Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

of any thing in the world. To suppose that such a system was born in sin, that a religion of such transcendent excellence was rocked in its cradle by a set of liars, that a faith which made men love what is honest, and lovely, and of good report, was propagated by jugglery; to suppose that a man of Paul's moral stature would go before the world with a lie in his right hand, is a moral impossibility.

And if we take the latter supposition, we do but little credit to the intelligence of one people among whom the most subtle philosophy was born; we under-estimate the shrewdness of another people who, in all matters of worldly gain, are known in history as a keen-eyed race, if we believe that among those who witnessed the so-called miracles there were none who could see through the delusion and expose it.

These miracles, however (since we are shut up to the admission of them), no less than Paul's conversion, witness to the resurrection of Christ and the cardinal facts of the gospel. For "their bestowal was the exclusive dowry of a particular confession of faith-of faith, that is, in a person, marked by a particular history, and exercising at the time particular functions." The Christians claimed to perform the miracles in Christ's name and in confirmation of Christian doctrine. If God allowed them to control the powers of nature for the purpose of corroborating the doctrines which they preached, it is equivalent to an indorsement, on God's part, of the doctrines themselves.

"The Mission of Paul" is the title of the seventh lecture. In the opening verse of the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul declares that he is "an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead." The Galatians, we may gather from this epistle, were disposed to admit his claims; nay, we are told they "received him as an angel of God, even as Jesus Christ." The question which Mr. Leathes discusses in this lecture are, "why did they so receive him?-and, how did he know that he had a divine message?"

Why did the Galatians receive him as a messenger of God? In the first place, his conversion must have been a powerful

argument. Here was a man preaching "the faith which he once destroyed."

Then, as the Apostle could show, he was "in good repute among the brethren who were in Christ before him." Then the effect of the gospel upon themselves sustained the Apostle's claim. Whereas they had been blind, now they could see. And if faith were yet lacking, the miracles which they had witnessed would more than convince them. But, more than all, they had the witness in themselves. "Paul had done something more than impose upon the senses. He had led captive the heart, and had convinced the reason. He had wrought miracles, not only before their eyes, but in themselves. If he had made them conscious of the living power of the living Jesus, there was a third witness independent of themselves and independent of him." God had sent forth the spirit of his Son into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father. "In one word, the Apostle proved his divine mission by its divine results."

To say divine results, however, is to overleap the objections of Rationalism. Yet, if not divine, what were they?

What are the facts? The Apostle marvels that the Galatians are "so soon removed from him that called them into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel." He calls them "foolish Galatians," and wonders who had "bewitched" them that they "should not obey the truth." He reminds them of a time when they "knew not God," and did "service to them who are no gods." He urges them to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free."

These expressions all imply that the preaching of the gospel had been attended with certain good results, which, however, were only of too short duration. Were these results only imaginary, or were they only what we might naturally look for under the circumstances? They were not imaginary; for then the defection would be only imaginary, and the Apostle would be charging them with an offence which they had never committed; and the epistle, as the result of whim, would carry on its face its own condemnation.

Nor can these results be credited to nature. "If the results were natural, then it has still to be shown how it was they

.

were so much opposed to nature; how, in the midst of heathenism and a profligate and depraved idolatry, there sprung up suddenly a pure and elevated morality, a conception of the divine nature, unequalled by the loftiest flights of philosophy; a consciousness of divine mysteries and divine realities till then unthought of; a recognized standard or ideal of human action till then unheard of and unattained; a sensitiveness of the moral nature which can never be surpassed, and which till then had never been imagined."...." The production of that epistle (to the Galatians) as a mere literary effort was a phenomenon not to be accounted for on merely natural principles. The tone of it was out of harmony with the voices of the world. The stream and current of it ran counter to that of the course of this world."

If it be asked how Paul knew that he had received a divine message, it will not be difficult to point to certain facts in his experience which must have set the matter beyond a doubt. He could not help seeing that his own life contrasted with the lives of both Jews and Pagans; nay, that the contrast was so strong that, turn whither he would, he encountered enmity. And he well knew that the reason of the contrast was his doctrine of Christ Jesus, and him crucified. He found himself "the depositary of a gospel in direct contradiction to the whole world." How was he to explain his singular position?

