,'/£/ iff/it, '- vv - V?

™mm

mimm

mm

0'01
<l-Z -
5>J S» ~X
S>'3 T> -_.
1
n
;¦¦',.¦ — -.^Kiiu^VA^
sur^BE
Mi
ipi
rss \ 9u$

¦ iLniBis^mr •

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

HISTORY
OF THB
PLANTING AND TRAINING
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
BY THE APOSTLES. BT
DR. AUGUSTUS NEANDEE.

TRANSLATED FROM THB GKRMAS
By J. E. RYLAND.

TRANSLATION REVISED AND CORRECTED ACCORDING TO THB
FOURTH GERMAN EDITION,
Br E. G. ROBINSON, D.D.,// N> A f /
PEOFESSOB IN THB ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL S^IINAKT. "*
NEW YORK:
SHELDON & COMPANY.
BOSTON: GOULD & LINCOLN.
1869.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, by
SHELDON A CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District
of New York,

.1 0'£

Electrotyped by Smith & McDotiQAL, 82 & 84 Beekman-street
Printed by C. S. Wesicott & Co., 79 John-street,

P E E F A C E

TO THB

AMERICAN EDITION.

Mr. Ryland's translation of this work was made from the
third edition of the original, and was first published in 1841. In
1847, appeared the fourth edition of the original, carefully revised,
and containing important additions and modifications in the His
tory itself, besides notices of all the criticisms of any value that had
been made, during the six years preceding, on the third edition.
In 1851, the most important of the changes found in this fourth
edition were embodied by Mr. Ryland under the title of " Additions
and Corrections," and appended to his translation. To say nothing
of the inconvenience and awkwardness of such an arrangement,
there remained, necessarily, a large number of alterations, both in
the notes and in the text, of which no notice could be taken without
a thorough revision of the translation itself. To make such a
revision has been the attempt of the editor in the present edition.
And it may not be amiss to say, that, with all the merits of Mr.
Ryland as a translator — which are not few nor unacknowledged by
those acquainted with his labors — there yet remained in his version
of this History, not only occasional misapprehensions of meaning,
but obscurities too numerous and too annoying to be perpetuated
in a book which so large a circle of readers were desirous of
profiting by.
It may, perhaps, be superfluous to add, at this late day, that no
work of Neander exhibits more conspicuously his best characteris
tics as a fervid Christian theologian and a sagacious and critical
historian, than his "Planting and Training of the Christian

IV PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
Church." The work belongs to a department of theological litera
ture of which the venerated author was the virtual creator. It
opened a field of inquiry which has since been diligently cultivated,
but on which no one has surpassed or even equalled, in skill and
success, its first occupant.
It is believed that the volume, as it now stands, will be intel
ligible to all readers who are interested in the subjects of which it
treats. Its quotations from other languages have all been rendered
into English, both in the text and in the notes, so that no reader
need longer be disturbed by them. The numerous references to
the author's " Church History" and " Life of Christ," have been
made to conform to the American translations and well-known
editions of these works.
E. G. ROBINSON.
Rochester, Sept. 27, 1864.

DEDICATION OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

TO THE
BIGHT REVEREND DR. F. EHEENBERG,
BOTAL CHAPLAIN, MEMBER OP THE BUPBEME OON9ISTOBY, ETC., ETC.

My Deeply Revered and Very Dear Friend —
I trust you will receive this work, with all its defects, as the offering of a
sincere heart; as a small token of my cordial veneration and love, and of that
sincere gratitude which I have long felt impelled to express for the edification I
have derived from your discourses. May a gracious God long allow you to labor
and shine among us for the welfare of his Church, with that holy energy which
He has bestowed upon you, with the spirit of Christian wisdom and freedom — the
spirit of true freedom, exalted above all the strife of human parties — which the
Son of God alone bestows, and which is especially requisite for the guidance of the
Church in our times, agitated and distracted as they are by so many conflicts I
This is the warmest wish of one who, with all his heart, calls himself yours.
Thus I wrote on the 22d of May, 1832 ; and after six years I again repeat,
with all my heart, the words expressive of dedication, of gratitude, and of devout
wishes to the Giver of all perfect gifts. Since that portion of time (not unim
portant in our agitated age) has passed away, I have to thank you, dear and
inmostly-revered man, for many important words of edification and instruction
which I have received from your lips in public, as well as for the precious gift*
which has often administered refreshment to myself and others. Tes, with all my
heart I agree with those beautiful sentiments which form the soul of your dis
courses, and bind me with such force to your person. God grant that we may
ever humbly and faithfully hold fast the truth which does not seek for reconcilia
tion amidst contrarieties, but is itself unsought the right meanl God grant (what
is far above all theological disputations) that the highest aim of our labors may be
to produce the image of Christ in the souls of men — that to our latest breath we
may keep this object in view without wavering, fast bound to one another in true
love, each one in his own sphere, unmoved by the vicissitudes of opinion and the
collisions of party !
Let me add as a subordinate wish, that you would soon favor us with a volume
of discourses, to testify of this " one thing that is needful."
A. NEANDER.
Beelih, SOih May, 1S3S.

It gives me very special satisfaction, dearest and most honored friend, to be
able to re-dedicate, and, with renewed wishes and expression of thanks, to offer
a^ain to you, after you have reached your seventieth year, this book in its present
new form.
A. NEANDER.
Beelik, April T, 1847.
* Alluding probably to a volume of Sermons already published. — Tk.

DEDICATION OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

TO MY DEAR AND HONORED COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND, THE
REV. DR. NITZSCH,
BOYAL MEMBER OF THE OON8ISTORIAL COURT, AND PROFESSOR IN TIIE FBKDEEIOK WILLIAM UNIVERSITY
OF BEBLIN.

It was my purpose, when issuing the last volume of the new edition of my
Church History, to greet you from afar with a hearty word or two, and to express
to you the satisfaction I felt that we were to be able to call you ours ; that, at a
period so difficult for those who have to represent higher interests — a period fitted
to remind every one so forcibly of his need of aid — we were to win in you so
noble and valuable a supplement to our Faculty ; but I relinquished the purpose I
then had, because, to me at least, there had come no certain knowledge that my
hope was to be fulfilled. So I will now express what I then had in mind, as this
is the first opportunity I have had for saying a, word publicly. I speak only in
fulfilment of my original purpose. Accept, then, what I offer out of a true, frank
heart. With differing endowments and diversified gifts, serve we the one Lord,
who assigns to each his position and uses as He will. We are in harmony in the
one great cause for which our science shall serve only as an organ. We are agreed
hi the conviction that in this great crisis, amid the pangs of this transition period,
all depends on our being decided for the one thing needful, not compromising and
parleying with the profane spirit of this world, while yet we allow freedom in those
various stages of development which only a higher wisdom knows how to conduct
to the one goal of the better future, and while, in the spirit of love and in the con
sciousness of our own defects, we quench not the glimmering wick. Of this con
viction you have already testified in the transactions of the General Synod on the
Creed question. Now may the Spirit of God' ever bind us more closely to one
another, and purify us of every thing which could divide us ; may He bless our
cooperation in the one great work and for the one great end. May He long pre
serve you to our University, and through you, as our pastor, so work that our
University shall become more and more Christian, shall be transformed into a
workshop of the Holy Spirit, where science is elaborated for divine ends ; espe
cially that that may hi more and more awaked and diffused which you in your
last sermon (for which, as well as for other printed and spoken discourses I thank
you) have so appropriately set forth — the opposite of the contracted understanding
of our time — the understanding of the heart, without which nothing of divine things
can be understood by any one. Cordially yours,
A. NEANDER.
Berlin, July 19, 1847.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

It was certainly my intention to have allowed my representa
tion of the Christian religion and Church in the apostolic age to
follow the completion of the whole of my Church History, or at
least of the greater part of it ; but the wishes and entreaties of
many persons, expressed both in writing and by word of mouth,
have prevailed upon me to alter my plan. Those, too, who took
an interest in my mode of conceiving the development of Christian
ity, were justified in demanding an account of the manner in which
I conceived the origin of this process, on which the opinions of men
are so much divided through the conflicting influences of the various
theological tendencies in this critical period of our German Evan
gelical Church ; and perhaps, if it please God, a thoroughly-
matured and candidly-expressed conviction on the subjects here
discussed, may furnish many a one who is engaged in seeking, with
a connecting link for the comprehension of his own views, even if
this representation, though the result of protracted and earnest
inquiry, should contain no new disclosures.
As for my relation to all who hold the conviction, that faith in
Jesus, the Saviour of sinful humanity, as it has shown itself since
the first founding of the Christian Church to be the fountain of
divine life, will prove itself the same to the end of time, and that
from this faith a new creation will arise in the Christian Church
and in our part of the world, which has been preparing amidst the
storms of spring — to all such persons I hope to be bound by the
bond of Christian fellowship, the bond of " the true Catholic spirit"
as it is termed by an excellent English theologian of the seventeenth

Viii PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
century.* But I can not agree with the conviction of those among
them who think that this new creation will be only a repetition of
what took place in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and that
the whole dogmatic system, and the entire mode of contemplating
divine and human things,f must return as it then existed.
On this point, I assent with my whole soul to what my deeply
revered and beloved friend, Steudel, lately expressed, so deserving
of consideration in our times, and especially to be commended to
the attention of our young theologians.^; He admirably remarks :
" But exactly this, and only this, is the preeminence of the one
truth, that it maintains its triumphant worth under all changes of
form ;" and Niebuhr detected, in the eagerness to restore the old,
an eagerness for novelty : " When the novelty of the thing is worn
away by use, we are prone to return to the old, which then becomes
new again, and thus the ball is thrown backwards and forwards."§
* "We meet with a beautiful specimen of such a spirit in what has been admirably said
by a respected theologian of the Society of Friends, Joseph John Gurney : " It can scarcely
be denied, that in that variety of administration through which the savitig principles of
religion are for the present permitted to pass, there is much of a real adaptation to a cor
responding variety of mental condition. Well, therefore, may we bow with thankfulness
before that infinite and unsearchable Being who, in all our weakness, follows us with His
love, and through the diversified mediums of religion to which the several classes of true
Christians are respectively accustomed, is still pleased to reveal to them all the same cruci
fied Redeemer, and to direct their footsteps into one path of obedience, holiness, and
peace." See Observations on the distinguishing Views and Practices of the Society of
Friends, by Joseph John Gurney, ed. vii., London, 1834. Words fit to shame theologians
who are burning with zeal for the letter and forms, as if on these depended the essence
of religion, whose life and spirit are rooted in facts.
f Well might the noble words of Luther be applied to those who cling to the old
rotten posts of a scaffolding raised by human hands, as if they were needed for the divine
building : "When at a window I have gazed on the stars of heaven, and the whole beau
tiful vault of heaven, and saw no pillars on which the Builder had set such a vault ; yet
the heavens fell not in ; and that vault still stands firm. Now there are simple folk who
look about for such pillars, and would fain grasp and feel them. But since they can not
do this, they quake and tremble, as if the heavens would certainly fall in, and for no other
reason than because they can not grasp and see tho pillars; if they could but lay hold of
them, then the heavens (they think) would stand firm enough."
J In the Tubingen Zeilschrift fur Tlieologie, 1832, part i., p. 33. Blessed be the mem
ory of this beloved man, who left this world a few months ago, and is no longer to be seen
in the holy band of combatants for that evangelical truth which was the aim, the centre
and the soul of his whole life, and the firm anchor of his hope in death, when he proved
himself to be one of those faithful teachers of whom it may be said — '• whose faith follow,
considering the end of their conversation."
§ One of the many golden sentences of this great man in his letters, of which we would
recommend the second volume especially to all young theologians,

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. IX
In truth, whatever is connected with the peculiarities of the
forms of human cultivation, as these change, goes the way of all
flesh; but the Word of God, which is destined by a perpetual
youthfulness of power to make all things new, abides forever.
Thus the difference existing between these persons and myself, will
certainly show itself in our conception of many important points in
this department of history ; but, in my judgment, these differences
are only scientific, and ought not to disturb that fellowship which
is above all science. But I can also transport myself to the posi
tion of those to whom these objects must appear in a different
light ; for the rise of such differences is in this critical period
unavoidable, and far better than the previous indifference and
lifeless uniformity. And even in zeal for a definite form, I know
how to esteem and to love a zeal for the essence which lies at the
bottom,* and I can never have anything in common with those who
will not do justice to such zeal, or, instead of treating it with the
respect that is always due to zeal and affection for what is holy,
with Jesuitical craft aim at rendering others suspected, by imputing
to them sinister motives and designs.
A. NEANDEE.
Berlin, Wth May, 1832.

* Provided it be the true zeal of simplicity, which accompanies humility, and where
sagacity does not predominate over simplicity ; but by no means that zeal which, in
coupling itself with the modern coxcombry of a super-refined education, endeavors to
season subjects with it to which it is least adapted, in order to render them palatable to
the vitiated tastes that lorAhes a simple diet ; and thus proves its own unsoundness. A
caricature jumble of the most contradictory elements, at which every sound feeling must
revolt

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.

I repeat here what I said in the preface to the third edition of
this work : we adhere to the theologia pectoris, which is also the
true theology of the spirit— the German Theology, as Luther called
it. It was the reaction of such a theology from the aridity of the
later period of scholasticism, which produced the Reformation ; and
it is only from the depths of the heart that any genuine German
regeneration of theology can proceed. I shall not cease, therefore,
to protest against that one-sided intellectualism which is destructive
not only to heart but to mind also, since these can be healthfully,
only when harmoniously, developed— against that ever-spreading
fanaticism of the intellect which threatens to destroy all deep-rooted
life, all high aspiration, all that free flight of the spirit which keeps
men ever young, and to convert man, from whose true nature a
desire for the supernatural and for that beyond the present life, is
inseparable, into a merely intelligent, very sagacious animal. To
this protest belong also many things which I have felt constrained
to say in the notes to this new edition, against various tendencies
of the present time.
In such points of controversy as come under notice in the pres
ent edition, we are concerned for the most part only with single
questions of criticism. But the profounder observer will perceive
that the principles underlying these are closely connected with
those more general questions which are agitating science and life
at this critical period of time. Single inquiries, it is true, must be
pursued independently, and in accordance with their own scientific
laws ; but this does not stand in the way of our pointing out their
connection with questions of a more general, fundamental nature •
for it is this connection, which, between those standing at opposite

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. XI
points of view, renders a mutual understanding difficult, if not
impossible. The scientific, prophetic glance of a Melancthon led him, some
centuries ago, to point out that extreme limit to which the opposi
tion between the supernatural and natural principles would lead,
when he, in a letter to GCcolampadius, of the 12th of January, 15£0,
writes : " Si rationem spectes, nihilo magis cum carnis judicio
reliqua fidei dogmata de divinitate Christi, de resurrectione, adde
et, quod caput est, de immortalitate animi, irepl npovolag conveniunt,
quam hie articulus irepi evxaptoTiar." Hidden antagonisms are
becoming more and more widely separated, more and more clearly
understood, and more and more sharply opposed to each other;
and thus this broadest and deepest reaching of questions is to be
brought by history — that is, not by the universal spirit in history,
as the language of the day is, but by the Spirit of God, to whom
the universal spirit, nolens volens, must do homage — to its de
cision, a decision which will introduce a new period in Church
History. But I must also, with equal persistency, protest against the
theological tendency so beautifully and so forcibly characterized by
the sainted Schleiermacher in his Essay on the Symbolic Books ; a
tendency, he says, " which would blot out a well-known and
important period of time, and wiping off, as with a sponge, the
characters which that period has written upon our historical tablet,
would, far more easily than the old lines of a codex rescriphts can be
restored, reproduce the writings of the seventeenth century and
account them as our own." It is a tendency which, arresting the
progress of development in theology, would, in impatient haste,
prematurely seize the goal; although it exhibits a praise-worthy
elevation of spirit as regards that which is lifted above the change
of days, that in which there is no place for the trite newspaper
categories, " progress and regress." My own soul responds to what
my dear friend, Julius Miiller, has said against this, as against other
theological tendencies, in his excellent article on the First General
Synod, an essay of more than mere transient and accidental value.
With this tendency, also, many things which I have had to say in
this new edition, in defence of my view of history and criticism,
will come in conflict. I cheerfully submit to the charge of incon-

Xll PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.
sistency and lack of decision, from advocates of both these views
'which I have been constrained to oppose.
The second volume, which is to be immediately put to press,
will soon appear. Then I will look toward the time which will
permit me, if the gracious God continue to me life, health, and
strength, to give to the public the continuation of my Church His
tory — the history of the time preparatory to the Reformation — a
work to which my studies and labors, during the preparation of
this, have ever been directed.
The excellent new map, for which we are indebted to the
distinguished Dr. Kiepert, will doubtless be found very useful and
welcome to the readers of this book. By the care of my esteemed
publisher, it can be obtained separately, and may thus be of wider
service to students.
In conclusion, I thank my dear young friend, Cand. Schneider,
from Silesia — who knows how to combine so well different
branches of activity — for the fidelity, care, and skill with which he
has read the proof of this book, verified its citations, and arranged
its table of contents.
A. NEANDER.
Bsklin, April 1, 1847.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
FAOE9
Sources of this History, the Epistles and the Acts,  1
General evidence of the credibility of the Acts  1-4

BOOK I.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE PREVIOUS TO ITS
INTRODUCTION AMONG HEATHEN NATIONS.
CHAPTER I.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ON ITS FIRST APPEARANCE AS A DISTINCT
RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY.
The personal Christ the basis of the Church — The Pentecostal miracle the begin
ning of the Apostolic Church  5-1
Anxious waiting for the feast of Pentecost by the disciples  1-8
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and the phenomena
accompanying it  8—11
The gift of tongues not a supernatural knowledge of foreign languages, but the
new language of the new spirit that animated the disciples  12—17
An ideal elemont infused into the historical  18
Peter's discourse and its effects — His call to repentance, faith, and baptism  18-20
CHAPTER II.
THE FIRST FORM OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, AND THE FIRST GERM
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
The formation of a community — One article of faith — Baptism into Jesus as the
Messiah — Probably only one baptismal formula — Imperfect knowledge and
mixed character of the first converts  20-22
The first form of the Christian community and worship — The Agapae  22-23
Community of goods — Influence of Christianity on social relations — Orders of
monkhood — The St. Simonians  23-25
The case of Auanias and Sapphira  25-26
Adherence to the Temple-worship  .-  27-28
The institution of Deacons  29-33

XIV CONTENTS. TAora
The institution of Presbyters — Originally for the purpose of government rather
than of instruction  33-34
Means of instruction — Teachers; didaaKaXia, irpixjinreia, irapdn'Xriaic  35—36
Gradual transition from Judaism to Christianity  36-37
CHAPTER III.
THE OUTWARD CONDITION OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH ; PERSECUTIONS
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.
The Church at first favored by the Pharisees and opposed by the Sadducees. ... 38
The cure of the impotent man — Peter and John brought before the Sanhedrim —
The increase of believers — Peter's address — Gamaliel  38-46
Christianity indirect conflict with Pharisaism — Stephen the forerunner of Paul —
His views of Christianity in opposition to the permanence of the Mosaic
ritual — His discourse before the Sanhedrim — His martyrdom, and its effects.. . 46-57

BOOK II.
THE FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY FROM THE CHURCH AT
JERUSALEM TO OTHER PARTS, AND ESPECIALLY AMONG
HEATHEN NATIONS.
Samaria — Its religious state — The Goetae — Simon Magus — Philip's preaching
and miracles in Samaria — Simon's baptism  58—60
The sending of Peter and John to Samaria — Miraculous manifestations of the
Spirit  61-63
A later Simon — -Simonians  63-64
Philip's further missionary labors  64-65
Examination of objections to the credibility of the Acts on the ground of Peter's
vacillation at Antioch at a later day  66-68
Formation of Gentile Churches — Enlarged views of the Apostles produced by
internal revelation and outward events  68—69
Peter's labors at Lydda and Joppa — Cornelius the Centurion — A. proselyte of the
Gate — His prayers and fasting — Vision of an Angel — Peter's vision — His
address to Cornelius — The gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed on the Gentile
converts  69-77

BOOK III.
THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY, AND FOUNDING OF THE CHRIS
TIAN CHURCH AMONG THE GENTILES BY THE INSTRUMEN
TALITY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.
CHAPTER I.
Paul's preparation and call to be the apostle of the gentiles.
The divine wisdom in Paul's preparation for his office  78-79
Paul the representative of the Protestant principle among the Apostles  79

CONTENTS. XV
PAGES
His birthplace, parentage, and education  80-82
His strictness and depth of experience in legal piety — Resemblance to Augustine
and Luther — Zeal for Judaism — Journey to Damascus  82-84
His miraculous conversion — Unsatisfactory explanation on natural principles —
Or considered as merely internal — A real appearance of the risen Saviour —
Its effects  85-92
Paul preaches the Gospel at Damascus — Goes into Arabia — Return to Damascus
— and flight — Visit to Jerusalem and its object  92—97
Early development of his special type of doctrine — What he means by " revela
tion" as the source of his religious knowledge (aironaXvirreiv and ijiavepnvv) —
His use of Memoirs of Christ  97-103
His return to Tarsus and labors in Cilieia  103

CHAPTER II.
THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH THE GENTILE MOTHER-CHURCH, AND ITS
RELATION TO THE JEWISH MOTHER-CHURCH.
Gentile Christians at Antioch — Barnabas at Antioch — invites Paul thither — The
name Christians first given to believers — Contributions from the Church at
Jerusalem — Contributions from the Church at Antioch to the Church at Jeru
salem — Persecution by Herod Agrippa  104-106
Paul's visit to Jerusalem — Whether the same as that mentioned in Gal. ii. 1. —
Barnabas and Paul sent from Antioch to preach among the Gentiles  107-111
CHAPTER III.
THE PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY FROM ANTIOCH BY PAUL AND
BARNABAS.
Their visit with Mark to Cyprus — Conversion of the Proconsul Sergius Paulus —
The Goes Barjesus  111-113
Their stay at Antioch in Pisidia — Bitterness of the Jews — Perseculions  113-115
Iconium — Lystra — Cure of the lame man — The Apostles supposed to be Zeus
and Hermes — The popular tumult — Their return to Antioch  116-119
CHAPTER IV.
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE JEWISH AND GENTILE CHRISTIANS, AND
ITS SETTLEMENT  THE INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE GEN
TILE CHURCH.
Dispute between the Jewish and Gentile Christians respecting Circumcision —
Mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem — Paul's private conferences with
the Apostles— His Apostleship acknowledged— His controversy with the
Jewish believers, and opposition to the circumcision of Titus  119-124
The Apostolic Convention. — Peter's address— Barnabas aud Paul give an account
of their success among the Gentiles— Proposal of James — The moderation and
conciliatory spirit of Paul and James — Epistle to the Gentile Christians in
Syria and Cilieia — Return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch — The important
results of this Convention  125-134

XVI CONTENTS.
CHAPTER V.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH, AND THE ECCLESIATICAL USAGES
OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.

The peculiar nature of the Christian community — all Christians Priests —
equally related to Christ— and in a relation of fraternal equality to one
another  134-136
The influence of the Holy Spirit on the varieties of mental character and natural
endowments — The idea of Cbarisms— The gifts of dvvdpeic, onpela, ripara. . . 136—138
1. Charisms or gifts for the ministry of the Word, "teaching," "prophesying,"
"speaking with tongues," "interpretation of tongues," "trying of spirits,"
"word of knowledge," and "word of wisdom"  136-144
2. Charisms relating to other kinds of outward activity — these distinguished as
charisms for government and the charism of faith (miraculous power)  144-146
Charisms relating to the government of the Church, irpeojSvrepoi, cwiokokoi —
Elders or Presbyters and Overseers or Bishops, originally the same — Exclu
sion of females from the office of public teaching  147—150
Originally three orders of teachers — Apostles, Evangelists, Teachers — Relation
of the last to Elders and Overseers  150—154
The office of Deaconesses  154-155
Ordination — Election to offices  156
3. The Christian Worship — Independence of the Mosaic Ritual — Hence no dis
tinction of days — -No Christian feasts mentioned by Paul  156—158
The Christian Sabbath — Its special reference to the Resurrection of Christ — No
yearly commemoration of the Resurrection  158-160
Baptism — The Formula — Symbolical meaning of the act of submersion and
emersion — Infant Baptism probably not of apostolic origin — Substitutionary
Baptism — The influence of the parental relation on the offspring of Christians 160—165
The Lord's Supper  165
Advantages and disadvantages of the Gentile Converts — Preparation of mankind
for a reception of the Gospel — by a sense of guilt and unhappiuess — Its direct
contrariety to Heathenism — Dangers from the corruption of Morals — and from
philosophical speculations  165-167
CHAPTER VI.
SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.
The separation of Paul and Barnabas on account of Mark — Barnabas with Mark
visits Cyprus — raul and Silas pass through Syria to Cilieia and Pisidia — Meet
with Timothy who is circumcised and becomes a companion of Paul  167-170
Paul visits Phrygia — Churches there founded by Epaphras and others  170
Paul in Galatia — Called supernaturally to Macedonia  170-173
Paul at Philippi — Baptism of Lydia — Persecution — Conversion of the Philippian
Gaoler  173-177
Paul at Thessalonica — Addresses both Jewsaud Gentiles — Gains a livelihood by
tent-making — His expectations of the near approach of the second coming of
Christ — Fanatical opposition of the Jews — Proceeds to Beroea  178-182
Paul at Athens — The religious character of the Athenians — Paul disputes with
the Philosophers — The relation of the Stoics and the Epicureans to Chris
tianity  182-184

CONTENTS. Xvii
Paul's discourse — His appeal to the religious principle implanted in human
nature — The Altar to an unknown God — Polytheism — The one living God 
Announcement of a Redeemer — The effect of his discourse — Dionysius the
Areopagite  184-190
Timothy returning from Macedonia sent again to Thessalonica  190-191
Paul at Corinth — Two chief obstacles to the reception of the Gospel— fondness
for speculation — and for sensual indulgences — Meets with Aquila and Priscilla
— The Church formed principally of Gentile converts — The Proconsul Gallio —
Paul's labors in Achaia  191-195
Thessalonica — Information of the state of the Church brought by Timothy  The
First Epistle to the Tliessalonians — Enthusiastic tendencies — A forged epistle —
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians — The signs preceding the second
coming of Christ — Marks of a genuine epistle  196-201

CHAPTER VII.
THE APOSTLE PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH, AND HIS RENEWED MIS
SIONARY LABORS AMONG THE HEATHEN.
Paul's journey to Jerusalem — His vow and offering in the Temple  202-203
Paul at Antioch — His meeting with Barnabas and Peter — His reprimand of
Peter — Revival of tlie controversy between the Jewish and Gentile Christians 203-207
Paul visits Phrygia and Galalia  207-208
Paul at Ephesus — His labors first in the synagogue— Then among the Gentiles —
the Jewish Goetae — The disciples of John the Baptist rebaptized — Receipt of
intelligence from the churches and effect on him  208-212
State of the Galatian Churches — Paul's Epistle tn the Galatians written by his
own hand— Asserts his independent apostleship — States the relatiou of Chris
tianity to Judaism and Heathenism— Warns them against seeking for justifica
tion by the law — Date of this epistle  212-217
State of the Church at Corinth — Causes of its disorders; superficial conversion,
general immorality, divisions occasioned by false teachers  218—219
Parties in the Corinthian Church — The Petrine — The Pauline — That of Apollos
—That of Christ  219-230
Disputes in the Corinthian Church — Meat offered in sacrifice to idols — Marriage
and celibacy — Litigation in heathen courts of justice — Irregularities at the
celebration of the Agapse — Overvaluation of extraordinary gifts — Opposition
to the doctrine of the resurrection  230—239
Where and by what means Paul received accounts of the disturbances at Corinth
— His second visit to Corinth — His lost Epistle to the Corinthians  239-242
The First Epistle to the Corinthians — Occasioned by certain questions proposed
by the Church relative to the epistle not now extant — Its contents — Ou par
ties — On meat offered to idols — On marriage and celibacy — On slavery — Its
date  243-249
Paul's plans for his future labors — Mission of Timothy to Macedonia and Achaia
— Return of Timothy — Titus sent to Corinth — Popular commotion at Ephesus
against Paul — Demetrius — Alexander — The Asiarchs — Paul leaves Ephesus 249-256
Paul in Macedonia — Titus brings information respecting the Church at Corinth —
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians  257-260
Paul after spending the summer and autumn in Macedonia, and probably visiting
Myria, spends the winter in Achaia — His intention of visiting Rome — Hia

XVlll CONTENTS.
, TAOIOI
Epistle to the Romans — sent by the deaconess Phoebe — State of the Church
at Rome — Contents of the epistle  261-271
Paul's great collection for Jerusalem for the removal of Jewish prejudices against
himself and the Gentile Christians  272-274

CHAPTER VIII.
THE FIFTH AND LAST JOURNEY OF PAUL TO JERUSALEM  ITS IMMEDIATE
CONSEQUENCES  HIS IMPRISONMENT IN PALESTINE.
Paul a t Philippi — Meets the overseers of the Ephesian Church at Miletus — His
farewell address  274-279
Paul warned of approaching danger at Caesarea  279
Paul at Jerusa em— His conference with James and the elders of the Church —
His Nazarite's vow — The rage of the Jews — His rescue by the Roman tri
bune — His appearance before the Sanhedrim  279-284
Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea — His appearance before Felix — Appeals to
Caesar — Address to King Agrippa — Sent to Rome  285-287
Paul at Rome — His condition and labors there  287-289

CHAPTER IX.
PAUL DURING HIS FIRST CONFINEMENT AT ROME, AND THE DEVELOP
MENT DURING THAT PERIOD OF THE CHURCHES FOUNDED BY HIM.
Paul's relation to the Roman State — To the Church at Rome — And to other
Churches — His care of the Asiatic Churches — Date of the Epistles to the
Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon — Epaphras his fellow-prisoner  290—293
False teachers at Colossaa — Peculiarities of the party — The germ of Judaizing
Gnostkvsm — Allied to the sect of Cerinthus — -Paul's Epistle lo the Colossians. . .294-302
Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians — Sent by Tychicus — a general Epistle to the
Churches in Lessi-r Asia  302—305
Paul's Epistle to the Piiilippians  305

CHAPTER X.
Paul's labc after his release from his first confinement at
rome, to his martyrdom.
Evidence of Paul's °ase from his first confinement at Rome — Testimony of
Clemens of Rome- 'he Second Epistle to Timothy — Causes of the Neronian
persecution  306-311
Paul's labors after his ise — In Ephesus — In Macedonia — The First Epistle
to Timothy — Pan! in C -The Epistle to Titus — Prospective visit to Nicopolis. 311-317
Paul in Spain — His Secc iprisonrnent — His martyrdom and state of mind
iu view of it — Release o. >thy   317-320

CONTENTS. XIX
BOOK IV.
A REVIEW OF THB LABORS OF JAMBS AND PETER DURING THE
PERIOD DESCRIBED IN BOOK THIRD.
CHAPTER I.
JAMES.
PAQEft
James, the brother of the Lord, and Paul, mark the two extremes in the develop
ment of Christianity from Judaism,  321-324
Whether James was a brother or only a near relation of the Lord, and identical
with the Apostle? Dr. Sehneckenburger's hypothesis that there was only one
James, examined  321-325
James distinguished by the strictness of his life ; hence called The Just — The
testimony of Hegesippus,  325-327
His epistle important for illustrating the state of the Jewish-Christhm churches, 327
Reasons for believing that it was not written with a reference to Paul's doctrinal
views,  328-333
The! epistle addressed to churches consisting entirely or chiefly of Jewish
believers, mostly poor,  333-335
The Christian doctrines imperfectly devidoped in it — Its importance in connexion
with the other writings in the New Testament,  ,  336
The martyrdom of James  337-338

CHAPTER II.
THE APOSTLE PETER.
He occupied a middle position between Paul and James,  338
His parentage — Natural character- — Call to the apostleship  338—341
His labors in propagiting the Go3pel,  341-343
His First Epistle  343-347
Probable spuriousness of the Second Epistle  347-343
Traditions respecting Peter's martyrdom at Rome  34S-353

BOOK Y.
THE APOSTLE JOHN AND HIS MINISTRY AS THE CLOSING POINT
OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
His education — Maternal influence — Early piety — General character — Contem
plative yet ardent — II is piety moulded by personal intercourse with the
Saviour  354-357
His labors and conflicts among the churches in Lesser Asia,  357-359
Errors prevalent iu these churches, practical and theoretical — Especially the
Judaizing — The Antinomian, the anti-Juduizing Gnostic, and the Cerinthian, 360-364
Tradition of John's banishment to Patinos — Authorship of the Apocalypse, .... 364-367

XX CONTENTS. PAGFS
John's writings — Their general character — His Gospel  368-371
His First Epistle  37 1-375
His Second Epistle — Injunctions respecting intercourse with false teachers  375, 376
His Third Epistle — Diotrephes,  376> 3l1
Traditions respecting John's labors preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus anc\
Jerome — The close of the Apostolic Age  a" °"

BOOK VI.
THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE.

The living unity of the doctrine of Christ combined with a variety in the forms
of its representation — Three leading varieties — The Pauline, the Jacobean
(with the intermediate Petrine), and the Johannean,  380

CHAPTER I.
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE.
Regard must be had to Paul's peculiarities of mind, education, sphere of labor,
and sources of Christian knowledge  381
]. The connexion and contrist of Paul's earlier and later views contained in
the ideas of diKaioovvn and vopoc, which form the central point of his doc
trine  382
The dinniocrvvn of his earlier position depended on tlie observance of the Mosaic
law (vouiktj) — The Christian iinaioovvn and ^ufj correlative ideas,  382
The fundamental principle of his later or Christian views — No righteousness by
the works of tlie law available before God — No essential distinction between
the ritual and moral ipya vhpov — The idea of the law as a unity; an outward
rule of action, requiring not effecting obedience — Applicable to the universal
law of conscience,  383
Works the marks of. the state of the disposition ; but the law can effect no
change in the disposition — Hence ipya vdpov are set in contrast to Ipya uyada
(Eph. ii. 10),  384
The law not deficient as a standard of duty,  385
2. The central-point of the Pauline anthropology — Human nature alienated from
the divine life and in opposition to the law.
a. The principle that opposes the law.
<r«/i5 — aaptiiKoc — Tiie disunic*! in human nature not necessary — but
voluntary and blameworthy,  385 386
oapKiKoc, equivalent to ipvxtKbc, in opposition to the dsiov irvev/ia, denotes
human nature generally iu its state of estrangement from tho divine life,.. .. 386, 387
b. Origin of sin and death.
The consciousness of sin and of the need of redemption presupposed as a
universLil fact; hence the origin of sin seldom adverted to, but the idea of
an original state of perfection, and the voluntary fall of the first man, lies at
the basis of Paul's doctrine,  387 383

CONTENTS. XXI
PAGE*
The first man not the representative of human nature generally — The
origin of sinful desire from apparent guiltlessness (Rom. vii. 9) not referable
to Adam — The natural man preceding the spiritual (I Cor. xv. 46) implies
not sinfulness but subjection to death  388, 389
According to Rom. v. 12, the sinful direction of the will was produced by
Adam's voluntary act, from original sinlessness, and continues itself in the
whole development of the race,  390
Through sin death comes upon all men, not by an essential change in the
physical organization of man, but in man's view of death — Death appears
not as a step in the development of life, but as a consequence of the with-
drawment of the divine life through sin,  391, 392
c. Supremacy of the sinful principle in human nature in connexion with an
undeniable consciousness of God.
The original affinity to God not destroyed but suppressed — The use of the
works of creation in awakening the religious sentiment — Religious suscep
tibility injured by sin — the origin of idolatry — Deterioration of man's moral
nature, yet the power of conscience not destroyed  392, 393
The trichotomy of human nature (1 Thess. v. 23) irvevpa, ipoxi, oijpa —
The -ipixv not the principle of animal life, but the lower and worldly self-
consciousness,  394, 395
The "inner man,"  395
d. The state of disunion.
Two contending principles in human nature, spirit and flesh — States of
bondage, either unconscious, living without law, or conscious, living under
the law — Rom. vii. a delineation of both these states, taken from Paul's
own experience, but applicable to all mankind,  395-398
t. Preparatives for Redemption — Judaism and Heathenism.
a. Judaism — Preparative in two ways — By awakening an anxiety for redemp
tion, and by pointing to the means by which it would be effected — Only
one universal purpose of God, who reveals his redeeming grace in its
promise and its fulfilment — Faith, one universal condition — The funda
mental relation between God and man not altered by the law, which served
partly to repress the outbreakings of sin, partly to excite the consciousness
of sin,  398-401
b. Heathenism. Judaism a progressive revelation, but heathenism only a development of
nature — Though idolatry suppressed the original revelation of God in the
works of Nature, still the law of conscience remained (of which the Mosaic
law was a representative), and with that a sense of the need of redemption
— Partial enlightenment and fulfilment of the law among the heathen,  401-403
e. Hindrances and conditions of salvation in both Jews and Heathens.
The gross security of heathenism — The legal righteousness of Judaism —
The sign-seeking of the Jews, and the wisdom-seeking of the Gentiles —
Redemption the object of the whole history of mankind — Attestations to
the universal need of redemption in Christ's discourses as recorded in the
first three Gospels,  401-408
4. The Work of Redemption.
A. Its accomplishment by Christ, both actively and passively,  408-412
a. The life of Christ exhibits the destruction of sin, and the realization of the
law in human nature  408-410

XXU CONTENTS. PAOKS
f>. The sufferings of Christ (constantly to be viewed in connexion with his own
life)  410-413
B. The results of the work of Christ.
u. Reconciliation with God.
The life and sufferings of Christ a revelation of the eternal love of God —
Men, once the enemies of God, become through Christ objects of divine
love  412
Possibility of reconciliation as merely subjective — A change in the disposi-
, sition of man towards God effected by the work of Christ — But even on
this supposition the amendment in man is the effect, not the cause of God's
love ; 2 Cor. v. 20  412-414
But this view inadequate and untenable — The sense of the wratli of God
has an objective basis — A revelation of the divine holiness  414
The distinct ion between irdpeaic and ilipeo-ic,  415, 4 1 6
The divine holiness revealed in Christ in a twofold manner,  416
b. uiro'XvTpuoic and ournpia, freedom from guilt and punishment; in a wider
sense as effected objectively by Christ, and realiz -d in individuals in a more
limited sense  417
C dwaiuoic. Tlie Pauline dmaiuaic, like the Jewish, inseparable from a participation in
all the privileges of the kingdom of God— but only to be obtained through
fellowship with Christ, the only perfect d'uiaioc :
Hence ikiaiuoic the induction of a believer in Christ into the relation of
a diKaioc ; SiKaioovvn the appropriation of Christ's righteousness as the ob
jective ground of faith, a3 well as the suhjeclive principle of life; hence its
necessarily supposed departure from a life of sin, and entrance into the holy
life of Christ,  4171 418
6. The Appropriation of Salvation by Faith.
a. The nature of Faith.
The reception of divine revelation by an internal determination of the
will — In ihis respect, and not in reference to the object, Abraham was a
pattern of the righteousness that is by faith ; Rom. iv. 19,  419, 420
Christian faith modified by its object — A twofold reference to Christ as
crucified and risen,  420 421
I. iriorir: the peculiarity of the Christian stand-point, in distinction from the
Jewish legal.
The law requires everything which faith already contains ; Rom. x. 5. . . 421, 422
The law is in itself a deadly letter — The gospel a life-giving spirit — In the
believer, the law is not an object merely of knowledge, but of efficient love, 422 423
The law is so far abrogaled for believers, that their SiKaioovvn and C«i)
are independeut of it through faith, from which Ipya dyndu. spontaneously
1 proceed,  423
Paul's appeals to the v'opoc are only to tlie outward Mosaic law as an ex
pression of the eternal law of God,  424
,' Hence the term vnpoc denotes in a more general sense what is common
_• to both Judaism and Christianity; in the one to an outward, in the other to
an inward law,  424 425
Under the Jewish Theocracy the service was external, iv ira\aibrijri
ypupparor — Under the Gospel internal, bv Kaivornn rrveiparor  Its dov'/.eia
identical with vloBeoia; the worship of the former, oapKixi], of the latter
irvevpariK-rj ; in the one it was Kara adpKa, in the other iv Kvpiip  425—427

CONTENTS. XX111
PAOES
6. The New Life proceeding from Faith.
a. The transformation of the sinful nature by the Divine; accomplished gra
dually ; the oup!; opposed not merely by the higher nature of man, but by
the Spirit of Christ (irvevpa uywv),  427, 428
All the mental and bodily powers become organs of grace — The Spirit of
Christ pervades all the peculiar talents of individuals ; hence charisms, .... 429, 430
Objective justification as an unchangeable ground of confidence, distin
guished from subjective sanctification, which is often an uncertain ground, 430
6. The principles of the new life — Faith, Love, Hope.
iriorir sometimes denotes the whole extent of Christian ability — dvvaroc-
rij iriarei relates particularly to the judgment formed by the Christian of
outward things — Hence proceeds Christian freedom, which is shown even
in submitting to outward restraints — Nothing indifferent,  430-433
Love the natural effect of faith — By the revelation of the love of God in
redemption, love to him is continually kindled  434
Faith and love partly relate to the kingdom of God as present, but they
have also a marked relation to the future, for the new life is in a state of
constant progression, it longs after the perfect revelation of the children
of God  435-437
Hence hope necessarily belongs to faith and love — Perseverance in the
work of faith is the prae:ical side of hope  437
The knowledge of divine things proceeds from faith — Proceeds from the
spiritual life — Depends on the increase of love — Being necessarily defective
in the present state, is connected with the hope of perfect intuition,  438, 439
Love the greatest of the three, because it alone abides for ever; 1 Cor.
xiii. 13  439, 440
e. Special Christian virtues proceeding from Faith, Love, and Hope.
a. raTreivoittpnovrv distinguishes the Christian from the Hebrew view of
the world; only partial even on the Jewish stand-point; though its direct
relation is to God alone, yet its effects are, opposition to all self-exaltation,
and moderation towards others,  441-444
(3. auippoavvr/, sober-mindedness in conflict with the world, 2 Tim. i. 7 ;
and in self-estimation, Rom. xii. 3,  444
y. aoiiia — The understanding under the influence of faith — Wisdom and
prudence,  444, 445
Analogy to the cardinal virtues of heathen philosophers — Love occupies
the place of dtKaioovvn,  445, 446
7. The Church and the Sacraments.
A. The Church.
The immediate relation of each individual to Christ of primary import
ance — Hence the idea of a community founded on the unity of the Holy
Spirit in believers, which counterbalances all other differences, Gal. iii. 26,.. 446, 447
The iKKlnaia is the body of Christ — Faith in Christ its foundation — Marks
of its unity. Eph. iv. 4,  448
The Old Testament terms applied to Christians; uyioi denotes their objec
tive consecration joined with subjective sanctification — k.\vto'i the outward
and inward call considered as one — The idea and the appearance in general
not separated by Paul,  448, 449
But in particular instances, the spurious members are distinguished from
the genuine — Where the difference is perceptible, the former are to be ex
cluded, in other cases the separation must be left to God,  450

XXIV CONTENTS. PAGES
The care of the general good committed to all according to their respective
abilities and charisms,  *a0
B The Sacraments.
a. Baptism— " Putting on Christ"— Its twofold reference to the death and
resurrection of Christ ; includes a reference to the Father and the Holy
Spirit — The outward and the inward are supposed to be combined,  451-453
b. The Supper.
A feast of commemoration, 1 Cor. xi. 24. the celebration of Christ's suffer
ings and a pledge of constant communion with him; iarlv = it represents;
involves a reference to the mutual communion of believers,  453—455
9. The Kingdom of God,  *5*
A. Its idea and extent.
a. Its idea.
Corresponds to the idea of the Church, as a general idea does to a par
ticular. Preparation by means of the Jewish Theocracy — And completed by
Christianity; the former sensible and national, the latter spiritual and
universal  455, 456
By faith in Christ, the Messianic kingdom, the aluv piUuv as opposed to
the alCiv ovroc or irovepbc, becomes already present — Hence the kingdom of
God coincides with the idea of the invisible church on earth,  456, 457
But the idea is still imperfectly realized  457
A threefold application of the term. 1. The present internal kingdom
of God, 1 Cor. iv. 20; Rom. xiv. 17. 2. The future completion of it,
1 Cor. vi. 10. 3. The present as one with the future, 1 Thess. ii. 12 ;
2 Thess. i. 5,  458
b. The heavenly community co-extensive with the invisible church,  458, 459
Tlie kingdom of God embraces a higher spiritual world, in which the
archetype of the church is realized — Mankind are united to this higher
world by the knowledge of God, Eph. iii. 15, CoL i. 20, compared with
Eph. ii. 14,  459
B. Doctrine of the Logos,  460
The doctrine not traceable to external influences, but directly to the self-
revelation of the person of Christ,  460, 461
The progressive organic development of the Old Testament idea of a Mes
siah to the idea of Son of God; but all derived from the historical Christ,. . 461
False derivation from Greek philosophy — Philo's Logos  462
Paul and John alike derive their conceptions from the person of Christ —
Close connexion of the doctrine of the Logos with Christian faith and morals, 463, 464
Refutation of the assertion that Paul's doctrine of the Logos is found only
in the Epistles to the Colossians and the Philippians,  464—469
C. The Kingdom of Evil opposed to the Kingdom of God,  469
The prevalence of sin among mankind connected with the prevalence of
evil in the higher world — All ungodliness the power of a spirit whose king
dom is aluv ovroc — False gods not evil spirits,  469 470
Christ the destroyer of this kingdom — His death apparently a defeat, but
in reality a victory — Charisms the tokens of his triumph,  471
The conflict with the kingdom of evil carried on by Christians  472

CONTENTS. XXV
FA0E8
D. The development of the kingdom of God till its final completion  472
The accomplishment of the scheme of redemption a work of free grace,. . . 473
o. As opposed to pre-eminence of natural descent,  473
I. As opposed to legal merits,  474
Apparent denial of free self-determination in Rom. ix., yet not the
apostle's intention to give a complete theory — But an antithetical reference
to the arrogance of the Jews,  171 176
Confidence in their own righteousness the cause of the rejection of the
Jews — The Gentiles warned against presumptuous reliances on divine
grace  477
To excite Christian confidence, the apostle refers to the unalterable counsel
of divine love — Allusions to the consummation of the kingdom o f God, .... 478, 479
10. The doctrines of the Resurrection and of the State of the Soul after Death.
a. The doctrine of the Resurrection.
The spiritual awakening by faith a preparation for the future — The Palin-
genesia of nature, Rom. viii. 19,  479-480
b. State of the Soul after Death till the Resurrection.
Whether Paul considered the state of the soul after death till the resurrec
tion to be one of suspended consciousness like sleep? — Apparent ground for
it in 1 Thess  481
But his expectation of continued communion with Christ, as signified in
Cor. iv. 16, opposed to this supposition; also Phil. i. 21, 23; 2 Tim. iv. 18, 481-483
Possibility of an alteration in his views by progressive illumination — But
a comparisoL of 1 Cor. xv. with 2 Cor. v. 1, is against this,  483, 484
Therefore he held the unbroken consciousness of the soul after death, even
at an earlier period of his ministry, though not then brought forward,  484
e. The Consummation.
The end of the Mediatorial kingdom and the consummation of all things —
Pantheistic misunderstanding of 1 Cor. xv. 28 — Whether Paul teaches that
there is to be a final restoration of all,  485-487

CHAPTER II.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
The author of this Epistle compared with Paul,  487, 488
Points of agreement in their views,  489
Points of difference — Paul contemplates the Jewish economy as abrogated — In
. this Epistle it is spoken of as still existing, though only typical,  489-491
Treating of Salvation in its relation solely to the descendants of Abraham, though
un-Pauline, not contrary to Paul's sentiments  492
The work of Christ— The exaltation of Christ to heaven more frequently adverted
to than his resurrection — Allusions to the High Priesthood,  492-494
The sufferings of Christ and their relation to the sins of maukind— Christ hum
bled and Christ glorified,  494, 495

XXVI CONTENTS. PACKS
Objective satisfaction made by Christ to the holiness of God  495
Faith, that by which the objective satisfaction of Christ is appropriated to the
subjective purification of the believer — Faith, hope, and love — As with Paul a
more general conception of faith underUes the special application of the idea, 495, 496
Relation of the Epistle to the Hebrews to the Alexandrian-Jewish theology and
to Phdo  496-498

CHAPTER III.
THE DOCTRINE OP JAMES.
His type of doctrine and his religious character as compared with those of Paul, 498,499
1. Relation of faith and works in connexion with his general view of Christi
anity. Comparison of a pretended faith with a pretended love — Works not the soul
of faith, but the marks of its vitality,  499, 500
A twofold sense of the term Faith (un-Pauline but not anti-Pauline) — The
faith of evil spirits forced and passive — that of Abraham spontaneous, and in
harmony with the other principles of the mind (Paul contemplates the ob
jective and causal, James the subjective and practical),  500—502
The v bpnq used to signify the doctrine of Christ,  502
Unity of the law — Love its fulfilment — Language the organ of the whole
disposition — Tlie Christian life a work,  503
Christianity as the vopoc rekeioc not merely a new law, but a new internal
creation,  504
The difference from Paul only in the mode of development,  504, 505
2. His views of the law compared with the Pauline.
His object was to lead the Jews from Judaism to the Gospel — hence he
represents Christ as the fulfiller of the law, Matt. v. 17 ; and allows its ob
servance by the believing Jews, Acts xv. 21 ; xxi. 21,  505
Paul acted with greater latitude among the Gentiles — Became a. Gentile.
Gal. ii. 14, which was not required of James, as his ministry was confined
to Jews,  506
3. The duty of veracity.
James repeats the injunctions of Christ verbally (Matt. v. 12) — Paul enforces
the duty from the mutual relation of Christians, Eph. v. 12, and on certain
occasions used forms of asseveration equivalent to au oath  506
4. The free self-determination of man in reference to sin — The sentiments of
James on this point form an important supplement to Paul's doctrinal state
ments,  507,508

CONTENTS. XXVU
CHAPTER IV.
THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN. PAGES
John as compared with Paul and James — In John's mind the intuitive element
predominates over the dialectic — His Christian course emphatically a life in
communion with Christ,  508
1. The central-point of his doctrine — Divine life in Communion with Christ — •
Death in estrangement from him,  609
The theoretical and the practical are intimately blended in his view — His
leading ideas are light, life, and truth, in communion with God through the
Logos — Death, darkness, falsehood in separation from him  509, 510
Satan the representative of falsehood — " A liar and the father of it " — His
personality (note) — Truth and goodness — sin and falsehood are one — The
children of God, and the children of the world,  510, 511
2. Original estrangement of man from God — Opposition of the aapKiKbv and
irvevpariKov — The consciousness of sin a condition of the new life,  511
3. Susceptibility of Redemption.
Need of an inward sense corresponding to the outward revelation — Hence
faith presupposes a preparatory operation of the Holy Spirit — This divine im
pulse not compulsory; but unsuseeptibility voluntary and criminal  512, 513
Twofold sense of the phrases, elvai in Qeov and elvai Ik rijc dUndiac  513
4. The Person and Work of Christ.
The life of Christ the manifestation of God in human form — Grace and truth
Lu Christ correspond to love and holiness in God,  514, 515
The whole life of Christ a revelation of God — Hence his miracles and
the descent of the Spirit only mark a new epoch in his ministry  515, 516
Christ's miracles intended to lead men to higher views of his (ioftz ;
meanings of the term Faith in John's writings  516
Import of the sufferings of Christ — The idea of reconciliation at the basis
— The communication of divine life connected with his sacrifice — and depend
ing on his exaltation to glory — The spiritual maturity of his disciples de
pending negatively on this, but positively on his divine influence — The
irvevpa uyiov the result of his glorification,  517, 518
5, Faith as the Principle of a New Life.
Faith the one work acceptable to God, John vi. 29 — Complete surrender
to Christ — One commandment of the L >rd, brotherhj love,  519
Faith the victory over the world — A superstitious faith in the Messiah
easily changed to absolute unbelief,  520
The children of God, and the children of the devil,  521
Progressive purification of believers,.  522
Harmony of John's doctrine with itself and with Paul's,  522, 523
Christian hope,  523, 524
John the representative of mysticism,  624
6. Resurrection and Judgment.
Peculiarity of John's conceptions— The internal and present predominate
— mysticism  524

XXVH1 CONTENTS. PAGHI
Judgment something taking place in the present life — the publication of
the Gospel necessarily involves a separation of the susceptible from the
unsusceptible — Judgment opposed to ournpia — The unbeliever condemns
himself — The believer is not condemned,  "25, 526
But this judgmen t, and the spiritual awakening, are preparatory to the
final judgment and resurrection  J26
7. The Second Coming of Christ.
This is represented by John as internal — First by the coming of the
Spirit, xvi. 13, then of Christ's own spiritual coming, 16 — Yet a personal
visiblo irapovaia is not excluded,  626, 527
8. The Idea of the Church.
Not literally expressed — Yet metaphorically by " one fold and one shep
herd," also the distinction of internal and external communion, 1 Ep. ii. 19, 628
9. The Sacraments.
The institution of Christian baptism not mentioned — But its spiritual ele
ment noticed in iii. 3 — In the same manner the Supper, vi  528, 529
The essence of Christianity according to Paul and John — Worshipping
God as the Father through the Son, in the communion of the Holy Spirit —
This the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity,  530
Closing remarks,  530, 531

HI8TOEY OF
THE PLANTING AND TRAINING
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
BY THE APOSTLES.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE SOURCES OF THIS HISTORY.
The manner in which criticism has been recently applied to this branch
of history induces us to premise a few words on its sources, as an intro
duction to the following investigations. Aside from the few notices from
other quarters, we must, in order to examine the true nature of the facts
involved in this history, carefully compare two sources with one another,
namely, the Epistles of the Apostles and their companions, — which, their
genuineness being ascertained, are the surest sources, — and the narrative
known by the name of The Acts of the Apostles. As we are prepared
to prove the credibility of the latter hereafter in detail, we wish here
only to see whether, in passing, some marks of the confidence to be
placed in this source do not appear.
In the latter part of the book itself, from chap. xvi. 10, we meet with
a striking peculiarity, — the author in several passages speaks in the first
person plural, as one of the companions of the Apostle Paul, his fellow-
traveller, and therefore an eye-witness of part of the events contained in
ihe history. This is a very important indication of the rank which we
must allow to this document as a source of historical information. It
may indeed be objected, as has actually been done by Dr. Yon Baur,
(in his work, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Stuttgart, 1845, p. 12,)

2 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
that the author of the Acts belonged to a later period, but adopted this
phraseology because he wished to be regarded as the companion of the
Apostle Paul, and to act the part of Luke. But this supposition no un
prejudiced person can adopt. For then how can it be explained that the
author does not from the beginning give some sign of the part he was
acting, and in which it was so important for him to be acknowledged ;
that he does not also, where he first begins to adopt this style, drop some
hint as to who he is, and how he happened to be in Paul's company ?
This really looks in itself, and especially according to the analogy of the
apocryphal writings of that age, as unlike one who wished to write under
the name of another, as can be imagined. The manner in which the
author of the Acts at once, without anything leading to it, begins to
express himself in this associated form of address, bears undeniable marks
of the absence of design.
And for whom did the author compose this work? As by the intro
ductory words it is connected with the Gospel of Luke, and professes to
be the second part of that work on the primitive history of Christianity,
it is evident that it was primarily written for the same object which the
author of the Gospel states in his introduction — to furnish an individual,
Theophilus, with exact and certain knowledge of that history ; and this
certainly does not agree with his wishing to act the part of any other
person than he really was. Here again it may be objected — these writ
ings were not really composed for such a Theophilus, but he who forged
the work under the name of a companion of the Apostle Paul chose this
garb for his fabrication. But the introductory words of Luke's Gospel
are by no means suited to give us the impression of such a design, but
correspond in a simple, natural manner to the object which a Christian
writer might have who lived uuder the relations of that fresh age of
Christianity. And further, why should he in those words (Luke i. 2)
have stated that the accounts of eye-witnesses formed the main sources
of his narrative, when in consistency with the part he wished to act
he ought to have described himself as an eye-witness? Or must we
refer those introductory words only to the Gospel, and not at the same
time to the Acts ? But if persons are resolved to find a fabrication un
dertaken for a special purpose, must they not also, as most natural
assume that the author from the first had the whole plan of his fraus pia
in his mind, and hence in the introductory words to the first part of his
work had made preparation for what he intended to exhibit in the
second part?
If, now, this personal form of the narrative in the Acts is not a fabri

SOURCES — CREDIBILITY OF THE ACTS. 3
cation, having a special end in view, it can be explained only in one of
two ways. Either the same person speaks here from whom the whole
history proceeded, or it is the account of another individual, which the
author, using various sources for his work, incorporated in its original form
with his own composition. If we suppose the first, it is evident that
the work proceeded from one who was an eye-witness of part of the
events he describes, and who as a missionary companion of the Apostle
Paul, stood in close connection with him. And this will predispose us to
judge favorably of the sources which the author might make use of, for
those transactions in which he was not an eye-witness, as well as of the
general fidelity of his narrative. We shall not allow ourselves to be per
suaded that such a person, instead of wishing to give pure history, only
aimed at compiling from the materials before him a fiction, even though
for a good object. But if we adopt the second alternative, it follows,
that at least an important portion of the narrative is founded on the
report of a trustworthy eye-witness. From a single example of the use
of such a report, it is apparent that the author wished to employ, and
did employ, good sources of information. And by this single example,
of leaving unaltered the personal form of narrative, when another
would have been more suitable, he shows that he regarded truth more
than historic art — the fidelity of the narrative more than unity of histori
cal composition. It is plain how deficient he was in historic art, and
that therefore we must expect to find rather the raw material from the
sources within his reach, tha* an historical composition cast after one
idea, and in one mould. It is plain how little we should expect that
such a person would, like the classical historians, have constructed with
creative art the speeches he reports, according to the point of view and
character of each speaker, and how little such art and ability can be
attributed to him.
Both suppositions have their difficulties, which in either case can find
their solution only in the peculiarity of the historian, and in the whole
method of his work. In the one case, the carelessness and awkwardness
which allowed him to admit these foreign accounts without altering the
unsuitable form of the narrative, is wholly unaccountable. But if we adopt
the other supposition, it still remains very strange and awkward, that he
should appear speaking in this form all at once without notice ; without
saying anything about the manner in which he came to be one of Paul's
companions ; how by turns he is associated with him and separated from
him. But in both cases we shall be led to similar conclusions in refer
ence to the origination and character of this historical collection.

4 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
Whether the introductory words of Luke's Gospel do or do not refer to
both parts of the work, at all events we can apply what is there said
(Luke i. 2) to the Acts, that he made use of the reports of the original eye
witnesses of the Christian history, and of the first publishers of the Gos
pel; which could be pertinently said by Luke, to whom ecclesiastical
tradition attributes both works, to the physician whom Paul, in his
Epistle written from Rome, names as his fellow-laborer. It is true, that
to refer these words in the Gospel to the Acts would not favor the sup
position, that the account in which he uses the first person proceeded
from himself; for by that supposition he himself would belong to the eye
witnesses. Yet it is questionable whether these words really belong to
both parts, and whether the author, when writing the Gospel, had
already in mind that continuation of it.

BOOK 1.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCn IN PALESTINE, PREVIOUS TO ITS
SPREAD AMONG HEATHEN NATIONS.

CHAPTEK I.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ON ITS FIRST APPEARANCE AS A DISTINCT
RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY.
The Christian Church, as a community, proceeding from tlie new prin
ciple that was to transform the world, and destined to introduce this
new principle into humanity, presupposes, as the basis of its existence,
the Person who was himself in his whole being and manifestation that
world-transforming principle, without whom the existence of the church
itself would be a monstrous lie. But in order to the commence
ment of the existence of the church, there was also a necessity for that
unparalleled event affecting all succeeding ages, by which this objective
principle passed into the consciousness of men, henceforth to form the
central point of that new internal life-communion on which the very
essence of the church depends. This event was the miracle of the first
Pentecost, which, in its essential nature, is repeated wherever a creation
of the Christian life, either in individuals or in communities, takes place.
If all the great epochs in the development of the church point us to a
beginning which murks the boundary between the old and the new,
where first that which constitutes the peculiarity of the new epoch is
manifested, certainly the greatest epoch, from which all the others
proceeded, cannot be thought to want such a beginning ; and historical
traditions here harmonize with what the idea of the thing itself would
lead us to anticipate. And however much the explanation of particular
points in that tradition may be disputed, the historical reality of the fact
on the whole remains unshaken and raised above all attempts at mythical
explanation, and its truth is shown by itself, as well as by the results
which were consequent on it.
The historical development of the Christian church as a body, is
similar to that of the Christian life in each of its members. In the latter
case, the transition from an unchristian to a Christian state is not an event
altogether sudden, and without any preparatory steps. Many separate

6 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
rays of divine light, at different times, enter the soul ; various influences
of awakening preparative grace are felt, before the birth of that new-
divine life by which the whole character of man is destined to be taken
possession of, pervaded, and transformed. The appearance of a new
personality sanctified by the divine principle of life, necessarily forms a
great era in life, but the commencement of this era is not marked with
perfect precision and distinctness; the new creation manifests itself more
or less gradually by its effects. "The wind bloweth where it I'steth,
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh,
nor whither it goeth." The same may be affirmed of the church collec
tively, with this difference, however, that here the point of commence
ment is more visibly and decidedly marked.
It is true, that Christ, during his ministry on earth, laid the foundation
of the outward structure of the church ; he then formed that community,
that spiritual Theocracy, whose members were held together by faith in,
and confession of, Him as their theocratic King. The community of
disciples who acknowledged Him as their Lord and master — their
theocratic king — formed the scaffolding for the future structure of the
church. But it was as yet the letter without the spirit, the outward
form without the inward power. The vital principle of this community,
which once in existence, should become the imperishable seed for the
propagation of the church in all ages, had not yet germinated. As
Christ himself said : " If the seed fall not into the earth and die it remaineth
alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit ;" so that fountain of divine
life which should afterward flow forth over the whole human race, was,
during his existence on earth, shut up in him alone. From the inde
pendent possession and individual form of this divine life there had not
yet been wrought out — as was essential to the very idea of a Christian
church — a community. The Apostles themselves were still entirely
dependent on tlie sensible presence and outward guidance of Christ.
Although by their intercourse with Him, and by his spiritual operations
on them, they had already received the germ of a divine life which had
manifested itself in single exercises, it had not yet become an independent
power, a permanent possession, the animating principle of each man's
individuality. Hence, they could easily believe everything to be lost
when He who was all to them, was withdrawn from their sensible
vision. He whom they. believed dead must again appear to them in a
new form of being, lifted above the reach of death — as the divine livin<*
One over whom death had no power — in order to raise them to the
consciousness of a communion with him, which nothing could ever a^ain
destroy. He appeared unexpectedly among them, filled them with the
sense of His presence, and then vanished out of their sight, that they mifht
become gradually assured of their spiritual communion with Him, even
when he was not sensibly present. All these impressions which the
Saviour by repeated interviews after his resurrection left with them were
an important preparation for that great event which was to mark the

THE PENTECOSTAL MIRACLE. 7
beginning of a new epoch. Such especially was that meeting at which,
after pronouncing peace on his disciples, and repeating what he had
previously said, that as the Father had sent Him, so He sent them,
he declared with a pertinent symbolic sign that they should receive the
Holy Spirit, who alone was able to qualify them for that work to which
he had set them apart. This act prefiguring that which would be fully
realized only in the future, but yet by its immediate effect preparing for
that later event, was not without special significance. It is because that
great event so prefigured and prepared for, was accomplished at the time
of the first Pentecost celebrated by the disciples after the Saviour's
departure, that this feast is of so great significance, as marking the com
mencement of the Apostolic Church, for here it first made an outward
manifestation of itself according to its inner nature. Next to the appear
ance of the Son of God himself on earth, this event most distinctly
marked the commencement of that new divine life, which, proceeding from
Him to all mankind, has since spread and operated through successive
ages, and will continue to operate until its final object is attained, and
the whole race is transformed into the image of Christ. If we con
template this great transaction from this, its only proper point of view,
we shall not be tempted to explain the greater by the less ; we shall not
consider it strange that the most wonderful event in the inner life of
mankind should be accompanied by extraordinary outward appearances,
as sensible indications of its existence. Still less shall we be induced to
look upon this great transaction — in which we recognise the necessary
beginning of a new epoch, an essential intermediate step in the religious
development of the Apostles, and in the formation of the Church — as
something purely mythical.
The disciples must have looked forward with intense expectation to
the fulfilment of that promise, which the Saviour had so emphatically
repeated.* Ten days had passed since their final separation from their
* Professor Hitzig, in his Sendschreiben iiber Osiern und Pfingsten, (Letters on Easter
and Pentecost,) Heidelberg, 1837, maintains that this event occurred not at the Jewish
Pentecost, but some days earlier, as also the day of the giving of the Law from Sinai is to
be fixed some days earlier; that Acts ii. 1, is to be understood, " when the day of Pente
cost drew near," and therefore denotes a time before the actual occurrence of this feast.
As evidence for this assertion it is remarked that, in verse 5. only tlie Jews settled in Je
rusalem, those who, out of all the countries in which they were scattered, had settled in
Jerusalem from a strong religious feeling, are mentioned, when, if the reference had been
to one of. the principal feasts, the multitude of foreign Jews, who came fro.-n all parts,
would have been especially noticed. Against this view we have to urge the following
considerations: The words, Acts ii. 1, " When the day of Pentecost was fully come,"
would be most naturally understood of the actual arrival of that day; as " fulness of time,'1
irXrjpupa rov xpovov, or "of times," tuv KaipCiv, Eph. i. 10, and Gal. iv. 4, denotes the
actual arrival of the appointed time; though we allow that, in certain connections, they
may denote the near approach of some precise point of time, as in Luke ix. 51, where
yet it is to be noticed that it is not said "tlie day," but " the days;" and thus the time of
the departure of Christ from the earth, which was now actually approaching, is marked in
general terms. Bui as to this passage in the Acts, if we understand the words only of

8 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
Divine Master, when that feast was celebrated, whose object so nearly
touched that which especially occupied their minds at the time, and must
therefore have raised their anxious expectations still higher — the Jewish
Pentecost, the feast which was held seven weeks after the Passover.
This feast, according to the original Mosaic institution, related indeed
only to the first fruits of Harvest, nor is any other reason for its celebra
tion adduced by Josephus and Philo, and so far, only a distant resem
blance could have been traced between the first fruits of the natural
Creation and those of the new Spiritual Creation. This analogy, it is
true, is often adverted to by the ancient Fathers of the Church, but
before the fulfilment of the Saviour's promise, must have been very far
from the thoughts of the disciples. But if we may credit the Jewish
Traditions,* this feast had also a reference to the giving of the law on
Mount Sinai ;f hence it especially was called the feast of the joy of the
Law.J If this be admitted, then the words of Christ respecting the new
revelation of God by him, — the new relation established by him between
God and Man, which he himself, under the designation of the New Cov
enant^ placed in opposition to the Old, — must have been vividly recalled
the near approach of Pentecost, we do not see why such a specification of the time should
have been given, since there is no mention at all of the Pentecost after this. Had Luke
had in mind a day of giving the Law on Sinai different from that of the Pentecost, it
might be expected that he would have marked more precisely the time in point, which
he must have supposed to be known at least to his readers. Besides, there are no traces
to be found that a day in commemoration of the giving of the Law was observed by the
Jews. But if we understand the words as referring to tlie actual arrival of Pentecost, the
importance of fixing the time, in relation to the words immediately following, and the
whole sequel of the narrative, is very apparent. This feast would occasion the assembling
of believers at an early hour. The words in verse 5, taken by themselves, we should
doubtless have to understand merely of such Jews as were resident in Jerusalem, not of
such as came there first at this time. But, from a comparison with the !>tli verse, it is
evident that " to dwell," KaroiKeiv, is not to be understood altogether in the same sense
in both verses ; that, in the latter, those are spoken of who had their residence elsewlrere,
and were only sojourning for a short time in Jerusalem. And if we grant that tlie persons
spoken of belonged to the number of the Jews who formerly dwelt in other lands, but for
a long time past had setiled in Jerusalem, as the capital of the Theocracy, it is clear that,
by the "strangers of Rome," liriinpovvrer 'Pupaloi, we must understand such as for some
special cause were just come to Jerusalem. Further, there were also those called Prose
lytes, who were found in great numbers at Jerusalem, for some special occasion, and this
could be-no other than the foast of Pentecost. Doubtless, by "all the dwellers at Jerusa
lem," v. 14, who are distinguished from the Jews, are meant all who were then living at
Jerusalem, without determining whether they had resided there always, or only for a
short time. The whole narrative, too, gives the impression that a greater multitude of
persons than usual were then assembled at Jerusalem.
° Which may be found collected in a Dissertation by J. A. Danz, in Meuschen's No
vum Testamentum e Talmude Illustratum, p. 740.
f That they are justified in making such a reference, may be concluded from comparing
Exodus xii. 2, and xix. 1.
J n-.Hnn nrjtt'o
§ The word diadr/Kn, »V^, (covenant,) which has been used to denote both the Old
and the New Dispensation, is taken from human relations, as signifying a covenant ox

THE PENTECOSTAL MIRACLE. 9
to the minds of the disciples by the celebration of this feast, and, at the
same time, their anxious longing must have been more strongly excited for
that event, which, according to his promise, was to confirm and glorify
the New Dispensation. As all who professed to be the Lord's disciples
(their number then amounted to one hundred and twenty)* were wont
to meet daily for mutual edification, so on this solemn day they were
assembled in a chamber,! which, according to Oriental customs, was
specially assigned to devotional exercises. It was the first stated hour
of prayer, about nine in the morning, and, according to what we must
suppose was then the tone of the disciples' feelings, we may presume
that their prayers turned to the object which filled their souls; that, on
the day when the Old Law had been promulgated with such glory, the
New also nvght be glorified by the communication of the promised
Spirit. And what their ardent desires and prayers sought for, what their
Lord had promised, was granted. They felt elevated to a new state of
mind, and penetrated by a spirit of joyfulness and power, to which they
agreement: but in its application to the relation between God and man, the fundamental
idea must never be lost sight of, namely, that of a relation in which there is something
reciprocal and conditional, as, in this case, a communication from God to man is condi
tioned by the obedience of faith on the part of the latter.
* Without doubt, those expositors adopt the right view who suppose that not merely
the apostles but all the believers were at that time assembled; for though, in Acts i. 26,
the apostles are primarily intended, yet the " disciples," padnrai, collectively, form the chief
subject, (i. 15,) to which the "all," uiravrec, at the beginning of the second chapter neces
sarily refers. It by no means follows, that because, in ch. ii. 14, the apostles alone are
represented as speakers, the assembly was confined to these alone; but here, as elsewhere,
they appear as the leaders and representatives of the whole church, aud thus are distin
guished from the rest of the persons met together ; Acts ii. 1 5. The great importance of the
fact which Peter brings forward in his discourse — that the gifts of the Spirit, which, under
the Old Covenant, were imparted only to a select class of persons, such as the prophets,
under the New Covenant, which removes every wall of separation in reference to the
higher life, are communicated wdthout distinction to all believers — this great fact would be
altogether lost sight of if we confined everything here mentioned to the apostles. Through
out the Acts, wherever the agency of the Spirit is manifested by similar characteristics in
those who were converted to a living faith, we perceive an evident homogeneity with this
first great event.
\ Such a chamber was built in the eastern style, on a flat roof, and with- a staircase
leading to the courtyard, virepuov, *v\?., (upper chamber.) According to the narrative in
the Acts, we must suppose it to have been a chamber in a private house. But, in itself,
there is nothing to forbid our supposing that the disciples met together in the Temple at
the first hour of prayer during the feast; their proceedings would thus have gained much
in notoriety, though not in real importance, as OWiausen maintains ; for it perfectly accorded
with the genius of the Christian Dispensation, not being restricted to particular times and
places, and obliterating the distinction of profane and sacred, that the first effusion of the
Holy Spirit should take place, not in a temple, but in an ordinary dwelling. It is stated,
it is true, in Luke xxiv. 53, that the disciples " were continually in the temple," and hence
It mi"-ht the more reasonably be concluded that this was the case on the morning of this
High Feast; yet it might be possible that, when Luke wrote his Gospel, he had not yet
obtained exact knowledge of the particulars of these events, or that he made here only a
brief, general statement of them.

10 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
had hitherto been strangers, they were seized by an inspiring impulse, to
testify to the grace of redemption, which now for the first time they
experienced. Extraordinary appearances of nature (a conjunction simi
lar to what has happened in other important epochs in the history of
mankind) accompanied the great process then going on in the spiritual
world, and were symbolic of that which filled their inmost souls. An
earthquake, attended by a whirlwind, suddenly shook the building in
which they were assembled, a symbol to them of that Spirit which
moved their inner man. Flaming lights in the form of tongues streamed
through the chamber, and floating downwards settled on their heads, a
symbol of the new tongues of the fire of inspired emotion, which streamed
forth from the holy flame that glowed within them.*
The accountf of what took place on this occasion, leads us back at
last to the depositions of those who were present, the only persons who
could give direct testimony concerning it. And with these it might have
happened, that the glory of the inner life then imparted to them so re
flected its splendor on surrounding objects that, by virtue of the internal
miracle, (the elevation of their inward life and consciousness,) through
the power of the Divine Spirit, the objects of outward perception ap
peared quite changed. And thus it is not impossible that everything
which presented itself to them as a perception of the outward senses,
may have been, in fact, only a perception of the predominant inward men
tal state, a sensuous objectiveness of what was operating inwardly with
divine power, similar to the ecstatic visions which are elsewhere men
tioned in Holy Writ. Whatever may be thought of this explanation,
what was divine in the event remains the same, for this was an inward
process in the souls of the disciples, in relation to which everything out
ward was only of subordinate significance. Still, there is nothing in the
narrative which renders such a supposition necessary. And if we admit
that there was really an earthquake which frightened the inhabitants out
of their houses, it is easily explained how, though it happened early in
the morning of the feast, at the hour of prayer, a great multitude would
be found in the streets, and the attention of one and another being
attracted to the extraordinary meeting of the disciples, how also, by
degrees, a great crowd of persons, curious to know what was goinir on,
would collect around the house.J The question may be asked, By what
* Gregory the Great beautifully remarks : " Hinc est quod super pastores primos in
linguarum specie Spiritus Sanctus insedit, quia nimirum quos replevcrit, de se protinus
loquentes facit." Lib. i. Ep. 25. (The Holy Spirit sat upon the first pastors in the form o'.
tongues, because, doubtless, He moves those whom He has filled with His power imme
diately to speak of Himself.)
f Though not furnished immediately by an eye-witness, and hence, iu siugle points,
failing in that clearness of testimony which would otherwise be expected.
\ The question is, How are we to explain the difficult words, "this noise," rT/c Quvric rav-
rnc, in Acts ii. 6 ? The pronoun, " this," raiirnc, might lead us to refer the words lo what
immediately preceded, the loud speaking of the persons assembled. But then the use ol
the singular is remarkable, and since verse 2 is the leading one, to which the others are

THE PENTECOSTAL MIRACLE. H
was the astonishment of the bystanders especially excited ? At first
sight, the words in Acts ii. 7-1 1 appear susceptible of but one interpre
tation, that the passers-by were astonished at hearing Galileans, who
knew no language but their own, speak in a number of foreign languages,
which they could not have learnt in a natural way ;* that, therefore, we
must conclude that the faculty was imparted to believers by an extraor
dinary operation of Divine power, of speaking in foreign languages not
acquired by the use of their natural ficulties. Accordingly, since the
third century,f it has been generally admitted, that a supernatural gift
attached, we might refer ravrnc to the subject of that verse, and the more as " occurring, "
yevopevne, of verse 6 seems to correspond to the "occurred," lyevero,o( verse 2. But
not only is it more natural to refer the pronoun ravrnc to what immediately precedes in
verse 4, but also verses 3 and 4, rather than verse 2, contain the most important facts in
the narrative, which certainly favors the construction, in which "noise,'' (jiuvij, is under
stood of the noise made by the disciples in giving vent to their feelings: itiuvii must then
be taken as a collective noun, signifying a confused din, in which the distinction of indi
vidual voices was lost.
* The words give us no reason to suppose that tlie by-standers took offence at hearing
the disciples speak of divine things in a different language from the sacred one.
f By many of the ancients it has been supposed — what a literal interpretation of the
words ii. 8 will allow, and even favor — that the miracle consisted in this, that, though all
spoke in one and the same language, each of the hearers believed that he heard them speak
in his own; piav pev k^nxeloOm tyuviiv, iroXXuc de uKoveoOai (one language, indeed, was
spoken, but many were heard). Gregory Naz. orat. 44, f. 715, who yet does not propound
this view as peculiarly his own. It has lately been brought forward in a peculiar manner
by Schneckenburger, in his Bdtr'dgen zur Einleitung in's Neue Testament — (Contributions
towards an Introduction to the New Testament,) p. 84. The speakers, by the power o(
inspiration, operated so powerfully on the feelings of their susceptible hearers, that they
involuntarily translated what went to their hearts into their mother tongue, and under
stood it as if it had been spoken in that. By tlie element of inspiration, the inward com
munion of feeling was so strongly in exercise, that the lingual wall of separation was
entirely taken away. But, in order to determine the correctness of this mode of explana
tion, it may be of use to inquire, Was the language in which the hearers were addressed
quite foreign to them, and the natural medium of human intercourse being thus wholly
wanting, did there take place a miracle which produced an immediate understanding? Or
was the Aramaic language of tlie speakers not altogether foreign to the hearers, only not
so familiar as their mother-tongue: it being an effect of the inward communion produced
by the power of spiritual influence, that they easily understood those who spoke in an
unaccustomed language, without feeling the want of a familiarity with it; what was said
being so deeply felt, it was as intelligible as if spoken in their mother-tongue? This would
be, although on the supposition of a powerful spiritual influence, by which the essence of
the Pentecostal miracle is not denied but presupposed, an explicable psychological fact.
We should think of them as men, speaking with the ardor of inspiration, who made an
impression on those not capable of understanding a language foreign to them, similar to
what we are told of Bernard's Sermons in Germany on the Crusades, that, "speaking to
the German people, he was listened to with marvellous emotion ; and their devotion
Beemed to be excited more by his discourse, which it was not in their power to under
stand, inasmuch as they were men of another tongue, than by the intelligible address of
any interpreter, however skilful, speaking after him; and the beating of their breasts, and
the pouring forth of their tears, clearly proved this," quod Germanicis etiam populis lo-
quens miro audiebatur affeotu ; et de sermone rjus, quein intelligere, utpote alterius lin
guae homines, non valebant, magis quam ex peritissimi cujuslibct post eum loquentis inter-

12 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
of tongnes was imparted on this occasion, by which the more rapid pro.
mulgation of the gospel among the heathen was facilitated and promoted.
And it might be said that, as in the apostolic age, many things were
effected immediately by the predominating creative agency of God's
Spirit, which, in later times, have been effected through hcman means
appropriated and sanctified by it; so, in this instance, immediate inspira
tion stood in the place of those natural lingual acquirements, which in
later times have served for the propagation of the gospel.
But, certainly, the utility of such a gift of tongues for the spread of
divine truth in the apostolic times, will not appear so great, if we con
sider that the gospel had its first and chief sphere of action among the
nations belonging to the Roman Empire, where the knowledge of the
Greek and Latin languages sufficed for this purpose, and that the one or
the other of these languages, as it was employed in the intercourse of
daily life, could not be altogether strange to the Jews. As to the Greek
language, the mode in which the apostles expressed themselves in it, the
traces of their mother-tongue which appear in their use of it, prove that
they had obtained a knowledge of it, according to the natural laws of
lingual acquirement. In the history of the first propagation of Chris
tianity, traces are never to be found of a supernatural gift of tongues for
this object. Ancient tradition, which names certain persons as interpre
ters of the apostles, implies the contrary.* Also, Acts xiv. 11 shows
that Paul possessed no supernatural gift of tongues. Yet all this does
not authorize us lo deny the reference to such an endowment in the for
mer passage of the Acts, if the explanation of the whole passage, both
in single words and in its connexion, is most favorable to this interpre
tation.pretis intellecta locutione, gedifieari illomm devotio videbatur, cujus rei certa probatio
tunsio pectorum erat et effusiolacrimaruin. Mabillon. ed. Opp. Bernard, tom. ii. p. 1119. And
this would for the most part agree with fcho interpretation of my honored friend Dr. Steu
del. But as to the first mode of explanation, we do not see what can allow or justify our
substituting for the common interpretation of the miracle in question another, which doe3
not come nearer the psychological analogy, but, on the contrary, is further from it and
does not so naturally connect itself with the narrative as a whole. As to an appeal to the
analogy with the phenomenon or animal magnetism, we find indeed nothing objectionable
in referring to such an analogy, any more than in general to tlie analogy between the
supernatural and the natural, provided the difference of psychical circumstances, and of
the causes producing them, is not lost sight of; but yet, in matters of science, where
everything mu-t be well grounded, we cannot attach a value to such testimony until it
is ascertained what is really trustworthy in the accounts of such phenomena. As to the
second mode of interpretation, it can only be maintained by our first adopting the supposi
tion, that we have here not a tradition from the first source, but a representation, which only
mediately depends on the report of eye-witnesses, and by allowing ourselves, ^erefore to
distinguish what the author says from the facts lying at the basis of his narrative. '
* Thus Mark is called the "interpreter," i/ipnvr.vc or epunvevr'nc of Peter, (see Papiaa
of Hierapolis in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iii. 39, compared with Irenaeus, iii. 1). The Basilidi
ans say the same of one Glaucias, Clement's Stromata, vii. 765. ' Ou comparing every
thing, I must decide against the possible interpretation of those words favored by several

THE PENTECOSTAL MIRACLE. 13
But we shall be led to dissimilar results as we proceed from the de
scription of the occurrences in the church at Corinth, which we find in
the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, or from the .account in the
Acts of the Apostles of the wonders on the day of Pentecost. An un
prejudiced examination, as we shall show more fully in the sequel, can
leave no doubt that the extraordinary appearances in the Corinthian
church are to be attributed not to speaking in foreign languages, but to
speaking in an ecstatic and highly elevated 6tate of mind. The account
in the Acts would certainly, on a superficial view, lead us only to the
notion of foreign languages, and several passages might without violence
be explained to mean nothing else than that the author of the account
referred to the use of such foreign languages. If now we were justified
in the opinion that the same idea of the gift of tongues is applicable to
all the appearances of this kind in the Apostolic age ; and if we must set
out from one principal passage for determining this idea ; then we
should use for this purpose the record contained in the First Epistle of
Paul to the Corinthians, inasmuch as it gives direct evidence on the sub
ject, and possesses greater clearness and distinctness, rather than the
account in the Acts, which is defective in these qualities, and in its ex
isting form could not have proceeded immediately from an eye-witness.
But the opinion that the idea conveyed by " speaking in other or new
tongues" must have been the same from the beginning, we cannot hold
with such certainty as to apply it to every single passage in spite of all
the difficulties that present themselves, unless the exposition of all the
passages taken separately lead to the same fundamental idea. Now al
though, as follows from what has been said above, the ancient opinion
that the apostles were furnished in a supernatural manner with a know
ledge of languages for the publication of the Gospel, cannot be main
tained ; yet, by the account in the Acts, as long as we explain it by
itself alone, we might be led to that view, only a little modified. And
we do not venture to decide, a priori, that the communication of such a
supernatural gift of tongues was an impossibility. It must be our spe
cial business, first of all, to harmonize the facts as they are reported in
the historical records, for not till then can we examine how they are re-
eminent modern critics— that they mean simply an expositor, one who repeated the in-
etructions of Peter in his Gospel, with explanatory remarks ; — for this designation of
Mark is always prefixed to early accounts of his Gospel, and at the same time from the
lact of his acting in this capacity with Peter, his capability is inferred to note down the
report made by him of the Evangelical history. Thus certainly the passage in Papias
must be understood : Mdpxoc piv tppnvevrr/c Uerpov yevoptvoc, boa lpvnpovevaev,u.Kpij3uc
lypaipev, (Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he
remembered.) The second fact, that he wrote accurately, is founded on the first, that he
accompanied Teter as an interpreter. We may weU suppose that some truth lies at the
basis of this tradition ; that although Peter was not ignorant of the Greek language, and
could express himself in it, he yet took with him a disciple who was thoroughly master of
it, that he might be assisted by him in publishing the gospel among those who spoke that
language. Or we must refer the tradition to the Latin language.

14 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
lated to the known laws of the world and of human nature; those law**
according to which we see the Divine Spirit and Christianity operate oe
all other occasions. If now we compare all that is known to us in thm
last respect, we shall never find that the immediate illumination of the
Holy Spirit takes the place of the intellectual faculty, or infuses in an im
mediate manner that knowledge which might be attained by the natural
application of the understanding and the memory. According to the
same law by which that is not communicated by the light of the Holy
Spirit which can be discovered by the intelligent use of the art of inter
pretation, it was not the office of this Spirit to communicate a complete
knowledge of languages. The apostles learnt languages when they
needed them, in the same manner and according to the same laws as any
other persons, under the guidance of that Spirit who endowed them for
their vocation in general. We may indeed find examples of immediate
intuition, or tact, or feeling, which, in certain moments, allows that to be
knowrn which otherwise it would take a longer time to acquire by a con
tinued effort of the understanding. In other cases it happens that one
person by a certain intuitive power or immediate feeling knows what
another must acquire in a more tedious way. But although the apostles
were obliged to learn languages in the common way, yet we do not ven
ture to assert that, at the time when the new creation called into being
by Christ first became consciously known to the disciples, something
very different from the ordinary course of things might not have hap
pened. We could imagine that the great divine event which was to
communicate a higher spiritual life to mankind, and to remove from
among the nations of the earth all the oppositions arising from, or con
nected with, sin, might also be outwardly manifested by breaking down
the limits of national peculiarities and languages : by virtue of the con
nexion, which as yet we are far from perfectly comprehending, between
the inward and outward life of the spirit, between the inward view or
thought, and its outward expression, language, such a sudden conjunc
ture might result, a symbolical prophetic wonder, to shadow forth how
the new divine life which here first of all manifested itself would claim
all the tongues of mankind as its own, how by means of Christianity the
separation of nations would be overcome. In one brief act there would
thus be a representation of what is grounded in the essence of the re
demption accomplished by Christ, — an immediate anticipation of what
through a course of ages was mediately to be developed.
This view we should certainly be compelled to adopt, if we could
venture to make use of the account in the Acts as the report of an eve-
witness, and a narrative derived from a single source. "Without doin«
violence to the words, we cannot fail to perceive, according to Acts ii.
C, 11, that the person from whom the account, as there given, proceeded
regarded the disciples as speaking in various foreign languages which
had been hitherto unknown to them. But we have here hardlv an ac
count from the first hand, and we find means, indeed, to distincuish the

THE PENTECOSTAL MIRACLE. 15
original account of the transaction from the modification given to it in
the later composed narrative. If those who came from distant parts had
heard the Galileans speak in foreign languages which must have been
unknown to them, this must have appeared to every one, even such as
were wholly unsusceptible of the divine in the event, as something ex
traordinary, although they had felt too little interest for the deeper
meaning of the transaction, or had been too thoughtless to reflect on
what formed the groundwork and cause of so inexplicable a phenome
non. But now, though previously mention had been made of speaking
in unknown, foreign languages, yet the persons introduced in the follow
ing verses (12 and 13), express their astonishment, not as at such an ex
traordinary occurrence, but only as respecting something which sur
prised the sober-minded part of the spectators, so as to leave them in
doubt what it meant, while others, the altogether rude and carnally-
minded, supposed they witnessed only the signs of intoxication. All
this suits very well, if we take it as describing the impression made by
the announcement of the novel things relating to the kingdom of God,
uttered in a state of elevated emotion. Such utterance must have so
affected the different classes of hearers that some must have been amazed
by what they could not comprehend, while others would throw ridicule
on the whole affair as a mere exhibition of riotous enthusiasm. And
what the Apostle Peter says in ii. 15, in answer to that charge, seems
rather to confirm this explanation than the other. Why should he have
referred to the fact that it was not the time of day in which men indulge
in drinking, when he could have brought forward proofs suited to en
lighten the carnal multitude, that an effect like this, the ability to speak
foreign, unknown languages, could not be one of the effects of intoxica
tion ?
And if we look now at the first words with which the narrative of
these great events begins, we shall not find ourselves compelled by them
to form such a representation as is derived from vv. 7 — 12. It is said in
v. 4, " And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak
with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." By these " other
tongues," which differed from common human tongues — tongues as they
were new-created by the power of the Holy Ghost — w-e are by no means
obliged to understand foreign languages. So we find, even in this nar
rative, elements which point to something else than what we should in
fer from vv. 7 — 12. And even these words cannot literally be under
stood of purely distinct foreign languages. It is certain that among the
inhabitants of the cities in Cappadocia, Pontus, Lesser Asia, Phrygia
Pamphylia, Cyrene, and in the parts of Libya and Egypt inhabited by
Grecian and Jewish colonies, the Greek language was at that time for
the most part more current than the ancient language of the country.
There remain out of the whole list of languages only the Persian, Syriac,
Arabic, Greek and Latin languages. Unquestionably, therefore, the de
scription is rather rhetorical than purely historical.

16 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
If now we look at still other passages in the Acts in which this gift
of tongues is mentioned, there appears in them nothing of the kind
which we find in the one under consideration. As speaking with new-
tongues was one of the first marks of the consciousness that proceeded
from the new divine life communicated by Christ, one of the most promi
nent marks of the new Christian inspiration, so this was everywhere re
peated where that event of the first Christian Pentecost was renewed,
where the Christian life and consciousness first revealed itself, as when,
during the preaching of the Apostle Peter, faith germinated in the
already prepared hearts of the Gentiles, and they received the first di
vine impression of the power of the Gospel (Acts'x. 46); or as when
the disciples of John at Ephesus were first instructed fufy respecting
Christ and the Holy Spirit imparted by him, and received Christian bap
tism, Acts xix. 6. In such situations and circumstances, the power of
speaking in foreign languages would have been without object or signi
ficance. Whenever the consciousness of the grace of Redemption and
of a heavenly life springing from it, was awakened in man, his own mo
ther-tongue, and not a foreign language, would be the most natural chan
nel for expressing his feelings ; otherwise, we must suppose the exertion of
a magical power gaining the mastery over men, and forcing them, like
unconscious instruments, to express themselves in foreign tones ; a thing
contrary to all analogy in the operations of Christianity.
In the first of the two passages we have just quoted, (Acts x. 40,)
" speaking with tongues" is connected with " magnifying God," which in
timates the relation between these two acts, — the former being a par
ticular mode of the latter. In the second passage, (Acts xix. 6,) 'speak
ing with tongues" is followed by "prophesying" (rrpocprjTeveiv) ; and as by
this (the Cull explanation of which we reserve for the sequel) is to be un
derstood addresses in a state of spiritual elevation, it may be regarded
as something allied to the former.
If we proceed now from this point, we shall be led to the following
opinion : The new spirit which filled the disciples, of which they were
conscious as a common animating principle, created for them a new lan
guage; the new feelings and intuitions revealed themselves in new
words; the new wine required new bottles. We know not whence is
derived the origin of this designation, " speaking with tongues," seized as
it is from life, and corresponding to the essence of the matter. A true tra
dition perhaps lies at the foundation of the critically-suspected passage at
the close of Mark's Gospel, so that Christ himself may have designated
the speaking in new tongues as one mark of the operations of the Spirit,
which he imparted to his disciples. At all events, we find what is re
lated to it in meaning in the discourses of Christ, — the promise of speak
ing with the new power which would be imparted to the disciples by
the Holy Spirit, and of the 'new mouth and wisdom' (Luke xxi. 15)
that he would give them. At the beginning, this speaking with tongues
could not have been employed for the instruction of others, but could

THE PENTECOSTAL MIRACLE. 17
only have been an immediate involuntary expression of the heart im
pelled by inward pressure to reveal itself in words. We have no reason
for taking any other view of the first Pentecostal day. Peter's dis
course was the first intelligible utterance for others, the "interpretation,"
e.pprjveia, of the new tongues, or the added " prophesying," irporpnTevetv.
Thus it was perhaps something additional to the original use of this de
signation, when, as the various degrees of Christian elevation became
separated from one another, the " speaking in tongues" was used espe
cially to designate in the highest degree, spiritual elevation, that ecstatic
state in which the thinking faculty is less consciously active.
* This continued to be the general use of the term for the first two centuries, until, tho
historical connection with the youthful age of the church being broken, the notion of a su
pernatural gilt of tongues was formed. On this point it is worth while to compare some
passages of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Irenaeus (lib. v. c. 6) cites what Paul says of the
wisdom of the perfect, and then adds, Paul ealls those perfect, " Qui perceperunt Spiritum
Dei, et omnibus linguis loquuntur per Spiritum Dei, quemadmodum et ipse loquebatur,
Kaduc Kai iroXXuv uKovopev dde'Aipuv iv ry iwc'Anoia. irpofnriKu xapiopara ixbvruv Kai
iravTodairaic 'ka.Xoixvruv bid rov irvevparoc yXuooaic Kai rd Kpiifta rdv dvOpdiiruv etc
Qavepbv dybvruv iirl r€i ovpijiipovri Kai ra pvarijpia rov deov EKdinyovpivuv, quos et
Bpiritales apostolus vocat ;'' (who have received the Spirit of God and speak in all tongues
by tlie Spirit of God, just as he himself spoke, just as, also, we hear many brethren in the
church who possess prophetic gifts, speaking through the Spirit in all kinds of tongues,
making manifest, for profit, the hidden things of men, and declaring the mysteries of God,
whom, also, the Apostle calls spiritual). Though some persons think tlie term iravroda-
irate (in all kinds) undoubtedly refers to the languages of various nations, I do not see
how that can be, according to its use al thai time, though the original meaning of the
word might be so understood. It is particularly worthy of notice, that Irenasus represents
this gift as one of the essential marks of Christian perfection, as a characteristic of the
"spiritual," spiritaks. We cannot well comprehend how he could suppose any' thing so
detached and accidental as speaking iu many foreign languages, to stand in so close and
necessary a connexion with the essence of Christian inspiration. Besides, he speaks of it
as one of those gifts of the Spirit, which continued to exist in the church even in his own
times. He evidently considers the " speaking with tongues" as something allied to
"prophesying." To the latter, he attributes the faculty of bringing to light the hidden
thoughts of men, and to the former that of publishing divine mysteries. He sees nothing
but this in the gift of tongues at the effusion of the Holy Spirit, and, in reference to that
event, places together "prophesying and speaking with tongues," "prophetari et loqui
linguis," 1. iii. v. 12. Tertullian, from his Montanistic stand-point, demands of Marcion to
point out among his followers proofs of ecstatic inspiration: " Edat aliquem psalmum,
aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem duntaxat spiritalem in ecstasi, i. e. amentia, si qua
linguae interpretatio aoeesserit." (Let him give utterance to some psalm, some vision,
some prayer, only let it be spiritual in an ecstasy, if an interpretation of the tongue may
be added.) Evidently in this connexion, the term " tongue," lingua, expresses speaking in
au ecstasy, which, since what is spoken in' this state cannot be generally intelligible,
must be accompanied by an interpretation. Tertullian also, in the same passage (adv.
Marcion, 1. v. c. 8), applying the words in Isaiah xi. 2 to the Christian church, joins pro
phetari with linguis loqui, and attributes both to the "Spirit of Knowdedge," Spiritus
agnitionis, tho irviipa yvuaeuc. Further, as it appears from what has beeu said, that tlie
gift of tongues was considered as still existing in the church, it is strange that the Fathers
never refer to it apologetically, as an undeniable evidence to the heathen of '.he divine
power operating among Christians, in the same manner ag they appeal to t-e gift of hoal-

18 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
On reviewing the account in the Acts of the Apostles as it lies'before
us, we certainly recognise in it, according to what has been said, a
predominant ideal element, which has infused itself into the conception
of the historical, and modified it. If we have assumed as possible that
the peculiar essence and aim of Christianity was represented visibly in a
symbolic wonder, we shall now be compelled at the close of our inquiry,
lo regard this not as purely historical and objective, but to transfer it to
the subjective point of view, concluding that the conception of the fact,
was in this particular instance involuntarily altered. If any persons are
disposed to call this a mythical element mingling with the historical, after
the preceding explanation of the idea, we shall not dispute about a
name. Only we must once for all declare, that such single unhistorical
traits can by no means be employed to stamp the whole narrative in
which they occur as unhistorical or mythical. After consistent applica
tion of such an arbitrary principle of criticism — that in general where
anything is found unhistorical or mythical, no real history is to be
recognised — very little history would be left ; the greater part of history
would have to be sacrificed to a destructive criticism, which is every
where quick to descry departures from the strictly historical.*
Having attempted to explain the nature of the remarkable occurrences
of that, great day, we will now pursue the narrative farther.
The apostles held it to be their duty to defend the Christian com
munity against the reproaches cast upon it by superficial judges, and to
avail themselves of the impression which this spectacle had made on so
many, to lead them to faith in Him whose divine power was here mani
fested. Peter came forward with the rest of the eleven, and as the
apostles spoke in the name of the whole church, so Peter spoke in the
name of the apostles. The promptitude and energy which made him
take the lead in expressing the sentiments with which all were animated,
were special gifts, grounded in his natural peculiarities ; hence the
distinguished place which he had already taken ainong the disciples, and
which he long after held in the first church at Jerusalem. " Think not,"
ing the sick, or of casting out demons, although the ability to speak in a variety of lan
guages not acquired in a natural way, must have been very astonishing to the heathen.
In Origen, in whose times the Charismata of the apostolic church begau to be consid
ered as something belonging to the past, we find the first trace of tho opinion that has
eince been prevalent, yet even in him the two views are mingled, as might be done
in distinguishing the twofold conception, the literal and tho spiritual. Compare Ep. ad
Roman, ed. De la Rue, t. iv. f. 470, 1. vii. f. 602, de Oratione, § 2, tom. i. f. 199. The
opposition to Montanism, which had subjected the " speaking with tongues," yUaaaic
Xalelv, to abuse, as in the Corinthian church, might have contributed to sink into oblivion
the more ancient interpretation. The "speaking in strange tongues," $evotpuvciv tho
"speaking frcnziedly and in foreign tongues," ahacIv 'en^povuc kui uA/Mrpiorpinrus came
to be considered as a mark of tlie spurious Montanist Inspiration, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 16.
* For a more satisfactory view of the "speaking with tongues," see Schaff's History
of the Apostolic Church, pp. 199 — 203. — Ed.

THE PENTECOSTAL MIRACLE. 19
said Peter,* " that in these unwonted appearances you see the effects of
inebriety. These are the signs of the Messianic era, predicted by tho
prophet Joel ; the manifestations of an extraordinary effusion of the
Spirit, which is not limited to an individual here and there, the chosen
organs of the Most High, but in which all share who have entered into
a new relation to God by faith in the Messiah. This Messianic era will
be distinguished, as the prophet foretold, by various extraordinary
appearances, as precursors of the last decisive epoch of the general
judgment. But whoever believes in the Messiah has no cause to fear
that judgment, but may be certain of salvation. That Jesus of Nazareth,
whose divine mission was verified to you by the miracles that attended
his earthly course, is the very Messiah promised in the Old Testament.
Let not his ignominious death be urged as invalidating; his claims. It
was necessary for the fulfilment of his work as the Messiah, and deter
mined by the counsel of God. The events that followed his death are a
proof of this, for he rose from the dead, of which we are all witnesses, and
has been exalted to heaven by the divine power. From the extraor
dinary appearances which have filled you with astonishment, you per
ceive, that in his glorified state he is now operating with divine energy
among those who believe on him. The heavenly Father has promised
that the Messiah shall fill all who believe on him with the power of the
divine Spirit, and this promise is being fulfilled. Learn, then, from these
events, in which you behold the prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled,
the nothingness of all that you have attempted against him, and know
that God has exalted him whom you crucified, to be Messiah, the ruler
of God's kingdom, and that, through divine power, he will overcome all
its enemies."
The words of Peter impressed many, who asked, What must we do?
Peter called upon them to repent of their sins, to believe in Jesus as the
Messiah who could impart to them forgiveness of sins and freedom from
sin, — in this faith to be baptized, and thus outwardly to join the com
munion of the Messiah ; then would the divine power of faith be mani
fested in them, as it had already been in the community of believers ;
they would receive the same gifts of the Holy Spirit, the bestowment of
which was simultaneous with the forgiveness of sins, and freedom from
sin; for the promise had relation to all believers without distinction,
even to all in distant parts of the world, whom God by his grace should
lead to believe in Jesus as the Messiah.
The question may arise, Whether by these last words Peter in
tended only the Jews scattered among distant nations, or whether he
* Bleek has correctly perceived traces of a Hebrew original in Acts ii. 24, where
consistency of the metaphor requires, Seapoiic rov Bavdrov, bands of death, = rna ¦fcn or
V'Hr, the nets or bands of death, (Psalm xviii, 5 and 6,) which the Alexandrian 'translation
renders by iiilvtc, pains, according to the meaning of the word Vafj, pains, bands. See
Bleek's review of Mayerhoff's Hist. Kritischer Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften,
in the Studien und Kritiken. 1836, iv. 1021.

20 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
included such among the heathen themselves as might be brought to the
faith ? As Peter at a subsequent period, opposed the propagation of the
gospel among the heathen, there would be an apparent inconsistency in
now making such a reference. But there is really no such contradic
tion, for the scruple which clung so closely to Peter's mind was founded
only on his belief that heathen could not be received into the community
of believers, without first becoming Jewish Proselytes, by the exact ob
servance of the Mosaic law. Now, according to the declarations of the
prophets, he might expect that in the Messianic times the heathen would
be brought to join in the worship of Jehovah, so that this sentiment
might occur to him consistently with the views he then held, and he
might express it without giving offence to the Jews. Yet this interpre
tation is not absolutely necessary, for all the three clauses (Aotsii. 39) might
also be used to denote only the aggregate of the Jewish nation in its full
extent ; and it might rather be expected that Peter, who had been speak
ing of the Jews present and their children, if he had thought of theheathen
also, would have carefully distinguished them from the Jews. But, on
the other hand, the description, " All that are afar off, even as many as
the Lord our God shall call," appears too comprehensive to justify us in
confining it to persons originally belonging to the Jewish nation. Hence,
it is most probable, that in Peter's mind, when he used this expression,
there floated an indistinct allusion to believers from other nations,
though it did not appear of sufficient importance for him to give it a
greater prominence in his address, as it was his conviction that the
converts to Christianity from heathenism must first become Jews.

CHAPTER II.

THE FIRST FORM OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, AND THE FIRST GERM OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
The existence and first development of the Christinn church rests on
an historical foundation — on the acknowledgment of the fact that Jesus
was the Messiah— not on a certain system of ideas. Christ did not as a
tencher propound a certain number of articles of faith, but while ex
hibiting himself as the Redeemer and Sovereign in the kingdom of God
as the end of all the divine promises, he founded his church on the facts
of his life and sufferings, and of his triumph over death by the resurrec
tion. Thus the first development of the church proceeded not from a
certain system of ideas set forth in a creed, but only from the acknowl
edgment of one fact which included in itself all the rest belongino- to
the essence of Christianity, the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Mes-

ONE ARTICLE OF FAITH.— BAPTISMAL FORMULA. 21
siah, which also involved the facts by which he was accredited as such
by God, and demonstrated to mankind ; namely, his resurrection, glori
fication, and continual agency on earth for the establishment of his
kingdom in Divine power.
Hence, as at first, all those who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah,
withdrew from the mass of the Jewish people, and formed themselves
into a distinct community; and as it must happen, that in the course of
time, the genuine and false disciples would of themselves separate from
each other, so all who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah were alike
baptized without fuller or longer instruction, such as in later times has
preceded baptism. There was only one article of faith which constituted
the peculiar mark of the Christian profession, and from this point be
lievers were led to a clearer and fuller knowledge of the whole con
tents of the Christian faith, by the continual enlightening of the Holy
Spirit ; that article was belief in Jesus as the Messiah. It naturally fol
lowed that they ascribed to him the whole idea of what the Messiah,
according to a right understanding of the meaning and spirit of the Old
Testament promises, was to be, — the Redeemer from sin, the Ruler of
the kingdom of God, to whom their whole lives were to be devoted, and
whose laws were to be followed in all things. And he would manifest him
self as the Ruler of God's kingdom, by the communication of a new divine
principle of life, which should impart to those redeemed and governed by
him the certainty of the forgiveness of sins; which should mould their
whole lives according to the laws of the Messiah and his kingdom, and
should be the pledge of all the blessings yet to be imparted to them in the
kingdom of God until its consummation. Whoever acknowledged Jesus
© ©
as the Messiah, received him,consequently,as the infallible, divine prophet,
and implicitly submitted to his instructions as communicated by his per
sonal ministry, and afterwards by his inspired organs, the Apostles. Hence
baptism at this period, in its peculiar Christian meaning, having reference
to this one article of faith which constituted the essence of Christianity,
was designated as baptism into Jesus, into the name of Jesus ; it was
the holy rite which sealed the connexion with Jesus as the Messiah.
From this designation of baptism we cannot indeed conclude with cer
tainty that there was no other baptismal formula than this. Still, it is
probable that in the original apostolic formula no reference was made
except to this one article. This shorter baptismal formula contains in
itself every thing which is further developed in the longer formula after
wards generally used ; the reference to God, who has revealed and shown
himself in and by the Son, as a Father ; and to the Spirit of the Father,
whom Christ imparts to believers as the new spirit of life, the Spirit
of holiness, who, being thus imparted, is distinguished as the Spirit of
Christ. That one article of faith included, therefore, the whole of
Christian doctrine. But the distinct knowledge of its contents was by
no means immediately developed in the minds of the first converts, or
freed from foreign admixtures resulting from Jewish modes ol thinking,

22 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
which, when applied to religion.needed first to be stripped of that national
and carnal veil with which they were covered. As the popular Jewish
notion of the Messiah excluded many things which were characteristic of
this idea as formed and understood in a Christian sense, and as it in
eluded many elements not in accordance with Christian views, one result
was, that in the first Christian communities formed among the Jews,
various discordant notions of religion were mingled; there were many
errors arising from the prevailing Jewish mode of thinking, some of which
were by degrees corrected in those who surrendered themselves to the
expansive and purifying influence of the Christian spirit ; but in those
over whom that spirit could not exert such power, these errors formed
the germ of the later Jewish-Christian (the so-called Ebionitish) doctrine,
which set itself in direct hostility to the pure gospel.
Thus we are not justified in assuming that the Three Thousand who
were converted on one day, became transformed at Once into genuine
Christians. The Holy Spirit operated then by the publication of divine
truth, according to the same law as in all succeeding ages, not with a sud
den transforming magical power, but according to the measure of the
free sei '-determination of the human will. Hence, also, in these first
Christian societies, as in all later ones, although originating in so mighty
an operation of the Holy Spirit, the foreign and spurious were mingled
with the genuine. A powerful impression is not necessarily deeply
penetrating and permanent. In fact, the more powerful the energy of
the operation, the more easily would it happen that many would be
affected whose hearts were not yet susceptible enough for the divine
seed to take deep root. And in outward appearance, there were no in
fallible marks of distinction between genuine and merely apparent con
versions. The example of Ananias and Sapphire, and the disputes of the
Palestinian and Hellenistic Christians, evince even at that early period,
that the agency of the Spirit did not preserve the church entirely pure
from foreign admixtures.
The form of the Christian community and of the public Christian wor
ship, the archetype of all the later Christian cultus, arose at first, with
out any preconceived plan, from the peculiar nature of the higher life
that belonged to all true Christians. There was, however, this difference,
that the first Christian community constituted as it were one family ; the
power of the newly awakened feeling of Christian fellowship, the feelino-
of the common grace of redemption, outweighed all other personal and
public feelings, and all other relations were subordinated to this one
great relation. But, in later times, the distinction between the church
and the family became more marked, and many things which were at
first accomplished in the church as a family community, could afterward
be duly attended to only in the narrower communion of Christian family
life. J
The first Christians assembled daily either in the Temple, or in private
houses ; in the latter case they met in small companies, since their num-

THE CHURCH A FAMILY. — AGAPAE. 23
bers were already too great for one chamber to hold them all. Dis
courses on the doctrine of salvation were addressed to believers and to
those who were just won over to the faith, and prayers were offered up.
As the predominating consciousness of the joy of redemption influenced
and sanctified the whole of earthly life, nothing earthly could remain un-
transformed by this relation to a higher state. Thus even the daily meal
of which believers partook as members of one family was sanctified by
it.* They commemorated the last supper of the disciples with Christ,
and their brotherly union with one another. At the close of the meal,
the presider distributed bread and wine to the persons present, as a
memorial of Christ's similar distribution to the disciples. Thus every
meal was consecrated to the Lord, and, at the same time, was a meal of
brotherly love. Hence the designations afterwards chosen were, deinvov
Kvpiov and dya'Tr^, " Lord's Supper" and " Love-feast.f"
From ancient times an opinion has prevailed, which is apparently
favored by many passages in the Acts, that the spirit of brotherly love
impelled the first Christians to renounce all their earthly possessions, and
to establish a perfect intercommunity of goods. When, in later times,
it was perceived how very much the Christian life had receded from the
model of this fellowship of brotherly love, an earnest longing to regain
it was awakened, to which we must attribute some attempts to effect
what had been realized by the first glow of love in the apostolic times
— such were the orders of Monkhood, Canonical Communities of the
clergy, the Mendicant Friars, the Apostolici, and the Waldenses in the
* The hypothesis lately revived, that such institutions were borrowed from the Essenea,
is so entirely gratuitous as to require no refutation.
f In Acts ii. 42, we find the first general account of what passed in the assemblies of
the first Christians. Mosheim thinks, since every thing else is mentioned that is found in
later meetings of the church, that the " fellowship,'' Koivwvia, refers to the collections made
on these occasions. But the context does not favor the use of the word Kotvuvia in so
restricted a signification, which, therefore, if it were the meaning intended, would re
quire a more definite term. See Meyer's Commentary. We may most naturally consider
it as referring to the whole of the social Christian intercourse, two principal pans of which
were, the common meal and prayer. Luke mentions prayer last, probably because tho
connexion between the common meal and prayer, which made an essential part of
the love-feast, was floating in his mind. Olshausen maintains (see his Commentary,
Trans, ed. by Dr. Kendrick, vol. III. p. 213), that this interpretation is inadmissi
ble, because in the enumeration every thing relates to divine worship, as may be in
ferred liom the preceding expression "doctrine,1' fiiSaxv. But this supposition is want
ing in proof. According to what we have before remarked, the communion of the church,
and of the family, were not at that time separated from one another; no strict line of
demarcation was drawn between wdiat belonged to the Christian cultus in a uarrowei
sense, and what related to the Christian life and communion generally. Nor can tlie
reason alleged by Olshausen be valid, that if my interpretation were correct, the word
" fellowship,'' Kotvuria, must have been placed first, for it is altogether in order that that
should be placed first, which refers aloue to the directive functions of the apostles, that
then the mention should follow of the reciprocal Christian communiou of all the members
with one another, and that of this communion two particulars should be especially
noticed.

24 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
12th and 13th centuries. At all events, supposing this opinion to be
well founded, this practice of the apostolic church ought not to be con
sidered as in a literal sense the ideal for imitation in all succeeding ages ;
it must have been a deviation from the natural course of social develop
ment, such as could agree only with the extraordinary manifestation of
the divine life in the human race at that particular period. Only the
spirit and disposition here manifested in thus amalgamating the earthly
possessions of numbers into one common fund, are the models for the
church in its development through all ages. For as Christianity never
subverts the existing natural course of development in the human race,
but sanctifies it by a new spirit, it necessarily recognises the division of
wealth (based on that development), and the inequalities arising from it
in the social relations ; while it draws from these inequalities materials
for the formation and exercise oi Christian virtue, and strives to lessen
them by the only true and never-failing means,* namely, the power of
love. This, we find, agrees with the practice of the churches subse
quently founded by the apostles, and with the directions given by Paul
for the exercise of Christian liberality, 2 Cor. viii. 13.
And even in the view that this community of goods was only the
effect of a peculiar and temporary manifestation of Christian zeal,
foreign to the later development of the church, we shall find many
difficulties. The first Christians formed themselves into no monkish
fraternities, nor lived as hermits secluded from the rest of the world, but,
as history shows us, continued in the same civil relations as before their
conversion ; nor have we any proof that a community of goods was
universal for a time, and was then followed by a return to the usual
arrangements of society. On the contrary, several circumstances men
tioned in the Acls of the Apostles, are at variance with the notion of
such a relinquishment of private property. Peter said expressly to
Ananias that it depended on himself to sell or to keep his land, and that
even after the sale, the sum received for it was entirely at his own
disposal, Acts v. 4. In the 6th ohapter of the Acts, there is an aooount
of a distribution of alms to the widows, but not a word is said of a ooru-
* As the influence which Christianity exercises over mankind is not always accom
panied with a clear discernment of its principles, there have been many erroneous tenden
cies, which, though hostile to Christianity, have dorived their nourishment from it  half-
truths torn from their connexion with the whole body of revealed truth, and hence mis
understood and misapplied; of this, the St. Simonians furnish an example. They had
before them an indistinct conception of the Christian idea of equality; but as it was not
understood in the Christian sense, they have attempted to realize it in a different manner.
They havo striven to accomplish by outward arrangements, what Christianity aims at
developing gradually through the mind and disposition, and have thus fallen into absurdi
ties. Christianity tends by the spirit of love to reduce the opposition between the indi
vidual and the community, and to produoe a harmonious interpenetration of interests. St
Simonianism, and such tendencies, on the contrary, consciously or unconsciously in union
with the pantheistic spirit of the present day, sacrifice the individual to tlie community.
and thus deprive him of his true Yital importance.

COMMUNITY OF GOODS. 25
mon stock for the support of the whole body of believers. We find in
Acts xii. 1 2, that Mary possessed a house at Jerusalem, wdiich we cannot
suppose to have been purchased at the general cost. These facts plainly
show, that we are not to imagine, even in this first Christian society, a
renunciation of all private property.
On comparing the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, we must
either say, that in single passages which treat of the community of goods
everything is not to be understood in a strictly literal sense, since in an
artless narrative, even by an eye-witness, if his feelings are excited by the
subject of his representation, his picture will easily and naturally receive
a higher coloring ; or, that in the narrative given in the Acts, the various
gradations in the form of this community of goods — the eccentric relation
accruing from the first glow of Christian enthusiasm, and the later
limitation of the community of goods produced by circumstances, the
return of things to their wonted channels,— could not be kept distinct from
one another; that things of different kinds were mingled together in the
narrative, which might easily happen in an historical representation
collected from various sources. Whichever of the two suppositions
we prefer, it is plain that no one can be justified, merely on account of
this difficulty, in suspecting* the historical authority of the narratives.
At all events, the community of goods practised by the first Chris
tians, whatever form we suppose it to have taken, was something that
proceeded from within ; it was the natural expression of a spirit which
bound them all to one another. Everything here must have sprung from
the power of the one Spirit, must have depended solely on the free act
of the pure disposition ; nothing was effected by the force of outward
law. This is manifest in the memorable transaction with Ananias and
Sapphira. They both were anxious not to be considered by the apostles
and the church as inferior to others in the liberality of their contri
butions. Perhaps a superstitious belief in the merit of good works was
mingled with other motives, so that they wished to be as meritorious as
others in God's sight also. They could not, however, prevail on them
selves to surrender the whole of their property, but brought a part, and
pretended that it was the whole. Peter detected the dissimulation and
hypocrisy of Ananias, whether by a glance into the secret recesses of his
heart, afforded by the immediate influence of God's Spirit, or by a natural
sagacity guided by the same spirit, we cannot decide with certainty from
the narrative. Nor is ita question of importance, for who oan so exactly
draw the line between the divine and the human, in organs animated by
the Holy Spirit ? Tlie criminality of Ananias did not consist in his
not deciding to part with the whole amount of his property; for the
words of Peter addressed to him show that no exact measure of giving
was prescribed ; each one was left to contribute according to his peculiar
circumstances and the degree of love that animated him. But the
* Like Dr. Baur.

26 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
hypocrisy with which he attempted to make a show of greater love than
he actually felt— the falsehood by which, when it took possession of his
soul, the Christian life must have been utterly polluted and adulterated —
this it was which Peter denounced, as a work of the spirit of Satan, for
falsehood is the fountain of all evil. Peter charged him with lying to
the Holy Spirit; with lying not to men but to God, since he must have
beheld in the apostles the organs of the Holy Spirit speaking and acting
in God's name— that God who was himself present in the assembly of
believers, as a witness of his intentions — and yet thought that he could
obtain credit before God for his good works. Peter uttered Ins solemn
rebuke with a divine confidence springing from a regard to that holy
cause which was to be preserved from all foreign mixtures, and from the
consciousness of being in an office entrusted to him by God, and in which
he was supported by divine power. When we reflect what Peter was
in the eyes of Ananias, how the superstitious hypocrite must have been
confounded and thunderstruck to see his falsehood detected, how the
holy denunciations of a man speaking to his conscience with such divine
confidence must have acted on his terrified feelings, and how he must
have been seized with alarm, in view of the judgments of a Holy God,
we shall not find it very difficult to conceive that the words of the
apostle would produce so great an effect. The divine and the natural
seem here to have been closely connected. What Paul so confidently
asserts in his Epistles to the Corinthians, of his ability to inflict pun
ishment, testifies to the conscious possession by the apostles of such
divine power. And when Sapphira, without suspecting what had taken
place, three hours after, entered the assembly, Peter at first endeavored
to rouse her conscience by his interrogations ; but since, instead of being
aroused to consideration and repentance, she was hardened in her hypo
crisy, Peter accused her of having concerted with her husband, to put,
as it were, the Spirit of God to the proof, whether he might not be
deceived by her hypocrisy. He then menaced her with the judgment
of God, which had just been inflicted on her husband. The words of
the apostle were in this instance aided by the impression of her husband's
fate, and striking the conscience of the hypocrite, produced the same
effect as on her husband. Thus important was this judgment, to
guard the first operations of the Holy Spirit from the admixture of that
poison which is always most prejudicial to the operations of divine power
on mankind, and to secure a reverence for the apostolic authority, which
was so necessary as an external governing power for the development
of the primitive church, until it had advanced to an independent stead
fastness and maturity in the faith.*
* I can by no means assent to Baur's assertion in his work on the Apostle Paul, p. 22
that the Apostles are delineated in the Acts as superhuman, almost as magicians. ' I can
not approve of his exposition of the passage in Acts v. 13, which he thinks strongly sup
ports his views, understanding tho words " the rest," lonrolc, to mean the other Christiana
of whom none ventured to join themselves to the apostles, but were kept at a distant,.'

ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA. 27
The disciples did not immediately attain to a clear understanding of
that call, which Christ had already given them by so many intimations,*
to form a church entirely separated from the existing Jewish economy ;
to that economy they adhered ; all the forms of the national Theoc
racy, in which their religious consciousness still, as formerly, exercised
itself, were sacred in their esteem, though a higher principle of life
had been imparted, by which these were to be more and more spiritu
alized and transformed. They remained outwardly Jews, although, in
proportion as their faith in Jesus as the Redeemer became clearer and
stronger, they inwardly ceased to be Jews, and all external rites assumed
a different relation to their internal life. It was their belief, that the
existing religious forms would continue till the second coming of Christ,
when a new and higher order of things would be established, and this
great change they expected would shortly take place. No unprejudiced
reader of the New Testament can fail to perceive that such an expec
tation filled the souls of the apostles ; and it could not be otherwise.
The gaze that is fixed on a distant object can as little measure time as
space. To one whose look is directed on the object of his anxiety, the
distant appears nigh at hand ; he overlooks the windings of the way,
which separate him from the object of his anxious expectation. But
gradually the objects separate themselves which at first were mingled
together in the perspective. So it was with the prophets who gazed on
the Messianic times from the Old Testament stand-point ; and so it was
with the apostles, as they directed their looks to the second advent of
Christ. Christ himself has left no distinct information respecting the
time in which this decisive event is to happen, but has expressly informed
us that it belongs to those hidden things which are known only by their
fulfilment. It would require a comparison of the discourses of Christ
with one another and deep reflection on their contents, to understand the
course of his kingdom's development, and to judge aright respecting the
nearness or distance of its end. If, on the one hand, many isolated"
expres-ions of Christ which present in perspective the points of greatest
moment relating to the progress of his kingdom, may be understood as
if that List decisive period were at hand ; on the other hand, his parables
indicate! a slower process of development ; as if it would not suddenly, but
gradually, and working outwards from within, pervade and penetrate
the life of humanity. But naturally these isolated, brief expressions are
at first most easily recollected, and absorb the attention. The contents
of the parabolic intimations are learnt gradually, and are better under-
by reverential awe. By the "all," uiravrec, in v. 12, can only be understood the collec
tive body of believers, in distinction from the apostles. " The rest" distinguished from tho
airavrec can only be those who were not Christians, afterwards called " the people," Aabc,
who reverenced (he Christian community on account of the Divine powers displayed in it,
a view which is in every respect confirmed by a comparison with ii 47.
* See Life of Christ, pp. 86, 91, 101, 124, 205.

28 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
stood from the history itself. It belonged to the nature of Christianity,
that it should represent itself at first, not as a new principle for earthly
history, as if destined to form a new cultus, and to give a new form to
all earthly relations ; it was not the idea of a new Christian time that
came first into consciousness, but everything appeared only as a point
of transition to a new, heavenly, eternal order of things which was to be
introduced at the second advent. Hence, at first, everything earthly
must have appeared as ready to vanish, as quickly passing away, and tho
eye was fixed only on that future heavenly kingdom as the unchangeable
state, to which believers in spirit and disposition already belonged. It
would only by degrees be rendered apparent that the process of the
world's transformation coming forth into outward appearance would not
be effected suddenly at the advent of Christ, but must make its way
by internal changes in a gradual development. Thus the disciples must
at first have contemplated the whole outward system of Judaism from
this point of view and in this relation to the approaching kingdom of
Christ. Its whole cultus appeared to them as something which must
continue to exist, till all things should become new. But here also, as
the renewing effect of Christianity was to proceed from within, the true
light had not yet risen upon them. Hence the establishment of a distinct
mode of worship was far from entering their thoughts, although new
ideas respecting the essence of true worship arose in their minds from
the light of faith in the Redeemer ; they took part in the temple worship
with as much interest as any devout Jew. They believed, however,
that a sifting would take place among the members of the Theocracy,
and that the better part would, by the acknowledgment of Jesus as the
Messiah, be incorporated wilh the Christian community.
But as the believers, in opposition to the mass of the Jewish nation,
who remained hardened in their unbelief, now formed a community
intei-nally bound together by the one faith in Jesus as the Messiah and
by the consciousness of the higher life received from him, it was neces
sary that this internal union should assume a certain external form. ' And
there already existed among the Jews a model for such a smaller com
munity within the great theocratic national church, which, besides the
geueral temple worship, had its special means of edification, viz. : the
Synagogues. The kind of edification supplied by the Synagogues — ex
positions by individuals who had applied themselves to the study of the
Old Testament, united prayer, and consideration of the divine word — ap
pealing to the spiritual consciousness, and demanding the spiritual par
ticipation of all, accorded also with the nature of the new Christian wor
ship. This form of social organization, therefore, as it was copied in
all the religious communities founded on Judaism, (such as the Essenes)
was also adopted to a certain extent at the first formation of the Chris
tian Church.
But it may be disputed, whether the apostles, to whom Christ com
mitted the chief direction of affairs, designed from the first that believer

ORIGIN OF CHURCH OFFICES. 29
should form a society exactly on the model of the synagogue, and, in
pursuance of this plan, instituted particular offices for the government of
the church corresponding to that model — or whether, without such a
preconceived plan, distinct offices were appointed, as circumstances
required, in doing which they availed themselves of the model of the
synagogue, with which they were familiar.
The advocates of the first view (particularly Mosheim) proceed on
the undeniably correct assumption, that the existence of certain presi
dents at the head of the Christian societies, under the name of Elders,
(irpeof3vTspot), must be presupposed though their appointment is not
expressly mentioned, as appears from Acts xi. 30. The question arises,
therefore, whether far earlier traces cannot be found of the existence of
such Presbyters ? The appointment of deacons is indeed first mentioned
as designed to meet a special emergency, Acts vi. But even here it might
be supposed that their office was already in existence. It might be said
that the apostles, in order not to be called off from the more weighty
duties of their office, appointed from the beginning such almoners; but
as these officers hitherto had been chosen only from the native Jewish
Christians of Palestine, the Christians of Jewish descent, who came
from other parts of the Roman Empire, and to whom the Greek was
almost as much their mother tongue as the Aramaic — the Hellenists as
they were termed, — believed that they were unjustly treated. On their
remonstrance, deacons of Hellenistic descent were especially appointed
for them, as appears by their Greek names. As the apostles declared
that they were unwilling to be distracted in their purely spiritual em
ployment of prayer and preaching the word, by the distribution of
money, it might be inferred that even before this time, they had not
engaged in such business, but had transferred it to other persons ap
pointed for the purpose. As still earlier, in Acts v., we find men
tion made of person's under the title of " young men," vEtoTepoi,vEaviaKoi,
who considered such an employment as carrying a corpse out of the
Christian assemblies for burial as belonging to their office, so these might
be supposed to be no other than deacons. And as the title of younger
stands in contrast with that of elders in the church, the existence of ser
vants of the church (diditovoi), and of ruling elders (jTpeo(3vTepoi), might
seem to be equally pointed out.
But though this supposition has so much plausibility, yet the evidence
for it, on closer examination, appears by no means conclusive. It is far
from clear that in the last quoted passage of the Acts, the narrative
alludes to persons holding a distinct office in the church ;* it may very
* Even after what has been urged by Meyer and Olshausen, in their Commentaries
on the Acts, against this view, I cannot give it up. In accordance with the relation in
which, anciently, and especially among the Jews, the young stood to their elders, it would
follow as a matter of course, that the young men in an assembly would be ready to per
form any service wdiich might be required. I do not see why (as Olshausen maintains,
vol. 3, p. 235) on this supposition, any other term than veurtpot should have been used —
rather we should say, if Luke had wished to designate appointed servants of the church.

30 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
naturally be understood of the younger members who were fitted for
such manual employment, without any other eligibility than the fact of
their age and bodily strength. And, therefore, we are not to suppose
that a contrast is intended between the servants and ruling elders of the
church, but simply between the 3'ounger and older members. As to the
Greek names of the seven deacons, it cannot be inferred with certainty
from this circumstance that they all belonged to the Hellenists, for it is
well known that the Jews often bore double names, one Hebrew or
Aramaic, and the other Hellenistic. Still it is possible, since the com
plaints of the partial distribution of alms came from the Hellenistic part
of the church, that, in order to infuse confidence and satisfaction, only
Hellenists were chosen on this occasion. Or, it might be supposedf
that the additions to the church had been chiefly from the Hellen
ists, and that their influence predominated in fixing the choice on
men of their own number. But from all we know of the composition
of the church at Jerusalem, this seems in no way probable. And
the complaint of the Hellenists that their widows had been neglected
is rather adverse than favorable to snch a view. But if these deacons
were appointed only for the Hellenists, it would have been most nat
ural to entrust their election to the Hellenistic part alone, and not to
the whole church.
Hence we are disposed to believe, that the church was at first com
posed entirely of members standing on an equality with one another, and
that the apostles alone held a higher rank and exercised a directing
influence over the whole, according to the original position in which
Christ had placed them in relation to other believers ; so that the whole
arrangement and administration of the affairs of the church proceeded
from them, and they were led only by particular circumstances to ap
point other church officers. Deacons were first appointed, and their
office is, therefore, the oldest of all church offices.
As in the government of the church in general the apostles at first
were the sole directors, so all the contributions towards the common fund
were deposited with them (Acts v. 2), and its distribution also, according
to the wants of individuals, was altogether in their hands. From Acts
vi. 2, it cannot be positively inferred, that the apostles had not hitherto
been occupied with this secular concern. That passage may be under
lie would not have used this indefinite appellation ; nor can I feel the force of Olshausen's
objection, that in case of ils use, Acts v. 6, 10, the article would not have been prefixed, but
the pronoun rivec, " certain." Luke intended to mark, no doubt, a particular class of persons
the younger contradistinguished from the elder, without determining whether all or only
some lent their assistance. Just as we in German (or in English) iu such a case should
say : The young men in ihe assembly did this. But Olshausen is so far right, that' if these
are assumed to be regularly appointed servants of the church, they cannot be considered
as the forerunners of the deacons chosen at a later period, for manifestly these veurepot
held a far lower place. I am glad to find an acute advocate of the view I have taken in
Kothe; see his work on the Commencement of the Christian Church p. 162.
f As it is by Baur iu his work on Paul, p. 44.

APPOINTMENT OF DEACONS. 31
stood to intimate that they had hitherto attended to this business without
being distracted in their calling as preachers of the Word, inasmuch as
the confidence universally reposed in them, and the unity pervading the
church, had lightened the labor ; but it assumed a very different aspect
when a conflict of distinct interests arose between the members. Mean
while, the number of the believers increased so greatly, that it is proba
ble the apostles could not manage the distribution alone ; but consigned
a part of the business sometimes to one, sometimes to another, who
either offered themselves for the purpose, or had shown themselves to
be worthy of such confidence. But this department of labor had not
yet received any regular form.
But as the visible church received into its bosom various elements,
the opposition existing in these elements gradually became apparent, and
threatened to destroy the Christian unity, until by the might of the
Christian spirit this opposition was counterbalanced, and a higher unity
developed. The strongest opposition existing in the church at this time
was that between the Palestinian or purely Jewish, and the Hellenistic,
or mixed Grecian and Jewish elements. And though the power of
Christian love at first so fused together the dispositions of the two
parties, that the contrariety seemed lost, yet the original difference soon
made ii s appearance. It showed itself in this respect, that the Hellenists,
dissatisfied with the mode of distributing the alms, were mistrustful of
the others, and believed that they had cause to complain that their own
poor widows were not taken such good care of in the daily distribution,*
as the widows of the Palestinian Jews; whether the fact was, that the
apostles had hitherto committed this business to Palestinian Jews, and
these had either justly or unjustly incurred the suspicion of partiality, or
whether the want of a regular plan for this business had occasioned much
irregularity and neglect of individuals,! or whether the complaint was
grounded more in the natural mistrust of the Hellenists than in a real
grievance, must be left undetermined from the want of more exact
information.! These complaints, however, induced the apostles to
* Neither from the expression " ministration," diaKovia, vi. 1, nor from the phrase " to
nerve tables," dtaKoveiv rpairifcic, can it be inferred with certainty that the apostles alluded
only to the distribution of food among the poor widows. We may be allowed to suppose
that this was only one of the tables of the service they performed, and that it is mentioned
to mark more pointedly the distinction between the oversight of spiritual, and that of secular
concerns. f As Rothe thinks in the work just alluded to, (Die Anfange der Christlichen Kirche,)
p. 164. \ Mosheim, the author of the genuine pragmatically combining method of inquiry in
Church History, infers here more than can be actually proved. [The method alluded to is
that which connects events together by tracing their causes and effects in the relations,
characters and motives of men, and in the spirit and circumstances of the times. It is to
be distinguished from that "a priori combination" and "subjective pragmatism," which
arbitrarily substitute a subjective idea for an objective reality as determined by universal
law, the spirit of Christianity, and Divine Revelation; and which, in order to combine
events in such a way as to make them conform to a preconceived plan, find adequato
cause and effect in what is purely insignificant and accidental— Ed/

32 THE CITRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
establish a regular plan for conducting this business, and since they
could not themselves combine the strict oversight necessary for the
satisfaction of each one's wants,* with a proper attention to the
principal object of their calling, they thought it best to institute
a particular office for the purpose, the first regular one for adminis
tering the concerns of the church. Accordingly, they required the
church to entrust this business to persons who enjoyed the general con
fidence, and were fitted for the office, animated by Christian zeal, and
armed with Christian prudence. f Seven such individuals were chosen ;
the number being accidentally fixed upon as a common one, or being
adapted to seven sections of the church.
Thus this office originated in the immediate wants of the primitive
church, and its special mode of operation was marked out by the pecu
liar situation of this first union of believers, which was in some points
dissimilar to that of the Jewish synagogue, or of later churches. As it
was called for by the pressure of circumstances, it certainly was not
intended to be perfectly correspondent to an office in the Jewish sj'na-
gogue, and can by no means be considered parallel to that of a common
servant of the synagogue, (Luke iv. 20,) termed ¦jtn, at», -isas tyhv. \
It was of higher importance, for at first it was the only one in the church
besides the apostolic, and required special ability in the management of
men's dispositions, which might be employed in services of a higher kind,
and which also without doubt belonged to the general idea of " wisdom,'
oorbia. This office, having its origin in the peculiar relations of the first
church, was, therefore, not altogether identical with that which at a later
period bore the same name,§ but which was subordinate to the office of
presbyters ; it took at that lime a higher place than the office which it
afterward made room for. And yet it would be wrong to deny that the
later church office of this name developed itself from the first, and might
be traced back to it.|| Although, as is usual in such affairs, when the
ecclesiastical system became more complex, many changes took place in
the office of deacons, as, for example, the management of the distribu
tion of alms, which pertained originally to the office of deacons alone,
became afterwards subject to the influence of the presbyters who as
sumed the whole direction of church affairs,T[ and although many other
* That they had been required to undertake the business alone, instead of entrusting
it to deputies, cannot be proved from the language in the Acts.
\ Acts vi. 3. The word irvevpa, " spirit," (wdiich is the true reading, ayiov. " holy," and
Kvpiov, "of the Lord," seeming to be only glosses) denotes that inspiration for the 'cause
of the gospel which is requisite for every kind of exertion for the kingdom of God; rso/pia
signifies that quality which is essential for this office in particular, and imports 'in the
New Testament both wisdom and prudence.
| See Rothe's admirable Remarks, p. 166.
§ As Chrysostom observes in his fourteenth Homily on the Acts, 8 3.
|| As the Second Trullanian Council, c. 16, which was occasioned by a special object
that the number of deacons for large towns might not be limited to seven.
f From Acts xi. 30, nothing more is to be inferred, than that when presbyters were

THE OFFICE OF PRESBYTERS. 83
secular employments were afterwards added to this original one, yet the
fundamental principle as well as the name of the office remained.* Ii
later times, we still find traces of the distribution of alms being consid-
eied as the peculiar employment of deacons.f
Here, as in many other instances in the history of the church, human
weakness and imperfection subserved the divine wisdom, and promoted
the interests of the kingdom of God ; for by this appointment of deacons
for the Hellenistic part of the church, distinguished men of Hellenistic
descent and education were brought into the public service of the church,
and the Hellenists, by their freer mental culture, were in many respects
better qualified rightly to understand and to publish the gospel as the
foundai ion of a method of salvation independent of Judaism, and intended
for all men equally without distinction. The important consequences
resulting from this event will appear in the course of the history.
The institution of the office of presbyters was probably similar in its
origin to that of deacons. As the church was continually increasing
in size, the details of management also multiplied; the guidance of
all its affairs by the apostles could no longer be conveniently combined
with the exercise of their peculiar apostolic functions ; they also wished,
in accordance with the spirit of Christianity, not to govern alone, but
preferred that the body of believers should govern themselves under
their guidance; thus they divided the government of the ciiurch, which
hitherto they had exercised alone, with tried men, who formed a pre
siding council of elders, similar to that which was known in the Jewish
synagogues under the title of B"1? jrt, irper(3vTepoi, " elders. ''J Possibly,
appointed for the general superintendence of the church, the contributions intended for the
church were handed over to them, as formerly to the apostles, when they held the exclu
sive management of affairs. It may be fairly supposed that the presbyters entrusted each
of the deacons with a sum out of the common fund for distribution in his own sphere of
operation. t
* I find no reason (with Rothe, p. 16C) to doubt this; for the name was well adapted
to denote their particular employment, and to distinguish them from persons acting in a
more subordinate capaciiy, as "ministers," irr-npirai. Nor is it any ohjection to this that
in Acts xxi. 8 they are merely called The Seven, for as the name of deacon was then the
usual appellation of a certain class of officers in the church, Luke uses this expression to
distinguish them from others of the same name, just as The Twelve denoted the apostles.
f Hence, at the appoinlment of deacons, it was required that they should "not be
greedy of filthy lucre," 1 Tim. iii. 8. Origen, on Matt. t. xvi. § 22, speaks of " the deacons
managing the affairs ef the church," oi tUdicoi'Oi iHoiKovvre? ra r« inKlno'iac XPVPaTn '• and
Cyprian,°Ep. 55, says, of the deacon Felicissimus, that he was " a defrauder of tho money
committed to him, '"'pecuniae commissi sibi fraudaior. Even in the apostolic age, the deacon's
office appears to have extended to many other outward employments, and most probably
the word "helps," dvriAr'i<peic, denotes tho sen-ieeableness of their office. 1 Cor. xii. 28.
\ Baur has lately maintained that the general government of the affairs of the church
did not enter originally and essentially into the idea of "elders." irpeajiirepoi, but that
originally every rpea/Svrrpoc presided over a small, distinct, Christian society. From this,
one consequence would follow, which Baur also deduces from it, that not a republican,
but a monarchical element entered originally into the constitution ofthjjjurch, a position
which would have most important bearings in the history ofth^^E^fyi ^ the Cbri»
YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL;

34 THE CHRISTIAN CIIURCH IN PALESTINE.
as the formal appointment of deacons arose from a specific outward occa
sion, a similar, though to us unknown, event occasioned that of presby
ters. They were originally chosen as in the synagogue, not so much for
the instruction and edification of the church, as for taking the lead in its
general government.
But as to the provision made in the primitive church for religious
instruction and edification, we have no precise information. If we are
justified in assuming that the course adopted in the assemblies of Gentile
Christians,* — one proceeding from the enlightened spirit and nature of
Christianity, which was not confined to one station of life, or to one form
of mental cultivation — was also the original one, we might from that
conclude that, from the first, any one who had the ability and an inward
call to utter his thoughts on Christian topics in a public assembly, was
permitted to speak for the general improvement and edification. f But
tian church. But against this assertion we have many things to urge. Since the appoint
ment of presbyters in the Christian churches entirely corresponded with that of presbyters
in tlie Jewish synagogue, at least in their original constitution, so we may conclude, that
if a plurality of elders stood at the head of the synagogue, the same was the case with the
first Christian church. But since now tho synagogue, according to the ancient Jewish
constitution, was organized on the plan of the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, we might
expect that a whole college of elders would have the direction of the synagogues, as such
a college of elders was really at the head of tho Jews in a city. Luke vii. 3. Only
those passages iu which one is distinguished by the title of " Ruler of the synagogue," <5
upxiavvdyuync, Luke viii. 41, 49; xiii. 14, could fivor the opinion that one. as nc:2~ lisn,
stood at the head of the Jewish congregation, and that the form of government was
rather monarchical. But admitting this, still the supposition of a college of presbyters,
presiding over the synagogue, would not be invalidated, since we also meet with a plu
rality of d,irmoviiyuyoi=Trpe.a\ivTepoi, Acts xiii. 15; xviii. 8,18. Yet we must make
the qudifieation that in smaller places an individual, as in larger towns a plurality, stood
at the head of the synagogue. But it adjusts the matter, and is most poi>:i!-;e, that
although all presbyters were called dpxmwdyuyoi, yet one who acted as president was
distinguished by the title of dpyni'i'dyuyoc, as primus inter pares. In evidence of this,
compare the iii st pa^sa-ge quot"d from Luke with Mark v. 22. This is i nportaut in refer
ence to thi- later relation of bishops to presbyters. Analogy to I he Jewish synagogue,
therefore, leads us lo conclude, that at the bead of tho first church at Jerusalem a g;neral
diliber.ilire college was placed from the beginning; an opinion favored also by a com
parison with the college of apostles; and in the Acts a plurality of presbyters always
actually appears next in rank to the apostles, as representatives o' the church at Jerusa
lem. It tun- one is disposed to maintain that each of these presbyiers presided over a
smaller part of the church at its special meetings, still it must be thorebv established that
notwithstanding lb se divided meetings, the church formed a whole, over wdiich this de
liberative college of presbyters presided, and therefore the form of government was still
republican. But even if it be probable that the whole church, which could not meet in
one place, divided itself into several companies, still the assumption, that from the be«-in-
ning the number of presbyters was equal to the number of places of assembling and to
these subdivisions of the collective body of believers, is entirely groundless, and iu the
highest degree improbable.
* See farther on.
\ That in the Jewish-Christian churches, public speaking in their assemblies was not
confined to certain authorized persons, is evident from the fact that James, in addressing
believers of that class who were too apt to substitute talking for practising censured

THE OFFICE OF PRESBYTERS. 35
the first church differed from the churches subsequently formed among
the Gentiles in one important respect, that in the latter there were no
teachers of that degree of illumination, and possessing claim to that
respect to which the apostles had a right, from the position in which
Christ himself had placed them. Meanwhile, though the apostles princi
pally attended to the advancement of Christian knowledge, and, as
teachers, possessed a preponderating and distinguished influence, it by no
means follows that they monopolized the right of instructing the church.
In proportion as they were influenced by the spirit of the Gospel, it must
have been their aim to lead believers by their teaching to that spiritual
maturity, which would enable them to contribute (by virtue of the
divine life communicated to all by the Holy Spirit) to their mutual
awakening, instruction, and improvement. Viewing the occurrences of
the day of Pentecost as an illustration of the agency of the Divine Spirit
in the new dispensation, we may conclude that, on subsequent occasions,
the spiritual ardor which impelled believers to testify of the divine life,
was not confined to the apostles.
We find that individuals came forward, who had already devoted
themselves to the study and interpretation of the Old Testament, and to
meditation on divine things ; and when, by the illumination of the Holy
Spirit, they had become familiar with the nature of the gospel, they
could with comparative ease develop and apply its truths in public ad
dresses. They received the gift for which there was already an adapta
tion in their minds — the " gift of teaching," %dpinp,a oVcW/eaA/ac, and, in
consequence of it were, next to the apostles, fitted to give public instruc
tion. Besides that connected intellectual development of truth, there
were also addresses, which proceeded not so much from an aptness of
the understanding improved by exercise, and acting with a certain uni
formity of operation, as from an instantaneous, immediate, inward
awakening by the power of the Holy Spirit, in which a divine afflatus
was felt both by the speaker and hearers: to this class belonged the
"prophecies," the "gift of prophecy," TTprKpTjreiat, %aptapa irporfirjTeiac:.
To the prophets also were ascribed the exhortations, -rtapatcXfjaEii;,
which struck with instantaneous force the minds of the hearers.* The
"teachers," diddoitaXot, might also possess the gift of " prophecy," rrpo-
^>TjTeia, but not all who uttered particular instantaneous exhortations as
prophets in the church were capable of holding the office of teachers. f
We have no precise information concerning the relation of the teach-
them, because so many, without an inward call, prompted by self-conceit, put themselves
forward in their assemblies as teachers.
* The Levite Joses, who distinguished himself by his powerful addresses in the church,
was reckoned among the prophets, and hence was called by the apostles r.tt 12: is, Bap-
vdftac, and this is translated in the Acts (iv. 36) vide iraoaKlr'ioeue = vlbc npoijrnTEiac,
" son of consolation, exhortation =— son of prophecy."
f In Acts xix. 6, as a manifestation of the spiritual gifts that followed conversion,
" prophesying" is put next to " speaking with tongues."

36 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
ers to the presbyters in the primitive church, whether, in the ap
pointment of presbyters, care was taken that only those who were
furnished with the gift of teaching should be admitted into the col
lege of presbyters. However, in all cases, the oversight of the pro
pagation of the Christian faith — of the administration of teaching and
of devotional exercises in the social meetings of believers, belonged to
that general superintendence of the church which was entrusted to them;
as in the Jewish synagogues, although it was not the special and exclusive
office of the elders to give public exhortations, yet they exercised an
inspection over those who spoke in their assemblies. Acts xiii. 15. In
an epistle written towards the end of the apostolic era to an early church
composed of Christians of Jewish descent in Palestine, (ihe Epistle to
the Hebrews xiii. 7, 17,) it is presupposed that the rulers of the church
had from the first provided for the delivery of divine truth, and watched
over the spiritual welfare of the church, and therefore had the care of
souls.* As concerns generally the development of Christianity among the Jews,
this is the peculiar sign of its progress : the gradual transition out of
Judaism into Christianity as a new, independent creation ; Christianity
presenting itself as the crowning point of Judaism in the completeness
given to it by the Messiah — the spiritualization and transfiguration of
Judaism ; the new, perfect law given by the Messiah coming as the ful
filment of the old, by the new spirit of the higher life imparted by
the Messiah gradually developing itself in the old religious forms, to
which it gave a real vitality. It is this conception of Christianity which
appears in the Sermon on the Mount.f First of all, Peter comes before
us, and then, after he had passed over the limits of the old national
Theocracy to publish the gospel among the heathen, James appears as
the representative of this first stage of development in its most perfect
form. J
The transition from Judaism to Christianity in general developed
itself gradually, beginning with the acknowledgment of Jesus as the
Messiah promised in the Old Testament; and hence there were formed
many turbid mixtures of the Jewish religious spirit with Christianity, in
which the Jewish element predominated, and the Christian principle was
depressed and hindered from distinctly unfolding itself. There were
many with whom faith in the Messiahship of Jesus was added to their
former religious views, only as an insulated, outward fact, without de
veloping a new principle in their inward life and disposition — baptized
Jews who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, and expected his speedy
return for the establishment of the Messianic kingdom in a temporal
form, as they were wont to represent it to themselves from their carnal
e Rothe, p. 241, has justly commented on the significance of these passages.
f See Life of Christ, p. 223, seq.
| See, farther on, the characteristics of James, and the development of the various types
of doctrine.

TRANSITION FROM JUDAISM TO CHRISTIANITY. 3?
Jewish stand-point ; they received new precepts from Him as so many
positive commands, without rightly understanding their sense and spirit,
and were little distinguished in their lives from the common Jews.
That Jesus faithfully observed the form of the Jewish law, was as
sumed by them as a proof that that form would always retain its value.
They clung to the letter, the spirit was always a mystery; they could
not understand in what sense he declared that he came not to destroy
the law but to fulfil it. They adhered to not destroying it according to
the letter, without understanding what was meant according to the spirit,
since what was meant by fulfilling it was equally unknown to them.
Such persons would easily fall away from the faith which had never been
in them a truly living one, when they found that their carnal expecta
tions were not fulfilled, as is implied in the language of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. As the common Jewish spirit manifested itself as a one-sided
attachment to externals in religion, a cleaving to the letter and outward
forms without any development and appropriation of the spirit, a pre-
' ference for the shell without the kernel ; so it appeared in the Jews as
opposed to the reception of the gospel and to the renovation of the
heart by it, as an overvaluation of the outward observance of the law
whether in ceremonies or in a certain outward propriety, and as an undue
estimation of a merely historical faith, something external to the soul,
consisting only in outward profession, either of faith in one God as crea
tor and governor, or in Jesus as the Messiah, as if the essence of religion
were placed in either one or the other, or as if a righteousness before
God could be thereby obtained ; it was the stand-point of a predomin
ating outwardness of religion and religious life. The genius of the gospel
had therefore to present itself in opposition to this two-fold species of
religious externality, as we shall see in the sequel. At first it was the
element of Pharisaic Judaism, which mingled itself with, and disturbed
the pure Christian truth ; at a later period Christianity aroused the at
tention of those mystical or theosophic tendencies which, in opposition
to Pharisaism cleaving rigidly to the letter, and to a carnal Judaism had
developed themselves partly, and more immediately as a reaction out of
the inward religious element and spirit of Judaism, partly under the in
fluence of Oriental and Grecian mental tendencies, by which the unbend
ing and rugged Judaism was softened and made more flexible, though
to the injury of its original theistic character; and from this quarter
other erroneous mixtures with Christianity proceeded, which cramped
and depressed the pure development of the "Word and Spirit.
We shall now pass on from the first internal development of the Chris
tian Church among the Jews to its outward fortunes.

38 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.

CHAPTEK III.
THE OUTWARD CONDITION OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH : ITS PERSECUTIONS
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.
It does not appear that the Pharisees, though they had taken the lead
in the condemnation of Christ, were eager, after that event, to persecute
his followers. They looked on the illiterate Galileans as worthy of no
further attention, especially since they strictly observed the ceremonial
law, and at first abstained from controverting the peculiar tenets of their
party; they allowed them to remain undisturbed, like some other sects
by whom their own interests were not affected. But instead of tlie
Pharisees, the Sadducees came forward as persecutors of the Gospel
which was spreading in every direction with unrestrained power. The
earnestness and zeal with which the disciples testified of the Risen Sav
iour, and of the hope of a future Resurrection founded on him, must have
rendered them hateful to this sect. A predominant negative tendency
will always be suspicious and mistrustful of popular movements which
proceed from a positive religious interest, and from aspirations relating
to the future world ; and from suspicion, it is easily roused to active
hostility. And the Sadducees were noted for their harshness and inhu
manity. Since they could not venture to oppugn directly and openly the
doctrines of the Pharisees, they must have welcomed the opportunity of
attacking, under another pretext, a sect zealous for those doctrines, and
rapidly spreading, and of bringing the authority of the Sanhedrim to
bear against them. But what served to reuder the Christians hateful to
the Sadducees, must have contributed to render the Pharisees favorably
disposed towards them.*
Meanwhile, the church was enabled continually to enlarge itself. An
ever-increasing number were attracted and won by that irresistible
spiritual power which was manifested in the primitive church; the
apostles also, by miracles wrought in the confidence and power of faith,
first roused the attention of carnal men, and then made use of this im-
pressiou to bring them to an acknowledgment of the divine power of
* This is contrary to the opinion maintained by Dr. Baur, who, in his work on Paul, p.
34, will not allow any historical truth in the account contained in the Acts, of the perse
cutions excited by the Sadducees against the Christians, and calls in question generally
the truth of the account respecting these early persecutions. He sees in it nolhkio but
an a priori combination. " Since the discourses of the disciples," he thinks " could con
tain nothing more important than the testimony to the resurrection of Jesus no more em
bittered and decided opponeuts of it need be imagined than the Sadducees, the avowed
deniers of the doctrine of a Resurrection." ffe must here, as in relation to other points
recognise the objective historical pragmatism which this kind of criticism would change
into a subjective.

HEALING OF THE LAME MAN BY PETER. 39
Him in whose name such wonders were performed, and to hold Him
forth to them as the deliverer from all evil. Peter, especially, possessed
in fin extraordinary degree that gift of faith which enabled him to per
form cures, of which a remarkable example is recorded in the third
chapter of the Acts.
When Peter and John, at one of the usual hours of prayer, about
three in the afternoon, were going into the temple, they found at one of
the gates of the temple (whose precincts, as afterwards those of Christian
churches, were a common resort of beggars) a man who had been lame
from his birth. While he was looking for alms from them, Peter uttered
the memorable words, which plainly testified to the conscious possession of
a divine power that could go far beyond the common powers of man
and of nature ; and which, pronounced with such confidence, carried
the pledge of their fulfilment: " Silver and gold have I none ; but such
as I have, give I thee. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and
walk." When the man, who had been universally known as a lame
beggar, was seen standing with joy by the side of his two benefactors
to whom he clung with overflowing gratitude, a crowd full of curiosity
and astonishment collected abound the apostles as they were leaving the
temple, and seemed ready to pay them homage as persons of peculiar
sanctity. But Peter said to them,* " Why do you look full of wonder
on us, as if we had done this by our own power and holiness ? It is
not our work, but the work of the Holy One whom ye rejected and
delivered up to the Gentiles, whose death ye demanded, though a heathen
judge wished to let him go, and felt compelled to acknowledge his inno
cence." We here meet with the charge which ever since the day of
Pentecost, Peter had been used to bring forward, in order to lead the
Jews to a consciousness of their guilt, to repentance, and to faith.
" God himself has by subsequent events justified Him whom ye con
demned, and proved your guilt. That God who was with our fathers,
and revealed his presence by miraculous events, has now revealed him
self by the glorification of Him whom ye condemned. Ye have put
him to death, as God had predestined in order to bestow on ns a divine
life of everlasting blessedness; but God raised him from the dead, and we
are the eye-witnesses of his resurrection. The believing confidence im
planted in our hearts by him, has effected this miracle before your eyes."
Peter would have spoken in a different strain to obstinate unbelievers.
But here he hoped to meet with minds open to conviction. He
therefore avoided saying what would only exasperate and repel them.
After he had said what tended to convince them of their guilt, he adopted
a milder tone, to infuse confidence and to encourage the contrite. He
brought forward what might be said in extenuation of those who had
united iu the condemnation of Christ, " that in ignorance they had de-
* Acts 3, 12 ff.

iO THE CHRISTIAN CnURCH IN PALESTINE.
nied the Messiah,"* and that as fir as they and their rulers had acted in ig
norance, it was in consequence of a hi-her necessity. It was the eternal
counsel of God that the Messiah should suffer for the salvation of men,
as had been predicted by the prophets. But now is the time tor you to
prove that you have erred only through ignorance; now allow yourselves
to be brought to a sense of your unrighteousness by the fact of which
you are witnesses; now repent and believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and
seek through him that forgiveness of your sins which he is ready to
bestow. Thus only can you expect deliverance from all evil, and full
salvation ; for he is now hidden from your bodily eyes, and, exalted to
heaven, reveals himself as invisibly efficient by miracles, such as those
you have witnessed ; but when the time arrives for the completion of all
things, that great period to which all the prophecies of the Old Testa
ment point from the beginning, then will he appear again on earth to
effect that completion; for Mosesf and the prophets have spoken before
hand of what is to be performed by the Messiah, as the consummation
of all things. And you are the persons to whom these promises of the
prophets will be fulfilled ; to you belong the promises which God gave
to your fathers, the promise given to Abraham, that through his
posterity all the families of the earth should be l.lessed.J As one day a
blessing from this promised seed of Abraham shall extend to all the na
tions of the earth, § so shall it first be fulfilled to you, if you turn from
your sins to him.||
The commotion produced among the people who gathered round the
apostles in the precincts of the temple, at last aroused the attention and
suspicion of the priests, whose office it was to perform the service in the
* Peter by no means acquits them of all criminality, as the connexion of Ids words
with wdiat he had before said plainly shows ; for he had brought forward the example of
Pilate to point out how great was the criminality of those who, even in their blindness,
condemned Jesus; but ignorance may be more or less culpable, according to the difference
of the persons.
¦j- Peter here appeals to the passage in Deuteronomy xviii. 15, 18, where certainly
according to the connexion, only the prophets in general, by whom God continually en
lightened and guided his people, are contrasted with the f dso soothsayers and magicians
of idolatrous nations. But yet, as the Messiah was the last of these p'om;sL-d prophets,
to be followed by no other, in whom the whole prophetic system louud its centre and
consummation, so far this passage in its spirit may justly be applied to the Messiah-
though we cannot affirm that Peter himself was distinctly aware of the difference between
the right interpretation of the letter, according to grammatical and logical rule-- and ils
application in spirit, an application certainly not arbitrary, but grounded ou an historical
necessity. X This promise, Gen. xii. 3 ; xviii. 18; xxii. 18, according to its highest relation
which must be found in the organic development of the kingdom of God, is fulfilled by the
Messiah. § On the sense in which, at that time, Peter understood this, see above, pp. 19 20
I It is won by of remark how entirely the speech of the Apostle Peter eonlbrms to tho
particular development of Christianiiy at that period, containing nothing belonging to a latel
stage of development, as a speech invented by the narrator would have been likely to da

PETERS SPEECH. 41
temple, and to preserve order there. The two apostles, with tho
cured cripple who kept close to them, were apprehended, and as
it was now evening, too late for any judicial proceedings, were put
in confinement till the next day.* When brought before the Sauhe-
* Gfrorer imagines that he can show that this narrative was only a legendary echo of
the accounts in the Gospels, a transference of the miracles of Christ to the apostles, and
he often applies this mode of interrelation to the first part of the Acts. Thus he main
tains, that the words in Acts iv. 7, " By what power and by what name have ye done
this?" are copied from the question addressed to Christ, Luke xx. 2: "Tell us by what
authority thou doest these things?" and that this is proved to be a false transference, be
cause the question stands in ils right place in the Gospel history, but not in the narrative
of the Acts: " lor, according to the Jewish notions, every one might cure diseases." But
though the cure of a disease need not occasion any further inquiries, yet a cure which ap
peared to be accomplished by supernatural power, might properly call forth the inquiry,
Whence did he who performed it profess to receive the power? The question involved,
and it was so understood by Peter, an accusation that he professed to have received power
for performing such things, through his connection with an individual who had been con
demned by the Sanhedrim. The question was intended to call forth a confession of guilt.
Equally groundless is Gfrorer's supposition, that the quotation in Acts iv. 1 1, " This is the
stone which was set at nought of you builders," refers to Matthew xxi. 42, and can only
be understood by such a reference. The connexion of the passage is sufficiently explicit,
and is as follows: "If ye call us to account for the testimony we bear to Jesus as the
Messiah, ye will verify what was predicted in that passage of the Psalms. The Jesus of
Nazareth condemned by the heads of the Jewish polity, is honored by God to be made the
foundation on wdiich the whole kingdom of God rests. He has received from God the
power by which we effect such miracles."
Gfrorer further remarks, that the plainest proof that this narrative is defective in histor
ical truth lies iu verse 16, "What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable
miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell iu Jerusalem, and we
cannot deny it;" he asserts that these persons could not have so expressed themselves.
But if the author of this account has put iu the mouth of the Sanhedrim what he believed
might bo presumed to be the thoughts that influenced their conduct, can it on that account
be reasonably inferred that the narrative is in the main unhistorical? The same remark
applies to Baur's objection, page 18. An exact account of what took place in the Sanhe
drim we cannot indeed expect.. We know, to begin with, that we have not before us a
formal legal deposition. But the want of such a document can be no reason for casting
doubt upon the wdiole transaction. Do we pronounce tho historical narratives of the an
cients to be untrustworthy, because the speeches they contain were composed' in accordance
with the sentiments of the persons to whom they are attributed ? But with the ancients
we recognize that art in composition which lets every one say what ho might have said
from his stand-point, and in his own character. In the accounts now under consideration,
on the contrary, this objectivity of historical art is wanting, and where, as frequently oc
curs in the Acts, original accounts, such as are furnished by the discourses of Peter or Paul,
do not form the basis, we cannot be surprised, if, in such artless narratives, the principle
that was believed to animate the proceedings against the Christians should be put into the
mouths of the actors as their subjective motive. Lastly, the conduct of the Sanhedrim is
by no means so marked by want of discernment and of good sense as to render the narrative
palpably unhistorical. Prom their stand-point the Sanhedrim could not recognize a miracle
in tlie cure of the lame man. And yet, as they had no means at hand to explain the whole
as an imposture, and to convince the people of il, they were obliged to hush up the affair,
if possible, without arousing afresh, by more violent and forcible measures, the popular
enthusiasm which they wished to allay. But, certainly, every plan will prove at last

42 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
drim,* Peter, full of holy inspiration, and raised by it above the fear of
man, testified to the rulers of the Jewish nation that only by the might
of him whom they had ciu.ified, but whom God had raised from the
dead, it had come to pass, that they beheld this man standing in per
fect soundness before them.f He was the stone despised by the build
ers, (those who wished to be the leaders of God's people,) who had be
come the foundation-stone on which the whole building of God's king
dom mu-t rest. Psalm cxvi.i. 22. There was no other means of obtain
ing salvation, but by faith in Him alone.
The members of the Sanhedrim were astonished to hear men, who had
not been educated in the Jewish schools, and whom they despised as
illiterate, speak with such confidence and power, and they knew not
what to make of the undeniable fact, the cure of the lame man ; but
their prejudices and spiritual pride would not allow them to investigate
more closely the cause of the fact which had taken place before their
eyes. They only wished to suppress the excitement which the event
had occasioned, for they could not charge any false doctrine on the
apostles, who taught a strict observance of the law. Perhaps also the
secret, though not altogether decided friends, whom the cause of Christ
had from the first among the members of the Sanhedrim, exerted an
influence in favor of the accused.^; The schism likewise between the
to be devoid of sense, which is undertaken against a movement in men's minds
founded on perfect justice and undeniable truth, — a tolly which earthly rulers are still apt
to repeat. * Baur is certainly right, when in the words elc 'Iepovaafa)p, Acts iv. 5, he finds an
implication that the members of tho Sanhedrim were not all then present in Jerusalem, p.
16. But when he detects here a design on the part of the inventive historian, to insinuate
how very important the affair was regarded by the authorities, we cannot agree with him.
If he had written with this design he certainly would not have satisfied himself with such an
intimation, but would have expressed much more strongly what he wished to bo noticed.
In tlos form of expression we see nothing more than that it was known to the reporter,
who, from his proximity, was best acquainted with the events, that a part of the members
of the Sanhedrim were not then residing in the city, and were perhaps scattered about the
adjacent country, and that his knowledge of this circumstance unconsciously affected his
phraseology. So that, on the contrary, in this little turn of expression we find a mark of
originality and the absence of design.
f Baur is also disposed to see something unhistorical in the appearing of the lame
man after his cure, with the two apostles, before the Sanhedrim. But whichever may
have been the case, whether he was seized in company with the apostles and brought
forth at the same time, or whether lie appeared by the special orders of the Sanhedrim,
because the corpus delicti related to him; in either case there is nothing improbable. Tlie
Sanhedrim, or a party in it, might have wished lo try whether they could not. succeed, by a
personal inspection, or cio.-s-exainmation of the man, to elicit something which might be
turned against the apostles, or tend to allay the popular ferment. Finallv, the presence
of the man who was made whole, at these proceedings, is, by no means, one of those es
sential points with which the truth of the whole narrative stands or falK
X Baur considers that, what I have here regarded as possible, and as able, perhaps, to
explain the transaction, is a gross pcrvers'on of historical writing, p. 21. "Nothing can be
more blamable," he says, " than an historical method which, instead of examining a mat
ter openly, freely, and thoroughly, arbitrarily introduces fictions iu the place of historical

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. 43
Pharisaic and Sadducean parties in the Sanhedrim, might have had a
favorable influence on the conduct of that assembly towards the Chris
tians. Hence, without making any specific charge against the apostles,
they satisfied themselves with imposing silence upon them by a peremp
tory mandate ; which, according to the existing ecclesiastical constitution
of the Jews, the Sanhedrim was competent to issue, being the highest
tribunal in matters of faith, without whose sanction no one could be ac
knowledged as having a divine commission. The apostles protested that
they could not comply with a human injunction, if it was at variance
with the laws of God, and that they could not be silent respecting what
they had seen and heard ; the Sanhedrim, however, repeated the prohibi
tion, and added threats of punishment in case of disobedience.
Meanwhile this miracle, so publicly wrought, the force of Peter's ad
dress, and the vain attempt to silence him by threats, had the effect of
increasing the number of Christian professors to about two thousand*
As the apostles, without giving themselves any concern about the injunc
tion of tlie Sanhedrim, labored according to the intention they had pub
licly avowed, both by word and deed for the spread of the gospel,f it is
truth." But such a method I believe myself never to have been chargeable with. I
have only offered this as a conjecture, to which I attach no great weight. The example
of a Nicodemus, which, indeed, will find no favor at the tribunal of a criticism that is
founded on a system of fictions, proves that there might be secret friends of the cause of
Christ in the Sanhedrim, and in the Acts (ch. vi. 7) it is remarked that "a great company
of the priests were obedient to the faith." Lastly, the representation I have given of tlie
transaction stands in no need of such a conjecture to free the narrative from the charge of
internal improbability. I wish the impartial reader to decide for himself, which of us. Dr.
Baur or myself, lies most open to the charge of substituting arbitrary fictions for historical
truths. * We must here notice Baur's assertion, that the numbers in the Acts appear altogether
unhistorical. Baur reasons thus, p. 37 : " The number of believers mentioned in Acts i. 15,
(about an hundred and twenty) is manifestly false, for it contradicts the statement oi
the Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. G, that Christ, after his resurrection, appeared to more
than five hundred brethren at once. If this small number be manifestly incorrect, then
tlie large numbers which afterwards occur in the Acts are not more trustworthy, and we
must eome to the conclusion that the small number preceded the large ones only to give a
more vivid impression of the rapid and important increase of the church, which makes
each class of numbers, the small aDd the great, equally suspicious." Even if Baur's sup
position were correct, the correctness of the conclusion he draws from it is by no means
evident; for of this artificial design in the use of small and large numbers, to render more
illustrious by the contrast the Divine in the rapid spread of the church, I can find no trace
in the .timplc, artless representation, nor of any of those little trickeries which Dr. Baur
palms upon the author of the Acts; and I think that the natural construction of the book
must make this impression upon every ingeuuous and unperverted mind. But the suppo
sition itself 1 cannot allow to be valid. I can see no contradiction between the account
in the Acts and Paul's statement; for the reference in Acts i. 15, is not to the sum total
of the whole Christian church, but merely to the number of those who were assembled iu
that place. Nor can I see what Baur further maintains, that the persecution raised against
Stephen will not allow us to suppose that the church was so large and important, since it
is by no means clear that all the Christians in Jerusalem must have been affected by that
persecution. f Dr. Baur charges me with a grave fault in my historical investigations — that I have

44 TnE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
not surprising that they were soon brought again before the Sanhedrim
as contumacious. When the president reproached them for their diso
bedience, Peter renewed his former protestation : " We must obey God
rather than man. And the God of our fathers," he proceeded to say,
"is he who has called us to testify concerning Him of whom ye have for
bidden us to speak. By his omnipotence he has raised that Jesus whom
ye crucified, and has exalted him to be the leader and redeemer of his
people, that through him all may be called to repentance, and receive
from him the forgiveness of their sins. This we testify, and this the
Holy Spirit testifies in the hearts of those who believe oil hiin."* These
not mentioned the wonderful deliverance of Peter from prison. He finds in the omission
a litilure to cousislcntly carry out a naturalistic principle, a dishonorable concealment of
difficulties. He maintains that the alternative is necessary, either to confine oneself to a
simple, literally true relation, or allow historical criticism, if we believe it cannot be got
rid of altogether, to exercise all its rights. Certainly, if my work had been exegetical,a Com
mentary on the Acts, I must necessarily have occupied myself with the examination of that
special point — the opinion to be formed respecting the appearance of the angel, and
Peter's wonderful release — what relation the subjective conception in the narrative of the
Acts bore to the objective of the actual fact. But as an historical writer, I was justified
in making a selection from the narrative, of what appeared suitable to a pragmatical ob
ject; I was nowise bound to treat every point with equal fulness. The deliverance of
Peter from prison was no very important link for me in the pragmatical connection of the
history. But since Dr. Baur has desired that I should express myself on this point, which
1 passed over in silence, I find no reason why I should riot do it with the utmost frank
ness. I am not troubled at the reproach of partiality, nor of inconsistency, nor of indecision,
nor of weakness of faith. I am not prevented by a priori grounds from admitting the an
gelic appearance; but the account is not sufficiently definite and exact to accredit such a
fact, and in the words of Peter, spoken before the Sanhedrim, no allusion to srch a release is
found. But if I acknowledge a break in the historical connection of this occurrence, and
some alloy mixed with the purely historical, it by no means follows that there is no his
torical truth at the basis, and still less that everything related in the Acts was fabricated
with a design to magnify the apostles. This I cannot admit even in the particular case
where 1 acknowledge a mixture of the unhistorical. I would rather say, that the fact
of a release by a special divine guidance, to us unknown, became involuntarily transferred
into the appearance of an angel of the Lord, who freed Peter from prison. As to the
alternative laid down by Dr. Baur, I admit it, and avow that criticism must bo granted its
full right in these investigations. But in the way Dr. Baur applies it, I cannot recognise ils
full right, but only an arbitrariness agamst which, in accordance with my convictions of
the duty of an historical inquirer, I must declare myself; in its application not only to this,
but to any other historL-al question. This criticism, professedly so free from assumption,
proceeds on assumptions which I must reject as unfounded; and hence the opposition
which exists between our moles of treating the history of Christianity.
* These words (Acts v. 32) are by many understood, as if by the expression " that obey,"
ireiBapxovvrec, the apostles were intended, and as if the sense of the passage were this : We
testify of these things, as the eye-witnesses chosen by Him; and tho Holy Spirit, in
whose power we have performed this cure, testifies by the works which we accomplish in
his name. Such an interpretation is certainly possible. But it is more natural as we
apply the first clause to the apostles, to apply tho second to those who received their
message in faith, and to whom the truth of this message was verified, independently of
their human testimony, by the divine witness of the Holy Spirit in their hearts; to whoa
the Holy Spirit himself gave a pledge that, by faith in Jesus, they had received forjriy

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. 45
words of Peter at once aroused the wrath of the Sadducees and Fanatics,
and many of them were clamorous for putting the apostles to death ; but
amidst the throng of infuriated zealots, one voice of temperate wisdom
might be heard. Gamaliel,* one of the seven most distinguished teachers
of the Law, (the Rabb.anim,) thus addressed the members of the Sanhe
drim: " Consider well what ye do to these men. Many founders of sects
and party-leaders have appealed in our day; they have at first acquired
great notoriety, but in a short time they and their cause have come to
nothing." He proved his assertion by several examples of commotions
and insurrections which happened about that period among the Jews.f
ness of sins and a divine life. This interpretation is also to be preferred, because Peter,
after the day of Pentecost, was always wont to appeal to that objective testimony which
the Holy Spirit produced in all believers. If the first interpretation were correct, since
the emphasis would lie on i/uetc, " we," and the Holy Spirit by us, the last clause should
accordingly have been ij/uv role ireidapxovoiv, "to us who obey."
* Baur, in p. 35 of his work above referred to, considers the introduction of Gamaliel
as somewhat unhistorical, and the words ascribed to him as a fabrication. What was
really historical (he declares) could only amount to this, that at that time the view pre
vailed among the rulers of the Jews that it might be best to leave the cause of Jesus to
its own fate, in the certain presumption that in a short time it would be seen how little
there was in it; and on this presumption the speech was framed wdiich the historian puts
into the month of Gamaliel. But we find nothing at all which can justify such a recasting
of history. The speech ascribed to Gamaliel is so characteristic and individual, that we
are the less inclined to call in question the fact that it was actually spoken, and spoken by
Gamaliel. It perf'ecily suits the position which this teacher of the law, as he is repre
sented in the text, occupied among the Jews. The man who could form an intelligent
judgment of Grecian literature, was also capable of rising to this higher historical stand
point in his judgment of Christianity. That Paul, who was at first animated by a fanatical
fury against Christianity, proceeded from his school, is no argument to the contrary; for it
is allowed how little right we have to judge of teachers by their scholars. Let it be recol
lected, too, that this was before Stephen made his appearance, which placed Christianity
in a far more odious light to the party of the Pharisees. And if the mention of the ex
ample of Theudas is an anachronism, which did not proceed from Gamaliel, yet it by no
means follows that the text, the leading idea of the speech, did not come from him. The
characteristic opening words of Gamaliel, by the sharp impress they bear, might easily be
amplified, and it would be very natural that Gamaliel should appeal to examples from
history in support of his advice. This is what we consider as certain. Biur maintains
that if the narrative in the Acts of wdiat had preceded these transactions in the Sanhedrim
be coned, Gamaliel could not have uttered such words; for history, to the evidence of
which be appealed, would have already determined the question. Here, then, is the
dilemma, either Gamaliel did not utter this, or all which is here told of the miracles of the
aposlles, and the extension of the Christian church, did not really take place. But we
cannot acknowledge the correctness of this dilemma. No external evidence is sufficient
to effect in man a complete change of his religious and intellectual convictions. Although
the power with which Christianity diffused itself; and what be had learned of the wonder
ful cures performed by the apostles, would strike Gamaliel with astonishment, yet they were
not sufficient to lead him to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, and to that point he must
have come already, if the evidence of history had been all that was needful to decide the
question for him.
f The mention of Theudas in Gamaliel's speech, occasions, as is well known, a great
difficulty, since his insurrection seems as if it could be no other than that mentioned by

46 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
They might safely leave this affair also to itself. If of human origin, it
would speedily come to an end ; but if it should be something divine,
vain would be the attempt to put it down by human power, and let them
see to it, that they were not guilty of rebellion against God.
Too much has been attributed to these words of Gamaliel, when it has
been inferred from them that he was a secret adherent of the gospel ;*
the connection he kept up with the Jewish schools of theology precludes
such a supposition. By the traditions of the Gemara we are justified in
considering him one of the freethinking Jewish theologians, as we also
learn from his being in favor of the cultivation of Grecian literature;!
and from his peculiar mental constitution we might likewise infer, that
he could be easily moved by an impression of the divine, even in ap
pearances which did not bear the stamp of his party. Many of his
expressions, which are preserved in the Mishna, mark him plainly enough
to have been a strict Pharisee, as he is described by his pupil Paul;
the great respect, too, in which he has ever been held by the Jews is a
sufficient proof that they never doubted the soundness of his creed, that
he could not be accused of any suspicious connection with the heretical
sect. On the one hand, he had a clear perception of the fact, that all
fanatical movements are generally rendered more violent by opposition,
and that what in itself is insignificant, is often raised into importance by
forcible attempts to suppress it. On the other hand, the manner in
which the apostles spoke and acted must have made some impression on
a man not wholly prejudiced; while their exact observance of the law,
and hostile attitude towards Sadduceeism, must have disposed him
more strongly in their favor, and hence the thought might have arisen
in his mind that, after all, there was perhaps something divine in the
cause they advocated. His counsel prevailed ; no heavier punishment
than scourging wras inflicted on the apostles for their disobedience, and
they were dismissed after the former prohibition had been repeated.
Up to this time the members of the new sect, being strict observers
of the law, and agreeing with the Pharisees in their opposition to the
Sadducees, appeared in a favorable light to at least the moderate of the
Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5, 1 ; but to admit this would involve an anachronism. It is very
possible that, at different times, two persons named Theudas raised a sedition amou" the
Jews, as the name was by no means uncommon. Origen (against Celsus, i. 57) mentions
a Theudas before the birth of Christ, but his testimony is not of great weight, for perhaps
he fixed the time by the account in the Acts. It is also possible that Luke, in the rela
tion of the event wdiich he had before him, found the example of Theudas adduced as
something analogous, or that one name has happened to be substituted for another. In
either ease it is of little importance.
* Iu the Clementines, i. 65, on the principle of fraus pia, it is supposed that, by the
advice of the apostles, he remained a member of the Sanhedrim, and concealed his real
faith in order to act for the advantage of the Christians, and to give thorn secret informa-
tion of adl the designs formed against them.
\ See Jost's History of the Israelites, voL iii. p. 170.

STEPHEN. 47
former.* But this amicable relation was at an end as soon as they came,
or threatened to come, into open conflict with the principles of Pharisaism
itself, as soon as the spirit of the new doctrine was felt to be more dis
tinctly antagonistic — an effect produced by an individual, memorable on
this account in the early annals of Christianity, the proto-martyr Stephen.
The deacons, as we have already remarked, were primarily appointed
for a secular object, but in the discharge of their special duty they fre
quently came in contact with home and foreign Jews ; and since men had
been chosen for this office who were full of Christian zeal, full of Christian
faith, and full of Christian wisdom and prudence, they possessed both
the inward call and the ability to make use of these numerous opportu
nities for the spread of the gospel among the Jews. In these attempts
Stephen particularly distinguished himself. As a man of Hellenistic
descent and education, he was better fitted than a native of Palestine to
enter into the views of those foreign Jews who had synagogues for
their exclusive use at Jerusalem, and thus to lead them to receive the
gospel. The Holy Spirit, who hitherto had employed as instruments for
the spread of the gospel, only Palestinian Jews, now fitted for his ser
vice an individual of very different culture, the Hellenistic Stephen ; and
the result of this choice was very important.
Although what wre say is disputed by persons occupying two oppo
site stand-points — those who in a rude and lifeless manner advocate the
supernatural in Christianity, and those who deny everything supernatural,
— yet we cannot give up an idea which is of importance in relation to
the development of Christianity from the beginning, namely, that the
supernatural and the natural, the Divine and the human, always work
together in harmony.
Although the Holy Spirit alone, according to the Saviour's promise,
could lead the apostles to a clear perception of the contents of the whole
truthf announced by himself; yet the quicker or slower development of
this perception was in many respects dependent on the mental peculiarity
and the special results of the general and religions culture, of the indi
viduals who were thus to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit. In one
individual the development of Christian consciousness was prepared for
by his previous stand-point; and hence, under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, a knowledge (yvibai^) of Christian truth rapidly developed itself
from faith (irtcTtg) ; whereas, for another to attain the same insight, the
bounds which confined his previous stand-point must be first broken
down by the power of the Holy Spirit operating in a more immediate
manner, by a new additional revelation {dnoicdXvxpig). Thus we per
ceive how the mixing of the theocratic element, which had served for the
* See Schneckenburger's Essay in his Beitragen zur Einleitung in's Neue Testament,
p. 87.
f Christ did not promise the apostles indefinitely that the Holy Spirit should guide
them into all things, but into the whole of the truth, which he came to announce for tlie
salvation of mankind. John xvi. 13. See Life of Christ, p. 400.

48 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
development of the Hebrew nation, with Grecian culture, must have
served to prepare the way for understanding the truth revealed by Christ;
fu- thus the coarse and narrow Jewish spirit was refined and expanded,
so that it could follow more earily the development of Christian truth
when it broke through the limits of Jewish nationality.
When Christ spoke to his apostles of certain things which they could
not yet comprehend, but which must be first revealed to them by the
Holy Spirit, he, no doubt, referred to the nature of that worship of God
which is not necessarily confined to place or time, or to any kind what
ever of outward observances — the worship in spirit and in truth, with
which the aboliiion of the Mosaic ceremonial law (that wall of separation
between the chosen people of God and other nations, Eph. ii. 14), and
the union of all nations in one spiritual worship and one faith, were
closely connected. The apostles, doubtless, had by this time understood,
through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the spiritual
worship founded on faith; but the consequences flowing from it in rela
tion to outward Judaism they had not yet clearly apprehended. In this
respect, their stand-point resembled Luther's after he had attained a liv
ing faith in justification, in reference to outward Catholicism, ere he had,
by the further maturing of his Christian knowledge, abjured that also;
and that of many who before and since the Reformation have attained to
vital Christianity, though still to a degree enthralled in the fetters of
Catholicism. Thus the Christian consciousness of the apostles could not
be developed into a clear perception of the truth in this respect, till by
the power of the Holy Spirit they had been freed from the fetters of
their strictly Jewish training. On the other hand, the Hellenistic Ste
phen needed not to attain this mental freedom by a new immediate oper
ation of the Holy Spirit, for he was already, by his early development
in Hellenistic culture, more free from these fetters; he was not so much
entangled in Jewish nationality ; and hence his f dth could in this respect
be more readily developed into Christian knowledge, and he could more
easily and quickly attain to the apprehension of that which is grounded
in the nature of Christian truth, and is intimated in single expressions of
Christ. If there had been given to us a pragmatic historical narrative of
these facts, after tlie manner of the classic historians of antiquity, pre
senting everything in its genetic development, and distinguishing the
various forces in actions and events, we might be able to determine
more exactly the position which Stephen occupied, — his relation to Paul
iu the development of Christianity. But since the accounts in the Acts
are not of this sort, and contain many gaps, nothing is left for us but to
adopt that divining and combining process, by which many passages in
history have first been placed in their true light; which can find in frnrr.
ments a whole, and, where only effects are presented to the eye, can
educe and lay open their principles and causes. Stephen disputed much
as we are expressly told in ch. vi. 9, with the foreign Hellenistic Jews

STEPHEN. 49
and we may justly assume that the acknowledgment of Jesus as the
Messiah, and of his work as truly Messianic, formed the subject of these
disputations — that Stephen used the Old Testament to lead the Hellen
istic Jews to this acknowledgment, and that consequently these disputa
tions would relate to the exposition of tlie Old Testament. Great irrita
tion was excited against Stephen, such as had never till that time been
called forth on the question whether Jesus was the Messiah. The San
hedrim had believed that it was necessary to check the spread of the
new sect ; but of an upstir among the people in relation to it, no trace
had yet been seen ; something new, therefore, must have intervened by
which the acknowledgement of the Messiahship of Jesus had become so
offensive to those who adhered to the established religion. And this
supposition is confirmed by the charge brought against Stephen by the
parties who were thus irritated: "We have heard him speak blasphem
ous words against Moses and against God," Acts vi. 11. Now for the
first time' since Christ personally had ceased to be the object of the at
tacks of the Pharisaic party, was such an accusation heard against a
Christian ; for hitherto the believers, agreeing with the Pharisees in the
strict observance of the Mosaic Law, had given occasion for no such
charge. Evidently, it was not the acknowledgment of Jesus as the
Messiah, but the manner in which Stephen spoke of the Messianic work
of Jesus, and of the effects that would be produced by Christianity, that
was the occasion of this charge of heresy. The charge of uttering blas
phemy against Moses would lead us to infer that Stephen was the first
who presented the Gospel in opposition to the Mosaic Law, and had
spoken against its justifying power and perpetual validity ; and this, to
the Jews, who made all justification and sanctification to depend on
the law, and believed in its indefeasible validity, must have appeared
as blaspheming the divine authority of Moses. It would also appear to
them as blasphemy against God, in whose name, and as wdiose ambassa
dor, Moses appeared, and who had promised an ever-enduring validity
to his law. Stephen, we may presume, as Paul at a later period, en
deavored to prove from the prophetic passages of the Old Testament,
that too much was ascribed to the law from the ordinary Jewish stand
point, and that the Old Testament itself pointed to a higher position,
to which it was only preparatory. This view is confirmed by the charge
brought by the Sanhedrim against Stephen, which we shall notice
presently. The whole religious cultus of the Old Testament is founded
on the principle that religion was held within the bounds of space and
time, and must necessarily be connected with certain places and times
The controversy against an over-valuation of the law must hence have
led Stephen to controvert an over-valuation of the temple. By him it
was first confessed and proclaimed, that a perfectly new stand-point in
the development of the kingdom of God was to be created by Christ — -
a purely spiritual worship embracing the whole life of which faith in its
founder would be at once the foundation and centre. He referred, prob-
4

60 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
ably, to the expressions of Christ which related to the impending de-
struction of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the founding a new one by
Himself, as well as to other intimations of that universal transformation
which should proceed from the words spoken through Him, since with
the Temple the whole form of the Old Testament cultus must come to
an end. But if our supposition be correct, how can we consider that
the charge brought against Stephen deserved to be called a false one ?
In the same sense in which it might be afterwards said of Paul, that
his enemies unjustly accused him of blasphemy against Moses, against
the Temple of the God of the Old Testament. While Stephen wras con
vinced that, taking into account the ultimate aim of the Old Testament
development, he only honored the Old Testament and God as therein
revealed, he was charged with an inimical design; and since his oppo
nents understood in a different sense what he said, from what he in
tended, he could, in this respect, designate their accusation as false.
Moreover, it is possible, that the materials which the author of the Acts
made use of in this part of his narrative, proceeded from a person who
could not comprehend the position to which Stephen was elevated,
and hence could not distinguish Stephen's real meaning from what his
enemies charged him with. Stephen's defense* would also have taken
quite a different form, if he could have explained the charges brought
against him as entirely founded on misapprehension — if he had not ac
knowledged a portion of truth as the ground-work which he could not
retract, but was on the contrary prepared to maintain with earnestness.
After this preliminary justification we proceed with the narrative.
Stephen was the forerunner of the great Paul, in his perception of
Christian truth and the testimony he bore to it, as well as in his conflict
for it with the carnal Jews, who obstinately adhered to their ancient
conceptions.! It is highly probable that he was first led by his dispu-
° But here the question arises whether we have the discourse of Stephen in all essen
tial points as it was spoken, or a production of the author of the Acts fitted to a precon
ceived plan. The latter is advocated by Baur. But we must maintain that if the author
of the Acts had been so skilled in historic art as to be able to transport himself to Ste
phen's stand-point, and to invent such a discourse in his style and character, his own his
torical composition would have been altogether different. He would, from the first, havo
drawn a clearer representation of the man, and of his importance in relation to the subse
quent development of Christianity, which would have rendered it needless for us to at
tempt it by means of a conjectural combination. The manner in which these things are
narrated, stands in the most striking contrast to that artistieal dexterity wdiich is presup
posed in the invention of such a discourse. Certainly it cannot be supposed that if a
writer had wished lo represent in the person of Stephen, the collision that then first took
place between the spiritual worship of Christianity and the stand-point of the Jewish cul
tus still involved iu carnality, he would so havo concealed his real design, that it would
only be apparent at the end. A plan so artificial and carefully adjusted could hardly have
been undertaken by a Christian of that primitive age.
\ To which Baur of Tubingen has properly drawn attention in his acute and spirited
Wcihnachtsprogramm of the year 1829: Be Oralionis habitce a Stephana Act. u. vii.
tonsilio. While I recognize a divine, objective historical pragmatism in the relation to

STEPHEN. 51
fations with the Hellenists, to present the gospel on the side of its oppo
sition to the Mosaic law; to combat the belief in the necessiiy of that
law for the justification and sanctification of men, and, what was con
nected therewith, its perpetual obligation, and then to show that the
new spirit of the gospel freed it altogether from the outward forms of
Judaism ; that the new spirit of religion required an entirely new form.
As, agreeably to the prophecy of Christ, the destruction of the temple at
Jerusalem, with which the Jews had hitherto considered the worship of
God as necessarily and essentially connected, was now about to take
place by means of the divine judgments on the degenerate earthly king
dom of God, through the victorious divine power of the Messiah, exalted
to the right hand of his heavenly Father — so would the whole outward
system of Judaism fall with this its only earthly sanctuary, and the
Theocracy arise glorified and spiritualized Irom its earthly trammels. We
cannot determine with confidence, to what extent Stephen, in his dispu
tations with the Jews, developed all this, but we may infer with certainty
from the consequences, that it was more or less explicitly stated by this
enlightened man. Hence it came to pass, that the rage of the Pharisees
was now excited, as it had never yet been, against the promulgators of
the new doctrine ; hence an accusation such as had never yet been
brought against them — that Stephen had uttered blasphemous words
against Jehovah and against Moses. We are told, indeed, that false
witnesses deposed against him that he ceased not to speak against the
Holy Place (the temple) and the Law — that he had declared that Jesus
of Nazareth would destroy the temple and abrogate the usages handed
down from Moses. But although these accusations are represented as
tlie depositions of false witnesses, it does not follow, that all that they
said was a fabrication, but only that they had, on many points, distorted
the assertions of Stephen, with an evil intention. They accused him of
attacking the divine origin and holiness of the law, and of blaspheming
Moses ; all which was very far from his design. Yet he must, by what
he said, have given them some occasion for their misrepresentations, for
before this time, nothing similar had been brought against the publishers
of the gospel ; hence we may make use of their allegations to find out what
each other, of these two champions of the Christian faith, and thank Dr. Baur wdio, per
haps, first drew my at'ention to it, I cannot, on the other hand, agree with Dr. Schneck-
enburger, who thinks he has detected a subjective pragmatism purposely framed by Luke.
In the simple representation given by Luke from the single accounts lying before him, I
cannot discover any direct intention to exhibit Stephen in his public character and in
his disputations with the Jews as a prototype of Paul. (See Schneckenburgcr's treatise
on the Object of the Acts: B..-rn, 1811: pp. 172, 184.) If such had really been his
design, it would, I think, have been more strongly maiked, after the manner of his times.
Indeed, this whole historic view of the apologetic aim of Luke, as a partisan of Paul, iu
opposition to the Petrine party, is too artificially made out from the book, and too little
supported by the author's own words, for me to favor the hypothesis.

52 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
Stephen really said* And his defence plainly indicates that he by no
means intended to repel the accusation as altogether a falsity, but rather
to acknowledge that there was truth mixed up with it ; that what he
had really spoken, and wdiat was already so obnoxious to the Jews, he
had no wish to deny, but only to develop and establish it in its right
connection. Only thus we gain the true point of view for understanding
this memorable and often misunderstood speech.
Stephen was seized by his embittered enemies, brought before the
Sanhedrim, and accused of blasphemy. f But those not altogether uusus-
* Baur properly compares this with what the false witnesses said against Christ.
(Matt. xxvi. 61.) See "Life of Christ," p. 171. But when Baur, in his book on Paul, p. 56,
would find in it no historical truth, but only a designed imitation of the history of Christ,
transferring to Stephen what, in Matt. xxvi. 60, is said of Christ, we cannot grant our ap
proval. We can discover no trace of such a design. " But," says Bour, " since false wit
nesses appeared against Jesus with the same accusation, so false witnesses must not be
wanting here ; as little as it may appear how their testimony could have beeu only false."
But there is no contradiction in this, that an accusation may be false in the sense in which
it is put forth by those who make use of it, and yet a trulh lie at its basis. But that the
author of the Acts has not distinguished and developed more clearly in wdiat sense the
accusation may have been false, and in what sense it contained truth, instead of exhibiting
design, shows rather the want of historical skill and of a development conformed to a pre
conceived plan.
j Baur is disposed to find in the whole progress of this transaction, something unhis
torical. How can it be supposed, he says, that Stephen would be accused in this tumult
uous manner by the Sanhedrim, who listened to him at first so quietly, but then are
described as all al once breaking out upon him with such fury ? This tribunal would
have compromised its dignity, and by such an extra judicial infliction of death, have
exposed itself to the heaviest responsibility before the Roman governor. As no consistent
notion of such an act of the Sanhedrim can be formed, it is far more probable, that
everything proceeded only from a tumultuary movement of the people, who seized Stephen
in their fanatical excitement, and dragged him forth to bo stoned. But since the author of
the Acts wished to give the transaction great importance, to represent in Stephen the image
of Christ, since he wished him to deliver a discourse, he must bring him before the Sanhe
drim, and he must, however improbable it may be, let them take part in the tumultuous
proceedings against him. We grant, that in the description given in the Acts there is a
want of clearness and luminousness in particular points, but this can decide nothing
against the credibil'ty of the whole. Although we should not dispute very strongly
whether Stephen were sacrificed to popular fury, or appeared before the Sanhedrim itself,
still we find a pledge for the latter in this : that the discourse handed down to us bears
the impress of one actually delivered, and presupposes such a tribunal before which it was
delivered. We may suppose that the fanatical Jews dragged Stephen before the San
hedrim just assembled, or that the Sanhedrim was assembled for the examination of this
charge; for we are surely not justified in admitting, that everything that is narrated in
the acts respecting Stephen happened in one day. Now, hitherto, no occasion had been
found to accuse the Christians of apostasy from Judaism; nothing was known of them
which could make that accusation credible. It might, therefore, happen that the better
members of the Pharisaic party in the Sanhedrim were not really prejudiced against
Stephen. When he appeared before them, the Divine, which expressed itself in his whole
appearance, at first made an impression that commanded the regard of a part of the
assembly ; and then the manner in which he began to speak of the dealings of God with
their forefathers was suited to testify to his piety, to counterwork the accusations brought
against him, and to dispose his hearers in his favor. Also, though we who have the whole

STEPHEN. 53
ceptible in the assembly wrere unfitted by the divine expression of his
whole appearance, by his inspired confidence, by the heavenly repose
and serenity which beamed in all his features, to see in him a blasphemer
of God. When in the Acts we are told, that he stood before them with
a glorified countenance, " as it were the face of an angel," either many
members of the Sanhedrim had themselves thus described the impression
which his appearance at first made upon them, or the author of the
narrative has, according to his own view and in his own language,
transmitted what had been related to him concerning the profound im
pression made by tlie personal presence of the persecuted disciple ; in no
case can we be justified in declaring his whole account to have had a
merely subjective origin. The topics and arrangement of Stephen's dis
course were suited to confirm this impression, and to turn it to good ac
count, to fix tho attention of his judges, and to put their miuds in a
more favorable position towards the speaker, thus gradually preparing
them for that wdiich he wished to make the main subject of his discourse.
That discourse perfectly corresponds with the leading qualities ascribed
to his character in the Acts. In his frank manner of expressing what he
had learned by the light of the Divine Spirit, we recognize the man full
of the power of faith, without the fear of man, or deference to human
opinion ; in his manner of constantly keeping one end in view, and yet,
instead of abruptly urging it, gradually preparing his hearers for it, we
recognize the man full of Christian prudence.
The object of Stephen's discourse was not simple but complex ; yet
its different aims stood in most intimate connection with each other.
Its primary object was certainly apologetical, but as he forgot himself
in the subject with which he was inspired, his apologetic efforts relate
rather to the truths maintained by him and impugned by his adversaries,
than to himself.* Hence, not satisfied with defending, he developed and
enforced the truths he had proclaimed ; and at the same time, condemned
the carnal ungodly temper of the Jews, wdiich was little disposed to
receive the truth. Thus with the apologetic element, the didactic and
polemic were combined. Stephen first refutes the charges made against
him of enmity against the people of God, of contempt of their sacred
institutions, and of blaspheming Moses. He traces the procedure of the
divine providence, in guiding the people of God from the times of their
progenitors; he notices the promises and their progressive fulfilment, to
discourse before us know what its aim was from the beginning, yet it is not clear that his
hearers could so soon apprehend it. And this serves to explain how it could happen that
they heard Stephen patiently, till he came to the words in which his Christian feeling
expressed itself so wiwerfully and unreservedly, regardless of consequences. Here fanati
cal fury broke forth ; they would not listen any longer to his blasphemies. He was drag
ged out, and now the punishment began which the infuriated people inflicted on him.
Thus in a just representation of the connection of these transactions, we find nothing
which justifies the denial of their historical truth.
* See on this point the excellent remarks of Baur, p. 48, ia the treatise already
ylluded ta

54 CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
the end of all the promises, the end of the whole development of the
Theocracy — the advent of the Messiah, and the work to be accomplished
by him. But with this narrative he blends his charges against the
Jewish nation. He shows that their ingratitude and unbelief, proceeding
from a carnal mind, became more flagrant in proportion as the promises
were fulfilled, or given with greater fulness; and their conduct in the
various preceding periods of the development of God's kingdom, was a
specimen of the disposition they now evinced towards the publication of
the gospel.* The first promise which God made to the patriarchs, was
that respecting the land which he would give to their posterity for a
possession, where they were to worship him.
In faith the patriarchs went forth under the constant guidance of God
himself, which, however, did not bring them to the fulfilment of the
promise. This promise was brought to the eve of its accomplishment
by Moses. His divine call, the miracles God wrought for him and by
him, are especially brought forward, and likewise the conduct of the
Jews while under his guidance, as unbelieving, ungrateful and rebellious
towards this highly accredited servant of God, through whom they had
received such great benefits : and yet Moses was not the end of the
divine revelation. His calling was to point to that prophet whom God
would raise up after him, whom they were to obey like himself. The
conduct of the Jews towards Moses is therefore a type of their conduct
towards that last great prophet wdiom he announced and prefigured.
The Jews gave themselves up to idolatry, when God first established
among them by Moses a symbolical sanctuary for his worship. This
sanctuary was in the strictest sense of divine origin. Moses super
intended its erection according to the pattern shown to him by God, in
a symbolic higher manifestation.! The sanctuary was a movable one,
till at last Solomon was permitted to erect an abiding edifice for divine
worship on a similar plan. With this historical survey, Stephen con
cludes his argument against the superstitious reverence for the temple
felt by the carnally-minded Jews, against their narrow-hearted sensuous
tendency to confine the essence of religion to the temple-worship. Havinc
expressed this in the words of the prophet Isaiah, it was a natural transi-
* In this species of polemical discussion, Stephen was a forerunner of Paul. De Wetle
justly notices, as a peculiarity of the Hebrew nation, that conscience was more alive nmono-
them than any other people ; often, indeed, an accusing conscience, the feeling of guilt the
feeling of a high office assigned to them from which they cannot, though they would, be
released, the feeling of a schism between knowledge (the law) and the will, so that sin ac
cumulates and comes distinctly into view ; Bom. v. 20. See " Sludien und Kritiken '•
1837, 4ih No., p. 1003. On this account, the history of the Hebrew nation is the type
of the history of the race and of men individually.
f Stephen had, perhaps, two distinct aims in mind, to intimate, on the one hand, that
it was necessary, in order to guard against idolatry to which the Jews were so prone, to
confine the worship of God to a fixed visible sanctuary, and, on the other hand that this
sanctuary could not communicate the divine, but could only represent it in a figure an
idea which pervades the Epistle to the Hebrews.

STEPHEN. 55
tion to speak of the essential nature of true spiritual worship, and of the
prophets who in opposition to the stiff-necked, carnal dispositions of the
Jews, had testified concerning it, and the Messiah by whom it was to be
established among the whole human race. A vast prospect now opened
before him ; but he could not complete the grand picture of the theo
cratic development, nor proceed even to the limits he had proposed ;*
while contemplating it, the emotions it excited carried him away ; his
holy indignation gushed forth in a torrent of rebuke against the ungodly,
unbelieving, hypocritical disposition of the Jews, whose conduct in refer
ence to the divine communications had been the same from the time of
Moses up to that very moment. " Ye stiff-necked, although boasting of
your circumcision, yet who have never received the true circumcision,
ye uncircumcised in heart and ear (who want the disposition to feel and
to understand what is divine), ye always withstand the workings of the
Holy Ghost. Ye do as your fathers did. As your fathers murdered the
prophets who predicted the appearance of the Holy One, so have ye
yourselves given Him up to the Gentiles, and thus are become his
murderers. Ye who boast of a law given by God through the ministry
of angels,| (as organs of making known the divine will,) and yet are so
little observant of this law !"
Till this rebuke was uttered, Stephen had been quietly heard. But as
soon as they perceived the drift of his discourse, their blind zeal and
spiritual pride were roused. He observed the symptoms of their rage,
but instead of being terrified thereby, he looked up to heaven, full of
believing confidence in the power of Him of whom he testified, and saw
with a prophetic glance, in opposition to the machinations of men against
the cause of God, the glorified Messiah, denied by these men, but exalted
to heaven, armed with divine power, and about to conquer all who dared
to oppose his kingdom. This prophetic view was presented to him in
the form of a symbolic vision. As he looked up to heaven it appeared
to open before his eyes. In more than earthly splendor, there appeared
to him a form of divine majesty ; he beheld Christ (whose glorious image
was probably present to him from actual early recollection) glorified and
enthroned at the right hand of God. Already in spirit raised to heaven,
he testified with full confidence of what he beheld. In all periods of the
* We must certainly maintain against Baur that Stephen's. discourse is left unfinished,
that he could not complete the plan he had proposed ; that just when he had reached the
principal point, for which all that went before was preparatory, he was interrupted ; un
less, perhaps, the discourse as we have received it, is imperfectly reported.
f This was conlessedly a frequent mode among the Jews of marking the superhuman
origin of the law ; so that, according to Josephus, Herod, in a speech to the Jew i.-h aimy,
made use of this universally acknowledged fact, that the Jews had received their law
from God through angels, (6t' dyyeAuv irapd rov deov padoiruv), in order to show how
holy the ambassadors sent to them must be, who filled the same office as that of the angels
between God and men; uyytAoi—irpeaj3eie, KijpvKee, angels=ambassadors, her.dds. Jo
seph. Antiq. xv. 5, 3. We shall refer to the varied application of this idea in the section
on Doctrine.

