Corinth or Antioch, like Wesley and Whitfield in the last century, or Luther and Calvin at the Reformation, with a sincere reverence for each other, not abstaining from commenting on or condemning each other's doctrine or practice, and yet also forgetting their differences in their common zeal to save the souls of men. Personal regard is quite consistent with differences of religious belief; some of which with good men are a kind of form belonging only to their outer nature, most of which, as we hope, exist only on this side the grave. We can imagine the followers of such men as we have been describing, incapable of acting in their noble spirit, with a feebler sense of their high calling, and a stronger one of their points of disagreement; losing the great principle for which they were alike contending in 'oppositions of knowledge,' in prejudice and personality. And lastly, we may conceive the disciples of Wesley and Whitfield (for of the Apostles themselves we forbear to move the question,) reacting upon their masters, and drawing them into the vicious circle of controversy, disuniting them in their lives, though at the last hour incapable of making a separation between them.

Of such a nature we believe the differences to have been which separated S. Paul and the twelve, arising, in some degree from differences of individual character, but much more from their followers, and the circumstances of their lives."-I., pp. 337, 338.

Most of Mr. Jowett's errors we are willing to assign to the selfdeception of a mystified theorist; but this passage—God grant it may not supply the key to the whole book: and yet there are traces elsewhere, too, that he shrinks from stating to the full what he intends; although in one place, on the other hand, he seems to recoil with shuddering from the conclusion to which his system tends this passage, however, is simply and palpably dishonest. "Of the Apostles we forbear to move the question.' What then do the words mean? Why is the history of the two sectaries alluded to, if not for the purpose of developing by parallel that which Mr. Jowett did not dare more directly to insinuate?

And yet why he should have been seized with a fit of shyness at that particular moment, it is difficult to conjecture. In the first notes, he has developed the difference between S. Paul and S. Peter in the coarsest manner. But it is one thing to take away the attributes of superiority in an abstract character, another to represent the same person as he becomes when those attributes are gone. Having thus reduced the Apostles to the level of these earnest, good, but misguided men, Mr. Jowett allows the mention of these later personages to suggest to the mind a conception embodying that low servility of nature to which the reader might not have previously realized that the objects of his reverence were degraded.

Of course in Gal. ii. he makes the most of the difference between the Apostles; but he does not notice the light which is thrown upon the passage by the word "compelled" (v. 3.) The mention that Titus was not compelled, does not imply (as he states) that

some did try to compel him, but it indicates that there was an authority which could have compelled him.

S. Paul laid his method of proceeding before the Apostles at Jerusalem, because he knew that if he acted schismatically, he would have laboured in vain. He sought the sanction of their authority, which they gave. They, on their part, "added nothing to him," which does not mean that " they left him to bear the brunt of the battle with the Judaizers, and stood aloof from the controversy," (I. 236,) but that they were satisfied with what he had done, and had no further instructions to give him; so that although some did try to enforce circumcision, they refused to compel Titus to submit to it. They thus ratified S. Paul's teaching. This is the only view of the passage consistent with previous and subsequent history, and it shows how baseless is the suggestion, which, being made about an inspired writing, is almost profane,that S. Paul is speaking with "a degree of irony."

Did we say an inspired writing? The inspiration stripped away from the daily teaching of the Apostles, is stripped away by Mr. Jowett from their writings also. Some of the Epistles, at least, must be abandoned: for though they were written by the enlightened S. Paul, yet even he, it seems, underwent changes of religious belief as his experience advanced. The Epistles were dictated according to the state of mind S. Paul was in at the time. They might therefore well indulge in little expressions of figure and irony. The early style of S. Paul was of a Judaizing character, like the Gospel which S. Peter went on preaching to the end of his life. Mr. Jowett approximates to an estimate of the time when he began to expand his views. The following extract will speak for itself:

"That some such change did take place in the Apostle himself is not a mere à priori theory based upon the common nature of the human mind, nor is it merely an à posteriori result derived from the examination of the Epistles when arranged in chronological order. It is implied further in a passage of the Apostle's own writings: 'Yea, and if I have known CHRIST according to the flesh, henceforth I will know Him no more'-2 Cor. v. 16. It is impossible to suppose that in this passage the Apostle is speaking of the time before his conversion. His state then could not have been described in so gentle a manner, nor could the term 'knowing CHRIST according to the flesh' have been applied with any propriety to Paul, the persecutor of the Church; nor would such an allusion have had any meaning to the disciples of Corinth, nor will the connection allow us to suppose that he is speaking in his own person of Christians generally. It is the obvious intention of the Apostle to speak of himself, not of them, and not of those days when he persecuted the Church ignorantly through unbelief;' but of his manner of preaching among those very Corinthians to whom the Epistle is addressed. There was a Judaizing party at Corinth who maintained that in a special sense they were the disciples

of CHRIST, and of whom elsewhere the Apostle says that he is as much CHRIST'S as they are, 2 Cor. x. 7. He had been led beyond them, or they had gone back from him; and he was conscious of the chasm which separated him from them. It seemed to him an increasing chasm; he was aware of a time when he had more nearly approximated to their Judaizing tenets, or in other words had known CHRIST according to the flesh. That time must have been when he was known to them, when he was last at Corinth; that is to say, the very time when he was probably writing the Epistle to the Thessalonians."-I. 7, 8.

Now this is surely an immense theory respecting the Apostle's life as a teacher, built up upon a very slender foundation—a foundation indeed so slender, that for the sake of the argument a statement made hypothetically in the plural, has to be individualized in order to give it the appearance of strength. The result to which we are brought is this, that when the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, he was but young in the ministry, his views not yet settled, his spiritual perception not developed, his state one of feeling after some principle which would work, rather than a consciousness of power in union with his ascended LORD.

