B^<:'U^Vi' ' hi^ j-.i-; [■'■■.■ ' : ' 
 
 lillliy'^:^ 
 
 
 
 ■ 'P»',:i;j>!iH5' 
 
 n-i 
 
 WSmm 
 
 ||i I ftl 
 
^•< OF pfli#5 
 
 -^QataLSE^^J 
 
 BS 2651 .L4 1869 
 
 
 Leathes, Stanley, 
 
 1830-1900. 
 
 The witness of St, 
 
 . Paul to 
 
 Christ 
 
 
THE BOYLE LECTURES 
 For 1 869 
 
R I V I N G T O N S 
 
 London mucrloo Phue 
 
 Oxford high Street 
 
 Cambridge Trh.ity Street 
 
THE WITNESS OF ST. PAUL 
 TO CHRIST 
 
 Being t]^c ^ovlt Htcturtfi for 1869 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX 
 ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ACTS 
 
 IN REPLY TO THE RECENT STRICTURES OF DR. DAVIDSON 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. STANLEY LEATHES, M.A. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON 
 AND PREACHER-ASSISTANT, ST. JAMES's, PICCADILLY 
 
 RIVINGTONS 
 iContJon, (©)rforlJ, antr CamferiiJge 
 
 1869. 
 
EXTRACT 
 
 FROM 
 
 A CODICIL TO THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HONOURABLE ROBERT BOYLE, Esq., 
 
 Dated July 28, 169L 
 
 '^ 'T'TTHEREAS I have an intention to settle in my 
 f f lifetime the sum of Fifty Pounds per annum for 
 ever, or at least for a considerable number of years, to be 
 for an annual salary for some learned Divine or Preaching 
 Minister, from time to time to be elected and resident within 
 the City of London or circuit of the Bills of Mortality, who 
 shall be enjoined to perform the offices following, viz. — 
 To preach Eight Sermons in the year, for Proving the 
 Christian Religion against notorious Infidels, viz. Atheists, 
 Theists, Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, not descending 
 lower to any controversies that are among Christians 
 themselves ; these Lectures to be on the first Monday of 
 the respective months of January, February, March, April, 
 May, September, October, November, in such church as 
 my trustees herein named shall from time to time appoint; 
 to be assisting to all Companies, and encouraging of them 
 
 a 
 
\\ Extract from the Will of Robe7't Boyle, Esq. 
 
 in any undertaking for Propagating tlie Christian Religion 
 in foreign parts ; to be ready to satisfy such real scruples 
 as any may have concerning these matters, and to answer 
 such new objections and difficulties as may be started, to 
 
 which good answers have not yet been made 
 
 .... I will that after my death Sir John Rotherham, 
 Sergeant-at-Law, Sir Henry Ashurst, of London, Knight 
 and Baronet, Thomas Tennison, Doctor in Divinity, and 
 John Evel}Ti, sen., Esq., and the survivors or survivor of 
 them, and such person or persons as the survivor of them 
 shall appoint to succeed in the following trust, shall have 
 the election and nomination of such Lecturer, and also 
 shall and may constitute and appoint him for any term not 
 exceeding three years, and at the end of such term shall 
 make a new election and appointment of the same or any 
 other learned Minister of the Gospel, residing within 
 the City of London or extent of the Bills of Mortality, 
 at their discretions." - 
 
 [Note. — By an arrangement of the Bishop of London, 
 the Boyle Lectures are now delivered annually at the 
 Chapel Royal, Whitehall, in the afternoons of Sundays 
 after Easter, at the discretion of the Preacher. The 
 delivery of the following Lectures commenced the Fourth 
 Sunday after Easter, and terminated the Third Sunday 
 after Trinity.] 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TN" Lectures of the nature of those contained in 
 the present Volume, the writer is met by 
 two difficulties. In the first place he has to 
 preach to Christians, but to deliver such an argu- 
 ment as may be unassailable by those who are 
 not Christians ; he must assume a certain amount 
 of faith in his hearers, but none at all in his 
 readers. Secondly, he is forbidden by the con- 
 ditions of his office to meddle with "controversies 
 that are among Christians themselves;" though 
 in endeavouring to " prove the Christian rehgion" 
 he cannot but assume that it has certain limits, 
 which being transgressed, it ceases to be Chris- 
 tian; that it possesses certain features, which 
 being obliterated, it can no longer be recognised ; 
 for otherwise, how could "the Christian religion" 
 
 be, in the smallest degree, distinguishable from 
 
 a 2 
 
viii Preface 
 
 " Atheism, Theism," or any other of the specified 
 forms of unbehef with which he has to contend ? 
 And yet in the present day no one can be igno- 
 rant that this is the very " controversy" that is 
 much, if not mainly, debated " among Christians 
 themselves." 
 
 In other words, we are fallen on times in which 
 the danger to Christianity does not lie so mnch 
 from without as from within ; it arises rather 
 from its professed friends than from its open 
 enemies. In saying this we are simply giving 
 utterance to a conviction that is forced upon us, 
 and not speaking under the influence of any party- 
 prejudice, or even of special attachment to any 
 one form of Christian belief. There are com- 
 paratively few who would venture to assume an 
 attitude of professed hostility to Christ. The 
 tendency is rather to assume that His meaning 
 and intention must have been other than it is 
 represented and believed to have been by any of 
 the recognised Creeds, Churches, or Sects of 
 Christendom. In this assumption we are asked 
 not only to surrender the genuineness of the most 
 cherished writings of the New Testament ; such. 
 
Preface ix 
 
 for example, as tlie Gospel of St. John, the Acts 
 of the Apostles, or the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 but even the traditional and familiar portrait of 
 Christ preserved to us in the so-called synoptical 
 Grospels ; not only the last fragments and vestiges 
 of any theory of Inspiration whatever, but even 
 the position of Scripture, in whole or in part, as 
 a standard of doctrine, as of final authority in 
 matters of faith ^ ; not only particular ideas and 
 
 ^ It is this Avhich is implicitly denied by Dr. Davidson, 
 Introd. to the Study of New Testament, vol. i., Preface, p. ix. 
 " When these records are held to be absolutely correct in all 
 " matters, whether historical or speculative, scientific or 
 " doctrinal, they acquire a supernatural and fictitious pre- 
 " eminence similar to that which is conferred on the pope by 
 " the theory of papal infallibility ; they are called God's word 
 " throughout, which they never claim to be, and thus free 
 " inquiry into their credibility is at once checked or suppressed. 
 " God's word is in the Scriptures ; all Scripture is not the 
 " word of God. The writers were inspired in various degrees, 
 " and are therefore not all equally trustworthy (juides to belief 
 " and conduct^ The italics are ours. Let us take, then, the 
 Epistles to Rome and Galatia. Are these " absolutely correct " 
 in doctrinal matters, or are they not ? Are they " trustworthy 
 guides to belief and conduct," or are they not ? These are 
 the questions we want answered. If these Epistles, for 
 example, are not trustworthy, it is absurd to pretend to pay 
 higher deference to other portions of Scripture, for these come 
 with a human authority second to none ; and if these are 
 untrustworthy, none are trustworthy ; and if these are not to 
 be trusted, there is nothing that we can trust but ourselves, 
 
X Preface 
 
 notions derived from or suggested by the formu- 
 lated expressions of systematic theology, such as 
 many of those connected witli the doctrines of 
 Sacrifice, Atonement, the Trinity, and the like, 
 but even the very fact of our Lord's Resurrection 
 itself ^ And all this in the name of freedom, pro- 
 
 our own ■wisdom, our own judgment. There is, therefore, 
 confessedly no standard for faith. It is useless to appeal to 
 Scripture for deciBion in matters of faith ; for the faith is 
 determined before we appeal to Scripture. Thus not only the 
 genuineness of certain books or passages is called in question, 
 but the authority of Scripture as a whole is overthrown j there 
 is at once an end to all religious controversy, " a consummation 
 devoutly to be wished," if it were not at the expense of all 
 certainty about any religious truth, save that only which seems 
 certain to ourselves. Again, the illustration draAvn from papal 
 infallibility is not altogether happy, for it is perfectly certain 
 that many zealous Catholics would demur to the notion of the 
 Pope's (personal) infallibility, though every zealous Catholic 
 w^ould be devoted in his allegiance to the Pope. So many a 
 sincere and earnest Christian might demur to the absolute 
 infallibility of the Bible, but every such Christian must and 
 ought to be devout and honest in his allegiance to the Bible, 
 as a " trustworthy guide to belief and conduct." The question 
 is manifestly one of degi'ee ; but it is surely wrong, under 
 colour of attacking a superstitious reverence for the Bible, to 
 overthrow by implication every vestige of the authority of the 
 Bible. And it is against this that we protest, whether it is 
 done in the name of " criticism " or of any thing else. 
 
 ' " Others more speculative, but not less honest, will resolve 
 " the fact into a spiritual resurrection having the souls of the 
 " disciples for its theatre ; finding an explanation of that state 
 
Preface xi 
 
 gress, love of truth, the claims of science, zeal for 
 the best interests of Christianity, and consistent 
 
 " of mind in the natural reaction necessarily following the first 
 " impression of the death of Jesus, psychologically possible. 
 " They will attribute visions of the risen Jesus, narrated in the 
 " gospels, to popular imagination, conceiving that the memoirs 
 " could not but depict him in a form more or less corporeal. 
 " Feeling the force of objections to the reanimation of a body, 
 " of the contradictory statements of the evangelists, the 
 " different points of view taken in Paul's epistles, and the 
 " existence of a predisjiosition to visions in the first Christian 
 " believers, they will hesitate to accept the literal. But not 
 " the less Avill they maintain that Christianity does- not fall 
 " Avith the denial of the resurrection ; especially as the fact is 
 " reported in a manner so contradictory, and susceptible of 
 " different interpretations. A thing surrounded with historical 
 *' and other difficulties will not be made a corner-stone in the 
 " edifice. And they are right, if the superior dignity of Jesus 
 " rests upon his stainless conscience, his life of love and purity, 
 " his words of truth, his embodiment of the Father to mankind ; 
 " if the glorious manifestation of divine love in a human 
 " person be the essence of his biography ; if he be ' the express 
 " image ' of the Almighty." Davidson, Introd. to New Testa- 
 ment, ii. 40, 41. The question arises. Are we to accept this for 
 Christianity, or are we not ? If we are. What guarantee have 
 we that our Christianity will not shortly suiTcnder Christ, as 
 it has already surrendered the fact of His resurrection ? We 
 join issue on this broad principle, Whether or not the historic 
 resurrection— the "reanimation" of the " body " of Jesus is 
 " a corner-stone in the edifice" ? — Whether or not "they are 
 right " who deny it, or explain it away, or regard it as a non- 
 essential, "feeling the force of objections to" it ? From such 
 quasi-Christianity as this we thankfully turn to Mr. Westcott's 
 profoundly philosophical " Gospel of the Resurrection." 
 
xii Preface 
 
 devotion to the teaching and example of even 
 Christ Himself. 
 
 Now the question arises, "Whether the Lecturer 
 on Boyle's foundation is stepping out of his pro- 
 vince in venturing to combat these positions? 
 The writer of the present Lectures not only 
 believes he is not, but entirely fails to see how 
 the argument for Christianity can be maintained, 
 if they are to be left unassailed and treated as 
 purely open questions. Wliat is there to defend if 
 every thing is to be surrendered ? Oh, it is said, 
 the spirit of Christianity and the morality of the 
 Gospel. But the morality of the Gospel, nay, 
 even the moral character of Christ Himself, has 
 not escaped unattacked. Are we to give up tMsy 
 or are we to defend it? Assuredly, we cannot 
 defend it consistently if we are to surrender the 
 fact of Christ's Resurrection ; unless we give up 
 also the most prominent assertions of even the 
 synoptical Gospels, that is, unless we give up the 
 very documents that contain the morality of the 
 Gospel, which is a simple paradox ; for morality 
 so defended becomes no longer that of the Gospel, 
 but a morality of our own, the principles of which 
 
Preface xiii 
 
 may be stated as we please, and not as the 
 Gospels state them. 
 
 Or again, Where are we to find the spirit of 
 Christianity if the standard of every age since the 
 first is to be rejected, if the Epistles of St. Paul 
 are to be repudiated as correct expressions of this 
 spirit, if the first age itself is held to be falsely 
 represented even in the Gospels and the Acts, if 
 the very writings, from which alone we can ascer- 
 tain what it was are to be regarded as suspicious, 
 unauthentic, unreliable, or inaccurate. It is patent 
 that such a spirit can only be called by courtesy 
 the spirit of Christianity, for it becomes, pro- 
 fessedly, an invention, a discovery of our own, 
 which is but partially expressed in the documents, 
 partially developed by the exercise of our own 
 ingenuity. For this Christianity does not even 
 claim to be primitive; it is the product of the 
 spirit of the age and a certain unauthorised ideal 
 of the character of Christ, which varies as the spirit 
 of the age varies. And this from the nature of the 
 case cannot be defended, because it is professedly 
 the subject of a progressive variation, for which 
 sufficient and unlimited allowance must be made. 
 
xiv Preface 
 
 We are reduced, therefore, to this dilemma ; 
 that the very nature of principles such as these 
 precludes the possibility of any stand being made 
 for faith any where ; there is nothing in Chris- 
 tianity thus understood, which can be defended, 
 for there is nothing which must not, upon prin- 
 ciple, be regarded as purely open. And then, in 
 this case, the fulfilment of an oflGlce provided 
 ostensibly for the defence of some Christianity 
 becomes an actual impossibihty, and a contradic- 
 tion in terms. The intentions of Boyle cannot be 
 carried out, for the progress of criticism, so-called, 
 can recognise no limits, the supremacy of reason 
 knows of no restraint, and so the barriers are 
 broken down between the religion which his Lec- 
 tureship was founded to maintain, and those it 
 was appointed to refute. 
 
 The writer felt, then, that he was not stepping 
 out of his province if, in the course of argument, 
 he attacked positions which are indeed now main- 
 tained among Christians themselves, but which 
 seemed to him to be fatal to Christianity. That, 
 for instance, must surely be a very spurious kind 
 of Christianity which can be content to surrender 
 
Preface rv 
 
 the reality of our Lord's Resurrection as an his- 
 toric fact. And yet, as we have seen, there are 
 those who would do so in tlie name of Christ. 
 What, then, is the course to be adopted by him 
 who speaks in memory of Boyle on behalf of 
 Christ? Is he to surrender the Resurrection or 
 is he not ? If he takes his stand on this fact as 
 on a rock, he at once finds himself involved in 
 " controversies that are among Christians ;" and 
 yet how can he do otherwise in speaking for 
 Christ, for "if Christ be not raised our faith is 
 vain, we are yet in our sins." Not, however, that 
 these words themselves are of any weight to 
 decide the case, because on the hypothesis they 
 are to be regarded merely as the expression of an 
 individual opinion which is subject to the critical 
 correction of our own. They were the utterance 
 of a Pauline sentiment, not of a Divine truth. 
 Now if a man chooses to maintain this, are we to 
 consider ourselves absolved from the duty of con- 
 tending with him merely because he is pleased to 
 call himself a Christian ? If so, verily, the Lec- 
 tureship which was founded by Boyle becomes 
 an obsolete superfluity. The frontier between 
 "the Christian religion" and "Theism," or any 
 
xvi Preface 
 
 thing else, becomes of the vaguest and most in- 
 definite character. It is impossible to say where 
 the one begins, or where the other ends ^ They 
 are so blended as to be indistinguishable ; and the 
 only regions to be avoided are those beyond this 
 frontier, where the Christianity becomes distinc- 
 tively Christian, where it gathers round and 
 centres in Christ, as the one fountain of hfe, and 
 the highest object of worship. 
 
 And it cannot be doubted that, in the present 
 
 ' Dr. Davidson himself feels the need of fixing a limit some- 
 where, though he does not decide where. He eays in his Pre- 
 face, p. ix, "Not that a religion can exist apart from some theo- 
 " logy. Still the amount of theology needed to constitute a 
 " religion may he indefinitely small. If men could see that the 
 *' Spirit of God neither dwelt exclusively in apostles, nor rendered 
 " them infallihle, however highly gifted they may have hcen, the 
 " sacred records would be less distorted, and different values 
 " would be assigned to the several parts of the volume according 
 " to their nature." No one supposes the Apostles were infallible, 
 the records prove the contrary. But for all that, the Gospel 
 delivered by them may have been, and been intended to be, 
 authoritative; and this also the records prove, if we will accept 
 them. But it is plainly inconsistent to accept the evidence of 
 the records to disprove the authority, and not accept that 
 evidence to establish it. If the basis of theology is to be 
 ^^ indi^nitely small," what is to prevent it from becoming nil? 
 Surely the Apostles' Creed is a basis "small" enough, but 
 What does it not include ? 
 
Preface xvii 
 
 day, there is a strong current of religious tliouglit 
 setting in this direction. While one large section 
 of the Church is mistaking the aesthetic for the 
 spiritual, and seeking to develope the internal by 
 paying homage to the outward, the sensuous, and 
 the visible, another is altogether confounding 
 the provinces of the intellect and the spirit, sub- 
 ordinating the spirit to the intellect, and doing its 
 best to extinguish and suppress the development 
 of that faculty which is the distinctive glory of 
 man, inasmuch as, in his spiritual nature, he is 
 made after the image of God, and in that nature 
 alone can be restored to God's image. But it is 
 to this spiritual nature pre-eminently, if not ex- 
 clusively, that the writings of the New Testament 
 appeal. They were all, without exception, in the 
 first instance, addressed to persons who claimed 
 to have been endowed with a new spirit, to have 
 had their spiritual nature developed by this 
 endowment. They were addressed, therefore, to 
 persons who, to a certain extent, were prepared 
 for the message they conveyed. The soil in 
 which the seed was sown had been under a 
 process of spiritual cultivation. The Christian 
 writings were writings addressed to the initiated. 
 
xviii Preface 
 
 " We speak wisdom among them that are per- 
 fect *." The Christians were men who called them- 
 selves " the enlightened," " the illuminated." It 
 is plain, therefore, that we make no unwarrant- 
 able assumption if we demand, as an indis- 
 pensable pre-requisite for appreciating these writ- 
 ings, a share in a corresponding illumination. 
 " For the natural man receiveth not the things of 
 the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto 
 him : neither can he know them, because they are 
 spiritually discerned." But it is this unquestion- 
 able fact that the whole attitude of criticism dis- 
 regards or even denies. It leaves out altogether 
 the spiritual faculty, by which alone these writings 
 can be duly appreciated or rightly apprehended. 
 We make no harsh assertion in saying this, for 
 it is manifestly and confessedly the method of 
 criticism so to do. It regards the exercise of the 
 spiritual faculty as an assumption, a pre-concep- 
 tion, at once improper and unscientific. That is 
 to say, criticism assumes that Scripture which, 
 on its own showing, appeals to an exceptional 
 illumination, a prepared state of mind, can be best 
 understood in neglect of and without it. Surely 
 
 ' 1 Cor. ii. 6. 
 
Preface xix 
 
 by far the most unreasonable assumption, a con- 
 clusion the most unscientific. 
 
 But it may be said, that if Scripture thus 
 appeals to the initiated, it is useless for the unini- 
 tiated to attempt to deal with it. And yet not so, 
 for this reason, though Scriptm^e is addressed 
 directly to those who are possessed of a spirit 
 kindred to that in which it is written, yet it seeks 
 also to foster and beget that spirit. It does not 
 appeal to a faculty of which man is naturally 
 destitute, but to one which needs developing, and 
 which it promises to develope. It does not 
 address itself mainly to the intellect, the under- 
 standing, the taste, or the judgment of man, but 
 to his feelings ^and his reason, his conscience and 
 his will. If, therefore, the feelings and the con- 
 science are studiously held in restraint, and ex- 
 cluded in dealing with Scripture (which is con- 
 spicuously the attitude of criticism, for criticism 
 appeals only to the understanding and the rea- 
 son), it necessarily follows that the special object of 
 Scripture is not attained, the very faculties of man, 
 to which it is directly addressed, are not reached, 
 and the special message of Scripture is not received. 
 
XX Preface 
 
 It is obvious, that in studying any book what- 
 ever we must, as far as possible, assimilate our- 
 selves to those whom it contemplates addressing. 
 Now it is expressly alleged, to the discredit of the 
 early Christians to whom the writings of the New 
 Testament were addressed, that they were uncri- 
 tical. If therefore in our study of these writings 
 we assume merely the frigid posture of criticism, 
 we shaU manifestly place the subject of our study 
 at a disadvantage. We shaU certainly not under- 
 stand it better, but worse than we otherwise 
 should do. For we shall approach it without 
 that very qualification which it assumed to exist, 
 and which it endeavoured to develope; and ob- 
 viously so far we shall be unjust to it, and shall 
 do it \aolence. " These things wece written that 
 ye might believe, and that believing, j^e might 
 have life through His Name." They were not 
 written that we might ca\al, and that the result 
 of our ca\dlling might be the not impossible or 
 unreasonable conviction that life through His 
 Name was a delusion and a mistake. And yet if 
 the writer's object was " that ye might believe," 
 the critic's object of regarding the matters pro- 
 posed for belief as entirely open or possibly false 
 
Preface xxi 
 
 was manifestly and altogether excluded from it. 
 The two objects can have nothing in common, the 
 one must be out of harmony with the other. 
 And certainly the total unconsciousness on the 
 part of the writer of the probability of any result 
 but that of belief following the perusal of what he 
 records, is one of the strongest marks of sincerity 
 on his part, and of veracity in the narrative. 
 The existence of any sinister or interested motive 
 is absolutely impossible. And therefore to as- 
 sume that the purely Christian motive was itself 
 a wrong one, is fatal not only to superstition 
 but to Christianity. 
 
 Now it would seem that nothing can be more 
 needful in the present day than clearly to under- 
 stand what is, and what is not, compatible with 
 Christianity. For example, — to believe that St. 
 John wrote the fourth Gospel may be an open 
 question, to be determined by evidence ; but to 
 accept the teaching of the fourth Gospel as truly 
 and rightly Christian, is another matter altoge- 
 ther, and cannot be regarded as an open question, 
 so far as we ourselves are disciples of the ivriter, 
 
 that is to say, so far as his purpose, " that ye 
 
 b 
 
•yyii Preface 
 
 might believe," is fulfilled in us. The one is 
 strictly a question of criticism, the other is a 
 question of faith, into which criticism has no 
 business to obtrude itself, unless indeed we are 
 wilHng to build our faith on nothing but criticism, 
 and then faith,. properly speaking, is no longer 
 faith. The fourth Gospel may be true, whether 
 it was written by St. John or by any one else. 
 How then is the question of its truth affected by 
 the question, AYho wrote it ? They who would 
 make its truth to turn upon its authenticity, are 
 really mixing up two independent questions, 
 which have nothing in common. But how very 
 frequent is it for "criticism" to throw out in- 
 sinuations against the teaching of the fourth 
 Gospel under cover of attacks upon its authen- 
 ticity, which is assumed to be a doubtful point. 
 Is this fair in the first place, and is it wise in the 
 second ? 
 
 Let us suppose, for example, a reader in the 
 second century meeting with the fourth Gospel; 
 he reads it, and is led thereby to adopt the 
 writer's point of view as his own; perhaps he 
 does not ask who wrote it, for he is not " cri- 
 
Preface xxiii 
 
 tical," but the teaching of the Gospel has justified 
 itself in him, for he has found those words of it to 
 be iriie^ " As many as received Him, to them gave 
 He power to become the sons of God, even to 
 them that believe on His name : which were born, 
 not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of 
 the will of man, but of God," and he forthwith 
 becomes, or rather has become, a Christian ; but 
 What have his faith and the irresistible, unim- 
 peachable evidence by which it is confirmed to 
 him got to do with the Johannine authorship of 
 the Gospel ? He is a Christian, he is not a 
 Johannine Christian ; for the authority even of St. 
 John is as nothing to him compared with That 
 authority which the unknown writing has re- 
 vealed to him. That writing has brought him 
 into contact and union with One far greater, far 
 higher, far truer, than St. John ; and inestimably 
 precious as the writing is, that writing has made 
 him conscious of One greater even than itself, 
 who is Lord of his being, and the Fountain of his 
 life, from whom, and not from the writing, his 
 spiritual existence is derived, and by whom it is 
 sustained. Having, however, been led by the 
 
 writing unto Him, he cannot turn round upon the 
 
 b 2 
 
xxiv Preface 
 
 writing and disbelieve it; because, if he, did so, he 
 would disbelieve Kim. Certain passages in the 
 writing may be difficult, certain statements may 
 be hard to believe, certain words, verses, or por- 
 tions, may be spurious, but as a whole, the drift 
 and tenour of the writing are manifest, and if he 
 is sure of the Person to whom these point, he is, 
 comparatively speaking, independent of, and in- 
 diflferent to, all else. Least of all can he be per- 
 suaded that his belief is a delusion, because he is 
 assured on "critical" grounds, of which he knows 
 nothing, that the fourth Gospel was not written 
 by St. John, for he never gave a thought to the 
 question whether or not it was. Surely such a 
 case as this is conceivable, and, if conceivable, not 
 without its moral. 
 
 Let it not, however, for one moment be sup- 
 posed that we are willing to surrender the fourth 
 Gospel as the work of St. John. Criticism 
 assumes far too much when it assumes, as a 
 closed question, that he was not the author of it. 
 We do no such thing. We merely take this 
 Gospel as a notorious instance and a specimen 
 case in point, to show the nature of the ground 
 
Preface xxv 
 
 we wish to occupy. Tlie argument in the present 
 Lectures has not led us into the discussion, or 
 the defence, of the authenticity of St. John's 
 Gospel, but we are quite sure that if, in tlih par- 
 ticular, our ground is solid and safe, it cannot fail 
 us in any point of lesser importance. 
 
 Shall we then call the credibility of the Acts 
 of the Apostles a point of lesser importance? 
 It can hardly be so. Here again the autliorship 
 is a matter of secondary consequence; but the 
 credibility of the book it is, perhaps, hardly pos- 
 sible to over-estimate. For this reason, there- 
 fore, the latest strictures of Dr. Davidson have 
 been examined in the Appendix, because some 
 assertions in the Lectures seemed to make this 
 desirable ; and the result, it will be seen, tends to 
 show that the critical objections and difficulties 
 raised by him and others are certainly not of a 
 kind to warrant the very confident assertions that 
 have been advanced. In this case again, how- 
 ever, we must remind the reader of the exact 
 nature of the issue at stake. Let it be granted 
 that the Acts of the Apostles were written as late 
 as A.D. 125, that the work is a composite work. 
 
xxvi Preface 
 
 that tlie miraculous elements in it are liiglily 
 exaggerated, if not wholly false — then what fol- 
 lows ? Certainly not that which Baur and David- 
 son would have us believe, namely, that a policy 
 of conciHation between the disciples of Peter and 
 Paul had been the moving object with the writer, 
 because in this case imaginary circumstances are 
 invented to account for an imaginary motive — we 
 have no reason to believe that the divergence 
 was so great as it suits this theory to imagine, 
 the chief if not the only foundation for it is dis- 
 covered in the second chapter of the Epistle to 
 the Galatians, the significance of which is unduly 
 magnified; — but that manifestly at that period 
 there was living an author capable of conceiving 
 and executing a work of such surpassing beauty, 
 that M. Renan himself has most happily called it 
 the "Evangelical Odyssey^;" — that with regard 
 
 ' The whole passage from Renau is well worth quoting : — 
 " La gaiete, la jeunesse de coeur que respireut ces odyssees 
 ^vangeliques furent quelque chose de nouveau, d'original et de 
 charmaut. Les Actes des Apvtres, expression de ce premier elan 
 de la conscience chretienne, sent un livre de joie, d'ardeur 
 sereine. Depuis les i^oemes homeriques on n'avait pas vu 
 d'ocuvre pleine de sensations aussi fraiches. Uue brise matinale, 
 uue odeur de mer, si j'ose le dire, inspirant quelque chose 
 d'allcgre et de fort, peuetre tout le livre, et en fait un excellent 
 
Preface xxvii 
 
 to the supposed idea of his work he stood alone 
 among all contemporary writers, inasmuch as, 
 while we have instances of a tendency to extract 
 the moral and spiritual truth enshrined in his- 
 tories and legends, such for example, as the doc- 
 trine of the Resurrection from the story of the 
 phoenix and the like, we have no single instance 
 of the converse process being adopted, which is 
 the assumption here ; — that in spite of this writer's 
 consummate ingenuity in the setting of broken 
 fragments, it was nevertheless insufficient to 
 escape the detection of acute critics whose micro- 
 scopic perception invents where it cannot dis- 
 cover, and in spite of his great superiority to all 
 sub-Apostolic Christian writers, his merit was 
 so little appreciated, his hold on his own time 
 so feeble, that every vestige of his name and 
 personal history was suffered to perish, while 
 writers of far inferior claims have been remem- 
 
 compagnon de voyage, le breviaire exquis de celui qui poi;r- 
 suit des traces antiques sur les mers du Midi. Ce fut la seconde 
 poesie du cbristianisme. Le lac de Tiberiade et ses barques 
 de pecheurs avaient fourni la premiere. Maiutenant, un souffle 
 plus puissant, des aspirations vers les terres plus lointaines nous 
 entrainent en haute mer." Saint Paul, p. 12, Our first 
 thought on reading this is, How veiy beautiful if only true ! 
 our second, How much more beautiful because true ! 
 
xxviii Preface 
 
 bered, and wliile from the evidence before us we 
 know tliat not one of ilioa was equal to the 
 production of such a work as the Acts of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 Surely these facts are stumbling-blocks of some 
 magnitude, which lie across the path of him who 
 would adopt the proposed theory. But sup- 
 posing them to be surmounted, is " the light 
 which lighteth every man" so quenched within us 
 that we cannot recognise the intensity of Divine 
 Truth which shines in every part of this cele- 
 brated Treatise with a brilliancy which at once 
 penetrates and reproves us ? If this be so, then, 
 verily, though an angel from heaven had written 
 it, he would have written it in vain for us. It is 
 not that the supposed critical difficulties are so 
 great as to obscure the truth ; but rather the 
 truth, which shines on its own authority, finds so 
 little place in the spiritual nature, that the mind 
 fastens on every pretext which may serve to 
 lessen its intensity. " The Light shineth in the 
 darkness, but the darkness comprehendeth it 
 not." It were absurd to suppose, if all the cri- 
 tical difficulties alleged were valid, and if they 
 
Preface xxix 
 
 were twice as weighty as tliey are, that tliey 
 could avail to neutralise the force of the manifest 
 spiritual truth which every where pervades this 
 book. For even if it does not show historically 
 what belief in the name of Jesus did^ it does at 
 least show us what belief in the name of Jesus 
 cxm avail to do. And if that belief is as potent as 
 the Acts of the Apostles falsely represent it to 
 have been, it is useless attempting to prove the 
 contrary by daring allegations of such falsehood, 
 for the point that is denied is capable of being 
 proved, on other grounds, to be true. If the 
 Acts of the Apostles have taught Us this, though 
 not otherwise, we can afford to surrender not 
 only the Apostolic origin of the book, but even its 
 credibility. That were indeed an extreme, but by 
 no means an impossible, position. It is, there- 
 fore, utterly unfair and disingenuous to insinuate 
 that the spiritual authority of the book is de- 
 stroyed or lessened because its historical authority 
 is impaired. That would be the case if its spiri- 
 tual authority were not capable of being esta- 
 blished experimentally — a fact, however, to which 
 the conscience of every Christian can bear inde- 
 pendent witness. 
 
XXX Preface 
 
 The attacks that are now made upon the first 
 Christian documents, and the distress of mind 
 in many persons consequent thereupon, point 
 from opposite directions to one and the same 
 truth, namely, that the main function of Scripture 
 has been forgotten. "Ye search the Scriptures, 
 for in tliem ye think ye have eternal life, and they 
 are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come 
 to Me, that ye might have light." These preg- 
 nant words reveal to us the real mistake. We 
 have not taken the Scriptures as a means, but 
 as an end. They have not led us to Cheist ; and 
 therefore, feeling that they have not done so, we 
 are over-anxious at the thought of being de- 
 prived of them, because we think, and think 
 rightly, that we cannot reach Him without them. 
 But if they had really led us to Christ, we should 
 know full well that even their loss could not 
 deprive us of Him whom they had revealed to us. 
 Our hold of Him would be independent of them, 
 if it were once effectual. Our gi'asp, if firm, 
 could not be relaxed, for we should grasp not 
 them but Him. On the other hand, having 
 really found Christ through the Scriptures, we 
 should love the Scriptures for Christ's sake. AVe 
 
Preface xxxi 
 
 should not liglitly surrender them. We should 
 not cavil at every little difficulty, and eagerly ex- 
 aggerate it, as if we thought, or wished to think, 
 that the validity of the obvious message con- 
 veyed by Scripture was affected thereby. We 
 should not, in the absence of extraneous light on 
 matters of authorship and the like, shut our eyes 
 to the transcendent brilliancy of the inherent 
 light which Scripture carries with it. In trying 
 to measure the exact amount of human authority, 
 we should not be forgetful of the manifest Divine 
 authority, without which the highest human autho- 
 rity, if established, would be worthless, and with 
 which the lowest human authority would be 
 paramount. 
 
 For example, it seems impossible to believe that 
 a person who really took in, and was convinced 
 of, the spiritual truths contained in the Acts — such, 
 for instance, as tlie omnipotence of the name of 
 Jesus as a resting-place for faith, and a motive for 
 action — could for a moment be persuaded that such 
 a theory as the one advanced gave the true ex- 
 planation of the origin of the book ; still less that 
 the probability of that theory being correct could 
 
xxxii Preface 
 
 weigh with him so much as to neutralise the force 
 of the spiritual truths contained in it, if they had 
 been once received. Even supposing that the 
 evidence for the traditional and the theoretical 
 origin was evenly balanced, one would think that 
 the manifest spiritual truth contained in the Acts 
 would tend to show which origin was most pro- 
 bably correct. How much more, then, does the 
 presence of such truth go to prove (in the entire 
 want of every thing hke evidence for the theory) 
 that the traditional origin must be nearer the fact, 
 even though, possibly, some links in the chain of 
 evidence might be stronger, or more perfect, than 
 they are ? And most of all is it unreasonable 
 and disingenuous to pretend that we are compelled 
 to give up the traditional origin of the book, and 
 with it the independent authority of the spiritual 
 truth therein contained, because of the overwhelm- 
 ing evidence which has been advanced in support 
 of the theory. For this evidence is purely ima- 
 ginary, as the facts adduced in the Appendix tend 
 to show. If, therefore, the true function of Scrip- 
 ture, as a means, and not an end, had been duly 
 appreciated, such assaults as those, for instance, 
 upon the Acts of the Apostles would never have 
 
Preface xxxiii 
 
 been made. First, the popular position of Scrip- 
 ture, as an end in itself, is legitimately and 
 successfiilly assailed, but then it is forthwith for- 
 gotten, that though not an end in itself, it may 
 be a means to a farther end, and that, in proving 
 Scripture to be not an end, the two positions 
 are left untouched, first. That Christ is alone 
 the true End, and secondly, That Scripture may 
 be, and is, the authorised means for reaching that 
 End. 
 
 Now there can be no question whatever but 
 that it is the tendency, if not the professed object, 
 of criticism, to eliminate and get rid of this very 
 spiritual truth of which we have spoken. For 
 criticism assumes at the outset that no account 
 can be taken of it. We are carefully to exclude 
 every thing that appeals to our conscience, our 
 feelings, or our will, in dealing with Scripture. 
 But if the special function of Scripture is to 
 appeal to these parts of our nature, how is it 
 possible to do Scripture justice while resisting 
 every such appeal? If Scripture is to judge %i8^, 
 it stands to reason that we must forego the func- 
 • St. John xii. 48. 
 
xxxiv Preface 
 
 tion of judge ; consequently, the attitude of criti- 
 cism is incompatible with that attitude of devout 
 submission which Scripture itself demands. We 
 may choose which we will, either one or the 
 other, but it is delusive to suppose that we can 
 choose both, and it is absurd to imagine that by 
 the exercise of the one we can improve the other. 
 Criticism is all very well up to a certain point, 
 but when we begin to ivorship, we must cease to 
 criticise; and the judge who is open to the con- 
 siderations of pity is disqualified from being a 
 judge. It is alleged to the discredit of Paley, that 
 he was more of an advocate than a judge', but it 
 was Paley's object to be an advocate, and it does 
 not follow because an advocate supports a par- 
 ticular side, that therefore truth is not on that 
 side. The issue raised by Christianity is of the 
 most solemn importance, and we cannot be too 
 careful or too judicial in deciding it ; but, having 
 decided it, we are fully justified in throwing the 
 whole weight of our being into the maintenance 
 of one side or the other, so that in neither case we 
 swerve from truth. It is contrary to the interests 
 of Christianity that it should be maintained at 
 ^ Jowett, i. 350. 
 
Preface xxxv 
 
 any cost, and at all hazards, but it is no less con- 
 trary to tliose interests that we should be for 
 ever regarding it as an open question, and under 
 the pretext of pursuing criticism, be for ever re- 
 opening questions which are virtually closed. 
 Christianity is either true or false ; if it is false, 
 it is the business of every honest man to say so 
 at once, in the name of humanity, and in the 
 name of God — we might almost say, in the name 
 of Christ, were it not that the real interests of 
 Christianity are His interests; but if it is true, 
 then it becomes the bounden duty of criticism, as 
 well as of any other pursuit and faculty of man, 
 to acknowledge and maintain its truth. The 
 function of criticism ceases when Christ has been 
 found true ; it is only a nominal and false criti- 
 cism which rests not till it has condemned Christ 
 to death because He has made Himself the Son 
 of God. 
 
 There are two points which the advocates of an 
 extreme criticism are prone to overlook. First, 
 that there is obviously a strong tendency in the 
 critical eye to discover what it wishes to see. If 
 we read any work with a professed object, we see 
 
xxxvi Preface 
 
 in it many things which but for that object we 
 should not have seen; but because we see them, 
 it by no means follows that they are there. We 
 may have brought them with us. And this state- 
 ment, which is true of those who read to believe, 
 is true also of those who read to cavil. In the 
 case of Scripture, however, the main features are 
 so broad and so distinct, that as it is impossible 
 not to see them, we must first, by common con- 
 sent, agree that they be disregarded, in order that 
 we may the more freely proceed to criticise. 
 For, secondly, the matter expressed by these very 
 distinct features is one confessedly beyond the 
 reach of criticism. How is the fact of our Lord's 
 unique personal union with God a matter upon 
 which criticism can pronounce? Say that the 
 fourth Gospel was not written by St. John, 
 — there can be no question but that the unknown 
 writer of that Gospel, who hved, we will suppose, 
 in the second century (and these are the only 
 two questions upon which criticism can pretend 
 to pronounce), himself believed and fully intended 
 to teach that Jesus was, in the highest possible 
 sense — a sense which he has left transparently 
 clear — the Son of God. Now this assertion is 
 
Preface xxxvii 
 
 supposed to come without Apostolic autliorit}^, 
 but What if it be true ? Criticism cannot tell us 
 whether it is or not; but, if it is, nothing that 
 criticism can do — for it has done all it can — is 
 able or sufficient to make it false. The writer of 
 the fourth Gospel evidently did not wish us to 
 believe on his authority, for he has studiously 
 concealed his name — he did not even write as St. 
 John, only as a disciple and an eye-witness ; but 
 he expected us to believe on the authority of the 
 things written, for the truth of which he, as an 
 unknown, and so to say, an indifferent person, 
 vouched ^ He considered that these things were 
 
 * On the other hand, if the Gospel was written in the second 
 century, we have to face this fact, That the writer not heing 
 St. John, wished his Gospel to pass for an Apostolic work, but 
 nevertheless was careful for the sake of truth not to commit 
 himself to the name of any one Apostle, but only spoke of him- 
 self by such periphrastic modes of speech as are altogether 
 unintelligible if the tradition is incorrect, which understands by 
 " the disciple whom Jesus loved," none other than the younger 
 son of Zebedee. We not only know not who "that disciple" 
 was, but still more, know not why a writer intending his work 
 to pass as the work of some one Apostle should adopt a phrase 
 which cannot be understood but for the tradition which 
 interprets it of St. John. Such a phrase as " that disciple 
 whom Jesus loved " must have been in vogue before the Gospel 
 was written, and commonly applied to St. John, if a person 
 wishing to have his work attributed to him made use of it to 
 
 C 
 
xxxvnii Preface 
 
 sufficient to make us believe. He would have 
 been the last to wish us to believe that heing true 
 in tJiemselvcs they derived any additional truth 
 from him, and certainly he considered that they 
 had a power of proving themselves true to the 
 end of time, quite independently of any critical 
 questions that might arise as to Ids identity — a 
 point which he designedly left in the dark. And 
 we do maintain that criticism is stepping quite be- 
 yond its province, if it presumes to cast the slightest 
 shadow of suspicion upon the exceptional union of 
 Christ with God, as His only begotten Son, he- 
 cause it fancies there is ground for doubting the 
 Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. This 
 last is a question fairly within the scope of criti- 
 cism, the other is one no less fairly beyond it, and 
 each is a totally independent question. 
 
 It appears, then, to the writer, that in the pre- 
 sent day, when very great unsettlement of mind 
 is being produced and fostered by many reckless 
 assertions made in the name of criticism, it can- 
 not be useless to put the matter in this light. 
 
 that end ; for ho coiild havo made use of it to no other. If the 
 writer had in his mind no one particular disciple, he would not 
 havo particularised him as ho did. 
 
Preface xxxix 
 
 Comparatively few are capable of weigliing or 
 testing these assertions for themselves ; mean- 
 while, the influence produced by jbhem on the 
 popular mind is most pernicious. They are re- 
 peated with great confidence in the periodical 
 literature of the day, and even in newspapers ; 
 and not one in a hundred of those who read or 
 repeat them is qualified to decide about their 
 value ; but they go on doing their work. They are 
 gradually undermining, we will not say the popu- 
 lar belief in, but the popular resided for, the Bible ; 
 they are preparing the way for opinions touching 
 the substance and authority of revelation, totally 
 inconsistent with a reception of it as, in any strict 
 sense. Divine; and, so far, they are bringing 
 about results fatal to Christianity, for it is im- 
 possible that any thing worthy of the name can 
 survive when the authority of Scripture as the 
 standard of it is not recognised, and when the 
 very substance of Scripture is destroyed. It may 
 be well, then, to show first of all that some, at least, 
 of these assertions are not true, that others at 
 the best are doubtful, and that, even if they were 
 all true, the consequences would not be what we 
 
 are asked to believe they are. 
 
 c 2 
 
xl Preface 
 
 Witli this end in Aaew, the writer has tried to 
 estimate the nature of the testimony to Christ 
 which the letters of St. Paul afford. Those only- 
 are employed, however, which have escaped the 
 assaults of criticism. To be sure, we might well 
 have made the list a longer one ; but our object 
 was to take no writings except those which the 
 severest criticism would concede. The Epistles 
 to Rome, Corinth, and Galatia, are admitted on 
 all hands to be genuine. No one of any weight 
 has ever doubted them. 
 
 Taking these letters, then, as the acknowledged 
 production of St. Paul, What are the conclusions 
 we may fairly draw from them ? It is one of the 
 daring insinuations of modern times, that our 
 received Christianity was invented by St. Paul. 
 Men have been eager to seize upon differences 
 between the Master and the disciple", wholly re- 
 
 " M. Renan regards St. Paul as a bold and original inventor. 
 " Pour Paul, Jesus n'est pas un homme qui a vecu et enseigue ; 
 c'est le Christ qui est mort pour nos peclies, qui nous sauv'e, qui 
 nous justifie ; c'est un etre tout divin : on participe de lui ; on 
 commuulo avcc lui d'uno fa^on mcrvcilleuse ; il est pour I'liomme 
 redemption, justification, sagesse, saintete ; il est le roi de 
 gloire : toute puissance au ciel et siir la terre va bientot lui 
 etro livree : il n'est inferieur qu'u Dieu le Pere. Si cctte ecole 
 soule noufi avait transmit des ecrits, nous ne touclierions pa.s la 
 
Preface xli 
 
 gardless of his own precept, "Be ye followers of 
 
 me, even as I also am of Christ^ ^ They have not 
 
 seen in these words an appeal to a contemporary 
 
 personne de Jesus, et nous pourrions doutez- de son existence. 
 Mais ceux qui I'avaient connu et qui gardaient son souvenir 
 ecrivaient deja peut-etre vers ce temps les premieres notes sur 
 lesquelles ont ete composes ces ecrits divins (je parle des 
 Evangiles), qui ont fait la fortune du christianisme, et nous ont 
 transmis les traits essentiels du caractere le plus important a 
 connaitre qui fut jamais." Saint Paul, p. 310 ; cf. p. 275. 
 While this testimony is of great value in showing that Chris- 
 tianity could not have been generated as a " myth" by Pauline 
 teaching (for that which is declared to have been possible 
 without Christ's historic existence could not have resorted 
 to the expedient of inventing that existence to account for 
 its own), we can but marvel at its daring perversion of 
 the truth concerning him, whose boast it was to " know 
 nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified," who " loved 
 him and gave Himself for him." Of similar value and not less 
 marvellously instructive are M. Kenan's words, " Pour avoir 
 une legende, il faut avoir parle au coeur du peuple ; il faut 
 avoir frappe I'imagination. Or, que dit au jieuple le salut par 
 la foi, la justification par le sang du Christ?" Ibid p. 5Q6. 
 In direct contrast to this French " criticism " is that of Baur, 
 who speaks (Paulus, p. 74) of the " inner revelation of Christ 
 to the higher self-consciousness " of the Apostle, which, accord- 
 ing to him, it was more or less the object of the writer of the 
 Acts to portray in his narrative of the conversion. Now it is 
 certain that Paul identified the Jesus who was crucified with 
 the Christ who was manifested to his conscience. Gal. i. 16 ; 
 ii. 20. What we have to ask, then, is. Are the two, upon the 
 evidence, identical ? If so, it must be fatal no less to " criti- 
 cism " than to common sense to attempt to separate them. 
 ^ 1 Cor. xi. 1. 
 
xlii Preface 
 
 verdict, wliich must have been given against him, 
 if either his teaching had been at variance Avith 
 Christ, or at variance with that of other Apostles. 
 Those who have fastened most tenaciously on the 
 misunderstanding with Peter, in Galatians ii., 
 upon a particular point of conduct, have ignored 
 altogether the tacit evidence afforded, even by 
 that chapter, in the implied submission of Peter, 
 and by such chapters as 1 Cor. i., iii., to the sub- 
 stantial identity of the Gospel preached by all the 
 Apostles. That which exclusively arrogates to 
 itself the name of criticism too often insists upon 
 looking at things in only one point of view, re- 
 gardless of the greater unity and harmony which 
 can be gained from another. But in so doing, it 
 forfeits its title to the name, for it is the judg- 
 ment of a biassed judge, and not the judgment 
 of strict impartiality, which carefully weighing the 
 respective merits of rival hypotheses, ultimately 
 decides upon the mcst probable, for the sole 
 reason that it is so. 
 
 Now the evidence to be derived from St. Paul's 
 known writings cannot be considered less than 
 conclusive upon this question, as to the natm'e 
 
Preface xliii 
 
 of his Gospel. It is written iu letters broad and 
 deep, which to the end of time will be simply- 
 ineffaceable, that, from first to last, Cheist Jesus 
 was the sum and substance of his preaching. 
 A Work done by Christ, a power resident in the 
 Person of Christ, on account of that Work, — 
 these were the solitary themes on . which the 
 Apostle was for ever dwelling, and which in one 
 form or another are interwoven with all liis 
 teaching, and inseparably mingled with all his 
 thoughts. With him Christ is literally all in all. 
 The terrible imprecation denounced by him upon 
 any man, or angel, who proclaimed another Gos- 
 pel, would have recoiled with triple vengeance on 
 his own head, if the Jesus he had preached had 
 not been ilie Jesus who, upon any supposition, 
 could only have been known from that mass of 
 early teaching which was shortly afterwards, if 
 not then, embodied in the Gospels^. To suppose 
 
 * Once more, it shall be the last time, we cannot forbear to 
 quote from M. Renan. Speaking of our Apostle, he says (Saint 
 Paul, p. 327), " En toute chose ancetre veritable clu protestan- 
 tisme, Paul a les defauts d'un protestant. II faut du temps et 
 bien des experiences pour arriver a voir qu'aucun dogme ne 
 vaut la peine de resister en face et de blesser la charite. Paul 
 n'est pas Jesus. Que nous sommes loin de toi, cher maitre ! Ou 
 
xliv Preface 
 
 that St. Paul was the inventor of received 
 Cliristianity, we are constrained to ask, What 
 became of the unreceived Christianity? What 
 became of the Jesus whom Paul did not preach, 
 who, we may suppose, did not die, and did not 
 rise again ? To magnify any divergences that may 
 have existed between the early teachers of Chris- 
 tianity into supposed indications of divergent 
 Gospels, is not only to be out of sympathetic 
 
 est ta ilouceur, ta poesie ? Toi qu'une fleiir encliantait, et 
 mcttait daus I'extase, rcconuais-tu bien pour tes disciples ces 
 disputcurs, ces hommes acharucs sur leur prerogative, qui 
 voulent que tout rcleve d'eux sculs. lis sont dcs hommes, tu 
 fus un dieu. Oil seiious-nous, i?i tu ue uous etais coiiuu que 
 par les rudes Icttres de celui qui s'ajipelle ton apotre ? Heu- 
 reusement les parfums de Galilee viveut encore dans quelques 
 memoires fidelcs. Peut-etre deja le discours sur la montagne 
 est-il ecrit sur quelque feuille secrete. Le disciple inconnu 
 qui porte ce tresor porte vraiment I'avenir." How was it, then, 
 that Jesus came to die, if not because He made Himself the 
 Son of God? Was that "a dogma"? Was it worth resisting 
 unto blood for it? Did Jesus expect His disciples to do like- 
 wise, or did He not ? St. Luke xiv. 26, 27. The insinuation 
 is that St. Paul's Gospel was essentially dif!erent from the 
 oiigiual Gospel of the companions of Christ, and therefore of 
 inferior authority; that it was, in fact, a sjiun'ous Gospel. As 
 then on the assinnptiou his was later in order of time, we must 
 honestly face such statements as Gal. i. 6 — 12; 1 Cor. iii. 22; 
 xi. 23 — 2G ; XV. 11 ; 2 Cor. ii. 17; xi. 4, &c., before accept- 
 ing the proposed thcoiy. 
 
Preface xlv 
 
 harmony with, but also to run deliberately coun- 
 ter to, the unmistakable evidence of his words, 
 who said, " Who then is Paul, and who is Apol- 
 los, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as 
 the Lord gave to every maw'V 
 
 Now, if there is evident proof that the sub- 
 stance of what St. Paul taught was identical with 
 the Gospel which was received from other Apos- 
 tles^ (a fact which is proved by implication, from 
 
 ' 1 Cor. ill. 5. 
 
 * The divergence ia commonly supposed to be greatest 
 between St. Paul and St. James. It is instructive, therefore, 
 to observe the points of belief that they must have had in 
 common, sho-sviug the substantial identity of the Gospel which 
 they preached. 
 
 St. James (i. 1) calls himself "a servant of God and of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ," implying thereby the unity of God and 
 Christ — the Sonship of Jesus. 
 
 " Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth." 
 i. 18. Cf. Eph. ii. 1,17. " The engrafted word, which is able to 
 save your souls" This was clearly the word before mentioned, 
 which concerned Jesus Christ, i. 1. 
 
 " Hath not God chosen" (Rom. ix.) "the poor of this world, 
 rich in faith'''' (Cf. Eph. iii, 8), "and heirs of the IcincjdomV 
 (Cf. Cob iv. 11.) 
 
 " Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one 
 point, he is guilty of all." ii. 10. This grand statement vir- 
 tually implies the whole of the so-called Pauline principle of 
 justification. Cf. Rom. iii. 20. [St. 
 
xlvi Preface 
 
 his own writiDgs), then the other flict, that he 
 became acquainted with that Gospel, not from 
 intercourse with, but independently of, them, is 
 itself a confirmation of his mission. It is not 
 true to say, that we have merely his own autho- 
 rity for having been recognised as an Apostle, 
 because the very fact of his writing to the Roman 
 Christians, for example, whom he had never seen, 
 with the authority he assumed, is the fullest pos- 
 sible proof of it. Not to say, that his equahty 
 with the old Apostles, of which he boasted pub- 
 licly, would have been thrown in his teeth by 
 
 St. James frequently speaks of God as the " Father." Cf. 
 Gal. iv. 6. 
 
 Lastly, St. James speaks of the "coming of the Lord" 
 (v. 7, 8), which assumes by implication His Death, Resurrection, 
 and Ascension. 
 
 In addition to these there ai'e many other verbal coincidences, 
 showing similarity of thought and teaching, which are too 
 numerous to specify. 
 
 The fact is that every one who has really imbibed the spirit 
 of any single writer in the New Testament feeh his essential 
 agreement with all the rest. He who has really taken in the 
 truth of the Epistle to the Romans, knoAvs that it is identical 
 with that of St. John, and vice, versa. He who has learnt of 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians, finds himself refreshed, confinued, 
 invigorated by the spirit of the same Christ which pervades 
 the syuoptical Gospels. He sees that it is the same, and not 
 another. 
 
P7^eface xlvii 
 
 those to wliom lie wrote, had it been nothing but 
 an empty boast. No ; this fact is clearly proved 
 from St. Paul's own writings, without the aid of 
 the Acts of the Apostles j that his mission was re- 
 cognised as valid by the original companions of 
 Christ. Whatever sectarian preferences may have 
 been manifested for one teacher above another 
 by *' carnal " Christians, the fact admits of no 
 doubt that Paul by the Apostolic body was con- 
 sidered an Apostle. His claim was duly recog- 
 nised. Whatever party prejudice may have done 
 in opposition to his work, however it may have 
 depreciated him, however these assertions of his 
 may have added to its virulence, no candid mind 
 can for a moment suppose otherwise than that 
 they establish his real position as one of irre- 
 movable security. He would not have thrown down 
 his challenge in open court, before the Church, 
 and before the whole world, if he had not been 
 quite sure that no man then living could take it up. 
 This was his first appeal, and if he could make 
 that good, he needed to have no anxiety (and we 
 need to have none) about the ultimate verdict of 
 posterity. They would still hold him to be " not 
 a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles." 
 
xlviii Preface 
 
 When, however, in addition to these internal 
 proofs, we are enabled to add the external evi- 
 dence of the Acts of the Apostles, as a credible 
 history (and the Appendix shows it to be not 
 incredible upon the reasons assigned), our position 
 becomes, perhaps, not actually more secure, but 
 certainly less open to attack than it was supposed 
 to be. When that book is accepted as the genuine 
 composition of St. Paul's fellow-traveller, then 
 our sources of external testimony run up as high 
 as they possibly can, and the condition of un- 
 certainty, and of baffled perplexity of mind, gives 
 place to one of overflowing gratitude for the 
 abundance of the proofs which are available for 
 the confirmation of the Faith. Then the old- 
 fashioned belief of the Apostles' Creed and the 
 Universal Church of Christ becomes, after all, not 
 absolutely so incredible as we were assured it was. 
 Then we begin to see that it is not so much our 
 Creed that requires to be reconstituted, or recon- 
 structed, as the personal Faith by which we hold 
 it that needs to be modified, re-adjusted, con- 
 firmed, and strengthened. 
 
 Fu'mly beheviug, then, as we ourselves do, iu 
 
Preface xlix 
 
 the Divine origin of that Creed, and in its eternal 
 verity, we shall ever feel devoutly thankful to 
 Almighty God, if, as we humbly trust, it may 
 please Him, of His infinite mercy, so to bless the 
 labour of our hands, as to make it instrumental 
 to the confirmation of belief in Jesus Christ, con- 
 •ducive to a stronger and firmer hold on the 
 central facts and the vital doctrines of His 
 Gospel. 
 
 Jvly 20, 1 869. 
 
ERRATUM 
 Pnge 128, Hue l,for when read wliere 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 LECTURE I 
 
 PAGE 
 THE EARLT HISTORY OF ST. PAUL , , . . 1 
 
 LECTURE II 
 
 THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL ..... 30 
 
 LECTURE III 
 
 THE FAITH OF ST. PAUL 
 
 59 
 
 LECTURE IV 
 
 THE COURAGE OF ST. PAUL ..... 89 
 
 LECTURE V 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OP ST. PAUL . . . . .116 
 
 LECTURE VI 
 
 THE MORAL TEACHING OF ST. PAUL . . . .144 
 
lii Contents 
 
 LECTURE VII 
 
 FAQE 
 THE MISSION OF ST. PAUL . . . . . .172 
 
 LECTURE Vni 
 
 THE KEVKLATION OF ST. PAUL 201 
 
 APPENDIX 23.5 
 
LECTURE I 
 
 THE EARLY HISTORY OP ST. PAUL 
 
 Acts xxvi. 4, 5 
 
 " My manner of life from my youth, which was from the first 
 among mine oivn nation at Jerusalem, Tcnoiv all the Jews ; 
 which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, 
 that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a 
 Pharisee." 
 
 SUCH was tlie confession of the Apostle Paul, 
 at Cgesarea, to the second Agrippa. He had 
 been two years ^ in prison under Felix, who had 
 once " trembled," not indeed without cause, " as he 
 reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judg- 
 ment to come ^," and now he was the prisoner of 
 Porcius Festus, who had " come into Felix' room," 
 as procurator of Judea. Agrippa, who enjoyed the 
 title of "king," reigned over the northern and 
 north-eastern provinces of Abilene, Itursea, Bata- 
 naea, and Trachonitis^ and was now on a visit 
 with his sister Bernice to the governor of the 
 neighbouring province. " With great pomp " they 
 
 ^ Acts xxiv. 27. * Acts xxiv. 25. 
 
 « Josephus, B. J. ii. 12. 8. 
 
 B 
 
2 The Early History of St. Paul [LECii 
 
 had " entered into tlie place of hearing with the 
 chief captains and principal men of the city," and 
 *' at Festus' commandment Paul was brought 
 forth \" He gave on this occasion, as we all 
 remember, the third narrative of his conversion, 
 which is preserved in the history of the Acts. 
 But in addition to this he appeals, as in the text, 
 to the well-known circumstances of his earher 
 life. That he had previously been known as a 
 zealous and earnest Pharisee appears on the sur- 
 face of the narrative to admit of no shadow of 
 doubt. *' What my manner of life was from the 
 first," he says, " all the Jews well know." And 
 this we must bear in mind was spoken, possibly, 
 in the presence of many Jews, apparently in the 
 hearing, either actual or virtual, of those Jews who 
 were his accusers ^ and certainly before one who 
 " was expert in all customs and questions which 
 were among the Jews ^." 
 
 We will, therefore, with the help of God, en- 
 deavom* in the present Course of Lectures, in the 
 first place, to investigate the amount and cha- 
 racter of the evidence which exists in support of 
 this fact, to see what ground there is for behoving 
 it, what reason there may be for doubting it, 
 examining the materials before us with as little 
 bias and as much impartiality as we can bring to 
 bear upon them, so that, if possible, the conclusion 
 we draw may be trustworthy and correct. Having, 
 
 * Acts XXV. 23. ^ Acts xxvi. 2. 7. * Acts xxvi. 3. 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 3 
 
 then, determined whether or not St. Paul's early 
 life was such as is commonly believed, we will 
 inquire in the next place into the evidence there 
 is of a great change of sentiment, or revulsion of 
 feehng, having passed upon him, and endeavour to 
 ascertain to what cause or causes this can be 
 ascribed. After this we will try to discover what 
 is the nature of the belief embodied in his writings, 
 and how we are to estimate his character, con- 
 duct, and influence, together with the position he 
 seems to have held in relation to the Church at 
 large and to other Apostles. Lastly, we will seek 
 to ascertain the character of his mission and the 
 motives by which he was influenced, inquiring, as 
 far as possible critically, the ground there is for 
 believing that the phenomena presented by his 
 writings and history are exceptional or otherwise, 
 so that we may be enabled to form a fair estimate 
 of the bearing which they have upon the received 
 facts of Christianity. The witness of St. Paul to 
 Christ, then, will be the subject of the Course of 
 Lectures upon which we are now entering. 
 
 Assuming that the history is substantially cor- 
 rect, and that some at least of the writings are 
 genuine, we shall endeavour dispassionately to in- 
 quire what is the conclusion to which they point ? 
 On the lowest supposition that out of deference 
 to the scruples of the adversary we may be com- 
 pelled to make, what is the inference to be drawn 
 from the residue which emerges from the crucible 
 
 B 2 
 
4 The Early History of St. Paul [Lhct 
 
 of his criticism? If I mistake not there is a very 
 considerable element which is utterly indestruc- 
 tible. The nature and weight of this element it 
 will be the object of the following Lectures to in- 
 vestigate, and, if possible, to ascertain, and that too 
 in a manner so generally intelligible and popular, 
 that we may not unreasonably hope to win the 
 sympathy and arouse the interest of those who 
 hear them. 
 
 It may, however, be expedient to state at the 
 commencement what is the kind of audience we 
 anticipate, and therefore the character of the re- 
 marks addressed to them. It is absurd, then, to 
 suppose that the professed and determined Infidel 
 will come here to be confuted. It will con- 
 sequently be useless to address ourselves to him. 
 We shall not do so. Such a person, it is not 
 probable, will either hear or read what we may 
 have to say. Moreover, it is one of the pecuHar 
 features of our age, that it is by no means easy to 
 put one's finger on any such person. In days 
 like ours, of rapid and general intercommunication, 
 when thought is widely and speedily disseminated, 
 one natural result is the efiacement of the broader 
 lines of demarcation. The colours blend imper- 
 ceptibly, and the sharper contrasts are lost. It is 
 more likely, therefore, that the believer may become 
 infected with the doubt of unbelief, and the un- 
 believer imbibe, unconsciously, some of the prin- 
 ciples and maxims of belief, than that the believer 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 5' 
 
 should be wholly faithful or the unbeliever alto- 
 gether infidel. Except in rare instances, this is 
 not the case. But, in point of fact, the doubt and 
 perplexity of mind which are inseparable from an 
 age marked by great activity of thought have a 
 manifest tendency to enter into the mental con- 
 stitution of us all. The cold shadow of denial 
 and of indecision falls athwart the pathway of the 
 upright and the earnest. It is these who are 
 exposed to the assaults of unbelief, and are liable 
 to suffer from them most acutely. It is these, 
 therefore, who require to be established. 
 
 And it would seem that this is the real and 
 practical use of such a foundation as the one from 
 which I now address you, not primarily to attempt 
 to confute those who, in fact, will not be confuted, 
 but to furnish the undecided, the wavering, the 
 doubtful, and not seldom the erring and the mis- 
 informed, with such a representation of the case 
 for Christ, that the truth may be placed for them 
 in a light before unseen, and so may gain in 
 attractiveness and force, while, at the same time, 
 the subtle and insinuating influence of doubt and 
 falsehood may be counteracted. 
 
 It must be' understood, therefore, that this will 
 be the direct object of the present Lectures, not 
 so much to reach the professed unbeliever in what 
 are practically his inaccessible retreats, as rather 
 to cut off occasion from him when he desires, and, 
 indeed, is not unlikely to find, occasion of stumbling 
 
6 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 and overtlirow, in the minds of those who are not 
 as yet wholly on his side, though they may not be 
 altogether opposed to, or prepared and equipped 
 for resisting, him. 
 
 The thesis, then, which it will be my endeavour 
 to estabhsh, is as follows. It is not possible to 
 account for the phenomena tvhich the writings and 
 the history of St. Paul present to uSy except upon the 
 supposition of certain facts which are substantially 
 those of the Gospels. 
 
 'Now the first consideration is, what are the 
 materials before us ? These are, of course, wholly 
 comprised in the Acts of the Apostles and in the 
 Epistles of St. Paul. Any thing else that tradi- 
 tion may have preserved to us must not be 
 reckoned. We have no right, and shall have no 
 occasion, to draw upon the resources of tradition. 
 With regard, then, to the Acts of the Apostles, it 
 is no part of my design to enter now into the 
 critical history of this book. I take it as a mere 
 literary phenomenon, having an undoubted anti- 
 quity of some eighteen hundred years. It is a 
 matter of, comparatively speaking, little import- 
 ance to determine the exact place or date of its 
 composition, or to decide definitely who was its 
 author. Supposing it to have been written by 
 Luke, or Silas, or Timotheus, or by any two, or by 
 all three of them — it matters not — in each case it 
 still falls within the very first age of the Church's 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 7 
 
 existence, while there must have been many among 
 the Christians still alive who were able to remem- 
 ber some or other of the events related, many who 
 were more or less familiar with them all; not, 
 indeed, in every case by personal experience, but 
 as matters of hearsay and of common notoriety.* 
 There must have been many, at whatever possible 
 age we fix the composition of this book, who, at 
 that time, could have detected the writer in any 
 flagrant departure from the truth. Supposing, as 
 we must suppose, it to have been in common 
 circulation among the Christians, it is a proof, at 
 any rate, that they had for some reason or other 
 agreed together to receive it. There is no evidence 
 or proof of its being questioned, not as a canonical 
 book — with that we have now nothing to do — but 
 as a generally trustworthy narrative of the events 
 it professes to record ^ There is no vestige 
 remaining of any other treatise which gave a 
 different version of the same events. If any such 
 treatise at any time existed, and was intentionally 
 suppressed by a party among the Christians, why 
 was not this treatise similarly suppressed by the 
 other party ? There are not wanting heretical 
 treatises and spurious gospels, which are sufficient 
 
 ^ The rejection of it by the Marcionites and Manichasans in 
 the third and fourth centuries was purely on dogmatic, and not 
 upon historic grounds : see Tertullian, adv. Marc, v, 2 ; Augus- 
 tine, Ep. 237. 2 ; Euseb. iv. 29, quoted by Mr. Humphry in 
 the Introduction to his Commentary on the Acts. See also 
 the Appendix. 
 
8 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 to show the possibility of some such apocryphal 
 narrative being put forth and maintaining its 
 existence, but where is it * ? We may, without 
 risk of contradiction, assert that this narrative 
 appears to have received the general credence of 
 Such a contemporary public as it must have, in 
 the natm'e of things, encountered. Are we to 
 believe that among those Clmrches in which it 
 circulated, be they many or few, there were no 
 persons of a sufficiently critical mind, none so 
 naturally disputatious as to reject this book, if it 
 was not a generally accurate record of events, if 
 there was not ground for believing it to be in the 
 main veracious ? 
 
 Suppose that, instead of its being some eighteen 
 centuries old, it was only just published in our 
 own time, what should we think of it now ? We 
 must, of course, suppose also that there were cer- 
 tain known events and certain familiar topics in 
 vogue to which it referred ; for otherwise its very 
 appearance would be unaccountable. But know- 
 ing of this general framework of circumstance, 
 how should we estimate the book itself, judging it 
 critically ? Should we be justified in saying it 
 was a romance ? Would it read like fiction ? 
 Could we honestly say that it had the appearance 
 
 * See for example Tisclieudorf 's Acta Ajwstolorum Apocryiiha 
 e.r tnijinta codicibus Gi-cccis, &c., for proof of this statement, 
 and in evidence of the entire aud specific independence of the 
 Canonical Acts of the Apostles. 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 9 
 
 of being written for the purpose of giving after 
 ages a concrete historic portrait of certain abstract 
 phases of thought ? Or would it not rather strike 
 us as being manifestly straightforward, and as 
 having undoubtedly the intention of being true ? 
 Would not the aim of the writer plainly be to give 
 his readers what he considered a clear and distinct 
 narrative of the events he was relating ? If the 
 book had just appeared, so that we could look at 
 it without the mist and haze of distance, is there 
 any opinion but one that we could form of it, 
 namely, that it was the work of a writer whose 
 object was evidently to give a faithful picture of 
 current or of recent events, that he was sufficiently 
 well instructed for his work, and had performed 
 it in the main without partiality and without deli- 
 berate and designed suggestion of the false or 
 suppression of the true ? 
 
 There is, of course, one point which we must 
 reserve, and that is the miraculous element of 
 which it is so full. But, waiving this, I ask what 
 is the obvious and unquestionable character of its 
 ordinary historic element ? There is only one 
 answer to be given. If we had now for the first 
 time become acquainted with this book as a recent 
 publication, we should at once pronounce it a 
 genuine and authentic record of contemporary or 
 almost contemporary events — the transcript of a 
 period in which the writer himself had played an 
 active and important part. 
 
lo TJie Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 It may, however, not unnaturally be asked, Is 
 not the very existence of this miraculous element 
 to which I have referred, itself a proof that the 
 general character of the book is unsatisfactory 
 and unsound ? But here, also, the answer must be, 
 No ; and for this reason : That the mixture of the 
 supernatural with the narrative has a direct bear- 
 ing on the interpretation, but not upon the course 
 of events. For example, we read in the sixteenth 
 chapter, that when Paul had for the first time 
 come to Troas, and was apparently undecided in 
 what direction he should travel next, he was in- 
 duced to pass over into Macedonia, in consequence 
 of a vision which appeared to him by night. Now 
 it is plain that both the writer and the Apostle 
 believed that this vision was, in the strictest sense, 
 sent by God, and that it was intended to deter- 
 mine their route, which was shaped accordingly. 
 Well ! they may or may not have been right in 
 their decision, and in their way of interpreting 
 the dream. But will any man of common sense 
 maintain that, because of the introduction of this 
 dream, the whole narrative is vitiated as a record 
 of fact? Are we to suppose that Paul and his 
 company did not pass over into Macedonia, that 
 they never were at Troas on this occasion ? Is 
 the journey invented for the sake of the vision ? 
 Or is the vision a mere accident of the journey, 
 which we may accept or reject as we please, and 
 certainly interpret as we please, without in the 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 1 1 
 
 slightest degree damaging the character of the 
 historian for general and intentional veracity ? A 
 man of ardent temperament, like St. Paul, finding 
 himself in such a position, on the verge of one 
 continent and actually within sight of the shores 
 of another, may very probably have seen such a 
 vision, and very likely interpreted it thus; but 
 whether he did or not, how does that affect the 
 question of his being at Troas just before passing 
 over to Macedonia ? How does it invalidate the 
 evidence of his having been at either place, of his 
 having travelled to the north of Greece from the 
 north-west of Asia Minor ? It simply leaves that 
 evidence where it was ; it makes it neither greater 
 nor less. 
 
