesiastical 
 contents, that these doubts have their motive and their real 
 basis. Holtzniann is almost alone among his associates in 
 seeking to ground his theory on a proper linguistic analysis 
 of the documents. For the most part the Tendency critics 
 take it as a thing self-evident and beyond the need of 
 proof, that the heretics condemned in the Pastorals were 
 Gnostics of the second century ; and their interpretation pro- 
 ceeds on this assumption. 
 
 The closing sentences of Dr. Pfleiderer's account of the 
 epistles, given in his Urchristetitfium, exhibit very clearly 
 the point of view from which the school he represents regard 
 these writings, and the path by which they have arrived at 
 their conclusions : — 
 
 "The Pastoral Epistles, especially the latest of them, the so-called 
 First to Timothy — pave the way for that development of episcopacy 
 in the Church which we find completed in the Ignatian Letters ; and 
 it is in this very purpose of helping to victory the idea of the episco- 
 pate as an apostolic institution, that we discover, side by side with 
 the polemic against Gnostic heresy, the second main object of these 
 epistles. In reality, these two objects are one and the same. . . . 
 From the necessity that the Church should assert herself against the 
 heretics there came about, on the one hand, the authentication of tradi- 
 tion in the form of ecclesiastical dogma, and on the other, the apostolic 
 authorization of the episcopacy — ecclesiastical hierarchy : the latter 
 being the practical embodiment of the former, the former the ideal 
 ground of the latter. 
 
 " Now, in order to vindicate the doctrine and constitution of the 
 Church effectually against heresy, they must above all things be based 
 on apostolic tradition and authority ; and the interests of the Church 
 imperatively required that the advocate of the principle of authority 
 should publish his warnings and injunctions in the name of that apostle 
 who was held in chief — indeed, on this point, in sole esteem and defer- 
 ence, — that is to say, in the name of Paul. Strange indeed, and tragical, 
 that the apostle of freedom has at last been enlisted as voucher' for the 
 principle of authority, and founder of the hierarchy I But if there 
 is any one to blame for this perversion, it must be no other than 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 373 
 
 Marcian, who by his ultra- Paulinism forced the men of order and sound 
 reason ' into this awkward position '." (pp. 822, 823.) 
 
 With Pfleiderer at present, as with Baur fifty years ago, 
 the deductions of this school against the authenticity of so 
 many New Testament writings rest upon their a prion 
 construction of the history of the primitive Church. That 
 construction has been remodelled in Pfleiderer's hands ; but 
 in principle and method it remains the same as when first 
 laid down by Baur. 
 
 No judgment, however, that we might form respecting the 
 system of doctrine and Church organization indicated in 
 these epistles, whether favourable or adverse to authenticity, 
 ought to be regarded as in itself decisive upon this point. 
 The data for such a judgment must be gathered from an 
 unprejudiced examination of the documents ; and they are 
 themselves contingent on a multitude of questions of 
 language and circumstantial detail, which need to be first 
 carefully considered. The Hterary character of the epistles, 
 and the personal and local references they contain, along 
 with -the external attestatioii to their origin, supply the proof 
 of authorship in the first instance. It is enough if the ideas 
 contained in the letters are in no way contradictory to the 
 presumption already established. At the same time, our 
 inquiry into their governing ideas and aims will, as we hope, 
 serve more than a merely defensive and negative purpose. 
 We shall strive to show, what is at least manifest to our- 
 selves, that the teaching of the Pastoral epistles and the 
 life of the Church as therein disclosed stand in an miimate, 
 genetic connexion with that which the previous and ac- 
 knowledged epistles of St. Paul present to us. 
 
 • This explanation, if it were true, throws a sad light on the character 
 of " the men of order and sound reason" in the Church of the second 
 century. It puts the Pastoral epistles on a level with the pseudo- 
 Isidorian decretals. Any forger could plead as good an excuse. 
 
374 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 IV. The Doctrinal Characteristics. 
 
 In reviewing the doctrine of the Pastorals, we take for our 
 starting point the following sentence of Holtzmann (p. 159): 
 
 " The general basis of ideas is unquestionably Pauline. It is no 
 other doctrine than that of Paul which these writings profess and 
 seek to expound. But the bare and impoverished form of this repre- 
 sentation betrays its unauthenticity. Paul's doctrinal conceptions are 
 weakened and brought down to the level of a later age. We have 
 before us a diluted Paulinism, accommodated to the demands of an 
 advanced stage of Church life, ecclesiastically modified and stereotyped, 
 and' which has come to terms with Jewish Christianity, the Paulinlst 
 and Legalisfparties being at length compelled to join hands under the 
 pressure of Gnostic and heretical assaults." 
 
 So far as this " impoverishment " of the true Paulinism is 
 matter of expression, we have discussed it already (pp. 357, 
 358). As a description of the theological character 
 of the epistles, there is a modicum of truth involved in 
 Holtzmann's depreciatory estimate. St. Paul's character- 
 istic doctrines do not here assume the commanding promi- 
 nence given to them in the major epistles ; they are not 
 thrown into the same bold relief, nor developed with the 
 same logical completeness. But then this observation 
 applies equally to his earliest writings— the two epistles to 
 the Thessalonians. When those former letters were written, 
 the Legalist controversy, which occupied the central period 
 of Paul's apostleship and called forth the mightiest efforts 
 of his genius, had not yet arisen; by this time it had to 
 a large extent subsided. The doctrines of salvation are 
 quietly assumed, where before they were vehemently argued 
 and defended. For they constitute, in the view alike of 
 writer and readers, a conquest securely won, a foundation 
 enduringly laid. But in this matter-of-fact assumption they 
 lose nothing of- their cardinal importance. The sentences 
 in which they are affirmed serve to re-state, with axiomatic 
 weight and precision, that Gospel which is to Paul and his 
 sons in the faith a fundamental certainty (see i Tim. ii: 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 375 
 
 4-6; iii. 15, 16; 2 Tim. i. g, 10). The Tendency critics 
 are untrue to their own principle of evolution when they 
 assume that the mind of Paul stood still, that he could 
 write nothing but letters after the manner of Romans and 
 Galatians, and when they insist upon our taking these great 
 works as in style and proportion and theological purport 
 the sole test of what is Pauline. 
 
 Most of all do the doctrinal passages of the epistle to 
 Titus (i. 1-4; ii. 10-14 j "i- 3-7) protest against the dis- 
 paragement that the Pastorals contain a half-effaced and 
 diluted Paulinism. These luminous aperfus of the method 
 of redemption carry it backward to the Divine causation 
 — ''which God, who cannot lie, promised before times 
 eternal" — and forward to its moral operation, and its issues 
 in the life beyond ; while they describe in full and glowing 
 language the agency by which the work of man's renewal is 
 brought about : 
 
 " We were senseless, disobedient, wandering, enslaved to manifold 
 lusts and pleasures. B)it when the kindness and philanthropy of God 
 our Saviour appeared — not by works done in righteousness, which we 
 had wrought, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the 
 washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which 
 He poured on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being 
 justified by His grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope 
 of eternal life. " 
 
 There is no sign of poverty, or of laboured imitation, in 
 a mind whose wealth runs over in this way. Here there is 
 drawn for us, in a mere incidental passage, by a few rapid 
 strokes of the pen, a picture of . the whole Gospel in 
 miniature. The sayings of the Pastoral Epistles bring the 
 doctrines of grace to a rounded fulness and chastened ripe- 
 ness of expression, that warrant us in seeing in them the 
 authentic conclusion of the Pauline gospel of salvation in 
 the mind which first conceived it. 
 
