of this difficulty. When it is said of one, that he preaches the Gospel only in pretence, this need not be so understood, that he has no interest in the subject of his preaching, that he employs it as a means for another end, without any personal interest in it, without any personal conviction of its truth. This may be so understood, that his preaching is not pure and perfect, but mixed up with heterogeneous matter, and that, although an interest in the thing cannot be altogether denied him, this is not pure and undivided. Thus is it to be explained, how Paul could express himself in this manner, with regard to those who, although their testimony to the Gospel of Christ was sincere, yet preached not the whole unmixed, pure Gospel in its fulness, but one impure, corrupt, and mutilated. Further, when Paul says of such, that they acted from party spirit and hatred to himself, and desired to occasion fresh annoyance in his afflictions, this need not be so taken, as if their testimony was feigned and hypocritical, there being no occasion, no ground, in the circumstances of these times for the existence of such hypocrisy; but it is very conceivable, that in their preaching, not sincere love to the Lord was their motive, but that, consciously or unconsciously, the design to vex Paul by their mode of preaching, and to form themselves into a party against him, prevailed in all their actions.

If we examine the historical development of Christianity in this first period, the history of the apostolic church; if we more closely investigate the peculiar relations of, and antagonisms to the ministrations of Paul, we shall soon be in a condition to specify with more exactness the generalizations of the above remarks. We know that Paul had many conflicts to sustain with opponents, to whom all that has been said is strictly applicable. There were those, who acknowledged indeed, and preached Jesus as the Messiah, but made of Him a Messiah in the Jewish sense, recognised Him, not as He Himself had revealed Himself to be, as the only ground of salvation for mankind,—those who, along with the one article of faith in Jesus, the Messias promised in the Old Testament, would, at the same time, join and retain the whole Jewish Law, who understood nothing of the new creation, which

Christ came to found, but sought to patch, on the old garment of Judaism, faith in Jesus as the Messiah, merely as another new piece. These were the opponents with whom we see Paul so frequently combating in his epistles. Of such he could partly say, that they preached the Gospel, not purely and sincerely, but only "in pretence," for they were concerned far more for Judaism than Christianity, and through them, people were made rather Jews than Christians. Of such, also, could he say, that they endeavoured to form a party against him, and occasion fresh annoyance to him in his bonds; for always we find these men animated with a spirit of jealousy against Paul, the preacher, in the heathen world, of the Gospel freed from all dependence on Judaism; they are his constant assailants, unceasingly dispute his apostolic authority, seek to encroach on his sphere of action, and seduce men from him to themselves, from the pure and perfect, to their impaired and mutilated Gospel. And that such persons were found even in Rome, need occasion us no surprise; for the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, written some years before his captivity at Rome, shows us, in this church, consisting for the greater part of Gentiles, to whom, as the apostle of the Gentiles, he felt himself peculiarly called on to write, a smaller party of such Judaizing Christians. It was natural, therefore, that when the pure Gospel, in the sense of Paul, was preached by the one, the others should rise up against it, and, led on by the spirit of jealousy, should endeavour to introduce a Gospel, mutilated and corrupted by the introduction of Jewish elements. The attitude Paul assumes towards them, we must endeavour properly to understand, for, rightly interpreted, it affords us an important rule, applicable to many cases. First of all, then, it is evident that these men were personal enemies of Paul; all their actions were based on the design, to counteract him in his efforts, and to form a party against him. How great, then, is the self-abnegation of Paul, that he treats with indifference this personal relation, and, unconcerned about the design which was levelled against himself, only rejoices, that the one Christ, whom alone he seeks to glorify, is preached, even though it be by his own personal enemies! Every selfish principle gives place to the absorb

ing love of the Lord, and of those for whom he is ready to give his life. How rare the examples of a love so exalted, so purified from everything pertaining to self? A man may really be filled with zeal for the cause of the, Lord, which, notwithstanding, may be stained by the intermixture of the purely personal. When the same sacred cause is furthered through the instrumentality of others, who, with feelings hostile to himself, seek to counteract him, this inspires him with no joy. That this is effected, not through him, but through those who seek to oppose him, is of more moment with him, than the common cause of the Lord; and instead of rejoicing, it becomes to him only a cause of vexation, of jealousy, and envy. Everything is not made to depend alone on Christ's being preached, but that He be preached by him, or at least by his disciples, by those who, in everything agree with him, and who look to him, as their teacher in Christianity. Least of all can he brook it, when Christ is preached by those, who place themselves in a hostile attitude to him, whose earnest endeavour it is to depreciate his fame and reputation, to render him suspected as a teacher, and draw away men from him. To feelings so often occurring, the self-denying zeal of Paul forms the most striking contrast. But it harmonised with the great principle laid down by him elsewhere, with respect to the manner in which the preacher of the Gospel should be regarded: "Let no man glory in man," (1 Cor. iii. 21.) The glory of Christ, and the salvation of believers, should be paramount.

