which had begun between Judaism and Christianity, in the decision of the momentous question whether there should be a Christianity free from Judaism, and essentially different from it, or whether Christianity should only exist as a form of Judaism, that is to say, as nothing else than a modified and extended Judaism," "The standpoint from which the elder apostles looked at Paul cannot be sufficiently kept before us. It is as clear as possible that, at this time at least, fourteen years after the conversion of the apostle Paul, their circle of vision did not extend beyond Judaism." Treating still of the Epistle to the Galatians, he says, "There can scarcely be any doubt with regard to these Judaising opponents, that from the way in which the apostle opposed them, the conflict was now for the first time being carried on. We see that this is the first time this subject has been handled; the apostle perceives that be is absolutely obliged to give an account of how he was summoned to his apostolic office, and he speaks of it in such a manner as he could not have done, if he had ever before come in contact with these opponents in the same way. He puts himself thoroughly in opposition to them; as thoroughly as can only be done when for the first time the full importance of a principle dawns upon a man, and when the maintenance of this principle against a vexatious opposition constitutes the task of his whole life" (Paul, his Life and Works, I. 131, 263, 266).

In the Judaic form of the early Christian faith, and in the nature of the struggle from Judaism into Gentilism, as depicted prominently in the Epistle to the Galatians, it will be seen that I am quite in accord with this leading German critic. In fact, no one analyzing the doctrines in these scriptures could well come to any other conclusion. The point that is really open for consideration and discussion is whether the sketch drawn of Paul in the Galatians is a genuine one. It has, I think, been too readily assumed to be such. pears to hold that the new light that had burst upon first enunciated by him some fourteen years (according to the Epistle-chap. i. 18; ii. 1—it would be seventeen years) after his conversion. If so, Paul must have previously been Judaizing, as stated in the Acts. But this is not the nature of the representation made in the Epistle to the Galatians.

Baur ap

Paul was

The light is described to have burst upon Paul, as a special revelation, at the moment of his conversion. "Immediately," he declares, "I conferred not with flesh and blood." His isolation from the apostles and their line of doctrine, is maintained as characterizing him from the first; and he never uttered, he would have us know, any other than this gospel, savouring of Gentilism, which he is here advocating. We have to consider whether such a phenomenon can actually have had occurrence. Would a convert of the time of Judaic Christianity, have had the light, and the audacity, to take so bold a stand, throwing off and defying the leaders of the movement, and asserting at once for himself a very different form of faith from theirs? Admitting the thaumaturgy, admitting the vision and the special illumination, asserted for Paul, the rest might assuredly follow. Otherwise, it is impossible to suppose that a recent convert could at once have marked out for himself the distinctive career designated for Paul in the Epistle before us. But what more natural conclusion remains to be drawn than that, in the growth of time, after the introduction of Gentiles into the Christian community, in the manner recounted in the Book of Acts, essential Gentile doctrines came into favour, and that some zealous advocate for the change has launched the new form of doctrine upon us in this Epistle, in the name of Paul, clearing him of the earlier teachers, and fortifying his position with a direct revelation made to him. from heaven?

The

called to be an "the apostle of

We have to turn now to the Epistle to the Romans. writer is still careful to describe Paul as apostle, separated unto the gospel of God," the Gentiles," and disposed to "magnify his office;" but, in the progress made in the dissemination of his particular creed, he is not found under the necessity of announcing his independence with the same earnest protestations employed in the previous Epistles. Nor can he be the Paul of the Galatians, as he describes his missionary course to have begun at Jerusalem (xv. 19), and avows constant connection with that region. (xv. 25, 31), The Gentile sympathies are strongly maintained, though there is a show of priority accorded to the Jew. The gospel is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." The law

is set practically at nought, the human race being equally in the hands of God for judgment, whether the law existed or not. "There is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law." The Jews are judged by the written code, and the Gentiles by the law of "their conscience," "written in their hearts," which process puts the formal Jewish code, as a divine necessity or appointment, out of the field. "Uncircumcision" is then declared to be as good as circumcision; “for he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Is God, he asks, "the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith "-a distinction, it may be observed, without a difference. The writer cleverly makes use of the circumstance that Abraham had obeyed his call while in the state of "uncircumcision," and had "received the sign of circumcision," as the "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised;" and had become thus the father, "not of the circumcision only," but of those who should "walk in the steps of that faith" "which he had, being yet uncircumcised." Then he argues that those are not the "heirs" that are "of the law," else "faith is made void," and so claims Abraham as "the father of us all." In this latter expression, it may be suspected he betrays himself to be a Gentile. His aim is certainly to be accepted as a Jew; but, in the endeavour to assert Jewish standing, he overstrains himself. He tells us (xi. 1) that he was of the tribe of Benjamin; but as the Jews have been without the sense of their tribal distinctions since the period of the captivity,* no Jew could be capable of asserting his tribe. It is a Gentile, following the Jewish scriptures, and ignorant of fact, who does so.

“The children of the flesh, then," the writer distinctly says, are not the children of God: but the children of the promise *The Legends of the Old Testament, 113.

are counted for the seed," in which category he necessarily includes his Gentile associates. "" 'There is no difference," he openly states, "between the Jew and the Greek for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The vehicle of salvation is the recognition of the sacrifice of Jesus. We are "justified" freely by the grace of God, "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” By whom we have now received the atonement.' Of Christ it is said that he was God's 66 own son," whom he had sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (viii. 3); his "own son," whom he had not spared, but "delivered him up for us all" (viii. 32). This might indicate the pre-existence of Christ with God as his son before he came to earth, had the fact been otherwise made apparent as one the writer had accepted. Such, however, is not the case. He shows us Christ as only in human capacity when on earth, his place in sonship being conferred upon him at his resurrection. He describes him as "made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (i. 3, 4); a representation entirely according with that in the Acts (xiii. 33), where at his resurrection the prophetic saying of the psalmist is said to have been fulfilled, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." An image

made "like to corruptible man" would be no better than the fanciful delineations of the godhead by the heathen (i. 23). Christ, therefore, it may be assumed, was no such image in the apprehension of the writer. "By one man," he says, "sin entered into the world, and death by sin," and therefore by another, even "by one man Jesus Christ," the grace of deliverhath abounded unto many." "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (v. 12-19). "If the spirit of him

ance

I

that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you" (viii. 11); the realization of the whole scheme depending, not on what Christ was in the flesh, but on what God had done for him in raising him from the dead.

The phrase in Rom. ix. 5, "God blessed for ever," would militate against these conclusions if a genuine portion of the epistle, and bearing the highest signification that can be attached to the words. I understand, however, that it is considered to be a doctrinal interpolation, though of an ancient period. But if its integrity is to be insisted on, consistency with the remainder of the epistle requires that the language should be accepted in some other light than as expressing the divinity of Jesus. Possibly, I would suggest, the phrase is merely ejaculative, and refers to the Deity himself.

The first Epistle of Peter embraces a line of doctrine similar to what we have had in view, and not apparently advancing beyond it. Peter is represented addressing "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." They are said to be such as "in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." These, then, would seem to be Gentiles, and if so, the Peter before us is not the Peter of the Epistle to the Galatians, whose offices were confined to the circumcision. The "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" is the instrument for purification from sin. They had been "redeemed," "not with corruptible things," "but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” "suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." Of the divinity of Christ when on earth there is no mention. His death is said to have been "fore-ordained before the foundation of the world" (i. 20), but this is no assertion of his pre-existence. He is said to have been "put to death in the flesh" (iii. 18), and to have suffered" "in the flesh," which presents him only in human form. The power of the deliverance wrought through him turned altogether upon his resurrection, as effected

He