 It is impossible, within moderate limits, to discuss all the 
 points in which Holtzmann detects a difference between 
 the teaching of the Pastorals and that of the genuine 
 
376 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 epistles. We will deal with the most considerable of the 
 alleged discrepancies, and those which alone raise any 
 serious difficulty: (i) Amongst the chief is that touching 
 the nature of God. The Divine character and agency are 
 set forth under appellations new to us in St. Paul, and 
 some of them unique. He is the " King of the ages, 
 incorruptible, invisible, the only God " ; " the blessed and 
 only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, 
 who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light unap- 
 proachable, whom none of men hatl> seen, nor can see" 
 (i Tim. i. 17; vi. 15, 16); "the living God, who is 
 Saviour of all men," and " gives life to all things " (i Tim. 
 iv. 10; vi. 13). Six times does the expression "God (our) 
 Saviour " recur in these epistles, found but twice besides in 
 the New Testament (Luke i. 47 ; Jude 26).' 
 
 The emphasis thus laid on the Divine absoluteness has 
 manifestly a polemical, intention. But it is not necessary to 
 go to the second century for its explanation. The clue lies 
 nearer to our hand. We find it in the false dualism, current 
 amongst Hellenistic Jews in St. Paul's time, which separated 
 God from the world and treated the material creation as 
 the work of inferior and intermediate beings. This system 
 of theosophy, the daughter of Platonism and mother of 
 Gnosticism, the apostle has already combated in his epistle 
 to the Colossians, dealing with it there chiefly in its bearing 
 on the Person and work of Christ. Philo of Alexandria, 
 Paul's contemporary, was the chief exponent of this doc- 
 trine on Jewish ground. He represents what we may call 
 the Broad Church of Judaism, whose influence inevitably 
 made itself felt amongst Pauline Christians at a very early 
 time. Indeed Gnosticism, as Dr. Jowett aptly says,^ might 
 be described as " the mental atmosphere of the Greek cities 
 of Asia, a conducting medium between heathenism and 
 Christianity " ; perhaps we might say, a common solvent 
 
 ' Commentary on I Thessalonians, second edition, p. 94, 
 
7'HE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 377 
 
 of heathenism, Judaism, and Christianity. It limited the 
 Lfivine prerogatives, confining the suprenje God, under a 
 f.ilse notion of reverence, to a purely spiritual and transcen- 
 dental region. Hence God is here acknowledged as wield- 
 ing in unshared dominion all creaturely and earthly powers, 
 while in His own nature and blessedness He holds a realm 
 of light inaccessible and life undecaying. 
 
 The dualism of the earliest Gnostics, or Gnosticizing 
 Judaists, is reproved in its ascetic consequences in i Timothy 
 iv. 3-5, where marriage and physical sustenance are vindi- 
 cated as things of the Divine order — " sanctified by the 
 word of God and prayer " (compare, and contrast Col. ii. 
 20-23). Biit the writer condemns the false spiritualism of 
 the coming " latter times " in no other strain than we should 
 expect from the Paul of i Corinthians, who had said, " To 
 us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things 
 and we- for Him " — whose is " earth and its fulness " ; and 
 who again has written, " The woman is of the man, and the 
 man through the woman ; but all things of God." 
 
 The work of grace is placed with emphasis in the hands 
 of God, in the interests of the Divine unity, and in tacit 
 contradiction to those who " professing " above others " to 
 know God," yet barred Him out from contact with human 
 life, and so robbed Him of the honours of salvation. At 
 the same time, the expression has an intrinsic fitness. The 
 apostle's theology proper, his doctrine of God, resumes and 
 absorbs his soteriology. His system of thought anticipates 
 the goal marked out for the course of redemption — when 
 " God shall be all in all " (i Cor. xv. 28). See p. 338. 
 
 (2) " The image of Christ presented in the Pastorals is 
 indeed composed of Pauline formulae, but it is lacking in 
 the Pauline spirit and feeling, in the mystic inwardness, the 
 religious depth and moral force that live in the Christ of 
 Paul." So says Schenkel, quoted by Holtzmann with 
 approval (pp. 166, 167), Of the justice of this stricture 
 every one will form his own estimate. It appeals not to 
 
378 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 the critical expert, but to the feeling and discernment of 
 the devout Christian reader. For ourselves, we find no 
 defect, either of depth or force, in such a sentence as 
 I Timothy ii. 5, 6, with its conception of the "one mediator 
 between God and men, Christ Jesus, who is man ; who 
 gave Himself a ransom for all — the testimony to be borne 
 in its own time ; " which, moreover, is precisely not " com- 
 posed of Pauline formulae," for Christ is here called mediator 
 for the first time (comp. Heb. viii. 6, etc). Nor are his 
 mysticism and religious depth at all to seek in i Timothy iii. 
 15, 16 (the " mystery of godliness. He who was manifested 
 in the flesh," etc.). The expression " in Christ Jesus," 
 almost peculiar to Paul, and which carries with it all the 
 inwardness and depth of his sense of the believer's relation 
 to his Lord, is employed seven times in the two letters to 
 Timothy in application to Christian acts and states. 
 
 It is said that the emphasis thrown upon the Divine 
 " manifestation " and the " appearing " (Im^avdd) of Christ 
 (i Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. ii. 13; iii. 4) "is a sign 
 of later Gnostic influence." But in i and 2 Thessalonians 
 similar language is used of the second advent of Christ ; 
 and in 2 Corinthians iv. 4, 6, touching His first appearance. 
 These expressions, in truth, reflect the glory of the Divine 
 manifestation of Jesus made to Saul on the Damascus road. 
 In a form of like splendour Paul pictures to himself the 
 Saviour's reappearance. It is the Gnostics who have 
 borrowed their language from our New Testament writings 
 — not the latter from the former. 
 
 The Parousia forms a significant link between the earliest 
 and latest of the apostle's letters. It is, in a sense, his Alpha 
 and Omega. But a change has supervened in his view of 
 the event. It is still to him, and more than ever, " that 
 blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ" (Tit. ii. 13) ; but he no longer speaks 
 of it in the terms of personal anticipation that we find in 
 I Thessalonians and i Corinthians xv. For he Ijas recon- 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 379 
 
 ciled himself, as already in 2 Corinthians v., to the fact that 
 he must pass away by death before the Lord's return. He 
 rejoices to feel that "the time of his departure is come' 
 (2 Tim. iy. 6). He has learnt increasingly to see in the 
 inward victories of the Christian life and the " earnest of 
 the Spirit in our hearts" (Rom. viii. 11-23 5 Eph. i. 13, 14) 
 the pledge of the believer's final glorification. Though 
 the Parousia ceases to occupy the immediate foreground of 
 the apostle's outlook, it is no less certainly in prospect, and 
 has become a vision yet more splendid to the eyes of his 
 heart. Meanwhile, the intervening future grows more 
 distinct, in its darker as well as its brighter aspects. " Evil 
 men and impostors will wax worse and worse, deceiving 
 and being deceived" (2 Tim. iii. 13) The second coming 
 " furnishes the shining background for the gloomy picture 
 of the troublous last times " (Holtzmann, p. 188 ; see i Tim. 
 v. I ; 2 Tim. iii. i ; iv. 3, 4). In all directions the horizon 
 is threatening, and the air thick with the sense of coming 
 trouble. The predictions of these epistles only give greater 
 distinctness to forebodings already expressed by Paul in 
 Acts XX. 29-31, and elsewhere. 
 
 On the other hand, their representations of present or 
 impending conflict differ, both in colouring and proportion, 
 from any picture furnished by the age of Marcion and 
 Justin Martyr. It is superfluous to discuss the identifica- 
 tions offered to us ; for they contradict each other, and 
 every new critic fixes on a type of Gnosticism different from 
 the last. Holtzmann and Pfleiderer themselves so far fail 
 in the attempt, that they are compelled to -assume ari 
 artificial infusion into the supposed polemic against Mar- 
 cionite heresy of elements drawn from St. Paul's time, such 
 as would have made the attack confused and ineffective for 
 the end for which they imagine it designed. 
 