 Again, take the narrative in the second chapter. 
 Here it is far more difficult to separate the mira- 
 culous elements from those of ordinary history. 
 Indeed, one cannot do so with any degree of cer- 
 tainty. But is not this perfectly clear, that, how- 
 ever we may explain the tongues of fire, or the 
 divers languages which were said to be recognised 
 by men of divers nations, the writer, at least, stated 
 what struck him as a marvellous phenomenon ? he 
 was not consciously imposing upon his readers. 
 On the day of Pentecost the disciples " were all 
 with one accord in one place ^." Some strange 
 circumstance did occur. Peter was the first to 
 make use of it. He did use it substantially in the 
 » Acts ii. 1. 
 
1 2 The Early History of SL Paul [Leot 
 
 manner ho is said to have done. And whether or 
 not actually " three thousand souls" were " added 
 unto them" " the same day ^," at least there seems 
 to have been a large and a sudden accession to 
 the Church about that time ; and however we may 
 account for it, this was the only account the dis- 
 ciples had to give of it. The substantial veracity 
 of the narrative, as a narrative of historic fact, 
 remains, whatever view we choose to take of the 
 miraculous features of it. The historian himself 
 does not explain these features, he merely records 
 them ; and in some respects he does it not without 
 obscurity and ambiguity ; but still throughout he 
 evidently is stating what he himself fully believed 
 to be true. On the level of common life, at least, 
 there seems to be no antecedent ground for dis- 
 trusting him. 
 
 We take him then, for the moment, on this level 
 only, lea^dng as unexplained, but possibly not in- 
 explicable, the supernatural elements of his nar- 
 rative; "What, then, is the impression which the 
 simple record of the common life of the early 
 Church and its more conspicuous actors has upon 
 ns ? Is it not manifestly this. That the life which 
 Peter, and John, and Paul, and Barnabas, and 
 Silas, and Timothy are there depicted as leading 
 is at once a supernatural life ? Can we otherwise 
 account for it? Was such a life ever exhibited 
 elsewhere than in this very book of the Acts of 
 ' Acts ii. 41. 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 1 3 
 
 the Apostles ? We get it nowhere even in the 
 Old Testament. We get it not even in the Gos- 
 pels ; for they are wholly occupied with one yet 
 more transcendent life. We get it still less in the 
 acts and annals of the saints and martyrs. For 
 the lives which they depict are possible after the 
 history of the Gospels and the Acts, but impos- 
 sible before it. But whether or not in the ab- 
 stract impossible, as a matter of notorious fact 
 they are nowhere to be found. There is no reason 
 to doubt that the historian was telling the literal 
 truth when he represented the testimony of the 
 first disciples, which was testimony to supposed 
 fact, as exciting the enmity and the vigorous 
 opposition of the rulers of the Jews, the Sad- 
 ducees, and the civil authority. When he says 
 that they were put into " the common prison ^," 
 were " beaten %" that they nevertheless "departed 
 from the presence of the council, rejoicing that 
 they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His 
 name "^j" that " daily in the temple and in every 
 house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus 
 Christ^," there is no reason whatever to suppose 
 that he is not stating what is strictly true. In- 
 deed a sober and straightforward view of the 
 matter can with diflS.culty arrive at any other con- 
 clusion. But yet what is the meaning of such 
 conduct as this ? How is it to be explained ? Were 
 
 ' Acta V. 18. ^ Acts v. 40. 
 
 * Acts V. 41. ' Acts V. 42. 
 
14 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 the men who thus acted mad ? Were they the 
 victims of strong delusion ? If the history 
 which represents them as thus acting is true, 
 there is no other inference possible, if we reject 
 the supposition that their madness rested upon 
 a strong foundation of fact, and, indeed, was not 
 madness. 
 
 Such, then, is the amount of worth which we 
 claim in the first place for the history of the Acts. 
 We believe that in matters of ordinary life the 
 historian intends to state the truth ; that if in 
 minor details he has even erred through igno- 
 rance, he has not done so to any great extent, 
 nor thereby thrown discredit on his story as a 
 whole ; that in sequence of events, in portraiture 
 of character, in imputation of motive and the like, 
 he is substantially to be trusted. Even in his 
 handling of the supernatural we believe him to 
 have been honest, if, possibly, misinformed or 
 superstitious. He did not give his narrative this 
 colouring for the sake of doing so, but because 
 he looked at events in this light, so that they 
 assumed this colour; but the events themselves 
 were not altered, they were only relieved and 
 heightened, as the hills at sunrise show more 
 golden and glorious than they do at noontide. It 
 was his to behold events on which rested the first 
 golden dawn of the Sun of righteousness. He 
 saw them aright, and he depicted them as he saw 
 them. To us, looking on the same events, they 
 
1] The Early History of St. Paul 1 5 
 
 seem distant and hazy, but let us not for that 
 reason question tlie writer's lionesty, nor affirm 
 that when they first were seen there was no 
 golden glimmer, no roseate hues of sunrise rest- 
 ing on their summit, while their base was over- 
 shadowed and dark with the dewy mist of morn- 
 ing. The bare outline in both cases at morn and 
 noontide is the same. We ourselves can recog- 
 nise the sameness. The mountains are real moun- 
 tains, but, flushed with the tints of the new-born 
 day, they gleam like the palaces of gods more 
 than the strong foundations of the earth. 
 
 So also is it here : we can see that the events are 
 real events, that the actors in them are real per- 
 sons, with human flesh and blood ; but a heavenly 
 lisrht rests on them which is shed but once in the 
 daytime of the world's life. There is a glory 
 which is the glory of the morn, and it is destined 
 before long to *' fade into the light of common 
 day;" but they would not be wise who should 
 affirm, their own lot being cast in the common 
 day, that the golden glories of the morn had 
 never ushered in the coming of the day. 
 
 Neither, again, is it a valid objection to this early 
 history of the Church, to complain of the obscurity 
 which rests upon some of its details. We cannot, 
 for example, understand, it may be, the career of 
 the Church immediately subsequent to the day of 
 Pentecost. At first every thing seems to go well 
 with it. Thousands are gathered into its pale. 
 
1 6 The Early History of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 "A great company of the priests are obedient 
 to the faith ^" The Apostles are able to speak 
 the word with boldness ^ and with comparative 
 secm'ity, till at last, as it seems quite suddenly, 
 the tide changes, and there is nothing but enmity 
 and resistance where before there was apparently 
 carelessness and indifference. What are we to 
 say to this ? Are we to pronounce it incredible ? 
 to say that it stamps the history as inconsistent 
 with itself? and therefore to reject it as idealised 
 and half mythical? Surely not. There is no 
 process so unintelligible as growth. We cannot 
 detect the growth of a seed, or the growth of a 
 tree, or the growth of a child. Taken at separate 
 intervals of time, we can in every case detect the 
 difference, and the difference is the growth. But 
 the transition itself we cannot see; and if with 
 minute and microscopic watching we can detect 
 it, yet the ininci])le of growth remains concealed : 
 how the seed grows, or the tree or the child 
 grows, we know not. There are intermediate 
 stages which we cannot detect, still less under- 
 stand. The one may well seem to contradict the 
 other. Why one should follow from the other we 
 know not. " That which thou sowest, thou sowest 
 not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may 
 chance of wheat, or of some other grain : but God 
 giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to 
 every seed his own body;" and beyond this we 
 ' Acts vi. 7. ' Acts iv. 31. 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 1 7 
 
 cannot go. It is a profound mystery, inscrutable, 
 unfathomable. But it is analogous to tbe early 
 history of the Church. There is a mystery attach- 
 ing to that. The earliest stages of growth are 
 the most obscure. They are enveloped in ob- 
 scurity. If, therefore, these early Christian re- 
 cords were yet more obscure than they really are, 
 it would not be strange. The separate intervals 
 of change are clearly marked. The chief stages 
 of growth are plainly and minutely registered. 
 There is nothing uncertain or obscure about 
 them ; it is the intervals between them, in which 
 lie hidden those processes that correspond to the 
 secret operations or principles of growth, that are 
 difficult and obscure. It is these that elude our 
 investigation. And the sudden change from appa- 
 rent prosperity to persecution was at once a 
 means of growth to the early Church, and is the 
 proof of it. The Church had grown. It had 
 forced itself on the attention of society. The 
 change came perhaps almost imperceptibly, and 
 the record of it perplexes us from its suddenness 
 — but needlessly, for all is natural, and, within 
 certain limits, intelligible. We invent a difficulty 
 for ourselves, when we say that the record is in- 
 consistent. Its very inconsistency is, to a certain 
 extent, a witness to the general honesty of the 
 writer which I am willing to maintain. 
 
 There is, however, another and an independent 
 source of information upon the subject in hand to 
 
 c 
 
1 8 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 wliicli we must now advert, namely, the Epistles 
 of St. Paul. By the most extreme school of 
 critics the genuineness of some of these has been 
 disputed, and though we might well be pardoned 
 for treating all the received Epistles as genuine, it 
 will nevertheless be more in accordance with the 
 plan we propose to adopt if we appeal to those 
 only which have been accepted, not merely by the 
 Church at large, but also by these critics them- 
 selves. The list which will then remain to us is, 
 indeed, a narrow one, but it will be more than 
 sufficient for our purpose. 
 
 Assuming, then, that the four Epistles to the 
 Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans are un- 
 doubtedly the work of St. Paul, we will content 
 ourselves with these. All the evidence we adduce 
 shall be drawn exclusively from them. But this 
 evidence we will endeavour to estimate in such a 
 manner as to learn from it the kind of witness 
 which the history and the writings of St. Paul 
 afford to Christ. 
 
 First, then, with regard to his early history. 
 From the Acts of the Apostles there is no shadow 
 of doubt as to the character of his youth and early 
 manhood. At the stoning of the first martyr, 
 Stephen, *' the witnesses," we are told, " laid down 
 their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name 
 was Saul." Whoever may have written this nar- 
 rative, there is no valid ground for questioning its 
 accuracy. Saul, no doubt, did take charge of the 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 1 9 
 
 raiment of these men. At the time he was him- 
 self a young man. It is evident, moreover, that 
 he thoroughly sympathised with the atrocious act 
 of violence he was witnessing. His ardent tem- 
 perament, of which his writings are evidence, 
 would naturally make him an eager partisan ; and 
 warmly attached to the traditions of his fathers, 
 he was prepared to go any lengths in maintaining 
 them, rather than consent to half measures with 
 the opposite party, which would seem to him like 
 a wretched compromise, possessing the disadvan- 
 tages of both sides and the merits of neither. 
 There is, therefore, no inherent improbability in 
 this conduct of Saul, supposing him to have been 
 brought up, as he no doubt was, in devoted ad- 
 herence to the national faith. 
 
 There is also another allusion to the same cir- 
 cumstance in the Acts of the Apostles, which is 
 put into the mouth of St. Paul himself. In his 
 speech, on the stairs of the castle, to the people 
 in Jerusalem, he gives the substance of a prayer 
 he had addressed to Jesus in the Temple while in 
 a trance, and makes the like confession in it : 
 " Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in 
 every synagogue them that believed on Thee ; and 
 when the blood of Thy martyr Stephen was shed, 
 I also was standing by, and consenting unto his 
 death, and kept the raiment of them that slew 
 him." Now this speech was either spoken or it 
 was not. If it was not spoken, it is plain that the 
 
 2 
 
20 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 writer of it thought it consistent with the known 
 facts of Paul's hfe, or at least thought that his 
 readers would not detect its inconsistency. If it 
 was spoken, then it is far more than probable that 
 some such allusion as this was made in it, for 
 there is no direct necessity for the occurrence of 
 such an allusion here — it is merely the introduc- 
 tion to a reply which contained the whole ground 
 of offence against the now exasperated people, 
 " Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the 
 Gentiles." 
 
 I say, then, that going no farther than the Acts 
 of the Apostles, which, for the present, we assume 
 to be trustworthy, there seems to be sufficient 
 ground for believing that Saul of Tarsus had been 
 a zealous Jew, that he had even taken part in the 
 persecutions against the Church, or at least had 
 been an abettor of the murder of Stephen, the first 
 martyr. 
 
 Let us turn now to the undisputed writings of 
 St. Paul himself. The first ® reference to his early 
 life which occurs in these, is found in the 15th 
 chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians : 
 " For I," he says, " am the least of the Apostles, 
 that am not meet to be called an Apostle, because 
 \ persecuted the Church of God." Now this, it 
 seems, is not questioned as the authentic and sin- 
 cere confession of St. Paul, but if so, nothing can 
 be more consistent with the narrative of the Acts. 
 
 * First in received order, perhaps not first in order of time-. . 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 2 i 
 
 We have from his own lips an admission of the 
 general accuracy of that narrative, at least in this 
 particular. It is, however, in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians that he is most expUcit. That Epistle, 
 being addressed to persons who had relapsed from 
 Christianity to semi-Judaism, afforded occasion 
 for reference to the circumstances of his own early 
 life that was not demanded elsewhere. And here 
 it is that he says, " Ye have heard of my conver- 
 sation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that 
 beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, 
 and wasted it : and profited in the Jews' religion 
 above many my equals in mine own nation, being 
 more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my 
 fathers;" and again, " They had heard only. That 
 he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth 
 the faith which once he destroyed." This again 
 is the unchallenged acknowledgment of the Apos- 
 tle, and it confirms substantially the statements 
 which are preserved to us under the form of his- 
 tory in the Acts. There is, therefore, all things 
 considered, every reason to conclude that the 
 well-known writer of these Epistles, the great 
 founder of Gentile Christianity, was, in the early 
 period of his life, not only a Jew (for the great 
 proportion of early Christians were necessarily 
 Jews), but also, as a Jew, had taken a prominent 
 and active part in the persecution of those in his 
 nation who had renounced allegiance to Moses for 
 obedience to the faith of Christ. The evidence is 
 
22 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 at once abundant and conclusive. If we believe 
 any statement whatever on the authority of re- 
 corded testimony, we may well believe this. We 
 cannot venture to doubt it without opening the 
 door to every species of historic doubt. 
 
 The first position, then, at wliich I desire to 
 arrive in the course of my argument may not 
 improperly be stated thus : On the evidence of 
 anonymous but contemporary historic records 
 preserved in the Acts of the Apostles, and on 
 that of the confession of St. Paul himself twice 
 made in the Epistle to the Galatians, and once in 
 the first Epistle to the Corinthians, it appears 
 that there is no reason whatever to question the 
 fact that the great A230stle had at one period of 
 his life been a vehement ojDponent of Christ, and 
 a strenuous persecutor of the Church. This as 
 a bare and naked fact must stand, I apprehend, 
 undisputed. It must be received as a proven and 
 established fact. 
 
 There is, indeed, but one point about it which 
 admits of question, and that is the degree of vehe- 
 mence with which this hatred and persecution 
 was manifested and carried on. It may be said. 
 That though there doubtless must be some truth 
 in the representations of St. Paul's early career, 
 given us by the records of the Church and referred 
 to by himself, yet it is more than probable that 
 these have been highly coloured and exaggerated. 
 The tendency of his own mind would naturally be 
 
Ij The Early History of St. Paul 23 
 
 to speak in no measured language of his former 
 life, and a similar propensity would be not un- 
 likely to develope itself in tlie Church at large. 
 j3ut these must each of them be corrected in their 
 results by a more sober and critical judgment. 
 We must receive both his personal statements 
 and those of tradition with a spirit of cautious 
 reserve. "We must interpret them with a certain 
 allowance for human nature, and remember that 
 the agents in every case were men. The conduct 
 of Saul may have been hostile to the Christians, 
 but not so hostile as they and he have repre- 
 sented it. 
 
 Wow when we gather together every thing that 
 Scriptural tradition has preserved to us on this 
 matter, the sum total is by no means large. It 
 would seem, then, there is not a great deal of room 
 for exaggeration. Even in the martyrdom of 
 Stephen, Saul is not accused of taking an active, 
 but rather a subordinate and subsidiary part. The 
 direct testimony of the historian is mainly com- 
 prised in two brief statements : "As for Saul, he 
 made havock of the Church, entering into every 
 house, and haling men and women committed 
 them to prison." " And Saul, yet breathing out 
 threatenings and slaughter against the disciples 
 of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and de- 
 sired of him letters to Damascus to the syna- 
 gogues, that if he found any of this way, whether 
 they wore men or women, he might bring them 
 
24 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 bound unto Jerusalem." This is literally all that 
 the historian of the Acts, in his own person, says 
 upon this subject. Every thing else is either put 
 into the mouth of other persons, as, for example, 
 Ananias, or stated directly by Paul himself. And 
 in these two brief sentences it must be allowed 
 there is but small scope for exaggeration. In 
 fact the only reasonable conclusion can be that 
 the narrative is unadorned. 
 
 And, indeed, we must admit also that the lan- 
 guage of St. Paul himself is scarcely open to the 
 charge of exaggeration ; the brief allusions in the 
 two Epistles I have mentioned are by no means 
 extravagant. Nay, we might say as much of the 
 allusion in the first Epistle to Timothy, if we 
 were not absolved from the necessity of doing so 
 by the attitude of our critical opponents who deny 
 the genuineness of this Epistle. The language 
 every where used by him is language that may 
 well be adopted by all Christians who have a 
 befitting sense of their personal sinfulness. It is 
 neither inappropriate nor extreme. So that on 
 every ground we have no cause to impute exagge- 
 ration or embellishment to the representations of 
 Saul's early life which tradition has preserved to 
 •us. It must still remain an unquestioned fact 
 that he began his career as a determined perse- 
 cutor of the faith which he afterwards so zealously 
 and successfully preached. 
 
 But it may be said that no one disputes this, 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 2 5 
 
 whicli is very true. I am not at present arguing 
 for the establishment of points which are disputed. 
 My object is rather to impress upon you the 
 nature of the ground we in common occupy. I 
 would ask you first to survey the depth, breadth, 
 and sohdity of the foundation upon which we pro- 
 pose to build, in order that the strength of the 
 superstructure may be the better estimated. 
 
 The days are changed since men, as in the time 
 of Boyle, were either believers in the Christian 
 faith, or else were open impugners of it. Now 
 the border-line is less distinctly marked. Men do 
 not wholly disbelieve, but neither are they alto- 
 gether Christians. And it is the duty of persons 
 charged with a responsible ofl&ce such as ours to 
 take up a position unmistakably and decidedly 
 Christian, and from that position with all the 
 advantages it offers, and the resources it supplies, 
 to win from the half-hearted and the unresolved 
 such tracts of territory as they are but too willing 
 to concede to the open adversary of Christ. This, 
 far from touching upon " controversies that are 
 among Christians themselves," will have by God's 
 grace the direct result of winning souls to Christ, 
 and also of showing to the conscience of the luke- 
 warm Christian, who in an unfair sense is ready 
 to become "all things to all men^" including 
 among the "all" "him that believeth" with the 
 "infideP," that there are limits even to the free- 
 » 1 Cor. ix. 22. ^ 2 Cor. vi. 15. 
 
26 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 dom of professedly Christian thought, and that 
 certain conclusions may follow necessarily and in- 
 evitably from premises wliich he himself does not 
 dispute, and cannot but allow to be sound. If 
 there is a difference between the true and the 
 false, between the " altogether " and the " almost" 
 " Christian ^" which Scripture most certainly 
 would lead us to suppose, then this cannot be a 
 wrong, but must be a legitimate, course to take, 
 and one contemplated assuredly by the spirit, if 
 not comprehended actually within the letter, of 
 the Founder's wiU; for it endeavours "to prove 
 the Christian religion" to be so grounded in right 
 reason and the truth of fact, as that not only 
 "Atheists, Theists," and the like maybe shown 
 its reasonableness, but that others also by a just 
 recognition of its claims, which they themselves 
 are disposed to forget rather than deny, may be 
 led to give it their more exclusive and undivided 
 allegiance. 
 
 My object, then, will be to show from the un- 
 questioned facts of St. Paul's history, and the 
 direct statements of his acknowledged writings, 
 the kind of testimony he bears to Christ — to esti- 
 mate the character and the value of this testimony 
 — the bearing which it really has upon the faith 
 of the Church in all ages, as well as upon the 
 attitude which behevers should assume with refer- 
 ence to those who profess direct unbelief, or the 
 
 = Acts xxvi. 28. 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 2 7 
 
 far more numerous class who, liking to dally with 
 the attractions of a reckless and daring scepticism, 
 are deterred from committing themselves with 
 the whole heart and soul to Christ. I shall 
 endeavour throughout to view this matter with 
 special reference to the tone of thought and feeling 
 prevalent in our day, believing that I shall by this 
 means act most fully in accordance with the implied 
 and expressed intentions of the Founder. 
 
 For if the great landmarks of thought have 
 changed in the last two centuries, if the ancient 
 adversaries have assumed a modern guise, and the 
 position hkewise of the defenders as well as the 
 assailants has been shifted, yet the interest at stake 
 is the same as ever, the questions to be solved are 
 virtually the same, however diversely we may state 
 them. Christ is still the Captain of our salvation, 
 for whose honour we are jealous ; the powers of 
 evil arrayed against us are evil still ; their tactics 
 may be different, but their object is the same ; it 
 is to get possession of the citadel of truth, and to 
 drive out from it the garrison of faith; it is to 
 dethrone the Most High, and to rob the Anointed 
 of His crown. This may be done under the subtle 
 and insidious pretext of a professed Christianity 
 or a professed zeal for truth, and done perhaps 
 more effectually than, as before, under the flaunting 
 banners of an undisguised Deism, or by the assaults 
 of an open Atheism ; but it is the office of those who 
 are appointed to be sentinels on Zion to sound the 
 
28 The Early History of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 watchword, not indeed of any party in their 
 Master's host, but of their Master Himself, if so 
 be that some who were attempting to enter the 
 fortress under the colour of a false friendship may 
 be induced to reconsider their position. It is, 
 indeed, true that Christ said, " He that is not 
 against us is on our part;" but He said Hkewise, 
 " He that is not with Me is against Me ; and he 
 that gathereth not with Me scattereth." A method 
 corresponding to the former statement may be 
 preferred by some, but the method also of the 
 latter was followed by Christ, and as occasion 
 befalls may be demanded of us. It will be our 
 object then so to estimate the allowed facts of 
 St. Paul's life as to determine thereby to what 
 kind of belief in Christ they pledge us ; to ascer- 
 tain the force of the argument which may be 
 advanced for Christianity from the due considera- 
 tion of these facts; and to show that there is 
 neither logic nor wisdom in accepting certain facts 
 while we deny the inevitable conclusions to which 
 they point. Such a course, if not immediately 
 directed against the avowed enemies of Chris- 
 tianity, specified by the Founder's will, must never- 
 theless have the result, not only of refuting as far 
 as may be these adversaries, but also of detecting 
 the weakness of others, who under the guise of a 
 kind of sympathy with Christ are neither earnest 
 nor sound in their devotion to Him. 
 
 Such, at least, aa it seems to us, is the course to 
 
I] The Early History of St. Paul 29 
 
 be pursued ; and if tliere is a sincere intention or 
 desire to advance the kingdom of Clarist, and a 
 single eye to His glory, the issue may be left with 
 God, though there should be error in the method. 
 Our endeavour then shall be, if not directly " to 
 prove the Christian religion against notorious 
 infidels " who are clearly out of reach, at least 
 " by manifestation of the truth to commend our- 
 selves to every man's conscience in the sight of 
 God." 
 
LECTURE II 
 
 THE CONVERSION OP ST. PAUL 
 
 Gal. i. 11, 12 
 
 " / certify you, hrethren, that the Gospel which teas preached of 
 me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, 
 neither was I tatight it, but by the revelation of Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 AS far as we have gone liitlierto in our inquiry 
 there seems to be no reasonable cause for 
 doubting the truth of St. Paul's early history, 
 which shows him to have been a zealous Jew, and 
 a vigorous persecutor of the Christians. Up to 
 this point the record of his Hfe bears no direct 
 testimony to Christ. But we come now to the 
 consideration of an epoch in his history, which 
 was, in fact, the turning-point of his whole life, 
 and which is commonly known as his conversion. 
 AVhat is the meaning of that conversion ? How 
 is it to be explained ? What points in it are 
 exceptional ? What elements are common to the 
 history of conversions generally ? and what is the 
 direct bearing of St. Paul's conversion upon the 
 truth of the Gospel story ? These are the ques- 
 
Lect II] The Conversion of St. Paul 3 1 
 
 tions which now demand our attention. We have 
 to estimate the value of this conversion, supposing 
 the truth of it to be estabhshed, as evidence for 
 the faith of Christ. 
 
 We may well believe that, humanly speaking, 
 the fate of the early Church would have been very 
 different had Saul of Tarsus remained a Jew. For 
 remaining a Jew he would have remained also a 
 persecutor ; the actual suffering, therefore, and 
 detriment inflicted upon the Church, would have 
 been great. She would have been driven yet 
 sooner from all the coasts of Israel by persecution 
 unto strange cities. But far more than this, how 
 great and irreparable would have been the loss to 
 the Church, not only of the first age, but of all 
 ages, had she never possessed the Epistles of St. 
 Paul ! This would have been a calamity which it 
 is simply impossible to calculate. But why is it 
 incalculable, if not because the life and writings 
 of this Apostle bear in themselves so distinct a 
 witness to Christ. The magnitude, therefore, of 
 the loss which the Church of Christ would have 
 sustained had St. Paul remained a Jew is the 
 measure of the positive advantage arising from 
 his history as we have it. There is a mass of 
 moral evidence accruing to the faith of Christ 
 from the hfe of such a character, falling as it did 
 at so critical a period of the Church's history. We 
 proceed, then, to consider his conversion in detail. 
 
 Now the first point which demands our atten- 
 
32 The Conversion of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 tion is the fact that we have different accounts of 
 it. To doubt St. Paul's conversion is impossible. 
 One ', who may well claim to be an impartial critic 
 in all matters advantageous to Christianity, has 
 admitted that "there is no fact in history more 
 certain or undisputed than" the conversion of 
 St. Paul. As we have seen, there is undoubted 
 evidence of his early resistance to the Gospel, 
 while, if we accept even one of his Epistles as 
 genuine, that alone affords equally conclusive evi- 
 dence to some change having passed upon him. 
 The question therefore arises, What were the cir- 
 cumstances of this change ? How far can it be 
 explained from natural causes ? How far does it 
 exceed the limits of the possibiHty of any such 
 explanation ? For the circumstances we must 
 turn exclusively to the Acts, because the few allu- 
 sions in the Epistles, if they are allusions, are not 
 of a kind to be serviceable to us here. In the 
 Acts, then, we have three separate accounts ; one 
 from the historian, and two from recorded speeches 
 of St. Paul himself. In these accounts there are 
 sundry minute differences which it is very im- 
 portant to observe, because it has been asserted 
 that " we cannot argue from" their " minute de- 
 tails ;" whereas, these differences, if properly 
 noted, serve to confirm the coherence, and to 
 establish the consistency of the narrative. 
 
 To take the historian's account first. AVe are 
 ' Jowett, Epistles, &c., i. 227. 
 
II] The Conversio7i of St. Paid 33 
 
 told tliat " as he journeyed, lie came near Damas- 
 cus : and suddenly there shined round about him 
 a light from heaven : and he fell to the earth, and 
 heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why 
 persecutest thou Me ?" and afterwards, that " the 
 men which journeyed with him stood speechless, 
 hearing a voice, but seeing no man." On turning 
 next to St. Paul's first account, we find the addi- 
 tional circumstances, " they that were with me 
 saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they 
 heard not the voice of Him that spake to me." 
 Now here there is nothing contradictory, but 
 rather the one narrative supplements and confirms 
 the other. Had the voice been heard by no one 
 but by Paul, the world would have called it an 
 imaginary voice, but he tells us himself that 
 others heard it besides him. Shall we, then, believe 
 or disbelieve it ? On the other hand, as this voice 
 concerned Paul only, as it was addressed to him 
 only, there is nothing improbable in the fact that 
 he alone understood it. They did not hear the 
 voice of ILim that spake to Mm ; for though they 
 heard a voice, they saw no man speaking with that 
 voice, whereby they might interpret it. Thus far, 
 then, all is clear. 
 
 We turn now to St. Paul's second narrative in 
 the twenty-sixth chapter of the Acts, before Festus 
 and Agrippa, in which he says, "At midday, 
 king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above 
 the brightness of the sun, shining round about me 
 
34 The Conversion of St. Patil [Lect 
 
 and them wliicli journeyed with me. And when 
 we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice 
 speaking unto me." Here there are two points of 
 difference. First, the light is said to surround 
 them all, whereas St. Luke says it shined round 
 about him, and St. Paul before had said, " there 
 shone from heaven a great light round about me." 
 As, however, he there says that the men who were 
 with him saw the light, this is not a real dis- 
 crepance, while St. Luke, in saying that the light 
 shone round about him, does not deny that others 
 saw it besides him, but merely omits to say so, 
 not being concerned with what they saw. 
 
 There is, however, a more apparent divergence in 
 the historian's asserting that the men stood speech- 
 less, and St. Paul's saying that they all fell to the 
 earth. But each is no doubt speaking of a different 
 order of time. St. Paul supplements the narrative 
 of St. Luke ; he speaks of the first effect, which 
 was that the whole party were smitten to the 
 ground ; and Paul doubtless was the last to rise ; 
 but the others having risen, as they naturally 
 would do after the first shock, remained standing 
 speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 
 There is still, therefore, nothing really discrepant. 
 One consistent narrative is readily obtained fi'om 
 the three accounts, more complete in its details 
 than any one of them would be alone ^ 
 
 * I have hero adopted the method which has been followed 
 Avith so much success by my friend the Rev. W. Pound, in his 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Patil 35 
 
 Nor is the other circumstance, that in his speech 
 before Agrippa St. Paul represents our Lord as 
 speaking to him at greater length than he himself 
 or St. Luke has done before, a matter of any con- 
 sequence. For, besides there being no improba- 
 bility in the statement that our Lord spoke at 
 greater length, the narrative of St. Luke is con- 
 sistent with it, inasmuch as, after he has recorded 
 the heavenly words, he stiU says, " the men stood 
 speechless, hearing a voiced" as though that voice 
 continued speaking, though the words of it are 
 not recorded. 
 
 And, surely, it is most natural to suppose that 
 after having arrested the course of the persecutor, 
 and stricken him to the earth, and made him 
 blind, the Lord would not leave him to himself 
 in the rest of that dark and lonely journey to 
 Damascus. He would be likely to reveal to him 
 the nature of the calling wherewith He had called 
 him ; and certainly no one is more likely than 
 Paul himself to have known or understood the 
 nature of the communications he then received. 
 We conclude, therefore, that the narratives are not 
 contradictory, but are circumstantially consistent, 
 and therefore credible. 
 
 vGcently publislied " Story of the Gospels." (Rivingtons.) He 
 has, without doubt, in numerous instances, thrown a flood of 
 light upon the four Evangelists, by combining their several 
 narratives in one. See e. g. the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, 
 the Denial of Peter, &c. 
 ' (XKouoi/Tcs, Acts ix. 7. 
 
 D 2 
 
^6 The Conversion of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 We must next inquire how they are to be under- 
 stood ? "Was the occurrence, however it is to be 
 explained, a natural or a supernatural one ? Is 
 the narrative a distorted version of a tliunder- 
 storm, or an earthquake, or an epileptic fit ? Or 
 is it, as it stands, a simple narrative of actual 
 fact ; and if so, what is the conclusion to which it 
 points ? Now in answering these questions, we 
 must bear in mind that the three narratives all 
 suggest the same answer ; they vaiy slightly in 
 detail, but not at all in character. The evidence 
 of the three as to the nature of the occurrence is 
 identical, when analysed. According to all, the 
 facts were attested not by one witness, but by 
 many. The whole party saw the light. They all 
 heard a sound. They all, for a moment, fell to 
 the earth. They all became speechless, unless 
 indeed we except St. Paul. They all knew that 
 the greatest sufferer by the occurrence was St. 
 Paul himself, for they " led him by the hand, and 
 brought him into Damascus." 
 
 Thus far there is nothing contradictory in the 
 evidence. It is consistent and unvarying. Nor 
 is there more agreement in what it relates than 
 in what is omitted. There is no hint any where 
 given that the principal circumstances of the occur- 
 rence were purely natural. There is no mention 
 of any earthquake ; and it is altogether gratuitous 
 to assume that a writer so simple as this historian 
 should have meant a thunderstorm or flash of 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 37 
 
 lightning by the "great light from heaven*;" 
 while, on the other hand, the supposition of a fit, 
 of which the Apostle alone was the subject, is not 
 sufficient to account for the effect which was 
 evidently produced on all the rest. 
 
 Again, we must bear in mind that the known 
 character of St. Paul, before and after this event, 
 points us necessarily to some adequate cause of 
 change. His Epistles are a witness to his Chris- 
 tianity ; and he is known to have been at one time 
 a strict Jew. What, then, was the circumstance in 
 his life by which he passed from the one condition 
 to the other ? Was it gradual or sudden ? Was 
 it such as this, the particulars of which have been 
 recorded; or was. it something else, of which we 
 know absolutely nothing? It seems to be ante- 
 cedently, and on the surface of things, reasonable 
 to suppose that the event related may have been 
 the cause. The evidence in favour of this suppo- 
 sition is consistent and convincing. If, however, 
 
 * Baur's explanation is as follows : " Das plotzlicli am hellen 
 Mittag mit ungewolinlicher, selbst den Glanz der Sonne iiber- 
 treffender Klarheit herableuclitende, den Apostel und seine 
 Begleiter umstrahlende Liclit ist daher niclits anders, als der 
 symbolisch-mythische Ausdruck der Gewiszheit der wirk- 
 liclien und unmittelbaren Gegenwart des zur himmlischen 
 WUrde verkliirten Jesus." (Paulus, 68.) The only objection 
 to this is the extreme improbability of a writer, even in the 
 second century, resorting to the expedient of expressing such 
 an idea in such language, translating his thoughts for the sole 
 purpose of having them retranslated before they could be 
 understood. 
 
3? The Co7iversion of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 tlie Apostle's conversion took place on this occa- 
 sion, and was due to these circumstances, that fact 
 again is inconsistent with the belief that the cir- 
 cumstances were of a natural character. It was 
 not the first thunderstorm to which he had been 
 exposed, nor possibly even the first earthquake; 
 and he would seem to have been a man of con- 
 siderable nerve, judging from what we are told of 
 his conduct during the shipwreck in the Mediter- 
 ranean, when he appears to have been almost the 
 only one of the company who was calm and self- 
 possessed, so that it is improbable that any natural 
 convulsion of this kind would have produced on 
 him the effect recorded ; while it is no less unlikely 
 that a fit of epilepsy, catalepsy ', or any thing else 
 would have been followed by a total change of 
 mind and revulsion of feeling; in short, would 
 have made him a Christian from being a Jew. 
 
 It becomes, therefore, I think, very clear, first, 
 that there is some truth in the record; and, 
 secondly, that whatever truth there is must be 
 held to be inconsistent with the idea that the cir- 
 cumstances of the story point only to a natural 
 occurrence, or a physical phenomenon of some 
 kind. There would be nothing in this adequate 
 
 ' It may be fui'tlier observed, that on the supposition of the 
 Acts being WTittcn by Luke, the beloved "physician, the idea of 
 resolving St. Paul's conversion into an attack of this kind is 
 rendered yet more improbable from the fact of his neccssaiy 
 acquaintance with the phcuomcua of such cases. 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul i^<^ 
 
 to bringing about the result which, it is manifest, 
 was brought about, and nothing in this which 
 really satisfies the necessary requirements of the 
 narrative. There must have been another element 
 in the occurrence, which is, indeed, directly indi- 
 cated by the story, but which men weary them- 
 selves to get rid of, and are determined to shut 
 their eyes to, and that element is the super- 
 natural. (I use this word with very great reluc- 
 tance, but I use it because there is no other word 
 which will convey my meaning.) We have clear 
 evidence that other persons besides the future 
 Apostle saw the light, felt the shock, heard a 
 sound, were terrified, and struck dumb. This 
 could not have been without a cause; but the 
 only cause likely to suggest itself is implicitly 
 denied, and, indeed, no trace of it is discoverable in 
 the record, but another cause is directly assigned, 
 which would, indeed, be adequate to produce the 
 results which actually did ensue, while the other 
 supposed natural causes would be quite insuffi- 
 cient to do so. The only inference, therefore, 
 can be that there were some, we will say for the 
 present, unexplained circumstances arising from 
 an unknown cause, and that to the principal 
 person concerned these ckcumstances took the 
 form of a voice from Heaven, from the unseen 
 spiritual world ; which directly reproved him for 
 his past and present conduct, and from that 
 instant changed conspicuously the whole course 
 
40 The Conversion of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 and current of his life. Is not the only reasonable 
 and fair conclusionj then, that he may have been, 
 and probably was, right ? that whereas all were 
 witnesses that he was the subject of some strange 
 thing which happened to him, he was the most 
 likely to know what that thing was ? That if any 
 voice (being heard, indeed, unintelligibly by others) 
 was addressed specially and exclusively to him, he 
 was more likely than any one else to know what 
 that voice had said, nay, that he alone was likely 
 to know ? And from the very fact that what he 
 thought it said was altogether contrary to any 
 thing his imagination, according to the ante- 
 cedents of his history, was likely to invent, may 
 we not conclude that what he thought it said 
 was actually what it did say ? 
 
 Having thus advanced so far towards showing 
 that there is an absence of all direct evidence to 
 prove the narrative of Saul's conversion untrust- 
 worthy, let us for the while assume it to be 
 credible, and go a step farther by investigating 
 the positive traces of credibility which it may 
 possess, which consequently tend to confirm the 
 assumption that we have already found to be not 
 altogether unreasonable. 
 
 Observe, then, the fitness in point of time at 
 which the conversion, or the events connected 
 with it, took place. We know that persecution 
 had by this time driven the great bulk of the 
 Christian body out of Jerusalem. The zeal of 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 41 
 
 Saul, untempered by discretion, had "scattered" 
 all the Church " abroad throughout the regions of 
 Judaea and Samaria, except the Apostles." It is 
 clear, therefore, that Saul, as indeed we might 
 expect, was very strong at Jerusalem. Doubtless 
 his position in society, as well as his great energy 
 and vigour, made him an important personage 
 among his own nation at Jerusalem. On the 
 other hand, it is also plain that there were many 
 Christians at Damascus, and that Saul was not so 
 well known there, for he was the bearer of the 
 high priest's letters to the synagogues. We see, 
 then, that he was a comparative stranger. At 
 Jerusalem he was among his friends and familiars, 
 at Damascus he would be in the position of a 
 visitor and a guest. We have reason, therefore, 
 to adore the wisdom of the Lord's providence in 
 allowing Saul to go so far on his way as in fact to 
 draw nigh unto Damascus. Herein was illustrated 
 the truth of the homely maxim which says that 
 " Man's extremity is God's opportunity." To all 
 human judgment the hour of the Christians' doom 
 was fast approaching. But yet a little while and 
 the persecutor, armed with the highest official 
 authority, would be " haling men and women " 
 throughout the streets and lanes of Damascus, 
 and " committing them to prison." If his arrival 
 was -expected, they must have begun already to 
 prepare for death. They must have stood per- 
 plexed at the mysterious dealings of the Almighty, 
 
42 The Conversion of St. Paiil [Lect 
 
 who seemed to have given over His Church to the 
 will of His adversaries. And yet from the mo- 
 ment that Saul had passed through the northern 
 or Damascus gate of Jerusalem deliverance had 
 been prepared for them, for it was determined in 
 the counsels of the Most High that he was not to 
 enter Damascus a Jew. But the Lord was in no 
 haste to accomplish His pleasure. Had Saul been 
 arrested in the earher stages of his journey, he 
 would naturally have returned to Jerusalem. The 
 Christians at Damascus would have been perhaps 
 as safe, but it would have been very different in 
 every way for Saul. He would have been thrown 
 again into familiar scenes and among his wonted 
 companions. No Chinstian influences could well 
 have been brought to bear upon him, and cer- 
 tainly not without an additional complication of 
 difficulties. 
 
 But as it was, though the trial of the Church 
 at Damascus was intensified by suspense, yet the 
 ultimate welfare of it was enhanced thereby. 
 Saul was permitted to sever himself entirely from 
 his friends at home, and as it seemed, to pro- 
 secute successfully his purpose till he drew near 
 Damascus, where that purpose was to be accom- 
 plished. Then it was that the Divine will 
 triumphed. The bright light from heaven blinded 
 the eyes of the adversary, and smote his comrades 
 to the earth. And then it was that, as the most 
 obvious and feasible thing they could do, his com- 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 43 
 
 panions led him by the hand and brought him 
 into Damascus, where he was surrounded with 
 fresh faces, and new scenes, and new associations, 
 all of which were more or less favourable for the 
 development of the mighty change which had 
 passed upon him. The letters to the synagogues 
 he had brought with him were not delivered, and 
 instead of the official associates he had expected 
 to meet, he was left for three days in darkness 
 and solitude, till one of those whom he knew not, 
 but had come to persecute, was sent to him with 
 the message of love in return for his mission of 
 hate : " Brother Saul, receive thy sight ''." 
 
 Again, we must not fail to observe that how- 
 ever improbable it might be that Saul, during 
 the three days of retirement and self-scrutiny at 
 Damascus, would question the reality of the voice 
 that addressed him on the way, yet it was very 
 important for him, and no less so for the Church 
 at large, that a vision of which he was the only 
 person cognisant should be confirmed to him 
 and attested to others by a total stranger in 
 
 ' Acts xxii. 13. Baur observes, "Die Bestimmiing, die 
 Anauias erliielt, hangt jedoch mit dem von ihm an Paulus 
 verricliteten Wunder so eng zusammen, dasz vrir erst von 
 diesem Wunder aus auch die die Haupthandlnng eiuleitenden 
 Visionen riclitig verstelien konnen." (Paulus, 70.) Surely the 
 question must arise, After all, is this the way we were meant 
 to understand them ? Is this the " literal construction," or 
 " the farthest from the letter," which wo are told " is commonly 
 the worst " ? (Hooker, v. 59.) 
 
44 ^^^ Conversion of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 Damascus, wlio could be supposed to know no- 
 tliing about it. The words, therefore, " Brother 
 Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto 
 thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me," 
 must have sounded like a reverberation of the 
 former voice. The men who had journeyed with 
 him knew nothing of that voice, except indeed its 
 unintelligible sound, but an unknown brother who 
 had not been present not only knew of it, but was 
 able to explain its meaning. He said that the 
 same person had sent him who had spoken to 
 Saul. This naturally had the effect of corro- 
 borating to Saul his own impressions of the 
 strange event. If on mature reflection he had 
 been disposed to question his own fancied expe- 
 rience, the visit of Ananias must have tended to 
 dispel any such misgivings, and to remove all such 
 uncertainty. It was a real voice that had spoken 
 to him, a real Person who had called him by 
 his name, and that Person was none other than 
 Jesus. 
 
 Nor was the "sdsit of Ananias of less significance 
 to the Church at large. For the formal admission 
 of Saul into the Christian body must have been 
 made by some one. It was known that he had 
 been baptised. It was doubtless known who had 
 baptised him. But under any circumstances he 
 would not have been baptised without sufficient 
 evidence of his change. It seems, moreover, that 
 Saul did not seek baptism, as indeed he is not 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 45 
 
 likely to have done ; but from his well-known 
 character it is yet less likely that, without some 
 very powerful inducement, Ananias would have 
 sought him out. Nothing less than a command 
 believed to be Divine would afford such an induce- 
 ment; but as we cannot doubt that it was Ana- 
 nias who baptised Saul, we are driven to believe 
 that he was led to do so by the motive assigned ; 
 while, on the other hand, as the credentials which 
 he bore were accepted by Saul, we can only sup- 
 pose that we have, in the visions recorded, a just 
 and accurate relation of the actual circumstances 
 that occurred : that is, the vision of Ananias is to 
 the Church a perpetual voucher for the truth of 
 the vision to Saul, and so the two accounts con- 
 firm and establish each other. We have, indeed, 
 in the men who journeyed with Saul, witnesses to 
 the outward facts connected with his conversion ; 
 but we have in Ananias a witness to the inward 
 facts connected with it, just those very facts 
 which his fellow-travellers could not witness to, 
 which indeed, but for the testimony of Ananias, 
 the Church could have had no witness to, but the 
 conscience and testimony of Saul himself. 
 
 It would seem, then, if the view we have taken 
 is a right one, that throughout the whole of this 
 history there are so many manifest and palpable 
 facts which all admit, that if we only allow to 
 these their due weight we are brought inevit- 
 ably to the conclusion that they were accompanied 
 
46 The Conversion of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 with certain remarkable and extraordinary circum- 
 stances, wliicli indicate a supernatural origin and 
 point us to the outward and designed expression 
 of a Divine will. It is impossible to account for 
 the natural and obvious facts, without assuming 
 the existence of other elements which can only 
 be recognised as altogether supernatural. 
 
 For example, Saul is known to have suddenly 
 become a Christian in the midst of a journey 
 to Damascus, of which the sole object was vehe- 
 ment persecution of the Church. This change 
 was accompanied with, and apparently caused by, 
 some remarkable and unexplained circumstances 
 which, if merely natural, are not sufficient to 
 account for it. He is also known to have been 
 received into the Church by Ananias, shortly after 
 his arrival at Damascus, whither he had come as 
 a bitter adversary ; and while it is certain that 
 Ananias is not hkely to have sought out Saul, it 
 is also clear that Saul did not apply to Ananias 
 for admission to the Church. 
 
 Now, admitting all this, which most persons 
 do not question, there is still something which 
 is wanted to explain these circumstances. The 
 facts related would thoroughly explain them; 
 if these facts are rejected, it is incumbent upon 
 us to find other facts which would be equally 
 successful in explaining them; or else, to be 
 consistent, we must also reject those ordinary 
 details (which upon this hypothesis we do not) 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 47 
 
 wliicli require to be explained. TMs is a simple 
 and common sense way of putting the real 
 issue, which I think can hardly fail to commend 
 itself to all minds of ordinary fairness. And the 
 result is an increased conviction that the history 
 as it stands is strictly true, and that somehow or 
 other we must face those circumstances which are 
 an integral and inseparable portion of it. 
 
 But here the question will arise in many minds, 
 " "What need is there for these supernatural cir- 
 cumstances ? They cumber and perplex the narra- 
 tive, instead of simplifying it. They suggest many 
 objections to the virtual truth of it which are 
 difficult to remove. St. Paul himself, except in 
 the history of the Acts, which is, of course, written 
 by some one else, never alludes to them, but 
 rather speaks of the great epoch of his conversion, 
 as he does in the Epistle to the Galatians, as 
 an inward * revelation of Jesus Christ.' Is it 
 not possible to retain this, while we reject the 
 former? We protest emphatically against the 
 notion tbat 'revelation' comes *by our external 
 senses ^' " 
 
 Now we do not for one moment suppose that 
 revelation comes only by our external senses ; on 
 the contrary, unless the revelation reaches the 
 spirit of man it is no revelation at all. It is only 
 through the spirit that man can receive spiritual 
 illumination. If his spirit remains darkened, it 
 
 ' Dr. Rowland Williams, " The Hebrew Propliets," i. 92. 
 
48 The Conversion of St. Panl [Lect 
 
 matters not what light reaches his mind or flashes 
 on his eyesight. But then it would seem that in 
 this case there was, most manifestly, spiritual 
 illumination, for Saul heard words addressed to 
 him which were an unmeaning, unintelhgible 
 sound or voice to all about him. This, however, 
 is not the real point at issue ; for the question is, 
 whether God can make or has made a revelation 
 to the kIioIg man, body, soul, and spirit ; so that 
 while He speaks directly to his spirit, his reason 
 also may be convinced, and his bodily senses even 
 assiu'ed, that it is a Divine voice that speaks to 
 him ? .And this, I apprehend, is the whole question 
 at issue between those who contend for an external 
 revelation and those who hold such an idea of 
 revelation as is limited to the spiritual perception 
 in an ordinary way of certain spiritual truths. 
 We do not deny that revelation may be inde- 
 pendent of all contact with the senses ; but the 
 question is whether the senses have at any time 
 been used as a medium for the revelation, whether 
 it has come through the senses as through a 
 channel; or, not coming strictly through them, 
 whether they have been made simultaneously con- 
 scious of the revelation which has at such a time 
 reached the spirit. 
 
 Now, if this be so, there must be such a modifi- 
 cation of merely natural laws as will suffice to 
 produce this consciousness. The same result 
 might iudecd be brought about by a mere con- 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 49 
 
 juncture of circumstances in themselves so un- 
 likely and remarkable as, jor that cause, to arrest 
 attention, or it may be produced by circumstances 
 so exceptional and peculiar that they can only be 
 recognised by the ordinary mind as modifications 
 of known physical laws. 
 
 For example, if a number of persons were to 
 agree that at midday they saw a light fi:"om heaven 
 above the brightness of the sun shining suddenly 
 round about them, and that it was accompanied 
 with a strange sound that might indeed resemble 
 either a peal of thunder, or else an unintelligible 
 human voice; if they saw that one of their 
 number was more especially afiiected by the light 
 and the sound, not indeed so as to lose his 
 senses, which there was no evidence of his having 
 done, but so as to have his religious convictions, 
 not either strengthened or deepened, but entirely 
 changed and altered, in consequence of what the 
 voice had said to him; Would not any ordinary 
 person necessarily conclude that the light and the 
 sound which they all agreed in having seen and 
 heard were actually the channels of the communi- 
 cation made to him ? — that whereas, upon the evi- 
 dence, there was no natural cause or circumstance 
 to which they could be attributed, but an actual 
 circumstance, in fact, of which they might be the 
 concomitants, they remained therefore, and must 
 remain, without explanation, unless it was ad- 
 mitted they were thus explained ? 
 
50 The Conversion of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 For on the hypothesis the internal revelation 
 is not now denied, and on the evidence it was 
 accompanied by certain physical phenomena which 
 are not to be accounted for physically; must we 
 not conclude, therefore, that the two combined to 
 form one whole, and that * revelation ' did come 
 on this occasion, at least, in part through 'the 
 external senses ' ? 
 
 However acutely we may reason about it, there 
 is obviously but one conclusion at which the 
 common sense of mankind could arrive. It might 
 be possible to call in question the recorded cir- 
 cumstances, but granting the general accuracy of 
 these, which is in fact commonly granted, there is 
 but one interpretation which persons of ordinary 
 intelligence would put upon them. 
 
 But if this interpretation is accepted, then we 
 have here a well-attested instance of a voice from 
 heaven bearing witness to the justice of certain 
 claims — the claims, namely, of Jesus of Nazareth 
 to the worship and allegiance of mankind ; for if 
 those claims were valid in the case of Saul of 
 Tarsus, they were valid for all mankind. It fol- 
 lows, therefore, that if the words spoken were a 
 reality (and unless they were we have no clue to 
 explaining the whole after -history of St. Paul), 
 the light from heaven and the sound which were 
 seen and heard by all were truly supernatural ; or, 
 to say the least, the occurrence of them at that 
 moment, and in that conjuncture, even if accounted 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 5 1 
 
 for naturally, was itself supernatural, because 
 expressive of tlie testimony of tlie works of God 
 in nature to tlie utterance of tlie voice of God 
 spoken to the conscience. It is, therefore, only 
 casting dust in our eyes to disparage tlie evidence 
 for any thing externally supernatural here under 
 the pretext of enhancing the importance of the 
 internal revelation, because, if we do sincerely 
 concede the one, we cannot in fairness deny the 
 other. The two elements of the narrative must 
 stand or fall together. If we admit the outward 
 circumstances to have been above and beyond 
 nature, we must admit the voice that spoke to 
 Saul to have been the voice of Jesus — the voice of 
 God ; but if we allow that he was at that moment 
 the subject of an inward revelation, which was, 
 in truth, Divine, then we cannot, upon the evi- 
 dence, deny that it was accompanied with other 
 and external phenomena which were in their occur- 
 rence ilien, even if not in their actual character, 
 in the truest and most real sense, supernatural. 
 God used the powers of nature and the sphere of 
 the senses to seal and confirm the truth of the 
 voice with which He spoke from heaven to the 
 conscience of the stricken and prostrate Saul. 
 And for once it would seem that * revelation* 
 was ' by ' and with the knowledge of * the ex- 
 ternal senses :' the whole man was made con- 
 scious that he was but as clay in the hands of 
 the potter, and that which spoke with such power 
 
 E 2 
 
52 The Conversion of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 to his soiil, was confirmed by the unmistakable 
 emphasis with which it spoke also to his bodily- 
 senses. 
 
 The argument, then, may be stated thus. Few, 
 if any, persons will deny, upon considering the 
 circumstances of St. Paul's conversion, that ' there 
 was something in it.' They may seek to reduce 
 that ' something ' to the lowest possible quantity, 
 but it is impossible to abolish it altogether. And 
 in proportion as it is thus reduced, the existing 
 phenomena of his known Epistles must be dis- 
 regarded ; his own evidence must be set aside, his 
 judgment called in question, his value as a writer 
 depreciated — all this is attended with difficulty : 
 and the more the difficulty of it is acknowledged, 
 the deeper will be the conviction that the story of 
 •his conversion had * something in it.' 
 
 Now what was that ' something ' ? It was 
 clearly not less than the element of the super- 
 natural, the inexplicable, that accompanies the 
 true conversion of each ordinary Christian. There 
 have been few disciples of Christ greater than 
 Paul. But we hold that no man becomes, in 
 spirit and in truth, a disciple of the Lord Jesus, 
 without the distinct and direct operation of a 
 Power which defies all the ingenuity of science, 
 analysis, and observation to account for it. For 
 " the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou 
 hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell 
 whence it comcth, and whither it gocth : so is 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 53 
 
 every one that is born of tlie Spirit ^" It is 
 nothing less than the Spirit and the power of the 
 Omnipotent which transforms into the image of 
 Christ the soul which has hitherto borne only the 
 image of the earthly. It is in defiance of all the 
 wisdom of the world, and in independence of all 
 the maxims of science and the revelations of the 
 physical and the natural, that this change takes 
 place. You cannot account for it; you cannot 
 explain it ; you cannot define its laws. They are 
 not the laws of lunacy, nor of eccentricity, nor of 
 any other observed and registered peculiarity of 
 any kind. The lives of a John Bunyan, a Richard 
 Baxter, or a Henry Martyn, are a standing miracle. 
 They are inexplicable, except upon one hypothesis. 
 And the death-bed of every Christian, now-a-days, 
 is a miracle likewise. It defies the scrutiny of 
 science to explain it. Except upon one hypo- 
 thesis, it is not to be explained. But while these 
 miracles exist and confront us daily, we cannot 
 question the miracle which we find in at least a 
 part of St. Paul's conversion — the part, namely, 
 to which his writings testify. For the miracle 
 which our own eyes behold, or have beheld, is but 
 part only of the miracle which is in them. They 
 are the record and the proof of a more gigantic 
 miracle of grace than any which has since been 
 wrought. But how can we, with the evidence of 
 
 « St. John iii. 8. 
 
54 The Conversion of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 this miracle before us, question the possibiUty of 
 another miracle, wrought indeed in another sphere, 
 but wrought simultaneously with this, and rest- 
 ing upon evidence no less unimpeachable ? For 
 whether or not, in being caught up into Paradise, 
 the Apostle refers to his conversion, certain it is 
 that he speaks of an event no less independent 
 than that was of the ordinary laws of human 
 existence. On his own showing, therefore, we 
 have in his history to deal with circumstances that 
 refuse to be reckoned in the number of the common 
 and the natural, which can only, therefore, in fair- 
 ness be regarded as supernatural. At least it is 
 not consistent, while admitting the reality of these, 
 to deny the abstract possibility of others, different 
 indeed in kind, but not different in the degree of 
 their inherent possibility. 
 
 Assuming, then, as it would seem there is every 
 reason for assuming, the actual truth of the narra- 
 tive of St. Paul's conversion, as it stands, in 
 what it suggests no less than in what it asserts, 
 let me ask you to consider the direct bearing of it 
 on the truth of the Gospel story. And in order to 
 determine this, we have but to bear in mind the two 
 voices, " I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest," and 
 " Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do ?" The pre- 
 cise accuracy of these words matters not; even if 
 they were only imaginary, they truly represent 
 the whole after-character of St. Paul ; but, as we 
 have seen, we may deal with them as literally 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 55' 
 
 and exactly true ; and then it becomes impossible 
 to escape from the conclusion that the persecuted 
 Jesus was alive and present; and that not in a 
 parable or figure, not in the persons of the dis- 
 ciples, for they were none of them there, but 
 in the reality of His own Person. The Man who 
 had been crucified was then speaking to Saul, and 
 Saul knew that he was speaking to Him. He 
 knew there could be no imposture, no collusion, 
 no mistake. The very Name he had execrated 
 was now pronounced from heaven ; the cause he 
 had persecuted was now recognised in heaven; 
 he confessed that the Galil^ean, whom he had 
 resisted unto blood, was now victorious. " Saul, 
 Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" "Who art 
 Thou, Lord?" " I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom 
 thou persecutest." There is no denying it : the 
 words ring in our ears now, after eighteen cen- 
 turies of the world's turmoil. Whatever else is 
 false, they at least are true. Eebel against the 
 truth of them as much as you will, shut your 
 eyes to the evidence of them as you may, call the 
 whole story a delusion, brand it as the baseless 
 fabric of a vision, explain it away in all its details, 
 strip it of the supernatural, resolve it into a flash 
 of lightning, an earthquake, a stroke of epilepsy, 
 or what you will, but after all there is a depth 
 in it you have not fathomed, there is a truth in it 
 you have not recognised, a mass of abiding testi- 
 mony to Christ that will speak and make itself 
 
56 The Coiiversioii of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 heard, ay, and will be accepted also by tlie gene- 
 rations of a remote posterity, 
 
 " To the last syllable of recorded time." 
 
 It would be easy, tben, to show how there is 
 implied in this voice, " I am Jesus, whom thou 
 persecutest," an acknowledgment as a fact of the 
 resurrection and ascension. The despised Peasant, 
 whose disciples had now filled Jerusalem with His 
 doctrine, was met with in the journey to Damascus. 
 He was not dead : He was able to vindicate His 
 own cause, to assert His power over the elements, 
 to smite a party of horsemen to the earth, to 
 render them speechless; to strike one of them 
 blind. Was all this a thing to be done by the 
 mere spirit of a dead Man's teaching? by a very 
 vivid presentment to the mind of His former 
 existence? or a sudden perception of the truth 
 and genius of His doctrine ? No ! we cannot 
 believe it, and most emphatically do we say we 
 cannot. If the heart of the headstrong persecutor 
 was turned to Jesus, then the Will of Jesus was 
 supreme; and if it was turned to Him, in this 
 way, then He took heaven and earth to record, and 
 made them bear witness, that He was their Sove- 
 reign too; Lord, not only of the hearts and 
 consciences of men, but of the might and power 
 of the elements also, which fulfilled His pleasure. 
 And whether is greater, to bend the stubborn will 
 of the proud heart, and to make the haughty spirit 
 
II] The Conversion of St. Paul 57 
 
 bow, or to speak by a Voice from heaven, to 
 eclipse the brightness of the Eastern sun at noon- 
 day, and bring to the ground the physical strength 
 of powerful men? Assuredly, He who after His 
 death, without human agency, did the one, as we 
 know He did, could likewise do the other. It 
 is capable of a reductio ad ahsurdum to suppose 
 it otherwise. 
 
 And, lastly, from this time forward, the life 
 of the persecutor flowed in another channel : his 
 will was conscious of another influence ; it obeyed 
 another law. " What shall I do ? Lord, what 
 wilt Thou have me to do ?" He surrendered him- 
 self in the whole man, in the completeness of his 
 humanity, body, soul, and spirit, to a new Master, 
 to the Master whom he had wronged, whose dis- 
 ciples he had persecuted. He gave himself up to 
 Him as His servant and slave, henceforth deter- 
 mined to know nothing* save Jesus Christ and 
 Him crucified. But a self-surrender so absolute, 
 so permanent, and so unfaltering, as his life and 
 writings show it to have been, is intelligible only 
 upon one supposition. He learnt to behold in 
 Jesus Christ the revelation of the Will of the Grod 
 of his fathers ; he never renounced his allegiance 
 to the God of his fathers ; he learnt to know Him 
 better, and to see Him more clearly, in and 
 through the Person of Jesus. He was the per- 
 fectly transparent and pellucid medium through 
 which the brightness of the Divine glory streamed 
 
58 The Co7iversion of St. Paul [Lect. II 
 
 upon his believing soul. In seeing Him, he saw 
 the Father. Had he not done so, had there been 
 any thin gauze of substantial diflference between 
 the Object and the Medium, his self-devotion to 
 Jesus would have been not only inexplicable, but 
 even impious. He would have broken faith, not 
 only with the obligations of the ceremonial law, 
 but with the divinity of the moral law, which 
 proclaimed, with an inviolable authority and an 
 unalterable significance, " Thou shalt have none 
 other gods but Me." But seeing in the once- 
 persecuted Jesus the revelation (it is a Divine 
 word, for God alone is revealed, or can reveal) 
 of the living God, and through the revelation of 
 Jesus, the greater glory of the Almighty and 
 Eternal Father, he could say to the Galatians, 
 in terms of no equivocal or ambiguous meaning, 
 " I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which 
 was preached of me is * not after man. For I 
 neither received it of maii^ neither was I taught 
 it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 
 
LECTURE III 
 
 THE FAITH OF ST. PAUL 
 
 Acts xiii. 38, 39 
 
 "i?e it knoivn unto you therefore, men and brethren, that thi-ough 
 this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by 
 him all that believe are justified from all things, from ivhich 
 ye coidd not be justified by the law of Moses J^ 
 
 HAYING thus far reviewed the ground upon 
 which we accept the ordinary behe, about 
 the early history of the Apostle Paul, and the 
 narrative of his conversion, we will endeavour 
 now to estimate the kind of evidence to Christ 
 which is borne by his acknowledged writings, even 
 though reducing them, for the sake of argument, 
 to the smallest possible number. 
 
 It is very commonly supposed that if certain 
 texts and portions are abstracted from Scripture 
 and shown to be doubtful or spurious, a fatal 
 blow is struck at the religion of Christians. 
 Nothing is really more false if the matter is 
 rightly apprehended ^ 
 
 ^ Pi'ofessor Jowett observes, Epistles, «&c., i. 352, " It is 
 often supposed that, if the evideuco of the genuineness of a 
 
6o The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 Imagine it to be a fact that a certain passage 
 or book is not genuine, that it is an unauthorised 
 addition by a later hand, it will at once be seen 
 that no possible harm is done to the cause of 
 Christ by the separation of the false from the 
 true. According as we beHeve the justice of His 
 own declaration, " I am the truth," we shall be 
 persuaded of the impolicy, no less than the ini- 
 quity, of a pious fraud, and shall question the 
 expediency of trying to establish the true with 
 the aid and addition of the false. We shall, on 
 the contrary, be quite certain that the true can 
 stand best alone, and be the stronger and more 
 invincible. 
 
 single book of Scripture be weakened, or the credit of a single 
 chapter shaken, a deep and irreparable injury is inflicted on 
 Christian truth. It may afford a rest to the mind to consider 
 that, if but one discourse of Christ, one Epistle of Paul, had 
 come down to us, still more than half would have been pre- 
 served. Coleridge has remarked that out of a single play of 
 Shakespeare the whole of English literature might be restored. 
 Much more true is it that, in short portions or single verses 
 of Scripture the whole spirit of Christianity is contained." 
 This may be very true ; but is it the whole truth ? What if 
 every vestige of Scripture which spoke of the death or resur- 
 rection of the Lord Jesus were lost ? Would that which is 
 somewhat vaguely called " the spirit of Christianity " survive ? 
 Can that " spirit " exist apart from a living and revealed Head, 
 by whom it was promised, and from whom alone it proceeds ? 
 " The whole spirit of Christianity " may be said to be contained 
 in the Parable of the Sower ; but who could recover or extract 
 it from that Parable if no other discourses of our Lord, or no 
 other portions of Scripture remained ? Surely there is that in 
 Holy Writ, which being lost or denied, all is denied or lost. 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paul 6i 
 
 And thougli there is a manifest danger Here, as 
 elsewhere, lest in rooting up the tares we root up 
 also the wheat with them, it may be advantageous 
 for many believers, no less than profitable for 
 some who are wholly or in part unbelievers, to 
 show that when the adversary, or the indifferent 
 and lukewarm critic, has done the worst. that he 
 can do with the volume of sacred Scripture, it 
 still rests on a foundation which is beyond his 
 reach, as regards the substance of the faith which 
 •it reveals to man. It is not because we have 
 doubts ourselves, but because we would deal 
 truly and faithfully with those who have, that we 
 adopt this course. We desire to wrestle with the 
 adversary on his own ground, and to do battle 
 with his own weapons, declining for the time the 
 use of manifold resources upon which we might 
 justly draw; striving to prove that when the least 
 possible is left to us, there is even then sufficient 
 for our need. While, therefore, in one sense 
 allowing that it is unfair to represent the cause 
 for Christ as one in which we must accept ' all 
 or nothing,' we shall endeavour to show that 
 there is one most just and necessary sense in 
 which, unless we do accept Christ for ' all,' we 
 virtually accept Him for ' nothing,' and in vain. 
 
 My object, then, will bS to show the unsatis- 
 factory character and position of half-belief — that 
 it is inconsistent with itself and illogical ; and to 
 show this by proving from the evidence of St. 
 
62 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 Paul's writings, when most reduced, that he was 
 no half-believer. And in the attempt to do so I 
 shall endeavour likewise, as far as possible, to 
 avoid identification with any one sect or party in 
 the Church of Christ; seeking rather to present 
 the truth in such a manner that every Christ- 
 illumined conscience may respond to it; and to 
 this end shall eschew to the utmost the use of 
 theological terms, if so be, by the grace of God, I 
 may win to Christ the common wayfarer in the 
 world's thoroughfares by submitting to him com- 
 mon arguments clothed in common language. 
 
 I assume, then, for the present, that the words 
 which have been read from the Acts of the 
 Apostles are rightly ascribed to St. Paul ^ They 
 are said to have been part of his sermon at 
 Antioch in Pisidia, and we have no reason to 
 doubt it ; but whether or not he really used them, 
 every one must allow that they fall in with the 
 tenor of all his teaching ^ The early chapters of 
 the Epistle to the Romans, the whole of the 
 Epistle to the Galatians, are but an expansion of 
 the same statement : they may, therefore, fitly be 
 selected as a sample of his doctrine. Whether 
 or not he actually used them, which we do not 
 
 * See Appendix. 
 
 ' Recent criticism has indeed asserted the contrary ; but the 
 difference is imaginary rather than real. Who would suppose 
 tliat these words implied a power in the Law to justify from 
 some things, and not absolutely that Christ justified from all ? 
 Sec Davidson's Introduction to N. T., 1868, vol. ii. p. 230. 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paid 63 
 
 question, tliey are manifestly words whicli lie 
 might have used. What, then, is the plain and 
 natural meaning conveyed by them ? 
 
 If we were to search all Scripture through, we 
 could not find any words better calculated to 
 exhibit the reality of the conversion we have 
 been considering than these are. They contain 
 a direct and explicit denial of all the sentiments 
 he had most fondly cherished. They set forth 
 the Man whom he had perhaps spent months, or 
 even years, in persecuting as the one channel of 
 forgiveness and the one ordained means of right- 
 eousness before God. They are full of the ardent 
 zeal and the irrepressible enthusiasm of a new 
 convert, who, not content with advancing the 
 truth he has embraced, will expose also the error 
 he has renounced which once enthralled him; 
 who will destroy in order that he may build. 
 There can be no doubt that the man who spoke 
 these words, or words like them, had renounced 
 all dependence on the Mosaic Law. He was no 
 longer a Jew as opposed to a Christian, however 
 much of Judaism his Christianity had imbibed. 
 He may have believed, indeed, in the Divine mis- 
 sion of Moses, but he did not believe in the worth 
 of reliance on Mosaic institutions, and compliance 
 with Mosaic ordinances, as a means to righteous- 
 ness. 
 
 Here, then, was evidence of a great change. 
 But of what was the change itself an evidence ? 
 
64 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 Had he changed for the better or for the worse ? 
 Was he right or wrong in his changed condition ? 
 We desire to urge very strongly the fact that he 
 was one or the other. He could not be both, and 
 he could not be neither the one nor the other 
 because partly right and partly wrong. Many 
 doubtless would have said, at least we know they 
 would have said now, that he was wrong to draw 
 the broad distinction; that a wiser and more 
 enhghtened spirit than his would have discovered 
 common ground on which both positions could be 
 justified and both convictions meet. But without 
 insisting for the moment that St. Paul was right 
 in his decision, there can be no question what- 
 ever, as to what that decision was. He was per- 
 suaded that the two positions were wholly and 
 entirely at variance, that they were hopelessly 
 irreconcilable ^. 
 