56 TnE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
church, a blind zeal for adherence to the letter and ceremonial services
has been wont to interpret a highly spiritual state, which will not follow
the rules of the reigning theological school, nor suffer itself to be confined
by ancient dogmas, as mere fanaticism or blasphemy;* and so it was on
this occasion. The members of the Sanhedrim stopped their ears, that
they might not be defiled by his blasphemies. They threw themselves
on Stephen, and dragged him out of the city in order to stone him as a
blasphemer. It was sentence and execution all at once; an act of vio
lence without regular judicial examination ; especially as according to the
existing laws, the Sanhedrim could decide only on disciplinary punish
ment, but was not allowed to execute a capital sentence without the con
currence of the Roman governor.! With the same confidence with
which Stephen, amidst the rage and fury of his enemies, saw the Saviour
of whom he testified, ruling victorious — with the same conlidence he
directed his eyes towards him in the prospect of death, and said, "Lord
Jesus, receive my spirit !"J And as he had only Him before his eyes, it
was his Spirit which led him to adopt the Saviour's last words, thus
making him a pattern in death, as he had been in life. He who, when
carried away with holy zeal for the cause of God, had so emphatically
censured the baseness of the Jews, now that their fury attacked his own
person, prayed only that their sins might be forgiven.
Thus we see in the death of Stephen the new development of Christian
truth apparently stopped ; he died a martyr, not only for the truth of the
gospel in general, but in particular for this freer and wider application of
it, which began with him and seemed to expire with him. Yet from the
beginning it has been the law of the development of,the Christian life,
and will continue to be down to the last glorious result, which shall con
summate the whole with the final triumph over death — that out of death
a new life comes forth, and martyrdom for the divine truth, both in its
general and particular forma, prepares for its victory. Such was the
issue here. This first new development of evangelical truth had to be
checked in tlie genu in order to shoot forth with greater vigor, and to a
wider extent, iu the person of Paul ; and the martyrdom of Stephen was
* Thus, at the Council of Constance, it was condemned as a violation of ecclesiastical
subordination, that Huss bad dared to appeal to Christ.
f See Life of Christ, p. 412.
X I can find no reason whatever for recognising (as Baur has done) in Stephen's man
ner of speaking and acting, instead of the image of Christ as impressed by his Spirit on
his genuine disciples, nothing but the impress of the subjective fiction which makes
Stephen a copy of Christ. To support the latter view, it is urged that such words as
Stephen used occur in Luke xxiii. 34 and 46, and that this agreement could not be merely
accidental, but points to one source. But I do not perceive that the literal agreement
which exists here, can only be so explained, since it may be very naturally accounted for
on the ground that the Spirit of Christ, wdiich expressed itself in the words of Christ
transmitted to us by Luke, caused Stephen to express himself in the same way. That
false testimony agaiust Christ, of which (Baur would have us believe) the false testimony
against Stephen is an imitation, does not in so many words appear in Luke.

STEPHEN. 57
a necessary step in the process. If this new development had been fully
exhibited at this time, the other publishers of the gospel would have been
found unprepared for it, and not yet capable of receiving it. But in the
meantime, these persons, by a variety of concurrent circumstances, were
to be prepared in a natural way, under the constant guidance of the Holy
Spirit, for this deeper insight into the truth.
The martyrdom of Stephen was important in its direct effects for the
spreading of the faith, since it might be expected that, under the imme
diate impression made by the sight of such a witness, and of such a death,
many minds not altogether unsusceptible, nor altogether deluded by the
power of error, would be led to the faith ; but yet the indirect conse
quences were still more important, by which the third violent persecu
tion was raised against the new church at Jerusalem. This persecution
must have been more severe and extensive than the former ; for by the
manner in which Stephen entered into conflict with Pharisaism, he had
roused to hostility against the teachers of the new doctrine the. sect of
the Pharisees, who had the most credit with the common people, and
were powerful and active, and ready to leave no means untried to attain
their object whatever it might be. The persecution proceeding from
this quarter would naturally mark as its special victims those who were
colleagues in office with Stephen as deacons, and who resembled him in
their Hellenistic origin and education. It was, however, the occasion of
spreading the gospel beyond the bounds of Jerusalem and Judea, and
even among the Gentiles. With this progressive outward development
of the gospel was also connected its progressive inward development,
the consciousness of the indepenelence and intrinsic capability of Chris
tianity as a doctrine destined without foreign aid to impart divine life and
salvation to all men, among all nations without distinction. As we
have frequently seen that the hostilities waged against a truth when
first brought to light, with which its publishers have had to contend,
have very much contributed to render their consciousness of it more
clear and complete, and to make them better acquainted with the conse
quences that flow from it, — so here also the opposition of Pharisaical
Judaism must have had a powerful and beneficial influence in developing
freer views of the Gospel among the Hellenists.
Here, then, we stand on the boundary-line of a new era, both of the
outward and inward development of Christianity.

BOOK II.
TRANSITION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OP CHRISTIANITY
AMONG THE JEWS, TO ITS DEVELOPMENT AMONG
HEATHEN NATIONS.

CHAPTER I.

THE FIRST SPREAB OE CHRISTIANITY EROII THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM
TO OTHER PARTS, AND ESPECIALLY AMONG THE HEATHEN.
Samaria, which had been the scene of Christ's personal ministry, was
the first place out of Judea where the gospel was preached by his
apostles* Though the people of this country received no part of the
Old Testament as sacred excepting the Pentateuch, yet from this portion
of the Scriptures they had learned to exercise faith in a Messiah who
was to come; on him they placed their hopes, as the personage who was
to bring back all things to their right relations, and thus to be the univer
sal Restorer.! Political considerations did not with them, as with the
Jews, stand in the way of their right apprehension of the idea of the
Messiah, an idea specially clung to by them in their mental and bodily
misery ; but they were deficient in that right understanding of it
which could only be obtained from its progressive development in the
Old Testament ; nor could the deep feeling of the need of redemption
and restoration be clearly developed among them. A lively, but indefi
nite, obscure longing of the religious nature always exposes men to
manifold and most dangerous delusions, and in times of vagne but earnest
inquiry, various kinds of extravagance are likely to prevail. This was
the case with the Samaritans. As at that time in other parts of the
East, a similar indefinite longing after a new communication from Heaven
— an ominous restlessness in the minds of men, such as generally pre
cedes great changes in the history of mankind, was diffused abroad; so
there were not wanting persons to misdirect and deceive this longing,
while they falsely promised it satisfaction. Such were the Goetae, in
whom was to be found a mixture of unconscious self-deception and in
tentional falsehood ; with ideas, proceeding from au amalgamation of
* See Life of Christ, p. 180 ff.
f arp or arn- See Gesenius's Weihnachtsprogramm De Samaritanorum Theolo-
gia, (of the yeai lo.22), and his Carmina Sumarilana, p. 15.

SAMARIA, SIMON THE SORCERER 59
Jewish, Oriental, and Grecian elements, and with mystical, sounding
formulas exactly suited to a vague religious longing, they made great pre
tensions, boasting of a special connexion with the invisible world ; and
by taking advantage of the unknown powers of nature, and by various
arts of conjuration, they excited the astonishment of credulous people,
and obtained credit for their boastful pretensions. Such persons found
at that time an easy access to the Samaritans in their state of mental
excitement. To this class of men belonged a Jewish or Samaritan Goes,
named Simon, who, by his pretended magical powers, so fascinated the
people, that they said he must be more than man, that he was the great
power which emanated from the invisible God, by which the universe
had been brought forth, now appearing on earth in a bodily firm.*
The idea of such an Intelligence emanating from God, as proceeding
from the first act of the divine self-revelation, the first link in the chain
of developed life, prevailed just at that time in various oriental-Alexan
drian and Alexandrian-oriental forms. The idea also of the incarnation of
higher intelligences generally, and of this highest intelligence in par
ticular, was by no means foreign to the notions prevalent in those parts.
We can hardly consider everything of this kind as a mere copy of the
Christian idea of the incarnation, or recognise in it a sign of the trans
forming power of the new Christian spirit over the intellectual world ;
for we find earlier traces of such ideas.! But the prevalence of such
ideas proves nothing against the originality of Christianity, or of any
of its particular doctrines. On the one hand, we should not refuse to
recognise wdiat could grow from the germs already given in the Old
Testament, which was the preparative covering of the New, or from its
spirit and leading ideas, which were directed to Christ as the end of all
the divine revelations. On the other hand, we must recollect, that as the
new creation effected by Christianity was followed by a mighty agitation
* Possibly the words of which this Goes made use, are contained in the apocryphal
writings of the Simonians; see Jerome's Commentary on Matt. xxiv. " Ego sum sermo
Dei (i Ao/of), ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus,'' " I am the word of God (o 'i-hyoc), I
am the illustrious, I am the Advocate," — (according to Philo, the Logos is Advocate,
(irapuKlr/Toe, 'iKeTr/c.) since by the divine reason revealing itself in the phenomenal world
(the vo-nrhv irapadeiypa rov Koopov) the connexion between God and the phenomena is
effected, what is defective in the latter is supplied; De Vita Mosis, 1. iii. G73 ; De Migra-
liono Abrahami.p. 406,)— "ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei," " I am omnipotent, I, all thing3
of God " (according to Philo, the Logos is the perpbiroAie iraauv rdv Avvupeuv rov deov,
chief of all the powers of God). Still this is uncertain, for the sect of the Simonians migh
easily borrow these expressions, as they had borrowed other things, from Christianity, an
attribute them to Simon,.
+ In a Jewish apocryphal writing, the irpoaevxi) 'luayii, the patriarch Jacob is repre
sented as an incarnation of the highest spirit living in the presence of the divine Original
Bein^, whose true divine name was " Israel, man beholding God," 'lapal/A, dvijp opCiv 8ebv,
"the first-born of every living thing existing by God," irpuroynvoc iruvroc (unv feovuivov
irrb deov. (similar expressions to those used by Philo respecting the Logos). " who was be
gotten before all angels, the first minister in the presence of God," 6 iv irpuauirru Ocov
AiiTOvpyde irpuroc. Sec Origen, t. ii. § 25.

60 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
both of kindred and hostile minds, so also it was preceded by the strong
excitement of such minds as were unconsciously anticipating and yearn
ing after some great approaching crisis, by a presentiment that there
would be such a revelation of the spiritual world as had not yet been
made to the human race. And from a teleological point of view, we re
cognise Christianity as the final aim of Divine Wisdom in the course of
human development, when we at this period find the spiritual atmosphere
surcharged with ideas, which served to prepare a more susceptible soil
for Christianity and its leading doctrines, and to form a back-ground for
the exhibition of the divine transactions which it announced.
Philip the Deacon, being compelled to leave Jerusalem by the perse
cution which ensued on Stephen's death, was induced to take refuge in
Samaria. He came to a city of that country,* where Simon was uni
versally esteemed, and looked upon with wonder and reverence as a
supernatural being. When he saw the people so devoted to a destruct
ive delusion, he felt impelled by his zeal for the cause of God and the sal
vation of men, to impart that to them which alone could give true satisfi ic-
tion to their spiritual necessities. But men in this situation were not
yet susceptible of the spiritual power of truth ; it was needful to pave
a way to their hearts by preparatory impressions on the senses. As
Philip, by divine aid, performed things which Simon with all his magical
arts could not effect, especially healing the sick (which he accomplished
by prayer and calling on the name of Christ), he attracted the attention
of men to Him in whose name and power he had effected such things for
them, and in their sight ; he then took occasion to discourse more fully
of Him, his works, and the kingdom that he had established among men,
and by degrees the divine power of truth laid hold of their hearts
When Simon saw his followers deserting him, and was himself astounded
at the works performed by Philip, he thought it best to acknowledge a
power so superior to his own. He therefore professed himself a disciple
of Philip, and was, like the rest, baptized by him ; but as the sequel
proves, we cannot infer from this that the publication of the gospel had
made an impression on his heart; it seems most probable that he inter
preted what had occurred according to his own views. The miracles
performed by Philip had led him to the conviction, that he was in league
with some superhuman spirit ; he looked on baptism as an initiation into
the compact, and hoped that, by forming such a compact, he misrht ob
tain an interest in such higher power, and use it for his own ends • he
wished, in short, to combine the new magic or theurgy with his own.
As we have already remarked, it was a standing regulation in primitive
* It is not quite clear that the city of Samaria is intended ; for there is no reason, with
some expositors of Acts viii. 5, to consider the genitive as the sign of apposition. As in
the whole chapter Samaria is the designation of the country, it is most natural to under
stand it is so in this passage. In the 14th verse, by Samaria is certainly meant the
country, and yet it does not follow that absolutely the whole land had received th<-
gospel.

SAMARIA, SIMON TnE SORCERER. 61
times, that all those who professed to believe the announcement of Jesus
as the Messiah should be baptized. And since Simon now renounced his
magical arts, which were quite out of repute, there was no reason why
he should be rejected.
It must have occasioned great surprise to the church at Jerusalem to
hear that Christianity had first gained an entrance among a people who
were not considered as belonging to the theocratic nation. Not that any
such scruples could be felt, as were afterward excited at the spread of the
Gospel among the Gentiles, since the Samaritans, in common with tho
Jews, practised circumcision and observed the Law of Moses. Moreover,
Christ himself had set the example by his personal ministry among the
Samaritans, and had so far counteracted the prejudice against them.
Yet the disunion between the Jews and the Samaritans was so great that
the former could not view without some mistrust the formation of a
church among the latter, and believed that they must ascertain the man
ner in which the Gospel operated among them before they could acknow
ledge the new believers as Christian brethren. There must have been a
special reason for the mission of the Apostles Peter and John to Samaria.
If we were to infer the object of their mission from the consequences that
followed it, — as if these gifts of the Spirit could not be imparted by a
deacon, but required the superior agency of the apostles, — wc should pro
ceed on an ungrounded supposition ; and to infer the design from the
consequences, is, as is clear, always very uncertain. With much greater
right we may suppose, that a kind of mistrust was the cause of this
mission. This mistrust must have related either to those among whom
Philip labored, or to himself the laborer. It might certainly be the lat
ter, as Baur supposes, — a consequence of the continually increasing
opposition between the Christians of Palestinian and those of Hellenistic
descent and education, a trace that the old church could not fully trust
the freer mode of thinking amongthe Hellenistic preachers, which already
began to be growing out of Christianity. But with greater certainty
we are justified in regarding this mission as owing to the national dis
trust felt towards the Samaritans. Both grounds of mistrust might in
deed be blended together, yet we find in the narrative no point of con
nexion for the first. At all events it is evident, that the manner in
which the Gospel gained entrance among the Samaritans must have ap
peared to the two apostles as defective. Jesus had indeed been acknow
ledged as the Messiah, and baptism had been administered in his name,
but the believers as yet knew nothing of the Holy Ghost ; for what this
mio-ht be could only be known from inward experience, and this was still
something foreign to the Samaritans. They had received the baptism
of water without receiving the baptism of the Spirit. The cause of this
may be traced to the manner in which they became believers ; for ac
cording to the universal law of the development of the Christian life, the
effects "of faith are conditioned by its quality, and this again, by the
mode of its origination. Among the Samaritans, living faith in the Re-

62 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
deemer appears to have been still wanting, since it was not a feeling of
the need of redemption founded in the consciousness of sin that had led
them to believe ; their faith does not yet appear to have proceeded from
the right religious and moral principle. It was at first in their minds
only an undefined and obscure longing after fresh and higher revelations,
and this longing was still more perverted from its true aim by the de
ceptive arts of the Goes, Simon, which, from the partial satisfaction they
gave, led them still further astray. The superiority of Philip, which
was evinced in his works, had moved them afterwards to believe him
rather than Simon, to place confidence in his words rather than in Simon's.
Still this was a faith which proceeded from impressions on the senses, and
depended on the person of him whom they had beheld performing such
wonderful works. What Philip announced to them, and they had been
moved by outward appearances to acknowdedge as true, still remained to
them something external. The Christ whom he preached was to them
only an outward object of faith, and had not yet passed into their inner
life. The operation of the Holy Ghost was still something foreign which
astonished them in its effects produced through another person. They still
lacked an indiviiliial, independent divine life. Hence they could not yet
understand what the Holy Ghost might be. Certainly the two apostles
¦would perceive that what Philip had effected was only the beginning,
and that still more must take place, in order to found a true Christian
church. We have not a full account in the Acts of what was done by Peter
and John, but simply the general results. No doubt these apostles car
ried on the work of Philip by preaching and prayer. After such a pre
paration, the believers were assembled, and the apostles prayed that
Christ might glorify himself in them, as in all believers, by marks of the
communication of divine life, employing the usual sign of Christian con
secration, the laying on of hands. Manifestations now followed similar
to those on the day of Pentecost, and the believers were thus recognised
and attested to be a Christian church, standing in an equal rank with the
first chuich at Jerusalem. But Simon was naturally incapable of under
standing the spiritual connexion of these manifestations; he saw in all
of them merely the workings of magical forms and charms, a mafic
differing not in nature but only in degree from what he practised him
self. Hence he imagined that the apostles might communicate these
magical powers to him also, by virtue of which all those on whom he laid
hands would become filled with divine power, and with this view he
offered them money. Peter spurned this proposal with abhorrence, and
now first saw in its true light the real character of Simon, who, in
joining himself to believers, had pretended to be what he was not.
Peter's terrible rebuke presents him to us as a faithful preacher of the
gospel, insisting most impressively on the supreme importance of dis
position in everything which is imparted by Christianity, in direct op-
position to the art of magic, which disregards the necessary connexion

SAMARIA, SIMON TnE SORCERER. 63
of the divine and supernatural with the disposition of the heart, drags
them down into the circle of the natural, and attempts to appropriate to
itself divine power by means of something else than that which is allied
to it in human nature, and is the only possible point of connexion for it.*
These were Peter's words : " Thy gold, with which thou attemptest to
traffic in impiety, perish with thee. Do not deceive thyself, as i with
this disposition thou couldst have any part in what is promised to believ
ers. Thou hast no share in this matter,! for God, who sees what is
within, is not deceived by thy hypocritical professions. Before his eyes
thy intentions are manifest. With sincere repentance for suoh wicked
ness, pray to God that he would be pleased to forgive thee this wicked
design." This rebuke made a great impression at the time on Simon's
conscience, inclined more to superstition than to faith, and awakened a
feeling not of repentance for the sinfulness of his disposition, but of ap
prehension of the divine vengeance. He entreated the apostles that
they would pray to the Lord for him, that what they had threatened
him with might not come to pass.
As is usual with such sudden impressions on the senses, the effect on
Simon was only transient, for all the further notices we have of him show
that he soon returned to his former courses. About ten or twenty
years later, we meet with a Simon in the company of Felix, the Roman
Procurator of Palestine, so strikingly resembling this man, that we are
tempted to consider them as identical. \ The latter Simon appears as an
* The poetical fancies of Christian antiquity, which make Peter the representative of
the principle of simple faith in revelation, and Simon the representative of the magical and
theosophic tendency in the human mind, have a great truth at their basis. But the nar
rative in the Acts is clearly distinguished by the genuine historical impress from all those
fancies, so that no one, unless his mind be so far perverted as to have lost all perception
of the difference between fiction and historical reality, can fail to recognise it.
\ I cannot agree with those who understand Abyoe (Acts viii. 21) in the sense of tho
Hebrew 121 = l>VPa, (thing spoken of, matter,) and suppose that Peter only told Simon
that he could have no share in that thing, in that higher power which he hankered after.
In this general sense, fir/pa is indeed used in the New Testament, but not the more
definite term Aoyoc- And according to this interpretation, Peter would say less than the
context requires; for looking at the connexion of v. 21 with 20 and 22, it is plain, he did
not merely say, that Simon with such a disposition was excluded from participating in
this higher power, but a'so, from the kingdom of God, and that he was thereby bringing con
demnation on himself. Hence we understand the word hiyoc iu the common New Testa
ment meaning of divine doctrine — " the doctrine or truth announced by us" — at the same
time including by synecdoche, all that » person would be authorized to receive by the
appropriation of this doctrine. I am not convinced by what Meyer in his commentary,
p. 1 23, urges against this interpretation, that it is at variance with the connexion, in wdiich
there is no mention made of the doctrine. For in the mind of the speaker, the power of
woikiiif miracles could not be separated from the publication of the gospel and faith in it;
and as Simon in the disposition of his mind was far from the gospel, and could stand in
no sort of fellowship with it, it followed as a matter of course, that he could have no share
in the ability to work such miracles.
t On the other hand, there is the difference of country, for the Simon to whom we refer,
and whom Josephus mentionr (Antiq. Book xx. ch. vii. § 2), was a Jew from Cyprus ;

64 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
unprincipled magician,* to whom all persons, whatever their character
were welcome, provided they gave credit to his enchantments. With
equal arrogance, he disclaimed all respect for the ancient forms of relig
ion, and for the laws of morality. He was a confidant of the Romai
procurator Felix, and therefore could never have opposed his vicioir
inclinations, but on the contrary he made his magic subservient to thei,
gratification ; he thus bound Felix more closely to himself, as a single
example will show. The immoral Felix had indulged a passion foi
Drusilla, sister of King Herod Agrippa, and wife of King Azizus of
Emesa, a Jewish proselyte. Simon allowed himself to be the tool of
Felix, for gratifying his unlawful desires. He persuaded Drusilla that
by his superhuman power he could ensure great happiness for her, pro
vided she married Felix, and managed to overcome her scruples of con
science against marrying a heathen. The character of this Simon is
stamped on the .ater theosophic goetic sect of the Simonians, wdiose
tenets were a mixture of Oriental, Jewish, Samaritan, and Grecian reli
gious elements. The germ of their principles may be plainly trace 1 back
to this Simon, though wre cannot attribute to him the complete system
of this sect as it existed in the second century.
The two apostles returned again to Jerusalem, and as "vhat l,hey had
witnessed convinced them of the susceptibility of the Samaritans for re
ceiving the gospel, they availed themselves of the opportunity of pub
lishing it in all the parts of the country through which they passed.
But Philip extended his missionary journey further, and became the in
strument of bringing the first seeds of the gospel into Ethiopia, (the
kingdom of Candace at Meroe,) though, as far as our knowledge of his
tory goes,! without any important consequences. But, what is more
deserving of notice, he published the gospel in the cities of Palestine, on
the southern and northern coasts of the Mediterranean, till at last, pro
bably after a considerable time, he settled at Caasarea Stratonis, where

but Simon Magus, according to Justin Martyr, himself a native of Samaria, was born at a
place called Gittim, in Samaria. Yet this evidence is not decisive, for a tradition so long
after the time, though prevalent in the country where Simon made bis appearance, might
be .erroneous. What has been said since I wrote the above, against the identity of the
two Simons, is not demonstrative, though I willingly allow, that since the name of Simon
was a very common one among the Jews, and such itinerant G6eta3 were not seldom
to be met with, the time also not perfectly agreeing, the identity must be left rather
doubtful. * pdyov rival oK-nirroptvov, says Josephns.
! It is still a question whether the introduction of Christianity was not partially made
before the mission of Frumentius, from another direction, and iu a different part of Ethi
opia; whether many things in the doctrine and usages of the present Abyssinian church
with which we have been better acquainted by means of Gobat's Journal, do not indicate
a Jewish-Christian origin. If I am not mistaken, the late Keltig has brought forward
these questions in the " Studien und Kritiken." Perhaps intercourse with that ancient
church will open to us some sources of information for answering them.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 65
on his arrival he found a Christian society already formed, which he
enlarged and built up in the faith.
Though the Christians of Jewish descent, who were driven by perse
cution from Jerusalem were, doubtless, by that event led to spread the
gospel even in Syria and the neighboring districts, yet their labors were
confined to Jews. On the other hand, the Hellenists, such as Philip and
others, who originally came from Cyprus and Cyrene, made their way
among the Gentiles* also, to whom they were allied by language and
education, which was not the case with the other Jews. They presented
them with the gospel independent of the Mosaic law, without attempting
to make them Jews before they became Christians. Thus the principles
held by the enlightened Stephen, the truths for which, in part, he had
suffered martyrdom, were by them first brought into practice and real
ized. But if now in this way, independently of the exertions of the
apostles in Judea, and the development of Christianity in a Jewish form,
churches had been raised of purely Hellenistic materials among the
heathen, free altogether from Judaism, and if Paul had then appeared to
extend and confirm this tendency still farther, the consequence might
have been, that the older apostles would have maintained with greater
stiffness their former convictions, in opposition to this freer direction
of Christianity, and thus, by the overweight of human peculiarities in the
first publishers of the gospel, a violent and irreconcilable opposition
might have divided the church into two hostile contending parties. It
could not have happened otherwise if the germinating differences, left
altogether to themselves, as in later times, had been so developed that at
last each must exclude the other ; and the idea of a universal church,
prevailing by its higher unity over all human differences, could never
have been realized. But this disturbing influence, with which the self-
seeking and one-sided bias of human nature threatened from the begin
ning to destroy the unity of the divine work, was counteracted by the
still mightier influence of the Holy Spirit, who never allows human dif
ferences to develop themselves to such an extreme, but is able to main
tain unity in manifoldness. We may distinctly recognise the Providence
of Divine Wisdom — which gives scope to the free agency of man, but
knows exactly when it is needful, for the success of the divine work, to
impart its immediate illumination — if we observe that when the apostles
needed a wider development of their Christian views for the exercise of
their calling, and the want of such development might have been highly
injurious, just at that precise m-oment the needed insight was imparted
to them-, by a memorable coincidence of an internal revelation with a
train of outward circumstances. The Apostle Peter was the chosen
instrument on this occasion.

» In Acts xi. 20, the common reading tliAnvwrde is evidently to be rejected, as formed
from a false gloss, and the reading which refers to the Gentiles (iAAi/vac) must be substi
tuted as undoubtedly correct. fi

66 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
But before we proceed any further, we must take notice of what has
been urged from two different directions against the credibility of the
account in the Acts which we here follow, and against the internal pro
bability of the whole narrative.* The position which Peter afterwards
occupied in relation to Paul and to the preaching of Paul among the
heathen, must testify, it is said, against his having attained to views
similar to those of Paul, in a peculiar, independent manner. It is
thought that Peter's vacillation as exhibited in his conference with Paul
at Antioch, would be inexplicable on such a supposition, but that every
difficulty will be removed, if we suppose that Peter was forced from
without, in opposition to his own convictions and mode of thinking, by
the personal superiority of Paul, and the undeniable facts of his minis
try, to admit an independent development of Christianity among the
Gentiles. But is it, then, really probable, that men who were wedded to the
mode of thinking which made participation in the salvation of the Mes
siah dependent on the observance of the Mosaic Law, should allow them
selves so easily to be moved, solely and entirely by the mental supe
riority of an individual who, from the difference between his own stand
point and theirs, must have been the less fitted to operate upon them,
or by an adduction of facts which testified of the similar effects of faith
in Gentiles and Jews, to the admission of a principle which ran counter
to the whole system of their deeply-rooted convictions ? We know full
well, how hard it is to conquer inveterate prejudices by an appeal to ex
ternal facts — how strongly men are disposed to explain away, or to in
terpret iu their own favor, all facts which may testify against their pre
judices. And would a man of Peter's strongly marked individuality,
be the kind of person to be induced to give up his principles, by au in
fluence wholly external, without any immediate point of connexion in his
own course of development ? It will be a far more natural explanation,
if we can show a preparation for such an acknowledgment ou the part
of Peter through the medium of his own inward experience. The first
point of connexion lay iu the nature of the truth announced by Christ,
and in his words, which led to an apprehension of it. If this be ad
mitted, it will be self-evident how a development proceeding from Peter's
own Christian consciousness might gradually prepare him for such an
acknowledgment. But this development from within might also be sup
ported by outward facts, which might easily be forthcoming, if, before
the entrance of Paul on his apostleship, the publication of the Gospel had
anyhow come into contact with the Gentiles ; when it would be per
ceived that among them also the hearts of men invited and admitted it.
* By Gfrorer, in his work, "Die heilige Sage," 1 Abth. s. 444, and by Baur, in his
often-quoted work on Paul. Gfrorer proceeds on the supposition that the Acts consist
of two distinct parts, and that the first part was composed by a follower of Peter; and
Baur, on the supposition that the whole was pervaded by a henotio or conciliatory design-
but they both arrive at similar results.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 6Y
But, of course, Christian truth cannot gain full possession of the inner man
without a struggle. Everywhere we shall have been prepared to expect
in the development of Christianity a co-operation of the supernatural and
the natural. And now when we find an account handed down which cor
responds to all these points, we cannot hesitate to acknowledge the im
press of nature and of truth. Idea and history are brought into unison
with each other. Moreover, Peter evidently occupies a middle position
between James and Paul, and to this intermediate position must there
fore correspond also his own course of development.
If we examine it closely, what Paul says in the second chapter of his
Epistle to the Galatians respecting his relation to Peter, and that apostle's
relation to Judaism, so far from contradicting the view we are advocat
ing, perfectly agrees with it. If we carefully weigh what Paul there
says, we shall naturally be led to assume such a course in Peter's devel
opment as has been indicated.
When Peter, under the influence of the Jewish Christians at Antioch,
was led to abstain from free intercourse with the Gentile Christians,
Paul did not consider it necessary first of all to convince him of the truths
that were opposed to his line of conduct, but taking for granted his
theoretic agreement with him, only accused him of the contradiction
between his principles and his conduct at that time. He could not have
expressed more strongly the freedom with which Peter had hitherto
acted in reference to the Mosaic Law; Gal. ii. 14, "If thou, being a
Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why
compellest thou the Gentiles to live as the Jews ?" It is evident from
these very words of Paul, that Peter had expressed by his actions the
conviction that salvation did not depend on the observance of the law ;
that he had felt no scruple to live with the Gentiles as a Gentile, as Paul,
in v. 16, avers, speaking from his own stand-point and that of Peter as
identical ; " Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law",
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ."
In v. 18, he charges him with seeking to restore what he had already
destroyed ; which can only refer to that renunciation of the Mosaic Law
which was involved in Peter's former line of conduct. Here, therefore,
such a revolution is presupposed in Peter's views as cannot be sufficiently
explained by the influence of another person on his mind. If it had pro
ceeded from the influence of Paul alone, should we not find a hint refer
ring to it in some part of the Pauline Epistles ? Had not Paul, when he
declared that he needed not first to learn the truths of the Gospel from
the apostles in Palestine — that from the beginning he had acted inde
pendently in the publication of the Gospel — the most natural opportunity
for making this claim, that Peter first through him had learnt the true
nature of the Gospel in relation to the Mosaic Law, and to do homage to
the principles first of all laid down by himself as the only correct ones?
The narrative in the Acts furnishes us here with the only right clue to
the course of Peter's religious development, the clue which we are com-

68 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
pelled also to seek by the nature of the case. The narrative is in fact
drawn from life, and contains in it all the elements from which a natural
vivid representation can be formed, although the author himself has been
at no pains to make it such.* It cannot be called an arbitrary manufac
ture of history, if we employ the same means which every historian
must use where he has to form a vivid historical representation from an
account which does not develop all the points requisite for a perfect un
derstanding of the facts. Necessarily he must amplify many things
which are not literally contained in the account lying before him, but of
which the outlines are given, if he would unite everything in one picture
according to the laws of analogy. In the account given in the Acts, the
chief concern is to give prominence to the supernatural and the divine;
that is here the one side belonging to historical truth ; the natural cir
cumstances and natural connexion of causes and effects, to wdiich the
narrator did not direct his attention, Ave must endeavor to fill out
according to the indications contained in the account itself.
The impulse once given to the further spread of the Gospel beyond the
bounds of Judea could not stop. Thus we find churches founded in the
west on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, though of their origin we
have no distinct account. Possibly the happy effects of their visit to the
Samaritans induced both the apostles, or at least the energetic Peter, to
extend their missionary labors. Or it might be, that the scattering
abroad of the believers, occasioned by the persecution against Stephen,
led to the founding of these churches. At all events it was natural —
since the apostles were at first the Patriarchs (so to speak) of the whole
church, and in the original community of believers everything was under
their guidance — that the newly-founded foreign churches should also
stand under their superintendence. And in virtue of the gift of church-
guidance peculiar to Peter, recognised and actually claimed for him by
Christ himself, the business of taking the oversight of the younger
churches must have been specially committed to him. A visitation

* Even Baur has acknowdedged that the notion of a mythical composition is not ad
missible here. He thinks that he has detected a designed fabrication for an apologetic,
conciliatory object that lies at the basis of the whole book of the Acts. But as we cannot
in general find in the simple character of this book any ground or point of connexion to
support the charge of such afraus pia pervading the whole of it, so we think that as to
this particular part, whoever views the narrative with an unprejudiced eye, must decide
against Baur's unnatural, artificial construction of it. The vision that happened to Peler
which related to the rights of the Gentiles to a participation in the kingdom of the Mes
siah, was copied (according to Baur) from the appearance of Christ to Paul, for the pur
pose of accrediting his call as an apostle to the Gentiles, (p. 78,) and contained the legiti
mation of those rights. Such things may, indeed, be imagined if persons are disposed to
fashion the materials lying before them according to their arbitrary preconceptions, or if
they look at everything only through spectacles of their own making, and see in all
things the reflection of their own odd fancies. But whoever is not suffering from such
optical infirmity, will find nothing whatever in this whole narrative which can justify such
a comparison.

PETER AND CORNELIUS. 69
journey of this kind led him to the churches founded in the west on the
coast of the Mediterranean Sea.* He was still accustomed to labor only
among the Jews ; yet he had already, as we have seen, visited a people
not belonging to the theocratic nation, the Samaritans, who had expe
rienced the operations of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus of Naza
reth as the Messiah. Already he wrould have heard of the preaching of
the Gospel among the Gentiles by the scattered Hellenists, and of the
susceptibility which was found to exist in the hearts of the Gentiles ;
perhaps, also, he had had an opportunity, in the course of his ministry
among the Jews who lived in the midst of the heathen world, of noticing
traces of that deep concern with which many Gentiles listened to his
preaching. And what he actually witnessed might bring to his remem
brance many things which Christ intimated in his discourses. Thus there
might be a preparation for the entrance of new light into his soul, though
it could not penetrate all at once. There was necessarily a conflict in his
soul between the rays of the new light, and the darkness arising from
his earlier habits of thinking. But now a divine call reached him from
without, and co-operated with what was taking place within his breast.
As among the Gentiles, at that time, there were many noble-minded
men, dissatisfied with the ancient superstition, who longed with conscious
or unconscious anxiety after a divine revelation which might impart the
confidence of religious conviction! raised above the strife of human
opinions, so we recognise in the centurion Cornelius a representative of
this better class of Gentiles, an historical image from the life, and no
mythical personage. He belonged to the Roman cohort which formed
the garrison of Caesarea Stratonis, a town on the sea-coast, thirty-five
miles from Joppa. This man appears first, like many of those among
the Gentiles who were filled with a sense of their religious wants, and
were seeking after the truth, to have turned from the popular polytheism
* Acts ix. 31. Baur's assertion (p. 40), that this was undertaken in order to counter
act the more liberal principles spread abroad by the Hellenists, we cannot regard as pro
perly supported, since no trace of it can be found in the narrative itself. Nor does it by
any means follow, because there is nothing said here of laying on of hands and the com
munication of the Holy Spirit, that these things, therefore, in the ministry of the apostles
among the Samaritans are unhistorical. Although both journeys come under the com
mon category of visitations, yet the difference — a difference of object and in the mode of
operation arising from the different class of persons, in one case the Samaritans, in the
other the dispersed Jews, among whom the foundation of the Church had been already
laid — is not ou that account destroyed.
f A prophetic longing, such as is contained in those words in Plato's PliEedon, although
• it might not be so strictly intended by the philosopher, where it is said, that " taking tho
best and hardest to be refuted of human opinions, a man must venture on the voyage of
life, carried over on this, as on a raft, unless he can be carried over more securely and
with less danger in a more trustworthy conveyance, or some divine word:'' rbv yovv
8i7.riarov rdiv dvapuirivuv Aoyuv AafSovra Kal dvoe^eAeyicrorarov, iirl roiirov dxovpevov,
uoirep iirl axebinc Kivdvvevovra rSiaTr^evaai rov ftiov' el prj ric diivairo doQaAicrepov Kal
aKivihivorepov irti /3e/3atoripov oxvparoc rj Aoyov de'iov rivoc Stairopevdr/vai. —Ed. Bip. vol.
p. 194.

70 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
to the worship of Jehovah in Judaism, and thus to have reached a
theistic standpoint which formed a bridge for him to Christianity.
Having with his whole family professed the worship of Jehovah, he
manifested by his benefactions the sympathy he felt with his fellow- worship
pers of the Jewish nation, and observed the hours of prayer customary
to the Jews; so that there is scarcely any room to doubt that he be
longed to the class of Proselytes of the Gate. Nor can we infer the con
trary from the circumstance that Peter and the stricter Jewish Christians
looked on Cornelius as an unclean person, and in many respects the same
as a heathen. The Proselytes of the Gate were certainly permitted tc
attend the synagogue worship, which was a means of gradually bringing
them to a full reception of Judaism. Yet the Jews who adopted the
stricter maxims of the Pharisees, placed all theuncircumcised in the class
of the unclean, and avoided living and eating with such persons as de
filing. Unless we suppose this to have been the case, what afterwards
occurred in reference to the stricter pharisaical-minded Jewish Christians,
and the Gentile Christians who had been partly Proselytes of the Gate,
would appear altogether enigmatical.
The Proselytes of the Gate, who borrowed from Judaism the general
principles of Theism, but separated them from all that gave it vitality,
found in it consequently not enough for their religious necessities. But
they were roused by this felt deficiency to search and examine. With
this, the expectation of the Messiah, which easily passed over to them
from the Jews, was fitted to harmonize, and must assume a form cor
responding to the stand-point and spirit of their seeking; it was not
difficult for them to strip off the sensuous political covering. Now a
person of such a religious tendency of mind and disposition as Cornelius,
must have had his attention roused when he heard that the Messiah, from
whom he expected fresh divine light, had appeared, and when he heard
of the spread of the new announcements, and of Peter's extraordinary
works ; for we shall be quite justified in assuming that such a report had
reached him of what had taken place in the surrounding countiy. And
here we must apply wdiat we have before remarked respecting the use
of the accounts in the Acts as historical records ; and especially as
respects the mode in which Cornelius was induced to send for Peter,
his own deposition must have been the original source from which
alone every other account could have been derived, and to which
every other must be traced back. But we are not justified in as
suming that Cornelius, who certainly could best testify of the facts
relating to his own state of mind, of what he had himself experienced,
was equally capable of distinguishing from his experience the objective,
which lay at the ground of it. We cannot suppose that the state of his
mind and the direction of his thoughts were such as to enable him to
distinguish between the objective and subjective. As he felt himself
pressed, he testified of the divine with which his soul was filled, without
being able to direct his attention to the natural circumstances which were

PETER AND CORNELIUS. 71
preparatory to the divine operation, — to connect the natural with the
supernatural, and thus to unite everything that occurred into one com
plete representation. The deposition of Cornelius as to what happened
to himself, must be regarded from this point of viewr, that by a com
parison with existing historical circumstances and conditions we may
arrive at a right understanding of the whole proceeding. We are, there
fore, j ustified in supplying many circumstances, which, though not ex
pressly mentioned, are yet to be assumed ; not in order to obscure what
was divine in the event, but to glorify the manifold wisdom of God as
shown in the way men are led to a participation of redemption, in the
connexion of the divine and the natural, and in the harmony that sub
sists between nature and grace; Eph. iii. 10. In the picture which we
are enabled to form by this combination of views, all the particular traits
may not possess equal certainty. But we may be assured that an exhi
bition as a whole will remain, of which no sophistical, destructive, arbi
trary criticism can deprive us.
Cornelius had devoted himself for some days to fasting and prayer,
which were frequently used conjointly by the Jews and first Christians —
the former either as the means of making the soul more capable (by
detaching it from sense) for undisturbed converse with divine things, or
from a temporary cessation of bodily want, the natural consequence of
deep mental abstraction. This they were wont to do when, in an emer
gency from inward or outward distress, they sought relief and illumina
tion from God. We may, therefore, presume that something similar was
the case with Cornelius, and naturally ask, what it was that so troubled
him? From the whole narrative we see that his ardent longing was for
religious truth that would bring peace and repose to his heart. Hence
it is most probable, that on that account he sought illumination from God
by fervent prayer. And what occasioned his seeking it precisely at this
time ? From the words of the angel to Cornelius, it is by no means
certain that the apostle Peter was wholly unknown to him. Peter him
self, in his discourse before the family of Cornelius, Acts x. 37, appears
to have presumed that they had already heard of the doctrine of Christ.
We may suppose from earlier indications that his attention had been
drawn to Christianity and also to Peter, the proclaimer of it. He had
probably heard very dissimilar opinions respecting Christianity ; from
many zealous Jews, judgments altogether condemnatory ; from others,
opinions which led him to expect that in the new doctrine he would at
last find what he had been so long seeking: thus a conflict would natu
rally arise in his mind wdiich would impel him to seek illumination from
God on a question that so anxiously occupied his thoughts.
It was the fourth day* since Cornelius had been in this state of mind,
* The right interpretation of Acts x. %p, is of interest here. Many have interpreted
the words as equivalent to — " Four days ago I fasted to this time," namely, the ninth
hour when he was speaking; and thus only one fast day was kept by Cornelius, in the
ninth hour of which this happened. This agrees perfectly with the reckoning of the time

72 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
when, about three in the afternoon, one of the customary Jewish hours
of prayer, while he was caling on God with earnest supplication, he
received by a voice from heaven an answer to his prayers. The appear
ance of the angel maybe considered as an objective event. The soul
belongs in its essence to a higher than the sensible and temporal order of
things, and none but a contracted and arrogant reason can deny the
possibility of a communication between the higher world and the soul
which is allied to it by its very nature. The Holy Scriptures teach us
that such occasional communications from a higher spiritual world to
individuals used to occur in the history of mankind, until the central
point of all communications from heaven to earth, the Divine Fountain
of life itself, appeared among us, and thereby established forever the
communion between heaven and earth ; John i. 5\f. We need not,
however, suppose any sensible appearance, for we do not know but that a
higher spirit may communicate itself to men living in a world of sense, by
an operation on the inward sense, so that this communication may appear
under the form of a sensuous perception. Meanwhile, Cornelius himself
is the only witness for the objective reality of the angelic appearance,
and he can only be taken as a credible witness of what he believed that he
had perceived. By the influence of the Divine Spirit, an elevation of mind
might have been naturally connected with his devotion, in which the inter
nal communication from heaven might have been represented to the higher
self-consciousness under the form of a vision.* Although, iu the words
of the angel, "Thy prayers and alms are come up for a memorial in the
sight of God," the expression is anthropopathie, and adapted to the then
Jewish mode of speech ; yet this relates only to the form of the expres
sion ; it is the divine iu human form. There is designated by it only
the divine thought, that the striving of the devout anxiety of Cornelius,
which was shown to the extent of his ability by prayer and works of
love towards the worshippers of Jehovah, had not been unheeded by the
Fatherly love of God which cherishes every germ of goodness; that
God had heard the prayer of his longing after heavenly truth, and had
sent him, in the person of Peter, a teacher of this truth. From the whole
But the meaning of dirb favors our rendering the passage, " I fasted lo the ninth hour of
the fourth day," in which this happened. Kuinoel's objection to this interpretation is not
pertinent; for, from the manner iu which Cornelius expressed himself, it must be evident
that the vision happened on the ninth hour of the fourth fast-day. Now, the passage can
be undeT-tood to mean, either that Cornelius was wont to fast four days in the week to
three o'clock of each day, or that for four days he fasted the entire time up to tho ninth
hour of the fourth day, \yhen this happened. But fasts, according to the Jewish Christian
mode of speaking, did not imply an entire abstinence from all nourishment. I cannot
agree with Meyer's interpretation, as I understand it, that Peter meant that he had fasted
four days, and on the fourth clay reckoning backwards, that is, the day on which the fast
began, about three o'clock, this event happened. Had this been said, then dpi must have
been used in verse 30, and what follows also mlist have been different.
* The word bfinpa, vision, (Acts x. 3) cannot here be decisive, since it may be used in
epeaking of an ecstatic vision or of a real appearance as an objective fact.

PETER AND CORNELIUS. 73
form of this narrative, it must be inferred that Cornelius considered the
pointing out of Peter's place of residence, not as something that came to
his knowledge in a natural way, but by a supernatural communication.
It is indeed possible that he had heard it mentioned by others casually
in conversation ; but, as he had not thought further about it, it had com
pletely escaped his recollection, and now in this elevated state of mind
what had been forgotten was brought back again to his consciousness,
without his remembering the natural connection. After all, this is only
possible, and we are by no means justified in considering it necessary.
The possibility therefore equally remains, that this information was com
municated in a supernatural way.
No sooner had Cornelius obtained this important and joyful certainty,
than he sent two of his slaves, and a soldier that waited on him, who
also was- a Proselyte of the Gate, to fetch the longed-for teacher of divine
truth. But this divine leading would not have attained its end, Peter
would not have complied with the request of Cornelius, if he had not
been prepared exactly at the same time, by the inward enlightening of
the Divine Spirit, to acknowledge and rightly interpret this outward call
of God. Iu the conjunction of remarkable circumstances which it was
necessary should meet so critically, in order to bring about this important
result for the historical development of Christianity, the guiding wisdom
of eternal love undoubtedly manifests itself.
It was about noon* on the next day, when Peter withdrew to the roof
of the house (built flat, in the oriental style) where he lodged at Joppa,
in order to offer up his mid-day devotions. We can easily suppose that
the prayer of the man who had been so zealously occupied in publishing
the gospel in that region, would especially relate to this great object, the
extension of the kingdom of Christ. And now while new views respect
ing the spread of the gospel were opening to his mind, there might have
taken place in his soul that conflict of opposite principles to which we
have already alluded. A divine light must decide the point.
While thus occupied in prayer, the demands of animal nature pressed
upon him. He arose for the noon-tide meal, which had yet to be pre
pared. In the meantime, the meditations which had occupied him in
prayer again abstracted him from sensible objects. Two tendencies of
his nature met together. The higher, the power of the divine, had the
mastery over his spirit, and the power of sensuous want over his lower
nature. Thus, it came to pass, that the divine and the natural were
mingled together,* not so as to obscure the divine ; but the divine
* What Plutarch says of such an appearance of the higher life is remarkable : clc ol
ilvoi tuv iipa kvkAu Karatiepopivuv oupdruv ovk iiriKparovat (3c[3aiuc, dAAd kvkXu piv
vrr' dvdyK-ne tpepupivuv, Kara di d/iaet fsen'ovruv, yiverai ric tf dptyolv rapaxdidyc Kal
irapdipopoc lAiypbe, ovruc 6 KaXovpevoc hdovaiaaphc ioiKe pl^iq elvai Kivijoeuv Svolv, ri/v
piv clc rriirorOe rr/e ipvxvc "/"*> T^v * "f iriijivKe Ktvovpivnc ; (just as the revolutions of
bodies borne downward, are not firmly controlled, but being necessarily carried in a circle,
While naturally carried downward, there ensues a certain oonfused and unsteady motion

74 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
availed itself of the reflection of the natural as an image, a symbolic
vehicle for the truth about to be revealed to Peter. The divine light
that was breaking through the atmosphere of traditionary representa
tions, and making its way to his spirit, revealed itself in the mirror of
sensible images which proceeded from the existing state of his bodily
frame. Absorbed in divine meditations, and forgetting himself in the
Divine, Peter saw heaven open, and from thence a vessel, as it had been
a great sheet knit at four corners,* corresponding to the four quarters
of the heavens, was let down to the earth. In this vessel he saw birds,
four-footed beasts, and edible creeping things of various kinds, and a
voice from heaven called upon him to slay one or other of these creatures
and to prepare it for food. But against this requirement his Jewish
notions revolted, accustomed as he was to distinguish between clean and
unclean meats. He now heard a voice from heaven wdiich refuted his
scruples with these very significant words, "What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common." It is clear that in the explanation of these
pregnant words regard must be had to their several references. First,
in their application to the sensible objects here represented. " Thou
must not by human wilfulness make a distinction of clean and unclean
between creatures, all of which God has declared to be clean, by letting
them down to thee from heaven." This letting down from heaven was
partly a symbol, that all are alike clean as being the creatures of God,
partly, that the new revelation, the new creation from heaven, presents
all as pure. Then the higher application of the words intended by the
Spirit of God, in reference to the relation of man to God : that every dis
tinction of clean and unclean would be taken away from among men ;
that all men as the creatures of God would be considered as alike clean,
and would again become pure as at their original creation, by the re
demption that related to all.
After Peter had again expressed his scruples, this voice was repeated
a third time, and he saw the vessel taken up again to heaven. He now
returned from the state of ecstatic vision, to that of ordinary conscious
ness. While he was endeavoring to trace the connection between the
virion and the subject of his late meditations, the event that now occurred
taught him what the Spirit of God intended by the vision. Voices of
so what is called enthusiasm seems to be a mixture of two movements  one that of
the soul moving as it is acted upon ; the other, that of the soul moviug according to its
natural constitution.) — De Pyth. Orac. c. 21.
« If the werds ieiepirov ical (Acts x. 11) are genuine, then on comparing them with
xi. 5, we must, with Meyer, interpret them, not, "bound together at the four corners"
but, "bound to four corners." But it is a question, whether these words, which are
wanting in the Cod. Alex. p. e. and in the Vulgate, are not to bo considered as a gloss,
and left out, as in Lachmann's ediiion, and then the clause will be equivalent to "letting
itself down at four corners from Heaven," as the Vulgate translates it, "qnatuor initiis
Bnbmitti de ccelo." At all events, these four corners are not without significance. As
they corresponded to the four quarters of the heavens, they conveyed an intimation that
men from the north and the south, the east and the west, would appear as clean before
God, and be called to a participation of the kingdom of God.

PETER AND CORNELIUS. 75
strangers in the court of the house, by whom his own name was repeated,
excited his attention. They were the three messengers of Cornelius
who were inquiring for him. They had left Cagsarea the day before at
three o'clock, and arrived at Joppa that very day about noon. While
Peter was observing the men, who by their appearance were evidently
not Jews, the Spirit of God imparted to him a knowledge of the connec
tion between the symbolic vision and the errand of these persons. A
voice within said, God has sent these men to seek thee out, that thou
mayest preach the gospel to the heathen. Go confidently with them, with
out dreading intercourse with the Gentiles as unclean, for thou hast been
taught by a voice from heaven that thou must not dare to consider those
unclean whom God himself has pronounced clean, and whom he now sends
to thee. On the next day he departed with the messengers from Joppa,
accompanied by six other Christians of Jewish descent, to whom he had
told what had happened, and who awaited the result with eager expec
tation. As the distance for one day's journey was too great, they made
two short days' journey of it. On the day after their departure, (the
fourth after the messengers had been despatched by Cornelius,) about
three in the afternoon, they arrived at Caesarea. They found Cornelius
assembled, with his family and friends, whom he had informed of the ex
pected arrival of the teacher sent to him from heaven; for he doubted
not that he whom the voice of the angel had notified as the appointed
divine teacher, would obey the divine call. After what had passed, Pe
ter appeared to Cornelius as a superhuman being. He fell reverently
before him as he entered the chamber ; but Peter bade him stand up, say
ing, "Stand up, I myself also am a man." He narrated to the persons
assembled by what means he had been induced not to regard the com
mon scruples of the Jews respecting intercourse with heathens, and ex
pressed his desire to hear from Cornelius wdiat had determined them to
call him thither. Cornelius explained this, and ended with saying, "Now
therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are
commanded thee of God." Peter was astonished at the pure disposition
so susceptible to divine truth, which appeared in the words of Cornelius,
and formed so striking a contrast to the obstinate unsusceptibility of
many Jews ; and he perceived the hand of God in the way Cornelius had
been led, since he had sought the truths of salvation with upright de
sire. Peter therefore said, " Now I perceive of a truth that God is no
respecter of persons ; but in every nation he that feareth him, and work
eth righteousness is accepted of him." As to these memorable
words, the sense cannot be, that in every nation, every one who only
rightly employs his own moral power, will obtain salvation ; for had
Peter meant this, he would, in what he added, announcing Jesus as him
by whom alone men could obtain forgiveness of sin and salvation, have
contradicted himself. On that supposition, he ought rather to have told
Cornelius, that he had only to remain in his present disposition, this was
enough, and he needed no new doctrine of salvation. But, on the other

76 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
hand, it is impossible, according to the connection, to understand by
" every one that feareth God and worketh righteousness," those who had
attained true piety through Christianity, and to make the words mean
no more than this — that Christians in all nations are acceptable to God;
for the words plainly import that Cornelius, on account of his upright,
pious striving, was deemed worthy of having his prayers heard, and
being led to faith in the Redeemer. Nor can these words relate only to
such as already believed in the revelation of God in the Old Testament,
and according to its guidance worshipped God, and expected the Mes
siah. But evidently Peter spoke in opposition to the Jewish national
ism — God judgeth men not according to their descent or non-descent
from the theocratic nation, but according to their disposition. All
who, like Cornelius, worship God uprightly according to the measure of
the means given to them, are acceptable to him, and he prepares by his
grace a way for them, by which they are led to faith in Him who alone
can bestow salvation. This is what Peter meant to announce to them.*
As all the conditions under which a living faith in the Redeemer is
formed, existed in the souls of these men who were seeking after salva
tion, so by the powerful testimony of Peter such a faith was soon awak
ened, and, after such preparation, followed more quickly than would
otherwise have happened. And as this faith in the process of its forma
tion and in its quality differed essentially from the faith of the Samari
tans, which arose more from outward events, and adhered to wdiat was
external, so also the effects were in an inverted relation. While among
the Samaritans, no trace was to be seen of the effects of the baptism of the
Spirit, even after they had received water-baptism ; here, on the contrary,
in these men, who were so prepared, the usual marks of the outpouring
of the Spirit were perceptible, even before they had received baptism.
The word, which found a receptive soil in their hearts, effected every
thing by its indwelling power, and these effects of the word testified
their well founded claim to baptism. While Peter was speakino- to them,
they were impelled to express their feelings in inspired praises of that
God who, in so wonderful a manner, had led them to salvation. One inspi
ration seized all, and with amazement the Jewish Christians present be-
* Cornelius belonged to that class of persons who are pointed out in John iii. 21. We
are by no means authorized to maintain that Peter, from the general position laid down by
him, intended to draw the inference naturally proceeding from it, that God would certainly
lead to salvalion those among all nations who possessed the traits here specified even
if they did not during their earthly life obtain a participation in redemption. He expressed
that truth, which at the moment manifested itself to him in a consciousness enlightened
by the Holy Spirit, without reflecting on all the consequences deducible from it. Wo must
ever carefully distinguish between what enlightened men, speaking under certain histori
cal conditions, with special reference to present circumstances, and according to interests
immediately affected, consciously intend to say, and the contents, with all their deducible
consequences, of that Eternal Truth, which, in some special application of it required by
circumstances, they make use of. To develop the first is the province of exegesis and his
torical apprehension; the second, that of Christian doctrine end morals.

PETER AND CORNELIUS. 77
held their prejudices against the Gentiles controverted by the transaction
itself. What an impression must it have made upon them, when they
heard the Gentile, who had been considered by them as unclean, testify
with such inspiration of Jehovah and the Messiah ! And now Peter
could appeal to this transaction, in order to nullify all the scruples of the
Jews respecting the baptism of such uncircumcised persons, and ask,
" Who can forbid water that these should be baptized, who have already
received the baptism of the Spirit like ourselves ?" And when he re
turned to Jerusalem, and the manner in which he had held intercourse
with the Gentiles had raised a stumbling-block among the strict Phari
saical believers, he w7as able to silence them by a similar appeal. " For
asmuch then," said he, "as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us,
who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could with
stand God?" Acts xi. 17.

BOOK III.

THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY AND FOUNDING OF THE CHRIS
TIAN CHURCH AMONG THE GENTILES BY THE INSTRUMENTAL
ITY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

CHAPTER- I.
Paul's preparation and call to be the apostle of the gentiles.
When anything new or great is to take place in the development of
the kingdom of God, divine wisdom is wont so to order events that an
impulse is given to its progress, not on one side only, but in several
directions. Without being aware of it, the men whom God employs as
his instruments co-operate from various stand-points, to prepare the way
for that which, in the issue, is destined to effect a great revolution ;
threads which proceed, in the course of the world's .history, from various
points are made to meet at last in one. Beginnings are made and ap
parently fail ; and yet what seemed to rise only to sink forever, finally
becomes the victorious creative principle of a new illustrious epoch. So
it was here.
Stephen appears to have been chosen in order that Christianity, freeing
itself from the covering underneath which it had hitherto been developed,
and bursting the forms of Judaism, might exhibit itself and show its
power through him, as the principle of a new creation adapted to the
whole human race; he died as a martyr for the great new idea first
brought by him to. light. But this idea did not die with him: it found
other organs in those who were allied to him by descent and education,
the Hellenists, who, while they extended their agency even to the Gen
tiles, realized in various small circles the intentions of Stephen. Then,
from the midst of Palestinian Judaism itself, came forth Peter, who,
from quite a different direction, and as it were against his will, was led
by a combination of influences to vindicate the independent development
of Christianity among the Gentiles. It might have been imagined that
the more liberal Hellenistic culture would produce the man by whom the
idea put, forth by the Hellenistic Stephen was destined to be carried out
in all its extent. But God likes to work by opposites, and very differ
ently from the calculations of human pragmatism. There is a divine

THE APOSTLE PAUL. 79
impress (Stamped on the paradoxes which meet us in the devekpment of
the kingdom of God. Thus, not from the Alexandrian but from the
Pharisaic school, that great man was to come forth, who was destined to
represent Christianity in opposition to the Pharisaic conceptions to which
it hitherto had been restricted. This new development was to emanate,
not from what was kindred to it, but from that which was directly op
posed to it. The Pharisee was to be transformed into the scribe of the
kingdom of God. It was important that the new spirit should take to
itself a form, not from the delicate shell of Hellenic culture, but from the
hard kernel of Pharisaism. The solid Christian realism, as it was repre
sented in Paul, could impress itself more distinctly on the hard substance
of obstinate Pharisaism, than on the tender, yielding material of Hellen
istic culture. Acd it was also not unimportant that in Paul the Hellenist
element amalgamated with the Palestinian and Pharisaic. What had
been effected in the development of Christianity by Stephen, by the Hel
lenists, and finally by Peter, was concentrated in him. If in the manner
by which Peter, the advocate of the contracted Palestinian conception
of Christianity, was led to more liberal views, there is found something
analogous to the manner in which Paul was converted, from the most
violent opposition to the Gospel, to the reception of it in its most compre
hensive form, then we must regard it as an objective type of the his
torical process of development, proceeding according to the same law
and with the same great outlines, and not as the arbitrary fiction of any
human mind.
With what we have just now remarked is closely connected that
which in the history of the development of Christianity especially dis
tinguishes the Apostle Paul. It was not merely that churches were
founded by him among the heathen, and that the sphere of his labors was
so extensive; but also that by him especially, the fundamental truths of
the Gospel were developed in their living, organic connection, and formed
into a compact system; that the essence of the Gospel in relation to human
nature, on one side especially, namely, its need of redemption, was set by
him in the clearest light; so that when the sense of that need has been
long repressed or perverted, and a revival of Christian consciousness has
followed a state of spiritual death, the newly-awakened Christian life,
whether in the church at large, or in individuals, has always drawn its
principal nourishment from his writings. He has presented Christian
ity so specially under this aspect, has so expressly opposed the im.
mediate relation of the religious consciousness to Christ, to dependence on
all human mediation whatever, and has so distinctly separated from each
other the Christian and Jewish stand-points, that among the apostles he
must ever be considered as the representative of the Protestant principle.
And history, though it furnishes only a few hints respecting the early life
of Paul before his call to the apostleship, has recorded enough to make it
evident, that by the whole course of his previous development he was
fitted for what he was to become, and for what he was to effect.

80 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Saul, or Paul (the former the original Hebrew, the latter the Hellen
ized form of his name,)* was a native of the city of Tarsus in Cilieia.
This we learn from his own expressions in Acts xxi. 39 ; xxii. 3 ; and the
contradictory tradition reported by Jerome, (de V. J. c. 5,) that he was
born in the small town of Gischala, in Galilee, does not appear credible,
though it is not improbable that his parents once resided there,f which
* The latter was his usual appellation from the time of his being devoted entirely to the
conversion of the heathen ; Acts xiii. 9. Although the ancient supposition, that he changed
his own name for that of his convert Sergius Paulus, has been recently advocated by Meyer
and Olshausen. I cannot approve of it. I cannot imagine that the conversion of a proconsul
would be thought so much more of by him than the conversion of any other man (and he was
far from being his first convert,) as to induce him to assume his name. It is more agreeable
to the usage of ancient times, for the scholar to be named after his teacher, (as Cyprian after
Cascilius, Eusebius after Pamphilus.) than for the teacher to be named after the scholar; for no
one now wou'd think of finding a parallel in the instance of Scipio Afrieanus. And had this
really been the reason why Paul assumed the name, we might have expected, as it was
closely connected with the whole narrative, that Luke would have expressly assigned it.
The more there may have been of design on the part of the author of the Acts in changing
at this time the apostle's name from Saul to Paul — if as Baur assumes, (p. 93,) it was an
imitation of the alteration in Peter's name — the less likely is it that be would have introduced
the new name at once, without any previous notice. And Fritzsche is correct in saying
(see his Commentary on the Romans, Proleg. p. 11) that in this case, not Acts xiii. 9, but
xiii. 13, would have been a natural place for mentioning it. Still, I cannot, with Fritzsche,
think it probable that Luke was accidentally led, by the mention of Sergius Paulus, to
remark that Paul also bore the same name. The most natural way of viewing the
matter seems to be this: Luke had hitherto designated him by the name which he found
in the memoirs lying before him on the early history of Christianity. But he was now
induced to distinguish him by the name which he found in the memoirs of his labors
among the heathen, and by which he had personally known him during that later period ;
and, therefore, took the opportunity of remarking, that this Paul was no other than the
individual whom he had hitherto called Saul. Here, as in many other instances, we per
ceive the absence of design in the manner in which the Acts is made up from various
accounts. f If we were justified in understanding with Paulus (in his work on the Apostle Paul's
Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, p. 323) the word i/3paloc, Phil. iii. 5, 2 Cor. xi. 22,
as used in contradistinction to iAX-nviarrie, it would serve to confirm this tradition, since it
would imply that Paul could boast of a descent from a Palestinian Jewish, and not Hel
lenistic family. But since Paul calls himself e@pa.loc, though he was certainly by birth a
Hellenist, it is evident that the word cannot be used in so restricted a sense ; and in tho
second passage quoted above, where it is equivalent to an Israelite, a descendant of Abra
ham, it plainly has a wider meaning; see Bleek's admirable Introduction to the Epistle to
the Hebrews, p. 32. This tradition, too, reported by Jerome, is, as Fritzsche justly re
marks, very suspicious, not only on account of the gross anachronism which makes the
taking of Gischala by the Romans the cause of Paul's removal thence with his parents  •
since this event happened much later in the Jewish war, — but also because Jerome in his
Commentary on the Epislle to Philemon, (verse 23,) makes use of this tradition to explain
why Paul, though a citizen of Tarsus, calls himself, 2 Cor. xi. 22, Philip, iii. 5, " Hebrieus
ex Hebrceis, et, castera quas ilium Judaeum magis indicant quam Tarsensem, " (a Hebr.-w
of the Hebrews, and other things, which indicate that he was a native of Judea ra her
than of Tarsus,) which yet, as we have remarked above, proceeds only from a misunder
standing of the epithet which Paul applies to himself. Jerome must have, therefore taken
up this false account ("talem fabulam aceepimus," — we have received such a story  are
his own words) without proof, in a very thoughtless manner.

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 81
may have given rise to the report. As we do not know how long he
remained under the paternal roof, it is impossible to determine what
influence his education in the metropolis of Cilieia (which, as a seat of
literature, vied with Athens and Alexandria,)* had on his mental de
velopment. Certainly, his early acquaintance with the language and
national peculiarities of the Greeks was not without influence iu prepar
ing him to be a teacher of Christianity among nations of Grecian origin.
Yet the few passages from the Greek poets which we meet with in his
discourse at Athens, and in his Epistles, do not prove that his education
had made him familiar with Grecian literature ; nor is it in itself probable
that such would be the case, inasmuch as his parents designed him to be
a teacher of the law, or Jewish theologian, and since his studies must
have been confined in his early years to the Ohl Testament, and at about
the age of twelve or thirteen he must have entered the school of Gamaliel, f
It is possible, though considering Paul's intense Pharisaic zeal not proba
ble, that the freer mode of thinking, and, in respect to Grecian literature,
the liberal-mindedness of his teacher Gamaliel might have induced him
even at Jerusalem, to turn his attention to Grecian letters. But might
he not at a later period have been led, while exercising his ministry
among people of Hellenic culture, to make himself better acquainted
with Hellenic literature ? The man who felt himself impelled by the
glowing zeal of love, and who knew how to become as to the Jews a
Jew, so to the Greeks a Greek, in order to win them over to the Gospel,
might, for promoting that object, read many writings of the Grecian
philosophers and poets. It may indeed be asked, whether he would have
time, amidst his prodigious and varied labors, for such a purpose, having
in addition to work for his livelihood? But can we venture to measure
Paul by the common standard? It would not be easy to say what wras
not possible to such a man. Yet we must not draw too large a conclu
sion from the few passages of ancient authors which occur in his writings.
It is true, we shall find in him expressions respecting the relation of
Christianity to the culture and philosophy of the ancient world, to which
the history of Grecian philosophy gives the best commentary, and which
may perhaps give evidence of a deeper acquaintance with it. But what
in others would be the result of study, might in Paul's case be sufficiently
accounted for from the deep insight of his universal Christian philosophy.
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and in the Epistle to the Romans,
° Strabo, who wrote in the time of Augustus, places Tarsus, in this respect, above
those two cities: Toaavrrj rolr ivddde dvdpuiroie OKovdij irpoc re ijiiAooofiav Kal tijv
dXA-nv iyKvuAtov uiraaav nauhiav yeyoviv, uod' virepfJepAnvrai Kal 'Adi/vae Kal 'kXe^av-
dpiiav Kal ei rtva dh Aov roirov dvvarbv elireiv, iv u oxoAal kci diarpiPal ruv tjuiloooipaiv
yeyovaai. Geogr. i. 14, c. 5. (The men from that city had so great zeal for philosophy and
the wdrole circle of arts and sciences, that they surpassed tie people of Athens and Alex
andria, and of any place that can be Darned, where there have been schools and discus
sions of philosophers).
f See Tholuck's admirable remarks in the Studien und Kriliken, 1835, 2d No., p. 366.

82 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
he had several opportunities of making use of his knowledge of Grecian
literature, if he had been familiar with it. And we know that an Apollos
was his superior in Grecian culture, and that he calls himself " rude in
speech," (IdtdJTng ra Aoyoj,) 2 Cor. xi. 6, as compared with others.
But in the style of his representations, the Jewish element evidently
predominates. His peculiar mode of argumentation was not formed in
the Grecian, but in the Jewish school. The name Saul, VMS,* the de
sired one, the one prayed for, perhaps indicates, that he was the first
born of his parents, granted in answer to their earnest prayers :f and
hence it may be inferred, that he was devoted by his father, a Pharisee,
to the service of religion, and sent in early youth to Jerusalem, that he
might be trained to become a learned expounder of the lawr and of tradi
tion ; not to add, that it was usual for the youth of Tarsus J to complete
their education at some foreign school. Most advantageously for him,
he acquired in the Pharisaic schools at Jerusalem that systematic mental
discipline, which afterwards rendered him such good service in develop
ing the contents of the Christian doctrine; so that, like Luther, he be
came thoroughly conversant with the theological system, which after
wards, by the power of the gospel, he uprooted and destroyed. A
youth so ardent and energetic as Paul, would throw his whole soul into
whatever he undertook ; his natural temperament would dispose him to
an overflowing, impetuous zeal, and for such a propensity Pharisaism sup
plied abundant aliment.
The three great teachers of the church who were especially called to
testify (iu opposition to that carnality which first outwardly opposed Chris
tianity, and afterward renewed the strife in the very midst of its develop
ment) to the antagonism between flesh and spirit, nature and grace, the
natural and the supernatural, the merely natural human and the Chris
tian — these three heroes of the Gospel, Paul, Augustin, and Luther,
had in common, a fervid, powerful nature which could not easily be
compelled, but would contend only the more strongly against reins
and yoke, or any violence offered to it. But while in an Augustin
the unbridled rude nature manifested itself in the outbreak of lust
and passions unchecked by any higher power, and thus, in himself
even, he learned to know the power of sin, it was otherwise with Paul as
well as with Luther. The strict discipline of the law to which he had
been subjected in the school of the Pharisees prevented the power of sin
from breaking forth outwardly ; it was driven back inwardly. Certainly
he belonged to the earnest upright Pharisees who strove after the
righteousness of the law with their whole souta In the sight of men he
appeared as righteous, blameless. As he himself could affirm that,
" touching the righteousness which is in the law," he was " blameless,"
* We cannot attach much importance to so uncertain an inference.
f Like the names Theodorus, Theodoret, common among Christians in the first century
J See Strabo, L c.

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 83
Phil. iii. 6, and "profited in the'Jews' religion above many of his equals
in age," Gal. i. 14. But the more earnestly he strove after holiness, the
more he combated the refractory impulses of an ardent and powerful
nature, which refused to be held in by the reins of the law, so much the
more ample w7ere his opportunities for understanding from his own ex
perience the woful discord in human nature which arises when the moral
consciousness asserts its olaims as a controlling law, while the man feeds
himself constantly carried away, in defiance of his better longing and
willing, by the force of ungodly inclination. Paul could not have de
picted this condition so strikingly and to the life, in the seventh chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, if he had not gained the knowledge of it
from personal experience. It was advantageous for him that he passed
over to Christianity from a position where, by various artificial restraints
and prohibitions, he had attempted to guard against the incursions of
unlawful desires and passions, and to compel himself to goodness;* for
thus he was enabled to testify from his own experience, (in wdiich he ap
pears as the representative of all men of deep moral feeling,) how deeply
the sense of the need of redemption is grounded in the moral constitu
tion of man ; and thus likewise from personal experience, he could de
scribe the relation of that inward freedom which results from faith in re
demption, to the servitude of the legal stand-point. In his conflict with
himself while a Pharisee, Paul's experiences resemble Luther's in the
cloisters of Erfurt. Although in the Pharisaic dialectics and exposition of
the law he was a zealous and faithful disciple of Gamaliel, we cannot
from this conclude that he imbibed that spirit of moderation for which
his master was so distinguished, and which he showed in his judgment
of the new sect at the first, before it came into direct conflict with the
theology of his party. For the scholar, especially a scholar of so power
ful ami peculiar a character, would imbibe the mental influences of his
teacher, only so far as they accorded with the tendencies of his own
spirit. His unyielding disposition, the fire of his nature, and the fire of
his vouth, made him a vehement persecuting zealot against all who op
posed the system that was sacred in his eyes. Accordingly, no sooner
did the new doctrine in the hands of Stephen assume a position opposed
to the Pharisaic righteousnessf of the law, an aspect hostile to Judaism,
* As, for example, from the stand-point of Pharisaism, it has been said, " Instead of
lcavin" every thing to the free movements of the disposition, a man should force himself
to do this or that good by a direct vow. Vows are the enclosures of holiness."
a.0 Qi-nj n>.tJ,"sV. See Pirke Avoth. §13.
"f The question has been raised, whether Paul saw and heard Jesus during his earthly
life? We have not the data for answering the question. In his Epistles, we find no
thing conclusive either one way or the other. Olshausen thinks that it may be inferred
from 2 Cor. v. 16, that Paul really knew Jesus during his earthly life kotu odpxa. Paul,
in that passage, he understands as saying, " But if I knew Christ, as indeed I did know
him, according to the flesh, in his bodily earthly appearance, yet now I know him so no
more." Against this interpretation I will not object with Baur, in his Essay " On the
Party of Christ in tho Corinthian Church," in the Tubingoa Zeitschrifl fur Theologie, 1831,

84 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
than he became its most vehement persecutor. After the martyrdom of
Stephen, when many adherents of the gospel sought safety by flight,
Paul felt himself called to counterwork them in the famed city of Damas
cus, where the new sect was gaining ground. And he hastened thither,
after receiving full powers for committing all the Christians to prison,
from the Sanhedrim, who, recognized by the Romans as the highest
ecclesiastical authority among the Jews, were allowed to inflict all dis
ciplinary punishment against the violators of the law.*
Ko. iv. p. 95, that he could not mean this, because it would have been undervaluing
Christ in his state of humiliation, which would be in contradiction to those passages in
which he attributes to that state the highest abiding importance, and says he is deter
mined to know nothing save Christ and him crucified. For though the remembrance of
Christ in the form of a servant could never vanish from his mind, though he never could
forget what he owed to Christ the Crucified, yet now he knew him no longer as living in
human weakness, and subject to death, but as having risen victoriously from death, the
glorified one, now living in divine power and majesty ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4. The relation in
which it would have been possible to stand to Christ while he lived in the form of a serv
ant on earth, could no longer exist. No one could now stand near to him, simply for
being a Jew ; no one could hold converse with him in an outward manner, as a being
present to the senses; henceforth it was only possible to enter into union with Christ as
the glorified one, as he presented himself to the religious consciousness in a spiritual, in
ternal manner, by believing on him as crucified for the salvation of mankind. As respects
that, therefore, Paul might well say that now there could no longer be for him such " a.
knowledge of Christ after the flesh." And we grant that he might have said hypo-
thetically, If I had known Christ heretofore after the flesh, had I stood in any such out
ward communion with him as manifest in the flesh, yet now such a communion
has lost all its importance for me (such a value as those Judaizers attribute to it wdio
make it the sign of genuine apostleship) ; but now I know Christ after the spirit, like all
those who enjoy spiritual communion with him. But Paul could ouly say this in a purely
hypothetical way, supposing something to be which really was not; for allowing that he
had seen and heard Jesus with his bodily senses, his opponents would have been far from
attaching any importance to such seeing and hearing as could have been affirmed with
equal truth of many Jews, who stood in an indiffereut or even hostile position towards
Christ. The reference in this passage can be only to such a " knowing of Christ after the
flesh," a3 belonged to the other apostles, since only to this from any religious stand-point
whatever could there be attached a value against which Paul might have felt himself called
to protest. For this reason I must agree with Baur, who understands rpecrroc here, not of
the person of Jesus, but of the Messiah, a Messiah known in a carnal way, as from tho
early Jewish stand-point. I also believe with Baur, that if Paul had intended a personal
reference, he would have said 'ivoovv xpiorbv, and I cannot admit the force of the objec
tion which Olshausen makes to this interpretation, that it would require the article before
Xptorbv, for in designating the Messiah absolutely, the article might be omitted, just as
Demosthenes speaking of the Persian king, to designate the king absolutely, uses the
word (3aai1ei>c without tho article.
* If Damascus at that time still belonged to a Roman province, the Sanhedrim could
exercise its authority there, in virtue of the right secured every where to the Jews to
practise their worship in their own manner. If the city was brought under the govern
ment of the Arabian King Aretas, the Sanhedrim could still reckon on his support, in
consequence of the connexion he had formed with the Jews ; perhaps he himself had
gone over to Judaism. The Jews in Damascus could also exercise great influence by
means of the women, who were almost all converts to Judaism. Josephus, De Bell. Jud
ii. 20, 2.

BY THE A. 0STLE PAUL. 85
As respects the great mental change which Paul experienced in the
course of this journey undertaken for the extinction of the Christian faith,
what has been said concerning the history of the conversion of Cornelius
might certainly be applied here also ; and so the supposition is possible that
the event strikes us as sudden and marvellous, only because the history
records the mere fact, without the various preparatory and connecting
circumstances which led to it ; and hence by making use of the hints
which the narrative furnishes to fill up the outline, we may gain the
explanation of the whole on purely natural principles.
Paul (it would be said by a person adopting this view of the event)
had received many impressions which disturbed the repose of his truth-
loving soul ; he had heard the temperate counsels of his revered in
structor Gamaliel ; he had listened to the address of Stephen to whom
he was allied by natural temperament, and had witnessed his martyrdom.
But he was still too deeply imbued with the spirit of Pharisaism to
surrender himself to these impressions, so contrary to the prevailing bent
of his mind. He forcibly repressed them ; he rejected the thoughts that
involuntarily rose in his mind in favor of the new doctrine, as the sug
gestions of Satan, whom he regarded as the sole contriver of this
rebellion against the authority of the ancient traditions, and he accordingly
set himself with so much the greater ardor against the new sect. Yet
he could not succeed altogether in suppressing these rising thoughts,
and in silencing the voice of conscience, which rebuked his fanaticism. A
conflict arose in his soul. While in this state, au outward impression
was added, which brought the internal process to maturity. Not far
from Damascus he and his followers were overtaken by a violent storm ;
the lightning struck near to Paul, and he fell senseless to the ground.
He attributed this catastrophe to the avenging power of the Messiah,
whom in the person of his disciples he was persecuting, and confounding
the objective and subjective, he converted this internal impression into
an outward appearance of Christ to him ; blinded by the lightning, and
stunned, he came to Damascus. But admitting this explanation as
correct, how is the meeting of Paul with Ananias to be explained by
natural causes ? Even here many particulars which are not expressly
mentioned in the narrative might be supplied. Since Ananias was noted
even among the Jews as a man of strict legal piety, it is not improbable
that he and Paul were previously acquainted with one another at Jeru
salem. At all events, Paul had heard of the extaordinary spiritual gifts
said to be possessed by Ananias, and the thought naturally arose in his
mind, that a man held in so much repute among the Christians, might be
able to heal him, and restore him from his present unfortunate condition ;
and while occupied with this thought, his imagination formed it into a
vision. On the other hand, we may suppose, that Ananias had heard
something of the great change that had taken place in Paul ; and yet
did not give full credence to the report, till a vision, explicable on
similar psychological principles, had overcome his mistrust.

86 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
In reference to this explanation, we must certainly allow that what
appears in the Acts as immediately miraculous, might have been prepared
for psychologically, in the manner we have unfolded, but nothing in the
narrative indicates either the necessity or probability of such a prepara
tion. We can by no means conclude from the original, fundamental
features of the Pauline character, from its general susceptibility to the
true and the good, that the sight of the martyrdom of a Stephen would
necessarily deeply impress, and at last master the soul which- was fortified
against it. History furnishes us with numerous examples of the power
of religious fanaticism over minds that in other respects have been sus
ceptible of the true and the good, and yet while under its influence, have
used those very things to confirm them in their delusion, which might
seem fitted to rescue them from it ; as many pious men were witnesses
of the martyrdom of Huss, who died in a manner similar to Stephen, and
yet only saw in it the blindness of one infatuated by his self-conceit. It
is, therefore, quite consistent with the powerful character of Paul to
believe that, in the martyrdom of Stephen, he saw only the power of the
evil spirit over the mind of one who had been seduced from the pure
faith of his fathers ; and that hence he felt a stronger impulse to counter
work the propagation of a doctrine which could involve in such ruin men
distinguished by their character and their talents. Besides, if the im
pression which a storm, conjoined with these preparatory circumstances,
made upon him, alone formed the groundwork of that vision of Christ,
it is unaccountable that Paul's followers also believed that they perceived
something similar to what befel him ; for this is only admissible, if
we suppose them to have been like-minded with Paul, wdiich could
not be unless they were already Christians, or on the way to Christianity.
But such persons would hardly attach themselves to a persecutor of
Christians.* Such attempts at explaining the narrative are suspicious, because
these not unusual natural appearances are made use of to bring down
what is extraordinary into the circle of common events. Instead, there-
* The variations in the narrative of these events contained in Acts ix., xxii. and xxvi.,
prove nothing against the reality of the fact. Such unimport rat differences might easily arise
iu the repelition of the narrative of an event so far removed from tho circle of ordinary occur
rences ; and these differences need not bo attributed to alteration in the narrative by Paul
himself, but may be supposed to have originated in the incorrectness of others in repeating
it. As for the rest, if we assume that his attendants received only n general impression
of the phenomenon, not so definite as Paul's, for whom it was mainly intended ; that they
saw a light, but no precise shape or figure; that they heard a voice, without distinguish
ing or understanding the words; it is easy to perceive that various representations would
naturally be given of the event. As this phenomenon, from its very nature, cannot be
judged of according to the laws of ordinary earthly communicalious and perceptions, the
difference in the perceptions of Paul and his attendants argues nothing against its objective
reality. We are too ignorant of the laws which regulate the communications between a
higher spiritual world and men living in a world of the senses, to determine anythinc
- lecisely on these points.

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 87
fore, of following this explanation which is attended with great diffi
culties — we might rather conceive the wdiole, independently of all
outward phenomena, as an inward transaction in Paul's mind, a spiritual
revelation of Christ to his higher self-consciousness ; and, in this light,
we might view the experiences which he had in his conflicts with himself
white a Pharisee, and the impression of the discourse and martyrdom
of Stephen, as forming a preparation by wdiich his heart was rendered
capable of receiving these internal revelations of the Redeemer. But
this inward transaction may be conceived of in two ways, the difference
of which is determined by a difference in the conception of Christianity
itself, and of the person of Christ especially, and by the still more general
difference in the mode of contemplating God and the Universe. It may
be so understood as to exclude the supernatural altogether, while every
thing is considered only as the result of natural, psychological develop
ment. For the living Christ, who reveals himself to the spirit, is sub
stituted the power of an idea which through him is excited in the human
spirit, or the shining forth of which in the consciousness of the spirit tho
first impulse has been given by him. What represented itself as Christ
to the spirit of Paul, is only the symbolical vision of this idea involun
tarily transferred to a definite person, who served as a foil for it. What
appeared to the spirit as something external, is nothing else than the
reflection of what proceeded from his own inward being. Such a con
ception as this, wdiich makes Christianity and Christ totally different
objects from what they were to Paul, which regards as self-deception
what inspired him, what was the soul of his life, his thinking and his
acting, and gave him his power for everything — such a conception we
must most emphatically reject. But something altogether different is a
spiritual inward revelation of Christ as a real fact, in the same sense as
Paul would regard it, and as Christ promised to his disciples ; not
the coming into consciousness of an idea, but a revelation of the same
Christ in his glorified personality, by whom in his earthly manifestation
the salvation of mankind had been effected, and with whom believers
must come into a real relation. But if we regard this only as a spiritual,
inward transaction proceeding from the contact of the higher self-con
sciousness with the living Christ, and that which represented itself to the
outward senses only as a reflection of that revelation which took place
in the inner man — by such an apprehension, the divine and the truth
of the event would lose nothing. At all events, that inward reve
lation of Christ is always the chief thing, and however we may conceive
of the appearance outwardly recognisable to the senses, it was still only
the means of leading him to that inward revelation of Christ, to prepare
him for that real spiritual communion with the living Christ, from which
his whole apostolic efficiency proceeded ; as among the earlier apostles
the reappearance of Christ after his resurrection was only the prepara
tion for the ever-enduring communion, into which they would enter with
Christ. The perceptions of the senses cannot have greater certainty and

88 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
reality than the facts of a higher self-consciousness, whereby a man
receives revelations of an order of things in which his true life has
its root, far above the sensible world, which he experiences and
apprehends spiritually. And that this was no self-illusion, capable of
being psychologically explained, that extraordinary change would
testify which was the result in Paul of this internal transaction, as
would also the whole course of his apostolic ministy, which may be
traced to this inward experience, as the effect to its cause. But likewise
the manner in wdiich his attendants were affected by wdiat happened on
this occasion contradicts the supposition of a merely internal transaction,
even if we could resolve on ascribing the state in which Paul came to
Damascus to the power of an internal impression.*
But if it be not allowed that the narrative in the Acts is trustworthy,
yet the testimony of Paul himself in reference to this event, from which
he always dates the commencement of a new era in his 'life, must be met.
As he often in his Epistles refers to it in opposition to his Jewish adver
saries, who were unwilling to acknowdedge him as an apostle; so he had
a confident persuasion that the apostolic commission was given him by
Christ in the same manner as to the other apostles ; this is expressed
most fully and strongly in Gal. i. 1. Yet here wo need not suppose
an outward event to be meant, but may understand it of an internal
transaction such as we have described. In the sixteenth verse, Paul
evidently speaks of an internal communication of Christ, of an inward
revelation of him to his self-consciousness, f whereby, independently of
all human instruction, he was qualified to preach Christ. But if we
allow that from these words of Paul nothing can be concluded with
certainty, excepting an inward revelation of Christ which he was con
scious of having received, yet we can by no means grant that all his
other expressions respecting this transaction are to be explained accord
ing to this passage, and consequently that there is only that pure internal
revelation lying at the basis of everything else that he reports. By men
tioning in this passage only the one particular of highest interest, he by
* The notion, that the vision which immediately preceded Paul's conversion is the one
described by himself in 2 Cor. xii. 2, which in' modern times has beeu revived by several
distinguished theologians, has everything against it : in the latter, Paul describes his
elevation in spirit to a higher region of the spiritual world ; iu the vision which occasioned
his conversion, there was a revelation of Christ coming down to him while consciously
living on the earth. The immediate impression of the first was humiliating ; the second
was connected with an extraordinary mental elevation. With the first his Christian con
sciousness began ; the second marked one of the most exidted moments of his inward
life, after he had long lived in communion with Christ ; aud by such a foretaste of heavenly
existence, he was refreshed under his manifold conflicts, and animated to renew his earthly
labors. The date of fourteen years mentioned here, is of no chronological use, further than
to satisfy us, that the date of Paul's conversion, fixed at exactly fourteen years previous
to the writing of this, must be false.
f It is most natural to understand the phrase " in me" iv ipol, as denoting something
internal.

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 89
no means excludes all others ; but it suited his purpose and aim to make
this one thing prominent, since he wished simply to point out the inde
pendent source from which he drew his knowledge of Christian truth.
And in this connection, the way in which Christ appeared outwardly to
him was a matter of comparative indifference. It is evident, that what
ever that way might have been, there was no occasion to mention it
here. But it is another particular which Paul makes prominent in 1 Cor.
ix. 1, when he adduces his having seen Christ as a pledge of his genuine
apostolic dignity.* It could be only such a seeing of Christ, which could
have this importance attached to it. It belonged to the apostolic calling
to testify of Christ the Risen One from a personal sight of him. Because
Christ had been seen by Paul, he stood in this respect on an equality
with the other apostles; and in the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians he
evidently places the appearance of the risen and glorified Saviour, which
was vouchsafed to himself, in the same category with all his other appear
ances after his resurrection. Hence we see how important it was for
him, as well as for the other apostles, to be able to testify from personal
experience of the great fact — the basis of Christian faith and hope — of the
real resurrection of Christ and his glorified personal existence. Hence
* It must be evident to every unprejudiced person, that this cannot refer to Paul's
having seen Jesus during his earthly life, (though a possible occurrence,) for it would have
added nothing to his apostolic authority ; nor yet to the mere knowledge of the doctrine
of Christ. Riickert, in his Com. on this passage, maintains that it refers rather to one of
the appearances of Christ, which were granted to him in a state of ecstatic vision, Acts
xviii. 9, xxii. 17, than to that which occasioned his conversion, especially since an appearance
of Christ on that occasion, is not mentioned either in Acts ix., xxii., xxvi., nor in Gal. i.
12-16. On the other hand, the following considerations deserve attention. Since, as Riickert
himself acknowledges, the reading in that passage is to be preferred, in which the words,
" Am I not an apostle ?" are immediately followed by, " Have I not seen Christ ?" we may
infer that Paul adduced his having seen Christ as a confirmation of his apostleship; as
afterwards for the same purpose, he adduces the success of his efforts in founding the
Corinthian church. Without doubt, he urged this against his Judaizing opponents, who
disputed his call to the apostleship on the ground, that he had not been appointed by
Christ himself like the other apostles. In this connection it is most natural to expect,
that Paul would speak of that appearance of Christ which marked the commencement of
his apostolic career, that real appearance of Christ which he classes with the other appear
ances of the risen Saviour, 1 Cor. xv. 8, and not a mere vision. Riickert indeed maintains,
that Paul made no distinction between the two kinds of appearances, for "otherwise he
could have attributed no value to visions, regarding them as mere figments of the imagi
nation." But this conclusion is not correct; for between a real objective appearance, and a
natural creation of the imagination formed in the usual psychological manner, we can
conceive of another manner of appearance — one produced by an operation of the Divine
Spirit on the higher self-ooncsiousness, in virtue of which what is inwardly apprehended
presents itself to the person so influenced under a sensible image; whereby the imagina
tion is transformed into an organ for what s apprehended through thj operation of the
Divine Spirit. That such a communication of the Divine Spirit is distinguished both from
a real appearance to the senses, and from a mere creation of the imagination, is evident
from many passages of Holy Writ, as for example, Peter's vision, Acts x. 12. But the
word "no one," pndiva, not "nothing," unSiv, Acts ix. 1, certainly implies, that Paul, in
distinction from his attendants, had seen a person.

90 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
the image of the glorified Christ is present to his contemplation when
he testifies of the revelation of the glory of God in Christ, and speaks of
that perfect conformity to his image to which believers will hereafter
attain. But may not what we have before said in the case of Cornelius
be made use of as an argument against the objective reality of this ap
pearance of Christ ? May it not be said — as Cornelius could only testify
of his own subjective experience of wdiat he believed that he had seen, so
it might have been with Paul; he believed that he had seen the risen
and glorified Christ ; as far as he tells us of his experience, he is trust
worthy ; but it does not therefore appear that he was capable of distin
guishing between the objective and the subjective; hence we are not
at all justified in supposing anything else than the inward vision. But
the comparison is not altogether correct. In reference to what was com
municated to Cornelius, it is not a point of importance whether it was a
real angelic appearance, or a vision. The importance of the transaction,
fo:' himself, and in a religious view, remains just the same. On the
contrary, the importance of what was seen by Paul, consists in this — ¦
that he had actually seen the risen and glorified Christ, ami that he could
testify from his own beholding and experience of that resurrection and
glorification, which was the foundation of his whole religious faith. His
believing confidence would have risen from self-deception, if we admit
that he had here confounded the objective and the subjective. We can
not bring ourselves to admit this, if we hold in due esteem this belief of
Paul, and wdiat he effected by means of it for the salvation of men. Be
sides, we are justified in placing greater confidence in a Paul than in a
Cornelius, for forming a correct judgment respecting himself. Paul, who
knew by experience the state of ecstacy, could well distinguish it from
the state of waking and thoughtful religious consciousness, as we may
learn from the passage above quoted in the Second Epistle to the Cor
inthians. But in truth, a transaction of this kind can never be proved in a
manner that will be universally satisfactory. In order to be recognised in
its reality, it must be regarded from a peculiar point of view ; and who
ever is a stranger to this, must struggle against admitting the fact. For
history in general there is no such thing as mathematical demonstration.
Faith and trust are always required for the recognition of historical
truth. The only question is, whether there is sufficient ground for it,
or more wdiich prompts to doubt. The decision depends upon the un
derstanding of the facts, and of the whole department to which they
belong. The occasion for doubt is stronger in proportion as the nature
of the transactions in question, and of their peculiar realm, is something
foreign to the spirit of the inquirer, and as these facts, outside the circle
of his experience, are less capable of being decided according to the
standard he is familiar with. This remark applies particularly to trans
actions wdiich follow other laws than those of the common course of
nature, and in which something supernatural is involved. Whoever

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 91
thinks that everything must be explained by natural laws, nnd is neces
sitated to acknowledge nothing supernatural by his whole philosoph
ical system, will feel himself compelled to refer the history of Paul's
conversion to those common laws, and to deny everything that opposes
them ; it would be in vain to dispute with him about special points,
when the underlying principle of h.is whole theory has predetermined
the course of his inquiry and its result. Especially in the explana
tion of the transaction of which we are here speaking, it is of con
sequence in what relation the inquirer is placed to that on which the
essence of the Christian faith rests, and with which it stands or falls —
the fact of the actual resurrection of Christ. Whoever acknowl
edges this, occupies a position where he can have no motive to deny
the supernatural in the history that is connected with that fact.
Such a person can have no ground for mistrusting the expressions of
Paul respecting this appearance to him of the risen Saviour. But
whoever from his own point of view cannot acknowledge the actual re
surrection of Christ, is so far incapacitated for admitting the objective
nature of this appearance to Paul, and must from the first stand in a
hostile relation to it.
But yet, it is always important that we do not separate what
God has joined together; that we do not tear asunder the connection
between the objective and the subjective, the divine and human, the
supernatural and the natural. We by no means suppose a magical
influence on Paul, by which he was carried away, and converted against
his will. According to the view we have taken of this event, we suppose
an internal point of connection, without which no outward revelation
or appearance could have become an inward one; without which any
outward impression that could have been made, however powerful,
Would have been transient in its results. In his case, the love for
the true and the good lying underneath his errors, and repressed
by the power of his passions and prejudices, was to' be set free from
its thraldom only by a mighty influenoe. No miracle whatever could
have converted a Caiaphas into a preacher of the gospel.
It might be expected that Paul could not at once, after such an im
pression, enter on a new course of action. Everything which hitherto
had been the motive and aim of his conduct must for a time have seemed
as nothing. Contrition must have been the predominant feeling of his
crushed spirit. He could not instantaneously recover from so overwhelm
ing an impression, which gave a new direction to his whole being. He
was reduced to a state of mental and bodily weakness, from which he
could not restore himself. He passed three days without food. This
was for him the point of transition from death to a new life ; and nothing
can so vividly express his feelings at this awful crisis, as the exclamation
wdiich he himself, reverting to his earlier state, Rom. vii. 24, puts in the
lips of the man wdio, with the deepest consciousness of inward slavery
under the law, and with earnest aspirations after freedom, pours forth

92 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
his whole heart in the w^ords, " 0, wretched man that I am ! who shall
deliver me?" Nor is it at all probable that, in this state, he would seek
for social intercourse. Nothing could less agree with his feelings than
intercourse with the Jews ; nor could he easily prevail on himself to seek
out the Christians, whom he had hitherto persecuted. To a man in this
state of mind nothing could be so welcome as solitude. Hence it is in
itself by no means probable that information of the great change that
had passed upon him would be conveyed by other persons to Ananias.
It is worthy of notice that, in order to attain to a full consciousness of
his new life, and to make the transition from this intermediate state, of
contrition to a new life of active exertion in communion with Christ, he
had to be brought into connection with the existing Christian church
by the instrumentality of one of its members. In communion with other
believers, he first obtained what he could not find in his solitude. When
he prayed to Christ who had appeared to him, that he would help him in
his distress, that he would enlighten both his bodily and spiritual eyes, it
wa-s promised to him in a vision that a well-known enlightened man, be
longing to the church at Damascus, whom he probably knew by name
and sight, should be the instrument of his spiritual and bodily restora
tion. When Ananias, in obedience to a divine call, visited him, Paul
recognized the person to whom the vision had referred him, and hence
felt immediate confidence in him ; in communion with him he was now
first to be made partaker of a new and higher principle of life. Ananias
introduced Paul to the other Christians in the city. After he had been
strengthened by spending several days in their society, he felt himself
impelled to enter the synagogues, and testify in behalf of that cause
wdiich heretofore he had so fiercely persecuted.* Whether he considered
it best, after bearing this first testimony among the Jews, to allow its
impression to work silently on their minds, without personally attempt
ing to enforce it, or whether the plots of the Jews induced him to quit
the place, we are not certain: be this as it may, he visited the neighbor
ing parts of Arabia. The question here arises, With what view, and for
what object, did Paul visit Arabia? He perhaps found an opening
for preaching the Gospel among the numerous Jews who were scattered
over Arabia, and devoted his activity to that object. He would here,
* It is difficult to consider "certain days," i/pepai nv>c, in Acts ix. 19, and " many
days," i/pipaic havale, in the 23d verse, as equivalent terms. Tet it cannot be proved
from these words that Luke by the latter meant to show a break in Paul's residence at
Damascus, occasioned by a journey into Arabia, but the succession of events as narrated in
the Acts, is most naturally understood thus: The "certain days " merely expresses the
few days which Paul, just after his baptism, spent in the fellowship of the Christians at
Damascus; with this is closely connected the Kal eiiOcur, "and straightway," after he had
spent some days with the disciples, he entered into the synagogues : and the " many days "
denote the whole succeeding period of Paul's stay at Damascus. Within this whole period
of " many days," of which nothing more is told in the Acts, we must place Paul's journey
into Arabia, of which we should not have known but for tie meution of it in the Epistle to
the Galatians.

BY THE AI 0STLE PAUL. 93
therefore, first of all have appeared as an apostle to the Jews. But the
reason might be that he felt impelled to prepare himself in quiet retire
ment for the great office entrusted to him by a divine call. On merely
internal grounds the question cannot be decided. It is quite as possible
that the man of glowing zeal and unwearied activity would feel himself im
pelled to testify immediately among the Jews of that truth to which he had
hitherto been an enemy, as that after such an astonishing convulsion of
his inner life a season of contemplative repose would form the transition-
point and preparation for his great activity. And the connection in
which this statement occurs in the Epistle to the Galatians is not decisive
of the question ; for either view equally suits the antithesis in that pas
sage, that Paul did not go up to Jerusalem in order to make his appear
ance under tho sanction of those who were apostles before him.
From Arabia he returned again to Damascus. Whether the Jews,
wdiose anger he had already excited by his former preaching, as soon as
they heard of his coming, endeavored to lay hold of a person who was so
capable of injuring Judaism ; or whether they were first exasperated by
his renewed addresses in their synagogues, he was obliged to consult his
safety by flight, as his life was threatened by their machinations. So
far was this man, who shunned no danger in his subsequent career,
though now in the first glow of conversion, a season when the mind is
generally most prone to extravagance — so far was he from indulging in
that enthusiastic ardor which seeks and craves martyrdom !* He was
let down by his friends in a basket through the window of a house, built
against the wall of the city, that he might escape unnoticed by the Jews,
who were lying in wait for him at the gates. ' After three years had thus
expired from the time of his conversion,! he resolved, about the year 39,J
* " The glorying in infirmities," (among which he reckons this flight,) rcl rr/c dodeveiac
Kavxdodat, is one feature in his character which distinguished him from enthusiasts : 2 Cor.
xi. 30. f Three years after his conversion, namely, on the supposition that the terminus a quo
the years are reckoned in the passage of the Epistle to the Galatians, is the date of his
conversion. X This circumstance in Paul's life furnishes one of the few chronological marks for its
history. When Paul fled from Damascus three years after his conversion, that city was
under the government of King Aretas of Arabia Petraea, 2 Cor. xi. 32. But since Damas
cus belonged to a Roman province, Aretas must have been in possession of this city under
very peculiar circumstances. Susskind, in his essay in Bengel's Archiv. 1. 2. p. 314;
Wurm, in his essay on the chronology of Paul's life, in the Tubinger Zeitschriftfiir Tlieologie
1833, 1st No. p. 27 ; and Auger, detemporum in Actis ratione, p. 181, agree in thinking that
wo are not quite justified in admitting that Areta3 was at that time in possession of Damas
cus, as it is a conclusion no wise favored by other historical accounts ; for if Damascus was
then under the Roman government, the Ethnarch of Aretas might have ventured to place
a watch before the gates of the city, or, through bis influence with the Roman authorities,
nave obtained permission for the Jews to do this. Yet it is difficult to believe that, if Damas
cus belonged to a Roman province, the Arabian Ethnarch would have ventured to surround
the oity with a watch iu order to get a Roman citizen into his power; or, that the Roman
authorities would have allowed of his doing so, or at his request have exposed a Roman

94 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
once more to return to Jerusalem.* As to the object of this jour
ney, it follows from what Paul himself states, in his Epistle to the
Galatians, (i. 18.) that the main object at least, was not to form a
connexion with the Christian church in Jerusalem, but to become per-
citizen to the wrath of the Jews. Although the history, in which there are, besides, so
many breaks, does not inform us of such a, taking of Damascus, yet a consideration of this
passage leads to that supposition. Now the circumstances by which Aretas may have
gained possession of the city were perhaps these : The Emperor Tiberias, as the ally of
King Herod Agrippa, whose army had been defeated by Aretas, commanded Vitellius,
the governor of Syria, to get possession of him either dead or alive. But while Vitellius was
preparing to execute these orders, and various circumstances were delaying his entering
on the campaign, news arrived of the emperor's death, which took place in March of the
year 37, and Vitellius was thus stopped in his military movements. Aretas might have
taken advantage of this interval to gain possession of the city. But it is not to be as
sumed that the city, thus snatched from the Romans, remained long in his hands, and it is
probable that, as in the second year of the reign of the Emperor Caligula, A. D. 38-39, the
affairs of Arabia were settled, Damascus also was not left unnoticed. If we place the
flight of Paul from Damascus in 39, then his conversion must have been in A. D. 30, since
it must have occurred three years before, and we also fix the same date for Stephen's
mai tvrdom. From the absence of chronological iuformation respecting the events of those
times, we cannot fix with certainty the date of Paul's conversion: yet the computation
which places it in A. B. 36 has this in its favor, that it allows neither too long nor too short
a time for the events which took place in the Christian Church, from the period of Christ's
ascension to the martydom of Stephen and the conversion of Paul.
* The accounts scattered through the Pauline epistles, and the narrative in the Acts
should here be compared. Baur, in his often-mentioned work on Paul, thinks he has dis
covered an inexplicable contradiction between them. The question is, whether the agree
ment or the discrepancy between these two-sided accounts is greater. They agree in
this, that Paul, after his conversion, did not at first return to Jerusalem, (not feeling
himself pressed, as might be supposed he would, to testify for Christianity, where he had
before been its persecutor,) but remained a long time in Damascus, and only thence be
took himself to Jerusalem. Tbey also agree, except in trifling particulars, in their state
ments that Paul was compelled to leave Damascus. Paul himself says, 2 Cor. xi. 32, that
the governor under King Aretas of Arabia, "kept the city with a garrison, desirous to
apprehend" him, that he was let down in a basket through an opening in the wall, and
so escaped the hands of his enemies. In Acts ix. 24, it is stated that the Jews lying in
wait for Paul watched the gates, in order to slay him if he should leave the city, but that
the Christians let him down at night in a basket through the wall. It is evident that
there is here an exact agreement between the two accounts, each completing and ex
plaining the other ; for those who stirred up Aretas or the governor against Paul could
have been no other than the Jews embittered by his apostasy. And now the discrepancies
are, first, an omission ; the failure to mention the residence in Arabia, of which we learn
in the Epistle to the Galalians. It may be that the author of the account in the Acts
did not know of Paul's residence in Arabia, or that it did not seem to him of sufficient
importance to mention it; either of which might the more easily be the case if Paul led
there a quiet, retired life; on which supposition it is the more easily understood why so
little was known at Jerusalem of what had become of this earlier persecutor of the Chris
tians. This omission can the less be regarded as a mark of untrustworthiness, as the
words "many days," (ix. 23,) point to an interval in which something like this residence
in Arabia could have occurred. It is evident, that he who wrote it knew nothing
definitely about the beginning of the interval over which he hastens; but we find no dis
agreement with the dates mentioned by Paul himself. The second discrepancy is also a
partial omission ; Paul says, in the Epistle to the Galatians, that he journeyed to Jeru-

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 95
eonally acpiainti 1 with the apostle Peter. This does not exclude
what we are told in the Acts, of his intercourse with the whole church,
and his disputations with the Hellenists ; only these did not form the
object for undertaking the journey, but only something additional while
carrying out his original design. But it may be asked, Why was
Paul so anxious to become personally acquainted with Peter ? If Pe
ter was allied to Paul by the fire of an outwardly directed activity,
yet, on the other hand, John, by the deep inward element, the con
templative tendency of his spirit seems yet more closely allied to him.
Paul might, therefore, from various considerations and motives desire to
be personally acquainted both with Peter and John. But the character
istic qualities of John's mind appear not to have been prominently
brought into action till a later period. Peter, iu virtue of his peculiar " gift
of government," x"-pto-pa KvPEpv^ascog, and the position in which he had
been placed by the Lord himself, had from the first taken the lead in all
that relatetf to the government of the church. He especially was activo
in promoting the spread of Chrisrianity — a sufficient reason wdiy Paul,
before entering on his public ministry, should wish to confer with him in
particular. If Paul had already attained a clear insight into the princi
ples according to which he founded the Christian church among tlie
Gentiles, a subject closely connected with these, namely, tho relation of
the Gospel to the Law, might have formed the topic of discussion
between them. Among the reasons which led him to wish for a per
sonal acquaintance with Peter, might have been the desire to know more
exactly what he thought upon this subject. Although it was not till
Paul had already gained an independent sphere of action, that a full con
ference took place between them on the relation of the different spheres
of apostolic service and mode of operation, yet this does not render it
impossible that at tliis first interview between Peter and Paul, they con
versed on what was essential for the founding of a Christian church.
Now if, as is very likely, the conversion of Cornelius had already taken
place, we may also presume that Peter by what had then occurred was
prepared to acknowledge the principles laid down by Paul. But if the
contrary was the fact, the conference with Paul might have been one of
those influential circumstances by which the conflict in Peter's mind that
terminated at the conversion of Cornelius, was brought to its final result.
In the first case, Peter might have acted as a mediator between Paul and
James, the brother of the Lord, who in this respect stood furthest from
Paul. It is remarkable, that these were the only leaders (Coryphaei) of
the church with wham he at first came in contact.
But here another question arises. Was it purely accidental, that Paul
salem the first time, not to learn from the apostles there the true Christian doctrine, but
only to make the personal acquaintance of Peter, and that, therefore, he remained only
fourteen days, and saw none of the apostles except James, the brother of the Lord. In the
Acts his journey to Jerusalem a mentioued, but not tie object of it, which perhajs was
not known to the author.

96 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
met with but one apostle and one apostolic man ? Did he avoid an in
terview with the collective church and with the rest of the apostles ?
On this supposition we must regard the narrative in the Acts on this
point as erroneous. But what design could Paul have had in so acting ?
Shall we seek for the reason in what he says in the Epistle to the Gala
tians, that he wished to avoid the appearance of not having from the first
entered independently on the preaching of the Gospel, and of having
been instructed and furnished with full powers for it by the apostles?
But this appearance would be produced as much, if not more, by seek
ing a conference with the two pillars of the church. If Paul had wished
sedulously to avoid everything which might occasion such an appearance,
he would not have gone at all to Jerusalem. Only one supposition re
mains, that Paul did not show himself openly, but merely conferred in
secret with Peter, on account of his personal safety, in order to avoid
the plots of his embittered enemies among the Jews ; and that through
Peter he met with James in the same private manner. This supposition
might be confirmed by Paul's representation in the above mentioned
passage of the Epistle to the Galatians, that, for fourteen years (or eleven
years after this journey) he had been quite unknown by sight to the
churches in Judea, and that they had only heard of him by report. But
this would lead us to declare several things in the narrative of the Acts
respecting this visit of Paul to Jerusalem untrue ;* at al* events we
could not regard the account that Barnabasf introduced Paul to the
apostles in general as perfectly accurate, since Paul, according to his
own statement, met only with Peter.J If Paul at that time, in order to
evade the plots of the Jews embittered against him for his apostasy, had
been induced to remain in secret with Peter without showing himself
openly, it follows that the report of the change that had taken place in
his character must have already been widely spread *in Jerusalem. But
this being presupposed, it cannot be admitted that the Christians in
Jerusalem were filled with mistrust against him, nor could he have needed
the friendly offices of Barnabas to gain admission to the church. It is
also, in itself, highly improbable, that the conversion of such an adver
sary, which was accomplished too in so remarkable a manner, should
not have become knowm after so long an interval among the Christians
* Here we must, therefore, in truth acknowledge that Baur's doubts are not altogether
unfounded, although we cannot acknowledge the decisive tone of his assertions to be
equally well-founded, and at all events we can only admit an accidental error of tradition
which nowise affects the general truth of the narration, and implies no designed fabrica
tion for a special purpose.
f According to an account not sufficiently authenticated, in the Hypotyposes of Cle
ment of Alexandria in Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. ii. 1,) Barnabas had been one of the seventy
disciples. X But this erroneous statement involves only an ignorance of particular circumstances ¦
for as soon as it was known that Paul had made his first visit to the church at Jerusalem
without an acquaintance with the peculiar circumstances under which it took place, the
assumption might be easdy made, that he was then introduced to the apostles in general.

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 97
Jn Jerusalem.* And if only such a concealed visit of Paul to Jerusalem
be admitted, the disputations between him and the Hellenists could not
have taken place. Certainly this supposition has several things in its
favor, but even admitting it, the credibility of the Acts in all essential
points would still remain unshaken. From this one mistake, that the
visit of Paul to Jerusalem instead of a private, was represented as a
^public one, other mistakes would follow without occasioning what might
justly be called an essential deviation from historical truth. Meanwhile,
we do not yet venture to maintain this, since many adjustments can be
conceived between the two accounts, by wdiich they supply each other's
deficiencies. We cannot certainly contradict the assertion, that Paul's conversion
must have been already generally known in Jerusalem. It might lessen
the difficulty if we consider that the young man Saul could not at that
time have attained to such great eminence, that the greater part of those
three years after his conversion had been spent in retirement in Arabia,
and that his return was rendered difficult by political occurrences — the
war wdth King Aretas. But it might.be also, that Barnabas aided him
by his good offices, though not for the precise object of removing the
mistrust of the believers. He might have applied to him as to a Hellenist,
one of his old acquaintances, and through him have been introduced to
Peter. In itself it is perfectly natural that he should have first resorted to
those Christians who stood nearest to him by descent, and perhaps by
early acquaintance. Thus it might easily happen that, although he had
not yet come in contact with the whole Church, he had had intercourse
with many Hellenists, and through them was involved in those dispu
tations which led to the persecutions afterwards raised against him.
But in reference to these disputations of Paul with the Hellenists, ques
tions suggest themselves which we must examine before we proceed any
further with the consideration of his life and labors: — the question, whe
ther Paul from the_beginning occupied that peculiar point of view which
he held afterwards on the opposition between the Law and the Gospel,
and in accordance with this had resolved to present Christianity to the
Gentiles in its independent development, separate from Judaism, or whe
ther such a tendency was formed in his mind by the opposition his preach
ing met with from a hostile Judaism — the question, from what influences
the development of this peculiarly Pauline element is to be deduced ; and
this question, again, is connected with the more general one, respecting
the sources to which Paul was indebted for his knowledge of Christian
truth. In passing over from Pharisaism to Christianity, it would very com
monly happen that dependence on the authority of the Mosaic Law
as a matter of perpetual obligation would be retained. This would
be the case in conversions effected by ordinary instrumentality. But
* As Baur especially notices.
1

98 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
it was altogether different with the conversion of Paul, which was
not brought about by any such instrumentality, but in an immediate
and sudden manner by a violent crisis. Here could be no connexion
with the spirit of Pharisaism, but only an utter opposition to it. We
may suppose that the powerful spirit of Paul, disposed to exercise it
self in eager controversy when left to the natural course of development,
would be impelled, like the later ultra-Paulinians, to a direction altogether
hostile to Judaism.
We have already remarked, that the influence of Hellenism on a man
who in early youth had been trained in the schools of the Pharisees, can
not here be taken into account. In general, we must not proceed on the
supposition that the freer mode of thinking was universal among the
Hellenists. If, as appears from Philo's writings this was not the case
even at Alexandria, where the Hellenic element of culture exerted the
greatest influence and power, still less are we justified in supposing it to
have been with the Hellenists generally, among whom we cannot admit
the predominance of the element of Grecian culture in an equal degree.
It might be expected, when a number of persons had devoted them
selves so much to a foreign element of culture as tojbecome estranged
from the Jewish, that others would be so much more mistrustful of all
cultivation of the Hellenic element, and their opposition to the abuse of
freedom would drive them to greater illiberality of spirit, servitude to
the letter, and narrowness of views. As we find among the Alexandrian
Jews three parties, we might expect a similar variety among the Hellen
istic Jews. The family of Paul, from which sprang the Pharisaic pupil,
was probably attached rather to the more contracted, than to the liberal
class. Ananias, the teacher of Paul, when he professed himself a Chris
tian at Damascus, was universally respected on account of his legal piety,
and such a man would be very far from leading Paul in the direction
which the apostle's mind afterwards took. We might rather refer it to
the influence of the liberal-minded Christians, who had proceeded from
the midst of the Hellenists in consequence of the impulse given by Ste
phen, and of the influence of the new ideas called forth by that martyr;
but we do not know, whether Paul soon after his conversion came into
a social circle where influences of this kind would act upon him, and at
all events we have no proof of it. Setting aside the Divine element, if
we consider only the great originality of Paul's mind, we may not attri
bute too much to determining influences from without. But in addition
to this, there was the extraordinary nature of his conversion in which
the Divine element so powerfully predominated, by which, in virtue of
that immediate communication with Christ, he was placed on a level
with the other apostles. Hence also that Christian originality which
marked tlie apostles in consequence of their personal connexion with
Christ, must be also ascribed to him, if to any one. And that it was so
he testifies, declaring that he received the Gospel not from men, nor was
instructed in it by men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ ; that as

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 99
soon as God had revealed his Son in him that he might publish him
among the Gentiles, he at once sought not human counsel, nor visited
the apostles at Jerusalem, but betook himself to a spot the furthest from
all such instruction, where he must derive all his knowledge from an
entirely different source. See Ep. Galat. c. 1.
In order rightly to understand the whole force and meaning of Paul's
expressions relative to that internal transaction of which he alone could
testify, we must first of all understand what he means by the term " reve
lation," anonaXv-ujig. Everything good and true must be finally
traced back to the Father of lights, from whom all lights beam forth for
the spiritual world ; his revelation in all must be acknowledged ; and
especially in all that is original and immediate in the consciousness, where
from the hidden depths of the spirit, by virtue of the root of our exis
tence in God, the light of new creative ideas springs up in the soul.
Thus, if Paul had not more distinctly defined the idea of revelation, we
might say that from the stand -point of religious intuition, looking only
at the Divine causality, and not regarding natural instrumentality, he had
attributed to Divine revelation that which proceeded from within by the
development of reason. But if Paul knew this idea of revelation in a gen
eral sense, and expressly distinguished from it another more limited idea,
then we must reject the supposition that he only by a peculiarity of re
ligious dialect called that revelation which from another point of view
might be otherwise named. He had in fact a peculiar word to designate
that general idea of revelation which applies to all consciousness of relig
ious and moral truth, to which the mind is led by the contemplation of
creation, or by entering into itself, by conscience and reason ; the word
" manifest," (pavEpovv, which he uses for this purpose in the well-known
passages in the first chapters of the Epistles to the Romans. But when
he speaks of what can be known neither from the contemplation of crea
tion, nor from the existence of reason or conscience, but only by a com
munication of the Spirit of God, differing from all these, and newly im
parted, he uses the word " reveal," diroKaXvirTEiv. Paul, it is true, also
uses the more general designation, the word tpavEpvvv, for that which
cannot be known by the natural medium ; but no passage can be pointed
out, in which the word diroKaXvirTEiv is used in the more general sense.
Tholuck, indeed, in the last edition of his Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans, p. 72, has appealed to Phil. iii. 15, as a passage to which
this understanding of the word will not apply ; and, certainly, there is
some truth at the basis of what he says. No doubt, Paul in those words
was not thinking merely of such an advance of insight into Christian
truth as proceeds from an immediate operation of the Holy Spirit; but
instrumentality by a process of thought animated by the Holy Spirit is
also included. There is, without doubt, in these words, not merely a
reference to new knowledge, such as must be communicated at once by
the light of the Holy Spirit; but still more a suggestion that Christians
who are yet immature ought to learn more thoroughly, and, by further

100 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
meditation carried on in the divine illumination which they have already
received, or more fully animated by the Divine Spirit, whose organs they
have become, ought better to understand the contents of the Christian
truth already communicated to them ; as, for instance, the relation of the
Gospel to the Law, and the consequences developed from faith in the
justification obtained through Christ. But still the word diroKaXvirTEiv
here retains its fundamental meaning, inasmuch as the insight spoken of
does not proceed from natural reason, but is obtained only by the new
light of the Holy Spirit. Here, therefore, we may also apply the dis
tinction between the words tpavspovv and diroKaXvirTEiv ; only Paul does
not distinguish here the immediate operation of the Divine Spirit upon
the soul, which, in virtue of a divine light at once rising upon it, is led
to the consciousness of such truths as could not be known by unassisted
natural reason — and the further development of these truths by subse
quent thinking, animated and directed by the Holy Spirit. Still the
divine light, always to be distinguished from the natural reason, into
wdiich it enters as something new, remains the fountain whence all is
drawn, whether the original and the immediate Divine communications,
or the further development and elaboration of the original — the reason,
either in its simple receptivity, or in its self-activity as an organ working
according to the peculiar laws of its nature, remaining ever an organ for
the higher factor, the revealing or animating Holy Spirit. Now, inas
much as everything is to be traced back to this, which, without its aid,
could not be effected by the unassisted reason, the use of diroKaXvirTEiv
in its meaning as opposed to (pavepovv is suitable. And we can only dis
tinguish in the application of this word, wdiich always retains its own pe
culiar meaning, the wider and the more limited use of it— the latter when
the subject spoken of is the original, creative operation of the Divine
Spirit, by which the knowledge of things hitherto hidden is imparted ;
the diroKaXvxpic; in such a sense as is essential to the gift of prophecy.
It is therefore plain, that when Paul attributes all his knowledge of
Christian truth to diroKaXv-ujig, he traces everything back to an internal
Divine causality. But here the question arises, whether, in reference to
all which Paul knew of the life, the ministry, the discourses, and com
mands of Christ, all other sources of knowledge were excluded, and only
this one of revelation left. In this case a supernatural communication
would have occupied in him the place of all other communications throuoh
natural human instrumentality.
But it contradicts all analogy in the mode of the Spirit's operations
in laying the foundation of the Christian Church, and in the propagation
of Christianity, that wdiat was matter of historical tradition should be
conveyed into the consciousness by a supernatural revelation, indepen
dent of this historical connection. The office of the Spirit, of whom
Christ says that he shall take of his own, and bring to remembrance
what he himself had spoken on earth, was not just to create a tradi
tion of Christ's words independent of this remembrance. It is wholly

BY TUE APOSTLE PAUL. 101
unnatural to suppose that Christ communicated to Paul, in special visions,
what he had spoken and commanded on earth. And it is by no means
in contradiction to Paul's asserted independence in his apostolic vocation,
that he obtained the historical materials of Christ's life and doctrine from
the natural source, common to all, of tradition. It was in this connec
tion enough, and the only important point, that in the understanding of
the truth announced by Christ, and knowledge of its nature, he was de
pendent on no human instruction, but drew everything from the inward
revelation of Christ, from the light of the Holy Spirit. This Spirit, who
took of the things of Christ, and brought to remembrance what he had
said, performed the same office for him as for the other apostles. On all
occasions when Paul quotes the words or commands of Christ, he speaks
in a manner that leads us to think of no other source of knowledge than
that of tradition. Thus where he mentions the institution of the Supper,*
he would have expressed himself quite differently, if the details of that
institution had been made known to him by an immediate revelation
from the Lord. He would no doubt have stated, with quite different
emphasis, the manner in which he had been informed of it.
As Paul felt himself compelled to examine, independently of others,
the depths of the truth made known by Christ, he must have been
specially solicitous to obtain a collection of the sayings of Christ, on
which all further developments of the new doctrine must depend, and
from which they must proceed. We cannot suppose that he would satisfy
himself with single expressions casually obtained from oral intercourse
with the apostles, whom he met so seldom, and for so short a time.
Besides, he says expressly, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that these
interviews with the other apostles were of no service towards his ac
quiring a deeper insight into Christian doctrine. We are led to the
supposition, that he obtained written memoirs of the life of Christ, or at
least a written collection of the sayings of Christ, if such existed, or that
he compiled one himself. But it is very probable that such a collection,
or several such collections, and written memoirs of Christ's ministry,
were in existence; for, however highly we may estimate the power of
the living word in this youthful period of the Church, we cannot allow
ourselves to forget that we are not speaking of an age of legends, but of
one, especially wherever Grecian cultivation had found its way, of great
* 1 Cor. xi. 23. On this passage, Schulz justly remarks, that Paul uses dirb not irapH
to signify that what he " received " was not immediately but mediately from the Lord.
What has been said by Olshausen and Meyer (on different grounds) against this interpre
tation, has not indrced me to give it up. Nor does it render the expression " received from
the Lord" (irapiAa/Sov dirb rov Kvpiov) by any means useless. It was not the apostle's de
sign to mark the manner in which this tradition came to him, but only to represent as
certain that this was the form in which the Lord had instituted the Last Supper; hence,
also, the repetition of the term Kvpioe is not improper. Had Paul been speaking of a
special revelation, by which this information was imparted, he would scarcely have signi
fied it by "received," irapeAa/3ov, but rathor by "was revealed," direKa^vijiSn.

102 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
literary activity. Might we not expect, then, that some memorials
would be speedily committed to writing of what moved their hearts, and
occupied their thoughts so intensely ; although a longer time might elapse
before any one resolved to attempt a delineation of the whole life of
Christ ?* Many allusions to expressions of Christ in the Pauline Epistles,
besides his direct quotations of Christ's words, point to such a collection
of his discourses, of which the apostle availed himself.! Where Paul, in
his Epistles, speaks of the imitation of Christ, he speaks as if a distinct
historical image of the Saviour was well known throughout the Church ;
and taking everything together, we are justified in supposing that he
* Eusebius, as is known, narrates (V. 10), probably in consequence of information de
rived from Pantamus, that the apostle Bartholomew had communicated to the so-called
Indians to whom he published the gospel, a Hebrew original document of the Kvangelical
History drawn up by Matthew, which account we are plainly not justified to call in ques
tion. This original document may indeed be the same wdiich Papias (Eusebius iii. 39) en
titles "an arranged collection of the discourses of the Lord," ovvrai- if tcjk Aoyiuv tov Kvpiov.
And I should by no means object to understanding this to be a collection of the discourses
of the Lord — for it is in itself very probable that such a compilation would be early made
as source and material for the development of Christian doctrine-^if what he had before
said of Mark's writings did not intimate that he meant both the discourses and actions of
Christ ; for I cannot, with Schneckenburger, find the distinction, that Mark had compiled
a report of the discourses and actions of Christ, but Matthew only of his discourses. In
this ease, Papias would have laid the emphasis on " discourses," Adyta, and have said rC>v
?Myiuv roil Kvpiov avvra^iv ; but the emphasis rests on the word ovvra^ie, an orderly
collection, not mere insulated fragments, yet, I must add, in limitation of what I have
here said, and of what Dr. Lucke has said before me in the Studien und Kritiken, 1833,
p. 501, that while the emphasis certainly rests upon the word avvra^ic, as contrasted with
a fragmentary description, yet it might also be that Papias wished to contrast the work
of Mark as a fragmentary collection of the discourses and actions of Christ, with the work
of Matthew as an arranged collection of the sayings of the Lord alone. Lastly, he says
this only in a secondary sense of Mark. The words peculiarly apply to Peter, from whose
discourses Mark must have borrowed the materials and the form of his work. Of Peter
he says, be irpbe rue xpeiac iiroietro rue dtdaoKaAiac, dAA' ovx uoirep ovvra^tv ruv KvptnKdiv
irotoipevoc Aoyiuv, " who had composed his addresses according to the wants of his
hearers at the time, and not with the intention of giving an orderly account of the dis
courses or sayings of Christ." Therefore, Mark, who drew all his informaiion from these
addresses, could compile nothing of that kind. The words of Papias are therefore rather
favorable than unfavorable to the supposition, that tho original work of Matthew was only
a collection of the sayings of Christ, as Schleiermaeher maintained. As Bartholomew
took such a document with him for his mission, and so in like manner other preachers of
the gospel may havo done, it may be now that Paul himself obtained this same document
or another. The Judaizing tendency of the document derived from Matthew, alleged by
many, by no means prevents me from admitting this ; it contains expressions which by
Ebionites cleaving to the letter might be interpreted according to their mind • but in
which Paul, who penetrated deeper into the spirit, would find an entirely different idea— -
See Life of Christ. Index s. v. Paul.
t Life of Christ. See Index v. Paul Perhaps Marcion who held only Paul as in
spired authority, had heard of a compilation of the Memoirs of Christ, which had been
used by his favorite apostle, and he wished, by his criticism, to gather it out a»aiu from
Luke's Gospel, which did not altogether conform to what he considered as Pauline.

BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 103
made use of an original historical record respecting Christ's ministry in
his addresses as a point of connexion for his instructions, which shorter
record fell into oblivion when the canonical Gospels had attained to
general notoriety and repute.
We may therefore suppose, that Paul, making use of such historical
materials, learned to understand and develop from them the substance of
Christ's discourses and the import of the transactions of his life, as also
the substance of the truth revealed by Him ; this he did by such special
communications of the Divine Spirit, as we have distinguished by the
name of "revelations," (dnoKaXvipEte), and by his own mental activity
animated by the same Spirit from whom these original movements pro
ceeded ; by this activity he developed still further, according to the de
ductions they offered, and in relation to the controversies of his times,
the truths which had been introduced into his consciousness by those
diroKaXvxpEig. The manner in which he accomplished this was determined
by the manner in which he himself had been converted, and by his dia
lectic cast of mind as developed in the Pharisaic school. Thus we can
make it very evident to ourselves, how so many deep truths expressed
by him, (as, for example, on the relation of the Law to the Gospel,)
unfolded themselves to him from a prescient hint* given by Christ him
self, f
If, therefore, we have good reason to believe that the peculiarities of
Paul's views respecting the relation between the Law and the Gospel
were early developed in his mind, we can at once account for his being
led in his disputes with the Hellenists to exhibit this side of evangelical
truth more freely, and thus to excite still more the anger of the Jews.
On the other hand, the prospect opened to him of a wider sphere of
action among heathen nations. As he was one day in the temple, and by
prayer lifting up his soul to the Lord, he was borne aloft from earthly
things. In a vision he received an assurance from the Lord, that though
he would be able to effect nothing at Jerusalem, on account of the ani
mosity of the Jews, he was destined to carry the doctrine of salvation to
other nations, even in remote regions ; Acts xxii. 21. Accordingly, after
staying in Jerusalem not more than fourteen days, he was obliged to leave
it, through the machinations of the Jews. He now returned to his native
place, Tarsus, where he spent several years, certainly not in inactivity ;
for by his labors the gospel was spread among both Jews and Gentiles in
Tarsus and throughout Cilieia ; there is good reason for believing, that to
him the Gentile churches, which in a short time we find in Cilieia, owed
their origin.^
* Of course, I do not mean that which Christ himself only possessed, as the fulness ol
prescience; but that which presented itself to him who received it with a susceptible dis
position, as the germ of a new spiritual creation.
f Life of Christ. Index, see Paul.
X The silence of the Acts respecting the labors of Paul in Cilieia, cannot be brought as
evidence against the fact, for the account it gives of this period has many lacuna. From

104 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.

CHAPTEE II.
THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH THE GENTILE MOTHER-CHURCH, AND ITS RELATION
TO THE JEWISH MOTHER-CHURCH.
In the mean time, as we have already remarked, Christianity was pro
pagated among the Gentiles by Hellenist teachers* in Antioch, the me
tropolis of Eastern Roman Asia. The news of this event excited great
interest among the Christians at Jerusalem. It is true, the information
was received more favorably than it would have been, if the account of
the operation of Christianity among the Gentiles in the conversion of
Cornelius had not materially contributed to allay their prejudices. But
still a measure of mistrust was prevalent against the Gentile believers
who were non-observant of the Mosaic law, a feeling which, after many
repeated exhibitions of the divine power of the gospel among Gentile
Christians, lingered for a long time in the majority of Jewish believers.
On this account, Barnabas, f a teacher who stood high in the general
confidence, and who as a Hellenist wTas better fitted to deal with Chris
tians of the same class, was commissioned to visit the new Gentile con
verts. On his arrival he rejoiced at witnessing the genuine effects of the
gospel, and used his utmost endeavors to advance the work. The exten
sive prospect which opened here for the advancement of the kingdom of
God, occasioned his inviting Paul, who had been active among the Gen
tiles in Cilieia, to become his fellow-laborer. One evidence of the power
the manner in which Paul is mentioned as secondary to Barnabas, till tho time of their
first missionary journey, an argument might be drawn for his not having previously entered
on any independent sphere of lahor. But the case may be, that though Paul, as the
younger and less known, was at first spoken of as subordinate to Barnabas, the elder and
approved publisher of the gospel ; yet, by degrees, Paul's extraordinary activity gave a
different aspect to their relative position. In Jerusalem they continued for a longer time
to assign the priority to Barnabas, as appears from the apostolic Epistle in Acts xv. 25, a
circumstance which Bleek very justly adduces as a mark of the unaltered originality of
this document; v. Studien und Kritiken, 1836, part iv. p. 1037. At all events, one would
rather assign a date some years later to the conversion of Paul, (on which, too, we can
never come to a decisive conclusion,) than suppose that he could spend several years in
his native place without exerting himself for the propagation of Christianity,  he who,
as he solemnly declares, had, from the time of his conversion, felt so strongly the impulse of
an inward call to preach the gospel.
* See p. 65.
f When Baur, in the work already quoted, p. 40, casts a doubt on this mission of
Barnabas from Jerusalem, and thinks that after the dispersion of the Hellenists occasioned
bv the persecution raised against Stephen, he had sought to form an independent sphere
of action out of Jerusalem, we have only a specimen of those arbitrary conclusions and
combinations raised to the dignity of facts by Dr. Baur, of which we have pointed out
the worthtessness.

CHURCH AT ANTIOCH. 105
with which Christianity in an independent manner spread itself among
the Gentiles, was the new name of Christians which was here given to
believers. Among themselves they were called, the Disciples of the Lord,
the Disciples of Jesus, the Brethren, the Believers. By the Jews names
were imposed upon them which implied undervaluation or contempt, such
as the Galileans, the Nazarenes, the Paupers ; and Jews would of course
not give them a name meaning the adherents of the Messiah. The Gen
tiles had hitherto, on account of their observance of the ceremonial law,
not known how to distinguish them from Jews. But now, when Chris
tianity was spread among the Gentiles apart from the observance of the
ceremonial law, its professors appeared as an entirely new religious sect
(a genus tertium, as they were afterwards termed, being neither Jews
nor Gentiles) ; and as the term Christ was held to be a proper name, the
adherents of the new religious teacher were distinguished by a wore!
formed from it, as the adherents of any school of philosophy were wont
to be named after its founder.*
Antioch from this time occupied amost important position in the devel
opment of Christianity. There were now two central points for the spread
of it; what Jerusalem had hitherto been for this purpose among the
Jews, that Antioch now became among the Gentiles. Here, first, the
two modes of apprehending Christianity, distinguished from one another
by the predominance of the Jewish or Gentile element, came into contact
and conflict. As at Alexandria, at a later period, the development of
Christianity had to experience the effect of various mixtures of the an
cient oriental modes of thinking with the mental cultivation of the Gre
cian schools, so in this Roman metropolis of Eastern Asia, it met with
various mixtures of the oriental forms of religious belief. From Antioch,
at the beginning of the second century, proceeded the system of an
oriental anti-Jewish Gnosis, which opposed Christianity to Judaism.
As there was considerable intercourse between the two churches at
Jerusalem and Antioch, Christian teachers frequently came from the
former to the latter ; among these was a prophet named Agabus, who
prophesied of an approaching famine, which would be felt severely by a
great number of poor Christians in Jerusalem, and he called upon the
believers of Antioch to assist their poorer brethren. This famine actually
occurred in Palestine about a.d. 44. f
* WTien we take into account the great influence of the Latin language, as the lan
guage of the government in this chief city of Roman Asia, we shall certainly find no
ground in the Latin form of the name to doubt, with Baur (p. 90), the truth of this ac
count of its origin, and to find in it an anachronism.
f "We cannot fix the exact time when this famine began. It is mentioned by Josephus
in his Antiq. Book xx. ch. 2, § 5. It was so great that numbers died in it from want.
Queen Helena of Adiabene in Syria, a convert to Judaism, sent vessels laden with corn,
which she had purchased at Alexandria, and with figs procured in the island of Cyprus,
to Jerusalem, and caused these provisions to be distributed among the poor. Luke, in.
deed, speaks of a famine that spread itself over the whole "habitable world," (olKovphrf)
which was not the case with this. To understand by oUovpivn in this passage, Palestine

106 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
The faculty of foretelling future events, did not necessarily enter intc
the New Testament idea of a prophet, assuming now that Luke wrote
from his own point of view. An address fitted to produce a powerful effect
on an audience, one by which Christians would be excited to deeds of
beneficence, would correspond to the marks of a prophetic address in the
New Testament sense ; but as in the Acts it is expressly added that the
famine foretold by the prophet actually came to pass, we must doubtless
admit, in this instance, that there was a prediction of an impending
famine, although it is possible that the prophecy was founded on the
observation of natural prognostics.
The Christians at Antioch felt themselves bound to assist, in its tem
poral distress, that church from wdiich they had received the highest
spiritual benefits, and probably sent their contributions before the begin
ning of the famine, by the hands of Paul and Barnabas, to the presiding
elders of the church at Jerusalem. This church, having enjoyed about
eight years' peace after the persecution that ensued on Stephen's martyr
dom, was once more assailed by a violent but transient tempest. King
Herod Agrippa, to whom the Emperor Claudius had granted the govern
ment of Judea, affected great zeal for the strict observance of the ancient
ritual,* although on many occasions he acted contrary to it, on purpose
to ingratiate himself with the Gentiles, just as by his zeal for Judaism he
tried to attach the Jewish people to himself. Actuated by such motives,
he thought it expedient to manifest hostility to the teachers of the new
doctrine, of whom he had received unfavorable reports.
It is possible, that at that time the displeasure of the king or of the
fanatical multitude was excited anew by special circumstances. It is
worthy of note that James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, was
the first object of their persecution. It may have been at first only a
hostility directed against him personally, and occasioned, perhaps, by
something which he had said or done. We must bear in mind, that he
who was at the same time one of the sons of thunder, and like his brother,
one of those disciples wdio stood nearest to Christ, must have had pecu
liarities, some kindred to, and some quite different from, those of his
brother. We have to regard him, as well as John, as one who had ap
prehended with peculiar depth the doctrines of Christ. We can easily
discern how. such a one could give special offence to narrow-minded zea
lots, although there are no historical traces which exactly determine the
fact. Since now the king, who would make himself popular by his zeal
for the old religious law, perceived that the execution of James won the
approbation! of the people, he determined to consign Peter to a similarfate.
only, is not justified by the New Testament phraseology ; but it is possible that the
famine extended to other parts, and we must then suppose the word to be used somewhat
rhetorically, and not with literal exactness, especially if we consider it as spoken by a
prophet come from Jerusalem.
* Josephus, Antiq. Book xix. ch. 6 and 1.
| The arguments brought forward by Baur, p. 188, do not make out a falsehood in the

CHURCH AT ANTIOCH. 107
But on account of the feast — the Passover in the year 44* — he at first
only cast him into prison. But by the special providence of God, Peter
was delivered from prison, and the death of the king, which shortly fol
lowed, once more gave peace to the church.
If Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem during this disturbed state
of things (assuming that Paul accompanied Barnabas) their stay was
necessarily shortened by it, and they could accomplish nothing of conse
quence.! But if we compare the account in the Acts with the narrative
of the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, and if we assume that
the journey to Jerusalem, which he there mentions as the second, was
really the second, according to the order in the Acts, then, this journey
would acquire great importance.^ We must then assume, that although
statement, that the king sought to gain the favor of the people by this proceeding against
the Christians. Although, on the whole, the Christians were tolerated among the Jews
as a Jewish sect, yet this does not exclude the fact, that the rage of the fanatical multi
tude might have broken forth against them on special occasion, and that one, who pre
tended to persecute the new sect out of zeal for the old religious law, may have used the
occurrence to win favor to himself. If at a later time, the execution of James the Just
was condemned by those whom Josephus calls the better class of the Jews ; yet it by no
means follows that at this time the proceedings against the Christians were judged of in
just the same way. People in their treatment of tolerated sects are not always con
sistent. Very much depends on special circumstances and tho mood of the moment. We
yield here to the Acts the greater confidence that it in no way mistakes the difficult rela
tion between the Jews and the Christians. We believe ourselves compelled to say this in
the spirit of careful, and, in matters of doubt, even of scrupulous, inquiry, although we
could, on reasonable grounds, admit an error here in the historical representation, without
discrediting the essential truth of the transaction.
* For it was the last year of Herod Agrippa's reign, who held for at least three whole
years the sovereignty of Judea, (Joseph, xix. 8, 2 ;) and, therefore, certainly reigned from
the end of January, 41, to the beginning of the reign of Claudius, the end of January, 44;
so that only the Passover of this last year could be intended, that which took place after
Herod had reigned three whole years.
f As the words " about that time," /car' cksivov rbv Kaipbv, in Acts xii. 1, cannot serve
for fixing the exact date, the coincidence of this journey of Paul's with these events at
Jerusalem, and the whole chronology founded upon it of the apostle's history, is not abso
lutely certain. Yet there is, at least, no valid argument against this arrangement.
X Irenaeus adv. Hjcres. lib. iii. u. 13, seems to consider it as settled that this, mentioned
as second in the Epistle to the Galatians, was Paul's third journey. But what Tertullian
says (contra Marcion, 1. 20), goes on the supposition that it was his second journey. He
alleges the same reason for thinking so, as Keil, iu his essay on the subject lately published
in his Opuscula; that Paul, in the first glow of his conversion, was more violent against
Judaism, hut later his feelings towards it were mollified. Thus he explains the dispute
with Peter at Antioch. "Paulus adhuo in gratia rudis, ferventer, ut adhuo ueophytus,
adversus Judaismum." (" Paul as yet immature in grace," — " fervently, as yet a
neophyte, against Judaism.") (It is contradictory to this supposition that he allows
Paul to have given way to the Judaizers at Jerusalem, in reference to the circumcision of
Titus, cont. Marcion, V. 3 . And certainly it would better correspond with the character
of Paul and the mode of his conversion, that, at first, he should engage in fiercer opposi
tion to the observance of the law, than that his mind should gradually be developed in
that freer direction. Yet this supposition, that it was his second journey, as we shall
afterwards show, is by no means supported by historical evidence. What is advanced

108 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
the conveyance of the collection to Jerusalem was the avowed object and
motive of this journey, yet Paul himself had another and more im
portant end in view, which probably induced him to be the bearer of the
contributions. It could be said, that as the strictly Pharisaical Jews
held it absolutely necessary for the Gentiles to submit to the whole
ceremonial law, and particularly to circumcision,* in order to enjoy the
blessings of theocracy ; as the mistrust of the Jewish Christians had al
ready, as we have before remarked, manifested itself against the Gentile
converts; and as the consequences of this state of feeling might have
already appeared in the church at Antioch, which stood in so close a
connexion with the parent church at Jerusalem ; it is not at all improb
able, that Paul and Barnabas felt it to be their imperative duty, iu order
to guard against a dangerous disagreement, to come to an understanding
with the apostles at Jerusalem on this subject, and to unite with them in
establishing fixed principles respecting it. It is, rather, in itself more
probable, that such a mutual explanation took place earlier, than that it
occurred at a later period.! It is true, such a conference of Paul and
Barnabas with the three most eminent of the apostles, could not well be
held at that time, since one of them was cast into prison ; but too great
an uncertainty is attached to the dates of these events, to render this
by Wurm, in his essay already quoted, in the Tiibingen Zeitschrift fur Theologie, against
my application of the first passage from Tertullian, is not just. I have myself here re
marked on the contradiction between the two passages, and in a writer of Tertullian's
cast of mind — highly as we esteem the depth, fire, and vigor of his genius — such a con
tradiction is not very surprising. — But from Tertull. c. Marcion, lib. V. 2, 3, it is by no
means clear, that he considered the second journey mentioned in the Epistle to the Gala
tians, as tlie same with that which was followed by the resolutions of the apostolic as
sembly at Jerusalem. Tertullian only says, that the Acts of the Apostles — whose credi
bility was not acknowledged by Marcion — represented the principles on which Paul
acted not diiferently from what Paul states them to be in an Epistle admitted as genuine
by Marcion; consequently, the account of Luke, in this respect, must be credible. So
then, Tertullian, i. 9, by rudis fides means the same as in the passage first quoted. The
rudis fides in that passage, is a faith still young and not fully tried, which hence oould not
possess so iudepenelont an authority; "hoc enim" " for this" (the temporary concession in
reference to the circumcision of Titus) rudi fidei et adhuc de l-g'is observatione suspensae " to
an immature faith, us yet in suspense concerning the observance of the Iavv,''(iu reference
to which it was still disputed whether they were not bound to the observance of the law)
competebat," " was suited," namely, until Paul had succeeded in having his independent call
to the apostleship and its peculiar grounds acknowledged by the other apostles.
* A Jewish merchant, named Ananias, who had converted King Izates of Adiabene,
the son of Queen Heleua, to Judaism, assured him that he might worship Jehovah with
out being circumcised, and even sought to dissuade him from it, that it roisrtit not cause
an insurrection of his people. But when another stricter Jew, Eleazar, came thither he
declared to the king that since he acknowledged the divine authority of the Mosaic law
he would sin by neglecting any of its commands, and therefore no consideration ouaht to
prevent his compliance. Joseph. Arehieol. lib. xx. c. 2, § 4. And such was the opinion
of the converts to Christianity from among the Jews, who, to use (he words of Josephu^
were uKoiftele irepl rd iritrpia, "strict concerning ancestral institutions."
\ As Dr. Paulus remarks in his Exegetical Manual, 1, i. p. 238.

CHURCH AT ANTIOCH. 109
objection of much weight. And it harmonizes well also with this view,
that this conference is represented as a private * transaction of Paul's
with the most eminent of the apostles ; partly because the matter ap
pears not yet to have been sufficiently ripe for a public discussion ; partly
because by the persecution set on foot by King Agrippa, the intended
public conference could have been prevented. By this supposition, we
should gain therefore a connecting link in the history of the transactions
between the Jewish and Gentile converts, and the two historical docu
ments, the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians, would
each supply what is necessary for the completion of the other. But, in
the first place, the chronology of the common reading, supported by the
authority of all the manuscripts,! is irreconcilable with this hypothesis,
for we must then reckon Paul's conversion to have taken place at least
fourteen years earlier, which would be a computation wholly untenable.
And, secondly, the relation in which Paul, according to the description
in the Acts, stood, up to a certain time, to Barnabas, the elder preacher
of the gospel, will not agree with this view. For at an earlier period,
according to the slight notices furnished us by the Acts, Paul appears
in a subordinate relation, both of age and discipleship, to the elder
preacher of the gospel. It was not till he undertook the missionary
journey with Barnabas from Antioch, in which he was the most prom
inent agent, that that apostolic superiority developed itself, which was
* The "but privately," /car' idiav de, Gal. ii 2, which contains an antithesis to " in pub
lic," dr/pooia. Yet public conferences are by no means excluded; for it is not clear that the
words sar' Idiav ii follow what was before said, merely as a limiting explanatory clause.
Paul, certainly, might, from the whole conference in which he communicated to them
(dveBipcv avrolc,) (which may refer to the brethren generally) an expression which
includes all that be transacted at Jerusalem — have singled out some circumstance to him
of special importance, viz., his private interviews with James, Peter, and John, or he
might at first, have noticed only the public, and afterwards the important private con
ferences, altogether passing over the former. Compare Wurm, p. 51 ; Anger, p. 149.
f The Chronicon Paschale Alexandrinum, ed. Niebuhr, p. 436, cites an opinion accord
ing to wdiich Paul must have taken this second journey four years after his conversion;
and this computation certainly assumes the reading to be " four years," reoodpuv irdiv,
instead of " Iburteen" deKareaa. This reading being assumed, it may be readily under
stood how the preceding word (6ia) could have occasioned the change of A into 1A. And
according to this reading, if we refer this to the second journey of Paul mentioned in
the Acts, other dates will readily agree ; only, if we reckon these four years from the
conversion of St. Paul, that event must be placed about the year 40. But still it re
mains uncertain, whether the computation cited in the Chronicon Paschale is founded on
a critical conjecture, or on the authority of a manuscript ; and, at all events, the opposing
evidence of all manuscripts and quotations from the Fathers is too important. — (Conybeare
and Howson in their excellent work, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 233, n. 5, say: —
" Neander, by mistake, asserts that the Chronicon Paschale reads reaadpuv ; but the re
verse is the fact." — Neander only says that the passage referred to by him contains an
opinion which assumes that reading, and he immediately notices the uncertain basis of
the assumption. This opinion is found not in that part of the passage in the Chron. Pas.
quoted by Conybeare and Howson, but in the sentence containing the words ern riaoapa
which they thiuk relate to a different subject. — Ed.)

110 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
afterwards exhibited in the transactions at Jerusalem. Still we cannot
consider this remark as decisive of the question ; for we may feel con
fident that such a man as Paul, especially if we grant his independent
labors in Cilieia, must have come forward, even before the period of his
apostolic superiority, with extraordinary efficiency when the occasion
demanded it.
At all events, if we admit that Paul took such a journey, we must
consider it as one not mentioned by him in the Epistle to the Galatians,
and as the second of the journeys which he made to Jerusalem after his
conversion. But it may be asked, whether this journey of Paul's is on
the whole sufficiently accredited ? Its not being mentioned in the pass
age quoted from the Epistle to the Galatians excites strong doubts. It
may, indeed, be thought possible that in numbering his journeys to Jeru
salem up to a certain time, this journey was passed over as not very im
portant, or that at the instant of writing he did not happen to think of it.
Still we cannot consider this as at all probable. Paul certainly so ex
presses himself that we cannot attach any other meaning to his words
than, that after that short stay of fourteen days in Jerusalem, he had not
been there till that journey which constituted an epoch in the history
of the Church ; hence he could say that he had continued personally un
known to the Churches in Judea — that they had only heard by report
of the labors of him who had once been a persecutor. And what con
clusion must we draw from this, relative to the account in the Acts?
Nothing more than that the tradition which Luke followed, and which
united Paul and Barnabas in their labors at this period, joined them
here together, although for some reason this was an exceptional instance,
or Paul might have been chosen as a delegate, but some unknown cir
cumstance might have prevented his taking the journey. At least, we
can more easily admit an oversight here, than resolve to do violence to
Paul's own declaration.*
Since there was no deficiency of teachers in the church at Antioch,
the Christians there would naturally reflect, after the conversion of the
Gentiles had once begun, that the publication of the gospel should be
extended from Syria to other heathen nations. Barnabas and Paul had
probably at an early period expressed their desire to be employed in a
wider sphere for the conversion of the Gentiles, as Paul had been as
sured by the Lord of his appointment to carry the gospel to distant
nations. And as Barnabas had brought his nephew Mark with him from
Jerusalem to Antioch, it is not unlikely that he was prompted to this
step by the prospect of a more extensive field in which he might employ
his relative as a fellow-laborer. The teachers who were assembled at
Antioch appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to lay this matter before
* I agree here, as in most points, with Bleek ; see his Beitrage zur Evangelien-Kritik,
Berlin, 1846, p. 55; a work that contains the result of an unprejudiced, profound, and
cautious criticism ¦ from this writer, indeed, nothing else could be expected.

BY PAUL AND BARNABAS. Ill
the Lord, and to pray for his illumination to direct them what to do. A
firm persuasion was imparted to them all by the Spirit of God, that they
ought to set apart and send forth Barnabas and Paul to the work to
which they were called by the Lord.

CHAPTER III.
THE PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY FROM ANTIOCH BY PAUL AND
BARNABAS.
Accompanied by Mark, they first visited the island of Cyprus, the
native country of Barnabas, whose previous connection with it facilitated
the introduction of the gospel. They traversed the island from east to
west, from Salamis to Paphos. In their teaching they followed the
track which history had marked out for them, that method by which
the gospel must spread itself among the heathen. As the Jews, in vir
tue of their connexion with the theocratic development, and of the pro
mises intrusted to them, had the first claim to the announcement of the
Messiah ;* as they were in a state of the greatest preparation, and places
* irpurov 'lovdaiu, "to the Jew first" Rom. i. ]6, compared with John iv. 22. The
credibility of what is narrated in the Acts on this and other occasions respecting the
manner in which Paul turned to the Gentiles immediately after the ill reception which he
met with from the Jews assembled in the synagogue, would be shaken if Dr. Baur were
correct in his assertion, (see his Essay on the Object and Occasion of the Epistle to the
Romans, in the Tubingen Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1836, No. iii., p. 101,) that the author
of the Acts did not give a faithful relation of objective facts, but modified them according
to his peculiar views and aim ; that they are to be explained from the apologetic desigu
with which he maintains the position, that the gospel reached the Gentiles only through
the criminality and unbelief of the Jews. This is connected with Baur's idea of au anti-
Pauline party, consisting of persons who took offence at the Pauline universalism, (his
preaching the gospel both to Jews and Gentiles,) and which had its seat in Rome. Jor
this parly such an apologetic representation of Paul's ministry must be supposed. We
might be allowed to cast such a suspicion on the representation in the Acts, if any thing
artificial was to be found in it, any thing not corresponding to what might be expected
from the circumstances of the times. But if the line of conduct ascribed to the apostle,
and its consequences, appear altogether natural under the circumstances, it does not ap
pear how we can be justified in deducing the repetition (of Paul's mode of acting,) not
from the nature of the thing, in which it was really grounded, but from the subjective
manner of the narrator. Now, in all the cities where synagogues existed, they formed the
most convenient places for making known the gospel, when Paul was not disposed to ap
pear in the public market-places as a preacher. Here he found the proselytes assembled,
who formed a channel of communication with the Gentiles, and in the passage quoted
from the Epistle to the Romans, the principle is stated according to which the Jews had
the first claim to the publication of the gospel. Love to his own people produced the
earnest desire to effect as much as possible for their salvation along with his calling as an

112 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
already existed among them for the purposes of religious instruction ; it
was on these accounts natural that the apostles should first enter the
synagogues, and the proselytes of the gate, whom they had met with,
afforded them the most convenient point of transition from the Jews to
the Gentiles. In Paphos, they found in the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a
man dissatisfied with all that philosophy and the popular religion could
offer for his religious wants, and anxious to receive every thing which
presented itself as a new communication from heaven ; hence, he was
eager to hear what Paul and Barnabas announced as a new divine doc
trine. But, also, from that very sense of religious need, unsatisfied, and
guided by no clear self-knowledge, he had given ear to the deceptive arts
of an itinerant Jewish Goes, Barjesus.* These Goetse were iu succeed-

apostle of the Gentiles, Rom. xi. 14. That I have brought forward this from the Epistle
to the Romans, which Baur has made use of as a proof of the existence of such an apolo
getic inlerest, is not on my part a mere petitio principii, for I cannot in any way recon
cile it with the character of the apostle, that he could express such principles and such
desires at that time, merely for certain special purposes. But it was natural that he
should turn away from the great mass of the carnally-minded Jews, if he found only here
and there individuals among them of susceptible dispositions, and devote himself to the
Gentiles alone. It does not follow from this that his call to the apostleship among the
heathen was determined merely by accidental circumstances; for if he found a greater
number of Jews in a city disposed to believe, yet his other calling would not thereby
have been frustrated ; but among the converted Hellenistic Jews, who were more closely
related by birth or education to those who were Greeks, he would have found assistance
for establishing the Christian church among the Gentiles; and when, after so many pain
ful experiences, he had little hopes of success among the Jews, still he could not give up
the attempt to do something for his countrymen, if by any means he might save some;
especially since he could so well unite this with the interests of his calling, and could find
no more convenient and unostentatious method of paving his way to the Gentiles. And
does not the peculiar mixture in the churches of the Genrile Christians, the influence of
Judaizers upon them, give evidence of their origination? Rom. xi. 12 will also establish
this point. And that the author of the Acts has given a narrative consistent with facts
and the actual state of things, is shown by this, that when describing the course of Paul
at Athens, he does not repeat the same method of proceeding, but represents him as act
ing in a different manner, adapted to tho local peculiarities.
* On this account, it was not at all uncommon for such sorcerers to find access to men
of the highest rank. Thus Lucian narrates, that the most distinguished men in Rome
most eagerly inquired after the prophecies of a sorcerer, Alexander of Abonoteichos, in
Pontus, who acquired great notoriety iu the reign of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius;
among the zealous adherents of Alexander, he mentions especially an eminent Roman
statesman, Rutilianus, of whom he says — dvi/p rd piv dXka icaAde Kal dyaBbe Kai iv
irolAale rrpd^eoi fiupaiKatc i^nraopivoc, rd 61 irepl rove Brodc irdvv voadv ; Alexand.
§ 30 ; (a man in other things, indeed, good and noble, and esteemed in many Roman
offices, but in matters pertaining to the gods altogether diseased). Lucian. Baur. (p. 94)
objects to the use I here make of this work of Lucian' s, because it is evident, he says,
that in this discourse he was not describing an historical person, but only intended to
paiut the manners of the times. Certainly, we do not appeal to Lucian's work as a sure
source of historical information, but can only suppose a grouudwork of especial historical
truth, which Lucian fills up for the object he had in view. But this decides nothing
against my use of it. If Lucian gives the manners of his times, the traits must be bor

BY PAUL AND BARNABAS. 113
ing times the most virulent opposers of Christianity, because it threat
ened to deprive them of their domination over the minds of men ;* and
for the same reason, this man took the utmost pains to hinder the spread
of the gospel, and to prejudice the proconsul against it. But Paul, full
of holy indignation, declared with divine confidence, that the Lord would
punish him with the loss of that eye-sight which he only abused by
attempting with his arts of deception to stop the progress of divine
truth. The threatening was immediately fnltilled; and by this sensible
evidence of the operation of a higher power, the proconsul was with
drawn from the influence of the Goes, and rendered more susceptible
of divine instruction.
Thence they directed their course further northward ; passed over to
Pamphylia, and along the borders of Phrygia, Isauria, and Pisidia, and
made a longer stay at the considerable city of Antioch,! (which, as a
border-city, was at different periods reckoned as belonging to difterent
provinces,) in order to allow time for making known the gospel. Paul's
discourse;); in the synagogue is a specimen of the peculiar wisdom and
skill of the great apostle in the management of men's feelings, and
of his peculiar antithetical mode of developing Christian truth. He
sought first to win the attention and confidence of his hearers, by re
minding them how God had chosen their fathers to be his people, and
then gave an outline of God's dealings with them, to the times of David,
the individual from whose posterity, according to the promises, the
rowed from the life, and hence we can make use of his work as a proof that the narrative
under our consideration contains nothing inconsistent with the character of the times to
which it belongs.
* Of which the Alexander mentioned in the preceding note is an example.
\ To distinguish it from the Asiatic metropolis, it is called 'kvridxeia irpbe liiaidia.
X Baur maintains that this discourse bears the marks of arbitrary composition ; that
the greater part is cast in the same mould as the discourses of Peter, already reported in
the Acts, and only at the close, a Pauline turn of expression is brought in, a foreign ele
ment, not at all suited to the whole. We very readily grant that we have no exact and
complete report of Paul's discourse, and that we should have recognized more of what is
peculiarly Pauline, if the discourse had come down to us io its original form. Yet we
cannot assent to what Baur says about the composition; but we think that there maybe
discerned the genuine main features of the discourse delivered by Paul. We find here a
combination of the peculiarly Pauline as it appears in the doctrine of Justification, with
what, according to the nature of the case, formed the common type in all apologetical dis
courses of the apostles when addressing Jews. The references to the ancient history of
the Theocratic people and to the Messianic element must, of course, always be prominent.
The adducing of Christ's resurrection as a proof of the divine agency belongs also to the
common foundation of the Christian testimony, and is brought forward not less in the
Epistles of Paul. As Paul was speaking to persons who for the first time were invited to
the Faith, he would naturally express himself otherwise than in his epistles addressed to
believing Christians. Iu such a discourse the resurrection of Christ was necessarily intro
duced as a practical, divine credential for the Messiahship of Jesus; a credential also for
what he had effected by his sufferings for the salvation of mankind. If this kind of com
position is lo be set down as un-Pauline, then Romans iv. 25, must be also un-Paulbae. See
Schhiermacher's Einleitung in das neue Testament, p. 375.
a

114 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Messiah was to sprii y. After the introduction he came to the main ob
ject of his address, to the appearance of the Messiah, and to what he
had effected for the salvation of mankind. Then turning to the Jews
and proselytes present, he proceeded to say, that for them this announce
ment of salvation was designed, since those to whom it was first pro
posed, the Jews at Jerusalem, and their rulers, had been unwilling to
receive it; they had not acknowledged the Messiah, nor understood the
prophecies, which they heard read every Sabbath-day in their syna
gogues.* Yet, while in their blindness they condemned the Messiah to
death, they could not retard the fulfillment of the prophecies, but, against
their design and will, contributed to it ; for after he had suffered all
things which according to the predictions of the prophets he was to
suffer, he rose from the dead. By faith in him they could obtain for
giveness of sins and justification, which they could never have obtained
by the law.! And after announcing this promise to them, Paul closed
with a threatening warning to unbelievers. This discourse, uttered with
all the impressiveness of firm faith, and yet evincing so much tenderness
towards the Jews, made at first a favorable impression upon them, and,
in the name of the whole assembly, they requested him to expound his
doctrine more fully on the next Sabbath.J Such was the impression
* Only using milder expressions, Paul here says the same things of the blindness of
the Jews, which he often says in stronger and more severe language in his Epistles, ac
cusing them of obduracy.
f To justify my views of this passage, I must make a few remarks as to the right
interpretation of Acts xiii. 39. I cannot understand it as if the apostle meant to say —
Through Christ men obtain forgiveness of all sins, even of those of which forgiveness could
not tie obtained through the law. The apostle certainly knew only one forgiveness of sins
and one justification; and he used the term "all things", irdvruv, only to mark the com
pleteness of tlie removal of guilt, as the idea of "righteou'n -8=", diKaioaivn, pre-supposesthis;
but the preceding irdvruv occasioned him to refer the relative pronoun by a kind of logical
aitractiou to this term of universality, rather than to the whole ide.i of being justified,
ductauBdvnt, which he had especially in view. What Meyer says in bis commentary in
defence of the common interpretation, does not convince me. "Paul," he remarks,
" specifies one part of the universal ' forgiveness of sins,' d<peoie d/iapriuv, as particularly
woithy of notice, but this does not at all injure the unity of the forgiveness of sins and
justification." I do not perceive how Paul, from his point of view, could render one
special pail more prominent than another; I know indeed of no sin from which a man
could be justified by the law; in Paul's mind, there could be here no difference whatever.
The peculiarly Pauline style of carrying out the contrast between faith and the law here
appears in the germ.
X If, in Acts xiii. 42, we take pera^i), (between, intervening,) in its usual acceptation,
we must understand the passage thus: Paul and Barnabas were requested to explain
the Christian doctrine to them during the week between this and the next Sabbath,
therefore before the next celebration of the Sabbath. Such a request might be very
suitable, if it were that of individuals who wished to hear discourses on the doctrine
in their private circles during the week. But it does not appear so proper as a wish
expressed by ihe whole congregation at the synagogue. We should then also most
naturally refer it to the Gentiles, and on that account should be obliged to consider the
reading ' the Gentiles," rd iBvij, in the 42d verse as correct, though it seems to be a

BY PAUL AND BARNABAS. 115
made by his words on the assembly in general. But there were many
among the Jews present, and especially the proselytes, who were more
deeply affected than the rest, and who longed after the redemption an
nounced by Paul. They could not wait till the next Sabbath, but hast
ened after Paul, who had left the synagogue with Barnabas; they
informed them of the impressions they had received, and earnestly
requested more ample instruction. Paul and Barnabas consequently
availed themselves of many opportunities to explain the divine doctrine
in private houses during the course of the week, and likewise to make it
known among the Gentiles. Hence, by the next Sabbath, the new doctrne
of salvation had obtained notoriety through the whole city, and a multi
tude of the Gentile inhabitants flocked to the synagogue in order to hear
Paul's discourse. This was a spectacle sufficient to stir up the wrath of
the Jews, who were filled with spiritual pride and with a delusive notion of
their superiority as members of the ancient Theocracy, and hence this
discourse of Paul's was not heard with the same favorable disposition
and calmness as the first. He was interrupted by violent contradictions
and reproaches. He then declared to them, that since they were not
disposed to receive the salvation announced to them, and excluded
themselves from it to their own condemnation, the preachers of the gos
pel had discharged their obligations, and would now turn to the Gentiles,
who had shown themselves disposed to receive their instructions, and
that the gospel was designed to be a fountain of light and salvation to
nations in the uttermost parts of the earth. Thus Paul and Barnabas
left the synagogue with the believing Gentiles, and a suitable chamber
in the dwelling of one of their number, probably, was the first place
of assembling for the church that was now formed. Christianity spread
itself through the whole circumjacent district ; but the Jews contrived,
gloss. Also the word " Sabbath," odfiflarov, in the Acts is never used in the sense of a
week; for the phrase " first day of the week," pia oa{3[3diruv, cannot be brought as a voucher
for this meaning. But if we understand rd pera^v odiiSarov, of the next Sabbath, all
will be clear: and u comparison with verse 44 favors this interpretation, which is also
sanctioned by the ancient glosses and scholia in Griesbach and Matthai. From the earlier
Greek writers it is certainly difficult to find an authority for this meaning of pera$i), but
not from the later. In Plutarch's Inslituta Laconica, c. 42, peru^b occurs twice in this
sense, and especially in the second passage, "the Macedonian kings after Philip and Alex
ander," role pira^v MaKedovtKoic fiaai'Aevaiv, for it cannot be otherwise understood ; and
so likewise in Josophus, De Bello Jud., lib. v. u. 4, § 2, where, after speaking of David and
Solomon, he says, tuv pera^v rovruv fiaoiAeuv, which can only mean, " the kings after
these."— I consider the words "The Jews out of the synagogue," Ik rije ovrayuyne rdiv
'Iwdaiuv, and the words, "the Gentiles," tu IBvn, as glosses, founded on a misunder
standing ; but I cannot, with Kuiuoel, take the whole of the verse, so strongly accredited
as genuine, to be only a gloss. What is said in this verse, may be considered as marking
the vivid representation of an event by an eye-witness. As Paul and Barnabas were
going away before the whole of the congregation had separated, they were requested by
the elders of the synagogue to repeat their addresses on the next Sabbath. But alter the
whole congregation had separated, many individuals ran after them to open their hearts to
them more unreservedly.

116 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
by means of the female proselytes belonging to the most respectable fam
ilies in the city,* and their influence on their husbands, to raise a perse
cution against Paul and Barnabas, so that they were obliged to leave the
place. They proceeded to the city of Iconium, about ten miles to the
east, in Lycaonia,! where they had access to both Jews and Gentiles.
But by the influence of the hostilely disposed among the former, who
also here had gained over to their side a part of the people and the mag
istrates, they were driven from this city also. They now betook them
selves to other cities in the same province, and first tarried in the neigh
boring town of Lystra. As in this place there was no synagogue, and
scarcely any Jews dwelt in it, they could make known the gospel only by
entering into conversation J in places of public resort, and thus leading per
sons to religious subjects ; gradually small groups were formed, wdiich
were increased by many who were attracted by curiosity or interest in
the subject of conversation. Paul was one day thus instructing in divine
truth a company who had gathered round him, when a man who had
been lame from his birth, and probably was used to sit for alms in a
thoroughfare of the city, listened to him with great attention. The
divine in the appearance and discourse of Paul deeply impressed him,
and caused him to look up with confidence as if he expected a cure from
him. When Paul noticed this, he said to him with a loud voice, "Stand
upright on thy feet ;" and he stood up and walked. §
* Here, as at Damascus, (and other instances might be mentioned,) Judaism found most
ready acceptance with females, as Christianity did afterwards.
¦j- In other times it was considered as belonging to Phrygia, orPisidia,
X A frequent practice of modern missionaries in Asia.
§ Only he will feel compelled to believe this statement who acknowledges the new divine
powers of 1 i fo. which through Christ have been introduced into the human race. But whoever
is not entangled in a mechanical view of nature, whoever acknowledges the power of Spirit
over nature, and a hidden dynamic connexion between soul and body — to such a person
it cannot appear wholly incredible that the immediate impression of a divine power oper
ating on the whole internal being of man, should produce results of altogether a different
kind from remedies taken out of the stores of the ordinary powers of nature. What Baur
says (p. 95) in his note on these words, induces me to add a few words to justify my re
marks. He finds fault with the first words as giving " a very unworthy view of Christian
ity — since it must follow that miracles belong so essentially to Christianity that wherever
it is not accompanied by such acts, it doe9 not manifest its divine life-power. And since,
confessedly, no such wonders take place now, Christianity must havo been long devoid of
vitality." But this can have been written only in consequence of a palpable distortion of
my language, even if not intentional ; for such a distortion might easily take place without
derign, by interpreting what I have said, from a foreign point of view. Of divine powers in
Christianity persons speak in one sense from the stand-point of supernatural ism, and in
another, from that of rationalism, whether it be a deistical or a pantheistical rationalism —
a rationalism which with reckless consistency goes so far as to deny everything supersen-
Bual and beyond the present life, or which inconsistently leaves something supersensual
and of a future life remaining. If by the divine powers of Christianity we understand
something specific and peculiar, not proceeding from the regular development of human
nature, something new, in a true sense supernatural, which is introduced through the
supernatural event of the appearance of Christ and his whole work — then from such a

BY PAUL AND BARNABAS. 117
This sight attracted a still greater crowd, and the credulous people now
esteemed the two apostles to be more than men, — gods who had come
down in human form to confer benefits on men. A belief of this kind,
deeply seated in the human breast, and proceeding from the undeniable
feeling of the connexion of the human race with God, was spread from
ancient times among the heathen,* and at this period was much increased
point of view, what we call miracle will appear as the sign corresponding to this super
natural principle on its introduction into the natural development of mankind ; an operation
related to this causality. And it can with perfect justice be said, that whoever en
tertains this view, whoever acknowledges the Scriptural Christ in his true supernatural-
ness, has no reason in the nature of the case itself for not acknowledging a miracle con
nected with the first development of Christianity. And therewith is it by no menns
affirmed that this supernatural divine power having once entered into the life of human
ity, must always be accompanied by such miracles. Rather, wo consider it as belonging
to the law of the development of this divine power in the human race, that after it has
once adapted itself to the natural development of humanity, these outward marks of the
supernatural will cease. But what Christianity has effected and continues to effect for
the spiritual and moral transformation of the world we recognise as proceeding from the
same divine power which inheres in Christianity and is identical with that miraculous ele
ment. But the case is altogether different, when by "the divine power of Christianity"
nothing more is understood than an excitement of the powers already lying in human na
ture through an impulse given by Christ, in no other sense than that in which we speak
of the excitement of higher powers in humanity by the movement called forth by any em
inent man through his influence on society, or than that in which we speak of a divine
power in all the manifestations of Truth and Goodness.
But as to the second part of this note, it stands in no contradiction to the idea of a
miracle as represented by me. It would only affect such an idea of a miracle as Dr. Baur
has erroneously attributed to me and to the advocates of the supernaturalisdc point of view,
an idea which from his stand-point of Naturalism or Pantheism logically carried out, he
regards as the only consistent one ; but against which I have often sufficiently guarded
myself both in this work and in the Life of Jesus. It is by no means asserted in these
words, as Baur's interpretation of them would imply, that the miracle could be denied only
from the stand-point of a mechanical view of nature, which certainly would be an un
founded and unjust assertion. There is only a certain denial of miracles, (which is not to
be said of every denial,) as there is also a certain mode of asserting miracles, which pro
ceeds from a mechanical view of nature. Nor were these words at all designed to com
mend this special miracle to those whose views are merely not mechanical, to show
the possibility of it from such a point of view, but only to indicate that from the stand
point of a deeper, more living conception of nature, one has no cause to set himself be
forehand against many immediate operations which are analogous to what we term mir
acles ; that from this point of view it is not so easily permitted to pass sentence on un
common occurrences, as if they were absolute impossibilities. I have written this by wajr
of explanation for the advocates of another stand-point, as far as freedom from prejudice,
the love of truth, and rectitude cau receive such an explanation. Whoever knows how
to estimate scientific character, even with opposite convictions, wall not be disposed, with
Dr. Baur, to descriue me as one who only uses the weapons of a vulgar controversialist.
* Homer says: "Gods likening themselves to strangers from foreign lands, being in
all forms, haunt cities," Scot ^eivoimv hiKoree aA^odairolai, Xlavroioi retedovTee, iirtc-
rpu^Ciai iroAr/ae. Od. p. 485. Although I am very farfrom confounding this (the Apostolic)
age with the Homeric, I can by no means acknowledge the correctness of Dr. Baur's
assertion, that at this time, among the uninstructed people, there might have been a

118 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
by the existing religious ferment* Now in this city Zeus was worshipped
as the founder of cities, as the originator, guide, and protector of civiliza
tion,! as the founder and protector of this city in particular (Zevc ttoXievc,
noXiovxoc), and a temple at the entrance of the city was dedicated to
liim.J Accordingly the people imagined that their tutelar deity, Zeus
himself, had come down to them ; and as Paul was foremost in speaking,
and possessed — as we may conclude from his Epistles, and his speech at
Athens — a peculiarly powerful address, and a high degree of popular
eloquence, he was taken for Hermes, while Barnabas his senior, who
perhaps had something imposing in his appearance, was believed to be
Zeus. The people made their remarks to one another on these strangers
in the old Lycaonian dialect, so that Paul and Barnabas were not aware
of their drift, and were therefore quite unprepared for the result. The
news of the appearance of these supposed divinities quickly reached the
temple, and a priest came, with oxen, which were generally sacrificed to
Zeus, and with garlands to adorn them, to the gates of the city ;§ it may
be he wished to sacrifice to Zeus before the gate for the welfare of the
city ; or intended to bring the animals to Paul's residence, and there to
perform the sacrifice ; but before he' had entered the gates, Paul and
Barnabas hastened thither, full of consternation, having discovered
the object of these preparations. They rent their garments — a cus
tomary sign among the Jews of abhorrence for whatever outraged
the religious feelings — and rushed among the crowd. Paul exclaimed,
" What do ye ! We are men like yourselves ; we are come hither for
belief in demoniacal and goetic operations, but not in new appearances of the gods,
and that therefore this account of the Lycaonians must be unhistorical.
* When Baur says against these words, that the religious ferment rather excited
doubt and unbelief, we must reply, that in times of such ferment, heterogeneous ele
ments are wont to come together, fanatioism, superstition, and unbelief, which Baur him
self, as is evident from his own expressions, must acknowledge ; but then no ground is
left for disputing what 1 said.
f As Aristides in his discourse etc &ia says, that as Zeus is the Creator and Giver of
all good things, he is to be worshipped under manifold titles according to these various
relations. " All names whatsover he found great and fit for himself." \ldvff boa airbc
evpe piyaAa Kal iavru irpeirovra dvopara.
X Libanius virlp tuv lepuv, ed. Beiske, vol. ii. p. 158, remarks that cities were built in
the immediate vicinity of temples, hence frequently the buildings nearest the walls were
ancient temples; as in the middle ages, the site of towns was often determined by that
of the churches and religious houses; and as in our own times, in the South Sea
Islands, settlements are formed near the residence of the missionaries, which gradually
become villages and towns.
§ The word "gates," irv\uvec, Acts xiv. 13, as no other term is added, may be most
naturally understood of the city gates, not of the door of the house in which Paul and
Barnabas were staying; in the latter case, the plural would hardly have been used. The
"ran out," i^cirrtdnoav, in verse 14 can prove nothing; for it might easily bo omitted to
state whether they heard of what had happened while in their lodging, and now hastened
to the gates, or were at that time near the gates. Perhaps Luke himself had ro exact
information on these points.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH. 119
this very purpose, that you may turn from these who are no gods, to the
living God, the Almighty Creator of the universe, who hitherto has
allowed the nations of the earth to try by their own experience to what
they can attain in the knowledge of religion by the powers of their own
reason, but who yet has not left himself without witnesses among them,
by granting them all good things from heaven, and supplying them with
those gifts of nature which contribute to the preservation of life and to
their general well-being."*
Even by such an appeal it was difficult to turn the people from their
purpose. Yet this impression on the senses, so powerful for a short time,
soon passed away from men who were not affected internally by the
power of truth. The Jews from Iconium succeeded in instigating the
greater part of the people against Paul. And this transition from one
extreme to the other, from a reverence which beheld beings of a higher
order in the apostles, to fury against them as enemies of the gods, can
not, certainly, in such a popular gathering, driven by sudden excitement
from one impression to its opposite, be regarded as surprising. He was
stoned in a popular tumult, and dragged out of the city for dead. But
while the believers from the city were standing round him and using
means for his restoration, he arose, strengthened by the power of God ;
and after spending only the remainder of that day at Lystra, he departed
with Barnabas to the neighboring town of Derbe. When they had pro
claimed the gospel there and in the neighborhood,! they again visited
those towns in which they had propagated the faith on this journey, and
which through persecutions they had been obliged to leave sooner than
they wished; they endeavored to establish the faith of the new converts,
and regularly organized the churches. They then returned by their
former route to Antioch.

CHAPTER IV.

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE JEWISH AND GENTILE CHRISTIANS AND
ITS SETI'LEMENT.  THE INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTI1.B
CHURCH.
While in this manner Christianity spread itself from Antioch, from
the parent-church of the Gentile world, and that great revolution began,
* The sense of benefits received should have been the means of leading men to the
Giver. From a perversion of this sense arose systems of natural religion, to which the
immediate revelation of God, appealing to that original but misunderstood and misdirected
sense, was directly opposed.
f The " round about," rrepixupoe, v. 6, evidently means only the piaces lying in the

120 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
wdiich has continued ever since to work its way among the nations,
a division threatened to break out between the two parent-churches, those
two central points from which the kingdom of God began to extend
itself. It was a great crisis in the history of the church and of mankind.
Hidden antagonistic principles at first necessarily came forth to be over
come and reconciled with one another by the power of Christianity.
The question was, whether Christianity, not only then, but through all
future ages, could thus control them.
There came to Antioch many strictly pharisaical-minded Christians
from Jerusalem, who, like the Eleazar we have already mentioned, as
sured the Gentiles that they could not obtain any share in the kingdom
of God and its blessedness without circumcision, and entered into a con
troversy with Paul and Barnabas on the views they held on this subject.
The church at Antioch resolved to send a deputation to Jerusalem for
the settlement of this dispute, and their choice naturally fell on Paul and
Barnabas, as the persons who had been most active in the propagation
of the gospel among the Gentiles. Paul had, besides, a special reason
which would have determined him to undertake the journey without any
public commission. It appeared now high time for him to explain him
self to the apostles respecting the manner in wdiich he published the
gospel among the heathen, that he might bring into distinct recognition
their unity of spirit amidst their diversity of method (made necessary
by the diversity of their spheres of action) and to obviate all those
antagonisms by which the consciousness of that essential unity could be
disturbed. He felt assured by divine illumination, that an explanation on
this subject was essential for the well-being of the church. Tlie pro
posal to send such a deputation to Jerusalem might very likely have
originated with himself. He went up to Jerusalem in the year 50,* tc
render an account (as he himself tells us in the Epistle to the Galatians),
partly in private interview with the most eminent of the apostles,! partly
in public belbre the assembled church, of his conduct in publishing tho
gospel, that no one might suppose that all his labor had been in vain, but
might learn that he preached the same gospel as themselves, and that it
had been effective with divine power among the Gentiles. He took
immediate vicinity of these two towns, certainly not a whole province, and least of all,
from its geographical position, the province of Galatia. Hence the supposition that Paul
in his first missionary journey preached the gospel to the Galatians may be safely rejected.
* On the supposition that Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, reckons the fourteen
years fiom his conversion, and that this took place in the year 36. Thus about six years
would have passed since his return from Jerusalem to Antioch.
+ We have already remarked, that though Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, par
ticularly mentions his private conferences with the most eminent apostles, yet in doin»- so
he by no moans excludes other public discussions. Indeed, it is self-evident, that Paul
before this subject was discussed iu so large an assembly, had agreed with the apostles on
the principles that were to be adopted. Nor would he iu an assembly composed of snch
a variety of characters, bring forward everything which might have passed in more private
communications. See p. 109.

APOSTOLICAL COUNCIL. 121
with him a converted youth of Gentile descent, Titus, (who afterwards
became his chief associate in preaching,) in order to exhibit in his person
a living example of the power of the gospel among the heathen.
It was a principal object with Paul to explain to the apostles the
manner in which he had been accustomed to publish the gospel among
the Gentiles, and to obtain from them an acknowledgment of his apos
tolic ministry as not a vain one. This must certainly have been to him
a point of the first importance. If the apostles and James, the brother
of the Lord, (who stood next to them, and had the greatest influence in
the Jewish Church,) should agree in opinion with him, their influence
would have a great effect, and there would be no danger of a division iu
the church. If, on the other hand, they placed themselves in opposition
to him, all conferences with any other parties would be useless. But
with this object in view, Paul may also have acted as a delegate from
one church to the other.
If, setting out from the aecount in the Acts, we find that public con
ferences were held, yet we must presume that these were not the first,
but that lJaul first of all explained himself in private to the apostles,
before whom he could express himself without reserve on every topic,
prior to his bringing forward the subject in an assembly consisting of
such heterogeneous materials. We must necessarily presuppose that
he assured himself of perfect agreement with the apostles before he
would venture to risk the issue of such a public council. But if we set
out with that private conference between Paul and the apostles, we are
certainly justified in concluding that this could not be considered as
sufficient, but that it would be attempted to bring the church in
which so much that was Jewish predominated, to an acknowledgment
of the points agreed upon by Paul and the apostles ; and this could
be done only by public conferences. Thus we must maintain that the
account in the Acts and that in the Epistle to the Galatians do not
contradict each other ; indeed, so far from that being the case, if we
had only one representation we should be led by the pragmatic his
toric connexion,* to till it up with the substance of the other. Paul,
therefore, first of all, applied himself to the apostles Peter and John5
and to James the brother of the Lord. To them he explained in
* I cannot comprehend how Baur (p. 116) can find fault with such an adjustment
(which appears to me absolutely necessary,) as uncritical and arbitrary. That Paul in tho
Epistle to the Galatians says nothing of » public discussion, is not surprising; for he
Drings forward what for him was the most important point, in combating with his oppo
nents, who wished to make the authority of the Palestinian apostles and of James abso
lute. But those public discussions and their result he could take for granted, as well
known. They were not of so much consequence to. him, as the acknowledgment of
his independent call from heaven to publish the Gospel. The phrase " but privately to
them which were of reputation," /car' Idiav 6i role doKovot, is certainly nothing more than
a designation for what had before been left indefinite, and it must be granted Dr. Baur,
that nothing more can be drawn from it with certainty ; but it is very possible that there
was a reference in the apostle's mind to what had taken place " in public," dnpoaia.

122 DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH.
what manner he had been accustomed to publish the gospel among
the heathen, and described to them the success of his ministry— what
God had effected by him for the conversion of the Gentiles, how God
himself had thus accredited his method as the right one. And the apos
tles, prepared by what had already taken place,* acknowledged that
God, who had called Peter to publish the gospel among the Jews,! had
also bestowed ou Paul the power to labor for the gospel among the
Gentiles. They agreed with him that he and they should each continue
to labor in their respective spheres, on'y the new churches among the
Gentiles should give a pledge of their common faith, and of their grati
tude to the primitive Church at Jerusalem, from whom they had re
ceived the gospel, by contributing towards the temporal necessities of
its poor. What now had been expressed on both sides ? That the
Gentiles should not be subject to the pressure of Judaism, but with them
everything should depend on faith in the Redeemer ; that on the other
hand, the Jewish Christians should not be compelled to renounce at once
the ecclesiastical constitution corresponding to their national, theocratic
point of view and founded in their historical development. How easily
might Paul's ardent spirit, in his zeal for the fundamental truths of the
gospel, which to him were most important, have been hurried along to re
quire from the believing Jews, that they should place themselves on alevel
with the Gentiles in the renunciation of everything Jewish. If they really
acknowledged that nothing more was required for the justification of
man than faith in the Redeemer, without the works of the law, it would
appear a necessary consequence, that they should give a practical proof
of their assent by throwing off the yoke of the law. Their adherence
to the observance of the law appeared at variance with this belief; it
was a practical confirmation of the opposite conviction. Paul might
easily have taken this view of the subject. And on the other hand, how
ea-ily could the Palestinian apostles, who had been accustomed to con
nect the new spirit of the gospel with the old Jewish form of life, have
been led to consider as inseparable what had been mingled in their
own conceptions and practice, especially since Christ himself had in all
things observed the law. What an impression might the sight of a
heathen, living altogether in a Gentile manner, make on a James who
probably had never left Jerusalem, and had lived from his youth up in
* We believe that it has been sufficiently indicated above, that the preceding develop.
ments, as recorded in the Acts, which were connected with the conversiou of Cornelius,
offer 110 contradiction to what now took place.
\ Peter, as the person who from the first had been most active for the spread
of the gospel, here makes the principal figure; James's vocation was confined to
the internal guidance of the Church at Jerusalem. That Peter was preeminently tho
apostle of the circumcision is quite consistent with his having been once and ao-ain called
to extend his mi.iistry to the Gentiles; and equally so was it consistent with Paul's being
tho apostle of the uncircumcision, that he rejoiced iu the opportunities he had of oc ert-
ing individuals among the Jews. Rom. xi. 14.

APOSTOLIC COUNCIL. 123
the strict observance of the law ! And was such an one to be acknow
ledged as a member of the same religious community, as an equally privi
leged brother in the faith ? In the conduct of the apostles on this oc
casion, we are struck with the combination of genuine liberality of mind
and wisdom ; how each side retained their own point of view, indicated by
history, and yet both renounced it, and raised themselves to the fellow
ship of a higher unity, founded on the essence of the gospel, by which
all their limited individualism was abandoned. In the conviction that
faith in Jesus as the Messiah was the only necessary and all-sufficient
means of justification and sanctification, the Palestinian apostle must
have agreed with Paul. Otherwise they would not have granted that
this without the Mosaic law, was sufficient to make the Gentiles fellow-
members of the kingdom of God. The same must also hold good in its
application to the Jews, or it must be admitted that in their opinion the
Jews who observed the Mosaic law would have some preeminence in
the kingdom of the Messiah. But of such an opinion we find no trace.
On both sides there was an acknowledgment of equal Messianic rights to
believing Jews and Gentiles. There remains, therefore, only one of two
things; either they followed in their practice such principles as they had
developed into clear consciousness, or they followed the pressure of his
tory, guided by the Holy Spirit, without being clearly conscious of the
principles which lay at the ground of their conduct.
In the first case they followed the principles which Paul expressed when
he said, " that to the Jews he became a Jew," (1 Cor. ix. 20,) in order to
gain the Jews to the gospel ; or, ''Let every man, wherein he is called,
therein abide with God." (1 Cor. vii. 24.) Two principles form the basis
of these words ; first, that a man without giving up anything of his inward
freedom must accommodate himself outwardly to the position of the Jews,
in order to gain them the more easily to the faith ; and secondly, that no
one should withdraw arbitrarily from the stand-point on which he has been
placed by historical development. Whoever might embrace the Chris
tian faith, being a member of the Jewish people, need make no external
alteration, but might expect that through the power of the new Chrislian
spirit everything would be transformed by an internal change, or, that by
the great developments in the world's history, such as the destruction of
Jerusalem — a judgment on the corrupt Theocracy — the dissolution of
outward Judaism would be brought about.
But in the second case, it might be supposed that many who felt them
selves compelled to acknowledge the operations of the Holy Spirit among
the Gentiles, as agreeing with the principle of the justifying power of
faith alone — still, without giving themselves a clear account of the reason,
could not themselves resolve to give up the outward Judaism, from
which the whole of their religious development had proceeded ; for in
religion, to put away the outward, which has grown up intertwined with
so many devotional feelings, is always a most difficult task; and this was
more especially the case in the relation of Christianity to Judaism, since

124 DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH.
in Judaism there were so many things which might be spiritualised in
Christianity. Thus a James might find it very difficult to resolve to re
nounce altogether the outward observances of Judaism. It was other
wise, as appears from what we have already said, with the apostle Peter.
At all events, we can find in this proceeding of the elder apostles noth
ing of vacillation or inconsistency, nor ought we to require that, when
they acknowledged that the gospel without the law, was designed for
Gentiles as well as for Jews, they should, in accordance with this princi
ple, feel compelled to take a part in preaching the gospel among the
Gentiles. They, evidently, did not so feel. And consistently with
this, they considered that alone as their call from God, indicated by his
torical development, to form a point of transition to the gospel for the
Jews ; just as Paul regarded it as his vocation, indicated by his peculiar
religious development, to be the apostle of the Gentiles. There did not
lie in these principles any ambiguity and inconsistency, which would, of
themselves, have worked evil results, and brought on those later dissen
sions between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. It was the fault of
men that the views of the guiding wisdom of the apostles could not be
accomplished, since so few knew how to enter into these principles and
the spirit which had suggested them. Well-intended plans of adjust
ment between conflicting principles seldom attain their end.
The most important points, accordingly, were first of all discussed be
tween Paul, James, Peter, and John.* Then, in particular circles, in
which Paul and Barnabas narrated what God had effected by their
preaching among the Gentiles, their accounts were received with joyful
interest. But, some who had passed over to Christianity from the Phar
isaic school, now came forward and declared that it was necessary that
the Gentiles should receive circumcision along with the gospel, and that
they could acknowledge them as Christian brethren only on this condi
tion, and therefore insisted that Titus should be circumcised.! But Paul
strenuously maintained against them the equal privileges of the Gentiles
* The order in which the three apostles in Gal. ii. 9 are mentioned, is not unimportant.
The reading according to which James stands first, is without doubt the true one ; the other
must have been derived from the custom of giving Peter the primacy among the apostles.
But the priority is given to James, because he was most esteemed by the Jewish Christians,
who were strict observers of the Mosaic Law, and stood at the head of the church at
Jerusalem, while Peter, by bis intercourse with the Gentiles and Gentile Christians, was
in some degree estranged from that party.
\ As appears from Paul's own representation, he had no share in any port of this pro
ceeding; for he distinguishes expressly (Gal ii. 4-6) the false brethren from " those who
seemed to be somewhat," doiwvvrec elvai n. By the name of false brethren, certainly those
persons were designated who did not acknowledge tho believing Gentiles as true brethren
in the faith, and did not admit the principle on which the Christian community was
fouuded, that faith in Jesus as tho Messiah is the only and sufficient means of salvation
for all. Paul was one with the apostles in opposition to these views. But it may be
asked whether that dispute broke out before or after the explanation betwen Paul and
the elder apostles. The former is far more probable ; for as that explanation was for him
tho principal object of his journey to Jerusalem, he would attend to it before anything eh?

APOSTOLIC COUNCIL. 125
in the kingdom of God, and that by faith in the Redeemer they had en
tered into the same relation towards God as the believing Jews: for this
reason, he would not give way to them in reference to Titus, for this
would have been interpreted by the Pharisaic Jewish Christians as a
concession of the principle for which they contended.*
As these objections gave rise to much altercation, it was thought nec
essary that the subject should be discussed in a convention of the whole
church ; but this was afterwards changed into a meeting of chosen dele
gates.! -^¦t tms meeting, after much discussion, Peter rose up, to appeal
to the testimony of his own experience. They well knew, he said, that
God had long beforej chosen him, to bring the Gentiles to faith in the
gospel; and since God who seeth the heart had communicated to them
the Holy -Spirit, in the same manner as to the believers from among the
Jews, he had by this act testified that in his eyes they were no longer
impure; that, after he had purified their hearts by faith in the Redeemer,
they were just as pure as the believing Jews; and hence, in the commu
nication of spiritual gifts, He had made no difference between them.
How then could they venture to question the power and grace of God,
as if he could not without the law admit the Gentiles to a participation
of salvation in the kingdom of God ? Why would they lay a yoke on
believers, which neither they nor their fathers had been able to bear?
By " a yoke " Peter certainly did not mean the outward observance of
ceremonies simply as such, for he hjmself still observed them, and did
not wish to persuade the Jewish Christians to renounce them. But he
meant the outward observance of the law, so far as it proceeded from
* The reading which omits "to whom not," o?c ovdi, in Gal. ii. 5, would suppose, on
the contrary, a concession of Paul in this case, but which, under the existing circumstan
ces, would be wholly inconsistent with the character of tlie apostle. This peculiar read
ing of the old Latin church, evidently proceeded in part from the difficulty of the con
struction for the Latin translation, and partly from the perception of a supposed contradic
tion between the conduct of Paul with Titus, and his conduct with Timothy, and likewise
from opposition to Marcion. That in the Greek church, which, in consequence of the
principle of the oUovopia predominating in it, must have been disposed to such a reading,
no trace of it can be found, proves how very much the authority of the manuscripts is
against it.
+ The whole church was far too numerous, to allow of all its members meeting for
consultation ; but that they took a part in the deliberations, appears inferrible from the
words, " with the whole church," avv o'Ag r-n iKtcKnaitf, Acts xv. 22. The epistle to the Gen
tile Christians was written in the name not merely of the elders of the church, but of all
the Christian brethren. Also the words, "all the multitude," irdv rd irlTftoc, Acts xv. 12,
favor this interpretation.
± Peter's words, "a good while ago," df rgiepuv dpxaiuv, are of some value for a
chronological purpose, since they evidently show, that between the holding of this assem
bly and the conversion of Cornelius, to say the least, a tolerable length of time must hive
elapsed. Having shown, as I believe, that there is no ground for regarding the narrative
of Cornelius as unhistorical, I, also, fail to see the ground for Dr. Baur's position that
Peter could not have used the words dif ripepuv dpxaiuv. They are used relatively, ar.i
only a trivial, fault-seeking, verbal criti lism can find an anachronism in them.

126 DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH.
an internal dominion over the* conscience, making justification and salva
tion dependent upon it; from wdiich arose the dread of putting their
salvation in jeopardy by the slightest deviation from it, and that tor
menting scrupulosity which invented a number of limitations, in order,
by self-imposed restraint, to guard against every possible transgression
of the law. As Peter understood the term in this sense, he could add,
" But we also by faith in Jesus as our Redeemer have been freed from
the yoke of the law, since we are no longer bound to it as a means of
justification ; for we, as well as the Gentiles, believe that we shall obtain
salvation through the grace of our Lorel Jesus Christ."
These words of Peter made a deep impression on many and a
general silence followed. After a while, Barnabas, wrho had for years
been highly esteemed by this church, rose, and then Paul. In addition
to the facts reported by Peter which testified the operation of the Di
vine Spirit among the Gentiles, they mentioned others from their own
experience, and recounted the miracles by which God had aided their
labors. When the minds of the assembly were thus prepared, James*
came forward, who, on account of his strict observance of the law, was
held in the greatest reverence by the Jews, and in wdiose words, there
fore, the greatest confidence would be placed. He brought their delib
erations to a close, by a proposal which corresponded to his own peculiar
moderation and mildness, and was adapted to compose the existing dif
ferences. Referring to Peter's address, he said that this apostle had
shown how God had already received the Gentiles, in order to form a
people dedicated to his service. And this agreed with the predictions
of the prophets, who had foretold that in the times when the decayed
Theocracy was to be gloriously revived, the worship of Jehovah would
be extended also among the Gentiles. Accortlingly, what had recently
occurred among the Gentiles need not excite their astonishment. God
who effected all this, was now fulfilling his eternal counsel, as -he had
promised by his prophets. Since, therefore, by this eternal counsel of
God, the Gentiles were to be incorporated into his kingdom by the Mes
siah, let them not dare to do anything which might obstruct or retard
the progress of this work. They ought not to lay any unnecessary bur
dens on the converted Gentiles. They should enjoin nothing more upon
them than abstinence from meat offered to idols! or, of animals strano-led,
from blood and from unchastity.J But as to believers from amono- the
* The question whether this was the son of Alphasus, or another person, must be left
for future examination.
t What remained of the flesh of animals used in sacrifice, was partly used by those
who presented the sacrifice at their own meals, (especially if they were festive in honor
of the gods,) and partly disposed of in the market. The eating of what was called
t^i-iK irat was regarded by the Jews with the greatest detestation. Plrke Avoth. ch.
iii. § 3.
X Most of these points belonged to the seven precepts, to the observance of whic'a
men were bound before the giving of the Mosaic law; which God gave the sons of Noah

APOSTOLIC COUNCIL. 121
Jews, no such special injunctions were needed for them. They already
knew what they were to practise as Jews; for in every city wdiere Jews
resided, the law of Moses was read on the Sabbath days in the syna
gogues, Acts xv. 21.* The concluding words were to reconcile the
Jews to that freedom from the Mosaic law which was allowed to the
Gentile Christians.
The resolutions passed on this occasion had for their object, to reduce
by mutual approximation the opposition existing between the Jewish and
Gentile Christians. The observance of these ordinances by the latter,
would tend to lessen, and by degrees to destroy, the aversion with
which native Jews were wont to regard as impure, men who had been
brought up as idolaters ; it might assist us in forming correct notions of
their feelings to compare (though the cases are not exactly parallel) the
and to the observance of which the Proselytes of the Gate bound themselves. Vid. Bux-
torf, Lexicon Talmudicum et Rabbinicum, sub voce 11.
* It appears to me entirely impossible, to understand the words in Acts xv. 21 (as
they have been understood by the latest expositors, Meyer and Olshausen), as containing
a reason for what had been said just before. This assembly required no reason why they
Should impose so much, but only why they should impose no more on the Gentile Chris
tians. Also from the form of the clauses in v. 19 and 20, if such a reference existed,
we should expect to find a reason for the injunction "that we trouble not," pi) irape-
vox^elv. These words, too, taken in their obvious sense, cannot contain the positive iea-
son for the issuing of these injunctions, for that Moses was read in the synagogue every
Sabbath-day, should rather serve as a foundation of a requirement for the observance of
the whole law. But in verse 21, the emphasis is on the word Muaije, and in that is con
cealed an antithesis to that which is given as the stand-point for the converts from heathen
ism. But as to what concerns the Jews, those who wish to observe the law, we need to
say nothing new to them, for they can hear every Sabbatb in the synagogue what Moses
requires of them. It cannot be our intention, while we prescribe no more than this to the
converts from heathenism, to diminish the reverence of the Jews for the Mosaic law.
Chrysostom adopts very nearly this interpretation, by following the natural connexion of
the passage. Horn. 33, § 2: Kai iva pq tic dvBvireviyK-n, dian pr/ 'lovdaime tu aiird
iirioriMopev; im'/yaye Aiyuv, (and that no one may bring up the question why we en
join not the same things on the Jews, he added); and he explains the words v. 21, roiir'
iari, Muar/e a'vroie dtaliyerat ovvexue, (that is, Moses constantly discourses with them.)
It gives me pleasure to agree with Dr. Schneckenburger in my view of this psssage; see
his excellent remarks, in his work before quoted, on the Acts, p. 23.
In this new edition I must adhere to this explanation, and cannot agree with that
recommended by Dr. Baur after Gieseler— namely, that these words contain a reason for
the leading thought that the Gentiles, by faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, must be
also incorporated in the kingdom of God; for if this could have been effected by the
Mosaic law, it must long ago have been brought to pass, since the Mosaic law must have
been sufficiently known to them, as it was read every Sabbath in the synagogues. I can
not find this sense indicated in the words. Had this been intended, I should have ex
pected an addition to v. 21, "in every city in which Gentiles dwell," and yet this would
have said too much. And the leading thought — "and yet this has not effected the con
version of the Gentiles" — must have been actually expressed. We should consider our
selves quiie unauthorized, arbitrarily to supply so important a proposition. According to
my view, only something unessential is supplied in a propositi )n which the speaker merely
expresses incidentally, and then hastens away from.