 When "Christ Jesus " appears in i Timothy v. 21 (comp. 
 2 Titn. iv.: i) accompanied by "the elect angels," it is 
 because He is thought of as in 2 Thessalonia:ns i. 7 (comp. 
 
sSd the apostle PAUL. 
 
 Luke ix. 26) as the future Judge of men. The connexion 
 of thought resembles that of 2 Corinthians v. 10, 11, where 
 the sense of his present " manifestation to God " carries the 
 apostle's mind onward to the scene of hii future appearance 
 at " the tribunal of Christ." 
 
 In these latest epistles, the eschatology of the earliest 
 reappears, viewed however through a longer perspective, and 
 enriched by the deeper Christology of the intervening letters. 
 
 (3) In regard to the writer's attitude toward the great 
 Pauline antithesis of, law and grace, the crucial text is 
 I Timothy i. 8-1 1 : — 
 
 ' ' We know that the law is good, if one use it lawfully. . . . 
 Law is not imposed for a righteous man, but for the lawless, etc., 
 . . . and whatsoever else is contrary to the sound teaching, accord- 
 ing to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was 
 entnisted." 
 
 This passage, as Holtzmann allows, belongs to " the 
 writer's general standpoint," and cannot be dismissed as a 
 mere polemical stroke against the Marcionites (p. 160). 
 But the standpoint, is that of Paul himself, the same which 
 he asserted in Romans and Galatians. The " lawful use " 
 of the law consists in its giving " the knowledge of sin," 
 by " making the ofifencp^to abound " and so " working out 
 wrath;" It was added "for the sake of transgressions." 
 Hence it is designed " for the lawless and unruly " — to 
 mark and condemn them as such ; while the truly "righteous 
 man" is "not under law, but under grace." This is "ac- 
 cording to the gospel " of Paul's great evangelical epistles ; 
 and " knowing " it, Timothy will know how to " use the 
 law," not in Jewish fashion as a yoke for the saint, but as 
 a whip for the sinner. This passage negatives at the outset 
 Schleiermacher's assertion, that " the author of i Timothy 
 silently passes over the chief position advanced by Paul 
 against the Judaistic standpoint." 
 
 When we read in Titus ii. 14 of Christ's sacrifice as 
 "ransoming us from all lawlessness," this complements 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 381 
 
 instead of contradicting St. Paul's earlier watchword of 
 redemption "from the curse oi the law "(Gal. iii. 10-14); 
 for lawlessness, if it does not actually constitute that curse; 
 is its cause and concomitant. A redemption saving from 
 sin's punishment, but not from sin, is obviously illusive. 
 In fact, we are here carried forward, along the line of 
 Romans vi., from the idea of justification as mere acquittal 
 to its positive issue in the new law-keeping, but not law- 
 subject, life of the believer. In the unique and Paul-like 
 compound avriXvrftav {ransom-price), of i Timothy ii. 6, the 
 New Testament doctrine of the vicarious sacrifice culminates. 
 This word alone is sufficient to make the first epistle to 
 Timothy immortal. In vain does Holtzmann speak of the 
 death and resurrection of Christ — "these two facts of 
 central importance, in Paul's view, for the Christian con- 
 sciousness" — as " receiving but cursory reference " (p. 170). 
 The three epistles are steeped in their influence. As well 
 argue that the author of Galatians thought little of the 
 resurrection, because in that letter he happens only once, 
 and in passing, to make verbal mention of it ! 
 
 It is more to the purpose when our critic observes (p. 169) 
 that in these writings the Church rather than the individual 
 is the recipient of the blessings of salvation, and when he 
 sees in this a link between the Pastorals and Ephesians ^ 
 (eomp. Tit. ii. 14 with Eph. v^ 25-27). The writer's mind 
 dwells mainly on the general and collective aspects of the 
 Gospel. He is thinking not so much of Him "who loved 
 me and gave Himself up for me" as of . " the philanthropy 
 of God our Saviour.'' And his repeated assertion of the 
 universalism of the Gospel is opposed not, as in Romans iii. 
 29, 30, to Jewish exclusiveness of race, but to the Gnosti- 
 cizing pride that reserved the knowledge of God to the 
 initiated few. This narrow and vain intellectualism was just 
 
 1 Holtzmann, and the school of Baur generally, continue to reject 
 this latter with the former as Pauline epistles. Not so, however, 
 M. Sabatier ; see pp. 229-234 above. 
 
382 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 now the greatest danger of the Church, sure to be the 
 parent of a brood of errors and corruptions ; it struck at 
 what is most vital to Christianity, in God's universal grace 
 to mankind ; and the apostle's detection of the evil And his 
 determined opposition to it were already manifest in the 
 epistles of the second group (Col. i. 28 ; ii. 3, 8, 18,-19 ; 
 Eph. i. 17, 18 ; iii. 9). 
 
 In this connexion we can better understand the principle 
 laid down in 2 Timothy ii. 19-.2J, that whatever "vessel" 
 in the " great house " is " purified from unrighteousness," is 
 a " vessel unto honour," being " sanctified " and therefore 
 " useful to the Master." For it is holiness of character, not 
 mere "knowledge," often "falsely, so called," that qualifies 
 the vessels of the Lord. Holtzmann, however, can only see 
 in this definition " a characteristic complement to Paul's 
 notion of Predestination, supplying an ethical content to the 
 decrehtm absolutum" which in Romans is matter, of- pure 
 sovereignty (p. 172). Yet in Romans ix. 22 there is implied- 
 in the "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" a like 
 ethical content to that found in these ".vessels of dis-- 
 honour." It is not to the Pastorals that we have firstto 
 look in order to find St. Paul's doctrine of election balanced' 
 and safeguarded by the assertion of man's responsibility;' 
 Nor, on the other hand, is the 3.bsoluteness of the Divine 
 initiative in the work of salvation at all sacrificed in our 
 epistles. God's " purpose and grace " are held forth, in 
 opposition to " our works," as the moving cause of re- 
 demption (2 Tim. i. 9 ; Tit. iii. 5) as strongly as in Romans 
 or EjAesians, and with an unction and empressement entirely - 
 Pauline. 
 
 (4) A higher sacramental doctrine than that of the genuine - 
 Paul is detected in Titus iii. 5 (Holtzmann, p. 172). We 
 might agree with the critic on this point, if, with Ellicott and 
 others, following the Vulgate, we construed "renewal of the 
 Holy Spirit " in dependence, upon " laver " (the Greek 
 genitive is here ambiguous). But the alternative rendering 
 
TBE PASTOXAL EMSTLES. 3S3 
 
 of Bengd, Alford, and Hofmann is decidedly preferable. 
 The lover (washitig, A.V.) of regeneration and r^nttoal of 
 the Holy Spirit are two conjoint though distinct agenda. 
 This text echoes our Lord's great dictum on the new birth 
 " of water and of the Spirit " (John iii. 5), and makes the 
 same distinction between the outward or symbolic and the 
 inward and e^endal means of Divine renewal. So the 
 passage brings to a focus what we have already leamt con- 
 oeniing Baptism from Romans vL 1-6; Galadans iiL 275 
 Colossians ii. 12; Ephesians v. 26, where it represents and 
 gives a name to that entire change in the Christian be- 
 liever, of which it is the divinely appointed token. 
 
