favour of immortality-destroys the whole Christian system, since it is incompatible with one central truth-the bodily resurrection of Christ. Thus verses 17-19 are not positions held by the heretics, but positions which St. Paul charges on them as consequences of their doctrine-which he thinks they must allow to flow from it-and from which he expects them to shrink back in horror. Similarly, verses 29-34 (with their several exegetical puzzles—but these do not concern us) are further irreligious consequences which he charges on the natural drift (ver. 33) of such teaching.

As against it, Paul takes his stand on the well-attested fact of Christ's resurrection,-the pledge of our forgiveness, the pledge of our own completed bodily redemption in the future. He falls back on Ps. cx., twice, as we have seen, made use of by Christ. St. Peter had combined this Psalm with Ps. xvi. ; St. Paul combines it with Ps. viii., to which-on the strength of the phrase, 'Son of Man-he gives a Messianic interpretation. Christ, between His resurrection (=ascension) and His Second Advent, is seated at the Father's right hand 'till God hath put all Christ's enemies under his feet.' The last enemy to be subdued is death; i.e. the resurrection of the saints is the last point which we can discern in the prospect opened up to us by such a text as Ps. cx. 1. Those who find. millenarianism in the passage postulate (Godet) two resurrections-one (TELтa) of the saints, at Christ's return; a second (eira) after the millennium, at the 'end' of all things-a resurrection of those who died ignorant of the gospel, or impenitent, some of whom may have been converted in Hades. This final re-embodiment of the converted and unconverted dead is, thinks Godet, Christ's final victory over death. Now, there can be no doubt that the apostle supposes an interval between Christ's advent and the end. And there can be no doubt, further, that in that interval he places the general judgment of men and angels, in which the risen saints are to take part (vi. 2, 3). But for a second resurrection I can find no room in his doctrine. "The abolition of the last enemy'

can be nothing else than the swallowing up of death in victory (xv. 54); and that takes place (ver. 53) when dead saints are raised, and living saints transformed. Or why should the apostle speak of the last trump' (ver. 52) if there are to be another trumpet and another resurrection and another victory over death about a thousand years later? There is no room for a millennium. Christ having been endowed with 'mediatorial sovereignty' only till his enemies are subdued '—then, when the saying is fulfilled, 'Thou hast put all things under his feet,' the mediatorial dispensation, having reached its goal, shall cease, and God shall be all in all.

If we were to judge by this passage alone, we should probably agree with Weiss that St. Paul confined the resurrection to believers, and assigned perpetual Hades to the Christless (cf. Psalter of Solomon). But the history of opinion makes this improbable. We therefore conclude that St. Paul merely omits to mention the resurrection of the wicked, and that he does this because it is the resurrection of the righteous to eternal life which corresponds to the primary religious postulate, and also because the Christian belief in immortality, resting as it does upon Christ's resurrection, speaks with emphasis and certainty of the believer's prospects, but far less directly of the unbeliever's.

Although we refuse to read universalism into the apostle's words, we see here again how inevitably any emphatic statement of the Christian hope tends towards universalism. If the apostle had worked in the shadow side of the Second Advent, his beautiful picture would have been marred, and his hymn of triumph would have died away in weeping and wailing.

6

(f) In 2 Cor. we find evidence that, about this time, it began to dawn on the apostle that he might not be spared to see the Second Advent. In 1 Thess. iv. he instinctively groups himself with the living that are left' (ver. 17), as distinguished from 'the dead in Christ.' And, in 1 Cor. xv., he is even more emphatic: The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.' Of course he does not teach this as a doctrinal

certainty. It slips out by the way, as an unquestioned assumption. But, in 2 Cor. v., he faces the possibility that he may be called to die. There is no difficulty in the passage, as compared with 1 Cor. xv., unless we are going wilfully to make difficulties. We have the promise, he says, of an eternal glorified body, with which Christ will clothe us when He appears from heaven. That is what we long for-what we groan for (cf. Rom. viii. 23) -being 'absent from the Lord' [and therefore quite as miserable as any Platonist in the prison of the flesh ?] Nay more; it is God's will that we should be ill at ease in our half-saved condition, even although we have the joy of [knowing that Christ has conquered death, and of] the indwelling Spirit as a pledge of our spiritual body and of eternal life.

'Tis life, of which our nerves are scant,
Oh life, not death, for which we pant.'