 And no careful observer can for a moment 
 suppose that his antagonism to his former Mosaic 
 behef arose in any degree from a failure to appre- 
 
 * Even modern criticism takes delight in dwelling upon, if 
 not in magnifying, St. Paul's antagonism to his early faith. 
 But the more this is noticed, the more remarkable docs his 
 conversion become, and the more probable the fact that it was 
 attended with extraordinary circumstances. A striking indi- 
 cation of the total revolution which thought has undergone 
 in these matters during the last hundred years is manifest in 
 this, that whereas, before, Paley found an armoury of defence 
 in the coincidences between the Acts and the Epistles, the 
 followers of Baur ground their attacks upon the credibility of 
 the Acts, on the discrepances between them and the Epistles. 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Pan I 65 
 
 ciate or understand it. His eager antipathy did 
 not arise from the want of intelligent sympathy. 
 The reverse was the truth. He knew, so to say, 
 the ins and outs of Mosaic belief, its strength as 
 well as its weakness ; he was a judge biassed in its 
 favour, for he had himself been an attached dis- 
 ciple and a strenuous supporter of it. But know- 
 ing all that he knew, and feeling as he felt, he 
 now saw that it was essentially and radically 
 wrong as an end in itself. That it fell short of 
 the purpose for which he had believed it was 
 sufficient, that it missed the mark he had thought 
 it hit. 
 
 And it is to be observed that this was not 
 because he depreciated or disparaged the Mosaic 
 Law, but because he exalted it. "Do we then 
 make void the Law through Faith ? God forbid : 
 yea, we establish the Law^" No man thought 
 more highly than he did of the truth and import- 
 ance of the Mosaic writings, and the Mosaic his- 
 tory ; or of the origin and authority of the Mosaic 
 Law, both of which he believed to be Divine. 
 But he had learnt now that the Law of Moses 
 could not make righteous; could not purify the 
 heart, nor cleanse the conscience ; and he knew 
 that, when most devoted to it, his heart and con- 
 science had been uncleansed : he also felt now, as 
 a matter of personal experience, that they were 
 cleansed. He was not narrower 'in sympathy 
 " Eom. iii. 31. 
 
 F 
 
66 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 than he was before, but wider and broader. Ho 
 was not poorer in experience, but vastly richer. 
 He was not shallower in knowledge, but deeper 
 and more profound. 
 
 He was like a man ascending a mountain ; when 
 at a certain elevation, he lias a certain command 
 of the surrounding country, but the higher he 
 rises, the farther he sees ; he does not grasp less 
 of the landscape, but more ; he does not lose what 
 he has before seen, but he retains it, and sees 
 more; nay, he sees, even with respect to tliai, 
 what he did not see before — its relation to other 
 and neighbouring points, how it Hes, and what its 
 position is with reference to the surrounding land- 
 scape. It is not a matter of opinion which view 
 is the more correct, it is simply a matter of fact ; 
 he who will take the widest and most accm'ate 
 survey will ascend the highest. 
 
 And every thing bears witness that it was so 
 with Paul. He had before been zealous and 
 energetic; he had ever been bold, enthusiastic, 
 self-sacrificing, and self-forgetful. But the record 
 of his earlier life lives only through the record of 
 his later. It was in Christian "labours" that he 
 was "more abundant ''." It was as a Christian 
 that he was "in prisons more frequent," and "in 
 deaths oft." He had risen higher in the scale of 
 experience when he became a Christian ; he had 
 climbed to higher elevations in humanity, as a 
 "■ 2 Cor. xi. 23. 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paul 67 
 
 follower of Christ. We are bound, therefore, to 
 accept his testimony with regard to himself. The 
 view that he commanded of his earlier life was 
 truer and more accurate than it was before : he 
 was right, therefore, and not wrong in his de- 
 cision. 
 
 And this fact will become to us yet more mani- 
 fest if we consider that as he was not ignorant of 
 what he had renounced, so neither was he of what 
 he had embraced. Of course it is open to us to | 
 reject St. Paul as an expounder of Christianity, as ' 
 a preacher of Christ. We may fondly imagine 
 that we can improve upon his Gospel ; we may 
 deny his authority and set aside his judgment ; 
 but unless we are willing to do this, unless we 
 beheve that he spoke here with the indiscreet zeal 
 of a too eager convert, we cannot refuse to accept 
 with deference his statement, that the two posi- 
 tions here contrasted are incompatible : they were 
 so in his case, not accidentally but essentially, and 
 they are so in all cases universally. 
 
 There can, therefore, be no compromise between 
 them ; and St. Paul was quite right in staking the 
 whole weight, value, and authority of his Gospel 
 on the assertion that there could not. He tho- 
 roughly understood the Law of Moses ; he was 
 not ignorant of the Faith of Christ ; if there is 
 one thing to which his writings bear witness more 
 than to another, it is this, that he believed a com- 
 promise between the two to be absolutely fatal to 
 
 F 2 
 
68 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 both ; or, at least, that any aUiance with the Law 
 
 was absolutely destructive to the Faith of Christ. 
 
 / " Christ is become of no effect unto you, whoso- 
 
 j ever of you are justified by the Law ; ye are fallen 
 
 • from graced" He may have been wrong in his 
 
 vehemence, at fault in his conclusion, indiscreet 
 
 in his antagonism, but there is no doubt about 
 
 the sincerity of it ; and if he was wrong, then we 
 
 are altogether at sea as to the respective merits of 
 
 Christ and Moses — of the Law and Grace. We 
 
 have rejected St. Paul's Gospel, and must cast 
 
 about to invent another for ourselves, in defiance 
 
 of the warning, " Though we, or an angel from 
 
 i heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than 
 
 \ that which we have preached unto you, let him be 
 
 ^ accursed ^" 
 
 It would seem then, all things considered, that 
 whatever may be the tendency of popular senti- 
 ment in the present day, however we may think 
 that had we been in the days of St. Paul we would 
 have endeavoured to effect a compromise betAveen 
 the antagonistic principles here contrasted, it 
 would have been hopeless and impossible to do so. 
 I There was a point, in the judgment of the Apostle, 
 and that a very definite and distinct one, at which 
 the faith of Christ encountered a principle in- 
 1 herently and permanently at variance with it. 
 This conviction, for evil or for good, was the dis- 
 tinctive mark of Pauline Christianity. 
 
 ' Gal. V. 4. * Gal. 1. 8. 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paul 69 
 
 Having seen, then, that according to St. Paul, 
 there are certain principles which are essentially 
 opposed, let us pass on to inquire what in his own 
 case these principles must have been, and what 
 the relation of them is now to us ? In the first 
 place, there was the observance of the Mosaic 
 Law, which he had learnt to know was a useless 
 bondage. It was useless, because it failed to 
 accomplish one particular end, which he now 
 valued more than all things. It could not justify. 
 There is a certain flavour of theology attaching to 
 this word, of which it is extremely difiicult to 
 divest it ; but we must endeavour to do so. One 
 thing at least is clear, that, whatever associations 
 are connected with it now-a-days, it had a real 
 and distinct meaning then ; and exactly in pro- 
 portion as the spiritual and moral nature of man 
 is the same now that it ever was, we may be sure 
 that this meaning is ascertainable now : it will be 
 very intelligible, if we deal with the tiling rather 
 than the word. 
 
 The Apostle had found, then, that strict and, 
 minute compliance with the rites and ceremonies \ 
 of a legal system failed to satisfy his nature. It 
 did not set him right with himself, or right with 
 his fellow-men, or right with God, his own con- 
 science being witness. There was a felt want; a 
 void which required to be filled, but which routine 
 observances of whatever nature did not and could 
 not fill. The fault did not appear to be in the 
 
70 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 observances themselves, or in the rules laid down 
 for them, but somewhere or other it was in him. 
 Somehow or other lie was wrong, and he felt it. 
 Possibly the words spoken by Christ, " it is hard 
 for thee to kick against the goads," may point 
 to moments when this was experienced in times 
 past. It would seem that in spite of all his 
 activity and energy he had had misgivings in 
 his mind. He may have tried to silence them, 
 but they would speak. Even at the martyrdom of 
 Stephen, for some reason or other, he did not 
 take an active part, but was content to " keep the 
 raiment of them that slew him." We may perhaps 
 not be wrong in discerning traces of this un- 
 easiness here; but there can be no doubt that 
 it was not till afterwards that he felt to the full 
 the inadequacy of the Law, the insufficiency of 
 observing it, to satisfy the deeper yearnings of his 
 nature. It was the felt experience of the Gospel 
 of Christ which showed at once how deep these 
 yearnings were, and that nothing else could satisfy 
 them. 
 
 Nor is it at all difficult to perceive more pre- 
 cisely the special form which those yearnings took 
 in the Apostle's mind : they were yearnings for 
 deliverance from sin. The memorable words 
 spoken at Antioch show this ; but if iliey did not, 
 the Epistle to the Romans would. He had suffered 
 severely from the condemning power of sin. It 
 had haunted him like a niohtraare. He had felt 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. PatU 7 1 
 
 it like the presence of a corpse. " Wlio shall 
 deliver me from the body of this death ? " He 
 could not shake it off; and the routine of Mosaic 
 enactments, instead of helping him to do so, only- 
 bound it faster and closer to him. There is clear 
 and irresistible evidence of all this. We have not 
 drawn upon the imagination or exaggerated the 
 picture ; his own confession is the witness ; we 
 cannot set it aside, if we would ; but if we could, 
 it is by no means the only witness of the kind. 
 Multitudes besides St. Paul have felt and de- 
 scribed the same conflict with sin in the con- 
 science, so that it cannot in justice be regarded as 
 an idiosyncrasy of his own, but must be dealt with 
 as a fact of our common nature. And, though 
 the conflict we speak of may have owed much 
 of its fierceness to the writings of St. Paul, yet we 
 must bear in mind that it by no means originates 
 with them. The Psalms of David and the writings 
 of the Prophets are equally conscious of the pre- 
 sence of sin as a disturbing power in the soul, not 
 to mention that there are traces of the same thing 
 in the hterature of all nations and of all ages. It 
 cannot, therefore, be right or wise to treat it as a 
 delusion of the fancy, an error of the judgment. 
 
 Now, it is certain that no man ever passed 
 through a sorer agony, in the struggle with sin, 
 than St. Paul did. He was fully conversant with 
 all its bearings ; and he had also found that minute 
 compliance with legal observances was powerless 
 
72 The FaitJi of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 to deal with it. The two forces, sin and the Law, 
 moved along parallel lines in the same plane, and 
 never met. The commandment exposed and 
 detected sin with unerring certainty, but could 
 not eradicate it. The Law condemned, but could 
 not cast it out. The efforts of a sincere and 
 earnest mind to keep pace with the requirements 
 of the Law were always baffled by the presence 
 of sin, which was persistent and all-pervading. 
 The result was constantly recurring, and con- 
 tinually the same : " Ye cannot be justified by the 
 Law of Moses. It is not able to give you that 
 sense of inward righteousness, which you really 
 crave after, and to which you have a right." 
 
 And, it is to be observed, that this inability, 
 which was specially predicated of the Law of Moses, 
 was neither confined to Ids Law, nor limited to the 
 ceremonial portion of it . The same may be said of 
 the apphcation of all Law, as a means of setting the 
 conscience right. It is a universal fact, of human 
 experience, that he who strives to compete with 
 precept is outstripped by precept ; for he learns, 
 by degrees, that pi^ecept is not merely a literal 
 instrument, but a spiritual agent of unknown 
 capabilities ; and, therefore, if he leans on precept 
 for support, it will go into his heart and pierce 
 him. It is what the Apostle found it to be, a 
 struggle between a carnal agent and a spiritual 
 power. " The law is spiritual, but I am carnal, 
 sold under sin." To look to the fiilfilment of 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Pmil 73 
 
 precept, whatever tlie precept may be, for tlie 
 satisfaction of tlie yearnings of the soul, is either 
 to be ignorant of the nature of those yearnings, 
 or else to look in vain to have them satisfied. 
 
 But had the Apostle's experience carried him 
 no farther than this, it would have been interesting 
 and instructive as a subject of psychological study, 
 although comparatively useless and unprofitable ; 
 but it was far otherwise. His constant and un- ! 
 varying testimony was, " Through this Man is 
 preached unto you the forgiveness of sins : and 
 by Him all that believe are justified." Now, here, 
 we have to observe, that his testimony was of 
 value exactly in proportion to the depth of his 
 former experience. It is not even a matter of 
 importance whether that experience was morbid, 
 or normal ; we may perhaps go so far as to say 
 that if it was morbid, yet then the merit of the 
 counteracting principle was enhanced rather than 
 diminished thereby. If his sense of sin was 
 exceptionally deep, then there is all the more 
 credit attaching to the power of that remedy, 
 which was able not only to relieve but to heal 
 it. 
 
 And yet the evidence on this point is not less 
 abundant and conclusive than on the other. If, 
 there was one thing St. Paul was sure of, it was the 
 sufliciency of the grace of Christ. The exuberance 
 of the joy with which he hailed his deliverance from 
 the body of sin and death, and his escape to the 
 
74 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 possession of lifo and righteousness in Jesus 
 Cliristj is conspicuous and unmistakable : " Who 
 shall deliver me ? .... I thank God, through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord." It is absolutely and 
 hopelessly impossible to set aside and to deny 
 this. The writings are undisputed, the language 
 is self-evident; it is not even doubtful or am- 
 biguous, but transparently clear. He lived, and 
 wrote, and travelled, and preached, and laboured, 
 and suffered, and died, for no other end if not for 
 this, to show men that through the name of Jesus 
 Christ there was preached unto them the forgive- 
 ness of sins. All history, therefore, bears us 
 witness that he had found in his own conscience 
 a solution of that perplexing enigma which the 
 struggle of sin and Law presented; that in his 
 most profound personal experience the clamouring 
 voice of the accuser was hushed for ever. 
 
 "We may sum up, then, very briefly, this portion 
 of our argument. As a matter of indubitable fact, 
 which is beyond the insinuation of a doubt, St. 
 I Paul found deliverance from the condemnation 
 (and the restlessness of sin, through what he called 
 'belief in Jesus Christ. "We will not stop now 
 to inquire into the meaning of this. The state- 
 ment at present is enough for our purpose. It 
 was somehow through Jesus Christ that he found 
 deliverance. Then who was this Jesus Christ ? 
 Was He the subject of St. Paul's invention ? Was, 
 first of all, his sense of sin imaginary, and then 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paul 75 
 
 his sense of deliverance, and then, finally, the 
 Person from whom the deliverance was supposed 
 to come ? As far as I am aware, no one was ever 
 rash enough to suggest that St. Paul invented 
 the existence of the Person whose name he 
 preached. But if he did not invent the existence 
 of that Person, he must have adopted the inven- 
 tion of some one else, supposing Him to have 
 been invented; and, if this was the case, then 
 Paul spent his whole life in making known to 
 mankind the name of a Person who was a pure 
 invention ; and in doing so, because, after he had 
 for some time, possibly for years, found that 
 obedience to legal observances gave him no in- 
 ward peace, brought no relief to the gnawing 
 sense of sin, he had at last discovered that this 
 imaginary Person had entirely done so ; had not 
 only succeeded where the, as he believed. Divinely- 
 appointed Mosaic Law had failed, but, in addition 
 to this, had put him in possession .of spiritual 
 gifts and graces which, when he was most zealous 
 of the Law, he had not even desired or conceived. 
 Given, then, the Apostle's sense of sin and j 
 sense of pardon — the pardon must have come 
 through some one — he says it came through Jesus 
 Christ, not merely through others, on condition of 
 believing in Jesus Christ, but from Jesus Christ 
 Himself. If, then. He was an invention. He was 
 an invention capable of bestowing the sense of 
 pardon, capable of giving relief to an aching con- 
 
76 The Faith of St, Paid [Lect 
 
 science, of strengthening and establisMng a sin- 
 stricken soul, like St. Paul's. 
 
 We pass by this for the time, and insist upon 
 the fact that this Jesus Christ, to whom St. Paul 
 became a convert, was certainly not Ms invention, 
 but was in vogue then ; he was the Jesus Christ 
 commonly known among the Christian brethren ; 
 not a different Person, but the same; and Paul 
 found in Him all he wanted ; was content to sacri- 
 fice all for His sake, and spent his life in pro- 
 claiming the knowledge of Him, to the destruction 
 of all his early hopes, and in defiance of all his 
 early prejudices. This, then, as far as it goes, is 
 a witness to the existence at that time of a power 
 or influence which was commonly ascribed to 
 Jesus Christ, which, for some reason or other, was 
 associated with Him, and of which His Name 
 was generally accepted as the symbol or expo- 
 nent. 
 
 Now it is quite clear that St. Paul could not 
 have invented this association of ideas, because 
 there is abundant evidence that it was common to 
 him with others, who were more or less inde- 
 pendent of his teaching and influence. (He speaks, 
 for example, of others being in Christ before 
 him '-'.) But it is scarcely less clear that the other 
 bodies of Christians, who were in existence when 
 he was known as Saul the persecutor, cannot 
 have invented this association of ideas, or have 
 * Rom. xvi. 7. 
 
Ill} The Faith of St. Paul ^j 
 
 invented the name and history of the Person to 
 whom was ascribed the attribute of the forgive- 
 ness of sins ; for the bare existence of such a 
 Person was notorious to every one; the main 
 features of His history were as familiar to Saul as 
 they were to any one ; it was a well-known fact 
 that Jesus had lived and taught in Galilee and 
 Judsea, and had died at Jerusalem. The question, 
 then, was not a question of fact, but rather a 
 question of doctrine, whether or not to this Person 
 belonged the high prerogative of forgiving sin. 
 And to this, the simple fact of Saul's own change 
 of sentiment, from the rage of a persecutor to the 
 zeal of a convert, was no slight or feeble testi- 
 mony. Certain it is, that the change which we 
 know to have taken place in him could not have 
 taken place, if there had not been a solid and 
 indestructible basis of fact underlying all that 
 framework of doctrine to which Saul became a 
 convert. 
 
 But neither again, on the other hand, is it pos-, 
 sible that that basis of fact can have been very 
 different from what it is still proclaimed to be, 
 for the simple reason that unless it had been of a 
 sufficient strength it could not have borne the 
 superstructure that was reared upon it. For see 
 what that superstructure was ! Nothing less than 
 a Divine prerogative, the forgiveness of sins, and 
 a position in the scale of spiritual dignity far 
 higher than that of Moses, are to be assigned to 
 
78 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 this Person, whose history is allo-wed to be, to a 
 certain extent, a matter of fact. 
 
 Now these are two points on which Saul the 
 Pharisee must have hekl very definite opinions. 
 
 f " Wlio can forgive sins but God only?" is a ques- 
 tion which he doubtless would have been the first 
 to echo, and the traditional honour assigned to 
 Moses was, as we know, the highest that could be 
 ascribed to man. If, therefore, some basis of fact 
 
 ' is allowed to the life of Jesus, and Paul was con- 
 tent to receive remission of sins through Jesus, 
 and to place Him far higher than Moses, it is 
 obvious that the facts connected with the life of 
 Jesus must have been of a highly exceptional 
 character. As a matter of fact we know that 
 crucifixion was one of these facts, and that the 
 cross of Christ was ever appealed to as Paul's 
 greatest glory. But there was nothing in the 
 cross itself to be an object of glory. As a symbol 
 of shame and execration it could only become an 
 object of glory fi'om association with Him who 
 died upon it. The cross itself, then, being an 
 undisputed fact, becomes a witness to the glory 
 of the Crucified, because it was proclaimed as a 
 symbol of glory, and was despoiled by Him of its 
 associations of shame. But the cross of Christ 
 would still have been a symbol of shame and of 
 scandalous defeat, had Jesus brought back with 
 Him no pledge of victory through the cross ; and, 
 as a matter of fact, we know that this same St. 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paul 79 
 
 Paul declared not only that Jesus was " delivered 
 for our offences," but also that He was " raised 
 again for our justification ^" 
 
 It would seem, then, according to this evidence, 
 that the Besurredion likewise was one of those 
 exceptional facts in the life of Christ which Saul, 
 the persecutor, was persuaded he had sufficient 
 ground for beheving. That Jesus rose from the 
 dead the third day, was part of the very brief 
 creed that he has himself preserved. But if it 
 was a fact that He was raised from the dead, and 
 was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, then of 
 above five hundred brethren at once, of whom 
 the greater part were yet alive when the first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians was written, then of 
 James, and then of all the Apostles, then, — one 
 of two conclusions must necessarily follow, — 
 either the Lord Jesus was still on earth mixing 
 and conversing among men, or He must have been 
 withdrawn to an elevation of glory from which He 
 would again be looked for with longing by all 
 Christian men who waited for His coming ^ . Now 
 it is perfectly evident from the writings of St. 
 Paul, which of these alternatives expressed his 
 belief. Every line he ever wrote bore witness to 
 his habitual consciousness of Christ above him, 
 as the Author of all grace, and the supreme Dis- 
 penser of all power. He at least was " always 
 confident, knowing that whilst he was at home in 
 ' Rom. iv. 25. ^ 1 Cor. iv. 5. 
 
8o The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 the body lie was absent from the Lord." He for 
 one " laboured " always, " that whether present or 
 absent he might be accepted of Him," knowing 
 that "we must all be made manifest before the 
 judgment-seat of Christ." 
 
 Here, /then, at least, we find woven into the 
 very thread and substance of St. Paul's undis- 
 puted writings, the essential framework and tissue 
 of the Christian creed. We have his testimony 
 given in a way in which it is not possible to 
 accept his authority and reject it, to the life, the 
 death, the resurrection, the ascension of, and the 
 future judgment by, the Lord Jesus Christ. "We 
 see that St. Paul could not have dethroned Moses 
 from his position of eminence and set up Jesus 
 in his place; that he could not have professed 
 himself willing to receive the forgiveness of sins 
 through Jesus, and could not have proclaimed 
 Jesus to others as the only channel of forgiveness, 
 unless, first of all, Jesus had been a real person ; 
 and unless, secondly, the known circumstances of 
 the life of Jesus had been such as to correspond 
 with and to warrant this high estimate and these 
 proud assumptions. That the human existence 
 of Jesus was a reality is not to be questioned with 
 the acknowledged evidence of St. Paul's writings 
 before us. 
 
 But admitting the human life of Jesus as a 
 reality, it is no less obvious from the virtue 
 that St. Paul ascribed to Jesus, which was the 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paid 8 r 
 
 very essence and marrow of his teaching, that if 
 there had not been exceptional features and ele- 
 ments in that life, it could not have sustained the 
 weight of doctrine that was based upon it. In that 
 remission of sins should be preached through a 
 man who merely died as a malefactor, — that justi- 
 fication unto life should come through the dead, 
 and the ministration of the Spirit through one who 
 had himself seen corruption, and was even then 
 mouldering in the tomb, — was an absolute impos- 
 sibility, a sheer absurdity. If Jesus was in spi- 
 ri1?iial things what Paul consistently declared Him 
 to be (and here we must bear in mind that those 
 only are adequate judges who, like Paul, have tried 
 and found Him so), then there is but one conclu- 
 sion possible, that the dispensation of the Spirit 
 was committed unto Him ; that He was ordained 
 of God to be the Judge of quick and dead ; that 
 He was set forth to be a propitiation through faith 
 in His blood ; and that He of God was made sin 
 for us, though He knew no sin, that we might be 
 made the righteousness of God in Him. 
 
 But in order that we may see this the more 
 clearly, let us, in conclusion, dwell at yet greater 
 length upon the two points advanced by Paul at 
 Antioch in connexion with his testimony to Christ. 
 " Through this Man is preached unto you the for- 
 giveness of sins." It may sound a strange thing 
 to say, but this " preaching" either is or is not 
 a truth ; that is, the forgiveness of sins either 
 
 G 
 
82 The Faith of St. Paul [Leot 
 
 comes through Christ, or it does not. If it does 
 not come through Christ, then the claims advanced 
 on behalf of Christ are fallacious, or Christ, as the 
 means of forgiveness, the channel of pardon, is 
 superfluous ; that is, either some other person, and 
 not Christ, is the channel of forgiveness, or else 
 no channel is wanted, and God forgives sin inde- 
 pendently of Christ, and without any reference 
 to the mediation of Christ. Now it is perfectly 
 evident that both of these alternatives are ex- 
 cluded by the statement of the text. The Apostle 
 was reasoning with men who implicitly believed 
 that the one revealed way of salvation was through 
 the obedience of the Law of Moses. They thought 
 they could fulfil the requirements of that Law, 
 and by fulfilling them could lay hold of a valid 
 hope towards God. They believed He would 
 recognise the disciples of His own Lawgiver. No 
 other system was brought into competition ; but, 
 if so, it would have been rejected, and its ad- 
 herents anathematised. 
 
 To people, then, in this frame of mind, St. Paul 
 declared the Law of Moses useless as a means of 
 forgiveness. It is manifest that no Law, as law, 
 can be the basis of hope ; unless, instead of con- 
 demning, it acquits. If the Law has not been 
 violated, then its operation is null and void; but 
 in no case can its operation, if it operates, be 
 other than one of death. It is equally manifest, 
 that every human being falls under the operation 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paul 83 
 
 of Law somewhere; and with reference to no 
 human being can the operation of the Law of God 
 be absokitely null and void. All are responsible 
 to God ; none have discharged their responsibili- 
 ties ; therefore the operation of Law comes in as 
 an agent of death ; and, consequently, from the 
 Law, as law, there can be no hope of life. From 
 some other source, indeed, without reference 
 to Law, hope may enter, but not on the basis of 
 Law. In the case in point, however, this other 
 source, upon the hypothesis, was excluded; the 
 Law, then, being found useless as a means of 
 pardon, these men of Antioch were left without 
 hope if they rejected the one ground of hope now 
 set before them. " Through this Man," but through 
 this Man alone, "is preached unto you the for- 
 giveness of sins." 
 
 Again, the operation of Law, as a guide of life, 
 has reference solely to the present and the future ; 
 it has no effect upon the past, except, indeed, one 
 of retrospective condemnation ; while the same 
 causes which prevented its fulfilment in the past, 
 must, of course, operate in like manner for the 
 future; there would remain, therefore, not only 
 long arrears of sin uncancelled, but also a con- 
 tinually accumulating mass of sin with which a 
 system of Law was wholly incompetent to deal, 
 except as an agency of condemnation and death. 
 Unless, therefore, the moral Law of God was made 
 only to be broken, against which the unfaltering 
 
 G 2 
 
84 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 voice of universal nature loudly protests, mankind 
 are left without any ground of hope, if some ap- 
 pointed ground is not revealed. Saul of Tarsus, 
 who had passed through all the agony of this 
 debate, as an intense inward struggle, found in 
 Christ what no one has ever found elsewhere, a 
 complete discharge of guilt, a discharge extending 
 not only to the past, but also to the continuous 
 present; and embracing, therefore, prospectively, 
 the future, because applying not merely to the 
 actions of the man, but likewise to the man him- 
 self. This was the remission of sins which he not 
 only himself found in Christ, but was able to pro- 
 claim also to others through Him. 
 
 Now there are two ways, and only two ways, in 
 which this forgiveness or remission of sins, if a 
 fact, could be established : one, by means of a 
 direct revelation such as St. Paul laid claim to, 
 and such as seems, at the first, to have been given 
 him in his journey to Damascus ; and the other, 
 that inward consciousness of peace, heahng, and 
 rectitude, which would, doubtless, accompany it, 
 if a fact, and which certainly, being of a moral 
 nature; could not be produced by any thing itself 
 out of harmony with the moral nature of man, and 
 contrary to the moral and spiritual constitution 
 bestowed upon him by God. In other words, if 
 this forgiveness of sins, when behoved, had the 
 effect of what is technically called justifying, that 
 is, of setting a man right with reference to him- 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paul 8 5 
 
 self, and to nature, and to God ; of putting him 
 consciously in the highest moral position of which 
 he felt his moral nature to be capable ; if, that is, 
 it was attended with moral results analogous to 
 those physical effects produced in the woman with 
 an issue of blood, who " felt in her body that she 
 was healed of that plague," and in the man born 
 blind, who said, " one thing I know, that, whereas 
 I was blind, now I see," — that would of itself con- 
 stitute an amount of confirming evidence to the 
 truth of it which no sane man could venture to 
 despise. It would not be demonstrative evidence, 
 only because not of the nature of such evidence, 
 but it would be evidence in its kind no less con- 
 clusive, and evidence, to him who was the subject 
 of it, even more conclusive, because the evidence 
 of the whole man, and not merely of one faculty 
 of his mind. 
 
 Now in the case before us, both these ways of 
 confirmation meet; the way of external revela- 
 tion, and the way of inward and conscious cer- 
 tainty. St. Paul (in his own personal history, a 
 standing witness to the truth of Christ) declares 
 that all who believe are forgiven, and set morally 
 right in Christ. There is made a tabula rasa of 
 past existence and past sin, and life begins anew 
 with them on a new and rectified basis. The 
 effect wrought on their entire nature is a witness 
 to it, for " he that believeth hath the witness in 
 himself." 
 
86 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 Wliile, tlierefore, it would seem that we liave 
 all the proof of tliis position being real and valid 
 that we need, on the one hand, or can demand on 
 the other, — the concurrent evidence of outward 
 fact and of inward consciousness in the history 
 of St. Paul, — we must not forget that there 
 open to us yet other sources of proof if we choose 
 to make experiment for ourselves of what he de- 
 clares. For then we also may possess that same 
 righteousness and pardon through behef which 
 was to him nothing less than an inward revelation 
 of the truth. It may not, indeed, in our case, be 
 accompanied by the accidents of miraculous cir- 
 cumstance that attended it in his, but it will have 
 a force scarcely less weighty, and not one whit 
 less conclusive. 
 
 The students of physical science recognise three 
 preliminary stages in the method of conducting 
 their inquiries. First, observation ; secondly, ex- 
 periment ; thirdly, verification. We must, in the 
 first place, observe and register the phenomena 
 of nature ; we must, in the second, experiment 
 upon them; we must, in the third, verify the 
 results obtained. And the same method may be 
 pursued spiritually. We must first acknowledge 
 the effects produced by the contemplation of the 
 facts of the life of Christ; we must next submit 
 these effects to the test of our own personal ex- 
 periment ; we must ourselves take hold of the 
 electi'ic chain which is to communicate to us the 
 
Ill] The Faith of St. Paul 8 7 
 
 influence of an unknown sensation ; and lastly, we 
 must verify tlie results obtained by constant re- 
 flection and by persevering prayer : by so doing, 
 we shall find that we verify the true and detect 
 the false. If we decline to hold the electric chain, 
 we must not be surprised if we feel no shock ; if 
 we refuse to comply with the conditions of the 
 experiment, we have no right to complain should 
 it not succeed. But if we submit ourselves fairly 
 and honestly to the influence which the Gospel 
 would bring to bear upon us, we may trust it to 
 verify itself by producing inwardly "righteous- 
 ness, and peace, and joy, in the Holy Ghost." 
 
 There is no manner of question that it was thus 
 with the great Apostle, and if the faith he preached 
 is a living reality, it is not only capable of pro- 
 ducing the like results now, but must and will 
 do so where there is a corresponding hold of it. 
 If in Christ Jesus there is forgiveness of sins, and 
 if by Him " all that believe are justified," then, 
 most assuredly, that which was offered by St. 
 Paul at Antioch to all, without distinction, is the 
 heritage of Gentile as well as Jew, and may be the 
 priceless possession of Englishmen in the nine- 
 teenth century after Christ, no less than of Greeks 
 or Asiatics in the first. There wants but the 
 same tenacious grasp of truth, the same uncom- 
 promising zeal, the same unflinching boldness, and 
 the ancient message will awaken the old response. 
 The same flower will bud and open, will form and 
 
88 The Faith of St. Paul [Lect. Ill 
 
 set, will develope and ripen in the mature and 
 golden autumn of Christian experience, into the 
 same rich, fragrant, and luscious fruit which will 
 be " Christ in us, the hope of glory." 
 
LECTURE IV 
 
 THE COURAGE OF ST. PAUL 
 
 Rom. i. 16, 17 
 
 " / am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ : for it is the power 
 of God unto salvation to every one that helieveth ; to the Jew 
 first, and also to the Greeh. For therein is the righteousness 
 of God revealed from faith to faith." 
 
 IN my last Lecture I endeavoured to sliow the 
 kind of evidence we have to the nature of 
 St. Paul's belief. This evidence was drawn from 
 writings universally acknowledged to be his, and 
 as far as I am aware, it was not unduly pressed. 
 Taking it at the lowest estimate, his faith is still 
 found to be of standard and sterling value. The 
 ring of the metal is the genuine and the true one ; 
 the stamp is not counterfeit, but real. 
 
 In other words, suppose these Epistles to have 
 been written and published for the first time in 
 our own day, what is the kind of impression they 
 would produce ? What is the kind of opinion we 
 should form of them ? Would they possess the 
 interest of the last novel and startling theory ? 
 Would they attract the attention of the intellectual 
 
90 The Courage of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 and the learned, like some brilliant and sparkling 
 contribution to a review? "Would they chime 
 in with the tone of thought which is found among 
 the flippant and the frivolous ? Would they satisfy 
 the insatiable longing for something new and 
 strange of the wavering, the unsettled, the in- 
 different, or the half-believing ? Are these the 
 kind of treatises in which iliey would naturally 
 take delight ? As a matter of fact, are they the 
 subjects of their frequent and spontaneous study ? 
 I do not mean for the critical and philological 
 questions arising out of them, but purely and 
 simply for the marrow and substance of their 
 matter ? Is not the interest which happens to 
 attach to them of an antiquarian rather than a 
 human character ? There can be no doubt as to 
 the answer which must be given to these ques- 
 tions in a vast majority of cases. 
 
 And yet, it is certain that St. Paul's claim to 
 the attention of mankind rests not on the niceties 
 of his language, or the multiplicity of absorbing 
 questions that arise out of his history and his 
 works, but upon that plain and definite message 
 which it was the sole and direct object of his 
 wi'itings to convey. Neither is that message, 
 ao^ain, of an uncertain or ambio-uous character. If 
 we would but treat his letters as writings of our 
 own age, we should feel that it is not. The 
 persons to whom he wrote were of all classes and 
 conditions ; there were, doubtless, men of excep- 
 
lY] The Courage of St. Paul 9 1 
 
 tional penetration among them, as tliere were also 
 of exalted station ; tliere were those, probably, who 
 had been trained in the subtleties of a Greek 
 education, as well as those who occupied the room 
 of the unlearned. But it would be absurd to 
 place the average standard of intelligence higher 
 than it is among ourselves. And yet, on the 
 other hand, it would be no less absurd to suppose 
 that the main features of the message which the 
 Apostle intended to convey were not intelHgible 
 to the least educated of his disciples. He must 
 have had an object in writing : what that object 
 was is sufficiently clear and manifest. He must 
 have had something of importance to say. Unless 
 he was a far less skilful writer than we suppose 
 him to have been, he must have made that impor- 
 tant thing sufficiently plain and intelligible. And 
 if, again, as we believe, the importance of it was 
 altogether independent of time, the real nature 
 and essence of it must be no less intelligible to us 
 than it was to the first believers. 
 
 Now, in an age like ours, it is very needful 
 to allow to such considerations as these their due 
 weight. It is not for one moment that we dis- 
 parage or under-rate the great importance of 
 critical, philological, historical, geographical, or 
 other questions involved in the full interpretation 
 of St. Paul's writings ; but what we do assert 
 is this, that it is possible to leave out, for a time, 
 the consideration of these and kindred questions, 
 
92 The Co7iragc of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 and to concentrate our attention exclusively on 
 the real question at issue, which is wholly inde- 
 pendent of them. 
 
 For example, the sum and substance of a 
 Christian man's belief is contained in the Apostles' 
 Creed. To the terms of that creed we are all of 
 us pledged by our baptism. "We are received as 
 Christians if we believe it ; we are rejected if we 
 do not. It may be all very well to expand that 
 creed into the creed of NicaBa, the creed of Con- 
 stantinople, the creed of St. Athanasius, the con- 
 fession of Augsburg, the "Westminster confession, 
 or the Thirty-nine Articles; but that which is 
 known as the Apostles' Creed remains the creed 
 of our baptism. Many who could rally round that 
 would be found to separate before the greater 
 stringency of some of the others; but to none 
 who accepted iliat could we venture to deny the 
 name of Christian. 
 
 And in proportion as any were more occupied 
 with the special peculiarities of the longer symbols 
 would they be in danger of forgetting the funda- 
 mental truths that were common to all alike. 
 The statements of the Apostles' Creed are those 
 which contain the most vital truths, and not the 
 additional propositions of later ages. It is by 
 drawing nigh to the heart and marrow of these 
 that we approach the seat of life, and not by 
 clinging tenaciously to the outward coverings 
 which are of foreign substance and inferior worth. 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul 93 
 
 And it most certainly is not otherwise here. 
 The central and essential verities that St. Paul 
 enunciated are independent of the minuter ques- 
 tions of criticism ; these latter are subservient to 
 them, and by no means of prior importance. It 
 was not criticism that changed the face of the 
 heathen world in the first age, or that shook the 
 foundations of Eome fifteen centuries later; but 
 the outpouring of a new spirit, that had been for- 
 gotten and despised. And it is not that our own 
 knowledge requires to be increased, for the know- 
 ledge of this age is various and profound ; but the I 
 knowledge that we have requires to be quickened \ 
 by the inbreathing of a Divine Spirit, which is 1 
 none other than the Spirit of Pentecost'. The ( 
 bare truths that Jesus lived, and died, and rose j 
 again, and ascended into heaven, have before now \ 
 wrought wonders, and they are destined to do so \ 
 again. It is because the writings of St. Paul bear 
 conclusive testimony to these facts, and testimony 
 that is untouched by criticism, that they are of 
 inestimable value to the world. And it is this 
 feature of them we desire to elicit, knowing that 
 here they appeal to the wider sympathies of man- 
 kind, and that here is, in fact, their impregnable 
 strength. 
 
 Let us look, then, at this great servant of Jesus 
 Christ, while longing to visit the Roman Chris- 
 tians, and writing from Corinth his letter to 
 ^ Preached on Whit- Sunday. 
 
94 The Courage of St. Pajil [Lect 
 
 Kome^ "I am not ashamed," he says, " of the 
 Gospel of Christ." Why should he be? Was 
 there any thing in it to make him ashamed ? Yes, 
 verily, there was much. There was shame with 
 the men of his own nation, for he had forsaken 
 the faith of his fathers ; he was known as a rene- 
 gade and an apostate ; in professing the Gospel of 
 Christ he professed connexion with a sect which 
 was every where spoken against. There was 
 shame there with the world at large; with the 
 refined, the intellectual, the luxurious, the men of 
 a merely animal life, who believed not in truth, 
 and who disregarded virtue, — with these he was 
 esteemed as " the filth of the world, and the off- 
 scouring of all things ^ ;" he was the Apostle of a 
 profession and a faith which was " to the Jews a 
 stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," — 
 there was every thing, therefore, to make him 
 ashamed. 
 
 Moreover, it would seem that he had very re- 
 cently been the unwilling cause of a disgraceful 
 uproar at the chief city of proconsular Asia, which 
 had, doubtless, brought him no small accession of 
 popular hatred. He was a pohtical outcast; a 
 condition which may have been partly instru- 
 mental in preventing him from again visiting 
 Ephesus, and inducing him to adopt the other 
 expedient of summoning the elders of the Church 
 there to meet him at Miletus. And yet, if 
 
 * Acts xix. 21 ; XX. 1, 2. ' 1 Cor. iv. 13. 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul 95 
 
 all this was so, why was lie not ashamed of 
 what was itself notoriously shameful ? Because 
 he was a disciple of the truth : that was the 
 key to his boldness, that was the secret of his 
 courage. 
 
 Now we must estimate very carefully the hind 
 of truth, which, from the evidence before us, we 
 have no difficulty in doing. It was not scientific 
 or philosophical truth ; not that kind of truth 
 which has such absorbing interest for, such abso- 
 lute command over, the trained and accomphshed 
 mind. The sciences, properly so called, are in no 
 sense indebted to the writings or to the life of 
 St. Paul. No mathematical operation is named 
 from him ; no scientific discovery boasts of him 
 as its author. The truth to which he was devoted 
 was of a totally different kind; we in no way 
 depreciate the value of scientific truth by pointing 
 out the difference, any more than we do in de- 
 fining, for special purposes, the respective differ- 
 ences or values of art and science. 
 
 Neither, again, was the truth, of which Paul 
 was an Apostle, justly to be regarded as political 
 truth. The doctrines he proclaimed had, indeed, 
 a most direct and significant bearing on the poli- 
 tics of the world, but this was an accident of 
 them; it was not on account of their political 
 bearing that he proclaimed them. He studiously 
 avoided mixing himself up with the quarrels and 
 concerns of the political parties of his day, or with 
 
96 The Co2irage of St. Patil [Lect 
 
 the administration and machinery of the Empire. 
 By Agrippa and by Festus he was acquitted of 
 any pohtical offence. Like his Divine Master, 
 whose "follower" he was, the powers that be 
 were scrupulously reverenced and had in honour 
 by him. He himself claimed the protection of 
 the supreme authority of the State. The mis- 
 apprehension that we discover in " these all do 
 contrary to the decrees of Gaesar, saying that 
 there is another king, one Jesus *," is almost un- 
 intelligible to us who have been taught, " My king- 
 dom is not of this world." Nothing is more cer- 
 tain than that it is impossible to represent the 
 Gospel which Paul preached as a kind of political 
 creed which he was anxious to propagate. The 
 testimony of all history is against the notion. 
 We can discover no relation or analogy between 
 the advocates of free trade, or the ballot, in our 
 own day, as such, and the first preachers of the 
 Gospel. The orbits of the two are totally dis- 
 tinct, and in no point does one necessarily inter- 
 sect or touch the other. Accident may produce 
 a combination of circumstances, in which one may 
 have an indirect bearing on the other, but for all 
 that they are essentially distinct. It is probable 
 that Peter and Paul were put to death as political 
 malefactors, but they were none the less innocent 
 of any offence against the constitution of the 
 Empire. Whatever else they were, they were not 
 * Acts xvii. 7. 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Pmil 97 
 
 'political reformers ; theirs was, in no strict sense, 
 2i political creed. 
 
 Wliat, then, was the nature and domain of that 
 truth which Paul proclaimed, and in the strong 
 conviction of which he was not ashamed ? It was 
 truth which concerned, not the intellect of man- 
 kind, or the political framework of society, but 
 the spiritual constitution of the race ; it was truth 
 whiqh was addressed immediately to the con- 
 science of mankind. The voice of the first preach- 
 ers of the Gospel was heard like the sound of a 
 mounted traveller, echoing through the desolate 
 and ruined corridors of some vast and magnificent 
 temple which had long lain waste, and had been 
 untenanted and unvisited of its God. The altar 
 was overthrown, the sanctuary forsaken, the 
 courts and precincts were choked with briars and 
 overgrown with weeds, the birds nestled and 
 reared their young in the costly friezes and the 
 lofty pediments ; it was dismantled within, and 
 decayed without ; the marble floor was the haunt 
 of unclean beasts ; the winds sighed, and the owls 
 hooted through the pillars and the aisles; and 
 the whole was open to the wide vault of heaven, 
 to the heat by day, and to the frost by night. 
 But it was beautiful in its decay. The hand of 
 the master was conspicuous every where ; through- 
 out were the traces of sublime intelligence, and 
 infinite wisdom, and exquisite skill ; every thing 
 bespoke how fair it once had been, how fair it yet 
 
 H 
 
98 The Courage of Sf. Paul [Lect 
 
 might be, if the God would return to His forsaken 
 shrine. For now the hoofs of tlie rider's horse 
 awoke but the echoes of desolation, and discovered 
 but the tokens of decay. 
 
 Such was the sound of the Gospel message, as 
 it fell on the ears of a worn-out civiUsation and a 
 decayed humanity. It awoke the echoes of a 
 forgotten past, aroused the slumbering recollec- 
 tions of a deity who was none other than , the 
 Ancient of Days, and called into life and sensibi- 
 lity the suspended consciousness of ruin. " You 
 hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses 
 and sins," is no inapt or overstrained representa- 
 tion of the work achieved by it. For they whose 
 sound thus went out into all lands were the mes- 
 sengers of a mighty King who had given com- 
 mandment to restore and to rebuild, and not 
 merely to remind of desolation. And this was the 
 special truth with which Paul was entrusted — this 
 was the doctrine of which he was the Apostle ; a 
 spiritual truth whose province and sphere was the 
 ruined, but undying spirit of man ; which con- 
 cerned not his intellect, or his political constitu- 
 tion, or his artificial development, but his moral 
 nature, and the mysterious framework of his con- 
 science and his will. It had to deal with what 
 had never before efi*ectually been dealt with, 
 namely, i>m. It spoke direct to the inmost re- 
 cesses of man's personal being. It detected the 
 hollowness, the falsehood, and the wrong of which 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul 99 
 
 he vainly endeavoured to forget that he was con- 
 scious, and it made him aware of a vast debt of 
 responsibihty to One whom till now he had neither 
 recognised nor known. 
 
 It revealed to him a new relation in which he 
 stood to this unknown Being ; it proclaimed to 
 him miracles of love and mercy which had been 
 wrought on his behalf; the care of a Father; the 
 affection of a Friend who was faithful even unto 
 death; the grace and glory of a Spirit who was 
 perfect in holiness, the bestower of purity and 
 peace. 
 
 And while speaking of all this, it won with the 
 cords of a man, and with bands of love, the heart 
 of the erring and the lost to the Being of whose 
 love it assured him. And as the seed contains! 
 the undeveloped tree, and the flower contains the \ 
 fruit, so this new principle of Divine love con- | 
 tained within itself the utmost perfection of which I 
 man's moral nature was capable. In making him 1 
 righteous towards God, it made him just also 1 
 towards his fellow-man, faithful, honest, and 
 true ; it made him compassionate and merciful, 
 tender and gentle, noble and self-sacrificing, brave 
 and valiant. It contained within itself all that 
 was fairest and loveliest in art and literature, in 
 manners and chivalry, in the conduct of life, and 
 the prosecution of knowledge. It gave a fresh 
 impulse to science and to civilisation, to commer- 
 cial enterprise and to social progress ; because it 
 
 H 2 
 
lOO The Courage of St. Patil [Lect 
 
 took away the dark cloud of uncertainty and 
 hopelessness which hung around the future. We 
 may deny that these things are, in any degree, the 
 effects of the Gospel which Paul preached, but it 
 is a matter of fact, that they have characterised 
 the latter ages of the world; and it is likewise a 
 matter of certainty, that we may be under obliga- 
 tions to the light of Christ, that it is easy to 
 disown, but impossible to calculate. 
 
 Again, we need not be at any loss to under- 
 stand more clearly the nature of that truth which 
 was to the Apostle a sure antidote to shame, if we 
 duly consider his own estimate of it. We shall 
 then see manifestly that its peculiar sphere was 
 neither science nor politics, and cannot with any 
 degree of justice be confounded with either. He 
 speaks of it as " the power of God unto salvation." 
 Now the only way in which we can escape from 
 the necessary force of these words is by reducing 
 " the power of God " to identity with the physical 
 forces of nature, and by regarding " salvation " 
 as an alternative expression for temporal health, 
 safety, protection, and the hke. 
 
 But here, if a tendency had not actually mani- 
 fested itself to understand the Pauline language 
 thus, we might almost be excused the mention of 
 it ; as it is, one need assuredly do but little more 
 than observe how completely such a method of 
 interpretation fails to justify itself. If the Apostle 
 had meant this, why could he not say he meant 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul loi 
 
 it? Such language would have been intelligible 
 to every one ; there could have been no dispute 
 about it, except, indeed, as regards the fact, and 
 here it would have carried its own refutation with 
 it. For how could such a Gospel as we have seen 
 that he proclaimed be in any way connected with 
 the mere working of the physical forces of nature ? 
 How could its natural result be some form of 
 that temporal health and safety which is alleged ? 
 How could the death of Christ be God's mighty 
 method of preserving the physical life and senses ? 
 It seems too monstrous to demand even a passing 
 notice. 
 
 But we must not fail to observe that the degree 
 of its improbability is the exact measure of the 
 stringency with which we are shut up to the 
 opposite and only possible interpretation. The 
 Gospel that Paul preached dealt primarily, not to 
 say exclusively, in its more immediate effects 
 with the spirits and souls of men. It had, indeed, 
 a reflex action on the whole constitution of man, 
 including even his social and material organisa-; 
 tion, but its first and most direct aim was his 
 spiritual regeneration and his eternal glory. The/ 
 " gift " which it bestowed was the " gift " of 
 " eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord ^'* 
 It proclaimed the spirit of man as that part of 
 his nature in which he was most at fault; that 
 his relations with God were those in which he 
 " Rom. vi. 23. 
 
102 The Courage of St. Paid [Leot 
 
 principally required to be set right. Health and 
 soundness introduced here would extend the 
 blessings of salvation to the whole man. But no 
 schemes of amelioration would really benefit him 
 till he was readjusted in his relations to God. 
 
 And to the accomplishment of this end the 
 doctrine of a crucified and risen Jesus was nothing 
 short of " the power of God unto salvation." 
 For it came with a power altogether supernatural 
 and Divine, and bestowed salvation where it was 
 most wanted and most welcome. 
 
 Nor is it a just ground of complaint that the 
 salvation spoken of is not a subject which admits 
 of scientific definition, that what is actually meant 
 by it remains indeterminate and vague. It cannot 
 be otherwise ; because, as before shown, its sphere 
 is not the intellect or mind of man, which is the 
 special domain of science, but the spiritual nature 
 of man, in which he is capable of renovation after 
 the image of God. Science cannot define God, 
 nor conceive what is meant by the image of God, 
 an expression in the nomenclature of science 
 which is self-contradictory ; so neither can it ap- 
 preciate a salvation which offers to restore man 
 to God's image. For science can only appreciate 
 what it can take cognisance of, can measure and 
 compute ; but this is confessedly beyond its ken, 
 and therefore outside of its territory. But unless 
 it can be shown that man has no other faculties 
 than those of mind and body, exception must not 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul 103 
 
 be taken against that which professes to deal 
 primarily with these other faculties — the faculties, 
 namely, of spiritual existence, the will, the affec- 
 tions, and the indivisible personal essence in its 
 aspect of moral accountability. 
 
 It is, indeed, proposed now-a-days to leave 
 out all this vast district of man's nature, which 
 is like denying the existence of a country which 
 we have not ourselves explored or visited. Against 
 the fatal absiu-dity, however, of such a course is 
 the fact that from time to time there come back 
 to us the graphic and soul-stirring narratives of 
 those who have themselves visited these regions. 
 They proclaim to us their richness, their beauty, 
 their vastness ; they cause us to see, as it were 
 with our own eyes, the long vistas of glory, the 
 wide fields of peace and prosperity, the fertile 
 pastures, and the cooling streams, of the land 
 that floweth with milk and honey, which is the 
 glory of all lands, and the special glory of this 
 land that lies conterminous with our own. 
 
 Now St. Paul was one of those who had visited 
 these less familiar regions of our common nature ; 
 and the accounts he gave of them have induced 
 many to make the like journey for themselves, 
 and they have found them substantiated by the 
 experience of fact. There is a land where the 
 inhabitants are " all righteous "," and " the people 
 that dwell therein have been forgiven then' 
 
 '' Isa. Ix. 21. 
 
104 1^^^^ Courage of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 iniquity ^" For in this land "the righteousness 
 of God is revealed from faith to faith," and the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ is " the power of God unto 
 salvation." But before we can judge thereof we 
 must ourselves enter it. Not more unreasonable 
 would it be to question or deny the narratives of 
 accredited travellers, not having tested them by 
 personal investigation, than it is to pour con- 
 iempt upon these statements because we have not 
 ourselves taken the pains to verify them. For 
 nothing can be more conspicuous than the igno- 
 rance of such persons on the subjects upon which 
 they profess to decide. And in direct contrast 
 to such ignorance, as well as with the logic of 
 unanswerable assertion, the Apostle declares, " I 
 am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, because " 
 it is found to be, and always will be found to be, 
 " the power of God unto salvation ;" the only 
 sufficient agency which can save man from him- 
 self, which can make him a whole man, and 
 restore the lost image of God within him. 
 
 There is, perhaps, scarcely any subject of theo- 
 logical statement more beset with difficulty, or 
 more openly called in question, than what is 
 known as the fall of man. And the obscurity 
 attending it is increased from the fact of its being 
 commonly mixed up with the profound mystery 
 of original sin. But it may bo questioned whe- 
 ther light does not break in even upon this hope- 
 ' Isa. xxx,iii. 24. 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul 105 
 
 lessly dark subject wlien we approacli it as St. 
 Paul does. For without laying the foundation of 
 his theological system in the fall of man, there 
 can be no question but that he approached man- 
 kind as fallen. So far, then, whatever may have 
 been man's original constitution, the glad tidings 
 proclaimed by St. Paul are equally applicable to 
 man's existing condition. 
 
 For whatever man may have been originally, 
 there is and can be no sort of question what he is 
 now. On all sides we are confronted by appal- 
 ling tokens of human depravity and corruption. 
 Not for one moment denying the many splendid 
 examples of transcendent virtue which have 
 adorned and glorified our race, and for which 
 multitudes are still illustrious, there is, after all, 
 no denying the equally patent fact that we are, 
 both as individuals and as a race, inherently, if 
 not hopelessly, corrupt. The real question, there- 
 fore, is not what we once were, not whether we 
 were ever different from what we now are, but 
 whether being what we are, we possess capa- 
 bilities of being raised to something nobler and 
 better; and then, supposing that we do possess 
 them, whether or not the Gospel of Jesus Christ 
 is the ordained means for raising us, — whether it 
 is of actually Divine appointment for that end, — 
 or whether there is any other better and more 
 efficient agency which can be discovered or de- 
 vised. 
 
io6 The Courage of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 Now this is the main issue from age to age 
 between the Gospel of Christ and other schemes 
 of human invention : it shrinks not from open 
 competition with all such schemes. Once for 
 all its challenge has been thrown down for the 
 world's acceptance, and that challenge is the 
 Cross. Till any one can show us a method of 
 more decided and heroic virtue, an act of more 
 transcendent and superhuman glory, as well as of 
 more demonstrably Divine fitness for the wants of 
 the human heart, than that, we may rest assured 
 that the influence of the Cross, which is " the 
 power of God unto salvation," will never cease to 
 be felt. 
 
 Here is the stronghold of the Gospel against 
 which the gates of hell shall not prevail. You 
 may dispute as you will about the abstract ques- 
 tions of theology ; you may theorise and speculate 
 as you will about the origin of man; you may 
 investigate as you can the few and faint and 
 scarcely visible traces and fragments out of which 
 to reconstruct the history of pre-historic man ; 
 but here is a power which deals with man as he 
 is, and is iwactlcalhj indifferent to what he may 
 have been : in this sense it cares nothing about 
 the past, it deals only with the perpetual and 
 unvarying present. When sin is not an inse- 
 parable element in man's nature, but not till then, 
 we may fear for the triumphs of the Cross. 
 
 So far, then, as the Gospel which Paul preached 
 
IV] The Cotirage of St. Paul 107 
 
 presented itself in any sense as an adequate 
 remedy for the existing condition of humanity, — 
 and no one can read the Epistle to the Eomans, 
 and fail to see that whatever else it was, it cer- | 
 tainly professed to be this, — so far we have abso- ' 
 lute proof that man is what the Grospel represents . 
 him ; namely, a being with a corrupt nature, that I 
 is, a falUn being, whether or not we understand 
 that term to imply that the condition of man, his- 
 torically, was ever otherwise. We may not have 
 some of the vices which were the reproach of the 
 ancient world, as depicted at the opening of the 
 Epistle to the Romans, but what about our 
 gigantic commercial frauds ? What about the 
 crime and pauperism of our large cities ? What 
 about the shameless corruption of much of our 
 social life ? Are not these things alone — and there 
 are many more, God knows — sufficient to prove to 
 us, if proof were wanted, that there is something 
 radically wrong in human nature ? Nay, does not 
 the heart of every individual bear conscious testi- / 
 mony to a deep inward moral infection ? We 
 cannot deny, because we know and feel that we 
 are fallen. So far, then, the corruption of our 
 nature is a/aci. 
 
 Nor is it impossible to ascertain from the 
 nature of the remedy suggested, the nature of our 
 fall ^ Now the remedy suggested by the Grospel 
 
 * Mau's original constitution, the Scripture says, was oue of 
 faith, or dcpeudcucc upon God. When he fell, lie lost the 
 
1 08 The Courage of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 is, in one word, Faith. St. Paul declares that all 
 mankind are by nature devoid of righteousness. 
 If his statements mean any thing, they mean this ; 
 but he declares with equal clearness that all man- 
 kind may become righteous by believing on " Him 
 that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead^.'* 
 We do not lose our fallen nature, but we lose the 
 moral effects of it, in our relation to God. The 
 remedy for the fall is belief in God, through 
 Jesus Christ. Faith suppHes that grand defect 
 of our nature to which all human experience 
 ) testifies. If, then, faith is the remedy for the 
 fall, what was the fall itself but want of faith ? 
 The normal, not to say the original, constitution 
 of man is that of faith in God. He is created to 
 exist in a condition of trusting dependence upon 
 God. That he does not do so is the evidence of 
 his fall. The natural man cannot trust in God. 
 For " the natural man receiveth not the things of 
 the Spirit of God : for they are fooHshness unto 
 
 support which he had fi'om above iu God, and could not of 
 himself regain it, any more than a man falling ft-om a height 
 above him could of his own unaided efforts replace himself in 
 the position from which he fell. This fallen condition, being a 
 moral one, affecting the nature, would naturally be inherited 
 by all his posterity. But as the remedy provided is exactly 
 commensurate with the need, the justice of God in permitting 
 that need is vindicated, and His mercy displayed and magnified 
 in the provision made for it. Reason can only perceive a part 
 of the wisdom of this procedure ; it is the office of Faith to 
 believe in the rest. 
 » Rom, iv. 24. 
 
IV] The Cotirage of St. Paul 109 
 
 liini : neither can he know them ; because they 
 are spiritually discerned ^" His spiritual nature 
 is dead in consequence of the fall, and till he is 
 spiritually quickened he cannot believe, nor there- 
 fore hve, for faith is to the soul the very breath 
 of life. Thus according to St. Paul, "as in 
 Adam," that is, as far as they are merely natural 
 men, " all die, even so in Christ," that is, as far 
 as they are quickened by the hfe of the spiritual 
 man, which is faith towards God, " shall all be 
 made alive ^" 
 
 Nor does the Scripture account of the origin 
 of sin differ from this, for it refers the origin of 
 it to disbelief in the spoken word of God, " Yea, 
 hath God said^?" In other words the first sin, 
 that is, the historic fall of man, was want of 
 faith; and with that marvellous consistency, 
 which is the characteristic of truih alone, our 
 Lord said that when the Holy Ghost came He 
 should convince the world " of sin, because they 
 beheve not on Me ;" and this Apostle declares of 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
 
 ' 1 Cor. XV. 22. Cf. Rom. v. 12. 19. Davidson regards 
 these passages as inconsistent. Introduction to N. T. i. 64. 
 But is not St. Paul speaking of a different order of time in 
 each ? That man possessed only an earthly or animal nature, 
 devoid of that spiritual nature which counteracts it, was the 
 consequence of Adam's sin. It is needless to add that the 
 whole subject is a profound mystery which we cannot under- 
 stand. The facts are obvious enough, and it is with these 
 that the Bible deals. 
 
 ^ Gen. iii. 1. 
 
no The Courage of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 the Gospel of Christ, that "it is the power of God 
 unto salvation to every one that believeth," and 
 that in it " the righteousness of God is revealed 
 from faith to faith," a righteousness which springs 
 from faith, appeals to faith, and is received by 
 faith. 
 
 The Gospel, then, is the great exhibition of 
 God's righteousness, on the one hand, and, on the 
 other, being so regarded and hdieved, it becomes, 
 to every one believing it, God's own appointed 
 means of making him righteous, God's ordained 
 instrument for the moral regeneration of mankind. 
 
 The question, then, may fairly arise. Is it so, or 
 is it not ? If it is not so, we have two necessary 
 consequences to face. In the first place all that 
 St. Paul wrote in these four Epistles of the moral 
 power of the grace of God acting upon faith is 
 proved a lie; it is simply not true; there is no 
 such agency in the world; it is a delusion, and 
 all who have ever believed in it have been de- 
 luded. And then all the wonderful deeds of faith, 
 in obedience to the principles of the Gospel, of 
 which the history of Christendom is full, and of 
 which we ourselves have manifold living examples 
 before us, spring from delusion, and are evidences, 
 not of the power of truth, but of the power of false- 
 hood, and though of themselves corroborating the 
 accuracy and justice of the apostolic assertions, 
 must together with those assertions be rejected. 
 
 In which case, secondly, not only had Paul 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul 1 1 1 
 
 abundant cause to be heartily ashamed of the 
 Gospel of Christ, but, more than this, we cannot 
 understand why he was not; we cannot com- 
 prehend how it was that, brought up in a totally 
 opposite belief, a belief so opposite that even he, 
 with all his largeheartedness, who was " made all 
 things to all men, that he might by all means save 
 some '^," was at a loss to reconcile the two, but gave 
 up one, and with one, gave up all, for the other. 
 
 And, yet more, not only is his conduct unin- 
 telligible, but so likewise is that strange episode 
 in his career, which as we have seen has so many 
 elements of unquestionable truth mixed up with 
 it, that we know not how to reject even if we 
 do not believe it, nor how to explain if we do 
 not reject it. We cannot understand why his 
 opinions should have undergone a change so total, 
 nor why, in changing them, his moral and phy- 
 sical nature should have been so convulsed and 
 distracted — why the circumstances should have 
 occurred but for the change, and why the change 
 should have been attended with the circum- 
 stances — if he had not ample cause for not being 
 ashamed of the Gospel which he preached, and if 
 that cause was not the one which he himself 
 assigned, — because he knew that it had been in 
 his own case " the power of God unto salvation," 
 and that it would universally be found to be so by 
 every one that believed it. 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. ix. 22. 
 
112 The Courage of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 On the other hand, if all that was said by St. 
 Paul of the moral and spiritual power of the 
 Gospel was the actual truth — if, as is indeed the 
 case, his whole life is a hopeless puzzle, but on the 
 supposition of its truth — then What is the wit- 
 ness of St. Paul to Christ ? It is simply a witness 
 that can never fail; it will last as long as the 
 world lasts. He could not have been what he 
 was, he could not have done what he did, but for 
 the Gospel of Christ being what he said it was. 
 Somehow or other there was something in the 
 glad tidings " concerning Jesus Christ our Lord, 
 who was made of the seed of David according to 
 the flesh, but declared to be the Son of God by 
 power, according to the spirit of holiness, by [His] 
 resurrection from the dead," which was able to 
 reconcile him to the loss of all things, to make 
 him bold and unflinching in his testimony to 
 Christ, regardless of hardship, and danger, and suf- 
 fering ; to give him a deep inward and unshaken 
 conviction of peace with God, a strong sense of 
 righteousness before him which, until he became a 
 Christian, he had never been able to obtain ; and 
 finally to put him in possession of a new life 
 which had this witness about itself, that it was 
 absolutely indestructible, and which was mys- 
 teriously renewed day by day, though the out- 
 ward man perished continually. 
 
 It is surely not too much to say that testimony 
 such as this is worthy the attentive consideration 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul 1 1 3 
 
 of mankind ; for we know, with a certainty which 
 admits of no dispute, that all this was literally the 
 fact with St. Paul. His character is one which is 
 perfectly intelligible to us now ; the main features 
 of his history are not only familiar, but absolutely 
 certain ; his motives we can estimate without risk 
 of error : but beheve it was all based upon a lie, 
 believe that he was the victim of delusion, in- 
 fatuation, self-deceit, — believe that the cardinal 
 facts he proclaimed, as intrinsic elements of the 
 Gospel, which can no more be dissociated from 
 the moral teaching he inculcated than the moral 
 teaching can be severed from the facts, were after 
 all no facts at all, — and you have a phenomenon 
 in history which not only cannot be explained, but 
 which most assuredly could never have existed, 
 and which therefore did not exist. 
 
 This is the legitimate and the only legitimate 
 issue of which the question admits. Certain 
 results followed the belief in certain facts con- 
 cerning a certain Person ; or, at least, a certain 
 man believed that in his own case the results 
 followed the belief, that wherever the same facts 
 were proclaimed the same results would follow, for 
 which reason he devoted his life to proclaiming 
 them, and left behind him writings which are 
 to all time a perpetual witness that in Rome, 
 Corinth, and Galatia, the proclamation of these 
 facts was attended with the like results. 
 
 In all fairness, then, and common sense we are 
 
 I 
 
114 The Courage of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 justified in asserting that the preaching of the 
 facts produced the results; for not only are no 
 other means discoverable b)'^ which they could 
 have been produced, but all in whom they were 
 produced were agreed as to the cause producing 
 them; there is, therefore, no other conclusion 
 possible for ordinary, plain, and practical men, 
 whatever conclusion may commend itself to specu- 
 lative theorists as more likely or more intelligible. 
 
 But accepting this conclusion, we are warranted 
 in going a step farther, and may say that the 
 results, being what they most undoubtedly were, 
 afford presumptive evidence of no ordinary kind, 
 to say the very least, that the facts proclaimed 
 were not spurious, but true; they were not the 
 figments of the imagination, nor the exaggerated 
 fancies of an excited brain, nor the distorted 
 representations of a perverted and mythical story, 
 but the actual events of historical reality, as much 
 the occurrences of positive fact taking place in a 
 common world as any other events which every 
 one knew and no one cared to dispute; such, 
 for example, as Paul's visit to Athens, or his ship- 
 wreck in the Mediterranean. 
 
 For, considering all points, it is impossible, or at 
 least absurd, to suppose that the results following 
 the belief of the facts in St. Paul's case would 
 have been brought about at all in him, if the facts 
 had been fictitious. He would not against his 
 will and in spite of himself have believed them. 
 
IV] The Courage of St. Paul 1 1 5 
 
 and that suddenly, when the whole bent of his 
 mind was set in an opposite direction, had he not 
 known that they were real, valid, and true ; such 
 as he himself could not dispute, though he had 
 disputed them. 
 
 But even if he had given his assent to them 
 on insufficient ground, they would still not have 
 wrought the change in him which we know they 
 wrought, had they not in themselves that principle 
 of vitality and life which it is plain that they 
 communicated to, and begat in him. If Christ 
 had not died, and risen again, he could not have 
 said, " I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless 
 I live ; and the life which I now live in the flesh 
 I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved 
 me, and gave Himself for me;" but because he 
 could and did say it, we can understand the 
 wisdom as well as the boldness of his undaunted 
 challenge to "the foremost city of the world, a 
 challenge which is made likewise to this age, and 
 will be made to the latest generations of the most 
 distant future : "I am not ashamed of the Gospel 
 of Christ : for it is the power of God unto salvation 
 to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first, and 
 also to the Greek. For therein is the righteous- 
 ness of God revealed from faith to faith : as it 
 is written, The just shall live by faith." 
 
 I 2 
 
LECTURE Y 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OF ST. PAUL 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5 
 
 " And my speech and my pi^eaching was not with enticing tvords 
 of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of 
 poxver : that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of 
 men, but in the poiver of God" 
 
 THE subject of our last Lectures was mainly 
 tlie evidence afforded by St. Paul's writings 
 of the great inward effects produced by his 
 teaching on those who were brought under its 
 influence. When he spoke of the peace, purity, 
 holiness, and joy wliich were the common results 
 of the Gospel, it is clear that he not only expe- 
 rienced these himself, but that the persons to 
 whom he wrote experienced them also. It was 
 as though he had appealed to those who had been 
 common spectators of one and the same event ;- 
 for he wrote not as describing what was unknown, 
 but what was famihar. If, therefore, he was 
 deceived as to these results, many likewise were 
 deceived in all parts of the habitable world where 
 
Lect. V] The Influence of St. Paul 1 1 7 
 
 he had preached. The deception had pervaded 
 all sections and classes of life.* It had penetrated 
 into Caesar's palace, and had touched even the 
 chamberlain of the city of Corinth, and the deputy 
 of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus. It had spread like an 
 infection over vast tracts of country and large 
 portions of mankind. 
 
 Now, for the present, it is a matter of no import- 
 ance whether the influence was a good or a bad 
 one ; whether it was delusion or madness, or any 
 thing else. The fact of its general 'prevalence is 
 the first point that we have to seize ; and about 
 this fact there is and can be no diversity of opinion. 
 We may take the sentiments expressed in the 
 Epistles, for instance, to Rome and Corinth, as 
 sentiments with which the minds of the Christians 
 there were in full accord. And any statements 
 of fact contained in them as part of the message 
 delivered must undoubtedly be reckoned as a por- 
 tion of the faith which was common to all. The 
 Christians at Rome and Corinth believed with an 
 intensity of faith, no weaker than St. Paul's, in 
 the death of Christ on the cross, in the resurrec- 
 tion, in the exaltation to glory, and in the out- 
 pouring of the Spirit. Moreover, all knew per- 
 fectly well that this outpouring was inseparably 
 connected with belief in these facts; that till 
 they had heard of the facts, and believed them, 
 they had been altogether ignorant, as a fact, of 
 any spiritual outpouring. It was an entirely new 
 
1 1 8 The Influence of St. Patil [Lect 
 
 experience consequent upon belief in a Person, the 
 main facts of whose existence had been brought 
 before them ; and all were more or less the subjects 
 of this experience, which, as the facts concerning 
 the Person were the same, was likewise the same 
 in all cases, due allowance being made of course 
 for peculiarities of individual constitution. 
 