128 DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH.
relation of the offspring of a nation where Christianity has long been
established to the newly converted Christians from modern heathenism.
But if the believing Jews could not bring themselves to overcome their
prejudices against the believing Gentiles as uncircumcised, it would be
so much more difficult to bring such persons closer to them, if they did
not at all observe what was required of the usual Proselytes, and
renounce what from the Jewish point of view appeared closely connected
with idolatry, and the impure life of idolaters. And as these ordinances
would serve on the one hand to bring Gentile Christians nearer to Jewish
Christians ; so on the other hand, they might contribute to withdraw the
former more from the usual heathenish mode of living, and guard them
against the pollution of heathen society and heathenish vices. The ex'
perience of the next century teaches us, how even the misunderstanding,
which made out of these ordinances a positive law applicable to all
ages of the Church,* might in this direction work for good. Viewing
the transaction in this light, it is indeed surprising that, to ordinances
merely disciplinary, and intended for only one particular period, and for
persons under certain peculiar relations, the command against unchastity
binding in all ages, and relating to an objectively moral point, should be
annexed. But the connexion in which this prohibition appears, furnishes
the best explanation of the cause and design of its introduction. " For
nication," ixopvEta, is mentioned in connexion with the other points, on
account of the close connexion in which it appeared to the Jews to stand

* In the first ages, Christians were distinguished by not venturing to eat any of the
things forbidden iu this injunction. But when the early undiscriminating opposition
against heathenism had ceased, a more correct view was taken, which Augustine has
beautifully developed. " (Apostoli) eligisse mihi videntur pro tempore rem facilem et ne-
quaquam observantibus onerosam, in qua cum Israelitis etiam gentes propter angularem
ilium lapidem duos in so condentem aliquid communiter observarent. Transacto vero illo
tempore, quo ill I duo parietes, unus ex circumcisione, alter ex prseputio venientes, quamvis
in angulari lapide concordarent, tamen suis quibusdam proprietatibus distinctius emine-
bant, ac ubi ecclesia gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Israelita carnalis appareat,
quis jam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdas vel minutiores aviculas non adtingat, nisi
quarum sanguis effusus est, aut leporem non edat, si maira a oervice percussus nullo
cruento vulnere occisus est ? Et qui forte pauci tangere ista formidant a ca;teris irridentur,
ita omnium animos in hac re tonuit sententia veritatis." Matt. xv. 11. Augustin c. Faus-
ium ilanich. lib. xxxii. c. 13. (The apostles seem to me to have chosen for the time a
thing easy and in no way burdensome, which the Gentiles also together with the Israel
ites, in virtue of that corner-stone hiding them both in itself, might observe. But the
time having passed in which the two walls, one of circumcision the other of uncircumcis-
ion, although uniting in the corner-stone, stood out boldly in their own peculiarities;
and the church of the Gentiles having become such that no carnal Israelite may appear in
it; what Christian now scruples to touch a thrush or smaller bird whose blood has not
been spilled, or to eat a hare strangled by the hand and not killed by a cruel wound?
And the few, who, by chance, fear to touch these things are laughed at by others. So
has the truth in this malter taken hold of the minds of all.) The opposite view, it is true,
was maintained in the Greek Church, in which the injunction of abstinence from blood and
from animals strangled was confirmed by the Second Trullanian Council, in tho vear 692

APOSTOLIC COUNCIL. 129
with idolatry ; for in the writings of the Old Testament they were accus
tomed to see idolatry and unchastity everywhere placed together ; exces
ses of this class were actually connected with many parts of idolatry ; and in
general the strict idea of chastity lay, on the whole, far from the views and
practices of natural religion. It is introduced here not as a special moral
precept of Christianity ; in that case, it would not have been so insulated
as a positive command, but would rather have been deduced from its
connexion with the whole of the Christian faith and life as we find it in
the Apostolic Epistles. Here it is introduced as a part of the ancient
Jewish opposition to every thing which appeared connected with idolatry,
and this opposition was now to be transferred to the new Christian
Church. Although these injunctions had the precise object mentioned, and doubt
less, ultimately attained it, yet we cannot conclude with certainty, that
James had a clear perception of it in all its extent, when he proposed this
middle way. As the persons who composed this assembly acted not merely
according to the suggestions of human prudence, but chiefly as the organs
of a higher spirit that animated them, of a higher wisdom that guided
them, it would follow, that their injunctions served certain ends in the
guidance of the church, which were not perfectly clear to their own ap
prehension. Even James himself does not develop the motives which
determined him to propose such a measure. In this assembly there was
no occasion, as we have before remarked, to mention the motives, but
merely to develop the reason, why no more than this, and not the whole
law, should be imposed on Christians ; and this reason accordingly, he
deduced from what he and the other apostles recognised as the central
point of the Christian faith. Possibly James, without any distinct views
and aims, only believed that something must be done for the Gentile
Christians, (who were to be acknowledged as members of God's kingdom,
with equal privileges, in virtue of their faith in Jehovah and the Messiah,)
to bring them nearer, as it regarded their outward mode of life also, like
the Proselytes of the Gate,* to Judaism and the Jews.!
* I mean only analogous regulations ; for had there been simply a transference of such
as were enjoined on Proselytes of the Gate, it would have been sufficient to require of
the Gentile Christians, among whom many Proselytes of the Gate might be found, that
they should submit to all the regulations which had hitherto been observed by persons of
that class.
f Luther, who was far from the restricted, unnatural notion of inspiration, and the
slavish adherence to the letter, maintained by the theologians of the 17th century, says,
in reference to this proposal of James (vol. iii. p. 1042 of Walch's edition), "that the Holy
Spirit allowed St. James to make a false step." But even if James had not before him that
higher object, the guidance of the church, this ought not to be called a false .step, iu
relation to the peculiar position which he took in the historical development of primi
tive Christianity; for he was appointed by the Lord of the church to occupy the inter
mediate point which was to connect the Old Testament with the independent develop
ment of the New, and from which he was to infuse the new spirit of the gospel into the
form of the Old Testament. It becomes us, when we are considering the joint labors of
9

130 DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH.
But although it was not necessary in this public assembly, to develop
in a positive manner the motives for framing these injunctions, we are
certainly not to assume, that the apostles left the decision of the princi
ples on which they meant to act towards Gentile Christians to the delib
erations of this meeting ; but as we have before remarked, they most
probably brought forward only what seemed to them in their private
conference bes^ adapted for their object ; in that consultation it was
necessary to discuss the motives for these injunctions, and the objects
which it was proposed to attain by them ; for in relation to what Paul
desired — that to those among the Gentiles who acknowledged Jesus as
the Messiah, nothing further should be prescribed — a conciliatory pro
posal of this kind must have been accompanied by a statement of grounds
for it. And as we must acknowledge in James the power of the Chris
tian spirit, which subordinated to the interests of Christianity his attach
ment to Judaism and the forms of the ancient theocracy ; so in Paul, who
was so zealous for the independence of Christianity and of the Gentile
churches, we must recognise a zeal tempered by Christian wisdom", which
yielded to a measure of accommodation determined by circumstances.*
The resolutions adopted on this occasion were now communicated to
the Gentile churches in Syria and Cilieia,! in an epistle drawn up in the
name of the assembly; and two persons of good repute in the church,
perhaps members of the Presbytery at Jerusalem, Barsabas and Silas
(Sylvanus), were chosen as bearers of it, and were to accompany Paul
and Barnabas, and counterwork the intrigues of their Judazing oppo
nents. We will here insert this short epistle, probably dictated by James
himself, and the earliest public document of the Christian church known
to us.J It is as follows: "The Apostles and Elders, and Brethren, §
the apostles, to observe altentively the whole scheme of organic historical development,
in which each member takes his appropriate station and all are designed to be comple
ments to one another.
* Luther beautifully remarks, in the passage above quoted, " Therefore James pre
scribes and the o hers consent, it is enough for them that their consciences are still left
Dee and unfettered; as for the decree, that, they think, will of necessity, gradually
become void; they are not so contentious as to wiah to quarrel about a little thing, pro
vided it be in no way injurious.
f The injunctions were designed, it is true, for all Gentile Christians, but the epistle was
addressed only to the churches specified in it, because in these tho dispute had first of all
arisen, and because they must have been respected, as parent churches among the Gen
tiles, with which ihe later formed Asiatic churches would connect themselves. Hence
also Paul, in Gal. i. 21, as a general description of the sphere of his labors, mentions only
"the. regions of Syria and Cilieia," KAipara rijc Ivpiac Kal r'c KiAiKtae.
X The style of this document (marked by simplicity and extreme brevity) testifies its
original. ly. Had the author of the Acts set himself to compose such an epistle, and at-
tcmpied to assume Ihe situation of the writer, it would have been a very different cm-
position. And hence we may draw a conclusion relative to the discourses given in the
Acts. § According to the reading adopted byLachmann, it would be, "The Apostles and
Presbyters, Christian brethren"; they wrote as brethren to biethien. This reading is

APOSTOLIC COUNCIL. 131
send greeting to the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and
Syria, and Cilieia.* Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which
went out from us, have troubled you with words, saying ye must be cir
cumcised, and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment :
it seemed good unto us being assembled together,! to send chosen men
unto you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, — men that have hazarded
their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore
sent Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. J
For it seemed good to us, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,§ to lay

strongly supported. We can hardly deduce its origin from hierarchical influences, which
would exclude the church from such consultations and decisions : its antiquity is too great,
for we find it in Irenseus, iii. 12, 14. It is also quite as much again6t the hierarchical spirit
for the apostles and presbyters to write to the brethren as brethren. And it is easy to see
how it might have happened that since, from the introductory words of Luke, an epistle
from the whole church was expected, it seemed necessary to distinguish the brethren from
the apostles and presbyters, and hence the words Kai ol might have been inserted. Yet
since, in Acts xv. 22, the whole church is mentioned in connexion with the apostles and
presbyters, we might expect in the epistle itself a distinct reference to the church ; the
" from us," ef iipuv, also, of verse 24 (for these anonymous complainers could hardly have
belonged to the presbyters of the church) appears to assume this. The first Kal oi, verse
23, must therefore at an early date have occasioned the omission of the second.
c The "greeting," xaipEiv> here wants the iv Kvpiu, " in the Lord," which is so common
in the Pauline epistles ; and it deserves notice also that, as a form of salutation, xa'<-Peiv is
found only in the Epistle of James.
+ The words yivopivoic dpoBvpadbv, I do not understand with Meyer, "being unani
mous," but, " when we were met together ;" as dpoBvpadbv often denotes in the Acts, not,
"of one mind," but, "together," as in ii. 46. We may see from the Alexandrian version,
and Josephus (Antiq. xix. 9, § 1). how the change of meaning has occurred.
X The explanation of this passage, Acts xv. 27, is in every way difficult. If we refer
"the same things," rd abrd, to what goes before, the sense will be, — they will announce
to you the same things that Barnabas and Paul have announced to you. So I understood
the words in the first edition of this work. The words did Inyov, "by mouth," are not
exactly against this interpretation; for though these words contained reference to what
followed in writing, they might bo thus connected, namely, as we now in writing also
express the same principles. But since mention is not made before of the preaching of
Barnabas and Paul, and we must therefore supply something not before indicated,
and since the words did Aoyov contain a reference to what follows, and therefore not
KarayyiA'Aeiv, but uirayyilAtiv is here used, I now prefer the other interpretatiou,
although in this case likewise, it is difficult to supply what is necessary. Iu Irenseus we
find a reading which presents the sense required by the connexion in a way that removes
all difficulties, but must perhaps be considered as an exposition : t?/v yvdipnv i)pC>v, our
opinion, instead of rd aiird, tlie same things, — annuntiantes nostram sententiam. Iren. ii.i
12, 14.
65 In the explanation also of Acts xv. 28, I depart, and with greater confidence, from
my former view. Agreeably to the manner in wdiich doKelv is everywhere used with the
dative of the person as the subject, I cannot help understanding it to be so used w it h the
words tcj dyiu nveipari, especially since if it meant, by "the Holy Spirit," we should, ac
cording to the New Testament idiom, expect iv to be prefixed. It is therefore stated
first: it has so pleased the Holy Spirit — Ihen : we as his organs have resolved. Although
the affair was determined according to both, it was important to mention first, that this

132 DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH.
upon you no greater burden than these necessary things — that ye abstain
from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled,
and from unchastity ; from which, if ye keep yourselves,* ye shall do well.
Fare ye well."
We may conclude from this epistle, that those who had raised the
controversy in the Antioehian church, had appealed to the authority of
the apostles and presbytery. Perhaps they represented themselves as
delegates to the church at Jerusalem, — as this was afterwards made of
importance by the adversaries of Paul — but they were not acknowledged
as such. We see how important it was for the apostles to accredit Paul
and Barnabas as faithful preachers of the gospel, and to give a public
testimony to their agreement in spirit with them. Yet we cannot help
remarking the brevity of the epistle — the want of a pouring forth of the
heart towards the new Christians of an entirely different race — the ab
sence of the development of the views on wdiich the resolutions passed
were founded. The epistle was without doubt dictated in haste, and
must be taken only for an official document, as the credentials of an oral
communication. But they depended more on the living word, than on
written characters. Hence, while the written communication was so
brief, they sent living organs to Antioch, who would explain every thing
more fully according to the sense of this meeting.
Thus Paul and Barnabas, having happily attained their object at
Jerusalem, returned to the Gentile Christians at Antioch with these
pledges of Christian fellowship, and accompanied by the two delegates.
Barnabas took also his nephew Mark with him from Jerusalem, to be an
assistant in the common work. He had formerly accompanied them on
their first missionary travels in Asia, but had not remained faithful to
his vocation ; giving way to his feelings of attachment for his native
country, he had left them when they entered Pamphylia. At Jerusalem,
Barnabas met with him again, and perhaps by his remonstrances, brought
him to a sense of his former misconduct, so that he once more joined
them. This decision of the Apostolic Assembly at Jerusalem, forms an im
portant era in the history of the apostolic church. The first controversy
which appeared in the history of Christianity was thus publicly expressed
and brought into clear recognition ; but it was at the same time mani
fested, that, by this controversy, the unity of the church was not to be
destroyed. Although so great and striking a difference of an outward
kind existed in the development of the church among the Jews and of
that among the Gentiles, still the essential unity of the church as
resolution was not formed according to human caprice, but that the Holy Spirit so willed
it. I translate in the text, not verbally, but according to the sense.
* The expression in Acts xv. 29, "from which if ye keep yourselves," if <5v Siarnpovv
ree lavroie is remarkably similar to that in James i. 27, " to keep himself unspotted fronj
the world," dam'kov tavrbv rnpelv dirb rov Koopov.

APOSTOLIC COUNCIL. 133
grounded on -real communion of internal faith and life, continued undis
turbed, and thus it was manifest that the unity was independent of such
outward differences : it became henceforth a settled point, that though
one party observed and the other party neglected certain outward usages,
yet both, in virtue of their common faith in Jesus as the Redeemer, had
received the Holy Spirit as the certain mark of their participating in the
kingdom of God. Nor were these differences merely outward dissimi
larities ; but, as we might conclude from the peculiar nature of the modes
of thinking among the Jews,* which mingled itself with their concep
tions of Christianity, it involved several doctrinal differences. The lat
ter, however, were not brought under discussion ; those points only were
touched which were most palpable, and appeared the most important
from the Jewish stand-point of legal observances. While they firmly
held one ground of faith, — faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and a con
sciousness of fellowship in the one spirit proceeding from him, — they
either lost sight altogether of these differences, or viewed them in rela
tion to their common faith, the foundation of the all-comprehending
kingdom of God, as very subordinate. But at a later period these dif
ferences would, if not overpowered by the energy of a Christian spirit
progressively developed, and insinuating itself more deeply into the
prevalent modes of thinking, appear in greater strength. Even by this
wise settlement of the question, so serious a breach could not be repaired,
if not fundamentally rectified by the operation of that Spirit from whom
this settlement proceeded. As those who were addicted to Pharisaism
were, from the first, accustomed to esteem a Christianity amalgamated
with complete Judaism, as alone genuine and perfect, and rendering men
capable of enjoying all the privileges of the kingdom of God, it was
hardly possible that these decisions could produce an entire revolution in
their mode of thinking ; whether it was that they soon ceased to pay
regard to the decisions of the assembly at Jerusalem, or that they ex
plained them according to their own views and interests, as if indeed,
though they had not commanded the observance of the law to Gentile
Christians, they were designed to intimate that it would be to their ad
vantage, if voluntarily, and out of love to Jehovah, they observed the
whole law. And as they had not hesitated, before the assembly was
called at Jerusalem, to appeal to the authority of the apostles, although
they were by no means authorized to do so, they again attempted to
make use of this expedient, of which they could more readily avail
themselves on account of the great distance of most of the Gentile
churches from Jerusalem.
Thus we have here the first example of an accommodation of differ
ences which arose in the development of the church, an attempt to effect
a union of two contending parties ; and we here see what has been often
repeated, that union can only be attained where it proceeds from an in-
* See page 21

134 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
ternal unity of Christian consciousness ; but where the reconciliation is
only external, the deeply-seated differences, though for a brief period
repressed, will soon break out afresh. But what is of the greatest im
portance, we here behold the seal of true Catholicism publicly exhibited
by the apostles, and the genuine apostolic church. The existence of the
genuine catholic church, which so deeply-seated a division threatened to
destroy, was thereby secured.
We are now arrived at a point of time in which the Gentile church
assumed a peculiar and independent form ; we will, therefore, before
tracing its further spread and development in connexion with the labors
of Paul, first glance at the constitution of the church in this new form
of Christian fellowship.

CHAPTER Y.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH, AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL USAGES
OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
The forms under which the polity of the Christian community at first
developed itself, were, as we have before remarked, very nearly resem
bling those which already existed in the Jewish church. But these
forms, adopted by Jewish Christians, would not have been transferred to
the Gentile churches, if they had not so closely corresponded to the na
ture of the Christian community as to furnish a model for its organization.
This peculiar nature of the Christian community was that which distin
guished the Christian church from all other religious associations, and
which especially showed itself after Christianity had burst the fetiers of
Judaism, among the free and independent churches of the Gentile Chris
tians. Since Christ had satisfied once for all that religious need, from
the sense of which a priesthood has every where originated, — that need
of mediation grounded in man's consciousness of separation from God
by sin — there was no longer room or necessity for any other priesthood.
If, in the Apostolic Epistles, the Old Testament ideas of a priesthood, a
priestly cultus and sacrifices are applied to the new economy, it is only
with the design of showing, that, since Christ has for ever accomplished
that which the priesthood and sacrifices in the Old Testament prefigured,
the reconciliation of God to men, — -all who now appropriate by faith what
he effected for mankind, stand in the same relation to God, without need
ing any other mediation ; that they are all by communion with Christ
dedicated and consecrated to God, and are called to present their whole
lives to God as an acceptable, spiritual thank-offering; that their whole
consecrated activity is a true spiritual, priestly cultus, Christians formin»
a divine kingdom of priests. Rom. xii. 1 ; 1 Peter ii. 9. This idea of

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 135
the gospel priesthood of all Christians, proceeding from the conscious
ness of redemption, and grounded alone in that, is partly stated and de
veloped in express terms, and partly presupposed in the epithets, images,
and comparisons, applied to the Christian life.
As all believers were conscious of an equal relation to Christ as their
Redeemer, and of a common participation of communion with God ob
tained through him ; soon this consciousness an equal relation of be
lievers to one another was grounded, which utterly precluded any relation
like that found in other forms of religion, subsisting between a priestly
caste and a people of whom they were the mediators and spiritual
guides. The apostles even were very far from placing themselves
in a relation to believers which bore any resemblance to a mediating
priesthood; in this respect they always placed themselves on a footing
of equality. If Paul assured the church of his intercessory prayers for
them, he in return requested their prayers for himself. There were
accordingly no persons in the Christian church, who, like the priests
of antiquity, claimed the possession of an esoteric doctrine, while they
kept the people in a state of spiritual pupillage and dependence on them
selves, as their sole guides and instructors in religious matters. Such a
relation would have been inconsistent with the consciousness of an equal
dependence on Christ, and an equal relation to him as participating in
the same spiritual life. The first Pentecost had given evidence that a
consciousness of the higher life proceeding from communion with Christ
filled all believers, and similar effects were produced at every season of
Christian awakening which preceded the formation of a church. The
apostle Paul, in the 4th chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, points
out as a common feature of Judaism and heathenism, the condition of
pupillage, of bondage to outward ordinances. He represents this bond
age and pupillage as taken away by the consciousness of redemption,
and that the same spirit ought to be in all Christians. He contrasts the
heathen, who blindly followed their priests, and gave themselves up to
all their arts of deception, with true Christians, who, by faith in the Re
deemer, have themselves become the organs of the Divine Spirit, and
can hear the voice of the living God within them; 1 Cor. xii. 1. He
even thought that he should assume too much to himself, if, in relation
to a church already grounded in spiritual things, he represented himself
only as giving ; for in this respect there should be only one general giver,
the Saviour himself, as the source of all life in the church, while all
others, as members of the spiritual body animated by him the Head,
should stand to each other in the mutual relation of givers and receivers.
Hence it was, that after he had written to the Romans that he longed to
come to them in order to impart some' spiritual gift for their establish
ment, he added, lest he should seem to arrogate too much to himself,
" that is, that I may be comforted, together with you, by the mutual
faith both of you and me;" Rom. i. 12.
Christianity, on the one hand, by the Holy Spirit as the common

136 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
higher principle of life, gave to the church a unity, lifted above every
other principle of union among men, destined to subordinate to itself,
and in this subordination to adjust and harmonize, all the varieties
founded in the development of human nature. But, on the other hand,
mental peculiarities were not annihilated by this divine life, since, in all
cases, it followed the laws of the natural development of man ; but it
rather purified, sanctified, and transformed them, and promoted their
freer and more complete expansion. This higher unity of life was to ex
hibit itself in a multiplicity of individualities, animated by the Spirit, and
forming reciprocal complements to each other as parts of one vast whole
in the kingdom of God. Consequently, the manner in which this divine
life expressed and manifested itself in each, must be determined by the
previous mental individuality of each. It is true the apostle Paul says,
"But all these worketh that one and self-same Spirit, dividing to every
man severally as he iciVZ," 1 Cor. xii. 11 ; but it by no means follows,
that he supposes an operation of the Divine Spirit totally unconditioned.
In this passage, he is simply opposing an arbitrary human valuation,
which would attribute a worth to only certain gifts of grace, and refused
to acknowledge the manifoldness in their distribution. The analogy to
the members of the human body, of wdiich the apostle afterwards avails
himself, betokens the not arbitrary but regulated development of the
new creation in a sanctified natural order; for it is evident from this
analogy, that as, among the members of the human body, each has its
determinate place assigned by nature, and its appropriate function, so
also the divine life, in its development, follows a similar law, grounded
on the natural relations of the individual qualities animated by it.
From what has just been said, we are prepared for rightly understand
ing the idea of char ism, so very important for the history of the de
velopment of the Christian life, and of the constitution of the Christian
church in the first ages. In the apostolic age, it denoted nothing else
than the predominant capability of an individual in which the power and
operation of the Holy Spirit that animated him was revealed ;* whether
this capability appeared as something communicated in an immediate
manner by the Holy Spirit, or whether it was already existing in the in
dividual before his conversion, and animated, sanctified, and elevated by
the new principle of life, was to serve one common and supreme object,
the inward and outward development of the kingdom of God, or the
church of Christ! That which is the soul of the whole Christian life,
° The " manifestation of the Spirit," (ipavcpuatc rov irvevparoc) peculiar to each person.
| The word most generally used, whereby (since Paul has used it in this sense) is sig
nified all that concerns the internal adviincement of the kingdom of God — whether in
reference to the church in general, or to individuals — is " to edify," (o'lKadopuv.) This
use of the word arises from the practice of comparing the Christian life of ihe whole
church, and its individual members, to a building, a temple of God which is built on
the foundation on which this building necessarily rests, 1 Cor. iii. 9, 10, and is in a state
of continual progress towards completion. On this progressive building of the temple of

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 137
and orms its ii ward unity, the faith working by love, can never appear
as a particular < harism ; for as this it is which forms the essence of the
who.e Christian disposition, so it is this which must govern all the par
ticular Christian capabilities ; and it is because they are all regulated by
this common principle of the Christian disposition, that the particular
capabilities become charisms; 1 Cor. xiii; which Schleiermacher also
acknowledges in his work on Christian Morals, p. 308. Yet we cannot
perfectly agree with him when he asserts that the predominant Christian
idea for everything which can be called virtue in the higher sense of the
word, is xdptaua. It is true, that inasmuch, as along with the Christian
disposition all the virtues pertaining to its practical exemplification in life
are not given at once — inasmuch as its development is gradual, and as
hence it may follow, that in the unity of the same disposition, one virtue
may predominate in one person, and another in another, the name
Charism may be applied to the prominent virtue. Yet this difference is
found to exist : for the full soundness of the Christian life in every man,
and for the good success of every labor for the kingdom of God, the co
operation of all the fundamental or cardinal virtues is required; but the
same cannot be said of all the peculiar capabilities which are marked by
the name of Charisms, lying outside the department of morals, although
appropriated by it. Thus it cannot be laid down as a requirement, that
they should all be found together in every individual. Rather is this
excluded by the idea of individuality. Peculiar charisms belong to one,
which do not exist in others ; and this indicates the need of individuals
having their deficiencies made up by others, like the collective members
of one body; to the soundness of the body belongs the conjoined organ
ism of all the charisms which the divine life of Christianity appropriates
from the collective life of humanity.
That by which the developed natural endowment becomes a charism,
and which is common to all, is always something elevated above the
common course of nature, something divine. But the forms of manifes
tation in which this higher principle exhibited itself were different, accord
ing as they were the result of an original creative operation of the Holy
Spirit, entering into and appropriating the course of nature, as they were
something immediately worked, (though even here a hidden connexion
might exist between the natural peculiarities of the individual and such a
special acting of the Holy Spirit) — the charisms which in the New Tes
tament, are called "powers, signs, wonders," 6vvdp.EiQ, onpsta, ripara
or, according as they were the result of the development of natural talents
under the animating influence of the Holy Spirit. The first kind of
charisms belongs more to the peculiar operation of the Holy Spirit in the
apostolic age, that peculiarly creative "epoch of Christianity oti its first
appearance in the world ; the second kind belongs to the operation of
God, both in general and individually, see the admirable remarks in Nitszch's Observational
ad Tlieologiam practicam felicius excolendam. Bonn, 1831, p. 21.

138 CONSTITUTION OF THE CIIURCH.
the Holy Spirit through all succeeding ages of the murch, by which
human nature, in its essential qualities and its whole course of develop
ment, will be progressively penetrated and transformed. It is true,
therefore, that these two forms of charism, as they were manifested in
the apostolic church, are clearly distinguishable ; the gift, indeed, by
which effects were produced iu the visible world, which could not pro
ceed from the existing powers and laws of nature, the gift of dvvdpEie,
and one still more definite, that of curing diseases, the x^ptopa lapdrov,
are callc-d special gifts ; 1 Cor. xii. 9, 10. But these gifts are only special
as coordinate with others ; we find no division of gifts into two classes,
extraordinary and ordinary, supernatural and natural ; for we contem
plate the apostolic church from the right point of view, only when we
consider the essential in all these gifts to be the supernatural principle,
the divine element of life itself. Just as all Christian truths, so far as
they belong to the sphere of the new higher life which the Holy Spirit
alone can disclose, are called " Mysteries."
The charisms which appeared in the apostolic church, may be most
naturally divided into such as relate to the furtherance of the kingdom
of God or the edification of the church, by the word, and such as relate
to the furtherance of the kingdom of God by other kinds of outward*
agency. As to the first class, a distinction maybe made, founded on the
varying relation which the self-activity, developed in the several powers
of the soul and their performances, bore to the inworking of the Holy
Spirit; varying as the immediate force of inspiration predominated in the
higher self-consciousness (the voug or irvevpa), and the lower self-con
sciousness (the V'iot), the medium of the soul's intercourse with the out
ward world, was repressed ; or as the communications of tlie Divine
Spirit were received under the harmonious operation of all the powers
of the soul, and were developed and employed by the cooperating sober
exercise of the understanding.!
Hence the gradations in the charisms of which we have already spoken,
p. 35, the charism of " speaking with tongues," of " prophesying," and of
" teaching." Men who were prepared by the early cultivation of the intel
lect, and the aptitude for mental communication, knew how to develop and
communicate in logical consecutiveness what the illumination of the Di
vine Spirit revealed to their higher self-consciousness. The SiSdaicaXot
are therefore teachers possessed of Christian knowledge (yv&oiq) gained
by means of a self-activity animated by the Holy Spirit, by the develop
ment and elaboration of truth discerned in the divine light. The prophet,
on the contrary, spoke as he was carried away by the power of inspira-
* Comparo 1 Pet. iv. 11.
\ Wo can here make use of what Synesius in his Dion says of the relation of the
Bacchic frenzy, paKxeia — of tho "mad leap," dXpa pavmov, of the "possession by a god,"
Bin.fipnTov— to the completeness of the " moderate and controlled power," peon Kal iiriara-
mi?/ dvvapie.

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 139
Lion, suddenly, by an instantaneous elevation of his higher self-conscious
ness, according to a light that then gleamed upon him, an diroKdXvxpii;.
The prophet may be distinguished from the teacher in reference to
his mental peculiarity and structure, by the predominance, in general, of
the feelings and intuitive perceptions over the activity of the understand
ing. Yet the two charisms were not always found separate and in dif
ferent persons. The teacher in many a moment of inspiration might
become a prophet. Tlie prophet might pronounce, under the influence
of inspiration, some impressive address, to awaken, to admonish, to
warn, or to console the assembled believers ; or make appeals to those
who were not yet decided in the faith, to startle their consciences and
thus open their hearts for the instructions of the teacher. It is evi
dent what influence the power of inspired discourse, operating on the
heart, must have had for the spread of the gospel during this period.
Persons who wished only for once to inform themselves respecting what oc-j
curred in the Christian assemblies, or to become acquainted with the Chris
tian doctrine, of whose divine origin they were as yet by no means con
vinced, sometimes came into the assemblies of the Church.* On these occa-
* The diriaroe, 1 Cor. xiv. 24, means a person not yet a believer, but yet not unsuscep
tible of faith, the infiddis negative. Such a one might be awakened to believe by " prophe
sying," irpotjn/Teia. The diriarne, 1 Cor. xiv. 22, is an obstinate unbeliever, wholly unsus
ceptible of faith, and hence utterly unsusceptible of the influence of the irpo<pi/reia, an ivfi-
delis privative. For such persons there could be no awakening, but only condemnatory
"signs," aripela. I am not induced by wdiat Meyer has said, in his Commentary on the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, to give up this interpretation. The connexion makes it
absolutely necessary, to give a different, meaning to dirtoroe in 1 Cor. xiv. 23 and 24, from
that given to it in v. 22, and the collocation of idiuinu and uirioroi confirms this explana
tion. The two words are associated as designations of related states, or of the same state
in different relations. Tho ISturai were those who knew only a little of Christianity, the
diriaroi those who had not yet attained to faith, and as not believing, were akin to the
class mentioned in v. 22, but distinguished from them by the direction of their disposition,
and its relation to believing, inasmuch as they wore not in the position of decided enmity
to Christianity. The fact of their attending Christian assemblies, bore evidence of their
seeking alter "truth, and of at least v. dawning susceptibility. A person of this class
comes to the Christian assemblies to learn, whether it be really a matter worth attending
to " moved to inquire what there is in the matter," accensus inquirere quid sit in causa,
as Tertullian says. The train of thought is as follows: v. 21, God speaks by people using
a stramre language (the revelation of bis judgment) to the Jews, who would not listen to
the prophets speaking to them in their own language; v. 22, thus the unintelligible
tonmies are for signs (signs of merited divine judgments, condemnatory signs) not for be
lievers, (which idea is amplified in verses 23, 24, that it may be applied also to those who
are suseeptihle of foith, whose minds are somewhat moved to believe,) but for unbelievers
(by which is indicated a positive opposition to faith — the position of those who have ob
stinately rejected the opportunities of attaining faith). But prophecy is not for the unbe
lieving fin consequence of the opposition of their hearts), but for believers. Of course,
Paul does not mean to say here that prophecy is designed only for believers, and not also
for unbelievers, so far as these include such as have only not yet attained to faith ; for it
is clear that prophecy was especially fitted to arouse and alarm those who, though not
yet believing, were possessed of susceptible minds ; to excite in them a sense of sin, and

140 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
sions, Christian men came forward who testified with overpowering energy,
of the corruption of human nature, and of the universal need of redemption ;
and, from their own religious and moral consciousness, appealed to that
of others, as if they could read it. The heathen felt his conscience
struck, his heart was laid open, and he was forced to acknowledge, what
hitherto he had not been willing to believe, that the power of God was
with this doctrine, and dwelt among these men ; 1 Cor. xiv. 25.
If the connected addresses of the " teacher" StddoKaXog, tended to
lead those further into a knowledge of the gospel who had already at
tained to faith, or to develop in their minds the clear understanding of what
they had received by faith ; "¦projy/iesymg," Ttpotp-nTEta, served rather
to awaken those to faith who were not yet believers, or to animate and
strengthen those who had attained to faith, to quicken afresh the life of
faith. On the contrary, in the " speaking icith tongues" yXiooaaig
kaXslv, the elevated consciousness of God alone prevailed, while the con
sciousness of the external world vanished. To a person in exercise of
this gift, the medium of communication between the external world and
his deeply moved soul, was altogether wanting. What he uttered in
this state when carried away by his feelings and intuitions, was not a
connected address like that of a 6i5doKaXog, nor was it an exhortation
suited to the circumstances of other persons (itapdicXncng), like that of
the prophets; but without being capable of taking notice of the mental
state and necessities of others, he was occupied solely with the relation
of his own heart to God. His soul was absorbed in devotion and adora
tion. Hence prayer, singing the praises of God, testifying of the mighty
acts of God, were suited to this state.* Such a person prayed in the
of the need of redemption, and to lead them to a recognition of the divine power of the
gospel. It follows, therefore, of itself, that the term "believer" here could not have been set
in general antithesis to all who had not yet attained to faith, but in more restricted opposi
tion to decided unbelievers — to such as would not believe. This general position, that not
the gift of unintelligible tongues, but prophecy speaking intelligibly to them, was designed
for believers, the apostle lays down in v. 23, as an inference from what he had said before.
But instead of taking an example from those who already belonged to the church as de
cided believers, he takes an example from those who were only in their progress towards
believing; since in these the truth of what he had asserted was more strikingly evident
showing how many such persons might be won by prophecy, and on the contrary, how
injuriously the sight of an assembly in which they heard nothing but ecstatic, unintelligible
discourses must operate upon them : in the latter case, they would feel themselves com
pelled to suppose that there was nothing in Christianity but delusion and fanaticism. But
if the same unbelievers were intended in verse 23 as in verse 22, then for such also the
discourses of the prophets would be nothing that could profit them, since there was no
point of connexion in their dispositions. To them also, what they heard spoken by the
prophets would appear nothing but fanaticism. It would be a punishment merited by
them, lo be addressed in unintelligible language. Since they would not understand— they
tUtould not understand.
* As various kinds of religious acts might proceed from this state of mind, (as for in
stance, praying and singing with the Spirit,) the plural tongues, and the phrase "kind o/
tongues," are used.

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 141
Spirit ; the higher life of the mind and heart predominated, but the intel
ligent development was wanting.* Since he formed a peculiar language
for himself, from his own individual feelings and intuitions, he was
deficient in the ability to express himself so as to be understood by the
majority. Had the apostle Paul held the " speaking with tongues" to be
something quite fanatical and morbid, neither advantageous for the Chris
tian life of the individual nor for the furtherance of the Christian life in
others, he certainly (liberally as he always acknowledged what was good
in the churches to whom he wrote, before he blamed what was evil)
would never have allowed himself to designate by the name of a char
ism, an imperfection in the Christian life, and never could he, in this case,
have said of himself that he thanked God that he spake in more tongues
than all of them. On the contrary, from the view here developed of this
charism, it is evident that, in this extraordinary elevation of mind, he
recognised an operation of the Divine Spirit, a special gift of grace; and
there is also an internal probability that that apostle, who rose to the
* At all events it is certain that in 1 Cor. xiv. 14, praying and singing tcith the
Spirit, irvevpan irpoaevxea'lat, ipd?iAriv, is equally with " speaking with a tongue," y?.C>oan
Tia^elv, opposed to " speaking in, or with the understanding," rui vol or did rod vobc AaAtlv,
and it is certain that the latter means — to deliver something through the medium of think
ing, in a form proceeding from a sound consciousness. But it may be disputed — which,
however, decides nothing respecting the subject as a whole — whether irvevpa in this whole
section is a designation of the ecstatic state, as one in which the excitation produced by
the Divine Spirit, the immediate inspiration predominates, and the human self-activity is
repressed; or whether it denotes also a peculiar internal power of human nature, the
power of higher intuition, which in such states aloue is developed and active. Verses 15
and 16 would favor and justify no other interpretation than the former. But in verse 14,
though this interpretation is not impossible, there are some difficulties; for then by the
irvevpa here would have to be understood the inspiration effected by the Spirit, as something
abiding in the soul, and completely blended with the subjective. Instead of saying, I
pray in inspiration, Paul would say, My spirit (that in me which is one with the Spirit
acting within me) prays. It cannot be denied that this interpretation has something harsh,
which is not found, if, according to the second, we understand by irvevpa that highest
power of the soul, which in those highest moments of the inner life is active as the organ
for the influences of the Divine Spirit. It cannot at least be decisive against this interpre
tation, that Paul iu his Epistle to the Romans generally designates the higher spiritual
nature of man by the term voi-c; for this need not prevent his applying the same name to
a more limited idea in another connexion ; the vovc — rd voovv, the discursive faculty of
thought, in distinction from the higher faculty of intuition, which, surrendering itself to
the Divine Spirit, is more receptive. It is worthy of remark, and assists in forming a right
judgment of the various charisms in relation to Christianity, that in the sense assigned to
the yXuaaaie A.-.Aciv, we may find something analogous in the "frenzy," pav'ta, the "in
spiration," ivBovataophc, of the heathen " diviner," pdvrte; on the contrary, in the dtdaoKa-
Xia is presented a characteristic of Christianity, the religion of sober-mindedness ; as
Christianity is the religion of freedom of mental self-activity, (in opposition to mere pas
sivity,) and of harmonious mental development. Hence, also, the danger that — when a
one-sided over-valuation of the yXuaoaie AaXeiv gained ground, and there was a defect in
Christian watchfulness and sobriety, as in heathenism — the excitement of mere natural
feelin" might injuriously mingle itself with the movements of the divine life, as was the
case in Montanism. in which we may observe appearances akin to somnambulism.

142 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
highest point of the interior Christian life, who could depose to having
received so many "visions," bitraoiai, and " revelations of the Lord,"
diroKaXvipEtg Kvpiov, who had heard things unutterable in any tongue of
men — had often been in circumstances corresponding to the yXuooatg
XaXtlv. But it was consonant with that wisdom which always took ac
count of the interests of all classes in the church, that he — although he
recognised the value of these temporary elevations for the whole of the
Christian life, by wdiich it was enabled to take a wider range — left the
manifestations of such moments rather to the private devotions of each
individual, and banished them from meetings for general edification ; that
he valued more highly those spiritual gifts, wdiich gave scope for the
harmonious cooperation of all the powers of the soul, and contributed in
the spirit of love to the general edification; and that he dreaded the
danger of self-deception and fanaticism, where the extraordinary mani
festations of the Christian life were overvalued, and where that which
only had worth when it arose unsought from the interior development
of life, became an object of anxious pursuit to many who were thus
brought into a state of morbid excitement. Hence he wished, that in
those highest moments of inspiration which attended the speaking with
tongues, each one would pour out his heart alone before God ; but that
in the assemblies of the church these manifestations of devotion, unin
telligible to the majority, might be repressed, or only be exhibited
when what was thus spoken could be translated into a language intelligi
ble to all.
Among these charisms, we have further to distinguish the gift of a
divinely animated creative power of the religious intuition, and the gift
which enabled a person to explain or to pass judgment upon what others
communicated in the state of higher inspiration — the faculty, animated
by the Divine Spirit, of interpreting or of judging, the " interpretation of
tongues," ipjiTjVEta yXiioatov, and the " trying of spirits," SiaKpiotg ttvev-
pdrwv. The Christian life was permitted freely to develop and express
itself in the church. Whoever felt an inward impulse, might speak in
the Christian assemblies; but sound discretion was to accompany inspi
ration, and even be considered as a mark of its genuineness. No one was
to wish to be the sole speaker ; or to interrupt others in speaking ;
1 Cor. xiv. 30, 31. If Paul considered such injunctions to be necessary, it
is appirent that he by no means recognised in the prophets of the church
such pure organs of the Divine Spirit, as that the divine and the human
might not easily be mixed in them. On the contrary, the churches were
to be guarded against the excesses of suoh a mixture and the delusions
which abound when human impurity is. looked upon as a suggestion of
the Divine Spirit, — by exercising a trial of spirits, for which a special
gift was granted to individuals. As for the SiddoKaXog, in whom the re
flective activity of the understanding predominated, the gift of tryinc
spirits was not required so much to accompany his addresses ; for since
hi him the critical power was developed and active, and he was habitu-

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 143
ated to discuss Christian truths with a sober judgment, he was able to
judge himself. But the less a prophet in the moments of inspiration was
himself able to observe, to examine, and to judge, the greater was the
danger of confounding the divine and the human, and the more neces
sary was it, to prevent this, for others to apply a scrutiny.
On this account, it was necessary that the operations of the pro
phetical gift should be attended by an extraordinary endowment, in cer
tain persons, of trying the spirits, a critical power animated by the Holy
Spirit. The design of this gift was certainly not merely nor specially to
decide who was a prophet and who was not ; but also chiefly for the
purpose of distinguishing in the addresses of those who stood up as in
spired speakers in the Christian assemblies, between what proceeded
from the Divine Spirit, and what did not proceed from that source; so
Paul, on this point, recommended the church to try every thing com
municated by the prophets, and required them to separate the good from
the bad ; 1 Thess. v. 21. And as the prophets did not pretend to be in
fallible, but were conscious of their liability to error, they submitted
themselves to the judgment of the church, or of their organs appointed
for the purpose, and thus were preserved from the self-delusion of pride,
that fruitful source of fanatical error. We see how already are foie-
shadowed in these peculiar operations of the Divine Spirit who animated
the church in these original charisms, the various activities which would
afterwards be animated by Christianity, and which belong to the perfect
development of the reason, such as the exposition of what is written or
spoken by others, and criticism.
In the charism of " teaching " itself, we find again a difference in re
ference to the " word of knowledge," Aoyoc yviurj£OJC,and the " word of
wisdom," Aoyoc oocbiag. It is evident, from the manner in which they
are mentioned separately (1 Cor. xii. 8), that there is a certain distinction
between them, but it is very difficult to ascertain what it is. Elsewhere
the word yvdoig denotes the theoretical in distinction from the practical,
and relates to the intellectual development of Christian truth. Thus the
Corinthians boasted of their gnosis, because they had obtained many
deductions from Christian truth which had not yet become clear to others
who were too closely confined to their former point of view. And Paul
does not deny that they were before many in point of knowledge ; only
he missed in them that humility and love, without which all knowledge
in reference to divine things is worthless. He joins together in 1 Cor. xiii.
2, " understanding all mysteries and having all knowledge." But the
idea of " wi-dom," ooqMa, also might seem to relate to the intellectual.
Aristotle makes the distinction between ootpla and (ppov-qaig, that the
former refers to the eternal and divine, but the latter to the useful for
man. But the contrast here made by that great teacher, closely depends,
with his whole mode of contemplation, on the relation of the divine to
the human, and on the boundaries of morals. In common language,
certainly the distinction between the ideas of ooi^bg and (ppovipog often

144 CONSTITUTION OF THE CIIURCH.
vanishes, and the former term is used to designate any knowledge or skill
in the department of practice.
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians Paul distinguishes by the name
of " the wisdom of the perfect" a more profound development of Chris
tian truth, by means of which it is shown that wdiat natural reason
represents as foolishness, contains in itself inexhaustible treasures of wis
dom. But the same Paul also uses the word ooipia in cases which relate
altogether to the practical, and where it corresponds rather to prudence.
Both senses meet in the idea of Christian wisdom, of which we shall
speak in the chapter on doctrine.
By reverting to the peculiar idea of wisdom, and endeavoring to in
vestigate what Paul designates "the wisdom of the perfect," may we
not obtain an accommodation between the theoretical and the practical,
by which ooipia is distinguished from yvcbotg ? The idea of wisdom be
speaks an activity of the mind directed toward an end, and hence refers
to those acts by wdiich the ideas originating within are brought forth
into outward visibility. As now, according to Paul, the highest end of
creation in reference to this world can be attained only by the redemp
tion of mankind, so the Divine wisdom reveals itself especially in the
manner in which the various generations of men are brought to a parti
cipation in redemption, in the manifold steps of the course of develop
ment, which under the Divine guidance conducts all things to just that
end. Rom. xi. 33 ; Eph. iii. 10. Thus the wisdom of the perfect has
for its functions and objects, to produce the conviction, that in the rela
tion which the development of humanity bears to the appearance of
Christ, and to the redemption accomplished through his sufferings, the
Divine wisdom reveals itself; and that the preaching, therefore, which
appears as foolishness to those who are without the pale of Christian
ity, gives the most abundant disclosures of the Divine wisdom, as in
the unveiling of that hidden design of redemption all the treasures of
wisdom are contained. With this idea, what is represented in the Epistle
to the Hebrews as the doctrine of perfection, may be placed in connexion.
And thus the Aoyoc oocpiag would be applied to a special department of
k.nowdedge as distinguished from the universality of the gnosis. But if
the wisdom that guides human life and determines human action is to
form itself according to the doctrine of Divine wisdom ; if the new mode
of treating all the relations of life proceeds from that wdiich "the wisdom
of the perfect" teaches us to recognise as the central point of all history ;
if this is to be the central point also for the whole moral structure of
life ; then, therefore, the ethical element also, the more practical, in dis
tinction from the more theoretical gnosis, would here find its point of
connexion. Let us now proceed from those gifts which relate to the ministry of
the word, to that class which relates to other kinds of outward activ
ity for the advancement of the kingdom of God. Here again we
must distinguish between those in which, as in " teaching," a peculiar

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 145
capability founded in human nature, and developed and applied accord
ing to its usual laws, was rendered effective, under the influence of a new
divine principle of life; and those in which the natural human develop
ment was repressed, and what was purely divine became more promi
nent, as in the " speaking with tongues" and " prophesying." To the
former belong the gifts of church government, the xdpiopa Kvj3epv^oEix)g
or rov rrpotardvai, and the gifts for various services, which were required
in administering the concerns of the church, as distributing alms, tending
the sick, &c, the xdpiopa diaKoviag or dvTiXrjtpeug ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 ;
Rom. xii. 7. To the second division belongs especially the gift of work
ing miracles, and performing cures. The charism from which these two
modes of miraculous operation proceed, considered in its essential nature,
appears to be "faith," iriorig; 1 Cor. xii. 9 ; xiii. 2 ; Matt. xvii. 20 ; for
the term ixiartg iii this connection cannot denote Christian faith in general,
the disposition common to all Christians; but must necessarily relate to
something special. For, as seems to appear from the relation of rciorig
to these two modes of operation, in which a peculiar power of the will
over nature manifests itself; and as is confirmed by what is predicated
of iriorig in 1 Cor. xiii. 2 : " If I had faith so that I could move moun
tains," i. e. could render what appeared impossible, possible by the
power of religious conviction working on the Will, — the term iriorig de
notes the practical power of the will animated and elevated by faith.
But with this variety in the manifestations of the charisms, he who la
bored in the service of the church yet affirmed with the worker of
miracles, that he was conscious that everything effected by him was
Solely by the power of God granted to him ; 1 Pet. iv. 11.
Although, as we have shown, in virtue of these spiritual gifts imparted
to individuals, according to their various peculiarities, no one was to ex
ercise a one-sided influence on the church, but rather all with recipro
cal activity were to cooperate for the one object, under the influence of
one head animating the whole in all its manifold members, Eph. iv. 16 ;
yet it by no means follows that all guidance* of the church by human in-
* "We cannot, in this place, allow the view brought forward by Baur, in his treatise on
the " Pastoralbriefe," p. 19, to pass unnoticed, that, in the genuine Pauline Epistles, no
trace can be found of distinct employments and offices for the guidance and government
of the church. The passage in Rom. xii., in which the distinctions in the various charisms
are pointed out, certainly shows how fluctuating everything was at that time, and lnw
little idea can be formed from those charisms as to the meaning of the later church-offices
corresponding to them. It is certainly striking to notice how Paul, in the 8th and 9th
verses of that, passage in the Epistle to the Romans, passes from the charisms which seem
to relate to particular offices, to the mention of Christian virtues which concerned every
believer; at the end of verse 8, tho "showing mercy," i~keC>v, forms the point of transition,
and even before that, " giving," peradidobc, does not necessarily relato to any official duty.
Thus it might be concluded that the original constitution of the churches among Gentile
Christians, in the apostolic age, was entirely democratic, and also that this was one of the
distinguishing marks between the churches of Gentile and those of Jewish origin. The
matter would then have to be looked at thus: All the affairs of the churches were
10

146 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
strumentality was e. "eluded ; but only that these specially guiding instrm
ments exercised no exclusive authority, did not separate themselves from
connexion with the whole living organization formed by a free recipro
cal action of the individual members, nor dared to violate their relation
to the other members, as equally serving the same Head and the same
body.still transacted in an entirely public manner, so that every deliberative meeting of the
church resembled a si rictly popular assembly. But it happened of course that although
no definite offices were iusiituted, to which certain employments were exclusively attached,
yet each one occupied himself with those matters for which he possessed a peculiar char
ism ; those who had the gift of teaching, generally atiended to teaching, — those who pos
sessed the g'ft of church government, occupied themselves with the duties pertaining to it.
Thus, in every meeting of the church, there would be of course, a division among its mem
bers of the various business, according to the peculiar charisms of individuals, without the
institution, however, of any definite chuich-offices. In favor of this view, it might further
be alleged, that, wdien Paul (1 Cor. vi.) speaks of a matter belonging to church govern
ment, the settling of litigations, he does not recommend their committing this business to
persons who held a distinct office of governing, whose concern in that case it would have
been; but speaks of the church as a body, before whose tribunal such disputes ought to
be brought to a decision. "Is there not one wise man among you," be asked, " wdio can
settle such matters ?" Therefore such wise peisons. or in other words, those who had the
gift of church government, were to be taken from the midst of the church itself, to under
take the settlement of these disputes hy means of their peculiar charism ; no distinct church
office could have been hero referred to. But this opinion, which might be formed
from such passages, though not necessarily founded upon them, is decidedly opposed by
others. Paul, in 1 Cor. xvi., says, that the family of Stephanas, as the first Christian
family in Achaia, devoted themselves to the service of the Christian church, i. e. its mem
bers declared themselves ready to undertake church offices; consequently, we may sup
pose that, at the founding of the church, such offices were instituted. That this is his
meaning, is confirmed by the 16th verse, where Paul exhorts the church to obey such
ministers, (then fore rulers of tho church), and all their fellow-laborers.
Further, in 1 Thess. v. 12, he speaks of those who labored for the church, presided over
it, and admonished it. Love to them as overseers on account of their laborious calling
is particularly enjoined; and with this is connected the exhorlation to peace with one
another, since division ill the church would especially injure their proper relation to
these ove*rscers of the church, and the want of hecoming love and reverence towards them
would also injuriously operate against the unity of the church. Also, when Paul in Rom.
xvi. 1, mentions a deaconess, it is certainly presupposed that there were deacons and pres
byters in the church. And wheu, in Eph. iv. 11, he names pastors and teachers next to
apostles and prophets, and indeed after the mention of charisms as the heavenly gifts be
stowed by Christ, we must infer that, among these pastors and teachers, there were those
who exercised distinct offices, and that, in general, certain offices corresponded to certain
charisms. "We intentionally pass over Phil! ,. i. 1, a passage which can be decisive onlv for
those who, like myself, are convinced of the genuineness of the epistle. Also when Buke
Acts xiv. 23, nana'es that Paul, on bis first missionary journey, appointed presbyters in tho
new churches, this is, in my opinion, certain historical evidence, since I must consider the
suspicion that in this work a later ecclesiastical point of view has been transferred to
earlier and differently formed church-relalions, as absolutely without foundation. But from
the existing relations of the churches at that time, when there was not in Ihe same senses
as in later times a clergy distinguished from the laity, it is evident, how, in Rom. xii. 7
along with the charisms connected with specific offices, those might be named which were

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 147
There was indeed for this guidance a peculiar talent inspired by the
Holy Spi> it, the "gift of government," {^tiptopta KvfiEpvrjoewg.) It was this
that fitted a person for the office of presiding over the church. The name
of presbyter, by which, as we have before remarked, this office was first
distinguished, was transferred from the Jewish synagogue to the Chris
tian church. But when the church extended itself further among Hel
lenic Gentiles, with this name borrowed from the civil and religious con
stitution of the Jews another was joined, which was more allied to the
designations of social relations among the Greeks, and adapted to point
out the official duties connected with the dignity of presbyters.* The
name ETtiaKoiroi denoted overseers over the whole of the church and its
collective concerns; as in Attica those who were commissioned to
organize the states dependent on Athens, received the title of EirioKoiroi,\
and as in general it appears to have been a frequent one for denoting a
guiding oversight in the public administration. \ Since, then, the name
" overseer or bishop," (irrioKOTrog) was no other than a transference of
an original Jewish and Hellenistic designation of office, adapted to the
social relations of the Gentiles ; it follows that originally both names
related entirely to the same office, and hence both names are frequently
interchanged as perfectly synonymous. Thus Paul addresses the assem
bled presbyters of the Ephesian church, whom he had sent for, as k-moKO-
7rovc ;§ so likewise in 1 Tim. iii. 1, the office of the presbyters is called
not so connected ; and how Paul could pass on from particular charisms to general Chris
tian virtues. Attention to the poor and sick, which belonged to the special business of
deacons, was yet something in which others could be employed, besides those on whom it
officially devolved. See Rothe, in the work before quoted, p. 189.
* The apostle Peter, in his first Epistle (v. 1, 2), certainly distinguishes this dignity by
the name " elders," (irpeof}vrcpot,) but the duties connected with it, by the term "to over-
Bee,"^" to feed," (lirnKOTr£tv=:iroi/j.alveiv.)
\ Otherwise called " governors," dppoorai. Schol. Aristoph. Av. (1023) : ol irep'
ABnvatuv ele rue virnKoovi irdXsie iirtoKitpaodat rd irap' Ikuotoic irepirdpEvot, 'EirioKoiroi
Kai <pv\aKee iKal.oi-vro, ore ol Aukuvcc 'Appoarde lAeyov. (Those sent by the Athenians
lo subject cities, to inspect affairs among them, were called overseers and protectors, whom
the Baconians called Governors.)
X Cic ad Atlicum, vii. Ep. 11. Vult me Pompeius esse, quem tota hasc Campana et
maritima ora habeat inioKoirov, ad quem delectus et summa negotii referatur. (Pompey
wishes me to be the overseer (iirloKoirov), whom all this Campana and these maritime
borders have, to whom select and important matters may be referred.) In a fragment of
a work by Arcadius Charisius de Muneribus civilibus, Episcopi qui pr<esunt pani et ceteris
venalibus rebus, quae civitatum populis ad quotidianum victum usui sunt. (Overseers
who have charge of the bread and other things for sale, which are used by the people of
the cities for daily food.) Digest, lib. iv. tit. iv. leg. 18, § 7.
§ Acts xx. 17, 28. If we believed ourselves justified in supposing that among them,
there were not merely the overseers of the Ephesian church, but also those of othei
churches in Lesser Asia, it might be said, that by these " bishops," iirirrKoirovr, only the
presidents of the presbyteries are intended. But the other passages in Paul's epistles are
against such a distinction, and Luke, who applied this address only to the overseers of the
Ephosiau church, still considered, therefore, the terms iirloKoiroe and irpeajlvr ipoc as per
fectly synonymous.

148 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
E-iaiconT}, and immediately after (verse 8) the office of deacons is mem
tioned as the only existing church-office besides, as also in Philip, i. 1.
And thus Paul enjoins Titus to appoint presbyters, and immediately after
calls them bishops. It is, therefore, certain that every church was
governed by a union of the elders or overseers* chosen from among them
selves, and we find among them no individual distinguished above the
rest who presided as a primus inter pares, though probably, in the age
immediately succeeding the apostolic, of which we have unfortunately so
few authentic memorials, the practice was introduced of applying to such
a.n one the mine of iirioitoirog by way of distinction.! We have no
information how the office of president in the deliberations of presbyters
was held in the apostolic age. Possibly this office was held in rotation
— or perhaps the order of seniority was followed — or, by degrees, one
individual by his personal qualifications may have gained such a distinc
tion ; all this, in the absence of information, must be left undetermined ;
one thing is certain, that the person who acted as president was not yet
distinguished by any particular name.
The government of the church was the peculiar office of such overseers ;
it was their business to watch over the general order, to maintain the
purity of the Christian doctrine and of Christian practice, to guard
against abuses, to admonish the faulty, and to guide the public delib-
* I must here again (as before, p. 34,) declare myself in reference also to the first organ-
i?a:ion of the churches among the Gentile Christians, opposed to the view maintained
by Kist and Baur, that originally small churches formed themselves under individual over
seers, and that their form of government from the beginning was monarchical. According
to Baur, the overseers as such in reference to their peculiar office, wero " bishops," iirioiw
iroi, and only when spoken of as united and forming a college, they were called "elders,"
irpeo8vTep.il. In Acts xiv. 23, we are told, that Paul appointed presbyters for the churches,
formed in the different cities, that is, in each church a college of presbyters. To under
stand with Baur, that tho plurality of presbyters is to b3 taken collectively, and for each
church only one presbyter was appointed, would be incomistent with Acts xx. 17, where
it is said that Paul sent for the presbyters of the church at Ephosus, which i np]ies that a
plurality of presbyters presided over one church: or the word eKKAr/iia which in the pas
sage first quoted is understood of a single church, must be hero arbitrarily taken to simify
several churches collectively — certainly quite contrary to the phraseology of the apostolio
age, according to which the word iiiKAnaia signifies, either the whole Christian church,
the total number of believers forming one body under one head, or a single church or
Christian society. In that case, the plural rdiv tKK?.T]otd>v must necessarily have been
used. Acts xx. 28 also implies that over each church a plurality of presbyters presided.
And thus we must also explain Titus i. 5, which explanation (of the appointment of
several presbyters in each city) is also generally favored by the language there used. I
can discover ro other difference between the " elders" and " bishops," in the apostolio
age, than that the first notes the dignity, the second the duties of the office, whether the
reference is to one or more.
•f Perhaps an analogy may be found, in the fact (if it were so), that one among the
Jewish presbyters was distinguished by the name of Archisynagogos ; or the names
"elders" and " rulers of the synagogue," (irpeafHorepoi and dpxiovvdyuyot) may bear the
same relation to each other as "elders" and "bishops;" the first name denoting tho rank,
tho second the nature of the office, dpxovrec ri)e ovvayuyi/c.

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 149
erations ; as appears from the passages in the New Testament where
their functions are described. But their government by no means
excluded the participation of the whole church in the management of
their common concerns, as may be inferred from what we have already re
marked in general respecting the nature of the Christian community, and
as is also evident from many individual examples in the Apostolic church.
The whole church at Jerusalem took pant in the deliberations respecting
the relation of the Jewish and Gentile Christians to each other, and the
epistle drawn up after these deliberations was likewise in the name of the
whole church. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, which treat of various
controverted ecclesiastical matters, are addressed to whole churches,
and he assumes that the decision belonged to the whole body. Had it
been otherwise, he would have addressed his instructions and advice,
principally at least, to the overseers of the church. When a licentious
person belonging to the church at Corinth was to be excommunicated,
the apostle considered it a measure that ought to proceed from the whole
society ; and placed himself therefore in spirit among them, to unite with
them in passing judgment; 1 Cor. v. 3—5. Also, when discoursing of
the settlement of litigations, the apostle does not affirm that it properly
belonged to the overseers of the church ; for if this had been the preva
lent custom, he would no doubt have referred to it ; but what he says
seems to imply that it was usual in particular instances to select arbitra
tors from among the members of the church ; 1 Cor. vi. 5.
As to what relates to the edification of the church by the word, it
follows from what we have before remarked, that this was not the ex
clusive concern of the overseer of the church ; for each one had a right
to express what affected his mind in the assembly of the brethren ; hence
many did not sufficiently distinguish between what was fit only for their
own chamber, where every man might freely pour forth his heart before
God, and what was suitable for communicating publicly, — an error cen
sured by Paul, as we noticed in speaking of the gift of tongues.*
Only the female members of the church were excepted from this
general permission. The fellowship "of a higher life communicated by
Christianity, extended itself to the relation between husband and wife;
and the unity to which, according to its original destination, human na
ture aspires, was realized in this, as in every other respect, by Christian
ity. But since whatever is founded on the laws of nature is not injured
by Christianity, but only animated afresh, sanctified, and refined ; so also
within this higher fellowship of life, which was to unite husband and
* It has been maintained, indeed, that this license in the apostolic church was ex
tended only to those who appeared as prophets in the Christian assemblies ; that from such
a special case a general licence is not to bo inferred, for these men as teachers armed with
di/ine authority and speaking in God's name, might on that account be naturally excepted
from common rules. See Mosheim's Institut. Hist. Eccles. major, sec. i. § 10 et. 18. But
this objection is invalidated by what we have remarked respecting the charism of prophecy
and its relation to other charisms.

150 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
wife, the latter retained her becoming place according to the natural des
tination of her sex. Mental receptivity and activity in family life were
recognised in Christianity as corresponding to the destiny of woman, and
hence the female sex are excluded from delivering public addresses on
religious subjects in the meetings of the church;* 1 Cor. xiv. 34; 1
Tim. ii. 12.
Yet as by the participation of all in the conduct of church affairs, a reg
ular government by appointed organs was not excluded, but both church
and officers cooperated for the general good ; so also together with that
wdiich the members of the church, by virtue of the common Christian inspi
ration, could contribute to their mutual edification, there existed a regular
administration of instruction in the church, and an oversight of the trans
mission and development of doctrine which in this time of restlessness
and ferment was exposed to so many adulterations, and for this pur
pose the " gifts of teaching " were designed. There were three orders of
teachers in the apostolic age. The first place is occupied by those who
were personally chosen and set apart by Christ, and formed by inter
course with him to be instruments for publishing the gospel amono- all
mankind — the witnesses of his discourses, his works, his sufferings, and
* 1 Cor. xi. 5 appears to contradict this injunction, and in ancient times the Montan-
ists thought — with whom several modern writers have agreed — that here an exception is
to be found ; as if the apostles intended to bind by no rule those cases in which the im
mediate operation of the Divine Spirit raised up prophets from tho female sex; or as if he
wished to debar females only from addresses that were peculiarly didactic, but not from
the public expression of their feelings. But as to the first interpretation, it supposes too
great a difference in respect to the divine element between the diddoKeiv — which must
also proceed from an operation of the Holy Spirit — and the irpofynreinuv. It must
be certainly erroneous to suppose that any operation whatever of the Holy Spirit in the
Christian church could be lawless. When the apostle Paul points out to the female that
place in the church which is assigned her by the spirit of the gospel, which sanctifies na
ture, so also the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Christianity, follows everywhere this law
of nature in his operations, and wo cannot suppose that hy an exception he would, in any
way, rcmovo woman from her natural position. Every deviation of this kind would appear
us something morbid, and contrary to the spirit of the gospel.
Besides, when Paul gave that prohibition in reference to females, he was treating of
addresses that were not didactic. This could, therefore, make no exception whichever
interpretation be applied. We must rather account for this apparent contradiction, by
supposing that Paul, in the second passage, merely cited an instance of what occurred in
the Corinthian church, and reserved his censures for another place. One of the reasons
wdiich Paul adduces in the passage quoted from the first Epistle to Timothy against the
public speaking of females, is the greater danger of self deception in the weaker sex. and
tho spread of errors arising from it— a reason which would apply with the greatest torce
to a class of addresses, in which sober reflectiveness was least of all in exercise. But this
kind of religious utterance would be most suited to the female sex, wdiere no danger of the
sort alluded to, arising from publicity, would be connected with it— only it must bo con-
fiued to the domestic circle. Hence the daughters of Philip, Acts xxi. 9, notwithstanding
that rule, could act as prophetesses, unless we assume that this was an instance which
Paul would have censured.

CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 151
his resurrection — the Apostles,* among whom Paul was justly included,
on account of Christ's personal appearance to him and the illumination
of his mind independently of the instructions of the other apostles ; next
to these, were the Missionaries, or Evangelists, EvayyEXiorai ;f and
lastly, the teachers appointed for separate churches, and taken out of
their body, the Si'MaKaXot. If sometimes the " prophets," irpo<p7]Tai, are
named next to the apostles and set before the evangelists and tlie " teach
ers," SiddoKaXot, such teachers must be meant in whom that inward
condition of life, from which " prophesying " proceeded, was more con
stant, who were distinguished from other teachers by the extraordinary
liveliness and steadiness of the Christian inspiration, and a peculiar orig
inality of their Christian conceptions which were imparted to them by
special " revelations," diroKaXvipEig, of the Holy Spirit; and doubtless
these prophets, as is evident from their position between the apostles
and evangelists, belonged to the class of teachers who held no office in
any one church, but travelled about to publish the gospel in a wider
circle. As regards the relation of the " teachers " to the "elders or bishops,"
we obviously have no right to proceed on the supposition, that they
always remained the same from the first establishment of Christian
churches among the Gentiles, and therefore during the whole of Paul's
ministry, a period so important for the development of the church ;
and hence we are not justified in concluding, from marks found in
the latest Pauline Epistles, that the relation of these orders, as obtained
from such marks, was the same as that which existed from the begin
ning in the Gentile churches. If we find several things in earlier docu
ments which are at variance with these characteristics, the supposition
must at least appear possible, that changes in the condition of the
churches, and the experiences of the first period, had occasioned an alter
ation in this respect ; and it is an utterly unfounded conclusion, if, be
cause traces of such an altered relation are found in an epistle ascribed to
* This name in a general sense was applied to others who published divine truth in an
extensive sphere of labor.
+ This name does not imply that they occupied themselves with collecting and compil
ing narratives of the life of Christ; for the word evayyeXiov originally denoted nothing else
than the whole announcement of the salvation granted through Christ to men, and this an
nouncement embraced the whole of Christianity. As this announcement rests on a histor
ical basis, Christ as the Redeemer is the object of it; and thus the later-derived meaning
is formed in wh\± this word is specially applied to the histories of the Life of Christ.
According to the original Christian phraseology, the term could only denote one whose
callinn- it was to publish the doctrine of salvation to men, and thereby to lay a foundation
for the Christian church ; on the contrary, the "teacher," dtddoKaloe, presupposed faith iu
the doctrine of salvation, and a church already founded, and employed himself in the
further training in Christian knowledge. The use of the word evayye?uori,e in 2 Tim. iv.
5. favors this interpretation, and this original Christian phraseology was continued in latet
aUs, although the more modern meaning of the word ebayyiAtov was connected wdth it.—
Euseb. Hist. Ec^w. iii c. 37.

152 USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
Paul, any one should infer that such an epistle could not have been writ-
ten in the Pauline period. The first question then is, What was the
original relation ? If we proceed on the supposition, which is founded
on the Pastoral Letters, that the SiSdoKaXoi belonged to the overseers of
the churches, two cases may be imagined ; either that all the presbyters
or bishops held also the office of teachers; or, that some among them,
according to their peculiar talent (xdpiopa), were specially employed in
the management of the outward guidance of the church (the Kvfitpvnoig),
and others with the internal guidance of the word (the diSaoKaXia); we
shall thus have governing elders = " pastors," and teaching elders =
" teachers," (irpeo(ivTEpoi KvflEpvbjVTEg = Troipeveg and irpEofiurspoi SiSdo-
icov-rg = diddaitaXoi.) The first case certainly cannot be admitted,
for the xdpiopa of nvj3Epvrjotg is as decidedly distinct from the %ei-
ptapa of diSaoKaXia, as in common life the talent for governing and
the talent for teaching are perfectly distinct from one another. And
according to the original institution the peculiar office was to cor-
respond to the peculiar charism. And, farther, since in the latter
part of the Pauline period those presbyters who were equally capable of
the office of teachers as well as governors, were especially commended,
it is evident that this was not originally true of all. But neither have
we sufficient reason for considering the second case, as noting the original
relation of these several offices. Since the gifts of ruling or government
(in the First Epistle to the Corinthians xii. 28, and in the Epistle to the
Romans xii. 8), is so accurately distinguished from the talent of teach
ing, — and since these two characteristics, to rule and to govern or guide,
evidently exhaust what belonged from the beginning to the office of
presbyter or bishop, and for which it was originally instituted, we are
not obliged to conclude that the diddoKaXoi belonged to the class of
overseers of the church.
In the Epistle written at a later period to the Ephesians (iv. 11), the
"pastors" and "teachers," iroipevEg and did&OKaXoi, are, it is true, placed
together, in so fir as they are both distinguished from those who pre
sided over a more general sphere of labor, but only in that respect.
Now the term noipevsg denotes exactly the office of rulers of the church,
the presbyters or bishops ; it is not at all clear, therefore, that we should
class the 6i6doKaXoi with them. Otherwise the term Troipivsg might
have been applied not improperly to dtSajKaXot, the rather that in itself
and from the manner in which the image of a shepherd is used in the
Old Testament and by Christ himself, it is fitted to denote the guidance
of souls by the office of teaching. Farther, Paul classes 6i6axrj with
those addresses which are not connected with holding a particular office
(I Cor. xiv. 26), but what every one in the church who had an inward
call, and an ability for it, was justified in exercising.
It might also have happened, that in a church, after its presbytery had
already been established, persons belonging to it came forward, or new

CONSTITUTION OF THE CIIURCH. 153
members were added, who, in consequence of their previous educa
tion, distinguished themselves in the office of teaching, even more than
the existing presbyters, which would soon be evident from the addresses
they delivered when the church assembled. At this season of the first
free development of the Christian life, would the charism granted to such
persons be neglected or repressed, merely because they did not belong
to the class of presbyters ? There were, as it appears, some members
of the church in whose dwellings a portion of them used to assemble,
and this depended probably not always on the convenient locality of their
residence, but on their talent for teaching, which was thus rendered
available; as Aquila, who though he resided sometimes at Rome, some
times at Corinth, or at Ephesus, always wherever he took up his abode
had a small congregation or church in his own house, (fj EKKXnota iv
TO) oiKip avrov.)* .
Thus originally the office of overseer of the church probably had nothing
in common with the work of instruction. Although the overseers of the
church took cognisance not only of the good conduct of its members, but
also of that which was considered as forming its basis, the maintenance of
pure doctrine, and the exclusion of error ; and though from the beginning
care would be taken to appoint persons to this office who had attained
to maturity and steadiness in their Christian principles, it does not follow
that they possessed the gift of teaching, and in addition to their other
labors occupied themselves in public addresses. It may be that at first,
"teaching" was not generally connected with a distinct office, but that
those who were fitted for it came forward in the public assemblies as
* The occurrence of such private churches is made use of by Kist and Baur as an argu
ment for their opinion, that originally in the larger cities there were only insulated particu
lar churches, under their own guiding presbyters, which were formed in various parts, and
at a subsecjuent period were united into one whole. But the Epistles of the apostle Paul
give the clearest evidence that all the Christians of one city originally formed one whole
church. Yet we may easily suppose that some parts of the church, without separating
themselves from the whole body and its guidance, held particular meetings in the house of
some person whose locality was suitable, and who acted as the " teacher " for the edifi
cation of such small assemblies. Only thus can it be explained how Aquila and Priscilla,
whether sojourning at Rome, or Corinth, or Ephesus, could have bad such a small Chris
tian society in their own house. To consider these as absolutely separate and distinct
churches would be inconsistent; for we could not suppose that such a company of believers
would be waiting for the arrival of a person like Aquila, who so often changed his resi
dence • they must have had a fixed place of assembling, and their appointed overseers, a
(presbyter or bishop, as the opinion may be.) In 1 Cor. xvi. 20, the church, forming one
whole (all the brethren), is expressly distinguished from any such partial assembly. In
Rom. xvi. 23, a brother is mentioned, in whose house the whole church held their meet
ings. Ir- Coloss. iv, 15, after a salutation to the whole church, an individual is specified
and included in the salutation, at whose house such private meetings were held. But it
may be questioned whether ir. such places as Rom. xvi. 14, 15, ("Salute Asyncritus  ¦
and the brethren that are with them.'' " Salute Philologus  and all the saints that art
with them,") meetings of this kind are intended, or only those persons who, on account of
theii family ties or connexions in business, lived in intimacy with one auother.

154 USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
" teachers ;" until it naturally came to pass that those who were spe
cially furnished with the "gifts of teaching," of whom there would of
course be only a few in most churches, were considered as those on whom
the stated delivery of instruction devolved. In the Epistle to the Gala
tians (vi. 6), Paul, it is true, seems to intimate* that there were already
teachers appointed by the church, who were to receive their maintenance
from them. But the question arises, whether these words relate to the
" teachers," or to the itinerant " evangelists ;" also, whether the passage
speaks of some regular salary, or of the contributions of free love, by
which the immediate wants of these missionaries were to be relieved.
At all events,— which would also be confirmed by this latter passage, in
case it is understood of "teachers," — these were and continued to be
generally distinct from the overseers of the church, although in particu
lar cases the talents of teaching and governing might have been con
nected, and the presbyter have been equally able as a teacher.
JYot until a later period, when the pure gospel had to contend with
manifold errors, which threatened to corrupt it — as was especially the
case during the latter period of Paul's ministry;! not until this critical
period was it thought necessary to unite more closely the offices of teachers
and overseers, and to take care that overseers should be appointed, who
would be able by their public instructions to protect the church from the
infection of false doctrine, to establish others in purity of faith, and to
convince the gainsayers; Tit. i. 9 ; and hence he esteemed those presby
ters who labored likewise in the office of teaching, as deserving of special
honor. We have already remarked, that only females were excluded from
the right of speaking in the public meetings of the church. But yet the
gifts peculiar to their sex could be made available for the outward service
of the church, in rendering assistance of various kinds, for wdiich women
are peculiarly fitted ; and according to existing social habits, a deacon
in many of his official employments would in reference to the female
members of the church have excited suspicion ; but it was desirable by
* Even after the reasons alleged by Schott against this interpretation, in his commentary
on this Epistle, I cannot help considering it as the only natural one. And I cannot adopt
the other, according to which the irCiaiv dyaBolc is understood in a spiritual sense, (follow
ing the example of their teachers in all that is good.) I cannot suppose that Paul, if he
had wished to admonish the Galatians to follow the example of their teachers in the Chris
tian life, would have expressed himself in so obscure and spiritless a manner. As to tho
objection against the first interpretation, that it does not suit the connexion, I cannot ad
mit its correctness. The exhortations to gentleness and humility in so3ial inlercourse, in
troduce the series of special exhortations, v. 2G-vi. 6, where the di marks the continued
development, and a new exhortation follows, namely, that they should be ready to commu
nicate of their earthly goods to their teachers; then verse 7, that they must not think of
reaping the fruits of the gospel, if their conduct was not formed agreeably to it; if they
with all their care directed only to earthly things, neglected such a duty towards those
who labored for the salvation of their souls.
f See farther on.

CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 155
all mean* to guardagainst any such imputation on the new religious sect,
of which men were easily inclined to believe evil, because it was new and
opposed to the popular faith. Hence the office of deaconess was insti
tuted in addition to that of deacon, perhaps first in the churches of Gen
tile Christians. Of its institution and duties in the apostolic age we
have no precise information, since we find it explicitly mentioned in only
one passage of the New Testament ; Rom. xvi. 1. In modern times, in
deed, what Paul says in 1 Tim. v. 3-16, of the widows who received
their maintenance from the church, has been applied to these deacon
esses. And many qualifications which he requires of those who were to
be admitted into the number of the widows (v. 10), and wdiich appear
to contain a reference to their special employments, as attention to
strangers and the care of the poor, are in favor of the supposition. But
since Paul only distinguishes them as persons supported by the church,*
without mentioning any active service as devolving upon them ; since he
represents them as persons who, as suited their age and condition, were
removed from all occupation with earthly concerns, and dedicated their
few remaining days to devotion and prayer; and since, on the contrary,
the office of deaconess certainly involved much active employment ; we
have no ground whatever for finding in this passage deaconesses, or
females out of whose number deaconesses were chosen.f What Paul says
in the passage quoted above of the deaconess of the church at Cenchrea,
appears by no means to agree with what is said in the First Epistle to
Timothy, concerning the age and destitute condition of widows. We
must rather imagine such females to be among those widows who, after
presenting a model in discharging their duties as Christian wives and
mothers, would now obtain repose and a place of honor in the bosom of
the church, where alone they could find a refuge in their loneliness; and
by their devotional spiritual life set an edifying example to other females ;
perhaps, also, they might be able to communicate to such of their sex as
sought their advice, the results of their Christian experience collected in
the course of a long life, and make a favorable impression even on the
Gentiles. Hence it would naturally be an occasion of scandal, if such
persons quitted a life of retirement and devotion, and showed a fondness
for habits that were inconsistent with their matronly character. At all
* I do not perceive how Baur can find any trace in the 5th chapter of the First Epis
tle to Timothy, that at that time the term x'IPnl was applied to the young unmarried
females, in reference to their station in the church, which would be one of the marks of a
later composition. The "widows indeed," bvruc X'lPal< m v- 5, are the truly destitute,
who could find relief only in the church for their loneliness, contrasted with the widows
mentioned in verse 4, who were supported by their own relations, instead of being a bur
den lo the church. The " widow" = "desolate," x'/pa =" pepovupivn, verse 5, where the
" and " is to be understood as explicative.
f The supposition, that in v. 9 mention i3 made of a different class of widows than
those in v. 3, appears to me utterly untenable. A comparison of v. 16 with vs. 4 and 8,
plainly shows that this whole section relates to the same subject

156 USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
events, we find here an ecclesiastical arrangement of latter apostolic time.
which is also indicated by other parts of the Epistle.
The consecration to offices in the church was conducted in the foi
lowing manner. After those persons to whom its pe.-formance belonged,
had laid their hands on the head of the candidate, — a symbolic action
borrowed from the Jewish nr^fcp, — they besought the Lord that he would
grant, what this symbol denoted, the impartation of the gifts of his
Spirit for carrying on the office thus undertaken in his name. If, as was
presumed, the whole ceremony corresponded to its intent, and if the
requisite disposition existed in those on whom it was performed, there
was good reason for considering the communication of the spiritual gifts
necessary for the office, as connected with this consecration performed
in the name of Christ. And since Paul from this point of view designa
ted the whole of the solemn proceeding, (without separating it into its
various elements,) by that which was its external symbol (as in scriptural
phraseology, a single act of a transaction consisting of several parts, and
sometimes that most striking to the senses, is often mentioned for the
whole) ; he required of Timothy that he should seek to revive afresh the
spiritual gifts that he had received by the laying on of hands. 2Ep. i. 6.
Respecting, farther, the election to offices in the church, it is evident
that the first deacons, and the delegates who were authorized by the
church to accompany the apostles, were chosen from the general body ;
2 Cor. viii. 19. From these examples it might be concluded that a sim
ilar mode of proceeding was adopted at the appointment of presbyters.
From the fact that Paul committed to his disciples Timothy and Titus
(to whom he assigned the organization of new churches, or of such as
hud been injured by many corruptions) the appointment likewise of
presbyters and deacons, and called their attention to the qualifications
for such offices, we are by no means justified in concluding that they per
formed all this alone without the cooperation of the churches. The
manner in which Paul was wont to address himself to the whole church,
and to require the cooperation of the whole assembly, which must be
apparent to every one in reading his Epistles, — leads us rather to expect,
that where a church was already established, he would consult it as a
party in their common concerns. Meanwhile it is possible, that the
apostle himself in many cases, as on the founding of a new church,
might think it advisable to propose the persons best fitted for such offices,
and such a proposal would naturally carry the greatest weight with it.
In the example of the family of Stephanas at Corinth, we see that those
who first undertook office in the church, were members of the family
first converted in that city. 1 Cor. xvi. 15.
It was also among the churches of the Gentile Christians that the
peculiar nature of the Christian Worship was fully expressed in the chai-
acter of their cultus. For among the Jewish Christians the ancient
forms of the Jewish cultus were still retained, though persons of this
class who were deeply imbued with the spirit of the gospel, and henc

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 15Y
had acqnired the essence of inward spiritual worship, which is limited
to no place or time, — -were made free as it regarded their inward life
from the thraldom of these forms, and had learned to refine them by
viewing them in the light of the gospel. Such persons thought that the
powers of the future world which they were conscious of having received,
would still continue to operate in the forms belonging to the ancient
economy, until that future world and the whole of its new heavenly
economy would arrive, by means of the return of Christ to complete his
kingdom, — a decisive era which appeared to them not far distant. On
the contrary, among the Gentiles the free spiritual worship of God de
veloped itself in direct opposition to Judaism, and the attempts to min
gle Judaism and Christianity. According to the doctrine of the apostle
Paul, the Mosaic law in its whole extent had lost its value as such to
Christians ; nothing could be a rule binding on Christians on account of
its being contained in the Mosaic law ; but, whatever was binding as a
law for the Christian life, must as such derive its authority from another
quarter. Hence a transference of the Old Testament command of the
sanctity of the Sabbath to the Christian point of view was not admissible.
Whoever considered himself subject to one such command, in Paul's
judgment again placed himself under the yoke of the whole law; his in
ward life was thereby brought into servitude to outward earthly things,
and sinking into Jewish nationalism he denied the universalism of the
gospel; for by the principles of the gospel, the whole life should become
in an equal manner related to God, and serve to glorify him, and thence
forth no opposition was to exist between what belonged to tlie world
and what belonged to God. Thus all the days of the Christian life were
to be equally holy to the Lord ; hence Paul says to the Galatian Chris
tians, who had allowed themselves to be so fir led astray as to acknowl
edge the Mosaic law as binding, and to observe the Jewish feasts, "After
that ye have known God, or rather (by his pitying love), have been led
to the knowledge of God, how turn ye again* to the weak and beggarly
elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ?"f Gal. iv. 9. He
* Thus he spoke to those who had formerly been heathen ; for although in other
points Judaism might be considered as opposed to heathenism, yet he viewed as an ele
ment common to both, the cleaving to outward forms.
f I have translated this passage according to the sense; more literally it would be, —
"or rather are known by God, are become objects of his pity, are recognised as his."
Living in estrangement from him, they lived in spiritual darkness, in ignorance of God
and of divine things; but now by the mercy of God revealing itself lo them, they obtained
living communion with him, and the true knowledge of him. After Paul had contrasted
their present attainment in divine knowledge with their former state of ignorance, he
corrects himself, in order not to let it be imagined that they were indebted simply to the
exercise of their own reason for this knowledge of God, and represents in strong ter us,
that they were indebted for every thing to divine grace, the grace of redemption. There
fore they were guilty of ingratitude in not making use of the knowledge vouchsafed to
them by the grace ..' God. Had it been possible for Paul, according to the idiom of the
Greek, to mark by a passive form of the same word yivuoKeiv, the contrast between a

158 CONSTITUTION OF THE CIIURCH.
fears that his labors among them to make them Christians had been in
vain, and for this very reason, that they reckoned the observance of
certain days as holy to be an essential part of religion. The apostle
does not here oppose the Christian feasts to the Jewish, but he considers
this whole reference of religion to certain days as something foreign to
the exalted position of Christian freedom, and belonging to that of
Judaism and heathenism. With a similar polemical view (in Coloss. ii.
16) he declares his opposition to those who considered the observance of
certain days as essential to religion, and who condemned such as did not ob
serve them. Although, in the Epistle to the Romans, xiv. 1—6, he enjoins
forbearance towards those in whom the Christian spirit was not yet de
veloped with true freedom, yet he certainly considers it as the most gen
uine Christianity to think every day alike, to hold none as peculiarly
sacred to the Lord ; the Kpivstv iraaav rpxkpav — prj cppovElv Kvpiio rr\v
fjiispav. It is worthy of notice, that Paul in such passages entirely rejects even
festive observances, as they were considered among Gentiles and Jews as
something absolutely essential to religion, and does not even mention
any days which had been consecrated to religion in a freer method, and
suited to Christianity, Christian feasts properly so called. So far was he
from thinking that from the Christian point of view there could be days
which could in any manner bear a resemblance to wdiat in the Jewish sense
was a feast, or that it was necessary to set apart any day whatever as special
ly to be observed by the church ! From such passages we may conclude,
that, in the Gentile churches, all days of the week were considered alike
suitable for the service of the church ; and that all preference of one day
to another was regarded as quite foreign to the genius of the gospel.
A perfectly unquestionable and definite mention of the ecclesiastical
observance of Sunday among the Gentile Christians we cannot find in
the times of the Apostle Paul, but there are two passages which make
its existence probable. If what Paul says, 1 Cor. xvi. 2, relates to col
lections which were made at the meetings of the church, it would be evi
dent from this passage that at that time the Sunday was specially devoted
to such meetings. But Paul, if we examine his language closely, says no
more than this : that every one should lay by in his own house on the first
day of the week, whatever he was able to save. This certainly might
mean, that every one should bring with him the sum he had saved to the
meeting of the church, that thus the individual contributions mio-ht be
collected together, and be ready for Paul as soon as he came. But this
would be making a gratuitous supposition, not at all required by the
knowledge imparted by God, and a knowledge gained by the exercise of the men
tal powers alone, he would for that purpose have used the passive form. This in
deed, the laws of the Greek language did not permit ; but yet the passive form, according
to his customary Hellenistic idiom, gave him an opportunity to mark the contrast which
he uad in his mind still more strongly.

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 159
connexion of t\ e passage.* We may fairly understand the whole pas
sage to mean, that every one on the first day of the week should lay aside
what he could spare, so that when Paul came, every one might be pre
pared with the total of the sum thus- laid by, and then, by putting the
sums together, the collection of the whole church would be tit once made.
If we adopt this interpretation, we could not infer that special meetings
of the church were held and collections made on Sundays. And if we
assume that, independently of the influence of Christianity, the Jewish
reckoning by weeks had been adopted among the heathen in the Roman
Empire ; still in this passage we cau find no evidence for the existence
of a religious distinction of Sunday. But since we are not authorized to
make this assumption, unless a church consisted for the most part of those
who had been Jewish Proselytes,f we shall be compelled to conclude
that the religious observances of Sunday occasioned its being considered
the first day of the week. It is also mentioned in Acts xx. 1, that the
church at Troas assembled on a Sunday and celebrated the Lord's Supper.
But here the question arises, whether Paul put off his departure from
Proas to the next day, because he wished to celebrate the Sunday with
this church — or whether the church met on the Sunday (though other
wise they might have met on any other day) because Paul had fixed to
leave Troas on the following day.
At all events, we must derive the origin of the religious observance of
Sunday, not from the Jewish-Christian churches, but from the peculiar
circumstances of the Gentile Christians, and we may account for the
practice in the following manner. Where the circumstances of the
churches did not allow of daily meetings for devotion and agapse —
although in the nature of Christianity no necessity could exist for such a
distinction, although on the Christian principle all days were to be
considered as equally holy, in an equal manner devoted to the Lord —
yet on account of these special outward circumstances, such a distinc
tion of a particular day was adopted for religious communion. They
rejected the Sabbath which the Jewish Christians celebrated, in order
to avoid the risk of mingling Judaism and Christianity, and because
another event associated more closely another day with their Christian
feelings. For, since the sufferings and resurrection of Christ appeared as
the central point of Christian knowdedge and practice ; since his resur
rection was viewed as the foundation of all Christian joy and hope, it was
natural that the day which was connected with the remembrance of this
event, should be specially devoted to Christian communion.
But even if a weekly day was thus distinguished in the churches of
Gentile Christians, still it is very doubtful if any yearly commemoration
of the resurrection was observed among them. Some have found in
1 Cor. v. 1, a reference to a Christian passover which was to be celebrated
* The word 6naavplruv, 1 Cor. xvi. 2, applied to sotting aside tbj small sums weekly
i? against the notion of a public collection.
f See Ideler's Chronologie, vol. I. p. 180.

160 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
in a Christian sense, and with reference to its Christian significance; but
we can find a reference only to a Jewish passover, which was still cele
brated by the Jewish Christians. When Paul was writing those words,
the Jews and Jewish Christians were present to his imagination, as, on
the fourteenth of Nisan, they carefully searched every corner of their
houses, lest any morsel of leaven should have escaped their notice. This
practice of outward Judaism he applies in a spiritualized sense to Chris
tians. " Purify yourselves from the old leaven (the leaven of your old
nature, wdiich still cleaves to you from your old corruption), that you
may become a new mass (ihat is, renewed and justified human nature),
and .-is it were unleavened, (that is, purified by Christ from the leaven
of sin, as elsewhere Paul represents purification from sin, the being dead
to sin, as connected with the death of Christ)* for Christ has been offered
as our paschal lamb ; (they were ever to remember that true paschal
lamb, by who.-e offering they were truly freed from sin ; the Jewish
paschal lamb was henceforth useless). Therefore, as men purified from
sin by Christ our paschal Iamb, let us celebrate the feast, not after the
manner of the Jews, who swept the leaven out of their houses, but
retained the leaven of old corruption in their hearts — but let us so cele
brate it that we may be a mass purified in heart from the leaven of sin."
In all this, there is evidently no reference to the celebration of a Chris
tian passover among Gentile Christians, but only the contrast of the
spiritual passover, comprehending the whole life of the redeemed, wilh
the merely outward Jewish feasl.f
Tho celebration of the two symbols of Christian communion, Baptism
and the Lord's Supper, belonged to the unchangeable groundwork of the
Christian church, laid by the Divine Founder Himself; these rites
therefore were to be recognised equally by Jews and Gentiles, and no
alteration could be made in them by the peculiar form of ecclesiastical
life among the Gentiles ; we need therefoie to add little to what we have
before remarked. In Baptism, entrance into communion with Christ ap
pears to have been the essential point; thus persons were united to the
spiritual body of Christ and received into the communion of the re
deemed, the church of Christ; Gal. iii. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 13. Hence bap-
* This is no doubt the simplest interpretation of the words KaBue tare d^vpoi, " as ye
are unleavened," purified as redeemed persons for ever from tho "leaven of sin," C,vpn
ri/e dpaprinr. But if with Grotius we understand the words according to the analogy
of the Greek donor, dotvoe, "as ye eat no leaven," inasmuch "as ye celebrate the f.;mt
of unleaveDed bread, or the Passover," still this can be understood only of a spiritual
passover; for otherwise it would not agree with that which is afterwards addin-ed as a
reason, and it would also be implied that the Gentile Christians had refrained from
leavened bread at Easter, which Paul, on his principles, could not have allowed.
t If wo supposed that these words related to an Easter-feast, celebrated amon<* the
Gentile Christians, it would follow that they celebrated this feast at the same time as Ihe
Jews, and then it would hardly be possible to explain the rise of the disputes relativ tc
the time of observing Easter.

USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 161
tism, according to its characteristic mark, was designated a baptism into
Christ, into the name of Christ, as the acknowledgment of Jesus as the
Messiah was the original article of faith in the apostolic church ; and this
was probably the most ancient* formula of baptism ; which was still made
use of even in tho third century (see my Church History, vol. i. p. 5-16).
The usual form of submersion at baptism, practised by the Jews, was passed
over to the Gentile Christians. Indeed, this form was the most suitable
to signify that which Christ intended to render an object of contempla
tion by such a symbol ; the immersion of the whole man in the spirit of
a new life. But Paul availed himself also of what was accidental to the
form of this symbol, the two-fold act of submersion and of emersion, to
wdiich Christ certainly made no reference at the institution of the sym
bol. As he found therein a reference to Christ Dead, and Christ Risen,
the negative and positive aspect of the Christian life — in imitation of
Christ dying to all ungodliness, and in communion with him rising to a
new divine life, — so in the transmitted form of baptism, he made use of
what was thus accidental to represent, by a sensible image, the idea
and design of the rite in its connexion with the whole nature of Chris
tianity.! Since baptism marked the entrance into communion with Christ, it re
sulted from the nature of the rite, that a confession of faith in Jesus as
the Redeemer would be made by the person to be baptized ; and in the
latter part of the apostolic age, there are found indications of the exist
ence of such a practice. J As baptism was closely united with a con-
* In the Shepherd of Hernias (lib. I. visio iii. c. 7), in Fabriccii Cod. apocr. Nov. Test.
p. 804, it is said, 1 have baptized in the name of the Lord, baptizavi in nomine Domini.
f Everything pertaining to the more exact development of the dogmatic idea, we re
serve for the section ou doctrines.
X These indications are such as will not amount to incontrovertible certainty. We find
the least doubtful reference in 1 Pet. iii. 21, but the interpretation of this passage has been
much disputed. If the words are understood in this sense, "a question as to a good con
science in reference to God, through the resurrection of Christ," a question proposed at
baptism might be inferred from it, of which the purport would be, whether a person be
lieved in the resurrection of Christ, as a pledge of the forgiveness of sins granted to him,
and hence would think of God in this faith with a good conscience. But Winer could
against such an interpretation of the passage justly object, that in this case, the answer
given by the candidate as an expression of his confession, of his faith which peculiarly
related to salvation, rather than the question, must have been mentioned. Tet "Winer's
explanation (in his Grammar) in reference to the word iirtpur-npa, — the seeking of a good
conscience after God, — although iirepurdv etc in the Hellenistic idiom, as the passage ad
duced by "Winer shows, may have this meaning — does not appear the most natural. If
Peter had wished to say this, would he not have preferred using the form iirepuryaie 1
And may it not be said against this interpretation, that the apostle would have mentioned
as that which saved at baptism, not so much the seeking after God, as the finding God
through Christ, the attainment of communion with him, according to the analogy of scrip
tural representations on this subject?
But what Peter wished particularly to point out, was the spiritual character of the
whole baptismal rite, in opposition to a mere outward sc jfible purification. This spiritual
11

162 CONSTITUTION OF THE CnUECH.
scious entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were always
connected with one another ; and thus it is in the highest degree proba
ble that baptism was performed only in the instances where both could
meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at
this period. We cannot infer the existence of infant baptism from the
instance of the baptism of whole families, for the passage in 1 Cor. xvi
15, shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as from that it appears that
the whole family of Stephanas, who were baptized by Paul, consisted of
adults. That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier
than) Irenaeus, a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became
recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is
evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin ;
especially since, in the spirit of the age when Christianity appeared,
there were many elements wdiich must have been favorable to the intro
duction of infant baptism, — the same elements from which proceeded the
notion of the magical effects of outward baptism, the notion of its abso
lute necessity for salvation, the notion which gave rise to the myth
that the apostles baptized the Old Testament saints in Hades.* How
very much must infant baptism have corresponded with such a tendency,
if it had been favored by tradition ! It might indeed be alleged, on the
other hand, that after infant baptism had long been recognised as an
apostolic tradition, many other causes hindered its universal introduction,
and the same causes might sti.l earlier have stood in the way of its
spread, although a practice sanctioned by the apostles. But these causes
could not have operated in this manner in the post-apostolic age. In
later times, we see the opposition between theory and practice, in this
respect, actually coming forth. Besides, that a practice which could not
altogether deny the marks of its later institution, although at h st recog
nized as of apostolic founding, could not for a length of time pervade the
life of the church, is something quite different from this : that a practice
really proceeding from apostolic institution and tradition, notwithstanding
the authority that introduced it, and the circumstances in its favor aris
ing from the spirit of the times, should yet not have been generally
adopted. And if we wish to ascertain from whom such an institution
originated, we should say, certainly not immediately from Christ
character could certainly be pointod out by the question proposed at baptism, which re-
f.-rred to the spiritual, religious object of the rite; and the question is alluded to instead
of the answer, because it precedes and is that which gives occasion to the answer, and thus
the first interpretation may be justified.
The second trace of such a baptismal confession is found in 1 Tim. vi. 12, but it is not
quite evident that a confession of this kind is intended; it might be only one which
Timothy had given from the free impulse of feeling, when he was set apart to be the asso
ciate of I'aul iu publishing the gospel.
* See the Shepherd of Hamas, iii. ch. 15. Fabriccii cod. Apocryp. p. in. p 1009. lib.
Li. simil ix. p. 428, ed. Hefele. Tub. 1847. Karifinaav ovv p.r avruv fee rd idup, Kal
iriiXtv uvefJnaav,

USAGES OF TILE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 163
himself. Was it then from tho primitive church in Palestine, from an
injunction (riven by the earlier apostles ? But among the Jewish Chris
tians, circumcision was held as a seal of the covenant, and lience they
had so much less occasion to make use of another dedication for their
children. Could it then have been Paul, who first among heathen
Christians introduced this alteration by the use of baptism. But this
would agree least of all with the peculiar Christian characteristics of this
apostle. He who says of himself that Christ sent him not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel ; he who always kept his eye fixed on one
thing, jusificalion by faith, and so carefully avoided every thing which
could give a handle or support to the notion of a justification by out
ward things (the oapKiKa) — how could he have set up infant baptism
against the circumcision that continued to be practised by the Jewish
Christians? In this case, the dispute carried on with the Judaizing
party, on the necessity of circumcision, would easily have given an op
portunity of introducing the subject of infant baptism into the contro
versy, if it had really existed. The evidence arising from silence on this
topic, has therefore the greater weight.
Even if in 1 Cor. xv. 29 a substitutionary baptism for the dead is
intended,* as indeed appears to be the most natural interpretation, yet
this could not be made use of, by way of analogy, to support the exist
ence of infant baptism. For if the interpretation alluded to be correct,
yet we cannot understand it, as if the Christians imagined that their de
ceased relatives who died in unbelief could be benefited by a substitu
tionary baptism ; for according to this supposition, Christians need not
care so much for converting the living as for baptizing [or baptizing for]
the dead. And certainly Paul would not have used, even as a mere
argumentum ad hominem, a superstition carried so far beyond all bounds.
He could not even have mentioned a superstition productive of such a
distortion of Christianity without strong expressions of his disapproba-
* Independent of this Pauline passage there is no trace to be found anywhere of such
a substitutionary baptism. The testimony of Tertullian has been erroneously cited. He
refers, De resurrectione carnis, c. 48, only lo what he believed Paul to say in Ihese words.
In his work against Marcion, v. 10, he also refers merelj to that passage, and it seems to
him that in such substitutionary baptism there is sometl jg similar to the heathen purga
tions for the dead, which took place on the 1st of February, the Februaliones. He thought
it important to remark, that Paul could not have approved of such a practice. " Viderit
institutio ista. Kalendae si forte Febrnariae respondebunt illi pro mortuis petere. Noli
ergo apostolum novum statitn auctorem aut confirmatorem ejus denotare, ut tanto magis
sisteret carnis resurreetionem, quanto illi qui vane pro mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrec-
tionis hoc facerent." " Let this rite take care of itself; the Calendar Februarite, perchance,
will answer to that praying for the dead. Do not, therefore, at once designate the apos
tle as a voucher or confirmer of the doctrine which would establish the resurrection of the
body on the fact that an unauthorized baptism for tho dead was performed in the faith of
a resurrection.) And he himself afterwards proposes another interpretation of Ihe passage,
according to which there is no allusion to a substitutionary baptism. Later uneducated
Marcionites in Syria had, most probably from this passage of St. Paul's, adopted a practice
altogether at variance with the spiiit of Marcion.

164 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
tion. We must rather form some such conception as the following of the
state of the case. It seems that at that time, in Corinth, an epidemio
had been raging which in many instances had terminated fatally. When
those who had already believed were taken away by death before they
could receive baptism, as they otherwise would have done, their relations
were baptized iu their stead, since they knew that they could themselves
submit to baptism, and express Christian conviction in the name, and
according to the intention of the deceased. But then, faith, as the nec
essary condition of baptism, was presupposed to exist in those persons
in whose stead they allowed themselves to be baptized. Paul would then,
it is true, have borrowed for the occasion an argument from the faith
lying at the basis of such a custom ; but he would probably have taken
care to declare himself, at another opportunity, opposed to the custom
itself, as he did in reference to females speaking in their public assemblies.
If the alteration in the conception of baptism by the confounding of
baptism and regeneration, had already at an early period spread so widely,
we should so much the more expect the early introduction of infant bap
tism as the natural consequence of such an alteration. If this, however,
were not the case, we might well conclude that other powerful causes
counteracted the influence of such a change of view — one, some other im
portant truth in the conception of baptism derived from Apostolic times,
another, the not yet suppressed consciousness of the non-apostolic institu
tion of infant baptism.
We find, indeed, in one passage of Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 14, a trace, that
already the children of Christians were distinguished from the children
of heathens, and considered in a certain sense as belonging to the church ;
but this is not derived from their having partaken of baptism, and the
manner in which it came to pass is rather evidence against the existence
of infant baptism. The apostle is treating of the sanctifying influence
of the communion between parents and children, by which the children
of Christian parents would be distinguished from the children of those
who were not Christian, and in virtue of which they might in a certain
sense be termed "holy," dyia, in contrast with the " unclean," aKaOapra*
But if infant baptism had been then in existence, the epithet "holv,"
applied to Christian children, would have been deduced only from this
saored rite by which they had become incorporated with the Christian
church. But in the point of view here taken by Paul, we find (although
it testifies against the existence at that time of infant baptism) the fim-
* The immediate impressions — which proceed from the whole of the intercourse of
life, and by means of the natural feeling of dependence of children on their parents pass
from the latter to the former — have a far stronger hold than tho effects of instruction and
such impressions may begin before the ability for receiving instruction in a direct manner
exists. These impressions attach themselves to the first germs of consciousness and on
that account, the commencement of this sanctifying influence cannot be precisely deter
mined. See De Welte's excellent remarks in the Sludien und Kritiken, 1839. Part iii,
p. U71.

USAGES OF THE GENTTLE CHRISTIANS. 165
damental idea from which the practice was afterwards necessarily de
veloped, and by which it must be justified to agree with Paul's senti
ments : an intimation of the preeminence belonging to children born in
a Christian community ; of the consecration for the kingdom of God
thereby granted to them ; and of an immediate sanctifying influence
which would communicate itself to their earliest development.*
As to the celebration of the Holy Supper, it continued to be connected
with the common meal, in which all as members of one family joined, as
in the primitive Jewish church, and agreeably to its first institution. In
giving a history of the Corinthian church, we shall have occasion to
speak of the abuses which arose from the mixture of ancient Grecian
customs with this Christian festival.
It is true the publication of the gospel among the heathen, was desti
tute of those facilities for its reception, which the long-continued expec
tation of a Redeemer as the promised Messiah gave it among the Jews.
Here was no continuous succession of witnesses of the living, self-mani
festing God, by whom the gospel might be indicated and foretold as it
had been by the law and prophets among the Jews. Still the annuncia
tion of a Redeemer found its point of connexion in the universal feeling
adhering to the very essence of human nature — the feeling of disunion
and guilt, and as a consequence of this, though not apprehended with
distinctness, a longing after redemption from such a condition ; and by
the mental development of these nations, and their political condition at
that period, sentiments of this kind were more vividly felt, while the
feeling of disunion (in man's own powers, and between man and God)
was manifested in the prevailing tendency towards dualistic views. The
youthful confidence of the old world was constantly giving way to a
feeling of disunion and sadness excited by the awakening sense of the
law written on the heart, which, like the external law given to the Jews,
was destined to guide the Gentiles to the Saviour. The gospel could
not here as in its relation to Judaism be proclaimed, as the completion
of what already existed in the popular religion ; it must come forth as
the antagonist of what already existed, of the heathenish deification of
* The words in 1 Cor. vii. 14, may be taken in a twofold manner. If we understand
with De "Wette, the " you," ipuv, as applied to all Christians— (which the connexion and
the use of the plural render probable)— then the apostle infers that the children of Chris
tians, although not incorporated with the charch, nor yet baptized, might be called "holy,"
(which is De Wette's opinion), and thus what we have remarked in the text follows as a
necessary consequence. But if we admit that Paul is speaking of the case of married
persons, in which one party was a Christian, and the other a heathen, and that from tho
sanctification of the children of such a marriage he infers the sanctification of the whole
marriage relation — which thought more nearly suits the connexion — then it would appear
that Paul deduces a sanctification of the children by their connexion with the parents, but
not from their baptism, for the baptism of children, in cases of a mixed marriage, could,
in many instances, be hardly performed. If infant baptism had at that time been in ex
istence, be could not have called the children of such a mixed marriage "holy," ia the
same sense as the baptised children of Christian parents.

166 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
nature, and could only attach itself to the truth lying at the foundation
of this enormity, the sense, namely, in the human breast of a hidden,
unknown God ; it was necessary to announce Christianity as the revela
tion of that God, in whom, indeed, by virtue of their divine origin, men
"lived and moved and had their being," but of whom, in consequence
of their estrangement from him by sin, they had only a mysterious sense
as an unknown and distant Divinity. Under this aspect it might be rep
resented as a completion of that which was implanted by God in the
original constitution of man, as the final aim of this indistinct longing.
The progressive development of the religious consciousness in heathen
ism, offers to a discerning mind many adjustments for Christianity. But
it was far from the -views of Paul and of the early proclaimers of
the gospel generally, to look for these ; and it would have been of no
advantage in immediately operating on the hearts of the heathen. Also,
in relation to all that was truly natural, belonging to the original nature
of man, and not founded in sin, it might be truly asserted that Christ
came not to destroy but to fulfil. And here certainly the Gentiles were
placed in a more advantageous position than the Jews; they were not
exposed to the temptation of contemplating Christianity only as the
completion of a religious system already in existence, and of disowning
its purpose of producing an entire transformation of the life ; for to a
convert from heathenism, Christianity presenting itself in direct opposi
tion to all his former religious views and feelings, must necessarily
appear as something altogether new and designed to effect an entire rev
olution in his li'e. Meanwhile, although Christianity must have at first
presented itself as opposed to the existing elements of life in heathen
ism ; yet Christians who continued to live in intercourse with heathens
under their old relation*, were the more exposed, practically, to the in
fection of a corrupt state of morals, till their Christian life became firmly
established. And although the peculiar position of the Gentiles did not
expose them so much as the Jews to pervert faith itself into an opus
operatum, and thus to misuse it as a cloak for immorality, still such an
error might easily arise, if not from the influence of Judaizing teachers,
yet from the depraved condition of human nature itself. It is evident
that Paul deemed it necessary emphatically to guard and warn thein
against it.*
Another danger of a different kind threatened Christianity when it
found its way among the educated classes in the seats of Grecian learn
ing. Since in these places the love of knowledge predominated, and
overruled all the other fundamental tendencies of human nature; since
men were disposed to cultivate intellectual eminence to the necriect of
morals, and since Christianity gave a far wider scope than Heathenism to
the exercise of the mental powers ; since in many respects it agreed with
those among the Grecian philosophers, who rested their opposition to the
* Th» "vain words," kcvoI ?.6yot, against which Paul warns tho Ephesians. (v. 6.)

Paul's second missionary journey. 167
popular religions on an ethical basis ; it consequently happened, that they
made Christianity, contrary to its nature and design, chiefly an exercise
of the understanding, and aimed to convert it into a philosophy, thus sub
ordinating the practical interest to the theoretical, and obscuring tlie
real genius of the gospel. The history of the further spread of Christi
anity among the heathen, and of individual churches founded among
them, will give us an opportunity of developing this fact, and setting it
in a clearer light. We now proceed to the second missionary journey of
the apostle Paul.

CHAPTER VI.
THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.
After Paul and Barnabas had spent some time with the church at
Antioch, they resolved to revisit the churches founded in the course of
their former missionary journey, and then to extend their labors still
further. Barnabas wished to take his nephew Mark again with them as
a companion, but Paul refused his assent to this proposal, for he could
not excuse his having allowed attachment to home to render him unfaith
ful to the Lord's service, and deemed one who was not ready to sacrifice
every thing to this cause as unfitted for such a vocation. We see on this
occasion the severe earnestness of Paul's character, which gave up, and
wished others to give up, all personal considerations and feelings where
the cause of God was concerned ; just as he never allowed himself to be
tempted or seduced even by his natural attachment to the nation to whom
he belonged.* The indulgence shown by Barnabas to Mark might pro
ceed either from the peculiar mildness of his Christian character, or from
a regard to the ties of relationship not yet sufficiently controlled by the
power of the Christian spirit. That such human attachments had still
too much influence on Barnabas, is shown by his conduct at Antioch on
the occasion of the conference between Peter and Paul.f Thus a sudden
difference arose between two men who had hitherto labored together in
the work of the Lord, which ended in their separation from one another,
and thus it was shown, not only that these men of God were not free
from human weakness, but also that even this contributed to the exten
sion of the kingdom of God ; for, in consequence of it, the circle of their
* In the "first," irpurov, of Rom. i. 16, wo cannot, with Riickert, find marks of this
national attachment not entirely overcome. ' his 7rp :<tov corresponds with the necessary
historical development of the Theocracy. Th' supposition is also excluded by the applica
tion of irpuroT in Rom. ii. 9.
\ See farther on.

168 Paul's second missionary journey.
labors was very greatly enlarged ; Barnabas now formed a sphere of
action for himself, and first of all visited with Mark his native country
Cyprus, and then most probably devoted himself to preach the gospel in
other regions. For, that he remained in his native country unemployed
in missionary service, not only his labors up to this time forbid our sup
posing, but also the terms in which Paul speaks of him at a later period
(1 Cor. ix. 6) as a well-known and indefatigable preacher of the gospel.
Paul's severity towards Mark was probably of service in leading him to
a sense of his misconduct, for he afterwards continued faithful to his vo
cation. This separation was in the issue only temporary, for we after
wards find Barnabas, Paul, and Mark, in close connexion with one
another, although Barnabas appears always to have retained a separate,
independent sphere of action. In his stead Paul took Silas as his fellow-
laborer. From the beginning of his ministry, it was a fixed principle with Paul,
as he himself tells us in Rom. xv. 20, and 2 Cor. x. 16, to form his own
field of labor for the propagation of the gospel, and not to trespass on
that of any other person ; instead, therefore, of betaking himself first to
Cyprus, as on former occasions, he travelled through the neighboring
parts of Syria to Cilieia, Pisidia, and the towns in which he had labored
on his first journey. In the town of Lystra * he found a young man
named Timothy, who, by the instructions of his mother, a pious Jewess,
but married to a heathen, had received religious impressions which had
an abiding effect. His mother was converted when Paul first visited that
town, and young Timothy also became a zealous confessor of the gospel.
The report of his Christian zeal had spread to the neighboring town of
Iconium. In the church to which he belonged, the voices of prophets
* I must here differ from the opinion I expressed in the first edition. In Acts xvi. 1,
the "there," ira, if there are no reasons for the contrary, is most naturally understood of
the place last mentioned, Lystra ; and since the favorable testimony to his character given
by the brethren at Lystra and Tconium is mentioned, though it is barely possible that the
testimony of persons living in the nearest towns to his own might have been adduced, yet
we may presume, with some confidence, that one of these towns was his native place; for
it is not probable that what those who knew him best said of him would have been passed
over. In Acts xx. 4, the approved reading is rather for, than against this supposition: for
if Timothy had been a native of Derbe, the predicate Aep[3a~or would not have been applied
to Vdioe alone, but Luke would have written Aepj3aiovdi Tdioc not Ttp68ei>c or Vdioe Kal
TtpoBeoe heplialot. But it is surprising that, in this passage, Timothy stands alone without
the mention of his native place, and that in Acts xix. 29, Aristarchus and Gaius are named
together as Macedonians and companions of Paul. Hence it might be presumed that the
predicate Afp/3nioc had been misplaced, and ought to stand with Timothy's name. Aris
tarchus, Secundus and Gaius would then be named as natives of Thessalonica, and
Timothy of Derbe. But if we adopt this view, then Acts xvi. 1, 2, must be differently
explained. But still it is not probable that the more easy reading could be altogether
removed to make "vay for one more difficult. So common a name as Gaius might easily
belong to a Christian at Derbe and to another from Macedonia, as we find it borne also
by an approved Christian residing at Corinth, Rom. xvi. 23, 1 Cor. i. 14 ; and Timothy's
native place might have been omitted because he was the best known of all Paul's associates.

PAULS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 169
announced that he was destined to be a distinguished agent in spreading
the gospel.
It was agreeable to Paul to have a zealous youth with him, who could
assist him on his missionary journeys, and be trained for a preacher un
der his direction. He seconded the voices that thus called on Timothy,
and the young man himself was prepared by his love to their common
Lord to accompany his faithful servant every where. As by his descent
and education he belonged on one side to the Jews, and on the other to
the Gentiles, he was the more fitted to be the companion of the apostle
among both. And in order to bring him nearer the former, Paul caused
him to be circumcised, by which he yielded none of the publicly acknowl
edged rights of the Gentile Christians ; for being the son of a Jewess,
and educated in Judaism, he could with more propriety be claimed by
the Jews.
It has been asserted by Dr. Baur, that such conduct would have been
a contradiction of Paul's principles, and therefore that this account is un
historical, and that the fabrication owes its origin to the conciliatory
aims of the author of the Acts. But we can see no proofs whatever of
this contradiction. The same Paul who so strenuously opposed the cir
cumcising of Titus, because it would have seemed a practical confirma
tion of the principle that a participation in all the privileges of the king
dom of God depended on circumcision — this same Paul could yet allow
Timothy, the son of a Jewess, and brought up in Judaism, to be circum
cised, in order thereby to procure an easier entrance for him among the
Jews ; and as here circumcision was founded on descent, it could not be
made use of to justify a dogmatic conclusion, as might have been the
case with the circumcision of a Gentile.* And as regards generally the
conduct which is often ascribed to Paul in the Acts — that among the
Jews he observed Jewish practices, and lived altogether as a Jew ; we
believe in this respect, as well as in others, it can be shown that what
the apostle himself asserts in his Epistles concerning his mode of acting,
leads us to look for such examples of conduct as are recorded in the Acts.
What are we to understand, when Paul says in 1 Cor. ix. 20, that ' to
the Jews he became a Jew in order to gain the Jews, to them that are
under the law, as under the law, that he might gain them that are under
the law ?" Must we not from such words conclude, that he, without
prejudice to his inward freedom from the Law, believed that in the out
ward observance of it he could place himself on a level with the Jews —
that he felt himself compelled so to act in order to pave the way more
easily to the hearts of the Jews, whom he wished to gain over to the
gospel ? Are they not exactly such acts as gave his Jewish adversaries
* The expression used in the Acts itself (xvi. 3) is not at all what it would be, had the
design been to set Paul in a favorable light to the religious prejudices of Jewish Chris
tians. There is expressly designated only an outward accommodation to the Jewish
point of view. Surely such a design would have manifested itself in quite a different way.

170 Paul's second missionary journey.
the opportunity to set his conduct in a false light before the Gentiles,
and to accuse him of inconsistency ? Certainly, from what we find in
the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, we shall be obliged to assume
that he acted exactly as we are told was the case in the Acts of the Apos
ties. We make these remarks here once for all, in order not to return
again to this ground of suspicion against the Acts.
After Paul had visited the churches already founded in this district,
he proceeded to Phrygia. Of course he could not, either on this or on
a later journey, publish the gospel in all the threescore and two* towns
of the populous province of Phrygia. He must have left much to be ac
complished by his pupils, such, for instance, as Epaphras at Colossae, who
afterwards founded a church there and in the towns of Hierapolis and
Laodicea.f Thence he directed his course northward to Galatia. As
* This is the number stated in the sixth century by nierocles, author of the IvveKdvpoc,
or a " Traveller's Companion," which gives au account of the provinces and towns of the
Eastern Empire.
f I cannot agree with the opinion of Dr. Schulz, brought forward in the Studien und
Kriliken, vol. ii. part 3, which is also advocated by Dr. Schott iu his Isagoge, that Paul
himself was the founder of these churches. I cannot persuade myself that, if the Colos-
sians and Laodiceans had received the gospel from the lips of the apostle, he would have
placed them in the same category, without any distinction, with those wdio were not per
sonally known to him, as we find in Coloss. ii. 1 ; since, iu reference to his anxiety for the
churches, it certainly made an important difference whether he himself had founded them
or not. The "as many," oaoi would have been used too indefinitely, if its meaning had
not been fixed by what preceded; from which it appears, that those churches of Phrygia
are referred to, which, like the churches at Colossse and Laodicea, had not been founded
by Paul himself. And how can it be supposed that, in an epistle to a church founded by
himself, he would never appeal to what they had beard from bis own lips, but only to the
announcement of the gospel which they had heard from others? and that he should speak
not of what he himself had seen and heard among thern, but only of what had been re
ported to him by others respecting their state? The concise, elegant and acute remarks
of Prof Wiggers, in the Studien und Kriliken, 1838, part i. p. 171, have not induced me
to alter my opinion on this point. The explanation he gives of the words in Coloss. ii. 1,
"also for those (among the Christians in Colossse and Laodicea) who have not known me
personally," appears to me not so natural as the common one, which I follow. If Paul
had intended to say this, he would hardly have failed to limit "as many," boot, by adding
"of you," ipuv. If the "also," Kai, in 1, 7 is also to be retained, yet I do not find any
intimation conveyed by it that they had received instruction from another teacher, but
only that ibey had received from Epaphras the same gospel of the divine grace which had
been published throughout the world. But, from external evidence, I cannot help con
sidering the Kai as suspicious ; especially since the frequent repetition of it in what
precedes, and the observable reference to v. 6, might easily occasion the insertion of it.
But if the koi is spurious, it appears much more clearly that Epaphras, not Paul, was
the teacher of this church. He is called a servant of Christ in Paul's stead (virpp i/puv
StdKovoc), because Paul had given over to him the office of proclaiming the gospel in the
three cities of Phrygia which he himself could not visit. It is not clear to me that Paul
in ii. 5, could not have used the word direipt to denote his bodily absence in opposition to
his spiritual presence among them, although he did not mean that he had been once
among them, and was now removed to a distance from them. It still appears to me re
markable, that — if he wrote some years after his presence among luem — tliere should b»

Paul's second missionary journey. lTl
many Jews resided in this province, he addressed himself probably first
to these, and to the proselytes who worshipped with them in the syna
gogues. But the ill-treatment he met with among the Jews prepared an
opening for him to the Gentiles, by whom he was received with great
affection. Paul had to maintain a severe conflict with bodily suffering, as appears
from many allusions in his epistles, where he speaks of his being given
up to a sense of human weakness. Nor is this surprising, for as a Phar
isee, striving after the righteousness of the law, he had certainly not
spared his own body. After he had found salvation by faith in the Re
deemer, and had attained the freedom of the evangelical spirit, he was,
it is true, very far from a tormenting castigation of his body, and from
legal dependence on works ; he expresses the most decided opposition
to everything of the kind, in words which exhibit a spirit which, while
it was independent of all outward circumstances and things, yet freely
subordinated and appropriated all that was external, to a higher object.
Such are those memorable words which testify such consciousness of true
freedom : " I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound,
everywhere and in all things; I am instructed both to be full and to be
hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through
Christ that strengtheneth me." Phil. iv. 12, 13. But his new voca
tion allowed him still less to spare himself, since he labored hard with
his own hands for a livelihood, at the same time that he exerted his
powers both of mind and body to the utmost in his apostolic ministry ;
since also he had so many dangers to undergo, so many hardships and
sufferings to endure, under which a weak body might soon sink. Yet
with the sense of human weakness, the consciousness waxed stronger of
a might surpassing all human power, a divine all-conquering energy
which proved its efficiency in his proclamation of the gospel and in his
call to the work ; and he could perfectly distinguish this divine power
from all merely human endowments. Under a sense of human weak
ness he became raised above himself, by that inward glory which
beamed upon him in those communications of a higher world with
which he was honored. lie considered a peculiarly oppressive pain
which constantly attended him,f and checked the soaring of his exalted
no allusion to his personal intercourse with them, especially in an epistle to a church
which was in so critical a state ; to whom it was so important to evince his love and care
for them, and to exhort faithfully to keep the instructions they had received from him;
also, if it concerned him to commend Epaphras to them as the person who was to carry
on the work which he bad begun, he would so much the more have stated explicitly, that
Epaphras taught no other doctrine than that which they had at first received from himself,
that he would only raise the superstructure on the foundation laid by himself.
¦f I cannot agree with those who think that Paul, in 2 Cor. xii. 7, where he alludes to
something that, constantly tormented him like a piercing thorn which a person carries
about in his body, only intended to signify his numerous opponents. Certainly we oacDot
De justified in saying, that Paul meant nothing else tan what he mentions in the 10th

172 Paul's second missionary journey,
spirit, as an admonition to humility given him by God, as a counterpoise
to those moments of inward glorification which were vouchsafed him.
And he informs us, that after he had prayed thrice to the Lord, to free
him from this oppressive pain, an answer by a divine voice, either in
vision or in pure inward consciousness, was granted him, that he must
not desire to be freed from that which deepened the sense of his human
weakness, but must be satisfied with the consciousness of the divine
grace imparted to him ; for the power of God proved itself to be truly
such, even in the midst of human weakness.
He experienced the truth of this, especially during his ministry in
Galatia. His body was bowed down through debility, but the divine
power of his words and works, in such striking contrast with the feeble
ness of the material organ, made a powerful impression on susceptible
dispositions. The glowing zeal of self-sacrificing love which amidst his
own sufferings enabled him to bear everything so joyfully for the salva
tion of others, must have attracted the hearts of his hearers with the
greater force, and excited that ardent attachment to his person which he
so vividly describes in Gal. i v. 14. "Ye received me as an angel of
God, even as Jesus Christ."
The Galatian churches were formed of a stock of native Gentiles ;
partly, of a great number of Proselytes, for whom Judaism had become
the transition-point to Christianity, and partly, of persons who had passed
immediately from heathenism to Christianity ; and with this Gentile
stock of the church, some Jews also connected themselves, who were
distinguished from the great mass of their unbelieving countrymen by
their susceptibility for the gospel. But by former Proselytes and the
Jewish Christians in the churches, an intercourse with the Jews was
kept up, and hence arose those disturbances of which we shall presently
speak. On leaving Galatia, Paul was at first uncertain in what direction to
turn, since new fields of labor opened to him on different sides. At one
time, he thought of going in a south-westerly direction, to Proconsular
Asia, and afterwards of passing in a northerly direction to Mysia and
Bithynia; but either by an inward voice or by a vision he received a mo
nition from the Divine Spirit, which caused him to abandon both these
plans. Having formed an intention of passing over to Europe, but wait-
verse ; for in this latter passage, he only applies the general truth — which the divine voice
had assured him of in reference to the particular object before mentioned — to everything
which might contribute to render him sensible of his human weakness. This application
of the principle, and the peculiar phraseology of Paul, lead us to suppose that he meant to
indicate something purely specific in ihe first passage. "We cannot indeed suppose that
he would pray to be delivered from such sufferings as were essentially and indissolubly
connected with his vocation. But we must conclude that his prayers referred to some
thing altogether personal, which affected him not as an apostle, but as Paul ; though it
would be absurd, in the total absence of all distinguishing marks, to attempt to determine
exactly wltat it was.

PAUL AT PHILIPPI. 173
ing to see whether he should be withheld or encouraged by a higher
guidance, he betook himself to Troas ; and a nocturnal vision, in which
a Macedonian appeared calling in behalf of his nation for his aid, con
firmed his resolution to visit Macedonia. If we admit that Luke* speaks
in his own name in Acts xvi. 10, it would follow that Paul first met with
him again at Troas, and received him into the company of his missionary
associates. His medical skill might have been very useful to gain an
opening for publishing the gospel among the Gentiles, as we now find it
in modern missions to the heathen. The "gift of healing" would not
have rendered this useless; since that gift was applicable only in particu
lar cases where its possessors were prompted to employ it by an imme
diate Divine impulse, or by a spontaneous movement of their feelings.
But the case will be different, if we admit that the account in chapter xvi.
10, was taken unaltered from the journal of Timothy, and therefore that
he is the speaker who describes himself as one of Paul's companions in
the publication of the gospel.
The first Macedonian city in which he stayed was Philippi, a place of
some importance. The number of Jews here was not sufficient to enable
them to establish a synagogue. Probably there were only Proselytes,
who had a place for assembling, surrounded with trees, on the outside of
the city, near the banks of the Strymon, where they performed their
devotions and the necessary lustrations, a so-called ixpooEvxr\.\ If ad
dresses founded on passages in the Old Testament were not delivered
here as in the Jewish synagogue, and if Paul could not avail himself of
such a custom for publishing the gospel ; still the Proselytes (especially
females) assembled here on the Sabbath for prayer, and he would here
meet those who were in a state of the greatest preparation and suscep
tibility for what he wished to communicate. Accordingly, early in the
morning on the Sabbath, he resorted thither with his companions, to hold
a conversation on religious topics with the women of the city who were
assembled for prayer. His words made an impression on the heart of
Lydia, a dealer in purple from the town of Thyatira in Lydia. At the
conclusion of the service, she and her whole family were baptized by
him, and compelled him to take up his abode, with his companions, in
her house.J From the family of Lydia Christianity spread farther among
* A physician according to Coloss. iv. 14, perhaps one of the Proselytes of the gate
converted by Paul at Antioch.
\ The expression in Acts xvi. 13, "where was wont," ov ivopi^ero, makes it probable
that this irpoaevxy was not a building, but only an enclosed place in the open air, which
was usually applied to this purpose : compare Tertullian, ad Nationes, i. 13, "The Orationes
Litorales of the Jews," and De Jejuniis, c. 16, where he speaks of the widely-spread inter
est taken by the heathen in the Jewish feasts; " Judaicum certe jejunium nbique celebra-
tur, quum omissis templis per omne litus quocunque in aperto aliquando jam preces ad
ccelum mittunt." (The Jewish fast is everywhere celebrated, when, temples being«ne-
glected, along the shore in any open place whatever, they send up their prayers to heaven.)
X I can by no means admit, with some expositors of the Acts, that all this took place
before the beginning of the public exercises of devotion, and that on the same day, as

174 Paul's second missionary journey.
the inhabitants of the city, and her house became the first place of as
sembly for the believers. As in this town there were few or no Jews,
the adherents of Judaism consisted only of proselytes ; thus Christianity
met in this quarter with no obstinate resistance ; and it would have prob
ably gained a still greater number of adherents, without incurring the
risk of persecution, if opposition had not been excited by certain indi
viduals among the Gentiles, whose pecuniary interests were injured by
the operation of the divine doctrine.
There was a female slave, who, in a state resembling the phenomena
of somnambulism,* was accustomed to answer unconsciously questions
proposed to her, and was esteemed to be a prophetess inspired by Apol
lo ;f for in all the forms of heathenish idolatry, the hidden powers of
nature were taken into the service of religion.} This slave had proba
bly frequent opportunities of hearing Paul, and his words had left an
impression on her heart. In her convulsive fits, these impressions were
revived, and mingling wdiat she had heard from Paul with her own
heathenish notions, she frequently followed the preachers when on their
way to the Proseuche, exclaiming, " These men are the servants of the
Most High God, who show unto us the way of salvation." This testi-
they were returning from the place where Paul baptized Lydia, the meeting with the
prophetess occurred on their way to the Proseuche. Luke's narrative in Aots xvi. 16,
does not indicate that all these events took place on one day. The assertions of the
prophetess make it probable that she had often heard Paul speak.
* Even if we were not in a position fully to understand from the representation given
in the Acts, the incident here narrated, yet we should not be justified in regarding it
with Baur as a designed fabrication, with which everything else in the character of this
book is at variance. Do we not find in history many an enigmatical appearance which
yet gives us no right to call in question the truth of a narrative? We see no reason in
all that Baur says, that can induce us to surrender our view of the matter. "We recognise
the same principle acting in this prophetess as in the pavriKj) of the ancients, and in their
oracles, in which certainly not everything can be accounted as a deception. That from
our well-e.-tahlished position, which is neither that of crude supornaturalism, nor that of
Dr. Baur's rationalism, we are fully justified in distinguishing between the objective and
subjective in the account, we need not point out after the foregoing investigations.
f Ou the common notion of the people, that Ihe Pythian Apollo took possession of
such iyyaorpipvBove or irvBCivae, and spoke through their mouth, see Plutarch, De Def,
Oraculor. c. 9. Tertullian describes such persons, Apologet. u. 23, "qui de Deo pati existi-
matitur, qui anhelando" (i. e., in a state of convulsive agony, in which the person feels
himself powerfully impelled as by a strange spirit, with a hollow voice) " prjefantur."
X Thus the oracles of the ancients, the incubations, and similar phenomena in the
heathenism of the Society Isles in, the South Sea. The Priest of Oro, the God of War
uttered oracles in an ecstatic state of violent convulsions, and, after his conversion to
Christianity, could not again put himself in such a state. See, on this subject, the late
interesting accounts of this mission by Ellis, Bennet, etc. In contradiction to Baur's in
terpretation of my words, I must remark, that I have made this comparison by no means
in reference to the effects resulting from a conversion— that I by no means assumed that
the female in question, by her conversion, had lost the capability of puttino- herself into
such a condition ; but my only point of comparison was this, that, generally, that capabil
ity might be lost.

PAUL AT PHILIPPI. 175
mony of a prophetess so admired by the people might have availed much
to draw their attention to the new doctrine; but it was very foreign
from Paul's disposition to employ or endure such a mixture of truth and
falsehood. At first, he did not concern himself about the exclamations
of the slave. But as she persisted, he at last turned to her, and com
manded the spirit which held her rational and moral powers in bondage,
to come out of her. If this was not a personal evil spirit, still it was the
ascendancy of an ungodly spirit. That which constitutes man a free
agent, and which ought to rule over the tendencies and powers of his
nature, was here held in subjection to them.* And by the divine power
of that Saviour who had restored peace and harmony to the distracted
60uls of demoniacs, this woman was also rescued from the power of such
an ungodlike spirit, and could never again be brought into that state.
When, therefore, the slave could no longer practise her arts of sooth
saying, her masters saw themselves deprived of the gains which they had
hitherto obtained from this source. Enraged, they seized Paul and Silas,
and accused them before the civil authorities, the Duumvirs,f as turbu-
* We have no certain marks which will enable us to determine in what light Paul
viewed the phenomenon. It might be (though we cannot decide with certainty) that he
gave to the heathen notion, that the spirit of Apollo animated this person, a Jewish form,
that an evil spirit or demon possessed her. In this case, he followed the universally
received notion, wdthout reflecting at the moment any further upon it, for this subject
belonging lo the higher philosophy of nature, was far from his thoughts. He directed his
attention only to the moral grounds of the phenomenon. I am convinced that the Spirit
of truth who was promised to him as an apostle, guided him in this instance to the know
ledge of all the truth which Christ appeared on earth to announce, to a knowledge of
every thing essential to the doctrine of salvation. By this Spirit he discerned the pre
dominance of the reign of evil in this phenomenon ; and if an invisible power also is here
thought to be operating, yet what is natural in the causes and symptoms is not thereby
excluded, even as the natural does not exclude the supernatural. Compare the admirable
remarks of my friend Twesten in the second volume of his Dogmatik, p. 355, and what is
said on demoniacs in my Life of Christ. This Spirit gave Paul the confident be-lief] that as
Christ had conquered and rendered powerless the kingdom of evil, so by his divine power
every thing which belonged to this kingdom misrht henceforth be overcome. In this faith,
he spoke full of divine confidence, and his word took effect in proportion to his faith. But
in the words of Christ, and the declarations of the apostle respecting him, I find no ground
for admitting, that with this light of his Christian consciousness, an error in a question
which did not affect the truths of the gospel, but belonged to a different and lower depai t-
ment of knowledge could by no possibility have existed ; a question, such as whether we
are to consider this as a phenomenon explicable from the nature of the human soul, its na
tural powers and connexion with a bodily organization, or an effect of a possession by a
personal evil spirit. What Dr. Baur has said against the view I have taken of this trans
action, may appear well-founded from the stand-point of his arbitrary aut-aut, which is very
convenient to this whole party for the contradiction of what will not suit their presuppo
sitions, but which will be at once dismissed by those who take the trouble to enter into
tlie connexion of the idea presented.
f The name arparnyoi which is used in the Acts to designate these magistrates, was
anciently employed in the smaller Greek cities to designa'5 the supreme authorities. See
Aristotles Politic, L vii. c 3, ed. Bekker, vol. ii. p. 1322, ' In thi6e small cities there was

176 Paul's second missionary journey.
lent Jews, who were attempting to introduce Jewish religious practices
into the Roman colony, which was contrary to the Roman laws, though
the right was guaranteed to the Jews of practising their national cultus
for themselves without molestation. After they had been publicly
scourged without further examination, they were cast into prison. The
feeling of public ignominy and of bodily pain, confinement in a gloomy
prison, where their feet were stretched in a painful manner, and fastened
in the stocks (nervus),* and the expectation of the ill-treatment which
might yet await them — all this could not depress their souls ; on the con
trary, they were rather elevated by the consciousness that they were
enduring reproach and pain for the cause of Christ. About midnight
they united in offering prayer and praise to God,f when an earthquake
shook the walls of their prison. The doors flew open, and the fetters of
the prisoners were loosened. The keeper of the prison was seized with
the greatest alarm, believing that the prisoners had escaped ; but Paul
and Silas calmed his fears. This earthquake which gave the prisoners an
opportunity of recovering their liberty — their refusing to avail themselves
cf this opportunity — their serenity and confidence under so many suffer
ings — all combined to make them appear in the eyes of the astonished
jailor as beings of a higher order. He fell at their feet, and calling to
mind what he had heard from the lips of Paul and Silas respecting the
way of salvation announced by them, addressed them in their own words :
what then must he do to attain salvation ? His whole family assembled
to hear the answer, and it was a joyful morning for all. Whether the
Duumvirs had become more favorably disposed by what they had learnt
in the mean time respecting the prisoners, or that the jailor's report had
made an impression upon them, they authorized him to say that Paul and
Silas might depart.} Had any thing fanatical mingled with that blessed
one ruler for everything, called chief magistrate (strategos) and polemarch :" (iv rate
uiKpaie ird'Keai pla irepl irdvruv (dpxn)' KaXovat di arparnyovc Kal iroXepdpxovc.)
* Tertullian ad Marytres, c. 2. " The foot feels nothing in the stocks when the soul is
in heaven." (Nihil crus sentit in nervo, quum animus in ccelo est.)
f I must deny the charge brought against me by Baur, p. 151, that I have violently
perverted the words of the Acts, where the earthquake is represented as the effect of
prayer. I have to do here only with the historical, perceptible connexion of causes. The
effect of prayer lies beyond this ; but it need not exclude a natural connexion of causes.
When a result is presented as the effect of prayer, nothing is thereby determined as to
how the result was procured, whether God worked through natural causes, or by a miracle.
From the point of view with which I have here to do, neither prayer, Dor still less the effect
procured by prayer, comes properly under notice.
X According to Baur, p. 152, the person who fabricated this narrative in order to exalt
the apostle Paul above Peter, wished it to be understood, that only the impression of the
earthquake as a supernatural evidence of the innocence of the prisoners had induced the
Duumvirs to act as they did, which, if it were so, would certainly be an internal mark of
improbability. But truly, whoever made it his business so to magnify his heroes, and tc
set everything in the light of the wonderful, would not have expressed himself so vaguely
that a reader could only guess at such a connexion, but would have set the point of view
in which the transaction was to be regarded, distinctly before his readers.

PAUL AT PHILIPPI. 177
inspiration which enabled Paul to endure all shame and all suffering for
the cause of the Lord, he certainly would have done nothing to escape
disgrace, though it might have been without injury and to the advantage
of his calling, or to obtain an apology to which his civil privileges
entitled him, for the unmerited treatment he had received. How far
were his sentiments from what in later times the morals of monkery have
^called humility ! Appealing to his civil rights,* he obliged the Duum
virs, who were not justified in treating a Roman citizenf so ignomini-
ously, to come to the prison, and, as an attestation of his innocence, with
their own lips to release} him and his companion. They now betook
themselves to the house of Lydia, where the other Christians of the city
were assembled, and spoke the last words of encouragement and exhorta
tion. They then quitted the place, but Luke and Timothy, who had not
been included in the persecution, stayed behind in peace§ It is easily
explained how Timothy on account of his youth, since he took but little
part in the proclamation of the gospel, escaped the persecutions from
which Paul and Silas suffered, and could therefore remain without
danger at Philippi.
But when Baur, in reference to our filling up of the connexion, thinks that so import
ant a circumstance could not possibly be passed over by a faithful historian, we shall
certainly grant that he would have given such an explanation if he had been a prag
matical narrator, and had placed himself altogether on the stand-point of his readers,
and had made a point of telling them all they wished to know. But this is not the
case ; the narrator's only concern was what the Duumvirs did, not the reasons which
induced them so to act.
* See the well-known words of Cicero, Act. II. in Terrem, v. 57. " Jam ilia vox e*
imploratio civis Romanus sum, quae saepe multis in ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et
salutem attulit." That utterance and appeal, " I am a Roman citizen," which has often in
remote lands, among barbarians, brought succor and safety.
f How Paul's father obtained the Eoman citizenship we know not. We have no ground
for assuming, that Paul was indebted for it to his being born at Tarsus; for though Dio
Chrysostom, in his second Atiyof Tapautbe, vol. ii. ed. Reiske, p. 36, mentions several
privileges which the Emperor Augustus had granted to the city of Tarsus as a reward for
its fidelity in the civil wars, yet it does not appear that Roman citizenship was one of
them, and allowing it to have been so, it may be doubted whether it would have been
conferred on a foreign Jewish family, to which Paul belonged. Silas also must have
obtained by some means the right of a Roman citizen.
X Baur finds it improbable that Paul did not, in this case, appeal earlier to his civil
rights, since he might thus at the beginning have avoided everything that had befallen
them. But in tlie tumultuous confusion of the transaction Paul might have had no oppor
tunity to protest against the violation of his right of citizenship. In a Roman colony,
little courtesy would be likely to be paid to two Jews charged with violating the law by
religious proselyting. That Paul thrice suffered punishment to which he was not subject
according to Roman law, appears from his own words, 2 Cor. xi. 25 ; and we cannot
suppose that in any one of these cases he would have submitted to such ignominious
treatment, if by appealing to his civil rights he could have avoided it.
§ Timothy rejoined Paul at Thessalonica or Bercea ; and Luke at a later period ; in
which case, not Timothy alone is to be thought of as the one speaking in tho irst person
in the narrative of the Acts. 12

178 Paul's second missionary journey.
Paul left in Philippi a church full of faith and zeal, who shortly
after gave a proof of their affectionate concern for him by sending con
tributions for his maintenance, though he never sought for such gifts, but
supported himself by the labor of his own hands.
Paul and Silas now directed their course to Thessalonica, about
twenty miles distant, the largest city of Macedonia, and a place of con
siderable traffic, where many Jews resided. Here they found a syna
gogue, which for three weeks Paul visited on the Sabbath ; the hearts of
many proselytes were won by his addresses ; and through them a way
was opened "for publishing the gospel among the heathen in the city.
From what Paul says in 1 Thess. i. 9, 10; ii. 10, 11,* we find that he
was not satisfied with addressing the proselytes only once a week at the
meetino-s of the synagogue ; his preaching would then have been con
fined to the small number of Gentiles who belonged to the proselyles.
At the meetings of the synagogue, he could adopt only such a method
and form of address as suited the views of the Jews; he must have
assumed man v things, and many topics he could not have developed, which
required to be fully discussed, in order to meet the peculiar exigencies
of the heathen. But he knew, as we see from several examples, how to
distinguish between the different views and wants of the Jews and Gen
tiles ; and hence, we may presume, that he found opportunities to adapt
himself to these differences. It is certain that the Gentiles, whose atten
tion was awakened by the proselytes, soon assembled in various places
to hear him, and from them chiefly a church was formed, professing faith
in the one living God, as well as faith in the Redeemer.
Agreeably to the declarations of Christ Matt. x. 10, (compared with
1 Cor. ix. 14), Paul recognised the justice of the requirement, that the
maintenance of the preachers of the gospel should be furnished by those
for whom they expended their whole strength and activity, and on whom
they thus conferred the highest benefit. But since he was conscious that
in one point he was inferior to the other apostles, not having at first
joined himself voluntarily to the Redeemer, but having been by the di
vine grace, as it were against his will, transformed from a violent perse
cutor of the church into an apostle, he thought it his duty to sacrifice a
right belonging to the apostolic office, in order to evince his readiness
and delight in the calling which was laid upon him by a higher necessity ;
(1 Cor. ix. 16-18). Thus also he found the means of promotinsi his
apostolic labors among the heathen ; for a ministry so manifestly disin
terested, sacrificing every thing for the good of others, and undergoing
all toils and deprivations, must have won the confidence of many, even
* Schrader, in his Chronological Remarks, p. 95, thinks that these passages cannot
possibly refer to Paul's first visit to Thessalonica, which must have been a very short one.
But lliere seems nothing improbable in the supposition, that a man of such zeal and inde-
fatig ible activity in his calling, would in the sp.ice of three or four weeks effect so much,
and leave behind him so vivid au impression of his character and conduct as is implied in
these passages.

PAUL AT THESSALONICA. 179
of those who otherwise were disposed to suspect selfish motives in a zeal
for the best interests of others which they could not appreciate. He
must have been the more anxious to remove every pretext for such a
suspicion, because the conduct of many Jews who were active iu making
proselytes, was calculated to. cast such an imputation on the Jewish
teachers in general. The other apostles in their youth had earned their
livelihood by a regular employment, but yet one which they could not
follow in every place ; Paul, on the other hand, though destined to be a
Jewish theologian, yet according to the maxims prevalent in the Jewish
schools,* along with the study of the law, had learned the art of tent-
making ; and he easily gained a maintenance by this handicraft, wherever
he went, on account of the mode of travelling in the East, and the in m-
ifold occasions on which tentsf were used. While anxiety for the spirit
ual wants of the heathen and the new converts to Christianity who ly
occupied his mind, he was forced to employ the night in earning the
necessaries of life for himself and his companions (1 Thess. ii. 9; Acts
xx. 34), excepting as far as he obtained some relief by the affectionate
voluntary offerings of the church at Pliilippi. Phil. iv. 16. But to him
it was happiness to give to others without receiving anything in return
from them ; from his own experience he knew the truth of the Lord's
words, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts xx. 35.
The apostle not only publicly addressed the church, but visited indi
viduals in their families, and impressed on their hearts the fundamental
truths of the gospel in private conversations, or warned them of the dan
gers that threatened the Christian life.} He endeavored to cherish the
hopes of believers under the sufferings of their earthly life, by pointing
them to the period when Christ would come again to bring his kingdom
among mankind to a victorious consummation. And we hive already
pointed out how near this decisive event must have appeared to the apos-
* In the Pirke Avoth, c. 2, § 2, ft* ,}-¦? CS n-Tn ¦m*£n tie;, "Beautiful is the
Btudy of the law wilh an earthly employment, by which a man gains his livelihood ;" and
the reason alleged is, that both lo_:ether are preventives of sin, but in their absence, the
soul is easily ruined, and sin finds entrance. And thus as in monasteries, occupation by
manual labor had for its object, not si riply to make provision for the support of the body,
but also to prevent sensuality fiom mingling with higher spiritual emp;oymenls.
f Philo de Victimis, 836, ed. Francof. "The hair and skins of goats, woven and sewed
together, make movable tents for travellers, and especially for those engaged in military
affairs,'' alydiv di al rp'txee, ai dopal ovvvijiaivbpevai re Kal ovp'tiairrbpevai, tpopnral yeydva-
atv ddonrdpou: o'tKiai Kal pdt.iara role Iv arpareiaie. This indicates, though it does not
prove, that Paul chose this occupation from its being one for which his native country was
celebrated ; lience, too, we read of tentoria Gilicina.
X We do not see why the exhortations and warnings given to the Christians at Thes
salonica, to which Paul appeals in both his Epistles, might not have been communicated
during bis first residence among them ; for would not Paul's wisdom and knowledge of
human nature, foresee the dangers likely to arise, and endeavor to fortify his di-ciples
ngainst them ? Schrader's argument deduced from this circumstance, against the date*
commonly offered to these two Epistles, is not, therefore, very weighty.

180 Paul's second missionary journey.
tolic view. Under the sufferings and shame which he endured at Phil
ippi, the anticipation of this divine triumph inspired him all the more.
Filled with these sentiments, he came to Thessalonica, and with an ele
vation of feeling, which naturally communicated itself to other minds,
he testified of the hope that animated him, and raised hiin above all
earthly sufferings. But as his inspiration was far removed from every
mixture of that fanaticism, which cannot separate the subjective feeling
and mental views from what belongs to faith and the confidence of
faith, he by no means spoke of the nearness of that great event as ab
solutely determined ; he adhered with modest sobriety to tlie saying of
the Lord, that " it was not for men to know the times and seasons."
And with apostolic discretion he endeavored to warn the new converts
lest, by filling their imaginations with visions of the felicity of the ap
proaching reign of Christ, and wrapping themselves in pleasing dreams,
they should forget the necessary preparations for the future, and for the
impending conflict. He foretold them that they had still many sufferings
and many struggles to endure, before they could attain the undisturbed
enjoyment of blessedness in the kingdom of Christ.
Though the apostle, in opposition to the pretensions of meritorious
works and moral self-sufficiency advanced by Judaizing teachers, ear
nestly set forth the doctrine of justification, not by human works which
are ever defective, but by appropriating the grace of redemption through
faith alone ; yet he also deemed it of importance to warn the new con
verts against another misapprehension to which a superficial conversion,
or a confusion of the common Jewish notions of faith with the Pauline,
might expose them ; namely, the false representation of those who held
that a renunciation of idolatry, and the acknowledgment of Jesus as the
Messiah, without the life-transforming influence of such a conviction,
Mas sufficient to place them on a better footing than the heathen, and to
secure them from the divine judgments that threatened the heathen
world.* He often charged them most impressively, to manifest in the
habitual tenor of their lives the change effected in their hearts by the
gospel ; and declared that their criminality would be aggravated, if,
after they had been devoted to God by redemption and baptism to serve
him with a holy life, they returned to their former vices, and thus de
filed their bodies and souls which had been made the temples of the
Holy Spirit. 1 Thess. iv. 8 ; ii. 12.
But the speedy and cordial reception which the gospel met with
among the Gentiles, roused the fanatical fury and zealotry of many Jews,
wdio had already been exasperated by the apostle's discourse in the syna-
0 These are ths "vain words," Kevol \byoi, Eph. v. 6, of which Paul thought it ne
cessary so solemnly to warn the Gentile Christians. Hence, warning them against such a
superficial Christianity, he reminds them that every vicious person resembles an idolater,
and would be equally excluded from the kingdom of God ; that not merely for idolatry,
but for every unsubdued vice, uubelievers would be exposed to the divine condemnation.

PAUL AT THESSALONICA. 181
gogue. They stirred up some of the common people who forced their
way into the house of Jason a Christian, where Paul was staying. But
as they did not find the apostle, they dragged Jason and some other
Christians before the judgment-seat. As on this occasion the persecu
tion originated with the Jews, who merely employed the Gentiles as
their tools, the accusation brought against the publishers of the new doc
trine was not the same as that made at Philippi ; they were not charged,
as in other cases, with having disturbed the Jews in the peaceful exei-
cise of their own mode of worship as guaranteed to them by the laws*
As Paul had labored here for the most part among the Gentiles, the
grounds were too slight for supporting such an accusation, especially as
the civil authorities were not predisposed to receive it. At this time, a
political accusation, the crimen majestatis, was likely to be more suc
cessful, a device that was often employed in a similar wray, at a later pe
riod, by the enemies of the Christian faith. Paul had spoken much at
Thessalonica of the approaching kingdom of Christ, to which believers
already belonged ; and by distorting his expressions, the accusation was
rendered plausible. He instigated people (it was averred) to acknowl
edge one Jesus as supreme ruler instead of Csesar. But the authorities,
when they saw the persons before them who were charged with being
implicated in the conspiracy, could not credit such an accusation ; and
after Jason and his friends had given security that there should be no
violation of the public peace, and that those persons who had been the
alleged causes of this disturbance should soon leave the city, they were
dismissed. On the evening of the same day Paul and Silas left the city, after a
xesidence of three or four weeks. As Paul could not remain there as
long as the necessities of the newly formed church required, his anxiety
was awakened on its behalf, since he foresaw that it would have to en
dure much persecution from the Gentiles at the instigation of the Jews.
He had formed, therefore, the intention of returning thither as soon as
the first storm of the popular fury had subsided; 1 Thess. ii. 18. Possibly

* Baur imagines (p. 482) that he has detected something unhistorical in Acts xvii. 6.
" How could it be said of Paul and his companions, since it was for the first time they had
visited these parts, that they had thrown the ' whole world ' (otKovpivrj) into confusion ?"
But is it not natural, that impassioned accusers, who wished to make the most of the ob
ject that roused their enmity, should use the language of exaggeration ? Baur says far
ther, " What a long time intervened before Christianity appeared so politically dangerous
to the Romans as is implied in the words ' contrary to the decrees of Cassar' (d-rrivavri,"
&c.) Certainly it was a lorg interval before Christianity appeared as a religion dangerous
to the state in the sense in which it was so esteemed in the second century. But it was
something quite different when the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah was perverted
into a design to establish a worldly kingdom, and to set up another ruler against the
Roman Emperor. Such an accusation had already been made against Jesus himself, and
in the first age of Christianity no other could be found. At a later period, quite different
accusations were brought against the Christians as viewed from the Roman civil law,

182 Paul's second missionary journey.
he left Timothy behind,* who had not been an object of persecution, un-
less he met him first at Beroea, after leaving Philippi. Paul and Silas
now proceeded to Beroea, a town about ten miles distant, wdiere they
met with a better reception from the Jews; the gospel here found ac
ceptance also with the Gentiles ; but a tumult raised by Jews from Thes
salonica forced Paul to leave the place almost immediately. Accom
panied by some believers from Beroea, he then directed his course to
Athens. j-
Though the consequences wdiich resulted from the apostle's labors at
Athens were at first inconsiderable, yet his appearance in this city (which
in a different sense from Rome might be called the metropolis of the
world), was in real importance unquestionably one of the most memora
ble signs of the new spiritual creation. A herald of that divine doctrine
which, fraught with divine power, was destined to change the principles
and practices of the ancient world, Paul came to Athens, the parent of
Grecian culture and philosophy; the city to which, as the grecian ele
ment had imbued the culture of the West, the whole Roman world was
indebted for its mental advancement; which also was the central point of
the Grecian religion, where an enthusiastic attachment to all that be
longed to ancient Hellas, not excepting its idolatry, retained a firm hold
till the fourth century. Zeal for the honor of the gods, each one of whom
had here his temple and his altars, and was celebrated by the master
pieces of art, rendered Athens famous throughout the civilized world.J
It was at first Paul's intention to wait for the arrival of Silas and Tim
othy before he entered on the publication of the gospel, as by his com
panions who had returned to Beroea he had sent word for them to fol
low him as soon as possible. But when he saw himself surrounded by
the statues, and altars, and temples of the gods, and works of art, by
which the honor due to the living God alone was transferred to
* Since the departure of Timothy is not mentioned, Acts xvii. 10.
f It is doubtful whether Paul went by land or by sea to Athens; the cic in Acts xvii.
14, may be understood simply as marking the direction of his route. See Winer's Gram-
matik, 3d ed. p. 498. (6th ed. p. 544 ; Eng. tr. p. 640.) Bercea lay near the sea, and
this nay was the shortest. But the die may also signify, that they took at first their course
towards the sea, in order to mislead the Jews (who expected them to come that way, and
were lying in wait for Paul in ihe neighborhood of the port), and afterwards pursued their
journey by land. So we find on another occasion, when Paul was about to sail from
Corinth to Asia Minor, he found himself in danger from the plots of the Jews, and pre
ferred going by land ; Acts xx. 3. The first interpretation appears to be the simplest and
most favored by the context. The Sue adopted by Lachmann [and Tisehendoif, Lips.
1841] appears to have arisen from a gloss.
X Apollonius of Tyana (in Philostratus) calls the Athenians "sacrificer?," tjuAoBvrai.
Pausanias ascribes to them (Attic, i. 17), rd elc ffeoiie eiiaelietv uAAuv irAeor, (a surpassing
of ot liars in their reverence for the Gods ;) and (o. 24), rb irepiaodrepov rijc etc rd Beta airov-
di/r, (excess of zeal for divine things.) In the religious -rystem of the Athenians, Ihere was
a peculiar refinement of moral sentiment, for they alone among the Greeks erected an
altar to Pity, ileoc, as a divinity.

PAUL AT ATHENS. 183
creatures of the imagination, he could not withstand the impulse of holy
zeal, to testify of Hiin who called erring men to repentance and offered
them salvation. He spoke in the synagogue to the Jews and Proselytes,
but did not wait, as in other cities till a way was opened by their means
for publishing the gospel to the heathen.
From ancient times it was customary at Athens for people to meet
together under covered porticoes in public places, to converse with one
another on matters of all kinds, trifling or important ; and then, as in
the time of Demosthenes, groups of persons might be met with in the
market, collected together merely to hear of something new.* Accord-
ngly, Paul made it his business to enter into conversation with the
passers-by, in hopes of turning their attention to the most important
concern of man. The sentiments with which he was inspired had noth- \
ing in common with the enthusiasm of the fanatic, who is unable to
transport himself from his own peculiar state of feeling to the posi
tion of others, in order to make himself acquainted with the obstacles
that oppose their reception of what he holds with absolute certainty as
truth. Paul knew, indeed, as he himself says, that the preaching of the
crucified Saviour must appear to the wise men of the world as foolish
ness, until they became fools, that is, until they were convinced of the
insufficiency of their wisdom in reference to the knowledge of divine
things, and for the satisfaction of their religious wants ; 1 Cor. i. 23 ; iii.
18. But he was not ashamed, as he also affirms, to testify to the wise
and the unwise, to the Greeks and to the barbarians, of what he knew
from his own experience to be the power of God to save those that
believe ; Rom. i. 1 6. The market to which he resorted was near a portico
of the philosophers. Here he met with philosophers of the Epicurean x
and Stoic schools. If we reflect upon the relative position of the Stoics
to the Epicureans, that the former acknowdedged something divine as
the animating principle in the universe and in human nature, that they
were inspired with an ideal founded in the moral nature of man, and that
they recognised man's religious wants and the traditions that bore testi
mony to it ; — while on the other hand, the latter, though they did not
absolutely do away with the belief in the gods, reduced it to something
inert, non-essential, and superfluous ; that they represented pleasure as
the highest aim of human pursuit, and that they were accustomed to
ridicule the existing religions as the offspring of human weakness and the
spectral creations of fear ; we might from such a contrast infer that the
Stoics made a much nearer approach to Christianity than the Epicureans.
But it does not follow that the former would give a more favorable recep
tion to the gospel than the latter, for their vain notion of moral self-
* As Demosthenes reproaches them in his oration against the epistle of Philip; vpeic
di ovdiv iroiovvrtc ivBdde. xaBrjpeBa Kai irvvBavdpevot Kurd rt,v dyopuv, el rt Aeyerai vedh
Ttpov. (We sit here doing nothing, and inquire along the market if there is anything new
afloat); Acts xvii. 21.

184 Paul's second missionary journey.
sufficiency was diametrically opposed to a doctrine which inculcated
repentance, forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification by faith. Their
supreme God — the impersonal, eternal reason pervading the universe —
was something very different from the living God, the heavenly Father
full of love whom the gospel reveals, and who must have appeared to the
Stoics as far too human a being ; and both parties agreed in the Grecian
pride of philosophy, which would look down on a doctrine appearing in
a Jewish garb, and not developed in a philosophic form, as a mere out
landish superstition.
The derisive designation applied by the Athenians to the new religion
announced by Paul, shows plainly what he made the chief topic of his
addresses, and by what method he handled it. He did not begin with
the Old Testament, as if he had been instructing Jews, nor represent
Jesus as the Messiah spoken of by the prophets. Hence his hearers were
very far from seeing in him an advocate of the Jewish religion. He
testified of Jesus as the Saviour of all men, accredited by God, and of his
reappearance after being raised from the dead to an existence raised
above all death, as a pledge of the same eternal life for all who were
willing to accept the offered salvation. This was doctrine adapted to the
religious wants of all. The Athenians confined themselves to what the
apostle constantly discoursed of — Jesus and the resurrection — without
troubling themselves about the import of these.*
Yet many among those who gathered around the apostle during his
conversations, were at least pleased to hear something new ; and their
curiosity was excited to hear of the strange divinity whom he wished to
introduce, and to be informed respecting his new doctrine. They took
him to the hill, where the first tribunal at Athens, the Areopagus, was
accustomed to hold its sittings, and where he could easily find a spot
suited to a large audience.f The discourse of Paul on this occasion is a
living demonstration of his apostolic wisdom and eloquence : we here
perceive how the apostle (to u^e his own language) to the heathens
became a heathen, that he might gain the heathens to Christianity.
Inspired by feelings that were implanted from youth in the mind of a
pious .Jew, and glowing with zeal for the honor of his God, Paul must
have been horror-struck at the spectacle of the idolatry that met him
wherever he turned his eyes. He might easily have been betrayed by
his feelings into intemperate language. And it evinced no ordinary self-
* When Baur regards this whole narrative taken from the life, as a mere fabrication
made with deliberate design, I need only, without wearying myself and intelligent readers
with a refutation of particulars, siuce the same game is constantly repeated, appeal to
what I have already said against this whole method, which makes a subjective pragma
tism out of an objective one.
f The whole course of the proceedings and the apostle's discourse prove that he did not
appear as an accused person before his judges, in order to defend himself ao-ainst the
charge of introducing foreign and unlawful religions, religtones peregrinx et illicitce. The
Athenians did not view the subject in so serious a light.

PA ,X AT ATHENS. 186
denial and self-command, that instead of beginning with expressions of
detestation, instead of representing the whole religious system of the
Greeks as a Satanic delusion, he appealed to the truth which lay at its
basis, while he sought to awaken in his hearers the primitive conscious
ness of God which was only repressed by the power of sin, and thus
aimed at leading them to the knowledge of that Saviour whom he came
to announce. As among the Jews, in whom the knowledge of God had
been carried by divine revelation to a clear and pure development of the
idea of the Messiah, he could appeal to the national history, the law and
the prophets, as witnesses of Christ ; so here he appealed to the unde
niable anxiety of natural religion after an unknown God. He began
with acknowledging in the religious zeal of the Athenians a true religious
feeling, though erroneously directed, an undeniable tending of the mind
towards something divine.* He begins with acknowledging in a lauda
tory manner the strength of the religious sentiment among the Athenians,!
* Much depends on the meaning attached to the ambiguous word dcimdaipuv,
"superstitious," Acts xvii. 22. The original signification of this word, in popular usage,
certainly denoted something good — as is the case in all languages with words which
denote the fear of God or of the gods — the feeling of dependence on a higher power,
which, if we analyse the religious sentiment, appears to be its original element; although
it is not exhaustive of all which belongs to the essential nature of theism, and although,
without the addition of another element, it may give rise to superstition as well as faith.
Now since, where the feeling of fear (deMa irpus rb datpbvior, Theophrast) is the ruling
determining principle in tho conscience, superstition alone can be the result, it has hap
pened that this word has been, by an abuse of the term, applied to that perversion of
religious sentiment. This phraseology was then prevalent. Thus Plutarch uses the word
in his admirable treatise irepl deiaidaipoviae koI dBeoTvroc, in which he proceeds on the
supposition, that the source of superstition is that mode of thinking which contemplates
the gods only as objects of fear ; but he errs in this point, that be traces the origin of this
morbid tendency to a wrong direction of the intellectual faculties. Compare the pro
found remarks of Nitzsch, in his treatise on the religious ideas of the ancients. The word
detaidaipovia occurs in the New Testament only in one other passage, Acts xxv. 19,
where the Roman procurator Festus, speaking to the Jewish King Agrippa of Judaism,
could not intend to brand it as superstition, but rather used the word as a general designa
tion for a foreign religion. He might, however, have chosen this word, although not with a
special design, yet not quite accidentally, as one which was suited to express the subjec
tive view taken by the Romans of Judaism. But Paul certainly used the word in a good
sense, for he deduced the seeking after the unknown God, which he doubtless considered
as something good, from this deiaiduipovia, so prevalent among the Athenians. He an
nounced himself as one who would guide their detaidaipovia, not rightly conscious of its
object and aim, to a state of clear self-consciousness, by a revelation of the object to
which it thus ignorantly tended. Still it may be asked, whether Paul had not deeper
reasons (though without perhaps reflecting specially upon them) for using the word
detaidaipovia, instead of another which he was accustomed to use as the designation of
pure piety. He uses the term evaeRe~tv immediately afterwards, where it plainly indicates
the. exercise of the religious sentiment towards the true God.
| In the comparative detaidaipovearipove, a reference is made to the quality which, ai
we have before remarked, used to be attributed to the Athenians in a higher degree thaa
to all the other Greeks, — a fact which the apostle would easily have learned.

186 Paul's second missionary journey.
and adducing as a proof of it, that while walking amongst their sacred
edifices, he came upon an altar dedicated to an unknown God.*
The inscription, certainly as understood by those who framed it, by no
means proved that they were animated with the conception of an un
known God exalted above all other gods ; but only that according to
their belief they had received good or evil from some unknown god,
and this uncertainty in respect to the completeness of their worship,
enters into the very essence of Polytheism, since, according to its nature,
it may include an infinity of objects. But Paul cited this inscription,
attaching a deeper meaning to it, to make it a point of connexion f for
pointing out a higher but indistinct sentiment lying at the root of Poly
theism. Polytheism proceeds from the feeling of dependence (whether
founded on a sense of benefits conferred or of evils inflicted) ou a higher
* If we examine with care all the accounts of antiquity, and compare the various phases
of polytheism, we shall find no sufficient ground for denying the existence of an altar ac
tually bearing the inscription here mentioned by Paul. The inscription, as he cites it, and
which proves his fidelity in the citation, by no means asserts that it was an altar to the
Unknown God, but only an altar dedicated to an unknown God. Jerome, it is true, in
the first chapter of his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Titus, and in his Epistola
ad Magnum, thus cites the inscription of the altar: Diis Asias et Europise et Libyae, Diis
ignotis et peregrinis, (to the Gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa, to the unknown and for
eign gods); and he thinks that Paul may have modified the form of the inscription to suit
his application of it. But Jerome, perhaps, here as in other instances, judged too super
ficially. Several ancient writers mention the altars of the unknown gods at Athens, but
in a manner that does not determine the form of the inscription. For example; Pau-
sanius, Attic, i. 4, and Eliac. v. 14, (3upoi BeCiv di opafrpivuv dyvuaruv, (altars of the so-
called unknown gods), Apollonius of Tyaua, in Philostratus, vi; 3, where, like Paul, he
finds in the style of the inscription an evidence of Ihe pious disposition of the Athenians
in reference to divine things, that they had erected altars even to unknown gods; auippo-
viorepov rd irepl irdvruv Btuv ev ?.iyetv, Kal ravra WBijvyaiv, ov Kai dyvuaruv daipovuv
Supoi Mpvvrni, (it is wiser to speak well of all the gods, especially at Athens, where
altars are set up even to unknown divinities). Isodorus of Pelusium, vi. 69, cannot be
adduced as an authority, since he merely speaks of conjectures. Diogenes Laertius says,
in the life of Epimenides III., that, in the time of a plague, when they knew not what
god to propitiate in order to avert it, he caused black and white sheep to be let loose
from the Areopagus, and wherever they lay down, to be offered to the respective divinity
(tu irpooi/iiovri Beu). Hence, says Diogenes, there are still altars in Athens without
determinate names. Although the precise inscription is not here given, yet altars might
be erected on this or a similar occasion which were dedicated to an unknown god, since
they knew not what god was offended and required to be propitiated, as Chrysostom has
abo remarked in his 38th homily on the Acts. If this had been a fabrication of the
Author of the Acts, he would have been more likely to use ro uyvuoru, which would
have better suited his purpose.
\ The employment, as a point of departure, of a truth which lay at the basis of an
expression used on a lower stand-point of religious consciousness, and which was not
clearly developed in the souls of those using it, cannot possibly admit of the interpretation
given by Baur, p. 176, for the purpose of showing the unhistorical character of the ad
dresses : " that Paul would have been chargeable with an obvious violation of the truth. "
According to such a view many applications of the Old Testament in the New must be
violations of tlie truth.

PAUL AT ATHENS. 18 7
unknown power, to which it is needful that man should place himself in
the right relation ; but instead of following this feeling, in order by
means of that in human nature which is supernatural and allied to God,
to rise to a consciousness of a God exalted above nature, he refers it
only to the powers of nature operating upon him through the senses
That by which man's natural religions feeling is immediately drawn, and
to which it refers itself, without his reflective consciousness making it a
distinct object, is one thing: but that which the mind, enthralled in the
circle of nature, doing homage to the power over which it ought to rule,
converts with reflective consciousness into an object of worship, is another
thing. Hence Paul views the whole religion of the Atheuians as the
worship of a God unknown to themselves, and presents himself as a
person who is ready to lead them to a clear self-consciousness as regards
their own religious feeling.
" I announce to yon Him," said he, " whom ye worship, without
knowing it.* He is the God who created the world and all that is there
in. He, the Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in the temples made
by human hands, he requires no human service on his own account ; He,
the all-sufficient One, has given to all, life, and breath, and all things.
He also is the originator of the whole human race, and conducts its de
velopment to one great end. He has caused all the nations of the earth
to descend from one man,f and has hot allowed them to spread by chance
* We see from this how Paul psychologically or genetically explained the origin of poly
theism, or the deification of nature, and how far he was from adopting the Jewish notion
of a supernatural, magical origination of idolatry by means of evil spirits, who sought to
become the objects of religious homage. The idea contained in these words of Paul forms
also the groundwork of his discourse at Lystra. We may also find a reference to it in
what he says, Rom. i. 19, of an original knowledge of God, suppressed by the predomi
nance of immoral propensities; and Rom. i. 21, 25, that idolatry begins when religious
sentiment cleaves to the creature, instead of rising above nature to the Creator. On the
first passage, see Tholuck's, and on the second, Riickert's, excellent remarks.
f This also is probably connected with what he says in opposition to polytheistic views.
In polytheism, a knowdedge of the unity of human nature is wanting, because such knowl
edge is closely connected with a knowledge of the unity of God. Polytheism prefers the
idea of distinct races over whom their respective gods preside, to the idea of one race pro
ceeding from one origin. For the idea of one God is substituted that of a multiplicity of
gods, and so for the idea of one human race is substituted that of the multiplicity of na
tional types, over each of which a god is supposed to preside corresponding to the partic
ular nation. The philosophy of the ancients lacked the idea of a unity of mankind, not
only as to their origin, but also as to their peculiar nature and the end of their develop
ment. It lacked in general the unitive aud teleoiogical point of view which Christianity
first brought to light. Inasmuch as every thing led to the assumption of, in a certain
sense at least, a beginning, from which the development of the existing race has pro
ceeded, they denied only an absolute beginning. They fancied themselves in a circular
course, without an end, between the dissoluiion of the old race and the beginning of the
new, an alternation of passing away and becoming ; vide Plato's Timseus, vol. ix. ed. Bip.
p. 291 ; Politicus, vol. vi. p. 32. Aristotle, Metaphys. 1. xii. t. 8, vol. ii. ed. Bekker, p.
1074. Polyb. Hist. 1. vi. c. 5. § 5, 6. On the other hand, the idea of one human race,
and their descent from one man, is connected ,-ith the idea of one God. Thus Paul sets

188 Paul's second missionary journey.
over the globe ; for, in this respect, every thing is under his control; he
has appointed to each people its dwelling-place, and has ordained the
various eras in the history of nations— their development in space and
time is fixed by his all-governing wisdom.* Thus God has revealed
himself in the vicissitudes of nations, in order that men may be induced
to seek after hiin, to try whether they may know and find him ; and
they may easily know him, since he is not far from any one of us, for in
him our whole existence has its root."f As an evidence of the conscious
ness of this original relationship to God, he quotes the words of a hea
then, one of themselves, the poet Aratus, who came from the native
country of the apostle. " For we are the offspring of God."J After
the unity of the thcistic conceptions in contrast with the multiplicity existing in the deifi
cation of nature. The Emperor Julian observed this contrast between the polytheistic and
monotheistic anthropology and anthropogony. Uavraxov dBpduv vevadvruv dediv, ol
irTteiovc irpoF/?i8ov dvdpuiroi, role yevedpxaic Beolc diroK?,npu8ivrec, (Every where crowds
of gods beckoning, the majority of men came forward, being allotted to the gods as
founders of races). See Julian, Fragmentum ed. Spanheim, t. i. 295.
* The peculiar relation of the dwelling-places assigned the nations, to their particular
characters as determined by natural aptitudes and moral freedom ; the secret connexion
between nature and mankind ordained by God, and grounded in a higher law of spiritual
development. \ The apostle's words are — -"in Him we live and move and have our being," iv
avru (upev Kal KivavueBa Kal iapiv. Many expositors have explained these words, as if
they were intended to denote the continual dependence of existence on God, as the pre
server of all things; and without taking the iv in an Hebraistic sense = through, we
might so understand the words in the pure Greek also, for elvai iv tivi may signify to
depend wholly on some one, as iv aol yap iapiv, in the (Edipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, v.
314. But this explanation does not suit the connexion of the passage; for Paul evidently
is speaking here, not of what men have in common with other creatures, but of what dis
tinguishes men from other creatures, that by which they are especially related to God; for
as an evidence of this, "in Him we live, and move, and are," he quotes the words of Ara
tus, which refer precisely to this relation of man to God. Hence, in order to find the con
nexion according to this explanation, we must amplify the thought too artificially; thus,
" We are distinguished above all other creatures in our capacity for kuowing this depend
ence on God." Ou the other hand, every thing is connected in the most natural manner,
if we consider the words "in Him we live, move, and are," as pointing out the secret
connexion of men with God as "the Father of Spirits," in virtue of their spiritual and
moral nature. As Paul says nothing here which is peculiar to the Christian system, but
oxpresses a fact grounded on the general principles of theism, we may with great propri
ety compare it with a perfectly analogous expression of Dio Chrysostom, which serves to
confirm this explanation. He says of men — "But since we are removed not far from, nor
outside of God, but are by nature in the very midst of him, we are from all sides filled
with the divine nature," dre ov paupdv obd' i$u rod Beiov diipiiiapevot. d'AA' iv avru piou
-ire^vKOTee iaeti-u  iravraxodev ipirtir'Kdptvoi rije Oeiae fvoeur. — J)e Dei Cognitione
vol. i. ed. Reiske, p. 381.
X These words are quoted from the <paivopivoie of Aratus, v. 5, but they are also to be
found in the beautiful hymn of the stoic Cleanthus, where they are used as an expression
of Reason, as a mark of this divine relationship: "We are thy offspring, haviiif alone
received the likeness of thy being," in aov ydp yivoc iopev lijc p'tpnpa 'haxbvrec povvoi.
A similar sentiment occurs in the " Golden Poem," " For mortals have a divine descent "
Beiov ydp yivoc iari jipoTolaiv.

PAUL AT ATHENS. 189
this appeal to the universal higher self-consciousness, he goes on to say ;
Since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to believe that the
divinity is like any earthly material, or any image of human art. This
negative assertion manifestly includes a positive one ; we must strive to
rise to the divinity by means of that within us which is related to him.
Instead of carrying on the argument against idolatry, the apostle leaves
his hearers to decide for themselves ; and presupposing the consciousness
of guilt — without attempting to develop it — he proceeds with the annun
ciation of the gospel. After God bad with great long-suffering endured
the times of ignorance,* he now revealed the truth to all men, and re
quired all to acknowledge it and repent. With this was connected the
annunciation of the Redeemer, of the forgiveness of sins to be obtained
through him, and of his resurrection as the confirmation of his doctrine,
and as a pledge of the resurrection of believers to a blessed life, as well
as of the judgment to be passed by him on mankind. f As long as the
apostle confined himself to the general doctrine of Theism, he was heard
with attention by those who had been used to the lessons of Grecian
philosophy. But when he touched upon that doctrine which most decid
edly marked the opposition of the Christian philosophy to that of the
heathen, J when he spoke of a general resurrection, he was interrupted
with ridicule on the part of some of his hearers. Others said, We would
hear thee speak at another time on this matter ; whether they only intended
* Paul here gives us to understand, that not mere negative unbelief in reference to
truth not known, but only criminal unbelief of the gospel offered to men, would be an
object of the divine judgment. This agrees with what he says in the first chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans, that heathens, as well as Jews, would be judged according to the
measure of the law known to them ; and with wdiat he says in Rom. iii. 25, of the
" remission of sins that are past," irdpeaie ruv irpoyeyovoruv upaprnpuruv ; and a compar
ison of this passage with Acts xvii. 30, shows the genuine Pauline character of the
speech. f It is very evident from the form of the expressions in Acts xvii. 31, as well as from
verse 32, where the mention of the general resurrection in Paul's speech is implied, that in
the Acts, we have only the substance given of what he said ; as Schleiermacher has also
observed, that after the beginning of the address bas been reported in detail, we have only
an abstract of the remainder. See his Introduction to the New Testament, 1845, p. 374;
and this relieves the address from the reproach brought against it by Baur, who will not
recognize it as a Pauline production, that the speaker so soon and so abruptly proceeds to
that wdiich must have given the greatest offence to his hearers. But regarding the ad
dress as a frtbrieation, it is clear, that whoever from a Hellenic point of view could have
begun it so skilfully, could also have continued and completed it with corresponding
skill ; and he would not, of course, have failed to do so.
if This is expressed in the words of the heathen Oetavius, in Minucius Felix, c. xi. :
"Coelo et astris, quae sic relinquimus ut invenimus, interitum denuntiare; sibi mortuis, ex-
stinctis, qui sicut nascimur et interimus, aeternitatem repromitlere.'' (To foretell destruc
tion to the heaven and the stars which we leave as we find them; to promise eternity to
ourselves, dead and extinct, who, as we are born, also perish.) The doctrine of the Stoics,
of an Civaoroixeiuate, the regeneration of the universe in a new 'wm after its destruction,
has no affinity to the doctrine of tbe resurrection, but is strictly in accordance with tha
pantheistical views of the Stoics.

190 Paul's second missionary journey.
to hint in a courteous manner to the apostle that they wished him to
close his address, or really expressed a serious intention of hearing him
again* But this result cannot be regarded as any impeachment of the
wisdom of the speaker. He could only do his part to prepare his hear
ers for the new truths he wished to communicate, and, as much as possi
ble, to obtain a favorable hearing. But after all, he could not help
giving offence to those who were too much attached to their Hellenic
point of view to admit of a susceptibility for anything higher. This
could in no way be avoided, or to avoid it he must have refrained from
publishing the gospel at all. There were only a few individuals who
joined themselves to the apostle, listened to his further instructions, and
became believers. Among these was a member of the Areopagite coun
cil, Dionysius, who became the subject of so many legends. The only
authentic tradition respecting him appears to be, that he was the princi
pal instrument of forming a church at Athens, and became its overseer.-)-
While Paul was at Athens, Timothy returned from Macedonia,^ but
* From the silence of the Acts, we are not to infer with certainty that Paul never ad
dressed these persons again.
\ See the account of the Bishop Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius, in his Eccles. Hist.
iv. 23. According to some, the name of this Dionysius gave occasion to the whole fabri
cation of the appearance of Paul on the Areopagus; we recognise in such an opinion the
same strange, topsy-turvy criticism, which, instead of finding in the Montanist Paraclete
a reference to the gospel of John, would rather find in the gospel of John, as a later piece
of patch-work, a reference to the Montanist Paraclete 1
X On this point there is much uncertainty. According to the Acts, Silas and Timothy
first rejoined Paul at Corinth. But 1 Thess. iii. 1, seems to imply the contrary. This pas
sage might indeed be thus understood, — that Paul sent Timothy from Bercea before his
departure for Athens, to the church in Thessalonica, although he knew that he should
now be left in Athens without any companions, for he wished to leave Sdas in Beroea.
Had he departed from Beroea alone, however, he would rather have said, " to come to
Athens alon1,1' ipxeodai elc 'ABijvac pdvot. But this he could not say, since he did not
depart to Athens alone, but with other companions. Meanwdiile the most natural interpre
tation of the passage is, that Paul, iu order to obtain information respecting the Thessa
lonians, preferred being left alone in Athens, and sent Timothy from that city. Also, in
the Acts, xvii. 16. it is implied that he waited at Athens for the return of Silas and Timo
thy ; for though tho words, " at Athens," iv rate 'AByvaie, may be referred, not to " wait
ed," iKdixiperov, but to the whole clause, still we cannot understand the passage other
wise. If ne had merely the account in the Acts, we should be led to the conclusion, by
a comparison of xvii. 16, and xviii. 5, that Silas and Timothy were prevented from
meeting with Paul at Athens, and they first found him again in Corinth, as he had given
them notice that he intended to go thither from Athens. But by comparing it with what
Paul himself says, 1 Thess. iii. 1, we must either rectify or fill up the account in the Acts.
We learn from it that Timothy at least met with Paul at Athens, but that he thought it
necessary to send him from thence to Thessalonica, and that he did not wait for his return
from that city to Athens, which may be easily explained. But Luke, perhaps, had not so
accurate a knowledge of all the particulars in this period of Paul's history; he had per
haps, learned only that Paul met again at Corinth with Timothy and Silas and hence he
inferred, as he knew nothing of the sending away of Timothy in the meantime from
Athens to Thessalonica, that Paul, after he had parted from his two companions at Beroea,

PAUL AT ATHENS. 191
the anxiety of Paul f _>r the new church at Thessalonica induced him to
send his young fellow-laborer thither, that he might contribute to the es
tablishment of their faith and their consolation under their manifold suf
ferings ; for Timothy had communicated to him many distressing accounts
of the persecutions which had befallen this church.
He travelled alone from Athens, and now visited a place most im
portant for the propagation of the gospel, the city of Corinth, the
metropolis of the province of Achaia. This city, within a century and
a half after its destruction by Julius Caasar, once more became the centre
of intercourse and traffic to the eastern and western parts of the Roman
Empire, for which it was fitted by its natural advantages, namely, by
its two noted ports, that of Keyxpsai towards Lesser Asia, and that of
Aexaiov towards Italy. Being thus situated, Corinth became an impor
tant position for spreading the gospel in a great part of the Roman Em
pire, and hence Paul chose it, as he had chosen other cities similarly
situated, as a place for a long sojourn. But Christianity had here also,
at its first promulgation, peculiar difficulties to combat, and the same
causes which hindered its reception at first, threatened at a later period,
after it had found entrance, to corrupt its purity, both in doctrine and
rejoined them first at Corinth. As to Silas, it is possible that, on account of the informa
tion he brought with him, he was sent back by Paul with a special commission from
Athens to Beroea, or, what is more probable, that he had occasion to stay longer than
Timothy at Beroea, and hence could not meet him at Athens. It might also be the case
that Luke erroneously concluded, since Silas and Timothy both first met Paul again at
Corinth, that he left both at Beroea, — possibly that he left only Silas behind and brought
Timothy with himself to Athens. It favors, though it does not establish this opinion, that
Paul in 1 Thess. iii. 1, alleges as the reason for sending away Timothy, not the unpleasant
Dews brought by Timothy from Macedonia, but the hindrances intervening, which rendered
it impossible for him to visit the church in Thessalonica according to his intention.
Scbneckenburger, in his learned essay on the date of the Epistles to the Thessalonians (in
the Studien der Evangelischen Geisilichkeit Wiirtembergs, vol. vii. part 1, 1834, p. 139,)
(with which in many points I am happy to agree.) maintains that Paul might have charged
his two companions to follow him quickly from Bercea, because he intended soon to leave
Athens, where he expected no suitable soil for his missionary labors. But we have no
sufficient reason for supposing this. Paul found at Athens a synagogue for the first scene
of his ministry as in other cities; he felt himself compelled, as he says, to publish tlie
gospel to Greeks and to Barbarians; he knew it was the power of God, which would
conquer the philosophical blindness of the Greeks as well as the ceremonial blindness of
the Jews, though he well knew that on both sides the obstacles were great. At all events,
by some not improbable combinations, the narrative in the Acts and the expressions of
Paul may easily be reconciled, and we are not therefore justified with Schrader in refer
ring the passage in 1 Thess. iii. 1, to a later residence of Paul at Athens. All the circum
stances mentioned seem best to agree with the period of his first visit. Paul having been
obliged, contrary to his intention, to leave Thessalonica early, wished on several occasions
to revisit it ; his anxiety for the new church there was so great that in his tender concern
for it, Ire showed the great sacrifice he was ready to make lor it, by saying that he was
willing to remain alone at Athens. In later times, when there was a small Christian
church at Athens, this would not have been so great a sacrifice.

192 Paul's second missionary journey.
practice. The two opposite mental tendencies, which at, that time espe
cially opposed the spread of Christianity, were, on the one side such an
intense devotedness to speculation and the exercise of the intellect to the
neglect of all objects of practical interest as threatened to stifle alto
gether the religious nature of men, that tendency which Paul designates
by the phrase "seeking after wisdom;" and, on the other side, the
sensuous element mingling itself with the exercise of the religious feel
ings ; the carnal mind which would degrade the divine into an object of
sensuous experience ; that tendency to which Paul applies the phrase,
" seeking after a sign." The first of these tendencies predominated
among the greater number of those persons in Corinth who made pre
tensions to mental cultivation, for new Corinth was distinguished from
the old city, chiefly by becoming, in addition to its commercial celebrity,
a seat of literature and philosophy, so that a certain tincture of literary
and philosophical culture pervaded the city.* The second of these ten
dencies was found among the numerous Jews, who were spread through
this place of commerce, and entertained the common sensuous concep
tions respecting the Messiah. And finally, the spread and efficiency of
Christianity was opposed by that gross corruption of morals, which then
prevailed in all the great cities of the Roman Empire, but in Corinth
was especially promoted by the worship of Aphrodite, to whom a far-
famed temple was here erected, which thus consecrated the indulgence
of sensuality, favored as it was by the incitements constantly presented
in a place of immense wealth and commerce. f
The efficiency of Paul's ministry at Corinth was doubtless much pro
moted by his meeting with a friend and zealous advocate of the gospel,
at whose house he lodged, and with whom he obained employment for
his livelihood, the Jew Aquila from Pontus, who probably had a large
manufactory in the same trade by which Paul supported himself. Aquila
does not appear to have had a fixed residence at Rome, but to have
taken up his abode, at different times, as his business might require, in
various large cities situated in the centre of commerce, where he found
himself equally at home. But at this time, he was forced to leave Rome
against his will, by a mandate of the Emperor Claudius, who found in
the restless, turbulent spirit of a number of Jews resident at Rome (the
* In the 2d century, the rhetorician Aristides says of this city : aofbv di dij Kal KaB'
6dbv IaBuv uv evpotc Kal irapd rCiv dijivxuv pddoie uv Kai uKovaetac. roaovroi Bnaavpdl
ypappdruv irepl iraaav avrijv, oiroi Kai povov diroftAiipeii tic, Kal Kara rue ddovc aiirde
Kal rue arode' in rd yvpvdaia, rd didaoKaXela, Kal paBnpard re Kal laropnpara. (Even
passing along the street you might find a wise man, and hear and learn from inanimate
things ; so great are the treasures of learning lying all around it, wherever indeed one may
but look, even along the thoroughfares and porches ; besides there are gymnasia and schools,
objects both of science and of research.) — Aristid. in Neptunum, ed. Dindorf, vol. 1, p. 40.
f The rhetorician Dio Chrysostom says to the Corinthians: iroAtv oUe'tre tuv ovadiv re
ko.1 yeyevnpivuv iira^podiroraT-nv. (Tou inhabit a city the moat licentious of all that are
ir ever have been.) Crat. 3*7, vol. ii. p. 119, ed. Reiske.

PAUL AT CORINTH. 193
greater part freed-men),* a reason or a pretext for banishing all Jews
from that city.f
If Aquila was at that time a Christian, which will easily account for
his speedy connexion with Paul, this decree of banishment certainly did
not affect him as a Christian, but as classed with the other Jews, in vir
tue of his Jewish descent, and his participation in all the Jewish religions
observances. But if the gospel had already been propagated among the
Gentiles at Rome, (which is not probable, for this took place at a later
period, by means of Paul's disciples, after his sphere of action had been
much extended,) the Gentile Christians, wdio received the gospel free
from Jewish observances, and had not yet attracted notice as a particu
lar sect, would not have been affected by a persecution, which was di
rected against the Jews, as Jews, on purely political grounds.

* There was a particular quarter on the other side of the Tiber inhabited by Jews. See
Phih-legal. ad Caium, § 23. ri/v iripav tov Ttj3ipeuc irorapov peydTinv ri/c 'Pdipye
dirorbprjv KarExopivnv ical olKovpivnv irpue 'lovdaiuv. (Across the Tiber a large section
of Rome owned and occupied by Jews )
j The account of Suetonius in the Life of Claudius, c. 25, " Judseos impulsore Chresto
assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit," (he expelled from Rome the Jews, who, urged on by
Chrestos, were perpetually exciting tumults,) is of little service in historical investigations.
Because Suetonius, about fifty years after the event itself, mixed up, in a confused way,
what he had beard of Christus as a promoter of sedition among the Jews, with the ac
counts of the frequent tumults excited among them by expectations of the Messiah, we
are not justified iu concluding that this banishment of the Jews had any real connexion
with Christianity. Dr. Baur, in his essay on the Object and Occasion of the Epistle to the
Romans, in the Tiibinger Zeitschrift f'tir Theologie, 1836, part iii. p. 110, thinks, that the
disputes between the Jews and Christians in Rome, occasioned the disturbances which at
last brought on the expulsion of both parties, and that this is the fact which forms tho
basis of the account. But disputes among the Jews themselves, whether Jesus was to
be acknowledged as the Messiah, would certainly be treated with contempt by the Roman
authorities, as mere Jewish religious controversies; see Acts xviii. 15. And if Chris
tians of Gentile descent, who did not observe the Mosaic law, were then living at Rome,
these, as a genus lertium, would not have been confounded with the Jews, and a decree
of banishment directed against the Jews would not have affected them. They only be
came subject to punishment by the laws against the feligiones peregrinas et novas. We
can only suppose a reference to political disturbances among the Jews, or to occurrences
which might havo excited suspicions of this kind. This view I must even now, in the
fourth edition, maintain in opposition to Dr. Baur, (p. 371.) I must still assert that the
disputes which broke out in the Jewish assemblies, whether Jesus was the Messiah, could
not have attracted the attention of the Roman authorities, and that their banishment af
fected not Jews and Christians, but only Jews as Jews.
And this account is of little service in fixing the chronology of the apostolic history,
for Suetonius gives no chronological mark. Such a mark would be given, if we connect
the banishment of the Jews with the senatus consultum, die malhematicis Italia pellendis,
for here Tacitus (Annal. xii. 52), gives the date Fausto Sulla, Salvio Othone Coss. = a. d.
52. But the chronological connexion of these two events is very uncertain, as they pro
ceeded from different causes. The banishment of the astrologers proceeded from sus
picions of conspiracies against the life of the Emperor, with which the banishment of the
Jews stood in no sort of connexion, although it might have had its foundation iu the
dread of political commotions. 13

194 Paul's second missionary journey.
We cannot answer with certainty the. question, wdiether Aquila, on
his arrival at Corinth, was already a Christian ; for it cannot be deter
mined merely from the silence of the Acts, that he was not converted by
Paul. In any case, his intercourse with the apostle had gre it influence
in the formation of his Christian views. Aquila appears from this time
as a zealous preacher of the gospel, and his various journeys and changes
of residence furnished him with many opportunities for acting in this
capacity. His wife Priscill.a also distinguished herself by her active zeal
for the cause of the gospel, so that Paul calls them both, in Rom. xvi. 3,
his " helpers in Christ Jesus."
We must suppose that the reception given for the most part at
Athens to the publication of the gospel, must have left a depressing effect
on the mind of the apostle, as far as he was not raised above all depress
ing considerations by a conviction of the victorious divine power of the
gospel. Hence, he himself says, that on his arrival at Corinth, he was
at the utmost remove from attaching any importance to anything that
human means, human eloquence, and human wisdom, could effect towards
procuring an entrance for the publication of the divine word ; that he
came and taught among them with a deep sense of his human weakness,
with fear and trembling as far as his own power was concerned ; but at
the same time, with so much the greater confidence in the power of God
working through his instrumentality. He had experienced at Athens,
that it availed him nothing to become a Greek to the Greeks, in his mode
of exhibiting divine truth, if the heart was not opened to his preaching
by its sense of spiritual need. At Corinth, he was satisfied with the
simple annunciation of the Redeemer who died for the salvation of sinful
men, without adapting himself, as at Athens, to the taste of the educated
classes in his style of address. The greater part indeed of the persons
with whom he came in contact at Corinth, were not, as at Athens, people
of cultivated minds, but belonging to the lower class, who were destitute
of all refinement ; for even when Christianity had spread more widely
among ihe higher classes, he could still say, that not many distinguished
by human culture or rank were to be found among the Christians, but
God had chosen such as were despised by the world, in order to exem
plify in them the power of the gospel ; 1 Cor. i. 26. Among these people
of the lower class, were those who hitherto had been given up to the
lusts that prevailed in this sink of moral corruption, but who, by the
preaching of the apostle, were awakened to repentance, and experienced
in their hearts the power of the announcement of the divine forgiveness
of sins ; 1 Cor. vi. 11. Paul could indeed appeal to the miracles by
which his apostleship had been attested among the Corinthians, 2 Cor.
xii. 12 ; but yet these appeals to the senses were not the means by which
the gosp' 1 chiefly effected its triumphs at Corinth. As the gospel neces
sarily appeared as foolishness to the wisdom-seeking Greeks, as Ions; as
they persisted iu their conceit of wisdom, so also to the sisrn-seeking
Jews, as lung as they persisted in their carnal mind, unsusceptible of the

PAUL AT CORINTH. 195
spiritual operations of what was divine, and required miracles cognizable
by the senses, the gospel which announced no Me-siah performing won
ders in the manner their carnal conceptions had anticipated, would
always be a stumbling-block. That demonstration which Paul made use
of at Corinth, was the same which in all ages has been the firmest sup
port of the gospel, and without which all miracles and all intellectual
ability will be in vain, the '¦'demonstration of the Spirit and of poioer"
1 Cor.ii. 4; the demonstration of the indwelling divine powerof the gospel
on minds rendered susceptible by the feeling of moral need ; the demon
stration arising from the power with which the gospel operates on that
principle in human nature, which is allied to God but depressed by the
principle of sin. Thus the sign-seeking Jews who attained to faith, found
in the gospel a " power of God" superior to all external miracles, and the
believers among the wisdom-seeking Greeks found a divine wisdom, com
pared with which all the wisdom of their philosophers appeared as nothing
As was usual, Paul was obliged by the hostile disposition with which
the greater part of the Jews received his preaching in the synagogue, to
direct his labors to the Gentiles through the medium of the Proselytes,
and the new church was mostly formed of Gentiles, to whom a small
number of Jews joined themselves. That he mh.'ht devote all his time
and strength without distraction to preaching, he soon organized the
small company of believers into a regular church, and left the baptism of
those wdio were brought to the faith by his preaching, to be adminis
tered by those who were chosen to fill the offices in the church ; 1 Cor.
i. 16 ; xvi. 15.
In the mean time, the acceptance which the gospel here found among
the heathen, powerfully excited the rage of the Jews, and they availed
themselves of the arrival of the new Proconsul Annaeus Gallio, a brother
of Seneca the philosopher, to arraign Paul before his tribunal. Since, by
the laws of the empire, the right was secured to them of practising their
own religious institutions without molestation, they inferred, that who
ever caused division among them by the propagation of doctrines opposed
to their own principles, encroached on the enjoyment of their privileges,
and was amenable to punishment. But the Proconsul, a man of mild
disposition,* showed no desire to involve himself in the internal religious
controversies of the Jews, which must have appeared to a Roman states
man as idle disputes about words; and the Gentiles themselves, on this
occasion, testified their disapprobation of the accusers. The frustration
of this attempt against the apostle enabled him to continue his labors
with less annoyance in this region, so that their influence was felt through
the wdiole province of Achaia, (I Thess. i. 7, 8 ; 2 Cor. i. 1,) whether he
made use of his disciples as instruments, or suspended his residence at
* Known by the name of the dulcis Gallio. Seneca, Prasfat. Natural, quest, iv.
" Nemo mortalium uni tarn dulcis est, quam hie omnibus." (No one among mortals is so
gracious to one, as he, to everybody.)