"Both Epistles to the Thessalonians, with the exception of the personal narration and of a few practical precepts, are the expansion and repetition of a single thought-the coming of CHRIST.' There was that in it which fell short of the more perfect truth. It was not the kingdom of GOD is within you,' but 'lo here and lo there.' It was defined by time, and was to take place within the Apostle's own life. The images in which it clothed itself were traditional among the Jews they were outward and visible, liable to the misconstruction of the enemies of the faith, and to the misapprehensions of the first converts, imperfectly, as the Apostle saw afterwards, conveying the inward and spiritual meaning."-I. 10.

:

Though Mr. Jowett does not mean "entirely to describe the nature of the Apostle's preaching according to the flesh. or what it had in common with the Montanism of the second century," because as he says, "the only sources from which it is possible to gather an answer to questions like these are the Epistles to the Thessalonians themselves, the difference of which from the later Epistles is too plain to be mistaken," (p. 11,) yet we conceive if this theory had in it the smallest particle of truth, we should be quite satisfied to let them drop out of the Canon without investigating which system of Jewish philosophy would afford them a lodgment. Unhappily the Canon of Scripture has for Mr. Jowett little unity, and therefore no divine life. A city that is divided against itself cannot stand. Here and there in the New Testament something it would seem may commend itself to us as enunciating divine truth, but according to Mr. Jowett we have indeed to "search for

it as for hidden treasures," hid not in the secrecy of glory, revealing itself more and more as we gaze, but hid in the uncertainty of erring documents and the mistakes of past politics; such at least is the account which he gives, as we have seen, of the Epistles to the Thessalonians, which he makes more clear in speaking of the Acts of the Apostles, "a narrative of a somewhat later date [than the Epistle to the Galatians] which casts the veil of time over the differences of the Apostles." (I. 253.)

"The narrative of the Acts of the Apostles when compared with the Epistle to the Galatians, does not show equal historical accuracy. It differs in details, and also in the point of view in which its author regards the question of Jew and Gentile. Was it that years had passed away, and the breaches between the Apostles were no longer seen in the distance, or forgotten in their common sufferings? Whatever may have been the reason, the amount of discrepancy between the earlier chapters of the Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians affords a striking contrast with the precise agreement of the later chapters with the Romans and Corinthians.

"In inquiries of this sort it is often supposed that if the evidence of the genuineness of a single book of Scripture be weakened or the credit of a single chapter shaken, a deep and irreparable injury is inflicted on Christian truth. [Mr. Jowett does not attempt to deny this, but] 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 preserved. Coleridge has remarked, that out of a single play of Shakspeare the whole of English literature might be restored. Much more, is it true, that in short portions or single verses of Scripture the whole spirit of Christianity is contained.”

Were the preservation of the Canon a mere matter of archæological or literary interest, we might be thankful for such a suggestion, but if the New Testament is in any way to be revered as being or containing the Rule of Faith, we really think that Mr. Coleridge's speculation as to what might possibly be made out of one of Shakspeare's plays has very little "comfort" to afford to a devotional mind. If Mr. Jowett "comforts himself with these words," we cannot at all wonder that he readily gives up one Epistle after another, for this he practically does. The Thessalonians accordingly are carnal in their views, the second Epistle not so much so as the first. Now great bodies of men (to take the lowest ground) act instinctively upon some principle, and with this consideration it may seem surprising that the Church should have placed these Epistles at the end of S. Paul's Epistles to the seven Churches. If they had been so manifestly elementary, one would have thought it more natural to have placed them first and not last. One lesson the Church would certainly impress upon us by arranging them thus without regard to the date of composition, viz., that whatever differences of circumstantial atmosphere there

may be about them, yet we are not to imagine any developement of doctrine or dogmatic difference between the earlier and the later. One would certainly expect that by the Providence of GOD and with more or less consciousness upon the part of the Church, they would be arranged if not in chronological order, then upon some systematic principle. It is departing from the consideration of Mr. Jowett's annotations, but we would suggest the following idea as giving a unity to the form of S. Paul's writings:

The Epistles to the Seven Churches form a treatise upon the Church of CHRIST.

The Romans treats of its origin, the necessity which mankind universally felt; the preparation for its approach afforded by the interposed revelation of the Mosaic law.

The Corinthians, both of them, exhibit the manner of its appeal to the Gentile world and the dangers which threatened it on the side of the Gentiles, the dangers arising from their misapprehension and misuse of its spiritual privileges, and from its contact with heathen religion, philosophy, and depravity.

The Galatians exhibits the danger on the side of the Jews, namely, of its relapsing into that system out of which it was originally developed. While the Romans speaks of the law as a preparatory dispensation; the Galatians treats the same as a rival and contrasted system. The Romans begins and ends with an appeal to the promises made by the prophets in the Holy Scripture. The Galatians developes the warnings: we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

The Ephesians is occupied with the consideration of our unity, not only the combination of Jew and Gentile in one covenant, but the actual unity of all the members of CHRIST with each other and with Him, even as the husband and the wife are one flesh.

The Philippians considers the first point which naturally arises after this, that though we are one with CHRIST yet we are still in the flesh. This Epistle therefore draws out at length the idea of the humiliation of CHRIST as the foundation and sustaining power of His members in their yet "vile body," and in the "fellowship of CHRIST'S sufferings, being made conformable unto His death."

The Colossians works out the other idea which follows from our union with CHRIST, namely, our glory as already spiritually “risen with Him," "complete in Him," so that "when CHRIST, Who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory."

And now what remains for the Thessalonians to treat of? Do we turn from these divine glories of the Christian Church to hear again of CHRIST only after the flesh? No! They are a commentary on the words of the angels. "This same JESUS which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." "Them which sleep in JESUS will GOD bring with Him, and we shall be ever with the LORD."