 I pass by, then, for the present, the extreme im- 
 probability of such results even following the pro- 
 clamation of facts in themselves misrepresented 
 or untrue. It can scarcely fail to strike every 
 candid mind ; but, for the while, we will not insist 
 upon it, but rather direct attention to another 
 feature, manifest on the face of St. Paul's allowed 
 writings, which is no less unquestionable, and is 
 even more significant than the last. 
 
 Now this is the clear evidence we possess, 
 mainly, indeed, in the first Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, but incidentally hkewise elsewhere, 
 of extraordinary and in every sense miraculous 
 gifts being then in the possession of the Church. 
 It is no less certain that many Christians at 
 Corinth spoke with tongues and prophesied, pos- 
 sessed gifts of healing and wrought miracles ', 
 and that some abused these gifts, than that in 
 the same Church the Eucharistic feast was pro- 
 faned by drunkenness, unseemly conduct, and 
 excess. No one will deny the latter, but the 
 
 ^ 1 Cor, xii. 9, 10. 
 
V] The Influence of St. Paul 1 19 
 
 former is equally undeniable. It rests upon unim- 
 peacliable testimony, and for these reasons. 
 
 JSTo one writing a letter to a number of persons 
 deeply attached to him, and to whom he likewise 
 was attached, could possibly think of rebuking 
 them for errors of which they were guiltless ; of 
 charging them with offences they had not com- 
 mitted. The idea is simply preposterous. The 
 Church at Corinth was guilty, on the one hand, of 
 incest, and, on the other, of gross profanation of 
 spiritual gifts. It admits neither of doubt nor 
 denial. Paul had heard of this condition of things, 
 and the Corinthians knew it to be true. They 
 were guilty of scandalous irregularities, not only 
 in morals, but in the management of certain gifts 
 and endowments that had been bestowed upon 
 them. And the Apostle's rebuke on this latter 
 head is irresistible proof that such gifts existed, 
 and were common at Corinth. 
 
 Now we aU know that it is a matter of doubt 
 what was the nature of these gifts. There is a 
 strong tendency in the present day to reduce 
 the supernatural to the smallest possible limits, 
 and, if possible, to get rid of it altogether. We 
 are impatient at the bare contemplation of a 
 miracle ; we question the evidence, doubt the 
 testimony, and think that if im had been present 
 at the time with our superior enlightenment, 
 more scientific education, and calmer judgment, 
 we should have been persuaded that the supposed 
 
1 20 The Infliicnce of St. Pant [Lect 
 
 miracle was no miracle at all — it is more than 
 probable. 
 
 Most likely, at the time when they occurred, the 
 best attested miracles did not seem miraculous. 
 Many, probably, of the five thousand who were 
 fed by Christ saw in it nothing extraordinary ; 
 the very fact of their witnessing it made it com- 
 mon to them ; doubtless, St. John himself at the 
 time did not see what he afterwards saw in it. 
 And we know on his authority, that some of those 
 who saw Lazarus come forth bound hand and 
 foot with graveclothes, did not believe that Jesus 
 had raised him from the dead. St. John himself, 
 probably, believed it more deeply and firmly the 
 older he grew. And it is in the nature of all 
 events, of any kind whatever, even those which 
 have occurred within the sphere of our own expe- 
 rience, to lose in apparent probability with the 
 lapse of time ; though, of course, it is no less true 
 that any event once a fact is a fact for ever, quite 
 irrespective of the subjective sentiments it occa- 
 sions. 
 
 "We must not wonder, therefore, at a growing 
 dislike of regarding miracles as miracles, at a 
 growing desire to explain them away. It is inci- 
 dental to the greater lapse of time, and incidental 
 to the spirit of the age. But few persons, for 
 example, are able to regard the miracles of the 
 Old Testament as equally sure and certain with 
 the miracles of our Lord. Clearly, therefore, the 
 
V] The Injliience of St. Patil 121 
 
 gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing, in the 
 early Church, cannot be expected to escape un- 
 challenged. 
 
 Let us inquire, then, on what evidence they 
 rest. Now it is to be observed, that they rest not 
 only on the evidence of St. Paul, but of the whole 
 Corinthian Church. His evidence is the evidence 
 of the Corinthian Christians as a body. His 
 Epistle is their tacit and involuntary admission 
 that the abuses complained of were common and 
 notorious. And it would still be so even if the 
 Epistle could be proved to have been forged in 
 the second century; because, even in that case, a 
 forger would be careful to give his work at least 
 the semblance of reality, which would conse- 
 quently demand a known condition of the Church 
 at Corinth similar to the one depicted. The 
 Corinthians, then, must have been traditionally 
 guilty of these offences, and to such an extent as 
 to make it seem probable that St. Paul would 
 write an Epistle to rebuke them, similar to the 
 forged one. But this is a position so monstrous, 
 and confessedly so untenable, that it need not 
 detain us. 
 
 Again, it is not really a matter of importance 
 what was the exact nature of the gifts in question. 
 The speaking with tongues, if really a spontaneous 
 command of unpractised and unfamiliar languages, 
 would, doubtless, be a stupendous manifestation 
 of supernatural power, which could scarcely fail 
 
122 l^Ite Influoue of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 to command the respectful consideration even of 
 the most obstinate. The evidence seems to me 
 to be not insufficient for such a conclusion, but 
 we will not press the point ; there are other points 
 about it more certain than this. "We must remem- 
 ber that divers as are the gifts enumerated, they 
 are mainly of four kinds : namely, tongues, pro- 
 phecy, gifts of healing, and working of miracles, 
 for a distinction is drawn between these two 
 last ^ If, then, there was any deception or exagge- 
 ration, it was carried, so to say, into four distinct 
 regions or provinces. 
 
 Those who had witnessed the operation of gifts 
 of healing had, of course, witnessed also ordinary 
 recoveries of health. Were all these people unable 
 to distinguish between the two, even those to 
 whom, by the way, is attributed also the posses- 
 sion of another gift, that, namely, of discerning of 
 spirits ? Could those who discerned spirits, what- 
 ever that was, not discern between the ordinary 
 operations of medical skill and similar operations 
 which were independent of it? Could St. Paul 
 himself, who knew what it was to be " pressed 
 out of measure, above strength, insomuch that he 
 despaired even of life," and " had the sentence of 
 death in himself," notwithstanding those resources 
 of miraculous power, which within certain Hmits 
 he speaks of possessing, and apparently did pos- 
 sess ; could he, I say, not determine or distin- 
 ' 1 Cor. xii. 9, 10. 
 
V] The hifliience of St. Paul 123 
 
 guish between what lie meant by a gift of healing 
 and tlie ordinary operation of tlie healing art? 
 Though, doubtless, in all cases recognising God 
 as the Healer of man, was he so loose in his lan- 
 guage as well as his ideas as to invent a new 
 phrase expressive of a new power or faculty, 
 which, as a matter of fact, did not exist, and 
 which, therefore, demanded no special epithet to 
 denote it. The thing is absolutely incredible ; it 
 cannot be. 
 
 Or, again, in the case of what are here called 
 miracles, which are plainly distinguished from the 
 gift of tongues and prophecy as well as from heal- 
 ing, are we to suppose that credulity or want of 
 discrimination in St. Paul could not be checked 
 or corrected by many of those to whom he wrote ? 
 Were they all alike under the influence of this 
 delusion ? Had they all agreed together, for this is 
 what it comes to practically, to do their best to 
 cheat the world for ever with respect to certain 
 phenomena, of which otherwise they were either 
 credible witnesses or else notorious dupes ? The 
 very power of discrimination manifest in distin- 
 guishing the working of miracles from a variety 
 of other endowments all equally miraculous, is 
 itself evidence of the strongest kind that neither 
 the writer nor those he was addressing were, in 
 any sense, dupes. We do them gross injustice 
 to suppose that their critical discernment was 
 inferior to our own. 
 
124 The Influence of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 And, in like manner, the line of separation 
 drawn between tongues and prophecy is no less a 
 mark of an actual difference in the gifts, and of 
 the reality of both. Say that prophecy was httle 
 more than the faculty of spontaneous address, or 
 an involuntary impulse prompting to it, then, 
 at least, the gift of tongues was not tMs ; or 
 say that tongues were the manifestation of an 
 ecstatic state under which inarticulate sounds 
 were uttered, which were likewise afterwards in- 
 terpreted by others possessing thai power, then 
 here we have evidence of three distinct faculties, 
 which, whatever the value of them critically, were 
 undoubtedly confined to the Christian assemblies, 
 and were characteristic of those only who pro- 
 fessed belief in Christ. In short, reduce to the 
 lowest possible estimate the apparently mira- 
 culous nature of the gifts possessed by the 
 Corinthian Christians, and you have still clear 
 and incontrovertible e^ddence of special charac- 
 teristics for which they were remarkable ^ It is 
 
 ' Davidson says, i. 53, " The Corinthian Church enjoyed a 
 large measure of spiritual gifts. These were not equivalent to 
 what are now called miraculous, but consisted in the exaltation 
 of the natural faculties, the elevation and purification of 
 talents belonging to humanity." It will be observed that the 
 argument in the Lectures is independent of this assertion. An 
 unusual development of the natural powers might afford con- 
 firmation to the truth of Christ ; and if uniformly consequent 
 upon belief in Jesus, as the Epistle shows it to have been, 
 would assuredly not fail to do so. 
 
Y] The Influence of St. Paul 125 
 
 useless attempting to get rid of tliis fact. We 
 cannot in fairness do so. 
 
 Nor must we in our consideration of tlie pre- 
 sent matter omit to notice one or two other 
 points concerning it. For instance, we have 
 apparent proof that the miraculous powers of the 
 Corinthian Church were the subject of animad- 
 version, not only to their own body, but to un- 
 believers also. St. Paul specifies the fact that 
 *' prophesying serveth not for them that believe 
 not, but for them which believe^," as a reason for 
 desiring the gift of prophecy rather than that of 
 tongues. He contemplates the case, which, there- 
 fore had probably occurred, or was likely to occur, 
 of disinterested and indifferent persons ' or unbe- 
 Hevers witnessing the spectacle of the whole 
 Church speaking with tongues, and of their de- 
 ciding in consequence that they were mad. Now 
 it is obvious that if any ordinary spectator in 
 witnessing such a scene were to give such a judg- 
 ment, there must at least have been something 
 unusual or extraordinary to cause him to do so. 
 We have, therefore, as it were, the unconscious 
 and silent testimony of persons prejudiced against 
 the Christians to the reality of those remarkable 
 phenomena which characterised Diem. 
 
 Again, it is equally manifest that however 
 common these gifts may have been in the 
 Corinthian Church, they were, after all, excep- 
 
 * 1 Cor. xiv. 22. » Ihiwai. 
 
126 The Influence of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 tional. They were not in the possession of every 
 one. Those who possessed them were the objects 
 of a laudable envy to others. Now this fact of 
 itself is a witness to their reality. Not less so is 
 the circumstance that St. Paul does not speak of 
 them in all his Epistles. In those to the Romans 
 and Galatians the allusions to them are uncertain 
 and obscure. St. Peter and St. John in their 
 Epistles make no reference to them. The early 
 literature of the Church is singularly devoid of 
 traces of them. All this, then, goes to show that 
 they were highly exceptional, and, as far as it 
 does, shows also that their existence was a fact, 
 and by no means the result of imposture or delu- 
 sion. 
 
 And yet, further, the testimony to the existence 
 of these miraculous gifts is enhanced rather than 
 weakened by the position of conspicuous infe- 
 riority assigned to them by St. Paul himself. 
 When he draws elaborate distinction between 
 the different kinds of gifts, and exhorts the 
 Corinthians to covet earnestly the hest gifts, he 
 at once rises to the highest flight of even Pauline 
 eloquence in pointing out the more excellent way 
 of charity, and in delineating lis supreme impor- 
 tance. He, therefore, at least was not so carried 
 away by astonishment at the supernatural pheno- 
 mena he witnessed, or so dazzled by extravagant 
 admiration for the lustre of them, as to lose his 
 faculty of calm, critical judgment in estimating 
 
V] The Influence of St. Patil xi^j 
 
 their worth and excellence. He did not overrate 
 them, but dissuaded others to the utmost of his 
 power from being led away by their attractiveness 
 from the pursuit of nobler and more ordinary 
 gifts. 
 
 So far, then, as his conduct here is wise and 
 judicious, so far does it tend to enhance the value 
 of his evidence in favour of the existence in the 
 Church at large, and especially at Corinth, of 
 these miraculous gifts. We are bound to believe 
 that one who could give such discreet and common 
 sense directions for the regulation of these gifts, 
 and estimate their importance so wisely, could 
 not possibly be deceived as to the reality of their 
 actual existence; there was neither mistake, col- 
 lusion, nor imposture. The Church at Corinth 
 was in possession of miraculous gifts, and was 
 guilty of abuse and irregularity in the exercise of 
 them. This is a position which must be acknow- 
 ledged by all to be wholly and absolutely impreg- 
 nable. It would be far more unreasonable to 
 question it than to submit to the weight of irre- 
 sistible evidence by which it is sustained. 
 
 Seeing, then, that this is a fair estimate of the 
 condition of the Church at Corinth in respect of 
 spiritual endowments, we must proceed to notice 
 the invariable law they followed ; which, again, is 
 neither a matter of uncertainty nor of doubt. 
 They did not and could not exist apart from 
 belief in the name of Jesus. " I give you to 
 
128 The Influence of St. Paul [[iE(;T 
 
 understand," says the Apostle, " that no man 
 speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus, Ana- 
 thema : and that no man can say that Jesus is 
 the Lord, but by the Holy Ghosts" On any 
 interpretation of these words it is clear that the 
 divers gifts of the Holy Spirit could only exist 
 when they were accompanied with a recognition 
 of Jesus as " the Lord," or putting the formula at 
 its lowest possible worth, as " Lord." That is, 
 both the exercise of supernatural gifts, and the 
 lowledgment of Jesus as Lord, were equally 
 the woik of the Holy Spirit alone. They may 
 not haA'L bebU co-extensive in the Christian body, 
 but each wi'S the exclusive work of the Spirit. 
 But, as a matter of fact, we know that the posses- 
 sion of the gifts was not universal as to time and 
 place in the Christian body, wbereas no one could 
 become a member of that body but by confessing 
 Christ as Lord. 
 
 Now what did this confession imply ? It im- 
 plied, at the least, that Jesus, who had been cru- 
 cified, who had died the death of a malefactor, as 
 we should say, on the gallows, was a Hving and 
 ruling power, was not dead (for we have evi- 
 dence in this same Epistle), but risen again. The 
 Corinthians were told that if Jesus Christ was 
 not risen again, that is, after being crucified, they 
 were yet in their sins ' : and this was manifestly 
 no new doctrine inculcated then for the first 
 
 • 1 Cor. xii. 3. ' 1 Cor. xv. 17. 
 
V] The Influence of St. Patil 129 
 
 time, but }3art of the original creed they had 
 accepted, of which they required to be put in 
 mind, and to be shown the wide practical bearing. 
 
 From this, then, we see that the gifts which 
 were certainly possessed and exercised, were only 
 exercised where there was a firm and sincere 
 belief in the death and resurrection of the Lord 
 Jesus, and in His government of the world as its 
 sovereign Ruler. Where there was not this belief, 
 or where this belief was weak or insincere, there 
 certainly these gifts were not possessed: they 
 could only be exercised where an honest and 
 hearty confession of it had been made. 
 
 We have, then, estabhshed upon demonstrable 
 proof, the existence and operation of certain gifts, 
 which were, as manifestly, of a supernatural cha- 
 racter, the circumstances of their evidence being 
 fairly weighed. We know that their bestowal 
 was the exclusive dowry of a particular confession 
 of faith ; of faith, that is, in a Person marked by a 
 particular history and exercising at the time par- 
 ticular functions. Would any sane man witnessing 
 such phenomena under such conditions, and wit- 
 nessing them to the extent to which they were 
 doubtless witnessed among the Churches at 
 Corinth, say that the whole thing was delusive 
 and false ; or would he not rather, as seems occa- 
 sionally to have happened, " falling down on his 
 face, worship God, and report that God was in 
 them of a truth"? Is it not obvious to common 
 
130 The Influetice of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 sense that apart from the moral character of the 
 persons professing the belief, with which we have 
 nothing now to do, a faith which to a very large 
 extent produced commonly such very uncommon 
 results, would certainly appear to receive nothing 
 less than supernatural confirmation ? 
 
 And forasmuch as this supernatural confirma- 
 tion, however it may fit in with our scientific pre- 
 dilections or educational bias, is really as well 
 attested as any thing possibly can be, what are 
 we to say of it now, but that it does furnish 
 evidence of an enduring and perpetual character, 
 which it is extremely difficult to set aside, that at 
 one time in the history of the Church it seems 
 actually to have pleased the Almighty to interpose, 
 in an extraordinary manner, for the confirmation 
 and establishment of belief in a particular Person, 
 who was proclaimed as His own Son, and of whose 
 human history crucifixion and resurrection were 
 prominent and conspicuous features ? In other 
 words, have we not now, in the undoubted record 
 of these gifts, a witness to the truth of that 
 preaching which Paul proclaimed about Christ; 
 which has, indeed, from its very remoteness lost 
 its power of influencing us as it might do, but 
 which needs only to be rightly estimated and 
 duly weighed in order to come home to us with 
 no less force than ever as the seal of the living 
 God to the truth of the Gospel of His Son ? 
 
 If it is a fact that God once spoke in this way, 
 
V] The Influence of St. Paul 131 
 
 then it is certain tliat what He said may be heard 
 now; we have but to inchne our ear, and we shall 
 hear it as plainly as it was ever heard. It is 
 borne across the wide waters of eighteen cen- 
 turies from the shore of the ancient world, and is 
 as clear and distinct in its utterance now as at 
 the time it was first uttered. We may be dis- 
 tracted, on this modern strand of ours, with the 
 roaring of many waters, anxious for the safety of 
 many cargoes, deafened with the din of many 
 ahen and discordant voices, shattered and wrecked 
 with many storms, and ruined with many losses, 
 but in moments of heavenly calm, when the waves 
 are stilled, and the winds are lulled, and the cares 
 of life are hushed, we may hear it in the cool of 
 the evening, as another voice of more solemn im- 
 port was once heard in paradise, and that which 
 it says to us will be what it once said on the 
 banks of Jordan and on the mountain of vision, 
 *' This is My beloved Son, hear ye Him." 
 
 But whether we hear it or not, it is none the 
 less a fact that it still speaks. A certain condi- 
 tion of the atmosphere and of the elements may 
 be needed, and still more a certain purging of the 
 ears, but its utterance is distinct, and its message 
 unmistakable; and, may be, if we hear it not 
 now, we never should have heard it then, had we 
 been present by the waters of Jordan, or on the 
 mountain of Galilee. Nay, more ; had it been per- 
 mitted us to enter the assembly of the Church at 
 
 K 2 
 
132 The htfluence of St, Paul [Leot 
 
 Corinth while the psalm or the prophecy, the 
 tongue or its interpretation, was being delivered 
 by the Spirit to the prophets, we should have 
 taken our stand on the side of those who called 
 Jesus Anathema, rather than of those who con- 
 fessed Him to be the Lord. 
 
 For let us at least be well assured that no 
 middle course was possible then, and as not pos- 
 sible then, so neither possible now. If we con- 
 fess not that Jesus, the crucified, the risen and 
 ascended, is the Lord; that in Him the human 
 has been made Divine, " by taking the manhood 
 into God;" then we cannot be received into the 
 mystic body of the faithful. We may shrink from 
 the imprecation of the fatal course, but that will 
 not bring us under the dominion of the Spirit; 
 for no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by 
 the Holy Ghost, and where the Spirit of the Lord 
 is, there is liberty — that liberty which is the free- 
 dom of those whom the Son has made fi^ee indeed. 
 And in the effort to assume such an ambiguous 
 and undecided standing-ground is the truth of 
 that saying of the Lord fulfilled, " He that is not 
 with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not 
 with Me scattereth." 
 
 Now in dwelling thus strongly on the clear 
 evidence there exists for the prevalence of mira- 
 culous gifts as the endowment of the Church at 
 Corinth, we must be prepared to face the objec- 
 
V] The Injiiience of St. Paul 133 
 
 tion which will not improbably take the form of, 
 "After all, what do miracles prove?" And here 
 we may at once frankly admit, that miracles, 
 merely as miracles, of course prove nothing. An 
 event might at any moment occur, conceivably, 
 which would at once be recognised as so remark- 
 able and so contrary to all recorded experience as 
 to admit of being fairly called miraculous; but 
 the mere occurrence of it would prove nothing. 
 If, on the other hand, it occurred in conjunction 
 with the word or promise of some person who 
 appealed to it, or who professedly used it to con- 
 firm what he said, we may repudiate the in- 
 ference as stoutly as we will, but it is perfectly 
 certain that all reasonable and ordinary men 
 would accept it as a valid and obvious confirma- 
 tion of the word spoken, or the promise given. 
 It would be simply irresistible to the ordinary 
 judgment of reasonable beings. 
 
 In like manner if, as a matter of fact, it were 
 seen that a large body of men, professing belief in 
 Jesus, were endowed upon confessing His Name 
 with powers like those which were possessed by 
 the Church at Corinth, and upon the invocation 
 of that Name were able to perform deeds which 
 were manifestly beyond the natural powers of 
 man to perform, it would be simply impossible 
 to resist the additional force which, from that cir- 
 cumstance, those actions would derive, as well 
 as the apparent confirmation of the fact that 
 
i 34 The Influence of St. Paul [Lpx'T 
 
 some unknown virtue was inherent in the Name, 
 or in the Person possessing it, which would be 
 derived from the actions. And if the question 
 at issue were simply the truth or falsehood, the 
 reality or unreality, of the Person named, no sane 
 man could, for a moment, hesitate to decide what 
 the effect produced by such actions would be. 
 They would, then, assume the form of a recogni- 
 tion of His reality and truth, which would carry 
 with it nothing less than a Divine significance. 
 
 Now this was the question, and the only ques- 
 tion at issue at the time. The abstract possibility 
 of the miracles, as miracles, was not then debated ; 
 the question of their precise scientific value was 
 not then raised. The legitimate effect, therefore, 
 of the miracles witnessed is to be determined only 
 by their relation to the question then at issue ; 
 and as this relation is a constant and unchanging, 
 because an historical, relation, so the actual testi- 
 mony borne by the miracles, is one which is 
 wholly unaffected by the introduction subse- 
 quently of any questions which neither were, nor 
 could be, then entertained. 
 
 In other words, the confirmatory value of any 
 signs, supposed to be miracles, is independent 
 of their absolute right to be so regarded, setting 
 aside collusion, if at the time the question turns 
 upon the trutli or falsehood of the thing con- 
 firmed, and not upon the abstract nature of the 
 signs themselves. To the omniscience of the 
 
y] • The Irifluence of St. PatU 135 
 
 Almiglity a miracle is of necessity a non-existent 
 thing, but its mission and office is none the less 
 valid among those to whom it is sent, and for the 
 purpose for which it is sent. If we were pos- 
 sessed of Divine intelligence, we should under- 
 stand "all" the " mysteries" of the gifts of heal- 
 ing, tongues, and prophecy bestowed upon the 
 Church at Corinth, but these gifts would not the 
 less remain as permanent witnesses to the truth 
 of that which they were intended to confirm. 
 
 Nor is it otherwise now that we are not pos- 
 sessed of this intelligence ; for these three points 
 are clear, and admit of no dispute. First, that 
 extraordinary, not to call them miraculous, gifts 
 were possessed by the first Christians ; secondly, 
 that they were not possessed by all, nor by any, 
 it would seem, at will, which, therefore, excludes 
 the possibility of imposture or collusion; and 
 thirdly, that they were possessed by none who 
 did not acknowledge Jesus as Lord ; implying 
 thereby a belief in His Death, Resurrection, and 
 Ascension, and who had not received the gift of 
 conscious possession of the Holy Spirit which was 
 commonly bestowed upon the public profession of 
 the name of Jesus made at Baptism. These three 
 points admit, I believe, of absolute and conclusive 
 proof from the known writings of St. Paul, and, 
 if allowed, they constitute a chain of evidence in 
 support of the main features of the Gospel His- 
 tory, as actually true, which may, doubtless, and 
 
1 36 The hifliience of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 without exaggeration, be termed little short of 
 demonstrative. 
 
 Well might the Apostle, then feehng, as he did, 
 the impregnable strength of his position, say to 
 the Christians at Corinth, " My speech and my 
 preaching was not with enticing words of man's 
 wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of 
 power." Here was the secret of his influence. 
 He had not only shown it to them, but they like- 
 wise had seen it, and he knew that they had seen 
 it, and could neither deny nor be willing to deny 
 that they had seen it. And this witness, if it 
 lasted but for a few short years, or for a single 
 generation, was nevertheless a witness which 
 must of necessity in its effects last for ever. 
 Confirmation of a story such as this, once given, 
 was given for a period of time as long as the 
 world should last. If it was once valid, nothing 
 could ever invalidate it. St. Paul himself might 
 rank it lower than the evidence of " charity," but 
 it was nevertheless a kind of evidence in its 
 degree substantial and true, and in its place ser- 
 viceable; and, moreover, a kind of evidence to 
 which he himself, as here and elsewhere, did not 
 hesitate to appeal. 
 
 And the time might come, if, indeed, it has 
 not already come, when men professing eagerly to 
 accept his position of the pre-eminence of love 
 would be willing to abandon altogether that 
 supernatural revelation "^-ithout which love itself 
 
y] The Influence of St. Patd 137 
 
 is in danger of degenerating from a Divine afflatus 
 to a mere human sentiment, and the mission of 
 the Apostle, no less than the very Gospel which 
 he preached, becomes a delusion and an unreality. 
 
 Whether or not, then, by saying in " demon- 
 stration of the Spirit and of power," St. Paul meant 
 directly to refer to the manifestation of spiritual 
 gifts of an extraordinary character that accom- 
 panied his preaching, certain it is that it was so 
 accompanied, which would of itself constitute such 
 an appeal whether or not it was so employed. 
 In fact, miraculous gifts would be absolutely use- 
 less if they were not such an appeal to the senses 
 and to the reason of mankind. We must beware, 
 therefore, seeing the evidence for their existence 
 is as strong as it is, lest we reflect upon the 
 wisdom and providence of the Almighty in allow- 
 ing them to exist, if we deny to them their right- 
 ful place among the confirming testimonies of His 
 Gospel. 
 
 At the same time we can scarcely be too ear- 
 nest or emphatic in our protest against the mis- 
 take of supposing that the mere intellectual belief 
 of miracles as a fact, or the mere sentiment of 
 wonder at their performance, or at the authentic 
 record of it, is in any sense identical with that 
 spiritual manifestation and exercise of faith which 
 the Gospel demands. If we could prove with the 
 elaborate and minute precision of mathematical 
 demonstration all the main points of the Christian 
 
138 The hifliience of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 creed, the effect produced would not be Christian 
 Faith. For that is declared by St. Paul to have 
 its basis and foundation, not in the wisdom of 
 men, but in the power of God. 
 
 It is not by any tower raised with never so 
 much architectural skill, artistic beauty, and scien- 
 tific accuracy, upon an intellectual plain of Shinar, 
 that we can aspire to scale the summits of Divine 
 belief; for the higher we ascend, the higher still 
 the vault of heaven will appear, more and more 
 unapproachable as our work becomes less sure, 
 and our efforts more feeble; it is only by first 
 rismg by one act of dauntless but submissive 
 faith to the throne of the Almighty, and to the 
 Christ who sits thereon, that we can hope by 
 painful efibrts and by slow degrees to draw down, 
 without destroying it, the spiritual apprehension 
 of the great facts of faith to the level of a cor- 
 responding appreciation of the facts of human 
 experience and the physical laws of earth. Our 
 senses, and the disciplined powers of our natural 
 reason, assure us of the latter, but of the former 
 it is the special function of the Divinely illumined 
 spirit to take cognisance. A spirit thus illumined 
 is even more certain of these than of the others, 
 but their foundation is in Heaven, and not upon 
 the earth. If their foundation were on earth, our 
 faith might hope to stand in the wisdom of men ; 
 as it is, it must be content to stand, and to stand 
 only, in the power of God. 
 
V] The Injlue7ice of St. Paul 139 
 
 The enticing words of human wisdom may 
 construct a fair-seeming and attractive, but it 
 ■will be an insecure and an insuflBcient, foundation; 
 for " other foundation can no man lay than that 
 is laid, which is Christ Jesus," and He ever was 
 and always will be "to the Jews a stumbling- 
 block, and to the Greeks foolishness;" to those, 
 on the one hand, who are bent upon mere prac- 
 tical achievement, and to those, on the other, who 
 are ca,ptivated by the subtleties of an acute and 
 accomplished intellect. We cannot disguise it 
 from ourselves that here the Gospel must ever 
 be regarded on the one hand as " a stumbling- 
 block," and on the other as " foolishness." We 
 do not deny that many of its greatest triumphs 
 are to be found in both classes, but not as long 
 as they who exhibit them remain exclusively of 
 either. 
 
 Lastly, in conclusion, it may be needful to make 
 mention of one objection which may possibly be 
 taken to the line of argument now pursued. It 
 may be said that while the phenomena in the 
 Church at Corinth must be recognised as actually 
 occurring, they are to be explained as special 
 effects of very strong faith in the Christians, but 
 by no means can be held to prove the reasonable- 
 ness of that faith or the truth of it. I^o one can 
 question the tenacity with which they held their 
 belief: the question is whether the belief was 
 sound, and whether these acknowledged pheno- 
 
140 The Influence of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 mena showed it to be so, or to wliat extent they 
 showed it. 
 
 But, surely, if the premises are honestly ad- 
 mitted, there is but one conclusion possible. No 
 strong personal belief in the possession of par- 
 ticular gifts, such as these are assumed to be, 
 could put a man in possession of them. No man 
 could speak with tongues, or prophesy, or heal 
 the sick, by the mere indulgence of a very strong 
 belief that he could do so. The first attempt 
 would surely be sufficient to convince him of 
 failure ; or if not to convince him, at least to con- 
 vince others. And however strong a man's own 
 faith might be, he could never be sure of the 
 faith of others, — an element in this case not one 
 whit less indispensable. 
 
 But, in fact, to adopt such a theory is to prove 
 oneself altogether ignorant of the nature of this 
 Christian faith ; it is to confound it with some- 
 thing totally opposite, and indeed absolutely fatal 
 to it, which is the spirit of self-confidence and 
 worldly assurance. Now the essence of Christian 
 faith consisted in distrust of self and confidence 
 in another. And it was onl}^ in proportion as 
 this confidence in another was devoid of any 
 trust or joy in self, that it was complete or effi- 
 cient. Consequently, if mighty works were wrought 
 by such a faith when perfect, they were a proof 
 not of any thing in the person working them, but 
 of the power of Him in whose Name they were 
 
V] The hifluence of St. Patil 141 
 
 wrought. They were witnesses to His reality and 
 truth ; and while they were, indeed, tokens which 
 indicated great faith in those working them, they 
 showed that they were also free from all con- 
 fidence in self, for had they not been they could 
 not have wrought them. The evidence of this is 
 St. Paul's own confession, " When I am weak, 
 then am I strong," and the words which he 
 received from the Lord Jesus, " My grace is suffi- 
 cient for thee : for My strength is made perfect 
 in weakness." 
 
 To sum up, then, what has been said. These 
 writings are not disputed. They were the work 
 of St. Paul, occasioned by the necessities of the 
 time. They contain manifest allusions to certain 
 gifts which were a peculiar feature in the Church 
 at Corinth. . They contain directions for the regu- 
 lation and management of these gifts. Their ten- 
 dency is to disparage them, rather than to over- 
 estimate their importance. They show, likewise, 
 that the possession of these gifts in the body was 
 no guarantee for purity of moral conduct in other 
 members of the body, or even in the same. This 
 is at once an evidence of genuineness in the 
 writings, and of the reality of the gifts, which 
 could not be disputed even where the moral con- 
 duct of the possessor did not wholly command 
 respect. The exercise of these gifts, which were 
 of various kinds, and susceptible likewise of nice 
 distinctions, is such as cannot be accounted for 
 
142 The Infiuence of St. Patil [Lect 
 
 upon the supposition of mistake, imposture, or 
 collusion, each of which is precluded by a due 
 consideration of all the circumstances. It is such 
 also as points conclusively to the operation of an 
 entirely unknown and unexplained and inexpli- 
 cable, if we may not call it a supernatural, power, 
 which was never put forth but where there was a 
 sincere and hona fide recognition of Jesus Christ 
 as Lord ; which imphed a knowledge of and belief 
 in the fact of His ignominious death on the Cross, 
 His burial and resurrection from the dead the 
 third day, as well as His ascension into heaven, 
 and the outpouring of a new and hitherto un- 
 known influence or agency called the Holy Spirit 
 upon baptism in His Name and the public profes- 
 sion of Him, but which was not put forth in all 
 cases, nor in any case at all times : tljus pointing, 
 therefore, to a discriminating power which was 
 capable of deciding when it was put forth, and so 
 making the hypothesis of self-deception the more 
 hopelessly untenable. The exercise of these gifts 
 also was such that it not only could not be 
 referred to a spirit of ignorant and overweening 
 self-confidence in the persons exercising them, 
 but that any vestige of this spirit would have 
 been absolutely fatal to it, at least in the first 
 instance. The sole condition upon which they 
 could be exercised was that of absolute and un- 
 shaken faith in Jesus. When the soul sustained 
 itself wholly and entirely on the invisible, then 
 
V] The Infliience of St. Paul 143 
 
 strange and inexplicable works were wrought, or 
 marvellous gifts were exercised. 
 
 What, then, are the only possible conclusions 
 that we can draw? They are these two; either 
 the spirit of lies and falsehood was doing his best 
 to cheat, deceive, and impose upon the men of 
 that generation, and through them upon all the 
 generations of mankind as long as the world shall 
 last ; or else the Spirit of Truth was actually and 
 in very deed putting forth upon the plastic souls 
 of men, and the subject forces of nature, such a 
 manifestation of Divine and supernatural power 
 as might serve for a recognition of the JSTame of 
 Jesus, and as a confirmation to all time of the 
 truth of the Gospel which was preached through 
 Him. 
 
 Note. — Dr. Davidson's explanation of the phenomena in the 
 Church at Corinth is as follows : — " The excitement produced 
 upon susceptible spirits by a new religion in the apostolic 
 age was often powerful and extraordinary." Introd. to N. T. 
 i. 53. Had he said "by tlie new religion," it would have 
 been strictly true ; but, as it is, we may perhaps be allowed to 
 ask, Whether any instance can be given of the same excite- 
 ment being produced at that time by any other religion ? and. 
 Whether a new religion could produce such results now ? 
 
LECTURE VI 
 
 THE MORAL TEACHING OP ST. PAUL 
 
 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20 
 
 " What ? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy 
 Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are 
 not your own ? For ye are bought with a price : therefore 
 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are 
 God's." 
 
 THE conclusion arrived at in our last Lecture 
 went to show that there was so much evi- 
 dence in favour of extraordinary results following 
 a particular profession or belief, in the gifts be- 
 stowed upon the Church at Corinth, that for any 
 ordinary mind it was difficult to rest merely in the 
 bare fact without endeavouring to account for it. 
 As a well-attested and unquestionable fact, the 
 profession of a certain faith was attended with 
 certain marvellous results. It is not enough to 
 say that those results were the natural conse- 
 quences of the faith, because it is plain that at 
 the time they were seen to be different from such 
 natural consequences, or they Avould not have 
 been distinguished from them as they were. 
 
 Being, then, not natural, there are two courses 
 
Lect. VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paul 145 
 
 open to us. We must either leave them unex- 
 plained, and say, "I cannot account for them;" 
 the course, doubtless, which many, now-a-days, 
 would adopt ; or we must do as St. Paul did, and 
 say, they were evidence of a Holy Spirit at work 
 on the bodies and souls of men, and controlling 
 the operations of nature for some purpose of His 
 own, and apparently for a testimony to man. The 
 only other alternative, of an evil spirit working 
 in this way, is so preposterous as to need no 
 reference; but it may be requisite to notice, 
 briefly, the common tendency there is to leave the 
 matter as an unexplained phenomenon which we 
 do not care to investigate, feeling that it is alto- 
 gether beyond us. 
 
 This by many would be held to be the only 
 scientific method to adopt. But surely if science 
 is to be regarded as that which desires to know 
 the reasons of things, rather than remain in igno- 
 rance of them, we may fairly question whether 
 this course would be, strictly speaking, scientific. 
 Science, it must be remembered, can give no 
 account of this matter. The evidence upon which 
 it has come down to us, and which is shown to be 
 unimpeachable, as far as the fact is concerned, 
 gives us also the reason for the fact. That is, the 
 fact and the reason assigned for it stand precisely 
 upon the same footing as regards evidence. It is 
 not proposed to reject the one ; why, then, reject 
 the other ? 
 
146 The Mo7'a I Teaching of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 The Apostle, at all events, laying claim, as lie 
 constantly does, to an exceptional revelation, says, 
 that the gifts in question were instances of " the 
 manifestation of the Spirit;" that it was "the 
 same God who wrought them all in all ' ;" and 
 writing to the Galatians, he asks, " He therefore 
 that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh 
 miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of 
 the law, or by the hearing of faith ^?" showing, 
 therefore, that the exercise of these gifts was con- 
 tingent on the knowledge and profession of faith, 
 that it was the preaching of faith, and that alone, 
 which produced them. 
 
 The question, then, to be decided is, AYhether it 
 is wiser to assign no reason, or to accept the one 
 assigned? Upon the abstract wisdom we may 
 perhaps be excused for declining to pronounce; 
 but this much is certain, that it is more consistent 
 with the plain spirit and teaching of these Epistles 
 to accept the reason assigned ; if, indeed, we may 
 not question whether any other course would not 
 be altogether contrary to that teaching and irre- 
 concilable with it. That is to say, that unless 
 we allow there was a manifestation of Divine 
 power, an operation of the Holy Spirit in the 
 extraordinary gifts of the Corinthian Christians, 
 we must at least in common equity deny also 
 that the Apostle had any special authority for the 
 Gospel which he preached, that he was justified 
 » 1 Cor. xii. 7, 6. ' Gal. iii. o. 
 
YI] The Moral Teaching of St. Pa2il 147 
 
 in appealing as he did to the authority which the 
 Lord had given him ^, in speaking of " the abund- 
 ance of the revelations * " vouchsafed to him, in 
 calling himself " the Apostle of Jesus Christ by / 
 the will of God%" in saying that he had "seen \ 
 Jesus Christ oui* Lord®" and the like, for we know \ 
 not where to stop, but his own hypothetical \ 
 paradox is established and his " preaching is 
 vain," and he is " found a false witness of God ; 
 because" among many others he has "testified" 
 tUse things " of God ^" 
 
 Yea, more, is it not also certain that if God did 
 not speak by the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, 
 assuming their existence to be proved, so neither 
 did He speak by the ordinary gifts of love, joy, 
 peace, and the like. Now it is not denied that He 
 spoke by these latter, neither is it denied that, 
 supposing them to have existed. He did speak in 
 a certain sense by the former ; for if they existed 
 they were in some sense revelations, indications, 
 albeit exceptional, of the will, or at least the 
 working, of God. But if it is allowed that God 
 spoke by them at all, then it cannot for a moment 
 be a matter of question as to what He said by 
 them. 
 
 The object, therefore, at which we shall have 
 to aim in our present argument begins to be fairly 
 
 =• 2 Cor. X. 8. "2 Cor. xii. 7. 
 
 '' 1 Cor. i. 1. 2 Cor. i. 1. "1 Cor. ix. 1 ; xv. 8. 
 
 ' 1 Cor. XV. 14, 15. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 The Moral Teaching of St. Paul [Le c 
 
 conspicuous. We must try to show that ilie 
 moral teaching and tendency of St. FauVs writings 
 is itself a. confirmation of his own supernatural 
 claims J and also an evidence of the source and 
 origin of these jJfit'iicular gifts. He himself ap- 
 pealed to *' the signs of an Apostle which were 
 wrought among the Corinthians in all patience, in 
 signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds*." Here 
 the natural and the supernatural are mixed toge- 
 ther; either taken alone is insufficient, both taken 
 together are conclusive ; but more than this, one 
 is a voucher for the other. 
 
 For it cannot be denied that taking these four 
 Epistles of St. Paul as specimens of the doctrine 
 which he taught, and as indications of the general 
 tone of morahty prevalent in the Churches of his 
 time, the influence of the Gospel had been of a 
 most purifying and beneficial character. That 
 there were no cases of a lower standard of 
 morality is of course not affirmed, but these 
 were manifestly exceptional, and, altogether, the 
 preaching of the Gospel had doubtless been 
 attended with a very conspicuous improvement in 
 the morality of those who had received it. This 
 is a fact at once so certain and so obvious as to 
 need and to admit of no proofs 
 
 Was, then, this great improvement in morality, 
 this higher elevation in the moral conscience of 
 mankind, which was the immediate effect of the 
 " 2 Cor. xii. 12. M Cor. vi. 11. 
 
VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paul 149 
 
 preaching of the Gospel, an evidence of its being 
 of the nature of God, correspondent with His 
 attributes, as our natural reason tells us those 
 attributes must exist, and, therefore, so far Divine, 
 or the reverse ? Did this show it to have come 
 from the kingdom of Light or from the kingdom 
 of Darkness ? The question can receive but one 
 possible answer. The lives of St. Paul's converts 
 proved them to have been under an influence 
 which was like that of a holy and good God. The 
 moral evidence of a Divine origin was as strong 
 as it could be, certainly stronger as a matter of 
 historical fact than any other religion professing 
 to come with Divine authority has ever been able 
 to present. 
 
 So far, then, it cannot be denied that this 
 preaching of Jesus Christ was attended with 
 results which bespoke an influence not other than 
 Divine, an influence which to the extent that it 
 was beyond the power of man's ordinary nature 
 to produce it, was an indication of a Divine 
 assistance, albeit acting naturally. 
 
 But, now, conjointly with these purely moral 
 results, which of themselves would show nothing 
 more than a pure origin, we find other results 
 likewise, of a physical or of a spiritual character, 
 which in their mode of operation were undoubtedly 
 not natural ; and these results were confined to a 
 smaller area than the simply moral results, but 
 still an area which was limited exclusively to the 
 
150 The Moral Teaching of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 limits of the larger area, so that no instance was 
 discovered beyond those limits among persons not 
 professing belief in Jesus. 
 
 And, furthermore, it is not denied that so far 
 as these result were real, they also would be indi- 
 cations of the working of some Divine law, if that 
 law were only known or could be ascertained; 
 while, as regards St. Paul, to whose writings we 
 are mainly indebted for our knowledge of them, 
 they were distinctly ascribed by him to the opera- 
 tion of that same Spirit to whom all must allow 
 that whatever was pure and of good repute in the 
 morals of the Christians was justly ascribed. 
 
 Wliat, then, appears to be the only possible 
 inference, except that so far as these results were 
 natural they were the working of the Spirit of 
 God; and so far as they were beyond nature, 
 whether or not they were capable of being brought 
 within the limits of the operation of any law 
 known or unknown, they were, likewise, the work- 
 ing of the Spirit of God alone ? If, then, it is to 
 be allowed that the Almighty is able to hold 
 direct communication with His creature man, or 
 to speak to him through His works, in such a 
 manner as to make them the channels for convey- 
 ing a knowledge of His will, it would seem that 
 here we have sufficient cause to believe that He 
 has really done so. 
 
 But, again, we may go even closer to the 
 question really at issue, and say that if upon the 
 
VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paul 151 
 
 invocation of the Name of Jesus certain strange 
 results followed, such as works of healing, pro- 
 phecy, or the like, for the performance of which 
 He had been invoked, there were only two pos- 
 sible ways in which such works could be inter- 
 preted; they must either be denied as to their 
 reality, or must be accepted as signs from Him of 
 the power inherent in His Name. In like manner 
 we may deny them now if we please, but in pro- 
 portion as we admit them to have been real, it is 
 difficult in that proportion not to accept them as 
 signs from Him. 
 
 We all know the kind of revulsion of feeling 
 with which we instinctively recoil when we are 
 thus confronted with any supernatural pheno- 
 menon that seems to come charged with a mes- 
 sage from the invisible world. Perhaps we con- 
 demn it as sensational and vulgar to attempt to 
 work in such a way upon our feelings or our 
 reason. But it either is or is not a fact that 
 messages of this kind have been sent. If it is not 
 a fact it would be wise and reasonable to resolve 
 ourselves to that effect ; but if it is, then there is 
 no course open to us but fairly and honestly to 
 face it and reverently to lay to heart the meaning 
 and significance of the message. It is no valid 
 objection to raise against evidence of this kind to 
 say that it is open to great and manifold abuse, 
 and has been prodigiously abused; for that is 
 patent on the face of history, and, indeed, the 
 
152 The Moral Teaching of St. P mil [Lect 
 
 very evidence we have been appealing to was 
 only elicited by what was in fact a remonstrance 
 against such abuses ; but the possible abuse of 
 any thing furnishes no argument against the 
 proper use of it ; and the mere existence of shams 
 and counterfeits, however common they may be, 
 proves not that there is nothing real, but, on the 
 contrary, the great scarceness and value of the 
 reality which of itself occasions the existence of so 
 many counterfeits. It would not be worth while 
 to imitate were it not for the hope and prospect 
 of imposing upon those who are seeking for what 
 is real. 
 
 Now in the case of St. Paul and the Corinthian 
 Church, we have the strongest e\adence we can 
 have of this reality. For not only is there the 
 utmost purity of morals inculcated on the one 
 hand, and pursued on the other — a purity the 
 necessity for which is enunciated in the most 
 solemn terms, " Know ye not that your bodies 
 are the temples of the Holy Ghost?" (nothing 
 short of an actual and special indwelling of Al- 
 mighty God, is advanced as the basis of this new 
 and rectified morality) — but also the profession of 
 spiritual belief which accompanied it, was attended 
 at least in his case, and probably also in theirs, 
 certainly in the case of others, if not in theirs, 
 with sufferings and dangers, ignominy and shame; 
 all of which might have been avoided if the beloved 
 Name of Jesus had not been held so precious as to 
 
VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paul 153 
 
 be worth the price even of liberty and hfe. Now 
 it is not too much to say that had the Apostle 
 known he was believing a lie, this could not have 
 been the case ; but Is it also too much to say that 
 the very fact of its being so, combined with the 
 Divine purity of his life, and supported by the 
 strange testimony of the marvellous and extra- 
 ordinary spiritual gifts possessed by him, affords 
 evidence which, fairly estimated, is not other than 
 conclusive, not only of the wonderful strength of 
 his own faith, but, more than this, that what he 
 believed was true ? For it was the witness of Jesus 
 Christ in him, a witness which to those who will 
 receive it is valid and unalterable for all time. 
 
 And while we insist upon the sublimity of the 
 Apostle's moral teaching, as tending of itself to 
 confirm the reality of the strange and unusual 
 gifts in the possession of the Church; and as 
 there was professedly but one origin for both, as 
 tending likewise to show the nature of that com- 
 mon origin; we must remember also that his 
 teaching was not merely moral, but that it con- 
 tained an element which was prior to the morality, 
 and in fact tl\e source of it. For this also is un- 
 deniable, that the belief preached was not the 
 offshoot of the morality, but the morality the 
 natural fruit of the belief. The morality which 
 is every where so conspicuous is that of which 
 our Lord had said, " By their fi'uits ye shall know 
 them." And so in the very passage now before 
 
154 The Moral Teaching of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 us, even when St. Paul is urging the imperative 
 necessity for personal holiness and purity, he does 
 so by enforcing the two considerations, first, 
 " Your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost," 
 and secondly, "Ye are bought with a price." 
 Now we know that this last, though second in 
 order, had been the first inculcated. It was upon 
 the consciousness of redemption that the indwell- 
 ing of the Spirit ensued. It was the message of 
 the Cross that the Apostle had come to Corinth 
 proclaiming. It was " Jesus Christ and the One 
 crucified," saving whom he had "determined to 
 know nothing among them." 
 
 Now what did this imply in the first place, and 
 what did it involve in the second ? What does it 
 show us about his teaching, and what inference 
 may we draw therefrom upon the subject in hand ? 
 Let us inquire, then, what were the primary elements 
 in the Gospel which St. Paul preached ? He pro- 
 claimed \\\Q fact of the death of Christ upon the 
 Cross '. He proclaimed this as the death of the Son 
 of God ^ for he proclaimed it as the death of One 
 who had the power of imparting the Holy Spirit \ 
 who of God was made unto us wisdom, and righte- 
 ousness, and sanctification, and redemption^, in 
 order that glorying in Him Ave might glory in the 
 Lord, who was nothing less than the Avisdom and 
 
 ' 1 Cor. ii. 2. ' Rom. viii. 3. 
 
 ^ Rom. viii. 9. * 1 Cor. i. 30, 
 
yi] The Moral Teaching of St. Paid. 155 
 
 the power of God % who was the common centre 
 of all Christian society, in whom all Christians 
 had their common standing^, and who with God 
 the Father was the joint source of all Christian 
 grace \ 
 
 Moreover, he proclaimed this death as a death 
 for sin ^, " for our sins;" as the Divinely appointed 
 means through which we receive the remission of 
 sins, so that in some mysterious way God's for- 
 giveness, and our sins, met in the death of Christ; 
 that the blood of Christ was the mercy-seat of 
 grace ^ where we might find a gracious God ; that 
 His death for the ungodly, while commending 
 God's love towards us ^, was the reconciliation of 
 man to God, so that we might even joy in God 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we had 
 received that atonement or reconciliation^ which 
 our very nature wanted, and for which it yearned 
 and thirsted, albeit perchance unconsciously. 
 
 And in addition to these redemptive consequences 
 of Christ's death it was, according to the message 
 delivered by Paul, to all who thus received it, the 
 gate of a new life ; they began life anew upon a 
 fresh foundation, with new and infinite hopes, 
 having made a tabula rasa of the past, and having 
 received through Christ the spring and impulse of 
 
 * 1 Cor. i. 24. • 1 Cor. xii. 12, 27. 
 
 ' Rom. i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2 ; xiii. 14, Gal. i. 3. 
 
 » 1 Cor. XV. 3. Rom. iii. 25. » Rom, iii. 25. 
 
 ' Rom. V. 8. * Rom. v. 11. 
 
156 The Moral Teaching of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 eternal life ^; a life without condemnation * because 
 without sin, and without regret or sorrow^ because 
 full of deep and abiding peace, which had in itself 
 the antidote to all earthly tribulation, or distress, 
 or persecution, to famine and nakedness, and peril, 
 and sword. 
 
 Now we are warranted in saying that this is 
 not a perverted or ex 'parte statement of the Gospel 
 which Paul preached, but that it was thus received 
 by thousands as well as thus proclaimed by him. 
 These are some of the more manifest and con- 
 spicuous features of it which are continually re- 
 appearing with invariable sameness. And from 
 this fact we are warranted in saying that as sin 
 was the one antagonistic principle with which this 
 Gospel came into most determined opposition, so 
 it was but natural that wherever it came the 
 manifestations of sin would more or less disap- 
 pear. In proportion as the work of the Gospel 
 was complete it would completely disappear; 
 and if it was not actually abolished, this must be 
 attributed not to the feebleness of the opposition 
 offered to it by the Gospel, but to weakness in the 
 recipients thereof. 
 
 Now we may without hesitation challenge every 
 one to say how far it seems to him that, in theory^ 
 falsehood is consistent with the Gospel, thus pre- 
 sented ? Is it not self-evident that nothing is or 
 
 ' 2 Cor. V. 17. * Rom. viii. 1. 
 
 * Rom. viii. 31—39. 
 
VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paul 1 5 7 
 
 can be more opposed to it? Is it not certain 
 that falseliood of character and conduct is pre- 
 cisely one of those very things which any foe to 
 the Gospel would instinctively seize upon as in- 
 validating, or, at least, as inconsistent with, any 
 man's profession of it ? And though, verily, it is 
 too much to argue from this circumstance that 
 all professors of the Gospel must of necessity be 
 true, yet for all that we may with justice affirm 
 that no less is it too much to assume at the 
 outset that one of the first and certainly the 
 greatest preacher of it was necessarily false. 
 
 To reason, therefore, as if there were that in 
 the main features of the Gospel which would 
 utterly vitiate it as a presentment of Divine truth, 
 and stamp it as inherently and radically false, 
 would be about as flagrant an instance of jpetitio 
 principii as it is well possible to conceive. But, 
 beyond all question, if it was not a fact that Jesus 
 died and rose again, then the Gospel which Paul 
 thus preached was inherently false. And for 
 what was a lie thus to produce the known fruits 
 of truth, purity, and holiness would be scarcely 
 less absurd to imagine than it would be, in fact, 
 impossible. And, beyond all question, if it was 
 not a fact that the Jesus whom Paul preached 
 not only was capable of working the mighty 
 works ostensibly wrought in His Name, but that 
 He actually did work them ; that He not only pos- 
 sessed a power greater than human, which, there- 
 
158 TJie Moral Teaching of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 fore, if not Divine, must be that of a Person in 
 alliance ivith Deity, but tliat He actually and 
 visibly did exercise it, then the Gospel which Paul 
 preached was inherently false. And, beyond all 
 question, if it was not a fact that the strange 
 spiritual gifts which manifestly were possessed by 
 Paul and the Corinthian Church were, as he led 
 the members of that Church to suppose, and as 
 they believed, in some way connected with and 
 wholly dependent on the sincerity of belief in 
 Jesus, and a power resident in His Name, then 
 also the Gospel which Paul preached was inhe- 
 rently and radically false, it was unsound and 
 rotten at the core ; it was mixed up with lies, and 
 based upon a lie. 
 
 We are, therefore, justified in saying that the 
 very nature of the doctrine which Paul preached, 
 inculcating as it did exceptional purity of life, 
 affords ground for a presumption that the frame- 
 work upon which he based it was inherently 
 sound and true ; and this presumption strengthens 
 to a moral certainty in proportion as we find him 
 advancing the claims of the Gospel on the ground 
 of its being true and the truth of God. It be- 
 comes, then, absolutely impossible to admit in 
 ever so small a degree any supposition of deli- 
 berate falsehood or substantial unsoundness in the 
 message delivered. It is monstrous to assume 
 that he who brought it as the capital charge 
 against the heathen, that they had " changed the 
 
VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paid 159 
 
 truth of God into a lie ^," and threatened " indig- 
 nation and wrath " "to them who did not obey 
 truth ^," and came every where in the Name of 
 God, and as the professed bearer of Divine autho- 
 rity, should nevertheless be found with a lie in his 
 right hand. And yet this is most certainly the 
 case upon any one of the suppositions above 
 named ; and the legitimate inference to be drawn 
 from these considerations is not that in dealing 
 with St. Paul's Gospel we must accept all or 
 nothing (however true this may be), but that there 
 is in it a something which being denied all is 
 denied. 
 
 Now, in the present day, it is especially neces- 
 sary to bear this in mind, because in certain 
 quarters it is tacitly assumed that we may, in the 
 main, receive with a certain amount of respect 
 and deference the writings of this Apostle, and yet 
 hold ourselves loose to the absolute truth of the 
 statements they contain, and altogether repudiate 
 doctrines which are an integral and essential part 
 of them. Whereas if these considerations are of 
 any weight, it becomes sufficiently manifest that 
 such a course is wholly untenable. "We may 
 reject these writings if we please ; but, professing 
 to accept them as the genuine productions of 
 St. Paul, it is not possible to face the considera- 
 tions they suggest and the facts they necessarily 
 imply, and not be constrained to confess that 
 « Rom. i. 25. ' Rom. ii. 8. 
 
i6o The Moral Teaching of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 they bear evidence to an extraordinary, if not a 
 supernatural, confirmation of a definite belief as 
 being in itself according to truth, and as having 
 special Divine sanction ' ; and when we estimate 
 them fairly as the honest record of the Apostle's 
 own mind and history, it becomes no less im- 
 possible not to see that he himself remains to this 
 day as it were a living witness to the truth of 
 Jesus. 
 
 The phenomena of St. Paul's life and character, 
 as depicted in his writings alone, are such as to 
 baffle the most dexterous ingenuity to account for 
 them except upon the one hypothesis that the 
 Gospel which he preached was true. Jesus was a 
 living personal influence, not the mere abiding 
 memory of a past existence, but an omnipotent 
 and Divine Person who wrought upon the spirit 
 and conduct of St. Paul as the Creator alone can 
 work upon the creature. 
 
 Thus far, then, we have been led to see that the 
 very nature of the faith which Paul proclaimed, 
 implied and demanded truth, and not falsehood, in 
 the person proclaiming it. He could not from the 
 nature of the case have been the herald of un- 
 
 ' It is to be observed that this is a position very differeut 
 from that, wliether tenable or untenable, which maintains the 
 verbal infallibility of all that St. Paul ever wrote. He may 
 at times have spoken " as a man," and yet have given a per- 
 fectly faithful and accurate transcript of the Gospel which was 
 committed unto hiui. Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 12 ; xv. 3. 
 
VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paul i6i 
 
 truths ; for had he been, the results, no less than 
 the character and tendency of his teaching, would 
 have been different from what they were. But 
 may we not go farther, and say that there was 
 that in the nature of the truth proclaimed which 
 was specially calculated to cherish and beget truth 
 in him who delivered, and in those who received 
 it? 
 
 Perhaps there is nothing which is a surer test 
 of a man's personal morality than the degree in 
 which all that he says and does is characterised 
 by truth. There is an inherent insincerity and 
 disregard of truth conspicuous in some men^^^ 
 habit of misrepresentation, asd- a tendency to ex- 
 aggerate, in short, a failure to perceive and appre- 
 ciate truth, a carelessness about adhering strictly 
 to the limits of actuality, which every one must 
 have encountered from time to time. 
 
 Now the fatal consequences of this tendency, 
 which appears to be innate in some persons, are 
 nowhere more evident than in the distrust which 
 invariably accompanies it. We never feel sure how 
 much we may beheve of any thing that they say. 
 There is an uncertainty and an ambiguity about it 
 all. And yet, perhaps, it may be very hard to fix 
 upon it the imputation of actual untruth. We 
 cannot say that they have told a lie; but some- 
 how or other the impression produced is a false 
 one. 
 
 Now such a character as this is essentially im- 
 
 M 
 
1 62 The Moral Teaching of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 moral : it is radically unsound, whether it is ex- 
 hibited in insincere expressions of friendship or in 
 any other way. The code of public opinion and 
 of custom may indeed prevent the commission of 
 notorious breaches of faith, or infringements of 
 propriety; but such persons are nevertheless im- 
 moral, and can never become great teachers of 
 moral and spiritual truth — they are morally dis- 
 qualified for being so. The two things are in- 
 congruous and incompatible. 
 
 Not only, therefore, may we say that the like 
 habit of not appreciating truth would have been 
 absolutely fatal to the Apostle's usefulness as a 
 teacher, but also 4liat the manifest spirituality of 
 his teaching, and its ek ' moral character, 
 
 must have had the effect of developing the truth- 
 fulness of his nature, and of rendeiing him yet 
 more sensitive to the requirements of truth, and 
 yet more scrupulous in fulfilling them. 
 
 And so likewise with all to whom he came, who 
 were brought under the influence of his teaching. 
 The direct result of that teaching must have been 
 to stimulate a regard for truth, and to make men 
 more alive to the grave responsibility of adhering 
 to it. As far, therefore, as St. Paul's message was 
 received, its very reception acted as an additional 
 restraint upon any divergence from truth. On 
 every ground, therefore, we are precluded from 
 supposing that the message was in any degree a 
 false one as to the facts concerning Christ which 
 
VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paul 163 
 
 it proclaimed, or the statements it involved con- 
 cerning the nature of the spiritual gifts, and the 
 source from whence they were derived. 
 
 The high moral character and intense spirituality 
 of the teaching was an evidence of truth; the 
 requirements of truth demanded that there should 
 be no misrepresentation in the substantive matter 
 of what was taught ; and if there was no misrepre- 
 sentation conscious or unconscious in this, then 
 the conclusion is inevitably forced upon us, that 
 belief in the Name of Jesus was the means by 
 which the spiritual gifts were exercised, and that 
 they were allowed to be exercised in confirmation 
 of the truth of the facts related concerning Christ, 
 and as proof of a superhuman and supernatural 
 power resident in Him. 
 
 That is to say, the due consideration of the facts 
 presented by the acknowledged writings of St. 
 Paul compels us to admit the existence of very 
 strong evidence for the exercise of supernatural 
 powers by himself and others. These supernatural 
 powers, if exercised, could only have been derived, 
 as they are uniformly said to have been derived, 
 from belief in Jesus Christ ; but that belief alone, 
 if based upon a falsehood, would not have been 
 adequate to bestowing them, and for collateral 
 reasons we see that there is strong evidence of 
 its truth, judging from the fruits produced by it. 
 But if the belief in Jesus Christ was a true belief, 
 and the results produced by it were really super- 
 
 M 2 
 
164 The Moral Teaching of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 natural, then there is only one conclusion possible, 
 which is, to refer the supernatural gifts to Jesus. 
 It was He who wrought those mighty works which 
 were wi'ought by those who believed in His Name. 
 It was He who produced the strange results which 
 were produced in them. 
 
 The only question, then, which can arise is. What 
 was the exact position, indicated by those mighty 
 works, of Him in whose Name they were wrought? 
 Was He possessed of a power superior to that of 
 man, or was His power altogether and exclusively 
 Divine ? Now the idea of this power being exer- 
 cised independently, and in defiance of the Divine 
 will, may be considered as precluded; the notion 
 of some intermediate and independent power of 
 this kind moving in an orbit athwart that of the 
 Divine operation is simj^ly absurd. If it Avas 
 exercised at all it was plainly exercised with the 
 Divine concurrence. And the Divine assent was 
 given to any statement or doctrine which was im- 
 plicitly ratified and confirmed thereby. God set 
 His seal to the facts and truths proclaimed. And 
 if Jesus was proclaimed as the Son of God, and 
 the bearer of a special mission from God, then 
 beyond all question the seal of God was set to this 
 proclamation. God thereby acknowledged Him 
 as His Son, and as the bearer of a special DiA^ne 
 mission in which the righteousness and truth of 
 God were implicated. 
 
 This would, at least, be a reasonable inference 
 
VI] The Moj^al Teaching of St. Paul 165 
 
 from the premises assumed, on the single hypo- 
 thesis that a Divinely authenticated communica- 
 tion is not impossible. But we cannot disguise 
 from ourselves the utter insufficiency of such a 
 case to meet the requirements of those who are 
 disposed to doubt — of those who are determined 
 to rest only upon what is demonstrably proven; 
 though at the same time we must maintain that it 
 is not possible to afford such a resting-place for 
 faith ; if it were so, faith would be no more faith. 
 
 But on the other hand, it is not fair to demand 
 so much of those who believe and would give a 
 reason for the hope which is in them. For faith 
 rests not upon demonstrable, but upon probable, 
 evidence. Faith is the conclusion to which the 
 reason must jumj), and to which it jumps not 
 unreasonably, upon the due consideration of many 
 and converging probabilities. These point us to 
 one conclusion, which we may accept or reject as 
 we please: if we accept it, we accept it upon faith; 
 and if we reject it, we reject it more unreasonably 
 than we should accept it. 
 
 Farther than this it is not possible to go ; the 
 only additional element which remains to be con- 
 sidered is one which has necessarily no weight with 
 the unbeliever ; namely, this — the ample and con- 
 clusive confirmation of the truth believed, which 
 is wrought by the Spirit of God in the mind upon 
 conversion. The universal necessity of such con- 
 version was openly taught by Christ ; that is, He 
 
1 66 The Moral Teacfmtg of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 did not consider it possible to have without con- 
 version the amount of evidence which would be 
 granted upon conversion. Up to a certain point 
 the e\ddence is the same for all alike, beyond that 
 point it is overwhelming in the one case, that of 
 the converted, but nugatory in the other. It 
 never has been otherwise, and it never can be 
 otherwise. Putting the case that miracles were 
 actually and visibly wrought by Christ, and wrought 
 in confirmation of certain doctrines, it is obvious 
 that both the doctrines and the miracles must 
 have been rejected upon the principles of Hume, 
 but so they were upon the principles of the Pha- 
 risees and the Sadducees who witnessed them. 
 What was evidence sufficient for one class of 
 minds — a Peter, Paul, or John — was insufficient 
 for another. We must face that fact. Putting the 
 case that the miracles were wrought, iliat upon 
 our premises was enough, the inferences we draw 
 are legitimate ; but let no one, in the opposite 
 case, suppose that it ever would have been other- 
 wise with liim : had he himself even been a wit- 
 ness of the miracles he would still have been an 
 unbeheving witness, and the fault lies not with us 
 who can produce no more evidence, but with him, 
 who, upon the production of twice as much, would 
 still disbelieve. 
 
 But then the affections come in just where the 
 operations of the intellect stop short. It is the 
 love and the loving death of the miracle-Worker, 
 
VI] The Mo7^al Teaching of St. Paid 167 
 
 and not the miracles wliicli He works, that lead 
 the heart, and therewith lead the whole man, cap- 
 tive ^ " Ye are bought with a price," the price \ 
 being the blood of Jesus — the blood of God : it is I 
 that which is the all-prevailing motive — " The love ) 
 of Christ constraineth us." If we can be drawn 
 to beheve that the death of Christ was the measure , 
 of the love of God for us, that God, through His ,' 
 blood, spoke love unutterable to our hearts, thenj 
 we shall have no difficulty in believing that the 
 same God could and would work miracles in 
 nature if necessary, as well as miracles in Grace, I 
 for us. And of this the necessity would be mea- \ 
 sured not by antecedent considerations, but by 
 the fact as testified by evidence. The belief in 
 the love through death itself furnishes an ante- 
 cedent consideration stronger than all. 
 
 Now it may perhaps be questioned, whether 
 there is or can be fuller or more complete evi- 
 dence for any miracles than is supplied by the 
 acknowledged writings of St. Paul. It is evidence 
 
 ' It is not, however, that the aiFections are allowed to bias 
 the judgment, but the affections appeal with a force to the 
 judgment that reason alone and of itself cannot command. 
 The evidence is the same in both cases for the believer and the 
 unbeliever ; and it obviously falls, and must fall, short of de- 
 monstration ; but this evidence prevails or not prevails accord- 
 ing as it moves the affections as well as the intellect, or the 
 intellect alone. The same action has a very different signifi- 
 cance according as it is performed by an affectionate friend or 
 by an unknown and indifferent person. 
 
1 68 The Moral Teaching of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 conveyed incidentally, undesignedly, and in such 
 a way as to depreciate the importance of the mira- 
 cles while establishing their existence as simple 
 matters of fact. It is the evidence, moreover, not 
 of a single individual, but of whole Churches, and 
 even, in one case, of the unbelievers. It is evi- 
 dence which is ratified and confirmed by the incul- 
 cation of the purest and most elevated doctrine. 
 It is absolutely impossible to disprove this evi- 
 dence, or to establish its insignificance. 
 
 But, then, admitting this evidence, as we are 
 bound to do, it carries with it the whole frame- 
 work of the Gospel history ; it is itself conclusive 
 and independent evidence of the fact of the Resur- 
 rection, for example, because, if the Resurrection 
 had not been a fact, those things, to which the 
 writings of St. Paul bear witness, would not and 
 could not have happened. Large bodies of men 
 might have believed a lie, but it is not possible 
 that their belief in a lie, be it never so strong, 
 could have enabled them to heal the sick, to speak 
 with tongues, to prophesy, to incur reproach for 
 the abuse of their gifts, and to lead a life of 
 systematic and organised benevolence and purity, 
 such as it is plain they led. Had the fundamental 
 fact of their belief been false, these results would 
 not have followed; but we have conclusive evi- 
 dence that they did follow. The fair presump- 
 tion then, nay, the only possible conclusion, is 
 that the fact occurred, that these results were 
 
VI] The Moral Teaching of St. Paitl 169 
 
 among the first fruits and consequences of the 
 fact, not of a behef in the fact, but of the very 
 fact itself. 
 
 We are warranted, therefore, in claiming the 
 evidence of miracles beino: wrouo^ht in the 
 Corinthian Church as evidence for the truth of 
 the Resurrection over and beyond that evidence 
 which has been preserved to us by eye-witnesses. 
 It is evidence of a testing and confirming nature. 
 Such a belief as that of the first witnesses of the 
 ResmTection, if based upon a lie, would rapidly 
 spend itself, and be convicted of falsehood ; least 
 of all, would it take root in various centres, such 
 as Rome, Corinth, and Galatia, each time with 
 fi'esli and original vigour, and with varying though 
 similar results. The thing is a moral impossibi- 
 lity. At least we may say thus much, That if the 
 Resurrection of the Lord Jesus was a prominent 
 feature and essential element in the belief of the 
 Corinthian Church, and if, by belief in Jesus, as a 
 living and Almighty Person, various members of 
 that Church were able to perform certain works 
 which could not otherwise be performed — if this 
 was a well-authenticated fact, admitting neither 
 of dispute nor doubt — then, most assuredly, we 
 should be in possession of a chain of evidence, 
 without a flaw, pointing distinctly to the one only 
 possible conclusion, that the Lord Jesus Christ 
 had risen fi?om the dead, and was confirming the 
 souls of the disciples by these signs following. 
 