 There is one rite, however, which we meet here for the 
 first time in the Pauline episdes — that of tlie laying oh of 
 kands (i Tim. iv. 14 ; v. 22 j 2 Tim. i. 6). It is the means 
 of conveying special endowments of grace {Jiarismaia), be- 
 stowed on individual men to fit them for their special voca- 
 tion in the Chorch. There is nothing new, or foreign to 
 St t*aul, in the elements of this ctmception. The idea of 
 the " rharism " is perfiectly &miliar (see Rom. lai. 6, etc.). 
 And die A«is of the .^mstles shows (viiL 17-19, eta) that 
 this form of ordination — an ancient and expressive Jewish 
 custCHn — belonged to the earliest times of the Church. 
 That no magical e£5cacy is attributed to the rite is evident 
 from the words of the episdes : " The charism that is in 
 thee, . . . given diee through {Hophecy, with laying 
 on of Ihe presbytery's hands " ; again, " the charism of 
 God that is in thee, throu^ the laying on of my hands." 
 Tlie essaice of the matter does not lie in the particalar 
 ofiBcial hands that ministered in Timothy's ordination ; but 
 the grace was God's immediate and inward bestowment, 
 attested by the voice of His Spirit in the Church, then 
 sealed and acknowledged on the Church's part in the ap- 
 propriate form. 
 
 Thee writings are ako said to teach a higher doctrine of 
 itispiration than is found in the undisputed epistles. Baur 
 
384 THE APOSTLE PAUL., 
 
 discovered in 2 Timothy iii. 14-17 a covert attack on Mar- 
 cion (who rejected the Old Testament), and an attempt to 
 rehabilitate the Law in the face of second-century Gnosti- 
 cism. "The sacred writings" it is said, "are silently 
 contrasted with the oral traditions current in the Gnostic 
 sects ; and the phrase ' all Scripture ' protests against the 
 arbitrary use made by heretics of certain parts of it." 
 Granting the correctness of this interpretation, it is quite 
 appropriate to the apostle's time. Theorists such as the 
 false teachers of Colossas were sure to neglect the practical 
 and moral parts of Scripture. It is the vanity and use- 
 lessness of the teaching broached by the men whom 
 Timothy and Titus are to oppose that the writer stigma- 
 tizes, rather than anything positively false or corrupting 
 in it (see i Tim. i. 4, 6 ; vi. 3-5; 2 Tim. ii. 16, 23; 
 Tit. i. 10-14). In this "vain jangling," however, he sees 
 the germ and beginnings of the most fatal moral errors 
 (i Tim. iv. 1-3; 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18; iii. 1-9, 13 j iv. 3), 
 a mischief of unlimited potency, that "will wax worse 
 and worse ; " for this evil Scripture affords the true and 
 sufficient remedy. The " fables and endless genealogies," 
 " Jewish fables," etc., on which these letters pour contempt, 
 were the stock-in-trade of men versed in the allegorical 
 method, and who practised a puerile and speculative treat- 
 ment of inspired Scripture. So the occasion has come to 
 formulate the doctrine of inspiration implicit throughout 
 St. Paul's teaching (see specially Rom. xv. 4, and i Cor, 
 X. 11). That doctrine exhibits in the words "through 
 faith that is in Christ Jesus " its specially Pauline stamp and 
 character. 
 
 Baur and Holtzmann fail to convince us that the second 
 saying of i Timothy v. 18 (" The workman is worthy of his 
 hire ") is quoted as " Scripture," on a footing with the Old 
 Testament, from a written Gospel. Indeed such quotation 
 would be scarcely more probable in the middle of the second 
 century than in the apostle Paul's own time. 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 385 
 
 (S) The critics note throughout these letters " a retieat 
 of the one-sided reh'gious interest of fomier Pauline 
 epistles in favour of a more ethical conception of the purpose 
 of life " (Holtzmann p. 172). This observation, apart from 
 the colouring of censure conveyed in its terras, is true 
 enough. Only what Holtzmann calls "a retreat" we should 
 describe as an advance. Evangelical doctrine, now estab- 
 lished and consolidated, is applied on all sides to the practi- ■ 
 cal conduct of life. "The grace of God" which "appeared" 
 in Christ, " bringing salvation to all men," has developed a 
 new moral discipline (TraiSev'ouora, Tit. ii. 12). The religious 
 principle of Paulinism, instead of being " sacrificed " to 
 moral objects, realizes in them its hving effect, the " fruits " 
 by which its truth and worth are evidenced. Such passages 
 as Romans xii. i; 2 Corinthians vii. i ; 2 Thessalonians i. ir, 
 contain in germ all that is unfolded in the detailed ethical 
 instruction of later epistles. ' 
 
 " Righteousness," says Holtzmann (pp. 174, 175), appears 
 in I Timothy vi'. 11 ; 2 Timothy ii. 22 ; " as a virtue to be 
 soiight after," instead of being, in the specially Pauline 
 sense, "a peculiar relation to God." But this is equally 
 the case in Romans vi, 18, 20 ; 2 Corinthians ix. 10 ; on 
 the other hand, gratuitous justification is unequivocally as- 
 serted in the Pastoral epistles (Tit. iii. 7, etc.). The bond 
 connecting the religious and moral is never broken by the 
 apostle in his employment of this cardinal terrii of his theo- 
 logy. The righteousness of imputation he always conceived 
 as the basis of a new actual righteousness of life and be- 
 haviour (see Sabati^, p. 300). Holtzmann repeats this 
 objection, which he regards as of decisive weight, when he 
 declares (p. 175) that "there is no room for justification in 
 the JPauline meaning, where salvation is made to depend, 
 as in I Timothy iv. 6, 16, vi. I4; Titus i. 9, on the careful 
 
 , eparation 01 aogma ana moraiicy alleged by M. Sabatier 
 
 (pp. 271, 272), we fail to recognise. 
 
 25 
 
386 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 observance of traditional doctrine." In reply to this, it is 
 enough to say that the stricture applies with equal force to 
 such passages as 2 Thessalonians ii. 15 ; Romans vi. 17 ; 
 or I Corinthians xv. i, 2. In every case "doctrine" and 
 " tradition " are the means of continued salvation, inasmuch 
 as they supply the objective basis of a continued faith. 
 
 (6) But it is after all in the religious rather than the 
 ethical effect of salvation that the interest of the Pastoral 
 epistles centres. The Christian "profession" is, in one 
 word, "godliness" (i Tim. ii. 9, 10; Oeocrepeia "reverence 
 for God " — one of the unique expressions of the Pastorals), 
 of which " good works " are the " fitting ornament." Chris- 
 tianity is " the truth " or " the doctrine according to godli- 
 ness." Fourteen times is the noun eio-e/Jeta, or its congeners, 
 employed in the three epistles, while it occurs nof once 
 (except in the negative in Romans) in any other writings of 
 St. Paul. This remarkable fact is due to the cause that we 
 noted at the outset. The apostle's teaching about God and 
 about godliness come into like prominence. It was not so 
 much the way of salvation, it was not so much the Person 
 of Christ, nor even the moral practice of Christianity that 
 was endangered by the pretended "knowledge" of the 
 new Judaists, with their "fables" and "logomachies"; 
 religion itself was at stake. The theories which separated 
 God from nature and body from spirit were fatal to piety^ 
 They tended to dissolve the religious conception of life, to 
 destroy godliness and virtue — " faith and a good conscience " 
 — both at one stroke (see i Tim. iv. 1-5 ; vi. 3-5). 
 
 With, such dangers present to his mind, and likely to 
 grow in force and seductiveness in the future, the aged 
 apostle bends all his efforts to guard and strengthen the 
 spirit of religion. His exhortations to Timothy, and his, 
 injunctions to both his helpers touching their conduct of 
 Church affairs, bear with concentrated urgency upon this 
 one essential. The appeal, while it springs from the pro- 
 found piety of St. Paul's own nature, is foreshadowed by 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 387 
 
 such passages as Romans i. 18 ; v. 6, where sin is " un- 
 godliness"; so Colossians ii. 18, 23, condemning false and 
 superstitious notions of worship ; and Ephesians iv. 24, 
 which combines " righteousness and piety (coming) of the 
 truth " as the leading dispositions of the " new man." Just 
 as we found that Paul's doctrines of grace had enriched his 
 views of the Divine nature, so they appear to have deepened 
 and enlarged his conception of worship (i Tim. ii. 1-8), and 
 his sense of the part which reverence . plays in sanctifying 
 human life. 
 
