ness and unprofitableness thereof." "Perfection" was not to be had by means of the "Levitical priesthood." Their agency has therefore been thrown aside in favour of one who "pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar." Would a Jew speak thus disparagingly of the institutions of his people? The writer calls the veil of the tabernacle the "second" veil, associating it thus with the outer curtains, which to him would be the first veil, and thus failing to give it the special importance attaching to it. He says, within this veil was laid up a "golden censer," of which we never hear, and that the memorial pot of manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, were within the ark, equally as the tables of the covenant; whereas the said pot of manna and rod were deposited "before the testimony" (Ex. xvi. 33, 34; Num. xvii. 10), or outside the ark, errors into which a Jew would scarcely fall. The writer clothes Jesus with the office of high priest, the "offering" he presented being "himself." He is considered to have entered the true holy of holies, or heaven, "by his own blood," thus "putting away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" so that we also, now, may have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." Singularly enough he cites the passage in the 40th Psalm, where it is imputed to God, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire," "burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required," as the warrant for this stupendous sacrifice (x. 5-10), and pleads, as evidence of the efficacy of the sacrifice, the declaration in Jeremiah (xxxi. 33, 34), that God had quite another method of freeing Israel from sin, namely, by means of the new covenant, carried out by his writing his laws in the hearts of his people, and so compassing their forgiveness. While obviously not the Paul of the Acts, who maintained that in nothing had he "offended," "neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple," equally is it apparent that he is not the Paul of the Epistle to the Galatians; for he derives his doctrine from the teaching of Christ while on earth, as "confirmed" to him "by them that heard him" (ii. 3); while the other, as I have repeatedly had to notice, obtained his from heaven, and from some other source than "flesh and blood." The writer apprehends the pre-existence of Jesus, but not his essential divinity. He was the Son of God, "by whom also he made the worlds" (i. 2); he enters

H

the world as the "first-begotten" (i. 6); he was "made" in being "a little lower than the angels" (ii. 9), which is the phrase also used for defining the standing point of the human race (ii. 7); "verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham," that he might "in all things" "be made like unto his brethren" (ii. 17); "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (ii. 14); he therefore could be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities," being so constituted as to be susceptible of being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (iv. 15). Jesus, therefore, while on earth, was a mere man, and as such the writer speaks of him (vii. 24; x. 12).

There is a passage which may be thought to interfere with this conclusion, where God is represented addressing him and saying, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever (i. 8). The citation is from the 45th Psalm, where it is the psalmist who is speaking, and not the Deity; and the invocation must be taken as addressed to the Deity, and not to "the king" spoken of, who is one described throughout in human aspect, and as contracting a human nuptial alliance. To imagine otherwise is to convict the Hebrew psalmist of setting up a second God, which cannot have been the case.

The Epistles of John represent the like stage of doctrine, but are devoid of any show of connection with Judaism. The writer, however, wishes to be thought a Jew, speaking in the third epistle of the Gentiles, as if not of them. He depends upon the sacrificial element. "The blood of Jesus Christ," he says, "cleanseth us from all sin." "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." He is thus far removed from Jewish exclusiveness. The pre-existence of Jesus is asserted. He is "that which was from the beginning," "which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” God "sent him world," and constituted him with "eternal life."

"into the

"That," which we

we are told, "which we have seen with our eyes, have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)." The believers

have "fellowship fellowship" with him, and thus participate in this endowed life. "God," it is said, "bath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his son." "We know," it is declared, "that the son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son Jesus Christ." "This," it is emphatically laid down, "is the true God, and eternal life; that is, it is thus that God is truly manifested to us, bestowing upon us eternal life through the medium of his son. The revelation of Jesus is not, however, that of God himself. "No man," he warns us, "hath seen God at any time." Jesus came "in the flesh," to deny which the writer maintains is to exhibit the "spirit of Anti-Christ." Jesus is the "only begotten Son" of God, and in the sonship thus constituted we are to believe. His essential divinity is not declared.