1 70 The Moral Teaching of St. Panl [Lect 
 
 So far the operations of the intellect may carry 
 us; but as Christians it is not possible to over- 
 look the other branch of corroborative evidence 
 which remains in reserve for us. If, as a matter 
 of fact, Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, then, 
 as a matter of fact, He is risen now and risen for 
 all time. We can have no further evidence of an 
 historical kind than we already possess. To 
 make fresh researches and investigations into the 
 mass of that evidence is a task beyond the reach 
 of many and of most of us, however abundantly it 
 may reward those who engage in it. But there 
 is an abiding test which is within the reach of 
 every one, and that is the test of experiment. 
 " taste and see that the Lord is gracious ; 
 blessed is the man that trusteth in Him." If 
 Christ is risen from the dead. He can prove His 
 resurrection to those who require a proof. He 
 will do so upon one condition, the condition, 
 namely, of behef. " taste and see." Believe 
 and you shall know. Make the trial and be con- 
 vinced. Apply the test of experiment and be 
 converted. AU we can do is to point out the 
 nature of the ground, to show that it is solid and 
 firm ; but were it shown to be never so sure, you 
 must still take the leci]^ of faith, which alone can 
 land you on the rock that is higher than you, 
 the Rock of ages. Bear then, oh, bear with us, 
 while we counsel you to take that leap, and 
 then, assuredly, having taken it, shall Jesus 
 
VI] The Mo7'al Teaching of St. Patil 1 7 1 
 
 Christ, the risen Saviour, make known the power 
 of His resurrection unto you, and confirm the 
 souls of His new disciples by manifold signs fol- 
 io win sr. 
 
 o 
 
LECTURE VII 
 
 THE MISSION OF ST. PAUL 
 
 Gal. i. 1 
 
 " Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus 
 Christ, and God the Father, ivho raised Him from the dead" 
 
 I PURPOSE, in the present Lecture, to inves- 
 tigate tlie nature of St. Paul's Mission; to 
 inquire in what sense, if in any sense, he was 
 sent by God; by what credentials the Churches 
 of Galatia must have recognised him as the bearer 
 of a Divine message ; on what grounds we our- 
 selves may receive him as the messenger of God ; 
 how his credentials are or were on the one hand 
 sufficient, as fully substantiating his claims, and 
 on the other exclusive, as not pertaining to others 
 who might presume to advance the same or similar 
 claims. 
 
 In order to obtain an answer to these questions 
 we must endeavour to transport ourselves as far 
 as possible into the circumstances of the time, 
 and to put ourselves in the position of those who 
 were first confronted with St. Paul as a living 
 
Lect. VII] The Mission of St. Paid 173 
 
 teacher. In conducting this inquiry it will be 
 my aim to make as few assumptions as possible, 
 indeed, to assume only that the Epistle to the 
 Galatians was actually written by St. Paul, and 
 had reference to real and existing circumstances. 
 As this appears to be universally admitted, the 
 right of assuming it can scarcely be denied by 
 any. 
 
 It appears, then, on this assumption, that St. 
 Paul addressed the Galatians, and had at one 
 time been received by them, as an Apostle not 
 sent from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ 
 and God the Father who had raised Him from the 
 dead. We have nothing to do now with the 
 resurrection from the dead, nor with the par- 
 ticular act by which Paul was sent. All that on 
 the assumption above-named is clear, is the fact 
 that Paul claimed to have been sent in the manner 
 described, and that at one time the Churches of 
 Galatia had so received him. This, I think, can- 
 not be denied. Before we deny it we must reject 
 the Epistle as a forgery, not only in respect of its 
 authorship, but also of its subject-matter; and 
 against the latter supposition lies the weighty 
 consideration that, if forged, the Epistle would 
 necessarily relate to subjects which from their 
 likeness to known subjects might have been real. 
 In order to meet with any success as a forgery 
 there must have been a certain resemblance be- 
 tween the circumstances described and those 
 
174 The Mission of St. Pa^il [Lect 
 
 whicli were known to have taken place. And, 
 therefore, on the supposition even of forgery the 
 evidence is scarcely less strong than on the 
 assumption which we may say will be universally 
 allowed, that the letter is authentic and the sub- 
 ject it treats of real. 
 
 This, then, being so, we may assert that the 
 Galatians received St. Paul as a man bearing a 
 Divine message, to use his own words, "as an 
 angel of God, even as Christ Jesus'." We have, 
 then, to ask two questions : AVhy did iliey so 
 receive him ? and How did lie know that he had 
 a Divine message ? 
 
 First, Why did they so receive him ? To 
 answer this question we have only the evidence 
 of the Epistle itself. There was then, in the first 
 place, the fact of his own conversion ; that spoke 
 powerfully to them, as indeed it does to every 
 man that duly weighs it in all its bearings. 
 They, Hke " the Churches of Judjea whicli were 
 in Christ," " glorified God in him '^," because, 
 having been a persecutor in times past, he now 
 preached the faith which once he destroyed. 
 Again, there was the notorious fact that the body 
 of Christians generally, even those Christians who 
 had the advantage of priority compared with St. 
 Paul, all acknowledged him as a Christian, and as 
 a Christian teacher second to none. In proof of 
 
 » Gal. iv. 14. - Gal. i. 24. 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 1 7 5 
 
 this lie could point to well-known circumstances 
 that had occurred at Jerusalem and at Antioch. 
 Again, there was the nature of the message deli- 
 vered, which seemed to carry its own credentials 
 with it, which was the story of " Jesus Christ 
 evidently set forth crucified among them." This 
 seemed in its very nature to be a sufficient gua- 
 rantee for the truth of the man who bore it. All 
 presumption seemed to be against the possibility 
 of such a story being fabricated, to say nothing 
 of the general notoriety of the fact which, how- 
 ever it was received, could not possibly be ques- 
 tioned. 
 
 But, beyond this there was another reason 
 which appears, in the opinion of the AJDOstle, to 
 outweigh almost any. " This only would I learn 
 of you," he says, " Received ye the Spirit by the 
 works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ^?" 
 Then they had themselves been the conscious 
 subjects of an influence, the conscious recipients 
 of a power which they had not known before, and 
 which, but for the message of St. Paul, they had 
 never known. They were themselves, therefore, 
 witnesses to themselves of the truth of his mes- 
 sage ; there was that in them which told them it 
 was true, which they could no more doubt than 
 they could doubt the combined evidence of their 
 senses, sight, hearing, and touch. One thing they 
 knew, that whereas they had been blind, now 
 ^ Gal. iii. 2. 
 
1 76 The Mission of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 they saw ; whereas they had been deaf, now they 
 heard ; whereas then' powers of feeUng liad been 
 dull, they were now acute. They had received 
 in consequence of his message, the spirit of illu- 
 mination, of emancipation, of righteousness and 
 peace. Though this influence had been tran- 
 sient, it had yet been real. It was fresh in their 
 memory, however it had been modified. They 
 had spoken of their first acquaintance with Paul's 
 message as nothing short of " blessedness." They 
 would have plucked out their own eyes in grati- 
 tude, and have given them to him. It filled their 
 whole nature with such a flood of light and bliss, 
 that they could only recognise it as the work of 
 Him who had given them that nature, and hail 
 the human agent of it as sent by Him. 
 
 Nor was this all; there were mighty works 
 wrought among themselves, which Paul knew and 
 they knew, that confirmed the preaching of faith 
 as an invention not of this world, but of One who 
 held the world and all the powers of nature in the 
 hollow of His hand ; which as they were wrought 
 for good ends, and had only a tendency to stimu- 
 late and urge to holiness, could only be traced to 
 a holy source. For these various and converging 
 reasons the Churches of Galatia had received the 
 Apostle as one who came with authority from the 
 Master whom he proclaimed. They could not but 
 see that whoever that Master was, the claim of 
 acting in His Name was fully substantiated by the 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 177 
 
 Apostle. He verified his own mission as far as 
 the identification of his Master with that mission 
 was concerned. There could be no mistake about 
 the reahty of the Master as far as it could be 
 measured by the reality of the servant. Such is 
 the evidence afforded by the Epistle itself. 
 
 The only question that could arise was about 
 the reahty of the Master. Perhaps this fervid and 
 enthusiastic messenger might have been deceived. 
 Other persons had come professing to work 
 miracles, and apparently had wrought them in 
 other names than that of Jesus. How could it be 
 known that Jesus, if He wrought them by the 
 hands of Paul, was any thing more than a hitherto 
 unfamiliar name in the multitudinous Pantheon ? 
 The answer was because Paul had wrought other 
 works besides miracles. He had done something 
 more than impose upon the senses. He had led 
 captive the heart, and had convinced the reason. 
 He had wrought miracles not only before their 
 eyes, but in themselves. The one might be ques- 
 tioned, the other could not. If he made them 
 conscious of the living power of the living Jesus, 
 there was a third witness independent of them- 
 selves, and independent of him. That living 
 Person was His own witness, before whom Paul 
 was nothing, and they were nothing. He was in 
 fact, not a witness, but a judge; not the defendant 
 put upon his trial, but the Supreme Lawgiver as- 
 serting His authority; the sole arbiter of con- 
 
 N 
 
1 78 The Mission of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 science, the discerner of the thoughts and intents 
 of the heart. If Jesus was this, the position 
 which He held was a permanent one. It either 
 was, or was not this ; but, being this, it could 
 never alter. It was independent of time, superior 
 to change, unaffected and uninfluenced by opinion. 
 
 If it was this, then all the phenomena of the 
 Pauline writings and the Pauline history are 
 abundantly explained. Then we can understand 
 the bold but novel assertion, " Because ye are 
 sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son 
 into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." But if 
 it was not this, then not only such language 
 becomes mysterious and unmeaning, but likewise 
 the phenomena with which it is connected, and to 
 which it bears an abiding witness. In one word 
 the Apostle proved his Divine Mission by its 
 Divine results. They were results which were 
 not and could not be referred to him, which could 
 not be referred to any human origin, which could 
 only be referred to God. 
 
 On this point we apprehend there could be no 
 question in the mind of the Galatians ; it is, how- 
 ever, not only questioned, but denied now. The 
 results are supposed to be natural or imaginary. 
 Observe, then, if iliey were imaginary, we may in 
 that case say that the defection in the Churches of 
 Galatia was imaginary likewise ; and then the 
 very cause of this Epistle being written was ima- 
 ginary. But if it was a fact that the Galatians 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 1 79 
 
 had fallen fi^om grace, then it is a fact that they 
 had once been under grace, that they had brought 
 forth once the fruits of the Spirit, that they had 
 evidenced in their hearts and lives the nature of 
 the message they had received. For if not so, 
 then we must assume two imaginary positions. 
 First, that the immediate results produced by the 
 Apostle's preaching were imaginary; and secondly, 
 that the base defection by which they had been 
 followed was imaginary too, and that the vehe- 
 ment outburst of apostolic indignation was un- 
 called for, and unseemly ; that he was fighting as 
 one that beateth the air, as one who striketh at 
 an object in the dark, which either does not exist, 
 or which, if it exists, cannot be found. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the results were natural, 
 then it has still to be shown how it was they were 
 so much opposed to nature, how, in the midst of 
 heathenism, and a profligate and depraved idola- 
 try, there sprung up suddenly a pure and elevated 
 morality, a conception of the Divine nature, un-, 
 equalled by the loftiest flights of philosophy, a 
 consciousness of Divine mysteries and Divine 
 realities till then unthought of, a recognised 
 standard or ideal of human action till then un- 
 heard of and unattained, a sensitiveness of the 
 moral nature which can never be surpassed, and 
 which till then had never been imagined. This 
 must have been a most unnatural freak of nature, 
 a strange and monstrous exhibition of latent 
 
 N 2 
 
i8o The Mission of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 natural power, directed moreover to the subjugation 
 and overthrow of nature, and against the action 
 of those very tendencies which we feel to be so 
 natural within ourselves. Could nature have done 
 this ? If so, then Satan also might cast out Satan, 
 and the kingdom be divided against itself, and yet 
 not have an end. 
 
 Or if the first conversion of the Galatian 
 Churches was a thing in the course of nature, the 
 spontaneous result of natural causes working 
 naturally, then What shall we say about the de- 
 fection of those Churches, Was that natural or 
 unnatural ? Not unnatural, certainly ; because, 
 as a matter of fact, it did occur, and notliing 
 which does occur can be unnatural, but yet so 
 opposite to the previous natural work as to be 
 called, in Apostolic language, a fall from grace. 
 We are surely warranted in saying that if one 
 was natural, to be referred to the ordinary opera- 
 tions of nature, then the other was most distinctly 
 supernatural above and beyond nature, and so far 
 contrary to nature. 
 
 But we must bear in mind that on the hypo- 
 thesis of our adversaries, we are forbidden to 
 assert that the conversion in point, so far as it 
 did occur, was other than natural ; that for some 
 reason or other the result of the Apostle's preach- 
 ing, as well as that preaching itself, was nothing 
 more than might have been expected; that the 
 life of St. Paul, and the existence of the Galatian 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 1 8 1 
 
 Churcli, and the production of this Epistle, were 
 all alike phenomena happening in the course of 
 nature, to be accounted for naturally, as the in- 
 evitable consequences of the correlation of moral 
 and social forces in operation at the time. The 
 absurdity of any theory like this to account for the 
 origin of the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, 
 is obvious on the bare mention of it. The produC' j 
 tiou of that Epistle, as a mere literary effort, was a ( 
 phenomenon not to he accounted for on merely natural \ 
 principles. The tone of it was out of harmony ' 
 with the voices of the world. The stream and 
 current of it ran counter to that of the course of i 
 this world. In one mode of speech it was anoma- \ 
 lous and inexplicable; in another it was super- 
 natural. 
 
 And as with the Epistle to the Galatians so 
 with the life of St. Paul, and the existence- of the 
 Galatian Church ; indeed we are not left without 
 the means of estimating the nature and degree of 
 this difference. Take the case of the existence of 
 any Christian in the present day, who is not 
 merely in name a Christian, but also in heart and 
 hope. He is a moral phenomenon, not to be ex- 
 plained on any natural principles, or accounted 
 for by the operation of any natural causes. His 
 life is based upon the supernatural, which, whe- 
 ther or not it has any existence in fact, is, at any 
 rate in idea and belief, a force and influence suflS- 
 ciently powerful to mould his character, and to 
 
1 82 The Mission of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 reconstitute Lis Avliole existence. He, like tlie 
 ' Apostle, can say, " I am crucified with Christ : 
 nevertheless I live ; and the life which I now live 
 in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God ;" 
 and the words in his mouth are not one whit more 
 natural than they were in St. Paul's; they point 
 unmistakably to a real but hidden motive power, 
 capable of producing great effects — supernatural 
 results ; which, whether or not the assigned cause 
 of it is true, at least has this peculiarity, that it 
 acts as if it ivere true in the cause assigned. 
 
 There is no other known power capable of pro- 
 ducing the same results. But these results are 
 unmistakably produced on deathbeds, in afflic- 
 tion, sickness, and the like. The results must 
 have a real cause, therefore the cause assigned is 
 a real cause. The power producing the results is 
 the po'wer of Jesus ; or, if Jesus is an unreality, 
 it is the power of some one, or of something, 
 which, as Jesus, does produce them. There is no 
 denying, as there is no counterfeiting, the results ; 
 they are before our own eyes ; and we cannot 
 deny the7n, even if we deny the power producing 
 them — they cannot be produced naturally ; no 
 natural causes are adequate to producing them ; 
 therefore they must be produced supernaturally. 
 
 Practically, therefore, we have each of us the 
 power of testing the character of the source from 
 whence the early Church derived its existence, for 
 it must at all times have been identical with that 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 183 
 
 from whence tlie like results are now derived. 
 The life of the believing Christian is a super- 
 natural phenomenon; it points to the existence :' 
 of a cause which is not to be seen, or touched, 
 or handled ; which is not to be discovered in the 
 wide realms of nature. The very existence of the 
 Epistle to the Galatians is a like phenomenon, and 
 so also is the history of St. Paul. 
 
 You may dig deep down into the hills and val- 
 leys of earth, but can find there no perennial 
 spring from whence these streams of living water 
 can have been derived. But there is a river of 
 which it was said, that " the streams thereof 
 should make glad the city of God," and that river 
 flows from the holy place of the tabernacle of 
 the Most High. It is that river, if we will 
 receive it, from whence all the springs and cur- 
 rents of spiritual life, whether flowing in the 
 streams of Apostolic labour and Apostolic writings, 
 or still more recently in the inexphcable calmness, 
 peace, and joy of the believing Christian, in times 
 even of overwhelming afiliction, and in the hour 
 of death, have been derived. And if there is no 
 such river, then, upon all natural principles, there 
 should be no such streams to flow from it. So 
 much, then, for the true character of the results 
 produced ; they were neither imaginary nor 
 natural. 
 
 Let us turn now to the consideration of St. 
 Paul's personal knowledge of his own mission. 
 
184 The Missio7i of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 How did he know he was sent by Christ? and How 
 do wo know he was not mistaken ? Now it may 
 seem absm'd to ask, How did he know he was 
 sent by Christ ? because his beUef, as a Christian, 
 must have seemed to him the proof of it ; and his 
 mission by Christ was bound up with that behef ; 
 but How did he know he was sent by God ? Hooker 
 saith \ " There are but two ways whereby the 
 Spirit leadeth men into all truth ; the one extra- 
 ordinary, the other common; the one belonging 
 but unto some few, the other extending itself unto 
 all that are of God ; the one, that which we call 
 by a special Divine excellency. Revelation; the 
 other, Reason." By what process of reason, then, 
 did St. Paul know that he was himself the reci- 
 pient of Revelation ? His reason must have borne 
 him witness that he was, — How did it do so ? 
 
 First, as a matter of fact, by the sharp contrast 
 which there was between himself and the heathen 
 world, on the one hand, and the Jewish world on 
 the other. He could not be blind to this, and the 
 world could not be blind to it. Here was a man 
 acting upon strange and unknown principles, which 
 had no counterpart among the philosophers, the 
 statesmen, the warriors, or the poets of the world ; 
 acting solely upon the principle of ardent love for 
 an absent, or at least an invisible and intangible 
 Person, whom probably before His death he had 
 never seen, and who was nowhere to be found 
 * Workb, i. 150, ed. Kcble. 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 1 8 5 
 
 among tlie living. Love for this Person, spring- 
 ing, as it seemed, from the sense of some insol- 
 vent debt of gratitude, was the professed and the 
 only discoverable motive on which he acted. His 
 conduct is not only inexplicable but impossible on 
 the hypothesis that this was not the motive. His 
 writings would never have existed had this not 
 been his motive, for their very purpose was to 
 make known, or at least to keep alive, the know- 
 ledge of this Person, and to stimulate love for 
 Him. 
 
 And it is not possible to exaggerate this con- 
 trast. It was conspicuous and obtrusive. "Where 
 it did not awaken friendship it excited enmity, 
 and called forth involuntarily a spirit of resistance. 
 Nor was it the morality which the Apostle incul- 
 cated that stirred up this enmity, but rather the v 
 principle on *which the morality was based and 
 the motive proposed for it. The better spirits 
 among mankind were not unfavourable to morality, 
 but they cared nothing about Jesus; and the 
 Gospel which Paul preached appealed no less 
 forcibly to the immoral and the depraved, than it 
 did to the moral and the pure. 
 
 Now for a man to find himself the depositary of 
 a Gospel such as this, in direct contradiction to 
 the whole world, was a phenomenon for which his 
 own reason could not but offer some solution. 
 He must try to explain it to himself. If any 
 natural explanation could bo found, he would 
 
1 86 The Missiofi of St. Pa7cl [Lect 
 
 gladly accept it ; if not, the operation of the super- 
 natural must be recognised. 
 
 But, again, the contrast now spoken of was not 
 one whit greater than the contrast between his 
 present and his former self. He was in posses- 
 sion of hght. He, too, was like the man born 
 blind, who had received his sight, and could 
 declare, " One thing I know, that, whereas I was 
 blind, now I see." Here, again, there was a direct 
 contradiction between the present and the past. 
 The two were incapable of reconciliation or har- 
 mony. On the evidence of this very Epistle one 
 must cast out the other ; both could not coexist 
 in the same man, so that what lie was might be 
 the resultant of the two. Saul of Tarsus and 
 Paul the Apostle were two distinct men. Saul 
 of Tarsus, the old man, was crucified with Christ ; 
 Paul the Apostle lived by the faith -of the Son of 
 God, who had loved him and given Himself for 
 him. The one was the object of hatred and loath- 
 ing to the other; his own comparison elsewhere 
 was that of the contiguity of a corpse : " Who shall 
 deliver me from the body of this death ?" The 
 very consciousness of such a state was altogether 
 new. When he had profited in the Jews' religion 
 above many his equals, there had been no know- 
 ledge or indication of it. He was zealous of the 
 law, and had gloried in it as in something from 
 which he could derive benefit and advantage, as 
 that by which he could be justified, as that, 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 187 
 
 therefore, whicli did not witness to liis condemna- 
 tion. 
 
 Nor was there any analogy between his case 
 and that of the pohtical or scientific conversions 
 of our own day. There are doubtless certain 
 broad features common to all conversions ; but 
 this was distinct from all, inasmuch as upon his 
 own evidence it was to him the instrumental 
 agent both of death and of life. By it he was at 
 once crucified with Christ and risen with Christ; 
 whether or not we accept Christ as the personal 
 agent, we have no right to deny the fact so far as 
 the Apostle himself was concerned. 
 
 If he assures us he was dead and risen with 
 some one, for the moment it matters not who, we 
 are bound to respect his assertion, to admit that 
 in his consciousness, in his spiritual being, there 
 was that which answered to such language, which 
 justified the metaphor. We have no right to 
 explain away the phrases used, but much rather 
 are bound, as honest men, to accept them as the 
 measure of the contrast between his past and 
 present self. 
 
 But even if we attempt to explain them away, 
 we are again baffled by the mere existence of these 
 writings, which would never have existed had 
 the change in question not been real. They are 
 themselves the measure of the contrast. Could 
 any Jew have written them ? We have preserved 
 to us the valued writings of two eminent Jews 
 
1 88 The Mission of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 contemporary with St. Paul, Joseplius and Pliilo ; 
 Could tliC]) have written them ? The answer is 
 most emphatically, No ! There is but one kind 
 of change which bears any analogy to that which 
 we contemplate in the case of this Apostle, and 
 that is the change which attends conversion to 
 Christy at all times and under all conditions. It is 
 not the renunciation of one faith for another, as 
 that of Protestantism for Catholicism, or the 
 reverse; but that of either, or of both, of these, 
 for Christ ; the recognition of Jesus as the living 
 and reigning Potentate, at once absolute, uni- 
 versal, supreme, and solitary. Where there is 
 this recognition, and nowhere else, there follow 
 the like results that we discover in St. Paul. 
 
 Por there is here the same power of destruction 
 and of renovation, the same entrance of an un- 
 known and energising principle, which operates 
 to the entire subjection of the will, the cleansing 
 of the conscience, the renewal and sanctification 
 of the life. And here there is the like contrast 
 which the Apostle repudiates as being exclusively 
 his own, " If any man be in Christ, he is a new 
 creature : old things are passed away ; behold, all 
 things are become new." This is the abiding 
 and unchangeable evidence of the working of the 
 Christian principle, which is the same now as it 
 was eighteen centuries ago; which, if it is not 
 referred to Christ, must be referred to something, 
 or to some one ; and if it is not accepted in the 
 
VII] The Mission of St, Pmd 189 
 
 present or in past time as evidence of Christ, still 
 demands recognition as a fact. 
 
 But if it is denied as a fact now^ it cannot be 
 denied in tlie case of this Apostle ; for otherwise 
 we should have had no record of his experience of 
 it, and the writings which are acknowledged to be 
 his would never have existed. Not, however, 
 that their exclusive value turns upon the fact of 
 their being his, for their very existence in that or 
 in any age is still a witness to the production of 
 the same results which were assigned to the same 
 cause, and to the reality of the same experience in 
 others if not in him. 
 
 In the contemplation, then, of this contrast 
 which we know to have existed in St. Paul, What 
 was the answer about it that his reason gave him ? 
 How could he account for the change between his 
 present and his former self? Was it traceable to 
 a human or to a Divine source ? Let us listen to 
 his own testimony: " Paul, an Apostle, not of men, 
 neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the 
 Father, who raised Him from the dead." " I certify 
 you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached 
 of me is not after man. For I neither received it 
 of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revela- 
 tion of Jesus Christ." This witness is sure, if it 
 be not tampered with. Paul was the convert of 
 no one. He was received, we are told in the 
 Acts, with suspicion by the disciples at Jeru- 
 salem, and would have been rejected but for the 
 
1 90 The Mission of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 large-hearted generosity of Barnabas. Wlien it 
 pleased God to reveal His Son in him, he had not 
 conferred with flesh and blood, but had gone 
 straight into the solitude of Arabia and returned 
 again to Damascus. He was unknown by face 
 to the Churches of Judaea which were in Christ. 
 He had given place by subjection, no, not for an 
 hour, to the false brethren at Jerusalem. He had 
 even withstood Peter to the face. Though he 
 was " the least of the Apostles, that was not meet 
 to be called an Apostle," yet he acknowledged no 
 superior in the Apostolate, and called no man 
 his father in Christ. These are facts which, as 
 honest men, we are bound to face. St. Paul owed 
 not his knowledge of the Gospel to any single 
 human being. It grew up in his mind sponta- 
 neously, 
 
 " Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprung," 
 
 and yet wholly in opposition to his own will, and 
 in defiance of his natural bias and the prejudices 
 of his education. How are we to account for 
 this ? Was it natural or supernatural ? Make 
 the limits and confines of the two never so 
 vague and undefined, yet this was a pheno- 
 menon beyond all question which was not natural : 
 in its conditions and in its efiects it was totally 
 opposed to nature. • 
 
 Again, we must bear in mind that St. Paul's 
 message to the world was not a system of philo- 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Patil 191 
 
 sophy wliich he had tJwugJd out. He had not 
 elaborated it by profound meditation. It had not 
 grown upon him from small beginnings and by 
 gradual increase or expansion. There is no trace 
 in it of progressive development. The knowledge 
 of the Gospel is not greater in the Second Epistle 
 to the Corinthians than it is in the First ; it is not 
 greater in the Epistle to the Church at Rome 
 than it is in that to the Churches of Galatia. It 
 is identically the same in all. If there was ever 
 any man who justified his own assertions, who 
 verified his own claims and made good his own 
 pretensions, then St. Paul was that man. Not 
 only was his Gospel opposed to, but it was totally 
 independent of, prevailing systems of philosophy. 
 It came before the world as something totally 
 new, as the proclamation, not of theories, or 
 of tentative suggestions, or of hypothetical con- 
 jectures, but of actual facts professing to have a 
 power in them which could move the world. 
 
 Now these facts, the Apostle says, were revealed 
 to him; he was suddenly made aware of them; 
 not indeed of the facts as facts, which, perhaps, 
 were sufiiciently notorious, but of their relation 
 to him, of their bearing upon himself and upon 
 the world. He was suddenly shown the meaning 
 of those facts which he knew, as the life and death 
 of Jesus, or had heard of, but did not believe, as 
 the Resurrection and Ascension, and, probably, 
 was made acquainted with other facts which he 
 
192 The Mission of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 had never known or heard of; as, for example, 
 the Institution of the Lord's Supper, mentioned 
 in the eleventh chapter of the Fii'st Epistle to the 
 Corinthians. He saw, the history of the Acts 
 asserts, and his own language seems to bear it 
 out, suddenly '\ that the Jesus whom he hated 
 had to do with him; that, somehow or other. He 
 was in him ; that He was possessed of Divine 
 power as the Son of God; that though He had 
 been put to death, He had risen again from the 
 dead; and that, somehow or other, this death 
 and resurrection were a death and resurrection 
 for him ; that he was concerned in them, and 
 might regard them as his own. They were not 
 bare facts having no reference to him, but touch- 
 ing him most intimately. He found himself con- 
 templated in their purpose, and included in their 
 effects. They had encompassed and absorbed 
 him against his wiU, and in spite of his opposi- 
 tion to them. 
 
 And we lay no stress at all now on the reality 
 of the facts, but on the remarkable circumstance 
 of St. Paul's knowledge of them, which, on his 
 own evidence, appears to have been sudden, and 
 was certainly not derived from man. How, then, 
 we ask, could he have become thus suddenly 
 acquainted with these facts, or with the signifi- 
 cance of them, and that without the intervention 
 
 * 1 Cor. ix. 1 ; XV. 3, 8. Gal. i. 16. Cf. Acts ix. 20. See 
 also Jowett, as quoted before, i. 227. 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 193 
 
 of any human agency or influence, in a natural 
 way ? That the knowledge of facts he was before 
 ignorant of should have come to him in this way 
 naturally, is not possible : we must refer it to a 
 source external to nature ; for to say that it did 
 not so come, is to fly in the face of the evidence. 
 
 And, on the other hand, the very circumstance 
 of these facts becoming on the sudden, as it were, 
 self-illuminating, of their becoming to him centres 
 and sources of light in such a way as to scatter 
 and expose his darkness, to remodel and reform 
 his Hfe, to convince him that they were designed 
 to be so likewise to humanity at large, and, there- 
 fore, to make him willing to sacrifice his whole 
 life, his strength, talents, time, fortune, and pros- 
 pects, to bringing about that design ; this of itself 
 may be received as evidence that there was a vital 
 power in the facts — in other words, that the facts 
 themselves were true. 
 
 But, again, that he should suddenly become 
 alive to the true nature and bearing of these facts, 
 that he should, without human agency or in- 
 fluence, be led to pass judgment on his former 
 life as a mistake, to condemn himself as guilty of 
 heinous offence in the light of them, and to 
 believe only that they supplied him with a fresh 
 and true motive for existence and a new principle 
 of life — this is a circumstance so remarkable, so 
 peculiar, that we are at a loss to say it is to be 
 accounted for by the ordinary operation of the 
 
 o 
 
1 94 The Mission of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 human mind, or that the causes of it are to be 
 discovered any where within the region of nature. 
 
 Surely, then, upon the due consideration of all 
 these circumstances, evidenced to us by the testi- 
 mony of St. Paul himself, and that in such a way 
 as to receive also the corroborating testimony of 
 those to whom he wrote, whose general consent 
 is implied in the epistolary form adopted, we are 
 warranted in saying that in the contemplation 
 of his own position, and the phenomena of his 
 spiritual history, there was but one conclusion at 
 which the impartial judgment of his own enlight- 
 ened reason could arrive; namely, that he was 
 the favoured subject of a Divine revelation. 
 
 Now thus far we have been dealing only with 
 those features of the case which, though pointing 
 to the supernatural as a cause, are themselves 
 strictly natural. When,, therefore, in addition to 
 these we bear in mind the many indications im- 
 plied rather than expressed, or, at least, men- 
 tioned casually without the slightest appearance 
 of design, that these were not by any means the 
 only features of the case, but that over and 
 beyond these there were others which had a valid 
 claim, if any such claim could be valid, to be 
 regarded as strictly supernatural — when we take 
 into consideration all the circumstances which 
 preceded, attended, and followed in this case, it 
 becomes something more than difficult not to see 
 that the calm and unbiassed reason of the Apostle 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 195 
 
 must have fully borne him witness that he was, 
 in the highest possible sense, the recipient of a 
 Divine revelation. 
 
 He had ample cause, which any man in the 
 same position could not but recognise as ample, 
 to believe himself " an Apostle of Jesus Christ 
 by the will of God^" He knew by evidence 
 which was deeper than his own consciousness, 
 whether physical or spiritual, seeing that his con- 
 sciousness was the organ in which it was revealed 
 to him, and by which he perceived the revelation, 
 that the revelation had been given to him. It 
 was contrary to his nature, that is, to his natural 
 will, and it was not derived through tlie interven- 
 tion of any second person. The possession of the 
 light was the evidence of the revelation, and the 
 nature of the light the proof of its origin. Just 
 as we recognise instinctively the light of sun, 
 moon, or stars, and distinguish the light by the 
 object revealed, so here was the recognition of a 
 light which could be none other than Divine, 
 seeing that the object it revealed was good. The 
 perception of this light led the Apostle unto God, 
 revealed God to him ; it could be none other than 
 God's light; for the light of the moon will not 
 lead us to behold the sun, nor the light of the 
 stars enable us to perceive the moon. There may 
 be false suns in the heavens by day, as there may 
 be wandering stars by night, but the light of these 
 • 2 Cor. i. 1. 
 
 2 
 
196 The Mission of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 cannot for one moment be confounded or com- 
 pared with the true light given forth by either 
 stars or sun ; least of all will the light of the false 
 enable us to behold the true ; it is by its own 
 light alone that we can see the sun, and having 
 once seen it, the possibility of error is precluded. 
 
 Now it was the sudden rising upon the soul of 
 the Apostle of the light of God in Jesus Christ 
 that revealed God unto him in Christ. He knew 
 that it was God who was revealed unto him, for 
 it could be no one else; just as when a man 
 beholds the sun he knows it is the sun that he 
 beholds. So God had " shined in his heart, to 
 give the light of the knowledge of the glory of 
 God in the face of Jesus Christ ^" and he knew 
 it was the light of God. The fact that this light 
 visited him exceptionally, independently, and in 
 conjunction with supernatural circumstances and 
 the bestowal of miraculous powers, constituted a 
 combinatioti of evidence which it was not pos- 
 sible to resist, and became itself the basis of a 
 mission which it was equally impossible to decline. 
 He would have declined it if he could ^ but he 
 was taught that it was his noblest privilege to 
 fulfil it, and most nobly did he fulfil it. 
 
 And in fulfilling it, even unto death, he became 
 
 a lasting monument of Divine grace, a witness to 
 
 the end of time to the truth of Jesus as the living 
 
 and ruling Lord ; even as to himself, his own life 
 
 '• 2 Cor. iv. 6. « Cf. Acts xxii. 19. 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Pa?il 1 9 7 
 
 and labours, independently of the success which 
 foUowed them, must have borne a continual testi- 
 mony to the reality of his mission, " Are they 
 ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am 
 more ; in labours more abundant, in stripes above 
 measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft "." 
 He must have been an enigma to himself, an 
 absurd and inexplicable paradox, if, doing and 
 suffering such things in compliance with no 
 human authority, he had not received the Divine 
 command, and with it the Divine strength for 
 doing and suffering them. If the work proclaims 
 the workman, here, verily, was a work of no 
 human character, and of no earthly mould, and, 
 therefore, a workman endowed with a Divine 
 energy and a Divine commission. 
 
 And in the contemplation of such facts, at once 
 undeniable and undoubted, shall we yet ask the 
 question. How do we know that he was not mis- 
 taken ? Or, asking it, be over careful to supply the 
 answer ? Assuredly, here, if any where, there can 
 be no mistake, for here we are on the very con- 
 fines of the supernatural, within earshot of the 
 voice of God. The message proclaimed by Paul 
 was no human message. Its very nature declares 
 it to be not of man's invention or of man's dis- 
 covery. It was not the hind of thing that man 
 would have invented or been likely to invent; 
 because, however much it may adapt itself to the 
 " 2 Cor. xi. 23. 
 
198 The Mission of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 deficiencies of his nature, and promise tlie fulfil- 
 ment of his most ardent aspirations, it can do 
 neither the one nor the other till it has first sub- 
 dued his natural will and brought into captivity 
 every thought to the obedience of Christ. Man 
 does not naturally fly to that which promises to 
 overthrow before it blesses him, he does not natu- 
 rally take refuge with that which offers to crucify 
 before it crowns him. If the Gospel was a human 
 invention, considering the ample reward it holds 
 out, it should find more acceptance among men, 
 and not encounter that rooted enmity which it 
 meets with in us all until we have embraced it. 
 If the Gospel were after man, then there should be 
 no natural antipathy to it, no actual hindrance to 
 its progress, as we all know there is, and as none 
 better know than they who have from the heart 
 believed the Gospel. 
 
 But as Paul's message was not human, so 
 neither was his life. Wliat earthly motive could 
 suffice to make a man undergo what he under- 
 went ? If any earthly motive were sufficient, 
 there is a conspicuous absence of any such 
 motive in the Apostle's Christian career. There 
 is no trace of ambition, or the love of fame, or the 
 lust of power, or the thirst for popularity ; if any 
 of these motives weighed with him, they were 
 most signally fi:'ustrated, and none but a mad- 
 man or a fool could have thought at that time of 
 resorting to such expedients in the pursuit of any. 
 
VII] The Mission of St. Paul 199 
 
 No ! Ins life was a superhuman life, not in what 
 it accomplished, but in its character and com- 
 plexion. It was no human or earthly taste which 
 he gratified in preaching the Gospel. It was an 
 unaccountable infatuation, if it was not in obe- 
 dience to a Divine command; a wild and pre- 
 posterous dream of folly, if not the fulfilment of a 
 Divine mission. There is but one discoverable 
 motive to be assigned to it, and that is the ardent 
 love, the devoted affection of insolvent and bank- 
 rupt gratitude, for the unseen but living Person 
 who had died for him. 
 
 And as with his life, so also with his writings . 
 The very existence of them as mere literary monu- 
 ments cannot be accounted for on any principles 
 of nature ; marked as they are by a startling 
 originality, their theme is not a natural one, but 
 felt instinctively to be opposed to nature. The 
 root which produced so fair a plant, so sweet a 
 flower, and fruit so rich and rare, can have 
 sprung from no earthly soil; the springs which 
 nourished it can be traced to no mountains or 
 hills of earth. Here, if any where, is a rose from 
 the garden of the Lord; a lily from the deepest 
 glades of paradise; a vine from the vineyard of 
 the well-beloved, in God's own very fruitful hill. 
 Unbelief may labour, but labour in vain, to dis- 
 prove its origin with a hopelessness only to be 
 surpassed by that with which it would of itself 
 seek to produce a plant so fair and noble, with 
 
200 The Mission of St. Paul [Lect. VII 
 
 sweetness and fruit so worthy of God, so grateful 
 and beneficent to regenerate man. 
 
 Surely, then, we need not ask. How may we 
 know that the Apostle was not mistaken ? Upon 
 careful, and earnest, and devout consideration we 
 find all the credentials and conditions of a Divine 
 mission fulfilled and exhibited in him, as they are 
 exhibited and fulfilled nowhere else. He, if any 
 one, was sent by God. He, if any one, is a 
 standing witness to Christ. "We need but to be 
 penetrated with his light ourselves to recognise 
 it as derived from Him who was the true light 
 which lighteth every man that cometh into the 
 world. While we are in darkness we cannot see 
 the light; but coming out of the darkness of a 
 sinful and selfish unbelief, we shall know of a 
 surety that his own words were true, and that 
 " Paul " was indeed " an Apostle, not of men, 
 neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the 
 Father, who raised Him from the dead." 
 
LECTURE VIII 
 
 THE REVELATION OF ST. PAUL 
 
 Gal. i. 8 
 
 " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel 
 unto you than that luhich we have preached unto you, let him 
 be accursed." 
 
 NO maxim is more frequently proclaimed or 
 more readily admitted in tlie present day 
 than tliat ours is an age of progress. Every 
 branch of human knowledge has received a de- 
 velopment in the last fifty years that is simply 
 astounding. Our material progress is so manifest 
 that there is probably no thinking person from 
 whom it has not elicited expressions of astonish- 
 ment. Our scientific progress is equally astonish- 
 ing to all who are capable of forming an opinion 
 about it. Every known field of inquiry has been 
 explored, and fresh fields are daily being dis- 
 covered to stimulate investigation ; our social and 
 political existence has felt the influence of this 
 progressive impulse, and has obeyed it. For evil 
 or for good we have marched onward with the 
 
202 The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 course of time. We have been borne along with 
 the current of progress. We have all of us more 
 or less caught the spirit of the age, and the spirit 
 of the age is obedience to the law of progress. If 
 we would, none of us is able to resist it, and 
 probably few of us would desire to do so if we 
 could. 
 
 Under the consciousness, then, of obeying this 
 tendency, it is frequently asked, and not seldom 
 asserted that Religion also must be progressive. 
 Must not the Gospel itself be susceptible of de- 
 velopment ? Our knowledge has increased, our 
 thoughts have widened, our stock of facts has 
 enlarged, our ideas have changed, we ourselves 
 have been moving. Is our religion alone to stand 
 still ? We can trace a growth of Christian doc- 
 trine even in the New Testament itself, is that 
 book to be the limit of its growth ? Is it not 
 probable that every age would contribute its 
 quota to the mass, till the latest hour of the 
 Church's existence should be rich in the accu- 
 mulated treasures of the past, the last age alone 
 of Christendom possess the completed Christian 
 faith ? 
 
 Or is it not possible that the light brought in 
 by the Gospel should go on brightening and 
 diffusing itself till it had rendered the Gospel 
 which brought it in superfluous ? Is not Chris- 
 tianity itself to be regarded merely as one stage in 
 the education of the world, in the nature of things 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 203 
 
 to be succeeded by another, till tlie absolute reli- 
 gion should be approximately reached ? Nay, might 
 not the Absolute Religion likewise be destined to 
 render obedience to the Law of Progress., till the 
 conscience of mankind should recognise instinc- 
 tively the obligation of no religion whatever? 
 Surely such a progressive development of the 
 religious principle in man is conceivable. We 
 can imagine it outgrowing itself till it failed for 
 lack of strength, waned by degrees, and died 
 away. 
 
 We can conceive a kind of Nemesis of con- 
 science which should exclaim on the noblest and 
 the purest principles, " Man wants no religion at 
 all. It is religion which is justly chargeable with 
 all the confusions and disorders he has suffered 
 from. It has checked his enterprise, marred his 
 happiness, sullied his enjoyment, narrowed his 
 intellect, crippled his energies, hardened his heart. 
 Away with it ! Let him be but a god unto him- 
 self, and the power, and the wisdom, and the 
 glory, and the greatness, and the peace, and the 
 blessedness of a god are his. Earth becomes his 
 home, society his heaven, time his paradise, and 
 death his everlasting sleep." 
 
 Surely a picture such as this, however mon- 
 strous it may seem, has at times been realised. 
 And the very fact of its being recognised as 
 monstrous serves to show that such progress 
 would be retrogressive. If the Gospel should be 
 
204 The Revelation of St. Patil [Lect 
 
 so supplanted, it would not be Development, but 
 Decay. If one extreme is Life, the other is, un- 
 questionably. Extinction, Dissolution, Death. 
 
 But the question may arise, and frequently does 
 suggest itself. Between these two extremes is 
 there no reasonable mean ? May not the Gospel 
 require to be modified to meet the requirements 
 of the age ? Are we to suppose that a Jewish 
 Rabbi, who lived and died eighteen centuries ago, 
 had scanned the whole horizon of man's religious 
 life, that he had sounded all the depths of man's 
 religious knowledge, probed to the bottom of his 
 religious consciousness, and measured the height 
 of his possible development? If we accept his 
 revelation, are we to bow to it as final ? Are we 
 to consider ourselves bound by his opinions, 
 shackled by his supposed facts, restrained by the 
 conclusions of his logic ? Is it not given to us to 
 make other discoveries in his own domain, other 
 investigations into a region where he was one of 
 the earliest, though truly a successful, pioneer ? 
 Are our speculations to be foreclosed by his 
 superannuated dicta ? Shall we shut our eyes to 
 light that streams in upon us from various 
 quarters, because it seems to be more colourless 
 than his ? If he had lived in the midst of this 
 hght, with our advantages, our science, our arts, 
 our civihsation, would not he have been one of the 
 first to hail its dawn, as he was one of the 
 first to be its harbinger ? Must we not believe 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 205 
 
 that he who had spoken with such contempt of 
 the past, of the old world and its rudiments, with 
 such hope of the future and its boundless pro- 
 spects, would have thrown himself heart and soul 
 into the stream of progress, have yielded unre- 
 servedly to the spirit of the age, let it carry him 
 whither it might ? Would he not have said that 
 the law of progress was the law of Christ, and 
 that the religion of Christ and the revelation of 
 Christ must yield to it ? 
 
 Now it would seem that an approximate answer 
 to these questions might be found in the con- 
 sideration hinted at before, that if the Gospel 
 revelation is susceptible of any modifying change 
 in one age, it must be in another. And from the 
 known fluctuations of human thought, the con- 
 spicuous instability of popular sentiment, it would 
 not be possible to predicate that the conclusions 
 of one generation would not be modified or even 
 reversed by those of another. On the contrary, 
 there is every reason to .expect they would be. 
 One can assign no limits to the action of change, 
 if it is once allowed to act. It were absurd to 
 suppose that any modification could be regarded 
 as final. If the Gospel admits of alteration, it is 
 surely destined to pass away. The growing en- 
 lightenment of the age must supersede it. 
 
 What, then, is the testimony of our Apostle on 
 this subject ? For whether right or wrong in his 
 opinion, we are bound to accept what he tells us 
 
2o6 The Revelation of St. Patil [Lect 
 
 of the nature of the Gospel as its true nature ^ 
 Can, therefore, any testimony be more distinct 
 and emphatic than his ? " Though we, or an angel 
 from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you 
 than that which we have preached unto you, let 
 him be accursed." Here is an unalterable deposit 
 committed to the world. By no voices in earth 
 or heaven can its value be lessened or its autho- 
 rity be superseded. What evidence can be stronger ? 
 There can be no sort of question that Paul re- 
 garded his Gospel as a final revelation. He as- 
 serted most forcibly that it was not susceptible of 
 change. Now if this be so, our decision is made 
 for us with respect to the influence of the spirit of 
 the age, upon the substance of the Gospel. "Wliat- 
 ever may be the range of progress, it cannot touch 
 
 ' That is to say, the Gospel which Paul preached must stand 
 or fall on its own merits. We are at liberty to reject it, if we 
 please ; but we have no right to think we can improve upon 
 or correct it. Neither may we assume that it was a Gospel 
 substantially different from that ah-eady in vogue, because 
 St. Paul does not claim to have received a new, but only an 
 independent, revelation. He was not a whit behind the very 
 chiefest Apostles, but he was not in authority superior to any, 
 so that his Gospel had a claim to be received in preference to 
 that of other Apostles, or to the detriment of theirs. He eveiy 
 where assumes that the message w^as one : if otherwise, he 
 could not have written to Churches to which he was unknown, 
 as for example to the Romans. Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 5. Rom. i. xv. 
 Col, ii. 1, &c. The Epistle to the Rom.ans alone is a witness 
 that the Gospel which the Christians at Rome had received 
 was substantially Paul's Gospel. He did not write to change 
 or modify, but to establish and confirm their faith. 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 207 
 
 the Gospel revelation. For if that revelation were 
 to progress in the manner described, it would at 
 once become, as St. Paul says, " another Gospel," 
 which could not be received even on the authority 
 of a celestial being. 
 
 Nor is it difficult to see why this must be so. For 
 the Gospel was the proclamation of a work done, 
 of certain facts which had a twofold bearing. They 
 declared the mind of God to man, and man's posi- 
 tion with regard to God. If, then, the mind of God 
 was liable to change, the Gospel might be expected 
 to change, but not otherwise. And if the nature 
 of man was likely to vary from one age to another, 
 as we know it is not (nothing is more unvarying 
 than what is commonly understood by human 
 nature), then the relation of man to God would 
 also vary and the Gospel be superseded. 
 
 It is very clear that this is the position which 
 the Gospel claimed to occupy, which St. Paul 
 asserted for it. How far he was right in doing so 
 is a separate question, but it is undoubtedly true 
 that he did. And, what is more, the very fact 
 that it was thus presented, furnishes corroborative 
 evidence of the reality of the Apostle's mission, 
 and of the Divine nature of the Gospel. It is in 
 this particular its own witness to its origin. In 
 allowing these two positions, which are in fact 
 impregnable. That the Divine nature is unchange- 
 able, and That what is known as the heart of man 
 is constantly the same from age to age, then it is 
 
2o8 The Revelation of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 certain tliat any message coming from God to 
 man would liave direct relation to these two facts, 
 and so far as it had would not be susceptible of 
 change. 
 
 Nor is it any objection to this argument to 
 affirm that Revelation itself was the subject of 
 progressive development, because though this is 
 to a certain extent true, it is likewise true that 
 there was an absolute identity in the subject- 
 matter revealed. St. Paul himself could find no 
 more apt illustration of Christian faith than that 
 of the patriarch Abraham, himself the father of the 
 Jewish Church. The position of the Roman 
 and Galatian converts by faith was that of 
 Abraham. What the knowledge of Christ had 
 done for them was to put them in the position of 
 Abraham, who " believed God, and it was counted 
 unto him for righteousness." That there was a 
 gradual development of historical facts, revealing 
 more and more of the Divine plan, was no way 
 inconsistent with the identity of spiritual truth 
 these facts inculcated. We are, therefore, beyond 
 all question, warranted in saying that the Gospel 
 committed to St. Paul was intended to be final, 
 and that its finality was a tohen of its truth. 
 
 It may be said, however, that " the Gospel " is 
 a very vague term, that it is hard to determine 
 what the Apostle meant, or the Galatians under- 
 stood by it, and that its very vagueness opens the 
 door to a large amount of controversy, if not of 
 
VIII] The Revelatio7i of St. Paul 209 
 
 misrepresentation, and therefore of alteration. 
 But here again, if the Gospel had a Divine origin, 
 and its accurate preservation was the object of 
 Divine solicitude, as in that case it surely would 
 be, we might reasonably expect that much of this 
 apparent vagueness would disappear. And so as 
 a matter of fact it is. If the Epistle to the 
 Galatians or the Epistle to the Romans had been 
 written or discovered now for the first time, no 
 man of any intelligence could have the slightest 
 doubt as to its general significance and bearing. 
 Whatever obscurity might attach to parts, the 
 general drift of the implied teaching would be 
 plain to all. 
 
 And so again here, the very casual and un- 
 systematic way in which Christian truth is alluded 
 to rather than inculcated is a very strong evidence 
 not only of the reality and genuineness of the 
 writings, but also of the inherent truth of their 
 concealed subject-matter. The writer was not 
 concerned to make a scientific or formal state- 
 ment of the chief doctrines of revelation which 
 might serve as a manual of instruction for all who 
 met with it, but he was writing on subjects of 
 the hour, and speaking of those subjects with 
 special reference to a previous matter with which 
 both he and his readers were perfectly acquainted. 
 What this matter was is not so much explained 
 as inferred. It is the subject of discovery, rather 
 than of superficial observation. And yet it is not 
 
 p 
 
2IO The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 difficult to discover, because it is actually so con- 
 cise and simple. 
 
 And not seldom this simplicity becomes con- 
 spicuous, obvious, and obtrusive ; as, for example, 
 when with righteous indignation the Apostle 
 bursts out, " fooHsh Galatians, who hath be- 
 witched you, that ye should not obey the truth, 
 before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evi- 
 dently set forth, crucified among you^ ?" Here it 
 is plain that the substance of his teaching had 
 been the death of Jesus Christ. So, again, " I 
 determined not to know any thing among you, 
 save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified ^" Or, once 
 more, " I delivered unto you first of all that 
 which I also received, how that Christ died for 
 our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that He 
 was buried, and that He rose again the third day 
 according to the Scriptures*." Such incidental 
 statements as these are volumes in themselves. 
 They are simply exhaustive in the evidence they 
 give as to the nature of the Pauline message. 
 Whatever else it was, it was at least iliis ; and 
 this, in itself, included and embraced every thing. 
 It was a central light shedding rays of tran- 
 scendent brilliancy upon every object vsdth which 
 it came in contact. It was a many-sided crystal 
 reflecting manifold and various hues whichever 
 way it was turned. No one could avoid seeing 
 
 * Gal. iii. 1. M Cor. ii. 2. 
 
 ♦ 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4. 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 2 1 1 
 
 the hues, whether he was attracted by them, or 
 whether he despised them. All were conscious of 
 the light, whether it penetrated or whether it 
 blinded them. The Apostle had a fact to tell 
 mankind, that Jesus Christ had died. This fact, 
 he said, was unique and sohtary. In a world 
 where all die, the death of Jesus stood alone. 
 And that, because it occupied a mid-position 
 between God and men. It was God's message 
 to men. It bespoke God's love to men. For it 
 was God's own appointed means for dealing with 
 the sin of the world. " Christ died for our sins 
 according to the Scriptures." It totally changed, 
 therefore, the relation between God and men. 
 Hitherto sin was undestroyed, now it was abo- 
 lished. Men could go to God through Jesus 
 without sin. There was " no condemnation to 
 them that" were "in Christ Jesus." "The old 
 man was crucified with Christ, that the body of 
 sin might be destroyed." It was this central fact, 
 involving as it did the whole circle of Christian 
 truth, which was the strength of the Pauline 
 teaching; a strength which was equally strong 
 wherever it came with power. It was conceivable 
 that even he might be false to it, but the teach- 
 ing could not be false. It justified itself in 
 the hearts of all who received it. They were 
 no less conscious of its truth than he was. 
 For it came where it came with an irresistible 
 might, which was the might of omnipotence. It 
 
 p 2 
 
2 1 2 The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 pleaded with the eloquence of a love greater than 
 human. 
 
 It might, therefore, be ratified and confirmed 
 with miracles, and signs, and mighty wonders ; 
 but the message itself was a miracle. The stamp 
 of the Almighty was upon it. If the death of 
 Christ had been no more than the death of any 
 ordinary man, it would have had no more motive 
 or moral power than any such death. But, as a 
 matter of fact, for some reason or other the pro- 
 clamation of it was attended with multitudinous 
 exhibitions of tremendous moral power. No 
 reason can be surmised for this, unless the death 
 of Christ was intrinsically different from every 
 other death. If He died for our sins it tvould be 
 so. The appropriate evidence that He did so die 
 is afforded by the known results that followed ; 
 of which the life and writings of St. Paul alone, 
 had we nothing else, are sufficient proof. 
 
 Nor let it be for one moment thought that upon 
 the supposition now made, the results should 
 have been far greater than they were. If those 
 results had been far less than they have, the 
 testimony would still have been sufficient. We 
 can understand a whole nation following one man 
 to his grave with bitter lamentation and regret, 
 but we cannot understand such a death being 
 not only the subject of regret, but becoming also 
 the perennial source of a new and national life. 
 Still less can we understand the death of an 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 213 
 
 unknown man being, not to one nation but to 
 many nations, not to one age but to many ages, 
 not only a matter of infinite sorrow (for men have 
 mourned for Christ as they mourn for an only 
 son, they have been in bitterness for Him as one 
 that is in bitterness for his firstborn), but also and 
 at the same time becoming the perpetual and 
 unfailing spring of new hope and new life, and 
 infinite aspirations, as well as the impulse and 
 encouragement to indefatigable energy, and the 
 well-head of adequate consolation under what 
 would otherwise be hopeless and unendurable 
 sorrow, — this is what we cannot understand, unless 
 in very deed and in truth there was in that death 
 the actual life a7id strength of which such abun- 
 dant evidence was given. 
 
 Now this is a matter of fact which admits of no 
 dispute. It is not only a phenomenon of past 
 ages, but one that we may test by the observation 
 of our own experience, that wherever the deathi 
 of Christ is apprehended as a death destroying' 
 sin, there the moral power of it is incalculable. 
 The conscience, already more than commonly sen- 
 sitive from sin, is forthwith relieved. It feels the 
 weight of a burden removed. An unknown sense 
 of emancipation is enjoyed. There is the per- 
 ception of the freer breath and the purer sky 
 which the great poet of the middle ages has 
 described in fragrant and undying numbers at 
 the opening of his second great poem, " after 
 
214 The Revelatio7i of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 emerging from the mortal atmosphere which had 
 afflicted his eyes and lungs \" 
 
 But there is no reason why this should be so. 
 There is no other character in history, the asso- 
 ciations connected with whose death would work 
 in this way; and yet, as a fact, the death of 
 Christ thus works. St. Paul alone is a proof of it, 
 if there were no second. The one supposition 
 on which we can account for it is, that in some 
 way or other Christ's death was the destruction 
 of sin. If it were so, these effects might be pre- 
 sumed to follow ; our own observation assures us 
 that they do follow, we have, therefore, a strong 
 presumptive evidence that there was this charac- 
 teristic about the death of Christ. In short, at 
 the present moment, after the lapse of so many 
 centuries, and so many vicissitudes in the world's 
 history, the death of Christ is a moral power of 
 unabated strength and of undiminished potential 
 energy. 
 
 Neither, again, is it a valid ground of objection 
 that this power is not universally recognised. It 
 has, beyond all question, an indii'ect influence, 
 even where it is rejected. All must feel the moral 
 
 * " Dolce color d' oriental zaffiro, 
 
 Che s' accoglieva nel sereno aspetto 
 Deir aer puro iufino al primo giro, 
 Agli occhi miei ricomincio diletto, 
 
 Tosto ch' io usci' fuor dell' aura morta, 
 Che m' avea contristato gli occhi e il petto." 
 
 Dante^ Purgatorto, i. 12 — 18. 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St Paul 2 1 5 
 
 beauty of Christ's death, even though they may 
 be strangers to its power. But the fulness of its 
 direct influence can only be measured where it is 
 accepted, and there the acceptance already men- 
 tioned is the measure of it. Christ said, " And I, 
 if I be Hfted up, will draw all men unto Me ;" and 
 His Apostle contemplated '* obedience to the faith 
 among all nations" as the ultimate destiny of the 
 Gospel ; but the world has waited, and must wait 
 still for this far-off issue ; though meanwhile 
 every individual heart that is drawn by the power 
 of the Cross is one additional evidence of its 
 power, and one independent witness to its truth. 
 
 The question, then, we have to determine is,. 
 How far the death of Christ, as the main feature j 
 of Apostolic teaching, is likely to be superannuated \ 
 by the scientific and material progress of the age. 
 And the question can scarcely be regarded as one 
 that is difiicult to solve. For, as we have seen,! 
 the subject-matter of St. Paul's revelation was I 
 not merely the death of Christ, which must have 
 been an event of greater or of less notoriety, but 
 the consequences of that death. Long before the 
 journey to Damascus, he knew that Christ had 
 died. It was not till the shining of the bright 
 light round about him, and the utterance of the 
 voice from heaven, that he knew what that death 
 was to livm. His revelation consisted in the per- 
 ception of its relation to him and to the world. 
 Now if this relation was a true relation, a reality. 
 
2i6 The Revelation of St. Paul [Leot 
 
 it could only become superannuated by some 
 change in one or other of the parties concerned 
 in it. That any change can take place in God is 
 absurd to suppose. If He revealed His will once, 
 that will must be held to stand until He has 
 revealed an alteration in it. No one supposes He 
 has done this. Therefore, unless the condition of 
 mankind is presumably altered, the bearing of the 
 death of Christ upon mankind must be the same 
 as ever. But there is no ground whatever to 
 believe that tlie real condition of mankind is 
 altered in the very least. The heart of man is 
 not one whit nearer to the God whom the death 
 of Christ is presumed to reveal, than it ever was : 
 and if proof were needed, we have it here, in the 
 presumption that the progressive enlightenment 
 of the age has rendered needless the assumed con- 
 sequences of Christ's death. That death, taken 
 as a fixed point, must be the standard of each 
 successive age of the world's history. The an- 
 nunciation of its moral and spiritual consequences 
 produced certain results in St. Paul's time. Can 
 it produce the like results now ? As a matter of 
 fact, it can and does. Then we must measure 
 the present condition of the world by the pro- 
 duction of those results, and not by the instances 
 in which they fail to be produced; just as we 
 measure the condition of the world in St. Paul's 
 time by the success that attended his Gospel, 
 and not by the many notorious instances of 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 2 1 7 
 
 failure by which, doubtless, it was likewise ac- 
 companied ^. 
 
 In all these latter cases, it would have been just 
 as fair to advance, as an excuse for the failure, the 
 progress of the age, as it is now. That was not 
 then the excuse in vogue, but whatever may have 
 been the excuse, or the actual cause, we have to 
 account for this fact, that it did not operate 
 equally in all cases ; for there were those, and 
 they were many, in whom the Gospel preached, 
 was nothing less than " the power of God unto 
 salvation." And wherever it produced any thing 
 corresponding to these words, which were actually 
 used to express the effect produced, there it could 
 not have done so but for an inherent power in the 
 Gospel adequate to producing it; for no effect 
 can be brought about in morals, or in physics, but 
 
 • It is assumed, that while the Gospel has stood still, the 
 condition of the world and of human nature has advanced. The 
 Gospel may have been adapted to the age of St. Paul : it is 
 unsuited to our own ; therefore we must have a modified Gos- 
 pel adapted to the wants of the present age. But as a matter 
 of fact the Gospel has not yet lost its power, as is frequently 
 proved now ; therefore we must not take the fact that many 
 desire to reject it now, as a proof that the world has outgrown 
 the Gospel ; because, as a matter likewise of fact, many re- 
 jected it in St. Paul's time, and this is altogether left out in 
 our assumption that the Gospel was more adapted to that age 
 than it is to ours. The Christian records necessarily tell us 
 mainly the successes of the Gospel ; its failures we only learn 
 by inference from those records, and from others of a heathen 
 source, which for the most part pass it over in silence, thereby, 
 so far, showing its failure. 
 
2i8 The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 by the operation of an adequate and sufficient 
 cause. The motive power in the Gospel could 
 not have been supplied by any thing in itself 
 substantially unsound. 
 
 As therefore we have seen that the evidence in 
 favour of St. Paul having been the subject of an 
 actual revelation is so strong, and as we know 
 that the consequences flowing from the death of 
 Christ were at least a part, and that a central 
 part, of this revelation, it would seem that as far 
 as the revelation was true, it would not be capable 
 of being superannuated, but would be necessarily 
 final. If it was a truth revealed from heaven 
 that the death of Christ took away sin, was the 
 appointed and designed means for destroying sin, 
 then, until God has revealed some other means, 
 the appointment of this must inevitably stand. 
 But the appointment of any other means is not 
 alleged; the non-existence of sin itself, or the 
 antecedent difficulties of revelation, are rather 
 insisted on, thereby showing that however mar- 
 vellous the progress of the age may be, the offence 
 of the Cross has not yet ceased, seeing that the 
 very purpose of it is ignored and the want of it 
 unfelt. 
 
 And after all. What is the progress of the age ? 
 We progress in arts and sciences, in civilisation, in 
 knowledge, and in manners, but we do not pro- 
 gress in nature physically, intellectually, morally, 
 or spiritually. Man's physical nature is what it 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 2 1 9 
 
 always was. The intellectual standard of the 
 present day is not higher than in former ages. 
 Plato and Aristotle may have been equalled, but 
 they have never been surpassed. Shakespeare and 
 Milton have not yet been equalled, notwithstand- 
 ing the vast intellectual activity of the age. Man's 
 moral nature, notwithstanding the great influx of 
 light which, all must admit, has been brought to 
 bear upon it since the rise of Christianity, is still 
 the same as it ever was. The fact of a million 
 and a half or two millions of armed men being 
 maintained at an enormous outlay, in the smallest 
 and most civilised quarter of the globe, in the 
 latter half of the nineteenth century of the 
 Christian era is alone sufl&cient to prove that. 
 
 And as for man's spiritual nature, what shall 
 we say to this ? Is it not still an arid and hopeless 
 waste, wherever the fertilising streams of the grace 
 of God have failed to flow ; and is not this shown 
 by the fact of man's spiritual nature being alto- 
 gether and always ignored, except where the 
 Scripture account of man is received ? He is not 
 commonly regarded as a spiritual being, except in 
 relation to Grod, who is a Spirit. It is considered 
 an exhaustive account to give of him, to say that 
 he is a being endowed with social instincts, and 
 possessed of a physical, moral, and intellectual 
 nature. The fact of his being what he really is, a 
 spirit made in the image of God, endowed with 
 faculties intellectual, moral, and physical, is alto- 
 
2 20 The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 gether left out, because the recognition of it seems 
 to involve antecedent considerations whicli must 
 by no means be allowed. And yet if, as a matter 
 of fact, man lias a spiritual existence, all analysis 
 and treatment of liim must be wrong wliicli is 
 conducted in ignorance or neglect of this great 
 fact. 
 
 In spite, therefore, of all our progress, material, 
 social, political, moral, which we have no desire to 
 underrate or to disparage, it seems nevertheless 
 obvious that our nature has nowhere been the 
 subject of this progress : indeed we Jcnoiv that our 
 nature remains the same ; were it otherwise we 
 should be at a loss to deal with it. The accu- 
 mulated wisdom of past ages would cease to have 
 any practical bearing on our own : it would con- 
 cern a dijQferent order of beings ; for we should 
 occupy a different platform from that which our 
 fathers held. It is because, in spite of the change 
 of circumstances, our nature remains unchanged, 
 that we can reap the wisdom which they have 
 sown, and gather the harvest of their toil. 
 
 Now the revelation of St. Paul came with a 
 direct message to the nature of man. It professed 
 to reveal God's method of dealing with that 
 nature ; God's purpose in renewing and restoring 
 it. And this method, if right once, must be right 
 always. If it was God's method, it doubtless 
 would be right. And whether or not it was God's 
 method must depend upon the vaHdity of St. 
 
yill] The Revelatio7t of St. Paul 221 
 
 Paul's claim to be the recipient of a revelation. 
 Of that claim we have been endeavouring to judge. 
 Possibly not one of the least conspicuous marks of 
 the revelation, if real and valid, would be the 
 declaration of its finality. In proportion as it was 
 exceptional it would be final ; and certainly nothing 
 could be a more evident token of his own reality 
 than the degree in which he could abstract himself 
 from the revelation. If it was really God's reve- 
 lation, neither he nor an angel from heaven could 
 alter it. If it was his own revelation, he could 
 mould it to suit his own purposes ; if he had been 
 employed merely as the instrument of it, he would 
 have no power to touch it. Once given it was 
 unalterable. 
 
 But this is what he declared it to be. He looked 1 
 at it altogether apart from himself. He regarded ; 
 it as a precious deposit, with the keeping of which \ 
 he was entrusted, and for which he was respon- 
 sible. He dared not manipulate his message, at 1 
 the peril of the curse which he himself pro- 
 nounced. Whether or not this was true, it was 
 at least one of the marks of truth. 
 
 But if he dared not do it, least of all may we. 
 And if no angel from heaven was allowed to do it, 
 least of all may intellectual progress and the march 
 of human intellect on earth be held a valid excuse 
 for doing it. No, whatever Paul's Gospel was, 
 that was to be the standard of all the ages, and 
 not their plaything. Whatever his revelation was, 
 
22 2 The Revelation of St. Paid [Lect 
 
 that was to be their ultimate appeal, and not their 
 own shifting register, which moved as they moved. 
 It was not to be ruled by them, but they by it. 
 
 "How then," it may be asked, "is allowance 
 to be made for the iniSnite varieties of condition 
 and circumstance which are known to exist among 
 men ? We must take these into account and act 
 accordingly." And yet not so, if the very object 
 of the Apostle's revelation is to get below all these 
 superficial varieties to the central identity. It is 
 man, as man, to which the Gospel speaks : " For 
 there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither 
 bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; 
 for all are one in Christ Jesus." 
 
 And if this obliteration of external difference is 
 the effect of the Gospel, it is because the Gospel 
 operates there where these external differences 
 exist no more, but are merged in the common 
 nature of man, where the Jew and the Greek, the 
 freeman and the slave, the woman and the man, 
 are essentiallly one in the identity of their original 
 humanity. If the Gospel is equally adapted to all 
 the varieties of race and station — and of that the 
 acknowledged letters of St. Paul alone are evi- 
 dence — so also is it to all the modifications and 
 vicissitudes of time. The progress of the age 
 cannot outstrip the action of the Gospel, unless it 
 is capable of doing that for human nature which 
 the Gospel offers to do for it, namely, reconcile 
 man to God. 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 223 
 
 Now this it is certain that the progress of tlie 
 age does not even profess to do. The march of 
 intellect and material progress come with no 
 message out of the infinite to man's spirit and 
 heart. The bereaved parent or widow gathers no 
 consolation for the bitterness of sorrow from the 
 thought that the age is advancing in knowledge. 
 Rather the recollection of that very advancement 
 will serve to increase the bitterness of the sorrow, 
 by reminding that, after all, the progress was too 
 slow to arrest the fatal stroke. The dying sinner, 
 perplexed and wearied with a load that he cannot 
 shake off, and oppressed with undefined terrors 
 with which he strives in vain to cope, can derive 
 no thought of peace from the recollection of the 
 accelerated progress of the age. It seems, on the 
 contrary, to mock his palsied energies, to deride 
 his nameless and involuntary fears. No; these 
 are the times to make us feel our impotence in the 
 want of a trustworthy, credible assurance that we 
 are verily at peace with God. No material or 
 social progress, no advancement of science, can 
 give us this. As long as there is death in the 
 world, as long as there is sorrow in the world, we 
 shall want a message, not from the development 
 of our own powers, not from the resources of our 
 own disguised weakness, but from God : and the 
 message which comes with the best credentials 
 will then be the most welcome. 
 