 To the same causes, increased perhaps in tfieir effect 
 by the writer's advanced age, we may refer the stress that 
 is laid in these letters on "sobriety" and decorum of be- 
 haviour. We note, too, in this connexion the admiration 
 expressed for a "quiet and gentle life" (i Tim. ii. 2). These 
 preferences are by no means new features in St. Paul's 
 character (see I'Thess. iv. 11, 12 ; i Cor, xi. 2, 16 ; xiv. 33, 
 40) ; but they receive new emphasis. 
 
 In general, it is in " the other conditions, partly com- 
 bined with and partly substituted for faith," that Holtzmann 
 sees "the mediating and catholicizing character of these 
 epistles, their smoothed and softened Paulinism, made most 
 apparent" (p. 179). We should lose, in truth, some of the 
 most precious lessons of the Pastorals if we did not observe 
 this combination, if we failed to note the frequency of such 
 expressions as faith and love, faith and truth, faith and a 
 good conscience ; love, faith, and purity ; godliness, faith, 
 love, etc. But the just induction from these varied com- 
 binations is not that " faith " has lost its supremacy and is 
 merged in " other conditions," but that these are its accom- 
 paniments and the guarantees of its reality. On this point, 
 I Timothy i. 5 is instructive : " faith unfeigned " is made 
 the ultimate source of the " love " which is " the end of the 
 charge " — that is to say, the goal of all practical Christian 
 teaching. This is nothing else than the "faith working, 
 through love" of Galatians v. 6, in ampler phrase. In other 
 
388 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 places " faith " stands alone, as the basis of Christian ex- 
 perience and life (i Tim. \. 2 ; iii. 13 ; 2 Tim. iii. 15; iv. 
 7). Weiss and Ellicott rightly refuse to recognise in these 
 epistles the ecclesiastical notion of the y?</« qicam credimus, 
 the substitution of the content or object of faith for its 
 subjective exercise. 2 Thessalonians ii. 12, 13 presents the' 
 same antithesis of " faith '' and " truth " as subjective and" 
 objective counterparts, that we find in i Timothy ii. 7; iv.' 
 3, 6. It is singular that faith is spoken of -oftenerj propor- 
 tionately, in these than in any other of the epistles, except 
 Galatians. Grace and Faith form the -doiiblfe seal by which 
 the apostle stamps these writings as his own. No one could 
 imitate his -accent, or reproduce by artifice the vivid an,d 
 delicate sehsibility with which these master- words of Paul's 
 gospel are employed in the letters to Timothy and Titus. 
 
 (7) Once- more let us listen to Dr. Holtzmann; " Prac- 
 tical piety," h& says, "and correct doctrine form the two 
 poles, equally dominant," of the Pastoral epistles (p. 183). 
 The latter of these two dominant notes he connects with 
 " the growing churchliness " of the second century, under 
 whose influence Christianity comes to be called '' doctrine " 
 (Tit. ii. 10), and Christ assumes mainly the rdk of Teacher. 
 The preaching of the Gospel takes a conventional form; and 
 in its conflict with heretical theories the truth as it is in 
 Jesus stiffens into a system of authoritative dogma. If 
 orthodoxy is not yet known by name, the idea of it is there ; 
 and the SpOoTOfieiv of 2 Timothy ii. 15 comes next door to, 
 the word itself. 
 
 This -contention, in substance, we admit. The question 
 is, whether such a phenomenon was' possible in the later 
 apostolic age. To us it seems inevitable. The conserva- 
 tisni of "such an one as Paul the aged," if he lived until 
 the middle of the seventh Christiaii decade, was sure to 
 take' this shape. Looking back on the pathway which his 
 thought has trodden -led by the Spirit of God, and on the' 
 completed teaching of his life, he puts his final seal upon it; 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 389 
 
 in face of the denials and perversions to which it was already, 
 and would be increasingly and on many sides exposed. Such 
 a certification seems even necessary to the ideal complete- 
 ness of St. Paul's theological work. From the first he has 
 sought to give to his teaching a well-defined form ; and from 
 the first he has claimed for it unqualified authority. The 
 " type of doctrine " into which the Roman believers had 
 " been delivered," and which they had " obeyed from the 
 heart" (Rom. vi. 17), was a definite and settled creed, like 
 the " form of sound words," the " sound doctrine," the 
 " faithful word according to the teaching,'' on which this 
 writer expatiates j and it b'ecomes "sound doctrine" be- 
 cause, and so soon as, in other quarters corruption and 
 disease have taken hold of it. These expressions of the 
 Pastorals only gather up and reaffirm the assertions made 
 in regard to particular doctrines in St. Paul's previous con- 
 troversial epistles. The "anathema" of Galatians i. 7-9 
 is a vehement affirmation of the dogmatic principle (comp. 
 Rom. xvi. 17; I Cor. xiv. 37; xv. i-ii; Eph. iv. i4;G6l. 
 i. 6, 7; Phil. iii. 15, 16; 2 Thess. ii. 15). 
 
 Now that his teaching has become the recognised creed 
 of a great community, it is natural that Paul should speak 
 of himself as "apostle according to the faith of God's elect " 
 (Tit. i. i). Himself "ready to be offered up,'' with his 
 battle fought and his course run, the apostle's chief remain- 
 ing care. is that he may see the great " deposit " committed 
 into faithful and worthy hands. He desires to leave behind 
 him in the Churches' he has founded a community so well 
 ordered and equipped, so rooted and built up in Christ and 
 possessed by His Spirit, that it shall be for all time to come 
 a " pillar and ground of the truth." In the epistle to the 
 'Ephesians, as Holtzmann points out (p. 187); the step had 
 been completed by which Paulinism passed from the idea 
 of. the local to that of the oecumenical Church. To the 
 Christian society thus fully constituted, is committed the 
 "mystery of godliness" now fully revealed. There rises 
 
390 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 before the mind of the dying apostle the image of a uni- 
 .versal Church, to which is entrusted for the salvation of all 
 men the charge of that Gospel long ago imparted to him- 
 self by Christ Jesus his Lord. Such is the situation which 
 the last group of the Pauline epistles exhibit. Does it not 
 bear the marks of historical and psychological reality ? 
 
 Thus we pass from the thought of the "great house," 
 unfolded in the Ephesian letter, to that of the " vessels " of 
 its service, their qualities and uses, and the solemn respon- 
 sibilities, which accrue to them. Their worth lies in the 
 greatness of the Church they serve ; and hers in the great- 
 ness of the truth she holds in trust for mankind. 
 
 V. The Church System of the Pastorals. 
 
 We are now, therefore, as we hope, in a position to 
 appreciate the peculiar features of the Church order and 
 organization set before us in the Pastoral epistles, and so 
 to complete the task proposed in this inquiry. 
 
 To promote " godliness " and " sound doctrine " is the 
 leading object of these letters. This purpose dictates the 
 qualifications laid down in i Timothy iii. and Titus i. for 
 ministerial office ; and it accounts for the fact that these 
 conditions are so nearly alike for bishops (or presbyters) 
 and for deacons : _, 
 
 "The bishop must be without reproach, husband of one wife, sober, 
 sensible, orderly, hospitable, apt to teach, . . . gentle, peaceable, 
 free from the love of money . . . Deacons in like maniieir must be 
 grave . . . not double-tongued, not given to wine, nor seeking 
 base gain, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience." 
 
