government is clearly presented. Paul is still a loyal Roman citizen, in spite of Nero. At the end, when the first stage of the last trial made it plain what the outcome would be, Paul has no bitter word for Nero, unless he called him "the lion" (2 Tim. 4:17), as is not likely. He probably refers to Nero's failure to give him to the lions, which he had escaped as a Roman citizen. Would Paul have responded to the call of Rome to fight? That would depend on the issue. He would have opposed a war of conquest and pillage. Most of the soldiers were mercenaries anyhow. They were hired to fight, and did not always express national convictions or the will of the people. In a war of defense, Paul would have been ready to "do his bit," I believe. He spoke kindly of soldiers, and used them as illustrations of service for Christ. "Suffer hardship with me as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life; that he may please him who enrolled him as a soldier" (2 Tim. 2:3f.).

IV

And Paul was most of all a Christian. We may be sure that with Paul Christ was Lord and Master. He would not subordinate service to Christ to Cæsar, let alone to Greek philosophy, to Tarsus, or to Judaism. Paul saw the issue coming between Christ and Cæsar. The papyri and inscriptions give abundant evidence of the use of the phrase "Lord Cæsar." We know that the offer of life was made to Polycarp if he would only say, "Lord Cæsar"; but he steadily refused, and said, "Lord Jesus." So he went to death rather

than recant. We know how Paul felt about it. "No one can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3). This was the spirit of the martyrs who were slain for the word of God (Rev. 6:9) at the hand of Roman emperors. Paul met that fate at the hand of Nero rather than renounce the Lord Jesus. Ten thousand Chinese Christians laid down their lives at the feet of Jesus rather than renounce him at the demand of the Boxer leaders and the Empress Dowager. So then, with Paul patriotism is not the highest virtue, though it is very high. Loyalty to one's land is secondary to loyalty to one's God. To be sure, it is high treason or rebellion to refuse to obey the command of one's government. One who takes that position must be willing to pay the price. That price is one's life. But the price is not too high when the alternative is to disobey the clear will of God. "But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19f.). No Christian should have blind patriotism. Christ is above Cæsar. This does not mean that the Church is above the State. Christ is more than the State, more than the Church. One of the blessings of free government, of the people, by the people, for the people, is precisely this: that the alternative between Christ and the State is avoided. Certainly, if there is a solid body of Christian citizens in a free commonwealth, it will be avoided. The men who are citizens of heaven, a colony of heaven on earth (Phil. 3:20), will not so far forget themselves as to rush

into war contrary to the clear spirit of Christ. Christian citizens, if allowed to rule, wish peace if it is possible to have it and be true to other high obligations (Rom. 12:18). But Paul was not a peace-at-anyprice man. His teaching justifies the "League to Enforce Peace." His gospel is the gospel of courage that calls upon all soldiers of Christ to put on the panoply of God, and to withstand in the evil day against the world-rulers of this darkness (Eph. 6:10-16).

CHAPTER VIII

PAUL'S MISSIONARY STATESMANSHIP

The marvel of Paul is that, after these nineteen centuries of Christian history, he is still pre-eminent, next to the Lord Jesus himself, in all matters concerning the principles of Christianity. Aristotle still reigns in the rules of thought, for he practised both the inductive and the deductive methods of reasoning. Ramsay has a masterful chapter on "The Statesmanship of Paul" (pp. 49-100) in his Pauline and Other Studies in which he concentrates "attention on the work of Paul as a social influence on the Roman world" (p. 50). Paul was a negligible quantity in the imperial policy of the Cæsars and in the social philosophy of Seneca. But influence is not a matter of reputation. Power is gauged by the forces released that energize life and mould destiny whatever the superficial opinion of the moment may be. We are not to think that Paul deliberately planned to cooperate with Cæsar and Seneca in the social rejuvenation of the Empire. But one can get the right perspective at this distance. Ramsay has a pertinent paragraph: "Of all the men of the first century, incomparably the most influential was the apostle Paul. No other man exercised anything like so much power as he did in moulding the future of the Empire.

Among the Imperial ministers of the period there appeared none that had any claim to the name of statesman except Seneca; and Seneca fell as far short of Paul in practical influence and intellectual insight as he did in moral character."

A good deal can be said for the position of Paul as a great reconstructive force in the life of the Roman Empire. He worked along the lines that tended toward the uplift of the masses and the unity of sentiment that made for strength and the highest development of the Empire. Paul stood for the spiritual principle in religion and showed how Jew and Greek could work together in one spiritual commonwealth of free

dom and progress. This spiritual commonwealth of Paul gave hope to Roman life. He combined in himself Jew, Greek, and Christian. He gave the Roman Empire the religious bond that held it together. So Ramsay sums up his case for the supreme statesmanship of Paul. "Had it not been for Paul-if one may guess at what might have been-no man would now remember Roman and Greek civilization. Barbarism proved too powerful for the Græco-Roman civilization unaided by the new religious bond; and every channel through which that civilization was preserved, or interest in it maintained, either is now or has been in some essential part of its course Christian after the Pauline form." Startling as this conclusion is one must admit the force of its appeal to facts.

But all that lay rather in the realm of the unconscious greatness of Paul's career. He was not by profession a statesman in the political sphere, though