 Again, the fact that St. Paul's revelation was of 
 
2 24 ^/'^ Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 a kind to be independent of the growing enlighten- 
 ment of this or of any age is shown by the nature of 
 it. For that revelation did not consist of a scheme 
 or creed to which additions might be made from 
 time to time, so that in the latest ages it would be 
 exhibited in a condition of the greatest complete- 
 ness, but it was the manifestation to mankind 
 \ once for all of the final basis on which confidence 
 towards God should rest. This was a series of 
 natural, though at the same time supernatural, 
 acts, done by God Himself on belialf of man. The 
 life and death of Jesus, inasmuch as they were 
 events occurring in the midst of the natural course 
 of human history, and affected more or less by the 
 pressure of surrounding events in that history, 
 were natural; so far as they overstepped these 
 limits, and bore in upon the unseen and eternal 
 world, were supernatural ; while the resurrection 
 and ascension of the Lord Jesus were events 
 essentially supernatural, and only bearing on the 
 natural so far as they were attested by the natural 
 senses. It was these events, then, of which the 
 central point was the death of Christ, as a sacrifice 
 for sin, which St. Paul proclaimed as the Divine 
 basis of human hope towards God. This was the 
 sum and substance of his Gospel. For the truth 
 of it, as far as it was matter of human history, 
 he vouched, and indeed the world at large was 
 witness, for these things were not done in a 
 corner : but being true historically, it was also, 
 
YIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 225 
 
 lie maintained, possessed of a moral truth, which. 1 
 if it really was from Grod, it could not but possess ; 
 and of this moral truth the moral nature of man 
 was capable of being made conscious. 
 
 In St. Paul's idea, the Gospel was like a light , 
 of transcendent and pervading brightness, which ■ 
 had only to be exhibited in the dark places of the 
 conscience to make the moral nature of man 
 aware of its presence. For it is not possible for 
 light to shine without being recognised as light, 
 unless indeed the visual organ is impaired, or, 
 from long familiarity with the light, has become 
 unconscious of it. So he was not careful to avoid 
 the possible imputation of a logical 'pe^itio prin- 
 cipii when he said, " If our Gospel be hid, it is 
 hid to them that are lost : in whom the god of 
 this world hath blinded the minds of them which 
 believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel> 
 of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine 
 unto them." In the case of those who denied 
 that Christ was the image of God, who professed 
 themselves unconscious of the moral truth of the 
 Gospel, there was nothing more to be done. The 
 light had shone and had been rejected ; it had not 
 been recognised as light. The darkness had not 
 taken it down into itself. That did not show that 
 the light itself was darkness, but only the want of 
 a capacity for receiving it. These very persons 
 themselves were after all the best and only com- 
 petent judges how far the Apostle's profession 
 
 Q 
 
226 The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 was a just one, that he, by manifestation of the 
 truth, had commended himself to every man's 
 conscience in the sight of God. 
 
 For it is not alone by acknowledgment that 
 truth is established. It does its work equally 
 even where it is rejected. The final triumph of 
 truth, and the ultimate result of truth, the Day 
 alone shall reveal. All that we can do is to 
 manifest the truth to the conscience to the best 
 of our ability. The result we must leave with 
 God. But there are certain primary facts to 
 which we may appeal with confidence. For ex- 
 ample, the conscience of every man must witness 
 more or less to sin, as an inward fact. The pre- 
 sence of internal disorder is a fact of which every 
 man living must at some time and in some degree 
 be conscious. How is this disorder to be set 
 right? To that question the revelation of St. 
 Paul professes to give the sufficient and the only 
 answer. 
 
 But where the question is not asked there is no 
 room found for the answer. We can only wait till 
 the question shall be asked. Then we may hope, 
 at least, that the answer may be considered. The 
 proposed answer is. By accepting thankfully the 
 means provided by God for setting the disorder 
 right. Of one point we may be certain, that no 
 man can be an adequate judge of the efficiency of 
 the means provided, until he has himself com- 
 plied with the conditions attached to them. The 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 227 
 
 only test must be an experimental one. It is vain 
 to reject the means until they have been found 
 useless. 
 
 So far, then, every man carries about in his 
 own personality the power of testing the reality 
 of the revelation. Comply with the conditions 
 and the results will follow. Accept the means 
 provided for dealing with the known disorder as 
 God's means, and it shall be known that the 
 disorder is rectified. The validity of the means 
 shall be confirmed by the results following. The 
 removal of the disorder shall attest it. The 
 witness shall be within. But it is not possible 
 to have the witness without complying with the 
 means. It is impossible to enjoy the luxury of 
 doubt, and yet reap the harvest of belief. The 
 two are incompatible by virtue of an eternal con- 
 tradiction like that which severs, as the poet 
 assures us, between sinning and repenting '' . 
 
 Now it was this witness for one thing which 
 confirmed the Apostle's revelation to himself. He 
 knew that the disorder within him had been recti- 
 fied, that he was sometime darkness, but was 
 now light in the Lord, but he knew that what 
 was light for him was light for all men, and so he 
 came for a witness to the light, and bore witness 
 
 ' " Ch' assolver non si puo, chi non si pentt; 
 N& pentere e volere insieme puossi, 
 Per la contraddizion die nol consente." 
 
 Dcwte, Inferno, 27. 118. 
 
 a 2 
 
228 The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 to the truth of the light. He lived himself near 
 to the centre of the light, and it lighted him more 
 and more. And wherever he came men felt his 
 light, and felt that it was not his own light, for it 
 lighted them as it lighted him, and drew them 
 not to him but to the centre of the light. 
 
 For there was this common feature about all 
 those who were thus drawn, that the impulse they 
 obeyed was one which sought and did not shun the 
 centre. This was their law of progress ; a force 
 centripetal and not centrifugal. The glory of 
 God in the face of Jesus Christ was their central 
 object of attraction. In Jesus Christ and Him 
 crucified was their common ground of hope. 
 That they might know Him and the power of His 
 resurrection was their ceaseless aspiration. If 
 they or he were led away to any other Gospel, 
 even by angehc voices heard from heaven, they 
 could wish that both might be accursed. 
 
 For all that could be done in attestation of the 
 Divine origin of this Gospel had been done in 
 proof of it ; but after all, the Gospel was its own 
 witness. Though it was a glorious thing for 
 Christ to burst the bonds of death, yet none but 
 the Son of God could die as He died. The Cross 
 was the greatest triumph of Christ, and not the 
 inevitable victory over death. The Cross of Jesus 
 Christ was the reconciliation of the world, and 
 therefore His greatest glory. And wherever the 
 world was conscious of the want of reconciliation, 
 
YIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 229 
 
 there it would prove His triumpli. It would be 
 hailed as the atoning mystery — the mystery which 
 explained all mysteries ; the Divine solution of the 
 world's enigma, itself unsolved; the sweetest, 
 saddest, darkest, brightest, truest, and most 
 human, sublimest and most unearthly, point of all 
 human history. 
 
 But even this, while it stamps the Gospel as 
 Divine, yet asks for faith that it may be appre- 
 hended ; for the death of Christ, merely as an act of 
 violence and unrighteous cruelty, might have been 
 the lot of any man. Those very elements in the 
 death of Christ which mark it as Divine are them- 
 selves the objects of faith. That He died on the 
 Cross no man can dispute : that He died for our 
 sins is the very subject of revelation. But who 
 shall prove that His death was a death for sin ? 
 Believe it, and you shall know that it was so by the 
 felt destruction of your sin : believe it, and it shall 
 prove itself to you by the consequences which 
 flow therefrom. You shall know it even as the 
 Apostle knew it, and as they knew it to whom his 
 revelation was a revelation of the truth of God. 
 The Cross shall be to you a source of superhuman 
 strength, a fountain of Divine peace, a storehouse 
 of unfailing consolation, which, by the nature of 
 its own testimony, shall put to silence the rebuke 
 of doubt, and bring to nothing in comparison the 
 certainty of things most certain. 
 
 But be sure of this, that even as the death of 
 
230 The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect 
 
 Christ for sin is itself the subject of Revelation, so 
 no man but by Revelation could ever have dis- 
 covered that such virtue was inherent in it. Sup- 
 posing the extinction of sin to be the real signifi- 
 cance of Christ's death, no process of reasoning, 
 no effort of thought, no intensity of contemplation, 
 no merely tentative experiment, could ever have 
 found it out, or even suffice to explain the fact 
 that such significance was assigned to it. 
 
 This then of itself constitutes a very strong 
 presumption in favour of the reality of the Reve- 
 lation. It is not the Imid of thing that the un- 
 aided faculties of man would have conceived. 
 Indeed, it is always more or less in defiance of the 
 natural will that such virtue is admitted to pertain 
 to the death of Christ. No man is brought to 
 accept it as a fact, but in plain resistance to his 
 natural inclinations. And the history of Christian 
 experience abounds with instances, in which it has 
 only been admitted after long years of determined 
 opposition. In ordinary cases, therefore, it is not 
 difficult to trace the operation of a controlling 
 Mind, although it may work within the limits of 
 the common laws of human life. But with how 
 much greater justice must we predicate such 
 operation in the case of the great Apostle of the 
 Gentiles ! Taken on his own confession, he most 
 certainly recognised the supremacy of a Will before 
 the might of wliich he was but as clay in the hands 
 of the potter. 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 231 
 
 And here the contemplation of the natural 
 leads us onward, by successive steps which we can 
 scarcely decline to follow, till it lands us in a region 
 where we meet with phenomena which are some- 
 thing more than natural, where the light of the 
 moon is as the light of the sun, and the light 
 of the sun is sevenfold as the light of seven 
 days. 
 
 For who can contemplate this great preacher of 
 the Gospel, won from the ranks of Christ's most 
 determined enemies, won even in spite of himself, 
 in defiance of all his prejudices, the strong bias of 
 his inclinations, the natural tendency of his educa- 
 tion, to the detriment of all his prospects, at the 
 sacrifice of his personal ease, hereditary fortune, 
 national friends ; at the risk of his health, liberty, 
 and even life, which was ultimately laid down in 
 the cause, to be the steadfast and consistent soldier 
 of Christ, the devoted servant of his Master, the 
 faithful and laborious preacher of His "Word, and 
 finally, the courageous martyr to His truth, — and 
 not see that in contemplating him we contemplate 
 one who is moving about, not in the light of common 
 day, but under the bright shining of a light which 
 is none other than that of the Sun of Righteousness 
 Himself? 
 
 Who can fairly estimate the phenomena which 
 the acknowledged writings of St. Paul exhibit, 
 the clear evidence there is that he had once vehe- 
 mently persecuted the Man whom his whole life 
 
232 The Revelation of St. Pan I [Lect 
 
 afterwards was spent in proclaiming as the Son 
 of God, as the Redeemer of the world, as the 
 Author of blessings the most precious and inva- 
 luable to man, — Who can estimate the evidence no 
 less clear, that his personal love for that Man was 
 to him the source of new hope and new life, and 
 supplied the motive to conduct never before wit- 
 nessed in the history of the world ; which was 
 nothing short of absolute and unaccountable mad- 
 ness if the cause for it existed merely in his own 
 disordered imagination, if the consequences of the 
 facts he proclaimed were nothing more than 
 imaginary, because the facts themselves, though 
 at the time unquestioned and unchallenged, were 
 actually non-existent, — Who can see the manifest 
 tokens of a new and unexampled principle at 
 work in his heart and life, the principle of faith in 
 the unseen, of confidence and trust in the love 
 of a gracious, reconciled Father, reliance on the 
 work of a glorified but invisible Saviour, strength 
 in the possession of a Holy Spirit imparting holi- 
 ness, — Who can see the courage, the dauntless 
 perseverance, the unshaken resolution, the force 
 of irresistible moral suasion and influence, the 
 habit of chastened and uniform personal rectitude, 
 truth, and purity, which characterised his life and 
 adorned his teaching, — Who, I ask, can see all 
 this (and yet, again. Who can fail to see it?), and 
 not perceive also that in the Apostle Paul there is 
 an eloquent and faithful witness to the truth and 
 
VIII] The Revelation of St. Paul 233 
 
 power of the Lord Jesus Christ — a witness, verily, 
 who being dead yet speaketh ? 
 
 For who in the contemplation of such facts as 
 this character supplies must not be constrained 
 to allow that the unseen moral power which pro- 
 duced it was indeed a power of most marvellous 
 strength ? Here was a result produced, by the 
 estimation of which we can alone estimate the 
 cause producing it. There is no possibility of 
 error as to the result. It can be made neither 
 less nor more than it actually is. The existent 
 writings of the Apostle are the measure of it. 
 They are the index on the margin of the broad 
 stream of time, which serve to show how high the 
 tide of Divine grace was once known to rise. It 
 is an index which no lapse of ages can obliterate. 
 No march of intellect, no progress of enlighten- 
 ment, no development of science, no accessions of 
 knowledge, can alter or efface it. We cannot 
 mistake the result. 
 
 But still less can we mistake the cause pro- 
 ducing it. We may say here, as was said of old 
 in the case of One greater even than Paul, " These 
 are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can 
 a devil open the eyes of the blind?" The result 
 is a supernatural result ; it points, therefore, to a 
 supernatural cause. The Epistle to the Romans 
 is not the product of nature. It is the plain 
 result of grace. Nothing but grace, the grace 
 of the Lord Jesus, who liveth and was dead, 
 
234 The Revelation of St. Paul [Lect VIII 
 
 and is alive for evermore, could have produced 
 it. And when these living words become them- 
 selves the source of eternal life to others, when, 
 spiritually, 
 
 " They from thick films shall purge the visual ray, 
 And ou the sightless eyeball pour the clay" 
 
 of a new and regenerate existence, the brightness 
 of a heavenly and Divine light, and open the eyes 
 to behold glories before unknown in worlds as yet 
 not realised, then we may learn Who it is whose 
 spirit of life and light yet breathes and flutters, 
 yet quivers and palpitates in them ; then we may 
 confess the mission of Paul to be verily and indeed 
 from God; then we may feel and know that the 
 revelation is, beyond all doubt, the revelation of 
 one who, being " an Apostle, not of men, neither 
 by man, but an Apostle sent by Jesus Christ and 
 God the Father, who raised Him from the dead," 
 was empowered to say, " Though we, or an angel 
 from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you 
 than that which we have preached unto you, let 
 him be accursed." For then, assuredly, we can 
 understand that it was a revelation once for all 
 given to the saints, which time itself shall have 
 no right, no power to disannul, but which, from 
 age to age, shall Hve on unchanged till it is 
 merged in, and superseded by, the final unveiling 
 of the Son of Man in glory. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 I. 
 
 DR. DAVIDSON states (Introduction to the Study 
 of the New Testament, 1868, vol. ii. p. 196) that 
 " According to the gospel" of St. Luke, " the time" of the 
 ascension " was the day of the resurrection ; according to 
 " the Acts, the fortieth day after. According to the 
 " former, it took place at Bethany ; according to the 
 " latter, from the Mount of Olives. The words also spoken 
 " by Jesus are not the same ; nor were they uttered at the 
 " same place, for the gospel represents them as spoken at 
 " Jerusalem; the Acts, on the Mount of Olives." 
 
 Let us examine the truth of this. The last chapter of 
 St. Luke^s Gospel contains the narrative of the jom-ney 
 to Emmaus on the first Easter Day. Emmaus was sixty 
 stadia, or about seven English miles, from Jerusalem. 
 Of. Tasso, G. L. ii. 56. It was ^^ towards evening, and 
 the day" was ^'far spent," Trpo? ecnrepav earl koX 
 KeK\iK6v 7) Tj^epa, when the two disciples and our Lord 
 reached ''the village whither they went." Allowing 
 two hours for the journey back to Jerusalem, and 
 an hour, avr^ rfj wpa, for the sojourn at Emmaus, 
 we can hardly suppose the two disciples to have 
 reached the eleven at home before seven or eight in the 
 evening. Here they had time to recount and discuss 
 " what things were done in the way, and how " the Lord 
 " was known of them in breaking of bread " before 
 
236 The Credibility of [App 
 
 Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them." Then there 
 was the manifestation of Him to the disciples, and the 
 showing of the hands and feet : then the eating of the 
 broiled fish and the honeycomb : then the gradual process 
 of illumination indicated by " opening their understand- 
 ing, that they might understand the Scriptures :" and 
 then, finally, the command to "^ tarry in the city of Jeru- 
 salem until they should be endued with power from on 
 high." All this must have occupied at least an hour or 
 two, which would bring it to nine or ten in the evening, 
 say nine certainly, before the time at which '^ He led them 
 out as far as Bethany." As therefore it is impossible that 
 our Lord can have done this then, it is clear that the 
 historian cannot have intended to give the impression that 
 He did it ; consequently we see that there must be a 
 change of time somewhere in the apparently consecutive 
 account between w. 35 — 50. This change was certainly 
 and necessarily at v. 49 (as Dr. Davidson admits, when 
 treating of the passage in the Gospel, vol. ii. p. 40) ; but 
 is it not more than probable that there is a change earlier 
 still, if we can only find it ? Now I venture to suggest 
 that there is an indication of such a change at least as 
 early as v. 44 ; for it is unlikely that, being in Jerusalem, 
 our Lord should speak of it by name, as He does twice 
 between w. 44 and 50, "beginning at Jerusalem," 
 *^ tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem." The use of such 
 phrases is fair presumptive evidence that He was absent 
 from Jerusalem at the time of using them, for otherwise 
 it would have been more natural that He should say, 
 '' beginning at this place," " tarry ye in this city." If 
 then this is really the case, there is every probability that 
 in the latter part of this chapter we have the condensed 
 narrative of several days, and of events happening at divers 
 places ; and then it becomes a matter of certainty that the 
 Evangelist does not represent the ascension as taking 
 place on the day of the resurrection, that he is tiot there- 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 237 
 
 fore at variance with the history of the Acts. If, on the 
 other hand, it is needful to bring the two disciples back 
 to Jerusalem as early as six or seven in the evening, then 
 the time requisite for the subsequent events would pre- 
 vent the possibility of the words " and He led them out 
 as far as to Bethany " referring to the day of the resur- 
 rection ; because the same reason which would oblige the 
 disciples to return before sunset would prevent them 
 leaving the city after it, for a visit to Bethany. That is 
 to say, it is manifestly inconsistent with the plain letter of 
 the narrative to afl&rm with Dr. Davidson that " according 
 to the gospel the time of the ascension was the day of 
 the resurrection.^' 
 
 Lastly, if, as would seem most natural, we make the 
 return of the two disciples to Jerusalem to be late in the 
 evening, the supposition of a visit to Bethany later still is 
 wholly incompatible with the implied meaning of the 
 Evangelist. 
 
 II. 
 
 Had the narrative in Acts i. stopped at v. 11 there is 
 nothing whatever to indicate that the ascension did not 
 take place at Jerusalem. It is only at v. 12 that we find 
 "the mount called Olivef mentioned. The mention of 
 Jerusalem by name at vv. 4 and 8 shows, in accordance 
 with what was said above, that our Lord was not there at 
 the time, consequently we were so far correct in our sur- 
 mise. Dr. Davidson has drawn an irreconcilable distinc- 
 tion between Bethany and the Mount of Olives. It does 
 not appear that the Evangelist has done so. At xix. 29, 
 he says, "When He was come nigh to Bethphage and 
 Bethany, at the mount called the Mount of Olives,^' et? — 
 TT/so?. It is clear, therefore, that if our Lord, according 
 to the Gospel, led His disciples out " as far as to Bethany,'^ 
 they could without the slightest impropriety or discrepancy. 
 
238 TJie Credibility of [App 
 
 be said in the Acts to return to Jerusalem " from the 
 mount called Olivet." There is no inconsistency at all. 
 As Bethany lay on the eastern slope of Olivet, about a 
 mile from the summit, is it not highly probable that Jesus 
 led His disciples " out as far as to Bethany," returned with 
 them to the summit, or nearly so, and then ascended while 
 they returned to Jerusalem " from the mount called 
 Olivet " ? All this is suggested, if not implied, by the 
 narrative, and the supposition of it makes every thing 
 perfectly clear. A tradition of the fourth century fixed the 
 scene of the ascension on the summit of the Mount of 
 Olives, and there, in honour of it, the Empress Helena 
 built a church. (Eusebius, Vit. Const, iii. 43. J. L. 
 Porter, in Kitto's Cyc, art. Bethany.) 
 
 III. 
 
 *' The words spoken by Jesus are not the same," because 
 they were not " uttered at the same place." The words 
 recorded at Acts i. 6 — 8 were manifestly spoken at 
 Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, v. 9, those in w. 4, 5 
 were probably spoken elsewhere, and may or may not be 
 intended to be identical with those at Luke xxiv. 49. As 
 we have seen, it is by no means clear that " the gospel 
 represents them as spoken at Jerusalem." The proba- 
 bility rather seems to be on the other side. It is not 
 inconsistent with either narrative to suppose them spoken 
 in Galilee, Matt, xxviii. 16. The difficulty in completely 
 harmonising all these accounts lies in their extreme 
 brevity. Had the writers told us more, we should have 
 understood perfectly ; as it is, we must be content if the 
 accounts can be shown to benot absolutely incapable of 
 reconciliation. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 239 
 
 IV. 
 
 Dr. Davidson repudiates the idea tliat the historian of 
 the Acts meant to imply any thing in the second chapter 
 but a miraculous endowment of the disciples with the gift 
 of speaking languages which they had not learnt. We 
 quite agree with him. '^ The expression/' he says^ " ' to 
 '^ speak with other tongues/ equivalent to Mark's ' to 
 "speak with new tongues' (xvi. 17)^ is contrasted with 
 " ' in our own tongue wherein we were born/ i. e. our 
 " mother-speech. It is true that the evidence for foreign 
 " languages being really spoken is contained entirely in 
 " the verses relating to the conflux of foreigners^ and their 
 " remarks on what they heard ; but the writer evidently 
 " adopted the opinion expressed by the foreigners." — p.l97. 
 Again, " The account of the sudden deaths of Ananias and 
 " Sapphira represents them as punishments supernaturally 
 " inflicted by Peter, and cannot be explained on other 
 " principles. The miraculous power put forth by the 
 " apostles is said to have led to another persecution. They 
 " were imprisoned by the Jews, but supernaturally set free 
 " during the night by an angel." — Ibid. 
 
 Such is his testimony to the character of the book. 
 The question of its credibility must be considered inde- 
 pendently of the miraculous elements it contains. If 
 found credible otherwise, we must then determine about 
 the treatment of the miraculous elements. The presence 
 of these must not be allowed to bias our judgment of the 
 credibility. 
 
 Y. 
 
 " Since Paley explored this field," (Acts and Epistles) 
 " many believe that he set the whole argument in its 
 " clearest light, and vindicated the credibility of both, by 
 " showing that the writer of the history did not copy from 
 " the author of the epistles, or vice versa, but that the coin- 
 
240 TJie Credibility of [App 
 
 " cidences are undesigned. Such evidence, however, has 
 " not appeared satisfactory to all. We shall examine it 
 " under the following heads. 
 
 "1. The general conduct and teaching of the apostle 
 " Paul, as set forth in the work. 
 
 " 2. Various particulars in the book disagreeing with 
 " other writings. 
 
 " 3. The nature and form of the speeches interspersed. 
 
 " 4. The historical narratives, 
 
 " The first thing that arrests the reader's attention is the 
 " repeated journeys which the apostle made to Jerusalem, 
 " some of which are satisfactorily explained, others not." 
 —p. 207. 
 
 Now the total number of journeys to Jerusalem recorded 
 in the Acts as made by Paul are Jive. 
 
 1. That in ch. ix. 26; some time after his conversion, 
 when " Barnabas took him, and brought him to the 
 Apostles." 
 
 2. That in xi. 30 ; when relief was sent unto the brethren 
 which dwelt in Judasa, " by the hands of Barnabas 
 and Saul." 
 
 3. Tliat in xv. 4 ; when it was " determined that Paul and 
 Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles 
 and Elders about " the question of circumcision. 
 
 4. That in xviii. 21 ; when he bade the Ephesians fare- 
 well, " saying, I must by all means," Set fie iravTcof;, 
 " keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem," of which 
 nothing more is said, but that " when he had gone up, 
 and saluted the Church, he went down to Antioch." 
 
 6. That which is first contemplated in xix. 21 ; when 
 he " purposed in the spirit to go to Jerusalem," 
 which is again alluded to xx. 16, when "he hasted, 
 if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the 
 day of Pentecost," of which he said, " And now, 
 behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, 
 not knowing the things that shall befall me 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 241 
 
 there/' v. 22^ which Agabus and the brethren 
 endeavoured to dissuade him from takings xxi. 10 — 
 15, but which he finally accomplished, and which 
 was in fact, his last journey. 
 
 Now of these visits it would seem that Dr. Davidson 
 regards the first three as '' satisfactorily explained ;" there 
 are but two, then, to which we can refer his rejoinder 
 " others not.'' 
 
 Of these the first, xviii. 21, is barely alluded to in the 
 words "when he had gone u;p." If, as Wieseler and others 
 have thought, this visit is identical with that in Gal. ii. 1, 
 it also is satisfactorily explained ; so that the '" repeated 
 journeyings " would be reduced to one ; at the most 
 they seem to be but tivo ; surely a somewhat narrow 
 foundation upon which to rest a charge so serious as 
 this. 
 
 It is hardly fair to say (p. 208), that " in xix. 21, he 
 ''came to a determination to go to Jerusalem, while he 
 " was actively employed at Ephesus," because the writer 
 expressly says, that " after these things were ended, a>9 Se 
 eTrXrjpcodr] ravra, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had 
 passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jeru- 
 salem, saying. After I have been there, I must also see 
 Rome,'" as though there were some other natural causes 
 operating which he has not mentioned. Nor, again, ibid., 
 that " he abandoned the field of his operations at Ephesus 
 " merely for the sake of keeping a Jewish festival at 
 " Jerusalem." Surely the 7r/90o-/cui/?7o-coi' of xxiv. 11 scarcely 
 warrants this. It is simply not true that this is the only 
 impression conveyed by the writer of St. Paul's motives. 
 It is quite conceivable that the great annual feasts may 
 have supplied many motives for any well-known Jew 
 to visit Jerusalem. Paul would see and meet with 
 numerous persons in whom he was interested at Jerusalem, 
 at such times, whom he would never see otherwise. These 
 feasts were, so to say, the season of the Jewish metropolis, 
 
 E 
 
242 The Credibility of [App 
 
 and would be the natural time for strangers to visit it; 
 and the purpose for which he now came to bring '' alms 
 and offerings/* Acts xxiv. 17, would make it desirable 
 to avail himself of such an opportunity. The history of the 
 Acts shows us that over a period of many years Paul had 
 paid but A'l'f' visits. He certainly did not make "repeated 
 journeys." But even if he had, the example of Christ 
 Himself, who was in the constant habit of going up to 
 Jerusalem when able to do so with safety, might furnish 
 some parallel, if not excuse. Doubtless a Jew so patriotic 
 as St. Paul would often have been glad to visit the chief 
 city of his nation, if opportvmity had offered ; and one of 
 the great feasts would be the most natural and appropriate 
 occasion for doing so. We have the Apostle's own 
 testimony to his observance of Pentecost, 1 Cor, x\a. 8, 
 and probably the Passover, 1 Cor. v. 8. 
 
 The shaving of his head at Cenchrea, and the vow 
 he took upon himself in the Temple, are fully ac- 
 counted for by his own confession, 1 Cor. ix. 20, 
 " Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the 
 Jews ;" for indeed, unless we admit these acts as real there 
 is no hioum circumstance by which we can illustrate this 
 confession. The mere observance of the Sabbath, or 
 rather the mere availing himself of the weekly day of 
 assembly for preaching to the Jews, the only occasion he 
 would have, is not enough to account for it. If then Paul 
 did not shave his head and join in the vow at Jerusalem, 
 we are in total ignorance of the way in which he became 
 to the " Jews as a Jew." 
 
 VI. 
 
 For this habit, moreover, " does not consist," it is said, 
 " with his performing or allowing circumcision, as the book 
 " of the Acts represents him, because he himself makes cir- 
 " cumcision incompatible with salvation by Christ, Gal. v. 2." 
 Certainly the writer of the Acts does not imply that Paul 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 243 
 
 circumcised Timotliy with a view to his salvation. On 
 the contrary, the mention of the fact is altogether excep- 
 tional as opposed to his ordinary practice, and only 
 occasioned by the combination of exceptional circum- 
 stances. The cases were very different when Timothy was 
 circumcised to conciliate the Jews, and the Galatians 
 circumcised themselves to restore their lost confidence in 
 Christ and to secure their salvation. Here indeed it was 
 but too true that Christ did '^^ profit them nothing/' but 
 there, the absence of a similar motive deprived circum- 
 cision of its pernicious meaning. 
 
 VII. 
 
 " Titus is unmentioned, though the apostle had a 
 " violent dispute at Jerusalem on his account. In 
 '' like manner, Peter's appearance at Antioch and public 
 '^ rebuke there, are unnoticed. It is impossible to sup- 
 " pose that this silence is other than intentional " 
 (p. 209). The writer of the Acts had no doubt a defi- 
 nite purpose in view when he wrote. The question 
 is whether his purpose was that which Dr. Davidson 
 suggests, namely, the reconciliation of the Jewish and 
 Pauline elements in the Church by a misrepresentation 
 of the conduct of Peter and Paul. It is alleged that 
 the facts above were suppressed with a view to furthering 
 iMs intention. It may help, perhaps, to the understand- 
 ing of this objection if it is borne in mind that Paul 
 himself makes mention of Titus in only two Epistles, 
 Galatians and 2 Cor., besides the bare notice of his 
 departure to Dalmatia in 2 Tim. iv. 10. If therefore he 
 is not mentioned in 1 Tim. and 1 Cor., various causes 
 may have operated to account for the omission of his 
 name in the Acts, without our being obhged to infer that 
 it was intentionally suppressed. There wouldhavebeenno 
 mention of Titus in the Epistle to the Galatians if his case 
 had not borne directly on the Galatian controversy, and then 
 
 R 2 
 
244 T^^^^ Credibility of [App 
 
 the fact that being mentioned in 2 Cor. he is unmentioned 
 in the Acts, would not have been open to this insinuation ; 
 whereas, from the prominence attached to him in 2 Cor., 
 it is equally strange, though in no way suspicious, that 
 the writer of the Acts has passed him over in silence. To 
 assign, therefore, the motive which Dr. Davidson suggests 
 in the former case is no explanation whatever in this, and 
 is therefore at all events but a partial reason for the 
 silence in question. In all probability the case of 
 Titus ^ was uot singular on the occasion referred to, but 
 St. Paul named him because he was well known to the 
 Galatian Church ; whereas for the historian to particularise 
 him when there may have been one or two more, and when 
 he had no other reason for mentioning him, would have been 
 in no way necessary, and indeed foreign to his purpose. 
 
 With regard to Peter's visit to Antioch, the book of the 
 Acts takes leave of Peter at the Council of Jerusalem, and, 
 with the exception of the part he took there, makes no 
 mention of him after his release from prison in ch. xii. 
 We do not know why this is, but unless reason can be 
 shown why the writer w^as obliged to record the circum- 
 stances relating to Peter subsequent to the Council of 
 Jerusalem, no fair inference can be drawn fi'om his 
 silence about one of them. The knowledge he probably 
 had that this event was already chronicled by St. Paul 
 may have been more than sufficient to induce him to pass 
 it over in silence. 
 
 YIII. 
 
 " According to the epistle to the Galatians, the apostle's 
 " mission was to the Gentiles from the very beginning 
 
 ' M. Renan understands Titus to have been circumcised. "La phrase, 
 au premier coup d'a'il, parait dire que Titus ne fut ptvs circoncis, tandis 
 qu'elle implique qu'il Ic fut." Saint Paul, p. 89. In this case the omission 
 of liis name in the Acts would become a matter of still less importance. 
 Professors Jowett and Lightfoot take the opposite view. See their notes on 
 Gal. ii. 3. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 245 
 
 '^ (i. 16). Such is not tlie portrait given in tlie Acts^ 
 " where he appears, immediately after his conversion, in 
 
 "' the synagogues at Damascus The Acts make him 
 
 " go first to the Jews as a rule ; the reverse of what we are 
 '^ warranted to infer from his own epistles " (pp. 209, 210) . 
 Let us take the evidence on the matter supplied by his 
 own Epistles. Rom. i. 16 : "I am not ashamed of the Gospel 
 of Christ : for it is the power of God unto salvation to every 
 one that believeth ; to ilie Jew first, and also to the Greek.''' 
 ii. 9 : " Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man 
 that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile ; but 
 glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, 
 to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.^' ix. 3 : "I could 
 wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my 
 brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." x. 1 : 
 '^^ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, 
 that they might be saved." xi. 13 : "1 speak to you Gentiles, 
 inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify 
 mine ofiice : if by any means I may provoke to emulation 
 them vjJiieh are my fiesh, and might save some of them." 
 XV. 8 : " Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of 
 the circmncision for the truth of God, to confirm the pro- 
 mises made unto the fathers." 1 Cor. i. 22 : " The Jews 
 require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom : but we 
 preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, 
 and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them which are 
 called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and 
 the wisdom of God." 1 Cor. ix. 20: "Unto the Jews I 
 became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews ; to them 
 that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain 
 them that are under the law." x. 32: "Give none offence, 
 neither to the Jeivs, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church 
 of God," These passages from these epistles will serve to 
 show the kind of position that the Jews held in the mind 
 and affections of St. Paul, and therefore how far the course 
 he is said in the Acts to have adopted was likely to be in 
 
246 The Credibility of [App 
 
 accordance with that which was actually pursued by 
 him. 
 
 Let us now turn to Gal. i. 16, and compare it with the 
 Acts: *' To reveal His Son in me, ihat I mi (j Jit preach Him 
 among the Gentiles." In Acts ix. 15 the Lord says to 
 Ananias, " Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, 
 to bear My name he/ore the Gentiles, and kings, and the 
 children of Israel." xiv. 27 : " When they were come, and 
 had gathered the Church together, they rehearsed all that 
 God had done with them, and how He had opened the door 
 of faith iinto the Gentiles." xxi. 19 : "And when he had 
 saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had 
 wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when 
 they heard it, they glorified the Lord." xxii. 17:" And it 
 came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, 
 even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance ; and 
 saw Him saying unto me. Depart : for I will send thee far 
 hence unto the Gentiles." xxvi. 17: " Delivering thee 
 from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom nuiv I 
 send thee :" this was at the time of his conversion. 23 : 
 " That Christ should suffer, and that He should be the 
 first that should rise from the dead, and should show light 
 unto the people, and to the Gentiles." Hence we see how 
 completely the Acts recognises the direct mission of Paul 
 to the Gentiles, and how thoroughly his bearing towards 
 the Jews in it corresponds with his own sentiments 
 expressed as above in the Epistles. 
 
 IX. 
 
 " Brought into contact with the Jews, resisted and per- 
 " secuted by them, he had to defend himself against their 
 *' accusations and appeal to their Scriptures. This is 
 " exemplified in the 22nd, 24th, and 26th chapters. At 
 " Lystra and Athens, however, he spoke to Gentiles ; so 
 " that we have the means of comparing his doctrine there 
 "with that which his epistles set forth. On both occasions 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 247 
 
 " the fundamental principles of monotheism are inculcated. 
 "There is this dijSerence, however, that the Athenian dis- 
 *' course refers to the Messianic judg"ment, the certainty 
 ** of which is said to be confirmed by the resurrection of 
 " Christ. In neither is there any thing distinctively Pauline, 
 "such as justification by faith and redemption by the 
 
 " blood of Jesus This portrait of the apostle, so 
 
 " unlike that given in his own epistles, suggests the idea 
 " that the Acts were not written by an eye-witness and 
 " companion, but by a later hand, who had a special motive 
 " for the representation he gives ; for it is impossible to 
 "believe that the regular prominence of certain features 
 " and the concealment of others was accidental.^^ — ^pp. 211, 
 212. Does not every reader of St. Paul's Epistles know 
 that his appeal to the Jewish Scriptures is constant and 
 universal ? And is it not clear that his style in address- 
 ing those whom he was seeking to convert must of neces- 
 sity dijSer from that which he used in writing to Christians ? 
 The addresses in the Acts are all or nearly all of a mis- 
 sionary character. The Epistles were written to existing 
 Churches. Let us first examine the sermon at Antioch in 
 Pisidia,. which was delivered in a synagogue, as being the 
 only place to which the Apostle would have access, and on 
 a Sabbath-day, as being the only occasion on which a large 
 number of people would be met together. He begins 
 with God's election of Israel, and rapidly reviews the history 
 till he comes to David, when he says, — 
 
 Acts xiii. 23. Rom. i. 3. 
 
 Of ihis man's seed hath God ac- CoDceniiug his Son Jesus Christ 
 
 cording to his promise raised unto our Lord, which was made of the 
 
 Israel a Saviour, Jesus. seed of David according to the flesh. 
 
 26. 16. 
 
 Men and brethren, children of the For I am not ashamed of the Gos- 
 
 stoek of Abraham, and whosoever pel of Christ : for it is the power of 
 
 among you fcareth God, to you is the God unto salvation to every one that 
 
 word of this salvation sent. bclicvcth ; to the Jew first, and also 
 
 to the Greek. 
 
248 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 Acts xiii. 29. 
 And when they bad fulfilled all that 
 was written of him, they took liim 
 down from the tree, and laid him in 
 a sepulchre. But God raised him 
 from the dead. 
 
 31. 
 
 And he was seen many days of 
 them which came up with him from 
 Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his 
 witnesses unto the people. 
 
 32. 
 And we declare unto you glad 
 tidings, how that the promise which 
 was made unto the fathers, God hath 
 fulfilled the same unto us their 
 children, in that he hath raised vp 
 Jesus again. 
 
 38. 
 Be it known unto yon therefore, 
 men and brethren, that through this 
 man is preached unto you the for- 
 giveness of sins. 
 
 1 Cob. XV. 3. 
 For I delivered unto you first of 
 all that which I also received, bow 
 that Christ died for our sins accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures; and that he 
 was buried, and that he rose again 
 the third day according to the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Rom. X. 9. 
 If thou shalt confess \vith thy 
 mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 
 believe in thine heart that God hath 
 raised him from the dead, thou shalt 
 be saved. 
 
 1 Cob. XV. 5. 
 
 After that he was seen of Cephas, 
 then of the twelve : after that, he 
 was seen of above five hundred bre- 
 thren at once ; . . . After that, he 
 was seen of James ; then of all the 
 Apostles. 
 
 Rom. i. 2. 
 Which he had promised afore by 
 his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Gal. iii. 18. 
 If the inheritance be of the law, 
 it is no more of promise : but (Jod 
 gave it to Abraham by promise. — 
 Cf. Rom. iv. 14. 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 12. 
 If Christ be preached that he rose 
 from the dead . . . 
 
 Rom. iii. 24. 
 Being justified freely by his grace 
 through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus: whom God hath set 
 forth to be a propitiation through 
 faith in liis blood, to declare his 
 righteousness for the remission of 
 sins that are past, through the for- 
 bearance of God. 
 
 Let any ordinary reader say whether these extracts 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 249 
 
 exhibit identity of teaching or dissimilarity ; whether the 
 message dehvered in both is substantially the same or 
 nut. It would be possible to add many more passages from 
 the Epistles, but these are enough. The substantial 
 identity is the more remarkable in consequence of a certain 
 superficial difference such as would naturally arise from the 
 passing of one man's thoughts through the mind of another, 
 and from their taking the tone and colour of the second 
 mind, not to mention the difference of occasion. 
 
 We next take the speech at Lystra. 
 
 Acts xiv. 15. 
 We also are men of like passions 
 with you, and preach unto you that 
 ye should turn from these vanities 
 unto the living God, which made 
 heaven, and earth, and the sea, and 
 all things that are therein : 
 
 16. 
 
 Who in times past suffered all 
 nations to walk in their own ways. 
 
 17. 
 Nevertheless he left not himself 
 without witness, in that he did good, 
 and gave us rain from heaven, and 
 fruitful seasons, filling our hearts 
 with food and gladness. 
 
 1 CoE. viii. 4. 
 We know that an idol is nothing 
 in the world, and that there is none 
 other God but one. For though 
 there be that are called gods, whe- 
 ther in heaven or in earth, (as there 
 be gods many, and lords many,) but 
 to us there is but one God, &c. 
 
 EoM. i. 24. 26. 28. 
 God gave them up to uncleanness 
 . . . unto vile affections . . . over to 
 a reprobate mind. 
 
 EoM. i. 19, 20. 
 That which may be known of God 
 is manifest in them; for God hath 
 showed it unto them. For the in- 
 visible things of him from the crea- 
 tion of the world are clearly seen, 
 being understood by the things that 
 are made, even his eternal power and 
 Godhead; so that they are without 
 excuse. 
 
 Here also the identity of thought is more remarkable 
 than the difference of language. 
 
 The sermon at Athens has many points of resemblance 
 with that at Lystra, and therefore with the Epistles already 
 quoted, but there are others of its own. 
 
250 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [Arp 
 
 Acts xvii. 25. 
 
 Neither is worsluppc<l with men's 
 hands, as though he needed any 
 thing, seeing he giveth to all life, 
 and breath, and all things ; 
 
 26. 
 
 And hath made of one blood all 
 nations of men. 
 
 27. 
 
 That they should seek the Lord, 
 if haply they might feel after him, 
 and find him, though he be not far 
 from every one of us : for in him, 
 ff avT(f, we live, and move, and 
 have our being. 
 
 Rom, xi. 35. 
 
 Who hath first given to him, and 
 it shall be recompensed unto him 
 again ? for of him, and through him, 
 and to him, are all things. 
 
 1 CoE. xii. 20. 
 But now are they many members, 
 yet but one body. 
 
 Rom. X. 8. 
 The word is nigh thee, even in 
 thy mouth, and in thy heart : that 
 is, the word of faith, which we 
 preach. 
 
 1 Cob. viii. 6. 
 To us there is but one God, the 
 Father, of whom are all things, and 
 we in him, els avrSv. 
 
 29. 
 We ought not to think that 
 the Godhead is like unto gold, or 
 silver, or stone, graven by art and 
 man's device. 
 
 30. 
 
 And the times of this ignorance, 
 ayvolas, God winked at ; but now 
 comniandeth all men every where to 
 repent. 
 
 31. 
 
 Because he hath appointed a day, 
 in the which he v,\l\ju(lffe the world 
 in righteousness by that Man whom 
 he hath ordained ; whereof he hath 
 given assurance unto all men, in 
 that he hath raised him from the 
 dead. 
 
 1 Cob. X. 7. 14. 
 Neither be ye idohiters 
 from idolatry. 
 
 flee 
 
 Eph. iv. 18. 
 Alienated from the life of God 
 through the ignorance that is in 
 them, iyyotay. 
 
 Rom. ii. 4. 
 Despisest thou the riches of his 
 goodness and forbearance and long- 
 suffering j not knowing that the 
 goodness of God leadeth thee to re- 
 pentance ? 
 
 Rom. ii. 16. 
 In the day when God shall Judge 
 the secrets of men by Jesus Christ 
 according to my gospel, 
 
 1 Cob. XV. 14. 
 If Christ be not risen, then is our 
 preaching vain, and your faith is 
 also vain. Yea, and we arc found 
 
App] the Acts of tJie Apostles 251 
 
 false witnesses of God; because we 
 have testified of God that he raised 
 up Christ : whom he raised not up, 
 if so be that the dead rise not. 
 
 The reader can judg'e for himself of the amount of 
 divergence in teaching that these passages exhibit. 
 Ho may perhaps think that the similarity^ not to say the 
 identity, of them is their most remarkable feature. 
 
 Acts xiii. 38_, 39. " This is the only passage in all the 
 " speeches put into Paulas mouth in the Acts where there is 
 " a distinct reference to justification by faith. Elsewhere 
 '' the announcement of the resurrection of Jesus, and his 
 " Messiahship, founded upon the Old Testament, form the 
 " substance of his doctrine. At Thessalonica he argues 
 " that the anointed One must needs sujSer and rise from 
 " the dead, identifying him with Jesus. Before Felix, 
 '' Festus, and Agrippa, the apostle speaks from the 
 " same point of view. The Messiahship of Jesus is the 
 " main topic at issue between him and the Jews. The 
 " invalidity of the law in respect to justification, and the 
 " doctrine of justifying faith alone, are hardly alluded to, 
 " only once certainly; while repentance, and the doing of 
 " works meet for repentance (xxvi. 20), which is declared 
 " to be the sum of his teaching to Jews and Gentiles, is 
 " rather against that dogma; since the apostle himself 
 " applies the term to moral improvement, not to the 
 " mental disposition which Christian faith denotes '^ 
 (pp. 211, 212). 
 
 These remarks are based on the assumption that justi- 
 fication by faith was the only doctrine St. Paul taught. 
 Whereas this doctrine is not so much as mentioned in his 
 own summary of his teaching : Rom. i. 3, 4. 1 Cor. i. 23, 
 
252 The Credibility of [App 
 
 24; XV. 3 — 8. 2 Cor. iv. 5. In fact there is no direct 
 mention of justification by faitli in either of the Epistles 
 to Corinth (if we except perhaps 2 Cor. v. 21), although 
 of course that doctrine is implied in almost every word 
 the Apostle wrote. We must either assume that Paul 
 had no intercourse whatever with Jews, which is highly 
 improbable, or we must conclude that whenever he was 
 brought into contact with them the subjects of discourse 
 would differ slightly from those referred to when writing to 
 Gentiles. As we have seen, notwithstanding this fact, the 
 identity of the teaching is very remarkable. The resurrec- 
 tion of Jesus is a topic very prominentin Eomans and Corin- 
 thians, and not omitted in Gal. i. 1 . His Messiahship cannot 
 be expected to appear so frequently in writings addressed 
 to Gentiles, but with Jews that must have been the one 
 prominent subject. Even this topic, however, is imphed 
 wherever Jesus is called Christ, which is the case con- 
 tinually. The essence of the Messiahship also is found in 
 Rom. i. 1 — i; XV. 8. 1 Cor. x. 3, 4, 9. 2 Cor. iii. 14. Gal. 
 iii. 24, &c., &c., &c. Certainly the teaching at Thessa- 
 lonica is quite consistent with his who in Gal. iii. and iv. 
 deduced so fully the mystical significance of patriarchal 
 history. The speech upon the stairs. Acts xxii., whether 
 actually spoken by Paul or not, is specially appropriate, 
 certainly far more so than any discourse upon justifi- 
 cation by faith would have been. Nothing less can be 
 said of his defence before Felix, in Acts xxiv., while the 
 words alluded to in xxvi. 20 receive their fittest commen- 
 tary in the whole of Rom. vi., not to mention 2 Cor. vii. 
 Whereas it is a matter of fact, testified not only by St. 
 Paul, but by universal experience, that there can be no 
 real "moral improvement^^ without that "mental dis- 
 position which Christian faith denotes." 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 253 
 
 XI. 
 
 Dr. Davidson dwells very forcibly (p. 213) on the dif- 
 ferences between tlie ninth, chapter of the Acts and the 
 4th {sic. ? 1st) chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 ^' The Acts say that Paul after his conversion remained 
 " somie days in Damascus, and forthwith preached Christ 
 " in the synagogues there ; that when the Jews sought to 
 " kill him he was sent to Jerusalem, where the disciples 
 " looked upon him with suspicion till Barnabas convinced 
 " them of his sincerity ; that he resumed his work of 
 " teaching the Jews, till he was again compelled to flee 
 " from Jerusalem and return to Tarsus." This is inac- 
 curate, inasmuch as the Acts do not say that he was 
 sent to Jerusalem, but simply "when he was come to 
 Jerusalem." He may not even have have gone thither 
 immediately on his escape ; the historian tells us nothing 
 about that, but merely takes up the narrative at the point 
 '' when he had come to Jerusalem." Again, it is vain to 
 say that " the narrative in the Acts does not restrict his 
 " preaching to the Hellenists ;" for whether it does or 
 not, we have no right critically to assume, still less to 
 assert, that " Hellenists " must mean " Jews." Every one 
 knows that it is hard to make these two accounts coincide ; 
 but at the same time every one must see that the dif- 
 ferences are only such as might arise in the narratives of 
 any two men, one of whom is speaking in the first person 
 and the other in the third, but both of the same events 
 with a difierent object in view. The seeming variance is 
 the result of brevity in the historian, who had no desire 
 to enlarge on this portion of his narrative. The sequence 
 of events in the History and the Epistle is as follows : — 
 
 Acts. 
 
 Gal. 
 
 1. Then was Saul certain days at 
 
 1. Immediately I went into Arabia, 
 
 Damascus, dytveTo 5e 6 ^avKos . . . 
 
 ore Se . . . evdews . . . airfiAdoi/. 
 
 TjlJifpas Tivds. 
 
 
254 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 2. And straightway bo preached 
 
 Christ, Ktti (vOfODS . . . fKi\pV(T(T(. 
 
 3. But Saul increased the more 
 in strength, 2oC\os 5e n.a\\ov ive- 
 SvvafxovTo. 
 
 4. And after that many days were 
 fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to 
 kill him, d>s Sk 4it\-qpovvro rjntpai 
 iKaual. 
 
 5. Let down by the wall in a 
 basket.— 2 Cor. xi. 33. 
 
 6. And when Saul was come to 
 Jerusalem, Barnabas brought him 
 to the Apostles (i.e. Peter and James), 
 vapayeySfitvos 5* 6 'SavKos. 
 
 7. And he was with them (i. e. 
 Barnabas, Peter, and James) coming 
 in and going out at Jerusalem, koi 
 ^v fier' avTwv eloriropfvSfievos. 
 
 8. And he spake boldly, and dis- 
 puted against the Hellenists, f\d\et 
 Tf Kai, who sought to slay him ; but 
 the brethren brought him to Cajsarea, 
 and sent him to Tarsus. 
 
 2. And returned to Damascus, 
 Ka\ TraKiv viTf<rTpt\\/a. 
 
 3. Then after three years I went 
 up to Jerusalem, ^ntiTa /nero trjj 
 Tpia avjjKOov. 
 
 4. For fifteen days, and saw Peter 
 and James only. 
 
 5. Afterwards I came into . . . 
 Syria and Cilicia, tirura 'tiKdov, and 
 was unknown by face unto the 
 churches of Jndrea. 
 
 6. Then fourteen years after I 
 went up again to Jerusalem with 
 Barnabas, and . . . Titus, eneira Sia 
 SeKaT(ffffdpiay erwy. 
 
 Now liere it is plain that 8 corresponds to 5, and that 
 when the brethren sent him to Tarsus, Paul was unknown 
 by face to the Churches of Judaea generally : they only 
 knew of him by report. The first question is wher.e to 
 place the journey to Arabia. Following the notes of time 
 indicated by the particles used, it seems probable that the 
 ore Be ... . evOew^ of Galatians would correspond to the 
 iyeuero 8e . . . . koX €vd6co<; of the Acts, in which case, 
 notwithstanding Alford^s decision to the contrary, we must 
 place the journey to Arabia before the '^ certain days" of 
 the Acts. The use of 8e in pure narrative warrants this, 
 for it is irrespective of time, and denotes merely sequence 
 of events without regard to time. Moreover, but for this 
 mention in the Galatians, we should have known nothinsr 
 of the journey to Arabia; and St. Paul, by saying, " I went 
 into Arabia and returned again to Damascus," seems to 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 255 
 
 assign but a brief duration to it. The very fact of liis not 
 even staying at Damascus immediately after liis conversion, 
 but of liis going to Arabia instead of to Jerusalem, would 
 tend to show how direct his knowledge of the Gospel was, 
 while on the other hand the fact recorded in the Acts that 
 he preached immediately after his conversion, no notice 
 being taken of the brief journey to Arabia, serves to con- 
 firm his own statement of the special revelation that had 
 been vouchsafed to him. It seems more probable that 
 there was a short interval of time in the middle of Acts ix. 
 19, sufficient for the journey to Arabia (which may have 
 been ""^ possibly the Arabian desert in the neighbourhood 
 of Damascus," EUicott), than that the evOew'i of St. Paul 
 can be made to give place to the ■^/xepaf Tivd<i of the Acts. 
 I am glad to be supported in this view by the opinion of 
 Professor Lightfoot. By this supposed transition of time 
 then, in the middle of v. 19 of the Acts we avoid the 
 strictures of Dr. Davidson upon the insertion of it in 
 V. 20 or 23. The preaching of Christ in the synagogues, 
 then, by Paul will follow after his ttoXiv uTrecrTjoei^a, between 
 which and his first eireiTa must come Acts ix. 20, 21, 22, 
 " But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded 
 the Jews which dwell at Damascus, proving that this is 
 very Christ." If we are right in this, " and after that 
 many days were fulfilled" will then correspond to some 
 period of time not referred to in Galatians, but spoken of 
 at 2 Cor. xi. 33, and prior to the expiration of the " three 
 years," which coincides with "when Saul was come to 
 Jerusalem he assayed to join himself to the disciples." 
 The only difficulty that will then remain is the reconcilia- 
 tion of the two accounts of this visit to Jerusalem. His 
 object in it appears to have been to make the acquaintance 
 of Peter, which he would have been unable to accomplish 
 but for the intervention of Barnabas, who introduced 
 him to Peter and James. For some unexplained reason 
 he did not see John, but Davidson has no right to 
 
256 The Credibility of [App 
 
 say, " Paul's own account excludes John, that of the Acts 
 includes him" (p. 213). It neither includes nor ex- 
 cludes him. In PauFs later visit (Gal. ii. 9), he seems 
 only to have met " James, Cephas, and John.'' We may 
 well believe him, then, when he says that on this occa- 
 sion he did not see John. There is more reason in the 
 remark that the fact of his being a convert " must have 
 " been well known at the metropolis if more than three 
 ''years had elapsed since his conversion." It might, 
 indeed, have been well known, and yet to a certain extent 
 all the disciples have been afraid of him : his name would 
 naturally be one of terror until by personal intercourse 
 the feeling of suspicion had been removed. That this was 
 the nature of the fear, rather than that it arose from entire 
 ignorance, is perhaps to be gathered from the violent 
 opposition of the Hellenists; for had no reports of his 
 conversion reached the metropolis, it is not likely they 
 would have been in a few days so highly exasperated, 
 however " boldly" he might have " spoken in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus." It was upon finding by this proof that 
 the vague reports about him were but too true, that they 
 went about to slay him, and that within '' fifteen days." 
 The short duration, then, of his visit will fully account for 
 his being unknown by face to the Churches of Judaea, 
 though " he was with the Apostles coming in and going 
 out at Jerusalem ;" while in the fact that he was conducted 
 by the brethren to Ctesarea we may discover the opportunity 
 he had of proclaiming the Gospel "throughout all the 
 country of Judaea," xxvi. 20. If, however, this is not 
 admitted, we must allow that the discrepancy is one in the 
 historian himself, and not between the historian and the 
 Epistles of St. Paul. It is perhaps worthy of note that 
 in this latter place the change from the dative to et? irdadv 
 re TTjv ')((s>pav and the return to the dative in /cat Tot? eOveacv 
 may possibly indicate a mode of communication not 
 directly personal as far as relates to Judaea, and if so. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 257 
 
 the alleged discrepancy between Gal. i. 22 and Acts xxvi. 
 20 is done away. For this observation I am indebted to 
 a friend. 
 
 XII. 
 
 " The journey to Jerusalem mentioned in the 2nd 
 " chapter of Galatians^ if it refers to the events recorded 
 *^' in the 15th chapter of the Acts^ presents various dis- 
 '^ agreements with the latter, which discredit its accuracy " 
 (p. 214). 
 
 These, according to Dr. Davidson, are chiefly nine. 
 
 1. " The story in the Acts says, that Paul and Barnabas 
 " went up as deputies from the Church at Antioch ; the 
 " apostle himself, that he went by ' a revelation.^ " 
 
 " It is remarkable that he makes no mention of the 
 '' Judaisers who occasioned the appeal to Jerusalem nor the 
 " Churches commission with which he was entrusted.^* 
 
 Why should he, when it was not his object to appear as 
 a delegate, nor to give the mission an official character, nor 
 therefore to create a misconception for the sake of obviat- 
 ing it ? He may have had personal as well public reasons 
 for going, and either or both may have been grounded on 
 " a revelation." 
 
 2. "The Acts speak of a public council, the Galatians 
 " of a private conference." 
 
 And why may not both have coexisted, and each been 
 entirely independent of the other : the one an episode 
 in the other, and pertinent to the Apostle^s object, but 
 foreign to the historian^s. 
 
 3. " The decrees of the council recognised the validity 
 " of the law for Jewish-Christians." 
 
 Where did they do so ? If they did, the Galatians by 
 those decrees would be exempt. 
 
 4. " The epistle to the Galatians says that the only 
 " thing which the apostles recommended to Paul was that 
 " he should remember the poor at Jerusalem." [Where 
 
 S 
 
258 The Crcdihilify of [Apr 
 
 docs it say at Jerumlem ?] " How conld this be, if he 
 " consented to the imposition of prohibitions on Gcntilc- 
 " christians from which he declared their dehverance ? 
 '^ . . (1 Cor. ix.) " sic. 
 
 One would naturally suppose that the case refen-ed to 
 in the Acts was one which came under the restrictions 
 laid down, 1 Cor. viii., and that the resolution which con- 
 cludes that chapter accounted for Paul's conduct : " Wliere- 
 foro, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat 110 flesh 
 while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend/' 
 Cf. Rom. xiv. 21. 1 Cor. x. 32, 33. 2 Cor. vi. 3. 
 
 5. " The story in the Acts represents the Church at 
 " Jerusalem with the primitive apostles at its head as a 
 " court of appeal, by which disputed questions should be 
 " settled, and whose decisions Paul himself acknowledged. 
 " He took charge of the decrees, and gave copies of them 
 " to the Churches he visited. There was much disputation 
 " or discussion in the assembly of the apostles and elders 
 " (Acts XV. 2). Does not this imply a conflict of opinion ? 
 " Does it not presuppose that Paul and Barnabas were on 
 " ono side with respect to circumcision, and the elder 
 " apostles on the other ? " 
 
 Not at all; for Peter and James, the only Apostles 
 whose speeches are recorded, were distinctly on the side of 
 Paul and 13arnabas, and indeed of the large majority, xv. 
 12. 22. The antagonist party were " certain of the sect of 
 the Pharisees which believed.'' Besides, we must remem- 
 ber that Paul himself dates the recognition of his Apostle- 
 ship from this time (Gal. ii. 9) . Afterwards, in writing to 
 Gentile Churches, he would naturally assume an indepen- 
 dent and absolute authority. His language would be, " If 
 I be not an Apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to 
 you." 1 Cor. ix. 2. Gal. ii. 8. 
 
 G. " The story in the Acts leads us to infer that amid 
 " the conflict of opinion the Apostles gave way to Paul. 
 " Peter, James, and John conceded the point about the 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 259 
 
 "necessity of circumcision for Gentile converts. That 
 " they did so with some mental reservation^ or that they 
 '^ yielded to the force of circumstances for the sake of 
 "peace, appears from the whole spirit of the Jewish- 
 " christians at Jerusalem, as well as from the subsequent 
 " conduct of the apostles themselves. The book of the 
 "Acts also intimates that Paul made concessions. He 
 " consented that the Gentile-christians should come under 
 " the command of abstinence from meats offered to idols^ 
 " and fornication. Thus the decrees of the congress were 
 " ' articles of peace.'' Concessions were made on both sides. 
 " The declarations of Paul himself do not agree with this. 
 " According to the Galatian epistle his position was one of 
 " independence. He yielded nothing.^^ 
 
 It is best to take the language of the Acts, and allow 
 it to speak for itself. Peter says, " Now, therefore, why 
 tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, 
 which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear ? '^ 
 (Cf. Gal. V. 1 : ^' Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty 
 wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled 
 again with the yoke of bondage.") James, after saying 
 that the admission of the Gentiles was the fulfilment of 
 prophecy, says, " Wherefore my sentence is, that We 
 trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are 
 tmmed to God : but that we write unto them, that they 
 abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and 
 from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old 
 time hath in every city them that preach him, being read 
 in the synagogues every Sabbath day." The speeches of 
 Paul and Barnabas are not given ; they are only said to 
 have " declared what miracles and wonders God had 
 wrought among the Gentiles by them." The result of all 
 is thus stated : " Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, 
 vjith the ivhole Church, to send chosen men, . . . and they 
 wrote letters by them, &c." May we not fairly ask what 
 evidence of conflict of opinion is there here ? What trace 
 
 s 2 
 
26o The Credibility of [App 
 
 is there in the speech of Peter, or the speech of James, of 
 the smallest sympathy with " certain of the sect of the 
 Pharisees/' of the least divergence in sentiment from Paul 
 and Barnabas ? Does not the literal statement of the 
 historian go to show that the wlxole Church was unanimous 
 against the " certain men which came down from Judea/' 
 and " the sect of the Pharisees " ? And is it not equally 
 clear that if the Apostle in the Galatians refers to this 
 visit, he is giving an account of a diflferent event occurring 
 in it ? He makes no mention of the Jerusalem Congress, 
 because that did not really bear upon his point, but he 
 alludes to other circumstances directly concerning himself, 
 which tended to show the independence not only which 
 he claimed, but which was on all hands conceded to him 
 while at Jerusalem, 
 
 Neither is it true that in conceding the point of absti- 
 nence from food offered to idols, St. Paul was acting 
 contrary to the tenor of his Epistles. He was rather 
 giving practically an illustration of his own principles 
 laid down in Rom. xiv. and 1 Cor. viii. 
 
 And whether or not there is any truth in saying, " It 
 " is wholly improbable that he would have consented to 
 " the position which the decrees give to abstinence from 
 '^ fornication, since the principle is desecrated, to a cer- 
 " tain extent, by its collocation," it is at least obvious 
 that the First Epistle to the Corinthians is largely occu- 
 pied with both these topics in chaps, v., vi., vii., and viii., 
 and that singularly enough both are found in juxta- 
 position in one and the same verse, 1 Cor. vi. 13, " Meats 
 for the belly, and the belly for meats : but God shall 
 destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for forni- 
 cation, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body," 
 and this too, although the Epistle was written " about 
 ten years after the council" (p. 220). 
 
 7. " Did it imply no difference of belief, when it was 
 " agreed that Paul should go to the heathen, while James, 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 261 
 
 Cephas^ and John were to be apostles of the circum- 
 cision ? Were the leading apostles and Paul agreed in 
 the principle, even before the council, that both had the 
 same gospel ? Did both recognise the abrogation of 
 circumcision for the Gentiles ? Were they alike con- 
 vinced in their hearts that Gentile-christianity was 
 independent of Judaism ? The answer must be in the 
 negative. . . . We place more reliance on the epistle to 
 the Galatians, and incidental particulars in the Acts of 
 the Apostles, than upon the speeches put into the 
 mouths of Peter and James at the council ^^ (p. 220). 
 The only certain answer to these questions, since the 
 authority and veracity of the Acts is impugned, must be 
 drawn from St. PauFs Epistles. He says, " When it 
 pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, 
 and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, tliat 
 I might preach Him aTnong the heathen ; im^mjediately I 
 conferred not with flesh and blood" (Gal. i. 15). Did 
 this imply difierence of belief, or a difi'erent sphere of 
 action ? "I have written the more boldly unto you in 
 some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace 
 that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister 
 of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of 
 God. . . . Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not 
 where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another 
 man's foundation" (Kom. xv. 15. 20). Does this indicate 
 a consciousness of difierence in the message delivered ? 
 or does it imply a virtual identity, since in both cases 
 Jesus Christ was the subject-matter of the preaching? 
 " Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of 
 Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of 
 Christ. Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor. i. 12). 
 
 We also find Peter sending his first Epistle by the 
 hand of one of Paul's chosen companions, who appears in 
 the superscription of both Epistles to Thessalonica, and 
 identifying himself in respect of faith with Paul's own 
 
262 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [Ai'P 
 
 converts, "tlie strangers scattered throughout Pontus, 
 Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." " By Silvanus *, 
 a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written 
 briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true 
 grace of God wherein ye stand" (1 Pet. v. 12). 
 
 (The reader must bear in mind, however, that Dr. 
 Davidson supposes the First Epistle of Peter to have 
 been written by a Pauhne Christian.) 
 
 Cf. 2 Cor. i. 24 ; Gal. v. 1 ; Eph. ii. 5, &c., &c. 
 
 We may observe, also, similarities between Peter's 
 speech in the Acts and his first Epistle. 
 
 Acts xv. 7 — 11. 
 Ye know how that a good while 
 ago God made choice among us, that 
 the Gentiles by my mouth should 
 hear the word {\6yov) of the Gospel,. 
 and believe. 
 
 And God, which knoweth the 
 hearts, bare them witness, giving 
 them the Holy Ghost, even as lie 
 did unto us; and put no dillcreuce 
 between us and them, purifying 
 their hearts by faith. 
 
 1 Pet. i. 1, 2. 
 Peter ... to the strangers . . . 
 elect according to the foreknowledge 
 of God . . . through sanctiticatiou of 
 the Spirit, unto obedience, &c. 
 
 i. 25. 
 This is the word (^^m«) which by 
 the Gospel is preached unto you. 
 
 i. 12. 
 
 The things which are now reported 
 unto you by them tliat have preached 
 tlie Gospel unto you with the Holy 
 Ghost sent down from heaven. 
 
 i. 21, 22. 
 
 That your faith and hope might 
 be in God. Seeing ye have purified 
 your souls in obeying the truth 
 through the Spirit. 
 
 Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke 
 upon the neck of the disciples, which 
 neither our fathers nor we were able 
 to bear ? 
 
 ii. 16. 
 As free, and not using your liberty 
 for a cloke of maliciousness. 
 
 ' To be sure Rcnan says, " II reste des doutes sur I'identite dcs deux pcr- 
 sonnages." Saint Paul, p. 122, note ; and agiun, p. 289, note. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 263 
 
 i. 5. 9. 
 
 But we believe that through the Who are kept by the power of 
 
 grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we God through faith uuto salvation, 
 shall be saved, eveu as they. Receiving the eud of your faith, 
 
 even the salvation of your souls. 
 
 It is at least remarkable tliat in a few brief words, such 
 as those ascribed to Peter in the Acts, there should be so 
 many traces of actual identity in thought. Whether or 
 not the Epistle ascribed to Peter is his, it may at least bo 
 taken as a sample of what might have passed as his ; and 
 yet it would have been impossible to compile the speech 
 in the Acts out of the materials of the First Epistle. 
 
 We may, perhaps, be warranted then in saying that it 
 did on the evidence before us, "imply no difference of 
 belief when it was agreed that Paul should go to the 
 heathen,^^ and the other Apostles to the Jews. On the 
 contrary, if Paul really had a Divine mission, there is no 
 shadow of doubt but that his mission was to the Gentiles ; 
 but if his mission was to the Gentiles, the mission of the 
 other Apostles would of necessity be to the Jews. It 
 showed, therefore, not a difference of belief, but a wise 
 division of labour, when different spheres were chosen 
 by Paul and Peter. Neither can we say that "Paul 
 " speaks of the primitive apostles in depreciatory lan- 
 " guage, in his epistle to the Galatians" (p. 220). For 
 allowing that "whatever authority or reputation they 
 " had, was to him a matter of indifference" (p. 218), it 
 is plain that this depreciatory tone was forced upon him 
 by the necessities of the case, and over against it, we not 
 only have a right, but are in duty bound, to set his own 
 famous words in 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9, " Last of all He was seen 
 of me as of an ahortion. For I am the least of the Apos- 
 tles, that am not meet to be called an Apostle, because I 
 persecuted the Church of God.'' And in Eph. iii. 8, 
 " Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this 
 grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the 
 unsearchable riches of Christ." To all who are not do- 
 
264 The Credibility of [App 
 
 termined to adopt another theory, these words will pro- 
 bably show that the language of the Epistle to the 
 Galatians was not meant to be absolutely of a depre- 
 ciatory character, but only a strong way of asserting the 
 entire eqxiaViUj of his Apostleship. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 22, 
 " Are they Hebrews ? so am I. Are they Israelites ? so 
 am I. Are they the seed of Abraham ? so am I." 
 
 For if Paul Avas the least of the Apostles, it is certain 
 that no Apostles could have ranked, in his estimation, 
 higher than Peter, James, and John. Indeed, even while 
 in Galatians ii. he asserts his equality with these 
 Apostles, the very prominence given to them both in 
 i. and ii. shows that he had, and could have, no inten- 
 tion of depreciating them. It is surely unfair, then, to 
 admit the evidence of the Acts against, but reject it in 
 favour of, itself, to insist upon a "disputation in the 
 council,'' when the speeches recorded are singularly unani- 
 mous, and when it is expressly said that the council itself 
 was convened in consequence of the false teaching of 
 "certain men'' (they are not even called brethren), who 
 were, probably, of " the sect of the Pharisees." 
 
 " Why did ' certain from James ' lead Peter to a Judais- 
 " ing accommodation, if James fully believed in Paul's 
 "gospel of the uncircumcision ? " The answer is, in all 
 probability (see Alford's Note on Gal. ii. 12), because 
 there were many Jews at Antioch, and the very object of 
 this mission may have been to remind " the Jewish con- 
 verts of iheir obligations, from which the Gentiles were 
 free." James at the council appears to assume that the 
 Jews will not consider themselves bound to accept the 
 privilege of Gentile Uberty, for this is what it comes to. 
 Acts XV. 19. Cf. xxi. 18. But notwithstanding this, it 
 is quite possible he may have " fully believed in Paul's 
 "gospel of the uncircumcision." Nor is there the 
 slightest evidence that he did not. As for Peter's con- 
 duct, it shows nothing more nor less than that charac- 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 265 
 
 teristic desire of standing well with all parties^ especially 
 the one he was directly thrown with, which had, indeed, 
 been the cause of his triple denial of his Master^. 
 
