contrast with a previous state of spiritual exaltation), he is able to account for on the assumption of their necessity for the purpose of counteracting any possible tendency to self

esteem.

Perhaps the privations and persecutions to which he is subject may be set in like manner against the spiritual gifts or powers he has received, which are, presumably, as in the case of Jesus, those of healing and the "casting out of devils," with the superadded "gift of tongues."

The anti-legal teaching of Paul might be quoted from the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, and shown to be intended for Jews as well as Gentiles, and shown also to have been the cause of all the persecutions suffered by him, persecutions not shared by the original apostles. "And I," said Paul, "if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?" It might also be made apparent how completely the great argument of Paley, founded on the supposed “labours, dangers, and sufferings of the original apostles, here breaks down, and even how it may be refuted from his own "Horæ Paulinæ."

Paul's intellectual rank is evidenced by his view of the subjective nature of sin; and his high moral quality is specially apparent in his counsel as to the treatment of weak brethren. His limitations are evinced in particular by his peculiar use of certain passages of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Hitherto, it has been possible to look to Paul's own letters for information as to his character and teaching and the events of his life, and the Epistle to the Romans brings us to within a year or two of his last visit to Jerusalem; but for the important events that then occurred, there is only the authority of the Acts, the largely unhistorical character of which book is now, by the most impartial critics, so generally affirmed.

But after an examination of the account in the Acts, it may be seen that the Paul therein presented differs so entirely from the Paul revealed to us in his own genuine epistles, that the unlearned reader of ordinary capacity may confirm the judgment of the best critics.

Thus the Acts represents James (who, as well as the whole Church of Jerusalem, must have known of Paul's anti-legal teaching, and his opposition to circumcision) as advising Paul to enter on a course of special legal observance, for the purpose of showing the Church (so zealous for the law) that the reports which had reached them to the effect that he had preached to the Jews freedom from circumcision and the law were altogether without foundation.

It represents Paul as accepting and acting on this advice, and thus as guilty of the very dissimulation he so condemned in Peter.

It also shows that, being recognized as the notorious apostate by the mob, he was fiercely attacked, and was in danger of losing his life till rescued by the Roman soldiery; and that afterwards, when questioned before a legal tribunal as to the cause of the uproar, he falsely (according to the Acts own showing) declares it to be on account of his own Pharisaic belief in a resurrection, and the Acts states that he did this in order to divide his opponents.

This departure from truth does not seem reprehensible to the writer of the book in question; but, therefore, we ought not to accept his statements to the detriment of Paul, statements which, in any case, would require strong additional confirmation.

By further comparison of the Paul of the Acts with the real Paul, we may see how frequent in that book are the departures from historical truth, and should conclude that it is not only to a large extent unhistorical, but that its author was, notwithstanding Pfleiderer, unveracious.

Following Paul to Rome, and glancing at the probably genuine Epistle to the Philippians, one might be led to dwell on the evangelistic work done by the mass of Christians, especially by the prophets among them—work which simply consisted in speaking of the great events which they expected shortly to transpire; for as some thirty years had elapsed since Jesus' death, the return of "the Lord from heaven" could not, they thought, much longer be delayed. The tidings termed good by the Christians would be communicated to the heathen, by whom they were surrounded, in various tones of kindly warning or vindictive threat, according to the speakers and the circumstances, fire being the instrument of the divine vengeance on "them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus."

The prophet of woc must have been often regarded as uttering a curse, and as desiring the vengeance he predicted. And when the great fire of Rome broke out in July, 64, did not some Christians, Tertullian-like, themselves break out in shouts of exultation? Hence, what more likely than that these should have been suspected of having set fire to the city?

When we consider, too, the Jewish hatred of the Paulinists, we cannot wonder that the Christians were accused to Nero as the authors of the calamity.

The dreadful persecution that ensued in Rome sank deep into the heart of one who perhaps escaped therefrom, and found a retreat in the isle of Patmos.

The Christians, after the Neronian persecution, must have daily expected the Parousia, or presence of their Lord, in judgment on the cruel foes of God and his saints, and many must have chafed at the delay; but now, one of the prophets, named John, the same that was in the isle of Patmos because of the persecution, is convinced that this

judgment "must shortly come to pass," and places himself, in spirit, in the very day of the Lord, the day of his fiery wrath. This prophet describes the images presented in vision to his enkindled imagination, and exults in the overthrow of the city "drunken with the blood of the saints," and in the torments to be endured by "the beast "—Nero.

Jerusalem, now in danger from the Roman armies, shall suffer, but shall not be destroyed; and eventually a new heaven and a new earth shall be created, with a new Jerusalem, built by immortal hands.

But its real founders are "the twelve apostles of the Lamb." The writer knows no Paul, or knows him only as a liar, falsely calling himself an apostle.

Yet the existing Jerusalem falls, and the unbelieving Jews who survive, disappointed of their Messiah, continue expecting him till the "star" sets in blood.

The Christians, having been wound up to the highest pitch of expectation, are also disappointed of the presence of their Lord; yet they, too, continue to "hope against hope" for his appearing.

Indications of this are presented in the Synoptics, but the last phase which shows itself in the New Testament may be seen in the Second Epistle of Peter (so-called). In this book, the delay, the apparent breach of the Lord's promise, is attempted to be accounted for, and the writer continues to look for his coming, though some have renounced their faith.

But, as the personal reign of the Christ on earth was so long delayed, the bishops (who "occupied" the seat of government "till he came ") had been gradually organizing the Church for a perpetuity of power, which ever tended to centralize itself in Rome. Not only did the hierarchy discourage independent prophecy, but those Christians who still looked for the speedy coming of their Lord, faithful to

the original hope, found themselves in conflict with the authorities (who reigned in his stead), and were at length cast out of the Church as heretics.

It should also be shown how that a similar fate overtook those who made the following of the original apostles, in another matter, their chief concern. These were the Nazarenes, who kept to the ancient way, refusing both to acknowledge the authority of the Pauline epistles, and to accept as brethren the Gentiles who ate the flesh of unclean beasts.

With the gradual decline of these two (eventually) heretical sects perished the Christianity, or rather Nazarenism, of the apostles proper.

Thus, the Acts having been written, closing the gulf that had yawned between Paul and James, the Catholic Church, in various ways, triumphed at the expense of truth, which, especially in the literature of the age, became disregarded to an unparalleled extent.

In passing, two or three of the Epistles might be glanced at, notably that of James, showing, but by no means for the first time, that it attacks the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith.

A few pages would, perhaps, be necessary in order to define Christianity, and to remove misconceptions as to what dogmas properly constitute it.

As the term is used in many senses, and as there is no universally accepted definition thereof, its proper meaning should be fixed by the etymology showing its original signification.

The title "Christ" is misused when treated as another name of Jesus, seeing, moreover, that he probably never even heard the word pronounced.

The fundamental and only essential doctrine of Christianity is that which asserts Jesus to be the Christ.

A