196 Paul's second missionary journey.
Corinth, by a journey into other parts of the province, and then returned
again to the principal scene of his ministry.*
When he had been laboring for some time in these parts, he received
from Timothy, now returned from Thessalonica, accounts of the state of
the church there, which were far from pleasing in every respect. The
faith of the church had indeed been steadfast under its persecutions,
and their example and zeal had promoted the further spread of the
gospel in Macedonia, even to Achaia, but there were many who had not
been preserved pure from the corruption of heathen immorality. The
expectationf of Christ's reappearance had taken in the minds of many a
fanatical direction, so that they neglected their stated employments, and
expected to be maintained at the expense of their more opulent brethren.
Prophets rose up in their assemblies, whose addresses contained much
that was fanatical ; while others, who were on their guard against
these extravagant exhibitions, went so far in an opposite direction as to
put in the same class the manifestations of a genuine inspiration. Pro
bably from a fear of undue religious excitement, they could not endure
that any person, though he felt himself inwardly called, should give free
utterance to his sentiments in the meetings of the church ; for to this
Paul's exhortation appears to refer, in 1 Thess. v. 19, " Quench not the
Spirit." On all these accounts, he considered it necessary to address an
epistle of encouragement and exhortation to this church. J
* See 2 Thess. i. 4, where Paul, in an epistle written during the latter part of his resi
dence al Corinth, snys, that in several churches, and therefore not merely in the Corinthian,
he had spoken with praise of the faith and zeal of the Thessalonian church.
f The passages in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians that relate to the expectation
of Christ's second coming, have altogether the impress of this first age, looking forward
with ardent longing to his speedy return. Only iu this first period could such exhibitions:
of fanatical excitement, as were actually witnessed in the church at Thessalonica in con
nexion with this expectation, have made their appearance. Only then could the appre
hension have arisen, that those who were " asleep" (1 Thess. iv. 13) would be far sur
passed in privilege by those still living, who should be witnesses of Christ's second advent.
Any one, at a later period, writing such an epistle under Paul's name, would certainly
not have encouraged the expectation of Christ's advent being so near — an expectation
wdiich would have already been corrected by the intervening period. He would rather
have had a special interest to admonish them, not to expect his coming too soon, that
they might not be mistaken if it were postponed to a later period. The manner iu which
the second advent of Christ is spoken of in this epistle, instead of being, as Baur imagines,
a mark of its spuriousness, is rather the surest and most palpable proof that it could have
been written at no other period.
X In this epistle, he evidently assumes, that the manner of his coming from Philippi to
Thessalonica was still fresh in the remembrance of the church, so that be alludes to only
one residence among them, after his arrival from Philippi. What Paul says in 1 Thess. i.
9, he could only say at a period which was shortly subsequent to his departure from
Thessalonica. Hence, it is certain, that the epistle was written at that juncture, and that
it is Ihe first among the Pauline epistles which have reached us, an opinion with which
its whole complexion well agrees. The reasons against this view, maintained by Schrader
some of which we have mentioned and endeavored to refute, are not convincing. The

PAUL AT CORINTH. 197
In his epistle, he reminds the church of the manner in which he con
ducted himself among them, the example of manual industry which he
set, and the exhortations wdiich he addressed to them.* He calmed their
anxiety respecting the fate of those who had died during this period. He
warned them against making attempts to determine the time of the second
coming of Christ. That critical moment would come unexpectedly ; the
exact time could be ascertained by no one; but it was the duty of Chris
tians to be always prepared for it. They were not to walk in darkness,
lest that day should overtake them as a thief in the night ; as children
of the light, they ought to walk continually in the light and the day; and
to watch over themselves, that they might meet the appearance of the
Lord with confidence.!
anxiety of many persons in reference to their deceased friends (iv. 13,) proves indeed, that
some of the first Christians at Thessalonica had already died, but certainly does not justify
the conclusion, that the church must have already existed a long time ; for within a com
paratively short time, many, especially those who wero in years or in declining health at
their conversion, might have died. Also the argument, that Paul, in this epistle, supposes
the existence of a church organized in the usual manner with Presbyters, will prove
nothing against the early composition of this epistle. For why should not Paul have
accomplished all this during his short stay at Thessalonica, or put matters in a train for
its being done soon after his departure ? It is evident from Acts xiv. 23, how important
he deemed it to give the usual constitution to the churches as they were forming ; and
this must have been more especially the case with a church which he left in such critical
circumstances, even apart from persecutors. It is true, if the rule laid down in the First
Epistle to Timothy, that no novice in Christianity should be chosen to the office of presby
ter, bad been from the beginning an invariable principle, we might conclude, that so new
a church, which must consist entirely of novices, could have no presbytery. But there is
nothing to support this conclusion, and the circumstances of the primitive apostolic age
are against it. The rules given in that epistle, as well as many other things in it, indicate
that it was written in the latter part of Paul's life, and in reference to a church not newly
organized. And what we find in Philip, iv. 16, by no means obliges us to assume a
second visit of Paul to Thessalonica, after which both epistles were written. He there
says, that during the time of the first publication of the gospel among the heathen, (which
cannot be referred to a later period,) when he left Macedonia, no church excepting that at
Philippi had sent him a contribution — first, when he was in Thessalonica before he left
Macedonia, and then once or twice at Corinth, during his longer sojourn there. 2 Cor.
xi. 9.
* All this must certainly give the impression of a person who writes from the fresh lively
recollection of his own recent experiences; and not the impression of a designed recapitu
lation made up so as to accord with the Acts and the Pauline epistles, a mark of spurious-
ness which Baur is disposed to find, p. 481.
f What Baur says against the genuineness of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians,
which bears on the face of it so decidedly a Pauline impress, shows us how hard it is to
satisfy these modern critics. If expressions similar to those in the other Pauline epistles
occur, they must have been borrowed from them. On the contrary, if there are turns of
expression which do not occur in the other Pauline epistles, it is an indubitable sign of an
un-Pauline origin. But one would suppose that the conjunction of what is allied to the
Pauline epistles, with other things which are not elsewhere found just so expressed by
Paul, provided there be nothing evidently at variance with the Pauline characteristics,
would be rather an evidence of genuineness ; for an individual who had tho Pauline epis-

198 Paul's second missionary journey.
As this epistle contained so many peculiarly important lessons, exhor
tations, and warnings for different members of the church, Paul must
have been earnestly desirous that it should be read by all. Whether he
wished it to be read before all at their public meetings, or that all should
have an opportunity of reading it privately, cannot be determined pre
cisely from the words* in ch. v. 21. \
ties before him, and wished to write another after them in Paul's name, would have shown
himself as more of a slavish imitator. Baur finds some-thing thoroughly un-Pauline in the
circumstance that the churches in Judea are presented as a pattern to the Gentile Chris
tians ; especially since Paul could not have spoken of those persecutions without referring
to himself as a chief partaker in the only ones which could here have been taken into con
sideration. So moreover, that extreme general hostile tone towards the Jews, which al
ludes to the odium generis humani east upon the Jews, appears to Baur altogether un-
Pauline. But if this had been interpolated by another person, it would be difficult to re
concile his being so hostilely disposed towards the Jews with his poin: ing out the churches
in Judea as patterns for imitation. Only in a spirit so original and unfettered as Paul's
could both meet together. Now, the perseculious which the Christians in Judea had suf
fered at various times, and of which he might have been in part an eye-witness on his
first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, he held in fresh and lively remembrance. In
this respect he could name no Gentile church as an object of imitation. How natural that
lie should here name the parent church, animated as he always was with the conviction
that believing Jews and Gentiles w-ere to be bound together in one Christian communityl
The recollection that at an earlier period be had been so violent a persecutor of the Chris
tians, could least of all prevent his so expressing himself; for, as he says, he had since
been made a new creature, and all things had become new. Nor do I know how Paul
could have delineated more strikingly, the ungodliness, the inhumanity, and the envy of
the Jews towards the Gentiles, of which in just his last missionary journey he had had
such frequent experience. The passage in which he represents the believers among the
Gentiles as imitators of the primitive church in Judea, was a natural occasion for mention
ing that the same Jews had killed Jesus and the prophets, and had everywhere perse
cuted himself as a witness of the Christian truth by which the Gentiles also would partake
of salvation. In the accidentally chosen expression iKdiu^dvruv may be traced the
fresh recollection that he had been driven out from the cities where he preached the
go«pel, through the influence of the Jews who had instigated the Gentiles. At a later pe
riod, when Paul was brought more into collision with Jewish Christians than with Jews
simply, he had less occasion for so expressing himself. Criticism ought not m< rely lo con
sider the Pauline epistles as a whole, but study them chronologically, and carefully dis
tinguish the various stages of Paul's literary activity. In reference to peculiarities of
style, turns of thought, and development of doctrine, a difference in them will indeed be
perceptible, and it will be seen that the Epistles to the Thessalonians have exactly those
characteristics which belong to the first stage, while his other epislles of which ihe genu
ineness has been disputed, have, on the contrary, the characteristic peculiarities of the last
stage. * See also Coloss. iv. 16.
-)• This wish appears perfectly natural on the first occasion of writing to them, as in
every letter which is intended lo meet the wants of many members in a community, and I
do not see in it the marks of an importance attributed to letter-writing not suitable to the
times, nor with what propriety Baur could say that "this must have been written accord
ing to the views of an age which did not see in the letters of the apostle the natural me
dium of mental intercour-e, but a sanctuary to be approached with all due reverence so
that their contents were to be known as accurately as possible, particularly by means of

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 199
After a time, Paul learned that the epistle had not attained its end ;
that the enthusiastic tendency in the Thessalonian church had continued
to increase. In his former epistle, he had considered it necessary to
guard them against both extremes ; to warn them against the entire
suppression of free prophetic addresses, as wrell as against receiving
every thing as divine which pretended to be so, without examination.
The higher life was to be developed and expressed freely without harass
ing restrictions ; but all claims to inspiration ought to be submitted to
sober examination.* He must, therefore, have had cause to suspect dan
ger from this quarter, even had he not received more exact information.
But he was subsequently informed, that persons had come forward in the
church who professed to have received revelations to the effect that the
appearance of the Lord was close at hand. They also endeavored to
strengthen their assertions by distorting certain expressions of the apos
tle, which he had used during his residence at Thessalonica. But now
since the epistle of Paul was so plainly opposed to the enthusiastic ten
dency which aimed at fixing the exact time of Christ's second coming,
one of the promoters of this error ventured so far as to forge another
epistle in Paul's name, which might serve to confirm this expectation, in
which probably he took advantage of the circumstance, that the apostle
in his first epistle had satisfied himself with urging what was of practi
cal importance without giving a decided opinion on the nearness or re
moteness of that great evcnt.f Such forgeries were not at all uncom-

public reading," kc. This is indeed " not seeing the woods on account of the trees I"
How naturally the words in ch. v. 21, are connected with the preceding request " to greet
all the brethren!"
* It appeals to me that 1 Thess. v. 21, altogether relates to what immediately precedes
— " prove all things in the communications of the prophets, and retain whatever is good ;"
but in verse 22, he makes a transition to a general remark, "that they should keep them
selves at a distance from every kind of evil," with which his prayer for the sanctification
of the whole man (v. 23) naturally connects itself.
f The passage in 2 Thess. ii. 2, might, it is true, be understood, as if only the statements
in the first epistle had been misrepresented ; and it is certainly possihle to imagine, that
they had misapplied Paul's comparison of a thief in the night, as if he expected the
appearance of Christ to be an event close at hand, and only meant to say that the
point of time could not be given more distinctly. But these words of Paul, however,
would be more naturally understood of the forgery of a letter in his name, and tlie manner
in which he guards against similar forgeries, by a postscript in his own hand, favors this
opiniou. I cannot perceive the justness of Baur's remark, p. 49, " How could Paul ration
ally attach any weight to such a criterion of the genuineness of his epistle, which as soon
as it was once known to be 6uch, would be used so much the more for the purposes of
forgery?" Paul's Greek writing was probably not so easy to be imitated. Nor in the
words iruari eirtaro/f) (iii. 17) can I find, with Baur, a mark of spuriousness. It by no
means follows, that the author gave a false explanation of Paul's custom to add something
in Ins own handwriting to his epistles. If Paul had elsewhere add?d such closing wordi
in autograph to testify his love to the church, yet he might have been led by Ihe peculiar
circumstances of this church to make use of them here as a criterion of its being his
genuine epistle. Or he migh'. first of all have been led with this view to make such a

200 Paul's second missionary journey.
mon in this century after the beginning of the Alexandrian period of
literature, and their authors were very adroit in justifying such decep
tions for the purpose of giving currency to certain principles and
opinions.* That something of this kind happened so early in the church
at Thessalonica, while on the other hand we find no trace of it in the
later epistles of Paul, is explained by the peculiar circumstances of that
church, the excited state of its members, that one-sidedness of the Chris
tian spirit which directed its attention only to the future, that limitation
of mental vision which did not take in the wdiole of Chrisrianity, but
gazed alone on the second advent. Such a one-sided religious interest
might easily be seduced to call all means good which would gratify its
indulgence. In later times Paul had far more to do with adversaries
who disputed his apostolic authority than with false friends who sought
to avail themselves of it for their own ends. His later false adherents
were more sober, and free from the enthusiastic tendency of the Thessa
lonians. Thus everything is explained by a perfectly consistent and
genuine historical impress, bearing marks of the peculiar circumstances
of this church. What purpose would it serve the author of a forged
epistle to warn them of other epistles also forged in Paul's name ? This
morbid tendency also operated injuriously in producing idleness, and a
neglect of a person's own affairs, united with a prying, intermeddling
curiosity respecting the concerns of others. Paul, therefore, thought it
necessary to write a second epistle to Thessalonica.f In this epistle, for
the purpose of guarding them against the expectation of an immediate
approach of that last decisive period, he directed their attention to the
eigns of the limes which would precede it. The revelation of the evil
that opposed itself to the kingdom of God, a self-idolatry excluding the
worship of the living God, would first reach its utmost limit. Delu
sive errors, by a hypocritical show of godliness, and by extraordinary
powers, apparently miraculous, would deceive those who had not fol
lowed the simple, unadulterated truth. The rejection of the True and
the Divine would be puni-hed by a subjection to falsehood. Those per
sons would be ensnared by the aits of deception, who, because they had
suppressed the sense of truth in their hearts, deserved to be deceived,

closing addition, and afterwards, wdien this view had been lost sight of, still on other ac
counts to have retained the practice. But he must have foreseen that he would have oc
casion to write several other letters to the churches. We are not at all justified in assert
ing that the greatest part of Paul's correspondence has been handed down to us.
* The Bishop Dionysius very much lamented the falsification of letters which he had
written to various churches. Euseb. iv. 23.
f He had at that timo travelled from Corinth to Achaia, and founded other churches.
Already he had sustained many conflicts with the enemies of the gospel; he had occasion
to request the intercessory prayers of the churches, that he might be delivered from the
machinations of evil-minded men ; for such were not wanting, who were unsusceptible of
receiving the gospel ; 2 Thess. iii. 2. This reminds us of the above-mentioned accusations
made by the Jews against Paul.

SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 201
and by their own criminality had prepared themselves for all the decep
tions of falsehood. Then would Christ appear, in order by his victori
ous divine power to destroy the kingdom of evil after it had attained its
widest extension, and to consummate the kingdom of God. As signs
similar to those which prognosticate the last decisive and most triumph
ant epoch, are repeated in all the great epochs of the kingdom of God,
as it advances victoriously in conflict with the kingdom of evil, Paul
might b'elieve that he recognised in many signs of his own time, the com
mencement of the final epoch. By the light of the divine Spirit, and ac
cording to the intimations of Christ* himself, he discerned the general
law of the development of the kingdom of Christ, which is applicable to
all the great epochs down to the very last,f but he was not aware that
similar phenomena must often recur until the arrival of the final crisis.^
Thus Paul labored during another half-year for the spread of Chris
tianity in these parts, and then concluded that second period of his minis
try among the heathen which began with the second missionary journey.
We are now arrived at a resting-place, from which we shall proceed to
a new period in his ministry, and in the history of the propagation of
the gospel among the Gentiles.
* See Life of Christ, pp. 311, 367.
\ But in the signs of this last epoch which are specially noticed in this epistle, we find
proofs of their proceeding from this period of the apostolic age, rather than from a later
time. At a later period, the specification of heresies as omens of the approach of Anti
christ would certainly not havo been wanting.
X When persons have attenpted to determine with exactness the signs of the times
given by Paul, they havo failed in many points. In the first place, they have sought, in
later ages, for the appearances which the apostle specifies, while he refers to appearances
in his own age, or to those which they seemed to f'orbode. In other important periods,
which preceded remarkable epochs for the development of the kingdom of Christ, signs
might be found indeed, similar to those which Paul has here described. Still we should
not be justified iu saying that these signs in this particular form were consciously present
to Paul's mind. And thus we should fall into error, if, in a one-sided way, we expected to
find what is anti-Christian only in manifestations of one special kind in the history of the
church, instead of recognising a Christian truth lying at the basis of such manifestations and
finding in other appearances also the same anti-Christian spirit by which the Christian
principle was here disturbed, and at last wholly ob=eured. When too, these signs have been
looked for iu the actual situation of the aposile, the defectiveness of our knowledge of his
situation, aud of the peculiar views of his times, has been forgotten. Ur instead of esti
mating the great views respecting the development of the kitgdom of God, which the
apostle here unfolds, according to their essential ideas, the kerne has been thrown away,
and the shell retained, and they have been compared with the Tewish fables respecting
Antichrist

202 Paul's journey to antioch.

CHAPTER VII.
THE APOSTLE PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH, AND HIS RENEWED MIS
SIONARY LABORS AMONG THE HEATHEN.
After Paul had labored during another half-year for the establish
ment of the Christian church in Corinth and Achaia, he resolved, before
attempting to form new churches among the heathen, to visit once more
that city which had been hitherto the metropolis of the Christian-Gen
tile world, Antioch, where possibly he had arranged a meeting with other
publishers of the gospel. This was no doubt the principal, but probably
not the only object of his journey. He felt it to be very important to
prevent the outbreak of a division between the Jewish and the Gentile
Christians, and to take away from the Jews and Jewish Christians
every even apparent ground for their accusation, that he was an enemy
of their nation and of the religion of their fathers. On this account, he
resolved to revisit at the same time the metropolis of Judaism, in order
publicly to express his gratitude to the God of his fathers in the temple
at Jerusalem,* according to a form much approved by the Jews, and
thus practically to refute these imputations. Tliere was at that time
among the Jews a religious custom, arising most probably from a modi
fication of the Nazarite vow, for those who had been visited with sick
ness or any other great calamity to vow, that if they were restored, they
would bring a thank-offering to Jehovah in the temple, would abstain
from wine for thirty days, and wrould shave their heads.f Paul had
* If it had been of so much importance to the author of the Acts for his apologetioal
or conciliatory purpose, as Baur maintains, to notice Paul's journeys to the feasts at Jeru
salem, why should be allude so slightly to the joorney of which we are here speaking,
(xviii. 18, 22,) so that it has given occasion to moot the question, whether lie actually
visited Jerusalem at that time? Here, certainly, nothing is less shown than such »• pur
pose. Baur assumes, (p. 194,) that the words which are favorable to his opinion (xviii.
21,) are decidedly genuine, though, to say the least, they are very suspicious. But these
words, even admitting them to be genuine, by no means prove such a purpose in the
Acts, and contain nothing irreconcilable with the Pauline point of view: for all turns upon
the question, how the necessity he speaks of is to be understood ? and of this nothing
more is said.
f Josc-phus, de Bello Jud. ii. 15, rove ydp rj vnou Karairovovpivove r) Tiaiv aAAaic
dvdyKaic iBoe evxeoBai -irpb V i/pepui; ye diroddiaetv piAAonv Bvaiae, o'tvov re dij>i!;eo8ai
Kal Ijvpr/aaoaai nlf Kopae. It appears to me quite necessary to change the aorist in the
last clause into the future ^vpnaeoBat ¦ and I would translate the passage thus  " they
were accustomed to vow that they would refrain from wine and shave their hair thirty
days before tho presentation of the offering." From comparing this with the Nazarite
vow, we might indeed conclude that the shaving of the hair look place at the end of thirty
days, as Meyer thinks in his commentary; but the words of Josephus do not a«ree with
this supposition, for we cannot be allowed to interpolate another period before the Zvprjoeo-
Bai, "and at the end of these thirty days." Also what follows in Josephus is opposed
to it, and Paul's shaving his hair several weeks before his arrival at Jerusalem will not
harmonize with such a supposition.

PAUL AT JERUSALEM. 203
probablj resolved, on the occasion of his deliverance from some danger
during his last residence at Corinth, or on his journey from that city,*
publicly to express his grateful acknowledgments in the temple at Jeru
salem. The form of his doing this was in itself a matter of indifference,
and in the spirit of Christian wisdom, he felt no scruple to become in
respect of form, to the Jews a Jew, or to the Gentiles a Gentile. When
he was on the point of sailing with Aquila to Lesser Asia from Cen-
chr-Eea, he began the fulfilment of his vow.f He left his companion with
his wife behind at Ephesus, whither he promised to return, and hastened
to Jerusalem, where he visited the church, and presented his offering in
the temple.}; He then travelled to Antioch, where he stayed a long
* From how many dangers he was rescued, and how much would be required to com
plete the narrative given in the Acts, we learn from 2 Cor. xi. 26, 21.
t Unnecessary difficulties have been raised respecting Acts xviii. 18. Paul, in the
18th verse, and in those immediately following, is the only subject; and the words relating
to Aquila and Priscilla are merely parenthetical. All that is here said must therefore be
referred to Paul and not to Aquila, who is mentioned only incidentally. Scbneckenbur-
ger, in his work on the Acts, p. 66, finds a reason for mentioning such an unimportant
circumstance respecting a subordinate person in this, that a short notice of a man, who for
half a year lived in the same house as Paul, would serve as au indirect justification of the
apostle against the accusations of his Judaizing opponents: but this is connected with the
whole hypothesis, of which, for reasons already given, I cannot approve. Besides, Aquila
could not have taken such a vow, because he did not travel to Jerusalem, where the offer
ing must be presented. It might, therefore, be supposed that he bad made a vow of
another kind, that he would not allow his hair to be cat till he had left Corinth in safety,
like the Jews who bound themselves by a vow to do or not to do something, as, for exam
ple, not to take food till they had accomplished what they wished ; compare Acts xxiii.
14, and the legends from the EbayyiXiov koB' 'Eflpaiovc, in Jerome de v. i. u. ii. But such
unmeaning folly no one can attribute to Aquila. And Luke would hardly have related
any thing so insignificant of Aquila, who was not the hero of his narrative. But Meyer
thinks he has found a special proof that this relates not to Paul but to Aquila, because,
in Acts xviii. 18, the name of Priscilla is mentioned, not as it is in v. 2 and 26, and con
trary to the usage of antiquity, with a design to make the reference to Aquila more pointed.
We might allow some weight to this consideration, if we did not find the same arrange
ment of the names in Bom. xvi. 3, and 2 Tim. iv. 19. We shall find a common ground of
explanation for what appears a striking deviation from the customs of antiquity in the fact,
that although Prisoilla was not a public instructress, which would have been contrary to
the laws of the church, yet she was distinguished even more than her husband for her
Christian knowledge, and her zeal for the promotion of the kingdom of God; that in this
respect Paul stood in a more intimate relation, a closer alliance of spirit to her, as Bleek
has suggested in his Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 422. And thus we
find in this undesigned departure from the prevailing usage, on a point so unimportant in
itself; an indication of the higher diguity conferred so directly by Christianity on the
female sex.
X The words in Acts xviii. 21, cannot prove that Paul travelled to Jerusalem, for the
original expression only makes it highly probable ; " I will return to you again, God wil
ling;" and all the rest is only a gloss. If, therefore, we do not find the journey to Jeru
salem indicated in the "gone up," dvaj3dc, and "went down," Karijln, of v. 22, we must
assume that Paul on this journey came only as far as Antioch, and not to Jerusalem, and
then the interpretation of Acts xviii. 18, given in the text, must be abandoned. It is also
remaikable that Luke, in referring to Paul's sojourn at Jerusalem, should mention only hia

204 Paul's journey to antioch.
time, and met with Barnabas, and other friends and former associates
in publishing the gospel. The apostle Peter also joined the company of
preachers of the gospel here assembled .-—Jewish and heathen Christians,
and apostles of the Jews and of the Gentiles, united in true Christian
fellowship with one another, in accordance with the spirit of the resolu
tions adopted by the council at Jerusalem.
But this beautiful unanimity was disturbed by certain Judaizing zealots,
who came from Jerusalem probably with an evil design, since what they
had heard of the free publication of the gospel among the heathen was
offensive to their contracted feelings. For a considerable time the phar
isaically-minded Jewish Christians appeared to have been silenced by the
apostolic decisions, but they could not be induced to give up their oppo
sition, so closely connected with their narrow, exclusively Jewish mode
of thinking, to a completely free and independent gospel. The constant
enlargement of Paul's sphere of labor among the heathen, of which they
became more fully aware by his journeys to Jerusalem and Antioch,
excited afresh their suspicion and jealousy. Though they professed to
be delegates sent by James from Jerusalem,* it by no means follows that
they were justified in so doing; for before this time such Jadaizers had
falsely assumed a similar character. These persons were disposed not to
acknowledge the uncircumcised Gentile Christians, who observed no part
of the Mosaic ceremonial law, as genuine Christian brethren, as brethren
in the faith, endowed with privileges equal to their own in the kingdom
of the Messiah. Since they looked upon them as still unclean, they refused
to eat with them. The same Peter who had at first asserted so emphat
ically the equal rights of the Gentile Christians, and afterwards at the
last apostolic convention had so strenuously defended them, now allowed
himself to be carried away by a regard to his countrymen, and for the
moment was faithless to his principles. We here recognise the old
nature of Peter, which, though conquered by the spirit of the gospel,
was still active, and on some occasions regained the ascendency — the
same Peter who, after he had borne the most impressive testimony to the
saluting the church, and say nothing of the presentation of his offering at the temple; and
that James, who afterwards, on Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, advised him to a similar line
of conduct, should not have appealed to the example now given of his accommodation to
the feelings of the Jews. But Luke is never to be regarded as the author of a history com
plete in all its parts, but simply as a writer who, without historical art, put together what he
heard and saw, or what becanie known to him by the reports of others. Hence he narrates
several less important circumstances, and passes over those which would be more impor
tant for maintaining the connexion of the history. Also, to a reader familiar with Jewish
customs, it might be sufficiently clear that Paul, according to what is mentioned in xviii.
18, must have brought an offering to Jerusalem. At all events, if we wish to refer v. 22
only to Csesarea, the dvat3dc must be superfluous, and tho Karij3n would not suit the geo
graphical relation of Ctesarea to Antioch.
* This is not necessarily contained in the words, "certain ones from James," rivle dird
'laKufiov, which may simply mean that these persons belonged to the church at Jerusalem,
over which James presided.

PAUL AT ANTIOCH. 205
Redeemer, at the sight of danger for an instant denied him. The exam
ple of an apostle whose character stood so high, influenced other Chris
tians of Jewish descent, so that even Barnabas ceased to hold inter
course with Gentile Christians. Paul, who condemned what was evil,
without respect to persons, called it an act of hypocrisy. He alone re
mained faithful to his principles, and in the presence of all administered
a severe reprimand to Peter, mid laid open the inconsistency of his con
duct. " Why, if thou thyself," he said, "although thou art a Jew, hast
no scruple to live as a Gentile with the Gentiles, why wilt thou force the
Gentiles to become Jews? We are born Jews — we, if the Jews are
right in their pretensions, were not sinners like the Gentiles, but clean
and holy as born citizens of the theocratic nation. But by our own
course of conduct, we express our contrary conviction. With all our
observance of the law, we have acknowledged ourselves to be sinners
who are in need of justification as well as others, well knowing that by
works, such as the law is able to produce,* no man can be justified
before God ; but justification can only be attained by faith in Christ, and
having been convinced of this, we have sought it by him alone. But
this conviction we contradict, if we seek again for justification by the
works of the law. We, therefore, present ourselves again as sinners f
needing justification ; and Christ, instead of justifying us from sin, has
deprived us of the only means of justification, and led us into sin, if it be
sin to consider ourselves freed from the law. Far be this from us."J
* We may here notice briefly what will be more fully developed when we eome to
treat of the Apostolic Doctrine, that Paul by ipyote vbpov understands works which a com
pulsory, threatening law may force a man to perform in the absence of a holy disposition.
The idea comprehends the mere outward fulfilling of the law, and has reference to the
moral as well as ritual law. Both these, which are so closely connected in Judaism,
maintain their real importance only as an expression of the truly pious disposition of
diKaioavvn. Reference to the moral or the ritual law predominates only according to the
varied antithesis of idea. In this passage a special reference is made to the ritual.
\ The words, Gal. ii. 18, "If what I have destroyed (the Mosaic law) I build up again
(like Peter, who had practically testified again to the universal obligation of the Mosaic
law) I must look upon myself as a transgressor of the law, as a sinner." (Paul here sup
poses Peter to express the conviction that he had done wrong in departing from the law ;
that he was guilty of transgressing a law that was still binding.) I cannot perfectly agree
with Ruckert's exposition, which makes these words to be used by Paul in reference to
himself. For this general proposition would not be correct, " Whoever builds up again
what he has pulled down pursues a wrong course." If he had done wrong in pulling
down, he would do right in building up what had been pulled down; and even the oppo
nents of Paul maintained the first, they could not, therefore, be affected by that proposi
tion, and the logical Paul would have taken good care not to express it.
X Paul's reprimand of Peter (Gal. ii.) appears to reach only as far as the eighteenth
verse, excl. What follows, by the transition from the plural to the singular, and by tho
" for " ydp, is shown to be a commentary by Paul on some expressions, which, uttered in
the warmth of feeling, might be somewhat obscure, and is evidently not a continuation of
his address. As to the date of this interview with Peter, we readily allow that we can
not attain to absolute certainty. Paul himself narrates the occurrence immediately after
speaking of thai journey to Jerusalem, which we found reasons for considering as his

206 PAUL AT ANTIOCH.
If we fix this controversy of Paul and Peter,* which as the following
history shows, produced no permanent separation between them, exactly
at this period, it will throw much light on the connexion of events. Till
now the pacification concluded at Jerusalem between the Jewish and
Gentile Christians had been maintained inviolate. Till now Paul had
bad to contend only with Jewish opponents, not with Judaizers, in the
churches of Gentile Christians ; but now the opposition between the
Jewish and Gentile Christians, which the apostolic resolutions had re
pressed, again made its appearance. As in this capital of Gentile Chris
tianity, which formed the central point of Christian missions, the con
troversy first arose, so exactly in the same spot it broke forth afresh,
notwithstanding the measures taken by the apostles to settle it; and
having once been renewed, it spread itself through all the churches
where there was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Here Paul had first
to combat that party, whose agents afterwards persecuted him in every
scene of his labors. It might at first appear strange that this division
should break out exactly at that time; at the very time when the man
ner in which Paul had just appeared at Jerusalem, having become to the
Jews a Jew, might have served to make a more favorable impression on
the minds of those Christians who were still attached to Judaism. But
although it might thus operate on the more moderate among them, yet
the event showed that, on the fanatical zealots, whose principles were too
antagonistic to admit of their being reconciled to him, it produced quite
third. And accordingly, we might suppose that this event followed the apostolic conven
tion at Jerusalem. And certainly many persons might have been induced, by the report
of what bad takeu place among the Gentile Christians (which to Jewish Christians must
have appeared so very extraordinary), to resort to the assembly of the Gentile Christians
at Antioch, partly to be witnesses of the novel transactions, and partly out of suspicion.
According to what we have before remarked, it is not impossible that these Judaizers,
Boon afler the resolutions for acknowledging the equal rights of Gentile Christians were
passed, became unfiithful to them, because they explained them differently from their
original intention. But there is greater probability that these events did not immediately
Euccecd the issuing of those resolutions. It is by no means evident that Paul, in this pas
sage of ihe Epistle to the Galatians, intended to observe chronological exactness. He
rather appe.irs to be speaking of au event which was quite fresh in his memory, and had
happened only a short time before. Besides the two suppositions here mentioned, a third
is possible, which has been advocated by Hug and Sneckenburger; namely, that this
event took place before the apostolic convention. But though Paul here follows no strict
chronological order, yet it is difficult to believe that he would not place the narrative of
an event, so closely connected with the controversies which gave occasion to his confer
ences with the apostles at Jerusalem, at the beginning, instead of letting it follow as sup
plementary. * Confessedly a mistaken reverence for the apostle led many persons in the ancient
(especially the eastern) church to a very unnatural view of this controversy. In order
that no fault might bo found with Peter's course, they adopted the notion that Peter and
Paul had an understanding with one another; that both — the one for the advantage of
the Jews, the other for the advantage of the Gentile Christians — committed au officiosum
mendacium. Augustin, in his Epistle to Jerome, and in his book De Mendacio has ad
mirably combated this prejudice, and the false interpretation founded upon it.

PAUL IN GALATIA AND PHRYGIA. 207
an opposite effect. The man who had spoken so freely of the law, who
had always so strenuously maintained the equal rank of the uncircum
cised Gentile Christians with the Jewish Christians, who had been con
demned by them as a despiser of the law, this man, they thought, had
no right to represent himself as one of the believing Jewish people.
They well knevv how to make use of what he had done at Jerusalem to
his disadvantage; and by representing his actions in a false light, they
accused him of inconsistency, and of artfully attempting to flatter the
Gentile Christians.
The influence of this party soon extended itself through the churches
in Galatia and Achaia. It is true that Paul, when, after leaving his
friends at Antioch, he visited once more the churches in Phrygia and
Galatia on his way to Ephesus, whither he had promised to come on his
return, observed no striking change among them.* But still, he re-

* He expresses to the Galarian churches his astonishment that they had deserted, so
soon after his departure, the evangelical doctrine for which they had before shown so
much zeal, Gal. i. 6. As several modern writers (particularly Riickert) have maintained
it as beyond dispute, that Paul, during his second residence among the Galatian churches,
had to oppose their tendency to Judaism, we must examine more closely the grounds of
this assertion. As to Gal. i. 9, I cannot acknowdedge as decisive the reason alleged by
Riickert, Usteri, and Schott, against these words being an impassioned asseveration of the
sentiment in the preceding verse, and therefore of their relating to what he had said when
last with them. Why might it not be a reference to what was written before, like Eph.
iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 2 ? For that what he refers to in both these passages is rather more
distant, makes no difference in the form of the expression. But if these words must refer
to something said by Paul at an earlier period, yet the consequence which Riickert be
lieves may be drawn from them, does not follow; for though Paul had no cause to be dis
satisfied with the church itself, yet after what he had experienced at Antioch, added to
the earlier leaning of a part of the church to Judaism, he might have considered it neces
sary to charge it upon them most impressively, that under whatever name, however re
vered, another doctrine might be announced to them, than that which he had preached, it
would deserve no credit, but must be anti-Christian. Although Gal v. 21 certainly
refers to something said by the apostle at an earlier period, yet nothing further can be
concluded from it; for in every church he must have held it very necessary to make it ap
parent that men would only grossly flatter themselves if they imagined that they could enter
the kingdom of heaven without a complete change of heart and conduct, 1 Thess. iv. 6.
Eph. v. 5, 6. The words in Gal. v. 2, 3 must be thus understood. ¦' As I said, that whoever
allows himself to be circumcised, renounces his fellowship with Christ, so I testify to such an
one again, that he is bound to fulfil the whole law." Evidently, the second and I hird verses
relate to one another ; the thoughts are correlative. If Paul intended to remind the Gala
tians of warnings he had given them by word of mouth, why did he not insert the ird?av
in verse 2, since what is there expressed forms the leading thought, and requires the
strongest emphasis to be laid upon it? Nor in the fact, that without any preparation, as
in his other epistles, he opens this with such vehement rebuke, can I with Riickert find a
proof that during his former residence among these churches he had detected the Judaiz
ing tendency among them, and was forced to involve them all in blame, in order to bring
them back to the right path. This very peculiarity in the tone with which the epistle
begins may be easily explained, if we suppose that having during his visit pere-eived no
departure from the doctrine announced to them, and having warned them beforehand of
the artifices of the Judaizers, the sudden information of the effect produced among them

208 PAUL IN GALATIA AND PHRYGIA.
marked, that these Judaizing teachers sought to gain an entrance into
the churches, that they affected great zeal for their spiritual welfare —
for the attainment of the Gentiles to the full enjoyment of the privileges
and benefits of the Messiah's kingdom ; and that they strove to imbue
them with the false notion, that unless they allowed themselves to be
circumcised, they could not stand on a level with the Jewish Christians.
Still he had cause to be satisfied with the manner in which they main
tained their Christian freedom against these persons, Gal. iv. 18. And
he sought only to confirm them still more in this Christian mode of
thinking and acting, while he endeavored to impress on their hearts
afresh the lesson that, independently of any legal observance, salvation
could be obtained only by faith in Christ, and earnestly put them on
their guard against everything which opposed or detracted from this
truth. This was interpreted by his Judaizing opponents, who were
wont to misrepresent all his actions and words, and in every way to
infuse distrust of him, as if he had grudged the Galatians those higher
privileges which they might have obtained by the reception of Judaism,
Gal. iv. 16.
Paul now chose as the scene of his labors for the spread of the gos
pel, the centre of intercourse and traffic for a large part of Asia, the city
of Ephesus, the most considerable place of commerce on this side of the
Taurus. But here also was a central point for mental intercourse; so
that no sooner was Christianity introduced, than it was exposed to new
conflicts with foreign tendencies of the religious spirit, which either
directly counteracted the new divine element, or threatened to adulterate
it. Here was the seat of heathen magic, which originally proceeded
from the mystic worship of Artemis,* and here also the Jewish magic,
connecting itself with the heathenish, sought to find entrance. The spirit
of the times, dissatisfied with all the existing religions, and eager after
something new, wras favorable to all such religious arts.
After Paul had preached the gospel for three months in the syna
gogue, he was induced, by the unfriendly disposition manifested by a
part of the Jews, to turn his attention to the Gentiles, and met his
by this class of persons would now more painfully surprise, more violently affect him ;
and the whole epistle bears the marks of such an impresssion on his mind. Whichever
among the conflicting interpretations of the words in ch. iv. 18 may be taken, this much
is evident, that Paul wished that they would act during his absence as they had done during
his presence. And this he surely could not have said, if already, during his former resi
dence, they had given him such cause for dissatisfaction. It is arbitrary to refer this only
to his first residence among them. Had he during that residence noticed such things
among them, he would also have felt that " doubt," diropia, in reference to them, he would
have perceived the necessity of "changing his voice," dXkd^at rrjv <j>uvr)v, and have al
ready made use of this new mode of treatment, v. 20.
* In the unintelligible, enigmatical words on her statue, higher mysteries were sought
and a special magical power ascribed to them, see Clem. Strom, v. 568, and according to
these, forms of incantation were constructed, which were supposed to possess great effi
cacy, the so-called 'Etyiota ypdppara. Plutarch. Symposiac. vii. v.

PAUL AT EPHESUS. 209
hearers daily in a school belonging to one of their number, a rhetorician,
named Tyrannus. It was most important that the divine power which
accompanied the promulgation of the gospel should manifest itself in
some striking manner, in opposition to the magic so prevalent here,— -
which by its apparently great effects deceived and captivated many, — in
order to rescue men from these arts of deception, and prepare their
hearts to receive the truth. And though a carnal " seeking after signs "
might have tempted men (like the Goes Simon) to cleave solely to the
sensible phenomena in which the power of the divine was manifested,
and to regard Christianity itself as a new and higher kind of magic, a
most powerful counteraction against such a temptation proceeded from
the essential nature of Christianity, when it really found an entrance into
the heart. One remarkable occurrence which took place at this time
also greatly contributed to set in the clearest light the opposition which
Christianity presented to all such arts of jugglery. A number of Jew
ish Goetas frequented these parts, who pretended that they could expel
evil spirits from possessed persons by means of incantations, fumigations,
the use of certain herbs, and other arts, which they had derived from
King Solomon ;* and these people could at times, whether by great dex
terity in deceiving the senses, or by availing themselves of certain pow
ers of nature unknown to others, or by the influence of an excited imag
ination, f produce apparently great effects, though none which really
promoted the welfare of mankind. j; When these Jewish Goetse beheld
the effects which Paul produced by calling on the name of Jesus, they
also attempted to make use of it as a magical formula for the exorcism
of evil spirits. The unhappy consequences of this attempt (Acts xix.
15,) made a powerful impression on man}'', who, as it appeared, had cer
tainly been moved by the miraculous operations of the apostle, so far as to
acknowledge Jesus as the author of divine powers in men, but imagined
that these powers could be employed in the services of their sinful prac
tices, and in connexion with their vain magical arts. But terrified by
the disaster to which we have referred, they now came to the apostle,
and professed repentance for their sinful course, and declared their reso
lution to forsake it. Books full of magical formulae, which amounted in
value to more than "fifty pieces of silver," were brought together and
publicly burnt. This triumph of the gospel over all kinds of delusion
and arts of deception was often repeated.
Ephesus was a noted rendezvous for men of various kinds of religious
belief, who flocked hither from various parts of the east, and thus were
brought under the influence of Christianity ; amongst others, Paul here
* See Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. Jud. f. 311, ed. Colon.
\ See an example in Josephus, how by such operations the Roman army and the Em
peror Vespasian were filled with amazement. — Antig. viii. 2.
t The cures they performed were sometimes followed by still greater evils, as Christ
himself intimates would be the case; Luke xi. 23. See also Life of Christ, pp. 151, 241.
14

210 DISCIPLES OF JOHN.
met with twelve disciples of John the Baptist ;* the individual who was
commissioned by God to prepare for the appearance of the Redeemer
among his nation and contemporaries ; but, as was usual with the pre
paratory manifestations of the kingdom of God, different effects were
produced according to the different susceptibility of his hearers. There
were those of his disciples who, following his directions, attained to a
living faith in the Redeemer, and some of whom became apostles ; otheis
only attained a very defective knowledge of the person and doctrine of
Christ; others again, not imbibing the spirit of their master, held fast
their former prejudices, and assumed a hostile attitude towards Chris
tianity ; probably the first germ of such an opposition appeared at this
time and from it was formed the sect of the disciples of John, which
continued to exist in a later age. Those disciples of John whom Paul
met at Ephesus, belonged to the second of these classes. Whether they
had become the disciples of John himself in Palestine and received bap
tism from him, or whether they had been won over to his doctrine by
means of his disciples in other parts, (which would serve to prove that
* The appearance of these disciples of John at Ephesus bears the impress of historical
truth, wdiether we regard the account itself, or compare it with what we know from other
sources to have been the position of John and his disciples in reference to the various
tendencies of the age. The obscurity that attaches lo the narrative of these disciples
cannot be taken as a mark of the unhistorical; it belongs rather to the peculiarities of
that uncertain transitional stage which was the result of a mixture of impressions respect
ing John the Baptist with the scattered accounts received of Christ. No man can form
an image with clear and distinct outlines, out of misty, indistinct phenomena The
deficiency is not lo be attributed to the historian, but is owing to the peculiar character of
historical development at such a period. Instead of our being able to delect an imagina
tive subjective element, an artistic attempt at historical composition, in this representation,
we find, on the contrary, nothing more than the raw material of facts, and miss entirely
the hi-toric art of genetic pragmatism. But criticism after the newest fashion professes to
have discovered a trickery here which will account for everything. The historical basis
is only this, that Apollos, who had been converted to Christianity from the school of the
Alexandrine Jews, in consequence of his Alexandrian education had already acquired
a more liberal conception of Christianity. He had occupied a solitary, isolated position
between the Paulinians and the Judaizers, until by means of Aquila and Priscilla he had
become better acquainted with the Paulinian doctrine, and had been induced to connect
himself with the Paulinian party. Such was the origin of the fiction which made Apollos
one of John's disciples, who was first instructed in Christianity by Aquila and Priscilla.
This would not have happened, if ihe author of the Acts had not needed the disciples of
John for his machinery. For surely Paul, as well as Peter, should aequiie distinction
from the magical effect of the imposition of bis hands on persons of different religious
convictions, who, on passing over to Christianity should thus be made partakers of pre
tended higher spiritual gilis. This had already taken place among the Jews, Samari
tans, and Gentiles; only the disciples of John were leli, and these Iherclore must also
serve as a foil, in order that the same fabrication which at an earlier period had pro
cured such honor for Peter in the family of Cornelius, might now among John's disciples,
in a corresponding manner g'oiify Paul, who was not to be regarded as inferior lo his
fellow-apostle. Whoever can satisfy Mmself with this unnatural tissue of plan-making so
wholly opposed to the impression which such a book must make upon every unperverled
mind — is welcome to do so I

PAUL AT EPHESUS. 211
John's disciples aimed at forming a separate community which neces
sarily would soon assume a jealous and hostile position toward Chris
tianity on its first rapid spread) at all events, they had accepted the little
they had heard of the person and doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah, to
whom John pointed his followers, and considered themselves justified in
professing to be Christians* like others. Paul believed that he should
find them such ; but, on further conversation with them, it appeared that
they understood nothing of the power of the glorified Saviour, and of
the communication of divine life through him, — that they knew nothing
of a Holy Spirit. Paul then imparted to them more accurate instruction
on the relation between the ministry of John and lhat of Christ, between
the baptism of John and the baptism which would initiate them into com
munion with Christ, and into a participation of the divine life that pro
ceeded from him. After that, he baptized them in the name of Christ,
with the usual consecration by the sign of the laying-on of hands and the
accompanying prayer; and their reception into Christian fellowship was
sealed by the usual manifestations of Christian inspiration f
Paul's residence at Ephesus was not only of considerable importance
for the spread of Christianity throughout Asia Minor, for which object
he incessantly labored either by undertaking journeys himself, or by
means of disciples whom he sent out as missionaries ; but it was also a
great advantage for the churches that were already formed in this region,
as from this central point of intercourse he could most easily receive in-
* The name paB-nral, Acts xix. 1, without any other designation, can certainly be
understood only of the disciples of Jesus ; and the manner in which Paul addressed them
implies that they were considered Christians.
\ Whoever is capable of transporting himself into the apostolic age, will assuredly
not fail to perceive the historical impress in this narrative, and will not al tempt with Baur
to regard the "prophesying" and "speaking with tongues " as merely mythical designa
tions for the impartation of the Holy Spirit through Christianity. The phenomena of the
higher life are wont to wear peculiar marks in different ages. Thus the phenomena of
whose qualities we have already spoken belong to the peculiar marks of the inspiration
proceeding from the new divine life when it took possession of men's souls. There are
not wanting analogies in history of general religious awakenings or "revivals," thoush
we need noi, therefore, overlook the difference in reference to the greater or less purity
in the development of the divine life. Nor is there any occasion whatever for attribuiing
a magical effect to baptism or the laying on of hands; but we must only regard these
as individual points in the connexion of the whole, and related to the entire preceding
spiritual operation on the minds of the disciples of John. Have we not then, here,
perfectly definite historical marks which exclude everj-thing mythical? Does not the
First Episile of Paul to the Corinthians refer to such phenomena which everywhere
accompanied the development of the Christian life ? Does not Paul appeal to operations
of the Pneuma among the Galatian churches (Gal. iii. 2, 5.) which distinguished the
new creation of faith from the old legal state, and does he not recount, moreover, the
"miracles," dvvdpeie, which were efficacious among the Galatians? We well know,
indeed, that the communication of the Spirit contains more than this in itself, but still
these marks are not excluded. Those phenomena, so far from belonging to the depart
ment of the mythical, rather necessarily belong to the historical image of this memorable
age.

212 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
telligence from all quarters, and, by means of letters or messengers, could
attend to their religious and moral condition, as the necessities of the
churches might require. His anxiety for these his spiritual children
always accompanied him ; he often reminded them that he remembered
them daily in his prayers with thanksgiving and intercession ; thus he
assured the Corinthians, in the overflowing of his love, that he bore
them continually in his heart ; and vividly depicted his daily care
for all the churches he had founded by his touching interrogations,
"Who is weak in faith and I am not weak? Who meets with a
stumbling-block and I am not disturbed even more than himself?" 2
Cor. xi. 29.
Cases of the latter kind must often have excited the grief of the apos
tle ; for as the Christian fiith gradually gained the ascendency and af
fected the general tone of thinking in society, new views of life in gen
eral, and a new mode of feeling, were formed in the Gentile world ; and
in opposition to the immoral licentiousness of heathenism, which men
were led to renounce by the new principles of the Christian life, an
anxiously legal and Jewish mode of thinking, which burdened the con
duct with numberless restraints, was likely to find entrance among them,
and must have disturbed the minds of many who had not attained
settled Christian convictions.
Probably it was soon after his arrival at Ephesus that Paul received
the information respecting the state of the Galatian churches which
awakened his fears. During his last residence among them, he had per
ceived the machinations of a Judaizing party, which were likely to injure
the purity of the Christian faith and the freedom of the Christian spirit.
He was aware of the danger which threatened from this quarter, and
had taken measures to counteract it ; he was not succesefnl, however,
in averting the approaching storm, as he now experienced to his great
sorrow. The adversaries whom he had here to contend with were unwilling
to acknowledge his apostolic authority, because he had not been in
structed and called to the apostleship immediately by Christ himself;
they maintained that all preaching of the gospel must rest on the author
ity of the apostles who were appointed by Christ himself; they en
deavored to detect a contrariety between the doctrine of Paul and the
doctrine of the apostles, who had allowed the observance of the law in
their churches, and in consequence accused him of a departure from the
pure doctrine of Christ. They could also appeal to the fact, that he re
presented himself when among ihe Jews as a Jew observing the
law, and therefore, when he taught otherwise among the Gentiles, he
could only do it in orcier to flatter them, to the injury of their true in
terest. Although the anti-Pauline tendency in the Galatian churches was con
nected with that party which had its principal seat in Palestine, yet per-

PAUL AT EPHESUS. 213
sons who proceeded from the midst of the Gentile Christians,* and had
submitted to circumcision, acted here principally as the organs of this
party, and exercised the greatest influence. To such the words of Paul
in Gal. vi. 13 must relate; that even those who were circumcised, or
wished to be so, did not themselves observe the law. These must have
been originally Gentiles, and, on this supposition, it is less difficult to un
derstand, how he could say of them that they themselves did not observe
the law ; for to persons who had grown up in heathenism, it could not
be so easy a matter to practise the complete round of Jewish observ
ances. But, as is most generally the case with proselytes, they were
peculiarly zealous for the party to which, notwithstanding their Gre
cian descent, they had devoted themselves, and their influence with
their countrymen was far more dangerous than that of the Jewish false
teachers. Such a -mixture of Judaism and Christianity threatened to destroy
the whole substance of Christianity, and to substitute a Jewish ceremo
nial service in the place of a genuine Christian conversion proceeding
from a living faith ; and the danger which thus threatened the divine
work made a deep impression on the apostles. In order to give the
Galatian Christians an evidence of his love, of which the Judaizers
wished to excite a mistrust, and to make it evident what importance he
attached to the subject, he undertook to write an epistle to them with
his own hand, contrary to his usual custom, and a difficult task for one

* This entirely depends upon whether we adopt the lectio recepta in Gal. vi. 13, irepirep-
vdpevoi, "who are haviDg themselves circumcised," or the reading of the codex Vaticanus
approved by Lachmann [and Tischendorf ], rrepirerpripivoi, " who have had themselves
circumcised." I cannot help considering the first (which has the greatest number of
original authorities in its favor) as the correct reading, partly also on this account, that we
cannot imagine any reason why any one should be induced to explain the latter, a word
requiring no explanation, by the former, a more difficult one, and on the contrary, it may
be easily accounted for, how a person might think of explaining the former by the latter.
If the lectio recepta be the correct one, the expression cannot refer to circumcised Jews,
but only to Gentiles who suffered themselves to be circumcised. That the most influen
tial seducers of the Galatian churches were such, appears to me to be intimated also by
the word "cut off," diroKoipovTai, v. 12. Hence may be better explained the impassioned
terms, proceeding from u. truly holy zeal, with which Paul speaks against these persons.
Ii circumcision be not enough for them, let them have excision also; if, falling away from
the religion of the spirit, they seek their salvation in these outward, worthless things and
would make themselves dependent upon them. The pathos with which he here speaks,
testifies his zeal for the salvation of souls, and for the elevated spiritual character of Chris
tianity, in opposition to all ceremonial services by which Christianity and human nature
would be degraded And there is no occasion for the apology made by Jerome, although
what he says is correct, tl at we must look on the apostle as a man still subject to human
passions ; " Nee mirum esse, si Apostolus, ut homo et adhuc vasculo clausus infirmo semel
fuerit hoc loquutus, in quod frequenter sanctos viros cadere perspiciraus." (Nor is it to be
wondered at, if the apostle spoke this as a man, as one still shut up in a weak vessel ; a
fctult into which we frequently see holy men fall)

214 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
who, amidst his manifold engagements, had little practice in writing
Greek.* He begins his Epistle with declaring that his apostolic call was given
to him, as to the other apostles, immediately by Christ himself; he as
sures the Galatian Christians in a most solemn manner that there could
be no other gospel than that which he had announced to them, and that
it was far from his thoughts to be influenced by the desire of pleasing men
in his mode of publishing the gospel ;f though when enthralled in Phari-
saism, he was actuated only by a regard to human authority, yet since
he hud devoted himself to the service of Christ, he had renounced all
such considerations, and taught and acted in obedience to the divine call,
as responsible to God alone J He proved to them by a lucid statement
of facts, that from the first he had published the gospel in consequence
of immediate divine illumination, and independently of all human author
ity; and that the other apostles had acknowledged his independent apos
tolic, character. Witli the firmest conviction that salvation and the ful
ness of the divine life were to be found only by fath in the Crucified, he
turns to the Galatian Christians with the exclamation, "Ye fools, who
hath so bewitched you ! to forget Jesus the Crucified, whom we have
* Although the proper meaning of the Greek irnMKoic, Gal. vi. 11, would lead us to
understand it as referring to the large unshapely letters of an unpractised writer, yet I could
never find in the words so understood, an expression corresponding to the earnestness of
the apostle, and the tone of the whole epistle. Why should he not have expressed, in a
more natural manner, how toilsome he had found the task of merely writing in this lan
guage? See Schott's Commentary. We are inclined to believe, that he uses the word in
the less proper sense for iroaou, as in the later Latin authors we often find quanti for quot.
And we may refer it most naturally to the whole epistle as written with his own hand.'
It will also agree with the use of the word ypdppara, when applied to an epistlo. But, on
the olher hand, the use of the dative in this case is unusual, .and not agreeable to the
Pauline form of expression, and iirtoroAr/ is the word commonly used by Paul for an epis
tle. The reason of his writing the whole epistle with his own hand, was certainly not to
guard against a falsification of it, or the forgery of another iu his name ; for his opponents,
in this instance, were under no temptation to do this, since they were not desirous of as
cribing to him any other doctrine than that he taught but were at issue with him respect
ing the truth of that doctrine, and actually impugned his apostolic authority. The con
nexion of ihe passage plainly shows us for what purpose he so expressly stated that he
had written the whole with his o%vn hand, namely, to testify that his love for them in
duced him to undergo any labor on their account, in contrast with the false teachers whom
he described in the following verses as seeking their own glory.
\ The Judaizers accused him of this in reference to the Gentiles.
X Schrader misunderstands Gal. i. 10, when he applies it only to Jews and Judaizing
Christians. If we apply the assertion here made in the most general terms, according to
the sense intended by Paul, we shall understand it of Gentiles and Gentile Christians.
Paul wished to defend himself against the accusation of the Jews, that he wilfully falsified
the doctrine of Christ, in order to make it acceptable to the heathen. The " now," upn
marks the opposition of his conduct as the "servant of Christ," to his former Pharisaism,
of which he afterwards speaks more at large. This view of the passage does away with
the inference which Schrader attempts to draw from it, that Paul wrote this epistle during
the time of his imprisonment at Borne.

PAUL AT EPHESUS. 215
set forth before your eyes as the only ground of our salvation, and to
Beek in outward things, in the works of the law, that salvation for which
ye must be indebted to him alone ! Are ye so void of understanding,
that after ye have begun your Christianity in the Spirit, in the divine life
wdiich proceeds from faith, ye can seek after something higher still (tho
perfecting of your Christianity,) in the low, the sensuous, and the
earthly, in that which can have no elevating influence on the inner life
of the spirit, in the observance of outward ceremonies !" He appeals to
the evidence of their own experience, that though from the first the gos
pel had been published to them independently of the law, yet by virtue
of faith m the Redeemer alone, the divine power of the gospel had re
vealed itself among them by manifold operations, among which he
reckoned the miracles to which he alludes in chap. iii. 5.
As his opponents supported themselves on the authority of the Old
Testament, Paul shows, on the other hand, that the final aim of its con
tents was to prepare for the appearance of the Redeemer, by whom the
wall of separation that had hitherto existed among men was to be taken
away, and all men by virtue of faith in him were to receive a divine life ;
that the promises given to Abraham were annexed to the condition of
faith, and would be fulfilled in all who were followers of Abraham in
faith as his genuine spiritual children ; that the manifestation of the law
formed only a preparatory intervening period between the giving of the
promise and its fulfillment by the appearance of the Redeemer. He
placed Judaism and Heathenism — though, in other respects, he viewed
these religions as essentially different — in one class in relation to Chris
tianity ; the state of pupillage in religion, compared with the state of
maturity which the children of God attained for the full enjoyment of
their rights ; the dependence of religion on outward, sensible things, an
outward cultus, consisting in various ceremonies, compared with a
religion of freedom (which proceeded from faith) of the spirit, and of
the inward life.*
As his opponents charged him with a want of uprightness, and with
releasing the Gentiles from the burdensome observance of the law, merely
from a wish to ingratiate himself with them, he could adopt no more
suitable method of vindicating himself, and of infusing confidence into
the Galatian Christians, than by proposing the example of his own life
for imitation. He lived among the Gentiles as a Gentile, without sub
mitting to the restrictions of the Mosaic law, which certainly he would
not ha\ e done if he had believed that it was impossible to attain the full
possession of the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom without the obser
vance of the law. Hence he made this demand on the Galatians (iv. 12,)f
* Compare with what has been before said, p. 151, ff.
f I agree with Usteri in the explanation of these words. That the Galatians had at
that time adopted the practice of Jewish ceremonies, and therefore that Paul could not in
Uiis respect have said, " I am become like you," — can form no valid objection to this inter-
(relation ; for the Galatian Christians, all of whom certainly had not devoted themselves

216 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
"Become as I am (in reference to the non-observance of the law), for I
am become as you are, like you as Gentiles in the non-observance of the
law, although a native Jew." Now, if his method of becoming to the
Jews a Jew, by observing the ceremonies of the law when amongst
them in Palestine, had been at all inconsistent with what he here said of
himself, he would not have appealed with such confidence to his own
example. But, according to his own principles, such a contradiction
could not exist; for, if he did not constantly observe the ceremonies of
the law, but only under certain relations and circumstances, this suffi
ciently showed that he no longer ascribed to them an objective impor
tance, that according to his conviction they could contribute nothing to
the justification and sanctification of men ; and as this was his principle
in reference to all outward, and in themselves indifferent things, he only
submitted to them for the benefit of others, according to the dictates of
wisdom and love.
Paul called upon the Galatians to stand firm in the liberty gained for
them by Christ, and not to bring themselves again under the yoke of
bondage. He assured them, that if they were circumcised, Christ would
profit them nothing; that every man who submitted to circumcision was
bound to observe the whole law; that since they sought to be justified
by the law, they had renounced their connexion with Christ, they were
fallen from the possession of grace. For he means not outward circum
cision considered in itself, but in its connexion with the religious princi
ple involved in it, as far as the Gentile who submitted to circumcision
did so in the conviction that by it, and therefore by the law (to whose
observance a man was bound by circumcision) justification was to be
obtained. And this conviction stood in direct opposition to that dispo
sition which depended on the Saviour alone for salvation.
The aposlle, in contrasting his true,upright love to the Galatian Chris
tians, with the pretended zeal of the Judaizers for their salvation, said
to them, "They have a zeal on your account, but not in the right way;
they wish to exclude you from the kingdom of God that you may be
zealous about them, that is, they wish to persuade you, that you cannot
as uncircumcised Gentiles enter the kingdom of God, in order that yon
may emulate them, that you may be circumcised as they are, as if thus "
only you can become members of the kingdom of God. Those who
are disposed to boast of their outward preeminence (of outward Juda
ism), compel you to be circumcised only that they may not be persecuted
with the cross of Christ, (that is, with the doctrine of Christ the Cruci
fied, as the only ground of salvation), that they may not be obliged to
owe their salvation to Him alone, and to renounce all their merits, all in
which they think themselves distinguished above others.* They wish
to the observance of the law, still belonged to the stock of the Gentiles, and with th ia
view, the term ipele is used. In such epigrammatic expressions, single terms are not in
general to be pressed too strongly.
* I here adopt an interpretation of the words in Gal. vi. 12, different from that which

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 217
you to be circun.c.sed only that they may glory in your flesh, that is, in
the change which the/ have outwardly effected in you, by bringing you
over altogether to thi Jewish Christian party." The apostle, lastly, ad
jured the Galatians that they would not give him any further trouble,
from ancient times has been received by most expositors, and which, without being closely
examined, has been mentioned by Usteri only with unqualified disapprobation. I will,
therefore, state a few things in its favor. The common explanation of the passage is,
" These persons compel you to be circumcised, only because they are not willing to be
persecuted for the cross of Christ; that is, in order to avoid the persecutions which the
publication of the doctrine of justification through faith alone, in Jesus the Crucified, will
bring upon them from the Jews." The use of the dative certainly suits this interpretation,
although I believe that Paul, if he had wished to give utterance to so simple a thought,
would have expressed himself more plainly. Gal. v. 11, might favor this interpretation,
where Paul says of himself, that if he still preached the necessity of circumcision, then the
offence which the Jews took at Christianity, on account of the doctrine that a man by
faith in the Crucified might become an heir of the kingdom of heaven, without the obser
vance of the law, would at once be taken away ; and no reason would be left for per
secuting him as a preacher of the gospel. But in order to avoid such persecutions on the
part of the Jews, these persons had need only to observe the law strictly themselves, and
to beware of publishing the doctrine, that a man could be justified without the works of
the law ; by no means would they have been obliged to press circumcision so urgently on
the Gentiles already converted, nor docs Paul ever ascribe to bis Judaizing opponents the
design of avoiding the persecution that threatened them by such conduct. And if, as has
been indicated, the most influential opponents of Paul in the Galatian churches were of
Gentile descent, this interpretation would still less hold good, for Gentiles would have
brought persecutions on themselves sooner by the observance of Jewish ceremonies, than
by the obseivance of the Christian religion, which was not conspicuous in outward rites.
And how would this interpretation suit the connexion? Paul says (Gal. vi. 12), "Those
who wish to have some preeminence in outward things (some outward distinction before
others) oblige you to be circumcised." After this, we expect something related to it, in
the clause beginning witfi " lest," iva pi], something that may serve as an exegesis, or fix
the meaning. But according to this interpretation, something quite foreign would follow
— that thereby they wrish to avoid persecution. If this thought followed, Paul would
have said at first — ¦" Those who long after ease for the flesh, or who are afraid to bear the
cross of Christ (or something of the kind), force circumcision upon you," etc. Verse 14
also shows, that all the emphasis is laid on glorying alone in the cross of Christ, which is
opposed lo setting a high value on any other glorying. The thought arising from that
interpretation appears quite foreign to the context, both before and afier. On the other
hand, the interpretation I have adopted suits it entirely. That "making a fair show in
the flesh," evirpoauirelv iv aapicl, that "glorying according to the flesh," Kavxyua Kard
aapKu, is taken away, if men can glory only in the cross of Christ. Hence they consider
the cross of Christ, that is, the doctrine of faith in the Crucified, the only sufficient means
of salvation, as something wearing a hostile aspect towards them, by which they are per
secuted, since it obliges them to renounce their fancied superiority. With the positive
clause in v. 12, " those who wish to have some preeminence according to the flesh," the
negative clause, therefore, agrees well, " that they may not be persecuted with or by the
cross of Christ," (the cross of Christ as something subjective to them, by which they are
persecuted). The mention of the cross first, according to the best accredited reading
adoptod by Lachmaun.also suits this view of the passage. According to the other view,
all the emphasis is to be placed on the not being persecuted. On the whole, the leading
idea of the whole passage appears to be, glorying in the cross of Christ, in opposition to
glorying in the flosh.

218 STATE OF THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
since he bore in his body the mark of the sufferings he had endured for
the cause of Christ.*
During his residence at Ephesus, the affairs of the Corinthian church
demanded his special attention. The history of this community furnishes
us an example of developments and agitations such as have been often
repeated in later periods of the church on a larger scale. A variety of
influences operated on this church, and it is impossible to refer every
thing to one common ground of explanation, such as the relation f be
tween the different parties; although one common cause, which will
explain miny of these influences, may be found in the particular situa
tion of the Christian church, which the new Christian spirit, opposed as
it was by former habits of life, and the general state of society, had but
partially penetrated. Many of the easily excited and mobile Greeks
had been carried away by the powerful impression of Paul's ministry
made at Corinth, and at first showed great zeal for Christianity ; but the
principles of Christianity had taken no deep root in their unsettled dispo
sitions. In a city like Corinth, where so great a corruption of morals
prevailed, and so many incentives to the indulgence of the passions were
presented on every side, such a superficial conversion was exposed to
the greatest danger. In addition to this, after Paul had laid the founda
tion of the church, other preachers followed him, who published the
gospel partly in another form, and partly on other principles, and who,
since their various natural peculiarities were not properly subordinated
to the essential principles of the gospel, gave occasion to many divisions
among the Greeks, a people J naturally inclined to parties and party dis
putes^ There were at first persons of the same spirit as those false
* If we only consider what is narrated in the Acts of his sufferings hitherto, though
it is evident from a comparison with 2 Cor. xi. that all is not mentioned, we shall be as
little disposed as by what the apostle says of the persecutions of the Jews, to apply these
words (with Schrader) to his imprisonment at Rome. What Paul says in chap. ii. 10
respecting the fulfilment of obligations to the poor at Jerusalem, might favor the later
composition of this epistle, but proves nothing; for the words by no means lead us to
think of that last large collection, of which he undertook to be the bearer to Jerusalem.
He might very often have sent separate contributions from the churches of Gentile Chris
tians to Jerusalem, although, owing to the imperfections of church history, we have no cer
tain information respecting them. On his last journey preceding bis last visit to the Gala
tians, he might have brought with him one of these smaller collections.
f By attempting to deduce too much from this single cause, Storr has indulged in
many forced interpretations and assumptions.
X Owing to Ibis national characteristic, the efficiency of the gospel among them was
much disturbed and weakened in after ages.
§ Ruckert thinks that the order in which the parties are mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 12,
corresponds to the period of their formation; that first the preaching of Apollos' occa
sioned a porlion of the church to attach themselves rather to Apollos than to Paul with
whom they no longer felt fully sati-fied, though they had not yet formed themselves
into a particular party; then the Judaizers, taking advantage of such a state of
feeling, joined the partisans of Apollos in opposition to Paul; thus two parties were
formed. But in course of time the original partisans of Apollos discovered that they could

PAUL AT EPHESUS. 219
teachers of the Galatian churches, who wished to introduce a Christianity
more mingled with Judaism — who could not endure the independence
and freedom with which the gospel published by Paul was developed
among the Gentiles, although they were not so violent as the Galatian
false teachers, and accordingly named themselves, not after James,
whom the most decided Judaizers made their chief authority, but after
Peter. Moreover, we must carefully notice the difference of circum
stances. The Galatian churches were more easily operated upon by
organs of the Judaizing party, who came forward from among them
selves. It was altogether different at Corinth, where the Judaizers had
to operate upon men of a decidedly Grecian character, who were not so
susceptible of the influence of Judaism. Hence they did not venture
to come forward at once, and disclose their intentions: it was necessary
first to prepare the soil before they scattered the seed ; to act warily and
gently; to accomplish their work gradually; to employ a variety of
artifices, in order to undermine the principles on which Paul preached
the gospel ; to infuse a mistrust of his apostolic character, and thus to
alienate the affections of his converts from him.* They began with cast
ing doubts on Paul's apostolic dignity, for the reasons which have been
before mentioned; they set in opposition to him, as the only genuine
apostles, those who were instructed and ordained by Christ himself
They understood besides how to instil into anxious minds a number of
scruples, to which a life spent in intercourse with heathens would easily
give rise, and which persons who had been previously proselytes to Ju
daism must have been predisposed to entertain.
Persons whose minds took this direction, placed Peter, as an apostle
chosen by the Lord himself, and especially distinguished by him, in op
position to Paul, wdio had assumed the office at a later period. When
the strongly marked individuality of any of the apostles appropriated
and impressed itself upon Christianity, the varied form thus given to it
was fitted to the different spheres of activity assigned the apostles by
God, and served not to injure the unity of the Christian spirit, but
rather in this very manifoldness to illustrate its excellence; but now
among those who attached themselves to this or the other apostles, one
sided tendencies became prominent, and that variety which could and

not agree with the Judaizers, who had at first, in order to find an entrance, concealed
their peculiarities, and thus at last there arose a third distinct party. But this passage
(i. 17) cannot avail for determining the chronological relation of these parties to one an
other. Paul here follows the logical relation, without adverting to the chronological order.
He places the partisans of Apollos next to those of Paul, because they only formed a par
ticular section of the Pauline party ; he then mentions those who were their most strenu
ous opponents; and lastly, those through whose existence the other parties would be pre
supposed. We have throughout no data by which to determine the chronological con
nexion of the first three parties.
* See the remarks of Baur, in his essay on the Christ-party in the Corinthian church
(in the Tubingtr Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1831, part iv., p. 83.)

220 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
should have consisted with unity, was converted by them into an exclu
sive contrariety. As a one-sided Petrine party was formed in the Co
rinthian church, so a one-sided Pauline party sprang up in opposition to
it, which recognised the Pauline as the only genuine form of Christianity,
ridiculed the nice distinctions of scrupulous consciences, and set them
selves in stern opposition to everything Jewish. In one of their tenden
cies we find the germ of the later Judaizing sects, and in the other, that
of the later Marcionite error.
But in the Pauline party itself a two-fold direction was manifested
on the following grounds. Among the disciples of John who came to
Ephesus, and considered themselves as Christians, though their know
ledge was very defective, was Apollos, a Jew of Alexandria, who had
received the Jewish-Grecian education, peculiar to the learned among
the Alexandrian Jews, and had great facility in the use of the Greek
language.* Aquila and his wife instructed him more accurately in Chris
tianity, and when he was about to sail to Achaia, commended him to the
Corinthian church as a man who, by his zeal and peculiar gifts, would
be able to do much for the furtherance of the divine cause, especially at
Corinth, where his Alexandrian education would procure him a more
ready access to a part of the Jews and Gentiles. His Alexandrian mode
of developing and representing Christian truths, approaching nearer to
the Grecian taste, was peculiarly adapted to the educated classes at
Corinth ; but fascinated by it, they attached too great importance to
this peculiar form, and despised, in contrast with it, the simple preaching
of Paul, who, when he taught among them, determined to know noth
ing save Jesus the crucified. We here see the germ of that Gnosis
which sprung up in the soil of Alexandria, and aimed at exalting itself
above the simple faith (Pistis) of the gospel.
But it has been lately maintained f that the difference between the
Pauline party and that of Apollos, related not to any difference in the
* The epithet, dvf/p Aoyioc, "eloquent man," given to him in Act3 xviii. 24, probably
denotes, not an eloquent, but a learned man, which would best suit an Alexandrian, since
a learned literary education, and not eloquence, was the precise distinction of the Alexan
drians; and his disputation with the Jews at Corinth suits this meaning of Aoyioc, takeu
from the Jewish point of view. In this sense the word is found both in Josephus and
Philo; in the first, Aoyioi is opposed to "unlearned," Ididiraic, De Bell Jud. vi. 5, § 3 ; and
by Philo, De Vita Mosis, i. § 5, A't-jvirriuv ol Aoytoi, (the learned of the Egyptians.) But
since another meaning of the word, as it was at that time, is also possible, and since it ap
pears, from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that Apollos was also a man eloquent in
the Greek language, we are left in some uncertainty how to understand the epithet. Ac
cording to the first interpretation, "mighty in the Scriptures," dvvarbc uv ev rale ypaijialc,
would only more precisely express what is contained in /.dyioc ; according to the second,
it would be a perfectly new and distinct characteristic. This exegetical question is of no
importance historically, for certainly both epithets are applicable to Apollos.
f By a distinguished young Ibeologian, the licentiate Daniel Schenkel, in his Inquisitio
Griiico-historuyj, de Ecclesia Corinthiaca, prim/zva, Basileoz, 1838, with which De Wette, in
his late Commentary on the Epistles to the Corinthians, has expressed his concurrence.

PARTIES AT CORINTH. 221
form of doctrine, but only to the relation in which Paul and Apollos
stood to the founding of the Corinthian church, as the apostle himself, in
1 Cor. iii. 6, V, indicates that it was made a question, whether he who
laid the foundation, or he who raised the superstructure, deserved the
preeminence. But if we follow this hint, it will conduct us much further.
We cannot stop short at these merely outward relations, but must seek
in the characteristic qualities of these two men, who stood in such differ
ent relations to the church, for the reason that some were more attached
to the one, and some to the other. We may presume that the manner
in which one laid the foundation, and the other raised the superstruc
ture, depended on the difference of their characteristic qualities. To
this difference Paul himself adverts, wdien, after speaking of the merely
outward relations between himself and Apollos, he represents in figura
tive language the various structures which may be reared on the founda
tion which has been once laid, and to wdiich every genuine teacher of
Christianity must confine himself; 1 Cor. iii. 12. The connexion evidently
shows, that Paul had primarily in view his relation to the party of Apol
los ; every other explanation is forced.* If we compare the qualities
possessed by the apostle and his fellow-laborer, as far as our information
extends, we may easily infer the difference in their mode of teaching,
and in their respective partisans. That Paul possessed great force and
command of language, we may conclude with certainty from his epistles,
as well as from his discourse at Athens. In that eloquence which is
adapted to seize powerfully on men's minds, he was inferior to no preacher
of the gospel, not even to Apollos himself. This was his peculiar, natural
gift, sanctified and elevated for the cause of the gospel, in which he may
well have been superior even to Apollos; and if the Epistle to the He-
brewrsf is to be attributed to the latter, and we compare it with those of
Paul, it would serve to confirm the opinion. In dialectic power also,
which was grounded in the peculiar character of his intellect, and devel
oped and improved by his youthful training in the schools of the Phari
sees, as well as in the skilful interpretation and use of the Old Testa
ment, he was certainly surpassed by none. But still between himself and
Apollos a difference not unimportant existed, which affected their pecu
liar style of teaching; the latter, as an Alexandrian, bad received an
education more adapted to the Grecian mind and taste, and possessed a
greater familiarity with the pure Grecian phraseology, in which Paul was
defective, as we may gather from his epistles, and as he expressly asserts ;
* We must carefully distinguish those who, by assailing the unchangeable foundation
of Christianity, destroyed the temple of God in the church, 1 Cor. iii. 16 and 17, from
those of whom Paul judged far more leniently, because they preserved inviolate the foun
dation that was laid, though they ad led to it what was more or less human. Of the lat
ter, he affirms that, since they held fast the foundation of salvation, they would finally be
partakers of salvation, though after a painful and repeated process of purification ; of the
others, that they would come to ruin, because they had destroyed the work of God.
\ See farther on.

222 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
2 Cor. xi. 6. Now, in making the gospel known at Corinth, he had
special reasons for rejecting all the aids that otherwise were at his com
mand for recommending evangelical truth, and for using only the " dem
onstration of the spirit and of power," which accompanied its simple
annunciation. The Alexandrian culture of Apollos must thus have formed
a striking contrast to the simplicity of Paul's preaching ; and, if we take
into account the circumstances and social relations of the Corinthians,
we cannot wonder that a preference for such a style of address led to
the formation of a distinct party in the Corinthian church. It was not
the peculiar style of Apollos in itself which Paul condemned ; it became
every teacher to work with the gifts entrusted to him, according to the
training which the Lord had given him; but he combated the one-sided
and arrogant over-valuation of this talent, the excessive estimation in
which this form of mental culture was held. It by no means follows,
that he attributed a false wisdom to Apollos himself;* but the one-sided
direction of his partisans, in which the " seeking after wisdom," oocplav
£j]teIv, predominated, would easily produce a false wisdom, by which
evangelical truth would be obscured or thrust into the background.
Paul perceived this threatening danger, and hence felt himself impelled
strenuously to combat the principle on which such a tendency was
founded. Besides the parties already mentioned, we find a fourth in the Corin
thian church, whose peculiarities it is more difficult to ascertain, since,
judging from its name, we cannot readily suppose that it belonged to a
sect blamed by the apostle, and in no other part of the first Epistle of Paul
to the Corinthians do we find any distinct references to it from wdiich we
might infer its specific character; it was composed of persons who said
that they were " of Christ/' 1 Cor. i. 12. If we consider this party
as involved iu the censure expressed by the apostle,! which the grammat-
* This charge against Apollos, in the opinion of Schenkel and De Wette, i3 well
founded, but by no means follows from the view taken by ourselves and others of the
peculiarities of the party of Apollos.
f The interpretation which has been proposed by Pott and Schott, and according to
which, all conjectures respecting the peculiar character of a Christ-party at Corinth would
be superfluous, is grammatically possible^ It assumes that Paul, in this passage, only
enumerated historically the various parties in the Corinthian church, and does not infer that
all who are specified came under the censure of the apostle. Those indeed who firmly
adhered to the doctrine taught by Paul, and esteemed him, as he wished, only as an organ
of Christ; tho<e who wished to keep aloof from all party contentions, and called them-
Belves only after Christ their common head, must be represented as a particular party in
relation to the other Corinthian parties, and hence Paul distinguished them by the name
which they assumed in opposition to all party feelings. If the words in this connexion
only contained an historical enumeration of the various parties, such an interpretation
might be valid. But this is not the case. Paul evidently mentions these parties in terms
of censure. The censure applies to all equally as parties who substituted something in the
place of that single relation to Christ which alone was of real worth. " Has then Christ
become divided ?" he proceeds to ask. " No — he will not allow himself to be divided.
Ye ought all to call yourselves after that one Christ who redeemed you by his death on

PARTIES AT CORINTH. 223
ical construction of the passage seems to require, we must believe that
these persons did not wish to be " of Christ," in the sense in which Paul
desired that all the Corinthians should be, but that they appropriated
Christ to themselves in an erroneous sense, and wished to make him, as
it were, the head of their party. And we must then suppose that the
apostle, though with an allusion in the first instance to their party desig
nation, yet including a reference to all the Corinthian parties, said, " Is
the one Christ become divided ? has each party their portion of Christ,
as their own Christ? No! there is only one Christ for all, who was
crucified for you, to whom ye were devoted and pledged by baptism."
We have now to inquire what can be determined respecting the char
acter and origin of this Christ-party. If we regard its being mentioned
next to the party of Peter, and compare this with the collocation of the
parties of Apollos and Paul, we might think it most probable that the
relation between the two former was similar to that which existed be
tween the two latter ; and that, therefore, a subdivision of the general
party of Jewish Christians was intended. And as part of these attached
themselves to Peter, and part to James, we might be led to imagine a
party belonging to James as well as a Petrine party ; the former more
tenacious and violent in their Judaism ; the latter more liberal and moder
ate. But this supposition is not at all favored by the designation, " they
of Christ," ol tov Xpiarov, for the interpretation,* that the adherents of
James should so name themselves, because the epithet " brother of
Christ," ddsXcpbg tov Xpiarov, was given to that apostle as a title of
honor, seems very unnatural. There can be no doubt that if such a
party had existed in Corinth, they would have called themselves " those
of James," ol tov 'laK(i)f3ov.
The view that the Christ-party was composed of Jewish Christians
must be stated and developed very differently in order to bring it nearer
to probability.! The name ol tov Xpiarov, it may be said, was one
which the partisans of Peter assumed in opposition to Paul and his dis
ciples, in order to mark themselves as those who adhered to the genuine
apostles of Christ, from whom they had received the pure doctrine of
Christ, and thus by their teachers were connected with Christ himself;

the cross, and to whom ye were devoted by baptism." These words are directed equally
against all parties, and perhaps exactly in this form, owing to the preceding designation
of those who arrogantly named themselves " those of Christ," of rod Xpiarov. But it
these persons had assumed this title in the sense which Paul approved, he would not have
classed them with those who incurred his censure ; these words could not have applied to
them but he must have expressed his approbation of their spirit which must have appeared
to him as the only right one.
* By Storr, or by Berthold, as having I iference to several ddeAi/iovc tov Kvpiov among
the first preachers of tlie gospel.
¦f- As it lias lately been developed with much spirit and acuteness, in the essay already
referred to by Baur, in the TuMnger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1831, which no person can
read without instruction, even if they do not agree with the views of the writer.

224 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
and, on the other hand, by applying this title exclusively to their own
party, they intended to brand the other Christians at Corinth as those
who did not deserve the name of Christians, who were not the disciples
of Christ, nor the scholars of a genuine apostle of Christ, but of a man
who had adulterated the pure Christian doctrine, and had promulgated
a doctrine of his own arbitary invention as the doctrine of Christ. This
view would appear perfectly to correspond with the phrase ol rov
Xptorov, and might be confirmed by many antithetical references in both
the epistles in which Paul vindicates his genuine apostolic character, and
asserts, that he could say with the same right as any one else, that he
was " of Christ ;" 2 Cor. x. 7. But wdiile such passages certainly are
directed against those who, on the grounds already mentioned, disputed
Paul's apostolic authority, they by no means prove the existence of such
a party-name among the Jews. Some persons might easily be led to find
in 2 Cor. x. 7, a confirmation of that view of the Christ-party. But
however they might be led by the similarity of the expression to refer
this passage to the Christ-party and to make use of it according to this
supposition, yet we must dispute the correctness of such an application ;
for evidently the reference here is not to a party like those who are
named in 1 Cor. i. 12, but only to the leaders of a certain clique who
maintained that they stood as preachers of the gospel in a special relation
to Christ, and wished to take the precedence of Paul ; those Judaizing
party-leaders who with their obtrusive urgency and intermeddling be
lieved they could boast of great activity in the cause of the gospel. But
because such men boasted personally of their special connexion with
Christ, it by no means follows that a party attaching itself to them could
have felt justified in transferring to itself collectively what they claimed
for themselves as individuals.
And then the difficulty still remains, that by the position of the phrase
ol rov ~Kpiorov, we are led to expect the designation of a party in some
way differing from the Petrine, though belonging to the same general
division ; but, according to this view, the Christ-party would differ from
the Petrine only in name, which would be quite contradictory to the re
lation of this party-name to those that preceded it.* Accordingly, this
view can only be tenable, if not a merely formal, but a material difference
can be found between the two last parties. And it might, perhaps, be
said that not all the members of the Petrine party, but only the most
rigid and violent in their Judaism, who would not acknowledge the
Pauline Gentile Christians as standing in communion with the Messiah,
* Baur says indeed, p. 11, "The apostle's object in accumulating so many names,
might be to depict the party spirit prevalent in the Corinthian church, which showed itself
in their delighting in tho multiplication of sectarian names, which denoted various tints
and shades, but not absolutely distinct parties." But if this were the case, the explana
tion by which a different shade of party is pointed out can be correct only of one of these
party-names.

PARTIES AT CORINTH. 225
had applied to their Judaizing party the exclusive epithet of ol tov
X\plCTT0V.* But it has always appeared to us to be contrary to historical analogy,
that those persons who adhered, in opposition to Paul, to another apostle,
and considered him alone as genuine, should not name themselves after
one whom they looked upon as the necessary link of their connexion with
Christ. In the epistle itself, we cannot find allusions that would estab
lish this, since the passages which may be supposed to contain such
allusions can be very well understood without them.
We cannot hope in this inquiry to attain to conclusions altogether
certain and sure, for the marks and historical data are not sufficient for
the purpose. But we shall best guard agamst arbitrary conjectures, and
arrive at the truth most confidently, if we first attend to what may
be gathered from the name itself and its position in relation to the other
party-names, and then compare this with the whole state of the Corin
thian church. In the results which may thus be obtained, we must then
endeavor to separate the doubtful and disputable from the certain or
probable. We shall by no means be justified in concluding that, by virtue of the
logical connexion of the two members of the sentence to one another, the
persons who named themselves after Christ must have borne the same
relation to the Petrine party as the adherents of Apollos to those of Paul.
This conclusion, if correct, would be favorable to the view which we last
considered. But the relation of the two members is not logical only,
but subject to certain historical conditions. Paul does not, as in other
cases, form the members of the antithesis merely from the thoughts ;
but the manner in which he selected his terms was determined by matters
of fact. As the Judaizers formed in reality only one party, Paul could
designate them only by one name, and since he was obliged to choose
his terms according to the facts, he could not make the two members
exactly correspond to one another.
From the name of this party viewed in relation to other party-names,
we shall arrive at the following conclusion with tolerable certainty.
There were those who, while they renounced the apostles, professed to
adhere to Christ alone, to acknowledge him only as their teacher, and to
receive what he announced as truth from himself without the interven
tion of any other person. This was such a manifestation of self-will, such
an arrogant departure from the historical process of development or
dained by God in the appropriation of divine revelation, as would in the
issue lead to an arbitrary treatment of the contents of Christian doctrine ;
for the apostles were the organs ordained and formed by God, by whom
the doctrine of Christ was to be propagated, and its meaning communi
cated to all men. But it might easily happen, while some were disposed
f This last form of this hypothesis has been fully developed by its author in the Tubin-
ger Zeitschrift, 1836, 4 Hoft. 15

226 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
to adhere to Pari alone, others to Apollcs, and a third party to Peter, at
last some persons appeared who would adhere to none of these parties,
and professed to follow Christ alone, yet with an arrogant self-will which
set aside all human instrumentality ordained by God. If we now view
this as the result which presents itself to us wdth tolerable certainty,
that there was at Corinth a party desirous of attaching themselves to
Christ alone, independently of the apostles, who constmcted in their own
icay a. Christianity different from that announced by the apostles, we
may imagine three different ways in which they proceeded. For this
object they might have made use of a collection of the sayings of Christ,
which had fallen into their hands, and set what they found there in oppo
sition to the apostolic doctrines ; or they might have pretended to derive
their Christianity from an inward source of knowledge, either a super
natural inward light or the light of natural reason — -a more mystical
or a more rational tendency. If we assented to the first supposition,
still we could not satisfy ourselves without imagining a certain subjective
element in the manner of explaining those discourses of Christ; for with
out the infusion of such an element, the tendency to this separation from
the apostolic instrumentality could not have originated, and thus the
principal question would still remain to be answered, whether we are to
consider the subjective element as mystical or rational.
According to a hypothesis* lately developed with great acuteness, but
resting on a number of arbitrary suppositions, the tendency we are speak
ing of must have been mystical. As Paul had considered the immediate
revelation of Christ to himself as equivalent to the outward election of
the other apostles ; so there were other persons who thought that they
could appeal to such an inward revelation or vision, and thus assail the
apostolic authority of Paul, while they sought to establish their own,
and threatened to substitute an inward ideal Christ for the historical
Christ. These represent atives of the one-sided mystical tendency, should
have been the principal opponents with whom Paul had to contend.
But in the Epistles to the Corinthians we can find no trace of such a
tendency combated by him ; and in all the passages to which the advo
cates of this hypothesis appeal, a reference to it seems to be arbitrarily
imposed. When Paul, at the beginning of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, so
impressively brings forward the doctrine of Christ the Crucified, and
says that \\v hud published this in all its simplicity without attempting to
support it by the Grecian philosophy, there is not the slightest intima
tion that a tendency (such as we have alluded to) which aimed at sub
stituting another Christ in the room of Christ the Crucified, existed in
the Corinthian church. In a place where, by the over-valuation of any
kind of philosophy, the simple gospel was liable to be set in the back-
* By Schenkel in tho Essay before mentioned, and advocated by De Wette in his Com
meutary on the two Epistles to the Corinthians.

PARTIES AT CORINTH. 227
ground, such language might very properly have been used, even though
no ideal or mystical Christ were substituted instead of the historical ;
and it is evident to wdiat false conclusions we should be led, it we
inferred from such a declaration the existence of a tendency that denied
Christ the Crucified. Paul opposed the preaching of Jesus the Crucified
to two tendencies, — the Jewish fondness for signs, and the arrogant
philosophy of the Greeks, but never to a mystical tendency which would
depreciate the historical facts of Christianity. Against a tendency of
this kind, he would certainly have argued in a very different manner.
The sensuous tendency of the Jewish spirit we should expect to meet
with iu the Jewish part of the Corinthian church, the pride of philoso
phy in those who attached themselves to Apollos, since from what has
been said we must suppose that there was a distinct party composed of
such persons. As Paul when he spoke against the Grecian pride of
philosophy, had this party of Apollos specially in his mind, by a natural
transition he spoke in the next place of his relation to Apollos.
The passage in 2 Cor. xi. 4 has been adduced to prove that Paul's
opponents had preached another Christ and another gospel. Paul
reproached the Corinthians with having given themselves up to such
erroneous teachers. But in that wdiole section he occupies himself, not
with combating a false doctrine, as he must have done if the representa
tives of a mysticism that undermined the foundations of the Christian
faith had been his opponents; but he had only to combat the preten
sions of persons who wished to make their own authority supreme in
the Corinthian church, and not to acknowdedge him as an apostle. These
people themselves, he says in this connexion, could not deny, that he had
performed everything wdiich could be required of an apostle as founder
of a Church, for he had preached to them the gospel of Jesus the Cruci
fied and the Risen, and had communicated to them the powers of the
Holy Spirit bjr his ministry. With justice these persons, he said, might
appear against him, and assume the management of the church, if they
could really show that there was another Jesus than the one announced
by Paul, another gospel than that which he proclaimed, or another Holy
Spirit than that wdiose powers had been efficient among them.*
* I account for the irregularity in the "might bear," dveixeade, 2 Cor. xi. 4, in this
way, — that Paul was penetrated with the conviction, that the case, which in form he had
assumed to be possible, was in fact impossible. This fourth verse is thus connected with
the preceding; I fear that you have departed from Christian simplicity ; for if it were not
so, you could not have allowed yourselves to be governed by persons who could impirt to
you nothing but what you have received from me; for I consider (v. 5) myself to stand
behind the chief apostles in no respect. By this analysis, the ohjections of De Wette,
p. 237, against this interpretation are at once obviated. Against the other mode of
explanation, I have to object that it does not suit the connexion with v. 5 ; that the
words would then be unnecessarily multiplied ; that Paul would then hardly have used
the words "ye receive another spirit," irvevpa irepov Aapi3dvere, which refer only to the
receiving the Holy Spirit. I also think that he would then have said, not 'Inaovv, but
Xpiorbv, for these mystics would rather have preached another Christ than this historical

228 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
The opponents of this view of the passage believe, like many others,
that those who call themselves ol tov Xpiarov are mentioned by Paul
himself in 2 Cor. x. 7. But here only such can be understood as boasted
of a special inward connexion with Christ. But I do not perceive why
the epithet should not be applied to every person who thought that in
anj' sense they particularly belonged to Christ, or could boast of any
special connexion with him. From the expression " after the outward
appearance," Kara irpooooirov* it is clear that these persons boasted of an
outward connexion with Christ, which certainly would not suit the re
presentatives of a mystical tendency. Indeed, throughout the whole sec
tion he distinguishes the opponents of whom he is speaking, as those
who wished to establish a purely outward preeminence (2 Cor. xi. 18),
founded on their Jewish descent, and their connexion with the apostles
chosen by Christ himself, and with the original church in Palestine.
Would Paul, if he had to do with such idealizing mystics, have conceded
to them, even for the time only, that they stood in connexion with
Christ, that they could call themselves his servants ? Would he not
from the first have made it a question whether it was the true Christ
after whom they called themselves ? And how can it be imagined that
Paul, if his opponents were of this class, would have used expressions
which are directed rather against the sensuous perversion of the religious
sentiment, and might easily be misinterpreted in favor of that false spir
itualism? Would he have said, "Yea, though we have known Christ
after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more; but only a
spiritual Christ who is exalted above all limited earthly relations, with
whom we can now enter into communion in a spiritual manner, since we
have a share in the new spiritual creation proceeding from him;" 2 Cor.
v. 16,17-! When Paul appealed to the revelations imparted to him, it was not
for the confutation of those who supported themselves only by such in
ward experiences ; but of those principally who would not acknowledge
him as a genuine apostle, equal to those who were chosen by Christ
during his earthly life, — the same persons, against whom he maintained
his independent apostolic commission, as delivered to him by Christ on
his personal appearance to him ; 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2.
person Jesus ; or as, at a later period, the Gnostics, who held similar notions, taught that
there was not a twofold Jesus, but a twofold Christ, or distinguished between a heavenly
Christ and a human Jesus. On the contrary, according to the interpretation which I have
followed, Paul would of course say, "another Jesus than the one I preach," referring to
an historical personage, and the events of his life.
* A comparison of the passage in 2 Cor. v. 12, (where the iv irpoauiru is opposed to
Kapdia), appears to me to prove that the words must be so understood; the antithesis of
the outward and inward is quite in Paul's style.
| These words contain a contrast to his former Jewish convictions, and his earlier con
ception of the character of tho Messiah; also to all that was antecedent to Christianity,
and independent of it; for from this point of view all things must in some measure be
come new.

PARTIES AT CORINTH. 229
Had he been called to oppose the tendency of a false mysticism and
spiritualism, he, who understood so well how to strike at the root of er
ror and delusion, would have certainly entered more fully into conflict
with such an erroneous direction of the religious sentiment, one so dan
gerous to genuine Christianity ; and he would have had the best oppor
tunity for this iu treating of the gifts of the Spirit.
We must then consider this view of the Christ-party as entirely un
supported by the epistle of Paul, and only deduced from it by a number
of arbitrary interpretations.* While those whose views we are oppos
ing, trace the origin of such a party to a certain tendency of Judaism,
we, on the contrary, are obliged to refer it to a Grecian element.
From the peculiar qualities of the Grecian mind, which was not dis
posed to submit itself to an objective authority, but readily moulded
everything in a manner conformable to its own subjectivity, such a ten
dency as that we have been speaking of, might easily proceed-! At that-
time, there were many educated and half-educated individuals, who were
dissatisfied with the popular polytheism. These persons listened to the
words of Christ, which impressed them by their sublimity and spirit
uality, and believed that in him they had met with a reformer of the re
ligious condition of mankind, such as they had been longing for. We
have already remarked, that a collection of the memorable actions and dis
courses of Christ, had most probably been in circulation from a very early
period. Might they not have procured such a document, and then con
structed by means of it, a peculiar form of Christian doctrine, modelled
according to their Grecian subjectivity? These persons probably be
longed to the ciass of the wisdom-seeking Greeks, at which, although the
Christian church made little progress among the higher classes, we need
not be surprised, since in this city a certain degree of culture was almost
universal ; and from the words which tell us, that in the Corinthian
church, not many of the philosophically trained, not many of the highest
class were to be found, we may infer, that some such persons must have
belono-ed to it; one individual is mentioned in Romans xvi. 23, who filled
an important civil office in Corinth. T.
But against this supposition, the same objections may be urged,
which we made against another view of the Christ-party, that Paul has
* I find no ground for a comparison with Montanism, Marcion, and the Clementines,
and I must consider as arbitrary the explanations that have been given of the first epistle
of Clemens Romanus (to which, to1: , I cannot ascribe so high an antiquity), in order to
elucidate the affairs of the Corinthian church in the times of the apostle Paul.
4- The reasons alleged by Baur, in his late Essay on this subject, why such a form of
error could not ex.st at this time, do not convince me.
1 Baur says (1. i-. p. 11), "Religion, not philosophy, led to Christianity." But it is
not altogether improbable, that a person at that time might have been led by a relig
ious interest, which could find no satisfaction in the popular religion, to philosophy, and
by the same interest be carried onward to Christianity, without adopting it in its unalloyed
simplicity. Why should not such phenomena, which certainly occurred in the second cen
tury, have ariseu from the same causes at this period 1

230 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
not specially directed his argumentation against the principles of such a
party, though they threatened even more than those of other parties to
injure apostolic Christianity. Still what he says on other occasions, re
specting the only source of the knowledge of truths that rest on divine
Revelation ; and against the presumption of unenlightened reason, set
ting herself up as an arbitress of divine things ; and on the nothingness
of a proud philosophy, (1 Cor. ii. 11,) forms the most powerful argumen
tation against the fundamental error of this party, even if he did not have
it specially in view ; and it is a never-failing characteristic of the apos
tle's mode of controversy, that he seizes hold of the main roots of error,
instead of busying himself too much (as was the practice of later eccle
siastical polemics) with its branches and offsets. Nor is it altogether
improbable, that the adherents of this party were not numerous, and ex
ercised only a slight influence in the church. They occupied too remote
a position to receive much benefit from the warnings and arguments of
Paul, and he had only to set the church on its guard against an injurious
intercourse with such persons. " Be not deceived," said he; "evil com
munications corrupt good manners." 1 Cor. xv. 33.
If this view be thought too venturesome, since in the two Epistles tc
the Corinthians no other distinct trace of a direct conflict with such a
party can be found, it only remains to be said, that there were certain
persons, ol rov Xpiarov, of whom Paul knevv nothing worse than that,
inste id of making common cause with all those whom they ought to have
acknowledged as members of the one body of Christ, they made even
their wishing to belong to Christ alone an affair of party, and so instead
of putting an end to all party feeling by a reference to Christ, created a
fourth party, which by its opposition to the other parties would be hur
ried unavoidably into much that was one-sided and erroneous. We
should find the first appearance of this kind in the fact, that the wishing
to join themselves to no party was made an affair of party. And thus
by the reference to such a party, Paul might have been led to say, Is
Christ divided ? that they could think of calling themselves alone after
Christ, and dare appropriate to themselves a name that belonged to
all. In this way a better explanation would be obtained, how it is that
no further distinct reference to such a party occurs in his epistles.
The opposition between the Pauline and Petrine parties, or the Jew
ish and Gentile Christians, was, in reference to the relations of life, the
strongest of all these party differences, and gave rise to many sep
arate controversies. The Jews and Jewish Christians when they
lived in intercourse with the heathen, suffered much disquietude, if un
awares they partook of any food which had been rendered unclean by
its connexion with idolatrous rites. Various rules were laid down by
the Jewish theologians to determine what was, and what was not defil
ing, and various methods were devised for guarding against such defile
ment, on which much may be found in the Talmud. Now, as persons
might easily run a risk of buying in the market portions of the flesh of

STATE OF THE CHURCn AT C0R1NTII. 231
animals which had been offered in sacrifice, or might have such set before
them in houses where they were guests, their daily life was harassed with
constant perplexities. But scruples on this point were probably found,
not merely in those who were avowedly among the Judaizing opponents
of Paul, but they also disturbed many Christians of weaker minds. As
faith in their false gods had previously exercised great influence over
them, so they could not altogether divest themselves of an impression,
that beings whom they had so lately reverenced as deities, were some
thing more than creatures of the imagination. But from their new point
of view, this reflection of their ancient belief assumed a peculiar form.
As the whole system of heathenism was in their eyes the kingdom of
darkness, their deities were now transformed into evil spirits, and they
feared lest, by partaking of the flesh consecrated to them,* they should
come into fellowship with evil spirits-! That these scruples affected not
merely Judaizers, but other Christians also, is evident from a case in re
ference to which Paul gives specific directions. He supposes the ex
ample, that such weak believers were guests at the table of a heathen.J
Now we may be certain, that none who belonged to the Judaizers could
have made up their minds to eat with a heathen. §
* Thus Peter, iu the Clementines, says to the heathens: Tlpotpdaei tuv "Keyophuv
lepoBvruv xoackuv daipdvuv kpirirrAaoBe. (Under pretext of tlie so-called sacrifices ye
are filled with cruel demons.) Horn. xi. § 15.
t The passage in 1 Cor. viii. 7, might, it is true, be understood of persons who, though
they had passed over to Christian monotheism, were still in some measure entangled ici
polytheism, and could not entirely free themselves from the belief that the gods whom they
had formerly served were divinities of a subordinate class; so that now such persons —
since by partaking of the flesh of the victims they supposed that they entered again into
connexion with these divine beings — would be led to imagine, that their former idolatry
was not wholly incompatible with Christianity, and thus might easily form an amalgama
tion of heathenism and Christianity. In later times, something of this kind we allow took
place, in the transition from polytheism to monotheism; but in this primitive age, Chris
tianity came at once into such direct conflict on these particulars with heathenism, that au
amalgamation of this kind cannot be thought natural. Whoever had not wholly re
nounced idolatry would certainly not have been received into the Christiau church, nor
would Paul have so mildly passed judgment on such a weakness of faith. From such
passages as Gal. v. 20, 1 Cor. vi. 9, we cannot conclude with certainty that, among such as
had professed Christianity, there were those who, after they had been led to Christianity
by a superficial impression, allowed themselves again to join in the worship of idols; for
Paul might here have designedly classed the vices he named with idolairy, to indicate
that whoever indulged ia them deserved to be ranked with idolaters. If we compare
these passages with 1 Cor. v. 11, it will appear that some such instances occurred of a re
lapse into idolatry, but that those who were thus guilty of participatiug in idolatry were
to be excluded from all Christian communion.
X The scrupulosity of the Jews in this respect appears in the Jewisli-Christian work of
the Clemeutines (though on other points sufficiently liberal), where the following words
are ascribed to the apostle Peter: Tpairi^ne iBvdiv ovk diiro'Kavopev, are dq obdi avveortdo
Bui avrotc dvvdpevoi did rb dKiiBdprue avrovc /Siovv. (We do not partake at the table of
tlie heathen, for we are not able to eat with them on account of their unclean manner of
living.) No exe-pption could be made in favor of parents, children, brothers, or sisters.
8 By the " any one," rif, 1 Cor. x. 28, we cannot nn account of the relation of the first

232 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
Those who in their own estimation were Pauline Christians, ridicu-
iing a scrupulosity that thus made daily life uneasy, fell into an opposite
error. They had indeed formed right conceptions of the Pauline
principles in theory, but erred in the application, because the spirit
of love and of wisdom was wanting. They said, "Idols are in them
selves nothing — mere creatures of the imagination — hence also the
eating of the flesh that has been devoted to them is a thing in itself in
different. The Christian is bound by no law in such outward or indif
ferent things; all things are free to him; " all things are lawful," ixdvTa
egeoriv, was their motto. They appealed to their knowledge, to the
power which they possessed as Christians; yvwaig, i^ovala, were their
watchwords. They had no consideration for the necessities of their
weaker brethren ; they easily seduced many among them to follow their
example from false shame, that they might not be ridiculed as narrow-
minded and scrupulous; such an one, who allowed himself to be induced
by outward considerations to act contrary to his convictions, would
afterwards be disturbed in his conscience. "Tims," said Paul, " through
thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died."*
Many went such lengths in this pride of kuowledge, and this abuse of
Christian freedom, that they scrupled not to take part in the festive en
tertainments, consisting of the flesh that was left after the sacrifices had
been presented, which the heathen were wont to give their friends; and thus
they were easily carried on to indulge in those immoral excesses, which
by the decrees of the apostolic convention at Jerusalem had been forbid
den in connexion with the prohibition of flesh sacrificed to idols. In fact,
we here find the germ of a one-sided over-valuation of theoretic illumina
tion, a misunderstanding of Christian freedom, a false adiaphorism in
morals, which a later pseudo-Pauline gnostic ! tendency carried so far as
to justify the grossest immoralities. But such wickedness certainly can
not be laid to the charge of the perverters of Christian freedom at Cor-
rlc, v. 21, understand as meant the same person, the heathen host, — and it would be a
very unlikely thing that such a person would remind his Christian guest, that he had set
before him meat that had been offered to idols ; but we must rather refer it to the weak
Christian, who considered it to be his duty to warn his unscrupulous brother against par
taking of such food, the same weak Christian whose conscience is spoken of iu v. 29.
a We might here make use of the words attributed to Christ, taken from an apocry
phal gospel, and quoted in Luke vi. 4, by the Codex Cantab. See Life of Christ, p. 92.
•(¦ As was the case with those whom Porphyry mentions in his book De Abstinentia
Carnis, i. § 43, who in their mode of expression agree very remarkably with the unscrupu
lous persons described by Paul : Ou ydp r/pde po'A'vvet rd (Spupara (said they), diairep ovdi
ri/v BuAurrav ru dvirapd rdiv (levpdruv, Kvpievopev (like the Corinthian i £ wotdfrpev) ydp
rdiv uirdvruv, Ka8dire(> i) BdXaaoa tuv vypuv irdvruv. 'Edv evAafiyBCipev fipdimv,
idovAuBnuev ru tov ifiopov <ppovijpaTt, del di miv6" i)piv viroTerdxBai. (For bread defiles
us no more than the dirt of the streams defiles the sea, for we have power over all things
even as the sea over all waters. Now if we were scrupulous as to meats, we should be
enslaved to the spirit of fear; but it is necessary that all things be subject to us.) They
appeal to their pvBde lijovoiae.

STATE OF THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 233
inth. Though the heathen corruption of morals had infected many
members of the Corinthian church, yet they were far from wishing to
justify this immorality on such grounds; and had this been the case,
Paul would have spoken with far greater severity against such a pallia
tion of sin.*
The opposition between the Petrine and Pauline parties had proba
bly an influence on the different views of the married and single life.
It was indeed the peculiar effect of Christianity, that it elevated all the
moral relations based in human nature, in their pure human form, to a
higher significance, so that — after the original Fountain of Divine life had
once assumed humanity, in order, by revealing himself in it, to sanctify
and glorify it — the striving after the godlike was no more to show itself
in an unearthly direction, overstepping the bounds of human nature, but
everywhere the Divine was itself to be made human ; the divine life was
to reveal itself in the forms of human development. Yet, as at first,
before the elevating and all-penetrating influence of Christianity had
* The departure to so great an extent from theoretical Christian truth in the church at
Corinth, bas been admitted by many, owing to a misunderstanding of the apostle's lan
guage. They have been led to entertain this opinion, from believing that there is a strict
objective connexion between what Paul says in 1 Cor. vi. 12, and in the beginning of v.
13, and what he says of the words rd di odpa, and from supposing that from v. 12, he had
the same thought in view. But a comparison of vi. 12 with x. 23 will show that Paul at
first meant only to speak of the partaking of the meat offered to idols, and to explain the
subject more fully. With this reference, he had said in v. 13, the food and the stomach,
whose wants it satisfies, are both transitory, designed only for this earthly existence. On
these things the essence of tho Christian calling, which relates to the eternal and the heav
enly, cannot -depend ; compare 1 Cor. viii. 8 ; Rom. xiv. 17 ; Matt. xv. 17 ; and thus he
was led to the contrast, " but this form alone of the body is transitory." According to its
nature, the body is designed to be an imperishable organ devoted to the Lord, which will
be awakened again in a nobler glorified form for a higher existence. It must, therefore,
be even now withdrawn from the service of lust, and be formed into a sanctified organ be
longing to the Lord. It might be that there was floating in the apostle's mind a possible
misunderstanding of his words, against which he wished to guard, or his controversy with
the deniers of the doctrine of the resurrection at Corinth. In either case be was prompted
to leave the topic with wdiich he began, and to speak against those excesses in tho Co
rinthian church of which he had not thought at first. And this again led him to answer
the questions proposed to him respecting the relation of the sexes. After that he returns
again, at the beginning of the eighth chapter, to the subject of " things offered to idols,"
but from another point; and afier several digressions to other subjects, which may easily
be explained from association of ideas, he began again, in ch. x. 23, the exposition of
his sentiments in the same form as in ch. vi. 12. What Billroth has said in his Commen
tary, p. 83, against this interpretation, that thus we lose the evident contrast and parallel
ism between the words, "Meats lor the belly, and the belly for meats;" and "the body
not for fornication, but for the Lord, and tho Lord for the body," (to dpupara ttj KoiXig,
Kal r) KoiAia rote fipuipaoi, and ro di aCtpa ov T?) iropveia, ua'Au tu nvpiu, Kal d Kvptoc rip
aupart) appears without foundation. It is only assumed that Paul expressed this con
trast from a more general view of the subject, and without limiting it to a perversion of
the doctrine of Christian liberty, actually existing in the church. What De Wette has
lately advanced in his commentary aga'-ist this interpretation has not altered my views,
though I have examined with pleasure the reasons advanced by this distinguished critic

234 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
manifested itself in all the relations of life, the earnest moral spirit of the
gospel came into conflict with a world under the dominion of sinful
lusts; so, for a short time, an ascetic tendency averse to the marriage
union (which though not in accordance with the spirit of Christian
ity, might be called forth in opposition to the corruption of the world)
would easily make its appearance, especially since there was an expecta
tion of the speedy passing away of all earthly things, antecedent to the
perfect development of the kingdom of God. The conviction that ere
the kingdom of God will attain its perfection, the earthly life of mankind
must in all its forms be penetrated by the life of the kingdom of God,
and that all these forms are to be made vehicles of its manifestation —
this conviction could be arrived at only by degrees from the historical
course of development. And as to what concerns marriage especially,
Christ, certainly, by presenting the idea of it as a moral union — requisite
for the complete development of the type of humanity as transformed
by the divine principle of life, and thus also for the realization of the
kingdom of God in it — a moral union of the sexes, designed for their
mutual completement, had at once disowned the ascetic contempt of
marriage, which views it only on its sensuous side, and rejects its true
idea as realized in the divine life. Yet till Christianity had penetrated
more into the life of humanity, and thereby had realized this idea of
marriage as a peculiar form of manifestation belonging to the kingdom
of God, zeal for that kingdom might have viewed marriage as a relation
tending to distract the mind, and to withdraw it from that one funda
mental direction. And besides, though the Christian view, in all its
purity and completeness, was in direct opposition to the ascetic over
valuation of celibacy, yet Christianity was equally repugnant to the an
cient Jewish notion, according to which celibacy was considered as a
disgrace and a curse. As Christianity made everything depend on the
disposition, as it presented the means of salvation and improvement for
all conditions of human kind, and a higher life which was destined to
find its way into all states of suffering humanity, and open a source of
happiness under suffering; so it also taught that a single life, where cir
cumstances rendered it necessary, might be sanctified and ennobled by
its relation to the kingdom of God, and become a peculiar means for the
furtherance of that object.* As Christianity taught men to recognise
the realization of the kingdom of God in humanity as its highest moral
attainment — the highest good to which everything else was to be referred,
* Compare Matt. xix. 11, 12 ; Life of Christ, p. 330. If we think of tho desolations
that took place at the fall of the Roman empire, and the national migrations— how impor
tant was it for such times that Christianity should allow a point of view from which a sin
gle life might be esteemed as a charism, even though this point of view was adopted with
ascetic one-sidedness. How important that that which was occasioned by the pressure of
circumstances could be made a means of blessing (by the education of the rude nalions
effected by the monkish orders.) See the brief but valuable remarks of a dear and hon
ored man, F. v. Meyer, in his review of Olshausou'a Commentary.

STATE OF TnE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 235
bo also it caused marriage and the family constitution to be regard
ed as something on the whole belonging to the moral office of humanity,
and to the representation of the kingdom of God; but it also acknow
ledged cases, in virtue of a disposition that subordinated all other things
to the kingdom of God, in which the individual moral functions of a lifo
devoted to spreading the kingdom of God might involve an exception to
the general office, as is denoted by evvovxtapbg did ti)v (iaatXeiav tcov
ovpavuv. (Matt. xix. 12.)
Thus Christianity had to maintain a conflict in the Corinthian church
with two opposing one-sided tendencies of the moral sentiment, — the
ascetic over-valuation of celibacy, and the tendency which would enforce
marriage as an unconditional, universal law, without admitting that
variety of the social relations, under which the kingdom of God is capa
ble of exhibiting itself.
The first tendency certainly did not proceed from the Judaizing sec
tion of the church, for those apostles to whose authority the Petrine
party specially appealed, were married ; and took their wives with them
on their missionary journeys ; 1 Cor. ix. 5 ; besides, such ascetism was
totally foreign to their national customs. From the Hebrew point of
view a fruitful marriage appeared as a peculiar blessing and honor ; while
unmarried life, or a childless marriage, was esteemed a disgrace. Though
by the feeling of sadness at the passing away of the glory of the ancient
Theocracy, and of dissatisfaction with the existing religion, and by the
infusion of foreign oriental elements, ascetic tendencies were produced
in the later Judaizers; still the spirit of the original Hebrew* system
made itself felt, and counteracted to a certain extent the ascetic tenden
cies, both in Judaism and Christianity.! But among the Pauline party,
an over-valuation of the single life more or less prevailed, and in this
respect thev thought themselves countenanced by the example of their
apostle. The Judaizers, on the other hand, adhered to the ancient
Hebrew principles, as uncompromising opponents of celibacy.J
* Hence also the ascetic tendency of the Essenes was corrected by a party who intro
duced marriage into this sect.
f This opposition still showed itself among the later descendants of the Judaizers of
thisafe. Thus in the Clementines, it is given as the characteristic of a true prophet: "that he
regards marriage as lawful, that he concedes temperate pleasures," ydpov voptrevei, iyKpti-
Tiiav avyxupe't, Horn. iii. § 16. It is enjoined on the overseers of the church, § 68: "that
they urge the marriige not only of young men, but also of the more advanced," viuv pi)
udvov KareiretylTuaav rove ydpovc, dlAa Kal rdiv rrpope^nKoTuv. Epiphanius says of that
class of Ebionites whom he describes, that they reject " celibacy," irapBcvin; "they
compel and even at an unsuitable age they marry the young men by the direction,
forsooth, of their teachers," itvayKaCovot dl Kal irap' i/Aikiuv iKyapi^ivai rove viove ii
iirirooirrie difiev tuv irap' avrole dtdaoKa'Auv. Similar things are found in the religious
books of the Zabians against monkery.
t When Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 40, recommends celibacy in certain eases, ho appears to
have iu view the Judaizers, who set themselves against an apostolic authority : for in the
words " and I think also that I have the spirit of God," doKu de Kuyii irvevpa Beov l^etv

236 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
Opposition to the ngidness of Judaism, and that false liberalism
which actuated many, disposed them to break through several whole
some moral restraints. It was maintained, and with justice, that Chris
tianity had broken down the wall of separation between the sexes, in
reference to the concerns of the higher life,* and had freed woman from
her state of servitude. But, seduced by the spirit of false freedom,
individuals had been led to overstep the limits prescribed by nature and
sound morals, and recognised and rendered sacred also by Christianity.
Women, contrary to the customs prevalent among the Greeks,! appeared
in the Christian assemblies unveiled, and, putting themselves on an
equality with the men, assumed the office of public teachers. J
The want of Christian love was also evinced by the disputes that
arose respecting property, which the parties were not willing to decide,
as had hitherto been customary in the Jewish and Christian churches,
by arbitrators chosen from among themselves ; these Gentile Christians,
boastful of their freedom, set aside the scruples which restrained Jewish
Christians, and appealed without hesitation to a heathen tribunal.
By this defect in the spirit of Christian love, those religious feasts
which were particularly fitted to represent the loving communion of
Christians, and to maintain its vigor, lost their true significance, those
Christian Agapse, wdiich accompanied and formed a part of the celebra
tion of the Last Supper.§ These love-feasts were designed to show the
power of Christian fellowship in overcoming all the differences of rank
and education ; rich and poor, masters and slaves were to partake with
one another of the same simple meal. But in the Corinthian church,
where these differences were so strongly marked, this could not be
attained. There existed among the Greeks an ancient custom of hold
ing entertainments, at which each one brought his food with him, and
consumed it alone. || The Agapse in the Corinthian church were con
ducted on the plan of this ancient custom, although the peculiar object
of the institution was so different ; consequently, the distinction of rich
and poor was rendered peculiarly prominent, and the rich sometimes
indulged in excesses which desecrated the character of these meetings.
he appears to contradict those who believed and asserted that they alone had the Spirit
of God. * Gal. iii. 28, "tliere is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus," ovk ivt dpaev Kal
6r/?iv iv Xptnru 'Ir/aov. On the contrary, Aristotle says, " woman is inferior to man,"
Xeipovi/ yvvij tov ilvipdc, Magn. Ethic, i. 34, ed. Bekker, p. 1194.
\ This appears to me the most simple and natural interpretation. What has been
said by some respecting the difference of the Roman and Greek customs of aperto or operto
capite sacra facere, seems hardly applicable here.
X Seep. 149.
§ See p. 165.
[ See Xenoph. Memorabil. iii. 14. The avurroaia ijiiAiku bore a greater resemblance to
the Agapse. At these feasts all that each brought was made a part of a common meal
which the chronicler Johannes Malala mentions as continuing to be practised even in his
time. See vii. Chrouograph. e collect. Niebuhr. p. 180.

STATE OF THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 237
The Grecian mode of thinking and culture predominant in the Co
rinthian church appeared in their zeal for mutual discourse in their pub
lic assemblies, and for the cultivation of those charisms which related to
oral religious instruction;* but it took a one-sided direction, which
showed its baneful influence at a later period in the Greek church, an
aspiring rather after extraordinary power in discourse, than after a life
of eminent practical godliness.! This unpractical tendency, and the
want of an all-animating and guiding love, were also shown in their
mode of valuing and applying the various kinds of charisms which rela
ted to public speaking ; in their one-sided over -valuation of gifts they
sought for the more striking and dazzling, such as speaking in new
tongues, in preference to those that were more adapted to general edifi
cation. J
To which of the parties in the Corinthian church the opponents of
the doctrine of the resurrection belonged cannot be determined with
certainty, since we have no precise account of their peculiar tenets. No
other source of information is left open to us than that which may be
inferred from the objections against the doctrine of the resurrection
which Paul seems to presuppose, and from the reasons alleged by him
in its favor, and adapted to the arguments by which they assailed it.
But no safe result can be derived from these. For as to the former,
Paul might have constructed these objections (as he had often done on
other occasions when developing an important subject) without our
being authorized to infer that they were exactly the objections which
had been urged by the impugners of the doctrine. And as to the latter,
in his mode of establishing the doctrine, he might have followed the
connexion with other Christian truths in which this article of faith pre
sented itself to his own mind, without being influenced by the peculiar
mode of the opposition made to it.
When Paul, for example, adduces the evidence tor the truth of the
resurrection of Christ, it cannot be inferred that his Corinthian oppo
nents denied the resurrection of Christ ; for without regard to their
mode of. opposition, he might have adopted this line of argument, be
cause to his own mind faith in the resurrection of Christ was the foun
dation of faith in the resurrection of the redeemed. He generally joins
together the doctrines of the resurrection and of immortality, and hence
some may infer that his opponents generally denied personal immortality.
But still it remains a question whether Paul possessed exact information
respecting the sentiments of these persons, or whether he was not gov
erned by the connexion in wdiich the truths of the Christian faith were
esentcd to his own mind, and by the fact of his habitually finding in

* See 1 Cor. i. 5.
f Paul reminds them, in 1 Cor. iv. 20, that a participation in the kingdom of God is
shown, not in high-sounding words, but in the power of the life.
X See p. 142.

238 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
the opponents of the doctrines of the resurrection those also of the doc
trine of immortality, since both stood or fell together in the Jewish po
lemical theology.
This controversy on the resurrection has been attributed to the ordi
nary opponents of that doctrine among the Jews, the Sadducees, and it
has lience been concluded that they belonged to the Judaizing party in
the Corinthian church. This supposition appears to be confirmed by the
circumstance that Paul particularly mentions, as witnesses for the truth
of Christ's resurrection, Peter and James, who were the most distin
guished authorities of the Judaizing party ; but this cannot be esteemed
a proof, for he must on any supposition have laid special weight on the
testimony of the apostles collectively, and of these in particular, on ac
count of the repeated appearance of Christ to them after his resurrection.
Had he thought of the Sadducees, he would have joined issue with them
on their peculiar mode of reasoning from the alleged silence of the Pen
tateuch ;* just as Christ opposed them on this ground. Besides, we
nowhere find an example of the mingling of Sadduceeism and Christian
ity, and as they present no points of connexion with one another, such
an amalgamation is in the highest degree improbable.
A similar reply must be made to those who imagine that the contro
versy on the doctrine of the resurrection, and the denial of that of im
mortality, may be explained from a mingling of the Epicurean notions
with Christianity. Yet the passages in 1 Cor. xv. 32 — 35, might cer
tainly seem to favor this view, if we consider the practical consequence
deduced by Paul from that denial of the resurrection as a position laid
down in the sense of the Epicureans, if we find in that passage a warn
ing against their God-forgetting levity, and against the infectious
example of the lax morals whioh were the offspring of their unbelief.
And the objection, moreover, would not apply with equal force to this
view as to the first-! From the delicacy and mobility of the Grecian
character, so susceptible of all kinds of impressions, we can more easily
imagine such a mixture of contradictory mental elements and such in
consistency, than from the stiffness of Jewish nationality, and the strict,
dogmatic, decided nature of Saduceeism. To this may be added, that
the spirit of the times, so very much disposed to Eclecticism and Syn
cretism, tended to bring nearer one another and to amalgamate modes
of thinking that, at a different period, would have stood in most direct
and violent opposition. Meanwhile it is difficult to find in Christianity,
whether viewed on the doctrinal or ethical side, anything which could
attract a person devoted to the Epicurean philosophy, and induce him to
include the Christian in his Syncretism, unless by that term we under
stand something having no reference to all the remaining peculiarities of
Christianity, and relating only to the idea of a monotheistic, universal
* An argument which will not be admitted by all. See Life of Christ, p. 36. n.
t As Baur correctly remarks in his Essay on the Christ-party, p. 81.

STATE OF THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 23a
religion, in opposition to the popular superstitions, and to certain moral
ideas detached from their connexion with the whole system ; but this
would be at least not very probable, and might more easily happen in an
age when Christianity had long been fermenting in the general mind,
rather than on its first appearance in the heathen world. All history,
too, testifies against this supposition ; for we always see the Epicurean
philosophy in hostility to Christianity, and never in the first ages do we
find any approximation of the two systems. As to the only passage
which may appear to favor this view, 1 Cor. xv. 32 — 35, it is not clear
that the opponents of the doctrine of the resurrection had really brought
forward the maxims here stated. It might be, that Paul here intended
only to characterise that course of life which it appeared to him must
proceed from the consistent carrying out of a philosophy that denied tlie
destination of man to eternal life ; for the idea of eternal life and of the
reality of a striving directed to eternal things were to him correlative
ideas. And when persons who had made a profession of Christianity
could fall into a denial of eternal life, it appeared to him as an inratuation
of mind proceeding from " sin," dpapria, and hurrying a man away to
sinful practice ; a forgetfulness of God, or the mark of a state of estrange
ment from God in which a man knows nothing of God. It is much
more probable, that philosophically educated Gentile Christians were
prejudiced against the doctrine of the resurrection on another ground,
as in later times ; the common rude conception of this doctrine which
Paul particularly combated probably gave rise to many such prejudices.
The questionings as to how such a body as the present can be united to
the soul in a higher condition, and how a body which has sunk into
corruption can be restored again, would perfectly suit the views of a
Gentile Christian, who had received a certain philosophical training, al
though it cannot be affirmed with certainty, as has been before stated,
that precisely these objections were brought forward in the present in
stance. And if we are justified in supposing that by the Christ-party is
meant one that, from certain expressions of Christ which they explained
according to their subjective proclivities, constructed a peculiar philo
sophical Christianity, it would be most probable that such persons formed
an idea of a resurrection only in a spiritual sense, and explained in this
manner the expressions of Christ himself relating to the resurrection ; as
we must in any case assume that those who wished to be Christians and
yet denied the future resurrection, were far removed from the true stand
ard of Christian doctrine in other respects, and had indulged in arbitrary
explanations of such of the discourses of Christ as they were acquainted
with. It may be asked, where, and in what manner did Paul receive the
first accounts of these disturbances in the Corinthian church? From
eeveral expressions of Paul in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians,* it
* Between which and the Firs Epistle, Paul could have taken no journey to Corinth

240 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
appears, that when he wrote his admonitory epistle, he had been there
again, but only for a very short time, and that he must have had many
painful experiences of the disorders among them, though they might not
all have appeared during his visit.*
and already in the First Epistle, as we shall presently see, there is a passage which must
be most naturally referred to a preceding second journey to that city.
* I must now declare myself, after repeated examinations, more decidedly than in the
first edition, in favor of the view maintained by Bleek in his valuable Essay in the Theo-
logischen Studien und Kritiken, 1830, part iii., which has since been approved by Riickert,
by Schott, in his discussion of some important chronological points in the history of the
apostle Paul, Jena, 1832, and by Credner, in his Introduction to the New Testament, and
by others. Though some of the passages adduced as evidence for this opinion admit of
another interpretation, yet, taken altogether, they establish the second visit of Paul to this
church as an undeniable fact. The passage in 2 Cor. xii. 14, compared with v. 13, we
must naturally understand to mean, that, as he had already stayed twice at Corinth with
out receiving the means of support from the church, he was resolved on his third visit to
be no more a burden to them than on the two former occasions. If verse 14 be under
stood to mean (a sense, of which the words will admit), that being a third time ready, he is
intending to come to them, we must in the first place supply what is not expressly said, that
he will now certainly execute this resolution, and then the words so understood do not
quite suit the connexion. According to the most approved reading of 2 Cor. ii. 1, the
"again," rrdAiv, must be referred to the whole clause "to come in heaviness," iv Avir-n
lABelv, and then it follows, that Paul had already once received a painful impression from
the Corinthians in a visit made to them, which cannot refer to his first residence among
them, and therefore obliges us to suppose a second already past. In the passage 2 Cor
xii. 21, winch cannot therefore here be brought in proof, it is doubtless possible, and, ac
cording to the position of the words, is most natural, to connect the "again," irdiiiv, with
"coming," iXBovra; but it is also allowable to suppose that the " again " belongs to
"will humble," raireivuar), but is placed first for emphasis. In this case, there is better
ground for the introduction of the "again," which moreover is not added to "when I
come," in v. 20, as well as for the position of the whole clause -rraktv iABbvra ; and the
connexion with what follows favors this interpretation. Paul in v. 2 1 , expresses his
anxiety lest God should humble him a second time among them when he came. Accord
ingly, we must thus understand xiii. 1, following the simplest, interpretation, though this
passage may be otherwise understood, (it is supposed, for instance, to mean, that as he had
already twice announced his intended coming to C(s inth, having now a third time repeated
hi3 threatening, he would certainly execute it) : "lam now about to come to you a third
time, and as wdiat is supported by two or three witnesses must be valid, so now what, I
have threatened a second and a third time will certainly be fulfilled. I have (when I was
with you a second time) before told those who had sinned, and all the rest, and I tell
them a second time beforehand, as if I were with you — though I now (this now is opposed
to formerly, since when present among them, he had expressed the same sentiments,) am
absent,— that if I come to you again, I will not act towards you with forbearance," (as
Paul, when he came to them a second time, still behaved with forbearance, though he had
already sufficient cause for dissatisfaction with them.) De Wette, indeed, objects to this
interpretation, that the mention of the first visit of Paul to Corinth would be in this case
quite superfluous. But if, during his second visit, he had not acted with severity towards
the Corinthians, but intended to do so on this third occasion, because they had not listened
to his admonitions, he had certainly good reason for mentioning his two first visits together,
to mark more distinctly in what respect the third would be distinguished from the other
two. And though, during his first residence among them, his experience was on the
whole pleasing, yet in this long period many thing* must have happened with which ho

STATE OF THE CHURCn AT CORINTH." 241
Owing to the breaks in the narrative of the Acts, it is difficult to decide
when this second visit to Corinth took place. If the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians had not been addressed at the same time to the churches in
Achaia, we might suppose that Paul, during his long residence at Corinth,
had taken missionary or visitation journeys throughout other parts of
Achaia, and that he then once more returned to Corinth, only for a short
time, in order to fetch Aquila for the journeys he had in prospect.
It appears that on this journey he was exposed to many dangers, and
that on his deliverance from them he made the vow mentioned above.
But since the second epistle was also directed to the churches in Achaia,
this supposition, in order to be maintained, must be so modified, that
Paul could have made in the meantime another longer journey, and re
turned back again to Achaia — which is not easy to admit. Or we must
suppose, that during his longer residence at Ephesus, of which we are
now speaking, he undertook another missionary journey, and called in
passing at Corinth ; or that, by the anxiety which the news brought
from Corinth excited in his mind, he was induced to go thither from
Ephesus, but on account of circumstances which called him back to
Ephesus, he could stay only a short time with the Corinthian church, and
therefore gave them notice of a longer residence among them. But it
does not well agree with this last supposition, that Paul distinguishes
this visit as one that took place " by the way." And especially if it took
place not long before the First Epistle, we might the more expect allusions
to it in that. The communications between Paul and the Corinthian
church seems also to presuppose, that he had not been with them for a
considerable time. There remains a third supposition, that the visita
tion which he made after his departure from Antioch to the churches
earlier founded by him (Acts xviii. 23) before he entered on a fresh field
of labor, was of greater extent than is directly stated in that passage, and
that it extended as far as Achaia. Perhaps he then travelled first from
Phrygia towards the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and then sailed to
Hellas. Possibly he then found at Corinth Apollos who had proceeded
thither, when Paul coming from Antioch, passed through the upper parts
of Asia (Acts xix. 1),* and perhaps joined him on his return, and went
with him to Ephesus.
We must therefore at all events suppose that Paul had obtained his
could not be satisfied, but which he treated gently, trusting to the future progress of their
Christian life. We may find in the First Epistle, a trace of this his second residence at
Corinth. When in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, Paul says, that he intended not now to see them by the
way, dprt and its position allow us to assume a reference to an earlier visit, which he
made only " by the way," iv irapbdu, and as this was so very transient, we may account
for his making no further allusions to it in the first epistle.
* We must in this case interpolate Paul's journey to Corinth, Acts xix. 1, and
suppose that since the author of the Acts knew nothing of the wider extent of Paul's
visitation at that time, he represented that he immediately betook himself from Upper
Asia to Ephesus.

242 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
first knowledge of the alteration for the worse in the Corinthian church
by his own observation. He could not indeed have witnessed the strife
of the various parties; for, as appears from 1 Cor. i. 11, 12, he heard of
this first, at Ephesus from the report of others. But already he must
have had the painful experience that in a church which once was inspired
with so much Christian zeal, their old vices and enormities again ap
peared under a Christian guise. He admonished them for their improve
ment, and threatened to use severer measures if, when he returned from
Ephesus, he should find that no improvement had taken place. At
Ephesus he could obtain information respecting the effect of his last ad
monitions on the church.
But he received worse news than he expected of the corruption of
morals in the Corinthian church, and especially of the vicious conduct of
an individual who had maintained unlawful intercourse with his step
mother. Hence, in an epistle* he addressed to the Corinthian church,
he reproached them with allowing such a man still to remain among
them, and required them to renounce all connexion with so abandoned a
character.! It was certainly sufficiently evident what Paul here intended — that
the Corinthians should not only exclude from the meetings of the church
those who called themselves Christians, while they denied Christianity
by their vicious lives, but should also abstain from all kind of intercourse
with them, in order to testify emphatically that such a merely outward
profession was of no value; to bring these persons to a sense of their
guilt ; and to declare practically to the heathen world that whoever did
not exemplify the Christian doctrine in the conduct of his life, must not
* The epistle in -which Paul wrote this could not at any rate be that still retained by
the Armenian church, which treats of subjects entirely different, and must be an answer
to an earlier epistle of the Corinthians. This pretended epistle to the Corinthians by Paul,
and their answer, hear on ibem, as is now universally acknowledged, the most undeniable
marks of spuriousness. The account of the opponents of the doctrine of the insurrection
at Corinth, who were thought similar to later deniers of it among the Gentiles, connected
with the tales of Simon Magus, and the account of the Jewish founders of s-.cts, by Hege-
sippus, gave an idle monk the inducement to put together these fragments of Pauline
phrases. If they were quoted in a genuine homily of Grcjgory Quriori/c, they were per
haps in existence in the third century, but this address of Gregory to the newly baptized
may i'self he spurious.
f It may be ask- d whether Paul in the lost epistle treated merely of the case which
was immedialely under consideration in the Corinthian church — only of abstaining from
intercourse with irdpvon — or whether he also spoke definitely of such as had fallen into
other notorious vices — the covetous, who had no regard for the property of others; the
slanderous; those uddicied to drinking; those who took any part whatever in Ihe worship
of idols. Tho manner in which he expresses himself in 1 Cor. v. 9-11 might signify,
though not decisively, that since he was obliged to guard his words again.- 1 misapprehen
sion, he took advantage of this opportunity lo give a wider application to the principles
they expiessed, which Le certainly had from the beginning in his mind, yet had not occa
sion to mention in his first epistle, wdiich bore on one particular poini. At all events, it >s
important to know how far Paul extended the strictness of church discipliue.

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 24S
flatter 1. mself that he was a Christian. But since Paul had not thought
it necessary lo add that he spoke only of the vicious in the church, and
not of persons in general who lived in such vices, the Corinthians did
not think of the limitation which the thing itself might easily have sug
gested, and thus they were thrown into perplexity how to comply wiih
such an injunction ; for how could they, while living in the midst, of an
evil world, renounce all intercourse with the vicious ? They addressed
a letter to the apostle, in which they stated their perplexity, and pro
posed several other questions on doubtful cases in the concerns of the
church. By means of this letter, and the messengers wdio brought it, he ob
tained a more complete knowledge of the concerns and state of the
church. In the communication which contained his reply to the ques
tions proposed, he poured forth his whole heart, full of paternal love to
the church, and entered minutely into all the necessities of their situa
tion. This Epistle, a master-piece of apostolic wisdom in church govern
ment, contains much of importance respecting the new form given by
Christianity to all the relations of life. It was probably conveyed by the
messengers on their return to Corinth.
Paul condemned in an equal degree all party feeling in the Corin
thian church. His salutation, in verse 2, was opposed to it, and suited
to remind all that they equally belonged to one church, which was com
posed of all the faithful and redeemed. He taught them that Christ was
their sole Head, to whom they must all adhere; that human laborers
were to be considered only as instruments, by whom God worked ac
cording to their peculiar adaptabilities, in order to promote in the hearts
of their fellow-men that result which all things were appointed to serve.
They ought to be far from venturing to boast that they had this or that
man for their teacher; for such boasting, by which they owned them
selves dependent on man, was rather a denial of -their being Christians ;
for if they only, as became Christians, referred everything to Christ, to
whom they were indebted for communion with God, they might view
all things as designed to serve them, and as belonging to them ; those
sublime expressions in 1 Cor. iii. 21 show how the truest spiritual free
dom and the highest elevation of soul are the offspring of Christian hu
mility. This general truth in reference to the manner in which all
Christian teachers (each according to his peculiar qualifications) were to
be estimated and made use of, he applies particularly to his relation to
Apollos; of whom he could speak most reservedly and unsuspectingly,
since he was a man with whom he stood in the closest connexion, and
who had adopted his own peculiar form of doctrine. To those persons
who could not find in his simple preaching the wisdom which they
soinriit after, and preferred Apollos as a teacher more according to their
Grecian taste,* he said that it was wrong on their part to regret the
» We have already spoken of the reference of this whole section, 1 Cor. i. 1-18. W«

244 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
absence of such wisdom in his preaching, for the fountain of all genuine
wisdom, the wisdom of God, was not to be found in any scheme of phil
osophy, but only in the doctrine of the crucified Jesus, the Saviour of
the world, which he had made the central point of his preaching; but
this divine wisdom could only be found and understood by a disposition
that was susceptible of what was divine. He had never yet been able
to lead them by his discourses to perceive in the simple doctrine of the
gospel (which in the eyes of the world was foolishness) the depths of
divine wisdom, because an ungodly disposition predominated in their
minds, of which these party strifes were an evident sign. He gave the
Corinthians a rule by which they might pass a judgment on all teachers
of Christianity. Jesus the Messiah was the immovable foundation ; in
him lay everything which pertains to such a foundation. He was the
Redeemer, and the Lord to whom all must yield themselves to have
their whole lives moulded by him. And here we must bear in mind
how Jesus Christ was always presented to the religious consciousness of
the apostle as the One crucified, risen, ascended to heaven, and invested
with divine sovereignty. Nor does Paul think of the doctrine of Christ
apart from his person, but regards it as that by which we come into liv
ing communion with him, by which Christ himself enters into our hearts.
This was the immovable foundation on wdiich all Christians, collectively,
or singly, must rest. The building on this or on another foundation
constituted the difference, in Paul's judgment, between the true and the
false teachers of Christianity. Whoever proceeded from this foundation
would himself attain to salvation, and would lead others to it.
But in the structure of doctrine which was raised on this foundation,
the divine might more or less be mixed with the human, and so far be
deteriorated. The complete purifying process, the separation of the di
vine and the human, would be left to the last judgment. Many a one
¦who had attached too great value to the human, would see the work de
stroyed which he had constructed, though the foundation on which it
rested would remain for himself and others : such a one would be saved
after many severe trials, which he must undergo for purification from
the alloy of self ; 1 Cor. iii. 11-15.* But from the teachers who adhered

need not enter more at large into the dispute respecting the meaning proposed by Eichoni
and others, that Paul here directed his argumentation against Grecian Sophists, who had
made an entrance into the church, and threatened to seduce many into unbelief.
* Since the whole passage which speaks of fire, of the building constructed of various
materials, some fire-proof and others destructible by fire, and of being saved as from the
midst of the fire, is composed of images, and is figurative throughout, — it is very illogical,
as Origen has justly remarked, arbitrarily to detach from the rest, and take in a literal
sense a single trait in the picture, as that of fire. Nor let anyone say that the idea of such
a judgment in the historical development is un-Pauline. The idea of such a judgment
connected with the publication of the gospel, and accompanying its operations, pervades
the whole New Testament, — by which indeed, a final judgment of the world, to which
this is only preparative, is not excluded.

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 243
to the unchangeable foundation of God's kingdom, and built upon it,
either with better or worse materials, Paul distinguishes those of whom
he says, that they destroy the Temple of God itself in believers, and are
guilty of peculiar sacrilege ; against such he denounced the most awful
punishment, " If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God de
stroy ;" 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17.
It is worthy of notice, that where Paul treats of eating meat offered
to idols, he does not, in order to impress the Gentile Christians with
their obligations to abstain from all such food, appeal to the decision of
the apostolic convention at Jerusalem, any more than he opposed the
authority of that decision to the Jewish Christians, who wished to com
pel the Gentiles to be circumcised. This is no argument against the exist
ence of such a decision, since Paul's failure to refer to it may be explained
from his peculiar method; he attached little value to such decisions, he
was no friend to literal and positive command, and so did not found his
arguments upon them, but rather on the inward law in the hearts of be
lievers, on what the spirit of the gospel requires. As in the instance of
those who wished to impose the law of circumcision on Gentile Chris
tians, instead of appealing to an outward authority, he pointed out the
internal contrariety of their conduct to the peculiar and fundamental
principles of the gospel ; so on this point, he opposed to the abuse of
Christian freedom the law of love which was inseparable from the gos
pel. Besides, it appears that, though the authority of that decision was
held sacred in Palestine, Acts xxi. 25, yet beyond these limits it seems
to have been little regarded. Since that decision rested on mutual con
cessions, it followed that if one of the parties of the Jewish Christians
failed to fulfil the condition, if they would not acknowledge the uncir
cumcised as their heathen brethren, then, on tho other side, the obliga
tion ceased to bind the Gentile Christians, who, by the observance of that
decision, would have made an approach to the Jewish Christians. At a
later period, after the settlement of the opposition between these two
hostile tendencies could no longer be accomplished, but a Jewish element
had gained entrance into the church itself in an altered form, this decision
would, perhaps, again acquire the strict power of law.
Paul did not dispute the position which the free-thinking Christians
of Corinth were always contending for, that no laws could be laid down
about outward things that were in themselves indifferent ; he did not
even exact their deference to the apostolic decision, by which such food
was absolutely forbidden ; but he shows them from the spirit of the gos
pel, that what is in itself lawful, may, under special circumstances, cease
to be so, so far as it contravenes the law of love, the obligation of Chris
tians to act on all occasions so that the salvation of others may be most
promoted, and the glory of God be subserved. He points out that they
even denied their own Christian freedom, since in another way they
brought themselves into subjection to outward things, which they ought

246 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
to have used with freedom in the spirit of love, according as circum
stances might vary.*
In reference to the question proposed to him respecting a single life,
he took a middle course between the two contending parties, those who
entirely condemned a single life, and those who wished to prescribe it for
all persons as something essential to Christian perfection. But in order
rightly to understand what he says on this subject,in connexion with this
period of the development of God's kingdom and with Paul's peculiar
point of view, and to form a correct judgment according to the laws of
Christian ethics, we must attend to the following considerations. For
the time being, the chief object of desire was to spread the gospel as
quickly and as widely as possible, and the appropriation by Christianity
of all human relations was, on the contrary, but little thought of. The
soul of Paul was animated to an extraordinary degree with the one glow
ing desire to carry to all men quickly the message of salvation. His
single life, which allowed him to extend his ministry in all directions
without delay and to gain his own livelihood without hindrance, was an
important means for the execution of his plans. It made him, in fact,
a " eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake," Evvovxiop.bg did ty)v {3aoi-
Xsiav twv ovpav&v, according to the meaning of the Lord. As he wras
withheld by nothing in the publication of the gospel, but lived wholly
for the cause of the Lord, it appeared to him the happiest condition ;
and looking at it from the stand-point of his own peculiar endowments
and vocation, he wished that all men could share this glorious and happy
life dedicated to the Lord. In addition to this, he had not yet found
realised his idea of Christian wedlock in wdiich man and wife are both
dedicated to the Lord alone, and are joined together in a life animated
and sanctified by the Spirit of the Lord. From this proceeded what he
says of the obstacles presented by the married state for fulfilling the du
ties of the Christian life. He has evidently in his eye not a union, such
as would correspond to the idea represented by himself in this epistle
and in the Epistle to the Ephesians, in which both parties were as one
in fellowship with the Lord and viewed and treated everything in the
light of this fellowship; but a state of the soul divided between a regard
to the Lord on the one hand, and to the world and the wedded associate
on the other. And thus what he says of the injurious effects of marriage
is derived from its want of correspondence to the Christian idea of mar
riage. And he might so much the less think of the extension of the
kingdom of God by the natural propagation of the human race, since
he expected the second advent and the end of the world as events near
at hand, — a view of things necessarily arising from the first stage of the
* 1 Cor. vi. 12. "All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the
power of any," irdvra /(oi i^eartv d/.V ovk iyu iHovoiaaBrjoopai bird tivoc. If every
thing is lawful for me, yet I must not allow myself to be governed by external things as
if) because I can use them, I must necessarily use them.

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 247
development »f God's kingdom. But if he was disposed on this side to
recommend a single life, it only makes his pastoral wisdom and consider
ation more remarkable in deeming it needful to limit this recommenda
tion, and in warning against the injurious effects of a forced celibacy not
supported by peculiar endowments, amidst the threatening contagion of
moral corruption in such a church as the Corinthian. He placed the es
sence of Christian perfection not in celibacy, nor in the outward denial
of earthly things; but in that renunciation of the world which has its
seat in the disposition, which would make the married and the rich,
as well as the unmarried and the poor, ready to sacrifice everything
which the exigencies of the times might demand ; to suffer the loss of
all things, however dear to their hearts, for the sake of the gospel ; 1
Cor. vii. 29, 30.
In speaking of the various relations of life in which men might be
placed at the time of their conversion, Paul lays down as a rule, that
that event should produce no change in this respect. Christianity did
not violently dissolve the relations in wdiich a man found himself placed
by birth, education, and the leading of divine Providence, but taught
him to act in them from a new point of view, and with a new dispo
sition. It effected no abrupt revolutions, but gradually, by the power
of the Spirit working from within, made all things new. The Apostle
applies this especially to the case of slaves, which it was more needful
to consider, because from the beginning that gospel wdiich was preached
to the poor found much acceptance among this class, and the knowl
edge imparted to them by Christianity of tlie common dignity and rights
of all men, might easily have excited them to throw off their earthly
yoke. Here also, Christianity, in order not to mingle worldly and spir
itual things together, and not to miss its main object, the salvation of
the soul, did not presume to effect by force a sudden revolution in their
condition ; it operated only ou the mind and disposition, a process by
which civil relations were designed to be, and must necessarily be at a
later day, reformed. To slaves the gospel presented a higher life, which
exalted them above the restraints of their earthly relation ; and though
masters were not required by the apostles to give their slaves freedom,
since it was foreign to their ministry to interfere with the arrangement
of civil relations, yet Christianity imparted to masters such a knowledge
of their duties to their slaves, and such dispositions towards them,
and taught them to recognise as brethren the Christians among their
slaves, in such a manner as to make their relation to them quite a differ
ent thing.
Paul, therefore, when he touches on this relation, tells the slave,
that though by the arrangement of Providence he was debarred from
the enjoyment of outward freedom, he should not be troubled, but re
joice that the Lord had bestowed upon him true inward freedom. But
while he considers the latter as the only true freedom, in the possession
of which man may be free under all outward restraints, and apart from

448 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
which no true freedom can exist, he is very far from overlooking the
subordinate worth of civil freedom, for he says to the slave, to whom he
had announced the true, the spiritual freedom, " but if thou mayst ba
free, use it rather," 1 Cor. vii. 21 ;* which implies that the apostle viewed
the state of freedom as more corresponding to the Christian calling, and
that Christianity, when it so far gained the ascendency as to form anew
the social relations of mankind, would bring about this change of state,
which he declares to be an object of preference-!
* The later ascetic spirit forms a striking contrast on this point to the spirit of primi
tive Christianity. Although, in a grammatical view, it is most natural to supply the
iAevBepoe yevioBai which immediately precedes, or "freedom," iXevBepia, borrowed from
it, yet the later Fathers have not thus understood it, because the worth of civil freedom
appeared to them not so great, but they took the apostle's meaning to be exactly opposite:
" use rather slavery," pds.Aov xp*laal TV bovAeia. What De Wette has lately urged
against our interpretation, does not appear to me convincing. The "if also," et Kal (he
thinks) is against it; but it suits very well. The apostle says, "If called, being a slave,
to Christianity, thou shouldst be content. Christian t.-eedom will not be injured by slavery
— but yet, if thou canst be free (as a still additional goe-d, which if thou dost not attain, be
satisfied without it; but which, if offered to thee, is net to be despised) therefore make
use of this opportunity of becoming free, rather than by neglecting it to remain a slave.
Moreover, "to use slavery,"^p?7t7e?at rrj dov?.eia, would be a ve:y singular mode of expression,
since the apostle might have said much more simply, " Remain s, slave." But the expres
sion pdlXov xi''laai might be very well used when speaking of an opportunity of obtain
ing freedom ; and if Paul wished to say that in case any one could obtain his freedom he
should yet remain a slave, he would havo suggested a more appropriate reason, for in what
he does say we find absolutely nothing that can serve as an argument for it. The fact
that the slave as a Christian shares true freedom with his fellow-Christians, and that he
wdio is free partakes in this bond-service of Christ with the slave who is a Christian, con
tains no reason why a slave, when his freedom is offered him, should not accept it. Nor
can this be inferred from v. 20, for in that nothing more is said than that no one should
arbitrarily withdraw from tlie relations of life in which be finds himself; but it does not
follow from this that when an opportunity is presented by God of entering into more favor
able earthly relations, a man is not to embrace it. Such an exhortation, without any fur
ther confirmation of it, would be only an arbitrary dictation on Pa-ul's part. But if he said,
"Whoever can be free, let him avail himself of the opportunily," there was no occasion to
support it by any further reason. He only guarded himself against a misapprehension
which might have arisen from too broad an application of the principle he had laid down.
The connexion with v. 22 is not against it, if we recollect, that the clause beginning
with dAld is only a secondary or qualifying assertion, which certainly does not belong to the
leading thought, a mode of construction similar to what we find elsen here in Paul's writings.
f To this also the words in v. 23 may relate. "Ye are bought with a price (ye are
made free from the dominion of Satan and sin), become not the slaves of men." Thus it
would be understood by many. Christians ought not voluntarily, merely to escape from
some earthly trouble, to put themselves in a condition which is not suited to their Chris
tian calling. But since the apostle previously, when speaking of such relaiions as could
only concern individuals in the church, used the singular, but now changed his slyle to
the plural, it is hence probable, that he is speaking of a relation of a general kind, that is,
giving an exhortation which would apply to all the Corinthians,— an exhortation in
deed, which is not so closely connected with what is said in v. 22, but which he
might easily have been led to make from the idea of a dovXoe Xpiarov. so familiar
and interesting to his mind, an idea that would equally apply to both bond and free;
"Refuse not this true freedom which belongs to you as the bondsmen of Christ;"

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 249
The Corinthian church had probably requested that Apollos * might
visit them again, and Paul acknowledged him as a faithful teacher, who
had built on the foundation of the faith which he had laid, who had
watered the field that he had planted. He was far from opposing this
request ; he even requested Apollos to comply with it, but Apollos was
resolved not to visit Corinth immediately. The importance attached to
his person, and the efforts that had been made to place him at the head
of a party, perhaps led him to this determination.
Paul wrote our First Epistle to the Corinthians about the time of the
Jewish Passover, as appears from the allusion in v. 7.! He had then the
intention of staying at Ephesus till Pentecost ; he informed them that
many opportunities offered for publishing the gospel, but that he had
also many enemies to contend with. He spoke of his being in daily
peril of losing his life ; 1 Cor. xv. 30. J
At the time of his writing this Epistle to Corinth, he had formed an
extensive plan for his future labors. As during his stay of several
years in Achaia and at Ephesus, he had laid a sufficient foundation for
the extension of the Christian church among the nations who used the
Greek language, he now wished to transfer his ministry to the West ;
and as it was his fundamental principle to make those regions the scene
of his activity where no one had labored before him, he wished to visit
— an exhortation which was adapted in many respects to the condition of the Corinthian
church ; and this warning against a servitude totally incompatible with being a servant
(or bondsman) of Christ, (which could not be asserted of a state of outward servitude, or
slavery, simply as such,) this warning would be a very suitable conclusion to the whole
train of thought on inward and outward freedom. It was needless for him to notice the
case of a person selling himself for a slave, since it was one that could hardly occur among
Christians. Verse 24 is rather for, than against, this interpretation ; for since v. 23 docs
not refer to outward relations, he once more repeats the injunction respecting them.
* See 1 Cor. xvi. 12. + See p. 159.
X Schrader infers from the words in 1 Cor. xvi. 8, that Paul could not have written
this epistle at the close of his long residence at Ephesus, but at the beginning of another
shorter stay there ; for otherwise he must have said, " I will tarry at Ephesus still,"
iiripevd de iv 'Efiau in, and could not have hoped to effect that in a few weeks for the
spread of the gospel, and the vanquishing of false teachers, which he could not accomplish
even after several years. But we do not see why Paul, merely having the future in his
eye, and not reflecting on the past, might not have left out the "still," or "yet longer," in,
as similar omissions frequently occur in epistolary writing ; and even if Paul in the course
of a long time had already effected much for the spread of the gospel, still he could say,
since the sphere of his labors in Lesser Asia was continually extending, that "a great and
effectual door" was opened for publishing the gospel. But the " adversaries," dvrtKupevot,
in this passage, which relates to the publication of the gospel, are certainly not false
teachers but open adversaries of Christianity. As the opportunities for making known
the gotpel were manifold, so also its enemies were many. This, therefore, does not con
tradict the preceding longer residence of the apostle, but rather confirms it ; for the most
violent atlacks on the preachers of the gospel, if they did not proceed from the Jews,
would first arise, when; after long-continued labors, effects had beet, produced which
threatened tc injure the iuterests of many whose gains were derived from idolatrous
practices.

250 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
Rome, the metropolis of the world, where a church had long since been
established, on his way to Spain,* and then to commence the publication
of the gospel at the extremity of Western Europe. But before putting
this plan into execution, he wished to obtain a munificent collection in
the churches of the Gentile Christians for their poor believing brethren
at Jerusalem, and to carry the amount himself to Jerusalem accompanied
by some members of the churches. Already some time before he de
spatched this Epistle to the Corinthians, he had sent Timothy and some
others to Macedonia and Achaia to forward this collection, and to coun
teract the disturbing influences in the Corinthian church.! He hoped to
receive through him an account of the impression which his epistle had
made. But it is strange that in the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corin
thians we can find no intimation that Timothy had visited them in the
interval, — nothing that relates to the manner in which he was received
by the church. This may be explained in two ways; each has its diffi
culties, and we do not believe that complete certainty can be arrived at.
It might have happened that Timothy had been prevented from coming
to Corinth, J and so Paul was induced, as Timothy had returned to him
* Bom. xv. 24, 28. Dr. Baur, in his Essay on the Object and Occasion of the Epistle
to the Romans, in the Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie, 183G, part iii. p. 154, has
attempted lo show that Paul could not have written these words. He thinks that he dis
covers iu them the marks of another hand, of which in fact no trace whatever can be found,
¦ — all appears wholly Pauline. It might indeed seem strange, that the Apostle of tho
Gentiles had not yet visited the metropolis of the Gentile world. Accordingly, he gives
an account of tl e causes wdiich had hitherto prevented him, and expresses his earnest desire
to become personally acquainted with the church there. Since it was most important,
first of all, to lay a foundaiion everywhere for the publication of the gospel, on which tho
superstructure might afterwards be easily raised, so it was his maxim — the same which
he expresses in 2 Cor. x. 16, and w liich we see him always acting upon — to labor only in
those regions where no one before had published the gospel. But among the Gentiles at
Rome a church had been long founded, and hence he could not be justified on his own
principles in leaving a field of labor in which there was still so much to be done, to visit
a church that had been long established, and was in a state of progressive development.
The difficulties which Baur finds in this passage are only created by a false interpretation.
\ 1 Cor. iv. 11. The manner in which Paul mentions Timothy both here and in xvi.
10, plainly shows that he was not the bearer of this epistle>, and the latter passage makes
it not improbable that Paul expected he would arrive at Corinth after his epistle, which
would naturally happen though Timoihy departed first, because he was detained a con
siderable time in Macedonia. Perhaps the .messengers from the Corinthian church were
already come to Ephesus when Timothy was going away, and as Paul wished to give
tbem a copious reply, on that account he sent no epistle by Timothy.
X It favors this, that in Acts xix. 22, only Macedonia is mentioned as the object of his
mission, and that Paul himself, 2 Cor. xii. 18, does not mention Mm with the others who
were sent by him to Corinth. Still these circumstances prove nothing; for as to the first
the account in the Acts is not complete ; and Ihe second may be explained by supposing
that Pnul wrote all that be wished to say concerning Timothy in the lost episile commit
ted to Titus (which must, according to this view, be presupposed), and that he did not
consider il necessary to make any further allusion to Timothy in onr Second Epistle. Be
sides, he is speaking here of the second sending of Titus aud only of what had quits
recently taken place.

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 251
without an} news from the Corinthian church, before his departure from
Ephesus, to 3end Titus to Corinth that he might operate on the minds of
the converts there in a manner suitable to the impression made by his
epistle, and bring back news of the state of things among them. We
must then suppose that he sent no fresh letter by this new messenger, or
at least only sent with him a few lines as his credentials, since, having
written so full a letter before, he thought it unnecessary to write again
on the present occasion. In this way it can be explained that we find
in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians no hint of an intervening epistle
after our first.
But the second explanation is this,* that Timothy actually went to
Corinth, but communicated to the apostle very sad and distressing
accounts respecting the disposition of a part of the church. In conse
quence, Paul was induced to send Titus to Corinth with a second epistle
referring to the occurrences in the Corinthian church, of which he had
been informed by Timothy, and since enough had been spoken of this in
tervening visit and of Timothy's reception in this lost epistle, no more
wras said on these points in our second epistle, which was strictly speak
ing the third, and in all the fourth. In the decision of this question all
turns upon this point, whether the letter so often mentioned in our
second epistle according to the indications in the passages referred to,
can be what we call the First Epistle to the Corinthians, or whether we
are obliged to suppose another wdiich would be that sent bv Titus.
Paul says at the beginning of the second chapter that he had altered
his former plan of travelling immediaiely from Ephesus to Corinth (2
Cor. i. 16) and had resolved to go first to Macedonia,! in order that he
might not be obliged to give them pain by coming to them while the
evils which he censured in his first epistle were still in existence. On
this account he wished, instead of coming immediately from Ephesus to
Corinth, rather to communicate by letter what was painful to them
(which may very well refer to the reprehensions contained in the first
epistle) and to await its operation in producing repentance, before he
came to them in person. He says of the epistle in question, that he had
written it in great anguish of heart, and with many tears, for his object
had been not to give them pain, but to evince his love for them. Does
not this suit such passages as 1 Cor. iv. 8-19 ; vi. 7 ; x. 1 ? Does not that
wdiich he here says of his feelings correctly describe that state of mind in
which the news respecting the dangerous condition of the Corinthian
church must have placed him ? Do not, in fact, several severe passages
occur in this epistle which might have avvakened in the heart of Paul, so
full of fatherly love towards the church, the apprehension that he had
* Adopted by Bleek in his valuable essay already mentioned, in the Studien und
Kriliken, 1830, part iii. But his arguments have not yet met wdth the favor, to which
their weight, it seems to me, entitles them.
\ Which change of plan he had certainly already announced to them in the First Epis
tle, xvi. 5.

252 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
uttered something which had wounded them too deeply ? Is it not ?
striking agreement when in this epistle so much is said of an individual
on whom Paul had passed so severe a judgment, and exactly in our first
epistle such a case occurs affecting such an individual.* Must not this,
therefore, serve as proof that this first epistle is the one to which refer
ence is made in the second ? This epistle was also well suited to call
forth in the Corinthians that sense of their criminality, and that sorrow
that leads to salvation, as Paul says of that epistle in 2 Cor. vii. 9.
Still we must not trust too much to this appearance. Although
the case here mentioned seems to be the same with that which we
find in the first epistle, yet on a closer examination, some impor
tant particulars meet our notice which indicate a difference. Paul
guards himself, ii. 5, against the supposition that he felt personally in
jured. " But if any hath caused grief," he says, " he hath not grieved
me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all." He therefore rep
resents wdiat had taken place as not affecting himself personally, but
rather as an injury done to the whole church. But in reference to the
offender, of whom we are informed in the first epistle, there was no rea
son whatever that he should so guard himself. In that whole affair
there was absolutely nothing personal. If he took it so to heart, it
would only reflect credit on him from every quarter. It manifested his
fatherly care for the salvation of that individual, and for the welfare of
the whole church. When, moreover, he speaks of a pardon to be
granted by himself and the church, this certainly suits far better a wrong
done personally to the apostle in the exercise of his official power, than
a sin for which the divine forgiveness wras to be chiefly sought, and
not a forgiveness dependent on the will of a man.! Paul, in speaking
(vii. 8) of the wholesome effects of the epistle in question, reckons
among them (v. 11) that an opportunity was given to the church of
proving their complete freedom from blame in the affair. But in the
case of that offending person, no blame could attach to the church, ex
cepting their having omitted to show their abhorrence of such conduct
by excluding him from church-communion. On the other hand, what is
said would find its immediate application if the main point was contuma
cious behavior of an individual against the apostle of a kind in which
others might have appeared to take a share. Further, Paul says in
v. 12, that he had written in this tone to them, " not for his sake who did
the wrong, nor for his cause that had suffered wrong, but that they
might have the opportunity of showing to one another their sincere at-
* We cannot attach so much weight, as does Baur, to the fact that both in 2 Cor. ii. 6,
and 1 Cor. v. 5, ihe individual mentioned is designated as "such an one," ci roiovroc ; for
Paul m-ght, agreeably to the connexion, have used the expression in both passages, even
though it referred to different persons.
f We know indeed that it can be explained by referring everything to a readmission to
church fellowship ; but the striking part of the expression will not in that way be rendered
prominent, and the other explanation is far more simple and natural. _

SENDING AWAT OF TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 253
tachment for him."* That expression, " to do wrong," adateiv, was in
Itself not suited to mark a sin as such. And if he was speaking of a
vicious person as such, the principal thing as far as regarded that person
would be to lead him to repentance. He needed not to avoid the ap-
pearanoe of being too zealous in such a matter. No one, as we have
said, could blame him for that. But everything agrees very well with
the supposition that the case was one in which Paul was personally
injured. Under such circumstances there was occasion for guarding
himself against the reproach that he had been carried away by personal
feelings. And thus he could affirm that he had been moved to write, not
from a desire to retaliate on the person who had done him wrong, nor
from concern for his own honor — the honor of him on whom the wrong
had been committed — but he wished to give them an opportunity to
clear themselves of all share in this matter, and to evince their zeal for
his person and his apostolic authority.
It remains to be noticed that the affair of this immoral person occu
pies oniy a very small part of our First Epistle, and many other subjects
are treated of far more fully. By what is said in the Second Epistle to
the Corinthians of the letter in question, we are led to suppose that
it related wholly or principally to that one affair.
If we compare all these marks with one another, we shall certainly
be disposed to favor the second of the above-named suppositions. We
shall be led to believe that Timothy brought many painful and distres
sing accounts to the apostle, especially respecting the commotion excited
by an individual who had acted contumaciously against Paul, and called
in question his apostolic authority. On this account Paul sent Titus
with a letter to Corinth, in which he expressed himself very strongly
respecting the affair ; so much so, that after Titus had set out, his fa
therly heart was seized with anxiety lest he had written too harshly, and
been guilty of injustice to the church.
But after the sending of Titus, a violent popular tumult arose at Ephe
sus against the apostle,! which was nevertheless an evidence of the great
* Internal grounds do not render it necessaiy to depart from this objective and gen
erally accredited reading. Certainly the zeal of the church for Paul's authority would first
of all be expressed among themselves in their behavior towards one another. This it was
which Titus must first observe among them as the effect of Paul's epistle. But that Paul
had cause to recognise this zeal as not assumed, but as genuine and sincere, may be
inferred from the phrase " before God." Thus this reading gives a very suitable sense.
Also what follows in verse 14 agrees very well with it, where Paul says that he was not
ashamed of what he had boasted to Titus respecting the Corinthian church, but that his
boasting was found a truth. Paul had previously told Titus, who was perhaps afraid of
the hostile tone of the excited church, that he knew they would by no means make com
mon cause with that person who had risen up so warmly against Paul's apostolic authori
ty; and so it proved. They vied with one another in zeal for the maintenance of his
authority. \ As to the assertion of Dr. Baur that all the details given in the Acts of Paul's con
flicts with Jewish exorcism and heathen magic, and of the popular tumult occasioned by

254 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
success of his ministry in Lesser Asia. Small models in gold and silvet
of the famed temple of Artemis were numerously made,* and being sent
to distant parts as objects of devotion, brought great gain to the city.
A man named Demetrius, who had a large manufactory of such models,
and a great number of workmen, began to fear, since the gospel had
spread with such success in Lesser Asia, and faith in Artemis had so far
declined! as to lessen the sale of his wares in this region, that the gains
of his trade would soon be lost. He assembled his numerous workmen,
and easily inflamed their anger against the enemies of their gods, who
threatened to deprive the great Artemis of her honor, and them of their
gain. A great tumult arose, they all hastened to the public place where
they were wont to assemble, and many cried out, some one thing, some
another, without knowing why they were come together. As the Jews
here lived in the midst of a numerous Greek population who viewed them
with constant aversion, any special occasion easily roused their slumber
ing prejudices into open violence, and they had then much to suffer ; they
feared therefore, that the anger of the people against the enemies of their
gods — especially as many did not exactly know who these enemies were
the decline of the worship of Artemis, have no historical worth, but are only fabrications
intended to please the imagination (Baur declares that the design of the author of the
Acts was to present as brilliant a picture as possible of Paul's ministry at Ephesus, Eo.),
or to magnify Paul in comparison with Peter — such an assertion we regard as completely
baseless. Whoever indeed cannot for one moment transport himself out of the narrow
circle of that limited view of the world which belongs to the nineteenth century, must see
everywhere, in the wonderful age of which we are speaking, myths or fictions written for
a special end. But when Baur, in reference to Acts xix. 20, says, " What would such a
Christianity be, but an exchange of one form of superstition for another? And yet, the
author of the Acts can pass such a judgment as this (xix 20) upon it. Such a view is
too unworthy of the position of an apostle, and too much conformed to a later period,
to allow of our having any doubt about its origin :" — we reply, Certainly if nothing more
had taken jilace for the spread of Christianity than the extraordinary event recorded in
that passage of the Acts, this would have availed nothing. But those facts could not
have taken place if the Gospel had not previously been revealed as the victorious power
of God iu the hearts of men. Paul, who met the Jews that "required a sign," with " the
demonstration of the Spirit and of power," nevertheless made his appeal that he had been
accredited as an Apostle by ar/peia, ripara and dvvdpete, 2 Cor. xii. 12. According to
the views of the apostles the two were to be combined ; the internal evidence of the power
of God by the spiritual operation of the published word, and the accompanying external
signs presenting themselves as visible maiks of the former. But it belongs to the method
of these most ancient Christian Records, that the internal operations are only briefly indi
cated or presupposed instead of being described at length, while on the contrary whatever
could be an object of outward observation is given more in detail.
* The words of Paul, Acts xx. 19, perhaps intimate that this popular disturbance pro
ceeded from the machinations of the Jews, though it afterwards threatened to bo danger
ous to the Jews themselves.
¦)• It is possible, that the successful ministry of Paul already threatened the destruction
of idolatry, though after the first successful propagation of the gospel, a pause in ils pro
gress intervened, as has often occurred. Compare Pliny's account of the decline of bea
thenism, in my Church History, vol. i. ' p. 140.

THE TUMULT AT EPHESUS. 255
— would be turned upon themselves ; and one of their number Alexander
by name, came forward, in order to shift the blame from themselves upon
the Christians ; but the appearance of such a person whom they ranked
among these enemies, aroused the heathen to still greater- fury, and the
clamour became more violent. But on this occasion the populace only
appear to have been hostile to the teachers of Christianity ; the manner
in which Paul had lived and acted during his long residence in the city
must have operated advantageously on the public authorities of the city.
Some even of the magistrates who had the charge this year of regulat
ing all the sacra in Lesser Asia,* and who presided over the public
games, showed their sympathy for him, for when he was on the point of
exposing himself to the excited crowd, they besought him not to incur
this danger. And the chamberlain of the city at last succeeded in calm
ing the minds of the people by his representations, by calling on them to
give an account of the object of their meeting, of which the majority
were totally ignorant, and by reminding them of the serious responsi
bility they incurred for their turbulent and unlawful behavior.
It is very doubtful whether Paul was determined by this disturbance,
which seems to have been quite transitory, to leave Ephesus earlier than
he had intended according to his original plan. When 'he wrote his first
letter to the Corinthians, he spoke to them of the dangers which daily
threatened him, and yet these had no influence in determining the length
of his sojourn in this city. Perhaps we may find several allusions to this
very disturbance.! A comparison of the First and Second Epistles to
* 'Aatdpxai: each of the cities which formed the Koivov rijc 'Aa'tac chose a delegate
yearly for this college of 'Aaidpxai. See Aristid. Oral. Sacr. iv. ed. Dindorf. vol. i. p.
631 ; and probably the president of this college would be called dpxiepevc, daidpxnc; his
name was employed in marking the date of public events; see the Letier of the Church
at Smyrna, on the martyrdom of Polycarp ; and Ezechiel Spanheim, de Prcestantia ei Usu
Numismatum, ed. secunda, p. 091.
f He says, 1 Cor. xv. 31, that he was daily exposed to death, which may lead us to
conclude, that before he had reached the end of this epistle, (which was probably not
written all at once,) this disturbance had taken place. Thus we may take the words in v.
32, with Theodoret, in a literal sense; "according to human calculation, I bad become
the prey of wild beasts, but I was miraculously kept safe," Kara dvBpuirivov 'Aoyinpbv
Snpiuv iyevopyv [Sopu, dAAd irapabb£uc eauBr/v, that is, it was demanded by the lairing
populace, as afterwards was often, the case in the persecutions of the Christians, that the
enemy of the gods should be condemned to the beasts, to the lion, ad be iios, ad leonem.
But though such a cry might certainly have been raised by the infuriated multitude, it is
very difficult to suppose, considering the existing circumstances, that their desire would
have been granted, and Paul therefore could not have said, that, as far as he could expect,
according to human judgment, he would have been, except for the wonderful help of God,
a prey to the wild beasts. Also I his interpretation of the words Kara dvdpuiroi; is not
the easiest and most favored by the connexion. 1 rather find in these words, according
to the connexion, the contrast to the Christian hope, the designation of the pos'fon of
men in general who are destitute of this hope. By the wild beasts must therefore be
understood, savage infuriated men with whom P.'dl had to contend. Fiom Rom. xvi 4,
where it is said that Priscilla and Aquila had ventured their lives for him, as well as from

256 PAUL AT EPHESUS.
tne Corinthians with one another, may indeed favor the belief, that Paul
wrote the latter after this event, since he here writes as one who had
been rescued from impending death.* But it may be supposed, that when
he found himself in the midst of tho-e dangers, the higher concerns of
which he treated in the First Epistle to the Corinthians so occupied
him, that he forgot everything personal ; but that when he had left
Ephesus, the recollections of the special dealings of Providence, which
had rescued him from such dangers, filled him with overflowing gratitude
which he could not suppress.
what Paul says in Acts xx. 19, we may gather that he was exposed to many dangers at
Ephesus which are not mentioned in the Acts.
* According to the interpretation proposed by Riickert, these expressions do not refer
to persecutions endured by Paul, but to a dangerous illness, the effects of which accom
panied him to Macedonia, and were felt by him when he wrote this Second Epistle to the
Corinthians. But on comparing all that relates to it, I cannot assent to this view. As
to the passage in 2 Cor. i. 8, it appears to me that these words must be explained accord
ing to v. 5. 1 grant, indeed, that natural diseases may be called in a certain sense
" sufferings of Christ," iraBi'/para rov Xpiarov; but, in accordance with Pauline usage,
we should apply such a designation primarily to suffering for the cause of the king
dom of God, in which the believer follows Christ. Riickert thinks that if Paul had
intended to signify the persecution that had been excited at Ephesus, he would have
named the city itself, as in the First Epistle. But I do not see why he should not ohocse
the gener.d designation of the region of which Ephesus was the metropolis ; and, it is
possible, that the exasperation of the heathen against him 6pread from Ephesus to other
parts of Besser Asia which he visited. Why then might he not say, that the persecutions
exceeded the measure of his human strength, that he was almost overcome and despaired
of his life? In 2 Cor. iv. 9 and 11, he distinctly notices persecutions by which he was
in continual danger of death, with which 1 Cor. xv. 30, 3 1 agrees ; from these passages
we may conclude that he was exposed to more dangers than are recorded in the Acts.
And in this way other passages must be explained. The mention of the earthen vessels,
2 Cor. iv. 1, is not against this view, for the conflicts which Paul had to sustain always
served to awaken in his mind a more vivid consciousness that he carried about the divine
treasure in an earthen broken vessel, that this shattered receptacle would soon be entirely
destroyed by such assaults unless strengthened and rescued by Almighty power. He
might well say in v. 10, that he always bore about in his body the "dying of the Lord
Jesus," vtKpuaie rov '\yaov, because he was always exposed to death for the cause of
Christ (v. 11.), and bearing the marks of these sufferings in his body, he thus carried with
him an image of the suffering Saviour in his own person. What he says in v. 9, and in
the whole context, marks the disposition of one who had reason to consider the duration
of his life as very uncertain, whether he met with a nalural or violent death. 2 Cor. vi.
9 is to be explained according to iv. 9 and 11. 2 Cor. vii. 5 shows that even in Mace
donia he had no respite from his sufferings, but was overwhelmed with fresh trials. Here
we find no trace of illness. The word erupf by no means justifies us in understanding the
passage of illness; it denotes everything which could affect the outer man, while within
the highest peace might be enjoyed. The passage in 2 Cor. xii. 7 (see p. 1711 is too ob
scure for us to draw any conclusion from it with certainty; and even if here a chronic
disorder were intended, it would Dot be clear that what was said before had any reference
to it. We do not deny that Paul had to contend with much bodily weakness; we
do not deny, see p. 171, that the tribulation he endured must have impaired his
bodily strength ; but it does not follow that the passages above quoted have such ?
reference.

SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 257
After Paul had labored at Troas in preaching the gospel, and had
Waited in vain for Titus, whom he expected on his return from Corinth,
he left that place with troubled feelings, and went to meet him in Mace
donia. Among the Macedonian churches he met with gratifying proofs
of the advance of the Christian life, to which their conflicts with the
world had contributed. Doubtless no persecutions of Christianity as a
religio illicita had as yet been commenced by the authorities of the state.
But still the Christians, by their withdrawing from the heathen worship
and all that was connected with it, must have unfavorably impressed the
heathen among whom they lived, and excited the hatred of the fanatical
populace, who were further instigated by the Jews. Even if no legal
charge could be brought against the believers as apostates from the re
ligion of the state, si ill without this instrument, zealous heathens, who
formed so large a majority, possessed sufficient means to oppress or
injure in their worldly prospects a class of persons so far below them
selves in numbers, respectability, and political influence. It may illus
trate this, if we only think of wdiat converts to Christianity in the East
Indies have had to endure (though under a Christian government) f om
their heathen relatives and connexions. But the Macedonian Christians
cheerfully endured everything for the cause of the gospel ; and however
much their means of subsistence had been injured, they were ready to
take an active part in the collection made by Paul in the church at Jeru
salem, even " beyond their power ;" 2 Cor. viii. In Macedonia the
apostle had also at last the satisfaction of meeting with Titus, and of
learning from him that his epistle had produced a salutary effect, if not
on the whole, yet on the greater part of the Corinthian church. The
disapprobation of the larger and better part had been expressed against
the incestuous person, and the voice of this majority, which as such must
have been decisive in the assemblies of the church, had either actually
expelled him from church communion, according to the judgment ex
pressed by Paul, or the actual execution of the sentence had been put off
in the event of his not receiving forgiveness from the apostle. When
the resolution of the majority was announced to the offender, with ex
pressions of severe reprehension, he expressed the greatest sorrow and
penitence. On this account the majority, who always acknowledged the
apostolic authority of Paul, interceded on his behalf that a milder course
mioht be adopted, and Paul assented, in order that the penitent might
not be plunged in despair, and thus a greater calamity ensue.* The
* Tn the vords, 2 Cor. ii. 5-10, I cannot find anything different from what I have
stated in the text. Nor do they support Riickert's assertion, that the majority of the
church thou"!, 'hey expressed their disapprobation of the offender, were not disposed to
proceed against ' im as severely as Paul desired, aDd that the apostle only yielded to their
wishes from prudential motives, in order to maintain his authority, and to preserve the
appeara>-":e of directing their decisions. Paul says, 2 Cor. ii. 6, "Sufficient to such a man
is this punishment which was inflicted of many." From this we canDOt infer that it dif
fered from the sentence passed by the apostle himself. This said he — only referring to
17

£56 PAUL IN MACEDONIA.
majority showed the greatest regard for the apostle's authority ; they
lamented having occasioned him so much trouble, and assured him how
earnestly they longed to see him soon among them. But Paul's oppo
nents among the Judaizers were not humbled, but on the contrary, were
only embittered against him by his reprimand and the submission paid
to him by the rest of the church, and used every means in their power
to make the church suspicious of him. They said that he was powerful
only in his letters, but that "his bodily presence was weak, and his
speech contemptible ;" 2 Cor. x. 10. He threatened more than he could
perforin, and lience was very far from formidable. He was conscious of
his weakness, and therefore was always threatening to come, but never
came. In his first epistle, wdiich has not come down to us, he probably
threatened the contumacious that he would soon come to Corinth, and if
what was amiss were not rectified, he would exert the utmost preroga
tive of his office. In that lost epistle, or by verbal communications, he
had announced to them that as soon as he had left Ephesus, he would come
immediately to them, as he wished, after a transient sojourn at Corinth,
to travel into Macedonia, and return again to them, in order to remain
with them till his intended departure to Jerusalem* But since he now
what had taken place, and in connexion with what followed — is indeed not unanimous,
but yet the punishment awarded to him by the voice of the majority. " It is sufficient,'
may mean, enough has been done that tm'3. sentence of the majority has been expressed,
and that he has been brought to contrition, so that now a milder course may be adopted,
and he may be received again into church-communion. Or, it is sufficient that the major
ity have adopted Ihis resolution ; but since he is now penitent, it need not be carried
into eff ct The pain which be has already suffered is enough. Hence, (v. 1). instead of
continuing to act with that strictness, and carrying into effect that resolution of the
church, they miidit announce forgiveness to him, for (v. 9) Paul tad attained his ohjecf;
they had, by vii tue of that resolution of the majorily, given him ihe proof he required of
their ohedience. lie required nothing more (v. 10.) As they had assented lo his severe
sentence, so now he was ready with th- m to forgive, for he had attained th- object he had
at beau — ihcwclfire of the church. Paul also expressly commends (vii. 11) the indigna
tion they had manifested in this affair, Ihe "revenge," iK&iKnaic, they I ad felt, thu* acquit
ting themselves of all participation in the wickedness. As I must here reaffirm the view
I have bof -re taken, I must also state that I find no ground for the complaint made by
Riickert, with whom Baur agrees, against Paul, although I must admit ihe ri-dit to such
a free judgment even on an aposile, and can find in it nothing unchristian. Neither can I
here discern that excessive warmth of temper, which never does good, nor alierwards the
reluming prudence, which, at the cost of truthfulness, would as far as possible repair ihe
damage done in the heat of passion; even if I admit as settled the disputed po'nt, that the
reference h< re is to the same case as in 1 Cor. v. 3. I discern in this latter pai-sage noth
ing but, genuine aposiolic zeal against sin, which .could be held back by no considerations
and which even the unfavorable issue could not prove to be wrong; for what is right
remains so, independently of the consequences which depend on the wills of men, and on
circumstances. * 2 Cor. i. 15. "In this confidence I wished first." (placed, according to the more cor
rect reading, fir I he sake of emphasis, before iTSe'tv) "to come to you" (before 1 wem to
Macedonia) " that you might receive a second work of grace " (ibat is, Ihe second through
his ministrations, when he should make them a longer visit on his return fr >m Macedonia,
as is specially stated in the sixteenth verse, which is explanatory of the pre lediug).

SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 259
remained longer in Ephesus, since he had altered the plan of his journey,
and had announced to tlie Corinthians that, he would first go into Mace
donia, and then come to them; so they took advantage of this arrangement
to accuse him of conscious weakness, of vacillation, and of ambiguity iu
his expressions. And thus uncertain and vacillating, they concluded, he
must be as a teacher. Hence his self-contradictory conduct in reference
to the observance of the Mosaic law by the Jews and Gentiles. They
endeavored to set in a false light that Christian prudence wdiich always
distinguished Paul, and which was united in him with perfect simplicity
of intention, as if he employed a variety of artifices to deceive men.
Also all that was amiss, which he had denounced in his letters, had not yet
been put away by that part of the church which adhered to the apostle.
Such being the state of the Corinthian church, Paul thought it best —
in order that his own visit to Corinth might be disturbed by no unpleas
ant occurrences, and that his intercourse with the Corinthians might bo
one of joy and love — to write once more to them, in order to prepare
the way for his personal ministry among them. He sent Titus, with two
other able persons iu the service of the church, as bearers of this epistle
to Corinth.* In reference to that marked suspicion of his conduct and character,
Paul appeals in this epistle to the testimony of his own conscience, that
in his intercourse with men in general, and especially with the Corinth
ians, he had been guided not by worldly prudence, but by the Spirit of
God ; he contrasts one with the other, since he considered simplicity and
uprightness of intention as the essential mark of the agency of the Divine
Spirit. His epistle also testifies to this ; as he wrote, so he thought :f he
had nothing in his mind different- from his avowed intentions. He states
the reasons of the alteration in the plan of his journey, and draws the
conclusion that no inconsistency can be found in what he had said on
this matter. And he could call God to witness that no inconsistency could
be found in his manner of publishing the gospel; that he had always
preached one unchangeable doctrine of Christ, and the promises which
they received would be certainly fulfilled through Christ.]; God himself
* One of these (2 Cor. viii. 18) was"chosen from the Macedonian churches, that he
might in their name convey the collection to Jerusalem, and he is distinguished as one
whose " praise was in all the churches" for his activity in publishing the gospel. It may
have been Luke, or some other person.
¦)• 2 Cor. i. 12, 13. The grounds on which De Wette objects to this interpretation are
not obvious to me. "But what suspicion of duplicity could ihe confident assertions in v.
12 awaken," he asks. This verse could indeed awaken no such suspicion, but is rather
directed against that suspicion which Paul's enemies sought to excite; v. 13 serves to cor
roborate what he had laid in v. 12. Paul makes the appeal, that in his epistle, as well as
in his whole ministry, nothing could be found of a " fleshly wisdom," aotjiia oapKtK?/, which
his adversaries wished to find in those words: he maintains that all his words, not less
than his actions, bore tlie impress of "simplicity," t'tirXdrnc.
X Therefore independently of the law of which his adversaries prescribed the obser
vance.

260 PAUL IN MACEDONIA.
had given them as well as him the certain pledge of this, by the common
witness of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. (2 Cor. i. 16-22.)
The duty of vindicating his apostolic character against the accusa
tions of his opponents forced him to speak much of himself. The palpa
bly evident object of his doing this, and the distinction which he was
always careful to make between the divine power connected with his
apostolic functions, and the person of a feeble mortal between the " man
in Christ," and the weak Paul,* sufficiently acquitted him of the charge
of self-conceit and vain-glory. To common men, who would measure
everything by the same measure, many things might seem strange in
Paul's manner of speaking of himself and his ministry, so that they -were
ready to accuse him of extravagance — of a self-exaltation bordering on
insanity. But what impelled him to speak in such strong terms was not
personal feeling, but the inspired consciousness of the divine power at
tached to the gospel, and to his apostolic calling, which would triumph
over all opposition. It was this consciousness which caused him to fear
nothing, and enabled him to speak with so much confidence against his
enemies. Thus the fact of his " not being able to do anything of him
self" redounded in his view to the glory of God. Against his Judaizing
opponents, with whom arrogance stood in the place of power, (2 Cor. xi.
21), to whom he would willingly appear weak in that which they es
teemed strength, and who, incapable of understanding the divine power
in earthen vessels, charged him with threatening to do more than he was
able to perforin, he declared, with confidence, that he would prove him
self to be a genuine aposlle in the fulfilment of his threatenings, and in
the punishment of the bad. He only wished that he might have no op
portunity of proving this, but that everything wrong in the church might
be set right before he came, and thus no occasion be left for administer
ing punishment. He wrould then gladly be regarded as an incapable or
not genuine apostle by the non-fulfilment of his threatenings, provided
only the Corinthians showed themselves to be approved Christians, for
all the power granted to hiin was only for the truth, and not against it;
2 Cor. xiii. 6, 8.f
* To this the passage in 2 Cor. v. 13 refers. "For whether we be beside ourselves,
(the inspiration with which the apostle spoke of the divine objects of his calling, of wdiat
the power of God effected through his apostolic office, but which his adversaries treated as
empty boasting, and ascribed to an dippoavvn or pavia) it is to the glory of God; or
whether we be sober (by which the apostle spoke of himself as a weak mortal, put him
self on a level with the Corinthians, and made no use of his apostolic power and his privi
leges) it is for your welfare."
\ Baur, proceeding on the assumption that the same affair is referred to in 2 Cor. ii. as
in 1 Cor. v., and that, Paul in his first epistle threatened more than he had power to ac
complish, concludes thus (p. 329,) "This passage contains a not unimportant criterion for
judging of the alleged miracles of the apostles. The apostles had certainly the conscious
ness of miraculous power in themselves, and in this consciousness they could regard very
distinguished effects of their agency — operations of a powerful energy — as " signs, won
ders, and pow-rs," onpe'ta, ripara and dvvdpeic. But as at that time in a definite case.

Paul's journey to achaia. 261
Paul spent the rest of the summer and autumn in Macedonia. He
probably extended his labors to the neighboring country of Illyria,* and
then removed to Achaia, where he spent the winter.
Since he was now resolved, after his return from the journey to Je
rusalem, which he proposed undertaking at the beginning of the spring,
to change the scene of his labors to the west, and to visit the metropolis
of the Roman empire for the first time, he must have been gratified to
form a connexion previously with the church in that city. The journey
of Phoebe, the deaconess of the cl»urch at CenchraBa, who had been in
duced by certain business affairs to repair to Rome, gave him the best
opportunity for this purpose, while, at the same time, he recommended
her to the care of the Roman church. f
in which this (consciousness) was so distinctly expressed, a miracle, strictly so called, was
far enough from taking place, just as little did this happen at any other time." We
perceive that Dr. Baur consistently with the principles of his philosophy must thus judge
respecting everything distinguished as a miracle, since these principles exclude ci priori the
recognition of anything supernatural whatever. But we cannot consider the premises
here advanced, and the conclusion drawn from them, as correct. For even if we grant
the disputed point, the identity of the two cases, still it will not be evident that Paul
ascribed to himself a power which he could not exercise, for he expressly represents as
his object, 1 Cor. v. 6, to awaken to repentance the person whom the judgment was in
tended to affect, that through bodily suffering he might obtain spiritual health. Now if
that offender had already given signs of repentance, the fulfilment of such a judgment
must of course fail, as Paul in the passage quoted tells us that he would gladly, for the
good of the church, appear as one wdio threatened in vain. Bastly, there appears no good
reason for placing the extraordinary operation in question under the same category as
other miracles. Christ himself did not perform miracles of judgment, and in no passage
has he given such power to the apostles, as is the case with the other miracles, to the ac
complishment of which Paul refers in his epistles as indisputable. And his language here
is more credible in proportion as such outward miracles appeared little in his eyes in com
parison with the one internal miracle, 1 Cor. i. 22, 23 ; ii. 4.
* In 2 Cor. x. 14-16, Paul seems to mark Achaia as the extreme limit of his labors in
preaching the gospel ; (this indeed does not follow from the dxpt Kal ipuv, since uxpi in
itself does not denote a fixed or exclusive limit, see Rom. v. 13, though Paul sometimes
uses tlie word in this latter sense also, Gal. iii. 19 : iv. 2 ; and this certainly seems to be
the meaning here from the comparison of the three verses in connexion ;) on the other
hand, in Rom. xv. 19, Illyria is thus marked. But it does not certainly follow from this
last passage that Paul himself had preached the gospel in Illyria ; possibly he only men
tioned this as the extreme limit which had been reached through his instrumentality.
\ It is here,, of course, taken for granted, that the 16th chapter belongs with the whole
of the Epistle to the Romans, which in modern times has been again disputed by Schulz
in the Studien und Kritiken, vol. ii. p. 609 ; but, as it appears to me, on insufficient
grounds. It may excite surprise that Paul should salute so many individuals in a church
to which he was personally a stranger, and that we find among them relations and old
friends of the apostle from Palestine, and other parts of the East. But we must recollect,
that Rome was always the rendezvous of persons from all parts of the Roman empire, a
feet which Athenseus has stated so strongly, Deipnosoph. i. 36, rrjv 'Pupaiuv iroXiv iiriro-
pi/v ri/c olKovpivnc, iv y ovvidetv iartv irdaac rue ird7.ete Idpvpivac, (an epitome of the hab
itable world is tho city of the Romans, in which, at once, may be seen all the cities estab
lished,)— fuch as Alexandria, Antioch, Nicomedia, and Athens — ko.1 ydp bAa rd iBvrj ddpdut
aiiTodi avvuuarai, (for truly all nations dwell there crowded together). Paul might easily

262 PAUL IN ACHAIA.
It is not improbable (see pp. 193, 250,) that, at an early period, the
seed of the gospel had been brought by Jewish Christians to the Jews
at Rome, as at that time, if we may judge from the salutations at the
end of the epistle, persons who were among the oldest Christians lived
have become personally acquainted at Ephesus and Corinth with many Chrislians from
Rome, or learned particulars respecting them. Among those whom he salutes were per
sons of the family of Narcissus, who was, as is known, a freed-man of tho Emperor Claudius,
and who under that emperor was highly esteemed at Rome. That Aquila and Priscilla
were again in Rome, that a part of the church assembled in their house, and that a num
ber of years afterwards, as may be inferred from the 2d Epistle to Timothy, they are to be
found at Ephesus, — all this, from what we have before remarked, is not so surprising. Tho
warning against the Judaizing teachers, xvi. 17, who published another doctrine than what
they had received (from the disciples of the apostle), agrees perfectly with what is said in
the 14th chapter, and this harmonises well with what we may infer from the epistle itself
in reference lo the state of the Roman church. The passage in xvi. 19 agrees also with
i. 8, and the comparison confirms the belief that they both belong to the same epistle.
Baur, in his Essay before quoted, (see the Tuhinger Zeitschrift for 1836, 3d No., p. 144 ff.)
has endeavored to prove the spuriousness of tho last two chapters. He believes that, in
the 15th chapter especially, he can trace a later writer attached to Pauline principles, who
thought that, in order to justify Paul, and to bring about a union between the Jewish and
Gentile Christians, it was necessary to make some additions to the epistle; but I cannot
perceive the validity of the evidence adduced by this acute critic. Paul was probably
prevented when he had finished the 14tn chapter, from continuing the epistle to the close.
And when he took it up again where he left off, and looked back on wdiat he had last writ
ten, he felt himself impelled to add something on the theme of which he had last treated,
the harmony between the Gentile and Jewish Christians in the Roman church, a passage
similar to one in 2 Cor. ix. His object was, on the one hand, to check the free-thinking
Gentile Chrislians from self-exaltation in relation to their weaker Jewish brethren in the
faith ; and on the other hand, to remind the Jewish Christians that the admission of the
Gentiles into a participation in the kingdom of God was by no means an infringement of
the rights of the Jewish people, and that it was in unison with the prediclions of the Old
Testament. He exhorts them, xv. 7, to receive one another mutually as members of the
same kingdom of God, though with a special reference to the Gentile Christians, to whom
Paul at the beginning of the chapter particularly addressed himself, if we fellow the best
accredited reading, "you," vpdc. He then states the reasons why the Gentiles had especial
cause to praise God, to be thankful and bumble, since God had in so unexpected a
manner brought them to a participation of his kingdom, who previously knew nothing of
it, and who had no hopes of this kind, (a train of thought which he introduces elsewhere,
Ephes. ii. 12, and in several other passages of the same epistle). He states antithetically
that God, by the sending of Christ to the Jews, manifested his faithfulness, since thus he
bad fulfilled the promise made to the fathers; but tud manifested his mercy to the Gen
tiles, since he had called to a participation in the kingdom of God, those among whom
the foundation of this kingdom had not been laid, and to whom no promises had been
given. Such a rhetorical antithesis is of course not perfectly strict, but partial, and is of a
kind frequently employed by Paul. Then he says: the Old Testament also declares, that
the Messsiah will extend his saving efficiency to the Gentiles. Therein lies, therefore, a
limitation of what he had before said, for it is clear from this that while God shewed his
mercy to the Gentiles he at the same time thereby verified his faith fulness also. In all
this, we find nothing un-Pauline, nothing foreign to the object of this epistle. It is im
possible that Paul could intend to close with the 14th chapter, but according to the usual
style of the Pauline epistles, a conclusion must necessarily follow, which these last two
chaoteis furnish.

epistle to the eomans. 263
at Rome ; but these certainly did not form the main body of the church,
for the greater part evidently consisted of Christians of Gentile descent,
to whom the gospel had been published by men of the Fauline school,
independently of the Mosaic law, to whom Paul, as the apostle of the
Gentiles, felt himself called to write, and whom, in the consciousness of
this relation to them, he could address with greater freedom. How
could Paul, from his call to publish the gospel to all the nations of the
world, have inferred his call to announce the doctrine of salvation to the
Romans, (Rom. i. 5, 6,) if he had not believed that those to whom his
epistle was especially addressed were Gentiles? For the Jews, whether
living among the Romans or Greeks, always considered themselves as
belonging, not to the o:ka, Wvrj, to the "Gentiles," but lo the one es,'
the Xabg, the " people" in the " dispersion," dtaorropd. In reference to
them, Paul could only have spoken of being sent to one nation.* How
could he say (Rom. i. 13) that he wished to come to Rome in order " to
have some fruit" there, "even as among other Gentiles," by the publi
cation of the gospel, if he had not been writing principally to persons
belonging to the Gentiles, among whom alone he had hitherto been wont
to gain fruit? Verse 14 shows very clearly, also, that he was very far
from thinking of the Jews. What else could have occasioned him to
mention, that as elsewhere, so also in the metropolis of the civilized
world, he was not ashamed to publish the gospel? For in reference to
the Jews, it could make no great difference whether he met wilh them at
Jerusalem or at Rome ; the same obstacle to their believing the gospel
existed in both places, the obstacle which made Jesus the Crucified an
offence to them. It cannot be concluded from his specially addressing
the Gentile Christians in xi. 13, that the epistle was not, as a whole, also
intended for them ; for in any case — since there were Jews in the church,
though they formed the minority — when he expressed anything which
was applicable only to the Gentile members, it was needful that he should
thus distinguish it. If we suppose those Jewish Christians who taught
the continued obligation of the Mosaic law to have formed the original
body of the church, it will not be easy to explain how Gentile Christians
who adopted the Pauline principles (and who must evidently have been
a minority), could join themselves to such. But it is altogether differ
ent, if we suppose this church to have been constituted like others of the
Gentile Christians of wdiich we have before spoken. Moreover, in the
* This is contrary to Baur, p. 117; nor is it set aside by what he says in his Paulus,
p. 378. While he asserts, that " the Jews living in Rome were regarded by him no longer
as Jews, but as Romans," he adds, "so much the more if what I am far from denying,
there were Gentile Chrislians among them." But it must be supposed, that Paul, when he
wrote the epistle, thought particularly either of the one or the other. A quite different
class of references must have suggested themselves to the apostle, in writing to a church
of which the most influential part were Jews, from those he would have employed in
writing to one consisting mainly of Gentiles. Therefore the argument aga.'nst Baur's
position is not weakened by the addition he has here made to it

264 PAUL IN achaia.
Neronian persecution, the Christian church appears as a new sect hated
by the people, a genus tertium, of whom, since they were opposed to all
the forms of religion hitherto in existence, the people were disposed to
credit the worst reports. But this could not have been the case if Juda
ism had been the predominant element in the Roman church. The Chris
tians would then have been scarcely distinguished from the Jews, and it
was not unusual to pay much attention to the internal religious disputes
of the Jews. In the controversy with the churches in Lesser Asia,* the
bishops of Rome were opposers of the Jewish Christian Easter ; this
was closely connected with the formation of the Christian cultus on
Pauline principles, and an appeal could here be made to an ancient tradi
tion. To the marks of an anti-Jewish tendency belongs also the custom
of fasting on the Sabbath. The opinion that this anti-Jewish tendency
arose as a reaction against an earlier Judaizing tendency, is at variance
with what has been said, and is also in itself unhistorical ; for since at a
later period we see the hierarchical element (which is decidedly Jewish,
and favorable rather than otherwise to Judaism), peculiarly prominent
precisely in the Roman church, so it is difficult to suppose that exactly
at this time a reaction should be produced against Judaism, f arising from
primitive Christian consciousness and the Pauline spirit. In the work of
Hernias, we recognise indeed a conception of Christianity much more
according to James than according to Paul, (and yet not throughout and
entirely Judaizing,) but we know too little of the relation in which the
author of this book stood to the whole Roman church, to determine any
thing respecting the prevailing tendency of the latter. This remark
applies more strongly to the Clementines of which the origin is so uncer
tain, and which by their leading sentiments is essentially distinguished
from the Shepherd of Hermas, although some points of affinity exist in
the two works. In Rome, the capital of the world, where the most
diverse kinds of religion from all countries were tolerated, the different
Christian sects would soon seek a settlement, and establish themselves.
We, therefore, are not justified in saying of every sect which we see
arising out of the bosom of the Roman church, that it proceeded from
the religious tendency that originally predominated in it. This applies
particularly to the Monarchians, who ) et could not all be referred to a
Judaizing element; for a Praxeas, of whom we certainly know that he
found a point of connexion in the whole Roman church — which by no
means can be asserted of other kinds of Monarchians — stood, by his
peculiar conceptions of the doctrine of Christ as the self-revealino- and
revealed God, in most direct opposition to the Judaizing point of view, in
many respects stiil more than was at that time the case with the common
* See specially the letter of Irenaeus in Eusebius, v. 24.
\ Dr. Baur, whose views I am here opposing, iu his Essay against Rothe, on the Origin
of Episcopacy in the Christian church, (Ttibinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1838, part iii. p.
141), endeavors to prove that this reaction agai.ist Judaism, supposing that to have Origin,"
ally predominated, took pla-^e at a later period iu the Roman church.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 205
church doctrine of Subordination. But when the Artemonites appealed
to their agreement with the earlier Roman bishops, we cannot accept
this as historical evidence. Sects have always had an interest to claim
high antiquity for their doctrines, and the Artemonites could easily make
use for their purpose of many indefinite expressions of earlier doctrinal
statements. They appealed generally to the antiquity of their doctrine
in the church, and yet we know that t'.e ancient hymns and the apolo
gies could with justice be adduced against them as witnesses for the
doctrine of the divinity of Christ. We consider, therefore, the opinion
as well grounded, that the Roman church was formed principally from
the stock of Gentile Christians, and that the Pauline form of doctrine
originally prevailed among them.*
In this church, the state of affairs was similar to that which for the
most part existed in churches where the Gentile-Christian element,
though mingled with the Jewish-Christian, predominated. The Jewish
Christians could not bring themselves to acknowledge the Gentiles, who
neglected the ceremonial law, as altogether their equals in relation to the
kingdom of God ; the Gentile Christians also still retained those feelings of
contempt with which they were wont to contemplate the Jews, and the
manner in which the greater part of the Jews opposed the publication
of the gospel, confirmed them in" this temper of mind ; Rom. xi. 17, 18.
Paul in this epistle lays before the church, which he hail not yet
taught personally, the fundamental principles of the gospel ; he wished,
as he himself says, Rom. xv. 15, to recall to their remembrancef what
* The testimony of Hilarius (the so-called Ambrosian), to which Baur appeals as his
torical evidence, we certainly dare not estimate too highly; for this writer of the second
half of the fourth century could hardly have made use of historical sources on tho consti
tution of the Roman church to which Paul wrote. He had scarcely any oth :r sources
of information than we have; his testimony appears to have been merely deduced from
this epistle according to his own interpretation of it.
\ It is generally supposed that the "in some sort," dirb pipovc, in this verse, relates to
some particular passages of the epistle, which might seem to be written in too bold a tone.
We might admit, this, if any such severe censure of the faults of the church wero to be met
with in this epistle as appear in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. In this ease, wo
might suppose that Paul would think proper to apologise for such harsh expressions, as
proceeding from one who was not personally known to the church. But such animadver
sions on the church we do not find in this epistle ; and in all that he says respecting the
state of the Gentile world, to which they belonged before their conversion, as well as in
all that he says to warn them against self-exaltation, I can find nothing wdiich would occasion
such an apology on the part of such a man as Paul. Hence, I cannot help considering the
" in some soit," u7rc> pipovc, only as qualifying the " more boldly," roXpi/porepov, or that it
relates to v\h it follows. Paul places the boldness in this, that he, though personally un
known to the church, ventures to step forward as its teacher, to write to them such an
epistle in which he appears to wish to announce the doc-trine of salvation, as if it were en
tirely new to them. But he explains his design, that it was only to " put them in mind"
of what they had already heard, and he believed himself to be justified in so doing in vir
tue of that c.dl by divine grace through which he had been commissioned to preach the
gospel to the Gentiles. He even qualifies the " putting them in mind" by the prefixing o!
iirl thus representing it as something accessory, and not absolutely required. In thoss

266 PAUL IN ACHAIA.
had been announced to them as the doctrine of Christianity, and to tes
tify that this was the genuine Christian truth, which alone could satisfy
the religious wants of human nature, and exhorted them not to allow
themselves to be led astray by any strange doctrine. This epistle may
therefore specially serve to inform us, what was in Paul's estimation the
essence of the gospel.
He begins with assuring them that shame could not have kept him
back from publishing the gospel in the capital of the civilised world ; for
he had never had occasion to be ashamed of the doctrine of the gospel,
-since everywhere, among Gentiles as well as Jews, it had shown itself
capable of working with divine power for the salvation of men, if they
would only believe ; by this doctrine they all obtained what all alike
needed, — that which was essential to the salvation of men, — the means
by which they might be brought from a state of estrangement from God
in sin, to become holy before God. In order to establish this, it was
necessary for the apostle to show that all, boi h Jews and Gentiles, were in
need of this means. He must endeavor to lead them both to a conscious
ness of their sinfulness and guilt, and to take notice of that which might
hinder either party, according to their respective points of view, from at
taining this consciousness, the self-deceptions and sophisms, which could
prevent their recognition of the truths which he announced. He had
then to point out to the Gentiles that their consciences testified against
them, that they could not excuse themselves in their sins by pleading
ignorance of God and his law ; he had to assure the Jews, on the other
hand, that that law, in the possession of which they were so proud, could
only utter a sentence of condemnation against them as its violators; he
exposed their self-delusion, in thinking that by the works of the law such
as they could perform, or in virtue of their descent from the theocratic
nation, they could appear as holy before God.
After pointing out that both parties were equally in need of the
means of salvation, the object he had in view led him to develop the
manner in which man, by faith in the Redeemer, might become holy be
fore God, and to exhibit the blessed consequences that followed from this
new relation to God ; and in this development, he takes pains, as is evi
dent in various passages, so to influence the two parts of which the
church at Rome consisted, the Gentile and the Jewish Christians, that
uniting in an equally humble acknowledgment of the grace to which they
were indebted for their salvation, neither one might exalt itself above
the other; he closes the whole development with extolling that grace,
to which all stood in the same relation, being equally in need of deliver
ance, and which all must at last unite in glorifvino-.*
In the practical exhortations which form the last part of this epistle,
words, in the interpretation of which I cannot agree with Baur, I can detect nothing un-
Pauline. On tho contrary, j find here the same Pauline mode of address as in Rom. L 1%
* See chapter xi. 33-36.

EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 207
the wisdom is apparent with which Paul apprehended the relations in
which the new converts to Christianity were placed, anticipated the
errors into which they were likely lo be seduced, and endeavored to sug
gest the best preservatives against their influence. The seditous spirit
of the Jews, which refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of any Gen
tile government (see my Church History, vol. i. p. 37,) could not find
ready entrance into the Church at Rome, since the majority of its mem
bers, being Gentile Christians, were not exposed to infection on this
Bide. But similar errors, from a misunderstanding of Christian truth,
might easily arise among them, as actually happened at a Liter period.
Accustomed to consider themselves as members of the kingdom of God,
in opposition to the heathen world, they were in danger of giving an
outward form to this opposition, which properly belonged to the inter
nal disposition, and thus exciting a hostile tendency against all existing
civil institutions, which would be looked upon as all belonging to the
kingdom of the evil spirit. With the consciousness of belonging to the
kingdom of God, a misapprehension arising from carnal views might be
connected, that those who were destined to rule hereafter in the king
dom of the Messiah, need not even in the present life submit to worldly
authority. Such a carnal misapprehension might easily connect itself
with the doctrine of Christian freedom, and the apostle on other occa
sions had thought it needful to caution against it ; Gal. v. 13. He wished
to be beforehand in opposing such practical errors, which his knowledge
of human nature led him to anticipate, if he had not already witnessed
similar ones; accordingly, he strictly enjoined on the Roman Christians,
that as they ought to consider the institution of civil government gener
ally as a divine ordinance, instituted for a definite object in the plan of
Providence;* so they should judge of governments then existing from
this point of view, and demean themselves conformably to it.
At the close, he notices a special practical difference in the church.
But it may be disputed in what light we are to view it. As in the four
teenth chapter he places in opposition those who eat, and those who eat
not, and by the latter apparently intends those who scrupled to eat flesh
and drink wine, and confined themselves to a vegetable diet, (compare
v. 2, and v. 21,) some have been led to conclude,! that in this church a
strong ascetic tendency, entirely forbidding animal food and strong
drink, had found an entrance, similar to the doctrine of the later Eucra-
* It was by no means the apostles's design in that passage to develop the whole doc
trine of the reciprocal duties of rulers and subjects ; but he pursues only that one marked
antithetical idea to warn Christians against the misapprehension alluded to, and thus leaves
all other topics untouched, which otherwise would naturally fail under discussion.
f This view, with various modifications, has been brought forward by Eichorn, in hia
Introduction to this epistle in his general Introduction to the New Testament, and by Baur
in his Essay on this epistle ; by the latter in connection with his view of a predominant
Jewish Christian tendency iii the Roman church, allied to the later Ebionitism, and con
taining its germ.