 8. " ' If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of 
 " Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou 
 " the Gentiles to live as do the Jews.' How could Peter 
 " compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews, if he had a 
 " conviction of its being wrong and improper ? It is 
 " needless to talk of the compulsion of example, i. e, in- 
 " direct compulsion, because the term is inapplicable to 
 '^that" (p. 221). 
 
 The answer is really contained in the words quoted, 
 for if Peter, being a Jew, lived habitually after the man- 
 ner of the Gentiles, it is plain that he could not be guilty 
 of comjpellmg the Gentiles to live like the Jews in any 
 other way than by his example. Or, on the other hand, if it 
 is preferred to throw the force of habit into the compellest, 
 then the very fact that Peter, for a time, had lived at 
 Antioch as a Gentile, exposed him equally to this charge 
 of inconsistency made by Paul. And such an interpre- 
 tation is the very utmost that the words describing 
 Peter's conduct will bear; it being all the while suffi- 
 ciently clear, from the whole tenor of the accusation, that 
 he was now acting contrary to his usual practice, in re- 
 fusing to eat with the Gentiles. 
 
 9. " Still further, the Acts say nothing of the efforts 
 " made to procure Titus's circumcision, which Paul re- 
 
 3 See here Professor Jowett's admirable note on Gal. ii. 11 — 21, Ep. vol. i. 
 p. 243. M. Kenan's portrait of Peter on this occasion is characteristic, and, 
 on the whole, not untrue. " Cet homme, profondement hon et droit, voulait 
 la paix avant tout ; il ne savait contrarier personne. Cela le rendait ver- 
 satile, du moins en apparence j il se deconcertait facilement et ne savait pas 
 trouver vite une r^ponse. Dejk, du vivant de Jesus, cette espece de timidite, 
 venant de gaucherie plut6t que de manque de cceur, I'avait induit en une 
 faute qui lui couta bien des larmes. Sachant peu disputer, incapable de 
 tenir tete k des gens insistants, dans les cas difficiles il se taisait et ater- 
 moyait. Une telle disposition de caractere lui fit encore cette fois com- 
 mettre un grand acte de faiblesse." Saint Paul, p. 296. 
 
266 The Credibility of [Ait 
 
 " sisted. And how could Peter at Autioch have acted 
 " contrary to the apostolic convention, or Paul have for- 
 " gotten to appeal to its decisions when he rebuked Peter 
 *' there ? Could not Peter have silenced the zealots who 
 " came from James, with a reference to the transactions 
 " which had taken place at Jerusalem, the resolutions of 
 *' the apostolic college, and the approbation of James 
 " himself? What need had he to dissemble, or Paul to 
 " rebuke him on his own responsibility ?'* (p. 222). 
 
 As for the circumcision of Titus many reasons may 
 have operated or combined to induce the historian of the 
 Acts to pass it over besides the one insinuated, and further 
 than this we Cannot go to prove that the one insinuated 
 was not the only reason, or, in fact, was not a reason at 
 all. Peter at Antioch did not act '^contrary to the 
 Apostolic convention,'^ but declined to avail himself of 
 its privileges; whereas had he eaten with the Gentiles 
 ^'before that certain came from James," he would have 
 done so without authority, had the narrative of the council 
 or the conversion of Cornelius been unhistorical. How 
 could a zealous Jew, as Peter is assumed to have been, 
 have eaten with Gentiles at all, but for some very urgent 
 motive constraining him to do so, such a motive as the 
 mere example or influence of Paul could not have sup- 
 plied; for if iliat motive be assumed, it is certain that 
 nothing can be more contemptible than Peter's conduct ; 
 then it could not have consisted " in a want of fii'mness, 
 clearness, and purity of conviction,'' but the divergence 
 in the teaching and conduct of the two Apostles must 
 have been far greater than even the school of Bam* would 
 have us believe. If we ask why Paul at Antioch did not 
 appeal to the decrees of Jerusalem, we might as well ask 
 why in disputing with IPeter he did not appeal to the 
 heavenly vision which he is related to have had in the 
 case of Cornelius. To be sm'C, they may both have been 
 unhistorical as we ai'e asked to believe, but it is scarcely 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 267 
 
 reasonable to insist that he should appeal to one or the 
 other before consenting to accept either ; he may, indeed, 
 have appealed to both, although he says nothing about it 
 in the Epistle to the Galatians ; at least we are not bound 
 to assume that the Epistle can omit no particular which 
 the Acts relates or vice versa ; certainly, if such minute 
 agreement had been found it would have carried with it 
 a jprima facie appearance of suspicious complicity. Thus 
 much, at least, we may affirm, that on the evidence of 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul did not attach 
 supreme importance to the decrees of the council, but 
 why, indeed, should he if both Peter and he had been 
 parties to the framing of those decrees ? — if both con- 
 sidered themselves bound by the deeper principles which 
 led to the framing of them, and of which Peter is 
 reminded in Galatians ii.? And nevertheless, after all, 
 the two cases were very different. The decrees of the 
 council had nothing to do with the conduct of Peter; it 
 was not necessarily touched by them. Peter may have 
 fully recognised their validity and yet observed that social 
 distinction out of deference to the prejudices of exclusive 
 Jews, for which he is here rebuked, and if he could have 
 done this, there would have been no need to confront 
 " the zealots " with " the approbation of James himself.^' 
 The " need he had to dissemble " arose from the fear of 
 giving offence in a matter analogous to, but not identical 
 with, that to which the Council of Jerusalem related. 
 
 xni. 
 
 " It follows from these remarks, that the second visit of 
 " Paul to Jerusalem, the eleemosynary one mentioned in 
 " xi. 30, must be unhistorical. The apostle notices all 
 " his visits to Jerusalem prior to the writing of the Gala- 
 " tian Epistle (Gal. i., ii.). To have omitted any would 
 
268 The C^'edibility of [App 
 
 " have defeated the purpose he had in view ; and, there- 
 " fore, the omission of the second, noticed in the Acts, is 
 " equivalent to its non-existence. . . . Barnabas may have 
 " gone with the contribution to the poor saints at Jeru- 
 " salem; Paul did not" (p. 222). 
 
 Then, I ask, what possible motive could the historian 
 have had in saying, " Which also they did, and sent it to 
 the elders (not Apostles) by the hands of Barnabas and 
 Saul " ? The answer assigned is, '' to obviate the offence 
 " that the four years^ absence of the ■ apostle from the 
 " theocratic centre might have given to Jewish-christians " 
 (p. 280). We are content to leave this reason for those who 
 can honestly believe it to be more credible than the pure 
 intention, on the part of the historian, of stating what 
 was simply true. And if,*as Dr. Davidson supposes, the 
 book of the Acts was written as late as a.d. 125, what 
 could have induced the fabricator, knowing, as he must 
 have known, PauFs statement in the Epistle, to insert his 
 name here, in direct violation of it ? Is it not at least as 
 likely that this being a very brief visit, as the Acts seem 
 to imply, and one in no way relevant to his purpose, the 
 Apostle made no allusion to it; or, if he did, is it not 
 plain that we must adopt another method of reconciling 
 the visits in the Epistle and the history than that which 
 is commonly adopted. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Speaking of the gift of tongues, as alluded to by St. 
 Paul, and described in the Acts, Dr. Davidson says, 
 " The one" (prophecy) "is an intelligible, the other '^ 
 (tongues) "an unintelligible thing, proceeding from an 
 '' ecstatic state of mind, and rising to a height far above 
 t' the language of ordinary communication. If the narra- 
 " tive in the Acts be thus opposed to Paul's statements, 
 " it cannot be historical. The phenomenon may have had 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 269 
 
 '' a basis in fact ; the turn given to it is of a later 
 
 " type Its form and direction proceeded from 
 
 " a symbolical design^ tlie leading idea of the writer 
 " being the Pauline universalism which appears in the 
 " third Gospel, The new theocracy was not like the 
 " old^ restricted to one nation, but was meant to com- 
 " prehend all peoples'' (p. 223). 
 
 Again, we can only say that as upon the supposition 
 the wi'iter of the Acts must have been acquainted with 
 the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the strange thing is, 
 that having the framework he found in the Epistle, he 
 should have distorted it into something quite different 
 for which, as he knew, there was no foundation in fact, 
 and which would be destined to wait till the nineteenth 
 century after Christ, before it could hope to be interpreted 
 or understood^ for it is contrary to all evidence to sup- 
 pose that had such been the writer's intention, any one of 
 those for whom he wrote would have gathered from it 
 such a notion j unless, therefore, he wrote for the school 
 of modern critics, there was not the slightest hope of his 
 ever being understood. It is, anyhow, not unnatural to 
 suppose that as the gift of tongues recorded in the Acta 
 was manifestly highly exceptional, so in process of time 
 it might even vary in form, so that by the time when the 
 First Epistle to Corinth was written, its form had become 
 somewhat modified before its final disappearance, which 
 must have occurred shortly after. We should, therefore, 
 infer that, rather than believe the second chapter of the 
 Acts unhistorical, it would be hardly possible to account 
 for the phenomena presented in the Epistle, had there 
 not previously occurred some such phenomena as those 
 recorded in the Acts. We can understand the narrative 
 in the Acts giving rise to the events related in the 
 Epistle, but we cannot understand the latter as the 
 origin of the story in the Acts. It would be equivalent 
 to the reversing of a pyramid. 
 
270 The Credibility of [App 
 
 XV. 
 
 "The narrative in Acts xxviii. VI, &c., does not consist 
 "with what we know of the Church at Rome, from 
 " Paurs epistle to it" (p. 221). 
 
 Here again one can but repeat, that on the hy]iothesis 
 this narrative must have been written in full knowledge of 
 the state of the Church at Rome displayed by the Epistle 
 to the Romans, and therefore in the event of an inten- 
 tional imposition this circumstance must have presented 
 a formidable difl&culty to the historian. What, then, if the 
 consciousness of the writer that he was stating only what 
 was true was to him a sufficient means of surmounting it ? 
 For though in the latter case the difficulty may not have 
 been perceived, it is scarcely possible to suppose that it 
 would have been unobserved had there been in the 
 historian a deliberate intention of misleading. It is to be 
 observed that in this chapter of the Acts there are two 
 parties directly spoken of, one is "the brethren" who came 
 to meet Paul as far as Appii forum and The three taverns, 
 who were obviously members of the Church at Rome, and 
 not im^jossibly some of those enumerated in the list of 
 salutations in Rom. xvi., and another "the Jews," of 
 V. ] 7, who had received no official notice of Paul's 
 coming, probably for the reasons assigned in Alford's 
 excellent note on v. 21. But however this may be, there 
 can be no question that the alleged discrepance is a cir- 
 cumstance that cuts both ways, and as it seems to me one 
 that is even more difficult to explain on the hypothesis of 
 the late origin of the Acts. It is further to be observed, 
 that the enmity manifested at Jerusalem against Paul was 
 of a kind likely to be satisfied by securing his absence, 
 and less likely to be active in pursuing him even to Eome, 
 and hence the ignoi'ance of the Jews there of the details 
 of his case. While, on the other hand, so far from its being 
 false that he had committed nothing against the customs 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 271 
 
 of his fathers, it was his boast that instead of making 
 void the law he established it through faith, for that 
 Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every- 
 one that believeth ; in short, the very doctrine of justifi- 
 cation, which is wrongly regarded as the distinctively 
 Pauline doctrine, virtually underlay the whole framework 
 and inspired the entire revelation of the law. Well and 
 justly therefore might he say that he had " committed 
 nothing against the people or customs of the fathers." 
 
 XVI. 
 
 It is alleged by Dr. Davidson that the speeches in the 
 Acts are not those of the speakers to whom they are as- 
 signed. Peter says in i. 18, 19, that the field where Judas 
 died was called in " their proper tongue, Aceldama," which 
 he then translates, though speaking to his fellow-disciples. 
 There are so many possible answers to this, that it need 
 not detain us, see Alford; Roberts^, Discussions on the 
 Gospels, &c., &c. 
 
 " The account of Judas^s death also disagrees with that 
 ''of Matthew in various particulars." It is quite possible 
 to blend the two accounts so that one may supplement 
 the other. For example, the chief priests had promised 
 to give Judas thirty pieces of silver ; on the faith of that 
 promise he negotiated and concluded the purchase of a 
 field, which was to be paid for on receipt of the money ; 
 meanwhile after receiving it, but before he had paid for 
 the field, seeing that Jesus was unexpectedly condemned, 
 Judas repents of what he had done, does not become 
 possessor of the field, but takes back the money to the 
 priests, throws it down in the Temple, and goes and 
 hangs himself. The priests take the money, and buy with 
 it the potter's field, possibly tlie identical field which 
 Judas would have bought, it clearly being for sale. Judas, 
 
272 T'Jie C}' edibility of [App 
 
 having hanged himself, falls headlong, bursts asunder 
 in the midst, and all his bowels gush out, and in conse- 
 quence of either or of both events the field had the name 
 of the field of blood till the day when the Acts were 
 written. What is there improbable in any of the links 
 here supplied ? and if they are thus supplied, what is 
 there contradictory in the two accounts ? 
 
 " Perhaps, too, Peter would not have put together 
 *' two separate passages from the Old Testament, and 
 '' regarded them as a direct prophecy of Judas, contrary 
 " to the proper interpretation (verse 20)." 
 
 Why is Peter less likely to have done so than the writer 
 of the Acts ? As a matter of fact the one has ; jperhaps the 
 other might. And how are we, or any other persons, judges 
 of what the " proper interpretation " is in this sense ? We 
 must assume the unreality of prophecy or of a secondary 
 spiritual significance in Scripture, before we can affirm 
 that this interpretation is improper. The mere affirmation 
 does not prove it. And if it is right to assume the 
 unreality against the evidence, it is not wrong to assume 
 the reality on the strength of it. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 " The next address of Peter, in ii. 14 — 40, contains a 
 *' Pauline sentiment, that the heathen were embraced in 
 " the Divine promise of favour. ' The promise is to you, 
 *' and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as 
 '' many as the Lord our God shall call.' But we learn 
 " from the epistle to the Galatians that Peter had not 
 *' such ideas about the admission of the Gentiles to the 
 " privileges of Christianity till long after ; not till 
 " Paul had privately explained the success of his work 
 "among them" (p. 227). 
 
 It must be borne in mind that Dr. Davidson believes 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 2']}, 
 
 tlie First Epistle of Peter to be a Pauline treatise (i. 
 p. 426). We cannot therefore appeal to that in support of 
 the above-named sentiment being really Peter's. But is 
 it not an overstraining of the evidence to say that 
 the Epistle to the Galatians represents Peter differently ? 
 Is not Paul his own witness that the Apostles at Jerusalem, 
 including Cephas, gave unto him and Barnabas the right 
 hand of fellowship ? And Professor Jowett says, i. 242, 
 " It is a proof of the still unbroken unity of the Church, 
 that the Jewish Christians were willing to receive, or the 
 Gentiles to give alms. . . . Cf. Eom. xv. 27 j 1 Cor. xvi. 
 1, ix. i;" and i. 241, "That the teachers in the two 
 spheres were not wholly separated, is shown by several 
 of the companions of St. Paul in his imprisonment 
 being ot oWe? e/c Treptro/u.^?, Col. iv. 11." Have we not 
 also Paul's own witness that Peter did either habitually, 
 or for a time at least, being a Jew, live as a Gentile ? 
 Does he not say, speaking of himself and Peter, " We who 
 are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the" Gentiles, 
 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the 
 law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ " ? Here Paul claims 
 Peter as one whose opinion on this vital point exactly 
 coincided with his own. Besides we must not forget that 
 much of the teaching of our Lord Himself clearly fore- 
 shadowed the ingathering of the Gentiles, so that it is 
 conceivable that Peter may have expressed himself thus 
 under the influence of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 " The machinery of visions and revelations introductory 
 " to Cornelius's reception shows that the writer did not 
 " conceive of Peter as a liberal Christian from the be- 
 " ginning, else he would have emphasised his sentiments 
 " more clearly in his first speech " (p. 227). 
 
 Would it not have been then more in accordance with 
 this first conception to leave out altogether the words in 
 italics, " to all that are afar off" ? 
 
 " The caution, which must be attributed to him, if his 
 
 T 
 
2 74 The Credibility of [App 
 
 " liberal feelings respecting the Gentiles were real — the 
 " insinuation of a corollary at the end of his two addresses 
 " in a dexterous indirect manner (ii. 39 ; iii. 26), are 
 " unlike the rash boldness of his character ^^ {ibid.). 
 
 And yet at Antioch We see him guilty of weak and 
 timid " vacillations." If these vacillations were neither 
 weak nor timid, but the result of indecision and uncer- 
 tainty as to the right course to pursue, they are still more 
 unintelligible. For why should he have deviated from his 
 usual habit at Antioch at all ? Would not that have been 
 ''unlike the rash boldness of his character" ? Any how, 
 the words in iii. 26, " Unto you first God, having raised 
 up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in tiu'ning away 
 every one of you from his iniquities," remind us of 
 " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and 
 the reply, " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona," while the 
 whole sentiment is in striking harmony with his own 
 words recorded in v. 19, "Eepent ye therefore, and be 
 converted", that your sins may be blotted out, when the 
 times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the 
 Lord." While the word frst, if genuine, contains by 
 imphcation the germ of the former sentiment, " to all that 
 are afar off." — See also Alford in loco. 
 
 Dr. Davidson specifics several words which mark the 
 speeches of Peter as the work of St. Luke himself, or the 
 writer of the third Gospel. It may, therefore, be in- 
 teresting to collect some of those which are not charac- 
 teristic of St. Luke, e.g. — 
 
 iva>Ti(Tacr6e, v. 15, is used nowhere else in the New 
 Testament, and may, therefore, have been used by Peter, 
 as on the hypothesis we have none of his writings, 
 especially as it represents the Hebrew he'ezm. 
 
 fiedvovatv, nowhere else in St. Luke, a different ex- 
 pression, before, v. 13. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 275 
 
 e/c^ew^ V. 1 1 , used three times in iliis speech, is only used 
 elsewhere by St. Luke in Acts xxii. 20. 
 
 6pa(Tei<i oylrovrac .... ivinrvia evvrrviacrdy^aovrai, only 
 here, from Joel. 
 
 repara koX aefiela, v. 19, not in the Gospel, only in the 
 Acts. 
 
 aTfilSa Kairvov, only here, from Joel. 
 
 fieraa-TpacpT^a-eTai,, v. 20, only here, from Joel. 
 
 i'7ri(f)avri, only here, from Joel. 
 
 airoSeSeLy/xivov, v. 22, this participle nowhere else in 
 the New Testament. 
 
 mpca-fiivr), v. 23, this participle again in Peter^s speech, 
 X. 42, nowhere else in the Acts. 
 
 irpo'yvdiaeL, also at 1 Pet. i. 2, nowhere else in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 ckBotov, nowhere else in the New Testament. 
 
 'Trpoairrj^avre'i, nowhere else in the New Testament. 
 
 cdhlvati^ V. 24, nowhere else in St. Luke. 
 
 rj'yaWiacraTo, v. 26, from the Psalms. This verb occurs 
 elsewhere, twice in St. Luke, once in the Acts, and three 
 times in the First Epistle of Peter. 
 
 fidpTvpe^, V. 32. Of. i. 22 ; iii. 15 ; v. 32 ; x. 39. 41 ; 
 1 Pet. V. 1. 
 
 vfcoeeis, V. 33. Cf. v. 31 ; 1 Pet. v. 6. 
 
 Without pressing this evidence too much, it undoubtedly 
 goes to show that there is a very considerable element in 
 this speech linguistically independent of St. Luke, and 
 in some minor particulars corresponding to the language 
 of 1 Peter. On the other hand, the expressions selected 
 by Dr. Davidson are of slight value, for Bia ')(eipSiv, hia 
 o-TOfiaTO'i, a')(^pi TTj'i rifxipa<i ravTTj'i are such manifest He- 
 braisms that they might well be used by any Jew, while 
 da(f)aXa)<i (36) is only used once by St. Mark, and once 
 by St. Luke besides, and dapLevoi<i (14) nowhere else but 
 in xxi. 17. Neither is it fair to say that "the language 
 " of Luke also appears in what Peter says in v. 29 — 32, as 
 
 T 2 
 
276 The Credibility of [App 
 
 " is evident from Kpeixaa-avre^ eVt ^vXov, v. 30, x. 39," see- 
 ing that it is Feter wlio is speaking in every place. Cf. 
 1 Pet. ii. 24. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Let us now take tbe speecli of Peter in ctap. iii. : 
 '' Tlie God of our fathers hath glorified His Sou " (7rat9, 
 only here, and at 26 and iv. 27. 30, the Apostle's prayer, 
 in which we can trace Peter's hand, and in iv. 25, of 
 David) "Jesus." Cf. 1 Pet. i. 21. "Who raised Him 
 up from the dead, and gave Him glory." apyriyov, again 
 by Peter, v. 31, nowhere else in the New Testament, 
 except twice in the Epistle to the Hebrews. " Whom God 
 hath raised from the dead." Cf. " that raised Him up 
 from the dead," 1 Pet. i. 21. Kara dyvoiav eirpa^are, 
 V. 17. Cf. 1 Pet. i. 14, ev rrj ar/voia vficjv, only twice 
 besides in the New Testament. " But those things which 
 God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, 
 that Christ should suffer. He hath so fulfilled," v. 18. 
 Cf. 21, 22, and " Of which salvation the prophets have 
 inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the 
 grace that should come unto you : searching what, or 
 what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in 
 them did signify, when it testified beforehand the suffer- 
 ings of Christ, and the glory that should follow," 1 Pet. 
 i. 10, 11. Cf. also ^' Whom the heaven must receive until 
 the times of the restitution of all things," with " And hope 
 to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at 
 the revelation of Jesus Christ" (cf. 1 Pet. i. 5 ; v. 1) ; and 
 " When the times of refreshing shall come from the pre- 
 sence of the Lord," with " That when His glory shall be 
 revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy," 1 Pet. 
 iv. 13. The allusion also to the prophets "from Moses 
 to Samuel, and those that follow after," finds its counter- 
 part in the reference to " the prophets " generally, 1 Pet. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 277 
 
 i. 10, in the double quotation from Isaiah, 1 Pet. i. 24, 
 ii. 6, the example drawn from the obedience of Sara, 
 iii. 6, and the longsuffering of God in the days of 
 Noah, iii. 20. Cf. also Acts ii. 29. We are not at liberty 
 to assume the genuineness of the First Epistle of Peter; 
 but it is at least worthy of observation that a speech 
 ascribed to him in the Acts should have so many points 
 of incidental contact with an Epistle commonly received 
 as his. Probably Dr. Davidson does not consider that 
 both th6 Epistle and the speech proceeded from St. 
 Luke\ 
 
 XIX. 
 
 We come now to the speech in the fourth chapter, and 
 the prayer of the Apostles, in which it is not improbable 
 that the mind of Peter, as their spokesman, may be 
 traced. It will be sufficient if we can discover points of 
 resemblance between the several speeches of Peter, or 
 between any one of them and his Epistles. 
 
 In the tenth verse there is the same brief summary as 
 before, " Whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the 
 dead,'' '^And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath 
 raised from the dead :" the same assertion in both, 
 that the miracle was wrought through the name of Jesus ; 
 cf. 1 Pet. iv. 14, and one reading of iv. 16 : the same 
 virtual assertion of Jesus as the exclusive Saviour, iii. 23 
 and iv. 12. Notice also the fact that the word acoTTjpla is 
 used five times in the Epistles of St. Peter, as often, 
 that is, as in any single Epistle of St. Paul ; and that the 
 Second Epistle of Peter five times couples the word crwTifjp 
 with the name of Jesus Christ. Compare again the 
 quotation from the Psalms, in v. 11, with those in Acts 
 
 ■* M. Kenan speaks of the First Epistle of Peter as an " opuscule dont 
 rautheuticitc n'est pas impossible, et qui est en tout cas de Tage aposto- 
 lique." Saint Paul, p. xxiii. 
 
278 The Credibility of [Ait 
 
 i. 20; ii. 29; and above all with the famous words in 
 1 Pet. ii. 4, ''To whom coming, as unto a living stone, 
 disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and pre- 
 cious." This is, perhaps, nearly as much resemblance as 
 we could expect to find in brief extracts taken from any 
 one author, and possibly rather more than we could 
 obtain in passages equally brief from different authors, 
 of whom we know as little as we know of Peter. And 
 as far as we can rely on evidence so purely internal and 
 so slight, it goes to show, not only the accuracy and 
 credibihty of the writer of the Acts, but also the genuine- 
 ness of, let us say, at least the First Epistle of St. 
 Peter. 
 
 With respect to the prayer of the Apostles, w. 
 24 — 30, we have again, in v. 25, a quotation from 
 Psalm ii. ; the word Trat? applied twice to Jesus, as in 
 iii. 13. 26, as well as to David, who as the ancestor of 
 Jesus, was God^s 7rat9, v. 25. The determination of God's 
 counsel, v. 28, as before ii. 23. In v. 29 the word inreCKr), 
 a rare word in the New Testament, was the expression 
 of the very form which the threat took, v. 17, while 
 /Liexa Trappr}aia<; Xdkelv was before, ii. 29, elirelv fiCTa irap- 
 pr]aui<;. Lastly, " stretching forth Thy hand to heal," et9 
 laaiv (once used by St. Luke), was the natural form that 
 the request would take after a a-rj/xeiov t^9 taa"e&)9, v. 22. 
 
 We come now to the words of " Peter and the other 
 Apostles,'^ in chap. v. 29 — 32, " We ought to obey God 
 rather than men." Cf. the answer of Peter and John, 
 iv. 19, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to 
 hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." It 
 may be observed that in the First Epistle of Peter there 
 are frequent injunctions to obedience in spite of suffering, 
 e. g. i. 7 ; ii. 19 ; iii. 14— 18 ; iv. 1, 12—19. This was the 
 language of one who had " departed from the presence 
 of the council, rejoicing that he was counted worthy to 
 suffer shame for His name." 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 279 
 
 Acts v. 30, 31. 
 The God of our fathers raised up 
 Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on 
 a tree. 
 
 Him hath God raised up to be a 
 Prince and a Saviour, to give re- 
 pentance to Israel, and forgiveness 
 of sins. 
 
 Acts ii. 23, 
 Ye have taken, and by wicked 
 hands have crucified and slain. 
 
 iii. 14. 
 Ye denied the Holy One and the 
 Just, and desired a murderer to be 
 granted unto you; and killed the 
 Prince of life. 
 
 iv. 10. 
 
 Whom ye crucified, whom God 
 raised from the dead; whereof we 
 are witnesses. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 24. 
 Who his owTi self bare our sins in 
 his own body on the tree, &c. 
 
 apxvy^i^ Kai (rwTrjpa, as before, 
 and in 2 Pet. 
 
 Acts iii. 13, 
 
 The God of our fathers hath 
 glorified his Son Jesus. 
 
 ii. 33. 
 
 Therefore being by the right hand 
 of God exalted, and having received 
 of the Father the promise of the 
 Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, 
 which ye now see and hear. 
 
 ii. 36. 
 
 Therefore let all the house of 
 Israel know assuredly that God hath 
 made that same Jesus, whom ye 
 have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 
 
 ii. 38. 
 Repent, and be baptized for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall re- 
 ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 1 Pet. iii. 22. 
 Who is gone into heaven, and is 
 on the right hand of God; angels 
 and authorities and powers being 
 made subject unto him. 
 
 Shall we say that this strong similarity, which is obvious 
 
28o 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 in the speeclies of Peter, is the eflfect of accident, or of 
 design, or of reality and truth? In ch. viii., in Peter's 
 address to Simon Magus, v. 22, we have traces of the same 
 teaching : " Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and 
 pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be 
 forgiven thee." We come now to the speech in 
 
 Acts x. 34—43. 
 Of a truth I perceive that God is 
 no respecter of persons : but in every 
 nation he that feareth him, and 
 worketh righteousness, is accepted 
 with him. 
 
 The word {rhv \6yov) which God 
 sent unto the children of Israel, 
 preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he 
 is Lord of all.) 
 
 That word {^r\fia), I say, ye know, 
 which was published throughout all 
 J udffia, and began from Galilee, after 
 the baptism which John preached. 
 
 1 Pet. i. 17. 
 And if ye call on the Father, who 
 without respect of persons judgeth 
 according to every man's work. 
 
 ii. 17. 
 Honour all men. Love the bro- 
 therhood. Fear God. . . . For this 
 is thankworthy, &c. 
 
 Acts ii. 39. 
 The promise is unto you, and to 
 your children. 
 
 iii. 26. 
 Unto you first God, having raised 
 up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless 
 you, in turning away every one of 
 you from his iniquities. 
 
 iii. 20. 
 He shall send Jesus Christ, which 
 before was preached unto you. 
 
 1 Pet. iii. 22. 
 Who is gone into heaven, and is 
 on the right hand of Gotl; angels 
 and authorities and powers being 
 made subject unto him. 
 
 i. 2. 
 
 Grace unto you, and peace, be 
 multiplied. 
 
 V. 14. 
 Peace be with you all that are in 
 Christ Jesus. 
 
 1.25. 
 And this is the word {prifia) which 
 by the Gospel is preached unto you. 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 281 
 
 [Notice here in tlie Acts and tlie Epistle the use con- 
 secutively of X6yo<; and prjfia, '' being born again by the 
 word {Sia Xoyov) of God/^] 
 
 How God anointed Jesus of Naza- 
 reth with the Holy Ghost and with 
 power : who went about doing good, 
 and healing all that were oppressed 
 of the devil; for God was with him. 
 
 And we are his toitnesses of all 
 things which he did both in the lantJ 
 of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; 
 whom they slew and hanged on a 
 tree. 
 
 Acts i. 22. 
 Beginning from the baptism of 
 John. 
 
 ii. 22. 
 Jesu& of Nazareth, a man approved 
 of God among you by miracles and 
 wonders and signs, which God did 
 by him in the midst of you, as ye 
 yourselves also know. 
 
 iv. 10. 
 Be it known unto you all, and to 
 all the people of Israel, that by the 
 name of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 iv. 27. 
 Thy holy child Jesus, whom thou 
 hast anointed. 
 
 1 Pet. v. 9. 
 
 Whom resist . . . knowing that 
 the same afflictions, &c. 
 
 Acts i. 21. 
 Of these men . . . must one be 
 ordained to be a tvitness with us of 
 his resurrection. 
 
 ii. 32. 
 This Jesus hath God raised up* 
 whereof we all are toitnessea. 
 
 iii. 15. 
 And kiUed the Prinee of life, 
 whom God hath raised from the 
 dead ; whereof we are witnesses. 
 
 iv. 29. 
 
 Grant unto thy servants, that 
 with all boldness they may speak 
 thy word. 
 
 V. 32. 
 
 And we are his loitnesses of these 
 things; and so is also the Holy 
 Ghost, whom God hath given to 
 them that obey him. 
 
282 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 Him God raised up the third day, 
 and shewed him openly ; not to all 
 the people, bnt unto witnesses chosen 
 before of God, even to us, who did 
 eat and drink with him after he rose 
 from the dead. And he commanded 
 us to preach unto the people, and to 
 testify that it is he which was or- 
 dained of God to be the Judge of 
 quick and dead. 
 
 1 Pet. v. 1. 
 The elders which are among you I 
 exhort, who am also an elder, and a 
 witness of the sufterings of Christ. 
 
 Acts li. 23. 
 Him ... ye have taken, and by 
 wicked hands have crucified and 
 slain ; whom God hath raised up. 
 
 ii. 32. 
 This Jesus hath God raised up. 
 
 iii. 15. 
 And killed the Prince of life, 
 whom God hath raised from the 
 dead ; whereof we are witnesses. 
 
 iv. 10. 
 By the name of Jesus Christ of 
 Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom 
 God raised from the dead. 
 
 V. 30. 
 The God of our fathers raised up 
 Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on 
 a tree. 
 
 1 Pet. i. 3. 
 A lively hope by the resun-ection 
 of Jesus Christ from the dead. 
 
 i. 21. 
 Who by him do believe in God, 
 that raised him up from the dead, 
 and gave him glory. 
 
 iii. 18. 
 
 Being put to death in the flesh, 
 but quickened by the Spirit. 
 
 [Cf. also for the truth of the 
 statement. Acts i. 8. Ye shall be 
 witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, 
 and in all Judjea, and in Samaria, 
 and unto the uttermost part of the 
 earth.] 
 
 1 Pet. iv. 5. 
 Who shall give account to him 
 that is ready to judge the quick and 
 the dead . . . that they might be 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 283 
 
 judged according to men in the 
 flesh, but live according to God in 
 the spirit. 
 
 Acts i. 16. 
 To him give all the prophets wit- This scripture must needs have 
 
 ness, that through his name whoso- been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost 
 ever believeth in him shall receive by the mouth of David spake before, 
 remission of sins. &c. 
 
 ii. 16. 
 This is that which was spoken by 
 the prophet Joel. 
 
 ii.25. 
 
 For David speaketh concerning 
 him, &c. 
 
 iii. 18, 19. 
 
 Those things which God before 
 had shewed by the mouth of all his 
 prophets, that Christ should suffer, 
 he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye 
 therefore, and be converted, that 
 your sins may be blotted out. 
 
 iii. 24. 
 Yea, and all the prophets from 
 Samuel and those that follow after, 
 as many as have spoken, have like- 
 wise foretold of these days. 
 
 iv. 11. 
 This is the stone which was set at 
 nought of you builders. 
 
 iv. 25. 
 
 Who by the mouth of thy servant 
 David hast said. 
 
 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. 
 
 Of which salvation the prophets 
 have inquired and searched dili- 
 gently, who prophesied of the grace 
 that should come unto you : search- 
 ing what, or what manner of time 
 the Spirit of Christ which was in 
 them did signify, when it testified 
 beforehand the sufferings of Christ, 
 and the glory that should follow, 
 
 Tho reader is now in a position to decide for himself 
 Low far this '^address of Peter is altogether Pauline/' 
 
284 The Credibility of [Afp 
 
 He has seen how frequently Peter speaks of himself 
 and his fellow- Apostles as witnesses, fidpTvpe<;, to Christ. 
 It is a remarlaihle fact that St. Paul never calls himself 
 a WITNESS of Jesus Christ in any one of his Epistles. At 
 Antioch in Pisidia, with wonderful accuracy, he speaks of 
 *"' them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem/' 
 being " his witnesses unto the people ;" and in Acts xxii. 
 15 ; xxvi. 16, he says that the Lord declared he should be 
 a u-itness, but nowhere speaking in his own person does he 
 use this expression of himself or his teaching. His usage 
 of fidprvi, fiaprvpeiv and fiapTvpla, which is not frequent, 
 is altogether different. Cf. Rom. i. 9 ; Gal. iv. ] 5 ; Col. 
 iv. 13; Tit. i. 13. fiaprvpiov he uses in Peter's sense two 
 or three times only, e. g. 1 Cor. i. 6; 2 Thess. i. 10. 
 
 Here, then, at least is one important point in which this 
 address is most manifestly not Pauline : it is the language 
 of one who was an eye-witness, and not of one whose wit- 
 ness to Christ was of a spiritual nature. And if the 
 writer fabricated these speeches, he took care to make 
 them in this respect marvellously consistent and appro- 
 priate. Is it not possible, then, that there may be more 
 accuracy in his report of them than some of us are inclined 
 to think. If Dr. Davidson says that " ' preaching peace 
 " 'hy Jesus Christ,' &c., resembles Eph. ii. 17;" and that 
 ''the similarity between x. 26 and xiv. 15, x. 42 and xvii. 
 "31, could hardly be accidental" (p. 229), Are we not 
 entitled to say that a difference such as this can hardly be 
 accidental ? and that the strong likeness which pervades 
 all the speeches of Peter, and even in its degree his First 
 Epistle (for we will go no farther), can hardly be acciden- 
 tal ? that it is very strong internal evidence of a real relation- 
 ship, which marks them as the work of one and the same 
 mind, and the kind of evidence which could not well be 
 preconcerted ? And if, on the other hand, which we do not 
 deny, there are conspicuous instances of similarity with 
 the Epistles of St. Paul (though instances not sufficient to 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 285 
 
 outweigli this), does it not go to show that the dissimilarity 
 between the Apostles in their doctrine from the first was 
 after all not so great as Di\ Davidson would desire us to 
 believe ? 
 
 We come now to the few words of Peter in 
 
 Acts xi. 14—17. 
 Who shall tell thee words, whereby 
 thou and all thy house shall be 
 saved. 
 
 Then remembered I the word of 
 the Lordj how he said, John indeed 
 baptized with water; but ye shall 
 be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Forasmuch then 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 
 withstand God ? 
 
 Acts ii. 21. 
 Whosoever shall call on the name 
 of the Lord shall be saved. (From 
 Joel.) 
 
 ii. 40. 
 Save yourselves from this un- 
 toward generation. 
 
 X. 45. 
 
 To him give all the prophets wit- 
 ness, that through his name whoso- 
 ever believeth in him shall receive 
 remission of sins, &c., &c. 
 
 i. 5. 
 John truly baptized with water; 
 but ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost not many days hence. 
 
 Matt. iii. 11,— Cf. Luke iii. 16. 
 . I indeed baptize you with water, 
 , . . but he that cometh after me 
 . . . shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 John i. 26. 32, 33. 
 
 I baptize with water. ... I saw 
 the Spirit descending from heaven 
 like a dove, and it abode upon him. 
 And I knew him not : but Tie that 
 sent me to baptize with water, the 
 same said unto me. Upon whom thou 
 shalt see the Spirit descending, and 
 remaining on him, the same is he 
 which baptizeth with the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 Acts ii, 38. 
 
 Repent, and be baptized every one 
 of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
 for the i-cmission of sins, and ye shall 
 receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
 
286 The Credibility of [App 
 
 V. 32. 
 
 And we arc his witnesses of these 
 things; and so is also the Holy 
 Ghost, whom God hath given to 
 them that obey him. 
 
 1 Pet. i. 2. 
 
 Elect according to the foreknow- 
 ledge of God the Father, through 
 sanctification of the Spirit, unto 
 obedience and sprinkling of the blood 
 of Jesus Christ. 
 
 i. 12. 
 
 By them that have preached the 
 gospel unto you with the Holy 
 Ghost sent down from heaven. 
 
 i. 22. 
 
 Seeing ye have purified your souls 
 in obeying the truth through the 
 Spirit, &c. 
 
 It is the more important to notice the above references 
 to the Gospels, because Dr. Davidson remarks (p. 229), 
 '' ' John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be bap- 
 " ' tized with the Holy Ghost,' The same statement is 
 " made by Luke himself, Acts i. 5, which renders it highly 
 *' probable that the evangelist attributed the words of the 
 " Baptist to Jesus incorrectly. None of the gospels assign 
 " them to the latter, all to the former." If the third Gospel 
 was written so late as the second century, as Dr. Davidson 
 supposes, the writer of the Acts must have thus assigned 
 them in the face of contrary evidence ; and the Gospel 
 of St. John, which according to him was later still, must 
 again have gone counter to St. Luke in the Acts. Surely 
 the view that must commend itself to common sense is 
 that which men of common sense have hitherto ordinarily 
 adopted, viz. that in such a case as this the Evangelists 
 are sufficiently trustworthy. What must be the canons of 
 a criticism which ever appears first to assume what it has 
 to prove, and then employs the assumption as the basis of 
 further inferences ? Is there any reason why the sound 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 287 
 
 and salutary principle of English law, to believe the pri- 
 soner innocent till he has been proved guilty, should not 
 obtain also in our criticism of the Bible ? We are not 
 bound on a 'priori grounds to assume that the Evangelists 
 made use of falsehoods and misrepresentations in their 
 narrative, though it is open to us to prove that they have 
 done so, if we can. Till this is demonstrably the case it 
 is more consistent with the maxims of fair play to allow 
 them the benefit of the doubt. 
 
 XX. 
 
 ''Let us now look at PauFs discourses. The first 
 "recorded is that at Antioch (xiii. 16 — 41), the resem- 
 " bin nee of which to those of Peter and Stephen is 
 " sufficiently obvious. ^^ 
 
 This being, then, undeniably the case (partly perhaps to 
 be accounted for from Sanies own recollection of Stephen's 
 apology which no doubt made a deep impression upon 
 him), it will be best to point out the differences between 
 the speech at Antioch and the others. For a certain 
 general similarity may be allowed if we can discover any 
 intrinsic diSerence. 
 
 First, then, Paul begins, " Men of Israel, and ye that 
 fear God, give audience.'' In chap. i. Peter begins, 
 " Men and brethren." In chap, ii., " Ye men of Juda3a, 
 and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto 
 you, and hearken to my words ;" afterwards at v. 22, "Ye 
 men of Israel, hear these words;" and again at v. 29, 
 "Men and brethren." At iii. 12, "Ye men of Israel." 
 At iv. 8, " Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel." 
 Stephen begins, " Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken." 
 In X. and xi. Peter uses no form of introduction at all. 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that at Antioch there is at once 
 similarity and difierence in the style of address; and if 
 
288 The Credibility of [App 
 
 it be said tliat this is a small matter, we must bear in 
 mind that the only data we have to go upon arc the minute 
 particularities of the language; take away these, and we are 
 launched upon a sea without a shore, having ourselves 
 neither a rudder nor a compass. 
 
 " The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers." 
 There is no mention of this fact in the speeches of Peter 
 nor in the apology of Stephen ; but it is consistent with 
 the teaching of him who in the Epistle to the Romans wrote 
 the great chapters on election. " And exalted the people 
 when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egj^t, and 
 with a high arm brought He them out of it." Here first 
 of all there is no mention of the detailed history which 
 occupies Stephen in his apology till v. 36. Then the 
 expression " exalted," xr^wcrev^ is not used by Stephen, 
 though it is twice used by Peter, of our Lord, in his 
 speeches in the Acts. 
 
 The expression used by Stephen is " deliver" (vii. 25, 
 35), aaiTripiav, \vTp(OTi]V. 
 
 "Wben they dwelt as strangers," eV rfj irapoiKia. 
 Trdpotfco^, is twice used by Stephen; once in quoting the 
 promise to Abraham, v. 6, and once of Moses, v. 29. 
 Not at all by Peter in the Acts. 
 
 "With a high arm,'^ not used by Stephen. 
 
 " And about the time of forty years suffered He their 
 manners in the wilderness." Stephen says, '^ He brought 
 them out, after that he had showed wonders and signs in 
 the land of Egj^jt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilder- 
 ness forty years." Peter makes no mention of it. 
 
 Acts xiiL 19, 20. 
 And when he had destroyed There is no mention made of any 
 
 seven nations in the land of Chanaan, of these facts by Stephen, 
 he divided their land to them by 
 lot. And after that he gave unto 
 them judges about the space of 
 four hundred and fifty years, until 
 Samuel the propliet. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 289 
 
 Acts xiii 21, 22. 
 
 And afterward theydesired a king: No mention of this by Stephen; 
 
 and God gave unto them Saul the but naturally mentioned by Saul of 
 
 son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Tarsus, who was also " of the tribe 
 
 Benjamin, by the space of forty years, of Benjamin " (Phil. iii. 5). 
 
 And when he had removed him, Stephen says of the tabernacle of 
 
 he raised up unto them David to be witness, not mentioned by Paul, 
 
 their king ; to whom also he gave " which also our fathers that came 
 
 testimony, and said, I have found after brought in with Jesus into the 
 
 David, the son of Jesse, a man after possession of the Gentiles, whom 
 
 mine own heart, which shall fulfil God drave out before the face of 
 
 all my will, our fathers, unto the days of David, 
 
 who found favour with God " (Acts 
 vii. 45, 46). 
 
 Here tlie similarity entirely ends. Stephen goes on to 
 speak of the tabernacle and temple. Paul says, " Of this 
 man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised 
 unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.'' Peter had said on the day 
 of Pentecost, using the same fact, but with a different 
 purpose, " Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you 
 of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, 
 and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore 
 being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with 
 an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to 
 the flesh. He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne ; he 
 seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that 
 His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see 
 corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we 
 all are witnesses." 
 
 The remainder of Paul's speech then from v. 23 to 
 V. 41 has no parallel whatever in Stephen's apology. The 
 similarity between the two is comprised in Acts vii. 36, 
 and xiii. 17; Acts vii. 45, 46, and xiii. 22. Let the 
 reader compare the two addresses, and the difference will 
 be found more striking than the similarity. They are 
 alike only in being historical recapitulations of God's deal- 
 ings with His people. There must, therefore, be points 
 common to both, but the points dwelt upon are different 
 in the two. Paul leads his audience up to the seed of David, 
 
 U 
 
290 
 
 TJie Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 Stephen to the temple of Solomon. Panl dwells only on 
 the Exodus, tlie wanderings, the conquest, the dominion 
 of the judges, the commencement of the monarchy in 
 Saul and David. Stephen dwells upon the call of Abra- 
 ham, the promise to Abraham, the birth of the patriarchs, 
 the history of Joseph, the history of the nation in Egyjit, 
 the birth and personal history of Moses, the idolatry in 
 the wilderness, and the fortimes of the tabernacle. Ad- 
 mitting that Stephen's apology suggested, as it may have 
 done, the early part of Paul's sermon, is it not remarkable 
 how greatly he has diverged from it ? With regard to the 
 latter portion of the speech at Antioch, Dr. Davidson 
 says, "The second part (23 — 31) is analogous to the two 
 " discourses of Peter in the 3rd and 10th chapters. The 
 " next paragraph resembles Peter's first discourse (32 — 37) . 
 " Like Peter, Paul lays all emphasis on the resurrection, 
 "not the death of Jesus, and uses the 16th Psalm in 
 "proof of that resurrection" (p. 230). 
 
 We must set them side by side, in order that we may 
 see the likeness and the difference. 
 
 Acts xiii. 23—31. 
 
 Of this man's seed 
 hath God according to 
 his promise raised unto 
 Israel a Saviour, Jesus : 
 when John had first 
 preached before his com- 
 ing the baptism of re- 
 pentance to all the peo- 
 ple of Israel. And as 
 John fulfilled his course, 
 he said. Whom think ye 
 that I am ? I am not 
 he. But, behold, there 
 Cometh one after me, 
 whose shoes of his feet 
 I am not worthy to loose. 
 Men and brethren, child- 
 ren of the stock of Abra- 
 ham, and whosoever 
 among you feareth God, 
 
 Acts iii. 13—26. 
 The God of Abraham, 
 and of Isaac, and of 
 Jacob, the God of our 
 fathers, hath glorified 
 his Son Jesus ; whom ye 
 delivered up, and denied 
 him in the presence of 
 Pilate, when he was de- 
 termined to let him go. 
 But ye denied the Holy 
 One and the Just, and 
 desired a murderer to be 
 granted unto you ; and 
 killed the Prince of life, 
 whom God hath raised 
 from the dead ; whci-eof 
 we arc witnesses. And 
 his name through faith 
 in his name hath made 
 this man strong, whom 
 
 Acts x. 34—43. 
 Of a truth I perceive 
 that God is no respecter 
 of persons : but in every 
 nation he that feareth 
 him, and worketh right- 
 eousness, is accepted 
 with him. The word 
 which God sent unto 
 the children of Israel, 
 preaching peace by Jesus 
 Christ : (he is Lord of 
 all :) that word, I say, 
 ye know, which was 
 published throughout all 
 Judffia, and began from 
 Gahlce, after the baptism 
 which John preached ; 
 how God anointed Jesus 
 of Nazareth with the 
 Holy Ghost and with 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 29E 
 
 Acts xiii. 23—31. 
 to you is the word of 
 this salvation sent. For 
 they that dwell at Jeru- 
 salem, and their rulers, 
 because they knew him 
 not, nor yet the voices 
 of the prophets which 
 are read every Sabbath 
 day, they have fulfilled 
 them in condemning 
 him. And though they 
 found no cause of death 
 in him, yet desired they 
 Pilate that he should be 
 slain. And when they 
 had fulfilled all that was 
 written of him, they took 
 him dowTi from the tree, 
 and laid him in a sepul- 
 chre. But God raised 
 him from the dead : and 
 he was seen many days 
 of them which came up 
 with him from Galilee 
 to Jerusalem, who are 
 his witnesses unto the 
 people. 
 
 Acts iii. 13—26. 
 ye see and know : yea, 
 the faith which is by 
 him hath given him this 
 perfect soundness in the 
 presence of you all. And 
 now, brethren, 1 wot 
 that through ignorance 
 ye did it, as did also 
 your rulers. But those 
 things, which God be- 
 fore had shewed by the 
 mouth of all his prophets, 
 that Christ should suf- 
 fer, he hath so fulfilled. 
 Repent ye therefore, and 
 be converted, that yom* 
 sins may be blotted out, 
 when the times of re- 
 freshing shall come from 
 the presence of the 
 Lord ; and he shall send 
 Jesus Christ, which be- 
 fore was preached unto 
 you : whom the heaven 
 must receive until the 
 times of restitution of all 
 things, which God hath 
 spoken by the mouth of 
 all his holy prophets 
 since the world began. 
 For Moses truly said 
 unto the fathers, A pro- 
 phet shall the Lord your 
 God raise up unto you 
 of your brethren, like 
 unto me ; him shall ye 
 hear in all things what- 
 soever he shall say unto 
 you. And it shall come 
 to pass, that every soul, 
 which will not hear that 
 prophet, shall be de- 
 stroyed from among the 
 people. Yea, and all 
 the prophets from 
 Samuel and those that 
 follow after, as many as 
 
 u 2 
 
 Acts x. 34—43. 
 power : who went about 
 doing good, and healing 
 all that were oppressed 
 of the devil; for God 
 was with him. And 
 we are witnesses of all 
 things which he did 
 both in the land of the 
 Jews, and in Jerusalem ; 
 whom they slew and 
 hanged on a tree : him 
 God raised up the third 
 day, and shewed him 
 openly; not to all the 
 people, but unto wit- 
 nesses chosen before of 
 God, even to us, who 
 did eat and drink with 
 him after he rose from 
 the dead. And he com- 
 manded us to preach 
 unto the people, and to 
 testify that it is he 
 which was ordained of 
 God to be the Judge of 
 quick and dead. To 
 him give all the pro- 
 phets witness, that 
 through his name who- 
 soever believeth in him 
 shall receive remission 
 of sins. 
 
292 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 Acts iii. 13—26. 
 have spoken, have like- 
 wise foretold of these 
 days. Ye are the child- 
 ren of the prophets, and 
 of the covenant which 
 God made with our fa- 
 thers, saying unto Abra- 
 ham, And in thy seed 
 shall all the kindreds of 
 the earth be blessed. 
 Unto you first God, hav- 
 ing raised up his Son 
 Jesus, sent him to bless 
 you, in turning away 
 every one of you from 
 his iniquities. 
 
 The reader must judge for himself of the justice of the 
 allegation made above, but possibly it may strike him 
 that as both speakers on our hypothesis had but one topic 
 of discourse, and the same facts to proclaim, the diversity 
 in the treatment of them is, at least, as manifest as the 
 unavoidable similarity. 
 
 The " second paragraph" and " Peter's first discourse" 
 are as follows : — 
 
 Acts xiii. 32 — 41. 
 And we declare unto you glad 
 tidings, how that the promise which 
 was made unto the fathers, God 
 hath fulfilled the same unto us their 
 children, in that he hath raised up 
 Jesus again ; as it is also written in 
 the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, 
 this day have I begotten thee. And 
 as concerning that he raised him up 
 from the dead, now no more to 
 return to corruption, he said on this 
 wise, I will give you the sure mercies 
 of David. Wherefore he saith also 
 in another Psalm, Thou shalt not 
 suffer thine Holy One to see cor- 
 ruption. For David, after he had 
 served his own generation by the 
 will of God, fell on sleep, and was 
 laid unto his fatlicrs, and saw cor- 
 
 ACTS ii. 22—36. 
 Ye men of Israel, hear these 
 words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man 
 approved of God among you by 
 miracles and wonders and signs, 
 which God did by him in the midst 
 of you, as ye yourselves also know : 
 him, being delivered by the deter- 
 minate counsel and foreknowledge 
 of God, ye have taken, and by wicked 
 hands have crucified and slain : 
 whom God hath raised up, having 
 loosed the pains of death : because 
 it was not possible that he should be 
 holden of it. For David speaketh 
 concerning him, I foresaw the Lord 
 always before my face, for he is on 
 my right hand, that I should not be 
 moved : therefore did my heart re- 
 joice, and my tongue was glad; 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 29, 
 
 Acts xiii. 32 — 41. 
 ruption : but he, whom God raised 
 again, saw no corruption. Be it 
 known unto you therefore, men and 
 brethren, that through this man is 
 preached unto you the forgiveness 
 of sins : and by him all that believe 
 are justified from all things, from 
 which ye could not be justified by 
 the law of Moses. Beware therefore, 
 lest that come upon you, which is 
 spoken of in the prophets; Behold, 
 ye despisers, and wonder, and perish : 
 for I work a work in your days, a 
 work which ye shall in no wise be- 
 lieve, though a man declare it unto 
 you. 
 
 Acts ii. 22—36. 
 moreover also my flesh shall rest in 
 hope : because thou wilt not leave 
 my soul in hell, neither wilt thou 
 sufiier thine Holy One to see cor- 
 ruption. Thou hast made known to 
 me the ways of life; thou shalt 
 make me fall of joy with thy coun- 
 tenance. Men and brethren, let me 
 freely speak unto you of the patri- 
 arch David, that he is both dead and 
 buried, and his sepulchre is with us 
 unto this day. Therefore being a 
 prophet, and knowing that God had 
 sworn with an oath to him, that of 
 the fruit of his loins, according to 
 the flesh, he would raise up Christ 
 to sit on his throne ; he seeing this 
 • before spake of the resurrection of 
 
 Christ, that his soul was not left in 
 hell, neither his flesh did see cor- 
 ruption. This Jesus hath God raised 
 up, whereof we all are witnesses. 
 Therefore being by the right hand 
 of God exalted, and having received 
 of the Father the promise of the 
 Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, 
 which ye now see and hear. For 
 David is not ascended into the hea- 
 yens : but he saith himself. The 
 Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou 
 on my right hand, until I make thy 
 foes thy footstool. Therefore let all 
 the house of Israel know assuredly, 
 that God hath made that same 
 Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both 
 Lord and Christ. 
 
 Paul speaks about " glad tidings" and the fulfilment of 
 a promise (both of them specially Pauline ideas), which 
 Peter here does not. Both quote the 16th Psalm, but 
 each uses it in a difierent way. Paul quotes also the 
 55th of Isaiah, which Peter does not. Paul quotes also 
 the 2nd Psalm, which Peter does not here quote at all, 
 but which is used very differently by the disciples, and 
 for another purpose, in Acts iv. 25. Peter speaks not 
 
294 The Credibiliiy of [Apr 
 
 only of the resurrection but also of the ascension of Jesus, 
 which Paul does not. Peter " speaks freely" of the patri- 
 arch David, which Paul does not. Paul speaks character- 
 istically of the insufficiency of the Law of Moses, which Peter 
 does not ; and lastly, Paul speaks of the consequences of 
 not closing with the Gospel, as he was wont to do (Romans 
 X. 16, xi. 8; 2 Cor. iii. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16), but as 
 Peter does not. The reader on this evidence must form 
 his own decision, as also on the statement that " a Judaistic 
 " tinge detracts from" the "true type" of the "genuine 
 " Pauline doctrine" which is announced "but partially" 
 in w. 38, 39. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 We come now to the speech at Athens. "Kptwith- 
 " standing the difficulties inherent in the whole speech, 
 "... we still think it is the speaker's to a considerable 
 "extent" (p. 232). 
 
 The chief difficulty in Dr. Davidson's mind appears to 
 be the abrupt mention of the resurrection, *' a topic that 
 "must have been revolting to his hearers." It seems to 
 us that the mention of the resurrection is neither abrupt 
 nor prominent. The climax of the Apostle's speech is 
 the future judgment. The resurrection of Christ is 
 introduced subordinately in proof of iliat. Seeing that 
 direct mention of Christ's resurrection is found in almost 
 every Epistle of St. Paul, we need not be surprised to meet 
 with it here. It may perhaps be interesting to examine 
 some of the Unguistic features : ae^aafia in the New 
 Testament, only here and 2 Thess. ii. 4 ; dyvoelv in the 
 Acts, only here and in the speech at Antioch in Pisidia, 
 xiii. 27, but fifteen times in St. Paul's Epistles, only 
 four times elsewhere in the New Testament ; evcre^ecv, only 
 here and 1 Tim. v. 4 in the New Testament ; KarcuyyeXKeiv 
 often in the Acts, not at all in the Gospels, but seven 
 times in St. Paul's Epistles ; virdp'xevv frequent in the 
 Acts, but cli'ven times in St. Paul's Epistles ; ;\;etpo7roti7T09, 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 295 
 
 cf. Epli. ii. 11, and 2 Cor. v. 1; Col. ii. 11 ; Kaipb^, used by 
 *St. Paul thirty times, and often in this general sense ', 
 trapwyyeXXetv, frequent in the Acts, used by St. Paul twelve 
 times ; oltcovfievrj, five times in the Acts, once in Rom. x. 18. 
 
 It may be doubted whether " a writer familiar with the 
 "Pauline diction" (p. 235 n.) could designedly have 
 secured such phenomena as these. Indications of simi- 
 larity of thought between this speech and the Epistles 
 have been already mentioned. 
 
 " The view of Christ presented in the 31st verse is 
 " scarcely Pauline. It has indeed a certain analogy to 
 " Eom. i. 4, as De Wette observes ; but it is still too 
 " prosaic and flat for the apostle. ' The man whom God 
 '' ' hath ordained, whom he attested to all by raising him 
 " ' ffom the dead,' is more like the view in ii. 36; iv. 27; 
 " X. 38, than the elevated one entertained by the 
 "apostle respecting the person of Christ'' (p. 231). 
 With Rom. i. 4, we must bear in mind Rom. ii. 5 — 11 ; 
 vi. 23; xiv. 10—12; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 
 5. 7, 8 ; 2 Thess. i. 8, which all bear more or less directly 
 on the doctrine of futm^e judgment. Perhaps the reader will 
 find it difficult to decide which of these passages is the 
 more "elevated" one, and not less so whether strictly 
 speaking any one of them is " prosaic and flat." 
 
 XXII. 
 
 In the address to the elders at Miletus, " The apostle's 
 " discourse turns principally on himself, defending and 
 " setting forth his own conduct. Even at the close of it 
 " self is prominent. The hortatory element, which one 
 " naturally expects is subordinate (verses 28, 31). How 
 " could he thus recommend his own example instead of 
 "Christ's?" (p. 233). 
 
 The Apostle's discourse turns principally on himself in 
 Rom. vii. 7—25; xv. 15—32; 1 Cor. ii. 1—4, iv., ix.; 2 
 
296 The Credibility of [App 
 
 Cor. i., ii., X., xi., xii. ; Gal. i., ii.; Phil. iii. 4 — 14; iv. 11 
 —13; 1 Tim. i. 11—16; 2 Tim. i. 3. 11, 12; iv. 6—18/ 
 &c., &c. The hortatory element is subordinate even 
 in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and 
 indeed we may say g-enerally in the Pauline writings. 
 We also find the following words : " Wherefore I beseech 
 you, be ye followers of me," 1 Cor. iv. 16. " Be ye 
 followers of me, even as I also am of Christ," 1 Cor. 
 xi. 1 . " And ye became followers of us and of the Lord," 
 1 ITiess. i. 6. " For ye, brethren, became followers of 
 the churches of God," ii. 14. " For yourselves know how 
 ye ought to follow us : for we behaved not ourselves dis- 
 orderly among you ; neither did we eat any man's bread 
 for nought ; but wrought with labour and travail night 
 and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you ; 
 not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an 
 ensample unto you to follow us,'' 2 Thess. iii. 7 — 9. These 
 extracts may possibly throw some light on the address at 
 Miletus in regard to the particulars mentioned above. 
 
 " The strain of the discourse suits a later stand-point, 
 ^' betraying one who looked at the apostle with re- 
 " verential feelings, and believed that his great merits 
 " had not found appreciation. It is unlikely that he 
 " would say decidedly, ' I hnoxo that ye all shall see my 
 " 'face no more'" (p. 233). 
 
 If the stand-point was really so late as Dr. Davidson 
 believes, it is very strange that the historian should not 
 have carried his narrative down later than Paul's first 
 visit to Rome. If his object was the reconciliation in 
 men's minds of Paul and Peter, of the churches of the 
 circumcision and the uncircumcision, of the two great 
 parties as represented by their leaders, it is strange he 
 should have given us no account of their end. They 
 must have been persons obviously of suflicient interest to 
 render this desirable ; unless, indeed, his narrative created 
 the interest in them which existed, which, as a matter of fact. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 297 
 
 cannot have been the case_, for then why should they have 
 been selected to figure in the history ? Again, if in point of 
 fact St. Paul did visit the Asiatic Churches after this time, 
 it is not likely that the writer of a narrative so circum- 
 stantial as the Acts, should not have taken care to ascer- 
 tain it, in which case he would not have made his hero 
 speak thus of seeing the Ephesian elders no more. The 
 very circumstance that Paal is here made to say so goes a 
 certain way to show that the book was written at a time 
 when the course of events had not made it possible that, 
 after all, his apprehensions might be falsified, or had not 
 indeed falsified them. It is frequently asserted that the 
 early Church was not critical, but to say so is to run 
 counter to the evidence, if a work like this was the 
 product of the second century, because there is enough 
 of critical perception in it, on the hypothesis, to satisfy 
 the requirements of a narrative purporting to be to a 
 great extent personal, as well as generally speaking 
 original and authentic. On the hypothesis the writer was 
 enough of a critic to put into the mouth of his heroes 
 speeches which might be consistent with their character 
 and appropriate to their circumstances, and the evidence 
 of so much criticism in him argues a corresponding 
 amount of it in his readers. It is only the more critical 
 discipline of our own criticism which has enabled us to 
 detect a few slips and blemishes. 
 
 " The mode, too, in which the false teachers from among 
 " themselves are spoken of, corrupters of Christianity 
 " after his departure, is unlike the apostle. Nothing 
 " definite is stated; no distinct trait is given to identify 
 " them ; the expressions are general and vague, such as 
 " ' speaking perverse things.' All this is natural from a 
 '^ later person, referring to earlier things and avoiding 
 " glaring anachronism ; but it is unnatural in the mouth 
 " of the apostle whose experience of opponents was not 
 "new" (p. 234). 
 
298 The Credibility of [App 
 
 Then hero was at once a critical discernment which saw 
 pai'tially what was appropriate, though at the same time 
 it was inadequate to the true delineation of the character 
 it had taken in hand to draw. The point of failure, how- 
 ever, must be allowed to be very much a matter of opinion. 
 Some may possibly think that the historian evinces a 
 more correct appreciation of his subject than the critic, 
 or at least that the verdict of the latter is open to 
 criticism. For the general vagueness complained of we 
 may compare among St. Paul's enunciations of the future, 
 Rom. xi. 23. 25—32 ; 1 Cor. vi. 3 ; vii. 29—31 ; xv. 28. 
 51—54; 1 Thess. iv. 14—17. It is very difficult to 
 gather from these passages a clear and definite notion of 
 that future of which the Apostle spoke. Neither is his 
 description of existing teachers very intclHgible in 1 Tim. 
 i. 6 — 10, nor his prophecy of those to come in 1 Tim. iv. 
 1—3. 
 
 When we are told that "several Pauline expressions 
 " adduced," " prove nothing " as to the authenticity of the 
 speech '^^ because the writer of the Acts was a Pauline 
 " Christian" (p. 235), it is criticism which cuts away the 
 ground from under our feet, for by what can we test this 
 authenticity but by the known wi'itings of St. Paul ? The 
 canons of such criticism are mainly two : — 
 
 1. Determine the authenticity of any writing by the 
 internal evidence it affords. 
 
 2. Ignore such evidence when it goes to disprove any 
 foregone and arbitrary conclusion. 
 
 If this address has certain features peculiar to St. 
 Luke, we might not unnaturally infer that, without fabri- 
 cating, he had moulded it. If it has certain elements 
 characteristic of, or peculiar to, St. Paul, we might also 
 be forgiven for supposing that they were evidence of 
 its substantial agreement with the mind of the Apostle ; 
 and whether or not "the writer" "had written notes 
 " or a traditional sketch of the speech, which he freely 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 299 
 
 " reproduced," we might believe, in the absence of con- 
 clusive evidence to the contrary, that he had fairly and 
 sufficiently represented the main features of the occasion 
 and the main heads of St. PauFs discourse. 
 
 It may be interesting to notice the following cor- 
 respondences between this address and the Epistles of 
 St. Paul, which, perhaps, were scarcely within the reach 
 of a Pauline Christian to effect, unless he was endowed 
 with a larger share of critical perception than we can 
 venture to suppose likely. 
 
 Acts xx. 18 — 35. 
 Ye know, from the first day tliat 
 I came into Asia, after what manner 
 I have been with you at all seasons. 
 
 Serving the Lord with all hu- 
 
 ility of mind, and with many 
 
 tears, and temptations, which hefell 
 
 me by the lying in wait of the Jews. 
 
 And how I kept back nothing 
 taht v/aa profitable unto you. 
 
 Testifying both to the Jews, and 
 also to the Greeks, repentance to- 
 ward God, and faith toward oiu- 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 1 Thess. ii. 1, 9. 
 For yourselves, brethren, know 
 our entrance in unto you, that it 
 was not in vain. . . . For ye remem- 
 ber, brethren, our labour and travail : 
 for labouring night and day, because 
 we would not be chargeable unto 
 any of you, we preached unto you 
 the Gospel of God. 
 
 2 Cob. i. 5. 
 
 For as the sufferings of Christ 
 abound in us, so our consolation also 
 aboundeth by Christ. 
 
 1 Thess. ii. 14. 
 
 For ye, brethren, became followers 
 of the churches of God which in 
 Judffia are in Christ Jesus : for ye 
 also have suffered like things of your 
 own countrymen, even as they have 
 of the Jews. 
 
 2 Cob. viii. 10. 
 
 And herein I give my advice : for 
 this is expedient for you. 
 
 [Same word in both cases.] 
 
 Rom. i. 16 ; ii. 9, 10. 
 To the Jew first, and also to the 
 Greek. ... Of the Jew first, and also 
 of the Gentile. ... To the Jew first, 
 and also to the Gentile. 
 
300 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 And now, behold, I go bound in 
 the spirit unto Jerusalem, not know- 
 ing the things that shall befall me 
 there : save that the Holy Ghost 
 witnesseth in every city, saying that 
 bonds and afflictions abide me. 
 
 But none of these things move 
 me, neither count I my life dear 
 unto myself, so that I might finish 
 my course with joy, and the ministrj', 
 which I have received of the Lord 
 Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the 
 grace of God. 
 
 Wherefore I take you to record 
 this day, that I am pure from the 
 blood of all men. 
 
 Rom, viii. 1. 
 There is therefore now no con- 
 demnation to them which are in 
 Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
 the flesh, but after the Spirit. 
 
 2 COE. i. 8, 9. 
 We were pressed out of measure, 
 above strength, insomuch that we 
 despaired even of life : but we had 
 the sentence of death in ourselves, 
 that we should not trust in ourselves, 
 but in God which raiseth the dead. 
 
 Rom. viii. 35. 
 ^^^lo shall separate us from the 
 love of Christ ? • . . I am persuaded, 
 that neither death nor life, &c. 
 
 2 Cob. iv. 16. 
 
 For which cause we faint not; 
 but though our outward man perish, 
 yet the inward man is renewed day 
 by day. 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 6, 7. 
 
 I am now ready to be offered, and 
 the time of my departure is at hand. 
 I have fought a good fight, I have 
 finished my course, I have kept the 
 faith. 
 
 2 CoE. iv. 1. 
 
 Therefore seeing we have this 
 ministry, as we have received mercy, 
 we faint not. 
 
 Eph. iii. 8. 
 
 Unto me, who am less than the 
 least of all saints, is this grace given, 
 that I should preach among the 
 Gentiles the unsearchable riches of 
 Christ. 
 
 2 CoE. vii. 2. 
 
 Receive us ; we have wronged no 
 man, we have corrupted no man, we 
 have defrauded no man. 
 
 Gal. vi. 5. 
 For every man shall bear his own 
 burden. 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 301 
 
 For I have not sliunned to declare 
 unto you all the counsel of God. 
 
 Take heed therefore unto your- 
 selves, and to all the flock, over the 
 which the Holy Ghost hath made 
 you overseers, to feed the Church of 
 God, which he hath purchased with 
 his own blood. 
 
 For I know this, that after my 
 departing shall grievous wolves enter 
 in among you, not sparing the flock. 
 Also of your own selves shall men 
 arise, speaking perverse things, to 
 draw away disciples after them. 
 
 Eph. iii. 9, 10. 
 To make all men see what is the 
 fellowship of the mystery, which 
 from the beginning of the world 
 hath been hid in God, who created 
 all things by Jesus Christ: to the 
 intent that now unto the princi- 
 palities and powers in heavenly 
 places might be known by the 
 Church the manifold wisdom of God. 
 
 Coil. iv. 17. 
 
 And say to Archippus, Take heed 
 to the ministry which thou hast re- 
 ceived in the Lord, that thou fulfil 
 it. 
 
 1 Tim. iv. 16. 
 
 Take heed unto thyself, and unto 
 the doctrine ; continue in them : for 
 in doing this thou shalt both save 
 thyself, and them that hear thee. 
 