66

This paramount doctrine appears proclaimed in the remaining epistles bearing the name of Paul which I have to discuss. In the Epistle to the Philippians Paul, in co-operation with Timotheus, is styled merely the servant of Jesus Christ." He asserts himself to be a Hebrew, particularizing even his tribe, and saying he was a Pharisee, but in no other way betraying any sentiment to associate him with Judaism. The specification of his tribe is an assertion no real Jew could have ventured to make. Union with Christ forms the ground of his hopes. He does not plead his own righteousness, as one who had fulfilled the law, but "the righteousness which is of God by faith" in Christ; desiring, he says, "that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." The sacrificial death of Christ may be included in the writer's creed, but it is not exactly expressed. He, however, has a distinct view of the divinity of Christ while on earth, alleging that "being in the form of God," he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God;" and yet, inconsistently, he makes the exaltation of Christ to depend, not on his own. inherent attributes, but on the action of God exalting him.

In the Epistles to Timothy, Paul is the apostle of Jesus by the "commandment" and the "will" of God. "I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle," he insists, "and lie not; a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." He calls

Timothy his own son in the faith; announces to him that "the glorious gospel of the blessed God" he proclaimed had been "committed to his trust;" exhorts him to "stir up the gift of God" which he had received by the laying on of his hands; to "take heed unto himself, and unto the doctrine;" and not to be "ashamed of the testimony" of their Lord, nor of him, his prisoner. This Paul, describing and upholding his own apostolic position, and schooling and exhorting Timothy, can scarcely be the Paul who placed Timothy in fellowship and on a level with himself in coming forward to indoctrinate the Philippians. He speaks leniently of the law, saying that it is "good, if a man use it lawfully," and was designed for the repression of ungodliness. Otherwise he shows no sense of association with Judaism. With the Judaic Essenes it is clear he had no sympathy; for he denounces the "forbidding to marry" and "to abstain from meats," counsels the younger widows to re-marry, and advises Timothy to make use of wine in moderation. He says that Christ " came into the world to save sinners," is the "mediator between God and men," and " gave himself a ransom for all," but otherwise does not advert to his sacrificial death. What passed" before Pontius Pilate" was that he there "witnessed a good confession," which points to his end as a martyr. Our salvation is made to depend upon fellowship with Christ. "If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: if we suffer, we shall also reign with him.” But he appears to apprehend the preexistence of Christ in saying that God's purposes towards us in Christ occurred "before the world began," but were made manifest now by his "appearing ;" and he seems openly to proclaim Christ's divinity, in saying, "great is the mystery of godliness God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

:

In the Epistle to Titus the writer alludes to Gentiles as if himself not of them, citing a saying as by "one of themselves, even a prophet of their own; but as he speaks disparagingly of "the circumcision," and contemptuously of Jewish doctrine under the designation of "Jewish fables," he probably was a Gentile personating Paul. The removal of sin by the blood of Jesus is not taught. Jesus is said to have given himself for

us, to redeem us from iniquity. This he might do without offering himself as a sacrifice. The "washing" depended on is that "of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Here reformation of conduct is in view, and accordingly "good works" are insisted on (iii. 8, 14). The pre-existence of Jesus is not declared, but it is said we are to be "looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," which is an annunciation of his divinity.

The second Epistle of Peter was disputed by Origen, Cyprian, and Eusebius,* and from this circumstance, and its distinctive doctrine, I detach it from the first Epistle. The writer speaks of his "beloved brother Paul," and adverts to his "epistles" in a way that could not have occurred in the Judaic Peter, whose dissimulation the Paul of the Galatians professes to have exposed. This feeling for the Gentile Paul indicates that the writer was probably himself a Gentile. He evinces no Judaic connection of any sort. Jesus is stated to have bought" those who are his, but this need not have been by the outpouring of his blood sacrificially. The doctrine of works is preached (i. 5-11), and it is "through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" that his people are described to have "escaped the pollutions of the world." Jesus is spoken of as "our God and Saviour" (i. 1, Greek), and is said to operate on his people with "divine power," which involves his essential divinity.

The last section of the record remaining to be considered is the Gospel according to John. This is commonly looked upon, and with apparent justice, as embodying the culmination of the Christian beliefs. The contrast between the exhibition made of Jesus in this section of the scriptures, as compared with the portrait drawn of him in the synoptic gospels, has struck every critical student. I am at present concerned only with the distinguishing Jewish and Gentile traits in these records, my object being to trace the progress of doctrine from the Jewish form, in which it was first projected, to the Gentile form, in which we now have it. The synoptics represent Jesus as strictly a Jew in descent, action, and sentiment. The gospel of John has no such features. There is the question

"The Bible; is it the Word of God?" 59.