6

But, if it please God that we like Christ should be unclothed of this warm bodily wrapping, and should pass through the grave and gate of death' to our home with Christ,—we are still of good courage, and long even to be absent from the body that we may be at home with the Lord.

The captivity epistles are quite on the same ground.

(g) That to the Philippians contains the least novelty. St. Paul has no anxiety for the Church at Philippi, except for some personal quarrels (ii. 2 sq. 14, iv. 2)—against which he urges the example of Christ's coming down from heaven for our sakeand except for the ever urgent anxiety caused by the Judaisers (iii. 2 sq.). He has now advanced to the point of an ardent desire for death (i. 23). Still, it is his strong belief (ver. 25), although not matter of certainty with him (ii. 17), that he will still be spared for a season to his dear converts. But soon (iv. 5) the final change must come. That glorious Being, who had appeared to him on the road to Damascus, will appear in like splendour before all the world, and will fashion anew' the old, weary, pain-racked bodies of His servants, till they assume the likeness of His own glorified Presence, 'accord

ing to the working whereby He is able even to subject all things unto Himself' (iii. 20, 21).

(h) At Colosse a new sort of heresy had arisen, which afterwards developed into Gnosticism. Connected on the one side with Jewish tendencies (ii. 16), and with ascetic practices (ver. 21 sq.), it involved, on the other side, a superstitious reverence for all manner of intermediary beings, placed between God and man (18). To this St. Paul replies, Such beings can do nothing for you; and, whatever you might desire to obtain through them, you can get much more from Christ's Divine glory. The uniqueness, the majesty of the Christian dispensation grows before the apostle's eyes, as he contrasts it with the baseless dreams of the new error (ii. 3). Whatever powers may exist in heavenly places, depend and always have depended upon Christ (i. 16). How great is the revelation made through Him! (ver. 27.)—The practical outlook still ends in the same hope as before (iii. 4).

(i) The truths arrived at in a second controversy, St. Paul for the second time embodies in a calmly expository treatise. It seems to have been a circular letter to several Churches; hence we may explain the absence of salutations. The Epistle to the Romans seems similarly to have been circulated in different directions-as we should indeed expect. In Ephesians' there is the same awe-struck sense as in Colossians of the greatness of the gospel (i. 9, 10) and of the supremacy of Christ (20 sq.). Ephesians even lays more stress on the absolute blending of Jews and Gentiles in Jesus Christ (ii. 14, iii. 6 sq.). Many have denied its genuineness. And we may wonder that St. Paul should so express himself if, as seems probable, there were Jewish Churches, in Palestine and elsewhere, who never ventured outside the hedge of the law of commandments contained in ordinances' till after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. Ep. to Heb., Rev.). On the other hand, the epistle retains St. Paul's characteristic point of view as even (e.g.) the Pastoral Epistles certainly do not. Our great proof of God's purpose of mercy and power is in the resurrection of

Christ (i. 19). We have also the

earnest' of the Holy Spirit (i. 14). Christ is reigning over us from heaven, according to Old Testament prediction (iv. 8). But the full redemption, for which we long, and which the Holy Spirit 'seals' to us, is still future (ib. 30).

We ought also to notice that in Eph. iv. 9 there is an important parallel to 1 Peter iii. 19.

Such was the apostle Paul's theology in its outward framework all through his life. Almost everything that we consider specially Jewish when we meet it in the Gospels was shared by Paul. He too expected the end of the world suddenly and immediately; he too yearned for the full realisation of the supernatural side of Messiah's work; he too felt as if Christian life under the dispensation of the Spirit were only a half salvation. It is St. Paul who affirms that Christians are to judge, not only the world, but angels. A most intoxicating form of belief, we are apt to say! But, along with this belief, we see in the apostle's life the utmost degree of humble faithfulness. All the authentic fruits of the Spirit of Christ appear in him -love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance-truly the signs of an apostle, wrought in all patience. He had worked, too, more abundantly than all others, as a wise master-builder, laying the foundation of Christian faith, that they might see to whom no tidings of Christ came, and that they who had not heard might understand.' In the day of controversy he had clearly grasped the true issues, and firmly defended them. And he had given the first great theoretical exposition of Christ's gospel as something absolutely new, to which everything else in the world's history is subordinated.

C. (a) The Aramaic gospel of Matthew expected the Lord's return in connection with the fall of Jerusalem. To it, unbelieving Israel was the antichrist.1

(b) The Apocalypse of John does not seem to share the 1 See above, pp. 275, 286.