268 PAUL IN ACnAIA.
tites. Such a tendency, foreign indeed, originally, to the Hebrew and
Grecian religious systems, had in that age spread itself in various forms,
both among the Jews and Geutiles, owing to the change produced in the
spirit of the nations by the breaking up of old forms of thought, and
it might have effected a junotion with Christianity, by a mistaken view
of the antagonism between the spirit and the flesh, and of the opposition
between the world and Christianity. But how can what Paul says on
individual cases, be referred to persons under the influence of this ten
dency? " Let not him that eateth" (he says in v. 3), " despise him that
eateth not; and let not him who eateth not, judge him that eateth;'' that
is, not condemn, not disallow his participation in the kingdom of God;
for persons of this ascetic tendency did not, properly speaking, condemn
those who would not consent to such abstinence, but they believed that
they were inferior to themselves, and not so fir advanced in the perfec
tion of the spiritual life. Paul therefore ought rather to have said, Let
not such a one despise him that eateth.
Or we must assume that these persons had gone so far as to declare
the eating of flesh to be absolutely sinful. But this they could have said
only on the principles of a certain dualist ic theosophy, which viewed God
not as the origin of all creatures ; and if Paul had met with such a view,
he would certainly not have treated it with so much tolerance, but have
felt it his duty to combat it strenuously, as utterly opposed to the prin
ciples of Christianity. Nor would the exhortation addressed to the
other side not to despise such a one, have been suitable in this case ; for
persons of this tendency had nothing which exposed them to contempt,
but it, was rather to be feared that, by such a stricter mode of living,
they would be held in greater respect than was their due. Besides, how
could Paul say of such a one in v. 6, "He that eateth not, to the Lord
he eateth not, and giveth God thanks?" Such persons lacked even the
disposition to thank God for all the gifts which he had granted for
human subsistence. How could he, in reference to such a case, say in
v. 21, "It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, in order to
give no offence to a brother?" It could have given no offence to one
who was zealous in practising such ascetic severity, if he saw another
brother living with less strictness. But if other Christians believed that
they ought to follow his example, he might to his injury be confirmed in
his delusion, that such a mode of living had something in it excellent or
meritorious. Least of all could we suppose that Paul would treat persons
of this sort simply as weak, and show them so much indulgence, without
combating more decisively the principle that lay at the basis of their error.
And if we do not assume that this principle was an avowed dualism
which he must have combated, yet, on any supposition, he could not
have acted with so much mildness and forbearance towards an ascetic
arrogance of this kind, which was equally in diametric opposition to his
doctrine of justification and to the essence of Christiau humility. Of
Bnch a perversion of religious sentiment, it could not be expected that i\

EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 269
would gradually be overcome by the progressive development of faith as
the root of the whole Christian life ; but it was rather to be feared, that
a principle so alien to the Christian life, and so much favored by cer
tain mental tendencies of the time, would gather increasing strength,
and injure more and more the healthy development of Christianity ; a
result wdiich we actually observe in several appearances of this kind in
the following age. How very differently does Paul speak against such a
tendency in the Epistle to the Colossians ! Evidently the persons towards
whom Paul commends forbearance, were those who distinguished cer
tain days 'as iu a special sense dedicated to God, and who could not yet
bring themselves to the Christian point of view, that all days ought in
like manner to be dedicated to God. We must here recognise tlie exer
cise of Jewish principles, (which, since they had their indisputable right
in the development of religious truth, and could not be altogether set
aside by a single effort, Paul, unless their claims were arrogantly set
forth, always treated with indulgence) and we shall find sufficient reason
for referring the question of abstinence to the same tendency. We must
think, therefore, of the Jewish Christians, who ^Yere still strict observers
of the Mosaic law, not only in keeping certain days, but also in refrain
ing from ceitain kinds of food. We shall be less surprised at this, if we
recollect that generally the Christians of Jewish descent, particularly
those of Palestine, when they lived at Rome, adhered to their former
Jewish mode of life. But in the Mosaic laws relative to food, there was
nothing, however, that could occasion a scruple about eating flesh or
drinking wine, v. 21. Or we must assume that Paul spoke here only
hypothetically and hyperbolically, without thinking of a case which might
really occur under existing circumstances, although this is not the most
probable supposition, judging from his mode of expressing himself.
Further, if we think of those Jewish Christians who believed that
the Mosaic laws respecting food were still obligatory, it is entirely clear
why Paul must admonish the Gentile Christians, who were fettered by
no such scruples, not to despise their weaker Jewish brethren on account
of their scrupulosity, nor lead them to act against their consciences, by
working on their feelings of shame. But would he have expressed him
self so mildly, if these Jewish Christians had ventured to condemn others
who partook of food which they held to be prohibited ? In this case,
we should have to suppose it to be the opinion of these Jewish Chris
tians, that the Mosaic law was binding on Gentile Christians, and that
without its observance they could not be partakers of the kingdom of
God. But we know how emphatically Paul always expressed himself
against those who maintained such a sentiment, and in doing so, invali
dated his doctrine of justification by faith alone. In addition — and on
this point we must lay still greater weight — Paul exhorts the strong in
faith and the unscrupulous, to take into consideration the necessities of the
weak, and rather to refrain from food, which they could partake of with
out scruple, than give offence to their weaker brethren. But how would

270 PAUL IN ACHAIA.
it agree with the principles of this apostle, that he should advise the
Gentile Christians to make such a concession, by which they would prac
tically have recognised the obligatory force of the Mosaic law ; it was
rather his custom to urge on the Gentile Christians not to give place to
the Judaizers, who wished to compel them to the observance of the law,
but to maintain their Christian freedom against them. In fact, there
was no ground for such an exhortation. The Jewish Christians had no
cause to he uneasy, because the Gentile Christians did not trouble them
selves about the Mosaic laws respecting food. By the stipulation con
cluded on at the apostolic convention at Jerusalem, the Gentile Chris
tians had been set at liberty from every such restriction. If this gave
offence to the Jewish Christians, the offence was unavoidably founded in
the evangelical truth itself.
We must therefore think of something, connected indeed with the
religious views of the Judaizers, but yet something separable from the
observance of the Mosaic law, — something that with more appearance
of justice the Jewish Christians might require of their Gentile brethren,
— something, in which a concession to the weakness of others might be
demanded of Gentile Christians, without encroaching on their Christian
freedom. This could be nothing else than abstaining from the flesh of
animals offered to idols. With this alone is everything in the passage
compatible. It has now a meaning applicable to the circumstances of
the time, if we suppose those persons to be spoken of who, in certain
cases, preferred to abstain altogether from animal food, and eat only
herbs, lest they might unknowingly be in danger of eating something
unclean and defiling, the flesh of idolatrous sacrifices. Only in v. 2 docs
Paul present the extreme contrast: on the one side, a strength of faith
\\ Inch proceeds so far as to banish all scruples respecting the enjoyment
of food, and on the other side the extreme of scrupulosity, arising from
weakness of fttith which would rather eat no meat whatever, than run
the risk of eating the flesh of anini.ds offered to idols. Now it is clear
also how Paul could say, that if needs be, it would be better not to eat
flesh at all, nor to drink wine at all, than to disturb the conscience of a weak
brother. We need only recollect that the heathens accompanied their
sacrifices with libations;* that the same scruples which existed relative
to the meat of the sacrifices, would also arise in reference to the wine of
the libation. But that the apostle has not expressly mentioned the sacri
fices cannot perplex us in our view of the matter. He had in mind only
such readers as would at once understand from his words what he
meant ; as in ordinary letters, many things are not stated in detail, be
cause it is presumed that the persons to whom they are addressed per
fectly understand the allusions.
We must therefore conceive the state of affairs in this church to have
* See Ihe Mishnah m the treatiso frjt rrh J> on idolatrous worship, c. ii. § 3, ed. Su-
renhus. P. iv. 369, 334.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 2'/ j
been similar to that in the Corinthian, which we have already noticed,
Some, like the free-thinking Corinthians, gave themselves no concern
about the injunction against meat offered to idols, and ridiculed the
scrupulosity of the Jewish Christians ; others, on the contrary, considered
the eating of such food as absolutely sinful, and hence passed sentence
of condemnation on those who ventured to eat everything without dis
tinction. Thus also some were still too much accustomed to consider
certain days as peculiarly sacred, according to Jewish observances ; those
who thought more freely, and looked at the subject from the purely Chris
tian point of view, were disposed to make no religious difference be
tween one day and another.*
Such a state of things as this could only exist in a community which
was formed similarly to the Corinthian church, which consisted of a ma
jority of Christians of Gentile descent, but with an addition to the
original materials of a subordinate Jewish element.f Paul begins his
exhortation, without particularly designating the persons he addressed,
yet having chiefly in view the more free-thinking Gentile Christians,
which also confirms the notion, that these formed the main body of the
church. He declares the views of these persons to be correct in theory;
but as in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he censures the want of
Christian love in them who so little regarded what affected the welfare
of their weaker brethren, and with that defect, the misapprehension of
Christian freedom, which was shown in their laying such great stress on
what was outward and in itself indifferent, as if the true good of Chris
tians consisted in such things, instead of being something grounded in
their inner life, wdiich would remain secure whether they could use or
not use these outward things. The participation of the kingdom of God
consisted not in meat and drink, (the true possessions and privileges, the
true freedom of the members of God's kingdom consisted not in eating
or drinking this or that, outward things in general being signified by this
expression,) but in the participation of those heavenly possessions of the
inner man- — righteousness (in the Pauline sense, the designation of the
whole relation in which the ek itioTEug dimiog stands to God,) the heavenly
peace flowing from it, the happiness of the divine life, Rom. xiv. 17. He
recommends mutual forbearance and love to both parties, that no one
should judge another, but each one should seek to be well grounded in
his own convictions, and act accordingly ; but that the more mature in
Christian conviction should condescend to the scruples of those who were
not so far advanced, since more is required from the strong than from
the weak.

* See page 158.
f It agrees with this view, that in Rom. xv. 7 (a passage closely connected with what
goes before), the subji ct is the agreement between Gentile and Jewith Christians; and
that Paul in Rom. xvi. 17, warns them against the common Judaizers, ivho by the spread
of their principles endeavored to excite divisions in tuch mixed churches.

272 PAUL IN ACHAIA.
After Paul had spent three months in Achaia, he wished to depart
with the sums collected for the poor church at Jerusalem and thus to
close his apostolic ministry in the East.* This plan w as wisely formed
* Though I agree for the most part with Dr. Schneckenburger in what he says (in his
oft-mentioned work on the Acts) on the intention of this last journey to Jerusalem ; yet
I cannot at all assent to what he thinks may be deduced from the silence of the Acts on
this collection, and the object of this journ:y, in favor of the hypothesis which be has
advanced. I must also avow myself opposed to Dr. Baur's views, who, since his above-
mentioned historico-critical Inquiries on the Object and Occasion of the Epistle to the
Romans in the T'ubinger Zeitschrift, 1836, and his Dissertation on the Origin of Episcopacy
in the Christian Church, in the same Zeitschrift, 1838, p. 3, proceeding from the same view
of the object of the Acts, has gone farther in his deductions, and sought to prove that the
author of the Acts misrepresented the facts, and set them in a false light from a one-sided
conciliatory apologetic design ; see his review of Dr. Schneckenburger in the Jahrbuch fur
wissenschaftliche Kritik. March, 1841. These two critics are struck with the omission of
a transaction of so much importance in the historical connexion of events, and hence
believe that they must find a special reason for it in the object which the author of the
Acts proposed to himself in writing his work. That is, as he was disposed to assume igno
rance of the continued division between the Jews and Gentile Christians, and always rep
resents the Jews only, and not the Jewish Christians, as adversaries of the apostle, so
he could not adduce anything which might testify against his assumption, or which even
by serving to remove the opposition ignored by him, would also imply it ; and hence he
could not represent this last journey of Paul in its true light. Had we reason to expect in
this age of the church, a comprehensive historical representation explaining the causes and
connexion of events; if the Acts wore the appearance of such a work ; had its author been
a Christian Thucydides or Polybius- — we might then have admitted the inference, that
either he was at too great a distance from the events to know anything of this collection
and of ihe real object of his journey, or that owirg to a one-sided bias, he had consciously
or unconsciously falsified the history. But such a pragmatical point of view, which could
exist only where the connected development of events could be surveyed with a certain
calmness of mind and a certain scientific interest, was totally foreign to the stand-point of
Christian history at this time, and especially to that of the Acts. It consists of memoirs,
as the author gave them from the sources of information within his reach, or from his own
recollection, without following any definite plan. He mentions the last journey of Paul
to Jerusalem, on account of the serious consequences to the apostle himself, without
reflecting further on the object of it, and so also passed over the collection as being in that
view unimportant ; his interest was engaged by other objects; and reflections which
would only present themselves from a pragmatical survey of history, were totally absent
from his thoughts. This bountiful collection connects itself, however, as a practical proof
of what Paul said (Acts xxi. 19) of the success of his ministry among the Gentiles; why
should he have been intentionally silent respecting it ? If he could say what is men
tioned in that passage, without injury tu the design imputed to him, he could also say:
The presbyters of the church at Jerusalen praised God for kindling such active brotherly
love in the hearts of the believing Gentiles. Obviously, moreover, the author of the Acts,
by his account in ch. xxi. 21, implies the continued enmity of the Jewish Christians
agaiust Paul. I do not see, therefore, what could have induced him designedly to have
suppressed earlier facts relating to it. Besides, in Paul's defence in Acts xxiv. 17, there
is actually an allusion to the collection, which therefore the author could not havo intended
to conceal. But if the Acts had been a connected history, or a narrative from one source*
this collection, which is only mentioned incidentally, must have been recorded earlier in its
place in the regular series of events. It is the greatest perversion (we cannot speak too
strongly) to use the want of historic art in a simple book, for the purpose of everywhere

273
by him, and this his last journey to Jerusalem with the collection is tc
be view ed as marking an epoch in the development of the church, whose
importance we must consider more closely. A year had passed since he
had with great zeal set this collection on foot among the churches of
Gentile Christians in Asia and Europe, and it was of importance to him
that it should be bountiful. He had already written to the Corinthian
church, 1 Cor. xvi. 4, that if this collection equalled his wishes, he would
convey it himself to Jerusalem. It was certainly not merely his inten
tion to assist- the poor of the church at Jerusalem in their temporal neces
sities ; he had an object still more important for the development of the
church, to effect a radical cure of the breach between the Jewish and the
Gentile Christians, and to seal for perpetuity the unity of the church.
As the immediate power of love can effect more to heal the schism of
souls, ihan all formal conferences in favor of union, so the manner in
which the Gentile churches evinced their love and gratitude to the
mother church, would accomplish wdiat had not yet been attained by all
attempts at union. Paul wished, since he was accompanied to Jerusalem
by the messengers of these churches, to practically contradict the charges
disseminated against him by his Jewish and Judaizing adversaries ; the
proof of the sympathising and self-sacrificing love of the Gentile Chris
tians was to serve as evidence to the Jewish Christians, who had imbibed
prejudices against them, of what could be effected by the preaching of
the gospel independently of the law of Moses; so that they would be
obliged to acknowledge the operation of God's Spirit among these whom
they had always been indisposed to receive as brethren in the faith.
Paul himself plainly indicates this to have been his chief object in this
collection and journey, (2 Cor. ix. 12 — 15) ; that this service of love was
not only to relieve the wants of the Christians at Jerusalem, but
to excite many hearts to gratitude to God ; when they saw how
the faith of Gentile Christians had verified itself by this act of kindness,
they would feel compelled to praise God for this practical testimony to
the gospel, and through the manner in which the grace of God had shown
its efficacy among them, being filled with love to them, they would make
them objects of their intercessions. A reciprocal communion of prayer
in thankserivinc and intercession, was always considered as the mark and
seal of genuine Christian brotherhood ; he therefore wished to bring
about such a union of heart between the Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Before he extended his labors for the spread of the church in other lands,
he was anxious for the security and stability of the work of which the
foundation had been already laid ; but which was exposed to the greatest
scenting out with the nose of a one-sided, overweening criticism, arrieres pensees, to be
applied°to this modern tendency-seeking, and plan-making. What, according to such a
method, may not be found in the Church History of Eusebius, if one is only accustomed to
hear the grass grow I 18

274 Paul's farewell address to the
danger on the side of that earliest controversy, which was always
threatening to break forth again.
Yet it :.ll depended on this, whether the apostle of the Gentiles could
succeed in carrying his wisely formed plan into effect ; he was well aware
what hindrances and dangers obstructed his progress. It was question
able whether the power of love would succeed in overcoming the narrow-
heartedness of the Jewish spirit, and induce the Jewish Christians to
receive as brethren the Gentile brethren who accompanied him. And
what had he to expect from the Jews, when he, after they had heard so
much of his labors among the Gentiles, which had excited their fanatical
hatreel, — personally appeared among them, he who in his youth had been
known as a zealous champion of Pharisaism, now accompanied by uncir
cumcised Gentiles as messengers from Gentile churches, whose equal
birthright to the kingdom of the Messiah he zealously advocated ?
Fully alive to the difficulties and dangers which he must overcome in
order to attain his great object, he entreated the Roman Christians for
their intercessory prayers, that he might be delivered from the unbe
lievers among the Jews, and that, this service might be well received by
the Christians at Jerusalem, that he might come to them from thence
with joy and be refreshed by them. Rom. xv. 31, 32.

CHAPTER VIII,

THE FIFTH AND LAST JOURNEY OF PAUL TO JERUSALEM  ITS IMMEDI
ATE CllNSEQUUNCES  HIS IMPRISONMENT IN PALESTINE.
After staying three months in Achaia, Paul departed from Corinth
,n the spring of the year 58 or 59, about the time of the Jewish Pass
over. His companions went before him to Troas, and he first visited
Philippi. As he earnestly wished to be in Jerusalem at the Pentecost,
*, was necessary to hasten his journey; on that account he did not ven
ture to go to Ephesus, but sent from Miletus for the overseers of the
Ephesian church, and probably those of other neighboring churches of
Lesser Asia,* to come to him, that in the anticipation of the great dan-
* We cannot conclude with certainty from Paul's farewell address to the overseers of
the church, which is given in Ihe 20th chapter of the Acts, that the overseers of other
churches in Lesser Asia, besides those of Ephesus, were present on that occasion. The
words :n Acts xx. 25. "among whom I have gone," iv ole dti/ABo,., may, it is true, favor
this supposition, since they denote rather travelling through a certain district, than a con
tinued residence in one place; but these words may also be fairly understood of the
apostle's circuits within the city of Ephesus, and tho visits he puid to the houses of the
presl.yters. Tlie singular, " the flock," rb iroipvtov, v. 28, 2S>, leads us to think most nat-

overseers of the ephesian church. 275
gers that awaited him, he might pour forth his heart to them perhaps
for the last time, and utter the parting words of fatherly love.* We
urally of only one church, though it may be here used respectively, and refer to several
churches. It is won by of notice, that Irenasus applies it to the overseers of distinct
churches, and he speaks of it in very decided language. " In Mileto convocatis episcopis
et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso, et reliquis proximis civitalibus," (ihe bishops anel elders
having been called together at Miletus, from Ephesus, and other neighboring cities), iii.
c. 14, § 2. Judging from the character of irenaeus and his ti-.nes, it is not probable that he
would be induced simply by that expression in Paul's address, to deviate from the letter
of the narrative in the Acts. Hence we might rather suppose, that Irenseus was decided
in giving a different representation by historical traditions or documents with which he
had become acquainted in Lesser Asia. Yet the bias of the episcopal system (which was
then germinating) might, perhaps, occasion a, different construction of the passage from
that which the literal narrative would warrant, independently of any tradition. Paul ap
plies to the presbylers the epithet "overseers," iirioKniroi; now it could not then be
surprising to find the iirlaitoirot designated '"presbyters," for this latter name was still the
generic term by which both might be denoted, but the name iirtaKoiroi was already ex
clusively applied to the fust clu.reh pr.vcrnors, the presidents of Ihe college of presbyters.
Since, then, we proceed on the supposition that this institution of the church government
vns the same from the beginning, we must hence conclude from the name iirioKoirot that
the bishops of other churches were present at this meeting, and hence Irenseus says ex
pressly " episcopis et presbyteris."
But if we admit that this meeting consisted of the overseers of the various churches
in Besser Asia, the discrepancy between the three years, Acts xx. 31, and the two years
and three months of the duration of Paul's stay at Ephesus according to Luke's narra
tive, would cease ; for we might then suppose, that Paul, before he went to Ephesus, spent
nine months in other places of Lesser Asia, where he founded churches.
* Dr. Baur and Dr. Schneckenburger think that it can be shown, that this address in
the 20th chapter of the Acts was not delivered by Paul in its present firm, but that it was
framed by the author of the Acts, on the same plan as the whole of his history, according
to the conciliatory, apologetic tendency already noticed. We would not indeed pledge
ourselves that the address was taken down as Paul delivered it, with official accuracy —
but that it has been faithfully reported in its essential contents, and that a sketch of it was
in existence earlier than the whole of the Acts. Not only do we find nothing in it which
does not correspond to the situation and feelimrs of the apostle, but it also contains several
marks of not being cast in the same mould as the whole of the Acts. Among these marks
wre reckon the mention of the three years, ch. xx. 31, which does not agree with the
reckoning in the Acts, the mention of teaching " from house to house," v. 20, and of the
warning voices of the prophets, v. 23. (Schneckenburger, indeed, considers this to be a
prolepsis, and finds in it a mark of non-originality ; but it is not at all improbable, that
already in the churches with which Paul had stayed, he had received warnings of the
dangers that threatened him from the fanatical rage of the Jews, though Luke, who did
not accompany Paul everywhere, has not mentioned this in his brief narrative). Besides,
when Paul speaks of a higher necessity, by which he felt compelled to go to Jerusalem
"bound in spirit," we may infer that this journey, undertaken for what he considered the
work committed to him by the Lord, had a greater significance and importance, as appears
from the explanation we have already given, but which is not so represented in the Acts.
If this address indicates that it was delivered before delegates from various Asiatic churches,
we may also number this among the marks. Baur, indeed, (p. 181), finds the mark of a
later period in the circumstance that Paul allowed only the presbyters to come as repre
sentatives of the churches; but we cannot admit the correctness of this opinion. With
out anything of the later hierarchical tendency, they could be so regarded. And since he

276 Paul's farewell address to the
recognise in this farewell address, in which Paul's heart, thoroughly im
bued with the love of Christ, expresses itself in so affecting a manner,
his fatherly anxiety for the churches, whose overseers heard his warning
voice for the last time, and whom he was about to leave at a time full of
sad and dark foreboding, when many dangers threatened pure Chris
tianity. He could not foresee with certainty what consequences would result
from his journey to Jerusalem, for these depended on a combination of
circumstances too intricate for any human sagacity to unravel. But yet
he could not be unaware of what the fanatical rage of the Jewish zealots
threatened, and what it might perpetrate, under the maladministration
of the worthless Procurator Felix, who combined the meanness of a slave
with the caprice of a tyrant ;* at Jerusalem, too, where might prevailed
against right, and assassins (the notorious Sicarii) acted as the tools of
any party who were base enough to employ them. In the churches
wdiich he had visited on his journey .hither, many individuals had warned
him in inspired language of the danger that threatened him at Jerusa
lem, and thereby confirmed what his own presentiments, as well as his
sagacity, led him to expect, similar to those sad anticipations which he
had expressed when he was last at Corinth ; Rom. xv. 31.
could not arrange for all to come, was it not most natural that he should choose these,
especially since they had to watch over the whole of tho churches? And that this office
was assigned by Paul to the presbyters is evident from those epistles of which the genu
ineness is admitted by Baur himself; from the idea of " government," KvfispvTioic, 1 Cor.
xii. 28 ; of " ruling." irpolnrdpevoe, Bom. xii. 8 ; from what Paul says in 1 Cor. xvi. 15,
16, respecting the relation of the churches to those who have to fill ecclesiastical offices;
in which words might be also found from Baur's point of view, the marks of a later age.
We would not indeed attach equal weight to all those marks appealed to in support
of the originality of such a farewell speech ; yet taken collectively, their testimony appears
to prove something. And if Luke had before him an earlier written draft of Paul's ad
dress, containing the presentiment he expressed of his impending death, I do not see how
any one is justified in maintaining that Paul could not have uttered it, in case this antici
pation had not been fulfilled. According to truth, he must have allowed him to speak as
he actually spoke. But it could not be any difficulty to Luke or to the persons for whom
the record of those memorable occasions was in the first place designed, if a presentiment
of Paul's respecting his impending fate was not fulfilled in its full extent. Infallible fore
knowledge of future events was certainly, according to the Christian idea of that age, not
among the marks of a genuine apostle, and the contrary is rather implied iu Paul's own
words, v. 22. He speaks in a somewhat dubious tone of the fate that awaited him.
Whoever might have forged, after the event, an address of Paul's, would have made him
speak in a very different and more decided tone. We do not see how Baur can infer from
the passage of Paul's epistles, in which he speaks with sanguine hopes of the consequen
ces to be expected from his journey to Jerusalem, that Paul could not at that time have
so spoken. Who can calculate the alterations of feeling in a, human soul? Especially
does it make a difference whether he wrote his epistle several months before, (and yet he
anticipated even then the dangers that awaited him, Rom. xv. 31, a passage indeed not
admitted as genuine by Baur,) or gave this parting address as he was going to meet the
expected end of his journey, after he had received many prophetic warnings.
* Of whom Tacitus says : "Per omnem ssevitiam ae libidinem jus regium servili in-
genio exercuit." Hist. v. 9.

overseers of the ephesian church. 277
There arc especially two warnings and exhortations relative to the
future, w hich he addressed to the overseers of the church, and enforced
by the example of his own labors during three years' residence among
them. He foresaw, that false teachers from other parts would insinu
ate themselves into these churches, and that even among themselves
such would arise and gain many adherents.* He exhorts them, there
fore, to watch that the doctrine of salvation, which he had faithfully pub
lished to them for so long a period, might be preserved in its purity. The
false teachers whom he here pointed out were most probably distinct
from the class of common Judaizers ; for in churches in which the Gen
tile Christians, that is, the Hellenic element,! so predominated as in those
of Lesser Asia, such persons could not be so dangerous ; and particularly
wdien such false teachers were described as proceeding from the bosom
of the church itself, it must be presumed that these heretical tendencies
must have developed themselves from a mixture with Christianity of the
mental elements already existing in the church. Might not Paul's expe
rience during his long stay in Lesser Asia, have given him occasion to
feel these anxieties for the future? As immediately after announcing
the danger that threatened the church, he reminded them that for three
years he had not ceased, day or night, to warn each one among them
with tears, we may infer that he had at that time cause thus to address
the consciences of their overseers, and to warn them so impressively
against the adulteration of Christian truth. We here see the first omens
indicated by the apostle of a new conflict which awaited pure Christian
ity, a point to which we shall recur again further on. J At the close
of his address, Paul refers them to the example of disinterested and self-
denying love, which he had given them : — he had required of them
neither gold, nor silver, nor raiment, but as they well knew, had provided
for his own temporal wants and those of his followers by the labor of
* It is possible, that v. 30 may refer to the presbyters personally, and the words may
be so understood that the false teachers would proceed from their own body ; but since
the presbyters appear as representatives of the churches, it is not necessary to make the
reference so confined. It may be properly taken in a more general sense, that false teach
ers would not only find entrance into the churches from other places, but also proceed from
among these churches themselves.
f Schneckenburger, p. 136, objects against this remark, that in the Gentile-Christian
Galatian churches, Judaizing false teachers could produce the greatest confusion ; but the
degree of Grecian cultivation iu Galatia and at Ephesus makes a difference here.
X As from what is said in the text it is easily shown, that Paul must have held such a
warning against the propagation of new perversions of Christian truth to be called for ; so
I can find no ground whatever for Baur's again repeated assertion that Paul could not
have so spoken. Paul knew well that, for the protection of the genuine, there must be
opposition between the genuine and the spurious, there must arise divisions, 1 Cor. xi.
19. When he says that all these troubles, which were already growing in the germ, aud
which had been kept back through his constant influence in the churches would break
out after his departure, this language is appropriate in the mouth of Paul, and furnishes
no mark whatever of a confusion of times on the part of him who may have ascribed
these words to Paul.

278 Paul's last journey to Jerusalem.
his own hands. These words are admirably suited to the close of the
address. By reminding the presbyters of the proofs of his disinterested
love, and of his zeal which shunned no toil and no privation for the sal
vation of souls, he gave still greater weight to his exhortations. The
33d verse is closelyconnected with the 31st, where he reminds them of
his labors among them for their souls, and in both verses he holds out
his own example for their imitation. He expresses this still more clearly
in the words, "I have showed you all things (or in every way), how that
so laboring ye ought to support the weak,* and remember the words of
tlie Lord Jesus : ' It is more blessed to give than to receive.' " It con
veyed the exhortation, that in the discharge of their office they should
avoid a'l appearance of selfishness, that they should rather earn their
own livelihood, and give up their claim to what they had a right to ex
pect from the church to which they had consecrated their powers. He
impressed this upon them in the most delicate manner, since he does not
use the express form of exhortation, but presents his example for imita
tion under similar circumstances. Paul indeed declares elsewhere, that
the preachers of the gospel, as Christ himself had expressed it, were
entitled to receive their maintenance from the churches for whose spirit
ual welfaie they labored. And it may appear strange that he here de
parts from this rule, and that he should here prescribe to all the presbyters
what elsewhere he has represented as an exception arising out of very
peculiar circumstances, and as something suited only to ids individual
position.f But there is a difference between the circumstances of itiner
ant missionaries and those of the overseers of churches whose activity
at first was not so claimed by their pastoral duties as to prevent their
carrying on at the same time their former secular employment ;J and if
they thus labored with self-sacrificing love, without any appearance of
selfishness, their authority and influence, which would be required to
counteract the false teachers, would be much increased.
* Certainly the " weak," doBtveie, in Acts xx. 35, are not those who needed help in
respect of their bodily wants ; in that case, why should not a more definite word be used ?
Neither does the connexion suit such an interpretation, for Paul does not say that he
labored that he might be able to give to the poor, or that he might support his poor asso
ciates in the ministry; but that the church might not be obliged to contribute, either to
them or to him, any thing for their support. And this manifestly in order that every
occasion might be taken from the weak, who were not sufficiently established in Christian
principles, who would be easily disposed to entertain the suspicion of ptivate advantage.
The use of the word " weak" iu 2 Cor. xi. 29, also favors this interpretation, and what he
assigns in bolh the Epistle;s to the Corinthians as the reasons of such conduct. Thus also
this exhortation stands in closer connexion with what goes before; for if the presbyters
avoided all appearance of selfishness, they would have a firmer hold on the general confi
dence, and thus, like Paul himself in reference to the Judaizers, could more successfully
oppose the false teachers, who endeavored for their own ends to excite mistrust of the
existing teachers and guides of the church.
! For which reason Schneckenburger thinks it improbable that Paul should have so
expressed himself.
X See pages 34, 149, 153.

OVERSEERS OF THE EPHESIAN CHURCH. 279
In this whole address, as suited the feelings and aim of one who was
probably taking a last farewell of his spiritual children, the hortatory
element is throughout predominant ; if we at the same time suppose an
apologetic element, which is very doubtful, it is at all evenfs quite sub
ordinate to the hortatory. It is very improbable, that when he spoke of
his own disinterestedness, he intended to repel the accusations of his Ju
daizing adversaries; for though he was obliged to answer such charges
in writing to the Corinthians, we are not to infer that a similar exculpa
tion of himself was required in all the churches. With greater reason
we may find in what he says of the completeness of his teaching in the
doctrines of salvation, a reference to the accusations of his Judaizing
opponents, of wdiich we have so often spoken. But even this is very
doubtful ; for in any case, without an apologetic design, and simply to
excite the presbv ters to fidelity in holding fast the pure doctrine which
they had received, he would of necessity remind them how important he
had felt it to keep back nothing from them that was necessary for salva
tion, and that he was free from blame if, after all, they should not faith
fully preserve the doctrine made known to them.*
Such an address could not but make a deep impression on their
hearts, of which we have a simple and striking description in the Acts
xx. 36-38.
When Paul arrived at Cesaraea (Stratonis), within two days' journey
of Jerusalem, he was warned anew of the dangers that threatened him
The members of the church and his companions united their entreaties
that he would bo careful of his life, and not proceed any further. But
though he was far from the enthusiastic zeal that panted for martyrdom,
though he never neglected any methods of Christian prudence, in order
to preserve his life for the service of his Lord and of the Church, yet as
he himself declared, he counted his life as nothing, if required to sacri
fice it in the ministry entrusted to him. However much a heart so ten
derly susceptible, so open to all pure human emotions as his, must have
been moved by the tears of his friends, who loved him as their spiritual
father, yet he suffered not his resolution to be shaken, but resisted
all these impressions, in order to follow the call of duty ; he left all
events to the will of the Lord, in which at last his Christian brethren
concurred. The reception which Paul met with at Jerusalem must have been dif
ferent according to the various materials of the Christian church, which
* Baur with his fixed idea of a designed parallelism between Peter and Paul, in sup
port of which he confesses that nothing can be found elsewhere in the address, will at
least find in these words a point of connexion for it ; but certainly no one who does not
contemplate everything in the light of such a fixed idea will find in the words any refer
ence to such a parallel. The language of Baur is : " It is as if the perfect candor exhib-
ited in tho apostolic ministrations, and which the Jewish Christians would make con
spicuous in their Peter, in order to defend him against the reproach of duplicity, GaL u
12, must also be claimed for the apostle Paul"

280 PAUL AT JERUSALEM.
at that place was mixed with Jews. We must here suppose the transi
tion from Judaism to Christianity in manifold gradations, though all
the members, notwithstanding the greatest differences on other points,
were bound to one another by the common faith that Jesus was the Mes
siah. The most important point of difference, which, as we shall see,
lasted to later times,* was this, — those who, along with their faith in
Jesus as the Messiah, still held fast to the Jewish views, but at the same
time acknowledged the free development of Christianity among the
heathen, on whose privileges they imposed no restraints; on the other
side were those who were never disposed to consider the uncircumcised
who did not observe the Mosaic law, as equal partakers with themselves
of the kingdom of God. We can hardly be surprised at this when we
recollect that the number of believing Jews is reckoned iu Acts xxi. 20
as amounting to many myriads,! though this is not to be regarded as an
exact enumeration, and those who came up to the feast from other parts
must be taken into account. But we cannot venture to draw an infer
ence from the small number of Chrislians among the JewsJ in the third
century, respecting the relative proportions at this period. § The power
ful impression of Christ's appearance continued to operate on manv; and
whatever among the body of the people was opposed to faith in him, the
contrariety that was consciously felt between the spirit of Christ and their
carnal views now vanished, since they could depict a Messiah according
to their mind, in him whose personal image no longer stood before their
eyes; and what they had been wont to expect from the Messiah, they trans
ferred to Christ, whose speedy return they anticipated to found his king
dom in the world. Among many of this class nothing was to be found
peculiarly Christian, and they distinguished themselves from other Jews
only by acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. Hence, the spiritual
superiors of the people gave themselves no further concern about such a
Christianity, and allowed it lo remain undisturbed. But it was quite
natural that such people, when their Messianic expectations were not
fulfilled, should apostatize altogether from the faith.
Those who were more thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the gos-
* See Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. f. 265, 66, ed. Colon. 16S6.
! If the author of the Acts was desirous of removing the distinction between Jewish
Christians and Gentile Christians, it certainly was not to his purpose to put the former of
these nearer to the Jews themselves. And an author of a later day, when the number of
Christians among the Jews was very much diminished, would hardly have had occasion to
make so many of them.
X Origen says, T. i. in Joann. § 2, that the number of believing Jews in the wbolo
world did not amount to so many as one hundred and foity thousand.
§ Ilegesippus also says in Eusebius ii. 23, TloAACv «al tuv dpXdvruv irinreiovruv yi.
OdpviSoe tuv 'lovdaiuv xai ypappariuv Kal ^aptaaiuv Aeyivruv, on Ktvdvvevel rrdc 6 ?.ab(
Hr/oovv tov Xpiarbv irpoodoKav. (Many of the rulers, also, having bedieved, there was an
uproar of'the Jews, of both Scribes and Pharisees, who said there was danger that all tha
people would expect Jesus as the Messiah,)

PA7L AT JERUSALEM. 281
pel, the more enlightened among the Jewish Christians, received Paui
with Christian brotherly love.*
The next day after his arrival at Jerusalem, Paul. with his companions
visited James the brother of the Lord, at whose house the presbyters of
the church were assembled. They listened with great interest to his
account of the effects of the gospel among the Gentiles. But James
called his attention to the fact, that a great number of Jews who be
lieved on Jesus as the Messiah, and were yet zealous and strict observers
of the Mosaic law, were prejudiced against hiin ; for those Judaizers,
who everywhere sought to injure Paul's ministry, had circulated in Jeru
salem the charge against him, that, not content with releasing the be
lieving Gentiles from the observance of the Mosaic law, he had required
of the Jews wdio lived among them not to circumcise their children, and
not to observe the law. This charge, so brought forward, was certainly
false; for Paul combated the outward observances of Judaism only so
far as the justification and sanctification of men were made to depend
upon them. It was his principle, that no one should relinquish the earthly
national and civil relations in which he stood at his conversion, unless
for important reasons; and on this principle he allowed the Jews to
retain their peculiarities, among which was the observance of the Mosaic
law; 1 Cor. vii. 18. But it could not fail to happen, that those who
entered into the Pauline ideas of the relation of the law to the gospel,
and were thereby freed from scrupulosity in the observance of the for
mer, were led into a freer line of conduct in this respect, and some might
go further than Paul wished in the indulgence of their inclinations.
Such instances as these might have given occasion to the charge that he
had seduced the Jewish Corinthians to release themselves from the law.
It is indeed true,! that when once this was generally acknowledged, that
circumcision was of no avail for obtaining a part in God's kingdom, it
would sooner or later fall into disuse. But in that principle all the apos
tles agreed, as appears from what has been said above, even had we made
no use at all of the accounts in the Acts. According to the principle in
which both parties were unanimous, the two different forms of the church
among Jews and Gentiles springing from natural and national distinc
tions as well as from the process of historical development, existed for
some time side by side. As the apostles among the Jews acknowledged
the free agency of the Holy Spirit among the Gentiles, and allowed the
* In reference, also, to this part of the history, we must maintain the same view which
has hitherto approved itself to us in making use of the Acts; namely, that the difficulties
it presents in attempting to obtain an historical representation from it, do not proceed from
aDy designed object on the part of the author, but on the contrary, from the want of prag
matism, (i. e. a clear exhibition of causes and consequences,) the rude collocation of facts,
so that the narrator never placed himself in the position of other persons, to answer ques
tions which must occur lo them in order to explain the connexion of the facts. Hence we
are obliged to supply many things by historical combination before we can obtain an intel
ligible history. t To which Baur ^es prominence.

282 PAUL AT JERUSALEM.
churches founded among them to be formed in their own way without
interference of theirs,* so Paul also allowed the church among the Jews
to develop itself freely in their way. In the natural historical process of
development no violent encroachments were made on either side. And
why could not both peculiar ecclesiastical forms exist together for a
length of time, though the distinction must be obliterated by the pro
gressive development of the church?
Without departing from the principles of strict truthfulness, Paul
could repel those charges to which we have referred, for he was very
far from wishing to anticipate in an arbitrary manner the historical de
velopment ; it was with him an avowed principle that every man should
abide in those relations which belonged to him when the call of Chris
tianity reached him, and no one should wilfully renounce them. He was
far f 10111 that hatred against Judaism, and the ancient theocratic people,
of which his violent opponents accused him. On the principles which
he avowed in his epistles, according to which, to the Jews he became "a
Jew, to the Gentiles a Gentile, and we ik to the weak, he declared him
self equally ready to do what James proposed,! to refute that charge by
an overt act, by taking part in the Jewish cultus in a mode which was
highly esteemed by pious Jews.J He joined himself to four members
of the church, who had undertaken a Nazarite' s vow for seven days.
He submitted to the same restraints, and informed the priests that he
would be answerable for the expense of the offerings that were to be
presented on the accomplishment of the purification. § But though he
* Irenasus iii. 12, 15, presents this point of view well : Hi autem qui circa Jacobum
apostoli gentibus quidem libere agere permittebant, concedentes nos Spiritui Dei. Ipsi
vero eundem scientes Deum perseverabant in prisliuis observationibus. (But those apos
tles who followed James, allowed the Gentiles to act freely, giving us up to the Spirit of
God. Yet they themselves, knowing the same God, continued in their former observances).
He adds ihe following words, which in respect to freedom of historical apprehension are
noteworthy : ita ut et Petrus quoque, timens ne culparctur ab ipsis, ante manducans cum
gentibus, cum tamen advenis^ent quidam ab Jacobo, scparavit se et non manducavit cum
eis. (So that even Peter also, who had previously eaten with Gentiles, when certain ones
came from James, fearing lest ho should be blamed by them, separated himself from the
Gentiles and would not eat with thein.)
f We must not interpret too rigidly the words of James when he desires Paul (Acts
xxi. 24) by that act to prove that he also lived in the observance of the law; we obtain
their correct meaning by contrasting them with the charge made by the Jews. The view,
according to which Paul to "those without law," dvopoi, became "one without law,"
dvopoe, was indeed different from that of James, and we know not whether James and
Paul referred particularly to the special difference existing between themselves. There
are many differences on which it is better to be silent than to express our opinion.
X Josephus, Archoeol. xix. 6, § 1.
§ The common supposition that Paul joined himself to these Nazarones, when they
had yet seven days, Acts xxi. 27, to continue their abstinence for the discharge of their
vow, and that during this time he kept the vow with them, is at variance with tho mention
of twelve days. Acts xxiv. 11, for in that ease there must have been seventeon days. It
is indeed in itself possible, that Paul did not reckon in the five days which he spent in
confinement at Caesarea, since they signified nothing for his object ; but this is not implied

Paul's vow at Jerusalem. 28-3
might havo satisfied by this means the minds of the better disposed
among the Jewish Christians, the inveterate zealots among the Jews
were not at all conciliated.* On the contrary, they were only the more
incensed, that the man who, as they said, had everywhere taught the
Gentiles to blaspheme the people of God, the law, and the temple, had
ventured to take a part in the Jewish religious service. They had seen
a Gentile Christian, Trophimus, in company with him, and hence the
fanatics concluded that he had taken a Gentile with him into the temple
and defiled it. A violent tumult instantly arose, and Paul was rescued
from the enraged multitude only by means of the Roman tribune, who
hastened to the spot with a band of soldiers from the Arx Antonia
situated over against the temple, the quarters of the Roman garrison.
Paul was on the point of being scourged, (a common mode of torture
among the Romans,) for the purpose of extorting a confession respecting
the cause of this tumult, but by declaring himself a Roman citizen he was
saved from this ignominy. The tribune now endeavored to reach the
bottom of the case, that he might send Paul to appear before the San
hedrim. The manner in which the apostle conducted himself on this oc
casion, shows him to have been the man who knew how to control the
agitation of his feelings by a sober judgment, and to avail himself of
circumstances with Christian prudence, without any compromise of truth.
When he was suddenly carried away by the impulse of righteous indig
nation to speak with greater warmth than he intended, he was able to
recover the mastery of his feelings, and to act in a manner becoming his
vocation. In a moment of excitement at the arbitrary conduct of the
high priest Ananias, while thinking only of the person and losing sight
of the office whose duties had been violated, he had used intemperate
expressions though containing truth ;! but on being informed that it was
the high priest whom he had so addressed, he at once corrected himself
in what he has said. There remains, therefore, nothing else but to assume, that the seven
days denote a definite number of days, to which at that time the Nazarites' vow used to
extend, and that Paul had joined the Nazarites on one of the last of these days. But on
the other hand, in tho section of the Mishnah on the Nazarites' vow, the number of
thirty days is mentioned as the fixed term for this oath. As to the seven days mentioned
in Numbers vi., they are not applicable to the present case; for they refer to the case of a
person who, during the time of his vow, has defiled himself, and who, after the interval
of seven days' purification, begins his vow afresh.
* I find no reason for assuming with Baur, that the machinations against Paul pro
ceeded chiefly from the Jewish Christians, and to charge the author of the Acts with falsi
fying a matter of fact. But I consider it possible that, among the great multitude of Jew-
Christians, some might be found to whom their Judaism was more important than the
little Christianity they possessed, and that such persons would make common cause with
the Jewish zealots against Paul.
f The manner in which Paul here comes before us in the Acts, corresponds most
exactly to his character, as we learn it from his epistles, combining a warmth of tempera
ment with a wisdom which knew how to turn every circumstance to the best account. A
later writer, attempting to f ibrieate a story, would noUiave represented Paul as speaking
in the way mentioned in Acts xxiii. 3.

284 Paul's arrest at Jerusalem.
and said, he had not considered that it was the high priest, to wliom
reverence certainly was due according to the law.* In order to secure
the voice of the majority among his judges, he availed himself of that
means! for the victoiy of truth, which has been often used against it —
the divide et impera in a good sense; he enlisted on his side the bias for
that truth by the acknowledgment of which the greater number of his
judges really approached nearer to him, than the few who denied it, in
order to produce a division in the assembly. He could say with truth,
that he was brought to trial because he had testified of the hope of Israel,
of the resurrection of the dead, for he had preached Jesus as the person
age by whom this hope was fulfilled. These words had the effect of
uniting the Pharisees present in his favor, and of involving them in a
warm debate with the Sadducees, to wdiom the high priest himself
belonged.! The former could find no fault in him. If he had said that
* We need not be perplexed with the "I wist not," f/Setv ovk in Acts xxiii. 5. The
very turn of the expression shows us that Paul in his momentary embarrassment, and
regretting his intemperate language, only sought to apologise, and the words, as the by
standers would be aware, are not to be taken too stringently.
! Everything here is exactly to the life. To fabricate this would require a talent for
description different from what the author of the Acts possessed. Paul might have had
in his thoughts another line of defence; but after he had allowed himself to be carried
away by his warmth, and had returned from the digression, he chose this prudential
method in order to give a favorable turn to his cause.
X Baur thinks that this representation of the transaction as we take it from the Acts,
must be regarded as unhistorical throughout. It is an entire distortion of the question in
dispute wdiich Paul here allows himself and inconsistent with his love of truth ; and the
dispute thus called forth between the Pharisees and Sadducees is something altogether
improbable. "Parties who differed from one another on such essential points, but who
nevertheless so frequently met in society, and were united in the same official body, must
have so long exhausted themselves respecting their points of difference, that it was im
possible they could, on every occasion, make them afresh the subjects of the most violent
dispute, least of all iu such a case, in which, as in the one before us, the easily detected
stratagem of an opponent would be made use of in the dispute to his own advantage."
As to the first point, I do not see why Paul, setting out from his own subjective train of
thought, could not bring forward that side of the controversy from which his own cause
must appear in a favorable light to a majority of his judges, while he kept in the back
ground the other poinls in dispute. It was not a false connexion, but one perfectly cor
responding to the truth according to his convictions. Ever since he had testified among
the Gentiles of Jesus the Bisen One as the foundation of the whole Gospel, he had been
the object of the most violent attacks of the Jews. This faith involved everything else
hat belonged to this controversy. Whether the hope of a resurrection to eternal life
would be fulfilled, depended on the question whether Jesus was the Messiah, and whether
he had really risen. Paul was conscious that he testified of the reality of all the hopes
of the pious under the Old Covenant, arid that he was a truly orthodox Jew. This be
asserted with unwavering conviction. This was a, line of conduct by which he occupied
the position of his opponents, and obliged them to acknowledge what he maintained lo be
true — a method which perfectly suited Paul's rhetoric and dialectic.
As to the second point, we know indeed that the Sadducees gladly retired from publio
offices, and whenever they occupied them, felt obliged, from regard to popular opinion, to
accommodate themselves to the maxims of the Pharisees, (llpboxupovot off d Qaptoaioc

Paul's arrest at Jerusalem. 285
the spirit of a deceased person or that an angel had appeared to him
(the appearance of the risen Jesus) — whatever he might mean by this,
and \\ hether what he averred were true or not, they did not pretend to
determine, nor trouble themselves about it — at all events, they could
not criminate hiin on this account.* The tribune of the Roman cohort
at last saw himself obliged, by the plots of Paul's enemies against his
life, to send him under an escort to the metropolis of the province,
Caesarea, and to transfer the whole affair to the Procurator Felix, who
resided tliere.
The accusation which the Sanhedrim was allowed to bring by counsel
against him, was the only one which, according to the privileges secured
to the Jews by the Roman laws, could with any show of reason be made,
namely, that he everywhere disturbed the Jews in the enjoyment of these
privileges, the peaceful exercise of their cultus, — that he excited dis
turbances and divisions among them, and that at last he had dared to
desecrate the temple. The tribune was accused of preventing the Jews
from judging Paul according to the privileges secured to them by law.
Felix, who was not disposed to meddle with the internal disputes of the
Jews, perceived no fault in the accused, and hence must at once have set
him at liberty, if he had not hoped, as it was his constant practice to
make justice venal, to obtain money from him ; but as Paul was not
wiling to purchase his freedom by such an unlawful method, which would
cast suspicion both on himself and his cause, Felix, in order to gain favor
with the Jews on leaving them, to whom he had been sufficiently obnox
ious, left him in confinement, ami thus he remained for two years till the
arrival of the new Procurator, M. Porcius Festus-!
Aeyei, did to pri dXkue dveicrode yeriaBai rote rrAr)Beaiv. Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. e. 1, % 4.)
But tho warmth of party feeling could easily gain the ascendancy over cold-blooded
politics, and the forcibly restrained spite between the two parties would readily break out
again on many occasions. It might very possibly happen that,owing to the quite tumul
tuary manner in which matters had been carried on against Paul, the leaders of the people
had not yet learned what was the corpus delicti in his case; and since the Pharisees had
always heard him assert that Jesus the Risen One had appeared to him, they fixed their
attention on that one point, because their controversy with the Sadducees, which to them
was far more important, became the subject of discussion.
* The words "let us not fight agair.st God," pi) Beopaxupiv, Acts xxiii. 9, are cer
tainly a gloss, and a gloss at variance with the general tenor of the passage, for this waa
certainly more than the Pharisees could be willing to say from their point of view.
! If the precise time at which Felix was recalled, and Festus received the govern
ment of the province, could be exactly determined, we should have an important chrono
logical mark; but this period cannot be so exactly determined. The chronological data
on which we here proceed, are the following. When Felix laid down the procuratorship,
he was accused at Rome, as Josephus (Archceol. xx. 8, § 9) relates, by the Jews, on
account of the oppressions he had practised, and would have been punished if he had not
been delivered by the intercession of his brother Pallas, who just at that time had much
influence with the emperor. But Pallas was poisoned by Nero in the year 62, see Tacit.
Annal. xiv. 65. This enables us to fix the extreme terminus ad quem of the recall of Felix.
But according to the narrative of Tacitus, Pallas had long before lost his influence,

286 PAUL SENT TO CAESAREA.
Paul had for a long time previous to this event entertained the thought
of preaching the gospel in the metropolis of the world. But it was now
uncertain whether he would ever attain the fulfilment of this inward call ;
but on the night after he had borne testimony to his faith before the
assembled Sanhedrim, the Lord imparted the assurance to him by a
vision, that as he had been his witness in the capital of the Jewish world,
he should also be the same in that of the Gentile world. It was this
which confirmed him in his resolution, when the procurator was about to
sacrifice him to the wishes of the Jewirii Sanhedrim, of seeking deliver
ance by an appeal to the emperor. The arrival at Caesarea of the young
King Agrippa II., as a person acquainted with the Jews and their religion,
was acceptable to Festus, since he hoped that by admitting Paul to an ex
amination in his presence, he could learn something more decisive in this
affair, which might be communicated in his report to Rome. Paul ap
peared before so numerous and august an assembly, before the Roman
procurator and the Jewish king, with exultation at the thought of being
able to testify of what filled his heart before such an audience. He ad
dressed himself especially to King Agrippa, in whom, through their com
mon acquaintance with the Jewish faith, he could hope to find more
points of connexion than in a heathen magistrate. He narrated how he
had been educated in zealous attachment to Pharisaic principles, and
from a violent persecutor had, by a call from the Lord himself, become a
devoted preacher of the gospel, — that in obeying this call up to that time
(Annul, xiii. 14.) At the beginning of his reign, Nero had removed Pallas from the office
he held under Claudius, and treated him with displeasure. And since Josephus says that
when Pallas interceded for his brother Felix he stood in favor with the emperor, it follows,
that the recall of Felix must have taken place in the beginning of Nero's reign, wdiich can
by no means be admitted. What Josephus says in the history of his life, of his own
journey to Rome in his six-and-twentieth year, gives no sure foundation for determining
the time when Felix laid down his office. Schrader thinks indeed, that he can find a
decisive chronological mark in this, that something which Jos -pbus puts in connexion
with the entrance of Festus into office, was decided by the influence of Poppsea, already
married to Nero, (Joseph. Archceol. xx. 8, § 1); for it would follow that since Nero,
according to Tacitus, married Poppasa in 62, Festus must have entered on his government
about this time. But the words of Josephus, xiv. 60, "about this time" Kara rbv Kaipbv
tovtoi; cannot avail for exactly determining the time; Poppaaa, long before her marriage
to Nero, had great influence over him, as appears from the words of Tacitus, Annal. xiv.
60: " Ea diii peilex et adulteri Neronis. mox mariti potens," (She, a mistress of the de
testable and adulterous Nero, afterwards influential with him as her husband,) and may
have already at an earlier day accomplished much by interceding with the emperor. Wo
Deed not attach much weight to the circumstance that Josephus calls her at that time
the wife of Nero. But in all this, much uncertainty attaches to the chronology of events,
and the supposition that Felix laid down his office in the year 62, and therefore lhat
Paul's confinement took place in 60, is by no means sufficiently proved. We may there
fore safely place it some years earlier. If Paul was set at liberty from his confinement at
Rome, we must necessarily admit the earlier date; for if his confinement at Rome had
been contemporaneous with the great conflagration, he would certainly have fallen a
sacrifice to the fury then excited against the Christians.

Paul's defence at caesarea. 287
he had testified bef re Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but had pub
lished nothing else than what Moses and the prophets had foretold ;
why then do you doubt that the Messiah should suffer, that he should
rise from the dead, and by the assurance of an everlasting divine life
diffuse light among Jews and Gentiles ? This he might presume was
admitted by the king as an acknowledged article of faith, but it must
appear utterly strange to the Romans; strange also must the religious
inspiration with which Paul uttered all this appear to the cold-hearted
Roman statesman. He could see nothing in it but fanatical delusion.
'Too much Jewish learning," he exclaimed, "hath made thee mad."
But with calm confidence Paul replied, " I am not mad, but speak the
words of truth and soberness!" and, turning to Agrippa, he called upon
him as a witness, since he well knew that these things were not done in
any corner of the earth, in secret, but publicly at Jerusalem. And with
a firm conviction, that, in all he had testified, the promises of the pro
phets were fulfilled, he said to the king, " Believest thou the prophets ?
I know that thou believest !" Agrippa, offended by Paul's confidence,
answered, "Truly in a short time* thou wilt make me a Christian."
Paul, with his fetters on his arm, conscious of possessing more than all
the glory of the world, uttered the noble words, " Yes, I pray God that
sooner or later, he may make not only thee, O king, but all who hear me
to-day, what I now am, except these bonds !"
As the king and the procurator after this examination could not find
Paul guilty of any offence punishable by the laws, the procurator would
probably have set him at liberty, if after his appeal to Caesar it had not
been necessary for the matter to take its legal course ; yet the report
(elogium) with which he would be sent to Rome, could not be otherwise
than in his favor. The centurion to whom he was committed, with other
prisoners that were to be taken to Rome, certainly corroborated the im
pression of this favorable report by the account he gave of Paul's con
duct during his long and dangerous voyage. Hence he met at Rome
with more indulgent treatment than the other prisoners : he was allowed
to hire a private dwelling in which only one soldier attended him as a
guard, to whom he was fastened by a chain on the arm (the usual mode
of the custodia militaris), and could without restraint receive visits, and
write letters.
* I understand the words iv bAiyu (Acts xxvi. 28) in the only sense which they can
have according to the usus loquendi and Paul's answer. The interpretation adopted by
Meyer " with little," is indeed possible, but appears to me not so natural. If the read
ing of the Cod. Alex, and of the Vulgate, which Bachmann approves, iv pty'iku, be
adopted in Paul's answer, the words of Agrippa must be thus explained: With few
reascns (which will not cost you much trouble) you thin't of making me a Christian, —
and the answer of Paul will be: Whether with great or with little — for many or few
reasons, I pray God, &c. But I cannot make up my mitd to receive as correct this read
ing, which maybe explained as a gloss, aud is not sr pported by very preponderating
authorities.

288 PAUL AND THE JEWS AT ROME.
As he had cause to fear that the Jews dwelling at Rome had received
from Jerusalem a report inimical to his character, and regarded him as an
accuser of his people, he endeavored speedily to remove this unfavorable
impression. Accordingly, three days after his arrival, he invited the
principal persons among them to visit him. It proved that no report to
Paul's prejudice had yet reached them, if it be allowed that they spoke
the truth. It also appeared from the statements of these respectable
Jews, that they had heard little or nothing of the Christian church which
existed in the same city with themselves. Nor is this inconceivable, if
we only- consider the immense size of the metropolis, and the vast con
fluence of human beings it contained, and if to this we add, that the main
body of that church consisted of Gentiles, and that these wealthy Jews
busied themselves far more about other objects than about the concerns
of religion. Yet it by no means appears from the statements of the Jews
that they had sjarcely heard of a Christian church existing at Rome, but
only that they had not taken any pains to acquire an accurate knowledge
of its existence. They knew indeed that this new sect met everywhere
with opponents, and hence it might be inferred that the}' had heard of
the controversies which had been carried on at Rome about it, for the
" everywhere" (rravraxov), in Acts xxviii. 22, certainly does not exclude
a reference to what was going on at Rome itself, and we must not forget
that only the substance of what, the Jews said is handed down to us.*
As they heard much of the opposition excited against this new sect, but
nothing precise respecting its doctrines, they were well pleased that
Paul proposed to give them an address on the subject. But here, as
everywhere else, Paul's preaching found more acceptance with the
Gentiles than with the Jews.!
* I cannot find any foundation for the contradiction wdiich Dr. Baur thinks he has
detected between this narration in the Acts, and the existence of such a church at Rome
as the Epistle to the Romans requires us to suppose.
f The position developed and advocated with equal acuteness and learning by H-
Bottger in the second part of his Beitr'dge z<i,r hislorisch-kritischen Einleitung in die pauli-
nischen Briefe, Gdttingen, 1837, — that Taul was a prisoner only for the first three or five
days alter his arrival in Rome, that he then obtained his freedom, and lived for two years
in a hired house, quite at liberty — this position, if it were true, would cast a new light
on Paul's history during this period; for it would then appear that all those Epistles,
which evidently were written during some one imprisonment, could not have been written
at Rome or during his first confinement there. But the narrative in the Acts is directly
opposed to this supposition. I cannot understand Acts xxviii. 16, otherwise than that
permission was then granted to Paul to reside in a private house, the same which is de
signated in v. 23, "his lodging," Zevia, and in v. 30, as "his own hired house," iv Idiu
ptoBupan. It cannot be imagined, that if after three days, so important an alteration had
taken place in Paul's circumstances, Bnke would not have mentioned it, for the assertion
that his readers must have concluded this of themselves, from the known forms of Roman
justice, cannot satisfy us. Even if this could have be^n supposed, he would hardly have
omitted to point out in few words so important a change in Paul's lot. But it is net
easily proved that such an inference could be drawn from what is known respectino- the
course of Roman justice at that time. The manner also in which Luke expresses him-

PAUL AND THE JEWS AT ROME. 289
"With the confinement of Paul at Rome, a new and important era
commenced, not only in his life and ministry, but also in the development
of the churches founded by him ; for in proportion as Christianity spread
more widely, a number of heterogeneous mental elements were brought
into action, many important phenomena became conspicuous; while the
divine word operated among them in an independent manner, and they
were deprived of the apostle's personal oversight and guidance.
self (Acls xxviii. 30, 31) respecting Paul's residence for two years at Rome, certainly
implies that he had not then obtained his freedom, for we are merely told that he
preached the gospel in his own dwelling; but it is not narrated that he visited the
synagogue or any place where the church met, for which omission no other reason
can be given, than that, although he could receive any visit in his own residence,
under the inspection of his guard, he was not at liberty to go to whatever place he
chose; and least of all, would a prisoner, whose cause was not yet decided, have
been permitted to attend these meetings of the church, even if accompanied by his
guard. Here, therefore, we have a fact which cannot be explained, unless we admit
the continued confinement of Paul. How likewise can it be imagined, that Paul, who
wished to visit the church at Rome only on his way, would have stayed there for two
years, where suitable measures had already been taken for the continued propagation of
Christianity, instead of travelling to those regions of the West, where nothing at all had
yet been done for making known the gospel ? This is explicable only on the supposition,
that he remained so long a time at Rome under constraint.
According to the account in the Acts, we may receive it as an established fact, that
Paul lived two years iu Rome as a prisoner, — a fact which can be overturned by nothing
that we know of the course of Roman justice in the case of such appeals ; even without
Waiting to examine how these could be reconciled to oue another.
Meanwhile, from what is known of the legal processes in the time of the first Caesars,
it can by no means be proved, what is in the highest degree improbable, that all the causes
which, in consequence of an appeal, were brought to Rome for decision, were decided in
the course of five or ten days. It was one thing to decide on the admissibUity of the
appeal, and another thing to decide on the point of law respecting which tho appeal was
made. My respected colleague, Professor Rudorff, who has had the goodness to 'make
me a written communication on this subject, concludes with the statement, that the term
of five or ten days related not to the duration of the judicial proceedings, but to the
lodo-ing of the appeal, and to the apostoli ( = literal dimissorice) ; that it gave no prescrip
tion relative to the term of the transaction itself; and that the accused remained under
arrest till the decision of the emperor. Thus, in the Sentential Receptee of Julius Paulus,
lib. v. tit. 34, it is said expressly of the apostoli, " Quorum postulatio et acceptio intra
quintum diem ex officio facienda est," (whose application and grant must be made within
five days). In a law enacted by the Emperor Constantine in 314, according to which,
however, we are not justified in determining the legal process in the limes of the first
Cfesars, is the express provision that the appellator should be free from arrest only in
causal civiles, but of criminates causae it is said, " In quibus, etiamsi possunt provocare,
eum tamen statum debent obtinere, ut post provocationem in custodia perseverent," (in
which although they can appeal, yet they ought to bold that position that, after the ap
peal, they may remain in custody.) Cod. Theodos. lib. xi. tit. 30, c. 2.

290 Paul's first confinement at bomb.

CHAPTEE IX.
PAUL DURING HIS FIRST CONFINEMENT AT ROME, AND THE DEVELOP
MENT DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF THE CHURCHES PREVIOUSLY
FOUNDED BT HIM.
In examining this portion of Paul's history, we must fix our atten
tion on three pnncip d points ; his relation to the Roman state, — to the
Church at Rome, — and to the Churches in other parts.
With respect to the first, the main thing to be considered is, from what
point of view the charge under which he was detained as a prisoner is
to be reuarded ? Christianity was not yet denounced as a religio illicita,
therefore Paul could not, like the later teachers of Christianity, be ac
cused of violating the laws of the state, on account of his exertions in
propagating this religion. If Christians appeared only as a sect pro
ceeding from Judaism, who were accused by Paul's Jewish adversaries
of adulterating the original doctrines of their religion, then at Rome no
attention would have been paid to disputes that merely concerned the
religious institutions of the Jews. This charge against Paul could there
fore haee been o ui-idered as altogether foreign to Roman judicature,
and lie should have soon regained his liberty ; in this manner the affair
would soon have been brought to a close. But it cannot be shown that
the mutter should be viewed under this aspect, the most favorable for the
apostle. The Jews might accuse him as being a disturber of the public
peace, who interfered with the privileges guaranteed to them by the
Roman government, as their advocate Tertullus h id already attempted
to prove. An additional allegation might be made, which in view of
the Roman law would tend much more to Paul's injury — that he had
caused a-nong other Roman subjects and citizens in the provinces, and in
Rome itself, movements which were detrimental to the good order of the
state ; that he had induced subjects and citizens to apostatize from the
state religion, by propagat'iig a religion at variance wiih the ancient
Roman institution--!, in which religion and politics were intimately
blended.* If the church at, Rome, consisting mainly of Gentile Chris
tians, gave tue impression, iu its whole appearance, of being un-Jewish, in
* The point of view as a Roman statesman, from which Cicero formed his model of law.
"Separatim nemo habessit Dens; neve novos sive advenas, niri publico ad.-citos privatim
colunto. Ritus families patrutr.que servanto." (So one may have gods by himself- let no
one worship new gods or f .reign ones in private, unless recognised by tho state. Let him
preserve the rites of the family and of tho fathers.) Cicero de Legibus. 1. ii. 8; and in the
Commentaries, c. x., against the cimfusio religionum, which arose from the introduction of
foreigr..nevv religions. This was ihe point of view from which a Tacitus and '.he Younger
Pliny formed ihtir judgraeui of Chii-tiauity.

PAUL AT ROME. 291
short, a genus tertium ; this view of Paul's conduct would be formed so
much the more easily. The existence of this new religious sect in the
capital, would first be made an object of public attention by the proceed
ings against Paul. We may suppose, that his fanatical and artful adver
saries among the Jews would leave no artifice untried to set his conduct
in the worst possible light to the Roman authorities. Thus the investi
gation of his cause, with the accusation and defence, might be protracted,
and his prospects might by turns become favorable or unfavorable.
During the first period of his residence at Rome he underwent no
public examination.* His situation justified the most favorable expecta
tions, and he proposed when set at liberty, before he extended his sphere
of labor towards the West according to the plan he had previously
formed to visit Lesser Asia, where his personal exeriions seemed to be
very necessary to counteract many influences that were operating injuri
ously on the churches. He could even intimate to an overseer of the
church at Colossae, Philemon, that he intended to take up his abode with
him. At a later periodf of his imprisonment, when he had already under
gone a public examination, he had no such favorable prospect before
hiin; the thought of martyrdom became familiar to his mind; yet the
expectation of being released from confinement was predominant, so that
he wrote to the church at Philippi that he hoped to come to them soon.
But if the view we have taken of the origin and original constitution of
the church at Rome be correct, a close connexion and intimate commu
nion may be presumed to have existed between its members and the in
dividual whom they might regard mediately as their spiritual father, and
wdiose peculiar form of doctrine prevailed among them. Now if the
epistles which Paul wrote during his first confinement at Rome bore
evidence against such a supposition, they might also be adduced against
our views.J If these epistles make us acquainted with any difference
existing between the Roman church and Paul, this fact would be very
decisive, and we should be forced to conclude that a strongly marked Ju
daizing element predominated in that church. But the Roman Christians
had already, even before he arrived at Rome, evinced their sympathy,
since several of their number travelled a day's journey, as far as the
small town of Forum, Appii, and some a shorter distance to the place
called Tres Tabemce, in order to meet him. In the Epistle to lhe^Phi-
lippians he sends salutation from the whole church (iravrEg ol dyioi)
which is a proof of the close connexion in which he stood with them.
* Whether this term embraced the whole of the first two years of his confinement we
oannot with certaintv determine, for the silence of Luke in the Acts, which he closes so
abruptly, is not a sufficient proof that, during the whole of this period, there was nothing
memorable to be narrated respecting the fate of the imprisoned apostle.
\ As appears from his Epislle to the Philippians.
X As has actually been done by Schneckenburger, in the work to which we have fre-
queutly referred, see p. 123.

292 PAUL AT ROME.
As to his giving special salutations from the Christians in the service of
the imperial palace (the Ccesariani), we are not to infer that these per
sons were more in unison with him than the rest of the church, but rather
that they were better acquainted, and on more intimate terms, with the
church at Philippi. At all events, it is an arbitrary supposition* that
these Gentile Christians were those wdio, in distinction from the rest of
the church consisting of Jewish Christians, were in closer connexion
with Paul. It might indeed be expected, that if these Ccesariani were
more allied by their Gentile origin to the church at Philippi, he would
have mentioned this circumstance as the reason for presenting their
special salutations. It is not at all inconsistent with this view, if these
epistles contain undeniable marks, that in the Roman church Judaizers
were found hostile to Paid, and occasioning him much vexation; for
we ourselves have pointed out a Judaizing tendency in a smaller part of
this church sufficient to account for such an appearance. As the Gentile
Christians who advocated the Pauline principles, now found so important
a support in his personal presence, and cooperated with him in publishing
the gospel among the Gentiles, the opposition of the Judaizing anti-
Pauline party must have been excited by it, and rendered still more ac
tive and violent. The whole tone of the Epistle to the Philippiansf tes
tifies of the conflicts he sustained in his intercourse with the Judaizers.
His excited feelings cannot be mistaken ; his displeasure was called forth
by anxiety for the purity of the gospel against those who, where the soul
appeared in a fit state for receiving the gospel, sought to take advantage
of it in every way, for gaining adherents for their Jewish ceremonies and
doctrine of meritorious works, at the same time that they won them to
a reception of Christianity. And Paul himself distinguishes those among
the Roman Christians who, with friendly feelings towards himself, were
active in cooperating with him for the spread of the gospel, from those
wdio, animated with jealousy at his success, endeavored to form a party
against him, and to " add affliction to his bonds," Phil. i. 15-18 ; and
among the whole body of Jewish Christians about him, he could only
point out two who labored with him for the kingdom of God, and con
tributed to his comfort ; Col. iv. 11.
During his confinement, anxiety for the extension of the kingdom of
God, and for the prosperity of the churches he had founded, occupied
him far more than the care of his personal welfare. As all persons had
free access to him, he thus enjoyed opportunities for preaching the gos
pel. By the soldiers who relieved one another in standing guard over
him, it became known among their comrades, (among the cohortes proe-
toriance, in the castra prmtoria, in the prcetorium) and hence to a
wider extent in the city, that he was put in confinement, not on account
of any civil offence, but for his zeal on behalf of the new religion ; and
* Proposed by Schneckenburger, p. 123.
¦j- As Schneckeuburger remarks with great justice, p. 123.

PAUL AT ROME. 293
this tended to promote it, since a cause for which its advocate sacrificed
everything was certain of attracting attention. By his example, also,
many of the Roman Christians were roused to publish the truth zeal
ously and boldly. But while some cooperated with Paul in a oneness of
heart and mind, others came forward who belonged to the anti-Pauline
Judaizing party, in opposition to his method of publishing the gospel.
The manner in which he expresses himself respecting these his opponents
is worthy of notice on two accounts. We here see a man who could
entirely forget his own person when the cause of his Lord was concerned,
— wdio could even rejoice in what bore an unfriendly aspect towards him
self, if it contributed to promote the cause of Christ. We perceive how
far his zeal for the truth and against error was from all selfiesh contract-
edness; with what, freedom of spirit he was able to pass judgment on
all doctrinal differences. Even in the erroneous views of these Judaizer3
he acknowledged the truth that lay at their basis ; and when he com
pared the errors propagated by them, with the fundamental truth which
they announced at the same time, it was still a cause of joy to him that
this fundamental truth was becoming more generally known, that in
every way, whether in pretence (by those who in their hearts preferred
Judaism to Christianity,) or with an upright intention, Christ was
preached, Phil. i. 18. For even by these persons the knowledge of the
facts on which the gospel rested was spread to a greater extent ; and
where faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Founder and King of the king
dom of God, was once produced, on this foundation a superstructure
could be raised of more correct and extended instruction. But from
this we learn what is of service for explaining later appearances in the
history of the Roman church, that when the Pauline spirit was com
municated to it, there was at the same time transplanted within it the
germ of a Judaizing tendency.
The concerns of the churches of Lesser Asia first occupied Paul's
attention in his imprisonment.* He had received an exact account of
* The supposition on which we here proceed, that Paul wrote the Epistles to the Colos
sians, the Ephesians, and Philemon, during this confinement at Rome, has found in later
times strenuous opponents in Schulz and Schott, to whom must be added Bdttger; but the
arguments advanced by them against it do not appear to me adapted to ovorthrow the
opinion hitherto most generally held, though no demonstrative proof can be given in its
favor, since Paul does not exactly state the circumstances under which he wrote. What
he says of the opportunities presented for announcing the gospel, at least agrees best with
what we know of his confinement at Rome from the hints given at the close of the Acts
and in the Epistle to the Philippians. (The latter indeed cannot be urged against Bottger,
for he supposes that epistle to have been written while Paul was confined at Caesarea.) It
does not appear to me surprising, that a runaway slave from Colossas should betake himself
at once to Rome; for the constant intercourse with the capital of the empire would easily
furnish him with an opportunity, and he might hope for greater security from the distance
and the immense population of the metropolis. Nor is it at all strange, that a teacher of
tlie church at Colossse should be induced, by the dangers that threatened pure Christianity
there, to travel as far as Rome in order to consult the apostle and to solicit his assistance;

294 THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSI.
their condition from an eminent individual belonging to the church of
Colossrc, Epaphras, the founder of that and of the neighboring Christian
communities. He visited Paul at Rome, and gave practical proofs of his
sympathy,* and through him the apostle learnt how very many things,
which had happened in the churches of Lesser Asia during his absence,
required to be vigorously counteracted.
During the preceding year, a new influence emanating from Judaism
had been developed in those regions ; — an influence with which Chris
tianity had hitherto not come in contact, but which now threatened to
mingle with it, and to endanger its purity and simplicity. It might be
expected that Christianity on its first spread among the Jews, would
chiefly come in contact with the Pharisaic mode of thinking which was
then predominant. Hence the first false teachers, with whom Paul had
hitherto been so often in conflict, had originated in a mingling of Phari
saic Judaism with Christianity. But now, after Christianity had spread
further among the Jews, and had attracted the attention of those who
lived in greater retirement, and troubled themselves little about the
novelties of the day, its influence affected sects that had long existed
among the Jews of a theosophio-ascetic character, such as that of the
Essenes.f Persons of such a tendency must have felt themselves at-
though we cannot determine with certainty whether other personal concerns did not also
bring Epaphras to Rome. Neither can the fact that Paul, when at Rome, desired a lodg
ing to be in readiness for him at. Colossae, determine anything; for though he had at an
earlier period formed the intention to travel first into Spain, yet, as we have already re
marked, he might be induced, by the information respecting the changes in the churches
of Besser Asia, to alter his plan. Nor is it otherwise than natural, that, during his con
finement at Rome, he should collect around him younger men, who al other times had been
used to serve as companions and instruments in his ministry, and that he should now make
use of them in order to maintain with the distant churches, of whose situation he could re
ceive information through various cbanuels at Rome, a living connexion adapted to their
necessities. * It is remarkable that Paul, in the Epistle to Phi'emon, calls this Epaphras his "fellow-
prisoner in Chi ist Jesus." As he thus distinguishes him from his other fellow-laborers, we
may conclude that it could be affirmed only of Epaphras. Since the judical inquiry insti
tuted against Paul would have attracted the attention of the Roman magisi rates to the new-
religious party that were opposed to the religion of the state, it may be supposed that this
led to the apprehension of Epaphras, who had labored so zealously on behalf of this cause
in Lesser Asia. But it is against this opinion, that he is not mentioned with this epithet
in the Episile to the Colossians, unless we suppose that the apprehension of Epaphras did
not occur till after that epistle was written. Still it is fair to suppose, that be was distin-
tinguished by this epithet to Philemon only as a faithful companion of the apostle in his
confinement ; as on the other hand he is distinguished by another epithet in the epistle to
the whole church at Colossas; and this title of honor (d avvalxpaXurde pov) is applied, in
the same epistle, to Aristarchus, who bad accompanied the apostle in his confinement.
f Storr's opinion that the Jewish -Christian sect at Colossee was derived immediately
from the Essenes, who yet can be regarded only as one manifestation of this general men
tal tendency, is not supported by sufficient evidence. Yet it is not a decisive objection
against it, that the Essenes had not spread themselves beyond Palestine, and showed no
inclination for proselytism; for by the influence of Christianity, it is very possible that the

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSI. 295
tracted, still more than Jews of the common Pharisaical bias, by what
Christianity presented that was suited to the internal religious sentiment;
only they were too much entangled in their mystical-ascetic bias, so op
posite to the free, practical spirit of the gospel, and in their spiritual
pride, to be able to appropriate the gospel simply and purely with a re
nunciation of the preeminence of a higher religious philosophy, which
they fancied themselves to possess, and of a higher practical perfection
in their modes of abstinence. They must have been rather tempted to
remodel Christianity according to their former ideas and tendencies, and
to recast it into a theosophic form of their own. We here see a ten
dency, first germinating in the circle of Judaism, from which, in the fbl
lowing century, manifold branches proceeded of a Gnosticism that was
hostile to the simple gospel.* Paul had probably cause, from his expe
rience during his long sojourn in Lesser Asia, to apprehend the spring
ing up of a tendency so injurious to the gospel, and hence we may ac
count for his warnings addressed to the presbyters of the Ephesian
church. His apprehensions were now verified. Jewish false teachers
of this tendency had made their way into the church at Colossse. What
distinguished them from the common pharisaically-minded Jewish Chris
tians was this, — that they did not begin with recommending to the Gen
tiles the observance of Jewish ceremonies, as indispensable for justifica
tion and sanctification, and for obtaining eternal happiness. Had they
proceeded in this manner, they would in all probability not have found
original character of such a sect might be somewhat modified. And I would by no means
adduce against it, what is said in the Epistle to the Colossians, not merely of the practically
ascetic, but also of tlie theosophic tendency of this sect (iheir tfnAoootyia), since we cannot
trust what Philo says of the Essenes as the ideal of practical philosophers. See my Church
History, vol. i. p. 47. But although in this epistle some marks may be found which suit
the Essenes, as, for instance, what is said of abstinence, of chastising the body, of the ob
servance of tlie ceremonial law, of the reverence paid to angels, &c. ; yet all this is too
general not to suit many other similar manifestations, arising from the same mental ten
dency; and on the other hand, we find nothing which marks the whole peculiar character
of the Essenes. As a proof how much a propensity to busy themselves with angelology
was spread among the Jews, we may notice the words in the Kijpvypa Tlirpov, in which it
is said: pr/di Kaid 'lovdaiove oi^eaBe, Kal ydp IkeIvoi oldpeioi rov debv ytvuoKeiv, ovk
irrlaravrai, Xarpevovrec dyyiAotc Kai upxayyi^otc. (Nor worship according to the Jews,
for truly they, thinking that they know God, do not understand, being subject to angels
and archangels.) See Clement. Stromata, vi. 635, Grabe. Spicileg. i. 64. If also an
intention was contained in these words to indicate a subordinate place to Judaism, as a re
ligious system communicated by angels (the idea which at a later period was improved
upon by the Gnostics), the doctrine in vogue among the Jews concerning angels, and their
connexion with them, might serve as a point of connexion for this censure.
* Baur and Sehwegler are disposed to find in these appearances the marks of a post-
apostolic age, and make use of the smaller Paulinian epistles, in order to support the fabri
cation of a peculiar post-apostolic literature: we maintain, on the contrary, that exactly
such mixtures of the religious spirit as we here find, serve to elucidate the transilion from
the Pauline to the succeeding age. The course of historical development would allow us
to assume such links, even if unquestionable records had not borne evidence of their ex
istence.

296 THE FALSE TEACHERS AT C0L0SSJI.
an entrance so easily into churches consisting purely of Gentile Chris
tians. But they boasted of the knowledge of a higher wisdom trans
mitted by tradition among the consecrated,* a higher knowledge of the
spiritual world, with which they pretended to stand in a closer con
nexion, a connexion which they could procure for those who were dis
posed to be initiated into their mysteries. With this theoretical tendency
they joined a strict asceticism in practice, which was probably in close
connexion with their theosophic principles, and had its foundation in
their notions of matter, as the source and principle of evil; and thus also
many particulars in their rules for abstaining from certain things, which
it would be injurious to touch or taste, may be referred not simply to
the Jewish laws respecting food, but to their peculiar theoretic doctrines.
The history of religion acquaints us with a twofold tendency of mysti
cism ; one that adheres to the prevailing cultus, and professes to disclose
its higher meaning : another that wears a hostile aspect towards it, and
entirely despises what in it is external and historical. This contrariety
had already made its appearance in the Jewish philosophical religion' at
Alexandria. Among the Jews in that place, a class of religious Idealists
had been formed, who, viewing the historical and the literal in religion
only as the covering or vehicle of general ideas, drew the inference that
the attainment of perfection depended on holding fast those ideas, while
all besides was abandoned to the childish multitude, who were incapable
of higher conceptions, and satisfied with the outward husk of sensible
objects.f Philo, in whom we have an example of the first tendency,
combats, although agreeing with them in the principles of allegorical
interpretations, those despisers of the letter; while he taught that it was
possible only by spiritual intuition to penetrate into the true internal
meaning of religion, and to know those mysteries of which outward Ju
daism presented the symbols. But he also taught, that in proportion to
the conscientious reverence with which the external was contemplated,
would be the progress, through divine illumination, in the examination of
the internal. J This last tendency we must suppose to exist in the sect of
which we are now speaking.
In however slight a degree a party of common Judaizers would have
been dangerous to the church at Colossae, yet Judaism under this modi-
* Perhaps they themselves used the term &ikoao<i>la, since this appellation, in conse
quence of the mixture of Oriental and Grecian ideas at this time, might have been used, as
well as the word yvuaie afterwards employed among the Jewish theosophic seels to desig
nate their pretended mysteries.
f Thus characterized by Philo: ol rove byrove vdpove ovpfioAa vonrdiv irpaypdruv
iiroAupPdvovTee. rd piv diyav ijKpifiuaav, tCiv di baBvpuv uAtyupyaav, (those who regard
written laws as the symbols of things that lie within the province of the undersianding
have examined some things very accurately, but have neglected other things with easy
indifference.) See his work, De Migratione Abrahami, p. 16.
X Philo's words are : ivXarropivuv rovruv (the external, tho letter,) dpidyXorepov Kal
ineiva yvupioOijoerat.

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT C0L0SSJE. 297
fication would be far more dangerous for many. For the people of that
age who were filled with anxiety for a communication with heaven, and
for the investigation of the invisible stretching beyond the limits of
earthly existence, the promise of a higher knowledge that to a certain
extent would release them from the thraldom of the senses, was very
seducing. The seeking for this knowledge had led many to Christian
ity, which, while it brought them to a consciousness of the real wants
of their religious and moral nature, for which it guaranteed the relief,
communicated on the other hand another tendency to their minds ;
but before it had thoroughly penetrated their life and thoughts, it might
easily happen that such illusions, filling in with a previous and only par
tially conquered tendency, would deceive them by the dazzling appear
ance of something higher than what was offered them in the simple and
ever practical doctrine of the apostles. Moreover, in a country like
Phrygia, where a propensity for the mystical and magical was always
rife, as was evident from the firms of religion peculiar to the country —
the worship of Cybele, and afterwards Montanism — * such a tendency
would be specially dangerous to Christianity.
Paul describes the higher philosophy of religion of which these people
boasted, as the following of human traditions,! as a cleaving to the ele
ments}; of the world, and as not proceeding from Christ. He objects to
the preachers of this doctrine, that they did not adhere to Christ as the
head. From this it has been incorrectly inferred by many, that these
persons were in no sense Christians. But the main point in Paul's dis
approval of them is this, that their doctrine, although connected with
Christianity, was in contradiction to its spirit and nature, — that although
they acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, and therefore as their Lord and
Head, yet the spirit and tendency of their doctrine were at variance with
this acknowledgement, since they did not everywhere in accordance with
* Compare Bohmer's Isagoge in Epistolam ad Coloss., p. 9.
| Not proceeding from what the Spirit of God bad revealed.
X The " elements of the world," aroixeia rov Koapov, in Col. ii. 8, and other passages,
are not necessarily to be understood, it appears to me, as is commonly explained, of the
rudimenia religicnis, as well of Judaism as of Heathenism. I must regard this explana
tion as purely arbitrary, since there is nothing in connection with the word aroixeia which
can point to this figurative use of it ; and nothing by which to indicate the special sphere
to which the rudiments here spoken of belong. The passage in Heb. v. 12, is on a wholly
different subject, and should not therefore be here taken into account. A comparison of
all the Pauline passages, and the Pauline association of ideas, seems to me to favor our
understanding the phrase of the elements of the world in a peculiar sense, as denoting the
earthly, elsewhere termed " the carnal," tu aapKiKu. Hence ii. 20, aroixeia rov ndapov
and Koapor may be considered as synonymous.
This is an important conception in the Pauline doctrine, and we shall treat more at
lergth of it in the Section devoted specially to doctrines. It is plain, however, that the
harmony between this epistle and the Epistle to the Galatians, — such harmony as could
come, not from an imitator, but only from the author 1 imself, — belongs air ong the marks
of ehe undeniably genuine Pauline character of this epLUo.

J98 THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSI.
it, set out from their relation to him in their striving after a knowledge
of divine things, and make him their central point. In fact, it is only on
the supposition that they professed to attach themselves to the Christian
faith, that this disapproval retains its full significance.
It would indeed be possible so to explain the relation of these persons
to Christianity,* that they did not come forward in direct hostility against
it, but yet ascribed to it only a subordinate importance in their religious
development — that they acknowledged Christ only as the prophet of the
heathen world, which hitherto had known nothing of the true God, and
attributed to the religion revealed by hiin only a subordinate value for the
religious culture of the heathen. f They perhaps taught that by their con
nexion with the hidden supreme God which was effected through Judaism,
they were raised abovethe revelations of the Mediator, the Logos, and thus
above Christianity, and thereby obtained the power to employ higher
spirits themselves in their service.^ According to this view, we may
* This view has been recently developed with much skill and in an acute and spirited
manner by Dr. Schneckenburger, in his work on the Baptism of Proselytes. It has been
developed anew by him in his Beitruge zur Einkitung in's neue Testament, p. 146.
f Among the Jewish theologians, there were those who had borrowed from the Platonic
philosophy the doctrine of the constellations, regard. ng these as in a ceitiiu s;nse Btoi dia-
Bnroi; and who accordingly explained the passage in Dent. iv. 19, as meaning that God
had left the adoration of the heavenly bodies to other nations, as occupying a subordiuate re
ligious position, but had revealed himself only to the Jews. This view might afterwards
be further modified, that God had given the Bogos or Jesus to the heathen as their
teacher and governor, but that the knowledge and worship of the Supreme God was only
to be found among the Jews. Since Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, has put
into Trypho's mouth what the Jewish theologians of that time were in the habit of saying,
we may consider him as expressing their views, when Justin makes him to say; iaru
vuur t, tdvuv Kvpioe Kal Bebc yvupi^dpevoe, ue ai ypaijial aepaivovotv.oinvec Kal dirb rod
dvduaroe avrov Xptariavai Ka\eloOai rruvrsc iaxijuare' igiric dl rov Beov Kal avrbv rovrov
Trotnaavroe Aarpevral oi'rec, ov dedpeda rije buoAoyiae avrov, ovde t?jc rrpooKvvijoeuc. (Ye
who are of the Gentiles,lot your Lord and God bo made known, as the Scriptures declare,
who also, from the name of your God, have all been called Christians; but we, who are
worshippers of the God that made yours, need not confess yours, nor worship him.) The
doctrine of the Clementines also maybe here compared. According to this work, Christian
ity contained in a form of revelation designed for heathens, the same as original Judaism
purified from foreign admixtures, so that he who ache-red to Jesus alone, as well as he
who adhered to Moses alone, could attain to a participation of the kingdom of God, pro
vided the latter did not transgress by blaspheming Christ, and the former by blaspheming
Moses. If a Jew, with a greater partiality for Judaism, contemplated Christianity, yet the
same fundamental principle could easily be so modified, that genuine Judaism, appre
hended in the spirit of it, would apppear more valuable than that form of revelation which
was specially intended for the Gentiles.
X The idea was certainly to be found among the Gnostics of the second century, and
meets us in the Indian religious systems, and in Buddhism, that men, by communion with
the Supreme original being, obtained power to make use of inferior spirits for their own
ends, and that in this manner wonderful things could be accomplished by their aid. Here
the contrast which Philo makes between the v'tolc rov Abyov and the vbue n'v ovtoc may
be applied, only in a somewhat modified form ; for the Alexandrian theologians of
Philo's school attached no importance to the connexion with angels, aiuee they comprised

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSJE. 299
suppose that these persons, with their pretended spiritual conception of
Judaism, had formed the same judgment respecting the subordinate
conceptions of Christianity, as many of the later Gnostics with their
spiritualised Christianity were accustomed to pass on Judaism as the
religion of the Demiurgus.
But although such a conception of the peculiarites of this sect is possi
ble, yet it is by no means sufficiently supported by the marks derived from
Paul's argumentation. Had they sought actually to seduce from Chris
tianity those among whom they found entrance, Paul would certainly
have marked this more strongly. His reasonings indeed, as they are
carried on in this epistle, would apply to those persons who, though en
gaged in no immediate and open opposition to Christianity, yet assigned
to it a very subordinate place ;* but the peculiar manner in which he
combats them by no means justifies us in concluding that this special
A'iew of theirs was the direct object of his censure. Since he reproves
these persons for their reverence of angels, it follows that they placed
themselves in a subordinate relation to angels, and hence certainly to the
Logos, a being exalted above all angels (the dpxdyysXog). Had they
maintained that by an immediate connexion with the hidden God, they
could exalt themselves above the Logos and his revelation, Paul would
without doubt have expressed, in direct opposition to this doctrine, tho
fundamental principle, that men can enter into connexion with the Father
only through the Logos. He makes use, it is true, of this principle, but
in reference to a different controversy.
In that Judaizing sect which here came into conflict with the
simple apostolic doctrine, we see the germ of the Judaizing Gnos
ticism. Though the account given by Epiphanius of the conflict
between Cerinthns and the apostle Paul is not worthy of credit,
yet at least between the tendency which Paul here combats and
the tendency of Cerinthus the greatest agreement is found to exist,
and, judging by internal marks, we may consider the sect here spoken
of to be allied to the Cerinthian. It is remarkable that, to a late pe
riod, traces of such a Judaizing, angelological tendency were to be found
in those parts, for at the council of Laodicea canons were framed against
a Judaizing observance of the Sabbath, and a species of angelolatry,f
everything in the contact of the spirit with God himself and the contemplation of ideas.
In the sect here spoken of, the oriental-t .eosophic rather than the Grecian-philosophio
element of Pbilo's theology is prominent.
* Schneckenburger has specially developed this view in his late essay on this subject.
¦j- Can. xx. on oil del Xpianavolc iovdat^eiv Kal iv tu aa^jBdrip oxoAd&iv. (That it is
not necessary that Christians should Judaize, and have nothing to do on the Sabbath.)
Can. xvi. ordains: hoaftiidru evayyekia perd iripuv ypatjiuv (the Old Testament) dvayi-
vuoKeoBai. (On the Sabbath the Gospels, with other Scriptures, are to be read.) Can.
xxxv. on ov del Xotannvovc iyKaraTieiiretv ri/v iKKAnaiav rov Beov Kal dyyiAovc bvopd-
reiv Kal avvd^eic. — (That it is not necessary that Chrislians should forsake the church of
God and address angels, and that meetings)— for paying reverence to angels. — The
following canon is also worthy of notice, as indicating the predominant and peculiar

300 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
and even in the ninth century we find a kindred sect, the Athin-
ganians.* In the example of Paul we recognise the peculiar character of the
apostolic mode of refuting error, and how it differs from that of later
times. While this busies itself with the confutation of particular errors,
Paul, on the contrary, seized the real root of the doctrine in its peculiar
religious fundamental tendency from which all the particular errors pro
ceeded, and opposed to it the spirit of the gospel. His method was
rather positive than negative. Thus he repressed the boasting of a pre
tended superior wisdom and of a delusive acquaintance with spirits,
without setting himself to oppose each separate particular, by exhibiting
a truth that marks the central point of Christianity ; that by communion
with Christ alone we receive all the fulness of the divine life ;f by him
alone we are incorporated into the kingdom of God, and we belong to
that same kingdom to which all higher spirits belong, by union with him
as the common head of the whole ; in him we have all things which are
needed for the development of the internal life, and hence we need no
other Mediator. For the purpose of combating a painful superstition,
which represented this and the other object as polluting and hurtful, and
recommended various preservatives for warding off the influence of evil
mental tendency : on ov del leparuiovc y k\t]oikovc puyove y liraoidove elvai y paflypart.
kovc % darpo'/.dyove r) rrotetv rd Aeydpeva ^vAaKrrjpia. (That it is not necessary that
priests or the clergy should be wise men, or poets, or mathematicians, or astrologers, or
makers of the so-called amulets.) Theodoret says, in his commentary on this epis'le (ii.
18), that this superstition for a long time maintained itself in Phrygia and Pisidia, and that
in his day, oratories were to be fouud in this and the adjacent districts dedicated to the
Archangel Michael.
* See my Church History, vol. iii. p. C92.
\ The arbitrary manner in which Baur and Schwegler attempt to prove the Gnostic!
element in this epistle, and in the Epistles to the Kphesians and Philippians, requires no
refutation. No one who is not held by a, fixed delusion, can think of finding in tho
use of the word "fulness," irhnpupa, in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, a
reference to the gnostic doctrine of a Pleroma. The use of this word in these epistles is
most naturally accounted for, from the peculiar Pauline circle of ideas, of which the germ
lies at the basis of the other Pauline epistles, but here appears more fully expanded, as be
longing to Ibis stage of his doctrinal development, and required by the subject in hand.
We shall have more to say respecting it in the second section relating to doctrine, and
shall then enter more fully into the refutation of the asserted difference of doctrine between
this and the earlier epistles of Paul. How far is the pure, practical spirit in the Epistle to
the Colossians from everything Gnostic I Where, in the second century, could the mental
tendency be found from which such an epistle could proceed? where the man who could
write such an epistle? According to the whimsical notion of the newest of all criticism,
the most powerful minds, who were capible of the greatest things, existed in that age,
who yet found their satisfaction in living in profound obscurity. But as error and truth
go together in the developing processes of history, and mutually check and modify one
another, so the springing up of sects at the close of the Pauline age, and the later stage in
the impress of the apostolic doctrine, constitute a middle link presupposed by the formation
of the gnosis in the socond century. The criticism which we combat, springs over this
middle link by an unhistorical hysteron-proterou.

THE EPISTLE TO TOE COLOSSIANS. 301
spirits,* he appealed to the facts of Christian consciousness ; that Chris
tians were redeemed from the power of evil, and, in communion with
Christ, were certain of their triumph over all the powers of darkness —
that as their inner life was exalted above the reach of earthly things, to
which they were dead with Christ, that as it already belonged to heaven,
with which they were incorporated through Christ, so it ought to be
altogether carried out of the reach of a religion cleaving to the senses ;
nor ought Christians to allow this their life thus exalted to heaven and
rooted in communion with God, to be dragged down to the elements of
the world, to sensible earthly things. — " See to it," said the apostle,
" that no one robs you of your Christian freedom, that no one drags you
along as his prey by the worthless deceitful semblance of a pretended
higher wisdom which follows human traditions, cleaves to the elements
of the world, and proceeds not from Christ. Everything which does not
proceed from him is delusion ; for the whole church of God, which be
longs to him as his body, exists in dependence on him ; and through
him, who is the common head of all the powers of the spiritual world,
are ye, who before were as Gentiles excluded from the development of
God's kingdom, now incorporated with it. He has obtained for you the
forgiveness of sins, and thus has also freed you from the law which testi
fied against you as an indictment, having blotted it out. By his suffer
ings he has triumphed over the whole kingdom of evil, so that weak
ened as it is, j'ou, as redeemed, no longer need to fear it. Since through
Christ you have been made free from the guilt that oppressed you, from
the yoke of the law and from the fear of the kingdom of evil, so let no
one of you hazard becoming slaves again, and condemn yourselves on
account of those outward things, all of which were only shadows of what
was to come ; but in Christ we behold the reality itself. May no one
succeed in beguiling you in reference to your highest interests (merely
because it so pleases him — for his own arbitrary pleasure) by the appear
ance of a humility put on for show, by the worship of angels, since he is
disposed to pry into what is hidden from manf — for such a one, with all
* With the doctrine of various orders of angels, this sect certainly combined the doc
trine of various orders of evil spirits. These evil spirits were considered as specially con
nected with matter (irvevpara vAiku). By sensuality, and especially by the enjoyment of
certain kinds of food, men were especially exposed to their influence ; and by chastening
trie body, and abstaining from the indulgence of the senses, men were withdrawn from
their influence.
f In the passage, Col. ii. 18, that reading which omits the pi) has much in its favor, the
authority of the more important manuscripts, and the comparison with the other reading,
ovk, which may be considered as a similar gloss It is also more easy to explain how the
connexion of the whole verse might occasion tho interpolation of the negative, than bow
it should occasion its rejection, by which it is only made more difficult. If this reading be
adopted, we must understand the passage thus: "He pries into what (as he indeed
imagines) he has seen, the appearances of angels — puffed up by the delusive images, which
are only a reflection of the sensuality that prevails over him, of his sensual earthly ten
dency to which he drags down the objects of religion, the invisible.'' And iu this case
the contrast would bo very suitable ; he adheres not in his faith to the invisible Head.

302 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
his appearance of humility and spiritual life, is puffed up with an un
godly mind, which places its confidence in a nullity; he can exalt himself
neither above the world nor to Christ, for he does not hold fast the Head
from which alone the body, animated by it and held together by its in
fluence in all its members, can develop itself to the end designed by God.
How is it, if ye are dead with Christ to the things of the world, that ye
can adopt as if ye belonged to the world, such maxims as, Touch not
this, taste not that; since all this, according to the doctrine of these
persons, will only by the use tend to destruction ! Which doctrines cer
tainly have an appearance of wisdom in the arbitrarily invented worship
of God, the show of humility, and the chastening of the body; but are
yet purely things which have no significance, and only serve to gratify
an ungodly mind. If, therefore, ye are risen with Christ, seek after that
which is above: let your thoughts be directed thither where Christ is,
who is exalted to the right hand of God : let your wishes be fixed only
on heaven." This aim towards heaven, this life rooted in God, was
always set in opposition by Paul to the superstition that would drag
down divine knowledge to the objects of sense.
This epistle was conveyed to the chinch at Colossse byTychicus, one
of the missionary assistants of Paul, who was returning to Lesser Asia,
his native country. But since Paul could not furnish him wiih epistles
for all the Asiatic churches, aud yet would gladly have testified his lively
interest in all, and wished, as the apostle of the Gentiles, to address a
word to all collectively, he prepared a circular letter designed for all
the churches in that region. In this epistle, in which the apostle of the
Gentiles addressed himself to all Gentile Christians as such, he treats
only of one great subject of general interest, the actual efficiency of the
gospel among the Gentiles, without entering upon other topics.* The
similarity of the two epistles (the Epistle to ihe Colossians and the so-
called Epistle to the Ephesians) is of such a kind, that we see in it the
work of the same author, and not an imitation by another hand.f If
But yet this reading appears to me to have the connexion and the meaning of single words
too much against it for me to admit it. The "intruding into," tpjlnreveu; appears to me
too plainly to designate an impertinent eagerness to pry into what is hidden from human
sight, and to presuppose the negative pr); and if the apostle had wished to mark supposed
appearances of angels, he would certainly not have said " has seen," ld> mkcv, without, some
further limitation, some additional phrase, with which the following " vainly," cIkt} mio-ht
be connected; as, for example, by saying "thinks that he has seen," iupaKevai Sokci,
this vision would have been marked as deceptive and presumptuous.
* It was so far a happy thought of Schulz, to describe this epistle as a companion to tho
Epistle to the Hebrews.
+ I will here notice 60me of the doubts that, have been raised in the most recent times
against the genuineness of this Epistle to the Ephesians ; those, I mean, which could strike
so considerate a critic as De Wette, a man distinguished by so much love for truth and so
disposed to receive it. The collocation of apostles and prophets in ch. ii. 20- iii. 5- iv. 11
must be un-apostolical. It is true, such a phrase does not elsewhere occur in the Pauline
epistles, but it is not on that account to be set down as something un-Pauline or foreign
to the Pauliue age. In ch. iv. 11, the Apostles, so-called in a stricter sense, are brought

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 303
the relation of this circular letter to the Epistle to the Colossians, and if
that by which in its form and contents as a circular letter it is distin
guished from the other Pauline epistles could awaken doubts of its gen
uineness even with the more considerate critics, yet precisely those pecu
liarities which specially distinguish it, taken in connection with the com
mon Pauline characteristics, furnish a proof of its genuineness. Who in
the second century could have formed and executed the purpose to forge,
after the Epistle to the Colossians, such an encyclical Epistle to all the
Gentile Christians, in no part of which there could be found a morbid
opposing tendency, except by the eye of an intoxicated criticism that
can detect tendencies in the simplest things. Let us remember that
Paul, when he wrote this epistle, was still full of those thoughts and con
templations which occupied his mind when he wrote the Epistle to the
Colossians ; thus we can account for those points of resemblance in the
second, which was written immediately after the first. And hence it also
is evident, that of these two, the Epistle to the Colossians was written
first, for the apostle's thoughts there exhibit themselves in their original
forward, after them more are named who published the gospel in a wide circle, whose
activity was not confined to one congregation — the common missionaries, the evangelists,
corresponding to what the " teachers," diddoKaAot, were for single congregations, and those
in whom the creative element of immediate spiritual awakening predominated,n~who re
ceived, by special revelations, disclosures respecting Christian truth, (see p. 176) in whom 'die
power of inspiration appeared especially in discourse, who as teachers stood nearest to the
apostles in originality, the prophets. That there were such prophets, who as missionaries
stood by the side of the apostles, is testified by the Acts, and apart from that, by the name
of Barnabas, and by 1 Cor. xii. 28. A later writer would not have been induced to place to
gether in this manner apostles and prophets ; for this position of the prophets was foreign to
a later period. Of Ihe Montanist body of prophets, to whom Baur and Sch wegler allude, there
is no trace in this epistle ; and indeed, generally, we should regard it as the most flagrant
anachronism to pretend to fiud anything Montauistie in this epistle. In the manner of dis
tinguishing between the " pastors," rroipivee and " teachers," diddoKalot, we also recognise
something which belongs only to this age ; (compare the distinction between diddoKaAoi and
KvfSepvyoeie, 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; the distinction between dtddoKe iv and rrpoliTaiBm, Rom. xii 7,
8.) But Baur thinks that he has discovered in the whole passage an idea foreign to Paul, of
a progressive development of the church, the representation of an approaching more perfect
age of ecclesiastical development, which certainly would not be in harmony with the ex
pectation of the speedy second advent of Christ. But this passage contains nothing of
the kind ; Paul speaks only of the church of that age in which he wrote the epistle, and
marks its development from its childhood (vijiridrr/c), to its maturity (re/.eibi 4c) a perfectly
Pauline idea, which is found in the universally acknowledged genuine Pauline epistles.
We are at a loss to conceive how any one could think of finding here the Montanist idea
of successive stages in the growth of the church. De Wette maintains further, that the
mention of the doctrine of Justification in ch. ii. 8-10, is hardly in accordance with the
apostle's doctrinal theology. But lhi; I cannot perceive. On the contrary, I recognize
nothing but what is most truly Pauline. Although Paul is not writing to those in whom
he would presuppose a disposition to confide in the merits of the " works of law,'' not to
those who were formerly Jews, yet he had reason to bring forward the universal and to
him ever-present truth, that, in their being called to Christianity, all of them, without dis
tinction, were indebted for everything to grace alone; the few who had hitherto led a more
moral life, as well as the majority who had been sunk in vice. Compare 1 Cor. i. 29, 30.
In that passage he waa obfged thus to express tiinseh on account of the contrast, since he

504 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
formation and connexion, as they were called forth by his opposition to
that sect whose sentiments and practices he combats in that epistle.*
Though this epistle has come down to us in the manuscripts now ex
tant, as addressed to the church at Ephesus, yet the general character of
the contents, suited to the wants of the Asiatic Christians of Gentile de
scent, testifies, by the absence of all special references to the peculiar cir
cumstances of the Ephesian church, against such an exclusive or predom
inant appropriation of it. If this epistle had been designed principally
for the Ephesian church, Paul would certainly have been impelled to say
to those among whom he had spent so long a time, many things relating
solely to their peculiar circumstances. This conclusion, which we draw
with certainty from the contents of the epistle, is confirmed by the infor
mation that has come down to us from antiquity, that the designation of
wished to lay a stress upon the point. The new creation, previous to which they could
accomplish nothing good, and to which they owed everything, must necessarily manifest
itself through genuiue "good works," ipya dyaBd. In the next place, De Wette notices
the arbitrary application in Eph. iv. 8 of Ps. lxviii. 18. It is indeed a free application,
but yet spirited and not forced. In that passage Jehovah is represented as a victorious
leader, bringing his enemies in triumph to the heights of Zion, to whom h>-; con
quered foes do homage by the presentation of gifts. This is applied to the manner in
w hich Christ ascended to heaven, after overcoming the powers that opposed the kingdom
of God. But in accordance with his object the apostle represents the gifts received as
imparted. As the communication of the Holy Spirit to believers is an evidence of the vic
tory over the kingdom of darkness, so the special charisms are marked as the gifts of
victory belonging to the glorified Christ. Examples of such a free use of Old Testament
passages are to be found elsewhere in Paul's writings; compare Rom. x. 6, &c. The quo
tation in ch. v. 14, is certainly a problem to be explained, but we are not authorized to
employ it in casting suspicion on the genuineness of the epistle. The appeal in ch. iii. 3,
to what be said before, is certainly somewhat singular, and we can point out nothing
similar in Paul. But the singularity is softened when we recollect that this is a circular
epistle wdiich was intended for several churches to whom Paul was personally unknown,
and that what, is said relates to the great novel idea of the one church of God, to be formed
from Jews and Gentiles by faith in the Redeemer, an idea which was first set by Paul in
the clearest light. The passage in ch. vi. 2, 3, is also remarkable ; but if the apostle, ex
pressing the precept in the Old Testament form, bas added a sign,, in order to mark the
importance which from the Old Testament point of view is given to this precept, it appears
to me to be at least no decisive mark against the genuineness of the epistle. In ch. iv. 28, 1
can find nothing so very strange in such a connexion: "He who hitherto, through idle
ness, has been led to steal from others, must labor as a Christian, not only that he may
honestly gain his own livelihood, but in order to be able to show kindness to others. Let
him, who has hitherto seized on the property of others, be changed into one who even main
tains others in need by the produce of his own labor." The comparison of marriage with
the relation of tho church to Christ, ch. v. 23, appears to me, though not occurring else
where in Paul's writings, as perfectly consonant with Christian ideas, and by no means un-
Pauline. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 15.
* For the confirmation of this relation of the two epistles to one another, the "and "
Kai, in Eph. vi. 21, certainly serves, which can only be explained by supposing that Paul had
in his thoughts what he had been writing to the Colossians, iv. 8, according to the correct
reading, " that he might know," iva yvure. Harless has noticed this mark In the Introduc
tion to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, p. 60, and after him Wiggers jun.
iu tho Studien und Kriliken ; 1841, 2d part, p. 453.

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 305
the place in the introductory salutation is wanting in ancient manu
scripts. But since the Ephesian church consisted for thcmost part of
Gentile Christians, we have no reason to doubt that this epistle was
equally designed for them, though being a circular letter, the apostle
touched only on those circumstances and wants which were common to
them with the other churches of this district. It might also be thought
most proper that the epistle should be sent from Ephesus, as the metrop
olis and the seat of the mother-church, to the other churches. This
would best agree with the designation which it generally obtained at an
early period, as specially addressed to the Ephesian church. Yet from
this remark we do not venture to infer too much, since the great prepon
derance of the Ephesian church, as one of the sedes apostolicce, although
the epistle at first might have had no precise designation, must have pro
cured a predominant value to its name, as of one directed to the Ephe
sian church.*
In the second period of his confinement, Paul received a contribution
from the church at Philippi (which had already given practical proof of
its love for him) through Epaphroditus, their messenger, from whom
also he received an account of their state. In consequence of this
information, he had occasion to put the Christians at Philippi on their
guard against the influence of Judaizing teachers, to exhort them to
union amongst themselves, and to recommend to those who had more
liberal and enlarged views, forbearance towards their weaker brethren.
On this last topic he gives them, in the words of the exhortation which
he added after the epistle was already closed, the important rule, that all
should seek to employ faithfully the measure of knowledge wdiich they
had already attained (iii. 15), that then God would reveal to them what
they still wanted, and thus all would by degrees arrive at a right state
of Christian maturity .f He exhorted them, under the persecutions to
which the Christians in Macedonia were still exposed, to bear joyfully
their sufferings for Christ's sake, and to view them as a gift of grace
which was vouchsafed to them.
Everything in this epistle, the state of mind with which the writer
contemplates impending death, the manner in which he judges of him
self, his pathetic exhortations to the church, all bear the inimitable im
press of Paul. A later writer attempting to forge a letter in his name,
would not have made him express himself with that apparent uncertainty
in reference to his future lot, iii. 11, 12. \
* The well-founded reaction against the subjective arbitrariness of a one-sided negative
criticism, must not seduce us into a superstitious overvaluation of tradition, which in its
turn may lead to mere arbitrary assertions, instead of that result which offers itself from
the comprehensive survey of Christian antiquity.
¦(¦ The gloss of the common reading (kovovi, rb airb tppovelv), which injures the mean
ing, arose from mistaking the sense of the passage, and supposing that it referred to Chris
tian unity, and not to the agreement of practice with knowledge.
X In the severe language against the Judaizing proselyte-makers, (Phil. iii. 2, 3,) I cer
tainly cannot with Baur find anything un-Pauline. The predicate " dogs," kvvcc, as a
19

308 Paul's second epistle to timothy.

CHAPTER X.
Paul's labors after his release from his first confinement at
ROME, to his martyrdom.
Hitherto we have possessed certain information respecting the cir
cumstances and labors of the apostle Paul during his confinement at
Rome. But in reference to the sequel, we meet on all sides with great
obscurity and uncertainty. The question arises, whether he ended this
confinement with martyrdom, or whether he was released from it, and
entered afresh on his apostolic labors. The decision of this question
depends, partly on the depositions of historical witnesses, partly on the
result of an examination of Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy, on whether
this epistle, which was evidently written durincr a confinement at Pome,
must be classed among the epistles written in the time of his first con
finement, or whether we must assume the existence of a second. The
narratives of the fourth century, according to which Paul was set at
liberty and published the gospel in Spain, cannot be taken into account,
for all these might very easily arise from what he says iu his Epistle to
the Romans of his intentions of visiting Spain. But more attention is
due to an account which is given by a man who was in part a contem
porary, and probably a disciple of Paul. Clement, the bishop of Rome,
designation of shameless men, is not at all extraordinary. It perfectly comports with the
indignation of Paul against those persons who would mislead Christians, and turn them
aside from seeking salvation, that he should term the mere outward circumcision a Kara-
Tup}/, as in Gal. v. 1.' ; it is, also, altogether Pauline when Christians are termed " the true
circumcision who worship God in the spirit," Rom. ii. 29. It is also by no means far
fetched, but very naturally connected, when Paul, who had to fight far and near with these
Judaizers, is induced to oppose his own example to what was the only glory of these per
sons, t li.it he coull boast of all those distinctions in the highest degree, but counted them
all as nothing in order lo se; k his righteousness in Christ alone, which is followed by that
most glorious passage, iii. 9—15, which breathes entirely the spirit of Paul. That in i. 1,
the deacons immediaiely succeed the bishops, is a mark which testifies against a some
what later time, iu which bishops and presbyters already began to be di-tinguished. But
the name of Clement, (iv 3.) reminds Dr. Baur at once of his hobby-horse, the Clementines
and calls up, by the ass iciation of ideas, Peter, Simon Magus, the Gnostics, and many
others whom no one else would have thought of meeting in this epistle. What allusions
indeed may not be found, when (ii. -1-7) one is led lo think of the Valeniini.in Sophia,
which would penetrate into the essence of Bythos, and sink down inlo Chaos, and when
Christ is I hough i lo form a contrast to it? or when Scbwegler considers Euodias to be <i
symbol of ihe Jewish-Christian party, and Syntyche a symbol of the Gentile Christians,
and under the phrase " true yoke-fellow," aii>/oc yvnaior, (with reference to ihe Clement
ines) would find the apostle Peter as oie pointed out from a conciliatory point of view?
See das nachapostolisehe Zeiialter, vol. ii. p. 135.

Paul's second epistle to timothy. 307
says expressly in his first epistle to the Corinthians, (§ 5,)* that Paul
suffered martyrdom, after he had travelled to the boundaries of the
West.f By this expression, we most naturally understand Spain ; and
though Clement might have understood by it some other place or
country than exactly this, yet we cannot in any case suppose that a person
writing at Rome should have understood anything else by it.J From
* What we learn from the only natural interpretation of this passage could not have
occurred, if w hat Schenkel has remarked, in his Dissertation against a second confinement
of Paul (in the Studien und Krililcen, 1841, part 1) respecting Clement's Episile, be cor
rect; namely, that it was written only a few years after the Epistle of Paul lo the Corin
thians, between the years 64 and 65 ; but we cannot at all agree with this opinion. The
inference from § 41, where the author expresses himself as if the temple and temple-
worship at Jerusalem were st 11 in existence, cannot countervail those passages of this
epistle which contain the most undeniable marks of a later period; as §44, on the election
to church-offices; § 47, where it is presupposed that Paul wrote ihe First Epistle lo the
Corinthians at ihe beginning of the publication (or of his publication) of the gospel (tv
dpxn rov evayyeAiov). And it appeal's that the author knew nothing of any epistle written
to the Corinthians by Paul before our first epistle to them. I also think that Clement
would have expressed himselfotherwi.se in § 5, if he had written only a few years after
Paul's marlyrdom. The allusions to the Epistle lo Ihe Hebrews also indicate a much later
date. The manner in which Schenkel has thought thai the Epistle of Clement can be
brought into connection with Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, I must regard as the more
unfortunate the less I am able to recognise in it an episile that proceeded from a definite
reference to certain immediately visible circumstances of a particular church.
\ The paprvpetv in this connexion, " paorvpyaac iirl rdv i/yovpivuv," is to be under
stood probably, not in the later meaning of martyrdom, but in the original sense of bearing
testimony to the faiih, although with a reference to the death of Paul which was brought
on by this confession. "He bore testimony of his faith before the heathen magistrates."
At alf events, the words iirl tuv i/yovpivuv must be understood as a general designation
of the heathen magistrates; and we cannot suppose that Clement intended to give a pre
cise chronological mark, or to refer to the persons to whom at that time the chief manage
ment of public affairs was committed in Rome.
X Schrader, indeed, adopts Ernesti's opinion, that by rippa tT;c dvaeuc may be meant
the boundaries of the west towards tho east, and thus nothing else be intended than that
Paul had just reached as far as the bound iries of the west. But though we are wiling
to allow that the words might in themselves be so understood, yet it is impossible so to
understand them in lliis connexion. For Clement had just said that P.iul proclaimed ihe
gospel in the East and in the West (icrjpvl; yevopevoe iv Tn. dvaroAy Kai iv ry dvaet) that he
had taught righteousness to the whole world (dticaioavvyv didu^ae b"Ativ rbv Koapov), and
then follow tho words iirl rb rippa ri/c dvoeuc i7Sdiv. In this connexion, Clement must
surely have intended to say that Paul advanced far into the West. It may here be re
marked, that Clement must have known more of the events in general of Paul's life, for he
says that Paul wis seven times put in fetters. Even after what has been said since the
publication of this work against this interpretation and application of the passage in Cle
ment, I cannot prevail on myself to give it up; and I am pleased to find critics like Cred-
ner, who hold the same views. How can it be imagined that Clemeni, if he thought only
of Paul's first confinement at Rome, could say that he had published the gospel not merely
in Ihe East, but also in the West, and had come even to the boundaries of Ihe West?
Even if we allow much for the rhetorical form of the expression, we cannot consider this
as a proper designation of such a fact ; and why should a writer who had at hand so many
rhetorical designations for the metropolis of the world, have chosen precisely this the mo^t
unnatural ? It also appears to me a torturing of tho word, something impossible, that

308 Paul's second epistle to timothy.
this account of Clement, if we must infer that Paul carried into effect his
intention of travelling into Spain, or that, at least, he went beyond Italy,
we are also obliged to admit, that he was released from his confinement
at Rome. And we should be obliged to abide by this opinion, if we had
no further information of the circumstances of Paul during his second
confinement, if we could also place his Second Epistle to Timothy in the
time of his first imprisonment.
If we depart from this last supposition, we can put two cases ; either
that Paul wrote this epistle at the beginning or at the end of his confine
ment. As to the first case, we know that Paul came to Rome without
Timothy, but that he was afterwards in his society. It may be therefore
supposed, that he was called by this very epistle from Lesser Asia to
Rome, and that from that time he remained constantly with him. But
the information furnished by this epistle, of Paul's situation at that time,
is entirely opposed to such a supposition. When he wrote it, he had
already obtained a public audience, and had been heard in his defence.
On the contrary, in the first period of his confinement, this had certainly
not happened, since it is first mentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians.
He then had his martyrdom in prospect, while his First Epistle during
his confinement held out the most cheering hopes of his release.
If we take the second case, and consider this epistle as the last he wrote
in that confinement at Rome, it will connect itself with the Epistle to the
Philippians, with respect to the darker prospects of the apostle's situa
tion, of which it contains several indications. But several other things
do not agree with this supposition, and rather direct us to another date.
And ah hough not every particular which we could mention on this point
has equal weight, yet all taken together are in favor of that view,
according to which all the particulars can be most naturally and simply
understood, in the manner which would first occur to an unprejudiced
reader of the epistle. Paul desires Timothy to come to him, without
any allusions to his having been already with him during his confinement.
When we begin to read the epistle, everything gives the impression, that
he had taken leave of Timothy in the place where the latter was now
residing, and since that time had been put in confinement. He cautions
him against the false teachers in his neighborhood (in Lesser Asia, pro
bably at Ephesus), ii. 17, and speaks of them as if he had himself the
opportunity of knowing them well from personal observation. This could
not have been during his earlier residence in Lesser Asia, for at that time
these heretical tendencies had not yet shown themselves, as appears from
what we have before remarked ; but everything is easily explained if
Paul, being released from confinement, travelled into Lesser Asia, as he
intended, and entered into conflict with these false teachers, who had
Clement should have understood the word subjectively, from the position of Paul at the
Jimit of his labors in the West, beyond which he was hindered from extending them into
tho West

Paul's second epistle to timothy. 80S
gained a footing there during his imprisonment. He informed Timothy
of the result of his first public examination, iv. 16, and in a manner which
implies that Timothy knew nothing before of it, and that it had taken
place during his absence from Rome. But when Paul made his defence
during his first confinement, Timothy was with him; (compare Philip.
i. 7.) We are therefore led to think of something that happened durin"
Paul's second confinement. There are, besides, many marks which in
dicate that he had come to the West by his usual route from Lesser Asia
through Achaia, but which we know was not his route when he last
came from Cagsarea to Jerusalem. He charges Timothy to bring with
him the cloak, the books, and especially the parchments, which he had
left behind at the house of a person whose name he mentions (2 Tim. iv.
13.) Now it is far more probable that he left these things behind after
a visit to Troas some months before, than at a distance of four or six
years, which we must suppose to have been the case if the epistle was
written during his first confinement, and that they should be brought to
him only after so long an interval.* In order to depict his state of de
sertion, he informs Timothy that Erastus, one of his usual companions,
who probably was with him the last time in Lesser Asia,f stayed behind
in his native place, Corinth ; aud that he had left another of his com
panions, Trophimus, sick at Miletum, 2 Tim. iv. 20.J Although we find
* It is an arbitrary assumption that these parchments contained documents relative to
his defence, and that for that reason he now wished to have them.
\ See Acts xix. 22. This could hardly be the same as the "chamberlain," oiKovdpoc,
d Corinth, mentioned in Rom. xvi. 23, for his office would scarcely allow of his being so
often with Paul on his missionary journeys.
X On the supposition that the epistle might have been written during Paul's first con
finement, it is the most natural supposition that those persons are here spoken of, who had
resolved to come to Rome (as Timothy knew), to the aposlle's assistance on his trial, ac
cording to the usages of Roman law. One of them, Erastus, had not left Corinth as he
intended, but remained there. Trophimus (who as a witness might have been of great
service) they (the delegates of the churches in Lesser Asia who had agreed to travel to
gether to Rome) had left on the way, sick, at Miletum (diriXtirov, the third person plural).
But certainly the other interpretation, iu which nothing needs to be supplied, is the
simplest, and that which would first occur to an unprejudiced reader of the epistle. Be
sides, if Paul had reminded Timothy of something which must havo been known to him,
in order to stir him up still more to set off without delay to Rome, (as Timothy, who was
probably stajing at Ephesus, must have known that the delegates from the churches had
left Trophimus sick in his neighborhood,) he would have added some such word as " you
know," oldac, to signi'y that he was merely reminding him of something he knew already.
We may also doubt, whether the testimony of Trophimus was of so much consequence to
Paul. The charge of raising a tumult at Jerusalem would probably not be so dangerous
to him; on the contrary, he was most probably justified sufficiently, on bis arrival at Rome,
by the statements that were sent at the same time from the Roman authorities, whose in
quiries had thus far led to a wdiolly favorable result. But the charge of having prompted
Roman citizens to apostatize from the State religion, and of having propagated a religio
nova et illicita, must have been the one really dangerous, aud in this case Trophimus could
be of no assistance to him.

310 Paul's second epistle to timothy.
several persons in Paul's society, who were also with him during his first
confinement (though this circumstance will not serve to fix the date,
since the same causes as at that time might bring them again into his
society) ; yet among these is a Titus, who was not with him before, for
we have not met with ihem together since the apostle's last sojourn in
Macedonia and Achaia, and a Crescens, who is not named before as one
of his companions.
Against the opinion that this epistle, in consequence of the marks we
have indicated, was written in Paul's second confinement, it may indeed
be objec-ted, that we find in it no reference at all to an earlier confinement
at Rome. But this will appear less strange, if we attend to the follow-
ir. ">¦ considerations. By this epistle, the apostle by no means intended to
give the first information to Timothy of his new confinement ; he rather
assumes, that this, and in part the peculiarities of his condition in it,
were already known to hiin, as appears from i. 15,* and by means of
the constant intercourse between the chief cities of the Roman Empire,
and the lively interest taken by the churches in Paul's affairs, information
respecting him must soon have reached Ephesus. Moreover, during this
period after his release, so many things occurred in his renewed apostolio
labors, which fully occupied the mind of one who was more affected by
events relating to the kingdom of God than by any personal considera
tions, and thus necessarily pushed into the background the recollection of
his former confinement, that in tho prospect of martyrdom, he would
fix his thoughts more on the future than on the past, especially in the
presence of events that were likely to affect the progress of the kingdom
of God on earth.
Now if we admit that Paul was released from that confinement, we
must assume that he regained his freedom before the persecution against
the Christians occasioned by the conflagration at Rome in the year 64 ;
for had he been a prisoner at this time, he certainly would not have been
spared. And it agrees with the chronological data which we have
before discovered, that after more than a two years' imprisonment, he
regained his freedom between the years 62 and 63, a result of the pro
ceedings against him which in itself, and in connexion with existing cir
cumstances, is by no means improbable. The accusation of raising a
tumult at Jerusalem had been proved to be unfounded ; but the opposi
tion of Christianity to the State religion had not then attracted public
attention, and though this fact could not have passed altogether un
noticed, yet no definite law existed on the subject, and under the
Emperor Nero, who ridiculed the established religion, and gave himself
little concern about the ancient Roman enactments, such a point might
* This passage may be most naturally understood of a number of Christians from Lesser
Asia, who, on comiug to Rome, were afraid to visit Paul in his confinement, and had
already returned home when he wrote this epistle. Paul makes them known to Timothy
by specifying two of their number.

Paul's release. 311
more easily have been waived. The friends whom Paul had gained by
his behavior during his confinement, and by the maimer of conducting
his defence, would probably exert their influence in his favor. Thus it
might be explained that he regained his freedom ; and the ancient tradi
tion that he was beheaded,* and not crucified like Peter, if true, favors
his not having suffered death in the persecution of 64 ; for had he
been put to death in that persecution, so much regard would not have
been paid to his Roman citizenship as to spare the hated leader of a de
tested sect from the more painful and ignominious mode of execution.
From the epistles written by Paul during his first confinement, we
learn that he labored much at Rome in publishing the gospel ; his firm
advocacy of the cause of God, and his happy release, must have had a
beneficial influence in this respect. Hence it came to pass, that Chris
tianity from this time spread with still greater power among the Gentiles
in Rome. But by this very means the new sect, while gaining ground
among the heathen to the injury of idolatry, drew on itself the attention
of the fanatical people who could not feel otherwise than hostile to the
enemies of their gods ; and the hatred thus excited soon occasioned the
report to be spread of unnatural crimes committed in the assemblies of
these impious persons. Perhaps also the Jews, who were more embit
tered against the Christians when their designs against Paul proved abor
tive, contributed their part to excite the popular hatred against them.
But a persecution on the part of the state would hardly have been threat
ened so soon, if the Emperor Nero had not availed himself of the popular
feeling, which easily credited everything bad of the Christians, in order to
cast an odium on the Christians which he wished to throw off from him-
self.f Yet it by no means appears that this outbreak against the Chris
tians in Rome was followed by a general persecution against them through
out the provinces, and hence Paul might meanwhile continue his apostolic
labors without molestation in distant parts.
As for the history of his labors in this new field, we have no information
respecting it ; nor can the total want of sources for this part of church his
tory be at all surprising. But this defect of information cannot be made
use of to render doubtful the fact of Paul's second confinement. Nothing,
therefore, is left for us, but to compare the short account (already men
tioned) in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, with what Paul himself tel!s
us respecting his intentions in case he regained his freedom, in the epistles
written during his fir-t confinement, and with what may be gathered from
his other letters, which it seems probable that he wrote after his release,
Before his confinement, Paul had expressed the intention of going into
Spain, ami the testimony of the Roman Clement favors the belief that he
fulfilled this intention. But during his confinement at Rome he had
altered his views, and was determined, by reasons which we have already
noticed, to visit once more the scene of his early labors in Lesser Asia.
* See Eusebius, il. 25.
f On this persecution in Rome, soe my Churoh History, vol. i. p. 94

312 Paul's labors after his release.
The Second Epistle to Timothy contains hints of his returning by his
usual route through Achaia. But it would be possible that after his release
he travelled first into Spain ;* that he there exerted himself in the estab
lishment of Christian churches, and then revisited the former sphere of
his ministry; that he was on his return to the West, in order to close
there his apostolic commission, but that in passing through Rome, before
he could resume his journey he was arrested and imprisoned. — However,
the want of any memorial of his labors in Spain, the want of any record
of an ecclesia apostolica, does not favor the supposition that Paul spent
any length of time in that country ; and hence the other explanation,
that he first renewed his labors in the East, then betook himself to
Spain, and soon after his arrival was arrested, seems to deserve the
prefeience. We, therefore, are of opinion that Paul first fulfilled his intention of
returning to Lesser Asia. Now the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
and the Epistle to Titus, by the peculiarities of their mode of expression,
and the peculiar references to ecclesiastical relations, connect themselves
so closely with the Second Epistle to Timothy, and exhibit so many marks
of the later apostolic age (one of which we have already noticed), that
it appears admissible to assign both these epistles to this period.
In the earlier history of the apostle, we can find no point of time in
which he could have written such a letter to Timothy at Ephesus,
in reference to the concerns of that church, as his first epistle ;f
* Mynster, with whom I am glad that I can agree in many other particulars in my
view of this part of the apostolic history, supposes this in his discussion de ultimis annis
muneris apostolici a Paulo gesti, in his kleine theologischen Schriften, p. 234.
f The genuineness of the First Epistle to Timothy being presupposed, the view I have
here taken of the relations aud circumstances under which it was written, appears to be
the only tenable one. But I confess that I am not convinced of the genuineness of the
First Epistle to Timothy, with the same certainty as of the Pauline origin of other Pau
line Epistles, and even of the Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and
Philemon. What is said in this epistle of the false teachers excites no suspicion in my
mind; and lean find nowhere the allusions to the later gnostic doctrines, which Baur
would find in this as well as in the other Pastoral Letters. The germ of such Judaizing
Gnosticism, or of a Judaizing theosophic ascetio tendency, as it shows itself in the two
Epistles to Timothy, I would presuppose a priori to bo existing at this timo, since the ap
pearances of the second century point back to such » tendency gradually evolving itself
out of Judaism. In this respeot, the absence of the marks of a later date in the contro
versial part of this epistle, is to me a proof of ita high antiquity. To the declaration of
Hegesippus, in Eusebius, iii. 32, that the falsifications of doctrine first began after ihe
death of the apostle, or rather then ventured to make their public appearance, I can attach
no such weight as historical evidence, as to cast a doubt on these undeniable facts. As
there is an unhistorical tendency produced by a dogmatic bias, which transposes the
originators of all heresies to the apostolio age, and makes the apostles to be the first im-
pugners of them ; so also there is a more uuhistorieal tendency, and equally proceeding
from a dogmatic bias (as is the case with all the depositions of Hegesippus), which would
maintain that, up to a certain date, the church was wholly pure, and that all heresies
broke out first after the decease of the apostles. A oomraon but one-sided truth lies at
the bottom of bolh opinions. I can find nothing surprisiug in the fact, that, iu the two

Paul's first . epistle to timothy. 3 IS
for this epistle presupposes a church already for some time in exist
ence, in wdiich such disorders had arisen as in many respects required
a new organization of church relations, the displacing several of the
leading oflicers of the church, and the appointment of others. The
new class of f dse teachers who had sprung up in Lesser Asia during
Paul's imprisonment, had acquired great influence in the Ephesian
church. As Paul (according to an interpretation, not perhaps neces
sary of his farewell address at Miletus) had anticipated, several over
seers of tho churches had allowed themselves to be seduced by the
spirit of false doctrine. The false teachers to whom we refer, bore the
same marks which we find in those who appeared in the church at
Colossad during Paul's confinement. They belonged to the class of
Judaizers, who maintained the perpetual obligation of the Mosaic law.*
But they distinguished themselves from the common Judaizers by a
theosophic ascetic tendency. They taught abstinence from certain
kinds of food, and prescribed celibacy as essential to Christian perfec
tion. f But they united with this practical tendency a theoretical pecu
liarity. They prided themselves on possessing a higher " knowledge,"
yvCbotg, (the tpiXoacpia of the Epistle to the Colossians), and by this they
were seduced from the simplicity of the faith. They taught legendary
tales respecting the origin and propagation of spirits, like tlie false
teachers at Colossre.J They brought forward subjects which gave rise
Epistles to Timothy, such an aspect of the present as an omen and germ of what would
be developed in the future, is to be seen. The attentive observer, capable of deeper in
sight, must here behold the future in the present. But I cannot deny that, when I come
from reading other Pauline epistles, and especially the two other Pastoral Letters, to this
epistle, I feel myself struck by tho impression of something not Pauline. More particulaily,
the mode of transition, appears to me not in the Pauline style, — as inii. 7 ; iii., 1, 15 ; v. 17,
18 ; and the relation of this epistle to the two other Pastoral Belters is also suspicious. I
can indeed find reasons for allaying these doubts, but none which, taken altogether, can
satisfy the unprejudiced lover of truth. As to the two other Pastoral Letters, I will not
deny that along with the impression of the genuine Pauline, and of what is against their
composition at a later period, some things are to be found which might excite a doubt
even in the mind of a critic not ill-disposed, but which will lead us to consider the very
peculiar relation by which these epistles are distinguished from all the rest of Paul's.
* As appears from the Pauline antithesis, 1 Tim. i. 9.
f Among the " bodily exercises," auuariKr) yvpvaa'ia, 1 Tim. iv. 8, must without doubt
be included a piety that consisted in outward gestures, abstinencies, and ceremonies, the
opposite of wdiich is true piety (evaip'na) having its seat in the disposition.
X The genealogical investigations common among the Jews, by which they sought to
trace their descent from persons of note in former times up to the Patriarchs, cannot
certainly bo intended in 1 Tim. i. 4, for inquiries of this sort could never be introduced
among Gentiles, nor could their minds be so much occupied with them, that the addi
tional marks given in the epistle would be applicable to thorn. Nor can we suppose a
reference to inquiries respecting the genealogy of Jesus ; what has just been said would
in part apply to this supposition, and in this case Paul would have marked his meaning
more precisely, and according to his usual antithetical style, contrasted the Christ accord
ing to the Spirit, Xptaroc Karu irvevpa, with the Christ according to the flesh, Xpwroc
utaru adpna. On Ihe contrary, it will be quite suitable to apply it to the genealogy of

314 Paul's first epistle to timothy.
to subtle disputations, instead of leading men to accept in faith the
divine means of their salvation ; 1 Tim. i. 4. The conflict with this false
Gnosis now springing up, must have occupied the churches in these
parts. As the prophets in the assemblies of believers frequently warned
them of the dangers, which from the signs of the times they perceived
were threatening the church ; so these warning voices spoke also of the
conflict that awaited the church with this hostile tendency, which in
following centuries was one of the severest which the simple gospel had
to encounter. These are the express warnings of the Divine Spirit by
the inspired addresses in the churches, to which Paul appeals* To this
peculiar state of the church several of those directions are applicable,
which Paul gives in this epistle, relative to the appointment of their
overseers. f
Paul, therefore, executed his intention of going into Lesser Asia, and
found such disturbances in the churches there, arising from the influence
of the unevangelical tendency we have noticed, that he held it to he ab
solutely necessary to remain longer in those parts. He left Ephesus, for
reasons unknown to us, to visit the churches of Macedonia, but soon re
turned thither, and in the meanwhile left Timothy behind for the special
purpose of counterworking these false teachers, which he considered an
object of the first importance; to this he added a subordinate object, the
new organization of the church at Ephesus, and perhaps also the super
intendence of some others in the neighborhood, which had since been
formed. J
the angels, yrvealoylac rdsv dyyiluv, similar to the later gnostic pneumatologies ; on
the supposition, indeed, that he wrote of them as already well known to Timothy. Any
other person who had forged this epistle, parity for the purpose of employing the author
ity of Paul against the rising gnosis, would have more exactly marked the object of con
troversy. * 1 Tim. iv. 1. A similar expression respecting prophetic intimations occurs iu Acts
XX. 23.
f The different manner in which Paul expresses himself on marriage in 1 Tim. ii. 15,
and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (see pp. 235, 246), could also be used as a
mark of the not-Pauline origin of the First Epistle to Timothy. But yet we should not
rate this so high without the addition of other reasons. For as we must distinguish two
elements in Paul's judgment respecting marriage, the new Christian idea of it, and his
inclination to unmarried life founded in his peculiar life's task and in his view of the
impending future, so could one or the other of these predominate in him in different
relations or at different times. When, in opposition to those who prescribed the uncon
ditioned necessiiy of marriage he ascribed a certain value *o unmarried lifo, so must he
have had occasion, through an unchristian condemnation or degradation of marriage, to
give prominerico to the other side. In opposition to those persons, who led females to
forget altogether the proper destiny of their sex, and to thrust themselves forward as
public teachers, Paul says, 1 Tim. ii 15, that the woman would certainly be saved in
family life (the dtd is to be understood in the sense of— -by means of, in  as it is often
used by Paul), if she lead a holy life in faith and love (or chci may be understood as
serving to connect with the whole remaining part of the sentence, and the "childbear-
ing," reKvoyovia, as referring to the education of children for the kingdom of God.)
X That Paul does not mention in this epistle tis deliverance from confinement at Rome

PAUL IN CRETE. 315
If we regard the geographical position of the places, it agrees very
well with Paul's residence in Lesser Asia, and his travelling thence to
Macedonia, that at this time he visited the Island of Crete, and tliere
left his disciple Titus; to whom he addressed an epistle. It is indeed
easy to imagine, that, as Paul had often sojourned for a longer time in
those parts, he had already founded several churches in Crete. But be
sides that, for reasons before mentioned, we are led to fix the date of this
epistle nearer that of the two other Pastoral Letters, it is also striking
that, while Luke in the Acts reports so fully and circumstantially the
occurrences of the apostle's last voyage to Rome, and mentions his stay
at Crete, he says not, a word (contrary to his usual practice in such cases)
of the friendly reception given to him by the Christians there, or even of
his meeting with them at all. Hence we may conclude that no Christian
churches yet existed in the island, though that transient visit would
naturally give rise to the intention of planting the gospel there ; which
he probably fulfilled soon after he was set at liberty, when he came into
those parts. As in the last period before his journey to Jerusalem we
do not find Titus in his company, and on the other hand we find, in tho
Second Epistle to Timothy, that he was with the apostle, this agrees
very well with the supposition that Paul after his release once more
met with hiin in Lesser Asia, and again took hiin as his associate in
preaching the gospel.
After Paul had laid the foundation of the Christian church in Crete,
he left Titus behind to complete the organization of the churches, to con
firm the new converts in purity of doctrine, and to counteract the
influence of the false teachers. If we compare the marks of the false
teachers in the two other Pastoral Epistles with those in the Epistle to
Titus, we shall find a similarity. But if we are not sustained in this, (as
we are not authorized to suppose the same appearances of the religious
spirit in Crete and in Ephesus,*) neither shall we be led by what can be
proves nothing against this statement, for a number of events had intervened to occupy his
mind, especially when he wrote this epistle. Tt is indeed surprising that he should charge
Timothy to " let no man despise his youth," since Timothy could be no longer a youth.
But we must recollect how indefinitely such terms are often used, and that Paul, when he
wrote this, might have special reasons for such an injunction ; among the leaders of the
unevangelical party, there might be persons whose great age had secured for them defer-
eneo and respect. The passages in Titus ii. 15, and also 2 Tim. ii. 22, (which in that con
nexion has nothing strange,) present no fit parallel ; and if iu the First Episile to Timothy,
traces can be found of an imitation of the two others, these words may certainly be regarded
as additional traces, and may proceed from a misunderstanding of the second passage.
* I cannot, with De Wette, consider it. so extraordinary that so much is said respecting
false doctrines in the new churches, nor that Paul deemed it necessary to direct the atten
tion of Titus to the fact, who, from long observation, must have been well aware of the
danger. The fermenting process in the development of Christianity at that time, might
easily extend its influence from one district to another, as soon as Christianity had found
its entrance into men's -ninds, and hence, from the first, Christianity was threatened by
dangerous disturbing forces. Along with the seeds of Christianity, these foreign elements
might spread from Asia Minor, or Achaia, to Crete. For a considerable time the seeds of

316 Paul's epistle to titus.
inferred simply from the epistle itself, to imagine any other object of
Paul's opposition and warning than the common Judaizing tendency,
and a blind, spiritless, pharisaic knowledge of the Scriptures, disputa
tious, cleaving to the letter, and losing itself in useless hair-splittings and
rabbinical fables.* Paul required of Titus to turn the attention of men
to objects altogether different and of practical advantage, deeply to im
press on their minds the doctrine wdiich formed the basis of salvation,
and to lead them to apply this fundamental truth to real life, and to bo
zealous to verify their faith by good works.f
Christianity might have been scattered before there had been the means of organizing a
church. Paul felt himself compelled to warn Titus of the danger, of which he had gained
information in Crete itself, and from other quarters. The defects iu the character of the
people appeared to him to render great circumspection necessary ; these defects are noticed
by Polybius, (vi. 46, § 3 :) Ka&b'Aov d' d irepl ri/v aloxpoKipdeiav Kal irAeove^ia-v rpdrroe
ovruc iirixupid^ei irap' avrote, uare irapd pbvoie Kpyraieval ruv dirdvruv dvBpurruv pndlv
aiaxpbv vopi^taOat Kepdoe. (Covetousness and greediness are so universal and customary
among the Cretans, that among them, of all men, no scheme of gain is esteemed baseV
and § 5, Ovre Kar' Idiav r'/6n doXiurepa K/iyraiiuv eiipoi ne 'Iv. (Neither can any one
find individual dispositions more deceitful than those of the Cretans.) Paul probably had
these national vices iu his mind when he laid down the qualifications that were necessary
for the office of presbyler.
* As to the genealogies in Titus iii. 9, if we compare this passage with the "endless
genealogies" in 1 Tim. i. 4, we shall be led to understand a reference to a theosophic
element, an emanation doctrine; yet this expression in the Epistle to Titus, without any
thing more definite, and simply in its own connection, favors no such supposition ; but we
shall be induced to think of the common Jewish genealogies, although we cannot deter
mine precisely for what object these would be employed, and the comparison of 1 Tim. i.
4 with Titus iii. 9, might excite a suspicion of a misunderstood copying by the former.
f All that is said in opposition to this tendency bears the impress of being truly apos
tolic and Pauline. If the passage in Titus iii. 10 were to be understood in the sense of the
later unchristian hatred of heretics, the passage in iii. 2 would be in direct contradiction
to it, for in this an exactly opposite disposition is expressed; Christians are here warned
of spiritual pride, which might mislead them to exalt themselves as believers and children
of God against the heathen, to treat them as enemies, to insult them on account of their
superst;tion and the vices prevalent amongst them. On the contrary, it was their duty to
cherish gtntleness and kindness towards the.n, from the consciousness that they, like the
heathen, were once the siaves of delusion and of s;n end owed theii deliverance from this
stale, not to their own nerits, but to divine grace alone, Titus iii. 2. f. But thosentiment
here expressed, if rightly understood, by no means contradicts the injunction which Paul
gives to Titus in iii 10. In this latter passage, by those who bring in " heresies,"
alpioeie (Gal. v. 20), a class of persons are referred to different from those in tho former,
such at least as went to greater lengths, separated from Christian fellowship on account
of their peculiar opinions, and founded open schisms. Now Paul advised Titus to enter
into no dispulations with persons who wished to make these schisms, respecting the pecu
liarities to wdiich they attached so much importance ; but if they were not disposed to lis
ten to repeated admonitions, to avoid all further intercourse with them, since such dispu
tations could be of no advantago, and tended only to injure the hearers, and throw their
minds into a state of perplexity. Such persons, whose errors were interwoven with their
whole character, were not to be convinced by argument. And as he reprobated their
whole menUil tendency in reference to religion as unpractical, it followed, of course, that
be admonished his disciples not to engage with his adversaries on this position, but if they
would not listen to repeated exhortations to return to evangelical simplicity, they shc*o';>,

Paul's epistle to titus. 311
When Paul wrote this letter to Titus he had the prospect of spend
ing the winter at Nicopolis, wdiere he wished Titus to join him. As
there were so many cities in different parts, which, having been built on
the occasion of some victory, were called Nicopolis, and we have no
exact information respecting the travels of the apostle iu this last period
of his ministry, and the exact dates are wanting, we cannot determine
what city is here intended, whether we are to look for it in Cilieia, Mace
donia, Thrace, or Epirus. We might suppose that the city built in the
last-named country by Augustus to commemorate the sea-fight at Actium
was intended ; but at all events, it appears from the plan of his journey
indicated in the Second Epistle to Timothy, that Paul was come from
Lesser Asia into the West, and that he had probably taken final leave of
his beloved Timothy at Ephesus.
As soon as he had returned to the West, he fulfilled his purpose of
publishing the gospel in Spain. But there he was soon seized and sent
as a prisoner to Rome.* After he had been in confinement a long time,
and had been subjected to one judicial examination, he wrote his last
Epistle to Timothy, whom (as we have just said) he probably had left
behind at Ephesus. His situation at this time was evidently very differ
ent from that in which he found himself during his first confinement after
his examination. It was then universally allowed that he was a prisoner,
not on account of any moral or political offence, but only for publishing
the gospel, and his example gave many courage boldly to confess their
faith. But now he appeared in his fetters, as an " evil-doer," ii. 9, for
all Christians in Rome were considered as malcfici. Only a few had the
courage openly to show themselves as his friends and companions in the
faith. Then he was in a state of uncertainty between the expectation of
martyrdom and of release, though the latter was more probable. N~ow,
on the contrary, he looked forward to martyrdom as the more probable
event. He informed Timothy, indeed, that the Lord had granted him
power to testify confidently of the faith, and that he would be delivered
from the jaws of the lion, from the death that was then threatening
be left to theraselvea In perfect accordance with this injunction, is that which Paul give3
Timothy in 2 Tim. ii. 23, to avoid "foolish and unlearned questions," .since they only en
gendered strife, but "with meekness to instruct those that oppose themselves," to try
whether they might not be led to repent of their errors, and be brought to an acknowl
edgement of the truth. Here also, as in the Epistle to Titus, he forbids arguing with these
false teachers on their erroneous opinions. It was quite a different thing to point out the
right way to those opponents of whose recovery some hopes might be entertained, and to
this class the fiist passage refers.
* It may indeed appear remarkable that Paul, during the last part of Nero's reign, at a
time when arbitrary cruolty so predominated, when Christians were so much the object of
public hatred, still enjoyed so favorable a situation as a prisoner, so that he could see his
friends and write epistles. But the exact situation of prisoners depended so much on
accidental circumstances, that we cannot draw certain conclusions respecting it merely
from the general state of things. Some Christians might, for aught we can tell, enjoy
these privileges even amidst the most violent persecutions.

318 Paul's second confinement at rome.
him;* still he was far from indulging the hope of being freed altogether
from the danger of death. But this confidence lie did enjoy, that the
Lord would deliver him from all moral evil,f and preserve him to his
heavenly kingdom. As Paul did not ascribe the power of persisting
steadfastly in the confession of the faith even unto death to himself, but to
the power of God, who strengthened him for this purpose ; — he there
fore thus expressed himself, that the Lord would uphold hiin steadfast
under all conflicts even until death, preserve him from all unfaithfulness,
and thus lead him to blessedness in his kingdom. The apostle's feelings
in the prospect of martyrdom are inimitably expressed in his last
epistle ;l his elevated composure, his self-forgetfulness, his tender
fatherly care for his disciple Timothy, his concern for the cause of the
gospel which he was about to leave exposed to so many attempts to
adulterate it, and yet his confidence in the divinity of that cause, and in
the abnightiness of God watching over it and conducting its develop
ment, a confidence that rose victorious over every doubt.
When he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, and the end of his
earthly course was not yet in sight, he said, referring to the defects and
infirmities of which he was conscious as a man, that he was far from be
lieving that he had already attained his aim — perfection ; but that he was
continually striving after that aim, if he might attain that for which he
was called by Christ, Philip, iii. 12. But since he now saw himself
actually at the end of his course — since he now looked back on that
course as finished, with the prospect of approaching martyrdom, and by
the power of the Lord had remained faithful under all his conflicts hitherto
— and since he was animated by the confident persuasion that, by the
* The words 2 Tim. iv. 17, may be taken as a figurative expression, to denote gen
erally deliverance from apparently impending death. But it would be also possible to
understand them liteially, for at that time it would be always possible that Paul, notwith
standing his Roman citizenship, might have reason to apprehend so shameful a death,
though he was finally exempted from it.
f After Paul had said, 2 Tim. iv. 17, that the Lord had delivered him from impending
dealh, he expressed the hope that he would still further deliver him. But this it was
needful for him more distinctly to define aud limit, for he would have said more than,
under the circumstances, he was warranted to expect, if he had not added a limiting
clause, — namely, that God would deliver him from all moral evil, such as want of fidelity
to the gospel, and thus bring him victorious out of all conflicts into his heavenly kingdom ;
whether he had in his thoughts that participation in the kingdom of heaven, which he
hoped to attain by martyrdom, in a fuller communion with Christ aud God, or his deliver
ance to a participation ill the perfected kingdom of Christ after his second coming; as he
felt certain, if he were preserved from all evil, of partaking in this kingdom of Christ,
whether he lived to that time or died before it came. I will not now attempt to decide
between these two modes of interpretation. But one of them, iu connexion with what goes
before, must necessarily be taken. I cannot allow that those words are a contradiction
to 2 Tim. iv. 6-8, nor assent to what Credner, in his Einleilung, i. p. 478, founds upon it.
X How strong the contrast between the simple manner in which Paul expresses him
self, and the exaggerations and bombastic style of after times, such as wo should have to
expect in a later writer who had forged an epistle in the name of Paul.

319
same power, he would be brought forth victorious from the conflicts that
still awaited him,* — at this critical moment, resting alone on the divine
promise, all uncertainty vanished from his soul, and he could with as
surance say of himself, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished
my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a
crown of righteousness." 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.f
He was far less occupied with thoughts about himself, than with
anxiety for the church which he was on the point of leaving in a
vehement conflict then beginning, both internal and external, but the
dangers of the internal conflict were those which gave him the greatest
uneasiness. In Lesser Asia, he had been brought into frequent collision
with a false Jewish-Christian Gnosis, which was spreading in opposition
to the simple gospel. He saw iu spirit that this false tendency was con
tinually gaining ground, and that, by its arts of deception, it was se
ducing numbers. Still, he was confident, that its deceptions would at
last be exposed, and that the Lord would maintain that gospel which he
had entrusted to his ministry, and without him, preserve it pure until
the day of his second coming. J Since he might assume, that these false
teachers were known to Timothy, and had no doubt often conferred with
him on the means of counteracting them, he satisfied himself with a
general delineation of their character. He mentioned amongst others,
those who taught that the resurrection was already past (like the later
Gnostics), and who probably explained everything which Christ had said
respecting the resurrection, of the spiritual awakening by the divine
power of the gospel. From this single mark we may conclude, that in
general they indulged in a very arbitrary treatment of the historical
facts of religion, as far as these did not harmonize with their preconceived
opiuions.§ * This confidence he also expressed in Philip, i. 20.
f Hence there is no contradiction whatever between the judgment Paul expresses of
himself in this epistle and in that to the Philippians.
X If we picture to ourselves how Paul was then occupied with the thoughts of death,
how uncertain his condition, and under whit perplexing relations Timothy found him
self in the field of labors where Paul had left him, we cannot deem it very surprising
that he should communicate to him these fuller instructions, although he still hoped to see
him again in Rome.
§ It may be doubted whether Alexander the coppersmith, mentioned in 2 Tim. '.v.
14, belonged to the number of these false teachers. In this case, he would be the sime
as the person mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 20. It would indeed be possible that this false
teacher from Lesser Asia, exasperated at being excluded by Paul from church communion,
when became to Romo, sought to take revenge ou the apostle. And "our words,"
f/pirepoi Aoyoi, 2 Tim. iv. 15, might then be understood, not of the Christun doctrine)
generally, but of the pure exposition of the evangelical doctrine as it was given by Paul.
But a Gentile or Jew of Lesser Asia might be intended, who violently perseculed Chris
tianity. In this case, he would be distinct from the person mentioned in the First Epistle
to Timothy ; and it would be on that account by no means clear, that the author of
the First Epistle to Timothy was some one else than Paul, who, from a mistake, had
made Alexauder a false teacher, and had classed him with Hymeaajus; for why should

<J20 Paul's martyrdom.
We cannot determine with certainty the year in which Paul's martyr
dom occurred. We can only place it in one of the last of Nero's reign.
And with this supposition another circumstance agrees. At this time
most probably the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by an apostolic
man of the Pauline school.* At its conclusion, xiii. 23, we find mention
made of the lately obtained release of Timothy, whom we cannot sup-
pose to be any other than the disciple and companion of Paul. It was
Paul's desire that he should come to him, and the zealous sympathy
which he evinced had the effect of causing him to be apprehended as one
of the most active members of the hated sect. If this happened at the
time of the Neronian persecution, Timothy would probably have shared
the fate of all the Christians at Rome who could then be discovered.
But if it happened some years later, it is not improbable that, by the in
fluence of particular circumstances, Timothy obtained his freedom after
the martyrdom of Paul.
not so common a name as Alexander belong to two different persons in Lesser Asia ?
There is no ground whatever to suppose that this Alexander was the same who is men
tioned in Acts xix. 33, for it is far from being evident that he was so violent an enemy
of Christianity ; the Jews put him forward, not to make complaints against the Christians
or Paul, but rather to prevent the rage of the heathens against the enemies of their gods
from being turned against themselves.
* See Bleek's Introduction to this Epistle, p. 434.

BOOK IV.

A REVIEW OF THE LABORS OF JAMES AND PETER DURING
THIS PERIOD.

CHAPTER I.
JAMES.
As along with that unity of the spirit which proceeded from Christ, we
have observed an important difference existing in the forms of its represen
tation among the apostles, so the apostle Paul, and that James who was
known as a brother of the Lord, present the most striking contrast to
each other, whether we regard their natural peculiarities, the formation
of their Christian characters, or the sphere of their labors. In Paul, Chris
tianity is exhibited in its most decided self-subsistence, wholly freed from
the preparatory garb of Judaism; while James represents the new spirit
under the ancient form, and we may observe in' him the gradual transi
tion from the old to the new. Hence Paul and James mark the two
extreme limits in the development of Christianity from Judaism ; as Paul
was the chief instrument for presenting Christianity to mankind as the
new creation, so was James for exhibiting the organic connexion of
Christianity with the preparatory and prefiguring system of Judaism.
After the martyrdom of the elder James, who was a son of Zebedee and
brother of John, only one specially influential person of this name ap
pears in Christian history, who stood at the head of the church at Jeru
salem, and under the titles of the Brother of the Lord, and the Just, was
held in the highest esteem by Christians of Jewish descent. But from
ancient times it has been doubted, whether this James was, strictly
speaking, a brother of the Lord, that is, either a son of Joseph by a
former marriage, or more probably a later son of Mary,* and therefore,
a different person from the apostle, the son of Alpheus ; or whether he
was in a general sense a relation of Jesus, a son of Mary's sister, a son
* See. Life of Christ, § 22, or p. 29.

322 THE APOSTLE JAMES.
of Cleopas or Alpheus, and accordingly identical with the apostle of this
name.* * This question is one of the most difficult in the apostolic history. Dr. Schnecken
burger, in his acute and profound investigation (in his Annotatio ad Epistolam Jacobi.
Smilgarl, 1832, p. 144,) has brought the hypothesis of only one James to a higher degree of
probability than it had before attained, and has said many things deserving consideration,
and tending to remove the difficulties attached to it; but after all his remarks, many rea
sons for doubling remain. Later investigations, especially those of Creduer in his Ein-
leitung, p. 573, have thrown additional weight into the opposite scale. We wish to present
in an impartial manner the arguments for and against this hypothesis. Since, after the
death of James the son of Zebedee, only one James is mentioned as one of the most
influential men in the first apostolic church, and ranking with those apostles who were
most esteemed, there is the highest probability that this James was no other than the only
apostle still living of this name. If the term "brother," dde? tpbe, is understood only in a
laxer sense, the title of " brother of the Lord " proves nothing against the identity of the
person ; for, from comparing Matt, xxvii. 56, xxviii. 1, Mark xv. 40, with John xix. 25,
it is evident that James the aposlle, son of Alpheus or Cleopas (both names, with different
pronunciations, derived from the Hebrew ">B^ri), was really a son of Mary's sister the
mother of Jesus. As so near a relation of Jesus, he might accordingly be distinguished
from tho other apostles by the title of a brother of the Lord. But then it is asked, Why
was he not rather dis iuguished by the strictly appropriate name of "cousin," uveipibc 1
And if at that time there were persons in existence who might with strict propriety be
called "brothers of the Lord," is it not so much less probable, that this surname in an im
proper sense would be applied to him? Nevertheless, we may suppose, that in common
discourse — since it was not a point of consequence to mark definitely the degree of kin
between Jesus and this James, but only to represent him iu general terms as enjoying the
honor of near relationship to the Lord, — it had become customary to designate bim simply
n brother of the Lord, especially among the Judaizing Chrislians, by whom such distinc
tions of earthly affinity would be most highly prized : and this might be still more easily
explained, if we admit with Schneekenburger, that after the death of Joseph (which took
place at an early period), Mary removed to the bouse of her sister, the wife of Alpheus;
hence, it would be usual to designate her sons who lived from their childhood with Jesus,
who had ro other broibers, simply as the bretiuen of Jesus. Thus, then, ibis James
would be one of the brethren of Jesus who are named in Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3.
Among ih.se we find a Joses, who, in Matt, xxvii 56, is distinguished as the brother of
James, and a Judas; and if the designation 'lunu-iov, given to the apostle Judas is
to he explained, on comparing it with the Epistle of Judo, v. I, by supplying the word
"brother," (which cannot be assumed as absolutely certain,) we shall also again find in
bim a brother of the apostle James. And the one named Simon among these brethren,
we may perhaps find again iu tho list of tho apostles, as all three are named togelher in
Aels i. 13. According to that supposition, it would be no longer surprising that tho breth
ren of Christ are often mentioned in connexion with his mother; and yet from that cir
cumstance no evidence can be deduced that would prove them to be in a strict sense his
brchren. We must ihen assume with Schneckenburger. that when Matthew (xiii. 55),
after the mention of the twelve apostles, distinguishes the brethren of Jesus from them, it
proceeded from the want of chronological exactness iu his mode of narration.
But if several of the so-called brethren of Jesus were among Ihe apostles, still the
manner in which the former are distinguished from the latter in Acts i. 14, is remarkable.
Besid s. according to the account in Mark iii. 31, a slate of mind towards Jesus is sup
posed lo exist in these brethren, which could not be attributed to the apostles, and yet it
appears from comparing this account with the parallel passages iu Matt. xii. and Luke viii.
that ibis incident must be placed after the choice of the twelve apostles. This view is
confirmed by the disposition manifested by these brethren of Christ, even in the last half-

THE APOSTLE JAMES. 323
If w-e put together all that is handed down to us in the New Testa
ment, and iu other historical records, the most probable result of the
year before his sufferings, vii 3. All this tak^n together, must decide us in favor of the sup
position, that the brethren of Jesus, commonly mentioned in connexion with Mary the mother
of Jesus, are to be altogether distinguished from the apostles, and therefore Ihey must he con
sidered as the brethren of Jesus in a stricter sense, either as the sons of Joseph by a fir
mer marriage, or the later born sons of Joseph and Mary, which from Malt. i. 25, is most
probable. That Christ when dying said to John, that, from that time he should treat Mary
as his mother, can at all events oppose only the supposition, that these breihren were ihe
offspring of Joseph and Mary, and not the supposition that they were the step-sons of
Mary. But even against the first supposition this objection is not decisive ; fur if these
brethren of Je.-us still continued estranged from him in their disposition, we can at once
perceive why at his death he commended his mother to his beloved disciple John. It may
indeed appear surprising, that these brethren of Christ, according lo Matthew xiii. 55, bore
the same names as his cousins, but this can be affirmed with certainty only of two, and as
the two sisters had one name, it might happen, owing to particular circumstances, that
some of the sons on both sides should bear the same name.
But from what has been said, it by no means follows, that the James who is distin
guished in the New Testament as a brother of the Lord, was one of these brethren of
Christ iu a stricter sense. It might still be consistent with that fact, that this James was
to be distinguished from the James who was the actual brother of the Lord, and, as a
cousin of Christ who was honored with this name, was to be held as identical w'uh the
apostle, although in this case it is less probable that when an actual brother of Jesus bore
the name of James, the cousin should be honored with the same title, instead of being
distinguished by the epithet "con.-in" from that other James, to whom the surname of
brother of the Lord would in strictest propriety be given.
If we are disposed to examine more closely the passages in the Pauline epistles which
contain a particular reference to this point, tliere are two especially deserving of notice.
As to the passage in 1 Cor. ix. 5, "as well as other apostles and the brethren of the Lord,"
uc Kal ol "Aonroi drroaroAot Kal oi ddeAtpol rod Kvpiov, it cannot be proved from these words
that the brethren of the Lord were distinct from the apostles, f jr they may be supposed to
mean, that Paul, by the other apostks, understood those who could not claim such a rela
tionship to the Lord, and that he particularly distinguishes those who were brethren of the
Lord from the olher apostles, because, in virtue of lhat relationship, they stood high in
the opinion of the party with ivhom he had here to do. That he specially names Peter
immediately after, rather favors the notion that the brethren of the Lo.d, as well as Peter,
belong to the number of the apostles. Yet this is not a decisive proof, for it would surely
be possible that, although the brethren of the Lord did not belong to the apostles. Paul
might mention them in this connexion, because they, or somoof them, were held in equal
estimalion by the Jewish Christians of Palestine; and as, along with them, Peter was
most highly respected, he is particularly mentioned at the same time- It is indeed possi
ble, that Paul here uses the term "apostle," not in the strictest sense, but in a wider
meaning, as in Rom. xvi. 1; and so much ihe more, since he immediately afterwards men
tions Barnabas, lo whom the name of an apostle could be applied only in that more gen
eral acceptation of the term. The second important passage is G-al. i. 19, where Paul, after
speaking of his conference with the apostle Peter at Jerusalem, adds, that he had seen no
other of the apostles, "save James the Lord's brother." Yet, from this passage, it cannot
be so certainly inferred as Dr. Schneckenburger thinks, that the James here named was
one of the apostles. The state of the case may be conceived to have been thus: Paul
had originally in his thoughts only a negative position, he had seen no other apostle ihan
Peter at Jerusalem. But as it afterwards occurred to him, that he had seen at Jerusalem
James the brolhcrof the Lord, who, though no apostle, was held iu apostolic estimation
by the Judaizers, ou this account he added, by way of limitation, a refereii :e to James.

324 THE APOSTLE JAMES.
whole is, that this James was one of the brethren of Christ, of whom
we have spoken in our Life of Christ, p. 29. Thus it appears how
We must therefore suppose that with the use of the word "save," el pi), the idea of
" apostle'' extended itself so as to include one who was only related to the apostolic office.
It may, moreover, be asked whether Paul would have expressed himself in this manner,
if he had reckoned James in the stricter sense among the apostles? Should we not ex
pect in this ease that, instead of first expressing so universal a negation in order imme
diately after to qualify it, he would have said from the beginning that he saw no other
apostles than those two, who also seemed to be pillars in the church ? When Schnecken
burger, from the words in Acts ix. 27, infers that Paul must at that time have conferred
with at least two apostles at Jerusalem, he attaches greater weight than can be allowed
with certainty to single expressions in this short narrative.
Yet, if we compare on this point the oldest ecclesiastical tradition — the account in the
gospel of the Hebrews (see Ilieronym. de V. I. c. ii.) — with 1 Cor. xv. 7, it will appear to
favor the identity of the one James; for in that gospel it is said that Christ, after his res
urrection, appeared to James the Just, tho brother of the Lord. But in the passage in
the Epistle to the Corinthians, the same James seems to be mentioned as one of the
twelve apostles. Still we find here nothing absolutely certain, for it cannot be shown that
the reference in that gospel is to the same appearance of Christ as in the epistle. And if
it be assumed that James, the brother of the Lord, was then held in so great esteem,
that, when this name was mentioned, only one individual would be generally thought of,
it is not perfectly clear, from his being brought forward in this connexion, that he was
reckoned by Paul among the apostles. Then there is the tradition of Hegesippus, in
Euseb. ii. 23, which is to be taken into account. When he says that James, the brother
of the Lord, undcrto k with the apostles, peril tuv diroard'Xuv, the guidance of the church
at Jerusalem, it is most natural to suppose that he means to distinguish James from the
apostles, otherwise he would have said with the others, fierd rdiv Aoeruv, although we
would not consider the other interpretation as impossible, especially in writers of this class,
in whom we do not look for great precision in their mode of expression. Also, the whole
narrative of Hegesippus leads us to believe, that he considered James as distinct from the
apostles; for, although his representation carries in it, at all events, marks of internal
improbability, yet it would not appear altogether irrational, on the supposition that this
James was an apostle appointed by Christ himself. But we must compare with this pas
sage the Werds of Hegesippus in Euseb. iv. 22:^cro rd paprvpijaui 'IukuBov rbv dUatov,
uc Kal 6 Kvpioc iirl ru avru Xdyu, irdi?.tv d Ik deiov avrov ~Zvpeuv 6 rov K?.uttu KaBiorarai
intoKoiroe' bv irpoiBevro rrdvrer, bvra uveipibv rov Kvpiov dsvrepov, (after James, the Just,
had suffered martyrdom, as did the Bord for the same cause, Simeon, a son of Cleopas,
James' uncle, was appointed bishop, whom all had proposed for the office, being the second
cousin of the Lord.) If we understand by these words, that this Simeon was called the
second nephew in relation to the afore-mentioned James the Just, as the first nephew of
the Lord, it would follow that that James, as a nephew of the Lord, is called his
brother. Yet, if another interpretation is possible, according to which Hegesippus
agrees with himself in reference to the words before quoted, such an interpretation
must be readily preferred. And this interpretation is that which agrees best with the
words in their existing position. For, since James is the principal subject in the first
half of the sentence, the "his," avrov, must be referred to bim. Cleopas, accordingly,
is called the uncle of James, and his son Simeon cannot therefore be the brother of James,
but is his cousin; and as Cleopas (— Alpheus) is the uncle of Jesus, (and. according to
hegesippus in Euseb. iii. 11, on the side of Joseph as well as of Mary,) Simeon is the
cousin of Jesus and the cousin of James, which again favors the opinion that the last two
were brothers. But Hegesippus might call this Simeon a second nephew, since he' looked
upon the apostle James, the son of Alpheus, who was no longer living, as the first nephew.
We might also insert a stop after Kvpiov, and connect devrepov with irpoiBevro ¦ by this

THE APOSTLE JAMES. 325
very much the course of his religious development was distinguished
from that of the apostle Paul. The latter, during the life of Christ on
earth, was at a distance from all personal outward communication with
him, and learnt to know him first by spiritual communion. James, on
the contrary, stood in the closest family relation to the Redeemer, and
from the first was present with him during the whole of his earthly de
velopment ; but it was exactly this circumstance which contributed to
his being more slow to recognise in the son of man, the Son of God ; and
while he clave only to the earthly appearance, he was prevented from
penetrating through the shell to the substance. Paul, by a violent crisis,
made the transition from the most vehement and unsparing opposition
to the gospel, to the most zealous advocacy of it. James gradually ad
vanced from Judaism, which he held with great earnestness and depth,
and to which he added a faith in Jesus as the Messiah that constantly
became more decisive, to Christianity as the glorification and fulfilling of
the law.
There may be some truth at bottom in what is narrated by the Chris
tian historian Hegesippus, that this James led from childhood the life of
a Nazarene. If we consider what an impression the appearances at and
after the birth of Christ, and the conviction that the first-born son of
Mary was destined to be the Messiah, must have left on the minds of his
parents, it may be easily explained how they felt themselves compelled to
dedicate their first-born son James,* to the service of Jehovah in strict
abstinence for the whole of his life. To this also it might be owing, that
the freer mode of life which Christ adopted with his disciples was less
congenial to him ; and with his strict, legal, Jewish convictions ho could
not comprehend the new spirit which revealed itself in Christ's words ;
many of these must have appeared to him as " hard sayings." Proceed
ing from the common Jewish views, he expected that Jesus, if he were
the Messiah, would verify himself to be such in the presence of the
people by a sign that would compel the universal recognition of his
claims, by the establishment of a visible kingdom in earthly glory. By
the impression of Christ's ministry he became indeed excited to believe,
but the power of early habit and prejudice always counteracted that im
pression, and he found himself in a state of indecision from which he
could not at once free himself. Only half a year before the last suffer
ings of Christ we find him in this vacillating condition, for John does not
in this respect distinguish hiin from the other brethren of Jesus, who
certainly were thus in doubt ; John vii. 5. But after the ascension
construction, mention would be made of only one cousin of the Lord, as the successor of
bis brother, as the second overseer of the church. But the position of the words is very
much against this construction. Certainly, the testimony of Hegesippus must have great
weight, on account of his high antiquity, his descent, and his connexion with the Jewish
Christians of Palestine. But it is undeniable, if we compare the two passages from the
Hypotyposes of Clement, quoted by Eusebius, ii. 1, that he distinguishes James, who bore
the surname of the Just, as an apostle in the stricter sense of the word.
* His being described by the appellation of the son, indicates that he was the eldest.

32* THE APOSTLE JAMES.
of Christ, he appears as a decided and zealous member of the company
of disciples; Acts i. 13. This leads us to suppose that the resurrection
of Christ was the transition point with him, from a vacillating to a fixed
and unshaken faith. We see how important the Saviour deemed it to
produce such a faith in him, by his honoring him with a special appear
ance after the resurrection (t Cor. xv. 1), whether this was occasioned
or not, by his having expressed doubts like Thomas.* This James ob
tained constantly increasing respect in the church at Jerusalem.
Every feature of his character which we can gather from the Acts,
from Josephus,f and from the traditions of Hegesippus in Eusebius,!
well agrees with the image of him presented in the epistle that bears his
name. By his strict, pious life, which agreed with the Jewish notions ol
legal piety, he won the universal veneration, not only of the believers
among the Jews, but also of the better disposed among his countrymen
generally ; on this account he was distinguished by the surname of the
Just,p^s, 6'tKaotg ; and, if we may credit the account of Hegesippus, he
was viewed as men of distinguished and commanding excellence are
viewed in times of corruption and ruin, and hence was termed the bul
wark of the people. § According to the representations of this writer,
he must have lived after the manner of the strictest ascetics among
the; Jews. The consecration of his childhood had already introduced
him to such a mode of life, and we might suppose that he had already
won by it peculiar respect among the Jews, if on that supposition it were
not surprising that no trace can be found of it in the Gospels, no marks
of special distinction awarded to him by his brethren. At all events, he
might afterwards avail himself of this ascetic strictness as a means of
attracting the* attention of the multitude to his person, and thereby to
the doctrine he published. This mode of life considered in itself, pro
vided its value was not rated too high, was by no means unchristian.
What Hegesippus narrates of him perfectly suits his character, that he
frequently prostrated himself on his knees iu the temple, calling upon God
* The narrative in the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Life of Christ, p. 432) is not an
authority of sufficient credit for us to venture to follow it here. It tells us that James.
after partaking of the Last Supper with Christ, madj a vow that he would not again taste
food till he had seen him risen from the dead; that Christ appeared to him as the Risen
One, and said, " Now eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead." We
must cenaioly consider how important it was for the hesitating and doubting James, who
afterwards knew so well how to describe the unhappiuess of such a state (i. 6), to attain
to the certainty on this subject, which such an occuirence would give hiin, and which such
;i vow led bim to expect. But not only is the work of the Jewish Christian, who be
stowed so much pains in embellishing the hislory of James, not a ered.ble source of in
formation in itself, but there is also a palpable contradiction in the chronology of the
history of the resurrection, between this narrative and Paul's account.
+ Joseph. Archied, xx. 9. j Hist. Eccles. ii. 23
§ Perhaps c» VeJ or Cj's -yt which comes nearer the phraseology of Hegesipt us,
unless, which is indeed less probable, we read, with Fuller, ci'i fy which lleo-csippua
translates " bulwark of the people," rrepioxy rod Xaoii.

THE APOSTLE JAMES. 327
to forgive the sins of his people, (probably having a special reference to
the forgiveness of their sins against the Messiah,) — that the divine judg
ments on the unbelievers might be averted, — and that they might be led
to repentance and faith, and thus to a participation in the kingdom of
the glorified Messiah.
But some important doubts may be raised against the credibility of
this account of Hegesippus, taken in its full extent. His whole narrative
contains much fiction, and bears the stamp of the Ebionitish mode of
thinking to which he was probably given. That Ebionite party among
whom an ascetic, theosophic tendency prevailed, and who circulated
apocryphal writings under the name of James, had probably formed an
ideal conception of his character in harmony with their own peculiarities,
and Hegesippus might mistake the image delineated in their traditions
for an historical reality. The Epistle of James by no means bears de
cided marks of such a tendency, for everything which has been supposed
to be of this kind may very properly be referred to the simple Christian
renunciation of the world, such as has its seat in the disposition. If the
Jewish love of gain is here spoken against, if the earthly-mindedness of
the rich, the homage paid to this class and the contempt of the poor are
condemned, and it is declared to be precisely among the poor that the
gospel has found the most ready entrance, exalting them to the highest
dignity, yet it by no means follows, that the author of this epistle entirely
condemned, like the Ebionites, all possession whatever of earthly goods.
This Epistle is especially important, not only for illustrating the char
acter of James, but also for giving us an insight into the state of the
Christian churches which were formed from Judaism, and were unmixed
with Christians of Gentile descent. According to an opinion very gen
erally prevalent from ancient times, we should be led to believe that the
peculiar doctrinal system of the apostle Paul had already been formed
and disseminated when this epistle was written, and that those churches
particularly to whom it was addressed, had been affected by the influence
of this Pauline system. The opinion we refer to is, that James in this
epistle either combated the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith in
and for itself, or a-misunderstanding, and an erroneous application, of it.
We can, certainly, well imagine, that James, who had advanced in grad
ual development from the law to the gospel as the fulfilling of the law
— who, retaining his Jewish convictions, by faith in Jesus as the Lord
and Saviour, the Author of the new divine life, continually spiritualized
and glorified these convictions more and more, — might from such a
course of development, mishnderstaud the Pauline type of doctrine which
had been formed under a wholly opposite course of development. Wo
can suppose, that when he met such a mode of expression, he might feel
it his duty to combat it, since practically injurious consequences appeared
to flow from it. We can suppose that he knew not how to separate the
correct understanding and the misunderstanding from one another, since
to him the whole mode of contemplating the subject was quite foreign.

328 THE EPISTLE OE JAMES.
Thus James might have combated Paul, though both were bound
together by the Spirit of Christ.
And it would not be difficult to support this opinion by many single
passages in the epistle taken alone, without a reference to their connex
ion with the whole;* for it seems as if the express reference to the
Pauline formula of the justification to be obtained by faith alone, and to
which works can contribute nothing, could not be mistaken ; especially
as the same examples of faith as those mentioned by Paul, namely those
of Abraham and Sarah, are adduced. But this opinion, though plausible
at first sight, if we examine more closely the relation of particular pas
sages to the whole tenor of the epistle, will soon appear untenable. The
error in reference to faith which James combats in this epistle, is cer
tainly not one altogether isolated ; but it appears as a single offset pro
ceeding with many others from the root of one false principle ; and this
principle is quite distinct from that which would admit of an application,
whether correct or incorrect, of the Pauline doctrine. It was the ten
dency of the Jewish spirit, mistaking the life of religion as seated in the
disposition, everywhere taking up the mere dead form, the appearance,
instead of the reality, in religion — the same tendency, which substituted
a lifeless, arrogant acquaintance with the letter for the genuine wisdom
inseparable from the divine life — which prided itself iu an inoperative
knowledge of the law, without paying any attention to the practice of
the law — which placed devotion in outward ceremonies, and neglected
that devotion which shows itself in woiks of love — which contented it
self with the verbal expression of love, instead of proving it by works;
it was the same tendency of the Jewish mind estranged from the spirit
and life of religion, which, as it laid an undue value on the opus opera-
turn of outward religious acts, so also on the opus operatum of a faith
in the one Jehovah and in the Messiah, which left the disposition un
changed,! and which presumed that by such a faith, the Jew was suf-
* We wish to remark, in passing, that among those who have thought that they have
detected a contradiction between James and Paul in the doclrine of justification, is the
celebrated patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris, of Constantinople, who was led to this opinion by
reading the epistle. It also struck him that the name of Christ is scarcely mentioned
above once or twice, and then coldly (anzi del nome di Jesu Cliristo apenafa mentione una
o due volte e freddamenie) ; that the mysteries of the incarnation of the Son of God and of
redemption are not treated of, but only morality (solo a la moralita attende) ; see Letter vii.
in Leitres Anecdotes de Cyrille Lucar. Amsterdam, 1718, p. 85.
\ Baur's authoritative decision (p. 68G) "that this is a perfectly untenable, self-contra-
diotory, idea," cannot at all move me. That the idea of the opus operatum, according to
the original and common meaning of the phrase, can only denote something outward, I
am well aware; but a word may be used in a sense besides the common, — in an exceptional
and metaphorical sense. So I have used the word here, which I was perfectly justified in
doing, to denote a superficial opinion, which remains as something wholly external to tho
soul, and is not a matter of the disposition or the heart. Now it is the same externalising
of religion, which places its essence, either in ceremonial observances, or in such a faith.
Both spring from the same root. The proofs he adduces iu Noto I. on p. 567, only serve
to confirm my assertion. Certainly there was also among the Jews a false theory, which

THE EPISTLE 0E JAMES. 329
ficiently distinguished from the sinful race of the Gentile^, and was jus
tified before God, even though the conduct of the life was in contradiction
to the requirements of faith. Thus we find here one brunch of that prac
tical, fundamental error which chiefly prevailed among these Jewish
Christians, whom James combats in the whole of the epistle, even where
faith is not the immediate subject of discourse. It was the erroneous
tendency which belonged to those tendencies that commonly prevailed
among the great mass of the Jews, and which had found its way also
among those Christians in whose minds the gospel had not effected a
complete transformation, but whose Jewish spirit had only connected
itself with faith in Jesus as the Messiah.* (See above, p. 22, and my
Church History, vol. i. p. 52.)
But as to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, whether cor
rectly or incorrectly understood and applied, we cannot suppose its in
fluence to be possible in churches of this class, and hence that James,
with the object which he had in view, should argue against it, is utterly
inconceivable.f As the superscription and contents of his epistle inform
us, it was manifestly addressed only to churches that were composed
attributed an unfounded value to a dead faith in the one God in opposition to idolatry, and
made this a support of moral inactivity. This Jewish notion of faith need only be applied
to the new object, Jesus the Messiah. But that a person expressing his opposition to a
certain tendency, should thereby be induced so to express himself as if he meant another
tendency which agrees only accidentally with this in the modo of expression — of that we
do not here find the only example iu history.
* That Jewish mode of thinking which Justin Martyr describes in Dial. o. Tryph. Jud.
fob 370, ed. Colon. — die vpsie dirardre iavrovc Kal dXkot nvie vpiv duoiot koto tovto (in
this respect Jewish-minded Christians), ol Aiyovaiv, on Kav dpapruAoi dial, Bebv di yivdi-
CKOvotv, oil pi) Xoyiayrai abroie Kvptoe dpapriav, (as you, and others like to you in this
respect, deceive yourselves when you say that though you may be sinners, yet knowing
God, the Lord will not. impute to you sin.) That mode of thinking which is found in the
Clementine homilies, according to which, faith in one God (rd ri/e povapx'tac KaAbv) has
such great magical power, that the ipvx'l povapxiKi/, even while living in vice, had this
advantage over idolaters, that it could not perish, but through purifying punishments would
at last attain to salvation. See Horn. iii. c. 6. This was the idea of faith, which, from an
entirely different source than from a misunderstanding of Paul, found entrance afterwards
among Christians themselves, and to which a Marcion directly opposed the Pauline idea
of faith. Against such perversions Paul warned the churches, both by word of mouth and
in writing, when he so impressively charged it upon them that their renunciation of hea
thenism was nugatory, and could not contribute to their participation iu the kingdom of
God, if they did not renounce their former sinful life. See Gal. v. 21. The "vain words,"
ksvoI Adyot, against which he warns the Ephesians, v. 6.
t Dr. Kern, in his essay on the Origin of the Epistle of James, in the Tubingen Zeit
schrift fur Theologie, 1835, p. 25, on account of what is here asserted, charges me with a
petitio principii; but I cannot perceive with any justice. This charge could only be
brought against me if I had assumed, without evidence, that this epistle was addressod to
an unmixed church; or if I had passed altogether unnoticed the possible case which Kern
considers as the actual (though he himself has abandoned it lately in the Introduction to
his Commentary on this Epistle), that it was forged by a Jewish Christian in James's
Dame, in order to controvert the Pauline doctrinal views which prevailed among tho Gen
tile churches

330 THE EPISTLE OP JAMES.
entirely of Jewish Christians. But such persons were least of all dis
posed to attach themselves particularly to Paul, and least of all disposed
and fitted to agree to the Pauline doctrine, which presented the most
direct opposition to their customary mode of thinking. It was pre
cisely from persons of this stamp that the intemperate, fanatical outcry
was raised against this form of Christian doctrine, as if by depending
on grace, men were made secure in sin, or that they were justified in
doing evil that good might come, Rom. iii. 8. In an entirely different
quarter, from an Hellenic (gnostic) Antinomianism, which was also Anti-
Judaism, arose at a later period an erroneous, practically destructive ap
propriation and appl. cation of the Pauline doctrine of justification, such
as Paul himself thought it needful to guard against by anticipation ;
Horn. vi. 1 ; Gal. v. 13. And this later erroneous application of the idea
of faith, which tended likewise to the injury of practical Christianity,
proceeded from an entirely different exposition of this idea than that
presented by the one-sided direction of the Jewish spirit. It manifested
itself rather as an Oriental Hellenic, than as a Jewish, spirit; it was not
the abstract idea of faith, but a one-sided contemplative, or idealising,
tendency, which deviated from the conception of faith as an animating
principle of the will and a practical determination of the life.
We do not wish to deny that even in churches composed of Jewish
Christians, and of Jewish-Christian views, there might be individuals
who had been influenced by the Pauline doctrine; and we grant it as
possible, that James, by what he had heard of the expressions of indi
viduals who had been thus influenced, had been induced to combat such
a tendency in his epistle. And we should be disposed thus to account
for the origin of the epistle, if it could be proved that it was directed
against various theoretical and practical errors springing out of different
roots. But this was not the case. It is evident from what has been
said, that all the evil which is combated in this epistle must be referred
to one root, th.it of the common Jewish spirit which had received into
itself the belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Hence we shall be induced, if
it be possible, to regard the individual error, not as something isolated,
as we should be obliged to do if we deduced it from the Pauline element,
but rather as connected with that common fundamental tendency.
But further, we must here consider the position of James in relation
to Paul. If we believed ourselves justified in admitting an open con
trariety between them, we might suppose that James, in consequence of
his peculiar course of development, was incapable of entering into the
peculiar Pauline form of doctrine, and had combated it through his own
misconception of it, or as a misconception of others that stood opposed
to him. But we have shown that we can by no means be led to presup
pose such a hostile relation between James and Paul, although there was
a party named after the former apostle, who set themselves in opposition
to Paul, as indeed tliere was a Pauline party, who formed themselves into
an opposition not sanctioned by Paul himself. According to this suppo-

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 331
sition we cannot admit that James combated either the doctrine of Paul
itself, or a misunderstood version and application of it, without, at the
same time, distinguishing the correct view of it, and guarding himself
against the appearance of contradicting the Apostle Paul, especially since
this appearance might so easily arise among Jewish-Christian churches ;
or else we should be obliged to suppose that James had controverted that
dogmatic phraseology without being aware of its connexion with Paul's
system, which we cannot consider as in the least degree probable.
Thus far we have taken for granted that this epistle was the produc
tion of him who names himself in it as its author. But very recently
this has been disputed both on external and internal grounds.* Several
weighty authorities have favored the opinion that the epistle was forged
in James's name, in order to promote a certain class of religious
opinions.! '^n& design might have been to controvert the Pauline doc
trine of Justification, to set the authority of James against Paul, and
tliis design might well suit the one-sided tendency of a Jewish Christian.
But such a person would not only have expressed himself in a more de
cided manner than that James, of whose reputation he wished to avail
himself; but he would have pointed out by name the individual, Paul,
against whom he directed his attack, and would have expressed in
stronger terms, his opposition to his doctrine. The subordinate place
which in this case the controversy with the Pauline doctrine occupies in
relation to the whole of the epistle, certainly does not agree with this
hypothesis. * The external grounds against Ihe genuineness of this epistle, though the Peschito is
m favor of it, would have greater weight, if the doubts that arose in the first centuries as
to acknowledging it, might not be so easily explained from its spreading among Jewish-
Christian churches (a circumstance suited to excite in many minds a prejudice against
it) an argument against Paul's doctrine which it was believed to contain; to which must be
added Ihe indistinct designation of the author at the beginning of tho epistle.
f We are willing to submit to the charge of narrow-mindedness in declaring ourselves
against the assertion so unceremoniously made and so often repeated, that such a literary
fiction could have been nothing offensive to the principles of the earlier Christian period.
We have no reason for supposing that any one, after the manner of the rhetoricians, would
have said by another what he conld himself in some way have said, or that ho would at
tribute to another what he wished specially to impress on the minds of his contemporaries.
Such fictions roust ever have been intended to deceive; they were designed to facilitate the
admission of what was said by the appropriated authority ofanother. There was a so-called
pious fraud a manifest lie, which could find its justification in the design of spreading
certain truths. There was doubtless a peculiar view to which such a principle answered;
but that the principle generally pr .-vailed appears to me an arbitrary assumpiion. We ought
carefully to guard against supposing that to have generally prevailed which was only a
peculiarity of individual tendencies of spirit. There was a one-sided, theoretic, speculative
spirit from which lax principles respecting veracity proceeded, as we have remarked in
Plato. It was closely connected with that aristoeraticism of antiquity, first overturned by
Ihe power of tho gospel, which treated the mass of the people as unsusceptible of pure
truth in religion, and hence justified the use of falsehood to serve as leading-.-triugs for the
muUilude, ttoa'ao'i. As the reaction of earlier conceptions, we find this view in parlies of
kindred tendencies, such as the Alexandrian Jews, the Gnostics, the Platouising Alexan-

332 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Others are disposed to find in this epistle a refined Ebionitism,* in
which the Jewish element had lost much of its original coarseness, al
though the practical basis which distinguished its view from the Pauline,
remained the same. The origination of the epistle at a later period is
supposed to be indicated by the influences which the Pauline spirit had
already exerted on the elements that were opposed to it. Thus the soft
ened Judaism, which could not altogether escape the influence of the
Pauline ideas, must contain the certain mark of a later, more advanced
Christian development. In our inquiries on this subject, all depends on
how we view the relation of Christ to the developing process of Chris
tianity. If persons regard Christ only as the individual who gave the
impulse to a new development, which, through a Paul, and the spirit ex
hibited in the Gospel of John, was carried forward beyond his personal
efforts, to them such a view may commend itself. And so James may
appear as the rigid Ebionite, who could not possibly have written such
an epistle, and so it may appear necessary to invent such an intermediate
step for the Ebionitism, softened and spiritualized by the progressive in
fluence of the movement set a-going by Paul. To us the relation of
Christ to Christianity appears altogether different, since we must regard
the revelation through Christ as the original and perfect one._ from which
the whole developing process of the apostolic doctrine is to be derived.
We shall refer the elements akin to the Pauline doctrine in James, not to
Paul, but to the same original source from which Paul derived them, that
is, to Christ himself. The fulfilment of the law in the gospel, which is
exhibited in the Sermon on the Mount, reappears in the conception of
Christianity peculiar to James, and we cannot fail to notice several cor
respondences with the sayings of Christ. Although James and Paul are
representatives of the two opposite extremes in the development of the
Christian doctrine, yet in virtue of their common relation to the original
source of revelation in Christ, a relationship to one another and a higher
unity must result between them. If we know the real Christ, we shall
not be disposed to believe that James, who had received unto himself the
whole personal impression of the Saviour, could retain the common Jew
ish narrow-mindedness. As we find in his epistle that image of James
which all the historical data would lead us to frame, so, on the other
band, no trace is to be found in it of its being composed in post-apostolic
times, — nothing, especially, which points to a later form of Ebionitism.
The manner, also, in which the nearness of Christ's second advent is

drian fathers. Bit from the first, a sounder practical Christian spirit combated this error,
as we see in the instances of Justin Martyr, Irenseus, and Tertullian. The anti-gnostio
tendency was also zealous for strict veracity. Now a similar practical tendency distin
guishes this epistle, in which I can nowhere find an Ebionitish anti-Pauline paint of view.
This spirit of strict veracity is shown in what is said respecting swearing. The epistle
indeed, wears altogether a different character from the Clementines, which show a veiy
decided party tendency and party bias.
* The view dereloped by Baur and Sclrwegler.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 333
spoken of, suits best the apostolic age. Had the epistle been forged in
favor of any of the party interests of the day, we should have met with
references to the manifold contrarieties of Christian development then
existing, as, for instance, those of the Jewish Christians and Gentile
Christians, the Paulinian and anti-Paulinian systems. But no one, except
he belongs to the class who can find everything everywhere, can detect in
this epistle any of all these and similar references to the contrarieties of that
age, excepting only the possible allusion to the Pauline doctrine of faith.
But even then, we could hardly expect that the anti-Pauline tendencies of
the second century would shew themselves so feebly as they do, and in a
way so unlike that of the Clementines in which they everywhere prevail.
But is this allusion really so very evident? Let us recollect that the
Pauline phraseology formed itself from Judaism, from the Jewish-Greek
diction — that it by no means created purely new modes of expression,*
but often only appropriated the ancient Jewish terms, employed them in
new combinations, applied them to new contrasts, and animated them
with a new spirit. Thus neither the term "justification " in reference to
God, nor the term " faith," was entirely new ; but both these terms and
the ideas indicated by them (and indeed, in reference to the first, the same
idea the. existence of which among the Jews Paul must have assumed in
arguing*-with his Jewish opponents) had been long familiar to the Jews.
The example likewise of Abraham as a hero in faith must have been
obvious to every Jew, and the example of Rahab (which is adduced only
in the Epistle to the Hebrews — an epistle neither composed by Paul nor
containing the peculiarly Pauline doctrinal statement of justifying faith),
since it proved the benefit of the monotheistic faith to -a Gentile of im
pure life, must have especially commended itself to the Jews who were
disposed to extol the importance of faith in Jehovah.!
Let us now look in the Epistle itself for the marks of the time in
which it was written, and of the churches to which it was addressed.
It is remarkable that, according to its superscription, it is addressed only
to the Jews of the twelve tribes who lived in the dispersion, and yet it
is manifestly addressed to Christians. Still this may be very well ex
plained if we consider the view of James, such as it is shown to be by
the wdiole of the epistle. He considers the acknowdedgment of the Mes-
siahship of Jesus as essentially belonging to gennine Judaism, believers
in Jesus as the only genuine Jews, Christianity as perfected Judaism, by
* On the manner in which Paul employed phrases which were already in use among
Jewish theologians, compare Dr. Roet-h's work, De Epistola ad Hebrozos, p. 121, &c, though
I cannot agree with the author in what he attempts to prove; for in the use which Paul
makes of an existing form of dogmatic expression, he forms the most decided contrast to
the Jewish meaning. But it appears from this, how James, proceeding from the Jewish
point of view, without any reference to the Pauline doctrine, would be led to tho choice
of such expressions.
+ Thus it appears to me that what Dr. De Wette says in the Studien und Kriliken,^
1830 p. 349, in order to point out an intentional opposition of James to Paul, is nullified.

334 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
which the Law had attained its completion. And it is not impossible
that, although he addressed himself especially to Christians, he also had
in his thoughts the Jewish readers into whose hands the epistle might
fall, as Christians lived among the Jews without any marked separation.
From the mention of their descent from the twelve tribes, we may infer
that these churches consisted purely of Jewish Christians, or that, James,
who considered himself peculiarly the apostle of the Jews, addressed
only the Jewish part of the church. Yet as no notice is taken of the
relation of Jewish to Gentile Christians, it is by far the most probable
opinion that these churches consisted entirely of the former. Partly from
the peculiar views of James, and partly from the peculiar situation of
these churches which had retained all the Jewish forms, we may account
for the use of the ancient Jewish name "synagogue," avvayuyrj, instead
of the peculiar Christian term " church," EKKXnata, as the designation of
the meeting of the community of believers.* Such churches might exist
during the later apostolic age in the inland parts of Asia, perhaps in Syria.
But if the epistle was addressed to churches in these parts, it appears
strange that James, to whom the Aramaic must have been much more
familiar than the Greek, (although it was not impossible that he had so far
learnt the Greek as to be able to write an epistle in it,!) s'iouId have made
use of the laiter language. We must therefore conclude, that this point
was determined by a regard to the wants of his readers, and that part of
them at least belonged to the Hellenists. This being assumed, we must
fix the date of the epistle at a time preceding the separate formation of
Gentile Christian churches, before the relation of Gentiles and Jews to
one another in the Christian church had been brought under discussion, J
the period of the first spread of Christianity in Syria, Cilieia, and the
adjacent regions. §
These churches consisted for the most part of the poor,|| (though
* Our knowledge of the spread of Christianity at this period, is indeed far too defective
to dogmatise with Kern on this point.
f It is possible also that some ono served him as interpreter.
X The view which Dr. Schneckenburger has acutely developed, and defended in his
valuable Beitrdge zur Elnle.itung in's Neue Testament, Stuttgart. 1832, and in bis Annotalio
ad Epistolam Jocobi. He bas expressed his agreement, respecting the object of the polem
ical porlion of this epistle, with the views I have developed in this work, and in my earlier
occasional wridngs. See his Essays on this subject in Steudel's Tubinger Zeitschrift fur
Theologie, 1829 and 1830, part ii.
§ An allusion to the use of the name "Christians " has been erroneously supposed in
James ii. 7, and hence an attempt lo fix the date of the epistle. By "worthy name,"
KaAbv bioya, we may most probably understand the name of Jesus, and this is the simplest
exp'anation, since the words will be most naturally applied to the invocation of the name
of Jesus as the Messiah, to whom believers were consecrated at baptism, the baptism
"into the name of Jesus," elc rb ovopa rov 'lnaov. See Schneckenburger's Commentary
on the passage.
J According to the views which Kern formerly presented, the author of this epistle, in
¦an Ei-ionitish manner, maiked the genuine Christians, that is, iu his opinion tlie Jewish
Christians, as the poor, and the Gentile Christians as the rich, whom he would not ac-

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 335
some individuals among them were rich,)* and they were in various ways
oppressed by the wealthy and prominent Jews.! Certainly these
churches were so constituted, that, in many cases, their Christianity
consisted only in the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and of
single moral precepts of his, which they considered as the perfecting of
the law. Since they were far from recognising and appropriating the
real essence of Christianity, they resembled the great mass of the Jew
ish nation, in the predominance of a carnal mind, and the prevalence of
worldly lusts, contention, and zealotism. Accordingly, we must either
assume that Christianity among them was still novel, and had not yet
penetrated the life, as from the beginning (see above, p. 22), there were
many among the Jews, who, carried away by the impression which the
extraordinary operations of the apostles had made upon them, and at
tracted by the hope that Jesus would soon return, and establish his king
dom on earth, the happiness of which they depicted agreeably to their
own inclinations, in such a state of mind and with such expectations,
made a profession of Christianity, without having experienced any essen
tial change of character — or we must suppose, that these churches had
sunk into a state of degeneracy from higher attainments in the Christian
life. In the constitution of these churches there was this peculiarity,
that as the direction of the office of teaching had not been committed to
the presbyters, but only the outward management of church affairs,
many members of the community came forward as teachers, while, as
yet, there was no special office of teacher; (see above, pp.34, 145.)
Hence James deemed it needful to admonish them, that too many ought
not to obtrude themselves as teachers ; that none ought too inconsider
ately to take up speaking in their public meetings, but that each should
knowledge to be genuine Chrislians. But the condition of the Christian churches among
the Gentiles generally in the first age, certainly will not allow us to suppose, that it would
occur to any one to impose this name upon them, and in every point of view this supposi
tion appears lo be entirely groundless.
* James i. 10.
f The passago in James ii. 7, is referred most naturally to the blaspheming of Jesus by
the enemies of Christianity, although the immediately preceding context relates not to
religious persecutions, but to oppressions and extortions of a different kind. Compare v. 4.
It is by no means evident, Ujat by the " rich" in this epistle we are always to understand
the same members of the Christian community. The author may refer partly to the rich
among the Jews, who were averse to Christianity, partly to the rich among the Chris
lians, who formed a very small minority. From the contrast in i. 9, 10, it by no meaii3
follows that by tho rich in the latter verse only Christians are intended. By those of low
degree who were to rejoice in being exalted, he could indeed mean only Christians ; but
among the rich, he might include those wealthy Jews, who by their entire devotedness to
earthly objects were prevented from becoming Christians. These persons should learn the
nothingness of earthly possessions, which they had hitherto made their highest good,
should humble themselves, and in this self-humiliation find their true glory; for with the
nothingness of earthly things they would learn the truly highest good, — the true dignity
or elevation imparted lay the Messiah. The directions thus given were equivalent to a
euuimous to become Christians.

