in mind is rather a combination of these two points of view.

It is hardly worth while to pause long to lay one's critical foundations for such a study. To-day everything is challenged by somebody. Dr. T. K. Cheyne produces the tame and labored conclusion that, after prolonged and unbiased research, he has come to the deliberate conviction that such a man as Paul really lived. We are very grateful for this comforting opinion from the Oxford scholar. No doubt Paul himself is relieved to think that he can now claim historic existence. There is raging at present in Germany a fierce controversy as to whether Jesus ever lived. "The Christ-Myth," by Drews, has gone through a dozen editions. He claims to show that Jesus had no historical reality and is pure myth. Even radical German scholars like Von Soden and J. Weiss have gone into the fray to show that after all Jesus did live in Palestine. Last January, Prof. Shirley J. Case, of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, vigorously argued in the Biblical world against the delusion of attributing divinity to Jesus. But he now steps forth to prove against all comers "The Historicity of Jesus.' Jesus did live. For this we are grateful. Both Paul and Jesus have historic careers and may be fit subjects of antiquarian interest.

But the path is not yet clear. The Hibbert Journal has been the arena of a stiff debate concerning "Jesus or Christ." Granted the historic Jesus, one must not admit the theological Christ. It is gravely argued by these modern wise men that the Jesus of history and the Christ of dogma are wholly different. The Christ

is a mere theological invention, the attribution to the man Jesus of qualities which he did not possess, the deification of the real man Jesus. Prof. W. B. Smith, of New Orleans, has even undertaken to show us the "Pre-Christian Jesus," the man stripped of all the later Christological vagaries, the man as he was. Other voices rise above the confusion and boldly charge Paul with being responsible for having led the world astray from the simple Jesus of the Gospels. He is even called the creator of Christianity, or the perverter, as one may choose. We have just passed through the din of this conflict. The big German guns have exploded and Paul still remains as the Interpreter of Christ. The effort to find a different conception of Christ in the Gospels has failed. Even the Synoptic Gospels have been dubbed Pauline in spirit and the earliest sources of the life of Jesus known to us (Q and Mark) place Jesus on as high a pedestal as does Paul.

Let us then assume the facts in the Gospels and Acts and the Epistles of Paul. That to some will be a violent assumption, but some men have a spasm at any statement of fact. Let us follow Paul in his approach to and apprehension of Christ. He was always pressing on, after he began, to apprehend that for which he was apprehended. He was always on the point of complete success, but the prize slipped on ahead. It was the one great passion of his life. *Ev dé. To forget and to push on to the riches in Christ. Do his best, the figure of Christ grew larger before him all the while. Nothing more than an outline of this great theme can be here attempted.

δέ.

I. Paul Knowing Christ after the Flesh.-When Paul first heard of Jesus we do not know. It is hardly probable that he saw Jesus when a student at the seminary of Gamaliel in Jerusalem. Paul had in all likelihood finished his course before the public ministry of Jesus began. He may have remained in Jerusalem, but more likely returned to Tarsus. It is a fascinating theory of some men that Paul came back to Jerusalem in time to see Jesus die on the cross. But we have no evidence of that. When he said (2 Cor. 5:16) that he had once known Christ after the flesh (κатà σáρка) he almost certainly means that he once looked on Christ from the fleshly standpoint, "yet now we have known him so no more." He recognized Jesus on the road to Damascus after the explicit statement, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." So then Paul's first approach toward Jesus was along the line of his prejudices. He was taught to hate the new claimant for the Messiahship who had been justly crucified to avoid an insurrection. This brilliant, cultured young Jew had all the patriotic fervor of Judas Maccabeus and the religious pride of the typical Pharisee. He was in touch with the Hellenistic life of the time and had a broader outlook on the world than many Palestinian Jews by reason of his life in Tarsus. He was a Roman citizen and a Hellenist, but he was most of all a Pharisee. The contact with the sect of the Nazarenes inflamed his religious nature and his orthodoxy blazed out with a terrible light. As we see the young man holding the garments while Stephen is stoned, he seems only to possess disqualifications for understanding Jesus of

Nazareth. Every step that he takes in the persecution of the Christians is away from Christ. He becomes the very antithesis of Christ.

II. Paul Seeing Christ Face to Face.-It was a violent revulsion in Paul's whole nature when he looked into the face of the Risen Christ. It was the supreme test of his life, like a collision of a steel train. He was going at full speed against Christ and was abruptly halted. The shock was very great to Paul's physical nature. It was even greater to his spiritual equipment. He was thrown to the earth, and blinded in his eyes. But he had seen Jesus, the one whom he had come to hate most of all, though he had not looked upon His face before. He scorned Him for the pestilent heresy caused by His unfortunate life.

In great moments the mind is abnormally active and the essential facts are stamped upon the brain with clearness and vividness. The salient features of this climacteric event never faded from Paul's memory. In speech and letter he repeatedly told of the revolution in his own heart and life. In all essentials the story never varied. It was not of his doing. Jesus manifested Himself to Paul. It was not of Paul's wish nor with his consent. But the undoubted presence and voice of the Risen Jesus convinced Paul that he was hopelessly in error. The look that Jesus gave Paul before he became blind remained with him forever. On that day Light shined into his heart "to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6). He understood now why Stephen had died rather than give up

that Light that had shined into his own heart. It was here that Paul received his great qualification to interpret Christ. It was in the look that passed between Paul and Jesus. Dr. Dale once said that Mr. Moody had a right to preach since he could not talk about sinners without tears in his eyes. It was full surrender on Paul's part in response to the unutterable compassion of Jesus. As he stood in the white light of Christ's presence Paul saw his own picture silhouetted in the shadow of his sins. No man is qual ified to talk about Christ who has not in a real sense seen Him face to face. Paul had an objective vision on a par with the resurrection appearances. The modern preacher cannot claim that experience, but he must have the look into the face of Christ in order to help others to see Jesus. No sadder calamity can befall Christianity than to have men as its exponents who merely mumble what they have read or have heard. Paul was not now able to reconcile his new experience with his old theology, but he could not deny his new experience. On this foundation he will build a new theology and a better one, a scientific theology in the true sense, the reflection of his experience of Christ.

III. Paul Proving That Jesus Is the Son of God.There were good reasons why Paul should say nothing at all. He was a tyro in Christian experience. He had only scraps of Christian theology. He could easily bungle what he did know. He was under suspicion. Ananias who had baptized him had to receive a special revelation before he was willing to baptize him or