This point would thus admit of an easy construction, and the conduct of Paul might serve as an example to us, were it here a question, merely of opposition encountered from individuals, and not of a controversy on the very essence of doctrine. This, from what we have seen, was not the case. He is speaking of a false doctrine, opposed to his own preaching, of a mutilated and adulterated Gospel. To those opponents of Paul, Jesus, indeed, was the Christ, but not in the sense in which He was so to Paul. To them, He was not the alone ground of salvation, the centre of the whole Christian life, as He was to Paul. It might, therefore, be thought, that he could not rejoice that Christ was preached by them, because it was

not Christ, purely and entirely and perfectly. And, in fact, we find Paul elsewhere acting otherwise with such persons. With what indignation does he combat them in the Epistle to the Galatians! He does not admit them to be preachers of the same Gospel; he declares there that there is no other Gospel, than that preached by him, and that such sought to pervert the Gospel of Christ, (Gal. i. 7.) To those who would unite the righteousness of the law with the Gospel, he says: "If righteousness came by the law, then Christ died in vain,” (Gal. ii. 21.) And in this very epistle, Paul, as we shall afterwards see, expresses himself most emphatically against such tendencies. How, then, are we to reconcile his mode of expression here with his declarations in those other relations? To understand this, we must rightly apprehend and distinguish the different circumstances, which conditionate this diversity of judgment and action. Paul manifests vehement indignation against such tendencies only, where the foundation of the Gospel already existed among the Gentiles, and where such Judaizing tendencies threatened to pervert it, or alloy it with so much Judaism, that the distinctive character of Christianity was thereby altogether suppressed. In that case, it grieved him that men should be deprived of what they already possessed. But it was otherwise where he is speaking with regard to Heathens, who knew nothing of the Gospel. These his opponents testified at least, that Jesus had appeared to establish the kingdom of God among men,—of His history, of the fact of His sufferings, His resurrection, His ascension into Heaven, although their minds were unconscious of all that was involved in these truths, and, therefore, unable to develope them. It could, therefore, and it would, rejoice Paul, that the general ground of the Gospel, the Person of Jesus Christ and His history, were made known among those, who knew nothing of them. This was the germ, from which all future growth must issue. This Person, those facts once made known, once made the object of attention, something further might be built on this. They who had once attained to the knowledge and acknowledgment of Christ, Crucified, Resurgent, and Exalted, might, from this ground, be led on to find still more in Him, and make more and more pro

с

gress in searching out the inexhaustible riches which are in Christ Jesus. Paul, therefore, might rejoice that Christ was preached, though not yet preached, purely, truly, and completely. There are different grades of the knowledge of Christ; more or less is found in Him; and our aim must be, not to assail any one, because at first he has less, but from this less to lead him on to the attainment of more, till he become conscious of greater riches, which he has only to gather from what he has already received, "until," as Paul describes it in the Epistle to the Ephesians, "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ," (chap. iv. 13.) Paul here acts according to the spirit of the principle laid down by Christ himself; who, when certain of his disciples met one, who trusted in the power of the name of Christ to cast out evil spirits, and was so applying it, and supposed they must not permit the name of Christ to be so used by one not yet a decided disciple, and enrolled in the common cause with them, rebuked them in these memorable words, "He that is not against us is for us." The not being against Christ contained a germ from which a decided love for Christ might be developed. Although the person described, as yet knew not Christ, as the apostle knew Him,-although many errors were joined with his faith in the name of Jesus Christ-although the true meaning and power of this name were still strange to him,there was yet, here, a germ of faith not to be despised, capable of still further development, a connecting link of still further progress to him, who had advanced thus far. Such an one might be led to consider, what there must be presupposed in the name of Christ, that its invocation should be followed by such effects. Who must He be, from whose name such power proceeds? In what relation to the kingdom of the wicked one, must He stand whose name has such authority over evil spirits? It is clear, that he who had admitted so much, if met on the road with patience and love, might be led further in knowledge and love. By building on that which was received by himself, he, who as yet knew and acknowledged Christ only partially, might become a decided disciple of Christ. If, however, we