 These instructions, on the face of them, are not intended 
 as an exhaustive description of what the bishop and deacon 
 should be. They scarcely look beyond the moral qualities 
 of an ordinary, reputable Christian man. But it is just 
 here, in their commonplace and unambitious character, that 
 the point of the specifications lies. To the need of other, 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 391 
 
 more shining gifts the Churches were sufficiently alive. 
 What the apostle insists upon is that solid, moral qualities 
 shall not be overlooked, nor taken for granted in any case 
 without strict inquiry. The danger was lest talent and 
 cleverness should carry the day, and the leadership of the 
 Church fall into the hands of men deficient in the elements 
 of a worthy Christian character. The enemy had sown his 
 tares among the wheat of Christ's field. The discrepancy 
 between the actual and ideal Church was already painftiUy 
 manifest (2 Tim. ii. 19-21). Self-seeking teachers had in- 
 sinuated themselves into the Christian societies, who knew 
 how to impose on the crediilous or unstable by their show 
 of learning and asceticism (i Tim. i. 6, 7 ; iv. 1-3 ; vi. 3-10). 
 Entrance into the ministry must be barred to such candi- 
 dates as these-; and officers must be chosen whose character 
 commanded the respect of the community, and who would 
 be likely to exert a wholesome and steadying influence on 
 . the Church's life,' at a time of transition and feverish unrest 
 Kiihl very aptly says : 
 
 " The prescriptions -oi these epistles bear throughout an eminently 
 practical stamp, and find their characteristic expression in the exhorta- 
 tion to Timotliy : Be thou a pattern of the believers. Jhe false intel- 
 lectualism of the errorists is traced to their want of practical piety ; and 
 ' this (iffepda, this open seiise for the divine, has in turn its practical 
 moral guarantee in a Christianly moral life. Such piety it is the aim 
 of these writings, in their whole tenor, to quicken and renew." 
 
 If godliness was the chief desideratum for the Church at 
 large, so much the more was it essential to the official 
 ministry. This anxiety on the apostle's part is in profound 
 accord with the sentiments that he always cherished con- 
 cerning his own position as a minister of Christ. 
 
 " Our glorying is this, the testimony of our conscience that in holi- 
 ness and sincerity of God we have had our conversation in the world. 
 . In all things commending ourselves as ministers of God : in 
 pureness, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in kindness, in the Holy 
 .Spirit, in love unfeigned,— by the armour of righteousness on the right 
 hand and on the left " (2 Cor. i. U ; vi. 4-7). 
 
392 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 So he wrote years ago to the captious Corinthians ; and 
 such a testimony, both from within and from without, he 
 desires for his successors. 
 
 Along with the primary responsibility for character in the 
 pastors of the Church, there devolves the charge of doctrine 
 — not indeed committed solely, but specially and by way of 
 guardianship, to the separated ministry. " Faithful men " 
 they must be, able to "teach others,"- to whom above others 
 the things " heard," says the apostle, " from me amongst 
 many witnesses" are to be "committed" (2 Tim. ii. 2). 
 There is then an apostolical succession ; but it descends to 
 the humblest preacher, duly qualified and appointed in a 
 loyal Christian community. The chain of the succession 
 lies in the believing transmission of the doctrine. 
 
 Besides provision for public teaching (Gal. vi. 6 ; Rom. 
 xii. 7), there were administrative and disciplinary offices, to 
 be performed in the Christian societies. And it was for 
 these purposes that local ministers were first required. The 
 relation and adjustment of these several functions to each 
 other in the early Church is a question of extreme difficulty. 
 There are two distinctions which must be carefully borne 
 in mind — distinctions complicated with each other in 
 various ways : (i) That existing between the official and 
 what we may call the charismatic ministry ; i.e., between 
 the ministry of persons formally appointed to Church 
 office, and that exercised in virtue of some extraordinary 
 Divine endowment in the man, but not such as of itself 
 qualified him to bear rule in the Church ; or, in other 
 words, between the ministry of official status and that of 
 personal gift, the former in some measure implying the 
 latter, but the latter not of necessity carrying with it the 
 former (see i Cor. xii. 4-1 1 ; Rom. xii. 3-8). (2) Another 
 distinction, of the greatest practical moment, is that which 
 separated the local and congregational from the itinerant or 
 missionary ministry. To the former of these classes " the 
 bishops and deacons " of Philippians and of the Pastorals 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 393 
 
 belonged; to the latter the "apostles'" and "evangelists"; 
 while " prophets " and " teachers " might labour in a single 
 community (Acts xiii. i), or might, and in post-apostolic 
 times commonly did, extend their work over a wide area (see 
 the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd of Hermas). 
 In the earliest times, public teaching in th,e Christian 
 assemblies was free. Each member of the Church might 
 speak, provided it were " in order " and " to edification " 
 (see I Cor. xiv.). We must presume, however, that even 
 at Corinth there were "presidents" of some, sort to deter- 
 mine, in harmony with the sense of -the assembly, what was 
 in order and to edification (comp. i Th'ess. v. 12 ; Rom. 
 xii, 8, and the "presiding elders" of 1 Tim. v. 17). Only 
 the " women must keep silence in the assemblies " (i Cor. 
 xiv. 34, 3S). When, now, it is said in i Timothy ii. 12, 
 " A woman I do not permit to teach," we presume that 
 the right of teaching was still reserved for all other com- 
 petent Church members (comp. ver. 8, " I wish the men 
 to pray in everyplace," obviously relating to the exercise 
 of public prayer). But this license in no long time had 
 come to be abused. Talkative and pretentious men found 
 their advantage in it. The Church meetings were made a 
 theatre of " discussions and logomachies, out of which envy 
 and strife arose," tending to " questionings " rather than to 
 promote "the dispensation of God which is in faith" (i 
 Tim. i. 4 ; vi. 3-5). While the writer does not for this- 
 reason forbid the established hberty of preaching and pro- 
 phesying,! he is anxious that the bishops should be efficient 
 
 ' The teaching office of the bishop is most emphasized in the epistlg 
 to Titus. He was organizing new Churches in Crete, where no pre- 
 established license of teaching existed, to stand in the way of the full 
 authority of the presbyter-bishops. We observe, moreover, that there 
 is no mention of deacons here, who might not be required in small 
 Churches, at least in the first stage of Church organization (comp. Acts 
 xiv. 23). Nor is it prescribed that the bishop shall not be a " neophyte," 
 as in the older Church of Ephesus (i Tim. iii. 6) ; but he must have 
 "believing children" — a condition necessary to mention in a new 
 community, but that takes a different and stricter form in the directions 
 addressed to Timothy at Ephesus (i Tim. iii. 4, S). 
 
394 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 in this respect, competent to take a leading part in public 
 instruction and to counteract the attempts of false and 
 foolish teachers. The words of i Timothy v. 1 7 make it 
 tolerably clear that while teaching was not, like ruling, an 
 exclusive nor indispensable attribute of the official elders, 
 still they frequently exercised this function,"and the writer 
 wishes to encourage them in doing so. 
 
 There is little evidence to be gleaned from other sources 
 as to the connexion between ruling and teaching in the 
 local ministry in apostolic times. Hebrews xiii. 7 indicates 
 that, amongst Jewish Christians at least in the seventh 
 decade, the two offices were commonly regarded as one, 
 James iii. i belongs to an earlier time, when things were 
 tending in that direction. In the Gentile communities the 
 liberty of teaching continued to a much later epoch; 
 indeed, the tradition of it remains in the Apostolic Constitu- 
 tions (viii. 32), which in their present form are referred to 
 the third or fourth century. In Ephesians iv. 1 1, however, 
 " the pastors and teachers " form a single group, if not 
 identical yet closely allied, and alike distinguished from the 
 several orders of " apostles," " prophets," and " evangelists." 
 It is just this tendency to unite the pastoral and teaching 
 offices to which the Pastoral epistles give expression. 
 