336 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
recollect the responsibility he incurred by such a procedure; James
i. 19; iii. 1, 2.
As to the doctrine of James and the mode of its exhibition in this
epistle, we find nothing whatever which stands in contradiction to the
more fully developed doctrine of the New Testament, as we shall show
when we come to treat of doctrine ; and the Christian ideas actually pre
sented in this epistle point to the organic connection of the whole Chris
tian system. But the contents of these Christian ideas are not evolved
and applied to particulars ; what is purely Christian is more insulated ;
reference to Christ is not so predominant and all-penetrating as in the
other epistles. Reference to the Old Testament, though conjoined with
Christian views, predominates. For the explanation of this phenomenon,
to allege the peculiar views of the persons addressed is not sufficient, for
a Paul, a John, or a Peter would certainly have written to them in a very
different strain ; we must rather seek the explanation in the peculiar
character of the writer himself. We might hence infer (with Schnecken
burger) that James wrote this epistle at a time when Christianity had
not thoroughly penetrated his spiritual life, during the earliest period of
his Christian development ; but it may be questioned whether -we are
justified in drawing such a conclusion, for no proof can be given that he
enlarged his doctrinal views at a later period. It, is possible that he re
mained confined in this imperfect form of doctrinal development, although
his heart was penetrated by love to God and to Jesus the Messiah. He
still maintained the character which belonged to him from his individual
position as a teacher of the Jews, as the guide of his countrymen in
passing over from the Old to the New Testament. True it is, that much
would be wanting to the church for the completeness of Christian know
ledge, if the statement of Christian doctrine by James did not find its
complement in the representations of the other apostles ; but in con
nexion with their teachings it forms an important contribution to the
entire conception and development of Christian truth, and furnishes all
that can be expected from one occupying such a position.*
* As the ultra-Paulinism of the second century stood quite aloof from James, so in the
hostility shown to the Epistle of James we recognise the one-sidedness of the Lutheran
elemeut. Although the Epistle of James occupies a subordinate place in the development
of Christian truth, compared with the Pauline epistles, yet it is important for checking
many a one-sided exaggeration to which the Pauline element, if made unduly prominent,
might be carried. Thus its position in the Canon has a peculiar propriety. Its importance
in a practical view is beautifully exhibited by the excellent Thomas Arnold in the
volume of his Sermons entitled Christian Life, its Ropes, its Fears, and its Close, Sermon
IV., on Christian Conviction, p. 51 : — "But for those who complain that no preaching but
that of the very gospel itself is becoming a Christian minister, or useful to Christian people,
I would refer them for an answer not only to some of the books of the Old Testament,
which, on their notion, we might almost strike out of our Bibles, but to a complete portion
of the New Testament itself— to the Epistle of St. James, the Lord's brother. That epistle
undoubtedly supposes that they who were to read it had received other teaching before
hand ; that the gospel in the strict sense had been already preached to them. But iu
itself it does not in that high sense preach the gospel ; it dwells rather from beginning to

TUB EPISTLE OP JAMES. 337
It was exactly this form of doctrine that secured for James a long and
undisturbed ministration among the Jews, and many were led by his
influence to faith in Christ ; but this excited so much the more the hatred
of the basest among the party-leaders of the Jewish people, who sought
for an opportunity to sacrifice him to their rage. One of the most im
petuous among them, the high priest Ananus, who was disposed to all
the violent acts of party hatred, availed himself for this purpose of the
interval between the departure of the Roman procurator Felix, and the
arrival of his successor Albinus, about the year 02. He caused James,
with some other Christians, to be condemned to death by the Sanhedrim,
as a violator of the law, and he was stoned.* But the better disposed
end on such points of Christian duty as are required to perfect the man of God unto all
good works, points which may be called properly moral. Now that some Christian
preaching, in particular circumstances, should follow the model of St. James's Epistle,
appears to me no just matter of blame. But as St. James's Epistle is in the New Testa
ment only one out of many, and as he himself must often and earnestly have preached the
gospel iu the more strict sense, although he did not do it in this one epistle, so should
we, both preachers and hearers, greatly deceive and hurt ourselves if we forget that tlie
proper preaching of the gospel and the believing it is our one great business, without
which, and except as founded upon it and taking the knowledge and belief of it for
granted, all other preaching is to Christians worse than unprofitable, not edifying their
souls, but rather subverting them." (See also Dr. Arnold's Sermons on the Interpretation
of Scripture, Serm. xxxiii. and xxxiv. — Tr.)
* We here follow the account of Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9, which certainly is more
credible than the legendary narrative of Hegesippus in Eusebius ii. 23. How can it be
supposed that the heads of the Pharisaic party would havo been foolish enough to demand
of James, and to believe him capable of bearing, a. public testimony against Christianity ?
Nor can I be induced by what Credner has said in his Einleitung, &c , p. 581, in which
Rothe and Kern (see his Commentary on the Epistle of James, published in 1838, p. 341)
agree with him, to give up the opinion I have here expressed. It would place the ques
tion ou a different footing, if the interpolation of the passage in Josephus could be really
proved. In that ease, we must admit, that although the history of the martyrdom of
James was garnished after an Ebionitish legend, yet the historical truth is to be dis
cerned lying at its basis. But this interpolation does not appear to me proved. The
words of Josephus, xx. o. 9, § 1, in which we include in brackets what is considered sus
picious by Credner and others, are as follows : (he is here speaking of the high priest
Ananus): KaBl&i avvedpiov kqitm Kal irapayayuv ele avrb [rbv ddeAifibv 'lyaov rov "Aeyo-
pivov Xpiarov, 'ldKufioe bvopa auru, Kai] rivae \iripove] uc irapavopnodvruv Karr/yopiav
iroinodpevoe irapidune AevoBnaopivovc' boot di idoKovv t.KteiKior%Toi tCiv Kara rr/v iro/uv
elvai, Kal rd irepl rove vbpovc durpc/iecc, (Sapiuc yveyKav iirl tovtu. (He caused a session
of the council of the judges and bringing into it (the brother of Jesus, the so-called
Christ, —his name was James— and) certain (others) whom he charged with violation of
the law, he delivered them up to be stoned ; but all the men of probity in the city, and
those most scrupulous in things pertaining to the law, were sorely displeased at this)
Credner considers the clauses I have marked, as the interpolation of a Christian, because
Josephus as a Jew would not have so emphatically prefixed the epithet " brother," ddeA-
ipbv, &c., but rather have placed first the proper name, and because be must rather have
called James "the just," rbv diKaiov, particularly as he has left his readers in almost total
darkness as to the meaning of his whole designation of him. But since James might be best
known by precisely that designation, which gave him the greatest importance whether in a
good or a bad sense, according to the views of those who employed it, since Jesus who was

338 THE APOSTLE PETEB.
among the Jews were greatly dissatisfied with this proceeding, and
Ananus, on account of it, was accused to the new governor, for which
there was sufficient reason, as he had manifestly exceeded the limits of
the power guaranteed to the Jewish Sanhedrim by the Roman law. See
above, p. 56.

CHAPTER II,
THE APOSTLE PETEK.

From James we now proceed to the apostle Peter, who, as appears
from the course of historical development already traced, forms a con
necting link between Paul and James, the two who with oneness of
Spirit formed the most direct contrast to each other in their spheres of
action and tendencies. We must here glance at the earlier elements
entering into the formation of the character of Peter.
Simon was the son of Jonas, a fidierman in the town of Bethsaida, on
the western shore of the Sea of Gennesareth in Galilee. The interest
universally excited in this region respecting the appearance of the Mes
siah, which seized with peculiar force the ardent minds of the young, led
him, among others, to that divinely enlightened man John the Baptist,
who was called to prepare the way for that event. His brother Andrew,
who had first recognised the Messiah in Jesus, imparted to him the glo
rious discovery. When the Lord saw him, he perceived, with his divine-
human glance, what was in him, and he gave him the surname of the
Rock-man, Cephas, Peter. This surname, like others which Christ gave
considered to be the Christ might be presumed to be known under that title, both among
Gentile and Jewi.-h readers, we have reason for thinking that Ihe-person of the brother of
Jesus first presented itself to Josephus, and he mentioned this before adding the designa
tion of the proper name. Wheu those persons are mentioued who had been accused as
violators of the law, and whose condemnation had been blamed by the most devout of
the Jewish nation, this would certainly lead us to think of the Christians who strictly
observed the Mosaic law, and above all, we should refer this to James. When Christians
were persecuted as Christians, or as opponents of the prevalent corruptions, the persecu
tion would especially affect James, who bad the greatest influence among the Jews, and
was Ihe firmest pillar of the Christian community. It is therefore in itself probable, that
the persecution excited by the high priest would fall particularly on James. And if a
Christian had interpolated this passage, he would hardly have satisfied himself with only
foisting in i hese words, as a comparison with the interpolation of the other passage relaling
to Jesus himself, will convince us still more. In reference to the incredibility of such tra-
diiions as those of Hegesippus respecting the martyrdom of James, a comparison with the
tales reported by Papias about tho death of Judas Iscariot will serve for a proof. Per
haps the image of ihe martyrdom of Stephen suggested to the Ebionites their method of
forming the account of tho martyrdom of James.

THE APOSTLE PETEE. 339
his disciples, may be taken in a twofold point of view. The principal
point of view which, without doubt, the Redeemer had in the imposition
of the name, related to wdiat Simon would become in and for the servico
of the gospi-1. But as the influences of trail-forming grace, always attach
ing themselves to the constitutional character of an individual, purify and
ennoble it, so in this instance, what Peter was to become by the power
of the divine life, was in a measure determined by his natural peculiari
ties. Prompt and firm in his grasp, his specially distinguishing charac
teristic was the capacity for ardent vigorous action, by which he effected
so much in the service of the gospel. But the fire of his powerful naturo
needed first to be transformed by the flame of divine love, and to be re
fined from the impurity of selfishness, to make him the Rock man in the
publication of the gospel. By the natural constitution of his mind, he was
indeed disposed to surrender himself at the moment entirely to the im
pression which seized him, without being turned aside by those considera
tions which would hold back more timorous spirits, and to express with
energy wdiat would move many minds ; but he was easily misled by a
rash self-confidence to say more, and to veuture more, than he could ac
complish ; and though he quickly and ardently seized on an object, he
allowed himself too easily to relinquish it, by yielding to the force of
another sudden and powerful impression.
It was desirable that the first impression made on Peter's mind should
continue to act upon him in quiet, — on which account Christ at first left
him to himself; and when, by repeated operations, everything in his dis
position was sufficiently prepared, he received him into the number of
his disciples, who should everywhere accompany hiin. But that which
gave the last decisive impression, was something exactly adapted* to
Peter's former mode of life, and to his peculiar character. After Christ
had finished one of his discourses in Peter's vessel, he desired him to let
down his net for a draught. Although he had toiled in vain during tho
whole of the preceding night, yet he was quite ready to obey the com
mand of the Redeemer, a proof of the confidence he already placed in
him; and since, after the various preceding impressions which he received
of the Divine in Christ, he was so astonished by the successful result, —
the sense of the dignity and holiness of the personage who stood before
him, as well as of his own unworthiness, so overpowered him, that he
deemed himself not fit to be so near the Holy One, — Christ took advan
tage of the state of mind thus produced to draw him altogether to him
self, and made this instance of success in his worldly occupation, by
which Peter had been so wronder-struck, a symbol of the spiritual success
which would attend his future labors in his service.
We find many indications of Peter's constitutional disposition in the
relation subsisting between Christ and himself, and between himself and
the other disciples. An illustration of this disposition occurred at that
• See Life of Christ, p. 269.

340 THE APOSTLE PETEB.
crisis, when after the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, the impres-
sion made by Christ on the minds of the multitude had reached its height,
Christ opposed instead of fulfilling the sensuous expectations that had
been excited, and the impression in his favor was reversed. When,
therefore, many of those persons wdio had long been connected with
Christ, forsook him, Christ said to the twelve disciples who still faith
fully followed him, " Will ye also go away?" Peter testified of what
they all felt of the divine impression which the words of Christ had made
on his inmost soul, and how deeply he felt — more than he could yet
distinctly apprehend, — that a divine life proceeded from his words, and
that those who received his sayings were made partakers of a divine and
blessed life enduring for ever. "To whom shall we go ? Thou hast the
words of eternal life. We believe, we know, that thou art consecrated
of God to the Messiahship." The conviction that Jesus was the Messiah,
which Peter here expresses, was without doubt of a different kind from
that which was produced by merely beholding the miracles he wrought.
It was a conviciion deeply seated in his religious and moral nature,
which originated in his inward experience of the Divine in his intercourse
with the Redeemer. Thus Christ declared, when Peter said to him,
"Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God," Matt. xvi. 16, that
this conviction was produced on his heart by the Spirit of God, — that he
spoke not according to human opinion, but from the confidence produced
by divine excitement, — that not flesh and blood, but his Father in heaven
had revealed this to him. And since the conviction, thus grounded in
the depths of his disposition, that Jesus was the Messiah, was the foun
dation on which the kingdom of God rested, in allusion to this fact
Christ called him the Rock-man, the Rock on wdiich he would build his
church, which was to exist for ever. There is, indeed, a reference to
Peter personally, and to his peculiar charism, but a special reference to
that which had just happened when Peter, by testifying to the faith
which was within them all, and which constituted the foundation of the
kingdom of God, had proved himself to be qualified to be the represen
tative of the church resting on the rock-foundation of faith in Jesus as
the Saviour. What others silently shut up within them, it belonged to
the peculiarity of Peter to proclaim aloud, and to proclaim on occasions
that brought reproach, as well as on occasions that brought praise. Thus
happened it that when Christ announced to his disciples his approaching
sufferings, Peter felt impelled instantaneously as it arose in his heart, to
express the sentiment which all felt, but hesitated to express, "That bo
far from thee, Lord !" But here the feeling of love to Him who was
most fitted to kindle the fire of love in the heart, expressed itself in a
natural human form so strongly, that Peter, with this state of disposition
towards the cause of God, which requires the sacrifice of self, and of
whatever is dearest to the heart, could not be an instrument in its ser
vice ; and hence the Lord addressed him with words of severe rebuke,
and assured him that, with such a disposition, valuing the person of man

THE APOSTLE PETEE. 341
higher than the cause of God, he could not remain in his fellowship ;
that by this disposition he became a tempter ; Matt. xvi. We recognise
the same tendency to be carried away by the sudden impulse of feeling,
and to surrender himself to the vivid impression of the moment, when
the Lord assured his disciples that, on the night of his Passion, all would
forsake him ; the too confident Peter at once exclaimed, " Though all
men should forsake thee, yet will not I ; I will lay down my life for thy
sake." This over-hasty self-confidence soon turned, as the Lord foretold,
to his disgrace, and gave occasion for bitter repentance. Yet this false
step, no doubt, served to advance him in that self-knowledge which is
the indispensable condition of true faith in the Redeemer and true
knowledge of him, and thus to the whole development of the Christian
life. And the Lord forgave him his sin ; he reminded him of it in a
manner the most tender, and yet piercing the very depths of his soul, by
the question thrice repeated, "Lovest thou me?"* and required from
him, as the proof of his love, the faithful discharge of his apostolic call
ing, the care of his sheep. f
But it is this peculiar character of Peter, as transformed by the di
vine life, with which we see hi > afterwards operating as an organ of the
Holy Spirit in the service of the kingdom of God. We have already
pointed out, in a former chapter, what an important position he occupied
in this respect at the commencement of the Christian dispensation, until
the appearance of the apostle Paul, and subsequently as an intermediate
point between Paul's sphere of action among the Gentiles and that of the
older apostles among the Jews. Though his nature, not yet thoroughly
penetrated by the Divine, might still at times disturb and mar his exer
tions by its peculiar failings, yet the power of the divine principle of life
within him, his love and fidelity to the Lord, were too great to be re
pressed by those corrupt tendencies, when the essential interests of the
kingdom of God were at stake. The effect of sudden impressions is
shown in his conduct at Antioch {ante, p. 204), but the subsequent his-

* We proceed here on the conviction, that the 21st chapter of John's gospel, although
not composed by him, contains a credible tradition.
f It is indeed possible that these words referred personally lo Peter, in the sense that
he specially was at the first to take the lead in the guidance of the church, as he it certainly
was who first spoke in the name of all and who guided the deliberations on their common
affairs; — and even if the words are so interpreted, a peculiar apostolio primacy is by no
means committed to Peter, but the position entrusted to him was only in relation to exist
ing circumstances, which he was peculiarly fitted to occupy by the gift of government,
xdptapa Kv(3epvyoeue, which harmonised with his natural talents. But these words may
very probably be cmsidered as a general description of the vocation of preaching the gos
pel — which, from a comparison with the parable in the 10th chapter of John, is very prob
able — and in this case, they contain nothing personal in relation to Peter as distinguished
from the other apostles. Peter always appears as peculiarly fitted by his natural character
to be the representative of the fellowship of the disciples, aud hence he expressed what all
deeply felt, and Christ particularly addressed to him those sayings which in their full ex
tent related generally to all genuine disciples.

342 THE APOSTLE PETEK.
tory proves that, although Peter might be hurried by the power of a
sudden impression to act in a way which involved a practical denial of
principles which he had formeily avowed, yet he could not be seduced
to be permanently unfaithful to these principles in his capacity of Chris
tian teacher, and so to lay the foundation of a lasting opposition to Paul.
On the contrary, he must have willingly allowed himself to be set right
by Paul, since he thenceforward continued firmly united to him in the
bond of apostolic fellowship.* An impartial examination of history
shows that such fellowship always existed. The two apostles never
ceased to acknowledge one another as genuine ministers of the gospel,
though against the tendency which attributed an excessive authority to
Peter, and would make everything bend to that — a foreshadowing of
what in later centuries actually took place under the name of Peter — ¦
Paul must always have protested.
From Peter's ardent zeal, and from what we know of his successful
efforts for spreading the kingdom of God till the conversion of Corne
lius, we may infer that, during that period of his life respecting which
we have no information, he extended still further the circle of his opera
tions for the propagation of the gospel. As he is not mentioned in the
Acts later than the account of the deliberations at Jerusalemf recorded
in the loth chapter, it seems probable that the scene of his subsequent
labors lay at a distance from that city. According to an ancient tradi
tion,]; Peter published the gospel to the Jews scattered throughout Pon
tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Lesser Asia, and Bithynia. But this account has

- We can by no means agree in the opinion expressed by Elwart, in his acute Essay
on Inspiration, in that valuable periodical the Studien der evangelischen Geistlicltkeit Wur-
tembergs, vol. iii. No. 2, p. 12, that the old distinction for securing the idea of inspiration
between vitium conversationis and error doctrines is wholly untenable, and, therefore, the
possibility of a mixture of error in the teaching of the apostles must be allowed. It can
certainly be easily shown that the error conversationis does not here necessarily imply the
error dnctrimt. When Peter, in consequence of a sudden over-hastiness or weakness,
suffered himself to be misled through regard to his Jewish fellow-believers, and lo act in
a manner which corresponded rather to the prejudices of others, than to his own better
views, such a sudden practical error by no means justifies us in the conclusion, that his
own knowledge of Christian truth had been eclipsed, and that his sounder views had en
tirely vanished. The most we could infer would be, that at this instant, when overpow
ered by impressions from wilhout, he had no clear perception of the principles on which
lie was acting. Had he indeed not repented of this sudden false step arising from the fear
of man, — had he hardened himself in this moral delinquency, a permanent obscuration of
Christian consciousness itself must have been tho cousequence, aud, as the history of many
similar instances of backsliding exemplifies, a practical denial of the truth would have been
followed by a theoretical one ; but this could never come to pass in that individual in
whom the spirit of Christ had attained such n preponderance over the selfish principle.
And thus we are not at liberty to suppose, that Peter allowed the act into which he had
been hurried by the power of a sudden temptation to establish itself in his teaching, to such
extent as to prevent or obscure his perception of Christian truth.
f What Paul says iu 1 Cor. ix. 5, suggests the journeys of the apostle.
X See Origen, t. iii. in Genes. Eusebius, iii. 1.

TRADITIONS RESPECTING PETEK. 343
most probably arisen from a false conclusion from the superscription of
his First Epistle.* This epistle of Peter leads us rather to suppose, that
the scene of his labors was in the Parthian empire, for as he sends salu
tations from his wife in Babylon, f this naturally supports the conclusion,
that he himself was in that neighborhood. And in itself, it is by no
means improbable that Peter, whose ministrations related particularly to
the descendants of the. Jews, betook himself to a region where so many
Jews were scattered ; and what wre know of the early spread of Chris
tianity in those parts, serves to confirm the opinion. Yet the fact that
Peter exercised his ministry at a later period in the countries composing
the Parthian empire, by no means renders it impossible that he labored
at an earlier period in Lesser Asia. Still it contradicts this supposition
that, in the Pauline epistles, in which a fair opportunity was given to
touch upon such a relation, we find no trace of Peter's residing in the
circle of Paul's labors; this, however, we do not adduce as perfectly de
cisive evidence. But we must attach greater weight to the fact, that, in
this epistle of Peter, there is no reference to his own earlier presence
among the churches to whom it is addressed, though the object of this
epistle must have especially required him to remind them of what they
had heard from his own lips.
It appears then, that, after Peter had found his field of exertion
among the Jews of the Parthian empire, he wrote to the churches
founded by Paul and his disciples in Asia the epistle,^ which is the only
* Origen's expression is very doubtful: "he seems to have preached," KCKnpvxivai
ioiKEV. f By a most unnatural interpretation, this has been supposed to mean an inconsidera
ble town in Egypt, a "fortified rjost^'ippovpiov ipvpvbv),&i that time, see Strabo, xvii. 1,
although this small town existed as late as the fifth century ; see Hist. Lausiac. c. 25. And
there is nothing against our supposing that an inhabited portion of the immense Babylon
was still left. Also, on the supposition that the First Epistle of Peter was forged in his
name, it appears to me by no means natural for the writer to mention Rome under that
designation. It cannot be proved that at the end of the first.or the begiuning of the sec
ond, century Rome was commonly designated by the name of Babylon, and it might be
expected that whoever forged such an epistle, would by some intimation let it be known
that this name was to be taken symbolically, since it was of importance to hirn that all his
readers should understand that the epistle was written from Rome. At all events, it is
far more natural to understand by the words " elected together with," r) avveKAeKri/, Peter's
wife rather than ihe church. This, we feel assured, is the only sound interpretation of the
word. The antiquity of the other explanation can prove nothing, since no tradition says
anything of Peter's residence in these parts, but on the contrary, much attention was given
to the tradition of Peter's journey to Rome, and, as there was an inclination to sym
bolical meanings, a point of connexion was found in the Apocalypse, so that this interpre
tation would easily gain acceptance. But indeed, whoever forged an epistle under the
name of Peter would have supported himself by a more familiar tradition, and not have
transported Peter to Babylon. If Peter sent salutations from his wife in Babylon, it per
fectly agrees with what we are told in 1 Cor. ix. 5, that she accompanied Peler on his mis
sionary journeys.
t Although Schwegler has expressed himself, in the second volume of his work on the
post-apostolic age ivitb so much confidence on the spuriousuess of this epiBlle, yet we

344 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETEE.
memorial preserved to us of his later labors. All the marko of its date
unite in placing it in the last part of the apostolic age, in the period sub
sequent to Paul's first confinement. We find Silvanus, one of Paul's
early fellow laborers, among Peter's attendants, which agrees very well
attach little or no weight to most of his reasons. He adduces as one mark of spurious-
ness, that the writer says and reports nothing about himself in a more definite manner.
But if there had been more distinct allusions to Peter's character and history, they would
doubtless have been regarded as a sign that some other person wished to pass himself off
for Peter. And certainly, whoever had any motive for assuming the part of Peter, would
have been induced to avail himself for this object of whatever he knew of the person and
character of this apostle, and several things of this kind must have been known to any
Christian who could forge such an epistle. But in this epistle we really find many marks -
hy which Peter might make himself known in an unobtrusive manner, but quite different
from those which another person would have chosen who wished to act Peter's part.
Among such marks we reckon that Peter (v. ],) describes himself as a witness of the suf-
feriugs of Christ. From the position occupied by Peter, this would appear very natural.
But any forger of such an epistle, wishing to compile one after the pattern of the other
apostolic epistles, would have chosen the resurrection of Christ, his miracles, or the trans
figuration, as in the Second Episile, rather than his passion. The author writes also as an
eye-wituess, before whom the image of a suffering Christ presented ilselfasa living presence,
as a pattern for Christians. Scldeiermachcr, in his Introduction, p. 408, has very properly
directed attention to ch. i. 8, in which the author does not make himself known, design
edly, as one who had seen and personally known Christ, but, from an immediate conscious
ness that he stood in such a relation to Christ, writes to those wdio had stood in no such
relation. The reference to Christ's descent into Hades, Schleiermacher regards as a mark
of genuineness; for he thinks thai whoever forged such an epistle, would not have placed
himself on such slippery ground; " for evidently here is something which had not passed
ovtr into the common public teaching of Christians, and yet strikes us as something foreign
to the New Testament representations." To this reason I cannot attach importance. A
person might indeed have a motive, by writing under the name of an apostle, to give cir
culation lo an opinion different from the current representations; and that opinion was not
so foreign to the Christian thinking of the first ages as to Scbleiermacher's. But when
Schvvegler reckons the introduction of this doctrine as one of the marks of a Pauline ele
ment in the epistle, foreign to Peter, as a deduction drawu and doctrinally formed in tho
Pauline circles from the Pauline principle of the universality of the Christian salvation, I
can by no means agree with him. For this was not the universal application of this doc
trine. Marcion had given to this doctrine, existing long before in other circles, a modifi
cation corresponding to his peculiar system. (See my Church Histor)-, vol. i. p. 460.)
And it may be questioned, whether without such an authority as that of Peter, this
statement, which certainly agrees well with the Christian system, would have soon found
such general acceptance. But the complete formation of such a representation, is well
suited to the position of an apostle who had himself been an eye-witness of the death and
resurreciion of Christ. It was exactly to a person who had witnessed those great events,
that such a question was most likely to occur, to which the answer is given in this state
ment. It is possible that the apostle, when in company with Christ after his resurrection,
had made an inquiry on this subject, although we wculd not maintain that tho doctrine
was derived from such a source. And what Peter experienced in his early ministry among
the Gentiles, and what he said on that occasion iu the family of Cornelius, mi°-bt firm a
point of connexion for his reflecting on such an agency on the part of Christ as is indicated
in that passage. But it is to be remarked, that this topic is touched very cursorily, and
by no means presented with that prominence and earnestness which might be expected
from one who sought to gain acceptance for it by employing the authority of au apostolio
name.

TRADITIONS RESPECTING PETER. 345
with our never meeting with Silvanus as Paul's companion, after his last
journey to Jerusalem. The Christian churches to whom the epistle is
directed, appear to us exposed to such persecutions as first arose about
this period. The Christians were now persecuted as Christians, and
according to those popular rumors of which Nero took advantage, were
looked upon and treated as " evil-doers," (Kaitoiroiol, 'malefici). By the
seriousness and strictness of their daily conduct, and their withdrawal
from the public shows and other licentious amusements, they rendered
themselves obnoxious, as in later times, to the hatred of the heathen pop
ulace ; 1 Peter iv. 4, 5 ;* and if we reflect on the circumstances in which
these churches were placed during Paul's first confinement, the design of
the epistle will at once be apparent. As these churches had to contend
with persecutions from without, so they were internally disturbed by
those heretical tendencies of which we have spoken in a former chapter.
Since the propagators of these errors accused Paul of falsifying the orig
inal Christian doctrine, and had appealed to the authority of the elder
apostles in behalf of the continued obligation of the Mosaic law, Peter
availed himself of the opportunity for addressing these churches, in order
to establish them in the- conviction, that the doctrine announcer] to them
by Paul and his disciples and companions, of whom Silvanus was one,
was genuinely Christian, and to exhort thein to a faithful and steadfast

* Schwegler has controverted this view, and maintains that this epistle could only have
been written under the Emperor Trajan ; a position of the Christians is here implied which
they were first placed in by that emperor's well-known rescript. But I cannot help pro-
nouncing,alike the assumptions on which this writer proceeds, and the inferences he draws
from them, to be wholly unfounded. The Neroniax persecution proves, indeed, that the
Christians were already the objects of popular hatred, and were accounted by tho multi
tude as malefici. It could not fail but that popular hatred would show itself in their con
duct towards the Christians. Although Christianity was not yet designated a nligio illicita
by an express enactment, yet it would follow of itself from the constitution of the Romau
polity that the propagation of a religion which would involve the downlall of the religion
of the State, would be illegal and worthy of punishment. As soon as it came to light
that the " Christians," Xpiartavol, were a genus lertium, Christianity must appear, even
prior to any special legislation respecting it, as a religio illicita. Though Nero's persecu
tion was only occasional and transient, yet what took place in the metropolis of the empire
must have operated injuriously on the condition of Christians in the pr jvinces. Everything
which happened from this time to Trajan's first rescript, testifies of preceding persecutions
against the Christians, in which, by the new law of Trajan, only a more legal arrangement
had been made. We dare not allow ourselves to infer too much from the gaps in our
knowledge of ecclesiastical history. The manner also in which persecutions are spoken
of in ch. iv. 4, serve to mark them as new. How can any one who allows that the Apo
calypse was written before Trajan's accession, fail to perceive the existence of earlier per
secutions? Rev. vi. 9; xvii. 6; xx. 4. The last passage is peculiarly important, since it
points to somethmg more than a mere popular infliction of punishmeut, which would not
have been satisfied with merely beheading the Christians. It appears from that passage
that it was already established in the administration of Roman law, to apply this capital
punishment to Christians — and hence we perceive tho great gaps in our historical knowl
edge.

346 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
continuance in it* These churches consisted for the most part of tho3«
who had been previously heathens, for such, in several passages, he sup.
poses his readers to be;"ii. ]<"»; iv, 3. The superscription of the epistle
is not inconsistent with this fact; for as Peter, by his training and pecu
liar sphere of labor, was apt to develop Christian truths in Old Testa
ment images and comparisons, he transferred also the name of " disper
sion " to the true church of God scattered among the heathen.
In reference to the internal and external circumstances of the churches,
the object of this hortatory composition is two-fold ; partly to ground
them more firmly in the consciousness, that the source of happiness ^and
the foundation of the everlasting kingdom of God was contained in that
faith in the Redeemer which had been announced to them and received
by them into their hearts, — that the doctrine announced to them was
indeed the everlasting, unchangeable word of God, and hence they were
to aim at appropriating, more and more with child-like simplicity, the
pure, simple doctrine of the gospel delivered to them from the beginning,
and thus continually advance to Christian maturity; and partly it was
the apostle's design to exhort them to maintain their steadfastness in the
faith unde.r all persecutions, and a corresponding course of conduct by
which they would shine forth in the midst of the corrupt heathen world,
and refute the false accusations against Christianity and its professors.
Both these objects are pointed out by the apostle at the close of the
epistle, when he says, " The faithful brother Silvanus is the bearer to you
of this, a short epistle considering what I would gladly say to you, and
wdiich I have written for your encouragement, and to testify that it is the
true gracef of God, in the firm possession of which you stand by faith."J
The unassuming manner in which the writer of this epistle represents
* We can regard the declaration that such a production -would be aimless as nothing
but a mere assertion ; and if it be held to be impossible that Peter should place himself in
such relation to the churches founded by Paul, this can agree only with a supposition
whose arbitrariness we have pointed out.
\ Grace, the grace of redemption, a description of the whole contents of the gospel.
X The words may be certainly taken to mean, lh.it Silvanus was the writer of the
epistle, dictated by Peter either in Aramaio or Greek; but in this case, a salutation from
Silvanus would probably have been added, especially since he must have been well known
to these churches. The possibility of the interpretation which I have adopted, is evident
from the phraseology which is adopted in the subscriptions of the Pauline epistles ; and
the use of the aorist, lypaipa, allowing for the epistolary style of the ancients, can prove
nothing against it. From this interpretation we may also understand the commendatory
epithet, "a faithful brother." The words " as I suppose," cic AoyiC,opai, may indeed relate
to what goes before, for this verb is used by Paul in Rom. viii. 18 ; Rom. iii. 28 ; 2 Cor.
xi. 5, to denote a subjective conviction, without the accessory ide-a of any uncertainty in
holding it. Peter might also wish to mark the subjective of his own judgment, for it was
precisely the peculiar authority of Peter, lo which many opposers of the Pauline school
appealed. But if Aoyi^opat is referred to what follows, it is equally a mark of subjective
judgment or feeling. That which Peter wrote was, in relation to what he had in his
heart to say to the churches, only a little. Yet had he intended to express that senti
ment, he would rather have said, ch' dXtyuv, die Aoyi^opat.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 347
himself to the presbyters* of the churches to whom it is addressed, as
one of their number, one of the number of Christian overseers, bears
with it the impress of the apostolic spirit.
As the object for which this epistle must have been written perfectly
corresponded to the circumstances of the times, there is nothing in ita
composition which would lead us to infer that the writer had forged it
with a conciliatory design. A person of this description would hardly
have put such a restraint on himself,* and expressed himself so guardedly,
that one part of his object — which according to this supposition was his
principal object— -could only be discovered by a careful investigation.
The peculiar characteristic of Peter, his occupying a position between
Paul and James, is indeed apparent in the epistle ; but the points of con
tact with the Pauline element are also visible, as Paul had already exerted
a preponderating influence on the formation of the Christian ideas, espe
cially among those who used the Greek language. But we must here
distinguish what is peculiarly Pauline from what was deduced in common
from the same original source, and in the handling of dogmatical points
we need not expect such strikingly marked mental peculiarity in the
Rock-man of the church, as in a Paul or a John. Since this epistle, as a
hortatory circular, is a counterpart of the Epistle to the Ephesians, we
cannot think it strange if no references occur in it to special local circum
stances, as in the other Pauline epistles, but that everything is more
general. We might anticipate that this would be the case in such an
epistle. The expectation of the end of all things as impending, is suitable to
the apostolic age, and the events in Nero's reign must have tended to
awaken this expectation.
A comparison of the First Epistle of Peter with the Second ascribed
to him, makes apparent the genuineness of the First, as well as the
forgery of the Second; and as the Second is slightly supported by ex
ternal evidence, we have made no use of it as a source of information fur
the biography of the Apostle.f
* Sohwegler thinks, p. 27, that in 1 Pet. v. 1, there is indicated a distinction of
condition between clergy and laity, » supposition that depends on an altogether false in
terpretation of the passage, after the manner of Baur in the Tubinjer Zeitschrift fur Theol
ogie, 1838, No. 3, p. 93. It is impossible that church officers, who could have been called
Klypoi, should have been so treated. The word "heritage," KAf/poc, refers, as the connec
tion shews, to "the flock of God," iroiuvtov tov Beov, — the churches over which the
presbyters had been placed by divine appointment, aud which had been entrusted to their
guidance. | The principal marks of the spuriousness of this epistle, are the difference of the whole
character and style compared with the First, and the use here made of the Epistle of Jude,
which is parity copied and parily imitated. The author assumes that he is writing lo the
same churches as those to whom the First Epistle of Peter is addressed, and yet what he
pays of his relation to his readers, is at variance with that assumption, for, according to
the Second Epistle, they must have been persons who had been personally instructed by
the apostle Peter, and with whom he stood in a close personal connexion, yet this was a

348 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
After the second half of the second century, a report was generally
circulated that Peter died a martyr under the Emperor Nero at Rome.*
According to a later tradition, when Peter was condemned to crucifixion,
he scrupled, from a feeling of humility, to be put to death exactly in the
same manner as the Saviour, and therefore requested that he might be
crucified with his head downwards, and his feet upwards. Such a story
bears on its front the impress of a later morbid piety rather than simple
apostolic humility. The apostles exulted and rejoiced to imitate their
Lord in all things, and the tradition thus formed does not appear to have
been known to Tertullian, for though his peculiar turn of mind would
have disposed him to receive such an account, he says expressly that
Peter suffered in the same manner as Christ.f
With respect to the tradition, according to which Peter at last visited
Rome, and there suffered martyrdom,— it does not well agree with what
we have mentioned above respecting his residence in the Parthian Em
pire, for since this is supposed to have been after the Neronian persecu-
relat.ion in which the churches to whom the First Epistle was addressed could not stai/d.
The solicitude with which he endeavors to make himself known as the apostle Peteri
betrays an apocryphal writer. The allusion to the words of Christ, John xxi. 18, in i.
14, is brought forwaid in an unsuitable manner. In order to distinguish himself as a
credible witness of the life of Christ, he appeals to the pheuomena at the transfigura
tion. But it certainly is not natural to suppose that one of the apostles should select
and bring forward from the whole life of Christ, of which they had been eye-witnesses,
this insulated fact, which was less essentially connected with that wdiich was the central
point and object of his appearance; the apostles were rather accustomed to claim credit
as witnesses of the suffering and resurrection of Christ. Also the designation of the
mountain on which the transfiguration occurred as "tho holy mount," betrays a later
origin, since we cannot suppose that the mountain usually so denominated, Mount
Zion, was intended. Among the circumstances that excite suspicion, is the manner in
which the same false teachers, who, in the Epistle of Jude, are described as actually
existing, are here represented with prophetic warning, as about to appear. The doubts
respecting the second coming of Christ, occasioned by ihe expectation of the immediate
occurrence of that event in the first age of the church, and the disappointment of that
expectation, leads us to recognise a later period. What is said of the origin of the
world from water, and its destruction by fire, does not correspond to tho simplicity and
practical spirit of the apostolic doctrine, but rather indicates the spirit of a later age,
mingling much that was foreign with the religious interest. The mode of citing the
Pauline epistles, confirms also the suspicion against the genuineness of this epistle. A
passage from Bom. ii. 4, is cited iii. 15, as if this epistle had been addressed to the same
church. A collection of all the Pauline epistles is referred to, and it is assumed, that
Paul in all of them referred to one subject which yet by no means appears in all. Paul's
epistles are quoted as " scriptures," yparjial, as one apostle would certainly not have ex
pressed himself respecting the epistles of another apostle, for this term in the apostolio
epistles is always used only to designate the writings of the Old Testament. This epistle
was probably forged by those who wished to combat the Gnostic errors, and the opinion
broached by the Gnostics of a contrariety between the apostles Peter aud Paul, by the
borrowed authority of tho former.
* Tlie first trace of this is to be found iu Origen, Euseb. iii. 1. The complete narrative
in Jerome, de Viris Illusirib. i.
f De Prajseript. 36. Ubi Petni3 pa3sioni domiuicae adajquatur.

THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER. 349
tion, and since the martyrdom of Peter, according to ancient accounts,
must have happened at the same time as Paul's, Peter must within a
short period have changed the scene of his labors from one very distant
region of the globe to another. And it appears strange that he should
have relinquished his labors in a region where so muoh was to be done
for the spread of the gospel, and betake himself to one at so great a dis
tance, where Paul and his associates had already laid a good foundation,
and were continuing to build on the foundation already laid. But so
many circumstances unknown to us might conspire to bring about such
an event, that with our defective knowledge of the church history of
that, time, what we have stated cannot be considered a decisive evidence
against the truth of the tradition, if it can be sufficiently supported on
other grounds. We can also easily imagine a particular interest which
would induce Peter to change his scene of labor to Rome, the same in
terest which was the occasion Of his writing the first epistle, that of
healing the division which in many parts existed between his own ad
herents and those of Paul. This division would find a rallying point in
the opposition between the Gentile Christians and Judaizing elements in
the church at Rome, and the movements in the metropolitan church
would exert an influence over the whole church ; and this might be a
consideration of sufficient weight with Peter to induce him to undertake
a journey to Rome. We only need inquire, therefore, whether this tra
dition is adequately supported by credible witnesses.
The Roman Bishop Clemens appears as the first witness of the mar
tyrdom of Peter. If he expressly stated that Peter was martyred at
Rome, we should have incontrovertible evidence and require no fur
ther examination. But such an exact determination of the place is want
ing. Yet it cannot be concluded that Clemens did not know the name
of the place where Peter suffered martyrdom, for there was no need of
such particularity for his readers when he was writing of an event which
he might assume lo be generally known. It cannot be maintained, that
when he was writing at the place where Peter shed his blood as a wit
ness of the faith, and simply enumerating examples of steadfastness in
persecuted champions of the faith, he should in such connexion feel him
self bound expressly to mention the scene of his last sufferings. Even
in commemorating Paul's martyrdom, we find no such phrase as " here
before our eyes," " in the city from which I am now writing to you."
It may appear strange that Clemens speaks in such general terms of
Peter as a person of whom he possessed no precise information,* and on
the other hand speaks in such definite terms of Paul. This might jus
tify the conclusion that he had really no exact information respecting
Peter's end, and hence we might be allowed to infer that the scene of
Peter's labors was to the very time of his martyrdom at a distance from
* Oirx iva, ovdi dvo, dAAd irAeiovac viryveyKe irbvove Kal ovru paprvpr/aae. (Not one,
oor two, but many sufferings were borne by him, and thus he became a martyr.)

350 TRADITION OF PETER'S VISIT TO ROME.
Rome.* Yet on the other hand it may be said, that Clemens, as one of
Paul's disciples, was induced to speak of him in more definite terms, and
though Peter met with the close of his labors at Rome, that Clemens
could not say much of his earlier conflicts. f The first person who dis
tinctly states the martyrdom of Peter at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of
Corinth, who wrote in the latter half of the second century. Iu his epistle
to the church at Rome,| he calls that and the Corinthian the common
planting of Peter and Paul. Both had planted the church at Corinth,
and had equally taught there. In the same manner they had both taught
in Italy and suffered martyrdom at the same time. Here we find a definite
statement of the martyrdom of Peter at Rome, though accompanied in
deed by great want of exactness. Dionysius does not absolutely say that
Peter and Paul taught at Corinth at the same time, which, in reference to
the time before the first confinement of Paul at Rome, certainly cannot be
admitted, and in reference to the time after that event, can hardly be sup
posed. But at all events, he is not accurate in terming the Corinthian
church the common planting of the apostles. For, supposing that the tra
dition of Peter's journey to Rome is credible, it might happen that, after
the first confinement of Paul, he visited Corinth, but he could do nothing
towards founding a church which already had been established there.
Perhaps this whole account proceeded, partly from misunderstanding the
references to the apostle Peter in the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
partly from attempting to trace the origin of this ecclesia apostolica
from the two most distinguished apostles. The same remark will apply
to the church at Rome. And according to what we have stated above,|
Paul came from Spain as a prisoner to Rome, and could not have ap
peared there as a teacher in conjunction with Peter.|| But this inac
curacy in the representation of events long past, in which Dionysius
allowed himself to be guided more by uncertain inferences than by his
torical traditions, cannot be employed to weaketi the weight of his depo-
* I by no means find sufficient ground for doubting that Clemens had been a follower
of Paul; for I cannot consider as historically credited what is narrated of the connexion
between Clemens aud Peter, in legends such as the Clementines, which bear the impress
of being framed to answer a certain purpose.
\ Frederick Spatiheim, and lately Baur, have endeavored to prove too much from the
manner in which Clemens here expresses himself. See the acute and learned discussion
already referred to in the Tubinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1831, No. 4, p. 151.
X Eusebius, ii. 25.
g See page 317.
J The passage in Dionysius might certainly, with Dr. Schott, in his " Examination of
some Chronological Points in the History of Paul," Jena, 1832, p. 131, be so understood as
to remove this difficulty. In the sentence dpoiuc di Kal ele rr/v 'IraAiav dpoae dtdd^avrec,
ipapTvpyaav Kara rbv avrbv Katpbv, (having taught in like manner and at the same place
in Italy, they became martyrs at about the same time,) dpdae may be so understood, that
only the equal extension of the direction of their labors to Italy may be intended by it;
but does not the repetition of dpoiuc, the distinguishing of this word fro n dpboe and its com ¦
parison with the /card rbv avrbv mipbv of the martyrdom of both, favor another inter
pretation ?

TRADITION OF PETER'S VISIT TO ROME. 351
sition respecting a fact not strictly connected with the other points, and
on which he could easily obtain certain information from his contempo
raries. We have no sufficient ground to deny that Dionysius, in what
he says of Peter's martyrdom at Rome, followed au ancient credible
tradition, although he falsified his report to a certain extent by the cir
cumstances with which he arbitrarily connected it. From his times, this
account appears the unanimous tradition of ecclesiastical antiquity. The
graves of the two apostles were pointed out at Rome, as the Roman
presbyter Cuius, at the end of the second century, appeals to them ; but
yet these graves do not furnish incontestable evidence. When the report
was once set afloat, the designation of the locality where the apostles
were buried would easily be added. Even by Cams the misstatement is
made, that both the apostles were the founders of that church.
The weight of this tradition is increased by the fact that its origin
cannot be easily accounted for, if it be not regarded as historical evi
dence. We certainly cannot account for it, from the attempt to place on
a sure basis the authority of the Cathedra Petri in Rome, for this tra
dition is assuredly more ancient than the attempt to secure to the
Cathedra I*etri at Rome a decisive authority in matters of doctrine ;
such an attempt, which it is difficult to deduce only from the transfer
ence of the homage paid to the city, to the church of the city, would
rather presuppose the existence of the tradition. Since the pretensions
of the Roman church were not universally acknowledged, but in many
quarters met with opposition, they will not serve to explain how it came
to pass, that such a tradition designedly propagated by Rome, was every
where so favorably received. But in truth, many other circumstances
could combine to give rise to this report and to promote its circulation.
As Peter concluded his labors in a region so separated from connexion
with the Roman empire, there would be the greater temptation to fill
up the gaps of authentic history by hearsays and fictions. The practice
of representing Peter as the victor over Simon Magus, in the contest for
the simple faith of Revelation, gave rise to manifold legendary tales
about his travels, such as the story of his earlier residence in Rome under
the emperor Claudius, and the disputation he there held with Simon.
And besides, it seemed suitable that the church of the metropolis of the
world should be founded by the two most distinguished apostles, who
had also founded the Corinthian church, and be signalized by their death;
it was also thought desirable that the cooperation of the two apostles in
that church on which, as the church of the world, and chief city, all eyes
were directed, should be contrasted with that direct opposition between
them which the Judaizers, like the Gnostics, were anxious to make out.
When, after the Apocalypse came into circulation, it was usual to desig
nate the imperial city by the name of Babylon, as the stronghold of the
heathenism which opposed the kingdom of God, this name, as it occurred
in the First Episile of Peter, was naturally applied to Rome, and thus, too,
an argument was found for the belief of that apostle's visit to Rome.

352 peter's visit to rome.
Although the origin of the story of the journey of the apostle Peter
to Rome, and of his martyrdom there, may in this way be in some mea
sure explained, yet the high antiquity of the tradition, which can be traced
back to the very boundaries of the apostolic age, presents an objection of
no inconsiderable weight to this hypothesis. Papias, the bishop of
Hierapolis,* who appeals to an oral tradition of an individual belonging to
the apostolic age, the presbyter John, reports, that the Gospel of Markf
was composed by the same person who accompanied Peter as an inter
preter, for the purpose of preserving in writing what he had heard Peter
narrate in his public addresses, \ and what had been impressed on his own
memory. Now, it is evident that this account (whether it relates to that
Gospel of Mark which is still extant, or to a lost original document of
the evangelical history, which served for its basis) cannot be true in its
full extent ; for how can we suppose, that Mark, the nephew of Barnabas,
who at all events must have come when young to Jerusalem, and lived
there in company with the apostles, could have first planned his evan
gelical narrative according to wdiat he heard at a much later period, in
cidentally from the preaching of Peter ? This account therefore is sus
picious ;§ but may it not be so far true, that Mark accompanied the
apostle Peter to Rome, and acted there as his interpreter, for those per
sons who were familiar only with the Latin language ? Yet after all, it
is difficult to explain how such a belief could have existed so early, unless
there had been a tradition that Peter had left the scene of his labors in
the Parthian empire at a later period, and visited Rome, — especially since
what Papias says rests on the report of a man in the apostolic age. As
Silvanus, the early travelling companion of Paul, joined Peter in the Par-
* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.
\ Although the marks attributed by Papias to the Gospel of Mark, do not agree
with the form in which it has come down to us, it does not follow that Papias referred
to another document ; for in such a description of the qualities of a book lying before him,
much depends on the subjective judgment, and we certainly cannot give Papias credit for
the talent of acute and accurate observation. We must also remember that he compared
the Gospel of Mark, not with our Matthew, but with another that formed its basis, avv-
Taypdruv, Adyuv rod Kvpiov (collections, words of the Lord)
X See above, p. 102.
§ It may be asked whether this Mark is the same with the one mentioned by Peter
as his son. The association of him with the wife of Peter, and the want of an exact
determination of the epithet " son," would favor our understanding it in the proper sense.
And it is no ground of objection to this, that a son of Peter should have a Roman name,
aud no reason for its improbability that he should greet Christian churches from his son,
through the spirit of fellowship which should exist among all Christians. Tet if Peter
himself had no sons, we can well suppose in this connection that he points out one who
stood to him in the place of a son. But tradition says, at least, that Peter had children.
"For Peter and Philip begat children," \lirpoc piv ydp Kal QiAiirrroc irrationair/aavTa.
Clemens Stromat. i. iii. 448. But even if Peter had other sons it is not impossible but '
that he designated Mark as his son on account of the near relation in which he stood to
him, if he could suppose the churches, to whom he wrote and to whom Mark was well
known, would be in no daDger of misunderstanding him.

peter's visit to eome. 353
thian empire, so Mark might likewise remove thither from Lesser Asia,
Coloss. iv. 10, and travel with him to Rome, even though he was not
that Mark whom Peter mentions in his first epistle. Tliere is an ancient
tradition preserved for us by Clemens of Alexandria, that when Peter
saw his wife led to martyrdom, he called out to her, mentioning her
name,* " O remember the Lord !" We have no reason for casting a
doubt on the truth of such a simple tradition. But that single charac
teristic traits of this kind in Peter were handed down by tradition, agrees
best with the supposition that his last years were not spent in the
Parthian empire, between which and the Roman there was little inter
course. In the existing circumstances of the Parthian empire as respects
the mixture of native and foreign religions, it would be difficult to ac
count for the martyrdom of a Christian woman. Hence, we are led to
refer it most naturally to the effects of the Neronian persecution at Rome.
* $aci y' ovv rbv paKupiov Tlirpov, Beaadpevov ri)v avrov yvvalKa dyopivyv rr/v iirl
ddvarov, yoBr/vat piv rye K?.r}aeue xdptv [ko.1 tT/c sic oIkov dvanopidi/c]' iirityuvi/aai di ed
pdAa irpoarpeirriKue re Kal rrapaKAyriKCir i% bvbparoe irpoaeiirbvra' pspvr/oBu avry rov Kv
piov. (They say, therefore, that the blessed Peter, seeing his wife led away to death,
understood from the summons also her return home; that, encouragingly and entreatingly
addressing her by name, he called aloud, ' Remember the Lord I') Clem. Alex. Strom, i. vii.
[vol. iii. p. 253, ed. Klotz. Lipsise, 1832.-] The words I have enclosed in brackets are
difficult, whether we understand by them that his wife, before she was led to death, came
home once more, and then was thus addressed by Peter, or, more naturally, that she would
be restored to him again, being redeemed from death. Yet, in the connexion, there are
great difficulties in either interpretation, and we must rather understand the words of a
return to her heavenly home, if the reading be correct, and we should not (which yet I do
not venture to maintain) read oIkov obpdviov.

BOOK V.
THE APOSTLE JOHN AND HIS MINISTRY AS THE CLOSING POINT
OF THE APOSTOLIO AGE.

The ministry of the apostle John reaches to the limits of the Apostolic
Age. He was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman (probably wealthy),* in
the small town of Bethsaida or Capernaum, on the western side of the
Sea of Gennesareth in Galilee. Many eminent men in all ages, who have
been great blessings to the church, have been indebted to their pious
mothers for the first incitement of their dispositions to piety and the
first scattering of the seeds of religion in their hearts, and this appears to
have been the case with John. The manner in which his mother Salomef
* As we may conclude from Mark i. 20.
f Compare Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1, and Matt, xxvii. 56. If an opinion, advocated with
great acuteness and learning by Wie^eler in the Studien und Kriliken. 1840, iii p. 648, — an
opinion at all events worthy of examination, — could be established, it would show that
Salome and John were closely connected with Christ by the bonds of relationship. Ac
cording to this view, not three women (as has hilhorto been supposed), but four, are named
in John xix. 25 ; the Mary, the wife of Cleopas, must not be identified with the sister of
the mother of Jesus, but is quite a different person. Hence it follows, that we have to
search for the name of the remaining sister of the mother of Jesus, which is not here given.
Now, since in Malt, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40, besides Mary of Magdala, and Mary the
mother of James and Joses = the wife of Cleopas, Salome also, or the mother of the sons
of Zebedee, is named as present at the crucifixion, it would appear that the sister of Marv
the mother of Jesus, whose name is not given by John, can be no other than Salome, his
own mother. Thus the difficulty of the same name belonging to both sisters is entirely
obviated. It would also follow that, in fact, James the son of Alpheus, or Cleopas, was
not the son of the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, (consequently, not his cousin;) and
this would furnish additional and valid proof for our supposition, that James the brother of
the Lord was not identical with the apostle. But the manner in which (John xix. 25) Mary
the wife of Cleopas is mentioned without any connective particle, appears to me to imply
that these words are only in apposition to distinguish the (otherwise) unnamed sister of
the mother of Jesus. If the sister of the mother of Jesus, was a person then generally
known by name, in the circle in which John wrote his gospel, I could then more easily
conceive, that, by that collocation of the words, such an ambiguity might be occasioned;
but I do not believe that such a supposition is justifiable; and was it, not to be expected
from John that, though he had not mentioned tho sister of the mother of Jesus by name,

THE APOSTLE JOHN. 355
united herself to the company which was formed round the Saviour, leads
us to attribute to her the predominance of a pious disposition, and from
the petition which she made to the Redeemer, Matt. xx. 20, we may
conclude, that her mind was tilled with the expectation of the approach
ing manifestation of the Messiah's kingdom, an expectation which had
been so vividly excited in the devout part of the Jewish nation by
the predictions of the prophets and the exigencies of the age : we
may therefore imagine how strenuously she endeavored to inflame her
son's heart with the same earnest desire. The direction thus given
to the mind of the youth impelled him to join John the Baptist, by
whose guidance he was first led to the Saviour; John i. 37. In his
company he spent several hours,* but Christ wished not to bind him
permanently to himself at once. He allowed him to return for the
present to his usual occupation. He drew him, like Peter, gradually
into closer communion with himself, intending in the first interview
so to influence him, that there should develope itself from within a
longing for a more intimate connexion. And when he had for some
time been wishful after an abiding nearness to Him who had wrought
with such power ou his inmost soul, when the call at last was issued,
Matt. iv. 22, he was ready at once to forsake all and follow Him every
where. What distinguished John was the union of the most opposite
qualities, as we have often observed in great instruments for the ad
vancement of the kingdom of God, — the union of a disposition inclined
to silent and deep meditation, with an ardent zeal, though not im
pelling to great and diversified activity in the outward world ; not a
fiery zeal, such as we may suppose filled the breast of Paul. But there
was also a love, not soft and yielding, but a passion that seized with all it3

he yet would have pointed her out more definitely as the mother of the disciple whom
Jesus loved? Also, it does not seem probable to me, since the kinship of John to Jesus
would be so important for explaining the early aud peculiar connexion into which he
entered with Christ, that no trace of it should make its appearance in the narrative of
our gospeis. where there was so often an opportunity of mentioning it. The origin of
later accounts of so close a relationship between the apostle John aud Christ, may be easily
explained without the supposition of an historical foundation.
* Iu order to know the length of time spent by John iu this first interview with tho
Redeemer, we must determine the mode of computing tho hours adopted in John's Gospel.
According to the commonly received mode of reckoning, it could not have been more than
three hours; and then il is remarkable that John should say, " they abode with him that
day," of which only so few hours were left. On the contrary, if, like some of the older
writers, (see Wolfii Curat on John xix. 14.) and more recently Reltig (in the Studien und
Kriliken, 1830, part i. p. 106), we suppose that John adopted the Roman mode of counting
the hours from midnight, the length of time would be from ten in the morning to sun
set. Tet the words of John, as a more negligent mode of expression, may be understood
according to the common interpretation ; and the passage in John iv. 6, favors our think
ing that he reckoned time in the usual manner. And, in itself, it is more probable that
the first impression which the Redeemer made on John's mind resulted only from a short
interview.

356 THE APOSTLE JOHN
might, and firmly retaining the object to which it was directed, abruptly
repelled whatever would disgrace its object, or attempt to wrest it
from its possession ; this was his leading characteristic. Yet this love
had a selfish and intemperate character, of which we have several in
stances, as when he wished to call down divine judgments on the Sa
maritans, who had not shown due honor to the Saviour; and when he
expressed his displeasure that some persons who had not united them
selves to the disciples of the Lord, had performed miracles similar to
their own by calling on his name ; and when his mother, in concert with
her two sons, presented a petition to Christ for stations of eminence in
his kingdom. Probably the title " Son of Thunder," which the Re
deemer bestowed on him, related not less to his natural temperament
than to what he became by its purification and transformation in the
service of the gospel. But this ardent love with which he devoted him
self wholly to the service of the Redeemer, became now the purifying
principle of his whole being, while he sought to form himself on the
model of that holy personality. And hence he could receive the image
of it on the side which corresponded with his peculiarly contemplative
mental tendency, and reproduce it in a living form.
John was certainly distinguished from James the brother of the Lord,
in this respect, that from the first his communion with Christ was inde
pendently developed on the peculiar basis of Christian consciousness ;
the fountain of divine life which had appeared among mankind, became
at once the central point of his spiritual existence : yet he did not wholly
agree with Paul, for his Christian consciousness was not formed in direct
opposition to an earlier and tenaciously held Judaism. His whole char
acter and mental formation indisposed him to such a development. The
mystical contemplative element which finds its archetype in John, is more
prone to adopt outward forms (attributing to them a spiritualized, ele
vated meaning) than to oppose them, and John, whom Judaism had led
to the Saviour as its ultimate object, found no difficulty in employing the
forms of the Jewish cultus as the prefiguring symbols of his Christian
views. From him, therefore, there could not proceed, as from a Paul,
the abolition of those forms with which the Christian spirit was yet en
veloped.* Though John (Gal. ii. 9) appears as one of the three pillars
* What Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, says of John, in his letter to Victor, Bishop
of Rome, in Euseb. v. 24, " who was made a priest aud wore the diadem," be iyevr/Bn
iepevc rb iriraAov ireijmpeKue is untrue if taken literally, as it insinuates something far
beyond the presumption that John was a faithful observer of the Jewish law so Ion"- as he
remained at Jerusalem. It would follow that he had held the office of High Priest among
the Jews, for this iriraAov = arvir; yis, the golden frout-plate, was one of the distinctive
insignia of his office. Such a presumption would, however, be in contradiction to history
and all historical analogy. Nor can Polycrates himself, however credulous we may think
him to have been, have meant it. It is moreover clear from the context, that he affirms
of John only such things as would be consistent with John's Christian convieLions. Or, are
we to assume that John, as the President of all the Christian communities in Lesser Asia,

IN LESSEE ASIA. 357
of the church among the Jewish Christians, yet it never happened that
they appealed to him as to Peter and James ; but it may be explained
from the peculiar views and character of this apostle, and serves to set
in a clear light his relation to the contending parties. Hence also we
gather, that though John had formed a scheme of doctrine so decidedly
marked, and though in relation to the other great publishers of the gos
pel, he might have formed a party who would have attached themselves
particularly to him, and principally or exclusively have valued his idea
of Christianity, yet in the Pauline age, we see no Johannean party come
forward by the side of the Jacobean, the Petrine, and the Pauline. The
peculiar doctrinal type of John was also of a kind little suited to find
acceptance with the peculiar tendencies of the Jewish Christians in
Palestine, and its influence would be more powerfully felt, where a
Christian element had already combined itself with the form of the Gre
cian mind.
Thus John disappears from public history, till he was led by the
divine call to other regions, where the minds of the people were already
prepared for his peculiar influence, and where the deep traces of his
operations, undeniable to every one capable of historical investigations,
were still visible far into the second century. After the martyrdom of
Paul, the bereaved scene of his labors, so important for the development
and spread of the kingdom of God, and exposed to so many polluting
and destructive influences, required above all things the guiding, pro
tecting, and healing hand of apostolic wisdom. The Epistle of Peter to
the churches in that region, and the journey of Sylvanus thither, show
how much this necessity was felt. It is probable, that John was called
upon by the better part of the churches, to transfer the seat of his ac
tivity to this quarter. All the ancient traditions, which may be traced
back to his immediate disciples, agree in stating that Lesser Asia was
the scene of his labors to the end of the first century, and Ephesus its
central point.
The constitution of the churches of Lesser Asia, as it appeared soon
after the age of John, in the time of Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, was alto
gether different from that which originated in the Pauline age, in which
these churches were founded, and we are obliged to presuppose some in
tervening influences by which this alteration was produced. Originally
these churches formed, as we have seen above, a pure opposition against
adopted, as a symbolical token of his position in the guidance of the Church, the insignia
of the Jewish High Priest? This would be in direct contradiction to the apostolic, and
especially the Johannean views, for these included the acknowledgment of the sole high-
priesthood of Christ, and the universal priesthood of all believers founded upon it. Poly
crates, therefore, could have said this of John only with a symbolical reference, whether
be intended to denote by it what he had suffered for tho confession of the Christian faith,
or the place which he occupied at the head of the guidance of the church. Just as the High
Priest's costume has a symbolical meaning in the Testament of the Patriarchs. The Testa
ment of Levi, iii. 8 : TliraXov rye iriareoc.

358 THE APOSTLE JOHN'S
the Jewish-Christian form of cultus. They had, at most, no other day
than Sunday devoted to religious celebration,* no kind of yearly feast ;
but afterwards we find among them a paschal feast transferred from the
Jews, and receiving a Christian meaning, though imitating the Jewish
reckoning as to the time of its celebration, to which probably a' feast of
Pentecost was annexed, and in their disputes with the Roman church
they appealed particularly to a tradition originating with this apostle.
Now we can readily imagine that the fourteenth day of the month
Nisan, f on wdiich he was an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ,
would excite a deep interest in his Christian feelings. It is self-evident
how those Jewish feasts, which had gained a new importance for him by
their association with those great facts of the Christian faith of which he
had been an eye-witness, and which he had been wont to celebrate with
Christian devotion, might be introduced by him into these churches
founded on Pauline principles. J
* See page 159.
f The Gospel to which Polycrates appeals in Eusebius, v. 21, may certainly be that of
John; see remarks ou this in my Life of Christ, p. 385.
X But when Schwegler, from the obscure expressions of Polycrates quoted above, deduces
the fact that John had assumed the high-priest's dress as overseer-general of the churches
in Asia Minor, and then, again concludes, what on such a supposition would be a fair in
ference, that one who thus acted and placed himself in such a relation to Judaism, could
not be the author of the Gospel under his name — he adopts a method, according to which
it is only requisite to find proofs for a system formed on arbitrary assumptions and combi
nations, and according to which all separate traditions are only so far to be thought credi
ble, as they serve to support such a system. This single feature is literally adhered to,
though it stands in contradiction to everything else we know of that age. Where can we
find anything bearing an analogy to it, unless something isolated in the uncritical and
credulous Epiphanius? It may indeed be admitted that the Christian feasts became
changed into the Jewish ; for this there was a medium in the spiritualization of the Old
Testament Theocracy proceeding from Christianity. But it was altogether different with
the priesi hood. The principles of Christianity connect themselves with the idea of a priest
hood only so far, that Christ is regarded as the only High Priest, and the universal priest
hood of all believers is derived from him ; hence no sucli relation can be found as that
which existed on the theory and method of the Old Testament cultus — (vide pp. 135, 156).
Moreover, as Christianity still moved in the forms of Judaism, the principle of Christ's
priesi hood was employed in the formation of church relations. The position of James
among the Jewish Christians cannot here bo adduced as a proof of John's position, but goe3
rather to establish the opposite ; for great as was the reverence in which he was held, we
find no trace of his being invested with anything like the Jewish priesthood. For even
Hegesippus is far from placing him in such a relation to the Christian church, although
from his ascetic, Ebionilish proclivities — which we are by no means justified iu making
identical with those of the Jewish Christians, and cannot ascribe even to Polycrates — be
says, that James in virtue of his sanctity wore not a woolen, but a linen garment like a
priest, and that in virtue of Ibis priestly sanctity he alone was allowed to go into the holy
place of the Temple. (Tovru pbvu t£7/v ele rd dyta elaiivat, ovdi ydp tpeovv itjiipet, dUd
aivduvae.— Euseb. ii. 23.) With all its Jewish coloring, the idea of the universal Christian
priesthood is the only one brought forward in the Apocalypse. In The Testament of the
twelve Patriarchs, which has so strong a Jewish impress, the view predominates that Christ
is the true High Priest who has made an end of the Old Testament priesthood. (I. 6

LABORS IN LESSER ASIA. 359
Prom the state of the church at that time in these parts, it may be
concluded that John must have had to endure many conflicts, both from
within and without, in his new field of labor. After the signal had once
'been given under Nero for public attacks on the Christians, persecutions
were carried on in various parts. In Lesser Asia, many circumstances
combined, then as in later times, to excite a more vehement persecution ;
fanatical zeal for the ancient idolatry — the danger which threatened the
pecuniary interests of those who in some way were gainers by the popu
lar worship, from the rapid progress of Christianity — the hatred of the
Jews widely scattered through Lesser Asia, who blasphemed Chris
tianity, and stirred up the heathen populace against it. Hence in the
Apocalypse the rebukes uttered against the synagogues of Satan, against
those who "say they are Jews, but are not and do lie ;" Rev. ii. 9. The
civil wars and the universal misery that followed, contributed still more
to excite the popular fury against the enemies of the gods, to whom they
readily ascribed the origin of all their misfortunes. Thus, indeed, the
Apocalypse testifies (which was probably written in the first period after
John's arrival in Lesser Asia) throughout, of the flowing blood of the
martyrs, and of the tribulation which threatened Christians in prison, as
well as of the fresh recollections of Nero's cruelties. In the churches
themselves, those conflicts continued which we noticed at the close of
the Pauline age, and the seeds of discord and heresy then germinating
had now sprung up and advanced towards maturity. Falsifiers of the
the original truth, who gave themselves out for apostles, had come
forth ; Rev. ii. 2.* To the inspiration of genuine Christianity had at-
Mixpt reAsiuaeuc xpovuv dpxiepiuc Xpiarov.) From him a new priesthood was to go forth
among the Gentiles, which may probably be understood of the universal priesthood estab
lished by him, though we cannot with certainty decide on the sense of the passage. (L. c.
9, Ylotijaei lepareiuv viav Kara rbv riiirov rdiv IBvuv ele irdivra rd iBvy.) If John had thus
applied the high priesthood to the Christian church, what a powerful influence it would
have exerted in modifying its constitution, and how much earlier would the Hierarchical
element have been diffused I Manifold traces of so early a transference of the Old Tes
tament conceptions to the government of the Christian church, must everywhere have
met us. What was not developed till the third century, must have appeared as the
original arrangement. We see indeed, afterwards, a Jewish hierarchical element internally
developed in conflict with the original Christian consciousness. But it is quite unhistori
cal to attempt deducing from that ancient Ebionitism, which belongs to a totally different
stage of development, this new form of the Jewish spirit, which arose of itself, after the
Jewish position had been long overthrown, and Christianity had attained au independent
development. To apply to every mixture of Judaism and Christianity the common name
of Ebionitism, and distinguish it into various kinds aud stages of development, must inev
itably lead to the worst perversions of history.
* We find no justification whatever for asserting, with Schwegler, that these words
refer to Paul, and in concluding that in Lesser Asia an Ebionitish spirit prevail d, in oppo
sition to the apostolic authority of Paul. The disapprobation here expressed is directed
cot against one, but against severaL Of what kind these were, we must learn from Ihe
Bubsequent contents of the Apocalyptic Epistles, and by examination of these we shall be
led to the wholly opposite conclusion mentioned in the text. Schwegler adduces in proof
of his explanation the words of Paul in 1 Cor. xvi. 9 ; according to this, we must suppose

800 THE NICOLAITANES.
tached various wild extravagances which Paul had foreseen and against
which he had already raised a warning voice. Pretended prophets and
prophetesses had arisen, who, under the appearance of divine illumina
tion, threatened to plunge the churches into errors both theoretical and
practical ; 1 John iv. 1 ; Rev. ii. 20.
In Lesser Asia, the most opposite deviations from the genuine evan
gelical spirit sprang up together. On the one side, the Judaizing ten
dency, as we have noticed it in the Pauline age ; on another side, in op
position to it, the tendency of an arrogant sensual desire of freedom,
such as we have noticed in the freethinkers of the Corinthian church,*
only carried to greater lengths and more daring results, and mingled
probably with many theoretical errors ; persons who taught that who
ever penetrated into the depths of knowledge,! need uo longer submit to
the apostolic ordinances, as he would be free from all the slavery of the
law, which freedom they understood in a carnal sense, and misinterpreted
to an immoral purpose. Such a one need no longer fear the contact
with heathenism or with the kingdom of Satan ; in the consciousness of
his own mental strength he could despise all temptations, partake of the
meat offered to idols, and indulge in sensual pleasures without being in
jured thereby. In the Apocalypse these people are called Nicolaitanes,
either because they were really the adherents of a certain Nicolaus,|
and that this name, as a translation of the Hebrew oy'sa, occasioned an
allusion to the meaning of the name, and a comparison with Balaam, or
that the name, a pure invention, was used by the author to denote sym
bolically a seducer of the people like Balaam. The opposition against this
that the Judaizing party, of whom Paul speaks in that passage, had at last obtained the
victory in the Ephesian church, and on that account were praised by the author in that
epistle. But this is a manifest perversion of the words ; for according to the connexion,
they relate only to the enemies of Christianity generally. Rather, in that passage, the
name of false apostles is used to designate false teachers who aimed at being held in great
repute, as in 2 Cor. xi. 9, where no one who pays attention to the connexion will think
of the earlier apostles.
* See page 232.
f Rev. ii. 24, they are described as those " who have not known the depths of Satan,
as they speak," olnvee ovk iyvuaav tu j3aBea rod aaravd, die Aiyovatv. But a doubt here
arises, whether these persons made it their peculiar boast that they knew the depths of
the Deity, but the author of the Apocalypse, a3 if in mockery of their pretensions, substi
tutes for the depths of the Deity the depths of Satan (as Ewald thinks), — (for which inter-
petration the analogy may be adduced where the synagogue of God is converted into the
synagogue of Satan); — or whether they really boasted that they knew the depths of Satan,
and hence could tell how to combat Satan aright, that they could conquer him by pride
and contempt, — that they could indulge in sensual pleasures, and maintain the composure
of their spirit unaltered, — that the inner man might attain such strength that it was no
longer moved by what weaker souls, who were still under toe servitude of the law and to
whom the power of Satan was so fearful, anxiously shunned, — and thus could put Satan
to scorn even in his own domains.
X On no supposition are we justified in confounding this Nlcolaus with the well-known
deacon of this name. But on the supposition named, it is more probable that the Nicolai
tanes of the second century originated from this sect

THE JUDAIZING GNOSTICS. 361
germinating, Gnostic Antinomianism must have called for the most scru
pulous adherence to the decrees of the apostolic convention at Jerusa
lem. The greater freedom which the apostle Paul had approved in
theory, here took so mischievous an Antinomian direction, as to throw
suspicion on that freedom itself. Thus in the whole of the following
age, the unscrupulous eating of the flesh offered in sacrifices was re
garded as a mark of Gnostic Antinomianism.*
"With these practical errors were connected various theoretic tenden
cies of a false gnosis, which, in mutual conflict with one another, had ex
tended more widely since the close of the Pauline age. We have noticed in
the church at Colossoa the adherents of a Judaizing gnosis, who probably
set a high value on Judaism as a revelation from God communicated by
angels, attached a perpetual value to it as well as to Christianity, and
pretended that they possessed peculiar information respecting the various
classes of angels. To this Jewish angel-worship, Paul opposes the doc
trine of Jesus as the Son of God, the one head of the church of God, on
whom angels also are dependent, the common head of that universal church
to which men and angels belong. He extols him as the being who has
triumphed over all the powers which would make man dependent on them
selves, over all the powers that set themselves in opposition to the king
dom of God, so that men need no longer fear them. From the subordina
tion of these powers he then infers the high dignity and freedom of the re
deemed through Christ, the children of God, who are become companions
of angels in the kingdom of God. But this elevated doctrine of the dig
nity and freedom of Christians was perverted by those who confronted
the limited Jewish conceptions by a bold Antinomian gnosis, and affirmed
that Judaism was to be despised as the work of limited spirits ; that the
sons of God were more than these spirits and exalted above their maxims.
They thought themselves sufficiently exalted to scorn these higher powers,
and to ridicule all law as a work of these limited and limiting powers.
With this was connected that reckless immoral tendency which we have
before noticed, and which presented itself in opposition to the legal as
ceticism which we find connected with the Judaizing gnosis iu the church
at Colossse. This is the tendency which is combated on the side of its
* In this way we can account for it that Justin Martyr, who, by Baur and his
Bchool, is set down as an Ebionite, although we cannot mistake in him the influence
of the doctrinal system of the Pauline epistles and of the Gospel of John opposes those
who maintained that the eating of flesh offered in sacrifice was harmless. And we know not
how Schwegler (i. p. 175) can find in the passage referring to the subject in Dial. c. Tryph.
f. 253, ed. Colon, an attack on the adherents of the Pauline doctrine, or a mode of thinking
directed against the apostle Paul himself. If it is to be concluded that what Justin says
contradicts Pauline principles, and that he himself, consciously and designedly, was an
opponent of Paul, then many of the Fathers who often cite Paul, must be regarded as
anti-Pauline Ebionites. But this construction can with less reason be put on that passage,
since Justin, in the words that follow soon after, but which are not quoted by Schwegler,
shows against whom he is speaking, namely, the Gnostics.

352 THE JUDAIZING GNOSTICS.
blended theoretical and practical errors, in the warning Epistle of Jude,
addressed probably to the Christians in these parts.* We see here how,
from the Pauline ideas carried -out with one-sided extravagance and thus
distorted into error, the gnostic doctrine was educed of the opposition
between Christianity as the revelation of the Son, and Judaism as the
revelation of the Demiurgus and his angels. These two opposite tenden
cies of gnosis developed themselves in this age in various minglings aud
transitions. The Judaizing gnosis found its representative in Cerinthus, who forms
the transition both from the common, stiff, carnal Judaism to Gnosticism,
and from the common limited Jewish mode of thinking, which retained
only the human in Christ, to the gnostic which acknowledged only the
Divine in him, only the ideal Christ.f He agreed also with the common
Jewish view of the Messiah in this respect, that he considered Jesus as a
mere man, that he denied the original indwelling of the divine Being in
him, and treated the entrance of the Divine into his life as something
sudden, by which, at his solemn inauguration, he was made capable of
discharging his calling as the Messiah. But Cerinthus differed from the
common Jewish notions, in that, in place of a peculiar in working of the
divine power, by which the man Jesus was fitted for his Messianic office,
* This is, for the mast part, the view developed by Schneckenburger in his work
before ineniioned. As to the author of this epistle, he evidently distinguishes himself from
the apostles, when he speaks of the prophetic warnings of the apostles (v. 11), such as we
certainly find iu Paul's writings; we cannot explain the passage otherwise without doing
violence to it. The description of the state of the church is also such as suits only the end
of the apostolic age. It is therefore evident, that, if the epistle be genuine, it cannof- have
been wriiten by an apostle Jude, who was a brother of James. It would likewise have
been nmre natural iu ihis case, to have designated himself an apostle, instead of calling
himself a brother of James. Hence we should rather suppose him to have been Jude, one
of the bntlu-i n of the Lord. But why should he not call himself a brother" of the Lord,
instead of "' brother of James," since the designation was for the very purpose of adding
¦weight to his warnings through personal authority. It may be said that he omitted this
title through humility. But is this answer satisfactory ? By the addition of various epithets,
as brother according to the flesh, dbe/.ipbe kutu adpKa, and servant of Jesus Christ
according to the Spirit, dob'Aoc 'lyaov Xpiarov Kara irvevpa, he might have prevented all
misunderstanding, and removed all appearance of arrogance. A similar objection may
indeed bo made in reference to James, who, in his episile, does not designate himself a
brother of the Lord. But here the case is altogether different. James does not distinguish
himself by any epithet expressive of consanguinity, — not, out of humility hut. been use be
deemed it to be the highest honor to be a servant of God and of Christ. We nriy suppose
another Jude as well as another James, since the name Jude was so frequent among the
Jews, and since, according to Hegesippus, there were many distinguished men of this name
in the ciiurch. But as the epithet " brother of James" is used here as it disthiclion, it is
most natural to refer it to that James who was held in such hij;h esteem. It might be
said ihat be described himself only as the brother of James, because James was so pre
eminent, and was accustomed to be designated as a brother of the Lord. But Ihe manner
in which elsewhere in the New Testament the brethren of Christ are named together dco»
not favor this view of the matter.
f See my Church History, voL i. p. 396.

D0CETISM. 3C3
he supposed a new animation by the highest Spirit emanating from God,
and forming the connexion between God and the Creation, the divine
Logos. This Spirit, representing itself in sensible appearance under the
form of a Dove, as a usual symbol of ihe Divine Spirit, had settled upon
him at his baptism ; he had revealed through him the hidden Supreme
God, the knowledge of whom among the Jews had been the privilege of
only a small number of enlightened persons,* through him he had per
formed miracles, but before the last sufferings of Jesus had withdrawn
from him, and left him to himself. As Cerinthus in this manner held no
original and indissoluble unity between the Logos (the Messiah and Re
deemer in a special sense) and the Humanity of Jesus, but only a tran
sient relation, a connexion suddenly formed and as suddenly dissolved,
he thus granted only a very subordinate place to the purely human in
Christ. According to this view, the man Jesus was only an accidental
vehicle, of which the redeeming Spirit, the Logos, made use, in order to
be able to reveal himself in humanity ; could the Logos without this
medium have made himself cognisable and perceptible to men, he would
not have made use of such an organ as the man Jesus. From the same
tendency, but more rudely presented, proceeded another view, according
to which it was believed, that a revelation of the Logos might be made
in humanity without an}- such mediation as a human existence, which it
was wished to dispense with. In place of the real human appearance oi
Christ, only a semblance, a phantom was substituted in which the Logos
was enshrined. Everything that came under the notice of the senses was
explained as only a phantom, an optical illusion, of which the higher
ethereal Being, who from his nature could not be perceptible to the
senses, made use, that he might manifest himself to sensuous mortals. A
theory which already had been used for the explanation of theophanies
and angelophanies in the Old Testament,! was applied by those wlfo
held these views to the appearance and life of Christ. At his transfigura
tion, said they, Christ manifested himself, without that sensible appear
ance, to his disciples, wdio were rendered for the time capable of behold
ing him in his true ethereal form.J
* The genuine Beparrtvrai.
•(• As, fur example, Thilo on Exod. xxiv., where the subject is the appearance of the
divine " glory,'' dbga, which may be understood partly of the appearance of the angels by
whom God revealed himself, partly of the symbolical appearances under which God repre
sented himself to the perceptions of men ; ry doKyaei aiirov povov Kal viroAyipet do^ye
Betae, uc iveipydotfat rale ruv irapbvruv dtavolaic tpavraaiav dQi^euc Beov, die t/kovtoc ele
^ej3atordryv iriartv rdiv peAJkdvruv vopoBereiaBat, (in order that men might have the firm
conviciion that what was revealed to them proceeded Irom God, he therefore so oper
ated on their consciousuess, that they believed that they saw Himself.) Toti Beov deiKvvv-
roc birep if3ovXero doKelv elvai, irpbe ri/v tuv Beupivuv Kardir?.y%iv, pi) uv tovto birep
fiioivero (God shewed what he chose to seem to be, for the amazement of beholders, not
being that which he appeared.) — Philonis Opera, ed Lips. 1829, voL vi. p. 245.
X A pure spiritual intuition was something wholly foreign to such persous. Light and
Ipirit were one aud the same thing to them I

364 CERINTHUS.
Against such persons John was now called to defend the announce-
ment of " Jesus Christ in the flesh." We have no reason for calling in
question the traditions respecting his conflicts with Cerinthus. Irenseus,
amongst others, mentions as an account given by the aged Polycarp, that
on one occasion when John was about to bathe, and heard that Cerinthus
was in the bathing-house ; he retired with abhorrence, and exclaimed,
" Surely the house will fall in ruins,since the enemy of the truth is there !"
We can perfectly reconcile it with his character, and find in it nothing
unapostolic, if, in a momentary ebullition of feelings naturally lively and
ardent,* proceeding from holy zeal, he expressed in such strong terms (in
wdiich, nevertheless, everything is not to be taken quite literally) his dis
pleasure against a man who threatened to rob the churches, over whose
salvation he was watching with fatherly care, of what was dearest and
holiest to him, the foundation on which his whole Christianity rested, and
to destroy the root of the Christian life ; still the pledge for the credibility
of this anecdote is very slight, and it may be easily attributed to an ex
travagant hatred of heretics. j- But the antagonism of the Apostle John
and Cerinthus, is, in any case an undeniable fact, and only the greatest
arbitrariness could place Cerinthus in another relation to John, namely,
make out of him the representative of a spirit akin to that of the
Apostle.J According to a widely spread, ancient tradition, the Apostle John was
* We must not allow ourselves to imagine, that the apostle, by the sanctifving in
fluence of the Divine Spirit, was at once dissevered from all connexion with his former
natural character, as well as from the peculiar phraseology of his countrymen ; we must,
with Jerome, recognise in the apostle, homo adhuo vasculo clausus infirmo, (a man iuclosed
as yet in au imperfect vessel).
\ Irenajus did not receive this account in his youth from the lips of Polycarp, but
could only appeal for the truth of it to what others had heard from Polycarp, iii. 3, elnlv
oi uicriKooTec avrov. The question then is, whether the persons who reported it to Irenrous
are trustworthy. We know, indeed, that much of what Irenaeus reports as tradition, bears
on it the impress of falsehood. Thus he himself, ii. 24, appeals to the testimony of all the
presbyters in Lesser Asia, who had been in the society of the apostlo John, that Jesus was
about fifty years old. The difficulty involved in this, does not appear to me so easily
removed as Credner maintains in his Einleitung. p. 215. The tradition of the presbyters,
according to the report of Irenseus, certainly appears not to have been that Jesus first
entered on his office as teacher at the commencement of that riper mature age, which was
required by the Jewish customs for assuming such an office, but he received from their
own lips 'he deposition that Christ had taught at an age which was beyond the cetasjuve-
nilA, and approached to the senilis. If the passage is genuine in all its extent, he ex
pressly distinguished this age from tho oelas perfecta mageslri, which was well known to
him, in which Christ first appeared in Jerusalem as » teacher. From his words, there
fore, we must deduce such a tradition as he supposed he had received from the pres
byters. But we can hardly suppress the suspicion of inteipolation; for however little
we are justified in depending on the critical judgment of Irenajus, we cannot reconcile
it to a man of his powerful mind, that he, who had shortly before said that Christ had spent
three years, from the beginning of bis thirtieth year to his death, iu his office of teaching,
could afterwards attribute twenty years more to him.
X As Schwegler has doue, II. p. 259.

365
banished to the island of Patmos, in the -<Egean Sea, by one of the em
perors who was hostile to the Christians, but which of them is not ascer
tained.* Only Irenseus leads us to suppose that Domitian was the em
peror, for he saysf that John, at the end of Domitian's reign, received
revelations, which he afterwards committed to writing ; and since, ac
cording to the Apocalypse, this must have happened in the Isle of Pat
mos whither he had been banished, it follows that he was sentenced by
that emperor. But owing to the uncertainty of the traditions of that
age, we cannot acknowledge this account as sufficiently accredited ; it is
indeed possible, that it proceeded only from a peculiar interpretation of
this obscure book, and not from any historical testimony. And if the
Apocalypse contains certain marks of having been written before this
time, this opinion would at once cease to be tenable. As this is really
the case, then certainly the Apocalypse, which we cannot acknowledge
as a work of the apostle,! must have been written soon after the death
* See Tertull. Prescript, e. 36. Clemens, Qui dives salv. c. 42, speaks of the return of
John from exile, "the tyrant having died," rov rvpdvvov reAevryoavroe, without specifying
any name. Origen, t. xvi. in Matt. § 6, also uses the indefinite expression, " the king of
the Romans," d 'Pupaiuv ^aoiTievc.
f V. 30.
X We refer, on this subject, to the celebrated work of Dr. Liicke, Versuch einer voll-
stdndigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannes. Bonn, 1S32, (An Attempt at a Com
plete Introduction to the Revelation of John.) We certainly cannot acknowledge this
book as the work of the apostle, but it bears witness to the existence of a Johannean doc
trinal type, just as the Epistle to the Hebrews could not proceed from the apostle Paul,
but indicates that its author was a person who enjoyed close intimacy with the apostle.
We reckon among these marks, the agreement in the doctrine of the Logos, which no re
finements can remove, (i. 11; iii. 14; xix. 30;) the designation of living waters, (vii.
11 ;) and several other things in the perhaps excessively symbolical expressions. Not
withstanding the strongly marked Jewish element, there breathes throughout the book a
spirit quite different from the Ebionitish, such a spirit as could not have issued from the
impure elements of that age without the creative breath of the transforming Spirit of
Christ. Who can help acknowledging this in the description of the exaltation of glorified
believers, and of their salvation, in the seventh chapter ; of the glory of the perfected the
ocracy in the one-and-twentieth chapter ; in the representation of the universal priesthood ;
and in the Apocalyptic epistles ? The literal interpretation of the imagery which would
give us a sensuous Chiliasm, would refute itself through the self-contradictory representa
tions that would spring from it. We find in the book no traces whatever of Jewish nation
ality, or of a special distinction of Christians of Jewish descent; for if 144,000 chosen out
of the twelve tribes are mentioned in ch. vii. 4, yet, an innumerable multitude of glorified
saints out of all nations and tongues are immediately afterwards described. And in cb.
xiv. 3, the 144,000 appear again as the first-fruits of Christians out of all nations, as the
most advanced in the Christian life, from which contradiction of the first-named statement,
it may seem that such designations in this book are not to be taken exactly according to
the letter. Lastly, in the interpretation of this latter passage, I cannot agree with what
Bleek has lately suggested, that only those persons are here pointed out who had kept
themselves free from all.the lewdness connected with heathenism. If only this had been
intended, it would hardly have been brought forward so prominently by the author. In
this passage I can only find those persons represented who led a single life in undivided
devotedness to the Lord alone, to whom their whole life was consecrated. Of any polemics

366 AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE.
of Nero.* The whole account of the banishment of the apostle John to
the Isle of Patmos may have been taken chiefly from the Apocalypse,
and if this book can be shown not to belong to John, the credibility of
this account at once falls to the ground. Yet here two cases are possi
ble. If the Apocalypse proceeded from another John than the apostle,-
if it was the composition of the Presbyter John who was his contem
porary at Ephesus,f the banishment to the Isle of Patmos would relate
tone directed against the apostle Paul not a trace can be found in the book ; it cannot be
taken as a proof of this tone, that in ch. xxi. 14, according to the twelve tribes of the theo
cratic people, only twelve apostles are mentioned as the foundation of the New Jerusalem.
I must rather agree with Bleek that these word3 are rather against, than for, the notion
that the author wished to be regarded as one of the apostles, of which no mark exists from
whioh it could be inferred. And if it is remarkable that any other person than the apostle
John should designate himself so simply as the servant of Jesus Christ, and write with such
confidence and emphasis to the churches, it is to be taken into consideration, that in the
vision granted him he might believe he bad received a call to write in such a tone, even if
bis own personal position did not give him this importance in the Christian church. And
if ho himself had been an immediate disciple of the Lord, this alone would have secured
him special authority.
* We remark in this book, the vivid impression which Nero's persecu ion of the Chris
tians, his burning of a part of the city of Rome, and especially his cruelties, had made on
the minds of men. The story that Nero was not really dead, but had retired to the
Euphrates, and would return again from thence (see my Church History, i. 96), appears
here more fully delineated by a Christian imagination. He is the monster to whom Satan
gave all his power, who returns as anti-christ and the destroyer of Rome, who will force
all to worship bis image. The Roman empire at that time is set forth as the represen
tative of heathenism, and of ungodly power personified, and in this connexion, uuder the
image of the beast with seven heads (the seven Roman emperors which would succeed
one another till the appearance of auti-chrisl), Nero is signified as one of these heads (xiii.
3), which appeared dead, but whose deadly wound was healed, so that to univ-rsal aston
ishment he appeared alive again. Nero reappearing after it had been believed Ihat be was
dead, is the beast " which was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit — and
yet is," Rev. xvii. 8. Of the seven emperors who were to reign until the appearance of
anti-christ, it is said that five have fillen — one (Nero's successor) is now reigning, and the
other is not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a short time, and the
beast which was and is not, is itself the eighth and one of the seven; (Nero as one of the
seven empemrs is the fifth, but inasmuch as he comes again as anti-christ, and founds the last
universal monarchy following the succession of the seven emperors, he is the eighth.)
Nero comes from the East, supported by his tributaries — the ten kings (his Satraps, the ten
horns of the beast) leagued with him to destroy Rome, and to make war on Christianity.
The waters of the Euphrates are dried up, to make a way for Nero with his ten Satraps,
xvi. 12, who, in his service, would burn and destroy Rome, xvii. 16. All this marks the
time in which the Apocalypse must have been written, the change of the emperor after
Nero, while the image of this monster was yet in vivid recollection, and men were dis
posed to depict the future in magnified images of the past; it also agrees with this date,
that the temple at Jerusalem is described as still in existence, i. 1, therefore it must be be
fore Ihe year 10. The future aud the past comprehended within the limits of time lie
before the prophetic eye of the author near lo each other. The image of the future which
hovers before the eye of his inspiration presents itself to him in the reflex of the past and
the present. When he, for example, speaks of kings aud peoples out of many tongues
who have confessed themselves Christians, this cannot suit the time then present.
+ If the Presbyter John were tho author, the early substitution of the apostle of tha

AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE. 367
to him, and not to the apostle of this name. And this change, by which
the Apocalypse was attributed to the apostle, would have occasioned
also the report of his banishment to this island, although it is possible
that the same outward causes might have led to the banishment of both
these distinguished teachers of the religio illicita. But if we admit that
another person wished to represent these revelations as those which the
apostle John had received, and if we hence infer, that in order to per
sonate John, he made use of certain passages in his life, then the words
in i. 9, in case they are to be understood of a banishment to the Isle of
Patmos,* yet always presuppose the fact of such an exile of the apostle,
and we must in this case place his banishment in the first period after
his arrival in Lesser Asia. But it is possible that, independently of the
Apocalypse, there might have been a tradition that the apostle John was
banished by the Emperor Domitian (in whose reign such banishments to
the islands on account of passing over to Judaism or Christianity were
not uncommon) to the Isle of Patmos or some other island ; and it is
possible that, from this tradition, the supposition was formed that the
Apocalypse ascribed to the apostle was written during this period. Cer
tainly we cannot refuse to believe the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic
churches in the second century, that the apostle John, as a teacher of
those churches, had to suffer on account of the faith, for which reason he
was distinguished as a martyr in the above quoted epistle of Polycrates,
Bishop of Ephesus.f
same name might be very easily explained. It would easily happen that the other John
would be forgotten for the apostle, and particularly since a book which announced itself
as prophetic would create reverence for itself from its character, there would be less dis
position to doubt, that the author who styles himself John was the apostle. Lastly, it is
worthy of observation that Polycrates, in Eusebius v. 21, where he quotes all John's titles
of honor, does not distinguish him as a prophet, although such a predicate, if he believed
that he could employ it, must have availed much. The position of the words in the most
ancient testimony for the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, in Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph.
Jud. f. 380, is very striking. 'Eiretdi/ Kal irap' r/plv dvyp ne, cj ovopa 'ludvvye, ele rdiv
diroardAuv rov Xpiarov IrpOetliyTevae, Sic. (Afterwards also among us, a certain man,
whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, prophesied, &c.) If we do not venture
to regard the words, "one of the apostles,'' etc rdiv diroorb'Auv, as an interpolation, though
examples of such interpolations might be pointed out elsewhere in the bo >k, 3Tet all that
is absolutely certain amounts to this, that the Apocalypse proceeded from a person of the
name of John ; and that this was the apostle, Justin might have inferred even from the
name. This is the best explanation of what is remarkable in the position of the words.
* Here everything depends on the interpretation of tho words in Rev. i. 9. There is
no necessary reference to sufferings on account of the gospel. The words may be under
stood I bus: "I was in the Isle of Patmos, for the purpose of publishing the word of God
and testifying of Christ;" which would be only saying that John had visited that island
for the sake of publishing the gospel, or that he had gone thither in order that a divine
revelation should there be communicated to him, and he should be able to testify of that
which Christ had revealed to him; in this way verse 2d will behest understood, and
the "companion in tribulation," avyKoivuvbe hi ry BAiipet, need not necessarily be referred
to lb? banishment to Patmos.
\ The words of the epistle in Euseb. v. 24, and quoted above, Kal pdprve Kal diddaKaXof
ilroc iv 'Etjiiou KeKoipnrat. (Both a martyr and a teacher; he fell asleep at Ephesus.)

36 8 john's gospel.
As in those regions where the general superintendence of the church
devolved on John, manifold controversial attempts were made to adul
terate the Christian faith, as well as to disturb and suppress the spirit of
Christian love, it was the main object of his protracted labors to main
tain and propagate the essence of the Christian faith and of Christian
love, in opposition to these destructive influences. Of this fact his
writings bear. witness, which, as they were produced under such circum
stances, give indications of their tendency even where they are not pro
fessedly and intentionally polemical. But as his natural character was
rather contemplative than argumentative, the controversial element in his
writings is not so decidedly indicated, nor developed with so definite and
complete an outline as in the dialectic Paul. His controversial style is
more that of simple affirmation : from the fulness of his heart he testifies
his inmost convictions of the basis of salvation, and he only marks occa
sionally, and points out with abhorrence, the opposite of these convic
tions, instead of entering into a full confutation. This especially applies
to his Gospel. Since he wrote it among churches and for churches among
which a multitude of traditions respecting the history of Christ, oral and
written, must long have been in circulation, (Paul had already assumed
the existence of these and accommodated himself to them,) he could not
do otherwise in his historical representations than take these circumstan
ces into account, and lience would give only such a selection from the
evangelical history as appeared to him precisely the best fitted to repre
sent Jesus as the Son of God, from whom alone men could receive eternal
life, and to transfer to others the impression which the contemplation of
his life had made upon himself, as he declares at the close of his gospel,
where he says, " And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that believing (by the virtue of this faith) ye might have life (true,
divine, eternal life) through his name," (through him as the Son of God);
xx. 30, 31. John accordingly made exactly this selection from the evan
gelical history in order to lead men to this faith ; to aid, strengthen, and
uphold them in maintaining it. As in the application of the idea of faith
in John there were various shades of meaning, all these varieties may
be included in the words "that ye may believe;" and as they are all
embraced in the apostle's design, those polemic references must be un
derstood which belong to the maintenance and confirmation of the faith
under such circumstances. And the delineation of the life of Christ in
its unity, as it proceeded from the heart and mind of John, must of itself
have been fitted to form a barrier against all those tendencies which dis
turbed the purity of Christianity. But because this species of polemic,
which inheres in the subject itself, predominates through the peculiarity
of John and the peculiar nature of his Gospel, it can by no means be
hence shown from the Gospel itself, that he intended to bring specially
to view certain definite controversies. Even those which, from his pe-

John's gospel. 369
culiar scene of labor, we might consider as most probably aimed at, can
not be ascertained from the Gospel itself by any fair deduction ; as, for
example, the declaration " the Word was made flesh," 6 Xbyog oap%
iysvETO, which occurs in the introduction, and thus marks the spirit of
the whole development of his history in so far as it describes the reve
lation of the divine life in human form, is peculiarly suited to form a
refutation of the Cerinthian gnosis. But there is no indication that John
made this refutation a leading object of his Gospel. In his narrative of
Christ's baptism, he might have had a strong inducement to bring for
ward this controversy, as Cerinthus had affixed a peculiar interpretation
to this event, in accordance with his general scheme. But in order to
combat Cerinthus, he must have commenced the history of Christ at an
earlier period, and have adduced those conspicuous marks of the Divine,
which accompanied the birth of Christ. So also, though the manner in
wdiich the purely human in Christ is developed throughout the Gospel, is
most decidedly opposed to Docetism, yet we can find in it no trace of a
designed and continuous refutation of that heresy. "The Word was
made flesh," is not in the least suited to this purpose, for, taken by
itself, it may be fairly understood in the docetic sense, that the " Word "
itself became "flesh," since Docetism considered "flesh" only as the
apparent sensuous guise in which the " Word" presented itself to eyes
of sense. From this point of view it might with propriety be affirmed
that the " Word " became " flesh," or presented itself in the form of
" flesh." And in what John says of the flowing of water and blood
from Christ's side, it has been very erroneously attempted to find a refu
tation of Docetism. This argumentation cannot affect the Docetse, for
they would be as ready to allow that the Roman soldier and John saw
the blood and water flowing, as to grant that Jesus presented himself to
the senses of men in his life and passion as narrated in the evangelical
history. They only denied the objective reality of the sensuous percep
tions, and this denial would apply to one fact as well as to another. But
John mentions it in that connexion simply as a sign of the reality of
Christ's death, in order thereby to establish faith in the reality of his
resurrection from the dead.
It is only in the introduction to his Gospel that John appears to design
a special reference to men of any peculiflr mental tendency among his
contemporaries ; a reference to those who busied themselves with specu
lations respecting the Logos as the Mediator between the hidden God
and the creation, — and to this class those now belonged, who, after they
had professed Christianity, threatened to adulterate it by mingling with
it their former speculations. It cannot indeed be denied that John, inde
pendently of any outward reference, might have been induced, by his
Christian consciousness and by what Christ had declared respecting him
self, to name him simply as the Logos. As Christ represents his word
or words (his Xoyog, his pr/para, his tpuvrj) as the word of God himself,
that thereby alone God reveals himself to men, the fountain of life, the

370 JOHN'S GOSPEL.
word of life ; so John might thereby be induced to designate him as the
Word, which is God, (the self-revealing Divine Being simply,) the Word,
the Source of life* ; and also the reference to a word of God, by which
God already in the Old Testament had revealed himself, might here
attach itself, to point out a preparation in the Old Testament for the rev
elation of the Divine Being in Christ. Meanwhile, the manner in which
John places this Word without further definition at the head of his
whole representation, makes it, probable that, although he was perhaps
led to the choice of this expression from within, since he sought for a
new designation for a new idea, yet he connected with it an idea already
existing, and the train of thought with which he opens his Gospel serves
to establish this opiivon. John wished to lead those wdio busied them
selves with speculations respecting the Logos as the medium of all com
municated life from God and of every revelation of God, the central
point of all the theoplianies, from their religions idealism to a religious
realism, to the acknowledgment of God revealed in Christ — to the con
sciousness that the Logos, as the divine fountain of life, had appropriated
human nature, and through it communicated himself as the fountain of
all true life and light to every one who believed in his human appear
ance. Instead of wishing to investigate the hidden which no human
mind can penetrate, he called on every one to contemplate Him who had
revealed himself in human nature — to believe and experience what he
testilied he had himself seen and experienced.
The whole development of the church from the time of Justin Martyr,
testifies to the existence of such a Gospel which operated powerfully on
men's minds. Its existence cannot be explained from any single mental
tendency in the following age, nor from the amalgamation of several
tendencies. Indeed, it existed as a representation of a higher unity, as
a reconciling element to fhe contrarieties of that age, and could exert an
attractive power over minds so opposite as those of Ileraoleon, Clement
of Alexandria, Irenreus, and Tertullian. Where could we in that age
find a man who was raised above its contrarieties by which all were more
or less affected ? And would a man of so superior a Christian spirit have
crept on in the dark and made use of such a mask, instead of appearing
openly in the c-on-ciousness of all-conquering truth and with a feelinsj of
his mental superiority ? A man, so exalted above all the church teachers
of that century, need not have shrunk from the conflict. He must cer
tainly have placed more confidence in the power of truth than in these
arts of darkness and falsehood. And how can it be shown, that such a
man, if we contemplate him in the light of his own age, would have been
* Pee the remarks of Dr. Lange of Jena in the Studien und Kriliken, 1830, part iii.
And this view does not necessarily depend on the otherwise forced explanations of John's
introduction, into which the worthy author— an author whom on account, of his Christian-
theological character I huld in the highest esteem— has been led by his peculiar dogmatic
system.

JOHNS FIRST EPISTLE. 37l
restrained by no reverence for sacred history, by no scruple, from falsi
fying a history, the contents of wdiich were holy to him, through arbi
trary fictions for a definite [impose, through actual falsehoods which
must find their justification in their object? And how imprudently he
must have acted if, in order to attain his object, he presented the history
of Christ in a manner which stood in diametric opposition to universal
tradition ! Truly only from an apostle who stood in such relation to
Christ as John did, who had received into his own breast the impression
and image of that unique personality, could proceed a work which stands
in such relation to the contrarieties of the post-apostolic age ! It is a
thoroughly immediate production, and was cast in a single mould. The
divine in its own immediate essence contains this power of composing
differences; but never could such afresh, originally powerful production
proceed from a designed, cleverly constructed composition of differences.
The Gospel of John, if it did not proceed from the apostle John and
point to that Christ, a beholding of whom gave birth to it, would be the
greatest of enigmas.
In the circular pastoral letter, which is distinguished as the first of
his Catholic Epistles, the apostle presents himself tous under a fatherly
relation to the churches of Lesser Asia, wdiose concerns, during his resi
dence at Ephesus, he regulated with wakeful anxiety. Liicke has justly
remarked, that the hortatory or parac-letical element is by far the most
conspicuous in it, and the polemical holds a very subordinate place, which
agrees with John's peculiar style.* This epistle contains an admonition
to the churches, to preserve the original faith steadfusriy and truly under
the manifold temptations which threatened them both from Jews and
Gentiles, as well as from those various classes of false teachers before men
tioned — and it exhorts the churches to a course of life corresponding to
their faith, while it warns against a formal Christianity, destitute of the
true Christian spirit, and against a false confidence grounded upon it.
When we think of the churches in Lesser Asia, in the transition from the
Pauline age to that of John, as we have described their state in the pre
ceding pages, we shall probably be wholly unable (since they were ex
posed to manifold, diversified conflicts from within and without, and to
dangers of various kinds) to find a unity in the hortatory and contro
versial references, nor can we point out such a unity in the contents of
the epistle itself without a forced or too subtle an interpretation. Many
passages may appear to be exhortations to steadfastness in the faith, amidst
the allurements to unfaithfulness, or to apostasy presented by the outward
enemies of the church, both Jews and Gentiles. As to apostasy, there
were reasons for such exhortations, as the Christians were still closely
connected by so many ties to the Gentile world ; new members were
added continually to the Christian communities Irom the Gentiles, whose
* This epistle is, in the apostolic sense, a " word of exhortation," Xdyoe irapaKh'/aeue.

372 john's first epistle.
faith required confirmation ; and, since the first Neronian persecution,*
individual persecutions were constantly repeated, wdiich were dangerous
to the weak in faith. Under the same head may be classed the exhorta
tion at the close of the epistle, faithfully to preserve the knowledge of
the true God revealed through Christ as the source of eternal life, and to
keep themselves from all contact with idolatry. As respects temptations
to unfaithfulness, the churches in Lesser Asia for the most part consisted
of persons of Gentile descent, but mixed with these were former pro
selytes, and individual Jews, who formed a point of connexion, by wdiich
the Jews could exert an influence ou the churches, the same as may be
noticed in the Christian communities of the Pauline and even of the Ig-
natian period. It might also seem, that when John combated persons
who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, he intended Jewish
adversaries ; but a closer examination will suggest several objections to
this view. As in accordance with the piophetio expressions in the dis
courses of Christ himself, it was expected that a special revelation of the
anti-christian spirit would precede the triumph of the kingdom of God,
which was to be effected by the second coming of Christ, so John recog
nised as a mark of this approaching crisis, that many organs of this anti-
cliristian spirit had already made their appearance. Now this could not
refer to Jewish adversaries, for these from the very first were never
wanting. The apostle moreover says of them, "They have gone out
from the midst of us, but they belonged not in disposition to us; for had
they belonged in disposition to us, they would have remained with us;
but by their outward separation from us, it became manifest that
not all who belonged outwardly to us belonged to us also inwardly."
This may indeed be understood of those wdio, while they still made
a profession of Christianity, were always in their disposition more
inclined to Judaism, so that at last they openly passed over to it, and
became the opponents of Christianity. But such frequent conversions or
apostasies to Juadaism in the churches of Lesser Asia, at this period,
were by no means probable. It is more natural to think of those mem
bers of Christian communities, who had fostered in their bosoms heretical
tendencies foreign to Christianity, which must have at last resulted in
their open separation from the churches. With justice, John says of a
time like this, in which churches were formed out of various menial ele
ments not all in an equal measure attracted and penetrated by Chris
tianity, that whatever portion was actually animated by the Christian
spirit, must be separated, by a refining process proceeding from the life.
of the church itself, from what was only superficially affected by Chris
tianity, and wore the mere semblance of it. Besides the manner in wdiich
the apostle exhorts believers to hold fast the doctrine announced to them
* If we do not directly admit that this epistle was written in the last part of tha
Johannean period, under the Emperor Nerva.

john'S first epistle. 873
from the beginning — his saying to them that they required no further
instruction to put them on their guard against the spread of those errors
— that they need only to be referred to the anointing of the Holy Spirit
already received, to their indwelling Christian consciousness (ii. 22) — all
this rather imports an opposition to false teachers, than to decided ad
versaries of the gospel, who could not be so dangerous to believers.
Although John describes his opponents as those who did not acknow
ledge Jesus as the Messiah, yet, according to the remarks just made, this
cannot be understood of decided unbelieving opponents of the Messianic
dignity of Jesus. And we must explain this shorter description of his
opponents by the longer, according to which they are represented as those
who would not acknowledge the incarnate Christ, or who would not re
cognize Jesus as the Messiah manifest in the flesh. Therefore, with their
Docetic views they would not receive the annunciation of a Messiah
appearing in the flesh ; the reality of the living, acting, and suffering
Christ in the form of earthly human nature.* And since John could
not separate the divine and the human in the person and life of the Re
deemer from one another, for both had revealed themselves to him as
inseparable in the unity Of the appearance of the Son of God, — it ap
peared to him, that whoever did not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of
God in the whole unity and completeness of his divine-human life, did not
truly believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah ; and since only
thus the eternal divine source of life revealed itself in human nature and
imparted itself to men, and a way to communion with God was thereby
alone opened for all, — it appeared to him that whoever denied the reality
of the revelation of the divine Logos in the flesh, denied the Son of God
himself and the Father also. This was the real anti-Christian spirit of
falsehood, which, though connecting itself in appearance with the Chris
tian profession, in fact threatened to destroy faith in the Son, and in the
Father as revealed in the Son.
In a passage which is rather practical and hortatory than contro
versial, where John, for the purpose of exhortation, lays down the posi
tion that faith in Jesus aS the Son of God arms with power for all con
flicts with the world, he adds, " Jesus is he who has revealed himself as
the Messiah by waterf and by blood, — by means of the baptism received
* If it be objected, as by Lange in his Beitrdge zur alteslen Kirchengeschichte, Leipzig,
1828, p. 121, that if John designed the confutation of Docetism, he would have expressed
himself in some precise terms, such as we find in the Epistles of Ignatius ; the answer is,
that it is John's favorite method not to mark the object of controversy more distinctly and
fully. f As the "care e by blood" relates to Jesus subjectively, to the one who had re
vealed himself by his own sufferings, so also the second clause, " came by water," ia
most naturally referred to something affecting Jesus personally, and, therefore, not to the
baptism instituted by him. This reason is not perfectly decisive, for, if the sufferings of
Christ are not contemplated in their subjective aspect, (that is, simply in relation to Jesua
as the sufferer ) but rather in their objective aspect, as redeeming sufferings, as that by
which Christ effected the salvation of mankind, then the coming by water might fitly-

374 john's first epistle.
from him* and by means of his redeeming sufferings; and that which the
Spirit of God, whose witness is infallible, has effected, and still effects, by
him, testifies the same. The threefold witness of the water, the blood,
and the Spirit, thus unite to verify the same."
It is possible that John in this passage collected such marks as ap
peared to him most striking, which distinguished Jesus as the Son of
God, without any special controversial reference. But it is also possible
that he connected a polemical with a pareneticul design, and therefore
was induced to bring together precisely these marks ; and in this case it
would be certainly most natural to suppose an intended contradiction of
the Cerinthian view, which separated the Christ who appeared at the
Baptism from the crucified Jesus.
This epistle, then, contains an impressive appeal against Ihe practical
adulterations of Christianity. The apostle declares that only he who
practices righteousness is born of God, — that a life in communion with
Christ and a life of sin are irreconcilable, — that whoever lives in sin is
far from knowing hiin ; whoever commits sin transgresses also the law,
and sin is actually a transgression of the law. From this contrast it
might be inferred that the false gnosis here combated had produced and
confirmed practical errors ; and we may believe that we here find traces
of the false liberalism and aniinomianism of the later gnosis, such as we
have pointed out above, p. 301, in many appearances of this age. In
this case his opponents would be only those who opposed the ethical in
the form of law, and said, What you call sin appears so only to those
who are still enthralled in legal bondage; we must give proof of our
being free from the law by not regarding such commands. But if John
denote the institution of baptism, which is necessarily required for completing the redeem
ing work of Christ. But what Liicke in his Commentary, 2d ed. p. 288, has urged against
the view I have taken, does not appear pertinent. The Messiah (be thinks) was to be
inducted to his office by a solemn inauguration. This was performed through John as the
appointed prophet by means of the Messianic baptism. Hence the coming by water i3
placed first, by which Jesus at first revealed himself as the Messiah, and from wdiich his
whole public Messianic ministry dates its commencement. This must have been peculiarly
important in John's estimation, who was first led to Christ by the testimony of the Bap
tist. On the contrary, [ believe that if he had meant the baptism instituted by Christ, he
would have placed first the " coming by blood," for I cannot agree with what Liicke says
in p. 291 : " Precisely on this account was il, because " water" denotes, as it were, only
the beginning of purification, while the full purification lies in the "blood," that John
emphatically adds, ' not by water only,' (with which alone John the Baptist appeared,
and therefore was not the Messiah, Matt. iii. 11), ' but by water aud by blood.' " The
baptism of Christ was in the apostle's view altogether different from that of John. With
it was connected complete purification. Water-baptism and Spirit-baptism cannot here be
separated from one another, and this Christian baptism necessarily presupposi?s the re
deeming sufferings of Christ. See Epbes. v. 25, 28. As far as Cerinthus acknowledged
the Messiah only as "coming by water," not as " coming by blood," this would agree with
a designed opposition to his doctrine.
* On account of the importance which is attributed to it in the Gospel of John in
reference to the unveiling of the Messiah's dignity and the hidden glory of Jesus.

JOHN'S SECOND EPISTLE. 375
had been called to oppose such a gross antinomianism, he would have
had to maintain against it the dignity and holiness of the law, and would
have given his polemic a very different direction, indeed quite the reverse.
He must have said, Whoever transgresses the law, commits sin, and the
transgression of the law is sin. Also from his saying, " Whoever sinneth,
knoweth not Christ," it by no means follows that those against whom he
is writing, taught a gnosis of immoral tendency. Nor is it at all clear
that the practical errors which he combated proceeded from a peculiar
theoretic source; nothing more was needed for their production than
that unchristian tendency which would naturally spring up, especially in
churches that had been for some time established, in which Christianity
had passed from parents to children, and become a matter of custom,
and a tendency to reliance on the opus operation of faith and of outward
profession, faith not being apprehended as an animating principle of
the inward life. In opposition to such a tendency, which disowned the
claims of Christianity on the whole of life, and palliated immorality, the
apostle says, " Whoever lives in sin, whatever be his pretensions, is far
from knowing Jesus Christ; all sin is a transgression of the divine law,
which in its whole extent is sacred to the Christian."
The view of the false teachers to which we have been led, by the
First Epistle of John,* is confirmed by the Second, addressed to a Chris
tian female in those parts, named Kyria, and her children ; for in this we
find warnings against the same false teachers who would not acknowl-
* It is remarkable that the author of the two last Epistles of John styles himself a
presbyter, a term which is not suited to designate an apostle, and particularly since at that
time, and in that region, a person was living who was usually distinguished by the name
of the Presbyter John. Such was the presbyter John to whom Papias appeals, Euseb.
iii. 29, and we might be tempted to attribute this epistle to him. He appears to have
been commonly distinguished by the name of the presbyter (which is here a title of office)
John, from the apostle John, and hence the word rrpeoPvrepoe was wont to be placed
before the name John. It is indeed improbable that, during the lifetime of the apostle,
another could have attained such high, repute among the churches, as this epistle leads us
to suppose of its author; but it might have been written after the apostle's death ; for that
the presbyter survived him may be inferred, as Credner justly remarks, from the circum
stance that Papias, in speaking of what John and each of the other apostles bad said,
uses the past tense, "he said," elirev, but when speaking of the two individuals who had
not heard Christ himself, Aristion and the presbyter John, his words are "they say,"
Tiiyovaiv. On the other band, we are obliged to acknowledge that the great harmony of
coloring, tone, and style, between the first epistle and the two others, favors the opinion of
their having been written bj- the same person ; nor can this be counterbalanced by the in
stances of single expressions that do not occur elsewhere in John's writings. It is difficult to
imagine how that presbyter, especially if we are to consider the Apocalypse as his work,
could adopt a style so foreign to himself, in so slavish a manner, during the later years of
his life. As to the name of presbyter, which John here assumes, we can hardly think it
of consequence that Papias distinguishes the apostles by the term presbyters, for it is evi
dent that he so calls them only in relation to their contemporaries, as belonging to a still
earlier period, and it cannot hence be inferred that John gave himself that tide. But since
there is no other original document extant, iu which John marks his relation to the church,
we canuot pronounce an opinion that he was never known by such an epithet.

376 John's third epistle.
edge the appearance of Jesus Christ in human nature.* He speaks of
their progress as a new phenomenon, and designates them, not as the
adversaries of Christianity in general, but as persons who had aposta
tized from the original doctrine of Christ. He warns in general against
all falsifiers of that original doctrine. The faithful were not to receivo
them into their houses, nor to salute them as Christian brethren. f
The Third Epistle of John, which is addressed to an influential person,
perhaps an overseer in one of the churches, named Gaius, also contains
several important hints respecting the then existing state of the church.
This Gaius had distinguished himself by the active love with which he
had received the messengers of the faith, wdio had come from foreign
parts and visited his church. But in the same Christian community
there was a domineering individual, Diotrephes, who had shown himself
unfriendly towards these missionaries. He not only was not ready to
give them a hospitable reception, but wished to prevent others from doing
so, and even threatened to exclude them from church communion. He
refused to acknowledge the authority of the apostle John, and even
indulged in malicious invectives against him. It is evident, that if a
member of a Christian community ventured to conduct himself in such
a manner towards an apostle, he must have had personal reasons for not
recognising in him that dignity which was recognised by all believers as
belonging to an apostle ; just as those who were hostile to Paul had
special grounds for disputing his apostolic authority. It is also very im
probable that this unfriendly behavior towards the missionaries could
have arisen at this period from an aversion to their calling, simply as such.
We must rather attempt to discover a special ground of disl.ke to these
individual missionaries. Nor is it unnatural to suppose that there was
one common ground for the hostility of Diotrephes, both to the apostle
and the missionaries. Now, let us suppose that the latter were of Jew-

* It appears to me most natural to explain the present in 2 John 7, tpxbperov in
stead of i'Ay'AvBdTn, by supposing that John used this form owing to the impression on his
mind that these false teachers not only refused to acknowledge the historical manifestation
of Jesus Christ, but also denied the possibility of such mauifestation, and would kuow noth
ing in general of a Messiah appearing in the flesh.
f Although we may recognise in the form of this expression a natural characteristic
of John, a vehemence of affection as strong iu its antipathies as in its attachments, yelits
harshness is much softened by a reference to the circumstances and relations amid which
he was writing. He certainly wished only to express, in the strongest terms, that every
appearance should be avoided of acknowledging these persons as Christian brethren. Only
ou this account, he says that they are not to be saluted, which, in the literal sense, he
would not have said even in reference to heathens. We must restrict it to the peculiar
sense of Christian salutation, which was not a mere formality, but a token of Christian
brotherhood. But lo preserve the purity of Christianity and the welfare of ihe Christian
church, it was very important to exclude, from the very beginning, ihe reception of these
persons (who, by their arbitrary speculations and fabrications, threatened to destroy the
grounds of the Christian faith) into the churches, which were not sufficiently armed against
their arts, and into which they had various methods of ingumatin" themselves.

TRADITIONS RESPECTING JOHN. 377
ish descent. It is said to their praise, that they went out to publish the
gospel, without taking anything of the heathen for their maintenance.
If they were Jewish missionaries, this would serve as a special distinction,
for from what, Paul frequently says respecting this class of persons, we
know that many of them abused the right of the publishers of the gos
pel to be maintained by those for whose salvation they labored. Now,
as there existed in the Gentile churches an ultra-Pauline party, inclined
to a violent, one-sided, anti-Jewish tendency, the forerunner of Marcion,
so Diotrephes possibly stood at the head of such a body, and his hostile
conduct towards these missionaries, as well as towards the apostle John,
who on his arrival in Lesser Asia had sought, by the harmonizing influ
ence of the Christian spirit, to reconcile the differences that were on the
point of breaking out — may be traced to the same source. Thus, at a
later period, Marcion attached himself to Paul alone, and paid no defer
ence to the authority of John.
Various traditions respecting the labors of John in these regions,
which he continued to a very advanced age, perfectly agree with that
image of fatherly superintendence presented to us in these epistles. In
a narrative attested by Clemens Alexandrinus,* we see how he visited
the Christians in the parts round about Ephesus, organized the churches,
and provided for the appointment of the most competent persons to fill
the various church- offices. On one of these occasions, he noticed a young
man who promised, under the influence of Christianity, to be of much
service iu the cause of the gospel. He commended him to one of the
overseers of the church, as a valuable trust committed to him by the
Lord. The overseer carefully watched him till he received baptism,
but placed too much reliance on baptismal grace. He left him to
himself, and the youth, deprived of his faithful protection, and seduced
by evil associates, fell deeper into corruption, and at last became captain
of a band of robbers. Some years after, when John revisited that church,
be was informed to his great sorrow of the woful change that had taken
place in the youth of whom he had entertained such hopes. Nothing
could keep him back from hastening to the retreat of the robbers. He
suffered himself to be seized and taken into their captain's presence ; but
he could not sustain the sight of the apostle; John's venerable appear
ance brought back the recollection of what he had experienced in earlier
days, and awakened his conscience. He fled away in consternation; but
the venerable man, full of paternal love, and exerting himself beyond his
strength, ran after him. He called upon him to take courage, and an
nounced to him the forgiveness of sins in the name of the Lord. By his
fatherly guidance he succeeded in rescuing his soul, and formed him into
a worthy member of a Christian community. f Another tradition pre-
* Quis dives salv. c. 42.
| Clemens gives this narrative, which breathes the spirit of John, as a veritable histor
ical tradition aud no legend, pvBoe — Adyoe, not a pvlloc in the sense of a fable, a legend ;

378 TRADITIONS RESPECTING JOHN.
served by Jerome* bears also the impress of the apostle's spirit. When
the venerable John could no longer walk to the meetings of the church,
but was borne thither by his disciples, he always uttered the same ad
dress to the church; he reminded them of that one commandment which
he had received from Christ himself as comprising all the rest, and form-
ing the distinction of the New Covenant, " My children, love one
another.'''' And when asked why he always repeated the same thing, he
replied, "Because if this one thing were attained, it would be enough."
Thus the aged apostle labored to about the close of the first cen
tury ; and the spirit that diffused itself from the churches of Lesser Asia
during the first half of the second century, testifies of his protracted
ministry in those regions. The Lord made use of his instrumentality
to prevent the foundation of the faith here laid by the apostle Paul from
being buried under a heap of heterogeneous speculations — and to pre
serve the unity of the Christian faith and life from being distracted by
various extravagances ; that the glorious body of the Christian church
might not be divided into a multitude of sects and schools, and especially
that a schism might not be produced by the increasing opposition to the
Judaizing and Hellenistic elements. His peculiar tendency, which served
to exhibit rather the fulness and depth of a heart filled with the spirit of
Christ, than the sharpness and distinctness of doctrinal ideas, was
adapted, while it rejected with ardent love whatever threatened to en
danger the foundation of faith in the Son of God, to conciliate subordi
nate differences, and to promote the formation of a universal Christian
communion out of heterogeneous elements. The extent of his influence
is marked by the simple practical spirit, the spirit of zealous love to the
Lord, and the spirit of Christian fidelity in firmly adhering to the origi
nal apostolic traditions, even though not perfectly understood, which dis
tinguished the Christian teachers of Lesser Asia in their conflict with
the Gnosticism which was then beginning to prevail.
With John the apostolic aite of the church naturally closes. The
doctrine of the gospel which by him had been still exhibited iu its origi
nal purily was now exposed, without the support of apostolic authority,
to a conflict with a host of opponents, some of whom had already made
their appearance ; the church was henceforth left to form itself to
okovoov pvBov, oil pvBov, dAXd bvra Abyov  irapathdopivov Kal pvypy
ireif-vAaypivov. (Hear a story, wdiich is not a story, but a veritable account that has been
handed down and carefully kept in memory.) See Segaar on the passage. Such late tra
ditions are indeed not sufficient pledges to authenticate a narrative as true in all ita parts.
It is possible that such a narrative might be so constructed, partly to check the injurious
confidence in the magical effects of baptism, and to set in a clear light the truth that
every one after obtaining baptism needed so much tho greater watchfulness over himself—
and partly to counteract the opinion of the rigorists on the nature of repentance, that who
ever violated the baptismal covenant by peccata mortalla, could not again receive forgive
ness of sins. But at all events, this narrative, which is free from all coloring of the mirac
ulous, gives altogether tho impression of actual truth lying at its basis.
* Comment, iu Ep. ad Galat. c. vi.

INFLUENCE OF JOHN S LABORS. 379
maturity without any visible human guidance, but under the invisible
protection of the Lord : and finally, after a full and clear development
of opposing tendencies, it was destined to attain the higher and conscious
unity wdiich distinguished the spirit of the apostle John.
We wish now to contemplate more closely the development of the
Christian doctrine in its original form, and to observe how the unity of
the Spirit exhibited itself in the manifoldness of the natural varieties
animated by that Spirit, and in the various moljt of conception which
proceeded from those varieties.

BOOK VI.
ICE APOSTOLIO DOCTRINE.
The doctrine of Christ was not to be given to mankind as a rigid
dead letter, in one determinate stereotyped form, but was to be an
nounced as the word of spirit and of life; the word that should proceed
from the inward life in living flexibility and variety, through men who,
enlightened by the Divine Spirit, received and appropriated the doctrine
in a living manner, in accordance with their various constitutional qual
ities, and their several peculiarities of education aud life. This differ
ence served to manifest the living unity, the riches and the depth of the
Christian spirit in the manifoldness of the forms of conception, which
unintentionally illustrated and supplemented each other. Thus Chris
tianity was designed and adapted to appropriate and elevate the various
tendencies of human character, to purify and unite them by means of a
higher unity, and, according to the fitness of the peculiar fundamental
tendencies of human nature, to operate through these for the realization
of the ideal of Man, and the exhibition of the kingdom of God in the
human race through all ages. We must oppose ourselves to a rigid dog
matic mode of conception, which refuses to acknowledge historical condi
tions in the developing process of revelation, and the process of a genetic
development; but we must also protest against a false pragmatism, which
would find in the historical conditions an explanation of what can only
be understood as the result of the influence of Christ's spirit; which con
verts what is original into something derived, and the apostolic, by an
analysis effected by the sheerest arbitrariness, into something post-apos
tolic, a method, the fundamental error of which consists in this, that for
the genuine historical Christ, who is presupposed by the whole developing
process of the Christian church, it substitutes an undefined phantom.
In the development of the original Christian doctrine, we can specially
distinguish three peculiar fundamental tendencies, the Pauline, the
Jacobean (between which the Petrine forms an intermediate link), and
the Johannean.* We wish first to review the Pauline form of doctrine,
since in this we find the fullest and most complete development of
Christian truth, which will best serve as the basis of comparison in
tracing the leading tendencies of the other apostles.
* Dr. Nitzsch, in reference to the several types of apostolic doctrine, admirably remarks
— " To disown them iu favor of a one-aided dogmatism, is to abandon that completeuesi

THE PAULINE DOCTRINE. 381
CHAPTER I.
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE.
In order to develop genetically the peculiar system of this apostle, we
must take into consideration the peculiar qualities of his ardent and pro
found mind — the peculiar education which formed him in the Pharisaic
schools to a dialectic and systematic development of his doctrinal subject-
matter — the peculiar manner in which he was led from the most rigorous
Judaism to faiih in the gospel,* by a powerful impression on his soul which
formed a grand crisis in his history. We must recollect the peculiarity of
his sphere of action as an apostle, in which he had to oppose an adulteration
of Christianity arising from a mixture of those views which he himself
had held before his conversion. In reference to the sources from which
he derived his knowledge of the Christian doctrine, we must also bear
in mind what he says respecting his independence and separate standing
as a teacher of the gospel. There is no doubt, for he occasionally alludes
to it, that he had met with a traditionary record of the sayings, actions,
and precepts of Christ, and these formed the materials for the develop
ment of his Christian knowledge, (pp. 101-103); but the Spirit promised
by Christ to his disciples, who was to disclose to them the whole mean
ing and extent of the truth announced by him, enlightened Paul in an
independent manner, so as to develop the truths of which the germ was
contained in those traditions, and form them into one whole with the
earlier divine revelations, and with the truths implanted in the original
constitution of man as a religious being. Those who blame him for
blending foreign Jewish elements with Christianity, entirely misunder
stand that apostle, who, above all others, most clearly perceived the op
position of the Jewish and Christian methods, and gave that opposition
the fullest development. Nor does it in the least justify their censures
that he made use of certain Jewish elements, which contained nothing
at variance with Christianity, but on the contrary, were designed to
serve as the groundwork of the new dispensation. A comparison of the
Pauline leading ideas with the words of Christ as reported by Matthew
and Luke, proves that the germs of the former are contained in the
latter, if we do not invert the order of things and regard those words
wdiich could come from no human spirit, which bear on them the unde
niable marks of inimitable originality, words of inexhaustible contents,
in which the striving of a sound mind can only be for ever penetrating
and solidity which these modes of contemplating the Christian faith impart while they re
ciprocally complete one another ; it is to slight that by which scripture truth maintains its
calm elevation above all conflicting systems."— See die theologische Zeitschrift, edited by
Bchleiermacher, De Wette, and Lueke. 1822, No. 3, p. 68. * See p. 19.

382 THE PAULINE DOCTRINE.
deeper and deeper— if we do not regard such words as nothing more
than a reflection of the tendencies that first flowed from that original
spirit. But that which moved before the spiritual vision of Paul, the
image of Christ in whose countenance there shone for him the glory of
God, that which compelled his proud and lofty spirit, after long resist
ance, to do homage and bow itself in all humility, was no phantom,
was not the, to him well known, reflected image of the divine race of
men. Those which constituted the preparative convictions for Paul's whole
Christian life, and determined his transition from Judaism to Christian
ity, laid also the foundation for the peculiar form in which the latter was
received and intellectually apprehended by him. Here we find the
natural central point, from which we proceed in the development of his
doctrine. The ideas of "law," vopog, and "righteousness," diKaioavvrj,
form the connexion as well as the opposition of his earlier and his
later views. The term SiKaioovvn in the Old Testament sense, desig
nates the perfect theocratic way of thinking and life, and also that un
restricted theocratic right of citizenship which entitled to a participation
in the blessings of the community, and to eternal felicity. According to his
former views, Paul believed that he had acquired a title to the epithet
"righteous," diKaiog, by the strict, observance of the law; as, in truth,
the Pharisees, to whom he belonged, placed their confidence and indulged
their pride in that observance, while they guarded against the violation
of the law by a variety of prohibitions. He was, as he himself asserts
(Philip, iii.) blameless as far as related to this legal righteousness. And
now from his Christian point of view the epithet "righteous,"* was in
his esteem the highest that could be given to a human being, and "right
eousness " expressed complete fitness for participation in all the privi
leges and blessings of the Theocracy, and consequently of salvation, of
"life," ^cof). "Righteousness" and "life" were always in his mind cor
relative ideas. But his conceptions of the nature of this righteousness
had undergone a total revolution since he was convinced of the insuffi
ciency and nullity of that wdiich he had before distinguished by this
name. That " legal righteousness," diKaioavvn vopiKi), he now regarded
as only an apparent righteousness, which might satisfy human require
ments, but could not, however plausible, deceive a holy God, and there
fore was of no avail in reference to the kingdom of God. It was hence
forth his fundamental principle, that no man by such works as he might
be able to accomplish under the guidance and aid of the law, could attain
» Paul was very far from employing the word diKaioavvy merely to designate a subor
dinate moral conditiou.like the later ami-Jewish Gnostics, for he always proceeded on the
theocratical principles of the Old Testament. I cannot therefore admit that, in Rom. v. 1,
a higher degree of morality is intended by the word " good" than by the word "righteous."
The opposite is evident, from the manner iu which Paul places these words together in
Kom. vii 12.

THE PAULINE DOCTRINE. 383
a righteousness* that would avail before God.f This idea which marks
the opposition between his earlier and later views, it was his main object
to develop in arguing with his Judaizing opponents.
Now he certainly in this controversy first treated of the "works of
the law" as an observance of the ritual prescriptions of the law ; for his
adversaries wished to impose even these on the believing Gentiles as be
longing to the true righteousness, and as essential to fitness for the king
dom of God ; and this it was which he would not allow. Yet from the
light of Judaism alone, such a distinction between the ceremonial and
moral law was not possible, for everything was contemplated as a divine
command ; both equally involved obedience to the divine revealed will,
and both required a disposition of sincere piety.J Though Paul in dif
ferent passages and references had sometimes the ritual, and at other
times the moral portion of the law especially in his thoughts, yet the
same general idea lies always at the basis of his reasonings. When he
had occasion, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, to impugn the justifying
power and continued obligation of the ceremonial law, still his argumen
tation proceeds on the whole idea of the law. It is the idea of an exter
nally prescribed rule of action, the law as commanding, but which by
its commands can never produce an internal alteration in man. Satisfac
tion can be given to the law — which indeed is true of every law as such
— only by perfect obedience. Now since no man is able to effect the
obedience thus required by the divine law, it of course pronounces con
demnation on all as guilty of its violation ; Gal. iii. 10. This is true of
the imperative moral law which is revealed in the conscience, not less
than of particular injunctions of this law exhibited in the Old Testament
theocratic form, as Paul himself applies it, in the Epistle to the Romans,
to the law written on the hearts of men, the law of conscience, which,
as he asserts, calls forth the consciousness of guilt in those to whom the
law was not given in the external theocratic form.
In reference to the whole idea of the law as the revelation of the
divine requirements to man in the form of imperative statutes, the apos
tle says, Gal. iii. 21, that if it could mike men inwardly alive, if it could
impart a true internal life from which all goodness would spontaneously
proceed, then it would be right to speak of a righteousness proceeding
from the law. Yet in that case, if man were truly in harmony with the
requirements of the law in the constitution of his internal life, it could
* We use the word righteousness as a translation of Hebraic and Hellenic terms, in a
sense answering only to the original signification of the German word gereeht, that which
is as it should be.
f Tho Pauline formula,ou diKaiovrat ivdnriov rov Beov i£ ipyuv vdpov or in vdpov irdaa
odpt, was most probably adopted by Paul at a very early period, having been suggested by
the antithetic development of his Christian conviclions, which had their origin in the mode
of his conversion.
X When Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, says that he came not to destroy the law
or the prophets, but to fulfil, he certaiuly made no such distinction. See Life of Christ,
p. 230.

384 JUSTIFICATION AND WORKS OF THE LAW.
not be properly said that he obtained a righteousness available before
God by the works of the law ; for the external rather supposes the inter
nal — the disposition of true righteousness which has already become
manifest of itself to the eye of Omniscience ;* the internal cannot pro
ceed from the external, but the external must proceed from the internal.
Still, in this case, works corresponding to the requirements of the law,
would be the necessary marks of the truly righteous and of the right
eousness that avails before God, something that is truly well-pleasing to
God. But in the present condition of man, this is nowhere to be found.
The disposition corresponding to the requirements of the law does not
exist in man, and an external law cannot produce a change internally,
cannot communicate power for fulfilling its own commands, nor over
come the opposition that exists in the disposition. Even if a man be
influenced by sensuous impulses, by carnal fear or hope, by vanity which
would commend itself to God or man, to accomplish a formal fulfilment
of what is commanded, still the disposition required by the spirit of the
law would be wanting. The works resulting from such attempts, whether
they relate to the moral or to the ritual part of the law, lack the dis
position wdiich is the mark of the genuine righteousness that presents
itself as such before a holy God. It results from this connexion of ideas,
that though " works of the law" may in themselves be works which
really exhibit the fulfilling of the law, they would be considered by Paul
as acts of a merely apparent, external, and not internal, obedience; they
would bear the impress of mere legality in opposition to true piety and
morality. The " works of the law" are not equivalent to " good works,"
but opposed to them ; Eph. ii. 10. Of such a legal righteousness he
speaks when he says, Phil. iii. 6, that iu this respect he had been a Phar-
* This is acknowledged by Aristotle; on del rd dUata irpaTrovrac SiKa'iove y'tveoBai.
— rd irpdypara diKata Aiyerai, brav y roidvra, ola dv d dtKaioc irpd^eiev diKatae d' iarlv
ovX-° ravra irpdrruv, dAXd Kal d oiiru rrpdrruv die ol diKatot irpdrrovoiv, (it is necessary
that those who do righteously should be righteous. Deeds are said to be righteous when
they are such as the righteous man should do ; and not he wdio does such things is right
eous, but he who also so does as the righteous do.) — Eth. Nich. ii. 3. As Paul contrasts
the righteousness of the law and that of true righteousness, so Aristotle contrasts the
rd virb rdiv vdpuv reraypiva rroulv, (the things prescribed by the laws to be done,) and
the irCie ix°vra irpdrreiv eKaora, diar' elvai ilyaBbv, Hiyu d' olov did rrpoa'ipeaiv (the tfipoveiv
Td tov irvevparoe, " the minding the things of the Spirit," from which all right action must
proceed; Rom. viii. 5.) Kal avrdiv iveKa rdiv rrpuTTopevuv. Ti)v piv irpoaipeaiv bpBi/v iroicl
r) apery, (somehow having to do everything, just to be good ; but I speak of such an one as
acts from choice and for the sake of the very things that are done. Virtue makes the choice
right.) But Christianity elevates the reference of the mind above the reflection of the
good in the "things done," irpaTrdpeva, to the "good itself," avrb dyaBbv, the original
source and archetype of all good in God, to communion with God, and the exhibition of
this oommunion in the actions of the life. It is the disposition of the truly righteous which
refers everything to the glory of God. Morality is a manifestation and exhibition of the
divine life. And Christianity points out the process of development through which a man,
by means of regeneration, may attain to that " visiue," apery, which produces the right
"choice," irpoaipeoie.

JUSTIFICATION AND WORKS OF THE LAW. 385
isee without blame, though viewing it afterwards from the Christian
point of view he esteemed it as perfectly nugatory. Thus, in a two-fold
sense, Paul could say that by works of the lavv no man could be justified
before God. Taking the expression works of the law in an ideal sense,
no man can perform such works as are required by the law; taking it
in an empirical sense, those works wdiich are actually performed in for
mal obedience to the law are not such as correspond to its spirit and re
quirements. If the assertion of an insufficiency of the righteousness of the law be
made without more exactly defining it, it may be supposed to mean, that
the moral commands of the law exhibit only an inferior moral status, and
on that account can lead no one to true righteousness. According to
this supposition, our judgment of the actual purpose of Christianity
would take a particular direction, and we should consider the, exhibition
of a complete system of morals, as forming its essential preeminence
over the former dispensation. But from the manner in which Paul
makes this assertion, it is evident that this is not his meaning. He never
complains of the law as defective in this respect, but on the contrary
eulogizes it as in itself holy and good ; Rom. vii. 12. The single com
mandment of love which stands at the head of the law, contains in fact
everything (Romans xiii. 9) essential to moral perfection, and whoever
fulfilled this would be truly righteous. And in the first two chapters of
the Epistle to the Romans his aim is to prove that the Jews in relation
to their law, as well as the Gentiles in relation to the moral law inscribed
on their hearts, were not wanting in their knowledge of what was good,
but in the power of will to perform what they knew to be good. The
reason why the law could not produce true righteousness, consisted in
the fact, that it presented goodness only in the form of an external com
mand, and also in the relation of the command to the moral condition of
those to whom the law was given. This leads us to the central point of
the Pauline Anthropology ; namely, human nature as estranged from the
divine life and standing in opposition to the requirements of the lawr ;
ichether the eternal -moral law, or the laio in its outward theocratical
form. This opposition we must now examine more minutely.
That principle in human nature which strives against the fulfilment
of the law, the apostle generally distinguishes by the name of the Flesh,
and the man in whom this principle predominates, or the man whose
mind is not yet transformed by Chrisiianity, by the name of "carnal."
aapKiKog, or " minding the things of the flesh," ra rfjg oapKbg' rppovdiv.
He represents this principle striving against the law as a law in the mem
bers, which opposes the law of reason; he speaks of "the motions of sin
in the members" which obstructed the fulfilment of the law acknowd-
edged by the mind ; Romans vii. 5. The body as the seat of sinful de
sires he calls the " body of sin," odipa T-rjg dpapriag, Rom. vi. 6, the
" body of the flesh," oCipa Tijg oapubg, Col. ii. 11. Hence we might con
clude, that the apostle deduced sin from the opposition between sense

386 MEANING OF THE TERM SAPS.
and spirit in human nature, and that he considered evil as a necessary
transition-point in the development of human nature, till spirit acquired
the perfect ascpndency. But this could not be the apostle's meaning,
for he considered this conflict between reason and sense, not as founded
in the original nature of man, but as the consequence of a free departure
from his original destination, as something for which he was guilty: and
here we see of wdiat practical importance in the Pauline doctrine is the
supposition of an original jierfection in man and a fall from it. Hence
we must consider in every instance, the preponderance of sensuous incli
nation over reason, according to Paul's view, only as an essential conse
quence of the first moral disunion.
But there are also in general many things to be urged against the
supposition that when he specifies the " flesh," cap!;, as the source of sin,
he meant nothing but sensuousness in opposition to the spiritual princi
ple in man. In Gal. v. 20, among the works of the "flesh," he mentions
" divisions," Sixoaraaioi, which can by no means all be attributed to
sensuous impulses. It is possible, indeed, to argue in favor of such an
interpretation by saying, that Paul had in view those divisions which he
traced to sensuous impulses, to a sensuous way of thinking, to a Judaism
that adhered to sensuous objects, and opposed the more spiritual concep
tions of Christianty. But it appears still more surprising that, he traces
everything, in that erroneous tendency which he opposed in the church
at Colossae, to the flesh, to a "fleshly mind," vovg aapKiKog; and here it
would be difficult to attribute everything to a sensuous addictedness, for
we meet, on the contrary with a morbid striving at freedom from the
senses, an ascetic tendency which would defraud the bodily appetites of
their just claims. And even if in all these attempts we detected the work
ings of a refined sensuality, that tendency which, while cleaving to out
ward objects, could not rise to the pure inward religion of the spirit ; still
we find that, in the Corinthian church also, the apostle traced to the flesh
everythinir which eilher openly or secretly opposed Christianity, not ex
cepting even the speculative Grecian tendency, the "seeking after wisdom,"
aoipiuv ^rjreiv, which treated the simple gospel with contempt. From all
these consideration-, we may infer with certainty that something more than
sensuousness was included in the Pauline idea of flesh. And it confirms
this conclusion, that Paul not only uses the phrase '' to walk as men," Kara
drOpoirrov TrEpiiraTElv, as equivalent to " walking after the flesh," Kara
adpKa TrEpiT.aTuv, but also employs the designation " natural man,"
drOptonog xpvxiKvg as equivalent to " carnal man," avdpumog aapKiKog, 1
Cor. ii. 14. All this relates only to the opposition of the Human to the
D vine, whether the oapi; or the V>v%ij against the OeIvv irvevpa. Paul
detected in ihe philosophic conceit of the Greeks, which, with all its striv
ing, could not pass beyond the bounds of earthly existence, and satisfied
itself without finding the highest good which alone can give true satis
faction to the mind, and he detected in the arrogance of the imaginary
legal righteousness of the Jews, the same principle of the flesh that he

ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 387
found in the thirst for sensuous pleasure. Tliere was a wisdom after
the flesh, oofia Kara odpKa, a righteousness after the flesh, diKcuoavvn
Kara adpxa. These ideas, "flesh," "world," "spirit of ihe world,"
(Tapf, Koapog, irvEvpa tov Koapov, correspond to one another. Thus the
term flesh denotes human nature generally, in its state of estrangement
from the divine life, a tendency towards the world cut loose from the
tendency towards God ; and from this designation we cannot determine
what Paul considered as the one fundamental tendency from which all
the forms of sin might be deduced, or whether he held in general that
there was any one such source. On this last point we find no precise
explanation in his writings. But as he represented the living to God,
to Christ, (6eu>, XpiOTtp ^rjv,) to be the principle of good in man, it is im
plied that the living to one's self, (iavrip £rjv,) the self-seeking tendency
(the tyw in relation to self, not subordinating itself to the religious sen
timent, Gal. ii. 20), was the fundamental tendency of evil. Now, partly
because the power of the sinful principle in the present condition of
human nature makes itself known by the conflict of sensuous inclinations
with the law acknowledged by the Spirit — partly because Christianity
first spread itself among those classes in which it had to combat most of
all with the power of rude sensuality — partly because the body serves as
the organ of the sinful tendency wdiich has the mastery in the soul, and the
power of sinful habit continues in it, with a sort of self-subsistence, even
after the soul has been made partaker of a higher life ; — on all these ac
counts, Paul often employs the termflesh to express the whole being of sin.
Paul commonly refers only to the consciousness of sin as an universal
fact in human nature, and appeals to what every man may know from his
own inward experience. By this means alone could his preaching every
where find acceptance, because it was based on a fundamental truth,
which was not received from tradition, nor on tlie testimony of foreign
authority, but manifested itself in the consciousness of every individual.
The consciousness of this schism in human nature, and the feeling arising
out, of it of the need of redemption, remains in its unchangeable validity,
independent of all historical tradition, even though man must acknowledge
this schism as a given fact without being able to explain its origin. This
internal fact, to which Paul appealed as a matter of immediate conscious
ness, we must distinguish from all modes of explaining it,* which may
* This fact, the only one necessary to be presupposed in order to faith in a Redeemer,
is in itself independent of all investigations respecting the derivation of the human race:
and, as something known by immediate inward experience, belongs to a province of life
which lies out of the range of all speculation, or of inquiries into natural science aud his
tory. And the doctrine of a pre-existence of souls, though insufficient to explain this
fact, leaves it untouched, or even requires to be explained by it The same is also true of
Muller's peculiar modification of this doctriue, viz., preexistence in some wholly undefined,
embryonic state of being. In his attempt to solve one of the most difficult of problems, to
maintain moral freedom without sophistry, I must confess he has done himself great credit
by his method of solution, though I am vory little disposed to agree with it. — It is essen
tial to Christianity that it rests on an historical basis of fact, whijh, iu order to be

388 THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN.
appear untenable, even while the fact itself, and the sense of a need of
redemption springing out of it, and the faith in a Redeemer proceeding
from that sense of need, retain their value undiinished. Hence it is very
natural, and a proof of the apostle's wisdom, that he treats in so few pas
sages of the original perfection of the first man, and of the first sin, com
pared with the number which relate to this universal fact. But it by no
means follows, that what he says on this subject has a merely accidental
connexion with his Christian convictions; that everything which he says
of the first man, only served as a foil, borrowed from the notions in vogue
among the Jews, to set the redeeming work of Christ in a more striking
light by the contrast. We may rather affirm that this fact is intimately
and closely connected with the whole Christian consciousness of the
apostle, for it lies everywhere at the basis, where he represents this schism
not as something included in the plan of the divine creation itself, and
necessary in the development of human nature, but as something for which
man is guilt)'. To justify the holiness and love of God, it must have been
important for him to be able to say, that man was not created in this con
dition by God, but that it originated in an abuseof the freedom bestowed
upon him.*
But this view of the subject is not admissible if, as many have main.
tained, Paul exhibited the first man only as a representative of human
nature generally, and wished to show by his example how, by virtue of
the original constitution of human nature, lust appeared in opposition to
the rational principle or to the capability for divine knowledge — that this
acknowledged in its true meaning, only presupposes experiences which every man can
make for himself.
* Krabbe, a friend specially dear to me, in his excellent work, Die Lettre von der
Siinde, p. 5G, remarks, that he does not, clearly understand what are my views respecting
the origination of sin in the primitive state of man. But it, was foreign to my object; —
since I only wished to develop the doctrines of the apostle Paul in the form in which they
were conceived and represented by him, and their mutual connexion — to explain myself
further on this topic, and to slate, as I must have done as a systematic theologian, that,
according to my conviction, the origin of evil can only be understood as a fact, a fact pos
sible by virtue of the freedom belonging to a created being, but not to be otherwise
deduced or explained. It lies in the idea of evil, that it is an utterly inexplicable thing,
and whoever would explain it nullifies the very idea of it. It is not the limits of our
knowledge which moke the origin of sin something inexplicable to us, but it follows from
the essential nature of sin as an act of free will, that it must remain to all eternity an in
explicable fact. It can only be understood empirically by means of the moral self-con
sciousness. Td ipdirypa, b irdvruv airibv Ian KaKuv, pdXAov di f> irepl roirov didlc, iv t$
i'vxi) iyyiyvopivy, yv el py rtc t^aipeByaerat, rr/c uAyBeiae bvruc ov py irore ri^oc'— (the
enquiry, what is the cause of all evils, or rather the labor-pains on this subject, which are
begotten in the soul, and of which if the soul be not relieved it can never attain to real
truth.) Ep. ii. Platon. Whoever in his arrogant littleness can satisfy himself with muti
lating human nature and reducing il to a minimum, wdth substituting a certain form of
speculative thought in place of the whole man, may adjust, after his own fashion, all the
phenomena in the moral world ; but the unconquerable voice of Nature will know how to
assort her rights against all such fine-spua theories.

ON THE FALL. 369
is constantly repeated in the case of every individual, in order that man,
from the consciousness of this opposition, may attain through redemption
to t he efficient supremacy of religious conviction in his nature. This chain
of ideas we should certainly find in Paul's writings, if it could be proved
thai, in Rom. vii. 9, and ff., he alluded to the condition of original inno
cence ; and wished to shew how by the commandment that state of
childlike ingenuousness was removed, and the slumbering lust was brought
into consciousness and raised to activity. But it cannot be proved that the
apostle, where h'e speaks of an apparent freedom from guilt, in which the
principle of sinfulness though scarcely developed lay at the bottom, had
in his thoughts that original freedom from guilt which he rather describes
as sinlessness. Certainly he could not have said that by one man sin came
into the world, if, in Rom. vii. 9, he had assumed the existence of sin already
in the first man according to his original constitution, as something
grounded in the essence of human nature. In order to reconcile this,
something foreign must be introduced into Paul's train of thought, which
can by no means be shewn to belong to it. If we proceed on the supposi
tion that a freedom, in the sense in which it must be allowed according
to this Pauline doctrine, and a transition from sinlessness to sin, are some
thing inconceivable, still we are not justified in explaining Paul accord
ing to a representation of which no trace can be founds in his writings,
not to add that such a view is opposed to his moral and religious spirit,
as well as to that of Christianity in general ; for according to it, the con
sciousness of freedom, and the sense of guilt connected with it, could be
nothing else than a necessary deception imposed by the Creator himself
in the development of human nature, a self-delusion unavoidable to the
individual self-consciousness.
Paul, indeed, says in 1 Cor. xv. 46, that in the development of hu
manity, the "natural," i/w%tK5v,must go before the "spiritual," itvevpa-
tikov — that human nature as derived from the earthly man must first
develop itself, and only then should the heavenly man enter into the
process of development, and penetrate it with a new divine principle of
life. But certainly it was not Paul's intention so to be understood, as if,
in virtue of that earthly constitution of human nature, sin must form a
necessary transition-point, that sinlessness might first proceed from Christ,
which would stand in direct contradiction to what we have observed
respecting the Pauline views. In this passage, according to the con
nexion, a contrast is not principally intended between the idea of one's
being under subjection to sin, and being sinless ; but between being sub
jected to death, and being raised above death. It is only affirmed here,
that the first man wanted the divine life-giving spirit which first pro
ceeded from Christ, which will allow nothing heterogeneous to remain
along with it, but communicates to whatever it comes in contact with, an
unchangeable divine life. It certainly follows that man must advance to
the higher position of a divine life, exalted above the domain of death.
But it by no means follows that sin was something placed in the original

390 ON THE FALL.
constitution of human nature ; that sin must form a necessary transition
point for that progressive development and that exaltation of human
nature which afterwards would lie accomplished thrown h redemption,
and which without it could not have been prepared. We must rather
consider it to be Paul's doctrine, that man was destined to raise himself
to the height intended for him by a perfectly pure development not defiled
by sin. Only after sin had made its appearance, as something which
ought not to have come forth, did redeeming grace manifest itself in op
position to it, as free compassion towards those who had incurred the
guilt of sin ; and it is the work of grace, not merely to restore what had
been depraved by sin, which ought not to have come into being, but also
to raise man to that higher stage for which, by his free acting, he ought
to have made himself worthy. But still the restoration of the original
image of God which had been marred by sin, (Col. iii. 10 ; Eph. iv. 24,)
alwavs remains a chief point in the work to be accomplished by re
demption. The old man is not implanted in the original nature ot
the first man, but was first produced from sin striving against the origi
nal nature. The new creation is conceived as a renovation, a restoration
of the original. Paul recognises in man — if in fallen man, (Acts xvii.,)
certainly so much more iu the original man — an " offspring of God,"
which was destined to develop, and to manifest itself, and to form
everything out of itself, without sin which stands in contradiction to
it. According to all this, sin always appears as something that ought
to have remained far away from the course of human development.
Thus, then, the sin of the first man has so great significancy in Paul's
connexion of ideas, because it was the free act from which a course of
life proceeded, in contradiction to the original moral nature of man,
or to the image of God in that nature. When he says, Rom. v. 12,
" By one man sin entered into the world," we shall most naturally
understand it (as he adds no other limiting clause) as follows: that
the sinful tendency of the will, or the opposition between the human and
the divine will, now first made its appearance in the hitherto sinless
human nature, and propagated itself with the development of the race
from this first point. This is according to a law which regulates the
propagation of mankind as a whole, and in the special divisions of na
tions and families, without which there could be no history, no de
velopment of man as a race; but the whole would be broken up into
separate moments wholly severed from each other — an altogether atomic
or nominalistic view which is refuted by an unprejudiced examination of
history and of life. And in fact, we see Paul applying the same law,
when he contemplates evil in its combined and reciprocal effects in
the great mass of mankind, the collective body of Jews or Greeks.
All men from that time onward have sinned, since they have followed
the sinful tendency that has passed upon them through the development
of the race. In this sense, Paul says that by the disobedience of one all

CONNEXION BETWEEN DEATH AND SIN. 391
became sinners.* He also connects sin anvl death together, and affirma
that with sin death came into the world, and had propagated itself among
all men. Now, according to Paul's views, this cannot be understood of
an essential change in the physical organization of man, as if the body by
that event first became mortal from being immortal, for he expressly
asserts the opposite in 1 Cor. xv. 46, 47, since he attributes to the first
man " an earthy body," adipa xoikov, " a natural," ijwxtKbv, in con
trast with the " spiritual body," adipa npevpaTiKov, of the resurrection.
This change, therefore, can only relate, partly to the mode and man
ner in which the individual earthly existence now terminates, the forcible
disruption of the connexion between soul and body which we designate
by the name of death, partly to the manner in which the necessity of
such a death would appear to the human mind. But both are closely
connected with one another. As life, life in communion with God, a di
vine, holy, happy, and imperishable life, are ideas indissolubly connected
in the New Testament phraseology, particularly in the writings of Paul
and John, so, on the other hand, are equally connected the ideas of sin,
unhappiness, and death. As man in communion with God becomes con
scious of a divine life raised above all death eternal, and the thought of
the interruption of life or of annihilation is unknown to him ; so when
by sin this connexion is broken, and, in estrangement from God as the
eternal fountain of life, he becomes conscious of existence limited to
itself, the thought of death first springs up. Without this consciousness
* It is now, indeed, generally acknowledged, that in the last clause of Rom. v. 12, the
relative pronoun cannot be referred to Adam. It is also not evident to me (as Rothe, p.
32 of his acute essay on this passage, Wittenberg, 1S36, has maintained), that lib' ip can
not be translated "for that;" the origiual meaning of this proposition with the dative, by
means of which it expresses something conditional, an accompaniment, the point of con
nexion for something, easily passes into the sign of a certain causal relation ; and as iiri
with a, dative signifies this causal relation, iip' u by an attraction may therefore signify
"for that," "because that." Thi3 meaning is certainly to bo adoptod in 2 Cor. v. 4.
What Rothe, p. 25, has said against this construction in the last passage is quite untenable.
Nor does Philip, i. 21—24, contradict this interpretation, for anxiety after eternal life by
no means excludes the repugnance necessarily founded in human nature ag.iinst the con
flict with death. Man would always prefer passing to a higher state of existence without
so violent a process of transition, and the "being burdened" is certainly (what Rothe
denies) quite as necessary and constant a mark of the Christian life as the " earnestly
desiring." I will readily allow that Paul has made use of this expression in the Romans
to designate causality, sinco it corresponds more than any other to the form under which ho
is here thinking of cau-ialty. The first original causality is the sin of Adrm — the secondary
cause, the connecting link for this continuation of death from Adam is the sinning of in
dividuals, by which the connexion between sin and death, subjectively con-idered, is con
ditioned. Death as punishment of the first sin which was committed with a clear con
sciousness of ils being a transgression of a positive law, spread itself together with the sin
ful tendency, upon all the posterity of Adam, and Paul finds its point of connexion with all
in this, that all have sinned. The connexion between sin and death is universal, running
through the whole history of the human race, because all men have participated in sin.
It is therefore a wholly different matter when a siuless being enters into the development
of the race; with such au one the natural connexion between sin and death could tiud ne
place.

392 REVELATION OF GOD IN CREATION.
of estrangement and death, the transition from an earthly existence to a
higher— objective in itself, and subjective to the mind* — would have been
only the form of a higher development of life, a transfiguration according
to nature, and no violent revolution. There could not have existed that
struggle in the nature of man, of which Paul speaks in 2 Cor. v. 4. Thus
Paul calls sin the sting of death, 1 Cor. xv. 56, by which he marks the
internal connexion between the consciousness of death and the con
sciousness of guilt; as the wounding power of death is founded in sin,
death as death, as that terrific object to the mind of man, exhibits itself
only in connexion with the consciousness of sin.
Paul certainly represents a corruption of human nature as the conse
quence of the first sin, and assumes a supremacy of the sinful principle
in the human race, but not in such a manner that the original nature of
man as the offspring of God, and created in his image, has been thereby
destroyed. Rather he supposes the existence in man of two opposing
principles — the predominating sinful principle, and the divine principle more
or less depressed and obscured yet manifesting its light. Hence he deduces
an undeniable consciousness of God, and an equally undeniable moral self-
consciousness as a radiation from the former. And as he recognises an
original and universal revelation of God to the human consciousness, so also
he acknowledges in human nature a designed aptitude to receive it ; as
there is a self-testimony of God, in whom the spirit of man lives, moves, and
exists, so also there is an original susceptibility in human nature corres
ponding to that testimony. The whole creation as a revelation of God,
especially of his almightiness and gooduess,f is designed to arouse the spirit
* Krabbe, in his work already quoted, although tho premises deduced by him from 1
Cor. xv. 43 ought to have led to the same view as mine, has yet opposed it (p. 191) un
der the supposition that I have not admitted an objective alteration of the form of death,
but only a subjective alteration in reference to the form in which it is represented to the
mind of man. To guard against this misunderstanding, I have added several new obser
vations to render my meaning more explicit.
f In Rom. i. 20, Paul first asserts in general, that the invisible being of God is mani
fested to the thinking spirit by the creation ; he then specifies the revelation of his power,
and adds to it the general term " Godhead," Beibryc, (on the form of this word see Riickert,)
including everything else which belongs to the revelation of the idea of God, to our con
ceptions of the divine attributes, to the "invisible things of God," dopant rov Beov. We
cannot deduce from the words (for it was not Ihe apostle's intention to be more definite) a
special reference to any other divine attribute; but it is not without reason that he bring3
forward the idea of Almightiness, because this first manifests itself in the religious conscious
ness developed by the contemplation of nature, and hence the consciousness of dependence
on a higher power is tho predominant sentiment in natural religion. Still we may infer,
from ihe terra "were thankful," yvxap'wryoav, in v. 21, that the goodness of God was
present to bis thoughts, which is favored by Acts. xiv. 17. In Ibis result I agree with
Schneckenburger in his Essay on the Natural Theology of Paul and its sources, contained
in his Beitrdge. zur Einleitung in's If. T. But I cannot perceive the necessity for deducing
the manner in which Paul has expressed himself, from any other source than from the
depths of his own spirit, enlightened by the Spirit of Christ; and in Philo's far less orig
inal investigations, I can find nothing which can serve to explain Paul's thoughts and lan
guage, although I see nothing in the use Schneckenburger is disposed to make of Philo

THE TWOFOLD PRINCIPLE IN MAN. 393
of.man to a perception of this inward revelation of God. But since by the
predominant sinful tendency of man the susceptibility for this revelation
of God is impaired, he has lost the ability to raise himself, by means of the
feelings awakened by outward impressions, to a development of the idea of
God, to serve as an organ for which is the highest destiny of the human
spirit.* Since the consciousness in man of an interior being, by virtue
of which he is distinct from nature, and, exalted above it, is capable of
appropriating the supernatural, has been depressed by sin, — since he has
enslaved himself to that nature over which he was destined to rule,f he
is no longer able to develop the feelings excited in his breast, of depend
ence on a higher power, and of gratitude for the blessings bestowed upon
him, so as to believe in an Almighty God as Creator and Governor of
the world, but he allows these feelings to terminate in the created beings,
in the powers and phenomena of nature by which they were first excited.
Thus originated, as Paul describes in the Epistle to the Romans, idolatry,
the deification of nature, which yet implies a depressed consciousness of
God, and to this, as lying at its basis, Paul appealed in his discourse at
Athens. This depression of the consciousness of God by the predomin
ating consciousness of the world or the sensuous consciousness of self,
tended more and more to the deterioration of man's moral nature; Rom.
i. 28. Yet this moral nature, as it belonged to the essence of humanity,
could not be entirely obliterated. It manifested itself in the conscience
as the undeniable emanation from the consciousness of God. According
to Paul, this is the revelation of an internal law for the life, and of a
judgment upon it, undeniable by man, even should he not deduce from it
the consciousness of that God who here manifests himself as a hidden
legislative and judging power. Men, in passing judgment on one an
other, give evidence of the power of that innate law of their nature, and
condemn themselves ; Rom. ii. 1 .%
for the illustration of the New Testament, which tends to depreciate the latter; and I
must entirely agree with his excellent remarks on the relation of the Alexandrian-Jewish
school to the appearance of Christianity. He also justly remarks, that those who in their
folly think I hat they can illustrate tho greatest revolution in the human race (the moral
creation effected by Christianity) by excerpts fiom Philo (an attempt as rational as to ex
plain the living principio by a corpse), must serve quite a different object from that which
they have proposed to themselves.
* The connexion of the inward and outward revelation of God was probably in tho
mind of Paul when he used the phrase "in them," iv avrole. Romans i. 19.
¦f- The dominion of man over nature presupposes in its true significance tho free devel
opment of the knowledge of God, ou which the elevation of the spirit over nature and it3
affinity to God are founded, as a means of exercising that true dominion.
X I cannot agree with those who think that Paul, in this passage, has the Jews spec
ially in mind, who are mentioned in v. 9. Had this been the case, the transition from
those of whom he had been speaking, the Gentiles, to this new snbject, the Jews, must
have been in some way marked. But the "therefore," eho, only refers us to what imme
diately precedes, i. :S2, which relates to the Gentiles, though it does not follow that Paul
confined himself to the same class of Gentiles. "Since whoever knows the law of God,
(according to which they who do such things are worthy of death), and yet does what it

394 THE TWOFOLD PRINCIPLE IN MAN.
We must here take notice of Paul's trichotomy of human nature,
We find, indeed, only one passage where it is expressly mentioned, (1
Thess. v. 23,) but there are several others in which it is indicated. Though
among the Greeks the term rpvxh was employed to denote the animal
principle of life in distinction from the vovg, as the vovg corresponds to
the XoyiKbv, (the rational principle,) yet, we cannot suppose such a mode
of conception in Paul, as is evident from a comparison of all which can
be found in his writings referable to this subject. The "natural man,"
ipvxiKbg, the man in whom the 4>vx?l alone predominates, who is in a
state corresponding to this, cannot receive and understand the things
revealed by the Spirit of God. All these things must appear to him as
foolishness, for he wants the sense, the organ, by which to appropriate
them; 1 Cor. ii. 14. The " spiritual man," irvEvpariKbg, on the other
hand, is the man in whom such an organ, such a sense is developed ; with
a sense allied to the divine he is able to receive divine things. Certainly
we are not to suppose that the " spiritual man" is to be thought of as
one in whom the ruling principle is the "spirit " (rrvEvpa) of human
nature, that which is opposed to the "life," VOT- Without doubt we
must rather suppose the reference to be to the " Divine Spirit," irvevpa
Oelov, as that which quickens the man. But yet we may conceive of the
TTvevpaTiK.bg in Paul's sense, as the person in whom wdiat in human nature
is the irvevpa finds its natural development. We shall have to consider
it as that organ corresponding to the divine nvevpa, which is destined and
adapted to receive its influences and spread them through the whole of
human nature. If in 1 Cor. xiv. 14, by irvevpa is to be understood the
power indwelling in human nature, not merely something communicated
to man, the " spiritual gift" (xdpiapa irvEvpaTiKbv) as something personi
fied,* we can make good use of this application of the word. In the
moments of the highest elevation or in-piration, when the discursive
power is in abeyance, the " spirit" is supreme. This, as the receptive
organ for the inspiration of the divine " spirit," irvevpa, is then alone
developed. Thus, under the term irvEvpa we shall comprise what is in
nermost, and deepest, and highest in man, the side of the spirit turned
towards the eternal and divine — the power to become conscious of God
and of divine things — the capacity for a knowledge of God, and the
higher self-consciousness grounded in that; while by the term -ipvxij we
forbids cannot excuse himself,— thou canst allege no excuse for thyself; thou, whoever
thou mayest be, thou who testifiest of thy knowledge of God, when thou judgest another,
thou condemtiest thyself"
* The first inlerpretalion here suggested, is favored by the antithesis between irvevpa
aud vote pov, and the word vove, which elsewhere corresponds to irveipa, as the designa
tion of the highest power in human nature, need not perplex us; for there would uatur-
urally have been made prominent here just this idea of rove as the voovr, the thinking
faculty iu man, since the immediatenoss of inspiration is distinguished from the mediate
exercise of thought. A Greek would certainly have chosen another word than vovc, and
would have distinguished between voovv and itavoovv.

THE TWOFOLD PRINCIPLE IN MAN. 395
understand all that belongs to the knowdedge of the world and the lower
self-consciousness. In man's original state the " spirit," irvevpa, as the
organ of the Divine Spirit was in communion with it as its natural, undis
turbed life, and the "life," V"OTi was tne natural organ of the human
irvevpa; the divine and the human were in harmonic unison. But after
this connexion had been broken by sin, the irvevpa, by the predominance
of the yvx?!, separated from connexion with its great fountain-head and
altogether kept under, was prevented from acting and manifesting itself.
Thus was formed the "natural man,'' ipvxiKog, who with all his cultiva
tion wants the sense for the divine, whose intellectual egoism, not less
than the sensual rudeness of the man who in a narrower sense is called
" carnal," aaptdKog, stands in contradiction to the divine things which
the Spirit of God reveals — both are only two distinct forms of worldly-
mindedness. The " natural man" furthermore remains fettered with his
consciousness to the world, confined within its limits ; he has no sense
for the supersensuous and denies its reality ; it finds no point of con
nexion in his merely psychical being, in which the pneumatic is altogether
suppressed. In special relation to what Paul calls the irvevpa, stands that which
he designates "the inner man." The contrariety between the inner and
outer man by no means corresponds to the contrariety between the body
and soul, spirit or reason and sensuousness. We have seen, that accord
ing to Paul's doctrine, evil may have its seat in the intellect. There is
such a thing as a reason estranged from God and ruled by egoism. But
Paul never speaks of an evil residing in the inner man : the idea of the
inner man only appears in reference to tlie Divine.
When the higher God-related nature of man begins to make itself
free from the power of the ungodly principle, — to attain a consciousness
of its own peculiar being, and to be sensible of its bondage — then the
inner man, hitherto oppressed by the burden of worldliness, rises up.
This inner man recognises in the divine law what corresponds to his own
nature, and rejoices in it. But he is not yet strong enough to overcome
the power of sin predominant in the outer man, and thus to bring the
law into actual practice ; Rom. vii. 22. He attains to new power through
the divine life communicated by Christ, when Christ dwells in the heart;
Eph. iii. 10, 17. The sufferings by which the outer man perishes, only serve
to free and to renew the inner man more and more; 2 Cor. iv. 16. This
opposition between the inner and the outward man is to be understood as
involving the thought that everything which belongs to the world is ex
ternal to the inner man. Evil has its ground in this, that man turns away
from what is innermost to him, from his relation to God, and surrenders
himself to the world over which he should be exalted by virtue of the
life in God, and in consequence, man becomes continually absorbed into
the world, secularized and alienated from God. Earthly envelopments
oppress the true inward essence of the spirit, and keep the inner man in
a state of insensibility. In proportion as man retires into the depths ol

390 THE STATE OF BONDAGE.
his inward being, from the dissipations of worldly things, the greater is
his inward strength ; the more he turns within, the more the power of
the inner man whose life is in God gains the ascendency.
Thus Paul represents two general principles in the natural man as
striving against each other; the principle peculiar to the offspring of
God, that which is allied to God in the implanted consciousness of God,
and in the moral self-consciousness grounded therein, the reaction of the
original religious and moral nature of man ; and the principle of sin ; or,
in other words, spirit and flesh, the inner and the outer man. And as
the former, the original nature of man, is checked in its development and
efficiency by the latter, and detained a prisoner as by a hostile force, he
describes the state of the natural man in general as one of bondage*
Still a distinction is to be made between the different states of this bond
age, according as it is conscious or unconscious; according as the sup
pressed higher nature has not yet at all become conscious of its own ex
istence, and of the restraint imposed upon it, or according as the sense
of bondage, in wdiich man's higher self, the inner man, is held, has been
awakened in the developed higher self-consciousness, and so a longing
after freedom has been created. The latter is the state to which the
apostle has affixed the name of bondage in the more restricted sense of
the word, the bondage under the law, inasmuch as with the consciousness
of the suppressed higher nature there exists at the same time a conscious
ness of the law revealing itself in it, that is, as far as the first conscious
ness is called into being by the latter. Hence these two states of
unconscious or conscious bondage are distinguished, as living without the
law, or living under the law. These two states the apostle describes in
the 7th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; he there depicts, in his
own person, and from his own experience, two universally existing states.
The first state he represents as one in which a man lives in delusive
satisfaction, unconscious both of the requirements of the holy law and of
the power of the counteracting principle of sinfulness. He awakes from
this state of security, when the consciousness of the law and its require
ments is excited. The moral ideal, which is presented by the law to the
self-consciousness of man, exerts an attractive influence on his higher na
ture. He feels that he can find satis'action and happiness only in the
agreement of his life with this law. But then he sees that he has been
wofully deceived, for the law when it brings forth into consciousness the
sinful desires that had hitherto been slumbering in his breast, irritates
them to greater activity by the opposition of its commands. The man
who is enduring this conflict, is represented by Paul as saying, "The
commandment that should have tended to life brought only death ; for
sin which now took occasion to break forth, deceived me b}r the com
mandment and by it slew me." — Rom. vii. 10, 11. The deception wdiich
Was practised by the power of the hitherto slumbering but now rampant
* The " bondage of sin," SovAeia rye dpapriac.

THE STATE OF BONDAGE. 397
sinful desires, consisted in this, that when the law in its glory, the moral
archetype, first revealed itself to the related higher nature of man, he
was filled with earnest desire to seize the revealed ideal ; but this desire
only made him more painfully sensible of the chasm which separated him
from the object after which he aspired. Thus, what appeared at first a
blissful ideal, becomes, on the contrary, death-producing, through the
guilt of sin. The higher nature of man aspiring after a freer self-con
sciousness, is sensible of the harmony between itself and the divine law
in which it delights; but tliere is another power, the power of the sinful
principle striving against the higher nature, which, when a man is dis
posed to follow the inward divine leading, drags him away, so that he
cannot accomplish the good by which alone his heavenly nature is at
tracted. We cannot regard this disunion as one in which man, in conflict
with his better knowledge and his delight in goodness, is carried away
by his own passions and lusts to surrender himself to vice. If it were
so, Paul, who was blameless in legal righteousness, and had been brought
up in strict legal discipline, could not have spoken as he did, from his
own experience. But for man from this point of view, it is not enough
for him to be free from flagrant vices. Higher requirements of purity
in heart and life are brought home to his consciousness, and in accord
ance with these he forms holy resolutions which he is unable to fulfil.
How often, for example, might Paul have been overcome by the force of
his choleric temperament.
In the consciousness of this wretched disunion he exclaims, " Who
shall deliver me from this power of sin ?"* After thus vividly calling to
mind the state of disunion and unhappiness from which Christianity has
set him free, he is carried away by emotions of thankfulness for redemp
tion from that internal wretchedness ; and dropping the character he had
for the moment assumed, he interrupts himself (Rom vii. 25) by an ex
clamation occasioned by the consciousness of his present state, and then,
in conclusion, briefly adverts to the state of disunion before described.
"I myself therefore, this one man, with the spirit serve the law of God,
but with the flesh, the law of sin." If we understand the phrase, "serve
the law of God," in the full strictness of the idea, more seems to be ex
pressed by it than the moral state of the natural man allows : for taking
the words in their highest sense, they describe such a reference of the
whole life to God, such an animating of it by a practical sense of God,
as must proceed from regeneration, and supposes its existence. But we
must first of all accurately fix the meaning of " serve" and of "law" in
this passage. Both terms are used by Paul in a two-fold manner. The
fundamental idea of" serving," 6ovXeveiv, is that of a life corresponding
to God's law and to the consciousness of dependence on him. But this
consciousness of dependence may be of two sorts ; either, one in which
the man consents with freedom, or one with which his direction of will
* Paul terms it the " body of death," inasmuch as the power of evil desires manifests
fcself particularly in the body as the slave of sinful habits.

398 the apostle's experience.
stands in contradiction. And so likewise in the application of the term
law, of which the general idea is a rule of life and action. This rule may
be either, according to the first meaning of the word " serve," a rule
proceeding from within, founded on the internal development of the life,
Avith which the predominant tendency of the will is in perfect harmony ;
or it may be a rule presenting itself to the spirit of man from without,
an outwardly commanding, constraining law, which contradicts the
predominant internal tendency of the will, and whose supremacy is
therefore only acknowledged by compulsion according to the second
meaning of the word. Now the apostle here employs the word " serve"
in the second sense, and describes a state in which the consciousness of
God makes its power felt in opposition to the sinful tendency of the will,
that controls the life; for if the other sense of the term were intended,
that unhappy disunion would immediately cease. If the consciousness
of God had become an internal law of the life with which the determi
nations of the will were in harmony, the " flesh" would no longer exercise
its power as a determining principle of the life.
No doubt the apostle took the materials of this description from his
own experience, which put it in his power to delineate the condition in
such lively colors. Though educated by pious parents in Judaism, still
there was for hiin, during childhood, a period of ingenuous simplicity, in
which the consciousness of the law and of the contrariety betweeu its
requirements and the indwelling principle of sin, could not be developed
with the same clearness as in maturer life. And from this first epoch of
childhood, he was led on by his Pharisaic education to the summit of
servitude to the law. But he represents in his own person the two
universal stages of human development, by which the race, as well
as individuals, should thenceforward be trained for the appropriation
of redemption. He here describes in an individual example how Judaism,
as the legal religion, in respect to that which constitutes its peculiar
essence and by which it forms the contrast with Christianity, should serve
in the progress of human development. Very different was that part of
Judaism which constituted the point of union between it and the gospel,
and the aspect under which it might be viewed as the gospel veiled the
prophetic element, by which it was connected with the promises made
before the giving of the law, and formed a continuation of them till the
Redeemer himself appeared. As in order to prepare for the reception
of the Redeemer, it was needful, on the one hand, to excite a conscious
ness of internal disunion and bondage, and the consequent sense of a
need of redemption; and on the other hand, to point out the relief
about to be afforded for this misery, and the personage by whom it
would be effected; so Judaism was in both these respects a divine reve
lation and a religious economy preparatory to Christianity.
In confutation of the Jews and Judaizers, who would not recognise
in Judaism a merely preparative dispensation, but maintained its per
petual validity, ths apostle proved that all the leadings of the divine gov-

JUDAISM. 399
ernment, from the beginning of the world, related to the fulfilment of a
purpose embracing the salvation of the whole fallen race of man, a pur
pose to communicate among all men, by the Messiah, redeeming grace,
for the obtaining of which no other means would be requisite than sur
rendering themselves to it and receiving it by means of faith. There
was, therefore, only one fundamental relation between God and man ; on
the part of God, a revelation of his grace in its promise and fulfilment;
on the part of man, an appropriation of this grace by faith. The legal
Judaism could make no alteration in this unchangeable or fundamental
relation between God and man, which had been already established by
the promises given to Abraham ; it could not add a new condition, such
as the observance of the law, for the fulfilment of the promises, Gal. iii.
15, in which case the fulfilment of the promise would be attached to some
thing that could not be performed, since no man is capable of observing
the law. There are two relations which exclude one another, the one
having respect to what comes on condition of fulfilling the law, and the
other to what is bestowed according to a divine promise : the former re
fers to something to be given as a reward of merit, the latter to a free
exhibition of grace, which stipulates no other condition than a recep
tion of what is bestowed through grace. Gal. iii. 18.
The law, therefore, formed only a preparatory, intervening economy
for the Jewish nation,* partly designed to check in some measure the
grosser indulgences of sin,f but more especially to call forth and main-
* To this Rom. v. 20 refers, "the law entered," vbpoe irapeiarfkBev.
¦j- Tcjk irapaftdoeuv xupiv, "on account of transgressions." Gal. iii. 19. The interpreta
tion of this passage which I have followed requires to be supported against the objections
of TJsteri iu his Enlwickelung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs (Development of the Pauline
Doctrines), 4th ed. pp. 66, 67, and in his excellent Commentary on the Epistle to the Gala
tians, p. 114 The reasons alleged by him are, that the idaa of transgression presupposes
the idea of law — that according to the Pauline association of ideas, sin was called forth by
the law, the law could present no check to sin, but, on the coutrarj, must tend to hasten
the outbreak of sinfulness. Paul would therefore contradict himself, if he said that the law
was added in order to check sin. But although Paul by describing " sin," duapria, as
" transgression," irapdj3aaie, conceived of it as a transgression of the law, intending spe
cially the positive law, yet sin, without reference to the Mosaic law, might be so denom
inated in reference to the law of God revealed iu the conscience, and which is thereby
transgressed ; and Paul could by anticipation have called sins irapa/Sdaeie, in relation to
the Mosaic law which should cause single sins to appear in the form of " transgressions."
According to Paul, the positive law, as well as the indwelling law of the heart, supposes an
existing sinfulness in man. When the internal law as a revelation of God is outwardly
presented in a definite literal form, it only serves to bring this opposition into clearer con
sciousness, and to counterwork the manifold influences by which this consciousness is ob
scured and depressed. Indeed, the law, according to Paul, cannot conquer sin internally,
but only serves to manifest it in its full extent. It can produce no true holiness in the
disposition; nevertheless, we cau readily conceive how a positive law, bringing into clearer
consciousness the opposition of good and evil, opposing to sinful inclinations the distinctly
expressed divine will, by threatening and alarming would check the outward indulgeneo
of sinful desires, act as a check on grosser immorality, and promote outward moral de
corum. This, it is true, can be attained only in a very imperfect degree by the law, since

400 the use of the law.
tain a vivid consciousness of sin.* While thus the law put an outward
Check on the sinful rudeness which was ever anew rising against it;
while by this means the consciousness of the power of the sinful princi
ple became more vivid, and hence the sense of need both of the forgive
ness of sin and of freedom from its bondage was awakened, the law be
came a " schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," naidayoiybg elg Xptarbv.
The bondage of Judaism consisted in the binding of religion to a multi
tude of sensible forms, which could only typify the divine that was not
yet distinctly apprehended, the dependence of the development of the in-
it has not the power of operating on the internal ground, from which all the outward
manifestations of sin proceed. On the one hand, the law checks the grosser outbreaks of
sin ; on the other, it occasions that the sinfulness called forth by opposition from its con
cealment, is displayed in the form of particular transgression of the law, and a man thereby
becomes conscious of the hidden and deeply-seated root of all evil. Both may be repre
sented as the work of the law ; the check put on the outbreaks of sinfulness, and the
greater prominence given to it in the form of particular transgressions of special com
mands. Both may be considered as the objects of that divine wisdom which gave the law
to man, if we only keep the various refeiences distinct from each other. On the one hand,
to prevent the total brutalization of human nature, and, on the other, not to permit the
self-deception that any other means of training can avail, short of that method which will
effect a radical cure. As to the first point, Paul marks it in Gal. iii. 23, where he says
that men were kept as prisoners by the law, which agrees with what Christ says wheu,
in the Sermon on the Mount, he opposes the holiness of disposition attained through the
gospel, to the theocratic political law, which would only restrain the outbreaking force of
evil in its external actions, and wilh what he says in Matt. xix. 8, on the relation of the
law to the " hardness of heart," anAypoKapdia, of men. With respect to the other interpre
tation of the passage — " the law is added in order to make sin knowable as such, to bring
men to a clear consciousness of it" — the words do not so plainly convey this meaning.
According to that interpretation they would mean : the law was given to favor transgres
sions, in order Ihat transgressions might take place: the thought would, after all, be very
obscurely expressed, and if this were said without further limitation, it would convey such
a mean estimate of the law as Paul, from his stand-point, certainly could not allow. And
as Riickert justly remarks, the use of the article with the word iraptv}daeuv (on ae.-ouut
of certain existing sins, in order to put a check to them), better suits the method of inter
pretation we have followed and the connexion of the passage, since it is the design of Paul
to acknowledge the importance of the law in its own though subordinate value. See
in Rheinwald's Reperlorium, No. vi., &o, Schneckenburger's review of Ust.eri's work on the
Pauline doctrines, which agrees, in this and several other points, with our own views.
* Rom. v. 20, Iva rrAsovday y dpaoria, "so that sin might abound," that is, that the
power of indwelling sin, the intensive force of the sinful principle as such, might be mani
fested so much more strongly. In reference to the development of the Pauline sentiment,
Fritsche, in his excellent Commentary, to which I am much indebted, justly remarks (p.
350), that this cannot be the literal sense of the passage, for here duapria is spoken of as a
single violation of God's law. The sense of the passage is: iu order that transgressions
may increase. But this must serve to make them more conscious of the intensive power
of the evil principle, by its coming forth more distinctly in outward manifestation, as we
detect in the symptoms of a positive disease the morbific matter which has been for a lone-
time lurking in the system. Thus, Rom. vii. 13, in order that sin might show itself abun°
dantly as sin, sm in its destructive power; so that the law iu bringing salvation must, on
account of sin, itself bring destruction.

the use of the law. 401
ternal religious life on the outward and the sensuous,* which might also
contribute, like the ethical part of the law, partly to restrain sensual gross-
ness, partly to awaken the internal religious sentiment, partly to arouse
it to a consciousness of the bondage that oppressed it, and to a feeling
of need of freedom. f In this aspect, the unity of the moral and the
ritual in the Mosaic law is apparent ; both belonged to the one object of
religious moral development, and subserved the same end.
The race before the introduction of Christianity, may be regarded as
consisting of two general divisions, of Jews and Gentiles. The dis
tinction between them may be seen in the contrast they furnish between
natural development and Revelation. Among the Jews, God had from
the beginning communicated and propagated the knowledge of himself
by a connected series of revelations ; by a positive law had manifested
the need of redemption and given promises with ever-increasing clear
ness of Him who was to satisfy this need; Rom. ix. 4. The Theocracy
was here presented in the form of a particular nationality, until, at last, the
Redeemer arose from the midst of this nation, and connected himself in
his own person with the promises made to them. The Gentiles, on the
contrary, were left to themselves, and shut out from the organized his
torical preparation of the kingdom of God. Still the apostle recognises,
as we have here remarked, an original revelation of God among the
heathen, without which even idolatry could not have arisen. We must
here distinguish between the two ideas of Revelation above unfolded —
the general and the special.]; The one, is the general revelation of God
in the creation, and, through creation, in the reason and conscience, in
which three factors are combined — the self-revelation of God in creation
acting from without— the adaptation to the knowdedge of God in the
spirit of man, (reason and conscience) — and the undeniable connexion of
created spirits with the original Spirit whose offspring they are, in whom
they live and move and have their being, the fountain from which pro
ceed all the movements of the higher life ; the other, is Revelation iu a
more restricted sense, wdiich does not proceed from an operation of the
Divine Spirit through the medium of creation, like the former, but a Re
velation by means of which man apprehends in a divine light the truths
relating to salvation, the knowledge of which he could not attain by his
own reason.
But to understand that general revelation of God, a mind susceptible
of the Divine was required. The original consciousness of truth, in refer
ence to religion and morals, was kept under by the predominance of the
principle of sin.§ As in the life of the individual, so in the life of the race,
* The dedovr.dioBai bird rd arotxeTa = rd aapKiKa. See above, p. 297, note.
f Thus Peter calls the law in its whole extent, contrasted with the grace of redemp
tion, " a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear." Acts xv. 10.
X See page 99.
§ Rom. i. 18, rijv dAr/Betav iv ddiKta Karixovrec. "They repressed the truth that
manifested itself to them, the consciousness of truth that was springing up in their minda

402 THE JEWS AND GENTILES.
a connexion exists between the earlier and the later critical periods, by
virtue of which the latter is conditioned by the former. Thus, by the con
tinual working of sin and deification of nature from generation to genera
tion, that original consciousness of God becomes increasingly obscured.
This it is, this criminal want of freedom, which Paul means by being given
up to sin and delusion. The Mosaic law corresponds, indeed, to the law
written on the heart, by virtue of wdiich death may be acknowledged to be
the desert of sin ; Rom. i. 32. But since this consciousness is so much
obscured by the dominion of sin, Paul makes a marked distinction between
the position of the theocratic people to whom the law was revealed as given
by God, among whom the commanding, judging, and condemning voice
of God in the law denounced all evil, and their position before and apart
from that law. Thus Paul, in Rom. v. 13, 14, affirms that the objective
connexion between sin and death was the same from the beginning, but
that this objective connexion must, through the positive law, be made sub
jective by entering clearly into the human consciousness. What on the
stand-point of nature left to itself, is only something lying at the basis of
the consciousness, is thus brought out into vivid consciousness. The prin
ciple expressed iu ils absoluteness in Rom. v. 13, " Sin is not imputed
when there is no law," becomes relative in its application. The divine
imputation of sin is regulated by the given degree of the knowdedge
of the law. Thus Paul, in Acts xvii. 30, which words we must regard
as perfectly corresponding to the apostle's general style of thought,
could speak of the times of ignorance among the heathen as an object of
the divine forb-arance, which is to be taken in connexion with what he
says in Rom. iii. 25* respecting the non-punishment of sins that had been
committed at a time when the Divine long-suffering prevailed. This is of
importance in its application to the various circumstances of nations who
have not, yet reached a state of moral development. But although Paul
distinguishes from each other the positive Divine law, and the inner moral
law of nature, yet he always bears in mind the connexion between the
two, and the Mosaic law appears to him as the representative of the
eternal theocratic; law, the law which God has stamped on the inner man,
as appears from the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Hence
we must maintain, against those who imagine that where Paul speaks of
the law, he only refers to the Mosaic law in a narrower sense, that where
he represents it as condemning man and revealing to him his guilt, it ap
pears to him, at the same time, as the representative of the Divine law,
manifesting itself, although less clearly, in all mankind, and applicable to
all. When also Paul, in Gal. iii. 13, speaks of the curse of the law ; and in
—through sin." In these words, Paul particularly referred to the Gentiles, though they
might also be applied to the Jews. It was not needful for him to point out, to the Jews,
lhat they could not allege as an excuse lor their conduct the want of a knowledge of
God and of his law, since they were only too much disposed to pride themselves on the
mere knowledge of what had been revealed to them.
* See for the exact exposition of this passage p. 415.

THE JEWS AND GENTILES. 403
Col. ii. 14, describes the same as a bond {handwriting), it is evident from
the unmistakeable contrast in the first passage that he thinks first of the
Jews, who were conscious of the obligatoriness of the law, while yet this
law, in his apprehension of its idea, certainly refers to the whole human
race. As long as the law retained its validity, it denounce 1 a curse on all
who did not observe it ; while the observance of it was the only means
for participating in the kingdom of God, and for attaining everlasting life.
Hence, the curse it denounces must first be removed, iu order that the
Abrahamic blessing referring to all mankind, might be fulfilled to the
Gentiles. Gal. iii. 14. Hence also, the revelation of the " wrath of
God," dpyrj Oeov, among the heathen, td accomplish which is the work of
the law, Rom. iv. 15, must precede, and they must be convinced that
only through Christ they can be freed from this wrath, if they would be
made pat takers of redemption. From that law of the conscience could
also proceed the sense of disunion in the inner man, and the feeling of the
need of redemption, without which Christianity can find no point of con
nexion with, and entrance into, the heart, and this point of connexion Paul
everywhere assumes in reference to the heathen.
Indeed, he makes in all respects a universal contrast between the Jews
incorporated in the Theocracy, and the heathen who were living without
God ; though he unquestionably does not put all who were living in
heathenism on the same level. Certainly he could not say of every in
dividual, what he says of the corrupt mass in general, Eph. iv. 19, that
they had given themselves up to the indulgence of their lusts with a sup
pression of all moral feeling ; he no doubt recognised in the civil and
domestic virtues of the heathen some scattered rays of the repressed
knowledge of God. In this respect he says, Rom. ii. 14-2(i, comparing
the heathen with the Jews, that where the former fulfilled in some
cases the commands of the law, following the law written on their
hearts, they thereby passed sentence of condemnation on the Jews, to
whom the positive law had been given, of which they boasted, but
neglected to obey it. Not that we can suppose him to mean, that in any
instance there was anything like a perfect fulfilment of the law. To sup
pose this, would be in direct contradiction to what Paul affirms respect
ing the consciousness of guilt universally awakened by the law, that it
could only call forth a sense of sin and of deserved punishment ; we can
not separate a single act from the whole life, if with Paul we refer
everything to the animating disposition, and do not form our estimate
according to the outward value of good works. Where the whole
of the internal life was not animated by that which must be the princi
ple of all true goodness, that principle could not perfectly operate even
for a single moment. Still, the repressed higher nature of man, the
seat of the law of God, gave more or fewer signs of its existence.
From the Jewish and from the Gentile points of view alike, tliere
was only one mode of transition to a state of salvation, the consciousness
of au inward disuuion between the divine and the undivine in human

404 THE JEWS AND GENTILES.
nature, and proceeding from that, the consciousness of the need of re
demption. And hence there are two hindrances which obstruct the at
tainment of salvation by men ; either the gross security of heathenism,
where the higher movements of life are entirely suppressed by the do
minion of sinful pleasure, or the Jewish merit, of works and self-righteous
ness, where men, pacifying their consciences by the show of devotion and
of fulfilling the law, deceive themselves, and suppose that, by the mechan
ism of outward religious exercises, or by the performance of certain
actions which wear the appearance of good works, they have attained
the essence of the holiness required by the divine law. In reference to
the latter, Paul says of the Jews, Rom. x. 3, that since they knew not
the essence of true holiness which avails before God and can be imparted
by God alone, and since they esteemed their own works to be genuine
holiness — -they could not perceive the insufficiency of these, and lience
they could not appropriate the holiness revealed and imparted by God.*
As the manner in which the Jews, insensible of their need of divine aid,
endeavored to attain holiness by the observance of the law, was their
cause of not attaining it; so on the other hand the heathen — those,
namely, in whom self-conceit of another kind had not been produced by
a philosophical training — since no such spiritual' pride counteracted the
feeling of the need of redemption in their minds, when once through
particular circumstances, inward experiences, or perhaps throngh the
preaching of the gospel,f the voice of the law had become louder and
more emphatic within them — were easily awakened to this feeling of
helplessness, and thus led to faith in the Redeemer. J
In another respect also, Paul compares the Jewish and the heathen
or Grecian points of view with one another. Among the Jews, the pre
dominance of the sensuous element in their religious life, a tendency of
spirit, which, being unsusceptible of the internal revelation of divine
power, sought for extraordinary events in the world of the senses as
marks of the divine, a tendency which he distinguished by the name of

* The phrase " God's righteousness," dtKatoavvy rov Beov, denotes, in this passage, a
righteousness which avails before God, and originates with him, in opposition to one
which men suppose may be attained by their own power and works, and which, though
men may deceive themselves by false appearances, cannot stand in the sight of a holy,
omniscient God. It denotes, accordingly, the manner in which men are justified through
faith in Christ, in opposition to the righteousness of the law or of works. The apostle
uses the expression " have submitted," virtrdyyaav, since he considers the cause of their
not receiving what God is willing to bestow, to be a spirit of insubordination, a want of
humility and acquiescence in the divine arrangements.
f Which, in this connexion, must present itself at first as a revelation of the divine
wrath against sin. Rom. i. 18.
X Hence, naturally, as among the Jews it was precisely their " following after the law
of righteousness, " diunelv vdpov diKatoavvyc, which was tlie cause of their not attaining
true righteousness, so among the heathen their " not following after," pij diuKelv was the
cause of their more easily attaining it. Rom. ix. 30, 31.

THE JEWS AND GENTILES. 405
sign-seeking, was opposed to faith in a crucified Redeemer, wl o had ap
peared in "the form of a servant." This revelation of the power of
God, where the sensuous man could perceive only weakness and ignominy,
must have been a stumbling-block to their sign-seeking minds, which
longed for a Messiah in visible earthly glory, as the founder of a visible
kingdom. Among the educated portion of the Greeks, on the contrary,
that one-sided tendency, which sought only for the satisfaction of a love
of knowledge in a new religion, — the one-sided predominance of specu
lation, the intellectual tendency — the tendency which Paul designated
wisdom-seeking and philosophical conceit — opposed faith in that preach
ing which did not begin with the solution of intellectual difficulties, but
with offering satisfaction to hearts that longed for the forgiveness of sin
and sanctification ; hence to this class of persons, the doctrine which did
not fulfil the expectations of their wisdom-seeking tendency, and de
manded the renunciation of their imaginary wisdom, must have ap
peared as foolishness ; 1 Cor. i. 22, 23.* Thus Paul said in reference to
the Greeks, 1 Cor. iii. 18, He who thinks himself wise, let him become
a fool, that he may be able to find true wisdom in the gospel ; and to
the Jews his mode of thought required that the same thing, with a change
of reference, should be said : He who esteems himself righteous must
first become in his own eyes a sinner, that he may find in the gospel true
righteousness. Thus must nations as well as individuals be brought,
through their own experience, to a sense of the insufficiency of their own
wisdom and righteousness, in order, by feeling their need of help, to be
in a suitable state for receiving that redemption which was prepared for
all mankind ; Rom. xi. 32. The whole history of mankind has redemp
tion for its object, and there are, according to the measure of the diver
sified stages of human development, diversified degrees of preparation ;
this is the central point to which the whole history of man tends, where
all the threads in the development of individual generations and nations
meet. According to this must be our understanding of what Paul says,
that God sent his Son into the world in the fulness of time, Gal. iv. 4, as
also of his language when he speaks, Eph. iii. 9, of the mystery of re
demption as hidden from eternity in God, and of the purpose which God
had before the world was, Eph. i. 4, and which was to be fulfilled in the
dispensation of the fulness of time, Eph. i. 10. In the divine counsels
he could not suppose there was a before and after ; but by this mode of
expression he marks the internal relation of the divine counsels and works
to each other, the actual establishment of the kingdom of God among
men by redemption, the final aim of the whole earthly creation by which
its destiny will first be completely fulfilled. This globe is created and
destined for the purpose of being the seat of the kingdom of God, of
being animated by the kingdom of God, the body of which the kingdom
of God is the soul. The end of all created existence is that it may con-
* See also pages 165, 19?

406 NECESSITY OF REDEMPTION.
tribute to the glory of God, or to reveal God in his glory. But in order
that this may be really accomplished, it must be with consciousness and
freedom, and these are qualities which can be found only in an assem
blage of rational beings. It is such an assemblage, therefore, which is
distinguished by the name of the kingdom of God ; and when the reason
of the creature has been brought by sin into a state of contrariety with
the end of its existence, redemption is a necessary condition of establish
ing the kingdom of God on this globe. If we bear in mind, what we
have before remarked in the Pauline connexion of ideas, the destination
of man to a development towards an imperishable life, the conception
also here naturally follows that, although tliere would have been no need
of redemption for man without sin, yet something was reserved for him
answering to the glorification of human nature through Christ.
Paul could not indeed have represented human nature under the
aspect of its need of redemption in this manner, if he had not been led
to the depths of self-knowledge by his own peculiar development. But
so far was he from mingling a foreign element with the doctrine of Christ,
that from his own experience he has drawn a picture which every man,
who like Paul has striven after holiness, must verify from his self-knowl
edge; it is a picture, too, the truth of which is presupposed by the per
sonal instructions of Christ, as we shall find by reading merely the first
three Gospels. We gather this, not so much from single expressions of
Christ respecting the constitution of human nature, as from the repre
sentations he gives of himself and of the work he had to accomplish in
relation to mankind.* When he compares Christianity to leaven which
is designed to leaven the whole mass into which it is cast, he intimates
the necessity of transforming human nature by a new higher element of
life which is infused into it by Christianity. Christ calls himself the
Physician of mankind ; he says that he came only for the sick, for sin
ners ; Matt. ix. 13 ; Luke v. 32. It is impossible that by such language
he could intend to divide men into two classes — the sick, those who were
burdened with sin, and who needed his aid; — and the righteous, those in
health and who needed not his assistance or could easily dispense with
it; for the persons in reference to whose objections he uttered this dec
laration, he would certainly have recognised least of all as righteous and
healthy. He means rather to say, that as he came only as si Physician
for the sick, as a Redeemer for sinners, he could only fulfil his mission in
the case of those who, conscious of disease and sin, were willing to re
ceive him as a Physician and Redeemer ; that he was come in vain for
those who would not acknowledge th.ir need of healing and redemption.
Christ, when he sketches the traits of chat moral ideal after which his dis
ciples are to aspire, never expresses his reliance on the moral capabilities
of human nature, on the powers of reason ;f he appeals rather to the
* That the work of Christ presupposes a condition of corruption and helplessness, is
acknowledged by De Wette in bis BMisclte Dogmatik, § 246.
f See Life of Christ, p. 104.

NECESSITY OF REDEMPTION. 407
consciousness of spiritual insufficiency, the sense of the need of illumina
tion by a higher divine light, of sanctification by the power of a divine
life, a need which he promises to satisfy. Hence in the so-called Sermon
on the Mount, he begins with pronouncing blessed such a tendency of
the disposition, since it will surely attain what it seeks ; compare Matt.
xi. 28. When Christ, Matt, xix., Luke xviii., at first enjoined on the rich
man who asked him what he must do to inherit eternal life, to "keep the
commandments," it is by no means inconsistent with wdiat Paul asserts
of the insufficiency of the works of the law for the attainment of salva
tion, but is identical with it, only under another form and aspect. Christ
wished to lead this individual, who according to the Jewish notions was
righteous, to a consciousness that outward conformity to the law by no
means involved the disposition that was required for participation in the
kingdom of God. The test of renouncing self and the world which he
imposed upon him, should have led hiin who was still entangled in the
love of earthly things, though from his youth he had lived in outward
conformity to the law, to feel that he was destitute of this disposition.
Nor can we, from the expressions in which children are represented as
models of the state of mind with which men hiust enter the kingdom of
God, Matt. xix. 14, Luke xviii. 16, infer the doctrine of the incorruption
of human nature,* partly because the point of comparison is only the sim
plicity and compliance of children, the consciousness of immaturity,! the
disclaiming of imaginary preeminence, the renunciation of prejudices ;
and partly because childhood is an age in which the tendency to sin is
less developed, J but the existence of such a tendency is by no means
denied. Still Christ could not have used these and similar expressions
(as in Matt, xviii. 10) in commendation of what existed in children as an
undeveloped bud, if he had not recognised in them a divine impress, a
slumbering, glimmering knowledge of God, which, when brought from
the first into communion with Christ, when carried back to its original,
should thereby be preserved from the reaction of the sinful principle. §
And the recognition of a something in human nature allied to the divine,
is implied in what Christ says of the eye of the spirit, of that which is
the light of the inner man, by the relation of which to the source of
light, the whole direction and complexion of the life is determined ; so
that, either by keeping up a connexion with its divine source, light is
spread over the life of man, or if the eye be darkened by the prevalence of a
* As Baumgarten Crusius appears to do in his Biblische Dogmatik, p. 362.
f See Life of Christ, p. 331. J
X On this account Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. 20, says "in malice be ye children," ry KaKta
vnirtu&Te. § The qualities which Christ attributes to childron, are entirely opposed to a harsh
Augustinian theology, and the gloomy view of life founded upon it, although this must bo
recogn'sed as relatively a necessary step in the development of the Christian life, in refer
ence to certain circumstances, aud as the root of important phenomena in the history of
the church.

