self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified but he that judged me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." (1 Cor. iv. 1-5).

This would have been strange language to address to opponents whom the writer knew to reject the fundamental points of the Christology involved in it.

In the eighth chapter, where the Apostle discusses the lawfulness of eating food which had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, he proposes the following principle as the solution of the entire controversy :

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many), but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him (ɛis avròv); and one Lord Jesus Christ, through (dià) whom are all things, and we through him."

This passage is conclusive. It is addressed to men with Jewish scruples for the express purpose of providing a solution of them. The writer must therefore have fully calculated on their acceptance of the Christology which it contains, otherwise his observations would have been nugatory.

I need only cite a single passage from the second epistle. I will therefore adduce one from the most controversial part of it, where the Apostle is distinctly grappling with those opponents who denied his apostolical authority :-"For I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity which is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, which we have not preached, or if ye receive another Spirit, whom ye have not received, or another Gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Cor. xi. 3-5.)

In this passage the Apostle directly affirms in the face of his opponents that the Gospel which he preached was in its fundamental facts the same as that which was accepted by themselves. What then was the difference? Clearly in the question whether Judaism was or was not an essential portion of Christianity. By the words, "He that cometh," the Apostle evidently designates his chief Jewish opponent. Yet they both proclaimed the same Jesus. This could only have been the case, by both according to Him the character of a superhuman Christ; for if they had differed on this point the affirmation that the same Jesus was accepted by both would have been untrue. It follows, therefore that their respective Christologies must have resembled one another in their great outlines, for otherwise it is inconceivable that the Apostle should have written a statement like this, in the immediate context of which he throws down repeated challenges to his opponents to grapple with his assertions.

The Epistle to the Galatians, the most controversial of all his writings, and in which he denounces his opponents in the most vehement language, opens with the announcement of a Christology precisely similar to that which we have been considering. It is incredible that he should have adopted this course in the very opening of his letter, if he had believed that his opponents, who formed the most formidable party in this Church, could have denounced it as inconsistent with that which was held by the Church at Jerusalem; his chief object being to show that the Gospel which he preached was accepted as genuine by the great pillars of the Jewish Church. Yet immediately after the introduction, in which he affirms that he derived his apostolical office from no human authority, and his usual prayer for grace and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, dropping the conciliatory tone with which he introduces his other epistles, he writes: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called into the grace you of Christ unto another Gospel, which is not another; but

there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. For although we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As I said before, so I say now again, If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. i. 6-9.)

I draw attention to the very remarkable expression here used to designate the Gospel of his Judaizing opponents. It was "another Gospel, which was not another."* How could this be possible? We have seen in the passage cited above from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, that the Apostle distinctly affirmed that his opponents did not preach "another Jesus," "another Spirit," "or another Gospel." Yet in this passage, where he is roused to indignation at the widespread defection which had taken place in the Galatian Churches, he designates this Judaizing Gospel as "another Gospel, which is not another." The only possible explanation of this expression is that both Gospels were the same in fundamental facts, but that they differed in the inferences deduced from them; in other words, that they agreed in assigning a superhuman character to Jesus, but that the Judaizing Gospel differed from the Pauline in seeking to impose the observance of the Jewish rites as a condition of membership in the Church.

This conclusion is borne out by the following passage in the Epistle to the Philippians: "Some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife, and some also of good will. The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds; but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the Gospel. What then? notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." (Phil. i. 15-18.)

Gr. ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο. The Apostle evidently uses Tepov and aλo as synonymous, both here and in 2 Cor. xi. 3, 4.

Here again we are plainly in the presence of some form of this Jewish Gospel. The Apostle is evidently in a calmer state of mind than when he wrote to the Galatian Churches. So earnest is his desire that the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be proclaimed, that he rejoices at its being preached, even by Judaizing opponents. It is impossible therefore that it can have been "another Gospel" in the sense in which he denounced such a Gospel, whether preached by himself, or "an angel from heaven."

From these considerations I draw the following conclusions:

1. Even if we admit that the later Epistles of St. Paul present us with a more advanced Christology than his four great Epistles, still he held even at this time one of a very advanced type; and must consequently have been acquainted with such details of the ministry of Jesus as would justify it; in other words, he was in possession of an account similar in general character to that recorded in our Gospels.

2. As St. Paul's opponents accepted a Christology analogous to his own, they must also have been in possession of an account of Christ's ministry which was substantially the same as that which was handed down by His primitive followers, and consequently must have ascribed to him the character of a superhuman Christ; or, in other words, must have attributed to Him the performance of miraculous actions.

There is yet one more document in the New Testament to which I must refer, viz. the Apocalypse. Its affirmations on this point are decisive. Unbelievers not only allow that it is the work of the Apostle John, but they affirm that he was one of the pillars of the Judaizing party in the Church: and the uncompromising opponent of St. Paul. This being so it must be decisive as to the opinions of the Judaizing party.

Nothing can be clearer in this book than the ascription

to Jesus of the character of a highly superhuman Christ. In this respect it is fully equal to the Christology of the latest of the Pauline Epistles, and to that of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and none but critics who possess microscopic eyes can discern any real distinction between it and the Christology of the Fourth Gospel.

It is impossible by brief quotations to give an idea of the elevated Messianic character which this book attributes to Jesus. It will be sufficient for my purpose to observe that its author proclaims Him to be the Prince of the kings of the earth: He is the first and the last-the Living One, who was dead and is alive for evermore. He is the faithful and true witness, the beginning, i.e. the principle, or cause, (apxn) of the creation of God. He is worshipped in heaven in conjunction with the Father, and is His sole revealer. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. But it is needless to make further references. Yet such a superhuman character is attributed to Jesus in this book by an Apostle who was pre-eminently a Judaizer.

But it will be objected that this is an apocalypse, and the work of a dreamer. Truly, if it has been written by a dreamer, he must have been one who soared to the heights of the poetic spirit. Even in madness there is a method; and it seems impossible that any amount of mental hallucination could have induced a man who had associated with Jesus during his earthly ministry to attribute to Him the superhuman character assigned to Him in this book, unless he was firmly convinced that a number of superhuman actions had been performed by Him; and that he himself had witnessed them.

If our opponents are correct in the date which they have assigned to the composition of the Apocalypse, it is separated from that of Our Lord's ministry by an interval of only thirty-eight, or thirty-nine years. Its author would be somewhere between sixty and seventy years of age. He had followed Jesus throughout His earthly ministry; and had been intimately acquainted with Him. After an interval