 When we turn to the newly discovered Teaching of the 
 Apostles, our most important witness for the development 
 of Church organization in the post-apostolic period, we find 
 that now " the bishops and deacons themselves discharge 
 the ministry of prophets and teachers " (chap, xv.), while 
 at the same time there are itinerant " prophets " and 
 " teachers,"- who possess a preponderant influence, and may 
 even supersede the local officers in the conduct of the 
 Eucharist (chaps. x.-xiii.). The Shepherd of Hermas — dating 
 from the early part of the second century, as the Teaching 
 probably from the close of the first — gives evidence to the 
 same effect. Now, it is noticeable that our epistles make 
 no reference to these roving prophets and teachers,, whose 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 395 
 
 ascendency is the most conspicuous feature in the picture 
 of Church life afforded by the Teaching. Their prominence 
 belongs to the transitional period between the personal rule 
 of the apostles and the official rule of the mon-episcopal 
 hierarchy established in the second century. Instead of 
 the Teaching of the Apostles forming, as Harnack says, " a 
 mean term between i Corinthians xii. and the Pastorals," the 
 truth is that the Pastorals and Ephesians together are the 
 mean term between i Corinthians xii., with its fluid and un- 
 formed Church life, and the settled and formal order which 
 the Teaching delineates. 
 
 Since Bishop Lightfoot's famous Dissertation on the 
 Christian Ministry, the identity of " bishop " and " elder " 
 in the New Testament may be regarded as an established 
 fact.^ The presiding congregational officers are elders in 
 respect of rank and "honour" (i Tim. v. 17), and bishops 
 in respect of their " work " and responsibility (i Tim. iii. i ; 
 Tit. i. 7 ; Acts xx. 28). The late Dr. Hatch (whose removal 
 by deatli we deeply deplore, in common with all Christian 
 scholars) attempted in his Bampton Lectures to show that 
 the two offices were of distinct and independent origin. 
 He argued that the presbyterate was a Jewish, and purely 
 magisterial and disciplinary order ; while the episcopate was 
 Gi-eek in its derivation, financial and administrative in the 
 first instance, but taking on in the Church a spiritual and 
 charismatic character. This theory, we are persuaded, will 
 not be sustained on mature examination.^ According to 
 
 • Some able scholars mainfain that elder is the wider ternii denoting 
 Church ofBce generally, and embracing bishop and deacon alike ; so 
 Dr. Milligan in Haft Expositor, 3rd series, vi., 348 ff. This position 
 cannot, we think, be sustained In face of Titus i. 5, 7, so precisely 
 identifying "elders" and "the bishop"; nor does it accord with 
 I Timothy iv. 14, v. 17, — texts which imply a presidenCtal dignity, 
 inappropriate to the name and calling of the " deacons." The deacons 
 would more naturally come in the first instance from the ranks of the 
 young men. " Young men " is a quasi-official term in Acts v. 6, 10. 
 
 " Kiihl subjects Dr. Hatch's theory of the episcopate to a searching 
 criticism, in pp. 87 flf. of his Gemeindeordnung ; and Gore's recent 
 
396 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Hatch's hypothesis, it was only gradually, towards the end 
 of the first century, that the two systems were amalgamated 
 and presbyter and bishop shared the same functions, until 
 the bishop was differentiated from the presbytery in a hew 
 way under the mon-episcopal regime of Ignatius. . If Dr. 
 Hatch is right, -then the Pastoral and Ephesian epistles, the 
 Acts of the Apostles, and the epistle of James, and i Peter 
 must all be relegated, at the earliest, to the closing years of 
 the first century. So Harnack ^ inferred with irresistible 
 logic from Hatch's premises ; and while Dr. Hatch did not 
 draw these conclusions in the Bampton Lectures, his 
 articles on Paul and Pastoral Epistles in the Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica (9th ed.) show that he had reached the same 
 result in the case of Ephesians and the Pastorals, and 
 ; inclined to it in regard to the Acts. This is a heavy price 
 to pay for Dr. Hatch's attractive thebry. So far as any 
 case has been made out for St. Paul's authorship of these 
 letters, it negatives the supposition ' that the presbyterate 
 and episcopate were fundamentally different offices. 
 
 Very significant for the primitive meaning of episcopus is 
 1 Peter ii. 25, where Christ Himself is called "the shep- 
 herd and bishop of your souls "; and with the ''bishop" of 
 this passage the " presbyters " of chap. v. 1-4 are linked 
 as those who '■^shepherd the flock" under the "Chief' 
 Shepherd," just as in Acts xx. 17-28 "the elders of the 
 Church" at Ephesus are exhorted to "take heed to the flock 
 over which the Holy Spirit made them overseers (bishops) " ; 
 
 and important work on The Ministry of the Christian Church, while 
 less successful in its constructive argament, makes some effective criti- 
 cisms on tlie Hatch- fiarnack hy^iothesis. See also the discussion on 
 • the Origin of the Christian Ministry in the Expositor, 3rd series, vols, 
 v., vi. ; especially the contributions of Dps. Sanday and Salmon. 
 
 ' In his notes to the German translation -of Hatch's Lectures 
 (Die Gesellschaftsverfassung, etc.), and Anaiecten zu Hatch. In tlie 
 Expositor, 3rd series, vol. v. pp. 334, 335, Harnack says, " I regard 
 the Pastoral Epistles as writings which, in their present form, were 
 composed in tlie middle of the second centuiy ; but older documents 
 were made use of in their composition." 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 397 
 
 similarly, " shepherds " is the designation for Church rulers 
 in Ephesians iv. 11. The same conception of the bishop's 
 work underlies the directions of the Pastorals ; it comes 
 out vividly in the question of i Timothy iii. 5 : "If he 
 knows riot how to preside over his own house, how will he 
 ciirefor the Church of God ? " (comp. John x. 13)— a higher 
 care, surely, than that of the Church's money chest ! These 
 documents bear a common witness to the moral and spiritual 
 character of the episcopal calling, and through it a mutual 
 testimony to each other. They unite to express with 
 fine simplicity, and without a trace of second century 
 ecclesiasticism, the apostolical conception of the Christian 
 ministry — viz., that of spiritual shepherding. 
 
 Still the question remains : If presbyter and bishop 
 meant the same thing, why the two names ? For answer, 
 we are left to conjecture. We venture to think that the 
 title bishop, first appearing in the speech and from the pen 
 of St. Paul, is due to the apostle himself, original as he 
 was in so many things. Elder preoccupied the field in a 
 community of Jewish origin, and came into use as a matter 
 of course, so soon as a board of managers was needed in the 
 new society (Acts xi. 30 ; xiv. 23, etc.). But this designa- 
 tion had certain obvious defects. It was ambiguous (see 
 I Tim. V. I, 17 ; i JPet. v. i, 5), and unexpressive. It was, 
 moreover, in constant use among the Jews as a title of civil 
 office — a circumstance liable to cause confusion, and per- 
 haps distaste to Gentile Christians. The Old Testament 
 suggested episcopus ^ to those casting about for a substitute ; 
 and this term commended itself by the fact that it indicated 
 the peculiar nature of the office (overseership), and was 
 kindred in meaning to shepherd, a figure hallowed and 
 endeared by the lips of Christ (John x. ; comp. i Pet. ii. 25). 
 
 ' See Crcmer's Biblico-theological Lexicon, s.v. ''EwlaKoiros ; and 
 Lightfoot's Note in his Commentary on Philippiatis, pp. 93ff., also his' 
 Dissertation on the Christian Ministry in the same vol., which still 
 remains the best elucidation of the subject. 
 
398 THE APOSTLE PAUL, 
 
 If about the same time, in the older Pauline Churches, 
 assistant officers came to be needed in the shape oi-rdeacotti, 
 after the model of Jerusalem (Acts vi.), it would be still 
 more necessary to give the superior functionaries a name 
 implying superintendence. We find, in fact, that " bishop " 
 and " deacon " are correlative. It is possible that St. Paufs 
 address at Miletus, reported in Acts xx., marks the juncture 
 at which the new appellation was making its appeai-ance, _ 
 and that the remarkable words of ver. 28 were expressly 
 chosen in order to' recommend its use; when he writes to 
 the Philippians a few years later (chap. i. i), it is an accepted 
 and familiar title. The "helps" and "governments" of 
 I Corinthians xii. 28 contain in the .abstract the antithesis 
 of "deacon" and "bishop," present at this earlier time 
 in the apostle's mind, although it had not yet at Corinth 
 crystallized into formal expression. But whatever be the 
 true explanation of the double name, it is surely past ques- 
 tion that . in the Acts and epistles elder and bishop, are 
 synonymous. 
 