Then the strangest contrast separated the life of Saul of Tarsus from that of Paul the Apostle. He became a new creature" the moment he became a Christian. His own mind must have sought an explanation of this; and surely we are not at liberty to reject rashly his own account of the matter: "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

He was not indebted to anybody for what he knew of the gospel. He "conferred not with flesh and blood!" "It grew up in his mind spontaneously, and yet wholly in opposition to his own will, and in defiance of his natural bias, and the prejudices of his education."

Can we find any other explanation of this than that it 'pleased God to reveal his Son in him?" His theology was

not a matter which he had thought out for himself. It shows no signs of growth. It was the same at the close that it was at the beginning of his ministry. Where did he get it? He says it was revealed. Do not all the circumstances favor this view? His consciousness testified that he had been a recipient of divine revelation. We surely should not be required to go back of that. No stronger guaranty could have been given him than that. Taking every thing into accountPaul's early hatred of the Christians-his wonderful conversion-his implicit faith in Christ--his courageous loyalty to him-his sterling character-his heroic endurance of persecution, and withal, the miracles which corroborated his claimsit is only the most perverse scepticism which will put the question, whether it is possible that, after all, Paul was mistaken? "Assuredly here, if anywhere, there can be no mistake; for here," as Mr. Leathes tinely remarks, "we are on the very confines of the supernatural, within ear-shot of the voice of God."

It can be seen from the hasty survey we have given of Mr. Leathes' argument how decided the witness is which Paul bears to Christ. In fact, if the Acts of the Apostles and the four undisputed epistles of Paul were all that were left of the New Testament, we should be able from them to construct the system of evangelical theology.

Not only do these writings represent Paul as the voluntary preacher of a faith which he had embraced on the very best of evidence, but they substantiate his claims to be an accredited ambassador of Christ.

This feature in his character gives the stamp of finality to Christian doctrine, and effectually removes it from the category of things liable to change or open to improvement. We might, indeed, have inferred as much, had Paul not been charged with official authority. For if he had reason to give up a religion of confessedly divine origin, and put his trust in Jesus, we may reasonably infer that we ought to do likewise. If Paul became a missionary of the Christian faith, and if his preaching was confirmed by miracles, then those miracles are no less confirmatory of our faith, though we never witnessed them.

But when, in addition to all this, we are assured that the Apostle spoke as God's ambassador; delivered a message which had been revealed to him; pronounced anathemas on all who preached another gospel; it amounts to demonstration, that the gospel as Paul preached it, was meant to be final, and that no one can neglect it or pervert it without running the most fearful risk.

Leaving the question of inspiration altogether out of sight, setting aside all the other parts of the Bible, these epistles make known that an "unalterable deposit had been given to the world." What this deposit is, what Paul considers it to be, we cannot doubt. A crucified Christ-a risen Christ—a coming Christ-these are the cardinal doctrines of the gospel. To deny them is to part with the gospel. To pervert their meaning is to preach another gospel. If it was ever true that Christ died for our sins, then the doctrine can never be superannuated. The epistles of Paul veto the doctrine of development. To the Romanist, who says the Bible teaches too little, and to the infidel, who says it teaches too much, to him who supplements it with human corruptions, and to him who weeds out of it all that displeases him, to Dr. Newman, and to Matthew Arnold-the words of the Apostle have equal reference, "though he, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

In the foregoing remarks it has been our object to make our readers acquainted with the drift of the author under review, rather than to express any opinion respecting the merits of the book.

We will say, however, that we have derived profit from the study of the volume. The author is a scholar in the strict sense of the word, and his book is written in an attractive style.

To be sure, in several points regarding the evidential value of Paul's conversion and subsequent career he crosses the track of previous writers on the subject. A superficial reader might, on that account, think that the book contained nothing new. The thing which we particularly admire in these lectures is the skill with which the author anticipates every conceivable

« ElőzőTovább »