408 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION.
worldly tendency, the whole life is involved in darkness.* But as we have
seen, Paul presupposes such an undeniable and partially illuminating know
ledge of God in human nature, and this assumption is supported by what
he says of the various degrees of moral development among mankind.
The idea of the need of redemption leads us to the Work of Redemp
tion accomplished by Christ. Paul distinguishes in the work of Christ,
the two factors of his Doing and his Suffering.
Adam and Christ, — the first and the second Man, — these are in Paul's
estimation the two poles on which the history of the world turns. As
from the one proceeded sin and death, so from the other, righteousness
and eternal life. As the one was the progenitor of the earthly humanity
laden with sin and subject to death, so ihe other was the creator of an
exalted humanity, formed altogether according to his image. As Adam
was the representative of the whole of the human race who were de
scended from him, so is Christ the representative of the whole, as far as
they are willing to enter into communion with him. And now there are
two important points to be distinguished in the life of Christ ; one is, his
appropriating to himself human nature as subject to sin and death ; the
other, his revealing it in his divine life, and perft-clly realizing in it the
law of holiness. In both these respects he has rendered satisfaction to
the law, enduring wdiat it threatened to sinful humanity fallen under its
sentence of condemnation, and fulfilling what it required of that human
ity. In both respects, Christ appears as the representative of the whole
of mankind, and has conducted himself as such in his suffering and act
ing; all who belong to him, and, as belonging to hiin, wish to appear be
fore God, must appropriate what he has done and suffered for them.
With a reference to these two distinguishing points, the Doing and the
Suff-ring of Christ, we wish now to consider more attentively Paul's ex
pressions respecting the work of Christ.
In reference to the former, Paul says in Rom. viii. 3, that what was
impossible to the law, what it was unable to effect, owing to the predom
inant sinfulness in human nature, (namely, to destroy the reign of sin in
human nature, which the law aimed to effect by its holy commands,) was
accomplished by God, when he sent his son into the world in such a hu
man nature as was in all respects like to that which hitherto had been
under the dominion of sin, and when he condemned sin, that is, de
spoiled of its power and supremacy, and manifested its powerless-
ness in that human nature, over which it had before reigned, in
order that the requirements of the law might be fulfilled in be
lievers, as those whose lives were governed, not by sinful desire, but
by the Spirit, the divine vital principle of the Spirit that proceeded
from Christ.f Paul does not here speak of any particular point in the
* See Life of Christ, p. 106.
t The other interpretation of this passage, according to which it means that Christ bore
for men the punishment attached to sin by the law, appears to me not, to bu favored by the
context, for it is most natural to refer " the law could not do," ddvvarov rov vouov id

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION. 409
life of Christ, but contemplates it as a whole, by which the perfect holi
ness required by the law was realized. Thus the reign of holiness iu
human nature succeeds to the reign of sin, the latter is now destroyed
and the former established objectively in human nature ; and from this
objective foundation its continued development proceeds. And in no
other way can the human race be brought to fulfil their destiny, the real
ization of the kingdom of God, which cannot proceed from sin and
estrangement from God, but must take its commencement from a per
fectly holy life, presenting a perfect union of the divine and the human.
The Spirit of Christ, from wdiich this realization of the ideal of holiness
proceeded in his own life, is also the same by which the life of believers,
who are received into his fellowship, is continually formed according to
this Archetype. In Rom. v. 18, Paul opposes to the one sin of Adam the one
holy work (the ev SiKaicopa) of Christ. And if, induced by the contrast
to the one sin of Adam, he had in view one act especially of Christ, the
offering up of himself, as an act of love to God and man, and of volun
tary obedience to God, still this single act, even according to Paul's state
ment, ought not to be considered as something isolated, but as the clos
ing scene in harmony with the whole, by which he completed the real
ization of the ideal of holiness in human nature, and banished sin from
it. Since he, in the method of his polemic against the Jewish doctrine
of the desert of good works, always opposed himself so expressly to the
isolated, external, quantitative, moral estimate, so could he certainly from
this position contemplate every particular iu the life of Christ only in
connexion with the holy mind which animated his whole life. In this
view, indeed, the whole life of Christ may be considered as one holy work.
As by one sin, the first by wdiich a commencement was made of a sinful
life iu the human race, sin, and with sin condemnation and death,
spread among all mankind ; so from this one holy life of Christ, holiness
and a life of eternal happiness resulted for all mankind. This holy life
of Christ, God would consider as the act of the human race, but it can
only be realized iu those who, by an act of free self-deterniinaiion, appro
priate this work accomplished for a I, and by this surrender of themselves
enter through Christ into a new relation with God ; those who through
faith are released from the connexion with the life of sin propagated from
Adam, and enter into the fellowship of a holy life with Christ. Since
they are thus in union with Christ, in the fellowship of his Spirit, for his
sake are presented as "just," (YiKaioi, before God, they share in all that
is indissolully connected with the holiness of Christ, and in his eternally
blessed lile, which belongs in like manner to them. In this sense, Paul
says that from the one "justification," SiKaiwpa, of Christ, objective " jus-
the first clause to the "condemned sin," KareKpive tt)v dpapriav, in the last But this
will not suit, if we take the first in the sense of condemning and punishing, for it was pre
cisely this which the law could do; but to condemn sin in the sense in which the word is
used in John xvi. 11, aud xii. 31, the law was prevented from doing by the opposition of
the " flesh."

410 TnE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.
tification," ducaiumg, and the consequent title to "life," far), comes
upon all (Rom. v. 18) ; that by the obedience of one many shall be
made righteous (v. 19) ; in which latter passage, he probably blends the
objective and the subjective— the objective imputation of the ideal of
holiness realized by Christ, founded iu the divine counsels, or the manner
in which the human race appear in the divine sight — and the consequent
subjective realization, gradually developed, which proceeds from faith.
With respect to the second point, the sufferings of Christ as such,
we find it (not to mention other passages where this idea forms the
basis) distinctly stated iu two places. In Gal. iii. 13, after the apostle
had suid that the law only passed sentence of condemnation upon men
who had shown that they were guilty of violating it, he adds, that Christ
has freed them from this condemnation, since on their account and in
their stead* he had borne this condemnation, by suffering the punish
ment of the cross as a person accursed by the law. The condemnation
of the law weighed, according to the external appearance, upon him who
yet was perfectly free from its ban, who hud rendered perfect satisfaction
to its moral requirements. We have already intimated above, how these
words, though spoken more immediately in reference to the Jews, have
yet at the same time a general significancy reaching to the whole human
race. The second passage is 2 Cor. v. 21 . Him who knew no sin, the sin
less one, God has made sin for our sakes ; that is, putting the abstract
for the concrete, he has made him a sinner, he has allowed him to appear
as a sufferer on account of sin, that we might become through him the
righteousness of God, that is, such as may appear before God as right
eous ; that, therefore, as Christ, the Holy One, entered by his sufferings
into the fellowship of our guilt, so we sinners enter into the fellowship
of his holiness.
In accordance with these views, Paul divided the life of Christ into
two parts. At first, Christ presented himself as a weak mortal, although
conscious of possessing a divine nature and dignity, submitting to all
the wants and limitations of earthly humanity, partaking of all those
evils wdiich affect human nature in connexion with sin, and as the punish
ment of sin, so that in his outward appearance and condition he placed
himself entirely on a level with men suffering on account of sin. The
consummation of this state was the crucifixion, as the consummation of
the misery entailed by sin is in death. The second part, was the life of
Christ risen and glorified, in which his unchangeable divine and blessed
life reveals itself in perfection, corresponding to that perfect holiness
which he manifested on earth — for as sin and dentil, so are sinlessness
and a life of eternal blessedness correlative ideas in Paul's writings ; and
as in Christ's risen and glorified humanity, that divine, eternal, blessed
life is presented which corresponds to perfect holiness, so it is a practical
proof that he, in the earlier portion of his life, fulfilled the law of holiness
* Both those ideas may be Included in the " for us," birip i)puv.

Christ's humiliation and glorification. 411
in and for human nature, and, by enduring the sufferings incurred
through sin, effected the release of mankind from guilt and punish
ment, and has assured to them eternal life, which will be communicated
to all who enter into fellowship with him by faith. Thus it is declared
in 2 Cor. xiii. 4, that though Christ was crucified owing to human weak
ness, (the crucifixion was the closing point of his life in the participation
of human weakness) yet since his resurrection, he enjoys a life of divine
power without any mixture of human weakness. In Rom. vi. 10, the
death of Christ is spoken of as bearing a relation to sin — as an event
which, but for sin, would not have taken place, and had for its only ob
ject the blotting out of sin ; and that having perfectly attained that end,
it was not to be repeated. The earthly life and sufferings of Christ bear
a relation to sin, as being the means of redeeming the human race from
it. But now the risen and glorified Saviour, having once completed the
redemption of human nature, is separated from all relation to sin and the
evils connected with it, and, exalted above all conflicts and earthly weak
ness, lives in divine power and blessedness, to the glory of God. He no
longer endures the sufferings to which human nature became subject by
sin, and he needs to perforin nothing more for the extinction of sin ; his
work has been completed once for all. There remains only his positive
operation for the glory of God, without the negative reference to the
extinction of sin, since this was no longer needed. Conscious of his
divinity, he did not eagerly retain (Phil. ii. 6) equality with God for the
mere exhibition* of it, but divested himself of the divine glory which
appertained to hiin, presented himself in the form of human dependence,
bumbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the ignominious
death of the cross. Wherefore — on account of this perfect obedience
rendered under all human weakness and suffering — God has exalted him
to the highest dignity and rule in the kingdom of God. In accordance
with this train of ideas is Rom. iv. 25, where, as the self-offering of Christ
is represented as occurring on account of sin, so his resurrection is ad
duced as a practical evidence of the freedom from sin and the justification
bestowed by him, by virtue of the connexion existing, not only between
sin and death, but between righteousness and eternal life. And in refer
ence to the importance of the resurrection of Christ, as an objective
proof of the release of human nature from the guilt of sin and the death
that it involved, the apostle says in 1 Cor. xv. 17, "If Christ be not
risen, ye are yet in your sins." From this connexion of ideas it follows,
that the sufferings of Christ must be always considered in union with
his whole life, and as the close and consummation of it; and with a two-
* An illustration of Paul's language may be found in an Epistle of Constantine, relat
ing to some Christians who eagerly seized on an unexpected opportunity of returning from
exile to their native country: Otov dpiraypd rt ri/v iwdvodov iroiyadpevot, Euseb. de Vita
Constan. ii. 31; and the words of Euseb. himself. Hist. Eccles. viii. 12, respecting those who
preferred death rather than surrender themselves to the heathen : Tov Buvarov dpiraypa
Dipevot rye rdiv dvooejiuv poxByplac.

412 SUFFETINGS AND RESURRECTION OP CHRIST.
fold reference, which, according to the Pauline doctrine, they bear to the
completion of the work of redemption, namely, the appropriation of
human guilt, by entering into the suffering condition of man— and the
perfect realization of the moral law. And therefore, when Paul speaks
of what Christ effected by his blood, his cross, or other means, one
single point which forms the consummation and close of the whole
stands for that whole, according to a mode of expression common to
the sacred writers, since the whole, in its full significance, can be under
stood only in connexion with that simple point.
As the result of this work of Christ for sinful mankind, Paul specifies
Reconciliation with God, Redemption, Justification. With respect to the
idea of Reconciliation, it cannot have been conceived by Paul as if men
had been objects of the divine wrath and hatred, till Christ appeasing
the divine justice by his sufferings, by his intervention on earth, reconciled
an offended God to mankind, and made them again the objects of his
love ; for the plan of redemption presupposes the love of God towards
the race that needed redemption, and Paul considers the sending of
Christ, and his living and suffering for mankind, as the revelation of the
superabounding love and grace of God ; Eph. iii. 19 ; Titus iii. 4 ; Rom.
v. 8 ; viii. 32. And this counsel of God's love he represents as eternal,
so that the notion of an influence on God produced in time falls to the
ground, since the whole life and sufferings of Christ were only the com
pletion of the eternal counsel of divine love. Therefore Paid never says,
that God being hostile to men, became reconciled to them through Christ,
but that men who were the enemies of God became reconciled to him ;
Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18.* Thus he calls on men to be reconciled to
God; 2 Cor. v. '20. The obstacle exisis on the side of men, and owing
to this they do not receive the revelation of the love of God into their
self-consciousness ; and since by the redeeming work of Christ this ob
stacle is taken away, it is said of him that he has reconciled man to God,
and made him an object of divine love.
But now from what has been said, we may attach merely a subjective
meaning to reconciliation ; and the ideas presupposed by it of enmity
with God and of God's wrath may appear to be only indications of sub
jective relations, in which man finds himself in a certain state of disposi
tion towards God — indications of the way and manner in which God
presents himself to the conscience of a man estranged from him by sin,
or .the form in wdiich the knowledge of God must develop itself in con-
* If we only reflect upon the connexion of the objective and the subjective in the doc
trine of Paul respecting the reconciliation of men with God, it will easily appear that this
passage is not chargeable with that want of logical connexion r.nd clearness of conception,
which one of the most noted expositor of the Pauline Epistles— Riickert, — fancied that he
found in it; the love of truth has, however, led this estimable man to a more correct view,
and in the last edition of his able Commentary on the Romans, he has improved his analy
sis. See tho remarks made, further on, on this connexion betwaen the objective and the
subjective iu reconciliation.

PAULINE IDEA OF RECONCILIATION. 413
nexion with the consciousness of guilt. Thus by the term reconciliation
only such an influence on the disposition of man may be denoted, as
that by which it is delivered from its former state, and placed in another
relation towards God. Since Christ by his whole life, by his words and
works, and especially by his participation in the sufferings of humanity,
and by his sufferings for men, has revealed God's love towards those who
must have felt themselves estranged from him by sin — and has exhibited
his sufferings as a pledge of the forgiving love of God, and his resurrec
tion as a pledge of the eternal life destined for them, — thus he has kin
dled a reciprocal love and childlike confidence towards God in the souls
of those who were unable to free themselves from the state of disquiet
ude of conscience which was produced by the consciousness of guilt.
The reconciliation of man to God (according to this view) consists in no
thing else than the alteration of the disposition, arising from the revelation
of God's love towards fallen humanity, of those who may have received
this revelation into their self-consciousness. Still it is supposed that the
reconciliation of man to God is not the result of any amendment on the
part of the former, but the amendment is the result of the reconciliation,
since, through the new determination of the self-consciousness by means
of love and confidence towards God, an altogether new direction of the
life towards God and away from sin, the source of all true amendment
is produced. According to this view also, it is presupposed that man,
who feels himself estranged from God by sin, finds in himself no ground
of confidence towards God, and requires an objective ground, a practical
revelation to which his own self-consciousness can attach itself, in order
to excite and support his confidence. This latter is, without doubt, a
leading point of the Pauline system, as it is of the doctrine of the New
Testament in general. All the exhortations and encouragements of the
apostle proceed continually from a reference to the practical revelation
of God's redeeming love. Nor can it be a valid objection, on the other
hand, that Paul, in 2 Cor. v. 20, addressing those who were already
believers, and calling on them to be reconciled to God, meant that by
amendment they entered into a new relation to God, and were brought
out of their former state of enmity ; for it makes here no difference
whether Paul is speaking to those who had already professed Christian
ity, or to those with whom this was not the case. In every case, accord
ing to his conceptions, the believing appropriation of the reconciliation
of man with God* effected through Christ, was accompanied by a new
direction of the life, and where this did not ensue, it was a sign that the
believing appropriation had not taken place, and the man was still desti
tute of that reconciliation with God from which amendment proceeds.
In that very passage,Paul does not say, Amend yourselves in order that
you may be reconciled to God; but rather, Let not the grace of recon
ciliation ajipear to be in vain for you, as if you had not appropriated it,
* This is distinctly marked by his exhortation "be ye reconciled," KaraWayyre.

414 PAULINE IDEA OF RECONCILIATION.
By Christ's offering up his life for man estranged from God, man is ob<
jectively reconciled to God. God has removed that which made the
separation between himself and man. But what has been objectively
accomplished for all mankind, must now be appropriated by each indi
vidual and thus become subjective. Hence, according to these different
points of view, Paul could say — " Be ye reconciled (subjectively) to God,"
and " We are reconciled [objectively) to God by the death of his Son ;"
Rom. v. 10.
But as respects that view, in conformity to which the life and suffer
ings of Christ are considered merely as a manifestation of God's love,
and the reconciliation effected by him as the subjective influence of this
manifestation on the human heart, it is by no means exhaustive of the
meaning of the Pauline declarations already quoted respecting the re
demption of Christ. And although the gross anlhropopathical notion of
God's reconciliation with man, is evidently inconsistent with Paul's train
of ideas, it does not follow, that by the word reconciliation, only a
subjective change in the disposition of man is denoted, for we are by no
means justified in explaining the correlative idea of enmity against God,
viz., a wrath of God, merely as subjective, and, among the various desig-
reality merely in the idea of the love of God. On the contrary, the com
mon fact of human consciousness, according to which a man addicted to
sin feels himself estranged from God, and cannot get rid of the feeling
of his guilt and ill-deserts, reveals to us a deeper objective ground in the
moral constitution of the universe and in the essence of God, which
through this moral constitution reveals itself to us. In this universal
fact, we have a witness of the revelation of God's holiness in the con
sciousness of mankind, which is as undeniable as the revelation of his
love. By the " wrath of God" though in an anthropopathical form,
something objective and real is signified, which is not fully expressed by
the idea of punishment, but includes what is the ground of all punish
ment, (on which account this phrase, "the wrath of God," is sometimes
used to express merely punishment,) the ground of the necessary con
nexion b-tween sin and evil, the absolute contrariety existing between
God, as the Holy One, and sin.* God recognises evil as evil, as that which
stands in contrariety to his holiness, rebels against him and his holy order,
and would exist independent of him. This mode in which God recog
nises evil, is also a sentence of condemnation upon it, and therein are
grounded its powerlessness and wretchedness. Evil is denied, if con
ceived of as something non-existent to the mind of God, a conception,
morever, which consistently agrees only with an idea of God wholly
different from the biblical one, with a mode of thought by which the idea
of the Absolute is put in the place of the idea of the Livino- God.
As now this unhappy relation of man to God is grounded in the
* Compare Twesten's Dogmatik, IL i., p. 146.

ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 415
divine holiness, so also can his freedom from this relation be obtained only
in a way answering to the laws of the Divine holiness. The work pro
ceeds only from the compassionate love of God to the fallen ; but love
acts in harmony with the holiness of God as holy love, revealing itself in
the work of redemption. This connexion is specially pointed out by
Paul in Rom. iii. 25. In this passage, he contrasts the revelation of God's
holiness at that time by the publication of the gospel, and the non-pun
ishment of past sins before the appearance of the gospel. By the " re
mission of sins," irdpeaig twv dpaprnpaTtov, and the "forbearance of
God," dvoxr] tov Beov, he understands the manner in which the conduct
of God appeared to exhibit itself in reference to sin before the publica
tion of the gospel, especially towards the heathen world, which knevv
nothing of the Old Testament revelations of the holiness of God in op
position to sin, and also towards the Jews, who, notwithstanding these
testimonies,by the delay of the final divine judgments for their sins, instead
of interpreting the long-suffering of God as a call to repentance, were sunk
in carnal security. We may compare with this, Paul's language in Acts
xvii. 30, speaking of the times of ignorance that God had overlooked;
though this is to be understood only relatively, in reference to the
different stages of historical development, for Paul recognised, as we
have already shown, in the moral nature of the heathen, a revelation of
the divine law, of the divine holiness and punitive justice. But under
their peculiar circumstances, there was, from a kind of necessity, a general
obscuration of that religious and moral knowledge by which their think
ing and acting was regulated. This induced on the part of God a pass
ing over, a non-imputation of offences ; since the reckoning taken of
transgressions is also determined by the measure of the possible knowl
edge of the law; Rom. v. 13.* Thus there may be a chargeableness
and a non-chargeableness under different aspects, by which the apparent
contradictions in Paul's language may be reconciled.
Paul in Rom. iii. 25, declares in general, that for both the Jews and
heathens a revelation of the divine wrath must precede the revelation of
the grace that forgives sin. The ixdpEatg\ denotes only what was nega
tive and temporary, the non-punishment of past sins on the part of God, J
so that the sense of the guilt of sin is not presupposed, and the removal
of that sense is not effected. The arpeaig, on the other hand, denotes, ob
jectively, that act of God by which sin is really forgiven, that is, is con
sidered in relation to God and the moral constitution of the universe as
not existing ; and, subjectively, that operation in the heart of man by
which it is really freed from the consciousness of guilt. This means far
* See page 402.
¦j- irdpeate and dtpeaic are both rendered "remission" in our English version; but the
former denotes rather pretermission or passing by, and the latter strictly remission or for
giveness — Ed.
X In scholastic language, irdpeate may be referred to the volun'as- signi, (will as reveal
ed,) and dpea.r u> the voluntas beneplaciti, (wdl as immanent.)

418 THE DIVINE HOLINESS REVEALED.
more than the non-punishment of sin during a certain period. In those
to whom this act of God relates, the consciousness of guilt and of divine
wrath, 6py?7, the subjective revelation of the divine punitive justice, is
presupposed ; and the operation that takes place in their dispositions
necessarily implies forsaking a life of sin, and the renunciation of all fel
lowship with sin. According to the connexion of ideas in Paul's mind,
we are led to view the subject as follows : in contrast with that former
apparent overlooking of sin on the part of God, the holiness of God
is at this time manifested by his openly exhibiting Christ, through his
offering up of himself, as a reconciler or sin-offering for the sins of man
kind, so that he verifies himself as the Holy One, and permits every one
to appear before him as holy,* who shows that he is in fellowship with
Christ by faith. The holiness of God manifests itself (according to the
Pauline connexion of ideas already noticed) in the life and death of Christ
in a twofold manner. First, inasmuch as he completely realized (in
opposition to sin which had hitherto been predominant in human nature)
that holy law to which the life of man was designed to correspond, —
made satisfi iction to the moral order of the universe and the honor of
God, and glorified God in that nature which was originally designed to
glorify him. God has verified himself as the Holy One, since he forgives
sin only on the condition of the perfect fulfilment of the law ; he has
shown that he remits nothing from the requirements of perfect holiness,
and we always bear in mind that this remission, to those who through it
obtained justification, is not a mere outward act, but becomes in all the
cause and pledge of the complete fulfilment of the law. Secondly, inas
much as Christ, as perfectly holy, underwent those sufferings which the
divine holiness, considered as punitive justice f in its opposition against
sin, had suspended over human nature. We' are not to conceive of this,
* That we ought not to translate d'tKaioc righteous, but holy, appears from that meaning
of this word which lies at the basis of dtKaiovv, to declare a person diicatoc.
\ That divine attribute which reveals itself in the necessary connexion of sin and evil,
is founded in the reaction of the holiness of God against sin (= the wrath of God), and ex
hibits itself in the reaction of the moral order of the universe against wickedness, whence pun
ishment proceeds. To conceive of punishment as merely reformatory, and to suppose such
a conception to be exhaustive of its meaning, is to degrade rational creatures and to regard
morality as a purely mechanical production. But if punishment is viewed at first as a
revelation of the divine justice, as an objective reaction of the moral order of the universe
against evil, another mode of viewing it also presents itself, according to which the pun
ishment, necessary in itself, is appointed by the love of God, in order, since punishment and
sin stand in this internal connexion with one another, to lead thereby to a consciousness
of sin and guilt, to make rational creatures sensible of the relation they staud in to the
moral world, and thus to call forth tho feeling of the need of redemption. The self-will
which rebels, in sin, against the moral order of the universe and God's holy law, must be
humbled, by suffering, before the holy omnipotence of God and the majesty of the moral
order of the universe and of law. Where submission is not yielded freely, it will be compelled.
"Without the idea of punishment, the reality of evil and the dignity of rational crealures
cannot be acknowledged. It belongs to the privileges of rational beings created in the like
ness of God, and distinguishes them from other existences in nature, that the idea of pun-

THE IDEAS OF AnOAYTPflSIS, MITHPIA. 417
as if God arbitrarily imposed these sufferings, or Christ had arbitrarily
subjected himself to them; but that it was naturally grounded on the
assumption of human nature in its present condition and relation to God
•—as the divine punitive justice revealed itself to them who were suffer
ing the consequences of sin — and thus it was accomplished through the
historical development of the life of Christ devoted to conflict with the
sin that reigned in the human race, and through his condescending to
their condition from the sympathy of love.*
With the idea of reconciliation, the ideas of "redemption," "salva
tion," "justification," ditoXvTpuotg, atorrjpia, SiKaiuatg, are closely con
nected. The two first terms are used in a wider and a narrower sense ;
they denote the deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sin, the
" salvation from wrath," aurnpia dirb rfjg dpyrjg, the original, negative
moment, with which also the positive is necessarily given, Rom. v. 9,
first objectively as what has been gained by Christ for the human race ;
and then subjeciively, what is effectuated by progressive development in
each individual by personal appropriation, from his first entrance into
fellowship with the Redeemer to the complete participation in the Re
deemer's glory and blessedness in the perfected kingdom of God ; but
more especially what belongs to the perfect realization of the last idea,
the complete freedom from sin and all its consequences, from all evil
both natural and moral. f
With respect to the idea of Justification, in order to determine it,
we must refer to what we have already remarked on the Pauline opposi
tion to the common Jewish notion of righteousness; (see p. 383.) He
sets out from the same point as his adversaries, as far as he considers the
participation in all the privileges and blessings of the kingdom of God
mdissolubly connected with " righteousness," the genuine theocratic
disposition and condition of life. Therefore the correlative idea of
ishment finds its application in them. See the excellent remarks of Twesten, in his
Dogmalik, If. i. p. 1-18.
* The Pauline view of the work of redemption finds its point of connexion with Christ's
words in the first Gospels, in Matt. xx. 28, whether wo consider "ransom," Avrpov, as a
sum paid for release from captivity or slavery, or for redemption from deserved punish
ment; also in the institution of the Holy Supper, (in which he evidently alluded to the
connection between the Passover and the establishment of the Old Covenant,) which by
the offering of himself to obtain and confirm the forgiveness of sins to mankind, marked
the establishment of the New Covenant. The Pauline views are also supported by the
manner in which Christ adopts the ideas of the wrath of God and of punitive justice from
the Old Testament, without casting a doubt ou their validity. The parable of the Lost
Son, and other expressions which relate to forgiving love, offer no contradiction, but mark
precisely the side on which God reveals himself in the work of redemption, and what,
humanly speaking, could be the only motive to such an act of God towards a race es
tranged from him by sin ; they do not, however, determine the manner in which the result
designed by divine love is to be attained; the form and order followed by the compassion
ate love of God, for the love of God acts only as a holy and righteous love.
\ diro'Avrpuoie is found in the latter sense in Rom. viii. 23 ; Eph. i. 14; and aurypia
in the latter sense n Rom. xiii. 11; 1 Peter i. 5.

418 THE IDEA OF AIKAIflSIS.
righteousness in this sense was blessedness, the participation of the bless
ings promised through Abraham to all his posterity, the fulfilment of
all the promises relating to the kingdom of God, all the privileges of the
children of God ; and an entrance into all the relations in which they
stand to God. But Paul maintained against the Jews and Judaizers,
that by ihe law and the working of the law, no one could attain this
"righteousness," diKaioavvn, could present himself as "righteous,"
fiiKatog, before God, and enter into the relation with God founded
upon it ; but that every man appears as a sinner in God's sight, till en
tering by f.iitli into fellowship with Christ (the only perfect diitatog by
whom mankind are delivered, in the wray that we have described, from
the state of dpapria), he presents himself in union with Christ (ev Xp«-
ctio) as " righteous" before God, and enters into the entire relation with
God implied in this predicate, is viewed by God as " righteous," and
established in all the privileges connected with this idea (diKaiovrai).
Consequently, Paul includes in the idea of "justification," SiKaiuoig, that
act of G"d, bv which he places the believer in Christ in the relation to
himself of a righteous person, notwithstanding the sin that still cleaves
to him. Righteousness denotes, then, the subjective appropriation of
this relation, the appearing righteous before God, by virtue of faith in
the Redeemer, and also the whole new tendency and aim of life insepara
ble from fa'th, as well as that, whole new relation to God now received
into the consciousness, which is also necessarily connected with faith ; the
righteousness or perfect holiness of Christ appropriated by faith, as the
objective ground of confidence for the believer, and also as a new sub
jective principle of life. Thus the righteousness of faith in the Pauline
sense includes the essence of a new disposition ; and hence the idea of
righteousness may easily pass into the idea of holiness, though the two
ideas are originally distinct. Accordingly, it is not any arbitrary act on
the part of God, as if he regarded and treated as sinless a man pers' sting
in sin, simply because he believes in Christ; but the objective on the part
of God, corresponds to the subjective on the part of man, namelv, faith,
and this necessarily includes in itself a release from the state inherited
f om Adam, from the whole life of sin, and the entrance into spiritual fel
lowship with the Redeemer, the appropriation of his divine life. As the
realization of the archetype of holiness through Christ, contains the
ph-dge thai this shall be realized in all those who are one with him by
faith, and are become the organs of his Spirit; so ils germ and principle
are already imparted to them in believing, although the fruit of a life
perfectly conformed to the Redeemer, can only be developed gradually
in its temporal manifestation. What conies gradually to pass in time,
appeu-s to the e\ e which is not shut in by the limits of time as some
thing already completed ; all that in the beginning lies in the germ and
the principle, all that will proceed thence, is presented as already pres
ent. The connexion of these ideas will be rendered clearer by develop
ing the Pauline idea of faith.

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 419
What Paul distinguished by the name of Faith, has its root in the
depths of the human heart. It presupposes a revelation of God in a
direct relation to man, and faith is the reception and vital appropriation
of this divine revelation by virtue of a receptivity for the divine in the
human disposition, of a tendency grounded in human nature and the
need implanted in it for believing in the supernatural and divine, without
which tendency and need, man, however his other faculties might be cul
tivated, would be no more than an intelligent animal* Something must
be presented as an object of knowledge, but this object must be of a
kind that can be correctly recognised and understood only by the dis
position ; it presupposes a certain tendency of the disposition, in order to
be known and understood, while it also tends to produce a decided and
enduring tendency of the disposition. An inward self-determination of
the spirit, grounded in the direction of the will, is claimed by this object,
while a new and constant self-determination is produced by it.
It is not in reference to the object of faith, but to the inward sub
jective significance of this act of the inner man, as that which forms the
characteristic of true piety in all ages, that Paul compares the faith of
Abraham with the faith of Christians, Rom. iv. 19, ff, where he exhibits
Abraham as a pattern of the righteousness of faith. When Abraham
received a promise from God, of which the fulfilment, seemed to be in
compatible with the natural cder of things, he raised himself by an act
of faith above this impediment, and the word of the Almighty which
held forth something invisible, had greater influence upon him than that
order of nature wdiich presented itself to his understanding and bodily
senses. Hence this faith, as a practical acknowledgment of God in his
almighty creative activity, which no law of nature binds, and as a refer
ence of his whole life to the sense of his dependence on God, was a true
honoring of God :f and it was this faith which gave its peculiar signifi
cance and character to the life of Abraham. This faith, says Paul, was
counted to him by God for righteousness ; that is, although Abraham
was not sinless, (as no man is), yet through this tendency of his inward
life by virtue of his faith, he entered into the relation to God of a right
eous man ; and this was no arbitrary, nominal act on the part of God,
but his faith was viewed by God, to whom the inward soul of man is
manifest, as a state of the moral disposition by which Abraham became
susceptible of all divine communications, and from which alone the
sanctification of his whole life could proceed. J
It is evident that Paul attaches no foreign meaning to the passage in
Gen. xv. C, but only from the special case develops a general idea con-
* A state to which the intellectual fanaticism of a party in the present age, zealous
for the pretended autonomy of reason, seeks to degrade man.
f A " giving glory to God," dtdbvat ciofrcv tu Beu. Rom. iv. 20.
X The " therefore," dtb, in Romans iv. 22, points to this connexion. Wherefore, ag
faith includes all this, as the apostle had before explained, it was imputed to Abraham ag
"righteousness," diKatoavvy, as if the dtKaioavvy had already been completed by it.

420 ABRAHAM AN EXAMPLE OF FAITH.
triced in it, a general law lying at its base. It is the law, on which,
for the right relation of man to God, in the surrender of the soul to him
through faith everything depends. This inward act of the spirit by which
the whole direction of the life is determined toward God and from God,
Paul presents in opposition to the religious externality of Jewish concep
tions, which would, even in reference to Abraham's position in the The
ocracy, lay the greatest stress on the work or external rite of circum
cision. The meaning also of the Old Testament passage is no other than '
this, that God accepted the Faith, the believing confidence of Abraham,
as a proof of the right state of his disposition, — regarded him on account
of it as " righteous," p*-a, and established him in the whole relation that
was founded on it. Paul lays a stress upon the fact that it was so im
puted to him by God, and he thus presupposes what he might as a
general truth, that Abraham was as little as ever a sinless and, iu that
sense, a righteous man, and hence he concludes that what was wanting to
him in subjective righteousness would be compensated by the faith which
so availed before God, that he, on account of it, was treated as a righ
teous man. He also distinguishes expressly (following the historical
references) the object of faith in Abraham, Rom. iv. 18, from what is the
object of faith in Christians, but also brings forward the analogy between
the two. The faith of Abraham had relation to the divine omnipotence
in raising the dead to a new life, and in granting a numerous posterity to
one who was past age ; the faith of Christians has relation to what also
is opposed to sensible appearances — that a man laden with sins should
appear before God as righteous, that the spiritually dead are awakened
to a new life, and as a pledge of this, something which also can only be
au object of faith, namely, that act of the divine omnipotence by which
Christ who died for the sins of the world has been raised to a life exalted
above all death.
As respects the peculiarity of Christian faith, this presupposes the
consciousness of sin, the renunciation of any merits of our own before
God, the longing after freedom from the dominion of sin, and our not
yielding to despair even under the most vivid sense of sinfulness,* but
confiding in the grace of redemption; thus tliere is an entrance into
communion with the Redeemer, and a new principle of life is received
which more and more penetrates and transforms the whole old nature.
As far as faith includes entering into vital fellowship with the Re
deemer, and forsaking the old life of sin, it bears a special reference to
the two chief points in which Christ presents himself as Redeemer, as the
one who died for the salvation of men, and who also by his resurrection
gives assurance of an eternal divine life: hence the two-fold reference of
faith to Jesus the Crucified aud the Risen, the negative and positive side
of faith in relation to the old life which it renounces, and to the new life
which it lays hold of; it is the spiritual act by virtue of which, in sur-
* In this respect, a iriareieiv trap' lAiriia kir' lAiridi. Rom. iv. 18.

FAITH IN A CRUCIFIED AND EISEN SAVIOUR. 421
rendering ourselves to him who died for us, we die to a life of sin, to the
world, to ourselves, to all which we were before, — whether we were Jews
or Gentiles — and rise again in his fellowship, in the power of his Spirit,
to a new life devoted only to him and animated by him. Hence it ap
peared to the apostle, as he develops the sentiment in the sixth chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, an absolute contradiction for any one to
say that he believed in the Redeemer and yet to continue in his old life
of sin. How shall we — he asks — we who (by the act of faith) are dead
to sin, live any longer therein? And he demonstrates from the nature
of faith in its reference to the death and resurrection of Christ, that faith
cannot exist without a renunciation of the former sinful life and the
beginning of a new divine life.
From the nature of faith as the governing principle of the Christian
life, arises the peculiarity of Christianity in its relation to Judaism as
a system of Legalism ; and the various indications of this contrariety
serve more distinctly to characterise the nature of faith as the funda
mental principle of the Christian life, on which account we wish to
consider the subject more in detail.
The law always presents itself as imperative, and makes the salva
tion of men dependent on the perfect fulfilment of all its commands.
" Do all this, and thou shalt live."* But since no one can fulfil these
conditions, the law can only produce despair. But the gospel addresses
the man who despairs of himself : Do not give thyself up to the feeling
of despair. Ask notf how thou canst make the impossible, possible. Thou
needest only to receive the salvation prepared for thee ; only believe,
and thou hast with thy faith all that is needful for thy inward life. Paul
* Here also we must distinguish between the literal meaning of the words, in their
direct historical reference, and the general idea lying at their basis; likewise between tho
vdpoc as an external theocratic State-law, and the vbpoe according to its internal meaning
as an expression in a, particular form of the eternal moral law, the law for the universal
kingdom of God both in the letter and spirit. In the one case, we speak of the com
mands of the State-law as such, which the oitizens are really able to fulfil, and the living
happily in the earthly Theocracy is made dependent on such fulfilment ; in the other case,
we speak of the fulfilling of the moral law, the internal theocratic law, to which satisfac
tion can be given by nothing less than universal, unconditional obedience, and the endless
life of blessedness in the universal kingdom of God which is made dependent on such an
obedience. This is a condition which no man in the present state is able to fulfiL
t That interpretation of this passage, Rom. x. 5-10, which supposes it to express the
opposition between Belief and Doubt, appears to me to be opposed by the connexion,
which leads us to expect a contrast of the righteousness by faith with the righteousness
by works, the Beov dtKatoavvy with the Idia in verse 3 ; lo be opposed by the meaning
of the phrase " that is," rour' iari, in verse 6, which, from comparing Rom. ix. 8, and
other similar Pauline expressions, must be understood as — " this is equivalent to say
ing;'' and lo be opposed, furthermore, by the relation of the Pauline words to the Old
Testament quotation, since, according to the interpretation we have adopted, the Pauline
application admirably suits, in spirit and ideas, the meaning of the Mosaic words, which is
not the case with the other interpretation.

422 THE GOSPEL CONTRASTED WITH THE LAW.
admirably illustrates this by applying to it the passage in Deut.xxx.l 2*
Say not to thyself, Who shall ascend to heaven and prepare a path for
me thither? For Christ has descended from heaven and has prepared
such a path. To ask such a question, is to desire that Christ would
descend again from heaven for thy sake. But say not, Who shall
descend for me to the regions of the dead and deliver me thence ?
Christ has risen from the dead and has delivered thee from the power
of death. To ask this, is to desire that Christ might now rise from
the dead for thy sake, as if he were not already risen. Instead of ask
ing such questions, only let the gospel be cherished with vital power in
thy heart, ; — believe in Him who descended from heaven and rose from
death, and thus obtained salvation for thee. Whoever has this faith is
truly pious and may be assured of salvation. "f
Viewed in the light of legal Judaism, the commandments appeared
as merely an outward counteraction of the internal corruption of man,
wdiich refused to be cured from without; it was only rendered more ap
parent by the law ; hence the letter only tended to death ; it called forth
the consciousness of spiritual death and of merited unhappiness, 2 Cor.
iii. 6, ff. The law in reference to the effect which it must produce in con
sciousness, could be described only as a law of the letter, of condemna
tion, of death, of sin, (vopog ypdpparog, KaraKpioEosg, Bavarov, dpapriag.'l)
But when from faith in the Redeemer a new divine principle of life pro
ceeds, when from faith in the redeeming fatherly love of God a child
like love develops itself as the free impulse of a life devoted to God,
when, instead of the former opposition between the human ami the divine
will, a union is formed between them — then the law no longer appears
as a written code, outwardly opposing a will estranged from God, but
the spirit of the law is transfused into the interna] life of the believer.
The indwelling divine life of itself impels them to the fulfi'ment of all
that the law demands. The life-giving spirit, harmonizing with the law,
* This passage certainly refers to the Mosaic religious institutions, and the words are
fitted to distinguish them in their simple religious and moral character from the other
religions of the East. But. as far as the law, understood according to its own spirit, made
certain requirements which it gave no power to fulfil, Paul might justly apply these
words to mark the peculiar Christian position, might find an idea here expressed which
is only realized by Christianity, and is thus prophetic of what Christianity alone accom
plishes. f Rom. x. 5. If Paul, in the second member of the contrast, has not opposed Christ
to Moses, and employed Christ's own words— and such, no doubt, might have been found
among the traditionary expressions of Christ which would have been specially fit to mark
this contrast— it does not follow that he was unacquainted with any collection of the dis
courses of Christ, or that he could not suppose any such work to be known by the Chris
tians at Rome, for his object was answered by borrowing from the Mosaic writings a
motto for the righteousness of faith, which would first find its proper fuldhnent in "the
gospel. X It was perfectly consonant, with the Pauline views to distinguish the law by these
predicates, though it may be doubted whether, in Rom. viii. 2, the Mosaic law is intended
by the word vbpoe.

THE LAW ABROGATED BY FAITH. 423
occupies the place of the dead and death-producing letter. In the love
developed from faith, there is a voluntary fulfilment of the law proceed
ing from the disposition, instead of actions the result of outward compul
sion. In a different sense from that in which Paul, speaking as a natural
man, says that he had the law written on his heart, he says, speaking as
a believer, that he carried the law of God in his heart — for, to the
natural man, the law, even though internal, presents itself as the com
mand of a foreign, higher voice, of a holy power which man is forced
to acknovvledge in opposition to his corrupted will ; hence, it remains a
deadly letter, whether we consider it as an external law or an internal
revelation. On the contrary, in believers, the divine law, by virtue of
the new spirit of life, the Holy Spirit imparted by Christ, appears not
merely as an object of knowledge and recognition, but of an efficacious
love practically influencing the life ; it has become an inward law of life.
In this sense, Paul says to believers, "Ye need not that I write unto
you, for ye yourselves are taught of God," 1 Thess. iv. 9 ; and this
teaching does not signify something addressed to the f tculty of acquir
ing knowledge, but a real internal effect on the springs of action. From
what has been said, we may learn in what sense Paul said of the law
in reference to its moral not less than to its ritual contents, that it was
abrogated for believers, that they were dead to it, and placed beyond its
jurisdiction;* and as we have before remarked, no such distinction in
reference to its perpetuity can be made in the vopog. The law is abro
gated for the believer, and he is in every respect dead to it, in so far as
it was a compulsory, imperative, accusing code, in so far as righteous
ness and life were to be sought for by the fulfilment of its commands.
To the believer, indeed, justification and salvation, independent of every
law, are certain through faith in the grace of redemption f The law
can produce only outward worksj by its compulsory enactments, but not
those internal determinations of the life, which form the essence of true
piety — these proceed of themselves, in the believer, from the new anima
tion by the Divine Spirit — the Christian virtues are the fruits of the
Spirit, and those in whom these qualities, unattainable by the aid of
the law alone, are formed, are even thereby exalted above the stand-
* The being dead to the law, Rom. vii. 4, and Gal. ii. 19, the removal of the law in its
whole extent, Colos. ii. 14; for "the handwriting of ordinances," which Christ nailed to his
cross, is manifestly the law, and in this particular passago it is safer to suppose the moral
requirements of the law to be meant, since it was precisely because no one was able to
keep the law, that it was a " handwriting" " which was against us, which was contrary to
us." It would accordingly be altogether consonant with the Pauline views, to understand
the figurative expression in Rom. vii. 2, of the deadness of the law itself, (namely, this law
iu its outward theocratic form,) though other exegetical reasons might oppose this inter
pretation of the passage in Colos. ii. 14.
| The " righteousness of God," diKaioaiwy Beov, — opposed to the dtKaioaivy dvBpuirivri,
Idia, r$ ipyuv, i% ipyuv vdpov — " without the law," x^P'-C vdpov ; Rom. iii. 2 1.
X The " works of the law,," ipya vdpov, which are not "good works," ipya dyaBd.

424 THE JEWISH NOMOS.
point of the law which as a dead letter opposes the principle of corrup
tion prevailing within.* But it by no means contradicts this relation of
the law to the life of the believer, that Paul sometimes brings forward
moral precepts as quotations from the law, (vopog,) for he considers the
Mosaic law as an expression of the eternal law of God in a particular,
temporary form, adapted to a particular, outward Theocracy, in which
the civil arrangements were extern.ally subordinated to the religious, and
hence both were intermixed.!/ The whole substance of the eternal law
of God lies at the basis of the vopog, though according to views before
stated it was presented in the form of a theocratic national law, which
checked its free and complete development. The obligatory force of the
commands borrowed from the vopog by Paul, therefore, does not consist
in their belonging to that vopog, but that they formed a part of the eter
nal law, from which they were transferred to the peculiar form presented
in the Old Testament, and the inner meaning of this eternal law to which
the moral consciousness of men bears witness, is divested of iis national
garb,J by the spirit of the gospel, and developed with greater clearness
by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. And when in Rom. xiii. 8, he ap
peals to the one command of love belonging to the law, he marks ex
actly the difference between the Christian position and the legal ; for if
the spirit of love animates believers, and with love is given the fulfilment
of the whole law, it follows that the law is no longer for them a com
pulsory, death-producing letter; and here is exemplified the truth of
Christ's assertion that he came not to destroy but to fulfil the law.
Though the idea of the law in that narrower sense, forms the dis
tinctive mark between Judaism and the Gospel, still there is no incon
sistency in applying the term§ in a wider sense, to denote the common
relation in wdiich both religions stand to the life of man || Both re
ligions aim at a control over the life, and give a peculiar character to it.
Legal Judaism aims at producing this by literal commands from with
out; Christianity aims at forming it from within through fiith, and the
spirit that proceeds from it. Iu the former case, the law is outward ; in
* See Gal. v. 22. 23. It is worth while to compare what Aristotle says in his Politics,
iii. 13, that an individual cannot belong to a State as a member, if by his pree ninence he
is raised above the whole body; lor such an one is like a god in his relations to men:
dairep ydp Bebv di-Bpuirole fi/cof elvai rbv rotcvrov. The laws aie not for such persons;
they are a law themselves : Kara di rdiv rotoiiruv ovk iari vapor* aural ydp elai vbiioe.
Hence ostracism in States that would endure no inequality. A remarkable prophecy for
the kingdom of God and Christianity!
T Compare remarks above, p. 421.
X To this release of the spirit confined in this garb, to the inward as contrasted with
the outward theocratic law, we must refer the antithetical expressions in the Sermon on
the Mount, which certainly are directed not merely against the Pharisaic expositions, but
also against the letter of the law in its theocratic national form. See Life of Christ, 223,
231. § I cannot agree with those expositors who think that, when Paul describes Chris
tianity as a vopoe, the general idea of law must be altogether given up.
[ See ahove, p. 401.

HOW FAR CHRISTIANITY IS A NOMOS. 425
the latter, it is inward, such a law as dwells in the new life itself, just as
in every particular essence the law of its own peculiar course of develop
ment is inborn.* In reference to these various uses of the term law, Paul
endeavors to guard against the misconception that because Christians no
longer live under the law, they are in a lawless state; 1 Cor. ix. 21.
They have still a law, the law of God, the law of Christ, not merely out
ward, but inward, entering into the very essence of the Christian life;
and this distinction is marked by the phrases living under the law, and
in the law. Hence also Christianity contrasted with Judaism is called a
law, and in explanation of the term so applied, we find accompanying
terms such as " law of faith," " law of life," "law of the spirit," (vopog
iriaTEiog, vopog fw/jc, vopog irvevpaTog.)
The different relations of the two theocratic points of view are clearly
connected with the different applications of the idea of law ; the out
ward conception of the idea of the kingdom of God with the outward
conception of the idea of law, and with the inward conception of that
idea of law the idea of the Theocracy, as not outwardly constituted but
developing itself from within ; and thus throughout we meet with the
contrast of the inward and the outward. On the legal Jewish stand
point, there was an outward submission to the will of God, the outward
observance of the divine commands, without the opposition between the
human and divine commands being taken away ; the serving God in the
oldness of the letter, (dovXeveiv 6eo> ev iraXaiOTrjTt ypdpparog,) in the old
state of a nature estranged from God, of which nothing can be altered
from without by the mere letter of the command. To the believer, the
dovXeia is inward, so that, in the new state, by virtue of the inward reno
vation which proceeds from the influence of the Divine Spirit, the sancti
fied will determines itself in dependence on God, it is a servant of God
(dovXeveiv ev Katvornri irvevparog.) Hence " service," dovXeia, in the
latter sense, is voluntary and one with true freedom; 1 Cor. vii. 22.
AovXeia in the first sense, forms a contrast to the freedom of the children
of God ; on the contrary, dovXsia in the second sense, cannot exist with
out "adoption," vloQsoia, and is at once a consequence and a mark of it,
for what distinguishes the children from the servants of the family is
this, that they do not obey their father's will, as foreign to themselves,
but make it their own ; dependence on him is, as it were, the natural
element of their life. That merely outward servitude to which there is
a continuous inward opposition, proceeds from the spirit of fear, the
special characteristic of servitude ; this inward service proceeds from the
consciousness of communion with God obtained through Christ the Son
* By Christianity or Regeneration, goodness is again communicated to the very nature
of man, and thus the moral law becomes a higher law of nature appropriated with freedom.
We may here apply what Sehleiermacher says in his Academical Essay, 1825, on the differ
ence between the law of nature and the moral law, without adopting the views of the
venerated author respecting the relation of the law to the deviations from it, and in general
*b.e relation of the law to freedom as viewed from an ethical point of view.

426 THE STATES OF BONDAGE AND ADOPTION.
of God, and of participation in his Spirit, the spirit of childlike relation
to God, the spirit of adoption and of love. The Spirit of the Son, the
Spirit whose entire fulness is in the Son, and who goes forth from the
Son upon all standing in fellowship with him, this Spirit, through whom
we enter into the same relation to God as the Son, communicates the
consciousness that, in fellowship with him who is the absolute Son of
God, we have become and are the children of God. The Spirit of the
Son exhibits itself as the spirit of Sonship in all who have part in it.
Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 6.
So likewise the worship of God in the spirit of Legalism* was an
outward worship (oapKiKn, Kara adpita, by means of epya aapiiiKa) con
sisting in single outward acts,f confined to certain ti.ues and places.
* This is Irue of the legal-moral, as well as of the legal-ritual cultus.
\ Connected with the being " in bondage under the elements of the world," SedavAdioBai
iirb rd aroixeia rov Koapov. We wish to offer a few remarks in vindication and confirmation
of the interpretation of this expression given above, (see aho p. 401, compare p. 297 n.) and
against the common one of aroixeia as "the first principles of religious knowledge among
mon." If the word aroixeia meant " first principles," we should naturally expect to find in
the genitive connected with it, the designation of the object to which iln-so first principles
relale, as is actually done in Hebrews v. 12, " the first principles of the oracles of God," ri
aroixeia ri/e dipxyc rdiv Aoy'iuv tov Beov. But in the Pauline passages, such a genitive of
the object is everywhere wanting, and we find, instead, only a genitive of the subject. The
omission of the express mention of such a leading idea can hardly be admitted. Paul, in
Gal. iv. 8, plainly addressing those who had formerly been heathens, supposes that, before
their conversion, they bad been in bondage to these elements of the world, if we do not
have recourse to au arbitrary interpretation of ird'Atv. According to the common interpre
tation, we must suppose that Paul, by the first elements of religious knowledge, intended
to mark a universal idea, in a cert lin degree applicable alike to boih Heathenism and Juda
ism. But how could this agree with the views of Paul, who recognised Judaism, as sub
ordinate and preparative it is true, but yet a position iu religion founded on Divine
Revelation, and who, on the other hand, saw in heathenism as such, that is. in idolatry, of
which he here speaks, not a subordinate religious position, but something entirely foreign
to the nature of religion, a suppression through sin of the original knowledge of God ?
Neither does the pivdieate '• weak," doBenij, appear suitable to the idea of tho first princi
ples of religion. On the contrary, according to the interpretaiion I have proposed, all is
consistent. The confinement of religion to sensuous forms, and therefore its euthralment
by the elements of the world, is common to Judaism and Heathenism. All idolatry may
be considered as a bondage and submission to the elements of sense, and a kind of idolatry
may be attributed to the Jews and Judaizers, who sought for the divine, for justification
and sanctification, iu external riles. This will make it evident how Paul could say to the
Galatian Christians, once heathens, who were infected with this Judaism (Gal. iv. 8),
" How can ye. who by the divine mercy have been led to the knowledge of God and com
munion with him (in which interpretation I by no means assume a Iiophalie senso in the
word yiuaBivrec, as Usteri, lately deceased, has understood me to do; but, just as he has
done, I understand the word in a pregnant seu^e,) turn back again to tho weak and beg
garly elements (a suitable description of them, in reference to persons who sought to find
in them what the power of God alone could bestow), to which ye desire to bring yourselves
again in bondage? (You willingly pluiifie yoursi-lves bae-k again into your old idolatry.)
I fear that I have indeed labored in vaic to turn you from idolatry to the worship of tha
living God." It is quite impossible to join togelher both significations of tho word crroi-
Xela as Baur has done, p. 535. If Dr. Baur had fully understood the connexion of my

SPIRITUAL WORSHIP. 427
Worship, on the principle of faith on the contrary, is " spiritual," irvEvpa-
tikt), since it proceeds from the inworking of the Divine Spirit, and is
completed by the Spirit, Philip, iii. 3 ; hence it does not relate to certain
isolated acts, but embraces the whole life; Rom. xii. 1. On the legal
principle, men placed their confidence and pride in something human and
earthly, whatever it might be, whether descent from the theocratic na
tion, or the righteousness of the law, or ascetic self-denial and mortifica
tion of the flesh, the Kara adpKa KavxdaOai, ev aapid ireiroidevai* But
on the principle of faith, after acknowledging the nullity of all such dis
tinctions, of all human works of righteousness, men place their confidence
and glory only in the redemption obtained through Christ ; only in that
which as believers all have in like manner received from Christ, and are
conscious of possessing in fellowship with hiin; the ev icvpiip KavxdaOai.
Here, all imaginary distinctions, all differences vanish, which before sep
arated men from one another, and checked their fellowship in the highest
relation of life; everything human is henceforth subordinated to the one
spirit of Christ, the common principle of life; Gal. iii. 28. The only
universal and constantly available principle of Christian worship which
embraces the whole life, is faith in Christ working by love ; Gal. v. 6.
Now, in faith is given at once the principle of that whole transforma
tion of the life which proceeds from the Spirit of Christ ; through one act
of the Spirit man by means of faith dies to the former sinful life, and
rises to a new life of communion with Christ. The old man is slain once
for all; Rom. vi. 4-6; Coloss. iii. 3. Paul assumes that in Christians,
the act by virtue of which they are dead to sin and have crucified the
flesh with ita affections and lusts, is already accomplished ideally in priu-
ideas, he would not have made his reproaches in p. 595. I find no difficulty whatever in
Paul's sometimes placing Heathenism on a level with Judaism, and sometimes below it.
This is the case with my own view, nor do I need Dr. Baur's instructions on that point.
But this I have felt to be a difficulty, that Judaism as the groundwork of religious devel
opment given by God, should be compared with Heathenism. And certainly there is a
logical distinction between the two explanations. The being in bondage to the elements
of the world, — the dependence of the human mind on nature, the externalizing of relig
ious service — this formed the common error before the existence of Christianity, and was
first taken away by its influence. This is the condition of sin through which man has be
come tho slave of nature. This is nothing caused by God. Hence in Heathenism arose
the deification of nature, idolatry. The Jews, through the prevalence of Divine Revela
tion among them, were preserved f:om such a sinking under tne dominion of nature; but Di
viue Revelalion itself, iu the education of the theocratic people, condescended to this condi
tion of humanity, above which humanity can only be raised by redemption, and Theism
itself has adopted this mode of employing nature and external things ; Theism in sensuous
forms. Here then, with what is common, is also a contrariety. But it is altogether a dif
ferent matter, if in reference lo a divine education of man, I placed Judaism and Heathen
ism on a level with one another as constituting the rudiments of religious knowledge.
This I cannot help considering as something altogether un-Pauline.
* According to Paul's views, this will apply to the overvaluation of what is human in
every form and relation; as, for instance, the Grecian culture and phUosophy; see tha
First Epistle to the Corinthians.

428 PREDOMINANCE OF THE nNETMA.
ciple. Hence he concludes, how can they who are dead to sin, live any
longer therein ? How can they who have crucified the flesh still allow it
to rule over them? Rom. vi. 2 ; Gal. v. 24. But the practice must cor
respond to the principle; the outward conformation of the life must har
monize with the tendency given to the inward life. Walking in the
Spirit must necessarily proceed from living in the Spirit; Gal. v. 25 ; the
former must be a manifestation of the latter. Hence Christians are
always required to renew the mortification of the flesh, to walk after the
Spirit, to let themselves be animated by the Spirit. The transformation
of the old nature in man which proceeds from the divine principle of life
received by faith, is not completed in an instant, but can only be attained
gradually by conflict with sin ; for the renewed as well as the old nature
consists of two principles, the "spirit" and the "flesh," only with this
difference, that no longer (as Paul represents the state of the natural man
in Rom. vii.) the human self with its powerless desires after goodness op
poses the principle of sinfulness, the odp%, but instead of the human self,
there is the divine principle of life which has become the animal ing one
of human nature, the rrvevpa delov, ayiov, the Spirit of Christ, Christ
himself by his Spirit; Gal. ii. 20. Hence it is not said from this point
of view, that the Spirit wishes to do good but is hindered by the flesh
from accomplishing its wishes, so that the flesh is the vital principle of
action ; but it is enjoined on those who have received the divine principle
of life, Gal. v. 16, " Walk in the Spirit,* so shall ye not fulfil the desires
of the flesh ; for the Spirit and the flesh conflict with one another, so that
you must distinguish what proceeds from the Spirit and what from the
flesh, and you must not fulfil what you desire according to the carnal self,

* I cannot agree with Riickert, in referring the " spirit," irveijpa, here spoken of not to
the Spirit of God, but to the higher nature of man. Certainly the word irvevpa in this
whole chapter is to be understood only in one sense, and taking everything into account,
the idea of the H0I3' Spirit is the only one which suits Paul's meaning; as, for example,
in v. 18. And generally in Ibis epistle, the same idea of the Spirit is to be firmly held.
Verse 17 contains no proof to the contrary; for Paul here assumes, that the Spirit has
pervaded ihe distinctive nature of man, that tho new principle of life has taken possession
of human nature, and given it a new and peculiar vitality. He wishes to mark the new
higher principle thai is now the antagonist of the " fl-sh" in man. Men may with the
strictest propriety be called upon to surr.-nder themselves to this higher principle, to allow
themselves to bo led by it, according to its impulses, for Paul considered the operation of
the Divine Spirit in man. not as something magical, but constantly assumes the working
together of ihe divine and the human. It is perfectly true that, according to Paul's doctrine,
the higher nature in man, the capability of knowing God, which before was confined and
depressed, is set at liberty by the Holy Spirit, and now serves as the organ for the opera
tions of tho Divine Spirit in human nature, and hence, that as this higher nature of man
can now operale in its freedom as the organ of the Divine Spirit, so the latter can now
operate in man by means of this organ, and hence the two are blended ton-ether in the
Christian life. But when Paul wishes to infuse courage and confidence for the spiritual
conflict, he directs the attention, not to what is subjectively human, but to the almighty
power of God.

CONVERSION OF NATURAL TALENTS INTO CnAEISJIS. 429
but what the Spirit within you desires."* This marks the contrast to the
state described in Rom. vii. 15. Accordingly, the divine life in the inner
man must be in continual conflict with the after operations of the flesh,
and progressively convert the bod)', hitherto under the control of sinful
habits, into an organ for itself, (Rom. vi. 11-13), so that the "members
of the body," piXn tov awparog, become " instruments of righteousness,"
oitXa diKatoovvTjg; all the powers and faculties which hitherto have been
in the service of sin, being appropriated and sanctified by the divine life,
are employee! as organs of grace for the service of the kingdom of God ;
and here the doctrine of charisms finds its point of connexion ; (ante,
pp. 136-140). All the peculiar capabilities or talents founded in the
nature of each individual, are to be transformed into charisms and em
ployed as such.
And it is the province of Christian Morals to show in what manner
human nature must be pervaded in all its powers by the higher principle
of life, and appropriated as an organ of its manifestation ; how all hu
man relations, set at liberty from the principle of sin which has hitherto
prevailed among them and hindered the realization of their design, are to
be referred to the kingdom of God in which their design shall be ful
filled ; and how what is individual belonging to the representation of the
image of God in man is not suppressed and annihilated, but is to be
transformed and elevated to a peculiar conformation and manifestation
of the higher principle of life, that the one Christ, the Heavenly Man,
may give proper form to the diversified peculiarities that serve for his
organ. We here see the difference between Christian principle as Paul repre
sents it, and a one-sided ascetic direction in morals. Paul brings forward
as one side in the process of the development of the Christian life, the
negative operation, to mortify the principle of sin which has hitherto
reigned in the body, Rom. viii. 13, to mortify the members as far as they
serve sin, Coloss. iii. 5 ;f but this is only one side. The other is the pos-
* This passage, in my opinion, cannot be understood otherwise than in this manner,
though later expositors have given a different interpretation. It has been supposed to
mean, " So that ye cannot accomplish what you desire according to the spirit ; ye are un
able to follow the dictates of the better will ;"— and yet should these words be referred to
the state of the regenerate, this would form a singular ground of exhortation for following
the leadings of the Spirit, and fir withstanding the flesh, if Paul said to them that they
were prevented from obeying the good promptings which proceeded from the Spirit by the
prevalence of the flesh. But if it is understood of the condition of the natural man, and
v. 18 is considered as a contrast, we do not see now Paul, who had before addressed those
whom he assumed to be Christians, could make such a sudden transition to a different class
of persons. The correspondence of the last words of v. 17, with the last words of the
foregoing verse, proves that the "will" here answers to the desires of the flesh, a fleshly
will is described by them, just as in the pneumatic or spiritual will, it is no longer the
former "I" of the individual, but the man-inspiring Christ, the irvevpa that forms the
volitionary principle.
| The " members which are upon the e?rth," peAy iirl rye yye, which belong to a
carnal, eartldy course of life, are directly opposed to the heavenly mind in v. 2.

430 JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION.
itive operation, the positive appropriation, that as believers are now dear]
with Christ to sin, the world, and themselves, so now they lead a new
divine life, increasingly devoted to him ; the Spirit of Christ that dwells
in them contain ly animates their bodies afresh as his organ, Rom. viii.
11, ff, so that the "members" consecrated to God, are employed in his
service, according to the starion God has indicated to each individual, as
"instruments of righteousness." As the "Holy Spirit," irvevpa ayiov, is
the common vital principle of all believers, the animating Spirit of the
church of God, so the diversity of the form in which he operates in and
through each individual, varied by their sanctified peculiarities and char-
acterist cs, is designated by the term charism or gift.
But since this appropriation and pervasion of the old nature is a con
tinual conflict, and the further a man advances in holiness the more capa
ble he is rendered by the illumination ofthe Holy Spirit of distinguishing
what proceeds from the Spirit and what from the flesh, and of discerning
all the disturbing influences ofthe latter, therefore the distinction between
objective justification and subjective sanctification is always necessary,
in order that the confidence of man may not be wavering, as it must be
if he looks only to himself, Philip, iii. 12, but may maintain its firm un
changeable ground, by being fixed on the objective, the grace of redemp
tion, the love of Christ, from which no power of hell can separate the
redeemed; Rom. viii. 31, 32. In the Pauline idea ofthe justification
and righteousness available before God, which is granted to man by the
redeeming grace of God, and appropriated by faith, the objective is
always primary and predominant. At the same time something subject
ive is imparted with it, something new is deposited in the inner life which
must be progressively developed ; the righteousness of Christ appropri
ated by faith, is actually transferred to the inner life of the believer, and
becomes a new principle, forming the life according to the example of
Christ.* And when this process of development shall be completed,
believers will attain to the possession of an eternal, divine, and blessed
life, inseparable from perfect righteousness; and then the objective idea
of justification will be v\ holly transferred to the subjective, Rom. v. 19-21 ;
but till this is accomplished, in order, as we have before said, to lay a
firm foundation for the confidence of the soul, it is always neeessary,
wh le conceiving both ideas according to their essential and ultimate
connexion, still to keep in mind their distinction from one another.
Since the whole Christian disposition is produced from faith, and
thereby the whole life is determined and formed, the term faith has been
employed to designate the whole of the Christian disposition and of
Christian abilily.f Thus the predicate fivvarog rr) morei, (strong in faith),
* The scholasiic expression, "Juslitia Christi perfidem habet esse in animo," perfectly
corresponds to Paul's meaning.
\ Hence the measure of failh as the measure of Christian ability, and the measure of
grace bestowed on each individual, are correlative ideas. Rom. xii. 3. Christians are
only to aim at rightly applying the measure of ability they have received ; to do every-

THE STRONG IN FAITH. 431
designates the point of view, where faith in the Redeemer, confidence in
the justification obtainecl through him, has become to such a degree the
animating principle of the convictions, and has so pervaded the wdiole
tone of thinking, that a man is enabled to judge and act in all the rela
tions of life according to it, that he cannot be disturbed, as he otherwise
would be, by any foreign element of other views which formerly influ
enced him. The after-workings of the earlier religious convictions no
longer exercise over the conscience of such an one any kind of power.
This is specially true ofthe relations of Christianity to Judai-in, which,
since it, above all other agencies, had furnished a preparatory transi
tion point, could longer than any other exercise its influence over one who
from it had attained to faith, so that such a person would only by degrees
free himself from its influences on his judgment of all the relations of
life ; as the new Christian principle proceeding from faith in the Re
deemer gradually impregnated his whole mode of thinking. This power
of faith over the judgment is shown, for example, in this, that a man,
certain of his salvation in fellowship with the Redeemer, will no longer
allow himself to be agitated by scruples in the use of outward things,
with which he had previously been disturbed in the Jewish religion, as
if this or that thing could defile him. So we are to understand what
Paul says, Rom. xiv. 2," one believeth that he may eat all things,"
i. e., is strong enough in faith to eat all things, og pev -nioTevet rpayelv
Travra, i. e. dvvardg eon ry iriarei, ware (payetv iravra ; he can no
longer be perplexed by a mixture of scruples arising from his earlier
legalism. The being " weak in the faith," dadevelv ry iriarei, forms the
opposite to this strength of faith, in which, along with faith, another ele
ment arising from the former point of view controlled the convictions,
and hence the internal strife between the principle founded in Christian
conviction, or irioTig, and the doubts that rebelled against it ; Rom. xiv. 1.
Though Paul took occasion from existing relations to develop his views
on this subject with a special reference to the Jewish law, yet they would
apply to the relation subsisting between any other point of view and the
Christian, or that of the righteousness by faith. The power of faith,
governing the life, gives an independence and stability to the Christian
character, imparts strength and freedom to the mind. This it is that
forms the basis of Christian freedom, which consists in this, that the
Christian, since he has devoted his whole life to Christ as his Redeemer,
and through him to God, since he is animated only by the consciousness
of this dependence and acknowledges no other, — for this reason, feels
independent of all created beings, of all earthly things ; hence, he acts in
the consciousness of this independence, is master of all things by the ani
mating Spirit of Christ, and is in bondage to no man, to no circumstan
ces ; nothing can so operate upon hiin as tc determine him to a different
thing according to its proportion; Rom. xii. 6. They are not to indulge conceit, or to
pass beyond the limits of their own true position.

432 THE STRONG IN FAITH.
course from that dictated by the Spirit of Christ, for this is the great
determining principle of his life ; 1 Cor. vii. 21, ff; 1 Cor. vi. 12 ;* 1 Cor.
iii. 22. While the Christian, as an organ of the Spirit of Christ who has
won the government of the world, to whom at last all things must be
subject, is free from the world and everything belonging to it, from all
power of created beings, he likewise in spirit rules over all things. Free
dom and mastery over the world here meet. This freedom and this mas
tery over the world, proceeding from faith (like everything Christian),
and grounded in the depths of the soul, can hence manifest themselves
under all outward restrictions, and evince their power by the fact that
these outward restrictions for the spirit, which is exalted above them and
in the consciousness of faith feels itself independent of everything, cease
to be restrictive, and are included in his free self-determination and mas
tery over the world. Paul proves his Christian freedom precisely in this
manner, that for the good of others, and in order to make everything
subservient to the Spirit of Christ, he so acted in all things as would best
contribute to the advancement of the kingdom of Christ, and thus freely
submitted to all the forms of dependence. Free from all, he made him
self the servant of all ; having the mastery over all, he submitted to all
the forms of dependence ordained by God, and in doing so, exercised
his mastery over the world ; 1 Cor. ix. 1-19.
It is evident that nothing can be excepted from this reference of the
whole life to the kingdom of God, for the Christian disposition proceed
ing from faith, and referring everything to God's glory, is the great ar
bitrator in all the events of life. Accordingly, there can be no empty
space for things indifferent of which Christian principle takes no cogni
sance, nothing belonging to human nature which does not receive a moral
impress from Christian principle, as Paul expressly says, " Whether ye
eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God," 1 Cor. x.
31. It may appear to contradict this principle, by which the whole of
life becomes one great duty, and no room is left for anything indifferent,
that Paul, in 1 Cor. vi. 12, x. 23, distinguishes from the province of the
lawful, that which is useful or serves for edification ; but the contradic
tion is only in appearance, and will vanish on a more exact unfolding of
the apostle's views. It could only contradict the principle in question,
if Paul had reckoned what did not contribute to edification as still be
longing to what was lawful on Christian grounds, or if he had not con
sidered what contributed to edifying as what alone was matter of duty.
But it was not so, for he declares it to be the duty of the Christian in the
denial of his selfish inclinations, so to conduct himself as is for the best,
* "I will not bo brought under the power of any," ovk lydi t^ovaiaaBi'/aopai iirb
rivoe, i. e., I will not suffer myself to be mastered by any outward things, but in the spirit
of Christian love I will use all things freely. Instead of availing myself of my Christian
freedom, I make myself rather a slave ofthe right, if, in eating the flesh of sacrifices, I
believe that I am under obligation to do so in every case, without reference to particular
circumstances.

NOTHING INDIFFERENT. 433
or for the edification of the church, 1 Cor. x. 24; or, which is equiv
alent, as will be for the glory of God, 1 Cor. x. 31. This is the course
of action prescribed by Christian love; but very different would be the
course that proceeds from selfishness, and for that reason sinful. The
subject will be clearer, if we examine more closely the particular case
under the apostle's consideration. He is speaking of partaking of certain
kinds of food, more particularly of meat offered to idols. All this be
longs to the province of things permitted, and in a religious and moral
point of view indifferent, on which Christianity (unlike Judaism) laid no
restrictions. " Meat commendeth us not to God ; for neither if we eat
are wc the better; neither if we eat not are we the worse," 1 Cor. viii.
8. " The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and
peace and joy in the Holy Ghost," Rom. xiv. IV. But though all this in
itself has no moral character, and without the addition of other marks
belongs to things indifferent, yet like everything belonging to human na
ture, it is not excepted from the impression of Christian principle, for it
is included in the Pauline maxim, " Whatsoever ye do, whether ye eat
or drink, do all to the glory of God ;" and Paul himself adduces in
stances in which what is in itself indifferent may be either a matter of
duty or criminal. An individual who, though not sufficiently advanced
in Christian knowledge to attain the conviction that the eating of meat
sacrificed to idols is in itself indifferent, is yet seduced by worldly con
siderations to partake of it, acts in a manner deserving of condemnation,
since he does not act according to his convictions (ovk eK nioTetog), Rom.
xiv. 23.* And whoever eats of flesh offered to idols, following his own
inclination, and taking no account of the scruples of his weak brother,
and thus seduces him to follow his example without a firm conviction of
its rectitude, troubles his brother's conscience, and himself acts contrary
to the law of love, and sins; 1 Cor. viii. 12; Rom. xiv. 15. From this
exposition of the apostle's views it appears that, since what every one
has to do, under the given conditions and relations under which the
Lord has specially placed him, is defined by Christian principles, no one
can accomplish more than the measure of his individual duty. Indeed, so
much will sinfulness still adhere to all his performances, that even the most
advanced Christian will come short ofthe requirements of duty; as Paul,
referring to himself, acknowledges, Phil. iii. 12. Yet what Paul says in
reference to his own conduct in one particular instance, may seem to
contradict what has just been remarked, 1 Cor. ix. 14, 15, &o. The
apostle was authorized in preaching the gospel, to receive his mainte
nance from the Christian communities for whom he labored; but he
waived his claim to it, and supported himself by the labor of his own
hands. He did in this, therefore, more than the letter of the general
apostolic duty demanded, since he made no use of what was allowable.
• The process of the development of faith, as a principle that vitalizes the whole mind,
is, with such an one, not yet so far advanced that he can act from well grounded conviction ;
thus his conduct is in contradiction to his actual conviction.

434 LOVE THE FRUIT OF FAITH.
But had he made only the letter of that duty his rule of action, without
regard to his individual life's work and the peculiar circumstances of his
sphere of action, then would he have been obliged to apply to himself
the words of Christ in Luke xvii. 10.* Yet he certainly held it to be
his duty, under all circumstances, so to act as would most contribute to
the advancement of the kingdom of God ; and a regard to that object
induced him in this instance to receive no maintenance from the church,
in order that he might avoid all appearance of self-interest. Hence he
felt an inward compulsion to act thus ; and if he had not thus acted he
would have come in conflict with his individual call, and have been dis
satisfied with himself; in fact he had said that he would rather die than
act otherwise. The peculiar circumstances of his ministry, and the pe
culiar charism bestowed upon him, occasioned a peculiar modification of
that which was the general duty of all preachers ofthe gospel. What in
his peculiar condition and sphere of labor was a duty, might be contrary
to duty in the circumstances of others — those persons, for instance, to
whom Providi nee had committed the maintenance of a family.
The distinctive and fundamental ideas of Christian Morals are in gen
eral to lie deduced from the nature of faith as a life-determining princi
ple. From faith spontaneously proceeds the love that refers the whole
life to God, and consecrates it to his service, for the representation and
advancement of his kingdom ; for from a knowledge of the love of God
manifested in the work of redemption, love is kindled to Him who has
shown such superaboimding love. In fact, as Paul conceived of faith,
love is already contained in it in the germ ; for what distinguishes faith
in his view from superstition, was that the latter, as it arises only from
the dread of sen-nous evil, only desires a Redeemer from such evil; faith,
on the contrary, develops itself from the feeling of unhappiness in sin as
sin, of inward estrangement from God, and of longing alter communion
with hiin, which already presupposes the underlying love of God in the
heart, l hough checked and repressed. Faith in the Pauline sense may,
indeed, be denominated a conviction determined by an underlying love.
But when the revelation of God's ho'y love in the work of redemption,
which faith receives, awakens the slumbering desire of man, or meets it
already awakened, the germ of love deposited in the heart is set free from
its confinement, that it may expand to communion with its original
source. Entering into fellowship with the Redeemer, believers are
penetru'ed by the feeling of G--d's love to them, and by this method
alone can they learn afresh rightly to understand the compass of God's
love.f From this perception of God's love, the childlike love of believers
is continually inflamed towaids him, and this love operates incessantly for
*See Life of Christ, p. 351.
f Ro n. v. 5. By the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts and
makes itself felt there. The voice of God himself in their hearts declares that they are
his children; Rum. viii. 16. Thus, in Eph. iii. 17, there is first the wish that Christ may
dwell in their hearts by faith, whereupon it follows, that their inner life may be deeply

RELATION OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE TO THE FUTUKE. 435
the renovation of the whole life after the image of Christ, and for the
advancement of the kingdom of God ; it forms the life according to the
heavenly model presented to it by faith. The whole Christian life ap
pears as the one work of faith, and thus all individual good works*
appear as necessary, immediate expressions of faith, its fiuits, the signs
of the new creation effected by it.f As to the work of faith, every ihing
is to be referred back to the activity of love J Now faith and love have
a relation, on one side, to something which is apprehended as present in
the inward life; faith in communion with the Redeemer has already re
ceived a divine, blessed life; believers are already incorporated with the
kingdom of God, and have obtained the right of citizenship in it, and by
partaking of the Holy Spirit operating in them by faith, they anticipate
the divine power and blessedness of this kingdom ; they have, the fore
taste of eternal life ;§ they already possess the germs and first-fruits of
the New Creation, in which everything proceeds tiom a divine principle
of life, with which nothing heterogeneous is allowed to mingle — when it
atlains its completion after the resurrection, Rom. viii. 23. But it fol
lows from this, that the Christian life cannot at all be thought of with
out a reference to the future; as in the divine life the Fulure becomes in
a certain sense a Present, so the Present exists only in reference to the
Future,|| for it contains an anticipation, the germ and preparation of that
wdiich will attain to perfect development and completion only in the Fu
ture. Into the present earthly system enters a higher, which cannot he
fully developed in believers, and the nature of which is not yet wholly
manifest, but in many respects is veiled from their vi-w. The process
of development ofthe divine life, which they have appropriated to them-
rooted in the love of God — the love of God towards the redeemed is the element in which
their whole inward life and consciousness rest — and having been first penetrated by the
feeling of love, they can then rightly understand its compass.
* The " good works," ipya dyaOd are to be distinguished from the " works of the law,''
ipya vdpov.
\ The " salvation not of works," aurypta ovk i% ipyuv, as if men by mere works per
formed before conversion could earn salvation ; for the announcement of the salvation ob
tained lor men by redemption, belongs as a gift of unmerited grace to those who are des
titute of the divine life, and thus of the true inclination to gooduess, whether they are still
eunk in gross sensuality, or are raised to an outward legal morality ; and the "good works,"
ipya dyaBd, which really deserve the name, presuppose that divine life which proceeds
from faith; indeed the new creation must manifest itself by corresponding good works; is
designed to produce such. Hence the contrast, that believers are not saved by worlcs,
aeauapivot ef ipyuv, but created unto good works, KnaBivree iirl ipyote dyaBoie, Eph. ii.
9, 10. X Thes. i. 3. to ipyov rye rriareue. d Koiror rye dyiiirye.
§ The Holy Spirit as the d/ifmiSuv, iu relation to the whole assemblage of heavenly
blessings, 2 Cor. i. 22, the * earnest" giveu as a pledge of the payment of the whole sum.
J Ibis must be carefully considered, iu order rightly to understand the relation of lha
present to the future iu a Christian sense, and to avoid the delusion of the pantheistic dei
fication of self, which imposes on the language of Paul and John a sense quite foreign to
the truth.

436 FAITH AND HOPE.
selves tnrough faith, is now only coming into existence, and is in its feeble
beginning. The consciousness of this divine life is accompanied with a
consciousness of the obstacles by which that life is surrounded, till human
nature is thoroughly pervaded by it and purified from all that is alien ;
while this consciousness, at the same time, produces a longing after that
perfect freedom which is the destiny ofthe. children of God. Though it
is always presupposed that believers have already attained the dignity
and privileges of the children of God, still their rights relate to some
thing future, for all that is involved in the idea of adoption, all that be
longs to the dignity, glory, and blessedness of the children of God, is
very fir from being realized on earth. With a view to this, it is said in
Rom. viii. 23, that Christians who have received the first-fruits of the
Spirit, groan after the perfect manifestation ofthe dignity ofthe children
of God,* after their redemption from all that checks and depresses their
inward life. This longing after the other world, is as essential a feature
of the Christian life as the partial and fragmentary anticipation of the
future in the participation of the divine life through faith. From this
point of view Paul utters words which are and must be the greatest
offence to that pantheistic deification of the world and self, which in its
innermost spirit is thoroughly opposed to Christianity, since from Pan
theism consistently carried out there ean proceed only a direction of life
which is absolutely opposed to that of Christianity : " We should be the
most miserable of all men if we had hope in Christ in this life only, with no
higher future existence in which our hopes might be fulfilled ; for the
Christian life would be then a life full of delusive wants that would never
be satisfied, a pursuit after unreal phantoms, the offspring of self-decep
tive de-ires." Filled with divine assurance of his convictions and expe
rience, Paul would turn away with abhorrence from views which would
make all his conflicts and efforts appear as if devoted to a nonentity.
If the soul, under a sense of the burden which weighs down the higher
* The " adoption," vloBec'ta, though, in Gal. iv. 5, this is attributed to believing as some
thing already present. If we compare this passage in the Epistle to the Galaiians with
that quoted from the Romans, we shall discover a threefold and regularly progressive ap
plication of the idea of adopiion. At first, Paul, appropriating the term applied to the
theocratic nation in the Old Testament, to whom promises were given of an inheritance
(the KAypovopiu) in the kingdom of God, considers this nalion as destined to adoption.
Those persons to whom the law and the prophets were given, are certainly children and
heirs, but they have not yet atlained to the actual self-conscious appropriation of the filial
relaiion, and to the exercise ofthe rights grounded upon it. Since they are in a state of
minority, are standing under the guardianship aud discipline ofthe law, and their father's
will is not consciously and freely become their own, their relation to him can be no other
than that of outward dependence and servitude. But. by faith in the Redeemer, and by com
munion with him as the Son, they become freed from this dependence and servitude, and
attain to a self-conscious, maiure, and free, filial relation. And this relation in its full ex
tent, includes all that which is founded iu the idea of Christ as the Son of God, the perfect
communion of his holiness, blessedness, and glory ; hence a progressive development of this
relationship takes place, until the appearance of the children of God will perfectly cor
respond to the idea of a child of God ; which is the third application of this idea.

FAITH AND HOPE. 437
life, is absorbed in such longings not confined to one single object, and
words fail to express the deeply felt necessities of the heart, these silent
aspirations rising from the depths of a heart yearning after true and
complete freedom, and yet resigned to the will of its heavenly Father,
constitute prayer acceptable to God, inspired by the Spirit of God, the
Spirit of adoption. The whole state of such a soul is prayer. The Spirit
of God himself intercedes for it with inexpressible and silent groans ;
Rom. viii. 26. Thus in Coloss. iii. 3, it is said, that as the glory of Christ
exalted to the right hand of God is hid from the world, so also the glory
ofthe inner life of believers, proceeding from communion with him, is
still hidden with Christ in God, and its appearance does not correspond at
present to its nature. But when Christ, the author and source of their
life, shall manifest himself in his glory, then shall their hidden glory be
manifest, and correspond in appearance to its original ; Col. iii. 4.
From this relation of the Christian life of faith and love to a creation
that is to be perfectly developed and completed only in the future state,
it follows that Faith and Love cannot subsist without Hope.* Faith
itself becomes hope, in so far as it apprehends salvation only as something
to be realized in the future ; Rom. viii. 24. f Faith is proved and
strengthened by conflicts and sufferings ; by the opposition which it has
to overcome, it develops the consciousness of its indwelling divine power,
and of those divine results which are not yet apparent, but stretch into
eternity ; and thus it expands into hope for the future.J The conscious
ness of the love of God contains the pledge for the certain fulfilment of
hope. The faith that operates by love could- not persist in the efforts
which so many obstacles oppose, in conflict with the inward and out
ward world, if the prospect were not granted of certainly attaining its
end. Hence Perseverance^ in the work and conflict of faith is the prac
tical side of hope. Hope, eXirig, and perseverance (or " patience,")
* If we reflect how all the ideas relaling to the dignity and blessedness conferred by
Christianity refer alike to something Present and something Future, and accordingly
admit of various and manifold application, it will be easy to explain why, in Gal. v. 5,
" righteousness," is represented, in reference to its perfect realization in the life of believers,
as an object of expectation and hope ; and it belongs also to the contrast between the
Jewish legalism and Christianity, that with the former it was supposed that " righteous
ness" might be possessed as something outwardly perceptible and apparent, though the
distinction between the idea and the appearance was not thought of.
•(¦ If hope be here understood subjectively, it will be placed instead of faith as laying
hold of salvation ; for faith itself can exist in necessary relation to the future only as
hope. But if hope be understood objectively, then it will signify that salvation is here
presented as the object of hope, which, on account ofthe various meanings attached to the
word hope, may be taken as the meaning here.
X Rom. v. 4. Perseverance under sufferings produces a coifirmation (of faith), and
confirmation of faith produces hope.
§ On this idea and its relation to the Christian idea of Hope, see Schleiermacher in
his Academical Lecture titer die wissenschafUiche Behandlung des Tugendbegriffes,1820.

438 FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE.
vnopovr), appear as associated ideas,* and the latter term is sometimes
used instead of hope.f
We must here examine more closely the relation of Knowledge in
religion to these three fundamental principles ofthe Christian life, as laid
down in the Pauline theology. Faith presupposes and includes know
ledge, for it cannot exist without a reference ofthe disposition to some
thing objective ; there must be an object of knowledge to operate on the
disposition.]; But the divine cannot be known from without, in a merely
abstract logical manner, but only from the divine as an element of life iu
the soul, by the sense for the divine. As long as man is opposed to the
divine in the bias of his disposition, he cannot know the divine. Hence
Paul savs, I Cor. ii. 14, the natural man who is estranged from the divine
life, receives not what proceeds from the Spirit of God, for it appears to
him (precisely on account of this his subjective relation to the divine) as
foolishness, and he is unable to know it, because it can be rightly under
stood and appreciated only in a spiritual manner, that is, by means of
the Holy Spirit, (irvevpa ayiov,) so that a participation in this spirit of a
higher life is presupposed. Hence, also, we are not to conceive of fait h§
as something proceeding from unassisted human nature, from man in his
natural state ; but the manner in which faith arises in the disposition,
presupposes the entrance ofthe divine into the conscience and inner life.
But as the knowledge of divine things depends upon a participation of
the divine life, it follows that, in proportion as the divine life received by
faith progressively develops, as the contents of faith are vitalized by in
ward experience, the knowledge of these contents enlarges in a higher
degree, and hence this wider expansion of knowledge is described as a
fruit of faith || And since the divine life of faith is love, since failh in the
Pauline sense cannot be conceived of without love, it is evident that the
true knowledge of divine things can only continue to be developed ac
cording to the measure of increasing love. Hence Paul savs in 1 Cor.
viii. 2, that without love there can be only the appearance of knowledge.
But as this divine life in the believer is ever subject to disturbing and
depressing influences, and exists only in a fragmentary and alloyed state,
it follows that the knowledge arising from it will never be otherwise
than defective. This may also be inferred from what we have before re
marked respecting the relation of faith to the higher order of things still
veiled from human sight, with which faith places us in vital communion,
and to the nature of that adoption which is at present so imperfectly
realized, owing to the opposition between the idea of it and its actual
manifestation. Hence Paul makes a contrast between that know ledge
which, from the position of the present life, is unequal to the contents of
* 1 Thess. i. 3. biropovi) rf/e iAirldoc. •)• 2 Thess. L 4.
X Seep. 419. § ibid.
| Coloss. i. 9; Ephes. i. 18. Tn the last passage, knowledge is represented as ao
effect of the illumination proceeding from faith.

FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE. 439
faith, and that immediate vision which, from the position of the world to
come, perfectly corresponds to all that faith contains. He illustrates tho
relation of the two, by a comparison of the knowledge we possess of
objects by seeing them reflected in a dim mirror, with the knowledge
obtained by immediate vision ; by comparing the notions of children
(which contains a certain portion of truth, though not developed with
clearness and certainty, so that there is a continuity of knowledge carried
on from the child to the man) with the ideas of mature manhood ;* by
contrasting what is fragmentary and isolated with what is perfect ; 1 Cor.
xiii. 9-12. Such is the knowledge of divine things as they are shadowed
forth to us in our temporal consciousness, compared with the intuition of
the things themselves. Hence it is evident, that Paul was conscious
that he could speak of these things only in a symbolical form, which
veiled and contained a higher reality. Therefore, from the sense of the
defectiveness and limitation of our present knowledge of God and of
divine things, a longing is excited after that perfect knowledge wdiich
the mind of man, allied to its Maker and filled with a divine life, requires.
This longing naturally merges into hope.
We are now led to inquire, why Paul, when he represents faith, hope,
and love as the abiding, unchangeable foundations of the Christian life
in its earthly development,* distinguishes love as the greatest of these
* We may here compare Plato's representation of two kinds of knowledge, at the be
ginning ofthe seventh book of his Republic. As if a person were confined in a cavern
where the light only feebly glimmered, and he saw merely the shadows of ohjects by that
faint light; and afterwards, regaining his liberty, became acquainted with the objects
themselves as they appeared in broad daylight. In this manner Plato contrasts two po
sitions in the present life ; the position of the multitude, the slaves of sense, and the
position of the higher intellectual life, as it is presented by Philosophy. This higher
position of Philosophy might be allowed in the state of the ancient heathen world: but,
Christianity will allow no such intellectual aristocraticalness. This would become a beau
tiful image in a Christian sense, if applied, not to the contrast between the degrees of
knowledge in this life and those in the future, but to that between the views of the world
entertained by the natural man, and those which the divine light of the gospel imparts to
all who receive it. We may here compare with Paul's language, the beautiful remarks
of Gregory Nazianzen: Qeov b ri ir ore piv iari ryv tfivotv Kai ryv ovaiav, ovre ne evpev
dvBpurruv rrunore, ovre pr/v evpy. dAA' el piv evpyaet irori, ryriioBu tovto, Evpijaei di die
ipbe Aoyoc, irretddv rb Beoeidie tovto Kal Betov, Aeyu di rbv ypirepav vovv re nal Abyov,
rdi oIkeiu irpoapi^y, Kal y sIkuv dviABy irpbc rb dpxirvirov, ovviiv exet rbv itpeatv, Kai tovto
elvai pot doKel rb rrdvv ijuAoaotjiovpEvov lirtyvuoeoBai rcore ypuc, baov iyvuapeBa. Td de
vvv elvai flpaxeid tic diro/ifioy irov rb tie ypde <t>6dvov, Kal olov peydAov ijiurbe piKpbv
diravyaapa. — f>«f. 34. (What God is >n his nature and essence no man has ever yet dis
covered, or can discover. But if he will discover, let it be sought. And he shall ascer
tain it according to my doctrines, when this godlike and divine — I speak of our under
standing and reason — shall mingle with its own, and the image shall ascend to its arche
type, for which it has a longing; and this seems to me to be the preeminent aim of phi
losophy, that we shall sometime know as we are known. The present life, so far as it all
relates lo us, is a certain emanation, and as it were, a faint reflection of a great light.)
+ In reference lo understanding this, it makes no difference whether we consider the
" now '' vvv), in 1 Cor. xiii. 13, as au illative particle or one of time, for in either case, what

440 KNOWLEDGE AND HOPE.
three. What is asserted by the Catholics is indeed true, that love alone
can give faith its true value, since it makes it living, and hence forms the
criterion between dead and living faith.* It is equally true, that lovo
forms the difference between genuine Christian and carnal selfish hope.f
But in this connexion Paul could not, according to his own association
of ideas, intend to say that love was the greatest, for love in its true
Christian meaning presupposes faith (love in a general sense is a different
thing; that love which proceeds from the universal sense of God
implanted in the human mind, and from the general manifestations ofthe
love of God in the creation and in the heart of a man who follows the
divine guidance ;) and faith again in a certain manner presupposes love,
and that which Paul distinguishes by the name of faith stands in the
closest connexion with love, includes it in itself. What the Catholic
church understands by the term fides informis, Paul would not esteem
worthy of being called faith. He calls love the greatest rather for this
reason, that it is the only eternal, abiding form of the connexion of the
human spirit with the divine; love alone endures beyond this earthly
life ; it will never give place to the development of a higher principle,
but will expand itself in perpetuity \
Thus these three fundamental principles of the Christian life, Faith,
Hope, and Love, are intimately connected with one another ; and since
everything which directly or indirectly belongs to man's moral nature is
brought under their control, and receives from them a peculiar character,
whatever is distinctive in the nature of Christian morals is derived from
them.
Paul hero says can relate only to the present earthly condition of the Christian life. Ac
cording to Paul's views, hope necessarily relates to something still future, not yet
realized; when the realization takes place, hope ceases to exist; Rom. viii. 24. And
faith and the perfect knowledge of immediate intuition are ideas that reciprocally ex
clude one another ; 2 Cor. v. 7. When the late Dr. Billroth in his Commentary on this
Epistle, supposes the pivet to refer to the ohjects of these graces as eternal and abiding,
this certainly cannot be Paul's idea, for they are indeed unchangeable, and the same for
all the three operations of the Spirit; but these three terms refer to the subjective relation
in which man stands to diviue things, and this relation under the form of faith aud hope,
is suited only to ihe earthly condition, and is itself transitory. Love only is in itself
abiding, pivov.
* The fides informis and the fides formata.
\ The "spiritual" (TvevpartK?/), and the "carnal" (aapKiKi/) as proceeding from a
heathenish and from a Jewish element.
X Augustin beautifully remarks, in one of his earlier productions: " Fides quare sit
necessaria, quum jam videat ? Spts niliilominus, quia jam tenet? Carilati vero non
solum nihil detrahetur, sed addetur c-tiam plurimum, nam et ilium singularem veramque
pulchritudiuem quum viderit, plus amabit, et nisi ingenti amore oculum infixerit, nee ab
aspiciendo uspiam deelinaverit, manere in ilia beatissima visione non poterit." — Sol liquid,
i. § 14. (Why may faith be necessary -when it already sees? or hope since it already
possesses? But of charity, tliere shall not only be no diminution but a verv great addi
tion ; for wdien one may behold that only and true beauty, be will love the more, and un-
hss he may fix the eye with strong love, nor turn at any time from beholdiug, can one
remain in that most blessed vision ?)

TRUE AND FALSE HUMILITY. 441
Inseparable from these fundamental principles of the Christian life is
the idea of Humility, Taireivo<bpoovvn. This quality which is closely
connected with the whole existence of the theocratic point of view
already developed in the Old Testament, as is evident from the
ideas conveyed by the terms "afflicted," "distressed," humble in
spirit," "a broken and contrite heart," vs, w, Vb«5, s%,
r\"*\ -iec: , forms the basis of the contrariety between the Christian,
and the ancient view of the world. It serves to mark this contrariety
when the word Taireivbv or humile* which in accordance with the an
cient view was wont to be employed in a bad sense, is converted in the
Christian ethics into a designation of what constitutes the basis of all
higher life, and of all true nature. As from the predominance of self-
consciousness and self-confidence among the ancients, "humble," raireivov,
was used to mark a mean, slavish disposition, so on the other hand " great
ness of soul," peyaXo\pvxla,\ was used as the symbol of true elevation of
soul, a certain pride of self-consciousness, which stands in diametric op
position to the essence of Christian humility. Something bearing an
affinity to that ethical idea of revealed religion, is found in a historical
reflection of Herodotus, that the self-exaltation of human greatness is
punished in history by the judgment of God, who humbles the great and
lofty, and exalts the little.J Underneath this, however, lies a conscious
ness of the controversy between God and the creature ; a dark opposing
force presents itself to the soul, permitting nothing noble to spring up. In
order that this undertone of religious feeling should pass over into humility,
there must intervene the consciousness of reconciliation with God. What
lies at the basis of the view of history taken by Herodotus, appears ele
vated to an ethical and religious contemplation, when Plato, speaking of
the manner in which God reveals himself in history, says, " He is always
accompanied by Justice, 6'ikv, which punishes the deviations from the
divine law ; and whoever would be happy, let him follow patiently in
dependence on the divine justice, humble and orderly ."§ Here Taireivorng
is marked as the disposition, in virtue of which a man submits himself
humbly to the Divine laws, in contrast to the pride ofthe wicked, who,
forsaken by God, is visited by punishment. And Plutarch, who perhaps
had that passage of Plato in his thoughts, makes a similar use of it, when
* See Knapp's excellent remarks on this opposition in his Scripta varii Argumenti,
ed. II. p. 367. Aristotle also uses the word to denote a slavish disposition. — TotV pyfi'
trb' oaoie del Ktvovpivove rbv dvpbv, dAAd irporryAaKiQopivove evxepuc Kal rairetvovc irpb(
Tue d?.tyuplac.
\ Aokci peyaAoipvxoe elvat 6 peydAuv avrbv d^iuv ufcor uv. Eth. Nicomach. lib. iv
c. 7. t $.tAiei c5 Bede TH virepix°vra iruvra KoAovetv, ov yup if ijipovieiv piya 6 8ebc dAAov r)
tuvrov. Lib. vii. c. 10, § 5.
8 Tu c5' del %vvtirirai dtKy rdiv diroAenropivuv tov Betov vduov Ttpupdc. *Hf d piv
eidaipovi/oeiv piAJAuv ix'pevoe £vviirerai rairuvbc Kal KtKoopypivot. De Legit), lib. ir,
ed. Bipout. vol. viii. p 185.

442 TRUE AND FALSE HUMILITY.
he says that " wickedness, when checked by punishment, can scarcely be
made considerate, humble, and God-fearing."* Yet in both passages we
have not the whole idea of humility, but only a part of it — humility in
reference to God as a judge.
But the Christian idea of humility comprehends the full consciousness
of dependence on God as the animating principle of life in all its re
lations, the consciousness of tho innate weakness of all created beings,
the consciousness of inability to be or to do anything except through
God, and the disposition which is founded in the consciousness of all this.
But. from the legal point of view, this consciousness was either only
partial, inasmuch as self-righteousness (which implied a desire of inde
pendence in reference to moral development and the attainment of salva
tion) counteracted the perfect acknowledgment of dependence on God ;
or, where the feeling of internal disunion had been developed to its utmost
extent, and the feeling of estrangement from a holy Omnipotence became
predominant, only the negative element of humility remained, the con
sciousness of personal worthlessness as something mortifying to pride,
the consciousness of an impassable chasm between the limited sinful
creature and the Almighty, Holy Creator. But when to this feeling is
added faith in the Redeemer, and the consciousness of having obtained
redemption, the positive is blended with the negative element ; there arises
the consciousness of participation in the divine life and iu the high dignity
of adoption bestowed by God. If, on the contrary, that connexion
between these two points, which belongs to the essence of Christian
knowledge and of the Christian disposition, be dissolved, and the
negative element be unduly brought forward, a false self-humiliation
is produced, — a self-renunciation with a denial of the dignity founded
on the consciousness of redemption, — a sense of depression without
that sense of exaltation which is blended with it in the consciousness
of redemption. Such a false humility, which displays itself in out
ward gestures and ceremonies, Paul combated in the false teachers of
the Colossian church ; but he classed this mock-humility with spiritual
pride, veiled as it was under the form of an ascetic self-abasement. f
'AvaKpovopcvy tu KoA.d(iaBoi Kaua pi'iAte dv yivoiro avvvove Kal rarreivr) Kai Kara-
iftojioe irpbe rbv Beov. De Sera Numinis Vindicta, u. 3.
f This is a caricature of humility, which has often reappeared in the history of the
church; and thus the nature of genuine Christian humility has been frequently mistaken
by those who were strangers to the true Christian spirit, and knevv not how lo dis
tinguish a morbid from -a healthy state of the spiritual life. An individual of this clase^
Spinoza, justly says of that mock-humility, which alone can exist where the natural feel
ings are not overpowered hy the force of a divine principle of life, and at the same time
transformed into something higher, and where man has not risen from Ihe depths of self-
abasement to a nobler condition : " Hi affectus, nempe humilitas et abjeotio, rarissimi
sunt. Nam natura humana, in se considerata, contra eosdem, quantum potest, nititur, et
ideo, qui maxime creduntur abjecti et bundles esse, maxime plerumqne ambitiosi et invidi
sunt." (These qualities, namely, humility and lowliness, are of the rarest. For human
nature, in itself considered, resists them with all its force, and hence those believed to ba

TRUE AND FALSE HUMILITY. 443
With the consciousness ofthe nothingness of all that man can be and
effect by his own power, Paul combined the elevating consciousness of
what man is and can perform through the Lord ; to the phrases, as per
taining to the flesh, glorying in man, Kara odpKa, ev dvOpdmip Kavxdadai
he opposes the glorying in the Lord, ev Kvpitp KavxdaOai. As humility
first acquires its true character through the love that proceeds from faith,
as through love man's whole life is pervaded by a sense of his dependence
on God, and the human will becomes an organ of the divine, so also
Christian love cannot exist without an abiding consciousness of the dif
ference between the creature and the Creator, the redeemed and the
Redeemer, and the sense of dependence which that difference involves.
It is this consciousness which Paul thus expresses: "What hast thou,
which thou hast not received ?" 1 Cor. iv. 1. It was this consciousness
which animated him in the exercise of his ministry, a consciousness of his
weakness as a man,* which was deepened by his sufferings and conflicts,
though accompanied by the conviction that he could do all things required
of him, through the power of the Lord ; Acts xx. 19. Thus that state of
mind is produced which he describes as " with fear and trembling,"
perd (pof3ov Kal rpopov. This is far from being the mark of a slavish
fear, but only of that state of mind which proceeds from a sense of the
insufficiency of everything human in tho momentous duties of a divine
call.f Humility bears an immediate relation to God alone, and, according to
the Pauline'views, can have reference to no other object. Every refer
ence to man and the creation generally, is strictly excluded ; for in humil
ity there is a consciousness of the dependence of the creation as such on
the Creator, inclusive ofthe whole assemblage of created beings. It fol
lows, that a man who is thoroughly imbued with this sentiment does not
make any fellow-creature the object of it, but as far as his spiritual life is
concerned, is perfectly independent of men, while sensible of his continual
dependence on God. To act differently would be to transfer to a creature
the honor due to the Creator. As it is opposed to every slavish feeling,
it inspires the soul with that true Christian freedomj; which Paul so ad
mirably develops in the First Epistle to the Corinthians as opposed to
e\ ery species of a slavish deference to men. But though humility in and
of itself does not directly affect our behavior to our fellow-men, there
yet flows from it the right determination of Christian conduct towards
others. Pie who is rightly penetrated with the feelings of dependence on
specially lowly and humble are oftentimes specially ambitious and envious.) — Ethices, pars
iii. § 29.
* Seep. 171.
f Thus in Phiiip. ii. 12, he deduces "working out salvation with fear and trembling,"
from the consciousness that atl things depend on the power of God, who works " to will
and to do."
X See page 432.

444 TRUE AND FALSE HUMILITY.
God in reference to his whole existence and conduct, an i with the no
thingness of everything human while living only for one's self, will not
pride himself in his abilities, but feel that they are bestowed upon him
by God for a definite object, and must be used in dependence on him;
in his intercourse with others, he will bear in mind the defects, the limits,
and the imperfection of his own character and abilities, and the dependence
of himself, as well as of all other men, on their common Lord. From
this humility will naturally arise an aversion from every kind of self-ex
altation in a man's conduct towards others, and that which in the consti
tution of the Christian character is the foundation of modesty, and hence
is distinguished by no particular name in Paul's writings, is related to
the idea of humility and derived from it, as in Phil. ii. 3. And it is not
without reason that gentleness, meekness, and long-suffering are men
tioned in connection with humility. Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12.
In order to preserve the purity of the divine life in its conflict with
the world and the flesh, from within and from without, to prevent un
happy mixtures ofthe human with the divine, the oacbpoovvr], the oucppo-
veiv is requisite, the self-government and conquest over the world that
proceeds from love, or Christian circumspection and sober-mindedness.
The Holy Spirit is represented as a spirit of "love," dydirr) and of "a
sound mind," aunppoviapog, 2 Tim. i. 7.* The latter word, as its etymology
imports, signifies that quality by which the Christian life is preserved in
a healthy state, and kept free from all noxious influences. Humility,
wdiich guards the boundary between the divine and the human, is accom
panied by the "thinking soberly," (ppovelv elg rb oucbpovelv, wdiich acts
as an antidote to the intoxication of self-esteem, and promotes a sober
valuation of one's own worth, the remembrance ofthe measure of ability
and gifts granted to each one, as well as the special position allotted
to each, and so protects against arrogating too much to one's self; Rom.
xii. 3. With this is connected the watching and being sober, eypnyopevai
Kal vrjcpeiv, by means of which the sensual and the natural are prevented
from interfering with the movements of the divine life, and the mind is
kept clear of all enthusiastic tendencies. Moreover, since faith working
by love ought to govern the whole life, animate it with a new spirit, and
form it for the service of God, it will be requisite for this end, that the
reason, enlightened by this spirit,should acquire the capability of so regu
lating the whole life, of so managing and applying all the relations of
social and civil life, as will be suited to realize the design ofthe kingdom
of God, according to the place assigned to each individual by Providence.
This is expressed by the term ao<bia,\ which comprehends the ideas of
* Titus, ii. 6, 12. aui/ipovetv here means the exercise of a control over youthful and
worldly lusts.
•(• Also in Plato (see the Republic, iv.) wisdom, aoifiia, takes the rank elsewhere assigned
to prudence, tppbvnair, among the cardinal virtues. Aristotle (in the Greater Ethics, i. 35)
makes a distinction Ihus: wisdom relates to the eternal and the divine; prudence to what
S useful to man. 'H fiiv aotpia irep'i to dtdiov Kal ro Belov, y de fpovyaic Tepl rb avptpipov

THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. 445
wisdom and prudence,* of wdiich the first relates to the choice of proper
objects of pursuit, and the second to the choice of suitable means for
their attainment; and both are blended in one idea, when everything is
employed as means for the all-comprehensive object of life, the realization
of the kingdom of God,f and when Christian wisdom is conceived of as
so shaping and controlling the life, that it may contribute as a whole and
in all its subordinate relations to the advancement of the divine king
dom, according to the position of each individual; and thus what is in
itself an object, becomes a means to the highest object. Christian pru
dence, which emanates from the clear undisturbed survey of a wisdom
that controls the whole life, is to be clearly distinguished from that which
is not founded on such a basis, but would proudly assume a separate
standing as capable of regulating the conduct independently of Christian
wisdom — the piudence which subserves a selfish interest, or employs
means which a Christian mind cannot approve, or one which places more
confidence in human means than in the power and guidance of the Divine
Spirit, the " fleshly wisdom," ooipia aapKiKi), which, as such, is opposed
to the simplicity and purity of the disposition produced by the Spirit of
God; 2 Cor. i. 12. Paul requires the union of a matured understanding
and a childlike disposition, a childlike innocence, 1 Cor. xiv. 20. "In
malice be ye children, in understanding be ye men," even as Christ en
joined his disciples to unite the wisdom of the serpent and the harmless-
ness of the dove.
Thus, in the renovation of human nature by the divine principle of
life — in the quickening of the whole life by the principle of believing and
hoping love, we find the three fundamental virtues, which were regarded
by the ancients in the development of morals as forming the grand out
lines of moral character. Perseverance, viropovT], corresponds to manli
ness, dvdpeia, which last term includes both courage in action (the
" quit you like men," " be strong," dvdpi&odat, Kparaiovadai, 1 Cor.
xvi. 13,) and patience, paKpodvpla, under sufferings for the kingdom of
dvBpdnru. This corresponds to the manner in which Aristotle marks off the department
of ethics, the contrast made by him between the divine and the purely human. But such
contrast is not in accordance with tho Christian teachings, which demand that every
thing human should be referred to the eternal and the divine, and the " useful to man,"
cvptpipov dvBpunu, is grounded on this. The true prudence, which includes wisdom,
is that which from the eternal and the divine gives the direction to the whole life, and
forms its plan accordingly.
* To ooipia is attributed the "walking circumspectly," uKptpdie ireptirareiv, careful ex
amination relative to one's conduct in social life, that a man may discern on every occasion
what is agreeable to the will of the Lord, and, under difficult circumstances, may choose
the right opportunity for accomplishing what is good, the " redeeming the time," i^ayopd-
(eoBai rbv Kaipbv, Eph. v. 15. J,otj>ia would be shown in the intercourse of Christians with
heathens, in avoiding whatever would give them offence, and so regulating the conduct
according to circumstances, as would be best fitted to overcome their prejudices against
Christianity, and recommend it to their regard.
j From this point of view Christ represents all Christian virtues under the form of
prudence. See Life of Christ, 273-77.

446 THE CARDINAL VIRTUES.
God ; — (this latter idea, from its connexion with the Christian views of
total dependence on God, and ofthe imitation ofthe sufferings of Christ,
who by his sufferings conquered the kingdom of evil, stands out in more
direct contrast to the principles of ancient heathenism.) Wisdom, aotpia
corresponds to prudence, <pp6vnaig,M\c\ moderation, ooxbpoovvr). Of the
ancient cardinal virtues then, there remains only righteousness, diKaioovvn;
yet what is generally intended by Paul under this name, does not naturally
belong to this place, since it bears no correspondence to the more re
stricted sense of righteousness, but, according to the Hellenist phraseol
ogy, is put for the whole of moral perfection founded in piety. But the
prominence given to the idea of righteousness by the ancients is closely
connected with that which essentially distinguishes their moral develop
ment from that of Christianity, namely, their practice of considering civil
life as the highest form of human development which includes all others
in it, aod the State as the condition adapted for the complete realization
ofthe highest good.* As now7 by realizing the idea of a kingdom of God,
morality was freed from this limitation, was exalted and widened in its
application to all mankind, became transformed into a divine life in
human form ; and as it is the Love of God which manifests itself as the
holy and redeeming characteristic of this kingdom, it follows that, in the
divine life of this kingdom, love occupies the place that in the view of
antiquity was held by righteousness, so that, as , Aristotle and Plato
traced back all the cardinal virtues to the idea of righteousness, and ac
cording to the Grecian proverb, righteousness included in itself all other
virtues ;f so according to Paul, love is the fulfilling of the law, includes
aud originates all other virtues, and is, in short, the sum and substance of
perfection. \ And in 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 5, he represents all the peculiar acts
ofthe leading Christian virtues as so many modes of love.§ Love is dis
creet, patient, persevering, always chooses wdiat is becoming, is all things
to all men, and thus shows itself to be true prudence. The idea of right
eousness is not excluded, for all the acts of love may be conceived as de
termined by a regard to right; for love is not capricious but conforma
ble to law; it acknowledges and respects those human relations which
are agreeable to the will of God, and gives to every one what his position
in society demands. In Rom. xiii. 7, Coloss. iv. 1, love is certainly to be
regarded as the animating principle in the performance of the "just and
equal," 6'iKaiov Kal laov, which may therefore be considered as only one
mode ofthe operation of love.
Since Paul considered faith as the fundamental principle of the Chris
tian life, it follows, that the immediate relation of each individual to the
Redeemer was in his view of primary importance, and the idea of fellow-
* The opinion of those who attribute to the State such an importance, and would re
gard it as the perfect, final form for the realization of the kingdom of God, is derived from
unchristian premises, and leads to anti-Christian conclusions.
f iv de diKatoavvy av'A.A.yiidyv irda' apery ivi. Aristot. Eth. ITicomach. lib. V. 0. 3.
X avvdeapoc rye rsXetorif-oc;. Coloss. iii. 14. § As Aug. : affectus quosdam amoria.

IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 447
ship, the idea ofthe Church, was deducible from it. Through faith each
one entered for himself into fellowship with the Redeemer, partook of the
Holy Spirit as the new principle of life, and became a child of God, a
temple of the Holy Spirit. The knowledge of God has been rendered
attainable to all through Christ, for in him God has manifested himself
in the most complete and to the human mind the only conceivable manner,
has communicated himself to our race through Christ, the founder of
reconciliation, the author of a new filial relation" of man to God. Through
his mediation the whole Christian life becomes acceptable to God, by a
reference to him who is always the sole worthy object of the divine good
pleasure, and from whom that good pleasure is extended to all who enter
into spiritual fellowship with him. To this mediation, which is always
presupposed as a matter of Christian consciousness, to this production of
the wdiole Christian life through consciousness of redemption received
from Christ, relate the Pauline expressions, " God,the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ" — " doing all in the name of Christ to the glory of
God" — " giving thanks to God through Christ" — " praying to God" —
'" all things in Christ" — " in the name of Christ" — "through Christ"
— the prepositions in which phrases can be deprived of their strict mean
ing only by an utter misconception of the Pauline connexion of ideas.
Although the high priesthood of Christ, and the universal priesthood of
all believers, are expressions not found in Paul's writings, yet from what
has been said, the ideas implied in them lie at the very foundation of his
religious conceptions. Thus with Paul there is, unquestionably, an im
mediate reference of religious knowledge and experience to Christ as the
only fountain-head, from whom everything else is derived. Hence, he
could treat of the nature of Christian faith in the eleven first chapters of
the Epistle to the Romans, without introducing the idea of the Church.
But the consciousness of divine life received from Christ, is necessarily
followed by the recognition of a communion which embraces all mankind,
and passes beyond the boundaries of earthly existence, the consciousness
of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit producing and animating this communion
— the consciousness ofthe unity of the divine life shared by all believers,
a unity which counterbalances all the other differences existing among
mankind, as had been already manifested at the first promulgation of
Christianity, when the most marked contrarieties arising either from
religion, national peculiarities, or mental culture, were reconcile 1, ami
the persons whom they had kept at a distance from each other became
united in vital communion. To the extraordinary influence of Chris
tianity in relation to these contrarieties, Paul bears witness when he says,
" For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as
many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."
There was in this respect no difference whether a member of the Church
was Jew or Greek (in his descent or in his former religion), slave or
freeman, male or female, for all were in communion with Christ as ona

448 IDEA OF THE CHURCH.
person, there was in all the one life of Christ, Gal. iii. 26-28.* The con
sciousness of communion with the Redeemer cannot exist without the
recognition ofthe existence of the community of believers animated by
one Spirit, who belong as his body to him the head, under whose con
tinued influence alone it can grow to maturity, and in which all believers
are members one of another. The body of Christ is the Church, the
iKKXnaia deov or Xpiarov.-\ This communion is formed and developed
on the same foundation as the Christian life or the temple of God in each
individual, namely faith in Jesus as the Redeemer, 1 Cor. iii. 11. Hence
the image so frequently used by Paul to represent the church as a building
which is gradually reared on this foundation, Ephes. ii. 20 ; and his
application of the term "to build," "to edify," ohoSopeiv, to designate
whatever contributes to the furtherance of Christian life. The principle
from which this communion springs, always continues to be the bond of
its union. Paul, in treating of this unity, adduces as plain marks of its
origin from within, (Ephes. iv. 4,) the one spirit which animates this one
body, the one object of heavenly blessedness to which all are called, the
one faith in one God, whom through Christ they have acknowledged as
the Father of all, with whom through Christ and the Spirit imparted by
him, they are connected most intimately, so that he rules over them
with his all-guiding, all-protecting might, pervades them all with his
efficacious power, and dwells in all by his animating Spirit — and the
one Redeemer, whom they all acknowledge as their Lord, and to whom
they were dedicated by baptism. J; The consecrated people, under the
Old Testament form of the Theocracy, constituted a contrast to the
heathen nations, which was now transferred with a more spiritual and
internal character to the community of believers. They retained the
predicates ayioi and ryyiaapevot, the holy, consecrated people, in reference
to the objective consecration founded on redemption, and their objective
contrariety to the profane, the " world," Koapog ; but yet the subjective
* Tn Coloss. iii. 11, Paul notices particularly the contrast between the civilized and
uncivilized, the Greek being the most striking example of the former class, and the
Scythian of the latter. In his language lies a prophetic intimation that Christianity
would reach the rudest tribes, and impart a new divine principle of life, the mainspring
of all sound mental culture.
f This certainly is no abstract representation, but a truly living reality. If in all the
widely-spread Christian communities, amidst all tho diversity of human peculiarities ani
mated by the same spirit, only the consciousness of this higher unity and communion
were retained, as Paul desired, this would be the most glorious appearance of the one
Christian church, in which the kingdom of God represents itself on earth ; and no out
ward constitution, no system of episcopacy, no council, still less any organization by the
State, which would substitute something foreign to its nature, could render the idea of a
Christian church more real or concrete.
X We cannot suppose that the " one baptism," ev fidirnapa, refers to unity in the
outward institution of baptism, which would bo here quite irrelevant. AU the marks of
unity here mentioned manifestly relate to the same thing, to which the unity of faith also
relates.

IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 449
consecration arising from the development ofthe divine principle of life,
was necessarily founded on the former, and inseparable from it — even as
justification and sanctification are connected with one another. They
retained also the predicate "called," kXtjtoI, as those who were called
by the grace of God to a participation of the kingdom of God and eternal
happiness ; and this calling is not to be considered merely as outward,
by virtue of the external publication of the gospel, but agreeably to its
' design, and as the very idea imports, the external is to be thought of in
connexion with the internal, the outward publication ofthe gospel with
the efficacious inward call of the Divine Spirit, so that hence the idea of
kX-otoI coincides with that of believers who really belong in heart to
Christ. In general, Paul considers the outward and the inward, the idea
and the appearance, in all these relations, as intimately connected, the con
fession as an expression of faith, 1 Cor. xii. 3, the being in Christ as a
reality, the being a professed Christian as a sign of inward communion
with the Redeemer, 2 Cor. v. 17 ; and thus also the Church as the out
ward exhibition ofthe body of Christ, the fellowship truly established by
the Spirit of God. The language in which he addresses individual
churches is conformable to these views. When Paul proceeds from this
agreement of the inward and the outward, and regards that which appears
outwardly as one with the divine reality which should be expressed in
it, we must never forget how emphatically he opposes every kind of ex
ternalising of religion, which he looked upon as something belonging to
the Jewish stand-point — how he represents the divine life as developed
in every individual from within, through the faith that refers immediately
to Christ himself. Gal. iii. 5.
But though in general the apostle sets out from this point of view,
yet it could not escape his observation that not all who outwardly repre
sented themselves as members of the church, were really in the true sense
members ofthe body of Christ. This distinction he does not make in the
original idea ofthe church, since it is not naturally deducible from it, but
must be considered as something incongruous and morbid, and not to be
known excepting by observation, unless we refer it to the directly inevi
table disorders that in the development of the visible church arise from
the reaction of sin. Certain experiences of this kind forced the distinction
upon him ; in 1 Cor. vi. 9, he declares that those who professed Christianity
outwardly, and represented themselves as members of the church, but
whose conduct was at variance with the requirements of Christianity, could
have no part in the kingdom of God. It followed, therefore, that they
were already, on earth, excluded by their disposition from that kingdom,
from that communion of the faithful and redeemed which, strictly speak
ing constitutes the Church. In this passage, he treats of cases in which the
foreign elements which had mingled with the outward manifestation ofthe
church, mirdit be easily detected and expelled by the judgment of tho
Christian community for the preservation of its purity ; for such marks of
an unchristian course of life are here mentioned, as are notorious and ap-

450 IDEA OF THE CHURCH.
parent to every one. But an unchristian disposition, a deficiency of faith
working by love, might exist, without being manifested by outward signs
which would be as easily understood as in the former case ; and here the
separation of the elements that corresponded to the idea ofthe church
from those that were incongruous, could not be so accurately made. We
learn this from Paul himself, in 2 Tim. ii. 1 9, 20, where he contrasts with the
apostates from Christian truth, those who constituted the firm foundation
of God's house, and wdio wore the impress of this seal, " The Lord know-
eth them that are his," and "Let every one that nameth the name of
Christ depart from iniquity." " In a great house there are not only
vessels of gold and vessels of silver, but also of wood and of earth ; and
some to honor, and some to dishonor. The great house is here the visible
Church ; in it are those who are members only in appearance by an external
superficial union, without really belonging to it by their disposition, and
who, on account of their connexion with it reckoned by the Lord to be
his, " the vessels to dishonor," are to be distinguished from those who,
united iu heart to the church, "the vessels to honor," in order that they
may be preserved as such, avoid all sin, and call on the name of the Lord
without hypocrisy. He here intimates that the line of distinction between
the genuine and the spurious members of the church, can be drawn only
by God who knows the hidden disposition. Accordingly, in the applica-
lion ofthe idea ofthe visible church, the distinction arises between the
collective body of those in whom the appearance corresponds to what is
internal and invisible, and those who belong to the church in appearance,
without having internally any part in it.
Since the Church, as the body of Christ not merely lavs claim to a
part of the life of its members, but must embrace the whole as belong
ing to the Redeemer, and as animated by the Holy Spirit, the source
of 1 i ' e to the church, it follows that the care for the promotion of the
good of the whole is committed not merely to certain officers and per
sons, but all the members are bound together as organs of that Spirit by
whom Christ, as ih- governing Head, animates each individual member,
and thus mutually united, are to cooperate for the same object; Eph. iv.
16. Thus, accordingly, it is the duty of each one to consider the position
in which God has placed him by his natural character, his peculiar train
ing, and his social relations, as that which determines the mode in which
he may mo-t effectually labor for this end. As all natural abilities are to
be consecrated as forms of manifestation for the divine life, so the Holy
Spirit, « bile animating the whole, appropriates each individual character,
and gives to each one his special gifts by which he is ordained to pro
mote the general good, according to his endowments and opportunities.
Here we hacethe idea of charism, which has been alreadv explained.*
Without the II dy Sprit and the charisms as the necessary man testa
tions aud signs of his continued efficacious presence iu the collective body
* See page 430.

BAPTISM. 451
of believers, the Church (which is the continued revelation of the divino
life in human form proceeding from the glorified S iviour) cannot exist;
1 Cor. xii. By the spirit of love animating the whole, the charisms of all
the individual members, forming reciprocal complements to each other,
are conducted to the promotion of one object, the perfecting of the wholo
body of Christ; as Paul has so admirably represented in 1 Cor. xii.
Since the Church is no other than the outward visible representation
of the inward communion of believers with the Redeemer and with one
another, answering to this twofold element of ihe fellowship, both in re
spect to ils inward nature and its outward manifestation, the ordinances
of Baptism and the Supper were instituted as outward visible signs to
represent as actually existing the facts in which the essence of this fel
lowship rests. Baptism denotes the confession of dependence on Christ
and the entrance into communion with him; and hence, the appropria
tion of all which Christ promises to those who stand in such a relation to
him; it is the putting on Christ, in whose name baptism is adminis
tered,* an expression which includes in it all we have said ; Gal. iii. 27. f
As communion with Christ and the whole Christian life has a special
reference to the appropri it.ion of those two great events, his redeeming
sufferings and his resurrection, J Paul, alluding to the form in which bap
tism was then administered, aud by this illustrating the idea of baptism,
explains the outward act by a reference to these two events § The two
fold relation of man to the former views of life which he bad renounced,
and to those new ones which he had embraced, is here signified — enter
ing into fellowship with the death of Christ, into a believing appropria
tion of the work of redemption accomplished by his death, dying with
him in sprit to the world in wdiich one has hitherto lived; mortifying
self, as it heretofore existed, and by faith in his resurrection as a pledge
of resurrection to an eternal divine life in a transformed personality,
rising to a new life devoted no longer to the world but to him alone;
Rom. vi. 4. In accordance with this train of thought, Paul terms bap
tism, a baptism into the death of Christ. And for the same reason, he
could also call it a baptism into the resurrection of Christ. But this lat
ter reference presupposes the former ; the latter, in fact, includes the
former. From communion with Christ as the Son of God, the new re
lation follows of sonship to God, of* filial communion with God, Gal. iii.
26 ; and the participation in the spirit of a new divine life iu the Holy
Spirit communicated by Christ. It is Christ wdio imparts the true bap
tism of the Spirit, of which water-baptism is only the symbol, aud this
* On the meaning of the formula, "to baptize in the name of any one," see the remarks
of Dr. Bindseil in the Studien und Kriliken, 1832, part ii.
f Paul in Gal. iii. 27, might have said, "All of you who have believed in Christ." But
he said instead of this, "as many of you as have been baptized into Christ," since he
viewed baplism as the objective sign and seal of the relation to Christ into which man en
tered by faith. X See page 421. § Page 160-

452 BAPTISM.
immersion in the Spirit makes precisely the difference between Christian
baptism and that of John. Therefore, baptism in the name of Christ is
at the same time, necessarily, baptism in the name of the Father and of
the Holy Spirit. The one reference cannot be thought of without the three,
fold. In virtue of the connexion of ideas before noticed, entrance into
communion with Christ is indissolubly connected with entrance into com
munion with the body of which He is the head, the whole assemblage of
believers. " By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, hence are
incorporated with it through baptism ;" 1 Cor. xii. 13. As entrance into
communion with the Redeemer at baptism implies a cessation from com
munion with sin — the putting on of Christ implies the putting off of the
old man — the rising with Christ implies the dying with Christ — the trans
formation by the new Spirit of holiness implies the forgiveness of sins
and the cleansing from sin — entrance into communion with the body of
Christ implies a departure from communion with a sinful world; so the
distinction arises of a positive and a negative significance in baptism.
Hence the washing away of sin, sanctification and justification, are
classed together at baptism; 1 Cor. vi. 11.* What we have remarked
respecting Paul's idea of the church, the relation of the inward to the
outward, the ideal to the visible, -will also apply to baptism. As Paul,
in speaking of the church, presupposes that the outward church is the
visible community ofthe redeemed; so he speaks of baptism'on the sup
position that it corresponded to its idea, that all that was inward, what
ever belonged to the holy rite and its complete observance, accompanied
*,he outward; hence he could assert of outward baptism whatever was
involved in a believing appropriation of the divine facts which it symbol
ized ; whatever must be realized when baptism fully corresponds to its
original design. Thus he says, that all those who had been baptized into
Christ, had entered into vital communion with him, Gal. iii. 27 ; language
wdiich was applicable only to those in whom the inward and the outward
harmonised as the idea of baptism required. Hence also he calls bap
tism the bath of regeneration and of renewal by the Holy Spirit; Tit.
iii. 5. And hence he says, that Christ by baptism has purified the whole
church as a preparation for that perfect purity which it will exhibit, in
that perfection to which the Saviour would exalt it ; Eph. v. 26. And
yet, according to what has been said above, it is certain that Paul de
rives everything from faith. If any one had wished to attribute to the
power of an outward, sensible ceremony, — an element belonging to the
senses, — wdiat is to be deduced from an internal appropriation through
faith, Paul would have applied to baptism what he said of circumcirion,
that it was a return to the element of the world, a putting the " carnal,"
* As Paul here joins the "in the name of the Lord," iv rip bvnpart rov Kvpiov, and
"by the Spirit of God," iv ru irvevpart rov Beov, it may be inferred that he is here speak
ing of subjective sanctification, by the communication of a divine principle of life, as wed
as of objective justification.

THE LORD S SUPPER. 453
aapKiKbv, in the place of the " spiritual," rtvevpariKhv. But he speaks, in
the passages we have quoted, of the whole of the Divine transaction in
which faith is included, as the subjective element from which everything
proceeds. And it is a common figure of speech, to state one principal
element for the sum total of elements ; in this instance, the most outward
is adduced, by which the wdiole is brought under observation, the clos
ing point of the whole, wdiich presupposes all the other elements, includ
ing the most internal.
Relative to the Holy Supper, it appears from Paul's language in
1 Cor. xi. 24, that he considered it a feast in commemoration of Christ's
offering his life* for the salvation of men, and of all the benefits accruing
thereby to mankind. According to his explanation of the words of the
institution, 1 Cor. xi. 26, believers, when they unitedly celebrate the Last
Supper of Christ with his disciples, are gratefully to proclaim what they
owe to the sufferings of Christ till his second coming, till they are favored
with the visible presence of the Saviour, and the perfect enjoyment of
all that his redeeming sufferings have gained for mankind. Hence be
lievers, in united praise to the Lord to whose redeeming sufferings they
owe their salvation, should celebrate the Supper as a pledge of their con
stant communion with him, till that communion is consummated in his
immediate presence. Christ further designed, as Paul teaches, to remind
his disciples of the new relation or covenant established by his sacrifice
between God and man, which is naturally connected with what has been
already mentioned ; for as the work of redemption accomplished by
Christ's sufferings is the foundation of this new relation, which supersedes
the ancient legal economy, its connexion with the instiiution of this ordi
nance is self-evident. And as in the institution of the Supper there are
several allusions to the usages practised at the passover, a natural point
of comparison is here presented between the establishment ofthe earthly
national Theocracy, which was accomplished by the release of the Jews
from earthly bondage and their formation into an independent, national
communion, — and the establishment of an universal Theocracy in a spirit
ual form, which consisted in releasing its members from the spiritual
bondage of sin, and their formation into an internally independent com
munity or church of God. If this subject is viewed in the Pauline spirit,
it will be evident, that all this can be properly fulfilled only in vital com
munion with the Redeemer, apart from which nothing in the Christian
life has its proper significance ; and that there can be no real commemora
tion of Christ's redeeming sufferings except in vital communion with
him. The solemn remembrance of Christ's sufferings is the leading idea
in this holy ordinance, though the consciousness of communion with him
* That this was the leading reference, I agree with what Liicke has stated in his Essay,
De duplicis in sacra Ccena Sgmboli Actusque Sensu ac Ratione, 1837. Yet other references
appear to me not to be excluded, but to be originally given with it, and to be naturally
connected with it and founded on it

454 THE IORd's SUPPER.
is necessarily connected with it. And communion with Christ neces
sarily presupposes his redeeming sufferings, and the personal appropria
tion of these. Baptism, as baptism into the death of Christ, also intro
duces believers into his communion. Iu Baptism \hey put on Christ,
fust as in the Supper they eat his flesh and drink his blood.
With respect to the manner in which Paul conceived of the relation
ofthe outward signs to the body and blood of Christ, we must not for
get that the latter are here considered merely as having been given for
the salvation of mankind. Under this view the form in which he quotes
Christ's words is important. He says, " This cup is the ' new covenant, '
Kaiv?) diaOfiKn, which was established by the shedding of my blood."
This can only mean : The cup represents to you in a sensible manner the
institution of this new relation. And by analogy the first "this is,''
tovto eart, must he interpreted: " It represents my body."* True, he
immediately afterwards says that whoever eats or drinks in an un
worthy manner, that is, with a profane disposition, uninterested in or
not recollecting the design ofthe holy ordinance, So that, as Paul himself
explains it in v. 29, ho does not distinguish what is intended to represent
the body of Christ from common food — that such a one sins against the
body and blood of the Lord. But from these words we cannot determine
the relation in which the bread and wine were considered by Paul to
stand to the body and blood of Christ, for the sinning of which he speaks,
as the connexion shows, consists only in the relation of the communicant's
disposition to the holy design ofthe ordinance. On the supposition that
only a symbolically religious meaning was attached to the Supper, this
language might be used respecting those who partook of it merely as a
common meal. And what he afterwards says, that whoever partook of
the Supper unworthily, partook of it to his condemnation, is by no means
decisive, for this relates only to the religious consciousness of the indi
vidual. Whoever partook of the Lord's Supper with a profane disposi
tion, without being penetrated with a sense of the holy significance of
the rite, by such vain conduct passed the sentence of his own condemna
tion, and exposed himself lo punishment. Accordingly, in the evils which
at that lime affected the church, the apostle beheld the marks of divine
punishment. * Those who advocate the metaphorical interpretation of the expressions used in the
institulion ofthe Supper, are very unjustly charged with doing violence to the words, by
depaning from the literal meaning. If the literal interpretation of the circumstances and
relations under which anything is said, be contrary to the connexion and design of the
discourse, this literal interpretation is unnatural and forced. And this is certainly the
case in the interpretation of these words of our Lord, for since Christ win still sensibly
present among his disciples when he said that this bread was his body, this wine was hij
blood, they could understand him as speaking only symbolically, if he added no further
explanation. Moreover, they were accustomed to similar symbolical expressions in theii
intercourse with him ; and this very symbol receives its natural interpretation from an
other of Christ's discourses seethe chapter on John's doctriue ; also Life of Christ, p.
390 ; aud Liicke's Kssay referred to above.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 455
In the 10th chapter of the same Epistle, the apostle speaks of the
Lord's Supper, and declares to the Corinthians that it was unlawful
to unite a participation in the heathen sacrifices with Christian com
munion in the Holy Supper. He points out that, by participating in the
heathen sacrifices, they would relapse into fellowship with idolatry.
These sacrifices bore the same relation to the heathen religious fellow
ship as the Jewish sacrifices to the fellowship of the Jewish cultus, and
as the Lord's Supper to the religious fellowship of Christianity. And in
accordance with this fact he says, " The cup of blessing which we bless,
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we
break, is it not the communion ofthe body of Christ?" — which can only
mean that the Supper marks, represents, this communion, is the means
of appropriating this communion ; for the rite is here viewed as, in its
totality, corresponding to the idea, iu the congruity of the inward with
the outward, in the same sense as wdien Paul says that as many as have
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.* As to the two other
points with which the Lord's Supper is here compared iu its relation to
Christianity, the only thing essential is a direction for the conscience in
communion ; respecting the kind of communion in the Supper nothing
more can be ascertained from these words.
Since the Supper represents the communion with Christ, there is at
the same time involved a reference to the communion founded upon it of
believers with one another as members ofthe one body of Christ With
this view Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 17, " For we being many are one loaf and
one body, for we are all partakers of that one loaf;" I hat is, as we all
partake of one loaf, and this loaf represents to us the body of Christ, so
it also signifies that we are all related to one another as members of the
one body of Christ.f
The idea of the Church of Christ is closely connected in the views of
Paul with that of the Kingdom of God. The former is the particular
idea, which must be referred to the latter as the more general and com
prehensive one. The idea of the church is subordinate to that of the
kingdom of God, because by the latter is denoted, partly the whole of a
series of historical developments, partly a great assemblage of co-existent
spiritual creations. The first meaning leads us to the original form ofthe
idea of the kingdom of God, by which the Christian dispensation was
introduced and to which it was annexed. The universal kingdom of God
formed from within, which is to embrace the whole human race, or the
union of all mankind in one community animated by one common prin-
» The older Fathers ofthe church not illogically inferred, that there was a bodily par
ticipation of Christ at Baptism as well as at the Supper.
f In 1 Cor. xii. 13, there may be an allusion to the Supper in the words " have drunk
into one Spirit," [ccc] iv irvevpa IiroriaOyptv, and in this ease to the participation in the
"one Spirit," proceeding from spiritual communion with the Redeemer; this may be also
the case in 1 Cor. x. 3, 4.

456 THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
ciple of religion, was prepared and typified by the establishment and de<
velopment of a national communion, distinguished by religion as the
foundation and centre of all its social institutions, the particular Theocracy
of the Jews. The kingdom of God was not first founded by Christianity
as something entirely new, but the original kingdom of God, of which
the groundwork already existed, was released from its limitation to a
particular people and its symbolical garb ; it was transformed from being
a sensuous and external economy to one that was spiritual and internal ;
and no longer national, it assumed a form that was destined to embrace
the whole of mankind ; and thus it came to pass, that faith in that Re
deemer, whom to prefigure and to prepare for was the highest office of
Judaism, was the medium for all men of participating in the kingdom of
God. The apostle everywhere represents, that those who had hitherto
lived excluded from all historical connexion with the development of
God's kingdom among mankind, had become, by faith in the Redeemer,
fellow-citizens of the saints, members of God's household, built on the
foundation laid by apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the
chief corner-stone; Eph. ii. 19, 20. The same fact is represented by
another image, that of the original root of the stockof theTheocracy in
Judaism, in Rom. xi. 18. Christianity, then, allied itself to the expecta
tion of a restoration and glorification ofthe Theocracy, which was pre
ceded by an ever increasing sense of its fallen state among the Jews.
Those who clung to a national and external Theocracy, looked forward
to this glorification as something external, sensuous, and national. The
Messiah, they imagined, would triumphantly exalt, by a divine and
miraculous power, the depressed Theocracy of the Jews to a visible glory
such as it had never before possessed, and establish a new, and exalted,
unchangeable order of things, in place of the transitory earthly institu
tions which had hitherto existed. Thus the kingdom of the Messiah
would appear as the perfected form ofthe Theocracy; as the final stage in the
terrestrial development of mankind, exceeding in glory everything which
a rude fancy could depict under sensible images; a kingdom iu which the
Messiah would reign sensibly present as God's vicegerent, and order all
circumstances according to his will. From this point of view, therefore,
the reign of the Messiah would appear as belonging entirely to the future ;
the present condition of the world (ihe alibv ovrog, or alcbv irovnpbg), with
all its evils and defects, would be set in opposition to that future golden
age (the aliov peXXuv) from which all wickedness and evil would be
banished. But in accordance with a change in the idea of the kingdom
of God, a different construction was put on this opposition by Chris
tianity ; it was transformed from the external to the internal, and with
drawn from the future to the present. By faith in the Redeemer, the
kingdom of God or of the Messiah is already founded in the hearts of
men, and thence developing itself outwards, is destined to bring under
its control all that belongs to man. And so that higher order of things,
which to the Jewish mind was placed in the future, has already com-

THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 457
menced with the divine life received by faith, and is realized in principle.
In spirit and disposition they have already quitted the world in which
evil reigns; redemption brings with it deliverance from this world of
evil,* and believers, who already participate in the spirit, the laws, the
powers, and the blessedness of that higher world, constitute an opposi
tion to " this world," aliov ovrog, the " evil world," aliov rrovnpog. Such
is the idea ofthe kingdom of God presented by the apostle as realized, in
the spirit of it, on earth ; the kingdom of Christ coincides with the idea
of the church existing in the hearts of men, the invisible church, f the
totality ofthe operations of Christianity on mankind ; — and the idea of
the aluv ovrog is that of the ungodly spirit of the present world maintain
ing an incessant conflict with Christianity.
But as we have already remarked in reference to the Christian life
generally, as founded on the necessary connexion of the ideas of faith and
hope, the Pauline conception ofthe kingdom of God necessarily contains
a reference to the future; for as ihe Christian life of the individual is
developed progressively by inward and outward conflicts, while aiinino-
at that perfection which is never attained in this earthly existence, the
same thing is also true of the manifestation of the kingdom of God on
earth, which comprehends the totality of the Christian life diffused
through the human race. The knowledge of the manifestation of the
kingdom of God is necessarily accompanied by a recognition of this
manifestation as still very obscure and imperfect, and by no means cor
responding to its idea and real nature. Hence the idea of the kingdom
* Deliverance from the " present evil world," iveorue alibv irovypbe, Decessarily ac
companies redemption from sin. See Gal. i. 4.
\ This is the " Jerusalem which is above," y dvu 'lepovaaAi)p, the mother of
believers; Gal. iv. 26. Rothe disputes this interpretation (see his work before quoted,
p. 290), but without reason. He is indeed so far right, that, primarily, something future
is designated by it, as appears hem its being contiai-ted with " the Jerusalem which now
is ;" but this future heavenly Jerusalem, which at a future time is to be revealed in its
glory, is to true believers something already present, for in faith and spirit and inward
life they belong to it; while the earthly Jerusalem is, for them, something passed away;
they are dead to it, and are separated from it. From this it follows that the heavenly
Jeiusalem stands to them in the rei lion of a mother ; the participation ofthe divine
lite by which they are regenerated, and which represents itself in them, eonstitules
them the invisible church. The perfect development of this life belongs to the future ;
tlieir life is now a hidden one; the manifeslalion of it does not fully correspond to its real
nature. Though the idea of the invisible church is not expressed in this distinct form by
Paul, yet in spirit and meaning it is conveyed in the above expression, as well as in the
distinction which he makes in 2 Tun. ii. 19, 20; (see p. 450), and when he forms his idea
of the body of Christ according to this distinction, it entirely coincides with that of the
invisihle church. Hence, also, this idea was strikingly developed by the Reformation
which proceeded from the Pauline scheme of doctrine. And it is important to maintain
it firmly against ecclesiastical sectarianism, against the secularization of the church,
whether under the form of Hierarchy, of Romanism, or, what is still worse, of subordina
tion of religion to polilical objects, tiie supremacy of tlie State in matters of religion.
Bvzautinism.

458 THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN ITS
of God in its realization, can only be understood if we view it as now
presenting the tendency and germ of what will receive its accomplish
ment in future, and this accomplishment Paul represents not as some
thing which will spontaneously arise from the natural development ofthe
church, but as produced, like the founding of the kingdom of Christ, by
an immediate intervention of Christ himself. Hence the various applica
tions of this term. Sometimes it denoies the present form assumed by
the kingdom of God among mankind, the internal kingdom, which is
established in the heart by the gospel ; sometimes the future consumma
tion, the pei fee ted form of the victorious and all-transforming kingdom
of God ; at other times, the present in its union with the future and in
reference to it. The conception of the idea of the kingdom of God in
the first sense, is found in 1 Cor. iv. 20. The kingdom of God does uot
consist, the participation of it is not shown, in wdiat we eat or drink, but
in the power ofthe life; not in ostentatious discourse, as iu the Corin
thian church, but in the power of the disposition; Rom. xiv. 17. The
kingdom of God is not meats and drinks — its blessings are not external
and sensible, but internal, by possessing which we prove our participa
tion in it, such as justification, peace in the inner man, and a sense ofthe
blessedness ofthe divine life.* The reference to the future is introduced
where he speaks of the reigning of believers," avu/3aatXeveiv " with"
Christ; and where he says, that those who, although they have received
outward baptism and made an outward profession of Christianity, yet
contradict it by the course of their lives, shall not inherit the kingdom of
God; 1 Cor. vi. 10. The passage in 1 Thess. ii. 12, wdiere Chrislians are
called upon to conduct themselves in a manner worthy of that God who
had called them to his kingdom and glory, has certainly a reference to
the future, as far as the glory of this kingdom has not yet appeared; in
2 Thess. i. 5, the apostle says that Christian-, as they already belong to
this kingdom, fight and suffer as members of it, sh.dl therefore have part
in it when it shall appear in its consummation.
This requires our attentive consideration. At the time of which we
are speaking, the church comprised the whole visible form of the kingdom
of God; everything else stood in opposition to it ; and yet the kingdom
of God is destined to universal sovereignty, — to appropriate everything
as its organ ; as everything in humanity depends upon it, the kingdom
of God must stamp its impress on the race before it can find the realiza-
* The connexion of this passage, Rom. xiv. 1G, appears lo me to be this: Give no
occasion for the good wdiich you possess as citizens of the kingdom of God (more particu
larly in the present instance, Christian freedom), to be spoken ill of by others; for it is
not of such a kind that you need be afraid of losing it; even if you do not avail your
selves of your Christian freedom, if you neither eat nor drink what you are justified in
partaking of as Christians, as free citizens ofthe kingdom of God. Your o-ood is one lhat
is situated within you, not dependent on these outward things; for the blessim's of God's
kingdom are not outward, or objects of sense, they are wilhin you; they consist in what
is godlike, as the apostle proceods to specify.

RELATION TO THE UNIVERSE. 459
tion of its true idea. Such an universal sovereignty in reserve for the
kingdom of God, Paul certainly acknowledged ; but the thought was
then, and must have continued to be, not familiar to his mind, that such
a supremacy of the kingdom of God was to be formed by that develop
ing process which Christ compares to leaven, through the natural con
nexion of causes and eflects under the Divine guidance. It was, as we
have already shown, the necessary and natural view for this stage iu the
development of Christianity, that this supremacy of the kingdom would
be brought about, under altogether different conditions from those of
earthly existence,by the second advent of Christ. Hitherto, therefore,
there could be no visible appearance ofthe kingdom of God beyond the
pale of the church. Another relation of the ideas of the kingdom of God
and of the church to one another, must be formed when the kingdom of
God had more effectually exerted its power as leaven in the development
of the human race— when by a natural instrumentality, preparation had
been made for what, to Paul, appeared as something that must be real
ized in an immediate manner by a new external event — when the king
dom of God, wdiich entered the world first of all in the form of the
church, had appropriated to itself all other things which belonged to the
the organism of human life. Tnen the idea of the kingdom of God, in
its earthly form of appearance, would become more extended than that
ofthe church, which at this time could not have taken place.
But it is not merely in reference to the series of events which are ad
vancing to their completion that the external form of the kingdom of
God is presented as part of a great whole ; tliere is another consideration
which is natin ally connected wiih this view. As the church is a semi
nary for the heavenly community, in which its members are training for
their perfect development, it appears even here below as a part of a di
vine kingdom not confined to the human race, but comprehending also a
higher spiritual world, where that archetype, to the realizuion of which
mankind are now tending, is already realized. The knowledge of God,
according to the comprehensive views of Christianity, is represented not
merely as the common vitalizing principle of the human race, but as a
bond by which mankind are united with all the orders of beings in a
higher spiritual world, in one divine community, according to that uni
versal idea of the kingdom of God which is presented in the Lord's
Prayer. Thus Paul represents " God, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ," not merely as the common Father of mankind, but also as Him
after whom the whole community in heaven and on earth are named ;
Eph. iii. 15. By sin men were estranged, not only from God, but from
that higher spiritual world in which the kingdom of God is already real
ized. As Christ, when he reconciled men to God, united them to one
another in a divine community, broke down the wall of partition (Eph. ii.
14) which separated them, and joined Jews and Gentiles in one body,
which is animated bv himself as their head; so also while men are
brought back to communion with God, they are connected with all those

460 DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
who have already attained that degree of perfection in the kingdom of God
to which the church on earth is aspiring. In this respect Paul says, that
Christ, in making peace, has united all things in heaven and on earth in
one di\ ine kingdom ; Coloss. i. 20.*
We here come to the important idea of a pre-existent Divine Being,
who, through Christ, became manifested in time — the idea, to designate
wdiich we may, for brevity's sake, use the term Logos, though this dis
tinct term for designating such an idea belongs only to a peculiar doc
trinal type of the New Testament. Also on this subject we must main
tain, in opposition to the arbitrary, unhistorical, destructive theories of a
certain mode of thinking in our day, which is necessitated to find in all
things only the human spirit seating itself in its self-reflection on the
throne of God, that not a foreign element from without was introduced
in the development of the doctrine that proceeded from Christ — also, that
not f, om without, through many influences, has that been developed at
which the idea of Christianity aims, and for wdiich Christ only gave the
first impulse; but We must here deduce everything from the original
* The passage in Col. i. 20, certainly has special difficulties which we shall consider fur
ther on. Although the view taken by Paul ofthe world of spirits is represented to us and
more fully developed in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, which may be ex
plained by their being written in the later period of his miuistry,amid the opposing opinions
that had then arisen; yet this cannot be considered as a mark of anything uu-Pauline, for
it can be easily proved that such a view of the various orders in the world of spirits was
always held by the apostle, and that the relation of men to a world of good and evd spirits
was always present to his mind; Rom. viii. 38, "angels, principalities, powers," dyyeAot,
dpx"i, dvvdpiir, of this or the other world ; 1 Cor. iv. 9 ; xii. 4. Also in 1 Cor. xv. 24, by
the universality with which he expresses himself, he can hardly be supposed to mean only
the "rule, authority, and power " of this world, but must, to say the least, r^fer at the same
time to the invisible regions. The manner is characteristic in which Paul joins together the
evil in the visible and invisible worlds as one, and subjects the evil angels to the judgment
of those who have become one with Christ, and who reign aud judge with him. As to
the passage in 1 Cor. xi. 10, I have often doubted, with Dr. Baur, the genuineness of the
words " because of the angels," did rove dyyiAovc, since these words, alter a sufficient
reason has already been given for the injunction, seem a superfluous addition to the " for
this cause," did tovto. 1 have also been led to the same supposition as Dr. Baur, that the
woids may have been brought as a gloss into the text from the stand-point of a represen-
talion derived from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, relative to the intercourse of the fallen
angels with the daughters of men; Gen. vi. 2. ' Women ought to be veiled, as a protec
tion against ihe temptations and plots of the evil spirits.' Yet I do not venture lo speak
on this point with such contidence as Dr. Baur, for I can attach a meaning to these words
wdiich will be very agreeable to Paul's mode of viewing such subjects. Paul, always
mindful ofthe connexion between the visible and invisible world, contemplates the angels
as witness -s of the devotions of the church. Angels and men, as members of ono king
dom of God that exists under one bead, unite together in common acts of devotion to God.
Now the women ought to be afraid to appear before such eyes in a manner which is in
consistent with the natural prop; ieties of the female sex, and which would mark a perver
sion of the female character. We must certainly attach a symbolic moral meaning to the
veiling. Also in 1 Cor. ix. 23 we find an example, though not peifectly analogous, where
a clause with iva, as marking a special object, is added to au assertion for' which a suf.
ficient reason had already beeD given with did.

DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 461
revelation of Christ, and prove that everything is already placed in his
self-revelation as to its essence, germ, and principle. We must only dis
tinguish the various and the successively preparatory stages to show how
wdiat was contained originally in his D. vine-human consciousness, and
given in his self-revelation, was developed in the consciousness and the
preaching of those who testified of him.
As in the doctrine promulgated by Christ himself, we find the fulfil
ment and explanation of the Old Testament teachings given together, but
in the developing process of apostolic Christianity fulfilment and ex
planation appear separately in successive stages, and we behold the un
folding of Christianity from its closest connexion with the Old Testa
ment to its perfectly independent development when it threw aside the
Old Testament covering ; so also we can distinguish between the con
ception ol the person of Christ, which was connected with the predomi
nant Old Testament idea of the Messiah, and that view wdiich, proceed
ing from the Old Testament, and stretching away from earth to heaven,
contemplates the Divine Word becoming flesh, first of all anointed with
the fulness of the Divine Spirit before he came forward as the Messiah,
then known as the preexistent Son of God who appeared in time and
manifested his glory, the medium of transition from the historical revela
tion of the divine to Him who was before history and was above history.
There is here a progressive organic development, of which the members
reciprocally conditionate one another; but everything leads back to what
was in the historical Christ, and to his original self-revelation. The first
three Gospels and the Acts correspond to the first stage of Messianic con
ceptions ; while there are not wanting also, in these first three Gospels,
intimations which denote or imply that higher idea ofthe Son of God as
it was developed by Paul and John ; Matt. xi. 27 ; xxii. 44 ; xxviii. 18,
20.* The total impression given by the Christ of these Gospels would
had any one who receives it with a susceptible disposition, to recognise a
Divine form letting itself down from heaven to earth. From several
pregnant single expressions, as when he said, " In this place is one greater
than the temple," Matt. xii. 6, and from taking into account what the
temple was to the Jewish religious sentiment, and what it must be on
the first stage of theocratic development, we shall also be led to recognise
such a Christ in the first Gospels, otherwise we cannot forbear charging
hiin with impious self-deification, or we must apply the scalpel of an arbi
trary criticism, and let the whole be dissolved into something as unsub-
st uitiul as a mist. The predicate " Son of Man," vlog tov dvdpdmov, the
Messiah appearing as a man, wdio realized the original type of humanity, and
exalted human nature to the highest dignity, and the predicate " the Son
of God," b vlog rov deov, which on Christ's lips denoted something more
than the common Jewish idea of the Messiah, refer reciprocally to one
* Compare the admirable remarks of Baumgarten-Crusius in his Grundzugen der
liblischen Theologie, p. 378.

462 DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.
another, and imply the distinction as well as the combination and the
unity of the Divine and the human in him.*
But the development of theology from the Old Testament point of
view also favored this revelation of the higher image of Christ; and to
what resulted from the developing process of the divine appearances in
the Old Testament, ideas which sprung up on the soil of Grecian philos
ophy were afterwards to be joined, in order to render accessible to the
human mind these visible presentations of the Divine. The Messianic
idea of the Old Testament had already in some special features (as in
Isaiah ix. 6) been exalted from the earthly to the superhuman, the
Divine, and shown how this ideal of the theocratic king in his essence
must transcend the limits of a mere human appearance. It was an idea
which, though at first representing itself in a historical, earthly form of
appearance, was yet pregnant with a significance which necessarily tended
to the super-earthly and the heavenly. The revelation of God in the Old
Testament, led to the visible presentation of a Word forming the con
nexion between the creation and the eternal, hidden essence of God, and
this Word pointed to the idea of an eternal self-revelation of God as a
pre-supposition of the whole creation, in wdiich it had its root, and with
out which no thought from God or leading to God could arise in the hu
man soul. It is a prevailing error to deduce all this from the influence
of Grecian philosophy. It is true, that Platonic and Stoical ideas of a
Logos afterwards gave Philo points of connexion for Greoising such an
idea; but certainly, had not such an idea already formed itself from the
Old Testament " word," nai, he would have had no occasion to select
such a term to express the idea. In Philo himself we must carefully dis
tinguish what he had received from the traditions of Jewish theology,
and what he made of that theology by the aid of his Grgeco-Jewish re
ligious philosophy. The conception that was derived from the religious
development of the Old Testament, and then through the Alexandrian
theology brought into connexion with the ideas of the Grecian philos
ophy, fo-ined a natural transition-point from legal Judaism which placed
an infinite chasm between God and man, to the gospel wdiich was to fill
up this chasm, since it revealed a God communicating himself to man
kind, and establishing a fellowship of life between himself and them.
The ideas of a divine utterance, wdiich limited all becoming to the crea
tion — of a word by which God operates and reveals himself in the world
— of an angel representing God and speaking in his name — of a divine
wisdom presupposed through the universe — were so many connecting
links for a contemplation which ascended from a revelation of God in the
world, to his most absolute self-revelation. And it was a result of this
mode of conteniplaiion, that the appearance of Him who was to effect
the realization ofthe idea of the theocracy and was its end, to whom all
its preceding development had pointed as the most perfect self-revelation
• See Life of Christ, pp. 94-97.

DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 463
and communication of God in human nature, was acknowledged as the
human appearance of the Word, from whom the whole creation and all
the early revelations of God, the whole development of the theocracy,
proceeded. Where the idea of the Messiah was freed from its popular
theocratic garb, it necessarily assumed that higher element of the idea of
a communication ofthe Divine Being in the form of human nature, since
this element, in accordance with what we have before remarked, had al
ready been prepared through the progressive development of the pro
phetic element in the Oid Testament.
Certainly it could be nothing merely accidental which induced men so
differently constituted and trained as Paul and John, to connect such an
idea with the doctrine of the person of Christ, but must have been the
result of a higher necessity, founded in the nature of Christianity, in the
power ofthe impression which the life of Christ had made on the minds ol
men, in the reciprocal relation between the appearance of Christ and the
archetype that presents itself as an inward revelation of God in the depths
of the higher self-consciousness. Had this doctrine, when it was first pro
mulgated by Paul, been altogether new and peculiar to himself, it must
have excited much opposition, as contradicting the common monotheistic
belief of the Jews, even among the apostles, to whom from their previous
habits, such a speculative or theosophic element must have remained un
known, unless it had found a point of connexion in the contents of the pat
tern received from Christ and in their Christian consciousness. What
opposition had Paul to encounter — though Peter had already prepared
his way — when he asserted the validity ofthe gospel apart from the ob
servance of the ceremonial law ! But this doctrine of Christ was equally
opposed to common Judaism, which, when it afterwards appeared in a
Christian form, directed its opposition against Christianity (which ap
peared as a new independent creation affecting both doctrine and prac
tice) principally on this point. Certainly this Judaism can appear to no
impartial observer of historical development, as a reaction ofthe original
elements of the doctrine of Christ against foreign adulterations, but
rather a reaction of the Jewish spirit against the spirit of Christianity,
which had broken through the Jewish forms in which it was at first en
veloped, and had developed itself into the new creation designed by its
divine Founder. Thus, too, the doctrine of the Son of God, as the Son
of Man in the sense of John and Paul, was not a mere isolated element
accidentally mingled with Christianity, but was closely connected with
the whole nature of its doctrines and morals. God is no more a God at
an infinite distance, but revealed in man; a divine life in human form.
But this peculiar principle of Christian morals, the idea of the pure hu
manity transformed bv a divine life, obtains its true significance only in
connexion with the doctrine ofthe historical Christ as the God-man, the
Redeemer of sinful humanity which from him must first receive the di-
vine life, and persevere in constant, unreserved dependence on linn. The
self-deification of Pantheism, which denies alike the God and the Christ

464 THE DOCTRINE OF THE SON OF GOD
ofthe gospel, rests upon an entirely different basis, and is essentially op
posed to it. In Christianity, the controlling elements ofthe inward life
are a consciousness of dependence on One Being, of a state of pupillage
in relation to him, a surrender of the soul to him with a sense of want,
in order to receive from him what man cannot derive from himself,
the key-tone of humility ; in the anti-christian self-deification of Pan
theism tliere is a consciousness of self-sufficiency in a supposed oneness
with God, who first comes to consciousness in humanity. Hence we
see how enormous a falsehood it is, when men make use of sounding
Christian phrases for conveying sentiments utterly at variance with
their genuine meaning, as has often been done of late years ; as when
a denial of God, which is degrading to man, adorns itself with the
name of Humanism, that belongs in its true sense only to Christianity
which exalts man to the consciousness of his true dignity, the dignity
of the image of God and of destination to eternal life, and alone can
enable him to attain to it.
It has been maintained, indeed, that the Christology which we here
attribute to Paul, is only to be found in the Epistles to the Colossians and
the Philippians, and this is urged as a proof of the un-Pauline character
of these Epistles ; but we must maintain in spite of all such arbitrary and
absurd attempts at interpretation, that in the larger aud universally ac
knowledged Pauline Epistles the same Christology forms the ground
work, which appears in a more striking, because antithetic form, in the
Epistle to the Colossians. The words in the fourth chapter of the Epis
tle to the Galatians, ver. 4, " God sent forth his Son," e!;airEOTeiXev b
Oebg rbv vlov avrov, manifestly contain the idea that God sent out his Son
from himself, and that therefore he was with him before he appeared in
the world; as when in the sixth verse, Paul says, " God sent forth the
Spirit of his Son into our hearts," e^airsoTEtXEv b Oebg to irvevpa tov vlov
avrov elg rag Kapdiag npiov, it is implied that the Spirit sent into the
hearts of believers came forth from the depths of the Divine Being, and
in consequence effects the connexion of believing souls with God. Here
the words of Paul in 1 Cor. viii. 6, are particularly applicable, where he
points out the characteristics of the Christian's religious consciousness.
4 But to us there is one God, the Father, from whom all existence pro
ceeds, and we are for him, (he is the end of our being,) for his glory :
and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things were brought into
existence, and we are through him.' This passage cannot be otherwise
understood, than that the " by whom all things," 61 ov rd irdvra corre
sponds to the " of whom all things," tf oi rd iravra, and both therefore
are equally comprehensive, and thus the "we by him," r/pelg 61 avrov
refers itself back to the " we in him," -hpelg elg avrbv. Accordingly, the
passage affirms that, as all existence proceeds from God, so through Jesus
Christ as the one Mediator, in relation especially to the pre-existent Divine
nature in him, all things were introduced into actual existence, and as
Christians are conscious that God alone ought to be the end of theii

ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIANITY. 405
being, so the realization of this destiny is accomplished through Christ,
by virtue of the new creation that proceeds from him. So Paul here
combines in one view ofthe Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine and the hu
man, contemplates him in reference to these two great points, as the me
diating Being, by whom the whole universe was at first called into exist
ence, and by whom not only the original creation, but that creation has
been brought into being which is destined to realize the end ofthe first.*
m The exposition of this last passage admits of less doubt than that of
1 Cor. x. 4, where Paul represents the water from the rock, and the man
na which was given to the Jews in the wilderness, as symbols of the
communion with Christ effected by the Lord's Supper. "They all drank
of that spiritual rock that followed them," says Paul, "and that rock was
Christ." Now, this would not imply the Messianic preexistence, if we
understand it to mean — the rock represented Christ : was a symbol of
him. But it certainly agrees better with Paul's train of ideas if we take it
in this sense : — that Christ himself was the rock who furnished the manna
and water to the Jews, as he now communicates himself to believers in the
Supper. Now, if we are not justified from any other quarter in assum
ing the idea in Paul's writings of such a Messianic preexistence, we must
content ourselves with such a dilution of his meaning in that passage as
is offered in the first interpretation. Likewise, if in 1 Cor. x. 9, "Lord,"
Kvpiov, is the genuine reading, but " Christ, "Xpiarov, a correct gloss, this
necessarily indicates that when Paul said of the Jews in the wilderness,
"they tempted Christ," eirelpaaav rbv Xpiarov, he implied- that Christ
was acting among them according to his Divine nature. The words in
2 Cor. viii. 9, (' For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through
his poverty might be made rich') are also certain evidence that Paul's
views were such as we have stated. It is impossible to understand these
words as Baur (p. 628) has explained them in order to do away with
tlieir obvious inference. " That Christ was poor, i. e. lived in poverty and
a lowly condition, although as Redeemer, through the grace of redemp
tion which we owe to him, he was rich enough to make us rich." Cer
tainly, the " being rich" forms a contrast to the " being poor," but the
riches of his grace would form no such contrast. To be rich in grace,
and to live in poverty and a lowly condition, are perfectly compatible.
And it is here intended to exhibit Christ as a pattern of self-sacrifice and
self-denial, that men may learn to give up what they might otherwise
enjoy, in order to help others. But how could this agree with such an
exposition ? We know not how to understand it, when Baur, who can
not deny this reference of the words, will not acknowledge what is im-
* Baur (p. 627) would limit the "by whom all things," il ob rd irdvra, to all things
which relate to reconciliation and redemption; but this is absolutely impossible, as will be
evident to everv unprejudiced person on an examination of the context. The words m
2 Cor. v. 18, where the limitation plainly proceeds from the connexion, are not at all par
allel to the passage before us.

466 Paul's christology.
plied, but thinks they may be thus explained :— "That we must show the
same self-sacrificing disposition as Christ, who was poor and in a lowly
condition, though he was so exalted above us by the riches of his grace."
Where is the contrast, and where is the example of self-sacrifice ? Al
though the word Trriov/iVn' in itself, according to the Greek usage, only
denotes " being poor," yet in the words, " for our sakes he was poor," and
in the contrast " though he was rich," nXovaiog tov, it is necessarily un-
derstcKid that, he was before rich, and for our sakes became poor. The
words cannot be understood in any other sense than this : He who was
rich in divine glory, has on our account taken part in our poverty ; he
has entered within the limitations and wants of our earthly existence, in
order that by means of this his self-humiliation we might partake of the
riches of his Divine life, which without it we could not have done.
Again, when Paul in Rom. viii. 3, savs, God sent forth his Sou "in the
the likeness of sinful flesh," ev bpoidopari aapicbg dpapriag, these words
imply the preexistence of the Son of God not in the flesh, ovk iv aapKt.
The passage in Uom. iv. 5, can certainly not be made use of, in an isolated
form, to prove from it Paul's doctrinal views, since it requires for its own
interpretation au appeal to Paul's known mode of thinking elsewhere, and
has, undeniably, great difficulties. Yet we must admit we cannot feel
satisfied with the explanation that Paul must have ended the sentence
with the words, " from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came," with
out adding anything more. He who was so fond of contrasts, and whom
the consciousness of the glory of Christ, of which he was always full,
would In-re prompt to the expression of a contrast, must, in truth,
have felt himself compelled to express more strongly what he brought
forward as ihe culminating point ofthe whole — the last end of the theo
cratic development, h hich was to proceed from the Jews; we cannot
think that he would have ended in so bald a manner. Neil her can wo
admit, that die doxology to God the Father should be added in this way
without any intermediate link ; this whole doxology would be uncom
monly heavy, a d quite un-Pauline. Hence we must, regard that, as the
most natural exposition, according to which the words referred to, form
a coiilr.se to the preceding " according to the flesh," Kara adpKa, and
give eniph isis to the meining of the great preeminence which accrued
to the Jews from the Messiah's being born of them. "He who is God
exalted over all," (exalted above all that is named in the preceding
clauses,) or perhaps sti 1 better thus, avoiding the encumbrance of the
b u>v: 'The l!eing exalted over all, be praised as the Divine Being for
ever.' We certainly admit that Paul would not have conferred the "title
" God," 6 «rijc,siinply, upon Christ, but it is something different when, in
reference lo his derived, communicated n iture, he calls him God. And
as he now ai tributes such exaltation to him, and represents hiin as the
Being in whom all the communications of divine blessing to mankind are
eoncc-ntruie.l, be might be we'l induced to ascribe the doxology to him.
That this does not occur elsewhere, cannot serve as a proof "that Paul

467
could not once have done this in a given connexion. The words of
Paul in Rom. i. 4, contain nothing whatever inconsistent with this view.
He there refers to the Son of God in his two-fold relation, — in his state
of humiliation, when he had subjected himself to the limitations of
earthly humanity, and as he went beyond it when the dignily attached
to hiin as the Son of God was revealed, so that his Divine essence un
veiled itself, free from the limitations of nature by which it had hitherto
been kept back. The Son of God, who according to his earthly appear
ance was born of the posterity of David (the Messiah peculiarly belong
ing to the Jewish people), by means of the indwelling spirit of holiness
(the Divine nature peculiar to him) was proved to be the Son of God by
his resurrection, or in virtue of his resurrection, (fir this event was in
deed the beginning of his emerging from the limits of an existence sub
jected to nature,) in order that henceforward, in correspondence to the
essence of the Son of God, the "spirit of holiness," irvevpa dyiutavvng,
in him, he might operate with a power raised above all limits, invisible
and Divine — the theocratic King and Redeemer belonging equally to the
whole human race.
Since Paul contemplated the Redeemer equally on the side of his Di
vine preexistence and on that of his human appearance, he united under
one point of view the reference to the universe of created beings in gen
eral, and to the new spiritual creation in particular which was introduced
among mankind by the gospel ; or in other words, the universal Kingdom
of God which embraces the wdiole spiritual world, and that particular
Kingdom established in the form of a Church on earth. Paul was led to
exhibit this twofold reference in its unity in his Epistle to the Colossians,
for the purpose of combating the pretentions of certain notions then in
vogue respecting spirits, although, as we have shown, the same doctrinal
view lay at the basis of what he has expressed in his earlier Epistles.
When Paul, in 2 Cor. iv. 4, describes Christ as the image of God, in whom
the glory of God is mirrored forth, ihe same train of ideas is implied,
which, more fully unfolded by an antithetical reference, meets us in the
Epistle to the Colossians. He who is the image of ihe hidden incompre
hensible God, he in whom that God revealed himself before all created
existence, he who bore in himself the Archetype of all existences,* in
whom all earthly and heavenly beings, all invisible as well as visible
powers, have been created, by whom andf in reference to whom all things
are created, who is before all,t and in whom (in connexion with whom)
* Col. i. 16, the «' by (in) him," iv cuiru.must be carefully distinguished from the "by
him," il niroi: the former indicating the foundation of being in idea, as the Logos is the
ideal ground of all existence ; the latter, the instrument for the realization of the Divine
idea. f Inasmuch as the revelation and dory of God in the creation can be effected only
through him, iu whom alone God reveals himself, through him everything refers itself lo
3od. X The iari denotes the divine existence, but also with a particular reference to tho
tart iu v. 1 8.

468 Paul's christology.
all beings continue to exist, — the same Being, therefore, who is the Head
of all, ofthe whole all-comprehending kingdom of God, is also the Head
ofthe Church which belongs to him as his body (by virtue of his enter
ing into communion corporeally with human nature) ; since he, as the
first-born from the dead, has become tne first-fruits of the new creation
among mankind, that he may be the first of every order of beings, as the
"first-born of every creature" (rather ofthe wdiole creation), TrpoyroroKog
ixdang Kriaeug, so also the first-born of the new creation, irpUTOTOKog rrjg
Kaivr/g Kriaeug* According to his divine being, deduced from the orig
inal of the Divine essence before the whole creation, he forms the medium
for the origination of all created existence ; as the Risen One before all
others in glorified human nature, he forms the medium for the new
spiritual creation which proceeds from him among mankind. With this
view also is connected the manner in which Paul expresses himself in
Phil. ii. 5-9, 'That whereas Christ found himself in a state of Divine ex
istence, he did not assert that equality to God and that Divine existence
wdiich he possessed,! nor was he eager to let it come forth that he mighty
make a show with it, but on the contrary, he renounced it when he en
tered into the dependent relations of a creaturely human existence, and
was born as a man like other men, although under the covering of this
visible form was hidd -n§ something exalted above human nature and the
whole created universe. The exaltation which followed this self-humilia
tion, and by which the obedience rendered by him in the form of a ser
vant was rewarded, cannot be referred to that in which according to his
Divine essence he was already exalted above all, but only to the man who
had come forth from that act of self-humiliation ; wriio as a man, con
scious of his Divine nature, carried this act of self-renunciation to its last
degree. We must enter into the distinction of ideas which Paul him
self docs not apply,|| his language giving us only a single view. By so
* It cannot be urged against this interpretation, that if Paul had intended to mark
the reference to the Divine and human, be would have pointedly marked the distinction of
the "according to the flesh," Kara odpKa, and "accordiug to the Spirit," Kara irvevpa, for
when Paul uses such marks, he wishes to render the antithesis prominent; but here it is
his main design, alon^ with the distinction, to mark the unity ofthe subject, and therefore
it would have been contrary to his intention to have marked the contrast more sharply.
In the former passage (Rom. i. 3, 4) the dialectic element predominates, but here the soar
ing of inspiration.
¦j- Here Christ is plainly distinguished from Him who alone, as source and original
ground of all. is called God, o 8e"ic. Also in tho passage in Titus ii. 13, 1 cannot forbear
regarding the great God and the Saviour as two distinct subjects. " It is Christ our Sa
viour through whom the glory of the great God is revealed." The form of expression,
''The great God wdio gave himself for us," were wholly un-Pauline. Compare the re
marks ofthe impartial Winer in his Grammar, p. 142.
X Pee above, page 411.
§ The contrast between the inward nature and the outward form of appearance, lies in
the "in the likenoss of men," iv ipotdiaari dvftpuiruv, Phil. ii. 1.
| To many questions which later theologians have started and attempled, after their
manner, to answer, Paul gave no attention whatever, (as Schleiermaeher has justly re-

THE KINGDOM OF EVIL. 469
doing we shall find here no contradiction which would oblige us to drag
in Gnostic ideas, of which we do not perceive the least trace ; there is,
indeed, nothing more than what we have already found in 2 Cor. viii. 9 ;
Rom. viii. 3.*
The idea of the Kingdom of God has also in Paul's writings an essen
tial reference to a Kingdom of Evil. Although evil carries with it only
division and internal contradiction, and forms no unity, and therefore we
cannot speak of a kingdom of evil that is constituted for one precise
object, yet its opposition against the kingdom of God imparts a unity to
all the diversified manifestations of evil. As the kingdom of God,
according to the Pauline views, in its most extensive sense, passes be
yond the boundaries of earthly existence, and embraces the totality of
the development ofthe divine life in all those beings who are destined to
exhibit a conscious revelation of their Maker, so likewise the opposition
against the kingdom of God is represented by the Apostle as of vast ex
tent and diversified relations. He considers the prevalence of sin in
mankind to stand in connexion with the prevalence of evil in the higher
spiritual world ; the principle of sin is everywhere the same, — the selfish
ness striving against the Divine will in those rational beings who were
designed to subordinate their will to God's with consciousness and
freedom. All other evil is traced by Paul to the outbreak of this opposi
tion in the rational creation as its primary source. As all sin among
mankind is deduced from the original sin at the beginning of the race, and
is considered as its effect, so all evil, generally, is viewed in connexion with
that first evil, and as the operation of the same fundamental tendency.
This is of importance in relation to the whole doctrine of sin. Had Paul,
according to the views (see above,) ascribed to him by some, considered
evil as only something necessarily grounded in the intellectual and sen
suous development of human nature, and the first man as in this respect
a type of all mankind, the idea of an evil extraneous to mankind in a
world of higher intelligences, could have found in his mind no point of
connexion. But it constitutes the importance of this doctrine in relation
to Christian Theism, that the reality and inexplicability of sin as an act
of the will is thereby firmly established, in opposition to all attempts at
explaining it, which go to deny the very existence of freedom, and deduce
evil from a necessity which classes moral development with the chain of
causes and effects in nature, f Thus the apostle recognises in all the un
marked in his Church History, p. 15,) notwithstanding the advantage he had over later
theologians in the fullness and depth of views which in an immediate manner were com
municated tj him vhrough the illumination of the Divine Spirit.
* See above, page 465.
f This has been recognized in the light of an ethico-religious idealism by Kant,
Whose earnest moral spirit (on this point at least) approaches much nearer to biblical
Christianily, than do the modern pantheistic deification of ideas, and tho logical monism of
those who fancy they can reconcile, by dint of logic, those contrarieties in human nature

470 THE KINGDOM OF EVIL, AND
godliness of men, whether it assumes a theoretical or a practical form, the
power of a principle of darkness— a spirit which is active in unbelievers.*
The aldiv ovrog and the Koapog ovrog are the terms used to express the
totality of everything wdiich opposes the kingdom of God, the collective
assemblage of the ungodly, the kingdom of this spirit which is the repre
sentative of evil in general. f
which only admit of a practical settlement. See Kant's Religion innerhalh der Grdnzen
der blossen VernunfL
* Eph. ii. 2. Tov irvriparoc tov vvv ivepyovvroe iv role vide TyC direiBeiac.
\ Paul must naturally have regarded heathenism in itself (as a suppression by sin of
the knowledge of God) as belonging to the kingdom of the evil spirit. But though the
opinio i lliat the apostle adopted the notion of the Jews, that the heathen gods were evil
spirits who influenced men to pay them religious homage, has met with several advocates
in modem times, much may be urged against it. When Paul speaks of the origin of
idolatry in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it would have been a most
natural opportunity for saving, that men through sin were given up to the influence of
evil spiriis, and were seduced by them to transfer to them the homage that was due to
the living God. It would have marked more strongly the abominableness of idolatry,
and the predominance of unnatural lusts, to which he there refers, if be could have traced
them to the influence of evil spirits, to whom men, esteeming them to be divinities, had
subjected themselves. But we find nothing of all ihis; Paul speaks merely of the trans
ference lo earthly things ofthe homage due to God, and he deduces all the enormities he
specifies solely from the moral and intellectual course of development among men left to
themselves. In Gal. iv. 8, when he says of those who had before been heathens, that
they had served what was no god, as if it were God, it is noways implied that they con
sidered other real beings or evil spirits to be gods; but only that they had made them
selves slaves ofthe "elements ofthe world," aroixeia rov Koapov, instead of serving God
alone, as became the dignity of human nature. Tna aroirua tov kotuov are the objects
to which they ascribed divine power (see p. 426.) In reference to the Corinthian church,
I cannot retract the opinion I expressed above, ante, p. 231. I cannot so understand
the passage in 1 Cor. viii. 7, as if Ihe persons indicated by Paul were Christians who
could not altogether free themselves from faith in the reality of ihe heathen divinities as
such ; for, according to the relation in which Christianity at that time stood to heathen
ism, it is utterly inconceivable that, among those who became Christians, such a mixture
could be formed of tlieir earlier polytheistic views with Christian monotheism. Still, if
they could not free themselves from belief in the reality of beings who had formerly exer
cised so great an influence over their minds, those whom they once held to be divinities
must have appeared to them as evil spirits, in consequence of the total revolution in their
modes of thinking. But if this be assumed, Paul could not at the same time hold as
correct that view which he regards as peculiar to the weak. He declares, moreover, that
the views of ihe liberal party in the Corinthian church were correct in theory, but they
proceeded on the supposition that the heathen divinities were only imaginarv beings, and
that for this reason the eating or the meat offered to them was a matter of perfect indiffer
ence. In 1 Cor. viii. 5, he contrasts only two subjective positions in religion, wiihout
speaking ofthe relation to the objective. The passige in 1 Cor. x. 20, is ilia strongest in
favor of the view which we are here opposing. But wo must determine the meaning of
this verso by comparing it with verse 19. If we admitted that Paul considered the
heathen divinities to be evil spirits, we must agree wiih Billroth (see his commentary on
this passage), that he wished to guard against that misunderstanding to which the pre
ceding comparison might have given rise, as if he really acknowledged their divinities to
oe actually divine. But, as we have already remarked, no member of ihe CoriuthiaD

Christ's victory ovee it. 471
Jesus appeared in humanity to destroy the Kingdoms of Sin and of
Satan. All the powers of evil arrayed themselves against the Holy One
of God; his death, in which was manifested the mighty power of tho
kingdom of darkness among mankind, seemed to be their most splendid
triumph, for here the mightiest opponent of this kingdom succuiiibed to
their machinations. But the relation was reversed ; and since the suffer
ings of Christ were the completion of his work of redemption, since
Christ by his resurrection and ascension to heaven manifested the victo
rious power of the redemption he had completed, since now as the
Glorified One, with the power of a divine life that overcame all opposi
tion, he continued to work in and by those whom he had redeemed from
the power of sin and Satan, — it was precisely by that event which ap
peared as a victory of the kingdom of darkness that its power was de
stroyed. In this connexion Paul says, in Coloss. ii. 15, that Christ by
his redeeming sufferings had gained a triumph over the powers that op
posed the Kingdom of God, and had put them openly to shame, just as
the chiefs of vanquished nations are led in a triumphal procession as
signs ofthe destruction ofthe hostile force, — thus the power of evil now
appeared to be destroyed. And a similar image in Eph. iv. 8 represents
Christ, after he had made prisoners of the powers opposed to him, as
ascending victoriously to heaven, and distributing gifts among men as
the tokens of his triumph, just as princes are wont to celebrate their vic
tories by the distribution of donatives. These gifts are the charisms.*
As the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the impartation of divine life to be
lievers, and especially the founding of a church animated by a divine
principle of life, are proofs ofthe conquest over the kingdom of evil, and
ofthe liberation ofthe redeemed from its power; so likewise the mani
fold operations of this divine life in redeemed human nature, are so many
marks of Christ's victory over the kingdom of evil, since those powers
belonging to man, which formerly were employed in the service of sin,
are now become the organs of the divine life. Now, through redemp
tion, the power of the kingdom of darkness is broken, and a foundation
is laid forthe complete victory of the kingdom of God and its total
separation from all evil. But till this final consummation is effected, tho
church could be supposed to entertain such an opinion, nor can it be supposed that they
could so have misunderstood the language of Paul, who always maintained so strongly
au exclusive monotheism. On the other hand, his words might be so understood, as if
he considered these divinities to be real beings (though evil spirits), and hence ascribed
an objective importance to what was offered to them. And in opposition to this
mistake, he now says that he speaks only of the subjective conceptions of the heathen
which stood in opposition to Christian views, and with which Christians could enter into
do sort of communion, that those beings to whom they sacrificed were divinities, batpdvia,
in the Grecian sense of the term. When Dr. Baur, fram the tripod of his pretended
science, declares authoritatively that what I have said is, some of it incorrect, and soma
of it obscure, this disturbs me not at all. To arguments I will reply.
* See p. 136.

472 THE kingdom op evil.
kingdom of Christ can only develop itself in continued conflict with the
kingdom of evil, for the power of the latter is still shown in them who
have not been freed from it by redemption, and by them the kingdom oi
God as it exists in the believer is opposed, though all that opposes it
must in the end contribute to its victory. And even in the redeemed
themselves, points of connexion with the kingdom of evil exist, as far as
their lives are not purified from a mixture of ungodliness. Hence Chris
tians are called to act as soldiers for the kingdom of Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 3,
against all the power of evil, both that which meets them from without
in their efforts for the extension and promotion ofthe kingdom of Christ
among mankind, as well as against all from within, wdiich threatens to
disturb the operations ofthe divine life in themselves, and in so doing
to retard the intensive advancement of Christ's kingdom, Eph. vi. 11.
It is the dictate of practical Christian morals, that as every talent is
transformed into a charism, it becomes appropriated for this divine equip
ment of the militia Christi. If Christians only rightly appropriate divine
truth, and make all the powers of their nature subservient to it, they will
find therein the most complete equipment (the iravonXia tov Oeov) in
order to carry on this warfare successfully. Whenever Paul mentions
this invisible kingdom of evil, it is always in connexion with the presup
posed sinful direction of the will in human nature, for the doctrine of
Satan can only be rightly understood by means of the idea of sin derived
from our moral experience. In the copious discussion on the nature
and origin of sin, and on the reaction of the work of redemption
against sin, which is given in the Epistle to the Romans, Satan is not
mentioned ; and when Paul first turned to the heathen and led them to
the faith, he certainly appealed at first only to the consciousness of sin
in their own breasts, as in his discourse at Athens. Moreover, he always
contemplated this doctrine in connexion with the redemption accom
plished by Christ. Believers have reason to fear the invisible powers oi
darkness only when they expose themselves to their influence bvthe sin
ful direction of their will, and are not careful to make a right use ofthe
means granted them, in communion with Christ, for conflict with the
kingdom of evil, that kingdom wdiich the Redeemer has overcome once
for all. Paul employs this doctrine to arouse believers to greater watch
fulness, that, under the consciousness of an opposing invisible power
which avails itself of every germ of evil as a point of connexion, they
may carefully watch and allow nothing of the kind to spring up; and
that they may rightly appropriate and use the divine weapons furnished
by the gospel against all temptation ; 2 Cor. ii. 10, 11 ; Eph. vi. 12.
We have now to speak of ihe gradual development of the Kingdom of
Christ, as it advances in conflict with the kingdom of evil until the period
of its completion.
With respect to the manner in which both nations and individuals
are led by the publication ofthe gospel to a participation in the kingdom
of God, Paul deduces the counsel of redemption and everything belono-.

KINGDOM OF CUEIST. 473
ing to its completion, both generally and particularly, from the free dis.
posal ofthe grace of God, irrespective of any merit on the part of man.
The peculiar form of his doctrinal scheme is closely connected with the
manner in which he was changed from being an eager persecutor ofthe
gospel into its zealous professor and publisher. And this free movement
of grace, not measured and determined according to human merit, he
brings forwaid in opposition to a theory equally arrogant and contracted,
according to which admission to the kingdom of God was determined
by the merits of a legal righteousness ; the Jewish people, by virtue of
the merits and election of their progenitors, were supposed to have an
unalienable right to form the main-pillar and centre of the Theocracy
Accordingly, he contemplates the free arrangements of grace in a two
fold contrast ; in contrast to chums founded on natural descent from dis
tinguished ancestors, and a peculiar theocratic nation — and to claims
founded on the meritoriousness of a legal righteousness.
In reference to the first of these claims, he makes the contrast, on
the one hand, of natural descent determined by law, and therefore founded
in a law of natural development, — what belongs to the sphere of the aap-
kikov ; on the other hand, a development not to be calculated according
to such a law of nature, but one which depends on the free disposal of
divine grace and of the divine Spirit; the arrangement according to
which the promise is fulfilled as the work of God's free grace — the Kara
irvevpa, rrvevpaTiKov. In the former case, the development of the king
dom of God proceeds by outward propagation and transmission — in the
latter, a development ensues in virtue of the invisible and internal con
nexion ofthe operations of the divine Spirit, and of the communication
of divine life. Paul illustrates this universal contrast,* this law for the
theocratioal development through all ages by a particular example, the
example of Abraham's posterity, from whom the Jews deduced their
theocratic privileges. He points out how, among the immediate posterity
of Abraham, not that son was chosen who would have carried on the line
of his descendants according to the common course of nature, but one
who was, according to a special promise, miraculously bornf contrary to
all human calculation ; that this latter, and not the former, was destined
to be the instrument of fulfilling the divine promises, and of continuing
the theocracy ; the law for the continued development of which was thus
pointed out. Tradiiion was thus placed in contrast with that which is
accomplished from within by the creation of the divine Spirit, with that
which ensues from a law that acts by necessity, and so cannot be meas
ured or accounted for, and with that which depends on the free actions
* The =ame contrast, which has ever again made its appearance among the conflicting
views in the Christian Church, ihe contrast between Judaism in a Christian form, as in
Catholicism and other related modes of thinking, and the free evangelical point of view of
the visible church depending for its development on the invisible efficiency ofthe divme
word. \ Kara, irvevpa, not Kara aupKa ; Gab iv.

474 KINGDOM OP CHEIST.
of the Spirit. Most unjustly has Paul been charged here with an arbitrary
allegorizing wdiich could carry weight, only with the readers of that age.
We do not here perceive in him a theologian entangled in Jewish
prejudices, who could not act contrary to the education he had received
in the school of Pharisaism, but a great master in the interpretation of
history, who in particular facts could discern general laws and types, and
knew how to reduce the most complex phenomena to fixed and ever-
recurring single laws. Thus he here infers, with perfect correctness,
from a particular case, a universal law for the historical development of
the Theocracy, which he illustrates by that fact. He applies the same
law to the Jews, considered as the special theocratic people in relation to
the theocratic people formed from the mass of mankind by the gospel.
Since those, who, according to the law of natural descent from the theo
cratic people, imagined that they had a sure title to admission into the
kingdom of God, were yet excluded from it; on the contrary, by a dis
pensation of the divine Spirit, which could not have been calculated be
forehand, towards the heathen nations, who according to the order of
nature, since they were entirely distinct from the theocratic people,
appeared to be altogether excluded* from the kingdom of God, a new
theocratic race was called into existence, in whom the promises made to
Abraham were to be fulfilled.
With respect to the second point, that of founding a claim for ad
mission into the kingdom of God on the merits of a legal righteousness,
Paul meets this arrogant assumption by the historical fact that the Jews,
who by their zeal in the righteousness ofthe law, appeared to have the
most valid title to such a privilege, were excluded from it on account of
their unbelief; and on the contrary, the heathen, among whom there had
been no such striving after a legal righteousness, were unexpectedly
called to partake of it.
As in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he contemplates
only this one aspect ofthe dispensation of divine grace in the perpetua
tion ofthe kingdom of God, and for a polemical purpose, it might seem
as if he deemed the dispensation of divine grace to be in no respect
affected by the determination of the humau will — as if happiness and
unhappiness were distributed among men by a divine predestination en
tirely unconditional; and as if he deduced the different conduct of men,
in reference to the divine revelations and dispensations, from a divine
causation which arranged everything according to an unchangeable neces
sity. This principle if carried out, would lead to a denial of all moral, free,
sell-determination in general, contradict the essence of genuine Theism,
and would logically be consistent only with a Pantheistic view of the
* However improbable it appeared that Abraham would obtain offspring for the con
tinuance of his race, in the manner which actually occurred, there was as little probability
that the true worship of Jehovah would proceed from nations who had been hitherto
devoted to idolatry. .

EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 475
world. But on such a supposition, the line of argument which Paul here
adopts would be entirely inconsistent with the general design of this
epistle. He wishes to prove both to Gentiles and Jews, that, owing to
tlieir sins, they had no means of exculpating themselves before the divine
tribunal, that all were alike exposed to punishment ; he particularly
wished to lead the Jews to a conviction that, by their unbelief, they de
served exclusion from the kingdom of God. But on the hypothesis to
to which we have just referred, he would have removed all imputation of
guilt, and furnished the best ground of excuse for all in a higher neces
sity that guided al human actions by an invisible thread. Or we must
explain this scheme by the distinction of a twofold view, one theoretical,
the other practical, a hidden and a revealed will of God ; a distinction
which we can find nothing in his mode of thinking to authorize. It is,
moreover, evident from the close of his whole argument, which begins in
the ninth chapter — even if we do not view this single discussion in its
relation to the wdiole of his theology and anthropology — how very far he
was f om thinking of God as a being, who created the greater part of the
human race in order to manifest his punitive justice to them after in
volving them in sin and unbelief; and who had created a smaller part in
order to manifest his redeeming grace, by rescuing them from the sin
into which they had been involved by a divine destiny ; for he represents
as th-e final issue of all the dispensations towards the generations of man
kind, not such a partial, but the most, general revelation ofthe divine grace.
God hath suffered all, Jews as well as Gentiles,* to come to a knowledge
of their sin, and thereby of their need of redemption, that he may mani
fest his redeeming grace to all who are in this way fitted to receive it,
Rom. xi. 32. Moreover, the doxology with which he closes the whole
exposition of his views (xi. 33) contains a twofold reference, — to the
infinite wisdom of God, which manifests itself in the development of the
kingdom of God among the Gentiles by an unexpected course of events,
— and to the grace of God, to which men are indebted for all those bless
ings which no merits of their own could secure. Therefore, in the dis
cussion which is closed by ihis doxology, there is only a reference to a
divine wisdom, whose proceedings are not to be calculated beforehand,
according to any contracted human theory; and to a superabounding
grace of God, which anticipates all human merit, is all-controlling and in
reference to wdiich alone everything is to be understood. These two re
lations are closely connected with one another ; for as the superabound
ing grace of God is shown by all, Jews as well as Gentiles, and Gentiles
* The great mass of mankind, as being either of Jewish or of Gentile extraction, seems
to be tho subject of discourse, rather than individuals; though, in Paul's sense, what he
here says is applicable to the plan and course of the divine dealings with individuals;
tho same preparation for the appropriation of redemption is needed for individuals as lor
collective bodies consisting of individuals; the consciousness of the need of redemption is
always th© nocessary intermediate step, though this may be awakened in various ways.

{76 WISDOM OF GOD IN REDEMPTION.
as well as Jews, being brought to a participation of redemption, so the
wonderful wisdom of God is manifested by the manner in which, by the
dealings of his providence with tlie nations, the feeling of the need of
redemption as the necessary preparation for obtaining it, is developed in
various ways among them, according to their respective positions and
conditions. Thus, too, Paul says in Eph. iii. 10, that by the manner in which the
church of God was formed among mankind, and especially in which the
heathen were led to a participation in redemption, the " manifold wisdom
of God," iroXviroiKiXog aotpia tov deov, was manifested ; the epithet here
given to the divine wisdom serving to express the variety of methods
by which it conducted the development of mankind to one end. But the
praise of the divine wisdom in this respect, is directly opposed to the hy
pothesis of an arbitrary impartation of grace and of an unconditional
divine causation. For this very reason divine wisdom was requisite for
the establishment of the church of God among mankind, because God
did not at one stroke give that direction to men's minds which they re
quired to attain to a participation in redemption, but trained them to it
with free self-determination on their part according to their various de
grees of enlightenment.*
In the discussion of this controversy, Paul gives prominence to this
one point of view, the free grace and independent will of God, because
his only object was to humble the pride of the Jews, and to awaken in
their minds the consciousness that man, by all his efforts, cannot seize
what he can only receive from the grace of God under a sense of his own
dependence and need of help; that God was under no obligation to
choose the instruments for perpetuating the Theocracy only from the
members of the theocratic nation, but might make them the objects of
punishment. But from this we are by no means to infer that Paul con
sidered that this grace operated as a magical, unconditional necessity, or
that the divine punishment was an arbitrary act, or, equally with sin and
unbelief, a matter of divine causation. It was far from his intention to
give a complete theory of the divine eleclion of grace, and its relation to
free-will, but only to exhibit it under that one special point of view, the
absolute freedom, of the divine act which could not have been foretold
from any law of human calculation. It was therefore natural that, if
* "When Paul speaks of the incomprehensibility of the divine dispensations towards the
generations of men, it is in this sense, that the limited reason of man cannot determine ci
priori the proceedings of the divine government, and that man cannot understand ils sin
gle acts till he can survey the connexion of tho whole iu its historical development. But
since he speaks of r revelalion of the divine wisdom, it is evident that he assumes that a
knowledge of these dispensations is possible in such a connexion. And, iu fact, the divine
wisdom must have already manifested itself conspicuously in the transference of the king
dom of God from the Jews to l lie Gentiles, and in the preparation of the latter for that
event, to those who only cast a glance at the events that were passing under their eyes.
The divine wisdom will also be discerned at a future period, in the manner of bringing a
larger body of the Jewish people to faith in the Redeemer.

PIIAEA0H A WARNING" TO THE JEWS. 477
this antithetical reference was not always kept in view, and everything
else in connexion with it, many particulars would be misunderstood, and
a very one-sided theory of election would be formed from this portion of
Scripture. When Paul says God hardeneth whom he will, the freedom
of the divine will in reference to the divine punishment is maintained
against the delusion ofthe Jews, that their nation could not be an object
of the divine displeasure. But that this punishment should be condi
tional, depending on the criminality of man as a free agent, is by no
means excluded, but rather was naturally contained in the idea of
hardening. Through this idea that law of the moral world is indicated, accord
ing to wdiich the moral self-determination gives its direction to the whole
inward man ; the sinful direction ofthe will brings on blindness of mind,
and the manner in which everything from without operates on man, de
pends on this his inward self-determination, and by his consequent sus
ceptibility or unsusceptibility for the revelation of the Divine which
meets him from without. And in this respect, Paul holds up the exam
ple of Pharaoh as a warning to the Jewish nation. As to the miracles
which, by another direction of his inward man, might have led him to
an acknowledgment of the divine almightiness in the dealings of God
with the Jewish people, and to a subjection of his will to the divine will
clearly manifested to him — as these miracles on the contrary, only con
tributed to harden him in .his self-will and delusion, so there was nothing
to prevent God from acting in a similar way with the Jewish nation in
reference to the reception they gave to the revelation of himself through
Christ. When he says, that the Jews by all their efforts could attain
nothing ; but that the Gentiles, on the contrary, without such efforts had
been admitted into the kingdom of God (Rom. ix. 30, 31) ; such lan
guage by no means implies that the conduct of men makes no difference
in the impartation of grace, but exactly the contrary ; for he thus ex
presses the hindrance to the reception of the gospel by the Jews arising
from the direction of their minds, from the state of their hearts ; namely,
that a confidence in their own " willing and running" prevented the
consciousness of their need of redemption, while those classes of heathens
among whom the gospel was first propagated were more easily led to
embrace it, because they indulged in no such false confidence. And as
he combated the presumptuous dependence of the Jews on their own
works and exposed its nullity, so on the other hand, he warned the Gen
tiles against a false dependence on divine grace, which might seduce
them to a forgetfulness of what was required on their part in order to
its appropriation. He represents the operations of grace as depending
on their faithful retention on the part of man— the remaining in grace
through the right direction of the will, Rom. xi. 20. » Because of unbe
lief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith." In another pas
sage, Paul allows it to depend entirely on the direction of the will whether
a man should become a vessel of honor or of dishonor. " If a man purge

478 THE DIVINE DECREES.
himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, 2 Tim. ii. 21. But
in his own sphere of action, the Apostle was more frequently called to op
pose a false confidence in a vain righteousness of works, than a false con
fidence in divine grace; and his own course of education led him particu
larly to combat the former error. Both these circumstances together
had the effect of disposing him to develop the Christian doctrine on this
side especially, and to present what belonged to it in the clearest light.
Besides, when it was his object to arouse and establish the courage
and confidence of believers, he could not direct them to the weak and
uncertain power of man, but pointed to the immovable ground of confi
dence in the counsels of the divine love in reference to their salvation,
the foundaiion of what God had effected through Christ. The divine
counsel of salvation must necessarily be fulfilled in them, nor could the
accomplishment of this unchangeable divine decree be prevented by any
thing which might happen to them in life; on the contrary, all things
would serve to prepare for its accomplishment, everything which they
might meet with in life must contribute to their salvation. This is the
practical connexion of ideas in Rom. viii. 28, &c, " those whom God in
his eternal intuition* has recognised as belonging to him through Christ,
he has also predetermined should be conformed to the archetype of
his Son, since he, having risen from the dead in his glorified human
ity, should be the first-born among many brethren. But those whom
he had predestined to this end, he has also called to it ; those whom he
has called, he has also justified ; those whom he has justified, he has also
glorified." The train of thought is therefore this: first, the divine idea
of Christ, and of mankind contemplated in him ; the divine counsel to
realize this idea in believers, to conform them, as redeemed, to the arche
type of Christ by the completion of the new creation. Then the gradual
accomplishment of this counsel ; first, the calling to believe, (in the Paul
ine sense, the outward and the inward call are conceived of as united in
the production of faith); as believers they become justified, and with be
lieving the realization of the dignity of the children of God begins in
their inward life. That God gave up his Son in order to secure this
blessing to them, is a sure pledge of their obtaining it, and that nothing
which appears to stand in its way shall really obstruct, but ou the con
trary must serve to advance it. Consequently, this doctrine of a timeless,
eternal predestination and election can by no possibility be removed
from its connexion with the Pauline system ; the supposition of a pre
destination conditioned by the divine prescience is un-Pauline; but
by ibis doctrine nothing else is indicated than the application of the
general purpose of God for the redemption of mankind through
Christ as the ground of salvation to those in whom it is accom-
* I do not mean a knowledge simply resulting from the divine prescience, which is
quite foreigti to the connexion of the passage, but a creative knowledge, a law of being in
the divine idea.

THE FINAL CONSUMMATION. 479
plished by virtue of their believing. The greatness and certainty of
the dignity of Christians is thus evinced ; but nothing whatever is de
termined by it respecting the relation of the divine choice to the free
determination of the human will. When Paul, in Eph. i. 4, represents
Christians as objects of the divine love before the foundation of the world,
his object is to show that Christianity was not inferior to Judaism as a
new dispensation, but was in fact the most ancient and original, and pre
supposed by Judaism itself; the election in Christ preceded the election
of the Jewish nation in their forefathers ; and redemption, the verification
of the archetype of humanity through Christ and proceeding from him,
is the end ofthe whole terrestrial creation, so that everything else appears
as a preparation for this highest object in the counsel of creation in refer
ence to this woild. Paul here treats of an eternal election and predesti
nation antecedent to the creation of the world, but not of an analogous
reprobation, since the former, but not the latter, has an eternal, ideal ba
sis. Reprobation relates only to a temporal appearance. Those in whom
the divine idea fixed in Christ is not realized, appear precisely on this
account as the excluded from its realization, in other words as the re
probate.* Of the apostle Paul's views in reference to the last conflict which the
kingdom of God will have to sustain, and his expectations of the victory
to be gained by the approaching coming of the Lord, wre have already
spoken in our account of his ministry; ante, p. 200. The prospects of
the consummation of the kingdom of God bear the same relation to the
development ofthe New Testament dispensation, as the prophetic iniima-
tions ofthe glorification of the Theocracy by the work of the Redeemer
bear to the development of the Old Testament dispensation. Even thing
prophetical must be fragmentary, and hence cannot furnish us with clear
and connected knowledge. We c innot, therefore, help considering as a
vain attempt, the endeavor to frame, by a comparison of particular apos
tolical expressions, a connected, complete doctrine of the Last Things.
Indeed, from the position of the apostles, such a thing was not possible.
It might indeed happen, that in moments of higher inspiration and of
special illumination, many higher but still isolated views might be im
parted, which they were not yet to combine into an organic, systematic
unity with their other eschatological representations.
With the doctrine of the consummation ofthe Kingdom of God, is
closely connected, in the Pauline system, the doctrine ofthe Resurrection.
This doctrine does not present itself here as something accidental and
isolated, but stands in intimate relation to his whole mode of contemplat
ing the Christian life. It is the f mdamental view of Paul and of the
New Testament generally, that the Christian life, which proceeds from
faith carries iu it the germ of a higher futurity ; that the development
* Employing the scholastic terminology in a Pauline sei ise, we may say that the volun
tas signi, not the voluntas beneplaciti, is here pointed out.