 The long section devoted to Church widoivs, in i Timothy 
 V. 3-16, is interesting on many grounds. It speaks for an 
 early date for the epistle, that the claims of dependent 
 widows had not hitherto been fully discussed and settled. 
 The sixth chapter pf the Acts^ accepted on all hands as a 
 genuine picture of primitive Church life, shows that the 
 matter from the first received much attention. Our author 
 is anxious, too, that the influence of the "aged women" 
 generally should be utilized in the guidance of their sex 
 (Tit. ii. 3-5). It is not the first time that St. Paul has shown 
 his sense of the importance attaching to the position of 
 women in Christian society (i Cor. xi. 2-16) ; and the 
 attempts of heretical teachers to win their adherence (2 Tim. 
 iii. 6) made it the more necessary that the Church should 
 be guarded upon this side. Holtzniann curiously argues 
 (pp. 245, 246) that the recommendation of i Timothy v. 14, 
 approving the re-marriage of " younger widows," came from 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 399 
 
 the experience of " a later generation " ; and he is surprised 
 at the appearance, within the lifetime of the apostle Paul, of 
 " widows grown grey in the service of the Church " 1 Grant 
 ten years' existence to the Ephesian Church, and a moderate 
 knowledge of human life to the apostle, and these critical 
 difficulties are solved. In the young Cretan Churches the 
 question of the widows has not yet arisen. 
 
 There is, no doubt, a difference between the Paul of i 
 Corinthians vii. and of i Timothy in the tenor of their 
 observations on marriage and "child-bearing." But the 
 advices of the former passage were based on prudential 
 and temporary considerations (vers. 28, 29). Now that the 
 Church appears likely to continue on earth for a longer 
 space, family life resumes its natural importance ; and the 
 epistles of the third group (Colossians and Ephesians) give 
 to it the highest ethical and religious value. 
 
 It remains finally, and in distinction from the local 
 officership of the Churches, to consider the ecclesiastical 
 status of Timothy and Titus. Since the failure of Baur's 
 attempt to identify the bishop of the Pastorals with the mon- 
 episcopus '^ (or monarchical bishop) of the second century, 
 his successors have turned the functions of Timothy and 
 Titus to account in favour of the Tendency theory. They 
 seek to show that the position of these apostolic commis- 
 sioners is magnified in the interests of episcopal autocracy. 
 
 If so, the supposed episcopalian forger has shown himself 
 both timid and blundering in the extreme; and the partisans 
 of the Ignatian episcopate can have had little to thank him 
 for. The epistles of Ignatius, unquestionably, make use of 
 the Pastorals, but in no instance, so far as we can find, in the 
 sense imputed to the latter by the Tubingen school. The 
 " tendency " of the epi^les to Timothy and Titus had not 
 then been, discovered ! The only title the writer ventures to 
 
 1 We owe this convenient term to Mr. Gore's Ministry of the Chris- 
 tian Church. 
 
40O THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 give to either of the delegates is that of " evangelist." They 
 stand in no fixed relationship to the local Churches. The 
 powers they exercise for the time in Ephesus or Crete, 
 as formerly in Corinth or Thessalonica, are the powers of 
 the living apostle exercised through them ; and are of an 
 expressly occasional and limited character. They are to 
 choose and ordain Church officers in the apostle's absence, 
 subject ' to the approval of the voice of the Church (im- 
 plied throughout i Tim. iii. 1-13); and, in Timothy's case, 
 to investigate complaints that might be made against 
 "elders " already in office (i Tim. v. 19-25 ; also Tit. i. 6-9). 
 And this is all ! There is nothing to show that they charged 
 themselves with details of local administration, or with the 
 discipline of lay members of the flocTc. Paul had himself 
 excommunicated certain persons (r Tim. i. 20); Timothy 
 and Titus are bidden merely to "avoid" the mischief-makers. 
 In this unique commission there is more that differs from 
 than resembles the functions of the latter monarchical 
 bishop. Holtzmann says, indeed, that Timothy and Titus, 
 with their powers of visitation, were prototypes of the arch- 
 episcopate (p. 266). But who ever thought of archbishops 
 in the second century? 
 
 After all, their relations with the Ephesian or Cretan 
 presbyteries constituted only the incidental part of the life- 
 work of these apostolic, men. " The testimony of our 
 Lord " was laid upon Timothy, through God's gift of grace 
 solemnly attested and committed to him at the outset of his 
 career (2 Tim. i. 6-14) ; and this it was his business every- 
 where to proclaim. It is his to "do the work of an evange- 
 list," and to share with his master in the glorious toils and 
 sufferings of a missionary preacher (2 Tim. i. 8 ; ii. 1-13). 
 This mission required, beyond the repetition of the Gospel 
 story and the announcement of God's message of peace to 
 mankind (i Tim., ii. 3-7), that- the purpose of grace should 
 be carried out to its practical issues in the moral life of 
 believers — "the things which become the sound doctrine. ; 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. ■ 4CJ 
 
 It is not a testimony only, but a charge that is entrusted tc 
 " my child Timothy," that he may " war the good warfare, 
 holding faith and a good conscience" (i Tim. i. 3-1 1, 18, 
 19 ; Tit. ii. 11, 12). This testimony and charge are of uni- 
 versal import ; they belong to the ministry of Christ's servants 
 and soldiers wherever exercised. And, in fact, the apostle 
 dwells with greatest emphasis on Timothy's personal voca- 
 tion in the second letter, when his commission' at Ephesus 
 is about to terminate, and he is in the act of summoning 
 him to join himself at Rome. 
 
 It is no question, therefore, 01 ecclesiastical system or 
 episcopal claims that weighs on the mind of the writer of 
 these memorable letters. His supreme concern is for the 
 maintenance of character and true doctrine in the Christian 
 ministry, and through it, in the Church it serves. All that 
 was local and of the occasion in the charge of the departing 
 apostle to his children merges itself in that which belonged 
 to their essential calling, as bearers of the message of the 
 glory of the blessed God. The same call, conveyed through 
 diversities of operation, is given to every true minister of 
 Christ. Whatever human hands may take part in its 
 bestowal, it is God's charism. His immediate and sovereign 
 gift of grace. It is manifest, now as then, in the spirit of 
 power and love and discipline. To all who bear it the great 
 herald and apostle cries : Preach the word. Guard the 
 good deposit. Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of 
 Christ Jesus. 
 
 Paul's living utterance makes itself heard in these severe 
 and lofty tones, not that of some actor on the ecclesiastical 
 stage who has assumed his mask, some impostor hidden 
 under the dead lion's skin. Words, thoughts, spirit in these 
 letters alike speak for their great author — great in his latest 
 work, wise and far-seeing in his care for the flock of Christ, 
 skilful to fence its fold againsf the approaching wolves, as 
 he had been mighty in word and doctrine in those w^ondrou* 
 
 26 
 
40i THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 years when he founded Gentile Christendom and built up 
 the imperishable fabric of the New Testament theology. 
 The second century never spoke as these epistles speak. 
 By their voice we discover the apostle still alive, when all 
 other clear record of him has perished amid the confusion 
 of the latter years of Nero's rule. He has lived, happily, 
 to send to the Church out of that time of fear and dark- 
 ness a last watchword, — his message of farewell to the 
 men he trusted most, and to us all through them. It is 
 a word full of hope, and full of solemn warning, — a message 
 of discipline, of courage, and of unchanging faith in Christ.^ 
 
 niSTos o Aoros. 
 
 Butler St Tanner. The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and I.((nd(A