 Eph. i. 7. 
 In whom we have redemption 
 through his blood, the forgiveness 
 of sins, according to the riches of 
 his grace. 
 
 Col. i. 14. 
 In whom we have redemption 
 through his blood, even the forgive- 
 ness of sins. 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. 9, 10. 
 That day shall not come, except 
 there come a falling away first, and 
 that man of sin be revealed, the son 
 of perdition ; who opposeth and ex- 
 alteth himself above all that is called 
 God, or that is worshipped ; so that 
 he as God sitteth in the temple of 
 God, shewing himself that he is 
 God. . . . Whose coming is after the 
 working of Satan, with all power 
 and signs and lying wonders, and 
 with all deceivableness of unright- 
 eousness in them that perish; be- 
 cause they received not the love of 
 the truth, that they might be saved. 
 
302 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 Therefore watcVi {ypy]yopi'ni), and 
 remember, that by the space of three 
 years I ceased uot to «'«;•» every 
 one night and day with tears. 
 
 And now, brethren, I commend 
 you to God, and to the word of his 
 grace, which is able to build you up, 
 and to give you an inheritance 
 among all them which arc sanctified. 
 
 I have coveted no man's silver, or 
 gold, or apparel. 
 
 Yea, ye yourselves know, that 
 these hands have ministered unto 
 my necessities, and to them that 
 were with me. 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 5. 
 But watch (c^ipe) thou in all 
 things, endure afliictions, do the 
 work of an evangelist, make full 
 proof of thy ministry. 
 
 Col. i. 28. 
 ^^'^lom we preach, warning every 
 man, and teaching every man in all 
 wisdom ; that we may present every 
 man perfect in Christ Jesus. 
 
 Coi. ii. 6. 
 As ye have therefore received 
 Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in 
 him : rooted and built up in him, 
 and stablished in the faith, as ye 
 have been taught. 
 
 i. 12. 
 
 Giving thanks unto the Father, 
 which hath made us meet to be par- 
 takers of the inheritance of the 
 saints in light. 
 
 1 CoE. ix. 12. 15. 
 Nevertheless we have not used 
 this power J but sufl'er all things, 
 lest we should hinder tlic gospel 
 of Chi'ist. But I have used none of 
 these things : neither have I written 
 these things that it should be so 
 done unto me : for it were better for 
 me to die, than that any man should 
 make my glorying void. 
 
 1 CoE. iv. 12. 
 And labour, working with our 
 own hands. 
 
 1 Thess. ii. 9. 
 
 For ye remember, brethren, our 
 labour and travail : for labouring 
 night and day, because we would not 
 be chargeable unto any of you, we 
 preached unto you the Gospel of 
 God. 
 
 2 Thess. iii. 8—12. 
 
 Neither did we eat any man's 
 bread for nought ; but wrought with 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 303 
 
 labour and travail night and day, 
 
 that we might not be chargeable to 
 
 any of you : not because we have 
 
 not power, but to make ourselves 
 
 an ensample unto you to follow us. 
 
 I have shewed you all things, how For even when we were with you, 
 
 that so labouring ye ought to sup- this we commanded you, that if any 
 
 port the weak, and to remember the would not work, neither should he 
 
 words of the Lord Jesus, how he eat. For we hear that there are 
 
 said. It is more blessed to give than some which walk among you dis- 
 
 to receive. orderly, working not at all, but are 
 
 busybodies. Now them that are 
 such we command and exhort by 
 our Lord Jesus Chi-ist, that with 
 quietness they work, and eat their 
 own bread. 
 
 The reader must form Ms own judgment upon these 
 parallelisms which it would be easy to multiply. Certain 
 it is that almost every statement at Miletus has its coun- 
 terpart in one of the Pauline Epistles^ and yet the differ- 
 ence between the two is such^ that the likeness could 
 scarcely have been the result of designed imitation. 
 Perhaps, therefore, we may not unreasonably conclude 
 that we have here given in the language of Luke the 
 substance of a speech as it was actually delivered by 
 Paul, and not an imaginary or -fictitious address suited 
 merely to the idea of the occasion. And if this is so, we 
 may, perhaps, think also that the hypothesis which brings 
 the narrator nearest in time to the speaker is the one 
 most consistent with probability. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 ''The discourses of Paul in chapters xsii. and xxvi. 
 narrate the circumstances attending his conversion and 
 apostolic call to the Gentiles, and are substantially the 
 same as the prior account in the 9th chapter. The 
 three coincide in language and style, showing that they 
 
304 The Credibility of [Arp 
 
 " proceed from the same writer. All exhibit unhistoric 
 " elements, especially the first. The second agrees with 
 '' the first in making Paul go to Jerusalem to the apos- 
 " ties immediately after his conversion, contrary to the 
 *' epistle to the Galatians. The second states that the 
 " apostle had a vision of Christ in the temple ; and the 
 *' third agrees with the first in stating that he preached 
 " in Jerusalem and Judaea, soon after his embracing 
 '' Christianity. Besides xxii. 20 alludes to vii. 58; viii. 1, 
 *' and the words which Jesus addresses to Ananias in a 
 *' vision, in the 9th chapter, are spoken to the apostle 
 " himself in a vision (xxii. 21). The expression, too, in 
 " xxii. 16, 'be baptized and wash away thy sins,' &c., is 
 *' inappropriate in the mouth of Ananias at that time " 
 (p. 235). 
 
 Why so ? Was there any reason why Saul's baptism 
 should be delayed ? Was not baptism the indispensable 
 initiatory rite ? 1 Cor. i. 13—1 7 ; Col. ii. 12 ; Titus iii. 5. 
 Had this expression been inappropriate in the mouth of 
 Ananias at that time, there is every reason to believe 
 that the " Pauline Christian " who wrote the Acts would 
 have had the requisite discernment to abstain from 
 inserting it. Even assuming the origin that Dr. David- 
 son assigns to this book, one, namely, of partial imposition 
 and forgery, there is every reason to believe that the 
 writer would not have violated proprieties of this kind, 
 for in so doing he would have defeated his presumed 
 object. With regard to the unhistoric elements of the three 
 narratives, we must bear in mind that there are two ways 
 of approaching the study of them, and each involves an 
 assumption which it is impossible to avoid. 
 
 1 . In the belief that every discrepance is proof of inhe- 
 rent unsoundness and want of veracity in the narrative. 
 
 2. In the belief that all discrepances can be more or 
 less explained and reconciled. 
 
 The assumption implied in the first repudiates every 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 305 
 
 attempt to account for differences of statement, the critic 
 being already persuaded that the narrative is not and 
 cannot be true. The assumption involved in the second 
 allows to the imagination sufficient scope to conceive of 
 circumstances not contrary to the letter of the narrative 
 whichj without modifying, may serve to put it in another 
 light. If the accounts can be harmonised, then the 
 differences in them become an additional evidence of their 
 truth. We are bound not to reject the narrative till all 
 attempts of this kind have completely failed. We are 
 bound not to suffer an assumption that the narrative is 
 untrue to interfere with any endeavour to harmonise the 
 different accounts, for if so, we shall be uncritical. A 
 Chinese puzzle is capable of one solution ; if we assume it 
 to be so, we may eventually succeed in discovering what 
 the solution is. If we start with the assumption that 
 there is no solution, that alone will be fatal to the dis- 
 covery of any ; and, indeed, as long as we retain it, may 
 possibly dispose us to reject the true solution when 
 found. And it is not i-eally otherwise in the case of two 
 or more narratives which profess equally to give a true 
 account of the same transactions. On this principle, 
 then, some of the objections above have been already met. 
 Neither the second account, nor the first, necessarily 
 makes ''Paul go to Jerusalem to the apostles imme- 
 " diately after his conversion, contrary to the epistle to 
 " the Galatians," but rather the reverse. It is more con- 
 sistent with the letter of the narrative, certainly in the 
 first case, and it is not inconsistent with it in the second, 
 to suppose the contrary. The deficiencies of one account 
 must be supplied by ^he details of another, and there is 
 nothing uncritical in this, but it is precisely what we 
 should do in any similar case that happened in ordinary 
 life. Nay, it is what we should use our critical faculties 
 especially for in all cases where we were not hindered 
 from doing so by a preliminary discredit attaching to the 
 
 X 
 
3o6 The Credibility of [App 
 
 subject-matter in hand. To enter upon inquiries such as 
 these, however, with a prehminary discredit of this kind, 
 would be the gravest possible offence against the spirit 
 and the canons of criticism. 
 
 Had the writer not been conscious that he was speaking 
 the truth, no one could have been more alive than he to 
 the apparent discrepances of his narrative, which con- 
 sequently are thereby shown to be no discrepances. It 
 is little better than wantonness to confound the words 
 spoken to Ananias, and those addressed to Saul in ix. 15 
 and xxii. 21, or to find in Paid's own allusion to the part 
 he had taken against Stephen, a reason for believing the 
 speech containing it to be fictitious, xxii. 20. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 In Stephen's apology, " The divergences from the Old 
 " Testament are numerous. In some of them Stephen 
 '' probably followed current Jewish traditions ; hardly in 
 " all. A man of his knowledge and faith could scarcely 
 " have made so many historical mistakes ; but they might 
 *' have been owing to the incomplete materials which 
 *' the writer possessed — materials derived from one who 
 *' lived near enough the time of the events to furnish a 
 '' faithful outline of the argument followed by Stephen " 
 (p. 236). 
 
 Any how, as the mistakes are made, or the divergences 
 do exist, either Luke or Stephen must have made them ; 
 it matters but little who is responsible for them, and the 
 choice lies between believing Steph(*n's knowledge to have 
 been imperfect or his memory deceptive, and supposing 
 that Luke would have committed to writing a discourse so 
 inaccurate, of which the discredit would naturally reflect 
 upon the supposed speaker whom his narrative tended to 
 glorify. It seems hard to believe that sixty or seventy 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 307 
 
 years after the death of Stephen any one could have 
 furnished " a faithful outline of the argument followed by " 
 him. 
 
 " We do not affirm that the speeches to which wo 
 " have been referring are entirely supposititious in their 
 " contents and style. It is enough to maintain that they 
 " evince the hand of him that wrote the whole book. 
 '^ The general writer had at least a share in their produc- 
 " tion, so that their authenticity can only be held in a 
 " qualified sense. The speakers did not utter them as 
 
 " they now are Criticism disproves the idea that 
 
 " they were really in substance, and mostly in the very 
 " words_, uttered as written. The unhistorical element is 
 ^^ too apparent to warrant more than partial authenticity " 
 (p. 237). 
 
 This is equivalent to saying that the speeches are not 
 supposititious, and they are not genuine; they are not 
 historical, and they are not untrue. Without wishing to 
 deny the hand of the writer in them, there seems no 
 reason to disbelieve that they give a fair representation of 
 what was actually said and done on the various occasions. 
 All that we have to be jealous of is wilful perversion and 
 deliberate falsification. So long as the writer cannot be 
 convicted of this, his value as an historian remains. It 
 seems at times as if Dr. Davidson were endeavouring to 
 fix upon him no less a charge than this. He misrepre- 
 sented facts for a special purpose, which his recent critics 
 have been acute and happy enough to discover. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 " We are reminded, however, that the discourses of 
 Peter resemble one another, having so much internal 
 likeness as to show their common origin in the same 
 person. Not only their ideas, but even their phrases 
 
 X 2 
 
3o8 The Crec/idilify of [Apr 
 
 ' and modes of expression, it is said, arc similar and 
 ' analogous to the recognised peculiarities of Peter 
 
 ' in his first epistle The idea that while the Jews 
 
 ' believed they had destroyed Jesus they had been in- 
 ' strumental in exalting Him to glory, recurs in Peter's 
 ' addresses, ii. 23, &c.; iii. 13, &c.; v. 30; x. 39. Com- 
 ' pare with the passages that express the idea of Jesus 
 ' suffering by the determinate counsel of God, 1 Pet. i. 2. 
 ' 20; ii. 4. C. The antithesis between the purpose of 
 ' the Jews to annihilate the Redeemer and His glorious 
 ' resurrection occurs in 1 Pet. i. 19, &c. But the same 
 ' idea is in xiii. 27, &c. Psalm cxviii. 22 is quoted only 
 in Acts iv. 11 and 1 Pet. ii. 7, where it is applied to 
 
 Christ It cannot be denied that the Petrine 
 
 discourses differ perceptibly from the Pauline in ideas 
 
 and phraseology But is there any proof of 
 
 their proper authenticity in all this ? " (p. 238). 
 Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask A^^lat would 
 Dr. Davidson consider to be " any proof of their proper au- 
 " thenticity " ? Is it not reduced very much to a mere matter 
 of opinion, which, instead of being based upon facts, is made 
 to be the foundation of them ? It cannot be denied that 
 there are certain features peculiar to the discourses of 
 Peter in the Acts ; these featui-es are more or less common 
 to all of them. By these features they are distinguished 
 from the discourses of Paul, and the First Epistle of Peter 
 is observed to be characterised to a certain extent by 
 these same featm*es. If these features are such as would 
 not readily be copied by an imitator, or even observed 
 and noticed by a writer who, on the hypothesis, was not 
 critical, do they not at least go to show that in the absence 
 of all direct evidence to the contrary, there is a certain 
 prima facie ground for believing that the speeches ascribed 
 to Peter are genuine ? It is not likely that any writer 
 wishing to imitate Peter, or to fabricate a speech that 
 might pass for Peter's, would quote, as it is quoted in 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 309 
 
 Acts iv. llj a Psalm that had been made use of in 1 Pet. 
 ii. 7. But, on the opposite hypothesis, as Dr. Davidson 
 places Peter's First Epistle as early as a.d. 80, it rather 
 makes against his theory of its authorship to suppose 
 that the writer of the Acts in a.d. 125 would quote in 
 iv. 11, from an Epistle which was not Peter's, in order 
 that his own speech might pass for Peter's. This would be 
 very like contemporary or sub-contemporary evidence to 
 Peter's authorship of the Epistle. On the other hand, it 
 is unlikely that the writer of the Epistle would make 
 such a use of the Psalm as this, because Peter had so 
 used it in a speech in the Acts ; at least that would be to 
 make the Acts many years earlier than we are asked to 
 believe it can have been. Surely the more reasonable 
 course is to register as a fact the identity of thought in 
 the two documents, and to draw such inferences from 
 it as the nature of our own minds and our own critical dis- 
 cernment may enable us to draw. As for the antithesis 
 between the Redeemei^'s death and His glorious resurrec- 
 tion, that seems too obvious a thought to bear the strain 
 here put upon it. Certainly the same idea is found not 
 only in Acts xiii. 27, but also in Phil. ii. 8, 9; Heb. 
 xii. 2, &c. 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 " In the apostle's apology before the Jews, xxii. 1 — 32, 
 " not a single expression peculiarly Pauline occurs. The 
 "whole is in Luke's manner, so much so that various 
 " words employed by the evangelist alone are found here, 
 '' as (Tvvelvai, avrfj rf) &pa, ev\a^r]<i, &c." (p. 239). 
 
 We have no wish for one moment to deny the share 
 that St. Luke had in recording these speeches of St. Paul. 
 The only question is, Whether or not they are sufficiently 
 accurate to represent him fairly and rightly. Let us take, 
 then, this particular speech and compare it with the 
 
3IO 
 
 The Credibility of 
 
 [App 
 
 Pauline Epistles. It must be borne in mind, however, 
 that lie is hero giving an account of his conversion which, 
 therefore, as far as it was by the hand of Luke, ought to 
 have corresponded with the narrative in chap. ix. This, 
 however, it is alleged that it does not do. 
 
 Men, brethren, and fsithers, hear 
 ye my defence wliich I make now 
 unto you (a7roA.o7^a, the verb occurs 
 twice in St. Luke, six times in the 
 Acts, once in Bom., and once in 
 2 Cor.). 
 
 I am verily a man which am a 
 Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, 
 yet brought up iu this city at the 
 feet of Gamaliel, and taught accord- 
 ing to the perfect manner of the law 
 of the fathers, and was zealous to- 
 ward God, as ye all are this day 
 (^rjAtorr/s virdpxdn' only here and 
 Gal. i. 14). 
 
 And I persecuted this way unto 
 the death, binding and delivering 
 into prisons both men and women. 
 
 1 COK. ix. 3. 
 Mine answer to them that do 
 examine me is this {anoKoyla, only 
 twice in the Acts, five times in St. 
 Paul's Epistles, once in St. Peter). 
 
 2 COE. xi. 22. 
 Are they Hebrews? so am I. 
 Are they Israelites ? so am I. Are 
 they the seed of Abraham ? so am I. 
 
 PniL. iii. 5, 6. 
 
 Circumcised the eighth day, of the 
 stock of Israel, of the tribe of Uen- 
 jainin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; 
 as touching the law, a Pharisee; 
 concerning zeal, persecuting the 
 church. 
 
 Rom. X. 2. 
 
 I bear them record that they have 
 a zeal of God, but not according to 
 knowledge. 
 
 Gal. i. 13, 14. 
 
 For ye have heard of my conver- 
 sation in time past in the Jews' 
 religion, how that beyond measure I 
 persecuted the church of God, and 
 wasted it : and profited in the Jews' 
 religion above many my cquiUs in 
 mine own nation, being more ex- 
 ceedingly zealous of the traditions of 
 my fathers. 
 
App] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 31^ 
 
 As also the high priest doth bear 
 me witness, and all the estate of 
 the elders, &c. {iJiaprvpeT). 
 
 The God of our fathers hath chosen 
 thee, that thou shouldest know his 
 will, and see that Just One, and 
 shouldest hear the voice of his 
 mouth. 
 
 And now why tarriest thou ? 
 arise, and be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins, calling on the name 
 of the Lord. 
 
 1 Tim. i. 13. 
 Who was before a blaspheiner, and 
 a persecutor, and injurious. 
 
 Rom. X. 2. 
 For I bear them witness, &c. 
 
 2 CoE. viii. 3. 
 For to their power, I bear record, 
 &c. 
 
 Gal. iv. 15. 
 For I bear you record, that if it 
 had been possible, &c. 
 
 Coi. iv. 13. 
 For I bear him record, that he 
 hath a great zeal for you, &c. 
 (But there are no other instances 
 like these.) 
 
 Gal. i. 15. 
 But when it pleased God, who 
 separated me from my mother's 
 womb, and called me by his grace. 
 
 1 CoE. ix. 1. 
 Have I not seen Jesus Christ our 
 Lord? 
 
 XV. 8. 
 Last of all he was seen of me also, 
 as of one born out of due time. 
 
 Rom. iii. 26. 
 To declare, I say, at this time, his 
 righteousness : that he might be 
 just, and the justifier of him which 
 believeth in Jesus. 
 
 1 CoE. xi. 23. 
 For I have received of the Lord 
 that which also I delivered unto you, 
 &c. Cf. XV. 3. 
 
 Coi. ii. 11. 
 In whom also ye are circumcised 
 with the circumcision made without 
 hands, in putting off the body of the 
 sins of the flesh by the circumcision 
 of Christ : buried with him in bap- 
 tism. Cf. Rom. vi. 4 — 6. 
 
3 1 2 The Credibility of [Arp 
 
 Rom. X, 12. 
 The same Lord over all is rich 
 unto all that call upon him, &c. 
 
 1 COK. i. 2. 
 With all that in every place call 
 upon the name of Jesus Christ our 
 Lord, hoth theirs and ours. 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 22. 
 
 With them that call on the Lord 
 out of a pure heart. 
 
 The reader may, perhaps, think that there are here, for 
 a speech of this kind, as many points of contact with 
 St. PauFs Epistles as one naturally could expect ; he must 
 draw his own inference from them. "While the absence of 
 similar phraseology is no proof of difference of authorship, 
 a spontaneous and undesigned similarity of thought, 
 especially when exhibited under considerable difference of 
 circumstances, is no slight evidence of identity of author- 
 ship. Such similarity is perceptible here. 
 
 Dr. Davidson asks, " How could Peter declare it milaw- 
 "ful for a Jew to keep company with and come in to one 
 " of another nation (x. 28) t" The only answer to this 
 question is that the writer of the Acts, whoever he was, 
 must have known how far this statement was correct, and 
 that it was correct is shown by its being made ; for the 
 motive assigned for the composition of this book by the 
 writers of the Tubingen school would not have led the 
 author to exaggerate the Judaism of Peter, but on the 
 contrary, to tone it down. Alford in his note refers to 
 Juv. xiv. 103, and Tac. Hist. v. 5. We must bear in mind 
 that the Greek is KoWaadai rj irpoa-ep'^ecrdai. 
 
 "In like manner, the statement of Gamaliel about 
 "Theudas is inaccurate, and docs not proceed from the 
 ''speaker (v. 36). The insurrectionist of that name ap- 
 " peared in the reign of Claudius, about ten years after the 
 " delivery of the speech; as we learn from Josephus, whose 
 "description agrees exactly [?], sometimes even ver- 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 3 1 3 
 
 " bally, with the notice of Theudas in the Acts, so that no 
 " other could have been meant. The anachronism belongs 
 " to the writer of the book, not to Gamaliel" (p. 242). Is 
 it not possible that it may belong to Josephus ? See 
 Alford. Or failing that, is it impossible that Josephus 
 may have left out this Theudas? Must we necessarily 
 jump to the conclusion that one author has mdJfle a mistake 
 because, as it happens, we have not the means of verifying 
 him, and because he is at variance with another author ? 
 Are there no discrepances between Tacitus and Suetonius, 
 none between Lingard and Hume ? In this case, as before, 
 the writer was open to the judgment of the public for 
 whom he wrote. There were probably among his earliest 
 readers men whose memories were not less accurate than 
 his own, men by whom in a point of recent history he 
 could be detected if in error. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 The objections raised against the historical narratives 
 are of a somewhat different character, and demand a 
 different method of treatment from those above. When 
 we are told that the conclusion that "the narratives" "are 
 '' partly unhistorical" is one that is "justified by every 
 "' impartial consideration," we may be quite sure that there 
 is a spirit in operation which it is very hard if not quite 
 impossible to satisfy. The impartiality spoken of points 
 to actual hostility rather than to strict neutrality. It is 
 an impartiality which is bent upon raising objections, and 
 will refuse to admit any explanation, however reasonable, 
 rather than renounce the privilege and forego the luxury 
 of doubt. If a man is determined to think, e. g. that the 
 two statements about Saul's conversion, that the men who 
 were with him heard the voice and did not hear it cannot 
 be reconciled, it is hopeless attempting to reconcile them. 
 
314 The Credibility of [App 
 
 To him the probability of the writer being false is greater 
 than any probability which will serve to show that after 
 all it is possible he may have been true. If he is resolved 
 to make such a statement as that a casus belli, then it is 
 obvious on the surface that it must remain so, for nothing 
 can remove the written difficulty, however naturally it may 
 admit of explanation*. But let no one suppose that such 
 a course is alone worthy the name of criticism, for it is 
 possible that the truly critical mind may be that which 
 detects the real agreement beneath the apparent discre- 
 pance. The ingenuity of the true critic is displayed not 
 so much in clinging tenaciously to a flaw as in deciding 
 what amount of contradiction is sufficient to invalidate 
 testimony. It is the business of the judge to strike the 
 balance between conflicting evidence, and not to throw the 
 whole weight of his influence on one side, nor to disregard 
 the points of agreement in his eagerness to detect a flaw. 
 Allowing all due importance to these contradictory state- 
 ments about St. Paul's conversion is all the evidence for 
 it exhausted ? Is it altogether improbable that a character 
 so highly exceptional should have been the subject of 
 phenomena no less exceptional ? Is it absolutely unlikely 
 that a particular crisis of his life through which he must 
 have passed should have been marked by some strange 
 outward incidents the account of which has been preserved 
 to us in this form ? Even accepting the cases of Ignatius 
 
 * It has been suggested that the diftci'cncc between liearing, and hearing 
 so as to understand or to obey, is indicated by the case which accompanies 
 the verb : that aKovm with a genitive is simply to hear, and >vith an accu- 
 sative to hear so as to understand, or to act upon what is heard : and if 
 this can be substantiated, the alleged discrepance vanishes at once ; for the 
 narrative says, "hearing a voice" (gen.), "but seeing no man," and the 
 speech " they heard not the voice " (accus.) " of him that spake to me," that 
 is, they were unconscious of its meaning. This is sometimes the usage of 
 &KOVU in the Xew Testament, e. g. Luke vi. 17. 47 ; Matt. xiii. 18, <S:c. ; but 
 by no means uniformly, e. g. Matt. xiii. 19; Luke xvi. 29; vii. 9, &c. Still 
 doubtless there is a difl'erence intended to be conveyed in these two in- 
 stances, and that, in all probability, the dilVcrcnce expressed above and 
 assumed in Lcct. ii. p. 33. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 3 1 5 
 
 Loyola and Colonel Gardiner, given by Dr. Davidson, as 
 parallel instances, whicli tlie discerning critic must see 
 they are not, shall we say that they help us to understand 
 the conversion of St. Paul, or that the case of St. Paul 
 helps us to understand them ? Any case of remarkable 
 conversion is intelligible after St. PauFs, unintelligible 
 before, and unintelligible without it. We can imagine 
 a person believing himself the subject of visions and 
 ecstatic revelations after the history of St. Paul ; but tliis 
 gives us no account of tliat history, for what was the 
 prototype of tlmt ? There is nothing like it in the Old 
 Testament ; there is nothing like it in the New. And no 
 person of strictly critical mind can for a moment suppose 
 it may be paralleled by any thing in Greek or Eoman 
 history. We have not, therefore, accounted for the con- 
 version of St. Paul, even though we have placed it in the 
 category of Jesuit visions or of Puritan dreams. There is 
 something still unexplained : for be it so that the psycho- 
 logical revolution acted sensibly on the physical organs, 
 even this, on the hypothesis, goes to show that matter is 
 subject to the influence of mind to a degree beyond the 
 operation of any known law. And if this is an admitted 
 fact, why should not the material universe be subject to 
 the influence of the Divine mind to an extent beyond the 
 operation of any known law, or even in visible defiance of 
 known laws. Allow that the psychological revolution in 
 Paulas mind, that " a spiritual revelation of Christ to the 
 " higher self-consciousness" (p. 247), did produce the 
 apparent miraculous phenomena which, however, were of 
 course not miraculous, then what produced the psychological 
 revolution ? Criticism demands an answer to this question, 
 and has no right to be satisfied till she has obtained one. 
 It is not enough to say, " former experiences in his own 
 " mind, and the death of Stephen, had probably prepared 
 " him for such internal revelation of the Redeemer," 
 because if criticism is to rest on probabilities, it has no 
 
3 1 6 The Credibility of [A rp 
 
 advantage over faith, and, in fact, ceases to be criticism. 
 Besides, what do we know of these experiences, and how 
 Avere they produced ? Were they purely accidental, or had 
 " the Eedeemer" any thing to do with them ? If they were 
 purely accidental, and confessedly, we cannot ascertain 
 their law, then they cease to be worthy subjects of our 
 studious attention, they become matters of idle speculation, 
 not of useful criticism; but if "the Redeemer" had any 
 thing to do with them, then they become matters of 
 surpassing interest, because proofs of the operation of an 
 energising Mind, of a personal Will at work in the secret 
 recesses of the unseen world, of the action of a controlling 
 Spirit upon spirit who, if able to control and direct spirit, 
 to set in action the laws of spirit according to the design 
 and motion of his own will, may, after all, be able to do 
 something analogous to this with the laws of matter. 
 Either the conversion of Saul was in obedience to 
 irresistible spiritual law, or it was not ; either it obeyed an 
 unvarying, inevitable principle, or it did not; if it did, 
 then it was something different from what we are asked 
 to believe it to have been ; if it did not, then it is a con- 
 stant witness to us of so much personal agency in the 
 realm of spirit as may not unfairly become the basis for 
 believing in a corresponding personal agency in the realm 
 of matter. If " it is best to conceive of the whole process 
 " of Paul's conversion as an inward operation," we must 
 at least determine how far it was brought about in defiance 
 of himself; how far, as a mere change of mind, it is only 
 just worth registering like a change of wind and nothing 
 more. Perhaps a small critical minority may still believe 
 that our Lord went as near to the bottom of this matter 
 as it is given to any of us to go, when He said, '' The wind 
 bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 
 thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither 
 it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit." And 
 possibly the historian of the Acts was not wrong, when, 
 on authority he believed to be sufficient, he said a voice 
 
AppJ the Acts of the Apostles 317 
 
 was heard from heaven to say, '' Saul, Saul, why perse- 
 cutest thou Me ? " and a voice on earth replied, " Who art 
 Thou, Lord ? What wilt Thou have me to do V At least we 
 are asked to hclieve this. If we believe it, we shall not 
 doubt it ; if we doubt it, we shall not believe it. One or 
 the other is inevitable, but the two are incompatible, they 
 cannot co-exist^. It is essential to bear this in mind when 
 
 ^ M. Kenan's view of St. P.aul's conversion is well worthy of notice if 
 only for its ingenious audacity : — " Si Paul trouva la des visions terribles, 
 c'est qu'il les portait en son esprit. Chaque pas qu'il faisait vers Damas 
 eveillait en lui de cuisantes perplexites. L'odieux role de bourreau qu'il 
 allait jouer lui devenait insupportable. Les uiaisons qu'il commence a 
 apercevoir sont peut-etre celles de ses victimes. Cette pensee I'obsede, 
 ralentit son pas; il voudrait ne pas avancer; il s'imagine resister a un 
 aiguillon qui le presse. La fatigue de la route *, se joignant a cette pre- 
 occupation, I'accable. II avait, a ce qu'il parait, les yeux enflamnies, peut- 
 ^tre un commencement d'ophthalmie. Dans ces marches prolongees, les 
 dernieres heures sont les plus dangereuses. Toutes les causes debilitantes 
 des jours passes s'y accumulcnt; les forces uerveuses se detendent; una 
 reaction s'opere. Peut-etre aussi le brusque passage de la plaine devoree 
 par le soleil aux frais ombrages des jardins determina-t-il un acces dans 
 I'organisation maladive et gravement ebranlee du voyageur fanatique. Les 
 fievres pernicieuses, accompagnees de transport au cerveau, sont dans ces 
 parages tout h fait subites. En quelques minutes, on est comme foudroye. 
 Quand I'acces est passe, on garde I'impression d'une nuit profonde traversee 
 d'eclairs, oii Ton a vu des images se dessiner sur un fond noir f . Ce qu'il y 
 a de sur, c'est qu'un coup terrible enleva en un instant h Paul ce qui lui 
 restait de conscience distincte, et le renversa par terre prive de sentiment." 
 Les Ap6tres, pp. 178—180. 
 
 * " De Jerusalem h Damas, il y a huit fortes journees." 
 t " J'ai epreuve un acces de ce genre a Byblos ; avec d'autres principes, 
 j'aurais certainement pris les hallucinations que j'eus alors pour des visions." 
 To this we reply that there is no evidence of Paul having been "prive de 
 sentiment ;" and that whereas M. Kenan lived to know that his " visions " 
 were " hallucinations," the whole current of Paul's future existence was 
 changed in such a way as never to relapse into its former channel by the 
 marvellous " vision " vouchsafed to him, which therefore was and could have 
 been no " hallucination." In the Lectures, I have assumed that Saul and 
 his companions were on horseback : there is, indeed, no ground for this in 
 the Acts ; and M. Kenan supposes them to have been on foot, a supposition 
 which is moi'e or less essential to his view, because he makes the fatigue of 
 the journey an important element in producing the vision. To me it seems 
 more pi'obable that so long a journey would not have been performed on 
 foot. Cf. Acts xxiii. 24. But however this may be, the position I have 
 endeavoured to maintain remains the same. 
 
3i8 The Credibility of [App 
 
 we are told that " these minor differences, which do not 
 ^' admit of reconcilement, awaken suspicion against the 
 "perfect credibility of the narrative. The reader, far 
 "from seeing in them a convincing proof of its simple 
 "truth, as if inaccuracy in reporting details certified 
 " accuracy in the main points, will infer an interval of time 
 " between the historian and the events he records." Such 
 may possibly bo the attitude of criticism, but let us clearly 
 understand that it cannot possibly co-exist with sympathy 
 in the writer^s point of view, because, whether or not his 
 narrative is true, there is no question as to what that point 
 of view was. In rejecting his narrative, therefore, wo 
 repudiate all actual identity with his animus. We do not 
 feel with lihn. We may fancy we see what he means ; but 
 we certainly do not feel with what he saijs, because the 
 point of what he says does not turn upon any minor 
 difference of statement, but upon something deeper. 
 
 Moreover, it seems at least likely that had an interval 
 of sixty or seventy years occurred between the historian 
 and the events he recorded, his narrative, instead of being 
 so minute would have been somewhat more indistinct and 
 hazy, it would have been less vivid, less circumstantial. 
 And as it is certain that the minor differences in narrative 
 which are patent to the reader, could not have escaped the 
 observation of the ivriter, the very fact of their existence 
 is an indication of purity of intention in him. The affecta- 
 tion of simplicity he is supposed to have assumed would 
 assuredly evince sufficient art to have preserved him from 
 incurring such a risk of detection as this. K he was an 
 artless writer, the shght differences are accounted for ; but 
 if skilled and accomplished, as on the supposition he must 
 have been, one is at a loss to account for them. Besides, 
 if the conversion of St. Paul was a merely inward fact, to 
 what cause or causes can be assigned, in the space of sixty 
 years, such a concrete development of it as the three narra- 
 tives uniformly present ? In the period of two genera- 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 319 
 
 tions it liad passed completely out of one sphere, that of 
 the merely spiritual and internal, into another and an 
 opposite one, the physical, the sensible, the outward. Is 
 this likely, and at such a time ? 
 
 Again, how is one to deal with statements like the 
 following : " The description of the primitive believers 
 " at Jerusalem is partly ideal. The writer states that 
 " they had a community of goods, .... A small part 
 '^ of the people only'could have done so" (p. 243). 
 
 " As to the death of Ananias and Sapphira, it is evi- 
 '^ dently set forth as the miraculous, instantaneous effect of 
 '' Peter^s words. This with the harshness of the divinely 
 " inflicted punishment, which is out of character with 
 '^ the gospel history, prevents the critic from accepting 
 " the fact as historical, at least in the way it is told. 
 " The nucleus of it may be so " (p. 244). 
 
 As there is evidence from the book itself that this 
 feature of the early Church had been lost long ere the 
 close of it, perhaps some critics may come to the conclu- 
 sion that that fact alone gives 2^ frima, facie confirmation to 
 a statement such as this occurring in its earlier chapters, 
 and referring to the most primitive period of its history. 
 If otherwise, however, it is obvious that there is and can 
 be no answer to an i/pse dixit, but the rudest and the 
 feeblest of all, namely, a flat contradiction. 
 
 Also when we bear in mind that the infant Church was 
 supposed to be under the special care of Divine Provi- 
 dence, and that it was pre-eminently needful that at such 
 a time the righteousness and purity of the Divine govern- 
 ment should be fully vindicated, we may even think that 
 we can discern an evidence of supreme wisdom in the 
 severity of the punishment inflicted. We have surely no 
 business to assume that our own knowledge of the cha- 
 racter of the Gospel is more trustworthy than that of a 
 writer who in other respects has manifested an acquaint- 
 ance with it so profound. His statement must be criticised 
 
320 The Credibility of [Arr 
 
 on its own basis. Was there any meaning in tlie fact 
 if it was really wliat he supposed it to be ? 
 
 When we are told that "the book of the Acts is 
 " thickly studded with the miraculous/^ and that this 
 circumstance "may lead a reader to reject it" (p. 2i4), wo 
 are surely taken off the region of pure criticism, because 
 if we start with the foregone conclusion that testimony to 
 the miraculous must be false, no document, even //"true, can 
 critically stand its ground. The quiestion is whether or 
 not a document recording miracles is true, because if such 
 a document must necessarily be false, there is an end to 
 the function of criticism, which is to determine under the 
 circumstances which documents are credible and which are 
 not. Our business as critics is to decide whether, leaving 
 out the miracnlous, this narrative is historically true, and 
 having decided this, then to determine whether the cir- 
 cumstances being what they are supposed to be, the 
 testimony to the miraculous occurrences is such as to 
 merit confidence. If we are already persuaded that the 
 Almighty has never made use of the miraculous in deal- 
 ing with mankind, then we have no concern at all with 
 such a narrative as this. It is manifest that it cannot be 
 true. There is no room for the exercise of our critical 
 faculties. It is mixing up two distinct questions to 
 profess to judge this book critically, and to decide at the 
 same time upon the previous question of the abstract 
 probability or possibility of miracles. 
 
 " The account of the apostles being supernaturally 
 " delivered, brought forth from prison, and commanded 
 " to speak boldly in the temple is suspicious (v.). Tlie 
 " liberated are imprisoned again, so that the miracle is 
 " so far frustrated" {ibid.). 
 
 Now this is critically not true. Tliere is no evidence of 
 the Apostles being again imprisoned. On the contrary, 
 they were brought before the council, examined, and beaten, 
 whereupon " they departed from the presence of the 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 32 1 
 
 council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer 
 shame for His name/^ and the consequence was that 
 " daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not 
 to teach and preach Jesus Christ/^ The imprisonment of 
 Peter in the 12th chapter refers to a totally distinct 
 event which happened long after. Moreover, had the state- 
 ment above been true, are we in a position to say that the 
 miracle would have been " so far frustrated " ? To say so 
 is to carry our critical propensity into a region where it 
 has no right to enter. Sivj)j)osmg it to have been wrought 
 as a fact, it would doubtless have fulfilled its purpose, 
 whether or not we could discover that purpose, even 
 though, as far as we could judge, it vkis humanly speak- 
 ing, frustrated. To determine the antecedent moral 
 propriety of the miracle while investigating its historic 
 evidence is unfair. The operations must be performed 
 singly, and in order of time the second must come first. 
 As already observed, in point of fact there is no evidence 
 in the narrative of that which is alleged as the reason for 
 the verdict passed upon the antecedent moral fitness of 
 the miracle, consequently this verdict, so far, breaks down. 
 "The whole" of Gamaliel's speech, it is said, may be 
 " fictitious " (p. 245) . And it " is improbable" that so soon 
 after the death of Jesus " the Pharisees should have 
 " become the protectors of the early Christians," " And it 
 " is equally so that the Sadducees had taken their place as 
 " the persecutors of" them. " It is even said that the 
 " high priest Annas was at the head of the Sadducean 
 " party (v. 17), which we know to bo incorrect, both 
 " from his appeai'ance when Christ was accused before 
 " him, and from Josephus. Neither Annas nor Caiaphas 
 " was a Sadducee." The late Professor Blmit, of Cam- 
 bridge, used to specify the prominence of the Sadducees 
 in the early portion of the Acts as an undesigned coinci- 
 dence, tending to show that the pi'oclamation of the fact 
 of the resurrection was the hidden cause Avhich had ex- 
 
32 2 The Credihiiity of [Arr 
 
 asperated that party against the disciples of Him whose 
 principal adversaries had before been the Pharisees. This 
 is an instance of the diflferent effects produced upon 
 different minds in contemplation of one and the same 
 subject; may we not say also, of the way in which the 
 effect varies according as the contemplation is favourable 
 or unfavourable ? This at least is clear, that in the former 
 case the impression was produced by bare recognition of 
 the facts, whereas in the latter it would seem that the 
 facts have been a little wrested, for it is certain that what 
 Josephus does say, goes to show that if Annas was not, 
 his family at least were of the Sadducoan party. See 
 Alford^s note. Neither is it very clear what the " ap- 
 pearance^^ of Annas, "when Christ was accused before 
 him," has to do with the evidence of his being not a 
 Sadducee. We are at a loss, therefore, to perceive the 
 ground there is for saying that *Hhe T\Titer had an object 
 " in making Annas a Sadducee, and Gamaliel the Pharisee 
 " a friend of the persecuted." It is to be observed, 
 moreover, that the writer does not say, even if his words 
 naturally imply, that Annas himself was a Sadducee, still 
 less that he was " at the head of the Sadducoan party." 
 His words are, " Then the high priest rose up, and all they 
 that were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducces." 
 Also it is not disputed that Gamaliel was a Pharisee. 
 The reader, therefore, must draw his own conclusion as 
 to whose " object " is most conspicuous, that of the 
 writer of the Acts or his critic. 
 
 " The general persecution arising upon the death of 
 " Stephen can hardly have driven away all the Christians 
 " from Jerusalem, except the apostles, as stated in viii. 1 . 
 " A storm bursting upon the disciples would fall first 
 " and most severely upon their leaders. Schleiermacher is 
 " therefore correct in supposing that the phi'ase ' except 
 " the apostles,' is unhistorical, being inserted for the 
 " sake of the history of Philip" (p. 246). 
 
App] the A cts of the Apostles 323 
 
 One does not see how the history of Philip, if historical, 
 as it is admitted to be {ibid.), stamds in need of any such 
 insertion to make it credible ; nor how it would be there- 
 by made so were it otherwise. Even if the Apostles had 
 fled likewise, Philip's visit to Samaria would have been 
 none the less likely. The objection here appears to arise 
 from opposite quarters at the same time. First, all the 
 Christians, except the Apostles, cannot have been driven 
 away ; and, secondly, the Apostles must surely have been 
 driven away too, that is, more must -have been driven 
 away than the all who were driven away. Must we 
 not admit that such criticism is arbitrary rather than 
 safe? 
 
 The view which represents the narrative of Peter and 
 John being sent to Samaria to impart the Holy Ghost, 
 as based upon " the belief that none but an apostle had 
 " this magic power," is so contrary to the whole drift and 
 tenor, not only of the Acts of the Apostles, but of the 
 New Testament itself, that it is needless to remark upon 
 it. We may bear in mind, however, that St. Paul longed 
 to visit Rome for a similar purpose, Rom. i. 11. 
 
 " As to the visions and marvels introductory to the 
 " baptism of Cornelius, they are numerous enough to 
 " awaken suspicion. . . . All that can be upheld as histo- 
 " rical is, that Peter baptized a proselyte of the name of 
 " Cornelius, at this early period ; not that he baptized a 
 '' Gentile centurion before the council held at Jerusalem. 
 " The simple fact is dressed out with the miraculous 
 " element to mai-k its importance in connexion with 
 " Peter's person " (p. 250). 
 
 It is very difl&cult to decide how much of assumption 
 there is here, but at first sight there appears to be a good 
 deal. It is doubtless difficult to disprove the assertions, 
 because they arc based upon a theory that is not ame- 
 nable to the test of proof, but it is to be observed also 
 that it is only possible to prove them by flying in the 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 The Credibility of [App 
 
 face of sucli evidence, written documentary evidence, as 
 actually does exist. There is no written documentary 
 evidence in support of them, that is certain. The long 
 considered, and patiently decided verdict of a large, a 
 thoughtful, and an unbiassed public, is the only standard 
 to which we can appeal, and to that our appeal is made 
 with the deepest and most unhesitating confidence. It is 
 surely not critical to start upon the investigation of a 
 book like the Acts with the foregone conclusion that its 
 facts are imaginary, and its teaching is erroneous, and on 
 tlxat ground to reject it. This is the very thesis which 
 has first to be established upon irrefragable proof, which 
 at present has most certainly not been adduced. Theory 
 is advanced which we are to accept for evidence. It is 
 precisely tlds, however, that on critical grounds we are 
 forbidden to do. 
 
 " The basis of the story " of Peter's release from 
 prison " is some unexpected deliverance of the apostle, 
 ' which was afterwards set forth in a mythic dress. Paul's 
 ' encounter with Elymas the sorcerer, in Paphos, is simi- 
 ' lar to Peter's wdth Simon Magus. The punishment 
 ' inflicted upon him resembles Paul's own blindness at 
 ' the time of conversion. It is, therefore, probable that 
 ' the occurrence is fictitious. The cure of a lame man at 
 ' Lystra is so similar to a cure performed by Peter, that it 
 ' seems modelled after it. The very language employed 
 ' by the writer, in both cases, is alike. The effect of the 
 ' miracle on the people of the place, the worship offered, 
 ' the sacrifices almost performed to Paul and Barnabas, 
 ' appear to be as unhistorical as the miracle itself " 
 (p. 251). 
 
 All history becomes useless and unprofitable if it is to 
 be dealt with thus, for then every event must be held to 
 be incredible which resembles any other event. One 
 would have thought that the episode with Elymas, the 
 sorcerer, was sufficiently diverse from that of Peter with 
 
Ai'p] 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 325 
 
 Simon Magus, to prevent one being confounded with the 
 otlier. The blindness of Paul resembles that of Elymas, 
 just as the blindness of Milton resembles that of Homer, 
 or as the darkness of any one blind man resembles the 
 darkness of any other. With respect to the two lame 
 men it is best to compare the language used in both 
 cases. 
 
 Acts xiv. 8 —11. 
 And there sat a certain man at 
 Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a 
 cripple from his mother's womb, 
 who never had walked : the same 
 heard Paul speak : who steadfastly- 
 beholding him, and perceiving that 
 he had faith to be healed, said with 
 a loud voice. Stand upright on thy 
 feet. And he leaped and walked. 
 And when the people saw what Paul 
 had done, they lifted up their voices, 
 saying in the speech of Lycaonia, 
 The gods are come down to us in 
 the likeness of men, &c. 
 
 Acts iii. 2—10. 
 And a certain man lame from his 
 mother's womb was carried, whom 
 they laid daily at the gate of the 
 temple which is called Beautiful, to 
 ask alms of them that entered into 
 the temple; who seeing Peter and 
 John about to go into the temple 
 asked an alms. And Peter, fosten- 
 ing his eyes upon him with John, 
 said. Look on us. And he gave 
 heed unto them, expecting to receive 
 something of them. Then Peter 
 said. Silver and gold have I none; 
 but such as I have give I thee : In 
 the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth 
 rise up and walk. And he took him 
 by the right hand, and lifted him up : 
 and immediately his feet and ancle 
 bones received strength. And he 
 leaping up stood, and walked, and 
 entered with them into the temple, 
 walking, and leaping, and praising 
 God. And all the people saw him 
 walking, and praising God : and they 
 knew that it was he which sat for 
 alms at the Beautiful gate of the 
 temple: and they were filled with 
 wonder and amazement at that 
 which had happened unto him. 
 
 The reader will probably be surprised to find that " the 
 " very language employed by the writer in both cases/^ 
 which " is alike/' is comprised in the two common phrases, 
 Tt<? avrip .... ytaSjo'i Ik Koikia^ firjrpb^; avTOv v7rdp')(cov, and 
 arevlaa^, the other features are all different ; one man was 
 carried^ the other was sitting ; one is described as being 
 
326 The Credibility of [App 
 
 impotent in his feet and as having never walked, which 
 the other is not ; one man was begging, the other was not ; 
 one man was Hstcning to Paul, the other was watching Peter 
 and John ; one man was expecting to receive something, 
 the other had faith to bo healed. Peter took the one man 
 by the right hand and lifted him up, Paul spoke to the 
 other with a loud voice. The words used in both cases 
 were different, the effect is described differently, and the 
 impression produced upon the spectators in both cases 
 was different. Does not criticism sometimes need criti- 
 cising ? 
 
 " The cause of the imprisonment of Paul and Silas at 
 " Philippi, and the particulars connected with their 
 " deliverance, cannot be historical .^^ [Why not ?] '^ How 
 " could an earthquake have shaken the fetters of all the 
 " prisoners V If the earthquake occurred as related, it 
 may well have been the means of doing so. 
 
 " Could the jailor, seeing the prison-doors open, think 
 " at once of committing suicide, contrary to conscious 
 " innocence?^' Why not; "supposing that the prisoners 
 "had been fled?'' 
 
 " How could Paul know, in the darkness of the inner 
 " prison, that the captives were all present ? Did none 
 " of them think of escaping?" The first impression was 
 probably one of terror. The prisoners were paralysed. 
 
 " Did the jailor know at once that the earthquake 
 " occurred for the sake of Paul and Silas?" He may or 
 may not : this nowhere appears. The narrative suggests 
 that the effect of the earthquake on the mind of the jailor 
 was no less mysterious than the cause of it, and doubtless 
 if it was what is related, he would " venture '* gladly " to 
 " set the two free on his own responsibility." 
 
 "The miracle was uncalled for, because the Roman 
 " duumvirs released Paul and Silas in the morning." 
 This may not have been its principal object; the conver- 
 sion of tho jailor and his family may have been partly so. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 327 
 
 If the earthquake actually occurred, we are not judges of 
 its expediency or of its objects. All we are told is that 
 certain events happened in consequence of it. 
 
 '^ Indeed the authorities themselves treated them ille- 
 " gaily and brutally, since they beat and imprisoned 
 " them before trial, though one at least was a Eoman 
 " citizen." How do we know this, except on the autho- 
 rity of that writer whose testimony is so often called in 
 question ? 
 
 " Could not the apostle have prevented such treatment 
 " at first, by asserting his rights ?" The narrative implies 
 that this was done in defiance of any such protest. 
 
 ^^ AVTiy should the jailor have been charged to keep the 
 prisoners in close confinement?" Why should he not, 
 as the multitude are said to have been exasperated against 
 them ? 
 
 ^' The jailor's conduct throughout, his sudden conver- 
 sion and baptism, the entreaty of the magistrates that 
 they should depart from the city in the morning, all 
 heighten the story, making the deliverance not only 
 more remarkable, but honourable to Paul. The miracle 
 and its accompaniments are unhistorical. There is no 
 need to deny the . fact of the imprisonment, or the 
 speedy liberation of the apostle by the authorities ; the 
 rest is the writer's" (p. 254). Is there nothing arbi- 
 trary in this professed criticism ? Are not the diflSculties 
 raised somewhat imaginary in character ? Are they not 
 self- originated ? 
 
 With respect to the '' Nazarite offering in the temple " 
 made by Paul, we are told " conduct for such a jmrpose is 
 inconsistent with his well-known principles. If he did 
 engage in the transaction, the motive and object dif- 
 fered from those stated in the text. It may be that he 
 was seized by the Jews in the temple, to which he had 
 gone for some other purpose than the one stated. As 
 to his being allowed by the Roman commander to speak 
 
328 The Credibility of [App 
 
 " to the multitude from the stairs of the castle^ the cre- 
 " dibility of the thing is doubtful; aud the character 
 " of the discourse strengthens the doubt, because the 
 " writer of the Acts appears in it as well as Paul " (p. 255). 
 
 This is the objection insisted upon with so much em- 
 phasis by Baur, " Paulus der Apostel," 196 ff. The inter- 
 pretation of Paul's conduct depends upon the light in 
 which we view it. Why should we assume that the 
 writer of the Acts meant to hold it up for approbation ? 
 He neither approves nor ceusui-es it. Shall we take it for 
 granted that he means us to approve it ? Suppose Paul 
 acted thus and acted wrong. What are we to infer? 
 That it was impossible for him to act ^vrong ? What if 
 the very principles laid down in 1 Cor. ix for once misled 
 him ? Is that an absolutely impossible hypothesis ? If, 
 as Baur says, he would have been by this act guilty of 
 the same v7r6KpLai<; as that which he blamed in Peter, is 
 it impossible that he may have been ? Are we to assume 
 that Paul could not be guilty of inconsistency, in order 
 that we may prove the writer of the Acts untrue ? May 
 not his judgment have erred here as it seems to have 
 done afterwards, and as the writer hints that it did (Acts 
 xxvi. 32), in appealing to Csesar ? This is on the assump- 
 tion that a real inconsistency exists; others, on purely 
 critical grounds, may perhaps still be allowed to think 
 that the inconsistency is more imaginary than real ; and 
 that the case in point was wholly covered by the avowed 
 principles of St. Paul. 
 
 It is insti"uctive to observe that M. Renan believes St. 
 Paul acted as the Acts affirm that he did (p. 520). " Paul 
 se submit ^ tout cela." 
 
 At least it is obvious that the doubts expressed above 
 are not the more valid because they admit of no direct 
 answer. We may reasonably think that a large majority 
 of unprejudiced persons will yet believe that the writer 
 of the Acts is after all as trustworthy as some of those 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 329 
 
 who would sit in judgment upon him, and who seem to 
 imagine that they can construct a more veracious narra- 
 tive of the doings of St. Paul than he has left us. But_, 
 as we have said, the ultimate verdict does not rest with 
 this critic nor with that, but with the large body of 
 devout, intelligent, and fair-judging students, who in the 
 present and in future generations shall patiently consider 
 and shall calmly weigh the original narrative of the Acts 
 and the unsparing criticisms that have been passed upon 
 it, the simplicity of the sacred document and the flimsy 
 tissue of vague and varying conjecture which we are 
 asked to establish in its place. 
 
 In the speech before the Sanhedrim, "the conduct 
 " attributed to the apostle, by which he availed himself 
 " of a device to produce division in the assembly and 
 " thereby defeat his enemies, is not what his known 
 " character would lead us to expect. In the circumstances 
 " it borders on hypocrisy to call himself a Pharisee'' 
 (p. 256) \ 
 
 Here, again, we cannot but think that there is room 
 for the opposite opinion, and that many persons would 
 prefer it. K this is the case, it cannot be demanded by 
 the principles of true criticism to adopt a theory which at 
 the best is grounded upon a mere opinion very doubt- 
 fully to be preferred. To us the stratagem in point 
 appears a worthy stroke of genuine Pauline tact. (Cf. also 
 2 Cor. xii. 16). 
 
 We have now gone carefully through every important 
 doubt or aspersion thrown by Dr. Davidson on the Acts 
 
 9 M. Renan, on the coutrary, appears to accept it as historical : " Le 
 stratageuie de Paul reussit h merveille," p. 530; but lie adds in a note, 
 " Nous croyons bieu qu'il y a dans ce recit des Actes quelquc arrangement 
 artificiel." It not unfrequently happens that the objections of ditt'erent 
 objectors neutralise each other, and their theories are mutually destructive. 
 The fact that what is denied by one is conceded by another goes to show, in 
 many cases, the needlessness of the objection. 
 
330 The Credibility of [Ai'P 
 
 of the Apostles. The reader must judge with what result. 
 We cannot but trust and believe that he will think much 
 of the professed criticism recently advanced against the 
 credibility of it altogether breaks down. Whether or 
 not the book is credible is another question ; suffice it to 
 say, that for the reasons now assigned it is certainly not 
 incredible. It may, perhaps, be thought inconsistent to 
 admit that among the documents which the writer of the 
 Acts made use of were the Epistles of St. Paul (p. 260), 
 and yet, at the same time to ground the principal charge 
 against him on his having gone counter to those Epistles, 
 to make the discrepances between his narrative and them 
 the chief cause of complaint. Moreover, we cannot but 
 think that on Di'. Davidson's own showing (p. 2G9) the 
 external evidence for the early * origin of the book is even 
 stronger than it is for its late origin. To us it seems 
 that, as there stated, the case for its origin in the Apos- 
 tolic times is as strong as it well can be. 
 
 1 It must be adniitted that if but one quotation can be discovered the 
 antiquity of the book is proved. Such a quotation the Epistle of Polycarp 
 seems to give : indeed Davidson himself says that this Epistle " has one 
 passage showing acquaintance with the Acts, viz. in the first chapter, where 
 we read that God 'raised up Christ, having loosed the pains of death,' 
 alluding to Acts ii. 24" (p. 270). But if so, what more is wanted ? The 
 same quotation in Poljcarp is immediately followed by one from the First 
 Epistle of Peter, and another from the Epistle to the Ephesians, to both of 
 which Davidson himself refers in proof of the antiquity of those Epistles 
 (vol. i. pp. -112. 382). Of course it is not possible to prove quotation in any 
 one of these cases ; but it must be allowed the evidence is very strong, the 
 more so perhaps because in all the similarity is substantial and not verbal ; 
 and certainly the critic who appeals to it in the one place ought consistently 
 to allow it in the other. We must bear in mind also, that if one writer 
 manifests acquaintance with the book, it matters not how many pass it by 
 in silence. There are, however, many other passages given both by Hefele 
 and by Davidson, which taken all together can hardly leave much doubt on 
 the mind of any one who is not resolved to believe that the Acts were the 
 product of the second century. To ns the evidence appears to be conclusive 
 on the other side. Polycarp's woi'ds are, tv fiynpiv 6 @(6s, Aucros ras wSluas 
 Tov aSuv. Els tf oiiK lS6fTis iriffTevtTf, iriffrdovres Se ayaWiaaOe x°P? 
 av(K\a\'fiT(f) Kal SfSo^acrfntfrf fls ^v iroWol iiriQvixoixnv iluiKdetv, tiiins, on 
 XapiTi tVre atauanft'oi ouk i^ tpyoif, aAAa deXTj/iart 0eoO, Sia 'ItjcoD Xptarov. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 331 
 
 And, certainly, wlien we are told (p. 275) that "No 
 " proper link of connexion can be inferred between tlie 
 " authorship of the we-paragraphs and the rest of the 
 " treatise because the first person is also used in i. 1. 
 " On the contrary, the first person singular in i. 1, is 
 " rather against the identity of the two," — the reason 
 assigned is quite inadequate to the conclusion drawn, for, 
 in the first place, the writer speaks of the sole respon- 
 sibility of authorship, but in the others, of that expe- 
 rience in the events witnessed, which he shared in common 
 with his companions. However, in all these cases it is 
 the intelligent reader who must judge. 
 
 Let us finally notice the wi'iter's supposed object. 
 " These observations lead to the conclusion that the ob- 
 " ject of the wiiter was conciliatory- He had two parties 
 " in view, Jewish- and Gentile-christian, which he wished 
 " to bring nearer to one another. In the interest of that 
 " object he moulds the history. A Gentile-christian 
 " himself, and regarding Paul as the great apostle, he 
 " shows how near he comes to Peter and the other apos- 
 " ties in conduct and sentiments, while fully equal to them 
 " in official qualifications. They resemble one another, 
 " and are on the most amicable terms. The parallelism 
 " between them indicates their common interests and 
 " labours. When at last Paul is brought to Rome, the 
 " metropolis of the heathen world, the writer has attained 
 " his purpose. That fact and its consequences show the 
 " universal aspect of Christianity. Paul becomes the 
 " apostle of the Gentiles, in the fullest sense, when the 
 " Jews generally reject his message, in fulfilment of the 
 " prophecies. To further Pauline Christianity by bring- 
 '' ing the two ecclesiastical parties more closely together, 
 " was the author^s leading aim. This opinion is con- 
 " firmed by the third gospel, in which the writer was 
 " actuated by a like purpose. At the same time many 
 
332 The Credibility of [App 
 
 " phenomena in the book seem to disagree with this pur- 
 " pose. Had it been in the writer's mind, it has been 
 " asked, why did he not state other things, such as the 
 " parallel deaths of Paul and Peter ? Why has he set 
 '' down many facts and particulars which have either no 
 " perceptible relation to it, or an unsuitable one ? Ob- 
 " jections of this nature, which play an important part in 
 " the criticisms of men like Lekebusch, overlook the 
 " fact that the writer had to do with things described in 
 " written documents, or handed down by tradition. He 
 " did not invent but narrate a history. He could not, 
 " therefore, mould all into one consistent shape, but 
 " could only give a bias according to his purpose. In 
 " selecting, abridging, modifying, and altering his mate- 
 " rials, he had to maintain a measure of historical fidelity, 
 " else his purpose would have been defeated. History 
 " must not be converted into fiction ; it must retain fea- 
 " tures of verisimilitude. The conciliatory tendency runs 
 " through the book in a gentle stream, not in that over- 
 " whelming force, which could only have arisen from 
 '' abandoning the materials, so far as to efiace almost all 
 " marks of authentic narrative or historical probability " 
 (pp. 281, 282). 
 
 Is it not strange that many of the acutest intellects of 
 Christendom have for centmnes been directed to the study 
 and the criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, and yet no 
 one has ever detected any evidence of this being the 
 "VNTiter's secret object, till within the lifetime of the pre- 
 sent generation ? Is there any limit to the creative power 
 of theory? Once originate a theory, and how readily 
 may all facts be made to yield to it ! How speedily do 
 they serve to illustrate and confirm it ! One point only 
 we must not fail to bear in mind, that arguments based 
 on such ideal foundations it is utterly impossible to re- 
 fute ; they are impervious, because impalpable ; they are 
 intangible for the very reason that they are insubstantial. 
 
App] the Acts of the Apostles 333 
 
 If there is a vague and general similarity between the 
 lives of Peter and Paul^ this similarity must, forsooth, 
 have been designed (though why is it not more sharply 
 drawn ? ) . If there is a still more manifest unlikeness, it 
 must be overlooked. We must ignore the fact that Peter 
 wanes when Paul begins to rise; that after the 15th chap- 
 ter Peter is mentioned no more ; that Peter, who was every 
 thing at first, is scarcely heard of again after his escape 
 from prison; that, in fact, the parallelism is imaginary, 
 and not real ; or, if real, most unquestionably not promi- 
 nent nor conspicuous. We must ignore the fact that so 
 many motives, far more obvious and plausible than this, 
 may be assigned for the composition of the Acts; and, 
 above all, the extreme improbability, not to say, the ab- 
 solute impossibility, of any writer at the period assumed 
 conceiving such an idea as this, and endeavouring to ex- 
 press it in such a way. Would not that be contrary to 
 all the evidence of contemporary literature, whether 
 Christian or heathen ? Can a parallel instance be pro- 
 duced ? The very idea is that of a man who looks at the 
 events recorded from a great distance of time, and not 
 that of one who was himself living in the midst of the 
 party-strife, which, it is supposed, he endeavoured to 
 pacify. Given the assumed condition of the Church at 
 A.D. 125, which made it desirable that such a treatise as 
 the Acts should be written for the purpose alleged, how 
 was any writer so to abstract himself from the influences 
 around him as to conceive such a notion as upon the 
 hypothesis is there presented ? And, further, supposing 
 him to have conceived it, how were his readers, still more 
 immersed in the concrete than he was himself, to have 
 comprehended his etherealised and abstract meaning ? If 
 they could have taken such a distant, bird's-eye view, so 
 to say, as this implies, of their own position, or of that of 
 their first great party-leaders, Peter and Paul, they would 
 not have been the victims of the strong . party-feeling. 
 
334 ^'^^^ Credibility of the Acts of tJie Apostles 
 
 from the very existence of which it is alleged that the 
 necessity for the book ai'ose. It was not^ therefore, a 
 possible production of the assumed condition of the 
 Church. In other words, the tendency of the h)-pothesis 
 is to confute and subvert itself. It is self-contradictory 
 and self-destructive. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 aiLBEET AND RIVIJfGTON, PEINTER3, ST. JOHN'S SQUARE, LONDON. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR 
 In 8vo, price qj 
 
 THE BOYLE LECTURES FOR 1868 
 
 ©pinioiiiS of ti)c '^xtm. 
 
 "It is written with a moderation 
 and fairness we should be glad to 
 see more frequently introduced into 
 polemics. " — Globe. 
 
 " In reference to all the passages 
 treated by the New Testament as 
 Messianic, Mr. Leathes is cogently 
 convincing, and he need not be 
 anxious to establish his thesis fur- 
 ther. On the fifty-third chapter of 
 Isaiah, he dwells so logically as to 
 refute the subjective and perverse 
 expositions of adverse exegetes both 
 Jewish and Christian. We will give 
 a quotation as exemplifying his man- 
 ner, and press the study of the whole 
 Volume on all our readers who feel 
 that they require light and confirma- 
 tion on the great theme which it 
 discusses." — Clerical youriial. 
 
 " Mr. Leathes — shows learning, 
 taste, and moderation." — Athenccum. 
 
 " We think that the Lecturer esta- 
 blishes his point." — Nonconforniist. 
 
 " W^e need say little more of this 
 volume than that it is quite worthy 
 to stand alongside its fellows of 
 ' the Boyle Lectures.' . . He reasons 
 calmly, clearly, and cogently. The 
 tone of the work is every way ad- 
 mirable. The author gives evidence 
 that he is in earnest. . . . Among 
 the appended notes there is a very 
 able one on the authorship of Isaiah, 
 which is full of fine thought and 
 acute criticism." — Weekly Jievieiu. 
 
 " There is a manifest earnestness 
 
 in all that Professor Leathes writes, 
 that at once commands respect, and 
 where, as in the long note in the 
 Appendix on the authorship of 
 Isaiah, there is scope for a pains- 
 taking inquiry in his own special 
 province as an Interpreter of the 
 Old Testament, the work is done 
 thoroughly and well." — Contem- 
 porary Review. 
 
 " Mr. Leathes's Lectures are a 
 learned and interesting argument in 
 support of the existence as a matter 
 .of fact of a Messianic element in the 
 Old Testament Scriptures. . . . An 
 argument from internal evidence of 
 a broad and general character is, 
 perhaps, the most widely useful of 
 all, for it appeals to facts which are 
 in every one's hands. Mr. Leatjies 
 discusses in detail several circum- 
 stances and passages in the Old 
 Testament, and shows, we think, 
 conclusively, that if not Messianic, 
 they mean nothing, in which case 
 their existence is inexplicable, and 
 they cannot be of any value. . . . 
 We shall await with interest his 
 course of Boyle Lectures in the 
 present year. " — Times, Jan. 12, 1869. 
 
 " Mr. Leathes has . . . very ably 
 reviewed in an Appendix objections 
 to the integrity of Isaiah, and has 
 done much to place the subject 
 where it was before Gesenius, or 
 Ewald, or Dean Stanley touched 
 it." — British Quarterly Review. 
 
Opinions of the Press {continued) 
 
 " Mr. Leathes's volume is valuable 
 both for what it contains, and for 
 what it suggests. The most im- 
 portant part of it, as we think, is the 
 extended note on the authorship of 
 the last twenty-seven chapters of the 
 Book of the Prophet Isaiah, con- 
 tained in the Appendix. Here Mr. 
 Leathes is at home both as a He- 
 braist and a critic, and does his 
 work nobly. We call the special 
 attention of our readers to the 
 philological argiunent of this por- 
 tion of Mr. Leathes's book." — Lon- 
 don Quarterly Rezneio. 
 
 " The Boyle Lectures /or 1868 . . 
 stand almost alone for singleness of 
 purpose, and clearness and vigour of 
 execution. The author is already 
 well known for the accuracy of his 
 Hebrew scholarship, and the variety 
 of his learning; but the present 
 volume proves him to be as bold 
 and vigorous in defence of the truth 
 as he is cautious and devout in ex- 
 pounding it. For clear, calm logi- 
 cal force, for close reasoning, and 
 unshaken command of himself and 
 his entire subject when dealing with 
 its most difficult and knotty points, 
 it would be difficult to find his equal. 
 The ol^ject of his Lectures is to show 
 that the supposed Messianic charac- 
 teristics of the Old Testament, do 
 not exist only in the imagination of 
 fen'id and mistaken believers, but* 
 have a reasonable foundation in fact. 
 The great charm and ft)rce of the 
 book spring from his boldly meet- 
 ing the sceptical school of Renan, 
 Strauss, and Colenso, on their own 
 grcfund — fighting them with their 
 own weapons, allowing some of 
 what they say to be true, and yet 
 wresting from them the victory." — 
 Standard. 
 
 " Mr. Leathes throughout this 
 course of Lectures eloquently de- 
 monstrates that the Old Testament 
 
 is a mine of wealth, for the simple 
 reason that it is full of Christ. — 
 Literary World. 
 
 "He is careful to take up a posi- 
 tion from which the unbelieving 
 criticism could not dislodge him, 
 even though all its assumptions 
 about inteq^retations and more re- 
 cent dates of composition of certain 
 books were conceded. " — The Pres- 
 byterian. 
 
 "His argument is that of a tho- 
 rough Hebrew scholar and of a very 
 able and earnest man. The theory 
 of ' a great unknown ' will have to 
 deal more seriously with the philo- 
 logy of the question, and with 
 Mr. Leathes's arguments therefrom, 
 than either Gesenius or Ewald have 
 dealt with it, before it can be resus- 
 citated. " — English Independent. 
 
 "Some of Mr. Leathes's critical 
 remarks ai^e well worth considering. 
 He points out, for instance, that the 
 literary incompleteness and disorder 
 of the Pentateuch, besides being a 
 consideration of much more import- 
 ance in the nineteenth century after 
 Christ, than in the nineteenth cen- 
 tury before, is more conclusive 
 against the notion of a late editor 
 than against the Mosaic authorship ; 
 and again, that the Messianic Psalms 
 with their glowing descriptions of 
 the glories and blessings that should 
 come to the house of David, could 
 hardly have been written in some 
 later age, when events seemed to 
 have utterly falsified all such antici- 
 pations, ile has also a very full 
 and detailed examination of the 
 question of the double authorship 
 of the prophecy of Isaiah." — Spec- 
 tator. 
 
 "This work possesses considerable 
 value, and will contribute to defend 
 important Scriptural positions." — 
 Wesleyan Methodist Magazine. 
 
 RI VI NGTONS 
 
 r 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01198 3261 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 |«te*-«« 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 " — ■ 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UhMCO 38-297 
 
 
' ^ • </'(•'. i\ i, .' i| I'l} 't'-Kj. ''ill "'f 
 
 ;hi'. 
 
 ' ■'••''V f!|';'!t"'l.'jf,ii! 
 
 ■ ■■, •,.K;-.i-'V.*iii.iiVid 
 
 ■ ••! K, ..'I'M !,"':ii,i •!'i|i 
 
 ' ' '• ■" '. /■ A!"n.i.t I ■ I ' it 
 . ' • ■ ■-•; ; ' li^ T jW( r' 
 
 ■■ '•!!,■.■.. HlrVi'i^ti'tf 
 ' : : ' i ■.! i-'n'i! ;h ill 
 
 mmnm 
 
 mm\ 
 
 ! ' i Vi t'.i'M i I !,