480 DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION.
of the divine life begun by faith, through which a man appropriates
the redeeming work of Christ and enters into fellowship with him,
will go on until it has pervaded human nature in its full extent. Thus
the appropriation of the body as an organ for the sanctified soul, as a
temple of the Holy Spirit, must prepare it for that higher state in
wdiich, glorified, it will be presented as the thoroughly corresponding
organ of the perfected holy soul, Rom. vi. 5-8, 11; 1 Cor. vi. 14. Ex
positors, for want of entering sufficiently into the profound views of the
apostle, and of grasping the comprehensive survey that stretches from
the present into the future, have often erred by a mistaken reference of
such passages either solely to the spiritual resurection of the present
state, or solely to the bodily resurrection ofthe future.
The difficulties which were raised, even in the apostle's time, respect
ing the doctrine of the resurrection (see above), were founded particu
larly on the gross sensuous conceptions of it, and on the customary mode
of determining the identity of the body. Paul, on the contrary, in the
fifteenth chapter ofthe First Epistle to the Corinthians, teaches that, by
the same creative power of God which caused a peculiar creation to pro
ceed from a grain of corn, an organ of the soul adapted to its higher con
dition would be formed from an indestructible corporeal germ. It may
be asked, what is the essence ofthe body considered as an organ belong
ing to a distinct personality ? As such it is to be clearly distinguished
from that sensuous visible form which, perpetually changing in itself, is
also perishable. The former, as something belonging to the representa
tion of the whole personality, will be restored in a form corresponding to
its glorified state. And as the body of man is the mediating organ be
tween the soul and nature, the idea of a Palingenesis of the latter is here
associated with the resurrection, as is done by Paul in Rom. viii.
19-23.* This idea stands in close connexion with the whole ofthe Paul-
* The later distinguished commentators on this epistle have acknowledged this to bo the
only tenable exposition ; and even Usteri, who had before brought forward the strongest
objections against it, has been induced, for the same reasons which appear to mo convincing,
to accede to it. (See the last edition of his Paulinischen Lchrbegriffe, and in the Studien
und Kritiken, 1832, part iv.) Against that interpretation, according to which this passage
refers to the anxiety of the heathen world, the following reasons appear to me decisive.
1. Paul would in that case have used, as he generally docs, the word " world," Koapoc. 2.
If we admit that he hero pointed out the deeply felt sense of universal misery, the feeling
of dissatisfaction with all existing things, the longing after something better, though with
out a clear knowledge of the object desired; if we admit that, out of his own Christian con
sciousness, he pointed this feeling to something unknown to those whom this feeling per
vaded ; yet he could in that case attribute such feelings to only a small and better part of
the world; it is impossible that he could assert this of the whole mass of the heathen
world sunk in sin. Yet we must grant that, in describing an age of great excitement, and
pervaded by a vague and obscure anxiety, it might be said, that an anxiety of which they
were unconscious was at the bottom of their wrestling- a-nd striving, — that thev were iu a
state of unhappiness, which only he who had attained a higher knowledge could explain
to them ; and thus Paul might apply the expressions used by him to describe the spiritual
condition of the world around him. But then, he must have described this state of ien'a

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 481
ine seheme of doctrine, and with the Christian system generally, with the
inheritance of the world, KXnpovopia tov K6apov, which promises to be
lievers that they shall reign with Christ — that to them as to Christ all
things in the future world shall be subject — that this globe is destined to
be the scene of the triumphant kingdom of God — that in its progressive
development this kingdom will subject all things to itself, until the con
summation of its dominion over the world which Paul marks as the aim
of this universal longing.
He usually connects the doctrine ofthe eternal life of the individual with
the doctrine of the resurrection, and says nothing of the life of the soul in
an intermediate state after death till the end of all things. The designation
of death as a sleep in relation to the resurrection that is to follow, may
favor the opinion that he considered the state after death to be one of
suppressed consciousness like sleep, and admitted that the soul would
first be awakened at the resurrection of the body, though in every other
reference to death he could describe it under the image of sleep as a
transition to a higher existence. When in the church at Thessalonica
the anxieties of many were excited respecting the fate of the believers
who had already died, he only intimates to them that, at the time of
Christ's second coming, the believers then alive would have no advan
tage over those who were already dead. But it might be supposed, that
had he admitted a continuance of consciousness in more exalted and in
timate communion with the Lord as taking place immediately after
death, he would have^reminded the persons whose minds were disturbed
on the subject, that those for whom they mourned had already been ad
mitted to a higher and blessed communion with their Lord, as a later
Father in the Church would not have failed to do.
Yet since Paul was convinced that by faith men pass from death unto
life* — siuce he testified from his own experience under manifold suffer-
minds as something strictly peculiar to that age, and not as having existed up to that moment
from the beginning, ever since the creation had been subject to this bondage. 3. Accord
ing to his own ideas, he could not say that the world against its wiU was subjected, in a
manner free from blame, by God himself to the bondage of a vain existence. 4. Accord
ing to this interpretation, Paul must have taught, that a3 soon as the children of God had
attained their destined glory, this glory would spread itself over the heathen world, wdiich
would then enter into the communion of the divine life. But if it be assumed that Paul here
so openly and clearly expressed the doctrine of a universal restitution, and presupposed it as
something known, he must first have mentioned the appropriation of redemption by faith
as a means of salvation equally necessary for all ; he could not have admitted the possi
bility of such a state of glorification not brought about through faith in the Redeemer.
* For although he has not expressed this in precisely the same terms as John, yet the
thought here expressed follows of course from what he has repeatedly asserted respecting
deliverance from spiritual death, and the making alive by faith. Between the two apostles
there is only a difference of form, not of the use they make of the idea of" life," (un,—
for in this they agree, in considering it as something that really enters the soul with
believing ; but John refers the idea of " eternal life," &n aluvioe, to the present, Paul
only to the future, although both thoroughly agree in the recognition of tho diviue life

482 THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.
ings, that while the outward man perished, the inward was renewed
day by day, 2 Cor. iv. 16, and since this experience was to him a type of
the future, that the outward man will only pass to a higher life from the
final dissolution of death— since he received a progressive development
of the divine life in communion with the Redeemer — since he taught that
believers will follow the Saviour in all things — from all these considera
tions it necessarily followed, that the higher life of believers can not be
interrupted by death, and that by means of it they may attain to a more
complete participation in Christ's divine and blessed life. This idea of a
progressive development of the divine life in communion with the Re
deemer, is indeed not a foreign element introduced into the doctrine of
the Apostle, but proceeds from his own peculiar mode of contemplation,
as we learn from a comparison of his language in numberless passages.
True, we are not sufficiently justified to conclude from that idea of such
a process of development in the earthly life, that Paul believed in its pro
gression after the close of our earthly life, in the period intervening till
the resurrection. We may imagine the possibility that the consequences
flowing from those premises would not be consciously developed by him,
since the thoughts ofthe resurrection and everlasting life were in his mind
so closely connected that he would be induced to leave the interval
between the death of believers and their resurrection as an empty space.
But, in the Epistle to the Romans, viii. 10, Paul expressly makes this dis
tinction between the soul and the body, that the latter will die, and be
given ii]) to death on account of sin, the germ of which it carries in itself,
but the former will by means of the life of its indwelling righteousness
be exalted above death, so that death will have no power over it; accor
dingly, tlieir life will be exposed to no repression or destruction, but be
in a state of progressive development never again to be interrupted by
death. An I the conclusion which we may draw from this single passage,
is confirmed by those passages in the later Pauline epistles, which inti
mate that higher degrees of communion with Christ and of happiness are
immediately consequent on death. The admission of this fact is by no
means contradicted by his representing that the last and greatest result
in the consummation of the kingdom of God, will proceed, not from its
natural spontaneous development, but from without by the immediate
event of Christ's final coming ; as, in the same manner, the facts of the
appearance of the Son of God in humanity, redemption, and regeneration,
though they are not, deduced from a preceding development,, and consti
tute a perfectly new era in the spiritual life, are far from excluding, but
rather presuppose, an antecedent preparatory development. Now, the
later epistles of Paul contain such passages, in which he expresses most
decidedly the hope of a hfeher development immediately consequent on
death, of a divine life of blessedness in more complete communion with
founded in fiith, which bears in it the germ of a future higher development, anticipates
the future, aud contains il in itself as in bud.

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 483
Christ ; Philip, i. 21, 23. We cannot in truth perceive how Paul, if he
supposed the second coming of Christ and the resurrection to bo events
so very near, could say, that he " desired to depart and to be with Christ
which is far better," in case he placed the salutary consequences of death
only in something negative — in freedom from the toils and conflicts of
earthly life, under which, as he so often declared, he experienced so much
more intensely the blessed effects of the gospel on his own soul, — and
had not contemplated a higher kind of presence with Christ, a higher
development of the life which was rooted in communion with him as a
consequence of death. Must not a man of Paul's flaming zeal and holy
activity have preferred such a life of conflict for the kingdom of Christ,
to a slumbering and dreaming existence or a life of shadows? In 2 Tim.
iv. 18, he also describes an entrance into the kingdom of Christ as im
mediately following death ; though this last passage is not so decisive,
as the interpretation in this point of view may be disputed.*
It may perhaps be thoughtf that a progress on this subject in tho
development of Christian knowledge took place in Paul's mind. As long
as he expected the second coming of Christ and the find resurrection as
very near at hand, he had little occasion to separate from one another
the ideas of an eternal life after death and of a resurrection ; and, in ac
cordance with the Jewish habits of thinking, he blended them together
in a manner that led to the idea of a certain sleep ofthe soul after death.
But when, by the course of events and the signs of the times, he had
learned to form clearer notions of the future, and when he was induced
to think that the last decisive epoch was not so very near (as appears
from his later epistles), the idea of a higher condition of happiness be
ginning immediately after death must have developed itself in his mind,
under the illumination ofthe Divine Spirit, from the consciousness ofthe
divine life as exalted above death, and as perpetually progressing, and
from the consciousness of unbroken communion with the Redeemer as
the Divine fountain of life. The illumination ofthe Apostles' minds by
the IIolv Spirit was surely not completed at once ; but was the operation
of a higher inciting power that possessed a creative fertility, and under
whose influences their Christian knowledge and thinking progressively
developed, by means of higher revelations which were not violently forced
upon them, but coalesced in a natural manner with their psychological
development.]; As Peter, through the illumination of the divine Spirit
at precisely that point of time in his ministry where it was required,
came to understand that the Gentiles, through faith alone in the Re
deemer, should be incorporated into the kingdom of God, so could it
* The noticeable remarks by repetent Weizel of Tiibingen, in his essay on the original
Christian doctrine of Immortality, in the Studien und Kriliken, 1836, Part iv., have not
occasioned any alteration in my views on this subject.
•f- This seems to be the view taken by Usteri.
X See above, p. 66.

484 Paul's progressive knowledge.
also happen with Paul that he should be led to a more perfect under
standing ofthe truth exactly at that point of time when it was required
for his own religious necessities and those of future generations. But it
is against this supposition that, in the fifteenth chapter of the First
Episile to the Corinthians, he expresses himself on death and the resur
rection, in the same manner as in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians,
and yet we find in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians written some
months later, a confident expectation expressed, that a life of a higher
kind in communion with Christ would immediately succeed the dissolu
tion of earthly existence ; for it is impossible to understand 2 Cor. v. 6—
8 in a different sense, where Paul marks as correlative ideas, on the one
hand, the remaining in the earthly body and being absent from the Lord
(a want of that higher immediate communion with him which would
belong to an existence in the other world), a condition in which we live
by faith ; and, on the other hand, the departure from earthly life, and
being admitted to the immediate presence of the Lord, and to an intimate
communion with him no longer concealed under the veil of faith. How
could he have described what he longed for, as a departure from this
earthly life and a being present with the Lord, if he intended to describe
that change which would arise from the final coming of Christ, from his
coming to believers? We also find in the Second Epistle to the Corin
thians, the same views presented as in the Epistle to the Philippians ; yet
it is not probable that in the few months between the time of his writing
the First and the Second Epistles to the Corinthians, such a revolution
had taken place in his mode of thinking on this subject. From a com
parison of the First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, we may
therefore conclude that Paul, even when, in his earlier statements
respecting the resurrection, he said nothing of the state of the souls of
individual believers in the interval between death and the resurrection,
though the uninterrupted development of a higher life after death is not
excluded by him. We must then suppose, cither that he did not par
ticularly bring this thought forward, because he was accustomed to found
all the hopes of believers on the resurrection of Christ, and to connect
them with the doctrine of the resurrection, because also he thought that
last great event so nigh, and was so constantly turning his attention to it ;
or that he had not directed his thoughts to the time that intervenes
between death and the resurrection. But as he became aware that the
period of the consummation of the kingdom of God was not so nigh as
he had formerly anticipated, he was induced to bring forward more
distinctly a subject which had hitherto been kept in the background.
We discern in Paul a progressive knowledge of Eschatology generally,
as it grew up under the enlightening and guiding influence of the
Holy Spirit, when we compare his Epistles to the Thessalonians with his
later ones, the lifting up of believers to an ever-enduring fellowship with
the Lord, 1 Thess. iv. 17, with the later developed doctrine of a glorified

END OP THE MEDIATORIAL KINGDOM. 485
earth as the seat of the perfected kingdom of God ; and 2 Thess. i. 7-9
with the doctrine of a final restitution announced at a later period.
Paul represents as the ultimate object of his hopes, the complete vic
tory of the kingdom of God over all the evil which had hitherto pre
vented its realization, over everything which checked and obscured the
development ofthe divine life. Believers, in their complete personality
transformed and placed beyond the reach of death, will perfectly reflect
the image of Christ, and be introduced into the perfect communion of
his divine, holy, blessed, and unchangeable life. The perfected kingdom
of God among mankind will then blend itself harmoniously with all the
other forms of divine manifestation throughout his infinite dominions.
Inspired by the prospect of this last triumph of redemption, when sin
with ail its consequences, death and all evil, shall be entirely overcome,
in the certain knowledge of the victory already won by Christ, the
pledge of all that will follow, Paul exclaims (1 Cor. xv. 55-58), " Where,
Death, is now thy sting ? (Death has now lost its power to wound the
redeemed from sin, since they are already conscious of an eternal divine
life.) Where, Grave, is thy victory ? (the victory which the kingdom
of death gained through sin.) But the sting of death is sin ; that
which causes the power of sin to be felt is the law. (What the law
could not do, which made us first feel the power of sin in its whole extent,
Christ has accomplished by redeeming us from sin and thus from death.)
But God be thanked, who hath given us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ." Inasmuch, now, as by the kingdom of Christ is to be
understood a mediatorial dispensation founded specially in redemption,
a dispensation in which the universal kingdom of God, overcoming the
kingdom of evil, shall be carried forward to a perfect realization of
all that in principle is involved in redemption, this kingdom of Christ,
designed to take the special form given to it, when it shall have reached
its appointed goal, when, through the efficiency of the glorified Christ,
it shall have been carried to that point where it will have no more op
position to encounter and will no longer need a Redeemer and Mediator,
will come to an end. Then will God himself in an immediate manner work
all things in those who through Christ have attained to perfect com
munion with him, who are freed from everything that opposed the divine
operation in tlieir souls, and who have been transformed into undimmed
organs of God, for whose glory all things shall serve. The mediatorial
kingdom of God will then merge into the immediatorial. Such is the
declaration of Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28.
It is one of the greatest of errors when that which Paul designates as
the final limit of a future development, is pantheistically conceived of, in
falsely applied conceptions of an age ofthe Holy Spirit, as a limit ofthe
present earthly development lying beyond Christianity. Never will there
be a development free from sin on earth— never a development which
may have outgrown the need of redemption, which may have transcended
Christ and Christianity.

486 THE CONSUMMATION OP ALL THINGS.
But if we understand in the strictest sense of the words, what is said
in that passage of the universal subjection and conquest of all the
enemies of God's kingdom, it would follow, that all subjective opposi
tion to the will of God will then cease, and that a perfect union of the
will of the creature with that of the Creator will universally prevail.
This will necessarily be the case, if we understand the words, v. 28, " that
God may be all in all,"* in absolute universalily ; for then it would fol
low, that the kingdom of God is to be realized subjectively in all rational
creatures, and that nothing ungodlike will any longer exist. Then would
be fulfilled, in the most complete sense, what Paul expresses in Rom. xi.
32. But though this interpretation is in itself possible, and founded on
the words, still we are not sufficiently justified by the connexion to un
derstand the expression in an unlimited sense. If that subjection were
to be understood as only objective and compulsory, it might be affirmed
that the enemies of God's kingdom will have no more power to under
take anything against it, that they will no longer be able to exert a dis
turbing influence on its development. By the " all," Tract, in whom God
will be " all," rd iravra, we may understand merely believers, as in v.
22 by " all," Trdvreg,\ those who enter by faith into communion with
Christ ; and it certainly appears from the connexion to be Paul's design
only to represent what belongs to the perfect realization of Christ's work
for believers.
Yet this does not forbid our supposing that the spirit of Paul, com
prehending all things to the last closing point of the development of
redemption and salvation in one vast contemplation, might have raised
itself above the limits of the proposition lying immediately before him,
and taken in the final result, which would resolve all disharmony into
perfect unison. And it would be the most natural construction to sup
pose an interval between what is stated in 1 Cor. xv. 23, and in the fol
lowing verse, and in this interval those developments might take place
which would contribute to bring on the last end of universal restoration:
first of all, the resurrection and perfect blessedness of believers ; and then
the general resurrection of all, freed from sin, transfigured to a divine
life, when God shall be all in all. But it is worthy of notice how imme
diately Paul comes to the " then," elra. It appears that here he wished
rather to intimate than to express and develop.
The words in Philip, ii. 10, 11, may indeed be supposed to mean, that
all rational beings are to be subjected to the Redeemer as their Lord,
although this will not be accomplished with respect to all in the same
manner; in some the' e may be a subjective, hearty, free obedience, in
others only what is outward and compulsory, the obedience of impotence,
which can effect nothing against the kingdom of Christ. — Meanwhile the
* irdaiv may be taken either as masculine or neuter.
. \ If the emphasis be laid, not on the irdrree, but on the iv rdi Xptaru, — that here
everything proceeds from Christ, as on the other side from Adam.

THE CONSUMMATION OE ALL THINGS. 487
question arises, whether in the words " bow the knee at the name of
Christ, and confess that he is Lord to the glory of God," something more
is not meant than a description of such forced, outward obedience, if we
understand these words according to the Pauline use of terms.* We
should interpret the passage in Coloss. i. 20 in the simplest and most
natural manner, if we could admit such a reference to the reconciling
and redeeming work of Christ on the fallen spiritual world. And we
could then combine in one view the three passages, and interpret them
by a mutual comparison. We should thus recognise a magnificent
prospect of the final triumph of the work of redemption, a prospect which
rose before the mind of the great Apostle only in the last stage of his
Christian development, when his conceptions had been progressively
clarified by means of that love which impelled him to sacrifice himself
for the salvation of mankind. At all events, we find here only some
slight intimations, and we recognize the guidance of divine wisdom,
that in the records of revelation destined for such various steps of reli
gious development, no more light has been communicated on this subject.

CHAPTER II.
THE DOCTRINE OP THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
We wish here to glance at that type of doctrine peculiar to the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in whom we find the leading
points of the Pauline doctrine under a peculiar form, as held by a man
of independent mind, who differed from Paul in his constitutional qual
ities, in his mental training, and in the mode of his transition from Ju
daism to Christianity. As to the first point, the author of this Epistle
seems to stand to the apostle in the same relation as Melanothon to Lu
ther ; the one quiet and gentle, the other ardent and energetic. As to
their education, Paul was brought up in the school of Pharisaism ; in
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we recognise the training of
an Alexandrian Jew. Hence arose the difference between the two, that
Paul received a more dialectic education, by which his logical faculties
were still further developed, and the author of the Epistle to the He
brews a more rhetorical one ; though Paul, like Luther, possessed in a
* The doctrine of such a universal restitution would not stand in contradiction to the
doctrine of eternal punishment, as the latter appears in the Gospels; for ahhough those who
are hardened in wickedness, left to the consequences of their conduct, their merited fate,
have to expect endless unhappiness, yet a hidd-ui purpose ofthe divine compassion is not
necessarily excluded, by virtue of which, through the wisdom of God revealing itself in
the discipline of free agents, they will be led to a free appropriation of redemption.

488 THE DOCTRINE OP
very high degree the gift of natural eloquence. Lastly, the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews appears to have made the transition from Ju
daism to Christianily, not, like Paul, by a sudden crisis, but by a more
quiet, gradual development, in wdiich the higher spirit concealed under
the forms of Judaism revealed itself to him. Accordingly, we must con
sider his twofold relation to the Alexandrian-Jewish and to the Pauline
theology. Several differences in the development of doctrine between
these two great teachers ofthe church, maybe explained from the pecu
liar design of this Epistle, which was addressed to a community of Chris
tians, who, though faith in Jesus as the Messiah had found ready accept
ance with them, were stil enthralled iu tho forms of Judaism.*
* This view we must maintain, notwithstanding the reasons alleged against it by Dr.
Both in his Latin Dissertation (Frankfort, 1836), in which he endeavors to show that this
epistle was addressed to the church at Ephesus, consisting of Gentile Chrislians. As the
epistle perfectly suits a church consisting of Jewish Christians, and the difficuliies attached
to this hypothesis are only supeificlal, so we cannot, on the other hand, conceive of a
church of Gentile Christians to whom an epistle could be addressed in such a form and of
such contents. And, on the latter supposition, it would not be easy to explain the mani
festly close connexion of tho didactic and parenetical elements from ils commencement,
since a church consisting of Gentile Christians might be forced by persecution to fall back
. into Heathenism, but never from such a cause, to pass over to Judaism. The contents of
this epistle, which tend to show the superiority of Christianity to Judaism, would there
fore by no means be adapted to the purpose of encouraging its readers to constancy under
persecutions. Dr. Roth appeals to chap. iii. 12; but apostasy from the living God need
not be exae ly a relapse into idolatry, for as communion with God, according to the con
victions ofthe writer, could only be through Christ, so an apostasy fiom Christ must in his
esteem have been equivalent to apostasy from the living God. Still Jess can the passage
in chap. x. 32 be adduced in evidence, for doubtless divine illumination appeared to the
author as necessarily depending ou the gospel ; and a transition from any other religious
position, in which men could not be set Iree from the dominion of the principle of sin,
was looked upon by him as a transition Irom darkness to light. The same remark applies
to chap. vi. 4. Also, the enumeration of poinls of instruction for catechumens in chap vi.
1, docs riot prove that they were only such as would be imparted to h. -alliens; for by "re
pentance from dead works," the author no doubt understands conversion from all ungod
liness, and by iriane in this connexion, agreeably to the Paulino ideas, he me-aut faith in
the peculiarly Christian sense ; so thatfuth in Jesus as the Messiah is included iu it, which
in articles of instruction for heathens must also, eve allow, have been rendered very pro
minent. Besides, for the instruction of Jews passing over to Christianity, it was requisite
to explain the nature of Christian baptism, in relation to that of John and other kinds of
lustration ; and the doctrine of the resurrection aud of the judgment, though already ac
knowledged by the greater part of the Jews, must iu its connexion with the doctrine of
Jesus as the Messiah, be promulgated afresh with many peculiar modifications. Thus ihe
author enumerates those universal anicles ofprimaryreligioiis instruction, which needed to
b9 addressed to Jews as well as to Gentiles. From chap. xiii. 9, it does not follow that
his readers bad never before observed the Jewish laws relating to food, and therefore were
not Jews, but only, that according to ihe supposition of the writer of the epistle, ihey no
longer as Chris ians placed tlieir d'-pendence on such oulward things. At all events, by
"the divers and strange doctrines," some peculiar opinions must be understood which
were placed by the false teachers in connexion with the Jewish laws on food. The pas
sage in chap. xi. 40, can only be intended to mark a later general ion (iu this case no mat
ter whether of Jewish or Gentile descent), which had not yet come into existence, aud

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 489
Paul' and the author ofthe Epistle to the Hebrews agree in this that
they both represent Judaism as inadequate for satisfying the r Ife o
wants of man This is the purport of what is said in'chop. vii 7 Z
Judaism could "make nothing perfect;" its rerii.trious institutions were
not fitted to realize the ideas presented by them to the conscience; the
sacrifices and the priesthood were unable to satisfy that religious want
to which both owed their existence; namely, to accomplish the removal
of the disunion between God and man. Those religious ideas were here
represented in sensible images, which were first realized by Christianity.
Both Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews/place the cen
tral point of religion in redemption from guilt and sin, the restoration of
communion with God, whence proceeds the impartation of a divine life
the source of true holiness; and the inability of Judaism to attain this
object formed, in the estimation of both, its essential defect In this
Epistle (vm. 12 ; vi. 4 ; ix. 15) the forgiveness of sins, the communication
Of a new divine life, of divine power for sanctification, are described as
the work of Christ-as the effect of Christianily; it is maintained, that
by this new principle of life, the redeemed are able to render true spirit
ual worship, which comprehends the whole life, so that now the whole
soul, animated by a new spirit, becomes a thank-offering for the grace
of redemption bestowed upon it (xii. 28 ; ix. 14; xiii. To); and in the
same manner Paul contemplates the whole Christian life as true spiritual
worship. But these two writers differ in their manner of carrying out the
fundamental ideas which they hold in common. Paul, in opposition to
the merit of works as regarded in the light of the law, and especially
against the tenet that an observance ofthe law was absolutely necessary
for the Gentiles in order to salvation — develops his doctrine of justifica
tion by faith alone, independently of the works of the law. This doc
trine that no one could become righteous before God by the observance
of the law, but only through faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Redeemer
lies also at the basis ofthe Epistle to the Hebrews. But since the author
of this epistle directs his argiunentation especially against those who
were still captivated by the pomp ofthe Temple worship, the priesthood
and the sacrifices, and were in danger of being entirely seduced from
Christianity by the impression these objects made upon them, this gave
a peculiar direction to his reasoning, and it aimed at showino- that bv all
this ritual their religious wants could not be satisfied, but that its only
therefore would not have attained to a participation in the Messianic kingdom, if this king
dom had commenced earlier, and thus the development of the human race had been sooner
closed. According to Dr. Roth's interpretation, it would also have been necessary for the
author to have addressed his leaders in the second person, for the rhetorical figure Ana-
koinosis would have been as inapplicable in the epistle generally, on the supposition that
its author was of Jewish descent, as it would be in chap. ii. 3, ou the supposition that
Paul was ils author.

490 THE DOCTRINE OF
use was to direct them to the sole true means of satisfaction. As Paul
declared that the law could not bestow the justification which man re
quired, but that it only awakened that feeling of want which nothing
but faith in Jesus as the Redeemer could satisfy, so in the Epistle to the
Hebrews it is shown, that the mediation required by man's relation to
God and heaven, could not be effected by the Jewish priesthood, but
that it only availed to call forth a longing for such a mediation, and thus
to point to Him who alone could bestow it.
But in one respect an opposition may seem to exist between the
Pauline views and the doctrinal scheme of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Paul contemplates Judaism as abolished. Everything in religion is repre
sented as proceeding from faith in Christ alone; in receiving the gospel a
man is in effect dead to his former religious position ; whatever was before
the ground of his confidence, now appears to him as an absolute nullity.
On the contrary, according to the views presented in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the whole Jewish cultus is, it is true, only a shadowy image
of something superior; but the writer considers it as still continuing to
ex:st till everything earthly, and consequently ibis form of earthly wor
ship, shall come to an end, when the Messianic kingdom being consum
mated, a higher order of things shall succeed. Thus we may here meet
with a view, which was peculiar to the original Jewish-Christian belief
generally, that the communion with the sanctuary of heaven bestowed
by Christianity, would be carried on in this world in combination with
the forms of a cultus wdiich typified heavenly things ; that a new higher
spirit would continue to operate in the ancient forms of religion. But
still this is only an apparent contradiction between the two great
teachers ; for it is evident from the train of thought in this epistle, that
the writer looked on the Jewish cultus as entirely superfluous, since it
can contribute nothing whatever towards effecting communion with
heaven and reconciliation with God, on which everything depends. But
since Christianity effects all this, since it bestows everything de
manded by the religious wants of man, what need can there be of
another cultus ?
If, iu connexion with such views, the Jewish cultus could still find a
place, the only point of junction could be, the representation that the
conscientious observance of all that belonged to the Mosaic cultus, would
be a preparatory purifying and sanctifying process, to qualify for the
participation of divine things through the medium of Christianity. This
was the position from which Philo, in his work De Migratione Abra-
hami, combats a religious idealism vriiioh would have explained away
the whole of outward Judaism as superfluous. But in this epistle we
can find no trace of attributing such a continual preparatory utility to
Judaism ; according to its fundamental ideas, connexion with Christ
as the true high-priest renders superfluous all other methods of purifica
tion and sanctification. If the author of this epistle had some notion
that these outward forms of Judaism, whose design was only prepara-

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 491
tive and typical, would linger in existence till the whole terrestrial
economy would be terminated by the second advent of Christ at no very
distant period, it by no means follows that he considered these forms as
of essential importance. We must only bear in mind in what light the
author viewed the relation of the present to the future. This relation
was the same in his conceptions as in Paul's. To Christians the future
is by faith already become present. They ascend with the confidence
of faith into the holiest of holies in heaven, which Christ has rendered
accessible to them ; x. 22. They already belong to the heavenly Jeru
salem, and are become the associates of angels ; xii. 23. They have
already been made partakers of an eternal, unchangeable kingdom ; xii.
28. They have already felt the powers ofthe world to come. Hence it
follows, that, as they no more belong in their inward life to this trans
itory world, but to the higher future world, they are actually raised
entirely above the conceptions of Judaism. When in ix. 9, it is said,
that, in the "time then present," Katpbg evearnttibg (equivalent to "this
world," a'libv ovroc), there is a sacrificial worship, which yet, like all such
outward things, cannot bestow* the right constitution of the inner life,
the purification from guilt, which man requires in order to become a
member of God's kingdom, it must be recollected that Christians do
not belong to "this world," aliov ovrog, but to the "world to come,"
alibv peXXiov, and hence all this is nothing to them. When the author
speaks of outward ordinances,! ix. 10, which were "imposed until the
time of reformation," it is added, that the "reformation," diopOosaig,
emanates from Christ,! and has been entered upon through Him who
has freed us from the yoke of these old ordinances, though in its whole
extent it will first take effect, in the " world to come," olKovpevn peXXovaa.
In fact, he contrasts with the Jews who serve an earthly sanctuary (xiii.
10) the Christians to whom the altar in heaven stands open, while it is
closed against the Jews who cleave to an earthly sanctuary. This is the
contrast between those whose worship still adheres to the veil of out
ward, sensible forms, and those who rise at once to heaven. As Jesus
suffered without the gates of Jerusalem, so, according to the symbolical
representations employed in this epistle, must those who desire to belong
to him withdraw themselves from the terrestrial Jerusalem, the earthly
sanctuary, as from this world in general; xiii. 13. We here find the
same principles as in Paul's writings. The author of this epistle does not,
indeed, aro-ne directly against the maintenance of the outward forms of
the Jewish cultus, nor does he demand their abolition ; but this even
Paul would not have done in an epistle addressed to Christians who
belonged to Judaism by national descent and education.
* Paul would have said that all this could contribute nothing to their justification.
f The same which Paul asserts ofthe oapKiKu tov vdpov, of the being in subjection to
the aroixeia rod koouov. See p. 42 i, note.
X As the contrast in ver. 1 1 shows.

492 THE DOCTRINE OV
It may appear as rather un-Pauline that he treats only of the salvation
of those who belonged to the posterity of Abraham, and of Christ's rela
tion to such. We may indeed doubt, whether Paul, if he had been writ
ing to a church composed entirely of Jewish Christians, could have so far
restrained himself, as not to have dropped some expressions on a subject
which so deeply interested him as the divine purpose to incorporate the
Gentiles with the Jews in the kingdom of God by faith in the Redeemer ;
and whether he would not have felt compelled to have adverted, at least
in an apologetic manner, to his peculiar vocation as a preacher of the
gospel among the Gentiles. Yet it is certain that a writer who so ex
pressed himself respecting the conditions of admission into the Messianic
kingdom and on the relation of Judaism to the work of Christ, as we find
to be the case in this epistle, must have agreed with the Pauline doctrine
in thinking, that as the attainment of eternal salvation was independent
of Judaism and determined alone by faith in Christ, therefore by the ful
filment of this one condition it was attainable by all men. We also find
that he selects as a type of Christ, not one of the family of Abraham, but
Melchisedec — an indication of Messianic universalism. If we call to mind
that he considers the " people," Xabg, as a representative of the theocratic
people in general, the posterity of Abraham as representatives of those of
the human family in general who are destined for the kingdom of God,
we shall not be able to detect any contradiction between himself aud
Paul. With respect to the work of Christ, the author of this epistle appears
to differ from Paul, in not bringing forward the resurrection as a seal of
the redemption effected by the Saviour in the same way as that apostle.
But it is not difficult to perceive, that the same conception of the resur
rection in relation to the whole of the Christian system lies at the basis
of this epistle. There is the same connexion between sin and death pre
supposed, as, for instance, when it is said in ii. 14, that Satan had the
power over death, that is, that death was not an original element in the
creation, but was first occasioned by Satan, by means of sin which is the
work of Satan, and being thus connected with sin, belongs to Satan's
kingdom. In the sanie sense as Paul intends, sin is also considered as
the sting of death; for it is said that men oppressed by a consciousness
of guilt are kept in continual bondage through the fear of death, — that
fear of death, which presents itself in connexion with the divine judgment
to the agonizing conscience as something so terrible, and which blasts
the cheerful enjoyment of life. When it is affirmed that Christ through
death destroyed the kingdom of Satan, who had power over death, and
thereby freed men from the bondage in which they were held by the fear
of death, — it is presupposed that, by the power of his holy life, he left the
grave victoriously at his resurrection, and by this event gave a pledge to
his redeemed of freedom from death and sin, of a life of eternal happiness.
It is said in v. 7, that Christ, who, as he had assumed human nature with
all its weakness, siu excepted, was subjected to death, poured forth in

TnE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 493
his struggle with death fervent prayers and tears to God who could
redeem from death, and on account of his perfect resignation to the will
of his heavenly Father, and his perfect obedience, was heard, that is, was
delivered from death by means of his resurrection. The God of salva
tion is described in xiii. 20, as he who had brought from the dead the
great Leader and Ruler ofthe church of God ; and in these words it is
implied, that Christ by his resurrecrion became the leader from death to
life ofthe church of God formed by him as the Redeemer, and laid ihe
foundation for its salvation ; and therefore God, in raising him from the
dead, proved himself to be the God of salvation.
We see, then, that the same view is taken in this epistle as in Paul's
writings, ofthe connexion of the resurrection with the work of redemp
tion. But that the exaltation of Christ to heaven is more frequently
adverted to than his antecedent resurrection, may be traced to the pre
vailing form ofthe author's representations, in which Christ is compared
to the high-priest of the Old Testament economy ; for as high-priest,
having ascended to heaven and remaining there, he-fulfils his office by
interceding wiili God for believers, and bringing them into perpetual
communion with God and heaven. A contrast is pointed out between
Christ and the Jewish high-priest in this respect, that the latter could
enter into the holy of holies in the temple, which was only a symbol of
that in heaven, but once a year, and was obliged to leave it again, as he
himself had no abiding residence in the most holy place, much less could
he obtain an entrance into it for those on whose account he held the
priestly office. It was a necessary consequence of this mode of repre
sentation, that, there was less occasion for mentioning the resurrection,
and that topic was brought forward more prominently to which the
resurrection forms an introduction and transition.
But this idea of the high-priesthood of Christ is only a particular form
of representing the general Christian idea of Christ as the Mediator, by
whom the communion ofthe human race with God, broken off by sin, is
again restored. That the writer of this epistle made use of this form,
was principally owing no doubt to the peculiar character ofthe churches
whom he addressed ; but in part probably to the peculiarity of his own
religious training. This form is indeed borrowed from Judaism. Yet
it by no means denotes a transient relation in the historical development
of Christianity, but is connected with one of its constant relations to hu
man nature ; a relation in virtue of which, under the consciousness of his
earthly limitations and his sins, man feels himself in need of a mediation
to fill up the infinite chasm that separates him from a holy God. Hence
in till religions, and in the most diverse forms of civilization, methods
have been invented for satisfying this want ; a caste of priests, or saints
who have attained perfection by an unworldly asceticism, or some kind
of mediators the offspring ofthe imagination, and a multitude of sensible
objects, have been made use of, as points of connexion for the religious
sentiment in its aspirations after God. Christ has for ever satisfied this

494 THE DOCTRINE OP
undeniable want of human nature, which no human being who himself
stood in need of redemption and mediation could satisfy, and conse
quently all priesthood and sacrificial worship are henceforth superfluous
and abolished. The redeemed are dependent on no other being for the
purpose of mediating tlieir relation to God. Through him they are
brought, into a lasting connexion with God and the heavenly holy of
holies ; through him, as the ever-living high-priest, they continually draw
nigh to God : it is he who intercedes for them continually with God, and
through tlieir relation to him tlieir whole life is consecrated to God and
acceptable to him, vii. 25, 26. Now this is in perfect harmony with what
Paul teaches (according to the explanation we have given of his views)
respecting the scheme of mediation for believers; respecting the whole
Christian lire as a thank-offering for the blessings of redemption, and the
free access to God through the mediation of Christ; and from the man
ner iu which he applies to Christianity the Jewish ideas of the temple
aud the sacrifices and the whole ceremonial worship, we are authorized
to infer, that he would make a similar application of the idea of the
priesthood. In order to realize this idea for the benefit ofthe human race, it was
needful that Christ, who, according to his divine nature as Logos, effec
tuates the derivation of all created existence from God and iis connexion
with God, should from his own experience, become acquainted with all
the weaknesses, sufferings, temptations, and conflicts of those for whom he
had to intercede as high-priest, that he might understand the exigencies
in wdiich they would require his aid, feel genuine sympathy with their
infirmities, and infuse true confidence into their hearts. At the same
time, the writer of this epistle considers the sufferings of Christ in the
twofold pi ant of view, of active and passive satisfaction, which we have
explained in the representation of the Pauline doctrine. Both are here
combined in the idea ofthe all-sufficient sacrifices presented by Christ as
high-priest, which effects that for which no religion of sacrifices was ade
quate. The relation ofthe sufferings of Christ as the Sinless One to the
sins of mankind is thus illustrated: that as the sins of the people were
symbolically transferred to the victim, (as if it could suffer what the
people deserved,) so Christ in his sacrifice had taken upon himself the
sins of mankind ; his redeeming sufferings were the pledge that the guilt
of sin no longer re-ted on them ; ix. 28. As to the other part of Christ's
work noticed by Paul, — his active obedience, — it is in this epistle ex
pressly stated that Christ, according to the divine appointment, having
proved himself to be the Holy One in all human temptations, and under
the severest death-struggle, gained thereby the dignity of high-priest ;
v. 7, 8. The sacrifice of Christ obtains its due significance only in this
moral connexion, not as an opus operatum, like the sacrifice of animals,
but as the act of One who, revealing the eternal Divine Essence in human
nature, and exhibiting the perfect union of the divine and human in a
holy human life, verified it also in death, as the confirmation of a life

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 495
which had been the revelation of the eternal Spirit of God in a sin
less, holy humanity. The significance of the death of Christ is founded
on his having, " by an eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to
God." Thus the Epistle to the Hebrews distinguishes, as we find in
Paul, two eras in the life of Christ, ; his appearance on earth, when
he entered into fellowship with mankind, to bear the load of sin and to
free them from it ; and his life as the Glorified One, which no longer
stands in relation to sin, but in which he only exhibits what he obtained
by his perfect, holy life, and what those have to expect who are freed
by him from sin and called to the perfect communion of his blessed
life ; ix. 28.
By what Christ has in this manner accomplished, he has now once
for all made objective satisfaction for mankind to the requirements of
the holiness of God, of the moral order of the universe. Mankind de
filed by sin cannot enter into the heavenly sanctuary. They must, first
be purified and consecrated in order to enter into the fellowship of
heaven.* This work, accomplished objectively by Christ, is now carried
on in its consequences, till everything is conquered which opposes the
realization of the holy kingdom of God among mankind, till that higher
world, first apprehended by faith, becomes an actual reality to the sanc
tified human race.
Faith is also represented in this epistle as that by which this objective
work is appropriated by individuals, and that by which this subjective
purification is accomplished ; that by which men enter into communion
with Christ ; iii. 6, 14. It is the confidence of faith which enables men
to appropriate purification by the blood of Christ, and purges the heart
from the consciousness of guilt; x. 22. We here find the same thing
which Paul describes as justification by faith, only with an allusion to
sprinkling with the blood of the sacrifices, in accordance with that refer
ence to the Jewish cultus which pervades the epistle. As in Paul's
writings, so it is here insisted that faith must prove itself genuine by pet-
severance ; x. 30, iii. 14. And we find also the same connexion indicated
between Faith, Hope, and Love; x. 23, 24.
In Paul's writings, there lies at the basis of the particular Christian
application ofthe idea of faith, a more general conception of it as a gen
eral, fundamental direction of the disposition without which no comma
nion with the divine, no religious life, can exist; and this idea is ex
pressed in this epistle in a still more general way than when Paul points
to justifying faith in the case of Abraham. It is described as being an
apprehension ofthe invisible by the whole direction ofthe disposition,—
a surrender of the spirit to something invisible by an act of inward self-
determination, by which man raises himself above the natural connexion
* By a transference of the subjective to the objective, the writer of this epistle (ix. 23)
speaks 'of a purification of the heavenly sanctuary itself, inasmuch as it would have been
defiled by the sins of mankind could they have entered it without a previous purification,

496 THE DOCTRINE OP
of causes and effects, and enters, by the direction of his inward life into
a higher order of things that reveals itself to him. Faith, accord
ing to Heb. xi. 1, is that by wdiich the object of hope already becomes
present ; by which man is convinced of the reality of what he cannot
perceive by the senses.* While in the constant succession in the phe
nomenal world he sees only the visible develop itself from the visible, and
one phenomenon from another, and the understanding, cleaving to earthly
phenomena, would explain and. understand everything from this causal
connexion ; faith, on the contrary, rises to an act of creative omnipotence
as the original ground of all existence, and acknowledges that the uni
verse was made by the invisible creative word of God; xi. 3. Even
here, agreeably to what we have remarked above, there is involved a pe
culiar Christian application of the general idea of faith, only what Paul
distinguishes as justification through faith, is here represented under
other forms on account of the references to the Jewish cultus. More
over, in accordance with the peculiarly hortatory character of this epistle,
faith is exhibited in its aspect of perseverance under all the sufferings
and conflicts of earthly life ; — faith in its unflinching constancy towards
the future, a faith which steadily aims at consummation, and by which
those wdio exercise it are matured for that final aim ; (reXeiioaig). By
this faith a man follows after Christ, in whom a perfect pattern is ex
hibited, and who has passed through all temptations and conflicts, with
an unwavering constancy of faith, to that state of glory whither all be
lievers must follow him by the same path ; xii. 2. But it has been most
unjustly attempted to find a contrariety between the idea of faith in this
epistle and in Paul's writings, as if in the former it merely implied a
reference to something future, a conception of its nature which would
best suit a lifeless Judaism. It is evident from the general, fundamental
idea of faith as we have explained if, and from the whole train of thought
in this epistle, that by means of faith a vital connexion is formed between
the Present and the Future. By means of faith, according to the doc
trine of this epistle, the Future becomes in some measure a Present to
the mind, although this Present has a necessary bearing to a more per
fect development, a consummation in the Future. Iu connexion with
faith is given the experience of the glory of the divine word, vi. 5 ; by
faith Christians are already united with the future world, and incor
porated into the heavenly city of God, xii. 22. By faith they partake of
the powers ofthe world to come, and obtain a partial anticipation ofthe
Future ; faith penetrates through the veil which conceals from human
eyes the holy of holies in the heavens, and already enters it; vi. 19.
With respect to the relation between the ideas of this epistle and the
ideas ofthe Alexandrian-Jewish theology as they are represented in the
writings of Philo, we must here have recourse to one of the deepest-
* As Theodoret says, deiKrvotv die ifyearura rd pyiirru yeyevypha, (it shews as
present, things which have never taken place.)

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 497
Teaching distinctions, the distinction between religious realism and reli
gious idealism ; in other words, to that theory which considers the
positive and historical in religion only as a symbolical clothing of general
ideas, and as the means of stimulating and training the mind towards the
contemplation of ideas — and to that theory, according to which religion
is acknowledged, not as an object merely ofthe intellect, but as an inde
pendent power in the life, a living communion with God effected by
means of certain histoi ical facts, as the highest end of a created being, and
a complete satisfaction of his religious wants.
On this entire distinction of religious theories, a difference is founded
in the interpretation of the Old Testament and of Judaism. Philo viewed
the historical and the positive in Judaism only as symbolical veils of
general ideas, which for the most part were borrowed from a very
different system, and which he attributed to Judaism by an arbitrary dis
regard of historical accuracy. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
conceives of Judaism, according to its true historical destination and in
tention — to prepare the way for realizing the kingdom of God through
Christ — to prefigure the divine in sensible forms — which would after
wards actually appear among mankind. If he arbitrarily explains some
things according to the letter, yet a higher necessity lies at the basis of
these meanings, the reference to the facts of religion from which the
satisfaction of the religious wants of mankind proceeded, and which were
really prepared by Judaism. The predominant idea of the epistle, the
high-priesthood of Christ, has a significance entirely real, founded on
historical facts, and relating to the most pressing religious wants of man
kind. The Logos in himself is not the high-priest ; he can only lay claim
to this character in consequence of his having assumed human nature,
and thus accomplished, in the manner described, the redemption of man
kind. Christ as glorified and exalted to heaven, actually performs that
for the religious life of men which their imperative religious wants seeks
in the priesthood. On the contrary, Philo calls the Logos himself the
high-priest, as the divine reason revealed in creation, through which the
creation is connected with the Deity. This reason, which reveals the
highest Being, the bv, and communicates worthy and elevated ideas of
the same, is hence called the high-priest of God in the creation. As the
ideal ground of the phenomenal world, it mediates for it before God, for
in idea all is perfect, but defective in actual appearance. The Logos is
hence represented as the " world of thought," Koapog vo-nrbg, the
"paraclete," irapdiiXrjTog, the "suppliant," kerj/c, for the " world of tho
senses," Koapog aladnrog. This idea is symbolically represented in
Melchisedec, and iu the Jewish high-priest.* Thus we see here, on the
* See Leg. Allegor. iii. § 26, where Melchisedec is spoken of as the symbol of the
Logos, tepive ydp can Aoyoe, k Ay pov iXuv rbv bvra nal vfeAue irepl avrov XoyiQdpevoc
(for reason is a priest, having as an inheritance the true Being, and discoursing in an
exalted manner concerning Him.) De Cherubim, § 5, the Logos is termed " priest,"

498 THE DOCTRINE OE JAMES.
one hand, abstract general ideas which can have no significance for the
religious life ; and on the other hand, views taken from the facts of
religious experience. On the one hand, the language of religion is arbi
trarily explained, according to a speculation which was the production of
a foreign soil ; on the other hand, according to sentiments founded in the
disposition which it was designed and adapted to express. Here it is
proper to notice a passage, in which the author of this epistle describes
the power of the Logos in a maimer resembling Philo's, but which fur
nishes no sufficient evidence to assume that he had the language of Philo
actually in his thoughts. That which is common* to them is the all-
penetrating and cutting sharpness of the Logos. But, in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, we have presented to us a matter of religious experience,
the living power of divine truth, penetrating, judging, and punishing the
soul, the power which lays open all secret wickedness, before which no
deception can stand. But Philo understands by the term the power of
logical discrimination, especially in reference to the divine reason, that
efficiency by which it fixes the limits of the various kinds of existence,
arranges the various classes of creatures, and forms compound bodies
from the simple elements.

CHAPTER III.
THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES.
We proceed from Paul's representation of Christian truth to that
of James, which conies nearer to furnishing a contrast to it than any
UpeiSr. and " proph"l," irpoiJTyr, for the sout. De Sicrlf. Abel et Caini, § 33. 6 ireievyuc
errl rbv'Be.v ko' hii-yc ah or yeyoruc Aojor, (reason which fled to God, and became a
suppliant of him.) The high-priest in his robes is a symbol ofthe universo, diraynaiov ydp
bv rbv iFnuu°i'ov rdi rov Koapov irurpi rrapnKAr/Tu xpi}aBal rrAetordru ryv itprrbv vtu,
(for it was necoss iry that lie, consecrated to the Father of ihe world, should have for a
paraclete a son mo-t perfect in virtue), — the world according to the PI , tonic idea. De
Vita Mot iii. ^ 14.
* Comp ire H"brews iv. 12, with Qtis Rer. divinar. Hceres. § 26: Iva rbv ddiiaKTov
ivvayc flp'-i' r'-firovra, Tue re r~n> auudruv Kal irpaytuirui' i;yc dirdaoc ypttboBat cccr yrdia-
Bat ioKiwnot ibbnrir, ru ropei rdiv avurrd.vruv avrov A-'tyu, be ele rr/v d^vrdryv iiKovyBrie
itKpyv, dioiftur ob^irore Ai/yrt rd niaBnrd. irdvra, itreiidr di pixPL Tt~'v dr'yiuv Kai /.eroiti-
vuv duen~ir dieSi'iBr/, ird/lv tirrb Tovruv rd A.byu Beunyrd ele dipvB'/rovc koi direpiyfvitpove
poipar up'troi itainr'v ovroc d mpevc. (In order that you may understand the untaught
God win i, dividing all Ihe natures of bodies and things that seem to be consecutively
fitted mid unit d locielhor, cuts through everything by his word, wdiich, sharpened to the
keene-t eclg , never ceases separating every object of the senses; and after it. has passed
through to ihe atoms aud the so called indivisible, this divider begins again tu separate
from these those thugs contemplated by the reason into unspeakable and indescribable!
parts.) Plidun. Opera, tom iii. p. 30, ed. Lips. 1828.

THE D0CRINE OE JAMES. 499
other in the New Testament. This is chiefly owing to James's peculiar
point of view, and to the difference occasioned by it in the development
of the doctrines of justification and faith. But on comparing the two
types of doctrine with one another, we shall perceive the essential unity
resulting from the Spirit of Christ, in both, only that the views of the
latter apostle were not so completely disengaged from the garb of the
Old Dispensation, nor wrought out in the same sharply defined form.
The contrast that here exists we c tnnot but regard rather as formal than
material. This difference is closely connected with the difference in the forma
tion ofthe religious character of the two apostles, and with the d ffer-
ence in their respective spheres of labor. As to the latter, we must beat-
in mind, that James in his peculiar position had not, like Paul, to vindi
cate an independent and unshackled ministration of the gospel among
the Gentiles in opposition to the pretensions of Jewish legal righteous
ness ; but that he felt himself compelled to press the practical conse
quences and requirements of the Christian faith on those in whom that
faith had been blended with the errors of carnal Jachiism, and to tear
away the supports of tlieir false confidence. While Paul was obliged to
point out, to those who placed their dependence on the justifying power
ofthe works of the law, the futility of such works in reference to justifica
tion, and to demonstrate th it justification and sanctification could pro
ceed only from the faith of the gosp -1, — James, on the other hand, found
it necessary to declare to those who imagined that they could be justified
before God by a faith iu the Jewish sense as we have before explained
it, that such a faith with which their practice was at total variance, was
an absolutely worthless thing.*
The apostle affirms, that as a sympathy that shows itself in mere
words to the afflicted is worth nothing, so a faith without works is en
tirely vain. Accordingly, he compares a faith that does not manifest
* It serves to confirm wdiat we have asserted above, viz., that the argumentation in
the Episile of James is by no means directed against Paul, that the example of Rahab"
adduced in il, cannot be supposed to relate to any use which Paul could have m .do of it ;
for tlie manner in which tho doctriae of Faith is unfolded in the 11th chaotjr of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, could certainly give no occasion to such a line of argument,
since in that section, believing confidence is described precisely as a principle which
impels to action, and the faith of Rahab is marked as being of a kind that induced her lo
receive the spies. The very point is h-re m ide prominent on which James lays so much
stress, and hence we infer that it cannot form an antithesis to his own views. Nor could
Piiul,'in his oral instructions, have made use of the example of Rahab ; fi>r in those pas
sages of the book of Joshua ihere was nothing ho could make use of in support of his
doctrine of justification by faith. Nothing is to be found there respecting faith nor of a
being justified before God, and with those points alone St. Paul was concern-d, and for
theireMnfirmation he quoted Gen. xv. and Habakkuk ii. This example of Rahab, which
can milv be explained from the ref-rence to Paul's doctrine, testifies against the supposed
discrepancy iu the views of the t vo Apostles. Tho citition of such an example can bo
explained and justified, only from the point of view which »j have taken.

500 ON FAITH AND WORKS.
itself by works, to a pretended love that is not verified by corresponding
acts, to a sympathy that evaporates in mere words. From this compar
ison, it is evident that what he here describes as a pretended love is in
his judgment undeserving ofthe name of love; the same may be said of
a pretended faith. But as by arguing against the value of a love that
only shows itself in words, he did not intend to depreciate the worth of
love itself, just as little could he design to cast a slight on the worth of
faith by what he says against the value of a faith that exhibits itself only
in outward profession. He considers such a fuiih, which is unaccom
panied by works, as dead ; it is a faith wh.eh is destitute of that divine
life which spontaneously produces good works. In reference to this
necessary, intimate connexion between faith and works, James, from his
point of view, permits one to say, addressing another who depends on
this inoperaiive faith (ii. 18), "Show me how thy faith can exist without
works, aud I will prove to thee my faith by my works.'' " As the body
without the soul is dead, so" (he says, ii. 26) "faith without works is
dead." The comparison is here a general one, without descending to
particulars. It is evident, that James could not mean to say that works
(the outward act) bear the same relation to faith as the soul to the body,
but only (which agrees with the whole train of his thinking) that the
absence of works is a proof that the faith is destitute of what corresponds
to the soul as the animating principle of the body. Works, therefore,
are signs of the vitality of faith.
We shall be assisted in forming correct ideas of his doctrine respecting
faith, if we examine the examples wdiich he adduces of genuine and of
spurious faith ; on the one hand, the faith of evil spirits in a God, which
only fids them with terror, and, on the other, the faith of Abraham. He
here applies the same term faith to two distinct affections ofthe soul. In
the first case, where the reference is to the faith of evil spirits, the feeling
of dependence on an Almighty Supreme Being shows itself as something
unavoidable, as an overpowering force, but it is only a passive state (a
irdOog), with which the spontaneity, the free receptivity and self-activity
ofthe mind by no means corresponds, to which the whole determination
of the inward life is opposed. The feeling of dependence on God is
something which man cannot get rid of, however much he may desire it.
In the second case, faith is not merely something passive, existing inde
pendently of the self-determination of man, but a voluntary recognition
of this dependence takes place by an act of the will, and thereby becomes
a regulating principle of the whole life. Hence, in the former instance,
works, as well as the whole tendency of the life, must stand in con
tradiction to what from this position is called faifh ; in the latter, the
inward tendency of the life proceeding from faith necessarily manifests
itse'f by works. That work of Abraham which the apostle adduces, was
indeed no other than an expression of that unconditional and trustful
surrender to the Divine will, which is likewise by Paul considered as a
mark of Abraham's genuine and divinely approved righteousness. But

THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES. 601
Paul adduces this example with a special reference to its internal impor
tance, in opposition to a vain righteousness of works; James makes use
of it in its outward manifestation against an opus operation of faith ; and
in this point of view he could say that by his works Abraham proved
that he was righteous; faith cooperated with his works in order to
characterize him as genuinely righteous ; by works his faith proved itself
to be "perfect," reXeia. When the Holy Scriptures tell us that Abra
ham's faith was imputed to him by God for righteousness, this can only
be understood of a faith which was accompanied with good works as
marks of its genuineness. Certainly James, who believed in the Divine
omniscience, could not suppose that the outward act was requisite to
make Abraham's disposition manifest to God ; but he meant to say that
Abraham's faith could not have justified him before God, if it had not
been such as would manifest its inward quality by such works. But Paul
would not have applied the same term iriorig to two religious states that
differed so widely from one another ; he would hardly have designated
by this name what James asserts of evil spirits ; he would not have dis
tinguished between a, fides informis and a fides formata, but only have
designated by this latter term the " faith that worketh by love." And
although in combating the erroneous tendency he would have agreed
with James, yet his method of combating it would have been quite dif
ferent. He would have pointed out, as he has done in several passages
of the Epistle to the Romans, the necessary, intimaf e connexion between
faith and a moral transformation; he would have shown those persons
who professed to believe, that what really deserved the name of faith,
was entirely wanting to them. But the elements of such a demonstra
tion are to be found in the Epistle of James, where he speaks of a new
birth, a new creation proceeding from faith; i. 18. Yet it is not his
manner to develop what is contained in the idea so systematically as Paul
is wont to do, who exhibits to us, if we may so express it, the speculative
and the practical, as they interpenetrate each other. James is through
out practical rather than speculative. He contents himself with stating
experimental appearances, while Paul would profoundly investigate their
causes. To Paul, the central feet on wdiich everything turns is the rela
tion of man to God, and the great revolution that must be effected in
that relation in order that man, by nature estranged from God, may be
come an object of his good pleasure. Only to the sight of that God who
beholds the inmost recesses of the spirit, and to whom the invisible
world lies unveiled, is the whole new direction of the life apparent in that
internal act of faith which lays hold of redemption, and from which every
thing must be developed that belongs to the perfection of the Christian
life.° In the sight of that Being who beholds the invisible, man is justi
fied when he believes ; he is justified by his faith. But James, who con
templates the outward manifestation of things as they are developed in
time, takes into account the cooperation of faith and works for the jus.
tification of man ; for like Paul he recognises only that faith which works

502 ON TAITH AND WORKS.
by love and thus originates the new creation in man, as justifying faith,
and requires that it should express itself in woiks in order to distinguish
it from whatever else may be called faith. Had James intended to say
that works must be visible in order that man may appear just before God
this would have been a material contradiction between himself and Paul
But as surely as James acknowledged God as the omniscient who pene
trates into all that is hidden from mortal vision, must he have known, that
true faith and the right state of heart which it involved, must be manifest
to God, before it could be discernible to mm by its outward signs. But
one thing is certain; — the point of view taken by these two apostles, the
direction of tlieir contemplations, is thoroughly different. The great dif
ference in their respective positions is, that while Paul fixes his attention
principally on the objectively Divine, the ground of God's election, on
which the confidence of man must rest: James, assuming the fact of this
divine ground, concerns himself with the subjectively human, with what
man must do on his part.
A contradiction may indeed seem to exist between the two, wdien the
one, as the mark ofthe position of legal righteousness adopts the phrase,
"Do this, and thou shalt live!" and the other, from his position, says,
" A doer of the work — this man shall be blessed in his deed"* : and we
readily grant that Paul would not have expressed himself as James has
done. But this contradiction vanishes, if we take care to nonce the
different connexions in which these words are used. Paul speaks of the
law as the summary of individual, imperative prescriptions, and of man
as under the law, antecedent to Christianity. James is speaking of the
new law of life revealed by the Messiah, which he designates as the "per
fect law," vopog reXeiog, in reference to its forming the consummation of
Judaism, just as Christ in his Sermon on the Mount represents the gospel
to be the fulfilling of the law. Viewing it in this connexion, he also calls
it the "law of liberty," i., 25 doubtless from the ftct, that those who
truly receive it, render a free, loving obedience, issuing from an inward
vital principle. He considers this law as equivalent to the Xoyog, the
published doctrine of Christ. By this doctrine the law becomes a law of
freedom, and a perfect law, inasmuch as in the words of Christ the law
first finds its full significance, and from faith in Christ the free obedience
of love is fiisl, rendered to it. Thus the Christian state, in which the law
becomes glorified, appears as that of freedom and jierfection, in contrast to
the earlier condition of bondage and imperfection. Since, then, James thus
agrees with Paul, although he would not have made such a contrast, as
the latter apostle, between the gospel and the law, we are nut justified in
tracing modes of expression in James that resemble the Pauline, to the
direct influence of Paul, but, we must rather refer what both have in
° Paul, from the legal as opposed to the evangelical stand point, says, " The man that
doeth thorn shall live in them," 'O rroiyaac avru rnaerai iv avrotc. James, from his own
position, says, 'O iroiyri/c ipyov ovroc pamipwc iv ry rroiyau avrov iarat, "the doer of
the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."

THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES. 503
common, to the divine original fountain of the revelation of Christ, in
Avhose words we can point out the connecting link. In reference there
fore to the law, as the law of Christ, James says what Paul himself must
have granted, — that mere knowledge can profit nothing — that it is all-
important that this doctrine should not be made an object of mere indo
lent contemplation, but should evince its power as a law regulating the
life — that whoever exemplifies this doctrine in his life, will be blessed in
his deed* — that only he who regulates his life by Christianity can expe
rience in life its blessed effects ; he alone will feel truly blessed in the in
fluence proceeding from Christianity.
In relation to moral requirements, James differed widely from the
abettors of a Jewish legal righteousness, who laid more stress on a mul
tiplicity of individual good works than on the regulation of the life by
one governing principle ; for it is one of the characteristics of this Epistle,
and closely connected with his argument on faith, that he traces back
belief, knowledge, and action, to the unity of the whole life proceeding
from a godly disposition, and opposes the isolation of all those things
which can only maintain tlieir true significance when comprehended iu
that unity.
Thus he says, Whosoever imagines that the worship of God consists
in certain single acts, deceives himself; it consists in the whole direction
of a life devoted to God, in preserving oneself from contact with all un
godliness. Hecombats the superficial moral judgment, according to which
a man believes that he maybe excused for transgressing certain com
mands, if he only avoids certain sins. The law is a unity, and whoever
violates it in only one point, is guilty of violating the whole. According ,
to James, the fulfilling of the whole law consists in love ; ii. S. Hence he
particularly speaks against those who were accustomed to consider an
offence in words as a mere trifle, or who believed that they could exercise
genuine devotion towards God while they were in the habit of passing un
charitable judgments on their fellow-men. This is a contradiction ; good
and evil cannot proceed from the same fountain ; it is ofthe first importance
that language should be the organ of a disposition that regulates the whole
life both in word and deed. And in reference to the theoretical part of
religion, he says that true wisdom and true knowledge must, show them
selves in ihe general course of the life. He considers the whole Christian
life as a work. That perseverance which consists in maintaining tlie faith
under trials must have its perfect work, that is, must consist not merely in
single good acts, but embrace the whole of life ; i. 4. Of practical Chris
tianity ,he says, that the "doer of the work," TroinTrjg epyov, is blessed in
his doing/ i. 25.
* 'Ere "in," in James, i. 25, ought by no means to be translated through. The "shall
be," iarni, also, implies, that James considered the blessedness not merely as something
proceeding from the deed as an outward result, but as something involved in the deed, a
feeling that necessarily accompanied it; we are led to think of the beatitudes in the Ser
mon on the Mount. Compare also Schneckenburger's excellent remarks on this passage.

504 THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES.
Although Christianity presented itself to this apostle as the consum
mation of the law, yet he by no means adopted the Ebionitish notion, that
Christ had only perfected the Mosaic law by the addition of certain moral
prescriptions, such perhaps as are given in the Sermon on the Mount, so
that he might be considered simply as the Supreme lawgiver and teacher ;
but he acknowledged as the peculiar distinction of Christianity, the im
partation of a new divine principle of life, which, by its operation from
within outwardly,produced the fulfilment of the law. He beheld in the
Messiah the author of a new moral creation through the divine principle of
life which he communicated ; he describes the word of truth as the instru
ment of regeneration, giving birth to a new creation; i. 18. The word
(he .affirms) must penetrate the very depths of human nature, and by an in
ternal transforming power effect its deliverance from sin ; i. 21. But he
was very far from believing that the Christian could altogether come up to
the requirements of the law of liberty, which seeks for a free obedience
proceeding from love, and could thus be justified by his own course of life.
He declares (including himself) that "in many things we all offend ;" iii.
2. Every man, he says, must be penetrated by the conviction how much
he stands in need of the divine mercy, that he may be able to stand before
the divine tribunal ; and ought to be impelled by this consideration to
exercise mercy towards others; ii. 13.
After what has been said, it cannot be denied that there are differences
between the two apostles, in thedogmatic and ethical mode of their instruc
tions, differences to which in fact we have called attention ; but still it may
be shown, that though the Christian spirit appears more fully developed
and more perfectly formed in one scheme of doctrine than in the other, yet
the same spirit pervades both. Paul, though he considered good works
as th.e necessary marks of the new spiritual creation, and the neces
sary fruits of an actual, internal righteousness, would certainly not have
expressed himself exactly in this manner, that a man is justified not by
faith alone, but also by his works, that faith and works must cooperate
for his justification. He would not only have avoided saying this in re
ference to the legal works preceding the ti-an-f'ormution of the life by
faith, (in which James agrees with him,) but also in reference to the
works produced by faith ; for he always considered faith alone as that
by which a man becomes just before God, and the source from which
all other good develops itself by an internal necessity ; and the life of
believers, proceeding from faith, is always alloyed by a mixture of the
flesh, for which reason a justifying power cannot be attributed even
to those works which are the fruits of faith. But since James, as we
have remarked, acknowledges the continual defects of the Christian
life and the need of forgiveness of sin even to the recipient of the
gospel — since he presupposes that the Christian can only obtain that
mercy from God which he constantly needs, as long as he shows mercy
to others — all material difference vanishes. Paul approaches nearer to
James on another side, where he is less dogmatically exact,, and is

TOE NEW SPIRIT UNDER OLD FORMS. 505
not led to employ the strong contrasts which are frequent in the con
troversial parts of his writings, for even according to his own views,
works necessarily belong to the Christian life as an expression of faith
and of the righteousness obtained by it, and faith must be verified by the
whole course of life ; hence he asserts, on occasions when it was of im
portance to give prominence to this truth, that every man will receive
his deserts, according to that he hath done in his earthly life, whether it
be good or bad, 2 Cor. v. 10. Nor is it difficult to explain this mode of
expression on the Pauline principles, and to show its perfect harmony
with them. In the works which proceed from faith, the difference must
be verified between genuine and spurious faith, and the difference will
gradually make itself known according to the degree in which faith has
penetrated the life. Although in redemption, justification, and the im
partation of a new divine life, by which man is first rendered capable of
accomplishing good works, all is an act of grace, yet, according lo Paul's
doctrine, there is also a rewardable righteousne.-s, and the bestowment
of a reward, in proportion as men show themselves active when the new
creation has been effected, according as they make use of the grace
bestowed upon them. And if such expressions, though strictly in ac
cordance with the Pauline doctrine, were taken by themselves, they
might, like those of James, be supposed to be contradictory to it. It is
in these expressions that we find the doctrinal type of James.
Moreover, as James was altogether a Jew, but a Jew whose vieios
were rendered complete by faith in Jesus as the Messiah, it was his aim
to lead his countrymen by the same way which he had himself taken,
from Judaism to faith iu Jesus as the Messiah, though without departing
from the customary national theocratic forms ; hence he did not, like
Paul, who labored among the Gentiles that stood in no national relation
to the law, represent Christ as the abolisher of the law, but as its fulfiller;
and this view was countenanced by Christ's own language in Matt. v.
11* Hence the law to him became changed in its spirit; from being
imperfect, it became perfect ; from being a law of bondage, it became a law
of liberty. But he received the ne-v sjiirit under the old forms, similarly
to many Cat holies who have attained to free evangelical convictions, and
yet have not been able to disengage themselves from the old ecclesiastical
forms; or like Luther, when lie had already attained to a knowledge of
justification by faith, but before he was aware of the consequences flow
ing from it in opposition to the prevalent doctrines of the church. And
thus James, though he acknowledged that the Gentiles by faith in Je
hovah and the Messiah were entitled to the same theocratic privileges as
the Jews who observed the law, did not enforce on the believing Jews
the non-observance of the law, Acts xv. 21. And what he says to Paul
in Acts xxi. 21,f implies that he would have thought it wrong to induce
* See Life of Christ, p. 91.
f The believing Jews needed no new precepts ; they knew what they were bound to
observe as Jews, See p. 121.

506 MODES OF ENFORCING VERACITY.
the Jews who were scattered among the heathen to forsake the ob
servance of the law. Now Paul also was far from doing this ; he
allowed the Jews to remain Jews, as he allowed the Gentiles to retain
everything in their national character and habits which did not contra
dict the spirit of the gospel : he himself did not repudiate his Jewish
character and education, but celebrated the Jewish feasts with the Jews,
when there was opportunity. But since he considered the religious
obligation of the law in every respect as abolished, he must naturally
have been less scrupulous in its outward observance, and must rather
have felt himself bound to depart from it when required to do so by
higher considerations, whenever the observance of the law was in any
way incompatible with the duties and claims of his vocation, as for
example, when it obstructed his free intercourse with the heathen.
Among the Gentiles he lived as one by birth a Gentile ; Barnabas and
Peter did the same ; Gal. ii. 14.* James would not have so easily agreed
to this, nor indeed was such expansion of sentiment required for his pe
culiar sphere of labor, since his adherence to the observance of the law
rather promoted his success among his countrymen, to whom his special
ministry was confined.
With the difference in the doctrinal schemes of the two apostles,
their manner of enforcing the duty of veracity is also connected. James
repeats the command of Christ to the letter, as it was originally given,
yet showing at the same time, that he correctly understood its sense
and spirit. Among Christians, no oath ought to be required for a con
firmation of what they asserted, tlieir love of truth and mutual confidence
ought to be so great, that their Yea and Nay should be a sufficient pledge.
It was their duty to guard from the lirst against the guilt of falsehood
or perjurv; James v. 12. Paul does not mention Christ's command in
this verbal form, but only enjoins, in reference to the disposition, that
Christians should speak truth to one another, as being members one of
another; and because language was intended for the very purpose of
maintaining and exhibiting the spiritual communion, in which, as mem
bers of the same body, they must stand to one another. From this it
was easy to deduce the obligation which they were under on this point
towards society at large, since all men as rational beings, created for the
realization of the kingdom of God, might be considered members one
of another, and lungu ige was in like manner de-igned for the mainte
nance and exhibition of this more general relation; Ephes. iv. 25. And
he had confessedly no scruple, when sufficient confidence was not felt
towards hiin by all the persons concerned, and where it was of special
* Perhaps the partisans of James, mentioned in GaL ii. 12, went down to Antioch for
the purpose of examining whether the Jews who lived among ihe Gentiles, allowed
themselves to be led into violations of ihe law, which they were not justified in doing
by the resolutions of the apostofc convention; but it does not follow from ibis, that they
were acting by the command, or even iu accordance with the wish of James.

GOD NOT THE AUTHOR OF SIN. 507
importance to obtain undoubting confidence in his assertions, to make use
of a form of asseveration which would be deemed equivalent to an oath.
As the ethical element predominates in the Epistle of James, so an
anxiety for the exclusion of every appearance of charging the causation
of sin upon God is very conspicuous, and an emphatic maintenance of the
freedom of the will, whose self-determination is the necessary condition
of all the operations of divine grace. Let no one excuse himself (is the
apostle's doctrine) for yielding to evil, on the plea that he could not with
stand its enticements,— that a higher power, a fatality, a divine predesti
nation hurried him into sin. Far be it from God to tempt any man to
evil. As no evil can affect Him, the holy and blessed One, so he tempts
no one to evil; but it is the indwelling sinful desire of every man by
which he is seduced to evil. This also makes an opening for the temp
tations of Satan, yet even by his power no one can be forced to sin
against his will ; iv. V. Thus the ground is taken away from every man
for throwing off the blame of his sins by pleading the temptations pro
ceeding either from God or Satan; since to thebeliever the ability is
given, by his own higher moral nature (the image of God in his soul),
and the'guidance ofthe Divine Spirit, to withstand his sinful desires and
the temptations of Satan ; it must be his own guilt if he yield and allow
himself to be carried away to the commission of sin. He has only to
subordinate his own will to the will of God, and in communion with God
to withstand the evil spirit, who will then flee from him ; all temptation
to evil will fail before a will that is in real earnest and devoted to God.
Only let a man surrender himself to God by a steady determination of
his will, and God's aid will not be wanting; i. 13-16; iv. 7, 8. James,
like Paul, presupposes two principles of action in the believer — the image
of God restored through Christ, and the sinful desire which still cleaves
to the soul, and renders it accessible to temptations from without. When
he says that the desire bringeth forth sin, (i. 15,) it is not meant, that
the desire itself is something purely natural, or morally indifferent, but
it is rather presupposed that the element in human nature, according to
its actual condition, which, when a man does not withstand it, but sur
renders himself to it, gives birth to the sinful act, is in itself something
sinful. But James limits himself, for the most part, to the outward
manifestations ofthe moral life ; he does not, like Paul in the epistle to
the Romans, go to the root of the opposition between good and evil in the
depths of the human heai t ; yet he furnishes, even on this side, an impor
tant link in the complete development of Christian dooti ine. The manner
in which he expresses himself respecting the free determination of the will
in relation to a divine causation in evil and good, furnishes us with au
important complement to Paul's doctrinal scheme, where, (as in discuss
ing the doctrine of election, predestination, and the unconditionality of
the divine decrees,) owing to his peculiar character, and his practical or
argumentative object, only one side of Christian truth is brought forward
only the fundamental nature of the Christian dispensation is dwelt on

508 THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN.
and other aspects of it are put in the background. Hence, if one will
form a doctrinal system from such single passages, not taken in con
nexion with the analogy of the whole New Testament doctrine, errors
must arise, which he would have learned to avoid, by comparing tho
degrees of development and peculiar schemes of doctrine belonging to
the several apostles which serve mutually to complete one another.*

CHAPTER IY.
THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN.

John, as compared with Paul, had this point in common with James,
that, by his peculiar mental development, he was not adapted and dis
posed to that intellectual cast of thought which distinguished the dialectic
apostle to the Gentiles. But if in James the practical element predomi
nated, in John we find the intuitive, though deeply imbued with the
practical ; he presents broad contemplative views ofthe fundamental re
lations ofthe spiritual life, rather than trains of thought, in which, as in
Paul's writings, distinctions and contrasts are made with logical precision
and minuteness. In reference also to the peculiar development of his
Christian life, he had not been led like Paul to faith in the Redeemer
through severe conflicts and opposition, nor like him at last attained
peace after a violent crisis. He resembled James in having become a
Christian through a course of quiet development, but differed from hiin
in this respect, that his higher life had not first been moulded to a pecu
liar form in Judaism, from which he had been gradually brought to faith
in Christ, his conceptions of Christianity having been modified by his
former views; but from the first, the whole development of his higher
life had proceeded from a personal observation ofthe appearing of Christ
and by intercourse with him. As the consciousness of his own moral
disunion was awakened by the contemplation of a perfect divinely-human
life, in which the archetype of man was realized before his e_\ es, so by
continuing to live in communion with this model of perfection, he gained
* In reference to all the topics discussed in this chapter, T wish to direct Ihe attention
of my readers to an Essay by Prommann, a young theologian, distinguished, and dear to me,
(now Dr. Frommann, pastor of the Kvangelical Lutheran church at St. Petersburgb,) in the
Studien und Kriliken, 18:^3, part 1. It will be clear lo the attentive reader, that in the re-
presentaiion given above, I have viewed tie subject, not under the light of a contracted
dogmatism which would adjust all contradictions, but from that position which unpreju
diced historical investigation and genetic development enable me to occupy. But I can
not hope to secure myself against the suspicions of the prejudiced, who, of all persons,
deem themselves the most free from prejudice.

CHARACTER OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY. 509
power to overcome that disunion. Hence everything in his view turned
on one simple contrast ;-divine life in communion with the Redeemer
— deatn in estrangement from him. And as the whole of his piety was
the result of what he immediately saw and experienced in his intercourse
with the Redeemer, all his modes of religions thought had their orfein in
the life of Jesus, and might be considered as so many reflections of it
It was this which gave them a vital unity, so that it was not possible to
distinguish them into the practical and theoretical. This is shown in
those pregnant words by which his style is marked, -Life, Light, and
Iruth; and their opposites— Death, Darkness, and a Lie. As 'in com
munion with God, the original fountain of life, which can be obtained
only through his self-revelation in the Logos, the spirit of man finds its
true life,— as when in this true life, the consciousness of the spirit devel
ops itself, the life becomes the light of the spirit, and the spirit lives in
the truth as its vital principle; so by the separation ofthe spirit from its
original, by the disjunction of the knowledge of man's self and of the
world from the knowledge of God, death, misery, darkness and falsehood
are the result. The human spirit created after the image of the divine
Logos, must be enlightened by communion with this divine fountain of
life ; a life in God, divine life as the true life of the spirit, is naturally ac
companied by the true light, of knowledge. But since man by the direc
tion of his will has turned himself to the undivine, he has in so doing
estranged himself from the source of his true light and life, and is no
longer in a state susceptible of its reception. The divine Logos never
ceases, indeed, to manifest himself to the souls of men, as Paul declares,
that in God they live and move and are; his light shines in the darkness
of the human race, who have turned away from God ; and from its illu
mination emanated all the goodness and truth that preceded the per
sonal appearance of the Logos ; but this revelation was opposed by an
impenetrable intensity of darkness.* Hence the Logos himself must
* I cannot entirely agree with the interpretation proposed by Frommann, in his excel
lent work on the doctrinal views of John ; Leipzig, 1839, p. 249; — that John, in the first
clause of i. 5, depicts the relation of human nature in its original state to the revelation of
the divine Logos, and that in the second part of this verse, "and the darkness," Kal y
OKoria, he speaks of that relation since the Fall. According to this, the aKoria in the first
clause, to use the language of the schoolmen, would describe the state of man in the con
dition of pura naturalia as informis, negative, and from the revelation of the Logos the
gratia informans must proceed, wdiich man required for the perfection of his spiritual
nature. But in John, we never find the representation of such a mere negative relation
ofthe human spirit to the Logos, as existing apart from communion with him, and possess*-
ing a susceptibility not yet satisfied. " Darkness" always denotes, in his phraseology, an
actual opposition against the divine light of the Logos, a predominance of the undivine.
It is contrary to the style of his conceptions, that he should suppose the spirit of man,
formed after the image of the Logos, to be in its original state otherwise than in commu
nion with that divine source of life and light. Terse 4 relates to what the Logos was or
ought to be, according to his essential nature, to mankind ; and in verse 5, John passes on
immediately to the state of mankind estranged from God by the misdirection of their will.

510 THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN.
break through the separating limits — bring himself nigh to man estranged
from God — reveal and communicate himself as the divine fountain of life
in the form of an assumed humanity, a visible human life serving him
only as a medium for the manifestation ofthe divine life which is in him,
and for bringing men to a participation of it. John i. 7-14.
Satan appears as the summit and representative of this self-seeking
tendency, dissevered from connexion with God, and hence given over to
darkness and falsehood ; John viii. 44. He stands not in the truth;*
with the disposition that has become a second nature, he can find in the
truth not, a single point on which to rest, because there is no truth in
him. Owing to his predominant tendency to falsehood he wants the
organ requisite to receive the truth, and to connect himself with it, to
admit, and to appropriate the revelation of truth.
Where a created spirit yields itself wholly and purely to the self-
revealing God, or the Logos, there is truth. Wherever he dissevers him
self from this connexion, and lives, thinks, and acts in this state of selfish

* Frommnnn maintains, in his work before quoted, p. 333, that Satan, according to
John's views, is no other than *' the seductive spirit of the world conceived of in concrete
personality;" the principle of evil in the world hypostatiz-^d ; and that the idea of a fallen
Intelligence is altogether foreign to this apostle. But if this were so, we must explain
his lantruase in one of three ways. Either he intentionally chose the form of such a
personification; or the prevalent religious conception -, which had proceeded from an
embodiment ofthe ielea of evil, bad taken possession of les mind without his making it a
subject of special refleot'on (which is Schleiermaeher's view) ; or he really considered
Satan as an absolute evil being who had existed from eternity. There appears nothing
to f ivor the first supposition ; with re*p"ct to the second, this doclrini is so closely inter
woven with the whole system of John's theology, that we cannot help believing that he
had been compelled to reflect on the meaning of lies representation, and to form a definite
idea respec'inc- the nature of Satan and his relatwi to Go 1. But the ad nissiou of an ab
solute Du dism is utterly irreconcilable urith John's theism. There remains then no other
alternative but the supposition that he consi ler -d Sit-in as the Intelligence who first
apostatized from God. The passage in John viii. 44 contains nothina contradictory to
this supposition. The persons wdiom Christ there d"clares to resemble Satan in their
dispositions he could not. intend to describe as nhsohHely evil by nature, but as those who,
by the repeated suppression of their nature derived from God, had attained this unsus-
ceptibilily for truth and goodness, this habitual perversoness. Fromrmnn says, p. 335,
that the fall of a stood anjel presupposes an original evil principle operating upon him,
and, that in order to explain the existence of Satan, we are again driven to the assumption
of another Satan. But this objection is obviated by what we have before remarked
respecting the nec'ssary inexplicability of tlie origin of sin, founded in the very idea of evil,
see p. 338. We must again maintain what we have asserted against all attempts to find
an absolute Du dism in John. The doctrine of a fallen spirit from whom all evil pro
ceeds, we arejustified in presumincr to be the only one by which the idea of a Satan can
harmonize with the strictly theistical conception which evidently lies at the basis o,
John's theology, if nothing in it can be proved contradictory to th's supposition, as cer
tainly nothing of the kind can be proved. But such a Dualism as is founded in ITera-
clcon's idea of Satan, we cannot presuppose without hesitation in the idea of John, but it
will be necessary to produce distinct expressions which afford positive evidence of such a
conception.

MAN ESTRANGED FROM GOD. 511
separation, there is falsehood. As the truth, according to John, proceeds
from the tendency ofthe whole life towards God, the true and the good
are in his view one, as on the other hand, are sin and falsehood. When
the spirit withdraws itself from the revelation of eternal truth, and sup
presses its original consciousness of truth, self-deception follows, and ihe
deception of others. Hence Satan is represented as a liar, and the father
of lies. And thus have we the universal contrast: those who are in a
state of vital communion with God, who have received a divine life, are
born of God, and hence are called the children of God ; and those who
live in communion with that spirit from whom at first proceeded all the
tendencies of sin and falsehood, or who are of the world, belong to the
world — understanding by the world not the objective world as such, the
creation of God, which, as founded in the Logos, and as a revelation of
God, is in itself something good, but the world in a subjective reference,
inasmuch as the consciousness of man is held by it, and separates it from
its relation to God, so that a consciousness of the world torn from its
connection with a consciousness of God becomes all-controlling.
Since, according to John, participation in the divine life depends
entirely on faith in the Redeemer, this forms a new era of development in
opposition to the former prevailing principle, and to that state of estrange
ment from God, and of moral corruption from which believers are extri
cated. Though we find in John no such ample representation of human
nature in its estrangement from God, as is delineated in Paul's writings,
(which may be explained from the peculiarity of his doctrinal method,
and the peculiar style of his writings,) still it may be easily perceived
that his views were essentially the same, and in perfect harmony with
the essence of Christianity. We find here the same contrast between
what human nature is, and is able to produce in the state of estrange
ment from God, and that higher position to which it is raised by the
transforming influence of a divine principle of life communicated to it,
or, in other words, the contrast of the carnal, aapKiKbv, and 1 he spiritual,
¦nvevpariKov. When John, in the introduction to his Gospel (i. 12),
describes the children of God as those who owed this distinction, not to
their descent from any particular race of men, and in general not to any
thing which lies within the compass of human nature ;— when Christ says
to Nicodemus, that what is born ofthe flesh is flesh ;— such language is,
in the first place, opposed to the Jewish notion that outward descent
from the theocratic nation gave an indisputable right to participation in
the kingdom of God and in the dignity of his children ; but this particular
application is deduced from a truth expressed in the most general terms,
namelv, the general position, that the natural man by his disposition is
estranged from the kingdom of God, and must receive a new divine life,
in order to become a member of it. Hence in John, as well as in Paul,
the same conditions and preparations are required for participation in the
blessing which Christ is ready to bestow on mankind, the consciousness
of bondage in the God-related nature of man,— the consciousness of per-

512 BECEPTIVITT FOB KEDEMPTTON.
sonal sinfulness — a sense of the need of help and redemption, a longing
after a new divine life, which alone can satisfy all the wants of the higher
nature of man. We may here adduce the allusion to the brazen serpent
(iii. 14), where the Jews, who in believing confidence expected by look
ing at it to be healed of their wounds, represent those who, under a sense
of the destruction that threatens them from their spiritual maladies, look
to the Redeemer with confidence for spiritual healing ; and all those
parables in John's Gospel, in which Christ speaks of thirst for that water
of life, and hunger for that bread of heaven, which he is willing to bestow.
Accordingly John, in his first Epistle, says that whoever believes him
self to be free from sin, is destitute of uprightness, and deceives himself;
that such a man makes God a liar, since he acts as if all which the earlier
divine revelations have asserted respecting human sinfulness, and which
is implied in God's sending a Redeemer to the human race, were false ;
1 John i. 10.
But in order that men may attain to faith in the Redeemer, and avail
themselves of his aid, the outward revelation of the divine, with all the
attestations that accompanied it in the external world, are not sufficient.
Without the inward sense for the divine which is outwardly manifested
in the person of the Saviour, they can give it no admission into their
hearts. The outward power of the divine can exert no compulsive in
fluence, but requires the mind to be already in a susceptible state, in
order to produce its right effect. Without this, all external revelations
and appeals are in vain ; the unsusceptible " have eyes but they see not ;"
John xii. 40. Hence the attainment of faith depends on a preparative
operation of the Holy Spirit on men's minds, by which a sense of the
divine is awakened within them, and a consciousness of their higher
wants. Thus a susceptibility for what will give real satisfaction is de
veloped, so that faith naturally results from the conjunction of this inward
susceptibility with the external divine revelation. To this Christ refers
when he says to the Jews, (to whom, on account of the enthralment of
their minds in earthly things, his words were necessarily unintelligible
and strange,) in order to draw their attention to the grounds of their
being offended with him (John vi. 44, 45), that they should not think
that they could come to him, that is, attain to faith in him, with such a
tendency of their disposition.* No one (he declared) could come unto
him who was not drawn to him by the Father who sent him ; who had
not heard the awakening voice of the heavenly Father in his inmost soul,
and followed it. These words have indeed been misunderstood by the
advocates of the Augustiniau system, as if a divine excitement, inde
pendent of all human self-determination, were intended as producing that
susceptibility for the divine ; but this would be to impose a sense
* In contrast to their bodily coming to him; which was only on account of their
bodily necessities, for which they thus sought to obtain relief; whereas the true spiritual
coming to him must proceed from a feeling of their real, spiritual necessities.

RECEPTIVITY FOR REDEMPTION. 513
foreign to the connexion and the design of the discourse ; and greater
importance has been attached to a single metaphorical expression than it
can have in such a connexion. Certainly the divine impulse must be
here contrasted with what is merely sensuous and human ; and the
figurative expressions denote the power with which the divine impulse,
when it is once felt, operates on the soul, — the power with which the
divine manifests itself to the self-consciousness; but it is by no means
said that this divine impulse of an operation of God to arouse the sup
pressed knowledge of God acts alone, and that man, by his free self-
determination, does nothing to promote it. This supposition would be
inconsistent with the design of all the passages of this kind, since, taken
in their connexion, the words are intended to awake men to a sense of
tlieir criminal unsuseeptibility as the cause of their unbelief. It would
also contradict John's declaration ofthe condemnation that accompanied
the appearance of the Redeemer and the publication of the gospel ; for
this condemnation implies the fact, that in the different reception given
by men to the gospel, their different susceptibility or unsuseeptibility for
believing is manifested, and thus the difference of their entire disposition
and character.
According to the doctrinal views of John, a two-fold meaning is
attached to the phrases, to be of God, elvai eK deov, and to be ofthe truth,
elvai eK rrjg dXndeiag. They either indicate, in the highest sense of the
words, the quickening first proceeding from faith through the divine
spirit of life, which is the spirit of truth ; or in a subordinate sense, the
general contact ofthe human mind with God, the taste for the true and
the divine, that inward susceptibility founded on the developed know
ledge of God, which is the preparative for faith. In reference to the
latter meaning it is said, in John viii. 47, " He that is of God, heareth
God's words;" and xviii. 37, "Every one that is of the truth, heareth
my voice." Hence, though John presents in diametric opposition the
idea of the natural man estranged from God, and the man who is born
of God, yet, according to his doctrine, various steps and transitions in
the phenomenal world must be admitted between the first condition and
the second, according as the original consciousness of truth and of God
which has been suppressed by the sinful bias of the will, more or less
prevents men from hearing the voice of God, and following the drawings
of their heavenly Father.* The slumbering sense of God may indeed be
awakened by the immediate impression of tho glory manifested in the
appearance of Christ ; but it may also happen that a man, by following
the drawing of his heavenly Father antecedent to the revelation of Christ,
uprightly strives after the divine and the good, and such a one is led
through'the divine to the divine. The confused partial revelation of
God which had hitherto illuminated the darkness of his soul, and con
ducted him in life, leads him to the revelation of the divine original in
* The darkness which cannot admit the divine light that shine3 upon it.

514 THE INCARNATION OF THE LOGOS.
human form, and he rejoices actually to behold the archetype in its
effulgence which had hitherto shone upon him with only a dim and
distant lustre ; John iii. 21.
With respect to John's idea ofthe wrork of redemption, that appears
most prominent which he had received from the immediate observation
of the life of Christ, and its immediate impression on his religious self-
consciousness. The life of Christ as the humanization of the Divine, of
which the design was to give a divine elevation to man, is the self-
revelation ofthe divine Logos (as the revealing principle for the mysteri
ous Essence of God) in the form of humanity, appropriated by him in
order to communicate divine life to human nature, and to transform it
into a medium for the revelation of the divine life. John's remarkable
words, " The Logos became man, and we have beheld his glory as it
was revealed inhumanity," describe the nature of Christ's appearance,
aud what mankind are to become through Him, who is the central poiut
of Christian faith and life. The same sentiments are expressed in his
first Epistle, " We announce to you as eye-witnesses, the manifestation
of the eternal fountain of life, which was with the Father, in order that
you may enter into fellowship with it." He states as the essential marks
of this manifestation ofthe divine glory in humau form, that, he appeared
full of grace and truth ; grace, wdiich means the communicative love of
God, God as love; and truth, according to John's conceptions of it, as
we have already remarked, is not anything speculative and abstract, but
proceeds from the life, and embraces the whole unity of the life, and
lience is one with goodness aud holiness. Truth is the essential predi
cate ofthe inward unity of the divine life; and Christ (in John's
Gospel) calls himself the Truth and the Life. Hence, the ideas of love
and holiness are the two divine attributes which (as far as it is possible
to reduce John's pregnant words to precise forms of thought) will most
nearly express what he represents as the characteristic of the glory of
God revealed in the life of Christ, and agree with his using love and
holiness in his first epistle as designations of the Divine Being generally.*
God has been glorified in Christ (John xiii. 31) ; in him as the Son of
Man, by whom the archetype of humanity is realized ; — that is, he has
exhibit d in human nature the glory of God, the perfect image of God
as holy love. As man was created in the image of God, and was destined
to glorify God, that is, to manifest him in his glory with selt-oonscious-
ness— that is now fubilled by the Son of God in human form. The partial
revelati n ofthe heavenly Father in the obscure subjective consciousness
of man, and lis perfect revelation in the appearance of the Son, are mu
tually related ; the former was a preparation for the latter; and the lat
ter refle- ts fresh illumination on the former. As whoever understands
* John does not make use ofthe second term precisely, but it is implied in what he
says ; for when he affirms in 1 John i. 5, " God is light, and in him is no darkness at all,1
since darkness is a designation of sin, light, by contrast, is expressive of holiness.

THE INCARNATION OF THE LOGOS. 515
that revelation of God which pierces through the thick darkness of the
Boul, must be attracted by the perfect revelation of the same God in his
Son, it follows, that whoever knows the Father must necessarily recog.
nise the Falher in the Son, — while the not recognising, or the. denying
ofthe Son, is a proof that a man knows not the Father, and is estranged
from him. The image of the Falher, in his holy love to man, is perfectly
exhibited in the Son, and in him also was first revealed in a manner com
prehensible to man what a being that God is, whose holy personality man
was created to represent.* Through him God closes up the chasm that
separated him from the human race, and imparts himself to them in the
communion of a divine life ; and by that life it is taught that all living
knowledge of God can only proceed from life; and thus in all these
respects he could say, " Whoever hath not the Son, also hath not the
Father." The Son is a perfect personality in humanity, in which the eternal
personality of God is imaged. Thus by the drawing of the Father man
is brought to the Son, and through the beholding of tlie Son he is led to
the Father. Along with the Son man loses the Father, and with the
Father he loses the Son. This is a position which appears with increas
ing luminousness iu the hi-torical development of mankind, and to it his
tory is constantly giving a clearer commentary.
John contemplates the whole life of Christ from the beginning as a
revelation ofthe glory ofthe Divine Logos, as in short a connected rev
elation of God; and hence the divine in reference to Christ must never
be viewed as something isolated and extraneous. His miracles also, as
marks of a divine power controlling nature, as witnesses to fThe presence
of such a power, are not explicable from natural causes in the phenome
nal world; they cannot be regarded as isolated or superadded from with
out, as a new order of facts differing in their essential qualities from the
other works of Christ. The originally indwelling glory of God, at the
beginning of his public ministry as the Messiah, was entirely veiled under
the ordinary forms of human life; but from the beginning of his miracles,
this glory coming forth on purlicular occasions from its concealment,
manifested itself in such n-sults in the world ofthe senses that even car
nal men might be roused to perceive the presence of the Divine. It is only
in leference to this beginning of a new epoch in his ministry for the reve
lation of the glory of God among mankind, that John distinguishes the
beginning of the miracles of Christ (ii. 11) as the beginning of the revela
tion of Iris glory. When he tells us, that the Baptist saw ihe Spirit of
God descending on the Redeemer, by which he was distinguished as the
personage who" would baptize with the Holy Spirit, he certainly did not
* After Christ had said (John vi. 45) that all must be led to him by the voice of his
Father speaking iu their hearts, he guards against a misapprehension, as if this was in
itself a complete knowledge of the Father. This only the Sou possesses, and he alono
can reveal it. The former must be therefore something preparative, a guide to mora
perfect knowledge.

516 THE MIRACLES OF CHRIST.
mean to intimate that Christ, according to the common Jewish and Ju-
daizing-Christian view, was then first furnished with the fulness of Divine
power for his Messianic calling; — for John's mode of contemplating his
character is most decidedly opposed to such views. According to his
own conceptions, since Christ was no other than the Logos himself incar
nate, all that was divine in former revelations became concentrated in
him ; hence, single, transitory impulses and revelations of the Divine
Spirit could not be attributed to him ; but the Holy Spirit, which illumin
ated and inspired former prophets partially and occasionally, dwelt in
him from the beginning in its totality, and operated by him from this
time in those extraordinary signs which were perceptible to common men.
It was precisely because the Son possessed his divine life, not as some
thing communicated from without, but dwelling in his very being, and
essential to it, because the divine fountain of life itself was manifested in
him, that he alone could communicate divine life to others, John v. 26 ;
and the baptism ofthe Holy Spirit which he administers, is no other than
the immersion of human nature in the divine life communicated by him,
so that it becomes completely imbued with it ; John vii. 39.
But as the miracles of Christ appear sometimes in relation to the in
ward essence of his appearance, to the glory, 6bS,a, which proceeded from
the indwelling of the Logos as simply belonging to his nature ; so, on the
other hand, they are the marks or signs ofthe revelation of this indwell
ing glory for carnal men, in order to lead them from his appearance in
the sensuous world to the Divine, to excite their susceptibility for the
total impression and display of the Divine glory revealed in the Son of
Man. In this sense, Christ said to Nathaniel, whose faith was founded
on these outward signs, "Thou shalt see greater things than these; from
this time thou shalt see the heavens opened, and the angels of God as
cending and descending on the Son of Man." Greater than all the signs
and wonders which attended or followed it was his advent itself; for by
it the chasm between heaven and earth was closed, it became the bond
of communion between both, the medium by which the fulness of the
Divine power was poured forth on mankind, and in comparison with
which the total assemblage of Divine communications to the human race,
all earlier Angelophanies and Theophanies, were only as so many single
rays of the Deity.
We thus ascertain the gradations in the use of the term faith by
John. Either he understands by it the acknowledgment of a higher
power proceeding from impressions made on the senses, from the im
pression of extraordinary facts in the sensible world, as in ii. 23 ; or he
presupposes the possession of the heart by an immediate spiritual im
pression ofthe Divine in the life and words of Christ, as was exhibited in
Peter's confession ; vi. 68.
Though John presents, with peculiar earnestness, the self-revelation
and self-impartation of Christ as the incarnate Logos through the whole
of his earthly life for an object of believing appropriation, yet it is evi

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 617
dent from various intimations, that he attributes the same importance a3
Paul to the sufferings of Christ in the work of redemption. As far as
Christ in his sufferings manifested the love of God to the fallen race of
man, and carried the moral ideal of his life through a series of conflicts
to its triumphant conclusion — and with self-denying labor completed the
work which his heavenly Father had commissioned him to fulfil on earth
— the Saviour affirms in reference to these his impending sufferings, that
he had, in determination of will, already fulfilled them, xiii. 31;" now is
the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him." He speaks of his
sufferings as the completion of his life devoted to God as a sacrifice, xvii.
19 ; that he thus devoted himself to God, or presented himself as a sacri
fice for his disciples, that they also might be consecrated or sanctified in
the truth. The realization of the ideal of holiness in Christ's life and
sufferings, is here represented as the ground of the sanctification of the
human race. Had he not himself realized this ideal, he could not have
furnished this principle of sanclification for all mankind ; but this prin
ciple of holiness for the whole life of humanity can each one receive for
himself only by entering into communion with him, and by appropriating
the truth which he announced. In John's writings, as in Paul's, we find
the underlying idea of Christ's bearing the punishment of sin for man
kind, and the reconciliation of mankind with God through him, though
this idea is not so expressly developed ; but, in accordance with his
method, the idea of Christ as the dispenser of divine life, and the founder
of a communion in that life, is made, for the most part, the predominant
one. Thus John the Baptist compares him, as innocent and full of
heavenly mildness and patience under sufferings, to a Lamb, on whom
the punishment of sin and the guilt of mankind are (as it were) laid and
thus carried away ;* and the apostle himself thus designates him in his
first epistle, the sin-offering, the IXaapbg for sin. And when Christ had
been declaring that divine life would be attained only in communion with
him, that as the bread of heaven he was the same for the spiritual life of
man which material bread is for the bodily life; he adds, (vi. 51), that
the breadf which he will give is his body,}, which he will give for the
life of the world, he then repeats the same idea though under a different
form, and describes how he must be received in his whole nature,Divine
and human. We are therefore led to believe, that between these two
views, of which one relates in general to the whole being of Christ, and
the other to his offering up himself for the salvation of men, an internal
connexion must exist. The communication of divine life by the Re
deemer,— all that his divine life could effect for mankind, depended on
* We have not entered into the controversy respecting the sense in which the Baptist
originally used these words, since it is here only of importance to determine the ideas of
the apostle John on the subject.
t This is not exactly the same as his calling himself, in his whole being and appearance,
the Bread of Life.
X To justify this interpretation, I refer to Lucke's commentary on these words.

518 NECESSITY OF CHRIST'S DEATH.
this, that as he himself had glorified the Father on earth, he would be
exalted, in that human nature in which he had so glorified him, above the
limits of earthly existence to the fellowship of his Father's glory; that
he might from that time, by an invisible spiritual agency, complete
among men the work of which he had laid the foundation during his
earthly sojourn, that he might now glorify him through the development
ofthe divine life, and the victorious progress of the kingdom of God on
earth, (xvii. 1-5.) Christ himself points out this necessary connexion in
that passage of John's Gospel, where he compares his life on earth to a grain
of corn which must first be dissolved, and lose its peculiar form, in order
that it may not abide alone, but bring forth much fruit. The divine life
remained hidden in himself as his own exclusive possession during his
sensible presence on earth. There was indeed a natural reason for this,
that the apostles, as long as they saw Christ sensibly present among
them, and enjoyed on all occasions his outward, personal guidance, were
dependent on his outward, personal superintendence ; they could not
raise themselves above his human personality to the higher point of
view of him as the Son of God, to an independent spiritual communion
with him apart from his bodily presence and agency, and therefore had,
not attained to the independent maturity ofthe spiritual life which pro-
ceecled from the Redeemer. Under these circumstances, the disciples
could not have been fitted for a participation of the Redeemer's life, if
his sensible presence had not first been withdrawn. But this negative,
the removal of this hindrance to the higher influence of Christ on the
disciples, would not alone have been sufficient for completing the divine
work in tlieir souls, if wdth the negative there had not also been connected
the advent of a new positive power. His ascension to heaven was only a
necessary preparation for making the disciples susceptible of the divine
influences of the glorified Redeemer. In the firm consciousness that he
would be able to operate with such power on mankind, Christ said, (John
xii. 32), that when he should be lifted up from the earth, he would draw
all men unto him. In reference to this connexion of events, John contem
plates (vii. 39) the communication of the divine principle of life which
would be made by Christ to believers, which would pervade the charac
ter of each individual, as well as the life of the collective body, and which
would bring the Christian life to its full vigor and maturity, — the com
munication of the Holy Spirit, irvevpa ayiov, a result of the glorification
of Christ, which would not take place till that event was realized.*
* "With respect to the question, — in what sense the words in John vii. 38 were origi
nally spoken by Christ, they relate not to one definite future transaction, but, as John iv.
14, to a principle quite generally expressed, that faith in him would be for any individual
a fountain of divine life, which was represented under the image of living water. But
John was justified in saying, that what Christ here spoke could not be fulfilled at that
time, since the consciousness of a divine life received from Christ was not yet developed
in believers, but would take place at the effusion ofthe Holy Spirit, which would produce
that consciousness ; his language is therefore, in this respect, somewhat prophetic. The

THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S GLORIFICATION. 519
Whatever is required on the part of men for the appropriation of
what Christ effected as the Redeemer of mankind, John includes in faith.
This is that one work which God requires, John vi. 29, in contradistinc
tion from the many works, rroXXd epya, of Jewish legal holiness ; and
from this one internal work, this one inward self-determination, every
thing will spontaneously follow which is requisite for the sanctification
of man. But he distinguishes, as we have already remarked, the faith
that proceeded from the predominance of a sensuous element, the faith
of authority, (which as it arose more from an impression on the senses
than on the mind, easily gives place to other sensuous impressions, and
vanishes,) from the faith which, as it proceeds from the inner life, from
the deeply felt need of a redemption from sin, or from an impression of
the divine received into the very depths ofthe heart, and therefore pene
trating deeply into the heart, produced the continuing in the word of
God, the having the word abiding in himself, peveiv ev toi Xoycp tov deov,
exstv tov Xoyov pevovra ev iavrip. This faith (as in Paul) is a direction
and acting ofthe disposition, by which a man surrenders himself wholly
to him whom he acknowledges as his Redeemer, and enters into com
munion with him. By this faith, entrance is made into communion with
the Redeemer, and at the same time a participation obtained in his divine
life. Whoever believes on him has everlasting life, has passed over from
death unto life, is regenerated by the Divine Spirit, who, instead of the
former predominant principle of sin, is now the determining power within
him; he is awakened to a divine life, and has become a child of God.
From this condition a new form and a new law of life now spontaneously
develope themselves.
What John asserts respecting the relation of Christ's precepts to
faith, readily harmonizes with the Pauline view of the relation of the law
to faith. He speaks, it is true, of the commands of the Lord in the
plural number, but they are all traced back to that one which is the
characteristic of the " New Covenant," Kaivi) diadem the command of
brotherly love ; and the novelty of this command compared with the
commands of the old law, is shown in its enjoining on believers to love
as Christ loved, when he gave his life for the salvation of men, to exercise
a self-sacrificing brotherly love according to his example. From this
reference to the Saviour, it is immediately evident that such commands
cannot be intended as are prescribed from without, in addition to
New Testament ideas of "eternal life," <V/ al6vtoe, and of "the Holy Spirit," irvevpa
dyiov are closely connected ; they are related to each other as effect and cause. Though
with 'faith in Christ the impartation of a divine life was granted to believers potentially
and in principle, vet the effect was first manifested after the effusion of the Holy Spirit.
From that era, the divine life resulting from the participation of the Divine Spirit which
believers received, streamed forth on mankind, and subsequent history furnishes the cor
rect interpretation to these words of Christ, and verifies their truth. John, therefore,
gives an historical commentary rather than a simple verbal explanation.

520 FAITH OVERCOMING THE WORLD.
believing, but only those which are spontaneously developed from the
divine life, which accompany faith, as obligations necessarily involved in
it, requirements of the law ofthe inward life, as so many distinct traits
in which the image of the life of Christ exhibits itself to believers. This
new command presupposes faith in the redeeming, self-sacrificing love of
Christ, and from the knowledge of this love the impulse is awakened to
exercise similar love towards the brethren; 1 John iii. 16; iv. 10-19.
John says, (1 Ep. v. 3,) that the commands of Christ are not difficult,
though they exhibit an ideal of holiness ; but he affirms this, not on ac
count of tlieir contents, but on account of their peculiar relation to faith,
and to the inward life of believers ; because these commands do not as
a mere dead letter oppose the principle of sin which rules in the hearts
of men, but presupposes the life-giving spirit of love which develops
itself from faith, since both the inward impulse and the power to fulfil
them proceed from communion with the Redeemer, the new divine prin
ciple of life. John himself adduces as a proof that these commands ara
not difficult, this fact, that what is born of God receives power to over
come all that is undivine, that faith in Jesus as the Son of God has the
power of overcoming the world, that in this faith is already placed the
victory over the world and all that is undivine ; 1 John v. 4 ; even as Paul
declares that a man with this faith is already practically dead to the
wrorld. Christ, in the Gospel of John (xvi. 33), requires those who
believe on him to confide in his having overcome the world (the whole
power of evil) — to be assured that through him it had been brought to
nothing ; believers, accordingly, by virtue of their fellowship with him,
share in this victory, they need no longer to dread the power of that
enemy, and hence John could term faith itself " the victory that over-
cometh the world." But whoever keeps not Christ's commands, proves
by his conduct that he is destitute of that divine life and communion with
Christ, and therefore cannot in a true sense believe on him. Whoever
lives in sin, and pretends to believe in Christ and to know him, is in fact
very far from knowing him or believing on him. According to John's
conceptions, it is impossible to separate either faith or knowledge from
the life. Whoever knows Christ can know Him only as the Holy One
who appeared to destroy the kingdom of evil among mankind, and to
take away sin. And whoever has known him and believed in him as
such, whoever has received the image of such a Christ into his inward life,
can no longer live in the service of sin.
Very different from this faith in the real historical Christ, was the
superstitious belief in that phantom wdiich men formed of a Messiah in
conformity with their own evil inclinations. An example of the latter
kind of faith is mentioned by John in his Gospel, ii. 23, where he says
that many believed in Jesus as the Messiah, on account of the miracles
which they saw him perform. But since they were not actuated by the
feeling of a higher necessity, nor sought and saw in Him a Saviour from
sin — since they were not susceptible of the spiritual impression of the

CHILDREN OF GOD AND OF AIABOAOZ. 521
Divine, but were only touched by an impression on the senses, only such
an image ofthe Messiah could be formed in their minds as corresponded
to a desire that was composed of carnal elements. Hence their faith, or
rather their superstition, when its carnal expectations were disappointed,
was soon succeeded by unbelief. Hence Christ would not surrender
himself to the enthusiasm with which they professed attachment to him,
for by his rjenetrating glance into the secret state of their hearts, he
knew that they were still far from that faith which would be capable of
fellowship with himself. To such a faith, wdiich would require to be
purified from the alloy of the sensuous element by awakening the slum
bering religious sentiment through intercourse with the Redeemer, Christ
referred when he said to the multitude who professed to believe on him,
(viii. 31,) "If they now really should receive into their hearts, and appro
priate that word to which they had hitherto given only a superficial accep
tance, they would thus become truly his disciples — they would know the
truth in their inward life, and by its power pervading their whole being,
would be progressively freed from everything by wdiich their higher na
ture, the religious sentiment implanted in their constitution, had been
held in bondage.'"5
Though John contrasts the children of God, those who are born of
God, with those who belong to the world, to the evil spirit, the children
ofthe devil, but only in general terms without any gradations ; yet in
the idea ofthe former, he by no means supposes an equally definite and
complete manifestation in every individual, and is far from excluding
various degrees of development. He says, as we have already noticed,
that faith involves victory over the world, and that whoever believes in
Jesus as the Son of God, by the power of this belief overcomes the world.
By virtue of the divine principle of life which he has received, tempta
tion to sin can find in the believer no point of connexion, and everything
which assails him from without, can only contribute to promote the de
velopment of the divine life in him, and the victory of the cause of Christ,
which by its nature is all-conquering, and presses through everything
that opposes it to completion ; 1 John iv. 4. Whoever is born of God
sinneth not, but preserves himself from all the allurements to sin, and
the evil one toucheth him not, (evil can find in him no point of con
nexion ; 1 John v. 1 8.) Because he is born of God, it is impossible for
him to sin ; since the seed of the divine life dwells within him, from which
* In this passage, the idea of freedom is presented under a different aspect from
what we find in Paul's writings, not in contrariety to legal bondage, but to a political
semblance of freedom. True freedom, Christ says, is inward, proceeding from redemp
tion Till man has attained to this, he is still in slavery, though enjoying complete out
ward independence, since he' does not freely regulate himself according to the law of his
original and true nature, but is controlled by a foreign principle, by which this his original
and true nature is oppressed. But it will easily be seen, that the same general idea of
the contrariety between freedom and slavery, as in Paul, lies at the basis, and the three
fold condition* in the moral development of man may be readily deduced from it.

522 CHRISTIAN PERFECTION.
nothing evil, but only good, can proceed ; 1 John iii. 9. But from thii
description we are not to conclude that the idea and its manifestation per-
fectly correspond, and that it is intended to exhibit the Christian as sin
less. John presupposes the contrary, since even in Christianity he still
admits the need of forgiveness, and of progressive purification from sin.
" If we confess our sins" — is his language, — that is, are penetrated by a
consciousness of the sin that still cleaves to us, and are filled with a
feeling of penitence, — '* God is faithful and just* to forgive our sins, and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," 1 John i. 9. We must, there
fore, take the following view of John's doctrine : though the Christian
as such, in reference to his life founded on communion with Christ, can
not be reached by sin, though his divine indwelling life cannot in itself
be touched by sin, yet as it is engrafted on a sinful nature which is con
tinually opposed to it, it is always subject to being disturbed by sin's in
cursions, from wdiich it can only be preserved by maintaining a constant
warfare. The divine life, until it has pervaded and appropriated man's
whole nature, which can never take place during his earthly existence,
must develop itself by a continual process of purification ; to this subject
relates what Christ says in the metaphor ofthe vine; John xv. Indeed,
his disciples were already pure through the word spoken by him, inas
much as they had received it as a purifying principle into their souls ; but
it was needful for its purifying power to be manifested by an inward,
thorough purification of their whole nature. As the vine-dresser cuts off
from the fruit-bearing branches of the vine all the useless shoots, that it
may produce more fruit, so God purifies the whole nature of man by a
gradual process wdiich develops itself from a life in communion with Christ,
in order that the fruit-producing power ofthe living sap received from him
may not be lessened by mixing with the foreign sap belonging to the wild
stock of the old nature, but manifest itself in continually richer fruits, the
works of a genuine Christian disposition.!
In this manner we may easily explain the apparent contradiction
in John's language, when he says that whoever sinneth knoweth not
Christ, and yet speaks of the forgiveness of sins as needed by every
Christian, and ready to be imparted to him. The life of the believer
* Two ideas are here closely connected. The faithfulness of God consists in this, that
God in his acts, in the government of the world, shows himself always self-consistent;
be responds to the expectalions which he has awakened by his revelation in words, or by
his providence in general history, or by the operations of his Spirit in the lives of indi
viduals, and fulfils his promises; and as he has promised the forgiveness of sins to those
who confess them, he bestows that blessing. His justice is shown by his fulfilling the
laws which he established for his own kingdom ; he gives to every one what belongs to
him according to these laws; and thus the forgiveness of sins is granted, whenever the
condition is fulfilled on which it was promised.
\ The Pauline doctrine of good works as fruits of faith, and also the Pauline doctrine
of charisms as the fruits of human nature when pervaded and purified by the divine prin
ciple of life, find here their point of connexion.

PAUL AND JOHN. 523
is distinguished from the life of the natural man by this, that it
is animated, not by the principle of sin, but of the divine life, and
hence what is sinful appears only as something that belonged to his
former condition, but still cleaves to him, and is therefore always
opposed by him. Accordingly, John represents these two states and
tendencies of life as totally irreconcilable ; walking in the light is a
life devoted to God by its prevailing tendency ; and to walk in dark
ness is a life devoted to sinful inclinations, and proceeding from a
sinful tendency* We here may observe the unity of John's doctrine
with that of Paul. As Paul represents faith, in its idea and principle,
as an act by which a man dies to himself, the world, and sin — but
yet, in the new life developed by its practical operation, infers a con
tinual mortifying of the sinful principle ; so likewise in John we find
the same relation exhibited between being born of God, and maintain
ing a conflict with the world and sin. The distinction which is founded
on these views between the objective of redemption apprehended by
faith, and the progressive subjective development of the divine life,
leads to the Pauline conceptions of " righteousness," 6iKaioovvn, and of
"justification," diKaiuaig. John also contemplates the perfectly Holy
Jesus objectively as the intercessor-with the Father for believers who
are still burdened with sin.
As, according to John's ideas, the future is already apprehended
by faith as present, so the divine life in the present is viewed as the
commencing point and germ of a creation that embraces eternity. As
an anticipation of the future thus exists in the present, there is a
necessary reference to a future development and consummation. Who-
* It is the object ofthe First Epistle of John to counteract the false confidence in the
forgiveness of sins, the error that a man continuing in sin can be a partaker of forgive
ness; a Christian sympathizing love towards erring brethren at the same time not being
excluded. By these brethren, who have a claim on Christian sympathy, he understands
those who, though in general they had evinced an earnest desire for sanctification, had
yielded to some sudden temptation. It is true he considers all sin as standing in contra
diction to the divine life, to the d,uy ; but still a transient decline of this higher life, which
has already become predominant over the sinful principle, is to be distinguished from an
absolute suppression or entire destitution of it. The apostle here refers to such a mo
mentary decline as results from yielding to temptation. It is the Christian's duty to
pray for such fallen brethren, and it may be expected that God will revive them again,
since it is presupposed that the persons who are the objects of this intercession, have
still within them the germ ofthe Christian life, and are in a state susceptible of such a
divine operation. But, on the other hand, John, in describing the acts that proceed from
such a sinful state, which is marked by a total destitution of the divine life, a continued
spiritual death, employs the phrase sins unto death, dpapriat npbe Bdvarov. To sucb cases
the intercessory prayers for the forgiveness of sins could not relate, since the persons in
question did not belong to the Christian community. But it by no means follows that
believers were not to pray for their conversion ; only they were not to consider them as
Christian brethren, aud pray for them in that sense in which those who were conscious
of sin still cleaving to them, prayed for one another. Liicke, in his excellent commentary,
no-rees with this view of the subject.

524 THE INWARD LIFE.
ever believes in the Redeemer (John declares) hath eternal life — he
has passed from death unto life — he can die no more — he can no more
experience death. The divine life which he has received, can no more
be interrupted by death. During his earthly existence there is the
beginning of the development of this divine life ; it is a fountain which
springs up to everlasting life, which continues to flow onward till it
enters the ocean of eternity, John iv. 14. Believers have the firm
consciousness that they are the children of God, 1 John iii. 2, and
that they shall attain to the full possession of all the rights and privi
leges founded on this relation ; but the full understanding of what
belongs to the realization of this idea is not yet granted to them —
the dignity of the children of God in all its extent can be known
only by its actual manifestation. But as in divine things knowledge
and life are inseparably united, the perfect knowdedge of Christ and
God will accompany the perfect formation of the life in their image ;
1 John iii. 2. Thus the same connexion between the life of faith and
of hope is here exhibited as in Paul's writings.
But it is a characteristic of John's views, that a reference to com
munion with the Redeemer in the inward life and in the present, pre
dominates over the reference to the future and to outward facts ; ha
dwells upon the elements of the inner life, the facts of Christian con
sciousness, and only slightly adverts to outward matters of fact, and what
relates to the Church. In accordance with this spirit, he exhibits all the
particular incidents in the outward history of Christ only as manifesta
tions of his indwelling glory, by which this may be brought home to the
heart ; he always avails himself of these narratives, to introduce what the
Redeemer declared respecting his relation to mankind as the source of
divine life. John is the representative of the truth which lies at the basis
of that tendency ofthe Christian spirit, which sets itself in opposition to
a one-sided intellectualism and ecclesiastical formality, and is dis
tinguished by the name of Mysticism.
The same peculiarity marks his representations ofthe Judgment and
ofthe Resurrection. The judgment he considers as something present,
as a fact inseparable from the redemption of mankind and the publication
of the gospel.
There follows, as a necessary consequence, a separation between those
who with susceptible minds receive the divine, and those who exclude
themselves by their unsuseeptibility ; those who, with a sense of their
spiritual necessities, receive the offered redemption — whether a longing
and striving after the divine life had already developed itself in their
higher nature, or that the suppressed religious consciousness and this
longing had been awakened through intercourse with the Redeemer •
and those who, either by the predominance ofthe sensual element, or by
spiritual pride and confidence in a legal righteousness, were prevented
from attaining a knowledge of their need of redemption, and from surren
dering themselves to the impression of the divine in the appearance, words,

JUDGMENT AND SALVATION. 525
and works of the Redeemer. John always considers judgment as merely
the opposite of salvation, of acornpia ; for the judgment of a Holy God
is such that no man can appear before it as guiltless. The ideas of the
judgment of God and condemnation must coalesce in their application to
man estranged from God by sin. But the revelation of God's love in re
demption appears as a deliverance from the condemnatory judgment, and
nothing more is required than the acceptance of the offered mercy
through faith in the Redeemer. He who will not believe, owing to his
predominant sinful tendency, excludes himself from the offered salvation,
and the judgment that he pronounces against himself is founded on the
unbelief wdiich proceeds from the state of his interior disposition ; John
iii. 17. God sent his Son into the world (that is, caused him to appear
among the mass of mankind hitherto estranged from God) — not to con
demn the world — (as the Jews imagined that he would pass sentence on
the Gentile world), but that mankind, who were under the dominion of
sin and estranged from God, might be rescued through him from impend
ing ruin. Whoever now believes on him, is not condemned ; he has ap
propriated salvation by faith, and such a one, being certain of eternal life
in communion with the Redeemer, need no longer dread condemnation.
But whoever does not believe on him is already, as a matter of fact, con
demned by his own unbelief. In this consists the judgment, that men
from their love of darkness (of ungodliness), on account ofthe sinful ten
dency of their life, are not willing to admit the fountain of light, (th^L"
their conduct towards the divine, as it proceeds from tlieir disposition, is
in fact judgment). As the gospel cannot reveal its power for the salva
tion of men without this process of separation taking place, which John
calls judgment, the object of Christ's appearance must include with the
redemption of the susceptible, their separation from the urisWeptible.
"For judgment," said Christ, "Jam come into the world, that they who
see riot,"* that is, those who see not, but are at the same time conscious
of their not seeing, and are actuated by a sense of their need of illumina
tion, "may obtain their sight," may be cured of their blindness in respect
to divine things; " but that they who see" who have the means granted
them of knowing the truth, but who are not disposed to know it, and
who are prevented from humbling themselves before the true light by
the self-conceit of tlieir imaginary discernment, and though they have
eyes to see, they see not, "may be given up to their blindness;" John
ix. 39, 40.f To such a moral judgment connected with the publication
of the' o-ospel we must refer what Paul says of the publication of the
gospel, that to some it is the savor of life unto life, and to others the
* Not without reason is the subjective particle of negation, pr), here used.
+ As in the instance which gave occasion to this whole discourse, the blind man was
made to see by the Redeemer, and as one spiritually blind, who supposed that he could
not see, he was healed of his spiritual blindness and enlightened ; while, on the contrary
the deluded Pharisees showed that, haying eyes to see, they were blind, since, in spite of
facts, they denied the truth.

526 JUDGMENT AND SALVATION.
savor of death unto death; 2 Cor. ii. 16. But the idea of this progres
sive moral judgment through history, as well as ihe idea of the continued
spiritual awakening of mankind by the publication of the gospel, by no
means excludes a final judgment and a universal resurrection; but the
former appears as a symbol and preparative of the latter, and the con
nexion of the two is exhibited in- Christ's discourse in the 5th chapter of
John's Gospel. At first, Christ speaks ofthe power conferred upon him
as the Messiah to awaken the spiritually dead, and at the same time to
judge them according to their respective conduct towards the divine life
that was off-red for tlieir acceptance. As the Father awakens and makes
alive the dead, so also the Son gives life to (awakens to a true divine life)
whom he will ;* for the Father has committed to him all the power of judg
ment, that all may show their. reverence for the Father, by the manner in
which they reverence the Son. He who honoreth not the Son, honoreth
not the Father who sent him.f "He who receiveth my word and believeth
on him who sent me," continued Christ, corroborating his former declara
tion, " hath everlasting life, and cannot come into condemnation, but is
passed over fiom death unto life." By participation in a divine life, he
is already removed beyond the reach of judgment, which can only affect
those who are estranged from God. " A time is coming, and already is"
(inasmuch as Christ by the power of his words had already produced such
effects), " when the dead" (the spiritually dead in the whole race) "will
hear the voice of the Son of God" (by the publication of the gospel), "and
those who hear, shall live ; for as the Father hath the fountain of life in
himself, he has also given to the Son to have life in himself;" (only be
cause the eternal, original fountain of divine life in the Son has communi
cated itself to mankind, can divine lire be imparted to the dead through
him ;) " and he hath given him authority to execute judgment also, be
cause he is Son of Man." As man he came to impart di\ iue life to men ;
and thus as man to administer judgment to men. Then Christ passes on
from the present to the future, from the process of development among
mankind, to the last decisive result, and says, " Marvel not at this ; for
the hour is coining in which all who are iu their graves shall hear his
voice and shall come forth; they who have done good to the resurrection
of life, and they who have done evil to the resurrection of condemna
tion;" John v. 28, 29.
It is owing to the same peculiarity which characterises John as the
author of the spiritual Gospel, evayyeXiov nvevpariKov, that in the last
conversation of Cnrist with his disciples, he does not mention what re
lates to his resurrection, his return to inflict judgments on the reprobate
* This was intended to point out to the Jews, that everything depended on the man
ner in which they conducted themselves towards him ; and that the communication of
the divine life was not to be confined within the limits which, from their national theo
cratic eonceptious, they wished to assign to it.
f In this consists the judgment, that every man proves by his conduct towards the Son
what his feelings are toward the Father.

PROMISE OF THE HOLT SPIRIT. 527
city of God, and his coming to the final judgment and the consumma
tion of the church, but only the promises of an inward revelation of his
Spirit to his disciples, that after his bodily presence was withdrawn from
them, aud when they might suppose that they were altogether separated
from him, he would reveal himself to them in a more glorious manner,
and receive them into his communion never again to be separated from
them. The bodily reappearance of Christ among his disciples appears,
in this connexion, only as of preparatory importance for continued spirit
ual communion with them, his constant spiritual self-revelation among
them; so this reappearance of Christ for the religious development of
the apostles, and the development of the church in general, was only of
such preparatory importance, and intended to form a transition-point.
Thus in these promises contained in John's Gospel, the reappearance of
the risen. Saviour is certainly presupposed, although the fact is not ex
pressly mentioned. It lies at the basis of these promises, though they do
not distinctly refer to it. And in this respect it amounts to the same
thing, whether we admit one such reappearance of Christ alter his resur
rection, or several of the kind.*
In order gradually to prepare their minds, he begins with assuring
them that the Father would give them, instead of his own sensible pre
sence among them, another helper to abide with them for ever, — the
Spirit of truth, who alone could impart the full knowledge of the truth
announced by himself, and who would communicate himself through this
truth, as he says (John xvi. 14,) that his Spirit would glorify him, for he
would open to them the meaning of the doctrine he had taught. But
since this Spirit is no other than the divine life communicated by Christ,
the indwelling of God in the hearts of believers accomplished by him,
he afterwards transfers what he had said to them of the coming of this
Spirit, to his own coming to them in spirit. He points them to the great
day, on which he would see them again in spirit, when the transient pain
of separation from him would be succeeded by the everlasting joy of
seeing him again and communing with him; when they would need no
more to ask him questions, but he would speak to them concerning the
Father openly and without reserve. But though John dwells at length
on the spiritual element and on what relates to the revelation of Christ
in the self-consciousness of the disciples, he by no means excludes his
bodily resurrection and his own prediction of it ; John x. 18. And thus
from this scheme of doctrine it cannot be concluded, that John had not
learned from the discourses of Christ the doctrine of his personal coming
(irapovaia) to judgment and for the consummation of his church. The
contrary rather fellows from what we have already remaiked respecting
the connexion in John's views of the judgment and the resurrection, ac-
* But we have in the Life of Christ, pp. 429, 430, proved the opinion to be unfounded,
that according to John's Gospel, only one such reappearance of Christ immediately fol
lowed his resurrection, and that the other reappearances of Christ tock place after his
ascension to heaven.

528 John's idea of the church.
cording to two distinct modes of apprehending them. And what John
says in his First Epistle ofthe signs ofthe last time, the marks of an im
pending manifestation of an opposition to Christianity, points to the same
fundamental ideas respecting the development of the kingdom of God
as those that occur in Paul's epistles. There are not wanting also some
intimations of an approaching personal irapovaia of Christ, (1 John ii.
28, iii. 2,) though the peculiarity of John's character is shown by his only
giving slight hints on the subject, and not, like Paul, a formal delineation
of it. It belongs also to this peculiar tendency of John's mind, that Christ
is not represented by him as the founder of a Church ; even the idea of
an eKKXrjaia is not distinctly brought forward, though its existence is
implied, 3 John, 6. But what constitutes the essence of the idea of a
church, the idea of a communion of hearts founded in faith on the Re
deemer, of the communion of believers with one another and with the
Redeemer, a communion of faith and love, was expressed by him most
emphatically — for this idea would necessarily proceed from that which
was the soul of his whole life, the consciousness of communion with the
Redeemer, and of the divine life received from him.
Thus we find in John's Gospel a reference to a religions community,
to be formed out of all others among mankind, which would listen to the
voice ofthe Redeemer, the " one fold under one Shepherd," a communion
which would be founded on the equal relation of all to Christ the com
mon head, and corresponds to the Pauline idea of one body under one
head, John x. 16. As Christ and the Father are one, so are believers,
since through hiin they are one with the Father, by virtue of their mu
tual participation in the divine life. Thus they form a union to which no
other in the world is comparable, and the glory of Christ reveals itself
among them. They constitute before the eyes of the world a living tes
timony to the divine call and work of Christ. The communion of the
divine life thus manifested, points to its divine origin, John xvii. 21 .
John also distinguishes between an inward community — the assemblage
of those who stand in communion with the Redeemer, and which em
braces the wdiole development ofthe divine life among mankind — and an
outward community of believers, which it is possible for those to join who
have no part in the former. Thus in 1 John ii. 19, he speaks of those
who went out from the believers, but in fact (as far as it regarded their
principles and disposition) never belonged to them, for had they really
belonged to them in their inward life, they would not afterwards have
renounced their society. But by this outwardly expressed renunciation,
by their open opposition to the community of believers, it now became
manifest that not all who were outwardly joined to that community
shared in its essential qualities, and inwardly belonged to it. We find
here, as in Paul's writings, the implied distinction of the visible and the
invisible church.
John does not mention in his Gospel the institution of Baptism by

the lords suppeb. 529
Christ, but he treats at length of that which forms the idea, the spiritual
element of baptism — for to this the conversation between Christ and
Nicodemus relates — that moral transformation by a new divine principle
of life, in opposition to the old sinful nature of man, without which no
one can become a member of the kingdom of God, that is, of the invisi
ble church.*
And this also applies to the Holy Supper. For as what Christ in
his conversation with Nicodemus designated by the name of regenera
tion, has a relation to Baptism, so what he represents in the sixth
chapter of John, under the image of " eating his flesh and drinking his
blood," bears a similar relation to the Supper. Christ had described
himself as the true manna, the true bread from heaven, the bread which
is not of an earthly, perishable nature, with only an earthly power to re
cruit the bodily life, but which is of divine origin and nature, capable of
imparting divine life, and of satisfying the wants ofthe inner man for an
eternal duration. He describes himself as having come down from heaven,
in reference to his whole being, in order to impart divine life to mankind,
so that every one can only by communion with the divine fountain of life
thus appearing in human nature, attain to a participation of a divine life.
From stating what he is to mankind in his whole divine and human na
ture, Christ goes on to declare wdiat he will give to mankind for their
salvation, (corresponding to the bestowment of the manna which was
sought for from him) — the surrender of his flesh (his life belonging to
the sensuous world) for the salvation of mankind. And since his words
were so misunderstood by the Jews, as if he had spoken of eating his
flesh in a literal sense, he took occasion to express what he had before
said of himself as the bread of life, in even stronger terms, under an
image still more striking, and marking the idea still more accurately ; he
represented the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood as a ne
cessary means for the appropriation of eternal life. This eating of his
flesh and drinking of his blood he considers equivalent to the life of men,
by which the fountain of divine life itself enters into mankind, makes
them entirely its own, as if men had converted into their own substance
the flesh and blood of the incarnate Logos. He here speaks of the par
ticipation of divine life by means of his appearance in humanity, of the
impartation of divine life depending upon and accomplished by the his
torical Christ, wdiile he guards himself against being supposed to speak
of his body in a literal sense, by saying, as a key for the right interpre
tation of his words, '-The spirit giveth life — the flesh profiteth nothing ;"
therefore, he could not have intended to say, that men should make use
of his flesh as an object of sense, for, like all flesh, it could not profit the
* On any supposition, the mention of " water" in John iii. 5, is only of secondary im
portance, iu order, by referring to a symbol familiar to Nicodemus, to render palpable to
his mind that all-purifying power of the Divine Spirit which was needful for every man.
Hence, in the subsequent part of his discourse, Christ mentions only being " born of ihe
Spirit"

530 christian theism.
iuner man, but that by means of his appearing in the flesh in the world
of sense, they should appropriate his spirit as the life-giving principle.
"The words that J say unto you, are spirit and life;" they cannot be
rightly understood according to their mere sound, their literal expression,
but only according to tlieir contents, which are spirit and life, possessing
a divine vitality* Therefore, the symbol, "eating the flesh and drink
ing the blood of Christ," relates to the process of imbuing the whole na
ture of every one who is received by faith into his communion, with
the divine principle of life, which, through him, has become a human
principle in all who stand in communion with him; the constant hu
manizing of the divine in which continued appropriation and imbuing, the
whole development of the Christian life consists. As regeneration, the
commencing point in the Christian life, is represented by baptism, so is
this, the sequel of regeneration, the continual re-birth (as it were) of man
to the divine, the continued incorporation of mankind into the body of
Christ, represented by the Supper. Thus John and Paulf agree, and on
this subject complete each other's views.
The essence of Christianity, according to John, is comprised in this,
that the Father is known only in the Son, and only through the Son can
man come into communion with the Father ; 1 John ii. 23 ; 2 John 9.
But no one can be in communion with the Son without partaking of the
Holy Spirit whom he bestows in order to renew human nature in his own
image, 1 John iii. 24. Both John and Paul place the essence of Christian
theism in worshipping God as the Father through the Son, in the commu
nion of the divine life which he has established, or in the communion of
the Holy Spirit, the Father through the Son dwelling in mankind, ani
mated by his Spirit, agreeably to the triad of the Pauline benediction, — ¦
the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the communion of the Holy
Spirit, (2 Cor. xiii. 1 3) ; and this is the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity
in the connexion of Christian experience. It has an essentially practical
and historical significance and foundation ; it is the doctrine of God re
vealed in humanity, which teaches men to recognise in God not only the
original source of existence, but also of salvation and sanctification. From
this Trinity of revelation, as far as the divine causality images itself in the
name, the reflective mind, according to the analogy of its own being, pur
suing this track, seeks to elevate itself to the idea of an original triad in
God, availing itself of the intimations which are contained in John's doc
trine of the Logos, and the cognate elements of the Pauline theology.
As, accordingly, James and Peter mark the gradual transition from
* "We cannot agree with those who think that Christ has here given tho interpretation
of his own words, and that he wished to say that, by his flesh and blood, nothiug more
was to be understood than his doctrine in reference to divine life-giving power. By
"flesh," oup%, and " blood," alpa, he certainly meant, according to what has been said, mor
tnan his " words," (li/para. These words of Christ contain only the canoa of correct inter
pretation, and leave the application to each one for himself.
f See page 452.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH. 531
spiritualized Judaism to the independent development of Christianity, and
as Paul represents the independent development of Christianity in oppo
sition to Jewish conceptions, so the reconciling contemplative element of
John forms the closing-point in the training of the apostolic church, and
now, from the classical era of original Christianity, we must trace a new
tedious development of the church, striving towards its destined goal
through manifold trials, oppositions, and conflicts. Perhaps this greater
process of development is destined to proceed according to the same
laws which we find prefigured in the fundamental forms of the Apostolio
Church, in their relation to one another and in the order of their de
velopment.

INDEXES.

I.

INDEX TO TEXTS QUOTED OE EXPLAINED.

OLD TESTAMENT.

GENESIS. PAGE
Ch. vi. 2  460
xii. 3  40
xv. 6  419, 499
xviii. 18  40
xiii. 18  40
EXODUS.
xii. 2  8
xix. 1  8
xxiv  363

NUMBERS. PAGE
Ch. vi  283
DEUTERONOMY.
iv. 19  298
xviii. 15, 18  40
xxx. 12  422
PSALMS.
xviii. 5, 6  19
lxviii. 18  301
cxviii. 22  42

ISAIAH. PAfll
Ch. ix. 6  462
xi. 2  17
lxvi. Iff  55
JOEL.
iii. 1-5  19
HABAKKUK.
ii. 4  499

NEW TESTAMENT.

MATTHEW.
PAGE
Ch. i. 25  323
iii. 11  314
iv. 22  355
v. 3 f.  407
V. 17  383, 505
vi. 22, 23  407
ix. 13  406
X. 10  178
xi. 27  461
xi. 28  407
xii. 46 f.  322
xiii. 33  406
xiii. 55  322
XV. 11  128
xv. 17  233
xvi. 16 f.  340 f.
xvii. 20  145
xviii. 10  401
xix. 8  400
xix. 11, 12  234
xix. 12  235
xix. 14  407
xix. 16 f  407
XX. 20  355
XX. 28  417
xxi. 42  41

Matthew contiuued. PAGE
Ch'. xxii. 44  461
xxvi. 60, 61  52
xxvii. 56  322,354
xxviii. 1  322
xxviii. 18, 20  461
MARK.
i. 20  354
iii. 17  356
iii. 31  322
v. 22  34
vi. 3  322
xv. 40  322, 354
xvi. 1  354
xvi. 17  16
LUKE.
i. 2  4
iv. 20  32
V. 32  406
vii. 3  34
viii. 19 f  322
viii. 41, 49  34

Luke continued. PAGE
Ch. ix. 51  7
xi. 23 f  -  209
xi. 34-36  407
xiii. 14  34
xvii. 10  434
xviii. 16  407
xviii. 18 f  407
xx. 2  41
xxi 15  16
xxiii. 34, 46  56
xxiv. 53  9

JOHN.
368—371.
i. 1 f  3691
i 4, 5  509
i. 7-14  510
i. 12  511
i. 14  369, 514
i. 29  517
i. 32.  515
i. 37  355
i. 40  355
i. 43  338

534

INDEX TO TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED.

John continued. PAGE
Ch. i. 52  72
ii. 11  515
ii. 23  516, 520
iii  528, 529
iii. 5  529
iii. 6  511
iii. 8  6
iii. 17  525
iii. 21  76,514
iv. 6  355
iv. 14  518, 524
iv 22  Ill
v  526
V. 26  516
v. 28, 29-  526
vi  529, 530
vi. 29  519
vi. 44, 45  512
vi. 45  515
vi.51  517
vi. 50, 58  529
vi. 63  529
vi. 68  516
vi. 68, 69  340
vii. 3  323
vii. 5  325
vii. 38  518
vii. 39  518
viii. 31  521
viii. 44.  510
viii. 47  513
ix. 39, 40  525
X  341
x. 16  528
X. IS  527
xii. 24  6, 518
xii. 31  409
xii. 32  518
xii. 40  512
xiii. 31  514, 517
xv  522
xvi. 11  409
xvi. 13  48
xvi. 14.  527
xvi. 33  520
xvii. 1-5  518
xvii. 19  517
xvii. 21 f  528
xviii. 37  513
xix. 25  322, 354
xix. 27  323
xix. 34  369
XX. 21, 22  7
xx. 30, 31  368
xxi  341
xxi. 18  348.
ACTS.
i. 7  180
i. 13  9, 322, 326
i 14  322

Acts continued. PAGE
Ch. i. 26  9
ii. 1-41  5-20
ii. 1  7
ii. 2-6  10, 11
ii. 4  15
ii. 5  8
ii. 6, 11  14
ii. 7-12  15
ii. 8  11
ii. 9  8
ii. 12, 13  15
ii. 14  8, 9
ii. 15  9, 15
ii. 24  19
ii. 39  19, 20
ii. 42  23
ii. 43  38
ii 44, 45  23-26
ii. 46  23, 131
ii. 47  27
iii. i-iv. 22  39-43
iv. 1  38
iv. 4  43, 44
iv. 5  42
iv. 7, 11, 16  41
iv. 32, 35  23-26
iv. 36  35
v. 1-11  25, 26
v. 2  30
V. 4  24
v. 6. 10  30
v. 12-42  42-46
V. 12, 13  26
v. 19 f  43, 41
v. 32  44
V. 36  45,.46
vi  24, 29
vi. 1-6  30-33
vi. 1  31
vi. 2  30
vi. 3  32
vi. 5-7  47
vi. 7  43
vi. 8-vii. 60  46-57
vi. 9.  48
vi. 11  49
viii. 1-25  57-63
viii 5  60
viii. 20, 21, 22  63
ix  86, 89
ix. 1-25  85-93
ix. 7  89
ix. 19, 23...  92
ix. 23, 24  94
ix. 26-30  86-103
ix. 27  324
ix. 31  69
x. 1-11; xviii  66-77
x. 3  72
x.ll  74
x. 12  89
x.30  71

Acts continued. PAG*
Ch. x. 37  71
x. 46  16
xi. 5  74
xi. 17  77
xi. 19-30  104-106
xi. 20  65
xi. 30  29, 32
xii  106-112
xii. 1  1 07
xii. 12  25
xiii. 9  80
xiii. 13  80
xiii. 14  111-119
xiii. 15  34, 36
xiii. 39  114
xiii. 42  114
xiii. 44  115
xiv. 6  119
xiv. 11  12
xiv. 13, 14  118
xiv. 17  392
xiv. 23  146, 148, 197
xv. 1-31  120, 134
xv. 7  125
xv. 10  404
xv. 12  125
xv. 19, 20  127-129
xv. 21  127, 505
xv. 22  125
xv. 22-24  131
XV. 23-29  130-132
xv. 23  131
xv. 25  103
xv. 27  131
xv. 28  131
xv. 29  132
xv. 36-xviii. 17. .167-201
xvi. 1  168
xvi. 1, 2  168
xvi. 3  169
xvi. 10, 13  173
xvi. 16  174
xvii. 6  181
xvii. 10  182
xvii. 14  182
xvii. 16  190
xvii. 21  183
xvii. 22  185
xvii. 28  390
xvii. 30  189, 402, 415
xvii. 31, 32  189
xviii. 2  203
xviii. 5  190
xviii. 8  34
xviii. 9  89
xviii. 15  193
xviii. 18  34
xviii. 18-xix. 40, 202-274
xviii. 18, 22  202, 203
xviii. 21  202, 203
xviii. 23  241
xviii. 24  220

INDEX TO TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED.

535

Acts continued. PAGE
Ch. xviii 26  203
xix. 1  211, 241
xix. 6  16, 36
xix. 15  209
xix. 20  254
xix 22  250, 309
xix. 29  168
xix. 33   320
xx.-xxiv  274-289
xx. 3  182
xx. 4  168
xx. 7  159
xx. 17  147, 148
xx. 20  275
XX. 22  275
xx. 23  275, 314
xx. 25-31  274-276
xx. 28  148
xx. 29  271
xx. 30  277
xx. 31  275
XX. 31, 33  278
xx. 34  179
xx. 35  179, 278
xx. 36-38  279
xxi. 8  33
xxi. 9  150
xxi. 19   272
xxi. 20  280
xxi. 21  272, 505
xxi. 24  282
xxi. 25  245
xxi. 27  282
xxi. 39   80
xxii  86, 89
xxii. 3  80
xxii.17  89
xxii. 21  1 03
xxiii. 3  283
xxiii. 5  284
xxiii. 9  285
xxiii. 14  203
xxiv. 11  282
xxiv. 17  272
xxiv. 27  285
xxv.-xxviii  286-289
xxv. 19  185
xxvi  86. 89
xxvi. 28  287
xxviii. 16  288
xxviii. 22  288
xxviii. 23  288
xxviii. 30  28s
xxviii. 30, 31 ...288, 289
ROMANS.262-271.
i. 3, 4  468
i.4  4G7
i 5, 6  263
L 8  262

Romans continued. PAGE
Ch. i. 12  i?,5
i. 13, 14  263
i- 16  Ill, 167, 183
i- 18  401, 104
b 19  187, 393
i. 20, 21  392
i. 21, 25  '. 187
i. 28  393
i- 32  393, 402
ii- 1  393
ii- 4  348
ii. 9  167, 393
ii. 14-26  403
"¦ 15  283
ii. 29  306
hi. 8  330
iii. 20  392
iii. 21  423
hi. 25  189, 402, 415
iii. 28  346
iv. 15  403
iv. 18  420
iv. 19 f  419 f
iv. 20  419
iv. 22  419
iv. 25  113, 411
v. 4  437
v. 5  434
v. 7  382
v. 8  412
v. 9  417
v. 10  412, 414
v. 12  390, 391
v. 13  261, 415
v. 13, 14  402
v. 18  409
V. 18, 19  410
v. 19-21  430
v. 20  54, 399, 400
vi. 1  330
vi. 2  428
vi. 4  151, 4 51
vi. 4-6  427
vi. 5-8  480
vi. 6  385
vi. 10  411
vi. 11  480
vi. 11-13  429
vii  39S, 398, 428
vii. 2, 4  423
vii. 5  385
vii. 9 f  389
vii. 10, 11  396
vii. 12  382, 385
vii. 13  400
vii. 15  429
vii. 22  395
vii. 24  91
vii. 25  391
viii. 2  422
viii. 3  408, 406, 46.9
viii. 5  384

Romans continued. PAGH
Ch. viii. 10  482
viii. 11 f  430
viii. 13  429
viii. 15  426
viii. 16  434
viii. 18  34 5
viii. 19-23  480
viii. 23  411, 435, 436
viii. 24  431, 440
viii. 26  436
viii. 28 f.  418
viii. 31, 32  430
viii. 32  412
viii. 38  460
ix  474-419
ix. 4  401
ix. 5  406
ix. 8  421
ix. 30, 31  404, 477
x. 3  404
x. 5-10  421, 422
a.. 6  301
xi  266
xi. 12  112
xi. 13  263
xi. 14  112, 122
xi. 17, 18  265
xi. 18  456
xi. 20  417
xi. 22  486
xi. 32  405, 475. 486
xi. 33  144, 47 5
xi. 33-36  206
xii. 1  134, 427
xii. 3  430, 444
xii. 6  431
xii. 7  145
xii. 7, 8  303
xii. 8  152, 276
xii. 9, 10  138
xiii. 7  446
xiii. 8  424
xiii. 9  385
xiii. 11  417
xiv  262
xiv. 1  431
xiv. 1-6  158
xiv. 2  267, 270, 431
xiv. 3  267
xiv. 6  208
xiv. 15  433
xiv. 16  458
xiv. 17.233, 271, 433, 458
xiv. 21  261, 210
xiv. 23  443
xiv.-xv  262 f
xv. 1  262, 211
xv. 15  265
xv. 19  261
xv. 20  168
xv. 24. 28  250
xv. 31  276

538

INDEX TO TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED.

Romans, continued. PAGE
Ch. xv. 31, 32  274
xvi. 1  146, 155
xvi. 3  194, 203
xvi. 4  256
xvi. 7  323
xvi. 14, 15  153
xvi. 17  262, 271
xvi. 19  262
XVi. 23, 153, 168, 229, 309

I. CORINTHIANS. 243—251.
i. 2  243
i. 5  237
i. 11, 12  242
i. 12  218, 222, 224
i. 13  223
i. 14  168
i. 16  195
i. 1-18  243
i. 22. 23  261, 405
i. 23.  183
i. 26  191, 229
i. 29, 30  303
ii. 4  195, 261
ii. 6  144
ii. 11  230
ii. 14  386, 394. 438
iii. 6, 7  ' 221
iii. 9, 10  136
iii. 11  448
iii. 11-15  244
hi. 12  221
iii. 16, 17  221, 245
iii. 18  183, 405
iii. 21  243
iii. 22  432
iv. 7  443
iv. 8-19  251
iv. 9  460
iv. 17  250
iv. 20  237, 458
V. 3.  258
V. 3-5  149
V. 5  252, 261
v. 7  159
V. 9-11  242
V. 11  231
vi. 5  146, 149
Vi. 7  251
vi. 9  231, 449
vi. 10  458
vi. 11  194, 452
vL 12  232, 246, 432
vi. 12, 13  233
Vi. 14  480
vi. 15  304
Vii. 14  164, 165
vii. 18  .... 281

1st Corinthians, continued. PAGE
Ch. vii. 20-22  248
vii. 21 f  248, 432
vii. 22  425
vii. 23, 24  248, 249
Vii. 24  123
vii. 29, 30  247
vii. 40  235
viii. 2  438
viii. 5  470
viii. 6  464
viii. 7  231, 470
viii. 8  233
viii. 11  232
viii. 12  433
ix.- 1  89
ix. 1, 2  228
ix. 1-19  432
ix. 5  235, 342, 343
ix. 5 f  323
ix. 6  168
ix. 14  178
ix. 14, 15 f  433
ix. 16-18  178
ix. 20  123, 159
ix. 21  425
ix. 23  460
X. 1  251
X. 3, 4  455
X. 4  465
x. 9  465
x. 14 f  455
x. 17  455
X. 19, 20  470
X. 23  233, 432
X. 24  432, 433
X. 27-29  231, 232
X. 31  432, 433
xi. 5  150
xi. 10  460
xi. 19  277
xi. 23  101
xi. 24  453
xi. 25  454
xi. 26  453
xi. 29  454
xii  451
xii. If  135
xii. 3  449
xii. 4  460
xii. 7  136
xii. 8  143
xii. 9  145
xii. 9, 10  138
xii. 11  136
xii. 13  160, 452, 455
xii. 28.. 33, 145, 152, 276,
303.
xiii  137
xiii. 2  143, 145
xiii. 4, 5  446
xiii. 9-12  439
xiii. 13  439

1st Corinthians, continued. PAG1
Ch. xiv. 14  394
xiv. 14-16  141
xiv. 20  407, 445
xiv. 21-24  139, 140
xiv. 25  140
xiv. 26  152
xiv. 30, 31  142
xiv. 34  150
XV  237, 480, 484
xv. 6  43
xv. 7  324, 326
xv. 8  89
xv. 17  411
xv. 19  436
xv. 22  486
XV. 23, 24  486
xv. 24  460
xv. 27, 28  485, 486
xv. 29  163
xv. 30  249
xv. 30, 31  256
XV. 31, 32  255
xv. 32-35  238, 239
xv. 33  230
xv. 45  392
xv. 46  389
xv. 46, 47  391
XV. 55-58  485
XV. 56  392
xvi. 2  158, 159
xvi. 4  273
xvi. 5  251
xvi. 7  241
xvi. 8  249
xvi. 9  359
xvi. 10  250
xvi. 12  249
xvi. 13  445
xvi. 15  156, 162, 195
xvi. 15, 16  146, 276
xvi. 20  153

H. CORINTHIANS. 257—260.
i. 1  195
i. 5  256
i. 8  256
i. 12  445-
i. 12, 13  259
i. 15  258
i. 16  251
i. 16-22  260
i. 22  435
ii. 1  240
ii. 5  252
ii. 5-10  257, 258
ii. 6  252
ii. 10-11  472
ii. 16  626

INDEX TO TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED.

53*7

2d Corinthians, continued.
PAGE
Ch. iii. 6 f.  422
iv. 4  467
iv. 7  256
iv. 9  256
iv. 10  25(1
iv. 11  256
iv. 16  395, 482
V. 4  391, 392
V. 6-8  484
V. 7  440
V. 9  256
v. 10  505
T. 12  228
V. 13  260
V. 16  83
V. 16, 17  228
v. 17  449
V. 18  412
V. 20  412, 413, 414
v. 21  410
vi. 9  256
vii. 2...  201
vii. 5  256
vii. 8-12  252
vii. 9  252
vii. 11  258
vii. 14  253
viii  251
viii. 9  ..465, 469
viii. 13  24
Viii. 18  259
viii. 19  156
ix  262
ix. 12-15  273
X. 7  224, 228

X. 10 
X. 14-16.
X. 16....
xi 
xi. 4, 5 . .
xi. 5 . . . .
xi. 6.

258
 261
.168, 250
. ... 218
 221
 346
..82, 222

Ei. 9  197, 350

228
2 GO 8!J
17721)3

xi. 18 
xi. 21 
xi. 22 
xi. 25  ,
xi. 26, 27 
xi. 29  212, 278
xi. 30  93
xi. 32  93, 94
xii. 2-  88
xii. 7  256
xii. 1, 10  IU
xii. 12  194, 254
Xii. 13, 14  240
xii. 18  250
xii. 20, 21  240
Xiii. 1  240
xiii. 4  84, 411
xiii. 6, 8  • 260
xiii. 13  530

Galatians.
GALATIANS. 212—211. PAGE
Ch. i  99
i. 1  88, 89
i. 4  451
i. 6  201
i. 9  201
i. 10  214
i. 12  101
i. 12-16  89
i. 14  83
i. 17  93
i. 18  94
i. 18-24  94-103
i. 19  323
i. 21  130
ii. 1-10  107 f. 119-134
ii. 2  109, 121
ii. 4-6  124
ii. 5  125
ii. 9  124, 356
ii. 10  218
ii. 11-17,204-206, 341, 342
ii. 11-18  61
ii. 12  219
ii. 14  506
ii. 18  205
ii. 19  423
ii. 20  381, 428
iii. 2, 5  211
iii. 5  215, 449
iii. 10  383
iii. 12  502
iii. 13  404, 410
iii. 14  404
iii. 15  399
iii. 18  399
iii. 19  261, 399
iii. 21  383
iii. 23  400
iii. 24  400
iii. 26-28  448
iii 27  160, 451, 452
iii. 28  236, 427
iv. 2  261
iv 4  7, 405, 464
iv. 5  436
iv. 6  426, 464
iv. 8  426, 470
iv. 9  401, 426
iv. 9f.  135, 151
iv. 12  215
iv. 14  112
iv. 16  208
iv. 18-20  208
iv. 21  413-415
iv. 26  451
iv. 29  413
v. 2, 3  207
V. 5  437

Galatians, continued. PAGH
Ch. v. 6  421
v. 11  217
V. 12  213, 306
v. 13  267, 329
V. 16-18  428, 429
v. 20  231, 316, 386
V. 21  207, 329
V. 22, 23  424
V. 24  ... 428
v. 25  428
v. 26  154
vi. 6  154
vi. 6, 7  154
vi. 11.. r.  214
vi. 12  216, 217
vi. 12, 13  213
vi. 13  213
vi. 14  217
vi. 17  217, 218
EPHESIANS. 302—305.
i. 1  305
i. 4  405, 479
i. 10  7, 405
i. 14  411
i. 18  438
i. 23  300
ii. 2  470
ii. 8-10  303
ii. 9, 10  435
ii. 10  3S4
ii. 12  262
ii. 14  48
ii. 14, 16  459
ii. 19, 20  456
ii. 20  302, 448
iii. 3  207, 304
iii. 5  302
iii. 9  405
iii. 10  71, 144, 416
iii. 15  459
iii. 16, 11  395
iii. 11  434
iii. 19  300, 412
iv. 2  444
iv. 4  448
iv. 8  304, 411
iv. 11. .146, 150, 152, 302
iv. 16  145, 450
iv. 19  403
iv. 24  390
iv. 25  506
iv. 28  304
v. 5,6  201
v. 6  166, 180, 329
v. 14  304
v. 15 f  445
v. 23  304
v. 25 f.  246
V. 25 26  314

538

INDEX TO TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED.

Epltesians, continued. PAGE
Ch. v. 26 f.  452
vi. 2. 3  304
vi. 11  472
vi. 12  472
vi. 21  304
PHILIPPIANS. 302—305.
i. 1  '.146, 148, 306
i. 7  309
i. 15-18  292
i. 18  293
i. 20  319
i. 21  483
i. 21-24  391
i. 23  483
ii. 3  444
ii. 4-7  306
ii. 5-9   468
ii. 6  411
ii. 7  468
ii. 10, 11  486
ii. 12  443
iii. 2, 3  305
iii. 3  427
iii. 5  80
iii. 6  83, 382, 384
iii. 9-15  306
iii. 11-12  305
iii. 12  318, 430, 433
iii. 15  99, 305
iv. 3  306
iv. 12, 13  171
iv. 16  179, 197
iv. 22  291, 292
COLOSSIANS. 293—302.
i. 6  170
i. 7  170
i. 9  438
i. 15  468
i. 16  461
i. 18  467
i. 19  300
i. 20  460, 487
ii. 1  170
ii. 5  110
ii. 8  204, 295, 297
ii. 9  300
ii. 11  385
ii. 14  335
ii. 15  471
ii 16  158
ii. 18  301, 386
ii. 20  297
iii. 2  429
iii. 3  427
iii. 4  437
iii. 5  429

Colossians, continued. PAGE
Ch. iii. 10  390
iii. 11  448
iii. 12  444
iii. 14  446
iv. 1  446
iv. 5  444, 445
iv. 8  302
iv. 10  353
iv. 11  292
iv. 12  294
iv. 14  173
ir. 15  153
iv. 16  198
I. THESSALONIANS. 196—198.
i. 3  435, 438
i. 7, 8  195
i. 9  196
i. 9, 10  178
ii. 9  179
ii. 10, 11  178
ii. 12  180, 458
ii. 14, 15  198
ii. 18  ,  181
iii. 1  ISO, 191
iv. 6  207
iv. 8  180
iv. 9  423
iv. 13  196, 197
iv. 17  484
v. 12  146, 197
V. 19  196
v. 21  143
v. 21-23  199
v. 23  394
v. 27  198
II. THESSALONIANS. 200—201.
i 4  196, 438
i. 5  458
i. 7-9  485
ii. 2  199
iii. 2  200
iii. 17  199
I. TIMOTHY.
312—314.
i. 4  313, 314, 316
i. 9  313
i. 20  319
ii- 1  313
ii. 12  150
ii. 15  314
hi. 1  147, 313
iii. 6  197
iii. 8  33, 148
iii. 15  313

1st Timothy, continued. PAGK
Ch. iv. 1  314
iv. 8  313
iv. 12  315
v. 3-16  155
v. 17, 18  313
vi. 12  162
II. TIMOTHY.
317—320.
i. 5  168
i. 6  156
i. 7  444
i. 15  310
ii. 3  472
ii. 9  317
ii. 17  308
ii. 19, 20  450, 457
ii. 21  478
ii. 22  315
ii. 23  317
iv. 5  151
iv. 6-8  318
iv. 7, 8  319
iv. 13  309
iv. 14...  319
iv. 16  369
iv. 17  318, 319
iv. 1 8  483
iv. 19  203
iv. 20  309
TITUS.
315—317.
i. 5  148
i. 5 f  156
i. 5-7  148
i- 9  154
ii. 6  444
ii. 12  444
ii. 15  315
iii. 2  316
iii. 4  412
iii. 5  452
iii. 9  316
iii. 10  316
PHILEMON. 293.
Verse 22  293
23  294
HEBREWS.
320, 487-498.
Ch. ii. 3  488
ii. 14  492
iii. 6  4JJ5
hi. 12  488
iii. 14  495

INDEX TO TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED.

639

Bebrews, continued. PAGE
Ch. iv. 12  498
V. 1  492
v. 7, 8  494
V. 12  297, 426
vi. 1  488
vi. 4  488, 489
vi. 5  496
vi. 19  496
vii. 19  489
vii. 25, 26  494
viii. 12  489
ix. 9  491
ix. 10  491
ix. 14  489
ix. 15  489
ix. 23  495
ix. 28  494, 495
X. 22 .  491, 495
X. 23, 247?  495
x. 32  488
X. 36  495
xi  499
xi. 1  496
xi. 3  496
xi.40  488
xii. 2  496
xii. 22  496
xii. 23  491
xii. 28  489
xiii. 7  36
xiii. 9  488
xiii. 10  491
xiii. 13  491
xiii. 15  489
xiii. 17  36
xiii. 20  493
xiii. 23  320
JAMES.
327-337, 498-508.
i. 4  503
i. 6  326
i. 9, 10  335
i. 10  335
i. 13-16  507
i. 15..  501
i. 18  501
i. 19  3:6
i. 21  504
i. 26  302, 503

James, contiuued. PAGE
Ch. i. 27  132
ii. 1  334, 335
ii. 8  503
ii. 13  504
ii. 18  500
ii. 26  500
iii. If.  34
iii. 1, 2  336
iii. 2  504
iv. 7  507
iv. 1, 8  601
V. 4  334
V. 12  506
I. PETER.
343—347.
i. 5  417
i. 8   344
ii. 9  134
ii. 10  346
iii. 21  161
iv. 3  346
iv. 4, 5  345
iv. 11  133, 145
V. 1  344, 347
v. 1, 2  147
V. 1 2  346
V. 13  343
U. PETER.
347—348.
i. 14  348
i. 18  348
iii. 15  348
I. JOHN.
371—375.
i. 2  514
i. 9  522
i. 10  512
ii. 19  528
ii. 22  313
ii. 23  530
ii. 28  528
iii. 2  528
iii. 9  522
iii. 16  520
iii. 24  530

1st John, continued. PAGB
Ch. iv. 1  360
iv. 4  521
iv. 10  517
iv. 10-19  520
v. 3  520
v. 4  520
v. 16  523
V. 18  521
II. JOHN.
375—376.
Verse 7  376
9  530
m. JOHN.
Verse 6  528
JUDE.
362—363.
Verse 1  322, 362
17  362
REVELATION. 365—367.
Ch. i. 1  366
i. 2  367
i. 9  367
i. 17  365
ii. 2  359
ii. 6.  360
ii. 9   359
ii. 15  360
ii. 20  360
ii. 24  360
iii. 14  365
vi. 9  345
vii. 4  365
vii. 17  365
xiii. 3  366
xiv. 3  365
xvi. 12  366
xvii. 6  345
xvii. 8  366
xvii. 16  366
xix. 30  365
xx. 4  345
xxi. 14  366

II.

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

'Aya7rai, 23, 28, 249.
dyyeAot, 55.
uyta, 164.
udeAtloe tov 'Xpiarov, 223, 322.
dytot, 448.
u^vpoi, 160.
uKadapra, 164.
a/cpc/?cjc ireptirareiv, 445.
aluv ovroc, 456, 457, 491.
aluv peAAuv, 456, 457, 491.
aAyBetae, Ik rye, eivat, 513.
upapna, 239, 399, 400.
dvaarotxetuaic, 189.
uvyp A.opo;, 220.
tlvo,y77 rori Beov, 415.
cr-cipfca, 445.
dvdpi£eo8ai, 445.
ivriAyipete, 33, 141.
drrtaroc, 139.
C7ro/ca^v7rrffv, 99.
uiroKaAvipte, 47, 99, 139, 142, 151.
diroKaAvipeic Kvpiov, 142.
airo/.vrpuate, 477.
'Appoarat, 147.
a'P^a77f''-0S', 299.
dpxiavvayuyoe, 34, 148.
'Aaiapxat, 255.
dtfieoic, 114, 415.
Bapvaflac, 35.
jiairnapa, iv, 448.
rAcjcrcrocf Aa;im>, 11-18, 140-142.
yyaiCTif, 47, 143, 313.
Afi7TVOV Kvpiov, 23.
Setaidatpuv, 185.
detaidaipovia, 185.
StaByKy, 8, 454.
diaKovia, 31.
dtaicovoi, 29.
dtaKoveiv rpaireCate, 31.
dtaKpiatc irvevparuv, 142.
dtaarropa, 263.
chcWicaAoi, 1 35, 138, 140, 142, 152,
¦JiclacTKaAta, ( 303.

c5(da^7/, 152.
dtKaioc, 382, 409, 416.
diKatoovvn, 382, 418, 446, 523.
diKaioavvy vopiKy, 382.
diKatov Kai laov, 446.
dtKatupa, 409.
diKaiuaic, 410, 417, 418, 523.
ch/cJ7, 441.
c5ofa, 516.
dtopBuaic, 491.
dovAfia, 425.
cWAeta r>7c t'tpapnae, 396.
doDAraetv, 425.
dvvaroc rn iriarei, 430.
'Eavrc^ ftv, 387.
IBpaioe, 80.
£0vift 263.
iKKAyata, 148, 448, 52T8.
iKKAyaia iv ru oIku, 153.
lAecjv, 145.
iAAyvtarye, 80.
Wn-tr, 437.
iirtOKOirot, 147, 148.
kirepurypa, 161.
Ipya, 500.
Ipya vopov, 423, 435.
Ipya ciyafla, 423, 435.
ipunveta, 17.
ippyveta yAuaauv, 142.
ippyveve, 12.
ippyvevrye, 12.
IpXeaBai dt' alparoc, dl vdaroe, 373, 3T4
ryayye/lcfrrat, 151.
evayyeAuov rrvevuariKOv, 526.
iipeata ypappara, 208.
Zetif, 118.
fuJ7, 382, 410.
'rlytaapevoi, 448.
f/pipai rivie, 92.
ypipai Uavai, 92.
Oyaavpt^uv, 159.
0eov, Ik, eivac, 513.

INDEX OF GREEK "WORDS AND PHRASES.

541

laKaft*.-, river a7ro, 204.
'ldtdiryi rip Aoyip, 82.
'lepovaaAyp, y avu, 457.
'Idiurai, 134.
'lKeryc, 59. 497.
lA.aapoe, 517.
Kaipoe evearyKUc, 491.
Kara irpoauirov, 228.
kevoi Aoyot, 160, 180.
KAypovopia, 436.
K?^yroi, 449.
Koivuvta, 23.
Koapoc, 448.
KvfSepvyate, 152.
icwec, 305.
Aoyoc, 59, 63, 369, 602.
Aoyoc yvcjcrccjf, 143-145.
Aoyoc aotfnac, 143-145.
Aaoc, 263, 492.
MuByrai, 211.
paKpoBvpta, 445.
peyaAoipvxta, 441.
peradtdove, 145.
peragv, 114.
Ncurepoi, 29.
reavicr/coc, 29.
^ vouof, 382, 422-425.
vo/ioc TeAeioe, 502.
vo«f, 133, 141, 394.
OUodopetv, 136, 448.
olKovpevy, 105.
oiKOvpevy peAAovaa, 491.
o2 rov ^piuroti, 223, 224, 228, 230.
oi tov 'laKuf3ov, 223.
iirraaiat, 142.
<5/>y;7, 416.
IlapecTic-, 189, 415.
vapaKAyroc, 59.
irapovaio, 527, 528.
«-fc9ap;rowTec, 44.
JTi^Ai/cof, 214.
7roAti7ro£/aAo<;, 476.
jrtoTif, 47, 145, 431, 488.
irAypupa, 300.
rrAypupa rov xpcvov, tuv Katpuv, 1.
irvevpa, 138, 141, 394, 395, 428.

irvevpa ayiov, 430.
iroipevee, 152.
irpeaj3vrepoi, 29, 33.
irpoaevxy, 113.
Trpoffei)^!; 'luaytp, 59.
irpoQyretai, 35, 140.
irpo^yreveiv, 16, 17.
irpurov 'lovdaitp, 111.
'Pi^a, 63.
Sapf, 386, 428.
aapKUta, 163, 426.
aypeta, 138.
aKoria, 509.
crocita, 143, 144, 444, 445.
o-o^tav fi?r£(v, 192, 222, 386.
o-rofxtca roti Koapov, 297, 401, .426.
arparyyov, 175.
avprroaia tfiiAtKa, 236.
ffway^y*;, 334.
aupariKy yvpvaata, 313.
autjipoveiv, 444.
cuijipoovvy, 444, 446.
aufpoviapoc, 4A&.
aurypia, 417, 525.
Tairewoijipoavvy, 441.
raTmrov, 441.
reAefcr, 601.
TeAacJcTic, 496.
YZor icapaKAyaeue, 35.
itoc tou avBpuirov, and vtor row 0eov, 461.
viof irpoipyTeiac, 35.
vloBeaia, 425, 436.
brrepuov, 9.
viropovy, 438, 445.
-i-u^, 138, 394, 395.
4»avepoi)i», 99.
ijiavepuaic rov irvevparoe, 136.
ifnAoootpta, 295, 313.
fpovyaie, 446.
tftpovtpoe, 143.
Xapiapa, 137.
Xapiapa Kvfiepvyaeue, or rov Trpoiaravat,
145, 341.
Xapiapa diaKoviac, or avrtAmpeuc, 145, 14T.
XVpat, 155.

III.
GENERAL INDEX.

Abraham, his faith, works, and righteous
ness, 215, 328,419, 420-450; promises to,
40, 215, 399.
Abyssinia, introduction ofthe Gospel into, 64.
Acts, credibility of, in general, 1-4 ; in par
ticulars, on account of their simplicity and
artle*snes3, 25, 41, 43, 50, 63, 130, 283; as
well as on account of single nnhistoricil
features, 14, 18, 44, 45 ; credibility not de
stroyed by certain inexactnesses, 52, 96,
103 ; nor bv evidence of its not being al
ways founded on original accounts, 41, 42 ;
but confirmed by many Btriking coinci
dences with the epistles of Paul, 94J 170, 189.
Achaia, Paul and the churches in, 191, 196,
200, 212, 241, 250, 261, 274, 312.
Adam and Christ, 408.
Acliaphorism, germs of a false, at Corinth, 232.
Adoption, threefold application of the idea of,
436.
Agabus, the prophet, foretells an approach
ing famine, 105.
Agapse, or love-feasts, 23, 165, 236.
Agrippa II., Paul's examination before, 286,
287.
Alexander, a Jew, at Ephesus, 255.
Alexander, of Abonoteichos, 112.
Alexander, the copper-smith, 319.
Alexnn-lrine Jewish theology, its relation to
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 496.
Ananias, a Jewish merchant, converts King
Izates, 103.
Ananias and Sapphira, their fate, 26.
Ananias, high-priest, Paul's conduct before
him, 283.
Ananias, of Damascus, 85, 92, 98.
Ananus, high-priest, 337.
Angelic appearances under the new dispen
sation, 44, 72.
Angelolatry professed by Jewish Christians,
299, 361.
Angels, the giving of the law through, 55.
Antichrist, 200, 366, 372.
Antioch of Pisidia visited by Paul and Bar
nabas, 113.
Antioch, in Syria, the Church there distin
guished as the Gentile mother-church, 104 ;
relation ofthe Church at, to the Church at
Jerusalem, 105 ; Paul and the Church ot,
104, 106, 110, 119, 167; meeting of Paul,
Barnabas, and Peter at, 204 ; controversy
between the Jewish and Gentile Christians,
119, 132.
Apocalypse, when written, 365 ; its author,
375.
Apollo, one of his prophetesses dispossessed
by Paul, 174.
Apollos, an Alexandrine Jew, an anti-Pauline
party at Corinth formed around hiin, 220,
227.
Apollos, one of John's disciples, 220.
Apostolic Church, sources of the history of
tho, 1-4.

Apostles, significance to them of the feast ol
Pentecost, 7 ; the only guides ofthe church
at first, 30, 35 ; as distinguished from evan
gelists and teachers, 151 ; gradual release
from old Testament forms, 27, 36, 48, 51,
62, 66, 122 ; not free from human weak
ness, 167, 204; possibility in them of an
error conversationis but not doctrinal, 342 ;
possible errors in matters not pertaining to
faith, 175 ; not gifted with infallible fore
sight, 276 ; their progressive knowledge in
E^chntology, 483, 434.
Apostolic Council, 121-131; importance of its
decision, 132.
Aquila, 153, 192-194, 203, 220.
Aquila and Priscilla, a Christian society met
in their house, 153; their interview with
Paul at Corinth, 194.
Arabia, Paul in, 92.
Aratus, the poet, quoted by Paul, 188.
Areopagus at Athens, 184.
Aretas, king of Arabia, 84, 93, 94.
Aristarchus, 16S, 294.
Arnold (Dr.), his sermons quoted, 336.
Artemis worshipped at Ephesus, 208, 254.
Artemonites, 265.
Asiarchs, their office at Ephesus, 255.
Athens visited by Paul, 182 ; its altar dedi
cated to an unknown god, 186.
Athinganians, the, 300.
Augustine, Paul and Luther, 82.
Babylon, Peter at, 343, 351.
Baptism, the rite of admission into the Chris
tian Church, 21, 160; probably only one
baptismal formula, 21, 160; performed by
immersion, 161 ; practice of infant baptism
unknown in the early Church, 162-164;
substitutionary baptism for the dead, 163;
its two-fold reference to the death and res
urrection of Christ, 451.
Barjesns, an itinerant Jewish goes, 112.
Barnabas, Paul's coadjutor, 97, 104; visits
Antioch, 104; Cyprus, 111; Antioch in
Pisidia, 113; separates from Paul, 167;
weakness of, at Corinth, 204.
Barsabas, messenger from Jerusalem to An
tioch, 130.
Bartholomew's mission to India, 102 ; takes
Matthew's Gospel with him, 102.
Bercea visited by Paul and Silas, 182.
Bishops, overseers of the whole Church, 14b:
their duties, 148, 153.
Brethren of Jesus, 321-324; whether Jude,
author of the epistle, was a brother of
Jesus, 362.
Cjssahea Stratonis, Philip at, 64; Cornelius
at, 69 ; Paul there on his way to Jerusalem,
279 ; Paul imprisoned tliere, 285.
Caius, the Koman presbyter, his testimony
respecting the graves of Peter and Paul.
351. '

GENERAL INDEX.

543

Cardinal virtues, the, ofthe ancients contem-
templated in relation to faith, hope, and
love 446. t '
Cathedra Petri in Rome, 351.
Celibacy, its first manifestation, 233, 234;
why recommended by Paul in certain cases,
235, 246.
Cerinthus, heretic, 299, 362.
Charisms, or gifts for the ministry of the
word, 136-147 ; for the government of the
Church, 147-153 ; tho gift of working mi
racles, 145.
Children, the, of Christians, in what sense
holy, 164.
Christ, his personal existence presupposed by
the existence ofthe Church, 51 ; his incar
nation, 514, 515; miracles, 516; various
collections of his life and discourses pos
sessed by his immediate disciples, 101 ; his
speedy reappearance expected by the early
Christians, 27, 157, 196, 199, 246, 347, 459 ;
work of redemption accomplished by him,
408-411 ; his humiliation and glorification,
410; his sufferings, 410; his death, 410;
and resurrection, 411; the Head ofthe
Church, 46S ; the belief of his divinity es
sential to Christianity, 463 ; his victory
over the kingdom of evil, 471.
Christ-party, in the Church of Corinth, no
ticed, 222-230.
Christian Church, its foundation in Palestine,
5-20 ; the first germ of its constitution,
20-38 ; the mixed character of the first con
verts, 21 ; its rites and ceremonies, 22-28,
156-166 ; ecclesiastical officers, 28-37, 145-
154 ; their consecration, 156 ; election, 156 ;
the outward condition of the primitive
Church, 38-57; the division between the
Jewish and Gentile Christians, 120-134;
tho ecclesiastical usages of the Gentile
Christians, 134-166 ; Christians of one city
formed a local Church, 153; Pauline idea
of the Church, 447^51.
Christians, origin of the name, 105 ; the first
names of, 105.
Christianity, its diffusion from the Church of
Jerusalem among heathen nations, 58-379 ;
by the instrumentality of Peter, 65-77, 372 ;
by Paul, 78-320 ; John the Evangelist, 388-
413; its gradual development, 280; puri
fies, but does not dissolve the social rela
tions, 247 ; not merely a new law, but a
new internal creation, 504.
Christology, Paul's, 460-469.
Chronology of the New Testament, 93, 103,
105, 120, 205, 261, 2S5, 310.
Church, the, Christ its historical basis, 5, 20 ;
the disciples of Christ its first seaffoldiug,
6 ; the Pentecostal miracle its beginning, 5,
9 ; the first form and constitution of the
commnnity, 20-36 ; government of, 145-
156 ; its discipline, 25, 26 ; severity of
Paul's jhurch discipline, 242 ; Paul's idea
of the Church, 447-451; John's, 523.
Cilieia, Christianity in, 103, 168, 334.
Circumcision, 108, 120, 124, 163, 213, 216,
281.
Civil government, a divine ordinance, 267.
Claudius banishes the Jews from Eome,
192.
Clemens Bomanus, tho antiquity of his first
Kpistle, 229.
Clement, Bishop of Rome, on Paul's visit to

the boundaries of the "West, 307, 311 ; on
the martyrdom of Peter, 349.
Clementines, legendary documents, 231, 264,
298.
Colossaa, the Church there founded by Epa
phras, 170, 294; Philemon the overseer ol
it, 291 ; troubled with false teachers, 294 ;
whom Paul opposed, 297 ; Paul's Epistle to
this Church, conveyed by Tvchicus, 302.
Coming, the second, of Christ." See Parusle.
Community of goods in the early Church, 25,
26. '
Confirmation. See Imposition of Rands.
Consciousness of God, our, nhdeniablenesa
of, according to Paul, 401, 402.
Consecration to church offices, how conduct
ed, 156.
Corinth, the metropolis of Achaia, visited by
Paul, 191 ; Church founded there by Paul,
191-201; Paul's second visit to, 240-242;
celebrated as a seat of literature and philo
sophy, 192 ; divisions in the Church, 218-
239 ; Paul's two epistles to this Church,
243-260 ; lost epistles to, 242, 251-253 ; letter
from to Paul, 243; case of the incestuous
person, 242, 252 ; Paul a third time in, 261
-274.
Cornelius, the centurion, 69-77, 97.
Council, the Apostolic, 125-132 ; importance
of its decision, 132.
Covenant, the old and the new, 8, 417, 454.
Crete, 31s.
Cyprus, 65, 111, 163.
Cyrene, 65.
Cyrillus Lucaris, on the difference between
Paul and James on justification, 323.
Damascus, Borne time a Roman province, 84,
93.
Deaconesses, their functions, 155.
Deacons, their appointment, 31, 32 ; duties,
32^17, 145.
Death, connection of, with sin, according to
Paul, 402 ; John's idea of, 509.
Decrees, the Divine, 399, 405, 474.
Demetrius at Ephesus, 254.
Demoniacal possession, 175.
Derbe, 119 ; Timothy not from, 168.
Descensus ad inferos, 344.
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, his statement
respecting Peter's martyrdom, 190, 350.
Dionysius, the Areopagite, 1110.
Diotrephes, his character, 370.
Docetism, the heresy of, 363 ; its refutation
not the leading object of the Gospel of.
John, 369 ; but was of the first Epistle, 373.
Duumvirs, or magistrates, 175.
Easteb festival, whether observed by the first
Christians, 159 ; certainly by John, 353.
Ebionitism, germs of, 22, 120, 124, 230 ;
James no Ebionite, 327.
Elders, or presbyters, their appointment, 33.
Eleazer, 108, 120.
Election of Church oflicers, 156.
Epaphras, Paul's pupil, 170; and fellow-
prisoner, 294; founder of the Church oi
Colossal, 170, 294.
Epaphroditus, messenger of the Philippian
Church, 305.
Ephesus described, 209 ; visited by Panl, 203 ;
repentance of the Jewish exorcists, 209 ;
popular tumult against Paul, 253 ; Paul's

544

GENERAL INDEX.

Epistle to the Church, 302 ; a metropolitan
Church, 305.
Epicurean philosophers at Athens, 183, 238 ;
not opposers of the doctrine of the resur
rection, 238.
Episcopoi. See Bishops.
Erastus, 309.
Eschatology, Paul's, 479-487 ; John's, 524-
528.
Essenes, their distinctive tenets, 294.
Essenic element at Colossae, 295.
Ethiopia, gospel carried to, by agency of
Phillip, 64.
Excommunication, an act of the whole
Church, 149.
Exorcists at Ephesus converted, 209.
Faith, the nature of, 419 ; as exemplified in
Abraham, 419 ; the governing principle of
the Christian life, 421, 427 ; its fruits (di
vine) love, 434 ; hope, 437 ; and knowl
edge, 438 ; the intimate connection be
tween faith and works, 499, 500 ; over
comes the world, 520.
Faith, articles of, only one at the first, 21.
Faith, confession of, at baptism, i61, 162.
Family, relation ofthe, to the Church, 22.
Famine in Palestine, a. d. 44, 105.
Felix, procurator, 276 ; Paul's examination
before him, 285.
Females excluded as public teachers, 149-
154; on the veiling of females, 460.
Festivals, on the'r observance, 158, 358.
Festus, JI. Porcius, 285, 286.
Freedom, Christian, misuse of, 232, 245, 267,
281, 301, 361, 432, 521 ; freedom of the
will maintained by James, 507.
Forged epistles not uncommon in the first
century, 199 ; for this reason Paul added
his autograph, 199.
Gaius, overseer of a Church, 376.
Galatian churches, 172 ; Paul's Epistle to
them, 214—217; anti-Pauline tendency in
these churches, 215.
Gallio, deputy of Achaia, frustrates the at
tempt of the Jews against Paul, 195.
Gamaliel, one ofthe Sanlie-lrim, 45, 46, 81, 83.
Gentiles, intimations of their conversion in
Peter's Pentecostal speech, 19,. 20 ; divine
councils in reference to Gentiles and Jews,
475, 476.
Glossolaly, 11-1S.
Gnostics, Judaizing, 295, 299.
Goctae, a mystical sect, US, 112, 209.
Gospel, contrasted with the law, 422.
Government of the early Church was by the
whole body, 149.
Grace, Paul's doctrine of, explained, 474-478.
Hardening, idea of the divine, 477.
Heat lenism, a development of nature, 401 ;
its partial fulfilment ot'tne law, 402.
Hebrews, Epistle to, its authorship, 320, 333,
487; doctrinal character, 487-498 ; points of
agreement aud of difference between Paul
and cue author of the epistle, 4S5-495 ; al
lusions in it to the high-priesthood of Christ,
4'J3.
Hegesippus, historian, 325-327.
Hellenists, the, 29; tae first preachers ofthe
Gospel among the Gentdes, 65, 104 ; Paul's
dispute with, 97, 103.

Hellenistic, the, and Palestinian Christiana,
misunderstanding between, in the first
churches, 31-33, 78.
Hennas, shepherd of, 264.
Herod Agrippa, governor of Judea, 106.
Hierapolis, 170.
Holiness of God in Christ's work of atone
ment, 413-416.
Holiness, relation ofthe idea of righteousness
to, 418 ; distinction between holiness and
justification ever to be kept in mind, 430.
Hope, faith, and love in Paul, 437 ; in John,
524.
Humility, 441 ; true and false, 442-444.
Idolatry, Paul on the origin of, 187, 470.
Iconium, 116, 168.
Illyria, 261.
Imposition of hands, on the newly baptized,
211 ; used at the consecration to any eccle
siastical office, 156.
Indifferent, nothing, 432.
Infant baptism unknown in the early Church,
162; first recognised in the third century,
162-165.
Inner man, Paul's use ofthe phrase, 395.
Inspiration, different kinds of, 14k ; erroneous
distinction between vltium conoermtionis
and error doctrinm, 342.
Intermediate state of the soul between death
and the resurrection, 481—183.
Irenaeus on the gift of tongues, 17 ; on Acts,
20, 275.
Isauria, 113.
James, the son of Alpheus, whether identical
with the brother of the Lord, 322-324.
James, the brother of the Lord, his ministry,
96, 321-324; at the Apostolic Council, 121
124; his speech, 126, 129; probable author
of the epistle from the council, 130 ; " cer
tain ones from James" at Antioch, 204 ; ad
vises Paul to conciliate the Jewish Chris
tians, 2s2 ; his character, 326 ; led the life of
a Nazarene, 325 ; his martyrdom, 337 ; epis
tle of, 327-336 ; the doctrine inculcated in
it, 498 ; compared with the Pauline view ol
justification, 499 ; the apparent differences
between the two apostles, 502-507.
James, the son of Zebedee and brother of
John, executed by Herod Agrippa, 106.
Jason of Thessalouiea lodges Paul, 181.
Jerusalem, collection at Antioch for Church
at, loii ; Apostolic Council at, 120-131 ;
Paul's great collection for the Church at,
250, 272.
Jesus, whether Paul saw, during his earthly
life, 83, 84 ; memoirs of, used by Paul,
101-103.
Jews, originally distinguished from Gentiles,
4ol ; the predominance of the sensuous
element in their religious life, 404 ; the
number of, converted to Christianity during
the primitive age, 280.
John, the apostle, his parentage, 354 ; his
character, 355, 356 ; wore the pctalou, 356 ;
Lesser Asia the scene of his labors, 357-
360; his conflicts with Cerinthus, 362-364;
whether he was banished to Patmos, 364;
was ho the writer of the Apocalypse? 365,
366; the general character of Johu's writ
ings, 368 ; his Gospel, 368 ; first epistle, 371 :
its object, 373 ; second epistle, 375 ; third

GENERAL INDEX.

545

epistle, 376 ; various traditions respecting
John, 377 ; his doctrinal views, 508-531 ;
compared with Paul's, 523.
John the Baptist, Paul meets twelve of his
disciples at Ephesus, 210.
John, the presbyter, 368, 375.
Joppa, 69, 73, 75.
Joses, 322.
Judaism, a preparative dispensation, 399,
456, 489 ; and heathenism, 401.
Judas (Barsabas), 130, 131.
Jude, the Epistle of, its authorship, 347.
Judgment, the doctrine of the, in John, 525.
Justification and sanctification, 430 ; justifica
tion by faith alone as taught by Paul, 180,
205, 417-421.
Kingdom of God, its idea and extent, 455-
459 ; a threefold meaning to the phrase
with Paul, 453 ; its opposition to the king
dom of evil, 469— 472; the development of
the kingdom of God till its final completion,
472-479.
Knowledge, relation of, to faith, hope, and
love, 433.
Kyria, a Christian lady to whom John's sec
ond Epistle was addressed, 375.
Laodicea, 170.
J Law, over valuation of the external observ-
v-ance of, 36, 37 ; Stephen the first to oppose
the perpetual validity of the Mosaic, 49 ;
Paul's idea of law as related to faith, 381-
385, 396-400, 421-427 ; according to James,
Christianity is the " perfect law," 333, 334,
502, 505.
Logos, Paul's idea of the, 460-463 ; in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, 494 ; John's idea
of, 369, 514 ; Philo's conception, 462, 498.
Lord's Supper, its celebration in the first
Church, 23; among the Gentile Christians,
165; Paul's view of, 453-455; John on,
529 530
Love,' the fruit of faith, 434 ; greater than
faith and hope, 440.
Lucian quoted, 112.
Luke, 2-4, 173, 177, 259.
Luther, (Paul and Augustine), 82 ; on the
apostle James, 129, 130.
Lycaonia, 116.
Lydia, of Thvatira, 173.
Lystra, 116, 168.
Macedonia, 173, 250, 251-260, 314.
Maintenance of ministers the duty of the
Church 154, 178.
Marcion, his spurious gospel, 102 ; character,
410.
Mark, nephew of Barnabas, and taken by mm
to Antioch, 110, 132; the companion of
Paul and Barnabas, 111, 132, 167 ; Peter's
interpreter and companion, 12, 352.
Marriage and celibacy, different views re
specting, at Corinth, 233 ; views of Paul,
246.
Mars' Hill, Paul's discourse at, 184-190.
Marv, the mother of Jesus, her sisters, 354.
M'ttbew's Gospel possessed by Bartholomew
n-'ndin, 102.
Meals offered to idols, disputes respecting,
232, 245.
Mental with manual labor commended, 179.

Messiah, Samaritan idea of, 53; Cornelius'
expectation of, 70.
Michael, archangel, oratories dedicated to
him, 300.
Miletus, Paul convenes a meeting of tho
Ephesian episcopi at, 274, 309.
Miracles in the apostolic period, 39, 63, 113,
116, 176; their connection with Christian
ity, 116, 117 ; the apostles' consciousness of
power to work miracles, 260 ; the power to
work, a charism, 145 ; John on the miracles
of Christ, 515, 516.
Missionaries, or evangelists, their employ
ment, 151.
Monarchians, 264.
Mysticism, whether there was a tendency to, iu
the Christ-party at Corinth, 226 ; John tha
representative of Christian, 524.
Nazarite vow made by Paul, 202.
Nero's persecution of the Christians, 265, 311,
317, 345, 348, 353, 366.
Nicolaitanes, sensual heretics, 360.
Nicopolis, 317.
Noachian precepts, the, 126.
Offerings to idols, contnversies at Corinth
on eating of, 230, 232 ; Paul thereon, 245 ;
eating of, a mark of Gnosticism in the sec
ond century, 361.
Officers ofthe Church, 30-35, 147-156.
Ordination, 156.
Palingenesis of nature, 480.
Pamphylia, 113.
Paphos, 111, 112.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, on the Gospel
of Mark, 352.
Parthia, 343.
Parusie, or final coming of Christ supposed
to be near in th3 apostolic age, 27, 157, 196,
199, 246, (in 1 Peter) 347, 459.
Patmos, 365.
Paul, the apostle, his early life, 80 ; a skilful
dialectician, 221 ; conversion, 85 ; goes into
Arabia, 92; visits Jerusalem, 94; obtains
a collection of our Lord's discourses, 101 ;
returns to Tarsus and Cilieia, 103 ; his
supposed second visit to Jerusalem, 107 ;
accompanied by Barnabas, he visits Cy
prus, 111 ; Antioch in Pisidia, 113 ; heals
a cripple at Lystra, 116; Paul and Bar
nabas supposed to be Zeus and Hermes,
118 ; present at the Council at Jerusalem,
120 ; opposed to festive observances, 158 ;
his second missionary journey, 167; sepa
rates from Barnabas, 167 ; his bodily suf
ferings, 171, 218 ; converts Lydia,173 ; casts
out a spirit of divination, 174 ; scourged at
Philippi, 176 ; claims the privilege of a
Roman citizen, 177 ; visits Thessalonica,
178 ; his untiring zeal, 179 ; visits Athens,
182 ; his discourse ou Mars' Hill, 184-190 ;
proceeds to Corinth, 19V; cited before
Gallio, 195 ; his first epistle to the Thessa
lonians, 196 ; his second epistle, 200 ; his
controversy with Peter, 204 ; revisits An
tioch, 202-207 ; proceeds to Ephesus, 208 ;
his epistle to the Galatians, 213-217 ; con
troversy with Apollos, 220-222 ; second
visit to Corinth, 240 ; sends two epistles to
tho Coriuthians, 243-260 ; a spurious epis
tle of Paul's still retained by the Armenian

54-6

GENERAL INDEX.

Church, 242 ; his wish to visit Rome on his
way to Spain, 249; tumult at Ephesus
against Paul, 253; his journey to Macedo
nia, 257; vindicates his apostolic character,
260; proceeds to Achaii, 261; his last
journey to Jerusalem, 272 ; at Miletus he
convenes the Ephesian Episcopi, 274 ; pro
ceeds to Csesarea Stratonis, 279 ; thence to
Jerusalem, 279 ; interview with James,
281 ; undertakes a Nazarite's vow, 282 ;
his conduct before Ananias, 283 ; imprison
ed for two years by Felix, 285 ; brought
before Agrippa, 286 ; arrival at Rome, 287 ;
duration of his confinement there, 288;
his relation to the Roman state, 290; his
method of refuting error, 300 ; sends epis
tles to the Colossians and Ephesians, 302 ;
opposes the Judaizing Gnostics, 295-299 ;
released from his first imprisonment at
Rome, 306 ; visits Crete, 315; second con
finement at Rome, 317 ; martyrdom, 320 ;
his character contrasted with James's, 321 ;
his progressive knowledge, 434 ; not the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 333,
487; his views of justification compared
with those of James, 499 ; pre-eminently
the apostle ofthe Gentiles, 111, 112, 121.
Pauline doctrine, 481 ; justification and works
of the law, 382-385 ; meaning of the word
fie-sh, 385-387 ; human depravity, 337 ; the
fall of man, 383; connection between death
and sin, 391 ; revelation of God in creation,
392; the twofold principle in man, 393-
395 ; the state of bondage, 395 ; the true
use of the moral law, 399 ; hindrances
and conditions of salvation in both Jews and
heathens, 401-405 ; need of redemption of,
406-408 ; the work of redemption by Christ,
4u8— 118; the idea of reconciliation, 412-
418; the appropriation of salvation by faith,
419-421 : the new life proceeding from
faith, 421—434; the principles of the new
life, Faith, Love, Hope, 434—440 ; special
Christian virtues proceeding from these
principles, 441—446 ; the Church, and the
Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, 447-455 ; the kingdom of God, its
idea and extent, 455-459 ; the opposition of
the kingdom of God to the kingdom of
evil, 469—472 ; the development of the
kingdom of God till its final completion,
472—477 ; the doctrine of the resurrection
and the state of the soul after death, 479-
434 ; the end of the mediatorial kingdom
and the consummation of all things, 485-
437.
Pauline party at Coriuth, 220.
Pentecost, the origin of this feast, 8; the out
pouring of the Holy Spirit during its cele
bration, 10-20 ; the Church begun at, 7.
Perfection, Christian, 522.
Petal urn, or golden front-plate, worn by
John, 356.
Peter, the apostle, his parentage, 338 ; char
acter, 339-341; call to the apostleship, 339 ;
a married man, 343 ; discourse on the day of
Pentecost, 18; his healing ofthe lame man
and speech to the people, 39, 40 ; brought be
fore the Sanhedrim, 42 ; visits the churches
founded at Lydda, Joppa, and Ctesarea
Stratonis, 69 ; his vision at Joppa, 73 ; his
interview with Cornelius, 75 ; his relation
to Paul, 66, 67, 342 ; speech at the Apos

tolic Council, 125 ; his weakness at Corinth,
204; reprimanded by Paul, 205 ; his labors
in propagating the Gospel, 342; his first
Epistle, 343 ; on the canonicity of his sec
ond Epistle, 347 ; martyrdom, 348 ; on the
tradition of his visit to Rome, 349 ; and of
his wife's martyrdom, 353 ; pre-eminently
the apostle ofthe circumcision, 343.
Petrine party at Corinth, 219.
Pharaoh a warning to the Jews, 477.
Pharisees, at first not hostile to Christians,
38; their hostility awakened by Stephen,
49 ; the Pharisaic training of Paul, and its
consequences, 79, 82, 98, 171, 221, 381, 382,
393.
Philemon, overseer ofthe Church at Colosss,
291 ; epistle to, 293.
Philip, the deacon, his preaching and mir
acles at Samaria, 60 ; introduces the Gos
pel into Ethiopia, 64 ; among the Gentiles,
65 ; his daughters, 150.
Philippi, the Church there planted by Paul,
173-177; visited by Paul, 274.
Philippian jailor, his conversion by Paul, 176.
Philippians, Epistle to, written in prospect oi
martyrdom, 318.
Philo, on the Logos, 59, 462 ; his mysticism,
296 ; relation to Epistle to the Hebrews,
490, 496^93.
Phoebe, deaconess at Cenchrsea, 261.
Phrvgia, land ofthe Magi, 297 ; Paul in, 113,
170, 207, 241.
Pisidia, 113, 168.
Polycarp, a traditional anecdote from, respect
ing the apostle John, 364.
Polytheism, its character, 186 ; psychological
origin of, 187.
Prareas, his doctrinal views, 264.
Predestination, not prescience, with Paul, 478 ;
his meaning, 474-478.
Presbyters, or elders, their relation to tho
deacons, 32 ; probable origin of their office,
33,34; identical with bishops, 147 ; rela
tion to the " teachers," 151-155.
Priesthood, the, of believers, 134, 135, 447.
Pronhets in the early Church, their gifts and
offices, 35, 106, 138, 143.
Proselytes of the Gate, 70, 112, 114, 124, 173,
195.
Punishment, the idea of, 416.
Reconciliation, Paul's doctrine of, 412-417 ;
John's, 510, 517.
Redemption, Paul's doctrine of, 408-418 ;
John's, 414—418; the doctrine of, in He
brews, 492-495.
Restitution, final, of nature, 480.
Resurrection, the doctrine of, rejected by the
Pharisees, 38, 234; an offence to the Athe
nians, 189 ; opponents ot' the dootrine in
the Corinthian Church, 237-238; opponents
of the dootr'mo in 2d Tim, 319 ; the doctrine
in Paul's Epistles, 479-48 1 ; in John, 524-
526.
Resurrection, the, of Christ, its importance
to the apostles, 89 ; the transition point
with James, 326 ; pruotioil evidence oi
justification through him, 411 ; view of,
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 492 ; in the
Gospel of John, 526.
Righteousness, in the Old Testament sense,
205, 333 ; in Paul's sense, 333, 404 ; relation
of, and justification, 417 ; necessary distinc-

GENERAL INDEX.

547

tion between, and holiness, 430; the rights
eousness of Abraham, according to Paul
and James, 500 ; the ODenesfs of Paul's doc
trine of, with John's, 523 ; the ancient, idea
of, corresponds to love among the Chris
tian virtues, 446.
Romans, Epistle to the, on the canonicity of
the last two chapters, 261, 262 ; summary of
its leading topics, 265-263 ; Chap. ix. ex
pounded, 474, 475.
Rome, Christians not banished thence with
the Jews by Claudius, 192, 193 ; the Church
of, its earliest members, 263 ; Paul's inten
tion to visit them, 249, 261 ; the Pauline
doctrine originally professed there, 265 ;
Paul's Epistle to them, 265-271 ; practical
difference among them, 267-271 ; Paul at
Rome, 287-305 ; freed from his second im
prisonment there, 306-316 • second im
prisonment at, and martyrdom, 317-320 ;
tradition of Peter's martyrdom at, 348-355.
Sacraments, celebration of the, 160 ; Paul's
doctrine of, 451^155 • John's, 528-530.
Saddnceeism described, 238.
Sadducees, the first persecutors ofthe Church,
38, 45 ; opponents of doctrine ofthe resur
rection at Corinth, 238.
Salamis and Cyprus, 111.
Salvation, 417.
Samaria, introduction of the Gospel into, 53.
Satan, according to Paul, 469-472 ; in Epis
tle to the Hebrews, 492 ; according to
James, 507 ; to John, 510-511.
Sergius Paulus, his conversion, 112.
Shepherd of Hermas, 264,
Sicarii, notorious assassins, 276.
Silas, or Silvanus, Paul's fellow-laborer, 131,
168, 344, 352; the bearer of Peter's first
Epistle, 346.
Simon the Sorcerer, his character, 59-64 ; his
disputation with Peter, 351.
Simonianism, its pantheistic tendency, 24.
Sin, Paul's doctrine of, 385-408 ; its inex-
plicability, 465, 469 ; James's view of, 507,
508; John's, 523.
Slavery antagonistic to Christianity, 247.
Soteriology. See Belemption.
Soul, its state after death till the resurrec
tion, 481-484.
Spain, Paul's visit into, 250, 294, 307, 311,
312, 317.
Spirit, soul and body, 394 ; relation of flesh
and spirit in believers, 428.
Spirit, the Holy, outpourings of, at Pentecost,
10; on the Samaritans, 62; on Cornelius
and his, 76 ; on the disciples of John at
Ephesus, 211 ; not magical, but according
to law in its operation, 22, 47, 91, 150.
Spirits, a world of, relationof kingdom of God
to, 459.
Stephanas and his family, 146, 156, 162.
Stephen, the proto-martyr, 47-57 ; the fore
runner of Paul, 50.
Stoic philosophers at Athens, 183.
Sufferings ofChrist, doctrine of the, in Paul s

writings, 408-410 ; in Epistle to the He
brews, 494, 495 ; in John, 517, 518.
Sunday, origin of its religious observance,
158, 159.
Svnagogue, how far it was a model for tho
"first churches, 28-30, 32-34.
Syria and Cilieia, 130, 131.
Tarsus, 80, 103, 177.
Teachers (6i6atr«-aAoi), their office, 35 ; main
tained by the Church, 154.
Tertullian, his testimony respecting Peter's
manner of death, 348 ; on speaking with
tongues, 17.
Thessalonica, the Church there visited by
Paul and Silas, 178 ; Paul sends Timothy
to, 191; his painful report from, 196;
Paul's first Epistle to this Church, 196 ; his
second, 200.
Theudas's sedition, 45.
Timothy, Paul's fellow-laborer, 168, 169 ; at
Philippi, 177, 182; at Corinth, 250, 251 ;
at Rome, 308 ; his Mission to Macedonia
and Achaia, 250 ; Paul's second Epistle to
him, 306-310; on the canonicity of his first
Epistle, 312-314 ; his release from confine
ment, 320.
Titus, his circumcision opposed by Paul,
124; who chooses him as a fellow-laborer.
121; is the bearer of an Epistle from Paul
to the Corinthians, 253, 259 ; left at Crete
by Paul, 315 ; Epistle to him, 315-317.
Tongues, supernatural gift of, on the feast of
Pentecost, 11-18 ; at Corinth, 13 ; overesti
mated at Corinth, 237.
Trichotomy of man, Paul's, 394.
Trinity, the basis of the doctrine, worship
ping the Father through the Son by tho
Holy Spirit, 530.
Troas, 173, 257, 274, 309.
Trophimus, 283, 309.
Truth, John's fundamental idea of, 509.
Truthfulness. See Veracity.
Tychicus, a missionary assistant of Paul, and
bearer of the Epistles to the Colossians and
the Ephesians, 302.
Tyrannus, the rhetorician, 209.
Veracity, as taught by Paul and James, 506.
Virtues, the cardinal, 445, 446.
Vision, the, of Stephen, 59 ; of Cornelius, 72 ;
of Peter, 74; of Paul at Damascus, 92 ; in
the temple, 103 ; at Troas, 173 ; that men
tioned in 2d Corinthians not identical with
Paul's on the way to Damascus, 88.
Vow, Paul's explained, 202, 282.
Will, freedom of, not denied by Paul, 477 ;
specially taught by James, 507.
Wisdom, 444, 445.
Women not allowed to speak in public as
semblies, 149, 154, 236.
Work of Christ, the, 408-411. i
Wrath of God, the, 414. [•
, Zeds, the tutelar deity of Lystra, 118. t

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02185 8304

ssrao

"¦f r:>. -;•-

fc^B

MS

hMv£3>t

':<7'b, ?'-§*,-,

says s
' ^-'"'Vv
^ >:ffi>-*-"®<4#:---

^P

:>¦¦;?• „-

M

^L S A"

«^#